RBL 08/2018

Thomas P. Nelligan

The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the

Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians

Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015. Pp. xvi + 170. Paper. $22.00.

ISBN 9781625647160.

Heike Omerzu
Copenhagen University

The book at hand is the largely revised version of the author’s doctoral thesis written from 2007 to
2011 under the supervision of Thomas L. Brodie. It consists of seven chapters, framed by an
introduction, an assessment and conclusion, a bibliography, and short indices.

The purpose of Nelligan’s study is to explore whether 1 Corinthians may have served as a literary
source for the Gospel of Mark. By exploring the relationship between Paul and Mark, Nelligan
follows a road in New Testament studies that has basically been neglected since the pioneering
work by Gustav Volkmar in the second half of the nineteenth century (Die Religion Jesu, 1857; Die
Evanglien, 1870); it has more recently been taken up again by scholars such as William Telford
(Mark, 1995; The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 1999), Joel Marcus (“Mark—Interpreter of Paul,”
2000), Tom Dykstra (Mark, Canonizer of Paul, 2012), Anne Vig Skoven (“Mark as Allegorical
Rewriting of Paul,” 2014), and now also by Nelligan (see also ch. 3: “Mark and Paul—A Brief
History of Research”). Besides, Nelligan’s work is informed by studies that scrutinize Markan
literary sources more generally, such as the work by Thomas L. Brodie (The Birthing of the New
Testament, 2004), Dennis MacDonald (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 2000), and
Adam Winn (Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative, 2010). An important presupposition for
Nelligan’s task is to establish a proper methodology that allows a comparison of two texts that
differ so much in especially genre as is the case with 1 Corinthians and Mark.

This review was published by RBL ã2018 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription
to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
In order to do so, Nelligan first discusses “Ancient Literary Methods of Text Absorption” (ch. 1),
where he particularly addresses the various techniques of imitation in both Greco-Roman and
Jewish literature, as well as different levels or degrees of text absorption. In the succeeding chapter,
“Criteria for Judging Literary Dependence,” he first presents and discusses criteria that have been
established over the past thirty years by Richard B. Hays (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,
1989), Thomas L. Brodie (The Birthing of the New Testament, 2004), Dennis MacDonald (The
Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 2000), Dale C. Allison (The Intertextual Jesus, 2000), and
Outi Leppä (The Making of Colossians, 2003)). Against this background, Nelligan develops his own
set of criteria conceived of as “tests and not laws” (31). These “represent a synthesis of many
previously established criteria with certain new” (32) ones. The unique criteria serve to identify the
literary convention that is employed in a given text as well as the level of absorption.

The subsequent history of research (ch. 3) is rather sketchy (as also indicated by the heading), but
it covers the ancient evidence as well as the development from the nineteenth (esp. Gustav
Volkmar; see above) over the twentieth (esp. Martin Werner, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie
im Markusevangelium, 1923) to the twenty-first century (e.g., Joel Marcus, Tom Dykstra; see
above).

In chapter 4, “First Corinthians and Mark: An Overview,” Nelligan makes an argument for why it
makes sense to compare these two writings in spite of their obvious differences in genre and style.
A list of broad similarities serves as the basis for the selection of text passages that will be compared
and analyzed in detail in the succeeding chapters; these passages are 1 Cor 1–2 / Mark 1:1–28 (the
openings of the respective writings); 1 Cor 5 / Mark 6:14–29 (both dealing with a man living in a
relationship that is in conflict with the Jewish law); 1 Cor 11:2–34 / Mark 14:1–25 (the Eucharist
accounts). Each of these passages is in the following (chs. 5–7) treated in a consistent manner: first
by an introductory analysis including a subdivision of the respective passages in shorter sections,
followed by a detailed analysis of the subsections, including a discussion of Markan parallels to
other texts (the purpose of this step is not obvious; see, e.g. 60, where it would make more sense to
analyze 1 Corinthians in this respect) and a detailed comparison of context, theme, action/plot and
order, vocabulary, and completeness. The detailed analysis of each subsection ends with a brief
assessment and conclusion. Only at the end of each chapter is the evidence pertaining to the
respective longer passages assessed by help of the previously established criteria for judging literary
dependence (external, internal, and probing criteria), followed by a conclusion.

The consistency regarding both analyses and assessments is a real strength of Nelligan’s study, even
though it can be questioned whether all his analytical steps and criteria are equally relevant and
useful and how significant some of the results are. The selection of the passages to be compared
seems to be reasonable, although it bears the danger of a circular argument. For instance, when
assessing the internal criteria regarding the relationship between 1 Cor 1–2 and Mark 1:1–28,
Nelligan concludes: “In terms of the overall context of these two sections both come at the start of

This review was published by RBL ã2018 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription
to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
each respective document and both form roughly the first half of a larger unit of text. However, all
texts have a beginning and this cannot contribute to a case for literary dependence” (93). The latter
is undoubtedly true, but apart from that their character as openings was the main criterion for the
selection, as the first text group was chosen by Nelligan “because of their respective positions
within their larger literary contexts” (55).

As Nelligan himself acknowledges, not all of his insights are fresh, and he often relies on previous
research (which he also clearly indicates). This concerns not only the already-mentioned
establishment of criteria to judge literary dependence but also specific observations. Regarding
Mark’s use of the Old Testament, Nelligan draws, for instance, mainly on Adam Winn’s study on
the Elijah-Elisha cycle. This seems in general justified because of Nelligan’s particular interest in a
comparison of 1 Corinthians and Mark (as opposed to a detailed analysis of only the one or the
other writing). However, at times he thereby also tends to simplify matters, such as when discussing
the use of the word euangelia in the Priene calendar inscription (OGIS 458; 9 BCE), where a
complex debate is ignored (62–63; for a more nuanced judgment including references to Isaiah’s
notion of proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God, see, e.g., Craig A. Evans, “Mark’s
Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription,” JGRChJ 1 [2000]: 67–81). Yet overall it has to be
appreciated that Nelligan’s conclusions are careful and balanced.

With respect to the first group of texts, 1 Cor 1–2 and Mark 1:1–28, he concludes that 1 Corinthians
was likely only “one of many sources” (97) with Mark having most similarities to Old Testament
texts. Yet “At the core of Mark’s gospel is the basic story of the life of Jesus which existed before
Mark’s gospel and which must ultimately be the driving force behind the entire gospel. First
Corinthians is only one component of a larger web of allusions” (97, emphasis added). Nelligan
refers to this “basic story” throughout his book (see, e.g., also 99, 126: “the basic Markan narrative
of Jesus’ life”) without actually explaining what kind of source or tradition he envisages and what
its implications for the use of other sources are. Regarding the comparison of the two writings,
their beginnings entail thematic similarities rather than vocabulary links. Mark would, however,
often “reverse” the themes found in Paul, for instance by positivization or negativization, the first
being “pedagogical in nature. Mark is possibly showing how Christians should act, rather than how
they are acting” (99). This is but one example of various stimulating observations made by
Nelligan; others relate to the techniques of “transforming allusion, eclectic imitation, and possibly
dialectic imitation” (99). As regards action or plot, Nelligan concludes that “the differing genres
make finding similarities in these areas unlikely” (65). However, Jesper Tang Nielsen has in his
essay “The Cross on the Way to Mark” (in Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II; For and
Against Pauline Influence on Mark, ed. E.-M. Becker, T. Engberg-Pedersen, and M. Müller, BZNW
199 [Berlin: de Gruyter; 2014], 273–94, a book that Nelligan actually mentions in his research
history but does not refer to further on) proposed a semiotic model that can help to compare
narrative structures in Mark and the Pauline letters. As regards other passages, Nelligan himself is
actually also more confident to recognize similarities in action or plot (see, e.g., 79, 84, 91, 107).

This review was published by RBL ã2018 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription
to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Also with respect to the second set of compared passages, 1 Cor 5 and Mark 6:14–29 (ch. 6),
Nelligan arrives at the conclusion that connections of a thematic nature are stronger than such in
terms of vocabulary (111) and that both writings most likely draw on provisions in Leviticus.
Nevertheless, he is right to highlight that 1 Cor 5 “presents the only extant Christian writing that
pre-dates Mark which deals with the same basic subject matter—the sexual immorality of a man
living with a woman for whom he is forbidden to do so by Jewish law. This cannot be ignored”
(112). It has (similarly to the first set of texts) to be maintained, though, that this similarity was
one of the main reasons for Nelligan to select 1 Cor 5 and Mark 6 for the comparison. His
observations on these passages are nonetheless thought-provoking.

Chapter 7 deals with the Eucharist scenes in 1 Cor 11:2–34 and Mark 14:1–25. Among the thematic
bonds, Nellligan includes that both passages deal with women and that they contain an appeal to
remembrance (even though in Mark not directly related to the Eucharist scene but to the anointing
woman). Some similarities seem artificial, for example, regarding 1 Cor 11:16 (not 1 Cor 11:26!),
δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι, and Mark 14:4, ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες, where Nelligan claims that
“similar phrasing is used in both, clustered around the image of contentious/angry people” (115,
repeated similarly on 143). In fact, the reference to antagonists, albeit in both cases with unusual
but also completely different terminology, is the only similarity. For the Eucharist accounts
Nelligan believes that because of the “shared themes, action/plot and order along with the shared
vocabulary” (143) a literary dependence is more likely than shared oral or liturgical tradition as
often assumed in previous scholarship (see also 137–38 and 145–46; most confidently at 153: “it
can be concluded that there is a literary relationship”).

In his final “Assessment and Conclusion” Nelligan briefly repeats his observations, especially
regarding the analyses in chapters 5–7, and summarizes his insights in a moderate and thoughtful
manner. He contends that there are many so-called “weak connections” that have only little
informative value, yet the detailed analyses also revealed that the volume of certain similarities
“cannot be ascribed to a common tradition or that Mark was merely working within a Pauline
sphere of influence but rather that 1 Corinthians was not Mark’s primary source but rather one of
many and one that is not immediately apparent through a simple reading of the text” (152). This
dependence is reflected at various levels of text absorption such as transforming allusion,
dialectical, heuristic ,and eclectic imitation.

To conclude, Nelligan’s study fosters the study of the relationship between Paul and Mark
especially because of its careful and considerate methodology and taxonomy. He is well aware that
future studies will have to study others parts of 1 Corinthians as well as other Pauline letters to get
an even richer picture of the degree and kind of relationship (see 153). This should, in my view,
also include more detailed exegeses on the basis of the Greek texts as well as a more systematic
reflection of the nature of the basic story of the life of Jesus that Nelligan regularly evokes, including

This review was published by RBL ã2018 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription
to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
a critical consideration of how this matrix might have influenced the use of certain other sources,
such as the Old Testament or Pauline letters.

This review was published by RBL ã2018 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription
to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.