Jesus, the Jewish Law, and the Gospel of Mark: a Critical Evaluation of a Proposed Early Date for the Composition of Mark
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JESUS, THE JEWISH LAW, AND THE GOSPEL OF MARK: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A PROPOSED EARLY DATE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF MARK by JESSE LUKE RICHARDS B.A., Faith Seminary, 2007 M.A., Western Seminary, 2010 Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Theology, Acadia Divinity College, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Early Judaism and Christianity Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Spring Convocation 2014 © by JESSE LUKE RICHARDS, 2013 ii This thesis by AAA BBB CCC was defended successfully in an oral examination on 1st This thesis by Jesse Luke Richards was defended successfully in an oral examination on 18th day of November, 2013. The examining committee for the thesis was: Dr. Glenn Wooden, Chair Dr. Daniel Gurtner, External Examiner Dr. Allison Trites, Internal Examiner Dr. Craig Evans, Supervisor This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology). iii I, Jesse Luke Richards, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis. Jesse Luke Richards Author Dr. Craig Evans Supervisor th 18 November 2013 Date (This page is blank and unnumbered on purpose) v CONTENTS Introduction 1 1. Chapter One: Assessing Scholarly Attempts to Date the Gospel of Mark 3 1.1: A Brief History of Dating the New Testament 3 1.2: Dating Mark's Gospel 6 1.2.1: Patristic Tradition 7 1.2.2: Provenance 14 1.2.3: Eschatological Discourse 16 1.3: Proposed Dates for Mark 17 1.3.1: Dating Mark in the Seventies 17 1.3.2: Dating Mark in the Sixties 18 1.3.3: Dating Mark in the Fifties 20 1.3.4: Dating Mark in the Fourties 20 1.4: Putting the Historical Pieces Together 21 2. Chapter Two: James Crossley's New Thesis 24 2.1: The Traditional Arguments for Dating Mark are Flawed 24 2.1.1: The Patristic Evidence 24 2.1.2: Eschatological Discourse 26 2.1.3: Modern Gospel Criticism 27 2.2: Earliest Christianity was Torah Observant 28 2.2.1: Jesus and the Torah according to Mark 28 2.2.2: Jesus and the Torah according to Matthew 29 2.2.3: Jesus and the Torah according to Luke 29 2.2.4: Crossley's Conclusion on Torah Observance 29 2.3: The Torah and Earliest Christianity 30 2.3.1: Stephen and the Hellenists 31 2.3.2: Zeal for the Law 31 2.3.3: Paul’s Early Attitude Toward the Law 32 2.3.4: Peter’s Vision (Acts 10-11) 32 2.3.5: The Antioch Controversy 33 2.3.6: The Jerusalem Conference 34 2.3.7: Christianity and the Law in the Forties 34 2.3.8: Conclusions on the Torah in Earliest Christianity 35 2.4: Mark’s gospel Written Before Torah Disputes Arose in Christianity 36 2.4.1: Mark 2:23–28 36 2.4.2: Mark 10:2–12 37 2.4.3: Mark 7:1–23 37 2.5: Crossley's Conclusions 39 2.6: Crossley’s Contributions 39 3. Chapter Three: A Critique of Crossley's Thesis 41 3.0.1: Crossley’s Estimation of Patristic Tradition 41 3.0.2: Crossley’s Legal Approach to Dating Mark 45 vi 3.0.3: The Markan Jesus Abrogates Biblical Food Laws in Mark 7 46 3.1: Crossley Incorrectly Assumes Linear Law Development 52 3.2: Torah in the Mouth 55 3.3: Crossley Incorrectly Assumes the Gospels Reveal their Audience 57 3.3.1: Ancient Biographies 58 3.3.2: Wide Audiences 59 3.3.3: Conclusion on Assuming the Gospels Reveal their Audiences 59 3.4: Mark Portrays Jesus as Breaking the Torah Law of Blasphemy 59 3.5: The Origin of a Traditon may not Indicate the Date of Composition 61 3.6: Conclusions on A Critique of Crossley’s Thesis 63 4. Chapter Four The Meaning of the Jewish Law in Mark 65 4.0.1: The Meaning of the Jewish Law in Mark in Recent Scholarship 65 4.0.2: Mark Portrays Jesus as Unconcerned with Purity 70 4.0.3: Mark portrays Jesus as the Christ 73 4.0.4: Conclusions on the Meaning of the Jewish Law in Mark 78 5. Chapter Five Conclusions 79 Bibliography 81 Introduction In his 2004 dissertation, James Crossley argues that the Gospel of Mark should not be dated later than the late 30s or early 40s. Such an early date for Mark’s gospel has rarely been advanced by critical scholars. Most scholars place Mark somewhere between 65 and 75 CE, largely because of the eschatological discourse, which includes a prediction of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (Mark 13), and its actual destruction in 70 and the events that preceded and followed. Crossley offers a critique of this scholarly approach, concluding that there is no need to date Mark during the conflict or after the destruction. Crossley argues for an early date based on how Jewish law is understood in Mark.1 Crossley compares the portrayal of Jewish law in Mark with that of Josephus, Philo, and other pre-70 Jewish sources, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second-Temple literature, and concludes that the similarities indicate an early date for the gospel. Crossley’s thesis builds on the work of his doctoral supervisor, Maurice Casey, who has argued that the Greek version of Mark depends on Aramaic sources written by a Jew (or Jews) in Israel before 40 CE that portray Jesus as thoroughly Jewish and at home in first-century Palestine.2 Like Casey, Crossley finds that the gospel of Mark is thoroughly Jewish, and when compared with the Jewish law, its Jewish character sheds light on the date of the composition of Mark. Has Crossley succeeded in dating the Gospel of Mark to as early as the 40s? The task of this paper is to examine Crossley’s work and reassess the implications of the coherence between Mark’s understanding of the law and Jewish understanding of the 1 James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (JSNTSup 266; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004). 2 Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (SNTSMS 102; Cambridge; New York: 1 2 law. This thesis will not aim to provide a full scale treatment for dating Mark. That project would require much more space. This thesis will assess Crossley’s proposal for dating Mark in light of current scholarship. Chapter one will offer an assessment of scholarly attempts to date the Gospel of Mark. Chapter two will provide an overview of James Crossley’s new thesis. In chapter three a critique of Crossley’s thesis will be presented. In chapter four a proposal for the meaning of the Jewish law in Mark will be set forth. Finally, conclusions will be drawn and a summary provided. Cambridge University Press, 1998). 3 JESUS, THE JEWISH LAW, AND THE GOSPEL OF MARK: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A PROPOSED EARLY DATE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF MARK Chapter One: Assessing Scholarly Attempts to Date the Gospel of Mark 1.1: A Brief History of Dating the New Testament Until the era of the Enlightenment, the dating of the New Testament books was dependent on early church traditions. Tradition posited that Paul began writing 17 years after his conversion and that John survived into the reign of Emperor Trajan which began in 98 CE. This led to the conclusion that the New Testament writings then were composed within the 50 year window of the apostolic period, from 50–100 CE. A loosening on the traditional date of the gospels came with the Enlightenment era. The posthumous publishing of Reimarus’s fragments by Gotthold Ephraïm Lessing (1729–81) between 1774 and 1778 expressed the confidence in reason that characterized the Enlightenment.3 Seeking to detach religion from history by claiming that nothing in history could be demonstrated beyond doubt, Lessing initiated the modern era for New Testament criticism. In his Life of Jesus Critically Examined, David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) dealt a striking blow to the salvage attempts of rationalist scholars by categorizing the gospels as myth and providing a foundation for the History of Religions 3 The seventh fragment Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, published in 1778, is credited with launching the Old Quest of the historical Jesus. The whole work is entitled, Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehre Gottes, edited by G. Alexander (Frankfurt: Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft, 1972). 4 School. The same year that Life of Jesus Critically Examined was published, another pertinent article was published by Karl Lachmann titled, “On the Order of Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels.”4 In it, Lachmann argued that Mark was the middle term between Matthew and Luke. This led to a growing appreciation for Markan priority, which was supplemented by the theory of Q — a theory developed by H. J. Holtzmann (1832– 1910).5 Modern New Testament criticism was coming of age. In the mid-19th century, F. C. Baur, a professor at Tübingen from 1826–1860 and a teacher of Strauss, began employing Hegelian dialectic in constructing an account of Christian Origins. Baur posited a Petrine-palestinian Christianity against a Pauline- hellenistic Christianity, which came to Hegelian synthesis in a catholic universal christianity. Baur posited that Galatians, Romans, and the letters to the Corinthians were written by Paul.