Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 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: Re: Mark (Phm 24; Col 4:10; Acts 15:37)
  • Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:52:21 -0800


Kym,

In my earlier post I said it was unlikely that John-Mark re-united with
Paul after the split recorded in Acts. When I said this, I was not doubting
Paul's ability to forgive. Rather, I was simply saying that we have no
reason to believe that they did re-unite. It is not, of course, impossible,
but I think it is simpler to see Col 4:10 as a chronological mistake by the
author of Colossians. As I have argued, we have plenty of reason to believe
that pseudo-Pauls had very little knowledge of Paul's companions. The
evidence of the Pastorals also suggests that pseudo-Pauls had little
interest in chronological accuracy.

My reading of Acts 15:37-39 is rather different from yours, Kym. Paul's
decision to travel without John-Mark should not be seen as a punishment of
John-Mark. It was a journey to Galatia that was being contemplated, and it
is a journey to Galatia that John-Mark had failed to make on the earlier
ocassion. It would be a strange punishment to prevent him from redeeming
himself by making the journey. I do not think it was a question of
punishment or forgiveness. Paul simply realized that John-Mark was not a
suitable traveling companion.

It is doubtful whether Paul was ever in a position of authority over
John-Mark. Nor do we know whether John-Mark was ever loyal to Paul. His
loyalty may only have been to Barnabas, who seems to have been the leader
of the group when they traveled together through Cyprus.

We do not know what happened to John-Mark after he went with Barnabas to
Cyprus. He may have remained a companion of Barnabas. He may have died. He
may have joined up with Peter. He may have embarked on his own missionary
venture. He may have returned to Jerusalem, where his mother lived. We just
don't know. Least likely is that he joined up with Paul, who had rejected him.

Richard Fellows.


Kym Smith wrote:
>Dear Richard,
>
>You said above, "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?"
>
>It seems to me a remarkable thing that it is a problem for us to see that
>Paul, the apostle of the gospel of grace and forgivenenss, was unable to
>have been reconciled with Mark/John-Mark. What was Paul on about - what
>are we on about - if we see this as an issue? Luke's account of Paul's
>parting with Barnabas and Mark in Luke is recorded as it is because that
>is how it was, as simple as that.
>
>Of course, if you do not take the pastorals as Pauline, then it will not
>help, but we are talking about the man who could say of those who deserted
>him at his trial, "May it not be charged against them" (2 Tim 4:16). This
>was the man who had persecuted the church and been shown incredible grace
>(1 Cor 15:8f - he did write this, didn't he?), do we think that he is
>going to forever hold Mark's moment of weakness against him? Surely not!
>
>The discipline applied by the apostle in his action against Mark (Acts
>15:36f) would have been the very thing that brought correction to him
>(Mark) and strengthened him for future conflicts. Paul, we see, was
>commended by the brethren to the grace of God following his 'sharp
>contention' with Barnabas. Were they simply afraid to oppose Paul, or did
>they see that he was, himself, a man of grace?
>
>Just a couple of thoughts from someone who is content to see Colossians,
>Philemon and the Pastorals as authentically Pauline.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page