Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Mark (Phm 24; Col 4:10; Acts 15:37)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Mark (Phm 24; Col 4:10; Acts 15:37)
  • Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:24:36 -0700


Paul people,

Acts 15:37-38 tells us that Paul rejected John-Mark as a fellow-worker.
Colossians, on the other hand, would have us believe that John-Mark was
part of Paul's team (see Col 4.10 and Phm 24). This is further evidence
that the author of Colossians knew little about Paul's companions. He seems
to have mistakenly identified the Mark of Philemon 24 as John-Mark, and in
doing so is in conflict with Acts. It is an act of desperation to
hypothesize that Paul changed his mind about Mark. Why would Acts make so
much of the parting if they subsequently came together again?

Given the preponderance of informal names in Phm 23-24, it is reasonable to
suppose that the Mark of Phm 24 is a Roman Praenomen belonging to one of
Paul's companions who had citizenship. This would explain why the name Mark
appears in no other genuine letter or in the relevant section of Acts: he
may have appeared under another name. The Mark of Phm 24 may have been
Markus Silvanus, or Markus Aquila, or Markus Secundus, or one of any number
of hypothetical Marks. I estimate that Mark was the Praenomen of 15% of
male Roman citizens. It was very common.

Let us suppose that the Mark of Phm 24 was Silvanus, for example. The
author of Colossians would probably have had no way of knowing that
Silvanus's praenomen had been Mark, since praenomina were generally used
only among close friends and family. The author's mistake is understandable.

I discussed Luke-Lucius and Epaphras-Epaphroditus in an earlier e-mail. The
case of Mark-X serves to buttress the conclusion that the author of
Colossians had little knowledge of Paul's companions or their alternate names.

Therefore we should not be surprised that the author of the Pastorals
failed to identify Titus (who we now know to have been Timothy). Why should
he have had any more knowledge of Paul's companions than the author of
Colossians? The author of the Pastorals failed to identify Titus just as
the author of Colossians failed to identify Mark. This removes the major
objection to the Titus-Timothy hypothesis.

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.ca






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page