Purpose of Mark's Gospel (A. Winn) PDF

ADAM WINN
The Purpose
of Mark's Gospel
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe
245
Mohr Siebeck
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe
Herausgeber / Editor
Jorg Frey (Miinchen)
Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors
Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg)
Judith Gundry-Volf (New Haven, CT)
Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)
245
ARTIBUS
A d a m Winn
The Purpose of Mark's Gospel

A n Early Christian Response
to Roman Imperial Propaganda
Mohr Siebeck
A D A M W I N N , born 1976; 2007 PhD in New Testament Studies from Fuller Theological
Seminary; since 2005 teaching courses in Biblical Studies at Fuller Seminary and Azusa
Pacific University.
ISBN 978-3-16-149635-6
ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio-
graphie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
© 2008 by Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted
by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to
reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed by Laupp & Gobel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by
Buchbinderei Nadele in Nehren.
Printed in Germany
For Molly
Acknowledgments
The seminal ideas for this project grew out of a master's level course I took
on the New Testament gospels from Craig A. Evans in the summer of 2001.
Evans' suggestion that many details in Mark's gospel strongly parallel the
Roman imperial cult intrigued me and led me to explore the topic further when
I became PhD candidate at Fuller Theological Seminary in the fall of 2002.
Through my own research and ongoing conversations with Evans, a disserta
tion topic emerged - reading Mark's gospel as a response to Roman imperial
propaganda. The subsequent dissertation was accepted by the faculty of the
School of Theology at Fuller Seminary in June of 2007. The present project
is a moderately revised version of that dissertation. Like all projects of this
nature, it results from the labor of not one individual but many. Here I would
like to give these individuals the recognition and thanks that they deserve.
First, I must thank my mentor Ralph Martin for his faithful oversight of
this project while it was being prepared as a dissertation. His mastery of the
secondary literature has frequently led me to sources I had never considered
(nor knew existed!), and his vast knowledge of the field of New Testament
studies has protected my many blind spots. I am forever thankful for his guid
ance and support during the past six years.
I would also like to express thanks to the members of my dissertation com
mittee. My second reader, Donald Hagner, provided me with invaluable con
structive criticism that resulted in a much improved manuscript. I also thank
him for his refreshing sense of humor and his regular willingness to talk
about baseball - two things that often provided a necessary respite from the
rigors of academic research. I thank Craig A. Evans for his careful reading
and critique of this project as a dissertation and his advocacy in recommend
ing it for publication. As noted above, the seminal ideas for this project came
out of a master's level course I took with Dr. Evans seven years ago, and in
response to his encouragement, I pursued these ideas as a dissertation topic.
For his influence and encouragement, I am also thankful.
I also would like to express thanks to the entire New Testament faculty at
Fuller Theological Seminary. In particular, I would like to thank David Scho-
ler, whose support and encouragement over the past six years has been unfail
ing. He has modeled for me what it means to be both a teacher and scholar
of the New Testament. I also would like to thank Marianne Meye Thompson,
VIII A cknowledgments
who has regularly (and selflessly) devoted herself to my academic and profes
sional success.
I must also thank those who worked faithfully in editing this project for its
submission as a dissertation. My mother-in-law Syl Field and her co-worker
Clair Bruggeman edited the original draft of every chapter. Their careful eyes
rid each chapter of its many typographical and grammatical errors and made
significant stylistic improvements to my often philistine prose. For their self
less service, I am deeply thankful. My professional editor (and friend) Krys-
tin Mast worked tirelessly to prepare my unpolished manuscript for formal
submission, catching missed typographical and grammatical errors and mak
ing sure the manuscript met all the necessary formatting and style guidelines
(a tedious process indeed!). For her great effort, I am truly thankful. My type
setter, Robin Black of Blackbird Creative worked with me to transform a dis
sertation into a manuscript ready for publication. She worked patiently with
me through the first-time task of typesetting this manuscript. For her hard
work and professional excellence, I am grateful. For any errors in the text that
still remain, I am fully responsible.
I also would like to recognize the people at Mohr Siebeck Publishing
House for not only giving this manuscript the opportunity to be published but
also for their excellence and competence in guiding me through the process of
preparing the manuscript for publication. I would like to offer special thanks
to Henning Ziebritzki and Jorg Frey for accepting this manuscript for publica
tion in the WUNT II series. I would also like to thank Matthias Spitzner for
guidance on specific issues regarding formatting and style. It has truly been a
pleasure working with the people of Mohr Siebeck.
Making it through this long and difficult process would not have been pos
sible without the help of both family and friends. I thank both the Warehouse
community and the Homebuilders class at Lake Avenue Church for their con
stant prayer and support. I thank those in my small group Bible study who
have endured the ups and downs of this process with me and who have offered
their prayers and encouragement along the way. I thank my fellow colleagues
at Fuller Seminary and Azusa Pacific University who have sympathetically
walked through this process with me. I thank the Fuller Five for their friend
ship and inspiration. I thank my in-laws, Syl and Stephen Field, who have
supported my wife and me throughout this process in every possible way. I
thank my older sister Hillory and my younger brother Abel, along with their
families, for their friendship and love throughout this process. I thank the
Moreno Valley clan, who for the past seven years has offered my wife and
me a home away from home. And to all the friends and family that cannot be
named but who have loved and supported me through this process, I thank
you.
I would like to offer special thanks to my father and mother, Doug and
Kemi Winn, without whom this project, at best, would have been a dream.
Acknowledgments IX
The desire to pursue scholarship in the field of New Testament studies grew
out of a love for the Bible that my parents instilled in me at a very young age.
The means to accomplish this project were provided by their hard work and
sacrifice. And the strength to finish it came largely from their faithful prayers,
love, and encouragement. They have given me more than I could ever repay
and to them I am forever thankful. Dad and mom, I love you dearly!
And now, I give thanks to the person who deserves it more than any other,
my wife and the love of my life Molly. The publication of this project (and
the dissertation that it began as) is as much her success as it is mine. She has
faithfully stood beside me throughout this process, and did so at her own
great personal sacrifice. For the last seven years, she has worked tirelessly in
jobs that often left her weary, unsatisfied, and unappreciated all for the sake
of supporting our family and my dream. Yet despite the difficulty of the road,
she has continually supported, loved, and encouraged me along the way. She
has always believed in me and in my success and that has meant more to me
than she could ever know. Molly, I love you and am forever thankful for your
selfless sacrifice. I look forward to this next chapter in our lives and to raising
our precious Brennan together!
Finally, and most importantly, I thank the God and Father of my Lord Jesus
Christ. All that it took to complete this project - the support of family and
friends, a mind to read, think and write, instructors to guide and direct, the
finances to pay for tuition - is a gift from the hand of my heavenly Father.
For the success of this project's completion and for any future success that it
might experience, to God be all the glory and honor and praise amen!
Pasadena, April 2008

Adam D. Winn
Contents
Acknowledgments VII
Preliminary Remarks and Abbreviations XV
Introduction 1
1 Purpose of the Present Study 1
2 Method of the Present Study 2
3 Outline of the Present Study 2
4 Preliminary Considerations for the Present Study 3
Chapter 1. Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel

in the History of New Testament Scholarship 5
1.1 Introduction 5
1.2 Historical Purpose 5
1.2.1 From Pre-modern Times to Present Day 5
1.2.2 Evaluation of a Historical Purpose 7
1.3 Theological Purpose 9
1.3.1 Christology 9
The Messianic Secret 9
Corrective Christology 12
Christological Purpose 18
1.3.2 Eschatology 19
Willi Marxsen 20
Werner Kelber 22
1.4 Pastoral Purpose 24
1.5 Evangelistic Purpose: Robert H. Gundry 28
1.6 Socio-Political Purpose 31
1.6.1 Defensive Purpose 31
S. G. F. Brandon 31
H. N. Roskam 33
1.6.2 Subversive Purpose: Richard Horsley 35
1.7 Conclusions 41
XII Contents
Chapter 2. Mark's Date and Provenance 43

2.1 Introduction 43
2.2 Dating Mark's Gospel 43
2.2.1 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The External Evidence 44
2.2.2 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The Internal Evidence 51
2.2.3 Mark's Relationship to the Temple's Destruction: A Pre- or
Post-70 Dating? 56
The Criterion of Specificity 58
The Criterion of Reasonableness 59
The Criterion of Similarity 60
The Criterion of Motivation 61
The Criterion of Risk-Reward 65
Conclusions to be Drawn from the Criteria 67
2.2.4 Reading Mark 13 in Light of a Post 70 Date of Composition 68
2.2.5 Conclusions concerning Mark's Date of Composition 76
2.3 Mark's Provenance 76
2.3.1 Rome: The External Evidence 77
2.3.2 Rome: The Internal Evidence 80
2.3.3 Galilee 83
2.3.4 Syria 87
2.3.5 Conclusions concerning Mark's Provenance 91
Chapter 3. Analysis of Mark's Major Features 92

3.1 Introduction 92
3.2 Markan Incipit 92
3.3 Markan Christology 99
3.3.1 Christological Identity 100
Messiah 100
Son of God 100
Son of Man 102
3.3.2 Christological Presentation 108
Prologue 1:1-13 (14-15) 109
Galilean Ministry Ill
Caesarea Philippi 115
Jerusalem Ministry 121
Passion Narrative 127
Conclusions 135
3.3.3 Christological Secrecy 136
Identifying Mark's Secrecy Motif 136
Characterizing Mark's Secrecy Motif 137
Contents XIII
3.3.4 Christological Conclusions 139
3.4 Markan Discipleship 139
3.4.1 The Twelve Disciples as Models of Discipleship 140
3.4.2 Minor Characters as Models of Discipleship 146
3.4.3 Jesus' Teaching on Discipleship 147
3.4.4 Conclusions concerning Discipleship 150
3.5 Markan Eschatology 150
Chapter 4. Reconstructing Mark's Historical Situation 153

4.1 Introduction 153
4.2 Reconstructing the Historical Situation of Mark's Readers 153
4.2.1 The Emperor Vespasian 153
Vespasian's Rise to Power 154
Vespasian's Problems and Propaganda 157
Vespasian's Triumph 164
Vespasian, the Second Augustus 165
The Impact of Flavian Propaganda on the Church in Rome 167
4.2.2 The Aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and Its Impact on the
Church in Rome 170
Eschatological Anxiety? 170
Fear of Persecution? 171
4.2.3 Conclusions concerning Mark's Historical Situation 173
4.3 Comparing a Reconstructed Historical Situation with
Indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben 173
4.3.1 Imperial Cult Intertwined Messianic Hope 173
4.3.2 False Prophets and Messianic Claimants 174
4.3.3 Christology of Power 174
4.3.4 Persecuted Community 175
4.3.5 Wavering Disciples 176
4.3.6 Eschatological Confusion 176
4.3.7 Summarizing Comparisons 177
Chapter 5. Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark's

Historical Situation 178
5.1 Introduction 178
5.2 Reading Mark's Incipit in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 178
5.3 Reading Mark's Christology in Light of Mark's Historical Situation ... 180
5.3.1 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Identity 180
Excursus: Mark's use of "Son of God" in light of a polemic
against Vespasian 182
5.3.2 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Presentation 183
XIV Contents
Powerful Exorcist 183

Powerful Healer 184
Power over Nature 185
Powerful Prophet 186
Powerful Benefactor 188
Imperial Modesty 190
Weakness as Strength 192
5.4 Reading Mark's Presentation of Discipleship in Light of Mark's
5.4.1 Mark's Primary Features of Discipleship 194
5.4.2 Mark's Secondary Features of Discipleship 196
5.5 Reading Markan Eschatology in Light of Mark's
5.6 Summary: Formulating a Statement on the Purpose of
Mark's Gospel 199
Summary of Conclusions 202
Bibliography 205
Index of Ancient Sources 223
Index of Modern Authors 231
Index of Subjects 235

Preliminary Remarks and Abbreviations
All citations from the Old and New Testament come from New Revised Stan
dard Version unless otherwise noted. Any Greek texts from the New Testa
th
ment are taken from the Nestle-Aland 27 edition. Greek and Latin texts
from ancient authors are taken from the Loeb Classical Library unless other
wise noted.
Unfortunately, this manuscript was completed prior to the publication of
Adela Yarbro-Collins' recent commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Mark: A
Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) and was there
fore unable to interact with it. The reader is encouraged to consult this work
and to compare its conclusions with those found in the present study.
In general, the abbreviations used in this book follow those provided in
The SBL Handbook of Style (ed. P. H. Alexander et al., 2003). These abbre
viations include those for academic journals, commentary and monograph
series, biblical books and other ancient literature. However, there are a num
ber of abbreviations included in this book that cannot be found in The SBL
Handbook of Style and these abbreviations are provided below.
AJAH American Journal of Ancient History

CJ Classical Journal
CQ Classical Quarterly
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
PMAAR Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome
PBA Proceedings of the British Academy
RFIC Rivista difilologia e d'instruzione classica
RM Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigrafik
Introduction
1 Purpose of the Present Study
The theory of Markan priority is one of the few that has reached a high level
of consensus among New Testament interpreters (though a handful of detrac
1
tors still persists). Not only do most interpreters agree that Mark's gospel
was written before the other canonical gospels, most also agree that it is the
2
first written narrative account of Jesus' life. While it is possible that a say
ings source existed before the composition of Mark's gospel, such a source
would have lacked Mark's narrative dimension. Given this unique distinc
tion of Mark's work, the question of why the gospel was composed naturally
arises. What realities moved the evangelist to provide a written account of
Jesus' life? Perhaps more importantly, how does the evangelist's presenta
tion of Jesus' life address or negotiate these realties? Many interpreters have
offered answers to these questions regarding the second evangelist's purpose
3
for composing a gospel. Nevertheless a consensus has remained elusive. Cer
tainly the great body of work that has been devoted to the question of the
second gospel's purpose was not fruitless; in fact, it has made significant
progress toward answering it. But as our survey of the search for a Markan
purpose will demonstrate, a comprehensive and convincing answer to this
question has yet to be found. Therefore, our present purpose is to enter this
1
Since the year 2000, at least eight significant critical commentaries on Mark's gospel
have been published. All eight assume Markan priority as a starting point for interpreting
the gospel. For examples of scholars who reject Markan priority, see C. S. Mann, Mark: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 1986);
W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan, 1964); Philip L. Shuler, "The
Genre of the Gospels and the Two Gospel Hypothesis," in Jesus the Gospel's and the Church
to Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William Farmer (ed. E. P. Sand
ers; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987), 69 - 88; et al.
2
Throughout this study, we will often refer to the author of the second gospel as Mark.
However, this name is only used for the sake of simplicity and implies nothing about the
author's identity.
3
While we affirm Markan priority, in deference to the canonical order, we will refer to
Mark as the second gospel.
2 Introduction
ongoing discussion with the hope of providing a plausible theory that might
account for the second gospel's origin and purpose.
2 Method of the Present Study
This study will combine two methodologies. The first is the traditional his
torical-critical method, the application of which will lead us to a better under
standing of the Markan text - in particular its major features (Christology,
discipleship, and eschatology), the distinctive features of its Sitz im Leben, its
date of composition, and its provenance. Because of the many negative conno
tations that have surrounded this method in recent years, we offer a brief word
regarding our understanding and application of it. We understand the term
historical-critical method in an inclusive rather than exclusive sense; that is
to say that properly applied, the historical-critical method must embrace and
make use of more recent interpretive methods (e.g., social scientific criticism,
rhetorical criticism, and narrative criticism). Through the use of the histori
cal-critical method, we seek to understand the Markan text in light of its many
contexts (e.g., historical, social, political, literary, narrative, grammatical,
theological, etc.). We must recognize that the nature of our present question
- the original purpose of Mark's gospel - limits the scope of our investiga
tion to the realties of the original author and the original readers. Therefore,
methods that focus on contemporary readers or the reader as an abstract idea
are not employed in the present study. The absence of these methods should
not be seen as a rejection of their value for biblical interpretation, but rather as
recognition of their limited value in answering the question before us.
The second method we will employ is that of comparative-historical analy
sis. Based on the results of our investigation into Mark's date of composition
and provenance, we will seek to reconstruct a historical setting in which the
second evangelist and his readers might have found themselves. This pro
posed historical setting will then be compared to our conclusions regarding
Mark's Sitz im Leben and major features, with the hope that such a compari
son will yield plausible conclusions regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel.
3 Outline of the Present Study
Our first chapter will survey the numerous theories that interpreters have put
forth regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel. It will evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of these theories and will attempt to establish a number of trajec
tories for our present study. Our second chapter will address the questions
of Mark's provenance and date of composition, with attention given to both
external and internal evidence. Our third chapter will examine the major
1 Introduction 3
features of Mark's gospel, i.e., Mark's incipit, Christology, presentation of
discipleship, and eschatology. Our purpose in this chapter will be twofold:
(1) to characterize accurately these major Markan features and (2) to identify
indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben. Our fourth chapter will reconstruct the
historical situation in which Mark and his original readers find themselves.
This reconstruction will depend on the results of chapter two - namely the
conclusions drawn regarding when and where Mark's gospel was written. Our
historical reconstruction of Mark's setting will then be compared with the
indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben that we identified in chapter three. Conti
nuity between our historical reconstruction and the indicators of Mark's Sitz
im Leben will confirm the historical reconstruction's plausibility. Our fifth
chapter will read Mark's major features - according to the results of chapter
three - in light of our proposed setting for Mark and his readers. Through
such a reading, the primary purpose - and perhaps one or two secondary
purposes - for Mark's gospel should emerge.
4 Preliminary Considerations for the Present Study
4.1 Author/Audience
As the subject matter of this study implies, we assume that Mark's gospel was
written by a purposeful author (Hochliteratur) and not by a group of compil
ers (Kleinliteratur). We also assume that this author, like all authors, was
influenced by his own historical situation and that of his intended audience.
Therefore, we conclude that the gospel itself provides us - though perhaps
only indirectly - a window into the historical situation of its author and its
original readers. We also assume that the author composed his gospel, at least
to some degree, in order to speak to the historical situation of a particular
audience or community - one that he was either close to or a part of. This last
assumption has been challenged by Richard Bauckham (among others) in a
collection of essays entitled The Gospelfor All Christians: Rethinking Gospel
Audiences* Bauckham argues that rather than being written for a particular
community, the New Testament gospels were written for a broad audience,
i.e., any Christian throughout the Roman Empire. While many of the argu
ments of Bauckham may have merit, it seems that Bauckham is creating an
unnecessary dichotomy - namely that gospels were either written for a nar
row audience or a broad audience. However, we must consider the possibility
that an evangelist could have composed a gospel with one eye on his par
ticular community and one on the church empire-wide. A gospel tailored to
4
In particular see Bauckham's introduction and article, "For Whom Were Gospels
Written," in The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (ed. Richard
Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1-48.
4 Introduction
speak to the needs of a particular community is not precluded from speaking

to a broader audience, especially if that broader audience might be facing or
might soon face challenges similar to those of the evangelist's particular com
munity. While we cannot give a proper critique of Bauckham's position here,
we will proceed under the assumption that the author of Mark composed his
gospel, at least in part, to address the situation of a particular audience.
4.2 Genre
There seems to be a growing consensus among New Testament interpreters
that the New Testament gospels are best identified as Greco-Roman biogra
phies. Our present study will proceed under the notion that this conclusion is
correct. Though we cannot discuss the merits of this conclusion at this time,
we may appeal to Richard Burridge's compelling work on the subject, What
5
Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. We must
note that while our present study will assume Mark's gospel to be a Greco-
Roman biography, this assumption has little direct effect on our conclusions
6
regarding the gospel's purpose. Because of the wide range of purposes such
ancient biographies could serve (e.g., polemical, apologetic, ethical, panegyri
cal, philosophical), identifying the gospel's genre brings us no closer to under
standing the evangelist's purpose for writing. However, our identification of
Mark as a Greco-Roman biography may inform our exegesis of the Markan
text, and thus indirectly affect our conclusions.
4.3 Markan Redaction

Because of our ignorance concerning Markan sources, this study will pri
marily focus on the finished form of Mark's gospel and will be extremely
7
conservative in its use of redaction criticism. Redaction criticism will only
be used in cases where Markan redaction is relatively certain. Even in such
cases, the results of redaction criticism will only be used as supporting rather
than primary evidence.
5
Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biogra
nd
phy (2 ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
6
For a thorough discussion on Mark as a Greco-Roman biography, see Ben Wither-
ington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2001), 1-9.
7
For discussion on the problems of using redaction criticism in Markan interpretation,
see C. Clifton Black, "The Quest of the Markan Redactor: Why Has It Been Pursued and
What Has It Taught Us?" JSNT 33 (1988): 19-39; idem, The Disciples according to Mark:
Markan Redaction in Current Debate (JSNTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1989).
Chapter 1
Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel

in the History of New Testament Scholarship
1.1 Introduction
For the sake of clarity, our survey will arrange the various theories of a Mar
kan purpose topically with each attempt falling into one of the following cat
egories: historical, theological, pastoral, evangelical, or socio-political. The
discussion of each category will focus on one or two theories that are of the
greatest significance and/or that function as representative of other similar
theories. We must note that these categories serve to facilitate discussion, and
some theories might partially overlap with more than one category. At the
point of evaluation, we will make a specific critique of the exemplary inter
pretations and a general critique of the category as a whole. Some of these
critiques will establish trajectories that will continue throughout our present
study.
1.2 Historical Purpose
For the first nineteen hundred years of biblical interpretation, the question
of Mark's purpose for writing was largely ignored. It was assumed by most
interpreters that Mark's purpose was to record the historical events of Jesus'
life. Here we will examine the history of this position and evaluate it in light
of modern critical scholarship.
1.2.1 From Pre-modern Times to the Present Day
Pre-modern interpretation of Mark's purpose for writing was largely influ
enced by statements accorded to the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias (c. 110 C.E.),
as recorded by Eusebius:
And the Presbyter used to say this, "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately
all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he
had not heard the Lord, nor, had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who
used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were an arrangement of
6 Chapter 1
the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he
remembered them. For to one thing he gave his attention, to leave out nothing of what he had
1
heard and to make no false statements in them." (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15, Lake, LCL)
Throughout pre-modern times this tradition, along with several others that
echoed similar sentiments, was accepted by the church and by interpreters
2
of Mark. That is, most assumed that Mark was the interpreter of Peter who
recorded events about the life of Jesus, leaving out "nothing from what he
heard" and making "no false statements."
However, as a historical account of Jesus' life, Mark was considered infe
rior to the other gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. Matthew and Luke
included much of Mark but contained a great deal of new material as well.
Mark was also not the direct work of an apostle (though Peter's authority
was believed to lay behind it). Because of these reasons, Mark was regularly
neglected at the expense of the other three gospels, though its historical pur
pose was not doubted.
It was not until the establishment of Markan priority in the 19th century
that Mark was given its due as a gospel of great importance. Because Mark
was considered the earliest gospel and the primary source for both Matthew
and Luke, it quickly became accepted as the most historically accurate of the
three. Most interpreters affirmed that Mark wrote primarily to preserve the
historical traditions about Jesus for the church. They saw Mark as a histori
3
cally reliable source, with many using it to reconstruct the life of Jesus.
This historical understanding of Mark's purpose held sway until the pub
lication of William Wrede's, The Messianic Secret* Wrede noted numer
ous elements within Mark's gospel that seemed to argue against a historical
1
Here the accuracy of the claims regarding authorship, relationship to Peter, the date,
and the location of the gospel will not be addressed. Discussion of these issues will follow
in the next chapter, which addresses Mark's provenance and date of composition.
2
Testimonies bearing similar sentiments include the testimony of Irenaeus in Adv. Haer.
3.1.1, the so-called "anti-Marcionite" Prologue, and Clement of Alexandria (cited in Euse
bius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.6). The assumption made in most of these testimonies is that Mark
recorded the eyewitness testimony of the great Apostle Peter, which would be considered
historically accurate.
3 th
Bernard Weiss, Das Leben Jesu (2 vols; 4 ed.; Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1902); Christian
Gottlob Wilke, Der Vrevangelist, oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung uber das Ver-
wandtschaftsverhdltniss derdrei ersten Evangelien (Dresden: G. Fleischer, 1838); Christian
Hermann Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2
vols; Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1938); Heinrich Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evan
gelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863);
Albrecht Ritschl, "Uber den gegenwartigen Stand der Kritik der synoptischen Evangelien"
in Gesammelte Aufsdtze (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1893), 1-51; Ernest Renan, Life of Jesus
rd
(trans, of 23 French ed.; Boston: Little, Brown, 1924) 19-20.
4
William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum
Verstandnis des Markusevangeliums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901); E. T.
The Messianic Secret (trans. J. C. G. Greig; Cambridge: James Clark & Co., 1971).
Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel 1
purpose, and rather for a theological one. Though Wrede's proposal met with
great resistance at the time, it had a lasting impact on Markan scholarship
and on the question of Mark's purpose. For the most part, scholars eventu
ally abandoned the traditional position that Mark was written for a historical
purpose. However, over the last fifty years, the historical purpose of Mark has
maintained a small number of supporters. Vincent Taylor's classic commentary
supports a historical purpose for Mark, as does the work of a handful of other
5
interpreters.
1.2.2 Evaluation of a Historical Purpose
By arguing that Mark was written for a historical purpose, those interpreters
6
were saying that Mark intends to present Jesus' life as it actually was. Writ
ing with a historical purpose assumes that the author is interested in present
ing causality between events, how event "A" led to event "B." It also assumes
that the details of an event are consistent with reality and not contradictory
or inconsistent. However, the realities we find in Mark are not consistent with
these historical aims.
As noted above, William Wrede was one of the first interpreters to chal
lenge the historical purpose of Mark. Wrede's primary charge is that the
gospel is full of details that are inconsistent with its own narrative reality,
7
making historical claims implausible. He notes a number of incidents where
Jesus commands silence in order to keep an event secret. However, often the
secrecy of the event is impossible to keep, making the command for silence
inconsistent with reality. A perfect example of this is the healing of Jairus'
5
Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: MacMillan & Co., 1952),
131-132; Dom Bernard Orchard, "Mark and the Fusion of Traditions" in The Four Gospels
FS F. Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck, et al; BETL 100B; Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1992), 2:779-800; Martin Hengel, "Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums"
in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen
zum zweiten Evangelium (ed. H. Cancik; WUNT 33; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984), 1-45;
idem, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985),
esp. 1-30; idem, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of
the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (trans. John Bowden; Harrisburg: Trin
ity Press, 2000), 78-96. Hengel argues strongly that the authority of Peter lies behind the
text and that the text reflects authentic historical tradition. However, Hengel sees the text
as a combination of historical narration and proclamation, a proclamation which reflects a
distance between the writer's own time and the historical event. Hengel claims that Mark is
not simply a historical report, but that it is colored by other agendas. It seems, however, that
he views Mark's purpose for writing primarily as passing on historical tradition, colored as
it may be.
6
Questioning the historical purpose of Mark is not the same as questioning the histo
ricity of events recorded in Mark. These are two separate issues. Mark could write with a
theological purpose and still use historical traditions to achieve this purpose.
7
Wrede, Messianic Secret, 48-53.
8 Chapter 1
8
daughter (5:21—43). Jesus is brought to the home of Jairus for the purpose of
healing his daughter who is close to death. On the way, news comes that she
is already dead. Jesus goes to the girl anyway and, after forcing everyone
but Peter, James, John and the girl's parents outside of the room, he brings
the girl back to life. Jesus then strictly forbids those present to speak of what
has happened. However, such a secret cannot be kept. Certainly the crowd
will be aware of Jesus' miracle as soon as the girl, who was presumed to be
dead, steps out of the room. Why then would Jesus command silence, when
secrecy is impossible? The impractical nature of this command for silence
undermines the conclusion that it is a historical recollection. Wrede argues
that the command is part of a theological motif and that Mark is writing with
9
a theological purpose.
Wrede notes that Mark's presentation of the disciples is also historically
10
implausible. Again and again the disciples are portrayed as lacking under
standing concerning both Jesus' identity and his mission, even though Jesus
claims that they have been given "the secrets of the kingdom" (4:11). Despite
witnessing Jesus' many mighty deeds, the disciples remain confused and baf
fled when Jesus again performs a mighty act (6:50-52). Wrede argues that this
presentation of the disciples can hardly be understood as historical and is bet
ter understood as revealing a theological motif concerning human blindness
to Jesus' identity.
Even more telling than Wrede's observations is the way in which the Mar
kan episodes are linked together. The links and seams that connect Markan
11
episodes reflect very little interest in chronology or causality. Mark's peri-
copes easily stand on their own and are only linked together by generic seams,
e.g., "As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee" (1:16), "When he returned to
Capernaum after some days" (2:1), "Jesus went out beside the sea" (2:13),
"Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea" (3:7), "Again he began to teach
12
beside the sea" (4:1), "In those days when there was a great crowd" (8:1).
Rather than grouping material in a causal manner, Mark groups his material
topically or thematically. There are groupings of miracle stories (1:21 - 2:12;
4:35 - 5:43; 6:31-52; 7:24 - 8:10), parables (4:1-31), sayings (3:22-30; 8:34
- 9:1; 9:33-50; 10:2-45), conflict stories (2:1 - 3:6; 7:1-23; 11:27 - 12:40), and
apocalyptic material (13). Mark's apparent lack of interest in causality is a
strong indicator that he does not write with history as his primary purpose.
8
9
Wrede, Messianic Secret, 67-81; For other similar examples, see Mark 3:7-12; 7:31-37;
8:22-26.
10
11
The one exception to this observation is the Markan passion narrative in which causal
ity seems to become more important to the evangelist.
12
See K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: Trowitzsch und Sohn,
1919).
Another important consideration is that Mark is not writing as an impassive
or impersonal historian who has little concern for his subject matter beyond
the basic facts. Rather, Mark is a first-century Christian with a theological
perspective concerning both the person and the work of Jesus. He is also the
member of a Christian community that likely is experiencing a wide variety
of growing pains as a result of the social and political realties around them.
Most interpreters recognize that all these factors influenced Mark's gospel to
some degree. Therefore, even though Mark likely records some history (the
degree to which is certainly debated), it is a history that has been colored by
factors of a non-historical nature. Mark's purpose for writing is therefore best
located in these non-historical factors.
The days of understanding Mark's purpose as primarily historical have
long past. Wrede's work forever weaned Markan interpreters from the tradi
tional consensus that Mark wrote with a historical purpose. In order to find a
new explanation for the writing of the second gospel, we will investigate the
many different purposes interpreters have since suggested.
1.3 Theological Purpose
Since Wrede, most interpreters have suggested Mark's purpose is theologi

cal. But while many agree that Mark wrote with a theological purpose, few
agree as to what that purpose was specifically. Here we will examine signifi
cant theological proposals under two different categories: Christological and
Eschatological.
1.3.1 Christology
Christology has long been recognized as a major theme of Mark. Many inter
preters have argued that Mark's primary purpose for writing is to establish a
particular Christology. Here we will examine two significant themes through
which interpreters have attempted to ascertain Mark's christological pur
poses: the messianic secret and corrective Christology. We will also deter
mine whether Christology is the key to understanding Mark's purpose.
The Messianic Secret
In his landmark book The Messianic Secret, Wrede argued that Mark's theo
logical purpose centered on Christology. Wrede focused on what he believed
to be a unified (and unifying) motif in Mark: secrecy concerning Jesus'
identity. He perceived that throughout the gospel, Jesus repeatedly seeks to
conceal his identity. He commands the demons, which seem to have special
insight into his identity, not to reveal who he is (1:21-28, 32-34; 3:7-12). He
commands the disciples not to tell others of his identity both after Peter's
confession (8:27-30) and after his transfiguration (9:2-8). Those he heals are
10 Chapter I
frequently commanded not to spread the news (1:40-45; 5:35-43; 7:31-37;

8:22-26). Jesus' disciples are frequently blinded to Jesus' identity, failing to
perceive the significance of who he is and what he will do (4:10-20, 35-41;
6:45-52; 8:14-21, 31-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-34). Wrede claimed that all these ele
ments in Mark's gospel are part of a unified motif and that this motif required
13
a unified explanation. As noted above, Wrede argued that a historical expla
nation could not account for the whole of this motif. Therefore, a theological
motif was needed. Wrede also concluded that Jesus was never actually rec
ognized by the early church as the Messiah until after his resurrection. Over
time, however, the church began to believe that Jesus was the Messiah during
his earthly life. A conflict resulted between the earliest Jesus tradition and
church, with the latter recognizing Jesus as Messiah and the former failing to
do so. Wrede then claims that Mark's messianic secret motif was created in
order to explain why Jesus was never recognized as the Messiah during his
14
earthly life. Mark seeks to show that Jesus was recognized as Messiah, but
15
this identity was purposefully concealed until after his resurrection.
Many interpreters have rejected Wrede's overall conclusion concerning the
purpose of the messianic secret motif, namely that it was written back into the
16
tradition in order to cover up a non-messianic Jesus. Perhaps the most dam
aging evidence against Wrede's position is the existence of messianic declara
tions within the pre-Markan tradition that are revealed rather than concealed
(5:19-20; 10:47-52; 11:9-10). However, even if Wrede's overall conclusion is
wrong, his identification of the messianic secret as a theological motif still
stands, and it must be addressed.
A number of interpreters have followed Wrede in seeing the messianic
13
In the end Wrede concludes that the disciples' failure to understand Jesus is only indi
rectly related to the messianic secrecy motif. See Messianic Secret, 231-36.
14
Wrede argued that the motif of secrecy was already embedded in much of the tradition
which Mark received; therefore, Mark is not primarily responsible for its creation (145-49).
Later Bultmann affirmed Wrede's theory but amended it slightly by claiming that a Markan
redactor was responsible for the secrecy motif. See Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the
Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; rev. ed.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972), 338-51.
15
For Wrede's explanation for the creation of the Markan secrecy motif, see Messianic
Secre/, 211-30.
16
For a critique of Wrede's conclusion regarding a non-Messianic Jesus see Albert Sch-
weizter, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to
Wrede (trans. James M. Robinson; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), 45, 342-49;
William Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907),
esp. 69-76; T. W. Manson, "Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-Day Research" in
The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: In Honour of C H Dodd (ed.
W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 211-21; Vin
cent Taylor, "W. Wrede's Messianic Secret in the Gospels," ExpTim 65 (1953-1954): 248-50;
James D. G. Dunn, "The Messianic Secret in Mark" in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christo
pher Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 116-31.
17
secret as the key to unlocking Mark's christological/theological purpose.
However, the value of the messianic secret for determining Mark's purpose is
suspect. One of Wrede's (and others') primary reasons for seeing the secrecy
motif as a crucial window into Mark's overall purpose was the belief that it
was a unified theme that ran through the whole of Mark. Heikki Raisanen,
among others, has challenged this basic assumption, claiming that instead of
a unified theme of secrecy, Mark contains a number of different and unrelated
18
secrecy themes. He notes that the commands Jesus gives to demons and to
the disciples are different in nature from the commands he gave to those who
have been healed. The former commands are always kept while the latter
are often broken. The parable theory is also a part of a distinct and separate
motif, as is the motif of the disciples' failure to understand Jesus (a point
Wrede himself acknowledged.) What we find in Mark is a "miracle secret"
19
and a "messianic secret." By breaking up the messianic secret into smaller
motifs, the theme of secrecy loses some of its importance for understanding
Mark's overall purpose. No longer is the interpreter forced to come up with
a single theory to account for all of the different aspects of the Wrede's mes
sianic secret. James Dunn argues that some of the elements of the so called
"messianic secret" may actually find their origin in the historical Jesus, while
20
others may be theologically driven. It is important to consider each mani
festation of secrecy on its own, and not prematurely force them all into one
theological construct. It is true that some elements of Mark's secrecy motif
have a theological function, and any theory regarding Mark's purpose must
17
Martin Dibelius saw the secrecy motif as an apologetic device to explain why Jesus
ministry failed among the Jewish people. See Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans.
Bertram Lee Woolf; London: James Clark & Co., 1971), 230-31; cf. T. A. Burkill, Mysteri
ous Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark's Gospel (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1963). Hans Jurgen Ebeling saw the secrecy motif simply as a foil that
highlighted Mark's greater purpose, namely to reveal Jesus' glory. See Ebeling, Das Mes-
siasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten (Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1939),
esp. 167-70. George Strecker sees the secrecy motif as Mark historicizing kerygma. Mark
and his community saw the resurrection as a dividing point between revelation and secrecy.
Mark's story reflects this kerygmatic understanding. See Strecker, "The Theory of the Mes
sianic Secret in Mark's Gospel" in The Messianic Secret (ed. C. M. Tuckett; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983), 49-64.
18
Heikki Raisanen, The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark (trans. Christopher Tuckett; Edin
burgh: T & T Clark, 1990), 242-43; Ulrich Luz, "The Secrecy Motif and Marcan Christol
ogy" in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983),
75-96.
19
See Raisanen, 242-45. Jack D. Kingsbury notes that what Raisanen dubs the "mes
sianic secret" is better understood as the "Son of God secret." For Kingsbury, the secret
centers upon Jesus' identity as Son of God specifically, an identity which cannot be com
prehended fully apart from the cross. The secrecy motif helps advance this position. See
Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).
20
Dunn, "The Messianic Secret," 122-26.
12 Chapter 1
find some way to account for these elements. But now this motif can be seen
as secondary to Mark's gospel.
Corrective Christology
During the 1960s and 1970s, a new way of understanding Mark's purpose
became en vogue. This new understanding, like Wrede's "messianic secret,"
also centered on Christology. Many interpreters argued that the gospel grew
out of a christological conflict within the church. Mark's gospel was said to
represent one side of this conflict and it tried either to keep in check or to cor
rect what it considered to be the dangerous or false Christology of an oppos
ing faction. The false Christology was generally recognized as one which
affirmed Jesus as a Gefog avrjp or "divine man" - a title that many propo
nents of a Markan "corrective Christology" closely related to the title, "Son
of God." On the other hand, Mark's Christology is a Christology of the cross
and is closely related to the title "Son of Man." Here we will quickly survey
the development of this perspective and offer one specific example.
The trajectories of this position can be traced back to Wrede's and Bult-
mann's understandings of Mark's Christology. Wrede argues that at Jesus'
baptism, he was no longer a simple human, but rather became a supernatural
21
being. Though Wrede never uses the term Gefog avrjp, his understanding
is virtually the same as that of Bultmann who places the Markan Jesus in the
22
category of Gefog avtip. Bultmann's understanding of the Geiog avr(p con
23
cept is based on the work of Ludwig Bieler.
According to Bieler, the Hellenistic concept of a Gefog avr^p was that of
24
the divine residing in the human. A Befog avr^p is characterized by aston
ishing powers and abilities, such as great wisdom or the power to perform
25
mighty acts. The title Mark used to express this Befog avr^p Christology is
26
"Son of God." It is important to note that both Wrede and Bultmann under
stood this concept of Gefog avr^p to express accurately Mark's Christology.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Christology that Wrede and Bultmann saw
Mark affirming, many interpreters now saw as a Christology that Mark was
27
correcting or trying to keep in check. Their basic position was that Mark
21
22
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; New York:
Scribner's, 1951), 131-32.
23
Ludwig Bieler, Theios Aner: Das Bild des "Gottlichen Menschen" in Spatantike und
Fruhchristentum (vol. 1; Vienna: Hofels, 1935).
24
Bieler, 129, 141.
25
Bieler, 73-97.
26
Bultmann, Theology, 131-32.
27
Both Dieter Georgi, (The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians [Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1986]) and Siegfried Schulz (Die Stunde der Botschaft [Hamburg: Furche,
1967], 54-59, 64-79) are examples of scholars who affirmed Mark's Christology as being
had received in his tradition a 0eiog avr^p Christology; however, he himself
28
believed in a Christology of the cross. Interpreters saw Mark adding his
own correcting perspective of a "cross Christology" to this received tradition.
They suggest that Mark did this for one of two reasons: either to overturn this
29
errant position by replacing it with the cross, or to balance what he saw as
30
an extreme/dangerous position by mitigating it with the cross. While numer
ous interpreters have their own unique perspectives on these two positions,
each sees Mark's primary purposes in terms of correcting a dangerous or
31
faulty Christology - generally a Christology of power and glory.
Perhaps the most radical of these interpreters is Theodore J. Weeden who
has taken this notion of "corrective Christology" and developed it into a com
prehensive thesis for understanding the theology of and the purpose of Mark's
gospel. Weeden begins with two basic starting points, which he believes are
already in the text. The first is a polemic against the disciples. The disciples
constantly fail to understand Jesus' true identity and his need to undergo
suffering and death. The second is the existence of two competing Christolo-
gies: a 0eiog avr^p Christology and a "cross Christology." Weeden brings
these two points together by attributing the 0eiog avr^p Christology to the
twelve disciples. Mark on the other hand, is championing the Christology of
the cross against the disciples and the group that the disciples represent.
that of a "divine man ," though Schulz also affirmed that Jesus, even as a "divine man," must
also encounter the cross.
28
A "Christology of the cross" or a "cross Christology" simply refer to a presentation of
Jesus that understands his messianic identity primarily in terms of his suffering and death.
29
Johannes Schreiber, "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums," ZTK 58 (1961):
154-83; Norman Perrin, "The Creative Use of Son of Man Traditions by Mark" and "The
Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology" in A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testa
ment Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 84-93 and 104-21; Ludger Schenke,
Die Wundererzdhlungen des Markusevangeliums (SBB; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1974) esp. 393-95; Theodore J. Weeden, Mark-Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971); Weeden, "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel," ZNTW 59 (1968):
145-58; See the thorough discussion of Weeden that follows below.
30
Representative of this position include Leander Keck, "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Chris
tology," JBL 84 (1965): 341-58, esp. 349-51,354,357-58; H. D. Betz, "Jesus as Divine Man"
in Jesus and the Historian: In Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell (ed. F. T. Trotter; Phila
delphia: Westminster Press, 1968), 114-33, esp. 121-25; Paul Achtemeier, Mark (PC; Phila
delphia: Fortress Press, 1975), esp. 41-47; Achtemeier, "Gospel Miracle Tradition and the
Divine Man," Int 26 (1972): 174-97; Achtemeier, "Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan
Miracle Catenae," JBL 91 (1972): 198-221, esp. 198, 220-21; Ralph Martin, Mark-Evange
list and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1972), esp. 153-62; Eduard Schweizer, The Good
News According to Mark (tran. D. H. Madvig; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1970), esp. 380-86;
R. H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Gerald Duckworth,
1966), 108ff; Carl R. Kazmierski, Jesus, the Son of God: A Study of the Markan Tradition
and Its Redaction by the Evangelist (FB 33; Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979).
31
A "Christology of power and/or glory" simply refers to a presentation of Jesus that
understands him as the Messiah primarily in terms of power and glory.
14 Chapter 1
Weeden then offers a historical setting that explains how this heresy to which
Mark is responding grew.
According to Weeden, the Markan community was eagerly awaiting the
coming Parousia. However, the delay of the Parousia in some ways had bro
ken their spirits. While Mark's community was in this vulnerable state, a
group of false teachers infiltrated it, proclaiming to be representatives of
Christ and promulgating a 0eiog avr^p Christology. They corroborate this
message with miracles and mighty deeds, and claim that their message goes
back to the disciples themselves. According to Weeden, these individuals
claim that "authentic Christian existence finds meaning and fulfillment, not
in the humiliation of suffering servanthood, but in the pneumatic glory of
32
0eiog avr^p existence."
After seeing many of the community members won over by this charis
matic message, Mark prepares his gospel as a response. He presents Jesus as
a suffering messiah who is only correctly understood in such light. He also
presents the way of suffering and servanthood as the true way of a disciple.
The Markan disciples (representative of Mark's opponents) clearly misunder
stand both of these truths (see the numerous examples of the disciples' failures
above) and are presented as failures. Through his gospel, Mark denounces the
validity of both the heretical teachers in his community and their heretical
message, while at the same time he raises up his own christological perspec
tive as superior.
In critiquing the "corrective christological" purpose of Mark, we will
begin by making a few observations specific to Weeden's theory, following
them with some general observations regarding "corrective Christology" as a
whole. Our starting point will be Weeden's claim that Mark contains a harsh
polemic against the twelve disciples. His observation that the disciples' failure
is a significant motif in Mark is accurate (as noted by Wrede and many other
33
interpreters). But does this motif of failure equal such a radical polemic?
Though the disciples fail in many ways throughout Mark, the gospel does not
present them in an exclusively negative light. For example, they are willing
to leave all they have and follow after Jesus (1:16-20; 2:13-14). Seemingly
this fact establishes them as exemplars of Mark's theme of costly discipleship
rather than antitheses to it. Jesus even affirms that the disciples' sacrifice will
be rewarded (10:28-31). He entrusts them with the mission of proclaiming
the gospel and of casting out demons (3:13-15; 6:6-13). The text even implies
that they were successful in these tasks. It is also likely that in the Markan
narrative, Jesus' comments about his true mother and brothers (3:31-35) have
the disciples in mind. All these positive presentations of the disciples stand as
strong evidence that Mark's motif of failing disciples is not a harsh polemic
Weeden, "Heresy," 155.

See discussion of the "messianic secret" and William Wrede on pages 9-12.
against heretical teachers. The disciples may in fact represent community
members who have failed or who are failing in their understanding of both
Christology and discipleship, but it seems misguided to understand them as
enemies of the evangelist.
With the dismantling of the polemic against the disciples, Weeden's recon
struction of Mark's Sitz im Leben also fails. But even if one accepts Weeden's
conclusion regarding the failure motif, Weeden's reconstruction is shaky at
best. The biggest problem for this reconstruction is that no historical evidence
exists to support it, leaving it as pure conjecture. Dieter Georgi has convinced
some that Paul was facing such proponents of a 0£iog avr^p Christology when
34
he wrote 2 Corinthians. However, even if Georgi is right (which is debat
35
able), these were opponents Paul faced in the 50s C.E. Mark was written
fifteen to twenty years later (with Weeden placing it thirty years later), and
we have no evidence that such a group existed at that time. The size, nature,
and exact identity of these Corinthian opponents are completely unknown. To
translate this group of opponents into Mark's community is adding specula
tion on top of conjecture. In light of this, Weeden's reconstruction is nothing
more than a shot in the dark with virtually no evidence to support it. While
his theory has convinced few, it still remains a definitive statement in the his
tory of Markan interpretation.
What then might be said in critique of the view that Mark was written as
a "corrective Christology?" Certainly many proponents of the theory are not
as radical as Weeden. Any critique, however, should begin with an evalua
tion of the concept of the Seiog avrjp. More recent studies have made a great
deal of progress in showing that this entire concept lacks definition in the
ancient world, causing many interpreters to doubt its value for understanding
Mark's Christology. Wulfing von Martitz has demonstrated that the term was
36
relatively rare in ancient Greek. He also notes that it was never a "technical
37
term" or "fixed expression" in the pre-Christian world. Also noteworthy is
38
Carl Holladay's study of Geiog avnp. He analyzes primarily Jewish-Hel-
34
Georgi, Opponents of Paul.
35
For critiques of Georgi, see the following works: Jerry Sumney, "The Role of Histori
cal Constructions of Early Christianity in Identifying Paul's Opponents," PRSt 16 (1989):
45-53; Thomas Tobin, "The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians," CBQ 50 (1988): 317-19;
C. J. A. Hickling, "Is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians a Source for Early Church His
tory?" ZNW 66 (1975): 284-87; C. K. Barrett, "Paul's Opponents in II Corinthians," NTS 17
(1971): 233-54.
36
Wulfing von Martitz, "uiog" TDNT8(\912): 338-40.
37
Martitz, "utog," 339.
38
Carl Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Cat
egory in New Testament Christology (SBLDS 40; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); also see
Otto Betz, "The Concept of the So-Called 'Divine-Man' in Mark's Christology" in Studies
in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen Wikgren (ed. D.
E. Aune; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 229-40.
16 Chapter 1
lenistic literature and draws conclusions similar to those of von Martitz. The
term again seems to have no real fixed meaning. It could mean an "inspired
39
man," an "extraordinary man," or a "man related to God." The lack of a defi
nite meaning for 0eiog avrjp in both the Hellenistic and Jewish-Hellenistic
world must cause us to be cautious in affirming it as a crucial element either
in the pre-Markan tradition or in some ambiguous heretical teaching. It is also
important to note that the connection between 0eiog avrjp and the concept
of or title "Son of God" is highly uncertain, undermining the common bridge
40
interpreters use for getting from 0eiog avrjp to the Gospel of Mark.
Simply undermining the concept of 0eiog avrjp does not undermine the
possibility of seeing two competing Christologies in Mark. What has been
identified as 0eiog avr^p Christology could simply be referred to as a Chris
tology of glory or power in Mark. The removal of the 0eiog avrjp concept
does not eliminate the possibility of competing Christologies. But does Mark
present two competing Christologies: a Christology of the cross against a
Christology of power or of Son of Man against Son of God? The problem with
such theories is that Mark seems to strongly affirm a Christology of power
and Jesus' identity as Son of God. In fact, the entire first half of Mark's gos
pel presents a dominant Christology of glory and power. Jesus receives the
Spirit of God, heals the sick, forgives sin, casts out demons, raises the dead,
proclaims the "good news" with authority, both calms the sea and walks on
it, and twice multiplies bread and fish. Never are these deeds belittled or
considered insignificant. Rather, even when there is an attempt to conceal
them through secrecy, they cannot be concealed! There is virtually no "cross
Christology" that combats or mitigates this Christology of power (mentioning
John's arrest [1:14], the blasphemy charges [2:6-7], and the departing bride
groom [2:19-20] hardly turn the christological tide).
It also cannot be contested that the Christology of glory ends after Peter's
confession. The confession is followed by the transfiguration, the healing of
the boy with an evil spirit, the authoritative teachings, the healing of blind
Bartimaeus, the triumphal entry, the cursing and withering of the fig tree, the
judgment of the temple, the outwitting of the religious leaders, and the predic
tion of both the end of the world and the temple. All of these examples bear
more witness to a Christology of power than to a Christology of the cross.
And what about the elements of a "cross Christology"? Certainly in the
second half of Mark's gospel there appear references to Jesus' impending suf
fering and death, i.e., the passion predictions (8:31; 9:30-31; 10:32-34); talk
of suffering discipleship (8:34-38); the parable of the wicked tenants (12:1-
12); Jesus' ominous response to James and John (10:35-45); and, of course,
the passion narrative itself (Mark 14-15). But do these comparatively few
39
Holladay, "Theios Aner," 237.
4 0
In particular, see Norman Perrin's attempt to make this connection in "Christology of
Mark," 104-21.
elements serve to correct the "Christology of power and glory"? They do not
seem to have the power to make such a thematic shift in the narrative, nor is
there any direct evidence in the text that Mark intends for them to effect such
a shift. In fact, Robert Gundry has argued fhat Mark overwhelmingly presents
41
a Christology of glory rather than a Christology of the cross. Gundry argues
that even Jesus' prediction of his death and resurrection serve a Christology
of power because in the Greco-Roman world, the ability to predict one's own
42
death (or anything for that matter) was recognized as an extraordinary feat.
The slight evidence often used to argue that Mark is correcting a Christol
ogy of power hardly seems to be enough to turn the tide towards an exclu
sive Christology of the cross. Yes, Jesus rebukes Peter for not accepting the
impending cross, but is this really Mark's attempt to undermine the Christol
ogy of power that runs through his gospel? Might it simply be another exam
ple of the disciples' failure or possibly even a historical recollection? How
specifically do the passion predictions undermine the Christology of power?
If Mark is attempting to correct a misguided Christology of power, it seems
he does quite a poor job of it. The casual reader (or hearer) would likely miss
it all together.
It also seems unlikely that Mark is pitting "Son of Man" against "Son of
God." The concept or title of "Son of God" finds itself in three crucial places
in Mark's gospel, the beginning (1:1, 11), the middle (9:7), and end (14:61-62;
15:39). In two of these occurrences, it is God who proclaims Jesus to be his
son! This evidence indicates that "Son of God" is a title that is significant to
Mark's Christology, rather than one that he is attempting to replace with "Son
of Man."
There seem to be significant reasons for rejecting the traditional expression
of a "corrective christological" purpose of Mark's gospel. For the most part,
interpreters have abandoned such a position and instead are working to see
Mark's Christology as a unity. Many valuable works have been written on the
nature of Markan Christology, and it may be fair to say that the majority of
interpreters see Christology as Mark's central and overarching theme. How
ever, many of these interpreters fail to do one thing that the proposals of a
"corrective Christology" accomplished - namely, they fail to present us with a
reason why Mark has given us this Christology. What was Mark's motivation
or impetus for presenting this particular Christological perspective? If Mark's
purpose is christological, then it seems likely that it was intended to convince
the reader or listener of its position. This would then imply that at least some
41
Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerd
mans, 1993), esp. 1-26.
42
Gundry, Apology, 425-40. For further discussion on Mark's positive presentation of
rniracles, see Edwin K. Broadhead, Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in
the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 74; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). In our third
chapter, we will offer an expanded discussion Mark's christological perspective.
18 Chapter 1
of Mark's audience is of a different opinion (or possibly of no opinion). In

this sense, it seems that if Mark's purpose is christological (which we have
not yet established), then it is essentially a "corrective Christology" because
it desires to change or sway the christological position of its audience. Such
a "corrective" element does appear in the text. Jesus warns his disciples, say
ing "many will come in my name saying 'I am he!' and they will lead many
astray" (13:6). These are "false Christs and false prophets" who will produce
"signs and omens" and "lead away, if possible, the elect" (13:21-22). These
43
words likely reflect a situation that the Markan community currently faces.
That Mark's disciples consistently fail in their understanding of Jesus' iden
tity may also reflect the lack of appropriate christological understanding in
Mark's community - an understanding the evangelist intends to correct.
Therefore, though we have closed the door on the traditional position of
"corrective Christology," i.e., that two competing Christologies exist within
Mark's own gospel, the door still remains open for us to offer new theories
regarding the corrective nature of Mark's Christology. These theories would
have to look outside of Mark for possible Christological positions to which he
might be responding. This conclusion, however, is dependent on a demonstra
tion that Mark's purpose is in fact christological.
Christological Purpose
With the waning of the view that Mark's Christology is corrective, a great
deal of new studies has been done concerning Markan Christology. Some
have highlighted elements of Mark that portray Jesus as the royal or kingly
messianic figure, an understanding shaped by Davidic ideology of the Old
44
Testament and Second Temple literature. Priestly dimensions of Mark's
45
Christology have also been examined. Perhaps the most popular view is
that Mark understands Jesus as Messiah (even a Davidic one) but Messiah
46
specifically in terms of "Son of God." As noted above, this designation
43
For a similar conclusion, see Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Intro
duction and Commentary, (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 78-79.
4 4
For examples, see: J. D. Kingsbury, Christology; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of
Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); F. J. Matera, The King
ship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark (SBLDS 66; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1982);
Hans-Jorg Steichele, Der leidende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher
Motive in der Christologie des Markusevangeliums (Biblische Untersuchungen 14; Regensburg:
Friedrich Pustet, 1980); see also Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of
the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: WJK, 1992), who sees both continuity and
discontinuity between Mark's understanding of messianic kingship and that found in the Second
Temple period.
45
Edwin K. Broadhead, "Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait
of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark," JSNTA1 (1992): 21-34.
4 6
J. D. Kingsbury, Christology; Steichele, Der leidende Sohn Gottes; Robert Rowe,
God's Kingdom and God's Son (Leiden: Brill, 2002); W. R. Telford, The Theology of the
occurs at pivotal points throughout Mark's text. Regardless of their par
ticular understanding of Markan Christology (not all of which are mutually
exclusive), many of these interpreters would agree that promoting Christol
ogy is the primary purpose that is driving the evangelist. Much evidence
supports this claim. The gospel begins with a definitive statement concern
ing Jesus' identity, one that many understand to be programmatic: "The
47
beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1). Mark
closes his prologue (1:1-13) with a divine affirmation of Jesus' identity: "You
48
are my son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased." Throughout the Mar
kan narrative, the question of Jesus' identity continually arises (1:27-28;
2:7; 4:35; 6:2-3). There are two references to ongoing debates about Jesus'
identity among the people (6:14-16; 8:27-30). In the middle of the narrative
- what many have assessed to be the watershed moment in Mark - Jesus
asks his disciples who people say that he is, to which Peter answers that
Jesus is the Messiah (8:27-30). Throughout the narrative, Jesus' identity
is revealed either by God (9:7) or by demons (1:24-26; 1:34; 3:11-12; 5:7),
but repeatedly Jesus himself tries to conceal it (with the exception of 5:7,
which occurs in isolation from people). Even after Peter's confession, Jesus
commands his disciples not to tell anyone. That Mark has created this motif
of secrecy around Jesus' identity is an indicator that Jesus' identity is of
central importance to the evangelist (though as we have noted, the secrecy
motif is not itself the primary purpose of the gospel, but rather is ancillary).
Even at Jesus' trial, the question of his identity arises when the high priest
asks him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" (14:61). At
Jesus' death, the answer to the question of Jesus' identity is provided by the
least likely of characters, when a Roman centurion proclaims, "Truly this
man was Son of God!" (15:39). This evidence clearly suggests Christology
as a theme of great importance to Mark's gospel and possibly a theme that
49
is central to Mark's overall purpose.
1.3.2 Eschatology
While Christology seems to be a dominant theme in Mark, some interpreters
have posited that Mark's overall purpose was actually driven by eschatology.
Gospel of Mark (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); C. A. Evans, Mark
8:27 - 16:20 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), lxxix-lxxx; Larry Hurtado, Mark
(NIBCNT 2; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 10-11.
47
Textual issues surrounding "Son of God" will be addressed thoroughly in later chap
ters. However, for our purposes, even if "Son of God" is not original to the text, the state
ment remains heavily christological.
48
All biblical citations will be taken from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
49
Regarding the centrality of Jesus' identity to Mark's gospel see, Ohajuobodo I. Oko,
''Who then is this?" A Narrative Study of the Role of the Question of the Identity of Jesus in
the Plot of Mark's Gospel (BBB 148; Berlin: Philo, 2004).
20 Chapter 1
Here we will examine two such theories: those of Willi Marxsen and Werner
Kelber.
Willi Marxsen
Marxsen's work is of tremendous importance in the history of Markan inter
50
pretation. Marxsen was one of the first interpreters to apply the tools of
51
redaction criticism to Mark. He rejected the form-critical notion that the
evangelist was simply an impartial collector of tradition. Marxsen argued that
Mark had a theological purpose and that this could be seen in the unique way
he arranged and edited his material. Marxsen's work forever changed Markan
interpretation and resurrected the question of a Markan purpose from the
graveyard of form criticism.
Based on his analysis of Markan redaction, Marxsen tried to reconstruct
the Sitz im Leben within which Mark wrote his gospel. He places great sig
nificance on Mark's geography and claims that the Markan juxtaposition of
Galilee and Jerusalem was not merely historical but reflected the setting in
52
which Mark wrote. Mark's favorable presentation of Galilee as the place of
success for Jesus' ministry is taken as evidence of a Galilean community of
which Mark was a part. Marxsen dates Mark during the tumultuous times
of the Jewish revolt, between 67 and 69 C.E. He refers to an oracle, cited by
Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.5.3.), that called for all Christians to flee the danger
53
of Jerusalem and go to Pella. According to Marxsen, Mark's purpose for
writing his gospel is similar to that of the oracle itself. The gospel serves as
an urgent warning for Jerusalem Christians to flee to Pella (which Marxsen
locates in Galilee). Mark 13 serves the purpose of calming apocalyptic excite
ment brought about by the beginning of the war. Such excitement is not yet
warranted because Christians will see the Parousia in Galilee and not in Jeru
salem. Marxsen sees verse 16:7 corresponding with this setting, and claims
that the angel's words, "he is going ahead of you to Galilee, there you will see
him, just as he told you," speaks of the Parousia rather than of the resurrected
50
Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (trans. James Boyce, et al; Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1969).
51
A few years prior to Marxsen's work, H. Riesenfeld produced a work with results
that were quite similar, though Riesenfeld's work had a far smaller impact on New Testa
ment studies. See Riesenfeld, "Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium" in Neutes-
tamentliche Studien fur Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20. August
1954 (ed. Walther Eltester; Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1954), 157-64.
52
Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 102-10. The significance Marxsen places on Galilee
and Judea/Jerusalem is reminiscent of the work of Ernst Lohmeyer (Das Evangelium des
th
Markus [15 ed.; KEK; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959], esp. 29; Galilaa und
Jerusalem [FRLANT 52; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936]) and R. H. Lightfoot
(Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels [New York: Harper & Bros., 1938]).
53
Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 107.
54
Jesus. Therefore, Mark is writing to reorient eschatological expectations
from centering on Jerusalem to centering on Galilee.
While Marxsen's methodology has found a home in the New Testament
55
guild, his conclusions regarding Mark's purpose for writing his gospel have
not. In fact, Marxsen's conclusions have found a good deal of criticism. We
will take Marxsen's dependence on Eusebius' testimony as a starting point
for our critique. Marxsen stakes a great deal on the historical reliability of
56
this testimony, though such reliability has been seriously challenged. That
the tradition does not appear until the early fourth century and its absence in
Josephus' writings certainly raises suspicion. If there was no such exodus of
Jerusalem Christians, nor an oracle commanding one, Marxsen's theory is
significantly weakened. Marxsen's placement of Pella in Galilee is certainly
convenient for his theory, but it also lacks supporting evidence. Such a com
munity in Galilee in the 60s is completely unknown and, therefore, purely
speculative.
Marxsen's interpretation of Mark 14:28 and 16:7 as references to the parousia
rather than to post-resurrection appearances is also highly suspect, and it has
gained little support from fellow interpreters. Mark clearly seems to distin
guish between the resurrected Jesus and the Jesus of the Parousia. The resur
rection is to take place three days after Jesus' death (8:31; 9:30; 10:34), while
the Parousia is to occur sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and is to be
accompanied by apocalyptic signs. The absence of resurrection appearances in
Mark is not adequate to overturn evidence elsewhere that Mark expected such
appearances. As many have argued, it is quite possible that Mark included res
57
urrection appearances but that they have been lost. Certainly 14:28 and 16:7
are best understood by the reader as referring to the disciples seeing the resur
rected Jesus rather than the apocalyptic "Son of Man" who comes in the clouds
(descending from the heavens). It makes much more sense in the narrative for
the disciples to wait three days in Galilee for the resurrected Jesus than to have
them wait for thirty years for the Parousia.
Perhaps Hans Conzelmann's critique of Marxsen is the most powerful. He
notes that it is quite "improbable that anyone who saw the catastrophe [Jerusa
lem's destruction] on the way would calmly write a book to prompt immediate
54
Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 75-94.
55
It must be noted that redaction criticism's usefulness as a tool for interpreting Mark
has been rightfully critiqued. For such a critique, see Black, "Quest of the Markan Redac
tor," 19-39; idem, Markan Redaction in Current Debate.
56
S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London: S. P. C. K.,
1951), esp. 168-73, 263-64; G. Strecker, "Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktion-
sgeschichte des Evangeliums," ZKG 72 (1961): 145; W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and
Josephus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 128 n. 2. Defense of the position
is offered by S. Sowers, "The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight," TZ 26.5
(1970): 305-20.
57
For a persuasive argument for a lost ending to Mark see Gundry, Apology, 1009-12.
22 Chapter I
58
flight." A full gospel of Jesus' life does not seem to be the most apt response
to the situation that Marxsen proposes. A similar critique can also be levied.
If Mark's Gospel is written with the primary purpose of shifting eschatologi
cal orientation, what purpose does the large amount of Mark's content that is
unrelated to the eschatology serve? That is, why should Mark include material
that focuses on Christology or discipleship? It seems odd to conclude that a
theme which is relatively minor in regard to content could trump in importance
59
themes which occupy a major portion of the gospel.
In conclusion, Marxsen's proposal regarding Mark's purpose for writing
proves not to be tenable. It is built on historical speculation and conjecture,
depends on faulty exegesis of the Markan text, and fails to give deference to
the more significant themes in Mark's gospel.
Werner Kelber
Like Marxsen, Kelber situates Mark in the setting of the Jewish revolt. How
ever, unlike Marxsen, Kelber places Mark after the destruction of Jerusalem
60
rather than before it. He envisions a setting in which, prior to the destruc
tion, the Jerusalem church has high eschatological expectations, because of
the claims of false prophets (cf. Marxsen's claim above). However, after the
destruction, they are left disillusioned and hopeless when the kingdom of God
is not consummated.
According to Kelber, Mark then crafts his gospel in the wake of the escha
tological crisis of the Jerusalem church. He creates a polemical document that
lifts up Galilean Christianity and denounces Jerusalem Christianity. Central
to this polemic is the issue of eschatology. As Weeden saw the Markan pur
pose as correcting a false Christology, Kelber sees Mark's primary purpose
as correcting a false eschatology (cf. Marxsen above). According to Kelber,
Mark is arguing that the Parousia was never supposed to take place in Jerusa
lem but in Galilee (cf. Marxsen above).
Mark accomplishes this polemic by juxtaposing Galilee and Jerusalem
(cf. Marxsen, Lohmeyer, and Lightfoot). Mark's Galilee represents Mark's
community: a community that affirms the way of the cross, champions suf
fering discipleship, and advances the Gentile mission. Jerusalem represents
the Jerusalem church: a community that is associated with Peter and the rest
58
H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM
Press, 1969), 144.
59
Later Marxsen attempts to alleviate this problem and argues that Mark writes for the
purpose of preserving the preaching of Christ or the kerygma (Introduction to the New
Testament: An Approach to its Problems [trans. G. Buswell; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1968], esp. 134-45). However, this does not replace his earlier position but only serves to
supplement it.
60
Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1974).
of the twelve, as well as Jesus' family. This community opposes the Gentile
mission and holds fast to their Jewish way of life (by fasting, keeping the
61
Sabbath, adhering to purity laws, etc.). Jerusalem is portrayed in a negative
light, as are Peter, the twelve and Jesus' family (individuals closely connected
to the Jerusalem Church). Galilee, on the other hand, is portrayed in a positive
light, as the place where the kingdom of God will be consummated (1:14-15).
Kelber sees Mark accomplishing two things through this polemic. First, Mark
62
redefines his own community as one that is both Jewish and Gentile. Second,
he invites those survivors of the Jerusalem church to join the movement of
Jesus in Galilee and await the coming Parousia (and the kingdom that comes
63
with it) there, in a "new time and a new place."
Kelber's interpretation alleviates some of the problems that plagued Marx
sen's. By placing Mark after the destruction of the temple, he removes any
64
need for the exodus to Pella. He also removes the urgency of Marxsen's posi
tion, making the writing of a "gospel" a more reasonable response to the prob
lem Mark is facing. Kelber also better incorporates various Markan themes
into his overall explanation of Mark's purpose. However, it is still odd that
what takes up such a small portion of Mark's content - eschatology - could
actually function as central to his overall purpose.
While Kelber alleviates some of Marxsen's difficulties, his work maintains
many of them and also has a number of its own. Like Marxsen, he assumes
a great deal about the Galilean community in the first century, about which
we know very little. He also maintains Marxsen's understanding of 14:28 and
16:7 as proclamations that the Parousia is to take place in Galilee. In fact,
Kelber adds Mark 1:14-15 as further evidence of Galilee as the place where
the kingdom of God is to be established. That these verses intend to proclaim
the final establishment of God's kingdom in Galilee rather than the beginning
of this kingdom is highly unlikely. These verses more likely express two his
torical realities: (1) that Jesus began his ministry in Galilee and (2) that Jesus'
message was a proclamation of the kingdom of God. There is no indication
61
In a later work, which has garnered a great deal of attention, The Oral and Written
Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), Kelber adds a new distinctive feature between
the Galilean and Jerusalem communities. The Jerusalem community is one of "orality" or
one that is dependent on oral tradition. Mark seeks to end this oral tradition by replacing
it with a written tradition, his own gospel. For a critique of this unique aspect of Kelber's
theory, see John Halverson, "Oral and Written Gospel: A Critique of Werner Kelber," NTS
40 (1994): 180-195; Larry Hurtado, "Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark:
A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelber's The Oral and Written Gospel," BBR 1 (1997):
91-106; Thomas E. Boomershine, "Peter's Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implica
tions of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics," Semeia 39 (1987): 47-68.
62
Kelber, New Time and New Place, 131.
63
Kelber, New Time and New Place, 132
64
In fact, as Kelber notes, it is essential to his position that not all the Jerusalem Church
left in an exodus to Pella (New Time and New Place, 134).
24 Chapter I
in the text that Mark is blending these two realities to make the claim that
the kingdom of God will finally be established in Galilee. Kelber gives these
verses more meaning than the evidence allows them to hold.
Kelber also makes the same mistake that Weeden made by understanding
the motif of the disciples' failure as a polemic against them (or who/what
they represent). As we have previously demonstrated, the disciples are not
portrayed in a completely negative light, which makes the argument for a
vehement polemic against them untenable.
It also must be noted that Mark does not always paint Galilee in a posi
tive light: Jesus is rejected by his own people in Nazareth (6:1-6); scribes in
Capernaum accuse him of blasphemy (2:1-12); and Pharisees and Herodians
(presumably in Galilee) seek to conspire to "destroy him" as a result of his
performance of miracles on the Sabbath (3:1-6). While Jesus does enjoy a
great deal of success in Galilee, he encounters trouble as well, trouble which
works against the idealization of Galilee.
After reviewing these theories of Marxsen and Kelber, theories which link
Mark's overall purpose to eschatology, we find that both are problematic.
Though Mark 13 makes us aware that Mark had an eye on eschatology, we
conclude that eschatology is not the driving force behind his gospel. Therefore,
it fails to satisfy us as a way to understand his overall purpose for writing.
1.4 Pastoral Purpose
Throughout the history of Markan interpretation, many have seen Mark as

a pastoral tract that focuses more on correct "praxis" (discipleship) than on
correct "belief (theology). Such theories have been expressed in many dif
ferent ways. Some have suggested that Mark is a catechetical document, in
which the catechumen's journey/experience is paralleled with the life of Jesus
65
(though few have found this position convincing). Others have seen Mark as
a pedagogical document whose purpose is to shape discipleship. It is argued
that Mark is not written to provide a history of Jesus, but it is the life of Jesus
told in such a way as to address the faults, failings, and struggles of dis
66
ciples in Mark's community. Many of these interpreters see Mark writing in
65
G. Schille, "Bemerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums: Rahmen und Aufbau
des Markus-Evangelium," NTS 4 (1957-1958): 1-24. Another position that is worth noting
is that of M. P. Carrington, who argues that the organization of Mark is based upon the
lectionaries read in the Jewish synagogue, which the early church had adopted. See Car
rington, The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Markan Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952); idem, "The Calendrical Hypothesis of the
Origin of Mark," ExpTim 67 (1956): 100-103.
66
K. G. Reploh, Markus, Lehrer der Gemeinde: eine redaktiongeschichtliche Studie
zu den Jungerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums (SBM 9; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1969); Quentin Quesnell, The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through
response to suffering or persecution which his community has faced, is fac
67
ing, or soon will face. Mark, therefore, constructs a life of Jesus to address
proper discipleship in light of these circumstances. He offers a portrait of true
discipleship that entails, among other things, being with Jesus, the renuncia
tion of earthly possessions (6:7-9), bold proclamation of the Kingdom mes
sage (1:16-20; 6:10-13; 10:17-31), the renunciation of family ties (3:31-35;
10:28-31), and willingness to endure suffering and even death for Jesus and
his kingdom (8:31 - 9:1; 10:35-45; 13:9-12). Often Jesus is seen as the exem
plar of this discipleship. True discipleship is to follow the way of Jesus, which
is the way of the cross. The frequent failure of Mark's disciples has been per
ceived to advance this purpose. It is seen functioning as an encouragement
to failed disciples and/or as a warning against spiritual blindness and future
68
failure. For proponents of a pastoral purpose, the evangelist writes in order
to offer a paradigm of true discipleship, encouragement to failed or strug
gling disciples, and warning to any who might take seriously enough the call
of discipleship.
the Exegesis of Mark 6,52 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969); J. R. Donahue, Are You
the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 10; Missoula: SBL, 1973);
idem, The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (1983 Pere Marquette
Theology Lecture; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983); Robert Meye, Jesus and
the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in Mark's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968);
H. C. Kee, Community of the New Age (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977); E. Best,
Disciples and Discipleship (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986); idem, Following Jesus: Dis
cipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981);
Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradi
tion (trans. Linda Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 281-287; idem, "Evangelien-
schreibung und Gemeindeleitung: Pragmatische Motive bei der Abfassung des Markusevan
geliums" in Antikes Judentum undfruhes Christentum FS H. Stegemann (ed. B. Kollman, et
al.; BZNW 97; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 389-414; Etienne Trocme, The Formation of the
Gospel According to Mark (trans. Pamela Gaughan; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975),
107-37; M. E. Boring, "The Christology of Mark: Hermeneutical Issues for Systematic The
ology," Semeia 30 (1984): 143-44; K. Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhaltnis
zwischen Jesus und den Zwolf nach Markus (AnBib 70; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1975); R. C. Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role" in The
Interpretation of Mark (ed. Mark Telford; IRT 7; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 134-57;
William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),
12-17; D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark (New York: Seabury Press, 1968), esp. 32-33.
Nineham does not see discipleship as Mark's only purpose but rather as one of a handful.
67
The location of this community usually varies between one of three options: Rome,
Syria, or Galilee. However, for our discussion, the exact location of the persecuted com
munity is unimportant. The question of locating Mark's community might challenge the
specific details of some of these theories, but it does not challenge their basic assumption
of discipleship as Mark's primary purpose. For interpreters who see persecution as a back
drop to Mark's pastoral purpose, see Donahue, Theology and Setting; Kee, Community of
the New Age; Best, Disciples and Discipleship and Following Jesus; Theissen, Gospels in
Context; and Lane, According to Mark.
68
See Best, Following Jesus, 13-14.
26 Chapter 1
The work of these interpreters has undoubtedly offered us valuable insights

into Mark's understanding of discipleship and the importance of this theme
within his gospel. However, there are significant reasons to doubt that Mark's
primary purpose for writing was to shape discipleship or to offer pastoral
instruction. First, it does not seem that the topic of discipleship is able to
account for a significant portion of Mark's content. Here we will use Mark's
christological program as an example. Those who advance a pastoral purpose
for Mark's writing often suggest a connection between Mark's "cross Chris
tology" and the theme of discipleship. Jesus serves as an example of true
discipleship, and any true disciple must follow the way of Jesus. In this way,
Mark's Christology can be shown to serve the purpose of shaping disciple
ship. But as we demonstrated earlier, Mark's "cross Christology" is only one
component of Mark's christological program. In fact, if we simply look at
Markan content, it seems that the "cross Christology" is heavily outweighed
by a Christology of power. If a message of radical discipleship is Mark's
primary purpose, then how is it able to explain this dominant Christology of
power?
Theissen has tried to solve this problem by means of a "miracle as secret"
69
motif. According to Theissen, the "miracle as secret" serves to soften a
Christology of glory in order to advance a discipleship of suffering. Because
Mark's purpose is to communicate a discipleship of suffering and the way of
the cross, Mark must in someway soften the powerful deeds of Jesus. Theis
sen states, "Here Jesus is the successful wonderworker. He puts an end to suf
fering; he does not lead people into it By means of the secrecy motif, the
evangelist probably wants to apply a certain corrective to the popular view
70
(namely Jesus as wonder worker)." Here we have something reminiscent of
"corrective Christology." However, instead of trying to replace a false Chris
tological perspective with a new one, Mark is balancing an otherwise accurate
71
view of Christology in order to advance his program of discipleship. But as
noted above, the notion that Mark feels the need to balance, soften, or in
some way correct a Christology of glory is misguided. This theory proposes
that Mark has kept in his gospel (which is written in order to communicate a
discipleship of suffering and the cross) an exorbitant amount of traditions that
communicate a Christology of glory (which Theissen admits works against
Mark's themes of suffering discipleship). After recognizing this, Mark cre
ates a motif of secrecy concerning miracles which he sprinkles throughout his
gospel in order to advance his primary message of discipleship. If this is what
Mark has done, he has done so in a haphazard and careless way. The motif
of miracle secrecy does not accompany all of Jesus' mighty works. In fact,
Theissen, Gospels in Context, 282-83.

Theissen, Gospels in Context, 283.
Theissen, Gospels in Context, 283.
instead of a motif of secrecy surrounding Jesus' miracles, at times we find
one of revelation. In many miracle pericopes, the attempt at secrecy is violated
and revelation is the result! Theissen's theory concerning the "miracle secret"
seems inadequate. Moreover, the miracle secret seems to be explained best
by the exact opposite of Theissen's proposal. Instead of softening a Christol
ogy of glory, the miracle secret serves as a foil to highlight it. Jesus' deeds
are so powerful that despite his best attempt to conceal them, he is unable to
72
do so.
If Theissen's theory were correct, it seems that Mark went through an
incredibly complicated process to construct a pastoral tract for discipleship,
which raises the second critique of a discipleship shaping purpose of Mark's
gospel. If Mark felt his community had an inadequate view of discipleship,
why did he choose the medium of a "gospel" to correct this view? Such a
medium seems like an indirect way to accomplish his goal. Would not a let
ter, such as we find in the Pauline corpus, or a homily, such as we find in
Hebrews, more effectively accomplish this task? By writing a gospel, which
on the surface appears primarily to be about Jesus, the author seriously risked
that his readers might miss his intended purpose. If Mark felt that this mes
sage was crucial for his audience, would he not safeguard it in a medium they
would clearly understand?
The third observation relates to the second. On the surface, Mark certainly
seems to be about the person and work of Jesus and not directly about disciple
ship. The book opens with a statement indicating that it is the "beginning of
the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God" (1:1). In virtually every pericope,
Jesus is either the one doing or receiving the action of the story; and, when he
is not, he is often commenting on the action being done. The narrative follows
his life from the opening of his ministry to his death and resurrection. The
simplest explanation for this evidence is that Mark is writing for the purpose
of communicating something about Jesus not just about being a disciple of
Jesus.
Certainly discipleship is an important theme of Mark's gospel, but it does
not seem to be Mark's primary purpose in writing. It fails to account for other
dominant motifs in Mark. Also, a "gospel" about the life of Jesus does not
seem to be the best medium for someone who is trying to address the issue
of true discipleship. The much simpler conclusion is that Mark's purpose has
something to do with the person of Jesus. The motif of discipleship is best
understood as a secondary theme, albeit, a theme that any theory regarding
Mark's purpose must account for.
72
Cf. Luz, "The Secrecy Motif" and Ebeling, Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft.
28 Chapter 1
1.5 Evangelistic Purpose: Robert H. Gundry
Up to this point, all the theories we have encountered regarding Mark's pur
pose have worked under the premise (and not without reason) that Mark
wrote for a Christian audience. However, Robert Gundry has challenged this
position, arguing that Mark wrote for an entirely pagan audience and had an
evangelistic purpose. For Gundry, the gospel of Mark's sole purpose is to
present an apology for the cross to a Greco-Roman audience who abhored
73
weakness and praised strength. Because of the shame attached to crucifix
ion, a crucified messiah would be highly unattractive to the Greco-Roman
world. Therefore, according to Gundry, Mark presents Jesus as a supremely
powerful being through his magnetism, his authoritative teaching, his mirac
ulous deeds, his ability to predict the future, and even his death in which he
74
demonstrates great dignity and strength. Mark's hope is that through this
presentation of Jesus, he will be able to overcome the barrier of the cross that
stands between a Gentile world and the Christian faith.
Gundry's work is distinct from contemporary Markan interpretation in
two important areas: his view of Christology and his view of discipleship.
He acknowledges that in Mark two seemingly competing christological per
spectives exist: one that focuses on glory and one that focuses on the cross.
However, contrary to the majority of interpreters, Gundry gives pride of place
75
to the motif of glory, forcing the cross to be explained in light of glory. In
rejecting a Christian audience for Mark, Gundry basically does away with
the motif of discipleship as a Markan purpose. Any perceived teaching on
discipleship is not for members of Mark's community, but rather is for non-
members. He seeks to make them aware of what lies ahead for those who
choose to convert.
Gundry's presentation of Mark's Christology has some validity. As dis
cussed above, a Christology of glory is of major importance for the evange
list. When we analyze the content of Mark, material depicting a Christology
of glory greatly outweighs material depicting a Christology of the cross.
However, even though a Christology of glory is central to Gundry's overall
argument, it does not directly determine whether Mark wrote with an evan
gelistic purpose. In other words, even if we show that Mark's primary chris
tological program is one to establish the glory of Christ, we have not shown
that Mark wrote for a non-Christian audience. A Christology of glory could
just as easily serve the church as those outside the church. Therefore, we will
leave the question of Christology for now (though it will become important in
73
Gundry, Apology, 1, 1019, 1026.
74
Gundry, Apology, 5-15.
75
In this sense, Gundry is similar to Wrede and Bultmann in their affirmation of a
"divine-man" Christology in Mark, though Gundry does not use the "divine-man" concept
specifically.
the following chapters) and focus on the implications Gundry's claim has for
the theme of discipleship and instruction for the Christian believer.
Gundry seems to be open to the greatest criticism on the question of dis
cipleship. There are a number of elements related to the theme of discipleship
whose presence seems better explained by an intended Christian audience
than a non-Christian one. The first of these is the motif of the disciples'
failure. For Gundry, this motif only serves as a foil to highlight the greatness
76
of Jesus' person and deeds. While the disciples' failure might serve to mag
nify Jesus' greatness, it also appears designed to say something to the dis
ciples in Mark's own community. As a foil, it can both highlight the greatness
of Jesus and warn against the spiritual blindness and failures of the Markan
community. Evidence that this motif serves the latter purpose is in the specific
nature of some of its elements. Rather than make general statements about
their failure to comprehend truth or about their lack of spiritual discernment,
Mark specifically critiques the disciples. The specific nature of some of these
comments leads us to conclude that they serve a purpose greater than simply
being foils for highlighting Jesus' greatness. One such example comes after
Jesus calms the sea (4:35-41). Here it is specifically the disciples' lack of faith
in the person of Jesus that is critiqued. Another example comes after Jesus
has walked on water (6:45-52). The narrator specifically ties the disciples'
failure to recognize Jesus' power (and presumably the identity of him who
wields it) to their hard-heartedness. To say that these critiques serve only to
highlight Jesus' mighty acts but do not at the same time make a demand for a
disciples' faith in Jesus, seems to be turning a blind eye to the obvious. That
those failing to understand Jesus are his disciples rather than non-believers
further leads us to conclude that Mark has the blindness of believers in mind
77
and not that of unbelievers. It seems that the motif of failing disciples, at
least at some level, serves as a corrective for failing disciples of Mark's com
munity. This conclusion weakens Gundry's position that Mark's purpose was
to compose a tract solely for non-believers.
We must also look at Mark's specific teaching on discipleship. In Mark
8:34-38, Jesus initiates rigorous requirements for discipleship, namely to deny
oneself and to take up one's cross. A true disciple must be willing to give up
his/her life for Jesus' sake. For Gundry, this passage is not intended for those
who are already followers of Jesus; i.e., it does not tell current followers how
to follow him better, but rather it tells non-followers how to start following
him. As evidence for this claim, Gundry notes the presence of the crowds
whom, along with the disciples, are also hearing this teaching. But it cannot
be ignored that the believing disciples are included in this group and that
Jesus' requirements are stated after Peter is rebuked for misunderstanding
76
Gundry, Apology, 11, 241, 504, 508.
77
See a similar critique by Joel F. Williams, "Is Mark's Gospel an Apology for the
Cross?" BBR 12.1 (2002): 109-110.
30 Chapter 1
Jesus' future suffering and death. Gundry downplays the connection between
this teaching on discipleship and the episode of Peter's rebuke because such a
78
link strongly indicates that the teaching is intended for misguided disciples.
But the narrative clearly makes such a link. Jesus rebukes Peter in front of the
disciples and then calls both those disciples and the crowds in order to instruct
them on the true nature of discipleship. The theme of suffering and death
that runs through these two episodes closely links them together. It seems
unnecessarily restrictive to suggest that Mark does not intend this teaching
for members of his community, but rather only to prepare potential converts
for what lies ahead of them. In addition, such a teaching would be perfectly
suited for believers who were experiencing or anticipating persecution.
The chapters that follow these verses, 9 and 10, contain explicit teach
ing regarding discipleship: the need for prayer in the exorcising of demons
(9:28-29), the need for a disciple to be the servant of all (9:33-37), the dangers
of sin (9:42-50), teaching on divorce (10:1-12), receiving the kingdom of God
as a child (10:13-16), possessions as an obstacle to salvation (10:17-27), and
rewards for faithful disciples (10:28-31). For Gundry, it is the authority of
these teachings that is important rather than their actual content: "The point
is not discipleship and communal life, but explosive force. Jesus teaches with
79
an authority that shatters norms." But why must Gundry exclude the pur
pose of discipleship from these passages? Clearly these teachings would have
value for the members of Mark's community (as they have had for the church
over the last two millennia), and it is odd to think that Mark did not intend for
such value to be found. It seems that because Gundry is committed to Mark as
a document for unbelievers, he is forced to explain away the obvious, namely,
that these teachings on discipleship and proper Christian living are intended
80
for a believing community.
Another piece of evidence that indicates that Mark is written for believers
is the warning regarding false messiahs and false prophets found in Mark 13.
These warnings appear to be directed to believers and likely speak to realities
that Mark's readers are actually facing at the time of Mark's composition. It is
difficult to imagine such warnings being directed toward unbelieving pagans
who have not yet accepted Jesus as the Messiah. If they had not yet accepted
Jesus as Messiah, what reference point would they have for recognizing false
messiahs? In the pluralist Greco-Roman world, would warnings concerning
false messiahs even raise an eyebrow? Gundry takes the whole of Mark 13 as
evidence for Jesus' predictive power, and it may in fact serve this role. How
ever, he fails to account for how some of the specific details of the discourse
(such as the warnings mentioned above) fit with his claim that Mark was writ
ten for non-believers.
78
79
Gundry, Apology, 516.
80
Again see William's similar critique, "An Apology for the Cross," 113.
We have demonstrated that there is much evidence to suggest that Mark's
intended audience was a believing Christian community. The dominant theme
of discipleship is hard to reconcile with the position that Mark wrote only
for non-believers. While Gundry may be right in his conclusions regarding
Christology (such conclusions will be examined in the following chapters)
and the awe that many parts of Mark might inspire among non-believers, he
is misguided in his conclusion that Mark was written for an exclusively non-
believing audience. Evangelism, therefore, is an inadequate explanation for
81
the purpose of Mark's gospel.
1.6 Socio-Political Purpose
Up to this point, all the theories we have examined have sought to understand
Mark's purpose in light of inter-church realities: the need to preserve the
historical traditions of Jesus, the need to overcome false or dangerous theo
logical ideas espoused by false teachers in the church, the need to encourage
struggling disciples, and the need to win over others to the faith of the church.
We will now examine those theories that see Mark's purpose originating out
side the church. These theories share the basic premise that Mark is writing
in response to social and/or political realities confronting the church. These
theories fall into two categories: (1) those proposing a defensive purpose, that
is, a purpose of defending the church from dangerous socio-political realities
it might face, and (2) those proposing a subversive purpose, that is, a purpose
seeking to subvert dangerous socio-political realities.
1.6.1 Defensive Purpose

Here we will examine the works of S. G. F. Brandon and Hendrika Roskam.
Both interpreters argue that Mark wrote his gospel in order to protect his
community from dangerous socio-political realities.
S. G. F. Brandon
In his work The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, Brandon exam
ines how the destruction of Jerusalem affected the church, and he devotes
82
one chapter to Mark's gospel. He locates the second gospel in Rome shortly
after the destruction of Jerusalem. Mark's catalyst for composing a gospel,
he argues, is the socio-political realities that the destruction of Jerusalem
brought about in Rome. Brandon claims that in the wake of the Jewish war
81
For a further critique on the whole of Gundry's commentary, see Williams, "An Apol
ogy for the Cross?" 97-122; Joel Marcus, review of Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commen
tary on His Apology for the Cross, JTS 45 (1994): 648-54; Rudolf Pesch, review of Robert
Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Bib 76 (1995): 107-15.
82
Brandon, Fall of Jerusalem, esp. 185-205.
32 Chapter 1
and the great triumph of Vespasian and Titus, anti-Semitic sentiments would
be running high in Rome. Because of their close association with Judaism,
Christians would certainly fear the repercussions of such sentiments. That
the founder of their movement was sentenced to death for treason against
Rome would not help matters. Against this backdrop, Mark has crafted his
gospel as an apology that seeks to distance the Christian movement from its
Jewish roots and present Jesus in a pro-Roman light. Brandon notes a num
ber of elements in Mark that seem to support such a historical situation. He
argues that Jesus' continued confrontation with and condemnation of Jewish
officials and religious leaders in Jerusalem is a polemic intended to distance
Jesus from those who were responsible for the Jewish revolt (3:21-30; 7:1-23;
11:12-33; 12:1-44; 14:43-65). Also he argues that Mark downplayed any con
nection between Jesus and nationalistic messianic aspirations of the Jews.
As evidence he offers Jesus' question to the scribes, "How can the scribes
say that the Messiah is the Son of David?" (12:35-37). Mark also seems to
elevate Galilee over Judea (see the discussion above on Marxsen and Kelber)
- another theme Brandon sees as separating Jesus from the seat of revolu
tion. Brandon portrays the question of paying tribute to Caesar (12:13-17)
as an attempt to paint Jesus in a pro-Roman light. In essence, Mark claims
that Jesus was never a dissident, but rather supported paying taxes to Caesar.
Finally, Brandon argues that Mark's passion narrative rejects the notion that
the Romans killed Jesus for sedition and instead places the blame for the
death of an innocent man on power hungry Jewish leaders.
Though some of this evidence supports Brandon's theory, some is tentative
at best. First, Brandon's claim that Mark separates Jesus from all national
ist/political messianic expectations is inconsistent with Mark 9:46-52, where,
when healing Bartimaeus, Jesus seems to accept the title "Son of David."
Likewise, during the "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem, Jesus accepts the
association with the "kingdom of our ancestor David" (11:1-11). Both of these
passages seem to affirm such political messianic expectations.
Brandon's claim that promoting Galilee over Judea serves to distance Jesus
from the bed of revolution is implausible, for Galilee was as much a part of
the revolution as Jerusalem! In fact, Josephus himself was a general of Jew
ish forces in Galilee. It is most unlikely that Mark's audience would associate
Galilee with peace over against Jerusalem as the seat of rebellion. Certainly
those whom Mark is trying to persuade would be aware that the whole of Pal
estine, and not simply Jerusalem, was involved in rebellion.
Though Jesus' response to the question regarding the payment of taxes
could be understood as pro-Roman, some interpreters have argued that it is
83
actually anti-Roman. If Mark was writing with the primary objective of
83
See Richard Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel
(Louisville: WJK, 2001), 36, 43; idem, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish
Resistance in Roman Palestine (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 306-17. However, the
presenting Jesus as pro-Roman, would he not make this pericope much less
ambiguous? This ambiguous passage, which has interpreters divided, can
not support a conclusion that the pericope was intended as a bastion of pro-
Roman sentiment.
Though some of Brandon's evidence supports his proposed historical situ
ation, important pieces of it do not. As will be discussed more below, Bran
don's theory also inadequately explains a number of Markan features, further
weakening his theory. We will discuss this critique after examining the sec
ond theory related to the notion that Mark writes his gospel as a defense.
H N. Roskam
Quite recently, Hendrika Roskam presented a theory for the purpose of
Mark's gospel similar to Brandon's in her work The Purpose of the Gospel
of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context.™ Like Brandon, Roskam dates
Mark's gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem. Unlike Brandon, Roskam
places Mark's publication in Galilee rather than Rome. According to her the
ory, Mark is writing to a community being persecuted or anticipating future
persecution. This persecution comes from both Jewish and Roman authorities
(13:9). Roskam argues that Jewish authorities often took it upon themselves
to punish those they believed might raise the ire of the Roman government.
Jewish authorities quickly addressed people who were a threat to public order
and at times directly handed them over to Roman authorities. According to
Roskam, this reality placed the Christians in Galilee in a dangerous position.
The Christian community easily could have been recognized as a subversive
and disruptive group. It had likely broken away from the Jewish synagogue,
and it followed the teachings of a man the Romans had crucified for sedi
tion. That Mark's community followed a person called "Christ" is a fact that
Romans might perceive as carrying dangerous nationalistic connotations.
Roskam claims that these facts about the Christian community would have
vast number of interpreters support Brandon's claim that this pericope promotes the pay
ment of taxes to Caesar and, therefore, could be considered pro-Roman. For example, see
J. D. M. Derrett, "Render to Caesar . . ." in Law in the New Testament (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1970), 313-38; F. F. Bruce, "Render to Caesar" in Jesus and the Politics
of His Day (ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984), 249-63; Evans, Mark, 240-248; Gundry, Apology, 694-95; R. T. France, The Gospel
of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 464-69; J. R. Donahue and Daniel J.
Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (vol. 2; SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002),
343-48; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (vol. 2; EKKNT; Zurich: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1979), 150ff; D. Luhrmann, Das Markusevangelium (Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1987). Its ambiguity, however, should keep us from placing significant weight upon
this pericope.
84
H. N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context
(NTS 114; Leiden: Brill, 2004).
34 Chapter 1
been enough to cause the Jewish authorities to suppress this community and
possibly hand its members over to the Romans.
Again according to Roskam's theory, it is in response to this dangerous
situation that Mark crafts his gospel. She acknowledges that Mark does main
tain many of the christological titles from the pre-Markan tradition, i.e., "Son
of God," "Son of Man," "Christ/Messiah," and even "Son of David." For
Mark, Jesus is also the inaugurator of a new kingdom. However, according to
Roskam, Mark works overtime to reject any political connotations connected
with these titles and with the concept of kingdom. He diffuses nationalistic
expectations by following Peter's confession with comments about his immi
nent death. After his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus does not establish
his kingdom, but predicts the fall of the Jews and their temple. For Roskam,
the Markan secrecy motifs also serve the purpose of diffusing the belief that
Jesus had any political agenda. Like Brandon, Roskam sees the passion narra
tive as an effort to demonstrate that Jesus was never actually a Roman traitor,
though he was crucified as one. Jewish authorities made these false claims of
sedition to cover up their true motives for killing Jesus, namely, their fear that
he would undermine their authority.
Roskam's biggest weakness is perhaps her reconstruction of the situation
in post-70 Galilee. Very little evidence exists regarding Galilean Christians,
and there is absolutely no evidence indicating that they experienced or were
in danger of persecution. Likewise, Roskam's claim that Jewish authorities
regularly took the initiative to suppress subversive activity is based entirely
on questionable evidence. Roskam gives only one example of Jewish authori
ties in Galilee interceding in order to hold Roman aggression at bay. This
example comes from 52 C.E., almost twenty years before Roskam dates Mark.
She gives a number of examples from the 60s, yet all of these examples come
from Jerusalem during the time leading up to the Jewish revolt. Two exam
ples actually come from the early 70s, the time in which Roskam claims Mark
wrote his gospel, but they take place, not in Galilee, but in Alexandria and
Cyrene. None of these examples directly supports Roskam's claim that in
post-70 Galilee, leading Jews regularly took it upon themselves to suppress
subversive groups or activities. Roskam's reconstruction of post-70 Galilee is
mere speculation.
Brandon and Roskam's basic proposal (that Mark presents a non-threaten
ing/non-political Jesus in hopes to protect his community from Roman repri
sal) is open to a number of critiques. They try to establish this position by
claiming that Mark removed from Jesus any implications of sedition or the
revolutionary desire to establish an independent Israel. It is certainly true
that Mark's Jesus does not have immediate political aspirations, but this does
not mean that Mark's picture of Jesus would not threaten the Roman political
world. Far from placating Roman authorities, Mark seems to use language and
ideas that strike at the heart of Roman politics. For Mark, Jesus is the Christ
and true "Son of God." As Roskam claims, Mark's Jesus is the representative
of God's authority on earth! Though this identity may not manifest itself as an
immediate threat to Roman safety and sovereignty, it does challenge Roman
ideology. For Romans, Caesar was the ultimate authority. Recognition of this
fact signified loyalty to Rome, while failure to make such recognition was
considered treason. Reading Mark's claims about the person of Jesus would
not put the minds of Roman authorities at ease, but would likely heighten their
awareness of a threat. Roman authorities would perceive titles such as "Mes
siah," "Christ," and "Son of God" negatively, despite what Roskam describes
as attempts to de-politicize them.
Likewise, Jesus' proclamation of a coming kingdom could hardly be seen
as innocuous to Roman authorities. Even though this kingdom did not mani
fest itself during Jesus' lifetime, Mark boldly proclaims that it will do so
someday. Jesus will return in power as the glorious "Son of Man," and he
85
will establish an everlasting kingdom. The message of such a kingdom is
a direct affront to the Roman Empire which did not take threats to its sover
eignty lightly. Any attempt to de-politicize this kingdom language, apart from
removing it entirely, would fail to placate Roman sensibilities.
Both Brandon and Roskam should be commended for taking seriously the
socio-political realities that hypothetically faced Mark and his readers, and
for incorporating such realities into their theories regarding Mark's purpose.
However, it seems that neither Brandon's theory nor Roskam's theory - both
of which claim Mark wrote in order to placate the dangerous suspicions of
the outside world - are compatible with the realities of Mark's content. The
gospel carries a bold message, and its claims would startle any first-century
reader and likely draw the ire of any Roman official. Therefore, it is unlikely
that Mark wrote his gospel in order to defend the church from animosity or
threats of persecution. It appears that, rather than serving a defensive pur
pose, Mark might more likely serve a subversive purpose. It is this suggested
purpose that we now examine.
1.6.2 Subversive Purpose: RichardHorsley

Here we will examine the recent monograph of Richard Horsley Hearing the
Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel.™ Ultimately, Horsley
argues that Mark seeks to undermine the socio-political realities of his com
munity. In his introduction, Horsley identifies a key error in the thinking
of twenty-first century Western readers of the New Testament. He notes the
Western concept of separation between religion and politics and that many
modern readers force this separation onto the New Testament text: "[M]odern
85
Though the idea of kingdom is not expressed in Mark's apocalyptic "Son of Man" say
ings, it is certainly implied if we accept Dan 7:13-14 as their background.
86
Horsley, Politics of Plot.
36 Chapter 1
Westerners have grown accustomed to thinking of Mark and other biblical

literature as (only or primarily) about religion. Mark's story, however, is about
87
politics and economics as inseparable from religion." Yet after making this
important insight, Horsley goes to the opposite extreme. For Horsley, Mark
is entirely about politics and economics and has nothing to do with theology
or religion: "Whatever theological doctrine is supposedly found in Mark,
however, is the creation of theologians. The Gospel of Mark itself can now be
recognized as a story . . . ostensibly about historical events in ancient Gali
88
lee and Judea under Roman imperial rule." Horsley sees Mark as a docu
ment (which began as an oral proclamation) that gives voice to a colonized
and oppressed people who live in Galilee. Mark presents Jesus as a Moses/
Elijah type prophet who proclaims and brings about restoration in the vil
lages of Galilee. Mark's purpose is to subvert the economic oppression and
exploitation by Roman authorities and their pawns among the Judean leader
ship through encouraging people to continue the renewal Jesus began. This
renewal involved instilling egalitarianism (social, political, and economic) in
both villages and families. This work is to continue until the heavenly Son of
Man returns (not to be confused with the earthly Jesus) and brings the final
89
end to political and economic oppression.
Accordingly, Horsley claims that Mark has no interest in the classical
themes of Christology or discipleship. Any perception of these themes he
90
argues results from the reader's social location in theological institutions.
However, Horsley attempts some questionable exegetical maneuvers to
eliminate traces of what most interpreters have recognized as major Markan
91
themes.
In eliminating Mark's christological interest, Horsley must start with the
opening verse of the gospel, which is clearly christologically laden. He deals
with this verse by simply removing it from Mark's gospel and claiming that
92
it was a later addition to the text. However, such a claim has absolutely no
textual evidence. The claim is even more unlikely when we consider that
a T T T a i
dropping 1:1 from the text leaves the book to open with Ka0c6g Y ^ Y P
or "just as it has been written." This is an awkward way for Mark to begin
87
Horsley, Politics of Plot, x.
88
89
For interpretations similar to that of Horsley, which see Mark as an anti-colonial or
anti-imperial document, see Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading
of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992) and Herman C. Waetjen, A
Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989).
90
91
A number of the specific critiques that are made here are indebted to Robert Gundry's
excellent and thorough review of Horsley's work; "Richard A. Horsley's Hearing the Whole
Story: A Critical Review of Its Postcolonial Slant," JSNT 26 (2003): 131-49.
92
Horsley, Politics of Plot, 250.
his narrative and is inconsistent with the grammatical style throughout his
gospel. Every instance in which Mark uses a Ka0c6g clause it always refers to
93
something preceding and not following it. Horsley's efforts to remove 1:1, a
strong indicator of Mark's christological interests, seem misguided.
To fit his understanding of Jesus as a prophet like Moses and Elijah,
Horsley claims that the transfiguration story (9:2-8) places Jesus as an equal
94
of these great figures. Peter's request to build dwellings for all three*of them
is said to confirm this claim. However, the text seems to indicate that Peter's
idea is a misguided one. He is described as terrified and not knowing what to
say. The divine voice also makes Horsley's position untenable by declaring
95
Jesus to be God's beloved son, certainly placing him above Moses and Elijah.
The double affirmation by God of Jesus' divine sonship, both at his baptism
and his transfiguration is strong evidence of Mark's christological interest.
Horsley also claims that Mark either does not consider Jesus the Messiah
at all or that he has a "strongly qualified" understanding of what "Messiah"
96
means. He argues that Jesus rebuked Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah,
denying any messianic identity. But Horsley misreads the text. After Peter's
confession, Jesus commands his disciples not to tell anyone this information,
implying that the information is actually true. Jesus' rebuke of Peter does
not have to do with Jesus' identity as the Messiah, but rather with Peter's
resistance to Jesus' fate in Jerusalem. Jesus is clearly proclaimed as Messiah
in Mark both at the beginning of the gospel (1:1) and at what appears to be
its apex (8:29). Likewise, there are many indications throughout the text that
Jesus is identified as the Messiah (9:9-13; 10:46-52; 11:1-11; 13:5-6, 21-22;
97
14:61-62).
These examples demonstrate the type of exegetical gymnastics Horsley
must perform in order to eliminate what appears to be a christological inter
est in Mark. As noted above, Mark's purpose is closely related to Christology.
The question of Jesus' identity resurfaces again and again. Mark repeatedly
makes christological claims about Jesus at crucial points of the narrative. The
entire book revolves around the person and work of Jesus. Horsley's rejection
93
See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 133.
94
Horsley, Politics of Plot, 107-8.
95
See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 133-34.
96
Horsley, Politics of Plot, 250-51.
97
Horsley argues that Mark rejects the title "Son of David" and the messianism which it
implies in 12:35-37 - the pericope of the question regarding David's Son. For Horsley, these
counteract what seems to be the application of this messianic title to Jesus in 10:46-52 and
11:1-11. However, there is no clear reason to make this conclusion. Jesus' recasting of the
title "Son of David" is not a rejection of his messianic identity. Likewise, when the title is
applied to Jesus in the above mentioned verses, Mark makes no effort to qualify or counter
it. The reader is left to assume that such an identification of Jesus is accurate and that Jesus
is the expected "Son of David," or the Messiah.
38 Chapter 1
of Markan Christology is not honest with the text and too easily disregards
valuable results that skillful interpreters have produced over the last century.
Horsley also claims that Jesus' teaching and call to true discipleship in
98
Mark is not directed to individuals but to village communities. It is part of
his attempt to bring renewal to these communities, not a call to follow the
person and way of Jesus. People will suffer not for their allegiance to the
person of Jesus as much as for their commitment to carrying out the program
of renewal which he started. However, many examples from Mark illustrate
that the evangelist is interested in people's personal commitment to Jesus
himself not simply his movement. People are called to actually follow after
him - Peter, James, and John (1:16-20), Levi (2:13-17), the twelve disciples
(3:13-19), and the rich man (10:17-31)-which indicates more of a commit
ment to his person than a commitment to his message. He calls people both to
lose their lives and to abandon their families and possessions for "my sake"
(8:35; 10:29), not simply for his cause or movement. He warns against fol
lowers being ashamed not only of his message/words but of himself as a per
son (8:38). Jesus' call also often seems to have individuals in mind rather
than whole communities. As noted above, Levi and the rich young man are
examples. He often addresses his audience with phrases like "if anyone" (4:9,
23; 8:34; 9:42) or "whoever" (3:35; 9:35; 10:37, 41; 10:44) indicating that an
individual response to his message is as valued as a communal one. The par
able of the sower also evidences the importance of individual responses rather
99
than communal ones. Again, Horsley's claim that Mark is not concerned
about individual discipleship and commitment to the person of Jesus is incon
sistent with the text.
What is to be made of Horsley's positive claims about Mark's purpose,
such as to proffer an egalitarian message, to aid in the renewal of families and
village communities, and to address economic concerns? Horsley contrasts
the failures of male disciples with the success of female disciples as evidence
for Mark's message of sexual egalitarianism. But again Horsley strains the
text to reach his conclusions. He notes the usual failures interpreters have rec
ognized in the disciples, e.g., failure to understand parables (4:13-20), failure
to have faith (5:35-41), failure to stay awake and pray (14:32-42), and failure
to stay faithful to Jesus in his greatest hour of need (14:43-51; 66-72). If these
examples are not enough, Horsley claims that the twelve never find out about
Jesus' resurrection and, therefore, do not become a part of the continued gos
pel story in Galilee. But this is inconsistent with Jesus' prediction in 13:9-13
that the disciples will be persecuted and that they will proclaim the gospel
to all nations. It unnaturally presumes that the resurrected Jesus' request of
100
the twelve to meet him in Galilee is not accomplished. As we have noted
98
99
For this critique, see Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 145.
100
See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 141.
before, the disciples are also portrayed in a positive light at many points, a
101
fact that seriously weakens Horsley's suggested contrast.
Horsley spends significant time demonstrating how Mark, at the expense
of male disciples, lifts up females as exemplary disciples. Horsley claims that
the woman with an issue of blood for twelve years and the twelve-year-old girl
whom Jesus raised from the dead represent the renewal of Israel. While this
conclusion may be correct, Horsley's interpretation goes beyond the actual
text when he claims that this pericope evidences the egalitarian role of women
102
in the renewed Israel.
Horsley also points to the women who appear in the resurrection narrative.
103
They are described as "paradigms of faithful understanding." But they, like
all the other disciples, are ignorant of Jesus' resurrection, for they are going
to anoint what they anticipate to be a dead body. When they arrive and receive
the angel's message, they respond in fear and tell no one. If Horsley is going
to claim that the twelve disciples never receive the news of Jesus' resurrec
tion, it is only because these exemplary female disciples fail to carry out their
commission. He argues that it is only these females who are aware of the
resurrected Jesus and so it is up to them to carry on Jesus' work in Galilee.
Yet this too is inconsistent with the text. The angel does not tell the women
to meet Jesus in Galilee, but instructs them to tell his eleven disciples to do
so. There is also no talk of continuing Jesus' work in Galilee. The purpose of
104
going there was to see the resurrected Jesus!
It is certainly true that women have a significant position in Mark, e.g., the
Syrophoenician woman who demonstrates great faith (7:24-30), the widow
who offers at the temple all she had (12:41-44), and the sinful woman who
anoints Jesus' feet (14:3-9). However, it is quite another thing to argue that
Mark promotes an egalitarian message by lifting up female disciples over
their male counterparts. Mark may have some egalitarian interests but these
interests seem ancillary rather than primary to Mark's overall purpose.
Along with sexual egalitarianism, Horsley claims that Mark bears a mes
sage of political and economic egalitarianism as well. Mark's Jesus is sub
verting the political power players - Roman and Jewish authorities - and
advancing a message of economic egalitarianism in contrast to the elite's
program of economic oppression. Horsley uniquely interprets many Markan
101
Horsley does note the positive portrayal of the disciples in first half of Mark but focuses
on their failure in the second half. However, it is in the second half (10:28-31) in which Jesus
promises that they will be rewarded for all they have sacrificed for his sake! He also predicts
the future suffering of James and John. Additionally, Jesus also tells the disciples that they
will stand before governors and kings as a testimony to them on behalf of Jesus (9:9). This
is not a prediction of failure, but of future success and faithful discipleship.
102
See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 141-42.
103
Horsley, "Politics of Plot," 2.
104
Similar critiques are made by Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 142-45.
40 Chapter 1
elements to advance this theory. He sees significance in the fact that Mark has
the mustard seed growing into a shrub and not a tree, the tree being an impe
rial image. But Mark does not intend the presence of a shrub to be anti-impe
rial. In fact, the shrub is described as greater than all other shrubs, which for
Mark, represent kingdoms. Mark's contrast is not between shrubs and trees,
(imperialism vs. non-imperialism) but between great shrubs and lesser shrubs
(God's empire/kingdom vs. all other kingdoms). Mark is not anti-imperial,but
he is advancing the imperialism of both God's kingdom and the one who
105
bears it, Jesus.
Horsley argues that the pericope of the rich man serves Mark's egalitarian
purpose by excluding the wealthy (and the illegitimate way in which Horsley
assumes they achieved their wealth) from the kingdom of God. But this mis
reads Mark's text. Jesus qualifies his statement concerning the salvation of
the wealthy by saying, "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God
all things are possible" (10:27). If this pericope functions as Horsley claims,
106
Mark's qualification is counter-productive.
Horsley also makes a strong connection between the Jewish authorities
and the Roman authorities who backed them. However, such a connection is
not found in Mark's text. In fact, in his passion narrative, Mark clearly places
the guilt of Jesus' death on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities while he
seemingly washes Roman hands of it (see Brandon and Roskam above). Not
only do they not conspire together but also the Jewish authorities must rely on
manipulation to bring about the response they desire from the Romans (15:6-
15). Horsley may be right about the historical reality of Jesus' day, but this is
107
not the reality Mark expresses.
For Horsley, Jesus' teachings, exorcisms, and healings are bringing about
the economic liberation that he is proclaiming, but how he is doing so is
uncertain. Economic oppression is experienced through heavy taxation and
tithes levied by Roman and Jewish authorities. How do Jesus' teachings, heal
ings, or exorcisms alleviate this oppression and bring about the desired egali
tarian economic reality? Horsley offers one example of how these actions
will strike at the sources of the oppression: "Jesus provides the people with
healing of leprosy or forgiveness of sin that makes it unnecessary for them
to obtain those from ruling institutions, which would cost them some of their
108
precious economic resources." Though this relief would be of some help to
105
See Tat-siong Benny Liew, "Tyranny, Boundary, and Might: Colonial Mimicry in
Mark's Gospel," JSNT 73 (1999): 7-31. In this article, Liew argues against the claims that
Mark is anti-imperial or that Mark rejects in principle the imperial ideology of Rome. Rather
than reject such ideology, Mark transfers it from Roman and Jewish authorities to Jesus and
his coming kingdom. See also Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 136.
106
See this critique in Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 137.
107
See Gundry's similar critique, "Postcolonial Slant," 140.
108
a number of the oppressed people, would it really be enough to bring about
109
the radical egalitarian state that, according to Horsley, Mark is seeking?
A second example is the pericope regarding tribute to Caesar. Horsley
interprets Jesus' response to the tribute question as a negative reply: '"Giving
to Caesar what belongs to Caesar' means they should not pay tribute, since
according to Israelite tradition everything belongs to God and nothing to Cae
110
sar." But if Mark actually intends this meaning of Jesus' words, why does
he not make this meaning clearer? Why is there no uproar from his opponents
or the Roman authorities for this sedition? Likewise, there is a great prec
111
edent in Israelite tradition for supporting the occupying ruler. Horsley may
be right that in its original context these words of Jesus were a subtle way to
speak out against taxation by Caesar (though this is debatable), but that Mark
112
intends to communicate this message seems unlikely.
Though Horsley seems creatively to find an anti-imperial economic agenda
throughout the whole of Mark's gospel, it often comes at the expense of what
the reader actually finds on the surface of the Markan text. These texts seem
to say very little about economics or an egalitarian society. That elements
of these themes exist is not enough to overturn the more readily identified
themes of Christology and discipleship. Horsley has certainly challenged the
readers of Mark to look at the gospel in a new and unique way by raising the
reader's awareness of the political realties that may lie behind it. However, in
offering a unified and cohesive purpose for why Mark was written, Horsley
fails because his theory does not explain much of the content of the second
gospel.
1.7 Conclusions
After surveying and evaluating the numerous theories regarding the pur
pose of Mark's gospel, we offer a number of conclusions and trajectories that
will guide our present study. First, we conclude that Mark did not write his
gospel simply for the sake of preserving history, and his purpose must be
found in the realities facing Mark and his audience. Second, we conclude that
Christology plays a primary role in Mark's gospel, and therefore, is likely
related to the gospel's overall purpose. Third, while we affirm that Mark's
109
Gundry astutely notes that in Mark 1:44 Jesus requires the man whose leprosy he had
healed to give an offering to the priest for his cleansing! See Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant,"
136.
110
1.1
See J. D. M. Derrett, "Render to Caesar," 325-27, for discussion on such traditions, in
particular his discussion on Ecclesiastes 8:2.
1.2
See n. 83 above for the diversity of opinion on this pericope. See Gundry's comments
on Horsley's use of this pericope; Gundry, "Postcolonial Slant," 139.
42 Chapter 1
Christology is in some sense "corrective," we reject the notion that Mark con
tains two competing Christologies, (e.g., a Christology of power and a Chris
tology of the cross), one of which is correcting the other. Fourth, we conclude
that while discipleship and eschatology are important Markan themes, they are
secondary themes and cannot by themselves explain why Mark composed his
Gospel. Yet, while these themes are secondary, any theory regarding Mark's
purpose must be able to account for them. Fifth, we conclude that Mark wrote
his gospel primarily for a Christian audience. Sixth, we conclude that in
seeking a Markan purpose, consideration must be given to the socio-political
realities that face Mark and his readers, realities that originated outside of the
church. However, continuity must exist between these socio-political realities
and Mark's theological content (see the critique above of Brandon and Ros
kam). Similarly, recognition of the former must not supplant recognition of
the latter (see the critique above of Horsley).
Chapter 2
Mark's Date and Provenance
2.1 Introduction
If in our search for a Markan purpose we are to take seriously the historical
situation of the evangelist and his readers, we must first determine Mark's
date and provenance. We will begin with the question of Mark's date and then
proceed to question of Mark's provenance.
2.2 Dating Mark's Gospel
There seems to be a general consensus among more recent interpreters of

Mark that the gospel was composed sometime between 65 and 75 C.E. The
critical question regarding Mark's date has been whether it should be placed
before or after Jerusalem's destruction (70 C.E.) within the aforementioned
parameters. However, throughout the history of critical Markan interpreta
tion, attempts to date Mark's gospel have varied widely, with some propos
1
ing a date as early as 42 C.E. and others pushing its composition into the
2
second century. While the latter position finds virtually no support among
current interpreters, the former has a handful of contemporary adherents. We
will begin our discussion by addressing this minority position, and we will
1
The most recent example of such a date is James Crossley, The Date of Mark's Gos
pel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (JSNTSup 266; London: T & T Clark,
2004). Other examples of interpreters who argue for an early date for Mark include J. A.
T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 106-17; J. W. Wen-
ham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991), 136-82;
Earle Ellis, "The Date and Provenance of Mark's Gospel," in The Four Gospels 1992 ed.
F. van Segbroek (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992), 801-815; C. P. Thiede,
The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and Its Significance for New
Testament Studies (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1992); M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark's
Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
2
F. C. Baur, Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter: Nebst einem
Anhang uber das Evangelium Marcion's (Tubingen: L. F. Fues, 1851), 110. For other inter
preters who place Mark in the second century, see James Moffatt, Introduction to the Lit
rd
erature of the New Testament (3 ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1918), 213.
44 Chapter 2
determine whether the consensus date of 65 C.E. for Mark's lower limit is
legitimate. We will then turn our attention to Mark's relationship to the
destruction of the Jerusalem temple and whether its composition preceded or
followed this event.
2.2.1 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The External Evidence
More significant external evidence speaks to the question of Mark's date than
the date of any other gospel. A number of witnesses from the early church
address the origin of Mark's gospel and give information related to its date.
But the value of this evidence is disputed. Some of these witnesses contradict
one another. Their motives and the historical accuracy of their testimony are
often questioned. Even the meanings of the testimonies are debated. Here we
will examine these early witnesses and attempt to ascertain what value their
testimony actually has and to what extent it is helpful in determining Mark's
date.
The earliest testimony relevant to Mark's date comes from Irenaeus.
Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue,
while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church. But after their death
Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the
3
things which were preached by Peter. (Against Heresies 3.1.1-3)
There are two challenges in interpreting this passage of Irenaeus. The first
is discerning the meaning of the word el;o5og (literally translated as "depar
ture"). Debate centers on whether this word should be taken literally, meaning
that Peter and Paul departed to another location, or as a euphemism, meaning
that Peter and Paul died. Clearly if the latter understanding of the word is
accepted, then Irenaeus seems to have established a lower limit for the date
of Mark, that is, sometime after the death of Peter and Paul during the Nero-
4
nian persecution (ca. 64 C.E.). But if the former understanding is accepted,
Irenaeus' testimony is of little value in dating Mark.
In an attempt to refute the euphemistic understanding, Earle Ellis has
5
claimed that Irenaeus does not commonly use ei;o5og to refer to death. He
notes that in Book III of Against Heresies, Irenaeus refers to "death" thirty-
6
eight times using the word Gdvaxog (or its Latin equivalent mors). He ques
tions why in this one instance Irenaeus would alter his usual practice. But this
evidence is misleading. Very few of the thirty-eight references to "death,"
which Ellis highlights, would even make sense if replaced by the euphemism
"departure" (e.g., Ag. Her. 3.12.13. "those, therefore, who delievered their
3
For the English translation, see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.82-3, Lake, LCL.
4
For traditions concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul see 1 Clem. 5.1-7; 6.1; Ign.
Rom. 4.2-3; Iren. Ag. Her. 3.3.2.
5
Ellis, "Date and Provenance," 805-15.
6
Mark's Date and Provenance 45
souls to death"; 3.16.1. "so that by his means death wold be abolished"; 3.18.2.
"becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death"). More telling are the
instances where to speak euphemistically of a person's death is more natural.
In such instances, there is evidence of Irenaeus using "departure" as a euphe
mism (see Ag. Her. 1.25.4; 3.14.2; and possibly 5.7.1.). Such examples refute
Ellis' linguistic evidence and demonstrate that it is well within the realm of
7
possibility for Irenaeus to use el;o8og as a euphemism for death.
The literal reading also has historical problems, namely that there is no
evidence for the departures of Peter or Paul from Rome during the early 60s.
It has been speculated that after Paul's imprisonment in Rome, he went on
to do missionary work in Spain only to return to Rome and be martyred by
Nero's hand. But no sound evidence supports this theory. More importantly,
Irenaeus does not seem to be aware of Paul's trip to Spain, making it unlikely
that his use of ei;oSog refers to such a trip. But even if we did allow for Paul's
departure from Rome, there is no evidence that Peter departed from Rome at
or near the same time (or at any time for that matter). The absence of any evi
dence indicating a time when both Paul and Peter left Rome simultaneously
speaks against the literal reading of ei;o5og.
The context of the passage also supports the euphemistic reading. The use
of ei;o6og here seems to have a sense of finality; that is, the departure is not
followed by a later return. It seems to be the "departure" that raises the need
for John Mark to pass along the written gospel. If this departure was only
temporary (one from which Peter and Paul would eventually return), it seems
odd that such a need would arise from it.
For all of these reasons, the euphemistic reading of el;oSog is to be pre
ferred, and it is not surprising that most interpreters have adopted it. But even
if we understand Irenaeus to be referring to Peter and Paul's death (and not
simply to an unspecified departure), there is a second obstacle preventing us
from ascertaining from Irenaeus' witness the lower limit for Mark's date of
composition. J. Chapman has argued that Irenaeus is not interested in com
municating the date of Mark's composition; rather, he is only interested in
affirming that the authoritative preaching of Peter was not lost because Mark
8
recorded it. Chapman notes that Irenaeus is responding to the Valentinians
and is trying to affirm that apostolic authority lies behind the gospels. Because
of this goal, Chapman does not believe it likely that Irenaeus intended to say
that Mark wrote down Peter's preaching after his death. For Chapman, such
a testimony by Irenaeus would undermine the gospel's authority. Chapman
argues that Irenaeus intends to say that the gospel that was handed down after
7
Euphemistic references also occur a handful of times in the New Testament (Luke 9:31;
2 Pet 1:15).
8
J. Chapman, "St. Irenaeus on the Date of the Gospels" JTS 6 (1905): 563-69. For others
who adopt this interpretation see Gundry, Apology, 1042-43; Wenham, Redating, 239-42;
46 Chapter 2
Peter and Paul's death was actually written during their lifetimes. Irenaeus is
then best understood as follows: Mark, having written down Peter's preach
ing, has passed his sermons on to us after Peter and Paul's death. In this inter
pretation, Irenaeus says nothing about Mark's date of composition but only
about its transmission to the church.
For a number of reasons, Chapman's interpretation of Irenaeus is unwar
ranted. We must begin by noting some unnecessary assumptions that Chap
man makes. He is correct that Irenaeus is attempting to establish the apostolic
authority of the gospels against his Valentinian opponents. But he wrongfully
assumes that dating Mark's gospel after Peter's death somehow undermines
its Petrine or apostolic authority. If Petrine preaching actually lies behind
Mark, it makes little difference if it was written down during or after Peter's
9
life: Petrine authority is hardly undermined.
Chapman is also wrong to assume that because Irenaeus is only interested
in affirming the apostolic authority behind Mark, he is uninterested in giving
any other details surrounding its composition, including details regarding its
date. While affirming that establishing apostolic authority is Irenaeus' pri
mary goal, nothing precludes him from including ancillary historical details
that were available to him or were a part of the tradition that he had received.
Irenaeus' primary goal should not, a priori, exclude the possible inclusion of
the historical details surrounding Mark's composition.
On grammatical grounds, Chapman's interpretation of Irenaeus is possible
0
but not necessary. Chapman understands the adverb e y Y P ^ P ^ (in/through
writing) to be describing the preaching of Peter; that is, it is the "written-
down" preaching of Peter that Mark handed down. However, it is quite possible
that the adverb is actually intended to modify the main verb TrapaSeScoKev
(he passed down). The adverb then describes the means by which the passing
down occurred, that is through the medium of writing. If eyYpoupcoc; is taken
to modify TrapaSeScoKev then the prepositional phrase that begins the sen
tence (JETCX Se xr|v T O U T C O V ei;o5ov, "but after their departure/death," governs
both the writing and passing on of Peter's preaching. Therefore, it is quite
natural to read Irenaeus as a claim that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's
death.
Chapman's reading of this passage also has historical problems. He is
forced to see the passage as speaking of two different events: the composition
of Mark, which occurs during Peter's lifetime, and the transmission of Mark,
which occurs after Peter's lifetime. But as James Crossley has noted, it seems
unrealistic to claim that a document such as Mark's gospel would not spread
10
quickly among the churches after being written. Certainly if Mark was
9
Placing the composition of Mark after Peter's lifetime might for some readers increase
suspicions about the gospel's accuracy in recording Petrine tradition, but it does not remove
the Petrine authority behind the text.
10
Crossley, Date, 8.
written in Rome, while Peter was still preaching, its transmission would
immediately follow, making composition and transmission virtually a simul
taneous event.
For these reasons, it seems reasonable to conclude that the traditional
understanding of Irenaeus' testimony is to be preferred, namely that Mark
wrote his gospel after Peter's death. Therefore, if Irenaeus' testimony can be
trusted, Irenaeus establishes for us a lower limit on Mark's dating (ca. 65 C.E.).
But before deciding on Irenaeus' reliability, we will look at two more ancient
witnesses to Mark's origins.
The second important witness to Mark's date is found in the so-called
11
"anti-Marcionite" prologue.
Mark declared, who is called "stump-fingered" because he had short fingers in compari
son with the size of the rest of his body. He was Peter's interpreter. After the departure of
12
Peter himself, he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.
This witness poses some of the same problems found in Irenaeus: should the
word excessionem or "departure" be taken literally or euphemistically, and
does descripsit refer to composing the gospel or simply to transmitting it? In
answering the first question, we have already established that euphemistically
referring to a person's death as his departure was a common practice in both
the New Testament and the early church. We have also noted that there is no
evidence of a well-known departure of Peter from Rome after his arrival. For
both of these reasons, the euphemistic understanding of excessionem is pref
erable. In answering the second question, the verb descripsit certainly carries
with it the connotation of writing down or copying in writing. Here again,
the idea is likely that of passing on Peter's gospel through writing. As argued
above in the case of Irenaeus, it is unlikely the author has in mind a previ
ously written text that is simply being transmitted to a new audience. If both
of these conclusions are accepted, then the prologue affirms the testimony of
Irenaeus claiming that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death. The value of
this testimony depends, however, on its date and its relationship to Irenaeus,
issues to which we will return shortly.
The third witness that must be considered is Clement of Alexandria (ca.
200 C.E.). His testimony is preserved for us by Eusebius at two different points.
The first reads as follows:
11
For more thorough discussion on the date and nature of the so-called "anti-Marcionite"
prologue, see Jurgen Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe (VL 6; Freiburg:
Herder, 1969), esp. 266-67; Wilbert Francis Howard, "The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the
Gospels," ExpTim 47 (1935-36): 534-38; Richard G. Heard, "The Old Gospel Prologues,"
.773 6(1955): 1-16.
12
For the Latin text see Kurt Aland ed., Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1976), esp. app. "Testimonia Patrum Veterum," 515-48. The
English translation is borrowed from Hengel, Studies, 3.
48 Chapter 2
But a great light of religion shone on the minds of the hearers of Peter, so that they were not
satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but
with every kind of exhortation besought Mark, whose gospel is extant, seeing that he was
Peter's follower, to leave them a written statement of the teaching given them verbally, nor
did they cease until they had persuaded him, and so became the cause of the scripture called
the Gospel according to Mark. And they say that the Apostle, knowing by the revelation of
the spirit to him what had been done, was pleased at their zeal, and ratified the scripture for
study in the churches. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.1-2, Lake, LCL)
The second reads:

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

the "anti-Marcionite" prologue. According to Clement, Mark wrote his gospel
while Peter was still alive. Clement also specifically mentions Peter's aware
ness of the gospel (though he records conflicting reports regarding Peter's
response).
We must now consider the reliability of these three sources and how they
relate to one another. Many interpreters believe that all three of these ancient
witnesses stem directly from the early second-century witness of Papias, who
is our earliest witness to Mark's connection with Peter.
And the Presbyter used to say this, "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately
all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he
had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who
used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of
the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he
remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had
heard and to make no false statements in them." (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15, Lake, LCL)
Because many interpreters conclude that the Papian testimony itself is untrust
worthy, they also conclude that testimonies that are dependent on Papias are
13
likewise suspect. But the issue of Mark's date is not discussed in Papias'
testimony, and demonstrating Papias to be the origin of a tradition concerning
13
Hendrika Roskam (Purpose, 80-81) simply discredits other ancient sources because
she perceives them to be dependent upon Papias whose testimony she believes to be untrust
worthy. For similar views see Robert Guelich, Mark 1-8 :26 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989),
xxvi; Telford, Theology, 10; W. G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the Testament, (trans. H. C.
Kee; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 97; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Li-
teratur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vdter
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), 347. For a defense of Papias' testimony see Hengel, Stud
ies, 47-50; Gundry, Mark, 1026-45.
Mark 5 Date and Provenance 49
Mark's date is both difficult and assuming. There is nothing in Papias' testi
mony that would lead Irenaeus (or the "anti-Marcionite" prologue) to conclude
14
that Mark wrote after Peter's death. The claim that Irenaeus is dependent
upon Papias for this tradition is completely unsubstantiated. If Papias is the
source for these three traditions, why does Clement of Alexandria come to an
opposite conclusion for Mark's date to that of Irenaeus? To claim that these
witnesses created their traditions based on what they knew from Papias alone
would be pure speculation. It is just as likely, or perhaps more so, that while
these traditions may know Papias, they are aware of other traditions that are
informing their presumptions concerning Mark's date of composition. Instead
of linking these traditions with the fate of Papias' testimony, these witnesses
should be evaluated on their own merits. We will now examine the validity of
each tradition and the relationships which they might have with each other.
Irenaeus is our earliest witness, making his testimony the most important.
As we have seen, Irenaeus claims that Mark wrote sometime after Peter's and
Paul's deaths. In evaluating this tradition, we must ask if there is any reason
to doubt it. Perhaps one could argue the tradition was simply created by Ire
naeus or by someone before him. However, the problem with this argument
is the lack of a discernible motivation. By placing Mark's gospel after the
death of Peter, Irenaeus adds nothing to Mark's credibility or value. In fact,
if one were to create a tradition regarding Mark's date, we might expect that
tradition to suggest a composition prior to the death of Peter. The fact that
Irenaeus places the gospel after Peter's death gives us more confidence in his
testimony. Therefore, with no reason to doubt Irenaeus (and perhaps some
reason to trust him), his testimony should be accepted as valuable external
15
evidence concerning the date of Mark's composition.
The case of the "anti-Marcionite" prologue is more complicated because
of questions surrounding its dependence on early Christian witnesses - those
other than Papias. The prologue bears a strong resemblance to the tradition
found in Irenaeus that causes many to conclude that it is dependent on Ire
naeus' testimony (or vice versa). But it does include details foreign to Ire
naeus (and Papias) that may support the conclusion that it represents an
14
For discussion on Irenaeus' relationship to Papias see Richard Heard,
"APOMNEMONEUMATA in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus," NTS 1 (1954): 122-29; A. C.
Perumalil, "Are Not Papias and Irenaeus Competent to Report on the Gospels?" ExpTim 91
(1980): 332-37.
15
Some interpreters might suggest that because Irenaeus is likely inaccurate regarding
the authorship and date of Matthew (he claims that Matthew was the first gospel and that
it was composed by the apostle Matthew, both of which are unlikely conclusions) he is an
untrustworthy source for Mark's date. However, we must remember that Irenaeus has a rea
sonable motivation for recording what is likely an inaccurate tradition, namely to increase
the credibility of Matthew and to give it priority over non-apostolic gospels. His tradition
regarding Mark, on the other hand, has no such motivation and is therefore more likely to
be trustworthy.
50 Chapter 2
independent tradition. The details describing Mark's physical appearance as

"stump-fingered" (colobodactylus) and the reference that Mark wrote in the
regions of Italy certainly do not come from Irenaeus (or Papias). Some have
argued that the prologue is dependent on Hippolytus, who also makes an
isolated and passing reference to Mark as "stump-fingered" {colobodactylus).
Though dependence is possible here, it is far from certain. The prologue may
simply be dependent on a common stream of tradition. It is possible that the
prologue's use of colobodactylus is dependent on an earlier Greek text than
Hippolytus, perhaps even one on which Hippolytus himself was dependent.
That Hippolytus refers to Mark as "stump-fingered" without any explanation
would seem to indicate that it is part of a tradition with which his audience
would be familiar. Perhaps the prologue is simply familiar with this same
tradition (or is itself this tradition).
Some claim that the reference to Italy as the place of Mark's composition
is dependent on Irenaeus. By placing Mark's gospel after Peter's and Paul's
deaths in Rome, Irenaeus seems to imply that Mark wrote the gospel in the
same city. It is then argued that the prologue has simply deduced the prov
enance of Mark from Irenaeus' testimony and named this location in its own
testimony. Yet as Clifton Black has asked, why then does the prologue use
such a general designation for Mark's provenance instead of locating Mark
16
in the capital city itself. If the prologue was dependent on Irenaeus, one
would expect a specific location for Mark's composition, i.e., Rome. But the
prologue's general reference seems to indicate independence from Irenaeus.
It is impossible to say with any certainty that the "anti-Marcionite" pro
logue is dependent on either Irenaeus or Hippolytus, though the possibility for
such a conclusion exists. But it is equally possible that all three depend on the
same stream of tradition regarding Mark's origins that was available to them
through the church. If the prologue is dependent on Irenaeus for its dating of
rd
Mark, then at worst we have an ancient witness (3 century or possibly late
nd
2 century) casting a vote of approval for this tradition. If it is independent of
Irenaeus, we have a second independent ancient witness affirming that Mark
wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul.
What then are we to make of Clement's testimony, which contradicts that
of Irenaeus and the "anti-Mariconite" prologue? Clement is certainly later
than Irenaeus, though he may precede the "anti-Marcionite" prologue. Some
interpreters have given Clement's testimony pride of place, and this is one
of the reasons why Chapman attempted to reinterpret Irenaeus' testimony.
Chapman supposes that Clement represents a tradition that is more authentic
than that of Irenaeus. But this conclusion does not stand up against critical
investigation. It is much easier to explain Clement's testimony as a develop-
16
C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2001), 119-20.
ment of the tradition found in Irenaeus' testimony than vice versa. It makes
sense that over time there would be a desire to draw the second gospel closer
to the apostle Peter than earlier traditions allowed for. Therefore, Clement has
more likely pushed the second gospel back into Peter's lifetime. Not only that,
but he also records that the apostle's Spirit inspired approval of it! The moti
vations for such actions are quite clear. By creating such a tradition, Clement
raises the significance of Mark, a gospel that was viewed inferior to Matthew,
Luke, and John, and further secures its place in the church. While this type
of development seems plausible, the alternative, namely Irenaeus's tradition
developing out of that found in Clement, seems entirely inexplicable. No con
ceivable motivation exists to explain why a tradition that Mark wrote during
Peter's lifetime could develop into one that claims Mark wrote after Peter's
death. Therefore, it is best to conclude that Clement's testimony does not res
cue a lost tradition (as Chapman believes), but rather alters an earlier tradition
(that represented by Irenaeus). Irenaeus' testimony should, therefore, be given
pride of place over Clement's.
Here we will summarize our conclusions for the external evidence. We
determined that both Irenaeus and the "anti-Marcionite" prologue claim that
Mark's gospel was written after Peter's and Paul's deaths, while Clement of
Alexandria claims that it was written during Peter's lifetime, and with his
knowledge. These traditions have been unnecessarily linked with Papias' tes
timony and now should be evaluated on their own merits. Irenaeus' testimony
has little reason to be doubted and should be valued as a strong piece of
external evidence for Mark's date. The "anti-Marcionite" prologue, though its
independence is uncertain, is at the least an early affirmation of the tradition
found in Irenaeus, if not an independent witness to it. The conflicting report
of Clement of Alexandria is best understood as a later evolution of a tradition
that placed Mark after Peter's death rather than as the resurgence of an older
tradition.
Therefore, we can conclude that the external evidence supports a lower
limit of 65 C.E. for Mark. However, because the certainty of these traditions
remains elusive, their value is somewhat mitigated. The usefulness of this
investigation is only secondary to that of the internal evidence, to which we
will now turn.
2.2.2 An Early Date for Mark (Pre-65 C.E.): The Internal Evidence
There are a number of features in Mark's text that seem to indicate a late date
17
rather than an early one. The first of these is Mark's anticipation that only
18
a handful of disciples will see the Parousia: "There are some standing here
17
A number of these features have been noted by Adolf Jiilicher and later echoed by
Martin Hengel: A. Jiilicher and E. Fascher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Tubingen: J.
C B. Mohr, 1931), 304; Hengel, Studies, 7-14.
18
Hengel, Studies, 8.
52 Chapter 2
who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power"
19
(9:1). It seems that at the time of Mark's composition, only a small number
of first-generation Christians were left to anticipate the Parousia. Compare
this with Paul's expectation that the majority of believers will experience the
Parousia: "For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's
call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and
the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will
be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air"
(1 Thess 4:16-17). Here Paul is easing the minds of the Thessalonian believ
ers who have experienced death in their community and are worrying over
the fate of those who had died before the Parousia. He does this by claiming
that those who had died (the minority) would be resurrected and would meet
the rest of the believers (the majority) at the Lord's second coming. Again in
1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul indicates that the majority of the five hundred wit
nesses who saw the risen Christ are still alive and are able to testify to what
they had seen. Only some had "fallen asleep." Mark, therefore, would need
to have been composed at a date significantly later than 1 Thessalonians (ca.
50-51 C.E.) and 1 Corinthians (ca. 56-57 C.E.) at a time when many of the first-
generation believers and eyewitnesses to Christ were no longer living. Dating
Mark at least eight to ten years after 1 Corinthians is likely enough time to
see a significant change in the number of first generation believers still living.
Such a dating would place Mark sometime after 65 C.E. - a date consistent
with the previously examined external evidence.
Crossley has tried to downplay the significance of this argument in his
20
recent monograph concerning Mark's date. He notes that Mark refers to the
coming of the "kingdom of God" in 9:1, while Paul refers to the "Parousia"
in 1 Thessalonians. But it is almost certain that Mark's reference to the king
dom of God in 9:1 is a reference to the final eschatological kingdom of God,
which is closely connected to, if not synonymous with, the Son of Man com
ing "in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" - a reference found in the
preceding verse. The only other possible referents are Jesus' transfiguration,
Jesus' resurrection, or possibly Pentecost; but since virtually all the disciples
will not taste death before these events (with the exception of Judas), these
21
referents make little sense. It is virtually certain Mark means that some
19
We are assuming that through this verse Mark is speaking to the current situation of
his audience.
20
Crossley, Date, 54-55.
21
Etienne Trocme offers a unique interpretation of this passage, claiming that these
words are a warning to disciples who are unwilling to sacrifice their lives for Jesus and the
gospel. Because of this failure, these disciples will live to see the kingdom of God come in
power, a power that will surely bring their judgment. Trocme's interpretation has found few
followers because the text seems to function as an encouragement to Mark's readers - an
encouragement that was needed after Jesus' ominous words in verses 8:34-38. See Trocme,
Formation, 123; idem, "Marc 9:1: prediction ou reprimand?" SE 2 (1964), 259-65.
first-generation disciples will not die until the eschatological kingdom of God
is established at the coming of the Son of Man.
Crossley also points to the imprecision of the word Tiveg (some), arguing
that it should not be read in direct contrast with the many who were alive and
22
anticipating the Parousia in Paul's letters. But Mark's usage of "some" seems
to have a narrowing intention. Mark's sense does not seem to be that "some"
will see the kingdom of God come in power and "some" will not, so that
Jesus' words are doing nothing more than noting the presence of disciples at
this time. On the contrary, in light of the preceding teaching on suffering dis-
cipleship, it is more likely that Mark intends to say that while many will give
up their life for the gospel, some (the minority) will live to see the kingdom
of God come in power.
Despite Crossley's efforts to mitigate this evidence for a later date for
Mark's composition, it still remains compelling. Therefore, anyone seeking
to date Mark before 65 C.E. must adequately explain the changes between Paul
and Mark in the expectations of who will actually see the Parousia.
Another telling feature of Mark that indicates a later date of composition
23
is the references made to a world-wide mission (13:10; 14:9). Mark certainly
seems aware of such a mission and, thus, is likely writing at a time when the
gospel had found its way to most of the known world. Hengel notes that the
earliest possible awareness of such a mission would be sometime after Paul
24
began his missionary work (ca. 48-49 C.E.). But he thinks it unlikely that
such references would be made until the late 50s when the church had taken
over the concept of a world-wide mission. Paul's mission was certainly the
beginning of a world-wide mission, but the realization of that mission was
25
not seen until a decade later. The confidence with which Mark speaks about
this mission seems to indicate that it is an established reality and not still an
anticipated one. According to this evidence, Mark would then be best placed
in a time during or after the late 50s, a date that could easily coincide with the
lower limit of 65 C.E.
Crossley argues that the world-wide mission of the church seems to have
26
begun quite early, perhaps even before Paul's conversion. He notes as evidence
Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, the conversion of Cornelius, the
call at Paul's conversion for his ministry to Gentiles, and his subsequent trip
to Arabia and Damascus. He also claims that the Jerusalem Council of Acts
15 presupposes a widespread mission to Gentiles. In light of these events,
Crossley believes that it would be quite possible for the evangelist to speak of
2 2
23
See Hengel, Studies, 12-13.
2 4
Hengel, Studies, 12-13.
2 5
In Romans (c. 57 C.E.), Paul may refer to the fulfillment of such a world-wide mission
(Rom 10:18; 15:19), though West (Italy and Spain) remained a mission field.
2 6
54 Chapter 2
a world-wide mission at a date much earlier than the mid-60s. But all of this
evidence simply speaks to the beginning of a mission, one which could not
yet be described as "world-wide." An author writing at this time could hardly
speak with certainty (e.g., the way in which Mark does) about the success of
this mission, namely that it will "be proclaimed to all nations" (13:10) and be
"proclaimed in the whole world" (14:9). Therefore, the Markan references to
a world-wide mission are strong evidence that Mark's composition should not
be dated before the early 60s C.E.
Crossley has constructed an argument for dating Mark that is based on
Mark's presentation of the law. He argues that Mark presents the law in a
positive light at all points and that it does not reflect conflict within the church
concerning the law's validity. He claims that the only time within the first
century that this attitude existed toward the law was in the early stages of the
church's existence. For Crossley, therefore, Mark's presentation of the law is
evidence that Mark was written in the early 40s C.E.
It is not possible for us to critique the whole of Crossley's work, but we
will examine the "capstone" of his argument. The issue on which Crossley's
27
entire work rests is his interpretation of Mark 7:1—23. This passage has led
many interpreters to a conclusion opposite to Crossley's regarding Mark's
28
view of the law. For it is in verse 19 that Mark includes what most interpret
ers understand as a Markan editorial comment regarding Jesus' teaching on
hand-washing and food consumption: "Thus he declared all foods clean." On
the surface, this Markan editorial comment seems to be abrogating the food
laws of the Torah and therefore contradicting Crossley's claim that Mark's
view of the law is entirely positive. If Crossley cannot offer an alternative
explanation for this verse, his theory regarding Mark's view of the law fails,
as does his case for an early dating of Mark.
Crossley must work hard at offering an alternative interpretation of Mark
7:1-23. He argues that verse 19 must be read in the context of 7:1-23, which he
claims centers on a debate between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the Jew
ish tradition of washing one's hands before eating. Crossley offers an insight
ful discussion on the authenticity of the Jewish traditions Mark described.
He also does well in demonstrating that the debate between Jesus and the
Pharisees is one regarding tradition and not the law itself. The tradition that
is being debated is whether food touched by impure hands becomes impure
itself and thus makes the one eating it impure as well. Mark's Jesus is arguing
against this tradition. Up to this point, Crossley's discussion of Mark 7:1-23 is
quite helpful, and there is nothing with which we presently need to contend.
27
28
For examples, see Gundry, Apology, 367-37; Bas van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response
Commentary (trans. W. H. Bisscheroux; London: T & T Clark, 1998), 243-45; Marcus,
Mark, 458; Francis Moloney, The Gospel of Mark, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 143; R. T.
France, Mark, 291-92; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 228-29.
But it is Crossley's interpretation of verse 19 that is highly questionable.
He concludes that because the focus of verses 1-23 is on the nature of tradi
tion versus commandment and because they are steeped in halakic debate
regarding hand-washing, verse 19 must be understood within this context.
According to Crossley, Mark's editorial comment, "Thus he declared all
foods clean," cannot be understood as an abrogation of laws because this
would defy the context of the Markan pericope, which concerns tradition
(hand washing) and not law (clean vs. unclean food). He argues, therefore,
that the editorial comment should be understood in the following way: He
declared "all foods that are permitted to eat in the Torah to be clean thereby
29
denying the role of handwashing^ Mark's comment, therefore, summarizes
Jesus' stance on hand-washing, namely that eating with unclean hands cannot
make a person unclean.
Crossley's interpretation of verse 19 is unconvincing. While Crossley may
certainly be correct in understanding the tradition recorded in 7:1-23 in light
of the halakic debate over hand-washing, he is wrong to conclude that Mark's
30
editorial comment must be understood in light of this same context. Mark's
interpretation of this tradition is not bound by the historical context of the
tradition itself. If we do not restrict the way in which Mark is allowed to inter
pret this tradition, then reading verse 19 as an abrogation of Jewish food laws
is not as problematic as Crossley claims.
Another weakness in Crossley's interpretation is that it assumes that the
readers of Mark would be able to see clearly that this verse is not an abrogation
of food laws (which a surface reading of the text would indicate), but rather
is a rejection of the practice of hand-washing before a meal. But considering
that Mark's audience is almost certainly Gentile, and that they require even
the basic practices of Jewish purity rites to be explained to them (7:3-4), it
seems unlikely that they would be able to arrive at such a complicated reading
without assistance from the author. Crossley himself must spend seven pages
to explain the complex halakic debate regarding hand-washing and purity that
he claims provides the context for his interpretation of verse 19. Certainly
Mark's readers did not have the necessary knowledge to arrive at Crossley's
reading of verse 19; and it is virtually as certain that Mark did not intend them
to. Verse 19 is, therefore, best understood as a Markan editorial comment
that interprets this particular Jesus tradition as an abrogation of Jewish food
31
laws (whether rightly so or not). Crossley's claim that Mark reflects a time in
29
Crossley, Date, 192.
30
See Marcus, Mark, 458; Moloney, Mark, 143.
3 1
A handful of interpreters have argued that Mark's interpretation of Jesus does not accu
rately reflect the position of the historical Jesus. For such arguments see G. Vermes, Jesus
the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 29; J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament
nd
(2 ed.; Leiden, Brill, 1986), 1.176-83; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and
56 Chapter 2
which the place of the law was completely unquestioned must be rejected, as
well as the early date that he associated with this view of the law.
We have demonstrated that both internal and external evidence indicates
ca. 65 C.E. as a lower limit for dating Mark. While there is little convinc
ing evidence for dating Mark before 65 C.E., there is a significant amount of
evidence that precludes such a dating. After establishing Mark's lower limit,
we will now turn our attention to the question of Mark's relationship to the
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and whether Mark was written before
or after this event.
2.2.3 Mark's Relationship to the Temple's Destruction: A Pre- or Post-70
Dating?
Perhaps the most significant piece of internal evidence for dating Mark's gos
pel concerns its relationship to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, an
event that the Markan Jesus foretells (13:2). However, interpreters are divided
over how to interpret this evidence, with approximately half interpreting the
32
prophecy as evidence of a post-70 C.E. dating (most of whom understand the
prophecy as a vaticinium ex eventu) and the other half as evidence of a pre-70
33
C.E. dating (most of whom accept the prophecy as authentic). Here we seek
rd
Acts (3 ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 217-18; Guelich, Mark, 378-79; R. P. Booth, Jesus
and the Laws of Purity (JSNTSup 13; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1986), 72-73.
32
G. Holscher, "Der Ursprung," 193-202; S. G. F. Brandon, "The Date of Mark's Gospel,"
NTS 7 (1961): 126-41; idem, The Fall of Jerusalem', H. G. Conzelmann, "Geschichte und
Eschaton nach Mc 13," ZNW50 (1959): 210-21; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg:
Herder, 1976), vol. 1, 14, vol. 2, 260-67, 292, 300; Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 343;
Morna Hooker, "Trial and Tribulation in Mark XIII," BJRL 65 (1982): 78-79; idem, The
Gospel according to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 314; Kelber, Kingdom; J. Lam-
brecht, Markus-Apokalypse; J. R. Donahue, "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's
Gospel," CBQ 57 (1995): 1-26; Gnilka, Markus, 2:184-88; L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The
Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on
Eschatological Opponents (JSJSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1996); J. Marcus, "The Jewish War
and the Sitz im Leben of Mark," JBL 111 (1992): 441-62; William Such, The Abomination of
Desolation in the Gospel of Mark: Its Historical Reference in Mark 13:14 and Its Impact in
the Gospel (Lanham: University Press of America, 1999); Roskam, Purpose, 75-114; Brian
J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel (Leiden:
Brill, 2003); Theissen, Context, 259-271; Maloney, Mark, 11-15; Donahue and Harrington,
Mark, 41-47.
33
See Lohmeyer, Markus, 268; Marxsen, Evangelist, 151-89; Vincent Taylor, The
Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1935), 73; idem, Mark, 501; J.
th
Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1; 4 ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
th
Ruprecht, 1947), 181; M. J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc (EBib; 4 ed.; Paris: J.
th
Gabalda, 1947), xxxi; E. Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; 5 ed.; Tubingen:
nd
Mohr Siebeck, 1971); W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT 2; 2 ed.;
Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962), 19; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies
in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (NovTSup 23; Leiden:
Brill, 1970), 66; Schweizer, Mark, 262; H. J. Schoeps, "Ebionitische Apokalyptik im Neuen
to find a way forward on this issue in order to provide a plausible date for
34
Mark's gospel.
Before proceeding we must clarify two points. First, much of the debate
surrounding the authenticity of this prophecy has centered on whether it is
an authentic Jesus tradition. The logic works in the following way: "If it can
be shown that this prophecy is an authentic Jesus tradition, it cannot be con
sidered a vaticinium ex eventu and, therefore, Mark can be dated prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem." But here, we suggest that this prophecy's identity
as an authentic Jesus tradition is only indirectly related to Mark's date. Mark
could have just as easily recorded an authentic Jesus tradition at a point after
the temple's destruction as before it and doing so would make the tradition no
less authentic. The days in which we concluded that Mark simply recorded
all the tradition that was available to him are long past. We have come to rec
ognize Mark as a creative and selective author who intentionally shaped his
material. The prophecy then must be considered Mark's own prophecy that
comes from either his (possibly authentic) sources or his own imagination.
The focus of the debate over Mark's date of composition, therefore, should not
Testament," ZNW5X (1960): 101-11; F. F. Bruce, "The Date and Character of Mark," in Jesus
and the Politics of His Day (E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule eds.; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984), 69-89; G. W. H. Lampe, "A. D. 70 in Christian Reflection," in Jesus
and the Politics of His Day (E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule eds.; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984), 153-71; Hengel, Studies, 14-30; C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Garden
City: Doubleday, 1986), 510; Beasley-Murray, Last Days; L. Schenke, Das Markusevange-
lium (Urban-Taschenbucher 405; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988), 35-38; Collins, Begin
ning, 76-77; van Iersel, Mark, 46-49; Craig Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC; Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2001), lxii-lxiii.
34
The following discussion on Mark 13 will be carried out under these assumptions:
the second evangelist is autonomous over the entire work and, whether he is dependent
upon a written (or oral) source or has constructed chapter 13 himself, the final result is
one that the author desired. In light of this assumption, we will not spend time discussing
the origins of chapter 13 nor the redaction which it might have undergone. For interpreters
who argue for an early Jewish-Christian source see F. Hahn, "Die Rede von der Parusie des
Menschensohnes Markus 13," in Jesus und der Menschensohn (R. Pesch and R. Schnack-
enburg eds.; Freiburg: Herder, 1975), 240-66; G. Holscher, "Der Ursprung der Apokalypse
Mk 13," TBe 12 (1933): 193-202; W. G. Kttmmel, Promise and Fulfilment (London: SCM
Press, 1957), 102-4; G. Theissen, Context, 125-49. For interpreters who argue for an early
non-Christian Jewish source see R. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 395-405; N. Walter,
"Tempelzerstorung und synoptische Apokalypse," ZNW 57 (1966): 38-49. For more gen
eral discussion on Markan redaction in Mark 13 see E. Brandenburger, Markus 13 und die
Apokalyptik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 46-51; Adela Yarbro Collins, The
Beginning of the Gospel: Prohings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992),
77; J. Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Insti
tute, 1967), R. Pesch, Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mark 13 (Dusseldorf:
Patmos, 1968). For a summary of many of these interpretations see Beasley-Murray, Last
Days, 162-350. Our present discussion focuses on the final form of Mark 13 and the purpose
it serves in the gospel as a whole.
58 Chapter 2
be on whether this saying is an authentic Jesus tradition, but on whether Mark

recorded (or created) this prophecy (essentially adopting it as his own) at a
time before or after the temple's destruction. Therefore, we will not speak of
Mark's temple prophecy as authentic (actually spoken by the historical Jesus)
or inauthentic (not spoken by the historical Jesus), but rather we will speak of
the prophecy as pre factum (meaning it was recorded by Mark before the fact
of the temple's destruction) or post factum (meaning it was recorded by Mark
after the fact of the temple's destruction).
Second, we must note that certainty regarding this issue is not attainable.
Therefore, we are left to consider the plausibility and probability of either a
pre factum prophecy or a post factum prophecy. In order to determine the
most plausible and/or probable outcome, we will consider five different crite
ria: (1) the criterion of specificity; (2) the criterion of reasonableness; (3) the
criterion of similarity; (4) the criterion of motivation; (5) the criterion of risk-
reward. Below we will address each criterion separately, first offering a brief
explanation of the criterion and then applying the criterion to Mark's temple
prophecy. The outcome demonstrated to be the most plausible and/or probable
will be preferred.
The Criterion of Specificity

The criterion of specificity looks at how specific the details of a prophecy are.
If a prophecy includes a great number of specific details that have actually
played out, it is more likely to be a post factum prophecy. But if the prediction
is more general or one that lacks specific details, the plausibility that it repre
sents a pre factum prophecy increases. Interpreters have applied this criterion
to Mark and have come to differing conclusions. Theissen argues that Mark's
prediction regarding the temple is quite specific, and he concludes that the
5
prophecy in Mark is in fact a vaticinium ex eventu? He notes the phrase "not
one stone will be left here (co5e) upon another," and claims that the use of the
word (68e may indicate that Mark is restricting the destruction to the temple
itself and not the retaining wall built around it. But the stones of the retaining
wall still remain to this day; thus Theissen concludes that Mark tailored the
prophecy to fit more accurately the details of the temple's destruction. Yet that
f
Mark uses oo6e in this way is far from certain. 'Q5e could easily refer both
to the temple and to the retaining wall built around it. Therefore, one could
also argue for a conclusion that is the exact opposite of Theissen. Given that
the retaining wall was not completely destroyed, why would someone include
the inaccurate detail that no stone would be left upon another after the event
of the destruction? If, as Theissen suggests, the author was only referring to
the temple and not the retaining wall, why did he not make this distinction
more clearly. But both these interpretations likely take the phrase too literally.
35
Theissen, Context, 259.
Mark s Date and Provenance 59
The phrase is best understood as expressing the gravity of the destruction that
36
the temple either has experienced or will experience. Despite Theissen's
claims, Mark's prediction is quite general. It predicts the temple's destruction
but gives very few details regarding the destruction; e.g., it fails to betray
knowledge of the Roman siege of Jerusalem or the burning of both the temple
and city (cf. Luke 19:43-44; 21:20). Therefore, the generality of this prophecy
31
increases the plausibility that it is prophecy pre factum.
The Criterion of Reasonableness
The criterion of reasonableness examines the reasonable nature of the proph
ecy itself. Clearly, the more reasonable a prediction, the easier it is to accept
that it may have been made before the event. For example, a prophecy claimed
to have been given in 1915 regarding the United States' involvement in World
War I would be easy to accept as pre factum. Given the prognosticator's infor
mation, the prophecy, though not certain, is quite plausible. But a prophecy
claimed to have been given in 1915 regarding the United States' war in Viet
nam would be much more difficult to accept as authentic. Therefore, we must
consider whether a prophecy of the temple's destruction, pre factum, was a
reasonable one given the available information. The first piece of informa
tion available to the evangelist is the awareness of a widespread feeling that
the Jerusalem temple and the ministry and activity surrounding it were cor
rupt. Certainly the Essenes are evidence that a significant number of people
rejected the temple establishment because of perceived corruption. As we
will discuss below, references to temple corruption are not uncommon in
non-Essene writings of the Second Temple period (Testament of Levi 10:3,
14:1-15:3, 16:1-5; Testament of Judah 23:1-5; Lives of the Prophets 10:10,
12:11). Because of what appears to be an anti-temple motif in Mark (11:12-25;
12:1-12; 13:1-2; 15:38), it might be suggested that even the evangelist may
have been sympathetic to this sentiment. In light of this negative attitude
toward the temple, it is reasonable to conclude that someone might predict
its destruction as a sign of God's judgment against it (and as we will discuss
38
below, many in fact did so).
36
See Collins, Beginning, 76.
37
The unspecific nature of Mark's prophecy has led many interpreters to conclude that
the prophecy is authentic; for example see Taylor, St. Mark, 501; E. P. Sanders and M.
Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press, 1989), 18; I. Broer, Einleitung
in das Neue Testament (NEB; Wurzburg: Echter, 1998), 1:85; Kee, Community, 100-1; Hen-
gel, Studies, 14-15; van Iersel, Mark, 46-49; et al.
38
For a more detailed look at perceived corruption in the Jerusalem temple, see Craig
A. Evans, "Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple," JSP 10 (1992): esp.
121-34.
60 Chapter 2
A second piece of information likely available to the evangelist was knowl

edge of the volatile relationship between Rome and the Palestinian Jews. A
large number of Palestinian Jews resented Roman occupation, with a good
deal of this resentment resulting from Roman insensitivities toward the Jew
ish faith. Josephus notes a number of incidents in which such insensitivi
39
ties resulted in violent conflicts between Romans and Jews. Someone aware
of the tension between Jews and Romans and the violent history between
them could reasonably foresee the escalation of these realities resulting in
the destruction of the physical center of Jewish faith, the temple. If Mark
were written during the Jewish Revolt as many interpreters conclude, the
evangelist has already seen the escalation of these tensions and the result
ing violence. Certainly someone witnessing Rome's fierce response to Jewish
rebellion could reasonably predict the temple's destruction. In fact, to some,
such an event might have seemed to be a plausible outcome (though as dis
cussed below, not a certain one).
Therefore, given the information that might have been available to Mark, a
prophecy regarding the temple's destruction seems to be a relatively reason
able one. The reasonableness of the prophecy increases the plausibility that it
is a pre factum prophecy.
The Criterion of Similarity
The criterion of similarity considers prophecies of a similar nature that were
made prior to the prophesied event. If the temple's destruction was prophesied
by others before the event itself, then the plausibility that Mark's prophecy
was also made prior to the event certainly increases. A handful of sources
that predate 70 C.E. do record prophecies regarding the destruction of the
Second Temple. Craig Evans has convincingly shown that predictions regard
ing the temple's destruction were not uncommon during the Second Temple
40
period. In the Testament of Levi, which likely dates to the second century
B.C.E, the following prophecy is found: "Therefore the sanctuary which the
Lord chose shall become desolate through your uncleanness and you will
41
be captives in all nations" (15.2). The corruption in the Hasmonean family
likely motivated this prophecy, a corruption that many believed had profaned
the temple. Corruption in the temple results in what appears to be a prophecy
regarding its destruction.
The DSS also include a prophecy concerning the temple's destruction:
"And what it says: 'Since you pillaged many people all the rest of the nations will pillage
you.' Its interpretation concerns the last priest of Jerusalem, who will accumulate riches and
39
Josephus, Ant. 15. 275-279; 17.146-154; 18.55-59; see also Philo, Legat. 38.
4 0
Evans, "Predictions," 89-147.
41
For the translation, see H. C. Kee, "Testament of Levi," in Old Testament Pseudepi-
grapha (James Charlesworth ed.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 1:793.
loot from plundering the nations. However, in the last days their riches and their loot will be
42
given into the hands of the army of the Kittim [Romans]." (lQpHab 9:2-7)
The temple's destruction is not specifically stated, but the destruction of the
temple's priests is quite clear. When this text is read together with texts that
anticipate building a new temple (HQTemp 29:8-10; 30:1-4), the destruction
of the old temple accompanying the destruction of its corrupt priests becomes
43
a reasonable conclusion. Again corruption is the cause for a prophecy against
the temple establishment.
The Lives of the Prophets contains the following prophecy:
"And concerning the end of the Temple, he predicted, 'By a western nation it will happen.'
44
'At that time', he said, 'the curtain of the Dabeir [Holy of Holies] will be torn into small
pieces, and the capitals of the two pillars will be taken and no one will know where they are;
and they will be carried away by angels into the wilderness, where the Tent of Witness was
45
set up in the beginning.'" (12: l l )
This prophecy's value for our present purposes is questionable because some
challenge whether the Lives of the Prophets predates the temple's destruction.
Destruction at the hands of a western nation may indicate an awareness of
Rome's destruction of the temple. But details such as the tearing of the temple
curtain into pieces and the mysterious disappearance of the pillars' capitals,
is not consistent with any known testimony concerning the temple's destruc
46
tion and may indicate a pre-70 dating. Therefore, it is possible that the Lives
of the Prophets also reflects an authentic prophecy regarding the temple's
destruction.
In that others (aside from Mark) prophesied the temple's destruction before
70 C.E., we must conclude that it is at least plausible that Mark could do the
same. Again, this criterion increases the plausibility that Mark's prophecy is
1
pre factum*
The Criterion of Motivation
The criterion of motivation seeks to determine possible authorial motivations
for making or including a particular prophecy. Here we compare possible
motivations for recording a pre factum prophecy with possible motivations
42
For the translation, see Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 1:19.
43
See Evans, "Predictions," 96-97, for further discussion.
4 4
See n. llf. in Kee, "Testament of Levi" 393.
45
For the translation, see D. R. A. Hare, "The Lives of the Prophets," in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha.
4 6
For discussion concerning the dating of the Lives of the Prophets, see D. R. A. Hare,
"The Lives of the Prophets" in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:381 n. 11; C. C. Tor-
rey, The Lives of the Prophets (SBLMS 1; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature,
1946), 11.
47
Similar conclusions are reached by Evans, "Predictions," 146-47.
62 Chapter 2
for recording a post factum prophecy. The position with the most plausible
48
motivations will be preferred. We will begin by analyzing possible motiva
tions for a pre factum prophecy. Some may suggest that the evangelist simply
desired to record accurately a Jesus tradition that he had received, and there
fore, included the prophecy of the temple's destruction. If, in the evangelist's
tradition, he had received a prophecy regarding the temple's destruction, it
is possible that, regardless of the temple's present state, the evangelist might
include that tradition. If he considered the tradition to be authentic and trusted
Jesus' prophetic power, no more motivation may have been needed. But given
what many interpreters perceive to be Mark's selective and creative use of his
49
sources, this motivation appears too general. We can be fairly certain that
Mark was under no obligation to record material simply because he possessed
it. Therefore, we need a more specific motivation for why Mark might have
desired to record this particular Jesus tradition.
One such motivation for including a pre factum prophecy is the perceived
corruption in the temple and among its overseers. Perceived corruption was
clearly the motivation for other prophecies of the temple's destruction (as we
have demonstrated above). It is quite possible that the evangelist and his com
munity perceived the temple to be corrupt and, therefore, predicted its coming
destruction. This motivation would appear to be in line with the "anti-temple"
theme that many interpreters have perceived in Mark. The problem with this
motivation is that "anti-temple" sentiments are absent from all extant pre-70
C.E. Christian literature (with the exclusion of Mark, the date of which we are
attempting to discern). The Pauline corpus says nothing about temple corrup
50
tion nor does it reveal any anticipation of the temple's destruction. The Acts
of the Apostles portrays the early church as having a positive perspective on
the temple. In fact, the testimony of Acts would seem to indicate that Jerusa
lem Christians regularly worshiped at the temple. Paul himself fulfilled vows
at the temple likely as late as 58-59 C.E. (Acts 21:17-26). The only exception to
48
Here we must acknowledge that we cannot ascertain with certainty what motivated
the anonymous author of the second gospel to include any particular piece of material.
However, based on the Markan text and our knowledge of early Christianity, we can offer
possible motives for the evangelist, and we can compare these motifs in order to determine
which of them seems most plausible.
49
While we conclude that detecting where Mark has edited his sources is difficult, it is
generally agreed that Mark did in fact use sources, and that he was selective in their use.
50
Paul does claim that believers are the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; cf.
Eph 2:18-22; 1 Tim 3:15), which likely evidences his belief in the inadequacy of the temple,
but it does not indicate that he foresaw its impending destruction. For temple imagery in
Paul see Bertil Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament
(SNTS 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 49-70. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul
(or another in Paul's name) does claim that the eschatological "man of lawlessness" will set
himself up in the "temple of God" (2 Thess 2:4), but this claim does not seem to be a critique
of the temple or the temple establishment, nor does it anticipate the temple's destruction.
Marks Date and Provenance 63
this positive temple portrayal in Acts comes during the narrative of Stephen.
Stephen's opponents claim that he has spoken against both the "holy place
and the Law" (Acts 6:13) and that he has claimed that Jesus will destroy the
temple (Acts 6:14). But the text indicates that these charges are false, and that
Stephen never actually said these things. At the end of his speech, Stephen
makes a critique, not of the temple itself, but of the Jews' misguided under
standing of the temple (Acts 7:48-50). But Stephen never links this misguided
Jewish perspective to temple corruption or the eventual destruction of the
temple. The mention of Jesus destroying the temple could simply be the result
of Luke applying Jesus traditions (which he receives from Mark) to Stephen,
whose trial and death is closely paralleled to that of Jesus' in the book of
51
Acts. Therefore, the accusation that Stephen claimed Jesus would destroy
the temple is a Lukan creation and does not represent a pre-70 "anti-temple"
sentiment. Again, on the whole, Acts presents the early church as having a
positive view of the temple.
While one could argue that the book of Hebrews is a pre-70 witness to an
"anti-temple" sentiment within the church, there is much debate over whether
it ought to be dated before 70 C.E. We must also note that Hebrews never
mentions the temple, but instead speaks of the tabernacle. Even if one dates
Hebrews before 70 C.E., there is no indication of a Christian belief that the
temple was corrupt or that it would be destroyed. At most, Hebrews presents
the temple (in actuality the tabernacle) as inadequate but not as corrupt or
deserving of destruction. The absence of a corrupt temple motif in any pre-70
C.E. Christian literature or in any portrayals of the pre-70 church is evidence
that an "anti-temple" sentiment was not prevalent within early Christianity
52
before the temple's destruction. Therefore, temple corruption becomes an
unlikely motivation for a pre factum prophecy regarding the Jerusalem tem
53
ple's destruction.
Another possible motivation for including a pre factum prophecy of the
temple's destruction may be the perceived imminence of that destruction.
If the evangelist is writing in the final stages of the Jewish Revolt (as many
interpreters have concluded) and is aware of the stranglehold that Roman
forces have on Jerusalem, his motivation may come from a desire to report
51
For discussion on intentional parallels between Jesus and Stephen in the book of Acts
see C. K. Barrett, Act of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 327, 381; Joseph
Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 389-95.
52
For further discussion on the early church's view of the temple see Oskar Skarsaune,
In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove: I VP,
2002), 155-60.
53
Some might then ask why an "anti-temple" theme is discernible in Mark. But such a
theme does not mandate the current existence of a corrupt temple, but rather could give an
explanation as to why the temple has recently been destroyed.
64 Chapter 2
54
what seems to be inevitable. Perhaps to the perceptive evangelist, Roman
victory might seem to be a certainty and with that victory, the evangelist fore
sees the annihilation of the Jews' holiest place. But this raises the question of
how inevitable this outcome of the Jewish Revolt was. Even up to the point
when Rome breached Jerusalem's walls, the Jews had numerous successes in
beating back their forces. At one point after the walls were breached, the Jew
ish rebels inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans and forced them to retreat
from the city. At the prospect of taking the last Jewish stronghold in the city,
the temple itself, Titus offered the Jews terms of peace, but they rejected
these. With the various successes experienced by the Jews throughout the
siege of Jerusalem, it would be difficult for anyone to predict the outcome of
the war, even at the latest hour. With the real possibility of a negotiated peace,
the destruction of the Jewish temple was far from certain. Perhaps some mili
tary strategists could claim Roman victory and see the temple's destruction
as a necessary outcome. But Jews and Christians, who were steeped in escha
tological expectations and believed wholeheartedly in divine intervention,
could hardly accept the finality of the temple's destruction until it had in fact
become a reality. It was perhaps the belief that God would not let his temple
fall to pagan enemies that caused the Jewish rebels to make their final stand
in the temple itself. For these reasons, the evangelist's desire to report the
imminent destruction of the temple is not a compelling motivation for Mark's
prophecy.
Up to this point, we have examined possible motivations for Mark's proph
ecy regarding the temple's destruction before the event. None of the motiva
tions we have examined has been overly compelling (though each may be
possible). We will now look at the evangelist's possible motivation for record
ing a post factum prophecy of the temple's destruction. The first motivation
is obvious. By having Jesus predict the temple's destruction, Mark further
highlights Jesus' prophetic power, a power which is only confirmed after the
temple destruction. Certainly one of Mark's goals was to present Jesus as a
powerful prophet. This goal is accomplished by recording Jesus' prophecy of
the temple destruction. A second possible motivation is the need to provide
stability and understanding during a time of crisis. The time of the temple's
destruction was likely a time of crisis and confusion for many in the early
church and perhaps those in Mark's community. Questions surrounding the
meaning of the destruction and its implications for eschatological expecta
tions were likely quite pressing. By including Jesus' prophecy of the temple's
54
As we discussed in chapter one, this situation is exactly what Willi Marxsen describes.
He argues that Mark perceives the impending destruction of the temple, and therefore urges
the Christians living there to flee to Pella (which Marxsen locates in Galilee). However, as
we noted in chapter one, writing a gospel in order to make such a plea seems unlikely. See
Marxsen, Evangelist.
destruction, Mark helps to answer his community's questions and calm their
fears. The prophecy takes a cataclysmic event and places it into the sphere
of God's control: there is nothing to fear because the temple's destruction is
part of God's plan and God's messiah has proclaimed it. Jesus' prediction
also takes the sting out of Roman power and authority: this power is not to be
feared because it is simply an instrument to accomplish God's purpose.
We can now compare the motivations for a pre factum prophecy with those
of a post factum prophecy. Of the three pre factum motivations, the first, a
desire to include authentic Jesus tradition, ignores the author's creative and
selective use of sources, making it too general to be compelling. The second
and third - the desire to critique temple corruption and the desire to record the
temple's imminent destruction - seem inconsistent with the historical realties
of the first century. Therefore, none of these motivations for a pre factum
prophecy is overly compelling. However, we find the post factum motivations
consistent with both Mark's presentation of Jesus as a powerful prophet and
the situation in which the church likely found itself after the temple's destruc
tion. Therefore, the criterion of motivation seems to favor the plausibility of a
post factum prophecy.
The Criterion of Risk-Reward

The fifth criterion for determining whether a prophecy is pre factum or post
factum examines the risk-reward ratio surrounding the inclusion of the proph
ecy. The higher an author's risk-reward ratio is for including a prophecy the
less likely it is that the prophecy is pre factum. The lower the author's risk-
reward ratio is for including the prophecy, the more likely it is that the proph
ecy is pre factum. This criterion is based on the simple but sound notion that
the amount of risk an individual is willing to take is directly related to the
reward he or she might receive. High risk is only taken to gain a proportion
ately high reward. Here we will seek to determine the evangelist's risk-reward
ratio for including the temple prophecy both pre factum and post factum.
What risks does Mark take by including a prophecy regarding the temple's
destruction pre factum? The answer to this question is clear. Since Mark has
Jesus make this prophecy, the credibility of Jesus, Mark's central figure, is at
risk. Given that much of Mark's gospel (if not all of it) is devoted to promoting
Jesus, including this prophecy was quite risky. If the temple is not destroyed,
then Mark's Jesus is easily discredited, as is Mark's gospel. But what of
Mark's reward for including such a prophecy pre factuml Is it proportionate
to the risk? Perhaps, as we noted above, Mark was able to advance an anti-
temple motif through this prophecy and highlight God's impending judgment
of what the evangelist perceived to be a corrupt institution. Or perhaps Mark
was simply warning his readers of what he perceived to be the impending and
cataclysmic destruction of the temple. But these rewards do not seem propor
tionate to Mark's risk. At best they advance relatively minor Markan themes
66 Chapter 2
and are ancillary to Mark's most significant theme of Christology. Therefore,

in claiming that Mark's prophecy of the temple's destruction is pre factum,
we are claiming that Mark was willing to risk his christological presentation
of Jesus - a Markan theme closely related to Mark's overall purpose - for the
sake of minor themes that are only ancillary to the gospel's primary message.
Therefore, Mark's risk-reward ratio for including a pre factum prophecy of the
temple's destruction is quite high - a fact that decreases the plausibility of a
pre factum prophecy.
However, we must consider other realities that might mitigate this high
risk-reward ratio for the evangelist? One could point to the open-ended nature
of the prophecy. Jesus puts no time-table on when the temple's destruction
will occur. Though the reader of Mark may be living in a day when the temple
is still standing, this does not mean the prophecy is false. The prophecy can
still find fulfillment at some future point. Many faith traditions have dealt
with troublesome prophecies in this manner. Yet though this solution may
satisfy some, there are certainly others whom it would not satisfy. Some read
ers who see the temple standing will question the credibility of the prophet
who predicted its destruction. Why would Mark unnecessarily open Jesus up
to this type of criticism.
The risk becomes even greater if Mark is writing during the Jewish Revolt.
Suddenly Mark's prophecy is surrounded by historical constraints. Mark's
readers will certainly understand the prophecy in terms of the Jewish Revolt,
and the evangelist's backdoor of an open-ended prophecy is slammed shut. If
the Jewish Revolt did not result in the temple's destruction but rather in Jewish
victory (which, as we noted above, many Jews and possibly even Christians
likely perceived as a possible outcome), a default to open-ended prophecy
would fall on deaf ears. Jesus' prophecy of the temple's destruction would
mean little if Jerusalem and its temple stood triumphant against the forces of
Rome. If Mark saw even the slightest possibility of this outcome, would he
jeopardize his presentation of Jesus by including such a prophecy against it?
It seems it would be an unnecessary risk by the evangelist.
We also must consider whether there is evidence of Mark taking simi
lar prophetic risks elsewhere in his gospel? If it can be demonstrated that
Mark makes or records risky prophecies elsewhere, then perhaps the appear
ance of one regarding the temple would be less significant. Mark records
many prophecies by Jesus - his own death and resurrection, Peter's denial,
Judas' betrayal - but all of these have been fulfilled before the time of Mark's
composition. The only outstanding prophecy in Mark yet to be fulfilled is
the future coming of the Son of Man. Yet this prophecy can hardly be seen
to carry the same risks as the prophecy of the temple's destruction. It is
not constrained by history in nearly the same way as the temple prophecy;
therefore, the open-ended nature of the prophecy can be used to explain a
55
delayed Parousia. This prophecy is also much more crucial to the faith of the
early church and to Mark's presentation of Jesus than is the temple prophecy.
From a very early date, the church eagerly anticipated Jesus' return and placed
great importance on it. Mark's inclusion of this prophecy is in line with the
priority of this belief in the early church. It is also important to Mark's pre
sentation of Jesus as the Son of Man who will one day return. If Jesus is the
messianic Son of God who is forever absent from his people, much of his sig
nificance is lost. Mark's inclusion of the prophecy of the coming Son of Man,
though it may involve some risk, is essential to Jesus' identity in Mark and to
the faith of the church (unlike the prophecy of the temple's destruction). It is,
therefore, a risk Mark must take and, unlike the temple prophecy, it cannot
be left out. But at no other point did Mark risk the validity of his gospel by
including prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.
We can conclude that Mark would risk a great deal (the very validity of
his gospel and its central figure, Jesus) by including a pre factum prophecy
regarding the temple's destruction. Perhaps more importantly, the reward for
such a great risk is minimal. A great risk for such a small gain seems highly
unlikely. The absence of such risks elsewhere in Mark only confirms this
conclusion. But if Mark recorded this prophecy post factum, he risked noth
ing and, as we have demonstrated above, he gained a great deal (Jesus is
confirmed as a great prophet, God is understood as in control in the midst of
crisis, encouragement is given to confused and frightened disciples, and the
power of Rome is disarmed). The criterion of risk-reward, therefore, strongly
favors the conclusion that Mark's temple prophecy is post factum rather than
pre factum.
Conclusions to be Drawn from the Criteria

After applying these five criteria to Mark's temple prophecy, we can make the
following conclusions. While the first three criteria (specificity, reasonable
ness, and similarity) increase the plausibility that Mark's temple prophecy is
pre factum, they neither necessitate such a conclusion, nor do they preclude
the possibility of a post factum prophecy. But the last two criteria (motivation
and risk-reward) do undermine the plausibility of a pre factum identification
and, at the same time, strongly favor the plausibility of identifying the proph
ecy as post factum. Therefore, on the strength of these final two criteria, we
conclude that Mark's temple prophecy is best identified as a post factum, and
that its presence in Mark betrays a post-70 date of composition.
55
It could be argued that this passage is restrained somewhat by Mark 9:1, which claims
that some of Jesus' disciples will not die until they see the kingdom of God "come in power."
The meaning of this verse for Mark is debated. But if it is understood to refer to the return
of Son of Man, and the establishment of God's eschatological kingdom, then the Son of Man
prophecy would have some historical restraints.
68 Chapter 2
2.2.4 Reading Mark 13 in Light of a Post-70 Date of Composition

After concluding that Mark's temple prophecy is best understood as post fac
tum, we must determine whether this conclusion is compatible with the rest of
Mark's gospel or even more specifically with chapter 13. For many interpret
ers, the relationship between the details of Mark 13 and the historical events
behind them is determinative for dating Mark. The majority of interpreters
understand the details of Mark 13 against the backdrop of the Jewish Revolt,
and its culmination in the temple's destruction. But, as we noted previously,
interpreters differ on the temporal perspective of the chapter - whether it was
written prior to the temple's destruction and is primarily looking forward to
56
the future (what we will call the anticipatory interpretation) or it was written
after the temple's destruction and is looking backward to the past (what we
57
will call descriptive interpretation). Those who posit the descriptive inter
pretation generally see verses 5-23 as a description of completed history,
namely the Jewish War, the temple's destruction and the suffering that sur
58
rounded both. Those who posit the anticipatory interpretation generally see
these verses as a description of the current realities of the Jewish Revolt that
both Mark and his readers are experiencing (or have recently experienced)
59
and the future realities that they will soon encounter. The anticipatory inter
pretation, however, does not comport with our previous conclusions regarding
Mark's prophecy of the temple's destruction. As we concluded above, it seems
quite unlikely that Mark would have risked his gospel's credibility by includ
ing such an unfulfilled prophecy. If we rejected the plausibility of Mark 13:2
as a pre factum prophecy, we must conclude that Mark was written after the
events of the Jewish Revolt.
This conclusion leaves us with the descriptive interpretation that views the
majority of Mark 13 as completed history, a position with its own significant
difficulties. Here we will give a general sketch of the traditional descriptive
60
interpretation. Verses 5-8 are often understood in light of the realities of
the Jewish Revolt, (e.g., "wars and rumors of war," "nation rising against
56
For a list of such interpreters, see n. 33 above.
57
For a list of such interpreters, see n. 32 above.
58
Certainly variation exists within these numerous interpretations, but they generally
understand Mark 13 in light of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. We note a handful
of exceptions below.
59
Among the many interpreters who hold that Mark was writing during the Jewish Revolt
but prior to the destruction of the temple, some understand the details of Mark 13 to origi
nate almost completely from past historical realities, while others see the details originating
primarily from authentic Jesus tradition. Also among these interpreters there is variation of
opinion as to how much of Mark 13 has been experienced or is being experienced and how
much yet remains to be experienced.
60
Again variation of opinion among interpreters exists, but this generic model is helpful
in evaluating the position as a whole.
61
nation") and Jewish messianic pretenders who were active during the revolt.
Verses 9-13 are generally understood to reference past, present, or future
62
suffering (or possibly all three). Generally verses 14-23 are understood in
light of Jerusalem's destruction and, more specifically, the destruction of the
temple itself. Though the exact referent for the "abomination of desolation" is
debated, it is generally equated with an event closely related to the Jerusalem
63
temple. The immense suffering that followed the abomination is equated
with the suffering experienced in Jerusalem during its capture.
But interpreters who date Mark before 70 C.E. have leveled many valid
critiques against this interpretation. Many details of the discourse do not fit
with the historical realities surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the
temple. For example, it is difficult to understand why an author who knows
that the temple's destruction occurred in the summer would include a petition
that it not occur in the winter (13:18).
Another difficulty that arises when equating the destruction of Jerusalem
and its temple with Mark 13, concerns chronology. If Mark 13 is recording a
description of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it has its order of
events confused. In Mark 13, the temple's destruction (if this event is to be
equated with the "abomination of desolation") precedes the great persecution.
It is the sign of imminent destruction. But in actuality, the temple's destruc
tion ended the siege of Jerusalem. The temple's destruction did not ignite an
onslaught of persecution; rather, it was the culmination of years of suffering.
Mark also describes the tribulation surrounding these events as being
greater than any seen on the earth since its creation, and he claims that none
greater will ever be seen again. The language has a clear apocalyptic tenor to
it, and it seems to describe the world's final period of suffering. It is difficult
to understand why Mark would use this apocalyptic language of suffering
to describe a past event that in actuality never lived up to his description.
Certainly, it was a horrific experience for those involved, but it was relatively
61
Brandon, "Date of Mark," 136-37; Gnilka, Nach Markus, 186-88; Hooker, "Trials,"
85-86; Marcus, "Jewish War," 446-47; Peerbolte, Antecedents, 30-31; Donahue, Are You
the Christ?, 217-24; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 369; Moloney, Mark, 254-56.
62
Theissen sees these verses as a description of the suffering Christians might have expe
rienced in Syria after the destruction of the temple, though he offers no historical evidence
of such suffering. See Theissen, Context, 270. Hooker also sees these verses as instructions
to Mark's community regarding future suffering; Hooker, "Trials and Tribulations," 88-89;
see also Peerbolte, Antecedents, 32-35; Moloney, Mark, 256-58; Donahue and Harrington,
Mark, 380. For Brandon these verses have an eye on both the past suffering under Nero and
the possibility of future suffering; Brandon, "Date of Mark," 137.
63
Marcus understands this phrase as a reference to the presence of Zealot warriors in the
temple, "The Jewish War," 461-62; see also Lane, Mark, 469. Pesch understands this phrase
as a reference to Titus' entrance into the holy of holies after his armies had occupied the
temple (Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:291); see also Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 221-22;
Peerbolte, Antecedents, 35-41; Moloney, Mark, 259-60; Such, Abomination of Desolation.
70 Chapter 2
64
isolated, with little direct effect on the majority of the Christian church.
The siege of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction hardly live up to Mark's
description, suggesting that these events were not the events Mark intended
to describe.
Perhaps the greatest problem for understanding Mark 13 as completed his
tory is the claim that immediately following the temple's destruction and the
65
time of tribulation the Son of Man would return (13:24-27). If Mark is writ
ing after Jerusalem's destruction, this claim makes little sense, for we are
only left to conclude that Mark is living and writing during the time in which
he claims the Parousia should be taking place! Given the impossible nature of
such a conclusion, we must reject the notion that verses 14-23 are describing
the culmination of the Jewish Revolt.
For all of the above reasons, the descriptive interpretation fails to account
for the details of Mark 13. If we reject the traditional critical position, we are
left with only two options: (1) Mark wrote before 70 C.E. and anticipated both
the temple's destruction and the Parousia to follow or (2) Mark wrote after 70
C.E. and chapter 13 does not describe the temple's destruction, but rather, a
66
future reality for Mark and his community. Our analysis of Mark's temple
prophecy has led us to conclude that a pre-70 C.E. composition of Mark (option
one) is unlikely. Therefore, we must examine our second option; that Mark is
writing at some point after 70 C.E. and that he is describing future eschatologi-
cal realities unrelated to the Jewish Revolt and the temple's destruction. But
can such a Sitz im Leben adequately explain the realities of Mark 13? We now
turn to this question.
Mark 13 begins with the disciples' comments regarding the temple's gran
deur and Jesus' prophecy of its destruction. In Mark's narrative, this dialogue
happens as Jesus and an unspecified number of disciples come out of the
temple. In verse three, the location changes. There, Jesus is on the Mount of
64
It is debated whether or not the majority of the Jerusalem Christians suffered during
the Jewish Revolt. Eusebius claims that most Jewish Christians fled to Pella, though his tes
timony is questioned by modern interpreters. See the discussion above on Pella, page 21.
65
There is some debate as to whether Mark intended the reader to understand that the
events of verses 24-27 immediately followed the event of 14-23 or whether time between
these series of events is allowed. But the entire discourse is one that addresses questions
concerning the end of the age. The events of 14-23 are signs of the end of the age, which is
clearly addressed in 24-27. To allow for an unspecified amount of time to occur between
these series of events seems to interrupt the flow of the text. Such a conclusion should be
rejected given that the motivation for such a reading seems to be the removal of the diffi
culty that verses 24-27 pose for those interpreting 14-23 in light of the temple's destruction.
See Collins, Beginning, 86. We must note that Matthew - one of Mark's earliest interpreters
- eliminates this confusion by including the word EuGe'caq (Matt 24:29).
66
Some interpreters who date Mark after 70 C.E. have concluded that the "abomina
tion of desolation," of Mark 13 is not a reference to the temple's destruction, but rather is a
general reference to an "antichrist" figure; see Kelber, Kingdom, 119-20; Gnilka, Markus,
2:195-99.
Olives (across from the temple) and is talking with Peter, James, and John.
The three disciples pose the following question to Jesus, "Tell us, when will
these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to
be accomplished?" What is the subject of the disciples' question? The tradi
tional answer is the temple's destruction that Jesus prophesied in verse 2. But
why then do they use the plural pronoun xaOxa "these things" as opposed
to the singular pronoun T O O T O "this thing," if they are only interested in a
single event, the temple's destruction? The grammar here would indicate that
the disciples are not interested in the temple's destruction alone (if at all)
but other significant events. The abrupt change of scenery between verses
1-2 and verse 3 also may distance Jesus' prophecy concerning the temple
from the disciples' question and indicate that the temple's destruction is no
longer the central issue. Jesus' response to their question seems to confirm
this. Nowhere in Jesus' response (verses 5-27) does he explicitly mention the
temple or its destruction. Instead, Jesus speaks of signs that will precede the
coming of the Son of Man and the end of the age. This evidence suggests that
the antecedent for xauxa is not the temple's destruction, but rather the events
surrounding the eschaton, events that Jesus is about to describe. The ques
tion has no direct relationship to the temple prophecy of verse 2, but rather
was created for the purpose of introducing a discourse on the events that will
precede the end of the age. Matthew (perhaps our first known interpreter of
Mark) has clearly understood Mark in this way and has made the disciples'
question explicitly refer to the eschaton. Luke, who is notorious for mitigating
references to an imminent Parousia, has backed off from this interpretation
and has linked the question almost explicitly to the Jerusalem destruction.
Therefore, it seems quite plausible that Jesus' discourse (verses 5-27) is con
cerned with the events of the final age and not with the events surrounding the
temple's destruction.
Before we examine Jesus' response to the disciples' question, a prelimi
nary observation is needed. Though Mark has the disciples ask the question,
it seems quite likely that this question is actually a question Mark's com
munity asked, namely "when will the end come?" Certainly this community
was interested in the eschaton and the Parousia. Jesus' discourse serves to
address the eschatological questions not asked by the historical disciples but
67
by Mark's audience. It would perhaps ease their anxieties, fears, and confu
sion - fears and confusion that would no doubt abound following an event
such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
Jesus' response can be divided into four different sections: (1) universal
catastrophes preceding tribulation (vs. 5-8), (2) personal catastrophes pre
ceding tribulation (vs. 9-13), (3) unprecedented tribulation (vs. 14-23), and
(4) the coming of the Son of Man following tribulation (vs. 24-27). Section
67
For a similar conclusion see Roskam, Purpose, 55-72.
72 Chapter 2
one addresses the events in the recent past and immediate present of Mark's
readers. The messages of "wars and rumors of wars" and "nation rising
against nation and kingdom against kingdom" are realities through which
Mark's readers have lived. It is quite possible that Mark has the Jewish Revolt
in mind or perhaps the civil war of 69 C.E., which left the Roman Empire in
68
chaos. Mark also speaks of people coming in the name of Christ and warns
69
against following such deception. It is important to note, however, none of
these things is an immediate precursor to the end; they are described only as
70
"the beginning of birth pains." It seems likely that recent events increased
both eschatological anxieties and eschatological expectations within Mark's
community. Some members of the community may have chosen to follow
false teachers/messianic claimants or perhaps were tempted to do so as a
result of confusion surrounding the eschaton. The Markan Jesus speaks to
this situation and assures the community that the end is not yet here and
reminds them that they must remain faithful in the interim. The chaos in the
world around them is only the precursor to the tribulation that is to come. The
primary purpose of section one, therefore, is to tell Mark's readers not to be
misled and that the events they are experiencing are not signs that the end is
imminent.
Section two (9-13) addresses personal persecution and suffering that
Mark's readers either were experiencing, expected to experience, or had
experienced in the recent past. The persecution involves being "handed over
to councils," "beaten in synagogues," and "standing before governors and
kings." Though these examples may have direct corollaries in the lives of
Mark's readers, they could be more generic examples of suffering. Perhaps
they find their corollaries in past persecutions and are here being projected on
the suffering or anticipated suffering of Mark's readers. We can be fairly cer
tain that Mark perceived this suffering to come from public or possibly reli
gious officials. All of this suffering results from faithfulness to Jesus, and, in
fact, is seen as an opportunity for true disciples to bear witness to Jesus. The
one who endures this persecution for the sake of Jesus and does not fall away
will be saved. But again, the persecution described in section two should not
be associated with the coming of the eschaton, but rather is a description of
the normative reality for Jesus' disciples, i.e., Mark's readers. The reader is
68
See Hengel, Studies, 22-24.
69
There is debate over who these false teachers represent. Some claim that they are mes
sianic pretenders associated with the Jewish Revolt; see Roskam, Purpose, 95-97; Marcus,
"Jewish War," 44; Collins, "Apocalyptic Rhetoric," BibRes 41 (1996): 5-36, esp. 15; eadem,
Beginning, 81-82; see van Iersel, Mark, 44-45, for a critique of Collins in particular. Others
have argued that they are false teachers among Mark's community, perhaps teachers who
are proclaiming that the Parousia has already taken place; see Kelber, Kingdom, 115; Tay
lor, Mark, 503; David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone
Press, 1956), 325-29; van Iersel, Mark, 394-95, et al.
70
See Hooker, "Trials and Tribulations," 84-90.
Marks Date and Provenance 73
reminded, as in section one, that the experience of this personal persecution
is not a sign of the imminent eschaton.
Until verse 14, the purpose of Jesus' teaching is restraint. The message is,
"Yes chaotic events will take place and you will suffer persecution but the end
is yet to come." It is in section three that Jesus finally gives the sign that will
mark the beginning of the end and so that the disciples (Mark's readers) will
receive the answer to their question. This transition is signaled by the phrase
oxav 6e i6r|T6, "but when you see." The "abomination of desolation standing
where it ought not to be" is the sign warning Mark's readers that the end is
imminent. But to what then is Mark referring? The reference itself certainly
finds its origins in septuagintal version of Daniel 12:11: "From when the per
petual sacrifice is removed and the abomination of desolation [TO (36e\uy|ia
Trjg 6pr]|jc6aecog] is prepared to be established, [there will be] a thousand two
71
hundred and ninety days." A similar reference is made in LXX Daniel 11:31:
"Forces from him shall be established and profane the holy place of fear and
take away the sacrifice and give the abomination of desolation [P5e\uy|ja
72
epr||jc6a6cog]." p 8 e \ u y | j a eprnjcoaecoc; also appears in 1 Maccabees 1:54
and is most certainly an allusion to the Danielic abomination: "Now on the
fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected
an abomination of desolation [(38e\uy|ja epriiicoaecog] upon the altar of burnt
offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah." These ref
erences describe the actions of Antiochus IV, who defiled the Jewish temple
by instituting pagan worship within it. Reinforcing this connection between
pagan worship and this unique phrase is the way in which p 6 e \ u y | j a is used
73
in the LXX. It is frequently used in reference to pagan worship or idolatry.
Mark's use of this specific phrase should likely be seen against this back
ground of pagan worship/idolatry.
But Mark's exact referent for the "abomination of desolation" is difficult
to determine. Given the two considerations with which we began this sec
tion - (1) that Mark was written after 70 C.E. and (2) that Mark's purpose is
to inform his readers regarding the coming eschaton - we can conclude that
this event lies in the future for Mark and his readers. It is an event for which
Mark's readers can look to as a sign that the end is imminent. Therefore,
any reference to the "abomination of desolation" that precedes or is directly
related to the temple's destruction must be rejected, e.g., Pilate's attempt to
bring Caesar's image into the city, Caligula's attempt to erect a statue of him
74
self in the temple, the presence of Jewish Zealots or priests ordained by
71
Translation original, dependent upon Rahlfs' text of the LXX. A. Rahlfs, Septuagint,
th
id est, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2 vols.; 8 ed.; Stuttgart: Wurt-
tembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965).
72
Original translation, dependent upon Rahlfs' text of the LXX.
73
Deut 7:25,26; 17:4; 18:12; 27:15; 1 Mace 6:7; Wis 14:11; Mai 2:11; Jer 2:7; et al.
74
For interpreters who see the Caligula crisis as a background to Mark 13:14 (or at
74 Chapter 2
75
Zealots working in the temple, or even Titus' presence in the temple fol
lowing its destruction. Given the background surrounding T O p 8 e \ u y | i a
76
ifig 6pr||jc6a£cog, it seems likely that the event that Mark anticipates will be
related in some way to pagan worship or idolatry and could possibly be similar
to actions of Antiochus IV. Theissen has argued that Mark is referring to the
anticipated construction of a pagan temple on the site where the Jewish tem
77
ple once stood. Though Theissen's theory is quite attractive, it is impossible
to determine whether Mark has such a specific referent in mind. It is possible
that T O pSeXuyiia Trjg eprnjcoaecog represents a common Christian belief
that the eschaton would be preceded by an idolatrous act of great significance
- one which was reminiscent of or of similar magnitude to that of Antiochus
IV. Regardless of the way in which that act would be manifested, it would not
be misunderstood by the people of God, and it would stand as a clear marker
of the imminent end of the age. A similar tradition may be expressed in 2
Thessalonians 2:3-4: "Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will
not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the
one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-
called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God,
declaring himself to be God." Mark 13:14 could reflect both the Jewish and
later Christian belief that the eschaton would be preceded by the rise of an
78
apocalyptic figure who would oppose both God and his messiah.
Against this conclusion, one could argued that Mark's use of T O p 5 e \ u y | j a
Trig eprilicoaecog presupposes the temple's existence and that a generic identi
fication of this event (such as we have offered here) is impossible. It is true that
both Daniel and 1 Maccabees specifically link the phrase T O pSeXuyjia Trjg
eptîcoaecog to the temple, but it is uncertain that Mark's use of the phrase in
the first century also carries this same link. We know little about the develop
ment of this phrase from its use in 1 Maccabees (ca. 100 B.C.E.) up to the late
least behind the pre-Markan tradition) see N. H. Taylor, "Palestinian Christianity and the
Caligula Crisis: Part II. The Markan Eschatological Discourse," JSNT 62 (1996): 13-41;
Grundmann, Markus, 358; Gnilka, Markus, 2:194; et al.
75
See n. 63 above.
76
See n. 63 above.
77
Theissen, Context, 258-64.
78
For those interpreters who understand the TO pSeXuypa iffo epriucoaecog as a refer
ence to the antichrist, see, along with n. 56, Lohmeyer, Markus, 275-76; Klostermann,
Markusevangelium, 135; H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (NCB; London: Oliphants,
1976), 296; J. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Markus (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet Verlag, 1998),
379. For dissenting opinions, see Peerbolte, Antecedents, 35-41. For further discussion on
the concept of antichrist in Second Temple Judaism see G. W. Lorein, The Antichrist Theme
in the Intertestamental Period (JSPSup 44; London: T & T Clark, 2003). Lorein makes a
strong case that the idea of an antichrist figure was well established by the end of the intert-
estmenal period. If Lorein is correct, then it seems plausible that Mark 13 simply reflects the
continuation of this tradition.
first century. In a post-temple period, there seems to be no reason why the
use of this phrase could not be maintained to describe unspeakable idolatry,
while its association with the temple (which no longer was standing) could be
79
abandoned. Yet does the description of the T O pSeXuypa rfjg epr||jc6a6cog
as "standing" or "established" in the place "where it ought not be" indicate
a reference to the Jerusalem temple? Such an interpretation is certainly pos
sible but not necessary. A metaphysical rather than physical location could be
intended. Therefore, the place that is wrongfully occupied could be the place
of divine recognition: that which is not divine (or is not God's representative)
is receiving the recognition of the divine and "is established where it/he ought
not to be." Understanding T O pSeXuyna Trjg epr)|ic6aecog to be a reference to
a future idolatrous action unrelated to the temple is therefore plausible. Any
attempt to link it with either a known historical event or a specific expectation
is both unnecessary and difficult to prove.
The idolatrous event of verse 14 will usher in a time of great tribulation,
which will be unsurpassed in human history (13:19). Because of this coming
tribulation, the reader is warned to flee immediately. The plight of pregnant
or nursing women will be even greater because flight from danger will be dif
ficult (13:17). These days will be cut short by God for the sake of his elect. Had
they not been divinely curtailed, all of humanity would perish. During this
time, false christs and false prophets will attempt to deceive people through
signs and wonders, but the elect will not be deceived. With these verses,
Mark continues to instruct his readers about eschatological expectations. The
eschaton will be immediately preceded by unmatched persecution, one that
requires immediate flight to safety. It will surpass any suffering that Mark's
readers may have already endured (see 13:9-13). Mark continues his theme of
discipleship in this section by warning his readers that despite the convincing
proofs of false christs and prophets, they must remain faithful. This time of
tribulation and the false christs that accompany it should not surprise Mark's
readers, for they have been warned in advance.
Section four discusses the events that will immediately follow the great
tribulation of section three. It is in fact the climax of the entire discourse, for
it describes both the coming Son of Man (the Parousia) and the salvation that
he will bring for the elect. The coming of the Son of Man will be preceded
by astrological signs, i.e., the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of
stars, and the shaking of the heavens. These signs reflect common apocalyptic
imagery. The Son of Man who returns in the clouds is probably Jesus and may
be an allusion to Daniel 7:13. The reference to the Danielic Son of Man cer
tainly implies the establishment of the eschatological kingdom of God though
it is not explicitly stated here. Angels will gather God's elect, namely those
79
If Theissen's theory is accepted, Mark would then be referring to an idolatrous object/
person standing where the temple had once stood.
76 Chapter 2
who have remained faithful disciples. Section four marks the beginning of the
eschaton that Mark's readers are anxiously awaiting.
This interpretation of chapter 13 is certainly plausible and also seems to
explain the details of the discourse more adequately than the alternative inter
pretations mentioned above. The eschatological discourse, therefore, does not
pose a problem for a post-70 dating of Mark and may be best understood in
light of such a dating.
2.2.5 Conclusions concerning Mark's Date of Composition
Here we have tried to show that the external evidence, though not determina
tive, for the dating of Mark, favors a lower limit of 65 C.E., a time after the
deaths of Peter and Paul. Two internal factors, eschatological expectations and
the presence of a world-wide mission, support this lower limit. But the most
important piece of internal evidence is the prophecy of the temple's destruc
tion. In determining whether this prophecy was recorded by the evangelist
pre factum or post factum, we considered five criteria. While three criteria
(specificity, reasonableness, and similarity) supported the plausibility of a pre
factum prophecy, two criteria (motivation and risk-reward) undermined the
plausibility of a pre factum identification and strongly favored the probability
of a post factum prophecy. Therefore, based on this piece of internal evidence,
we must conclude that Mark was written no earlier than 70 C.E., at some point
after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. To conclude our argument,
we have sought to demonstrate that a post 70 dating of Mark could adequately
explain the realities found in Mark 13. Our discussion of Mark's purpose will
continue, therefore, in light of a post 70 C.E. date for Mark's composition.
2.3 Mark's Provenance
Only three noteworthy candidates find themselves in the debate regarding

80
Mark's provenance. The more traditionally accepted location for Mark's com
81
position (and still the most frequently posited among interpreters) is Rome.
For the last two millennia this has been the accepted tradition of the church
and most biblical interpreters. During the early twentieth century, however, a
80
For an overview of scholarship on Mark's provenance see J. R. Donahue, "The Quest
for the Community of Mark's Gospel," in The Four Gospels 1992 FS F. Neirynck (ed. F. van
Segbroek, et al.; BETL 100B; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:817-38
81
For interpreters who advance a Roman provenance see Ernst, Markus, 1:112-14; Hen-
gel, Studies, 1-30; R. E. Brown and J. P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles
of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 191-97; Guelich, Mark, xxix-
xxxi; Hooker, "Trials and Tribulations," 78-99; idem, Mark; Lane, Mark, 24-25; van Iersel,
Mark, 30-57; et al. Black claims that while a Roman provenance for Mark is not improbable,
it is not certain; see Black, Mark, 238-39; idem, "Was Mark a Roman Gospel?" ExpTim 105
(1993-1994), 36-40; Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 59-108, 156-202.
handful of interpreters argued against the traditional provenance in favor of

82
Galilee. Though this position has not found a great deal of support among
interpreters, it continues to find a place in current debates and thus we will
consider it here. More recently, however, a significant number of interpreters
83
have argued for a Syrian provenance. Though it does not seem Syria has
eclipsed Rome as the answer to this debate, it does seem to be the location du
jour for a growing number of Markan interpreters. Here we will examine all
three positions in light of both the external and internal evidence.
2.3.1 Rome: The External Evidence
The external evidence for Mark's provenance overlaps a good deal with
the external evidence for Mark's dating. The earliest testimony that gives
any indication about the location for Mark is again found in Irenaeus (see
Irenaeus' testimony above). Though Irenaeus does not explicitly claim that
Mark was written in Rome, the fact that he connects its composition to Peter's
and Paul's deaths in Rome seems to imply a Roman provenance. The "anti-
Marcionite" prologue explicitly states that Mark was written in the "regions
of Italy." If the prologue was familiar with a Roman provenance for Mark it is
peculiar that it would offer a general location (Italy) rather than a specific one
(Rome). The reference to Italy could simply be a stylistic circumlocution for
Rome or it could actually betray uncertainty in the author's understanding of
his tradition (perhaps that of Irenaeus). Regardless, the prologue's testimony
places the composition of Mark closer to Rome than to the alternative posi
tions (Syria or Galilee) and is, therefore, best seen as evidence for a west
ern provenance. Clement of Alexandria also designates Rome as the place of
Mark's composition. These three early witnesses are affirmed by a number of
later witnesses (Origen, Eusebius, the Monarchian gospel prologues, Epiphia-
84
nus, and Jerome).
The virtual unanimity of this ancient testimony has long convinced inter
preters that Mark's provenance is indeed Rome. But more critical scrutiny of
this ancient evidence raises doubts about its worth. Clifton Black has noted
that most ancient witnesses regarding the Markan origins agree on two things:
82
See Lohmeyer, Markus, 29-31; Lightfoot, Locality; Marxsen, Evangelist, 54-116; N.
Perrin, "Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark," in Christology and a Mod
ern Pilgrimage (ed. H. D. Betz; Claremont: SBL, 1971), 1-78; Weeden, Traditions; Kelber,
Kingdom; and most recently Roskam, Purpose, 75-114.
83
See Kee, Community, 102-5; B. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Ori
gins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Waetjen, Reordering, 15, 251; J. Donahue, "Windows
and Mirror," 1-26; idem, Are You the Christ?; Marcus, "Jewish War," 141-62; Such, Abomi
nation of Desolation; Theissen, Context, 235-81; et al.
84 th
In fact, only one ancient witness, John Chrysostom (writing in the late 4 century)
offers an alternative provenance: Egypt. This tradition of an Egyptian provenance almost
certainly originated from the tradition that Mark was at one point the bishop of Alexandria;
see the Monarchian prologue for Mark where this tradition first appears.
78 Chapter 2
(1) that Mark is in some way linked to the apostle Peter and (2) that Mark was
85
written in Rome. He notes that no link between Mark and Rome exist apart
from a link between Mark and Peter, yet there are examples of the reverse;
i.e., a link exists between Mark and Peter with no connection to Rome. He
then concludes that it is highly possible that Mark's connection with Rome
is only derived from the tradition of Petrine authority behind Mark. Such a
derivation could easily come from 1 Peter 5:13, which places Mark with Peter
in Rome (Babylon). The explanation for a Roman provenance of Mark then is
as follows: (1) Papias testifies to a link between Peter and Mark, (2) the Papias
tradition is read in light of 1 Peter 5:13, which links Mark and Peter to Rome,
and (3) the tradition of a Roman provenance for Mark is created and then
parroted by later ancient witnesses. If this interpretation of the evidence is
accepted, the ancient witness of a Roman provenance for Mark is worthless.
But Black's reconstruction of the origin of the Mark/Rome tradition is
problematic. He begins by noting that Mark/Peter traditions stand alone but
Mark/Rome traditions never exist apart from Mark/Peter traditions. From
this evidence he suggests that Mark/Rome traditions are likely dependent on
Mark/Peter traditions. There are a number of problems with Black's argu
ment. First, he is trying to establish a pattern based on a very small sample of
86
evidence. Black is only considering seven witnesses. Five of these include
traditions linking Mark with Peter and Rome and two only link Mark to Peter.
With such a small number of exceptions (two), it is hard to establish the kind
of pattern that Black suggests. Because of the small number of exceptions,
the possibility increases that factors other than those suggested might account
for them. The possibility of alternative explanations decreases with a larger
number of exceptions. The absence of a Mark/Rome tradition in these two
ancient witnesses does not have to be explained by their ignorance of such a
tradition, but rather could be explained by each witness's unique concern or
interest. When we look at these exceptions, such an alternative explanation
becomes quite plausible.
The first witness who links the evangelist Mark with Peter but not with
Rome is Papias. But it is not Papias' intention to pass on a thorough account of
the origins of each gospel (in fact there is no mention of Luke's origins at all).
Rather, Papias is attempting to explain why certain gospels (Matthew and
Mark in particular) differ in their order of events while also validating those
differences. Papias points out that the evangelist Mark was not an eyewitness
but was dependent on traditions from Peter. For Papias, this fact explains what
some might perceive to be errors in Markan order. Mark's connection with
Peter is therefore necessary in order for Papias to make his point, whereas the
85
Black, Mark, 224-25.
86
Here we are only considering witnesses who pre-date the early fourth century C.E.
Black considers later witnesses, but for our purposes these are less relevant.
location of Mark's composition is not. Concerning Papias' knowledge about
Mark's provenance, we can only speculate.
The second witness who mentions a connection between Mark and Peter
without mentioning a link between Mark and Rome is Tertullian. But Ter-
tullian's purpose is to defend the apostolic authority of each gospel and not
simply to pass along traditions regarding gospel origins. Mark's provenance
is completely unrelated to Tertullian's purpose and, therefore, it is not sur
prising that we do not find a reference to it along with the reference made to
Mark's relationship to Peter. Again we can make no statement about Tertul
lian's knowledge of or belief in a Roman provenance for Mark, either positive
or negative.
There is no reason to conclude that the Papias or Tertullian traditions were
unfamiliar with a Mark/Rome tradition. The absence of a Mark/Rome tradi
tion could be due to the lack of relevance the tradition had for the author's
present purpose, rather than due to the author's ignorance of the tradition.
Black's evidence, therefore, does not clearly demonstrate that a Mark/Rome
tradition was derived from a Mark/Peter tradition. We do not have enough
information to determine whether one tradition preceded the other or whether
they both originated together.
Another question about Black's analysis of the ancient witness to Mark's
Roman provenance is how plausible it is that such a tradition would not only
be created easily but also easily be propagated. In answering this question,
the first issue to address is that of motivation. What would motivate someone
to create a tradition that Mark was composed in Rome? A Roman provenance
would not give the gospel added credibility or authority. No early witness
seems to value Mark strictly for its Roman origins. It is true that as the church
in Rome became more prominent, Mark likely benefited from its connection
to Rome. It may even be possible that Mark's very survival depended on its
perceived Roman roots. Traditionally, Mark was in the shadow of Matthew
and Luke. One reason why these "greater" gospels did not completely eclipse
Mark may have been Mark's connection to the powerful church in Rome. But
these factors were likely not in play during the mid-second century (or per
haps were only in early stages of development), the time in which we first see
testimony of a Roman provenance for Mark.
An even less likely motivation is that a Mark/Rome tradition was created
to promote the Roman church's primacy over rival churches (e.g., Jerusalem,
Antioch, or Alexandria). While rivalry between churches did exist and Rome
did attempt to assert its primacy and authority over other churches as early as
the mid-second century, there is no evidence that churches, even the church in
Rome, used gospel provenances for such a purpose. In fact, given that Mark
was treated as inferior to the other canonical gospels during the church's early
history, the degree to which it could promote the Roman church's primacy
would be negligible. In addition, if the Mark/Rome tradition was created to
advance Roman primacy, we would expect our earliest sources for the tradi-
80 Chapter 2
tion to be of Roman origin, yet none of them are. In fact, our earliest sources
that testify to Mark's provenance - Irenaeus, the "anti-marcionite" prologue,
and Clement of Alexandria - demonstrate no interest in promoting the Roman
church's primacy. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that a Mark/Rome
tradition was created for the purpose of promoting the primacy of the church
in Rome.
If the tradition of a Roman provenance for Mark was not created to increase
the gospel's credibility or to advance the Roman church's primacy, few plau
sible motivations for its creation remain. Curiosity alone does not seem to
be motivation enough to create a tradition regarding a gospel's provenance.
As evidence that ancient witnesses were not motivated by curiosity alone,
we note the absence in their testimonies of traditions concerning the prove
nance for Luke's gospel and only a generic provenance ("among the Hebrews"
according to Irenaeus) for Matthew. Why are specific provenances not given
for either of these gospels? If curiosity was motivation enough for our ancient
witnesses to create traditions regarding gospel origins, it seems we might find
traditions claiming these gospels were produced in prominent Christian cit
ies: perhaps Matthew in Jerusalem or Antioch or Luke in Ephesus or Philippi.
That our ancient witnesses were reluctant to offer specific provenances for
Matthew and Luke should make us pause before claiming that they have
done so concerning a Markan provenance. That there is a virtual absence of
doubt or dissension among our ancient witnesses regarding Mark's Roman
provenance also seems to speak against the possibility that it was simply the
invention of the early church. If the tradition was an early church creation, we
might expect to find some hint of reservation among our witnesses, but we
do not.
Black's analysis of the external evidence regarding Mark's provenance
seems unduly skeptical. A plausible motivation for creating and propagating
such a tradition is indiscernible. That these same witnesses refused to cre
ate specific traditions regarding the provenance for Matthew or Luke speaks
against a tendency in these witnesses to create traditions without cause.
There is also no evidence directly indicating that these witnesses are ulti
mately dependent on 1 Peter 5:13 as Black suggests. But even though there are
reasons to accept the authenticity of these traditions, their certainty remains
elusive, while the skeptical conclusions of Black and others remain possible.
In light of this uncertainty, the value of the external evidence for Mark's prov
enance is somewhat mitigated, though not completely irrelevant.
2.3.2 Rome: The Internal Evidence
Because of the skepticism surrounding the external evidence for Mark's
provenance, interpreters are forced to make a decision based on the internal
evidence. Perhaps the most common piece of internal evidence offered in
support of a Roman provenance is the frequency of Latin loan words and
87
"Latinisms" within Mark's text. It is argued that these Greek transcriptions
of Latin words (caesar, census, denarius, flagellars grabatus, legio, modius,
praetorium, sextarius, quadrans, et al.) betrays a western origin (Rome) rather
than an eastern origin (Syria/Galilee). Not only does Mark contain Latin loan
words but it also includes Latin idioms that are translated into unnatural
Greek word combinations (656v iroieTv = viam facere, 2:23; ea^dicog eyei
= ultimum habere, 5:23; KorraKpioOaiv Gavonrco = capite damnare 10:33;
88
etc.). But the value of this evidence has been questioned. Although Latin
was the primary language of Rome and the west, it was also known and used
throughout the entire empire. In that many of the Latin terms found in Mark
are related to political administration, the military, and the economy (money,
measures, and weights), they would likely be well known throughout the entire
89
empire and a Roman provenance of Mark is an unnecessary explanation.
Aside from the common occurrence of Latin loan words, Hengel has noted
the use of Graecized Latin expressions to explain common Greek words. In
12:42, Mark explains the Greek word XeTrrd (a small copper coin) with the
phrase o e a u v KoSpdvrr|g ("which is a quadrans"). In 15:16, the Greek word
a\)\r\ (courtyard/palace) is explained or clarified with the phrase 6 iaxw
TrpaiTcopiov ("which is the praetorium"). Based on these examples, it seems
that Mark is writing to an audience that is more familiar with Latin than with
Greek. But this evidence has not gone unchallenged. Joel Marcus has argued
that Mark is not actually explaining unfamiliar words with more familiar
90
ones, but rather is explaining unclear words with more precise words. While
Marcus' interpretation is possible, the possibility still remains that Mark is
explaining unclear words to a Latin speaking audience. But the uncertainty
surrounding this evidence mitigates its value for determining a Markan
provenance.
While all the Latinisms we have examined to this point can be explained
without a Roman provenance for Mark, two more Latinisms exist within the
gospel that are not so easily disregarded. Van Iersel provides two Latinisms
that have not been adequately considered in the debate regarding Mark's
provenance. These Latinisms are much more subtle than those previously
87
For discussion on Latinisms in Mark, see van Iersel, Mark, 31-35; idem, "De thuis-
haven van Marcus," TijdTheol 32 (1992): 125-42. Earlier works of some importance include
F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Chris
tian Literature (trans. R. W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 4-6; C.
H. Turner, "Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel," JTS 29
(1927-28): 352-59.
88
For these data, see van Iersel, Mark, 34.
89
See Kummel, Introduction, 97-98; Telford, Mark, 24; Kelber, Kingdom, 129, n. 1;
Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:12, n. 1, 2; U. Schnelle, The History and the Theology of the
New Testament Writings (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 238;
et al.
9 0
Marcus, "Jewish War," 142-46.
82 Chapter 2
examined because they are imbedded in the structure of the author's lan
guage. They reflect the influence of a "Latin-speaking milieu on speakers
91
whose mother-tongue was not Latin." The first of these Latinisms concerns
the word order of verbs and substantives within the author's sentence struc
ture. In Greek, an accusative or dative generally follows the verb to which it
belongs, while the reverse is true of Latin. This Latin word order occurs in
Mark 37 times, significantly more than it occurs in either Matthew or Luke.
In Matthew and Luke, this Latinism occurs only twice independently of Mark
(with 12 total occurrences in Matthew and 5 in Luke). The second of these
Latinisms concerns the use of the word iva when it is used in the same way
as the Latin word ut following verbs of asking, persuading, speaking, or com
92
manding. This construction occurs in Mark 31 times and has been preserved
only eight times in Matthean parallels and four times in Lukan parallels. A
number of Matthean and Lukan texts have maintained a Markan parallel but
have altered the Markan use of iva, replacing it with a more appropriate Greek
construction. In material unique to Luke, this use of iva occurs four times,
while in unique Matthean material it occurs only twice. This evidence cannot
easily be explained by the use of common Latin terms used in the market or
by the resident military. It demonstrates that Mark's writing, much more so
than that of the authors of Matthew and Luke, was influenced by Latin syn
tax. Such an influence on an author's writing style is much more likely if the
author was writing in Rome rather than in Syria or Galilee.
Another piece of evidence often offered for a Roman provenance of Mark
is the motif of suffering discipleship. It has long been recognized that Mark
is writing to those who either are experiencing or have recently experienced
93
suffering and persecution (see Mark 8:34-38; 13:9-13). A Roman prove
nance for Mark explains this motif quite well. The most well known first-
century persecution of Christians took place in Rome during 64 C.E. at the
hand of the emperor Nero. This gruesome persecution is described vividly by
the historian Tacitus: "And derision accompanied their end: they were cov
ered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened
on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night"
{Ann. 15.44 [Jackson, LCL]). Mark's call for members of his community to
"take up [their] cross" and "lose [their lives] for the sake [of Jesus] and the
gospel" (Mark 8:34-35) is easily understood in light of the terrible suffering
they have endured (and may have to endure again) at the hands of the Roman
emperor. Mark 13:12 quite plausibly reflects the reality of family betrayal that
91
van Iersel, Mark, 34.
92
Gundry makes a passing reference to this Latinism in Apology, 1044.
93
For examples, see J. R. Donahue, Theology and Setting of Discipleship-, Kee, Com
munity', E. Best, Disciples and Discipleship (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986); idem, Follow
ing Jesus', Theissen, Gospels in Context; and Lane, Mark; Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric,
105-108; et al.
many experienced during Nero's persecution. Tacitus reports that such behav
ior did in fact take place: "First, then, the confessed members of the sect were
arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much
on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race" (Ann. 15.44 [Jack
son, LCL]). The accusation that Christians were haters of the human race is
striking when compared with Mark's claim that believers "will be hated by
all" (13:13). The Sitz im Leben of persecution that Mark's text betrays can be
linked with the city in which the most horrific Christian suffering of the first
century took place, Rome.
Before concluding, we must note that there is no significant internal evi
dence against locating Mark's composition in Rome. While we have noted
attempts to weaken the evidence in favor of Mark's Roman provenance, there
is no evidence ruling out such a provenance.
In conclusion, we have noted two significant considerations regarding the
internal evidence for Mark's provenance. First is the large number of Lati-
nisms in Mark compared to the number in the other two synoptic gospels,
indicating a provenance where the influence of Latin on the author would
be prevalent. Rome is certainly a provenance that would explain this reality
in Mark. Second is that the undercurrents of persecution in Mark strongly
suggest a provenance where such persecution had been or was being experi
enced. Again a Roman provenance would explain this reality.
2.3.3 Galilee
Before examining the evidence for either a Galilean or Syrian provenance for
Mark, we must note that virtually all attempts to argue for one of these two
locations begins with the devaluing of the evidence for a Roman provenance.
It is only when an interpreter has removed the necessity of a Roman prov
enance that he or she feels free to make an alternative suggestion. In our dis
cussion above, we have demonstrated that the evidence for locating Mark in
Rome is not so easily dispensed with. We will now seek to determine whether
the evidence for a Galilean or Syrian provenance is more convincing than the
94
evidence in favor of Rome.
Because there is no external evidence supporting a Galilean provenance
for Mark, we turn directly to the internal evidence. A Galilean provenance for
Mark was first suggested by Ernst Lohmeyer, popularized by Willi Marxsen,
95
and later restated by a handful of Markan interpreters. The original basis
for the conclusion that Mark was written in Galilee was the dominance of
the region within the Markan narrative. Through his redactional analysis of
Mark, Marxsen concluded that many of the references to Galilee found their
origins in Markan redaction. As we noted previously, Marxsen also theorized
94
See similar conclusions made by Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 92-96.
95
See n. 82.
84 Chapter 2
that 14:28 and 16:7, which speak of Jesus meeting his disciples in Galilee, are
references not to resurrection appearances, but rather to a Galilean Parousia
(see previous critique on Marxsen's exegesis in chapter one (pp. 20-22). But
this evidence has convinced very few interpreters. The prominence of Galilee
in Mark's narrative is best explained by the fact that a large portion of Jesus'
ministry actually took place in Galilee and that Mark's tradition held it as a
site for Jesus' resurrection appearances. It has also been noted that by locat
ing Jesus' ministry in Galilee, Mark makes Gentile interaction with Jesus
96
possible. Therefore, the prominence of Galilee in Mark's narrative is not
convincing evidence for its acceptance as the location of Mark's composition.
The high number of Aramaisms in Mark's gospel has been cited as evi
97
dence that Mark was written somewhere in Palestine (possibly Galilee). But
the inclusion of these Aramaisms is easy to explain apart from a Palestinian
provenance. We must remember that the traditions at Mark's disposal ulti
mately have Aramaic origins, and that they still bear evidence of this origin
98
is not surprising. The presence of a large Jewish colony in Rome could also
99
provide an explanation. Many of the Jews in Rome were from Palestine and
Aramaic influence on their use of Greek would be expected. The use of Lati
nisms in Galilee is much more difficult to explain than Aramaisms in Rome.
The most recent attempt to argue for a Galilean provenance of Mark is
100
that of Hendrika Roskam. Roskam takes Mark 13 as her starting point and
understands that it was written on two levels (which we also conclude above):
the first level is that of Jesus teaching his disciples and second is that of
Mark teaching his own community. She argues that Mark's reference to "false
prophets" and "false christs" only makes sense in a Palestinian context. This
conclusion is based on the assumption that "false christs" must be a reference
to royal pretenders who aspire to be king of Israel. According to Roskam,
any reference to these types of Jewish messianic claimants would only make
sense in a Palestinian context. If Roskam's assumption can be granted, her
conclusion is a logical one. But limiting the identity of these "false christs" to
individuals who aspire to liberate and rule Israel is misguided. "False christs"
can also make sense in a non-Palestinian context. The belief that deceivers,
false teachers, and antichrists would come to mislead the elect seems to be a
commonly held belief in the early church (2 Thess 2:1-12; 1 John 2:18-27).
It is possible that Mark's reference to "false christs" finds its background in
96
See G. Stemberger, "Galilee - Land of Salvation," in The Gospel and the Land: Early
Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (ed. W. D. Davies; Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1974), 435-36; Marcus, Mark; Black, Mark, 236-37, 249.
97
For works on the influence of Aramaic on Mark, see Elliott Maloney, Semitic Interfer
ence in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS 51; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981); Casey, Sources.
98
See van Iersel, Mark, 35.
99
See van Iersel, Mark, 35.
100
Roskam, Purpose, 94-114.
this common tradition. "False christs" could be a reference to any type of
leader or teacher who seeks to mislead Mark's community. As we will argue
later, the claims to the position of "Christ" were not made by Jews alone but
could be found in the Greco-Roman world as well.
Roskam's argument also fails to make sense in light of how she dates Mark's
gospel. She concludes, as we have above, that Mark was written shortly after
the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. But if this were actually the case, it
seems unlikely that Mark's Galilean community would have to worry about
false messianic claimants. Immediately after Rome's destruction of Jerusa
lem, there were few people with aspirations to bring about independence for
Israel, and perhaps even fewer who would consider following them. If Mark
is written after the destruction of Jerusalem as we (and Roskam) conclude,
identifying the "false christs" of Mark 13:19 with Jewish messianic claimants
is implausible.
Roskam also responds to the common argument that Mark's many errors
in Palestinian geography indicate that he is unfamiliar with the region. But
Roskam turns this argument on its head and uses it as evidence for a Gali
lean provenance. Roskam notes that Mark is clearly ignorant of the regions
of Judea, Perea, the Decapolis, and Syria, but he is actually quite accurate in
his Galilean geography. Her explanation for this reality is that Mark was in
fact written by a Galilean who knew this region well but was unfamiliar with
the geography of the surrounding regions. This argument, however, has a
number of problems. First, while we can conclude that a gospel's inaccuracy
of a region's geography betrays an author's lack of familiarity with a region,
the argument cannot work in the reverse (as Roskam suggests). Reversing
the argument is prevented by our understanding of gospel traditions and gos
pel composition. If a gospel is accurate on its understanding of a region, we
do not know whether to attribute that accuracy to the evangelist or to the
received tradition. What Roskam perceives as Mark's familiarity with Galilee
may actually reflect Mark's sources' familiarity with Galilee. But if a gospel
is inaccurate regarding geography, the survival of the inaccuracy, whether it
came in the received tradition or the author himself, betrays the author's lack
of familiarity with the region.
The second problem with Roskam's argument is the implausibility that
someone living in Galilee would be completely ignorant of the basic geogra
phy of the adjacent regions. Interpreters have often noted that the route Jesus
took in Mark 7:31 seems geographically awkward. Mark claims that Jesus
returned from the region of Tyre, through Sidon and the Decapolis, to the Sea
of Galilee. Jesus is then first going north and then east to reach a destination
that lies southeast of his starting point. Many interpreters have noted this
awkward route as evidence that Mark was unfamiliar with the geography of
86 Chapter 2
101
Palestine and Galilee. Roskam claims that this geographical error in Mark
does not reflect the author's unfamiliarity with Galilee, but rather his unfa-
miliarity with Sidon's location. Yet it seems difficult to believe that a person
living in Galilee, who is educated enough to produce a gospel such as Mark,
would be unfamiliar with the geographical relationship between Tyre and
Sidon. These were major cities, which someone familiar with the Hebrew
Scriptures (as we may presume Mark was) would know quite well. Confusion
over such geographical details makes more sense if the gospel had been writ
ten in Rome rather than in Galilee.
Roskam also notes a city Mark mentioned that is not attested to in any
other source: Dalmanutha (Mark 8:10). That Mark gives no further explana
tion or qualification concerning this otherwise unknown city's identity con
vinces Roskam that Mark's readers must be familiar with the city and likely
live near it; i.e., somewhere in Galilee. But Roskam's conclusion is hardly
a necessary one. We must first consider the possibility that Mark has found
this city's name in the traditions available to him. Roskam attempts to sub
vert this argument by claiming that verse 8:10 includes evidence for Markan
redaction, but indications of Markan editing do not prove that Mark was the
original source for the entire verse. Matters are even more complicated in
that we cannot be certain of Mark's accuracy concerning this city. Nestle sug
gests that the name Dalmanutha results from a Markan misunderstanding of
an Aramaic phrase di le menatah or "which belongs to the territory o f and,
102
therefore, is not a real city at all. With no knowledge of this city outside of
Mark, we have no way of verifying the city's existence or its actual location.
Therefore, making any conclusion regarding Mark's provenance based on the
103
name of this city is suspect.
Now we will look at internal evidence that speaks against a Galilean prove
nance for Mark. First, and perhaps the most convincing, is Mark's explanation
of Jewish customs. In Mark 7:3-4, Mark offers an explanation of the Jewish
purity laws involved in eating a meal. This explanation is strong evidence
that Mark's intended audience was predominantly Gentile and would be unfa
miliar with such Jewish practices. Such an audience seems unlikely in the
Jewish dominated Galilee. While it is true that there was a significant Gentile
presence in Galilee, it was certainly the minority. In addition, any Galilean
101
For examples, see C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark, (CGTC;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 250; D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St.
Mark (New York: Seabury, 1968), 40, 203; Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 132; et al.
102
E. Nestle, "Dalmanutha" in Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (ed. J. Hastings;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906), 1:406-7.
103
For interpreters who conclude that Dalmanutha is pre-Markan see Pesch, Markusevan
gelium, 1:405-6; J. Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Markus (RNT 2; Regensburg: Pustet,
1958), 210; Gnilka, Markus, 1:305; K. Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium:
Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SANT 23; Munich: Kosel, 1970), 140; et al.
Christian community would almost certainly consist primarily of Jews mak
ing it unlikely that an author would include such a detailed explanation of
Jewish customs. It is also quite likely that the Gentile Christians of Galilee
would be familiar with the customs of their Jewish neighbors, again negat
ing the need for such a detailed explanation. Mark's explanation of Jewish
customs makes much more sense vis-a-vis a Roman provenance, rather than
a Galilean one.
As we noted above, there seems to be an undercurrent of persecution in
Mark's gospel. One problem for a Galilean provenance for Mark is its inabil
ity to account for this undercurrent. There is no historical record of Galilean
Christians experiencing persecution during the time when Mark was written
(65-75 C.E.). Roskam claims that such persecution did take place in Galilee, but
104
she is unable to offer any historical evidence to support this claim directly.
The absence of evidence for persecuted Christians in Galilee speaks against
this region as the location of Mark's composition.
Here we have demonstrated that much of the evidence offered to argue for
a Galilean provenance for Mark is unconvincing. At the same time, we have
also offered evidence that speaks directly against Galilee as a location for
Mark's composition. We can conclude, therefore, that a Galilean provenance
for the second gospel is unlikely.
2.3.4 Syria
While a Galilean provenance for Mark has convinced few interpreters, a
Syrian provenance has become quite popular. As with the case for a Gali
lean provenance, the case for a Syrian provenance has no external evidence;
therefore, we must move directly to the internal evidence. Mark 13 is often a
105
starting point for those arguing for a Syrian provenance. In Mark 13, many
interpreters see a clear depiction of the events of the Jewish Revolt and con
clude that Mark was more than likely written in temporal and geographical
proximity to this event. But in our previous discussion on Mark 13, we argued
that it actually makes very little direct reference to the events of the Jewish
Revolt. We have argued that verses 5-13 describe both the past and present
experiences of the Markan community, while verses 14-27 describe a post
70 reality that the community has not yet experienced. If verses 14-27 are
understood as the description of some future event, no allusions to the Jewish
Revolt are necessary (e.g., there is no need to understand "the abomination of
desolation," as the temple's destruction/corruption or the "false prophets and
false christs" as Jewish messianic claimants). We are then left only to look at
verses 5-13, verses describing the community's past and present experience.
In doing so, we find only one possible reference to the Jewish Revolt; "and
104
Roskam, Purpose, 115-42; see also the critique of Roskam in chapter one pages
33-35.
105
Marcus, "Jewish War," 446-48.
88 Chapter 2
when you hear of wars and rumors of wars do not be alarmed; for nation will
rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom" (vv.7-8). That the Jewish
Revolt is one of the wars to which this passage refers is quite likely, yet is
106
not necessarily the only one intended. Such a general comment does not
demand geographical proximity between the location of Mark's composition
and that of the Jewish Revolt. Therefore, nothing in Mark 13 demands a prov
enance for Mark that is in close proximity to Palestine.
Apart from the evidence of Mark 13, Gerd Theissen has made three argu
107
ments in favor of a Syrian provenance. The first argument concerns the
socio-ecological milieu reflected in Mark's gospel. Theissen notes Mark's use
of GdXaaaa or "sea" to describe what is more accurately called the Gali
108
lean Lake. He argues that such a small and insignificant body of water
would hardly be called a sea in a cosmopolitan city like Rome. Such usage
would be more common in a rural location; one in closer proximity to Gali
lee. He also notes that Mark's use of a genitive construction (GdXaaaa Trjg
raXiXaiag) to identify a specific body of water (or a region) is uncommon in
both Greek and Latin which usually use an adjective to accomplish this pur
pose (ZupiaKi^ GdXaaaa). Such a genitive construction, however, is com
mon in both Hebrew and Aramaic, (yam ha kinnereth). Theissen concludes,
therefore, that Mark's use of the phrase G d X a a a a Trjg TaXiXaiag betrays
the influence of an Aramaic milieu. In addition to the phrase GdXaaaa Trjg
TaXiXaiag, Theissen points to Mark's use of "neighborhood expressions,"
109
or rather an interest in rural towns and villages as opposed to cities.
Mark's parables are also dominated by imagery from the agrarian world. For
Theissen, these factors point to a rural milieu for Mark rather than a cosmo
politan one.
Bas van Iersel, however, has demonstrated that Theissen's argument is
110
not quite as convincing as it might first appear. In response to Theissen's
conclusion regarding GdXaaaa Trjg TaXiXaiag, van Iersel notes Theissen's
failure to consider the evidence of the Septuagint, a text not only familiar to
Mark but one that influenced him. In the Septuagint, GdXaaaa is commonly
used to refer to bodies of water that are smaller than an actual sea. The Sep
tuagint also uses genitive constructions to specify the identity of a particular
body of water or region, e.g., G d X a a a a 'IoTrrrrig ( 2 Chron 2:16 and 2 Esd 3:7
in reference to the Mediterranean Sea) and GdXaaaa XsvepeG (Num 34:11,
111
Josh 12:3; 13:27 in reference to the lake of Gennesaret!). In light of this evi
dence, Theissen's conclusion that the presence of GdXaaaa Trjg TaXiXaiag in
106
See n. 68.
107
108
109
Theissen, Context, 238.
1.0
van Iersel, Mark, 37-38.
1.1
For more examples see van Iersel, Mark, 37-38.
Mark betrays a rural Aramaic milieu is unnecessary. This unique phrase may
simply betray the influence of the Septuagint on Mark. In response to Theis-
sen's claim of Mark's rural setting (towns/villages vs. cities; agrarian imag
ery), van Iersel notes the strong possibility that these features are part of the
traditions that Mark received and that they reflect the local color of the origins
112
of these traditions. It should not be surprising to find abundant references
to agrarian and rural life in these stories, if in fact the stories themselves
occurred in such settings. Theissen is wrong to assume that an urban author
cannot tell stories in which the primary setting is one outside the city. Theis-
sen's argument for a rural and Aramaic milieu for Mark is not persuasive.
Theissen's second argument is based on the various types or strands
113
of tradition that he detects in Mark. He notes both pre-Pauline (the use of
l o v anc
6uaYY^ * the last supper) and Pauline traditions (the list of vices in
7:21 that is similar to those found throughout the Pauline corpus). He sug
gests that the presence of both of these strands of tradition indicates a Syrian
location - a place where Paul likely received these traditions and where pre-
Pauline traditions would certainly be present. Theissen also finds traditions in
Mark that originated in Judea and Jerusalem (the eschatological discourse and
the passion narrative). He notes that an overlap in Syrian traditions (those that
are Pauline and pre-Pauline) and Judean traditions are more likely to occur
in Syria than in Rome. The presence of what Theissen calls "popular tales"
(traditions that find their origin not from Christian communities but from the
towns and villages in which Jesus ministered) were much more likely to be
picked up in the local areas in which they circulated, namely in Syria rather
than in Rome. Lastly, Theissen points to traditions that he believes come from
actual disciples themselves, including the call of the disciples (1:16-20), the
sending out of the twelve (6:7-13), and the conversation with the rich man
(10:17-31). These traditions suggest to Theissen that Mark is familiar with
"itinerant charismatics" who would propagate such stories. He claims that
these types of figures were more likely to be found in Palestine and Syria than
in Rome.
But as van Iersel rightly points out, Theissen's argument is predicated on
two very uncertain assumptions: one, that Mark received these traditions first
hand from the sources mentioned above and not through a mediating agent;
and two, that he wrote them into his gospel as soon as he received them, and
114
not at a later time in another place. But Theissen offers no evidence to
support either of these assumptions. Given that these traditions had thirty to
forty years to circulate, it is quite possible that Mark received them second,
third, or fourth hand and was not familiar with their source of origin. Even
if Mark did receive them first hand, there is nothing that indicates he did not
1.2
1.3
1.4
90 Chapter 2
write them down at a later date. Theissen's second argument for a Syrian
provenance for Mark, therefore, is also unconvincing.
Theissen's third argument concerns the so-called Markan geographical
115
errors we discussed above. It is Theissen's contention that the geographi
cal errors in Mark are actually not errors at all but are in fact intentionally
made to advance a Markan agenda. He suggests that Jesus' circular path from
Tyre, to Sidon, through the Decapolis and then on to the Sea of Galilee allows
Mark to locate Jesus in Syria and other Gentile regions for an extended period
of time. Mark is then placing the ministry of Jesus in the region in which
Mark's community is located, namely Syria. This interpretation, however,
is not convincing. If this is the case, why does Mark not provide any more
detail of this tour through these Gentile regions? Why is it only mentioned
in passing? As noted by Guelich, Mark specifically states that Jesus did not
116
want his journey into Tyre (a predominantly Gentile city) to be public. If
Mark wanted to highlight Jesus' ministry in the regions of Syria why did he
not do so more openly? The most natural reading of the text is that it serves
as a simple explanation (though one that is perhaps geographically flawed) of
Jesus' return from a Gentile tour and not the continuation of one. Regardless
of the validity of Theissen's interpretation, it remains a weak argument for
a Syrian provenance for Mark. Theissen's interpretation of the evidence is
largely influenced by his belief that Syria is the place of Mark's composition.
He then reads the evidence in a way that supports that location. Therefore,
this argument based on Mark's geography is not actually a positive argument
at all, but rather it is an explanation of evidence that proves to be difficult for
Theissen's suggested provenance for Mark. Theissen simply offers an alterna
tive way to look at the evidence, but there is nothing inherent in his argument
that proves a Syrian provenance for Mark.
After examining the arguments in favor of a Syrian provenance for Mark,
we find that they are less than compelling. We have demonstrated that there
is nothing in Mark 13 that demands a geographical proximity between Mark
and Syria. If the majority of Mark 13 is understood as the description/predic
tion of future events as we have argued earlier, it could have been written
anywhere. We have also shown that the socio-ecological world reflected in the
Markan narrative is not necessarily the socio-ecological world of the region
in which Mark composed his gospel. Though many of the traditions in Mark
might find their origins in Syrian Christianity or in Palestine, there is no
reason to conclude that the evangelist received these traditions (let alone wrote
them down) while he was in these regions. Mark's geographical errors, while
not necessarily evidence that the evangelist was unfamiliar with Palestinian
geography, cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that Mark was written in
1.5
1.6
Guelich, Mark, 393.
Syria. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to claim confidently a Syrian
provenance for Mark.
2.3.4 Conclusions concerning Marks Provenance
In this section, we have tried to demonstrate that there is considerable evi
dence, both internal and external, that points to a Roman provenance for
Mark. We have also demonstrated that the evidence in favor of alternative
locations (Galilee and Syria) for Mark's composition is unconvincing, and it is
not able to overturn the case for a Roman provenance. Therefore, we conclude
that Rome is the most likely place of Mark's composition, and our discussion
of Mark's purpose will continue under this contention.
Chapter 3
Analysis of Mark's Major Features
3.1 Introduction
We now turn our attention to a number of Mark's major features: Mark's

incipit, Christology, presentation of discipleship, and eschatology. Our objec
tive is two-fold. First, we hope to characterize and understand accurately
these Markan features in order to provide a theory for Mark's purpose that
can account for them. Second, our examination will provide us with informa
tion that will help us characterize the gospel's Sitz im Leben. A mirror read
ing of Mark's major features will allow us to detect elements of the gospel's
setting. These elements will later be compared to a reconstruction of Mark's
historical situation, a reconstruction based on Mark's provenance and date of
composition.
3.2 Markan Incipit
Many interpreters have debated the syntactical parameters of Mark 1:1 and
its function in Mark's gospel. Most understand Mark's opening verse as an
independent syntactical unit and see it functioning as title or incipit that is
1
programmatic for Mark's entire gospel. Some interpreters link Mark 1:1
syntactically with vs. 2-3 or even possibly vs. 4. Among those who see Mark
1:1-3 (or even 4) as a single syntactical unit, some view the entire unit as
programmatic for the whole gospel, while others simply see it as the opening
2
statement of Mark's prologue.
1
M. Eugene Boring, "Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel" Semeia 52 (1990):
51; idem, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville: WJK Press, 2006), 30-32; France, Mark, 50-53;
John Donahue and Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Collegeville: Minnesota,
2002), 59-60; Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 122; et al.
2
For those who see Mark 1:1-3(4) as programmatic for the entire gospel, see Marxsen,
Evangelist, 138; Martin, Evangelist and Theologian, 28; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:75;
Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's Words in Literary-Historical Perspective
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 108-113. For those who see Mark 1:1-3(4) as the opening
statement of Mark's prologue alone, see G. Arnold, "Mk 1.1 und Eroffnungswendungen in
Analysis of Mark's Major Features 93
Joel Marcus takes a mediating position, claiming that Mark's opening line
functions as both an introduction to Mark's prologue and as a title to the
3
whole gospel. He cites a number of biblical and early Jewish works whose
opening sentences function in the same way (e.g., Prov 1:1-6; Eccl 1:1-2;
4
Cant 1:1-2; Enoch 1:1). Along similar lines, Rikki Watts notes that the dif
ference between these two positions is minimal and, regardless of one's con
clusion about the function of Mark's opening sentence, it remains significant
5
for understanding the evangelist's intentions. If Mark 1:1 is a title, then it
6
clearly serves as a programmatic statement for Mark as a whole. If it is the
beginning of Mark's prologue and the prologue itself is a programmatic state
ment regarding the gospel's intentions and purpose, then the opening line of
the prologue is at least an indirect indicator of these goals and intentions as
well.
Regardless of where one sets the syntactical parameters for Mark's open
ing verse or what specific function one attributes to it, the opening words in
Mark's gospel are significant indicators of the gospel's overall purpose. While
many interpreters agree that Mark's incipit is significant for understanding
the gospel's purpose, no consensus exists as to how it informs our under
standing of that purpose, an issue to which we will soon turn.
Before considering the relevance of Mark's incipit for the gospel's purpose,
we must address some basic exegetical issues in order to understand better
its basic meaning. The verse begins with an anartharous apyjj ("beginning")
followed by a string of genitives, T O O euayyeXiou 'InaoO XpiaxoO ulou
GeoO ("of the good news of Jesus Christ Son of God"). Quite often, the first
word of a title or incipit is anartharous, so the lack of a definite article with
7
apyji is not surprising. It is possible that apyr\ has a double reference, both
to the start of Jesus' ministry expressed in Mark's prologue and to the gospel
8
as a whole. The word euayyeXiou, which is often translated as "gospel",
griechischen und lateinischen Schriften," ZNW 68 (1977): 123-27; Guelich, Mark, 6-12;
idem, "The Beginning of the Gospel' Mark 1:1-15" BibRes 27 (1982): 5-15, though Guelich
seems open to the possibility that the incipit has secondary significance for the whole gospel
as well; Robert Gundry, Apology, 30-36; Hooker, Mark, 33-34; Lane, Mark, 42; Moloney,
Mark, 30-32. For a helpful survey of various positions on the syntactical parameters of
Mark 1:1 see Boring, "Beginning," 48-50.
3
Marcus, Mark, 145.
4
Marcus, Mark, 145-46.
5
Rikki Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997), 56;
Guelich, Mark, 12.
6
For discussion on the significance of both incipits and prologues in ancient literature see
D. Earl, "Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography," in ANRW 1:22, 842-56; D. E. Smith,
"Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory," Semeia 52 (1990): 1-9.
7
See Marcus, Mark, 141, who notes the beginnings of Hosea, Proverbs, and Song of
Solomon in the LXX and both Matthew and Revelation in the NT.
8
See Marcus, Mark, 145.
94 Chapter 3
9
generally refers to good news or glad tidings. This "good news" is particu
larly good news of Jesus Christ. The genitival 'Ir|aoO XpiaxoO should likely
be taken primarily in the objective sense; that is, Jesus Christ is the content
of the good news. While it is possible that the subjective sense (that Jesus is
the one who announces the good news) is also intended, it is likely secondary
and/or complementary to the objective sense. The gospel's content is Jesus
himself, giving more attention to what he does and who he is than to the
content of his message. Mark's use of Xpicrrog or "Christ" in the titular or
technical sense (i.e., meaning God's anointed one or Messiah) elsewhere in
his gospel (e.g., Mark 8:29; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32), is strong evidence that
Mark intended the same meaning in this opening verse. This good news is
that of Jesus, who is God's Messiah. The phrase uloO 0eoO or "son of God,"
which stands in apposition to Iriaoir XpiaxoO, goes a step further in identi
fying Jesus: Jesus is Christ in terms of his divine sonship.
But uloO 0eoO is textually uncertain. The phrase is found in most of the
a
significant early manuscripts including, K A B D K L W A n 33. It is absent
c
in 0 28 and a handful of lesser manuscripts. Though external evidence
supports the inclusion of uloO 0eoO, its inclusion is difficult to accept on
the basis of internal evidence. At first glance, a scribal addition of this title
seems easier to explain than a scribal deletion or omission. It is unlikely that
a scribe would purposefully remove this phrase. Scribal omission also seems
unlikely since the variant appears at the beginning of Mark's text, a place
where the copyist would likely be most vigilant. However, Guelich suggests
that a scribal error is quite plausible given the long series of six genitives
in vs. 1, all of which involve abbreviated sacred names, i.e., IY XY YY 0Y.
That such a list of abbreviations might confuse a scribe's eye seems plausible.
The presence of uloO 0eoO is also consistent with the rest of Mark's gospel,
which identifies Jesus as "son" or "son of God" numerous times (1:1, 11; 3:11;
5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:26; 14:61; 15:39). Painter notes that if it is an early addition
10
to Mark's text, it is entirely appropriate. Though interpreters are divided
11
on this issue, there seems adequate reason to consider uloO 0eoO to be the
9
The use of "gospel" here is not intended in a technical sense to characterize or iden
tify the type or genre of Mark's text. Such terminology used to describe a life of Jesus was
developed later in the life of the church.
10
John Painter, Mark's Gospel: Worlds in Conflict (London: Routledge, 1997), 25.
11
For interpreters who accept uloO 0eoO as original, see Taylor, St. Mark, 152; Evans,
"Mark's Incipit," 67-81; Boring, Mark, 30; Guelich, Mark, 6; Ben Witherington III, The
Gospel of Mark: A Social Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 69;
C.R. Kazmierski, Jesus, the Son of God, A Study in Marcan Tradition and Its Redaction
by the Evangelist (FB 33; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979), 1-9; A. Globe, "The Caesarean
Omission of the Phrase 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1," HTR 75 (1982): 209-18; P. M. Head, "A
Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1: T h e Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,'" NTS 37
(1991): 621-29. For those who omit uloO 9eo0, see Marcus, Mark, 141; Painter, Mark's Gos
pel, 25; B. Ehrman, "The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox," LQ 5 (1991): 143-56;
original reading of the text. Our discussion of Mark's incipit will proceed
while cautiously accepting the longer reading.
Clearly Mark's opening line establishes the primary subject matter of the
whole gospel - the person Jesus. Mark's use of the titles "Christ" and "Son of
God" indicates his christological interest. It is reasonable to conclude, there
fore, that through his gospel, the evangelist intended to communicate some
thing about Jesus the Messiah and son of God. But such conclusions are quite
general and of little help in determining the gospel's specific purpose. Before
we can glean more from this passage, we must consider the possible back
grounds against which the author desired this text to be read. Many interpret
ers read Mark's incipit in light of a Jewish context and see in it allusions to
Hebrew scripture (Deutero-Isaiah in particular), while others read it in light
of its Greco-Roman context and see allusions to ruler worship and the impe
rial cult. Here we will examine the incipit in these possible contexts in an
attempt to determine what they teach about the purpose of Mark's gospel.
Most discussions regarding the background to the incipit usually begin by
considering the word euayyeXiov or "good news." A great deal of literature
has been written about this word's meaning in the New Testament and its devel
opment in the early church. Interpreters have debated whether the church's
12
use of this word grew out of a Jewish milieu or Greco-Roman one. More
recently, interpreters seem to conclude that the Christian usage of the word
finds its origins in Jewish scriptures, though it came to have a distinct Chris
tian meaning and usage. But it is the word's use in Mark's incipit and not the
word's origins that concern us here (though we will offer some discussion on
both the Greco-Roman and Jewish background for euayyeXiov). Many inter
preters understand Mark's use of euayyeXiov against the background of Jew-
A. Y. Collins, "Establishing the Text: Mark 1:1" in Text and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their
Textual and Situational Contexts (ed. T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; L. Hartman FS; Oslo:
Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 111-27; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:74, n. 1.
12
For interpreters who argue for the Greco-Roman milieu, see M. Hadas and M. Smith,
Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (New York: Harper and Row, 1963);
A. Harnack, Reden undAufsdtze (Giessen: Topelmann, 1906), 1:301-6; Bieler, Theios Aner;
A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient Near East (trans. L. R. M. Strachan; London: Hod-
der and Stoughton, 1927), 366; H. Cancik, "Die Gattung Evangelium: Das Evangelium des
Markus im Rahmen der antiken Historiographie," in Markus-Philologie: Historische, lite-
rargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (ed. H. Cancik;
WUNT 33; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984), 85-113; J. Schniewind, Euangelion: Ursprung
underste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1970); G. Friedrich, "Euangelion" TDNT2 (1964): 721-726; et al. For interpreters who argue
for the Jewish milieu, see Peter Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium (Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 235-44; H. Frankemolle, "Evangelium als theologischer Be-
griff und sein Bezug zur literarischen Gattung 'Evangelium,'" ANRWII 25.2, 1635-1704; D.
L. Tiede, "Religious Propaganda and the Gospel Literature of the Early Christian Mission"
ANRW 1125.2,1705-29; F. F. Bruce, "When is a Gospel not a Gospel?" BJRL 45 (1963): 355;
Schweizer, Mark, 30; et al.
96 Chapter 3
13
ish scriptures. While the noun form "HIT/ euayyeXiov occurs a handful
of times throughout Jewish scriptures (e.g., 2 Sam 4:10; 18:19, 20, 22, 25, 27;
2 Kgs 7:9), its use is rather generic and lacks the eschatological and religious
dimensions that seem to characterize its usage in Mark (and throughout the
rest of the New Testament). However, an eschatological and religious dimen
sion often characterizes the verbal forms 32? "l/euayyeXiCco ("I proclaim
good news") found in Jewish scripture, particularly in Isaiah (e.g., Isa 40:9
(2x); 41:27 (MT); 52:7 (2x); 60:6; 61:1). In Isa 41:27, the euayyeXiCopevog or
"the one who proclaims good news" announces Yahweh's victory over Israel's
enemies, and in 40:9-10 and 52:7 he announces the reestablishment of God's
rule over Israel. For many, this Isaianic language seems like a plausible back
ground for Mark's use of euayyeXiov. That the incipit is followed by a quota
tion attributed to Isaiah and that includes Isa 40:3 - a verse followed only a
few verses later by Isaiah's first reference to the one who proclaims good news
- is a strong indication that Mark's use of euayyeXiov intentionally alludes
to the "good news" proclaimed in Isaiah. If this background is accepted, it
seems that Mark is presenting Jesus as God's Messiah who announces God's
victory over his enemies and proclaims the establishment of God's reign.
Some interpreters (often those who read euayyeXiov against a Greco-
Roman background) reject Isaiah as a background for Mark's use of
euayyeXiov because Isaiah uses only the verbal form of the word and never
14
the substantive. But, as Watts claims, surely the divide between the act of
proclaiming (euay yeXi£co) and the subject of that proclamation (euayyeXiov)
15
is not as wide as some interpreters have suggested. It is a divide that even a
modestly creative early Christian exegete could bridge with ease. Marcus and
Watts (et al.) make convincing cases (which we have partially summarized
here) that Isaianic language is an appropriate background for the euayyeXiov
of Mark's incipit, and it should be accepted.
However, many interpreters have noted that Mark's use of euayyeXiov
makes strong allusions to the Greco-Roman use of the word, in particular its
16
use in the Roman imperial cult. EuayyeXiov was regularly associated with
the birth, political ascension, and military victories of Roman emperors. In
13
Two significant interpreters who read Mark against this Isaianic background include
Marcus, (The Way of the Lord; idem, Mark) and Watts (New Exodus). Cf. Stuhlmacher,
Evangelium, 235-44; Schweizer, Mark, 30; Guelich, "Beginning"; Hooker, Jesus, 66-70;
Bruce, "When is a Gospel," 325-26.
14
G. Strecker, "Das Evangelium Jesu Christi," in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theolo-
gie: FS fur H Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag (eds. G. Strecker, et al; Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1975), 503-48; et al.
15
Watts, New Exodus, 99.
16
See Ched Myer, Strongman, 122; Evans, "Incipit," 67-81; Witherington, Mark, 67-70;
M. E. Boring, K. Berger, and C. Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary on the New Testament
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), esp. 169; et al.
fact, Mark's incipit has striking similarities to the Priene Calendar Inscription
written in honor of Caesar Augustus:
Since providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in
most perfect order by giving us Augustus whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit
humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might
end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance excelled even our
anticipations, surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any
hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of thego*/(0eoO) Augustus was
the beginning (fjpêv) of the good tidings (euayyeXicov) for the world that came by reason
17
of him.
It is striking that both texts include the concept of "the beginning of the good
a n
news" (though Mark uses the singular form euayyeXiov d the nominal
a n
form cxpxr\ while the inscription uses the plural form euayyeXia d the
verbal form apôo). It is also noteworthy that Augustus is identified as a god
(0eoO) while Mark describes Jesus as the son of God (ulog 0eou). In other
inscriptions and writings, Augustus (along with other Roman emperors) is
s
frequently given the title uiog 0eoO or divifilius (son of god). EuayyeXia *
also used to describe the military and political success of the emperor Ves
pasian. Josephus writes that as the rumor spread that Vespasian was emperor
in the east, "every city kept festivals for the good news (euayyeXia) and
offered sacrifices on his behalf (Wars 4. [Thackeray, LCL]). Josephus also
writes, "On reaching Alexandria, Vespasian was greeted by the good news
(euayyeXia) from Rome and by embassies of congratulation from every
quarter of the world, now his own" (Wars 4:11.5 [Thackeray, LCL]). The
euayyeXia of the Roman emperor was a concept that most inhabitants of
the Roman Empire would have known. The language of Mark's incipit is so
similar to this language of the imperial cult that it is hard to deny an intended
allusion. Certainly a first-century Greco-Roman reader would recognize such
a similarity and see that Mark's gospel was proclaiming the euayyeXia of
Jesus Christ, son of God rather than that of Caesar, son of God. Craig Evans
argues that this is one of Mark's main objectives; namely, to proclaim the
superiority of the good news of God's Messiah - and the new world order he
18
brings - over that of Caesar.
Peter Stuhlmacher (as well as Guelich) claims the imperial cult's use of
euayyeXiov was primarily secular/political in nature rather than religious, a
claim that attempts to make the imperial cult an unlikely background for Mark's
19
usage. But Stuhlmacher's claim creates a false dichotomy between these
two realms. Religious and political/secular life were complexly intertwined
17
For this English translation, see Evans, "Incipit," 69 (see Greek text on page 68). For
the entire Greek inscription, see W. Dittenberger, ed. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
(2 vols.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903-5; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 2.48-60.
18
Evans, "Incipit," 76-80.
19
Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 196-203; Guelich, Mark, 13-14.
98 Chapter 3
in the Roman Empire, and the political and military success of the emperor
carried religious implications with it. As we noted above, the euayyeXia of
an emperor's rise to power or military victory was accompanied by festivals,
m
sacrifices, and prayers. Clearly the use euayyeXia the Priene Calendar
Inscription has religious significance. Stuhlmacher and others attempt to mit
igate this evidence by claiming that the plural form euayyeXia distances it
from the meaning of the singular form euayyeXiov that we find in the New
20
Testament. But this distance seems artificial, and it results from placing
overly strict boundaries on the language. Certainly if a reader could move
from the proclamation of good news (euayyeXiCco) to the content of that
21
proclamation (euayyeXiov) - a step that Stuhlmacher acknowledges - mov
ing from a plural noun to a singular one would also not be problematic. Given
what seems to be an obvious allusion to the Roman imperial cult in Mark's
incipit, it too should be accepted as a convincing background to the verse.
We are then left with two different backgrounds for understanding the
significance of Mark 1:1, Jewish and Greco-Roman. The tendency of most
interpreters is to minimize one and champion the other. Few interpreters
have seen the importance that both of these backgrounds play in determin
ing the significance of Mark's incipit. Evans is one of the few who suggests
the importance of both. He claims that Mark's incipit has "welded together
22
two disparate, potentially antagonistic theologies." He notes that "the vision
of Second Isaiah approximates the Roman Imperial cult's promise of a new
23
world order." For Evans, Mark's gospel speaks of the fulfillment of Jewish
hopes, namely Isaiah's prophesied euayyeXiov fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Son
of God. At the same time, however, the gospel responds to the claims of the
Roman imperial cult by announcing Jesus Christ, son of God, and not Caesar,
son of God, as the beginning of the euayyeXiov.
Evans' insightful argument does not make the mistake of choosing one
background over another. Ultimately, Evans suggests that Mark is motivated
24
by the power vacuum resulting from the Roman Civil War in 69 C.E. During
this year, numerous candidates sought the title of emperor and son of God,
but each candidate fell to the next. Evans suggests that it is against this back
drop that Mark, through his gospel, puts forth Jesus, the true son of God, as
the most worthy candidate. Specifically, he argues that Mark is contrasting
20
Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 199-201; Guelich, Mark, 14.
21
Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 109-22.
22
Evans, "Incipit," 77.
23
Evans, "Incipit," 77.
24
For discussion on the turmoil of this time period, see Kenneth Wellesley, The Year of
rd
the Four Emperors (3 ed. with new intro by Barbara Levick; London: Routledge, 2000);
Charles L. Murision, Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian (APA 37; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1999); Gwyn Morgan, A.D. 69: The Year of the Four Emperors (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006).
Jesus with Vespasian, the emperor who finally brought stability to the Roman
Empire. We will explore Evans' theory in much greater detail below, but for
now, we will conclude that the best explanation of these coexistent realities
in Mark's incipit, i.e., both Jewish and Roman conceptions of "good news," is
a Sitz im Leben that brings these realities together. Such a setting would pro
vide valuable insight into understanding Mark's incipit and thus insight into
understanding Mark's overall purpose.
In summary, Mark's incipit proclaims the euayyeXiov or good news of
Jesus the messianic son of God. However, Mark makes this proclamation by
bringing together the language of both Deutero-Isaiah and the Roman imperial
cult. Because an incipit is important for communicating the purpose/intention
of a literary work, any theory regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel must
adequately explain his incipit. Mark's incipit points to a Sitz im Leben in
which the world of Jewish messianic hope is brought together with the Roman
imperial cult.
3.3 Markan Christology
Interpreters have long considered Mark's Christology a significant feature

of his gospel. They have presented many different interpretations of Mark's
Christology and with it many different theories regarding Mark's purpose.
Here we seek to offer our own interpretation of Mark's Christology. We will
examine three aspects of Mark's christological content. We begin by examin
ing christological identity in Mark or rather, Mark's identification of Jesus.
This examination will focus primarily on Mark's christological titles, i.e.,
Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man. In more recent studies, christological
function (or narrative Christology) has replaced christological titles as the
25
primary source for reconstructing christological development. While such a
shift has brought needed balance to christological investigation, christologi
cal titles still play a significant role in understanding the Christology of any
particular New Testament text. These titles help the interpreter to answer
the question of who the author thought Jesus was and who the reader would
understand him to be. But any christological reconstruction that is based on
titles without considering christological function is incomplete. Therefore, we
will also examine christological function/presentation in Mark. Here we will
examine Mark's presentation of Jesus' actions, words, and impact on other
characters. Finally, we will examine a unique feature in Mark's Christology,
the motif of secrecy that often surrounds Jesus' identity and actions. Our
25
See L. E. Keck, "Toward the Renewal of NT Christology," NTS 32 (1986): 362-77; F.
J. Matera, NT Christology (Louisville: WJK, 1999), esp. 26. Also note attempts to develop
a narrative Christology for Mark in Donahue and Harrington, Mark, esp. 23-25; France,
Mark, esp. 23-27; Best, The Gospel as Story, 55-65.
100 Chapter 3
examination of these three areas should give us a comprehensive understand

ing of Mark's Christology - one necessary for constructing a theory for the
purpose of Mark's gospel.
3.3.1 Christological Identity
Messiah
As we saw in our discussion of the gospel's incipit, the incipit provides a
christological identity for Jesus in the opening verse: "The beginning of the
26
good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God." From the outset, Mark identifies
27
Jesus as the Jewish Messiah or "anointed one." At three other points, Mark
identifies Jesus with the same title. In Mark 8:29, Peter identifies Jesus as the
Messiah and, though Jesus tells the disciples to keep this identity a secret, he
never rejects the title. In Mark 9:41, Jesus tells his disciples that anyone who
28
treats them kindly because they bear the name of "Christ" will be rewarded.
In Mark 14:61, the high priest asks Jesus if he is the "Christ," to which Jesus
answers affirmatively. It is also significant that in Mark 13:21-22, Jesus warns
his disciples against "false christs," implying that he is the true Christ. But
while it is clear that Mark identifies Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the title
"Christ" is not the dominant title Mark uses to identify Jesus. The title is
only used four times in direct reference to Jesus. The title is also somewhat
29
nebulous because Jewish messianic expectations varied. Without more clar
ification, we cannot be certain what type of messiah Mark understood Jesus
to be.
Son of God
Many interpreters have noted that Mark's favorite title for Jesus is "Son" or
30
"Son of God." Mark identifies Jesus in terms of divine sonship seven times
26
In an attempt to remove any christological understanding of Jesus from Mark's gos
pel, Richard Horsley argues that Mark 1:1 was not a part of the original Markan text. For a
response to this claim, see the discussion of Horsley in chapter one, pages 36-37.
27
Note the comments on pages 93-94 on whether Mark's use of "Christ" in vs. 1:1 should
be taken as a name or a title.
28
Here Mark's use of the word "Christ" seems to reflect a time when it had become a
proper name for Jesus. However, as we noted briefly above, the word primarily functions as
a title in Mark (e.g., Mark 8:29; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32).
29
For discussion on the diversity of Jewish messianic expectations and understanding,
see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995); James Charlesworth, "From
Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects," in The Messiah (ed. James Charles-
worth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 3-35; William S. Green, "Introduction: Messiah in
Judaism: Rethinking the Question," in Judaisms and Their Messiahs (eds. Jacob Neusner,
et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1-13.
30
See Evans, Mark, lxxii-lxxiii; Kingsbury, Christology; Hans-Jorg Steichele, Der lei-
dende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher Motive in der Christolo-
gie des Markusevangeliums (Biblische Untersuchungen 14; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet,
throughout his gospel (1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61; 15:39). Mark's incipit opens
with this identification (if our reading of 1:1 is accepted). Twice in Mark's
gospel, God addresses Jesus directly as his son (1:11; 9:7). Unclean spirits,
supernatural beings who presumably have supernatural knowledge, also
identify Jesus as God's son (3:11; 5:7). Jesus himself accepts this identifica
tion when the high priest asks him if he is "the Son of the blessed one" (14:61).
And immediately after Jesus' death, a Roman centurion recognizes Jesus as
the "Son of God" (15:39). In fact, some interpreters have suggested that Mark
bookends his gospel with this title (1:1 and 15:39), which if true, only further
demonstrates its significance for Mark's Christology.
The title "Son of God" is entirely consistent with the title "Christ," and,
in fact, helps clarify Mark's intended meaning of the title "Christ." As we
noted above, God identifies Jesus as his son twice in Mark's gospel: "You are
my Son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11), and "This is
my Son, the beloved, listen to him" (Mark 9:7). Both of these affirmations of
Jesus' divine sonship echo Psalm 2:7, a royal coronation psalm. Against this
background, as God's son, Jesus is God's appointed ruler and king. The titles
"Son of God" and "Christ" find unity in the notion of divine kingship. While
Jewish messianic understanding was diverse, many Jews conceived of the
Messiah as a kingly figure who would rule over Israel on God's behalf. The
title "Son of God" therefore affirms that the title "Christ" ought to be under
stood in a royal sense. As the Messiah, Jesus is God's divinely appointed son,
a king who rules on God's behalf.
But we must also note that while Jewish scriptures may be the primary
background for Mark's use of "son of God," the Greco-Roman background
should not be ignored. Greek and Roman rulers were regularly identified in
terms of divine sonship. An oracle in Egypt declared Alexander the Great to
31
be "son of Ammon" ("son of Zeus" in Greek). Alexander's Ptolemaic succes
32
sors also used this title. Even more importantly, the title "son of God" was
ubiquitous in the language of the Roman imperial cult. After his death, Julius
Caesar was deified and was called divus Iulius. His adopted son, Octavian,
took for himself the title divifilius or "God's son" or "son of God." This Latin
title was translated into Greek as 0eoO u l o g (son of God). 0eoO u l o g was
used regularly in reference to Augustus throughout his reign (e.g., K a i a a p o g
33
Geou u l o g auxoKpaTco, "Caesar, son of God, Emperor"). The title (or
1980); Telford, Theology of the Gospel of Mark; Hurtado, Mark, 10-11; Witherington, Mark,
49-51; P. J. Achtemeier, "Mark, Gospel o f in ABD, 4:551-53; R. Schnackenburg, Jesus in
the Gospels (Louisville: WJK, 1995), esp. 52; et al.
31
von Martitz, "inog," 336; See also A. Y. Collins, "Mark and His Readers: The Son of
God among Greeks and Romans," HTR 93 no. 2 (2000): 87.
32
Martitz, "uiog," 336; Collins, "Son of God," 87.
33
See Tae Hun Kim, "The Anarthrous ulog 9eou in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial
Cult," Biblica 79 (1998): 221-41.
102 Chapter 3
variations of it) was used also by Augustus' successors: Tiberius, Ti|3epiog

K a i a a p ZeâaTog 0eoO uiog auxoKpaxcop, "Tiberius Caesar Augustus,
son of God, Emperor;" Germanicus (Tiberius' adopted son), £e|3acn:ou uiog
0eou ZePacxTOu ulcovog, "son of the God Augustus [Tiberius] and grandson
of Augustus;" and Nero, T O V ulov T O U pe yiaTOu Secov, "the son of the great
34
est of the gods."
This background would significantly affect how Greeks and Romans
35
would understand Mark's presentation of Jesus. That Mark anticipated such
a reading seems equally as certain (see discussion above on Mark's incipit,
and its allusion to the imperial cult). Therefore, to a Greco-Roman audi
ence, Mark places Jesus in the same category as the great rulers of the world
- including Roman emperors, both present and past. Such a Greco-Roman
background does not necessarily conflict with the Jewish background we dis
cussed above, but rather the two can be complementary. For Mark, God's
Christ and appointed king is not only the ruler of Jews, but ruler of the world
as well. This idea is quite common in Second Temple Jewish messianism.
Through this portrayal of Jesus, Mark implicitly if not explicitly places him in
competition with any present world ruler, perhaps most obviously, the Roman
emperor. Therefore, Mark's use of "Son of God" has dual significance. Jesus
is not only God's divinely appointed king who will rule as Israel's Messiah,
but he is also a rival to all world rulers who also claim divine sonship.
Son of Man
The most frequent title (if it is in fact a title) that Mark uses for Jesus is "Son
of Man" (which from this point on will be abbreviated SM). This phrase is the
primary way that Jesus identifies himself in Mark's gospel. It occurs fifteen
times in Mark, and in every instance Jesus uses it as a term of self-designa
36
tion. No other character in the story uses it to identify Jesus, and Jesus never
identifies another person with it. A similar phenomenon is found throughout
the New Testament. Generally only Jesus uses the phrase SM and only in
37
reference to himself. In fact, outside the gospels, SM is found only three
times in the entire New Testament (Acts 7:56; Rev 1:13; 14:14). This evidence
34
Evans, Mark, lxxxii-lxxxiii.
35
See Collins, "Son of God"; Evans, "Incipit."
36
There is debate as to whether the use of SM in Mark 2:10 actually comes from Jesus
or is an authorial aside; cf. G. H. Boobyer, "Mark II 10a and the Interpretation of the Heal
ing of the Paralytic," HTR 47 (1954): 115-20; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans.
Bertram Lee Woolf; London: James Clark & Co., 1971), 67; Lane, Mark, 96-98; et al. For
alternative interpretations, see Marcus, Mark, 218; Tolbert, Sowing, 136, n. 18; et al.
37
Some interpreters have suggested that when Jesus speaks of the SM in eschatological
terms, he is speaking of a figure other than himself; see Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 112;
H. E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Dorothea M. Barton; London:
SCM, 1965), 55-60. But this position has been rejected by more recent interpreters; see I.
H. Marshall, "Son of Man," in DJG, 775-81, esp. 778.
demonstrates that SM was not a common title the early church used to iden
tify Jesus. That the church maintained it only as a way that Jesus identified
himself has led many interpreters to conclude that SM was an authentic term
38
of self-designation that the historical Jesus used. Clearly Mark has main
tained this traditional self-designation of Jesus.
What is the significance of this self-designation for Mark's Christology?
Before we can answer this question, we must first examine the significance
of this title in Second Temple Judaism and its significance for the historical
Jesus. There is a great deal of debate over this latter issue. The general con
sensus is that SM was not a messianic title in Second Temple Judaism and
39
there is no evidence that it functioned as such. But if SM was not a mes
sianic title, what significance did it have for Jesus? Some interpreters argue
that by using SM, Jesus is identifying himself with the "one like a son of
40
man" in Dan 7:13. This Danielic SM is an apocalyptic figure to whom God
gives kingship over the entire world. By identifying himself as the SM, Jesus
is therefore claiming to be God's royal viceroy and likely God's Messiah.
A number of Jesus' SM sayings use the language of Dan 7:13, suggesting it
38
For interpreters who believe that Jesus used SM as a form of self identification, see M.
D. Hooker, Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967); O. Cullmann, The Christology of the
New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), 137-188; Seyoon Kim,"7V*e 'Son of
Man'" as the Son of God (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983); G. Theissen and A. Mertz, The
HistoricalJesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM, 1998); James D. G. Dunn, Chris
tianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered iyo\. 1; Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2003), 759-761.
There are certainly interpreters who reject this position and claim that Jesus never actu
ally used the term "Son of Man." These interpreters hold that the SM sayings found in the
gospels are creations of the early church. For example, see Philipp Vielhauer, "Gottesreich
und Menschensohn in der Verkiindigung Jesu," in Aufsdtze zum Neuen Testament (Munich:
Kaiser, 1957), 51-79; N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967),
164-199; A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1974), chs. 3, 5-6. For a survey of the history of the "Son of Man" debate see D. Burkett,
The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (SNTSMS 107; Cambridge: Cambride
University Press, 1999).
39 nd
See James Dunn, Christology in the Making (2 ed; London: SCM, 1989), 95-97;
Marshall, "Son of Man," 775-81; Evans, Mark, lxxiii-lxxvii; et al.
4 0
For interpreters who see the apocalyptic SM sayings (those echoing Dan 7) as authen
tic Jesus traditions, see Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (vol. 1; trans.
Kendrick Grobel; New York: Charles Scribner, 1968), 26-32 (Though Bultmann does not
explicitly say that these sayings are authentic, he claims they are the oldest traditions among
the synoptic "Son of Man" sayings); G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (trans. Irene and Fra-
ser McLuskey with James Robinson; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 175-77; R. H.
Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner, 1965), 34-42,
65-66, 122-25, 151-155, 229-30; Todt, The Son of Man; Joachim Gnilka, Jesus of Naza
reth: Message and History (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 249-50, 258-62; G. Strecker,
Theology of the New Testament (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 257-258; A. Y. Collins, "The
Influence of Daniel on the New Testament," in Daniel (ed. John J. Collins; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), 90-112, esp. 95.
104 Chapter 3
as a possible background to Jesus' use of the phrase (Mk 8:38; 13:26; 14:62; Lk
12:40; 18:8; 22:69; Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 25:31). If this background for Jesus' SM
sayings is accepted, then Jesus has created a sort of veiled messianic title
(or form of self-identification) for himself - one that is unique in the Second
41
Temple period.
However, many interpreters reject the notion that Jesus' use of SM has any
42
connection to Daniel. They note that SM was a common Aramaic idiom.
It often simply meant "human being" or "humanity." But it could be used as
an indirect means of self-reference, which includes both humanity in general
43
and the speaker in particular. Geza Vermes argues that SM functions as a
44
circumlocution for the speaker alone, meaning "I and I alone." However, a
45
number of interpreters have offered significant objections to Vermes' claims.
One objection is that Vermes depends on sources that post-date the New Tes
tament by at least two or three centuries. Vermes' claims cannot be supported
by the Aramaic of Jesus' day. A second objection is that, while the examples
Vermes gives could be read as a direct self-reference, "I and I alone," they
could also be read as indirect self-references, such as the idiomatic use noted
above, i.e., humanity in general and indirectly the the speaker. Maurice Casey
46
has offered a mediating position. He claims that SM can refer to a particular
41
Both the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra draw on the imagery of the Danielic "son
of Man." In both texts, the phrase represents a heavenly individual and identifies that indi
vidual as the Messiah. See Collins, Scepter and Star, 175-89. For discussion on the relation
ship between Messiah and "Son of Man" in Second Temple Judaism, see J. C. VanderKam,
"Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man," in The Messiah (ed. J. Charles-
worth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 169-91; William Horbury, "The Messianic Associa
tion of The Son of Man,"' JTS 36 (1985): 34-55.
42
See Geza Vermes, "The Use of bar nash/bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic," in An Aramaic
Approach to the Gospels and Acts (ed. M. Black; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 310-28; idem,
Jesus the Jew, 161-92; M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7
(London: SPCK, 1979), 224-39; idem, "Aramaic Idiom and Son of Man Sayings," ExpTim
96 (1984-85): 233-36; idem, "General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term 'Son of
Man' in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus," JSNT 29 (1987): 21-56; Barnabas
Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels
(London: SPCK, 1983).
43
G. H. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (D. M. Kay trans.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902),
234-67; J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (vol. 1; New York: Charles Scribner, 1971),
261 n. 1; Casey, Son of Man, 224-39; idem, "Aramaic Sources," 21-56.
4 4
Vermes, "Jewish Aramaic"; idem, Jesus the Jews.
45
For critiques of Vermes, see Joseph Fitzmyer, "The New Testament Title the 'Son
of Man' Philologically Considered," in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays
(Missoula: Scholars, 1979), 143-60; idem, "Another View of the Son of Man Debate," JSNT
4 (1979): 58-68; Marshall, "Son of Man," 779; Bruce Chilton, "Son of Man: Human and
Heavenly," in The Four Gospels 1992 FS. F. Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroek, et al; BETL 100;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 203-18; R. Bauckham, "The Son of Man: 'A Man
in My Position' or 'Someone'?" JSNT 23 (1985): 23-33.
4 6
Casey, Son of Man; idem, "Aramaic Idiom"; idem, "Aramaic Sources"; also see
Lindars, Son of Man.
type or class of people, not necessarily humanity as a whole, and this class
includes the speaker. The idiom, therefore, means "I and others like me." In
a number of Jesus' SM sayings, such an idiomatic self-reference, i.e., "I and
others like me," seems plausible (e.g., "so the Son of Man is Lord even of
the Sabbath" [Mark 2:10//]; "But so you might know that the Son of Man has
authority to forgive sin" [Mark 2:28//]; "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air
have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" [Matt 8:20//]).
However, there are many SM sayings that do not fit this idiomatic explana
tion. For example, sayings that clearly identify Jesus with the Danielic "Son
of Man" or that are linked with the unique suffering and death Jesus predicts
he will experience clearly refer to Jesus alone and not others like him, making
the idiomatic use implausible. But because the idiomatic use fails to explain
these SM sayings, proponents of the idiomatic use reject their authenticity,
47
usually attributing their creation to the early church.
But resolving this debate is not our present concern. For our purposes, we
must determine how Mark understood SM and what implications it has for his
Christology. Did he understand this phrase as an innocuous idiom that Jesus
used as means of self-reference, or did he attribute to it christological sig
nificance? The SM sayings in Mark (and in the rest of the synoptics) fall into
three categories: (1) sayings that describe Jesus' present activity (2:10,28); (2)
sayings that refer to his suffering, death, and resurrection (8:31; 9:9, 12, 31;
10:33, 45; 14:21 [2x], 41); and (3) sayings that speak of his future vindication
(8:38; 13:26; 14:62).
It is the third type of sayings that give us our most promising starting
point. In these sayings, allusions to Dan 7:13 are obvious. In Mark 13:26,
Jesus speaks of the SM "coming in clouds with great power and glory." Com
pare this verse with Dan 7:13, which says, "I saw one like a son of man com
ing in the clouds of heaven." In Mark 14:62, Jesus says, "You will see the
Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming in the clouds of
heaven." Again the parallels with Dan 7:13 are obvious. Whether Jesus made
these statements or the early church created them is unimportant for our pres
ent purpose. What is important and quite clear is that Dan 7:13 influenced
Mark's use of SM, and that Mark identifies Jesus with the Danielic "Son
of Man." Certainly this identification has significant christological implica
tions. It demonstrates Mark's belief that Jesus is currently seated at the right
hand of God and, presumably, God has given him dominion and kingship
over the world. As God's appointed king, Jesus will one day return "with
the clouds," and judge the world (Mark 8:38). This understanding of SM is
completely consistent with the other christological titles we have examined
47
See Vermes, Casey, and Lindars above. James Dunn argues that Jesus likely began
using SM as an idiom and later connected it with the Dan 7 tradition and his own mission.
See Dunn, Christology, 82-95; idem, Remembered, 759-62.
106 Chapter 3
in Mark - "Christ" and "Son of God" - both of which relate to the idea of
divinely appointed kingship. While it is true that not all Mark's SM sayings
allude to Dan 7, it seems likely that Mark intends them to be understood in
such a light. For if even at one point Mark understands a SM saying in light
of Dan 7, such an understanding likely pervades all of Mark's SM sayings at
48
one level or another.
However, there are some challenges to interpreting Mark's use of SM as
49
a title with Christological significance. There is the absence of allusions to
Daniel in many of Mark's SM sayings. The absence of such allusions might
lessen the significance of Daniel for understanding these Markan SM sayings
and, therefore, Markan Christology as well. Perhaps Mark is simply maintain
50
ing idiomatic or generic uses of SM and not a christologically laidened title.
Some interpreters support this position by noting that that SM is never used
as a christological confession in Mark, unlike "Christ" and "Son of God."
Some interpreters noted that if Mark understands SM as a messianic title, he
violates his own efforts to keep Jesus' identity a secret. Jesus makes no effort
to conceal his identity as the SM (he even states it publicly [2:10, 28; 14:62]),
but he does attempt to conceal his identity as "Christ" and "Son of God." If
SM has christological implications (or is a Christological title), the inconsis
tency in Mark's use of messianic titles appears to be problematic.
But that Mark's narrator or Mark's characters never use SM as a chris
tological confession is not valid evidence that Mark did not understand the
term christologically or did not use it as a Christological title. The absence of
such christological confessions is best explained by Mark's desire to preserve
the tradition that SM was a way that Jesus alone spoke of himself. If Mark is
in fact preserving such a tradition, we would not expect SM to be used as a
christological confession in the gospel by any Markan character (other than
perhaps Jesus), which is exactly what we find.
Does a christological understanding of SM violate what appears to be
Mark's efforts to keep Jesus' identity a secret? While on the surface there
might appear to be a conflict between Mark's concern for secrecy and a chris
tological understanding of SM (especially in light of Jesus' public use of SM),
the two can complement each other. If, as most interpreters conclude, SM was
not a well known messianic title during the first century and could possibly be
understood idiomatically as a form of self-address, it might actually promote
Mark's concern for secrecy rather than undermine it. Mark's Jesus can use SM
4 8
See Walter Schmithals, "Die Worte vom leidenden Menschensohn," in Theologia Cru
ets - Signum Crucis: Festschrift fiir Erich Dinkier zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. C. Anderson and
G. Klein; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1979), 417-45, esp. 435.
49
Evans, Mark, lxxv; Kingsbury, Christology, 157-76; D. R. A. Hare, The Son of Man
Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 183-211; M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 104-8.
50
See Evans, Mark, lxxv; Kingsbury, Christology, 157-76.
51
as a veiled form of messianic identification. The true understanding of this
self-designation is not clear until Mark 13 when Mark first connects SM with
the apocalyptic figure in Daniel; a kingly figure who will rule the world on
God's behalf. Throughout Mark's gospel, SM would appear innocuous, both
to the characters in Mark's story and perhaps to Mark's readers. However, at
the end of his gospel, Mark reveals the true meaning of Jesus' identification as
52
the SM (13:26 and 14:62). Though such revelations do finally violate Mark's
secrecy motif, we must remember that such violations are not uncommon in
Mark (10:46-52; 11:1-11; 14:61-62). Jesus' true identity is regularly exposed
and often intentionally so. Even Jesus' identity as "Christ" and "Son of God"
is exposed in his trial before the high priest (14:61-62). Therefore, Mark's use
of SM as a veiled form of Jesus messianic self-designation fits Mark's pattern
of attempted yet unsuccessful secrecy.
As we have sought to demonstrate, there is compelling evidence that SM
does have christological significance in Mark's gospel and is a significant
christological title for Mark. Mark understands SM in light of the apocalyp
tic figure in Dan 7 and equates Jesus with that figure (13:26 and 14:62). For
Mark, this heavenly identity is veiled throughout Jesus' earthly life, and Mark
must reinterpret the role of the SM designation in light of Jesus' suffering and
death. But even during Jesus' earthly life, his heavenly identity is revealed in
the transfiguration, and his power and authority cannot be denied (9:2-8). Yet
it is with the risen Christ that Mark most clearly associates the Danielic SM.
Mark presents Jesus, as the risen SM, as an exalted heavenly king to whom
God has given authority over all the nations of the world (Dan 7:13-14). He
will not remain in heaven forever but will return one day to gather his people
(Mark 13:26).
This understanding of SM is consistent with Mark's other two christo
logical titles, "Christ" and "Son of God." All three of these titles are linked
by their expression of divine kingship not only of Israel but of the entire
53
world as well. Mark's christological titles therefore present a unified chris
54
tological identity: Jesus is God's appointed king and ruler of the world.
51
See Schmithals, "Menschensohn," 432.
52
See Moloney, Mark, 62-63, who notes that Jesus' use of "Son of Man" in 2:10, 28
leaves the reader asking who is this "Son of Man," and what is his significance. It is only
later in the narrative that the reader's question is answered (8:38; 13:26; 14:62); also see
Gnilka, Markus, 1:124.
53
See Paul Achtemeier, "Mark," 4.552-53.
54
For a response to the claims of Norman Perrin and others that Mark is trying to advance
Jesus' identity as SM over against his mistaken identity as Son of God, see the critique in
chapter one on "corrective Christology," pages 12-18.
108 Chapter 3
3.3.2 Christological Presentation

After examining christological identification in Mark, we turn our atten
tion to christological presentation or christological function. Mark identifies
Jesus as God's appointed king, but the question remains what type of king
he is, or rather how is this kingly identity characterized by Mark. Redaction
critics of the 1960's and 1970's discerned two conflicting types of christologi
cal content - content that promoted Jesus' power (e.g., healings, exorcisms,
and power over nature) and content that promoted Jesus' suffering (e.g., his
passion predictions, the betrayal of his disciples, and his horrific crucifixion).
As we discussed in our opening survey, many of these interpreters concluded
that this material represented two competing Christologies in Mark's com
munity, i.e., a Christology of suffering and the cross and a Christology of
power and glory. Most of these interpreters concluded that Mark was seeking
to combat an errant Christology of power by introducing a Christology of the
cross, making the latter the dominant motif by which Markan Christology is
understood. Though as we demonstrated in our opening survey, the notion of
such competing Christologies in Mark's gospel is untenable and the fruits of
55
this theory are questionable.
But while more recent Markan interpreters have rejected the notion of com
peting Christologies in Mark, they have, by and large, embraced the notion
that Mark's Christology is primarily one characterized by suffering and the
cross. This conclusion is primarily the result of narrative critical analysis.
Based on narrative patterns, literary markers, and rhetorical devices many of
these interpreters conclude that Mark is leading his reader to conclude that
56
Jesus is God's son primarily in terms of his suffering and death. As a result
of this work, most interpreters today agree that Mark's Christology is pri
marily a Christology of the cross. Perhaps the only vocal detractor from this
popular position is Robert Gundry who argues that Jesus' identity as Christ
57
and Son of God is best understood in terms of power and glory.
In our present analysis, we will examine Mark's presentation of Jesus with
the hope of accurately characterizing Mark's Christology. Is Mark's Chris
tology primarily understood in terms of suffering or power? For the pur
pose of our analysis, we will divide Mark's gospel up into five sections: (1)
prologue (1:1-13); (2) Galilean ministry (1:14-8:26); (3) Caesarea Philippi
58
(8:27-9:1); (4) Jerusalem ministry; and (5) passion and death. We will exam
ine the overall presentation of Jesus in each section, noting the dominant
55
For this critique, see pages 16-26 above.
56
For examples, see Moloney, Mark, 16-24; Harrington and Donahue, Mark, 23-25;
France, Mark, 23-27; Hooker, St. Mark, 19-27; Hurtado, Mark, 8-11; et al.
57
Gundry, Apology, esp. 1-26.
58
This section includes Jesus' journey to Jerusalem as well, but for the sake of conve
nience we have abbreviated the heading.
christological perspective of the section, identifying possible shifts in that
perspective, and negotiating apparent conflicting christological content.
59
Prologue 1:1-13 (14-15)
As a number of helpful studies have shown, prologues in the ancient world
were used to inform the reader of what they might expect in the text to fol
60
low. Therefore, Mark's prologue is significant for his overall presentation
of Jesus. It opens with a statement about Jesus' identity (1:1) and follows that
statement with a prophecy from Hebrew scripture (1:2-3). It is clear that Mark
understands Jesus (and John the Baptist who precedes him) as a fulfillment
of this prophecy: John is the messenger of vs. 2, his baptism is the means by
which the way of the Lord is prepared (vs. 2), and the wilderness fulfills the
location of vs. 3 ("the voice of one crying out in the wilderness"). By match
ing the details of Hebrew prophecies with circumstantial details of Jesus'
life, Mark makes it clear that he who follows John is the fulfillment of these
61
Hebrew prophecies.
Mark continues to develop his presentation of Jesus through John the
Baptist's prophetic message. John's message establishes three things: (1) that
Jesus is more powerful than John ("the one who is more powerful than I is
coming after me" [vs. 7a]), (2) that Jesus is of greater significance than John
("I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals" [vs. 7b]),
(3) and that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit (vs. 8). Given that John
himself is presented as a prophet of God, the superiority that he attributes to
Jesus is even more significant. The meaning of the ability to "baptize" with
the Holy Spirit is debated. Perhaps Mark is alluding to the giving of the Spirit
at Pentecost, but nowhere in Mark does Jesus give the Holy Spirit to another
person, nor is there any account of people receiving the Holy Spirit, as there
62
was at Pentecost. Perhaps for Mark, baptizing with the Holy Spirit indicates
the means by which Jesus will accomplish his ministry (e.g., teach, heal, exor
63
cise demons, etc.). Baptizing with the Holy Spirit might also allude to the
eschatological expectation that God would pour out his Spirit on his people
64
(Joel 2:28 and possibly Ezek 36:25-26). Mark may be establishing Jesus
as the agent of this eschatological blessing. Whatever the specific nuance of
59
There is a good deal of debate as to whether Mark's prologue ends at vs. 13 or 15. For a
summary of this debate, see Watts, Exodus, 91-95. Because our christological examination
of Mark's prologue is not greatly affected by the outcome of this debate, we will not spend
time discussing it here.
6 0
For the significance of prologues in ancient Greco-Roman literature, see Earl, "Pro
logue," 842 56; Smith, "Narrative," 1-9.
61
Cf. Gundry, Apology, 36.
62
Cf. Guelich, Mark, 25.
63
See Gundry, Apology, 38;
64
See France, Mark, 72-73; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 64; Hooker, St. Mark, 3 8 -
39; Moloney, Mark, 34-35.
110 Chapter 3
Jesus' ability to baptize with the Holy Spirit, it establishes Jesus as a person
of great power; either he will function under the power of the Spirit, or he will
dispense the Spirit to God's people. Either way, this function begins to estab
lish Jesus as one who acts on God's behalf and by God's power. John presents
Jesus as a person of power who is worthy of great honor. This presentation
is confirmed during Jesus' baptism when the Holy Spirit descends upon him,
and the heavenly voice proclaims his divine sonship.
Mark's presentation of Jesus as God's powerful Son continues in the wil
derness narrative. While he is in the wilderness, Jesus encounters Satan, the
65
supreme demon. Though nothing is said about their encounter, that Jesus is
a rival of Satan speaks to his significance and power. That Jesus lives in the
presence of wild animals, yet presumably is unharmed by them, also testifies
66
to his power. Even Jesus' needs are taken care of supernaturally, through
the attendance of angels. Again, all these details present Jesus as a person of
great power and significance.
Therefore, we conclude that the Jesus of Mark's prologue is a powerful
figure. He is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and is even greater
than the prophet John. He is in fact given God's Spirit (and is able to baptize
people with it) and is proclaimed to be God's Son. His greatness is evidenced
further through his adversarial relationship with Satan (the supreme demon),
his power over wild beasts, and the presence of angels who serve him. The
Jesus of Mark's prologue is a remarkable figure and would likely impress any
ancient reader. We must note that there is no indication of Jesus' suffering
and death in Mark's prologue, making its christological presentation unam
67
biguously one of power. If Mark's christological ambition is to promote a
Christology of the cross, the absence of any foreshadowing of such Christol
ogy in the Markan prologue could be considered problematic.
65
Interpreters have offered many different interpretations of Jesus' temptation by Satan
in Mark, (e.g., Jesus as the second Adam; the first battle in a cosmic struggle between Jesus
and Satan, in which Satan is significantly weakened; etc.). However, most push the text
further than it actually goes. Mark says nothing about the results of Jesus' encounter with
Satan, only that he tempted Jesus. In light of this fact, Gundry's claim that Jesus' encounter
with Satan, the supreme demon, only highlights Jesus' identity as God's son seems convinc
ing (Gundry, Apology, 55-60).
6 6
See similar stories in the lives of other great men, Daniel (Dan 6:1-28), Pythagoras
(Lambl. VP 60-62), Apollonius of Tyana (Philostratus, Life of Apol 5.42; 6.43; 8.30). See
Gundry, Apology, 55.
67
In 1:14, Mark references John's imprisonment (TTapa8o6fjvai). It might be argued
that this reference foreshadows Jesus own suffering and death (see for example Boring,
Mark, 49). However, such a conclusion is neither obvious nor necessary. This reference
could simply function as a point of demarcation between Jesus' ministry and John's. A
number of interpreters suggest this verse functions in both of these ways; see Hooker, Mark,
53-54; Marcus, Mark, 175; Moloney, Mark, 48-49; France, Mark, 90; Guelich, Mark, 42.
See Gundry's argument that Mark's use of Trapa8o0f]vat does establish a parallel between
the fate of John and Jesus; Apology, 63-64.
Galilean Ministry
In the Galilean ministry, the powerful figure of Mark's prologue is further
developed. Mark presents Jesus as a powerful exorcist, healer, miracle worker,
and teacher. Jesus' success in these roles gains him great popularity and a
large following among the people. We will look at each of these roles and
examine their significance for Mark's presentation of Jesus.
Perhaps one of the most significant ways that Mark portrays Jesus is as an
exorcist. Mark records three specific narratives in which Jesus exorcizes a
demon or demons (1:23-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30). At four different points, Mark
mentions Jesus' success as an exorcist, yet he does not record any specific
episodes (1:32-34, 39; 3:11-12, 20-30). By presenting Jesus as an exorcist,
Mark is presenting Jesus as a man of great power. Aai|jovia or "demons"
68
(or T r v 6 U | j a T a aKaGdpxa ["unclean spirits"]) were universally recognized
in the Greco-Roman world. They were generally conceived as supernatural
beings and at times lesser deities. They were believed to hold a great deal of
power and were often connected with the concepts of fate and destiny. It was
69
believed that these beings could torment and control human beings. Jesus'
power to cast out demons demonstrated that he was a man with power over
the supernatural realm. Though other ancient exorcists existed in antiquity,
70
the evidence suggests that they were not common. In our written sources,
we know of only a few outside the New Testament: Eleazar mentioned by
Josephus (Ant. 8.45-49), Apollonius of Tyana mentioned by Philostratus (Life
of Apol. 4.20), and an unidentified Syrian mentioned by Lucian of Samosata
71
(Lover of Lies, 16). Therefore, Jesus' ability to exorcize demons would put
him in an elite class of powerful men. It is also important to note the man
ner in which Jesus performed his exorcisms. Unlike other exorcists of the
ancient world who were generally dependent upon incantations and formulas,
72
Jesus simply and successfully commands the demons to leave. Jesus'
ability to control demons with only an audible command highlights his
73
power. Exorcists also often depended on a power greater than themselves,
68
These words are used as synonyms in Mark: unclean spirit (1:23; 5:2; 9:25) and
demon(s) (1:34, 39; 3:15, 22; 6:13; 7:26-30; 9:38).
69
For discussion on demons in the ancient world, see Werner Foerster, "8aiucov,
Satuoviov" TDNT, 2.1-20; J. Z. Smith, "Towards Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenis
tic and Roman Antiquity," ANRWW. 16.1,425-439; D. G. Reese, "Demons: New Testament,"
in ABD, 2.140-42; G. H. Twelftee, "Demon, Devil, Satan," in DJG, 163-72; E. Langton,
Essentials of Demonology (London: Epworth, 1949).
70
E. F. Kirschner, The Place of Exorcism in Mark's Christology with Special Reference
to Mark 3:22-30 (Ph.D. diss., London Bible College, 1988), 29.
71
We know of other exorcisms taking place in the ancient world (see Tob 6-8) but not of
specific exorcists.
72
See Tob 8:3 where the burning of a fish liver and heart are used to exorcise a demon.
In Josephus, Eleazar uses a root to exorcise a demon (Ant. 8:45-49).
73
Cf. Gundry, Apology, 77; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 81; Witherington, Mark,
91-92; et al.
112 Chapter 3
74
as is evidenced by the common formula "I adjure you by . . ." Jesus, how
ever, does not call on another power, demonstrating that he himself is able to
75
overpower these supernatural forces.
Perhaps even more so than as an exorcist, Mark portrays Jesus as a power
ful healer. During Jesus' Galilean ministry, Mark records seven pericopes of
specific healings that Jesus performed (1:29-34, 40-45; 2:1-12; 3:1-6; 5:21-
43; 7:31-37; 8:22-26), and twice he makes general reference to Jesus' role as
a healer (3:10; 6:53-56). The types of healings Mark records are both diverse
and impressive (e.g., the restoration of hearing, the restoration of sight, the
reversal of paralysis, the healing of deformity, and even the raising of the
dead). Like exorcists, healers were not unprecedented in the ancient world;
however, their power was greatly respected and often seen as having a divine
76
origin. By presenting Jesus as a remarkable healer, Mark contributes further
to the powerful image of Jesus in his gospel.
Along with presenting Jesus as a powerful exorcist and healer, Mark also
highlights Jesus' power over the natural world. Twice Jesus calms a storm:
once by audible command (4:35-41) and once presumably by his mere pres
ence (6:45-52). Such miraculous sea rescues are not uncommon in Greco-
77
Roman literature. For example, Philostratus writes that people believed that
Apollonius of Tyana had power over the seas (Life of Apol 4.13). Asclepius
(Serapis) answered the prayers of Aelius Aristides by saving him and his
companions from a deadly storm (Hymn to Serapis, 33). Yet, despite these
similarities in the ancient world, Mark's account of Jesus calming a violent
storm with an audible command is unprecedented. Many have suggested that
various Jewish traditions might lie behind these sea miracles (e.g., God's con
78
quest of the primordial sea at creation; the Jonah narrative). Second Mac
cabees indicates that the ability to command the seas was a power that some
Greco-Roman rulers claimed (2 Mace 9:8). It is, therefore, possible that ancient
readers would understand Jesus' calming of the sea in light of these differ
ent motifs. Whatever specific allusions Mark intends, one general conclusion
cannot be missed by Mark's readers: Jesus is a man of extraordinary power.
74
H. D. Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1992), e.g. 3.10; 4.1239, 3080; Dunn, Remembered, 693.
75
For further discussion on Jesus as an exorcist, see G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist
(WUNT 2.54; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993).
76
Apollonius of Tyana was known and revered for his healing powers (Phil., Life of
Apol) Pyrrhus was able to restore diseased spleens with his foot. In a long remembered dis
play of power, Emperor Vespasian healed a man's deformed hand and restored the eyesight
of a blind man (Suet. Ves. 7; Tac. Hist. 4:81); see Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the
Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983).
77
Theissen, Miracles, 99-101.
78
For discussion on these various backgrounds, see Lane, Mark, 175-76; John P. Meier,
A Marginal Jew (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:930-32.
Mark also records two pericopes in which Jesus miraculously multiplies
a small amount of food in order to feed a multitude ("The Feeding of the
Five Thousand," 6:30-44 and "The Feeding of the Four Thousand," 8:1-10).
Many scholars have noted the eschatological and messianic implications of
these passages. The passages possibly allude to the expectation of "manna"
that God would provide in the eschatological age (2 Bar. 29:8; Mek Ex. 16:25;
79
Eccl. Rab. 1:9). There is also a likely allusion to the powerful prophet Elisha
who fed one hundred men with a small amount of bread (2 Kgs 4:42-44). No
obvious parallels to these miracles occur in Greco-Roman sources. Regard
less of any intended or even accidental allusions, Jesus' miraculous ability to
multiply food obviously continues Mark's presentation of Jesus as a powerful
figure.
After examining the powerful deeds of Jesus, we must briefly discuss his
relationship to magic and ancient magicians, a topic that has garnered a good
80
deal of discussion in recent years. It is possible that Jesus could have been
characterized as a magician in the ancient world, but Mark does not seem to
present Jesus as such. In the Roman world, magicians and magic were gener
81
ally disapproved of and laws were passed outlawing both. Magicians were
often executed for violating these laws (Tac. Ann. 2.32; Dio 57.15.8-9). How
ever, it must be remembered that a magician was not classified as anyone who
was capable of doing powerful or supernatural deeds. A true "magician" was
one who profited in some way from his or her magic and generally used spells
82
or incantations for the sake of harming others. One of the evidences Apol-
lonius gives to prove he is not a magician is the absence of a motivation for
profit (Life of Apol. 8.7). He is eventually acquitted of any wrongdoing. Simi
larly, it would be difficult for Mark's Jesus to be discredited as a simple magi
cian. Jesus' deeds of power are never done for profit or to the detriment of
others. They are in fact always done for the benefit of humanity. He also does
not use the methods of magicians - spells or incantations - but accomplishes
his miracles by audible command or physical touch. From Mark's narrative,
it is clear that Jesus' power has a divine origin (e.g., 1:9-11; 2:1-12; 3:19b-30;
5:1-20, esp. 19). Jesus is God's appointed king and agent, and his great power
is evidence of this position.
79
See Marcus, Mark, 410.
80
See David Aune, "Magic in Early Christianity," ANRWW 23.2, 1507-1557; H. C. Kee,
Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times (SNTSMS 55; Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press, 1986); M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper and
Row, 1978); et al.
81
See Matthew W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London:
Routledge, 2001), 142-61; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 233, 238-43; H. D. Betz, "Magic in
Greco-Roman Antiquity," ER 9 (1995): 93; J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (San Fran
cisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 304-10.
82
See Dickie, Magic and Magicians, 142-61.
114 Chapter 3
While miracles and powerful deeds seem to dominate Jesus' ministry in

Galilee, Mark also presents Jesus as an authoritative teacher. Throughout the
Galilean ministry, Mark records the people's amazement at the authorita
tive nature of Jesus' teaching (1:22, 27). Several times Mark presents Jesus
rebutting the claims of the scribes and the Pharisees (2:18-28). Often Jesus'
teaching is connected closely with his power to exorcize demons and to heal,
making the teaching even more powerful and compelling (1:22-28; 2:1-12;
3:1-6; 3:20-30). A number of Jesus' teachings are connected with the "king
dom of God," creating a link between Jesus and God's rule. Alongside Mark's
presentation of Jesus as an exorcist, healer, and powerful miracle worker, his
presentation of Jesus as an authoritative teacher complements his portrayal of
Jesus as a man of striking power.
While a significant portion of the Galilean ministry emphasizes Jesus'
power, there are a handful of references that appear to foreshadow Jesus'
death. In Jesus' response to the Pharisees about fasting, there likely is a veiled
reference to his death: "Jesus said to them, 'The wedding guests cannot fast
while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bride
groom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom
is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day'" (2:18-20). Pre
sumably, Jesus is to be understood as the bridegroom, who will at one time
be taken away from the disciples at his death. After Jesus heals a man on the
Sabbath, Mark records that the Pharisees and the Herodians conspired to find
a way to destroy Jesus (3:1-6). That Mark is foreshadowing Jesus' future suf
fering and death certainly seems plausible. Jesus' rejection at his hometown
of Nazareth may also be an allusion to the future suffering he will encounter
(6:1-6). Likewise, the narrative of John the Baptist's death (6:14-29) could be
taken as a foreshadowing of Jesus' own fate.
Many narrative critics give significant weight to these scattered foreshad-
83
owings of Jesus' death. For such critics, these foreshadowings are invaluable
clues to the reader that Jesus' future is not as bright as it may presently seem
and that his identity will ultimately be marked by tragedy. But these inter
preters may be reading more into these foreshadowings than the text actually
demands. Mark inherits the tradition of the bridegroom from his sources, and
its placement at this point in Mark's narrative is necessitated by its link with
the disciples of John. There is no need to read this pericope as an intentional
Markan reference to Jesus' identity as a suffering messiah. While the tradi
tion of the Pharisees' and the Herodians' plot to kill Jesus could be read as an
early clue to the true nature of Jesus' identity, i.e. a suffering messiah, it could
also be read as a foil that highlights Jesus' power and influence over that of
two Jewish powerbrokers. The tradition of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth could
83
For examples, see Moloney, Mark, 68, 71; Marcus, Mark, 237; France, Mark, 151-52;
van Iersel, Mark, 162; et al.
be read as a foreshadowing of Jesus' future suffering, but such significance
is not a certain or necessary reading of the text. Mark could include the story
simply because it was a well known and popular Jesus tradition. He could
also be using the text to highlight the role of faith for Christian disciples. And
what is to be made of the account of John's death? While it could prefigure
Jesus' death, the text does not demand such a reading. Certainly the fate of
John is relevant to Mark's narrative for its own sake. He was certainly a figure
that played a prominent role in the church's Jesus tradition, and the story of
his death would be appropriate in Mark's recounting of that tradition.
Yet even if one insists that these pericopes be read as foreshadowings of
Jesus' death, there is little evidence demanding that these foreshadowings be
read as part of a narrative strategy that advances a Christology of suffering
and the cross. In fact, the Galilean ministry seems to read as a tour de force
for Jesus. He is a superior exorcist, master healer, authoritative teacher, and
has power over nature. His great power leads to extraordinary popularity
among the people and not only impresses but seems to frighten Herod Anti-
pas (Mark 6:14-16; Matt 14:1-2; Luke 9:7-9). Such a figure would impress
any first century Greco-Roman reader. It seems that a handful of references
to Jesus' death would fail to detract from the overwhelming presentation of
Jesus as a figure of great power. Such detraction is especially unlikely give
the fact that most of Mark's readers know how the story is going to end. For
them, Jesus' death is no surprise, and it is certainly questionable whether they
would read such scattered foreshadowings as significant, begging the ques
tion of whether Mark intended them as such.
In conclusion, the Galilean ministry in Mark continues to advance the
powerful presentation of Jesus that characterizes Mark's prologue. Therefore,
the first eight chapters of Mark are unanimous in their presentation of Jesus.
He is unambiguously characterized as a figure of supreme power, and it seems
reasonable to conclude that Mark understands Jesus identity as Messiah and
Son of God (1:1) in terms of such power.
Caesarea Philippi
Traditionally, interpreters have seen Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi
(along with Jesus' subsequent prediction of his own death and suffering) as
a turning point in Mark's gospel. At Caesarea Philippi, three unprecedented
events occur: (1) Jesus' disciples (specifically Peter) proclaim Jesus to be the
Christ, (2) Jesus speaks explicitly about his suffering and death, and (3) the
element of suffering discipleship is introduced. After these events at Caesarea
Philippi, Jesus' suffering and death take a more prominent place in Mark's
narrative, with the gospel finally culminating in Jesus' passion.
Recent narrative critical analysis of Mark has placed great significance on
this turning point. Many interpreters argue that Peter's confession is a true
116 Chapter 3
84
confession, but that it is also an incomplete confession. Jesus is the Christ,
but he is not the Christ in the way that Peter understands the title, i.e. in terms
85
of power and glory. It is then believed that Mark devotes the last half of the
gospel to clarifying Peter's faulty confession. Instead of being a powerful and
glorious messiah, Jesus is in fact a messiah who will suffer and die. This way
of reading Mark's narrative is currently en vogue, but we must ask whether it
is the only way the narrative can be read. In answering this question, we must
consider the most likely way that Mark's original audience would have read
the narrative, as well as how this reading of the second half of Mark's gospel
relates to our understanding of the first half of the gospel. Our analysis of
the Caesarea Philippi narrative and the subsequent sections of the gospel, i.e.
the Jerusalem ministry (and journey) and the Passion narrative, will address
these considerations.
We first address the reading of Peter's confession that claims it is faulty
or in some way incomplete. This reading is generally supported by three
pieces of evidence. The first piece of evidence is Jesus' command to the dis
ciples that they not tell anyone about the confession that Peter has made. This
command is seen as an indication that Peter has in someway misunderstood
Jesus' identity. Presumably, if Peter had understood Jesus' identity correctly,
86
a command to silence would not be in order. But this piece of evidence is
not supported by Mark's text. Here a command to silence is being equated
with an attempt to identify/correct a christological misconception. However,
nowhere else in Mark's gospel are Jesus' commands for silence equated with
christological correction. When Jesus commands his identity to be kept silent
elsewhere (1:25; 1:34; 9:9), there is no indication that he is correcting christo
logical misconceptions. These commands presumably function to keep Jesus'
true identity from being known but not to conceal a misguided identity. We
should read the command to silence in Caesarea Philippi narrative the same
way that we read all other commands to silence in Mark's gospel - namely
87
as efforts to keep Jesus' true identity a secret and nothing more. Therefore,
the command itself is not a strong piece of evidence that Peter's confession is
faulty.
The second piece of evidence is Jesus' prediction of his future suffering
and death. For many narrative critics, this passion prediction offers a cor
rective to Peter's faulty confession. Peter wrongfully understands Jesus as a
messiah characterized by power and glory (perhaps even a political figure),
and Jesus corrects this understanding with the first prediction of his passion.
84
For example, see Moloney, Mark, 165-67; idem, Storyteller, 16-71; Witherington,
Mark, 240; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 261; Hooker, St. Mark, 203; et al.
85
Moloney, Mark, 167; idem, Storyteller, 11.
86
For example, see Moloney, Storyteller, 76-77.
87
We will discuss the possible significances of these commands to silence on pages
136-139 below.
But this reading of Jesus' passion prediction is not truly evidence because
it is solely predicated upon the conclusion that Peter's confession is in fact
faulty - the very fact this piece of evidence is being used to prove. If Peter's
confession is not a faulty one, than Jesus' passion prediction cannot be under
stood as a christological corrective.
The third piece of evidence is the story of Jesus' healing a blind man that
immediately precedes the Caesarea Philippi narrative. Many narrative critics
see this pericope as a window into the significance of the Caesarea Philippi
88
narrative. The blind man represents the disciples' spiritual blindness. His
healing, which is only partial at first, represents Peter's partial understanding
of Jesus' identity, i.e. his identity as the Messiah. The complete healing of the
blind man represents the disciples' full understanding of Jesus' identity, i.e., a
messiah that suffers and dies. But here we are left with the same problem that
the second piece of evidence posed. It is only by reading Peter's confession
as faulty that a parallel can be made between the pericope of the blind man
and a Caesarea Philippi narrative. There is nothing explicit in the "blind man"
pericope that demands it be read as a window into the significance of the
Caesarea Philippi narrative. In fact, if an alternative reading for the Caesarea
Philippi narrative could be offered, i.e., one which rejects Peter's confession
as a faulty one, the pericope of the blind man would give no indication that it
was intended to be read in light of Peter's confession.
There is in fact no sound evidence that Peter's confession at Caesarea
Philippi is a faulty one. In fact, that Mark contrasts Peter's confession "you
are the Christ" with obvious false confessions, "John the Baptist, Elijah . . .
89
one of the prophets" indicates that "Christ" is an accurate confession. Also,
that Peter's confession is identical to the author's confession in 1:1 would
likely lead the reader to believe Peter's confession is, in fact, correct. The
three pieces of evidence discussed above work well together if a particular
reading of Peter's confession is assumed. But without such an assumption,
they find no clear or explicit grounding in Mark's text.
An additional problem with reading Peter's confession as faulty and Jesus'
passion prediction as a corrective to that confession is the inconsistency the
reading creates with the Christology of power that seems to dominate the first
half of Mark's gospel. While few narrative critics are as bold as redaction
critics in claiming a corrective function for Mark's Christology of the cross,
such a corrective function is certainly implied. If Peter's confession is faulty,
what is its fault? The only plausible solution is that Peter conceives of Jesus
as messiah in terms of power and glory, and this misguided perception is
corrected by Jesus' claim that he is messiah in terms of suffering and death.
But it is questionable whether Mark would seek to correct a christological
88
See Moloney, Storyteller, 76; Witherington, Mark, 238; Hooker, St. Mark, 198; Dona
hue and Harrington, Mark, 258; Guelich, Mark, 435-36; et al.
89
See Gundry, Apology, 445.
118 Chapter 3
perspective that he affirms for the first eight chapters of his gospel. In fact, it
would seem that Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the result of the
powerful acts which Jesus performed in the first eight chapters of the gospel.
It seems unlikely that Mark would spend eight chapters of his gospel building
a false christological understanding in his readers simply to turn the tables on
them at the half-way point. And if this was in fact Mark's goal, would he not
do so in a more dramatic or obvious way? As we have demonstrated above,
that Peter's confession is faulty and Jesus' passion prediction is a christologi
cal corrective is not obvious in the text, and those who argue for such read
ings rely on possible literary subtleties in the text. It strains plausibility that
Mark would attempt such a dramatic christological shift through subtle liter
ary clues alone. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Mark's readers - who to
this point in Mark's narrative have been dazzled with Jesus' power - would
be aware of such clues.
For all the above reasons, we reject reading Peter's confession as faulty and
Jesus' passion prediction as a christological corrective to that confession. But
now that this common narrative critical reading has been deconstructed, we
must construct an alternative reading. It cannot be denied that a shift in con
tent occurs in the Caesarea Philippi narrative. As noted above the Caesarea
Philippi narrative contains a number of unprecedented events in Mark's nar
rative; (1) Jesus' disciples (specifically Peter) proclaim Jesus to be the Christ,
(2) Jesus speaks explicitly about his suffering and death, and (3) the element
of suffering discipleship is introduced. Clearly Mark is introducing some new
themes/motifs into his gospel. But as we argued above, these new elements
should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the elements that char
acterize the first half of Mark's gospel. They should also be firmly grounded
in the Markan text.
We begin by discussing Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. We
suggest that this confession of Jesus' identity is nothing more than it appears
to be, a confession of identity. Such a confession is significant in Mark's nar
rative because of the disciples' lack of understanding about Jesus' identity
throughout the first half of Mark's gospel. Regularly the disciples demonstrate
90
a lack of faith in Jesus' power and his identity. After Mark's overwhelming
presentation of Jesus' power, the disciples finally understand Jesus' identity.
It is interesting that after this confession at Caesarea Philippi, the disciples
understanding of Jesus' identity never wanes. Mark settles the issue of who
91
the disciples believe Jesus to be at Caesarea Philippi.
We now turn our attention to Jesus' first passion prediction. Again we
9 0
For a more thorgough discussion on Mark's presentation of failing disciples, see pages
139-150 below.
91
Jesus' command to silence that follows Peter's confession is simply a continuation of
Mark's secrecy motif and not an attempt to correct Peter's claim. We will discuss this theme
below on pages 136-139.
suggest that this passion prediction is little more than a simple prediction. But
we must consider the function this prediction plays in Mark's narrative. The
prediction seems to accomplish two related goals: (1) it officially introduces
the subject of Jesus' suffering and death into Mark's narrative; and (2) it con
trols the way in which Jesus' death is understood by Mark's readers.
Mark has avoided any explicit reference to Jesus' suffering and death for
eight chapters, but at some point he must deal with these realities (as must any
biographical account of Jesus' life). He finally chooses to do so at the end of
chapter eight. From this point on, Mark will make reference to Jesus' death on
a handful of occasions, until the event actually occurs in Mark's passion nar
rative. In this way also, the end of chapter eight is a significant turning point
in Mark's gospel.
But how Mark introduces Jesus' death is more significant for understand
ing Mark's narrative than when. We must remember that up to this point in
the gospel, Mark presentation of Jesus has been unambiguously one of power.
Yet if Mark's christological presentation is one of power, Jesus' suffering
and death - especially death by crucifixion - would be a significant obstacle.
In the Greco-Roman world, crucifixion was perhaps the most shameful and
92
atrocious of deaths. Few symbols in the Greco-Roman world would be as
antithetical to power as a cross. Therefore, if Mark's christological agenda
is one of power, which the first eight chapters of his gospel suggest, Mark is
left with the difficult challenge of presenting Jesus' weakness and shame (his
crucifixion) as strength and honor.
But Mark's inclusion of Jesus' passion prediction is actually perfectly suited
to overcome this obstacle. In an attempt to make this very point, Gundry
notes that in the ancient world, the ability to predict the circumstances of
93
one's own death was seen as a divine power. Here Mark presents Jesus with
that very power, a power that would greatly impress Mark's Roman readers.
By introducing Jesus' suffering and death through a "prediction," Mark takes
the shameful sting out of Jesus' crucifixion. Not only does Jesus predict his
death and the events surrounding it, through the use of the word Sei, he also
implies that his death is a divine mandate. What is implied with 5el is made
explicit in Jesus' response to Peter (in 8:33, contrast "divine things" with
92
See Cicero's comments reflecting this understanding: "How grievous a thing it is to
be disgraced by a public court; how grievous to suffer a fine, how grievous to suffer ban
ishment; and yet in the midst of any such disaster we retain some degree of liberty. Even
if we are threatened with death, we may die free men. But the executioner, the veiling of
the head, and the very word 'cross' should be far removed not only from the person of a
Roman citizen but his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears. For it is not only the actual occur
rence of these things but the very mention of them that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and
a free man" (Rab. Perd. 16). For further discussion on ancient attitudes towards crucifixion,
see M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); G. G. O'Collins, "Crucifixion," \nABD, 1.1207-10.
93
See n. 95.
120 Chapter 3
"human things"). Mark makes it clear to his Roman audience that Jesus was
not killed as result of his own failings or weakness, but rather his death was
divinely ordained.
Therefore, we conclude that by including Jesus' passion prediction, Mark
is neither advancing a Christology that must be understood in terms of suffer
ing and death, nor is he undermining the Christology of power set forth in the
first half of his gospel. In fact, we suggest that Mark is using Jesus' passion
prediction to advance his Christology of power by mitigating the shame and
weakness of the cross. But perhaps a point of clarification is necessary. We
are not claiming that Jesus' suffering and death is not part of Mark's christo
logical presentation. Certainly part of Jesus' divinely appointed mission is to
die, and, as we will discuss below, give his life as a ransom for many (10:45).
However, we are suggesting that Jesus' suffering and death is not the primary
motif through which Mark is presenting Jesus as the Messiah. Rather, we
suggest that Mark's primary christological presentation is one of power and
that he has skillfully used Jesus' suffering and death to serve this primary
presentation.
The third unique feature that Mark introduces in the Caesarea Philippi nar
rative is the theme of suffering discipleship. In the Caesarea Philippi narrative
Jesus' disciples have already made a significant breakthrough in their under
standing. After consistently failing to understand Jesus' identity throughout
the first eight chapters of Mark, the disciples finally recognize Jesus' identity
as the Messiah. But as Mark wraps up one motif that presents the disciples'
failure, he introduces another, namely the disciples' failure to understand
Jesus' divinely appointed death and its implications for discipleship. This
motif is introduced by Peter's rebuke of Jesus' passion prediction. Clearly
Peter does not understand Jesus' divinely appointed death. Jesus reciprocates
Peter's rebuke with a harsh rebuke of his own and follows this rebuke with his
first instruction on suffering discipleship. The disciples' failure to understand
Jesus' death and its implications for their own future will be a repeated theme
94
in the second half of Mark's gospel.
We conclude with most interpreters that the Caesarea Philippi narrative
functions as a turning point in Mark's gospel. It is at Caesarea Philippi that
Jesus' disciples first understand his identity as the Messiah. Mark also intro
duces the theme of suffering discipleship, a theme his disciples will fail to
understand. Yet while we agree with the majority of interpreters on these
points, we reject the common conclusion that the Caesarea Philippi narra
tive introduces Jesus' suffering and death as Mark's dominant christological
motif. As we have sought to demonstrate, such a conclusion is not firmly
grounded in the Markan text. It is also inconsistent with the christologi
cal presentation that dominates the first half of Mark's gospel. While we
The significance of this theme will be discussed below on pages 139—150.

recognize that Mark does, for the first time, explicitly introduce Jesus' future
suffering and death at Caesarea Philippi, we argue that he does so in a way
that both highlights Jesus' great power and mitigates the shame of his cruci
fixion. Mark does this by way of a passion prediction, a prediction that would
greatly impress Mark's Roman readers. The cross is certainly an aspect of
Jesus' life and ministry that Mark cannot ignore, but Mark presents the cross
as a subservient (rather than antithetical) motif to the motif of Jesus' power
and glory.
Jerusalem Ministry
In our examination of the first half of Mark's gospel, we saw the evangelist
advancing a Christology of power in two distinct ways. First, Mark pres
ents Jesus as a man of powerful actions (e.g., healings, exorcisms, etc). Sec
ond, Mark presents Jesus' suffering and death in a way that highlights Jesus'
power. As we turn to the second half of Mark's gospel, we will seek to deter
mine whether the evangelist continues to use these methods to advance his
Christology.
We must first determine whether Mark continues to present Jesus as a man
of powerful actions. If this motif disappears from Mark's gospel, we may
need to reconsider our understanding of Mark's Christology. Such a disap
pearance might support the conclusion that Mark's christological presentation
did in fact shift in the Caesarea Philippi narrative, i.e., from a Christology
of power to a Christology of the cross. Yet if the deeds of power that domi
nate the Galilean ministry continue into the second half of Mark's gospel, we
can be reassured that we have understood Mark's christological presentation
correctly.
In our discussion of Jesus' Galilean ministry, we noted three types of mir
acles Jesus performed: exorcisms, healings, and feats of power over the natu
ral world. It is significant that in the second half of Mark's gospel all three
types of miracles are recorded. In Mark 9:14-29, Jesus casts out a demon
that even his disciples are unable to control. In Mark 10:46-52, Jesus heals a
blind man. And in Mark 11:12-14, 20-25, Jesus demonstrates power over the
natural world by cursing a fig tree. It is certainly true that Mark records fewer
miracles in the second half of his gospel than in the first. However, Mark's
necessary change in subject-matter, i.e., one from Jesus' impressive life to his
tragic death, may demand the lower frequency of miracles. In fact, that Mark
includes these three specific types of miracles after the Caesarea Philippi nar
rative may be a way for the evangelist to maintain christological continuity
with the first half of his gospel. In essence, Mark is demonstrating that even
in the face of Jesus' tragic death, his great power ought not to be forgotten.
We also noted that in the first half of Mark's gospel, Mark presents Jesus
as an authoritative teacher. This characterization of Jesus continues in the
second half of Mark's gospel and perhaps becomes more prominent than it
122 Chapter 3
was in the first. Jesus teaches authoritatively on the subject of who may enter
the kingdom of God (10:13-16, 17-31; 12:28-34) and even promises escha
tological blessings to those who are faithful to both himself and the gospel
(10:28-31). Jesus also offers moral instruction on divorce (10:1-12), sin (9:42-
49), faith (11:23-24), and forgiveness (11:25, [26]). As an authoritative teacher,
Mark presents Jesus time and again outwitting the religious intelligentsia of
Israel - chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Jewish elders (11:27-33; 12:13—
17, 18-27, 38-40). This presentation of Jesus seems to establish further conti
nuity between the first half of Mark's gospel and the second half.
In addition to presenting Jesus as an authoritative teacher, the second half
of Mark's gospel presents Jesus as a powerful prophet. Not only does Jesus
successfully predict his own death on three different occasions (predictions
that we will examine in more depth below), but he also predicts the destruc
tion of the Jerusalem temple (13:2, which, as we argued in chapter two,
Mark's readers have seen unfold) and the events leading up to the world's end
(13:5-27). On a smaller scale, the Markan Jesus also successfully predicts the
betrayal of Peter, Judas, and the rest of the twelve (14:17-21, 26-31). As we
noted earlier, in the ancient world, the ability to tell the future - particularly
the events surrounding one's own death - was believed to be a sign of divine
95
power. Certainly this ability to tell the future only adds to the impressive
resume Mark is creating for Jesus and only further establishes a Christology
of power.
There are three significant narratives in the second half of Mark's gos
pel that also seem to favor a Christology of power over a Christology of the
cross - none of which are paralleled in the first half of the gospel: (1) the
transfiguration; (2) the triumphal entry; and (3) Jesus' action in the temple.
While interpreters debate Mark's intended background for the transfigura
96
tion narrative, most agree that it serves to reveal Jesus' heavenly identity
95
See Gundry, Apology, 428, who cites Philo Mos. 2.51§§290-91; Suetonius. Domitian
15.3; Iambi. VP 136. See David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Med
iterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 178; A. B. Kolenkow, "Miracle and
Prophecy," ANRWII 23.2, 1470-1506, esp. 1494.
9 6
The transfiguration may find its background in the Hellenistic literature in which,
after taking on a human form, a deity would often later reveal his or her true identity. For
discussion or ancient literature that supports this background, see J. Behm, "ueTauoptpoco,"
TDNT4,757. Interpreters have also noted the parallels to Moses' encounter with God on Mt.
Sinai (Exod 24), i.e., both Moses and Jesus are on a mountain, both hear the divine voice,
both are illuminated, both events place significance upon "six days;" see Bruce Chilton,
"Transfiguration," in ABD, 4.640-42; U. W. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilder
ness Theme in the Second Gospel and Its Basis in the Biblical Tradition (SBT 39; London:
SCM Press, 1963), 110-19; Marcus, Way of the Lord, 80-93. Some also note the similarities
between Jesus and heavenly figures in apocalyptic texts. See France, Mark, 351, who cites
Dan 7:9, 1 En 14:20; 2 En 22:8-9; 3 En 12:1; Test. Job 46:7-9; cf Gnilka, Markus, 2:33;
Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:70. G. H. Boobyer reads this Markan pericope as a foreshad
owing of Jesus' parousia or heavenly return (St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story [Edin-
97
(as expressed in 8:38). For a moment, the veil of Jesus' humanity is with
drawn, and his true glory is revealed to his closest disciples (as well as to
Mark's readers). In the triumphal entry narrative, Mark clearly portrays Jesus
as a kingly messianic figure. The image of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on
a colt recalls the prophecy of Zech 9:9: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant
and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a
donkey." The cries of the people link Jesus with the messianic descendant of
98
David who will establish God's kingdom. While ironically the people will
later reject Jesus, here they correctly recognize him as God's appointed king.
99
While the significance of Jesus' action in the temple can be debated, Jesus'
authority and power communicated through the action cannot. Clearly Jesus'
actions present him as a powerful figure, one who acts on God's behalf and
exercises authority in God's temple and over the temple authorities. These
three narratives undeniably present Jesus as a figure of great significance and
power.
We have found that in the second half of Mark's gospel, as in the first half,
Mark presents Jesus as a man of powerful action. Therefore, there is not yet
any indication that Mark's christological presentation in the first half of the
gospel - a Christology of power - has changed in the second half.
However, we now turn our attention to the way Mark presents Jesus'
death in the second half of his gospel. We must determine whether Mark
burgh: T & T Clark, 1942], 48-87). Many interpreters (including some listed here) see more
than one of these backgrounds behind Mark's transfiguration narrative.
97
Cf. Evans, Mark, 35; Witherington, Mark, 263; France, Mark, 350-51; Marcus, Way of
the Lord, 90-91; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 269, 272-75; Hooker, St. Mark, 218-21;
Gnilka, Markus, 2.29-39; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:69-84; et al.
98
Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:176-89, esp. 182; Moloney, Mark, 218-21; Evans,
Mark, 147; France, Mark, 428-35; et al. Even Horsley who wishes to mitigate Mark's mes
sianic imagery accepts the messianic character of this pericope, though he rejects "son of
David" as a messianic title (see Horsley, Politics, 251). Lane's argument that crowds are
gathered to welcome all pilgrims into Jerusalem and that their praise and assembly is not
specifically tied to Jesus may fit the historical situation (though not without difficulties, see
Hooker, St. Mark, 256-57); Lane, Mark, 397-98. But Mark clearly understands the event to
have messianic significance.
99
E. P. Sanders understands Jesus' action as a prophetic gesture heralding the destruc
tion of the Jerusalem temple; see Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 61-76;
cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus, 355-60. Hengel understands it as a protest against the temple's
corruption; see Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (FBBS 28; Philadelphia: For
tress, 1971), 14-19; cf. Bruce Chilton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a
Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992),
100-103; Evans, Mark, 170-71. S. G. F. Brandon argues that Jesus' temple action was an
attempt to take the temple by force; see Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the
Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967),
255-57, 330-40.
124 Chapter 3
continues to present Jesus' death in a way that advances Jesus' power or

whether Mark presents it in a way that magnifies Jesus' suffering and
weakness.
In the Jerusalem ministry, there are seven pericopes that discuss (either
directly or indirectly) Jesus' suffering and death: (1) Jesus' teaching on Eli
jah (9:9-13); (2) Jesus' second passion prediction (9:30-32); (3) Jesus' third
passion prediction (10:32-34); (4) James' and John's request (10:35-45); (5)
the chief priests' desire to kill Jesus (11:18); (6) the parable of the wicked
tenants (12:1-12) and (7) the anointing at Bethany (14:3-9). As we examine
these pericopes, we will consider the following questions: (1) Do they overtly
magnify Jesus' suffering and weakness; (2) Do they in any way attempt to
undermine Jesus' power and glory; and (3) Can they be read in a way that
magnifies Jesus' power and glory?
We begin by looking at Jesus' second and third passion predictions. Both
of these passion predictions strongly parallel the first passion prediction at
Caesarea Philippi both in form and content - though the third passion nar
rative provides more specific details than the first two. As with the first pas
sion prediction, we conclude that the second and third passion predictions are
simple predictions. They do not in any way seem to overtly magnify Jesus'
suffering and death, but they simply communicate the reality of these events.
In addition, instead of undermining Jesus' power, these passion predictions
seem to magnify it. Jesus' prophetic power is again on display and his knowl
edge of the specific details surrounding his death would greatly impress his
Roman readers. Again it appears that Mark is presenting Jesus' death in a way
that mitigates its shame and magnifies Jesus' power
The dialogue between Jesus and his disciples regarding Elijah and his
eschatological role also includes a reference to Jesus' suffering. The dialogue
follows the transfiguration narrative as Jesus and his disciples are descend
ing from the mountain. Jesus responds to the disciples' question about the
coming of Elijah. He affirms that Elijah is coming but then responds with
his own question: "How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is
to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt?" (9:12). This
statement does not seem to overtly magnify Jesus' suffering or weakness,
but rather seems to simply explain how Jesus' death fits chronologically with
other eschatological events. It could be argued that rather than undermining
Jesus' power, this pericope highlights it by further demonstrating Jesus' pro
phetic ability.
Another reference to Jesus' suffering and death occurs in Jesus' dialogue
with James and John concerning positions of authority in the eschaton (10:35-
45). James and John request to sit at Jesus' right and left when he "enters his
glory" (implying either Jesus' reign as God's Messiah during the eschaton
or his entry into Jerusalem). To this request, Jesus points out their limited
knowledge and understanding and then delivers a question of his own: "Are
you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I
am baptized with?" This question makes an obvious allusion to Jesus' future
100
suffering and death. However, there is nothing in this allusion that mag
nifies Jesus' suffering or weakness, nor is there anything that undermines
Jesus' power. In fact, Gundry notes that Jesus' prophetic power is again put
101
on display. Not only does he once again demonstrate foreknowledge of his
102
own death, but he also demonstrates foreknowledge of his disciples' fate.
Gundry also notes that Jesus' question to James and John, "are you able,"
implies that Jesus himself is able to endure such suffering, highlighting his
103
strength and resolve. This pericope also highlights the reality that Jesus
will one day rule in glory as God's king. The suffering he will soon experi
ence cannot prevent his final destiny. Again Mark's presentation of Jesus'
death supports rather than undermines a Christology of power.
Immediately following Jesus' dialogue with James and John is another
reference to Jesus' suffering and death. The presumption of James and John
causes discord among Jesus' disciples, discord that leads Jesus to teach about
what might be called servant leadership. This monologue concludes with the
statement: "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give
his life a ransom for many" (10:45). This is the first place in Mark's gospel
that any qualitative significance is given to Jesus' death. But such significance
does not magnify Jesus' suffering or weakness. Instead, it can be read in
support of Jesus' power. At the risk of sounding redundant, this saying again
demonstrates Jesus' foreknowledge about his death. However, it also presents
Jesus' death as an act of benefaction for humanity. Such acts of service by
a powerful ruler were not seen as signs of weakness in the Greco-Roman
world. Rather, such actions were considered the behavior of an ideal king or
104
ruler. Thus, the Markan ransom saying further removes the sting out of
Jesus' crucifixion by presenting it as a noble action by the true ruler of the
world.
The sixth pericope that references Jesus' death is the parable of the Wicked
Tenants (Mark 12:1-12). Here we can be certain the son of the vineyard owner
100
Note that in the Gethsemane prayer, Jesus refers to his impending death and suffer
ing as a cup (14:36). For discussion of these metaphors, see C. E. B. Cranfield, "The Cup
Metaphor in Mark xiv.36," ExpTim 59 (1948): 137-138; J. D. M. Derrett, "Christ's Second
Baptism (Lk 12:50; Mk 10:38-40)," ExpTim 100 (1988-89): 294-95; cf. Evans, Mark, 117;
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 311; et al.
101
102
103
104
For information on ideal rulers, see M. P. Charlesworth, "The Virtues of a Roman
Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief," PBA 23 (1937): 105-33; T. R. Stevenson,
"The Ideal Benefactor and Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought," CQ 42 (1992):
421-36
126 Chapter 3
105
who is killed by the wicked tenants is correctly identified with Jesus. But as
we concluded with all previous references to Jesus death, this reference does
not, in any unique way, magnify Jesus' suffering or weakness. Again, the par
able displays Jesus' prophetic power, not only in Jesus' prediction of his own
death, but also in his prediction of the demise of the temple authorities (whose
power will come to an end with the temple's destruction). It also claims that
though he will be killed (rejected), he will eventually be vindicated (become
the capstone). Therefore, rather than undermining Jesus' power and promot
ing the cross, this parable continues to highlight Jesus' power.
The final narrative to consider is that of Jesus' anointing in Bethany. Here a
woman anoints Jesus' head with costly perfume, an act which most interpret
106
ers read as a royal anointing. While others at the dinner critique the woman
for extravagant waist, Jesus praises the woman and interprets here anointing
as one intended for his burial. Some interpreters have read this pericope as
one that promotes a Christology of the cross. It is claimed that here, Mark
107
interprets Jesus' identity as king in terms of his impending death. But while
it may be true that Mark has brought together the idea of Jesus' identity and
death, the connection the author intends to communicate between these two
realities is not as clear. It is quite possible that the author is implying that
Jesus' identity as messiah is true despite his impending suffering and death.
Though the woman's intended royal anointing will in reality be a pre-burial
anointing, the woman is not wrong in here identification of Jesus. His impend
ing death in no way undermines his identity as king. Yet, regardless of how
one interprets the connection this pericope makes between Jesus' identity
and his death, there is little in the pericope that undermines the Christology
of power that has dominated the gospel to this point. Jesus' again foresees his
impending death and even seems aware that a pre-burial anointing will be
precluded by the events surrounding his death (cf. 16:1-8). Jesus' prophetic
power cannot be denied.
After examining all the narratives in the Jerusalem ministry, we see that
the christological strategy that Mark employs in the first half of his gos
pel is continued in the second half. He continues to present Jesus as a man
105
Some interpreters have suggested that the son in the parable ought to be identified
with John the Baptist; see D. Stern, Parables in Midrash (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1991), 193-95; C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Garden City: New York, 1986), 462-63. But
for good reasons the majority of interpreters reject this conclusion. Evans' critique is help
ful: (1) in no other tradition is John identified as the "son," whereas the title is regularly used
for Jesus by Mark; (2) the parable is given in response to the priests' question about Jesus'
authority not John's; (3) John the Baptist is put to death by Herod Antipas, while Jesus' death
is orchestrated by the temple priests; see Evans, Mark, 230; cf. Liihrmann, Markusevange-
lium, 199; Lagrange, Saint Marc, 283; Moloney, Mark, 233; Donahue and Harrington, Mark,
338; France, Mark, 460-61; et al.
106
For example, see Moloney, Mark, 280-81;
107
For example, see Moloney, Mark, 282; Hooker, St. Mark, 328.
Analysis of Mark s Major Features 127
characterized by powerful actions. He also presents Jesus' death in a way that
mitigates its shame and weakness and at the same time brings it in line with a
Christology of power. There is no evidence that Mark has made a shift in his
christological perspective or that Mark is seeking to advance a Christology
of the cross.
Passion Narrative
To this point in Mark's narrative it seems that Mark's presentation of Jesus
is predominantly characterized by power. We have argued that the various
references to Jesus' suffering and death are complementary rather than anti
thetical to a Christology of power. However, now we examine Mark's passion
narrative in which Jesus' suffering and crucifixion take center stage. We must
determine whether Mark's passion narrative is consistent with our previous
conclusions or whether it will force us to re-examine them. Is Mark's passion
narrative consistent with a Christology of power or does it undermine such a
Christology?
We will begin by briefly examining the pericopes leading up to Jesus'
crucifixion (the Passover preparations [14:12-21]; the last supper [14:22-31];
the prayer at Gethsemane [14:32-42]; Jesus' arrest [14:43-51]; the trial before
the Jewish council [14:53-65]; Peter's denial [14:66-72]; and the trial before
Pilate [15:1-15]), noting elements that are consistent with a Christology of
power and elements that might undermine it.
In these pericopes, Mark highlights Jesus' ultimate victory and the posi
tion of power that he will hold in God's kingdom. During the last supper with
his disciples, Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit
of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (14:25).
This verse clearly indicates that death will not defeat Jesus and alludes to
108
the day in which he will rule in God's kingdom (13:26-27; 14:62). When the
high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the "Messiah, the Son of the Blessed
One," his reply explicitly refers to his identity, his future divine kingship,
and his eschatological role as judge: "I am; and you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven"
109
(14:62). Therefore, even during the moments immediately preceding Jesus'
crucifixion, Mark intentionally reminds his readers of Jesus' powerful posi
tion. These statements seem to shift the focus away from the shame of the
cross and place it on Jesus' power and authority.
108
See Taylor, St. Mark, 547; Evans, Mark, 394-96; Gundry, Apology, 834; Gnilka,
Markus, 2:246-47; contra Iersel, Mark, 427.
109
See Taylor, St. Mark, 568-69; R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethse
mane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL;
New York: Doubleday, 1994), 488-500; Juel, Messiah and Temple, 77-107; cf. Evans, Mark,
450-52; Iersel, Mark, 450; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 423; et al.
128 Chapter 3
Another element dominating these pericopes is Jesus' prophetic power and

supernatural knowledge. This power is seen in Jesus' instructions to the dis
ciples about the Passover preparations (14:12-16). He makes several specific
110
predictions, all of which come about. At the Passover meal, Jesus again pre
dicts his impending death, but he also predicts his betrayal by Judas, Peter's
denial, and the desertion of all his disciples - all of which come about in the
111
following pericopes. In fact, pericopes such as those that present Judas'
betrayal, Jesus' arrest, Peter's denials, Jesus' trial before the chief priests and
elders, and the mockery of soldiers can all be seen as functioning to confirm
Jesus' prophetic power.
These features in Mark's passion narrative establish continuity with the
christological presentation that dominates Mark's first thirteen chapters, a
Christology of power. In fact, there is very little in these pericopes that under
mines Jesus' power. Some interpreters point to Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane
as a pericope that is inconsistent with a Christology of power. Here Mark
records that Jesus is "grieved even to death" (14:34). He also records the only
instance in the entire gospel where Jesus shows any desire to avoid his fate:
"Abba, Father, for you all things are possible, remove this cup from me, yet
not what I want, but what you want" (14:36). For some, Jesus' request to avoid
his death may appear as a sign of his weakness which is inconsistent with a
Christology of power. But again we must remember that this is the only time
in Mark's gospel where Jesus' bold resolve to meet his faith is broached. Mark
overwhelming presents Jesus as one who embraces his divinely ordained fate.
We must also note that this brief lapse in Jesus' resolve is immediately fol
lowed by his unwavering desire to do God's will. It hardly seems that Mark's
brief glimpse at Jesus' struggle with his fate - a struggle that he quickly
overcomes - undermines Mark's christological presentation of Jesus' power.
110
Some interpreters deny that anything supernatural is happening during the Passover
preparations. France argues that the plans Jesus gives the disciples implies a prearrange-
ment; France, Mark, 564; cf. Evans, Mark, 373-74; Witherington, Mark, 370-71. However,
Gundry makes a strong case that Mark's description of these Passover preparations implies
Jesus' supernatural foreknowledge; see Gundry, Apology, 821. He notes that prearranged
preparations do not fit the details of the story. (1) It is the disciples who initiate the need for
preparations in Mark's narrative and not Jesus. (2) Jesus does not give them any specific
location where a man will meet them. In a city the size of Jerusalem, during a time when
pilgrims are crowding the streets, prearranged plans would likely call for a specific meet
ing place. Mark's narrative seems to imply that the disciples will miraculously be found by
just the right person. (3) That the disciples are told to follow "wherever" the man enters a
house, leaves a level of open-endedness in the instructions that one would not expect with
a prearranged plan. Also see Painter, Mark, 183-84; Moloney, Mark, 282-83; Donahue and
Harrington, Mark, 393.
1,1
Jesus' predictions of Judas' betrayal is particularly significant. By presenting Jesus
with foreknowledge of his betrayal by an intimate friend, Mark eliminates the possibility
that Jesus was outwitted by a clever enemy. Such a betrayal would likely be seen as a slight
against Jesus' power.
Analysis of Mark s Major Features 129
In fact, the quickness with which he overcomes the struggle might magnify
112
Jesus' resolve.
In these pericopes, many elements are consistent with a Christology of
power: foreshadowing of Jesus' future victory and rule, Jesus' prophetic power,
and Jesus' resolve to accept his fate. Aside from the necessary biographical
elements of Mark's gospel - Judas' betrayal, Jesus' arrest, and Jesus' trials
(most of which fulfill previous prophecies made by Jesus) - there is virtually
nothing in the way Mark presents these pericopes that undermines a Christol
ogy of power.
We now turn to Mark's presentation of Jesus' crucifixion and death in order
to determine whether it is consistent with a Christology of power. Certainly
if Mark was constructing a Christology of power, the crucifixion itself stood
as his greatest obstacle. We have argued that Mark mitigated the offense of
the cross by referring to it in the context of Jesus' prophetic power and by
presenting it as an honorable act of self-sacrifice. But Mark had the daunt
ing task of walking his readers through the scandalous event itself, while at
the same time trying to mitigate its horror. Therefore, if we detect a Markan
effort to mitigate the offense and shame of the crucifixion, such an effort
would be valuable evidence to support a Markan Christology of power.
T. E. Schmidt has detected such an effort to mitigate the offense of the
cross. He argues that Mark crafted his crucifixion narrative to parallel a
113
Roman imperial triumph. The Roman triumph was in many ways similar to
a modern day parade. They were generally held in order to celebrate a military
victory or perhaps the ascension of a new Roman emperor. The purpose of the
triumph was to honor the victorious general or emperor and to display both
114
his power and his achievement to the entire city. Schmidt notes a number of
details included in Mark's passion narrative that seem to have little purpose
by themselves but when taken together cause Mark's passion narrative to have
striking similarities to such Roman triumphs. Though Schmidt's article has
a fuller discussion, here we note the major points of interest and consider his
results in light of our present concerns for Mark's Christology.
Schmidt's comparison begins with Mark's use of the word Ttpavcoo'piov
115
(praetorium) to describe the Roman military headquarters in Judea. He
1.2
It is quite possible that Mark included this element in the Gethsemane prayer to
advance his theme of discipleship. Here Jesus is a model for Mark's readers to follow, read
ers who might face suffering or even death.
1.3
T. E. Schmidt, "Mark 15:16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Trium
phal Procession," NTS 41 (1995): 1-18; see also Schmidt's similar article "Jesus' Triumphal
March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession," BibRev 13.1 (1997): 30-37.
1.4
See Schmidt's discussion of triumphs; "Triumphal Procession," 2-4. For a more thor
ough discussion of triumphs both in ancient Greece and in Rome, see H. S. Versnel, Tri-
umphus: An Enquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph
(Leiden: Brill, 1970); R. Payne, The Roman Triumph: (London, Abelard-Schuman, 1962).
1.5
Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 6.
130 Chapter 3
notes that the same word was used to describe the Praetorian Guard or the
emperor's personal bodyguards who would have been a part of any Roman
triumph. Schmidt suggests that Mark could intend this word to have a double
purpose - not only to identify a physical location in Judea but also to draw
the reader's mind to the imperial world. Schmidt also questions Mark's claim
that the entire cohort of soldiers (oXrjv xf|v cmeipav) - a tenth of a legion,
or any where from two to six hundred soldiers - were called out for Jesus'
116
crucifixion. It seems unlikely that such a large number of soldiers would be
called for the execution of a criminal and, therefore, many interpreters have
117
suggested that Mark is using the term loosely or exaggerating this detail.
It is true that the combination of the event (the arrest of a popular messianic
figure) and its timing (the Passover festival) may have called for a higher
number of soldiers to deter civil disobedience. Yet even so, an entire cohort
seems unrealistic. Schmidt suggests that this Markan exaggeration could con
tribute to an intentional parallel with an imperial triumph; an event at which
118
an entire Roman cohort would probably be present.
Schmidt also sees the parallels between the costume the Roman soldiers
119
placed on Jesus and the royal dress the triumphator wore. The triumphator
was regularly adorned with a purple robe and a crown, both of which adorn
Jesus in Mark 15. The color of Jesus' robe is evidence that Mark has inten
tionally created this parallel. In the Roman world, purple garments were both
rare and expensive. Schmidt notes that no one below the rank of equestrian
was even allowed to wear purple. It is unlikely that the owner of a purple
120
robe would allow a common criminal to wear it. It is noteworthy that in
the Matthean redaction, this historical difficulty has been removed by chang
ing the color of the robe from purple to scarlet (Matt 27:28). The crown of
thorns that Jesus wore is akin to the laurel crown that was often worn by the
121
triumphator. Here we find two striking similarities between Jesus and the
triumphator - a purple robe and a crown (thorny vs. laurel) - with evidence
that the former similarity is a Markan creation.
Schmidt also claims that the mockery of Jesus in verses 18-19 parallels
the homage the Roman soldiers gave to their victorious ruler (e.g., the act of
saluting, prostrating before them, and verbally recognizing their powerful
1.6
See BDAG, 936; cf. Schurer, 1:363-65; Taylor, St. Mark, 585.
1.7
See Taylor, St. Mark, 585; Cranfield, Mark, 452; Hooker, St. Mark, 370; France, Mark,
637; Iersel, Mark, 467, n. 130.
1.8
119
This paragraph summarizes Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 7.
120
For others who are suspicious of the purple robe in Mark, see Evans, Mark, 490;
France, Mark, 637; et al.
121
For discussion on the similarities between Jesus' crown of thorns and a laurel crown,
as well as discussion on the crown as a means creating a royal caricature, see H. St. J. Hart,
'The Crown of Thorns in John 19:2-5" JTS 3 (1952): 66-75.
122
position). Granted, these chants are mockery and not true praise, but the
123
entire episode is more of an anti-triumph than an actual triumph.
In many triumphs, a bull is led along in the procession, which is later to
be sacrificed. Schmidt states, "The bull is not alone. In nearly every one of
these depictions, walking alongside the bull is an official who carries over his
124
shoulder a double bladed axe, the instrument of the victim's death." The
parallels between this common triumph motif and Mark's account of Simon
of Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross are striking.
Schmidt also sees a parallel between the ending locations for both a typi
125
cal Roman triumph and Jesus' journey. According to Mark, Jesus' journey
ends at Golgotha, an Aramaic word often translated as "place of the skull,"
or as Schmidt suggests, "place of the head." Roman triumphs often ended at
the temple to Jupiter, the Capitolium (derived from the Latin word caput or
"head"), a name that comes from a legend about a head that was discovered
during the building of the temple's foundation. Therefore, both Jesus' journey
to crucifixion and a Roman triumph end at the "place of the head."
Mark's crucifixion narrative records Roman soldiers offering Jesus wine
126
mixed with myrrh (15:23), a seemingly ancillary detail. However, Schmidt
127
again finds parallel in the Roman triumph. When the Roman procession
reached its end and the bull was about to be sacrificed, the triumphator was
offered a cup of wine, which, after refusing as a sign of humility, he poured
out onto the altar. Immediately after the wine was poured, the sacrifice was
performed. Strikingly, Mark immediately follows Jesus' refusal of the wine
with the words, "and they crucified him." Again the parallel between Mark's
narrative and a Roman triumph is obvious.
The final parallel Schmidt provides concerns the two victims crucified
with Jesus, one on his right side and the other on his left. Schmidt notes that
in antiquity, placing someone on the right and left of an important figure often
122
123
Many interpreters have noted parallels between the mockery of the soldiers and Helle
nistic royal veneration; cf. Gnilka, Markus, 2:309; Brown, Death, 1:869; Evans, Mark, 490;
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 435-36; et al. Few, however, have connected this pericope
with a Roman triumph.
124
125
Schmidt, "Triumphal Procession," 10-11.
126
Citing Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. 14.92), Schmidt notes that wine mixed with myrrh
was an "expensive delicacy;" "Triumphal Procession," 11. This fact raises suspicions over
this event's historicity. Would such a delicacy be offered to a crucified criminal? It is inter
esting that Matthew replaces myrrh with gall (Matt 27:34), which is certainly bitter tasting
and possibly even poisonous; cf. Donald Hagner, Matthew (WBC 33b; Dallas: Word, 1995),
834-35. Luke eliminates the detail all together. It seems that this detail may be a Markan
creation, making it more likely that it belongs to an intentional Markan parallel with a
Roman triumph.
127
132 Chapter 3
128
signified royal enthronement. Such an image is seen in a Roman triumph.
After the procession had ended, the triumphator's seat would be elevated ten
feet above the ground. While at times the triumphator would be alone, there
are a number of examples in which the triumphator is seated between two
men. At Tiberius' first triumph, he was seated between two consuls, one of
whom was Augustus (Suet. Tiberius 17). During one of Claudius' triumphs,
he stood between his two sons-in-law (Dio Cass. 60.23.1). During Vespa
sian's triumph following the destruction of Jerusalem, he was between his
two sons Titus and Domitian (Jos. Wars 7:152). By placing Jesus between two
thieves, Schmidt suggests that Mark creates a royal imagery that is paralleled
129
in Roman triumphs.
In light of these parallels, Schmidt claims that Mark has purposefully con
structed his crucifixion narrative to mirror a Roman triumph. Strengthening
this argument is the fact that many of these parallels involve details ancillary
to the narrative, some of which even betray Markan creation or exaggeration
(e.g., mention of the praetorian, the presence of an entire Roman cohort, the
color of Jesus' robe, and the offering of wine mixed with myrrh). Schmidt's
theory offers a helpful way to account for these puzzling details. The parallels
that Schmidt observes are uncanny, and his theory is worth of consideration.
If Schmidt's theory is accepted, and Mark has intentionally presented
Jesus' crucifixion as a Roman triumph, such a presentation is completely con
sistent with a Christology of power. Mark has taken Jesus' greatest moment
of weakness and presented it as a moment of power, i.e., a Roman triumph.
He places Jesus in the same category as the great rulers of the Roman world.
Mark's irony is striking: those who are attempting to humiliate and kill Jesus
are unwittingly providing him with his own triumph.
Several other features in Mark's crucifixion narrative also illustrate Jesus'
power. The speed at which Jesus' death comes could possibly be an indica
tion of his power. Crucifixion was generally a slow death in which the vic
tim's body slowly gave out over time and eventually ended in suffocation.
Jesus' crucifixion, however, lasts for only six hours. Such a short time of
crucifixion would be remarkable to a Greco-Roman reader and could perhaps
imply Jesus' control over his own death. Both Luke's and John's gospels seem
to indicate such control (Luke 23:46; John 19:30), and both may be stating
explicitly what is only implicit in Mark. At the least, the brevity of Jesus'
crucifixion establishes it as a death of no ordinary means and implies that he
is no ordinary person.
It is also significant that Jesus' death is accompanied by darkness.
According to Mark, at the sixth hour (12:00 noon) - the brightest hour of
128
129
Schmidt also notes that the specification of hours in Mark's crucifixion narrative and
the inscribed placard both find parallels in Roman triumphs. We find these parallels less
compelling but for discussion, see "Triumphal Procession," 12-14.
the day - "darkness came over the land" (15:33). In antiquity, similar cos
130
mic events accompany significant events in the lives of great people. Again
Mark makes it clear that Jesus' death is not ordinary, but rather it is the death
of a powerful and significant figure. Immediately following Jesus' death,
Mark records another remarkable detail, namely, that the temple veil was torn
in two from top to bottom. Clearly this event can only be understood as super
natural, and it furthers Mark's presentation of Jesus' death as a significant
131
event. Through all these details - a speedy crucifixion, darkness at midday,
and the tearing of the temple veil - Mark turns the readers' attention away
from the shame and humiliation of the cross and focuses their attention on the
awesomeness of the event. The events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion make it
clear that Jesus is not a humiliated criminal but a man of great significance.
His death is therefore not a sign of his weakness but of his power. This real
ization is confirmed for Mark's readers through the confession of the Roman
centurion, who, after seeing the manner in which Jesus died says, "Truly this
man was God's son" (15:39).
Gundry notes the significance of the way in which Jesus speaks while on
132
the cross. Jesus does not speak meekly from the cross, but rather he "cried
out in a loud voice" (15:34). Again before Jesus dies, Mark notes that he gave a
"loud cry" (15:37). Gundry argues that these loud cries from Jesus are signs of
strength and power, signs that Mark's readers would not expect from a victim
of crucifixion. As we noted previously, crucifixion victims died of suffoca
tion. Suffocation resulted from the victims slowly losing the strength to keep
their own weight from restricting their lungs. Mustering the strength to make
the powerful cries Mark records would be a difficult task - one that would
impress Mark's readers.
All the evidence we have examined to this point supports the notion that
Mark has presented Jesus' death in a way that is consistent with a Chris
tology of power. But there are elements of Jesus' crucifixion narrative that
some might argue undermine a Christology of power. First is the mock
ery Jesus receives while on the cross. If Mark intends to emphasize Jesus'
power and glory, why would he allow him to be verbally shamed (15:29—
32)? But this mockery makes sense in light of Markan irony. The crowds
sarcastically address Jesus as one who "would destroy the temple and rebuild
130
Evans gives two examples, see Mark, 506. Diogenes Laertius (4:64) claims that at the
death of Carneades, the moon was eclipsed. Both Plutarch (Caes. 69.3-5) and Virgil (Geog.
1.463-68) note that the sun hid its face at the death of Julius Caesar. Cf. Collins, "Son of
God," 94. It should be noted that this detail also finds a likely background in Amos 8:9, "On
that day, says the Lord God, I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in
broad daylight." However, Mark's Roman readers would almost certainly understand this
event as an indicator that Jesus was a man of great significance.
131
Cf. France, Mark, 656-58; Gundry, Apology, 948-50; Evans, Mark, 508-10; D. Ulan-
sey, "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic Inclusio," JBL 110 (1991): 123-125.
132
134 Chapter 3
133
it in three days." Mark's readers are able to see the irony in this statement.
They know that this charge is a false one (14:57). Jesus never claimed that he
would destroy and rebuild the temple but only prophesied the temple's destruc
tion, a prophecy that Mark's readers know has been fulfilled. The crowds
assume Jesus is a fraud based on a prophecy he never made, but Mark's read
ers know that Jesus is truly Messiah because of the fulfilled prophecy that he
did make. The irony of the crowd's mockery reinforces for Mark's readers that
Jesus is a true prophet and consequently a person of great power.
The crowd also taunts Jesus, saying that if he is the Messiah, he should be
able to save himself in the same way he saved others. The crowd takes Jesus'
current situation as evidence that he is weak and therefore not who he claims
134
(15:29-30). But again Mark's readers see the irony of this mockery. The
readers know that Jesus' death is not evidence of his weakness, but rather it
is his divinely appointed fate that he himself prophesied. In light of Mark's
narrative, the readers know that Jesus has the power to free himself (since he
already exorcized demons, healed the sick, raised the dead, and calmed the
sea and the wind); but unlike the crowd, the readers understand why he does
not (to die is his divinely ordained fate and an act of benefaction for the world,
cf. 8:31; 9:30-32; 10:32-33, 45). Because of this knowledge, the readers can
reach the opposite conclusion from that of the crowd, namely, that Jesus is
not weak but powerful. He is not a fraud but the Messiah. Again the irony of
the crowd's mockery strengthens Mark's presentation of Jesus as a powerful
messiah, it does not weaken it.
Another element of the crucifixion narrative that some interpreters might
see as inconsistent with a Christology of power is Jesus' cry, "My God! my
God! Why have you forsaken me?" (15:34). This verse seems to indicate that
God has rejected Jesus and highlights Jesus' suffering and shame. Yet we must
remember that the Markan Jesus is quoting the first verse of Ps 22, and the
135
evangelist may have the entire psalm in mind here. While the psalm begins
with a description of suffering, it concludes with strong statements of restora
136
tion and vindication. Though Jesus is currently suffering in his crucifixion,
Jesus will soon be vindicated and restored through his resurrection and exal
tation (cf. 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). That Mark is applying the entire psalm to Jesus'
crucifixion is indicated by the numerous details of the crucifixion that parallel
133
See Moloney, Mark, 322.
134
Moloney, Mark, 322-24; cf. D. Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark
(PS 2; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984), 120.
135
See Senior, Passion, 123-24; Gnilka, Markus, 2:322; E. La Verdiere, The Beginning
of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark (Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
1999), 2:301-3; Matera, The Kingship of Jesus, 132-35.
136
For a more thorough discussion on the psalm's significance in Mark, see Marcus, Way
of the Lord, 180-86; Moloney, Mark, 317-31.
137
details of the psalm. For example, compare "All who see me mock me, they
make mouths at me and shake their heads," (Ps 22:7) with "those who passed
by derided him, shaking their heads and saying . . . " (Mark 15:29). Also com
pare "they divide my clothes among themselves and for my clothing they cast
lots," (Ps 22:18) with ". . . and divided his clothes among them, casting lots
to decide what each should take," (Mark 15:24). Finally, compare "my mouth
is dried up like a potsherd and my tongue sticks to my jaws" (Ps 22:15) with
"and they offered him wine mixed with myrrh and he did not take it. . . and
someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick and gave it
to him to drink," (Mark 15:23, 36). It seems Mark has paralleled Jesus' cru
cifixion with Psalm 22. By placing the first line of the psalm on Jesus' lips,
he draws the readers' attention to the parallels. Through the parallels with
the psalm, Mark not only focuses on Jesus' death but also points forward to
Jesus' imminent resurrection and exaltation. Therefore, Jesus' words spoken
on the cross are not merely indicators of Jesus' total rejection and isolation,
but rather they help the reader to understand Jesus' death in terms of Ps 22.
Certainly the psalm begins by describing intense suffering, suffering that
the Markan Jesus experiences on the cross, but it concludes with vindication
and righteousness. Therefore, while Jesus' words describe his present suffer
ing, through the Markan parallels between Jesus' death and Ps 22, they also
remind the alert reader that this suffering is only temporary and that power
and glory are imminent.
Here we provided evidence that Mark has crafted his story of Jesus' cru
cifixion in a way that mitigates its shame and magnifies Jesus' power and
significance. If Schmidt's argument is accepted, then Mark has tailored his
crucifixion narrative so that it mirrors a Roman triumph, in effect presenting
Jesus' greatest moment of weakness as a moment of power and glory. He has
also presented Jesus' death as no ordinary event. It is surprisingly expedi
ent, accompanied by darkness at midday, and the supernatural tearing of the
temple veil. Jesus also demonstrates exceptional strength through his ability
to cry out loudly from the cross. There is little in Mark's crucifixion narra
tive that undermines a Christology of power. In light of this evidence, we
conclude that Mark's passion narrative is consistent with the Christology we
have found throughout the rest of Mark's gospel, a Christology of power.
Conclusions
After examining each major section of Mark's gospel, we can make the fol
lowing conclusions about Mark's christological presentation. Mark's Chris
tology is predominantly a Christology of power from beginning to end. This
christological presentation is firmly established in the first half of Mark's
137
Moloney makes a strong case that Psalm 22 is an intended background for Mark's
crucifixion narrative (Mark, 320-29).
136 Chapter 3
gospel (Prologue/Galilean Ministry). Jesus has power over demons, power to

heal, power over nature, and power as a teacher. While Jesus' death is intro
duced into the narrative at Caesarea Philippi, there is no compelling evidence
that its introduction represents a shift in Mark's christological perspective,
one from power to the cross. In fact, there is reason to believe that Mark has
introduced Jesus' death in a way that mitigates its suffering and shame and
reinforces Jesus' power. Throughout the Jerusalem Ministry, Mark continues
to present Jesus as a man of powerful actions. He also continues to present
Jesus' death in ways that highlight Jesus' power and not his weakness. Even
Mark's passion narrative seems to lessen the offense of the cross and promote
Jesus' power. Therefore, we conclude that Mark presents Jesus as a figure of
supreme power, rather than a suffering figure.
3.3.3 Christological Secrecy

As we discussed in our introductory chapter, since William Wrede's The Mes
sianic Secret, Mark's secrecy motif has had a prominent place in Markan
interpretation. For a long time, this motif was seen as the key to unlocking
the door of Mark's Christology. In the last thirty years, however, the majority
of interpreters have concluded that the secrecy motif is not as central to Mar
138
kan interpretation as many once thought. The general consensus seems to
be that though the secret is one aspect of Mark's Christology, it is secondary
rather than primary. While interpreters have rejected the primacy that Wrede
attributed to the secrecy motif, most have accepted Wrede's conclusion that
the secrecy motif, at least to some extent, is a Markan theological construc
tion (a conclusion that we also share). As a Markan creation, the secrecy motif
is relevant to the question of the gospel's purpose. Even if the motif is of
secondary importance to the gospel, any theory concerning the purpose of
Mark's gospel must be able to provide an adequate explanation for the motif.
But before we explain the motif, we must first properly identify and charac
terize its various aspects.
Identifying Mark's Secrecy Motif

William Wrede originally concluded that the "messianic secret" was composed
of three different elements: (1) Jesus' specific commands for silence given to
disciples (8:30; 9:9), beneficiaries of miracles (1:43-44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), and
demons (1:25, 34; 3:12); (2) attempts by Jesus to keep his whereabouts a secret
(7:24; 9:30-31); and (3) the secrecy of Jesus' teaching, often called the "Par
139
able Theory" (4:11-12). More recently, interpreters have rejected elements
two and three of Mark's secrecy motif, arguing that the character of these
140
motifs is different from Jesus' direct commands for silence. Therefore,
138
See our analysis of Wrede's work above in chapter one pages 9-12.
139
Wrede, Messianic Secret.
140
See Raisanen, Messianic Secret, 242-43.
most interpreters conclude that Mark's secrecy motif is limited to Jesus' com
mands for silence. However, some have questioned whether these direct com
mands for silence can be seen as a unified theme. Interpreters such as Ulrich
Luz and Heikki Raisanen have argued that even these commands for silence
141
can be subdivided into two categories. The commands given to demons and
Jesus' disciples directly address Jesus' identity, while the commands given to
the beneficiaries of miracles directly address Jesus' power. Wrede assumed
that Jesus' miracles and his identity were so closely linked that both types of
commands represented the same motif. But Luz and Raisanen have noted that
the commands directly related to Jesus' identity are always kept, while the
commands related to Jesus' power/miracles are often broken. As a result of
this analysis, it seems that rather than speaking of a single messianic secret in
Mark, it is more appropriate to speak of two separate secrecy motifs in Mark:
142
a miracle secret and a messianic (identity) secret.
Characterizing Mark's Secrecy Motif

Now that we have identified two distinct secrecy motifs in Mark, we will
attempt to characterize them by examining their distinct features and their
relationship to Mark's narrative. The first motif, what we have called the mir
acle secret, is composed of four pericopes in which Jesus heals someone and
commands them (or those present) not to tell others of the healing (1:44-45;
5:43; 7:36; 8:26). Of these four commands, two of them are broken (1:44-45;
7:36), and two are followed (5:43; 8:26). The commands for silence that are
broken actually result in publicity rather than secrecy. In fact, after Jesus
heals a deaf man (7:31-37), Mark specifically indicates that Jesus' repeated
command for silence results in the observers proclaiming the miracle "more
zealously" than when they were first commanded. Mark may even imply that
one of the commandments that is technically kept, will in fact eventually
be broken. When Jesus raises Jairus' daughter (5:43), whom many already
know to be dead, he commands both her parents and his disciples not to tell
anyone else of the miracle. While Mark does not record the breaking of this
command, the impossibility of secrecy is obvious to the reader. Since many
knew the girl was dead, short of keeping her locked in her house, the secret
cannot possibly be kept. In light of the failure to keep these commands, some
have suggested that, rather than serving to conceal Jesus' power, Mark has
141
Raisanen, Messianic Secret; Ulrich Luz, "The Secrecy Motif and Marcan Christol
ogy," in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983),
75-96, esp. 86-88.
142
For a more thorough discussion of the history of the messianic secret debate, see
Christopher Tuckett, "The Problem of the Messianic Secret," in The Messianic Secret, 1-29;
"Messianic Secret" in ABD, 4.797-800.
138 Chapter 3
143
inserted these commands as a foil to highlight Jesus' power. Though Jesus
tries to conceal his power, it is too great to be concealed. The miracle secret is
therefore a pseudo-secret rather than an authentic one. But while this pseudo-
secret highlights Jesus' power, it also highlights his desire to deflect recogni
tion for that power. The motif simultaneously highlights Jesus' power and his
humility at the same time. The miracle secret is not intended to conceal Jesus'
identity or explain why the Jews did not recognize him as their Messiah. That
numerous Markan miracle stories contain no attempt at secrecy preclude this
option. The miracle secret is best understood as an occasional motif the evan
gelist used to highlight both Jesus' power and his humility.
The messianic secret is composed of five direct commands Jesus made
to keep his identity a secret - two of which he gave to his disciples (8:30;
9:9) and three of which he gave to demons (1:25, 34; 3:12). These secrets are
always kept by those whom Jesus commands. The command to silence most
often is preceded by some type of christological confession or revelation,
i.e., "Holy One of God" (1:24); "Son of God" (3:11); Christ/Messiah (8:29);
and the transfiguration (9:2-8), with 1:34 being the only example that does
not include a specific confession. However, not all christological confessions
are followed by such a command ("Son of the Most High God" [5:7]; "Son of
David" [10:47-48]). Only one of these commands for silence has a time limit.
Following the transfiguration (9:9), Jesus commands his disciples to tell no
one of it until after the resurrection. Whether this time limit applies to all
the secrecy commands (as Wrede and many others have claimed) is uncer
tain. Interpreters have tried to account for this motif in many ways, but very
few theories can explain its many facets. Some interpreters have argued that
through this motif Mark demonstrates that Jesus is only truly understood as
144
Messiah in terms of the cross and resurrection. Therefore, whenever Jesus
encounters christological confessions or recognition, he defers them to the
proper time, i.e., after his resurrection or possibly after his crucifixion. The
problem with this interpretation is that, as we noted above, there are christo
logical confessions (or messianic recognitions) that are made with no effort to
keep them secret before Jesus' death and resurrection (5:7; 10:47-48; 11:1-11;
14:62). If Mark is deferring messianic recognition until after Jesus' death or
resurrection, why is the messianic secret not applied more consistently? Some
have suggested that Mark created the secrecy motif to guide his reader away
from an improper messianic identity/Christology and toward a proper one.
Yet as we have discussed previously, there is little evidence in Mark to cor
143
See Ebeling, Das Messiasgeheimnis, 168-70; Luz, "Secrecy Motif," 76-80, 86-88;
Raisanen, Messianic Secret, 144-55.
144
See for example, H. Conzelmann, "Present and Future in the Synoptic Tradition," .7TC
5 (1968): 26-44.
145
roborate the theory of a corrective function. The messianic secret does not
seem to be functioning in the same way that the miracle secret functions, i.e.,
as a foil to highlight Jesus' identity. Unlike the miracle secret, the messianic
secret is always kept and is not publicized. It is possible, however, that the
miracle and the messianic secret are related in the sense that they both present
attempts at humility and avoidance of public recognition. This commonality
may be a helpful clue for determining the function of the messianic secret.
Therefore, we find two distinct secrecy motifs in Mark's gospel - a miracle
secret and a messianic secret. The former is rarely kept and, rather than it
concealing Jesus' power, it actually highlights his power. The latter is always
kept, but the secret is not commanded consistently throughout Mark. At times
people reveal Jesus' identity and no command for silence is given. Mark's
secrecy motifs are certainly an obstacle for interpretation, and any sustain
able theory regarding the gospel's purpose must be able to offer satisfactory
explanations for these multifaceted motifs.
3.3.4 Christological Conclusions

Through our examination of Mark's Christology, we have arrived at three
distinct features: (1) Jesus' identity as king, not only of Israel but also of the
world; (2) Jesus as a figure of supreme power; and (3) attempts (both suc
cessful and unsuccessful) to keep secret Jesus' identity and power. All these
features compose Mark's christological presentation and therefore must be
accounted for by any theory about the gospel's overall purpose. Because of
the general nature of Mark's christological presentation - Jesus as a powerful
king - it offers few specific indicators as to the gospel's Sitz im Leben. Only
the most general of comments can be made. Perhaps Mark perceives that his
audience needs such a portrayal of Jesus or perhaps his audience desires such
a portrayal.
3.4 Markan Discipleship
As we noted in our introduction, many interpreters see instruction on dis

146
cipleship as Mark's primary purpose. While we rejected this instruction
as Mark's primary focus, we accepted that it plays an important secondary
role. Thus, any serious theory concerning the purpose of Mark's gospel must
adequately account for Mark's unique perspective on discipleship. Careful
analysis of Mark's presentation of discipleship should also provide clues to the
145
See discussion in chapter one pages 12-18 on "corrective Christology"; cf. Kingsbury,
Christology, 25-45.
146
K. G. Reploh, Lehrer; Quesnell, Mind of Mark; Donahue, Theology and Setting of
Discipleship; Best, Disciples and Discipleship; idem, Following Jesus; Tannehill, "Disci
ples," 134-57. For more examples, see chapter one pages 24-25 n. 66.
140 Chapter 3
gospel's Sitz im Leben. Therefore, we begin to analyze Mark's presentation of

discipleship with both these factors in mind. Our analysis will consider three
different mediums through which Mark conveys teaching on discipleship: (1)
the twelve disciples as models of discipleship; (2) minor characters as models
of discipleship; and (3) Jesus' teaching on discipleship. In order to construct
a complete picture of Mark's teaching on authentic discipleship, we will com
bine the results of our analysis of each medium.
3.4.1 The Twelve Disciples as Models of Discipleship
It has long been recognized that Mark's portrayal of the twelve disciples
serves not only a historical purpose but also as a pedagogical tool for teach
147
ing his readers how to live as disciples themselves. Here we will examine
Mark's portrayal of the twelve, giving some attention to the debates surround
ing it, but primarily focusing on the way in which it contributes to his overall
presentation of discipleship. Mark's portrayal of the twelve is certainly not
uniform. At times, the twelve are presented quite positively while at other
times they are presented quite negatively. We will begin by examining Mark's
positive portrayal of the twelve and later turn to the negative portrayal.
Mark's positive portrayal of the disciples begins with their willingness
to abandon their former ways of life in order to follow Jesus; this includes
abandoning past employment/livelihood and family ties (1:16-20; possibly
148
2:13-14; 10:28). Not only do these people abandon their past lives, but they
also commit their present lives to being with Jesus (3:14). They also are given
a commission to do the things that Jesus does, i.e., proclaim the message of
repentance and the kingdom of God, exorcize demons, and heal the sick (3:14;
6:7). Mark specifically notes their success at doing these things (6:12-13). Jesus
also gives disciples private instruction (4:10-34; 7:1-23; 8:27-9:13; 9:31-50;
10:23-45; 12:43-44; 13:1-37) and gives them "the secrets of the kingdom of
God" (4:11). They are witnesses to many of Jesus' private miracles (4:35-41;
5:37-43; 6:45-52; 9:2-8). They also faithfully carry out the instructions that
Jesus gives them (6:12-13; 6:30-44; 8:1-10; 11:1-7; 14:12-16). As a result of
their faithfulness, Jesus promises them great reward both in this age and in
the next (10:29-31).
Through this positive portrayal of the disciples, it seems that Mark has
created a paradigm for discipleship that he intends his readers to emulate.
In order to be true disciples of Jesus, Mark's readers must leave behind their
former lives, commit themselves to the work of God's kingdom, and faithfully
147
Here we will assume the truth of this commonly recognized position. However, for
seminal arguments regarding this position, see Reploh, Lehrer; Donahue, Setting; Best,
Following, 136-37; R. Tannehill, "Disciples," 386-405.
148
Though uncertain, it is possible that Levi, son of Alphaeus, in Mark 2:13 could be
equated with James, son of Alphaeus, or possibly Matthew in Mark 3:18. See Marcus, Mark,
225; Gundry, Apology, 126-27; Hooker, St. Mark, 94.
follow Jesus' instructions/teachings - instructions that they are currently
149
receiving through Mark's gospel.
While Mark's positive portrayal of the disciples is rather straightforward,
much more has been made of Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples. Many
interpreters have noted that Mark's portrayal of the twelve disciples is con
siderably more negative than both Matthew's and Luke's portrayals - both of
which have made obvious attempts to soften Mark's harsh treatment of the
twelve (for example, see synoptic parallels to Mark 4:10-13; 4:35-41; 8:14—
21). We begin by identifying the elements of Mark's negative portrayal of
the disciples followed by a determination of the significance of the motif for
Mark's teaching on discipleship.
During the first half of the gospel, the disciples continually demonstrate a
lack of faith in Jesus and an inability to recognize Jesus' true identity. We first
see this lack of faith in the "Stilling of the Storm" pericope (4:35-41). While
a great windstorm causes the disciples to fear for their lives, Jesus sleeps
through it peacefully. After the disciples wake Jesus and he has miraculously
calmed the wind and the waves, he rebukes the disciples saying, "Have you
still no faith?" The intended object of the faith is clearly Jesus' great power
and consequently his identity - his is a power that the disciples have observed
150
numerous times yet still fail to trust. The last line of the pericope links the
failure to trust in Jesus' power with the disciples' failure to recognize Jesus'
151
true identity: "Who then is this that even the wind and the sea obey him?"
The pericope ends with the disciples being dumbfounded as to who Jesus is
and bewildered by his power.
We might also see this lack of faith when Jesus encounters the woman with
an issue of blood (5:25-34). After the woman is healed by touching Jesus' gar
ment, Jesus asks who has touched him. In light of the large crowd surround
152
ing Jesus, the disciples respond to his question with sarcasm and doubt.
They clearly do not believe that Jesus could detect the touch of one individual
over the rest, let alone have any hope of identifying that individual. But Jesus'
question is justified and his power validated when the woman makes her
self and her healing known. Again the disciples' doubt leaves them looking
foolish.
The disciples' lack of faith is implicit in the feeding narratives (6:30-44;
8:1-10), as they are unable to comprehend how they might provide food for
such a large number (if not in the first narrative then certainly in the second).
149
Donahue, Setting, 19-21; France, Mark, 28-29.
150
See Gundry, Apology, 241; Witherington, Mark, 176; contra Taylor, St. Mark, 276;
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 159. Marcus notes that the object of the disciples' faith is
likely Jesus but also God; Mark, 334; cf. France, Mark, 225.
151
Witherington, Mark, 176-77; cf. Iersel, Mark, 196.
152
See Hooker, St. Mark, 149, and note both the Matthean and Lukan parallels to this
passage. Matthew omits the disciples' reply, while Luke softens it.
142 Chapter 3
Yet, it is again explicit in the narrative of Jesus walking on the water (6:45-52).
When Jesus approaches the disciples while walking on the water, they fail to
recognize him and are filled with fear. After Jesus gets into the boat and is
recognized, Mark notes the disciples' extreme amazement and explains this
amazement by saying, "For they did not understand about the loaves but their
hearts were hardened" (6:52). This explanation of the disciples' amazement
indicates that it is to be understood as a failure of some sort, though the exact
nature of the failure is unclear. The disciples' present failure is in some way
linked to a previous failure, a failure to "understand about the loaves," clearly
a reference to the immediately preceding feeding narrative (6:30-44). But
what does this enigmatic phrase mean? Quentin Quesnell has suggested that
for Mark, the loaves have Eucharistic significance (and symbolize the death
and resurrection of Christ), significance the disciples failed to grasp because
153
their hearts were hardened. But Quesnell's interpretation provides no real
link between Jesus' rebuke and the pericope that precedes it - the pericope
concerning Jesus walking on the water. But a natural link between the peri
cope and rebuke does exist, namely, Jesus' great power - a power expressed
in both the multiplying of the loaves and walking on water. The disciples'
failure to recognize Jesus' power in the feeding of the five thousand (which is
not explicitly stated but implied by 6:52) is manifested again in their amaze
ment at Jesus' power to walk on water. This reading of Mark highlights the
disciples' lack of faith in Jesus' identity and his great power, i.e., that their
154
hearts are hardened. If they had the proper faith, these great deeds of Jesus
would not continue to baffle them. This reading of the text is strengthened
by the parallel it creates between Mark's two sea narratives, both of which
155
highlight the disciples' lack of faith.
The disciples' lack of faith appears again when Jesus teaches about the
yeast of the Pharisees and Herod (8:14-21). The disciples misunderstand Jesus'
warning, "beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod" (8:15),
thinking that Jesus is addressing their present lack of physical food. Jesus
chastises the disciples for this lack of understanding. He questions whether
their hearts are hardened and then, echoing his earlier indictment of outsiders
in 4:11-12, he asks, "Do you have eyes and fail to see? Do you have ears and
fail to hear? And do you not remember?" (8:18). Then, recalling the previous
two feeding narratives, Jesus asks how many baskets of food were left over
after each feeding - questions the disciples answer correctly. Jesus finally
concludes the dialogue by asking, "Do you not yet understand?"
We are left to determine the nature of the misunderstanding for which the
disciples are chastised. From Jesus' response, the disciples' misunderstanding
153
Quesnell, Mind of Mark; cf. Marcus, Mark, 434-35.
154
For similar readings, see Gnilka, Markus, 270; Guelich, Mark, 352-53.
155
On these parallels, see van Iersel, Reading Mar£(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1988),
95-98.
is again related to the feeding narratives (cf. our previous discussion on 6:52,
"for they did not understand about the loaves"). In the same vein as Quesnell's
argument discussed above, many interpreters have argued for a Eucharistic
156
understanding of this pericope.
But this Eucharistic interpretation is not necessary and overshadows a
more obvious reading of Mark's narrative. Up to this point in Mark's nar
rative, the disciples have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of faith in Jesus'
power and identity, i.e., in the first sea narrative, the first feeding narrative,
the second sea narrative, and the second feeding narrative. Our present nar
rative comes on the heels of the second feeding narrative but is immediately
preceded by an interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees
demand a miraculous sign from heaven, presumably one that will prove Jesus'
identity. Jesus rejects their demand, claiming that no sign will be given. Ironi
cally, however, the reader knows that multiple signs have already been given,
157
the most immediate being the feeding of the four thousand. That the Phari
sees have missed all these signs betrays their lack of faith and understanding.
It is immediately after this interaction with the Pharisees that Jesus gives the
warning concerning yeast. Within the context of Mark's narrative, "yeast of
the Pharisees" is likely best understood as the Pharisees' lack of faith and
understanding, as is evidenced in their demand for a sign (note also the likely
connection between the "yeast of Herod" and Herod's lack of faith in Jesus'
158
identity [6:14—16]). Ironically the disciples respond to Jesus' instruction
with the same lack of faith and understanding demonstrated by the Pharisees.
They become preoccupied with their lack of physical food, in essence forget
ting the miracles they have just witnessed, in particular, miracles in which
lack of food is overcome by Jesus' power. The disciples' misunderstanding
of Jesus' teaching on "yeast" betrays their lack of faith, and it is to this lack
of faith that Jesus responds. His questions regarding their hard hearts, abil
ity to see, and ability to hear, heighten the similarity between the disciples
and the Pharisees. Jesus' final question regarding the disciples' understanding
addresses their lack of faith in his power and identity. Therefore, this pericope
is the culmination of a series of pericopes that highlights the disciples' lack
of faith in Jesus' power and identity. Even after all they have witnessed, they
are in no better state than the Pharisees. Yet the reader will soon learn that the
disciples are not the same as the Pharisees. Unlike the Pharisees and Herod,
they will overcome this lack of faith and, in Caesarea Philippi, they will cor
rectly identify Jesus as the Messiah (8:27-30).
156
See Quesnell, Mind of Mark; cf. Marcus, Mark, 509-11; J. Ernst, Evangelium, 226.
157
Moloney, Mark, 159; Marcus, Mark, 503; Guelich, Mark, 416. Some argue that the
Pharisees are not simply looking for a miracle, like the previous feeding of a multitude, but
4
something greater; see Gundry, Apology, 402; J. Gibson, "Jesus' Refusal to Produce a Sign'
(Mark 8:11-13)," JSNT3S (1990): 37-66; France, Mark, 311.
158
See Hooker, St. Mark, 195; Marcus, Mark, 510; Iersel, Mark, 264.
144 Chapter 3
We conclude that a major element of Mark's negative portrayal of the dis

ciples is their lack of faith. In particular, this lack of faith is expressed in their
inability to recognize Jesus' identity and their unwillingness to trust in the
power that accompanies that identity. This lack of faith dominates Mark's
presentation of the disciples in the first half of his gospel, but it does not carry
over into the second half. The disciples finally overcome this failing and con
fess Jesus as the Messiah at Caesarea Philippi. While the disciples' failings
continue into the second half of Mark's gospel, the nature of these failings
change. From the point of the disciples' confession at Caesarea Philippi, the
disciples never again question Jesus' identity or lack faith in his power.
Another element in Mark's portrayal of the disciples is the disciples' failure
to understand Jesus' teaching. This element is first seen in Jesus' teaching on
the parables (4:10-13). While the disciples are supposed to have the secrets of
the kingdom (4:11), Jesus is surprised when they do not comprehend the par
able of the soils. Jesus is surprised again when the disciples fail to understand
his parable on the true source of defilement (7:14-23). In both these examples,
the disciples fail to understand Jesus' parables. After the confession at Cae
sarea Philippi, however, the object of their failed understanding changes. As
we noted previously, at Caesarea Philippi Jesus tells his disciples for the first
time of his death and resurrection (8:31) and will repeatedly tell them of these
events in subsequent chapters (9:9, 30-31; 10:32-34, 41-45). Though Jesus
teaches his disciples about his death five times, they never understand the
teaching. These examples establish a consistent pattern throughout Mark of
the disciples failing to grasp Jesus' teaching.
Mark's disciples also fail to be faithful to Jesus in difficult circum
stances. While Jesus is on the Mount of Olives praying, his disciples are
unable - despite Jesus' continued requests - to stay awake and pray with him
(13:32-42). His own disciple Judas betrays him, and though the remaining
eleven swear they will not desert him (14:26-31), they in fact do. Mark focuses
particularly on Peter, who claims he will follow Jesus even to death (14:31) but
instead three times denies even knowing him (14:66-72). Here, even though
the disciples know Jesus' true identity, they are unable to remain faithful to
him in the face of danger.
A more minor element of Mark's portrayal of the disciples is their con
cern for power and positions of authority. This element is first seen when
the disciples argue over who is the greatest among them (9:33-37). They are
embarrassed when Jesus catches them in this debate. This element is seen
again when James and John request to sit at Jesus' left and right during the
eschaton - essentially requesting to be second (and third) in power to Jesus
alone (10:35-45). In both of these instances, Jesus responds by teaching the
disciples that, rather than seeking power, they must seek positions of service
and, instead of seeking to be first, they must seek to be last. Mark clearly
portrays the disciples' desire for power as a weakness and not as a strength.
Now that we have identified the various elements that constitute Mark's
negative portrayal of the disciples, we must examine the significance of
this portrayal for Mark's gospel. Weeden among others has argued that the
disciples represent opponents of Mark's community, against whom Mark has
159
constructed a polemic. As we noted in our opening survey (see chapter one)
the basic problem with this theory is Mark's concurrent positive portrayal
of the disciples (e.g., the disciples willingness to leave everything to follow
Jesus, the disciples as recipients of secret teachings, the disciples as the first
to proclaim Jesus as Messiah, and the disciples participation in Jesus' minis
try of preaching, healing, and exorcism). It seems unlikely that Mark would
160
portray his enemies in such a positive light. This evidence has caused many
interpreters to reject a polemical understanding of Mark's negative portrayal
of the disciples.
Rather than functioning polemically, it seems more likely that Mark's
negative portrayal of the disciples advances Mark's teaching on discipleship.
While in some ways the disciples are exemplars of authentic discipleship,
in others ways they are foils that illuminate authentic discipleship. As the
reader encounters the disciples' failure, he or she is confronted with his or her
own inadequacy as a disciple and also the benchmark for being an authentic
disciple. The egregious nature of these failures - the lack of faith in Jesus
despite overwhelming displays of power - only serves to make the foil more
effective. As the disciples' dumbfounding obtuseness baffles the reader, the
161
reader's own ignorance is revealed.
If we accept this function for Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples,
then we can extrapolate from the various elements of this motif different
aspects of Markan discipleship. The failure of Mark's disciples both to recog
nize Jesus' true identity and have faith in him establishes the importance of
these two elements for authentic discipleship. Mark's readers are forced to ask
whether they have ascertained Jesus' true identity and whether their faith is
adequate. The disciples' failure to understand Jesus' teaching causes the read
ers to question their own understanding of his teaching. Jesus' parables and
the function of his death force them to ask whether they are insiders - those
who hold the secrets of the kingdom of God - or outsiders - those who have
eyes but fail to see and those who have ears yet fail to hear. The disciples'
failure to remain faithful to Jesus even in the face of great dangers reminds
the readers that unwavering faithfulness is an essential element of authentic
discipleship. The disciples' desire for power and authority forces the read
ers to check their own ambitions. They must ask themselves if they are, like
their Gentile rulers, abusing their power or are they, like the true universal
159
Weeden, Conflict; Kelber, Kingdom in Mark.
160
For further critique of this theory, see Best, Disciples, 98-130; Donahue, Setting,
22-31.
161
For similar positions, see Tannehill, "Disciples"; Donahue, Settings.
146 Chapter 3
king, serving others. Through these various aspects of the disciples' failure,
Mark is able to creatively instruct his readers about the demands of authentic
discipleship.
While the negative portrayal of disciples establishes rigorous standards of
authentic discipleship for Mark's readers, it might also function to comfort
and encourage those readers who have failed to live up to those standards.
John Donahue notes that Mark's readers would almost certainly know the
larger story of the disciples' history and that, while they failed during Jesus'
earthly ministry, they were not only later redeemed but became paragons of
162
Christian discipleship. Mark's presentation of failed disciples reminds his
readers that even if they have failed in like manner, such failure is not the end
and that redemption is still possibile. This motif also might instruct those who
have not failed to welcome back their fallen brothers and sisters. G. W. H.
Lampe argues that the narrative of Peter functioned as a tool of reconciliation
163
between failed disciples and faithful disciples.
Therefore, in Mark's portrayal of the disciples, we find the following crite
ria for authentic discipleship: willingness to forsake one's past life to follow
Jesus, faith in Jesus (faith which includes correctly identifying him as the
Messiah and accepting his proclamation of the good news), faithfulness to
Jesus despite difficult circumstances, and a life of service over an abuse of
power. In addition to modeling these criteria, the failed disciples of Mark's
gospel may also function to encourage the failed disciples among Mark's
readers and facilitate their reconciliation to the community.
3.4.2 Minor Characters as Models of Discipleship

Frequently in Mark, characters other than the twelve seem to appear as model
164
disciples in one capacity or another. A number of interpreters have argued
that these "minor" characters function as vehicles for Mark to advance his
presentation of authentic discipleship. The paralytic (2:1-12), the woman
with the issue of blood (5:25-34), the Syrophoenician Woman (7:24-30), and
162
See Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 34; T. Radcliffe, "The Coming of the Son of
Man': Mark's Gospel and the Subversion of the Apocalyptic Imagination," in Language,
Meaning and God: Essays in Honour of Herbert McCabe O. P. (ed. B. Davies; London:
Chapman, 1987), 167-89; B. F. M. van Iersel, "Failed Followers in Mark: Mark 13:12 as a
Key for Identification of the Intended Reader," CBQ 58 (1996): 244-63.
163
G. W. H Lampe, "St. Peter's Denial and the Treatment of the Lapsi," in The Heritage
of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Georges Vasilievich Florovsky on the Occasion of
His Eightieth Birthday (ed. D. Neiman and M. Schatkin; OCA 195; Rome: Pontifical Insti
tute, 1973), 113-133.
164
For discussion on minor characters in Mark functioning as models of discipleship, see
Joel F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark's
Gospel (JSNTSup 102; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994; E. S. Malbon, "Fallible Followers: Women
and Men in the Gospel of Mark," Semeia 28 (1983): 29-48; cf. Donahue and Harrington,
Mark, 31.
blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) are all exemplars of the faith required of true
disciples. Levi the tax collector (if he is not identified as one of the twelve,
either James son of Alphaeus or Matthew) abandons his past life without res
ervation in order to be Jesus' disciple (2:13-17). There are number of charac
ters who model discipleship by proclaiming the good news of what Jesus has
done for them: the cleansed leper (1:45), the Gerasene demoniac (5:19-20),
and those accompanying the deaf/mute man (7:26-37). After she is healed,
Simon's mother-in-law models discipleship by serving Jesus and his disciples
(1:31). The woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany not only demonstrates ser
vice and devotion to Jesus but as Jesus' commentary on her actions implies,
she also perceives his impending death (14:3-9), something which the twelve
are never able to do. Through his confession of Jesus as "son of God," the
Roman centurion also models an essential element of discipleship. The ele
ments of discipleship found in Mark's presentation of these characters are
consistent with those found in his presentation of the twelve: faith in Jesus, a
willingness to forsake one's former life, a life of service, proclamation of the
good news, and perception of and obedience to Jesus' teaching and identity.
Taken together, these two groups of Markan characters provide Mark's read
ers with overt models for authentic discipleship.
3.4.3 Jesus' Teaching on Discipleship

While Mark uses a variety of characters in his gospel as models for authentic
discipleship, he also addresses discipleship directly through Jesus' teaching.
It has long been recognized that the evangelists' records of Jesus' teaching are
means of instructing their audience/community. Therefore, when the Mar
kan Jesus teaches the disciples or crowds about authentic discipleship, his
instruction is primarily intended for Mark's readers. Here we will examine
Jesus' teachings that directly address the identity and characteristics of true
disciples.
We find Jesus' first teaching on discipleship in his call of Peter, Andrew,
James, and John. In his call, Jesus says that he will make them into "fishers
of people" (1:17). When this call is read in light of commissions given to the
disciples later in Mark's gospel (3:14-15; 6:7-13), it clearly implies the proc
lamation of the good news with the hopes of convincing people to accept it.
Being a disciple, therefore, involves the need to proclaim the good news of
God's kingdom and presumably God's Messiah (1:1).
Perhaps Jesus' most explicit teaching on discipleship follows Peter's con
fession at Caesarea Philippi: "If any want to become my followers, let them
165
deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" (8:34). This mes
sage for would-be or present disciples is quite clear: authentic discipleship
165
For the significance of the phrase "take up their cross," see, Hengel, Crucifixion, 62;
cf. Evans, Mark, 25; France, Mark, 339; Hooker, St. Mark, 208-209; et al. For origins of the
phrase, see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 353; Gundry, Apology, 453-54.
148 Chapter 3
requires faithfulness even to the point of death. In fact, if these disciples

desire to save their lives, i.e., experience eschatological salvation, they must
166
be willing to die for the sake of Jesus and his gospel (8:35). Disciples who
are "ashamed" of Jesus (likely a reference to those who deny him in the face
of suffering/death) in this life will not receive his advocacy at the eschatologi
cal judgment (8:38). That true disciples will face suffering is confirmed in
Jesus' eschatological discourse. Here, Jesus tells the disciples that they will
be beaten, stand trial before governors and kings, and be hated by everyone
167
(13:9—13). Despite such persecution, a true disciple must remain faithful to
Jesus.
While this passage seems to have a harsh message for disciples who may
have failed to remain faithful in the face of suffering (and is contradictory
to Donahue's interpretation of Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples dis
cussed above), Mark does record a number of teachings from Jesus that may
offer hope to such disciples. In Mark 9:41, Jesus tells the disciples "For truly I
tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name
of Christ will by no means lose' the reward." Similarly in Mark 10:29-31,
Jesus tells his disciples, "Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house
or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake
and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in
this age - houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with
persecutions - and in the age to come eternal life." Underlying both of these
responses is a question about the rewards for discipleship and the possibility
of losing such rewards. In both statements, Jesus reassures his disciples that
the sacrifices they have made for both his sake and the sake of the gospel are
not in vain and will be rewarded both in the present age and in the eschaton.
These words would certainly be an encouragement to disciples who had pre
viously been faithful to Jesus and his gospel but in the face of persecution
failed. Here Jesus' words tell them that their previous faithfulness will not go
unnoticed and will be rewarded. Jesus' call for the disciples to forgive anyone
whom they might hold something against (11:25) might be directed toward
failed disciples who, in the face of persecution, betrayed their fellow believ
ers. Mark, therefore, might offer a second chance to failed believers, but he
also gives them a strong warning about not failing a second time. However,
166
euou KCU of verse 35 is textually uncertain, but there is reason to accept it. Most
importantly, it is read by both Matthew and Luke, which indicates it was a part of the Mar
kan text at an extremely early date and likely authentic. See TCGNT, 99 for discussion.
167
See H. R. Graham, "A Markan Theme: Endurance in Time of Persecution," TBT 23
(1985): 297-304; "A Passion Prediction for Mark's Community: Mark 13:9-13," BTB 16
(1986): 18-22; P. S. Pudussery, Discipleship: A Call to Suffering and Glory: An Exegetico-
Theological Study of Mark 8,27-9,1; 13,9-13 and 13:24-27 (Rome: Libreria "Alma Mater,"
1987), 141-97; cf. J. Verheyden, "Persecution and Eschatology. Mk 13, 9-13," in The Four
Gospels 1992, 1141-59; Moloney, Mark, 256-58; Hooker, St. Mark, 309-13.
the message is quite clear that true discipleship requires faithfulness in the
face of suffering and death.
Jesus also teaches his disciples that true discipleship is marked by service
to others rather than exercising power over them. In response to the disciples'
quarrel over who among them was the greatest, Jesus teaches them that the
one who desires to be great must be a servant of all (9:36). This teaching is
reiterated after the disciples become indignant at James' and John's request
for positions of power (10:41-45). Jesus tells them that they are not to be like
the Gentile rulers who lord their authority over their subjects. Instead, if they
wish to be first, i.e., have positions of power in the eschaton, they must be
servants in the present age. Jesus' teaching presents service and not power as
an essential characteristic of discipleship.
Mark's eschatological discourse contains significant teaching on disciple
ship. Twice in the discourse, the disciples are warned to not let false christs
168
mislead them (13:5-6, 21-22). While these false christs will lead many
astray through the use of signs and omens, true disciples (the elect) will not
be deceived by them. Here, recognition of Jesus' true identity as the Messiah
and faithfulness to him are essential elements of discipleship. The discourse
also reminds Mark's readers that discipleship will be accompanied by suffer
ing and trials (13:9-13, 19-20), through which they must remain faithful.
Jesus' teaching on discipleship reiterates and affirms the elements of dis
cipleship we have seen in Mark's portrayal of the disciples and the minor
characters: the importance of recognizing Jesus' true identity, faithfulness to
Jesus in the face of suffering, the proclamation of Jesus and his gospel, and
the choice of servitude over power. We may also see the motif of encourage
ment to failed disciples who, despite their failure, can be restored and receive
their reward.
3.4.4 Conclusions concerning Discipleship
In our analysis above, five elements continually recur in Mark's presentation
of discipleship: (1) both recognition of and faith in Jesus' identity; (2) faithful
ness to Jesus and the gospel even in the face of suffering; (3) abandonment
of one's former life; (4) proclamation about Jesus and his gospel; and (5) liv
ing lives marked by service and humility. Of these five elements, the first two
168
Those who will come in Jesus' name, "saying I am he," are best identified as false
messianic claimants. Some interpreters have tried to identify them as eschatological proph
ets claiming to act in the name of Christ; see Klostermann, Markusevangelium, 133; Kelber,
Kingdom, 114-115; Pesch argues that "I am he" is a claim to be Jesus himself; Markusevan
gelium, 2:279. For those who support our current position, see Marcus, "Jewish War," 441—
62; Lane, Mark, 456; Gundry, Apology, 737; Evans, Mark, 305-6; Witherington, Mark, 343;
Gibson, Refusal, 48-9; France, Mark, 510-11; E. Haenchen, Der WegJesu: Eine Erkldrung
nd
des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (2 ed.; Berlin: Topelmann,
1966), 437; et al.
150 Chapter 3
are the most prominent, with Mark devoting more attention to their develop
ment than the latter three. We propose that these five elements, with greater
emphasis placed on the first two, are at the heart of Mark's teaching on authen
tic discipleship - a teaching that is directed to Mark's intended audience. Our
theory regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel will seek to account for these
features.
If we use these features as mirrors that reflect the situations of Mark's
readers, they become a helpful tool for characterizing Mark's Sitz im Leben.
Mark's presentation of discipleship has led many interpreters to conclude that
the gospel was written in the context of persecution. The call for disciples to
remain faithful in the face of death (8:34-37) seems to anticipate an impend
ing persecution for Mark's readers, one in which they themselves must remain
faithful. Jesus' warning of future suffering in the eschatological discourse is
further evidence that persecution is anticipated (13:9-20). The importance
Mark places on recognizing Jesus' true identity may indicate a setting in
which that identity was being challenged. This conclusion is supported by
passages implying Mark's readers are encountering false messianic claim
ants. At two points in the'eschatological discourse Mark warns his readers not
to be deceived by individuals who claim to be the Messiah (13:6-7, 21-23).
Though these pretenders' claims may be supported by great signs and omens,
authentic disciples will not be deceived and will recognize Jesus as the true
Messiah. Therefore, Mark's presentation of discipleship suggests a Sitz im
Leben in which persecution and christological crisis are present realities for
Mark's readers. It is possible that these two realties are related, i.e., the source
of the christological crisis carries with it a threat of persecution, but we can
not be certain of this.
3.5 Markan Eschatology
In our opening chapter, we rejected eschatology as Mark's primary purpose

for writing his gospel. However, we did recognize that eschatology plays a
significant secondary role in Mark and that any theory regarding the gospel's
purpose must account for Mark's eschatological presentation. Here, we char
acterize Mark's eschatological perspective and consider its implications for
Mark's Sitz im Leben.
Because Mark's eschatological content is primarily located in Mark 13, a
chapter we partially analyzed in our discussion on the date of Mark's com
position, our present discussion will be abbreviated. We will summarize the
results of our previous analysis along with some additional analysis on con
tent not yet examined. Previously, we divided the eschatological discourse
(vs. 5-27 in particular) into four sections: (1) universal catastrophes pre
ceding tribulation (vs. 5-8), (2) personal catastrophes preceding tribulation
(vs. 9-13), (3) unprecedented tribulation (vs. 14-23), and (4) the coming of the
Son of Man following tribulation (vs. 24-27). Section one describes the past
experience (and possibly present experience) of Mark's readers, (e.g., wars,
earthquakes, and famines). However, Mark clearly conveys to his readers the
warning that these are not the signs that the end is imminent; they are only
the beginning of birth pangs. Section two describes the past, present or pos
sibly future suffering of Mark's community. But again, Mark conveys to his
readers the admonition that this suffering is not the sign of the imminent end.
In section three, Mark finally provides his readers with the ultimate sign that
the parousia and eschaton are imminent. Mark's readers will see the "abomi
nation of desolation" (which we characterized earlier as an idolatrous action
of great magnitude performed by a significant ruler) and know that the end is
soon. Unprecedented tribulation and suffering will follow this action. Section
four describes the coming of the glorious Son of Man with angels (cf. 8:38).
At this time, angels will gather all of the elect. These verses capture Mark's
basic eschatological frame work: inevitable present suffering, an idolatrous
act of great magnitude, unprecedented suffering and persecution, and the Son
of Man returning with his angels bringing salvation to the elect.
The verses following this eschatological outline give further insight into
Mark's eschatological perspective. Jesus' warns his disciples that, though the
day and the hour of these events are known only by God himself, they must
remain watchful and observant for the signs he has given them. This instruc
tion to be watchful is clearly an important one for it is given four times in the
span of nine verses (13:28-29, 33, 35, 37).
Jesus also tells the twelve that "this generation" will not pass away until all
these things have taken place (13:30; cf. 9:1). Here it seems that Jesus is claim
ing that the parousia will occur within his own generation or perhaps the gen
eration of Mark's readers. Clearly this passage has caused embarrassment for
the church over the last two millennia, a factor primarily responsible for the
enormous amount of literature devoted to this passage. Many attempts have
been made to alleviate this embarrassment. Some interpreters have sought to
limit the antecedent of xaOxa iravTa ("these things"), claiming that it only
169
includes the things which precede the parousia and not the parousia itself.
Others have attempted to redefine/reinterpret r) yevea aikr) ("this genera
tion") in order to remove the time constraints of Jesus' prophecy. Earle Ellis
argues that "this generation" refers to the generation of the end signs. He
claims that the generation that sees these eschatological signs will not pass
170
away until the eschaton arrives. Walter Grundmann suggests that "this gen-
169
For example, see Lagrange, Saint Marc, 324-25; L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted:
The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark
13 Par (ConBNT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966), 222-26.
170 nd
For example, see E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (2 ed.; London: Oliphants, 1974),
246-47. While Ellis is addressing the Lukan parallel to Mark 13:30, he seems to understand
152 Chapter 3
171
eration" might refer to all the godless and wicked people among human kind.
However, a large number of interpreters conclude that the plain reading of
the text should be accepted, and that Mark anticipates the parousia within the
172
lifetime of his readers. While this reading seems probable, the suggestion
from Ellis, Hartmann, and Grundmann are still plausible. Therefore, we will
proceed with caution, noting that while it is quite likely that Mark antici
pated the parousia during the lifetime of his readers this conclusion remains
uncertain.
Again, a mirror reading of Mark's eschatological presentation can help us
characterize the gospel's Sitz im Leben. The beginning of the eschatologi
cal discourse indicates that there are people in Mark's community confused
about authentic eschatological signs. Mark seeks to clarify this situation by
distinguishing between birth pangs (e.g., famine, earthquakes, wars, and
persecution) and the ultimate sign that signals the beginning of the end (the
"abomination of desolation"). While this sign has not yet come, Mark urges
his readers to be watchful for it could come at any time (perhaps in the lifetime
of Mark's audience). Therefore, we can conclude that Mark faces a situation
in which he must bring clarity and tranquility to his community's confusion
over the eschaton but, at the same time, he must also urge his readers not
to grow weary in watching for the true signs of eschatological fulfillment.
Mark's eschatological presentation functions to refocus his readers' attention
away from mistaken eschatological signs so that they can be watchful for the
eschatological sign that will signal the imminent parousia.
Mark's text in the same way. For a similar position, see Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of
St. Luke (trans. Geoffrey Buswell; London: Faber and Faber, 1960), 105.
171
See Grundmann, Markus, 270-71.
172
See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993),
443-49; Gnilka, Markus, 2:205-6; Lane, Mark, 480; Evans, Mark, 335; et al.
Chapter 4
Reconstructing Mark's Historical Situation
4.1 Introduction
Up to this point, we have argued that Mark wrote in Rome shortly after the
destruction of the Jerusalem temple (c. 70 C.E.). We now turn to this place
and time with the goal of reconstructing a plausible historical situation for
Mark and his readers. We will give careful consideration to two significant
historical realities of this time and to their impact on the church. The first
reality is the presence of a newly crowned emperor, Vespasian, the first of the
Flavian dynasty. We will examine the factors surrounding his rise to power
and the problems and propaganda that accompanied it. The second reality is
the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt, which culminated in the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Jewish temple. We will compare this historical situation
that our examination of these realities reveals with the indicators of Mark's
Sitz im Leben that our analysis in the previous chapter identified. Continuity
between the two would validate the plausibility of our reconstructed histori
cal situation.
4.2 Reconstructing the Historical Situation

of Mark's Readers
4.2.1 The Emperor Vespasian

Vespasian (Titus Flavius Vespasianus) was officially the eighth Roman
emperor and, as noted above, the first emperor of the Flavian dynasty (69-96
C.E.). He took power in 69 C.E. and ruled until his death in 79 C.E. Most histo
rians, both ancient and modern, remember Vespasian as a good emperor and
credit him with restoring peace and prosperity to Rome after the tumultuous
1
years of Nero's reign and the civil war of 69 C.E. Here we will focus on the
1
For example, see Suetonius, Vesp. 1.1; 10-25; cf. Barbara Levick, Vespasian (New York:
Routledge, 1999), 196-209.
154 Chapter 4
early years of Vespasian's reign (c. 69-72 C.E.), particularly highlighting his
rise to power and the propaganda that accompanied it.
Vespasian's Rise to Power
Given Vespasian's relatively humble beginnings, his rise to power is quite
remarkable. He was born into the plebeian class of Roman society - the
2
Roman working class ranking below the patrician class of Roman nobility.
Though in Rome, it was not uncommon for plebeians to rise to positions of
prominence in the Roman Empire through the combination of hard work and
good fortune, it was virtually unthinkable that one might rise to the position
3
of emperor. But such a rise to power is exactly what Vespasian accomplished,
and any consideration of his reign must give consideration to this remarkable
accomplishment.
4
Vespasian was born in 9 C.E. in the Sabine region of Italy. His father was a
centurion and later a money lender (banker); his mother came from a promi
5
nent family in the Italian region of Umbria. Her father had served as a pre
6
fect, and her brother was a senator who achieved the rank of praetor. Little
is known about Vespasian's childhood and youth, though we know that he
spent a good deal of this time at his paternal grandmother's estates in the
7
coastal city of Cosa in the Italian region of Etruria. At age eighteen, per
haps at the prodding of his ambitious mother and almost certainly with the
benefit of well-connected family members, Vespasian began a career in poli
8
tics. He first held the position of military tribune in Thrace and later held a
number of significant positions, including quaestor (in Crete and Cyrenaica),
9
praetor, and eventually consul and proconsul. Throughout his career, he also
established strong military credentials, which aided his political success.
2
For discussion on the Roman class system, see Pierre Grimal, The Civilization of
Rome (trans. W. S. Maguinnes; New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), 486; William Davis,
The Influence of Wealth in Imperial Rome (New York: Macmillan, 1910), 293-47; Ludwig
Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire (trans. Leonard Magnus;
London: Routledge, 1928), 98-206, esp. 98-106, 144-46.
3
Vespasian's own brother, Titus Sabinus, rose to senatorial rank, held the consulship,
and was the "Prefecture of the City" (see Davis, Influence, 224-29).
4
Suetonius, Vesp. 2.
5
Suetonius, Vesp. 1; see Levick, Vespasian, 6; H. R. Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, Untersuc-
hungen zu Suetons Vita Divi Vespasiani (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937), 10.
6
Suetonius, Vesp. 1; see Levick, Vespasian, 6; E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating
the Principate of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967;
repr. Bristol, 1984), 369, col. 2.11.1-4.
7
Suetonius, Vesp. 2.
8
Suetonius, Vesp. 2; see Levick, Vespasian, 7-8; L. Homo, Vespasien, Vempereur du bon
sens (69-79 ap. J.-C.) (Paris: Albin Michael, 1949), 16; W. Eck suggests that Vespasian's
political career was aided by his uncle. See Eck, "Urbs Salvia und seine fuhrenden Famil-
ien," in Picus: Studi e ricerche sulle Marche nelV Antichitd 12-13 (1992-93): 92.
9
Suetonius, Vesp. 2.3; 4.1; see Levick, Vespasian, 8-13.
Reconstructing Mark's Historical Situation 155
He served as the commander of a Roman legion in Germany, received trium
phal ornaments for his military successes in Britain, and was appointed by
10
Nero to quell the Jewish revolt in 66 C.E. However, Vespasian's significant
political and military achievements alone could have never elevated him to
the principate, a position that was dynastic and belonged to the heir of the
current emperor.
It is unlikely that before 68 C.E. (and even possibly 69 C.E.) Vespasian had
11
any ambitions for the principate. But Galba's rebellion against Nero in the
latter part of 68 C.E., and Nero's subsequent suicide in the same year changed
the Roman political landscape. It quickly became apparent that dynastic
inheritance was not the only way to obtain the principate. One who exer
cised enough military power could also secure it. This reality plunged the
Roman Empire into its first civil war since Mark Antony and Octavian, and
it also opened the door for the plebeian born Vespasian to become the Roman
emperor.
The first to obtain the principate by means of military power was Galba,
the provincial ruler of Hispania Tarraconesis (modern day eastern Spain).
After Nero's death, Galba declared himself emperor and, with his legions,
marched into Rome virtually uncontested. But Galba's reign only lasted six
months before Otho supplanted him. Otho was the former provincial ruler
of Lusitania (modern day western Spain and Portugal) who had aided Galba
in his rebellion against Nero. After Galba snubbed him as a successor, Otho
sought the support of the Praetorian Guard and won it. Soldiers of the Prae
torian Guard murdered Galba and declared Otho emperor. However, Otho
quickly realized that he was not Galba's only challenger. A provincial ruler
in Germania Inferior, Vitellius (a man Galba had appointed) had rebelled
against him and now challenged Otho. The legions of Germania (both Infe
rior and Superior) supported Vitellius and proclaimed him their emperor. A
short while later he gained the support of the legions in Gaul, Britannia, and
Raetia. War waged between Otho and Vitellius. After a devastating loss at
10
Suetonius, Vesp. 4.1; Dio Cassius 63.11.1; see Levick, Vespasian, 14-19; J. Nicols, Ves
pasian and the Partes Flavianae (Historica-Einzelschriften 28) Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner,
1978), 8-9, 13-22. For discussion on Vespasian's successes in Britain, see G. Webster, The
Roman Invasion of Britain (London: B. T. Batsford, 1980; rev. ed., 1993), 84-110.
11
Nicols argues that Vespasian only considered revolt after the death of Galba in Febru
ary 69 C.E.; see Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 91-92; cf. Levick, Vespasian, 44. Some historians
date Vespasian's ambitions for the principate to 67 C.E., a date largely determined by Jose
phus' prophecy of Vespasian's ascension; see G. E. F. Chilver, "The Army in Politics, A.D.
68-70," JRS 47 (1957): 29-35, esp. 34; H. Drexler, review of A. Briessmann, Tacitus und
das Flavische Geschichtsbild, Gnomon 28 (1956): 523; W. Weber, Josephus und Vespasian:
Untersuchungen zu dem jiidischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (New York: Hildesheim,
1921), 154.
156 Chapter 4
Bedriacum, Otho took his own life having after ruled only three months.
12
Vitellius then secured the principate.
Up to this point, the civil war primarily involved legions from the western
and northern parts of the empire as well as those from Italy. Legions from
13
the eastern part of the empire remained relatively passive. Vespasian was
one of the most significant and powerful Roman generals in the Roman east.
Nero appointed him in 66 C.E. to quell the Jewish Revolt in Palestine and
placed three Roman legions under his command. After Nero's death, Ves
pasian halted his military efforts in Palestine and awaited new orders from
Rome. He remained militarily inactive as he observed the rise and fall of both
Galba and Otho, and eventually he swore his allegiance to the newly crowned
emperor, Vitellius. This sworn allegiance was most certainly feigned, because
it seems that at least by the time Galba died, Vespasian was arranging his own
attempt at securing the principate. It seems he was strongly encouraged to do
so by Mucianus, the governor of Syria, and Julius Alexander the governor
14
of Egypt. Both of these allies could promise Vespasian a significant num
ber of legions - legions that would be necessary for defeating Vitellius and
securing the principate. With this backing, Vespasian decided to make his bid
for the empire. He was first declared emperor in Egypt by Julius Alexander
15
and the Roman legions under him. Two days later in Caesarea, Vespasian
himself was hailed by his soldiers as Imperator, the common greeting for a
16
new emperor. Only a short time later, the Syrian legions, at the instigation
17
of Mucianus, swore their allegiance to Vespasian. These declarations estab
lished Vespasian as the ruler of the Roman east, a ruler who was supported by
both the eastern legions and the eastern people.
With this popularity and military backing, Vespasian became a legiti
mate challenger to Vitellius. This legitimacy in turn garnered him even more
12
For the details regarding the civil war of 69 C.E., see Levick, Vespasian, 43-64; Welles-
ley, Four Emperors', idem, "What Happened on the Capitol in December AD 69?" AJAH
6 (1981): 166-90; Bernard Henderson, Civil War and Rebellion in the Roman Empire A.D.
69-70 (London: Macmillan, 1908).
13
Some legions of Asia Minor, including those of Dalmatia, had declared their support
for Otho though they were too late to help him in his war with Vitellius; see Wellesley, Four
Emperors, 57.
14
See Tacitus, Hist. 2.89-90; Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 72.
15
Tacitus, Hist. 2.79; Suetonius, Vesp. 6.3. Josephus' testimony disagrees with that of
both Tacitus and Suetonius, claiming that Vespasian was first declared emperor in Judea.
Many historians, however, give pride of place to the testimony of the latter two historians;
see Levick, Vespasian, 47; Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 73; Weber, Josephus, 168 n. 1; D.
Kienast, Romische Kaisertabelle: Grundziige einer rom. Kaiserchronologie (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990), 108.
16
Tacitus and Suetonius disagree as to the date of this event. Tacitus claims it was on
July 3 while Suetonius claims it was on July 11. For discussion and sources for further infor
mation, see Levick, Vespasian, 43 n. 1.
17
Tacitus, Hist. 2.79; Suetonius, Vesp. 6.4.
military support. Legions from Asia Minor and Illyrium, some of which had
18
supported Otho against Vitellius, now gave their allegiance to Vespasian.
With this strong military backing, it took Vespasian only five months to defeat
Vitellius and take control of Rome. The day after Rome fell to the Flavian
legions - and the Flavian rival Vitellius was killed - the senate conferred full
power upon Vespasian. The plebian born Vespasian was now the unrivaled
Roman emperor.
Vespasian's Problems and Propaganda
Even though Vespasian had won his war against Vitellius, and by force had
received the principate, many obstacles remained before him. The empire's
19
finances were in shambles, and its food supply in Rome was low. While
Vespasian occupied Rome, rebellious legions still persisted throughout the
20
empire and needed to be brought under control. But more important for our
purposes are the obstacles related to the legitimacy of Vespasian's rule.
Perhaps one of the most significant obstacles Vespasian had to overcome
was his ignoble birth. Unlike the emperors before him, including Galba,
Otho, and Vitellius, Vespasian was a "new man" in politics (a novus homo),
an upstart in the eyes of senatorial noblemen whose families had enjoyed
political prestige for centuries. That a man of such humble beginnings was
now ruling over them was certainly offensive to their noble sensibilities. Even
the Roman citizenry as a whole likely found it difficult to respect and honor
an emperor with such a humble pedigree. There were also questions sur
rounding Vespasian's family ancestry. Vespasian could claim he was of Ital
ian blood, though his family was from the Italian countryside and not from
21
Rome itself. But rumors that his father emigrated from Gaul to Italy led
22
some to suspect that a man of impure blood was holding the principate.
18
See Levick, Vespasian, 47-49.
19
According to Suetonius, Vespasian claimed it would take 40,000m sestertii to reha
bilitate the state; Vesp. 16.3. Given that annual revenue was approximately 800m sester
tii (see K. Hopkins, "Tax and Trade in the Roman Empire [200 B.C.-A.D. 400]," JRS 70
[1980]: 101-25) many historians believe Suetonius to be in error and conclude that the num
ber should read 4,000m; see Levick, Vespasian, 95; G. M. Bersanetti, Vespasiano (Rome:
Edizioni Roma, 1941), 61; M. A. Levi, "I principii dell' impero di Vespasiano" RFIC 16
(1938): 1-12. However, even this amount indicates that Rome was in need of five times its
annual income to achieve financial recovery. For further discussion on the economic crisis
facing Vespasian, see Levick, Vespasian, 95-106; Homo, Vespasien, 163-67; 301-9.
20
For discussion of the military problems facing Vespasian after his ascension, see
Levick, Vespasian, 107-23; Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, 60-77; E. P. Nicolas, De Neron a Ves
pasien: Etudes et perspectives historiques, suivies de V analyse, du catalogue, et de la
reproduction des monnaies 'oppositionelles' connues des annees 67 a 70 (Paris: Belles
Lettres, 1979), 2.1037-288.
21
Vespasian had a thick accent that betrayed his rural upbringing; Suetonius, Vesp. 22.;
Levick, Vespasian, 8; Homo, Vespasien, 10-13.
22
See Suetonius, Vesp. 1.4; see Levick, Vespasian, 6; Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, 1.
158 Chapter 4
Another obstacle to Vespasian's legitimacy was the means by which he

obtained his position. Vespasian had no significant link, familial or paternal,
to the previous dynasty. Power and power alone legitimized his claim to the
principate. In reality, Vespasian was a dictator who had taken his position by
force (though technically it was granted by the senate). Given Rome's his
torical animosity toward monarchs and despots (the Roman emperor was, in
theory, primus inter pares, "first among equals," and received his power from
the senate alone), Vespasian's means of obtaining power would certainly be
23
seen as a mark against his legitimacy. The Roman people had just seen three
emperors - all claiming the position by military might - rise and fall in the
span of one year. Certainly it was legitimate for Roman citizens to question
why this emperor was any different from the previous three.
All of these obstacles to Vespasian's legitimacy could certainly be used
against him by his political opponents. The establishment of a stable and
peaceful rule (and eventually a dynasty) would require him to overcome
them. One way in which Vespasian attempted to overcome these obstacles to
his legitimacy was through the clever use of propaganda. It became important
for Vespasian, as it had for emperors and monarchs before him, to establish
24
evidence of his divine right to rule. One form of such evidence was "por
tents" or prophecies. Suetonius offers us eleven portents (three are also men
tioned by Tacitus and seven by Dio) that foretold or indicated Vespasian's rise
to power (Suetonius, Vesp. 5). The first was an oak tree (which was believed
to be sacred to Mars) on the Flavian estate that sprouted a branch each time
Vespasia (Vespasian's mother) gave birth. Each branch was seen as an indica
tor of the child's future. Vespasian's branch took the image of a tree, a Roman
imperial symbol, which led Vespasian's father to claim his son would one day
become emperor. During Vespasian's early political career as an aedile, whose
responsibility it was to clean the streets, Gaius Caligula spread mud on Ves
pasian's toga for what he perceived as dereliction of his duties. The mud that
rested under Vespasian's breast was seen as an omen that he would one day
hold a Rome that had been trodden upon under his own breast. Once, while
Vespasian was eating breakfast, a dog brought him a human hand from the
street, a body part often associated with power. Another time while dining, an
ox escaped from its yoke, and after rampaging into Vespasian's dining room
23
For discussion on the position of the emperor and his relationship to the senate, see
John Wacher, The Roman Empire, (London: J. M. Dent, 1987), 84-86; Mason Hammond,
The Augustan Principate: In Theory and Practice during the Julio-Claudian Period (Cam
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1933); On Augustus' use of the title princeps, see John
Buchan, Augustus (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1937), 134-35.
24
For thorough discussion on the link between omens and portents and the emperor's
divine right to rule, see Annie Vigourt, Les Presages Imperiaux dAuguste a Domitien:
Collection de I'Universite Marc Bloch, Strasbourg: Etudes d'histoire ancienne (Paris: de
Boccard, 2001), 343-74. For a list of omens and portents associated with Roman rulers, see
22-74.
it bowed its head at Vespasian's feet. At the estate of Vespasian's grandfather,
a tree mysteriously uprooted itself and the next day was replanted looking
greener and stronger than before. Vespasian also had a dream that when Nero
had a tooth extracted, good fortune would fall on him and his family. Only a
day later, a physician showed him a tooth that had just been extracted from
Nero. While Vespasian was in Judea (likely in 68 C.E., a time when Vespasian
was considering his bid for the principate), he visited an oracle on Mt. Carmel
who told him that whatever he attempted to do, he would find success. Sueto
nius also tells us of Josephus' prophecy that Vespasian would be emperor (for
Josephus' own account, see Wars 399-408). Suetonius again tells of portents
in Rome while Vespasian was away in the east. Nero apparently had a dream
that instructed him to move the sacred chariot of Jupiter to Vespasian's house
and then onto the circus. There was also a statue of Julius Caesar in Rome
that turned from west to east, presumably indicating the origin of the next
Roman ruler. Finally, at the field of Betriacum where Vitellius defeated Otho,
people witnessed two eagles fighting over the battle field. After one was vic
torious, a third eagle flew in from the east and defeated the former victorious
eagle. The parallels with the civil war of 69 C.E. are quite obvious.
While many of these "portents" are clearly legendary and others likely
embellished, the question of their origin and purpose remains significant. It
seems that they were likely created shortly before or shortly after Vespasian
took power and were circulated with the hopes of bringing validity to Vespa
25
sian's reign. If accepted, these portents would demonstrate that Vespasian's
rise to power was not an accident or the result of a man bending fate to his
will, but rather it was divinely ordained and supernaturally foretold. Such
claims would be hard to dispute and would only be fortified by the peace
and prosperity Vespasian's rule brought to Rome. The practice of establish
ing such omina imperii was quite common for rulers whose power might be
viewed as illegitimate (e.g., Alexander and his successors, leaders of the late
26
Roman Republic, and even Octavian). Therefore, that Vespasian would use
such propaganda to legitimize his reign should be expected.
25
For similar conclusions, see Nicols, Partes Flaviane, 96; J. Rufus Fears, Princeps A
Diis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome (PMA AR
26; Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1977), 171; K. Scott, The Imperial Cult under
the Flavians (New York: Arno Press, 1936; repr. 1975), 1-20; R. Lattimore, "Portents and
Prophecies in Connection with the Emperor Vespasian," CJ 29 (1933-34): 441-49; A. Hen-
richs, "Vespasian's Visit to Alexanderia," ZPE 3 (1968): 51-80; L. Herrmann, "Basilides,"
Latomus 12 (1953): 312-15; P. Derchain, "La visite de Vespasien au Serapeum d'Alexandrie,"
Chronique d'Egypte 28 (1953): 261-79, esp. 267-70. While some of these portents may have
a historical core, e.g., Vespasians' visitation to the Mt. Carmel oracle and Josephus' pre
diction of Vespasian's ascension, the forms in which they have come to us are historically
questionable.
26
See Fears, Divine Election, 171.
160 Chapter 4
In addition to portents and prophecies, Vespasian used visions and super

natural healings to establish his divine right to power. After being declared
emperor by his legions in the east, Vespasian journeyed to Alexandria. While
there, he visited the temple of Serapis, hoping to gain information about the
27
outcome of his imperial ambitions from the god. After he had all other wor
shipers removed and had worshiped the god himself, he saw a man named
Basilides (Tacitus describes him as a leading man of Egypt, while Suetonius
identifies him as Vespasian's freedman), whom Vespasian knew to be sick
and a long distance from Alexandria at that time. Basilides gave him "sacred
boughs, garlands, and loaves," which may best be identified as signs of roy
28
alty. We are told that Vespasian took this vision as a supernatural sign of
divine favor and of future success in his bid for the empire. These happenings
in the temple of Serapis not only offered further evidence that Vespasian's
reign was divinely appointed, but it also drew a parallel between Vespasian
and another ruler, Alexander the Great, who when in Egypt received a divine
endorsement from the oracle of Ammon. Such propaganda would certainly
29
help legitimize Vespasian's power.
We are also told that while Vespasian was in Alexandria, both a blind
30
man and a man with a disfigured hand requested healing from him. Both
men claimed that their request for healing, as well as the manner in which
they were to be healed (the blind man was to be healed by Vespasian's spittle
being placed on his eyes and the disfigured man by Vespasian stepping on
the man's hand) had been ordered by the god Serapis in a dream. Though at
first reluctant, Vespasian agreed to their requests, and both men were healed.
Presumably, Serapis had granted to Vespasian the power to heal - a power
that was further evidence of his divine appointment to rule. This propaganda
was apparently quite effective, because Tacitus reported that even in his day
(c. 100 C.E., twenty years after Vespasian's death), eye-witnesses still talked
about this event.
Up to this point, we have demonstrated that Vespasian put forth a great
deal of propaganda, including prophecies, portents, visions, and supernatural
powers to establish his divine right to rule and to legitimize his position. Here
we will argue for an additional element in Vespasian's propagandistic efforts
at legitimacy; namely, that Vespasian claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish
messianic prophecy.
27
Tacitus, Hist. 4. 82 and Suetonius, Vesp. 7.1.
28
Henrichs, "Visit to Alexandria," 62-63.
29
For further discussion of this incident and its significance, see Henrichs, "Visit to
Alexandria," 51-80; Weber, Josephus, 250-58; Scott, Imperial Cult, 9-13; S. Morenz, "Ves
pasian, Heiland der Kranken: Personliche Frommigkeit im antiken Herrscherkult?" Wiirz-
burger Jahrbucher fur die Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1949-50): 370-78.
30
Tacitus, Hist. 4 81.1-3; Suetonius, Vesp. 7.2; Dio, Rom. Hist. 66.8.1.
Reconstructing Mark s Historical Situation 161
Three Roman historians refer to what appear to be Jewish messianic proph
ecies and expectations. Each of them concludes that these prophecies were
fulfilled through Vespasian's rise to power. In discussing the Jewish motiva
tions behind their revolt in 66 C.E., Josephus writes:
But what more than all else incited them [the Jews] to war was an ambiguous oracle, like
wise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country
would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean that someone from their
own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle,
however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on
Jewish soil. (Josephus, Wars 6.312-13, Thackeray, LCL)
Here Josephus makes a clear reference to a prophecy in the Jews' sacred lit
erature that a world ruler would come out of Judea and highlights the Jews'
misunderstanding of the prophecy. He also offers a true interpretation of the
prophecy, namely that it refers to Vespasian's rise to power that originated
while he was in Judea.
Tacitus offers us a similar account. It follows a description of physical
omens that appeared in Jerusalem in 70 C.E., omens that clearly foreshadowed
the city's destruction:
Few [Jews] interpreted these omens as fearful; the majority firmly believed that their ancient
priestly writings contained a prophecy that this was the very time when the East should
grow strong and that men starting from Judaea should possess the world. This mysterious
prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, as is the
way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favor and could not be
turned even by adversity. (Tacitus, Hist. 5.13.1-2, Moore and Jackson, LCL)
Like Josephus, Tacitus references a prophecy contained in sacred Jewish writ

ings, a prophecy that world rulers (Tacitus's change from one ruler to multiple
rulers is likely motivated by a desire to make the prophecy fit both Vespasian
and Titus) would come out of Judea. Tacitus also claims that the Jews misun
derstood this prophecy and that its true fulfillment came in the rise of Flavian
power.
In describing the impetus for the Jewish revolt, Suetonius gives a similar
testimony:
There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that
time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor
of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves;
accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor they routed the consular ruler of
Syria as w e l l . . . (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5, Rolfe, LCL)
Suetonius differs slightly from Josephus and Tacitus in that he does not spe
cifically identify Jewish sacred scriptures as the origin of the belief (though
given the details he does provide, such a source could be deduced). But he
does agree with Josephus and Tacitus at many points: the prophecy's general
point of origin (the Roman East), that the prophecy anticipated world rulers
162 Chapter 4
coming from Judea, that the Jews mistakenly applied the prophecy to them
selves, and that the prophecy, correctly interpreted, referred to Vespasian.
In light of these three ancient testimonies, there seems to be a general
tradition that Jewish messianic prophecy, with which Romans would have cer
tainly been familiar, was fulfilled in Vespasian, whose rise to the principate
31
began in Judea. We must then ask when the tradition developed. There are
only two reasonable options. First, it is possible that the tradition developed
in the last half of Vespasian's career (75-79 C.E.), when Josephus was compos
ing his Jewish Wars (the document in which the tradition first appears). Some
have even insinuated that Josephus himself may have created the tradition
32
and that Tacitus later followed him and Suetonius later followed Tacitus.
But Christiane Saulnier undermines this theory, arguing that this section of
Josephus' narrative is oddly placed and appears as an erratic block of text,
33
text that was likely borrowed from an external source. The likelihood that
34
Tacitus' account was independent of Josephus also weakens this theory. It
seems more likely that both Josephus and Tacitus are dependent on a common
35
source. Such a conclusion indicates that the tradition existed before Jose
phus composed Jewish Wars and likely places the tradition's origins into the
early years of Vespasian's reign. Dating the tradition's origin after 75 C.E. also
raises the problem of motive. The tradition clearly favors Vespasian, making
him the fulfillment of yet another prophecy. That the prophecy favors the
Flavian party strongly suggests that the party itself originated the tradition.
But after 75 C.E., Vespasian's position was quite secure and had little need for
further legitimization. In fact, in the latter years of his reign, Vespasian seems
to reject such inflated notions of his identity. The famous words uttered from
31
It is important to note that by making this claim, we are not claiming that Josephus
perceived Vespasian to be the Jewish Messiah, but that prophecies that some Jews believed
pointed to a messiah were fulfilled in Vespasian. The tradition, in essence, is a tradition
against Jewish messianism.
32
Steve Mason, "Josephus, Daniel and the Flavian House," in Josephus and the History
of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. Fausto Parente and
Joseph Sievers; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 188-90; Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His
Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 193.
33
Christiane Saulnier, "Flavius Josephe et la Propagande Flavienne," RB 96.4 (1989):
550.
34
Though the general parameters of both accounts are similar, differences in specific
details undermine dependence. For discussion, see E. Norden, "Josephus und Tacitus tiber
Jesus Christus und eine Messianische Prophetie," in Zur Josephus-Forschung (ed., Abra
ham Schalit; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), 27-69. As noted above,
Mason, however, argues that Tacitus is dependent upon Josephus for the tradition, "Jose
phus," 88-90; cf. Rajak, 193.
35
Norden, "Josephus," 55-69; cf. Saulnier, "Flavius Josephe," 545-62; Menahem Stern,
ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sci
ences and Humanities, 1980), 61-62.
36
his death bed illustrated this point: "Alas, I suppose I am becoming a god."
The propaganda that served Vespasian well in the early years of his rule, he
considered unnecessary later in his reign. This fact makes it unlikely that the
Flavian party created the tradition in the latter years of Vespasian's reign. It is
possible that the tradition was created independently of the Flavian party, but
this option removes culpability from the group that stood to profit most and
that had a track record of profiteering prophecies. While the possibility that
the tradition originated in the later years of Vespasian's reign cannot be ruled
out completely, the evidence suggests that it did not.
The second option for the tradition's date of origin (69-73 C.E. - during the
early years of Vespasian's reign) has much evidence to support it. This option
places the development of the tradition alongside the development of similar
propaganda, (e.g., the vision in the temple of Serapis, the oracle at Mt. Carmel,
and the many other omens that foreshadowed Vespasian's rise to power). It
also places the tradition much closer to the destruction of Jerusalem, an event
which all three historians closely associate with the tradition. The absolute
proof for a Roman that Jews misunderstood their messianic prophecy, i.e., the
destruction of the temple, would provide Vespasian with the perfect opportu
nity to apply that prophecy to himself. The irony of such an act could not have
been missed by Vespasian's defeated enemies or by his new subjects who
awaited him in Rome. The prophesied world ruler, whom the Jews believed
would be one of their own countrymen and would free them from Roman
oppression, was in fact a Roman himself who, rather than bringing freedom
to the Jews, brought them utter destruction. Such a claim from Vespasian
would simultaneously accomplish two things: (1) it would contribute to his
strenuous propagandistic efforts to legitimize his power, and (2) it would send
an ominous warning to any Jewish faction that might consider using sacred
prophecy to justify further rebellion. Therefore, Vespasian's early years, in
particular the time of his ascension and the subsequent destruction of the
Jews, offer a highly plausible and compelling setting for the development of
the tradition that the Flavian emperor was the fulfillment of Jewish messianic
37
prophecy.
There has been some debate over which particular prophecy (or prophe
cies) is referred to by the tradition in question. Some historians have sug
gested that the prophecy in question comes from Daniel, i.e., Daniel 9:26 or
38
7:13. But none of these suggested prophecies fits the descriptions our ancient
36
Suetonius, Vesp. 23.4; Dio, 66.17.3
37
Nicols implies that this tradition developed in 69 C.E. alongside of the other omnia
imperii that developed/circulated at the same time (Partes Flavianae, 96).
38
F. F. Bruce argues for Daniel 9:26 ("Josephus and Daniel," ASTI4 [1965]: 148-62). R.
T. Beckwith suggests Daniel 7:13; see Beckwith, "Daniel 9 and the Date of the Messiah's
Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation," RevQ
10 (1979-81): 535.
164 Chapter 4
39
historians give. It may be that attempting to identify a specific prophecy is a
misguided venture. Mason has argued, at least in the case of Josephus, that it
40
is unlikely that any specific prophecy is intended. He suggests that Josephus
has performed a "rhetorical sleight of hand" and has set up, for the sake of
his Roman audience, a ghost prophecy that has no specific referent. Because
of Roman ignorance regarding specific elements of Jewish scriptures, such
a rhetorical trick could be effective for Josephus. Here we suggest a similar
theory in the development of the Flavian propaganda that is preserved by
Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. It is unlikely that the Flavian party, in cre
ating and promulgating their propaganda, went through the cumbersome task
of sifting through Jewish scriptures in order to identify specific prophecies
that might apply to Vespasian. Doing so would not only be a daunting task for
those unfamiliar with Jewish sacred writings, but it would also be unneces
sary given that their target audience, like Josephus' audience, was unfamiliar
with the particulars of Jewish prophecy. Relying on specific prophecies also
opened the door for specific critics from the emperor's opponents. Therefore,
it seems that the Flavian party was more apt to rely on generic Jewish mes
sianic expectations, expectations that obviously were grounded in the Jews'
sacred writings. Therefore, it is unlikely that in the Flavian circulation of
this propaganda any attempts were made to validate it with proof texts from
Jewish scripture. Rather, the propaganda relied on the common knowledge
- knowledge that the Jewish Revolt no doubt heightened - that Jews, because
of prophecies found in their ancient scriptures, expected a world ruler to rise
from among them.
Here we conclude that the tradition claiming Vespasian to be the fulfill
ment of Jewish messianic prophecy - a tradition found in the writings of Jose
phus, Tacitus, and Suetonius - reflects Flavian propaganda that was used to
legitimize the emperor's power. This propaganda did not rely on any specific
Jewish prophecy but on well-known Jewish messianic expectations, expecta
tions grounded in Jewish sacred writings. This particular piece of propaganda
would be uniquely problematic for the church. We will examine the possible
effects of such a problem in more detail below.
Vespasian's Triumph
Another significant piece of Flavian propaganda was the triumph of Vespasian
and Titus in 71 C.E. Though its official purpose was to celebrate the Roman
victory over the Jews, it also illustrated the new emperor's great power and
41
glory. Josephus gives a vivid description of the triumph. He reports that the
entire military, arranged in companies and divisions, came out to the site of
39
See Mason, "Josephus," 184-86; cf. Beckwith's critique of Bruce, "Daniel 9," 535
n. 15.
4 0
Mason, "Josephus," 186.
41
See Josephus, Wars 7:117-59.
the triumph while it was still night. At day break, Vespasian and Titus came
out from the temple of Isis wearing purple imperial robes and laurel crowns.
As they took their seats on ivory thrones, loud acclamations came from the
soldiers and continued until Vespasian signaled for silence. In the procession
that commenced, there were magnificent works of art formed from gold, sil
ver, and ivory, as well as great tapestries. Enormous statues of Roman gods
were also part of the procession, along with many different species of live ani
mals. All the people marching in procession wore fine clothes, including the
large crowd of Jewish captives. Perhaps the most remarkable element of the
triumph was the moving depictions and reenactments of the Jewish War itself.
Here Roman military might and Vespasian's great success was brought before
the entire city. Depictions included slaughtered Jewish battalions, Jewish sol
diers fleeing the battle, Roman siege engines destroying Jewish strongholds,
Roman soldiers pouring into Jewish ramparts, and the Jewish temple set on
fire. Spoils from the war were also carried in the procession. The procession
ended at the Capitol (temple of Jupiter Capitolinus) where the Jewish general
Simon bar Gioras was executed. This triumph was clearly a compelling sign
of Flavian power and wealth and would have been enormously impressive to
Rome citizenry. It was also an unmistakable warning against sedition and
rebellion. The Palestinian Jews had mistakenly decided to test Roman power
and resolve, and they had paid the price. One cannot underestimate the enor
mity of this event and the impact it had on all living in Rome.
Vespasian, the Second Augustus

To secure his position and his favor among the people, Vespasian did not rely
on propaganda alone. Vespasian was in many ways a pragmatist, and he was
surely aware that the belief in his divine appointment would not last long if
prudent actions did not follow. It seems that Vespasian's primary model for
such prudent actions was Rome's first emperor, Augustus Caesar, whose prin
cipate was in many ways the standard by which all subsequent rulers would
be measured. There was already some basis for comparison between them.
Both came to the principate through military power and victory in a civil war
and both had brought renewed peace and stability to an empire in turmoil.
But through his actions, Vespasian seems purposefully to draw further par
allels between himself and Augustus. Like Augustus, Vespasian played the
role of the reluctant emperor. The official Flavian line was that Vespasian's
42
acceptance of the principate was spontaneous, without prior planning. His
soldiers, of their own accord, had urged him to accept the position, which he
43
humbly accepted. Suetonius tells us that Vespasian was slow in taking up
44
his tribunician power and taking the title, "Father of His Country." And even
42
See Levick, Vespasian, 43; Nicols, Partes Flavianae, 73.
43
Josephus, Wars 4.592-604; Tacitus, Hist. 2.79.
4 4
Vespasian's tribunician powers were reckoned from July 1 of 69, the day his army
166 Chapter 4
though the Flavian party promoted the idea that Vespasian's reign was divinely
appointed, like Augustus, Vespasian did not oversell himself. In Augustan
fashion, through both coinage and imperial inscriptions, Vespasian promoted
the greatness of Rome (e.g., Roman peace [PAX], fortune [FORTVNA], and
45
victory [VICTORIA]) rather than his own persona. Flavian inscriptions also
gave public recognition and honor to both the senate and the Roman people
by using titles that highlighted the inherent divinity of both groups; Genius
46
Senatus and Genius Populi. Vespasian apparently ended the practice of wor
shiping the emperor's genius (a practice apparently instituted by Gaius Cal
47
igula) and removed it from the state cult. Such humility and reluctance to
embrace power (even if feigned) were imperial virtues admired by a Roman
citizenry who ideologically rejected monarchs and tyrants and perceived the
emperor to be first among equals, a standard Augustus established. Through
this humility, Vespasian endeared himself to the people and further secured
his position as emperor.
Like Augustus, Vespasian was a true benefactor to the Roman citizens. He
provided for their physical needs, often using his own finances to do so. As
soon as he had secured power in Rome, he had grain sent to the city where
48
the need was pressing. Only a ten-day supply of grain remained. Upon his
arrival in Rome, he also gave generous monetary gifts to its citizens, 300
49
sestertii. He personally financed the repairs of a desperately needed aque
50
duct that had been out of working order since Nero's reign. He also used his
personal finances for both street repairs and street cleaning, which were also
51
greatly needed. Like Augustus, he devoted funds to building projects that
proclaimed him emperor. It is possible that here Suetonius' testimony speaks of his use of
these powers rather than their official reckoning; see Suetonius, Vesp. 12; cf. Levick, Ves
pasian, 67.
45
See Levick, Vespasian, 70; P. V. Hill, "Buildings and Monuments on Flavian Coins"
NAC 8 (1979): 220; Bersanetti (Vespasiano, 42) notes similarities between Augustan impe
rial inscriptions and those of Vespasian.
4 6
See F. S. Kleiner, "The Arches of Vespasian in Rome," RM91 (1990): 134-36; Levick,
Vespasian, 129.
47
Ittai Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (OCM; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002),
189-90.
48
P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk
and Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 218-27; cf. Levick, Vespasian,
124-25. Levick also notes that the urban plebs made dedications to Vespasian in thanks for
the receipt of grain he gave to them; Vespasian, 124 n. 2; cf. CIL 6, 3747; M. McCrum and A.
G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors Including the
Year of Revolution ad 68-69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 141, n. 468.
In his Res Gestae, Augustus records how he generously provided both grain and money to
Roman plebs (3.15,18).
49
Levick, Vespasian, 125.
50
Levick, Vespasian, 125; McCrum and Woodhead, Documents, 115, no. 408.
51
Levick, Vespasian, 130; McCrum and Woodhead, Documents, 115-16, no. 412; cf.
Graf, Kaiser Vespasian, 135.
Reconstructing Mark s Historical Situation 167
beautified Rome rather than to buildings that exalted his own persona. In this
way, the emperor bettered the entire city instead of promoting his own ego.
He also refurbished areas that had been damaged by the great fire of Nero's
reign, restored sacred temples (most importantly the Capitol), and started the
52
construction of new ones. Suetonius tells us that one of Vespasian's possible
motivations for building the Colosseum was the belief that Augustus himself
53
had aspired to do so.
When he came to power, Vespasian found himself in a unique position.
He was an emperor with a clean slate. With supreme authority and no one
to challenge it, Vespasian could have done what he liked with the principate.
He could have broken with Roman tradition and, following the traditions of
the East, declared himself king. He also could have continued the arrogant
and flamboyant practices of former emperors such as Caligula and Nero by
extravagantly promoting his own persona. Instead, Vespasian chose to follow
Augustus' example, the last Roman to find himself in Vespasian's position. He
adopted a position of reluctance and humility and at least outwardly took his
place as first among equals. He also used his position to benefit the city and
people under his authority. This choice served Vespasian well and endeared
him to the Roman people, who were unlikely to miss the similarities between
the revered Augustus and Vespasian, the second Augustus.
The Impact of Flavian Propaganda on the Church in Rome

The ascension of a new emperor was a major event with ramifications for
every inhabitant of the empire, especially those in Rome. The church in Rome
would not be immune from these ramifications and would certainly take an
interest - though likely a guarded one - in this new ruler. Now we must
consider the impact that Vespasian's rise to power and the propaganda that
accompanied it might have had on the church in Rome.
When Vespasian arrived in Rome after his long stay in Alexandria, the
Roman citizenry received him with great enthusiasm. Festivals were held in
his honor, and prayers and sacrifices were made in request of his enduring
54 55
rule. He was hailed by the people as Savior and Benefactor. He had brought
an end to Rome's civil war and brought the city peace and stability. As we
discussed above, he also had provided food and money when it was desper
ately needed. His great triumph demonstrated not only his might and strength
against the Jews, but also his might and power as world ruler. Regardless
52
See Suetonius, Vesp. 8.5-9.2; cf. Levick, Vespasian, 125-26; cf. R. H. Darwall-Smith,
Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome (Coll. Lat. 231; Brussels: Latomus,
1996).
53
Suetonius, Vesp. 9.1.
54
See Josephus, Wars 7.66-74; see Levick, Vespasian, 86-7.
55
Josephus, Wars, 7.71.
168 Chapter 4
of his ignoble birth and questionable lineage, there was considerable evidence
that his rise to the position of world ruler was providential and the fulfill
ment of divine prophecies and oracles. His actions and accomplishments (e.g.,
military victory, humility, and material blessing) only affirmed the validity
of this evidence.
Certainly the pomp and circumstance surrounding this new emperor would
56
be offensive to Christian sensibilities. Roman esteem for their rulers was in
direct conflict with Christian beliefs. For the church there was but one world
ruler, one savior, and one bringer of peace, Jesus the Christ. But such impe
rial propaganda and public sentiments were not a new reality for the church. It
had lived through the flamboyant imperial cults of Gaius Caligula and Nero,
and in most ways, the honors and recognition given to Vespasian were much
less offensive. However, one aspect of Flavian propaganda was without prec
edent in the reigns of the Julio-Claudians, namely the claim that the Roman
emperor, Vespasian was the fulfillment of prophecies that were perceived by
57
both Jews and the church to point to the Messiah. This piece of propaganda
crossed a new threshold. Previous imperial propaganda was certainly consid
ered blasphemous, but this new claim infringed on the distinct characteristics
of the church. The imperial cult was no longer a blasphemous reality that had
to be tolerated but now, from the church's perspective, had gone on the offen
58
sive and was usurping distinct Christian claims.
We cannot help but ask how Christians may have responded to such an
attack. That Jesus fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecy was certainly a key
59
element of the church's kerygma. The promulgation throughout Rome that
Vespasian - and therefore not Jesus - fulfilled such prophecies struck at the
heart of the church's proclamation and raised questions regarding its legiti
macy. Such questions would likely have been detrimental to evangelistic
efforts and provided useful material for Christian detractors.
We must also consider the possibility that Vespasian's propaganda might
have caused some Roman Christians to consider its validity and second guess
their Christian commitments. Vespasian provided strong evidence that he
had fulfilled the prophecy of Jewish scripture. He had indeed begun his rise
to power while on Jewish soil. He had also provided a convincing display
56
For discussion on Christian attitudes toward the realities surrounding the Roman
Empire and the imperial cult, see S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial
Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 122-26.
57
Certainly there was disagreement between the church and Jews as to which prophecies
were messianic and to whom such messianic prophecies pointed, but it is generally accepted
that both groups accepted the presence of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures.
58
For a similar conclusion, see Craig A. Evans, "The Beginning of the Good News and
the Fulfillment of Scripture in the Gospel of Mark" in Hearing the Old Testament in the New
Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 93.
59
See Mark 1:2-3 and parallels; 12:10 and parallels; Matt 8:17; 12:18-21; Acts 2:25-28,
34-35; Rom 1:2-4; Heb 1:5-14; et al.
of power not only in his defeat of rebellious Jews but also in the defeat of
the mighty legions of Vitellius. There was also ample evidence that his rule
was the result of providence and divine favor, i.e., prophecies and omens that
pointed to his ascension and the supernatural ability to heal. And that he was
presently the unrivaled world ruler could not be ignored. For Gentiles who
regularly esteemed power as well as the people who held it, Vespasian's cre
dentials would certainly be compelling, especially when compared with the
60
Christian alternative, Jesus of Nazareth. He was a man Rome crucified as a
criminal, and though Christians claimed he had risen from the dead and now
61
ruled in heaven, he had no tangible kingdom or visible power. While the
delay of the Parousia was likely not the major crisis in the church that some
interpreters have made it out to be, it seems highly plausible that as that delay
62
continued the patience of some church members wore thin. Vespasian also
provided tangible benefits in the here and now. He provided food and money
to citizens in need, along with peace and stability for the entire city. Jesus,
however, offered no such benefits. In fact, if recent history were any indicator,
terrible suffering awaited anyone who followed Jesus. For Christians whose
disillusionment and doubt grew with each day the Parousia was delayed, a
messianic candidate promising physical blessings in the present instead of
persecution no doubt would garner at least some consideration.
With its legitimacy called into question, its evangelistic efforts obstructed,
and christological doubts possibly growing among its members, the church
faced a significant crisis. It was unlikely to sit idly by while imperial propa
ganda undermined it. A Christian response would be both needed and forth
coming.
6 0
Greco-Roman society held those with power in high esteem and gave them great honor
(e.g., Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, and
Empedocles). We see this pattern of esteeming powerful individuals throughout the New
Testament (e.g., Simon Magus, Barnabas, and Paul).
61
See Martin Hengel's discussion on the cross as an obstacle to Gentile conversion;
Hengel, Crucifixion, 1-10.
62
For seminal interpreters who conclude the delay of the Parousia played a significant
role in the development of early Christianity, see A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the
Apostle (trans. William Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1931), 336-39; M. Werner,
The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical Study of Its Problem (trans. S. G. F.
Brandon; London: A. & C. Black, 1957); et al. For a good critique of these theories, see
David Aune, "The Significance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity," in Cur
rent Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney
Presented by His Former Students (ed. G. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),
87-109. Yet there are a number of texts that seem to indicate at least some degree of frustra
tion over the delay of the Parousia; see 2 Pet 3:1-13; Matt 24:45-51/Luke 12:41-48; James
5:8; / Clem. 25:3; 2 Clem. 11-12.
170 Chapter 4
4.2.2 The Aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and Its Impact on the Church
in Rome
The effects of the Jewish Revolt and the events that it provoked, i.e., the fall of
Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish temple, were far reaching. After
these events, both Judaism and Christianity would never be the same again.
Here we will examine the specific effects these events had on the church in
Rome: (1) the eschatological perspective and (2) the perception of safety.
Eschatological Anxiety?
It is generally recognized that in the first century, one of the church's distinc
tive traits was an eager expectation of the Parousia and the culmination of the
63
eschaton. There was certainly confusion over eschatological realities and
how one ought to live in light of those realities (1 Thess 4:13 - 5:11; 1 Cor
7). There also seems to be an intense interest in - as well as confusion over
- eschatological signs (2 Thess 1:5 - 2:12; Mark 13:5-8, 28-29 and parallels).
We must ask what impact the destruction of Jerusalem would have had upon
Christian communities already laden with heavy concerns about the Parousia
and the signs of its coming. On the basis of Mark 13:6 ("many will come in
my name and say I am he"), some interpreters have suggested that the fall of
Jerusalem brought about apocalyptic prophets who proclaimed that the Par
64
ousia had already taken place. While more recent interpreters have rejected
this interpretation of Mark 13:6, claiming that it more likely points to false
messianic claimants rather than heralds of Christ's return, the notion that
Jerusalem's fall caused a spike in eschatological fervor and confusion should
65
be affirmed. From a mirror reading of Mark, it seems that cataclysmic
events, such as wars, persecutions, famine, and natural disasters, were inter
preted by those in the evangelist's community as signs of the end. Certainly
the fall of the holy city Jerusalem to pagans and the destruction of the temple
- perceived by Jews (and likely some Christians as well) to be the place of
God's unique presence on the earth - would be seen in a similar way. These
events would certainly increase the eschatological excitement and anxiety in
Christian communities. The church in Rome would not be immune to these
anxieties. Wars, persecution, famines, and earthquakes were realities of their
66
recent past and the fall of Jerusalem and its temple were replayed before
6 3
1 Thess4:13-5:11; 2 Thess 1:5-2:12; 1 Cor 7,15; etal. For a discussion of early Chris
tian expectations of an imminent Parousia, see Wilhelm Thusing, "Erhohungsvorstellung
und Parusierwartung in der altesten nachosterlichen Christologie," BZ 12 (1968): 54-80.
6 4
See Kelber, Kingdom in Mark, 115; cf. W. Manson, "The EGO EIMI of the Messianic
Presence in the New Testament" JTS 48 (1947): 137-45, esp. 139-40; Lambrecht, Markus-
Apokalypse, 100; Pesch, Naherwartungen, 108-12; et al.
65
For example, see Evans, Mark, 306; Beasley-Murray, Last Days, 391-94; Morna
Hooker, Mark, 306-7; et al.
6 6
The Jewish Revolt had raged for the last four years, and the empire itself had endured
67
them in the extravagant triumph of Vespasian and Titus. In the days and
months following the temple's destruction, eschatological tension and confu
sion was no doubt high among Roman Christians. Given such a situation, it is
virtually certain that church leaders would be inundated with eschatological
questions. Were these events true indicators of the end? Had the end already
come? What signs must still take place? If the end is coming, what should
we do? How should we live? Such questions would demand pastoral answers
- answers that would maintain order, provide peace of mind, and even prevent
potentially rash and dangerous behavior.
Fear of Persecution? .
We must also consider the Roman Christians' perception of their safety dur
ing the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt. Roman sentiments toward Jews at this
68
time were undoubtedly quite negative. These sentiments did not bode well
for the church, which at this point in time was still regarded by the Romans
69
as a sect within Judaism. We must remember that Jewish messianic hopes
a civil war for the past two years. The Neronian persecution, in which many Christians
were betrayed, tried, and executed, had only occurred in the past decade, 64 C.E. Also in
the past decade, major cities had experienced earthquakes; Laodicea and Achaea in 60 C.E.,
Pompeii in 62 C.E., and Rome itself in 68 C.E. (see Suetonius, Galba, 18.1 and Dio, 63.28.1).
For discussion of these earthquakes, see A. Hermann, "Erdbeben" RAC 5 (1962): 1070-1113,
esp. 1104; Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1985), 23 n. 129; Evans, Mark, 308. As we have already noted, Rome faced a
shortage of food during the civil war and had only ten days of grain left when Flavian forces
finally took control of the city. Similar shortages plagued the city at the end of Nero's reign;
see Suetonius, Nero, 45.1; Dio, 62.18.5; Hengel, Studies, 23 n. 129; E. M. Sanford, "Nero and
the East," HSCP 48 (1937): 81, 84.
67
See the discussion of the triumph above. For discussion on the eschatological crisis in
Rome after the fall of Jerusalem, see Brandon, "Date," 126-41, esp. 130.
68
Anti-Jewish sentiment in the Greco-Roman world was quite common; see Robert Lit-
tman, "Anti-Semitism in the Greco-Roman Pagan World," in Remembering for the Future,
volume 1: Jews and Christians during and after the Holocaust (ed. Yehuda Bauer; Oxford:
Pergamom, 1989), 825-35; John Meagher, "As the Twig Was Bent: Anti-semitism in Greco-
Roman and Earliest Christian Times," in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christian
ity (ed. Alan T. Davies; New York: Paulist, 1979), 1-26, esp. 4-12. Robert Goldenberg,
Review of J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan
and Christian Antiquity, RSR 11 (1985): 335-37. That the Jewish Revolt against Rome would
exacerbate these sentiments is highly probable. The empire-wide minting of coinage that
commemorated the Roman triumph over the Jews and the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus
- a tax which all Jews had to pay for the upkeep of the temple of Jupiter in Rome - only
confirms a rise in such anti-Jewish sentiments among Romans after the Jewish Revolt; see
Tacitus, Hist. 5.2-5.
69
It is true that "Christians" were recognized by the Roman state prior to 70 C.E. They
were of course singled out by Nero and blamed for fires that destroyed a large part of the
city. But this singling out of Christians by the state does not demonstrate that they were at
this point recognized as separate from Judaism. In all likelihood, they were seen as a dis
tinct and possibly troublesome sect within Judaism. In the eyes of the state, the "parting of
172 Chapter 4
had been a major catalyst in the Jewish rebellion. The Messiah that the Jews
had hoped would free them from their Roman oppressors the church believed
had already come, was now ruling in heaven, and would soon return to estab
lish his own kingdom. These beliefs were certainly not sympathetic with
Roman imperial power and, given Rome's most recent encounter with mes-
siah-crazed Jews, could be perceived as seditious and dangerous by Roman
authorities. Certainly the messianic tenets of Christianity were different from
those of Jewish rebels in Palestine and in reality posed a much less signifi
cant risk to Rome. But that Roman authorities would take the time to sort
out the difference could not be counted on. The elevation of a new emperor
who had just experienced firsthand the consequences of unchecked messianic
fanaticism would likely deepen the church's concern. Would Vespasian toler
ate active messianic adherents in the very city in which he was attempting to
restore peace and stability? He had just defeated the Jewish rebels in Palestine
and paraded many of the prisoners in his extravagant triumph. Could such a
terrible fate await Christians who were perceived as seditious? Uncertainty
regarding this new ruler's policies toward the church would likely have added
70
to the church's concerns about its own safety.
We must remember that these events all took place within the shadow of
Nero's persecution. Only five years had past since the church in Rome had
suffered extreme atrocities at Nero's hand, and the memories of these events
were certainly still fresh in their minds. Such past experiences would likely
make them keenly aware of the political climate around them and of any signs
indicating that similar suffering might lie in their future. Certainly the reali
ties in Rome following the end of the Jewish Revolt, i.e., increased anti-Jewish
sentiment, increased sensitivity to messianic movements, and the ascension
of a new ruler who might deal harshly with perceived sedition, would cause
the church to see itself to be in a precarious situation and to fear Roman
aggression.
Admittedly, the unfolding of history proved that the Christians had little
to fear from Vespasian. We are aware of no persecution the church suffered
71
under his reign. In fact, he is well spoken of by later church historians. But
hindsight is always twenty-twenty, and the perception of Vespasian among
later believers does not mitigate the possible fears held by believers at his
ascension. As we have demonstrated here, there were a number of valid
the ways" between Judaism and Christianity likely did not take place until some point after
the Jewish Revolt and perhaps as late as the second century. For various articles on "the
parting of the ways," see James Dunn, ed., Jews and Christians: A. D. 70 to 135 (Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1992).
70
Harold Mattingly and Brian Incigneri come to similar conclusions regarding the
church's situation following the Jewish Revolt; see Mattingly, Christianity in the Roman
Empire (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967), 34 and Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 173-177.
71
See Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3.17.
reasons why the church in Rome might fear for their safety during the rise of
Vespasian and the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt. That their fears turned out
to be unfounded is unrelated to the existence of such fears.
4.2.3 Conclusions concerning Mark's Historical Situation
Here we have examined the impact of two significant realities (Vespasian's
rise to power and the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt) on the church in Rome
circa 70 C.E. with the goal of establishing the historical situation in which
Mark and his readers found themselves. Our examination has provided us
with the following conclusions: (1) Mark's community faced a christological
crisis brought about by Vespasian's propaganda; (2) Mark's community faced
increased eschatological anxieties and excitement brought about by the Jew
ish Revolt and the cataclysmic events in which it culminated; and (3) Mark's
community perceived that its safety was in jeopardy because of increased
anti-Jewish sentiments, Roman distrust of messianic movements, and the rise
of a new ruler whose policies toward the church were as yet unknown. We
propose that these three conclusions describe the historical situation in which
Mark's gospel was composed.
4.3 Comparing a Reconstructed Historical Situation

with Indicators of Mark's Sitz im Leben
After reconstructing a historical setting for Mark's gospel, we will now com
pare it with the indicators of the gospel's Sitz im Leben that we established in
chapter three. We will determine whether there is consistency between the
indicators found in Mark's gospel and our reconstruction of Mark's historical
situation. If consistency exists, our reconstruction is validated, and we can
use it to formulate a theory regarding the purpose of Mark's gospel.
4.3.1 Imperial Cult Intertwined Messianic Hope
In our examination of Mark's incipit, we noted the existence of allusions both
to the messianic hopes that are grounded in Deutero-Isaiah and to the Roman
imperial cult. While some interpreters have championed one of these back
grounds against the other, we argued that both are appropriate, and that they
point to a Sitz im Leben in which both of these realities were intertwined.
Such a Sitz im Leben seems to be an unlikely one in the first century. Jew
ish messianic hopes were hostile to realties like the imperial cult and vice
versa. But as we have demonstrated, such a blending is exactly the setting that
we find in Rome circa 70 C.E. during Vespasian's rise to power. The Roman
emperor, the head of the imperial cult, had infringed on Jewish/Christian
messianic hopes by claiming that he was the fulfillment of Jewish messianic
174 Chapter 4
prophecy. It is certainly striking the way Mark's blending of Jewish messianic

language with imperial cult language parallels the blending of these same two
realities in Vespasian's propaganda. This indicator of Mark's Sitz im Leben is
certainly consistent with our proposed historical situation for Mark and his
readers.
4.3.2 False Prophets and Messianic Claimants
There are also indications in Mark's gospel that his community was facing the
threat of false messianic claimants. In the eschatological discourse of Mark
13, Jesus warns his disciples not to be deceived by false christs and false
prophets (13:21-22). That these warnings are intended to address the present
72
realities facing Mark's community is generally recognized. This threat of
false prophets and messiahs is certainly consistent with the setting in Rome
circa 70 C.E. Given Vespasian's claim to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic
prophecy, the label "false messiah" would certainly be an appropriate one. We
have also noted that Vespasian's rise to power was surrounded by propaganda
claiming he was the fulfillment of prophecy. People such as Josephus and the
priest at Mt. Carmel had in fact prophesied his rise to power. The Flavian
party was promoting these prophecies, and it is likely that the church in Rome
knew of them. Those responsible for promulgating these prophecies could
easily be identified with the false prophets of Mark's eschatological discourse.
Mark's claim that these prophets and messiahs produce convincing signs and
omens only establishes a closer connection between Vespasian and Flavian
propagandists with the false messiahs and prophets of Mark 13. As we have
noted previously, omens that portended Vespasian's identity were numerous
and widely circulated in order to establish his legitimacy. Even more signifi
cantly, Vespasian himself performed supernatural healings that, if Tacitus is
to be believed, were being talked about long after his death. Therefore, it is
quite clear that this indicator of Mark's Sitz im Leben (the threat of false mes
sianic claimants and prophets) is consistent with our proposed historical situ
ation for Mark and his readers.
4.3.3 Christology of Power

We previously argued that Mark's christological presentation is primarily one
of power rather than one of the cross. However, we noted that this fact pro
vides us with only a very general indicator for Mark's Sitz im Leben because
it indicated only a setting in which a Christology of power might be either
needed or wanted by Mark's community. Certainly such a general feature
could be found in a number of different settings in the life of the first-cen
73
tury church. But what is important for our purposes is that this indicator is
72
Marcus, Mark, 78; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 378-82; van Iersel, Mark, 391-93;
et al.
73
For example, Gundry argues that such a Christology serves as an apology for the cross
to non-believing Gentiles; Gundry, Apology, esp. 1-21.
consistent with our proposed historical setting. We argued that due to Vespa
sian's convincing credentials, i.e., his military power, prophecies and portents
predicting/validating his reign, supernatural healings, and his current posi
tion as ruler of the world, some members of the church might question their
Christian commitments. This situation would demand a compelling Christian
response demonstrating that Jesus' credentials were more compelling than
Vespasian's, i.e., it would demand a compelling Christology of power. Again
there is consistency between this indicator of Mark's Sitz im Leben and our
proposed historical setting.
4.3.4 Persecuted Community

In our examination of Mark's presentation of discipleship we noted many fea
tures indicating a context of persecution and suffering for Mark's community.
Mark's Jesus tells the crowds and his disciples, "If any want to become my
followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me"
(8:34). In the eschatological discourse, Jesus foretells future suffering: "As for
yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be
beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because
of me, as a testimony to them" (13:9). It is only "the one who endures to the
end" (13:13) who will be saved. These and many other passages indicate that
Mark's community was either currently suffering or anticipated suffering in
74
the near future. Such a climate of suffering is consistent with the historical
situation of the church in Rome circa 70 C.E. Not only was suffering a real
ity of the church's recent past, but the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and the
rise of a new emperor again placed the church in a precarious position, one
in which their physical safety was a legitimate concern. Following the Jewish
Revolt, anti-Jewish sentiments were likely at an all time high in Rome - sen
timents that were also likely fueled by Vespasian's extravagant triumph cel
ebrating the event. Because the church was still officially under the umbrella
of Judaism, such sentiments were likely directed at them as well. The church
was also a thoroughly messianic movement living in the wake of a rebellion
fueled to a large degree by messianic fervor. In the eyes of the Roman state,
such a movement could easily be labeled as seditious, and its members could
be justifiably punished. A new Roman emperor only further increased the
74
See H. R. Graham, "A Markan Theme: Endurance in Time of Persecution," TBT 23
(1985): 297-304; idem, "A Passion Prediction for Mark's Community: Mark 13:9-13," BTB
16 (1986): 18-22; P. S. Pudussery, Discipleship: A Call to Suffering and Glory: An Exe-
getico-Theological Study of Mark 8,27-9,1; 13,9-13 and 13:24-27 (Rome: Libreria "Alma
Mater," 1987), 141-97; J. Verheyden, "Persecution and Eschatology. Mk 13,9-13," in The
Four Gospels 1992 (F. van Segbroek ed.; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992),
1141-59; Moloney, Mark, 256-58; Hooker, St. Mark, 309-13; Marcus, Mark, 28-29; Dona
hue and Harrington, Mark, 32-4; et al.
176 Chapter 4
uncertainty surrounding the church's safety. Given the manner in which he

had dealt with messianic extremists in Palestine, there was certainly reason
for a messianic movement in Rome to fear for its safety. In light of these reali
ties, there is reason to believe that a church that had suffered past persecution
would perceive the real possibility of immediate future suffering. Therefore,
the indicators in Mark's gospel that he is writing to a community facing the
threat of physical persecution are consistent with our proposed historical
setting.
4.3.5 Wavering Disciples
Mark's presentation of discipleship also indicates that there were disciples
within Mark's community who were wavering in their faith in Jesus. Mark
places a heavy emphasis on disciples needing both to recognize Jesus' true
identity and, based on that recognition, to exercise faith in him (4:35-41; 6:45-
52; 8:14-20, 27-38; 10:46-52). Such an emphasis indicates that members in
Mark's community needed to hear this message because of their deficiency in
75
these areas. The problem of disciples wavering in their faith commitments
and failing to recognize Jesus' true identity is consistent with the problems
facing the church in Rome circa 70 C.E. We have noted that some members
of the church in Rome likely found compelling Vespasian's claims to fulfill
messianic prophecy. As a result, these members may have considered aban
doning their faith commitments to Jesus and rejecting him as God's Messiah.
The Markan features that indicate that the evangelist is writing to wavering
disciples again are consistent with our proposed historical setting.
4.3.6 Eschatological Confusion

Mark's eschatological instruction indicates that eschatological confusion
existed in his community. In Mark's eschatological discourse, Jesus begins
by describing "birth pangs" that will precede the end but is careful to com
municate that these are not signs of the imminent end. The end will not come
until the "abomination of desolation," an unmistakable sign, appears. This
instruction from Jesus is certainly meant for Mark's community, and we can
assume that it indicates their confusion over eschatological signs as well as
a need for correction and clarification. Such eschatological confusion is con
sistent with the historical situation of the church in Rome circa 70 C.E. As we
previously argued, the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt (and the cataclysmic
events in which it culminated) would have been interpreted by many as signs
of the imminent Parousia. As a result, eschatological fervor and confusion
would have been greatly heightened, and questions regarding eschatological
signs would demand pastoral answers. Clearly this eschatological confusion
75
Cf. Marcus, Mark, 78.
in the church in Rome is consistent with indicators of eschatological confu
sion in Mark's gospel.
4.3.7 Summarizing Comparisons
After comparing the Markan indicators of the gospel's Sitz im Leben with our
own reconstruction of the evangelist's historical situation, we find that there
is remarkable consistency. While some of these indicators could certainly
find parallels in alternative settings, there are very few settings that could
accommodate all six of these indicators. Some of these indicators of Mark's
Sitz im Leben seem to find unique parallels in the church in Rome circa 70
C.E., in particular the intertwining of Jewish messianic hope and the Roman
imperial cult. Likewise, the threat of false messiahs and false prophets, who
provide convincing signs and wonders, distinctly parallels the threat that Fla
vian propaganda posed to the church. In light of this consistency between the
realities of Mark's gospel and our reconstruction of the historical situation
facing the church in Rome circa 70 C.E., we will maintain this setting in our
continued efforts to determine the purpose of Mark's gospel.
Chapter 5
Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of

Mark's Historical Situation
5.1 Introduction
Up to this point, we have characterized the major features of Mark's gospel

and sought to provide a plausible historical setting for its author and read
ers. In this chapter, we will combine the results of these studies in order to
posit a theory regarding the gospel's ultimate purpose. We will examine each
major Markan feature individually, i.e., the incipit, Christology, presentation
of discipleship, and eschatology, in order to determine how that feature might
address the historical situation of the evangelist's community. The results of
each individual examination should provide us with an understanding of each
feature's purpose. An understanding of the gospel's ultimate purpose should
emerge through combining the results of these examinations.
5.2 Reading Mark's Incipit in Light of Mark's Historical Situation
The new Roman emperor Vespasian created a christological crisis for Mark's
community. Along with his claims to be the divinely appointed ruler of the
world, he claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy - proph
ecy that the church believed had been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. The
emperor's claims call into question the legitimacy of the church's faith. If
Vespasian truly is the fulfillment of Jewish messianic hopes, then Jesus is
not. Such claims would likely hinder the church's evangelistic efforts but even
more importantly would likely cause church members to question their faith
commitments. As we argued above, Vespasian's claims and credentials would
1
have been quite compelling.
1
Here we must note that Craig A. Evans also reads Mark's gospel against the background
of Flavian propaganda. Therefore, some of the conclusion found in this chapter parallel
those of Evans. It should be noted that these parallel conclusions arose independently of
each other, and that Evans' essay was published only a month before this project was sub-
Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 179
It is against this backdrop that we read Mark's incipit. In his incipit, Mark
claims that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God and that his text
is the beginning of this euayyeXiov or "good news" of the Messiah. In our
previous discussion of the incipit, we argued that it contains allusions, to both
messianic hopes (particularly rooted in Deutero-Isaiah) and the Roman impe
rial cult. In Deutero-Isaiah the euayye\i£6|jevog or "the one who proclaims
good news" is the one who announces God's victory over his enemies and
the beginning of God's rule over Israel. Through this allusion, Mark's incipit
connects the one who proclaims the good news of God's reign with Jesus the
Messiah. In the Greco-Roman world, the "beginning of the good news" was
language used in association with an emperor's birth or his rise to power, but
in Mark's incipit, it is used in association with Jesus' identity as Messiah and
2
Son of God.
When read in light of the christological crisis facing Mark's community, a
purpose of Mark's incipit becomes clear. The incipit can be read as a bold and
carefully crafted response to the claims of Flavian propaganda. By proclaim
ing Jesus to be the Messiah, Mark's incipit clearly rejects the Flavian claim
that Vespasian fulfilled messianic prophecy. The allusion to Deutero-Isaiah
and the "one who proclaims good news" would, for the observant reader, rein
force the church's belief that Jesus - and not the current emperor - was the
fulfillment of Jewish scriptures. The prophecies in verses 2-3 would aid in
accomplishing this same goal. However, the allusion to the imperial cult would
be even more striking to Roman readers. Mark's use of imperial language to
describe Jesus would appear as a challenge to Roman imperial power. Mark is
placing Jesus in the context that one would expect to find the Roman emperor
and is, in essence, claiming the superiority of Jesus' identity and reign to
3
the emperor's. The incipit, therefore, is not only defensive - claiming Jesus
and not Vespasian as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy - but also
offensive - claiming Jesus' superiority to the Roman emperor.
Given our reconstructed historical situation, the meaning of Mark's incipit
would have been clear to Mark's readers. Jesus is God's Messiah and the ful
fillment of Jewish messianic prophecy. He is also superior to the one who is
trying to usurp his identity, the new emperor Vespasian. From this incipit, the
reader would likely expect the rest of the gospel to substantiate these claims
and to address the christological crisis that these claims had created.
mitted as a dissertation. However, for the reader's sake, these parallel conclusions will be
duely noted. See Evans, "Fulfillment of Scripture," 83-103.
2
See discussion in chapter three pages 92-99 on Mark's incipit; cf. Myers, Binding the
Strong Man, 122; Evans, "Mark's Incipit," 67-81; idem, "Fulfillment of Scripture," 83-103;
Witherington, Mark, 67-70; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary, esp. 169.
3
See Peter Bolt, Jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), 45; Evans, "Incipit," 67-81; idem, "Fulfillment of Scrip
ture," 87.
180 Chapter 5
5.3 Reading Mark's Christology in Light of

Mark's Historical Setting
If Mark's objective is to present Jesus as God's Messiah who is superior to the

Roman emperor, Christology will be his primary means of accomplishing it.
As we argued in the previous chapter, Vespasian's claim that he fulfilled Jew
ish messianic prophecy was supported by the emperor's impressive resume:
(1) he was the unchallenged ruler of the Roman world; (2) he had demon
strated remarkable military power and currently commanded all of Rome's
mighty legions; (3) portents, prophecies, and oracles indicated his divine right
to rule; (4) by this divine right he was able to perform miraculous healings;
(5) through generous gifts to the people of Rome, he presented himself as an
ideal benefactor; (6) he had restored peace and order to the empire; and (7)
despite his great accomplishments and power he exhibited Augustan humility
and imperial virtue that impressed Roman sensibilities. Against this resume,
we will examine the various aspects of Mark's Christology and demonstrate
how they might function as a resume countering Vespasian's.
5 . 5 . 7 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Identity

As we sought to establish previously, the three major titles Mark uses to iden
tify Jesus are Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man. We noted that all three
titles unite around the common theme of kingship. The Jewish Messiah was
commonly conceptualized as God's king who would rule over Israel. That
Mark shares such a messianic conception is evidenced by his use of Son of
God. In both Mark 1:11 and 9:2, the evangelist makes it clear that he under
stands Jesus' identity as God's son in terms of Psalm 2:7, a royal coronation
4
psalm for the king of Israel. The Markan Jesus is therefore God's messianic
son who will rule over Israel on God's behalf. Jesus' identity as king is also
confirmed by Mark's use of "Son of Man." Mark clearly understands this
"title" in light of Daniel 7:13 (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62), and he has identi
fied Jesus as the "one like a son of man" upon whom God confers dominion
5
and kingship.
Mark does not simply see Jesus as a local king, however. Rather, he sees
him as the king over the entire world. While the Jewish Messiah was com
monly understood as the king of Israel, it was also commonly believed that he
6
would subdue the kings of the world and rule over them. While Mark's use of
4
See Evans, Mark, 38; Marcus, Mark, 162,165-66; Gundry, Apology, 49; Collins, "Mark
and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews," HTR 92:4 (1999): 394-95; et al.
5
See our previous discussion in chapter three pages 102-107. Also see Achtemeier,
"Mark," 4.552-53; Collins, "The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament," in Daniel (ed.
John J. Collins; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 90-112.
6
Psalm 2:7-8; Hag 2:21-24; Zech 9:9-10; and Dan 7:13-14 are all texts that reflect the
belief that God would establish a representative (whether heavenly or human) who would
the title "Son of God" clearly has its origins in Jewish messianic thought, the
7
title would have had broader implications for Mark's Roman readers. As we
noted in chapter three, "Son of God" was a title commonly adopted by world
8
rulers, especially the Roman emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Given
the situation of Mark's community and the close association between Roman
emperors and the title/concept "Son of God," Mark's readers cannot help but
see the parallel that the evangelist has created between Jesus as "Son of God"
and the emperor as "Son of God." With the title "Son of God," Mark, in the
eyes of his Roman readers, places Jesus in the same category as the great
world rulers both past and present, including Roman emperors. "Son of Man"
also implies a world ruler and not a local one. In Daniel 7:13-14, the king
ship given by God to the "one like a son of man" encompasses "all peoples,
nations, and languages." Mark, therefore, identifies Jesus not only as the Jew
9
ish Messiah but as a world ruler.
The identity of Jesus in Mark directly opposes both Vespasian's propa-
gandistic claims and his imperial identity. Mark presents Jesus as Messiah,
rejecting the Flavian propaganda that Vespasian was the fulfillment of Jew
ish messianic prophecy. But he goes a step further by presenting Jesus as the
ruler of the world and, in doing so, usurps Vespasian's claim to that position.
Jesus' christological identity in Mark is therefore consistent with the message
of Mark's incipit, and it continues Mark's resistance to Flavian propaganda.
He boldly proclaims to his readers that Jesus is God's Messiah and the true
ruler of the world. However, some members of Mark's community may have
doubted these christological claims. Mark would need to offer further sub
stantiation to convince such wavering members.
One way Mark substantiates Jesus' identity is through divine confirmation.
Mark presents two stories in which a divine voice confirms that Jesus is God's
son (1:11; 9:7). As we have noted previously, the language of these accounts
echoes Psalm 2, a royal coronation Psalm, and identifies Jesus as God's king
and Messiah. But while this Jewish context was likely the primary influence
in the development and original meaning of these traditions, these stories
take on additional significance for Mark's Roman readers. Divine appoint
ment was an important element in Flavian propaganda. Vespasian's rise to
the principate had essentially been promised by the oracle on Mt. Carmel.
The legitimacy of his rule was confirmed by a vision in the temple of Serapis.
rule the entire world. We know that the church read these passages messianically, and it is
likely that other first-century Jews did so as well. Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 49:11; T. Jud. 24:1-6; and 2
Bar. 72 all affirm the belief that the Messiah will subdue the nations and rule over them.
7
See our previous discussion on Son of God in chapter three pages 100-102. See Collins,
"The Son of God among Greeks and Romans," 85-100; Kim, "Anarthrous," 221-41; Evans,
Mark, lxxxi-lxxxiv.
8
See Kim, "Anarthrous," 221-41; Evans, Mark, lxxxii-lxxxiv.
9
See Achtemeier, "Mark," 553.
182 Chapter 5
Mark's accounts of Jesus' divine confirmation could be read as a response to

such propaganda. While oracles and visions pointed to Vespasian's rise to the
principate, Jesus had direct divine confirmation of his identity. Such divine
confirmation clearly trumps Vespasian's experience and furthers Mark's claim
that Jesus is God's Messiah and the true world ruler.
Excursus: Mark's use of "Son of God" in light of a polemic
against Vespasian
We have recognized that "Son of God" seems to be the evangelist's favorite
10
christological identity for Jesus. It occurs at a number of significant points
and on the lips of significant witnesses throughout the gospel. The gospel
opens with this title in its incipit (1:1). At two significant points, Jesus' bap
tism (1:11) and his transfiguration (9:7), God himself identifies Jesus as his
son. Demons, which presumably have supernatural knowledge, also recog
nize Jesus as God's son (3:11; 5:7). When asked by the high priest if he was the
"son of the blessed," Jesus answers affirmatively (though perhaps evasively
[14:62]). Finally, at the culmination of Jesus' crucifixion, he is proclaimed
"Son of God" by a Roman centurion (15:39). But what is the importance of
this title, and how does it serve to combat the christological crisis facing
Mark's community? We already recognized that to a Greco-Roman reader
identifying Jesus as "Son of God" would have placed him in the company of
the great rulers of the world, including Roman emperors. But is the extent of
the title's purpose to communicate that Jesus is a rival to the current world
ruler? Here we suggest that Mark's use of the title is more skillful and precise
in its response to his community's crisis and to the emperor that created it.
As we noted previously, one of the liabilties in Vespasian's resume was his
ignoble ancestry. His paternal line was of plebian origin at best, with some
11
suggesting his family came from Gaul. Unlike the prestigious Julio-Clau-
dian dynasty, Vespasian could lay no claim to divinity in his family bloodline.
It is not surprising then that title "Son of God" does not appear in Vespa
12
sian's titles. It was not a claim which he could make. Mark's presentation
of Jesus' divine sonship and the prominent place he gives to the title "Son
of God" might be read as an attempt by the evangelist to exploit a weakness
in Vespasian's imperial resume; namely, his inability to provide a divine lin
eage. Such divine lineage was a valuable trait and one commonly attributed to
ancient rulers. Alexander the Great was identified as "son of Ammon" ("son
10
See our discussion on Son of God in chapter three pages 100-102.
11
Cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 1.4; See Levick, Vespasian, 6.
12
In fact, Vespasian rejected fabricated claims that linked him with the god Hercules;
Suetonius, Vesp. 12.1.
Reading Marks Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 183
13
of Zeus" in Greek), and the Julii family claimed to be descendants of Venus.
Though Vespasian could promote his reign as the result of divine appoint
ment and claim to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, he lacked
the proper pedigree. However, Mark demonstrates to his Roman readers that
Jesus does not. On two separate occasions, God himself declared Jesus to be
his son. In addition, supernatural powers (3:11; 5:7) and a Roman centurion
(15:39) recognized this identity. By emphasizing Jesus' divine sonship, Mark
strengthens Jesus' legitimacy (as well as the church's legitimacy) while draw
ing attention to realities that weaken Vespasian's legitimacy. Therefore, we
conclude that the title "Son of God" and the concept of divine sonship are
14
tools the evangelist used in his polemic against Vespasian.
5.3.2 Jesus' Impressive Resume: Christological Presentation

In our previous discussion of Mark's christological presentation, we argued
for a Christology of power over a Christology of the cross. Such a presenta
tion makes sense in light of the christological crisis facing Mark's community.
Members of Mark's community questioned the legitimacy of Jesus' identity
and were compelled by the credentials of the powerful emperor Vespasian. To
sway his readers and reestablish Jesus' legitimacy, a powerful presentation of
Jesus would be needed. Mark must demonstrate that Jesus' resume surpasses
Vespasian's, and that it substantiates Jesus' identity as God's Messiah and
world ruler. Here we will examine the components of Mark's christological
presentation and illustrate the way in which they accomplished these Markan
objectives.
Powerful Exorcist
One of Jesus' most remarkable powers is his power over supernatural forces,
i.e., demons. Remarkably, Jesus is able to exorcise demons by audible com
mand alone and does not need the aid of formulas and incantations, nor does
he need to call on higher powers. Such power over the supernatural realm
would have been highly impressive to Mark's Roman audience. It is also
a power that Vespasian lacked. Mark makes it clear to his readers that the
emperor's power is limited to the earthly sphere, but Jesus' power extends
into the supernatural sphere.
13
See Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (London: Allan Lane, 1973), 200-212; J. R.
Hamilton, Alexander the Great (London: Hutchinson, 1973), 75-77; Collins, "Greeks and
Romans," 87.
14
We certainly acknowledge that the "Son of God" traditions in Mark have Jewish ori
gins, and for the evangelist, they have not lost their messianic flavor. But here we argue that
Mark also uses these traditions and the implications they would have for a Greco-Roman
audience to advance his polemic against Flavian propaganda. We have already noted Col
lins, "Greeks and Romans," 85-100; Kim, "Anarthrous," 221-42; and Evans, Mark, lxxxi-
lxxxiv who all note the significance of the title "son of God" in the Greco-Roman world.
184 Chapter 5
Of particular interest, is Mark's encounter with the Gerasene demoniac.

Many scholars have discussed the significance of the demon's name, "Legion."
Some interpreters have argued that Mark used the name purposefully to allude
to Roman imperial power, a power which certainly depended on its many
15
legions. In light of a Markan polemic against Vespasian, such a political
interpretation takes on new significance, as an obvious parallel between Jesus
and Vespasian surfaces. One of Vespasian's great strengths was his military
prowess and power. All the might of the Roman legions was under his con
trol, available to do his bidding. In this pericope, Mark presents Jesus as the
commander of legions, but legions of demons rather than of Roman soldiers.
While Vespasian commands the armies of the physical realm, Jesus has the
power to command more powerful armies, those of the supernatural realm.
Mark's presentation of Jesus as an exorcist shows that the sphere of Jesus'
power is greater than Vespasian's. The emperor's power is limited to the natu
ral world, while Jesus' power extends to the supernatural world. In one par
ticular exorcism story - the healing of the Gerasene demoniac - we see a
unique detail that seems tailor-made for a Markan polemic against Vespasian.
This pericope could be read as a Markan response to Vespasian's awesome
military might, one of the more compelling features of the new emperor's
resume. Because Jesus' resume clearly lacks such military prestige, Mark
cleverly takes Jesus' power as an exorcist and portrays it through a military
motif. Unlike Vespasian, Jesus never commanded military legions, but even
more impressively, he did command legions of powerful demons.
Powerful Healer
Another component in Mark's Christology of power is Jesus' remarkable
power to heal. There are in fact more healing pericopes than any other type
of pericope in Mark's gospel. As we noted earlier, the Markan Jesus heals a
variety of maladies; blindness, deafness, skin disease, paralysis, and deformi
ties. He even reverses death. Mark's presentation of Jesus as a healer can also
be seen as a polemic against Vespasian. We noted previously that Vespasian,
unlike any other first-century emperor, was credited with the healing of two
men, one who was blind and another who had a deformed hand. These events
were a significant piece of Flavian propaganda and, according to Tacitus,
16
were spoken of long after Vespasian's death. Mark's strong emphasis on
Jesus' power as a healer trumps this piece of Flavian propaganda. It would be
15
During the first century, a Roman legion consisted of between 5000 and 6000 sol
diers, the majority of which were infantry. R. Guelich claims 6000 (Mark, 281), while Joel
Marcus claims 5000 (Mark, 344-45); cf. David Kennedy ("Roman Army," ABD 5.789-90)
who notes both possibilities. For interpreters who argue that Mark is intentionally alluding
to Roman military power, see Horsley, The Politics of Plot, 140-41; Myers, Strong Man,
190-92; Marcus, Mark, 251-52; Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 314.
16
Tacitus, Hist. 4.81.
quite clear to Mark's readers that Vespasian's powers as a healer pale in com
parison to Jesus'. Interestingly, two of Mark's healing pericopes parallel the
exact healings Vespasian performed. In Mark 3:1-6, Jesus heals a man with
a withered hand. Unlike Vespasian, Jesus does not touch the hand but heals it
with his words alone. If a parallel to Vespasian's miracle is intended, Jesus'
manner of healing might be viewed as superior to Vespasian's.
Mark also records two stories in which Jesus heals a blind man. The first
story has remarkable similarity to the accounts of Vespasian's healings.
In Mark 8:22-26, Jesus, like Vespasian, heals a blind man by placing his
own saliva on the man's eyes. Many interpreters have noted the similarities
between these two healing accounts, but none has argued for a substantial
17
relationship between them. Most interpreters use the Vespasian account
as evidence that spittle/saliva was commonly regarded as a healing agent in
the ancient world, locating Jesus' actions in the world of ancient medicine.
But if our reconstructed historical setting is correct, and Mark is respond
ing to a christological crisis created by Flavian propaganda - propaganda
that includes these healings - a more substantial relationship between these
two accounts seems probable. Mark's readers would certainly have seen the
similarity between this Markan account and the recent reports of Vespasian's
healings. The temporal proximity of Mark's composition and Vespasian's
healings makes it highly plausible that the evangelist purposefully created
a parallel with this Flavian propaganda. By including miracles stories that
parallel the actions of the emperor (3:1-6; 8:22-26), Mark is able to highlight
the polemical purpose of all his healing pericopes. He not only demonstrates
for his readers that Jesus had already performed these remarkable healings
performed by Vespasian, but also that Jesus performed even more miracles,
many of which surpassed those of the emperor. Mark's presentation of Jesus
18
as a healer, therefore, undermines Vespasian's resume and bolsters Jesus'.
Power over Nature

Jesus' power over nature is another significant component in Mark's Christol
ogy of power. The Markan Jesus is able to calm both winds and waves with
audible commands and to walk on water. The ancient world had a fear of great
lakes and seas. The belief in great sea monsters and temperamental sea gods
along with the reality of villainous pirates and frequent shipwrecks nurtured
and justified such a fear. Jesus' power to subdue this treacherous and cha
otic environment would have greatly impressed Mark's Roman audience. It
17
See Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:418, nn. 9-12; Guelich, Mark, 395, 435; Bolt, Per
suading, 215; Hooker, Mark, 198-99; Witherington, Mark, 239. Recently, Brian Incigneri
has suggested a more substantial relationship between these Markan miracles and those of
Vespasian - namely that these Markan miracles could function to counter Flavian propa
ganda; see Incigneri, Setting and Rhetoric, 170-71.
18
Evans also notes these parallels as well; see "Fulfillment of Scripture," 95.
186 Chapter 5
would also have served Mark well in a polemic against Vespasian. The motif
of calming and controlling the seas was commonly associated with ancient
rulers. Emperor Augustus personally claimed that he made the sea peaceful
by ridding it of pirates (Res Gestae, 4.25). Echoing this achievement, Philo
writes, "This is the Caesar [Augustus] who calmed the torrential storms on
every side . . . This is he who cleared the sea of pirate ships and filled it with
merchant vessels" (Philo, Embassy, 145-46 [Colson, LCL]). Augustus' acts
are not supernatural (though they are metaphorically compared to lulling of
storms), but by ridding the sea of pirates he is credited with bringing peace to
19
the seas. A closer parallel to Jesus' supernatural acts comes from a descrip
tion of Antiochus IV: "Thus he who only a little while before had thought in
his superhuman arrogance that he could command the waves of the sea . . .
was brought down to earth . . . " (2 Mac 9.8). Here there appears to be a tradi
tion that Antiochus IV believed himself to have the power to control the sea.
It is in light of these types of motifs, with which Mark's Roman readers were
presumably familiar, that we can adduce a polemical reading of Jesus' power
20
over the sea. By presenting Jesus with this power, Mark places him along
side other great rulers who were associated with controlling and calming the
seas. But unlike previous rulers, Jesus' power over the sea is not metaphorical
or hyperbolic flattery, rather it is literal and twice evidenced through power
21
ful demonstrations. Clearly this power over nature is a credential greater
than any Vespasian held. It was also further evidence to Mark's readers of
22
Jesus' superiority and his true identity as world ruler.
Powerful Prophet
Another component of Mark's Christology of power is Jesus' prophetic abil
ity. A number of Jesus' prophecies find their fulfillment in Mark's gospel,
i.e., his betrayal by Judas (14:17-21), Peter's denial and the specific circum-
19
For further discussion on the motif of "peaceful seas" in Augustan language, see Bolt,
Persuading, 12-34.
20
Both Bolt (Persuading, 134-35) and Wendy Cotter (Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiq
uity: A Sourcebook for the Study of the New Testament Miracle Stories [London: Routledge,
1999], 131-48) conclude that Mark's readers would be familiar with such sea motifs and
would no doubt read Mark's sea narratives in light of them.
21
Bolt makes this same point; Persuading, 134.
22
Here we must offer a brief caveat. Up to this point we have argued that a number of
Markan motifs, his presentation of Jesus as an exorcist, healer, and one who holds power
over nature, function as polemics against the imperial cult. We are not arguing that these
traditions were created to serve such a purpose but that the evangelist has used them for
such a purpose. Our concern is the way in which Mark's readers would hear such motifs
and how those motifs would inform the current crisis Mark's community was facing. For
similar discussion on the way in which Markan imagery, language, and motifs would func
tion for Mark's Greco-Roman readers, see Collins, "Greeks and Romans," 85-100; Bolt,
Persuading.
stances surrounding it, the abandonment of his disciples, and his own death.
These prophecies emphasized to Mark's readers Jesus' prophetic power. Jesus
confirmed this power by predicting the temple's destruction, an event which
occurred long after Jesus' death and one which Mark's readers had only
recently witnessed. Such a body of prophetic work would have been impres
sive to Mark's readers. Romans gave great respect and deference to people or
powers that could foretell future events. People commonly consulted oracles,
23
astrologers, or priests to gain insights into their futures. One who could
provide such information with accuracy was highly esteemed and recognized
24
to have divine power. Vespasian himself, though he banned all astrologers
25
from Rome, kept one for his own personal purposes.
It is interesting to note that while Vespasian was forced to consult ora
cles and astrologers regarding his future, Jesus had no need for these things.
Through his prophetic power, he saw his future clearly. Whether Mark
intended such a contrast is questionable, but it is certainly one that a care
ful Roman reader could have ascertained. Yet regardless of whether such a
contrast was intended, Jesus' power as a prophet is a power Vespasian clearly
lacked. Therefore, this Markan motif further established Jesus' superiority
over the new emperor.
While the body of Jesus' prophetic work further demonstrates Jesus'
superiority over Vespasian, we must also consider the way in which specific
prophecies might address the crisis facing Mark's community. The prophecy
of the temple's destruction is of particular interest. We noted above that this
prophecy would have impressed Mark's readers in whose recent past it had
been fulfilled and likely served to confirm Jesus' prophetic power. But it may
also have a specific function in Mark's polemic against Vespasian. We must
remember that it was Vespasian who was ultimately responsible for the tem
ple's destruction (though it was physically overseen by his son Titus) and who,
along with his son, received credit for it. Vespasian's victory over the Jews,
which culminated in the temple's destruction, was a significant element of his
compelling resume. It was the great Flavian power, as depicted in Vespasian's
triumphal procession, that subdued the Jewish people, conquered the holy city
Jerusalem, and destroyed its holy temple. But Jesus' prophecy of the temple's
destruction undermines this Flavian power and places it under the dominion
23
On oracles in the Greco-Roman world, see R. Parker, "Oracles," OCD, 1071-72; H.
W. Parke, Greek Oracles (London: Hutchinson, 1967). On astrology in the Greco-Roman
world, see Roger Beck, "Astrology," OCD, 195; F. Cumont, Astrology and Religion among
the Greeks and Romans (London: Putnam, 1912); P. I. H. Naylor, Astrology: An Histori
cal Investigation (London: Robert Maxwell, 1967), 33-38; T. S. Barton, Ancient Astrology
(London: Rutledge, 1994). Also see David Potter, Prophets and Emperors (Cambridge: Har
vard University Press, 1994).
24
25
See Tacitus, Hist. 2.78.1; to "Dio, 65 (66).9.2; Levick, Vespasian, 69-70.
188 Chapter 5
of God's Messiah. Vespasian becomes merely an instrument used for enacting

Jesus' prophecy. Ironically Vespasian's great accomplishment only further
demonstrates Jesus' power and actually places Vespasian's accomplishments
under that power.
Another important prophecy we must consider is Jesus' prophecy that he
would return from heaven, presumably to judge and rule the world (Mark
26
13:26). This is the only prophecy in Mark's gospel that remains unfulfilled
for Mark's readers, and its validity is essential to Mark's polemic. A great
weakness in Jesus' resume is his physical absence and the delay in his prom
ised return. Presumably, a world ruler who is physically present is easier to
accept than one who is absent. But Mark's presentation of Jesus as a success
ful prophet calls his readers to be patient. Jesus has clearly proven himself
to be a trustworthy prophet, and like all the other events that he prophesied,
his return would come. Jesus' track record as a prophet reinforces for Mark's
community that Jesus would return and warns those who were wavering in
their faith to be patient.
Powerful Benefactor
One of the most important virtues of a Roman emperor was his love for his
27
people. This love was demonstrated through the bestowing of gifts and the
provision of their physical needs. As we noted above, Vespasian demonstrated
this virtue, and it was one of the factors that endeared him to Rome's citizens.
His provision of grain and money established him as a true benefactor of the
city and affirmed him as a worthy and noble emperor. Here we will argue
that the evangelist responds to this Flavian strength and advances his polemic
against Vespasian by presenting Jesus as a superior benefactor.
Two pericopes that can be read against the backdrop of imperial bene
faction are the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand (Mark
6:30-44; 8:1-10). While interpreters have read these pericopes against a vari
ety of backgrounds, (e.g., heavenly manna, the Eucharist, and Elisha motifs),
few have recognized their clear depiction of Jesus as an ideal benefactor.
In both pericopes, Jesus is able to provide food to people who are in need
of it and in doing so models the virtue of imperial benefaction. Mark even
highlights Jesus' motivation for providing food, namely his compassion for
the people's situation (8:2). Interestingly, a ruler's compassion for his people
26
That Mark foresees Jesus' glorious return from heaven seems undeniable. That this
return will bring with it the consummation of the kingdom of God, a kingdom in which
Jesus, "the Son of Man" will rule, seems to be a certain Markan expectation. See Evans,
Mark, 330. France's argument that Mark 13:26 refers to Jesus' ascension to heaven at Jeru
salem's fall is unconvincing; Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1971), 227-39;
idem, Mark, 530-37. See Gundry's critique, Apology, 784.
27
See Charlesworth, "Virtues of a Roman Emperor, "105-33, esp. 111-12; Stevenson,
"Ideal Benefactor," 421-36.
28
is the proper motivation for his role as benefactor. In light of their current
situation, Mark's Roman readers could certainly have perceived a parallel
between the benefaction of Jesus and that of Vespasian, i.e., both are able
to provide food in a time of need. However, Jesus' ability as benefactor is
clearly superior. This superiority is demonstrated through the miraculous
nature of Jesus' benefaction. Not only was he able to satisfy everyone with a
scant amount of food, but after doing so, an abundance of food still remained.
While Vespasian could secure Egyptian grain for Roman citizens, i.e., take
from abundance to address scarcity, Jesus could multiply grain from virtu
ally nothing, i.e., take from scarcity and provide an abundance. These feeding
narratives, therefore, present Jesus, whom Mark is presenting as God's Mes
siah and the true world ruler, as a compassionate and powerful benefactor,
29
one superior to Vespasian.
While the feeding narratives demonstrate Jesus to be a physical benefac
tor, there is a strong Markan motif that presents Jesus as a spiritual benefactor
as well. Mark presents Jesus' death as a voluntary act performed for the ben
efit of humanity, i.e., the subjects of the true ruler of the world. The Markan
Jesus tells his disciples that he "gives his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).
This sentiment is reiterated at the last supper where Jesus tells his disciples
"This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many" (14:24).
Again, Jesus' death is for the benefit of many. But here an allusion to atone
ment seems clear. A reference to the pouring out of blood in the context of the
30
Passover meal is certainly related to the concept of atonement. Therefore,
Mark is presenting Jesus' death as an act providing atonement and forgive
ness for humanity's sin. Through this motif, Mark presents Jesus as a spiritual
benefactor. He is willing to give up his life so that his "subjects" can receive
atonement for their sins.
As a spiritual benefactor, Jesus is certainly superior to Vespasian. Vespa
sian is able to give physical blessings, but only Jesus is able to bestow more
valuable spiritual blessings. Through this motif, Mark reminds the wavering
members of his community of the intangible blessing they risk losing, namely
the atonement of their sin. While Vespasian's benefaction may seem appeal
ing, the wavering members of Mark's community will be abandoning the
28
See Charlesworth, "Virtues," 113—14; Stevenson, "Benefactor," 426-27.
29
Again, we are not arguing that the feeding tradition was created to address the crisis
of Mark's community. As we noted in our earlier discussion of this tradition (see chapter
three), originally it was likely shaped and understood in light of motifs from Hebrew Scrip
tures (e.g., manna from heaven or Elisha's multiplication of loaves). The tradition also may
have had Eucharistic implications. But here we are suggesting that Mark has used this tra
dition in his polemic against Vespasian with the intention of depicting Jesus as a powerful
benefactor.
30
See Evans, Mark, 394; Hooker, St. Mark, 343; France, Mark, 570-71; Donahue and
Harrington, Mark, 396; et al.
190 Chapter 5
greater benefactor, who cannot only provide for their physical needs but for
their spiritual needs as well.
Imperial Modesty
As we noted previously, modesty was a characteristic that Romans desired
in their emperor. Roman ideology held that the emperor was the first among
equals and an emperor's recognition of this reality was often essential to his
31
popularity, longevity, and legacy. The history of early Roman emperors
shows us a clear pattern. Rulers who sought absolute power and elevated their
own persona over their fellow countrymen often met with a tragic end and a
tarnished legacy. Julius Caesar is the archetype for such a ruler. He allowed
the senate to confer upon himself divine honors, an act that elevated himself
32
above his fellow Romans and offended their sensibilities. Though he refused
the title king outwardly, his actions and the extravagant powers and honors
conferred to him by the senate made it clear to all that he was a monarch in
all ways but his title. These actions offended Roman sensibilities and ulti
33
mately led to Caesar's famous assassination by the senate. Similarly, Gaius
Caligula claimed divine status, had a temple erected to himself, and required
34
Roman citizens to worship him. He is also accused by Suetonius to be the
35
first emperor to turn the principate into an absolute monarchy. After a brief
four year reign, Caligula, like Julius Caesar was also assassinated. He left a
36
shameful legacy marked by accusations of both insanity and tyranny.
In contrast, rulers who respected their position as first among equals (even
if in reality they were not truly equals) were reluctant to accept power and
recognition, and placed Roman ideology before their own persona, gained the
favor of both the Roman senate and citizenry, enjoyed longevity, and left an
esteemed legacy. Augustus is the clear archetype for such a ruler. After his
defeat of Mark Antony, with absolute power at his fingertips, Augustus mod
estly and judiciously refused the senate's conferment of such power, showing
31
For discussion on Rome's animosity toward monarchs, see A. Wallace-Hadrill, "Civi-
lis Princeps: Between Citizen and King," JRS 72 (1982): 32-48, esp. 41-4.
32
For discussion on Julius Caesar's divine honors, see Gradel, Emperor Worship, 55-72;
Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971); Matthias Gelzer, Caesar: Politi
cian and Statesman (trans. Peter Needham; Cambridge: Harvard, 1968), 278-79.
33
For discussion on Caesar's desire to be a monarch and his assassination, see Wein
stock, Julius; Gelzer, Caesar, 272-333.
34
Suetonius, Gaius. 22.
35
Suetonius, Gaius. 22.
36
For more on Gaius' career and legacy, see Suetonius, Gaius. Chapters 22-60 are devoted
to his "career as a monster" (Suetonius, Gaius, 22.1 [Rolfe, LCL]). J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The
Emperor Gaius (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1977); Arther Ferrill, Caligula: Emperor of
Rome (London: Thames and Hudson, 1991), esp. 156-65; Anthony Barrett, Caligula: The
Corruption of Power (London: B. T. Batsford, 1989), esp. 213-41.
Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark s Historical Situation 191
37
respect for Roman traditions. He also made no efforts to install himself
in the official state religion but honored the Roman tradition of apotheosis.
Such behavior endeared Augustus to the Roman people, secured and stabi
lized his position as emperor, and established a precedent for the behavior of
future emperors. Both Tiberius and Claudius are emperors who followed this
precedent. While a number of indiscretions have tarnished Tiberius' legacy,
his modesty regarding divine honors and imperial power could be regarded
38
as one of his strengths. Claudius also exhibited such modesty and in doing
so endeared himself to his people. Most historians regard him as a good
emperor. As we previously noted, Vespasian followed the Augustan model
and displayed the virtue of imperial modesty. The official Flavian position,
though certainly unhistorical, was that Vespasian never desired the principate
but was forced into accepting it by his demanding soldiers. Suetonius tells us
that he delayed both his reception of tribuniary powers and the senate's con
ferment of the title, "Father of his Country." Vespasian also promoted Rome
and its traditions rather than himself. Such modesty was one of Vespasian's
strengths, and it endeared him to his citizens.
It is in light of this imperial virtue of modesty and Mark's polemic against
Vespasian that we approach Mark's secrecy motif. Previously, we concluded
that Mark's secrecy motif has in fact two separate motifs; a miracle secret
and a messianic/identity secret. We argued that the miracle secret, which is
often broken and ironically results in publicity, serves as a foil against which
Jesus' power is magnified. Mark demonstrates that, though efforts were made
to keep Jesus' miracles secret, the greatness of the miracles thwarted these
efforts. In addition to highlighting Jesus' power, this motif also highlights
Jesus' humility (or modesty) as well as his desire to deflect recognition for his
miracles.
The messianic/identity secret is more difficult to characterize. First, the
motif is not consistent throughout Mark's gospel. At times Jesus commands
that his identity be kept a secret, but at other times he allows it to be made
public. However, unlike Jesus' commands following miracles, his commands
concerning his identity are always kept, making it unlikely that the evangelist
is using this motif as a foil to highlight Jesus' identity. However, like the mir
acle secret, the messianic secret highlights Jesus' modesty and his reluctance
to accept public messianic recognition.
It is on this common ground of modesty that we can explain these Mar
kan secrecy motifs. Such modesty regarding identity and power has a clear
parallel with the Roman imperial virtues discussed above. In these Markan
secrecy motifs, Jesus is portraying the modest behavior of an ideal Roman
37
For discussion on Augustus' formal refusal of power, which in turn was rejected by the
senate, see John Buchan, Augustus (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1937), 142-52.
38
See Barbara Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976),
82-91.
192 Chapter 5
emperor. Such a portrayal makes sense in light of the crisis facing Mark's
community and the evangelist's polemical purposes. The current Roman
emperor holds this virtue of modesty; therefore, the Markan Jesus, whom the
evangelist is presenting to his Roman readers as the true ruler of the world,
must hold it as well. Therefore, Jesus' commands to silence regarding his
identity and miracles are unrelated to "secrecy" but rather function to dem
onstrate his modesty; a modesty that a Roman audience would expect from a
virtuous world ruler.
According to this interpretation, the lack of consistency in Mark's applica
tion of the secrecy motif is not troublesome because modesty and not secrecy
is its true objective. The emperor's eventual acceptance of praise and recog
nition was expected, if not demanded at times. It was the ruler's efforts at
humility and modesty that mattered to Roman citizens, not his unrelenting
resolve or consistency in those efforts. Therefore, to achieve the desired effect,
Mark's "secrecy" motif is not constrained by the demand of consistency. The
evangelist can establish Jesus' modesty by inserting "secrecy" elements into
a handful of gospel pericopes, which is in fact what we find in Mark's gos
pel. These secrecy elements may have differing points of origin, with some
coming to the evangelist in his tradition and others being created to advance
the gospel's polemic. But regardless of their origin, their function in Mark's
gospel is to present Jesus as a modest messiah and world ruler, one whom a
Roman audience would respect.
Therefore, here we argue that what have traditionally been called Markan
secrecy motifs are better understood as Markan modesty motifs. The evange
list has included Jesus' commands to silence regarding his identity and mir
acles to highlight Jesus' modesty. Through this modesty, the Markan Jesus
models the behavior of an ideal Roman emperor, and the evangelist advances
the idea that Jesus and not Vespasian is the true ruler of the world.
Weakness as Strength
In any effort to present an impressive resume, the mitigation of weakness is
almost as important as the magnification of strength. Mark's presentation of
Jesus is no exception. While Mark is able to show that Jesus is superior to
Vespasian in many ways, there are also realities that could undermine the
evangelist's entire case. First is Jesus' shameful crucifixion. As we noted
previously, Romans abhorred crucifixion and considered it the most shame
39
ful manner of death. That Jesus was crucified as a Roman criminal would
be, therefore, a significant obstacle for Mark to overcome. However, as we
demonstrated in chapter three, Mark addresses this obstacle in several ways.
He gives Jesus a foreknowledge of his death. In the Greco-Roman world, such
39
See our discussion on crucifixion in chapter three page 119. Also see Hengel, Crucifix
ion; O'Collins, "Crucifixion," 1.1207-10.
knowledge about one's death and the ability to predict its coming was rec
40
ognized as a divine power. Mark shifts the focus from weakness to power.
Jesus' death would not catch him by surprise; rather he faced his ominous
destiny with boldness. Mark also presents Jesus' death as an act of benefac
tion. It is an act of service for his subjects that provided them with atonement
for their sins. Ironically, the evangelist uses Jesus' death to portray him as
an ideal ruler. Mark also uses Jesus' death to demonstrate that he was no
ordinary man: remarkably his crucifixion lasts only six hours; while on the
cross, powerful outbursts demonstrate his great strength, in the midst of suf
fering; and, like the death of other great rulers, Jesus' death brings darkness
to the sky, indicating his significance. All these details overshadow the shame
of the cross and highlight Jesus' power and significance. Yet perhaps most
important for Mark's polemic against Vespasian is how the evangelist paral
lels Jesus' death with a Roman triumph. As we discussed in chapter three,
T. E. Schmidt makes a case that Mark crafts his passion narrative so that
41
it parallels a Roman triumph. In so doing, Mark presents Jesus' shameful
death as an ironic recognition of his true identity as Messiah and world ruler.
From a Markan perspective, the Roman authorities, in their efforts to shame,
humiliate, and kill Jesus, were unwittingly giving him the triumph that he
deserved. Ironically, long before Vespasian's triumph - a reality that is fresh
in the minds of Mark's readers - the Romans had already given a triumph to
the true world ruler, Jesus.
The second obstacle that Mark must overcome is Jesus' physical absence.
Perhaps Vespasian's greatest advantage over Jesus was his physical presence.
If Mark's claims about Jesus were true, i.e., that he is God's Messiah and the
true ruler of the world, a natural question would be "where is he and when
will his rule be a physical reality?" Mark answers these questions. He makes
it clear that Jesus was currently seated at the right hand of God (14:62), clearly
implying that Jesus was already reigning in heaven. But more important for
Mark than Jesus' current locality is his impending return. At three different
points, Jesus refers to his return, each time identifying himself as the "Son of
Man" (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). While Jesus does not explicitly mention his future
reign or a future kingdom, these concepts seem to be implied in his use of
"Son of Man." As we previously noted, God gives the "Son of Man" in Dan
iel 7, with whom Mark has clearly identified Jesus (13:26: 14:62) dominion
and kingship over the entire earth. All the people of the earth will serve him
and his kingship will be everlasting. Similar traditions are found in 1 Enoch,
where the rulers of the world bow and plead before the throne of the "son of
4 0
41
See our discussion in chapter three pages 129-132 on Schmidt's theory. See Schmidt,
"Roman Triumphal Procession," 1-18; see also Schmidt's similar article "Jesus' Triumphal
March to Crucifixion," 30-37; cf. Evans' use of Schmidit's work; "Fulfillment of Scripture,"
96.
194 Chapter 5
man" (1 Enoch 62:1-16). Mark's use of "Son of Man" in the context of Jesus'
return almost certainly implies that Mark anticipates a universal kingship
to accompany that return. In light of Mark 13:28-37, it seems the evangelist
perceives that this return could come at any time, and that his readers must
be ready and watchful for it. Mark's response, therefore, to Jesus' physical
absence and to those who perceive it as a weakness was an ultimatum. He
tells them that Jesus is currently in heaven ruling at the right hand of God
but will soon return to establish a universal and everlasting kingdom - a
kingdom in which all the people of the earth would serve him. Mark's readers
had to make a choice. They could follow the current emperor, who was now
physically present, or they could follow the true world ruler, who would soon
return and establish an eternal kingdom.
5.4 Reading Mark's Presentation of Discipleship in Light of

In our previous discussion of Mark's presentation of discipleship, we con

cluded that it had five significant features: (1) both recognition of and faith
in Jesus' identity; (2) faithfulness to Jesus and the gospel even in the face of
suffering; (3) abandonment of one's former life; (4) proclamation about Jesus
and his gospel; and (5) living lives of humility and service. We determined
the first two features were primary and the last three secondary. Here we
want to determine how the Markan community's historical setting informs
our reading of these features.
5.4.1 Mark's Primary Features of Discipleship

Mark emphasizes the importance of both recognizing Jesus and placing one's
faith in him through several means: highlighting the disciples' blindness/lack
of faith, highlighting the remarkable faith of minor characters, and Jesus'
warnings against false messiahs. It is quite easy to see how this Markan fea
ture of discipleship addresses the crisis that faced the evangelist's community.
We have argued that some members of Mark's community were seriously
questioning Jesus' legitimacy as Messiah, as well as their faith commitment
to that identity. Mark fought this battle on one front through his Christology.
As we demonstrated previously, he confronted his readers with Jesus' great
power and superiority. Mark's presentation of discipleship addresses a second
front; namely, the foolishness of the wavering members in his community.
Through the exaggerated blindness of the Markan disciples, the evangelist
hopes to jolt his readers into awareness of their own blindness. The repeated
failure of the Markan disciples to recognize Jesus' great power as well as
his identity causes the readers to ask, "How could these people be so dull,
when the truth is so obvious?" But in asking the question, the readers have to
Reading Mark 's Major Features in Light of Mark's Historical Situation 195
confront their own failures (or potential failure) regarding these obvious
42
truths. With this realization, Mark challenges the reader to demonstrate the
faith of characters such as the paralytic (2:1-12), the woman with an issue of
blood (5:25-34), Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30), or Bartimaeus (10:46-52);
all characters who, as a result of their faith, benefited from Jesus' power.
Mark speaks most poignantly to his community's crisis in his warnings
against following false messiahs or prophets (13:6,21-22). Vespasian's claims
to fulfill Jewish messianic prophecy would, from the church's perspective,
place him in the category of a false messiah. Even more interesting is Mark's
description of these false christs and prophets: "False messiahs and false
prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if pos
sible, the elect (13:22)." Such a description of a false christ who produces
signs and omens uniquely fits the emperor Vespasian, who, as we previously
noted, performed miraculous healings in Alexandria and claimed that many
omens pointed to his ascension. For Mark's readers, Jesus' warning speaks
directly to their current situation. It identifies Vespasian as a false messiah
and characterizes his supernatural deeds and omens as tools of deception.
True disciples, i.e. the "elect," would not be fooled by this false messiah and
43
his deceptive signs (Mark 13:22). Rather, they would remain faithful to the
true Messiah Jesus and place their faith in both him and his power.
It is, therefore, quite obvious how Mark uses this feature of discipleship,
i.e., the need for one to recognize Jesus' identity and place one's faith in him,
to address his community's current situation. Through it he makes his readers
aware of their own blindness and gives them examples of faith to model their
faith. He also gives them a direct warning (from Jesus himself) against the
danger and deception of false christs and false prophets, claiming that no true
disciple would be taken in by their deception.
Another distinct feature in Mark's presentation of discipleship is the need
for disciples to be faithful to Jesus even in the face of suffering or persecu
tion. This feature speaks directly to the needs of Mark's community, where
the aftermath of the Jewish Rebellion has raised concerns about the church's
safety. The church at Rome, Mark's community, was familiar with such suf
fering. Only six years prior, they had undergone intense persecution at Nero's
hand. While some had remained faithful - even to the point of death - oth
ers were unfaithful, with some likely denying their faith and others betray
44
ing community members. In light of this recent history, a new threat of
persecution would demand a renewed call to unwavering faithfulness. Mark
presents this call primarily through direct commands from Jesus. In the
42
For similar conclusions, see Tannehill, "Disciples," 134-57; R. Donahue, Theology
and Setting of Discipleship.
43
See France, Mark, 529; S. R. Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark's Gospel
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 151-159.
4 4
See Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.
196 Chapter 5
parable of the soils, Mark's readers are warned of being believers lacking
roots, who "endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises
on account of the word, immediately they fall away" (4:17). After living
through Nero's persecution, Mark's community would be all too familiar with
such believers. It is even possible that some of those "rootless" believers had
45
rejoined Mark's community in its time of relative peace. Along with the
rest of Mark's community, they are reminded that this time faithfulness was
essential for true disciples. Through Jesus' instruction at Caesarea Philippi,
Mark unapologetically tells his readers that all who desire to be his disciples
must "deny themselves, and take up their cross and follow [him]" (8:34). He
reminds them that their temporal sacrifice would secure eschatological salva
tion (8:35). However, if they are ashamed of Jesus and his teachings, Jesus
would be ashamed of them when he returned as the glorious "Son of Man,"
i.e., they would not experience eschatological salvation. Again in the eschato
logical discourse, Mark tells his readers that only those who endure through
persecution until the end would be saved (13:13). It is generally agreed that the
charge to endure does not refer to survival of persecution but to faithfulness
46
to Jesus through persecution - faithfulness even to the point of death. This
feature of Markan discipleship is one that Mark's community, which faced
persecution in the past and anticipated possible persecution in the near future,
desperately needed to hear.
It is highly plausible that during the Neronian persecution many in the
church were uncertain of how they were to respond. Certainly it raised many
relevant and practical questions. Was such suffering normative for Jesus' fol
lowers? Was it to be expected? Was it acceptable to feign denial of Jesus in
order to live another day? During the tumultuous and panic-stricken days of
Nero's persecution, it is unlikely that unanimous answers to these questions
could be found. Such a reality would have only added to the church's state
of confusion. Perhaps it is in the recollection of such confusion that Mark's
gospel provides his community with answers to these questions. Suffering
was normative for the church as Jesus himself had promised it. For Jesus'
disciples, the response to such suffering was unequivocal - absolute faithful
ness was required, even to death. This Markan feature of discipleship, i.e.,
the need to remain faithful in the face of suffering, makes sense as a pastoral
response to the church's perception of impending suffering.
5.4.2 Mark's Secondary Features of Discipleship

Unlike the primary features of discipleship, which are easily grounded in
the evangelist's historical situation, the secondary features are not as easy to
45
See Donahue and Harrington (Mark, 34) for discussion on Mark's concern for recon
ciling fallen disciples with the church.
4 6
See Evans, Mark, 313; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 371; Moloney, Mark, 258;
Hooker, St. Mark, 312; France, Mark, 519; et al.
explain. The first of these secondary features is the call for disciples to aban
don their former lives (1:16-20; 2:13-17; 8:34-38; 10:17-31). Nothing in our
proposed historical setting specifically necessitates such a call. It is possible
that this feature is an inherent part of Mark's tradition and that it does not
address a specific situation facing Mark's community. Mark perhaps retained
these pericopes from his tradition and with them this general exhortation that
disciples of Jesus must abandon their former lives. Finally, it is possible that
this feature does address a particular undetectable reality within our pro
posed historical situation.
The second of these secondary features is the call to disciples to proclaim
both Jesus and the gospel. This feature may be explained by the christological
crisis facing Mark's community. With Vespasian's claims calling into ques
tion the legitimacy of Christianity, the community's evangelistic enthusiasm
may have been waning. The anti-Jewish and anti-messianic sentiment that
the Jewish Revolt brought about in Rome also may have slowed evangelistic
efforts. In light of these realities, Mark, therefore, emphasized the need for
disciples to proclaim the gospel. While this link is possible, we recognize that
it is speculative. Most of the components comprising this feature are relatively
subtle and may simply come to us from Mark's tradition (e.g., the disciples'
work in proclaiming the kingdom of God [1:17; 6:7-13] and the proclamation
of Jesus' deeds by those whom he had healed [1:45; 5:20; 7:36]). While the
evangelist maintains these traditions and allows them to contribute to his
portrayal of discipleship, he may not have intended to address a specific situ
ation within his community. But there is one particular feature in the gospel
that seems to indicate the evangelist's own interest in missionary/evangelistic
efforts. During the eschatological discourse, Mark includes a statement that
seems out place and many believe to be a Markan redaction: "And the good
47
news must first be proclaimed to all nations" (13:10). This world-wide mis
sion is one of the events that must take place before both the parousia and
the eschaton. This verse could be read as an exhortation to those in Mark's
community who are hesitant to proclaim the good news. Mark reminds them
that such a proclamation is necessary before the salvation they are waiting for
will come. While it is possible that this Markan feature of discipleship can be
found in our proposed historical setting, such a conclusion is speculative and
remains uncertain.
The third of these secondary features is the call for disciples to live lives of
humility and service. Again, it is difficult to find a need for such a call in our
proposed historical setting. However, like the call to leave one's former way
of life, this feature may simply be inherent to Mark's received tradition or
address a reality that our proposed historical setting was unable to detect. It is
47
See Evans, Mark, 310; R. M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response
Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 117-18; Hooker,
Mark, 310-11; et al.
198 Chapter 5
almost certain that the situation facing Mark's community was more complex
than our evidence has allowed us to reconstruct. Therefore, it is quite possible
that this Markan feature of discipleship addresses an unknown situation in
Mark's community.
That these secondary features do not find a direct explanation in our recon
structed historical setting is not problematic and should not be surprising.
As we just noted, there are various reasons why more minor gospel features
might escape explanation in a proposed setting. They may simply be ele
ments from the evangelist's received tradition that he chose to maintain. They
also may actually address a reality facing the evangelist's community, but
that reality remains undetectable to the proposed historical setting. It is also
important to remember that every author has his or her own prerogative and
may have included any number of minor features for reasons unrelated to the
reality of the evangelist's community. Therefore, minor features of a gospel
that a reconstructed historical setting cannot account for, should not be sur
prising, and their presence alone does not undermine such reconstructions.
While minor features independent of the reconstructed historical setting are
not problematic in and of themselves, minor features that contradict or work
against the reconstruction are problematic. However, since the three features
discusses above do not conflict with our reconstructed historical setting, they
do not present an obstacle to our present endeavor to locate the purpose of
Mark's gospel.
5.5 Reading Markan Eschatology in Light of

In our previous analysis of Mark's eschatological content, we concluded

that the evangelist's eschatological message was three-fold: (1) the evange
list identified false signs of the imminent parousia for his community; (2)
the evangelist identified the true sign of the imminent parousia, a sign that
had not yet taken place; and (3) the evangelist encouraged his community to
remain watchful for the true sign which Jesus had given them, a sign that will
signal the imminent parousia. This eschatological instruction can be read as
a pastoral response to the eschatological anxiety and confusion facing Mark's
Roman community, which resulted from the cataclysmic destruction of Jeru
salem and the Jewish temple.
Mark first addresses events that his readers had mistakenly understood as
signs of the imminent parousia, i.e., wars, famine, earthquakes, false christs,
and persecution. Mark's readers not only watched as the Jewish Revolt raged
for four long years and culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the
temple, but they also witnessed a year-long civil war, the bloody end of which
occurred in Rome's streets. Famine was a reality for Mark's readers during
Rome's civil war. When Vespasian took control of Rome, only ten days of
grain supply remained, and the city desperately needed imported grain from
Egypt. Recent earthquakes had not only affected Rome, but other great cities
of the empire. Concerning false messiahs, Vespasian's claims to fulfill Jewish
messianic prophecy would have qualified him as such. Persecution was also a
part of the recent past of the church in Rome, and a perceived threat awaited
the church's immediate future. But Mark tells his readers not to be confused.
These events are not signs of the imminent parousia, but they are only birth
pangs preceding the end.
According to Mark, the ultimate sign of the imminent parousia has not yet
come, and when it does, Mark's community will not miss it. Mark describes
this sign as an "abomination of desolation," which we previously identified
as an idolatrous act of incredible magnitude - likely reminiscent to the acts
of Antiochus IV. The exact identity of this act is impossible to determine.
Though Theissen has suggested that the evangelist had in mind a pagan tem
ple or monument built on the temple ruins, it is quite possible that the evan
gelist had no exact referent in mind. What he did foresee was a significant
idolatrous sign, one of such great magnitude that it would be unmistakable
to his readers. Following this sign would be a time of unprecedented suffer
ing, which the parousia would cut short and would culminate in the eschaton.
Because this sign could come at any time, Mark urged his readers to remain
alert and watchful for it.
Such eschatological instruction would have calmed the anxiety in Mark's
community and removed unhealthy confusion. It would have established for
Mark's readers a sign to watch for and prevented confusion caused by other
mistaken eschatological signs. Mark's eschatological instruction, therefore,
can be read as a pastoral response to the heightened eschatological tensions
brought about by the cataclysmic end to the Jewish Revolt.
5.6 Summary: Formulating a Statement on the

Purpose of Mark's Gospel
After reading Mark's major features in light of our proposed historical situ
ation, we can now formulate a statement concerning the purpose of Mark's
gospel. In our reconstruction of Mark's historical setting, we argued that the
propaganda of the new emperor Vespasian, in particular his claims to be the
fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, created a christological crisis for
Mark's community in Rome. Vespasian's propaganda raised questions about
Jesus' legitimacy as God's Messiah, a central tenant of the fledgling church.
Vespasian's propaganda and credentials were undeniably impressive, and it
is likely that at least some members of Mark's Roman community gave them
strong consideration. Such a crisis would require a response by the church;
200 Chapter 5
a response that would restore legitimacy to the church's claims about Jesus'
identity and renew the wavering members' confidence in that identity. Here
we have proposed that Mark crafts his gospel as such a response. Beginning
with his incipit, the evangelist boldly challenges Flavian propaganda and pro
claims Jesus to be both God's Messiah and son. The skillful welding of both
imperial cult and Deutero-Isaianic language makes this purpose clear to his
Roman readers. Throughout the gospel, he advances his challenge to Flavian
propaganda and identifies Jesus not only as God's Messiah but also as the true
world ruler. He repeatedly confirms this identity by Jesus' impressive and
powerful resume. Through a Christology of power, Mark presents Jesus as
a legitimate world ruler, one who is in all ways superior to the current world
ruler, Vespasian.
However, Christology is not the only way Mark responds to his communi
ty's crisis. He also addresses the foolishness of the community members who
are wavering in their faith. Through his portrayal of the disciples' exagger
ated blindness to Jesus' identity and power, Mark draws his readers' attention
to their own blindness. He uses minor characters in the gospel, who realize
Jesus' identity and place faith in his power, as models for his community to fol
low. Even warnings from Jesus exhort Mark's community not to be deceived
by false christs and false prophets. Therefore, elements of Mark's presenta
tion of discipleship work in conjunction with Mark's Christology. The theme
of Markan discipleship serves as an exhortation to Mark's readers not to miss
the importance of Markan Christology. Like Jesus' disciples, Mark's readers
have to throw off their blindness, recognize Jesus' identity, and place their
faith in his power.
While the gospel's primary purpose is to respond to the community's
christological crisis, two secondary purposes can be identified as well. The
aftermath of the Jewish Revolt and the cataclysmic events in which it culmi
nated, i.e., the destruction Jerusalem and its temple, have caused two lesser
crises. The first is concern among Mark's community for its own safety. Both
increased anti-Jewish sentiment and sensitivity to messianic movements in
Rome placed the church, a thoroughly Jewish and messianic movement, in a
precarious position. These factors coupled with the church's recent persecu
tion suffered under Nero and the uncertainty surrounding the rise of a new
emperor, likely raised reasonable concerns within the church regarding its
own physical safety. In response to these fears, Mark demands that in the face
of such persecution, true disciples must remain faithful. Those who do will
receive eschatological salvation at the return of the "Son of Man," while those
who do not will be excluded from such salvation.
The second crisis brought on by the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt was
increased eschatological anxiety and confusion. In the first century church,
spikes in eschatological tension/anxiety seem to be common. That the destruc-
tion of both the holy city Jerusalem and its temple would cause a substantial
spike in eschatological anxiety seemed highly probable. Mark's gospel, there
fore, addresses such a spike in eschatological anxiety. Through the escha
tological discourse (Mark 13), the evangelist provides a pastoral response
to his community. He identifies the cataclysmic and alarming events of his
community's recent past as "birth pangs," which must precede the end but
are not signs of its imminence. The true sign of the end, the "abomination of
desolation," will be idolatrous act of incredible magnitude. This act would be
unmistakable to Mark's readers and would signal the imminent parousia and
the beginning of the eschaton. Mark's readers have to remain watchful for
this event and this event alone.
In conclusion, the primary purpose of Mark's gospel is to respond to Fla
vian propaganda that has created a crisis within the church in Rome. This
response is polemical, pitting Jesus' impressive resume against that of the
current Roman emperor Vespasian. Mark's gospel offers overwhelming evi
dence to its audience of Jesus' superiority to Vespasian and confirms for its
audience Jesus' identity as God's Messiah and the true world ruler. In addi
tion to this primary purpose, Mark urges his readers to remain faithful to
Jesus despite the threat of persecution. He also corrects their eschatological
misunderstandings and establishes for them a definitive sign of the imminent
eschaton, for which they must watch faithfully.
Summary of Conclusions
Our goal in this present study was to determine what factors led the second
evangelist to compose a gospel and what purpose he intended that gospel to
serve. Here we summarize the conclusions of this study.
In chapter one, we surveyed the history of interpretation regarding the pur
pose of Mark's gospel. This survey yielded a number of conclusions: (1) that
the evangelist's purpose was not primarily to provide a historical account of
Jesus's life; (2) that while the evangelist had concerns about discipleship and
eschatology, these concerns were secondary to his christological concerns;
(3) that the evangelist wrote primarily for a Christian audience; and (4) that
socio-political realties were likely catalysts for the gospel's composition.
In chapter two, we addressed the gospel's date of composition and prove
nance. By examining both external and internal evidence, we ruled out a dat
ing prior to 65 C.E. We then sought to determine whether Mark's presentation
of the prophecy of the temple's destruction reflected a date before or after 70
C.E. (pre factum or post factum). We concluded that in light of the high risk-
reward ratio for including this prophecy pre factum, the prophecy is best iden
tified as post factum. This places the composition of Mark's gospel during the
early 70s C.E. Regarding Mark's provenance, we concluded that both internal
and external evidence are most consistent with a composition in Rome.
In chapter three, we turned our attention to four major features of Mark's
gospel: (1) Mark's incipit, (2) Mark's Christology, (3) Mark's presentation of
discipleship, and (4) Mark's eschatology. We argued that in Mark's incipit he
has blended Jewish messianic language with imperial cult language, and that
this blending is best explained by a situation in which both of these realities
had become intertwined. Regarding Mark's Christology, we argued against
the popular notion that the gospel advances a Christology of suffering and the
cross and argued instead that the gospel advances a Christology of power and
glory. We concluded that Mark emphasized two primary aspects of disciple
ship: (1) the need to recognize and have faith in Jesus' identity and (2) the
need for disciples to be faithful to that identity even in the face of suffering.
This Markan presentation of discipleship suggests a Sitz im Leben in which
there are doubts over Jesus' identity as well as fear of persecution for faithful
ness to Jesus. We also concluded that Mark's eschatological content sought
to calm eschatological anxiety and confusion within his community and to
provide clarity regarding signs of the eschaton.
Summary of Conclusions 203
In chapter four, we returned to our conclusions regarding Mark's prove
nance and date - in Rome and shortly after the Jerusalem temple's destruction
- and sought to reconstruct the historical situation facing Mark and his read
ers at this time and place. This reconstruction provided three distinct realities
that faced Mark and his readers. The first reality was a christological crisis
brought about by the propaganda of the new Roman emperor Vespasian, in
particular the claim that Vespasian was the true fulfillment of Jewish messi
anic prophecy and expectations. The second reality was a fear within Mark's
community (the church in Rome) of imminent persecution, a fear that resulted
from increased anti-Jewish and anti-messianic sentiments in Rome after the
Jewish revolt. The third reality was an increase in eschatological anxiety and
confusion within Mark's community, an increase brought about by the cata
clysmic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.
In chapter five, we read Mark's major features (discussed in chapter 3) in
light of Mark's historical situation (discussed in chapter 4). We argued that
Mark's incipit, in which the evangelist combines Jewish messianic language
with Roman imperial cult language, is tailor-made to respond to Vespasian's
propagandists claims - claims perceived by the church to be christological.
Therefore, Marks opens his gospel with a direct response to the christologi
cal crisis facing his community, a response that his readers are certain not
to miss. Mark continues this response through his christological presenta
tion - a Christology of power. This Christology of power can be read as a
counter christological resume to the impressive christological resume of Ves
pasian. Through his christological presentation, Mark demonstrates to his
readers that Jesus is the true Messiah and ruler of the world, not Vespasian.
Mark's presentation of discipleship also responds to this christological crisis.
Through it, Mark calls his readers not to be blind to Jesus' true identity but to
recognize Jesus as the Messiah and place their faith in him.
But Mark's presentation of discipleship also addresses his community's
fear of persecution. Mark reminds his readers that even if persecution does
come, they must remain faithful until death. Such faithfulness will bring
eschatological reward, while failure to remain faithful will bring eschatologi
cal judgment.
Mark's eschatological teaching addresses his community's confusion
and anxiety over eschatological signs. He tells his readers that Jerusalem's
destruction and the destruction of its temple are not the signs of the imminent
eschaton. The unmistakable sign of the eschaton - the abomination of desola
tion - has yet to come, but Mark warns his readers that they must be vigilant
in watching for it.
This chapter then leads to the ultimate conclusion of our study. Mark's
primary purpose was to respond to Flavian propaganda that had created a
christological crisis for his community in Rome. However, Mark also seems
to have two secondary purposes. He hoped to encourage his community
204 Summary of Conclusions
to remain faithful to their Messiah in the face of persecution, persecution

that was perceived to be imminent. He also sought to alleviate his com
munity's eschatological anxiety and confusion by providing eschatological
instruction.
Bibliography
Ancient Sources: Texts, Editions, and Translations

Dio Cassius. Dio's Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary. 9 vols. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914-1927.
Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton. 2
vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926, 1932.
Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cam
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965.
th
Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by E. Nestle and K. Aland. 27 ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1993.
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday,
1983-1985.
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 2 vols. Leipzig: S. Hir-
zel, 1903-5.
Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Translated by Frederick W. Shipley. Loeb Classical Library. Lon
don: W. Heinemann, 1924.
Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors including the Year of Revolu
tion A. D. 68-69. Edited by M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1961.
Septuagint, id est, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Edited by A. Rahlfs.
th
2 vols. 8 Edition. Stuttgart: Wurrtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965.
Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913-1914.
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Edited by Kurt Aland. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung,
1976.
Tacitus. The Histories and The Annals. Translated by C. H. Moore and J. Jackson. 4 vols.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925-1937.
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Edited and Translated by Florentino Garcia Martinez
and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Edited by H. D. Betz. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1992.
Secondary Literature
Achtemeier, P. J. "Gospel Miracle Tradition and the Divine Man." Interpretation 26 (1972):
174-97.
. "Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae." Journal of Biblical Litera
ture 91 (1972): 198-221.
. Mark. Proclamation Commentary. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
206 Bibliography
. "Mark, Gospel of." Pages 551-53 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4. Edited by D.
N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992.
Anderson, H. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1976.
Arnold, G. "Mk 1.1 und Eroffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften,"
Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 123-27.
Aune, D. "The Significance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity." Pages 87-
109 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merril
C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students. Edited by G. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975.
."Magic in Early Christianity." ANRW23.2,1507-1557. Part 2, Principal 23.2. Edited by
H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980.
. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983.
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. The Emperor Gaius. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1977.
Barrett, A. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London: B. T. Batsford, 1989.
Barrett, C. K. "The Background of Mark 10:45." Pages 1-18 in New Testament Essays: Stud
ies in the Memory ofT.W. Manson, 1893-1958. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1959.
. "Paul's Opponents in II Corinthians." New Testament Studies 17 (1971): 233-54.
. Acts of the Apostles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1994.
Barton, T. S. Ancient Astrology. London: Rutledge, 1994.
Bauckham, R. "The Son of Man: 'A Man in My Position' or 'Someone'?" Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 23 (1985): 23-33.
. "For Whom Were Gospel's Written." Pages 9-48 in The Gospel for All Christians:
Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerd
mans, 1998.
Baur, C. F. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter. Nebst einem
Anhang iiber das Evangelium Marcions. Tubingen: L. F. Fues, 1851.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. Jesus and the Last Days. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.
Beck, R. "Astrology." Page 195 in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by S. Hornblower
rd
and A Spawnforth. 3 ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
Beckwith, R. T. "Daniel 9 and the Date of the Messiah's Coming in Essene, Hellenistic,
Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation." Revue de Qumran 10 (1981): 521—
42.
Behm, J. "uexctjjoptpoco." Pages 755-759 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Volume 4. Edited by G. Kittle and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Eerd
mans: Grand Rapids, 1964.
Bersanetti, G. M. Vespasiano. Rome: Edizioni Roma, 1941.
Best, E. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. Journal for the Study of the
New Testament: Supplement Series 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981.
. Mark: The Gospel as Story. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983.
. Disciples and Discipleship. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986.
Betz, H. D. "Jesus as Divine Man." Pages 114-33 in Jesus and the Historian: In Honor of
Ernest Cadman Colwell. Edited by F. T. Trotter. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968.
. "Magic in Greco-Roman Antiquity." Pages 93-7 in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol
ume 9. Edited by M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York, Macmillan, 2005.
Betz, O. "The Concept of the So-Called 'Divine-Man' in Mark's Christology." Pages 2 2 9 -
40 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen
Wikgren. Edited by D. E. Aune. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Bibliography 207
Bieler, L. Theios Aner: Das Bild des "Gottlichen Menschen" in Spdtantike und Fruhchris-
tentum. 2 vols. Vienna: Hofels, 1935-1936.
Black, C. C. "The Quest of the Markan Redactor: Why Has It Been Pursued and What Has
It Taught Us?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (1988): 19-39.
. The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament: Supplemental Series 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1989.
. "Was Mark a Roman Gospel?" Expository Times 105 (1993-94): 36-40.
. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Translated by R. W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1961.
Bolt, P. Jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers. Cambridge: Cambridge
Boobyer, G. H. St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1942.
. "Mark II 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theologi
cal Review 47 (1954): 115-20.
Boomershine, T. E. "Peter's Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media
Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics." Semeia 39 (1987): 47-68.
Booth, R. P. Jesus and the Laws of Purity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament:
Supplement Series 13. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1986.
Boring, M. E., K. Berger, and C. Colpe. Hellenistic Commentary on the New Testament.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
Boring, M. E. "The Christology of Mark: Hermeneutical Issues for Systematic Theology."
Semeia 30 (19*4): 125-151.
. "Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel." Semeia 52 (1990): 43-81.
Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nathareth. Translation by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James
Robinson. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.
Brandenburger, E. Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1984.
Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. London: SPCK, 1951.
. "The Date of Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 1 (1961): 126-41.
. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Man
chester: Manchester University Press, 1967.
Breytenbach, C. Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach Markus. Abhandlungen zur The-
ologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 71. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984.
Broadhead, E. K. Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplemental Series 74. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992.
. "Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of
Mark." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 21-34.
Broer, I. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Neue Echter Bibel. Wurzburg: Echter, 1998.
Brown, R. E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary
on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New
York: Doubleday, 1994.
Brown, R. E. and J. P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Chris
tianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Bruce, F. F. "When is a Gospel not a Gospel?" Bulletin of John Rylands University Library
of Manchester 45 (1962-63): 319-39.
. "Josephus and Daniel." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965): 148-62.
208 Bibliography
. "Render to Caesar." Pages 249-63 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E.
Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
. "The Date and Character of Mark." Pages 69-89 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day.
Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984.
Buchan, J. Augustus. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1937.
Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New
York: Scribner's, 1951.
. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Oxford: Basil Black-
well, 1963.
Burkett, D. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Burkill, T. A. Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark's Gos
pel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963.
nd
Burridge, R. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2 Edi
tion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Cancik, H. "Die Gattung Evangelium: Das Evangelium des Markus im Rahmen der antiken
Historiographie." Pages 85-114 in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche
undstilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium. Edited by H. Cancik. Wissen-
schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 33. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984.
Casey, M. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979.
. "Aramaic Idiom and Son of Man Sayings." Expository Times 96 (1984-85): 233-36.
. "General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term 'Son of Man' in Aramaic
Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29
(mi): 21-56.
. Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Carrington, M. P. The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Markan
Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.
. "The Calendrical Hypothesis of the Origin of Mark." Expository Times 67 (1956): 100-
103.
Chapman, J. "St. Irenaeus on the Date of the Gospels." Journal of Theological Studies 6
(1905): 563-69.
Charlesworth, J. "From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects." Pages 3-35
in The Messiah. Edited by James Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Charlesworth, M. P. "The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of
Belief." Proceedings of the British Academy 23 (1937): 105-33.
Chilton, B. "Son of Man: Human and Heavenly." Pages 203-18 in The Four Gospels 1992.
Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroek, et al. 3 Vols. Bibliotheca ephemer-
idum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
. "Transfiguration." Pages 640-42 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 6. Edited by D.
N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992.
. The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.
Chilver, G. E. F. "The army in politics, A.D. 68-70." Journal Roman Studies 47 (1957):
29-35.
Collins, A. Y. "The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament." Pages 90-112 in Daniel.
Edited by John J. Collins. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
. "Establishing the Text: Mark 1:1." Pages 111-27 in Text and Contexts: Biblical Texts in
Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Feschrift for L. Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg
and D. Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995.
Bibliography 209
. "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews." Harvard Theological Review
92 no. 4 (1999): 393-408.
. "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans." Harvard Theo
logical Review 93 no. 2 (2000): 85-100.
Collins, J. J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other
Ancient Literature. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, Doubleday, 1995.
Conzelmann, H. "Present and Future in the Synoptic Tradition." Journal of Theology and
the Church 5 (1968): 26-44.
. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1969.
Cotter, W. Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of the New Tes
tament Miracle Stories. London: Rutledge, 1999.
Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv.36." Expository Times 59 (1948):
137-138.
. The Gospel according to St. Mark. Cambridge Greek Text Commentary.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Crossan, J. D. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediteranean Peasant. San Francisco:
Harper San Francisco, 1991.
Crossley, J. The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. Jour
nal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 266. London: T & T Clark,
2004.
Cullmann, O. The Christology of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1959.
Cumont, F. Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans. London: Putnam,
1912.
Dalman, G. H. The Words of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1902.
Darwall-Smith, R. H. Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome. Latomus Col
lection 231. Brussels: Latomus, 1996.
Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.
Davis, W. The Influence of Wealth in Imperial Rome. New York: Macmilln, 1910.
Deissman, A. Light from the Ancient Near East. Translated by L. R. M. Strachan. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1927.
Derchain, P. "La visite de Vespasien au Serapeum d'Alexandrie." Chronique d'Egypte 28
(1953): 261-79.
Derrett, J. D. M. "Render to Caesar . . ." Pages 313-38 in Law in the New Testament. Lon
don: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970.
nd
. Studies in the New Testament. 2 ed. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
. "Christ's Second Baptism (Lk 12:50; Mk 10:38-40)." Expository Times 100 (1988-89):
294-295.
Dibelius, M. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. London: James
Clark & Co., 1971.
Dickie, M. W. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge,
2001.
Dinkier, E. "Peter's Confession and the 'Satan' Saying: The Problem of Jesus' Messiahship"
Pages 186-89 in The Future of Our Religious Past. Feschrift for R. Bultmann. New
York: Harper & Row, 1971.
Donahue, J. R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 10. Missoula: SBL, 1973.
. The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. 1983 Pere Marquette
Theology Lecture. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983.
210 Bibliography
. "The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel." Pages 817-38 in The Four Gospels
1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroek, et al. 3 vols. Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1992.
. "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57
(1995): 1-26.
Donahue, J. R. and D. J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. Sacra Pagina 2. Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 2002.
Drexler, H. Review of A. Briessmann, Tacitus und das Flavische Geschichtsbild. Gnomon
28 (1956): 523.
Dunn, J. D. G. "The Messianic Secret in Mark." Pages 116-31 in The Messianic Secret.
Edited by Christopher Tuckett. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
nd
. Christology in the Making. 2 ed. London: SCM Press, 1989.
. Editor. Jews and Christians: A. D. 70 to 135. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
. Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered. Volume 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003.
Earl, D. "Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography." ANRW 2:842-56. Part 1, Principal 2,
Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972.
Ebeling, H. J. Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten. Berlin:
A. Topelmann, 1939.
Eck, W. "Urbs Salvia und seine fuhrenden Familien." Picus: studi e ricerche sulle Marche
neW Antichita 12-13 (1992-93): 79-108.
Ehrman, B. "The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox" Lutheran Quarterly 5 (1991):
143-56.
nd
Ellis, E. E. The Gospel of Luke. 2 edn. London: Oliphants, 1974.
. "The Date and Provenance of Mark's Gospel." Pages 801-815 in The Four Gospels
1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Ban Segroeck, et al. Leuven: Leuven
Ernst, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Pustet
Verlag, 1998.
Evans, C. A. "Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple." Journal for the Study
ofthePseudepigrapha 10 (1992): 89-147.
. "Mark's Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-
Roman Gospel" Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000): 67-81.
. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
. "The Beginning of the Good News and the Fulfillment of Scripture in Mark's Gospel."
Pages 83-103 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New. Edited by Stanley E. Porter.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Farmer, W. R. Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus. New York: Columbia University Press,
1956.
. The Synoptic Problem. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Fears, J. R. Princeps A Diis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Con
cept at Rome. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 26. Rome:
American Academy in Rome, 1977.
Ferrill, A. Caligula: Emperor of Rome. London: Thames and Hudson, 1991.
Fitzmyer, J. "The New Testament Title the 'Son of Man' Philologically Considered." Pages
143-60 in^4 Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula: Scholars Press,
1979.
Bibliography 211
. "Another View of the Son of Man Debate." Journal for the Study of the New Testament
4 (1979): 58-68.
. Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Bible 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1998.
Foerster, W. "Saipcov, Saiuoviov." Pages 1-20 in Theological Dictionary of the New Tes
tament. Volume 2. Edited by G. Kittle and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley.
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1964.
Fowler, R. M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel
of Mark. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 54. Chico: Scholars Press,
1981.
France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1971.
. The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002.
Frankemolle, H. "Evangelium als theologischer Begriff und sein Bezug zur literarischen
Gattung 'Evangelium.'" ANRW 25.2, 1635-1704. Part 2, Principal 25.2. Edited by H.
Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.
Friedlander, L. Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire. Translated by Leonard
Magnus. London: Routledge, 1928.
Friedrich, G. "euayyeXiov." Pages 721-737 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testa
ment Volume 2. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley.
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1964.
Fuller, R. H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York: Scribner, 1965.
. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1966.
Garnsey, P. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and
Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Garrett, S. R. The Temptations of Jesus in Mark's Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Gartner, B. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Society for
New Testament Studies Monograph Series 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1965.
Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the
Synoptic Gospels. Novum Testamentum Supplement Series 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Gelzer, M. Caesar: Politician and Statesman. Translated by Peter Needham. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1968.
Georgi, D. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1986.
Gibson, J. B. "Jesus' Refusal to Produce a 'Sign' (Mark 8:11-13)." Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 38 (1990): 37-66.
. The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity. Journal for the Study of the New Testa
ment Supplement Series 112. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Gnilka, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament 2. Zurich: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.
. Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.
Globe, A. "The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1." Harvard
Theological Review 75 (1982): 209-18.
Goldenberg, R. Review of J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward
Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Recherches de Science Religieuse 11 (1985):
335-37.
Gradel, I. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford:
Clarendon, 2002.
212 Bibliography
Graf, H. R. Kaiser Vespasian, Untersuchungen zu Suetons Vita Divi Vespasiani. Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer. 1937.
Graham, H. R. "A Markan Theme: Endurance in Time of Persecution." The Bible Today 23
(1985): 297-304.
. "A Passion Prediction for Mark's Community: Mark 13:9-13" Biblical Theological Bul
letin 16 (1986): 18-22.
Green, W. S. "Introduction: Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question." Pages 1-13 in
Judaisms and Their Messiahs. Edited by Jacob Neusner, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge
Grimal, P. The Civilization of Rome. Translated by W. S. Maguinnes. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1963.
nd
Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 ed. Theologischer Handkommentar zum
Neuen Testament 2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962.
Guelich, R. "'The Beginning of the Gospel" Mark 1:1-15." Biblical Research 27 (1982):
5-15.
. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34a. Dallas: Word, 1989.
Gundry, R. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1993.
Hadas, M. and M. Smith. Heroes and Gods. Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity. New York:
Harper and Row, 1963.
Haenchen, E. Der WegJesu: Eine Erkldrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen
nd
Parallelen. 2 ed. Berlin: Topelmann, 1966.
Hagner, D. A. Matthew. Word Biblical Commentary 33b. Dallas: Word, 1995.
Hahn, F. "Die Rede von der Parusie des Menschensohnes Markus 13." Pages 240-66 in
Jesus und der Menschensohn. Edited by R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg:
Herder, 1975.
Halverson, J. "Oral and Written Gospel: A Critique of Werner Kelber." New Testament Stud
ies 40 (1994): 180-95.
Hamilton, J. R. Alexander the Great. London: Hutchinson, 1973.
Hammond, M. The Augustan Principate: In Theory and Practice during the Julio-Claudian
Period. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933.
Hare, D. R. A. "The Lives of the Prophets." Pages 379-399 in volume 2 Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.
. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Harnack, A. Reden und Aufsdtze. 2 vols. Giessen: Topelmann, 1906.
Hart, H. St. J. "The Crown of Thorns in John 19:2-5." Journal of Theological Studies 3
(1952): 66-75.
Hartman, L. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and
of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. Coniectanea neotestamentica: New Testa
ment Series 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1966.
Head, P. M. "A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1: 'The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.'" New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 621-29.
Heard, R. G. "APOMNEMONEUMATA in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus." New Testament
Studies 1 (1954): 122-129.
. "The Old Gospel Prologues." Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1955): 1-16.
Henderson, B. Civil War and Rebellion in the Roman Empire A.D. 69-70. London: Macmil-
lan, 1908.
Hengel, M. Was Jesus a Revolutionary? Facet Books, Biblical Series 28. Philadelphia: For
tress, 1971.
Bibliography 213
. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadel
phia: Fortress Press, 1977.
. "Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums.' Pages 1-45 in Markus-Phi-
lologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten
Evangelium. Edited by H. Cancik. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa
ment 33. Tubingen: J. B. Mohr, 1984.
. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1985.
. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995.
. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Col
lection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Translated by John Bowden. Harrisburg:
Trinity Press, 2000.
Henrichs, A. "Vespasian's Visit to Alexandria." Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigrafik
3 (1968): 51-80.
Hermann, A. "Erdbeben." Reallexicon fur Antike and Christentum 5 (1962): 1070-1113.
Herrmann, L. "Basilides." Latomus 12 (1953): 312-15.
Hickling, C. J. A. "Is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians a Source for Early Church His
tory?" Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren
Kirche 66 (1975): 284-87.
Holscher, G. "Der Ursprung der Apokalypse Mk 13." Theologische Beitrage 12 (1933):
193-202.
Holladay, C. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in
New Testament Christology. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 40. Mis
soula: Scholars Press, 1977.
Holtzmann, H. Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Character.
Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863.
Homo, L. Vespasien, Vempereur du bon sens (69-79 ap. J.-C). Paris: Albin Michael, 1949.
Hooker, M. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah
in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959.
. Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.
. "Trial and Tribulation in Mark XIII." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library
of Manchester 65 (1982): 78-99.
. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Hopkins, K. "Tax and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.-A.D. 400)." Journal of Roman
Studies 70 (1980): 101-25.
Horbury, W. "The Messianic Association of 'The Son of Man.'" Journal of the Theological
Studies 36 (1985): 34-55.
Horsley, R. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Pales
tine. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel. Louisville: WJK, 2001.
Howard, W. F. "The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels." Expository Times 47 (1935-
36): 534-538.
Hurtado, L. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament 2. Pea-
body: Hendrickson, 1989.
. "Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assessment of Werner
Kelber's The Oral and Written Gospeir Bulletin of Biblical Research 1 (1997): 91-106.
van Iersel, B. "De thuishaven van Marcus." Theologisch Tijdschrift 32 (1992): 125-42.
. Mark: A Reader Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux. London: T
& T Clark, 1998.
214 Bibliography
. "Failed Followers in Mark: Mark 13:12 as a Key for Identification of the Intended
Reader." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 244-63.
. Mark: A Reader Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux London: T
& T Clark, 1998.
Incigneri, B. J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Bib
lical Interpretation Series 65. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Jeremias, J. New Testament Theology. Volume 1. New York: Charles Scribner, 1971.
Juel, D. H. Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Society of Bibli
cal Literature Dissertation Series 31. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
Julicher, A. and E. Fascher. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1931.
Kazmierski, C. R. Jesus, the Son of God, A Study in Marcan Tradition and Its Redaction by
the Evangelist. Forschung Zur Bibel 33. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979.
Keck, L. E. "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):
341-58.
. "Toward the Renewal of NT Christology." New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 362-77.
Kee, H. C. Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times. Society for New Testa
ment Studies Monograph Series 55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
. Community of the New Age. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.
. "Testament of Levi." Pages 788-795 in volume 1 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.
Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.
Kelber, W. H. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1974.
. Mark's Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
. The Oral and Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Kennedy, D. "Roman Army." Pages 789-90 in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 5.
Edited by D. N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992.
Kertelge, K. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 23. Munich: Kosel, 1970.
Kienast, D. Romische Kaisertabelle: Grundzuge einer rom. Kaiser chronologic Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990.
Kim, S."The 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983.
Kim, T. H. "The Anarthrous inog 0eou in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult." Biblica
79(1998): 221-41.
Kingsbury, J. D. The Christology of Mark's Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Kirschner, E. F. The Place of Exorcism in Mark's Christology with Special Reference to
Mark 3:22-30. Ph.D. thesis. London Bible College, 1988.
Kleiner, F. S. "The Arches of Vespasian in Rome." Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 97
(1990): 134-36.
th
Klostermann, E. Das Markusevangelium. 5 ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 3. Tubin
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971.
Kolenkow, A. B. "Miracle and Prophecy." ANRW 23.2, 1470-1506. Part 2, Principat 23.2.
Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980.
Kummel, W G. Promise and Fulfillment. London: SCM Press, 1957.
. Introduction to the Testament. Translated by H. C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1975.
La Verdiere, E. The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel according to Mark. 2
vols. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999.
th
Lagrange, M. J. Evangile selon Saint Marc. 4 ed. Etudes bibliques. Paris: J. Gabalda,
1947.
Bibliography
Lambrecht, J. Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,

1967.
Lampe, G. W. H. "St. Peter's Denial and the Treatment of the Lapsi," Pages 113-33 in The
Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of Georges Vasilievich Florovsky on the
Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by D. Neiman and M. Schatkin. Orientalia
Christiana Analecta 195. Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1973.
. "A. D. 70 in Christian Reflection." Pages 153-71 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day.
Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984.
Lane, W. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Tes
tament 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Lane Fox, R. Alexander the Great. London: Allan Lane, 1973.
Langton, E. Essentials of Demonology. London: Epworth, 1949.
Lattimore, R. "Portents and Prophecies in Connection with the Emperor Vespasian." Clas
sical Journal 29 (1933-34): 441-49.
Levi, M. A. "I principii dell' impero di Vespasiano." Rivista difilologia e d'instruzione
classica 16 (1938): 1-12.
Levick, B. Tiberius the Politician. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976.
. Vespasian. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Liew, T. B. "Tyranny, Boundary, and Might: Colonial Mimicry in Mark's Gospel." Journal
for the Study of the New Testament 73 (1999): 7-31.
Lightfoot, R. H. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. New York: Harper & Bros., 1938.
Lindars, B. Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gos
pels. London: SPCK, 1983.
Littman, R. "AntiSemitism in the Greco-Roman Pagan World." Pages 825-35 in Remember
ingfor the Future Volume I: Jews and Christians during and after the Holocaust. Edited
by Yehuda Bauer. Oxford: Pergamom, 1989.
Lohmeyer, E. Galilda und Jerusalem. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 52. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936.
th
. Das Evangelium des Markus. 15 ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ttber das Neue
Testament. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.
Liihrmann, D. Das Markusevangelium. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987.
Luz, U. "The Secrecy Motif and Marcan Christology." Pages 75-96 in The Messianic Secret.
Mack, B. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Malbon, E. S. "Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark." Semeia 28
(1983): 29-48.
Maloney, E. Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax. Society of Biblical Literature Disserta
tion Series 51. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981.
Mann, C. S. Mark. Anchor Bible 27. Garden City: Doubleday, 1986.
Manson, W. "The EGO EIMI of the Messianic Presence in the New Testament." Journal of
Theological Studies 48 (1947): 137-45.
Manson, T. W. "Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-Day Research." Pages 211-21 in
The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: In Honour of C. H. Dodd.
Edited by W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956.
Marcus, J. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel
of Mark. Louisville: WJK, 1992.
. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111
(1992): 441-62.
216 Bibliography
. Review of Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Journal
of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 648-54.
. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 27.
New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Marshall, I. H. "Son of Man." Pages 775-781 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited
by J. B. Green and S. McKnight. Downers Grove: IVP, 1992.
Martin, R. P. Mark - Evangelist and Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster, 1972.
Marxsen, W. Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems. Translated
by G. Buswell. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.
. Mark the Evangelist. Translated by James Boyce, et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1969.
Mason, S. "Josephus, Daniel and the Flavian House." Pages 161-91 in Josephus and the His
tory of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto
Parente and Joseph Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Matera, F. J. The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15. Society of Bibli
cal Literature Dissertation Series 66. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.
. NT Christology. Louisville: WJK, 1999.
Mattingly, H. Christianity in the Roman Empire. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Mauser, U. W. Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and
Its Basis in the Biblical Tradition. Studies in Biblical Theology 39; London: SCM Press;
1963.
Meagher, J. "As the Twig Was Bent: Antisemitism in Greco-Roman and Earliest Christian
Times." Pages 1-12 in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity. Edited by Alan
T. Davies. New York: Paulist, 1979.
Meye, R. P. Jesus and the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in Mark's Gospel. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Moloney, F. The Gospel of Mark. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
. Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.
rd
Moffatt, J. Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. 3 ed. Edinburgh: Clark,
1918.
Morgan, G. A. D. 69: The Year of the Four Emperors. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006.
Morenz, S. "Vespasian, Heiland der Kranken: Personliche Frommigkeit im antiken
Herrscherkult?" Wurzburger Jahrbucher fur die Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1949-50):
370-78.
Moule, C. F. D. Origins of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Murision, C. L. Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian. American Philological
Association 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
Myers, C. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus. Maryk-
noll, New York: Orbis Books, 1992.
Naylor, P. I. H. Astrology: An Historical Investigation. London: Robert Maxwell, 1967.
Nestle, E. "Dalmanutha." Pages 406-7 in Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels vol.1. Edited
by J. Hastings. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906.
Nicolas, E. P. De Neron a Vespasien. Etudes et perspectives historiques, suivies de
1' analyse, du catalogue, et de la reproduction des monnaies 'oppositionelles' connues
des annees 67 a 70. 2 vols. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1979.
Nicols, J. Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae. Historia. Einzelschriften 28. Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner, 1978.
Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of St. Mark. New York: Seabury Press, 1968.
Bibliography 217
Norden, E. "Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Christus und eine Messianische Prophetic"
Pages 27-69 in Zur Josephus-Forschung. Edited by Abraham Schalit. Darmstadt: Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973. Originally published 1913.
O'Collins, G. G. "Crucifixion." Pages 1207-10 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1. Edited by
D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Oko, O. I. "Who then is this?" A Narrative Study of the Role of the Question of the Identity
of Jesus in the Plot of Mark's Gospel. Bonner biblische Beitrage 148. Berlin: Philo,
2004.
Orchard, D. B. "Mark and the Fusion of Traditions." Pages 779-800 in The Four Gospels 1992.
Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroek, et al. 3 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeri-
dum theologicarum lovaniensium 100B. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Parke, H. W. Greek Oracles. London: Hutchinson, 1967.
Parker, R. "Oracles." Pages 1071-72 in Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by S. Horn-
rd
blower and A. Spawnforth. 3 ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
Painter, J. Mark's Gospel: Worlds in Conflict. London: Routledge, 1997.
Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert. The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the
Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. Journal for the Study of Judaism
Supplement Series 49. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Perrin, N. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1967.
. "Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark." Pages 1-78 in Christology and a
Modern Pilgrimage. Edited by H. D. Betz. Claremont: Society of Biblical Literature,
1971.
. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
Perumalil, A. C. "Are Not Papias and Irenaeus Competent to Report on the Gospels?"
Expository Times 91 (1980): 332-37.
Pesch, R. Das Markusevangelium. 2 volumes. Freiburg: Herder, 1976.
. Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968.
. Review of Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Biblica
76 (1995): 107-15.
Potter, D. Prophets and Emperors. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Pudussery, P. S. Discipleship: A Call to Suffering and Glory: An Exegetico-Theological
Study of Mark 8,27-9,1; 13,9-13 and 13:24-27. Rome: Libreria "Alma Mater," 1987.
Quesnell, Q. The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark
6:52. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.
Radcliffe, T. "'The Coming of the Son of Man': Mark's Gospel and the Subversion of the
Apocalyptic Imagination." Pages 167-89 in Language, Meaning and God: Essays in
Honour of Herbert McCabe O. P. Edited by B. Davies. London: Chapman, 1987.
Raisanen, H. The Messianic Secret in Mark's Gospel. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990.
Rajak, T. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Reese, D. G. "Demons: New Testament." Pages 140-42 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume
2. Edited by D. N. Freedman. Doubleday: New York, 1992.
Regul, J. Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe. Vetus Latina 6. Freiburg: Herder,
1969.
rd
Renan, E. Life of Jesus. Translation of the 23 French ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1924.
Reploh, K. G. Markus, Lehrer der Gemeinde. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den
Jiingerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums. Stuttgarter biblische Monographien 9. Stutt
gart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969.
218 Bibliography
Riesenfeld, H. "Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium." Pages 157-164 in Neu-

testamentliche Studien fur Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20.
August 1954. Edited by Walther Eltester; Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1954.
Ritschl, A. "Uber den gegenwartigen Stand der Kritik der synoptischen Evangelien." Pages
1-51 in Gesammelte Aufsdtze. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1893.
Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1976.
Rowe, R. God's Kingdom and God's Son. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Roskam, H. N. The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context.
Novum Testamentum Series 114. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Sanday, W. The Life of Christ in Recent Research. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.
Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Sanders, E. P. and M. Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London: SCM Press, 1989.
Sanford, E. M. "Nero and the East." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 48 (1937):
75-103.
Saulnier, C. "Flavius Josephe et la Propagande Flavienne." Revue Biblique 96.4 (1989):
545-62.
Schenke, L. Die Wundererzahlungen des Markusevangeliums. Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974.
. Das Markusevangelium. Urban-Taschenbucher 405. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988.
Schille, G. "Bermerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Rahmen und Aufbau des
Markus-Evangeliums." New Testament Studies 4 (1957-1958): 1-24.
Schmid, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Regensburger Neues Testament 2. Regensburg:
Pustet, 1958.
Schmidt, K. L. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Berlin: Trowitzsch und Sohn, 1919.
Schmidt, T. E. "Mark 15:16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Pro
cession." New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 1-18.
. "Jesus' Triumphal March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession," Bibli
cal Review 13.1 (1997): 30-37.
Schmithals, W. "Die Worte vom Leidenden Menschensohn." Pages 417-45 in Theologia
Crucis - Signum Crucis: Festschrift fur Erich Dinkier zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by C.
Anderson and G. Klein. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1979.
Schnackenburg, R. Jesus in the Gospels. Louisville: WJK, 1995.
Schnelle, U. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Translated by M.
Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
th
Schniewind, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 4 ed. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 1. Got
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947.
. Euangelion: Ursprung underste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970, c. 1927, 1931.
Schoeps, H. J. "Ebionitische Apokalyptik im Neuen Testament." Zeitschrift fur die neu-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 51 (1960): 101-11.
Schulz, S. Die Stunde der Botschaft. Hamburg: Furche, 1967.
Schreiber, J. "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums." Zeitschrift fur Theologie und
Kirche 58 (1961): 154-83.
Schweitzer, A. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William Montgomery.
London: A. & C. Black, 1931.
Schweizer, E. The Good News According to Mark. Translated by D. H. Madvig. Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1970.
Scott, K. The Imperial Cult under the Flavians. New York: Arno Press, 1936. Repr. 1975.
Shuler, P. L. "The Genre of the Gospels and the Two Gospel Hypothesis." Pages 69-88 in
Bibliography 219
Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William Farmer. Edited by E. P.
Sanders. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987.
Skarsaune, O. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Down
ers Grove: IVP, 2002.
Senior, D. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Patrologia syriaca 2. Wilmington:
Michael Glazier, 1984.
Smallwood, E. M. Documents Illustrating the Principate of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero.
London: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Smith, D. E. "Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory." Semeia 52 (1990):
1-9.
Smith, J. Z. "Towards Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity."
ANRW 16.1, 425-43. Part 2, Principal 16.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Ber
lin: de Gruyter, 1978.
Smith, M. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.
Sowers, S. "The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight." Theologische
Zeitschrift 26.5 (1970): 305-20.
Steichele, H. J. Der leidende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher
Motive in der Christologie des Markusevangeliums. Biblische Untersuchungen 14.
Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1980.
Stemberger, G. "Galilee - Land of Salvation." Pages 435-36 in The Gospel and the Land:
Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine. Edited by W. D. Davies. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1974.
Stern, D. Parables in Midrash. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Stern, M. ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Jerusalem: The Israel Acad
emy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980.
Stevenson, T. R. "The Ideal Benefactor and Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought."
Classical Quarterly 42 (1992): 421-36.
Stock, K. Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhaltnis zwischen Jesus und den Zwolf nach
Markus. Anchor Bible 70. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975.
Strecker, G. "Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums."
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 72 (1961): 141-147.
. "Das Evangelium Jesu Christi." Pages 503-48 in Jesus Christus in Historie und The-
th
ologie. Festschrift for H. Conzelmann on his 60 birthday. Edited by G. Strecker, et al.
Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975.
. "The Theory of the Messianic Secret in Mark's Gospel." Pages 49-64 in The Messianic
Secret. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
. Theology of the New Testament. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000.
Stuhlmacher, P. Das paulinische Evangelium. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.
Such, W. The Abomination of Desolation in the Gospel of Mark: Its Historical Reference in
Mark 13:14 and Its Impact in the Gospel. Lanham: University Press of America, 1999.
Sumney, J. "The Role of Historical Constructions of Early Christianity in Identifying Paul's
Opponents." Perspectives in Religious Studies 16 (1989): 45-53.
Tannehill, R. C. "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role." Pages 134-57
in The Interpretation of Mark. Edited by Mark Telford. Issues in Religion and Theology
7; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Taylor, N. H. "Palestinian Christianity and the Caligula Crisis: Part II. The Markan Escha
tological Discourse." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 62 (1996): 13-41.
Taylor, V. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: MacMillan & Co., 1952.
220 Bibliography
. "W. Wrede's The Messianic Secret in the Gospels." Expository Times 65 (1953-54):
248-50.
Telford, W. R. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. New Testament Theology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Theissen, G. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Traditon.
Translated by Linda Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
. "Evangelienschreibung und Gemeindeleitung. Pragmatische Motive bei der Abfassung
des Markusevangeliums." Pages 389-414 in Antikes Judentum undfrtihes Christentum.
Festschrift fur H. Stegemann. Edited by B. Kollman, et al. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur
die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 97. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999.
Theissen, G. and A. Mertz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. London: SCM
Press, 1998.
Thiede, C. P. The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran Fragment 7Q5 and Its Signifi
cance for New Testament Studies. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1992.
Thusing, W. "Erhohungsvorstellung und Parusierwartung in der altesten nachosterlichen
Christologie." Biblische Zeitschrift 12 (1968): 54-80.
Tiede, D. L. "Religious Propaganda and the Gospel Literature of the Early Christian Mis
sion." ANRW 25.2, 1705-29. Part 2, Principal 25.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W.
Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.
Tobin, T. "The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988):
317-19.
Todt, H. E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton.
London: SCM Press, 1965.
Tolbert, M. A. Sowing the Gospel: Mark's Words in Literary-Historical Perspective. Min
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Torrey, C. C. The Lives of the Prophets. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 1.
Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1946.
Trocme, E. "Marc 9:1: prediction ou reprimand?" Studia Evangelica 2 (1964): 259-65.
. The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark. Translated by Pamela Gaughan. Phil
adelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.
Tuckett, C. "The Problem of the Messianic Secret." Pages 1-29 in The Messianic Secret.
. "Messianic Secret." Pages 797-800 in Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 4. Edited by D.
N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Twelftree, G. H. "Demon, Devil, Satan." Pages 163-72 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gos
pels. Edited by J. B. Green and S. McKnight. Downers Grove: IVP, 1992.
. Jesus the Exorcist. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.54.
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.
Ulansey, D. "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic Inclusio." Journal of Biblical Litera
ture 110(1991): 123-125.
VanderKam, J. C. "Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man." Pages 169-191
in The Messiah. Edited by J. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Verheyden, J. "Persecution and Eschatology. Mk 13,9-13." Pages 1141-59 in vol. 2 The Four
Gospels 1992. Festschrift for F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, et al. 3 Vols.
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1992.
Vermes, G. "The Use of bar nash/bar nasha in Jewish Aramaic." Pages 310-28 in An Ara
maic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Edited by M. Black. Oxford: Carendon, 1967.
. Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1973.
Bibliography 221
Versnel, H. S. Triumphus: An Enquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the
Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Vielhauer, P. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die
Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vdter. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975.
. "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkundigung Jesu." Pages 51-79 in Aufsdtze
zum Neuen Testament. Munich: Kaiser, 1957.
Vigourt, A. Les Presages Imperiaux dAuguste a Domitien. Collection de VUniversite Marc
Bloch, Strasbourg. Etudes d'histoire ancienne. Paris: de Boccard, 2001.
von Martitz, W. "ulog" Pages 338-40 in vol. 8 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testa
ment. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand
Rapids, 1964-1976.
Wacher, J. The Roman Empire. London: J. M. Dent, 1987.
Waetjen, H. C. A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel. Min
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. "Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King." Journal of Roman Stud
ies 72 (1982): 32-48.
Walter, N. "Tempelzerstorung und synoptische Apokalypse." Zeitschrift fur die neutesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1966): 38-49.
Watts, R. Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997.
Weber, W. Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem judischen Krieg des Flavius
Josephus. New York, Hildesheim, 1921.
Webster, G. The Roman Invasion of Britain. Rev. ed. London: B. T. Batsford, 1993.
Weeden, T. J. "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel." Zeitschrift fur die neutesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren Kirche 59 (1968): 145-58.
. Mark-Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Weinstock, S. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
th
Weiss, B. Das Leben Jesu. 2 vols. 4 ed. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1902.
Weisse, C. H. Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet. 2 vols.
Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1938.
rd
Wellesley, K. The Year of the Four Emperors. 3 ed., with a new intro by Barbara Levick.
London: Routledge, 2000.
. "What Happened on the Capitol in December AD 69." American Journal of Ancient
History 6 (1981): 166-90.
Wenham, J. W. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991.
Werner, M. The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical Study of Its Problem. Trans
lated by S. G. F. Brandon. London: A. & C. Black, 1957.
Wilke, C. G. Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung uber das Ver-
wandtschaftsverhdltnis der drei ersten Evangelien. Dresden: G. Fleischer, 1838.
Williams, J. F. Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark's
Gospel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemental Series 102. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
. "Is Mark's Gospel an Apology for the Cross?" Bulletin of Biblical Research 12.1 (2002):
97-122.
Witherington, B. The Gospel of Mark: A Social Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001.
Wrede, W. The Messianic Secret. Translated by J. C. G. Greig. Cambridge: James Clark &
Co., 1971.
Index of Ancient Sources
1. Old Testament
Numbers Canticles
34:11 89
1:1-2 93
Deuteronomy
7:25-26 73 Isaiah
17:4 73 40:3 96
18:12 73 40:9-10 96
27:15 73 41:27 96
52:7 96
Joshua 60:6 96
12:3 89 61:1 96
13:27 89 Jeremiah
2 Samuel 2:7 73
4:10 96
18:19-27 96 Ezekiel
2 Kings 36:25-26 109

4:42-44 113
7:9 96 Daniel
7:9 122
2 Chronicles 7:13-14 35, 75, 103-105, 107,
2:16 88 180-181
11:31 73
Psalms 12:11 73
2:7 101, 180 Joel
2:7-8 181
2:28 109
22:7 135
22:15 135
Haggai
22:18 135
2:21-24 181
Proverbs
1:1-6 93
Zechariah
Ecclesiastes
9:9-10 122, 181
1:1-2 93
Malachi
2:11 73
224 Index of Ancient Sources
2. New Testament
Matthew 2:1-12 24, 112-114, 146, 195
8:17 168 2:6-7 16, 19
8:20 105 2:10 105-106
10:23 104 2:13 8, 140
12:18-21 168 2:13-14 14, 140
14:1-2 115 2:13-17 38, 147, 197
16:28 104 2:18-22 114
24:29 70 2:19-20 16
24:45-51 169 2:23 81
25:31 104 2:23-28 114
27:28 130 2:28 104, 106
27:34 131 3:1-6 24, 112, 114, 185
3:7 8
Mark 3:7-12 8,9
1:1 17, 19, 27, 36, 3:10 112
37, 92, 94, 98,101, 109, 3:11 94, 101, 111, 138,
115-116, 147, 182 182-183
1:1-3 92 3:12 111, 136, 138
1:1-13 19 3:13-15 14, 147
1:2-3 92, 109, 168 3:13-19 38
1:7 109 3:14 140
1:8 109 3:15 111
1:9-11 113 3:18 140
1:11 17,94, 101, 180-182 3:20-30 8,32, 111, 113-114
1:13 109 3:22 111
1:14 16, 110 3:31-35 14,25
1:14-15 23 3:35 38
1:15 109 4:1 8
1:16 8 4:1-31 8
1:16-20 14,25,38,89, 140, 197 4:10-13 141, 144
1:17 147, 197 4:10-20 10
1:21-28 9, 114 4:10-34 140
1:22 114 4:11 8, 140, 144
1:23 111 4:11-12 137, 142
1:23-28 111 4:13-20 38
1:24 138 4:17 196
1:24-26 19 4:23 38
1:25 116, 136, 138 4:35 19
1:27 114 4:35-41 10, 29, 112, 140-141, 176
1:29-34 112 5:1-20 111,113
1:31 147 5:2 111
1:32-34 9,111 5:7 19, 94, 101, 182-183
1:34 19, 111, 116, 136, 138 5:19-20 10, 147
1:39 111 5:20 197
1:40-45 10, 112, 137 5:21-43 8, 112
1:43-44 136 5:23 81
1:45 147 5:25-34 141, 147, 195
2:1 8 5:35-43 10, 38, 140
5:43 136-137 9:1 8, 67, 151
6:1-6 24, 114 9:2 180
6:2-3 19 9:2-8 9,36, 107, 138, 140
6:6-13 14 9:7 17, 19, 94, 101, 181-182
6:7 140 9:9 39, 105, 116, 136, 138,
6:7-9 25 144
6:7-13 147, 197 9:12 105, 124
6:10-13 25, 140 9:9-13 37, 124
6:13 111 9:14-29 121
6:14-16 19, 115, 143 9:25 111
6:14-29 114 9:28-29 30
6:30-44 113, 140-142, 188 9:30 21
6:45-52 10, 29, 112, 140-141, 176 9:30-32 10, 16, 124, 134, 137,
6:50-52 8 144
6:52 143 9:31 105
6:53-56 112 9:31-50 140
7:1-23 8,32,54-55, 114, 140 9:33-37 30, 144
7:3-4 55,86 9:33-50 8
7:14-23 144 9:36 149
7:19 54-55 9:38 111
7:21 89 9:41 100, 148
7:24 137 9:42 38
7:24-30 39, 111, 147, 195 9:42-50 30, 122
7:26-37 147 9:46-52 32
7:31 85 10:1-12 30, 122
7:36 136-137, 197 10:13-16 30, 122
7:31-37 8, 10, 112, 137 10:17-27 30, 197
8:1 8 10:17-31 38, 89, 122
8:2 189 10:23-45 140
8:1-10 113, 140-142, 188 10:27 40
8:10 86 10:28 140
8:14-21 10, 141-142, 176 10:28-31 14, 25, 30, 39, 122, 140
8:15 142 10:29 38, 148
8:18 142 10:32-34 10, 16, 124, 134, 144
8:22-26 10, 112, 185 10:33 81, 105
8:26 136-137 10:34 21
8:27-30 9, 19, 143 10:35-45 16, 25, 124, 145
8:27-38 176 10:37 38
8:27-9:13 140 10:38-40 125
8:29 37, 94, 100, 138 10:41 38
8:30 136, 138 10:41-45 144, 149
8:31 21, 105, 134, 144 10:44 38
8:31-33 10, 16 10:45 105, 120, 125, 134
8:31-9:1 25 10:46-52 37, 107, 121, 147, 176,
8:33 119 195
8:34 8, 38, 148, 175, 196 10:47-52 10, 138
8:34-38 16, 29, 52, 82, 150, 197 11:1-11 32,37, 107, 138, 140
8:35 38, 148, 196 11:9-10 10
8:38 38, 104-105, 123, 135, 11:12-14 121
148, 151, 180, 193 11:12-33 32,59
11:18 124 193, 195

11:20-25 121 13:26-27 127
11:23-24 122 13:28-37 194
11:25 149 13:28-29 151
11:25-26 122 13:30 151
11:27-33 122 13:32-42 144
12:1-12 16, 59, 124-125 13:33 151
12:6 94 13:35 151
12:10 168 13:37 151
12:13-17 32, 122 14:3-9 39, 124, 147
12:18-27 122 14:9 53-54
12:28-34 122 14:12-21 128, 140
12:35 94, 100 14:17-21 122, 187
12:35-37 32,37, 14:21 105
12:38-40 122 14:22-31 127
12:41-44 39 14:25 127
12:42 81 14:26-31 122, 144
12:43-44 140 14:28 21, 23, 84
13:1-2 59,71 14:31 144
13:1-37 140 14:32-42 38, 127
13:2 56, 68, 71, 122 14:34 128
13:3 71 14:36 125, 128
13:5-6 37, 149 14:41 105
13:5-8 68, 71, 151, 170 14:43-65 32, 38, 127
13:5-13 87-88 14:53-65 127
13:5-23 68 14:57 134
13:5-27 71, 122, 151 14:61 17, 19, 94, 100-101
13:6 18, 170 14:61-62 37, 107
13:6-7 150 14:62 104-107, 127, 135, 138,
13:7-8 88 180, 182, 193
13:9 33, 175 14:66-72 38, 127, 144
13:9-13 25, 38, 69, 71-72, 75, 15:1-15 127
82,148-149, 151 15:6-15 40
13:9-20 150 15:16 81
13:10 53, 54, 197 15:24 135
13:12 83 15:23 131, 135
13:13 83, 175, 196 15:29 135
13:14 73 15:29-32 133-134
13:14-23 69-71, 151 15:32 94, 100
13:14-27 87 15:33 133
13:18 69 15:34 133-134
13:17 75 15:36 135
13:19 75,85 15:37 133
13:19-20 149 15:38 59
13:21 94, 100 15:39 17, 19, 94, 101, 133,
13:21-22 18, 100, 149, 174, 195 182-183
13:21-23 150 16:1-8 126
13:24-27 70, 71, 151 16:7 20-21, 23, 84
13:26 104-107, 135, 180, 188,
Luke
9:7-9 115 2:18-22 62
12:40 104
12:41-48 169 1 Thessalonians
12:50 125 4:13-5:11 170
18:8 104
19:43-44 59 2 Thessalonians
21:20 59 1:5-2:12 170
22:69 104 2:1-12 85
23:46 132 2:3-4 74
2:4 62
John
I Timothy
19:30 132 3:15 62
Acts Hebrews
2:25-28 168
2:34-35 168 1:5-14 168
6:13 63
6:14 63 James
7:48-50 63 5:8 168
7:56 102 1 Peter
21:17-26 62 5:13 78, 80
Romans
1:2-4 168 2 Peter
10:18 53
15:19 53 3:1-13 169
1 Corinthians I John
3:16-17 62 2:18-27 85
7 170 Revelation
1:13 102
2 Corinthians 14:14 102
6:14-7:1 62
Ephesians
3. Old Testament Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha

and Dead Sea Scrolls
2 Baruch 3 Enoch
12:1 122
29:8 113 2 Esdras
3:7 73
/ Enoch
1:1 93 Lives of the Prophets
14:20 122 10:10 59
62:1-16 194 12:11 59,61
2 Enoch
22:8-9 122
1 Maccabees 14:1-15:3 59
1:54 73 16:1-5 59
6:7 73
Tobit
2 Maccabees 8:3 111
9:8 112, 186
Testament of Job Dead Sea Scrolls
45:7-9 122 lQpHab
Testament of Judah 9:27 61

23:1-55 9
HQTemp
Testament of Levi 29:8-10 61
10:3 59 30:1-4 61
4. Early Christian Writings

1 Clement Ignatius
5:1-7 44 Romans
6:1 44
25:3 169 4.2-3 44
2 Clement Irenaeus
Against Heresies
11-12 169 1.25.4 45
3.1.1 6
Eusebius 3.3.2 44
Ecclesiastical History 3.12.13 44
2.15.1-2 48 3.14.2 45
3.5.3 20 3.16.1 45
3.17 172 3.18.2 45
3.39.15 6,48 5.7.1 45
5.82-3 44
6.14.5-7 48
6.14.6 6
5. Josephus and Philo

Josephus 6.312-13 161
Antiquities 7.66-74 167
8.45-49 111 7.71 167
15.44 83 7.152 132
15.275-279 60
17.146-154 60 Philo
18.55-59 60 Embassy to Gaius
38 60
Jewish Wars 145-46 186
4.11 97
4.592-604 165
6. Ancient Greek and Roman Writings

Dio Cassius Vespasian
Roman History 1 154
57.15.8-9 112 1.1 153
60.23.1 132 1.4 157, 182
63.28.1 171 2 154
65.9.2 187 2.3 154
66.8.1 160 4.1 154, 155
66.17.3 163 5 158
5.4 161
Lucian of Samosata 6.3 156
Lover of Lies 6.4 156
16 111 7 112
7.2 160
Philostratus 8.5-9.2 167
Life of Apollonius 9.1 167
4:13 112 10-25 153
4.20 111 12 166
8.7 113 12.1 182
16.3 157
Plutarch 23.4 163
Caesar
69.3-5 133 Tacitus
Annul
Res Gestae
3.15.18 166 15.44 82, 195
4:25 186
Histories
Suetonius 2.78.1 187
Lives of the Caesars 2.79 156, 165
Tiberius 2.89-90 156
4.81 112, 160, 185
17 132 4.82 160
5:2-5 171
Gaius 5.13.1-2 161
22 190
Galba
18.1 171
Index of Modern Authors
Achtemeier, P. 13, 101, 107, 180-181 Burkill,T.A. 11

Anderson, H. 74 Burridge, R. 4
Arnold, G. 92 Cancik, H. 7,95
Aune, D. E. 15,113,122 Casey, M. 43, 84, 104-105 *
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 190 Carrington, M. P. 24
Barrett, A. 190 Chapman, J. 45-46, 50-51, 146,
Barrett, C. K. 15, 63 Charlesworth, J. 60, 100, 104
Barton, T. S. 187 Charlesworth, M. P. 125, 188-189
Bauckham, R. 3-4, 104 Chilton, B. 104, 122-123
Baur, C. F. 43 Collins, A. Y. 57, 59, 70, 72, 95, 101, 102-
Beasley-Murray, G. R. 57, 152, 170 103, 133, 180-181, 183, 186
Beck,R. 187 Conzelmann, H. 21, 56, 96, 138, 152
Beckwith, R. T. 163-164 Cotter, W. 186
Behm,J. 122 Cranfield, C. E. B. 86, 125, 130
Bersanetti, G. M. 157, 166 Crossan, J.D. 113, 123, 148, 184
Best, E. 27, 32, 46, 51, 53, 55, 59, 65, 67- Crossley, J. 43,46, 52-55
68, 76, 77, 82, 84, 99, 139, 140, 145 Cullmann, O. 103
Betz, H. D. 13,77, 112-113, Cumont,F. 187
B e t z , 0 . 15 Dalman, G. H. 104
Bieler, L. 12, 95 Darwall-Smith, R. H. 167
Black, C. C. 4, 21, 50, 76, 77-80, 84, 169 Daube,D. 10,72
Blass, F. 81 Davis, W. 154
Bolt, P. 179, 185-186 Deissman, A. 95
Boobyer,G.H. 102,122 Derchain, P. 159
Boomershine, T. E. 23 Derrett, J. D. M. 33, 41, 56, 125
Booth, R. P. 56 Dibelius, M. 11, 102
Boring, M. E. 25, 81, 92-94, 96, 110, 178 Dickie, W. 113
Bornkamm, G. 103 Dinkier, E. 106
Brandenburger, E. 57 Donahue, J. R. 25, 33, 54, 56, 69, 76, 77,
Brandon, S. G. F. 21,31-35,40,42, 56,69, 82, 92, 99, 108-109, 111, 116-117, 123,
123, 169, 171 125-128, 131, 139-141, 145-146, 148,
Broadhead, E. K. 17-18 174, 175, 189, 195-196
Broer, I. 59 Drexler,H. 155
Brown, R. E. 76, 127, 131 Dunn, J. D. G. 10-11, 103, 105, 112, 172
Bruce, F. F. 33, 57, 95-96, 104, 163, 164 Earl, D. 93,
Buchan, J. 158, 191 Ebeling, H. J. 11,27, 138
Bultmann, R. 10, 12, 20, 28, 57, 102 Eck,W. 154
Burkett, D. 103 Ehrman, B. 94
232 Index of Modern Authors
Ellis, E. E. 43-45, 152 Hart, H.S.J. 130

Ernst, J. 74,76 Hartman, L. 95, 151-152
Evans, C. A. 19, 33, 57, 59-61, 94, 96-98, Head, P.M. 94
100-103, 106, 123, 125-128, 130, 131, Heard, R. G. 47,49
133, 148, 149, 152, 168, 170-171, 178- Hengel, M. 7,47-48,51-53, 57, 59,72, 76,
181, 183, 185, 188-189, 193, 196-197 81, 106, 119, 123, 148, 169, 171, 192
Farmer, W. R. 1, 21 Henrichs,A. 159-160
Fears, J. R. 159 Hermann, A. 171
Ferrill, A. 190 Herrmann, L. 159
Fitzmyer, J. 63, 104 Hickling,A. 15
Foerster, W. Ill H6lscher,G. 56-57
Fowler, R. M. 197 Holladay,C. 15-16
France, R. T. 33, 54,92, 99, 108-110, 114, Holtzmann, H. 6
122-123, 126, 128, 130, 133, 141, 143, Homo,L. 154,157
148-149, 188-189, 195-196 Hooker, M. 56, 69, 72, 76, 93, 96, 103,
Frankemolle, H. 95 108-110,116-117,123,126,130,140-141,
Friedlander, L. 154 143, 148, 170, 175, 185, 189, 196-197
Friedrich, G. 18, 95, 101 Hopkins, K. 157
Fuller, R. H. 13, 103, 129 Horbury,W. 104
Garnsey, P. 166 Horsley, R. 32, 35, 36-42, 100, 123, 184
Garrett, S. R. 195 Howard, W. F. 47
Gartner, B. 62 Hurtado, L. 19, 23, 101, 108
Gaston, L. 56 van Iersel, B. 54, 57,59, 72, 76, 81-82, 84,
Gelzer, M. 190 88-89, 114, 127, 130, 141-143, 146, 174
Georgi, D. 12, 15 Incigneri, B. J. 56, 77, 82-83, 172, 185
Gibson, J. B. 143,149 Jeremias, J. 104
Gnilka, J. 33, 56, 69, 70, 74, 86, 103, 107, Juel, D. H. 18, 127
122-123, 127, 131, 134, 142, 152 Julicher, A. 51
Globe, J. 94 Kazmierski, C. R. 13, 94
Goldenberg, R. 171 Keck, L. E. 13,99
Gradel, I. 166, 190 Kee, H. C. 25, 48, 59, 60-61, 77, 82
Graf, H. R. 154, 157, 167 Kelber, W. H. 20, 22-24, 32, 56, 70, 72,
Graham, H. R. 148,175 77, 81, 145, 149, 170
Green, W. S. 100 Kennedy, D. 184
Grimal, P. 154 Kertelge, K. 86
Grundmann, W. 56, 74, 151-152 Kienast,D. 156
Guelich, R. 48, 56, 76, 90, 93, 94, 96-98, Kim, S. 103,
109-110, 117, 142-143, 184-185, Kim, T. H. 101,181,183
Gundry, R. 17, 21, 28-31, 33, 36-41, 45, Kingsbury, J. D. 11, 18, 100, 106, 139
48, 54, 82, 93, 108-111, 117, 119, 122, Kirschner, E. F. Ill
125, 127-128, 133, 140-141, 143, 147- Kleiner, F. S. 166
149, 174-175, 180, 187-188, 193 Klostermann, E. 56, 74, 149
Hadas,M. 95 Kolenkow, A. B. 122
Haenchen, E. 149 La Verdiere, E. 134
Hagner,D.A. 131 Lagrange, M. J. 56, 126, 151
Hahn,F. 57 Lambrecht, J. 56, 57, 170
Halverson, J. 23 Lampe, G. W. H. 57, 146
Hammond, M. 158 Lane, W. 25, 69, 76, 82, 93, 102, 112, 123,
Hare, D. R. A. 61, 106 149, 152
Harnack, A. 95 Lane Fox, R. 183
Index of Modern Authors 233
Langton, E. Ill Parke, H. W. 187
Lattimore, R. 159 Parker, R. 187
Levi, M. A. 157 Painter, J. 94, 128
Levick, B. 98,153-157, 165,166, 167, 182, Peerbolte, L. J. 56, 69, 74
187, 191 Perrin, N. 13, 16, 77, 103, 107
Liew, T. B. 40 Perumalil, A. C. 49
Lightfoot, R. H. 20, 22, 77 Pesch, R. 31, 56-57, 69, 81, 86, 92, 95,
Lindars, B. 104-105 122-123, 149, 170, 185,
Littman, R. 171 Potter, D. 187
Lohmeyer, E. 20, 22, 56, 74, 77, 83, Price, S. R. F. 168
Luhrmann, D. 33, 56, 69, 86, 126 Pudussery, P. S. 148, 175
Luz,U. 11,27, 138 Quesnell, Q. 24, 139, 142-143
Mack,B. 77 Radcliffe,T. 146
Maloney, E. 84 Raisanen, H. 11, 137-138
Malbon,E. S. 146 Rajak, T. 162
Mann, C. S. 1, 57, 126 Reese, D. G. Ill
Manson, W. 170 Regul,J. 47
Manson, T. W. 10 Renan, E. 6
Marcus, J. 18, 31, 54-56, 69, 72, 77, 81, Reploh, K. G. 24, 139-140
84, 87, 93-94, 96, 102, 110, 113-114, Riesenfeld, H. 20
122-123, 134, 140-143, 149, 174, 175- Ritschl, A. 6
176, 180, 184 Robinson, J. A. T. 43, 103
Marshall, I. H. 102-104 Rowe, R. 18
Martin, R. R 13,92 Roskam, H. N. 31, 33-35, 40, 42, 48, 56,
Marxsen, W. 20-24,32, 56,64,77, 83-84, 71-72, 77, 84-87
92 Sanday,W. 10
Mason, S. 162, 164 Sanders, E. P. 1, 59, 123
Matera, F. J. 18, 99, 134 Sanford, E. M. 171
Mattingly, H. 172 Saulnier, C. 162
Mauser, U. W. 122 Schenke, L. 13,57
Meagher, J. 171 Schille,G. 24
Meye, R. R 25 Schmid,J. 86
Moloney, F. 54-55, 69, 93, 107-110, 114, Schmidt, T. E. 8, 129-132, 135, 193
116-117, 123, 126, 128, 134-135, 143, Schmithals, W. 106-107
148,175, 196 Schnackenburg, R. 57, 101, 216
Moffatt,J. 43 Schnelle,U. 81
Mogan, G. 98 Schniewind, J. 56, 95
Morenz, S. 160 Schoeps, H. J. 57
Moule, C. F. D. 33, 57 Schulz,S. 12
Murision, C. L. 98 Schreiber, J. 13
Myers, C. 36, 92, 179, 184 Schweitzer, A. 169
Nay lor, R I. H. 187 Schweizer, E. 13, 57, 95-96
Nestle, E. 86 Scott, K. 159, 160
Nicolas, E. R 157 Shuler, P. L. 1
Nicols, J. 155-156,159,163,165 Skarsaune, O. 63
Nineham, D. E. 25, 86 Senior, D. 134
Norden, E. 162 Smallwood, E. M. 154
O'Collins, G. G. 119, 192 Smith, D. E. 93, 109
Oko, O. I. 19 Smith, J. Z. Ill
Orchard, D. B. 7 Smith, M. 95, 113, 162,
234 Index of Modern Authors
Sowers, S. 21 Ulansey, D. 133

Steichele, H. J. 18, 100 VanderKam, J. C. 104
Stemberger, G. 84 Verheyden, J. 148, 175
Stern, D. 126, Vermes, G. 55, 104-105
Stern, M. 162 Versnel,H. S. 129
Stevenson, T. R. 125, 188-189 Vielhauer, P. 48, 103
Stock, K. 25 Vigourt,A. 158
Strecker, G. 11,21,96, 103 von Martitz, W. 15-16,101
Stuhlmacher, R 95-98 Wacher,J. 158
Such,W. 69,77 Waetjen,H. C. 36,77
Sumney, J. 15 Wallace-Hadrill, A. 190
Tannehill, R. C. 25, 139-140, 145, 195 Walter, N. 57, 106, 151
Taylor, N. H. 74 Watts, R. 93, 96, 109
Taylor, V. 7, 10, 56, 59, 72, 94, 127, 130, Weber, W. 155-156, 160
141 Webster, G. 155
Telford, W. R. 18, 25, 48, 81, 101, Weeden, T. J. 13-15, 22, 24, 77, 145
Theissen, G. 25-27, 56-59, 69, 74-75, 77, Weinstock, S. 190
82, 88-90, 103, 112-113, 199, Weiss, B. 6
Thiede, C. P. 43 Weisse, C. H. 6
Thusing,W. 170 Wellesley, K. 98, 156
Tiede, D. L. 95 Wenham, J. W. 43, 45
Tobin,T. 15 Werner, M. 169
Todt, H. E. 102 Wilke,C.G. 6
Tolbert, M. A. 92, 102 Williams, J. F. 29, 31, 146
Torrey, C. C. 61 Witherington, B. 94, 96, 101, 111, 116,
Trocme, E. 25, 52-53 117, 123, 128, 141, 149, 179, 185,
Tuckett, C. 10-11,137 Wrede, W. 6-12, 14, 28, 137-138
Twelftree, G. H. 112
Index of Subjects
Abomination of Desolation 73-75 - Latinisms of 81-82

"Anti-Marcionite" Prologue 47-49 - Law in 54-55
Antiochus IV 73-74, 186 - Priority of 1
Apollonius of Tyana 112 - Prologue of 109-110
Augustus 97, 102, 132, 159, 165-167, 186 - Provenance of 76
Benefactor 125, 166, 188-190 - Redaction of 4, 20
Caligula, 73 Gospel of Matthew 80
Caesarea Philippi 115-120 Irenaeus 44-46, 48-51, 77
Christ/Messiah 37, 94, 99-100 Healings 112, 121, 184-185
Christology Historical-Critical Method 2
- Corrective 12-18,26, 116-118 Jewish Revolt/War 20, 22, 31-32, 43, 56,
- of power 12, 16, 108, 115, 133, 135, 60, 63-64, 66, 68, 70, 87, 170
174-175 Jerusalem Temple
- of cross/glory 12, 16, 26, 108, 115 - Destruction of 58, 60-66, 68-69, 187
Clement of Alexandria 47-48, 50-51 - Corruption of 59-62
Dalmanutha 86 Magic/Magicians 113
Disciples 8, 10, 13-15, 24, 39, 140-146, Messianic Secret 6-11, 26-27, 136-139,
176 190-192
Discipleship 24-27, 29, 36, 38, 120, 139, Nero 82-83, 102, 153-155
149-150, 194-198 Otho 155-156
Divine Man 12-16 Papias 5-6, 48, 78
Eschatology 19-21, 70-72, 150-152, 170- Parousia 21, 23, 51-53, 67, 70-72, 75
171, 176, 198-199 Passion Predictions 116-119, 124,
Exorcisms 40, 111, 121, 183 Persecution 33, 69, 72, 75, 82-83, 148,
False Prophets/Teachers 22, 30, 84, 174 171-173, 175-176
Galba 155 Pella 20-21
Galilee 20-21, 23-24, 33-34, 77, 83-86 Rome 76-77,
Good News 95-98 Roman Triumph 129-132
Gospel of Luke 80 Sea of Galilee 88,
Gospel of Mark Son of God 18, 35, 94, 99-102, 180-183
- Aramaisms of 84-86 Son of Man 21, 70-71, 75, 99, 102-107
- Audience of 3, 28-31 Syria 77, 87-91
- Author of 1, 3 Tertullian 79
- Date of 43 Tiberius 102, 132
- Geography in 85, 90 Titus 64, 132
- Grammar of 37, 58, 71, 81-82 Transfiguration 122-123
- Genre of 4 Vaticinium ex eventu 56-58
- Incipit of 92, 173-174, 178-179 Vespasian
236 Index of Subjects
- Ancestry o f l 57-158
- Benefaction of 166-167
- Early years of 154-155
- Good news of 97
- Healings performed by 160
- Portents and Prophecies of 158—
159, 161-163
- Reign of 153,
- Rise to power of 155-156
- Triumph of 32, 132, 164-165
Vitellius 155-156
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
Alphabetical Index of the First and Second Series
Adna, Jostein: Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. Baldwin, Matthew C: Whose Acts ofPeter?
2000. Vol 11/119. 2005. Vol. 11/196.
Adna, Jostein (Ed.): The Formation of the Early Balla, Peter: Challenges to New Testament
Church. 2005. Vol. 183. Theology. 1997. Vol 11/95.
- and Kvalbein, Hans (Ed.): The Mission - The Child-Parent Relationship in the New
of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Testament and its Environment. 2003.
2000. Vol. 127. Vol. 155.
Alexeev, AnatolyA., Christos Karakolis and Bammel, Ernst: Judaica. Vol. I 1986. Vol 37.
Ulrich Luz (Ed.): Einheit der Kirche im - Vol.11 1997. Vol. 91.
Neuen Testament. Dritte europaische Barton, Stephen C: see Stuckenbruck, Loren T.
orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Bash, Anthony: Ambassadors for Christ. 1997.
Sankt Petersburg, 24.-31. August 2005. Vol. 11/92.
2008. Vol 218. Bauernfeind, Otto: Kommentar und Studien zur
Alkier, Stefan: Wunder und Wirklichkeit in den Apostelgeschichte. 1980. Vol. 22.
Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 2001. Vol 134. Baum, Armin Daniel: Pseudepigraphie und lite-
Allen, David M.: Deuteronomy and Exhortation rarische Falschung im fruhen Christentum.
in Hebrews. 2008. Vol. 11/238. 2001. Vol 11/138.
Anderson, Paul N.: The Christology of the Bayer, Hans Friedrich: Jesus' Predictions
Fourth Gospel. 1996. Vol 11/78. of Vindication and Resurrection. 1986.
Appold, MarkL: The Oneness Motif in the Vol. 11/20.
Fourth Gospel. 1976. Vol. 11/I. Becker, Eve-Marie: Das Markus-Evangelium
Arnold, Clinton E.: The Colossian Syncretism. im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. 2006.
1995. Vol. 11/77. Vol. 194.
Ascough, RichardS.: Paul's Macedonian Asso Becker, Eve-Marie and Peter Pilhofer (Ed.):
ciations. 2003. Vol 11/161. Biographie und Personlichkeit des Paulus.
Asiedu-Peprah, Martin: Johannine Sabbath 2005. Vol. 187.
Conflicts As Juridical Controversy. 2001. Becker, Michael: Wunder und Wundertater
Vol 11/132. im fruhrabbinischen Judentum. 2002.
Attridge, Harold W.: see Zangenberg, Jiirgen. Vol. 11/144.
Aune, David E.: Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Becker, Michael and Markus Ohler (Ed.): Apo-
Magic in Early Christianity. 2006. Vol 199. kalyptik als Herausforderung neutestament-
Avemarie, Friedrich: Die Tauferzahlungen der licherTheologie. 2006. Vol 11/214.
Apostelgeschichte. 2002. Vol 139. Bell, Richard H: Deliver UsfromEvil. 2007.
Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann Lichtenber- Vol. 216.
ger (Ed.): Auferstehung - Ressurection. - The Irrevocable Call of God. 2005. Vol. 184.
2001. Vol 135. - No One Seeks for God. 1998. Vol 106.
- Bund und Tora. 1996. Vol 92. - Provoked to Jealousy. 1994. Vol. 11/63.
Baarlink, Heinrich: Verkundigtes Heil. 2004. Bennema, Cornells: The Power of Saving Wis
Vol 168. dom. 2002. Vol. 11/148.
Bachmann, Michael: Sunder oder Ubertreter. Bergman, Jan: see Kieffer, Rene
1992. Vol 59. Bergmeier, Roland: Das Gesetz im Romerbrief
Bachmann, Michael (Ed.): Lutherische und und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament.
Neue Paulusperspektive. 2005. Vol. 182. 2000. Vol. 121.
Back, Frances: Verwandlung durch Offenba- Bernett, Monika: Der Kaiserkult in Judaa
rungbei Paulus. 2002. Vol. 11/153. unter den Herodiern und Romern. 2007.
Baker, William R.: Personal Speech-Ethics in Vol. 203.
the Epistle of James. 1995. Vol 11/68. Betz, Otto: Jesus, der Messias Israels. 1987.
Bakke, OddMagne: 'Concord and Peace'. 2001. Vol 42.
Vol 11/143. - Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. 1990. Vol 52.
Batch, David L.: Roman Domestic Art and Ear Beyschlag, Karlmann: Simon Magus und die
ly House Churches. 2008.ro/. 228. christliche Gnosis. 1974. Vol 16.
Bieringer, Reimund: see Koester, Craig. Caragounis, Chrys C: The Development of

Bittner, Wolfgang J.: Jesu Zeichen im Johannes- Greek and the New Testament. 2004.
evangelium. 1987. Vol. 11/26. Vol 167.
Bjerkelund, Carl J.: Tauta Egeneto. 1987. - The Son of Man. 1986. Vol 38.
Vol. 40. - see Fridrichsen, Anton.
Blackburn, Barry Lee: Theios Aner and the Carleton Paget, James: The Epistle of Barna
Markan Miracle Traditions. 1991. Vol 11/40. bas. 1994. Vol 11/64.
Blanton IV, Thomas R.: Constructing a New Carson, D.A., O 'Brien, Peter T. and Mark
Covenant. 2007. Vol. 11/233. Seifrid (Ed.): Justification and Variegated
Bock, Darrell L.: Blasphemy and Exaltation in Nomism.
Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple
1998. Vol. 11/106. Judaism. 2001. Vol 11/140.
Bockmuehl, Markus N.A.: Revelation and Mys Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. 2004.
tery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christi Vol 11/181.
anity. 1990. Vol. 11/36. Chae, Young Sam: Jesus as the Eschatological
Boe, Sverre: Gog and Magog. 2001. Vol. 11/135. Davidic Shepherd. 2006. Vol. 11/216.
Bohlig, Alexander: Gnosis und Synkretismus. Chapman, David W.: Ancient Jewish and
Vol. 1 1989. Vol 47-Vol. 2 1989. Vol. 48. Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. 2008.
Bohm, Martina: Samarien und die Samaritai bei Vol. 11/244.
Lukas. 1999. Vol 11/111. Chester, Andrew: Messiah and Exaltation. 2007.
Bottrich, Christfried: Weltweisheit - Mensch- Vol 207.
heitsethik-Urkult. 1992. Vol. 11/50. Chibici-Revneanu, Nicole: Die Herrlichkeit des
- /Herzer, Jens (Ed.): Josephus und das Neue Verherrlichten. 2007. Vol. 11/231.
Testament. 2007. Vol. 209. Ciampa, Roy E.: The Presence and Function of
Bolyki, Jdnos: Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. 1997. Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. 1998.
Vol. 11/96. Vol. 11/102.
Bosman, Philip: Conscience in Philo and Paul. Classen, Carl Joachim: Rhetorical Criticsm of
2003. Vol 11/166. the New Testament. 2000. Vol. 128.
Bovon, Francois: Studies in Early Christianity. Colpe, Carsten: Iranier - Aramaer - Hebraer -
2003. Vol 161. Hellenen. 2003. Vol 154.
Brandl, Martin: Der Agon bei Paulus. 2006. Crump, David: Jesus the Intercessor. 1992.
Vol 11/222. Vol 11/49.
Breytenbach, Cilliers: see Frey, Jorg. Dahl, NilsAlstrup: Studies in Ephesians. 2000.
Brocke, Christoph vom: Thessaloniki - Stadt Vol. 131.
des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus. Daise, Michael A.: Feasts in John. 2007.
2001. Vol. 11/125. Vol. 11/229.
Brunson, Andrew: Psalm 118 in the Gospel of Deines, Roland: Die Gerechtigkeit derTora im
John. 2003. Vol. 11/158. Reich des Messias. 2004. Vol. 177.
Buchli, Jorg: Der Poimandres - ein paganisier- - Judische SteingefaBe und pharisaische
tes Evangelium. 1987. Vol. 11/27. Frommigkeit. 1993. Vol. 11/52.
Buhner, Jan A.: Der Gesandte und sein Weg im - Die Pharisaer. 1997. Vol. 101.
4. Evangelium. 1977. Vol. II/2. Deines, Roland and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr
Burchard, Christoph: Untersuchungen zu Jose (Ed.): Philo und das Neue Testament. 2004.
ph und Aseneth. 1965. Vol 8. Vol. 172.
- Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt Dennis, John A.: Jesus' Death and the Gathering
des Neuen Testaments. Ed. by D. Sanger. of True Israel. 2006. Vol 217.
1998. Vol. 107. Dettwiler, Andreas and Jean Zumstein (Ed.):
Burnett, Richard: Karl Barth's Theological Exe Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament.
gesis. 2001. Vol. 11/145. 2002. Vol. 151.
Byron, John: Slavery Metaphors in Early Dickson, John P.: Mission-Commitment in
Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 2003. Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Commu
Vol 11/162. nities. 2003. Vol 11/159.
Byrskog, Samuel: Story as History - History as Dietzfelbinger, Christian: Der Abschied des
Story. 2000. Vol 123. Kommenden. 1997. Vol 95.
Cancik, Hubert (Ed.): Markus-Philologie. 1984. Dimitrov, Ivan Z., James D.G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz
Vol 33. and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Das Alte
Capes, David B.: Old Testament Yaweh Texts in Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer
Paul's Christology. 1992. Vol 11/47. und westlicher Sicht. 2004. Vol 174.
Dobbeler, Axel von: Glaube alsTeilhabe. 1987. Forbes, Christopher Brian: Prophecy and In
Vol. 11/22. spired Speech in Early Christianity and its
Downs, David J.: The Offering of the Gentiles. Hellenistic Environment. 1995. Vol. 11/75.
2008. Vol. 11/248. Fornberg, Tord: see Fridrichsen, Anton.
Dryden, J. de Waal: Theology and Ethics in Fossum, Jarl E.: The Name of God and the An
1 Peter. 2006. Vol. 11/209. gel of the Lord. 1985. Vol.36.
Dubbers, Michael: Christologie und Existenz Foster, Paul: Community, Law and Mission in
im Kolosserbrief. 2005. Vol. 11/191. Matthew's Gospel. Vol. 11/177.
Dunn, James D.G.: The New Perspective on Fotopoulos, John: Food Offered to Idols in Ro
Paul. 2005. Vol. 185. man Corinth. 2003. Vol. 11/151.
Dunn, James D.G. (Ed.): Jews and Christians. Frenschkowski, Marco: Offenbarung und Epi-
1992. Vol. 66. phanie.Vol. 1 1995. Vol. 11/79-Vol. 2 1997.
- Paul and the Mosaic Law. 1996. Vol. 89. Vol. 11/80.
- see Dimitrov, Ivan Z. Frey, Jorg: Eugen Drewermann und die bibli-
- Hans Klein, Ulrich Luz and Vasile Mihoc sche Exegese. 1995. Vol. 11/71.
(Ed.): Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer - Die johanneische Eschatologie. Vol. 1.1997.
und westlicher Perspektive. 2000. Vol. 130. Vol. 96. - Vol. II. 1998. Vol. 110. - Vol. III.
Ebel, Eva: Die Attraktivitat fruher christlicher 2000. Vol. 117.
Gemeinden. 2004. Vol. 11/178. Frey, Jorg and Cilliers Breytenbach (Ed.): Auf-
Ebertz, Michael N: Das Charisma des Gekreu- gabe und Durchfuhrung einerTheologie des
zigten. mi. Vol. 45. Neuen Testaments. 2007. Vol. 205.
Eckstein, Hans-Joachim: Der Begriff Syneide- - and Udo Schnelle (Ed.): Kontexte des
sis bei Paulus. 1983. Vol. 11/10. Johannesevangeliums. 2004. Vol. 175.
- VerheiBung und Gesetz. 1996. Vol. 86. - and Jens Schrdter (Ed.): Deutungen des
Ego, Beate: Im Himmel wie auf Erden. 1989. Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2005.
Vol. 11/34. Vol. 181.
Ego, Beate, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer - Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmer-
(Ed.): Gemeinde ohne Tempel - Community mann (Ed.): Imagery in the Gospel of John.
without Temple. 1999. Vol. 118. 2006. Vol. 200.
- and Helmut Merkel (Ed.): Religioses Lernen Freyne, Sean: Galilee and Gospel. 2000.
in der biblischen, fruhjudischen und fruh- Vol. 125.
christlichen Uberlieferung. 2005. Vol. 180. Fridrichsen, Anton: Exegetical Writings. Edited
Eisen, UteE.: see Paulsen, Henning. by C.C. Caragounis andT. Fornberg. 1994.
EHedge, CD.: Life after Death in Early Juda Vol. 76.
ism. 2006. Vol. 11/208. Gabel, Georg: Die Kulttheologie des Hebraer-
Ellis, E. Earle: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in briefes. 2006. Vol. 11/212.
Early Christianity. 1978. Vol. 18. Gdckle, Volker: Die Starken und die Schwachen
- The Old Testament in Early Christianity. in Korinth und in Rom. 2005. Vol. 200.
1991. Vol.54. Garlington, Don B.: 'The Obedience of Faith'.
Endo, Masanobw. Creation and Christology. 1991. Vol. 11/38.
2002. Vol. 149. - Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance. 1994.
Ennulat, Andreas: Die 'Minor Agreements'. Vol. 79.
1994. Vol. 11/62. Garnet, Paul: Salvation and Atonement in the
Ensor, Peter W.: Jesus and His 'Works'. 1996. Qumran Scrolls. 1977. Vol. 11/3.
Vol. 11/85. Gemiinden, Petra von (Ed.): see Weissenrieder,
Eskola, Timo: Messiah and the Throne. 2001. Annette.
Vol. 11/142. Gese, Michael: Das Vermachtnis des Apostels.
- Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline So- 1997. Vol. 11/99.
teriology. 1998. Vol. 11/100. Gheorghita, Radu: The Role of the Septuagint
Fatehi, Mehrdad: The Spirit's Relation to the in Hebrews. 2003. Vol 11/160.
Risen Lord in Paul. 2000. Vol. 11/128. Gordley, Matthew E.: The Colossian Hymn in
Feldmeier, Reinhard: Die Krisis des Gottessoh- Context. 2007. Vol. 11/228.
nes. 1987. Vol. 11/21. Grdbe, PetrusJ: The Power of God in Paul's
- Die Christen als Fremde. 1992. Vol. 64. Letters. 2000. Vol 11/123.
Feldmeier, Reinhard and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Grafier, Erich: Der Alte Bund im Neuen. 1985.
DieHeiden. 1994. Vol. 70. Vol. 35.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T.: Luke-Acts: An - Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte. 2001.
gels, Christology and Soteriology. 1997. Vol 137.
Vol. 11/94. Grappe, Christian (Ed.): Le Repas de Dieu /
Forster, Niclas: Marcus Magus. 1999. Vol. 114. Das Mahl Gottes.2004. Vol 169.
Green, JoelB.: The Death of Jesus. 1988. Hengel, Martin: Judentum und Hellenismus.
Vol 11/33. 3
1969, 1988.Fo/. 10.
Gregg, Brian Han: The Historical Jesus and - DiejohanneischeFrage. 1993. Vol 67.
the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. 2005. - Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I.
Vol. 11/207. 1996. Vol 90.
Gregory, Andrew: The Reception of Luke and - Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine
Acts in the Period before Irenaeus. 2003. Schriften II. 1999. Vol 109.
Vol. 11/169. - Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften III.
Grindheim, Sigurd: The Crux of Election. 2005. 2002. Vol 141.
Vol 11/202. - Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften
Gundry, Robert H: The Old is Better. 2005. IV 2006. Vol. 201.
Vol 178. - and Anna Maria Schwemer: Paulus zwi-
Gundry Volf, Judith M.: Paul and Perseverance. schen Damaskus und Antiochien. 1998.
1990. Vol 11/37. Vol 108.
Haufier, Detlef: Christusbekenntnis und Jesus- - Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die
iiberlieferung bei Paulus. 2006. Vol 210. Anfange der Christologie. 2001. Vol 138.
Hafemann, Scott J: Suffering and the Spirit. - Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evange
1986. Vol 11/19. lium von Jesus Christus. 2008. Vol. 224.
- Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. 1995. Hengel, Martin and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Paulus
Vol 81. und das antike Judentum. 1991. Vol 58.
Hahn, Ferdinand: Studien zum Neuen Testa - and Hermut Lohr (Ed.): Schriftauslegung
ment. im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum.
Vol. I: Grundsatzfragen, Jesusforschung, 1994. Vol 73.
Evangelien. 2006. Vol. 191. - and Anna Maria Schwemer (Ed.): Konigs-
Vol. II: Bekenntnisbildung undTheologie in herrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult.
urchristlicherZeit. 2006. Vol. 192. 1991. Vol.55.
Hahn, Johannes (Ed.): Zerstorungen des Jeru- - Die Septuaginta. 1994. Vol. 72.
salemerTempels. 2002. Vol. 147. - Siegfried Mittmann and Anna Maria Schwe
Hamid-Khani, Saeed: Relevation and Conceal mer (Ed.): La Cite de Dieu / Die Stadt Got
ment of Christ. 2000. Vol 11/120. tes. 2000. Vol 129.
Hannah, DarrelD.: Michael and Christ. 1999. Hentschel, Anni: Diakonia im Neuen Testament.
Vol 11/109. 2007. Vol 226.
Hardin, Justin K.: Galatians and the Imperial Hernandez Jr., Juan: Scribal Habits and Theo
Cult? 2007. Vol. 11/237. logical Influence in the Apocalypse. 2006.
Harrison; James R.: Paul's Language of Grace Vol. 11/218.
in Its Graeco-Roman Context. 2003. Herrenbriick, Fritz: Jesus und die Zollner. 1990.
Vol 11/172. Vol 11/41.
Hartman, Lars: Text-Centered New Testament Herzer, Jens: Paulus oder Petrus? 1998.
Studies. Ed. von D. Hellholm. 1997. Vol. 103.
Vol. 102. - see Bottrich, Christfried.
Hartog, Paul: Polycarp and the New Testament. Hill, Charles E.: From the Lost Teaching of Po
2001. Vol 11/134. lycarp. 2005. Vol. 186.
Heckel, Theo K.: Der Innere Mensch. 1993. Hoegen-Rohls, Christina: Der nachosterliche
Vol. 11/53. Johannes. 1996. Vol. 11/84.
- Vom Evangelium des Markus zum vierge- Hoffmann, Matthias Reinhard: The Destroyer
staltigen Evangelium. 1999. Vol 120. and the Lamb. 2005. Vol 11/203.
Heckel, Ulrich: Kraft in Schwachheit. 1993. Hofius, Otfried: Katapausis. 1970. Vol 11.
Vol 11/56. - Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. 1972.
- Der Segen im Neuen Testament. 2002. Vol 14.
Vol 150. - Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11.
2
- see Feldmeier, Reinhard. 1976, 1991. to/. 17.
- see Hengel, Martin. 2
- Paulusstudien. 1989, 1994. Vol 51.
Heiligenthal, Roman: Werke als Zeichen. 1983. - Neutestamentliche Studien. 2000.
Vol 11/9. Vol 132.
Heliso, Desta: Pistis and the Righteous One. - Paulusstudien II. 2002. Vol 143.
2007. Vol 11/235. - Exegetische Studien. 2008. Vol 223.
Hellholm, D.: see Hartman, Lars. - and Hans-Christian Kammler: Johannesstu-
Hemer, Colin J: The Book of Acts in the Setting dien. 1996. Vol. 88.
of Hellenistic History. 1989. Vol 49. Holmberg, Bengt (Ed.): Exploring Early
Christian Identity. 2008. Vol 226.
- and Mikael Winninge (Ed.): Identity Forma Kleinknecht, Karl Th.: Der leidende Gerechtfer-
tion in the New Testament. 2008. Vol 227. 2
tigte. 1984, 1988. to/.///75.
Holtz, Traugott: Geschichte und Theologie des Klinghardt, Matthias: Gesetz und Volk Gottes.
Urchristentums. 1991. Vol 57 1988. Vol. 11/32.
Hommel, Hildebrecht: Sebasmata. Kloppenborg, John S.: The Tenants in the Vi
Vol. 1 1983. Vol. 31. neyard. 2006. Vol 195.
Vol.2 1984. Vol 32. Koch, Michael: Drachenkampf und Sonnenfrau.
Horbury, William: Herodian Judaism and New 2004. Vol 11/184.
Testament Study. 2006. Vol 193. Koch, Stefan: Rechtliche Regelung von Kon-
Horst, Pieter W. van der: Jews and Christians in flikten im fruhen Christentum. 2004.
Their Graeco-Roman Context. 2006. Vol. 11/174.
Vol. 196. Kdhler, Wolf-Dietrich: Rezeption des Matthau-
Hvalvik, Reidar: The Struggle for Scripture and sevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus. 1987.
Covenant. 1996. Vol. 11/82. Vol 11/24.
Jauhiainen, Marko: The Use of Zechariah in Kohn, Andreas: Der Neutestamentler Ernst
Revelation. 2005. Vol. 11/199. Lohmeyer. 2004. Vol. 11/180.
Jensen, Morten H: Herod Antipas in Galilee. Koester, Craig and Reimund Bieringer (Ed.):
2006. Vol 11/215. The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of
Johns, Loren L.: The Lamb Christology of the John. 2008. Vol. 222.
Apocalypse of John. 2003. Vol. 11/167. Konradt, Matthias: Israel, Kirche und die V61-
Jossa, Giorgio: Jews or Christians? 2006. ker im Matthausevangelium. 2007. Vol. 215.
Vol. 202. Kooten, George H. van: Cosmic Christology in
Joubert, Stephan: Paul as Benefactor. 2000. Paul and the Pauline School. 2003.
Vol. 11/124. Vol. 11/171.
Judge, E.A.: The First Christians in the Roman Korn, Manfred: Die Geschichte Jesu in veran-
World. 2008. Vol 229. derterZeit. 1993. Vol. 11/51.
Jungbauer, Harry: „Ehre Vater und Mutter". Koskenniemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in
2002. Vol 11/146. der neutestamentlichen Exegese. 1994.
Kdhler, Christoph: Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie Vol. 11/61.
undTherapie. 1995. Vol. 78. - The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Ear
Kamlah, Ehrhard: Die Form der katalogischen ly Judaism. 2005. Vol. 11/206.
Paranese im Neuen Testament. 1964. Vol. 7. Kraus, Thomas J: Sprache, Stil und historischer
Kammler, Hans-Christian: Christologie und Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes. 2001.
Eschatologie. 2000. Vol. 126. Vol. 11/136.
- Kreuz und Weisheit. 2003. Vol. 159. Kraus, Wolfgang: Das Volk Gottes. 1996.
- see Hofius, Otfried. Vol. 85.
Karakolis, Christos: see Alexeev, AnatolyA. - see Karrer, Martin.
Karrer, Martin und Wolfgang Kraus (Ed.): - see Walter, Nikolaus.
Die Septuaginta -Texte, Kontexte, Lebens- - and Karl- Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Friih-
welten. 2008. Vol. 219. judentum und Neues Testament im Horizont
Kelhoffer, James A.: The Diet of John the Bap BiblischerTheologie. 2003. Vol. 162.
tist. 2005. Vol. 176. Kreplin, Matthias: Das Selbstverstandnis Jesu.
- Miracle and Mission. 1999. Vol. 11/112. 2001. Vol. 11/141.
Kelley, Nicole: Knowledge and Religious Au Kuhn, Karl G.: Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser
thority in the Pseudo-Clementines. 2006. undderReim. 1950. Vol 1.
Vol. 11/213. Kvalbein, Hans: see Adna, Jostein.
Kieffer, Rene and Jan Bergman (Ed.): La Main Kwon, Yon-Gyong: Eschatology in Galatians.
de Dieu / Die Hand Gottes. 1997. Vol. 94. 2004. Vol 11/183.
Kierspel, Lars: The Jews and the World in the Laansma, Jon: I Will Give You Rest. 1997.
Fourth Gospel. 2006. Vol 220. Vol. 11/98.
Kim, Seyoon: The Origin of Paul's Gospel. Labahn, Michael: Offenbarung in Zeichen und
2
1981, 1984. Vol 11/4. Wort. 2000. Vol. 11/117.
- Paul and the New Perspective. 2002. Lambers-Petry, Doris: see Tomson, Peter J.
Vol. 140. Lange, Armin: see Ego, Beate.
- "The 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God. Lampe, Peter: Die stadtromischen Christen
1983. Vol 30. in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1987,
Klauck, Hans-Josef: Religion und Gesellschaft 2
1989. Vol 11/18.
im fruhen Christentum. 2003. Vol. 152. Landmesser, Christof: Wahrheit als Grundbe-
Klein, Hans: see Dunn, James D.G. griff neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft. 1999.
Vol 113.
- Jiingerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott. McGlynn, Moyna: Divine Judgement and Di
2000. Vol. 133. vine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom.
Lau, Andrew: Manifest in Flesh. 1996. 2001. Vol. 11/139.
Vol. 11/86. Meade, David G: Pseudonymity and Canon.
Lawrence, Louise: An Ethnography of the Gos 1986.to/.39.
pel of Matthew. 2003. Vol. 11/165. Meadors, Edward P.: Jesus the Messianic He
Lee, Aquila H.L: From Messiah to Preexistent rald of Salvation. 1995. Vol 11/72.
Son. 2005. Vol. 11/192. Meifiner, Stefan: Die Heimholung des Ketzers.
Lee, Pilchan: The New Jerusalem in the Book 1996. Vol. 11/87.
of Relevation. 2000. Vol 11/129. Mell, Ulrich: Die „anderen" Winzer. 1994.
Lichtenberger, Hermann: Das Ich Adams und Vol. 77.
das Ich der Menschheit. 2004. Vol. 164. - see Sanger, Dieter.
- seeAvemarie, Friedrich. Mengel, Berthold: Studien zum Philipperbrief.
Lierman, John: The New Testament Moses. 1982. Vol 11/8.
2004. Vol 11/173. Merkel, Helmut: Die Widerspriiche zwischen
- (Ed.): Challenging Perspectives on the Gos den Evangelien. 1971. Vol. 13.
pel of John. 2006. Vol 11/219. - see Ego, Beate.
Lieu, SamuelN.C.: Manichaeism in the Later Merklein, Helmut: Studien zu Jesus und Paulus.
2
Roman Empire and Medieval China. 1992. Vol. 1 1987. Vol. 43.-Vol 2 1998. Vol 105.
Vol 63. Metzdorf Christina: Die Tempelaktion Jesu.
Lindgard, Fredrik: Paul's Line of Thought in 2 2003. Vol. 11/168.
Corinthians 4:16-5:10. 2004. Vol. 11/189. Metzler, Karin: Der griechische Begriff des Ver-
Loader, William R.G.: Jesus'Attitude Towards zeihens. 1991. Vol 11/44.
the Law. 1997. Vol. 11/97. Metzner, Rainer: Die Rezeption des Mattha-
Lohr, Gebhard: Verherrlichung Gottes durch usevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief. 1995.
Philosophic 1997. Vol 97. Vol 11/74.
Lohr, Hermut: Studien zumfruhchristlichenund - Das Verstandnis der Sunde im Johannes-
fruhjudischen Gebet. 2003. Vol 160. evangelium. 2000. Vol 122.
- see Hengel, Martin. Mihoc, Vasile: see Dunn, James D.G..
Lohr, Winrich Alfried: Basilides und seine Schu- Mineshige, Kiyoshi: Besitzverzicht und Almo-
le. 1995. Vol. 83. sen bei Lukas. 2003. Vol. 11/163.
Luomanen, Petri: Entering the Kingdom of Mittmann, Siegfried: see Hengel, Martin.
Heaven. 1998. Vol 11/101. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike: Magnifikat und Be-
Luz, Ulrich: see Alexeev, AnatolyA. nediktus. 1996. Vol. 11/90.
-: see Dunn, James D.G. Miura, Yuzuru: David in Luke-Acts. 2007.
Mackay, Ian D.: John's Raltionship with Mark. Vol. 11/232.
2004. Vol. 11/182. Mournet, Terence C: Oral Tradition and Litera
Mackie, Scott D.: Eschatology and Exhortation ry Dependency. 2005. Vol 11/195.
in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2006. Mufiner, Franz: Jesus von Nazareth im Um-
Vol 11/223. feld Israels und der Urkirche. Ed. von M.
Maier, Gerhard: Mensch undfreierWille. 1971. Theobald. 1998. Vol 111.
Vol 12. Mutschler, Bernhard: Das Corpus Johanneum
- Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirchc bei Irenaus von Lyon. 2005. Vol 189.
1981. Vol 25. Nguyen, V Henry T: Christian Identity in
Markschies, Christoph: Valentinus Gnosticus? Corinth. 2008. Vol. 11/243.
1992. Vol 65. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm: Gesetz und Paranesc
Marshall, Peter: Enmity in Corinth: Social Con 1987. Vol 11/28.
ventions in Paul's Relations with the Corin - Heidenapostel aus Israel. 1992. Vol 62.
thians, mi. Vol 11/23. - see Deines, Roland
Martin, Dale B.: see Zangenberg, Jiirgen. - see Dimitrov, Ivan Z.
Mayer, Annemarie: Sprache der Einheit im - secKraus, Wolfgang
Epheserbrief und in der Okumene. 2002. Nielsen, Anders E.: "Until it is Fullfilled". 2000.
Vol 11/150. Vol 11/126.
Mayordomo, Moises: Argumentiert Paulus lo- Nissen, Andreas: Gott und der Nachste im anti-
gisch? 2005. Vol. 188. ken Judentum. 1974. Vol. 15.
McDonough, Sean M.: YHWH at Patmos: Rev. Noack, Christian: GottesbewuBtsein. 2000.
1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Set Vol 11/116
ting. 1999. Vol. 11/107. Noormann, Rolf: Irenaus als Paulusinterpret.
McDowell, Markus: Prayers of Jewish Women. 1994. Vol 11/66.
2006. Vol 11/211.
Novakovic, Lidija: Messiah, the Healer of the Porter, Stanley E.: The Paul of Acts. 1999.
Sick. 2003. Vol. 11/170. Vol. 115.
Obermann, Andreas: Die christologische Er- Prieur, Alexander: Die Verkiindigung der Got-
fullung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium. tesherrschaft. 1996.to/.11/89.
1996. Vol. 11/83. Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991.
Ohler, Markus: Barnabas. 2003. Vol. 156. Vol. 11/45.
- see Becker, Michael. Raisanen, Heikki: Paul and the Law. 1983,
2
Okure, Teresa: The Johannine Approach to Mis 1987. Vol.29.
sion. 1988. Vol. 11/31. Rehkopf, Friedrich: Die lukanische Sonderquel-
Onuki, Takashi: Heil und Erlosung. 2004. le. 1959. Vol. 5.
Vol. 165. Rein, Matthias: Die Heilung des Blindgebore-
Oropeza, B. J: Paul and Apostasy. 2000. nen(Joh9). 1995. Vol. 11/73.
Vol. 11/115. Reinmuth, Eckart: Pseudo-Philo und Lukas.
Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich: Kommunikation mit 1994. Vol. 74.
Gott und Christus. 2006. Vol. 197. Reiser, Marius: Bibelkritik und Auslegung der
- Taufe und Typos. 2000. Vol. 11/118. Heiligen Schrift. 2007. Vol. 217.
Paulsen, Henning: Studien zur Literatur und - Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums.
Geschichte des fruhen Christentums. Ed. 1984. Vol. 11/11.
von Ute E. Eisen. 1997. Vol. 99. Rhodes, James N.: The Epistle of Barnabas and
Pao, David W.: Acts and the Isaianic New Exo the Deuteronomic Tradition. 2004.
dus. 2000. Vol. 11/130. Vol. 11/188.
Park, Eung Chun: The Mission Discourse in Richards, E. Randolph: The Secretary in the
Matthew's Interpretation. 1995. Vol. 11/81. Letters of Paul. 1991. Vol. 11/42.
3
Park, Joseph S.: Conceptions of Afterlife in Je Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer. 1981, 1988.
wish Insriptions. 2000. Vol. 11/121. Vol. II/7.
Pate, C. Marvin: The Reverse of the Curse. - Die Friihzeit des Apostels Paulus. 1994.
2000. Vol. 11/114. Vol. 71.
Pearce, Sarah J.K.: The Land of the Body. 2007. Rissi, Mathias: Die Theologie des Hebraer-
Vol. 208. briefs. 1987. Vol. 41.
Peres, Imre: Griechische Grabinschriften und Roskovec, Jan: see Pokorny, Petr.
neutestamentliche Eschatologie. 2003. Rohser, Gunter: Metaphorik und Personifikation
Vol. 157. der Sunde. 1987. Vol. 11/25.
Philip, Finny: The Origins of Pauline Pneuma- Rose, Christian: Theologie als Erzahlung im
tology. 2005. Vol. 11/194. Markusevangelium. 2007. Vol. 11/236.
Philonenko, Marc (Ed.): Le Trone de Dieu. - Die Wolke der Zeugen. 1994. Vol. 11/60.
1993. Vol. 69. Rothschild, Clare K: Baptist Traditions and Q.
Pilhofer, Peter: Presbyteron Kreitton. 1990. 2005. Vol. 190.
Vol. 11/39. - Luke Acts and the Rhetoric of History. 2004.
- Philippi. Vol. 1 1995. Vol. 87. - Vol. 2 2000. Vol. 11/175.
Vol. 119. Ruegger, Hans-Ulrich: Verstehen, was Markus
- Die fruhen Christen und ihre Welt. 2002. erzahlt. 2002. Vol. 11/155.
Vol. 145. Riiger, Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der
- see Becker, Eve-Marie. KairoerGeniza. 1991. Vol. 53.
- see Ego, Beate. Sanger, Dieter: Antikes Judentum und die Mys-
Pitre, Brant: Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End terien. 1980. Vol. 11/5.
of the Exile. 2005. Vol. 11/204. - Die Verkiindigung des Gekreuzigten und
Plumacher, Eckhard: Geschichte und Geschich- Israel. 1994. Vol. 75.
ten. 2004. Vol. 170. - see Burchard, Christoph
Pdhlmann, Wolfgang: DerVerlorene Sohn und - and Ulrich Mell (Hrsg.): Paulus und Johan
das Haus. 1993. Vol. 68. nes. 2006. Vol. 198.
Pokorny, Petr and JosefB. Soucek: Bibelausle- Salier, Willis Hedley: The Rhetorical Impact of
gungalsTheologie. 1997. Vol. 100. the Semeia in the Gospel of John. 2004.
- and Jan Roskovec (Ed.): Philosophical Vol. 11/186.
Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. 2002. Salzmann, Jorg Christian: Lehren und Ermah-
Vol. 153. nen. 1994. Vol. 11/59.
Popkes, Enno Edzard: Das Menschenbild des Sandnes, Karl Olav: Paul - One of the Pro
Thomasevangeliums. 2007. Vol. 206. phets? 1991. Vol. 11/43.
- Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den Sato, Migaku: Q und Prophetic 1988. Vol. 11/29.
johanneischen Schriften. 2005. Vol. 11/197. Schdfer, Ruth: Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil.
2004. Vol. 11/179.
Schaper, Joachim: Eschatology in the Greek Sprinkle, Preston: Law and Life. 2008.
Psalter. 1995. Vol. 11/76. Vol. 11/241.
Schimanowski, Gottfried: Die himmlische Stadelmann, Helge: Ben Sira als Schriftgelehr-
Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes. ter. 1980. Vol. 11/6.
2002. Vol. 11/154. Stenschke, Christoph W: Luke's Portrait of
- Weisheit und Messias. 1985. Vol. 11/17. Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith.
Schlichting, Giinter: Ein judisches Leben Jesu. Vol. 11/108.
1982. Vol.24. Sterck-Degueldre, Jean-Pierre: Eine Frau na-
Schliefier, Benjamin: Abraham's Faith in Ro mens Lydia. 2004. Vol. 11/176.
mans^ 2007. Vol. 11/224. Stettler, Christian: Der Kolosserhymnus. 2000.
Schnabel, EckhardJ: Law and Wisdom from Vol. 11/131.
Ben Sira to Paul. 1985. Vol. 11/16. Stettler, Hanna: Die Christologie der Pastoral-
Schnelle, Udo: see Frey, Jorg. briefe. 1998. Vol. II/105.
Schrdter, Jens: Von Jesus zum Neuen Testa Stokl Ben Ezra, Daniel: The Impact of Yom
ment. 2007. Vol. 204. Kippuron Early Christianity. 2003. Vol. 163.
- see Frey, Jorg. Strobel, August: Die Srunde der Wahrheit. 1980.
Schutter, William L.: Hermeneutic and Compo Vol. 21.
sition in I Peter. 1989. Vol. 11/30. Stroumsa, Guy G.: Barbarian Philosophy. 1999.
Schwartz, Daniel R.: Studies in the Jewish Vol. 112.
Background of Christianity. 1992. Vol. 60. Stuckenbruck, Loren T: Angel Veneration and
Schwemer, Anna Maria: see Hengel, Martin Christology. 1995. Vol. 11/70.
Scott, Ian W.: Implicit Epistemology in the Let - , Stephen C. Barton and Benjamin G. Wold
ters of Paul. 2005. Vol. 77/205. (Ed.): Memory in the Bible and Antiquity.
Scott, James M.: Adoption as Sons of God. 2007. Vol. 212.
1992. Vol. 11/48. Stuhlmacher, Peter (Ed.): Das Evangelium und
- Paul and the Nations. 1995. Vol. 84. die Evangelien. 1983. Vol. 28.
Shum, Shiu-Lun: Paul's Use of Isaiah in Ro - Biblische Theologie und Evangelium. 2002.
mans. 2002. Vol. 11/156. Vol. 146.
Siegert, Folker: Drei hellenistisch-judische Sung, Chong-Hyon: Vergebung der Siinden.
Predigten.Teil 1 1980. Vol. 20-Teil II 1992. 1993. Vol. 11/57.
Vol. 61. Tajra, Harry W: The Trial of St. Paul. 1989.
- Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Vol. 26. Vol. 11/35.
- Argumentation bei Paulus. 1985. Vol. 34. - The Martyrdom of St.Paul. 1994. Vol. 11/67.
- Philon von Alexandrien. 1988. Vol. 46. Theifien, Gerd: Studien zur Soziologie des Ur-
Simon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son 3
christentums. 1979, 1989. Vol. 19.
contexte religieux I/II. 1981. Vol. 23. Theobald, Michael: Studien zum Rdmerbrief.
Smit, Peter-Ben: Fellowship and Food in the 2001. Vol. 136.
Kingdom. 2008. Vol. 11/234. Theobald, Michael: see Mufiner, Franz.
Snodgrass, Klyne: The Parable of the Wicked Thornton, Claus-Jiirgen: Der Zeuge des Zeu-
Tenants. 1983. Vol.27. gen. 1991. Vol.56.
Soding, Thomas: Das Wort vom Kreuz. 1997. Thiising, Wilhelm: Studien zur neutestament-
Vol. 93. lichen Theologie. Ed. von Thomas Soding.
- see Thiising, Wilhelm. 1995. Vol. 82.
Sommer, Urs: Die Passionsgeschichte des Thuren, Lauri: Derhethorizing Paul. 2000.
Markusevangeliums. 1993. Vol. 11/58. Vol. 124.
Sorensen, Eric: Possession and Exorcism in the Thyen, Hartwig: Studien zum Corpus Iohan-
New Testament and Early Christianity. 2002. neum. 2007. Vol. 214.
Vol. 11/157. Tibbs, Clint: Religious Experience of the Pneu-
Soucek, JosefB.: see Pokorny, Petr. ma. 2007. Vol. 11/230.
Southall, David J: Rediscovering Righteous Toit, David S. du: Theios Anthropos. 1997.
ness in Romans. 2008. Vol. 240. Vol. 11/91.
Spangenberg, Volker: Herrlichkeit des Neuen Tolmie, D. Francois: Persuading the Galatians.
Bundes. 1993. Vol. 11/55. 2005. Vol. 11/190.
Spanje, T.E. van: Inconsistency in Paul? 1999. Tomson, Peter J. and Doris Lambers-Petry
Vol. 11/110. (Ed.): The Image of the Judaeo-Christians
Speyer, Wolfgang: Friihes Christentum im anti- in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature.
ken Strahlungsfeld. Vol. I: 1989. Vol. 50. 2003. Vol. 158.
- Vol.11: 1999. Vol. 116. Trebilco, Paul: The Early Christians in Ephesus
- Vol. Ill: 2007. Vol. 213. from Paul to Ignatius. 2004. Vol. 166.
Treloar, Geoffrey R.: Lightfootthe Historian. Wendt, Friederike (Ed.): see Weissenrieder,
1998. Vol 11/103. Annette.
Tsuji, Manabu: Glaube zwischen Vollkommen- Wiarda, Timothy: Peter in the Gospels. 2000.
heitundVerweltlichung. 1997. Vol 11/93. Vol 11/127.
Twelftree, Graham H.: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993. Wifstrand, Albert: Epochs and Styles. 2005.
Vol 11/54. Vol 179.
Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich: Christusglaube. 2007. Wilk, Florian: see Walter, Nikolaus.
Vol. 11/227. Williams, Catrin H.: I am He. 2000. Vol. 11/113.
Urban, Christina: Das Menschenbild nach dem Wilson, Todd A.: The Curse of the Law and the
Johannesevangelium. 2001. Vol. 11/137. Crisis in Galatia. 2007. Vol. 11/225.
Vahrenhorst, Martin: Kultische Sprache in den Wilson, Walter T: Love without Pretense. 1991.
Paulusbriefen. 2008. Vol 230. Vol. 11/46.
Vegge, Ivar: 2 Corinthians - a Letter about Re Winn, Adam: The Purpose of Mark's Gospel.
conciliation. 2008. Vol 11/239. 2008. Vol 11/245.
Visotzky, Burton L.: Fathers of the World. 1995. Winninge, Mikael: see Holmberg, Bengt.
Vol. 80. Wischmeyer, Oda: Von Ben Sira zu Paulus.
Vollenweider, Samuel: Horizonte neutestament- 2004. Vol 173.
licher Christologie. 2002. Vol 144. Wisdom, Jeffrey: Blessing for the Nations and
Vos, Johan S.: Die Kunst der Argumentation bei the Curse of the Law. 2001. Vol. 11/133.
Paulus. 2002. Vol 149. Witmer, Stephen E.: Divine Instruction in Early
Wagener, Ulrike: Die Ordnung des „Hauses Christianity. 2008. Vol. 11/246.
Gottes". 1994. Vol 11/65. Wold, Benjamin G.: Women, Men, and Angels.
Wahlen, Clinton: Jesus and the Impurity of 2005. Vol. 11/2001.
Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. 2004. - see Stuckenbruck, Loren T.
Vol. 11/185. Wright, Archie T: The Origin of Evil Spirits.
Walker, Donald D.: Paul's Offer of Leniency 2005. Vol. 11/198.
(2 Cor 10:1). 2002. Vol. 11/152. Wucherpfennig, Ansgar: Heracleon Philologus.
Walter, Nikolaus: Praeparatio Evangelica. Ed. 2002. Vol 142.
von Wolfgang Kraus und Florian Wilk. Yeung, Maureen: Faith in Jesus and Paul. 2002.
1997. Vol. 98. Vol 11/147.
Wander, Bernd: Gottesfurchtige und Sympathi- Zangenberg, Jurgen, Harold W.Attridge and
santen. 1998. Vol. 104. DaleB. Martin (Ed.): Religion, Ethnicity
Waters, Guy: The End of Deuteronomy in the and Identity in Ancient Galilee. 2007.
Epistles of Paul. 2006. Vol. 221. Vol. 210.
Watt, Jan G. van der: see Frey, Jorg Zimmermann, Alfred E.: Die urchristlichen Leh-
Watts, Rikki: Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark. 2
rer. 1984, 1988. Vol. 11/12.
1997. Vol. 11/88. Zimmermann, Johannes: Messianische Texte
Wedderburn, A.J.M.: Baptism and Resurrection. aus Qumran. 1998. Vol. 11/104.
1987. Vol 44. Zimmermann, Ruben: Christologie der Bilder
Wegner, Uwe: Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. im Johannesevangelium. 2004. Vol. 171.
1985. Vol. 11/14. - Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhalt-
Weissenrieder, Annette: Images of Illness in the nis. 2001. Vol 11/122.
Gospel of Luke. 2003. Vol. 11/164. - see Frey, Jorg
- Friederike Wendt and Petra von Gemiinden Zumstein, Jean: see Dettwiler, Andreas
(Ed.): Picturing the New Testament. 2005. Zwiep, Arie W: Judas and the Choice of
Vol. 11/193. Matthias. 2004. Vol. 11/187.
Welck, Christian: Erzahlte ,Zeichen\ 1994.
Vol. 11/69.
For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher

Mohr Siebeck • P.O. Box 2030 • D-72010 Tubingen/Germany
Up-to-date information on the internet at www.mohr.de
Adam Winn argues that the Gospel of Mark was written
in response to propaganda of the Roman Empire -
propaganda that infringed upon the faith commitments
that early Christians held about Jesus of Nazareth.
ISBN 978-3-16-149635-6
Mohr Siebeck

Purpose of Mark's Gospel (A. Winn) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Purpose of Mark's Gospel (A. Winn) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADAM WINN

The Purpose of Mark's Gospel

© 2008 by Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany.

Pasadena, April 2008

Preliminary Remarks and Abbreviations XV

Chapter 1. Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel

Chapter 2. Mark's Date and Provenance 43

Chapter 3. Analysis of Mark's Major Features 92

Chapter 4. Reconstructing Mark's Historical Situation 153

Chapter 5. Reading Mark's Major Features in Light of Mark's

Powerful Exorcist 183

Summary of Conclusions 202

Index of Ancient Sources 223

Index of Modern Authors 231

Index of Subjects 235

AJAH American Journal of Ancient History

1 Purpose of the Present Study

2 Method of the Present Study

3 Outline of the Present Study

4 Preliminary Considerations for the Present Study

speak to the needs of a particular community is not precluded from speaking

4.3 Markan Redaction

Surveying the Purpose of Mark's Gospel

1.2 Historical Purpose

1.3 Theological Purpose

Since Wrede, most interpreters have suggested Mark's purpose is theologi­

frequently commanded not to spread the news (1:40-45; 5:35-43; 7:31-37;

Weeden, "Heresy," 155.

of Mark's audience is of a different opinion (or possibly of no opinion). In

1.4 Pastoral Purpose

Throughout the history of Markan interpretation, many have seen Mark as

The work of these interpreters has undoubtedly offered us valuable insights

Theissen, Gospels in Context, 282-83.

1.5 Evangelistic Purpose: Robert H. Gundry

1.6 Socio-Political Purpose

1.6.1 Defensive Purpose

1.6.2 Subversive Purpose: RichardHorsley

Westerners have grown accustomed to thinking of Mark and other biblical

Mark's Date and Provenance

2.2 Dating Mark's Gospel

There seems to be a general consensus among more recent interpreters of

The second reads:

In both these passages, Clement's testimony clearly contradicts Irenaeus and

independent tradition. The details describing Mark's physical appearance as

be on whether this saying is an authentic Jesus tradition, but on whether Mark

The Criterion of Specificity

A second piece of information likely available to the evangelist was knowl­

The Criterion of Risk-Reward

and are ancillary to Mark's most significant theme of Christology. Therefore,

Conclusions to be Drawn from the Criteria

2.2.4 Reading Mark 13 in Light of a Post-70 Date of Composition

2.3 Mark's Provenance

Only three noteworthy candidates find themselves in the debate regarding

handful of interpreters argued against the traditional provenance in favor of

Analysis of Mark's Major Features

We now turn our attention to a number of Mark's major features: Mark's

3.2 Markan Incipit

3.3 Markan Christology

Interpreters have long considered Mark's Christology a significant feature

examination of these three areas should give us a comprehensive understand­

variations of it) was used also by Augustus' successors: Tiberius, Ti|3epiog

3.3.2 Christological Presentation

While miracles and powerful deeds seem to dominate Jesus' ministry in

Since Wrede, most interpreters have suggested Mark's purpose is theologi

A second piece of information likely available to the evangelist was knowl

examination of these three areas should give us a comprehensive understand

As we noted in our introduction, many interpreters see instruction on dis

We conclude that a major element of Mark's negative portrayal of the dis

In addition to portents and prophecies, Vespasian used visions and super

Like Josephus, Tacitus references a prophecy contained in sacred Jewish writ

In our previous discussion of Mark's presentation of discipleship, we con