Eve-Marie Becker (editor) - Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II. For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark

Baur argued that Mark was based on Matthew and Luke and composed in the 2nd century. According to the Tbingen School, the Gospel of John was the final synthesis of the antitheses between Jewish Christian orthodoxy and the Pauline spirit and Mark was one step on that way.

In 1857, the German exegete Gustav Hermann Joseph Philipp Volkmar (1809 93) characterized the Gospel of Mark as a Pauline gospel. Although Marks story was concerned with Jesus life and death, it was also, so Volkmar argued, permeated by Pauline theology. During his lifetime, Volkmar remained a solitary figure, and David Friedrich Strauss (18081874) once considered him a nrriger Kauz. Nevertheless, at the end of the 19th century knowledge of Volkmars thesis and writings was widespread among German speaking scholars. His thesis drove a wedge into German biblical scholarship; Adolf Jlicher (18571938) and William Wrede (18591906) both appreciated Volkmars work, Albert Schweizer (18751965) and his student Martin Werner (18871964) did not.

Since Gustav Volkmar is rather unknown to contemporary biblical scholarship, I shall here provide a short biography.

• Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwickelung nach dem gegenwrtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1857); a popular work, which introduced Volkmars thesis of Mark as a Pauline gospel.
• Die Evangelien, oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ltesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Leipzig: Ludw. Fr. Fues Verlag, 1870); a scholarly commentary on the Gospel of Mark, in which Volkmar, against Baur, forwarded his thesis that Mark was the first gospel, Luke the second and Matthew only the third. The commentary was republished in a slightly edited second edition with a new title in:
• Marcus und die Synopse der Evangelien nach dem urkundlichen Text und das Geschichtliche vom Leben Jesu (Zrich: Verlag von Caesar Schmidt, 1876).

However, we must leave this volume from Volkmars hand aside for the present purpose.

In his biographical sketch of Gustav Volkmar from 1908, Adolf Jlicher characterizes Volkmar as an exegete whose work was framed to the one side by Baurs Tendenztheorie and to the other side by Strauss scepticism (772f). Yet, he differs from both schools on two important issues: historicity and Markan priority. With regard to Strauss, Volkmar welcomes his critique of the rationalistic and harmonizing exegesis of early 19th century scholarship. Yet, his understanding of historicity, as well as his method are closer to those of 20th century redaction criticism than to the Leben Jesu Forschung of his own century. With regard to the Tbingen School, Volkmar treats the early Christian literature as Tendenzschriften. His overall project was to reconstruct the history of the gospel traditions as a reflection of the developments in early Christianity. But unlike the Tbingen exegetes, he accepted, as already mentioned, the thesis of Markan priority. Consequently, he rejected the idea of an Ur-Evangelium which was needed for the Tbinger explanation of the gospel relations. Likewise he rejected the idea of a Spruchbuch or Schriftquelle (1870, viii-xi; 1876, 646) later identified as Q. According to Volkmar, Marks only sources were: the Old Testament writings, four Pauline letters (Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians), the oral tradition of early Christian communities and, surprisingly, Revelation.

In this essay, I shall offer a thorough presentation of Volkmars thesis about Paulinism in Mark. In the first part, I discuss the alleged relationship between Revelation and the Gospel of Mark. I also account for Volkmars considerations of the composition and genre of Mark. In the second part, I go into more detail concerning the relationship between Mark and Paul. Here I first provide a summary of the general thesis as set out in 1857, which reflects Volkmars view of the Markan Jesus. Next, I give an example from his 1870/76 commentary on Mark, which demonstrates the literary character of the relationship between the Jesus traditions and the Pauline gospel in the Markan text. In the third part, I return to the reception of Volkmars work among his contemporary colleagues and elaborate on the criticism to which his work was exposed around the fin de sicle. Finally, I discuss the relevance of Volkmars thesis for 21st century New Testament studies.