Adam Winn the Purpose of Marks Gospel an Ealry Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda 2008

ADAM WINN

The Purpose of Mark's Gospel

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe

245

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe

Herausgeber / Editor Jorg Frey (Miinchen)

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg)

Judith Gundry-Volf (New Haven, CT) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

245

ARTIBUS

A d a m Winn

The Purpose of Mark's Gospel

An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda

Mohr Siebeck

A D A M W I N N , born 1976; 2007 PhD in New Testament Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary; since 2005 teaching courses in Biblical Studies at Fuller Seminary and Azusa Pacific University.

ISBN 978-3-16-149635-6 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio-graphie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2008 by Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was printed by Laupp & Gobel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nadele in Nehren.

Printed in Germany

http://dnb.d-nb.de

For Molly

Acknowledgments

The seminal ideas for this project grew out of a master's level course I took on the New Testament gospels from Craig A. Evans in the summer of 2001. Evans' suggestion that many details in Mark's gospel strongly parallel the Roman imperial cult intrigued me and led me to explore the topic further when I became PhD candidate at Fuller Theological Seminary in the fall of 2002. Through my own research and ongoing conversations with Evans, a dissertation topic emerged - reading Mark's gospel as a response to Roman imperial propaganda. The subsequent dissertation was accepted by the faculty of the School of Theology at Fuller Seminary in June of 2007. The present project is a moderately revised version of that dissertation. Like all projects of this nature, it results from the labor of not one individual but many. Here I would like to give these individuals the recognition and thanks that they deserve.

First, I must thank my mentor Ralph Martin for his faithful oversight of this project while it was being prepared as a dissertation. His mastery of the secondary literature has frequently led me to sources I had never considered (nor knew existed!), and his vast knowledge of the field of New Testament studies has protected my many blind spots. I am forever thankful for his guidance and support during the past six years.

I would also like to express thanks to the members of my dissertation committee. My second reader, Donald Hagner, provided me with invaluable constructive criticism that resulted in a much improved manuscript. I also thank him for his refreshing sense of humor and his regular willingness to talk about baseball - two things that often provided a necessary respite from the rigors of academic research. I thank Craig A. Evans for his careful reading and critique of this project as a dissertation and his advocacy in recommending it for publication. As noted above, the seminal ideas for this project came out of a master's level course I took with Dr. Evans seven years ago, and in response to his encouragement, I pursued these ideas as a dissertation topic. For his influence and encouragement, I am also thankful.

I also would like to express thanks to the entire New Testament faculty at Fuller Theological Seminary. In particular, I would like to thank David Scho-ler, whose support and encouragement over the past six years has been unfailing. He has modeled for me what it means to be both a teacher and scholar of the New Testament. I also would like to thank Marianne Meye Thompson,

VIII A cknowledgments

who has regularly (and selflessly) devoted herself to my academic and professional success.

I must also thank those who worked faithfully in editing this project for its submission as a dissertation. My mother-in-law Syl Field and her co-worker Clair Bruggeman edited the original draft of every chapter. Their careful eyes rid each chapter of its many typographical and grammatical errors and made significant stylistic improvements to my often philistine prose. For their selfless service, I am deeply thankful. My professional editor (and friend) Krys-tin Mast worked tirelessly to prepare my unpolished manuscript for formal submission, catching missed typographical and grammatical errors and making sure the manuscript met all the necessary formatting and style guidelines (a tedious process indeed!). For her great effort, I am truly thankful. My typesetter, Robin Black of Blackbird Creative worked with me to transform a dissertation into a manuscript ready for publication. She worked patiently with me through the first-time task of typesetting this manuscript. For her hard work and professional excellence, I am grateful. For any errors in the text that still remain, I am fully responsible.

I also would like to recognize the people at Mohr Siebeck Publishing House for not only giving this manuscript the opportunity to be published but also for their excellence and competence in guiding me through the process of preparing the manuscript for publication. I would like to offer special thanks to Henning Ziebritzki and Jorg Frey for accepting this manuscript for publication in the WUNT II series. I would also like to thank Matthias Spitzner for guidance on specific issues regarding formatting and style. It has truly been a pleasure working with the people of Mohr Siebeck.

Making it through this long and difficult process would not have been possible without the help of both family and friends. I thank both the Warehouse community and the Homebuilders class at Lake Avenue Church for their constant prayer and support. I thank those in my small group Bible study who have endured the ups and downs of this process with me and who have offered their prayers and encouragement along the way. I thank my fellow colleagues at Fuller Seminary and Azusa Pacific University who have sympathetically walked through this process with me. I thank the Fuller Five for their friendship and inspiration. I thank my in-laws, Syl and Stephen Field, who have supported my wife and me throughout this process in every possible way. I thank my older sister Hillory and my younger brother Abel, along with their families, for their friendship and love throughout this process. I thank the Moreno Valley clan, who for the past seven years has offered my wife and me a home away from home. And to all the friends and family that cannot be named but who have loved and supported me through this process, I thank you.

I would like to offer special thanks to my father and mother, Doug and Kemi Winn, without whom this project, at best, would have been a dream.

Acknowledgments IX

The desire to pursue scholarship in the field of New Testament studies grew out of a love for the Bible that my parents instilled in me at a very young age. The means to accomplish this project were provided by their hard work and sacrifice. And the strength to finish it came largely from their faithful prayers, love, and encouragement. They have given me more than I could ever repay and to them I am forever thankful. Dad and mom, I love you dearly!

And now, I give thanks to the person who deserves it more than any other, my wife and the love of my life Molly. The publication of this project (and the dissertation that it began as) is as much her success as it is mine. She has faithfully stood beside me throughout this process, and did so at her own great personal sacrifice. For the last seven years, she has worked tirelessly in jobs that often left her weary, unsatisfied, and unappreciated all for the sake of supporting our family and my dream. Yet despite the difficulty of the road, she has continually supported, loved, and encouraged me along the way. She has always believed in me and in my success and that has meant more to me than she could ever know. Molly, I love you and am forever thankful for your selfless sacrifice. I look forward to this next chapter in our lives and to raising our precious Brennan together!

Finally, and most importantly, I thank the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ. All that it took to complete this project - the support of family and friends, a mind to read, think and write, instructors to guide and direct, the finances to pay for tuition - is a gift from the hand of my heavenly Father. For the success of this project's completion and for any future success that it might experience, to God be all the glory and honor and praise amen!

Pasadena, April 2008 Adam D. Winn

Contents

Acknowledgments VII

Preliminary Remarks and Abbreviations XV

Introduction 1 1 Purpose of the Present Study 1 2 Method of the Present Study 2 3 Outline of the Present Study 2 4 Preliminary Considerations for the Present Study 3

Chapter 1. Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel in the History of New Testament Scholarship 5 1.1 Introduction 5 1.2 Historical Purpose 5

1.2.1 From Pre-modern Times to Present Day 5 1.2.2 Evaluation of a Historical Purpose 7

1.3 Theological Purpose 9 1.3.1 Christology 9

The Messianic Secret 9 Corrective Christology 12 Christological Purpose 18

1.3.2 Eschatology 19 Willi Marxsen 20 Werner Kelber 22

1.4 Pastoral Purpose 24 1.5 Evangelistic Purpose: Robert H. Gundry 28 1.6 Socio-Political Purpose 31

1.6.1 Defensive Purpose 31 S. G. F. Brandon 31 H. N. Roskam 33

1.6.2 Subversive Purpose: Richard Horsley 35 1.7 Conclusions 41

XII Contents

Chapter 2. Mark's Date and Provenance 43

2.1 Introduction 43 2.2 Dating Mark's Gospel 43

2.2.1 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The External Evidence 44 2.2.2 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The Internal Evidence 51 2.2.3 Mark's Relationship to the Temple's Destruction: A Pre- or

Post-70 Dating? 56 The Criterion of Specificity 58 The Criterion of Reasonableness 59 The Criterion of Similarity 60 The Criterion of Motivation 61 The Criterion of Risk-Reward 65 Conclusions to be Drawn from the Criteria 67

2.2.4 Reading Mark 13 in Light of a Post 70 Date of Composition 68 2.2.5 Conclusions concerning Mark's Date of Composition 76

2.3 Mark's Provenance 76 2.3.1 Rome: The External Evidence 77 2.3.2 Rome: The Internal Evidence 80 2.3.3 Galilee 83 2.3.4 Syria 87 2.3.5 Conclusions concerning Mark's Provenance 91

Chapter 3. Analysis of Mark's Major Features 92

3.1 Introduction 92 3.2 Markan Incipit 92 3.3 Markan Christology 99

3.3.1 Christological Identity 100 Messiah 100 Son of God 100 Son of Man 102

3.3.2 Christological Presentation 108 Prologue 1:1-13 (14-15) 109 Galilean Ministry Ill Caesarea Philippi 115 Jerusalem Ministry 121 Passion Narrative 127 Conclusions 135

3.3.3 Christological Secrecy 136 Identifying Mark's Secrecy Motif 136 Characterizing Mark's Secrecy Motif 137

Contents XIII

3.3.4 Christological Conclusions 139 3.4 Markan Discipleship 139

3.4.1 The Twelve Disciples as Models of Discipleship 140 3.4.2 Minor Characters as Models of Discipleship 146 3.4.3 Jesus' Teaching on Discipleship 147 3.4.4 Conclusions concerning Discipleship 150

3.5 Markan Eschatology 150

Chapter 4. Reconstructing Mark's Historical Situation 153

4.1 Introduction 153 4.2 Reconstructing the Historical Situation of Mark's Readers 153

4.2.1 The Emperor Vespasian 153 Vespasian's Rise to Power 154 Vespasian's Problems and Propaganda 157 Vespasian's Triumph 164 Vespasian, the Second Augustus 165 The Impact of Flavian Propaganda on the Church in Rome 167

4.2.2 The Aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and Its Impact on the Church in Rome 170 Eschatological Anxiety? 170 Fear of Persecution? 171

4.2.3 Conclusions concerning Mark's Historical Situation 173 4.3 Comparing a Reconstructed Historical Situation with

Indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben 173 4.3.1 Imperial Cult Intertwined Messianic Hope 173 4.3.2 False Prophets and Messianic Claimants 174 4.3.3 Christology of Power 174 4.3.4 Persecuted Community 175 4.3.5 Wavering Disciples 176 4.3.6 Eschatological Confusion 176 4.3.7 Summarizing Comparisons 177

Chapter 5. Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 178 5.1 Introduction 178 5.2 Reading Mark's Incipit in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 178 5.3 Reading Mark's Christology in Light of Mark's Historical Situation ... 180

5.3.1 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Identity 180 Excursus: Mark's use of "Son of God" in light of a polemic against Vespasian 182

5.3.2 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Presentation 183

XIV Contents

Powerful Exorcist 183 Powerful Healer 184 Power over Nature 185 Powerful Prophet 186 Powerful Benefactor 188 Imperial Modesty 190 Weakness as Strength 192

5.4 Reading Mark's Presentation of Discipleship in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 194 5.4.1 Mark's Primary Features of Discipleship 194 5.4.2 Mark's Secondary Features of Discipleship 196

5.5 Reading Markan Eschatology in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 198

5.6 Summary: Formulating a Statement on the Purpose of Mark's Gospel 199

Summary of Conclusions 202

Bibliography 205

Index of Ancient Sources 223

Index of Modern Authors 231

Index of Subjects 235

Preliminary Remarks and Abbreviations

All citations from the Old and New Testament come from New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted. Any Greek texts from the New Testament are taken from the Nestle-Aland 27 t h edition. Greek and Latin texts from ancient authors are taken from the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise noted.

Unfortunately, this manuscript was completed prior to the publication of Adela Yarbro-Collins' recent commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) and was therefore unable to interact with it. The reader is encouraged to consult this work and to compare its conclusions with those found in the present study.

In general, the abbreviations used in this book follow those provided in The SBL Handbook of Style (ed. P. H. Alexander et al., 2003). These abbreviations include those for academic journals, commentary and monograph series, biblical books and other ancient literature. However, there are a number of abbreviations included in this book that cannot be found in The SBL Handbook of Style and these abbreviations are provided below.

AJAH American Journal of Ancient History CJ Classical Journal CQ Classical Quarterly HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology JRS Journal of Roman Studies PMAAR Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome PBA Proceedings of the British Academy RFIC Rivista difilologia e d'instruzione classica RM Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigrafik

Introduction

1 Purpose of the Present Study

The theory of Markan priority is one of the few that has reached a high level of consensus among New Testament interpreters (though a handful of detractors still persists).1 Not only do most interpreters agree that Mark's gospel was written before the other canonical gospels, most also agree that it is the first written narrative account of Jesus' life.2 While it is possible that a sayings source existed before the composition of Mark's gospel, such a source would have lacked Mark's narrative dimension. Given this unique distinction of Mark's work, the question of why the gospel was composed naturally arises. What realities moved the evangelist to provide a written account of Jesus' life? Perhaps more importantly, how does the evangelist's presentation of Jesus' life address or negotiate these realties? Many interpreters have offered answers to these questions regarding the second evangelist's purpose for composing a gospel.3 Nevertheless a consensus has remained elusive. Certainly the great body of work that has been devoted to the question of the second gospel's purpose was not fruitless; in fact, it has made significant progress toward answering it. But as our survey of the search for a Markan purpose will demonstrate, a comprehensive and convincing answer to this question has yet to be found. Therefore, our present purpose is to enter this

1 Since the year 2000, at least eight significant critical commentaries on Mark's gospel have been published. All eight assume Markan priority as a starting point for interpreting the gospel. For examples of scholars who reject Markan priority, see C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 1986); W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan, 1964); Philip L. Shuler, "The Genre of the Gospels and the Two Gospel Hypothesis," in Jesus the Gospel's and the Church to Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William Farmer (ed. E. P. Sanders; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987), 69 - 88; et al.

2 Throughout this study, we will often refer to the author of the second gospel as Mark. However, this name is only used for the sake of simplicity and implies nothing about the author's identity.

3 While we affirm Markan priority, in deference to the canonical order, we will refer to Mark as the second gospel.

2 Introduction

ongoing discussion with the hope of providing a plausible theory that might account for the second gospel's origin and purpose.

2 Method of the Present Study

This study will combine two methodologies. The first is the traditional historical-critical method, the application of which will lead us to a better understanding of the Markan text - in particular its major features (Christology, discipleship, and eschatology), the distinctive features of its Sitz im Leben, its date of composition, and its provenance. Because of the many negative connotations that have surrounded this method in recent years, we offer a brief word regarding our understanding and application of it. We understand the term historical-critical method in an inclusive rather than exclusive sense; that is to say that properly applied, the historical-critical method must embrace and make use of more recent interpretive methods (e.g., social scientific criticism, rhetorical criticism, and narrative criticism). Through the use of the historical-critical method, we seek to understand the Markan text in light of its many contexts (e.g., historical, social, political, literary, narrative, grammatical, theological, etc.). We must recognize that the nature of our present question - the original purpose of Mark's gospel - limits the scope of our investigation to the realties of the original author and the original readers. Therefore, methods that focus on contemporary readers or the reader as an abstract idea are not employed in the present study. The absence of these methods should not be seen as a rejection of their value for biblical interpretation, but rather as recognition of their limited value in answering the question before us.

The second method we will employ is that of comparative-historical analysis. Based on the results of our investigation into Mark's date of composition and provenance, we will seek to reconstruct a historical setting in which the second evangelist and his readers might have found themselves. This proposed historical setting will then be compared to our conclusions regarding Mark's Sitz im Leben and major features, with the hope that such a comparison will yield plausible conclusions regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel.

3 Outline of the Present Study

Our first chapter will survey the numerous theories that interpreters have put forth regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel. It will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these theories and will attempt to establish a number of trajectories for our present study. Our second chapter will address the questions of Mark's provenance and date of composition, with attention given to both external and internal evidence. Our third chapter will examine the major

1 Introduction 3

features of Mark's gospel, i.e., Mark's incipit, Christology, presentation of discipleship, and eschatology. Our purpose in this chapter will be twofold: (1) to characterize accurately these major Markan features and (2) to identify indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben. Our fourth chapter will reconstruct the historical situation in which Mark and his original readers find themselves. This reconstruction will depend on the results of chapter two - namely the conclusions drawn regarding when and where Mark's gospel was written. Our historical reconstruction of Mark's setting will then be compared with the indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben that we identified in chapter three. Continuity between our historical reconstruction and the indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben will confirm the historical reconstruction's plausibility. Our fifth chapter will read Mark's major features - according to the results of chapter three - in light of our proposed setting for Mark and his readers. Through such a reading, the primary purpose - and perhaps one or two secondary purposes - for Mark's gospel should emerge.

4 Preliminary Considerations for the Present Study

4.1 Author/Audience As the subject matter of this study implies, we assume that Mark's gospel was written by a purposeful author (Hochliteratur) and not by a group of compilers (Kleinliteratur). We also assume that this author, like all authors, was influenced by his own historical situation and that of his intended audience. Therefore, we conclude that the gospel itself provides us - though perhaps only indirectly - a window into the historical situation of its author and its original readers. We also assume that the author composed his gospel, at least to some degree, in order to speak to the historical situation of a particular audience or community - one that he was either close to or a part of. This last assumption has been challenged by Richard Bauckham (among others) in a collection of essays entitled The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking Gospel Audiences* Bauckham argues that rather than being written for a particular community, the New Testament gospels were written for a broad audience, i.e., any Christian throughout the Roman Empire. While many of the arguments of Bauckham may have merit, it seems that Bauckham is creating an unnecessary dichotomy - namely that gospels were either written for a narrow audience or a broad audience. However, we must consider the possibility that an evangelist could have composed a gospel with one eye on his particular community and one on the church empire-wide. A gospel tailored to

4 In particular see Bauckham's introduction and article, "For Whom Were Gospels Written," in The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1-48.

4 Introduction

speak to the needs of a particular community is not precluded from speaking to a broader audience, especially if that broader audience might be facing or might soon face challenges similar to those of the evangelist's particular community. While we cannot give a proper critique of Bauckham's position here, we will proceed under the assumption that the author of Mark composed his gospel, at least in part, to address the situation of a particular audience.

4.2 Genre There seems to be a growing consensus among New Testament interpreters that the New Testament gospels are best identified as Greco-Roman biographies. Our present study will proceed under the notion that this conclusion is correct. Though we cannot discuss the merits of this conclusion at this time, we may appeal to Richard Burridge's compelling work on the subject, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography.5 We must note that while our present study will assume Mark's gospel to be a Greco-Roman biography, this assumption has little direct effect on our conclusions regarding the gospel's purpose.6 Because of the wide range of purposes such ancient biographies could serve (e.g., polemical, apologetic, ethical, panegyrical, philosophical), identifying the gospel's genre brings us no closer to understanding the evangelist's purpose for writing. However, our identification of Mark as a Greco-Roman biography may inform our exegesis of the Markan text, and thus indirectly affect our conclusions.

4.3 Markan Redaction Because of our ignorance concerning Markan sources, this study will primarily focus on the finished form of Mark's gospel and will be extremely conservative in its use of redaction criticism.7 Redaction criticism will only be used in cases where Markan redaction is relatively certain. Even in such cases, the results of redaction criticism will only be used as supporting rather than primary evidence.

5 Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (2 n d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

6 For a thorough discussion on Mark as a Greco-Roman biography, see Ben Wither-ington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 1-9.

7 For discussion on the problems of using redaction criticism in Markan interpretation, see C. Clifton Black, "The Quest of the Markan Redactor: Why Has It Been Pursued and What Has It Taught Us?" JSNT 33 (1988): 19-39; idem, The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate (JSNTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).

Chapter 1

Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel in the History of New Testament Scholarship

1.1 Introduction

For the sake of clarity, our survey will arrange the various theories of a Markan purpose topically with each attempt falling into one of the following categories: historical, theological, pastoral, evangelical, or socio-political. The discussion of each category will focus on one or two theories that are of the greatest significance and/or that function as representative of other similar theories. We must note that these categories serve to facilitate discussion, and some theories might partially overlap with more than one category. At the point of evaluation, we will make a specific critique of the exemplary interpretations and a general critique of the category as a whole. Some of these critiques will establish trajectories that will continue throughout our present study.

1.2 Historical Purpose

For the first nineteen hundred years of biblical interpretation, the question of Mark's purpose for writing was largely ignored. It was assumed by most interpreters that Mark's purpose was to record the historical events of Jesus' life. Here we will examine the history of this position and evaluate it in light of modern critical scholarship.

1.2.1 From Pre-modern Times to the Present Day Pre-modern interpretation of Mark's purpose for writing was largely influenced by statements accorded to the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias (c. 110 C.E.),

as recorded by Eusebius: And the Presbyter used to say this, "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor, had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were an arrangement of

6 Chapter 1

the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave his attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them." (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15, Lake, LCL)1

Throughout pre-modern times this tradition, along with several others that echoed similar sentiments, was accepted by the church and by interpreters of Mark.2 That is, most assumed that Mark was the interpreter of Peter who recorded events about the life of Jesus, leaving out "nothing from what he heard" and making "no false statements."

However, as a historical account of Jesus' life, Mark was considered inferior to the other gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. Matthew and Luke included much of Mark but contained a great deal of new material as well. Mark was also not the direct work of an apostle (though Peter's authority was believed to lay behind it). Because of these reasons, Mark was regularly neglected at the expense of the other three gospels, though its historical purpose was not doubted.

It was not until the establishment of Markan priority in the 19th century that Mark was given its due as a gospel of great importance. Because Mark was considered the earliest gospel and the primary source for both Matthew and Luke, it quickly became accepted as the most historically accurate of the three. Most interpreters affirmed that Mark wrote primarily to preserve the historical traditions about Jesus for the church. They saw Mark as a historically reliable source, with many using it to reconstruct the life of Jesus.3

This historical understanding of Mark's purpose held sway until the publication of William Wrede's, The Messianic Secret* Wrede noted numerous elements within Mark's gospel that seemed to argue against a historical

1 Here the accuracy of the claims regarding authorship, relationship to Peter, the date, and the location of the gospel will not be addressed. Discussion of these issues will follow in the next chapter, which addresses Mark's provenance and date of composition.

2 Testimonies bearing similar sentiments include the testimony of Irenaeus in Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, the so-called "anti-Marcionite" Prologue, and Clement of Alexandria (cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.6). The assumption made in most of these testimonies is that Mark recorded the eyewitness testimony of the great Apostle Peter, which would be considered historically accurate.

3 Bernard Weiss, Das Leben Jesu (2 vols; 4 t h ed.; Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1902); Christian Gottlob Wilke, Der Vrevangelist, oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung uber das Ver-wandtschaftsverhdltniss derdrei ersten Evangelien (Dresden: G. Fleischer, 1838); Christian Hermann Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols; Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1938); Heinrich Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863); Albrecht Ritschl, "Uber den gegenwartigen Stand der Kritik der synoptischen Evangelien" in Gesammelte Aufsdtze (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1893), 1-51; Ernest Renan, Life of Jesus (trans, of 23 r d French ed.; Boston: Little, Brown, 1924) 19-20.

4 William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis des Markusevangeliums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901); E. T. The Messianic Secret (trans. J. C. G. Greig; Cambridge: James Clark & Co., 1971).

Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel 1

purpose, and rather for a theological one. Though Wrede's proposal met with great resistance at the time, it had a lasting impact on Markan scholarship and on the question of Mark's purpose. For the most part, scholars eventually abandoned the traditional position that Mark was written for a historical purpose. However, over the last fifty years, the historical purpose of Mark has maintained a small number of supporters. Vincent Taylor's classic commentary supports a historical purpose for Mark, as does the work of a handful of other interpreters.5

1.2.2 Evaluation of a Historical Purpose By arguing that Mark was written for a historical purpose, those interpreters were saying that Mark intends to present Jesus' life as it actually was.6 Writing with a historical purpose assumes that the author is interested in presenting causality between events, how event "A" led to event "B." It also assumes that the details of an event are consistent with reality and not contradictory or inconsistent. However, the realities we find in Mark are not consistent with these historical aims.

As noted above, William Wrede was one of the first interpreters to challenge the historical purpose of Mark. Wrede's primary charge is that the gospel is full of details that are inconsistent with its own narrative reality, making historical claims implausible.7 He notes a number of incidents where Jesus commands silence in order to keep an event secret. However, often the secrecy of the event is impossible to keep, making the command for silence inconsistent with reality. A perfect example of this is the healing of Jairus'

5 Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: MacMillan & Co., 1952), 131-132; Dom Bernard Orchard, "Mark and the Fusion of Traditions" in The Four Gospels FS F. Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck, et al; BETL 100B; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:779-800; Martin Hengel, "Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums" in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (ed. H. Cancik; WUNT 33; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984), 1-45; idem, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), esp. 1-30; idem, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (trans. John Bowden; Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000), 78-96. Hengel argues strongly that the authority of Peter lies behind the text and that the text reflects authentic historical tradition. However, Hengel sees the text as a combination of historical narration and proclamation, a proclamation which reflects a distance between the writer's own time and the historical event. Hengel claims that Mark is not simply a historical report, but that it is colored by other agendas. It seems, however, that he views Mark's purpose for writing primarily as passing on historical tradition, colored as it may be.

6 Questioning the historical purpose of Mark is not the same as questioning the historicity of events recorded in Mark. These are two separate issues. Mark could write with a theological purpose and still use historical traditions to achieve this purpose.

7 Wrede, Messianic Secret, 48-53.

8 Chapter 1

daughter (5:21—43).8 Jesus is brought to the home of Jairus for the purpose of healing his daughter who is close to death. On the way, news comes that she is already dead. Jesus goes to the girl anyway and, after forcing everyone but Peter, James, John and the girl's parents outside of the room, he brings the girl back to life. Jesus then strictly forbids those present to speak of what has happened. However, such a secret cannot be kept. Certainly the crowd will be aware of Jesus' miracle as soon as the girl, who was presumed to be dead, steps out of the room. Why then would Jesus command silence, when secrecy is impossible? The impractical nature of this command for silence undermines the conclusion that it is a historical recollection. Wrede argues that the command is part of a theological motif and that Mark is writing with a theological purpose.9

Wrede notes that Mark's presentation of the disciples is also historically implausible.10 Again and again the disciples are portrayed as lacking understanding concerning both Jesus' identity and his mission, even though Jesus claims that they have been given "the secrets of the kingdom" (4:11). Despite witnessing Jesus' many mighty deeds, the disciples remain confused and baffled when Jesus again performs a mighty act (6:50-52). Wrede argues that this presentation of the disciples can hardly be understood as historical and is better understood as revealing a theological motif concerning human blindness to Jesus' identity.

Even more telling than Wrede's observations is the way in which the Markan episodes are linked together. The links and seams that connect Markan episodes reflect very little interest in chronology or causality.11 Mark's peri-copes easily stand on their own and are only linked together by generic seams, e.g., "As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee" (1:16), "When he returned to Capernaum after some days" (2:1), "Jesus went out beside the sea" (2:13), "Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea" (3:7), "Again he began to teach beside the sea" (4:1), "In those days when there was a great crowd" (8:1).12

Rather than grouping material in a causal manner, Mark groups his material topically or thematically. There are groupings of miracle stories (1:21 - 2:12; 4:35 - 5:43; 6:31-52; 7:24 - 8:10), parables (4:1-31), sayings (3:22-30; 8:34 - 9:1; 9:33-50; 10:2-45), conflict stories (2:1 - 3:6; 7:1-23; 11:27 - 12:40), and apocalyptic material (13). Mark's apparent lack of interest in causality is a strong indicator that he does not write with history as his primary purpose.

8 Wrede, Messianic Secret, 50-51. 9 Wrede, Messianic Secret, 67-81; For other similar examples, see Mark 3:7-12; 7:31-37;

8:22-26. 1 0 Wrede, Messianic Secret, 101-114. 11 The one exception to this observation is the Markan passion narrative in which causal

ity seems to become more important to the evangelist. 1 2 See K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: Trowitzsch und Sohn,

1919).


Another important consideration is that Mark is not writing as an impassive or impersonal historian who has little concern for his subject matter beyond the basic facts. Rather, Mark is a first-century Christian with a theological perspective concerning both the person and the work of Jesus. He is also the member of a Christian community that likely is experiencing a wide variety of growing pains as a result of the social and political realties around them. Most interpreters recognize that all these factors influenced Mark's gospel to some degree. Therefore, even though Mark likely records some history (the degree to which is certainly debated), it is a history that has been colored by factors of a non-historical nature. Mark's purpose for writing is therefore best located in these non-historical factors.

The days of understanding Mark's purpose as primarily historical have long past. Wrede's work forever weaned Markan interpreters from the traditional consensus that Mark wrote with a historical purpose. In order to find a new explanation for the writing of the second gospel, we will investigate the many different purposes interpreters have since suggested.

1.3 Theological Purpose

Since Wrede, most interpreters have suggested Mark's purpose is theological. But while many agree that Mark wrote with a theological purpose, few agree as to what that purpose was specifically. Here we will examine significant theological proposals under two different categories: Christological and Eschatological.

1.3.1 Christology Christology has long been recognized as a major theme of Mark. Many interpreters have argued that Mark's primary purpose for writing is to establish a particular Christology. Here we will examine two significant themes through which interpreters have attempted to ascertain Mark's christological purposes: the messianic secret and corrective Christology. We will also determine whether Christology is the key to understanding Mark's purpose.

The Messianic Secret In his landmark book The Messianic Secret, Wrede argued that Mark's theological purpose centered on Christology. Wrede focused on what he believed to be a unified (and unifying) motif in Mark: secrecy concerning Jesus' identity. He perceived that throughout the gospel, Jesus repeatedly seeks to conceal his identity. He commands the demons, which seem to have special insight into his identity, not to reveal who he is (1:21-28, 32-34; 3:7-12). He commands the disciples not to tell others of his identity both after Peter's confession (8:27-30) and after his transfiguration (9:2-8). Those he heals are

10 Chapter I

frequently commanded not to spread the news (1:40-45; 5:35-43; 7:31-37; 8:22-26). Jesus' disciples are frequently blinded to Jesus' identity, failing to perceive the significance of who he is and what he will do (4:10-20, 35-41; 6:45-52; 8:14-21, 31-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-34). Wrede claimed that all these elements in Mark's gospel are part of a unified motif and that this motif required a unified explanation.13 As noted above, Wrede argued that a historical explanation could not account for the whole of this motif. Therefore, a theological motif was needed. Wrede also concluded that Jesus was never actually recognized by the early church as the Messiah until after his resurrection. Over time, however, the church began to believe that Jesus was the Messiah during his earthly life. A conflict resulted between the earliest Jesus tradition and church, with the latter recognizing Jesus as Messiah and the former failing to do so. Wrede then claims that Mark's messianic secret motif was created in order to explain why Jesus was never recognized as the Messiah during his earthly life.14 Mark seeks to show that Jesus was recognized as Messiah, but this identity was purposefully concealed until after his resurrection.15

Many interpreters have rejected Wrede's overall conclusion concerning the purpose of the messianic secret motif, namely that it was written back into the tradition in order to cover up a non-messianic Jesus.16 Perhaps the most damaging evidence against Wrede's position is the existence of messianic declarations within the pre-Markan tradition that are revealed rather than concealed (5:19-20; 10:47-52; 11:9-10). However, even if Wrede's overall conclusion is wrong, his identification of the messianic secret as a theological motif still stands, and it must be addressed.

A number of interpreters have followed Wrede in seeing the messianic

1 3 In the end Wrede concludes that the disciples' failure to understand Jesus is only indirectly related to the messianic secrecy motif. See Messianic Secret, 231-36.

1 4 Wrede argued that the motif of secrecy was already embedded in much of the tradition which Mark received; therefore, Mark is not primarily responsible for its creation (145-49). Later Bultmann affirmed Wrede's theory but amended it slightly by claiming that a Markan redactor was responsible for the secrecy motif. See Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; rev. ed.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972), 338-51.

1 5 For Wrede's explanation for the creation of the Markan secrecy motif, see Messianic Secre/, 211-30.

1 6 For a critique of Wrede's conclusion regarding a non-Messianic Jesus see Albert Sch-weizter, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (trans. James M. Robinson; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), 45, 342-49; William Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), esp. 69-76; T. W. Manson, "Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-Day Research" in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: In Honour of C H Dodd (ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 211-21; Vincent Taylor, "W. Wrede's Messianic Secret in the Gospels," ExpTim 65 (1953-1954): 248-50; James D. G. Dunn, "The Messianic Secret in Mark" in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 116-31.


secret as the key to unlocking Mark's christological/theological purpose.17

However, the value of the messianic secret for determining Mark's purpose is suspect. One of Wrede's (and others') primary reasons for seeing the secrecy motif as a crucial window into Mark's overall purpose was the belief that it was a unified theme that ran through the whole of Mark. Heikki Raisanen, among others, has challenged this basic assumption, claiming that instead of a unified theme of secrecy, Mark contains a number of different and unrelated secrecy themes.18 He notes that the commands Jesus gives to demons and to the disciples are different in nature from the commands he gave to those who have been healed. The former commands are always kept while the latter are often broken. The parable theory is also a part of a distinct and separate motif, as is the motif of the disciples' failure to understand Jesus (a point Wrede himself acknowledged.) What we find in Mark is a "miracle secret" and a "messianic secret."19 By breaking up the messianic secret into smaller motifs, the theme of secrecy loses some of its importance for understanding Mark's overall purpose. No longer is the interpreter forced to come up with a single theory to account for all of the different aspects of the Wrede's messianic secret. James Dunn argues that some of the elements of the so called "messianic secret" may actually find their origin in the historical Jesus, while others may be theologically driven.20 It is important to consider each manifestation of secrecy on its own, and not prematurely force them all into one theological construct. It is true that some elements of Mark's secrecy motif have a theological function, and any theory regarding Mark's purpose must

1 7 Martin Dibelius saw the secrecy motif as an apologetic device to explain why Jesus ministry failed among the Jewish people. See Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans. Bertram Lee Woolf; London: James Clark & Co., 1971), 230-31; cf. T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark's Gospel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963). Hans Jurgen Ebeling saw the secrecy motif simply as a foil that highlighted Mark's greater purpose, namely to reveal Jesus' glory. See Ebeling, Das Mes-siasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten (Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1939), esp. 167-70. George Strecker sees the secrecy motif as Mark historicizing kerygma. Mark and his community saw the resurrection as a dividing point between revelation and secrecy. Mark's story reflects this kerygmatic understanding. See Strecker, "The Theory of the Messianic Secret in Mark's Gospel" in The Messianic Secret (ed. C. M. Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 49-64.

1 8 Heikki Raisanen, The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark (trans. Christopher Tuckett; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), 242-43; Ulrich Luz, "The Secrecy Motif and Marcan Christology" in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 75-96.

1 9 See Raisanen, 242-45. Jack D. Kingsbury notes that what Raisanen dubs the "messianic secret" is better understood as the "Son of God secret." For Kingsbury, the secret centers upon Jesus' identity as Son of God specifically, an identity which cannot be comprehended fully apart from the cross. The secrecy motif helps advance this position. See Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).

2 0 Dunn, "The Messianic Secret," 122-26.

12 Chapter 1

find some way to account for these elements. But now this motif can be seen as secondary to Mark's gospel.

Corrective Christology During the 1960s and 1970s, a new way of understanding Mark's purpose became en vogue. This new understanding, like Wrede's "messianic secret," also centered on Christology. Many interpreters argued that the gospel grew out of a christological conflict within the church. Mark's gospel was said to represent one side of this conflict and it tried either to keep in check or to correct what it considered to be the dangerous or false Christology of an opposing faction. The false Christology was generally recognized as one which affirmed Jesus as a Gefog avrjp or "divine man" - a title that many proponents of a Markan "corrective Christology" closely related to the title, "Son of God." On the other hand, Mark's Christology is a Christology of the cross and is closely related to the title "Son of Man." Here we will quickly survey the development of this perspective and offer one specific example.

The trajectories of this position can be traced back to Wrede's and Bult-mann's understandings of Mark's Christology. Wrede argues that at Jesus' baptism, he was no longer a simple human, but rather became a supernatural being.21 Though Wrede never uses the term Gefog avrjp, his understanding is virtually the same as that of Bultmann who places the Markan Jesus in the category of Gefog avtip. 2 2 Bultmann's understanding of the Geiog avr(p concept is based on the work of Ludwig Bieler.23

According to Bieler, the Hellenistic concept of a Gefog avr^p was that of the divine residing in the human.2 4 A Befog avr^p is characterized by astonishing powers and abilities, such as great wisdom or the power to perform mighty acts.2 5 The title Mark used to express this Befog avr^p Christology is "Son of God."26 It is important to note that both Wrede and Bultmann understood this concept of Gefog avr^p to express accurately Mark's Christology.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Christology that Wrede and Bultmann saw Mark affirming, many interpreters now saw as a Christology that Mark was correcting or trying to keep in check.27 Their basic position was that Mark

2 1 Wrede, Messianic Secret, 72-79. 2 2 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; New York:

Scribner's, 1951), 131-32. 2 3 Ludwig Bieler, Theios Aner: Das Bild des "Gottlichen Menschen" in Spatantike und

Fruhchristentum (vol. 1; Vienna: Hofels, 1935). 2 4 Bieler, 129, 141. 2 5 Bieler, 73-97. 2 6 Bultmann, Theology, 131-32. 2 7 Both Dieter Georgi, (The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians [Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1986]) and Siegfried Schulz (Die Stunde der Botschaft [Hamburg: Furche, 1967], 54-59, 64-79) are examples of scholars who affirmed Mark's Christology as being


had received in his tradition a 0eiog avr^p Christology; however, he himself believed in a Christology of the cross.2 8 Interpreters saw Mark adding his own correcting perspective of a "cross Christology" to this received tradition. They suggest that Mark did this for one of two reasons: either to overturn this errant position by replacing it with the cross,2 9 or to balance what he saw as an extreme/dangerous position by mitigating it with the cross.3 0 While numerous interpreters have their own unique perspectives on these two positions, each sees Mark's primary purposes in terms of correcting a dangerous or faulty Christology - generally a Christology of power and glory.31

Perhaps the most radical of these interpreters is Theodore J. Weeden who has taken this notion of "corrective Christology" and developed it into a comprehensive thesis for understanding the theology of and the purpose of Mark's gospel. Weeden begins with two basic starting points, which he believes are already in the text. The first is a polemic against the disciples. The disciples constantly fail to understand Jesus' true identity and his need to undergo suffering and death. The second is the existence of two competing Christolo-gies: a 0eiog avr^p Christology and a "cross Christology." Weeden brings these two points together by attributing the 0eiog avr^p Christology to the twelve disciples. Mark on the other hand, is championing the Christology of the cross against the disciples and the group that the disciples represent.

that of a "divine man ," though Schulz also affirmed that Jesus, even as a "divine man," must also encounter the cross.

2 8 A "Christology of the cross" or a "cross Christology" simply refer to a presentation of Jesus that understands his messianic identity primarily in terms of his suffering and death.

2 9 Johannes Schreiber, "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums," ZTK 58 (1961): 154-83; Norman Perrin, "The Creative Use of Son of Man Traditions by Mark" and "The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology" in A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 84-93 and 104-21; Ludger Schenke, Die Wundererzdhlungen des Markusevangeliums (SBB; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974) esp. 393-95; Theodore J. Weeden, Mark-Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); Weeden, "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel," ZNTW 59 (1968): 145-58; See the thorough discussion of Weeden that follows below.

3 0 Representative of this position include Leander Keck, "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology," JBL 84 (1965): 341-58, esp. 349-51,354,357-58; H. D. Betz, "Jesus as Divine Man" in Jesus and the Historian: In Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell (ed. F. T. Trotter; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), 114-33, esp. 121-25; Paul Achtemeier, Mark (PC; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), esp. 41-47; Achtemeier, "Gospel Miracle Tradition and the Divine Man," Int 26 (1972): 174-97; Achtemeier, "Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae," JBL 91 (1972): 198-221, esp. 198, 220-21; Ralph Martin, Mark-Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1972), esp. 153-62; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (tran. D. H. Madvig; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1970), esp. 380-86; R. H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1966), 108ff; Carl R. Kazmierski, Jesus, the Son of God: A Study of the Markan Tradition and Its Redaction by the Evangelist (FB 33; Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979).

3 1 A "Christology of power and/or glory" simply refers to a presentation of Jesus that understands him as the Messiah primarily in terms of power and glory.

14 Chapter 1

Weeden then offers a historical setting that explains how this heresy to which Mark is responding grew.

According to Weeden, the Markan community was eagerly awaiting the coming Parousia. However, the delay of the Parousia in some ways had broken their spirits. While Mark's community was in this vulnerable state, a group of false teachers infiltrated it, proclaiming to be representatives of Christ and promulgating a 0eiog avr^p Christology. They corroborate this message with miracles and mighty deeds, and claim that their message goes back to the disciples themselves. According to Weeden, these individuals claim that "authentic Christian existence finds meaning and fulfillment, not in the humiliation of suffering servanthood, but in the pneumatic glory of 0eiog avr^p existence."32

After seeing many of the community members won over by this charismatic message, Mark prepares his gospel as a response. He presents Jesus as a suffering messiah who is only correctly understood in such light. He also presents the way of suffering and servanthood as the true way of a disciple. The Markan disciples (representative of Mark's opponents) clearly misunderstand both of these truths (see the numerous examples of the disciples' failures above) and are presented as failures. Through his gospel, Mark denounces the validity of both the heretical teachers in his community and their heretical message, while at the same time he raises up his own christological perspective as superior.

In critiquing the "corrective christological" purpose of Mark, we will begin by making a few observations specific to Weeden's theory, following them with some general observations regarding "corrective Christology" as a whole. Our starting point will be Weeden's claim that Mark contains a harsh polemic against the twelve disciples. His observation that the disciples' failure is a significant motif in Mark is accurate (as noted by Wrede and many other interpreters).33 But does this motif of failure equal such a radical polemic? Though the disciples fail in many ways throughout Mark, the gospel does not present them in an exclusively negative light. For example, they are willing to leave all they have and follow after Jesus (1:16-20; 2:13-14). Seemingly this fact establishes them as exemplars of Mark's theme of costly discipleship rather than antitheses to it. Jesus even affirms that the disciples' sacrifice will be rewarded (10:28-31). He entrusts them with the mission of proclaiming the gospel and of casting out demons (3:13-15; 6:6-13). The text even implies that they were successful in these tasks. It is also likely that in the Markan narrative, Jesus' comments about his true mother and brothers (3:31-35) have the disciples in mind. All these positive presentations of the disciples stand as strong evidence that Mark's motif of failing disciples is not a harsh polemic

Weeden, "Heresy," 155. See discussion of the "messianic secret" and William Wrede on pages 9-12.


against heretical teachers. The disciples may in fact represent community members who have failed or who are failing in their understanding of both Christology and discipleship, but it seems misguided to understand them as enemies of the evangelist.

With the dismantling of the polemic against the disciples, Weeden's reconstruction of Mark's Sitz im Leben also fails. But even if one accepts Weeden's conclusion regarding the failure motif, Weeden's reconstruction is shaky at best. The biggest problem for this reconstruction is that no historical evidence exists to support it, leaving it as pure conjecture. Dieter Georgi has convinced some that Paul was facing such proponents of a 0£iog avr^p Christology when he wrote 2 Corinthians.34 However, even if Georgi is right (which is debatable), these were opponents Paul faced in the 50s C . E . 3 5 Mark was written fifteen to twenty years later (with Weeden placing it thirty years later), and we have no evidence that such a group existed at that time. The size, nature, and exact identity of these Corinthian opponents are completely unknown. To translate this group of opponents into Mark's community is adding speculation on top of conjecture. In light of this, Weeden's reconstruction is nothing more than a shot in the dark with virtually no evidence to support it. While his theory has convinced few, it still remains a definitive statement in the history of Markan interpretation.

What then might be said in critique of the view that Mark was written as a "corrective Christology?" Certainly many proponents of the theory are not as radical as Weeden. Any critique, however, should begin with an evaluation of the concept of the Seiog avrjp. More recent studies have made a great deal of progress in showing that this entire concept lacks definition in the ancient world, causing many interpreters to doubt its value for understanding Mark's Christology. Wulfing von Martitz has demonstrated that the term was relatively rare in ancient Greek.3 6 He also notes that it was never a "technical term" or "fixed expression" in the pre-Christian world.37 Also noteworthy is Carl Holladay's study of Geiog avnp. 3 8 He analyzes primarily Jewish-Hel-

3 4 Georgi, Opponents of Paul. 3 5 For critiques of Georgi, see the following works: Jerry Sumney, "The Role of Histori

cal Constructions of Early Christianity in Identifying Paul's Opponents," PRSt 16 (1989): 45-53; Thomas Tobin, "The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians," CBQ 50 (1988): 317-19; C. J. A. Hickling, "Is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians a Source for Early Church History?" ZNW 66 (1975): 284-87; C. K. Barrett, "Paul's Opponents in II Corinthians," NTS 17 (1971): 233-54.

3 6 Wulfing von Martitz, "uiog" TDNT8(\912): 338-40. 3 7 Martitz, "utog," 339. 3 8 Carl Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Cat

egory in New Testament Christology (SBLDS 40; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); also see Otto Betz, "The Concept of the So-Called 'Divine-Man' in Mark's Christology" in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen Wikgren (ed. D. E. Aune; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 229-40.

16 Chapter 1

lenistic literature and draws conclusions similar to those of von Martitz. The term again seems to have no real fixed meaning. It could mean an "inspired man," an "extraordinary man," or a "man related to God."39 The lack of a definite meaning for 0eiog avrjp in both the Hellenistic and Jewish-Hellenistic world must cause us to be cautious in affirming it as a crucial element either in the pre-Markan tradition or in some ambiguous heretical teaching. It is also important to note that the connection between 0eiog avrjp and the concept of or title "Son of God" is highly uncertain, undermining the common bridge interpreters use for getting from 0eiog avrjp to the Gospel of Mark.4 0

Simply undermining the concept of 0eiog avrjp does not undermine the possibility of seeing two competing Christologies in Mark. What has been identified as 0eiog avr^p Christology could simply be referred to as a Christology of glory or power in Mark. The removal of the 0eiog avrjp concept does not eliminate the possibility of competing Christologies. But does Mark present two competing Christologies: a Christology of the cross against a Christology of power or of Son of Man against Son of God? The problem with such theories is that Mark seems to strongly affirm a Christology of power and Jesus' identity as Son of God. In fact, the entire first half of Mark's gospel presents a dominant Christology of glory and power. Jesus receives the Spirit of God, heals the sick, forgives sin, casts out demons, raises the dead, proclaims the "good news" with authority, both calms the sea and walks on it, and twice multiplies bread and fish. Never are these deeds belittled or considered insignificant. Rather, even when there is an attempt to conceal them through secrecy, they cannot be concealed! There is virtually no "cross Christology" that combats or mitigates this Christology of power (mentioning John's arrest [1:14], the blasphemy charges [2:6-7], and the departing bridegroom [2:19-20] hardly turn the christological tide).

It also cannot be contested that the Christology of glory ends after Peter's confession. The confession is followed by the transfiguration, the healing of the boy with an evil spirit, the authoritative teachings, the healing of blind Bartimaeus, the triumphal entry, the cursing and withering of the fig tree, the judgment of the temple, the outwitting of the religious leaders, and the prediction of both the end of the world and the temple. All of these examples bear more witness to a Christology of power than to a Christology of the cross.

And what about the elements of a "cross Christology"? Certainly in the second half of Mark's gospel there appear references to Jesus' impending suffering and death, i.e., the passion predictions (8:31; 9:30-31; 10:32-34); talk of suffering discipleship (8:34-38); the parable of the wicked tenants (12:1-12); Jesus' ominous response to James and John (10:35-45); and, of course, the passion narrative itself (Mark 14-15). But do these comparatively few

3 9 Holladay, "Theios Aner," 237. 4 0 In particular, see Norman Perrin's attempt to make this connection in "Christology of

Mark," 104-21.


elements serve to correct the "Christology of power and glory"? They do not seem to have the power to make such a thematic shift in the narrative, nor is there any direct evidence in the text that Mark intends for them to effect such a shift. In fact, Robert Gundry has argued fhat Mark overwhelmingly presents a Christology of glory rather than a Christology of the cross.41 Gundry argues that even Jesus' prediction of his death and resurrection serve a Christology of power because in the Greco-Roman world, the ability to predict one's own death (or anything for that matter) was recognized as an extraordinary feat.42

The slight evidence often used to argue that Mark is correcting a Christology of power hardly seems to be enough to turn the tide towards an exclusive Christology of the cross. Yes, Jesus rebukes Peter for not accepting the impending cross, but is this really Mark's attempt to undermine the Christology of power that runs through his gospel? Might it simply be another example of the disciples' failure or possibly even a historical recollection? How specifically do the passion predictions undermine the Christology of power? If Mark is attempting to correct a misguided Christology of power, it seems he does quite a poor job of it. The casual reader (or hearer) would likely miss it all together.

It also seems unlikely that Mark is pitting "Son of Man" against "Son of God." The concept or title of "Son of God" finds itself in three crucial places in Mark's gospel, the beginning (1:1, 11), the middle (9:7), and end (14:61-62; 15:39). In two of these occurrences, it is God who proclaims Jesus to be his son! This evidence indicates that "Son of God" is a title that is significant to Mark's Christology, rather than one that he is attempting to replace with "Son of Man."

There seem to be significant reasons for rejecting the traditional expression of a "corrective christological" purpose of Mark's gospel. For the most part, interpreters have abandoned such a position and instead are working to see Mark's Christology as a unity. Many valuable works have been written on the nature of Markan Christology, and it may be fair to say that the majority of interpreters see Christology as Mark's central and overarching theme. However, many of these interpreters fail to do one thing that the proposals of a "corrective Christology" accomplished - namely, they fail to present us with a reason why Mark has given us this Christology. What was Mark's motivation or impetus for presenting this particular Christological perspective? If Mark's purpose is christological, then it seems likely that it was intended to convince the reader or listener of its position. This would then imply that at least some

4 1 Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), esp. 1-26.

4 2 Gundry, Apology, 425-40. For further discussion on Mark's positive presentation of rniracles, see Edwin K. Broadhead, Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 74; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). In our third chapter, we will offer an expanded discussion Mark's christological perspective.

18 Chapter 1

of Mark's audience is of a different opinion (or possibly of no opinion). In this sense, it seems that if Mark's purpose is christological (which we have not yet established), then it is essentially a "corrective Christology" because it desires to change or sway the christological position of its audience. Such a "corrective" element does appear in the text. Jesus warns his disciples, saying "many will come in my name saying 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray" (13:6). These are "false Christs and false prophets" who will produce "signs and omens" and "lead away, if possible, the elect" (13:21-22). These words likely reflect a situation that the Markan community currently faces.43

That Mark's disciples consistently fail in their understanding of Jesus' identity may also reflect the lack of appropriate christological understanding in Mark's community - an understanding the evangelist intends to correct.

Therefore, though we have closed the door on the traditional position of "corrective Christology," i.e., that two competing Christologies exist within Mark's own gospel, the door still remains open for us to offer new theories regarding the corrective nature of Mark's Christology. These theories would have to look outside of Mark for possible Christological positions to which he might be responding. This conclusion, however, is dependent on a demonstration that Mark's purpose is in fact christological.

Christological Purpose With the waning of the view that Mark's Christology is corrective, a great deal of new studies has been done concerning Markan Christology. Some have highlighted elements of Mark that portray Jesus as the royal or kingly messianic figure, an understanding shaped by Davidic ideology of the Old Testament and Second Temple literature.44 Priestly dimensions of Mark's Christology have also been examined.45 Perhaps the most popular view is that Mark understands Jesus as Messiah (even a Davidic one) but Messiah specifically in terms of "Son of God."46 As noted above, this designation

4 3 For a similar conclusion, see Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 78-79.

4 4 For examples, see: J. D. Kingsbury, Christology; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); F. J. Matera, The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark (SBLDS 66; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1982); Hans-Jorg Steichele, Der leidende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher Motive in der Christologie des Markusevangeliums (Biblische Untersuchungen 14; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1980); see also Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: WJK, 1992), who sees both continuity and discontinuity between Mark's understanding of messianic kingship and that found in the Second Temple period.

4 5 Edwin K. Broadhead, "Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark," JSNTA1 (1992): 21-34.

4 6 J. D. Kingsbury, Christology; Steichele, Der leidende Sohn Gottes; Robert Rowe, God's Kingdom and God's Son (Leiden: Brill, 2002); W. R. Telford, The Theology of the


occurs at pivotal points throughout Mark's text. Regardless of their particular understanding of Markan Christology (not all of which are mutually exclusive), many of these interpreters would agree that promoting Christology is the primary purpose that is driving the evangelist. Much evidence supports this claim. The gospel begins with a definitive statement concerning Jesus' identity, one that many understand to be programmatic: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1).47 Mark closes his prologue (1:1-13) with a divine affirmation of Jesus' identity: "You are my son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased."48 Throughout the Markan narrative, the question of Jesus' identity continually arises (1:27-28; 2:7; 4:35; 6:2-3). There are two references to ongoing debates about Jesus' identity among the people (6:14-16; 8:27-30). In the middle of the narrative - what many have assessed to be the watershed moment in Mark - Jesus asks his disciples who people say that he is, to which Peter answers that Jesus is the Messiah (8:27-30). Throughout the narrative, Jesus' identity is revealed either by God (9:7) or by demons (1:24-26; 1:34; 3:11-12; 5:7), but repeatedly Jesus himself tries to conceal it (with the exception of 5:7, which occurs in isolation from people). Even after Peter's confession, Jesus commands his disciples not to tell anyone. That Mark has created this motif of secrecy around Jesus' identity is an indicator that Jesus' identity is of central importance to the evangelist (though as we have noted, the secrecy motif is not itself the primary purpose of the gospel, but rather is ancillary). Even at Jesus' trial, the question of his identity arises when the high priest asks him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" (14:61). At Jesus' death, the answer to the question of Jesus' identity is provided by the least likely of characters, when a Roman centurion proclaims, "Truly this man was Son of God!" (15:39). This evidence clearly suggests Christology as a theme of great importance to Mark's gospel and possibly a theme that is central to Mark's overall purpose. 4 9

1.3.2 Eschatology While Christology seems to be a dominant theme in Mark, some interpreters have posited that Mark's overall purpose was actually driven by eschatology.

Gospel of Mark (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); C. A. Evans, Mark 8:27 - 16:20 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), lxxix-lxxx; Larry Hurtado, Mark (NIBCNT 2; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 10-11.

4 7 Textual issues surrounding "Son of God" will be addressed thoroughly in later chapters. However, for our purposes, even if "Son of God" is not original to the text, the statement remains heavily christological.

4 8 All biblical citations will be taken from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. 4 9 Regarding the centrality of Jesus' identity to Mark's gospel see, Ohajuobodo I. Oko,

''Who then is this?" A Narrative Study of the Role of the Question of the Identity of Jesus in the Plot of Mark's Gospel (BBB 148; Berlin: Philo, 2004).

20 Chapter 1

Here we will examine two such theories: those of Willi Marxsen and Werner Kelber.

Willi Marxsen Marxsen's work is of tremendous importance in the history of Markan interpretation.50 Marxsen was one of the first interpreters to apply the tools of redaction criticism to Mark.51 He rejected the form-critical notion that the evangelist was simply an impartial collector of tradition. Marxsen argued that Mark had a theological purpose and that this could be seen in the unique way he arranged and edited his material. Marxsen's work forever changed Markan interpretation and resurrected the question of a Markan purpose from the graveyard of form criticism.

Based on his analysis of Markan redaction, Marxsen tried to reconstruct the Sitz im Leben within which Mark wrote his gospel. He places great significance on Mark's geography and claims that the Markan juxtaposition of Galilee and Jerusalem was not merely historical but reflected the setting in which Mark wrote.5 2 Mark's favorable presentation of Galilee as the place of success for Jesus' ministry is taken as evidence of a Galilean community of which Mark was a part. Marxsen dates Mark during the tumultuous times of the Jewish revolt, between 67 and 69 C.E. He refers to an oracle, cited by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.5.3.), that called for all Christians to flee the danger of Jerusalem and go to Pella.53 According to Marxsen, Mark's purpose for writing his gospel is similar to that of the oracle itself. The gospel serves as an urgent warning for Jerusalem Christians to flee to Pella (which Marxsen locates in Galilee). Mark 13 serves the purpose of calming apocalyptic excitement brought about by the beginning of the war. Such excitement is not yet warranted because Christians will see the Parousia in Galilee and not in Jerusalem. Marxsen sees verse 16:7 corresponding with this setting, and claims that the angel's words, "he is going ahead of you to Galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you," speaks of the Parousia rather than of the resurrected

5 0 Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (trans. James Boyce, et al; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969).

5 1 A few years prior to Marxsen's work, H. Riesenfeld produced a work with results that were quite similar, though Riesenfeld's work had a far smaller impact on New Testament studies. See Riesenfeld, "Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium" in Neutes-tamentliche Studien fur Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (ed. Walther Eltester; Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1954), 157-64.

5 2 Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 102-10. The significance Marxsen places on Galilee and Judea/Jerusalem is reminiscent of the work of Ernst Lohmeyer (Das Evangelium des Markus [15th ed.; KEK; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959], esp. 29; Galilaa und Jerusalem [FRLANT 52; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936]) and R. H. Lightfoot (Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels [New York: Harper & Bros., 1938]).

5 3 Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 107.


Jesus.5 4 Therefore, Mark is writing to reorient eschatological expectations from centering on Jerusalem to centering on Galilee.

While Marxsen's methodology has found a home in the New Testament guild,55 his conclusions regarding Mark's purpose for writing his gospel have not. In fact, Marxsen's conclusions have found a good deal of criticism. We will take Marxsen's dependence on Eusebius' testimony as a starting point for our critique. Marxsen stakes a great deal on the historical reliability of this testimony, though such reliability has been seriously challenged.56 That the tradition does not appear until the early fourth century and its absence in Josephus' writings certainly raises suspicion. If there was no such exodus of Jerusalem Christians, nor an oracle commanding one, Marxsen's theory is significantly weakened. Marxsen's placement of Pella in Galilee is certainly convenient for his theory, but it also lacks supporting evidence. Such a community in Galilee in the 60s is completely unknown and, therefore, purely speculative.

Marxsen's interpretation of Mark 14:28 and 16:7 as references to the parousia rather than to post-resurrection appearances is also highly suspect, and it has gained little support from fellow interpreters. Mark clearly seems to distinguish between the resurrected Jesus and the Jesus of the Parousia. The resurrection is to take place three days after Jesus' death (8:31; 9:30; 10:34), while the Parousia is to occur sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and is to be accompanied by apocalyptic signs. The absence of resurrection appearances in Mark is not adequate to overturn evidence elsewhere that Mark expected such appearances. As many have argued, it is quite possible that Mark included resurrection appearances but that they have been lost.57 Certainly 14:28 and 16:7 are best understood by the reader as referring to the disciples seeing the resurrected Jesus rather than the apocalyptic "Son of Man" who comes in the clouds (descending from the heavens). It makes much more sense in the narrative for the disciples to wait three days in Galilee for the resurrected Jesus than to have them wait for thirty years for the Parousia.

Perhaps Hans Conzelmann's critique of Marxsen is the most powerful. He notes that it is quite "improbable that anyone who saw the catastrophe [Jerusalem's destruction] on the way would calmly write a book to prompt immediate

5 4 Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 75-94. 5 5 It must be noted that redaction criticism's usefulness as a tool for interpreting Mark

has been rightfully critiqued. For such a critique, see Black, "Quest of the Markan Redactor," 19-39; idem, Markan Redaction in Current Debate.

5 6 S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London: S. P. C. K., 1951), esp. 168-73, 263-64; G. Strecker, "Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktion-sgeschichte des Evangeliums," ZKG 72 (1961): 145; W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 128 n. 2. Defense of the position is offered by S. Sowers, "The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight," TZ 26.5 (1970): 305-20.

5 7 For a persuasive argument for a lost ending to Mark see Gundry, Apology, 1009-12.

22 Chapter I

flight."58 A full gospel of Jesus' life does not seem to be the most apt response to the situation that Marxsen proposes. A similar critique can also be levied. If Mark's Gospel is written with the primary purpose of shifting eschatological orientation, what purpose does the large amount of Mark's content that is unrelated to the eschatology serve? That is, why should Mark include material that focuses on Christology or discipleship? It seems odd to conclude that a theme which is relatively minor in regard to content could trump in importance themes which occupy a major portion of the gospel.59

In conclusion, Marxsen's proposal regarding Mark's purpose for writing proves not to be tenable. It is built on historical speculation and conjecture, depends on faulty exegesis of the Markan text, and fails to give deference to the more significant themes in Mark's gospel.

Werner Kelber Like Marxsen, Kelber situates Mark in the setting of the Jewish revolt. However, unlike Marxsen, Kelber places Mark after the destruction of Jerusalem rather than before it.6 0 He envisions a setting in which, prior to the destruction, the Jerusalem church has high eschatological expectations, because of the claims of false prophets (cf. Marxsen's claim above). However, after the destruction, they are left disillusioned and hopeless when the kingdom of God is not consummated.

According to Kelber, Mark then crafts his gospel in the wake of the eschatological crisis of the Jerusalem church. He creates a polemical document that lifts up Galilean Christianity and denounces Jerusalem Christianity. Central to this polemic is the issue of eschatology. As Weeden saw the Markan purpose as correcting a false Christology, Kelber sees Mark's primary purpose as correcting a false eschatology (cf. Marxsen above). According to Kelber, Mark is arguing that the Parousia was never supposed to take place in Jerusalem but in Galilee (cf. Marxsen above).

Mark accomplishes this polemic by juxtaposing Galilee and Jerusalem (cf. Marxsen, Lohmeyer, and Lightfoot). Mark's Galilee represents Mark's community: a community that affirms the way of the cross, champions suffering discipleship, and advances the Gentile mission. Jerusalem represents the Jerusalem church: a community that is associated with Peter and the rest

5 8 H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1969), 144.

5 9 Later Marxsen attempts to alleviate this problem and argues that Mark writes for the purpose of preserving the preaching of Christ or the kerygma (Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to its Problems [trans. G. Buswell; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968], esp. 134-45). However, this does not replace his earlier position but only serves to supplement it.

6 0 Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).


of the twelve, as well as Jesus' family. This community opposes the Gentile mission and holds fast to their Jewish way of life (by fasting, keeping the Sabbath, adhering to purity laws, etc.).61 Jerusalem is portrayed in a negative light, as are Peter, the twelve and Jesus' family (individuals closely connected to the Jerusalem Church). Galilee, on the other hand, is portrayed in a positive light, as the place where the kingdom of God will be consummated (1:14-15). Kelber sees Mark accomplishing two things through this polemic. First, Mark redefines his own community as one that is both Jewish and Gentile.62 Second, he invites those survivors of the Jerusalem church to join the movement of Jesus in Galilee and await the coming Parousia (and the kingdom that comes with it) there, in a "new time and a new place."63

Kelber's interpretation alleviates some of the problems that plagued Marxsen's. By placing Mark after the destruction of the temple, he removes any need for the exodus to Pella.64 He also removes the urgency of Marxsen's position, making the writing of a "gospel" a more reasonable response to the problem Mark is facing. Kelber also better incorporates various Markan themes into his overall explanation of Mark's purpose. However, it is still odd that what takes up such a small portion of Mark's content - eschatology - could actually function as central to his overall purpose.

While Kelber alleviates some of Marxsen's difficulties, his work maintains many of them and also has a number of its own. Like Marxsen, he assumes a great deal about the Galilean community in the first century, about which we know very little. He also maintains Marxsen's understanding of 14:28 and 16:7 as proclamations that the Parousia is to take place in Galilee. In fact, Kelber adds Mark 1:14-15 as further evidence of Galilee as the place where the kingdom of God is to be established. That these verses intend to proclaim the final establishment of God's kingdom in Galilee rather than the beginning of this kingdom is highly unlikely. These verses more likely express two historical realities: (1) that Jesus began his ministry in Galilee and (2) that Jesus' message was a proclamation of the kingdom of God. There is no indication

6 1 In a later work, which has garnered a great deal of attention, The Oral and Written Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), Kelber adds a new distinctive feature between the Galilean and Jerusalem communities. The Jerusalem community is one of "orality" or one that is dependent on oral tradition. Mark seeks to end this oral tradition by replacing it with a written tradition, his own gospel. For a critique of this unique aspect of Kelber's theory, see John Halverson, "Oral and Written Gospel: A Critique of Werner Kelber," NTS 40 (1994): 180-195; Larry Hurtado, "Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelber's The Oral and Written Gospel," BBR 1 (1997): 91-106; Thomas E. Boomershine, "Peter's Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics," Semeia 39 (1987): 47-68.

6 2 Kelber, New Time and New Place, 131. 6 3 Kelber, New Time and New Place, 132 6 4 In fact, as Kelber notes, it is essential to his position that not all the Jerusalem Church

left in an exodus to Pella (New Time and New Place, 134).

24 Chapter I

in the text that Mark is blending these two realities to make the claim that the kingdom of God will finally be established in Galilee. Kelber gives these verses more meaning than the evidence allows them to hold.

Kelber also makes the same mistake that Weeden made by understanding the motif of the disciples' failure as a polemic against them (or who/what they represent). As we have previously demonstrated, the disciples are not portrayed in a completely negative light, which makes the argument for a vehement polemic against them untenable.

It also must be noted that Mark does not always paint Galilee in a positive light: Jesus is rejected by his own people in Nazareth (6:1-6); scribes in Capernaum accuse him of blasphemy (2:1-12); and Pharisees and Herodians (presumably in Galilee) seek to conspire to "destroy him" as a result of his performance of miracles on the Sabbath (3:1-6). While Jesus does enjoy a great deal of success in Galilee, he encounters trouble as well, trouble which works against the idealization of Galilee.

After reviewing these theories of Marxsen and Kelber, theories which link Mark's overall purpose to eschatology, we find that both are problematic. Though Mark 13 makes us aware that Mark had an eye on eschatology, we conclude that eschatology is not the driving force behind his gospel. Therefore, it fails to satisfy us as a way to understand his overall purpose for writing.

1.4 Pastoral Purpose

Throughout the history of Markan interpretation, many have seen Mark as a pastoral tract that focuses more on correct "praxis" (discipleship) than on correct "belief (theology). Such theories have been expressed in many different ways. Some have suggested that Mark is a catechetical document, in which the catechumen's journey/experience is paralleled with the life of Jesus (though few have found this position convincing).65 Others have seen Mark as a pedagogical document whose purpose is to shape discipleship. It is argued that Mark is not written to provide a history of Jesus, but it is the life of Jesus told in such a way as to address the faults, failings, and struggles of disciples in Mark's community.66 Many of these interpreters see Mark writing in

6 5 G. Schille, "Bemerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums: Rahmen und Aufbau des Markus-Evangelium," NTS 4 (1957-1958): 1-24. Another position that is worth noting is that of M. P. Carrington, who argues that the organization of Mark is based upon the lectionaries read in the Jewish synagogue, which the early church had adopted. See Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Markan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952); idem, "The Calendrical Hypothesis of the Origin of Mark," ExpTim 67 (1956): 100-103.

6 6 K. G. Reploh, Markus, Lehrer der Gemeinde: eine redaktiongeschichtliche Studie zu den Jungerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums (SBM 9; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969); Quentin Quesnell, The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through


response to suffering or persecution which his community has faced, is facing, or soon will face.67 Mark, therefore, constructs a life of Jesus to address proper discipleship in light of these circumstances. He offers a portrait of true discipleship that entails, among other things, being with Jesus, the renunciation of earthly possessions (6:7-9), bold proclamation of the Kingdom message (1:16-20; 6:10-13; 10:17-31), the renunciation of family ties (3:31-35; 10:28-31), and willingness to endure suffering and even death for Jesus and his kingdom (8:31 - 9:1; 10:35-45; 13:9-12). Often Jesus is seen as the exemplar of this discipleship. True discipleship is to follow the way of Jesus, which is the way of the cross. The frequent failure of Mark's disciples has been perceived to advance this purpose. It is seen functioning as an encouragement to failed disciples and/or as a warning against spiritual blindness and future failure.68 For proponents of a pastoral purpose, the evangelist writes in order to offer a paradigm of true discipleship, encouragement to failed or struggling disciples, and warning to any who might take seriously enough the call of discipleship.

the Exegesis of Mark 6,52 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969); J. R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 10; Missoula: SBL, 1973); idem, The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (1983 Pere Marquette Theology Lecture; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983); Robert Meye, Jesus and the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in Mark's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); H. C. Kee, Community of the New Age (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977); E. Best, Disciples and Discipleship (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986); idem, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981); Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 281-287; idem, "Evangelien-schreibung und Gemeindeleitung: Pragmatische Motive bei der Abfassung des Markusevangeliums" in Antikes Judentum undfruhes Christentum FS H. Stegemann (ed. B. Kollman, et al.; BZNW 97; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 389-414; Etienne Trocme, The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark (trans. Pamela Gaughan; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 107-37; M. E. Boring, "The Christology of Mark: Hermeneutical Issues for Systematic Theology," Semeia 30 (1984): 143-44; K. Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhaltnis zwischen Jesus und den Zwolf nach Markus (AnBib 70; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975); R. C. Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role" in The Interpretation of Mark (ed. Mark Telford; IRT 7; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 134-57; William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 12-17; D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark (New York: Seabury Press, 1968), esp. 32-33. Nineham does not see discipleship as Mark's only purpose but rather as one of a handful.

6 7 The location of this community usually varies between one of three options: Rome, Syria, or Galilee. However, for our discussion, the exact location of the persecuted community is unimportant. The question of locating Mark's community might challenge the specific details of some of these theories, but it does not challenge their basic assumption of discipleship as Mark's primary purpose. For interpreters who see persecution as a backdrop to Mark's pastoral purpose, see Donahue, Theology and Setting; Kee, Community of the New Age; Best, Disciples and Discipleship and Following Jesus; Theissen, Gospels in Context; and Lane, According to Mark.

6 8 See Best, Following Jesus, 13-14.

26 Chapter 1

The work of these interpreters has undoubtedly offered us valuable insights into Mark's understanding of discipleship and the importance of this theme within his gospel. However, there are significant reasons to doubt that Mark's primary purpose for writing was to shape discipleship or to offer pastoral instruction. First, it does not seem that the topic of discipleship is able to account for a significant portion of Mark's content. Here we will use Mark's christological program as an example. Those who advance a pastoral purpose for Mark's writing often suggest a connection between Mark's "cross Christology" and the theme of discipleship. Jesus serves as an example of true discipleship, and any true disciple must follow the way of Jesus. In this way, Mark's Christology can be shown to serve the purpose of shaping discipleship. But as we demonstrated earlier, Mark's "cross Christology" is only one component of Mark's christological program. In fact, if we simply look at Markan content, it seems that the "cross Christology" is heavily outweighed by a Christology of power. If a message of radical discipleship is Mark's primary purpose, then how is it able to explain this dominant Christology of power?

Theissen has tried to solve this problem by means of a "miracle as secret" motif.69 According to Theissen, the "miracle as secret" serves to soften a Christology of glory in order to advance a discipleship of suffering. Because Mark's purpose is to communicate a discipleship of suffering and the way of the cross, Mark must in someway soften the powerful deeds of Jesus. Theissen states, "Here Jesus is the successful wonderworker. He puts an end to suffering; he does not lead people into it By means of the secrecy motif, the evangelist probably wants to apply a certain corrective to the popular view (namely Jesus as wonder worker)."70 Here we have something reminiscent of "corrective Christology." However, instead of trying to replace a false Christological perspective with a new one, Mark is balancing an otherwise accurate view of Christology in order to advance his program of discipleship.71 But as noted above, the notion that Mark feels the need to balance, soften, or in some way correct a Christology of glory is misguided. This theory proposes that Mark has kept in his gospel (which is written in order to communicate a discipleship of suffering and the cross) an exorbitant amount of traditions that communicate a Christology of glory (which Theissen admits works against Mark's themes of suffering discipleship). After recognizing this, Mark creates a motif of secrecy concerning miracles which he sprinkles throughout his gospel in order to advance his primary message of discipleship. If this is what Mark has done, he has done so in a haphazard and careless way. The motif of miracle secrecy does not accompany all of Jesus' mighty works. In fact,

Theissen, Gospels in Context, 282-83. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 283. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 283.


instead of a motif of secrecy surrounding Jesus' miracles, at times we find one of revelation. In many miracle pericopes, the attempt at secrecy is violated and revelation is the result! Theissen's theory concerning the "miracle secret" seems inadequate. Moreover, the miracle secret seems to be explained best by the exact opposite of Theissen's proposal. Instead of softening a Christology of glory, the miracle secret serves as a foil to highlight it. Jesus' deeds are so powerful that despite his best attempt to conceal them, he is unable to do so.7 2

If Theissen's theory were correct, it seems that Mark went through an incredibly complicated process to construct a pastoral tract for discipleship, which raises the second critique of a discipleship shaping purpose of Mark's gospel. If Mark felt his community had an inadequate view of discipleship, why did he choose the medium of a "gospel" to correct this view? Such a medium seems like an indirect way to accomplish his goal. Would not a letter, such as we find in the Pauline corpus, or a homily, such as we find in Hebrews, more effectively accomplish this task? By writing a gospel, which on the surface appears primarily to be about Jesus, the author seriously risked that his readers might miss his intended purpose. If Mark felt that this message was crucial for his audience, would he not safeguard it in a medium they would clearly understand?

The third observation relates to the second. On the surface, Mark certainly seems to be about the person and work of Jesus and not directly about discipleship. The book opens with a statement indicating that it is the "beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God" (1:1). In virtually every pericope, Jesus is either the one doing or receiving the action of the story; and, when he is not, he is often commenting on the action being done. The narrative follows his life from the opening of his ministry to his death and resurrection. The simplest explanation for this evidence is that Mark is writing for the purpose of communicating something about Jesus not just about being a disciple of Jesus.

Certainly discipleship is an important theme of Mark's gospel, but it does not seem to be Mark's primary purpose in writing. It fails to account for other dominant motifs in Mark. Also, a "gospel" about the life of Jesus does not seem to be the best medium for someone who is trying to address the issue of true discipleship. The much simpler conclusion is that Mark's purpose has something to do with the person of Jesus. The motif of discipleship is best understood as a secondary theme, albeit, a theme that any theory regarding Mark's purpose must account for.

7 2 Cf. Luz, "The Secrecy Motif" and Ebeling, Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft.

28 Chapter 1

1.5 Evangelistic Purpose: Robert H. Gundry

Up to this point, all the theories we have encountered regarding Mark's purpose have worked under the premise (and not without reason) that Mark wrote for a Christian audience. However, Robert Gundry has challenged this position, arguing that Mark wrote for an entirely pagan audience and had an evangelistic purpose. For Gundry, the gospel of Mark's sole purpose is to present an apology for the cross to a Greco-Roman audience who abhored weakness and praised strength.73 Because of the shame attached to crucifixion, a crucified messiah would be highly unattractive to the Greco-Roman world. Therefore, according to Gundry, Mark presents Jesus as a supremely powerful being through his magnetism, his authoritative teaching, his miraculous deeds, his ability to predict the future, and even his death in which he demonstrates great dignity and strength.74 Mark's hope is that through this presentation of Jesus, he will be able to overcome the barrier of the cross that stands between a Gentile world and the Christian faith.

Gundry's work is distinct from contemporary Markan interpretation in two important areas: his view of Christology and his view of discipleship. He acknowledges that in Mark two seemingly competing christological perspectives exist: one that focuses on glory and one that focuses on the cross. However, contrary to the majority of interpreters, Gundry gives pride of place to the motif of glory, forcing the cross to be explained in light of glory.75 In rejecting a Christian audience for Mark, Gundry basically does away with the motif of discipleship as a Markan purpose. Any perceived teaching on discipleship is not for members of Mark's community, but rather is for non-members. He seeks to make them aware of what lies ahead for those who choose to convert.

Gundry's presentation of Mark's Christology has some validity. As discussed above, a Christology of glory is of major importance for the evangelist. When we analyze the content of Mark, material depicting a Christology of glory greatly outweighs material depicting a Christology of the cross. However, even though a Christology of glory is central to Gundry's overall argument, it does not directly determine whether Mark wrote with an evangelistic purpose. In other words, even if we show that Mark's primary christological program is one to establish the glory of Christ, we have not shown that Mark wrote for a non-Christian audience. A Christology of glory could just as easily serve the church as those outside the church. Therefore, we will leave the question of Christology for now (though it will become important in

7 3 Gundry, Apology, 1, 1019, 1026. 7 4 Gundry, Apology, 5-15. 7 5 In this sense, Gundry is similar to Wrede and Bultmann in their affirmation of a

"divine-man" Christology in Mark, though Gundry does not use the "divine-man" concept specifically.


the following chapters) and focus on the implications Gundry's claim has for the theme of discipleship and instruction for the Christian believer.

Gundry seems to be open to the greatest criticism on the question of discipleship. There are a number of elements related to the theme of discipleship whose presence seems better explained by an intended Christian audience than a non-Christian one. The first of these is the motif of the disciples' failure. For Gundry, this motif only serves as a foil to highlight the greatness of Jesus' person and deeds.76 While the disciples' failure might serve to magnify Jesus' greatness, it also appears designed to say something to the disciples in Mark's own community. As a foil, it can both highlight the greatness of Jesus and warn against the spiritual blindness and failures of the Markan community. Evidence that this motif serves the latter purpose is in the specific nature of some of its elements. Rather than make general statements about their failure to comprehend truth or about their lack of spiritual discernment, Mark specifically critiques the disciples. The specific nature of some of these comments leads us to conclude that they serve a purpose greater than simply being foils for highlighting Jesus' greatness. One such example comes after Jesus calms the sea (4:35-41). Here it is specifically the disciples' lack of faith in the person of Jesus that is critiqued. Another example comes after Jesus has walked on water (6:45-52). The narrator specifically ties the disciples' failure to recognize Jesus' power (and presumably the identity of him who wields it) to their hard-heartedness. To say that these critiques serve only to highlight Jesus' mighty acts but do not at the same time make a demand for a disciples' faith in Jesus, seems to be turning a blind eye to the obvious. That those failing to understand Jesus are his disciples rather than non-believers further leads us to conclude that Mark has the blindness of believers in mind and not that of unbelievers.77 It seems that the motif of failing disciples, at least at some level, serves as a corrective for failing disciples of Mark's community. This conclusion weakens Gundry's position that Mark's purpose was to compose a tract solely for non-believers.

We must also look at Mark's specific teaching on discipleship. In Mark 8:34-38, Jesus initiates rigorous requirements for discipleship, namely to deny oneself and to take up one's cross. A true disciple must be willing to give up his/her life for Jesus' sake. For Gundry, this passage is not intended for those who are already followers of Jesus; i.e., it does not tell current followers how to follow him better, but rather it tells non-followers how to start following him. As evidence for this claim, Gundry notes the presence of the crowds whom, along with the disciples, are also hearing this teaching. But it cannot be ignored that the believing disciples are included in this group and that Jesus' requirements are stated after Peter is rebuked for misunderstanding

7 6 Gundry, Apology, 11, 241, 504, 508. 7 7 See a similar critique by Joel F. Williams, "Is Mark's Gospel an Apology for the

Cross?" BBR 12.1 (2002): 109-110.

30 Chapter 1

Jesus' future suffering and death. Gundry downplays the connection between this teaching on discipleship and the episode of Peter's rebuke because such a link strongly indicates that the teaching is intended for misguided disciples.78

But the narrative clearly makes such a link. Jesus rebukes Peter in front of the disciples and then calls both those disciples and the crowds in order to instruct them on the true nature of discipleship. The theme of suffering and death that runs through these two episodes closely links them together. It seems unnecessarily restrictive to suggest that Mark does not intend this teaching for members of his community, but rather only to prepare potential converts for what lies ahead of them. In addition, such a teaching would be perfectly suited for believers who were experiencing or anticipating persecution.

The chapters that follow these verses, 9 and 10, contain explicit teaching regarding discipleship: the need for prayer in the exorcising of demons (9:28-29), the need for a disciple to be the servant of all (9:33-37), the dangers of sin (9:42-50), teaching on divorce (10:1-12), receiving the kingdom of God as a child (10:13-16), possessions as an obstacle to salvation (10:17-27), and rewards for faithful disciples (10:28-31). For Gundry, it is the authority of these teachings that is important rather than their actual content: "The point is not discipleship and communal life, but explosive force. Jesus teaches with an authority that shatters norms."7 9 But why must Gundry exclude the purpose of discipleship from these passages? Clearly these teachings would have value for the members of Mark's community (as they have had for the church over the last two millennia), and it is odd to think that Mark did not intend for such value to be found. It seems that because Gundry is committed to Mark as a document for unbelievers, he is forced to explain away the obvious, namely, that these teachings on discipleship and proper Christian living are intended for a believing community.80

Another piece of evidence that indicates that Mark is written for believers is the warning regarding false messiahs and false prophets found in Mark 13. These warnings appear to be directed to believers and likely speak to realities that Mark's readers are actually facing at the time of Mark's composition. It is difficult to imagine such warnings being directed toward unbelieving pagans who have not yet accepted Jesus as the Messiah. If they had not yet accepted Jesus as Messiah, what reference point would they have for recognizing false messiahs? In the pluralist Greco-Roman world, would warnings concerning false messiahs even raise an eyebrow? Gundry takes the whole of Mark 13 as evidence for Jesus' predictive power, and it may in fact serve this role. However, he fails to account for how some of the specific details of the discourse (such as the warnings mentioned above) fit with his claim that Mark was written for non-believers.

7 8 Gundry, Apology, 433-34. 7 9 Gundry, Apology, 516. 8 0 Again see William's similar critique, "An Apology for the Cross," 113.


We have demonstrated that there is much evidence to suggest that Mark's intended audience was a believing Christian community. The dominant theme of discipleship is hard to reconcile with the position that Mark wrote only for non-believers. While Gundry may be right in his conclusions regarding Christology (such conclusions will be examined in the following chapters) and the awe that many parts of Mark might inspire among non-believers, he is misguided in his conclusion that Mark was written for an exclusively non-believing audience. Evangelism, therefore, is an inadequate explanation for the purpose of Mark's gospel.81

1.6 Socio-Political Purpose

Up to this point, all the theories we have examined have sought to understand Mark's purpose in light of inter-church realities: the need to preserve the historical traditions of Jesus, the need to overcome false or dangerous theological ideas espoused by false teachers in the church, the need to encourage struggling disciples, and the need to win over others to the faith of the church. We will now examine those theories that see Mark's purpose originating outside the church. These theories share the basic premise that Mark is writing in response to social and/or political realities confronting the church. These theories fall into two categories: (1) those proposing a defensive purpose, that is, a purpose of defending the church from dangerous socio-political realities it might face, and (2) those proposing a subversive purpose, that is, a purpose seeking to subvert dangerous socio-political realities.

1.6.1 Defensive Purpose Here we will examine the works of S. G. F. Brandon and Hendrika Roskam. Both interpreters argue that Mark wrote his gospel in order to protect his community from dangerous socio-political realities.

S. G. F. Brandon In his work The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, Brandon examines how the destruction of Jerusalem affected the church, and he devotes one chapter to Mark's gospel.82 He locates the second gospel in Rome shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. Mark's catalyst for composing a gospel, he argues, is the socio-political realities that the destruction of Jerusalem brought about in Rome. Brandon claims that in the wake of the Jewish war

8 1 For a further critique on the whole of Gundry's commentary, see Williams, "An Apology for the Cross?" 97-122; Joel Marcus, review of Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, JTS 45 (1994): 648-54; Rudolf Pesch, review of Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Bib 76 (1995): 107-15.

8 2 Brandon, Fall of Jerusalem, esp. 185-205.

32 Chapter 1

and the great triumph of Vespasian and Titus, anti-Semitic sentiments would be running high in Rome. Because of their close association with Judaism, Christians would certainly fear the repercussions of such sentiments. That the founder of their movement was sentenced to death for treason against Rome would not help matters. Against this backdrop, Mark has crafted his gospel as an apology that seeks to distance the Christian movement from its Jewish roots and present Jesus in a pro-Roman light. Brandon notes a number of elements in Mark that seem to support such a historical situation. He argues that Jesus' continued confrontation with and condemnation of Jewish officials and religious leaders in Jerusalem is a polemic intended to distance Jesus from those who were responsible for the Jewish revolt (3:21-30; 7:1-23; 11:12-33; 12:1-44; 14:43-65). Also he argues that Mark downplayed any connection between Jesus and nationalistic messianic aspirations of the Jews. As evidence he offers Jesus' question to the scribes, "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the Son of David?" (12:35-37). Mark also seems to elevate Galilee over Judea (see the discussion above on Marxsen and Kelber) - another theme Brandon sees as separating Jesus from the seat of revolution. Brandon portrays the question of paying tribute to Caesar (12:13-17) as an attempt to paint Jesus in a pro-Roman light. In essence, Mark claims that Jesus was never a dissident, but rather supported paying taxes to Caesar. Finally, Brandon argues that Mark's passion narrative rejects the notion that the Romans killed Jesus for sedition and instead places the blame for the death of an innocent man on power hungry Jewish leaders.

Though some of this evidence supports Brandon's theory, some is tentative at best. First, Brandon's claim that Mark separates Jesus from all nationalist/political messianic expectations is inconsistent with Mark 9:46-52, where, when healing Bartimaeus, Jesus seems to accept the title "Son of David." Likewise, during the "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem, Jesus accepts the association with the "kingdom of our ancestor David" (11:1-11). Both of these passages seem to affirm such political messianic expectations.

Brandon's claim that promoting Galilee over Judea serves to distance Jesus from the bed of revolution is implausible, for Galilee was as much a part of the revolution as Jerusalem! In fact, Josephus himself was a general of Jewish forces in Galilee. It is most unlikely that Mark's audience would associate Galilee with peace over against Jerusalem as the seat of rebellion. Certainly those whom Mark is trying to persuade would be aware that the whole of Palestine, and not simply Jerusalem, was involved in rebellion.

Though Jesus' response to the question regarding the payment of taxes could be understood as pro-Roman, some interpreters have argued that it is actually anti-Roman.83 If Mark was writing with the primary objective of

8 3 See Richard Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel (Louisville: WJK, 2001), 36, 43; idem, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 306-17. However, the


presenting Jesus as pro-Roman, would he not make this pericope much less ambiguous? This ambiguous passage, which has interpreters divided, cannot support a conclusion that the pericope was intended as a bastion of pro-Roman sentiment.

Though some of Brandon's evidence supports his proposed historical situation, important pieces of it do not. As will be discussed more below, Brandon's theory also inadequately explains a number of Markan features, further weakening his theory. We will discuss this critique after examining the second theory related to the notion that Mark writes his gospel as a defense.

H N. Roskam Quite recently, Hendrika Roskam presented a theory for the purpose of Mark's gospel similar to Brandon's in her work The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context.™ Like Brandon, Roskam dates Mark's gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem. Unlike Brandon, Roskam places Mark's publication in Galilee rather than Rome. According to her theory, Mark is writing to a community being persecuted or anticipating future persecution. This persecution comes from both Jewish and Roman authorities (13:9). Roskam argues that Jewish authorities often took it upon themselves to punish those they believed might raise the ire of the Roman government. Jewish authorities quickly addressed people who were a threat to public order and at times directly handed them over to Roman authorities. According to Roskam, this reality placed the Christians in Galilee in a dangerous position. The Christian community easily could have been recognized as a subversive and disruptive group. It had likely broken away from the Jewish synagogue, and it followed the teachings of a man the Romans had crucified for sedition. That Mark's community followed a person called "Christ" is a fact that Romans might perceive as carrying dangerous nationalistic connotations. Roskam claims that these facts about the Christian community would have

vast number of interpreters support Brandon's claim that this pericope promotes the payment of taxes to Caesar and, therefore, could be considered pro-Roman. For example, see J. D. M. Derrett, "Render to Caesar . . ." in Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 313-38; F. F. Bruce, "Render to Caesar" in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 249-63; Evans, Mark, 240-248; Gundry, Apology, 694-95; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 464-69; J. R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (vol. 2; SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 343-48; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (vol. 2; EKKNT; Zurich: Neu-kirchener Verlag, 1979), 150ff; D. Luhrmann, Das Markusevangelium (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987). Its ambiguity, however, should keep us from placing significant weight upon this pericope.

8 4 H. N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context (NTS 114; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

34 Chapter 1

been enough to cause the Jewish authorities to suppress this community and possibly hand its members over to the Romans.

Again according to Roskam's theory, it is in response to this dangerous situation that Mark crafts his gospel. She acknowledges that Mark does maintain many of the christological titles from the pre-Markan tradition, i.e., "Son of God," "Son of Man," "Christ/Messiah," and even "Son of David." For Mark, Jesus is also the inaugurator of a new kingdom. However, according to Roskam, Mark works overtime to reject any political connotations connected with these titles and with the concept of kingdom. He diffuses nationalistic expectations by following Peter's confession with comments about his imminent death. After his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus does not establish his kingdom, but predicts the fall of the Jews and their temple. For Roskam, the Markan secrecy motifs also serve the purpose of diffusing the belief that Jesus had any political agenda. Like Brandon, Roskam sees the passion narrative as an effort to demonstrate that Jesus was never actually a Roman traitor, though he was crucified as one. Jewish authorities made these false claims of sedition to cover up their true motives for killing Jesus, namely, their fear that he would undermine their authority.

Roskam's biggest weakness is perhaps her reconstruction of the situation in post-70 Galilee. Very little evidence exists regarding Galilean Christians, and there is absolutely no evidence indicating that they experienced or were in danger of persecution. Likewise, Roskam's claim that Jewish authorities regularly took the initiative to suppress subversive activity is based entirely on questionable evidence. Roskam gives only one example of Jewish authorities in Galilee interceding in order to hold Roman aggression at bay. This example comes from 52 C.E., almost twenty years before Roskam dates Mark. She gives a number of examples from the 60s, yet all of these examples come from Jerusalem during the time leading up to the Jewish revolt. Two examples actually come from the early 70s, the time in which Roskam claims Mark wrote his gospel, but they take place, not in Galilee, but in Alexandria and Cyrene. None of these examples directly supports Roskam's claim that in post-70 Galilee, leading Jews regularly took it upon themselves to suppress subversive groups or activities. Roskam's reconstruction of post-70 Galilee is mere speculation.

Brandon and Roskam's basic proposal (that Mark presents a non-threatening/non-political Jesus in hopes to protect his community from Roman reprisal) is open to a number of critiques. They try to establish this position by claiming that Mark removed from Jesus any implications of sedition or the revolutionary desire to establish an independent Israel. It is certainly true that Mark's Jesus does not have immediate political aspirations, but this does not mean that Mark's picture of Jesus would not threaten the Roman political world. Far from placating Roman authorities, Mark seems to use language and ideas that strike at the heart of Roman politics. For Mark, Jesus is the Christ


and true "Son of God." As Roskam claims, Mark's Jesus is the representative of God's authority on earth! Though this identity may not manifest itself as an immediate threat to Roman safety and sovereignty, it does challenge Roman ideology. For Romans, Caesar was the ultimate authority. Recognition of this fact signified loyalty to Rome, while failure to make such recognition was considered treason. Reading Mark's claims about the person of Jesus would not put the minds of Roman authorities at ease, but would likely heighten their awareness of a threat. Roman authorities would perceive titles such as "Messiah," "Christ," and "Son of God" negatively, despite what Roskam describes as attempts to de-politicize them.

Likewise, Jesus' proclamation of a coming kingdom could hardly be seen as innocuous to Roman authorities. Even though this kingdom did not manifest itself during Jesus' lifetime, Mark boldly proclaims that it will do so someday. Jesus will return in power as the glorious "Son of Man," and he will establish an everlasting kingdom.85 The message of such a kingdom is a direct affront to the Roman Empire which did not take threats to its sovereignty lightly. Any attempt to de-politicize this kingdom language, apart from removing it entirely, would fail to placate Roman sensibilities.

Both Brandon and Roskam should be commended for taking seriously the socio-political realities that hypothetically faced Mark and his readers, and for incorporating such realities into their theories regarding Mark's purpose. However, it seems that neither Brandon's theory nor Roskam's theory - both of which claim Mark wrote in order to placate the dangerous suspicions of the outside world - are compatible with the realities of Mark's content. The gospel carries a bold message, and its claims would startle any first-century reader and likely draw the ire of any Roman official. Therefore, it is unlikely that Mark wrote his gospel in order to defend the church from animosity or threats of persecution. It appears that, rather than serving a defensive purpose, Mark might more likely serve a subversive purpose. It is this suggested purpose that we now examine.

1.6.2 Subversive Purpose: RichardHorsley Here we will examine the recent monograph of Richard Horsley Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel.™ Ultimately, Horsley argues that Mark seeks to undermine the socio-political realities of his community. In his introduction, Horsley identifies a key error in the thinking of twenty-first century Western readers of the New Testament. He notes the Western concept of separation between religion and politics and that many modern readers force this separation onto the New Testament text: "[M]odern

8 5 Though the idea of kingdom is not expressed in Mark's apocalyptic "Son of Man" sayings, it is certainly implied if we accept Dan 7:13-14 as their background.

8 6 Horsley, Politics of Plot.

36 Chapter 1

Westerners have grown accustomed to thinking of Mark and other biblical literature as (only or primarily) about religion. Mark's story, however, is about politics and economics as inseparable from religion."87 Yet after making this important insight, Horsley goes to the opposite extreme. For Horsley, Mark is entirely about politics and economics and has nothing to do with theology or religion: "Whatever theological doctrine is supposedly found in Mark, however, is the creation of theologians. The Gospel of Mark itself can now be recognized as a story . . . ostensibly about historical events in ancient Galilee and Judea under Roman imperial rule."8 8 Horsley sees Mark as a document (which began as an oral proclamation) that gives voice to a colonized and oppressed people who live in Galilee. Mark presents Jesus as a Moses/ Elijah type prophet who proclaims and brings about restoration in the villages of Galilee. Mark's purpose is to subvert the economic oppression and exploitation by Roman authorities and their pawns among the Judean leadership through encouraging people to continue the renewal Jesus began. This renewal involved instilling egalitarianism (social, political, and economic) in both villages and families. This work is to continue until the heavenly Son of Man returns (not to be confused with the earthly Jesus) and brings the final end to political and economic oppression.89

Accordingly, Horsley claims that Mark has no interest in the classical themes of Christology or discipleship. Any perception of these themes he argues results from the reader's social location in theological institutions.90

However, Horsley attempts some questionable exegetical maneuvers to eliminate traces of what most interpreters have recognized as major Markan themes.91

In eliminating Mark's christological interest, Horsley must start with the opening verse of the gospel, which is clearly christologically laden. He deals with this verse by simply removing it from Mark's gospel and claiming that it was a later addition to the text.92 However, such a claim has absolutely no textual evidence. The claim is even more unlikely when we consider that dropping 1:1 from the text leaves the book to open with Ka0c6g Y ^ Y P a T T T a i

or "just as it has been written." This is an awkward way for Mark to begin

8 7 Horsley, Politics of Plot, x. 8 8 Horsley, Politics of Plot, x. 8 9 For interpretations similar to that of Horsley, which see Mark as an anti-colonial or

anti-imperial document, see Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992) and Herman C. Waetjen, A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).

9 0 Horsley, Politics of Plot, x. 9 1 A number of the specific critiques that are made here are indebted to Robert Gundry's

excellent and thorough review of Horsley's work; "Richard A. Horsley's Hearing the Whole Story: A Critical Review of Its Postcolonial Slant," JSNT 26 (2003): 131-49.

9 2 Horsley, Politics of Plot, 250.


his narrative and is inconsistent with the grammatical style throughout his gospel. Every instance in which Mark uses a Ka0c6g clause it always refers to something preceding and not following it.9 3 Horsley's efforts to remove 1:1, a strong indicator of Mark's christological interests, seem misguided.

To fit his understanding of Jesus as a prophet like Moses and Elijah, Horsley claims that the transfiguration story (9:2-8) places Jesus as an equal of these great figures.94 Peter's request to build dwellings for all three*of them is said to confirm this claim. However, the text seems to indicate that Peter's idea is a misguided one. He is described as terrified and not knowing what to say. The divine voice also makes Horsley's position untenable by declaring Jesus to be God's beloved son, certainly placing him above Moses and Elijah.95

The double affirmation by God of Jesus' divine sonship, both at his baptism and his transfiguration is strong evidence of Mark's christological interest.

Horsley also claims that Mark either does not consider Jesus the Messiah at all or that he has a "strongly qualified" understanding of what "Messiah" means.9 6 He argues that Jesus rebuked Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah, denying any messianic identity. But Horsley misreads the text. After Peter's confession, Jesus commands his disciples not to tell anyone this information, implying that the information is actually true. Jesus' rebuke of Peter does not have to do with Jesus' identity as the Messiah, but rather with Peter's resistance to Jesus' fate in Jerusalem. Jesus is clearly proclaimed as Messiah in Mark both at the beginning of the gospel (1:1) and at what appears to be its apex (8:29). Likewise, there are many indications throughout the text that Jesus is identified as the Messiah (9:9-13; 10:46-52; 11:1-11; 13:5-6, 21-22; 14:61-62).97

These examples demonstrate the type of exegetical gymnastics Horsley must perform in order to eliminate what appears to be a christological interest in Mark. As noted above, Mark's purpose is closely related to Christology. The question of Jesus' identity resurfaces again and again. Mark repeatedly makes christological claims about Jesus at crucial points of the narrative. The entire book revolves around the person and work of Jesus. Horsley's rejection

9 3 See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 133. 9 4 Horsley, Politics of Plot, 107-8. 9 5 See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 133-34. 9 6 Horsley, Politics of Plot, 250-51. 9 7 Horsley argues that Mark rejects the title "Son of David" and the messianism which it

implies in 12:35-37 - the pericope of the question regarding David's Son. For Horsley, these counteract what seems to be the application of this messianic title to Jesus in 10:46-52 and 11:1-11. However, there is no clear reason to make this conclusion. Jesus' recasting of the title "Son of David" is not a rejection of his messianic identity. Likewise, when the title is applied to Jesus in the above mentioned verses, Mark makes no effort to qualify or counter it. The reader is left to assume that such an identification of Jesus is accurate and that Jesus is the expected "Son of David," or the Messiah.

38 Chapter 1

of Markan Christology is not honest with the text and too easily disregards valuable results that skillful interpreters have produced over the last century.

Horsley also claims that Jesus' teaching and call to true discipleship in Mark is not directed to individuals but to village communities.98 It is part of his attempt to bring renewal to these communities, not a call to follow the person and way of Jesus. People will suffer not for their allegiance to the person of Jesus as much as for their commitment to carrying out the program of renewal which he started. However, many examples from Mark illustrate that the evangelist is interested in people's personal commitment to Jesus himself not simply his movement. People are called to actually follow after him - Peter, James, and John (1:16-20), Levi (2:13-17), the twelve disciples (3:13-19), and the rich man (10:17-31)-which indicates more of a commitment to his person than a commitment to his message. He calls people both to lose their lives and to abandon their families and possessions for "my sake" (8:35; 10:29), not simply for his cause or movement. He warns against followers being ashamed not only of his message/words but of himself as a person (8:38). Jesus' call also often seems to have individuals in mind rather than whole communities. As noted above, Levi and the rich young man are examples. He often addresses his audience with phrases like "if anyone" (4:9, 23; 8:34; 9:42) or "whoever" (3:35; 9:35; 10:37, 41; 10:44) indicating that an individual response to his message is as valued as a communal one. The parable of the sower also evidences the importance of individual responses rather than communal ones. 9 9 Again, Horsley's claim that Mark is not concerned about individual discipleship and commitment to the person of Jesus is inconsistent with the text.

What is to be made of Horsley's positive claims about Mark's purpose, such as to proffer an egalitarian message, to aid in the renewal of families and village communities, and to address economic concerns? Horsley contrasts the failures of male disciples with the success of female disciples as evidence for Mark's message of sexual egalitarianism. But again Horsley strains the text to reach his conclusions. He notes the usual failures interpreters have recognized in the disciples, e.g., failure to understand parables (4:13-20), failure to have faith (5:35-41), failure to stay awake and pray (14:32-42), and failure to stay faithful to Jesus in his greatest hour of need (14:43-51; 66-72). If these examples are not enough, Horsley claims that the twelve never find out about Jesus' resurrection and, therefore, do not become a part of the continued gospel story in Galilee. But this is inconsistent with Jesus' prediction in 13:9-13 that the disciples will be persecuted and that they will proclaim the gospel to all nations. It unnaturally presumes that the resurrected Jesus' request of the twelve to meet him in Galilee is not accomplished.100 As we have noted

9 8 Horsley, Politics of Plot, 40. 9 9 For this critique, see Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 145. 1 0 0 See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 141.


before, the disciples are also portrayed in a positive light at many points, a fact that seriously weakens Horsley's suggested contrast.101

Horsley spends significant time demonstrating how Mark, at the expense of male disciples, lifts up females as exemplary disciples. Horsley claims that the woman with an issue of blood for twelve years and the twelve-year-old girl whom Jesus raised from the dead represent the renewal of Israel. While this conclusion may be correct, Horsley's interpretation goes beyond the actual text when he claims that this pericope evidences the egalitarian role of women in the renewed Israel.102

Horsley also points to the women who appear in the resurrection narrative. They are described as "paradigms of faithful understanding."103 But they, like all the other disciples, are ignorant of Jesus' resurrection, for they are going to anoint what they anticipate to be a dead body. When they arrive and receive the angel's message, they respond in fear and tell no one. If Horsley is going to claim that the twelve disciples never receive the news of Jesus' resurrection, it is only because these exemplary female disciples fail to carry out their commission. He argues that it is only these females who are aware of the resurrected Jesus and so it is up to them to carry on Jesus' work in Galilee. Yet this too is inconsistent with the text. The angel does not tell the women to meet Jesus in Galilee, but instructs them to tell his eleven disciples to do so. There is also no talk of continuing Jesus' work in Galilee. The purpose of going there was to see the resurrected Jesus!1 0 4

It is certainly true that women have a significant position in Mark, e.g., the Syrophoenician woman who demonstrates great faith (7:24-30), the widow who offers at the temple all she had (12:41-44), and the sinful woman who anoints Jesus' feet (14:3-9). However, it is quite another thing to argue that Mark promotes an egalitarian message by lifting up female disciples over their male counterparts. Mark may have some egalitarian interests but these interests seem ancillary rather than primary to Mark's overall purpose.

Along with sexual egalitarianism, Horsley claims that Mark bears a message of political and economic egalitarianism as well. Mark's Jesus is subverting the political power players - Roman and Jewish authorities - and advancing a message of economic egalitarianism in contrast to the elite's program of economic oppression. Horsley uniquely interprets many Markan

1 0 1 Horsley does note the positive portrayal of the disciples in first half of Mark but focuses on their failure in the second half. However, it is in the second half (10:28-31) in which Jesus promises that they will be rewarded for all they have sacrificed for his sake! He also predicts the future suffering of James and John. Additionally, Jesus also tells the disciples that they will stand before governors and kings as a testimony to them on behalf of Jesus (9:9). This is not a prediction of failure, but of future success and faithful discipleship.

1 0 2 See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 141-42. 1 0 3 Horsley, "Politics of Plot," 2. 1 0 4 Similar critiques are made by Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 142-45.

40 Chapter 1

elements to advance this theory. He sees significance in the fact that Mark has the mustard seed growing into a shrub and not a tree, the tree being an imperial image. But Mark does not intend the presence of a shrub to be anti-imperial. In fact, the shrub is described as greater than all other shrubs, which for Mark, represent kingdoms. Mark's contrast is not between shrubs and trees, (imperialism vs. non-imperialism) but between great shrubs and lesser shrubs (God's empire/kingdom vs. all other kingdoms). Mark is not anti-imperial,but he is advancing the imperialism of both God's kingdom and the one who bears it, Jesus.1 0 5

Horsley argues that the pericope of the rich man serves Mark's egalitarian purpose by excluding the wealthy (and the illegitimate way in which Horsley assumes they achieved their wealth) from the kingdom of God. But this misreads Mark's text. Jesus qualifies his statement concerning the salvation of the wealthy by saying, "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible" (10:27). If this pericope functions as Horsley claims, Mark's qualification is counter-productive.106

Horsley also makes a strong connection between the Jewish authorities and the Roman authorities who backed them. However, such a connection is not found in Mark's text. In fact, in his passion narrative, Mark clearly places the guilt of Jesus' death on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities while he seemingly washes Roman hands of it (see Brandon and Roskam above). Not only do they not conspire together but also the Jewish authorities must rely on manipulation to bring about the response they desire from the Romans (15:6-15). Horsley may be right about the historical reality of Jesus' day, but this is not the reality Mark expresses.107

For Horsley, Jesus' teachings, exorcisms, and healings are bringing about the economic liberation that he is proclaiming, but how he is doing so is uncertain. Economic oppression is experienced through heavy taxation and tithes levied by Roman and Jewish authorities. How do Jesus' teachings, healings, or exorcisms alleviate this oppression and bring about the desired egalitarian economic reality? Horsley offers one example of how these actions will strike at the sources of the oppression: "Jesus provides the people with healing of leprosy or forgiveness of sin that makes it unnecessary for them to obtain those from ruling institutions, which would cost them some of their precious economic resources."108 Though this relief would be of some help to

1 0 5 See Tat-siong Benny Liew, "Tyranny, Boundary, and Might: Colonial Mimicry in Mark's Gospel," JSNT 73 (1999): 7-31. In this article, Liew argues against the claims that Mark is anti-imperial or that Mark rejects in principle the imperial ideology of Rome. Rather than reject such ideology, Mark transfers it from Roman and Jewish authorities to Jesus and his coming kingdom. See also Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 136.

1 0 6 See this critique in Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 137. 1 0 7 See Gundry's similar critique, "Postcolonial Slant," 140. 1 0 8 Horsley, Politics of Plot, 109.


a number of the oppressed people, would it really be enough to bring about the radical egalitarian state that, according to Horsley, Mark is seeking?1 0 9

A second example is the pericope regarding tribute to Caesar. Horsley interprets Jesus' response to the tribute question as a negative reply: '"Giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar' means they should not pay tribute, since according to Israelite tradition everything belongs to God and nothing to Caesar."110 But if Mark actually intends this meaning of Jesus' words, why does he not make this meaning clearer? Why is there no uproar from his opponents or the Roman authorities for this sedition? Likewise, there is a great precedent in Israelite tradition for supporting the occupying ruler.111 Horsley may be right that in its original context these words of Jesus were a subtle way to speak out against taxation by Caesar (though this is debatable), but that Mark intends to communicate this message seems unlikely.112

Though Horsley seems creatively to find an anti-imperial economic agenda throughout the whole of Mark's gospel, it often comes at the expense of what the reader actually finds on the surface of the Markan text. These texts seem to say very little about economics or an egalitarian society. That elements of these themes exist is not enough to overturn the more readily identified themes of Christology and discipleship. Horsley has certainly challenged the readers of Mark to look at the gospel in a new and unique way by raising the reader's awareness of the political realties that may lie behind it. However, in offering a unified and cohesive purpose for why Mark was written, Horsley fails because his theory does not explain much of the content of the second gospel.

1.7 Conclusions

After surveying and evaluating the numerous theories regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel, we offer a number of conclusions and trajectories that will guide our present study. First, we conclude that Mark did not write his gospel simply for the sake of preserving history, and his purpose must be found in the realities facing Mark and his audience. Second, we conclude that Christology plays a primary role in Mark's gospel, and therefore, is likely related to the gospel's overall purpose. Third, while we affirm that Mark's

1 0 9 Gundry astutely notes that in Mark 1:44 Jesus requires the man whose leprosy he had healed to give an offering to the priest for his cleansing! See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 136.

1 1 0 Horsley, Politics of Plot, 43. 1 . 1 See J. D. M. Derrett, "Render to Caesar," 325-27, for discussion on such traditions, in

particular his discussion on Ecclesiastes 8:2. 1 . 2 See n. 83 above for the diversity of opinion on this pericope. See Gundry's comments

on Horsley's use of this pericope; Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 139.

42 Chapter 1

Christology is in some sense "corrective," we reject the notion that Mark contains two competing Christologies, (e.g., a Christology of power and a Christology of the cross), one of which is correcting the other. Fourth, we conclude that while discipleship and eschatology are important Markan themes, they are secondary themes and cannot by themselves explain why Mark composed his Gospel. Yet, while these themes are secondary, any theory regarding Mark's purpose must be able to account for them. Fifth, we conclude that Mark wrote his gospel primarily for a Christian audience. Sixth, we conclude that in seeking a Markan purpose, consideration must be given to the socio-political realities that face Mark and his readers, realities that originated outside of the church. However, continuity must exist between these socio-political realities and Mark's theological content (see the critique above of Brandon and Roskam). Similarly, recognition of the former must not supplant recognition of the latter (see the critique above of Horsley).

Chapter 2

Mark's Date and Provenance

2.1 Introduction

If in our search for a Markan purpose we are to take seriously the historical situation of the evangelist and his readers, we must first determine Mark's date and provenance. We will begin with the question of Mark's date and then proceed to question of Mark's provenance.

2.2 Dating Mark's Gospel

There seems to be a general consensus among more recent interpreters of Mark that the gospel was composed sometime between 65 and 75 C.E . The critical question regarding Mark's date has been whether it should be placed before or after Jerusalem's destruction (70 C.E.) within the aforementioned parameters. However, throughout the history of critical Markan interpretation, attempts to date Mark's gospel have varied widely, with some proposing a date as early as 42 C.E. 1 and others pushing its composition into the second century.2 While the latter position finds virtually no support among current interpreters, the former has a handful of contemporary adherents. We will begin our discussion by addressing this minority position, and we will

1 The most recent example of such a date is James Crossley, The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (JSNTSup 266; London: T & T Clark, 2004). Other examples of interpreters who argue for an early date for Mark include J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 106-17; J. W. Wen-ham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991), 136-82; Earle Ellis, "The Date and Provenance of Mark's Gospel," in The Four Gospels 1992 ed. F. van Segbroek (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992), 801-815; C. P. Thiede, The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and Its Significance for New Testament Studies (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1992); M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

2 F. C. Baur, Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter: Nebst einem Anhang uber das Evangelium Marcion's (Tubingen: L. F. Fues, 1851), 110. For other interpreters who place Mark in the second century, see James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3 r d ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1918), 213.

44 Chapter 2

determine whether the consensus date of 65 C.E . for Mark's lower limit is legitimate. We will then turn our attention to Mark's relationship to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and whether its composition preceded or followed this event.

2.2.1 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The External Evidence More significant external evidence speaks to the question of Mark's date than the date of any other gospel. A number of witnesses from the early church address the origin of Mark's gospel and give information related to its date. But the value of this evidence is disputed. Some of these witnesses contradict one another. Their motives and the historical accuracy of their testimony are often questioned. Even the meanings of the testimonies are debated. Here we will examine these early witnesses and attempt to ascertain what value their testimony actually has and to what extent it is helpful in determining Mark's date.

The earliest testimony relevant to Mark's date comes from Irenaeus. Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church. But after their death Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter. (Against Heresies 3.1.1-3)3

There are two challenges in interpreting this passage of Irenaeus. The first is discerning the meaning of the word el;o5og (literally translated as "departure"). Debate centers on whether this word should be taken literally, meaning that Peter and Paul departed to another location, or as a euphemism, meaning that Peter and Paul died. Clearly if the latter understanding of the word is accepted, then Irenaeus seems to have established a lower limit for the date of Mark, that is, sometime after the death of Peter and Paul during the Nero-nian persecution (ca. 64 C.E.). 4 But if the former understanding is accepted, Irenaeus' testimony is of little value in dating Mark.

In an attempt to refute the euphemistic understanding, Earle Ellis has claimed that Irenaeus does not commonly use ei;o5og to refer to death.5 He notes that in Book III of Against Heresies, Irenaeus refers to "death" thirty-eight times using the word Gdvaxog (or its Latin equivalent mors).6 He questions why in this one instance Irenaeus would alter his usual practice. But this evidence is misleading. Very few of the thirty-eight references to "death," which Ellis highlights, would even make sense if replaced by the euphemism "departure" (e.g., Ag. Her. 3.12.13. "those, therefore, who delievered their

3 For the English translation, see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.82-3, Lake, LCL. 4 For traditions concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul see 1 Clem. 5.1-7; 6.1; Ign.

Rom. 4.2-3; Iren. Ag. Her. 3.3.2. 5 Ellis, "Date and Provenance," 805-15. 6 Ellis, "Date and Provenance," 803-6.

Mark's Date and Provenance 45

souls to death"; 3.16.1. "so that by his means death wold be abolished"; 3.18.2. "becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death"). More telling are the instances where to speak euphemistically of a person's death is more natural. In such instances, there is evidence of Irenaeus using "departure" as a euphemism (see Ag. Her. 1.25.4; 3.14.2; and possibly 5.7.1.). Such examples refute Ellis' linguistic evidence and demonstrate that it is well within the realm of possibility for Irenaeus to use el;o8og as a euphemism for death.7

The literal reading also has historical problems, namely that there is no evidence for the departures of Peter or Paul from Rome during the early 60s. It has been speculated that after Paul's imprisonment in Rome, he went on to do missionary work in Spain only to return to Rome and be martyred by Nero's hand. But no sound evidence supports this theory. More importantly, Irenaeus does not seem to be aware of Paul's trip to Spain, making it unlikely that his use of ei;oSog refers to such a trip. But even if we did allow for Paul's departure from Rome, there is no evidence that Peter departed from Rome at or near the same time (or at any time for that matter). The absence of any evidence indicating a time when both Paul and Peter left Rome simultaneously speaks against the literal reading of ei;o5og.

The context of the passage also supports the euphemistic reading. The use of ei;o6og here seems to have a sense of finality; that is, the departure is not followed by a later return. It seems to be the "departure" that raises the need for John Mark to pass along the written gospel. If this departure was only temporary (one from which Peter and Paul would eventually return), it seems odd that such a need would arise from it.

For all of these reasons, the euphemistic reading of el;oSog is to be preferred, and it is not surprising that most interpreters have adopted it. But even if we understand Irenaeus to be referring to Peter and Paul's death (and not simply to an unspecified departure), there is a second obstacle preventing us from ascertaining from Irenaeus' witness the lower limit for Mark's date of composition. J. Chapman has argued that Irenaeus is not interested in communicating the date of Mark's composition; rather, he is only interested in affirming that the authoritative preaching of Peter was not lost because Mark recorded it.8 Chapman notes that Irenaeus is responding to the Valentinians and is trying to affirm that apostolic authority lies behind the gospels. Because of this goal, Chapman does not believe it likely that Irenaeus intended to say that Mark wrote down Peter's preaching after his death. For Chapman, such a testimony by Irenaeus would undermine the gospel's authority. Chapman argues that Irenaeus intends to say that the gospel that was handed down after

7 Euphemistic references also occur a handful of times in the New Testament (Luke 9:31; 2 Pet 1:15).

8 J. Chapman, "St. Irenaeus on the Date of the Gospels" JTS 6 (1905): 563-69. For others who adopt this interpretation see Gundry, Apology, 1042-43; Wenham, Redating, 239-42; Ellis, "Date and Provenance," 805-15.

46 Chapter 2

Peter and Paul's death was actually written during their lifetimes. Irenaeus is then best understood as follows: Mark, having written down Peter's preaching, has passed his sermons on to us after Peter and Paul's death. In this interpretation, Irenaeus says nothing about Mark's date of composition but only about its transmission to the church.

For a number of reasons, Chapman's interpretation of Irenaeus is unwarranted. We must begin by noting some unnecessary assumptions that Chapman makes. He is correct that Irenaeus is attempting to establish the apostolic authority of the gospels against his Valentinian opponents. But he wrongfully assumes that dating Mark's gospel after Peter's death somehow undermines its Petrine or apostolic authority. If Petrine preaching actually lies behind Mark, it makes little difference if it was written down during or after Peter's life: Petrine authority is hardly undermined.9

Chapman is also wrong to assume that because Irenaeus is only interested in affirming the apostolic authority behind Mark, he is uninterested in giving any other details surrounding its composition, including details regarding its date. While affirming that establishing apostolic authority is Irenaeus' primary goal, nothing precludes him from including ancillary historical details that were available to him or were a part of the tradition that he had received. Irenaeus' primary goal should not, a priori, exclude the possible inclusion of the historical details surrounding Mark's composition.

On grammatical grounds, Chapman's interpretation of Irenaeus is possible but not necessary. Chapman understands the adverb eyYP^P 0 ^ (in/through writing) to be describing the preaching of Peter; that is, it is the "written-down" preaching of Peter that Mark handed down. However, it is quite possible that the adverb is actually intended to modify the main verb TrapaSeScoKev (he passed down). The adverb then describes the means by which the passing down occurred, that is through the medium of writing. If eyYpoupcoc; is taken to modify TrapaSeScoKev then the prepositional phrase that begins the sentence (JETCX Se xr|v T O U T C O V ei;o5ov, "but after their departure/death," governs both the writing and passing on of Peter's preaching. Therefore, it is quite natural to read Irenaeus as a claim that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death.

Chapman's reading of this passage also has historical problems. He is forced to see the passage as speaking of two different events: the composition of Mark, which occurs during Peter's lifetime, and the transmission of Mark, which occurs after Peter's lifetime. But as James Crossley has noted, it seems unrealistic to claim that a document such as Mark's gospel would not spread quickly among the churches after being written.10 Certainly if Mark was

9 Placing the composition of Mark after Peter's lifetime might for some readers increase suspicions about the gospel's accuracy in recording Petrine tradition, but it does not remove the Petrine authority behind the text.

1 0 Crossley, Date, 8.


written in Rome, while Peter was still preaching, its transmission would immediately follow, making composition and transmission virtually a simultaneous event.

For these reasons, it seems reasonable to conclude that the traditional understanding of Irenaeus' testimony is to be preferred, namely that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death. Therefore, if Irenaeus' testimony can be trusted, Irenaeus establishes for us a lower limit on Mark's dating (ca. 65 C.E.).

But before deciding on Irenaeus' reliability, we will look at two more ancient witnesses to Mark's origins.

The second important witness to Mark's date is found in the so-called "anti-Marcionite" prologue.11

Mark declared, who is called "stump-fingered" because he had short fingers in comparison with the size of the rest of his body. He was Peter's interpreter. After the departure of Peter himself, he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.12

This witness poses some of the same problems found in Irenaeus: should the word excessionem or "departure" be taken literally or euphemistically, and does descripsit refer to composing the gospel or simply to transmitting it? In answering the first question, we have already established that euphemistically referring to a person's death as his departure was a common practice in both the New Testament and the early church. We have also noted that there is no evidence of a well-known departure of Peter from Rome after his arrival. For both of these reasons, the euphemistic understanding of excessionem is preferable. In answering the second question, the verb descripsit certainly carries with it the connotation of writing down or copying in writing. Here again, the idea is likely that of passing on Peter's gospel through writing. As argued above in the case of Irenaeus, it is unlikely the author has in mind a previously written text that is simply being transmitted to a new audience. If both of these conclusions are accepted, then the prologue affirms the testimony of Irenaeus claiming that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death. The value of this testimony depends, however, on its date and its relationship to Irenaeus, issues to which we will return shortly.

The third witness that must be considered is Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 C.E.). His testimony is preserved for us by Eusebius at two different points. The first reads as follows:

11 For more thorough discussion on the date and nature of the so-called "anti-Marcionite" prologue, see Jurgen Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe (VL 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1969), esp. 266-67; Wilbert Francis Howard, "The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels," ExpTim 47 (1935-36): 534-38; Richard G. Heard, "The Old Gospel Prologues," .773 6(1955): 1-16.

1 2 For the Latin text see Kurt Aland ed., Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1976), esp. app. "Testimonia Patrum Veterum," 515-48. The English translation is borrowed from Hengel, Studies, 3.

48 Chapter 2

But a great light of religion shone on the minds of the hearers of Peter, so that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with every kind of exhortation besought Mark, whose gospel is extant, seeing that he was Peter's follower, to leave them a written statement of the teaching given them verbally, nor did they cease until they had persuaded him, and so became the cause of the scripture called the Gospel according to Mark. And they say that the Apostle, knowing by the revelation of the spirit to him what had been done, was pleased at their zeal, and ratified the scripture for study in the churches. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.1-2, Lake, LCL)

The second reads: But that the Gospel according to Mark came into being in this manner: When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5-7, Oulton, LCL)

In both these passages, Clement's testimony clearly contradicts Irenaeus and the "anti-Marcionite" prologue. According to Clement, Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was still alive. Clement also specifically mentions Peter's awareness of the gospel (though he records conflicting reports regarding Peter's response).

We must now consider the reliability of these three sources and how they relate to one another. Many interpreters believe that all three of these ancient witnesses stem directly from the early second-century witness of Papias, who is our earliest witness to Mark's connection with Peter. And the Presbyter used to say this, "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them." (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15, Lake, LCL)

Because many interpreters conclude that the Papian testimony itself is untrustworthy, they also conclude that testimonies that are dependent on Papias are likewise suspect.13 But the issue of Mark's date is not discussed in Papias' testimony, and demonstrating Papias to be the origin of a tradition concerning

1 3 Hendrika Roskam (Purpose, 80-81) simply discredits other ancient sources because she perceives them to be dependent upon Papias whose testimony she believes to be untrustworthy. For similar views see Robert Guelich, Mark 1-8 :26 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989), xxvi; Telford, Theology, 10; W. G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the Testament, (trans. H. C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 97; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Li-teratur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vdter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), 347. For a defense of Papias' testimony see Hengel, Studies, 47-50; Gundry, Mark, 1026-45.

Mark 5 Date and Provenance 49

Mark's date is both difficult and assuming. There is nothing in Papias' testimony that would lead Irenaeus (or the "anti-Marcionite" prologue) to conclude that Mark wrote after Peter's death.14 The claim that Irenaeus is dependent upon Papias for this tradition is completely unsubstantiated. If Papias is the source for these three traditions, why does Clement of Alexandria come to an opposite conclusion for Mark's date to that of Irenaeus? To claim that these witnesses created their traditions based on what they knew from Papias alone would be pure speculation. It is just as likely, or perhaps more so, that while these traditions may know Papias, they are aware of other traditions that are informing their presumptions concerning Mark's date of composition. Instead of linking these traditions with the fate of Papias' testimony, these witnesses should be evaluated on their own merits. We will now examine the validity of each tradition and the relationships which they might have with each other.

Irenaeus is our earliest witness, making his testimony the most important. As we have seen, Irenaeus claims that Mark wrote sometime after Peter's and Paul's deaths. In evaluating this tradition, we must ask if there is any reason to doubt it. Perhaps one could argue the tradition was simply created by Irenaeus or by someone before him. However, the problem with this argument is the lack of a discernible motivation. By placing Mark's gospel after the death of Peter, Irenaeus adds nothing to Mark's credibility or value. In fact, if one were to create a tradition regarding Mark's date, we might expect that tradition to suggest a composition prior to the death of Peter. The fact that Irenaeus places the gospel after Peter's death gives us more confidence in his testimony. Therefore, with no reason to doubt Irenaeus (and perhaps some reason to trust him), his testimony should be accepted as valuable external evidence concerning the date of Mark's composition.15

The case of the "anti-Marcionite" prologue is more complicated because of questions surrounding its dependence on early Christian witnesses - those other than Papias. The prologue bears a strong resemblance to the tradition found in Irenaeus that causes many to conclude that it is dependent on Irenaeus' testimony (or vice versa). But it does include details foreign to Irenaeus (and Papias) that may support the conclusion that it represents an

1 4 For discussion on Irenaeus' relationship to Papias see Richard Heard, "APOMNEMONEUMATA in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus," NTS 1 (1954): 122-29; A. C. Perumalil, "Are Not Papias and Irenaeus Competent to Report on the Gospels?" ExpTim 91 (1980): 332-37.

1 5 Some interpreters might suggest that because Irenaeus is likely inaccurate regarding the authorship and date of Matthew (he claims that Matthew was the first gospel and that it was composed by the apostle Matthew, both of which are unlikely conclusions) he is an untrustworthy source for Mark's date. However, we must remember that Irenaeus has a reasonable motivation for recording what is likely an inaccurate tradition, namely to increase the credibility of Matthew and to give it priority over non-apostolic gospels. His tradition regarding Mark, on the other hand, has no such motivation and is therefore more likely to be trustworthy.

50 Chapter 2

independent tradition. The details describing Mark's physical appearance as "stump-fingered" (colobodactylus) and the reference that Mark wrote in the regions of Italy certainly do not come from Irenaeus (or Papias). Some have argued that the prologue is dependent on Hippolytus, who also makes an isolated and passing reference to Mark as "stump-fingered" {colobodactylus). Though dependence is possible here, it is far from certain. The prologue may simply be dependent on a common stream of tradition. It is possible that the prologue's use of colobodactylus is dependent on an earlier Greek text than Hippolytus, perhaps even one on which Hippolytus himself was dependent. That Hippolytus refers to Mark as "stump-fingered" without any explanation would seem to indicate that it is part of a tradition with which his audience would be familiar. Perhaps the prologue is simply familiar with this same tradition (or is itself this tradition).

Some claim that the reference to Italy as the place of Mark's composition is dependent on Irenaeus. By placing Mark's gospel after Peter's and Paul's deaths in Rome, Irenaeus seems to imply that Mark wrote the gospel in the same city. It is then argued that the prologue has simply deduced the provenance of Mark from Irenaeus' testimony and named this location in its own testimony. Yet as Clifton Black has asked, why then does the prologue use such a general designation for Mark's provenance instead of locating Mark in the capital city itself.16 If the prologue was dependent on Irenaeus, one would expect a specific location for Mark's composition, i.e., Rome. But the prologue's general reference seems to indicate independence from Irenaeus.

It is impossible to say with any certainty that the "anti-Marcionite" prologue is dependent on either Irenaeus or Hippolytus, though the possibility for such a conclusion exists. But it is equally possible that all three depend on the same stream of tradition regarding Mark's origins that was available to them through the church. If the prologue is dependent on Irenaeus for its dating of Mark, then at worst we have an ancient witness (3 r d century or possibly late 2 n d century) casting a vote of approval for this tradition. If it is independent of Irenaeus, we have a second independent ancient witness affirming that Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul.

What then are we to make of Clement's testimony, which contradicts that of Irenaeus and the "anti-Mariconite" prologue? Clement is certainly later than Irenaeus, though he may precede the "anti-Marcionite" prologue. Some interpreters have given Clement's testimony pride of place, and this is one of the reasons why Chapman attempted to reinterpret Irenaeus' testimony. Chapman supposes that Clement represents a tradition that is more authentic than that of Irenaeus. But this conclusion does not stand up against critical investigation. It is much easier to explain Clement's testimony as a develop-

1 6 C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 119-20.


ment of the tradition found in Irenaeus' testimony than vice versa. It makes sense that over time there would be a desire to draw the second gospel closer to the apostle Peter than earlier traditions allowed for. Therefore, Clement has more likely pushed the second gospel back into Peter's lifetime. Not only that, but he also records that the apostle's Spirit inspired approval of it! The motivations for such actions are quite clear. By creating such a tradition, Clement raises the significance of Mark, a gospel that was viewed inferior to Matthew, Luke, and John, and further secures its place in the church. While this type of development seems plausible, the alternative, namely Irenaeus's tradition developing out of that found in Clement, seems entirely inexplicable. No conceivable motivation exists to explain why a tradition that Mark wrote during Peter's lifetime could develop into one that claims Mark wrote after Peter's death. Therefore, it is best to conclude that Clement's testimony does not rescue a lost tradition (as Chapman believes), but rather alters an earlier tradition (that represented by Irenaeus). Irenaeus' testimony should, therefore, be given pride of place over Clement's.

Here we will summarize our conclusions for the external evidence. We determined that both Irenaeus and the "anti-Marcionite" prologue claim that Mark's gospel was written after Peter's and Paul's deaths, while Clement of Alexandria claims that it was written during Peter's lifetime, and with his knowledge. These traditions have been unnecessarily linked with Papias' testimony and now should be evaluated on their own merits. Irenaeus' testimony has little reason to be doubted and should be valued as a strong piece of external evidence for Mark's date. The "anti-Marcionite" prologue, though its independence is uncertain, is at the least an early affirmation of the tradition found in Irenaeus, if not an independent witness to it. The conflicting report of Clement of Alexandria is best understood as a later evolution of a tradition that placed Mark after Peter's death rather than as the resurgence of an older tradition.

Therefore, we can conclude that the external evidence supports a lower limit of 65 C.E. for Mark. However, because the certainty of these traditions remains elusive, their value is somewhat mitigated. The usefulness of this investigation is only secondary to that of the internal evidence, to which we will now turn.

2.2.2 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The Internal Evidence There are a number of features in Mark's text that seem to indicate a late date rather than an early one.17 The first of these is Mark's anticipation that only a handful of disciples will see the Parousia:18 "There are some standing here

1 7 A number of these features have been noted by Adolf Jiilicher and later echoed by Martin Hengel: A. Jiilicher and E. Fascher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Tubingen: J. C B. Mohr, 1931), 304; Hengel, Studies, 7-14.

1 8 Hengel, Studies, 8.

52 Chapter 2

who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power" (9:1).19 It seems that at the time of Mark's composition, only a small number of first-generation Christians were left to anticipate the Parousia. Compare this with Paul's expectation that the majority of believers will experience the Parousia: "For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess 4:16-17). Here Paul is easing the minds of the Thessalonian believers who have experienced death in their community and are worrying over the fate of those who had died before the Parousia. He does this by claiming that those who had died (the minority) would be resurrected and would meet the rest of the believers (the majority) at the Lord's second coming. Again in 1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul indicates that the majority of the five hundred witnesses who saw the risen Christ are still alive and are able to testify to what they had seen. Only some had "fallen asleep." Mark, therefore, would need to have been composed at a date significantly later than 1 Thessalonians (ca. 50-51 C.E.) and 1 Corinthians (ca. 56-57 C.E.) at a time when many of the first-generation believers and eyewitnesses to Christ were no longer living. Dating Mark at least eight to ten years after 1 Corinthians is likely enough time to see a significant change in the number of first generation believers still living. Such a dating would place Mark sometime after 65 C.E. - a date consistent with the previously examined external evidence.

Crossley has tried to downplay the significance of this argument in his recent monograph concerning Mark's date. 2 0 He notes that Mark refers to the coming of the "kingdom of God" in 9:1, while Paul refers to the "Parousia" in 1 Thessalonians. But it is almost certain that Mark's reference to the kingdom of God in 9:1 is a reference to the final eschatological kingdom of God, which is closely connected to, if not synonymous with, the Son of Man coming "in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" - a reference found in the preceding verse. The only other possible referents are Jesus' transfiguration, Jesus' resurrection, or possibly Pentecost; but since virtually all the disciples will not taste death before these events (with the exception of Judas), these referents make little sense.21 It is virtually certain Mark means that some

1 9 We are assuming that through this verse Mark is speaking to the current situation of his audience.

2 0 Crossley, Date, 54-55. 2 1 Etienne Trocme offers a unique interpretation of this passage, claiming that these

words are a warning to disciples who are unwilling to sacrifice their lives for Jesus and the gospel. Because of this failure, these disciples will live to see the kingdom of God come in power, a power that will surely bring their judgment. Trocme's interpretation has found few followers because the text seems to function as an encouragement to Mark's readers - an encouragement that was needed after Jesus' ominous words in verses 8:34-38. See Trocme, Formation, 123; idem, "Marc 9:1: prediction ou reprimand?" SE 2 (1964), 259-65.


first-generation disciples will not die until the eschatological kingdom of God is established at the coming of the Son of Man.

Crossley also points to the imprecision of the word Tiveg (some), arguing that it should not be read in direct contrast with the many who were alive and anticipating the Parousia in Paul's letters.2 2 But Mark's usage of "some" seems to have a narrowing intention. Mark's sense does not seem to be that "some" will see the kingdom of God come in power and "some" will not, so that Jesus' words are doing nothing more than noting the presence of disciples at this time. On the contrary, in light of the preceding teaching on suffering dis-cipleship, it is more likely that Mark intends to say that while many will give up their life for the gospel, some (the minority) will live to see the kingdom of God come in power.

Despite Crossley's efforts to mitigate this evidence for a later date for Mark's composition, it still remains compelling. Therefore, anyone seeking to date Mark before 65 C.E . must adequately explain the changes between Paul and Mark in the expectations of who will actually see the Parousia.

Another telling feature of Mark that indicates a later date of composition is the references made to a world-wide mission (13:10; 14:9).23 Mark certainly seems aware of such a mission and, thus, is likely writing at a time when the gospel had found its way to most of the known world. Hengel notes that the earliest possible awareness of such a mission would be sometime after Paul began his missionary work (ca. 48-49 C.E . ) . 2 4 But he thinks it unlikely that such references would be made until the late 50s when the church had taken over the concept of a world-wide mission. Paul's mission was certainly the beginning of a world-wide mission, but the realization of that mission was not seen until a decade later.25 The confidence with which Mark speaks about this mission seems to indicate that it is an established reality and not still an anticipated one. According to this evidence, Mark would then be best placed in a time during or after the late 50s, a date that could easily coincide with the lower limit of 65 C.E.

Crossley argues that the world-wide mission of the church seems to have begun quite early, perhaps even before Paul's conversion.26 He notes as evidence Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, the conversion of Cornelius, the call at Paul's conversion for his ministry to Gentiles, and his subsequent trip to Arabia and Damascus. He also claims that the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 presupposes a widespread mission to Gentiles. In light of these events, Crossley believes that it would be quite possible for the evangelist to speak of

2 2 Crossley, Date, 54-55. 2 3 See Hengel, Studies, 12-13. 2 4 Hengel, Studies, 12-13. 2 5 In Romans (c. 57 C.E.), Paul may refer to the fulfillment of such a world-wide mission

(Rom 10:18; 15:19), though West (Italy and Spain) remained a mission field. 2 6 Crossley, Date, 50-51.

54 Chapter 2

a world-wide mission at a date much earlier than the mid-60s. But all of this evidence simply speaks to the beginning of a mission, one which could not yet be described as "world-wide." An author writing at this time could hardly speak with certainty (e.g., the way in which Mark does) about the success of this mission, namely that it will "be proclaimed to all nations" (13:10) and be "proclaimed in the whole world" (14:9). Therefore, the Markan references to a world-wide mission are strong evidence that Mark's composition should not be dated before the early 60s C.E.

Crossley has constructed an argument for dating Mark that is based on Mark's presentation of the law. He argues that Mark presents the law in a positive light at all points and that it does not reflect conflict within the church concerning the law's validity. He claims that the only time within the first century that this attitude existed toward the law was in the early stages of the church's existence. For Crossley, therefore, Mark's presentation of the law is evidence that Mark was written in the early 40s C.E.

It is not possible for us to critique the whole of Crossley's work, but we will examine the "capstone" of his argument. The issue on which Crossley's entire work rests is his interpretation of Mark 7:1—23.27 This passage has led many interpreters to a conclusion opposite to Crossley's regarding Mark's view of the law. 2 8 For it is in verse 19 that Mark includes what most interpreters understand as a Markan editorial comment regarding Jesus' teaching on hand-washing and food consumption: "Thus he declared all foods clean." On the surface, this Markan editorial comment seems to be abrogating the food laws of the Torah and therefore contradicting Crossley's claim that Mark's view of the law is entirely positive. If Crossley cannot offer an alternative explanation for this verse, his theory regarding Mark's view of the law fails, as does his case for an early dating of Mark.

Crossley must work hard at offering an alternative interpretation of Mark 7:1-23. He argues that verse 19 must be read in the context of 7:1-23, which he claims centers on a debate between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the Jewish tradition of washing one's hands before eating. Crossley offers an insightful discussion on the authenticity of the Jewish traditions Mark described. He also does well in demonstrating that the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees is one regarding tradition and not the law itself. The tradition that is being debated is whether food touched by impure hands becomes impure itself and thus makes the one eating it impure as well. Mark's Jesus is arguing against this tradition. Up to this point, Crossley's discussion of Mark 7:1-23 is quite helpful, and there is nothing with which we presently need to contend.

2 7 Crossley, Date, 183-205. 2 8 For examples, see Gundry, Apology, 367-37; Bas van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response

Commentary (trans. W. H. Bisscheroux; London: T & T Clark, 1998), 243-45; Marcus, Mark, 458; Francis Moloney, The Gospel of Mark, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 143; R. T. France, Mark, 291-92; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 228-29.


But it is Crossley's interpretation of verse 19 that is highly questionable. He concludes that because the focus of verses 1-23 is on the nature of tradition versus commandment and because they are steeped in halakic debate regarding hand-washing, verse 19 must be understood within this context. According to Crossley, Mark's editorial comment, "Thus he declared all foods clean," cannot be understood as an abrogation of laws because this would defy the context of the Markan pericope, which concerns tradition (hand washing) and not law (clean vs. unclean food). He argues, therefore, that the editorial comment should be understood in the following way: He declared "all foods that are permitted to eat in the Torah to be clean thereby denying the role of handwashing^29 Mark's comment, therefore, summarizes Jesus' stance on hand-washing, namely that eating with unclean hands cannot make a person unclean.

Crossley's interpretation of verse 19 is unconvincing. While Crossley may certainly be correct in understanding the tradition recorded in 7:1-23 in light of the halakic debate over hand-washing, he is wrong to conclude that Mark's editorial comment must be understood in light of this same context.30 Mark's interpretation of this tradition is not bound by the historical context of the tradition itself. If we do not restrict the way in which Mark is allowed to interpret this tradition, then reading verse 19 as an abrogation of Jewish food laws is not as problematic as Crossley claims.

Another weakness in Crossley's interpretation is that it assumes that the readers of Mark would be able to see clearly that this verse is not an abrogation of food laws (which a surface reading of the text would indicate), but rather is a rejection of the practice of hand-washing before a meal. But considering that Mark's audience is almost certainly Gentile, and that they require even the basic practices of Jewish purity rites to be explained to them (7:3-4), it seems unlikely that they would be able to arrive at such a complicated reading without assistance from the author. Crossley himself must spend seven pages to explain the complex halakic debate regarding hand-washing and purity that he claims provides the context for his interpretation of verse 19. Certainly Mark's readers did not have the necessary knowledge to arrive at Crossley's reading of verse 19; and it is virtually as certain that Mark did not intend them to. Verse 19 is, therefore, best understood as a Markan editorial comment that interprets this particular Jesus tradition as an abrogation of Jewish food laws (whether rightly so or not).31 Crossley's claim that Mark reflects a time in

2 9 Crossley, Date, 192. 3 0 See Marcus, Mark, 458; Moloney, Mark, 143. 3 1 A handful of interpreters have argued that Mark's interpretation of Jesus does not accu

rately reflect the position of the historical Jesus. For such arguments see G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 29; J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament (2 n d ed.; Leiden, Brill, 1986), 1.176-83; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and

56 Chapter 2

which the place of the law was completely unquestioned must be rejected, as well as the early date that he associated with this view of the law.

We have demonstrated that both internal and external evidence indicates ca. 65 C.E . as a lower limit for dating Mark. While there is little convincing evidence for dating Mark before 65 C.E . , there is a significant amount of evidence that precludes such a dating. After establishing Mark's lower limit, we will now turn our attention to the question of Mark's relationship to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and whether Mark was written before or after this event.

2.2.3 Mark's Relationship to the Temple's Destruction: A Pre- or Post-70 Dating? Perhaps the most significant piece of internal evidence for dating Mark's gospel concerns its relationship to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, an event that the Markan Jesus foretells (13:2). However, interpreters are divided over how to interpret this evidence, with approximately half interpreting the prophecy as evidence of a post-70 C.E. dating3 2 (most of whom understand the prophecy as a vaticinium ex eventu) and the other half as evidence of a pre-70 C.E . dating3 3 (most of whom accept the prophecy as authentic). Here we seek

Acts (3 r d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 217-18; Guelich, Mark, 378-79; R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity (JSNTSup 13; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1986), 72-73.

3 2 G. Holscher, "Der Ursprung," 193-202; S. G. F. Brandon, "The Date of Mark's Gospel," NTS 7 (1961): 126-41; idem, The Fall of Jerusalem', H. G. Conzelmann, "Geschichte und Eschaton nach Mc 13," ZNW50 (1959): 210-21; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), vol. 1, 14, vol. 2, 260-67, 292, 300; Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 343; Morna Hooker, "Trial and Tribulation in Mark XIII," BJRL 65 (1982): 78-79; idem, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 314; Kelber, Kingdom; J. Lam-brecht, Markus-Apokalypse; J. R. Donahue, "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel," CBQ 57 (1995): 1-26; Gnilka, Markus, 2:184-88; L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents (JSJSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1996); J. Marcus, "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark," JBL 111 (1992): 441-62; William Such, The Abomination of Desolation in the Gospel of Mark: Its Historical Reference in Mark 13:14 and Its Impact in the Gospel (Lanham: University Press of America, 1999); Roskam, Purpose, 75-114; Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Theissen, Context, 259-271; Maloney, Mark, 11-15; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 41-47.

3 3 See Lohmeyer, Markus, 268; Marxsen, Evangelist, 151-89; Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1935), 73; idem, Mark, 501; J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1; 4 t h ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947), 181; M. J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc (EBib; 4 t h ed.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1947), xxxi; E. Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; 5 t h ed.; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971); W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT 2; 2 n d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962), 19; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (NovTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 66; Schweizer, Mark, 262; H. J. Schoeps, "Ebionitische Apokalyptik im Neuen


to find a way forward on this issue in order to provide a plausible date for Mark's gospel.34

Before proceeding we must clarify two points. First, much of the debate surrounding the authenticity of this prophecy has centered on whether it is an authentic Jesus tradition. The logic works in the following way: "If it can be shown that this prophecy is an authentic Jesus tradition, it cannot be considered a vaticinium ex eventu and, therefore, Mark can be dated prior to the destruction of Jerusalem." But here, we suggest that this prophecy's identity as an authentic Jesus tradition is only indirectly related to Mark's date. Mark could have just as easily recorded an authentic Jesus tradition at a point after the temple's destruction as before it and doing so would make the tradition no less authentic. The days in which we concluded that Mark simply recorded all the tradition that was available to him are long past. We have come to recognize Mark as a creative and selective author who intentionally shaped his material. The prophecy then must be considered Mark's own prophecy that comes from either his (possibly authentic) sources or his own imagination. The focus of the debate over Mark's date of composition, therefore, should not

Testament," ZNW5X (1960): 101-11; F. F. Bruce, "The Date and Character of Mark," in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule eds.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 69-89; G. W. H. Lampe, "A. D. 70 in Christian Reflection," in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule eds.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 153-71; Hengel, Studies, 14-30; C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Garden City: Doubleday, 1986), 510; Beasley-Murray, Last Days; L. Schenke, Das Markusevange-lium (Urban-Taschenbucher 405; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988), 35-38; Collins, Beginning, 76-77; van Iersel, Mark, 46-49; Craig Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), lxii-lxiii.

3 4 The following discussion on Mark 13 will be carried out under these assumptions: the second evangelist is autonomous over the entire work and, whether he is dependent upon a written (or oral) source or has constructed chapter 13 himself, the final result is one that the author desired. In light of this assumption, we will not spend time discussing the origins of chapter 13 nor the redaction which it might have undergone. For interpreters who argue for an early Jewish-Christian source see F. Hahn, "Die Rede von der Parusie des Menschensohnes Markus 13," in Jesus und der Menschensohn (R. Pesch and R. Schnack-enburg eds.; Freiburg: Herder, 1975), 240-66; G. Holscher, "Der Ursprung der Apokalypse Mk 13," TBe 12 (1933): 193-202; W. G. Kttmmel, Promise and Fulfilment (London: SCM Press, 1957), 102-4; G. Theissen, Context, 125-49. For interpreters who argue for an early non-Christian Jewish source see R. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 395-405; N. Walter, "Tempelzerstorung und synoptische Apokalypse," ZNW 57 (1966): 38-49. For more general discussion on Markan redaction in Mark 13 see E. Brandenburger, Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 46-51; Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Prohings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 77; J. Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), R. Pesch, Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mark 13 (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968). For a summary of many of these interpretations see Beasley-Murray, Last Days, 162-350. Our present discussion focuses on the final form of Mark 13 and the purpose it serves in the gospel as a whole.

58 Chapter 2

be on whether this saying is an authentic Jesus tradition, but on whether Mark recorded (or created) this prophecy (essentially adopting it as his own) at a time before or after the temple's destruction. Therefore, we will not speak of Mark's temple prophecy as authentic (actually spoken by the historical Jesus) or inauthentic (not spoken by the historical Jesus), but rather we will speak of the prophecy as pre factum (meaning it was recorded by Mark before the fact of the temple's destruction) or post factum (meaning it was recorded by Mark after the fact of the temple's destruction).

Second, we must note that certainty regarding this issue is not attainable. Therefore, we are left to consider the plausibility and probability of either a pre factum prophecy or a post factum prophecy. In order to determine the most plausible and/or probable outcome, we will consider five different criteria: (1) the criterion of specificity; (2) the criterion of reasonableness; (3) the criterion of similarity; (4) the criterion of motivation; (5) the criterion of risk-reward. Below we will address each criterion separately, first offering a brief explanation of the criterion and then applying the criterion to Mark's temple prophecy. The outcome demonstrated to be the most plausible and/or probable will be preferred.

The Criterion of Specificity The criterion of specificity looks at how specific the details of a prophecy are. If a prophecy includes a great number of specific details that have actually played out, it is more likely to be a post factum prophecy. But if the prediction is more general or one that lacks specific details, the plausibility that it represents a pre factum prophecy increases. Interpreters have applied this criterion to Mark and have come to differing conclusions. Theissen argues that Mark's prediction regarding the temple is quite specific, and he concludes that the prophecy in Mark is in fact a vaticinium ex eventu?5 He notes the phrase "not one stone will be left here (co5e) upon another," and claims that the use of the word (68e may indicate that Mark is restricting the destruction to the temple itself and not the retaining wall built around it. But the stones of the retaining wall still remain to this day; thus Theissen concludes that Mark tailored the prophecy to fit more accurately the details of the temple's destruction. Yet that Mark uses oo6e in this way is far from certain. f 'Q5e could easily refer both to the temple and to the retaining wall built around it. Therefore, one could also argue for a conclusion that is the exact opposite of Theissen. Given that the retaining wall was not completely destroyed, why would someone include the inaccurate detail that no stone would be left upon another after the event of the destruction? If, as Theissen suggests, the author was only referring to the temple and not the retaining wall, why did he not make this distinction more clearly. But both these interpretations likely take the phrase too literally.

3 5 Theissen, Context, 259.

Mark s Date and Provenance 59

The phrase is best understood as expressing the gravity of the destruction that the temple either has experienced or will experience.36 Despite Theissen's claims, Mark's prediction is quite general. It predicts the temple's destruction but gives very few details regarding the destruction; e.g., it fails to betray knowledge of the Roman siege of Jerusalem or the burning of both the temple and city (cf. Luke 19:43-44; 21:20). Therefore, the generality of this prophecy increases the plausibility that it is prophecy pre factum.31

The Criterion of Reasonableness The criterion of reasonableness examines the reasonable nature of the prophecy itself. Clearly, the more reasonable a prediction, the easier it is to accept that it may have been made before the event. For example, a prophecy claimed to have been given in 1915 regarding the United States' involvement in World War I would be easy to accept as pre factum. Given the prognosticator's information, the prophecy, though not certain, is quite plausible. But a prophecy claimed to have been given in 1915 regarding the United States' war in Vietnam would be much more difficult to accept as authentic. Therefore, we must consider whether a prophecy of the temple's destruction, pre factum, was a reasonable one given the available information. The first piece of information available to the evangelist is the awareness of a widespread feeling that the Jerusalem temple and the ministry and activity surrounding it were corrupt. Certainly the Essenes are evidence that a significant number of people rejected the temple establishment because of perceived corruption. As we will discuss below, references to temple corruption are not uncommon in non-Essene writings of the Second Temple period (Testament of Levi 10:3, 14:1-15:3, 16:1-5; Testament of Judah 23:1-5; Lives of the Prophets 10:10, 12:11). Because of what appears to be an anti-temple motif in Mark (11:12-25; 12:1-12; 13:1-2; 15:38), it might be suggested that even the evangelist may have been sympathetic to this sentiment. In light of this negative attitude toward the temple, it is reasonable to conclude that someone might predict its destruction as a sign of God's judgment against it (and as we will discuss below, many in fact did so).38

3 6 See Collins, Beginning, 76. 3 7 The unspecific nature of Mark's prophecy has led many interpreters to conclude that

the prophecy is authentic; for example see Taylor, St. Mark, 501; E. P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press, 1989), 18; I. Broer, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (NEB; Wurzburg: Echter, 1998), 1:85; Kee, Community, 100-1; Hen-gel, Studies, 14-15; van Iersel, Mark, 46-49; et al.

3 8 For a more detailed look at perceived corruption in the Jerusalem temple, see Craig A. Evans, "Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple," JSP 10 (1992): esp. 121-34.

60 Chapter 2

A second piece of information likely available to the evangelist was knowledge of the volatile relationship between Rome and the Palestinian Jews. A large number of Palestinian Jews resented Roman occupation, with a good deal of this resentment resulting from Roman insensitivities toward the Jewish faith. Josephus notes a number of incidents in which such insensitivities resulted in violent conflicts between Romans and Jews.3 9 Someone aware of the tension between Jews and Romans and the violent history between them could reasonably foresee the escalation of these realities resulting in the destruction of the physical center of Jewish faith, the temple. If Mark were written during the Jewish Revolt as many interpreters conclude, the evangelist has already seen the escalation of these tensions and the resulting violence. Certainly someone witnessing Rome's fierce response to Jewish rebellion could reasonably predict the temple's destruction. In fact, to some, such an event might have seemed to be a plausible outcome (though as discussed below, not a certain one).

Therefore, given the information that might have been available to Mark, a prophecy regarding the temple's destruction seems to be a relatively reasonable one. The reasonableness of the prophecy increases the plausibility that it is a pre factum prophecy.

The Criterion of Similarity The criterion of similarity considers prophecies of a similar nature that were made prior to the prophesied event. If the temple's destruction was prophesied by others before the event itself, then the plausibility that Mark's prophecy was also made prior to the event certainly increases. A handful of sources that predate 70 C.E . do record prophecies regarding the destruction of the Second Temple. Craig Evans has convincingly shown that predictions regarding the temple's destruction were not uncommon during the Second Temple period.40 In the Testament of Levi, which likely dates to the second century B.C.E, the following prophecy is found: "Therefore the sanctuary which the Lord chose shall become desolate through your uncleanness and you will be captives in all nations" (15.2).41 The corruption in the Hasmonean family likely motivated this prophecy, a corruption that many believed had profaned the temple. Corruption in the temple results in what appears to be a prophecy regarding its destruction.

The DSS also include a prophecy concerning the temple's destruction: "And what it says: 'Since you pillaged many people all the rest of the nations will pillage you.' Its interpretation concerns the last priest of Jerusalem, who will accumulate riches and

3 9 Josephus, Ant. 15. 275-279; 17.146-154; 18.55-59; see also Philo, Legat. 38. 4 0 Evans, "Predictions," 89-147. 4 1 For the translation, see H. C. Kee, "Testament of Levi," in Old Testament Pseudepi-

grapha (James Charlesworth ed.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 1:793.


loot from plundering the nations. However, in the last days their riches and their loot will be given into the hands of the army of the Kittim [Romans]."42 (lQpHab 9:2-7)

The temple's destruction is not specifically stated, but the destruction of the temple's priests is quite clear. When this text is read together with texts that anticipate building a new temple (HQTemp 29:8-10; 30:1-4), the destruction of the old temple accompanying the destruction of its corrupt priests becomes a reasonable conclusion.43 Again corruption is the cause for a prophecy against the temple establishment.

The Lives of the Prophets contains the following prophecy: "And concerning the end of the Temple, he predicted, 'By a western nation it will happen.' 'At that time', he said, 'the curtain of the Dabeir [Holy of Holies] 4 4 will be torn into small pieces, and the capitals of the two pillars will be taken and no one will know where they are; and they will be carried away by angels into the wilderness, where the Tent of Witness was set up in the beginning.'" (12: l l ) 4 5

This prophecy's value for our present purposes is questionable because some challenge whether the Lives of the Prophets predates the temple's destruction. Destruction at the hands of a western nation may indicate an awareness of Rome's destruction of the temple. But details such as the tearing of the temple curtain into pieces and the mysterious disappearance of the pillars' capitals, is not consistent with any known testimony concerning the temple's destruction and may indicate a pre-70 dating.46 Therefore, it is possible that the Lives of the Prophets also reflects an authentic prophecy regarding the temple's destruction.

In that others (aside from Mark) prophesied the temple's destruction before 70 C.E . , we must conclude that it is at least plausible that Mark could do the same. Again, this criterion increases the plausibility that Mark's prophecy is pre factum*1

The Criterion of Motivation The criterion of motivation seeks to determine possible authorial motivations for making or including a particular prophecy. Here we compare possible motivations for recording a pre factum prophecy with possible motivations

4 2 For the translation, see Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 1:19.

4 3 See Evans, "Predictions," 96-97, for further discussion. 4 4 See n. llf. in Kee, "Testament of Levi" 393. 4 5 For the translation, see D. R. A. Hare, "The Lives of the Prophets," in Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha. 4 6 For discussion concerning the dating of the Lives of the Prophets, see D. R. A. Hare,

"The Lives of the Prophets" in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:381 n. 11; C. C. Tor-rey, The Lives of the Prophets (SBLMS 1; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1946), 11.

4 7 Similar conclusions are reached by Evans, "Predictions," 146-47.

62 Chapter 2

for recording a post factum prophecy. The position with the most plausible motivations will be preferred.48 We will begin by analyzing possible motivations for a pre factum prophecy. Some may suggest that the evangelist simply desired to record accurately a Jesus tradition that he had received, and therefore, included the prophecy of the temple's destruction. If, in the evangelist's tradition, he had received a prophecy regarding the temple's destruction, it is possible that, regardless of the temple's present state, the evangelist might include that tradition. If he considered the tradition to be authentic and trusted Jesus' prophetic power, no more motivation may have been needed. But given what many interpreters perceive to be Mark's selective and creative use of his sources,49 this motivation appears too general. We can be fairly certain that Mark was under no obligation to record material simply because he possessed it. Therefore, we need a more specific motivation for why Mark might have desired to record this particular Jesus tradition.

One such motivation for including a pre factum prophecy is the perceived corruption in the temple and among its overseers. Perceived corruption was clearly the motivation for other prophecies of the temple's destruction (as we have demonstrated above). It is quite possible that the evangelist and his community perceived the temple to be corrupt and, therefore, predicted its coming destruction. This motivation would appear to be in line with the "anti-temple" theme that many interpreters have perceived in Mark. The problem with this motivation is that "anti-temple" sentiments are absent from all extant pre-70 C.E. Christian literature (with the exclusion of Mark, the date of which we are attempting to discern). The Pauline corpus says nothing about temple corruption nor does it reveal any anticipation of the temple's destruction.50 The Acts of the Apostles portrays the early church as having a positive perspective on the temple. In fact, the testimony of Acts would seem to indicate that Jerusalem Christians regularly worshiped at the temple. Paul himself fulfilled vows at the temple likely as late as 58-59 C.E. (Acts 21:17-26). The only exception to

4 8 Here we must acknowledge that we cannot ascertain with certainty what motivated the anonymous author of the second gospel to include any particular piece of material. However, based on the Markan text and our knowledge of early Christianity, we can offer possible motives for the evangelist, and we can compare these motifs in order to determine which of them seems most plausible.

4 9 While we conclude that detecting where Mark has edited his sources is difficult, it is generally agreed that Mark did in fact use sources, and that he was selective in their use.

5 0 Paul does claim that believers are the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; cf. Eph 2:18-22; 1 Tim 3:15), which likely evidences his belief in the inadequacy of the temple, but it does not indicate that he foresaw its impending destruction. For temple imagery in Paul see Bertil Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (SNTS 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 49-70. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul (or another in Paul's name) does claim that the eschatological "man of lawlessness" will set himself up in the "temple of God" (2 Thess 2:4), but this claim does not seem to be a critique of the temple or the temple establishment, nor does it anticipate the temple's destruction.

Marks Date and Provenance 63

this positive temple portrayal in Acts comes during the narrative of Stephen. Stephen's opponents claim that he has spoken against both the "holy place and the Law" (Acts 6:13) and that he has claimed that Jesus will destroy the temple (Acts 6:14). But the text indicates that these charges are false, and that Stephen never actually said these things. At the end of his speech, Stephen makes a critique, not of the temple itself, but of the Jews' misguided understanding of the temple (Acts 7:48-50). But Stephen never links this misguided Jewish perspective to temple corruption or the eventual destruction of the temple. The mention of Jesus destroying the temple could simply be the result of Luke applying Jesus traditions (which he receives from Mark) to Stephen, whose trial and death is closely paralleled to that of Jesus' in the book of Acts.51 Therefore, the accusation that Stephen claimed Jesus would destroy the temple is a Lukan creation and does not represent a pre-70 "anti-temple" sentiment. Again, on the whole, Acts presents the early church as having a positive view of the temple.

While one could argue that the book of Hebrews is a pre-70 witness to an "anti-temple" sentiment within the church, there is much debate over whether it ought to be dated before 70 C.E . We must also note that Hebrews never mentions the temple, but instead speaks of the tabernacle. Even if one dates Hebrews before 70 C.E., there is no indication of a Christian belief that the temple was corrupt or that it would be destroyed. At most, Hebrews presents the temple (in actuality the tabernacle) as inadequate but not as corrupt or deserving of destruction. The absence of a corrupt temple motif in any pre-70 C.E. Christian literature or in any portrayals of the pre-70 church is evidence that an "anti-temple" sentiment was not prevalent within early Christianity before the temple's destruction.52 Therefore, temple corruption becomes an unlikely motivation for a pre factum prophecy regarding the Jerusalem temple's destruction.53

Another possible motivation for including a pre factum prophecy of the temple's destruction may be the perceived imminence of that destruction. If the evangelist is writing in the final stages of the Jewish Revolt (as many interpreters have concluded) and is aware of the stranglehold that Roman forces have on Jerusalem, his motivation may come from a desire to report

5 1 For discussion on intentional parallels between Jesus and Stephen in the book of Acts see C. K. Barrett, Act of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 327, 381; Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 389-95.

5 2 For further discussion on the early church's view of the temple see Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove: I VP, 2002), 155-60.

5 3 Some might then ask why an "anti-temple" theme is discernible in Mark. But such a theme does not mandate the current existence of a corrupt temple, but rather could give an explanation as to why the temple has recently been destroyed.

64 Chapter 2

what seems to be inevitable.54 Perhaps to the perceptive evangelist, Roman victory might seem to be a certainty and with that victory, the evangelist foresees the annihilation of the Jews' holiest place. But this raises the question of how inevitable this outcome of the Jewish Revolt was. Even up to the point when Rome breached Jerusalem's walls, the Jews had numerous successes in beating back their forces. At one point after the walls were breached, the Jewish rebels inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans and forced them to retreat from the city. At the prospect of taking the last Jewish stronghold in the city, the temple itself, Titus offered the Jews terms of peace, but they rejected these. With the various successes experienced by the Jews throughout the siege of Jerusalem, it would be difficult for anyone to predict the outcome of the war, even at the latest hour. With the real possibility of a negotiated peace, the destruction of the Jewish temple was far from certain. Perhaps some military strategists could claim Roman victory and see the temple's destruction as a necessary outcome. But Jews and Christians, who were steeped in eschatological expectations and believed wholeheartedly in divine intervention, could hardly accept the finality of the temple's destruction until it had in fact become a reality. It was perhaps the belief that God would not let his temple fall to pagan enemies that caused the Jewish rebels to make their final stand in the temple itself. For these reasons, the evangelist's desire to report the imminent destruction of the temple is not a compelling motivation for Mark's prophecy.

Up to this point, we have examined possible motivations for Mark's prophecy regarding the temple's destruction before the event. None of the motivations we have examined has been overly compelling (though each may be possible). We will now look at the evangelist's possible motivation for recording a post factum prophecy of the temple's destruction. The first motivation is obvious. By having Jesus predict the temple's destruction, Mark further highlights Jesus' prophetic power, a power which is only confirmed after the temple destruction. Certainly one of Mark's goals was to present Jesus as a powerful prophet. This goal is accomplished by recording Jesus' prophecy of the temple destruction. A second possible motivation is the need to provide stability and understanding during a time of crisis. The time of the temple's destruction was likely a time of crisis and confusion for many in the early church and perhaps those in Mark's community. Questions surrounding the meaning of the destruction and its implications for eschatological expectations were likely quite pressing. By including Jesus' prophecy of the temple's

5 4 As we discussed in chapter one, this situation is exactly what Willi Marxsen describes. He argues that Mark perceives the impending destruction of the temple, and therefore urges the Christians living there to flee to Pella (which Marxsen locates in Galilee). However, as we noted in chapter one, writing a gospel in order to make such a plea seems unlikely. See Marxsen, Evangelist.


destruction, Mark helps to answer his community's questions and calm their fears. The prophecy takes a cataclysmic event and places it into the sphere of God's control: there is nothing to fear because the temple's destruction is part of God's plan and God's messiah has proclaimed it. Jesus' prediction also takes the sting out of Roman power and authority: this power is not to be feared because it is simply an instrument to accomplish God's purpose.

We can now compare the motivations for a pre factum prophecy with those of a post factum prophecy. Of the three pre factum motivations, the first, a desire to include authentic Jesus tradition, ignores the author's creative and selective use of sources, making it too general to be compelling. The second and third - the desire to critique temple corruption and the desire to record the temple's imminent destruction - seem inconsistent with the historical realties of the first century. Therefore, none of these motivations for a pre factum prophecy is overly compelling. However, we find the post factum motivations consistent with both Mark's presentation of Jesus as a powerful prophet and the situation in which the church likely found itself after the temple's destruction. Therefore, the criterion of motivation seems to favor the plausibility of a post factum prophecy.

The Criterion of Risk-Reward The fifth criterion for determining whether a prophecy is pre factum or post factum examines the risk-reward ratio surrounding the inclusion of the prophecy. The higher an author's risk-reward ratio is for including a prophecy the less likely it is that the prophecy is pre factum. The lower the author's risk-reward ratio is for including the prophecy, the more likely it is that the prophecy is pre factum. This criterion is based on the simple but sound notion that the amount of risk an individual is willing to take is directly related to the reward he or she might receive. High risk is only taken to gain a proportionately high reward. Here we will seek to determine the evangelist's risk-reward ratio for including the temple prophecy both pre factum and post factum. What risks does Mark take by including a prophecy regarding the temple's destruction pre factum? The answer to this question is clear. Since Mark has Jesus make this prophecy, the credibility of Jesus, Mark's central figure, is at risk. Given that much of Mark's gospel (if not all of it) is devoted to promoting Jesus, including this prophecy was quite risky. If the temple is not destroyed, then Mark's Jesus is easily discredited, as is Mark's gospel. But what of Mark's reward for including such a prophecy pre factuml Is it proportionate to the risk? Perhaps, as we noted above, Mark was able to advance an anti-temple motif through this prophecy and highlight God's impending judgment of what the evangelist perceived to be a corrupt institution. Or perhaps Mark was simply warning his readers of what he perceived to be the impending and cataclysmic destruction of the temple. But these rewards do not seem proportionate to Mark's risk. At best they advance relatively minor Markan themes

66 Chapter 2

and are ancillary to Mark's most significant theme of Christology. Therefore, in claiming that Mark's prophecy of the temple's destruction is pre factum, we are claiming that Mark was willing to risk his christological presentation of Jesus - a Markan theme closely related to Mark's overall purpose - for the sake of minor themes that are only ancillary to the gospel's primary message. Therefore, Mark's risk-reward ratio for including a pre factum prophecy of the temple's destruction is quite high - a fact that decreases the plausibility of a pre factum prophecy.

However, we must consider other realities that might mitigate this high risk-reward ratio for the evangelist? One could point to the open-ended nature of the prophecy. Jesus puts no time-table on when the temple's destruction will occur. Though the reader of Mark may be living in a day when the temple is still standing, this does not mean the prophecy is false. The prophecy can still find fulfillment at some future point. Many faith traditions have dealt with troublesome prophecies in this manner. Yet though this solution may satisfy some, there are certainly others whom it would not satisfy. Some readers who see the temple standing will question the credibility of the prophet who predicted its destruction. Why would Mark unnecessarily open Jesus up to this type of criticism.

The risk becomes even greater if Mark is writing during the Jewish Revolt. Suddenly Mark's prophecy is surrounded by historical constraints. Mark's readers will certainly understand the prophecy in terms of the Jewish Revolt, and the evangelist's backdoor of an open-ended prophecy is slammed shut. If the Jewish Revolt did not result in the temple's destruction but rather in Jewish victory (which, as we noted above, many Jews and possibly even Christians likely perceived as a possible outcome), a default to open-ended prophecy would fall on deaf ears. Jesus' prophecy of the temple's destruction would mean little if Jerusalem and its temple stood triumphant against the forces of Rome. If Mark saw even the slightest possibility of this outcome, would he jeopardize his presentation of Jesus by including such a prophecy against it? It seems it would be an unnecessary risk by the evangelist.

We also must consider whether there is evidence of Mark taking similar prophetic risks elsewhere in his gospel? If it can be demonstrated that Mark makes or records risky prophecies elsewhere, then perhaps the appearance of one regarding the temple would be less significant. Mark records many prophecies by Jesus - his own death and resurrection, Peter's denial, Judas' betrayal - but all of these have been fulfilled before the time of Mark's composition. The only outstanding prophecy in Mark yet to be fulfilled is the future coming of the Son of Man. Yet this prophecy can hardly be seen to carry the same risks as the prophecy of the temple's destruction. It is not constrained by history in nearly the same way as the temple prophecy; therefore, the open-ended nature of the prophecy can be used to explain a


delayed Parousia.55 This prophecy is also much more crucial to the faith of the early church and to Mark's presentation of Jesus than is the temple prophecy. From a very early date, the church eagerly anticipated Jesus' return and placed great importance on it. Mark's inclusion of this prophecy is in line with the priority of this belief in the early church. It is also important to Mark's presentation of Jesus as the Son of Man who will one day return. If Jesus is the messianic Son of God who is forever absent from his people, much of his significance is lost. Mark's inclusion of the prophecy of the coming Son of Man, though it may involve some risk, is essential to Jesus' identity in Mark and to the faith of the church (unlike the prophecy of the temple's destruction). It is, therefore, a risk Mark must take and, unlike the temple prophecy, it cannot be left out. But at no other point did Mark risk the validity of his gospel by including prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.

We can conclude that Mark would risk a great deal (the very validity of his gospel and its central figure, Jesus) by including a pre factum prophecy regarding the temple's destruction. Perhaps more importantly, the reward for such a great risk is minimal. A great risk for such a small gain seems highly unlikely. The absence of such risks elsewhere in Mark only confirms this conclusion. But if Mark recorded this prophecy post factum, he risked nothing and, as we have demonstrated above, he gained a great deal (Jesus is confirmed as a great prophet, God is understood as in control in the midst of crisis, encouragement is given to confused and frightened disciples, and the power of Rome is disarmed). The criterion of risk-reward, therefore, strongly favors the conclusion that Mark's temple prophecy is post factum rather than pre factum.

Conclusions to be Drawn from the Criteria After applying these five criteria to Mark's temple prophecy, we can make the following conclusions. While the first three criteria (specificity, reasonableness, and similarity) increase the plausibility that Mark's temple prophecy is pre factum, they neither necessitate such a conclusion, nor do they preclude the possibility of a post factum prophecy. But the last two criteria (motivation and risk-reward) do undermine the plausibility of a pre factum identification and, at the same time, strongly favor the plausibility of identifying the prophecy as post factum. Therefore, on the strength of these final two criteria, we conclude that Mark's temple prophecy is best identified as a post factum, and that its presence in Mark betrays a post-70 date of composition.

5 5 It could be argued that this passage is restrained somewhat by Mark 9:1, which claims that some of Jesus' disciples will not die until they see the kingdom of God "come in power." The meaning of this verse for Mark is debated. But if it is understood to refer to the return of Son of Man, and the establishment of God's eschatological kingdom, then the Son of Man prophecy would have some historical restraints.

68 Chapter 2

2.2.4 Reading Mark 13 in Light of a Post-70 Date of Composition After concluding that Mark's temple prophecy is best understood as post factum, we must determine whether this conclusion is compatible with the rest of Mark's gospel or even more specifically with chapter 13. For many interpreters, the relationship between the details of Mark 13 and the historical events behind them is determinative for dating Mark. The majority of interpreters understand the details of Mark 13 against the backdrop of the Jewish Revolt, and its culmination in the temple's destruction. But, as we noted previously, interpreters differ on the temporal perspective of the chapter - whether it was written prior to the temple's destruction and is primarily looking forward to the future (what we will call the anticipatory interpretation)56 or it was written after the temple's destruction and is looking backward to the past (what we will call descriptive interpretation).57 Those who posit the descriptive interpretation generally see verses 5-23 as a description of completed history, namely the Jewish War, the temple's destruction and the suffering that surrounded both.5 8 Those who posit the anticipatory interpretation generally see these verses as a description of the current realities of the Jewish Revolt that both Mark and his readers are experiencing (or have recently experienced) and the future realities that they will soon encounter.59 The anticipatory interpretation, however, does not comport with our previous conclusions regarding Mark's prophecy of the temple's destruction. As we concluded above, it seems quite unlikely that Mark would have risked his gospel's credibility by including such an unfulfilled prophecy. If we rejected the plausibility of Mark 13:2 as a pre factum prophecy, we must conclude that Mark was written after the events of the Jewish Revolt.

This conclusion leaves us with the descriptive interpretation that views the majority of Mark 13 as completed history, a position with its own significant difficulties. Here we will give a general sketch of the traditional descriptive interpretation.60 Verses 5-8 are often understood in light of the realities of the Jewish Revolt, (e.g., "wars and rumors of war," "nation rising against

5 6 For a list of such interpreters, see n. 33 above. 5 7 For a list of such interpreters, see n. 32 above. 5 8 Certainly variation exists within these numerous interpretations, but they generally

understand Mark 13 in light of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. We note a handful of exceptions below.

5 9 Among the many interpreters who hold that Mark was writing during the Jewish Revolt but prior to the destruction of the temple, some understand the details of Mark 13 to originate almost completely from past historical realities, while others see the details originating primarily from authentic Jesus tradition. Also among these interpreters there is variation of opinion as to how much of Mark 13 has been experienced or is being experienced and how much yet remains to be experienced.

6 0 Again variation of opinion among interpreters exists, but this generic model is helpful in evaluating the position as a whole.


nation") and Jewish messianic pretenders who were active during the revolt.61

Verses 9-13 are generally understood to reference past, present, or future suffering (or possibly all three).62 Generally verses 14-23 are understood in light of Jerusalem's destruction and, more specifically, the destruction of the temple itself. Though the exact referent for the "abomination of desolation" is debated, it is generally equated with an event closely related to the Jerusalem temple.63 The immense suffering that followed the abomination is equated with the suffering experienced in Jerusalem during its capture.

But interpreters who date Mark before 70 C.E . have leveled many valid critiques against this interpretation. Many details of the discourse do not fit with the historical realities surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. For example, it is difficult to understand why an author who knows that the temple's destruction occurred in the summer would include a petition that it not occur in the winter (13:18).

Another difficulty that arises when equating the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple with Mark 13, concerns chronology. If Mark 13 is recording a description of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it has its order of events confused. In Mark 13, the temple's destruction (if this event is to be equated with the "abomination of desolation") precedes the great persecution. It is the sign of imminent destruction. But in actuality, the temple's destruction ended the siege of Jerusalem. The temple's destruction did not ignite an onslaught of persecution; rather, it was the culmination of years of suffering.

Mark also describes the tribulation surrounding these events as being greater than any seen on the earth since its creation, and he claims that none greater will ever be seen again. The language has a clear apocalyptic tenor to it, and it seems to describe the world's final period of suffering. It is difficult to understand why Mark would use this apocalyptic language of suffering to describe a past event that in actuality never lived up to his description. Certainly, it was a horrific experience for those involved, but it was relatively

6 1 Brandon, "Date of Mark," 136-37; Gnilka, Nach Markus, 186-88; Hooker, "Trials," 85-86; Marcus, "Jewish War," 446-47; Peerbolte, Antecedents, 30-31; Donahue, Are You the Christ?, 217-24; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 369; Moloney, Mark, 254-56.

6 2 Theissen sees these verses as a description of the suffering Christians might have experienced in Syria after the destruction of the temple, though he offers no historical evidence of such suffering. See Theissen, Context, 270. Hooker also sees these verses as instructions to Mark's community regarding future suffering; Hooker, "Trials and Tribulations," 88-89; see also Peerbolte, Antecedents, 32-35; Moloney, Mark, 256-58; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 380. For Brandon these verses have an eye on both the past suffering under Nero and the possibility of future suffering; Brandon, "Date of Mark," 137.

6 3 Marcus understands this phrase as a reference to the presence of Zealot warriors in the temple, "The Jewish War," 461-62; see also Lane, Mark, 469. Pesch understands this phrase as a reference to Titus' entrance into the holy of holies after his armies had occupied the temple (Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:291); see also Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 221-22; Peerbolte, Antecedents, 35-41; Moloney, Mark, 259-60; Such, Abomination of Desolation.

70 Chapter 2

isolated, with little direct effect on the majority of the Christian church.64

The siege of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction hardly live up to Mark's description, suggesting that these events were not the events Mark intended to describe.

Perhaps the greatest problem for understanding Mark 13 as completed history is the claim that immediately following the temple's destruction and the time of tribulation the Son of Man would return (13:24-27).65 If Mark is writing after Jerusalem's destruction, this claim makes little sense, for we are only left to conclude that Mark is living and writing during the time in which he claims the Parousia should be taking place! Given the impossible nature of such a conclusion, we must reject the notion that verses 14-23 are describing the culmination of the Jewish Revolt.

For all of the above reasons, the descriptive interpretation fails to account for the details of Mark 13. If we reject the traditional critical position, we are left with only two options: (1) Mark wrote before 70 C.E. and anticipated both the temple's destruction and the Parousia to follow or (2) Mark wrote after 70 C.E . and chapter 13 does not describe the temple's destruction, but rather, a future reality for Mark and his community.66 Our analysis of Mark's temple prophecy has led us to conclude that a pre-70 C.E. composition of Mark (option one) is unlikely. Therefore, we must examine our second option; that Mark is writing at some point after 70 C.E . and that he is describing future eschatologi-cal realities unrelated to the Jewish Revolt and the temple's destruction. But can such a Sitz im Leben adequately explain the realities of Mark 13? We now turn to this question.

Mark 13 begins with the disciples' comments regarding the temple's grandeur and Jesus' prophecy of its destruction. In Mark's narrative, this dialogue happens as Jesus and an unspecified number of disciples come out of the temple. In verse three, the location changes. There, Jesus is on the Mount of

6 4 It is debated whether or not the majority of the Jerusalem Christians suffered during the Jewish Revolt. Eusebius claims that most Jewish Christians fled to Pella, though his testimony is questioned by modern interpreters. See the discussion above on Pella, page 21.

6 5 There is some debate as to whether Mark intended the reader to understand that the events of verses 24-27 immediately followed the event of 14-23 or whether time between these series of events is allowed. But the entire discourse is one that addresses questions concerning the end of the age. The events of 14-23 are signs of the end of the age, which is clearly addressed in 24-27. To allow for an unspecified amount of time to occur between these series of events seems to interrupt the flow of the text. Such a conclusion should be rejected given that the motivation for such a reading seems to be the removal of the difficulty that verses 24-27 pose for those interpreting 14-23 in light of the temple's destruction. See Collins, Beginning, 86. We must note that Matthew - one of Mark's earliest interpreters - eliminates this confusion by including the word EuGe'caq (Matt 24:29).

6 6 Some interpreters who date Mark after 70 C.E. have concluded that the "abomination of desolation," of Mark 13 is not a reference to the temple's destruction, but rather is a general reference to an "antichrist" figure; see Kelber, Kingdom, 119-20; Gnilka, Markus, 2:195-99.


Olives (across from the temple) and is talking with Peter, James, and John. The three disciples pose the following question to Jesus, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?" What is the subject of the disciples' question? The traditional answer is the temple's destruction that Jesus prophesied in verse 2. But why then do they use the plural pronoun xaOxa "these things" as opposed to the singular pronoun T O O T O "this thing," if they are only interested in a single event, the temple's destruction? The grammar here would indicate that the disciples are not interested in the temple's destruction alone (if at all) but other significant events. The abrupt change of scenery between verses 1-2 and verse 3 also may distance Jesus' prophecy concerning the temple from the disciples' question and indicate that the temple's destruction is no longer the central issue. Jesus' response to their question seems to confirm this. Nowhere in Jesus' response (verses 5-27) does he explicitly mention the temple or its destruction. Instead, Jesus speaks of signs that will precede the coming of the Son of Man and the end of the age. This evidence suggests that the antecedent for xauxa is not the temple's destruction, but rather the events surrounding the eschaton, events that Jesus is about to describe. The question has no direct relationship to the temple prophecy of verse 2, but rather was created for the purpose of introducing a discourse on the events that will precede the end of the age. Matthew (perhaps our first known interpreter of Mark) has clearly understood Mark in this way and has made the disciples' question explicitly refer to the eschaton. Luke, who is notorious for mitigating references to an imminent Parousia, has backed off from this interpretation and has linked the question almost explicitly to the Jerusalem destruction. Therefore, it seems quite plausible that Jesus' discourse (verses 5-27) is concerned with the events of the final age and not with the events surrounding the temple's destruction.

Before we examine Jesus' response to the disciples' question, a preliminary observation is needed. Though Mark has the disciples ask the question, it seems quite likely that this question is actually a question Mark's community asked, namely "when will the end come?" Certainly this community was interested in the eschaton and the Parousia. Jesus' discourse serves to address the eschatological questions not asked by the historical disciples but by Mark's audience.67 It would perhaps ease their anxieties, fears, and confusion - fears and confusion that would no doubt abound following an event such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Jesus' response can be divided into four different sections: (1) universal catastrophes preceding tribulation (vs. 5-8), (2) personal catastrophes preceding tribulation (vs. 9-13), (3) unprecedented tribulation (vs. 14-23), and (4) the coming of the Son of Man following tribulation (vs. 24-27). Section

6 7 For a similar conclusion see Roskam, Purpose, 55-72.

72 Chapter 2

one addresses the events in the recent past and immediate present of Mark's readers. The messages of "wars and rumors of wars" and "nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom" are realities through which Mark's readers have lived. It is quite possible that Mark has the Jewish Revolt in mind or perhaps the civil war of 69 C.E . , which left the Roman Empire in chaos.6 8 Mark also speaks of people coming in the name of Christ and warns against following such deception.69 It is important to note, however, none of these things is an immediate precursor to the end; they are described only as "the beginning of birth pains."7 0 It seems likely that recent events increased both eschatological anxieties and eschatological expectations within Mark's community. Some members of the community may have chosen to follow false teachers/messianic claimants or perhaps were tempted to do so as a result of confusion surrounding the eschaton. The Markan Jesus speaks to this situation and assures the community that the end is not yet here and reminds them that they must remain faithful in the interim. The chaos in the world around them is only the precursor to the tribulation that is to come. The primary purpose of section one, therefore, is to tell Mark's readers not to be misled and that the events they are experiencing are not signs that the end is imminent.

Section two (9-13) addresses personal persecution and suffering that Mark's readers either were experiencing, expected to experience, or had experienced in the recent past. The persecution involves being "handed over to councils," "beaten in synagogues," and "standing before governors and kings." Though these examples may have direct corollaries in the lives of Mark's readers, they could be more generic examples of suffering. Perhaps they find their corollaries in past persecutions and are here being projected on the suffering or anticipated suffering of Mark's readers. We can be fairly certain that Mark perceived this suffering to come from public or possibly religious officials. All of this suffering results from faithfulness to Jesus, and, in fact, is seen as an opportunity for true disciples to bear witness to Jesus. The one who endures this persecution for the sake of Jesus and does not fall away will be saved. But again, the persecution described in section two should not be associated with the coming of the eschaton, but rather is a description of the normative reality for Jesus' disciples, i.e., Mark's readers. The reader is

6 8 See Hengel, Studies, 22-24. 6 9 There is debate over who these false teachers represent. Some claim that they are mes

sianic pretenders associated with the Jewish Revolt; see Roskam, Purpose, 95-97; Marcus, "Jewish War," 44; Collins, "Apocalyptic Rhetoric," BibRes 41 (1996): 5-36, esp. 15; eadem, Beginning, 81-82; see van Iersel, Mark, 44-45, for a critique of Collins in particular. Others have argued that they are false teachers among Mark's community, perhaps teachers who are proclaiming that the Parousia has already taken place; see Kelber, Kingdom, 115; Taylor, Mark, 503; David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956), 325-29; van Iersel, Mark, 394-95, et al.

7 0 See Hooker, "Trials and Tribulations," 84-90.

Marks Date and Provenance 73

reminded, as in section one, that the experience of this personal persecution is not a sign of the imminent eschaton.

Until verse 14, the purpose of Jesus' teaching is restraint. The message is, "Yes chaotic events will take place and you will suffer persecution but the end is yet to come." It is in section three that Jesus finally gives the sign that will mark the beginning of the end and so that the disciples (Mark's readers) will receive the answer to their question. This transition is signaled by the phrase oxav 6e i6r|T6, "but when you see." The "abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be" is the sign warning Mark's readers that the end is imminent. But to what then is Mark referring? The reference itself certainly finds its origins in septuagintal version of Daniel 12:11: "From when the perpetual sacrifice is removed and the abomination of desolation [TO (36e\uy|ia Trjg 6pr]|jc6aecog] is prepared to be established, [there will be] a thousand two hundred and ninety days."71 A similar reference is made in LXX Daniel 11:31: "Forces from him shall be established and profane the holy place of fear and take away the sacrifice and give the abomination of desolation [P5e\uy | ja epr||jc6a6cog]."72 p8e \uy | ja eprnjcoaecoc; also appears in 1 Maccabees 1:54 and is most certainly an allusion to the Danielic abomination: "Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected an abomination of desolation [(38e\uy|ja epriiicoaecog] upon the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah." These references describe the actions of Antiochus IV, who defiled the Jewish temple by instituting pagan worship within it. Reinforcing this connection between pagan worship and this unique phrase is the way in which p6e \uy | ja is used in the LXX. It is frequently used in reference to pagan worship or idolatry.73

Mark's use of this specific phrase should likely be seen against this background of pagan worship/idolatry.

But Mark's exact referent for the "abomination of desolation" is difficult to determine. Given the two considerations with which we began this section - (1) that Mark was written after 70 C.E. and (2) that Mark's purpose is to inform his readers regarding the coming eschaton - we can conclude that this event lies in the future for Mark and his readers. It is an event for which Mark's readers can look to as a sign that the end is imminent. Therefore, any reference to the "abomination of desolation" that precedes or is directly related to the temple's destruction must be rejected, e.g., Pilate's attempt to bring Caesar's image into the city, Caligula's attempt to erect a statue of himself in the temple,74 the presence of Jewish Zealots or priests ordained by

7 1 Translation original, dependent upon Rahlfs' text of the LXX. A. Rahlfs, Septuagint, id est, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2 vols.; 8 t h ed.; Stuttgart: Wurt-tembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965).

7 2 Original translation, dependent upon Rahlfs' text of the LXX. 7 3 Deut 7:25,26; 17:4; 18:12; 27:15; 1 Mace 6:7; Wis 14:11; Mai 2:11; Jer 2:7; et al. 7 4 For interpreters who see the Caligula crisis as a background to Mark 13:14 (or at

74 Chapter 2

Zealots working in the temple,75 or even Titus' presence in the temple following its destruction.76 Given the background surrounding T O p 8 e \ u y | i a i f ig 6pr||jc6a£cog, it seems likely that the event that Mark anticipates will be related in some way to pagan worship or idolatry and could possibly be similar to actions of Antiochus IV. Theissen has argued that Mark is referring to the anticipated construction of a pagan temple on the site where the Jewish temple once stood.77 Though Theissen's theory is quite attractive, it is impossible to determine whether Mark has such a specific referent in mind. It is possible that T O pSeXuyiia Trjg eprnjcoaecog represents a common Christian belief that the eschaton would be preceded by an idolatrous act of great significance - one which was reminiscent of or of similar magnitude to that of Antiochus IV. Regardless of the way in which that act would be manifested, it would not be misunderstood by the people of God, and it would stand as a clear marker of the imminent end of the age. A similar tradition may be expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4: "Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God." Mark 13:14 could reflect both the Jewish and later Christian belief that the eschaton would be preceded by the rise of an apocalyptic figure who would oppose both God and his messiah.78

Against this conclusion, one could argued that Mark's use of T O p5e \uy | ja Trig eprilicoaecog presupposes the temple's existence and that a generic identification of this event (such as we have offered here) is impossible. It is true that both Daniel and 1 Maccabees specifically link the phrase T O pSeXuyjia Trjg ept^icoaecog to the temple, but it is uncertain that Mark's use of the phrase in the first century also carries this same link. We know little about the development of this phrase from its use in 1 Maccabees (ca. 100 B.C.E.) up to the late

least behind the pre-Markan tradition) see N. H. Taylor, "Palestinian Christianity and the Caligula Crisis: Part II. The Markan Eschatological Discourse," JSNT 62 (1996): 13-41; Grundmann, Markus, 358; Gnilka, Markus, 2:194; et al.

7 5 See n. 63 above. 7 6 See n. 63 above. 7 7 Theissen, Context, 258-64. 7 8 For those interpreters who understand the TO pSeXuypa iffo epriucoaecog as a refer

ence to the antichrist, see, along with n. 56, Lohmeyer, Markus, 275-76; Klostermann, Markusevangelium, 135; H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1976), 296; J. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Markus (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet Verlag, 1998), 379. For dissenting opinions, see Peerbolte, Antecedents, 35-41. For further discussion on the concept of antichrist in Second Temple Judaism see G. W. Lorein, The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period (JSPSup 44; London: T & T Clark, 2003). Lorein makes a strong case that the idea of an antichrist figure was well established by the end of the intert-estmenal period. If Lorein is correct, then it seems plausible that Mark 13 simply reflects the continuation of this tradition.


first century. In a post-temple period, there seems to be no reason why the use of this phrase could not be maintained to describe unspeakable idolatry, while its association with the temple (which no longer was standing) could be abandoned.79 Yet does the description of the T O pSeXuypa rfjg epr||jc6a6cog as "standing" or "established" in the place "where it ought not be" indicate a reference to the Jerusalem temple? Such an interpretation is certainly possible but not necessary. A metaphysical rather than physical location could be intended. Therefore, the place that is wrongfully occupied could be the place of divine recognition: that which is not divine (or is not God's representative) is receiving the recognition of the divine and "is established where it/he ought not to be." Understanding T O pSeXuyna Trjg epr)|ic6aecog to be a reference to a future idolatrous action unrelated to the temple is therefore plausible. Any attempt to link it with either a known historical event or a specific expectation is both unnecessary and difficult to prove.

The idolatrous event of verse 14 will usher in a time of great tribulation, which will be unsurpassed in human history (13:19). Because of this coming tribulation, the reader is warned to flee immediately. The plight of pregnant or nursing women will be even greater because flight from danger will be difficult (13:17). These days will be cut short by God for the sake of his elect. Had they not been divinely curtailed, all of humanity would perish. During this time, false christs and false prophets will attempt to deceive people through signs and wonders, but the elect will not be deceived. With these verses, Mark continues to instruct his readers about eschatological expectations. The eschaton will be immediately preceded by unmatched persecution, one that requires immediate flight to safety. It will surpass any suffering that Mark's readers may have already endured (see 13:9-13). Mark continues his theme of discipleship in this section by warning his readers that despite the convincing proofs of false christs and prophets, they must remain faithful. This time of tribulation and the false christs that accompany it should not surprise Mark's readers, for they have been warned in advance.

Section four discusses the events that will immediately follow the great tribulation of section three. It is in fact the climax of the entire discourse, for it describes both the coming Son of Man (the Parousia) and the salvation that he will bring for the elect. The coming of the Son of Man will be preceded by astrological signs, i.e., the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of stars, and the shaking of the heavens. These signs reflect common apocalyptic imagery. The Son of Man who returns in the clouds is probably Jesus and may be an allusion to Daniel 7:13. The reference to the Danielic Son of Man certainly implies the establishment of the eschatological kingdom of God though it is not explicitly stated here. Angels will gather God's elect, namely those

7 9 If Theissen's theory is accepted, Mark would then be referring to an idolatrous object/ person standing where the temple had once stood.

76 Chapter 2

who have remained faithful disciples. Section four marks the beginning of the eschaton that Mark's readers are anxiously awaiting.

This interpretation of chapter 13 is certainly plausible and also seems to explain the details of the discourse more adequately than the alternative interpretations mentioned above. The eschatological discourse, therefore, does not pose a problem for a post-70 dating of Mark and may be best understood in light of such a dating.

2.2.5 Conclusions concerning Mark's Date of Composition Here we have tried to show that the external evidence, though not determinative, for the dating of Mark, favors a lower limit of 65 C.E., a time after the deaths of Peter and Paul. Two internal factors, eschatological expectations and the presence of a world-wide mission, support this lower limit. But the most important piece of internal evidence is the prophecy of the temple's destruction. In determining whether this prophecy was recorded by the evangelist pre factum or post factum, we considered five criteria. While three criteria (specificity, reasonableness, and similarity) supported the plausibility of a pre factum prophecy, two criteria (motivation and risk-reward) undermined the plausibility of a pre factum identification and strongly favored the probability of a post factum prophecy. Therefore, based on this piece of internal evidence, we must conclude that Mark was written no earlier than 70 C.E., at some point after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. To conclude our argument, we have sought to demonstrate that a post 70 dating of Mark could adequately explain the realities found in Mark 13. Our discussion of Mark's purpose will continue, therefore, in light of a post 70 C.E . date for Mark's composition.

2.3 Mark's Provenance

Only three noteworthy candidates find themselves in the debate regarding Mark's provenance.80 The more traditionally accepted location for Mark's composition (and still the most frequently posited among interpreters) is Rome.81

For the last two millennia this has been the accepted tradition of the church and most biblical interpreters. During the early twentieth century, however, a

8 0 For an overview of scholarship on Mark's provenance see J. R. Donahue, "The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel," in The Four Gospels 1992 FS F. Neirynck (ed. F. van Segbroek, et al.; BETL 100B; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:817-38

8 1 For interpreters who advance a Roman provenance see Ernst, Markus, 1:112-14; Hen-gel, Studies, 1-30; R. E. Brown and J. P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 191-97; Guelich, Mark, xxix-xxxi; Hooker, "Trials and Tribulations," 78-99; idem, Mark; Lane, Mark, 24-25; van Iersel, Mark, 30-57; et al. Black claims that while a Roman provenance for Mark is not improbable, it is not certain; see Black, Mark, 238-39; idem, "Was Mark a Roman Gospel?" ExpTim 105 (1993-1994), 36-40; Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 59-108, 156-202.


handful of interpreters argued against the traditional provenance in favor of Galilee.82 Though this position has not found a great deal of support among interpreters, it continues to find a place in current debates and thus we will consider it here. More recently, however, a significant number of interpreters have argued for a Syrian provenance.83 Though it does not seem Syria has eclipsed Rome as the answer to this debate, it does seem to be the location du jour for a growing number of Markan interpreters. Here we will examine all three positions in light of both the external and internal evidence.

2.3.1 Rome: The External Evidence The external evidence for Mark's provenance overlaps a good deal with the external evidence for Mark's dating. The earliest testimony that gives any indication about the location for Mark is again found in Irenaeus (see Irenaeus' testimony above). Though Irenaeus does not explicitly claim that Mark was written in Rome, the fact that he connects its composition to Peter's and Paul's deaths in Rome seems to imply a Roman provenance. The "anti-Marcionite" prologue explicitly states that Mark was written in the "regions of Italy." If the prologue was familiar with a Roman provenance for Mark it is peculiar that it would offer a general location (Italy) rather than a specific one (Rome). The reference to Italy could simply be a stylistic circumlocution for Rome or it could actually betray uncertainty in the author's understanding of his tradition (perhaps that of Irenaeus). Regardless, the prologue's testimony places the composition of Mark closer to Rome than to the alternative positions (Syria or Galilee) and is, therefore, best seen as evidence for a western provenance. Clement of Alexandria also designates Rome as the place of Mark's composition. These three early witnesses are affirmed by a number of later witnesses (Origen, Eusebius, the Monarchian gospel prologues, Epiphia-nus, and Jerome).84

The virtual unanimity of this ancient testimony has long convinced interpreters that Mark's provenance is indeed Rome. But more critical scrutiny of this ancient evidence raises doubts about its worth. Clifton Black has noted that most ancient witnesses regarding the Markan origins agree on two things:

8 2 See Lohmeyer, Markus, 29-31; Lightfoot, Locality; Marxsen, Evangelist, 54-116; N. Perrin, "Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark," in Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage (ed. H. D. Betz; Claremont: SBL, 1971), 1-78; Weeden, Traditions; Kelber, Kingdom; and most recently Roskam, Purpose, 75-114.

8 3 See Kee, Community, 102-5; B. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Waetjen, Reordering, 15, 251; J. Donahue, "Windows and Mirror," 1-26; idem, Are You the Christ?; Marcus, "Jewish War," 141-62; Such, Abomination of Desolation; Theissen, Context, 235-81; et al.

8 4 In fact, only one ancient witness, John Chrysostom (writing in the late 4 t h century) offers an alternative provenance: Egypt. This tradition of an Egyptian provenance almost certainly originated from the tradition that Mark was at one point the bishop of Alexandria; see the Monarchian prologue for Mark where this tradition first appears.

78 Chapter 2

(1) that Mark is in some way linked to the apostle Peter and (2) that Mark was written in Rome.8 5 He notes that no link between Mark and Rome exist apart from a link between Mark and Peter, yet there are examples of the reverse; i.e., a link exists between Mark and Peter with no connection to Rome. He then concludes that it is highly possible that Mark's connection with Rome is only derived from the tradition of Petrine authority behind Mark. Such a derivation could easily come from 1 Peter 5:13, which places Mark with Peter in Rome (Babylon). The explanation for a Roman provenance of Mark then is as follows: (1) Papias testifies to a link between Peter and Mark, (2) the Papias tradition is read in light of 1 Peter 5:13, which links Mark and Peter to Rome, and (3) the tradition of a Roman provenance for Mark is created and then parroted by later ancient witnesses. If this interpretation of the evidence is accepted, the ancient witness of a Roman provenance for Mark is worthless.

But Black's reconstruction of the origin of the Mark/Rome tradition is problematic. He begins by noting that Mark/Peter traditions stand alone but Mark/Rome traditions never exist apart from Mark/Peter traditions. From this evidence he suggests that Mark/Rome traditions are likely dependent on Mark/Peter traditions. There are a number of problems with Black's argument. First, he is trying to establish a pattern based on a very small sample of evidence. Black is only considering seven witnesses.86 Five of these include traditions linking Mark with Peter and Rome and two only link Mark to Peter. With such a small number of exceptions (two), it is hard to establish the kind of pattern that Black suggests. Because of the small number of exceptions, the possibility increases that factors other than those suggested might account for them. The possibility of alternative explanations decreases with a larger number of exceptions. The absence of a Mark/Rome tradition in these two ancient witnesses does not have to be explained by their ignorance of such a tradition, but rather could be explained by each witness's unique concern or interest. When we look at these exceptions, such an alternative explanation becomes quite plausible.

The first witness who links the evangelist Mark with Peter but not with Rome is Papias. But it is not Papias' intention to pass on a thorough account of the origins of each gospel (in fact there is no mention of Luke's origins at all). Rather, Papias is attempting to explain why certain gospels (Matthew and Mark in particular) differ in their order of events while also validating those differences. Papias points out that the evangelist Mark was not an eyewitness but was dependent on traditions from Peter. For Papias, this fact explains what some might perceive to be errors in Markan order. Mark's connection with Peter is therefore necessary in order for Papias to make his point, whereas the

8 5 Black, Mark, 224-25. 8 6 Here we are only considering witnesses who pre-date the early fourth century C.E.

Black considers later witnesses, but for our purposes these are less relevant.


location of Mark's composition is not. Concerning Papias' knowledge about Mark's provenance, we can only speculate.

The second witness who mentions a connection between Mark and Peter without mentioning a link between Mark and Rome is Tertullian. But Ter-tullian's purpose is to defend the apostolic authority of each gospel and not simply to pass along traditions regarding gospel origins. Mark's provenance is completely unrelated to Tertullian's purpose and, therefore, it is not surprising that we do not find a reference to it along with the reference made to Mark's relationship to Peter. Again we can make no statement about Tertullian's knowledge of or belief in a Roman provenance for Mark, either positive or negative.

There is no reason to conclude that the Papias or Tertullian traditions were unfamiliar with a Mark/Rome tradition. The absence of a Mark/Rome tradition could be due to the lack of relevance the tradition had for the author's present purpose, rather than due to the author's ignorance of the tradition. Black's evidence, therefore, does not clearly demonstrate that a Mark/Rome tradition was derived from a Mark/Peter tradition. We do not have enough information to determine whether one tradition preceded the other or whether they both originated together.

Another question about Black's analysis of the ancient witness to Mark's Roman provenance is how plausible it is that such a tradition would not only be created easily but also easily be propagated. In answering this question, the first issue to address is that of motivation. What would motivate someone to create a tradition that Mark was composed in Rome? A Roman provenance would not give the gospel added credibility or authority. No early witness seems to value Mark strictly for its Roman origins. It is true that as the church in Rome became more prominent, Mark likely benefited from its connection to Rome. It may even be possible that Mark's very survival depended on its perceived Roman roots. Traditionally, Mark was in the shadow of Matthew and Luke. One reason why these "greater" gospels did not completely eclipse Mark may have been Mark's connection to the powerful church in Rome. But these factors were likely not in play during the mid-second century (or perhaps were only in early stages of development), the time in which we first see testimony of a Roman provenance for Mark.

An even less likely motivation is that a Mark/Rome tradition was created to promote the Roman church's primacy over rival churches (e.g., Jerusalem, Antioch, or Alexandria). While rivalry between churches did exist and Rome did attempt to assert its primacy and authority over other churches as early as the mid-second century, there is no evidence that churches, even the church in Rome, used gospel provenances for such a purpose. In fact, given that Mark was treated as inferior to the other canonical gospels during the church's early history, the degree to which it could promote the Roman church's primacy would be negligible. In addition, if the Mark/Rome tradition was created to advance Roman primacy, we would expect our earliest sources for the tradi-

80 Chapter 2

tion to be of Roman origin, yet none of them are. In fact, our earliest sources that testify to Mark's provenance - Irenaeus, the "anti-marcionite" prologue, and Clement of Alexandria - demonstrate no interest in promoting the Roman church's primacy. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that a Mark/Rome tradition was created for the purpose of promoting the primacy of the church in Rome.

If the tradition of a Roman provenance for Mark was not created to increase the gospel's credibility or to advance the Roman church's primacy, few plausible motivations for its creation remain. Curiosity alone does not seem to be motivation enough to create a tradition regarding a gospel's provenance. As evidence that ancient witnesses were not motivated by curiosity alone, we note the absence in their testimonies of traditions concerning the provenance for Luke's gospel and only a generic provenance ("among the Hebrews" according to Irenaeus) for Matthew. Why are specific provenances not given for either of these gospels? If curiosity was motivation enough for our ancient witnesses to create traditions regarding gospel origins, it seems we might find traditions claiming these gospels were produced in prominent Christian cities: perhaps Matthew in Jerusalem or Antioch or Luke in Ephesus or Philippi. That our ancient witnesses were reluctant to offer specific provenances for Matthew and Luke should make us pause before claiming that they have done so concerning a Markan provenance. That there is a virtual absence of doubt or dissension among our ancient witnesses regarding Mark's Roman provenance also seems to speak against the possibility that it was simply the invention of the early church. If the tradition was an early church creation, we might expect to find some hint of reservation among our witnesses, but we do not.

Black's analysis of the external evidence regarding Mark's provenance seems unduly skeptical. A plausible motivation for creating and propagating such a tradition is indiscernible. That these same witnesses refused to create specific traditions regarding the provenance for Matthew or Luke speaks against a tendency in these witnesses to create traditions without cause. There is also no evidence directly indicating that these witnesses are ultimately dependent on 1 Peter 5:13 as Black suggests. But even though there are reasons to accept the authenticity of these traditions, their certainty remains elusive, while the skeptical conclusions of Black and others remain possible. In light of this uncertainty, the value of the external evidence for Mark's provenance is somewhat mitigated, though not completely irrelevant.

2.3.2 Rome: The Internal Evidence Because of the skepticism surrounding the external evidence for Mark's provenance, interpreters are forced to make a decision based on the internal evidence. Perhaps the most common piece of internal evidence offered in support of a Roman provenance is the frequency of Latin loan words and


"Latinisms" within Mark's text.87 It is argued that these Greek transcriptions of Latin words (caesar, census, denarius, flagellars grabatus, legio, modius, praetorium, sextarius, quadrans, et al.) betrays a western origin (Rome) rather than an eastern origin (Syria/Galilee). Not only does Mark contain Latin loan words but it also includes Latin idioms that are translated into unnatural Greek word combinations (656v iroieTv = viam facere, 2:23; ea^dicog eyei = ultimum habere, 5:23; KorraKpioOaiv Gavonrco = capite damnare 10:33; etc.).88 But the value of this evidence has been questioned. Although Latin was the primary language of Rome and the west, it was also known and used throughout the entire empire. In that many of the Latin terms found in Mark are related to political administration, the military, and the economy (money, measures, and weights), they would likely be well known throughout the entire empire and a Roman provenance of Mark is an unnecessary explanation.89

Aside from the common occurrence of Latin loan words, Hengel has noted the use of Graecized Latin expressions to explain common Greek words. In 12:42, Mark explains the Greek word XeTrrd (a small copper coin) with the phrase o eauv KoSpdvrr|g ("which is a quadrans"). In 15:16, the Greek word a\)\r\ (courtyard/palace) is explained or clarified with the phrase 6 iaxw TrpaiTcopiov ("which is the praetorium"). Based on these examples, it seems that Mark is writing to an audience that is more familiar with Latin than with Greek. But this evidence has not gone unchallenged. Joel Marcus has argued that Mark is not actually explaining unfamiliar words with more familiar ones, but rather is explaining unclear words with more precise words.9 0 While Marcus' interpretation is possible, the possibility still remains that Mark is explaining unclear words to a Latin speaking audience. But the uncertainty surrounding this evidence mitigates its value for determining a Markan provenance.

While all the Latinisms we have examined to this point can be explained without a Roman provenance for Mark, two more Latinisms exist within the gospel that are not so easily disregarded. Van Iersel provides two Latinisms that have not been adequately considered in the debate regarding Mark's provenance. These Latinisms are much more subtle than those previously

8 7 For discussion on Latinisms in Mark, see van Iersel, Mark, 31-35; idem, "De thuis-haven van Marcus," TijdTheol 32 (1992): 125-42. Earlier works of some importance include F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. R. W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 4-6; C. H. Turner, "Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel," JTS 29 (1927-28): 352-59.

8 8 For these data, see van Iersel, Mark, 34. 8 9 See Kummel, Introduction, 97-98; Telford, Mark, 24; Kelber, Kingdom, 129, n. 1;

Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:12, n. 1, 2; U. Schnelle, The History and the Theology of the New Testament Writings (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 238; et al.

9 0 Marcus, "Jewish War," 142-46.

82 Chapter 2

examined because they are imbedded in the structure of the author's language. They reflect the influence of a "Latin-speaking milieu on speakers whose mother-tongue was not Latin."91 The first of these Latinisms concerns the word order of verbs and substantives within the author's sentence structure. In Greek, an accusative or dative generally follows the verb to which it belongs, while the reverse is true of Latin. This Latin word order occurs in Mark 37 times, significantly more than it occurs in either Matthew or Luke. In Matthew and Luke, this Latinism occurs only twice independently of Mark (with 12 total occurrences in Matthew and 5 in Luke). The second of these Latinisms concerns the use of the word iva when it is used in the same way as the Latin word ut following verbs of asking, persuading, speaking, or commanding.92 This construction occurs in Mark 31 times and has been preserved only eight times in Matthean parallels and four times in Lukan parallels. A number of Matthean and Lukan texts have maintained a Markan parallel but have altered the Markan use of iva, replacing it with a more appropriate Greek construction. In material unique to Luke, this use of iva occurs four times, while in unique Matthean material it occurs only twice. This evidence cannot easily be explained by the use of common Latin terms used in the market or by the resident military. It demonstrates that Mark's writing, much more so than that of the authors of Matthew and Luke, was influenced by Latin syntax. Such an influence on an author's writing style is much more likely if the author was writing in Rome rather than in Syria or Galilee.

Another piece of evidence often offered for a Roman provenance of Mark is the motif of suffering discipleship. It has long been recognized that Mark is writing to those who either are experiencing or have recently experienced suffering and persecution (see Mark 8:34-38; 13:9-13).93 A Roman provenance for Mark explains this motif quite well. The most well known first-century persecution of Christians took place in Rome during 64 C.E . at the hand of the emperor Nero. This gruesome persecution is described vividly by the historian Tacitus: "And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night" {Ann. 15.44 [Jackson, LCL]). Mark's call for members of his community to "take up [their] cross" and "lose [their lives] for the sake [of Jesus] and the gospel" (Mark 8:34-35) is easily understood in light of the terrible suffering they have endured (and may have to endure again) at the hands of the Roman emperor. Mark 13:12 quite plausibly reflects the reality of family betrayal that

9 1 van Iersel, Mark, 34. 9 2 Gundry makes a passing reference to this Latinism in Apology, 1044. 9 3 For examples, see J. R. Donahue, Theology and Setting of Discipleship-, Kee, Com

munity', E. Best, Disciples and Discipleship (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986); idem, Following Jesus', Theissen, Gospels in Context; and Lane, Mark; Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 105-108; et al.


many experienced during Nero's persecution. Tacitus reports that such behavior did in fact take place: "First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race" (Ann. 15.44 [Jackson, LCL]). The accusation that Christians were haters of the human race is striking when compared with Mark's claim that believers "will be hated by all" (13:13). The Sitz im Leben of persecution that Mark's text betrays can be linked with the city in which the most horrific Christian suffering of the first century took place, Rome.

Before concluding, we must note that there is no significant internal evidence against locating Mark's composition in Rome. While we have noted attempts to weaken the evidence in favor of Mark's Roman provenance, there is no evidence ruling out such a provenance.

In conclusion, we have noted two significant considerations regarding the internal evidence for Mark's provenance. First is the large number of Lati-nisms in Mark compared to the number in the other two synoptic gospels, indicating a provenance where the influence of Latin on the author would be prevalent. Rome is certainly a provenance that would explain this reality in Mark. Second is that the undercurrents of persecution in Mark strongly suggest a provenance where such persecution had been or was being experienced. Again a Roman provenance would explain this reality.

2.3.3 Galilee Before examining the evidence for either a Galilean or Syrian provenance for Mark, we must note that virtually all attempts to argue for one of these two locations begins with the devaluing of the evidence for a Roman provenance. It is only when an interpreter has removed the necessity of a Roman provenance that he or she feels free to make an alternative suggestion. In our discussion above, we have demonstrated that the evidence for locating Mark in Rome is not so easily dispensed with. We will now seek to determine whether the evidence for a Galilean or Syrian provenance is more convincing than the evidence in favor of Rome.9 4

Because there is no external evidence supporting a Galilean provenance for Mark, we turn directly to the internal evidence. A Galilean provenance for Mark was first suggested by Ernst Lohmeyer, popularized by Willi Marxsen, and later restated by a handful of Markan interpreters.95 The original basis for the conclusion that Mark was written in Galilee was the dominance of the region within the Markan narrative. Through his redactional analysis of Mark, Marxsen concluded that many of the references to Galilee found their origins in Markan redaction. As we noted previously, Marxsen also theorized

9 4 See similar conclusions made by Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 92-96. 9 5 See n. 82.

84 Chapter 2

that 14:28 and 16:7, which speak of Jesus meeting his disciples in Galilee, are references not to resurrection appearances, but rather to a Galilean Parousia (see previous critique on Marxsen's exegesis in chapter one (pp. 20-22). But this evidence has convinced very few interpreters. The prominence of Galilee in Mark's narrative is best explained by the fact that a large portion of Jesus' ministry actually took place in Galilee and that Mark's tradition held it as a site for Jesus' resurrection appearances. It has also been noted that by locating Jesus' ministry in Galilee, Mark makes Gentile interaction with Jesus possible.96 Therefore, the prominence of Galilee in Mark's narrative is not convincing evidence for its acceptance as the location of Mark's composition.

The high number of Aramaisms in Mark's gospel has been cited as evidence that Mark was written somewhere in Palestine (possibly Galilee).97 But the inclusion of these Aramaisms is easy to explain apart from a Palestinian provenance. We must remember that the traditions at Mark's disposal ultimately have Aramaic origins, and that they still bear evidence of this origin is not surprising.98 The presence of a large Jewish colony in Rome could also provide an explanation.99 Many of the Jews in Rome were from Palestine and Aramaic influence on their use of Greek would be expected. The use of Latinisms in Galilee is much more difficult to explain than Aramaisms in Rome.

The most recent attempt to argue for a Galilean provenance of Mark is that of Hendrika Roskam.100 Roskam takes Mark 13 as her starting point and understands that it was written on two levels (which we also conclude above): the first level is that of Jesus teaching his disciples and second is that of Mark teaching his own community. She argues that Mark's reference to "false prophets" and "false christs" only makes sense in a Palestinian context. This conclusion is based on the assumption that "false christs" must be a reference to royal pretenders who aspire to be king of Israel. According to Roskam, any reference to these types of Jewish messianic claimants would only make sense in a Palestinian context. If Roskam's assumption can be granted, her conclusion is a logical one. But limiting the identity of these "false christs" to individuals who aspire to liberate and rule Israel is misguided. "False christs" can also make sense in a non-Palestinian context. The belief that deceivers, false teachers, and antichrists would come to mislead the elect seems to be a commonly held belief in the early church (2 Thess 2:1-12; 1 John 2:18-27). It is possible that Mark's reference to "false christs" finds its background in

9 6 See G. Stemberger, "Galilee - Land of Salvation," in The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (ed. W. D. Davies; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 435-36; Marcus, Mark; Black, Mark, 236-37, 249.

9 7 For works on the influence of Aramaic on Mark, see Elliott Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS 51; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981); Casey, Sources.

9 8 See van Iersel, Mark, 35. 9 9 See van Iersel, Mark, 35. 1 0 0 Roskam, Purpose, 94-114.


this common tradition. "False christs" could be a reference to any type of leader or teacher who seeks to mislead Mark's community. As we will argue later, the claims to the position of "Christ" were not made by Jews alone but could be found in the Greco-Roman world as well.

Roskam's argument also fails to make sense in light of how she dates Mark's gospel. She concludes, as we have above, that Mark was written shortly after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. But if this were actually the case, it seems unlikely that Mark's Galilean community would have to worry about false messianic claimants. Immediately after Rome's destruction of Jerusalem, there were few people with aspirations to bring about independence for Israel, and perhaps even fewer who would consider following them. If Mark is written after the destruction of Jerusalem as we (and Roskam) conclude, identifying the "false christs" of Mark 13:19 with Jewish messianic claimants is implausible.

Roskam also responds to the common argument that Mark's many errors in Palestinian geography indicate that he is unfamiliar with the region. But Roskam turns this argument on its head and uses it as evidence for a Galilean provenance. Roskam notes that Mark is clearly ignorant of the regions of Judea, Perea, the Decapolis, and Syria, but he is actually quite accurate in his Galilean geography. Her explanation for this reality is that Mark was in fact written by a Galilean who knew this region well but was unfamiliar with the geography of the surrounding regions. This argument, however, has a number of problems. First, while we can conclude that a gospel's inaccuracy of a region's geography betrays an author's lack of familiarity with a region, the argument cannot work in the reverse (as Roskam suggests). Reversing the argument is prevented by our understanding of gospel traditions and gospel composition. If a gospel is accurate on its understanding of a region, we do not know whether to attribute that accuracy to the evangelist or to the received tradition. What Roskam perceives as Mark's familiarity with Galilee may actually reflect Mark's sources' familiarity with Galilee. But if a gospel is inaccurate regarding geography, the survival of the inaccuracy, whether it came in the received tradition or the author himself, betrays the author's lack of familiarity with the region.

The second problem with Roskam's argument is the implausibility that someone living in Galilee would be completely ignorant of the basic geography of the adjacent regions. Interpreters have often noted that the route Jesus took in Mark 7:31 seems geographically awkward. Mark claims that Jesus returned from the region of Tyre, through Sidon and the Decapolis, to the Sea of Galilee. Jesus is then first going north and then east to reach a destination that lies southeast of his starting point. Many interpreters have noted this awkward route as evidence that Mark was unfamiliar with the geography of

86 Chapter 2

Palestine and Galilee.101 Roskam claims that this geographical error in Mark does not reflect the author's unfamiliarity with Galilee, but rather his unfa-miliarity with Sidon's location. Yet it seems difficult to believe that a person living in Galilee, who is educated enough to produce a gospel such as Mark, would be unfamiliar with the geographical relationship between Tyre and Sidon. These were major cities, which someone familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures (as we may presume Mark was) would know quite well. Confusion over such geographical details makes more sense if the gospel had been written in Rome rather than in Galilee.

Roskam also notes a city Mark mentioned that is not attested to in any other source: Dalmanutha (Mark 8:10). That Mark gives no further explanation or qualification concerning this otherwise unknown city's identity convinces Roskam that Mark's readers must be familiar with the city and likely live near it; i.e., somewhere in Galilee. But Roskam's conclusion is hardly a necessary one. We must first consider the possibility that Mark has found this city's name in the traditions available to him. Roskam attempts to subvert this argument by claiming that verse 8:10 includes evidence for Markan redaction, but indications of Markan editing do not prove that Mark was the original source for the entire verse. Matters are even more complicated in that we cannot be certain of Mark's accuracy concerning this city. Nestle suggests that the name Dalmanutha results from a Markan misunderstanding of an Aramaic phrase di le menatah or "which belongs to the territory o f and, therefore, is not a real city at all. 1 0 2 With no knowledge of this city outside of Mark, we have no way of verifying the city's existence or its actual location. Therefore, making any conclusion regarding Mark's provenance based on the name of this city is suspect.103

Now we will look at internal evidence that speaks against a Galilean provenance for Mark. First, and perhaps the most convincing, is Mark's explanation of Jewish customs. In Mark 7:3-4, Mark offers an explanation of the Jewish purity laws involved in eating a meal. This explanation is strong evidence that Mark's intended audience was predominantly Gentile and would be unfamiliar with such Jewish practices. Such an audience seems unlikely in the Jewish dominated Galilee. While it is true that there was a significant Gentile presence in Galilee, it was certainly the minority. In addition, any Galilean

1 0 1 For examples, see C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark, (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 250; D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark (New York: Seabury, 1968), 40, 203; Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 132; et al.

1 0 2 E. Nestle, "Dalmanutha" in Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (ed. J. Hastings; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906), 1:406-7.

1 0 3 For interpreters who conclude that Dalmanutha is pre-Markan see Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:405-6; J. Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Markus (RNT 2; Regensburg: Pustet, 1958), 210; Gnilka, Markus, 1:305; K. Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SANT 23; Munich: Kosel, 1970), 140; et al.


Christian community would almost certainly consist primarily of Jews making it unlikely that an author would include such a detailed explanation of Jewish customs. It is also quite likely that the Gentile Christians of Galilee would be familiar with the customs of their Jewish neighbors, again negating the need for such a detailed explanation. Mark's explanation of Jewish customs makes much more sense vis-a-vis a Roman provenance, rather than a Galilean one.

As we noted above, there seems to be an undercurrent of persecution in Mark's gospel. One problem for a Galilean provenance for Mark is its inability to account for this undercurrent. There is no historical record of Galilean Christians experiencing persecution during the time when Mark was written (65-75 C.E.). Roskam claims that such persecution did take place in Galilee, but she is unable to offer any historical evidence to support this claim directly.104

The absence of evidence for persecuted Christians in Galilee speaks against this region as the location of Mark's composition.

Here we have demonstrated that much of the evidence offered to argue for a Galilean provenance for Mark is unconvincing. At the same time, we have also offered evidence that speaks directly against Galilee as a location for Mark's composition. We can conclude, therefore, that a Galilean provenance for the second gospel is unlikely.

2.3.4 Syria While a Galilean provenance for Mark has convinced few interpreters, a Syrian provenance has become quite popular. As with the case for a Galilean provenance, the case for a Syrian provenance has no external evidence; therefore, we must move directly to the internal evidence. Mark 13 is often a starting point for those arguing for a Syrian provenance.105 In Mark 13, many interpreters see a clear depiction of the events of the Jewish Revolt and conclude that Mark was more than likely written in temporal and geographical proximity to this event. But in our previous discussion on Mark 13, we argued that it actually makes very little direct reference to the events of the Jewish Revolt. We have argued that verses 5-13 describe both the past and present experiences of the Markan community, while verses 14-27 describe a post 70 reality that the community has not yet experienced. If verses 14-27 are understood as the description of some future event, no allusions to the Jewish Revolt are necessary (e.g., there is no need to understand "the abomination of desolation," as the temple's destruction/corruption or the "false prophets and false christs" as Jewish messianic claimants). We are then left only to look at verses 5-13, verses describing the community's past and present experience. In doing so, we find only one possible reference to the Jewish Revolt; "and

1 0 4 Roskam, Purpose, 115-42; see also the critique of Roskam in chapter one pages 33-35.

1 0 5 Marcus, "Jewish War," 446-48.

88 Chapter 2

when you hear of wars and rumors of wars do not be alarmed; for nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom" (vv.7-8). That the Jewish Revolt is one of the wars to which this passage refers is quite likely, yet is not necessarily the only one intended.106 Such a general comment does not demand geographical proximity between the location of Mark's composition and that of the Jewish Revolt. Therefore, nothing in Mark 13 demands a provenance for Mark that is in close proximity to Palestine.

Apart from the evidence of Mark 13, Gerd Theissen has made three arguments in favor of a Syrian provenance.107 The first argument concerns the socio-ecological milieu reflected in Mark's gospel. Theissen notes Mark's use of GdXaaaa or "sea" to describe what is more accurately called the Galilean Lake.1 0 8 He argues that such a small and insignificant body of water would hardly be called a sea in a cosmopolitan city like Rome. Such usage would be more common in a rural location; one in closer proximity to Galilee. He also notes that Mark's use of a genitive construction (GdXaaaa Trjg raXiXaiag) to identify a specific body of water (or a region) is uncommon in both Greek and Latin which usually use an adjective to accomplish this purpose (ZupiaKi^ GdXaaaa). Such a genitive construction, however, is common in both Hebrew and Aramaic, (yam ha kinnereth). Theissen concludes, therefore, that Mark's use of the phrase GdXaaaa Trjg TaXiXaiag betrays the influence of an Aramaic milieu. In addition to the phrase GdXaaaa Trjg TaXiXaiag, Theissen points to Mark's use of "neighborhood expressions," or rather an interest in rural towns and villages as opposed to cities.1 0 9

Mark's parables are also dominated by imagery from the agrarian world. For Theissen, these factors point to a rural milieu for Mark rather than a cosmopolitan one.

Bas van Iersel, however, has demonstrated that Theissen's argument is not quite as convincing as it might first appear.110 In response to Theissen's conclusion regarding GdXaaaa Trjg TaXiXaiag, van Iersel notes Theissen's failure to consider the evidence of the Septuagint, a text not only familiar to Mark but one that influenced him. In the Septuagint, GdXaaaa is commonly used to refer to bodies of water that are smaller than an actual sea. The Septuagint also uses genitive constructions to specify the identity of a particular body of water or region, e.g., GdXaaaa 'IoTrrrrig (2 Chron 2:16 and 2 Esd 3:7 in reference to the Mediterranean Sea) and GdXaaaa XsvepeG (Num 34:11, Josh 12:3; 13:27 in reference to the lake of Gennesaret!).111 In light of this evidence, Theissen's conclusion that the presence of GdXaaaa Trjg TaXiXaiag in

1 0 6 See n. 68. 1 0 7 Theissen, Context, 236-45. 1 0 8 Theissen, Context, 237-39. 1 0 9 Theissen, Context, 238. 1 . 0 van Iersel, Mark, 37-38. 1 . 1 For more examples see van Iersel, Mark, 37-38.


Mark betrays a rural Aramaic milieu is unnecessary. This unique phrase may simply betray the influence of the Septuagint on Mark. In response to Theis-sen's claim of Mark's rural setting (towns/villages vs. cities; agrarian imagery), van Iersel notes the strong possibility that these features are part of the traditions that Mark received and that they reflect the local color of the origins of these traditions.112 It should not be surprising to find abundant references to agrarian and rural life in these stories, if in fact the stories themselves occurred in such settings. Theissen is wrong to assume that an urban author cannot tell stories in which the primary setting is one outside the city. Theis-sen's argument for a rural and Aramaic milieu for Mark is not persuasive.

Theissen's second argument is based on the various types or strands of tradition that he detects in Mark.113 He notes both pre-Pauline (the use of 6 u a Y Y ^ l o v a n c * the last supper) and Pauline traditions (the list of vices in 7:21 that is similar to those found throughout the Pauline corpus). He suggests that the presence of both of these strands of tradition indicates a Syrian location - a place where Paul likely received these traditions and where pre-Pauline traditions would certainly be present. Theissen also finds traditions in Mark that originated in Judea and Jerusalem (the eschatological discourse and the passion narrative). He notes that an overlap in Syrian traditions (those that are Pauline and pre-Pauline) and Judean traditions are more likely to occur in Syria than in Rome. The presence of what Theissen calls "popular tales" (traditions that find their origin not from Christian communities but from the towns and villages in which Jesus ministered) were much more likely to be picked up in the local areas in which they circulated, namely in Syria rather than in Rome. Lastly, Theissen points to traditions that he believes come from actual disciples themselves, including the call of the disciples (1:16-20), the sending out of the twelve (6:7-13), and the conversation with the rich man (10:17-31). These traditions suggest to Theissen that Mark is familiar with "itinerant charismatics" who would propagate such stories. He claims that these types of figures were more likely to be found in Palestine and Syria than in Rome.

But as van Iersel rightly points out, Theissen's argument is predicated on two very uncertain assumptions: one, that Mark received these traditions first hand from the sources mentioned above and not through a mediating agent; and two, that he wrote them into his gospel as soon as he received them, and not at a later time in another place.114 But Theissen offers no evidence to support either of these assumptions. Given that these traditions had thirty to forty years to circulate, it is quite possible that Mark received them second, third, or fourth hand and was not familiar with their source of origin. Even if Mark did receive them first hand, there is nothing that indicates he did not

1 . 2 van Iersel, Mark, 37-38. 1 . 3 Theissen, Context, 239-42. 1 . 4 van Iersel, Mark, 38-39.

90 Chapter 2

write them down at a later date. Theissen's second argument for a Syrian provenance for Mark, therefore, is also unconvincing.

Theissen's third argument concerns the so-called Markan geographical errors we discussed above.115 It is Theissen's contention that the geographical errors in Mark are actually not errors at all but are in fact intentionally made to advance a Markan agenda. He suggests that Jesus' circular path from Tyre, to Sidon, through the Decapolis and then on to the Sea of Galilee allows Mark to locate Jesus in Syria and other Gentile regions for an extended period of time. Mark is then placing the ministry of Jesus in the region in which Mark's community is located, namely Syria. This interpretation, however, is not convincing. If this is the case, why does Mark not provide any more detail of this tour through these Gentile regions? Why is it only mentioned in passing? As noted by Guelich, Mark specifically states that Jesus did not want his journey into Tyre (a predominantly Gentile city) to be public.116 If Mark wanted to highlight Jesus' ministry in the regions of Syria why did he not do so more openly? The most natural reading of the text is that it serves as a simple explanation (though one that is perhaps geographically flawed) of Jesus' return from a Gentile tour and not the continuation of one. Regardless of the validity of Theissen's interpretation, it remains a weak argument for a Syrian provenance for Mark. Theissen's interpretation of the evidence is largely influenced by his belief that Syria is the place of Mark's composition. He then reads the evidence in a way that supports that location. Therefore, this argument based on Mark's geography is not actually a positive argument at all, but rather it is an explanation of evidence that proves to be difficult for Theissen's suggested provenance for Mark. Theissen simply offers an alternative way to look at the evidence, but there is nothing inherent in his argument that proves a Syrian provenance for Mark.

After examining the arguments in favor of a Syrian provenance for Mark, we find that they are less than compelling. We have demonstrated that there is nothing in Mark 13 that demands a geographical proximity between Mark and Syria. If the majority of Mark 13 is understood as the description/prediction of future events as we have argued earlier, it could have been written anywhere. We have also shown that the socio-ecological world reflected in the Markan narrative is not necessarily the socio-ecological world of the region in which Mark composed his gospel. Though many of the traditions in Mark might find their origins in Syrian Christianity or in Palestine, there is no reason to conclude that the evangelist received these traditions (let alone wrote them down) while he was in these regions. Mark's geographical errors, while not necessarily evidence that the evangelist was unfamiliar with Palestinian geography, cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that Mark was written in

1 . 5 Theissen, Context, 242-45. 1 . 6 Guelich, Mark, 393.


Syria. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to claim confidently a Syrian provenance for Mark.

2.3.4 Conclusions concerning Marks Provenance In this section, we have tried to demonstrate that there is considerable evidence, both internal and external, that points to a Roman provenance for Mark. We have also demonstrated that the evidence in favor of alternative locations (Galilee and Syria) for Mark's composition is unconvincing, and it is not able to overturn the case for a Roman provenance. Therefore, we conclude that Rome is the most likely place of Mark's composition, and our discussion of Mark's purpose will continue under this contention.

Chapter 3

Analysis of Mark's Major Features

3.1 Introduction

We now turn our attention to a number of Mark's major features: Mark's incipit, Christology, presentation of discipleship, and eschatology. Our objective is two-fold. First, we hope to characterize and understand accurately these Markan features in order to provide a theory for Mark's purpose that can account for them. Second, our examination will provide us with information that will help us characterize the gospel's Sitz im Leben. A mirror reading of Mark's major features will allow us to detect elements of the gospel's setting. These elements will later be compared to a reconstruction of Mark's historical situation, a reconstruction based on Mark's provenance and date of composition.

3.2 Markan Incipit

Many interpreters have debated the syntactical parameters of Mark 1:1 and its function in Mark's gospel. Most understand Mark's opening verse as an independent syntactical unit and see it functioning as title or incipit that is programmatic for Mark's entire gospel.1 Some interpreters link Mark 1:1 syntactically with vs. 2-3 or even possibly vs. 4. Among those who see Mark 1:1-3 (or even 4) as a single syntactical unit, some view the entire unit as programmatic for the whole gospel, while others simply see it as the opening statement of Mark's prologue.2

1 M. Eugene Boring, "Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel" Semeia 52 (1990): 51; idem, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville: WJK Press, 2006), 30-32; France, Mark, 50-53; John Donahue and Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Collegeville: Minnesota, 2002), 59-60; Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 122; et al.

2 For those who see Mark 1:1-3(4) as programmatic for the entire gospel, see Marxsen, Evangelist, 138; Martin, Evangelist and Theologian, 28; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:75; Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's Words in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 108-113. For those who see Mark 1:1-3(4) as the opening statement of Mark's prologue alone, see G. Arnold, "Mk 1.1 und Eroffnungswendungen in

Analysis of Mark's Major Features 93

Joel Marcus takes a mediating position, claiming that Mark's opening line functions as both an introduction to Mark's prologue and as a title to the whole gospel.3 He cites a number of biblical and early Jewish works whose opening sentences function in the same way (e.g., Prov 1:1-6; Eccl 1:1-2; Cant 1:1-2; Enoch 1:1).4 Along similar lines, Rikki Watts notes that the difference between these two positions is minimal and, regardless of one's conclusion about the function of Mark's opening sentence, it remains significant for understanding the evangelist's intentions.5 If Mark 1:1 is a title, then it clearly serves as a programmatic statement for Mark as a whole.6 If it is the beginning of Mark's prologue and the prologue itself is a programmatic statement regarding the gospel's intentions and purpose, then the opening line of the prologue is at least an indirect indicator of these goals and intentions as well.

Regardless of where one sets the syntactical parameters for Mark's opening verse or what specific function one attributes to it, the opening words in Mark's gospel are significant indicators of the gospel's overall purpose. While many interpreters agree that Mark's incipit is significant for understanding the gospel's purpose, no consensus exists as to how it informs our understanding of that purpose, an issue to which we will soon turn.

Before considering the relevance of Mark's incipit for the gospel's purpose, we must address some basic exegetical issues in order to understand better its basic meaning. The verse begins with an anartharous apyjj ("beginning") followed by a string of genitives, T O O euayyeXiou 'InaoO XpiaxoO ulou GeoO ("of the good news of Jesus Christ Son of God"). Quite often, the first word of a title or incipit is anartharous, so the lack of a definite article with apyji is not surprising.7 It is possible that apyr\ has a double reference, both to the start of Jesus' ministry expressed in Mark's prologue and to the gospel as a whole.8 The word euayyeXiou, which is often translated as "gospel",

griechischen und lateinischen Schriften," ZNW 68 (1977): 123-27; Guelich, Mark, 6-12; idem, "The Beginning of the Gospel' Mark 1:1-15" BibRes 27 (1982): 5-15, though Guelich seems open to the possibility that the incipit has secondary significance for the whole gospel as well; Robert Gundry, Apology, 30-36; Hooker, Mark, 33-34; Lane, Mark, 42; Moloney, Mark, 30-32. For a helpful survey of various positions on the syntactical parameters of Mark 1:1 see Boring, "Beginning," 48-50.

3 Marcus, Mark, 145. 4 Marcus, Mark, 145-46. 5 Rikki Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997), 56;

Guelich, Mark, 12. 6 For discussion on the significance of both incipits and prologues in ancient literature see

D. Earl, "Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography," in ANRW 1:22, 842-56; D. E. Smith, "Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory," Semeia 52 (1990): 1-9.

7 See Marcus, Mark, 141, who notes the beginnings of Hosea, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon in the LXX and both Matthew and Revelation in the NT.

8 See Marcus, Mark, 145.

94 Chapter 3

generally refers to good news or glad tidings.9 This "good news" is particularly good news of Jesus Christ. The genitival 'Ir|aoO XpiaxoO should likely be taken primarily in the objective sense; that is, Jesus Christ is the content of the good news. While it is possible that the subjective sense (that Jesus is the one who announces the good news) is also intended, it is likely secondary and/or complementary to the objective sense. The gospel's content is Jesus himself, giving more attention to what he does and who he is than to the content of his message. Mark's use of Xpicrrog or "Christ" in the titular or technical sense (i.e., meaning God's anointed one or Messiah) elsewhere in his gospel (e.g., Mark 8:29; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32), is strong evidence that Mark intended the same meaning in this opening verse. This good news is that of Jesus, who is God's Messiah. The phrase uloO 0eoO or "son of God," which stands in apposition to Iriaoir XpiaxoO, goes a step further in identifying Jesus: Jesus is Christ in terms of his divine sonship.

But uloO 0eoO is textually uncertain. The phrase is found in most of the significant early manuscripts including, Ka A B D K L W A n 33. It is absent in 0 28 c and a handful of lesser manuscripts. Though external evidence supports the inclusion of uloO 0eoO, its inclusion is difficult to accept on the basis of internal evidence. At first glance, a scribal addition of this title seems easier to explain than a scribal deletion or omission. It is unlikely that a scribe would purposefully remove this phrase. Scribal omission also seems unlikely since the variant appears at the beginning of Mark's text, a place where the copyist would likely be most vigilant. However, Guelich suggests that a scribal error is quite plausible given the long series of six genitives in vs. 1, all of which involve abbreviated sacred names, i.e., IY XY YY 0Y. That such a list of abbreviations might confuse a scribe's eye seems plausible. The presence of uloO 0eoO is also consistent with the rest of Mark's gospel, which identifies Jesus as "son" or "son of God" numerous times (1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:26; 14:61; 15:39). Painter notes that if it is an early addition to Mark's text, it is entirely appropriate.10 Though interpreters are divided on this issue,11 there seems adequate reason to consider uloO 0eoO to be the

9 The use of "gospel" here is not intended in a technical sense to characterize or identify the type or genre of Mark's text. Such terminology used to describe a life of Jesus was developed later in the life of the church.

1 0 John Painter, Mark's Gospel: Worlds in Conflict (London: Routledge, 1997), 25. 11 For interpreters who accept uloO 0eoO as original, see Taylor, St. Mark, 152; Evans,

"Mark's Incipit," 67-81; Boring, Mark, 30; Guelich, Mark, 6; Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Social Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 69; C.R. Kazmierski, Jesus, the Son of God, A Study in Marcan Tradition and Its Redaction by the Evangelist (FB 33; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979), 1-9; A. Globe, "The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1," HTR 75 (1982): 209-18; P. M. Head, "A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1: The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,'" NTS 37 (1991): 621-29. For those who omit uloO 9eo0, see Marcus, Mark, 141; Painter, Mark's Gospel, 25; B. Ehrman, "The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox," LQ 5 (1991): 143-56;


original reading of the text. Our discussion of Mark's incipit will proceed while cautiously accepting the longer reading.

Clearly Mark's opening line establishes the primary subject matter of the whole gospel - the person Jesus. Mark's use of the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" indicates his christological interest. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that through his gospel, the evangelist intended to communicate something about Jesus the Messiah and son of God. But such conclusions are quite general and of little help in determining the gospel's specific purpose. Before we can glean more from this passage, we must consider the possible backgrounds against which the author desired this text to be read. Many interpreters read Mark's incipit in light of a Jewish context and see in it allusions to Hebrew scripture (Deutero-Isaiah in particular), while others read it in light of its Greco-Roman context and see allusions to ruler worship and the imperial cult. Here we will examine the incipit in these possible contexts in an attempt to determine what they teach about the purpose of Mark's gospel.

Most discussions regarding the background to the incipit usually begin by considering the word euayyeXiov or "good news." A great deal of literature has been written about this word's meaning in the New Testament and its development in the early church. Interpreters have debated whether the church's use of this word grew out of a Jewish milieu or Greco-Roman one.12 More recently, interpreters seem to conclude that the Christian usage of the word finds its origins in Jewish scriptures, though it came to have a distinct Christian meaning and usage. But it is the word's use in Mark's incipit and not the word's origins that concern us here (though we will offer some discussion on both the Greco-Roman and Jewish background for euayyeXiov). Many interpreters understand Mark's use of euayyeXiov against the background of Jew-

A. Y. Collins, "Establishing the Text: Mark 1:1" in Text and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts (ed. T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; L. Hartman FS; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 111-27; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:74, n. 1.

1 2 For interpreters who argue for the Greco-Roman milieu, see M. Hadas and M. Smith, Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (New York: Harper and Row, 1963); A. Harnack, Reden undAufsdtze (Giessen: Topelmann, 1906), 1:301-6; Bieler, Theios Aner; A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient Near East (trans. L. R. M. Strachan; London: Hod-der and Stoughton, 1927), 366; H. Cancik, "Die Gattung Evangelium: Das Evangelium des Markus im Rahmen der antiken Historiographie," in Markus-Philologie: Historische, lite-rargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (ed. H. Cancik; WUNT 33; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984), 85-113; J. Schniewind, Euangelion: Ursprung underste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970); G. Friedrich, "Euangelion" TDNT2 (1964): 721-726; et al. For interpreters who argue for the Jewish milieu, see Peter Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium (Gottingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 235-44; H. Frankemolle, "Evangelium als theologischer Be-griff und sein Bezug zur literarischen Gattung 'Evangelium,'" ANRWII 25.2, 1635-1704; D. L. Tiede, "Religious Propaganda and the Gospel Literature of the Early Christian Mission" ANRW 1125.2,1705-29; F. F. Bruce, "When is a Gospel not a Gospel?" BJRL 45 (1963): 355; Schweizer, Mark, 30; et al.

96 Chapter 3

ish scriptures.13 While the noun form "HIT/ euayyeXiov occurs a handful of times throughout Jewish scriptures (e.g., 2 Sam 4:10; 18:19, 20, 22, 25, 27; 2 Kgs 7:9), its use is rather generic and lacks the eschatological and religious dimensions that seem to characterize its usage in Mark (and throughout the rest of the New Testament). However, an eschatological and religious dimension often characterizes the verbal forms 32? "l/euayyeXiCco ("I proclaim good news") found in Jewish scripture, particularly in Isaiah (e.g., Isa 40:9 (2x); 41:27 (MT); 52:7 (2x); 60:6; 61:1). In Isa 41:27, the euayyeXiCopevog or "the one who proclaims good news" announces Yahweh's victory over Israel's enemies, and in 40:9-10 and 52:7 he announces the reestablishment of God's rule over Israel. For many, this Isaianic language seems like a plausible background for Mark's use of euayyeXiov. That the incipit is followed by a quotation attributed to Isaiah and that includes Isa 40:3 - a verse followed only a few verses later by Isaiah's first reference to the one who proclaims good news - is a strong indication that Mark's use of euayyeXiov intentionally alludes to the "good news" proclaimed in Isaiah. If this background is accepted, it seems that Mark is presenting Jesus as God's Messiah who announces God's victory over his enemies and proclaims the establishment of God's reign.

Some interpreters (often those who read euayyeXiov against a Greco-Roman background) reject Isaiah as a background for Mark's use of euayyeXiov because Isaiah uses only the verbal form of the word and never the substantive.14 But, as Watts claims, surely the divide between the act of proclaiming (euay yeXi£co) and the subject of that proclamation (euayyeXiov) is not as wide as some interpreters have suggested.15 It is a divide that even a modestly creative early Christian exegete could bridge with ease. Marcus and Watts (et al.) make convincing cases (which we have partially summarized here) that Isaianic language is an appropriate background for the euayyeXiov of Mark's incipit, and it should be accepted.

However, many interpreters have noted that Mark's use of euayyeXiov makes strong allusions to the Greco-Roman use of the word, in particular its use in the Roman imperial cult.16 EuayyeXiov was regularly associated with the birth, political ascension, and military victories of Roman emperors. In

1 3 Two significant interpreters who read Mark against this Isaianic background include Marcus, (The Way of the Lord; idem, Mark) and Watts (New Exodus). Cf. Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 235-44; Schweizer, Mark, 30; Guelich, "Beginning"; Hooker, Jesus, 66-70; Bruce, "When is a Gospel," 325-26.

1 4 G. Strecker, "Das Evangelium Jesu Christi," in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theolo-gie: FS fur H Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag (eds. G. Strecker, et al; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975), 503-48; et al.

1 5 Watts, New Exodus, 99. 1 6 See Ched Myer, Strongman, 122; Evans, "Incipit," 67-81; Witherington, Mark, 67-70;

M. E. Boring, K. Berger, and C. Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary on the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), esp. 169; et al.


fact, Mark's incipit has striking similarities to the Priene Calendar Inscription written in honor of Caesar Augustus: Since providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance excelled even our anticipations, surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of thego*/(0eoO) Augustus was the beginning (fjp^ev) of the good tidings (euayyeXicov) for the world that came by reason of him.1 7

It is striking that both texts include the concept of "the beginning of the good news" (though Mark uses the singular form euayyeXiov a n d the nominal form cxpxr\ while the inscription uses the plural form euayyeXia a n d the verbal form ap^oo). It is also noteworthy that Augustus is identified as a god (0eoO) while Mark describes Jesus as the son of God (ulog 0eou). In other inscriptions and writings, Augustus (along with other Roman emperors) is frequently given the title uiog 0eoO or divifilius (son of god). EuayyeXia *s

also used to describe the military and political success of the emperor Vespasian. Josephus writes that as the rumor spread that Vespasian was emperor in the east, "every city kept festivals for the good news (euayyeXia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf (Wars 4. [Thackeray, LCL]). Josephus also writes, "On reaching Alexandria, Vespasian was greeted by the good news (euayyeXia) from Rome and by embassies of congratulation from every quarter of the world, now his own" (Wars 4:11.5 [Thackeray, LCL]). The euayyeXia of the Roman emperor was a concept that most inhabitants of the Roman Empire would have known. The language of Mark's incipit is so similar to this language of the imperial cult that it is hard to deny an intended allusion. Certainly a first-century Greco-Roman reader would recognize such a similarity and see that Mark's gospel was proclaiming the euayyeXia of Jesus Christ, son of God rather than that of Caesar, son of God. Craig Evans argues that this is one of Mark's main objectives; namely, to proclaim the superiority of the good news of God's Messiah - and the new world order he brings - over that of Caesar.18

Peter Stuhlmacher (as well as Guelich) claims the imperial cult's use of euayyeXiov was primarily secular/political in nature rather than religious, a claim that attempts to make the imperial cult an unlikely background for Mark's usage.19 But Stuhlmacher's claim creates a false dichotomy between these two realms. Religious and political/secular life were complexly intertwined

1 7 For this English translation, see Evans, "Incipit," 69 (see Greek text on page 68). For the entire Greek inscription, see W. Dittenberger, ed. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (2 vols.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903-5; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 2.48-60.

1 8 Evans, "Incipit," 76-80. 1 9 Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 196-203; Guelich, Mark, 13-14.

98 Chapter 3

in the Roman Empire, and the political and military success of the emperor carried religious implications with it. As we noted above, the euayyeXia of an emperor's rise to power or military victory was accompanied by festivals, sacrifices, and prayers. Clearly the use euayyeXia m the Priene Calendar Inscription has religious significance. Stuhlmacher and others attempt to mitigate this evidence by claiming that the plural form euayyeXia distances it from the meaning of the singular form euayyeXiov that we find in the New Testament.20 But this distance seems artificial, and it results from placing overly strict boundaries on the language. Certainly if a reader could move from the proclamation of good news (euayyeXiCco) to the content of that proclamation (euayyeXiov) - a step that Stuhlmacher acknowledges21 - moving from a plural noun to a singular one would also not be problematic. Given what seems to be an obvious allusion to the Roman imperial cult in Mark's incipit, it too should be accepted as a convincing background to the verse.

We are then left with two different backgrounds for understanding the significance of Mark 1:1, Jewish and Greco-Roman. The tendency of most interpreters is to minimize one and champion the other. Few interpreters have seen the importance that both of these backgrounds play in determining the significance of Mark's incipit. Evans is one of the few who suggests the importance of both. He claims that Mark's incipit has "welded together two disparate, potentially antagonistic theologies."22 He notes that "the vision of Second Isaiah approximates the Roman Imperial cult's promise of a new world order."23 For Evans, Mark's gospel speaks of the fulfillment of Jewish hopes, namely Isaiah's prophesied euayyeXiov fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Son of God. At the same time, however, the gospel responds to the claims of the Roman imperial cult by announcing Jesus Christ, son of God, and not Caesar, son of God, as the beginning of the euayyeXiov.

Evans' insightful argument does not make the mistake of choosing one background over another. Ultimately, Evans suggests that Mark is motivated by the power vacuum resulting from the Roman Civil War in 69 C . E . 2 4 During this year, numerous candidates sought the title of emperor and son of God, but each candidate fell to the next. Evans suggests that it is against this backdrop that Mark, through his gospel, puts forth Jesus, the true son of God, as the most worthy candidate. Specifically, he argues that Mark is contrasting

2 0 Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 199-201; Guelich, Mark, 14. 2 1 Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 109-22. 2 2 Evans, "Incipit," 77. 2 3 Evans, "Incipit," 77. 2 4 For discussion on the turmoil of this time period, see Kenneth Wellesley, The Year of

the Four Emperors (3 r d ed. with new intro by Barbara Levick; London: Routledge, 2000); Charles L. Murision, Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian (APA 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999); Gwyn Morgan, A.D. 69: The Year of the Four Emperors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).


Jesus with Vespasian, the emperor who finally brought stability to the Roman Empire. We will explore Evans' theory in much greater detail below, but for now, we will conclude that the best explanation of these coexistent realities in Mark's incipit, i.e., both Jewish and Roman conceptions of "good news," is a Sitz im Leben that brings these realities together. Such a setting would provide valuable insight into understanding Mark's incipit and thus insight into understanding Mark's overall purpose.

In summary, Mark's incipit proclaims the euayyeXiov or good news of Jesus the messianic son of God. However, Mark makes this proclamation by bringing together the language of both Deutero-Isaiah and the Roman imperial cult. Because an incipit is important for communicating the purpose/intention of a literary work, any theory regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel must adequately explain his incipit. Mark's incipit points to a Sitz im Leben in which the world of Jewish messianic hope is brought together with the Roman imperial cult.

3.3 Markan Christology

Interpreters have long considered Mark's Christology a significant feature of his gospel. They have presented many different interpretations of Mark's Christology and with it many different theories regarding Mark's purpose. Here we seek to offer our own interpretation of Mark's Christology. We will examine three aspects of Mark's christological content. We begin by examining christological identity in Mark or rather, Mark's identification of Jesus. This examination will focus primarily on Mark's christological titles, i.e., Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man. In more recent studies, christological function (or narrative Christology) has replaced christological titles as the primary source for reconstructing christological development.25 While such a shift has brought needed balance to christological investigation, christological titles still play a significant role in understanding the Christology of any particular New Testament text. These titles help the interpreter to answer the question of who the author thought Jesus was and who the reader would understand him to be. But any christological reconstruction that is based on titles without considering christological function is incomplete. Therefore, we will also examine christological function/presentation in Mark. Here we will examine Mark's presentation of Jesus' actions, words, and impact on other characters. Finally, we will examine a unique feature in Mark's Christology, the motif of secrecy that often surrounds Jesus' identity and actions. Our

2 5 See L. E. Keck, "Toward the Renewal of NT Christology," NTS 32 (1986): 362-77; F. J. Matera, NT Christology (Louisville: WJK, 1999), esp. 26. Also note attempts to develop a narrative Christology for Mark in Donahue and Harrington, Mark, esp. 23-25; France, Mark, esp. 23-27; Best, The Gospel as Story, 55-65.

100 Chapter 3

examination of these three areas should give us a comprehensive understanding of Mark's Christology - one necessary for constructing a theory for the purpose of Mark's gospel.

3.3.1 Christological Identity Messiah As we saw in our discussion of the gospel's incipit, the incipit provides a christological identity for Jesus in the opening verse: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God."2 6 From the outset, Mark identifies Jesus as the Jewish Messiah or "anointed one."2 7 At three other points, Mark identifies Jesus with the same title. In Mark 8:29, Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah and, though Jesus tells the disciples to keep this identity a secret, he never rejects the title. In Mark 9:41, Jesus tells his disciples that anyone who treats them kindly because they bear the name of "Christ"2 8 will be rewarded. In Mark 14:61, the high priest asks Jesus if he is the "Christ," to which Jesus answers affirmatively. It is also significant that in Mark 13:21-22, Jesus warns his disciples against "false christs," implying that he is the true Christ. But while it is clear that Mark identifies Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the title "Christ" is not the dominant title Mark uses to identify Jesus. The title is only used four times in direct reference to Jesus. The title is also somewhat nebulous because Jewish messianic expectations varied.29 Without more clarification, we cannot be certain what type of messiah Mark understood Jesus to be.

Son of God Many interpreters have noted that Mark's favorite title for Jesus is "Son" or "Son of God."30 Mark identifies Jesus in terms of divine sonship seven times

2 6 In an attempt to remove any christological understanding of Jesus from Mark's gospel, Richard Horsley argues that Mark 1:1 was not a part of the original Markan text. For a response to this claim, see the discussion of Horsley in chapter one, pages 36-37.

2 7 Note the comments on pages 93-94 on whether Mark's use of "Christ" in vs. 1:1 should be taken as a name or a title.

2 8 Here Mark's use of the word "Christ" seems to reflect a time when it had become a proper name for Jesus. However, as we noted briefly above, the word primarily functions as a title in Mark (e.g., Mark 8:29; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32).

2 9 For discussion on the diversity of Jewish messianic expectations and understanding, see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995); James Charlesworth, "From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects," in The Messiah (ed. James Charles-worth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 3-35; William S. Green, "Introduction: Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question," in Judaisms and Their Messiahs (eds. Jacob Neusner, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1-13.

3 0 See Evans, Mark, lxxii-lxxiii; Kingsbury, Christology; Hans-Jorg Steichele, Der lei-dende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher Motive in der Christolo-gie des Markusevangeliums (Biblische Untersuchungen 14; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet,


throughout his gospel (1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61; 15:39). Mark's incipit opens with this identification (if our reading of 1:1 is accepted). Twice in Mark's gospel, God addresses Jesus directly as his son (1:11; 9:7). Unclean spirits, supernatural beings who presumably have supernatural knowledge, also identify Jesus as God's son (3:11; 5:7). Jesus himself accepts this identification when the high priest asks him if he is "the Son of the blessed one" (14:61). And immediately after Jesus' death, a Roman centurion recognizes Jesus as the "Son of God" (15:39). In fact, some interpreters have suggested that Mark bookends his gospel with this title (1:1 and 15:39), which if true, only further demonstrates its significance for Mark's Christology.

The title "Son of God" is entirely consistent with the title "Christ," and, in fact, helps clarify Mark's intended meaning of the title "Christ." As we noted above, God identifies Jesus as his son twice in Mark's gospel: "You are my Son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11), and "This is my Son, the beloved, listen to him" (Mark 9:7). Both of these affirmations of Jesus' divine sonship echo Psalm 2:7, a royal coronation psalm. Against this background, as God's son, Jesus is God's appointed ruler and king. The titles "Son of God" and "Christ" find unity in the notion of divine kingship. While Jewish messianic understanding was diverse, many Jews conceived of the Messiah as a kingly figure who would rule over Israel on God's behalf. The title "Son of God" therefore affirms that the title "Christ" ought to be understood in a royal sense. As the Messiah, Jesus is God's divinely appointed son, a king who rules on God's behalf.

But we must also note that while Jewish scriptures may be the primary background for Mark's use of "son of God," the Greco-Roman background should not be ignored. Greek and Roman rulers were regularly identified in terms of divine sonship. An oracle in Egypt declared Alexander the Great to be "son of Ammon" ("son of Zeus" in Greek).31 Alexander's Ptolemaic successors also used this title.32 Even more importantly, the title "son of God" was ubiquitous in the language of the Roman imperial cult. After his death, Julius Caesar was deified and was called divus Iulius. His adopted son, Octavian, took for himself the title divifilius or "God's son" or "son of God." This Latin title was translated into Greek as 0eoO u l o g (son of God). 0eoO u l o g was used regularly in reference to Augustus throughout his reign (e.g., K a i a a p o g Geou u l o g auxoKpaTco, "Caesar, son of God, Emperor").33 The title (or

1980); Telford, Theology of the Gospel of Mark; Hurtado, Mark, 10-11; Witherington, Mark, 49-51; P. J. Achtemeier, "Mark, Gospel o f in ABD, 4:551-53; R. Schnackenburg, Jesus in the Gospels (Louisville: WJK, 1995), esp. 52; et al.

3 1 von Martitz, "inog," 336; See also A. Y. Collins, "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans," HTR 93 no. 2 (2000): 87.

3 2 Martitz, "uiog," 336; Collins, "Son of God," 87. 3 3 See Tae Hun Kim, "The Anarthrous ulog 9eou in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial

Cult," Biblica 79 (1998): 221-41.

102 Chapter 3

variations of it) was used also by Augustus' successors: Tiberius, Ti|3epiog Kaiaap Ze^aaTog 0eoO uiog auxoKpaxcop, "Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of God, Emperor;" Germanicus (Tiberius' adopted son), £e|3acn:ou uiog 0eou ZePacxTOu ulcovog, "son of the God Augustus [Tiberius] and grandson of Augustus;" and Nero, T O V ulov T O U pe yiaTOu Secov, "the son of the greatest of the gods."3 4

This background would significantly affect how Greeks and Romans would understand Mark's presentation of Jesus.3 5 That Mark anticipated such a reading seems equally as certain (see discussion above on Mark's incipit, and its allusion to the imperial cult). Therefore, to a Greco-Roman audience, Mark places Jesus in the same category as the great rulers of the world - including Roman emperors, both present and past. Such a Greco-Roman background does not necessarily conflict with the Jewish background we discussed above, but rather the two can be complementary. For Mark, God's Christ and appointed king is not only the ruler of Jews, but ruler of the world as well. This idea is quite common in Second Temple Jewish messianism. Through this portrayal of Jesus, Mark implicitly if not explicitly places him in competition with any present world ruler, perhaps most obviously, the Roman emperor. Therefore, Mark's use of "Son of God" has dual significance. Jesus is not only God's divinely appointed king who will rule as Israel's Messiah, but he is also a rival to all world rulers who also claim divine sonship.

Son of Man

The most frequent title (if it is in fact a title) that Mark uses for Jesus is "Son of Man" (which from this point on will be abbreviated SM). This phrase is the primary way that Jesus identifies himself in Mark's gospel. It occurs fifteen times in Mark, and in every instance Jesus uses it as a term of self-designation.3 6 No other character in the story uses it to identify Jesus, and Jesus never identifies another person with it. A similar phenomenon is found throughout the New Testament. Generally only Jesus uses the phrase SM and only in reference to himself.37 In fact, outside the gospels, SM is found only three times in the entire New Testament (Acts 7:56; Rev 1:13; 14:14). This evidence

3 4 Evans, Mark, lxxxii-lxxxiii. 3 5 See Collins, "Son of God"; Evans, "Incipit." 3 6 There is debate as to whether the use of SM in Mark 2:10 actually comes from Jesus

or is an authorial aside; cf. G. H. Boobyer, "Mark II 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic," HTR 47 (1954): 115-20; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans. Bertram Lee Woolf; London: James Clark & Co., 1971), 67; Lane, Mark, 96-98; et al. For alternative interpretations, see Marcus, Mark, 218; Tolbert, Sowing, 136, n. 18; et al.

3 7 Some interpreters have suggested that when Jesus speaks of the SM in eschatological terms, he is speaking of a figure other than himself; see Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 112; H. E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Dorothea M. Barton; London: SCM, 1965), 55-60. But this position has been rejected by more recent interpreters; see I. H. Marshall, "Son of Man," in DJG, 775-81, esp. 778.


demonstrates that SM was not a common title the early church used to identify Jesus. That the church maintained it only as a way that Jesus identified himself has led many interpreters to conclude that SM was an authentic term of self-designation that the historical Jesus used.3 8 Clearly Mark has maintained this traditional self-designation of Jesus.

What is the significance of this self-designation for Mark's Christology? Before we can answer this question, we must first examine the significance of this title in Second Temple Judaism and its significance for the historical Jesus. There is a great deal of debate over this latter issue. The general consensus is that SM was not a messianic title in Second Temple Judaism and there is no evidence that it functioned as such.39 But if SM was not a messianic title, what significance did it have for Jesus? Some interpreters argue that by using SM, Jesus is identifying himself with the "one like a son of man" in Dan 7:13.40 This Danielic SM is an apocalyptic figure to whom God gives kingship over the entire world. By identifying himself as the SM, Jesus is therefore claiming to be God's royal viceroy and likely God's Messiah. A number of Jesus' SM sayings use the language of Dan 7:13, suggesting it

3 8 For interpreters who believe that Jesus used SM as a form of self identification, see M. D. Hooker, Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967); O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), 137-188; Seyoon Kim,"7V*e 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983); G. Theissen and A. Mertz, The HistoricalJesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM, 1998); James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered iyo\. 1; Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2003), 759-761. There are certainly interpreters who reject this position and claim that Jesus never actually used the term "Son of Man." These interpreters hold that the SM sayings found in the gospels are creations of the early church. For example, see Philipp Vielhauer, "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkiindigung Jesu," in Aufsdtze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1957), 51-79; N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967), 164-199; A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), chs. 3, 5-6. For a survey of the history of the "Son of Man" debate see D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (SNTSMS 107; Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 1999).

3 9 See James Dunn, Christology in the Making (2 n d ed; London: SCM, 1989), 95-97; Marshall, "Son of Man," 775-81; Evans, Mark, lxxiii-lxxvii; et al.

4 0 For interpreters who see the apocalyptic SM sayings (those echoing Dan 7) as authentic Jesus traditions, see Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (vol. 1; trans. Kendrick Grobel; New York: Charles Scribner, 1968), 26-32 (Though Bultmann does not explicitly say that these sayings are authentic, he claims they are the oldest traditions among the synoptic "Son of Man" sayings); G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (trans. Irene and Fra-ser McLuskey with James Robinson; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 175-77; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner, 1965), 34-42, 65-66, 122-25, 151-155, 229-30; Todt, The Son of Man; Joachim Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 249-50, 258-62; G. Strecker, Theology of the New Testament (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 257-258; A. Y. Collins, "The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament," in Daniel (ed. John J. Collins; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 90-112, esp. 95.

104 Chapter 3

as a possible background to Jesus' use of the phrase (Mk 8:38; 13:26; 14:62; Lk 12:40; 18:8; 22:69; Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 25:31). If this background for Jesus' SM sayings is accepted, then Jesus has created a sort of veiled messianic title (or form of self-identification) for himself - one that is unique in the Second Temple period.41

However, many interpreters reject the notion that Jesus' use of SM has any connection to Daniel.42 They note that SM was a common Aramaic idiom. It often simply meant "human being" or "humanity." But it could be used as an indirect means of self-reference, which includes both humanity in general and the speaker in particular.43 Geza Vermes argues that SM functions as a circumlocution for the speaker alone, meaning "I and I alone."44 However, a number of interpreters have offered significant objections to Vermes' claims.45

One objection is that Vermes depends on sources that post-date the New Testament by at least two or three centuries. Vermes' claims cannot be supported by the Aramaic of Jesus' day. A second objection is that, while the examples Vermes gives could be read as a direct self-reference, "I and I alone," they could also be read as indirect self-references, such as the idiomatic use noted above, i.e., humanity in general and indirectly the the speaker. Maurice Casey has offered a mediating position.46 He claims that SM can refer to a particular

4 1 Both the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra draw on the imagery of the Danielic "son of Man." In both texts, the phrase represents a heavenly individual and identifies that individual as the Messiah. See Collins, Scepter and Star, 175-89. For discussion on the relationship between Messiah and "Son of Man" in Second Temple Judaism, see J. C. VanderKam, "Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man," in The Messiah (ed. J. Charles-worth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 169-91; William Horbury, "The Messianic Association of The Son of Man,"' JTS 36 (1985): 34-55.

4 2 See Geza Vermes, "The Use of bar nash/bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic," in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (ed. M. Black; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 310-28; idem, Jesus the Jew, 161-92; M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), 224-39; idem, "Aramaic Idiom and Son of Man Sayings," ExpTim 96 (1984-85): 233-36; idem, "General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term 'Son of Man' in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus," JSNT 29 (1987): 21-56; Barnabas Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1983).

4 3 G. H. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (D. M. Kay trans.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 234-67; J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (vol. 1; New York: Charles Scribner, 1971), 261 n. 1; Casey, Son of Man, 224-39; idem, "Aramaic Sources," 21-56.

4 4 Vermes, "Jewish Aramaic"; idem, Jesus the Jews. 4 5 For critiques of Vermes, see Joseph Fitzmyer, "The New Testament Title the 'Son

of Man' Philologically Considered," in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula: Scholars, 1979), 143-60; idem, "Another View of the Son of Man Debate," JSNT 4 (1979): 58-68; Marshall, "Son of Man," 779; Bruce Chilton, "Son of Man: Human and Heavenly," in The Four Gospels 1992 FS. F. Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroek, et al; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 203-18; R. Bauckham, "The Son of Man: 'A Man in My Position' or 'Someone'?" JSNT 23 (1985): 23-33.

4 6 Casey, Son of Man; idem, "Aramaic Idiom"; idem, "Aramaic Sources"; also see Lindars, Son of Man.


type or class of people, not necessarily humanity as a whole, and this class includes the speaker. The idiom, therefore, means "I and others like me." In a number of Jesus' SM sayings, such an idiomatic self-reference, i.e., "I and others like me," seems plausible (e.g., "so the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" [Mark 2:10//]; "But so you might know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sin" [Mark 2:28//]; "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" [Matt 8:20//]). However, there are many SM sayings that do not fit this idiomatic explanation. For example, sayings that clearly identify Jesus with the Danielic "Son of Man" or that are linked with the unique suffering and death Jesus predicts he will experience clearly refer to Jesus alone and not others like him, making the idiomatic use implausible. But because the idiomatic use fails to explain these SM sayings, proponents of the idiomatic use reject their authenticity, usually attributing their creation to the early church.47

But resolving this debate is not our present concern. For our purposes, we must determine how Mark understood SM and what implications it has for his Christology. Did he understand this phrase as an innocuous idiom that Jesus used as means of self-reference, or did he attribute to it christological significance? The SM sayings in Mark (and in the rest of the synoptics) fall into three categories: (1) sayings that describe Jesus' present activity (2:10,28); (2) sayings that refer to his suffering, death, and resurrection (8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:21 [2x], 41); and (3) sayings that speak of his future vindication (8:38; 13:26; 14:62).

It is the third type of sayings that give us our most promising starting point. In these sayings, allusions to Dan 7:13 are obvious. In Mark 13:26, Jesus speaks of the SM "coming in clouds with great power and glory." Compare this verse with Dan 7:13, which says, "I saw one like a son of man coming in the clouds of heaven." In Mark 14:62, Jesus says, "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming in the clouds of heaven." Again the parallels with Dan 7:13 are obvious. Whether Jesus made these statements or the early church created them is unimportant for our present purpose. What is important and quite clear is that Dan 7:13 influenced Mark's use of SM, and that Mark identifies Jesus with the Danielic "Son of Man." Certainly this identification has significant christological implications. It demonstrates Mark's belief that Jesus is currently seated at the right hand of God and, presumably, God has given him dominion and kingship over the world. As God's appointed king, Jesus will one day return "with the clouds," and judge the world (Mark 8:38). This understanding of SM is completely consistent with the other christological titles we have examined

4 7 See Vermes, Casey, and Lindars above. James Dunn argues that Jesus likely began using SM as an idiom and later connected it with the Dan 7 tradition and his own mission. See Dunn, Christology, 82-95; idem, Remembered, 759-62.

106 Chapter 3

in Mark - "Christ" and "Son of God" - both of which relate to the idea of divinely appointed kingship. While it is true that not all Mark's SM sayings allude to Dan 7, it seems likely that Mark intends them to be understood in such a light. For if even at one point Mark understands a SM saying in light of Dan 7, such an understanding likely pervades all of Mark's SM sayings at one level or another.48

However, there are some challenges to interpreting Mark's use of SM as a title with Christological significance.49 There is the absence of allusions to Daniel in many of Mark's SM sayings. The absence of such allusions might lessen the significance of Daniel for understanding these Markan SM sayings and, therefore, Markan Christology as well. Perhaps Mark is simply maintaining idiomatic or generic uses of SM and not a christologically laidened title.5 0

Some interpreters support this position by noting that that SM is never used as a christological confession in Mark, unlike "Christ" and "Son of God." Some interpreters noted that if Mark understands SM as a messianic title, he violates his own efforts to keep Jesus' identity a secret. Jesus makes no effort to conceal his identity as the SM (he even states it publicly [2:10, 28; 14:62]), but he does attempt to conceal his identity as "Christ" and "Son of God." If SM has christological implications (or is a Christological title), the inconsistency in Mark's use of messianic titles appears to be problematic.

But that Mark's narrator or Mark's characters never use SM as a christological confession is not valid evidence that Mark did not understand the term christologically or did not use it as a Christological title. The absence of such christological confessions is best explained by Mark's desire to preserve the tradition that SM was a way that Jesus alone spoke of himself. If Mark is in fact preserving such a tradition, we would not expect SM to be used as a christological confession in the gospel by any Markan character (other than perhaps Jesus), which is exactly what we find.

Does a christological understanding of SM violate what appears to be Mark's efforts to keep Jesus' identity a secret? While on the surface there might appear to be a conflict between Mark's concern for secrecy and a christological understanding of SM (especially in light of Jesus' public use of SM), the two can complement each other. If, as most interpreters conclude, SM was not a well known messianic title during the first century and could possibly be understood idiomatically as a form of self-address, it might actually promote Mark's concern for secrecy rather than undermine it. Mark's Jesus can use SM

4 8 See Walter Schmithals, "Die Worte vom leidenden Menschensohn," in Theologia Cruets - Signum Crucis: Festschrift fiir Erich Dinkier zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. C. Anderson and G. Klein; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1979), 417-45, esp. 435.

4 9 Evans, Mark, lxxv; Kingsbury, Christology, 157-76; D. R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 183-211; M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 104-8.

5 0 See Evans, Mark, lxxv; Kingsbury, Christology, 157-76.


as a veiled form of messianic identification.51 The true understanding of this self-designation is not clear until Mark 13 when Mark first connects SM with the apocalyptic figure in Daniel; a kingly figure who will rule the world on God's behalf. Throughout Mark's gospel, SM would appear innocuous, both to the characters in Mark's story and perhaps to Mark's readers. However, at the end of his gospel, Mark reveals the true meaning of Jesus' identification as the SM (13:26 and 14:62).52 Though such revelations do finally violate Mark's secrecy motif, we must remember that such violations are not uncommon in Mark (10:46-52; 11:1-11; 14:61-62). Jesus' true identity is regularly exposed and often intentionally so. Even Jesus' identity as "Christ" and "Son of God" is exposed in his trial before the high priest (14:61-62). Therefore, Mark's use of SM as a veiled form of Jesus messianic self-designation fits Mark's pattern of attempted yet unsuccessful secrecy.

As we have sought to demonstrate, there is compelling evidence that SM does have christological significance in Mark's gospel and is a significant christological title for Mark. Mark understands SM in light of the apocalyptic figure in Dan 7 and equates Jesus with that figure (13:26 and 14:62). For Mark, this heavenly identity is veiled throughout Jesus' earthly life, and Mark must reinterpret the role of the SM designation in light of Jesus' suffering and death. But even during Jesus' earthly life, his heavenly identity is revealed in the transfiguration, and his power and authority cannot be denied (9:2-8). Yet it is with the risen Christ that Mark most clearly associates the Danielic SM. Mark presents Jesus, as the risen SM, as an exalted heavenly king to whom God has given authority over all the nations of the world (Dan 7:13-14). He will not remain in heaven forever but will return one day to gather his people (Mark 13:26).

This understanding of SM is consistent with Mark's other two christological titles, "Christ" and "Son of God." All three of these titles are linked by their expression of divine kingship not only of Israel but of the entire world as well.53 Mark's christological titles therefore present a unified christological identity: Jesus is God's appointed king and ruler of the world.54

5 1 See Schmithals, "Menschensohn," 432. 5 2 See Moloney, Mark, 62-63, who notes that Jesus' use of "Son of Man" in 2:10, 28

leaves the reader asking who is this "Son of Man," and what is his significance. It is only later in the narrative that the reader's question is answered (8:38; 13:26; 14:62); also see Gnilka, Markus, 1:124.

5 3 See Paul Achtemeier, "Mark," 4.552-53. 5 4 For a response to the claims of Norman Perrin and others that Mark is trying to advance

Jesus' identity as SM over against his mistaken identity as Son of God, see the critique in chapter one on "corrective Christology," pages 12-18.

108 Chapter 3

3.3.2 Christological Presentation After examining christological identification in Mark, we turn our attention to christological presentation or christological function. Mark identifies Jesus as God's appointed king, but the question remains what type of king he is, or rather how is this kingly identity characterized by Mark. Redaction critics of the 1960's and 1970's discerned two conflicting types of christological content - content that promoted Jesus' power (e.g., healings, exorcisms, and power over nature) and content that promoted Jesus' suffering (e.g., his passion predictions, the betrayal of his disciples, and his horrific crucifixion). As we discussed in our opening survey, many of these interpreters concluded that this material represented two competing Christologies in Mark's community, i.e., a Christology of suffering and the cross and a Christology of power and glory. Most of these interpreters concluded that Mark was seeking to combat an errant Christology of power by introducing a Christology of the cross, making the latter the dominant motif by which Markan Christology is understood. Though as we demonstrated in our opening survey, the notion of such competing Christologies in Mark's gospel is untenable and the fruits of this theory are questionable.55

But while more recent Markan interpreters have rejected the notion of competing Christologies in Mark, they have, by and large, embraced the notion that Mark's Christology is primarily one characterized by suffering and the cross. This conclusion is primarily the result of narrative critical analysis. Based on narrative patterns, literary markers, and rhetorical devices many of these interpreters conclude that Mark is leading his reader to conclude that Jesus is God's son primarily in terms of his suffering and death.56 As a result of this work, most interpreters today agree that Mark's Christology is primarily a Christology of the cross. Perhaps the only vocal detractor from this popular position is Robert Gundry who argues that Jesus' identity as Christ and Son of God is best understood in terms of power and glory.57

In our present analysis, we will examine Mark's presentation of Jesus with the hope of accurately characterizing Mark's Christology. Is Mark's Christology primarily understood in terms of suffering or power? For the purpose of our analysis, we will divide Mark's gospel up into five sections: (1) prologue (1:1-13); (2) Galilean ministry (1:14-8:26); (3) Caesarea Philippi (8:27-9:1); (4) Jerusalem ministry;58 and (5) passion and death. We will examine the overall presentation of Jesus in each section, noting the dominant

5 5 For this critique, see pages 16-26 above. 5 6 For examples, see Moloney, Mark, 16-24; Harrington and Donahue, Mark, 23-25;

France, Mark, 23-27; Hooker, St. Mark, 19-27; Hurtado, Mark, 8-11; et al. 5 7 Gundry, Apology, esp. 1-26. 5 8 This section includes Jesus' journey to Jerusalem as well, but for the sake of conve

nience we have abbreviated the heading.


christological perspective of the section, identifying possible shifts in that perspective, and negotiating apparent conflicting christological content.

Prologue 1:1-13 (14-15)59

As a number of helpful studies have shown, prologues in the ancient world were used to inform the reader of what they might expect in the text to follow.60 Therefore, Mark's prologue is significant for his overall presentation of Jesus. It opens with a statement about Jesus' identity (1:1) and follows that statement with a prophecy from Hebrew scripture (1:2-3). It is clear that Mark understands Jesus (and John the Baptist who precedes him) as a fulfillment of this prophecy: John is the messenger of vs. 2, his baptism is the means by which the way of the Lord is prepared (vs. 2), and the wilderness fulfills the location of vs. 3 ("the voice of one crying out in the wilderness"). By matching the details of Hebrew prophecies with circumstantial details of Jesus' life, Mark makes it clear that he who follows John is the fulfillment of these Hebrew prophecies.61

Mark continues to develop his presentation of Jesus through John the Baptist's prophetic message. John's message establishes three things: (1) that Jesus is more powerful than John ("the one who is more powerful than I is coming after me" [vs. 7a]), (2) that Jesus is of greater significance than John ("I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals" [vs. 7b]), (3) and that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit (vs. 8). Given that John himself is presented as a prophet of God, the superiority that he attributes to Jesus is even more significant. The meaning of the ability to "baptize" with the Holy Spirit is debated. Perhaps Mark is alluding to the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, but nowhere in Mark does Jesus give the Holy Spirit to another person, nor is there any account of people receiving the Holy Spirit, as there was at Pentecost.62 Perhaps for Mark, baptizing with the Holy Spirit indicates the means by which Jesus will accomplish his ministry (e.g., teach, heal, exorcise demons, etc.).63 Baptizing with the Holy Spirit might also allude to the eschatological expectation that God would pour out his Spirit on his people (Joel 2:28 and possibly Ezek 36:25-26).64 Mark may be establishing Jesus as the agent of this eschatological blessing. Whatever the specific nuance of

5 9 There is a good deal of debate as to whether Mark's prologue ends at vs. 13 or 15. For a summary of this debate, see Watts, Exodus, 91-95. Because our christological examination of Mark's prologue is not greatly affected by the outcome of this debate, we will not spend time discussing it here.

6 0 For the significance of prologues in ancient Greco-Roman literature, see Earl, "Prologue," 842 56; Smith, "Narrative," 1-9.

6 1 Cf. Gundry, Apology, 36. 6 2 Cf. Guelich, Mark, 25. 6 3 See Gundry, Apology, 38; 6 4 See France, Mark, 72-73; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 64; Hooker, St. Mark, 38-

39; Moloney, Mark, 34-35.

110 Chapter 3

Jesus' ability to baptize with the Holy Spirit, it establishes Jesus as a person of great power; either he will function under the power of the Spirit, or he will dispense the Spirit to God's people. Either way, this function begins to establish Jesus as one who acts on God's behalf and by God's power. John presents Jesus as a person of power who is worthy of great honor. This presentation is confirmed during Jesus' baptism when the Holy Spirit descends upon him, and the heavenly voice proclaims his divine sonship.

Mark's presentation of Jesus as God's powerful Son continues in the wilderness narrative. While he is in the wilderness, Jesus encounters Satan, the supreme demon.65 Though nothing is said about their encounter, that Jesus is a rival of Satan speaks to his significance and power. That Jesus lives in the presence of wild animals, yet presumably is unharmed by them, also testifies to his power.66 Even Jesus' needs are taken care of supernaturally, through the attendance of angels. Again, all these details present Jesus as a person of great power and significance.

Therefore, we conclude that the Jesus of Mark's prologue is a powerful figure. He is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and is even greater than the prophet John. He is in fact given God's Spirit (and is able to baptize people with it) and is proclaimed to be God's Son. His greatness is evidenced further through his adversarial relationship with Satan (the supreme demon), his power over wild beasts, and the presence of angels who serve him. The Jesus of Mark's prologue is a remarkable figure and would likely impress any ancient reader. We must note that there is no indication of Jesus' suffering and death in Mark's prologue, making its christological presentation unambiguously one of power.67 If Mark's christological ambition is to promote a Christology of the cross, the absence of any foreshadowing of such Christology in the Markan prologue could be considered problematic.

6 5 Interpreters have offered many different interpretations of Jesus' temptation by Satan in Mark, (e.g., Jesus as the second Adam; the first battle in a cosmic struggle between Jesus and Satan, in which Satan is significantly weakened; etc.). However, most push the text further than it actually goes. Mark says nothing about the results of Jesus' encounter with Satan, only that he tempted Jesus. In light of this fact, Gundry's claim that Jesus' encounter with Satan, the supreme demon, only highlights Jesus' identity as God's son seems convincing (Gundry, Apology, 55-60).

6 6 See similar stories in the lives of other great men, Daniel (Dan 6:1-28), Pythagoras (Lambl. VP 60-62), Apollonius of Tyana (Philostratus, Life of Apol 5.42; 6.43; 8.30). See Gundry, Apology, 55.

6 7 In 1:14, Mark references John's imprisonment (TTapa8o6fjvai). It might be argued that this reference foreshadows Jesus own suffering and death (see for example Boring, Mark, 49). However, such a conclusion is neither obvious nor necessary. This reference could simply function as a point of demarcation between Jesus' ministry and John's. A number of interpreters suggest this verse functions in both of these ways; see Hooker, Mark, 53-54; Marcus, Mark, 175; Moloney, Mark, 48-49; France, Mark, 90; Guelich, Mark, 42. See Gundry's argument that Mark's use of Trapa8o0f]vat does establish a parallel between the fate of John and Jesus; Apology, 63-64.


Galilean Ministry In the Galilean ministry, the powerful figure of Mark's prologue is further developed. Mark presents Jesus as a powerful exorcist, healer, miracle worker, and teacher. Jesus' success in these roles gains him great popularity and a large following among the people. We will look at each of these roles and examine their significance for Mark's presentation of Jesus.

Perhaps one of the most significant ways that Mark portrays Jesus is as an exorcist. Mark records three specific narratives in which Jesus exorcizes a demon or demons (1:23-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30). At four different points, Mark mentions Jesus' success as an exorcist, yet he does not record any specific episodes (1:32-34, 39; 3:11-12, 20-30). By presenting Jesus as an exorcist, Mark is presenting Jesus as a man of great power. Aai|jovia or "demons" (or T r v 6 U | j a T a aKaGdpxa ["unclean spirits"])68 were universally recognized in the Greco-Roman world. They were generally conceived as supernatural beings and at times lesser deities. They were believed to hold a great deal of power and were often connected with the concepts of fate and destiny. It was believed that these beings could torment and control human beings.69 Jesus' power to cast out demons demonstrated that he was a man with power over the supernatural realm. Though other ancient exorcists existed in antiquity, the evidence suggests that they were not common.70 In our written sources, we know of only a few outside the New Testament: Eleazar mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 8.45-49), Apollonius of Tyana mentioned by Philostratus (Life of Apol. 4.20), and an unidentified Syrian mentioned by Lucian of Samosata (Lover of Lies, 16).71 Therefore, Jesus' ability to exorcize demons would put him in an elite class of powerful men. It is also important to note the manner in which Jesus performed his exorcisms. Unlike other exorcists of the ancient world who were generally dependent upon incantations and formulas, Jesus simply and successfully commands the demons to leave.72 Jesus' ability to control demons with only an audible command highlights his power.73 Exorcists also often depended on a power greater than themselves,

6 8 These words are used as synonyms in Mark: unclean spirit (1:23; 5:2; 9:25) and demon(s) (1:34, 39; 3:15, 22; 6:13; 7:26-30; 9:38).

6 9 For discussion on demons in the ancient world, see Werner Foerster, "8aiucov, Satuoviov" TDNT, 2.1-20; J. Z. Smith, "Towards Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity," ANRWW. 16.1,425-439; D. G. Reese, "Demons: New Testament," in ABD, 2.140-42; G. H. Twelftee, "Demon, Devil, Satan," in DJG, 163-72; E. Langton, Essentials of Demonology (London: Epworth, 1949).

7 0 E. F. Kirschner, The Place of Exorcism in Mark's Christology with Special Reference to Mark 3:22-30 (Ph.D. diss., London Bible College, 1988), 29.

7 1 We know of other exorcisms taking place in the ancient world (see Tob 6-8) but not of specific exorcists.

7 2 See Tob 8:3 where the burning of a fish liver and heart are used to exorcise a demon. In Josephus, Eleazar uses a root to exorcise a demon (Ant. 8:45-49).

7 3 Cf. Gundry, Apology, 77; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 81; Witherington, Mark, 91-92; et al.

112 Chapter 3

as is evidenced by the common formula "I adjure you by . . ."74 Jesus, however, does not call on another power, demonstrating that he himself is able to overpower these supernatural forces.75

Perhaps even more so than as an exorcist, Mark portrays Jesus as a powerful healer. During Jesus' Galilean ministry, Mark records seven pericopes of specific healings that Jesus performed (1:29-34, 40-45; 2:1-12; 3:1-6; 5:21-43; 7:31-37; 8:22-26), and twice he makes general reference to Jesus' role as a healer (3:10; 6:53-56). The types of healings Mark records are both diverse and impressive (e.g., the restoration of hearing, the restoration of sight, the reversal of paralysis, the healing of deformity, and even the raising of the dead). Like exorcists, healers were not unprecedented in the ancient world; however, their power was greatly respected and often seen as having a divine origin.76 By presenting Jesus as a remarkable healer, Mark contributes further to the powerful image of Jesus in his gospel.

Along with presenting Jesus as a powerful exorcist and healer, Mark also highlights Jesus' power over the natural world. Twice Jesus calms a storm: once by audible command (4:35-41) and once presumably by his mere presence (6:45-52). Such miraculous sea rescues are not uncommon in Greco-Roman literature.77 For example, Philostratus writes that people believed that Apollonius of Tyana had power over the seas (Life of Apol 4.13). Asclepius (Serapis) answered the prayers of Aelius Aristides by saving him and his companions from a deadly storm (Hymn to Serapis, 33). Yet, despite these similarities in the ancient world, Mark's account of Jesus calming a violent storm with an audible command is unprecedented. Many have suggested that various Jewish traditions might lie behind these sea miracles (e.g., God's conquest of the primordial sea at creation; the Jonah narrative).78 Second Maccabees indicates that the ability to command the seas was a power that some Greco-Roman rulers claimed (2 Mace 9:8). It is, therefore, possible that ancient readers would understand Jesus' calming of the sea in light of these different motifs. Whatever specific allusions Mark intends, one general conclusion cannot be missed by Mark's readers: Jesus is a man of extraordinary power.

7 4 H. D. Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), e.g. 3.10; 4.1239, 3080; Dunn, Remembered, 693.

7 5 For further discussion on Jesus as an exorcist, see G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist (WUNT 2.54; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993).

7 6 Apollonius of Tyana was known and revered for his healing powers (Phil., Life of Apol) Pyrrhus was able to restore diseased spleens with his foot. In a long remembered display of power, Emperor Vespasian healed a man's deformed hand and restored the eyesight of a blind man (Suet. Ves. 7; Tac. Hist. 4:81); see Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983).

7 7 Theissen, Miracles, 99-101. 7 8 For discussion on these various backgrounds, see Lane, Mark, 175-76; John P. Meier,

A Marginal Jew (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:930-32.


Mark also records two pericopes in which Jesus miraculously multiplies a small amount of food in order to feed a multitude ("The Feeding of the Five Thousand," 6:30-44 and "The Feeding of the Four Thousand," 8:1-10). Many scholars have noted the eschatological and messianic implications of these passages. The passages possibly allude to the expectation of "manna" that God would provide in the eschatological age (2 Bar. 29:8; Mek Ex. 16:25; Eccl. Rab. 1:9).79 There is also a likely allusion to the powerful prophet Elisha who fed one hundred men with a small amount of bread (2 Kgs 4:42-44). No obvious parallels to these miracles occur in Greco-Roman sources. Regardless of any intended or even accidental allusions, Jesus' miraculous ability to multiply food obviously continues Mark's presentation of Jesus as a powerful figure.

After examining the powerful deeds of Jesus, we must briefly discuss his relationship to magic and ancient magicians, a topic that has garnered a good deal of discussion in recent years.8 0 It is possible that Jesus could have been characterized as a magician in the ancient world, but Mark does not seem to present Jesus as such. In the Roman world, magicians and magic were generally disapproved of and laws were passed outlawing both.81 Magicians were often executed for violating these laws (Tac. Ann. 2.32; Dio 57.15.8-9). However, it must be remembered that a magician was not classified as anyone who was capable of doing powerful or supernatural deeds. A true "magician" was one who profited in some way from his or her magic and generally used spells or incantations for the sake of harming others.82 One of the evidences Apol-lonius gives to prove he is not a magician is the absence of a motivation for profit (Life of Apol. 8.7). He is eventually acquitted of any wrongdoing. Similarly, it would be difficult for Mark's Jesus to be discredited as a simple magician. Jesus' deeds of power are never done for profit or to the detriment of others. They are in fact always done for the benefit of humanity. He also does not use the methods of magicians - spells or incantations - but accomplishes his miracles by audible command or physical touch. From Mark's narrative, it is clear that Jesus' power has a divine origin (e.g., 1:9-11; 2:1-12; 3:19b-30; 5:1-20, esp. 19). Jesus is God's appointed king and agent, and his great power is evidence of this position.

7 9 See Marcus, Mark, 410. 8 0 See David Aune, "Magic in Early Christianity," ANRWW 23.2, 1507-1557; H. C. Kee,

Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times (SNTSMS 55; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978); et al.

8 1 See Matthew W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 2001), 142-61; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 233, 238-43; H. D. Betz, "Magic in Greco-Roman Antiquity," ER 9 (1995): 93; J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 304-10.

8 2 See Dickie, Magic and Magicians, 142-61.

114 Chapter 3

While miracles and powerful deeds seem to dominate Jesus' ministry in Galilee, Mark also presents Jesus as an authoritative teacher. Throughout the Galilean ministry, Mark records the people's amazement at the authoritative nature of Jesus' teaching (1:22, 27). Several times Mark presents Jesus rebutting the claims of the scribes and the Pharisees (2:18-28). Often Jesus' teaching is connected closely with his power to exorcize demons and to heal, making the teaching even more powerful and compelling (1:22-28; 2:1-12; 3:1-6; 3:20-30). A number of Jesus' teachings are connected with the "kingdom of God," creating a link between Jesus and God's rule. Alongside Mark's presentation of Jesus as an exorcist, healer, and powerful miracle worker, his presentation of Jesus as an authoritative teacher complements his portrayal of Jesus as a man of striking power.

While a significant portion of the Galilean ministry emphasizes Jesus' power, there are a handful of references that appear to foreshadow Jesus' death. In Jesus' response to the Pharisees about fasting, there likely is a veiled reference to his death: "Jesus said to them, 'The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day'" (2:18-20). Presumably, Jesus is to be understood as the bridegroom, who will at one time be taken away from the disciples at his death. After Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath, Mark records that the Pharisees and the Herodians conspired to find a way to destroy Jesus (3:1-6). That Mark is foreshadowing Jesus' future suffering and death certainly seems plausible. Jesus' rejection at his hometown of Nazareth may also be an allusion to the future suffering he will encounter (6:1-6). Likewise, the narrative of John the Baptist's death (6:14-29) could be taken as a foreshadowing of Jesus' own fate.

Many narrative critics give significant weight to these scattered foreshad-owings of Jesus' death.83 For such critics, these foreshadowings are invaluable clues to the reader that Jesus' future is not as bright as it may presently seem and that his identity will ultimately be marked by tragedy. But these interpreters may be reading more into these foreshadowings than the text actually demands. Mark inherits the tradition of the bridegroom from his sources, and its placement at this point in Mark's narrative is necessitated by its link with the disciples of John. There is no need to read this pericope as an intentional Markan reference to Jesus' identity as a suffering messiah. While the tradition of the Pharisees' and the Herodians' plot to kill Jesus could be read as an early clue to the true nature of Jesus' identity, i.e. a suffering messiah, it could also be read as a foil that highlights Jesus' power and influence over that of two Jewish powerbrokers. The tradition of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth could

8 3 For examples, see Moloney, Mark, 68, 71; Marcus, Mark, 237; France, Mark, 151-52; van Iersel, Mark, 162; et al.


be read as a foreshadowing of Jesus' future suffering, but such significance is not a certain or necessary reading of the text. Mark could include the story simply because it was a well known and popular Jesus tradition. He could also be using the text to highlight the role of faith for Christian disciples. And what is to be made of the account of John's death? While it could prefigure Jesus' death, the text does not demand such a reading. Certainly the fate of John is relevant to Mark's narrative for its own sake. He was certainly a figure that played a prominent role in the church's Jesus tradition, and the story of his death would be appropriate in Mark's recounting of that tradition.

Yet even if one insists that these pericopes be read as foreshadowings of Jesus' death, there is little evidence demanding that these foreshadowings be read as part of a narrative strategy that advances a Christology of suffering and the cross. In fact, the Galilean ministry seems to read as a tour de force for Jesus. He is a superior exorcist, master healer, authoritative teacher, and has power over nature. His great power leads to extraordinary popularity among the people and not only impresses but seems to frighten Herod Anti-pas (Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9). Such a figure would impress any first century Greco-Roman reader. It seems that a handful of references to Jesus' death would fail to detract from the overwhelming presentation of Jesus as a figure of great power. Such detraction is especially unlikely give the fact that most of Mark's readers know how the story is going to end. For them, Jesus' death is no surprise, and it is certainly questionable whether they would read such scattered foreshadowings as significant, begging the question of whether Mark intended them as such.

In conclusion, the Galilean ministry in Mark continues to advance the powerful presentation of Jesus that characterizes Mark's prologue. Therefore, the first eight chapters of Mark are unanimous in their presentation of Jesus. He is unambiguously characterized as a figure of supreme power, and it seems reasonable to conclude that Mark understands Jesus identity as Messiah and Son of God (1:1) in terms of such power.

Caesarea Philippi Traditionally, interpreters have seen Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi (along with Jesus' subsequent prediction of his own death and suffering) as a turning point in Mark's gospel. At Caesarea Philippi, three unprecedented events occur: (1) Jesus' disciples (specifically Peter) proclaim Jesus to be the Christ, (2) Jesus speaks explicitly about his suffering and death, and (3) the element of suffering discipleship is introduced. After these events at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus' suffering and death take a more prominent place in Mark's narrative, with the gospel finally culminating in Jesus' passion.

Recent narrative critical analysis of Mark has placed great significance on this turning point. Many interpreters argue that Peter's confession is a true

116 Chapter 3

confession, but that it is also an incomplete confession.84 Jesus is the Christ, but he is not the Christ in the way that Peter understands the title, i.e. in terms of power and glory.85 It is then believed that Mark devotes the last half of the gospel to clarifying Peter's faulty confession. Instead of being a powerful and glorious messiah, Jesus is in fact a messiah who will suffer and die. This way of reading Mark's narrative is currently en vogue, but we must ask whether it is the only way the narrative can be read. In answering this question, we must consider the most likely way that Mark's original audience would have read the narrative, as well as how this reading of the second half of Mark's gospel relates to our understanding of the first half of the gospel. Our analysis of the Caesarea Philippi narrative and the subsequent sections of the gospel, i.e. the Jerusalem ministry (and journey) and the Passion narrative, will address these considerations.

We first address the reading of Peter's confession that claims it is faulty or in some way incomplete. This reading is generally supported by three pieces of evidence. The first piece of evidence is Jesus' command to the disciples that they not tell anyone about the confession that Peter has made. This command is seen as an indication that Peter has in someway misunderstood Jesus' identity. Presumably, if Peter had understood Jesus' identity correctly, a command to silence would not be in order.86 But this piece of evidence is not supported by Mark's text. Here a command to silence is being equated with an attempt to identify/correct a christological misconception. However, nowhere else in Mark's gospel are Jesus' commands for silence equated with christological correction. When Jesus commands his identity to be kept silent elsewhere (1:25; 1:34; 9:9), there is no indication that he is correcting christological misconceptions. These commands presumably function to keep Jesus' true identity from being known but not to conceal a misguided identity. We should read the command to silence in Caesarea Philippi narrative the same way that we read all other commands to silence in Mark's gospel - namely as efforts to keep Jesus' true identity a secret and nothing more.8 7 Therefore, the command itself is not a strong piece of evidence that Peter's confession is faulty.

The second piece of evidence is Jesus' prediction of his future suffering and death. For many narrative critics, this passion prediction offers a corrective to Peter's faulty confession. Peter wrongfully understands Jesus as a messiah characterized by power and glory (perhaps even a political figure), and Jesus corrects this understanding with the first prediction of his passion.

8 4 For example, see Moloney, Mark, 165-67; idem, Storyteller, 16-71; Witherington, Mark, 240; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 261; Hooker, St. Mark, 203; et al.

8 5 Moloney, Mark, 167; idem, Storyteller, 11. 8 6 For example, see Moloney, Storyteller, 76-77. 8 7 We will discuss the possible significances of these commands to silence on pages

136-139 below.


But this reading of Jesus' passion prediction is not truly evidence because it is solely predicated upon the conclusion that Peter's confession is in fact faulty - the very fact this piece of evidence is being used to prove. If Peter's confession is not a faulty one, than Jesus' passion prediction cannot be understood as a christological corrective.

The third piece of evidence is the story of Jesus' healing a blind man that immediately precedes the Caesarea Philippi narrative. Many narrative critics see this pericope as a window into the significance of the Caesarea Philippi narrative.88 The blind man represents the disciples' spiritual blindness. His healing, which is only partial at first, represents Peter's partial understanding of Jesus' identity, i.e. his identity as the Messiah. The complete healing of the blind man represents the disciples' full understanding of Jesus' identity, i.e., a messiah that suffers and dies. But here we are left with the same problem that the second piece of evidence posed. It is only by reading Peter's confession as faulty that a parallel can be made between the pericope of the blind man and a Caesarea Philippi narrative. There is nothing explicit in the "blind man" pericope that demands it be read as a window into the significance of the Caesarea Philippi narrative. In fact, if an alternative reading for the Caesarea Philippi narrative could be offered, i.e., one which rejects Peter's confession as a faulty one, the pericope of the blind man would give no indication that it was intended to be read in light of Peter's confession.

There is in fact no sound evidence that Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi is a faulty one. In fact, that Mark contrasts Peter's confession "you are the Christ" with obvious false confessions, "John the Baptist, Elijah . . . one of the prophets" indicates that "Christ" is an accurate confession.89 Also, that Peter's confession is identical to the author's confession in 1:1 would likely lead the reader to believe Peter's confession is, in fact, correct. The three pieces of evidence discussed above work well together if a particular reading of Peter's confession is assumed. But without such an assumption, they find no clear or explicit grounding in Mark's text.

An additional problem with reading Peter's confession as faulty and Jesus' passion prediction as a corrective to that confession is the inconsistency the reading creates with the Christology of power that seems to dominate the first half of Mark's gospel. While few narrative critics are as bold as redaction critics in claiming a corrective function for Mark's Christology of the cross, such a corrective function is certainly implied. If Peter's confession is faulty, what is its fault? The only plausible solution is that Peter conceives of Jesus as messiah in terms of power and glory, and this misguided perception is corrected by Jesus' claim that he is messiah in terms of suffering and death. But it is questionable whether Mark would seek to correct a christological

8 8 See Moloney, Storyteller, 76; Witherington, Mark, 238; Hooker, St. Mark, 198; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 258; Guelich, Mark, 435-36; et al.

8 9 See Gundry, Apology, 445.

118 Chapter 3

perspective that he affirms for the first eight chapters of his gospel. In fact, it would seem that Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the result of the powerful acts which Jesus performed in the first eight chapters of the gospel. It seems unlikely that Mark would spend eight chapters of his gospel building a false christological understanding in his readers simply to turn the tables on them at the half-way point. And if this was in fact Mark's goal, would he not do so in a more dramatic or obvious way? As we have demonstrated above, that Peter's confession is faulty and Jesus' passion prediction is a christological corrective is not obvious in the text, and those who argue for such readings rely on possible literary subtleties in the text. It strains plausibility that Mark would attempt such a dramatic christological shift through subtle literary clues alone. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Mark's readers - who to this point in Mark's narrative have been dazzled with Jesus' power - would be aware of such clues.

For all the above reasons, we reject reading Peter's confession as faulty and Jesus' passion prediction as a christological corrective to that confession. But now that this common narrative critical reading has been deconstructed, we must construct an alternative reading. It cannot be denied that a shift in content occurs in the Caesarea Philippi narrative. As noted above the Caesarea Philippi narrative contains a number of unprecedented events in Mark's narrative; (1) Jesus' disciples (specifically Peter) proclaim Jesus to be the Christ, (2) Jesus speaks explicitly about his suffering and death, and (3) the element of suffering discipleship is introduced. Clearly Mark is introducing some new themes/motifs into his gospel. But as we argued above, these new elements should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the elements that characterize the first half of Mark's gospel. They should also be firmly grounded in the Markan text.

We begin by discussing Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. We suggest that this confession of Jesus' identity is nothing more than it appears to be, a confession of identity. Such a confession is significant in Mark's narrative because of the disciples' lack of understanding about Jesus' identity throughout the first half of Mark's gospel. Regularly the disciples demonstrate a lack of faith in Jesus' power and his identity.90 After Mark's overwhelming presentation of Jesus' power, the disciples finally understand Jesus' identity. It is interesting that after this confession at Caesarea Philippi, the disciples understanding of Jesus' identity never wanes. Mark settles the issue of who the disciples believe Jesus to be at Caesarea Philippi.91

We now turn our attention to Jesus' first passion prediction. Again we 9 0 For a more thorgough discussion on Mark's presentation of failing disciples, see pages

139-150 below. 9 1 Jesus' command to silence that follows Peter's confession is simply a continuation of

Mark's secrecy motif and not an attempt to correct Peter's claim. We will discuss this theme below on pages 136-139.


suggest that this passion prediction is little more than a simple prediction. But we must consider the function this prediction plays in Mark's narrative. The prediction seems to accomplish two related goals: (1) it officially introduces the subject of Jesus' suffering and death into Mark's narrative; and (2) it controls the way in which Jesus' death is understood by Mark's readers.

Mark has avoided any explicit reference to Jesus' suffering and death for eight chapters, but at some point he must deal with these realities (as must any biographical account of Jesus' life). He finally chooses to do so at the end of chapter eight. From this point on, Mark will make reference to Jesus' death on a handful of occasions, until the event actually occurs in Mark's passion narrative. In this way also, the end of chapter eight is a significant turning point in Mark's gospel.

But how Mark introduces Jesus' death is more significant for understanding Mark's narrative than when. We must remember that up to this point in the gospel, Mark presentation of Jesus has been unambiguously one of power. Yet if Mark's christological presentation is one of power, Jesus' suffering and death - especially death by crucifixion - would be a significant obstacle. In the Greco-Roman world, crucifixion was perhaps the most shameful and atrocious of deaths.92 Few symbols in the Greco-Roman world would be as antithetical to power as a cross. Therefore, if Mark's christological agenda is one of power, which the first eight chapters of his gospel suggest, Mark is left with the difficult challenge of presenting Jesus' weakness and shame (his crucifixion) as strength and honor.

But Mark's inclusion of Jesus' passion prediction is actually perfectly suited to overcome this obstacle. In an attempt to make this very point, Gundry notes that in the ancient world, the ability to predict the circumstances of one's own death was seen as a divine power.93 Here Mark presents Jesus with that very power, a power that would greatly impress Mark's Roman readers. By introducing Jesus' suffering and death through a "prediction," Mark takes the shameful sting out of Jesus' crucifixion. Not only does Jesus predict his death and the events surrounding it, through the use of the word Sei, he also implies that his death is a divine mandate. What is implied with 5el is made explicit in Jesus' response to Peter (in 8:33, contrast "divine things" with

9 2 See Cicero's comments reflecting this understanding: "How grievous a thing it is to be disgraced by a public court; how grievous to suffer a fine, how grievous to suffer banishment; and yet in the midst of any such disaster we retain some degree of liberty. Even if we are threatened with death, we may die free men. But the executioner, the veiling of the head, and the very word 'cross' should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these things but the very mention of them that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man" (Rab. Perd. 16). For further discussion on ancient attitudes towards crucifixion, see M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); G. G. O'Collins, "Crucifixion," \nABD, 1.1207-10.

9 3 See n. 95.

120 Chapter 3

"human things"). Mark makes it clear to his Roman audience that Jesus was not killed as result of his own failings or weakness, but rather his death was divinely ordained.

Therefore, we conclude that by including Jesus' passion prediction, Mark is neither advancing a Christology that must be understood in terms of suffering and death, nor is he undermining the Christology of power set forth in the first half of his gospel. In fact, we suggest that Mark is using Jesus' passion prediction to advance his Christology of power by mitigating the shame and weakness of the cross. But perhaps a point of clarification is necessary. We are not claiming that Jesus' suffering and death is not part of Mark's christological presentation. Certainly part of Jesus' divinely appointed mission is to die, and, as we will discuss below, give his life as a ransom for many (10:45). However, we are suggesting that Jesus' suffering and death is not the primary motif through which Mark is presenting Jesus as the Messiah. Rather, we suggest that Mark's primary christological presentation is one of power and that he has skillfully used Jesus' suffering and death to serve this primary presentation.

The third unique feature that Mark introduces in the Caesarea Philippi narrative is the theme of suffering discipleship. In the Caesarea Philippi narrative Jesus' disciples have already made a significant breakthrough in their understanding. After consistently failing to understand Jesus' identity throughout the first eight chapters of Mark, the disciples finally recognize Jesus' identity as the Messiah. But as Mark wraps up one motif that presents the disciples' failure, he introduces another, namely the disciples' failure to understand Jesus' divinely appointed death and its implications for discipleship. This motif is introduced by Peter's rebuke of Jesus' passion prediction. Clearly Peter does not understand Jesus' divinely appointed death. Jesus reciprocates Peter's rebuke with a harsh rebuke of his own and follows this rebuke with his first instruction on suffering discipleship. The disciples' failure to understand Jesus' death and its implications for their own future will be a repeated theme in the second half of Mark's gospel.94

We conclude with most interpreters that the Caesarea Philippi narrative functions as a turning point in Mark's gospel. It is at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus' disciples first understand his identity as the Messiah. Mark also introduces the theme of suffering discipleship, a theme his disciples will fail to understand. Yet while we agree with the majority of interpreters on these points, we reject the common conclusion that the Caesarea Philippi narrative introduces Jesus' suffering and death as Mark's dominant christological motif. As we have sought to demonstrate, such a conclusion is not firmly grounded in the Markan text. It is also inconsistent with the christological presentation that dominates the first half of Mark's gospel. While we

The significance of this theme will be discussed below on pages 139—150.


recognize that Mark does, for the first time, explicitly introduce Jesus' future suffering and death at Caesarea Philippi, we argue that he does so in a way that both highlights Jesus' great power and mitigates the shame of his crucifixion. Mark does this by way of a passion prediction, a prediction that would greatly impress Mark's Roman readers. The cross is certainly an aspect of Jesus' life and ministry that Mark cannot ignore, but Mark presents the cross as a subservient (rather than antithetical) motif to the motif of Jesus' power and glory.

Jerusalem Ministry In our examination of the first half of Mark's gospel, we saw the evangelist advancing a Christology of power in two distinct ways. First, Mark presents Jesus as a man of powerful actions (e.g., healings, exorcisms, etc). Second, Mark presents Jesus' suffering and death in a way that highlights Jesus' power. As we turn to the second half of Mark's gospel, we will seek to determine whether the evangelist continues to use these methods to advance his Christology.

We must first determine whether Mark continues to present Jesus as a man of powerful actions. If this motif disappears from Mark's gospel, we may need to reconsider our understanding of Mark's Christology. Such a disappearance might support the conclusion that Mark's christological presentation did in fact shift in the Caesarea Philippi narrative, i.e., from a Christology of power to a Christology of the cross. Yet if the deeds of power that dominate the Galilean ministry continue into the second half of Mark's gospel, we can be reassured that we have understood Mark's christological presentation correctly.

In our discussion of Jesus' Galilean ministry, we noted three types of miracles Jesus performed: exorcisms, healings, and feats of power over the natural world. It is significant that in the second half of Mark's gospel all three types of miracles are recorded. In Mark 9:14-29, Jesus casts out a demon that even his disciples are unable to control. In Mark 10:46-52, Jesus heals a blind man. And in Mark 11:12-14, 20-25, Jesus demonstrates power over the natural world by cursing a fig tree. It is certainly true that Mark records fewer miracles in the second half of his gospel than in the first. However, Mark's necessary change in subject-matter, i.e., one from Jesus' impressive life to his tragic death, may demand the lower frequency of miracles. In fact, that Mark includes these three specific types of miracles after the Caesarea Philippi narrative may be a way for the evangelist to maintain christological continuity with the first half of his gospel. In essence, Mark is demonstrating that even in the face of Jesus' tragic death, his great power ought not to be forgotten.

We also noted that in the first half of Mark's gospel, Mark presents Jesus as an authoritative teacher. This characterization of Jesus continues in the second half of Mark's gospel and perhaps becomes more prominent than it

122 Chapter 3

was in the first. Jesus teaches authoritatively on the subject of who may enter the kingdom of God (10:13-16, 17-31; 12:28-34) and even promises eschatological blessings to those who are faithful to both himself and the gospel (10:28-31). Jesus also offers moral instruction on divorce (10:1-12), sin (9:42-49), faith (11:23-24), and forgiveness (11:25, [26]). As an authoritative teacher, Mark presents Jesus time and again outwitting the religious intelligentsia of Israel - chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Jewish elders (11:27-33; 12:13— 17, 18-27, 38-40). This presentation of Jesus seems to establish further continuity between the first half of Mark's gospel and the second half.

In addition to presenting Jesus as an authoritative teacher, the second half of Mark's gospel presents Jesus as a powerful prophet. Not only does Jesus successfully predict his own death on three different occasions (predictions that we will examine in more depth below), but he also predicts the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (13:2, which, as we argued in chapter two, Mark's readers have seen unfold) and the events leading up to the world's end (13:5-27). On a smaller scale, the Markan Jesus also successfully predicts the betrayal of Peter, Judas, and the rest of the twelve (14:17-21, 26-31). As we noted earlier, in the ancient world, the ability to tell the future - particularly the events surrounding one's own death - was believed to be a sign of divine power.95 Certainly this ability to tell the future only adds to the impressive resume Mark is creating for Jesus and only further establishes a Christology of power.

There are three significant narratives in the second half of Mark's gospel that also seem to favor a Christology of power over a Christology of the cross - none of which are paralleled in the first half of the gospel: (1) the transfiguration; (2) the triumphal entry; and (3) Jesus' action in the temple. While interpreters debate Mark's intended background for the transfiguration narrative,96 most agree that it serves to reveal Jesus' heavenly identity

9 5 See Gundry, Apology, 428, who cites Philo Mos. 2.51§§290-91; Suetonius. Domitian 15.3; Iambi. VP 136. See David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 178; A. B. Kolenkow, "Miracle and Prophecy," ANRWII 23.2, 1470-1506, esp. 1494.

9 6 The transfiguration may find its background in the Hellenistic literature in which, after taking on a human form, a deity would often later reveal his or her true identity. For discussion or ancient literature that supports this background, see J. Behm, "ueTauoptpoco," TDNT4,757. Interpreters have also noted the parallels to Moses' encounter with God on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24), i.e., both Moses and Jesus are on a mountain, both hear the divine voice, both are illuminated, both events place significance upon "six days;" see Bruce Chilton, "Transfiguration," in ABD, 4.640-42; U. W. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and Its Basis in the Biblical Tradition (SBT 39; London: SCM Press, 1963), 110-19; Marcus, Way of the Lord, 80-93. Some also note the similarities between Jesus and heavenly figures in apocalyptic texts. See France, Mark, 351, who cites Dan 7:9, 1 En 14:20; 2 En 22:8-9; 3 En 12:1; Test. Job 46:7-9; cf Gnilka, Markus, 2:33; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:70. G. H. Boobyer reads this Markan pericope as a foreshadowing of Jesus' parousia or heavenly return (St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story [Edin-


(as expressed in 8:38).97 For a moment, the veil of Jesus' humanity is withdrawn, and his true glory is revealed to his closest disciples (as well as to Mark's readers). In the triumphal entry narrative, Mark clearly portrays Jesus as a kingly messianic figure. The image of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt recalls the prophecy of Zech 9:9: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." The cries of the people link Jesus with the messianic descendant of David who will establish God's kingdom.98 While ironically the people will later reject Jesus, here they correctly recognize him as God's appointed king. While the significance of Jesus' action in the temple can be debated,99 Jesus' authority and power communicated through the action cannot. Clearly Jesus' actions present him as a powerful figure, one who acts on God's behalf and exercises authority in God's temple and over the temple authorities. These three narratives undeniably present Jesus as a figure of great significance and power.

We have found that in the second half of Mark's gospel, as in the first half, Mark presents Jesus as a man of powerful action. Therefore, there is not yet any indication that Mark's christological presentation in the first half of the gospel - a Christology of power - has changed in the second half.

However, we now turn our attention to the way Mark presents Jesus' death in the second half of his gospel. We must determine whether Mark

burgh: T & T Clark, 1942], 48-87). Many interpreters (including some listed here) see more than one of these backgrounds behind Mark's transfiguration narrative.

9 7 Cf. Evans, Mark, 35; Witherington, Mark, 263; France, Mark, 350-51; Marcus, Way of the Lord, 90-91; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 269, 272-75; Hooker, St. Mark, 218-21; Gnilka, Markus, 2.29-39; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:69-84; et al.

9 8 Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:176-89, esp. 182; Moloney, Mark, 218-21; Evans, Mark, 147; France, Mark, 428-35; et al. Even Horsley who wishes to mitigate Mark's messianic imagery accepts the messianic character of this pericope, though he rejects "son of David" as a messianic title (see Horsley, Politics, 251). Lane's argument that crowds are gathered to welcome all pilgrims into Jerusalem and that their praise and assembly is not specifically tied to Jesus may fit the historical situation (though not without difficulties, see Hooker, St. Mark, 256-57); Lane, Mark, 397-98. But Mark clearly understands the event to have messianic significance.

9 9 E. P. Sanders understands Jesus' action as a prophetic gesture heralding the destruction of the Jerusalem temple; see Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 61-76; cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus, 355-60. Hengel understands it as a protest against the temple's corruption; see Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (FBBS 28; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 14-19; cf. Bruce Chilton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 100-103; Evans, Mark, 170-71. S. G. F. Brandon argues that Jesus' temple action was an attempt to take the temple by force; see Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 255-57, 330-40.

124 Chapter 3

continues to present Jesus' death in a way that advances Jesus' power or whether Mark presents it in a way that magnifies Jesus' suffering and weakness.

In the Jerusalem ministry, there are seven pericopes that discuss (either directly or indirectly) Jesus' suffering and death: (1) Jesus' teaching on Elijah (9:9-13); (2) Jesus' second passion prediction (9:30-32); (3) Jesus' third passion prediction (10:32-34); (4) James' and John's request (10:35-45); (5) the chief priests' desire to kill Jesus (11:18); (6) the parable of the wicked tenants (12:1-12) and (7) the anointing at Bethany (14:3-9). As we examine these pericopes, we will consider the following questions: (1) Do they overtly magnify Jesus' suffering and weakness; (2) Do they in any way attempt to undermine Jesus' power and glory; and (3) Can they be read in a way that magnifies Jesus' power and glory?

We begin by looking at Jesus' second and third passion predictions. Both of these passion predictions strongly parallel the first passion prediction at Caesarea Philippi both in form and content - though the third passion narrative provides more specific details than the first two. As with the first passion prediction, we conclude that the second and third passion predictions are simple predictions. They do not in any way seem to overtly magnify Jesus' suffering and death, but they simply communicate the reality of these events. In addition, instead of undermining Jesus' power, these passion predictions seem to magnify it. Jesus' prophetic power is again on display and his knowledge of the specific details surrounding his death would greatly impress his Roman readers. Again it appears that Mark is presenting Jesus' death in a way that mitigates its shame and magnifies Jesus' power

The dialogue between Jesus and his disciples regarding Elijah and his eschatological role also includes a reference to Jesus' suffering. The dialogue follows the transfiguration narrative as Jesus and his disciples are descending from the mountain. Jesus responds to the disciples' question about the coming of Elijah. He affirms that Elijah is coming but then responds with his own question: "How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt?" (9:12). This statement does not seem to overtly magnify Jesus' suffering or weakness, but rather seems to simply explain how Jesus' death fits chronologically with other eschatological events. It could be argued that rather than undermining Jesus' power, this pericope highlights it by further demonstrating Jesus' prophetic ability.

Another reference to Jesus' suffering and death occurs in Jesus' dialogue with James and John concerning positions of authority in the eschaton (10:35-45). James and John request to sit at Jesus' right and left when he "enters his glory" (implying either Jesus' reign as God's Messiah during the eschaton or his entry into Jerusalem). To this request, Jesus points out their limited knowledge and understanding and then delivers a question of his own: "Are


you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" This question makes an obvious allusion to Jesus' future suffering and death.1 0 0 However, there is nothing in this allusion that magnifies Jesus' suffering or weakness, nor is there anything that undermines Jesus' power. In fact, Gundry notes that Jesus' prophetic power is again put on display.101 Not only does he once again demonstrate foreknowledge of his own death, but he also demonstrates foreknowledge of his disciples' fate.102

Gundry also notes that Jesus' question to James and John, "are you able," implies that Jesus himself is able to endure such suffering, highlighting his strength and resolve.103 This pericope also highlights the reality that Jesus will one day rule in glory as God's king. The suffering he will soon experience cannot prevent his final destiny. Again Mark's presentation of Jesus' death supports rather than undermines a Christology of power.

Immediately following Jesus' dialogue with James and John is another reference to Jesus' suffering and death. The presumption of James and John causes discord among Jesus' disciples, discord that leads Jesus to teach about what might be called servant leadership. This monologue concludes with the statement: "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (10:45). This is the first place in Mark's gospel that any qualitative significance is given to Jesus' death. But such significance does not magnify Jesus' suffering or weakness. Instead, it can be read in support of Jesus' power. At the risk of sounding redundant, this saying again demonstrates Jesus' foreknowledge about his death. However, it also presents Jesus' death as an act of benefaction for humanity. Such acts of service by a powerful ruler were not seen as signs of weakness in the Greco-Roman world. Rather, such actions were considered the behavior of an ideal king or ruler.104 Thus, the Markan ransom saying further removes the sting out of Jesus' crucifixion by presenting it as a noble action by the true ruler of the world.

The sixth pericope that references Jesus' death is the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-12). Here we can be certain the son of the vineyard owner

1 0 0 Note that in the Gethsemane prayer, Jesus refers to his impending death and suffering as a cup (14:36). For discussion of these metaphors, see C. E. B. Cranfield, "The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv.36," ExpTim 59 (1948): 137-138; J. D. M. Derrett, "Christ's Second Baptism (Lk 12:50; Mk 10:38-40)," ExpTim 100 (1988-89): 294-95; cf. Evans, Mark, 117; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 311; et al.

1 0 1 Gundry, Apology, 576-81. 1 0 2 Gundry, Apology, 577-78. 1 0 3 Gundry, Apology, 577-78. 1 0 4 For information on ideal rulers, see M. P. Charlesworth, "The Virtues of a Roman

Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief," PBA 23 (1937): 105-33; T. R. Stevenson, "The Ideal Benefactor and Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought," CQ 42 (1992): 421-36

126 Chapter 3

who is killed by the wicked tenants is correctly identified with Jesus.1 0 5 But as we concluded with all previous references to Jesus death, this reference does not, in any unique way, magnify Jesus' suffering or weakness. Again, the parable displays Jesus' prophetic power, not only in Jesus' prediction of his own death, but also in his prediction of the demise of the temple authorities (whose power will come to an end with the temple's destruction). It also claims that though he will be killed (rejected), he will eventually be vindicated (become the capstone). Therefore, rather than undermining Jesus' power and promoting the cross, this parable continues to highlight Jesus' power.

The final narrative to consider is that of Jesus' anointing in Bethany. Here a woman anoints Jesus' head with costly perfume, an act which most interpreters read as a royal anointing.106 While others at the dinner critique the woman for extravagant waist, Jesus praises the woman and interprets here anointing as one intended for his burial. Some interpreters have read this pericope as one that promotes a Christology of the cross. It is claimed that here, Mark interprets Jesus' identity as king in terms of his impending death.1 0 7 But while it may be true that Mark has brought together the idea of Jesus' identity and death, the connection the author intends to communicate between these two realities is not as clear. It is quite possible that the author is implying that Jesus' identity as messiah is true despite his impending suffering and death. Though the woman's intended royal anointing will in reality be a pre-burial anointing, the woman is not wrong in here identification of Jesus. His impending death in no way undermines his identity as king. Yet, regardless of how one interprets the connection this pericope makes between Jesus' identity and his death, there is little in the pericope that undermines the Christology of power that has dominated the gospel to this point. Jesus' again foresees his impending death and even seems aware that a pre-burial anointing will be precluded by the events surrounding his death (cf. 16:1-8). Jesus' prophetic power cannot be denied.

After examining all the narratives in the Jerusalem ministry, we see that the christological strategy that Mark employs in the first half of his gospel is continued in the second half. He continues to present Jesus as a man

1 0 5 Some interpreters have suggested that the son in the parable ought to be identified with John the Baptist; see D. Stern, Parables in Midrash (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 193-95; C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Garden City: New York, 1986), 462-63. But for good reasons the majority of interpreters reject this conclusion. Evans' critique is helpful: (1) in no other tradition is John identified as the "son," whereas the title is regularly used for Jesus by Mark; (2) the parable is given in response to the priests' question about Jesus' authority not John's; (3) John the Baptist is put to death by Herod Antipas, while Jesus' death is orchestrated by the temple priests; see Evans, Mark, 230; cf. Liihrmann, Markusevange-lium, 199; Lagrange, Saint Marc, 283; Moloney, Mark, 233; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 338; France, Mark, 460-61; et al.

1 0 6 For example, see Moloney, Mark, 280-81; 1 0 7 For example, see Moloney, Mark, 282; Hooker, St. Mark, 328.

Analysis of Mark s Major Features 127

characterized by powerful actions. He also presents Jesus' death in a way that mitigates its shame and weakness and at the same time brings it in line with a Christology of power. There is no evidence that Mark has made a shift in his christological perspective or that Mark is seeking to advance a Christology of the cross.

Passion Narrative To this point in Mark's narrative it seems that Mark's presentation of Jesus is predominantly characterized by power. We have argued that the various references to Jesus' suffering and death are complementary rather than antithetical to a Christology of power. However, now we examine Mark's passion narrative in which Jesus' suffering and crucifixion take center stage. We must determine whether Mark's passion narrative is consistent with our previous conclusions or whether it will force us to re-examine them. Is Mark's passion narrative consistent with a Christology of power or does it undermine such a Christology?

We will begin by briefly examining the pericopes leading up to Jesus' crucifixion (the Passover preparations [14:12-21]; the last supper [14:22-31]; the prayer at Gethsemane [14:32-42]; Jesus' arrest [14:43-51]; the trial before the Jewish council [14:53-65]; Peter's denial [14:66-72]; and the trial before Pilate [15:1-15]), noting elements that are consistent with a Christology of power and elements that might undermine it.

In these pericopes, Mark highlights Jesus' ultimate victory and the position of power that he will hold in God's kingdom. During the last supper with his disciples, Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (14:25). This verse clearly indicates that death will not defeat Jesus and alludes to the day in which he will rule in God's kingdom (13:26-27; 14:62).108 When the high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the "Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One," his reply explicitly refers to his identity, his future divine kingship, and his eschatological role as judge: "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (14:62).109 Therefore, even during the moments immediately preceding Jesus' crucifixion, Mark intentionally reminds his readers of Jesus' powerful position. These statements seem to shift the focus away from the shame of the cross and place it on Jesus' power and authority.

1 0 8 See Taylor, St. Mark, 547; Evans, Mark, 394-96; Gundry, Apology, 834; Gnilka, Markus, 2:246-47; contra Iersel, Mark, 427.

1 0 9 See Taylor, St. Mark, 568-69; R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 488-500; Juel, Messiah and Temple, 77-107; cf. Evans, Mark, 450-52; Iersel, Mark, 450; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 423; et al.

128 Chapter 3

Another element dominating these pericopes is Jesus' prophetic power and supernatural knowledge. This power is seen in Jesus' instructions to the disciples about the Passover preparations (14:12-16). He makes several specific predictions, all of which come about.110 At the Passover meal, Jesus again predicts his impending death, but he also predicts his betrayal by Judas, Peter's denial, and the desertion of all his disciples - all of which come about in the following pericopes.111 In fact, pericopes such as those that present Judas' betrayal, Jesus' arrest, Peter's denials, Jesus' trial before the chief priests and elders, and the mockery of soldiers can all be seen as functioning to confirm Jesus' prophetic power.

These features in Mark's passion narrative establish continuity with the christological presentation that dominates Mark's first thirteen chapters, a Christology of power. In fact, there is very little in these pericopes that undermines Jesus' power. Some interpreters point to Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane as a pericope that is inconsistent with a Christology of power. Here Mark records that Jesus is "grieved even to death" (14:34). He also records the only instance in the entire gospel where Jesus shows any desire to avoid his fate: "Abba, Father, for you all things are possible, remove this cup from me, yet not what I want, but what you want" (14:36). For some, Jesus' request to avoid his death may appear as a sign of his weakness which is inconsistent with a Christology of power. But again we must remember that this is the only time in Mark's gospel where Jesus' bold resolve to meet his faith is broached. Mark overwhelming presents Jesus as one who embraces his divinely ordained fate. We must also note that this brief lapse in Jesus' resolve is immediately followed by his unwavering desire to do God's will. It hardly seems that Mark's brief glimpse at Jesus' struggle with his fate - a struggle that he quickly overcomes - undermines Mark's christological presentation of Jesus' power.

1 1 0 Some interpreters deny that anything supernatural is happening during the Passover preparations. France argues that the plans Jesus gives the disciples implies a prearrange-ment; France, Mark, 564; cf. Evans, Mark, 373-74; Witherington, Mark, 370-71. However, Gundry makes a strong case that Mark's description of these Passover preparations implies Jesus' supernatural foreknowledge; see Gundry, Apology, 821. He notes that prearranged preparations do not fit the details of the story. (1) It is the disciples who initiate the need for preparations in Mark's narrative and not Jesus. (2) Jesus does not give them any specific location where a man will meet them. In a city the size of Jerusalem, during a time when pilgrims are crowding the streets, prearranged plans would likely call for a specific meeting place. Mark's narrative seems to imply that the disciples will miraculously be found by just the right person. (3) That the disciples are told to follow "wherever" the man enters a house, leaves a level of open-endedness in the instructions that one would not expect with a prearranged plan. Also see Painter, Mark, 183-84; Moloney, Mark, 282-83; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 393.

1 , 1 Jesus' predictions of Judas' betrayal is particularly significant. By presenting Jesus with foreknowledge of his betrayal by an intimate friend, Mark eliminates the possibility that Jesus was outwitted by a clever enemy. Such a betrayal would likely be seen as a slight against Jesus' power.

Analysis of Mark s Major Features 129

In fact, the quickness with which he overcomes the struggle might magnify Jesus' resolve.112

In these pericopes, many elements are consistent with a Christology of power: foreshadowing of Jesus' future victory and rule, Jesus' prophetic power, and Jesus' resolve to accept his fate. Aside from the necessary biographical elements of Mark's gospel - Judas' betrayal, Jesus' arrest, and Jesus' trials (most of which fulfill previous prophecies made by Jesus) - there is virtually nothing in the way Mark presents these pericopes that undermines a Christology of power.

We now turn to Mark's presentation of Jesus' crucifixion and death in order to determine whether it is consistent with a Christology of power. Certainly if Mark was constructing a Christology of power, the crucifixion itself stood as his greatest obstacle. We have argued that Mark mitigated the offense of the cross by referring to it in the context of Jesus' prophetic power and by presenting it as an honorable act of self-sacrifice. But Mark had the daunting task of walking his readers through the scandalous event itself, while at the same time trying to mitigate its horror. Therefore, if we detect a Markan effort to mitigate the offense and shame of the crucifixion, such an effort would be valuable evidence to support a Markan Christology of power.

T. E. Schmidt has detected such an effort to mitigate the offense of the cross. He argues that Mark crafted his crucifixion narrative to parallel a Roman imperial triumph.113 The Roman triumph was in many ways similar to a modern day parade. They were generally held in order to celebrate a military victory or perhaps the ascension of a new Roman emperor. The purpose of the triumph was to honor the victorious general or emperor and to display both his power and his achievement to the entire city.114 Schmidt notes a number of details included in Mark's passion narrative that seem to have little purpose by themselves but when taken together cause Mark's passion narrative to have striking similarities to such Roman triumphs. Though Schmidt's article has a fuller discussion, here we note the major points of interest and consider his results in light of our present concerns for Mark's Christology.

Schmidt's comparison begins with Mark's use of the word Ttpavcoo'piov (praetorium) to describe the Roman military headquarters in Judea.115 He

1 . 2 It is quite possible that Mark included this element in the Gethsemane prayer to advance his theme of discipleship. Here Jesus is a model for Mark's readers to follow, readers who might face suffering or even death.

1 . 3 T. E. Schmidt, "Mark 15:16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession," NTS 41 (1995): 1-18; see also Schmidt's similar article "Jesus' Triumphal March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession," BibRev 13.1 (1997): 30-37.

1 . 4 See Schmidt's discussion of triumphs; "Triumphal Procession," 2-4. For a more thorough discussion of triumphs both in ancient Greece and in Rome, see H. S. Versnel, Tri-umphus: An Enquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: Brill, 1970); R. Payne, The Roman Triumph: (London, Abelard-Schuman, 1962).

1 . 5 Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 6.

130 Chapter 3

notes that the same word was used to describe the Praetorian Guard or the emperor's personal bodyguards who would have been a part of any Roman triumph. Schmidt suggests that Mark could intend this word to have a double purpose - not only to identify a physical location in Judea but also to draw the reader's mind to the imperial world. Schmidt also questions Mark's claim that the entire cohort of soldiers (oXrjv xf|v cmeipav) - a tenth of a legion, or any where from two to six hundred soldiers - were called out for Jesus' crucifixion.116 It seems unlikely that such a large number of soldiers would be called for the execution of a criminal and, therefore, many interpreters have suggested that Mark is using the term loosely or exaggerating this detail.117

It is true that the combination of the event (the arrest of a popular messianic figure) and its timing (the Passover festival) may have called for a higher number of soldiers to deter civil disobedience. Yet even so, an entire cohort seems unrealistic. Schmidt suggests that this Markan exaggeration could contribute to an intentional parallel with an imperial triumph; an event at which an entire Roman cohort would probably be present.118

Schmidt also sees the parallels between the costume the Roman soldiers placed on Jesus and the royal dress the triumphator wore.1 1 9 The triumphator was regularly adorned with a purple robe and a crown, both of which adorn Jesus in Mark 15. The color of Jesus' robe is evidence that Mark has intentionally created this parallel. In the Roman world, purple garments were both rare and expensive. Schmidt notes that no one below the rank of equestrian was even allowed to wear purple. It is unlikely that the owner of a purple robe would allow a common criminal to wear it.1 2 0 It is noteworthy that in the Matthean redaction, this historical difficulty has been removed by changing the color of the robe from purple to scarlet (Matt 27:28). The crown of thorns that Jesus wore is akin to the laurel crown that was often worn by the triumphator.121 Here we find two striking similarities between Jesus and the triumphator - a purple robe and a crown (thorny vs. laurel) - with evidence that the former similarity is a Markan creation.

Schmidt also claims that the mockery of Jesus in verses 18-19 parallels the homage the Roman soldiers gave to their victorious ruler (e.g., the act of saluting, prostrating before them, and verbally recognizing their powerful

1 . 6 See BDAG, 936; cf. Schurer, 1:363-65; Taylor, St. Mark, 585. 1 . 7 See Taylor, St. Mark, 585; Cranfield, Mark, 452; Hooker, St. Mark, 370; France, Mark,

637; Iersel, Mark, 467, n. 130. 1 . 8 Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 6. 1 1 9 This paragraph summarizes Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 7. 1 2 0 For others who are suspicious of the purple robe in Mark, see Evans, Mark, 490;

France, Mark, 637; et al. 1 2 1 For discussion on the similarities between Jesus' crown of thorns and a laurel crown,

as well as discussion on the crown as a means creating a royal caricature, see H. St. J. Hart, 'The Crown of Thorns in John 19:2-5" JTS 3 (1952): 66-75.


position).122 Granted, these chants are mockery and not true praise, but the entire episode is more of an anti-triumph than an actual triumph.1 2 3

In many triumphs, a bull is led along in the procession, which is later to be sacrificed. Schmidt states, "The bull is not alone. In nearly every one of these depictions, walking alongside the bull is an official who carries over his shoulder a double bladed axe, the instrument of the victim's death."1 2 4 The parallels between this common triumph motif and Mark's account of Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross are striking.

Schmidt also sees a parallel between the ending locations for both a typical Roman triumph and Jesus' journey.1 2 5 According to Mark, Jesus' journey ends at Golgotha, an Aramaic word often translated as "place of the skull," or as Schmidt suggests, "place of the head." Roman triumphs often ended at the temple to Jupiter, the Capitolium (derived from the Latin word caput or "head"), a name that comes from a legend about a head that was discovered during the building of the temple's foundation. Therefore, both Jesus' journey to crucifixion and a Roman triumph end at the "place of the head."

Mark's crucifixion narrative records Roman soldiers offering Jesus wine mixed with myrrh (15:23), a seemingly ancillary detail.1 2 6 However, Schmidt again finds parallel in the Roman triumph.1 2 7 When the Roman procession reached its end and the bull was about to be sacrificed, the triumphator was offered a cup of wine, which, after refusing as a sign of humility, he poured out onto the altar. Immediately after the wine was poured, the sacrifice was performed. Strikingly, Mark immediately follows Jesus' refusal of the wine with the words, "and they crucified him." Again the parallel between Mark's narrative and a Roman triumph is obvious.

The final parallel Schmidt provides concerns the two victims crucified with Jesus, one on his right side and the other on his left. Schmidt notes that in antiquity, placing someone on the right and left of an important figure often

1 2 2 Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 8. 1 2 3 Many interpreters have noted parallels between the mockery of the soldiers and Helle

nistic royal veneration; cf. Gnilka, Markus, 2:309; Brown, Death, 1:869; Evans, Mark, 490; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 435-36; et al. Few, however, have connected this pericope with a Roman triumph.

1 2 4 Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 9. 1 2 5 Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 10-11. 1 2 6 Citing Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. 14.92), Schmidt notes that wine mixed with myrrh

was an "expensive delicacy;" "Triumphal Procession," 11. This fact raises suspicions over this event's historicity. Would such a delicacy be offered to a crucified criminal? It is interesting that Matthew replaces myrrh with gall (Matt 27:34), which is certainly bitter tasting and possibly even poisonous; cf. Donald Hagner, Matthew (WBC 33b; Dallas: Word, 1995), 834-35. Luke eliminates the detail all together. It seems that this detail may be a Markan creation, making it more likely that it belongs to an intentional Markan parallel with a Roman triumph.

1 2 7 Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 11-12.

132 Chapter 3

signified royal enthronement.128 Such an image is seen in a Roman triumph. After the procession had ended, the triumphator's seat would be elevated ten feet above the ground. While at times the triumphator would be alone, there are a number of examples in which the triumphator is seated between two men. At Tiberius' first triumph, he was seated between two consuls, one of whom was Augustus (Suet. Tiberius 17). During one of Claudius' triumphs, he stood between his two sons-in-law (Dio Cass. 60.23.1). During Vespasian's triumph following the destruction of Jerusalem, he was between his two sons Titus and Domitian (Jos. Wars 7:152). By placing Jesus between two thieves, Schmidt suggests that Mark creates a royal imagery that is paralleled in Roman triumphs.1 2 9

In light of these parallels, Schmidt claims that Mark has purposefully constructed his crucifixion narrative to mirror a Roman triumph. Strengthening this argument is the fact that many of these parallels involve details ancillary to the narrative, some of which even betray Markan creation or exaggeration (e.g., mention of the praetorian, the presence of an entire Roman cohort, the color of Jesus' robe, and the offering of wine mixed with myrrh). Schmidt's theory offers a helpful way to account for these puzzling details. The parallels that Schmidt observes are uncanny, and his theory is worth of consideration.

If Schmidt's theory is accepted, and Mark has intentionally presented Jesus' crucifixion as a Roman triumph, such a presentation is completely consistent with a Christology of power. Mark has taken Jesus' greatest moment of weakness and presented it as a moment of power, i.e., a Roman triumph. He places Jesus in the same category as the great rulers of the Roman world. Mark's irony is striking: those who are attempting to humiliate and kill Jesus are unwittingly providing him with his own triumph.

Several other features in Mark's crucifixion narrative also illustrate Jesus' power. The speed at which Jesus' death comes could possibly be an indication of his power. Crucifixion was generally a slow death in which the victim's body slowly gave out over time and eventually ended in suffocation. Jesus' crucifixion, however, lasts for only six hours. Such a short time of crucifixion would be remarkable to a Greco-Roman reader and could perhaps imply Jesus' control over his own death. Both Luke's and John's gospels seem to indicate such control (Luke 23:46; John 19:30), and both may be stating explicitly what is only implicit in Mark. At the least, the brevity of Jesus' crucifixion establishes it as a death of no ordinary means and implies that he is no ordinary person.

It is also significant that Jesus' death is accompanied by darkness. According to Mark, at the sixth hour (12:00 noon) - the brightest hour of

1 2 8 Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 14-15. 1 2 9 Schmidt also notes that the specification of hours in Mark's crucifixion narrative and

the inscribed placard both find parallels in Roman triumphs. We find these parallels less compelling but for discussion, see "Triumphal Procession," 12-14.


the day - "darkness came over the land" (15:33). In antiquity, similar cosmic events accompany significant events in the lives of great people.130 Again Mark makes it clear that Jesus' death is not ordinary, but rather it is the death of a powerful and significant figure. Immediately following Jesus' death, Mark records another remarkable detail, namely, that the temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom. Clearly this event can only be understood as supernatural, and it furthers Mark's presentation of Jesus' death as a significant event.131 Through all these details - a speedy crucifixion, darkness at midday, and the tearing of the temple veil - Mark turns the readers' attention away from the shame and humiliation of the cross and focuses their attention on the awesomeness of the event. The events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion make it clear that Jesus is not a humiliated criminal but a man of great significance. His death is therefore not a sign of his weakness but of his power. This realization is confirmed for Mark's readers through the confession of the Roman centurion, who, after seeing the manner in which Jesus died says, "Truly this man was God's son" (15:39).

Gundry notes the significance of the way in which Jesus speaks while on the cross.1 3 2 Jesus does not speak meekly from the cross, but rather he "cried out in a loud voice" (15:34). Again before Jesus dies, Mark notes that he gave a "loud cry" (15:37). Gundry argues that these loud cries from Jesus are signs of strength and power, signs that Mark's readers would not expect from a victim of crucifixion. As we noted previously, crucifixion victims died of suffocation. Suffocation resulted from the victims slowly losing the strength to keep their own weight from restricting their lungs. Mustering the strength to make the powerful cries Mark records would be a difficult task - one that would impress Mark's readers.

All the evidence we have examined to this point supports the notion that Mark has presented Jesus' death in a way that is consistent with a Christology of power. But there are elements of Jesus' crucifixion narrative that some might argue undermine a Christology of power. First is the mockery Jesus receives while on the cross. If Mark intends to emphasize Jesus' power and glory, why would he allow him to be verbally shamed (15:29— 32)? But this mockery makes sense in light of Markan irony. The crowds sarcastically address Jesus as one who "would destroy the temple and rebuild

1 3 0 Evans gives two examples, see Mark, 506. Diogenes Laertius (4:64) claims that at the death of Carneades, the moon was eclipsed. Both Plutarch (Caes. 69.3-5) and Virgil (Geog. 1.463-68) note that the sun hid its face at the death of Julius Caesar. Cf. Collins, "Son of God," 94. It should be noted that this detail also finds a likely background in Amos 8:9, "On that day, says the Lord God, I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight." However, Mark's Roman readers would almost certainly understand this event as an indicator that Jesus was a man of great significance.

1 3 1 Cf. France, Mark, 656-58; Gundry, Apology, 948-50; Evans, Mark, 508-10; D. Ulan-sey, "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic Inclusio," JBL 110 (1991): 123-125.

1 3 2 Gundry, Apology, 947-51.

134 Chapter 3

it in three days." Mark's readers are able to see the irony in this statement.133

They know that this charge is a false one (14:57). Jesus never claimed that he would destroy and rebuild the temple but only prophesied the temple's destruction, a prophecy that Mark's readers know has been fulfilled. The crowds assume Jesus is a fraud based on a prophecy he never made, but Mark's readers know that Jesus is truly Messiah because of the fulfilled prophecy that he did make. The irony of the crowd's mockery reinforces for Mark's readers that Jesus is a true prophet and consequently a person of great power.

The crowd also taunts Jesus, saying that if he is the Messiah, he should be able to save himself in the same way he saved others. The crowd takes Jesus' current situation as evidence that he is weak and therefore not who he claims (15:29-30). But again Mark's readers see the irony of this mockery.134 The readers know that Jesus' death is not evidence of his weakness, but rather it is his divinely appointed fate that he himself prophesied. In light of Mark's narrative, the readers know that Jesus has the power to free himself (since he already exorcized demons, healed the sick, raised the dead, and calmed the sea and the wind); but unlike the crowd, the readers understand why he does not (to die is his divinely ordained fate and an act of benefaction for the world, cf. 8:31; 9:30-32; 10:32-33, 45). Because of this knowledge, the readers can reach the opposite conclusion from that of the crowd, namely, that Jesus is not weak but powerful. He is not a fraud but the Messiah. Again the irony of the crowd's mockery strengthens Mark's presentation of Jesus as a powerful messiah, it does not weaken it.

Another element of the crucifixion narrative that some interpreters might see as inconsistent with a Christology of power is Jesus' cry, "My God! my God! Why have you forsaken me?" (15:34). This verse seems to indicate that God has rejected Jesus and highlights Jesus' suffering and shame. Yet we must remember that the Markan Jesus is quoting the first verse of Ps 22, and the evangelist may have the entire psalm in mind here.1 3 5 While the psalm begins with a description of suffering, it concludes with strong statements of restoration and vindication.136 Though Jesus is currently suffering in his crucifixion, Jesus will soon be vindicated and restored through his resurrection and exaltation (cf. 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). That Mark is applying the entire psalm to Jesus' crucifixion is indicated by the numerous details of the crucifixion that parallel

1 3 3 See Moloney, Mark, 322. 1 3 4 Moloney, Mark, 322-24; cf. D. Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark

(PS 2; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984), 120. 1 3 5 See Senior, Passion, 123-24; Gnilka, Markus, 2:322; E. La Verdiere, The Beginning

of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 2:301-3; Matera, The Kingship of Jesus, 132-35.

1 3 6 For a more thorough discussion on the psalm's significance in Mark, see Marcus, Way of the Lord, 180-86; Moloney, Mark, 317-31.


details of the psalm.1 3 7 For example, compare "All who see me mock me, they make mouths at me and shake their heads," (Ps 22:7) with "those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying . . . " (Mark 15:29). Also compare "they divide my clothes among themselves and for my clothing they cast lots," (Ps 22:18) with ". . . and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what each should take," (Mark 15:24). Finally, compare "my mouth is dried up like a potsherd and my tongue sticks to my jaws" (Ps 22:15) with "and they offered him wine mixed with myrrh and he did not take i t . . . and someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick and gave it to him to drink," (Mark 15:23, 36). It seems Mark has paralleled Jesus' crucifixion with Psalm 22. By placing the first line of the psalm on Jesus' lips, he draws the readers' attention to the parallels. Through the parallels with the psalm, Mark not only focuses on Jesus' death but also points forward to Jesus' imminent resurrection and exaltation. Therefore, Jesus' words spoken on the cross are not merely indicators of Jesus' total rejection and isolation, but rather they help the reader to understand Jesus' death in terms of Ps 22. Certainly the psalm begins by describing intense suffering, suffering that the Markan Jesus experiences on the cross, but it concludes with vindication and righteousness. Therefore, while Jesus' words describe his present suffering, through the Markan parallels between Jesus' death and Ps 22, they also remind the alert reader that this suffering is only temporary and that power and glory are imminent.

Here we provided evidence that Mark has crafted his story of Jesus' crucifixion in a way that mitigates its shame and magnifies Jesus' power and significance. If Schmidt's argument is accepted, then Mark has tailored his crucifixion narrative so that it mirrors a Roman triumph, in effect presenting Jesus' greatest moment of weakness as a moment of power and glory. He has also presented Jesus' death as no ordinary event. It is surprisingly expedient, accompanied by darkness at midday, and the supernatural tearing of the temple veil. Jesus also demonstrates exceptional strength through his ability to cry out loudly from the cross. There is little in Mark's crucifixion narrative that undermines a Christology of power. In light of this evidence, we conclude that Mark's passion narrative is consistent with the Christology we have found throughout the rest of Mark's gospel, a Christology of power.

Conclusions After examining each major section of Mark's gospel, we can make the following conclusions about Mark's christological presentation. Mark's Christology is predominantly a Christology of power from beginning to end. This christological presentation is firmly established in the first half of Mark's

1 3 7 Moloney makes a strong case that Psalm 22 is an intended background for Mark's crucifixion narrative (Mark, 320-29).

136 Chapter 3

gospel (Prologue/Galilean Ministry). Jesus has power over demons, power to heal, power over nature, and power as a teacher. While Jesus' death is introduced into the narrative at Caesarea Philippi, there is no compelling evidence that its introduction represents a shift in Mark's christological perspective, one from power to the cross. In fact, there is reason to believe that Mark has introduced Jesus' death in a way that mitigates its suffering and shame and reinforces Jesus' power. Throughout the Jerusalem Ministry, Mark continues to present Jesus as a man of powerful actions. He also continues to present Jesus' death in ways that highlight Jesus' power and not his weakness. Even Mark's passion narrative seems to lessen the offense of the cross and promote Jesus' power. Therefore, we conclude that Mark presents Jesus as a figure of supreme power, rather than a suffering figure.

3.3.3 Christological Secrecy As we discussed in our introductory chapter, since William Wrede's The Messianic Secret, Mark's secrecy motif has had a prominent place in Markan interpretation. For a long time, this motif was seen as the key to unlocking the door of Mark's Christology. In the last thirty years, however, the majority of interpreters have concluded that the secrecy motif is not as central to Markan interpretation as many once thought.138 The general consensus seems to be that though the secret is one aspect of Mark's Christology, it is secondary rather than primary. While interpreters have rejected the primacy that Wrede attributed to the secrecy motif, most have accepted Wrede's conclusion that the secrecy motif, at least to some extent, is a Markan theological construction (a conclusion that we also share). As a Markan creation, the secrecy motif is relevant to the question of the gospel's purpose. Even if the motif is of secondary importance to the gospel, any theory concerning the purpose of Mark's gospel must be able to provide an adequate explanation for the motif. But before we explain the motif, we must first properly identify and characterize its various aspects.

Identifying Mark's Secrecy Motif William Wrede originally concluded that the "messianic secret" was composed of three different elements: (1) Jesus' specific commands for silence given to disciples (8:30; 9:9), beneficiaries of miracles (1:43-44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), and demons (1:25, 34; 3:12); (2) attempts by Jesus to keep his whereabouts a secret (7:24; 9:30-31); and (3) the secrecy of Jesus' teaching, often called the "Parable Theory" (4:11-12).139 More recently, interpreters have rejected elements two and three of Mark's secrecy motif, arguing that the character of these motifs is different from Jesus' direct commands for silence.140 Therefore,

1 3 8 See our analysis of Wrede's work above in chapter one pages 9-12. 1 3 9 Wrede, Messianic Secret. 1 4 0 See Raisanen, Messianic Secret, 242-43.


most interpreters conclude that Mark's secrecy motif is limited to Jesus' commands for silence. However, some have questioned whether these direct commands for silence can be seen as a unified theme. Interpreters such as Ulrich Luz and Heikki Raisanen have argued that even these commands for silence can be subdivided into two categories.141 The commands given to demons and Jesus' disciples directly address Jesus' identity, while the commands given to the beneficiaries of miracles directly address Jesus' power. Wrede assumed that Jesus' miracles and his identity were so closely linked that both types of commands represented the same motif. But Luz and Raisanen have noted that the commands directly related to Jesus' identity are always kept, while the commands related to Jesus' power/miracles are often broken. As a result of this analysis, it seems that rather than speaking of a single messianic secret in Mark, it is more appropriate to speak of two separate secrecy motifs in Mark: a miracle secret and a messianic (identity) secret.142

Characterizing Mark's Secrecy Motif Now that we have identified two distinct secrecy motifs in Mark, we will attempt to characterize them by examining their distinct features and their relationship to Mark's narrative. The first motif, what we have called the miracle secret, is composed of four pericopes in which Jesus heals someone and commands them (or those present) not to tell others of the healing (1:44-45; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26). Of these four commands, two of them are broken (1:44-45; 7:36), and two are followed (5:43; 8:26). The commands for silence that are broken actually result in publicity rather than secrecy. In fact, after Jesus heals a deaf man (7:31-37), Mark specifically indicates that Jesus' repeated command for silence results in the observers proclaiming the miracle "more zealously" than when they were first commanded. Mark may even imply that one of the commandments that is technically kept, will in fact eventually be broken. When Jesus raises Jairus' daughter (5:43), whom many already know to be dead, he commands both her parents and his disciples not to tell anyone else of the miracle. While Mark does not record the breaking of this command, the impossibility of secrecy is obvious to the reader. Since many knew the girl was dead, short of keeping her locked in her house, the secret cannot possibly be kept. In light of the failure to keep these commands, some have suggested that, rather than serving to conceal Jesus' power, Mark has

1 4 1 Raisanen, Messianic Secret; Ulrich Luz, "The Secrecy Motif and Marcan Christology," in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 75-96, esp. 86-88.

1 4 2 For a more thorough discussion of the history of the messianic secret debate, see Christopher Tuckett, "The Problem of the Messianic Secret," in The Messianic Secret, 1-29; "Messianic Secret" in ABD, 4.797-800.

138 Chapter 3

inserted these commands as a foil to highlight Jesus' power.143 Though Jesus tries to conceal his power, it is too great to be concealed. The miracle secret is therefore a pseudo-secret rather than an authentic one. But while this pseudo-secret highlights Jesus' power, it also highlights his desire to deflect recognition for that power. The motif simultaneously highlights Jesus' power and his humility at the same time. The miracle secret is not intended to conceal Jesus' identity or explain why the Jews did not recognize him as their Messiah. That numerous Markan miracle stories contain no attempt at secrecy preclude this option. The miracle secret is best understood as an occasional motif the evangelist used to highlight both Jesus' power and his humility.

The messianic secret is composed of five direct commands Jesus made to keep his identity a secret - two of which he gave to his disciples (8:30; 9:9) and three of which he gave to demons (1:25, 34; 3:12). These secrets are always kept by those whom Jesus commands. The command to silence most often is preceded by some type of christological confession or revelation, i.e., "Holy One of God" (1:24); "Son of God" (3:11); Christ/Messiah (8:29); and the transfiguration (9:2-8), with 1:34 being the only example that does not include a specific confession. However, not all christological confessions are followed by such a command ("Son of the Most High God" [5:7]; "Son of David" [10:47-48]). Only one of these commands for silence has a time limit. Following the transfiguration (9:9), Jesus commands his disciples to tell no one of it until after the resurrection. Whether this time limit applies to all the secrecy commands (as Wrede and many others have claimed) is uncertain. Interpreters have tried to account for this motif in many ways, but very few theories can explain its many facets. Some interpreters have argued that through this motif Mark demonstrates that Jesus is only truly understood as Messiah in terms of the cross and resurrection.144 Therefore, whenever Jesus encounters christological confessions or recognition, he defers them to the proper time, i.e., after his resurrection or possibly after his crucifixion. The problem with this interpretation is that, as we noted above, there are christological confessions (or messianic recognitions) that are made with no effort to keep them secret before Jesus' death and resurrection (5:7; 10:47-48; 11:1-11; 14:62). If Mark is deferring messianic recognition until after Jesus' death or resurrection, why is the messianic secret not applied more consistently? Some have suggested that Mark created the secrecy motif to guide his reader away from an improper messianic identity/Christology and toward a proper one. Yet as we have discussed previously, there is little evidence in Mark to cor

1 4 3 See Ebeling, Das Messiasgeheimnis, 168-70; Luz, "Secrecy Motif," 76-80, 86-88; Raisanen, Messianic Secret, 144-55.

1 4 4 See for example, H. Conzelmann, "Present and Future in the Synoptic Tradition," .7TC 5 (1968): 26-44.


roborate the theory of a corrective function.145 The messianic secret does not seem to be functioning in the same way that the miracle secret functions, i.e., as a foil to highlight Jesus' identity. Unlike the miracle secret, the messianic secret is always kept and is not publicized. It is possible, however, that the miracle and the messianic secret are related in the sense that they both present attempts at humility and avoidance of public recognition. This commonality may be a helpful clue for determining the function of the messianic secret.

Therefore, we find two distinct secrecy motifs in Mark's gospel - a miracle secret and a messianic secret. The former is rarely kept and, rather than it concealing Jesus' power, it actually highlights his power. The latter is always kept, but the secret is not commanded consistently throughout Mark. At times people reveal Jesus' identity and no command for silence is given. Mark's secrecy motifs are certainly an obstacle for interpretation, and any sustainable theory regarding the gospel's purpose must be able to offer satisfactory explanations for these multifaceted motifs.

3.3.4 Christological Conclusions Through our examination of Mark's Christology, we have arrived at three distinct features: (1) Jesus' identity as king, not only of Israel but also of the world; (2) Jesus as a figure of supreme power; and (3) attempts (both successful and unsuccessful) to keep secret Jesus' identity and power. All these features compose Mark's christological presentation and therefore must be accounted for by any theory about the gospel's overall purpose. Because of the general nature of Mark's christological presentation - Jesus as a powerful king - it offers few specific indicators as to the gospel's Sitz im Leben. Only the most general of comments can be made. Perhaps Mark perceives that his audience needs such a portrayal of Jesus or perhaps his audience desires such a portrayal.

3.4 Markan Discipleship

As we noted in our introduction, many interpreters see instruction on discipleship as Mark's primary purpose.1 4 6 While we rejected this instruction as Mark's primary focus, we accepted that it plays an important secondary role. Thus, any serious theory concerning the purpose of Mark's gospel must adequately account for Mark's unique perspective on discipleship. Careful analysis of Mark's presentation of discipleship should also provide clues to the

1 4 5 See discussion in chapter one pages 12-18 on "corrective Christology"; cf. Kingsbury, Christology, 25-45.

1 4 6 K. G. Reploh, Lehrer; Quesnell, Mind of Mark; Donahue, Theology and Setting of Discipleship; Best, Disciples and Discipleship; idem, Following Jesus; Tannehill, "Disciples," 134-57. For more examples, see chapter one pages 24-25 n. 66.

140 Chapter 3

gospel's Sitz im Leben. Therefore, we begin to analyze Mark's presentation of discipleship with both these factors in mind. Our analysis will consider three different mediums through which Mark conveys teaching on discipleship: (1) the twelve disciples as models of discipleship; (2) minor characters as models of discipleship; and (3) Jesus' teaching on discipleship. In order to construct a complete picture of Mark's teaching on authentic discipleship, we will combine the results of our analysis of each medium.

3.4.1 The Twelve Disciples as Models of Discipleship It has long been recognized that Mark's portrayal of the twelve disciples serves not only a historical purpose but also as a pedagogical tool for teaching his readers how to live as disciples themselves.147 Here we will examine Mark's portrayal of the twelve, giving some attention to the debates surrounding it, but primarily focusing on the way in which it contributes to his overall presentation of discipleship. Mark's portrayal of the twelve is certainly not uniform. At times, the twelve are presented quite positively while at other times they are presented quite negatively. We will begin by examining Mark's positive portrayal of the twelve and later turn to the negative portrayal.

Mark's positive portrayal of the disciples begins with their willingness to abandon their former ways of life in order to follow Jesus; this includes abandoning past employment/livelihood and family ties (1:16-20; possibly 2:13-14; 10:28).148 Not only do these people abandon their past lives, but they also commit their present lives to being with Jesus (3:14). They also are given a commission to do the things that Jesus does, i.e., proclaim the message of repentance and the kingdom of God, exorcize demons, and heal the sick (3:14; 6:7). Mark specifically notes their success at doing these things (6:12-13). Jesus also gives disciples private instruction (4:10-34; 7:1-23; 8:27-9:13; 9:31-50; 10:23-45; 12:43-44; 13:1-37) and gives them "the secrets of the kingdom of God" (4:11). They are witnesses to many of Jesus' private miracles (4:35-41; 5:37-43; 6:45-52; 9:2-8). They also faithfully carry out the instructions that Jesus gives them (6:12-13; 6:30-44; 8:1-10; 11:1-7; 14:12-16). As a result of their faithfulness, Jesus promises them great reward both in this age and in the next (10:29-31).

Through this positive portrayal of the disciples, it seems that Mark has created a paradigm for discipleship that he intends his readers to emulate. In order to be true disciples of Jesus, Mark's readers must leave behind their former lives, commit themselves to the work of God's kingdom, and faithfully

1 4 7 Here we will assume the truth of this commonly recognized position. However, for seminal arguments regarding this position, see Reploh, Lehrer; Donahue, Setting; Best, Following, 136-37; R. Tannehill, "Disciples," 386-405.

1 4 8 Though uncertain, it is possible that Levi, son of Alphaeus, in Mark 2:13 could be equated with James, son of Alphaeus, or possibly Matthew in Mark 3:18. See Marcus, Mark, 225; Gundry, Apology, 126-27; Hooker, St. Mark, 94.


follow Jesus' instructions/teachings - instructions that they are currently receiving through Mark's gospel.149

While Mark's positive portrayal of the disciples is rather straightforward, much more has been made of Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples. Many interpreters have noted that Mark's portrayal of the twelve disciples is considerably more negative than both Matthew's and Luke's portrayals - both of which have made obvious attempts to soften Mark's harsh treatment of the twelve (for example, see synoptic parallels to Mark 4:10-13; 4:35-41; 8:14— 21). We begin by identifying the elements of Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples followed by a determination of the significance of the motif for Mark's teaching on discipleship.

During the first half of the gospel, the disciples continually demonstrate a lack of faith in Jesus and an inability to recognize Jesus' true identity. We first see this lack of faith in the "Stilling of the Storm" pericope (4:35-41). While a great windstorm causes the disciples to fear for their lives, Jesus sleeps through it peacefully. After the disciples wake Jesus and he has miraculously calmed the wind and the waves, he rebukes the disciples saying, "Have you still no faith?" The intended object of the faith is clearly Jesus' great power and consequently his identity - his is a power that the disciples have observed numerous times yet still fail to trust.1 5 0 The last line of the pericope links the failure to trust in Jesus' power with the disciples' failure to recognize Jesus' true identity: "Who then is this that even the wind and the sea obey him?" 1 5 1

The pericope ends with the disciples being dumbfounded as to who Jesus is and bewildered by his power.

We might also see this lack of faith when Jesus encounters the woman with an issue of blood (5:25-34). After the woman is healed by touching Jesus' garment, Jesus asks who has touched him. In light of the large crowd surrounding Jesus, the disciples respond to his question with sarcasm and doubt.152

They clearly do not believe that Jesus could detect the touch of one individual over the rest, let alone have any hope of identifying that individual. But Jesus' question is justified and his power validated when the woman makes herself and her healing known. Again the disciples' doubt leaves them looking foolish.

The disciples' lack of faith is implicit in the feeding narratives (6:30-44; 8:1-10), as they are unable to comprehend how they might provide food for such a large number (if not in the first narrative then certainly in the second).

1 4 9 Donahue, Setting, 19-21; France, Mark, 28-29. 1 5 0 See Gundry, Apology, 241; Witherington, Mark, 176; contra Taylor, St. Mark, 276;

Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 159. Marcus notes that the object of the disciples' faith is likely Jesus but also God; Mark, 334; cf. France, Mark, 225.

1 5 1 Witherington, Mark, 176-77; cf. Iersel, Mark, 196. 1 5 2 See Hooker, St. Mark, 149, and note both the Matthean and Lukan parallels to this

passage. Matthew omits the disciples' reply, while Luke softens it.

142 Chapter 3

Yet, it is again explicit in the narrative of Jesus walking on the water (6:45-52). When Jesus approaches the disciples while walking on the water, they fail to recognize him and are filled with fear. After Jesus gets into the boat and is recognized, Mark notes the disciples' extreme amazement and explains this amazement by saying, "For they did not understand about the loaves but their hearts were hardened" (6:52). This explanation of the disciples' amazement indicates that it is to be understood as a failure of some sort, though the exact nature of the failure is unclear. The disciples' present failure is in some way linked to a previous failure, a failure to "understand about the loaves," clearly a reference to the immediately preceding feeding narrative (6:30-44). But what does this enigmatic phrase mean? Quentin Quesnell has suggested that for Mark, the loaves have Eucharistic significance (and symbolize the death and resurrection of Christ), significance the disciples failed to grasp because their hearts were hardened.153 But Quesnell's interpretation provides no real link between Jesus' rebuke and the pericope that precedes it - the pericope concerning Jesus walking on the water. But a natural link between the pericope and rebuke does exist, namely, Jesus' great power - a power expressed in both the multiplying of the loaves and walking on water. The disciples' failure to recognize Jesus' power in the feeding of the five thousand (which is not explicitly stated but implied by 6:52) is manifested again in their amazement at Jesus' power to walk on water. This reading of Mark highlights the disciples' lack of faith in Jesus' identity and his great power, i.e., that their hearts are hardened.154 If they had the proper faith, these great deeds of Jesus would not continue to baffle them. This reading of the text is strengthened by the parallel it creates between Mark's two sea narratives, both of which highlight the disciples' lack of faith.155

The disciples' lack of faith appears again when Jesus teaches about the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod (8:14-21). The disciples misunderstand Jesus' warning, "beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod" (8:15), thinking that Jesus is addressing their present lack of physical food. Jesus chastises the disciples for this lack of understanding. He questions whether their hearts are hardened and then, echoing his earlier indictment of outsiders in 4:11-12, he asks, "Do you have eyes and fail to see? Do you have ears and fail to hear? And do you not remember?" (8:18). Then, recalling the previous two feeding narratives, Jesus asks how many baskets of food were left over after each feeding - questions the disciples answer correctly. Jesus finally concludes the dialogue by asking, "Do you not yet understand?"

We are left to determine the nature of the misunderstanding for which the disciples are chastised. From Jesus' response, the disciples' misunderstanding

1 5 3 Quesnell, Mind of Mark; cf. Marcus, Mark, 434-35. 1 5 4 For similar readings, see Gnilka, Markus, 270; Guelich, Mark, 352-53. 1 5 5 On these parallels, see van Iersel, Reading Mar£(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1988),

95-98.


is again related to the feeding narratives (cf. our previous discussion on 6:52, "for they did not understand about the loaves"). In the same vein as Quesnell's argument discussed above, many interpreters have argued for a Eucharistic understanding of this pericope.156

But this Eucharistic interpretation is not necessary and overshadows a more obvious reading of Mark's narrative. Up to this point in Mark's narrative, the disciples have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of faith in Jesus' power and identity, i.e., in the first sea narrative, the first feeding narrative, the second sea narrative, and the second feeding narrative. Our present narrative comes on the heels of the second feeding narrative but is immediately preceded by an interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees demand a miraculous sign from heaven, presumably one that will prove Jesus' identity. Jesus rejects their demand, claiming that no sign will be given. Ironically, however, the reader knows that multiple signs have already been given, the most immediate being the feeding of the four thousand.157 That the Pharisees have missed all these signs betrays their lack of faith and understanding. It is immediately after this interaction with the Pharisees that Jesus gives the warning concerning yeast. Within the context of Mark's narrative, "yeast of the Pharisees" is likely best understood as the Pharisees' lack of faith and understanding, as is evidenced in their demand for a sign (note also the likely connection between the "yeast of Herod" and Herod's lack of faith in Jesus' identity [6:14—16]).158 Ironically the disciples respond to Jesus' instruction with the same lack of faith and understanding demonstrated by the Pharisees. They become preoccupied with their lack of physical food, in essence forgetting the miracles they have just witnessed, in particular, miracles in which lack of food is overcome by Jesus' power. The disciples' misunderstanding of Jesus' teaching on "yeast" betrays their lack of faith, and it is to this lack of faith that Jesus responds. His questions regarding their hard hearts, ability to see, and ability to hear, heighten the similarity between the disciples and the Pharisees. Jesus' final question regarding the disciples' understanding addresses their lack of faith in his power and identity. Therefore, this pericope is the culmination of a series of pericopes that highlights the disciples' lack of faith in Jesus' power and identity. Even after all they have witnessed, they are in no better state than the Pharisees. Yet the reader will soon learn that the disciples are not the same as the Pharisees. Unlike the Pharisees and Herod, they will overcome this lack of faith and, in Caesarea Philippi, they will correctly identify Jesus as the Messiah (8:27-30).

1 5 6 See Quesnell, Mind of Mark; cf. Marcus, Mark, 509-11; J. Ernst, Evangelium, 226. 1 5 7 Moloney, Mark, 159; Marcus, Mark, 503; Guelich, Mark, 416. Some argue that the

Pharisees are not simply looking for a miracle, like the previous feeding of a multitude, but something greater; see Gundry, Apology, 402; J. Gibson, "Jesus' Refusal to Produce a 4Sign' (Mark 8:11-13)," JSNT3S (1990): 37-66; France, Mark, 311.

1 5 8 See Hooker, St. Mark, 195; Marcus, Mark, 510; Iersel, Mark, 264.

144 Chapter 3

We conclude that a major element of Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples is their lack of faith. In particular, this lack of faith is expressed in their inability to recognize Jesus' identity and their unwillingness to trust in the power that accompanies that identity. This lack of faith dominates Mark's presentation of the disciples in the first half of his gospel, but it does not carry over into the second half. The disciples finally overcome this failing and confess Jesus as the Messiah at Caesarea Philippi. While the disciples' failings continue into the second half of Mark's gospel, the nature of these failings change. From the point of the disciples' confession at Caesarea Philippi, the disciples never again question Jesus' identity or lack faith in his power.

Another element in Mark's portrayal of the disciples is the disciples' failure to understand Jesus' teaching. This element is first seen in Jesus' teaching on the parables (4:10-13). While the disciples are supposed to have the secrets of the kingdom (4:11), Jesus is surprised when they do not comprehend the parable of the soils. Jesus is surprised again when the disciples fail to understand his parable on the true source of defilement (7:14-23). In both these examples, the disciples fail to understand Jesus' parables. After the confession at Caesarea Philippi, however, the object of their failed understanding changes. As we noted previously, at Caesarea Philippi Jesus tells his disciples for the first time of his death and resurrection (8:31) and will repeatedly tell them of these events in subsequent chapters (9:9, 30-31; 10:32-34, 41-45). Though Jesus teaches his disciples about his death five times, they never understand the teaching. These examples establish a consistent pattern throughout Mark of the disciples failing to grasp Jesus' teaching.

Mark's disciples also fail to be faithful to Jesus in difficult circumstances. While Jesus is on the Mount of Olives praying, his disciples are unable - despite Jesus' continued requests - to stay awake and pray with him (13:32-42). His own disciple Judas betrays him, and though the remaining eleven swear they will not desert him (14:26-31), they in fact do. Mark focuses particularly on Peter, who claims he will follow Jesus even to death (14:31) but instead three times denies even knowing him (14:66-72). Here, even though the disciples know Jesus' true identity, they are unable to remain faithful to him in the face of danger.

A more minor element of Mark's portrayal of the disciples is their concern for power and positions of authority. This element is first seen when the disciples argue over who is the greatest among them (9:33-37). They are embarrassed when Jesus catches them in this debate. This element is seen again when James and John request to sit at Jesus' left and right during the eschaton - essentially requesting to be second (and third) in power to Jesus alone (10:35-45). In both of these instances, Jesus responds by teaching the disciples that, rather than seeking power, they must seek positions of service and, instead of seeking to be first, they must seek to be last. Mark clearly portrays the disciples' desire for power as a weakness and not as a strength.


Now that we have identified the various elements that constitute Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples, we must examine the significance of this portrayal for Mark's gospel. Weeden among others has argued that the disciples represent opponents of Mark's community, against whom Mark has constructed a polemic.159 As we noted in our opening survey (see chapter one) the basic problem with this theory is Mark's concurrent positive portrayal of the disciples (e.g., the disciples willingness to leave everything to follow Jesus, the disciples as recipients of secret teachings, the disciples as the first to proclaim Jesus as Messiah, and the disciples participation in Jesus' ministry of preaching, healing, and exorcism). It seems unlikely that Mark would portray his enemies in such a positive light.160 This evidence has caused many interpreters to reject a polemical understanding of Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples.

Rather than functioning polemically, it seems more likely that Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples advances Mark's teaching on discipleship. While in some ways the disciples are exemplars of authentic discipleship, in others ways they are foils that illuminate authentic discipleship. As the reader encounters the disciples' failure, he or she is confronted with his or her own inadequacy as a disciple and also the benchmark for being an authentic disciple. The egregious nature of these failures - the lack of faith in Jesus despite overwhelming displays of power - only serves to make the foil more effective. As the disciples' dumbfounding obtuseness baffles the reader, the reader's own ignorance is revealed.161

If we accept this function for Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples, then we can extrapolate from the various elements of this motif different aspects of Markan discipleship. The failure of Mark's disciples both to recognize Jesus' true identity and have faith in him establishes the importance of these two elements for authentic discipleship. Mark's readers are forced to ask whether they have ascertained Jesus' true identity and whether their faith is adequate. The disciples' failure to understand Jesus' teaching causes the readers to question their own understanding of his teaching. Jesus' parables and the function of his death force them to ask whether they are insiders - those who hold the secrets of the kingdom of God - or outsiders - those who have eyes but fail to see and those who have ears yet fail to hear. The disciples' failure to remain faithful to Jesus even in the face of great dangers reminds the readers that unwavering faithfulness is an essential element of authentic discipleship. The disciples' desire for power and authority forces the readers to check their own ambitions. They must ask themselves if they are, like their Gentile rulers, abusing their power or are they, like the true universal

1 5 9 Weeden, Conflict; Kelber, Kingdom in Mark. 1 6 0 For further critique of this theory, see Best, Disciples, 98-130; Donahue, Setting,

22-31. 1 6 1 For similar positions, see Tannehill, "Disciples"; Donahue, Settings.

146 Chapter 3

king, serving others. Through these various aspects of the disciples' failure, Mark is able to creatively instruct his readers about the demands of authentic discipleship.

While the negative portrayal of disciples establishes rigorous standards of authentic discipleship for Mark's readers, it might also function to comfort and encourage those readers who have failed to live up to those standards. John Donahue notes that Mark's readers would almost certainly know the larger story of the disciples' history and that, while they failed during Jesus' earthly ministry, they were not only later redeemed but became paragons of Christian discipleship.162 Mark's presentation of failed disciples reminds his readers that even if they have failed in like manner, such failure is not the end and that redemption is still possibile. This motif also might instruct those who have not failed to welcome back their fallen brothers and sisters. G. W. H. Lampe argues that the narrative of Peter functioned as a tool of reconciliation between failed disciples and faithful disciples.163

Therefore, in Mark's portrayal of the disciples, we find the following criteria for authentic discipleship: willingness to forsake one's past life to follow Jesus, faith in Jesus (faith which includes correctly identifying him as the Messiah and accepting his proclamation of the good news), faithfulness to Jesus despite difficult circumstances, and a life of service over an abuse of power. In addition to modeling these criteria, the failed disciples of Mark's gospel may also function to encourage the failed disciples among Mark's readers and facilitate their reconciliation to the community.

3.4.2 Minor Characters as Models of Discipleship Frequently in Mark, characters other than the twelve seem to appear as model disciples in one capacity or another.164 A number of interpreters have argued that these "minor" characters function as vehicles for Mark to advance his presentation of authentic discipleship. The paralytic (2:1-12), the woman with the issue of blood (5:25-34), the Syrophoenician Woman (7:24-30), and

1 6 2 See Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 34; T. Radcliffe, "The Coming of the Son of Man': Mark's Gospel and the Subversion of the Apocalyptic Imagination," in Language, Meaning and God: Essays in Honour of Herbert McCabe O. P. (ed. B. Davies; London: Chapman, 1987), 167-89; B. F. M. van Iersel, "Failed Followers in Mark: Mark 13:12 as a Key for Identification of the Intended Reader," CBQ 58 (1996): 244-63.

1 6 3 G. W. H Lampe, "St. Peter's Denial and the Treatment of the Lapsi," in The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Georges Vasilievich Florovsky on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. D. Neiman and M. Schatkin; OCA 195; Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1973), 113-133.

1 6 4 For discussion on minor characters in Mark functioning as models of discipleship, see Joel F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark's Gospel (JSNTSup 102; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994; E. S. Malbon, "Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark," Semeia 28 (1983): 29-48; cf. Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 31.


blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) are all exemplars of the faith required of true disciples. Levi the tax collector (if he is not identified as one of the twelve, either James son of Alphaeus or Matthew) abandons his past life without reservation in order to be Jesus' disciple (2:13-17). There are number of characters who model discipleship by proclaiming the good news of what Jesus has done for them: the cleansed leper (1:45), the Gerasene demoniac (5:19-20), and those accompanying the deaf/mute man (7:26-37). After she is healed, Simon's mother-in-law models discipleship by serving Jesus and his disciples (1:31). The woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany not only demonstrates service and devotion to Jesus but as Jesus' commentary on her actions implies, she also perceives his impending death (14:3-9), something which the twelve are never able to do. Through his confession of Jesus as "son of God," the Roman centurion also models an essential element of discipleship. The elements of discipleship found in Mark's presentation of these characters are consistent with those found in his presentation of the twelve: faith in Jesus, a willingness to forsake one's former life, a life of service, proclamation of the good news, and perception of and obedience to Jesus' teaching and identity. Taken together, these two groups of Markan characters provide Mark's readers with overt models for authentic discipleship.

3.4.3 Jesus' Teaching on Discipleship While Mark uses a variety of characters in his gospel as models for authentic discipleship, he also addresses discipleship directly through Jesus' teaching. It has long been recognized that the evangelists' records of Jesus' teaching are means of instructing their audience/community. Therefore, when the Markan Jesus teaches the disciples or crowds about authentic discipleship, his instruction is primarily intended for Mark's readers. Here we will examine Jesus' teachings that directly address the identity and characteristics of true disciples.

We find Jesus' first teaching on discipleship in his call of Peter, Andrew, James, and John. In his call, Jesus says that he will make them into "fishers of people" (1:17). When this call is read in light of commissions given to the disciples later in Mark's gospel (3:14-15; 6:7-13), it clearly implies the proclamation of the good news with the hopes of convincing people to accept it. Being a disciple, therefore, involves the need to proclaim the good news of God's kingdom and presumably God's Messiah (1:1).

Perhaps Jesus' most explicit teaching on discipleship follows Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi: "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" (8:34).165 This message for would-be or present disciples is quite clear: authentic discipleship

1 6 5 For the significance of the phrase "take up their cross," see, Hengel, Crucifixion, 62; cf. Evans, Mark, 25; France, Mark, 339; Hooker, St. Mark, 208-209; et al. For origins of the phrase, see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 353; Gundry, Apology, 453-54.

148 Chapter 3

requires faithfulness even to the point of death. In fact, if these disciples desire to save their lives, i.e., experience eschatological salvation, they must be willing to die for the sake of Jesus and his gospel (8:35).166 Disciples who are "ashamed" of Jesus (likely a reference to those who deny him in the face of suffering/death) in this life will not receive his advocacy at the eschatological judgment (8:38). That true disciples will face suffering is confirmed in Jesus' eschatological discourse. Here, Jesus tells the disciples that they will be beaten, stand trial before governors and kings, and be hated by everyone (13:9—13).167 Despite such persecution, a true disciple must remain faithful to Jesus.

While this passage seems to have a harsh message for disciples who may have failed to remain faithful in the face of suffering (and is contradictory to Donahue's interpretation of Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples discussed above), Mark does record a number of teachings from Jesus that may offer hope to such disciples. In Mark 9:41, Jesus tells the disciples "For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose' the reward." Similarly in Mark 10:29-31, Jesus tells his disciples, "Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age - houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions - and in the age to come eternal life." Underlying both of these responses is a question about the rewards for discipleship and the possibility of losing such rewards. In both statements, Jesus reassures his disciples that the sacrifices they have made for both his sake and the sake of the gospel are not in vain and will be rewarded both in the present age and in the eschaton. These words would certainly be an encouragement to disciples who had previously been faithful to Jesus and his gospel but in the face of persecution failed. Here Jesus' words tell them that their previous faithfulness will not go unnoticed and will be rewarded. Jesus' call for the disciples to forgive anyone whom they might hold something against (11:25) might be directed toward failed disciples who, in the face of persecution, betrayed their fellow believers. Mark, therefore, might offer a second chance to failed believers, but he also gives them a strong warning about not failing a second time. However,

1 6 6 euou KCU of verse 35 is textually uncertain, but there is reason to accept it. Most importantly, it is read by both Matthew and Luke, which indicates it was a part of the Markan text at an extremely early date and likely authentic. See TCGNT, 99 for discussion.

1 6 7 See H. R. Graham, "A Markan Theme: Endurance in Time of Persecution," TBT 23 (1985): 297-304; "A Passion Prediction for Mark's Community: Mark 13:9-13," BTB 16 (1986): 18-22; P. S. Pudussery, Discipleship: A Call to Suffering and Glory: An Exegetico-Theological Study of Mark 8,27-9,1; 13,9-13 and 13:24-27 (Rome: Libreria "Alma Mater," 1987), 141-97; cf. J. Verheyden, "Persecution and Eschatology. Mk 13, 9-13," in The Four Gospels 1992, 1141-59; Moloney, Mark, 256-58; Hooker, St. Mark, 309-13.


the message is quite clear that true discipleship requires faithfulness in the face of suffering and death.

Jesus also teaches his disciples that true discipleship is marked by service to others rather than exercising power over them. In response to the disciples' quarrel over who among them was the greatest, Jesus teaches them that the one who desires to be great must be a servant of all (9:36). This teaching is reiterated after the disciples become indignant at James' and John's request for positions of power (10:41-45). Jesus tells them that they are not to be like the Gentile rulers who lord their authority over their subjects. Instead, if they wish to be first, i.e., have positions of power in the eschaton, they must be servants in the present age. Jesus' teaching presents service and not power as an essential characteristic of discipleship.

Mark's eschatological discourse contains significant teaching on discipleship. Twice in the discourse, the disciples are warned to not let false christs mislead them (13:5-6, 21-22).168 While these false christs will lead many astray through the use of signs and omens, true disciples (the elect) will not be deceived by them. Here, recognition of Jesus' true identity as the Messiah and faithfulness to him are essential elements of discipleship. The discourse also reminds Mark's readers that discipleship will be accompanied by suffering and trials (13:9-13, 19-20), through which they must remain faithful.

Jesus' teaching on discipleship reiterates and affirms the elements of discipleship we have seen in Mark's portrayal of the disciples and the minor characters: the importance of recognizing Jesus' true identity, faithfulness to Jesus in the face of suffering, the proclamation of Jesus and his gospel, and the choice of servitude over power. We may also see the motif of encouragement to failed disciples who, despite their failure, can be restored and receive their reward.

3.4.4 Conclusions concerning Discipleship In our analysis above, five elements continually recur in Mark's presentation of discipleship: (1) both recognition of and faith in Jesus' identity; (2) faithfulness to Jesus and the gospel even in the face of suffering; (3) abandonment of one's former life; (4) proclamation about Jesus and his gospel; and (5) living lives marked by service and humility. Of these five elements, the first two

1 6 8 Those who will come in Jesus' name, "saying I am he," are best identified as false messianic claimants. Some interpreters have tried to identify them as eschatological prophets claiming to act in the name of Christ; see Klostermann, Markusevangelium, 133; Kelber, Kingdom, 114-115; Pesch argues that "I am he" is a claim to be Jesus himself; Markusevangelium, 2:279. For those who support our current position, see Marcus, "Jewish War," 441— 62; Lane, Mark, 456; Gundry, Apology, 737; Evans, Mark, 305-6; Witherington, Mark, 343; Gibson, Refusal, 48-9; France, Mark, 510-11; E. Haenchen, Der WegJesu: Eine Erkldrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (2 n d ed.; Berlin: Topelmann, 1966), 437; et al.

150 Chapter 3

are the most prominent, with Mark devoting more attention to their development than the latter three. We propose that these five elements, with greater emphasis placed on the first two, are at the heart of Mark's teaching on authentic discipleship - a teaching that is directed to Mark's intended audience. Our theory regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel will seek to account for these features.

If we use these features as mirrors that reflect the situations of Mark's readers, they become a helpful tool for characterizing Mark's Sitz im Leben. Mark's presentation of discipleship has led many interpreters to conclude that the gospel was written in the context of persecution. The call for disciples to remain faithful in the face of death (8:34-37) seems to anticipate an impending persecution for Mark's readers, one in which they themselves must remain faithful. Jesus' warning of future suffering in the eschatological discourse is further evidence that persecution is anticipated (13:9-20). The importance Mark places on recognizing Jesus' true identity may indicate a setting in which that identity was being challenged. This conclusion is supported by passages implying Mark's readers are encountering false messianic claimants. At two points in the'eschatological discourse Mark warns his readers not to be deceived by individuals who claim to be the Messiah (13:6-7, 21-23). Though these pretenders' claims may be supported by great signs and omens, authentic disciples will not be deceived and will recognize Jesus as the true Messiah. Therefore, Mark's presentation of discipleship suggests a Sitz im Leben in which persecution and christological crisis are present realities for Mark's readers. It is possible that these two realties are related, i.e., the source of the christological crisis carries with it a threat of persecution, but we cannot be certain of this.

3.5 Markan Eschatology

In our opening chapter, we rejected eschatology as Mark's primary purpose for writing his gospel. However, we did recognize that eschatology plays a significant secondary role in Mark and that any theory regarding the gospel's purpose must account for Mark's eschatological presentation. Here, we characterize Mark's eschatological perspective and consider its implications for Mark's Sitz im Leben.

Because Mark's eschatological content is primarily located in Mark 13, a chapter we partially analyzed in our discussion on the date of Mark's composition, our present discussion will be abbreviated. We will summarize the results of our previous analysis along with some additional analysis on content not yet examined. Previously, we divided the eschatological discourse (vs. 5-27 in particular) into four sections: (1) universal catastrophes preceding tribulation (vs. 5-8), (2) personal catastrophes preceding tribulation


(vs. 9-13), (3) unprecedented tribulation (vs. 14-23), and (4) the coming of the Son of Man following tribulation (vs. 24-27). Section one describes the past experience (and possibly present experience) of Mark's readers, (e.g., wars, earthquakes, and famines). However, Mark clearly conveys to his readers the warning that these are not the signs that the end is imminent; they are only the beginning of birth pangs. Section two describes the past, present or possibly future suffering of Mark's community. But again, Mark conveys to his readers the admonition that this suffering is not the sign of the imminent end. In section three, Mark finally provides his readers with the ultimate sign that the parousia and eschaton are imminent. Mark's readers will see the "abomination of desolation" (which we characterized earlier as an idolatrous action of great magnitude performed by a significant ruler) and know that the end is soon. Unprecedented tribulation and suffering will follow this action. Section four describes the coming of the glorious Son of Man with angels (cf. 8:38). At this time, angels will gather all of the elect. These verses capture Mark's basic eschatological frame work: inevitable present suffering, an idolatrous act of great magnitude, unprecedented suffering and persecution, and the Son of Man returning with his angels bringing salvation to the elect.

The verses following this eschatological outline give further insight into Mark's eschatological perspective. Jesus' warns his disciples that, though the day and the hour of these events are known only by God himself, they must remain watchful and observant for the signs he has given them. This instruction to be watchful is clearly an important one for it is given four times in the span of nine verses (13:28-29, 33, 35, 37).

Jesus also tells the twelve that "this generation" will not pass away until all these things have taken place (13:30; cf. 9:1). Here it seems that Jesus is claiming that the parousia will occur within his own generation or perhaps the generation of Mark's readers. Clearly this passage has caused embarrassment for the church over the last two millennia, a factor primarily responsible for the enormous amount of literature devoted to this passage. Many attempts have been made to alleviate this embarrassment. Some interpreters have sought to limit the antecedent of xaOxa iravTa ("these things"), claiming that it only includes the things which precede the parousia and not the parousia itself.169

Others have attempted to redefine/reinterpret r) yevea aikr) ("this generation") in order to remove the time constraints of Jesus' prophecy. Earle Ellis argues that "this generation" refers to the generation of the end signs. He claims that the generation that sees these eschatological signs will not pass away until the eschaton arrives.1 7 0 Walter Grundmann suggests that "this gen-

1 6 9 For example, see Lagrange, Saint Marc, 324-25; L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par (ConBNT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966), 222-26.

1 7 0 For example, see E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (2 n d ed.; London: Oliphants, 1974), 246-47. While Ellis is addressing the Lukan parallel to Mark 13:30, he seems to understand

152 Chapter 3

eration" might refer to all the godless and wicked people among human kind.1 7 1

However, a large number of interpreters conclude that the plain reading of the text should be accepted, and that Mark anticipates the parousia within the lifetime of his readers.1 7 2 While this reading seems probable, the suggestion from Ellis, Hartmann, and Grundmann are still plausible. Therefore, we will proceed with caution, noting that while it is quite likely that Mark anticipated the parousia during the lifetime of his readers this conclusion remains uncertain.

Again, a mirror reading of Mark's eschatological presentation can help us characterize the gospel's Sitz im Leben. The beginning of the eschatological discourse indicates that there are people in Mark's community confused about authentic eschatological signs. Mark seeks to clarify this situation by distinguishing between birth pangs (e.g., famine, earthquakes, wars, and persecution) and the ultimate sign that signals the beginning of the end (the "abomination of desolation"). While this sign has not yet come, Mark urges his readers to be watchful for it could come at any time (perhaps in the lifetime of Mark's audience). Therefore, we can conclude that Mark faces a situation in which he must bring clarity and tranquility to his community's confusion over the eschaton but, at the same time, he must also urge his readers not to grow weary in watching for the true signs of eschatological fulfillment. Mark's eschatological presentation functions to refocus his readers' attention away from mistaken eschatological signs so that they can be watchful for the eschatological sign that will signal the imminent parousia.

Mark's text in the same way. For a similar position, see Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. Geoffrey Buswell; London: Faber and Faber, 1960), 105.

1 7 1 See Grundmann, Markus, 270-71. 1 7 2 See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993),

443-49; Gnilka, Markus, 2:205-6; Lane, Mark, 480; Evans, Mark, 335; et al.

Chapter 4

Reconstructing Mark's Historical Situation

4.1 Introduction

Up to this point, we have argued that Mark wrote in Rome shortly after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (c. 70 C.E.). We now turn to this place and time with the goal of reconstructing a plausible historical situation for Mark and his readers. We will give careful consideration to two significant historical realities of this time and to their impact on the church. The first reality is the presence of a newly crowned emperor, Vespasian, the first of the Flavian dynasty. We will examine the factors surrounding his rise to power and the problems and propaganda that accompanied it. The second reality is the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple. We will compare this historical situation that our examination of these realities reveals with the indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben that our analysis in the previous chapter identified. Continuity between the two would validate the plausibility of our reconstructed historical situation.

4.2 Reconstructing the Historical Situation of Mark's Readers

4.2.1 The Emperor Vespasian Vespasian (Titus Flavius Vespasianus) was officially the eighth Roman emperor and, as noted above, the first emperor of the Flavian dynasty (69-96 C.E.). He took power in 69 C.E. and ruled until his death in 79 C.E. Most historians, both ancient and modern, remember Vespasian as a good emperor and credit him with restoring peace and prosperity to Rome after the tumultuous years of Nero's reign and the civil war of 69 C.E . 1 Here we will focus on the

1 For example, see Suetonius, Vesp. 1.1; 10-25; cf. Barbara Levick, Vespasian (New York: Routledge, 1999), 196-209.

154 Chapter 4

early years of Vespasian's reign (c. 69-72 C.E.), particularly highlighting his rise to power and the propaganda that accompanied it.

Vespasian's Rise to Power Given Vespasian's relatively humble beginnings, his rise to power is quite remarkable. He was born into the plebeian class of Roman society - the Roman working class ranking below the patrician class of Roman nobility.2

Though in Rome, it was not uncommon for plebeians to rise to positions of prominence in the Roman Empire through the combination of hard work and good fortune, it was virtually unthinkable that one might rise to the position of emperor.3 But such a rise to power is exactly what Vespasian accomplished, and any consideration of his reign must give consideration to this remarkable accomplishment.

Vespasian was born in 9 C.E. in the Sabine region of Italy.4 His father was a centurion and later a money lender (banker); his mother came from a prominent family in the Italian region of Umbria.5 Her father had served as a prefect, and her brother was a senator who achieved the rank of praetor.6 Little is known about Vespasian's childhood and youth, though we know that he spent a good deal of this time at his paternal grandmother's estates in the coastal city of Cosa in the Italian region of Etruria.7 At age eighteen, perhaps at the prodding of his ambitious mother and almost certainly with the benefit of well-connected family members, Vespasian began a career in politics.8 He first held the position of military tribune in Thrace and later held a number of significant positions, including quaestor (in Crete and Cyrenaica), praetor, and eventually consul and proconsul.9 Throughout his career, he also established strong military credentials, which aided his political success.

2 For discussion on the Roman class system, see Pierre Grimal, The Civilization of Rome (trans. W. S. Maguinnes; New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), 486; William Davis, The Influence of Wealth in Imperial Rome (New York: Macmillan, 1910), 293-47; Ludwig Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire (trans. Leonard Magnus; London: Routledge, 1928), 98-206, esp. 98-106, 144-46.

3 Vespasian's own brother, Titus Sabinus, rose to senatorial rank, held the consulship, and was the "Prefecture of the City" (see Davis, Influence, 224-29).

4 Suetonius, Vesp. 2. 5 Suetonius, Vesp. 1; see Levick, Vespasian, 6; H. R. Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, Untersuc-

hungen zu Suetons Vita Divi Vespasiani (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937), 10. 6 Suetonius, Vesp. 1; see Levick, Vespasian, 6; E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating

the Principate of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967; repr. Bristol, 1984), 369, col. 2.11.1-4.

7 Suetonius, Vesp. 2. 8 Suetonius, Vesp. 2; see Levick, Vespasian, 7-8; L. Homo, Vespasien, Vempereur du bon

sens (69-79 ap. J.-C.) (Paris: Albin Michael, 1949), 16; W. Eck suggests that Vespasian's political career was aided by his uncle. See Eck, "Urbs Salvia und seine fuhrenden Famil-ien," in Picus: Studi e ricerche sulle Marche nelV Antichitd 12-13 (1992-93): 92.

9 Suetonius, Vesp. 2.3; 4.1; see Levick, Vespasian, 8-13.

Reconstructing Mark's Historical Situation 155

He served as the commander of a Roman legion in Germany, received triumphal ornaments for his military successes in Britain, and was appointed by Nero to quell the Jewish revolt in 66 C .E . 1 0 However, Vespasian's significant political and military achievements alone could have never elevated him to the principate, a position that was dynastic and belonged to the heir of the current emperor.

It is unlikely that before 68 C.E. (and even possibly 69 C.E.) Vespasian had any ambitions for the principate.11 But Galba's rebellion against Nero in the latter part of 68 C.E., and Nero's subsequent suicide in the same year changed the Roman political landscape. It quickly became apparent that dynastic inheritance was not the only way to obtain the principate. One who exercised enough military power could also secure it. This reality plunged the Roman Empire into its first civil war since Mark Antony and Octavian, and it also opened the door for the plebeian born Vespasian to become the Roman emperor.

The first to obtain the principate by means of military power was Galba, the provincial ruler of Hispania Tarraconesis (modern day eastern Spain). After Nero's death, Galba declared himself emperor and, with his legions, marched into Rome virtually uncontested. But Galba's reign only lasted six months before Otho supplanted him. Otho was the former provincial ruler of Lusitania (modern day western Spain and Portugal) who had aided Galba in his rebellion against Nero. After Galba snubbed him as a successor, Otho sought the support of the Praetorian Guard and won it. Soldiers of the Praetorian Guard murdered Galba and declared Otho emperor. However, Otho quickly realized that he was not Galba's only challenger. A provincial ruler in Germania Inferior, Vitellius (a man Galba had appointed) had rebelled against him and now challenged Otho. The legions of Germania (both Inferior and Superior) supported Vitellius and proclaimed him their emperor. A short while later he gained the support of the legions in Gaul, Britannia, and Raetia. War waged between Otho and Vitellius. After a devastating loss at

1 0 Suetonius, Vesp. 4.1; Dio Cassius 63.11.1; see Levick, Vespasian, 14-19; J. Nicols, Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae (Historica-Einzelschriften 28) Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1978), 8-9, 13-22. For discussion on Vespasian's successes in Britain, see G. Webster, The Roman Invasion of Britain (London: B. T. Batsford, 1980; rev. ed., 1993), 84-110.

1 1 Nicols argues that Vespasian only considered revolt after the death of Galba in February 69 C.E.; see Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 91-92; cf. Levick, Vespasian, 44. Some historians date Vespasian's ambitions for the principate to 67 C.E., a date largely determined by Josephus' prophecy of Vespasian's ascension; see G. E. F. Chilver, "The Army in Politics, A.D. 68-70," JRS 47 (1957): 29-35, esp. 34; H. Drexler, review of A. Briessmann, Tacitus und das Flavische Geschichtsbild, Gnomon 28 (1956): 523; W. Weber, Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem jiidischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (New York: Hildesheim, 1921), 154.

156 Chapter 4

Bedriacum, Otho took his own life having after ruled only three months. Vitellius then secured the principate.12

Up to this point, the civil war primarily involved legions from the western and northern parts of the empire as well as those from Italy. Legions from the eastern part of the empire remained relatively passive.13 Vespasian was one of the most significant and powerful Roman generals in the Roman east. Nero appointed him in 66 C.E. to quell the Jewish Revolt in Palestine and placed three Roman legions under his command. After Nero's death, Vespasian halted his military efforts in Palestine and awaited new orders from Rome. He remained militarily inactive as he observed the rise and fall of both Galba and Otho, and eventually he swore his allegiance to the newly crowned emperor, Vitellius. This sworn allegiance was most certainly feigned, because it seems that at least by the time Galba died, Vespasian was arranging his own attempt at securing the principate. It seems he was strongly encouraged to do so by Mucianus, the governor of Syria, and Julius Alexander the governor of Egypt.14 Both of these allies could promise Vespasian a significant number of legions - legions that would be necessary for defeating Vitellius and securing the principate. With this backing, Vespasian decided to make his bid for the empire. He was first declared emperor in Egypt by Julius Alexander and the Roman legions under him.1 5 Two days later in Caesarea, Vespasian himself was hailed by his soldiers as Imperator, the common greeting for a new emperor.16 Only a short time later, the Syrian legions, at the instigation of Mucianus, swore their allegiance to Vespasian.17 These declarations established Vespasian as the ruler of the Roman east, a ruler who was supported by both the eastern legions and the eastern people.

With this popularity and military backing, Vespasian became a legitimate challenger to Vitellius. This legitimacy in turn garnered him even more

1 2 For the details regarding the civil war of 69 C.E., see Levick, Vespasian, 43-64; Welles-ley, Four Emperors', idem, "What Happened on the Capitol in December AD 69?" AJAH 6 (1981): 166-90; Bernard Henderson, Civil War and Rebellion in the Roman Empire A.D. 69-70 (London: Macmillan, 1908).

1 3 Some legions of Asia Minor, including those of Dalmatia, had declared their support for Otho though they were too late to help him in his war with Vitellius; see Wellesley, Four Emperors, 57.

1 4 See Tacitus, Hist. 2.89-90; Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 72. 1 5 Tacitus, Hist. 2.79; Suetonius, Vesp. 6.3. Josephus' testimony disagrees with that of

both Tacitus and Suetonius, claiming that Vespasian was first declared emperor in Judea. Many historians, however, give pride of place to the testimony of the latter two historians; see Levick, Vespasian, 47; Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 73; Weber, Josephus, 168 n. 1; D. Kienast, Romische Kaisertabelle: Grundziige einer rom. Kaiserchronologie (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990), 108.

1 6 Tacitus and Suetonius disagree as to the date of this event. Tacitus claims it was on July 3 while Suetonius claims it was on July 11. For discussion and sources for further information, see Levick, Vespasian, 43 n. 1.

1 7 Tacitus, Hist. 2.79; Suetonius, Vesp. 6.4.


military support. Legions from Asia Minor and Illyrium, some of which had supported Otho against Vitellius, now gave their allegiance to Vespasian.18

With this strong military backing, it took Vespasian only five months to defeat Vitellius and take control of Rome. The day after Rome fell to the Flavian legions - and the Flavian rival Vitellius was killed - the senate conferred full power upon Vespasian. The plebian born Vespasian was now the unrivaled Roman emperor.

Vespasian's Problems and Propaganda Even though Vespasian had won his war against Vitellius, and by force had received the principate, many obstacles remained before him. The empire's finances were in shambles, and its food supply in Rome was low.19 While Vespasian occupied Rome, rebellious legions still persisted throughout the empire and needed to be brought under control.20 But more important for our purposes are the obstacles related to the legitimacy of Vespasian's rule.

Perhaps one of the most significant obstacles Vespasian had to overcome was his ignoble birth. Unlike the emperors before him, including Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, Vespasian was a "new man" in politics (a novus homo), an upstart in the eyes of senatorial noblemen whose families had enjoyed political prestige for centuries. That a man of such humble beginnings was now ruling over them was certainly offensive to their noble sensibilities. Even the Roman citizenry as a whole likely found it difficult to respect and honor an emperor with such a humble pedigree. There were also questions surrounding Vespasian's family ancestry. Vespasian could claim he was of Italian blood, though his family was from the Italian countryside and not from Rome itself.21 But rumors that his father emigrated from Gaul to Italy led some to suspect that a man of impure blood was holding the principate.22

1 8 See Levick, Vespasian, 47-49. 1 9 According to Suetonius, Vespasian claimed it would take 40,000m sestertii to reha

bilitate the state; Vesp. 16.3. Given that annual revenue was approximately 800m sestertii (see K. Hopkins, "Tax and Trade in the Roman Empire [200 B.C.-A.D. 400]," JRS 70 [1980]: 101-25) many historians believe Suetonius to be in error and conclude that the number should read 4,000m; see Levick, Vespasian, 95; G. M. Bersanetti, Vespasiano (Rome: Edizioni Roma, 1941), 61; M. A. Levi, "I principii dell' impero di Vespasiano" RFIC 16 (1938): 1-12. However, even this amount indicates that Rome was in need of five times its annual income to achieve financial recovery. For further discussion on the economic crisis facing Vespasian, see Levick, Vespasian, 95-106; Homo, Vespasien, 163-67; 301-9.

2 0 For discussion of the military problems facing Vespasian after his ascension, see Levick, Vespasian, 107-23; Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, 60-77; E. P. Nicolas, De Neron a Vespasien: Etudes et perspectives historiques, suivies de V analyse, du catalogue, et de la reproduction des monnaies 'oppositionelles' connues des annees 67 a 70 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1979), 2.1037-288.

2 1 Vespasian had a thick accent that betrayed his rural upbringing; Suetonius, Vesp. 22.; Levick, Vespasian, 8; Homo, Vespasien, 10-13.

2 2 See Suetonius, Vesp. 1.4; see Levick, Vespasian, 6; Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, 1.

158 Chapter 4

Another obstacle to Vespasian's legitimacy was the means by which he obtained his position. Vespasian had no significant link, familial or paternal, to the previous dynasty. Power and power alone legitimized his claim to the principate. In reality, Vespasian was a dictator who had taken his position by force (though technically it was granted by the senate). Given Rome's historical animosity toward monarchs and despots (the Roman emperor was, in theory, primus inter pares, "first among equals," and received his power from the senate alone), Vespasian's means of obtaining power would certainly be seen as a mark against his legitimacy.23 The Roman people had just seen three emperors - all claiming the position by military might - rise and fall in the span of one year. Certainly it was legitimate for Roman citizens to question why this emperor was any different from the previous three.

All of these obstacles to Vespasian's legitimacy could certainly be used against him by his political opponents. The establishment of a stable and peaceful rule (and eventually a dynasty) would require him to overcome them. One way in which Vespasian attempted to overcome these obstacles to his legitimacy was through the clever use of propaganda. It became important for Vespasian, as it had for emperors and monarchs before him, to establish evidence of his divine right to rule. 2 4 One form of such evidence was "portents" or prophecies. Suetonius offers us eleven portents (three are also mentioned by Tacitus and seven by Dio) that foretold or indicated Vespasian's rise to power (Suetonius, Vesp. 5). The first was an oak tree (which was believed to be sacred to Mars) on the Flavian estate that sprouted a branch each time Vespasia (Vespasian's mother) gave birth. Each branch was seen as an indicator of the child's future. Vespasian's branch took the image of a tree, a Roman imperial symbol, which led Vespasian's father to claim his son would one day become emperor. During Vespasian's early political career as an aedile, whose responsibility it was to clean the streets, Gaius Caligula spread mud on Vespasian's toga for what he perceived as dereliction of his duties. The mud that rested under Vespasian's breast was seen as an omen that he would one day hold a Rome that had been trodden upon under his own breast. Once, while Vespasian was eating breakfast, a dog brought him a human hand from the street, a body part often associated with power. Another time while dining, an ox escaped from its yoke, and after rampaging into Vespasian's dining room

2 3 For discussion on the position of the emperor and his relationship to the senate, see John Wacher, The Roman Empire, (London: J. M. Dent, 1987), 84-86; Mason Hammond, The Augustan Principate: In Theory and Practice during the Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933); On Augustus' use of the title princeps, see John Buchan, Augustus (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1937), 134-35.

2 4 For thorough discussion on the link between omens and portents and the emperor's divine right to rule, see Annie Vigourt, Les Presages Imperiaux dAuguste a Domitien: Collection de I'Universite Marc Bloch, Strasbourg: Etudes d'histoire ancienne (Paris: de Boccard, 2001), 343-74. For a list of omens and portents associated with Roman rulers, see 22-74.


it bowed its head at Vespasian's feet. At the estate of Vespasian's grandfather, a tree mysteriously uprooted itself and the next day was replanted looking greener and stronger than before. Vespasian also had a dream that when Nero had a tooth extracted, good fortune would fall on him and his family. Only a day later, a physician showed him a tooth that had just been extracted from Nero. While Vespasian was in Judea (likely in 68 C.E . , a time when Vespasian was considering his bid for the principate), he visited an oracle on Mt. Carmel who told him that whatever he attempted to do, he would find success. Suetonius also tells us of Josephus' prophecy that Vespasian would be emperor (for Josephus' own account, see Wars 399-408). Suetonius again tells of portents in Rome while Vespasian was away in the east. Nero apparently had a dream that instructed him to move the sacred chariot of Jupiter to Vespasian's house and then onto the circus. There was also a statue of Julius Caesar in Rome that turned from west to east, presumably indicating the origin of the next Roman ruler. Finally, at the field of Betriacum where Vitellius defeated Otho, people witnessed two eagles fighting over the battle field. After one was victorious, a third eagle flew in from the east and defeated the former victorious eagle. The parallels with the civil war of 69 C.E. are quite obvious.

While many of these "portents" are clearly legendary and others likely embellished, the question of their origin and purpose remains significant. It seems that they were likely created shortly before or shortly after Vespasian took power and were circulated with the hopes of bringing validity to Vespasian's reign.25 If accepted, these portents would demonstrate that Vespasian's rise to power was not an accident or the result of a man bending fate to his will, but rather it was divinely ordained and supernaturally foretold. Such claims would be hard to dispute and would only be fortified by the peace and prosperity Vespasian's rule brought to Rome. The practice of establishing such omina imperii was quite common for rulers whose power might be viewed as illegitimate (e.g., Alexander and his successors, leaders of the late Roman Republic, and even Octavian).26 Therefore, that Vespasian would use such propaganda to legitimize his reign should be expected.

2 5 For similar conclusions, see Nicols, Partes Flaviane, 96; J. Rufus Fears, Princeps A Diis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome (PMA AR 26; Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1977), 171; K. Scott, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (New York: Arno Press, 1936; repr. 1975), 1-20; R. Lattimore, "Portents and Prophecies in Connection with the Emperor Vespasian," CJ 29 (1933-34): 441-49; A. Hen-richs, "Vespasian's Visit to Alexanderia," ZPE 3 (1968): 51-80; L. Herrmann, "Basilides," Latomus 12 (1953): 312-15; P. Derchain, "La visite de Vespasien au Serapeum d'Alexandrie," Chronique d'Egypte 28 (1953): 261-79, esp. 267-70. While some of these portents may have a historical core, e.g., Vespasians' visitation to the Mt. Carmel oracle and Josephus' prediction of Vespasian's ascension, the forms in which they have come to us are historically questionable.

2 6 See Fears, Divine Election, 171.

160 Chapter 4

2 7 Tacitus, Hist. 4. 82 and Suetonius, Vesp. 7.1. 2 8 Henrichs, "Visit to Alexandria," 62-63. 2 9 For further discussion of this incident and its significance, see Henrichs, "Visit to

Alexandria," 51-80; Weber, Josephus, 250-58; Scott, Imperial Cult, 9-13; S. Morenz, "Vespasian, Heiland der Kranken: Personliche Frommigkeit im antiken Herrscherkult?" Wiirz-burger Jahrbucher fur die Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1949-50): 370-78.

3 0 Tacitus, Hist. 4 81.1-3; Suetonius, Vesp. 7.2; Dio, Rom. Hist. 66.8.1.

In addition to portents and prophecies, Vespasian used visions and supernatural healings to establish his divine right to power. After being declared emperor by his legions in the east, Vespasian journeyed to Alexandria. While there, he visited the temple of Serapis, hoping to gain information about the outcome of his imperial ambitions from the god.2 7 After he had all other worshipers removed and had worshiped the god himself, he saw a man named Basilides (Tacitus describes him as a leading man of Egypt, while Suetonius identifies him as Vespasian's freedman), whom Vespasian knew to be sick and a long distance from Alexandria at that time. Basilides gave him "sacred boughs, garlands, and loaves," which may best be identified as signs of royalty.28 We are told that Vespasian took this vision as a supernatural sign of divine favor and of future success in his bid for the empire. These happenings in the temple of Serapis not only offered further evidence that Vespasian's reign was divinely appointed, but it also drew a parallel between Vespasian and another ruler, Alexander the Great, who when in Egypt received a divine endorsement from the oracle of Ammon. Such propaganda would certainly help legitimize Vespasian's power.29

We are also told that while Vespasian was in Alexandria, both a blind man and a man with a disfigured hand requested healing from him. 3 0 Both men claimed that their request for healing, as well as the manner in which they were to be healed (the blind man was to be healed by Vespasian's spittle being placed on his eyes and the disfigured man by Vespasian stepping on the man's hand) had been ordered by the god Serapis in a dream. Though at first reluctant, Vespasian agreed to their requests, and both men were healed. Presumably, Serapis had granted to Vespasian the power to heal - a power that was further evidence of his divine appointment to rule. This propaganda was apparently quite effective, because Tacitus reported that even in his day (c. 100 C.E., twenty years after Vespasian's death), eye-witnesses still talked about this event.

Up to this point, we have demonstrated that Vespasian put forth a great deal of propaganda, including prophecies, portents, visions, and supernatural powers to establish his divine right to rule and to legitimize his position. Here we will argue for an additional element in Vespasian's propagandistic efforts at legitimacy; namely, that Vespasian claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy.

Reconstructing Mark s Historical Situation 161

Three Roman historians refer to what appear to be Jewish messianic prophecies and expectations. Each of them concludes that these prophecies were fulfilled through Vespasian's rise to power. In discussing the Jewish motivations behind their revolt in 66 C.E., Josephus writes: But what more than all else incited them [the Jews] to war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean that someone from their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil. (Josephus, Wars 6.312-13, Thackeray, LCL)

Here Josephus makes a clear reference to a prophecy in the Jews' sacred literature that a world ruler would come out of Judea and highlights the Jews' misunderstanding of the prophecy. He also offers a true interpretation of the prophecy, namely that it refers to Vespasian's rise to power that originated while he was in Judea.

Tacitus offers us a similar account. It follows a description of physical omens that appeared in Jerusalem in 70 C.E., omens that clearly foreshadowed the city's destruction: Few [Jews] interpreted these omens as fearful; the majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained a prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judaea should possess the world. This mysterious prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favor and could not be turned even by adversity. (Tacitus, Hist. 5.13.1-2, Moore and Jackson, LCL)

Like Josephus, Tacitus references a prophecy contained in sacred Jewish writings, a prophecy that world rulers (Tacitus's change from one ruler to multiple rulers is likely motivated by a desire to make the prophecy fit both Vespasian and Titus) would come out of Judea. Tacitus also claims that the Jews misunderstood this prophecy and that its true fulfillment came in the rise of Flavian power.

In describing the impetus for the Jewish revolt, Suetonius gives a similar testimony: There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor they routed the consular ruler of Syria as w e l l . . . (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5, Rolfe, LCL)

Suetonius differs slightly from Josephus and Tacitus in that he does not specifically identify Jewish sacred scriptures as the origin of the belief (though given the details he does provide, such a source could be deduced). But he does agree with Josephus and Tacitus at many points: the prophecy's general point of origin (the Roman East), that the prophecy anticipated world rulers

162 Chapter 4

coming from Judea, that the Jews mistakenly applied the prophecy to themselves, and that the prophecy, correctly interpreted, referred to Vespasian.

In light of these three ancient testimonies, there seems to be a general tradition that Jewish messianic prophecy, with which Romans would have certainly been familiar, was fulfilled in Vespasian, whose rise to the principate began in Judea.31 We must then ask when the tradition developed. There are only two reasonable options. First, it is possible that the tradition developed in the last half of Vespasian's career (75-79 C.E.), when Josephus was composing his Jewish Wars (the document in which the tradition first appears). Some have even insinuated that Josephus himself may have created the tradition and that Tacitus later followed him and Suetonius later followed Tacitus.32

But Christiane Saulnier undermines this theory, arguing that this section of Josephus' narrative is oddly placed and appears as an erratic block of text, text that was likely borrowed from an external source.33 The likelihood that Tacitus' account was independent of Josephus also weakens this theory.34 It seems more likely that both Josephus and Tacitus are dependent on a common source.35 Such a conclusion indicates that the tradition existed before Josephus composed Jewish Wars and likely places the tradition's origins into the early years of Vespasian's reign. Dating the tradition's origin after 75 C.E. also raises the problem of motive. The tradition clearly favors Vespasian, making him the fulfillment of yet another prophecy. That the prophecy favors the Flavian party strongly suggests that the party itself originated the tradition. But after 75 C.E . , Vespasian's position was quite secure and had little need for further legitimization. In fact, in the latter years of his reign, Vespasian seems to reject such inflated notions of his identity. The famous words uttered from

3 1 It is important to note that by making this claim, we are not claiming that Josephus perceived Vespasian to be the Jewish Messiah, but that prophecies that some Jews believed pointed to a messiah were fulfilled in Vespasian. The tradition, in essence, is a tradition against Jewish messianism.

3 2 Steve Mason, "Josephus, Daniel and the Flavian House," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 188-90; Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 193.

3 3 Christiane Saulnier, "Flavius Josephe et la Propagande Flavienne," RB 96.4 (1989): 550.

3 4 Though the general parameters of both accounts are similar, differences in specific details undermine dependence. For discussion, see E. Norden, "Josephus und Tacitus tiber Jesus Christus und eine Messianische Prophetie," in Zur Josephus-Forschung (ed., Abraham Schalit; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), 27-69. As noted above, Mason, however, argues that Tacitus is dependent upon Josephus for the tradition, "Josephus," 88-90; cf. Rajak, 193.

3 5 Norden, "Josephus," 55-69; cf. Saulnier, "Flavius Josephe," 545-62; Menahem Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), 61-62.


his death bed illustrated this point: "Alas, I suppose I am becoming a god."36

The propaganda that served Vespasian well in the early years of his rule, he considered unnecessary later in his reign. This fact makes it unlikely that the Flavian party created the tradition in the latter years of Vespasian's reign. It is possible that the tradition was created independently of the Flavian party, but this option removes culpability from the group that stood to profit most and that had a track record of profiteering prophecies. While the possibility that the tradition originated in the later years of Vespasian's reign cannot be ruled out completely, the evidence suggests that it did not.

The second option for the tradition's date of origin (69-73 C.E. - during the early years of Vespasian's reign) has much evidence to support it. This option places the development of the tradition alongside the development of similar propaganda, (e.g., the vision in the temple of Serapis, the oracle at Mt. Carmel, and the many other omens that foreshadowed Vespasian's rise to power). It also places the tradition much closer to the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which all three historians closely associate with the tradition. The absolute proof for a Roman that Jews misunderstood their messianic prophecy, i.e., the destruction of the temple, would provide Vespasian with the perfect opportunity to apply that prophecy to himself. The irony of such an act could not have been missed by Vespasian's defeated enemies or by his new subjects who awaited him in Rome. The prophesied world ruler, whom the Jews believed would be one of their own countrymen and would free them from Roman oppression, was in fact a Roman himself who, rather than bringing freedom to the Jews, brought them utter destruction. Such a claim from Vespasian would simultaneously accomplish two things: (1) it would contribute to his strenuous propagandistic efforts to legitimize his power, and (2) it would send an ominous warning to any Jewish faction that might consider using sacred prophecy to justify further rebellion. Therefore, Vespasian's early years, in particular the time of his ascension and the subsequent destruction of the Jews, offer a highly plausible and compelling setting for the development of the tradition that the Flavian emperor was the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy.37

There has been some debate over which particular prophecy (or prophecies) is referred to by the tradition in question. Some historians have suggested that the prophecy in question comes from Daniel, i.e., Daniel 9:26 or 7:13.38 But none of these suggested prophecies fits the descriptions our ancient

3 6 Suetonius, Vesp. 23.4; Dio, 66.17.3 3 7 Nicols implies that this tradition developed in 69 C.E. alongside of the other omnia

imperii that developed/circulated at the same time (Partes Flavianae, 96). 3 8 F. F. Bruce argues for Daniel 9:26 ("Josephus and Daniel," ASTI4 [1965]: 148-62). R.

T. Beckwith suggests Daniel 7:13; see Beckwith, "Daniel 9 and the Date of the Messiah's Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation," RevQ 10 (1979-81): 535.

164 Chapter 4

historians give.3 9 It may be that attempting to identify a specific prophecy is a misguided venture. Mason has argued, at least in the case of Josephus, that it is unlikely that any specific prophecy is intended.40 He suggests that Josephus has performed a "rhetorical sleight of hand" and has set up, for the sake of his Roman audience, a ghost prophecy that has no specific referent. Because of Roman ignorance regarding specific elements of Jewish scriptures, such a rhetorical trick could be effective for Josephus. Here we suggest a similar theory in the development of the Flavian propaganda that is preserved by Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. It is unlikely that the Flavian party, in creating and promulgating their propaganda, went through the cumbersome task of sifting through Jewish scriptures in order to identify specific prophecies that might apply to Vespasian. Doing so would not only be a daunting task for those unfamiliar with Jewish sacred writings, but it would also be unnecessary given that their target audience, like Josephus' audience, was unfamiliar with the particulars of Jewish prophecy. Relying on specific prophecies also opened the door for specific critics from the emperor's opponents. Therefore, it seems that the Flavian party was more apt to rely on generic Jewish messianic expectations, expectations that obviously were grounded in the Jews' sacred writings. Therefore, it is unlikely that in the Flavian circulation of this propaganda any attempts were made to validate it with proof texts from Jewish scripture. Rather, the propaganda relied on the common knowledge - knowledge that the Jewish Revolt no doubt heightened - that Jews, because of prophecies found in their ancient scriptures, expected a world ruler to rise from among them.

Here we conclude that the tradition claiming Vespasian to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy - a tradition found in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius - reflects Flavian propaganda that was used to legitimize the emperor's power. This propaganda did not rely on any specific Jewish prophecy but on well-known Jewish messianic expectations, expectations grounded in Jewish sacred writings. This particular piece of propaganda would be uniquely problematic for the church. We will examine the possible effects of such a problem in more detail below.

Vespasian's Triumph Another significant piece of Flavian propaganda was the triumph of Vespasian and Titus in 71 C.E. Though its official purpose was to celebrate the Roman victory over the Jews, it also illustrated the new emperor's great power and glory. Josephus gives a vivid description of the triumph.41 He reports that the entire military, arranged in companies and divisions, came out to the site of

3 9 See Mason, "Josephus," 184-86; cf. Beckwith's critique of Bruce, "Daniel 9," 535 n. 15.

4 0 Mason, "Josephus," 186. 4 1 See Josephus, Wars 7:117-59.


the triumph while it was still night. At day break, Vespasian and Titus came out from the temple of Isis wearing purple imperial robes and laurel crowns. As they took their seats on ivory thrones, loud acclamations came from the soldiers and continued until Vespasian signaled for silence. In the procession that commenced, there were magnificent works of art formed from gold, silver, and ivory, as well as great tapestries. Enormous statues of Roman gods were also part of the procession, along with many different species of live animals. All the people marching in procession wore fine clothes, including the large crowd of Jewish captives. Perhaps the most remarkable element of the triumph was the moving depictions and reenactments of the Jewish War itself. Here Roman military might and Vespasian's great success was brought before the entire city. Depictions included slaughtered Jewish battalions, Jewish soldiers fleeing the battle, Roman siege engines destroying Jewish strongholds, Roman soldiers pouring into Jewish ramparts, and the Jewish temple set on fire. Spoils from the war were also carried in the procession. The procession ended at the Capitol (temple of Jupiter Capitolinus) where the Jewish general Simon bar Gioras was executed. This triumph was clearly a compelling sign of Flavian power and wealth and would have been enormously impressive to Rome citizenry. It was also an unmistakable warning against sedition and rebellion. The Palestinian Jews had mistakenly decided to test Roman power and resolve, and they had paid the price. One cannot underestimate the enormity of this event and the impact it had on all living in Rome.

Vespasian, the Second Augustus To secure his position and his favor among the people, Vespasian did not rely on propaganda alone. Vespasian was in many ways a pragmatist, and he was surely aware that the belief in his divine appointment would not last long if prudent actions did not follow. It seems that Vespasian's primary model for such prudent actions was Rome's first emperor, Augustus Caesar, whose principate was in many ways the standard by which all subsequent rulers would be measured. There was already some basis for comparison between them. Both came to the principate through military power and victory in a civil war and both had brought renewed peace and stability to an empire in turmoil. But through his actions, Vespasian seems purposefully to draw further parallels between himself and Augustus. Like Augustus, Vespasian played the role of the reluctant emperor. The official Flavian line was that Vespasian's acceptance of the principate was spontaneous, without prior planning.42 His soldiers, of their own accord, had urged him to accept the position, which he humbly accepted.43 Suetonius tells us that Vespasian was slow in taking up his tribunician power and taking the title, "Father of His Country."44 And even

4 2 See Levick, Vespasian, 43; Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 73. 4 3 Josephus, Wars 4.592-604; Tacitus, Hist. 2.79. 4 4 Vespasian's tribunician powers were reckoned from July 1 of 69, the day his army

166 Chapter 4

though the Flavian party promoted the idea that Vespasian's reign was divinely appointed, like Augustus, Vespasian did not oversell himself. In Augustan fashion, through both coinage and imperial inscriptions, Vespasian promoted the greatness of Rome (e.g., Roman peace [PAX], fortune [FORTVNA], and victory [VICTORIA]) rather than his own persona.45 Flavian inscriptions also gave public recognition and honor to both the senate and the Roman people by using titles that highlighted the inherent divinity of both groups; Genius Senatus and Genius Populi.46 Vespasian apparently ended the practice of worshiping the emperor's genius (a practice apparently instituted by Gaius Caligula) and removed it from the state cult.47 Such humility and reluctance to embrace power (even if feigned) were imperial virtues admired by a Roman citizenry who ideologically rejected monarchs and tyrants and perceived the emperor to be first among equals, a standard Augustus established. Through this humility, Vespasian endeared himself to the people and further secured his position as emperor.

Like Augustus, Vespasian was a true benefactor to the Roman citizens. He provided for their physical needs, often using his own finances to do so. As soon as he had secured power in Rome, he had grain sent to the city where the need was pressing.48 Only a ten-day supply of grain remained. Upon his arrival in Rome, he also gave generous monetary gifts to its citizens, 300 sestertii.49 He personally financed the repairs of a desperately needed aqueduct that had been out of working order since Nero's reign.5 0 He also used his personal finances for both street repairs and street cleaning, which were also greatly needed.51 Like Augustus, he devoted funds to building projects that

proclaimed him emperor. It is possible that here Suetonius' testimony speaks of his use of these powers rather than their official reckoning; see Suetonius, Vesp. 12; cf. Levick, Vespasian, 67.

4 5 See Levick, Vespasian, 70; P. V. Hill, "Buildings and Monuments on Flavian Coins" NAC 8 (1979): 220; Bersanetti (Vespasiano, 42) notes similarities between Augustan imperial inscriptions and those of Vespasian.

4 6 See F. S. Kleiner, "The Arches of Vespasian in Rome," RM91 (1990): 134-36; Levick, Vespasian, 129.

4 7 Ittai Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (OCM; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 189-90.

4 8 P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 218-27; cf. Levick, Vespasian, 124-25. Levick also notes that the urban plebs made dedications to Vespasian in thanks for the receipt of grain he gave to them; Vespasian, 124 n. 2; cf. CIL 6, 3747; M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors Including the Year of Revolution ad 68-69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 141, n. 468. In his Res Gestae, Augustus records how he generously provided both grain and money to Roman plebs (3.15,18).

4 9 Levick, Vespasian, 125. 5 0 Levick, Vespasian, 125; McCrum and Woodhead, Documents, 115, no. 408. 5 1 Levick, Vespasian, 130; McCrum and Woodhead, Documents, 115-16, no. 412; cf.

Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, 135.

Reconstructing Mark s Historical Situation 167

beautified Rome rather than to buildings that exalted his own persona. In this way, the emperor bettered the entire city instead of promoting his own ego. He also refurbished areas that had been damaged by the great fire of Nero's reign, restored sacred temples (most importantly the Capitol), and started the construction of new ones.5 2 Suetonius tells us that one of Vespasian's possible motivations for building the Colosseum was the belief that Augustus himself had aspired to do so. 5 3

When he came to power, Vespasian found himself in a unique position. He was an emperor with a clean slate. With supreme authority and no one to challenge it, Vespasian could have done what he liked with the principate. He could have broken with Roman tradition and, following the traditions of the East, declared himself king. He also could have continued the arrogant and flamboyant practices of former emperors such as Caligula and Nero by extravagantly promoting his own persona. Instead, Vespasian chose to follow Augustus' example, the last Roman to find himself in Vespasian's position. He adopted a position of reluctance and humility and at least outwardly took his place as first among equals. He also used his position to benefit the city and people under his authority. This choice served Vespasian well and endeared him to the Roman people, who were unlikely to miss the similarities between the revered Augustus and Vespasian, the second Augustus.

The Impact of Flavian Propaganda on the Church in Rome The ascension of a new emperor was a major event with ramifications for every inhabitant of the empire, especially those in Rome. The church in Rome would not be immune from these ramifications and would certainly take an interest - though likely a guarded one - in this new ruler. Now we must consider the impact that Vespasian's rise to power and the propaganda that accompanied it might have had on the church in Rome.

When Vespasian arrived in Rome after his long stay in Alexandria, the Roman citizenry received him with great enthusiasm. Festivals were held in his honor, and prayers and sacrifices were made in request of his enduring rule. 5 4 He was hailed by the people as Savior and Benefactor.55 He had brought an end to Rome's civil war and brought the city peace and stability. As we discussed above, he also had provided food and money when it was desperately needed. His great triumph demonstrated not only his might and strength against the Jews, but also his might and power as world ruler. Regardless

5 2 See Suetonius, Vesp. 8.5-9.2; cf. Levick, Vespasian, 125-26; cf. R. H. Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome (Coll. Lat. 231; Brussels: Latomus, 1996).

5 3 Suetonius, Vesp. 9.1. 5 4 See Josephus, Wars 7.66-74; see Levick, Vespasian, 86-7. 5 5 Josephus, Wars, 7.71.

168 Chapter 4

of his ignoble birth and questionable lineage, there was considerable evidence that his rise to the position of world ruler was providential and the fulfillment of divine prophecies and oracles. His actions and accomplishments (e.g., military victory, humility, and material blessing) only affirmed the validity of this evidence.

Certainly the pomp and circumstance surrounding this new emperor would be offensive to Christian sensibilities.56 Roman esteem for their rulers was in direct conflict with Christian beliefs. For the church there was but one world ruler, one savior, and one bringer of peace, Jesus the Christ. But such imperial propaganda and public sentiments were not a new reality for the church. It had lived through the flamboyant imperial cults of Gaius Caligula and Nero, and in most ways, the honors and recognition given to Vespasian were much less offensive. However, one aspect of Flavian propaganda was without precedent in the reigns of the Julio-Claudians, namely the claim that the Roman emperor, Vespasian was the fulfillment of prophecies that were perceived by both Jews and the church to point to the Messiah.57 This piece of propaganda crossed a new threshold. Previous imperial propaganda was certainly considered blasphemous, but this new claim infringed on the distinct characteristics of the church. The imperial cult was no longer a blasphemous reality that had to be tolerated but now, from the church's perspective, had gone on the offensive and was usurping distinct Christian claims.58

We cannot help but ask how Christians may have responded to such an attack. That Jesus fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecy was certainly a key element of the church's kerygma.59 The promulgation throughout Rome that Vespasian - and therefore not Jesus - fulfilled such prophecies struck at the heart of the church's proclamation and raised questions regarding its legitimacy. Such questions would likely have been detrimental to evangelistic efforts and provided useful material for Christian detractors.

We must also consider the possibility that Vespasian's propaganda might have caused some Roman Christians to consider its validity and second guess their Christian commitments. Vespasian provided strong evidence that he had fulfilled the prophecy of Jewish scripture. He had indeed begun his rise to power while on Jewish soil. He had also provided a convincing display

5 6 For discussion on Christian attitudes toward the realities surrounding the Roman Empire and the imperial cult, see S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 122-26.

5 7 Certainly there was disagreement between the church and Jews as to which prophecies were messianic and to whom such messianic prophecies pointed, but it is generally accepted that both groups accepted the presence of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures.

5 8 For a similar conclusion, see Craig A. Evans, "The Beginning of the Good News and the Fulfillment of Scripture in the Gospel of Mark" in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 93.

5 9 See Mark 1:2-3 and parallels; 12:10 and parallels; Matt 8:17; 12:18-21; Acts 2:25-28, 34-35; Rom 1:2-4; Heb 1:5-14; et al.


of power not only in his defeat of rebellious Jews but also in the defeat of the mighty legions of Vitellius. There was also ample evidence that his rule was the result of providence and divine favor, i.e., prophecies and omens that pointed to his ascension and the supernatural ability to heal. And that he was presently the unrivaled world ruler could not be ignored. For Gentiles who regularly esteemed power as well as the people who held it, Vespasian's credentials would certainly be compelling, especially when compared with the Christian alternative, Jesus of Nazareth.60 He was a man Rome crucified as a criminal, and though Christians claimed he had risen from the dead and now ruled in heaven, he had no tangible kingdom or visible power.61 While the delay of the Parousia was likely not the major crisis in the church that some interpreters have made it out to be, it seems highly plausible that as that delay continued the patience of some church members wore thin.6 2 Vespasian also provided tangible benefits in the here and now. He provided food and money to citizens in need, along with peace and stability for the entire city. Jesus, however, offered no such benefits. In fact, if recent history were any indicator, terrible suffering awaited anyone who followed Jesus. For Christians whose disillusionment and doubt grew with each day the Parousia was delayed, a messianic candidate promising physical blessings in the present instead of persecution no doubt would garner at least some consideration.

With its legitimacy called into question, its evangelistic efforts obstructed, and christological doubts possibly growing among its members, the church faced a significant crisis. It was unlikely to sit idly by while imperial propaganda undermined it. A Christian response would be both needed and forthcoming.

6 0 Greco-Roman society held those with power in high esteem and gave them great honor (e.g., Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, and Empedocles). We see this pattern of esteeming powerful individuals throughout the New Testament (e.g., Simon Magus, Barnabas, and Paul).

6 1 See Martin Hengel's discussion on the cross as an obstacle to Gentile conversion; Hengel, Crucifixion, 1-10.

6 2 For seminal interpreters who conclude the delay of the Parousia played a significant role in the development of early Christianity, see A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (trans. William Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1931), 336-39; M. Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical Study of Its Problem (trans. S. G. F. Brandon; London: A. & C. Black, 1957); et al. For a good critique of these theories, see David Aune, "The Significance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity," in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students (ed. G. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 87-109. Yet there are a number of texts that seem to indicate at least some degree of frustration over the delay of the Parousia; see 2 Pet 3:1-13; Matt 24:45-51/Luke 12:41-48; James 5:8; / Clem. 25:3; 2 Clem. 11-12.

170 Chapter 4

4.2.2 The Aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and Its Impact on the Church in Rome The effects of the Jewish Revolt and the events that it provoked, i.e., the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish temple, were far reaching. After these events, both Judaism and Christianity would never be the same again. Here we will examine the specific effects these events had on the church in Rome: (1) the eschatological perspective and (2) the perception of safety.

Eschatological Anxiety? It is generally recognized that in the first century, one of the church's distinctive traits was an eager expectation of the Parousia and the culmination of the eschaton.63 There was certainly confusion over eschatological realities and how one ought to live in light of those realities (1 Thess 4:13 - 5:11; 1 Cor 7). There also seems to be an intense interest in - as well as confusion over - eschatological signs (2 Thess 1:5 - 2:12; Mark 13:5-8, 28-29 and parallels). We must ask what impact the destruction of Jerusalem would have had upon Christian communities already laden with heavy concerns about the Parousia and the signs of its coming. On the basis of Mark 13:6 ("many will come in my name and say I am he"), some interpreters have suggested that the fall of Jerusalem brought about apocalyptic prophets who proclaimed that the Parousia had already taken place.6 4 While more recent interpreters have rejected this interpretation of Mark 13:6, claiming that it more likely points to false messianic claimants rather than heralds of Christ's return, the notion that Jerusalem's fall caused a spike in eschatological fervor and confusion should be affirmed.65 From a mirror reading of Mark, it seems that cataclysmic events, such as wars, persecutions, famine, and natural disasters, were interpreted by those in the evangelist's community as signs of the end. Certainly the fall of the holy city Jerusalem to pagans and the destruction of the temple - perceived by Jews (and likely some Christians as well) to be the place of God's unique presence on the earth - would be seen in a similar way. These events would certainly increase the eschatological excitement and anxiety in Christian communities. The church in Rome would not be immune to these anxieties. Wars, persecution, famines, and earthquakes were realities of their recent past 6 6 and the fall of Jerusalem and its temple were replayed before

6 3 1 Thess4:13-5:11; 2 Thess 1:5-2:12; 1 Cor 7,15; etal. For a discussion of early Christian expectations of an imminent Parousia, see Wilhelm Thusing, "Erhohungsvorstellung und Parusierwartung in der altesten nachosterlichen Christologie," BZ 12 (1968): 54-80.

6 4 See Kelber, Kingdom in Mark, 115; cf. W. Manson, "The EGO EIMI of the Messianic Presence in the New Testament" JTS 48 (1947): 137-45, esp. 139-40; Lambrecht, Markus-Apokalypse, 100; Pesch, Naherwartungen, 108-12; et al.

6 5 For example, see Evans, Mark, 306; Beasley-Murray, Last Days, 391-94; Morna Hooker, Mark, 306-7; et al.

6 6 The Jewish Revolt had raged for the last four years, and the empire itself had endured


them in the extravagant triumph of Vespasian and Titus.67 In the days and months following the temple's destruction, eschatological tension and confusion was no doubt high among Roman Christians. Given such a situation, it is virtually certain that church leaders would be inundated with eschatological questions. Were these events true indicators of the end? Had the end already come? What signs must still take place? If the end is coming, what should we do? How should we live? Such questions would demand pastoral answers - answers that would maintain order, provide peace of mind, and even prevent potentially rash and dangerous behavior.

Fear of Persecution? . We must also consider the Roman Christians' perception of their safety during the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt. Roman sentiments toward Jews at this time were undoubtedly quite negative.68 These sentiments did not bode well for the church, which at this point in time was still regarded by the Romans as a sect within Judaism.69 We must remember that Jewish messianic hopes

a civil war for the past two years. The Neronian persecution, in which many Christians were betrayed, tried, and executed, had only occurred in the past decade, 64 C.E. Also in the past decade, major cities had experienced earthquakes; Laodicea and Achaea in 60 C.E., Pompeii in 62 C.E., and Rome itself in 68 C.E. (see Suetonius, Galba, 18.1 and Dio, 63.28.1). For discussion of these earthquakes, see A. Hermann, "Erdbeben" RAC 5 (1962): 1070-1113, esp. 1104; Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 23 n. 129; Evans, Mark, 308. As we have already noted, Rome faced a shortage of food during the civil war and had only ten days of grain left when Flavian forces finally took control of the city. Similar shortages plagued the city at the end of Nero's reign; see Suetonius, Nero, 45.1; Dio, 62.18.5; Hengel, Studies, 23 n. 129; E. M. Sanford, "Nero and the East," HSCP 48 (1937): 81, 84.

6 7 See the discussion of the triumph above. For discussion on the eschatological crisis in Rome after the fall of Jerusalem, see Brandon, "Date," 126-41, esp. 130.

6 8 Anti-Jewish sentiment in the Greco-Roman world was quite common; see Robert Lit-tman, "Anti-Semitism in the Greco-Roman Pagan World," in Remembering for the Future, volume 1: Jews and Christians during and after the Holocaust (ed. Yehuda Bauer; Oxford: Pergamom, 1989), 825-35; John Meagher, "As the Twig Was Bent: Anti-semitism in Greco-Roman and Earliest Christian Times," in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (ed. Alan T. Davies; New York: Paulist, 1979), 1-26, esp. 4-12. Robert Goldenberg, Review of J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, RSR 11 (1985): 335-37. That the Jewish Revolt against Rome would exacerbate these sentiments is highly probable. The empire-wide minting of coinage that commemorated the Roman triumph over the Jews and the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus - a tax which all Jews had to pay for the upkeep of the temple of Jupiter in Rome - only confirms a rise in such anti-Jewish sentiments among Romans after the Jewish Revolt; see Tacitus, Hist. 5.2-5.

6 9 It is true that "Christians" were recognized by the Roman state prior to 70 C.E. They were of course singled out by Nero and blamed for fires that destroyed a large part of the city. But this singling out of Christians by the state does not demonstrate that they were at this point recognized as separate from Judaism. In all likelihood, they were seen as a distinct and possibly troublesome sect within Judaism. In the eyes of the state, the "parting of

172 Chapter 4

had been a major catalyst in the Jewish rebellion. The Messiah that the Jews had hoped would free them from their Roman oppressors the church believed had already come, was now ruling in heaven, and would soon return to establish his own kingdom. These beliefs were certainly not sympathetic with Roman imperial power and, given Rome's most recent encounter with mes-siah-crazed Jews, could be perceived as seditious and dangerous by Roman authorities. Certainly the messianic tenets of Christianity were different from those of Jewish rebels in Palestine and in reality posed a much less significant risk to Rome. But that Roman authorities would take the time to sort out the difference could not be counted on. The elevation of a new emperor who had just experienced firsthand the consequences of unchecked messianic fanaticism would likely deepen the church's concern. Would Vespasian tolerate active messianic adherents in the very city in which he was attempting to restore peace and stability? He had just defeated the Jewish rebels in Palestine and paraded many of the prisoners in his extravagant triumph. Could such a terrible fate await Christians who were perceived as seditious? Uncertainty regarding this new ruler's policies toward the church would likely have added to the church's concerns about its own safety.70

We must remember that these events all took place within the shadow of Nero's persecution. Only five years had past since the church in Rome had suffered extreme atrocities at Nero's hand, and the memories of these events were certainly still fresh in their minds. Such past experiences would likely make them keenly aware of the political climate around them and of any signs indicating that similar suffering might lie in their future. Certainly the realities in Rome following the end of the Jewish Revolt, i.e., increased anti-Jewish sentiment, increased sensitivity to messianic movements, and the ascension of a new ruler who might deal harshly with perceived sedition, would cause the church to see itself to be in a precarious situation and to fear Roman aggression.

Admittedly, the unfolding of history proved that the Christians had little to fear from Vespasian. We are aware of no persecution the church suffered under his reign. In fact, he is well spoken of by later church historians.71 But hindsight is always twenty-twenty, and the perception of Vespasian among later believers does not mitigate the possible fears held by believers at his ascension. As we have demonstrated here, there were a number of valid

the ways" between Judaism and Christianity likely did not take place until some point after the Jewish Revolt and perhaps as late as the second century. For various articles on "the parting of the ways," see James Dunn, ed., Jews and Christians: A. D. 70 to 135 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992).

7 0 Harold Mattingly and Brian Incigneri come to similar conclusions regarding the church's situation following the Jewish Revolt; see Mattingly, Christianity in the Roman Empire (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967), 34 and Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 173-177.

7 1 See Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3.17.


reasons why the church in Rome might fear for their safety during the rise of Vespasian and the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt. That their fears turned out to be unfounded is unrelated to the existence of such fears.

4.2.3 Conclusions concerning Mark's Historical Situation Here we have examined the impact of two significant realities (Vespasian's rise to power and the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt) on the church in Rome circa 70 C.E. with the goal of establishing the historical situation in which Mark and his readers found themselves. Our examination has provided us with the following conclusions: (1) Mark's community faced a christological crisis brought about by Vespasian's propaganda; (2) Mark's community faced increased eschatological anxieties and excitement brought about by the Jewish Revolt and the cataclysmic events in which it culminated; and (3) Mark's community perceived that its safety was in jeopardy because of increased anti-Jewish sentiments, Roman distrust of messianic movements, and the rise of a new ruler whose policies toward the church were as yet unknown. We propose that these three conclusions describe the historical situation in which Mark's gospel was composed.

4.3 Comparing a Reconstructed Historical Situation with Indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben

After reconstructing a historical setting for Mark's gospel, we will now compare it with the indicators of the gospel's Sitz im Leben that we established in chapter three. We will determine whether there is consistency between the indicators found in Mark's gospel and our reconstruction of Mark's historical situation. If consistency exists, our reconstruction is validated, and we can use it to formulate a theory regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel.

4.3.1 Imperial Cult Intertwined Messianic Hope In our examination of Mark's incipit, we noted the existence of allusions both to the messianic hopes that are grounded in Deutero-Isaiah and to the Roman imperial cult. While some interpreters have championed one of these backgrounds against the other, we argued that both are appropriate, and that they point to a Sitz im Leben in which both of these realities were intertwined. Such a Sitz im Leben seems to be an unlikely one in the first century. Jewish messianic hopes were hostile to realties like the imperial cult and vice versa. But as we have demonstrated, such a blending is exactly the setting that we find in Rome circa 70 C.E . during Vespasian's rise to power. The Roman emperor, the head of the imperial cult, had infringed on Jewish/Christian messianic hopes by claiming that he was the fulfillment of Jewish messianic

174 Chapter 4

prophecy. It is certainly striking the way Mark's blending of Jewish messianic language with imperial cult language parallels the blending of these same two realities in Vespasian's propaganda. This indicator of Mark's Sitz im Leben is certainly consistent with our proposed historical situation for Mark and his readers.

4.3.2 False Prophets and Messianic Claimants There are also indications in Mark's gospel that his community was facing the threat of false messianic claimants. In the eschatological discourse of Mark 13, Jesus warns his disciples not to be deceived by false christs and false prophets (13:21-22). That these warnings are intended to address the present realities facing Mark's community is generally recognized.72 This threat of false prophets and messiahs is certainly consistent with the setting in Rome circa 70 C.E. Given Vespasian's claim to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, the label "false messiah" would certainly be an appropriate one. We have also noted that Vespasian's rise to power was surrounded by propaganda claiming he was the fulfillment of prophecy. People such as Josephus and the priest at Mt. Carmel had in fact prophesied his rise to power. The Flavian party was promoting these prophecies, and it is likely that the church in Rome knew of them. Those responsible for promulgating these prophecies could easily be identified with the false prophets of Mark's eschatological discourse. Mark's claim that these prophets and messiahs produce convincing signs and omens only establishes a closer connection between Vespasian and Flavian propagandists with the false messiahs and prophets of Mark 13. As we have noted previously, omens that portended Vespasian's identity were numerous and widely circulated in order to establish his legitimacy. Even more significantly, Vespasian himself performed supernatural healings that, if Tacitus is to be believed, were being talked about long after his death. Therefore, it is quite clear that this indicator of Mark's Sitz im Leben (the threat of false messianic claimants and prophets) is consistent with our proposed historical situation for Mark and his readers.

4.3.3 Christology of Power We previously argued that Mark's christological presentation is primarily one of power rather than one of the cross. However, we noted that this fact provides us with only a very general indicator for Mark's Sitz im Leben because it indicated only a setting in which a Christology of power might be either needed or wanted by Mark's community. Certainly such a general feature could be found in a number of different settings in the life of the first-century church.73 But what is important for our purposes is that this indicator is

7 2 Marcus, Mark, 78; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 378-82; van Iersel, Mark, 391-93; et al.

7 3 For example, Gundry argues that such a Christology serves as an apology for the cross to non-believing Gentiles; Gundry, Apology, esp. 1-21.


consistent with our proposed historical setting. We argued that due to Vespasian's convincing credentials, i.e., his military power, prophecies and portents predicting/validating his reign, supernatural healings, and his current position as ruler of the world, some members of the church might question their Christian commitments. This situation would demand a compelling Christian response demonstrating that Jesus' credentials were more compelling than Vespasian's, i.e., it would demand a compelling Christology of power. Again there is consistency between this indicator of Mark's Sitz im Leben and our proposed historical setting.

4.3.4 Persecuted Community In our examination of Mark's presentation of discipleship we noted many features indicating a context of persecution and suffering for Mark's community. Mark's Jesus tells the crowds and his disciples, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" (8:34). In the eschatological discourse, Jesus foretells future suffering: "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them" (13:9). It is only "the one who endures to the end" (13:13) who will be saved. These and many other passages indicate that Mark's community was either currently suffering or anticipated suffering in the near future.74 Such a climate of suffering is consistent with the historical situation of the church in Rome circa 70 C.E. Not only was suffering a reality of the church's recent past, but the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and the rise of a new emperor again placed the church in a precarious position, one in which their physical safety was a legitimate concern. Following the Jewish Revolt, anti-Jewish sentiments were likely at an all time high in Rome - sentiments that were also likely fueled by Vespasian's extravagant triumph celebrating the event. Because the church was still officially under the umbrella of Judaism, such sentiments were likely directed at them as well. The church was also a thoroughly messianic movement living in the wake of a rebellion fueled to a large degree by messianic fervor. In the eyes of the Roman state, such a movement could easily be labeled as seditious, and its members could be justifiably punished. A new Roman emperor only further increased the

7 4 See H. R. Graham, "A Markan Theme: Endurance in Time of Persecution," TBT 23 (1985): 297-304; idem, "A Passion Prediction for Mark's Community: Mark 13:9-13," BTB 16 (1986): 18-22; P. S. Pudussery, Discipleship: A Call to Suffering and Glory: An Exe-getico-Theological Study of Mark 8,27-9,1; 13,9-13 and 13:24-27 (Rome: Libreria "Alma Mater," 1987), 141-97; J. Verheyden, "Persecution and Eschatology. Mk 13,9-13," in The Four Gospels 1992 (F. van Segbroek ed.; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992), 1141-59; Moloney, Mark, 256-58; Hooker, St. Mark, 309-13; Marcus, Mark, 28-29; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 32-4; et al.

176 Chapter 4

uncertainty surrounding the church's safety. Given the manner in which he had dealt with messianic extremists in Palestine, there was certainly reason for a messianic movement in Rome to fear for its safety. In light of these realities, there is reason to believe that a church that had suffered past persecution would perceive the real possibility of immediate future suffering. Therefore, the indicators in Mark's gospel that he is writing to a community facing the threat of physical persecution are consistent with our proposed historical setting.

4.3.5 Wavering Disciples Mark's presentation of discipleship also indicates that there were disciples within Mark's community who were wavering in their faith in Jesus. Mark places a heavy emphasis on disciples needing both to recognize Jesus' true identity and, based on that recognition, to exercise faith in him (4:35-41; 6:45-52; 8:14-20, 27-38; 10:46-52). Such an emphasis indicates that members in Mark's community needed to hear this message because of their deficiency in these areas.75 The problem of disciples wavering in their faith commitments and failing to recognize Jesus' true identity is consistent with the problems facing the church in Rome circa 70 C.E. We have noted that some members of the church in Rome likely found compelling Vespasian's claims to fulfill messianic prophecy. As a result, these members may have considered abandoning their faith commitments to Jesus and rejecting him as God's Messiah. The Markan features that indicate that the evangelist is writing to wavering disciples again are consistent with our proposed historical setting.

4.3.6 Eschatological Confusion Mark's eschatological instruction indicates that eschatological confusion existed in his community. In Mark's eschatological discourse, Jesus begins by describing "birth pangs" that will precede the end but is careful to communicate that these are not signs of the imminent end. The end will not come until the "abomination of desolation," an unmistakable sign, appears. This instruction from Jesus is certainly meant for Mark's community, and we can assume that it indicates their confusion over eschatological signs as well as a need for correction and clarification. Such eschatological confusion is consistent with the historical situation of the church in Rome circa 70 C.E. As we previously argued, the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt (and the cataclysmic events in which it culminated) would have been interpreted by many as signs of the imminent Parousia. As a result, eschatological fervor and confusion would have been greatly heightened, and questions regarding eschatological signs would demand pastoral answers. Clearly this eschatological confusion

7 5 Cf. Marcus, Mark, 78.


in the church in Rome is consistent with indicators of eschatological confusion in Mark's gospel.

4.3.7 Summarizing Comparisons After comparing the Markan indicators of the gospel's Sitz im Leben with our own reconstruction of the evangelist's historical situation, we find that there is remarkable consistency. While some of these indicators could certainly find parallels in alternative settings, there are very few settings that could accommodate all six of these indicators. Some of these indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben seem to find unique parallels in the church in Rome circa 70 C.E., in particular the intertwining of Jewish messianic hope and the Roman imperial cult. Likewise, the threat of false messiahs and false prophets, who provide convincing signs and wonders, distinctly parallels the threat that Flavian propaganda posed to the church. In light of this consistency between the realities of Mark's gospel and our reconstruction of the historical situation facing the church in Rome circa 70 C.E., we will maintain this setting in our continued efforts to determine the purpose of Mark's gospel.

Chapter 5

Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation

5.1 Introduction

Up to this point, we have characterized the major features of Mark's gospel and sought to provide a plausible historical setting for its author and readers. In this chapter, we will combine the results of these studies in order to posit a theory regarding the gospel's ultimate purpose. We will examine each major Markan feature individually, i.e., the incipit, Christology, presentation of discipleship, and eschatology, in order to determine how that feature might address the historical situation of the evangelist's community. The results of each individual examination should provide us with an understanding of each feature's purpose. An understanding of the gospel's ultimate purpose should emerge through combining the results of these examinations.

5.2 Reading Mark's Incipit in Light of Mark's Historical Situation

The new Roman emperor Vespasian created a christological crisis for Mark's community. Along with his claims to be the divinely appointed ruler of the world, he claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy - prophecy that the church believed had been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. The emperor's claims call into question the legitimacy of the church's faith. If Vespasian truly is the fulfillment of Jewish messianic hopes, then Jesus is not. Such claims would likely hinder the church's evangelistic efforts but even more importantly would likely cause church members to question their faith commitments. As we argued above, Vespasian's claims and credentials would have been quite compelling.1

1 Here we must note that Craig A. Evans also reads Mark's gospel against the background of Flavian propaganda. Therefore, some of the conclusion found in this chapter parallel those of Evans. It should be noted that these parallel conclusions arose independently of each other, and that Evans' essay was published only a month before this project was sub-

Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 179

It is against this backdrop that we read Mark's incipit. In his incipit, Mark claims that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God and that his text is the beginning of this euayyeXiov or "good news" of the Messiah. In our previous discussion of the incipit, we argued that it contains allusions, to both messianic hopes (particularly rooted in Deutero-Isaiah) and the Roman imperial cult. In Deutero-Isaiah the euayye\i£6 | jevog or "the one who proclaims good news" is the one who announces God's victory over his enemies and the beginning of God's rule over Israel. Through this allusion, Mark's incipit connects the one who proclaims the good news of God's reign with Jesus the Messiah. In the Greco-Roman world, the "beginning of the good news" was language used in association with an emperor's birth or his rise to power, but in Mark's incipit, it is used in association with Jesus' identity as Messiah and Son of God.2

When read in light of the christological crisis facing Mark's community, a purpose of Mark's incipit becomes clear. The incipit can be read as a bold and carefully crafted response to the claims of Flavian propaganda. By proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah, Mark's incipit clearly rejects the Flavian claim that Vespasian fulfilled messianic prophecy. The allusion to Deutero-Isaiah and the "one who proclaims good news" would, for the observant reader, reinforce the church's belief that Jesus - and not the current emperor - was the fulfillment of Jewish scriptures. The prophecies in verses 2-3 would aid in accomplishing this same goal. However, the allusion to the imperial cult would be even more striking to Roman readers. Mark's use of imperial language to describe Jesus would appear as a challenge to Roman imperial power. Mark is placing Jesus in the context that one would expect to find the Roman emperor and is, in essence, claiming the superiority of Jesus' identity and reign to the emperor's.3 The incipit, therefore, is not only defensive - claiming Jesus and not Vespasian as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy - but also offensive - claiming Jesus' superiority to the Roman emperor.

Given our reconstructed historical situation, the meaning of Mark's incipit would have been clear to Mark's readers. Jesus is God's Messiah and the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy. He is also superior to the one who is trying to usurp his identity, the new emperor Vespasian. From this incipit, the reader would likely expect the rest of the gospel to substantiate these claims and to address the christological crisis that these claims had created.

mitted as a dissertation. However, for the reader's sake, these parallel conclusions will be duely noted. See Evans, "Fulfillment of Scripture," 83-103.

2 See discussion in chapter three pages 92-99 on Mark's incipit; cf. Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 122; Evans, "Mark's Incipit," 67-81; idem, "Fulfillment of Scripture," 83-103; Witherington, Mark, 67-70; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary, esp. 169.

3 See Peter Bolt, Jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 45; Evans, "Incipit," 67-81; idem, "Fulfillment of Scripture," 87.

180 Chapter 5

5.3 Reading Mark's Christology in Light of Mark's Historical Setting

If Mark's objective is to present Jesus as God's Messiah who is superior to the Roman emperor, Christology will be his primary means of accomplishing it. As we argued in the previous chapter, Vespasian's claim that he fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecy was supported by the emperor's impressive resume: (1) he was the unchallenged ruler of the Roman world; (2) he had demonstrated remarkable military power and currently commanded all of Rome's mighty legions; (3) portents, prophecies, and oracles indicated his divine right to rule; (4) by this divine right he was able to perform miraculous healings; (5) through generous gifts to the people of Rome, he presented himself as an ideal benefactor; (6) he had restored peace and order to the empire; and (7) despite his great accomplishments and power he exhibited Augustan humility and imperial virtue that impressed Roman sensibilities. Against this resume, we will examine the various aspects of Mark's Christology and demonstrate how they might function as a resume countering Vespasian's.

5 . 5 . 7 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Identity As we sought to establish previously, the three major titles Mark uses to identify Jesus are Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man. We noted that all three titles unite around the common theme of kingship. The Jewish Messiah was commonly conceptualized as God's king who would rule over Israel. That Mark shares such a messianic conception is evidenced by his use of Son of God. In both Mark 1:11 and 9:2, the evangelist makes it clear that he understands Jesus' identity as God's son in terms of Psalm 2:7, a royal coronation psalm for the king of Israel.4 The Markan Jesus is therefore God's messianic son who will rule over Israel on God's behalf. Jesus' identity as king is also confirmed by Mark's use of "Son of Man." Mark clearly understands this "title" in light of Daniel 7:13 (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62), and he has identified Jesus as the "one like a son of man" upon whom God confers dominion and kingship.5

Mark does not simply see Jesus as a local king, however. Rather, he sees him as the king over the entire world. While the Jewish Messiah was commonly understood as the king of Israel, it was also commonly believed that he would subdue the kings of the world and rule over them.6 While Mark's use of

4 See Evans, Mark, 38; Marcus, Mark, 162,165-66; Gundry, Apology, 49; Collins, "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews," HTR 92:4 (1999): 394-95; et al.

5 See our previous discussion in chapter three pages 102-107. Also see Achtemeier, "Mark," 4.552-53; Collins, "The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament," in Daniel (ed. John J. Collins; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 90-112.

6 Psalm 2:7-8; Hag 2:21-24; Zech 9:9-10; and Dan 7:13-14 are all texts that reflect the belief that God would establish a representative (whether heavenly or human) who would


the title "Son of God" clearly has its origins in Jewish messianic thought, the title would have had broader implications for Mark's Roman readers.7 As we noted in chapter three, "Son of God" was a title commonly adopted by world rulers, especially the Roman emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.8 Given the situation of Mark's community and the close association between Roman emperors and the title/concept "Son of God," Mark's readers cannot help but see the parallel that the evangelist has created between Jesus as "Son of God" and the emperor as "Son of God." With the title "Son of God," Mark, in the eyes of his Roman readers, places Jesus in the same category as the great world rulers both past and present, including Roman emperors. "Son of Man" also implies a world ruler and not a local one. In Daniel 7:13-14, the kingship given by God to the "one like a son of man" encompasses "all peoples, nations, and languages." Mark, therefore, identifies Jesus not only as the Jewish Messiah but as a world ruler.9

The identity of Jesus in Mark directly opposes both Vespasian's propa-gandistic claims and his imperial identity. Mark presents Jesus as Messiah, rejecting the Flavian propaganda that Vespasian was the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy. But he goes a step further by presenting Jesus as the ruler of the world and, in doing so, usurps Vespasian's claim to that position. Jesus' christological identity in Mark is therefore consistent with the message of Mark's incipit, and it continues Mark's resistance to Flavian propaganda. He boldly proclaims to his readers that Jesus is God's Messiah and the true ruler of the world. However, some members of Mark's community may have doubted these christological claims. Mark would need to offer further substantiation to convince such wavering members.

One way Mark substantiates Jesus' identity is through divine confirmation. Mark presents two stories in which a divine voice confirms that Jesus is God's son (1:11; 9:7). As we have noted previously, the language of these accounts echoes Psalm 2, a royal coronation Psalm, and identifies Jesus as God's king and Messiah. But while this Jewish context was likely the primary influence in the development and original meaning of these traditions, these stories take on additional significance for Mark's Roman readers. Divine appointment was an important element in Flavian propaganda. Vespasian's rise to the principate had essentially been promised by the oracle on Mt. Carmel. The legitimacy of his rule was confirmed by a vision in the temple of Serapis.

rule the entire world. We know that the church read these passages messianically, and it is likely that other first-century Jews did so as well. Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 49:11; T. Jud. 24:1-6; and 2 Bar. 72 all affirm the belief that the Messiah will subdue the nations and rule over them.

7 See our previous discussion on Son of God in chapter three pages 100-102. See Collins, "The Son of God among Greeks and Romans," 85-100; Kim, "Anarthrous," 221-41; Evans, Mark, lxxxi-lxxxiv.

8 See Kim, "Anarthrous," 221-41; Evans, Mark, lxxxii-lxxxiv. 9 See Achtemeier, "Mark," 553.

182 Chapter 5

Mark's accounts of Jesus' divine confirmation could be read as a response to such propaganda. While oracles and visions pointed to Vespasian's rise to the principate, Jesus had direct divine confirmation of his identity. Such divine confirmation clearly trumps Vespasian's experience and furthers Mark's claim that Jesus is God's Messiah and the true world ruler.

Excursus: Mark's use of "Son of God" in light of a polemic against Vespasian We have recognized that "Son of God" seems to be the evangelist's favorite christological identity for Jesus.10 It occurs at a number of significant points and on the lips of significant witnesses throughout the gospel. The gospel opens with this title in its incipit (1:1). At two significant points, Jesus' baptism (1:11) and his transfiguration (9:7), God himself identifies Jesus as his son. Demons, which presumably have supernatural knowledge, also recognize Jesus as God's son (3:11; 5:7). When asked by the high priest if he was the "son of the blessed," Jesus answers affirmatively (though perhaps evasively [14:62]). Finally, at the culmination of Jesus' crucifixion, he is proclaimed "Son of God" by a Roman centurion (15:39). But what is the importance of this title, and how does it serve to combat the christological crisis facing Mark's community? We already recognized that to a Greco-Roman reader identifying Jesus as "Son of God" would have placed him in the company of the great rulers of the world, including Roman emperors. But is the extent of the title's purpose to communicate that Jesus is a rival to the current world ruler? Here we suggest that Mark's use of the title is more skillful and precise in its response to his community's crisis and to the emperor that created it. As we noted previously, one of the liabilties in Vespasian's resume was his ignoble ancestry. His paternal line was of plebian origin at best, with some suggesting his family came from Gaul.11 Unlike the prestigious Julio-Clau-dian dynasty, Vespasian could lay no claim to divinity in his family bloodline. It is not surprising then that title "Son of God" does not appear in Vespasian's titles. It was not a claim which he could make.12 Mark's presentation of Jesus' divine sonship and the prominent place he gives to the title "Son of God" might be read as an attempt by the evangelist to exploit a weakness in Vespasian's imperial resume; namely, his inability to provide a divine lineage. Such divine lineage was a valuable trait and one commonly attributed to ancient rulers. Alexander the Great was identified as "son of Ammon" ("son

1 0 See our discussion on Son of God in chapter three pages 100-102. 11 Cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 1.4; See Levick, Vespasian, 6. 1 2 In fact, Vespasian rejected fabricated claims that linked him with the god Hercules;

Suetonius, Vesp. 12.1.

Reading Marks Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 183

of Zeus" in Greek), and the Julii family claimed to be descendants of Venus.13

Though Vespasian could promote his reign as the result of divine appointment and claim to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, he lacked the proper pedigree. However, Mark demonstrates to his Roman readers that Jesus does not. On two separate occasions, God himself declared Jesus to be his son. In addition, supernatural powers (3:11; 5:7) and a Roman centurion (15:39) recognized this identity. By emphasizing Jesus' divine sonship, Mark strengthens Jesus' legitimacy (as well as the church's legitimacy) while drawing attention to realities that weaken Vespasian's legitimacy. Therefore, we conclude that the title "Son of God" and the concept of divine sonship are tools the evangelist used in his polemic against Vespasian.14

5.3.2 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Presentation In our previous discussion of Mark's christological presentation, we argued for a Christology of power over a Christology of the cross. Such a presentation makes sense in light of the christological crisis facing Mark's community. Members of Mark's community questioned the legitimacy of Jesus' identity and were compelled by the credentials of the powerful emperor Vespasian. To sway his readers and reestablish Jesus' legitimacy, a powerful presentation of Jesus would be needed. Mark must demonstrate that Jesus' resume surpasses Vespasian's, and that it substantiates Jesus' identity as God's Messiah and world ruler. Here we will examine the components of Mark's christological presentation and illustrate the way in which they accomplished these Markan objectives.

Powerful Exorcist One of Jesus' most remarkable powers is his power over supernatural forces, i.e., demons. Remarkably, Jesus is able to exorcise demons by audible command alone and does not need the aid of formulas and incantations, nor does he need to call on higher powers. Such power over the supernatural realm would have been highly impressive to Mark's Roman audience. It is also a power that Vespasian lacked. Mark makes it clear to his readers that the emperor's power is limited to the earthly sphere, but Jesus' power extends into the supernatural sphere.

1 3 See Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (London: Allan Lane, 1973), 200-212; J. R. Hamilton, Alexander the Great (London: Hutchinson, 1973), 75-77; Collins, "Greeks and Romans," 87.

1 4 We certainly acknowledge that the "Son of God" traditions in Mark have Jewish origins, and for the evangelist, they have not lost their messianic flavor. But here we argue that Mark also uses these traditions and the implications they would have for a Greco-Roman audience to advance his polemic against Flavian propaganda. We have already noted Collins, "Greeks and Romans," 85-100; Kim, "Anarthrous," 221-42; and Evans, Mark, lxxxi-lxxxiv who all note the significance of the title "son of God" in the Greco-Roman world.

184 Chapter 5

1 5 During the first century, a Roman legion consisted of between 5000 and 6000 soldiers, the majority of which were infantry. R. Guelich claims 6000 (Mark, 281), while Joel Marcus claims 5000 (Mark, 344-45); cf. David Kennedy ("Roman Army," ABD 5.789-90) who notes both possibilities. For interpreters who argue that Mark is intentionally alluding to Roman military power, see Horsley, The Politics of Plot, 140-41; Myers, Strong Man, 190-92; Marcus, Mark, 251-52; Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 314.

1 6 Tacitus, Hist. 4.81.

Of particular interest, is Mark's encounter with the Gerasene demoniac. Many scholars have discussed the significance of the demon's name, "Legion." Some interpreters have argued that Mark used the name purposefully to allude to Roman imperial power, a power which certainly depended on its many legions.15 In light of a Markan polemic against Vespasian, such a political interpretation takes on new significance, as an obvious parallel between Jesus and Vespasian surfaces. One of Vespasian's great strengths was his military prowess and power. All the might of the Roman legions was under his control, available to do his bidding. In this pericope, Mark presents Jesus as the commander of legions, but legions of demons rather than of Roman soldiers. While Vespasian commands the armies of the physical realm, Jesus has the power to command more powerful armies, those of the supernatural realm.

Mark's presentation of Jesus as an exorcist shows that the sphere of Jesus' power is greater than Vespasian's. The emperor's power is limited to the natural world, while Jesus' power extends to the supernatural world. In one particular exorcism story - the healing of the Gerasene demoniac - we see a unique detail that seems tailor-made for a Markan polemic against Vespasian. This pericope could be read as a Markan response to Vespasian's awesome military might, one of the more compelling features of the new emperor's resume. Because Jesus' resume clearly lacks such military prestige, Mark cleverly takes Jesus' power as an exorcist and portrays it through a military motif. Unlike Vespasian, Jesus never commanded military legions, but even more impressively, he did command legions of powerful demons.

Powerful Healer Another component in Mark's Christology of power is Jesus' remarkable power to heal. There are in fact more healing pericopes than any other type of pericope in Mark's gospel. As we noted earlier, the Markan Jesus heals a variety of maladies; blindness, deafness, skin disease, paralysis, and deformities. He even reverses death. Mark's presentation of Jesus as a healer can also be seen as a polemic against Vespasian. We noted previously that Vespasian, unlike any other first-century emperor, was credited with the healing of two men, one who was blind and another who had a deformed hand. These events were a significant piece of Flavian propaganda and, according to Tacitus, were spoken of long after Vespasian's death.16 Mark's strong emphasis on Jesus' power as a healer trumps this piece of Flavian propaganda. It would be


quite clear to Mark's readers that Vespasian's powers as a healer pale in comparison to Jesus'. Interestingly, two of Mark's healing pericopes parallel the exact healings Vespasian performed. In Mark 3:1-6, Jesus heals a man with a withered hand. Unlike Vespasian, Jesus does not touch the hand but heals it with his words alone. If a parallel to Vespasian's miracle is intended, Jesus' manner of healing might be viewed as superior to Vespasian's.

Mark also records two stories in which Jesus heals a blind man. The first story has remarkable similarity to the accounts of Vespasian's healings. In Mark 8:22-26, Jesus, like Vespasian, heals a blind man by placing his own saliva on the man's eyes. Many interpreters have noted the similarities between these two healing accounts, but none has argued for a substantial relationship between them.17 Most interpreters use the Vespasian account as evidence that spittle/saliva was commonly regarded as a healing agent in the ancient world, locating Jesus' actions in the world of ancient medicine. But if our reconstructed historical setting is correct, and Mark is responding to a christological crisis created by Flavian propaganda - propaganda that includes these healings - a more substantial relationship between these two accounts seems probable. Mark's readers would certainly have seen the similarity between this Markan account and the recent reports of Vespasian's healings. The temporal proximity of Mark's composition and Vespasian's healings makes it highly plausible that the evangelist purposefully created a parallel with this Flavian propaganda. By including miracles stories that parallel the actions of the emperor (3:1-6; 8:22-26), Mark is able to highlight the polemical purpose of all his healing pericopes. He not only demonstrates for his readers that Jesus had already performed these remarkable healings performed by Vespasian, but also that Jesus performed even more miracles, many of which surpassed those of the emperor. Mark's presentation of Jesus as a healer, therefore, undermines Vespasian's resume and bolsters Jesus'.18

Power over Nature Jesus' power over nature is another significant component in Mark's Christology of power. The Markan Jesus is able to calm both winds and waves with audible commands and to walk on water. The ancient world had a fear of great lakes and seas. The belief in great sea monsters and temperamental sea gods along with the reality of villainous pirates and frequent shipwrecks nurtured and justified such a fear. Jesus' power to subdue this treacherous and chaotic environment would have greatly impressed Mark's Roman audience. It

1 7 See Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:418, nn. 9-12; Guelich, Mark, 395, 435; Bolt, Persuading, 215; Hooker, Mark, 198-99; Witherington, Mark, 239. Recently, Brian Incigneri has suggested a more substantial relationship between these Markan miracles and those of Vespasian - namely that these Markan miracles could function to counter Flavian propaganda; see Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 170-71.

1 8 Evans also notes these parallels as well; see "Fulfillment of Scripture," 95.

186 Chapter 5

would also have served Mark well in a polemic against Vespasian. The motif of calming and controlling the seas was commonly associated with ancient rulers. Emperor Augustus personally claimed that he made the sea peaceful by ridding it of pirates (Res Gestae, 4.25). Echoing this achievement, Philo writes, "This is the Caesar [Augustus] who calmed the torrential storms on every side . . . This is he who cleared the sea of pirate ships and filled it with merchant vessels" (Philo, Embassy, 145-46 [Colson, LCL]). Augustus' acts are not supernatural (though they are metaphorically compared to lulling of storms), but by ridding the sea of pirates he is credited with bringing peace to the seas.19 A closer parallel to Jesus' supernatural acts comes from a description of Antiochus IV: "Thus he who only a little while before had thought in his superhuman arrogance that he could command the waves of the sea . . . was brought down to earth . . . " (2 Mac 9.8). Here there appears to be a tradition that Antiochus IV believed himself to have the power to control the sea. It is in light of these types of motifs, with which Mark's Roman readers were presumably familiar, that we can adduce a polemical reading of Jesus' power over the sea. 2 0 By presenting Jesus with this power, Mark places him alongside other great rulers who were associated with controlling and calming the seas. But unlike previous rulers, Jesus' power over the sea is not metaphorical or hyperbolic flattery, rather it is literal and twice evidenced through powerful demonstrations.21 Clearly this power over nature is a credential greater than any Vespasian held. It was also further evidence to Mark's readers of Jesus' superiority and his true identity as world ruler.22

Powerful Prophet Another component of Mark's Christology of power is Jesus' prophetic ability. A number of Jesus' prophecies find their fulfillment in Mark's gospel, i.e., his betrayal by Judas (14:17-21), Peter's denial and the specific circum-

1 9 For further discussion on the motif of "peaceful seas" in Augustan language, see Bolt, Persuading, 12-34.

2 0 Both Bolt (Persuading, 134-35) and Wendy Cotter (Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of the New Testament Miracle Stories [London: Routledge, 1999], 131-48) conclude that Mark's readers would be familiar with such sea motifs and would no doubt read Mark's sea narratives in light of them.

2 1 Bolt makes this same point; Persuading, 134. 2 2 Here we must offer a brief caveat. Up to this point we have argued that a number of

Markan motifs, his presentation of Jesus as an exorcist, healer, and one who holds power over nature, function as polemics against the imperial cult. We are not arguing that these traditions were created to serve such a purpose but that the evangelist has used them for such a purpose. Our concern is the way in which Mark's readers would hear such motifs and how those motifs would inform the current crisis Mark's community was facing. For similar discussion on the way in which Markan imagery, language, and motifs would function for Mark's Greco-Roman readers, see Collins, "Greeks and Romans," 85-100; Bolt, Persuading.


stances surrounding it, the abandonment of his disciples, and his own death. These prophecies emphasized to Mark's readers Jesus' prophetic power. Jesus confirmed this power by predicting the temple's destruction, an event which occurred long after Jesus' death and one which Mark's readers had only recently witnessed. Such a body of prophetic work would have been impressive to Mark's readers. Romans gave great respect and deference to people or powers that could foretell future events. People commonly consulted oracles, astrologers, or priests to gain insights into their futures.23 One who could provide such information with accuracy was highly esteemed and recognized to have divine power.24 Vespasian himself, though he banned all astrologers from Rome, kept one for his own personal purposes.2 5

It is interesting to note that while Vespasian was forced to consult oracles and astrologers regarding his future, Jesus had no need for these things. Through his prophetic power, he saw his future clearly. Whether Mark intended such a contrast is questionable, but it is certainly one that a careful Roman reader could have ascertained. Yet regardless of whether such a contrast was intended, Jesus' power as a prophet is a power Vespasian clearly lacked. Therefore, this Markan motif further established Jesus' superiority over the new emperor.

While the body of Jesus' prophetic work further demonstrates Jesus' superiority over Vespasian, we must also consider the way in which specific prophecies might address the crisis facing Mark's community. The prophecy of the temple's destruction is of particular interest. We noted above that this prophecy would have impressed Mark's readers in whose recent past it had been fulfilled and likely served to confirm Jesus' prophetic power. But it may also have a specific function in Mark's polemic against Vespasian. We must remember that it was Vespasian who was ultimately responsible for the temple's destruction (though it was physically overseen by his son Titus) and who, along with his son, received credit for it. Vespasian's victory over the Jews, which culminated in the temple's destruction, was a significant element of his compelling resume. It was the great Flavian power, as depicted in Vespasian's triumphal procession, that subdued the Jewish people, conquered the holy city Jerusalem, and destroyed its holy temple. But Jesus' prophecy of the temple's destruction undermines this Flavian power and places it under the dominion

2 3 On oracles in the Greco-Roman world, see R. Parker, "Oracles," OCD, 1071-72; H. W. Parke, Greek Oracles (London: Hutchinson, 1967). On astrology in the Greco-Roman world, see Roger Beck, "Astrology," OCD, 195; F. Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans (London: Putnam, 1912); P. I. H. Naylor, Astrology: An Historical Investigation (London: Robert Maxwell, 1967), 33-38; T. S. Barton, Ancient Astrology (London: Rutledge, 1994). Also see David Potter, Prophets and Emperors (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994).

2 4 See Gundry, Apology, 428. 2 5 See Tacitus, Hist. 2.78.1; to "Dio, 65 (66).9.2; Levick, Vespasian, 69-70.

188 Chapter 5

of God's Messiah. Vespasian becomes merely an instrument used for enacting Jesus' prophecy. Ironically Vespasian's great accomplishment only further demonstrates Jesus' power and actually places Vespasian's accomplishments under that power.

Another important prophecy we must consider is Jesus' prophecy that he would return from heaven, presumably to judge and rule the world (Mark 13:26).26 This is the only prophecy in Mark's gospel that remains unfulfilled for Mark's readers, and its validity is essential to Mark's polemic. A great weakness in Jesus' resume is his physical absence and the delay in his promised return. Presumably, a world ruler who is physically present is easier to accept than one who is absent. But Mark's presentation of Jesus as a successful prophet calls his readers to be patient. Jesus has clearly proven himself to be a trustworthy prophet, and like all the other events that he prophesied, his return would come. Jesus' track record as a prophet reinforces for Mark's community that Jesus would return and warns those who were wavering in their faith to be patient.

Powerful Benefactor One of the most important virtues of a Roman emperor was his love for his people.27 This love was demonstrated through the bestowing of gifts and the provision of their physical needs. As we noted above, Vespasian demonstrated this virtue, and it was one of the factors that endeared him to Rome's citizens. His provision of grain and money established him as a true benefactor of the city and affirmed him as a worthy and noble emperor. Here we will argue that the evangelist responds to this Flavian strength and advances his polemic against Vespasian by presenting Jesus as a superior benefactor.

Two pericopes that can be read against the backdrop of imperial benefaction are the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand (Mark 6:30-44; 8:1-10). While interpreters have read these pericopes against a variety of backgrounds, (e.g., heavenly manna, the Eucharist, and Elisha motifs), few have recognized their clear depiction of Jesus as an ideal benefactor. In both pericopes, Jesus is able to provide food to people who are in need of it and in doing so models the virtue of imperial benefaction. Mark even highlights Jesus' motivation for providing food, namely his compassion for the people's situation (8:2). Interestingly, a ruler's compassion for his people

2 6 That Mark foresees Jesus' glorious return from heaven seems undeniable. That this return will bring with it the consummation of the kingdom of God, a kingdom in which Jesus, "the Son of Man" will rule, seems to be a certain Markan expectation. See Evans, Mark, 330. France's argument that Mark 13:26 refers to Jesus' ascension to heaven at Jerusalem's fall is unconvincing; Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1971), 227-39; idem, Mark, 530-37. See Gundry's critique, Apology, 784.

2 7 See Charlesworth, "Virtues of a Roman Emperor, "105-33, esp. 111-12; Stevenson, "Ideal Benefactor," 421-36.


is the proper motivation for his role as benefactor.28 In light of their current situation, Mark's Roman readers could certainly have perceived a parallel between the benefaction of Jesus and that of Vespasian, i.e., both are able to provide food in a time of need. However, Jesus' ability as benefactor is clearly superior. This superiority is demonstrated through the miraculous nature of Jesus' benefaction. Not only was he able to satisfy everyone with a scant amount of food, but after doing so, an abundance of food still remained. While Vespasian could secure Egyptian grain for Roman citizens, i.e., take from abundance to address scarcity, Jesus could multiply grain from virtually nothing, i.e., take from scarcity and provide an abundance. These feeding narratives, therefore, present Jesus, whom Mark is presenting as God's Messiah and the true world ruler, as a compassionate and powerful benefactor, one superior to Vespasian.29

While the feeding narratives demonstrate Jesus to be a physical benefactor, there is a strong Markan motif that presents Jesus as a spiritual benefactor as well. Mark presents Jesus' death as a voluntary act performed for the benefit of humanity, i.e., the subjects of the true ruler of the world. The Markan Jesus tells his disciples that he "gives his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). This sentiment is reiterated at the last supper where Jesus tells his disciples "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many" (14:24). Again, Jesus' death is for the benefit of many. But here an allusion to atonement seems clear. A reference to the pouring out of blood in the context of the Passover meal is certainly related to the concept of atonement.30 Therefore, Mark is presenting Jesus' death as an act providing atonement and forgiveness for humanity's sin. Through this motif, Mark presents Jesus as a spiritual benefactor. He is willing to give up his life so that his "subjects" can receive atonement for their sins.

As a spiritual benefactor, Jesus is certainly superior to Vespasian. Vespasian is able to give physical blessings, but only Jesus is able to bestow more valuable spiritual blessings. Through this motif, Mark reminds the wavering members of his community of the intangible blessing they risk losing, namely the atonement of their sin. While Vespasian's benefaction may seem appealing, the wavering members of Mark's community will be abandoning the

2 8 See Charlesworth, "Virtues," 113—14; Stevenson, "Benefactor," 426-27. 2 9 Again, we are not arguing that the feeding tradition was created to address the crisis

of Mark's community. As we noted in our earlier discussion of this tradition (see chapter three), originally it was likely shaped and understood in light of motifs from Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., manna from heaven or Elisha's multiplication of loaves). The tradition also may have had Eucharistic implications. But here we are suggesting that Mark has used this tradition in his polemic against Vespasian with the intention of depicting Jesus as a powerful benefactor.

3 0 See Evans, Mark, 394; Hooker, St. Mark, 343; France, Mark, 570-71; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 396; et al.

190 Chapter 5

greater benefactor, who cannot only provide for their physical needs but for their spiritual needs as well.

Imperial Modesty As we noted previously, modesty was a characteristic that Romans desired in their emperor. Roman ideology held that the emperor was the first among equals and an emperor's recognition of this reality was often essential to his popularity, longevity, and legacy.31 The history of early Roman emperors shows us a clear pattern. Rulers who sought absolute power and elevated their own persona over their fellow countrymen often met with a tragic end and a tarnished legacy. Julius Caesar is the archetype for such a ruler. He allowed the senate to confer upon himself divine honors, an act that elevated himself above his fellow Romans and offended their sensibilities.32 Though he refused the title king outwardly, his actions and the extravagant powers and honors conferred to him by the senate made it clear to all that he was a monarch in all ways but his title. These actions offended Roman sensibilities and ultimately led to Caesar's famous assassination by the senate.33 Similarly, Gaius Caligula claimed divine status, had a temple erected to himself, and required Roman citizens to worship him. 3 4 He is also accused by Suetonius to be the first emperor to turn the principate into an absolute monarchy.35 After a brief four year reign, Caligula, like Julius Caesar was also assassinated. He left a shameful legacy marked by accusations of both insanity and tyranny.36

In contrast, rulers who respected their position as first among equals (even if in reality they were not truly equals) were reluctant to accept power and recognition, and placed Roman ideology before their own persona, gained the favor of both the Roman senate and citizenry, enjoyed longevity, and left an esteemed legacy. Augustus is the clear archetype for such a ruler. After his defeat of Mark Antony, with absolute power at his fingertips, Augustus modestly and judiciously refused the senate's conferment of such power, showing

3 1 For discussion on Rome's animosity toward monarchs, see A. Wallace-Hadrill, "Civi-lis Princeps: Between Citizen and King," JRS 72 (1982): 32-48, esp. 41-4.

3 2 For discussion on Julius Caesar's divine honors, see Gradel, Emperor Worship, 55-72; Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971); Matthias Gelzer, Caesar: Politician and Statesman (trans. Peter Needham; Cambridge: Harvard, 1968), 278-79.

3 3 For discussion on Caesar's desire to be a monarch and his assassination, see Weinstock, Julius; Gelzer, Caesar, 272-333.

3 4 Suetonius, Gaius. 22. 3 5 Suetonius, Gaius. 22. 3 6 For more on Gaius' career and legacy, see Suetonius, Gaius. Chapters 22-60 are devoted

to his "career as a monster" (Suetonius, Gaius, 22.1 [Rolfe, LCL]). J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1977); Arther Ferrill, Caligula: Emperor of Rome (London: Thames and Hudson, 1991), esp. 156-65; Anthony Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (London: B. T. Batsford, 1989), esp. 213-41.

Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark s Historical Situation 191

respect for Roman traditions.37 He also made no efforts to install himself in the official state religion but honored the Roman tradition of apotheosis. Such behavior endeared Augustus to the Roman people, secured and stabilized his position as emperor, and established a precedent for the behavior of future emperors. Both Tiberius and Claudius are emperors who followed this precedent. While a number of indiscretions have tarnished Tiberius' legacy, his modesty regarding divine honors and imperial power could be regarded as one of his strengths.38 Claudius also exhibited such modesty and in doing so endeared himself to his people. Most historians regard him as a good emperor. As we previously noted, Vespasian followed the Augustan model and displayed the virtue of imperial modesty. The official Flavian position, though certainly unhistorical, was that Vespasian never desired the principate but was forced into accepting it by his demanding soldiers. Suetonius tells us that he delayed both his reception of tribuniary powers and the senate's conferment of the title, "Father of his Country." Vespasian also promoted Rome and its traditions rather than himself. Such modesty was one of Vespasian's strengths, and it endeared him to his citizens.

It is in light of this imperial virtue of modesty and Mark's polemic against Vespasian that we approach Mark's secrecy motif. Previously, we concluded that Mark's secrecy motif has in fact two separate motifs; a miracle secret and a messianic/identity secret. We argued that the miracle secret, which is often broken and ironically results in publicity, serves as a foil against which Jesus' power is magnified. Mark demonstrates that, though efforts were made to keep Jesus' miracles secret, the greatness of the miracles thwarted these efforts. In addition to highlighting Jesus' power, this motif also highlights Jesus' humility (or modesty) as well as his desire to deflect recognition for his miracles.

The messianic/identity secret is more difficult to characterize. First, the motif is not consistent throughout Mark's gospel. At times Jesus commands that his identity be kept a secret, but at other times he allows it to be made public. However, unlike Jesus' commands following miracles, his commands concerning his identity are always kept, making it unlikely that the evangelist is using this motif as a foil to highlight Jesus' identity. However, like the miracle secret, the messianic secret highlights Jesus' modesty and his reluctance to accept public messianic recognition.

It is on this common ground of modesty that we can explain these Markan secrecy motifs. Such modesty regarding identity and power has a clear parallel with the Roman imperial virtues discussed above. In these Markan secrecy motifs, Jesus is portraying the modest behavior of an ideal Roman

3 7 For discussion on Augustus' formal refusal of power, which in turn was rejected by the senate, see John Buchan, Augustus (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1937), 142-52.

3 8 See Barbara Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), 82-91.

192 Chapter 5

emperor. Such a portrayal makes sense in light of the crisis facing Mark's community and the evangelist's polemical purposes. The current Roman emperor holds this virtue of modesty; therefore, the Markan Jesus, whom the evangelist is presenting to his Roman readers as the true ruler of the world, must hold it as well. Therefore, Jesus' commands to silence regarding his identity and miracles are unrelated to "secrecy" but rather function to demonstrate his modesty; a modesty that a Roman audience would expect from a virtuous world ruler.

According to this interpretation, the lack of consistency in Mark's application of the secrecy motif is not troublesome because modesty and not secrecy is its true objective. The emperor's eventual acceptance of praise and recognition was expected, if not demanded at times. It was the ruler's efforts at humility and modesty that mattered to Roman citizens, not his unrelenting resolve or consistency in those efforts. Therefore, to achieve the desired effect, Mark's "secrecy" motif is not constrained by the demand of consistency. The evangelist can establish Jesus' modesty by inserting "secrecy" elements into a handful of gospel pericopes, which is in fact what we find in Mark's gospel. These secrecy elements may have differing points of origin, with some coming to the evangelist in his tradition and others being created to advance the gospel's polemic. But regardless of their origin, their function in Mark's gospel is to present Jesus as a modest messiah and world ruler, one whom a Roman audience would respect.

Therefore, here we argue that what have traditionally been called Markan secrecy motifs are better understood as Markan modesty motifs. The evangelist has included Jesus' commands to silence regarding his identity and miracles to highlight Jesus' modesty. Through this modesty, the Markan Jesus models the behavior of an ideal Roman emperor, and the evangelist advances the idea that Jesus and not Vespasian is the true ruler of the world.

Weakness as Strength In any effort to present an impressive resume, the mitigation of weakness is almost as important as the magnification of strength. Mark's presentation of Jesus is no exception. While Mark is able to show that Jesus is superior to Vespasian in many ways, there are also realities that could undermine the evangelist's entire case. First is Jesus' shameful crucifixion. As we noted previously, Romans abhorred crucifixion and considered it the most shameful manner of death.39 That Jesus was crucified as a Roman criminal would be, therefore, a significant obstacle for Mark to overcome. However, as we demonstrated in chapter three, Mark addresses this obstacle in several ways. He gives Jesus a foreknowledge of his death. In the Greco-Roman world, such

3 9 See our discussion on crucifixion in chapter three page 119. Also see Hengel, Crucifixion; O'Collins, "Crucifixion," 1.1207-10.


knowledge about one's death and the ability to predict its coming was recognized as a divine power.40 Mark shifts the focus from weakness to power. Jesus' death would not catch him by surprise; rather he faced his ominous destiny with boldness. Mark also presents Jesus' death as an act of benefaction. It is an act of service for his subjects that provided them with atonement for their sins. Ironically, the evangelist uses Jesus' death to portray him as an ideal ruler. Mark also uses Jesus' death to demonstrate that he was no ordinary man: remarkably his crucifixion lasts only six hours; while on the cross, powerful outbursts demonstrate his great strength, in the midst of suffering; and, like the death of other great rulers, Jesus' death brings darkness to the sky, indicating his significance. All these details overshadow the shame of the cross and highlight Jesus' power and significance. Yet perhaps most important for Mark's polemic against Vespasian is how the evangelist parallels Jesus' death with a Roman triumph. As we discussed in chapter three, T. E. Schmidt makes a case that Mark crafts his passion narrative so that it parallels a Roman triumph.41 In so doing, Mark presents Jesus' shameful death as an ironic recognition of his true identity as Messiah and world ruler. From a Markan perspective, the Roman authorities, in their efforts to shame, humiliate, and kill Jesus, were unwittingly giving him the triumph that he deserved. Ironically, long before Vespasian's triumph - a reality that is fresh in the minds of Mark's readers - the Romans had already given a triumph to the true world ruler, Jesus.

The second obstacle that Mark must overcome is Jesus' physical absence. Perhaps Vespasian's greatest advantage over Jesus was his physical presence. If Mark's claims about Jesus were true, i.e., that he is God's Messiah and the true ruler of the world, a natural question would be "where is he and when will his rule be a physical reality?" Mark answers these questions. He makes it clear that Jesus was currently seated at the right hand of God (14:62), clearly implying that Jesus was already reigning in heaven. But more important for Mark than Jesus' current locality is his impending return. At three different points, Jesus refers to his return, each time identifying himself as the "Son of Man" (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). While Jesus does not explicitly mention his future reign or a future kingdom, these concepts seem to be implied in his use of "Son of Man." As we previously noted, God gives the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7, with whom Mark has clearly identified Jesus (13:26: 14:62) dominion and kingship over the entire earth. All the people of the earth will serve him and his kingship will be everlasting. Similar traditions are found in 1 Enoch, where the rulers of the world bow and plead before the throne of the "son of

4 0 See Gundry, Apology, 428. 4 1 See our discussion in chapter three pages 129-132 on Schmidt's theory. See Schmidt,

"Roman Triumphal Procession," 1-18; see also Schmidt's similar article "Jesus' Triumphal March to Crucifixion," 30-37; cf. Evans' use of Schmidit's work; "Fulfillment of Scripture," 96.

194 Chapter 5

man" (1 Enoch 62:1-16). Mark's use of "Son of Man" in the context of Jesus' return almost certainly implies that Mark anticipates a universal kingship to accompany that return. In light of Mark 13:28-37, it seems the evangelist perceives that this return could come at any time, and that his readers must be ready and watchful for it. Mark's response, therefore, to Jesus' physical absence and to those who perceive it as a weakness was an ultimatum. He tells them that Jesus is currently in heaven ruling at the right hand of God but will soon return to establish a universal and everlasting kingdom - a kingdom in which all the people of the earth would serve him. Mark's readers had to make a choice. They could follow the current emperor, who was now physically present, or they could follow the true world ruler, who would soon return and establish an eternal kingdom.

5.4 Reading Mark's Presentation of Discipleship in Light of Mark's Historical Situation

In our previous discussion of Mark's presentation of discipleship, we concluded that it had five significant features: (1) both recognition of and faith in Jesus' identity; (2) faithfulness to Jesus and the gospel even in the face of suffering; (3) abandonment of one's former life; (4) proclamation about Jesus and his gospel; and (5) living lives of humility and service. We determined the first two features were primary and the last three secondary. Here we want to determine how the Markan community's historical setting informs our reading of these features.

5.4.1 Mark's Primary Features of Discipleship Mark emphasizes the importance of both recognizing Jesus and placing one's faith in him through several means: highlighting the disciples' blindness/lack of faith, highlighting the remarkable faith of minor characters, and Jesus' warnings against false messiahs. It is quite easy to see how this Markan feature of discipleship addresses the crisis that faced the evangelist's community. We have argued that some members of Mark's community were seriously questioning Jesus' legitimacy as Messiah, as well as their faith commitment to that identity. Mark fought this battle on one front through his Christology. As we demonstrated previously, he confronted his readers with Jesus' great power and superiority. Mark's presentation of discipleship addresses a second front; namely, the foolishness of the wavering members in his community. Through the exaggerated blindness of the Markan disciples, the evangelist hopes to jolt his readers into awareness of their own blindness. The repeated failure of the Markan disciples to recognize Jesus' great power as well as his identity causes the readers to ask, "How could these people be so dull, when the truth is so obvious?" But in asking the question, the readers have to

Reading Mark 's Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 195

confront their own failures (or potential failure) regarding these obvious truths.4 2 With this realization, Mark challenges the reader to demonstrate the faith of characters such as the paralytic (2:1-12), the woman with an issue of blood (5:25-34), Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30), or Bartimaeus (10:46-52); all characters who, as a result of their faith, benefited from Jesus' power.

Mark speaks most poignantly to his community's crisis in his warnings against following false messiahs or prophets (13:6,21-22). Vespasian's claims to fulfill Jewish messianic prophecy would, from the church's perspective, place him in the category of a false messiah. Even more interesting is Mark's description of these false christs and prophets: "False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect (13:22)." Such a description of a false christ who produces signs and omens uniquely fits the emperor Vespasian, who, as we previously noted, performed miraculous healings in Alexandria and claimed that many omens pointed to his ascension. For Mark's readers, Jesus' warning speaks directly to their current situation. It identifies Vespasian as a false messiah and characterizes his supernatural deeds and omens as tools of deception. True disciples, i.e. the "elect," would not be fooled by this false messiah and his deceptive signs (Mark 13:22).43 Rather, they would remain faithful to the true Messiah Jesus and place their faith in both him and his power.

It is, therefore, quite obvious how Mark uses this feature of discipleship, i.e., the need for one to recognize Jesus' identity and place one's faith in him, to address his community's current situation. Through it he makes his readers aware of their own blindness and gives them examples of faith to model their faith. He also gives them a direct warning (from Jesus himself) against the danger and deception of false christs and false prophets, claiming that no true disciple would be taken in by their deception.

Another distinct feature in Mark's presentation of discipleship is the need for disciples to be faithful to Jesus even in the face of suffering or persecution. This feature speaks directly to the needs of Mark's community, where the aftermath of the Jewish Rebellion has raised concerns about the church's safety. The church at Rome, Mark's community, was familiar with such suffering. Only six years prior, they had undergone intense persecution at Nero's hand. While some had remained faithful - even to the point of death - others were unfaithful, with some likely denying their faith and others betraying community members.44 In light of this recent history, a new threat of persecution would demand a renewed call to unwavering faithfulness. Mark presents this call primarily through direct commands from Jesus. In the

4 2 For similar conclusions, see Tannehill, "Disciples," 134-57; R. Donahue, Theology and Setting of Discipleship.

4 3 See France, Mark, 529; S. R. Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 151-159.

4 4 See Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.

196 Chapter 5

parable of the soils, Mark's readers are warned of being believers lacking roots, who "endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away" (4:17). After living through Nero's persecution, Mark's community would be all too familiar with such believers. It is even possible that some of those "rootless" believers had rejoined Mark's community in its time of relative peace.45 Along with the rest of Mark's community, they are reminded that this time faithfulness was essential for true disciples. Through Jesus' instruction at Caesarea Philippi, Mark unapologetically tells his readers that all who desire to be his disciples must "deny themselves, and take up their cross and follow [him]" (8:34). He reminds them that their temporal sacrifice would secure eschatological salvation (8:35). However, if they are ashamed of Jesus and his teachings, Jesus would be ashamed of them when he returned as the glorious "Son of Man," i.e., they would not experience eschatological salvation. Again in the eschatological discourse, Mark tells his readers that only those who endure through persecution until the end would be saved (13:13). It is generally agreed that the charge to endure does not refer to survival of persecution but to faithfulness to Jesus through persecution - faithfulness even to the point of death.46 This feature of Markan discipleship is one that Mark's community, which faced persecution in the past and anticipated possible persecution in the near future, desperately needed to hear.

It is highly plausible that during the Neronian persecution many in the church were uncertain of how they were to respond. Certainly it raised many relevant and practical questions. Was such suffering normative for Jesus' followers? Was it to be expected? Was it acceptable to feign denial of Jesus in order to live another day? During the tumultuous and panic-stricken days of Nero's persecution, it is unlikely that unanimous answers to these questions could be found. Such a reality would have only added to the church's state of confusion. Perhaps it is in the recollection of such confusion that Mark's gospel provides his community with answers to these questions. Suffering was normative for the church as Jesus himself had promised it. For Jesus' disciples, the response to such suffering was unequivocal - absolute faithfulness was required, even to death. This Markan feature of discipleship, i.e., the need to remain faithful in the face of suffering, makes sense as a pastoral response to the church's perception of impending suffering.

5.4.2 Mark's Secondary Features of Discipleship Unlike the primary features of discipleship, which are easily grounded in the evangelist's historical situation, the secondary features are not as easy to

4 5 See Donahue and Harrington (Mark, 34) for discussion on Mark's concern for reconciling fallen disciples with the church.

4 6 See Evans, Mark, 313; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 371; Moloney, Mark, 258; Hooker, St. Mark, 312; France, Mark, 519; et al.


explain. The first of these secondary features is the call for disciples to abandon their former lives (1:16-20; 2:13-17; 8:34-38; 10:17-31). Nothing in our proposed historical setting specifically necessitates such a call. It is possible that this feature is an inherent part of Mark's tradition and that it does not address a specific situation facing Mark's community. Mark perhaps retained these pericopes from his tradition and with them this general exhortation that disciples of Jesus must abandon their former lives. Finally, it is possible that this feature does address a particular undetectable reality within our proposed historical situation.

The second of these secondary features is the call to disciples to proclaim both Jesus and the gospel. This feature may be explained by the christological crisis facing Mark's community. With Vespasian's claims calling into question the legitimacy of Christianity, the community's evangelistic enthusiasm may have been waning. The anti-Jewish and anti-messianic sentiment that the Jewish Revolt brought about in Rome also may have slowed evangelistic efforts. In light of these realities, Mark, therefore, emphasized the need for disciples to proclaim the gospel. While this link is possible, we recognize that it is speculative. Most of the components comprising this feature are relatively subtle and may simply come to us from Mark's tradition (e.g., the disciples' work in proclaiming the kingdom of God [1:17; 6:7-13] and the proclamation of Jesus' deeds by those whom he had healed [1:45; 5:20; 7:36]). While the evangelist maintains these traditions and allows them to contribute to his portrayal of discipleship, he may not have intended to address a specific situation within his community. But there is one particular feature in the gospel that seems to indicate the evangelist's own interest in missionary/evangelistic efforts. During the eschatological discourse, Mark includes a statement that seems out place and many believe to be a Markan redaction: "And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations" (13:10).47 This world-wide mission is one of the events that must take place before both the parousia and the eschaton. This verse could be read as an exhortation to those in Mark's community who are hesitant to proclaim the good news. Mark reminds them that such a proclamation is necessary before the salvation they are waiting for will come. While it is possible that this Markan feature of discipleship can be found in our proposed historical setting, such a conclusion is speculative and remains uncertain.

The third of these secondary features is the call for disciples to live lives of humility and service. Again, it is difficult to find a need for such a call in our proposed historical setting. However, like the call to leave one's former way of life, this feature may simply be inherent to Mark's received tradition or address a reality that our proposed historical setting was unable to detect. It is

4 7 See Evans, Mark, 310; R. M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 117-18; Hooker, Mark, 310-11; et al.

198 Chapter 5

almost certain that the situation facing Mark's community was more complex than our evidence has allowed us to reconstruct. Therefore, it is quite possible that this Markan feature of discipleship addresses an unknown situation in Mark's community.

That these secondary features do not find a direct explanation in our reconstructed historical setting is not problematic and should not be surprising. As we just noted, there are various reasons why more minor gospel features might escape explanation in a proposed setting. They may simply be elements from the evangelist's received tradition that he chose to maintain. They also may actually address a reality facing the evangelist's community, but that reality remains undetectable to the proposed historical setting. It is also important to remember that every author has his or her own prerogative and may have included any number of minor features for reasons unrelated to the reality of the evangelist's community. Therefore, minor features of a gospel that a reconstructed historical setting cannot account for, should not be surprising, and their presence alone does not undermine such reconstructions. While minor features independent of the reconstructed historical setting are not problematic in and of themselves, minor features that contradict or work against the reconstruction are problematic. However, since the three features discusses above do not conflict with our reconstructed historical setting, they do not present an obstacle to our present endeavor to locate the purpose of Mark's gospel.

5.5 Reading Markan Eschatology in Light of Mark's Historical Situation

In our previous analysis of Mark's eschatological content, we concluded that the evangelist's eschatological message was three-fold: (1) the evangelist identified false signs of the imminent parousia for his community; (2) the evangelist identified the true sign of the imminent parousia, a sign that had not yet taken place; and (3) the evangelist encouraged his community to remain watchful for the true sign which Jesus had given them, a sign that will signal the imminent parousia. This eschatological instruction can be read as a pastoral response to the eschatological anxiety and confusion facing Mark's Roman community, which resulted from the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple.

Mark first addresses events that his readers had mistakenly understood as signs of the imminent parousia, i.e., wars, famine, earthquakes, false christs, and persecution. Mark's readers not only watched as the Jewish Revolt raged for four long years and culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but they also witnessed a year-long civil war, the bloody end of which occurred in Rome's streets. Famine was a reality for Mark's readers during


Rome's civil war. When Vespasian took control of Rome, only ten days of grain supply remained, and the city desperately needed imported grain from Egypt. Recent earthquakes had not only affected Rome, but other great cities of the empire. Concerning false messiahs, Vespasian's claims to fulfill Jewish messianic prophecy would have qualified him as such. Persecution was also a part of the recent past of the church in Rome, and a perceived threat awaited the church's immediate future. But Mark tells his readers not to be confused. These events are not signs of the imminent parousia, but they are only birth pangs preceding the end.

According to Mark, the ultimate sign of the imminent parousia has not yet come, and when it does, Mark's community will not miss it. Mark describes this sign as an "abomination of desolation," which we previously identified as an idolatrous act of incredible magnitude - likely reminiscent to the acts of Antiochus IV. The exact identity of this act is impossible to determine. Though Theissen has suggested that the evangelist had in mind a pagan temple or monument built on the temple ruins, it is quite possible that the evangelist had no exact referent in mind. What he did foresee was a significant idolatrous sign, one of such great magnitude that it would be unmistakable to his readers. Following this sign would be a time of unprecedented suffering, which the parousia would cut short and would culminate in the eschaton. Because this sign could come at any time, Mark urged his readers to remain alert and watchful for it.

Such eschatological instruction would have calmed the anxiety in Mark's community and removed unhealthy confusion. It would have established for Mark's readers a sign to watch for and prevented confusion caused by other mistaken eschatological signs. Mark's eschatological instruction, therefore, can be read as a pastoral response to the heightened eschatological tensions brought about by the cataclysmic end to the Jewish Revolt.

5.6 Summary: Formulating a Statement on the Purpose of Mark's Gospel

After reading Mark's major features in light of our proposed historical situation, we can now formulate a statement concerning the purpose of Mark's gospel. In our reconstruction of Mark's historical setting, we argued that the propaganda of the new emperor Vespasian, in particular his claims to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, created a christological crisis for Mark's community in Rome. Vespasian's propaganda raised questions about Jesus' legitimacy as God's Messiah, a central tenant of the fledgling church. Vespasian's propaganda and credentials were undeniably impressive, and it is likely that at least some members of Mark's Roman community gave them strong consideration. Such a crisis would require a response by the church;

200 Chapter 5

a response that would restore legitimacy to the church's claims about Jesus' identity and renew the wavering members' confidence in that identity. Here we have proposed that Mark crafts his gospel as such a response. Beginning with his incipit, the evangelist boldly challenges Flavian propaganda and proclaims Jesus to be both God's Messiah and son. The skillful welding of both imperial cult and Deutero-Isaianic language makes this purpose clear to his Roman readers. Throughout the gospel, he advances his challenge to Flavian propaganda and identifies Jesus not only as God's Messiah but also as the true world ruler. He repeatedly confirms this identity by Jesus' impressive and powerful resume. Through a Christology of power, Mark presents Jesus as a legitimate world ruler, one who is in all ways superior to the current world ruler, Vespasian.

However, Christology is not the only way Mark responds to his community's crisis. He also addresses the foolishness of the community members who are wavering in their faith. Through his portrayal of the disciples' exaggerated blindness to Jesus' identity and power, Mark draws his readers' attention to their own blindness. He uses minor characters in the gospel, who realize Jesus' identity and place faith in his power, as models for his community to follow. Even warnings from Jesus exhort Mark's community not to be deceived by false christs and false prophets. Therefore, elements of Mark's presentation of discipleship work in conjunction with Mark's Christology. The theme of Markan discipleship serves as an exhortation to Mark's readers not to miss the importance of Markan Christology. Like Jesus' disciples, Mark's readers have to throw off their blindness, recognize Jesus' identity, and place their faith in his power.

While the gospel's primary purpose is to respond to the community's christological crisis, two secondary purposes can be identified as well. The aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and the cataclysmic events in which it culminated, i.e., the destruction Jerusalem and its temple, have caused two lesser crises. The first is concern among Mark's community for its own safety. Both increased anti-Jewish sentiment and sensitivity to messianic movements in Rome placed the church, a thoroughly Jewish and messianic movement, in a precarious position. These factors coupled with the church's recent persecution suffered under Nero and the uncertainty surrounding the rise of a new emperor, likely raised reasonable concerns within the church regarding its own physical safety. In response to these fears, Mark demands that in the face of such persecution, true disciples must remain faithful. Those who do will receive eschatological salvation at the return of the "Son of Man," while those who do not will be excluded from such salvation.

The second crisis brought on by the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt was increased eschatological anxiety and confusion. In the first century church, spikes in eschatological tension/anxiety seem to be common. That the destruc-


tion of both the holy city Jerusalem and its temple would cause a substantial spike in eschatological anxiety seemed highly probable. Mark's gospel, therefore, addresses such a spike in eschatological anxiety. Through the eschatological discourse (Mark 13), the evangelist provides a pastoral response to his community. He identifies the cataclysmic and alarming events of his community's recent past as "birth pangs," which must precede the end but are not signs of its imminence. The true sign of the end, the "abomination of desolation," will be idolatrous act of incredible magnitude. This act would be unmistakable to Mark's readers and would signal the imminent parousia and the beginning of the eschaton. Mark's readers have to remain watchful for this event and this event alone.

In conclusion, the primary purpose of Mark's gospel is to respond to Flavian propaganda that has created a crisis within the church in Rome. This response is polemical, pitting Jesus' impressive resume against that of the current Roman emperor Vespasian. Mark's gospel offers overwhelming evidence to its audience of Jesus' superiority to Vespasian and confirms for its audience Jesus' identity as God's Messiah and the true world ruler. In addition to this primary purpose, Mark urges his readers to remain faithful to Jesus despite the threat of persecution. He also corrects their eschatological misunderstandings and establishes for them a definitive sign of the imminent eschaton, for which they must watch faithfully.

Summary of Conclusions

Our goal in this present study was to determine what factors led the second evangelist to compose a gospel and what purpose he intended that gospel to serve. Here we summarize the conclusions of this study.

In chapter one, we surveyed the history of interpretation regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel. This survey yielded a number of conclusions: (1) that the evangelist's purpose was not primarily to provide a historical account of Jesus's life; (2) that while the evangelist had concerns about discipleship and eschatology, these concerns were secondary to his christological concerns; (3) that the evangelist wrote primarily for a Christian audience; and (4) that socio-political realties were likely catalysts for the gospel's composition.

In chapter two, we addressed the gospel's date of composition and provenance. By examining both external and internal evidence, we ruled out a dating prior to 65 C.E. We then sought to determine whether Mark's presentation of the prophecy of the temple's destruction reflected a date before or after 70 C.E. (pre factum or post factum). We concluded that in light of the high risk-reward ratio for including this prophecy pre factum, the prophecy is best identified as post factum. This places the composition of Mark's gospel during the early 70s C.E . Regarding Mark's provenance, we concluded that both internal and external evidence are most consistent with a composition in Rome.

In chapter three, we turned our attention to four major features of Mark's gospel: (1) Mark's incipit, (2) Mark's Christology, (3) Mark's presentation of discipleship, and (4) Mark's eschatology. We argued that in Mark's incipit he has blended Jewish messianic language with imperial cult language, and that this blending is best explained by a situation in which both of these realities had become intertwined. Regarding Mark's Christology, we argued against the popular notion that the gospel advances a Christology of suffering and the cross and argued instead that the gospel advances a Christology of power and glory. We concluded that Mark emphasized two primary aspects of discipleship: (1) the need to recognize and have faith in Jesus' identity and (2) the need for disciples to be faithful to that identity even in the face of suffering. This Markan presentation of discipleship suggests a Sitz im Leben in which there are doubts over Jesus' identity as well as fear of persecution for faithfulness to Jesus. We also concluded that Mark's eschatological content sought to calm eschatological anxiety and confusion within his community and to provide clarity regarding signs of the eschaton.

Summary of Conclusions 203

In chapter four, we returned to our conclusions regarding Mark's provenance and date - in Rome and shortly after the Jerusalem temple's destruction - and sought to reconstruct the historical situation facing Mark and his readers at this time and place. This reconstruction provided three distinct realities that faced Mark and his readers. The first reality was a christological crisis brought about by the propaganda of the new Roman emperor Vespasian, in particular the claim that Vespasian was the true fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy and expectations. The second reality was a fear within Mark's community (the church in Rome) of imminent persecution, a fear that resulted from increased anti-Jewish and anti-messianic sentiments in Rome after the Jewish revolt. The third reality was an increase in eschatological anxiety and confusion within Mark's community, an increase brought about by the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.

In chapter five, we read Mark's major features (discussed in chapter 3) in light of Mark's historical situation (discussed in chapter 4). We argued that Mark's incipit, in which the evangelist combines Jewish messianic language with Roman imperial cult language, is tailor-made to respond to Vespasian's propagandists claims - claims perceived by the church to be christological. Therefore, Marks opens his gospel with a direct response to the christological crisis facing his community, a response that his readers are certain not to miss. Mark continues this response through his christological presentation - a Christology of power. This Christology of power can be read as a counter christological resume to the impressive christological resume of Vespasian. Through his christological presentation, Mark demonstrates to his readers that Jesus is the true Messiah and ruler of the world, not Vespasian. Mark's presentation of discipleship also responds to this christological crisis. Through it, Mark calls his readers not to be blind to Jesus' true identity but to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and place their faith in him.

But Mark's presentation of discipleship also addresses his community's fear of persecution. Mark reminds his readers that even if persecution does come, they must remain faithful until death. Such faithfulness will bring eschatological reward, while failure to remain faithful will bring eschatological judgment.

Mark's eschatological teaching addresses his community's confusion and anxiety over eschatological signs. He tells his readers that Jerusalem's destruction and the destruction of its temple are not the signs of the imminent eschaton. The unmistakable sign of the eschaton - the abomination of desolation - has yet to come, but Mark warns his readers that they must be vigilant in watching for it.

This chapter then leads to the ultimate conclusion of our study. Mark's primary purpose was to respond to Flavian propaganda that had created a christological crisis for his community in Rome. However, Mark also seems to have two secondary purposes. He hoped to encourage his community

204 Summary of Conclusions

to remain faithful to their Messiah in the face of persecution, persecution that was perceived to be imminent. He also sought to alleviate his community's eschatological anxiety and confusion by providing eschatological instruction.

Bibliography

Ancient Sources: Texts, Editions, and Translations Dio Cassius. Dio's Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary. 9 vols. Loeb Classical

Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914-1927. Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton. 2

vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926, 1932. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cam

bridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965. Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by E. Nestle and K. Aland. 27 t h ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday,

1983-1985. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 2 vols. Leipzig: S. Hir-

zel, 1903-5. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Translated by Frederick W. Shipley. Loeb Classical Library. Lon

don: W. Heinemann, 1924. Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors including the Year of Revolu

tion A. D. 68-69. Edited by M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961.

Septuagint, id est, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Edited by A. Rahlfs. 2 vols. 8 t h Edition. Stuttgart: Wurrtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965.

Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913-1914.

Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Edited by Kurt Aland. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1976.

Tacitus. The Histories and The Annals. Translated by C. H. Moore and J. Jackson. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925-1937.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Edited and Translated by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Edited by H. D. Betz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Secondary Literature Achtemeier, P. J. "Gospel Miracle Tradition and the Divine Man." Interpretation 26 (1972):

174-97. . "Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae." Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 198-221. . Mark. Proclamation Commentary. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

206 Bibliography

. "Mark, Gospel of." Pages 551-53 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4. Edited by D. N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992.

Anderson, H. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1976. Arnold, G. "Mk 1.1 und Eroffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften,"

Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 123-27. Aune, D. "The Significance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity." Pages 87-

109 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merril C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students. Edited by G. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. ."Magic in Early Christianity." ANRW23.2,1507-1557. Part 2, Principal 23.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. . Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D. The Emperor Gaius. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1977. Barrett, A. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London: B. T. Batsford, 1989. Barrett, C. K. "The Background of Mark 10:45." Pages 1-18 in New Testament Essays: Stud

ies in the Memory ofT.W. Manson, 1893-1958. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. . "Paul's Opponents in II Corinthians." New Testament Studies 17 (1971): 233-54. . Acts of the Apostles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.

Barton, T. S. Ancient Astrology. London: Rutledge, 1994. Bauckham, R. "The Son of Man: 'A Man in My Position' or 'Someone'?" Journal for the

Study of the New Testament 23 (1985): 23-33. . "For Whom Were Gospel's Written." Pages 9-48 in The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Baur, C. F. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter. Nebst einem Anhang iiber das Evangelium Marcions. Tubingen: L. F. Fues, 1851.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Jesus and the Last Days. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. Beck, R. "Astrology." Page 195 in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by S. Hornblower

and A Spawnforth. 3 r d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Beckwith, R. T. "Daniel 9 and the Date of the Messiah's Coming in Essene, Hellenistic,

Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation." Revue de Qumran 10 (1981): 521— 42.

Behm, J. "uexctjjoptpoco." Pages 755-759 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Volume 4. Edited by G. Kittle and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1964.

Bersanetti, G. M. Vespasiano. Rome: Edizioni Roma, 1941. Best, E. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. Journal for the Study of the

New Testament: Supplement Series 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. . Mark: The Gospel as Story. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983. . Disciples and Discipleship. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986.

Betz, H. D. "Jesus as Divine Man." Pages 114-33 in Jesus and the Historian: In Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell. Edited by F. T. Trotter. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968. . "Magic in Greco-Roman Antiquity." Pages 93-7 in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Volume 9. Edited by M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York, Macmillan, 2005.

Betz, O. "The Concept of the So-Called 'Divine-Man' in Mark's Christology." Pages 229-40 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen Wikgren. Edited by D. E. Aune. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Bibliography 207

Bieler, L. Theios Aner: Das Bild des "Gottlichen Menschen" in Spdtantike und Fruhchris-tentum. 2 vols. Vienna: Hofels, 1935-1936.

Black, C. C. "The Quest of the Markan Redactor: Why Has It Been Pursued and What Has It Taught Us?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (1988): 19-39. . The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplemental Series 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. . "Was Mark a Roman Gospel?" Expository Times 105 (1993-94): 36-40. . Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by R. W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Bolt, P. Jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Boobyer, G. H. St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1942. . "Mark II 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954): 115-20.

Boomershine, T. E. "Peter's Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics." Semeia 39 (1987): 47-68.

Booth, R. P. Jesus and the Laws of Purity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 13. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1986.

Boring, M. E., K. Berger, and C. Colpe. Hellenistic Commentary on the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.

Boring, M. E. "The Christology of Mark: Hermeneutical Issues for Systematic Theology." Semeia 30 (19*4): 125-151. . "Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel." Semeia 52 (1990): 43-81.

Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nathareth. Translation by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James Robinson. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.

Brandenburger, E. Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. London: SPCK, 1951. . "The Date of Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 1 (1961): 126-41. . Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967.

Breytenbach, C. Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach Markus. Abhandlungen zur The-ologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 71. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984.

Broadhead, E. K. Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplemental Series 74. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. . "Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 21-34.

Broer, I. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Neue Echter Bibel. Wurzburg: Echter, 1998. Brown, R. E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary

on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Brown, R. E. and J. P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

Bruce, F. F. "When is a Gospel not a Gospel?" Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 45 (1962-63): 319-39. . "Josephus and Daniel." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965): 148-62.

208 Bibliography

. "Render to Caesar." Pages 249-63 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. . "The Date and Character of Mark." Pages 69-89 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Buchan, J. Augustus. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1937. Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New

York: Scribner's, 1951. . The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Oxford: Basil Black-well, 1963.

Burkett, D. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Burkill, T. A. Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark's Gospel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963.

Burridge, R. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2 n d Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Cancik, H. "Die Gattung Evangelium: Das Evangelium des Markus im Rahmen der antiken Historiographie." Pages 85-114 in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche undstilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium. Edited by H. Cancik. Wissen-schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 33. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984.

Casey, M. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. . "Aramaic Idiom and Son of Man Sayings." Expository Times 96 (1984-85): 233-36. . "General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term 'Son of Man' in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (mi): 21-56. . Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Carrington, M. P. The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Markan Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952. . "The Calendrical Hypothesis of the Origin of Mark." Expository Times 67 (1956): 100-103.

Chapman, J. "St. Irenaeus on the Date of the Gospels." Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905): 563-69.

Charlesworth, J. "From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects." Pages 3-35 in The Messiah. Edited by James Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Charlesworth, M. P. "The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief." Proceedings of the British Academy 23 (1937): 105-33.

Chilton, B. "Son of Man: Human and Heavenly." Pages 203-18 in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroek, et al. 3 Vols. Bibliotheca ephemer-idum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. . "Transfiguration." Pages 640-42 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 6. Edited by D. N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992. . The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.

Chilver, G. E. F. "The army in politics, A.D. 68-70." Journal Roman Studies 47 (1957): 29-35.

Collins, A. Y. "The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament." Pages 90-112 in Daniel. Edited by John J. Collins. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. . "Establishing the Text: Mark 1:1." Pages 111-27 in Text and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Feschrift for L. Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995.

Bibliography 209

. "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews." Harvard Theological Review 92 no. 4 (1999): 393-408. . "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans." Harvard Theological Review 93 no. 2 (2000): 85-100.

Collins, J. J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, Doubleday, 1995.

Conzelmann, H. "Present and Future in the Synoptic Tradition." Journal of Theology and the Church 5 (1968): 26-44. . An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1969.

Cotter, W. Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of the New Testament Miracle Stories. London: Rutledge, 1999.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv.36." Expository Times 59 (1948): 137-138.

. The Gospel according to St. Mark. Cambridge Greek Text Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Crossan, J. D. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediteranean Peasant. San Francisco:

Harper San Francisco, 1991. Crossley, J. The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. Jour

nal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 266. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

Cullmann, O. The Christology of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Cumont, F. Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans. London: Putnam, 1912.

Dalman, G. H. The Words of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902.

Darwall-Smith, R. H. Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome. Latomus Collection 231. Brussels: Latomus, 1996.

Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956. Davis, W. The Influence of Wealth in Imperial Rome. New York: Macmilln, 1910. Deissman, A. Light from the Ancient Near East. Translated by L. R. M. Strachan. London:

Hodder and Stoughton, 1927. Derchain, P. "La visite de Vespasien au Serapeum d'Alexandrie." Chronique d'Egypte 28

(1953): 261-79. Derrett, J. D. M. "Render to Caesar . . ." Pages 313-38 in Law in the New Testament. Lon

don: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970. . Studies in the New Testament. 2 n d ed. Leiden: Brill, 1986. . "Christ's Second Baptism (Lk 12:50; Mk 10:38-40)." Expository Times 100 (1988-89): 294-295.

Dibelius, M. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. London: James Clark & Co., 1971.

Dickie, M. W. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 2001.

Dinkier, E. "Peter's Confession and the 'Satan' Saying: The Problem of Jesus' Messiahship" Pages 186-89 in The Future of Our Religious Past. Feschrift for R. Bultmann. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Donahue, J. R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 10. Missoula: SBL, 1973. . The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. 1983 Pere Marquette Theology Lecture. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983.

210 Bibliography

. "The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel." Pages 817-38 in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroek, et al. 3 vols. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. . "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 1-26.

Donahue, J. R. and D. J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. Sacra Pagina 2. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Drexler, H. Review of A. Briessmann, Tacitus und das Flavische Geschichtsbild. Gnomon 28 (1956): 523.

Dunn, J. D. G. "The Messianic Secret in Mark." Pages 116-31 in The Messianic Secret. Edited by Christopher Tuckett. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. . Christology in the Making. 2 n d ed. London: SCM Press, 1989. . Editor. Jews and Christians: A. D. 70 to 135. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. . Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered. Volume 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Earl, D. "Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography." ANRW 2:842-56. Part 1, Principal 2, Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972.

Ebeling, H. J. Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten. Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1939.

Eck, W. "Urbs Salvia und seine fuhrenden Familien." Picus: studi e ricerche sulle Marche neW Antichita 12-13 (1992-93): 79-108.

Ehrman, B. "The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox" Lutheran Quarterly 5 (1991): 143-56.

Ellis, E. E. The Gospel of Luke. 2 n d edn. London: Oliphants, 1974. . "The Date and Provenance of Mark's Gospel." Pages 801-815 in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Ban Segroeck, et al. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.

Ernst, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Pustet Verlag, 1998.

Evans, C. A. "Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple." Journal for the Study ofthePseudepigrapha 10 (1992): 89-147. . "Mark's Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel" Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000): 67-81. . Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. . "The Beginning of the Good News and the Fulfillment of Scripture in Mark's Gospel." Pages 83-103 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Farmer, W. R. Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. . The Synoptic Problem. New York: Macmillan, 1964.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Fears, J. R. Princeps A Diis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 26. Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1977.

Ferrill, A. Caligula: Emperor of Rome. London: Thames and Hudson, 1991. Fitzmyer, J. "The New Testament Title the 'Son of Man' Philologically Considered." Pages

143-60 in^4 Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

Bibliography 211

. "Another View of the Son of Man Debate." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 4 (1979): 58-68. . Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Foerster, W. "Saipcov, Saiuoviov." Pages 1-20 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Volume 2. Edited by G. Kittle and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1964.

Fowler, R. M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 54. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1971. . The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Frankemolle, H. "Evangelium als theologischer Begriff und sein Bezug zur literarischen Gattung 'Evangelium.'" ANRW 25.2, 1635-1704. Part 2, Principal 25.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.

Friedlander, L. Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire. Translated by Leonard Magnus. London: Routledge, 1928.

Friedrich, G. "euayyeXiov." Pages 721-737 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume 2. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1964.

Fuller, R. H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York: Scribner, 1965. . A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1966.

Garnsey, P. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Garrett, S. R. The Temptations of Jesus in Mark's Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Gartner, B. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Society for

New Testament Studies Monograph Series 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. Novum Testamentum Supplement Series 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Gelzer, M. Caesar: Politician and Statesman. Translated by Peter Needham. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.

Georgi, D. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Gibson, J. B. "Jesus' Refusal to Produce a 'Sign' (Mark 8:11-13)." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (1990): 37-66. . The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 112. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Gnilka, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2. Zurich: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. . Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Globe, A. "The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1." Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 209-18.

Goldenberg, R. Review of J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Recherches de Science Religieuse 11 (1985): 335-37.

Gradel, I. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.

212 Bibliography

Graf, H. R. Kaiser Vespasian, Untersuchungen zu Suetons Vita Divi Vespasiani. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1937.

Graham, H. R. "A Markan Theme: Endurance in Time of Persecution." The Bible Today 23 (1985): 297-304. . "A Passion Prediction for Mark's Community: Mark 13:9-13" Biblical Theological Bulletin 16 (1986): 18-22.

Green, W. S. "Introduction: Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question." Pages 1-13 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs. Edited by Jacob Neusner, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Grimal, P. The Civilization of Rome. Translated by W. S. Maguinnes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.

Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 n d ed. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962.

Guelich, R. "'The Beginning of the Gospel" Mark 1:1-15." Biblical Research 27 (1982): 5-15. . Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34a. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, R. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Hadas, M. and M. Smith. Heroes and Gods. Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Haenchen, E. Der WegJesu: Eine Erkldrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen. 2 n d ed. Berlin: Topelmann, 1966.

Hagner, D. A. Matthew. Word Biblical Commentary 33b. Dallas: Word, 1995. Hahn, F. "Die Rede von der Parusie des Menschensohnes Markus 13." Pages 240-66 in

Jesus und der Menschensohn. Edited by R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg: Herder, 1975.

Halverson, J. "Oral and Written Gospel: A Critique of Werner Kelber." New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 180-95.

Hamilton, J. R. Alexander the Great. London: Hutchinson, 1973. Hammond, M. The Augustan Principate: In Theory and Practice during the Julio-Claudian

Period. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933. Hare, D. R. A. "The Lives of the Prophets." Pages 379-399 in volume 2 Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. . The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Harnack, A. Reden und Aufsdtze. 2 vols. Giessen: Topelmann, 1906. Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19:2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3

(1952): 66-75. Hartman, L. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and

of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. Coniectanea neotestamentica: New Testament Series 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1966.

Head, P. M. "A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1: 'The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'" New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 621-29.

Heard, R. G. "APOMNEMONEUMATA in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus." New Testament Studies 1 (1954): 122-129. . "The Old Gospel Prologues." Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1955): 1-16.

Henderson, B. Civil War and Rebellion in the Roman Empire A.D. 69-70. London: Macmil-lan, 1908.

Hengel, M. Was Jesus a Revolutionary? Facet Books, Biblical Series 28. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

Bibliography 213

. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. . "Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums.' Pages 1-45 in Markus-Phi-lologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium. Edited by H. Cancik. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 33. Tubingen: J. B. Mohr, 1984. . Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. . Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995. . The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Translated by John Bowden. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000.

Henrichs, A. "Vespasian's Visit to Alexandria." Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigrafik 3 (1968): 51-80.

Hermann, A. "Erdbeben." Reallexicon fur Antike and Christentum 5 (1962): 1070-1113. Herrmann, L. "Basilides." Latomus 12 (1953): 312-15. Hickling, C. J. A. "Is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians a Source for Early Church His

tory?" Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren Kirche 66 (1975): 284-87.

Holscher, G. "Der Ursprung der Apokalypse Mk 13." Theologische Beitrage 12 (1933): 193-202.

Holladay, C. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 40. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.

Holtzmann, H. Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Character. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863.

Homo, L. Vespasien, Vempereur du bon sens (69-79 ap. J.-C). Paris: Albin Michael, 1949. Hooker, M. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah

in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959. . Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967. . "Trial and Tribulation in Mark XIII." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 65 (1982): 78-99. . The Gospel According to St. Mark. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hopkins, K. "Tax and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.-A.D. 400)." Journal of Roman Studies 70 (1980): 101-25.

Horbury, W. "The Messianic Association of 'The Son of Man.'" Journal of the Theological Studies 36 (1985): 34-55.

Horsley, R. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. . Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel. Louisville: WJK, 2001.

Howard, W. F. "The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels." Expository Times 47 (1935-36): 534-538.

Hurtado, L. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament 2. Pea-body: Hendrickson, 1989. . "Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelber's The Oral and Written Gospeir Bulletin of Biblical Research 1 (1997): 91-106.

van Iersel, B. "De thuishaven van Marcus." Theologisch Tijdschrift 32 (1992): 125-42. . Mark: A Reader Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux. London: T & T Clark, 1998.

214 Bibliography

. "Failed Followers in Mark: Mark 13:12 as a Key for Identification of the Intended Reader." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 244-63. . Mark: A Reader Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux London: T & T Clark, 1998.

Incigneri, B. J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series 65. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Jeremias, J. New Testament Theology. Volume 1. New York: Charles Scribner, 1971. Juel, D. H. Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Society of Bibli

cal Literature Dissertation Series 31. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Julicher, A. and E. Fascher. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,

1931. Kazmierski, C. R. Jesus, the Son of God, A Study in Marcan Tradition and Its Redaction by

the Evangelist. Forschung Zur Bibel 33. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979. Keck, L. E. "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):

341-58. . "Toward the Renewal of NT Christology." New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 362-77.

Kee, H. C. Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. . Community of the New Age. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. . "Testament of Levi." Pages 788-795 in volume 1 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.

Kelber, W. H. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. . Mark's Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. . The Oral and Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Kennedy, D. "Roman Army." Pages 789-90 in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 5. Edited by D. N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992.

Kertelge, K. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter-suchung. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 23. Munich: Kosel, 1970.

Kienast, D. Romische Kaisertabelle: Grundzuge einer rom. Kaiser chronologic Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990.

Kim, S."The 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Kim, T. H. "The Anarthrous inog 0eou in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult." Biblica

79(1998): 221-41. Kingsbury, J. D. The Christology of Mark's Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Kirschner, E. F. The Place of Exorcism in Mark's Christology with Special Reference to

Mark 3:22-30. Ph.D. thesis. London Bible College, 1988. Kleiner, F. S. "The Arches of Vespasian in Rome." Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 97

(1990): 134-36. Klostermann, E. Das Markusevangelium. 5 t h ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 3. Tubin

gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Kolenkow, A. B. "Miracle and Prophecy." ANRW 23.2, 1470-1506. Part 2, Principat 23.2.

Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Kummel, W G. Promise and Fulfillment. London: SCM Press, 1957.

. Introduction to the Testament. Translated by H. C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975.

La Verdiere, E. The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel according to Mark. 2 vols. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999.

Lagrange, M. J. Evangile selon Saint Marc. 4 t h ed. Etudes bibliques. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1947.

Bibliography

Lambrecht, J. Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967.

Lampe, G. W. H. "St. Peter's Denial and the Treatment of the Lapsi," Pages 113-33 in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of Georges Vasilievich Florovsky on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by D. Neiman and M. Schatkin. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 195. Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1973. . "A. D. 70 in Christian Reflection." Pages 153-71 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Lane, W. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lane Fox, R. Alexander the Great. London: Allan Lane, 1973. Langton, E. Essentials of Demonology. London: Epworth, 1949. Lattimore, R. "Portents and Prophecies in Connection with the Emperor Vespasian." Clas

sical Journal 29 (1933-34): 441-49. Levi, M. A. "I principii dell' impero di Vespasiano." Rivista difilologia e d'instruzione

classica 16 (1938): 1-12. Levick, B. Tiberius the Politician. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976.

. Vespasian. New York: Routledge, 1999. Liew, T. B. "Tyranny, Boundary, and Might: Colonial Mimicry in Mark's Gospel." Journal

for the Study of the New Testament 73 (1999): 7-31. Lightfoot, R. H. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. New York: Harper & Bros., 1938. Lindars, B. Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gos

pels. London: SPCK, 1983. Littman, R. "AntiSemitism in the Greco-Roman Pagan World." Pages 825-35 in Remember

ing for the Future Volume I: Jews and Christians during and after the Holocaust. Edited by Yehuda Bauer. Oxford: Pergamom, 1989.

Lohmeyer, E. Galilda und Jerusalem. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 52. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936. . Das Evangelium des Markus. 15th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ttber das Neue Testament. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.

Liihrmann, D. Das Markusevangelium. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987. Luz, U. "The Secrecy Motif and Marcan Christology." Pages 75-96 in The Messianic Secret.

Edited by Christopher Tuckett. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Mack, B. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Malbon, E. S. "Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark." Semeia 28

(1983): 29-48. Maloney, E. Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax. Society of Biblical Literature Disserta

tion Series 51. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981. Mann, C. S. Mark. Anchor Bible 27. Garden City: Doubleday, 1986. Manson, W. "The EGO EIMI of the Messianic Presence in the New Testament." Journal of

Theological Studies 48 (1947): 137-45. Manson, T. W. "Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-Day Research." Pages 211-21 in

The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: In Honour of C. H. Dodd. Edited by W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956.

Marcus, J. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: WJK, 1992. . "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 441-62.

216 Bibliography

. Review of Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 648-54. . Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Marshall, I. H. "Son of Man." Pages 775-781 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green and S. McKnight. Downers Grove: IVP, 1992.

Martin, R. P. Mark - Evangelist and Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster, 1972. Marxsen, W. Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems. Translated

by G. Buswell. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. . Mark the Evangelist. Translated by James Boyce, et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969.

Mason, S. "Josephus, Daniel and the Flavian House." Pages 161-91 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Matera, F. J. The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 66. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. . NT Christology. Louisville: WJK, 1999.

Mattingly, H. Christianity in the Roman Empire. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967. Mauser, U. W. Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and

Its Basis in the Biblical Tradition. Studies in Biblical Theology 39; London: SCM Press; 1963.

Meagher, J. "As the Twig Was Bent: Antisemitism in Greco-Roman and Earliest Christian Times." Pages 1-12 in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity. Edited by Alan T. Davies. New York: Paulist, 1979.

Meye, R. P. Jesus and the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in Mark's Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Moloney, F. The Gospel of Mark. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. . Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.

Moffatt, J. Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. 3 r d ed. Edinburgh: Clark, 1918.

Morgan, G. A. D. 69: The Year of the Four Emperors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Morenz, S. "Vespasian, Heiland der Kranken: Personliche Frommigkeit im antiken Herrscherkult?" Wurzburger Jahrbucher fur die Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1949-50): 370-78.

Moule, C. F. D. Origins of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Murision, C. L. Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian. American Philological

Association 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Myers, C. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus. Maryk-

noll, New York: Orbis Books, 1992. Naylor, P. I. H. Astrology: An Historical Investigation. London: Robert Maxwell, 1967. Nestle, E. "Dalmanutha." Pages 406-7 in Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels vol.1. Edited

by J. Hastings. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906. Nicolas, E. P. De Neron a Vespasien. Etudes et perspectives historiques, suivies de

1' analyse, du catalogue, et de la reproduction des monnaies 'oppositionelles' connues des annees 67 a 70. 2 vols. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1979.

Nicols, J. Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae. Historia. Einzelschriften 28. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1978.

Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of St. Mark. New York: Seabury Press, 1968.

Bibliography 217

Norden, E. "Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Christus und eine Messianische Prophetic" Pages 27-69 in Zur Josephus-Forschung. Edited by Abraham Schalit. Darmstadt: Wis-senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973. Originally published 1913.

O'Collins, G. G. "Crucifixion." Pages 1207-10 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Oko, O. I. "Who then is this?" A Narrative Study of the Role of the Question of the Identity of Jesus in the Plot of Mark's Gospel. Bonner biblische Beitrage 148. Berlin: Philo, 2004.

Orchard, D. B. "Mark and the Fusion of Traditions." Pages 779-800 in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroek, et al. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeri-dum theologicarum lovaniensium 100B. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.

Parke, H. W. Greek Oracles. London: Hutchinson, 1967. Parker, R. "Oracles." Pages 1071-72 in Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by S. Horn-

blower and A. Spawnforth. 3 r d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Painter, J. Mark's Gospel: Worlds in Conflict. London: Routledge, 1997. Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert. The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the

Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series 49. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Perrin, N. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1967. . "Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark." Pages 1-78 in Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage. Edited by H. D. Betz. Claremont: Society of Biblical Literature, 1971. . A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.

Perumalil, A. C. "Are Not Papias and Irenaeus Competent to Report on the Gospels?" Expository Times 91 (1980): 332-37.

Pesch, R. Das Markusevangelium. 2 volumes. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. . Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968. . Review of Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Biblica 76 (1995): 107-15.

Potter, D. Prophets and Emperors. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1984. Pudussery, P. S. Discipleship: A Call to Suffering and Glory: An Exegetico-Theological

Study of Mark 8,27-9,1; 13,9-13 and 13:24-27. Rome: Libreria "Alma Mater," 1987. Quesnell, Q. The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark

6:52. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Radcliffe, T. "'The Coming of the Son of Man': Mark's Gospel and the Subversion of the

Apocalyptic Imagination." Pages 167-89 in Language, Meaning and God: Essays in Honour of Herbert McCabe O. P. Edited by B. Davies. London: Chapman, 1987.

Raisanen, H. The Messianic Secret in Mark's Gospel. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990. Rajak, T. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Reese, D. G. "Demons: New Testament." Pages 140-42 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume

2. Edited by D. N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992. Regul, J. Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe. Vetus Latina 6. Freiburg: Herder,

1969. Renan, E. Life of Jesus. Translation of the 23 r d French ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1924. Reploh, K. G. Markus, Lehrer der Gemeinde. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den

Jiingerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums. Stuttgarter biblische Monographien 9. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969.

218 Bibliography

Riesenfeld, H. "Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium." Pages 157-164 in Neu-testamentliche Studien fur Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20. August 1954. Edited by Walther Eltester; Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1954.

Ritschl, A. "Uber den gegenwartigen Stand der Kritik der synoptischen Evangelien." Pages 1-51 in Gesammelte Aufsdtze. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1893.

Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1976. Rowe, R. God's Kingdom and God's Son. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Roskam, H. N. The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context.

Novum Testamentum Series 114. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Sanday, W. The Life of Christ in Recent Research. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Sanders, E. P. and M. Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London: SCM Press, 1989. Sanford, E. M. "Nero and the East." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 48 (1937):

75-103. Saulnier, C. "Flavius Josephe et la Propagande Flavienne." Revue Biblique 96.4 (1989):

545-62. Schenke, L. Die Wundererzahlungen des Markusevangeliums. Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage.

Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974. . Das Markusevangelium. Urban-Taschenbucher 405. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988.

Schille, G. "Bermerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Rahmen und Aufbau des Markus-Evangeliums." New Testament Studies 4 (1957-1958): 1-24.

Schmid, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Regensburger Neues Testament 2. Regensburg: Pustet, 1958.

Schmidt, K. L. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Berlin: Trowitzsch und Sohn, 1919. Schmidt, T. E. "Mark 15:16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Pro

cession." New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 1-18. . "Jesus' Triumphal March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession," Biblical Review 13.1 (1997): 30-37.

Schmithals, W. "Die Worte vom Leidenden Menschensohn." Pages 417-45 in Theologia Crucis - Signum Crucis: Festschrift fur Erich Dinkier zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by C. Anderson and G. Klein. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1979.

Schnackenburg, R. Jesus in the Gospels. Louisville: WJK, 1995. Schnelle, U. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Translated by M.

Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. Schniewind, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 4 t h ed. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 1. Got

tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947. . Euangelion: Ursprung underste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium. Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970, c. 1927, 1931.

Schoeps, H. J. "Ebionitische Apokalyptik im Neuen Testament." Zeitschrift fur die neu-testamentliche Wissenschaft 51 (1960): 101-11.

Schulz, S. Die Stunde der Botschaft. Hamburg: Furche, 1967. Schreiber, J. "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums." Zeitschrift fur Theologie und

Kirche 58 (1961): 154-83. Schweitzer, A. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William Montgomery.

London: A. & C. Black, 1931. Schweizer, E. The Good News According to Mark. Translated by D. H. Madvig. Atlanta:

John Knox Press, 1970. Scott, K. The Imperial Cult under the Flavians. New York: Arno Press, 1936. Repr. 1975. Shuler, P. L. "The Genre of the Gospels and the Two Gospel Hypothesis." Pages 69-88 in

Bibliography 219

Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William Farmer. Edited by E. P. Sanders. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987.

Skarsaune, O. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove: IVP, 2002.

Senior, D. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Patrologia syriaca 2. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984.

Smallwood, E. M. Documents Illustrating the Principate of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero. London: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Smith, D. E. "Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory." Semeia 52 (1990): 1-9.

Smith, J. Z. "Towards Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity." ANRW 16.1, 425-43. Part 2, Principal 16.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978.

Smith, M. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. Sowers, S. "The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight." Theologische

Zeitschrift 26.5 (1970): 305-20. Steichele, H. J. Der leidende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher

Motive in der Christologie des Markusevangeliums. Biblische Untersuchungen 14. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1980.

Stemberger, G. "Galilee - Land of Salvation." Pages 435-36 in The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine. Edited by W. D. Davies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

Stern, D. Parables in Midrash. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. Stern, M. ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Jerusalem: The Israel Acad

emy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980. Stevenson, T. R. "The Ideal Benefactor and Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought."

Classical Quarterly 42 (1992): 421-36. Stock, K. Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhaltnis zwischen Jesus und den Zwolf nach

Markus. Anchor Bible 70. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975. Strecker, G. "Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums."

Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 72 (1961): 141-147. . "Das Evangelium Jesu Christi." Pages 503-48 in Jesus Christus in Historie und The-ologie. Festschrift for H. Conzelmann on his 60 t h birthday. Edited by G. Strecker, et al. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975. . "The Theory of the Messianic Secret in Mark's Gospel." Pages 49-64 in The Messianic Secret. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. . Theology of the New Testament. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000.

Stuhlmacher, P. Das paulinische Evangelium. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Such, W. The Abomination of Desolation in the Gospel of Mark: Its Historical Reference in

Mark 13:14 and Its Impact in the Gospel. Lanham: University Press of America, 1999. Sumney, J. "The Role of Historical Constructions of Early Christianity in Identifying Paul's

Opponents." Perspectives in Religious Studies 16 (1989): 45-53. Tannehill, R. C. "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role." Pages 134-57

in The Interpretation of Mark. Edited by Mark Telford. Issues in Religion and Theology 7; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Taylor, N. H. "Palestinian Christianity and the Caligula Crisis: Part II. The Markan Eschatological Discourse." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 62 (1996): 13-41.

Taylor, V. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: MacMillan & Co., 1952.

220 Bibliography

. "W. Wrede's The Messianic Secret in the Gospels." Expository Times 65 (1953-54): 248-50.

Telford, W. R. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Theissen, G. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Traditon. Translated by Linda Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. . "Evangelienschreibung und Gemeindeleitung. Pragmatische Motive bei der Abfassung des Markusevangeliums." Pages 389-414 in Antikes Judentum undfrtihes Christentum. Festschrift fur H. Stegemann. Edited by B. Kollman, et al. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 97. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999.

Theissen, G. and A. Mertz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. London: SCM Press, 1998.

Thiede, C. P. The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and Its Significance for New Testament Studies. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1992.

Thusing, W. "Erhohungsvorstellung und Parusierwartung in der altesten nachosterlichen Christologie." Biblische Zeitschrift 12 (1968): 54-80.

Tiede, D. L. "Religious Propaganda and the Gospel Literature of the Early Christian Mission." ANRW 25.2, 1705-29. Part 2, Principal 25.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.

Tobin, T. "The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 317-19.

Todt, H. E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. London: SCM Press, 1965.

Tolbert, M. A. Sowing the Gospel: Mark's Words in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Torrey, C. C. The Lives of the Prophets. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 1. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1946.

Trocme, E. "Marc 9:1: prediction ou reprimand?" Studia Evangelica 2 (1964): 259-65. . The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark. Translated by Pamela Gaughan. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.

Tuckett, C. "The Problem of the Messianic Secret." Pages 1-29 in The Messianic Secret. Edited by Christopher Tuckett. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. . "Messianic Secret." Pages 797-800 in Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 4. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Twelftree, G. H. "Demon, Devil, Satan." Pages 163-72 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green and S. McKnight. Downers Grove: IVP, 1992. . Jesus the Exorcist. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.54. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.

Ulansey, D. "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic Inclusio." Journal of Biblical Literature 110(1991): 123-125.

VanderKam, J. C. "Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man." Pages 169-191 in The Messiah. Edited by J. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Verheyden, J. "Persecution and Eschatology. Mk 13,9-13." Pages 1141-59 in vol. 2 The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, et al. 3 Vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.

Vermes, G. "The Use of bar nash/bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic." Pages 310-28 in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Edited by M. Black. Oxford: Carendon, 1967. . Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.

Bibliography 221

Versnel, H. S. Triumphus: An Enquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Vielhauer, P. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vdter. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. . "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkundigung Jesu." Pages 51-79 in Aufsdtze zum Neuen Testament. Munich: Kaiser, 1957.

Vigourt, A. Les Presages Imperiaux dAuguste a Domitien. Collection de VUniversite Marc Bloch, Strasbourg. Etudes d'histoire ancienne. Paris: de Boccard, 2001.

von Martitz, W. "ulog" Pages 338-40 in vol. 8 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964-1976.

Wacher, J. The Roman Empire. London: J. M. Dent, 1987. Waetjen, H. C. A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel. Min

neapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. Wallace-Hadrill, A. "Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King." Journal of Roman Stud

ies 72 (1982): 32-48. Walter, N. "Tempelzerstorung und synoptische Apokalypse." Zeitschrift fur die neutesta-

mentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1966): 38-49. Watts, R. Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997. Weber, W. Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem judischen Krieg des Flavius

Josephus. New York, Hildesheim, 1921. Webster, G. The Roman Invasion of Britain. Rev. ed. London: B. T. Batsford, 1993. Weeden, T. J. "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel." Zeitschrift fur die neutesta-

mentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren Kirche 59 (1968): 145-58. . Mark-Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Weinstock, S. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Weiss, B. Das Leben Jesu. 2 vols. 4 t h ed. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1902. Weisse, C. H. Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet. 2 vols.

Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1938. Wellesley, K. The Year of the Four Emperors. 3 r d ed., with a new intro by Barbara Levick.

London: Routledge, 2000. . "What Happened on the Capitol in December AD 69." American Journal of Ancient History 6 (1981): 166-90.

Wenham, J. W. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991. Werner, M. The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical Study of Its Problem. Trans

lated by S. G. F. Brandon. London: A. & C. Black, 1957. Wilke, C. G. Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung uber das Ver-

wandtschaftsverhdltnis der drei ersten Evangelien. Dresden: G. Fleischer, 1838. Williams, J. F. Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark's

Gospel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemental Series 102. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. . "Is Mark's Gospel an Apology for the Cross?" Bulletin of Biblical Research 12.1 (2002): 97-122.

Witherington, B. The Gospel of Mark: A Social Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Wrede, W. The Messianic Secret. Translated by J. C. G. Greig. Cambridge: James Clark & Co., 1971.

Index of Ancient Sources

1. Old Testament

Numbers 34:11 89

Deuteronomy 7:25-26 73 17:4 73 18:12 73 27:15 73

Joshua 12:3 89 13:27 89

2 Samuel 4:10 96 18:19-27 96

2 Kings 4:42-44 113 7:9 96

2 Chronicles 2:16 88

Psalms 2:7 101, 180 2:7-8 181 22:7 135 22:15 135 22:18 135

Proverbs 1:1-6 93

Ecclesiastes 1:1-2 93

Canticles

1:1-2 93

Isaiah 40:3 96 40:9-10 96 41:27 96 52:7 96 60:6 96 61:1 96 Jeremiah

2:7 73

Ezekiel

36:25-26 109

Daniel 7:9 122 7:13-14 35, 75, 103-105, 107,

180-181 11:31 73 12:11 73 Joel

2:28 109

Haggai

2:21-24 181

Zechariah

9:9-10 122, 181

Malachi 2:11 73

224 Index of Ancient Sources

2. New Testament

Matthew 8:17 168 8:20 105 10:23 104 12:18-21 168 14:1-2 115 16:28 104 24:29 70 24:45-51 169 25:31 104 27:28 130 27:34 131

Mark 1:1 17, 19, 27, 36,

37, 92, 94, 98,101, 109, 115-116, 147, 182

1:1-3 92 1:1-13 19 1:2-3 92, 109, 168 1:7 109 1:8 109 1:9-11 113 1:11 17,94, 101, 180-182 1:13 109 1:14 16, 110 1:14-15 23 1:15 109 1:16 8 1:16-20 14,25,38,89, 140, 197 1:17 147, 197 1:21-28 9, 114 1:22 114 1:23 111 1:23-28 111 1:24 138 1:24-26 19 1:25 116, 136, 138 1:27 114 1:29-34 112 1:31 147 1:32-34 9,111 1:34 19, 111, 116, 136, 138 1:39 111 1:40-45 10, 112, 137 1:43-44 136 1:45 147 2:1 8

2:1-12 24, 112-114, 146, 195 2:6-7 16, 19 2:10 105-106 2:13 8, 140 2:13-14 14, 140 2:13-17 38, 147, 197 2:18-22 114 2:19-20 16 2:23 81 2:23-28 114 2:28 104, 106 3:1-6 24, 112, 114, 185 3:7 8 3:7-12 8,9 3:10 112 3:11 94, 101, 111, 138,

182-183 3:12 111, 136, 138 3:13-15 14, 147 3:13-19 38 3:14 140 3:15 111 3:18 140 3:20-30 8,32, 111, 113-114 3:22 111 3:31-35 14,25 3:35 38 4:1 8 4:1-31 8 4:10-13 141, 144 4:10-20 10 4:10-34 140 4:11 8, 140, 144 4:11-12 137, 142 4:13-20 38 4:17 196 4:23 38 4:35 19 4:35-41 10, 29, 112, 140-141, 176 5:1-20 111,113 5:2 111 5:7 19, 94, 101, 182-183 5:19-20 10, 147 5:20 197 5:21-43 8, 112 5:23 81 5:25-34 141, 147, 195 5:35-43 10, 38, 140


5:43 136-137 6:1-6 24, 114 6:2-3 19 6:6-13 14 6:7 140 6:7-9 25 6:7-13 147, 197 6:10-13 25, 140 6:13 111 6:14-16 19, 115, 143 6:14-29 114 6:30-44 113, 140-142, 188 6:45-52 10, 29, 112, 140-141, 176 6:50-52 8 6:52 143 6:53-56 112 7:1-23 8,32,54-55, 114, 140 7:3-4 55,86 7:14-23 144 7:19 54-55 7:21 89 7:24 137 7:24-30 39, 111, 147, 195 7:26-37 147 7:31 85 7:36 136-137, 197 7:31-37 8, 10, 112, 137 8:1 8 8:2 189 8:1-10 113, 140-142, 188 8:10 86 8:14-21 10, 141-142, 176 8:15 142 8:18 142 8:22-26 10, 112, 185 8:26 136-137 8:27-30 9, 19, 143 8:27-38 176 8:27-9:13 140 8:29 37, 94, 100, 138 8:30 136, 138 8:31 21, 105, 134, 144 8:31-33 10, 16 8:31-9:1 25 8:33 119 8:34 8, 38, 148, 175, 196 8:34-38 16, 29, 52, 82, 150, 197 8:35 38, 148, 196 8:38 38, 104-105, 123, 135,

148, 151, 180, 193

9:1 8, 67, 151 9:2 180 9:2-8 9,36, 107, 138, 140 9:7 17, 19, 94, 101, 181-182 9:9 39, 105, 116, 136, 138,

144 9:12 105, 124 9:9-13 37, 124 9:14-29 121 9:25 111 9:28-29 30 9:30 21 9:30-32 10, 16, 124, 134, 137,

144 9:31 105 9:31-50 140 9:33-37 30, 144 9:33-50 8 9:36 149 9:38 111 9:41 100, 148 9:42 38 9:42-50 30, 122 9:46-52 32 10:1-12 30, 122 10:13-16 30, 122 10:17-27 30, 197 10:17-31 38, 89, 122 10:23-45 140 10:27 40 10:28 140 10:28-31 14, 25, 30, 39, 122, 140 10:29 38, 148 10:32-34 10, 16, 124, 134, 144 10:33 81, 105 10:34 21 10:35-45 16, 25, 124, 145 10:37 38 10:38-40 125 10:41 38 10:41-45 144, 149 10:44 38 10:45 105, 120, 125, 134 10:46-52 37, 107, 121, 147, 176,

195 10:47-52 10, 138 11:1-11 32,37, 107, 138, 140 11:9-10 10 11:12-14 121 11:12-33 32,59


11:18 124 11:20-25 121 11:23-24 122 11:25 149 11:25-26 122 11:27-33 122 12:1-12 16, 59, 124-125 12:6 94 12:10 168 12:13-17 32, 122 12:18-27 122 12:28-34 122 12:35 94, 100 12:35-37 32,37, 12:38-40 122 12:41-44 39 12:42 81 12:43-44 140 13:1-2 59,71 13:1-37 140 13:2 56, 68, 71, 122 13:3 71 13:5-6 37, 149 13:5-8 68, 71, 151, 170 13:5-13 87-88 13:5-23 68 13:5-27 71, 122, 151 13:6 18, 170 13:6-7 150 13:7-8 88 13:9 33, 175 13:9-13 25, 38, 69, 71-72, 75,

82,148-149, 151 13:9-20 150 13:10 53, 54, 197 13:12 83 13:13 83, 175, 196 13:14 73 13:14-23 69-71, 151 13:14-27 87 13:18 69 13:17 75 13:19 75,85 13:19-20 149 13:21 94, 100 13:21-22 18, 100, 149, 174, 195 13:21-23 150 13:24-27 70, 71, 151 13:26 104-107, 135, 180, 188,

193, 195 13:26-27 127 13:28-37 194 13:28-29 151 13:30 151 13:32-42 144 13:33 151 13:35 151 13:37 151 14:3-9 39, 124, 147 14:9 53-54 14:12-21 128, 140 14:17-21 122, 187 14:21 105 14:22-31 127 14:25 127 14:26-31 122, 144 14:28 21, 23, 84 14:31 144 14:32-42 38, 127 14:34 128 14:36 125, 128 14:41 105 14:43-65 32, 38, 127 14:53-65 127 14:57 134 14:61 17, 19, 94, 100-101 14:61-62 37, 107 14:62 104-107, 127, 135, 138,

180, 182, 193 14:66-72 38, 127, 144 15:1-15 127 15:6-15 40 15:16 81 15:24 135 15:23 131, 135 15:29 135 15:29-32 133-134 15:32 94, 100 15:33 133 15:34 133-134 15:36 135 15:37 133 15:38 59 15:39 17, 19, 94, 101, 133,

182-183 16:1-8 126 16:7 20-21, 23, 84

Luke


9:7-9 115 12:40 104 12:41-48 169 12:50 125 18:8 104 19:43-44 59 21:20 59 22:69 104 23:46 132

John

19:30 132

Acts 2:25-28 168 2:34-35 168 6:13 63 6:14 63 7:48-50 63 7:56 102 21:17-26 62 Romans 1:2-4 168 10:18 53 15:19 53

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 62 7 170

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 62

Ephesians

2:18-22 62

1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 170

2 Thessalonians 1:5-2:12 170 2:1-12 85 2:3-4 74 2:4 62

I Timothy 3:15 62

Hebrews

1:5-14 168

James 5:8 168 1 Peter 5:13 78, 80

2 Peter

3:1-13 169

I John 2:18-27 85 Revelation 1:13 102 14:14 102

3. Old Testament Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Scrolls

2 Baruch

29:8 113

/ Enoch 1:1 93 14:20 122 62:1-16 194 2 Enoch 22:8-9 122

3 Enoch 12:1 122 2 Esdras 3:7 73

Lives of the Prophets 10:10 59 12:11 59,61


1 Maccabees 1:54 73 6:7 73

2 Maccabees 9:8 112, 186 Testament of Job 45:7-9 122

Testament of Judah 23:1-55 9

Testament of Levi 10:3 59

14:1-15:3 59 16:1-5 59

Tobit 8:3 111

Dead Sea Scrolls lQpHab

9:27 61

HQTemp 29:8-10 61 30:1-4 61

4. Early Christian Writings

1 Clement 5:1-7 44 6:1 44 25:3 169

2 Clement

11-12 169

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1-2 48 3.5.3 20 3.17 172 3.39.15 6,48 5.82-3 44 6.14.5-7 48 6.14.6 6

Ignatius Romans

4.2-3 44

Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.25.4 45 3.1.1 6 3.3.2 44 3.12.13 44 3.14.2 45 3.16.1 45 3.18.2 45 5.7.1 45

5. Josephus and Philo

Josephus Antiquities 8.45-49 111 15.44 83 15.275-279 60 17.146-154 60 18.55-59 60

Jewish Wars 4.11 97 4.592-604 165

6.312-13 161 7.66-74 167 7.71 167 7.152 132

Philo Embassy to Gaius 38 60 145-46 186


6. Ancient Greek and Roman Writings

Dio Cassius Roman History 57.15.8-9 112 60.23.1 132 63.28.1 171 65.9.2 187 66.8.1 160 66.17.3 163

Lucian of Samosata Lover of Lies 16 111

Philostratus Life of Apollonius 4:13 112 4.20 111 8.7 113

Plutarch Caesar 69.3-5 133

Res Gestae 3.15.18 166 4:25 186

Suetonius Lives of the Caesars Tiberius

17 132

Gaius

22 190

Galba 18.1 171

Vespasian 1 154 1.1 153 1.4 157, 182 2 154 2.3 154 4.1 154, 155 5 158 5.4 161 6.3 156 6.4 156 7 112 7.2 160 8.5-9.2 167 9.1 167 10-25 153 12 166 12.1 182 16.3 157 23.4 163

Tacitus Annul

15.44 82, 195

Histories 2.78.1 187 2.79 156, 165 2.89-90 156 4.81 112, 160, 185 4.82 160 5:2-5 171 5.13.1-2 161

Index of Modern Authors

Achtemeier, P. 13, 101, 107, 180-181 Anderson, H. 74 Arnold, G. 92 Aune, D. E. 15,113,122 Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 190 Barrett, A. 190 Barrett, C. K. 15, 63 Barton, T. S. 187 Bauckham, R. 3-4, 104 Baur, C. F. 43 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 57, 152, 170 Beck,R. 187 Beckwith, R. T. 163-164 Behm,J. 122 Bersanetti, G. M. 157, 166 Best, E. 27, 32, 46, 51, 53, 55, 59, 65, 67-

68, 76, 77, 82, 84, 99, 139, 140, 145 Betz, H. D. 13,77, 112-113, Betz ,0 . 15 Bieler, L. 12, 95 Black, C. C. 4, 21, 50, 76, 77-80, 84, 169 Blass, F. 81 Bolt, P. 179, 185-186 Boobyer,G.H. 102,122 Boomershine, T. E. 23 Booth, R. P. 56 Boring, M. E. 25, 81, 92-94, 96, 110, 178 Bornkamm, G. 103 Brandenburger, E. 57 Brandon, S. G. F. 21,31-35,40,42, 56,69,

123, 169, 171 Broadhead, E. K. 17-18 Broer, I. 59 Brown, R. E. 76, 127, 131 Bruce, F. F. 33, 57, 95-96, 104, 163, 164 Buchan, J. 158, 191 Bultmann, R. 10, 12, 20, 28, 57, 102 Burkett, D. 103

Burkill,T.A. 11 Burridge, R. 4 Cancik, H. 7,95 Casey, M. 43, 84, 104-105 * Carrington, M. P. 24 Chapman, J. 45-46, 50-51, 146, Charlesworth, J. 60, 100, 104 Charlesworth, M. P. 125, 188-189 Chilton, B. 104, 122-123 Collins, A. Y. 57, 59, 70, 72, 95, 101, 102-

103, 133, 180-181, 183, 186 Conzelmann, H. 21, 56, 96, 138, 152 Cotter, W. 186 Cranfield, C. E. B. 86, 125, 130 Crossan, J.D. 113, 123, 148, 184 Crossley, J. 43,46, 52-55 Cullmann, O. 103 Cumont,F. 187 Dalman, G. H. 104 Darwall-Smith, R. H. 167 Daube,D. 10,72 Davis, W. 154 Deissman, A. 95 Derchain, P. 159 Derrett, J. D. M. 33, 41, 56, 125 Dibelius, M. 11, 102 Dickie, W. 113 Dinkier, E. 106 Donahue, J. R. 25, 33, 54, 56, 69, 76, 77,

82, 92, 99, 108-109, 111, 116-117, 123, 125-128, 131, 139-141, 145-146, 148, 174, 175, 189, 195-196

Drexler,H. 155 Dunn, J. D. G. 10-11, 103, 105, 112, 172 Earl, D. 93, Ebeling, H. J. 11,27, 138 Eck,W. 154 Ehrman, B. 94

232 Index of Modern Authors

Ellis, E. E. 43-45, 152 Ernst, J. 74,76 Evans, C. A. 19, 33, 57, 59-61, 94, 96-98,

100-103, 106, 123, 125-128, 130, 131, 133, 148, 149, 152, 168, 170-171, 178-181, 183, 185, 188-189, 193, 196-197

Farmer, W. R. 1, 21 Fears, J. R. 159 Ferrill, A. 190 Fitzmyer, J. 63, 104 Foerster, W. Ill Fowler, R. M. 197 France, R. T. 33, 54,92, 99, 108-110, 114,

122-123, 126, 128, 130, 133, 141, 143, 148-149, 188-189, 195-196

Frankemolle, H. 95 Friedlander, L. 154 Friedrich, G. 18, 95, 101 Fuller, R. H. 13, 103, 129 Garnsey, P. 166 Garrett, S. R. 195 Gartner, B. 62 Gaston, L. 56 Gelzer, M. 190 Georgi, D. 12, 15 Gibson, J. B. 143,149 Gnilka, J. 33, 56, 69, 70, 74, 86, 103, 107,

122-123, 127, 131, 134, 142, 152 Globe, J. 94 Goldenberg, R. 171 Gradel, I. 166, 190 Graf, H. R. 154, 157, 167 Graham, H. R. 148,175 Green, W. S. 100 Grimal, P. 154 Grundmann, W. 56, 74, 151-152 Guelich, R. 48, 56, 76, 90, 93, 94, 96-98,

109-110, 117, 142-143, 184-185, Gundry, R. 17, 21, 28-31, 33, 36-41, 45,

48, 54, 82, 93, 108-111, 117, 119, 122, 125, 127-128, 133, 140-141, 143, 147-149, 174-175, 180, 187-188, 193

Hadas,M. 95 Haenchen, E. 149 Hagner,D.A. 131 Hahn,F. 57 Halverson, J. 23 Hammond, M. 158 Hare, D. R. A. 61, 106 Harnack, A. 95

Hart, H.S.J. 130 Hartman, L. 95, 151-152 Head, P.M. 94 Heard, R. G. 47,49 Hengel, M. 7,47-48,51-53, 57, 59,72, 76,

81, 106, 119, 123, 148, 169, 171, 192 Henrichs,A. 159-160 Hermann, A. 171 Herrmann, L. 159 Hickling,A. 15 H6lscher,G. 56-57 Holladay,C. 15-16 Holtzmann, H. 6 Homo,L. 154,157 Hooker, M. 56, 69, 72, 76, 93, 96, 103,

108-110,116-117,123,126,130,140-141, 143, 148, 170, 175, 185, 189, 196-197

Hopkins, K. 157 Horbury,W. 104 Horsley, R. 32, 35, 36-42, 100, 123, 184 Howard, W. F. 47 Hurtado, L. 19, 23, 101, 108 van Iersel, B. 54, 57,59, 72, 76, 81-82, 84,

88-89, 114, 127, 130, 141-143, 146, 174 Incigneri, B. J. 56, 77, 82-83, 172, 185 Jeremias, J. 104 Juel, D. H. 18, 127 Julicher, A. 51 Kazmierski, C. R. 13, 94 Keck, L. E. 13,99 Kee, H. C. 25, 48, 59, 60-61, 77, 82 Kelber, W. H. 20, 22-24, 32, 56, 70, 72,

77, 81, 145, 149, 170 Kennedy, D. 184 Kertelge, K. 86 Kienast,D. 156 Kim, S. 103, Kim, T. H. 101,181,183 Kingsbury, J. D. 11, 18, 100, 106, 139 Kirschner, E. F. Ill Kleiner, F. S. 166 Klostermann, E. 56, 74, 149 Kolenkow, A. B. 122 La Verdiere, E. 134 Lagrange, M. J. 56, 126, 151 Lambrecht, J. 56, 57, 170 Lampe, G. W. H. 57, 146 Lane, W. 25, 69, 76, 82, 93, 102, 112, 123,

149, 152 Lane Fox, R. 183

Index of Modern Authors 233

Langton, E. Ill Lattimore, R. 159 Levi, M. A. 157 Levick, B. 98,153-157, 165,166, 167, 182,

187, 191 Liew, T. B. 40 Lightfoot, R. H. 20, 22, 77 Lindars, B. 104-105 Littman, R. 171 Lohmeyer, E. 20, 22, 56, 74, 77, 83, Luhrmann, D. 33, 56, 69, 86, 126 Luz,U. 11,27, 138 Mack,B. 77 Maloney, E. 84 Malbon,E. S. 146 Mann, C. S. 1, 57, 126 Manson, W. 170 Manson, T. W. 10 Marcus, J. 18, 31, 54-56, 69, 72, 77, 81,

84, 87, 93-94, 96, 102, 110, 113-114, 122-123, 134, 140-143, 149, 174, 175-176, 180, 184

Marshall, I. H. 102-104 Martin, R. R 13,92 Marxsen, W. 20-24,32, 56,64,77, 83-84,

92 Mason, S. 162, 164 Matera, F. J. 18, 99, 134 Mattingly, H. 172 Mauser, U. W. 122 Meagher, J. 171 Meye, R. R 25 Moloney, F. 54-55, 69, 93, 107-110, 114,

116-117, 123, 126, 128, 134-135, 143, 148,175, 196

Moffatt,J. 43 Mogan, G. 98 Morenz, S. 160 Moule, C. F. D. 33, 57 Murision, C. L. 98 Myers, C. 36, 92, 179, 184 Nay lor, R I. H. 187 Nestle, E. 86 Nicolas, E. R 157 Nicols, J. 155-156,159,163,165 Nineham, D. E. 25, 86 Norden, E. 162 O'Collins, G. G. 119, 192 Oko, O. I. 19 Orchard, D. B. 7

Parke, H. W. 187 Parker, R. 187 Painter, J. 94, 128 Peerbolte, L. J. 56, 69, 74 Perrin, N. 13, 16, 77, 103, 107 Perumalil, A. C. 49 Pesch, R. 31, 56-57, 69, 81, 86, 92, 95,

122-123, 149, 170, 185, Potter, D. 187 Price, S. R. F. 168 Pudussery, P. S. 148, 175 Quesnell, Q. 24, 139, 142-143 Radcliffe,T. 146 Raisanen, H. 11, 137-138 Rajak, T. 162 Reese, D. G. Ill Regul,J. 47 Renan, E. 6 Reploh, K. G. 24, 139-140 Riesenfeld, H. 20 Ritschl, A. 6 Robinson, J. A. T. 43, 103 Rowe, R. 18 Roskam, H. N. 31, 33-35, 40, 42, 48, 56,

71-72, 77, 84-87 Sanday,W. 10 Sanders, E. P. 1, 59, 123 Sanford, E. M. 171 Saulnier, C. 162 Schenke, L. 13,57 Schille,G. 24 Schmid,J. 86 Schmidt, T. E. 8, 129-132, 135, 193 Schmithals, W. 106-107 Schnackenburg, R. 57, 101, 216 Schnelle,U. 81 Schniewind, J. 56, 95 Schoeps, H. J. 57 Schulz,S. 12 Schreiber, J. 13 Schweitzer, A. 169 Schweizer, E. 13, 57, 95-96 Scott, K. 159, 160 Shuler, P. L. 1 Skarsaune, O. 63 Senior, D. 134 Smallwood, E. M. 154 Smith, D. E. 93, 109 Smith, J. Z. Ill Smith, M. 95, 113, 162,

234 Index of Modern Authors

Sowers, S. 21 Steichele, H. J. 18, 100 Stemberger, G. 84 Stern, D. 126, Stern, M. 162 Stevenson, T. R. 125, 188-189 Stock, K. 25 Strecker, G. 11,21,96, 103 Stuhlmacher, R 95-98 Such,W. 69,77 Sumney, J. 15 Tannehill, R. C. 25, 139-140, 145, 195 Taylor, N. H. 74 Taylor, V. 7, 10, 56, 59, 72, 94, 127, 130,

141 Telford, W. R. 18, 25, 48, 81, 101, Theissen, G. 25-27, 56-59, 69, 74-75, 77,

82, 88-90, 103, 112-113, 199, Thiede, C. P. 43 Thusing,W. 170 Tiede, D. L. 95 Tobin,T. 15 Todt, H. E. 102 Tolbert, M. A. 92, 102 Torrey, C. C. 61 Trocme, E. 25, 52-53 Tuckett, C. 10-11,137 Twelftree, G. H. 112

Ulansey, D. 133 VanderKam, J. C. 104 Verheyden, J. 148, 175 Vermes, G. 55, 104-105 Versnel,H. S. 129 Vielhauer, P. 48, 103 Vigourt,A. 158 von Martitz, W. 15-16,101 Wacher,J. 158 Waetjen,H. C. 36,77 Wallace-Hadrill, A. 190 Walter, N. 57, 106, 151 Watts, R. 93, 96, 109 Weber, W. 155-156, 160 Webster, G. 155 Weeden, T. J. 13-15, 22, 24, 77, 145 Weinstock, S. 190 Weiss, B. 6 Weisse, C. H. 6 Wellesley, K. 98, 156 Wenham, J. W. 43, 45 Werner, M. 169 Wilke,C.G. 6 Williams, J. F. 29, 31, 146 Witherington, B. 94, 96, 101, 111, 116,

117, 123, 128, 141, 149, 179, 185, Wrede, W. 6-12, 14, 28, 137-138

Index of Subjects

Abomination of Desolation 73-75 "Anti-Marcionite" Prologue 47-49 Antiochus IV 73-74, 186 Apollonius of Tyana 112 Augustus 97, 102, 132, 159, 165-167, 186 Benefactor 125, 166, 188-190 Caligula, 73 Caesarea Philippi 115-120 Christ/Messiah 37, 94, 99-100 Christology - Corrective 12-18,26, 116-118 - of power 12, 16, 108, 115, 133, 135,

174-175 - of cross/glory 12, 16, 26, 108, 115 Clement of Alexandria 47-48, 50-51 Dalmanutha 86 Disciples 8, 10, 13-15, 24, 39, 140-146,

176 Discipleship 24-27, 29, 36, 38, 120, 139,

149-150, 194-198 Divine Man 12-16 Eschatology 19-21, 70-72, 150-152, 170-

171, 176, 198-199 Exorcisms 40, 111, 121, 183 False Prophets/Teachers 22, 30, 84, 174 Galba 155 Galilee 20-21, 23-24, 33-34, 77, 83-86 Good News 95-98 Gospel of Luke 80 Gospel of Mark - Aramaisms of 84-86 - Audience of 3, 28-31 - Author of 1, 3 - Date of 43 - Geography in 85, 90 - Grammar of 37, 58, 71, 81-82 - Genre of 4 - Incipit of 92, 173-174, 178-179

- Latinisms of 81-82 - Law in 54-55 - Priority of 1 - Prologue of 109-110 - Provenance of 76 - Redaction of 4, 20 Gospel of Matthew 80 Irenaeus 44-46, 48-51, 77 Healings 112, 121, 184-185 Historical-Critical Method 2 Jewish Revolt/War 20, 22, 31-32, 43, 56,

60, 63-64, 66, 68, 70, 87, 170 Jerusalem Temple - Destruction of 58, 60-66, 68-69, 187 - Corruption of 59-62 Magic/Magicians 113 Messianic Secret 6-11, 26-27, 136-139,

190-192 Nero 82-83, 102, 153-155 Otho 155-156 Papias 5-6, 48, 78 Parousia 21, 23, 51-53, 67, 70-72, 75 Passion Predictions 116-119, 124, Persecution 33, 69, 72, 75, 82-83, 148,

171-173, 175-176 Pella 20-21 Rome 76-77, Roman Triumph 129-132 Sea of Galilee 88, Son of God 18, 35, 94, 99-102, 180-183 Son of Man 21, 70-71, 75, 99, 102-107 Syria 77, 87-91 Tertullian 79 Tiberius 102, 132 Titus 64, 132 Transfiguration 122-123 Vaticinium ex eventu 56-58 Vespasian

236 Index of Subjects

- Ancestry o f l 57-158 - Benefaction of 166-167 - Early years of 154-155 - Good news of 97 - Healings performed by 160 - Portents and Prophecies of 158—

159, 161-163 - Reign of 153, - Rise to power of 155-156 - Triumph of 32, 132, 164-165 Vitellius 155-156

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Alphabetical Index of the First and Second Series

Adna, Jostein: Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. 2000. Vol 11/119.

Adna, Jostein (Ed.): The Formation of the Early Church. 2005. Vol. 183.

- and Kvalbein, Hans (Ed.): The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. 2000. Vol. 127.

Alexeev, AnatolyA., Christos Karakolis and Ulrich Luz (Ed.): Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament. Dritte europaische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24.-31. August 2005. 2008. Vol 218.

Alkier, Stefan: Wunder und Wirklichkeit in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 2001. Vol 134.

Allen, David M.: Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews. 2008. Vol. 11/238.

Anderson, Paul N.: The Christology of the Fourth Gospel. 1996. Vol 11/78.

Appold, MarkL: The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel. 1976. Vol. 11/I.

Arnold, Clinton E.: The Colossian Syncretism. 1995. Vol. 11/77.

Ascough, RichardS.: Paul's Macedonian Associations. 2003. Vol 11/161.

Asiedu-Peprah, Martin: Johannine Sabbath Conflicts As Juridical Controversy. 2001. Vol 11/132.

Attridge, Harold W.: see Zangenberg, Jiirgen. Aune, David E.: Apocalypticism, Prophecy and

Magic in Early Christianity. 2006. Vol 199. Avemarie, Friedrich: Die Tauferzahlungen der

Apostelgeschichte. 2002. Vol 139. Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann Lichtenber-

ger (Ed.): Auferstehung - Ressurection. 2001. Vol 135.

- Bund und Tora. 1996. Vol 92. Baarlink, Heinrich: Verkundigtes Heil. 2004.

Vol 168. Bachmann, Michael: Sunder oder Ubertreter.

1992. Vol 59. Bachmann, Michael (Ed.): Lutherische und

Neue Paulusperspektive. 2005. Vol. 182. Back, Frances: Verwandlung durch Offenba-

rungbei Paulus. 2002. Vol. 11/153. Baker, William R.: Personal Speech-Ethics in

the Epistle of James. 1995. Vol 11/68. Bakke, OddMagne: 'Concord and Peace'. 2001.

Vol 11/143. Batch, David L.: Roman Domestic Art and Ear

ly House Churches. 2008.ro/. 228.

Baldwin, Matthew C: Whose Acts of Peter? 2005. Vol. 11/196.

Balla, Peter: Challenges to New Testament Theology. 1997. Vol 11/95.

- The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environment. 2003. Vol. 155.

Bammel, Ernst: Judaica. Vol. I 1986. Vol 37. - Vol.11 1997. Vol. 91. Barton, Stephen C: see Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Bash, Anthony: Ambassadors for Christ. 1997.

Vol. 11/92. Bauernfeind, Otto: Kommentar und Studien zur

Apostelgeschichte. 1980. Vol. 22. Baum, Armin Daniel: Pseudepigraphie und lite-

rarische Falschung im fruhen Christentum. 2001. Vol 11/138.

Bayer, Hans Friedrich: Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection. 1986. Vol. 11/20.

Becker, Eve-Marie: Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. 2006. Vol. 194.

Becker, Eve-Marie and Peter Pilhofer (Ed.): Biographie und Personlichkeit des Paulus. 2005. Vol. 187.

Becker, Michael: Wunder und Wundertater im fruhrabbinischen Judentum. 2002. Vol. 11/144.

Becker, Michael and Markus Ohler (Ed.): Apo-kalyptik als Herausforderung neutestament-licherTheologie. 2006. Vol 11/214.

Bell, Richard H: Deliver Us from Evil. 2007. Vol. 216.

- The Irrevocable Call of God. 2005. Vol. 184. - No One Seeks for God. 1998. Vol 106. - Provoked to Jealousy. 1994. Vol. 11/63. Bennema, Cornells: The Power of Saving Wis

dom. 2002. Vol. 11/148. Bergman, Jan: see Kieffer, Rene Bergmeier, Roland: Das Gesetz im Romerbrief

und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament. 2000. Vol. 121.

Bernett, Monika: Der Kaiserkult in Judaa unter den Herodiern und Romern. 2007. Vol. 203.

Betz, Otto: Jesus, der Messias Israels. 1987. Vol 42.

- Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. 1990. Vol 52. Beyschlag, Karlmann: Simon Magus und die

christliche Gnosis. 1974. Vol 16.

http://2008.ro/

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Bieringer, Reimund: see Koester, Craig. Bittner, Wolfgang J.: Jesu Zeichen im Johannes-

evangelium. 1987. Vol. 11/26. Bjerkelund, Carl J.: Tauta Egeneto. 1987.

Vol. 40. Blackburn, Barry Lee: Theios Aner and the

Markan Miracle Traditions. 1991. Vol 11/40. Blanton IV, Thomas R.: Constructing a New

Covenant. 2007. Vol. 11/233. Bock, Darrell L.: Blasphemy and Exaltation in

Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. 1998. Vol. 11/106.

Bockmuehl, Markus N.A.: Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 1990. Vol. 11/36.

Boe, Sverre: Gog and Magog. 2001. Vol. 11/135. Bohlig, Alexander: Gnosis und Synkretismus.

Vol. 1 1989. Vol 47-Vol. 2 1989. Vol. 48. Bohm, Martina: Samarien und die Samaritai bei

Lukas. 1999. Vol 11/111. Bottrich, Christfried: Weltweisheit - Mensch-

heitsethik-Urkult. 1992. Vol. 11/50. - /Herzer, Jens (Ed.): Josephus und das Neue

Testament. 2007. Vol. 209. Bolyki, Jdnos: Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. 1997.

Vol. 11/96. Bosman, Philip: Conscience in Philo and Paul.

2003. Vol 11/166. Bovon, Francois: Studies in Early Christianity.

2003. Vol 161. Brandl, Martin: Der Agon bei Paulus. 2006.

Vol 11/222. Breytenbach, Cilliers: see Frey, Jorg. Brocke, Christoph vom: Thessaloniki - Stadt

des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus. 2001. Vol. 11/125.

Brunson, Andrew: Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John. 2003. Vol. 11/158.

Buchli, Jorg: Der Poimandres - ein paganisier-tes Evangelium. 1987. Vol. 11/27.

Buhner, Jan A.: Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium. 1977. Vol. II/2.

Burchard, Christoph: Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. 1965. Vol 8.

- Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Ed. by D. Sanger. 1998. Vol. 107.

Burnett, Richard: Karl Barth's Theological Exegesis. 2001. Vol. 11/145.

Byron, John: Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 2003. Vol 11/162.

Byrskog, Samuel: Story as History - History as Story. 2000. Vol 123.

Cancik, Hubert (Ed.): Markus-Philologie. 1984. Vol 33.

Capes, David B.: Old Testament Yaweh Texts in Paul's Christology. 1992. Vol 11/47.

Caragounis, Chrys C: The Development of Greek and the New Testament. 2004. Vol 167.

- The Son of Man. 1986. Vol 38. - see Fridrichsen, Anton. Carleton Paget, James: The Epistle of Barna

bas. 1994. Vol 11/64. Carson, D.A., O 'Brien, Peter T. and Mark

Seifrid (Ed.): Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. 2001. Vol 11/140. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. 2004. Vol 11/181.

Chae, Young Sam: Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd. 2006. Vol. 11/216.

Chapman, David W.: Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. 2008. Vol. 11/244.

Chester, Andrew: Messiah and Exaltation. 2007. Vol 207.

Chibici-Revneanu, Nicole: Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten. 2007. Vol. 11/231.

Ciampa, Roy E.: The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. 1998. Vol. 11/102.

Classen, Carl Joachim: Rhetorical Criticsm of the New Testament. 2000. Vol. 128.

Colpe, Carsten: Iranier - Aramaer - Hebraer -Hellenen. 2003. Vol 154.

Crump, David: Jesus the Intercessor. 1992. Vol 11/49.

Dahl, NilsAlstrup: Studies in Ephesians. 2000. Vol. 131.

Daise, Michael A.: Feasts in John. 2007. Vol. 11/229.

Deines, Roland: Die Gerechtigkeit derTora im Reich des Messias. 2004. Vol. 177.

- Judische SteingefaBe und pharisaische Frommigkeit. 1993. Vol. 11/52.

- Die Pharisaer. 1997. Vol. 101. Deines, Roland and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

(Ed.): Philo und das Neue Testament. 2004. Vol. 172.

Dennis, John A.: Jesus' Death and the Gathering of True Israel. 2006. Vol 217.

Dettwiler, Andreas and Jean Zumstein (Ed.): Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament. 2002. Vol. 151.

Dickson, John P.: Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities. 2003. Vol 11/159.

Dietzfelbinger, Christian: Der Abschied des Kommenden. 1997. Vol 95.

Dimitrov, Ivan Z., James D.G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. 2004. Vol 174.


Dobbeler, Axel von: Glaube alsTeilhabe. 1987. Vol. 11/22.

Downs, David J.: The Offering of the Gentiles. 2008. Vol. 11/248.

Dryden, J. de Waal: Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter. 2006. Vol. 11/209.

Dubbers, Michael: Christologie und Existenz im Kolosserbrief. 2005. Vol. 11/191.

Dunn, James D.G.: The New Perspective on Paul. 2005. Vol. 185.

Dunn, James D.G. (Ed.): Jews and Christians. 1992. Vol. 66.

- Paul and the Mosaic Law. 1996. Vol. 89. - see Dimitrov, Ivan Z. - Hans Klein, Ulrich Luz and Vasile Mihoc

(Ed.): Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive. 2000. Vol. 130.

Ebel, Eva: Die Attraktivitat fruher christlicher Gemeinden. 2004. Vol. 11/178.

Ebertz, Michael N: Das Charisma des Gekreu-zigten. mi. Vol. 45.

Eckstein, Hans-Joachim: Der Begriff Syneide-sis bei Paulus. 1983. Vol. 11/10.

- VerheiBung und Gesetz. 1996. Vol. 86. Ego, Beate: Im Himmel wie auf Erden. 1989.

Vol. 11/34. Ego, Beate, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer

(Ed.): Gemeinde ohne Tempel - Community without Temple. 1999. Vol. 118.

- and Helmut Merkel (Ed.): Religioses Lernen in der biblischen, fruhjudischen und fruh-christlichen Uberlieferung. 2005. Vol. 180.

Eisen, UteE.: see Paulsen, Henning. EHedge, CD.: Life after Death in Early Juda

ism. 2006. Vol. 11/208. Ellis, E. Earle: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in

Early Christianity. 1978. Vol. 18. - The Old Testament in Early Christianity.

1991. Vol.54. Endo, Masanobw. Creation and Christology.

2002. Vol. 149. Ennulat, Andreas: Die 'Minor Agreements'.

1994. Vol. 11/62. Ensor, Peter W.: Jesus and His 'Works'. 1996.

Vol. 11/85. Eskola, Timo: Messiah and the Throne. 2001.

Vol. 11/142. - Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline So-

teriology. 1998. Vol. 11/100. Fatehi, Mehrdad: The Spirit's Relation to the

Risen Lord in Paul. 2000. Vol. 11/128. Feldmeier, Reinhard: Die Krisis des Gottessoh-

nes. 1987. Vol. 11/21. - Die Christen als Fremde. 1992. Vol. 64. Feldmeier, Reinhard and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.):

DieHeiden. 1994. Vol. 70. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T.: Luke-Acts: An

gels, Christology and Soteriology. 1997. Vol. 11/94.

Forster, Niclas: Marcus Magus. 1999. Vol. 114.

Forbes, Christopher Brian: Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment. 1995. Vol. 11/75.

Fornberg, Tord: see Fridrichsen, Anton. Fossum, Jarl E.: The Name of God and the An

gel of the Lord. 1985. Vol.36. Foster, Paul: Community, Law and Mission in

Matthew's Gospel. Vol. 11/177. Fotopoulos, John: Food Offered to Idols in Ro

man Corinth. 2003. Vol. 11/151. Frenschkowski, Marco: Offenbarung und Epi-

phanie.Vol. 1 1995. Vol. 11/79-Vol. 2 1997. Vol. 11/80.

Frey, Jorg: Eugen Drewermann und die bibli-sche Exegese. 1995. Vol. 11/71.

- Die johanneische Eschatologie. Vol. 1.1997. Vol. 96. - Vol. II. 1998. Vol. 110. - Vol. III. 2000. Vol. 117.

Frey, Jorg and Cilliers Breytenbach (Ed.): Auf-gabe und Durchfuhrung einerTheologie des Neuen Testaments. 2007. Vol. 205.

- and Udo Schnelle (Ed.): Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums. 2004. Vol. 175.

- and Jens Schrdter (Ed.): Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2005. Vol. 181.

- Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmer-mann (Ed.): Imagery in the Gospel of John. 2006. Vol. 200.

Freyne, Sean: Galilee and Gospel. 2000. Vol. 125.

Fridrichsen, Anton: Exegetical Writings. Edited by C.C. Caragounis andT. Fornberg. 1994. Vol. 76.

Gabel, Georg: Die Kulttheologie des Hebraer-briefes. 2006. Vol. 11/212.

Gdckle, Volker: Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und in Rom. 2005. Vol. 200.

Garlington, Don B.: 'The Obedience of Faith'. 1991. Vol. 11/38.

- Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance. 1994. Vol. 79.

Garnet, Paul: Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. 1977. Vol. 11/3.

Gemiinden, Petra von (Ed.): see Weissenrieder, Annette.

Gese, Michael: Das Vermachtnis des Apostels. 1997. Vol. 11/99.

Gheorghita, Radu: The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews. 2003. Vol 11/160.

Gordley, Matthew E.: The Colossian Hymn in Context. 2007. Vol. 11/228.

Grdbe, PetrusJ: The Power of God in Paul's Letters. 2000. Vol 11/123.

Grafier, Erich: Der Alte Bund im Neuen. 1985. Vol. 35.

- Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte. 2001. Vol 137.

Grappe, Christian (Ed.): Le Repas de Dieu / Das Mahl Gottes.2004. Vol 169.


Green, JoelB.: The Death of Jesus. 1988. Vol 11/33.

Gregg, Brian Han: The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. 2005. Vol. 11/207.

Gregory, Andrew: The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus. 2003. Vol. 11/169.

Grindheim, Sigurd: The Crux of Election. 2005. Vol 11/202.

Gundry, Robert H: The Old is Better. 2005. Vol 178.

Gundry Volf, Judith M.: Paul and Perseverance. 1990. Vol 11/37.

Haufier, Detlef: Christusbekenntnis und Jesus-iiberlieferung bei Paulus. 2006. Vol 210.

Hafemann, Scott J: Suffering and the Spirit. 1986. Vol 11/19.

- Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. 1995. Vol 81.

Hahn, Ferdinand: Studien zum Neuen Testament. Vol. I: Grundsatzfragen, Jesusforschung, Evangelien. 2006. Vol. 191. Vol. II: Bekenntnisbildung undTheologie in urchristlicherZeit. 2006. Vol. 192.

Hahn, Johannes (Ed.): Zerstorungen des Jeru-salemerTempels. 2002. Vol. 147.

Hamid-Khani, Saeed: Relevation and Concealment of Christ. 2000. Vol 11/120.

Hannah, DarrelD.: Michael and Christ. 1999. Vol 11/109.

Hardin, Justin K.: Galatians and the Imperial Cult? 2007. Vol. 11/237.

Harrison; James R.: Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. 2003. Vol 11/172.

Hartman, Lars: Text-Centered New Testament Studies. Ed. von D. Hellholm. 1997. Vol. 102.

Hartog, Paul: Polycarp and the New Testament. 2001. Vol 11/134.

Heckel, Theo K.: Der Innere Mensch. 1993. Vol. 11/53.

- Vom Evangelium des Markus zum vierge-staltigen Evangelium. 1999. Vol 120.

Heckel, Ulrich: Kraft in Schwachheit. 1993. Vol 11/56.

- Der Segen im Neuen Testament. 2002. Vol 150.

- see Feldmeier, Reinhard. - see Hengel, Martin. Heiligenthal, Roman: Werke als Zeichen. 1983.

Vol 11/9. Heliso, Desta: Pistis and the Righteous One.

2007. Vol 11/235. Hellholm, D.: see Hartman, Lars. Hemer, Colin J: The Book of Acts in the Setting

of Hellenistic History. 1989. Vol 49.

Hengel, Martin: Judentum und Hellenismus. 1969,31988.Fo/. 10.

- DiejohanneischeFrage. 1993. Vol 67. - Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I.

1996. Vol 90. - Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine

Schriften II. 1999. Vol 109. - Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften III.

2002. Vol 141. - Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften

IV 2006. Vol. 201. - and Anna Maria Schwemer: Paulus zwi-

schen Damaskus und Antiochien. 1998. Vol 108.

- Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie. 2001. Vol 138.

- Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus. 2008. Vol. 224.

Hengel, Martin and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Paulus und das antike Judentum. 1991. Vol 58.

- and Hermut Lohr (Ed.): Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum. 1994. Vol 73.

- and Anna Maria Schwemer (Ed.): Konigs-herrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult. 1991. Vol.55.

- Die Septuaginta. 1994. Vol. 72. - Siegfried Mittmann and Anna Maria Schwe

mer (Ed.): La Cite de Dieu / Die Stadt Gottes. 2000. Vol 129.

Hentschel, Anni: Diakonia im Neuen Testament. 2007. Vol 226.

Hernandez Jr., Juan: Scribal Habits and Theological Influence in the Apocalypse. 2006. Vol. 11/218.

Herrenbriick, Fritz: Jesus und die Zollner. 1990. Vol 11/41.

Herzer, Jens: Paulus oder Petrus? 1998. Vol. 103.

- see Bottrich, Christfried. Hill, Charles E.: From the Lost Teaching of Po

lycarp. 2005. Vol. 186. Hoegen-Rohls, Christina: Der nachosterliche

Johannes. 1996. Vol. 11/84. Hoffmann, Matthias Reinhard: The Destroyer

and the Lamb. 2005. Vol 11/203. Hofius, Otfried: Katapausis. 1970. Vol 11. - Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. 1972.

Vol 14. - Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11.

1976,21991. to/. 17. - Paulusstudien. 1989,21994. Vol 51. - Neutestamentliche Studien. 2000.

Vol 132. - Paulusstudien II. 2002. Vol 143. - Exegetische Studien. 2008. Vol 223. - and Hans-Christian Kammler: Johannesstu-

dien. 1996. Vol. 88. Holmberg, Bengt (Ed.): Exploring Early

Christian Identity. 2008. Vol 226.


- and Mikael Winninge (Ed.): Identity Formation in the New Testament. 2008. Vol 227.

Holtz, Traugott: Geschichte und Theologie des Urchristentums. 1991. Vol 57

Hommel, Hildebrecht: Sebasmata. Vol. 1 1983. Vol. 31. Vol.2 1984. Vol 32.

Horbury, William: Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study. 2006. Vol 193.

Horst, Pieter W. van der: Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context. 2006. Vol. 196.

Hvalvik, Reidar: The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant. 1996. Vol. 11/82.

Jauhiainen, Marko: The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. 2005. Vol. 11/199.

Jensen, Morten H: Herod Antipas in Galilee. 2006. Vol 11/215.

Johns, Loren L.: The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John. 2003. Vol. 11/167.

Jossa, Giorgio: Jews or Christians? 2006. Vol. 202.

Joubert, Stephan: Paul as Benefactor. 2000. Vol. 11/124.

Judge, E.A.: The First Christians in the Roman World. 2008. Vol 229.

Jungbauer, Harry: „Ehre Vater und Mutter". 2002. Vol 11/146.

Kdhler, Christoph: Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie undTherapie. 1995. Vol. 78.

Kamlah, Ehrhard: Die Form der katalogischen Paranese im Neuen Testament. 1964. Vol. 7.

Kammler, Hans-Christian: Christologie und Eschatologie. 2000. Vol. 126.

- Kreuz und Weisheit. 2003. Vol. 159. - see Hofius, Otfried. Karakolis, Christos: see Alexeev, AnatolyA. Karrer, Martin und Wolfgang Kraus (Ed.):

Die Septuaginta -Texte, Kontexte, Lebens-welten. 2008. Vol. 219.

Kelhoffer, James A.: The Diet of John the Baptist. 2005. Vol. 176.

- Miracle and Mission. 1999. Vol. 11/112. Kelley, Nicole: Knowledge and Religious Au

thority in the Pseudo-Clementines. 2006. Vol. 11/213.

Kieffer, Rene and Jan Bergman (Ed.): La Main de Dieu / Die Hand Gottes. 1997. Vol. 94.

Kierspel, Lars: The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel. 2006. Vol 220.

Kim, Seyoon: The Origin of Paul's Gospel. 1981,21984. Vol 11/4.

- Paul and the New Perspective. 2002. Vol. 140.

- "The 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God. 1983. Vol 30.

Klauck, Hans-Josef: Religion und Gesellschaft im fruhen Christentum. 2003. Vol. 152.

Klein, Hans: see Dunn, James D.G.

Kleinknecht, Karl Th.: Der leidende Gerechtfer-tigte. 1984,21988. to/.///75.

Klinghardt, Matthias: Gesetz und Volk Gottes. 1988. Vol. 11/32.

Kloppenborg, John S.: The Tenants in the Vineyard. 2006. Vol 195.

Koch, Michael: Drachenkampf und Sonnenfrau. 2004. Vol 11/184.

Koch, Stefan: Rechtliche Regelung von Kon-flikten im fruhen Christentum. 2004. Vol. 11/174.

Kdhler, Wolf-Dietrich: Rezeption des Matthau-sevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus. 1987. Vol 11/24.

Kohn, Andreas: Der Neutestamentler Ernst Lohmeyer. 2004. Vol. 11/180.

Koester, Craig and Reimund Bieringer (Ed.): The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John. 2008. Vol. 222.

Konradt, Matthias: Israel, Kirche und die V61-ker im Matthausevangelium. 2007. Vol. 215.

Kooten, George H. van: Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School. 2003. Vol. 11/171.

Korn, Manfred: Die Geschichte Jesu in veran-derterZeit. 1993. Vol. 11/51.

Koskenniemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. 1994. Vol. 11/61.

- The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. 2005. Vol. 11/206.

Kraus, Thomas J: Sprache, Stil und historischer Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes. 2001. Vol. 11/136.

Kraus, Wolfgang: Das Volk Gottes. 1996. Vol. 85.

- see Karrer, Martin. - see Walter, Nikolaus. - and Karl- Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Friih-

judentum und Neues Testament im Horizont BiblischerTheologie. 2003. Vol. 162.

Kreplin, Matthias: Das Selbstverstandnis Jesu. 2001. Vol. 11/141.

Kuhn, Karl G.: Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser undderReim. 1950. Vol 1.

Kvalbein, Hans: see Adna, Jostein. Kwon, Yon-Gyong: Eschatology in Galatians.

2004. Vol 11/183. Laansma, Jon: I Will Give You Rest. 1997.

Vol. 11/98. Labahn, Michael: Offenbarung in Zeichen und

Wort. 2000. Vol. 11/117. Lambers-Petry, Doris: see Tomson, Peter J. Lange, Armin: see Ego, Beate. Lampe, Peter: Die stadtromischen Christen

in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1987, 21989. Vol 11/18.

Landmesser, Christof: Wahrheit als Grundbe-griff neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft. 1999. Vol 113.


- Jiingerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott. 2000. Vol. 133.

Lau, Andrew: Manifest in Flesh. 1996. Vol. 11/86.

Lawrence, Louise: An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew. 2003. Vol. 11/165.

Lee, Aquila H.L: From Messiah to Preexistent Son. 2005. Vol. 11/192.

Lee, Pilchan: The New Jerusalem in the Book of Relevation. 2000. Vol 11/129.

Lichtenberger, Hermann: Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit. 2004. Vol. 164.

- seeAvemarie, Friedrich. Lierman, John: The New Testament Moses.

2004. Vol 11/173. - (Ed.): Challenging Perspectives on the Gos

pel of John. 2006. Vol 11/219. Lieu, SamuelN.C.: Manichaeism in the Later

Roman Empire and Medieval China.21992. Vol 63.

Lindgard, Fredrik: Paul's Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10. 2004. Vol. 11/189.

Loader, William R.G.: Jesus'Attitude Towards the Law. 1997. Vol. 11/97.

Lohr, Gebhard: Verherrlichung Gottes durch Philosophic 1997. Vol 97.

Lohr, Hermut: Studien zum fruhchristlichen und fruhjudischen Gebet. 2003. Vol 160.

- see Hengel, Martin. Lohr, Winrich Alfried: Basilides und seine Schu-

le. 1995. Vol. 83. Luomanen, Petri: Entering the Kingdom of

Heaven. 1998. Vol 11/101. Luz, Ulrich: see Alexeev, AnatolyA. -: see Dunn, James D.G. Mackay, Ian D.: John's Raltionship with Mark.

2004. Vol. 11/182. Mackie, Scott D.: Eschatology and Exhortation

in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2006. Vol 11/223.

Maier, Gerhard: Mensch und freier Wille. 1971. Vol 12.

- Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirchc 1981. Vol 25.

Markschies, Christoph: Valentinus Gnosticus? 1992. Vol 65.

Marshall, Peter: Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians, mi. Vol 11/23.

Martin, Dale B.: see Zangenberg, Jiirgen. Mayer, Annemarie: Sprache der Einheit im

Epheserbrief und in der Okumene. 2002. Vol 11/150.

Mayordomo, Moises: Argumentiert Paulus lo-gisch? 2005. Vol. 188.

McDonough, Sean M.: YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. 1999. Vol. 11/107.

McDowell, Markus: Prayers of Jewish Women. 2006. Vol 11/211.

McGlynn, Moyna: Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom. 2001. Vol. 11/139.

Meade, David G: Pseudonymity and Canon. 1986. to/. 39.

Meadors, Edward P.: Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation. 1995. Vol 11/72.

Meifiner, Stefan: Die Heimholung des Ketzers. 1996. Vol. 11/87.

Mell, Ulrich: Die „anderen" Winzer. 1994. Vol. 77.

- see Sanger, Dieter. Mengel, Berthold: Studien zum Philipperbrief.

1982. Vol 11/8. Merkel, Helmut: Die Widerspriiche zwischen

den Evangelien. 1971. Vol. 13. - see Ego, Beate. Merklein, Helmut: Studien zu Jesus und Paulus.

Vol. 1 1987. Vol. 43.-Vol 2 1998. Vol 105. Metzdorf Christina: Die Tempelaktion Jesu.

2003. Vol. 11/168. Metzler, Karin: Der griechische Begriff des Ver-

zeihens. 1991. Vol 11/44. Metzner, Rainer: Die Rezeption des Mattha-

usevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief. 1995. Vol 11/74.

- Das Verstandnis der Sunde im Johannes-evangelium. 2000. Vol 122.

Mihoc, Vasile: see Dunn, James D.G.. Mineshige, Kiyoshi: Besitzverzicht und Almo-

sen bei Lukas. 2003. Vol. 11/163. Mittmann, Siegfried: see Hengel, Martin. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike: Magnifikat und Be-

nediktus. 1996. Vol. 11/90. Miura, Yuzuru: David in Luke-Acts. 2007.

Vol. 11/232. Mournet, Terence C: Oral Tradition and Litera

ry Dependency. 2005. Vol 11/195. Mufiner, Franz: Jesus von Nazareth im Um-

feld Israels und der Urkirche. Ed. von M. Theobald. 1998. Vol 111.

Mutschler, Bernhard: Das Corpus Johanneum bei Irenaus von Lyon. 2005. Vol 189.

Nguyen, V Henry T: Christian Identity in Corinth. 2008. Vol. 11/243.

Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm: Gesetz und Paranesc 1987. Vol 11/28.

- Heidenapostel aus Israel. 1992. Vol 62. - see Deines, Roland - see Dimitrov, Ivan Z. - secKraus, Wolfgang Nielsen, Anders E.: "Until it is Fullfilled". 2000.

Vol 11/126. Nissen, Andreas: Gott und der Nachste im anti-

ken Judentum. 1974. Vol. 15. Noack, Christian: GottesbewuBtsein. 2000.

Vol 11/116 Noormann, Rolf: Irenaus als Paulusinterpret.

1994. Vol 11/66.


Novakovic, Lidija: Messiah, the Healer of the Sick. 2003. Vol. 11/170.

Obermann, Andreas: Die christologische Er-fullung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium. 1996. Vol. 11/83.

Ohler, Markus: Barnabas. 2003. Vol. 156. - see Becker, Michael. Okure, Teresa: The Johannine Approach to Mis

sion. 1988. Vol. 11/31. Onuki, Takashi: Heil und Erlosung. 2004.

Vol. 165. Oropeza, B. J: Paul and Apostasy. 2000.

Vol. 11/115. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich: Kommunikation mit

Gott und Christus. 2006. Vol. 197. - Taufe und Typos. 2000. Vol. 11/118. Paulsen, Henning: Studien zur Literatur und

Geschichte des fruhen Christentums. Ed. von Ute E. Eisen. 1997. Vol. 99.

Pao, David W.: Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. 2000. Vol. 11/130.

Park, Eung Chun: The Mission Discourse in Matthew's Interpretation. 1995. Vol. 11/81.

Park, Joseph S.: Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Insriptions. 2000. Vol. 11/121.

Pate, C. Marvin: The Reverse of the Curse. 2000. Vol. 11/114.

Pearce, Sarah J.K.: The Land of the Body. 2007. Vol. 208.

Peres, Imre: Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie. 2003. Vol. 157.

Philip, Finny: The Origins of Pauline Pneuma-tology. 2005. Vol. 11/194.

Philonenko, Marc (Ed.): Le Trone de Dieu. 1993. Vol. 69.

Pilhofer, Peter: Presbyteron Kreitton. 1990. Vol. 11/39.

- Philippi. Vol. 1 1995. Vol. 87. - Vol. 2 2000. Vol. 119.

- Die fruhen Christen und ihre Welt. 2002. Vol. 145.

- see Becker, Eve-Marie. - see Ego, Beate. Pitre, Brant: Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End

of the Exile. 2005. Vol. 11/204. Plumacher, Eckhard: Geschichte und Geschich-

ten. 2004. Vol. 170. Pdhlmann, Wolfgang: DerVerlorene Sohn und

das Haus. 1993. Vol. 68. Pokorny, Petr and Josef B. Soucek: Bibelausle-

gungalsTheologie. 1997. Vol. 100. - and Jan Roskovec (Ed.): Philosophical

Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. 2002. Vol. 153.

Popkes, Enno Edzard: Das Menschenbild des Thomasevangeliums. 2007. Vol. 206.

- Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften. 2005. Vol. 11/197.

Porter, Stanley E.: The Paul of Acts. 1999. Vol. 115.

Prieur, Alexander: Die Verkiindigung der Got-tesherrschaft. 1996. to/. 11/89.

Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991. Vol. 11/45.

Raisanen, Heikki: Paul and the Law. 1983, 21987. Vol.29.

Rehkopf, Friedrich: Die lukanische Sonderquel-le. 1959. Vol. 5.

Rein, Matthias: Die Heilung des Blindgebore-nen(Joh9). 1995. Vol. 11/73.

Reinmuth, Eckart: Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. 1994. Vol. 74.

Reiser, Marius: Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift. 2007. Vol. 217.

- Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums. 1984. Vol. 11/11.

Rhodes, James N.: The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition. 2004. Vol. 11/188.

Richards, E. Randolph: The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. 1991. Vol. 11/42.

Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer. 1981,31988. Vol. II/7.

- Die Friihzeit des Apostels Paulus. 1994. Vol. 71.

Rissi, Mathias: Die Theologie des Hebraer-briefs. 1987. Vol. 41.

Roskovec, Jan: see Pokorny, Petr. Rohser, Gunter: Metaphorik und Personifikation

der Sunde. 1987. Vol. 11/25. Rose, Christian: Theologie als Erzahlung im

Markusevangelium. 2007. Vol. 11/236. - Die Wolke der Zeugen. 1994. Vol. 11/60. Rothschild, Clare K: Baptist Traditions and Q.

2005. Vol. 190. - Luke Acts and the Rhetoric of History. 2004.

Vol. 11/175. Ruegger, Hans-Ulrich: Verstehen, was Markus

erzahlt. 2002. Vol. 11/155. Riiger, Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der

KairoerGeniza. 1991. Vol. 53. Sanger, Dieter: Antikes Judentum und die Mys-

terien. 1980. Vol. 11/5. - Die Verkiindigung des Gekreuzigten und

Israel. 1994. Vol. 75. - see Burchard, Christoph - and Ulrich Mell (Hrsg.): Paulus und Johan

nes. 2006. Vol. 198. Salier, Willis Hedley: The Rhetorical Impact of

the Semeia in the Gospel of John. 2004. Vol. 11/186.

Salzmann, Jorg Christian: Lehren und Ermah-nen. 1994. Vol. 11/59.

Sandnes, Karl Olav: Paul - One of the Prophets? 1991. Vol. 11/43.

Sato, Migaku: Q und Prophetic 1988. Vol. 11/29. Schdfer, Ruth: Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil.

2004. Vol. 11/179.


Schaper, Joachim: Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. 1995. Vol. 11/76.

Schimanowski, Gottfried: Die himmlische Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes. 2002. Vol. 11/154.

- Weisheit und Messias. 1985. Vol. 11/17. Schlichting, Giinter: Ein judisches Leben Jesu.

1982. Vol.24. Schliefier, Benjamin: Abraham's Faith in Ro

mans^ 2007. Vol. 11/224. Schnabel, EckhardJ: Law and Wisdom from

Ben Sira to Paul. 1985. Vol. 11/16. Schnelle, Udo: see Frey, Jorg. Schrdter, Jens: Von Jesus zum Neuen Testa

ment. 2007. Vol. 204. - see Frey, Jorg. Schutter, William L.: Hermeneutic and Compo

sition in I Peter. 1989. Vol. 11/30. Schwartz, Daniel R.: Studies in the Jewish

Background of Christianity. 1992. Vol. 60. Schwemer, Anna Maria: see Hengel, Martin Scott, Ian W.: Implicit Epistemology in the Let

ters of Paul. 2005. Vol. 77/205. Scott, James M.: Adoption as Sons of God.

1992. Vol. 11/48. - Paul and the Nations. 1995. Vol. 84. Shum, Shiu-Lun: Paul's Use of Isaiah in Ro

mans. 2002. Vol. 11/156. Siegert, Folker: Drei hellenistisch-judische

Predigten.Teil 1 1980. Vol. 20-Teil II 1992. Vol. 61.

- Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Vol. 26. - Argumentation bei Paulus. 1985. Vol. 34. - Philon von Alexandrien. 1988. Vol. 46. Simon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son

contexte religieux I/II. 1981. Vol. 23. Smit, Peter-Ben: Fellowship and Food in the

Kingdom. 2008. Vol. 11/234. Snodgrass, Klyne: The Parable of the Wicked

Tenants. 1983. Vol.27. Soding, Thomas: Das Wort vom Kreuz. 1997.

Vol. 93. - see Thiising, Wilhelm. Sommer, Urs: Die Passionsgeschichte des

Markusevangeliums. 1993. Vol. 11/58. Sorensen, Eric: Possession and Exorcism in the

New Testament and Early Christianity. 2002. Vol. 11/157.

Soucek, Josef B.: see Pokorny, Petr. Southall, David J: Rediscovering Righteous

ness in Romans. 2008. Vol. 240. Spangenberg, Volker: Herrlichkeit des Neuen

Bundes. 1993. Vol. 11/55. Spanje, T.E. van: Inconsistency in Paul? 1999.

Vol. 11/110. Speyer, Wolfgang: Friihes Christentum im anti-

ken Strahlungsfeld. Vol. I: 1989. Vol. 50. - Vol.11: 1999. Vol. 116. - Vol. Ill: 2007. Vol. 213.

Sprinkle, Preston: Law and Life. 2008. Vol. 11/241.

Stadelmann, Helge: Ben Sira als Schriftgelehr-ter. 1980. Vol. 11/6.

Stenschke, Christoph W: Luke's Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith. Vol. 11/108.

Sterck-Degueldre, Jean-Pierre: Eine Frau na-mens Lydia. 2004. Vol. 11/176.

Stettler, Christian: Der Kolosserhymnus. 2000. Vol. 11/131.

Stettler, Hanna: Die Christologie der Pastoral-briefe. 1998. Vol. II/105.

Stokl Ben Ezra, Daniel: The Impact of Yom Kippuron Early Christianity. 2003. Vol. 163.

Strobel, August: Die Srunde der Wahrheit. 1980. Vol. 21.

Stroumsa, Guy G.: Barbarian Philosophy. 1999. Vol. 112.

Stuckenbruck, Loren T: Angel Veneration and Christology. 1995. Vol. 11/70.

- , Stephen C. Barton and Benjamin G. Wold (Ed.): Memory in the Bible and Antiquity. 2007. Vol. 212.

Stuhlmacher, Peter (Ed.): Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. 1983. Vol. 28.

- Biblische Theologie und Evangelium. 2002. Vol. 146.

Sung, Chong-Hyon: Vergebung der Siinden. 1993. Vol. 11/57.

Tajra, Harry W: The Trial of St. Paul. 1989. Vol. 11/35.

- The Martyrdom of St.Paul. 1994. Vol. 11/67. Theifien, Gerd: Studien zur Soziologie des Ur-

christentums. 1979,31989. Vol. 19. Theobald, Michael: Studien zum Rdmerbrief.

2001. Vol. 136. Theobald, Michael: see Mufiner, Franz. Thornton, Claus-Jiirgen: Der Zeuge des Zeu-

gen. 1991. Vol.56. Thiising, Wilhelm: Studien zur neutestament-

lichen Theologie. Ed. von Thomas Soding. 1995. Vol. 82.

Thuren, Lauri: Derhethorizing Paul. 2000. Vol. 124.

Thyen, Hartwig: Studien zum Corpus Iohan-neum. 2007. Vol. 214.

Tibbs, Clint: Religious Experience of the Pneu-ma. 2007. Vol. 11/230.

Toit, David S. du: Theios Anthropos. 1997. Vol. 11/91.

Tolmie, D. Francois: Persuading the Galatians. 2005. Vol. 11/190.

Tomson, Peter J. and Doris Lambers-Petry (Ed.): The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature. 2003. Vol. 158.

Trebilco, Paul: The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. 2004. Vol. 166.


Treloar, Geoffrey R.: Lightfootthe Historian. 1998. Vol 11/103.

Tsuji, Manabu: Glaube zwischen Vollkommen-heitundVerweltlichung. 1997. Vol 11/93.

Twelftree, Graham H.: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993. Vol 11/54.

Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich: Christusglaube. 2007. Vol. 11/227.

Urban, Christina: Das Menschenbild nach dem Johannesevangelium. 2001. Vol. 11/137.

Vahrenhorst, Martin: Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen. 2008. Vol 230.

Vegge, Ivar: 2 Corinthians - a Letter about Reconciliation. 2008. Vol 11/239.

Visotzky, Burton L.: Fathers of the World. 1995. Vol. 80.

Vollenweider, Samuel: Horizonte neutestament-licher Christologie. 2002. Vol 144.

Vos, Johan S.: Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. 2002. Vol 149.

Wagener, Ulrike: Die Ordnung des „Hauses Gottes". 1994. Vol 11/65.

Wahlen, Clinton: Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. 2004. Vol. 11/185.

Walker, Donald D.: Paul's Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:1). 2002. Vol. 11/152.

Walter, Nikolaus: Praeparatio Evangelica. Ed. von Wolfgang Kraus und Florian Wilk. 1997. Vol. 98.

Wander, Bernd: Gottesfurchtige und Sympathi-santen. 1998. Vol. 104.

Waters, Guy: The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul. 2006. Vol. 221.

Watt, Jan G. van der: see Frey, Jorg Watts, Rikki: Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark.

1997. Vol. 11/88. Wedderburn, A.J.M.: Baptism and Resurrection.

1987. Vol 44. Wegner, Uwe: Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum.

1985. Vol. 11/14. Weissenrieder, Annette: Images of Illness in the

Gospel of Luke. 2003. Vol. 11/164. - Friederike Wendt and Petra von Gemiinden

(Ed.): Picturing the New Testament. 2005. Vol. 11/193.

Welck, Christian: Erzahlte ,Zeichen\ 1994. Vol. 11/69.

Wendt, Friederike (Ed.): see Weissenrieder, Annette.

Wiarda, Timothy: Peter in the Gospels. 2000. Vol 11/127.

Wifstrand, Albert: Epochs and Styles. 2005. Vol 179.

Wilk, Florian: see Walter, Nikolaus. Williams, Catrin H.: I am He. 2000. Vol. 11/113. Wilson, Todd A.: The Curse of the Law and the

Crisis in Galatia. 2007. Vol. 11/225. Wilson, Walter T: Love without Pretense. 1991.

Vol. 11/46. Winn, Adam: The Purpose of Mark's Gospel.

2008. Vol 11/245. Winninge, Mikael: see Holmberg, Bengt. Wischmeyer, Oda: Von Ben Sira zu Paulus.

2004. Vol 173. Wisdom, Jeffrey: Blessing for the Nations and

the Curse of the Law. 2001. Vol. 11/133. Witmer, Stephen E.: Divine Instruction in Early

Christianity. 2008. Vol. 11/246. Wold, Benjamin G.: Women, Men, and Angels.

2005. Vol. 11/2001. - see Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Wright, Archie T: The Origin of Evil Spirits.

2005. Vol. 11/198. Wucherpfennig, Ansgar: Heracleon Philologus.

2002. Vol 142. Yeung, Maureen: Faith in Jesus and Paul. 2002.

Vol 11/147. Zangenberg, Jurgen, Harold W.Attridge and

DaleB. Martin (Ed.): Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee. 2007. Vol. 210.

Zimmermann, Alfred E.: Die urchristlichen Leh-rer. 1984,21988. Vol. 11/12.

Zimmermann, Johannes: Messianische Texte aus Qumran. 1998. Vol. 11/104.

Zimmermann, Ruben: Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium. 2004. Vol. 171.

- Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhalt-nis. 2001. Vol 11/122.

- see Frey, Jorg Zumstein, Jean: see Dettwiler, Andreas Zwiep, Arie W: Judas and the Choice of

Matthias. 2004. Vol. 11/187.

For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher Mohr Siebeck • P.O. Box 2030 • D-72010 Tubingen/Germany

Up-to-date information on the internet at www.mohr.de

http://www.mohr.de

Adam Winn argues that the Gospel of Mark was written in response to propaganda of the Roman Empire -

propaganda that infringed upon the faith commitments that early Christians held about Jesus of Nazareth.

ISBN 978-3-16-149635-6

Mohr Siebeck

Adam Winn the Purpose of Marks Gospel an Ealry Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda 2008

Documents

Transcript of Adam Winn the Purpose of Marks Gospel an Ealry Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda 2008