Addendum on the Anonymity of the Gospels

I recommend an article by Armin D. Baum (also one of the few present scholars working on Papias) entitled “Anonymity in the New Testament History Books. A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature” NT 50 (2008): 120-142. He begins with the problem of the anonymity of the 5 historical NT books (Gospels, Acts) and M. Wolter’s observation that Luke’s prologue (1:1-4) felt that “apostolic tradition” rather than named authorship was enough to guarantee authenticity and authority (121).  Here the NT books stand out from Greco-Roman historiography (Luke’s prologue is the closest but this makes absence of authorship even more striking):  their superscriptions (“Gospel according to X”) are secondary, they lack an explicit mention of author unlike for instance the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (“Didymus Judas Thomas wrote”) and the first person singular/plural in Luke-Acts and John (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-8, 13-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-2; 28:1-16; John 21:24) is ultimately anonymous and may be editorial in John (121-122).  Baum gives an overview of 3 prior explanations on pp 123-24:  1) E. Meyer compares the anonymity of the 4th Gospel with Xenophon’s pseudonymous claim that his Anabasis was written bya Themistogenes of Syracuse but Greek and Roman historians almost exclusively published under their own names, 2) A.J.M. Wedderburn argued that anonymity emphasized the evangelist’s complete dependence on tradition rather than firsthand witness but what of seeming witnesses claim in John and Luke-Acts and are there parallels for anonymous handling of tradition, or 3) M. Wolter sees anonymity as a specifically Christian phenonmenon (Jesus is the authoritative spokesman and authorship irrelevant) but then why is Acts anonymous if it doesn’t relate words/deeds of Jesus (and why didn’t Paul write anonymously) and this lean too much towards the NT writings as sui generis.

Baum argues that a prologue in Greek historiography was the norm (cf. Lucian, De hist. conscr. 23) (Xenophon’s Hellenica seems like an exception but he may see it as a sequel to Thucydides work) and included publishing under one’s name and provenance (“Hecataeus of Miletos”; “Herodotus of Halicarnassus”; “Thucydides of Athens”; “Josephus, son of Matthias”; other Jewish historians like Eupolemus [157/158 BCE], Artapanus, Cleodemus Malchus und Theophilus [100 BCE]. Justus of Tiberius [1st cent CE rival of Josephus]; the prologue to Arrian’s Anabasis may be an exception but likely Arrianos in the title, Xenophon’s Anabasis is pseudonymous).  The same applied to biographies (Euripides, Isocrates, Lucian, Philo, Plutarch, Suetonius) though the Lives of popular literature (the Vita Aesopi, the Vita Alexandri Magni (later ascribed to Callisthenes], Lucius seu asinus, Vita Secundi philosophi) may be exceptions.  Of 42 ancient epitomes, only 7 are anonymous (124-27).  According to the conventions of Greco-Roman historiography the one who collected (interviewed/sifted reliable witnesses, compiled rough notes of hypomnemata) and added literary artisty to a historical work ought to sign their name (cf. Lucian, De historia conscribenda), though another motivation to write one’s own name was the desire for fame and the survival of one’s name for posterity (131-34).  In contrast, historical narratives in the Hebrew Bible are anonymous and later named after a main character (Joshua, Judges, etc) as are some later Jewish works (Tobit, Judith, Joseph and Aseneth, Maccabeed [though 2 Macc 2:24 credits Jason of Cyrene as a main source).  This fits into the rest of ANE historical writing (Acadian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian) and even after the influence of Greek conventions after Alexander the Great many Jewish writings are still anonymous (cf. Qumran).  2 Maccabees adopted the Greek prologue convention but does not name the author, nor does the prologue of the Wisdom of Ben Sira (127-30).  Discounting older views that these authors left out their names because they did not want to subtract from divine inspiration (then why aren’t all biblical books anonymous) or because they were intended only for a limited close circle (were texts like the Gospels only intended as private writings?) (134-35), he argues that the HB and NT books follow Ancient Near Eastern Historians in having a narrator who disappears because the subject matter is given absolute priority, in more direct speech of the characters in the narrative and in more closely following ones source texts (136-37).  This does contrast with the named prophetic or wisdom books in the HB and ANE, but the reason is that the authority of the wisdom or prophetic material in those cases depends on the authority of the sage or prophet (139).  Thus, Mark and Matthew take up the style of the HB historical book, while Luke-Acts moves closer to Greco-Roman conventions but remains anonymous like 2 Maccabees (130).   The NT authors follow the HB historical books in giving maximum priority to their subject matter of which they were only insignificant mediators; even Papias regards the evangelist Mark as only a transmitter of Peter’s memories yet his interest in named authors signals a new shift in defending the authenticity and reliability of the Gospels from naming the authors and this comes more and more into focus (he gives the example of the debates of Tertullian and Marcion, the later Gospel titles, Salvian of Marseille trying to justify his own pseudonymous work) (140-42).

Overall, I think this article make a strong case for why our Gospels are anonymous.  It makes sense that the Jewish authors of the Gospels (though the author of Luke-Acts might have been a Gentile, though perhaps a former “God-fearer”?) were indepted both to Jewish and Greco-Roman thought-worlds in composing their writings, both influenced to invest the Life of Jesus with scriptural authority and set it in the context of the unfolding story of Israel and also influenced by the Greco-Roman genre of bioi.  I think the argument definitely works for Mark, for which I had mentioned that the only thing that matters for the author is “the good news of Jesus Christ.”  For John, I wonder if we are beginning to see a move towards explicitly identifying the author or main source of the tradition in the figure of the “Beloved Disciple”, though is the epilogue which includes the claim that the Beloved Disciple is “the one who wrote these things” (Jn 21:24) original to the Gospel or a later addition?  Even in the case of Luke-Acts where his prologue seemed designed to connect with a more elite Hellenistic audience, it would be interesting to compare this article with Loveday Alexander’s argument in The Preface to Luke’s Gospel which argues that the Lukan prologue does not conform to ancient historiographical prologues but scientific prefaces (e.g., a teacher passing philosophical instruction or a how-to-manual in a trade to a student).  Again, is the enigmatic “we” that sporadically appears an attempt to make a claim about authorship or is this some other literary device to give the reader a feeling of participating in the events being recounted?  Why do you think the Gospels are anonymous?

Conclusion to Authorship Series

After reviewing the external and internal evidence, I believe it may be too speculative to peer behind the anonymity of the evangelist.  The tradition of the evangelist as Peter’s interpreter was used by the Elder John and Papias to apologize for Mark’s lack of order and the rest of the patristic tradition was content to repeat the tradition from Papias.  I am not opposed to the idea that some traditions in the Gospel originated with Peter or the original circle of disciples, but there is nothing explicit in the Gospel itself that Peter himself played a direct role behind the composition of Mark  (e.g., unlike, say, John 21:24 explicitly describing the role of the Beloved Disciple, thus scholars reach for subtle clues about how much Peter statistically appears or alleged inclusios), not to mention Mark paints a little bit of an ambivalent portrait of Peter and the disciples (I don’t agree with those who interpret Mark as completely polemical without noting positive features of the disciples, but I do think Mark was at least somewhat critical).  Some parallels with Paul are impressive and I do not rule out the possibility of some indirect influence, such as the focus on the cross or the noun euangelion, but the non-overlaps ought not be overlooked such as on pre-existence or wisdom christology, Son of Man, Adam-Christ typology (the wild beasts seem to be on Satan’s side in the wilderness scene rather than Jesus as a new Adam recreating an Edenic paradise), ”in-Christ” mysticism, the “righteousness of God”, justification by faith, kata sarka/kata pneuma, spiritual gifts, etc.  Since from some of the discussion in this series that some see me as unduly skeptical, I want to conclude on a theological note.  One does not reject the canonical authority of the gospels even if one does not hold to the later ascriptions to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.  In fact, one positive thing is that the evangelist can step out of Peter or Paul’s shadow and have his or her own distinctive theological contribution to the canon be recognized.  In fact, there is something to learn from an evangelist not interested in self-aggrandizement and purposefully not disclosing his or her identity, because all that mattered to the author is encapsulated in the opening line:  “the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

The Gospel of Mark as Pauline?

Since it is relevant to a discussion of authorship, this is a repost from the “Golden Rule” Blog that looked specifically at Joel Marcus’s case to put Mark in the Pauline sphere.  Marcus makes a good summary and defense of the evangelist as a (later) interpreter of Paul rather than Peter; others advocating Mark as Pauline include Alfred Loisy, G. Volkmar, BW Bacon, JC Fenton, Michael Goulder, William Telford, DC Sim and Michael Bird (though he sees both Pauline and Petrine influences).  Again, I’m withholding judgment until conclusion of the series.

I want to look at an article by Joel Marcus, “Mark – interpreter of Paul,” New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 473-487.  Marcus sets out to challenge the older consensus since Martin Werner’s 1923 monograph Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium that denied the relationship between Mark and Paul.  He looks at how Paul’s opinions on the Law or theology of the cross may have been a great deal more controversial among the early Jesus groups and “If Paul was a lonely and contentious figure rather than a universally approved one, it is more remakable than it would otherwise be that Mark frequently agrees with him” (474).  He notes a number of similarities between Mark and Paul on pages 475-476:

1. The dominant use of the noun euangelion (Note how often the singular noun euangelion (gospel) is in Mark and Paul and how rare it is prior to and in the rest of the NT (cf. Steve Mason, “Methods and Categories: Judaism and Gospel“).
2. The significance of the cross as the apocalyptic turning point of history.  Also, the view of the crucifixion as an atoning death (Mark 10:45; Rom 3:25; 5:8).
3. Jesus victory over demonic powers (Markan exorcisms; Rom 8:38-39; 1 Cor 15:24).
4. The advent of the age of divine blessings in fulfillment of prophecy (Mark 1:1-14; Rom 3:21-22).  Jesus as the New Adam (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:45; the temptation narrative in Mark and Jesus’ dazzling clothes in the transfiguration).
5. Importance of faith in Jesus or God and the dualism between the elect who can truly see versus the blind outsiders (Mark 4:10-12; Rom 11:7-10; 1 Cor 2:6-16).  Dualism can lead to a universalistic perspective (Mark 10:45; Rom 11:35-42).
6. The mission to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:27-29; Rom 1:16).
7. Jesus came to redeem sinners (Mark 2:17; Rom 4:15; 5:18-19).
8. Negative views of Peter with the rest of the twelve (e.g. hardnesss of heart, calling Peter Satan or 3 denials) and Jesus’ family (Mark 3:20-21, 31-35; 8:31-33; Gal 2).
9. The widening of the divine purpose to incorporate Gentiles was accomplished by an apocalyptic change in the Law (e.g., see the very similar language in Mark 7:19 and Rom 14:20 about the abrogation of the food laws).

So what do you think?  Is this enough evidence to put the Gospel of Mark (along with other later Paulinists = Colossians/Ephesians, Luke-Acts, Pastorals, Ignatius) in the Pauline sphere of influence or are these alleged parallels simply generally held more widely in the early Christian movement?

The Gospel of Mark as Anti-Petrine

In the last post, I listed main points that lead some scholars to conclude NT Mark reflects a Petrine perspective.  Peter is doubtless an important character, but a minority of scholars think Peter and the disciples play the part of the villain in Mark.  They start out well when they leave all to follow Jesus or have a successful healing & exorcism ministry, but as the story unfolds the disciples ignorance is increasingly on display until in the last they abandon, deny and betray Jesus.  Most controversial of all is Mark’s ending:  some see the command to “tell the disciples and Peter” in 16:7 as signalling that the disciples are restored, while those who argue for a polemical interpretation tend to emphasize the fearful silence of the women in 16:8 as meaning the word did not get out and thus the reconciliation of the disciples with the risen Jesus in Galilee did not take place.   There are many different theories or scenarios offered for why the evangelist polemicized against the original circle of disciples, so readers should consult the works of Joseph Tyson, JD Crossan, Theodore Weeden, WH Kelber, William Telford, Mary Ann Tolbert, Richard Horsley, etc.  Instead, I will highlight Markan passages (all from the NRSV) that seem harsh on the disciples and how Matthew/Luke edit Mark to rehabilitate the image of the disciples or family of Jesus:

οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ  (“those around him” – either his family [cf. Mk 3:31-34] or [less likely] the disciples) think Jesus is mad

When his family [hoi par' autou] heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’²²And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.’…Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him.³²A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers and sisters^* are outside, asking for you.’³³And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’³⁴And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers!³⁵Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’ (Mk 3:21-22, 31-35, note the sandwich technique with family and scribes against Jesus)

Verse 21 omitted in parallels Matt 12:24-50, Lk 11:14-28 (cf. 8:19-20)

Walking on Water

But when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought it was a ghost and cried out;⁵⁰for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’⁵¹Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded,⁵²for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. (Mk 6:49-52)

But when the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified, saying, ‘It is a ghost!’ And they cried out in fear.²⁷But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’ 28 Peter answered him, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’²⁹He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came towards Jesus.³⁰But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’³¹Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’³²When they got into the boat, the wind ceased.³³And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ (Matt 14:26-32)

Omitted as part of Luke’s Great Omission of Mk 6:45-8:26

Caesarea Philippi

Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that I am?’²⁸And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.’²⁹He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’³⁰And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him. 31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.³²He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.³³But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’ ³⁴ He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.’ (Mk 8:28-34)

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’¹⁴And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’¹⁵He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’¹⁶Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah,^* the Son of the living God.’¹⁷And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’²⁰Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. 21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.²²And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’²³But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’ 24 Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.’ (Matt 16:13-24)

Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, ‘Who do the crowds say that I am?’¹⁹They answered, ‘John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.’²⁰He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered, ‘The Messiah of God.’  21 He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone,²²saying, ‘The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.’ 23 Then he said to them all, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.²⁴For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.’ (Lk 9:19-23)

Excusing the Denials

Jesus’ prediction and fulfillment of Peter’s denials are recorded in all 4 gospels, but only Luke has Jesus preface it with this:  ‘Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,³²but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.’ (Lk 22:31-32)

So what do you think: could only an apostle like Peter authorize some of the more negative aspects of Mark’s picture of the disciples, or is Mark’s account to critical for the evangelist to be an “interpreter of Peter”?

The Gospel of Mark as Petrine

In the next few posts, I will look at different scholars who have examined the internal evidence and have argued that Mark is a Petrine Gospel, an anti-Petrine Gospel or a Pauline Gospel.  I will try to represent each position fairly and I will refrain from making any judgment until the concluding post of the series.  For further details of the arguments listed below, see C.H. Turner, Vincent Taylor, Beda Rigaux, Robert Gundry, Martin Hengel, Samuel Byrskog, Richard Bauckham, Michael F. Bird, etc.

1. Peter is mentioned 25 times in Mark, a higher frequency ratio (1:443) in so short a space than Matthew (25 times, 1:722) or Luke (30 times, 1:648).
2. Peter is the first and last disciple named in the gospel (1:16; 16:7), forming what Bauckham describes as an inclusio of eyewitness testimony.
3. C.H. Turner’s argument that Peter’s first-person testimony can be reconstructed from the sudden shift from a plural verb without a subject to a singular verb/pronoun in reference to Jesus (e.g., “when they came from Bethany, he was hungry”), refined by Bauckham to argue that this is Mark’s literary device to provide narrative focalization from Peter’s perspective.
4. Peter is often the head of the list of the Twelve (3:16) or the Three (9:2) and the chief spokesperson.  He is also a fairly rounded character as readers get to see the full range of his successes (his absolute devotion to leave everything to follow Jesus at his call, his Caesarea Philippi confession) and his blunders (rebuking Jesus after a passion prediction and being called Satan, denying Jesus 3 times followed by weeping).
5. Given the high regard for the Apostle Peter, only he could have authorized some of the more embarrassing details such as his ignorance during Jesus’ ministry or his denials.  The reader feels sympathy with Peter’s blunt interjection when he did not know what to say at the Transfiguration or his sorrow after the denials, but these failures are part of Peter’s transformative journey of discipleship and in 16:7 Peter is restored.
6. The outline of Mark seems to conform to the preaching of Peter in Acts 10:36-41 (though note that the similar speeches of Peter or Paul in Act are ultimately Lukan compositions).

What do you think: do these arguments convince you against the older form critical arguments to restore Peter’s role as the chief source behind Mark, or do these arguments only suggest that Peter is an important literary character?

The Gospel According to…?

Although it is generally concluded that the superscriptions to the gospels are secondary, what is striking is the uniformity (“Euangelion kata Markon” [Gospel according to] or the abbreviated form “kata Markon” [according to Mark]) and unconventionality of the titles (i.e. the usual way is to have the genitive of the author’s name followed by the title of the work) (cf. Hengel).  So how early do these titles go back and what was the major influence that led the Christians to entitle a Jesus bios (Life) as a “Gospel”?  Below are some of the major competing theories and see the acompanying bibliography to consult for the details:

• The singular noun euangelion was initially used to proclaim the ”good news” that the crucified one as risen Lord against the imperial cult.  However, is there evidence for a shift from proclamation to titular usage in the NT?  Some argue the opening of Mark with ”the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God (but cf. text critical issues around Mk 1:1) was intended as a title, initiating the “Gospel” genre.  Others see Matthew taking that next step:  while Matt only has euangelion 4 times, the redactional “the gospel of the kingdom”  (4:23; 9:35) or ”this [touto] gospel” (24:14 ["this gospel of the kingdom]; 26:13) (cf. 13:19 “word of the kingdom”) summarizes the totality of Jesus’ teaching and deeds (e.g., 26:13 wherever “this gospel of the kingdom” is proclaimed, the story of the woman annointing Jesus will be too).  “This gospel of the kingdom” is a capsule summary of the contents of Matt’s book, encouraging the development of “Gospel” as a title.
• In ancient libraries/book shops, titles of books were necessary in order to distinguish them and, if they were written anonymously, a pseudonymous title and author would be provided.  In a similar way, Christians established their own scriptoria within major centres (e.g., Rome, Ephesus, etc) and as soon as multiply copies of a Gospel began circulating it became necessary to supply them with a title and thus the titles would have been added fairly early.  This may be presupposed by Papias reference to Mark and Matthew (and possibly John) or plural euangelia in Justin Martyr.
• The Didache cites traditions “in the gospel” (8:2; 15:3-4; cf. 11:3) seems like the author is alluding to a written text (instead of just oral tradition and the “gospel” as kerygmatic proclamation) and most likely Matthew (e.g., Matthew’s version of the Lord’s prayer).  Thus, the Didache may give limited evidence for the gospel used as a title of a work, though this does not necessarily yet apply to all Christians in all places of the Empire.
• According to Koester’s study of the Church Fathers, euangelion continues to refer to oral proclamation (though he admits there is debate on the Didache even though he decides it was oral tradition, and argues for the usage of “written gospels” in 2 Clement [cf. 8:5] which he dates to ca 150 CE or later).  Marcion was the first to initiate the use of “gospel” as a title of a literary work when he confused Paul’s reference to “my gospel” (cf. Rom 2:16) as a reference to his written gospel (some version of Luke) (cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4.1-2).  Yet Theophilus of Antioch may be the first to cite the Gospels by their named authors.
• The Gospel titles were only added at the emergence of the fourfold gospel canon in the middle to late second century to distinguish the books (the singular “Gospel” according to four different authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

So when do you think the titles by their named authors first emerged?  For much more details on the points above, here is a short Bibliography:

• Bird, Mike.  “Mark, Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul” in Paul and the Gospels: Christology, Conflicts and Convergences (ed. Michael F. Bird and Joel Willits; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2011): 30-58.  Cf.
  http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html
  
• Collins, Adela.  Mark: A Commentary.  Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
• Gundry, Robert.  “EUAGGELION:  How Soon a Book?” JBL 115 (1996): 321-25.
• Hengel, Martin.  The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. London: SCM; Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000.
• Kelhoffer,  James A. “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited:  EUAGGELION as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the First Half of the Second Century.”  Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 95 (2004): 1–34.
• Koester, Helmut.  Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM;Philadelphia: Trinity International, 1990.
• Marcus, Joel.  Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.  Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2000.
• Stanton, Graham.  Jesus and Gospel.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

The Evolving Traditions on (John) Mark

For those interested in an in depth yet accessible treatment of the NT and patristic traditions on the figure of ”Mark”, despite some of my disagreements one of the best critical overviews is by C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Edinburgh: Augsburg Fortress, 2001 [first ed. University of South Carolina, 1994).  Also on my reading list for the upcoming year is Thomas Oden’s The African Memory of Mark: Reassessing Early Church Tradition which has caught the notice of some bloggers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).  From what I can see, the earliest and most reliable evidence presents Mark as one of Paul’s Jewish co-workers (Phlm 24; Col 4:10; cf. later texts 2 Tim 4:11; Acts 12:25; 13:5; 15:37, 39) and a specific association with Peter appears to me to be a later development (Acts 12:12; 1 Pet 5:13; Papias) (cf. my presentation at London SBL and San Francisco SBL).  There are some even more interesting later legendary developments once Mark is identified as the evangelist, from writing in Rome at the request of Peter’s hearers to being the first bishop of Alexandria to having a physical deformity (stumpy-fingered).

The Patristic Tradition on Authorship

There was a virtual consensus from the 2nd century onward that the evangelist Mark was the interpreter of Peter.  This tradition was recorded probably ca 110 CE (or ca 130) by the bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who in turn received it earlier from some enigmatic figure known as the presbyter John (quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15).*  Here is Bart Ehrman‘s translation in the LOEB series:

And this is what the elder used to say, ‘when Mark was the interpreter [or translator] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds – but not in order.  For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings.  And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them.  For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he had heard or to include any falsehood among them.

To see the Greek and translation choices of different scholars for this fragment of Papias, see J.B. Lightfoot & J.R. Harmer (cf. Rev Daniel R. Jennings reproduces their list of fragments), T.C. Schmidt, Richard Bauckham, Stephen Carlson, Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson.  On the one hand, Papias attributes the tradition to the Elder John so he did not just read it out of 1 Peter 5:13 (though Eusebius mentions that Papias knew 1 Peter and 1 John), but, on the other hand, Mark’s accuracy in faithfully recording the preaching of the Apostle Peter seems to be a way to neutralize the critique of Mark as lacking “order” (τάξις).  While the rest of the patristic tradition largely follows Papias on the Mark-Peter connection, there are some interesting developments to consider when comparing the various references to Mark in Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 106.3), Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, E.H. 5.8.2-4), Clement of Alexandria (quoted in Eusebius, E.H. 2.15.1-2; 6.14.5-7; Adumbr. in I Pet. 5.13, the Letter to Theodore [Secret Mark]), Origen (commentary on Matthew, quoted in Eusebius, E.H. 6.25.5), Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.5.3), Epiphanius (Panarion 51.6.10-14a), Jerome (On Illustrious Men 8; Prologue of the Four Gospels), the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue, the Monarchian Prologue, Augustine (On the Consensus of the Evangelists 1.6), John Chrysostoam (Homily [1:7] on Matthew).  I have listed sites below to look up each individual reference, but I want to leave some questions that call attention to the important differences.  For instance, 1) did the evangelist write after Peter’s death (if exodos is a euphemism for death in Irenaeus) or while Peter was still living, 2) if the latter, what was Peter’s attitude towards Mark’s Gospel, 3) is the location of Mark’s writing left unspecified, in Rome, vaguely in the regions of Italy or in Alexandria, Egypt, 4) at whose request or for what purpose did Mark write the Gospel, 5) what is the historical order of the 4 Gospels?

For external evidences, see Stephen Carlson’s Synoptic Problem (on the old site or new site), Ben Smith’s Text Excavations (external evidence to The Four Gospels, the Latin Prologues), Peter Kirby’s Early Christian Writings, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library Early Church Fathers, Kevin Edgecomb’s Patristic Stuff (esp. Dialogue with Trypho), Roger Pearse’s the Tertullian Project, Mahlon Smith’s Synoptic Gospel’s Primer (see Index “Traditional Opinions”)

*My thanks to Nazaroo for preserving my rough notes on Papias from the last blog, though my bibliography on Papias has since grown much larger and some of my opinions have changed from a year ago.

New Series on Authorship

Classic Form and Redaction criticism considerably complicated our picture of the origins of the Gospels and uncovered 3 Sitze im Leben (situations in life).  The difference between so-called “conservative” or ”liberal” scholars was over how much Jesus tradition was assigned to 1) the lifetime of the historical Jesus, 2) the pre-gospel oral period or 3) the evangelists own editorial contribution, but most accepted this basic framework.  Finally, Literary approaches tend to bracket reconstructing the world behind the text (authorship, date, provenance, tradition vs. redaction) in favour of reading the gospels as whole and self-contained narratives or emphasizing the location of the contemporary reader.  But how did all of these developments replace the earlier consensus that accepted the church tradition on the evangelist Mark, the “interpreter of Peter”?  In this series, I explore the question: who wrote the Gospel According to Mark?

Mark and Newer Methods

There is an interesting debate on the necessary tools of the trade by Larry Hurtado and BW16 (also here, here), between a traditional textual analysis with emphasis on language acquisition versus more interdisciplinary approaches and engagement with capital “T” Theory (cf. Pat McCullough’s post explaining the need for biblical scholars to engage theory).  My background is a BA in a Christian Liberal Arts University College where I was introduced to most major theories of biblical studies from the Documentary Hypothesis to the New Perspective on Paul and to Hermeneutics (from the ‘hermeneutical circle to author, text or reader-based criticism).  My MA at the University of Alberta was very interdisciplinary (I took classes in other religions, Anthropology, History of Historiography and Literary Study of the HB) and my advisor introduced me to the field of secular “Religious Studies” (especially social scientific approaches from Emile Durkheim to JZ Smith, Burton Mack).  Now at Sheffield, since the concentration is focussed on “biblical studies,” doctoral students have the option to apply a variety of methods to the biblical text from traditional exegetical ones to newer developments in cultural studies and reception history.  However, while I have posted on historical-critical effort to get behind the text (source, form, redaction), I wish I was more conversant in theory and hesitate to post on newer approaches lest I misrepresent them.  A useful introduction to them as they relate to NT Mark, from narrative, reader, deconstructive, feminist or post-colonial criticism, is found in Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore, eds., Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2nd ed., Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).