Online Resources on Mark

Added some items to my Student Resources including The GospelofMark.net (another blog recently started on Mark with a few posts, bibliography, a lectionary reading schedule), a useful bibliography at NT Resources, the top 5 commentaries according to Ligonier Ministries and Useful Mark Reviews on RBL.  If you know of any other academic resources on Mark online that would be helpful for the beginning student, the minister preaching on Mark or just any interested layperson, I would love to include them on this site.

Diglotting on Markan Christology

Kevin Brown of the blog “Diglotting“ has some posts on the Christology of the Gospel of Mark that are worth checking out (part I, part II, part III, part IV).  Also interesting to contrast with two recent articles Daniel Johansson,  “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark” JSNT 33 (2010): 101-124 and “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism” JSNT 33 (2011): 351-374 that I learned of from another blog here.  Eventually I will want to look at Mark’s Christology in more detail, here is a short bibliography not including commentaries to get one started on the subject (for the wider debate on Christology, one should consult the scholarship of Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, Paula Fredriksen, Maurice Casey, Adela Collins, James Dunn, James McGrath, Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin, Crispin Fletcher Louis, Jarl Fossum, Margaret Barker, etc):

•  Achtemeier, Paul.  “Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae” JBL 89 (1970): 265-291; ”‘The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae” JBL 91 (1972): 198-221.
• Blackburn, Barry.  Theios aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions.  Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991.
• Boring, M.E.   ”The Christology of Mark: Hermeneutical Implications for Systematic Theology.”  Semeia 3o (1984): 125-153.
•                         .  “Markan Christology: God-Language for Jesus?” NTS 45( 1999): 451-471.
• Broadhead, E.K.  Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark.  JSNTSup 74; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
•                                 .  Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function in Mark 14-16.  JSNTSup 97; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.
•                                  .  Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark.  JSNTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
• Crossley, James G.  “Mark’s Christology and a Scholarly Creation of a Non-Jewish Christ of Faith?” in Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey.  London: Equinox, 2010.
• Gathercole, Simon.  The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke.  Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006.
• Hooker, Morna.  “Who Can this Be? The Christology of Mark.”  Pages 79-99 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament.  Edited by R.N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
• Horsley, Richard A.  Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville;London;Leiden:Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
• Johannson, Daniel. ”The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals.”  Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2011): 364-393 .
• Juel, Donald.  “The Origin of Mark’s Christology.”  Pages 449-60 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity.  Edited by J.H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress,  1992.
• Kingsbury, Jack Dean.  The Christology of Mark’s Gospel.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
• Mack, Burton.  A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
• Matera, F.J.  The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15.  SBLDS 66; Chicago: Scholars Press, 1982.
• Marcus, Joel.  The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark.  Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
•                           .  Mark 14:61: “Are you the Messiah-Son-of-God?’” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 125-41.
• Martin, R.P.  Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
• Naluparayil, J.C.  “Jesus of the Gospel of Mark: Present State of Research” CBR 8 (2000): 191-226
• Perrin, N.  “The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodologies.”  Journal of Religion 51 (1971): 173-187.
• Tait, Michael.  Jesus the divine bridegroom in Mark 2:18-22 (Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2010)
• Telford, William.  The Theology of the Gospel of Mark.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 
• Watts, Rikki.  Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark.  Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1997.
• Weeden, Theodore J., Mark — Traditions in Conflict.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
• Winn, Adam.  The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperialism.  WUNT 2.245, Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2008.

Who is the Abomination of Desolation?

In the last post I argued that in the eschatological discourse all of the preliminary signs were in the process of being fulfilled in Mark’s generation, leading the author to believe the end of the present age could not be too far away, but I left one of the most enigmatic signs unexplained.  One of the most puzzling passages is the evangelist’s aside to the reader that at the appearance of the “abomination of desolation” (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως), those in Judaea must flee to the mountains (Mark 13:14).  A few things to note that the neuter βδέλυγμα is modified by the masculine participle “standing” (ἑστηκότα, from ἵστημι), seemingly to imply that it is a someone rather than a something.  Second, the allusion is to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11 which originally referred to some attempt to set up a foreign cult involving an idol or desecrating sacrilege in the Temple under Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (1 Macc 1:57; 4:38; 2 Macc 6:2ff).  Third, the implied audience is in the know with regards to Mark’s cryptic description, for their immediate response at the sight of it is to be flight.  So who is this desecrator?

• Gaius Caligula attempting to set up his statue in the Temple in 40 CE, a plan that could have been disastrous had it not failed to be carried out due to Caligula’s assasination (Josephus, Ant. 18.257-309; Tacitus, Ann. 12.54.1).  Note other examples of the sensitivity towards Roman standards or defilement of the Holy City or Temple as when Pilate brought his shields with Roman inscriptions into Herod’s palace and the mob offered up their necks rather than see their laws defiled (War 2.169-174; Ant 18.55-59; Philo, Gaium 299-305), or when Pilate’s stealing of Temple funds to build an aqueduct resulted in a clash with protesters (War. 2.175; Ant. 18.60-62) or when Judas and Matthias zealous for the Law encouraged their followers to tear down the golden eagle Herod erected over the temple and were executed (War 1.648-655; Ant. 17.151-162)
• The occupation by the Temple by the Zealot leader Eleazar son of Simon in the winter of 67-68, filling the Temple with violence and turning it away from its function as a “house of prayer for all nations” to a “brigands den” (cf. Mark 11:17).
• A genuine future prediction (by Jesus, some Christian prophet or the evangelist) of a future antichrist figure who will attempt to defile the Temple and this time (unlike Caligula) will succeed.
• Luke explicitly interprets Mark’s cryptic abomination of desolation as the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem (21.20-21).
• Roman soldiers bringing their standards into the “Eastern Court” of the Temple and sacrificing to them (War 6.316).  Titus also entered the sanctuary with his troops, though Josephus ”conveniently” has him on the scene only after a fire started so as not to implicate Titus in an act of impiety (War. 6.254-283).
• Hadrian’s plans to turn Jerusalem into the Greco-Roman polis Aelia Capitolina and construct a temple for Jupiter, which may have precipated the revolt under the messianic leader Simon Bar Cochba (132-35 CE) (but note that Cassius Dio Hist. 66.12.1 and Eusebius H.E. 4.6.4 seem to disagree on whether building of this temple began before or after the Bar Cochba revolt).
• Nicolae Carpathia, the antichrist and Satan incarnate, riding a pig into Jerusalem and sacrificing it on the alter, breaking a seven-year treaty with Israel as reported in the Left Behind Series (please don’t take this last option seriously ).

In my opinion, Hadrian is much too late to be the referent as knowledge of Mark by Matthew, Luke, probably John, Papias (likely ca. 110 CE), Justin Martyr (Dial. 106.3, citing Mark 3:17) as well as the implication in Mark 9:1 that some of Jesus’ original followers are still alive points to a first century date.  I am inclined to the option that this is for Mark a genuine future oracle influenced by the Caligula crisis of a final desecration of Temple  immediately preceding the return of the Son of Man (which makes Mark pre-70 CE).  For other sources consulted (besides major commentaries on Mark which will also cover all the options), see:

• Beasley-Murray, George.  Jesus and the Last Days.  Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.
• Crossley, James.  The Date of Mark’s Gospel:  Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity.  JSNTSS 266; London: T & T Clark, 2004.
• Detering, Herman.  “The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 Par): A Document from the Time of Bar Kochba.”  The Journal of Higher Criticism 7/2 (2000): 161-210.
• Hengel, Martin.  Studies in the Gospel of Mark.  Fortress: Philadelphia, 1985.
• Incigneri, Brian J.  The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2003.
• Marcus, Joel.  “The Jewish War and the Sitz Im Leben of Mark.”  Journal of Biblical Literature 111/3 (1992): 441-462.
• Theissen, Gerd.  The Gospels in Context:  Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Against Apocalyptic Timetables

There is a powerful motivation to reinterpret the cosmic imagery (darkness, stars falling from the sky) and literal coming of the Son of Man into the realm of metaphor: it avoids the problem of the “delay of the parousia” and opposes the apocalyptic timetables and crude literalism of modern fundamentalist movements (i.e. for anyone anticipating October 21 2011 as the new date for the apocalypse, you should probably not place any bets on it ).  However, in the last post I argued against Wright that Mark 13:26 expected a literal descent of the Son of Man in the near future.  However, Mark did not set an exact deadline for the Son of Man’s return.  13:30 uses the solemn formula “amen I say to you” (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν) to assure readers that ”all these things” (ταῦτα πάντα) will take place in ”this generation” (γενεὰ αὕτη).  But does all “these things” include the coming of the Son of Man with the cosmic imagery (13:24-27)?  I would say no for two reasons.  First,  in the fig tree analogy in 13:28-29, just as when leaves start sprouting you know summer is near, so when the disciples see “these things” (ταῦτα) they know “he/it is near” (ἐγγύς ἐστιν).  Second, unless Mark is a careless redactor and 13:32 contradicts 13:30, then 13:32 denies even the Son knows “that day or hour.”  Accordingly, ”these things” (wars, famines, natural disasters, persecutions, the spread of the gospel throughout the Empire, the enigmatic abomination of desolation) are signs that the end is soon and were all to occur in Mark’s generation, but the evangelist remains ignorant on the timing of the Son of Man’s return.

Now, I know this might sound like apologetic special pleading, but I honestly think exegesis warrants these conclusions.  The fact that Mark believed all the preliminary signs were to be fulfilled in his generation implies imminence and he could not have expected a 2000 year delay.  The implications for theologians is to either admit the timing is off but keep the traditional belief in the Second Coming, or reinterpret or “demythologize” the first-century language of eschatology to decide what it should mean for the 21st century.  There may be canonical warrant for both options.  Already in the New Testament we see the imminent expectation of Mark or Paul (1 Thess 4:13-18, but note Paul is already making provisions for the unexpected reality that some believers have died before the parousia) give way to an allowance for a longer interim as, for instance,  Luke-Acts inserts an extended “time of the Gentiles” (Lk 21:24) or has the risen Jesus tell the disciples to not worry about dates but get on with the mission (Acts 1:7-8), or 2 Peter as likely the latest book of the NT famously responds to the scoffers by claiming a day for the Lord equals a thousand years and thus there is more time for repentance (3:8-9).  Alternatively, we can see parts of the NT already in the process of reinterpreting traditional eschatological expectations (e.g. the literal expectation of an eschatological Temple in Ezek 40-48 interpreted christologically in John 2:20-22; 7:37-39; Rev 21:22; cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19) so perhaps this gives license for modern Christians to not feel bound to the exact same literal first-century worldview of a Paul or a Mark.  But that is my lame attempt to offer some pastoral advice, so I welcome feedback in the comments.

N.T. Wright on Mark 13

To continue the discussion here on the ”coming of the Son of Man”, the following is an edited repost from my older blog on Mk 13:26.  The original post was particularly in response to Wright,  so a full study must interact with the views of France, Hatina (article online) and Perriman (bibliography below)  as well as their differences (e.g. France, pp 541-6, agrees with Wright up to Mk 13:32, but then sees a shift signalled by περὶ  δὲ  and change in subject from the temple destruction & vindication of the Son of Man in a generation to a future “that day or that hour” which includes the parousia though the timing is unknown) 

N.T. Wright has both devoted followers and sharp critics throughout the blogosphere.  I believe Wright deserves credit for his major scholarly contributions to the “New (or Fresh) Perspective on Paul” and what he coined as “Third Quest for the Historical Jesus” (but I have doubts that Jesus scholarship can be so neatly categorized into “quests”).  Nevertheless, I have my disagreements, much more with his reconstruction of the historical Jesus than Paul, and one of those is his interpretation of the coming of the Son of Man.  In his book Jesus and the Victory of God, Wright makes the case for the cosmic imagery of Mark 13:24-27 as metaphorical of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and the vindication of the Son of Man.  He argues that cosmic imagery is used for the historical downfall of nations such as Babylon (Isa 13:6, 9-11; 14:4, 12-15; Jer 50:6, 8, 28; 51:6-10, 45-6, 50-1, 57; Zech 14:2-5, 9), Edom (Isa 34:4-6) or Egypt (Ezek 32:5-8) (Victory, 354-358).  For Wright, Jerusalem and the temple establishment play the role of Babylon, the disciples are the faithful Israel and Rome is the instrument of divine judgment (Victory, 358-60).  Second, opposition to the Temple elites is central in Mark and the disciples exclamation about the temple followed by Jesus’ response that every stone will be thrown down in13:1-2 seems to frame the discourse around the Temple destruction:  “Jesus staked his prophetic reputation on his prediction of the Temple’s fall within a generation; if and when it fell, he would thereby be vindicated” (Victory, 363). Finally, Daniel 7:9 describes the vindication of the Son of Man over the beasts, which can be plausibly read as symbolizing the collective vindication of Israel over foreign empires (cf. the interpretation of the vision in Dan 7:17-18), and thus the “coming” (note Mark does not use the usual word for Jesus’ return, parousia, but the participle erchomenon [from erchomai]) of the Son of Man in 13:26 is his ascent to the Ancient of Days as he is vindicated by the historical events of 70 CE (Victory, 361).

However, there are some good criticisms of Wright’s view. First, there are strong arguments that Jewish (cf. intertestamental and pseudepigraphic literature), Christian (cf. Heb 12:25–28; 2 Pet 3:5–13; Rev 6:12–17; 21:1; Barn. 15:8) and Greco-Roman (Stoic, Epicurean) authors took such cosmic imagery quite literally as collected by Dale Allison, Millenarian Prophet, pp. 153-171; ”Victory of Apocalyptic“, pp 130-34; Edward Adams, The Stars will Fall From Heaven, pp. 52-126.  This is natural as the ancients were as familiar as we are with solar eclipses and “falling stars.”  Second, the earliest Christians seem to understand the tradition underlying Mark 13:26 as referring to the second coming:  Paul has the Lord descend on clouds (1 Thess 4:15-17), Revelation 1:7 has the descent of ”one like a son of man” and Matthew’s eschatological discourse uses the technical terminology parousia (24:3, 27, 37, 39; cf. 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:14-17; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1; Jas 5:7-8; 2 Pet 3:4; 1 John 2:28 in reference to Christ’s predicted coming, thus I am less convinced by Wright’s attempt on p. 341 to downplay the significance by stating that the term itself only denotes “presence” as opposed to “absence”).   Note also the “thief in the night” metaphor in the ”Q” eschatological discourse interpreted elsewhere in the NT for the “second coming” (Matt 24:43-44/Luke 12:39-40; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3).  Third, the coming of the Son of Man with the angels to usher in the eschaton in 13:26-27 seems to be spectacularly visible and have universal implications:  clouds could be used for human (e.g. Moses, Abraham, the church) and divine transport (for divine theophanies see Exod 16:10; 19:9; 34:5; Ps 18:11-12; 97:2-5; 104:3; Isa 19:1; Nah 1:3) and 13:27 seems to envision the gathering of the elect throughout all the nations (I am not convinced by the argument that the angeloi of 13:27 are human messengers involved in the missionary spread of the gospel).  Ironically, I think this gives better support to one of Wright’s main points that the (Markan) Jesus announced the “end of exile,” which would have been understood by the first hearers as the literal re-gathering of the dispersed tribes throughout the diaspora (cf. Deut 30:3-4; Isa 11:12; Jer 32:37-38; Ezek 34:11-16; Zech 2:6-10; Tobit 14:7; 2 Bar 78:1-7) and the righteous of the nations streaming to a renewed Zion in the last days.  Finally, in the context of Mark 13, he warns of false Christs and false prophets who would claim “I am he” (ego eimi) and try to deceive with signs and wonders (13:5-6, 21-22), so would not a spectacular return of the Son of Man clear up who is the real Messiah and who are the messianic pretenders? So do you think Wright is right on Mark 13?

For more sources, see:

• Adams, Edward.  “The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel” Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005): 39-61
•                              .  The Stars will Fall From Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World.  London: T&T Clark, 2007.
• Allison, Dale.  Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet.  Minneapolis: Fortress,  1998.
•                          .  “Jesus and the Victory of Apocalyptic” pp 126-141 in Jesus & the Restoration of Israel.  Edited by Carey C. Newman; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999.
• France, R.T.  The Gospel of Mark.  The New International Greek Testament Commentary.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
• Hatina, Thomas R.  “The Focus of Mark 13:24-27 – The Parousia, or the Destruction of the Temple?”  Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 43-66.
• Perriman, Andrew.  The Coming of the Son of Man:  New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church.  Paternoster, 2006.
• Wright, N.T.  Jesus and the Victory of God.  Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996

The Messianic Secret and Monty Python

I saw this new online journal Relegere: Studies in History and Reception which has already been advertised by several different bloggers.  James Crossley has an article on Monty Python’s Life of Brian that looks worth checking out.  I have always had a fascination with hollywood depictions of the Bible and particularly Jesus films (I even had to watch the more cheesy Jesus films like “The Encounter” that I first heard from my friend Scott Bailey’s blog).  I find the Life of Brian as not only funny as a spoof on the classic biblical film genre, but actually surprisingly well-researched.  Below is one of my favour clips of the movie (warning: some language and nudity so don’t watch if you find offensive), a spoof of the “messianic secret” which is a major theme in Mark:

To introduce Mark’s messianic secret, the (redactional?) theme where Jesus tells those he heals or those who recognize his true identity (e.g. demoniacs, Peter at Caesarea Philippi, etc.) to keep silent, see William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen, 1901) ( The Messianic Secret, London: Clark 1971); Räisänen, Heikki. The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990); JDG Dunn, “The Messianic Secret in Mark,” Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970): 92- 117; Christopher Tucket, ed. The Messianic Secret (London: SPCK, 1983); idem, ”The Disciples and the Messianic Secret in Mark” pp 131-150 in Fair Play: Diversity And Conflicts In Early Christianity. Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen (ed. Ismo Dunderberg et al; Leiden: Brill, 2002); Mark Goodacre’s podcast The Messianic Secret in Mark’s Gospel.

London SBL overview

Well, another SBL conference has come and gone, and I want to review some highlights.  I managed to catch a variety of sessions from Paul, the Synoptics, the apocrypha to Nag Hammadi & Gnosticism, though unfortunately some clashed with sessions I would have liked to see such as ones on whether the term “monotheism” should be retained as a useful heuristic lens to study the biblical literature (see Ken Brown’s review).  I enjoyed all the papers in my session on Catholic Epistles  which reflected many diverse perspectives, from my view that the references to Peter/Silvanus/Mark in 1 Pet 5:12-13 are a literary fiction to construct the epistle as apostolic and give the impression of unity between Petrine & Pauline factions to the paper after mine arguing a conservative view that we should consider the hermeneutical consequences of differing views on authorship and suggested that the case against the authenticity of 2 Peter needs to be rethought, and  my paper received a mixed reception of both critical feedback and positive encouragement  (one aspect that may need to be improved is that some spotted an inconsistency in how I evaluated the historicity of the picture of John Mark in Acts; my view is that Acts depends on the Pauline epistles in [rightly] placing John Mark with Paul/Barnabas but the single association of John Mark with Peter in Acts 12:12 reflects a similar ideological development as in1 Peter to create a bridge between Peter and Paul).  The bibliobloggers meal, as noted by James McGrath and Sean Winter, was pretty well attended and good fun eating and drinking with friends.

To cover papers relevant to the Gospel of Mark, the first paper I attended was on the Similitudes and the Son of Man, which was a rejoinder to Steven Richard Scott’s article (first brought to my attention by the good anti-bishop Wrong) that argues for a distinction between the Lord of Spirits and the Name of the Lord of Spirits who is identified with the Son of Man and thus describes the Similitudes as binitarian.  If Scott is right, this has huge implications for Mark’s Son of Man christology, though the SBL paper provided a decent rebuttal to his position and it will be interesting to see how the debate unfolds (it was also cool to get to meet Steven at the conference).  It was also interesting to learn about archaeological excavations in Bethsaida, an important site in the Synoptic tradition and the home of Peter/Andrew/Philip according to John 1:44 (though cf. Peter’s mother-in-law in Capernaum in Mark 1:29).  Another paper I found largely convincing was by Alexander Kirk who challenged the view of Wright and France that the coming of the Son of Man in Mark 14:62 reflects the vindication and enthronement in heaven of the Son of Man with the destruction of the temple instead of the more traditional expectation of the parousia - among his points was that there was no single “Jewish” reading of the Son of Man figure in Dan 7 which contradicts France and Wright’s emphasis that first-century Jews could only understand the language as an ascent rather than descent of Son of Man, that Mark 8:29/13:26-27/14:62 all make better sense on the traditional interpretation, and that France & Wright are vague about what it is Caiaphas was predicted to “see”  in 14:62 (the rise of the church? Historical events leading up to the Jewish War?) since he most likely did not actually live to see the destruction of the temple (for an alternate view on the paper see Andrew Perriman, whom I also had the pleasure of meeting at the bloggers dinner.  I agree with him that Daniel may envision thrones set up on earth, but for me that supports the traditional interpretation for the apocalyptic coming of the Son of Man to earth to rule and judge both the pagan oppressors and the Temple elites).  I caught both sessions on Mark and the purity system, the first paper dealing with the relationship of Mark 7 and Romans 14 on the food laws (the co-presenters argued that an original dispute of Jesus over hand-washing and the relative priority of moral over ritual purity has been used in different ways by Mark and Paul rather than either influencing the other; naturally James Crossley was the first to respond ) and the second arguing that Jesus’ healing of the bleeding woman and the dead daughter in Mark 5 (using a sandwich so that both events mutually interpret each other) is not meant to be anti-purity as it was not a sin to become unclean so long as one goes through the prescribed purifications before entering sacred space (i.e. the Temple) and it was naturally expected for healers to touch the sick (cf. Elijah, Elisha).  I don’t think there is any evidence for the historical Jesus superseding any commandments of Torah and tend to think Mark has a pretty detailed knowledge of purity laws.  Finally, I attended  a few papers arguing for a high christology of Mark (one building on Joel Marcus’ excellent scholarship), though I am not quite sure it is nearly as high as what we see in Paul or John, but that probably requires a separate post to interact with the various points made about whether forgiveness of sins was a divine prerogative (Mk 2:7) or if Mark intended to deny that Jesus shared in the goodness of God (10:18) or the curious substition where Jesus tells the Gerasene demoniac to tell how much the Lord has done for him and then who goes on to tell how much Jesus had done for him (5:19-20).  That is what I can recall at the moment, but let me know how your experience went if you attended London SBL..

London SBL Bibliobloggers Dinner

Not sure who all reads my blog yet, but want to pass along a message from Ken Brown for anyone who is interested in getting together for food while many of us are in London for SBL:

For all bibliobloggers [and bibliotweeps! Is that a word?] and those interested in biblioblogs who will be attending SBL in London, I propose that we meet for dinner at 6:30 on the 6th at The Samford Arms, a pub just down the street from the conference (Menu). The Address is:

62 Stamford Street, London SE1 9LX

If you would like to attend, please leave a comment, send me an email (see the About page) or simply show up. If I get enough RSVPs I’ll make a reservation, but otherwise we’ll just go informally. And obviously feel free to spread the word on your own blogs [translation from the German: Please do!}.

So if you are interested, click the first link above to Ken Brown’s blog and let him know in the comments.

More SBL Papers on Mark

I was just browsing the SBL online program book and wanted to highlight some papers relating to Mark.  All the presenters along with their abstracts are available from clicking on the link (and if you are presenting at SBL on Mark, let me know so I can post your paper too).

Methods in New Testament Studies
7/05/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.47 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Methodological Issues

Sandra Hübenthal, Universität Tübingen
Narrative Perspectives and the Mediation of Jesus Images in Mk 6:1-8:21 (45 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/05/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

Martin Ramey, Azusa Pacific University
Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea: The Quest for the Historical Joseph (30 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/06/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

Merrilyn Mansfield, University of Sydney, Presiding
Johanna Brankaer, WWU Münster
The Implicit Epistemology of Mark (30 min)
Steffen Joeris, La Trobe University
The Markan Use of “unclean spirit”: Another Messianic Strand (30 min)
Matthew S. Rindge, Gonzaga University
Reconfiguring the Akedah: Death and Divine Abandonment in Mark (30 min)

Biblical Criticism and Cultural Studies
7/06/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:1.13 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Cultural Studies: Critical Theories and Texts

Hans Leander, University of Gothenburg
The Codex is the Message: A Postcolonial Reading of Mark 1:1 (25 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/06/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

John P Harrison, Oklahoma Christian University
A Contextual Reading of a Jesus Saying on the Resurrected Body: “neither marry nor given into marriage” (Mark 12:25//Matthew 22:30//Luke 20:35) (30 min)
Alexander Kirk, University of Oxford
Yes, “A Human Figure Flying Downwards on a Cloud”: A Response to N. T. Wright and R. T. France on Mark 14:62 (30 min)

Contextual Interpretation of the Bible (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament)
7/06/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.46 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Papers on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament

Archie Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Presiding
Mary Phil Korsak, Society of Authors-Translators Association
Glad News from Mark (20 min)

Bible and Empire
7/07/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:1.20 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: The Bible and the British Empire  Carly Crouch, University of Cambridge, Presiding
Hans Leander, University of Gothenburg
Nineteenth century readings of the tribute question (Mk 12:17): An Irish anti-colonial cat among British and German pigeons? (20 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/07/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:2.81 – Franklin Wilkins

Johanna Brankaer, WWU Münster, Presiding
Mark Batluck, University of Edinburgh
Revelatory Experience in Mark: How These Events are Christologically Employed in the First Gospel (30 min)
Mitchell Esswein, University of Georgia
Hear, O Israel: The Lord Our God, The Lord is eis: The Implicit High Christology Present in Mark with Special Attention to the Work of Joel Marcus (30 min)
Break (30 min)
Anne Vig Skoven, University of Copenhagen
The Spirit in Mark (30 min)
Cecilia Wassen, Uppsala Universitet
Jesus and Purity Laws (30 min)

Working with Biblical Manuscripts (Textual Criticism)
7/07/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:1.68 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Working with Textual Variants

Ronald van der Bergh, University of Pretoria, Presiding
Peter Williams, Tyndale House (Cambridge)
The Case for ‘Filled with Compassion’ in Mark 1:41 (25 min)
Jeff Cate, California Baptist University
Having a Gut Feeling for Anger: Mark 1:41 and Visceral Emotions (25 min)
Tommy Wasserman, Örebro School of Theology
P45 and Codex W in Mark Revisited (25 min)
Break (30 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/04/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

Glenna Jackson, Otterbein University, Presiding
Yonatan Adler, Bar-Ilan University
Between Galilean Judaism and Judean Judaism: An Archaeological Perspective on Regional Differences in the Observance of Ritual Purity in First Century C.E. ’Erez Israel (30 min)
Milton Moreland, Rhodes College
Building on Ruins: Post-70 Jerusalem in the Synoptic Tradition (30 min)