SBL topics on Mark

Unfortunately I am unable to attend SBL this year, so I have to miss the fun of eating and drinking with other bloggers (see here)  Since I am only at Leipzig for a 3 month exchange period, I found it too difficult to squeeze in a trip to Chicago as well, so I guess I will have to wait to the international conference at St Andrews.  On the plus side, a PhD friend here is letting me teach one of her undergraduate classes (in English) on the Apocrypha course.  Anyways, if I was attending SBL this year, this is the one Mark session I would definitely attend:

Mark 11/18/2012 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room:N135 – McCormick Place

Theme: The Provenance of Mark

Larry Hurtado, University of Edinburgh, Presiding

Steven Richard Scott, Concordia University – Université Concordia, Structure and Provenance (10 min), Discussion (30 min)

The question of the provenance of Mark is compounded by the three levels of the tradition found within the gospel: the level of the words and deeds of Jesus, the level of transmission, and the level of the final author. One should thus have evidence of at least three provenances: the Palestine of Jesus and the earliest followers, the Greco-Roman world of the mixed Jewish and non-Jewish Christian communities, and the location of the final author. This paper will focus on the provenance of the final author. One way to discover the provenance of the gospel author is by studying his arrangement of the Jesus tradition. This paper will analyse the arrangement of the material of Jesus at the temple mount, which is arranged in two sections: Jesus answering questions at the temple and the mini-apocalypse. In both there are clear chiastic arrangements which provide evidence for the provenance of the author. The first section indicates a time after the destruction of the temple, and the second the location of Rome. The advantage of this methodology is that it places the focus solely on the provenance of the final author and not on the provenance of early stages of the transmission and origin of the tradition. It will be shown to be most useful in determining the date of composition, namely, the early 70s. It is possible that the material was arranged outside of Rome, but the author seems to have close ties to the Roman community. This analysis thus gives weight to interpretative analyses, such as that of Incigneri, that argue that many passages reflect the situation in Rome.

Brian Incigneri, Victoria, Australia, The Difference Rome Makes – Reading Mark in Its Very Particular Historical Context (10 min), Discussion (30 min)

Provenance matters a great deal when reading Mark’s Gospel because it was crafted to address the dire situation of Christians in a very specific, short-lived, historical moment, and its rhetoric will not be understood unless its context is appreciated. I have previously argued that this Gospel very well matches the situation in Rome in late 71 when Christians faced a new crisis: the return to Rome of Titus, destroyer of the Jerusalem Temple, who was said to be “another Nero.” They had watched the triumph of Vespasian and Titus processing through the city, proclaiming the victory of Jupiter over the God of Israel and displaying the spoils from his Temple. After having suffered terrible losses under Nero, they now feared the prospect of further martyrdoms, so Mark wrote for them a Gospel which is essentially the story of a martyr who leads the way. This was an emotional time: they held painful memories of lost loved ones, friends and leaders, and bitter memories of their betrayal by fellow Christians who had denied Christ under pressure. Matching the mood, Mark wrote an emotional Gospel, which has not been fully recognized. Insufficient attention has been paid to the emotions of the recipients (not just the characters) because that prime tool of ancient rhetoric—the appeals to the emotions—has been almost entirely ignored. Mark, writing according to the expectations of his rhetorical culture, triggered his readers’ memories by allusion to a number of recent events and experiences, expecting to stir their emotions and hoping to thus build a new resolve to trust in God rather than surrender to fear. Therefore, awareness of what the original hearers already knew is critical to interpretation; one example is their keen awareness of Peter’s martyrdom—the key to understanding Mark’s treatment of the disciples. A number of examples will be provided that show how reading Mark in that situation produces a very different understanding of major features of the Gospel. Indeed, appreciating Mark in this way, it will be argued, resolves many long-standing debates about puzzling aspects of his composition.

Tim Wardle, Furman University, Mark, the Jerusalem Temple, and Jewish Sectarianism:  Why Geographical Proximity Matters in Determining the Provenance of Mark (10 min) Discussion (30 min)

In this paper I investigate a hitherto unexplored line of reasoning that bears directly on the question of the provenance of Mark’s gospel; that of the sectarian nature of Mark’s presentation of his gospel. It is my contention that the Gospel of Mark displays remarkable similarities to Jewish sectarian documents of Mark’s day, and that that this shared sectarian outlook necessitates that the composition of this gospel occurred in close geographical proximity to Jerusalem and its temple. In the latter half of the Second Temple period, sectarian momentum generally coalesced around dissent against the current overseers of the Jerusalem temple, specific interpretations of the Jewish law, and the authority by which one undertakes this interpretation. Mark has these three elements in spades. In his gospel Mark presents a sustained argument against the temple and its priests; in his first mention of the temple, Jesus briefly shuts down all activity in it (11:16), and in his final remark on the Jerusalem sanctuary the temple veil is torn in two (15:38). Significantly, critical assessment of the temple and priesthood in the Second Temple period appears to have arisen almost exclusively in circles geographically and socially contiguous to these two institutions, with virtually all of the condemnation originating in Judea and its environs. Moreover, the legal issues which are of concern to Mark (e.g. marriage, Sabbath observance, purity issues), and the authority by which one makes these interpretations, are precisely those which were of great concern to Mark’s sectarian contemporaries in and around Jerusalem. Building upon the insights of those like Marcus and Theissen who argue for a Syrian provenance, this paper argues that placing Mark and his community in close geographical proximity to Jerusalem helps not only to make sense of the sectarian tendencies exhibited in the Gospel of Mark, but also provides a rationale as to why Mark takes such a strong stance on the Jerusalem temple and Jesus’ interactions with his contemporaries on specific legal issues.

General Discussion Discussion (30 min)

Gospel Communities

Was a ”gospel” like Mark ever intended for a single community and can we reconstruct it from implicit clues in Mark?  A volume entitled The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences by Richard Bauckham is at the forefront of challenging the gospel community paradigm.  In his intro essay, he marshals the following case:  its independent use by Matthew and Luke shows Mark achieved wide circulation, the interest in “Gospel communities” has a modern pedigree (blame falls particularly on B.H. Streeter, but can be traced through form criticism emphasis on the Sitz im Leben [situation in life] of pre-gospel traditions, redaction criticism on the Sitz of the evangelist to various contradictory sociological reconstructions of Markan community), a contrast of the Gospels as bioi (biographies) vs. Pauline epistles (intended to communicate with recipients for whom the author was not present to speak orally in person), Christians not isolated groups but networks in constant communication with travelling leaders, and the hermeneutical irrelevance to interpreting the text (pp. 9-47).  Michael Bird adds (1) arguments about a Markan community are “viciously circular, (2) the relationship with a community is ambiguous (for a community, allegorically about a community, in a community but for wider circulation), (3) influence does not flow only in one direction but texts influence a socio-historical situation as much as they are influenced by it, (4) our knowledge of the author is at a bare minimum and may have ministered in many geographical, social or cultural settings, (5) Gospel’s genre not conducive to in-house debates (an epistle, testimony collection or community rule would be better), and (6) Mark is not primarily about the community but about Jesus (pp. 477-482) and the volume by Klink responded to the subsequent debate (noted also here, here).  Many of these objections are valid as Mark is first and foremost an apologetical biography of Jesus and there are issues with overconfidence in ones mirror-reading of the text to reconstruct one’s own Markan community as the variety of proposals reveals  (e.g., a summon a community to Galilee to await the parousia?  To attack the Jerusalem hierarchal leadership and their flawed christology?  An apocalyptic Jesus group justifying its existence independent of the synagogue after 70 CE and creating their own ”myth of innocence”?  A village renewal movement vs. the urban elite?  An apology of Roman Christians as politically acquiescent in light of the failed revolt?  An anti-imperial response to the triumph of Vespasian in 71 CE in Rome?; cf. also independently of Bauckham, the critique of the Markan community hypothesis in Dwight Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate and RBL review).  Mark may not afford enough clues to the precise social make-up of a community and we may need to speak in more general terms about the situation of Mark’s readers such as they may have been a mixed audience of Jews/Gentiles or undergoing some form of persecution for following a Messiah crucified by the imperial powers and so on.  On the other hand, I am not entirely persuaded by the argument that the evangelists envisioned a general Christian audience and here would be some of my critical questions (summarizing some of the critiques of Marcus, Esler, Sim, Mitchell and others below):

1. Does Bauckham’s model presuppose a completely unified church in Acts and later sources (e.g. Ignatius) and neglects competition and conflict among different Jesus groups across the Greco-Roman world?  For instance, if we set aside hypothetical sources and communities (e.g. Q) and later second century Jewish Christian Gospels or Nag Hammadi gospels (cf. Bird’s response in the Klink volume) and stick to the NT canon, does not the plurality of the gospels with their various christologies, views of the Twelve and Jesus’ brothers, views on Torah and the Gentile mission, views on the death of Christ, etc imply a greater diversity.  So if the evangelist wanted to reach out beyond their initial readership to a wider Christian audience, does that entail trying to persuade other Christian groups of their local expression of the Christ event?
2.  Might some features of Mark’s gospel be explained by a close-knit community – the evangelist’s anonymity because the immediate audience knew him, the names of characters such as the sons of Simon of Cyrene Alexander and Rufus (omitted in Matt/Luke) as members of the community, and Mark presumes a great deal of insider knowledge on the part of readers (e.g. the numerous scriptural allusions, the detailed knowledge of Jewish parties and their internal debates, unexplained Christological titles like the Son of Man, the enigmatic reference to the “abomination of desolation” where it is assumed that the reader knows what it means and to take flight, the division of insiders/outsiders where insiders have been revealed the mystery of the kingdom of God in Mk 4)?
3. Is the only reason to write if one is absent from the community and cannot deliver the message orally (what of the Qumran writings meant for internal consumption)?  Might one want to preserve the witness of the community in writing for posterity due to the threat of old age and passing away of the original witnesses or the threat of persecution?  Might writing a gospel be a more subtle rhetorical way of persuasion than an epistle or a treatise on Church order?
4. Does the fact that Mark widely circulate demonstrate the intention of the author or was it a historical accident?  After all, perhaps Matthew and Luke intended to replace their source material but Mark continued to survive (despite its unpopularity from the patristic period down to the modern period before the discovery of Markan priority gave it new life) because of the link with the Apostle Peter and Rome in the patristic tradition?
5. Mitchell argues that there is a tension in the patristic traditions between viewing the gospels as local (Mark in Rome, John in Ephesus, etc) and as universal, so gospel communities might not be so much of a modern invention (but cf. Bauckham’s response where the patristic testimony was only concerned with establishing the gospels as apostolic)?

My conclusion would be that the evangelists wrote for a specific audience initially (for Mark I still think in or around Palestine) but I recognize the problems with excessive mirror-reading and allegorization of the text and I would not rule out that Mark may have hoped that the gospel would eventually circulate beyond the initial readership to other Christian communities.  What do you think?  For further reading:

• Bauckham, Richard.  “For Whom Were the Gospels Written.”  Pages 9-48 in The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences.  Edited by Richard Bauckham. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998.
•                                        .  ‘Response to Philip Esler’, SJT 51 (1998): 248-53.
• Bird, Michael F.  “The Markan Community, Myth or Maze?  Bauckham’s The Gospel for All Christians Revisited.” Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006): 474-86.
• Esler, P.F. ”Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to. Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for All Christians.‘”  SJT 51 (1998): 235-48.
• Hengel, Martin.  The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Translated by J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 2000.
• Incigneri, Brian J.  The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel.  Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003.  See especially pp 33-34.
• Klink III, Edward W. (ed.).  The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and the Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity.  LNTS; London: Continuum, 2010.
• Marcus, Joel.  Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.  Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2000.  See especially pp 25-28.
• Mitchell, Margaret.  “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that ‘The Gospels were Written for all Christians.”  New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 36-79.
• Peterson, Dwight.  The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. Leiden: Brill, 2000 (note this book came out around the same time as Bauckham’s and, after challenging the reconstructions of Kelber, Kee and Myers, also judged the construction of communities from the gospels in order to interpret the gospels as circular). 
• Roskam, H. N.  The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context.  NovTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2004.
• Sim, David C.  “The Gospel for All Christians?: A Response to Richard Bauckham,” JSNT 84 (2001): 3-27.
• van Eck, Ernest.  “A Sitz for the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Reaction to Bauckham’s Theory on the universality of the Gospels” HTS 56 (2000): 200-235

RBL review about Markan Community

After studying the 3 major options – Rome, Syria and Galilee – it is time to take a step back and notice that Mark is not exactly transparent as to its original setting and target audience as, say, one of Paul’s epistles, and the text is amenable to a variety of reconstructions.  I see strengths and weaknesses to the varied arguments of all three positions and there are some definite problems with mirror-reading Mark for clues about a hypothetical community (in the next post I will look at the thesis of some scholars who disagree that Mark was ever solely intended for a limited audience but meant for “all Christians”), though I lean towards situating the author and first readership in the East close to or in Palestine.   But, since the two major recent proposals on a Markan community were by Brian Incigneri (Rome) and Hendrika Roksam (Galilee), I want to call attention to a review by Zeba A. Crook of both contributions side-by-side in the Review of Biblical Literature.  Other online RBL reviews of Incigneri’s work are by Dwight N. Peterson and biblioblogger Michael Bird, both of whom have been critics of reconstructing a single “Markan community” behind the text (cf. Dwight N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: the Markan Community in Current Debate [Leiden: Brill, 2000]; Michael Bird, “The Markan Community, Myth or Maze? Bauckham’s The Gospel for All Christians Revisited” JTS 57 [2006]: 474-86; “Sectarian Gospels for Sectarian Christians? The Non-Canonical Gospels and Bauckham’s The Gospels for All Christians” in The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and the Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity [Ed. Edward W. Klink III, LNTS; London: Continuum, 2010])

)

The Provenance of Mark in Galilee?

Arguments in favour of a Syrian provenance such as Aramaicisms or Semitic influences, the agrarian social world or the close impact of events in Judaea equally apply to a Galilean one.  But the case against locating Mark in Palestine itself is based on his “ignorance” of its geography (e.g., 7:31 intinerary from region of Tyre to 22 miles north to Sidon, then southeast through middle of the Decapolis, then northwest to Sea of Galilee; 11:1 has order of Jericho to Jerusalem, Bethpage, & Bethany; 5:1-20 Gerasa is over 30 miles from the Sea of Galilee [textual variants Gadarenes, Gergasenes]) and customs (e.g. is David requesting the Bread from the [wrong] high priest Abiathar relevant to the Sabbath dispute in ch.2?; does Mark assume all Jews practice handwashing in 7:3 and dismiss the dietary laws in 7:19b?; issues with the timing of Passover in 14:13?) as argued extensively in K. Niederwimmer, “Johannes Markus und die Frage nach dem Verfasser des zweiten Evangeliums,” ZNW58 (1967): 172-88 and P. Parker, “The Posteriority of Mark,” 67-142 in New Synoptic Studies (ed. W.R. Farmer. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983).  I need a whole series of posts to do justice to Mark’s views of Torah, but for now it will sufice to point out an increasing scholarship defending Mark’s deep familiarity with the scriptures, groups and customs of Israel (cf. M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark [Fortress: Philadelphia, 1985]; J. Marcus,  The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993) and his commentaries; R. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: History and Legal History in Mark 7 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986]; M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel [SNTS 102; Cambridge University Press, 1998; Jesus of Nazareth [London & New York: T&T Clark, 2010]; J. Crossley,  ”Halakah and Mark 7.4: ‘…and beds,’” JSNT 25 [2003]; The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insights from the Law in Earliest Christianity [London: T & T Clark, 2004]; “Mark 7:1-23: Revisiting the Question of all Foods Clean” pp 8-20, Arseny Ermakov, “The Salvific Significance of the Torah in Mark 10:17-22 and 12:28-34″ pp  in Torah in the New Testament [ed. Peter Oaks & Michael Tait; London & New York: T&T Clark, 2009], etc).  Again, in the interests of space a later post may look at historical or theological explanations for the geography, but we may be importing anachronistic modern standards of cartographic exactness onto ancient conceptions of space (cf. book review at Sheffield blog).  I will let the reader decide the merits of the objections, but for differing reasons why a minority of scholars support a Galilean provenance: 

1. According to the studies of Loymeyer and Lightfoot, Galilee symbolizes the locus of divine revelation as the crowds are widely receptive to Jesus’ teaching, healing and exorcisms (in contrast to the Pharisees, Herodians). Jerusalem is the centre of hostility and rejection of Jesus as his single fateful journey to the capital will ultimately lead to the cross. 
2. Kelber sees the dichotomy of Galilee and Jerusalem as representing two rival Christian centres.  Mark polemicizes against the Jerusalem church and its hierarchical leadership (e.g., Jesus’ brothers, Peter, the  Twelve) that held a false eschatology (false prophets teaching parousia in Jerusalem in ch. 13), did not comprehend the nature of Jesus’ messiahship as suffering Son of Man and tried to remain exclusively Jewish.  This polemical reading (cf. Tyson, Crossan, Weeden) is a popular explanation for Mark’s portrait of the disciples and interprets the silence at 16:8 to mean the Twelve were never restored to the movement in Galilee (16:7).  The invitation is still open for survivors of the War from Jerusalem.  
3. In 16:8, the angel instructs the women to tell Peter and the disciples to go to Galilee where they “will see” (opsesthe, future of horaō) Jesus (16:8; cf. 14:28).  In a pioneering study on “redaction criticism” (i.e. scholars try to identify the evangelist’s own editorial hand and distinct contribution to his traditional material), Marxsen sees in 16:8 and 14:28 as redactional and not a reference to a resurrection appearance but to the future parousia (coming) of Jesus.   These passages are a summons to Mark’s present community to gather in Galilee (cf. the tradition of the flight of Christians to Pella) to await the imminent return of Jesus (Mark the Evangelist, 83-92).
4. Roskam turns the widespread argument about geography on its head by arguing that Mark is thoroughly familiar with Galilee but ignorant about everywhere else (the mistakes in 11:1 about the way to Jerusalem and other vague references in Jerusalem; the mistake about the area of the Decapolis in 5;1-20) (Purpose, 95-100).  She argues that the geography in Mark 1-4 between Capernaum and the Galilean Sea is perfectly accurate.  Her take on the intinerary:  Nazareth (6:1), still in Galilee (6:14), in Galilee but now on coast of lake (6:30), on west coast of lake somewhere in vicinity of Tiberius (6:35-44; in 6:32 Jesus withdrew by boat to diserted place but doesn’t cross the lake), heads by ship to Bethsaida ( 6:45, correctly placed on other side, i.e. north-east coast of lake), ends up in Gennesaret probably north-west coast of Sea of Gaalilee half-way between Tiberias and Bethsaida (6:53), leaves Gennesaret for Tyre (7:23, 7:24-30), from Tyre by way of Sidon to the Decapolis (7:31-8:9; she argues it is not unlikely for Jesus to travel from a coastal area [Tyre] to middle of Decapolis via Galilean Sea and only awkward route is Sidon as much further north so evangelist may not quite know where Sidon was situated in relation to Tyre and the Sea of Galilee), and then Mark 8-9 is geographically sound (pp. 104-110).
5. Cohen argues that the Gerasene demoniac story reflects an insider Israelite perspective.  He argues that was a mixed population in the Decapolis with a significant Jewish presence since the time 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” (“Gerasene Demoniac,” 153-56).  Instead, Jesus intends to rid the world of foreign Gentile imperialism as symbolized by the demonic legion and restore the land to Jewish sovereignty, though Gentiles are permitted to live in Eretz Israel (“Gerasene Demoniac,” 159).  The rest of the article critiques the widespread view that the section in Mark where this story is found hints towards the Gentile mission.
6. Well-known liberation theologian Ched Myers argues that Mark advocates for a just redistributive system for disenfranchised and often landless Galilean peasants and non-violent resistence against the Roman imperial order and  and Temple elites.  The date (pre-70 CE) and location is very important to him as he sees efforts to place Mark in Rome after the destruction of the Temple as a (docetic) attempt to suppress the economic and political message in favour of the theological (Binding the Strong Man, 41).  He sees a basic continuity in Jesus’ vision and Mark, writing, “Events had also changed the general political atmospere; what was sporadic, predominantly rural resistance to Roman colonialism in Palestine at the time of Jesus had coalesced into a major, Jerusalem-centered insurrection at the time Mark wrote.  Nevertheless, the basic social structures and dynamics that characterized this era did not alter significantly” (Binding the Strong Man, 42).  Alternatively, Hendrika Roskam locates Mark after the Temple destruction (Purpose, 81-94) and sees the reference to “governors and kings” in 13:9 as reflecting the post-70 CE political situation of Galilee as the Eastern part was ruled by a king (Agrippa II) and the western part directly by the Roman legate (pp 112-113).  Since Jewish leadership took action against bandits/insurgents/charismatic prophets to avoid Roman reprisals, she also sees the evangelist as depoliticizing the message of any earthly kingdom as it was dangerous as followers of a crucified messianic figure.

If I have missed any crucial arguments put forward for Galilee, pleas let me know in the comments (or your thoughts about the quality of these quite varied arguments, or the arguments for Rome and Syria in the past two posts).  Here is a bibliography of some of the scholarship that sees Mark in Galilee:

• 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.
• Kelber, W.H.  The Kingdom of Mark: A New Place and a New Time.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
• Lightfoot, R.H.  Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels.  New York: Harper, 1938.
• Lohmeyer, E. Galiläa und Jerusalem. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1936.
• Marxsen, Willi.  Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel. Nashville andNew York: Abingdon Press, 1969.
• Myers, Ched.  Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus.  Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988.
• Roskam, H. N.  The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context.  Leiden: Brill, 2004.

• Vander Broek, L.D.  The Markan “Sitz im Leben”: A critical investigation into the possibility of a Palestinian setting for the Gospel. PhD-dissertation, Graduate School of Drew University, New Jersey, 1983.

A Provenance in Syria for Mark’s Gospel?

In the last post, I looked at the reasons why perhaps a slight majority of scholars lean towards a Roman provenance for Mark’s Gospel.  However, a number of scholars have challenged this traditional position, so I will list a number of points in support of locating the origins of Mark closer to Palestine in southern Syria. 

1. Clement of Alexandria (and perhaps implicitly Irenaeus) did not locate Mark in Rome based on any historical-critical considerations, but (i) the connection made between Peter and the evangelist by Papias, (ii) the later development of the episcopate and martyrdom of Peter in Rome (challenged as a legendary development by Michael Goulder, “Did Peter Ever Go to Rome?” Scottish Journal of Theology 57 [2004]: 377-396), and (iii) an inference from 1 Peter 5:13.  Thus, the Patristic evidence may not be reliable (see the last post for the disagreement on the date of Mark, or consider the later legend of the evangelist as the bishop of Alexandria in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.16; Epiphanius, Haer. 51.6; Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 8).
2. The frequent Latin loan-words are primarily related to Roman political, military or economic administration known throughout the empire due to Roman colonialism (e.g. legio, praetorium) and many occur independently in the other Gospels or in Hellenistic literature.  Mark may only be explaining imprecise Greek terms by more precise Latin ones (e.g., in 12:42 quadrans was proverbial as the minimum unit of money, while the mention of 2 lepta actually supports provenance in the East) (Theissen, Gospels in Context, 247-49; Collins, Mark, 10, 99-100; Marcus, Mark 1-8, 32-33).  Finally, a one-sided discussion of the latinisms overlooks the number of Aramaic terms and Aramaicisms in Mark (the most authoritative scholar on reconstructing Aramaic sources is Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel who argues against the view that behind Mark 2:23 hodon poiein [to make a road] is the latinism iter facere and sees an underlying Aramaic term mistranslated instead on pp. 140-44).
3. Against Hengel’s argument on the Syro-Phoenician woman, Theissen points out that the Latin word “Syrophoenix” has been borrowed from a Greek construction as the Romans ordinary spoke of “Punii” (poeni) (Syrophoenician first used to distinguish from Libyphoenicians in Diodorus of Sicily 20.55.4) and the term could be used in the East for the residents of southern Syria (Gospels in Context, 245-47).  Marcus argues that the term is not to specify a particular kind of Phoenician but rather a particular kind of Syrian (someone who intermarried with the Phoenicians, or someone who was from the Phoenician part of the province of Syria) (Mark 1-8, 33).
4. The local colour.  One of the first major sociological studies of Mark, Kee emphasized that Mark reflects an Eastern rural or village culture (Community, 100-105).  Theissen argues Mark’s references to the “Sea (thalassa) of Galilee” with a genitive of the region does not correspond to the Greek or Latin usage where lakes or oceans are usually described by an adjective and anyone familiar with the wider Mediterranean world would hardly call the little Galilean lake a “sea” (Gospels in Context, 237-38) (but cf. van Iersel, Reader-Response Commentary, 36-37 on the expression in LXX Exod 10:19; Num 34:3, 6, 11, 12; Josh 3:16; 8:9; 12:3, 7; 13:27; 10:46; 18:19; 2 Chron 2:16; Ezek 47-48, etc.).  Boring notes contacts with Cyrene (cf. Acts 11:20) for Simon of Cyrene in Mark 15:21 and that Mark was used by the evangelist behind Matthew (often located in Antioch or in Syria generally) (Mark, 19).
5. Again in contrast to Hengel, Joel Marcus has made a case that Mark is thorougly familiar with the events leading up to the Jewish War and its aftermath, such as that the temple in 11:17 has been overrun with bandits (lēstēs, used by Josephus for “revolutionaries”) and the identifications of the abomination of desolation with the zealot Eleazar son of Simon’s occupation of the temple in 67-68 CE (see especially his article “The Jewish War and the Sitz Im Leben of Mark“).  It is difficult to know what the warning to “flee to the hills” in Mark 13:14 would mean to a distant Roman reader (but could it be a hint that the Markan community had fled Judaea to a Decapolis city such as Pella?)  and persecution in Mark seems to come not as much from official Roman persecution as from local councils, synagogues and governors/rulers (13:9). Collins also points out that the reference to “take up the cross” could be metaphorical (cf. Plutarch Moralia Sera 554A-B) though crucifixion was a reality in eastern provinces as well (Mark, 99-100).
6. Boring argues that Mark has no awareness of the theology of the Roman Christian community, such as that it shows no contact with of Paul’s epistle to the Romans (missing “law”, “righteousness of God”, Pauline christology) nor with later Roman works such as 1 Peter or 1 Clement (Mark, 18-19).

Those seem to be the main arguments, but  please let me know in the comments if I missed anything.  Some readers might still wonder why scholars who argue for a provenance in Syria do not just locate the gospel of Mark right in Palestine itself.  The reason again revolves around arguments that Mark’s translations of Aramaic terms and (mistaken?) explanations of Jewish customs presuppose a predominantly Gentile audience and his geographical errors place him outside of Palestine (see more here).  But not all scholars are convinced by these arguments of Mark’s alleged ignorance, so in the next post I will look at arguments that place the writing of the gospel of Mark directly in Galilee.  For further bibliography, see:

• Boring, M. Eugene.  Mark: A Commentary.  The New Testament Library. Westminster John Knox Press:Louisville,London, 2006.
• Collins, Adela.  Mark: A Commentary.  Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
• Horsley, Richard A.  Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel.  Louisville; London; Leiden: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
• Kee, Howard Clark.  Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel.  Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.
• Koester, Helmut.  Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development.  London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity International, 1990.
• Kummel, W.G.  Introduction to the New Testament.  Nashville: Abingdon, 1975.
• Mack, Burton.  A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
• Maloney, Francis J.  The Gospel of Mark.  Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
• Marcus, Joel.  Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.  Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2000.
•                      .  “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.  London and New York: T&T Clark, 1992.

A Roman Provenance for Mark’s Gospel?

The traditional view is that the evangelist Mark wrote his gospel, either after Peter’s death (possibly Papias, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer 3.1.2; the Anti-Marcionite Prologue) or during his lifetime (possibly Papias; Clement, Hist. Eccl. 2.15.1-2; 6.14.5-7; Adumbr. in I Pet. 5.13; Origen, Hist. Eccl. 6.25.5; Eusebius, Chronicon; Epiphanius, Haer. 6.10; Jerome, Ep. 120.11; De Vir. Ill 8), while in Rome.  Although the critical consensus has largely turned away from the traditional view on authorship  (but several exceptions in the bibliography below), many scholars are still prepared to defend a Roman provenance for the Gospel of Mark.  The evidence usually cited is as follows:

1. The Patristic Evidence:  the surviving fragments of Papias do not mention where Mark composed the Gospel, but Eusebius claims Papias had consulted the first epistle of Peter (Hist. Eccl. 2.15.2; 3.39.17) (1 Pet 5:12-13 Babylon = Rome).  Irenaeus mentions that Mark wrote the gospel after the exodus (departure, euphemism for death) of Peter and Paul in Rome, but this may only indicate the time rather than the place of writing.  Clement of Alexandria is the first to make the explicit deduction from 1 Peter that Mark wrote his gospel for Peter’s hearers in Rome, while the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue more vaguely has Mark in regions of Italy.
2. The Latinisms throughout Mark (list taken from Stein, Mark, pp. 9-10): 2:23 to make a road [hodon poiein, Lat. iter facere]; 2:4, 9, 11, 12, 6:55 mat [krabattos, Lat. Grabatus]; 4:21 basket [modios, Lat. modius]; 5:9, 15 legion [legiōn, Lat. legio]; 6:27 soldier of the guard [spekoulatōr, Lat. speculator]; 6:37, 12:15, 14:5 denarius [dēnarion, Lat. denarius]; 7:3 fist [pygmē, Lat. pugnus]; 7:4 pitcher [xestēs, Lat. sextarius]; 12:14 tax [kēnson, Lat census]; 12:42 penny [kodrantēs, Lat. quadrans]; 15:39, 44, 45 centurion [kentyriōn, Lat. centurio]; 15:15 to satisfy [to hikanon poiēsai, Lat. satis facere]; scourge [phragelloō, Lat. flagello]; 15:16 praetorium [praitōrion; Lat. praetorium).  Van Iersel also identifies two more Latinisms that greatly increase their presence in Mark: not following the Greek word order (accusative or dative generally follows the verb to which they belong) but the reverse order in Latin and the use of hina in a similar way to the Latin ut (cf. Reader-Response Commentary, 34-35).
3. Martin Hengel adds that the reference to a Greek woman who was a Syrophoenician by tribe (Syrophoinikissa tō genei) would be unnecessary for a Greek-speaking audience in the East but necessary for a Roman audience to distinguish the Phoenicians of Syria from the more familiar Libyphoenicians (Libyphoinikes) of Carthage (Lucilius, Book 15, fr.496f; Juvenal, Sat. 8.159f; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 7.201; Syrophoenix as special indication of origin in Latin inscriptions in Italy and Africa) (cf. Studies, 29).
4. Persecution is a major redactional theme in Mark (3:6; 4:17; 10:30; 13:9-13).  Mark may reflect a situation where the Christians were pressed to deny Jesus in trials and interrogations, faced betrayal by family members and expected a possibility of execution, even crucifixion.  The evangelist may have looked back to the Neronian persecution (Tacitus, Ann 15.44), which may have claimed the lives of Peter and Paul (1 Clement 5-6; Ignatius Rom 4:2-3; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.3.2; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.25.7), and some see Mark’s portrait of Peter and the disciples denying and deserting their master as meant to give hope to Christians who failed or betrayed the Christian community while under the duress of persecution of the promise of forgiveness and restoration (cf. 16:7).
5. One of the strengths of Brian J. Incigneri’s presentation is that he counters those scholars (e.g., Gerd Theissen, Howard Clark Kee) who suggest that Mark’s text reflects social realities (agriculture, housing, land-ownership, socio-economic status, intinerant Jesus followers) in a rural culture in Syria and shows that Mark is compatible with a Roman setting (cf. Gospel to the Romans, 65-82).  For some scholars, Mark’s alleged geographical errors (5:1; 7:31; 10:1), lack of specific information on the Jewish War besides stereotyped apocalyptic imagery (ch. 13), (erroneous?) explanations of Jewish customs (e.g. 7:3-4, 11; 14:1, 12; 15:42; some argue 10:12 is influenced by Roman divorce law) and translation of Aramaic terms point towards a predominantly Gentile audience far away from Palestine.
6. Martin Hengel reconstructed a setting for Mark between Nero’s suicide on June 9, 68 CE and the winter of 69 CE during the crisis created by the rapid succession of 3 emperors in 1 year (Galba, Otho, Vitellius) and a fourth claimant on his way to Rome (Vespasian); the “abomination of desolation” in 13:14 is read as a oracle of a future Nero redivivus and antichrist figure.  Incigneri argues Mark was written in light of the fall of Jerusalem and her Temple in 70 CE and the triumph of Vespasian and Titus in 71 CE.  He also sees Mark as parodying the political propaganda of Vespasian such as that Vespasian was known to have healed a blind man with spittle and a man with a withered hand or triumphantly returning to Rome parading the large outer veil of the Temple  (Incigneri, Gospel to the Romans, 156-207; cf. Head, “Roman Document,” 245-58; Winn, Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 153-67)

If I missed any of the important arguments in favour of a Roman origin for Mark, please let me know in the comments.  In the next post I will look at objections to each of these points and the reasons other scholars are inclined to locate Mark in Syria-Palestine.  But for further information on the Roman provenance of Mark, here is a short bibliography (I will update this as I come across more books and articles, and many below are available on google preview):

• Black, C. Clifton.  Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter.  Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
• Brandon, S F G. Jesus and the Zealots: A study of the political factor in primitive Christianity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967.
• Donahue, John R.  “Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark’s Gospel.”  Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 1-26.
• France, R.T.  The Gospel of Mark.  NIGTC; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002.
• Head, Ivan.  “Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel’s Thesis.”  Journal of Religious History 28 (2004): 240-59.
• Gundry, Robert.  Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
• 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; Boston: Brill, 2003.
• Lane, William L.  The Gospel According to Mark.  The New International Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
• Martin, R.P.  Mark: Evangelist and Theologian.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
• Stein, Robert H.  Mark.  Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008
• Taylor, Vincent.  The Gospel According to St. Mark.  New York: St Martin’s Press, 1966.
• Winn, Adam.  The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperialism.  WUNT 2.245, Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2008.
• Witherington, Ben.  The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
• van Iersel, Bas M.F.  Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary.  Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

The Provenance of Mark’s Gospel

In the comments of a post, there was some discussion over my passing comment that the reason that Mark alone includes the names Alexander and Rufus, the sons of Simon of Cyrene, is that they were known to the community for whom he wrote.  In light of this, over the next series of posts I want to look at the various arguments used by different scholars for locating the provenance of Mark’s Gospel and its first readers in Rome, Syria-Palestine or Galilee.  Finally, I will turn my attention to those who challenge a mirror-reading of Mark in order to outline the contours of a “Markan community” and argue instead that, while Mark may initially have been received by a local readership, the gospel was intended to be read by “all Christians” (to borrow from Richard Bauckham’s, The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences).  I look forward to your feedback as we discuss the origins of the Gospel according to Mark.

Update: I am taking a short holiday so I will get to the first post on the Roman provenance on Mark sometime near the end of next week.