The Gerasene Demoniac (Mk 5:1-20) is the most dramatic exorcism account in the gospels. I am going to leave aside the text critical problems surrounding Garasenes/Gadarenes/Gergesenes and some of the other historical issues (Gerasa is about 55/34 miles from the lake and Gadara about 8 km/5 miles away) for the moment and concentrate on the meaning of the story. The Jewish worldview is evident as the demonic realm is represented by ritually unclean places (the tombs), animals (pigs) and persons (the demoniac appears to be a Gentile - note how he addresses Jesus as “Son of the Most High God” [cf. Gen 14:18-20; Num 24:16; Deut 32:8; Ps 82:6; Isa 14:14; Dan 3:26; 4:32, 34]). There may also be a political edge to the story (see esp Meyers 1988, 191-97; Horsley 2001, 141-47). Both Meyers and Horsley build on the observations of Frantz Fanon that the colonized displace their anger from real political forces that invade and oppress them to malevolent spirits and thus the actions of the demoniac is a public symbolic act reflecting the collective anxiety over Roman imperialism. Second, a “legion” (λεγιών) calls to mind a Roman military unit (can be up to 6000 soldiers, though only 2000 pigs drown) as does a ”herd” (ἀγέλη) who “charge” into the sea. The drowning of the pigs has scriptural echoes of the drowning of Pharaoh’s army in the Sea in the Exodus story. Finally, though much more debateable some see a specific referent behind the story such as Vespasian’s reconquest of northern Palestine by sending Lucius Annius to Gerasa with a calvary and a number of foot soldiers (War 4.9.1) (Meyers 1988, 191) or the Tenth Legion (symbol was the boar’s head) who besieged Jerusalem (War 5.71-97) and may have sacrificed a pig to the Roman standards in the temple (cf. War 7.17; 6.316) and in 71 attacked the fortresses of Machaerus and Masada, both with cliffs over the Dead Sea (Incigneri 2003, 191-94; note this doesn’t fully explain why the story has “Gerasa” but Incigneri notes on pp. 193-4 n. 137 that this feature may be because Simon ben Gioras came from Gerasa [War 4.503] and had been defeated & executed as part of the Roman Triumph).
Not all scholars embrace this political reading. In his review of Horsley, Gundry argues “legion” simply means numerous (“for we are many” in v. 9) (2003, 137) and Boring cites a parallel from Horace who spoke of a “cohort of fever demons” (Odes 1.3.30) (2006, 151), but both overlook the other military imagery and Exodus imagery as well as the comparative analogy of colonial Algeria cited by Horsley. Boring thinks that the real implications of the story is that Jesus drives unclean spirits out of Gentile territory so that Israel is no longer exclusively “holy land” (2006, 152). However, Daniel Cohen has strong arguments against a pro-Gentile reading: he points out that there had always been a Jewish presence in the Decapolis at least since most of them were conquered by Alexander Yannai (103-76 BCE) though the “significant indigenous Jewish population that was marginalized by a colonial Greco-Gentile population with the support of Roman imperial power” (2010, 153-56) and his Jewish reading is that Jesus intends to rid the world of foreign imperialism and restore the land to Jewish sovereignty while Gentiles are still permitted to live in Eretz Israel (2010, 159). Cohen also protests the over-interpretation of Mk 5:19-20 as a commision to a mission field when Jesus simply tells the healed man to go home (οἶκος) and tell his close family & friends what the “Lord” (i.e. god of Israel) had done for him, which he subsequently disobeys by breaking the theme of secrecy and telling everybody how much Jesus has done for him (2010, 160-68; I am not entirely convinced by Cohen that Mark sees the Gentile mission as “illegitimate” [p. 168] as there are other hints in the gospel from the asides about Jewish customs to the Syrophoenician woman, the two feeding narratives or eschatological predictions of a mission to the nations [13:10; 14:9] that Mark writes for a mixed audience, but I agree with Cohen that this story is not primarily about the Gentile mission). Finally, Joel Marcus allows that the pre-Markan story may have been a satire of the Roman milatary presence (e.g. the legion, the wild boar emblem on a Roman legion stationed in Palestine [cf. 1 Enoch 89:12]), but argues that it is unclear if the evangelist shared such anti-Roman sentiment or was more focussed on the battle against Satan (2000, 351-52), but it seems to me that in the ancient worldview earthly/heavenly realities were intertwined and human political conflicts had a heavenly counterpart (e.g. the chief prince Michael as defender of Israel against the princes of Persia or Greece in Dan 10). Walter Wink writes that for Jews or Christians, “The spirit [Satan] they perceived existed right at the heart of the empire, but their worldview equipped them to discern that spirit only by intuiting it and then projecting it out, in visionary form, as a spiritual being residing in heaven and representing Rome in the heavenly council (1992, 7). Thus, if we get rid of the anachronistic “separation of church and state”, the story of “Legion” fits in with the broader message of Mark with its announcement of the imminent coming of God’s kingdom or empire and of the Son of Man in power as a direct challenge to the current political order and the unseen spiritual forces thought to rule through it.
- Boring, M. Eugene. Mark. The NT Library; Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
- Cohen, Daniel. “The Geransene Demoniac: A Jewish Approach to Liberation before 70 CE.” Pages 152-173 in Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey. Edited by James G. Crossley; London and Oakville: Equinox, 2010.
- Gundry, Robert. “Richard A. Horsley’s Hearing the Whole Story A Critical Review of its Postcolonial Slant.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2003)
- Horsley, Richard. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
- Incigneri, Brian. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003)
- Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8. Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2000.
- Meyers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. New York: Orbis Books, 1988.
- Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Joel Watts at his biblioblog, Unsettled Christianity, has been studying the “Legion” story in Mark for his Ph.D. thesis. He has a number of interesting in-depth posts on it and takes the side of those who defend mimesis as an explanation of the tale.
I might also suggest Aus’ new book on the feeding miracles in the NT, which raises questions similar to those that come to mind after researching the demoniac story in Mark. See,
Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15 (Studies in Judaism) by Roger David Aus (2010) http://www.amazon.com/Feeding-Five-Thousand-Studies-Background/dp/0761851526/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320164922&sr=1-1
The Gospels appear to be rewrites over time rather than providing secure evidence of eyewitness testimony. Even those who hypothesize less rewriting admit that some rewriting has occurred over time from earlier Gospel stories to later ones:
THE GOSPELS AS REWRITES OF ONE ANOTHER
See L. Michael White’s award winning work, Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite (2010)
Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite
And see Rewriting the Feeding of Five Thousand (Studies in Biblical Literature) by Steven A. Hunt (2011), which presents the most extensive argumentation to date that the author of the fourth Gospel rewrote the feeding of the five thousand based on earlier written accounts coupled with his own theological imagination: http://www.amazon.com/Rewriting-Feeding-Thousand-Biblical-Literature/dp/143310606X/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1SYECKG3C9L4R&colid=3KKLY02YFTRNF
Speaking of rewrites, see the recent article, “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” by David C. Sim, New Testament Studies, Volume 57, Issue 02, April 2011, pp 176 – 192.
Evangelicals seem to be playing their own game of Pascal’s Wager when it comes to biblical scholarship. Their wager might be called, “Pascal’s Biblical Studies Wager,” and depends on getting people to affirm the views of Evangelical biblical scholars, otherwise one risks following the wrong scholars with all their questions and thus wagering away one’s eternal salvation. When in fact, bilbical studies are more diversified in their interpretations and arguments than even the Evangelicals who contribute to the different “viewpoint series” published by Zondervan and InverVarsity admit.
WHERE TO BEGIN WHEN IT COMES TO DISCERNING THE “GOSPEL” TRUTH?
The obvious place to start in my opinon, is with the fact that stories of miracles of a wide variety can be found in both Jewish and Hellenistic cultures with little in the way of questioning such tales, except to claim either that they didn’t happen or the devil did it. Even today Muslims in Egypt have claimed that the devil did it when a Coptic Christian passes along a Christian miracle tale, and vice versa.
Today people attempt to investigate miraculous claims, including the Catholic Church which has a special bureau to investigate claims of healing at the Fatima shrine, and out of the tens of millions of sick people who have visited Fatima since the 1800s there’s extremely few cases that even the Church accepts as likely “miracles.” In the first century I imagine the case was complete reversed since they had little knowledge of how to even begin to investigate claims of healings or exorcisms, and they thrived on such tales. There were healers and exorcists throughout the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds, while stories of Jesus’ grand nature miracles were, by the Gospels own admission, shown to only a few, and only to believers, including his resurrection and ascension. More on those below.
Can we take modern historical techniques and investigate miraculous tales from the first century and claim that we have raised the probability that a miracle has occurred? I don’t see how we can. Even Licona admits that say, the tale in Matthew of the raising of many saints fits other such miraculous tales from both the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds. But if people could believe such a tale about many raised saints long dead, rising from many tombs, then I don’t imagine there was much they could not believe.
The Gospels were composed in a world where miracles where the bread and butter of religious commerce, and where Emperors were called “divine” and “savior,” and worshipped and “born of virgins” and “ascended into heaven,” and where the Jews believed God was so on their side such that they could defeat Rome, and tried it twice in Palestine, and where Messiahs had thousands of followers. Crazy times breed crazy stories. At least one good story was bound to come out of that pressure-cooked generation, which was boiling over from the days of the book of Daniel and kept right on boiling till the second revolt against Rome. (But myths take a hundred to two hundred years!) Do they? Myths and legends and stories can pass like wildfire and arise even in the lifetime of the person they are about, even from that person’s own mouth, from Sabbati Sevi to Sadhu Sundar Singh (to Haile Sallasie). Especially if the times are bubbling over as they were back then. Myths, stories and legends cook faster that way.
It seems obvious that Gospel stories changed. One can plainly read and see for yourself what things were added or deleted in each Gospel. Moreover one can see for one’s self how Matthew and Luke differ most from Mark in exactly the places where they could not follow Mark because Mark was silent (nativity and post-resurrection stories). Or one can read where Matthew adds to Jesus’ death the story of an earthquake, saints being resurrected from opened tombs, “terrified” Roman guards seeing such things causing them to exclaim TOGETHER, “Surely this was the son of God!” (Compare Mark, that only has a single Roman say the line, while staring at Jesus, and hearing his last cry, not a group of Romans who are “terrified” apparently by the freshly introduced story of an earthquake and opened graves, who cry in unison, “This was the son of God!”) Matthew also adds a second earthquake and an angel coming down out of heaven who opens the tomb, and guards who fall down on the ground. And Jewish bribery. What DIDN’T Matthew add! Yet Matthew’s verses–from Jesus’ last words to the message at the tomb remain the same as in Mark. It’s just the “inbetween” stuff that’s so far out there.
You can even count the number of words alleged to have been spoken by the resurrected Jesus, from Mark to Matthew to Luke to John and note the word count rising. http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2010/03/word-about-growing-words-of-resurrected.html By the time you get to Acts, Jesus is supposed to have remained on earth for weeks and taught and shared meals with his disciples, which assumes even MORE words spoken by the resurrected Jesus per that document. And John ends with the words that “perhaps” the whole world couldn’t contain all the books if everything Jesus did were written down, which seems to admit that the flood gates of legends about Jesus were far from closed but flowing quite nicely in his day.
The fouth and final Gospel (FG) is on in which the author tries to outdo all previous Gospels by having Jesus recognized and declared to be Logos, Messiah, God’s chosen one, son of God, King of Israel, and Lamb of God in the very first chapter. In other words the FG author does not wait until later in Jesus’ ministry for Peter alone to declare Jesus is the Messiah as in Mark and Matthew.
“Lamb of God” is a unique term found only in the FG and probably the author’s own creation like “Logos” because the FG is also the only one that has Jesus die while the “lambs” are being slain for Passover (to go with his Lamb of God epithet that he put in the Baptist’s mouth, in fact the author of the FG puts quite a lot of words in the Baptist’s mouth, longer recitations than found in previous Gospels), but the other Gospels have Jesus celebrating a Passover meal, eating the lamb that had been slain the day before Passover. Instead, the FG does not mention Jesus celebrating a Passover meal with his disciples, but adds Passover imagery and words like those spoken in the other Gospels (about eating his body and blood) after the story of the feeding of the multitude. The FG writer certainly appears to have been trying to outdo the rest, and using his theological imagination to do so, changing round things in his telling. His repetition that his words are “true” also seems to be an attempt to out do previous Gospels, just as Luke’s opening suggests that his Gospel was meant to supersede previous Gospels (Mark and Matthew). One upmanship is what it’s called. The paper I mentioned above also notices the same trend even moving from Mark to Matthew.
The FG is also the only one that includes the story of Jesus raising a person who had been dead for three days and making that resurrection miracle the real reason why the Pharisees sought to kill Jesus. That outdoes the previous Gospels that only have Jesus raising a woman who was nearly dead or just died per Mark and Matthew. Now Jesus raises someone dead for several days, and the Pharisees seek to kill Jesus because of this new miracle that none of the other Gospels mention. The Pharisees fear too many people will follow Jesus and their home will be taken away, so Jesus must die. The other Gospels declare that the reason the Pharisees sought to kill Jesus was because of the table turning episode in the Temple. But the author of the FG places that episode at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry not the end. I guess that’s one way to highlight the new miracle story that no one ever heard about before. For more on the FG’s literary creativity see http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2011/02/perfumed-jesus.html
And what about the way God performs spectacular miraculous stunts in view of many in the OT, but in front of far fewer people in the NT? Even the story about Jesus feeding the multitude doesn’t have the multitude themselves recognize or exclaim that a miracle had occurred–not in the earliest versions [see endnote]. Moreover, Jesus spends most of his time in smaller towns, doesn’t visit any large ones he was within walking range of, none but Jerusalem, where they kill him. Does he split a sea in sight of hundreds of thousands of Jews, a mixed multitude and Pharaoh’s army? No, Jesus walks on water and stills the sea, being seen only by a small boatload of disciples. Does Jesus’ face light up for all Israel to see? No. He only lights up on a mountaintop for three disciples to see. Does Jesus exit the tomb for all to see? No, no one sees Jesus exit the tomb. At his ascension into heaven does Jesus rise on a fiery chariot? No, he rises to heaven quietly at night seen only by the eleven remaining disciples. Does the resurrected Jesus stroll out of Jerusalem with people shouting Hosannas and waving palms? No, instead Luke says the raised Jesus “led them [from Jerusalem] to Bethany” at night–very quietly it seems because only the apostles were with him. The Gospels strain credulity in obvious ways.
And the change in the message at the tomb that Mark and Matthew agree upon, and that Luke and John alter, is plainly jarring. The message is no longer, “He has gone on before you to Galilee, for there ye shall see him.” Instead in Luke and John the raised Jesus now appears first to his disciples in Jerusalem and even tells the disciples to remain in Jerusalem. One’s head is likely to spin off one’s shoulders at such changes in the retelling. Or how Mark’s “young man in a long white garment” inside the tomb, is transformed by Matthew into “the angel of the Lord who descended from heaven; his countenance like lightening, and his raiment white as snow” who sits on the stone outside the tomb and terrifies the guards, and how one angel in Mark and Matthew wasn’t enough for Luke and John who retell the story using two of them, “two men in shining garments . . . a vision of angels” (Luke 24:4 & 23), “two angels in white” (John). In reference to the “young man,” one also can’t help but note that none of the other Gospels contain the story found only in Mark of the “young man” who was the last to leave Jesus at Jesus’ arrest. Isn’t Mark suggesting that the “young man” who was the last to leave Jesus at his arrest was also the first at the empty tomb Sunday morning? Later Gospel authors rewrote the scene dropping both “young men” references in Mark in favor of “an angel that descends from heaven in Matthew,” or even “two angels” in the last retellings. That is the kind of gullibility we see growing right before our eyes.
Speaking again of the way the NT miracles of Jesus are seen by so few people compared with OT miracles, compare the OT tale about Yahweh destroying Sodom and Gomorrah with the Gospel tale about the apostles being rejected in a town and asking Jesus if they should not call down fire from heaven on such a town. And Jesus says don’t do it (perhaps because Jesus thought the world was going to be judged soon enough *smile*). But the intent of the NT version of the tale seems is be to say to the reader that they could do it. Sure. Like Jesus could walk on water, calm the storm, light up on mountaintops, walk from Jerusalem to Bethany after being raised from the dead with fish in his belly (Luke), and ascend from earth up into heaven, so long as only a few people (all disciples) were the only one’s looking.
Ed, thanks for this essay
I thought Joel was working on his MDiv but will probably go on to PhD, but for links to his good posts on Legion (see here, here, here, here, here). I appreciate the links in the rest of the comment but it may be a little off-topic here as I wasn’t in this post engaging the question of whether this exorcism story or any of the other miracles in Mark happened (which seems to me to be as much a philosophical and theological debate as historical) as much as looking at what this particular story means in the context of Mark’s literary narrative.
That last point, about the lack of a separation of “church” and “state” in Greco-Roman antiquity, is absolutely key, and made by both Myers and Horsley. I’d add another important piece to your bibliography, though:
Stephen D. Moore, “‘My Name is Legion, for We are Many’: Representing Empire in Mark,” in Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament, (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 24-44.
Moore begins with 5:1-20, which he agrees has colonial occupation in view, then addresses other references to Rome and the question of how best to understand the gospel’s stance toward the Empire.
Wondering if you’ll say more in later posts about Roman colonial figures like Pilate and the Roman centurion as well as less-direct references to Roman rule, including Caesar’s denarius? How much of “a challenge to the current political order” does the Markan Jesus and the “empire of God” actually pose, in your reading?
Thanks Eric for the comment and the article which I definitely must check out. I think Mark opposed revolutionary violence and instead advocated following on the path of non-violent opposition and suffering and taking up the cross, but expected a dramatic eschatological reversal in the near future at the coming of the kingdom and Son of Man that would overthrow all rival powers. I plan to post more on some of these other topics you mentioned, but for now on the question of taxes I always liked how Loren Rosson laid out the options on his blog and Mark Goodacre had a few blog post about whether the Centurion was sarcastic though ironically affirming the truth (or if a true confession, does that mean it was a “conversion” or just like the demons “confessions” in Mark – a matter of recognizing who had the true power). I am not sure what to make of the portrayal of Pilate, though, as traditionally it has always been read as attempting to white-wash Pilate’s role in the crucifixion by shifting the blame to the priestly leadership and not sure how that works with my anti-imperial reading of Mark (perhaps that is the strongest evidence for seeing Mark as more ambiguous about Roman rule, though Meyer’s commentary argues that the trial scenes is kind of a mocking parody of the Sanhedrin and Pilate). What do you think about Mark’s political stance and some of these references?
To Mike K.,
The pericope in Mk5:1-20 is above all about a super exorcism by Jesus (of course “Mark” was very high on exorcism. The other gospelers either reduced the exorcisms in gMark (“Luke” & “Matthew”) or eliminated them (“John”)). So the “legion” of evil spirits/demons does not need to refer to Roman Legions (more so because the numbers do not fit).
The problem is about the pigs. Many questions can be asked: was it wanted that the audience believe evil spirits have an affinity for pigs?
Did the pigs drown in order to get rid of the demons in them?
Or did the evil spirits want to drown the pigs?
Was the drowning of the pigs thought to kill the demons in them?
I also note that the Gentiles in the story, despite the loss of their pigs, are not described as mad against Jesus. Actually, at the end of the story, the drowning of the pigs is treated as a minor side event, the main one being the successful exorcism. There is no emphasis on the pigs and their drowning.
“Mark” did not like to have Jesus seen as a would-be future temporal christ/king (15:2,5,12,31-32). He denied Jesus as Son of David (12:35-37). And during the “day of the Lord”, Jesus will preside from the clouds to the rapture of Christians from earth to heaven (13:26-27).
Of course the biblical God wrath during the Day had to be mentioned, but I do not see anything anti-Roman. Actually in gMark, the Roman officials look good (Pilate trying not to send Jesus to the cross and the Roman centurion’s words right after Jesus’ death). And Jesus allegedly advocated to pay tax to Ceasar!
Once again, I think you are on the wrong tracks and looking for excuses in order to have “Mark” seem to be against Roman rule in his gospel (what he thought privately might be a different matter).
Mikel, I’ll make some comments on my interpretation by way of a response to Bernard, though it will hardly be comprehensive.
Bernard, I think you’ve highlighted some “pro-Roman” aspects of Mark. Or, better really, highlighted that the text can be, and has been, read in “pro-Roman” ways. It is a misstatement, however, to see an “anti-Roman” reading as “on the wrong tracks” or the product of wishful thinking. Taking collectively, the relevant details in the text can be construed–plausibly–to support either interpretation.
No single passage or character really clarifies the other passages in a definitive way. And that fact, I think, supported as it is by the history of interpretation of Mark, is crucial to thinking about the text’s political ideology vis a vie empire. In other words, Roman imperial authority is an object of *both* revulsion and attraction in the text, something that elicits profound ambivalence and uncertainty, as we might expect from studies of contemporary postcolonial literature (see Moore).
So figures like Pilate and the Roman centurion are presented in a way that is open to more than one possible interpretation (still following Moore a bit). Pilate can be read as a sympathetic official who was outplayed by the devious Jerusalem elites; or, he is an indifferent official looking for the easiest way to dispatch a troublemaker and keep the peace, which comes by pretending to let the crowd itself take responsibility for his death. The centurion is either making an (unprecedented) confession of faith or simply joining the sarcastic mockery of others hostile to Jesus. Similarly, the centurion’s coin has been read to support deference to Rome (and even the separation of “church” and “state”), or as Jesus’ attempt to avoid a trap while slyly affirming that God in fact outranks Caesar. These ambiguity of these passages arguably confirms that the text’s stance toward Rome can’t be reduced to a simple pro or anti.
Some aspects not mentioned by Bernard add to the difficulty. Instructing his followers to be different from the power-seeking “Gentiles” hardly leaves the impression that the Markan Jesus has a positive or indifferent view of Roman rule. Likewise, warning his followers about future persecutions at the hands of both Jewish and Roman officials also suggests that the Markan Jesus, and by extension the text itself, is somewhat suspicious of any and all authorities figures save for the the divine son.
And what of the Markan Jesus, especially the authority and titles ascribed to him throughout the text? Well, “messiah” and “son of god” are clearly “political” and hence possibly cast Jesus as an alternative and thus rival to Caesar. Yes, the text does seem to down play the Markan Jesus’ identity or role as David’s heir or liberating king. But it does so not by rejecting those aspects of his identity as much as subordinating them to his identity as the Son of God and Son of Man. Those titles, in turn, enhance and elevate his “political” authority to the extent that they claim a cosmic scope for its exercise.
In other words, he’s not just the would-be messiah of Judea or the people of Israel, but of all of the heavens and earth. Even if his apocalyptic advent is a rescue mission more than a military invasion of sorts, such an arrival and display of power can hardly admit a rival such as Caesar. Add to that the apparent appropriation of terms and ideas from Roman imperial ideology to describe the Markan Jesus and his message, particularly “gospel,” “son of God,” and “empire,” and it is not hard to see the Markan Jesus and Caesar as ideological rivals, twins even.
And that returns me to the idea of ambivalence (again following Moore). If Mark seems both attracted to and opposed to Roman rule, and if Mark can be read as both pro and anti Roman rule, that is arguably because the text reflects both a desire to appropriate Roman imperial ideology and to reject Caesar in favor of Jesus. So the text can both see Jesus as the true son of God who will soon remove Rome by ushering in the empire of God in power and see the destruction of the Temple by Rome as an act of divine providence. And in light of 5:1-20, which can be read as a colonial allegory in which the “legion” does in fact refer to Roman military might (regardless of the accuracy of mere numbers), we can even say that the text sees Rome both as an agent of Satan and an agent of God. Ambivalence indeed.
Eric wrote:
“Taking collectively, the relevant details in the text can be construed–plausibly–to support either interpretation.”
“supported as it is by the history of interpretation of Mark”
BM: You may think that, but above all, those texts were not meant to go through long interpretative studies, but rather understood quasi-instantly as they were read or listened to (most Christians then did not know how to read). Just like for any other texts. And I repeat, there is nothing anti-Roman which jumps at you when you read gMark. If you want to see that, read Revelation.
“Roman imperial authority is an object of *both* revulsion and attraction in the text,”
BM: I do not see either attraction or revulsion at Roman imperial authority in gMark, but certainly some ambivalance and vagueness on other issues, explanable if the target ambience had variations in their beliefs.
“Pilate can be read … he is an indifferent official looking for the easiest way to dispatch a troublemaker and keep the peace, which comes by pretending to let the crowd itself take responsibility for his death.”
BM: Does he? “Mark” wrote: “Then Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, “Crucify Him!” So Pilate, wanting to gratify the crowd, … delivered Jesus, … to be crucified.” (15:14-15)
That would kill that aforementioned interpretation.
“Jesus’ attempt to avoid a trap while slyly affirming that God in fact outranks Caesar.”
BM: Mk12:17 “… Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” …”
Here, and in the whole of the pericope (12:13-17), I do not see anything affirming that God in fact outranks Caesar.
“Some aspects not mentioned by Bernard add to the difficulty. Instructing his followers to be different from the power-seeking “Gentiles” hardly leaves the impression that the Markan Jesus has a positive or indifferent view of Roman rule.”
BM: What passages in gMark refer to power-seeking Gentiles. And not all Gentiles were “imperial” Romans.
“Likewise, warning his followers about future persecutions at the hands of both Jewish and Roman officials”
BM: Where is it written in gMark Roman officials persecuted Christians? In Mk13:9-13, Christians are delivered to councils and beaten in synagogues. They are also brought before rulers and kings. And in 13:12, the ones causing death are family members. No Romans officials here!
“Well, “messiah” and “son of god” are clearly “political””
BM: Not really, more so when this Christ and Son of God had been crucified and therefore out of the way (from an imperial Roman perspective). That would be different if he was still alive (on earth, that is). However “King of the Jews” is political and “Mark” did his best to down play it, as being applied to Jesus when still alive.
“it is not hard to see the Markan Jesus and Caesar as ideological rivals, twins even.”
BM: Yes, it is hard, but much easier with the Matthean Jesus.
“So the text can both see Jesus as the true son of God who will soon remove Rome”
BM: Where did you read in gMark Rome will be soon removed?
“by ushering in the empire of God in power”
BM: In gMark, the empire of God consists in the removal (to heaven) of a few hundred or thousands of people from the Roman empire.
“and see the destruction of the Temple by Rome as an act of divine providence.”
BM: You said it. God and the Romans in the same camp against Jerusalem and its inhabitants. God, with his Christ, are not depicted here as the antagonists to Rome, but rather allies.
Bernard, it’s late, so I can’t really reply in detail. But…simply quoting passages back to me, as if their meaning were obvious, is hardly a counter-argument. And you can’t do an end-run around the history of academic interpretation by appealing to a hypothetical notion of what ancient audiences could or could not take from the text. Intelligent arguments for quite different readings of Mark can and have been offered for a while now and the lack of a clear consensus should caution anyone’s certainty about what the text “really” means. That Mark is far less direct and explicit in its anti-Roman sentiment, I of course agree, though it does not follow that Mark therefore lack any expressions of a similar stance.
I might comment later on some of the specific texts you’ve pinpointed, but you might want to look again at some of them too to see references to Roman rule it seems you’ve dismissed. Try 10:41-45, where “those whom they recognize as their rulers” and “their great ones” are routinely understood as Roman or Roman-appointed officials and as elite members of Greco-Roman society, who benefit immensely from Roman rule. Try also 13:9-13, esp. the “governors and kings” of v. 9, who are also routinely understood as Roman officials and client kings. How does those passages fit in a reading that sees Mark as only pro-Roman?
To Eric,
I looked at 10:41-45, and 10:42 can be applied to any kingdoms and empires, past and present. Nothing anti-Roman here, just a statement of fact.
For 13:9, it is part of an alleged prophecy (13:5-13) about wars, earthquakes, famines, troubles and persecutions, up to 70. It’s a way for “Mark” to say what happened was predicted (and these events should not be seen as God abandonning his elects, but a preamble). In other words, it’s a statement of facts (with the benefit of hindsight!). But I notice that the governors and kings are not even said to persecute Christians, just that Christians are being brought to them “for a testimony to them”.
Great discussion. Eric, I think you are right about the text’s ambivalence towards imperialism and your comment definitely makes me want to read Moore’s article. I read some of Tat-Siong Benny Liew’s work which argues for that very same ambivalence where Mark both resists Roman imperial ideology and yet replicates it with Jesus as the new absolute authority and preserves the same insider/outsider binary that I hope to discuss later. The same tension exists for Paul, who can pen a chapter like Rom 13 about submitting to governing authorities who rightly bear the sword and yet speak of the rulers of this age who crucified Jesus (1 Cor 2:8), parody the pax Romana (1 Thess 5:3) and apply imperial titles to Jesus (Lord, Son of God, Savior) who will soon establish his kingdom and destroy & subjugate all rival authorities and powers (esp 1 Cor 15:24-28).
Bernard, an apology for “long interpretive studies”, Pat McCullough’s post on theory (http://patmccullough.com/2011/07/25/theorizing-ourselves-past-the-stale-pursuit-of-authorial-intention/) notes how trained professionals (e.g. Psychologists, Sociologists, Literary Theorists, etc) may be able to decode and explain all sorts of human activity that we do with or without fully conscious recognition. Post-colonial theory examines all the complex ways subjected colonized people negotiate their existence and identities visa-vie empire (resistance, subversion, mimicry, etc) and we must remember that the biblical texts were written in the shadow of empire and could not fail to be impacted by its claims. Okay, with that said you are not alone in seeing Mark as pro-Roman or at least de-politicized as S.G.F. Brandon once argued for Mark as a pro-Roman apology in light of the War and recently H.N. Roskam had argued that Mark went out of its way to counter any suspicion of political subversiveness or that their “kingdom” or “Christ” had political connotations. But I do not think the anti-imperial implications of Mark can be removed altogether. So to list some examples of claims that could sound very dangerous to those ruled under an imperial authority:
- Mark begins by announcing good news of Jesus Christ son of God echoes the Prienne inscription to Caesar Augustus
- the divine voice at the baptism (and transfiguration) “you are my Son” echoes a royal Psalm 2 where the Lord and his annointed are given authority over the nations (and Mark 12:35-37 likely does not deny Davidic sonship as elsewhere Bartimaeus calls Jesus son of David and the crowds expect the coming of David’s kingdom, but likely tries to reconcile the tension with how he can also be David’s Lord enthroned in heaven)
- the Greek title Son of Man (ho huios tou anthropou) echoes Daniel 7 and the triumph of one like a son of man representing the saints of Israel over the beastly empires.
- the kingdom or empire of God is not about “removal to heaven” but was expected to imminently arrive on earth, along with the cosmic apocalyptic coming of the Son of Man (1:15; 9:1; 13:24-37; 14:62). And if the kingdom comes (along with the destruction/restoration of the temple and handing the vineyard over to Jesus followers), what does that mean for the present political system? Yet the kingdom was also presently breaking-in through Jesus defeat of the kingdom of Satan and the demonic Legion (note the ancient worldview [cf. Daniel] where angelic powers represent nations and kingdoms) and for Mark (cf. chapter 4) was already present as a mustard seed yet destined to be the largest shrub (echoing Ezekiel’s imperial tree)
- the inversion of the values of empire in Mark 10:42-45 (actually throughout the major discipleship section of Mark 8-10). It does not matter that this is generalized about kingdoms past and present as you write, because the present kingdom is Rome and Jesus here critiques the whole system of patronage and clients and the Gentiles who lord it over others.
- Even the saying on taxes is, like Eric pointed out, is ambigous enough for Jesus to avoid the attempt to trap him (see the various scholarly interpretations in the link of my first response to Eric above).
Hello Mike,
For 1Cor2:8, the authorities are not described as bad, just ignorant of God’s wisdom. Maybe there is an allusion to the Paxa Romana in 1Th5, but I do not see any parodies, but that the apparent peace will be chattered by a future “day of the Lord” accompanied by some biblical God’s wrath.
“Lord” is a title used in the Jewish Scriptures, “Son of God” appears in Philo’s writings for the Word, Firstborn and preferred archangel. Paul used “Savior” as a title for Jesus in Philippians, only once overall, and I have doubt about its authenticity (with the whole of 3:21) => http://historical-jesus.info/phpc.html
Due to its many unPauline elements, I have many reasons to declare 1Cor15:23-28 as an interpolation:
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html “Addition D”.
Many of your other observations are very suggestive and far from being clear-cut.
Mk12:35-37 does deny Jesus as Son of David even if “Mark” had Jesus called that by a blind man in Jericho.
Mk1:15 says the Kingdom is at hand, 9:1 says it will come with power, 13:24-37 indicates the Kingdom will be announced by a celestial show (nothing to do with destroying the Romans). And the Son of Man will have many angels to do the relocations.
Some grand imagery and strong words here, but the Kingdom is mostly about raptures, of very little consequence for the Roman empire.
“Even the saying on taxes is, like Eric pointed out, ambiguous as it could easily be recognized that everything belongs to God and therefore nothing to Caesar.”
Gee, what’s next! That’s insane to me. The following is not in gMark: ““… Render to God the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” …”
But I certainly would be interested to know about you would deduct “Mark” may have meant “that everything belongs to God and therefore nothing to Caesar” from Mk12:17.
Hi Mike,
On your last point (tax to Caesar), you changed your wording, so my comment looks uncalled for.
So you think that “Mark” would have Jesus lying in order to avoid being trapped. Wouldn’t that be out of character for Jesus?
I think any indication of pro-Roman sentiment in Mark is a product of the author’s interest in indicting equally Roman imperial power and the religious establishment of Second Temple Judaism. That is, it’s in no way pro-Roman, but neither is it so rabidly anti Roman as to obscure opposition to the religious powers in Jerusalem.
Bernard:
But I certainly would be interested to know about you would deduct “Mark” may have meant “that everything belongs to God and therefore nothing to Caesar” from Mk12:17
They are trying to trap Jesus in a no-win situation, and he sets a trap right back. You can interpret the answer as: “If you think a man –any man– can make something his, and expressly not God’s, by having his image stamped on it, then, by all means, render it unto him.”
In the context of the Roman imperial cult and the strong aniconic character of Jewish practice, I consider this the best interpretation. Consider also the rebuke to Peter in 8:33, “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men”.
To C.J. O’Brien,
I think that pro-Roman, an expression I used for gMark, might be misleading. The gospel is certainly not about making the Romans look good, but rather not to blame them and sometimes use them to make a point. For example, “Mark” tried to exonerate as much as he could the Romans about sending Jesus to the cross. Instead, he introduced a fictitious Barabbas to make the Jews guilty of that.
And “Mark” used the centurion, as a figure of authority, to say good things about Jesus, dead by then, strengthening belief he was the Son of God.
“Mark” put the Roman governor and the centurion (rather late) on the side of Jesus, very reconforting when those crucified were thought to be criminal or rebel and when the Romans were the overlords.
And “Mark” had Jesus endorsing taxes to the Romans (as Paul did in Rom13:6-7) because, I guess, some Christians did not (or were considering it): they thought they did not belong to the “world”. That would attract reprisal from the authorities, not only on the “evaders”, but also other Christians.
But the gospel is not anti-Roman.
Bernard, I edited my comment because I thought I might go in more depth for a future post but had not realized you already responded so sorry for the confusion. My view has some similarities with C.J. O Brien that Mark explicitly sets up the question on taxes as an attempt to trap Jesus into a no-win situation. Jesus first asks his opponents to reproduce the coin, showing their hypocrisy in that they themselves possess the coin with the idolatrous image. Second, the riposte is clever because it is ambiguous enough that Jesus can’t be pinned down as forbidding payment of taxes (thus he can’t be accussed of that before the authorities), but his reply could be taken to mean that you should throw those idolatrous coins back to Caesar so to render pure service to God or on one level allowing that one can give back the coins to Caesar while also subtly critiquing the legitimacy of Caesar’s claim since for any first-century Jew who didn’t compartmentalize “politics” and “religion” everything truly belongs to God. But I wanted to point out Loren’s post because it provides a range of scholarly interpretive options revealing an ambiguity here that is masked by your rhetoric of being self-evidently correct (i.e. “Gee, what’s next! That’s insane to me”). As for the other points, I am still not sure where you get this idea that the kingdom is about “raptures” as there is no rapture in the text (despite the dispensationalist interpretations emerging only in the 19th century the only text that may be construed to argue such an idea is 1 Thess 4:13-18 but here Paul’s thought is most likely that believers meet the Lord in the air only to escort him at his parousia just as citizens may meet and escort a returning triumphant emperor back into the city) and earth is the scene of the coming of the kingdom and of cosmic judgment (note this cosmic imagery is also used in the Hebrew Bible as accompanying oracles of the downfall of empires such as Edom or Babylon etc). Lord, son of god, saviour, gospel have a jewish and greco-roman background so there is no reason why Mark cannot intend both and I would have to look further into your arguments for interpolation.
Hi Mike,
About raptures,
Paul indicated the Kingdom of God will be in heaven,
2Co5:1 “… we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven …”
Php3:20a “But our citizenship is in heaven. …”
Gal4:26a “… the Jerusalem which is above is free …”
Also paradise is in third heaven (2Cor12:2-4).
That’s where the Christian elects will get to, into their spiritual bodies, to be in company of Christ (1Th5:9-10).
So there is more than 1Th4:13-18.
Also, in ‘Hebrews’, the Christians are expected to be raptured in the heavenly Jerusalem where they will meet Christ and God.
Philo of Alexandria also put heaven as the destination of the righteous after death:
“And the proselyte … has received as a most appropriate reward a firm and sure habitation in heaven” (On reward and punishment”, ch. XXVI, 152)
“… looking upon the heavenly country in which they have the rights of citizens …” (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XVII).
I still think you are seeing way to much in that ‘Jesus and taxation’ passage in gMark. And the alleged answer of Jesus is not so clever and could be rebuked easily. If I apply that to my situation, I would have to send all my cash (bills and coins) to the queen of England!
That passage was meant to answer the issue of ‘should Christians pay taxes to the “world”‘ when they felt they did not belong to. Paul answered that in Romans. “Mark” did the same by way of Jesus for his community. “Mark” was not advocating rebellion, but conformity with Roman laws (just like Paul).
I think you may be prooftexting a bit here. 2 Cor 5 is about receiving our resurrection bodies from God in heaven in contrast to our weak present bodies, Phil 3:20 uses the familiar concept of “citizenship” (Philippi was refounded as a Roman colony and prided itself on its Romanized culture) to stress where the believer’s true loyalties should lie and the rest of the verse speaks about awaiting a Saviour from there (but I guess you see as an interpolation??), Gal 4 is an allegory making a specific point (Gentiles adopting the Law is to become children of the slave woman and of present Jerusalem, life in the Spirit is to be of the free woman and heavenly Jerusalem), 2 Cor 12 fits well into the tradition of mystical ascents through the heavens in apocalyptic literature (e.g., Enochic literature, Ascension of Isaiah, cf. Merkabah mysticism (visions of the divine throne-chariot), 1 Thess 5 doesn’t mention what types of body they expected after the parousia but only a reassurance that both the dead and the living with be with Lord (a main concern for the recipients was what happens to those who died before the parousia), Hebrews and Philo are more difficult as they are given to Philonic allegory where earthly things are only copies of heavenly realities (but Hebrews 12:25-29 still expects the dissolution of the present cosmos). Of course, Paul like most first-century Jews believed in the heavens (after all they had biblical stories of the ascent of Enoch or Elijah there), but Paul’s total vision is of the restoration of heaven and earth. That is why we have the image of creation itself subject to futility until the sons of god are revealed and then liberated from decay in Rom 8, of the universal scope of salvation for Israel and the nations in Rom 9-11, of the bodily resurrection and all things subject to God’s kingly rule in 1 Cor 15, of the new creation already coming to be or the reversal of the curse of Adam, of the reconciliation of all things in heaven and earth in Col 1 (I think Colossians is arguably Pauline or by a close disciple of Paul). Other authors such as the writer of 2 Peter or Revelation appear to envision more the destruction of the first earth and heaven before their recreation. When the kingdom comes or after the parousia, which authors like Paul or the evangelist who wrote “Mark” expected in their lifetimes, Jesus alone will be enthroned as Lord rather than Caesar.
Hi Mike,
I do not see where you get that the resurrected body, for the elect, will come to earth from God in heaven:
“we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” (2Cor5:1b)
The new ‘house’/'building’ is **in** the heavens, not **from** the heavens.
For Php3:20 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,”
Jesus Christ is said to be from heaven. The elects are told to wait for a manifestation of the Lord (such as him in the clouds calling his elects), not necessarily his arrival on earth.
And where does it say in the Pauline deemed authentic epistles and in gMark that Jesus will come back to earth? Or Jesus be enthroned on earth rather than Ceasar?
And you did not answer why Paul put paradise in heaven.
As far as gMark is concerned, it is clear the elect will be transferred from earth to heaven.
Mk13:27 “And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, **from** the uttermost part of the earth **to** the uttermost part of heaven.”
And the author of ‘Hebrews’ was also thinking about heaven as the ultimate destination:
“But now they desire a better [country], that is, **an heavenly**: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city [the heavenly Jerusalem].” Heb11:16
At a conference so unable to continue this dialogue. A minority of scholars have argued that you will see the “coming” (ἐρχόμενον) of the Son of Man as an ascent to heaven and his vindication (RT France, NT Wright), the vast majority of scholars interpret this as a descent to earth with accompanying cosmic imagery (note Mark 9 where Jesus predicts some alive will see the kingdom come in power or Mark 14:62 where those who sit in judgement on Jesus will see him at God`s right hand and coming with the clouds). “Parousia” (arrival/presence) became a technical term in the NT for the “second coming” of Christ and, for example, 1 Thess 4:26 is very clear that the Lord “will descend” (καταβήσεται) from heaven and again the thought of meeting in the clouds is mostly likely to escort him back to earth. Or one could think of Acts 1:11 that Jesus will come back in the same way as he went into heaven. A good article that defends the coming of the Son of Man to earth and v. 27 as re-working the traditional Jewish eschatological hopes for the regathering of the dispersed exiles throughout the nations in the last days, check out by Edward Adams, The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark`s Gospel (http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_2_04_Adams_SonOfMan_Mark.pdf). Bodily resurrection was part of Jewish eschatological hope in some texts and Paul as a Pharisee affirmed it too; the point of 2 Cor 5 is to contrast how our earthly bodies are destroyed (cf. when our earthly tents are destroyed, not wanting to become unclothed) with our future resurrection bodies (the building made by God, a house eternal in the heavens, putting on our heavenly dwelling, becoming clothed, mortal swallowed by life). Finally, it does not need to be spelled out that Caesar will not be king, because it is obvious that there is a drastic difference between Roman imperial propaganda that the gods had chosen Rome to rule and usher in a lasting peace and the Christian claim that the present evil age is about to end in the imminent future and God’s kingdom about to arrive or to ascribe royal titles in Jewish tradition and also known to the imperial cult (Christ, Son of God, Lord, Saviour) and claim that every knee will be forced to bow to Jesus and every tongue confess him as Lord (e.g. Philippian hymn).
Hi Mike,
It does not make sense to me that Jesus would need an escort of elects in order to continue his travel to earth. You make it sounds the elects would be transported to the clouds in order to be the welcoming commitee. The opposite makes a lot more sense: Jesus, the savior, is the one doing the welcoming in a safe staging area, making sure all the elects (dead or alive then) would be accounted for, before going back (with them in their spiritual body) to the highest heaven (paradise). This is what the evidence I quoted earlier is saying.
[...] Michael Kok (Euangelion Kata Markon) examines the meaning of the Gerasene Demoniac narrative (Mk [...]
[...] culminates in the ugly charge of Deicide in Melito’s Peri Pascha)? Thus, I thank Eric (here, here) for calling my attention to Stephen Moore, Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the [...]