Thank you for all the trouble that you have taken with this question.
Before I review your verses, can you now see that nowhere did Paul have any clues about Jesus to offer.... can you see that?
I don't think that Paul was that much interested in the real campaign that Jesus continued after the Baptist's arrest, and so I can see that the gospel, probably mostly the account of Cephas... is in no way contaminated with any of Paul's ideas, because he didn't have any to beging with.
Anyway...... onwards:-
Mark 1:1 uses Paul’s phrase “the beginning of the Gospel” verbatim (Philippians 4:15); and “Gospel of Christ,” otherwise unique to Paul (e.g. Romans 15:19, 1 Corinthians 9:12, 2 Corinthians 2:12, Galatians 1:7, 1 Thessalonians 3:2).
Right..... you can scrub 1:1, and even up to 1:3 incl, because we know already that phrases like 'the son of God' didn'tappear in earliest copies that we have... I think the first 4 verses are additions.
Paul then goes on to talk about how he was sent forth to preach it; likewise Mark immediately follows with a quotation of Isaiah declaring God hath sent his messenger, only switching the reference from Paul to John the Baptist introducing Jesus, the Gospel-reified. Dykstra also makes a good case that Mark has modeled his John the Baptist after Paul
You see? If you start at 1:4 the whole tempo of the intro changes. You are looking at Pauline influence in clerical fiddlings, after the fact.
Mark 1:14 uses Paul’s phrase “Gospel of God,” verbatim (Romans 15:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:2), and when introducing the rest of his narrative purpose (just as Paul does in Romans 1:1).
Yeah....... just remove ' the gospel of the kingdom of God' and carry on from there for a perfect fit and smooth flow...... all tghis kingdom of God stuff is Pauline, but not in sync with anything Cephas spoke of, imo.
Mark then immediately juxtaposes the Gospel with manual labor (in Mark 1:16-20) just as Paul does (in 1 Thessalonians 2:9).
What a stretch! Jesus calling Cephas and Andrew from the nets, versus the above? Nah!
Mark 1:29-31 indirectly reveals Peter was married, just as Paul indirectly reveals Peter was married (1 Corinthians 9:5).
There is nothing wooly about Cephas being married there, nothing at all. His Mum in Law was ill, for goodness sake. And decades later Cephas is still married....... So what?
Mark 2:16 describes Jesus being wrongly chastised by Pharisees (Mark’s principal stand-in for any arch-conservative Jews) for eating and drinking with “sinners and tax collectors” (i.e. Gentiles), just as Paul describes Peter being wrongly chastised by conservative Jews for doing the same thing (Galatians 2:11-14). Mark and Paul’s message is the same.
That is not correct. The most senior tax official for the lake could well have been Roman, but all the Toll collection and taxation officials were mosdt likely lower order Levites. Herod Antipas wanted his own to handle his province. Where is this stuff being dug up?
Mark 3:1-5 borrows themes and vocabulary from Paul’s discussions of the very same issue: Jesus looks upon his Jewish critics “with anger [orgês] and grieved [sullupoumenos] at their hardness [pôrôsei] of heart”; in Romans 9 Paul said he was for that very same reason grieved [lupê, v. 2] and God was for that very same reason angry [orgên, v. 22] at their hardness [v. 18], which Paul later describes with the same word used by Mark [pôrôsis, 11:25].
Of course Jesus was angry...... you should see what was going on within the Temple, its Priesthood and more. Fury would describe him well...... The term was ;probably a common idion back then..... hardness of heart. Not Paul's alone.
Mark 4:10-13 relates Mark’s model for the whole Gospel as disguising deeper truths allegorically within seemingly literal stories (“parables”); and in doing so declares that the uninitiated will not be allowed to see or hear the real meaning, just as Paul says (in e.g. Romans 11:7-10, 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, etc.).
Deeper truths my foot! Jesus's message needed to be clear as day and even then he wasn't gaining enough support. He may well have waxed in to strange stories if known spies rolled up, but all the parable and spin was within the early church....... Again, I reckon that early clerics played with this gospel. If you read through a few versions you can get a feeling for the 'run' of the account and the 'kingdom of God' bits and 'Son of God' even mentions of 'Christ' just begin to look dodgy.
Deep in the heart of the gospel, none of which Paul ever bothered to learn about (it seems) all is sound deposition.
It's just like a Statement that you could write after being tail-ended by a drunk driver has been doctored later on.
Mark 6:7 imagines Jesus sending missionaries in pairs; Paul often says he was paired with someone on his missions (1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:6; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Philippians 2:22; Philemon 1:1).
Mark doesn't imagine anything! THat is exactly what Jesus did, he sent pairs throughout Galilee in an attempt to build support, but sadly these guys just could attract crowds quite like Jesus could. Soon after this Jesus threw his whole hand in to an attempt to win crowds over at Jerusalem.
Mark 6:8-10 has Jesus assume missionaries will be fed and housed by others, reifying into visceral and poetic terms Paul’s mention of the fact that “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14).
No he doesn't! Jesus clearly tells the pairs to travel light, take no money and to survive as best they can, if they get help, great.... of not, stuff 'em and move on. Paul's 'living in the gospels' is hkis own message to missionaries. Who tried to solder all this together? It's a sham.... honestly.
Must I go on? Must I?
Mark 7:20-23 lists as the sins that make one unclean “sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.” Accordingly, Paul says, “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God”
Whoa! Stop you there. And there it is, the gaping hole between the two accounts.
Jesus loved his drink!! There is no reference to drink in Cephas's account. Can you see how Paul has chucked 'drunkeness' in there? Look, Cephas's true original account was his own. We know that Mark's gospel got messed with, but certainly Paul did not influence the true Gospel.
It is a true account, a deposition about what happened, probnably as seen through two witnesses' eyes, I reckon.
I must go to get my Covid Jab now........ must finish here.
So far you've got nothing.......... honestly.