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
18th 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. He set these four New Testament books in the 50s and 60s while placing
Peter’s epistles at the turn of the first century, and the gospel of Mark and Acts near 150
CE.
In the 20th century, though some continued to follow the method of the
Enlightenment and the conclusions of Baur, others questioned Baur’s conclusions and returned to the traditional or even earlier date for the New Testament writings. For example, the dating scheme of Baur was brought into question by the British scholar J. B.
Lightfoot, who demonstrated that the authentic letters of Clement of Rome should be
4 K. Lachmann, “De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis,” TSK 8 (1835) 570–90; translated in part by N. H. Palmer, “Lachmann’s Argument,” NTS 13 (1967) 368–78.
5 H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863). 5 dated from 95–115 CE, and that Clement mentions Peter and Paul with no trace of theological rivalry ever detected.6
In 1976 John A.T. Robinson published his Redating the New Testament,7 wherein he argued that an event as significant as the destruction of Jerusalem could not go unmentioned in the New Testament if any of its parts had been written after the temple’s destruction in 70 CE. Additionally, Robinson demonstrated that the entire construction of
Baur was indeed dominated by the modern Hegelian pattern of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, and that the span of time for dating the New Testament books was determined more by the intervals supposedly required for this to work itself out than by any objective chronological criteria or evidence. According to Robinson and in the wake of Lightfoot’s observations regarding Clement of Rome, all the major introductions and comparable surveys, English, American and Continental, Protestant and Catholic, from 1950–1970 had narrowed the New Testament writings back to 50–100 CE (with the exception of 2
Peter).8
In 1992, John Wenham published Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, in which he discusses the dating of the synoptic tradition.9 In a desire to be critical without being credulous, Wenham approaches the early church tradition with a hermeneutic of trust rather than suspicion.10 In building on the work of Harnack,11 Wenham contends that
6Lightfoot’s achievement is described and evaluated by S. C. Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1961 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964) 33–60.
7 John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) esp. 86–117.
8 Ibid., cf. W. G. Kummel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 162–84.
9 John William Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992).
10 George Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the 1st Century Bampton lectures (London and New 6
Matthew is to be dated in the early 40s, Mark around 45, and Luke to the 50s. A major point in his argument is that Acts ends in and is to be dated to 62. With this bookend of
62, he backtracks to Luke, Mark, and Matthew, the latter of which Wenham says is the oldest of the synoptics. Although Robinson and Wenham are considered minority voices in New Testament criticism on the early dating of the gospels, they demonstrate the broadening of the horizon for New Testament criticism as a whole on the issue of late dating. C. H. Dodd applauds this broadening when he writes in a private letter to
Robinson:
I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic’s prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud.12
1.2: Dating Mark’s Gospel
To this point, the rise of modern New Testament criticism has been reviewed, including an overturning of Baur’s Hegelian approach to dating the New Testament books. This paper will now focus directly on approaches to dating the gospel of Mark.
Before launching into a review of scholarly attempts to date the gospel of Mark, it will assist the reader to be familiar with the following: the patristic tradition concerning the gospel of Mark, the proposed provenances of composition for Mark, and the various views of the eschatological discourse in dating Mark. To these we now turn.
York: Longmans, Green, 1913). Wenham and Robinson both draw on Edmundson’s lectures.
11 A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1911) 130–31.
12 Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 360. 7
1.2.1: Patristic Tradition
First, a review of the primary patristic sources relating to the gospel of Mark is in order. The first historical reference to the author and circumstance of the gospel of Mark comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, in Exegesis of the Lord’s
Oracles, which was composed sometime prior to Papias’ death (c. 130). Although the work is no longer extant, Papias’ testimony has been preserved by Eusebius in the following version:
This also the elder John used to say. When Mark, who had been the interpreter of Peter,13 wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order,14 whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.15
Eusebius tells us in a preface that Papias received his information from the Elder
John and Aristion who were disciples of the Apostle John. The tradition dates back to the end of the first century and is probably reliable.16 Papias tells us that the gospel is written
13 The tense of the verbs here “who had been Peter’s interpreter,” “remembered,” and “he had heard,” could be used to support Mark’s authorship after Peter’s death.
14 The supposition that this comment, “though not in order” has an apologetic tone to defend the disorderliness of Mark’s gospel is subjective. It may be that Papias is giving us the early church opinion that Mark’s gospel was a ‘reminiscent’ gospel not intentionally arranged as Matthew was.
15 Eusebius of Caesarea, “The Church History of Eusebius,” trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume I: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890) 172–73.
16 Not only is the tradition from the 1st century but Eusebius is willing to trust Papias on this point even though He did not automatically regard Papias as reliable. Elsewhere Eusebius dismisses Papias as “a 8 by Mark who followed Peter and recorded his eyewitness testimony. He also conveys that
Mark wrote carefully and attempted not to omit anything he heard from Peter’s preaching. The reference to Mark as Peter’s ‘interpreter’ (ἑρμηνευτὴς) could also mean
“translator,” and this may be suggesting that Peter needed a translator to congregations whose language was Greek.17 The tradition that Mark was recounting Peter’s eyewitness testimony is resounded in Justin (c. 150) who refers to the gospel of Mark as the
“memoirs of Peter” in his writing from Rome. Justin may be alluding to Xenophon’s
Memorabilia, an ancient biography of Socrates.18 Tertullian of Carthage (c. 185) also names Mark and Luke as ‘Apostolic Men’ because he assumes their relationship with
Peter, and Paul respectively.19
Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 190) writes the following:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure (µετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John,
man of very little intelligence, as is clear from his books” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Eusebius most probably then had reason to trust Papias here in spite of his general estimate of Papias’s reputation. See James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002) 4.
17 Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Black’s New Testament Commentary; London: Continuum, 1991) 6.
18 David Arthur deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 146. Xenophon’s Memorabilia focuses both on the deeds and sayings of Socrates in order to capture the significance of the man and the way of life he embodied. Xenophon’s purpose, as a disciple of Socrates, was to persuade readers of the praiseworthy character of Socrates and to demonstrate that the way of life he followed and proclaimed was worthy of imitation.
19 Against Marcion 4.2.1–2. 9
the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.20
Again, Irenaeus associates Mark with Peter’s preaching. Though it is disputed, it seems that Irenaeus says that Mark composed his gospel after Peter's death. If this is true, then this tradition would conflict with Clement of Alexandria who portrays the gospel of Mark being written while Peter was still alive to ‘learn of it.’ Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) writes the following:
The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.21
In this passage from Clement we see the association of Mark with the preaching of Peter at Rome. In another place Clement comments on the first epistle of Peter, “She who is in
Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark”
(1 Pet 5:13) and writes the following:
20 Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885) 414.
21 From Clement’s eighth book of his Hypotyposes, as preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea, “The Church History of Eusebius,” trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume I: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace;New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890) 261. 10
Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter, just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews.22
Origen (c. 215) carries forward the tradition of Peter being alive in his writing about the four gospels:
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, “The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.”23
Although we have no evidence for an exact date, most agree that the anti-marcionite prologues probably arose in the late 2nd to mid-3rd century. These prologues, also called the Old Latin prologues, precede each of the gospels in some copies of the Latin Vulgate.
In one manuscript, the following is written:
Mark, who was also called Stubfinger because he had shorter fingers with regard to the other dimensions of the body. He had been the disciple and recorder of Peter, whom he followed, just as he had heard him relating. Having been asked by the brethren in Rome, he wrote this short Gospel in the regions of Italy. When Peter heard about it, he approved and authorized it to be read to the church with [his own] authority. But after the demise of Peter, taking this Gospel that he had composed he journeyed to Egypt, and being
22 Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Pet 5:13.
23 Eusebius of Caesarea, “The Church History of Eusebius,” 273. 11
ordained the first bishop of Alexandria he founded the church there, preaching Christ. He was a man of such great learning and austerity of life that he induced all the followers of Christ to imitate his example.24
Again, this tradition associates Mark with Peter and refers to Mark as Peter’s interpreter.
Eusebius of Caesarea (c.330) also associates the preaching of Peter with Mark’s gospel:
And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.25
Jerome (c. 380) also associates the preaching of Peter with Mark:
Paul had Titus as a recorder, just as blessed Peter had Mark, whose Gospel consists of Peter’s narration and the Mark’s writing.26
Conclusions about Mark's association with Peter from the patristic tradition can be summarized as followed: (1) Peter’s spoken ‘memoirs’ are recorded by Mark who wrote them down at the request of Peter’s audience; (2) The tradition of Mark associated with Peter is early and stretches across time without contradiction; (3) This tradition is geographically widespread. It includes Papias from Asia Minor; Justin, Eusebius, and
24 Old Latin Prologue to Mark (recension 2).
25 Eusebius of Caesaria, The Church History of Eusebius, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume I: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert; New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890) 116.
26 Jerome, Epistle 120.11. 12
Jerome from Palestine and Rome; Irenaeus of Lyon; Clement and Origen from
Alexandria; and Tertullian from Carthage.
The evidence is unanimous and widespread, not simply in the patristic writings but also in the manuscript evidence.27 This evidence strongly suggests that the Gospel of
Mark was originally delivered in the Christian assembly in Rome and that the authority of
Peter surely lies behind Mark’s account, as Martin Hengel has concluded.28
1.2.1.1: Irenaeus and the Dating of Mark
The patristic tradition is quite unanimous on many points. However, Irenaeus' testimony differs from the rest. As mentioned above, he seems to imply that Mark wrote after
Peter’s death. If Mark wrote after Peter’s death this would set a terminus post quem29 of c. 65 for the writing of Mark. If Mark wrote before Peter’s death this would set a terminus ante quem30 for Mark at the death of Peter in c. 65. Dating the gospel of Mark often depends on the view one takes of Irenaeus. Wenham points to an article by John
Chapman who shows that Irenaeus' statement is quite general.31 Chapman demonstrates in his article that any precise dating is quite foreign to Irenaeus’ intentions. Rather
Irenaeus is explaining that the teaching of the four principle apostles has not been lost but has been handed down to us in writing. Chapman writes that in the context of Adversus
27 Although not all Markan manuscripts have the traditional title attached to them, where a Markan manuscript does have a title it is always kata markon and never an alternative name.
28 M. Hengel, “Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems in the Gospel of Mark,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. P. Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 233–34.
29 Terminus post quem: Earliest date after which an event could have happened.
30 Terminus ante quem: Latest date before which an event could have happened.
31 J. Chapman, “St Irenaeus and the Dates of the Gospels,” JTS 6 (1904–5) 563–69. See Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 239–40, 304 n. 47. 13
Haereses, Irenaeus “. . . is not in the least concerned to defend the authenticity of the gospels, still less to give their dates. The Valentinians accepted them all, and Irenaeus is merely urging upon them the fact that each gospel is the written record of the matter preached by an apostle.”32 Harnack,33 F. F. Bruce,34 and Wenham all agree that Chapman has interpreted Irenaeus rightly here. Harnack writes the following concerning
Chapman’s article: “To Chapman belongs the credit of having first correctly interpreted this passage, which to this point has been a veritable crux, because it did not seem to fit in with the other chronological traditions . . . .”35
If Irenaeus is interpreted as giving us chronological information, then as Chapman says, “the statement about Mark would be in flat contradiction with Clement of
Alexandria, Eusebius and Jerome, who all assure us that Mark wrote in the lifetime of
Peter.”36 If Irenaeus is interpreted as simply talking of the transmission of Mark’s gospel in written form so that Peter’s testimony is not lost then the testimony of Irenaeus should not be considered as chronological evidence in dating Mark’s gospel. And perhaps that is our best historical decision since chronology was not a strength for Irenaeus — as
Wenham points out, Irenaeus believed Jesus lived to nearly fifty years old and had a 10 year ministry!37
32 As quoted by Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 240.
33 Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, 130–31.
34 As noted by Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 304 n. 48.
35 As cited by A. J. Stacpoole, “A Note on the Dating of St Mark’s Gospel,” Scripture 16 (1964) 106– 10, here 109 n. 1. Stacpoole and Harnack reference Chapman, “St Irenaeus and the Dates of the Gospels.”
36 Chapman, “St Irenaeus and the Dates of the Gospels,” 563.
37 Adv. Haer. 2.22.5, 6. 14
1.2.2: Provenance
An important piece of the puzzle to consider in dating Mark is provenance, since provenance can often provide a clue for dating. There have been two main suggestions for the provenance of composition of the Gospel of Mark which are made based on form- critical approaches to the gospel. A few scholars have proposed a composition in Syria, or more specifically, Antioch.38 Willi Marxsen39 and Werner Kelber40 have both argued for a provenance of Galilee. Roskam has recently revived this hypothesis.41
However, the method of form-criticism for discerning provenance has been critiqued in a recent dissertation by Dwight Peterson, wherein he argues against the commonly held notion that a distinctive community can be reconstructed from the
Markan gospel.42 This critique along with a recent collections of essays edited by Richard
Bauckham leaves one wondering if attempts to understand Mark’s community from internal features in the gospel are fruitless, and in the words of Peterson, “not worth the
38 This hypothesis usually argues that Mark assumes his readers will know palestinian place names, that Syria had a large Roman colony, that Peter had a connection with Antioch, and that the presbyter whom Papias quotes comes from the East. See Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 28. The most influential argument in favor of a Syrian origin has probably been that of H. C. Kee, Community, esp. 100–105. More recently see Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991) 235–58, and the response to this by Bas van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 36–39; and R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 7–9.
39 Noting the positive significance accorded to Galilee in Mark, Marxsen theorizes that for Mark, Galilee was the place of revelation and that the references to Jesus “going before” the disciples into Galilee (14:28; 16:7) were a summons to Christians to gather in Galilee and await the return of Christ. Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) esp. 75–92.
40 Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 129–47; idem, Mark’s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 12.
41 Hendrika Nicoline Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context (NovTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 94–113.
42 Dwight N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (BIS 48; Leiden: Brill, 2000) esp. 151–94. 15 trouble.”43 If Burridge44 and Bauckham are right about the genre and function of gospels, then the Gospel of Mark will not yield the results the form-critics are looking for. It would seem then that the form-critical goal of discerning the community behind the gospel is in error on these points.
Apart from form-critical methods, the majority of scholars argue for a composition in Rome for both internal and external reasons.45 First, there is a number of latinisms in the gospel.46 Second, the author often translates Aramaic words or proper names.47 Third, the author explains Jewish customs which would need no explanation to an audience in Judea or Syria.48 The provenance of Rome is corroborated by patristic
43 Richard Bauckham, The Gospels for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Peterson, The Origins of Mark, 202.
44 Richard A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
45 Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel (BIS 65; Leiden: Brill, 2003); Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002); Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1989); Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark; Phillip J Cunningham, Mark: The Good News Preached to the Romans (New York: Paulist Press, 1995)
46See esp. Mark’s explanation of the widow’s two copper coins as equaling a κοδράντης, a Roman coin (12:42), and of the “courtyard” (αὐλή) as being a πραιτώριον, another distinctively Roman/Latin name (15:16). Readers in the eastern part of the Roman Empire would almost certainly have known these Greek terms.The Latinisms are listed and discussed by Gundry, Mark, 1043–45. See also Van Iersel, Mark, 33–35, who adds to the normal vocabulary items two aspects of Mark’s syntax (deviations from standard Greek word-order and the non-final use of ἵνα) which he claims betray the influence of Latin. It is often stated that the Latinisms are military and economic terms suitable to an occupied territory, not the social and domestic vocabulary of Rome. Thus, e.g., H. C. Waetjen, A Reordering of Power: A Sociopolitical Reading of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 13–15, following Kelber, Kingdom, 129, suggests an origin in a Gentile context in southern Syria. Hengel suggests two latinisms that would have been uneccesary and unfamiliar for those in Palestine or Syria: λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης (12:42); αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστιν πραιτώριον (15:16); and the description of the woman in 7:26 as Συροφοινίκισσα, not just Φοινίκισσα. Cf. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005); France, The Gospel of Mark, 40–41.
47 As seen in Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34.
48 As in Mark 7:3–4. See David Arthur deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 196. 16 traditions. Based on the evidence above, it seems Rome is provisionally the most probable locale for composition of the Gospel of Mark.
1.2.3: Eschatological Discourse
For much of the last century Mark has been dated by comparing the eschatological discourse on the destruction of the Jerusalem temple to its actual destruction in 70 and the events that led up to or took place shortly after. Some scholars who take a post-70 date see a vaticinium ex eventu in Mark 13. Others scholars see Mark
13 as stock Jewish apocalyptic language for the fall of Jerusalem in the Hebrew prophetic corpus.49 It seems strange to assume Mark 13 is a prophecy after the event for several reasons. First, it does not seem one needed divine ability to predict Jerusalem’s fall. For example, Josephus and Jesus Ben Ananias both seem to have predicted Jerusalem’s fate as well. Second, Mark’s words imply the Christians fled to the hills of Judea, whereas tradition relays they fled to Pella, a low-lying city east of Jordan.50 Third, no mention of fire burning the city is mentioned in Mark 13. Fourth, the language seems to be stock imagery from the Hebrew Bible for besieging cities, not language based on what Rome did to Jerusalem. As we read the text contextually and sympathetically, it does not seem
Mark is portraying Jesus as predicting exactly what would happen when Jerusalem fell.
49 R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (London: Tyndale Press, 1971) 227–39, esp. 233. See esp. Bo Reicke, “Synoptic Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. David E. Aune (NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 121–33; John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 13–30. Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament. C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947) 47–54.
50 Cf. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (4th rev. ed.; The Master Reference Collection; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996) 87. 17
Rather he seems to portray Jesus as drawing on stock imagery from the Hebrew bible to predict, like other contemporaries, the doom that will befall Jerusalem if her leaders continue their course of action.
1.3: Proposed Dates for Mark
We have reviewed briefly the history of dating the New Testament and demonstrated that the majority of contemporary New Testament scholars date the writings of the New Testament between 40 and 100. We have looked at the patristic tradition concerning the gospel of Mark and have found consensus that Peter's testimony lies behind the Gospel. Regarding the proposed provenances of composition for Mark,
Rome seems most plausible. Regarding the role of the eschatological discourse in dating
Mark, evidence was presented against an ex eventu composition. A review and assessment of the proposed dates for Mark will now be presented.
1.3.1: Dating Mark in the Seventies
If Mark 13 is an ex eventu prophecy that reflects the destruction of the temple in
70 CE, then it follows logically that Mark would have been finalized after 70 CE. In support of a post-70 date, S. G. F. Brandon suggests that after the Flavian triumphal procession celebrating the capture of Jerusalem, Roman Christians would need a gospel to dissociate Jesus from the Jerusalem Jews.51 Brandon works out his theory with great originality but most of Brandon’s reconstruction is conjectural and lacking a base of
51 S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity (London: SPCK, 1957) 185ff., idem, “Date of the Markan Gospel,” NTS 7 (1961) 126–41, here 133–34. 18 evidence. Brandon’s reconstruction stems from his view that Mark 13 is a prophecy after the event.52 B. W. Bacon suggested a date subsequent to 75 CE (the year in which a
Cynic philosopher was beheaded for denouncing Titus’ immoral conduct with Bernice, sister of Agrippa II), because he saw a parallel here with the murder of John the Baptist.
Few have followed Bacon’s lead. Although Gerd Theissen argues that Mark’s Little
Apocalypse (Mark 13) and Passion Narrative (Mark 14–15) can be dated to the late 30s or early 40s, he is nevertheless still able to locate the production of Mark’s Gospel in the early 70s by distinguishing between the date of the literary work and the history of its composition.53 Apart from these several innovative proposals for dating Mark after 70 CE the main reason scholars accept a post-70 date for Mark is due to reading Mark 13 as an ex eventu prophecy.
1.3.2: Dating Mark in the Sixties
Though some scholars place little or no weight on patristic tradition, some scholars who date Mark to the 60s opt for interpreting the early church traditions (e.g.
Irenaeus) as favoring a date for Mark after the death of Peter. This observation is then coupled with the unanimous early church tradition that Peter died during the latter years of Nero’s reign, who ruled from 54 to 68. This would suggest a date in the late 60s after the onset of Nero’s persecution in 64. Another reason for dating Mark in the 60s is the internal evidence for a theme of suffering in the gospel, which, combined with external
52 Brandon, “Date of the Markan Gospel,” 135. For a critique of Brandon’s hypothesis, cf. R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand rapids: Zondervan, 1973) 75–79. Martin points out that Brandon’s attempt to explain the passion story is unsatisfactory because it does not explain the circulation of a pre-Markan passion narrative, which goes against Brandon’s theory.
53 Theissen, The Gospels in Context, 125–99. 19 evidence, could favor a date shortly after the onset of persecution of Rome under Nero.
Some have objected to this, saying that the early church faced persecution on many occasions54 and that the details of Mark 13 are simply not specific enough to convince us of a precise historical occasion.55 Hengel provides a detailed analysis of Mark 13:14 against the historical background of the war in 67–70. He tries to show that the events of the war do not correlate with this verse, which contains both a reference to the
“abomination of desolation” and the note about fleeing “into the hills.”56 Hengel points out that Jesus commanded his followers to flee to the Judean hill country, but what actually occurred during the Jewish war was a Christian flight to Pella in the Transjordan.
Hengel thinks 13:14 fits more appropriately a setting preceding the destruction of the
Temple in 67–69 CE, when the evangelist could foresee the impending doom of
Jerusalem and the temple. Therefore, Hengel opts for a date sometime after the Romans began their military campaign under Vespasian against the Jews in Palestine (67 CE) but before the final siege of Jerusalem under Titus in the summer of 70.57 James Edwards has pointed out that Josephus repeatedly emphasizes the destruction of the temple by fire, which finds no mention in Mark 13. Edwards also points out that the Roman siege wall of
Titus in 70 CE, the circumvallatio, would have made a flight from Jerusalem a virtual
54 Joel Marcus has pointed out Mark’s treatment of suffering omits some of the features we might have expected had the Neronian persecution been in the background. Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 32–33. cf. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition.; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005) 181–82.
55 Crossley discusses the contributions of G. Theissen and N. H. Taylor on Mark 13 and judges that their respective views of dating Mark 13 against the background of the Caligula crisis certainly are plausible.
56 Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 14–28.
57 Hengel cites other arguments in support of a late date: (1) the clarity of Mark’s writing; (2) Mark’s lateness in comparison with Q; (3) the assumption in Mark of the existence of a worldwide mission (see 13:10; 14:9); and (4) the prophecy of the martyrdom of James and John. See Hengel, Studies in the Gospel 20 impossibility. He argues that if Mark were composing his Gospel after the actual fall of
Jerusalem, then we would see a more obvious correlation with the Roman siege.58 All of this evidence can be mounted to conclude that the Gospel of Mark was written after the onset of persecution (62), after the death of Peter (ca. 65), and before the destruction of the temple (70).
1.3.3: Dating Mark in the Fifties
Scholars who date Mark in the 50s usually attempt to point to the evidence we have for Peter being in Rome in the 50s.59 The case often made for dating Mark in the
50s comes from the relationship of Mark to Luke-Acts, the argument for which is as follows: First, if Acts is written by 62 when the book ends, and Luke was written before
Acts, then Luke must have been written in the late 50s or early 60s. Second, if Luke used
Mark as a source, then Mark must have been in circulation for some amount of time, placing Mark in the 50s. This argument assumes the majority scholarly view of Markan priority, but also assumes a minority view that Acts was written in 62.
1.3.4: Dating Mark in the Fourties
Scholars who date Mark in the 40s usually attempt to place the background of
Mark 13:14 as a reference to the attempt in 40 CE of Caligula to have his image set up in
of Mark, 12–28.
58James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 8.
59 Peter was probably in Corinth before 55 CE when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (see 1:12; 3:22), and in Rome in about 63. Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who ruled from 21 the Jerusalem temple. John Wenham proposed that after Peter was freed from prison, he went to Rome in 42 CE60 and that Mark wrote the gospel shortly after Peter’s arrival.61
Wenham’s reconstruction assumes Matthean priority and the tradition that the apostles remained in Jerusalem for twelve years to set the gospel in order.62 Seeing Mark 13:14 as a reference to Caligula does not obviously require one assumes Matthean priority.
1.4: Putting the Historical Pieces Together
Dating a gospel is similar to constructing a puzzle without all the needed pieces or the original image to aid in comparison.63 The amount of evidence is sparse and when you interpret one piece of evidence a particular way it may demand you adjust your explanation of another piece of evidence. It is a moving endeavor to engage in the historical enterprise. Historical construction happens in two steps: (1) Assemble the evidence; (2) Provide an explanation of that evidence.64 Assembling the evidence in
41 to 54. See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.14.6.
60 John Wenham, “Did Peter Go to Rome in A.D. 42?” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972) 97–102.
61 Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke, 146–72. Wenham follows George Edmundson’s Bampton Lectures.
62 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.18.14; Acts of Peter 2.5; Clement, Stromateis 6.5.43; cf. Acts 12. See Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 11.
63 Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). See Webb’s opening chapter, “The Historical Enterprise and Historical Research,” 9–93. Webb emphasizes that all historical constructions take place in this way.
64 C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984); idem, The Truth of History (London and New York: Routledge, 2002); Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History (London: Granta Books, 2012). In Justifying Historical Descriptions McCullagh lists seven factors that historians typically weigh, in testing a historical hypothesis: (1) The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present, observable data. (2) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses. (3) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (that is, 22 gospel scholarship is not a simple task. Why? The evidence of history is fragmentary and often sparse. Since historians do not have direct access to the past, the goal of the historical enterprise is to obtain probability not mathematical certainty. Historical conclusions will sometimes be provisional.65 The historical science is similar to the geological science. As geologists excavate the earth and draw conclusions about the past, historians excavate surviving traces (texts, epigraphy, artifacts, coins, etc.) and write up a construction of the past event, person, or people. Therefore, each time a new piece of evidence is put forward it should be evaluated, assessed, interpreted, and submitted to the guild of scholarship for peer review. Peer review is an important check for determining the value and meaning of a new hypothesis or new piece of evidence.66
James Crossley puts forward a new hypothesis, based on what he thinks is new evidence. Both the hypothesis and the proposed new evidence must be critically evaluated. His dissertation is novel in that he proposes a new piece of evidence should be
make the observable data more probable) than rival hypotheses. (4) The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses. (5) The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses. (6) The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses. (7) The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions 2-6 that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions.
65 McCullagh states: “The best explanation historians can think of for their evidence is not always correct. There might be a better one they have not considered, and there might be more evidence that will cast a different complexion upon the historical events that interest them. But if the evidence in support of an explanatory hypothesis is strong, and there is no alternative hypothesis supported nearly as well, it is reasonable to believe it is probably true, at least for the time being.” C. Behan McCullagh, The Logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective (New York: Psychology Press, 2004) 68.
66Michael Licona lists six factors which can help to mitigate the unavoidable absence of neutrality (1) proper historical method, including the way in which data are viewed, weighed, and contextualized, correct criteria for testing the adequacy of hypotheses, and fair consideration of competing hypotheses; (2) public acknowledgment of one’s horizon and methodology; (3) peer pressure and review by the community of historians; (4) submitting hypotheses to hostile experts, (5) the presence of certain minimal facts which all contemporary historians regard as historical facts and may be taken for granted; (6) a serious effort at detachment from one’s biases. Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus : a New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2010) 52–62. 23 added to the pile which has never before been used in dating the gospel of Mark.
Crossley proposes that the way Mark articulates legal understanding, particularly in Mark
7, could only have been articulated before Torah controversies began in the early church.
This leads him to an early dating for Mark's gospel. In order for Crossley’s new evidence to pass an assessment and be entered into the pile of data used to date Mark’s gospel,
Crossley will need to demonstrate three things: (1) when Torah controversies began in the early church, (2) Mark’s legal understanding, and (3) that Mark’s legal understanding could only have been articulated before Torah controversies in the church. If Crossley can demonstrate this then the field of New Testament studies will be indebted to his work in excavating a new piece of data into the pile that must be accounted for in our historical explanation of Christian origins. To Crossley’s thesis we now turn.
Chapter Two: James Crossley’s New Thesis
In 2004, James Crossley published his dissertation, The Date of Mark’s Gospel:
Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity, in which he argued, on the basis of how the
Jewish law seems to be understood, that the Gospel of Mark should not be dated later than the late 30s or early 40s. Crossley develops his argument in three steps: (1) The traditional arguments for dating Mark are flawed; (2) Earliest Christianity was Torah observant (and therefore not involved in Torah controversies); (3) Mark’s gospel is unaware of Torah controversies and was therefore written before Torah disputes arose in early Christianity. This chapter will focus on explaining each step of Crossley’s thesis.
2.1: The Traditional Arguments for Dating Mark are Flawed
In the first step of his argument, Crossley examines the patristic evidence, the eschatological discourse, and modern gospel criticism. He concludes that the conventional arguments for dating Mark around 70 are unpersuasive.
2.1.1: The Patristic Evidence
Crossley first examines the patristic tradition and contends that the conventional arguments for dating Mark after Peter's death are in question. Crossley discusses the textual issue in Irenaeus about whether we are to translate the text as “after Peter's death” or “after Peter's departure.” Crossley does not say strongly either way but points to the
24 25 disagreement as a cause for reservation, though he also notes that Irenaeus is sometimes unreliable in his dating methods.67 Crossley then examines Clement of Alexandria and shows that this tradition clearly accepts Peter as being alive at the time of writing the gospel. Crossley points to the tradition of Jerome, and the Latin version of Eusebius chronicle, which says that Peter was in Rome in 42, the second year of Claudius. He notes that the traditions may be linking with the tradition that taught the apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 12 years.68 Crossley opines that the Wenham, Robinson, and
Edmundson theory (which suggests that Peter was in Rome in the 40s based on Peter's departure to another place) is much too vague to be conclusive. Crossley then reviews the work of Martin Hengel, and notes that the strongest point in his work is that the tradition concerning authorship in the patristic tradition is unchallenged. For Crossley however, the gospel of Mark may have been written by multiple authors. Crossley asserts that single authorship was more common in the hellenized Greek world, and that multiple pseudonymous authors were quite common in Judaism. For Crossley, though the church tradition is unanimous, scholars cannot rule out the possibility of original pseudonymity of author(s).69 Crossley concludes concerning external evidence on dating that “there are multiple possibilities concerning the interpretation of the various sources and choosing
67 Irenaeus is a little suspect because, as Wenham noted, chronology is not his strong point: Irenaeus claimed that Jesus’ ministry lasted ten years and that Jesus died just before the age of fifty (Adversus haereses 2.22.5, 6).
68 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.18.14; Acts of Peter 2.5; Clement, Stromateis 6.5.43; cf. Acts 12. See Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 11.
69 Though realist historians can not rule out the possibility of a pseudonymous author, in the absence of other evidence historians should critically and provisionally conclude based on the evidence we do and do not have that the better historical construction is Markan authorship. Furthermore historians can argue that the weaker, less plausible, historical hypothesis that accounts for less of the data is pseudonymous authorship. Crossley’s criticism in one direction here seems to be credulity in the other. 26 which is most plausible is almost impossible.”70 As a result Crossley thinks the internal evidence becomes supremely important for dating Mark and those like Robinson and
Wenham who rely heavily on the external evidence cannot convince.
2.1.2: Eschatological Discourse
Second, Crossley examines the eschatological discourse. He starts by offering a critique of N. T. Wright, who argues that the language of Mark 13 reflects the experience of the early church in suffering and Gentile mission. Against Wright, Crossley argues that
Mark 13 is most likely invented by the church and was not uttered by the historical Jesus.
Crossley, then examines the abomination of desolation and argues the Caligula crisis (40
CE) may be a better background for understanding the discourse. Crossley then proposes how the Jewish war in 70 may not quite fit the discourse of Mark 13. Crossley is fairly certain that Mark 13 is a product of the early church, not the historical Jesus, and so the earliest possible date for the gospel of Mark could be the Caligula crisis though a date in the mid-30s cannot be ruled out based on previous threats Caligula made. Crossley's conclusion regarding Mark 13 is that it points to a date at any time between 35–70 CE.71
Crossley does seem to have demonstrated that a precise dating of Mark's Gospel on the basis of Mark 13 only (and especially on the basis of the prediction of the destruction of the temple in Mark 13:1–2) is impossible. This seems to coincide well with the
70 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 18.
71 Du Toit thinks this is one of the most important results of Crossley’s research. David du Toit, Review of Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, in Review of Biblical Literature 8 (2006) 417–20, here 418. 27 conclusions of many recent scholars who have analyzed Mark 13 and found it to be common Jewish apocalyptic discourse found in the Hebrew prophets.72
2.1.3: Modern Gospel Criticism
Third, Crossley gives an overview of source, form, and redaction criticism, and how these approaches to the gospels may be misleading our attempts to date the gospel.
He proposes that Mark is the first gospel written and that Matthew and Luke are most likely to be dated after the Jewish war since they seem to presuppose knowledge of the war. For Crossley, the trends in modern gospel criticism have not provided much clarity for when Mark's gospel was written. Crossley closes this part of his argument by referencing the conclusions of his Doktorvater Maurice Casey, who argues that Mark’s gospel contains several passages which are literal translations of Aramaic sources.73
Crossley thinks this Aramaic residue in Mark’s gospel may suggest that it was written well before extensive editing of the material would have been needed to facilitate the
Gentile mission — something which Casey says is evidenced in Matthew and Luke.
Crossley speaks of the firm datable evidence — when Torah disputes arose in the first century — and provides the main crux of his thesis: “If Markan passages containing certain Jewish cultural assumptions can be identified and if it can be seen how Matthew
72 R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (London: Tyndale, 1971) 233. see also C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947) 47–54.
73 M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (SNTSMS 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 28 and Luke use these passages then this may provide an earliest possible date for these adaptations.”74
2.2: Earliest Christianity was Torah Observant
After covering the first step in his argument concerning the weakness of the conventional arguments for dating Mark around 70, Crossley attempts to demonstrate that
Jesus and the earliest Christians were Torah-observant.
2.2.1: Jesus and the Torah according to Mark
In contrast to much modern biblical scholarship, Crossley argues that Mark always portrays Jesus as observant of biblical laws. He points out that Jesus wore rabbinic tassels (Mark 6:56; cf. Num 15:38), quoted the decalogue (10:17–22), and combined the shema and love command (Mark 12:28–34). Crossley disagrees with scholars who assert that Jesus overrides the sabbath in Mark by culling passages from the
Mishnah and the Talmud to argue his point. For Crossley, Jesus is not attacking family piety in Mark 3. Ignoring the law by touching a leper in Mark 1 cannot constitute lack of
Torah observance because being impure is not against the Torah. He argues that Jesus in no way bypasses the temple system in Mark. For Crossley, Mark portrays Jesus as a
Torah-observant Jew who was liable to run into bitter conflicts with his opponents’ interpretations of Torah.75
74 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel. 81.
75 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 98. 29
2.2.2: Jesus and the Torah according to Matthew
When Crossley moves to Matthew, he again argues that the Matthean Jesus is always portrayed as observing the biblical laws and on no occasion is he ever presented as opposing the Torah. Crossley argues that though Matthew portrays Jesus as opposing certain expansions of the Torah (cf. Matt 11:28–30; 23:4), he never portrays him as opposing the Torah itself. For Crossley, Matthew may well have believed that Jesus was interpreting the Torah and even adding to it in a ‘messianic’ sense or as a new Moses or prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15) but this does not mean dispensing with the biblical
Torah.
2.2.3: Jesus and the Torah according to Luke
Crossley argues that the Lukan Jesus likewise upholds biblical law and accepts the validity of, or at least the ideal of, the temple and the purity system. In Luke, Jesus observes the sabbath, and when his interpretation conflicts with his opponents (cf. 11:45–
46, 52), it is because of expanded law. He argues that the Lukan Jesus in no way attacks the food laws, and there is no direct attack on the family that would have been perceived to be in conflict with biblical law, although the family is subordinate to Jesus’ mission.
2.2.4: Crossley’s Conclusion on Torah Observance
After surveying the synoptic gospels, Crossley concludes that in all three synoptic gospels Jesus is portrayed as a Torah-observant Jew, and also as a Jew who counters other Jews who are dedicated to expanding and developing the biblical laws. In other words, Crossley argues that Jesus was Torah-observant, but opposed oral tradition that 30 was supplementary to the written Torah. Crossley infers that this reflects the views of the historical Jesus, because if Jesus would have counteracted the written Torah, there would not have been as much controversy among his followers concerning the food laws and the
Gentiles. He states: “the early church would not have had so much internal controversy over the observance of the biblical Torah if Jesus had deliberately challenged it in any way or if he had told others to do so.”76
The reason Crossley sets forward this proposal is to later demonstrate that there is a key difference between Mark and the other synoptics: Whereas Matthew and Luke do show some knowledge concerning the controversial questions surrounding the observance of the biblical law in earliest Christianity, Mark shows none. This is a major point for Crossley’s thesis. For Crossley, Mark’s gospel is ignorant of such Torah debates in early Christianity. If this is true then Crossley thinks that Mark’s gospel must have been written before these debates over food laws existed. When did these debates arise in earliest Christianity? That is the question Crossley seeks to answer in his next chapter.
2.3: The Torah and Earliest Christianity
After reviewing the traditions in the synoptic gospels concerning the attitudes of
Jesus and the early Christians towards the law, Crossley constructs a proposal of Torah observance in earliest Christianity. He starts by asking the question, “If Jesus did not break any biblical law or advocate that anyone should do so, when did Christianity first begin to show signs that certain biblical laws were starting to be rejected, criticized or
76 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 123. Crossley expresses an ironic confidence in the disciples who are recurrently portrayed in the gospel of Mark as not comprehending their master’s teaching. 31 simply not observed on a noticeable scale?”77 His aim in this chapter of his work is to establish a date for when parts of the biblical Torah were first challenged or not observed by a significant number of Christians. This date will help him to situate the Gospel of
Mark in earliest Christianity.
2.3.1: Stephen and the Hellenists
Crossley first examines Stephen and the Hellenists to decipher what earliest Christianity was like in regard to Torah-observance. He argues that Stephen and the Hellenists were not opposed to aspects of the Torah or temple. He seeks to show that Stephen obeyed the sabbath, the purity laws, and recognized the temple as a continuing place of forgiveness.
Although Crossley does conclude that Stephen believed the temple was going to be destroyed, he notes that this does not mean that Stephen opposed the Torah or the ideal functions of the temple.
2.3.2: Zeal for the Law
Crossley argues that although Paul was “zealous for the law,” this does not imply that early Christians were breaking Torah. Paul may certainly have persecuted the Christians out of a zeal for the law. Whereas Donaldson argues that zeal in Jewish texts is found in the righteous who enforce boundary markers, Crossley argues that Paul’s offense came from the messianic claim of the Christian sect.78 Paul’s zeal should not imply that the
77 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 125.
78 T. L. Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s Christ–Torah Antithesis,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989) 655–82. 32 early Christians were abandoning the boundary markers of Judaism or criticizing any aspect of biblical Torah.
2.3.3: Paul’s Early Attitude Toward the Law
Crossley argues that Paul's early attitude toward the Torah is distinct from his later attitude — the former being characterized by Torah observance. Crossley argues that although Acts portrays Paul’s conversion as a call for salvation to be brought to the
Gentiles, at his conversion there is no indication that Torah laws are now to be abrogated.
According to Crossley, the evidence of Acts and Paul’s letters does not tells us that Paul was giving Christians, Jewish or Gentile, the permission to break the sabbath, or eat whatever they wanted. For Crossley, we cannot know exactly when Paul started preaching justification by faith apart from works of the Torah to Gentiles. Crossley says,
“Paul in the first ten years or so after his conversion was probably not openly preaching justification by faith without works of the law.”79 Because Paul's letters are later, and because Acts does not portray early-Paul as abrogating Torah, his theology cannot be used as evidence for early Torah observance among Christians in Palestine, even if his later letters show Torah abrogation for Gentiles.
2.3.4: Peter’s Vision (Acts 10–11)
For Crossley, Peter’s vision is the first non-ambiguous reference to non-observance to the
Torah. In Peter’s vision the food laws are no longer valid and Peter is told to eat food prohibited in the Torah, something which Peter claimed he had never done before. The
79 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 157. 33 vision deals primarily with the acceptability of eating unclean foods and calling unclean what God has cleansed. Because Jewish food observance distinguished the Jewish people from Gentiles in the ancient world, the overtones of Gentile mission are clear in this vision. Crossley believes that this indicates that breaking Torah was not characteristic of early Jewish Christianity, but rather occurred later in the context of Gentile mission.
Crossley finds it unfortunate that Luke is unsure chronologically of when Peter’s vision occurred, but he concludes it may be dated roughly between 41–44 CE. In other words,
41–44 CE is the first reference to lack of Torah observance in early Christianity.
2.3.5: The Antioch Controversy
Here Crossley discusses the works of Dunn, Esler, Sanders and Tomson in detail. He thinks the Antioch episode is one of the most important pieces of evidence for a dispute over the Torah in earliest Christianity because it gives a more firm date for the non- observance of food laws. For Crossley, there is justification for thinking that the Antioch episode is an example of food laws being broken, by both Jews and Gentiles. According to Crossley, people such as Peter and James would have been worried that non- observance of food laws would erode Jewish identity in the greater Mediterranean world.
The Antioch incident is helpful for Crossley because it can be dated with a reasonable degree of certainty from the mid to late forties or even the early fifties.80 Whereas Peter’s vision lays the theological groundwork for abrogation of Torah food laws, it is not until
80For a discussion of the chronological issues and scholarly opinions Crossley points his readers to R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 3– 28. 34 the Antioch incident in the late 40s or early 50s that Jewish Christians do not observe food laws.
2.3.6: The Jerusalem Conference
The Jerusalem conference is, for Crossley, another witness to non-observance of biblical
Torah in earliest Christianity. It seems that the Jerusalem council accepted Gentiles eating forbidden food according to Acts 15, and this suggestion is bolstered by the fact that Peter refers back to his vision where he was given permission to call unclean animals clean. The Jerusalem conference assumes then that some Gentile Christians were not observing biblical food laws in the mid-40s.
2.3.7: Christianity and the Law in the Forties
From the arguments adduced above, Crossley contends that the liberties of the Gentile
Christians were encroaching upon Jewish Christians and therefore upon distinctive
Jewish identity. In this, Crossley sees a sociological perception that certain Jewish
Christians were not observing the biblical food laws, which he dates to the mid-40s. This perception then would mean that audiences (Jewish and Gentile) would not be able to assume a law-observant Jesus from the mid-40s onward. This point is crucial to
Crossley’s argument. Is there a fixed point we can ascertain at which the public perception of Jesus and his movement shifted from a law observant movement to one that was not? Can it be assumed that the Jewish Jesus was law observant? Can the perception of Jewish Christians not observing the biblical food laws be used as a fixable point of which the evangelists would have been cognizant in constructing their portraits of Jesus? 35
Or is it more probable to conclude that a linear approach to Torah disputes in earliest
Christianity, leading to a chronologically fixed date for law observance in earliest
Christianity, is ultimately a dead-end?
2.3.8: Conclusions on the Torah in Earliest Christianity
Crossley concludes that by the second half of the 40s a notable Jewish-Gentile Christian movement was identifiable that rejected Torah food laws. This group comes to our attention via Peter’s vision, the Antioch incident, and the Jerusalem conference. Crossley concludes that the council accepted that food laws did not need to be accepted by
Gentiles. Because Acts and Paul both start mentioning non-observance of food laws in the mid-40s, Crossley suggests that this was the beginning of non-observance. Stephen and the hellenists were most likely observing the food laws even though they were critiquing the temple leadership. Because of this, Crossley suggests that earliest
Christianity was largely law observant for the first 10 to 15 years after the death of Jesus.
This supposition is the chronological crux for his approach to dating the gospel of Mark.
If Crossley can show that Matthew and Luke were aware of Torah controversies in the church, whereas Mark was not, then Crossley thinks a case can be made for Mark being written before these controversies ever began. His following two chapters attempt to do just that.
36
2.4: Mark’s gospel was Written Before Torah Disputes Arose in Christianity
Crossley has covered two initial steps in his argument. First, that the conventional arguments for dating Mark are quite weak. Second, he argued that the attitudes of Jesus and his earliest followers were conservative in their attitudes to the Torah. Now, in chapters five through seven of his dissertation, Crossley moves to the third step in his argument wherein he argues that the legal texts in Mark indicate an early date of composition by their lack of awareness of Torah controversies. To make his point,
Crossley examines three key passages in Mark comparing them with the other synoptics:
(1) Mark 2:23–28, (2) Mark 10:2–12, and (3) Mark 7:1–23.
2.4.1: Mark 2:23–28
Crossley first examines Mark's episode of the Pharisees questioning the disciples for plucking heads of grain. He argues that Mark portrays Jesus as one who obeys the sabbath but disagrees with the tradition of the elders. In other words, though Jesus disobeys “oral tradition,” he still obeys written Torah. Whereas in Mark the disciples
“pick some heads of grain” (Mark 2:23), in Matthew they “pick some heads of grain and eat them” (Matt 12:1), and in Luke the disciples, “pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels” (Luke 6:1). Crossley sees these as significant redactional additions. He points particularly to the emphasis that the disciples ate the grain immediately as Matthew and Luke’s way of making clear that Jesus was not engaging in any kind of work on the Sabbath like carrying grain home to prepare food. Crossley argues that these additions were made by Matthew and Luke in the light of Sabbath 37 controversies in the early church (e.g., Rom, 14:1–6; Gal 4:10; Col 2:16; John 5:1–18) to make it clear that Jesus did not advocate working on the Sabbath.81 Crossley believes
Matthew and Luke make these additions which shows that, unlike Mark, they are aware of Torah controversies and sought to clarify that Jesus did in fact obey Torah.82
2.4.2: Mark 10:2–12
Crossley next looks at the episode in Mark where Jesus discusses divorce. Crossley argues that the prohibition of Jesus against divorce caused major problems in the
Matthean and Pauline traditions whereas in Mark it is unqualified. These problems cause
Matthew to craft the exception clause, “µὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ” (except for sexual immorality).
Interestingly enough the exception clause is not found in Luke’s account (Luke 16:18). If
Paul had to qualify this statement of Jesus in 1 Corinthians then Mark must have been written before this Pauline epistle, i.e., before the mid-50s. The early church clearly had problems with the πορνεία clause, some of which can be dated during the 50s, so the implication is that Matthew was written in the light of such controversies and that Mark was written prior to them.
2.4.3: Mark 7:1–23
Crossley moves now to the crucial passage for his argument, where he argues against the surface meaning of the text. He suggests that this passage must be read in light of intra-
81 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 182. The gospel authors do not seem concerned about their audience misunderstanding sabbath teachings. If the gospel authors were concerned why would they not then simply put words in the mouth of Jesus like, “the sabbath remains in full effect?”
82 This would mean that Matthew and Luke are writing from the pro-Jewish side of the party division on Crossley's construction. It seems Luke would be on the Paul-Gentile side of the issue. 38
Jewish halakhic disputes, including the controversial passage in 7:19. Crossley argues that Mark’s editorial comment in 7:19c (“making all foods clean”) does not abrogate
Torah dietary purity laws, but merely declares “all foods that are permitted to eat in the
Torah to be clean thereby denying only the role of handwashing.”83
For Crossley, the presentation of Jesus in Mark 7:1–23 should be read wholly in the context of intra-Jewish halakic disputes and this includes the controversial statement in Mark 7:19 declaring all foods clean. The Jewish law was expanded, as witnessed in a variety of texts, to say that impurity passed from hands to food to eater via liquid.
Knowing this detailed expansion of biblical law Mark inserts his editorial comment
(Mark 7:3–4) and links it with Mark 7:15, which for Crossley strongly suggests that the expansion of biblical law (and its rejection) is of concern for the Markan Jesus, not observance of biblical law. Because Christians in the late 40s began claiming that biblical food laws did not have to be observed, Matthew has to make it explicitly clear that Jesus was attacking hand washing and not the biblical food laws. Matthew would be writing from the pro-Jewish party, Mark would then be unaware of these Torah controversies, and unfortunately Luke omits this passage. Crossley thinks this Lukan omission is intentional probably because it would have caused problems for his view of a law observant Jesus. Crossley concludes this section by again stating that, “the assumptions made by Mark could only have been made at a time before the disputes over food laws which, based on the findings of Chapter 5, would bring us to a time before the mid-forties
CE.”84 Crossley seems unable to criticize his own thesis on this point. Must we think that these assumptions by the Markan editor could only have been made at a time before the
83 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 192. 39 disputed laws? This seems like an overstated premise considering the scanty evidence.
This seems to be a misleading historical statement.85
2.5: Crossley’s Conclusions
Crossley’s dissertation can be summarized as follows: First, the patristic evidence is unreliable in dating the gospel of Mark. Second, Mark 13 may not reflect the Jewish war and can be used to date the gospel anywhere between 35–75 CE. Third, Mark is the first gospel written. Fourth, the Torah food law disputes began in the mid-40s — before this time, Jesus and early Christians were Torah observant. Fifth, Mark’s gospel is unaware of and therefore written before the biblical food law disputes of the mid to late
40s. Sixth, the conflicts between the Markan Jesus and opponents is always over expanded law and never concerning biblical law.
2.6: Crossley’s Contributions
Crossley’s work has made several strong contributions to Markan studies and
Christian Origins. First, Crossley seems to have demonstrated that hand washing was indeed practiced at the time of Jesus and that the source behind Mark’s gospel was well informed about the practice of hand washing before meals.86 Second, Crossley has shown
84 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 204–5.
85 If Mark is writing to a thoroughly Torah observant community, then why does the Markan redactor need to explain Jewish laws in Mark 7:3–4 and 7:19c? On Crossley’s thesis the Markan redactor would not need to make these explanatory comments for a Gentile audience since the community was thoroughly Jewish and Torah observant. On this score Crossley’s thesis has less explanatory scope and power than the traditional understanding of Markan composition. If Mark is indeed writing for a Gentile audience, beyond the controversies of the early church and the Jerusalem council, this is explained as the editor’s way of making the council’s decree plain to the Gentile audience. This historical description has a larger explanatory scope and more explanatory power.
86 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 184. 40 that the traditional way of dating Mark is not secure. Has Crossley demonstrated when
Torah controversies began in the early church? Has he shown beyond reasonable doubt that Mark’s legal understanding could only have been articulated before Torah controversies in the church? A critique of these points will be presented in the following chapter.
Chapter Three: A Critique of Crossley’s Thesis
There are several points of Crossley’s thesis which do not persuade: (1)
His estimation of patristic sources, (2) his dating of Torah controversies, (3) his interpretation of Mark 7, (4) his bifurcation between oral halakah and written Torah, (5) his argument that Mark portrays Jesus as a thoroughly torah obedient Jew and nothing more, (6) and his assumption that the origins of a tradition can indicate a date of composition.
3.0.1: Crossley’s Estimation of Patristic Tradition
First, Crossley’s approach to the patristic tradition seems inconsistent. When Crossley interacts with Hengel87 on the patristic tradition he says:
Hengel’s arguments are strong in many ways and it is difficult to deny that the view of conventional Markan authorship was present by the late first century. This however does not fully rule out the possibility of Mark’s gospel being originally anonymous.88
The possibility that Mark’s gospel was anonymous cannot be ruled out theoretically is true enough. But the fact remains that there simply is no evidence — none whatsoever —
87 Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (London: SCM Press, 2000) esp. 78–89; idem, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 59–84. If Hengel is correct and the patristic tradition is generally reliable, it then becomes more probable that Mark was written during Peter’s lifetime which would set a terminus ad quem at c. 64.
88 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 16.
41 42 that suggests Mark’s gospel was ever thought anonymous. Crossley nonetheless proceeds to theorize about multiple authorship and pseudonymity, which has been argued by
Casey.89 To this Martin Mosse rightly responds:
Even if Hengel is correct in the very early attribution of conventional authorship it does not, of course, rule out the possibility of an originally pseudonymous authorship or even anonymous authorship in the case of Mark’s gospel. Given the evidence (or lack of it) this question may be left open.90
In his dissertation Mosse shows that Crossley exhibits a lack of historical rigor here.
Mosse demonstrates that historians must be content to work with the evidence that lies before them, rather than positing interesting but unsupported hypotheses. Mosse argues that this is precisely what Occam's Razor supplies:
The historian’s brief is to content himself with explaining the facts which lie before him.... Hengel as an historian has already told us the story which the evidence presents, the default option which makes the fewest complicating hypotheses and does not presuppose evidence which does not exist. That is all we need to know. In so doing he is ‘covering the greatest number of empirical facts’ with ‘the smallest possible number of hypotheses’.91
Crossley’s inability to side with Hengel on Markan authorship shows unjustified bias and questionable historical thinking. As Mosse has argued, Crossley should provisionally accept the Markan hypothesis since it accounts for the most data with the fewest difficulties. If, in the coming years, we find more Markan manuscripts with
89 M. Casey, Is John’s Gospel True? (London and New York: Routledge, 1996) 140–77.
90Martin Mosse, The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008) 278.
91 Mosse, The Three Gospels, 279. 43 various names attached to them then Crossley can put forward his thesis since he will then have evidence to point to. Until further evidence does come to light Crossley’s idea of multiple authorship for Mark’s gospel should be put to rest. Firstly, the idea has no evidence for it, and secondly it dismisses the evidence we do have for Markan authorship in the manuscript and patristic tradition as Hengel has shown.
Crossley concludes that the patristic tradition should not be used in dating Mark.
He gives four reasons: (1) Pseudonymous authorship is possible; (2) The link with Peter is dubious; (3) The church tradition of Papias defends Mark against a lack of order by trying to connect it with an apostle and so it is probably invented; (4) There are multiple possibilities of interpretation for different sources and choosing which is most plausible is almost impossible. The first reason Crossley gives has already been discussed above.
Regarding the second reason, we must ask in what way is it a dubious move by the early church fathers to associate Mark with Peter? It does not seem so. Martin Hengel argues that the first and last disciple mentioned in the Gospel of Mark is Peter, which he thinks is an inclusio device that bookends Mark’s gospel as Peter’s eyewitness testimony.92 Richard Bauckham has recently argued that Mark is an accurate collection of
Peter’s eyewitness testimony.93 This would cohere with the early traditions we do have from a wide geographic area. To posit without evidence that widespread and essentially uniform tradition — including the early Papian tradition — is dubious seems gratuitous.94
92 Hengel, Studies, 61; idem, The Four Gospels, 82.
93 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 155–82. See also Timothy Wiarda, “Peter as Peter in the Gospel of Mark,” NTS 45 (1999) 19–37.
94 As Wolfgang Schadewaldt rightly asks, “Why should we doubt Papias here?” See W. Schadewaldt, “The Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition,” in Hengel’s Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 89–113, with quotation from 107. 44
If the patristic tradition of Markan authorship, and association with Peter, is dubious, then one must explain how such a unanimous tradition across a wide geographic area and across several centuries remained stable without challenge or contradiction. It seems more plausible and historically responsible to provisionally assume Markan authorship and Petrine testimony behind the gospel. Indeed, one must also ask, if Mark’s traditional link to the apostle Peter is nothing more than fiction, then why limit Mark’s lustre to mere association with Peter. Why not proclaim Petrine authorship? After all, nothing prevented the author of the second-century Gospel of Peter from claiming Petrine authorship for his pseudepigraphal work. He did so to enhance the authority of his newly minted gospel, a gospel whose greatly embellished account of the resurrection would hopefully answer the derision of sceptics.95 Stopping short of claiming Petrine authorship for the Gospel of Mark is in itself strong support for the tradition of Mark as the actual composer of the gospel, whose contents are based on Peter’s recollections but not his authorship.
Does the Papias tradition imply a lack of chronological order in Mark? Some interpreters have read Papias this way.96 It seems just as reasonable to read Papias not with an apologetic tone in his voice but as commenting on the nature of Peter’s teaching as chreia.97 Reading Papias this way would seem to comport with Justin Martyr’s comment that the gospel of Mark as the “memoirs (apomnēmoneumata) of Peter.”
95 On this important point, see the recent work by Jeremiah J. Johnson, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (unpublished doctoral dissertation; London: Middlesex University, 2013) esp. 171–95.
96 F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel: Studies of the Evangelic Tradition at its Point of Crystallization in Writing (New York and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943) 35; Morna Dorothy Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (reprint ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009) 6.
97 See David B. Gowler, “The Chreia,” in Dale C. Allison Jr., John Dominic Crossan, and Amy-Jill 45
Recall that Xenophon’s apomnēmoneumata of Socrates is a recounting of the deeds and sayings of Socrates, not a chronological map of Socrates’s life. If we read Papias as commenting on the nature of Peter’s teaching (which comports well with Justin) then the
Papias tradition does not imply a lack of chronological order.
While there are multiple possibilities for different interpretations of various sources, and choosing which interpretation is most plausible is difficult, it does not follow that it is impossible. The patristic evidence is not as inconclusive as Crossley thinks. By arguing that choosing an interpretation is impossible, Crossley has dismissed the rigorous and plausible historical argumentation of Edmundson, Robinson, and
Wenham who have given strong arguments for viewing the patristic tradition as reconcilable and generally trustworthy.98 In my view, Crossley is unjustifiably sceptical of the patristic tradition. This leads him to dismiss the testimony as evidence for dating
Mark. If the evidence is sufficient, and I think it is, then it can be used as a control on our hypothesis for dating and should not be so easily dismissed.
3.0.2: Crossley’s legal approach to dating Mark
The crux of Crossley’s thesis on using the law to date Mark is in question. First, contra the crucial argument of Crossley’s thesis, Mark clearly portrays Jesus as abrogating biblical Torah food laws in Mark 7:19c. This questionable exegesis Crossley exhibits in his interpretation of Mark 7 undermines the crux of his dissertation. Second, Crossley
Levine, eds., The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2009) 132–48.
98 Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the 1st Century; Robinson, Redating the New Testament; and Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke. These works have been discussed above. 46 assumes a linear law development in early Christianity.99 This assumption lacks evidence sufficient to construct a theory of Christian origins that will stand upon it. Third, the assumption that Jesus only breaks halakah with the Pharisees and not written Torah may not bifurcate as neatly sociologically in the time of Jesus, as Crossley would like it to.
Fourth, Crossley seems to assume that the origins of a tradition can indicate a date of composition. Traditions can predate by decades a composition that draws upon them.
Fifth, if the synoptics do portray Jesus as Torah observant, it is still debatable whether the synoptic authors portray him this way because of early church controversies or because that was their traditioned memory of Jesus. Most scholars rightly assume that the historical Jesus was Torah observant, even if he challenged much of the oral traditon held by various teachers of his day. Finally, in the vein of sociological analysis, Crossley seems to have ignored Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as one who breaks the Torah law of blasphemy in a monotheistic Jewish society.
3.0.3: The Markan Jesus Abrogates Biblical Food Laws in Mark 7
First, Crossley’s central thesis hangs on the thread that Mark’s editorial comment in
7:19c does not repudiate Torah dietary purity laws, but should more aptly be read “all foods that are permitted to eat in the Torah to be clean thereby denying the role of handwashing” (Crossley’s emphasis).100 Crossley examines some texts from the Talmud on ritual washing and the contamination of food101 and argues Mark was very sophisticated in his understanding of legal matters. He proposes that the explanation in
99 A number of reviewers (e.g., du Toit, who has already been cited) have noted this problem.
100 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 192.
101 Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 185–200. 47
Mark 7:3–4 shows a detailed knowledge of the expansion of biblical law. While Mark may be showing a detailed expansion of the law, it seems overstated to say that Mark exhibits a sophisticated understanding of legal matters, since the gospel of Mark is notorious for perplexing statements.102 In any event, most commentators do not regard the Gospel of Mark as exhibiting sophisticated, nuanced legal tradition. Crossley’s approach strains against both the evidence found in Mark and Markan scholarship in general.
3.0.3.1: The Explanation of Oral Torah Necessitates a Gentile Audience
If the explanation of Oral Torah in Mark 7 necessitates a Gentile audience, then that immediately raises a question against Crossley’s thesis. If Mark does have a detailed knowledge of the oral Torah (and presumably so would Mark’s audience), then why does
Mark need to make this editorial aside to a Jewish Jesus sect living before Torah controversies? Would Crossley dispute that this aside is written for Gentiles who have no knowledge of Jewish customs? If we know anything of the audience for Mark’s gospel based on this text, we should know that Mark thought it necessary to explain Jewish customs to them. Who would Mark need to explain Jewish customs to? Would it be a
Jewish Jesus sect living before Torah controversies? Crossley’s thesis must answer “yes” on this question, but that seems absurd since this aside is clearly not written for Jews but
Gentiles. The best Crossley could argue is that the audience is made up of Gentile God- fearers. But the Markan audience seems even farther removed from Jewish customs than
102The Gospel is famous for many perplexing statements (e.g., Jesus’ undergoing John’s “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” the seeming incompetence of the Twelve, the wrong Old Testament high priest named in 2:26, the silence of the women at the end of the Gospel, etc.). In fact, Mark is often “corrected” by both later Synoptics. Cf. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark (Peabody, Mass.: 48
God-fearers, and so an explanation by the redactor is needed. Recall that for Crossley,
Mark’s audience was initially Torah-observant, living before controversies regarding the
Torah, and the Jesus they are hearing about in Mark’s gospel is Torah observant. If this is true, then why does Mark need to explain customs about hand washing to his Jewish readers? If they needed this sort of explanation it is hardly likely that they were worried about keeping the Jewish purity laws.103
3.0.3.2: The Markan Aside in 7:19
Crossley has a idiosyncratic interpretation of the Markan aside (7:19c) that seems to be a strike against his own thesis. Mark 7 opens with the Pharisees asking why the disciples of
Jesus eat with κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις (defiled hands, that is unwashed).
Then Mark explains the Jewish custom of hand washing for his presumably Gentile audience. Who else does Mark need to explain these Jewish customs for? The Markan
Jesus replies by calling the Pharisees hypocrites and quoting Isaiah 29. The Isaiah passage tells of a people who honor YHWH with words, and obey human traditions, while simultaneously having hearts that are far from God. The center of defilement in
Isaiah’s day was the heart. Why is Jesus quoting this passage in Mark? The Markan author is portraying Jesus as re-casting Isaiah's critique of the religious establishment.
The heart is defiled, so outward traditions are null. When the Markan Jesus says,
“nothing entering a person can defile him,” that is not a small statement. How can Jesus
Hendrickson Publishers, 2002) ad loc.
103 N T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 396–98.
49 argue that “nothing entering a person can defile them?” ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς
τὴν καρδίαν “Because it doesn’t go into their heart.” For the Markan Jesus, defilement is a matter of the heart. And for the Markan Jesus the argument works contrastively as what enters “from outside” enters “the stomach” (εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν), not the heart, to what
“comes out into the latrine” (εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται). This is repeated v. 21 where the Markan Jesus states ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισµοὶ
οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται (it is from inside, not outside, from the heart of man that the evil thoughts come). Whether the historical Jesus uttered these words or not is an irrelevant question on Crossley’s thesis. What is relevant is Mark’s portrayal of Jesus. Mark portrays Jesus, like Isaiah the prophet, making defilement a matter of the heart. In this way, like Isaiah, the Markan Jesus seems to be concerned with preparing the remnant people of Israel for eschatological restoration. It seems that within this portrayal the
Markan redactor makes his controversial editorial aside to explain the implications of
Jesus’ teaching for his audience:104 “(Thus he cleansed all foods)” (καθαρίζων πάντα
τὰ βρώματα). The syntax marks out καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα as a parenthetical editorial comment because there is no masculine singular subject within the reported speech to which it can relate.105 Throughout Mark 7, the Markan author has
104Most commentators see καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα as a Markan addition to his source. See for example R. H. Gundry, Mark. A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 367, who points to the awkward syntax as indicative of an addition. And most scholars argue that here Jesus does reject the biblical food laws, e.g. recently Hooker, Mark, 179–80; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 378; Gundry, Mark, 367–68; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 396–98; W. G. R. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law (WUNT 2.97; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 77; J. Svartvik, Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts (ConBNT 32; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2000) 294.
105 That the parenthetic comment is a Markan addition is widely held. See Erich Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 4th ed., 1950) 71; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 241; Dennis E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (The Pelican Gospel Commentaries; New York: Seabury, 1963) 196; Vincent 50 provided explanatory comments for his Gentile audience.106 The comment in 7:19c is one more explanatory comment of Jesus’ words for his Gentile audience. If the beginning half of Mark 7 contains explanatory comments for a Gentile audience, it seems reasonable that 7:19 continues this trend. Against Crossley’s thesis, it seems more plausible to interpret the phrase as others traditionally have done rather than accept Crossley’s idiosyncratic interpretation. If Mark is writing for a Gentile audience (evidenced in explaining Jewish customs in 7:3–4), such a statement in 7:19c could be taken to mean,
“for you Gentiles he declares all foods clean so you do not have to follow Jewish customs.”107 In a recent article Michael Bird comments on Crossley:
Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2nd ed., London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s, 1966) 345; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989) 378; Morna Dorothy Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1991) 180; Marcus, Mark 1–8 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 455; James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 213; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 291; M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006) 203; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) 356. For the view that v. 19c is a post-Markan gloss, see Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel according to St Mark (3rd ed., London: Macmillan, 1909) 152: “A note added by a teacher or editor who has realised that in the preceding words the Lord had really abrogated the distinction between clean and unclean food”; M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc (ÉBib; 3rd ed., Paris: Gabalda, 1920) 181: “une glose”; Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (MeyerK 2; 11th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951) 142: “die Glosse eines christlichen Lehrers”; Ernst Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklärung des Markus- Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968) 264; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox, 1970) 150: “marginal gloss”; Sherman E. Johnson, The Gospel according to St. Mark (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1972) 134: “an early gloss.” For an example of an undecided commentator, see Hugh Anderson, Mark (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 188: “either a Marcan ‘footnote’ or a later marginal gloss.”
106 Mark 7:3–4, 11c, 19c.
107 Robert Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 145–46. See also the discussion in Michael F. Bird, “Jesus the Law-Breaker,” in Who Do My Opponents Say That I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against Jesus, eds. Joseph B. Modica and Scot McKnight (LHJS; LNTS 327; London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2008), 3–26, esp. 18– 22. Bird also directs our attention to Roger P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) 220–21; Robert Horton Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 348; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin Books Limited, 1995) 223; Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law, 71; Tom Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (BIS 55; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 245–46; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 575. 51
Crossley thinks that if Mark wanted to abrogate the food laws he would have chosen a much more direct way of doing it. But for myself and many others, Mk 7:19 is rather direct indeed.108
Bird goes on to point out the coherence of this Markan aside with Romans 14:14,
20. On this interpretation Jesus is not portrayed by Mark as rejecting the law in toto but as Mark adopting a Pauline perspective on Gentiles and the food laws.109 This interpretation of Mark 7:19 seems to cohere with the Markan portrayal of Jesus as the
Christ of God who has more authority than the scribes.110 Rikki Watts has demonstrated that Mark is portraying Jesus not only as the Christ, but also as the New Moses bringing restoration to Israel and inaugurating Isaiah’s eschatological vision that will prepare
Israel to bring in the Gentiles.111 Telford, Bird, and Iverson have recently confirmed
Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ movement toward the Gentiles.112 This exegetical approach accounts for more of Mark’s overall portrayal of Jesus. It also has the advantage of not introducing an idiosyncratic interpretation as Crossley has done. Crossley, in fact, has little exegetical discussion of the translation of this text, but merely asserts that he has already established that the synoptics always portray Jesus as living under Torah, and that the immediate context of Mark 7 concerns the oral traditions of the elders. There is no
108 Bird, “Jesus the Law-Breaker,” 19 n. 70.
109 Bird, “Jesus the Law-Breaker,” 19–20.
110 Hooker (The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 180) points to Mark 1:22 as evidence that Mark is portraying Jesus as one endowed with unprecedented authority from God.
111 Rikki E Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark (WUNT 2.88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; repr. Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000).
112 William R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origin of the Gentile Mission (LNTS 331; LHJS; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2006); Kelly R. Iverson, Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: ‘Even the Dogs Under the Table Eat the Children’s Crumbs’ (LNTS 339; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2007). 52 justification provided, or even exegetical work, then for this idiosyncratic interpretation of Mark 7:19c. It seems to be, for Crossley, an assumed inference based on previous assertions. Reviewers have suggested that this idiosyncratic interpretation may be an example of Crossley engaging in circular reasoning.113 Certainly some of the synoptic tradition does portray Jesus as observant to Torah, but some of this tradition does in fact seem to portray Jesus as abrogating the Torah in places, or having authority as the Son of
Man to make pronouncements about the Sabbath, or forgiveness of sins, that his contemporaries found either questionable against Torah or simply blasphemous, a sin worthy of death according to Lev 24:16. The majority of scholars do argue that Jesus does abrogate laws of purity.114
3.1: Crossley Incorrectly Assumes Linear Law Development
Several reviewers have taken note that Crossley depends on material taken from Paul’s letters and Acts, which is material applicable exclusively to developments in areas of
Pauline mission, and he generalizes his findings there for the whole of early Christianity.
When it comes to questions of Torah observance in the early church, Crossley seems to be assuming a linear development of Torah observance that is neatly broken at the
Jerusalem council. Reviewers have shown this to be both an improbable assumption, and
113 See, for example, John Painter’s review in Review of Biblical Literature (posted online January 2006).
114 Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, 107: “neither geared to nor drawn up against the Law”; Heikki Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung (Annales academiae scientiarum fennicae dissertationes humanarum litterarum 56; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990) 248–59 (for analysis of Mark 7:1–23, see 23–73); Loader, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law, 9–136; Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, 105: “Jesus rejects their expansive intepretation of the purity laws”; idem, “Jesus as Law-Breaker,” 23. 53 an impossible assumption to establish based on our scanty evidence. Du Toit says on this point:
For dating such controversies Crossley depends on material applicable almost exclusively to developments in areas of the Pauline mission, and he generalizes this for the whole of early Christianity. He thus assumes a linear development in the question of Torah observance in the early Church. This certainly must be deemed a very improbable assumption. Probable is rather that we have to reckon with nonlinear, nonsynchronical developments in all aspects of the history of earliest Christianity. It must be considered highly probable that the nonobservance of aspects of the Torah occurred some time later in some Christian communities than in others, especially than in areas of the Gentile mission. This would imply that the evidence presented by Crossley is not conclusive and does not necessarily demand an early date for Mark's Gospel.115
Du Toit argues persuasively that Torah observance in early Christianity was nonlinear like all other aspects in the history of earliest Christianity. If Torah observance is to be understood in a non-linear way this would imply that the thesis presented by
Crossley is unsupportable. This does not mean that Crossley’s arguments are altogether invalid. Perhaps it is of the limitations of evidence that we have of earliest Christianity that makes it difficult to confirm a thoroughly Torah observant Christianity. Be that as it may, it seems fair to conclude that Crossley has argued beyond the evidence and in other ways has not allowed what evidence there is to find its natural voice. Indeed, some of the evidence we do have regarding the persecution of the earliest Christian sect does seem to imply that the early Christians were perceived as law breakers.116 How do we account for this?
107 du Toit, Review of The Date of Mark’s Gospel,” 420.
116 Bird, “Jesus as Law-Breaker,” 18–19 n. 70. 54
Since Crossley does assume that understanding of the Torah in earliest
Christianity was coherent and developed linearly from a Jewish to a Gentile setting it is worth engaging that point as well. If this assumption is granted, it then becomes unclear in Crossley’s thesis whose standards of law observance the early Jewish followers of
Jesus were adhering to. Michael Bird wonders if Crossley is thinking of law observance in comparison with the sectarians of Qumran? Or the pharisees? And if so, Bird asks, which school of the Pharisees? Gamaliel or Shammai? Or the radical allegorical interpreters that Philo refers to in Alexandria? Bird writes the following:
While there was a diversity of Law-observance and legal interpretation within Judaism, that does not mean that each group thought that each other’s interpretation was legitimate and fitted comfortably within the boundaries of a common Judaism. The polemics that Jewish groups vented against each other would suggest otherwise. It would be entirely expected then that a similar context of diversity and debate was inherited by the early Christian movement who had to think through the role of the Law or Torah in regulating their faith and praxis in light of the new eschatological situation that had dawned in the coming of Jesus. In fact the evidence from Acts and Galatians shows that disputes about Torah came to the surface in various debates over food laws, Sabbath keeping and Gentiles. Thus, it is one thing to say that the Gospels make sense as part of intra-Jewish debates about the Torah, but it is quite another thing to suggest that the view of the Torah espoused within the Church during the earliest decades of its existence were regarded by others (outsiders or insiders) as exclusively Law-observant.117
Crossley assumes that earliest Christianity was thoroughly Jewish and became increasingly Gentile as it expanded under the Pauline mission. While it is possible that a general trajectory can be perceived from our sources, using these evidences to date the gospel of Mark is quite tenuous. It is preferable to accept that divergent views of the law
117 Michael F. Bird and James G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence (London: SPCK; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008) 133. 55 co-existed side by side in earliest Christianity from the very beginning and the task of trying to use law observance as a basis for dating Mark is simply impossible to justify as our evidence from this period is much too slender.
3.2: Torah in the Mouth
The assumption that Jesus only breaks halakah with the Pharisees and not written Torah may not bifurcate as neatly sociologically in the time of Jesus as Crossley would like it to.118 Scholars have shown that bifurcating between the moral, civil, and ceremonial law is a modern construct on the ancient text. Martin Jaffee has observed something similar in the study of early Judaism. Jaffee has demonstrated that bifurcating between oral traditions of the rabbis and the written Torah is likewise a modern construct that would not have been thought of in the first-century Jewish society.119 If Jaffee is correct, then
Crossley’s thesis is dealt another strike. If Jaffee is right, then for Jesus to break the tradition of the elders is for Jesus to break the Torah. Crossley would like to affirm the former and deny the latter. After spending nearly a decade on a close reading of Jewish texts Jaffee developed a coherent and comprehensive view of the oral-literate rabbinic tradition and its perceived relation to the Mosaic Torah. Jaffee concluded that in ancient-
Judaism the two were intertwined. There was no attempt to differentiate between the written Torah and what we moderns would term the oral Torah. It was all Torah, because in an oral culture it was all in the mouth. For Jaffee “the characteristic organ of the
118 Crossley and others rightly recognize the need to approach the New Testament sociologically. See also Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).
119 Martin S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE–400 CE (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 56 literary life was the mouth and the ear, and its main textual reservoir was the memory.”120
Jaffee shows that not until the Amoraic period (250–500 CE) did a discussion begin about the relationship between the Mosaic Torah and the rabbinic traditions. When the discussion did begin in the Amoraic period it was concluded based on evidence from the
Tannaitic period (c. 20 BCE–200 CE) that rabbinic oral-tradition came from the same processes that generated scripture. Halakah and written Torah were both from the mouth of God. Jaffee goes on to show that the Amoraic sages argue that halakah tradition was by definition Torah. Tradition versus written Torah may be nice to bifurcate for us moderns, but for ancient Judaism these were one and the same, it was all Torah in the
Mouth. The conviction for ancient Jews is that “two Torahs were given to Israel, one by mouth and one in script.”121 The conclusion then is this; if Jesus broke halakah then Jesus broke the Torah. This explains, better than does Crossley’s thesis, why early Jewish teachers and leaders so strongly reacted against the Jesus movement, culminating in the crucifixion of Jesus and the later execution of James.122 Jesus and his community were not perceived as another party within Judaism. In the Jewish tradition the evidence is clear. Jesus was perceived as “leading Israel astray,”123 as one “in league with Satan,”124
120 Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 18.
121 Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 90.
122 For more on the history of contention between the family of Jesus and the family of high priest Annas, see Craig A. Evans, From Jesus to the Church: The First Christian Generation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014) forthcoming.
123 According to b. Sanhedrin 43a: “It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days [proclaiming], ‘He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray.’” On the importance of this tradition, see Graham N. Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” in Joel B. Green and Max Turner, eds., Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 164–80. The antiquity and deep-rootedness of the tradition that Jesus violated the Law (including the employment of black magic) militates against Crossley’s thesis.
124 As Jesus is accused in Mark 3:20–30; Matt 12:24–32; Luke 11:15–21. 57 and as a blasphemer. Crossley’s thesis cannot adequately account for this. In light of
Jaffee’s work alone Crossley should concede that Jesus was viewed as a violator of the
Torah. So is Mark portraying Jesus as observant to Torah? Not if Jaffee is correct.
3.3: Crossley Incorrectly Assumes the Gospels Reveal their Audience
Seemingly swimming against the current of the last two decades of gospel scholarship
Crossley may be repeating the errors of the form critics of long ago (and some redaction critics, too, of more recent vintage) by seeking to construct the audiences and their situations behind the gospels by looking for evidence from within the gospels. Why can this not be done? In a recent work Dwight Peterson offered an incisive critique of the commonly held notion that a distinctive “community” can be constructed from the
Markan Gospel. First, Peterson shows how the work of Kelber’s The Kingdom in Mark
(1974), is highly subjective. It seems Peterson chose Kelber because it exemplifies an extreme case of this erroneous approach. Second, Peterson subjects to trenchant criticism
Kee’s Community of the New Age (1977), where Kee posits that interpreters must first reconstruct Mark’s community before interpreting Mark’s message. Peterson shows that all the passages Kee puts forward, from which he attempts to construct the Markan community, can be interpreted in very different ways. Kee’s approach is an exercise in subjectivity, not history. Third, Peterson critiques Ched Meyers’s Binding the Strong
Man (1988), which attempts to provide a political account of the origins of Mark.
Peterson levels criticism against the circular reasoning, lack of evidence, and subjective interpretations seen in Meyers’s work. Peterson concludes by stating that at “the very least, the present state of affairs should make it impossible simply to assume that 58 reconstructed communities behind Gospels are hermeneutically necessary to read
Gospels rightly.”125
3.3.1: Biographies
To assume the gospels reveal their audiences is not only subjective as Peterson’s work has shown it also does not adequately appreciate the genre contract to which the gospels are bound as ancient Biographies.126 If the gospels are ancient biographies, and the evidence seems to tilt in that direction, then the gospels as ancient biographies were constructed to portray the teachings and deeds of their main character, not to give details about their audiences. If the gospels are biographies, Crossley should resist the subjective temptation to read the gospels as a cipher for community situations and experiences.
125 Peterson, The origins of Mark, 202.
126 See David E. Aune, “The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique of C. H. Talbert’s What is a Gospel?” in R. T. France and David Wenham, eds., Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (Gospel Perspectives 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 9–60; David E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987) 17–76; Christopher Bryan, A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Settings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 9–64; Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Charles H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); Clyde Weber Votaw, The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies in the Greco-Roman World (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970); Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984) esp. “Evangelium und Biographie,” 346–57; Helmut Koester, “Überlieferung und Geschichte der frühchristlichen Evangelienliteratur,” and Detlev Dormeyer and Hubert Frankemölle, “Evangelium als literarische Gattung und als theologischer Begriff: Tendenzen und Aufgaben der Evangelienforschung im 20. Jahrhundert, mit einer Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums in seinem Verhältnis zur antiken Biographie,” in Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. II, Bd. 25 Principat (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) 1463–1542 and 1543–1704, respectively; Adela Yarbro Collins, Is Mark’s Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre (The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 1990; Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 1990) esp. 5. Collins views Mark as biography with apocalyptic elements. 59
3.3.2: Wide Audiences
Finally, if the gospels were intended for wide circulation and not produced for an isolated community, as Bauckham’s recent work argues,127 then trying to understand the community of the gospel by internal features would be like to trying to find a needle in a non-existent haystack.
3.3.3: Conclusion on Assuming the Gospels Reveal their Audiences
If Peterson’s work is accepted, viz. that the gospels are ancient biographies, and that the gospels were intended to be circulated widely then attempting to understand whether
Mark’s community was law observant, and from that base to date the gospels, as Crossley has attempted to do, is a much too subjective approach to the investigation of this question.128
3.4: Mark Portrays Jesus as Breaking the Torah Law of Blasphemy
In Mark 6:47–52 Jesus is portrayed as walking on water which clearly has an epiphanic flavor. In the Hebrew bible it is God who has power over the sea (Job 9:8; Pss 77:19;
107:23–32; Isa 43:16). When Mark 6 is combined with Jesus’ command to silence the wind and the waves in Mark 4:35v–41 it is enough for Joel Marcus to say that “the overwhelming impact made by Mark’s narrative is an impression of Jesus’ divine
127 Richard Bauckham, “For Whom Were Gospels Written?” in Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 9–48.
128 Erhardt Güttgemanns, Candid Questions concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism (Pittsburgh theological monograph series 26; 2nd ed., Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1979). 60 identity.”129 Why would Mark, if He were aiming to portray Jesus as under Torah portray
Jesus, a mere man, as divine? The evangelist Mark leaves himself open to a charge of blasphemy in his narrative.
Blasphemy could not just be an accusation lodged at the Markan author, it is also a serious charge the author portrays being lodged at Jesus in Mark 2:7. A text Crossley attempts to work around by searching for possible Aramaic terms behind the Greek term
ἀφίηµι. While work on Aramaic terms is to be lauded, the problem for Crossley’s thesis is that in Mark 2:7 the Markan editor uses the Greek term ἀφίηµι to portray what Jesus, a mere man, was offering the paralytic, forgiveness. Is Mark portraying Jesus as one who is always observant of Torah by editing this story where Jesus pronounces forgiveness of sins? It seems more plausible to assume the Markan editor is portraying Jesus with divine authority to act as God embodied. Indeed, this makes sense of Mark portrayal of the scribes who upon hearing Jesus pronounce forgiveness begin thinking through the charge of “blasphemy.” Why would Mark portray the scribes this way if he is attempting to portray Jesus as law observant to his thoroughly Jewish law-observant movement? The question in the mouth of the scribes ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ is portraying the scribes as realizing that Jesus, a mere man, is exercising divine prerogatives and superseding the levitical prescriptions for forgiveness. What is the Markan author doing portraying Jesus installed with this sort of divine authority? Eugene Boring states
The modern “enlightened” reader cannot understand this story if blasphemy is regarded as only a quaint element of religious paraphernalia of the narrow-minded. It was the most serious of sins, the blurring of the line between Creator and creature, the denial of God’s
129 Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 432. 61
holiness or arrogation of it as one’s own . . . The scribes understand themselves as striving on God’s behalf and defending the divine prerogative. The uniquely Markan formulation “the one God” echoes the Shema (Deut 6:4–5) and the monotheistic claim of deutero-Isaiah that God alone forgives sins (Isa 43:25). It reflects the live issue in Mark’s own situation of whether devotion to Jesus as Son of God constitutes blasphemy in that it compromises monotheism.130
To sidestep these texts in Mark and assert that Jesus is always portrayed as obeying the Torah is to ignore the implications of the charges of blasphemy leveled against Jesus, whether declaring the sins of this person or that person forgiven or claiming to have authority over the Sabbath. One should think, on the count of the charge of blasphemy, the author of Mark portrays Jesus as disobedient to Torah — at least in the eyes of contemporary legal authorities. This in turn lays a proper foundation for the later high priestly charge of blasphemy (Mark 14:64) and Jesus’ being handed over to Pilate for execution. It seems highly unlikely that the High Priest in Mark’s narrative would have viewed Jesus as obedient to the Torah.
3.5: The Origin of a Tradition may not Indicate the Date of Composition
Does Mark’s (and Jesus’) understanding of the law points to an early period, this may suggest that the dominical tradition in Mark — though not necessarily the Gospel of
Mark itself — is quite early and authentically preserves Jesus’ teaching. What Crossley may have shown is not how early Mark was composed but how faithfully the dominical tradition has been preserved, so that even if written in the 60s (or 70s) it still reflects the late 20s/early 30s, when Jesus taught. The notion that the originating circumstances of the tradition correlate directly with perspective of the evangelist is problematic, particularly
130 M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006) 62 for Mark for whom tracing redaction proves quite difficult. It may be that Mark is simply a faithful retainer of traditional material from an early period. Charles Talbert is in sharp disagreement with Crossley on this point:
This is a provocative thesis. Its arguments, however, are a house of cards, exegetically and logically. If Jesus is portrayed as a Torah observant Jew in the Synoptics, it is debatable that Matthew and Luke reflect early church controversies in their support of such a view. It may be simpler to say that Jesus is so portrayed because that was the church’s memory of him. Such a portrayal, in discontinuity with early church controversies, argues for the historicity of the depiction.131
Talbert scores an excellent point. He and other reviewers agree that although we may be able to ascertain roughly when a tradition originated, and this is difficult enough, attempting to date the written composition of the tradition, particularly in the gospel of
Mark (where redaction criticism is notoriously difficult) is virtually an impossible task.
The most Crossley could justify from his thesis, even if his idiosyncratic view of Mark 7 was correct, is that Mark may have some traditions in his material from an early period.
Crossley cannot however establish the date of origin of the material, and even if he could, the evidence is too scanty to build a bridge and cross the chasm between the origin of material and its date of composition.
77.
131 Cf. Charles Talbert’s review in Perspectives in Religious Studies 33 (2006) 524–27, with quotation from 527). See also David Instone Brewer’s review in JTS 57 (2006) 647–50. 63
3.6: Conclusions on A Critique of Crossley’s Thesis
I offer six conclusions regarding Crossley’s thesis, in which he thinks Mark was composed no later than the early 40s. First, the Markan Jesus is portrayed as abrogating food laws in Mark 7, at the very least for Mark’s Gentile audience. Whether this is authentic to the historical Jesus or not is beside the point on Crossley’s thesis. Crossley has the wrong exegesis and interpretation of Mark 7. Second, Crossely tenuously assumes a development of the law that is linear. This assumption is neither proven nor probable. It does not seem Crossley can know with any significant degree of confidence when, or where, Torah controversies began in early Christianity. Third, Crossley has separated written Torah and oral halakah to exonerate Jesus from breaking the Torah. If Jaffee is correct then Crossley is imposing modern categories on the ancient Jewish world. The
Jewish traditions are unanimous that Jesus was perceived as a law breaker, and no Jew or
Gentile reading Mark in the first century would have thought otherwise.
Fourth, Crossley assumes that the gospels are ciphers that reveal their communities. This assumption has been dealt several significant blows in recent gospel scholarship. This approach to the gospels is subjective and therefore significantly weakens his hypothesis. Fifth, Mark portrays Jesus as breaking the Torah law of blasphemy. If Jesus was always Torah-observant would he have have been accused of blasphemy? It seems unlikely. Of course, Torah-observant activists were executed on occasion. (One thinks of Herod the Great executing the two teachers and their disciples for destroying the Roman eagle.) These men may have challenged aspects of temple polity but they were never accused of blasphemy and condemned to death for it. In my 64 view Crossley ignores aspects of the criterion of result (i.e., charge of blasphemy and condemnation) in his effort to show Jesus as thoroughly observant of Torah.
Sixth, Crossley assumes that the origins of a tradition indicate a date of composition. This is subjective. Even if one grants Crossley's idiosyncratic interpretation of Mark's portrayal of Jesus that does not mean this interpretation is dateable. The most one could say is that the portrait of Jesus in Mark may reflect early traditions Mark has drawn upon in the composition of his gospel. The evidence is too slender to support a case. Finally to say that Mark is unaware of Torah disputes is nothing more than a guess.
It may or may not be correct. In any event, there is insufficient evidence to support
Crossley’s hypothesis. The evidence that has survived tells us a different story of Mark’s origins.
Chapter Four: Mark’s Depiction of Law
The Gospel of Mark portrays a Jesus who interacts in a Torah saturated world. But does
Mark's portrayal corroborate, or contradict, what we know of how the law functioned in early Judaism and Christianity from other sources? Is Mark, as Crossley proposes, exceptionally well informed about nuances of Jewish halakah in early Judaism? Or does
Mark exhibit less of a familiarity with the nuances of Jewish law? In answering these questions this chapter will first review recent scholarship on the meaning of the Jewish law in Mark. Secondly, this chapter will argue that Mark portrays Jesus as aware of but unconcerned with established purity laws. Thirdly, it will be proposed that Mark is concerned to defend Jesus as Christ who is uncontaminated by impurity. Finally, we will draw some conclusions on Mark and the Jewish law.
4.0.1: The Meaning of the Jewish Law in Mark in Recent Scholarship
In 1930 B. H. Branscomb published a full scale treatment of the Jewish law in the gospels in his Jesus and the Law of Moses.132 It would be approximately 40 years later, in 1971 until another major work on the subject emerged by Robert Banks entitled Jesus and the
Law in the Synoptic Tradition.133 Banks argued in his study that Jesus’ attitude to the Law
132 Bennett Harvie Branscomb, Jesus and the law of Moses (New York: R. R. Smith, 1930).
133 Robert Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).
65 66 was unique and dictated largely by his own sense of mission and stemmed from his unique view of his own authority. For Banks, the attitude of Jesus to various Jewish customs or his response to many controversies in the gospels reveal that Jesus was a man who viewed himself as one endowed with authority to intensify the Torah and at times abrogate its traditions because the Kingdom of God was breaking in through Him as the new Moses.
In 1986 the Cambridge dissertation of Roger Booth Jesus and the Laws of Purity was published.134 In his research Booth combined tradition and legal criticism to Mark 7 for the purpose of examining the attitudes of Jesus and the early Christians towards the law. His research seems to have yielded two results pertinent to the discussion.135 First,
Mark is either imprecise or uninformed when He uses the phrase “all the Jews” in Mark
7:3 since hand washing before hullin was practiced only by the haberim in the time of
Jesus. Second, Booth concluded that a Palestinian Jew would never have denied cultic defilement by eating unclean foods and supported it with a medical argument as Jesus is portrayed to do in Mark 7:19. Therefore, Mark is most probably writing to a Gentile church and adds the medical argument to justify Gentile dietary practices.
1989 saw the publication in Dutch of Monshouwer’s Markus en drie jaar Torah:
Het evangelie gelezen als drie jaargangen schriftuitleg (Mark and Three Year Torah:
Gospel Reading as Three Years of Scriptural Interpretation).136 In his work Monshouwer
134 Roger P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986).
135 Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 215–19.
136 D. Monshouwer, Markus en drie jaar Torah: Het evangelie gelezen als drie jaargangen schriftuitleg (Kampen: Kok, 1989). One should also consult Monshouwer’s Markus en de Torah (Kampen: Kok, 1987), in which the foundations for his later study have already been laid. 67 started by acknowledging that early Christian preaching took place in the synagogue.
This being the case perhaps the Gospel of Mark was meant to be read alongside Jewish festivals and the three year cycle of Torah readings. His aim is to read Mark as a liturgical text that celebrates Sukkoth, Purim, and the Passover while also being alined with the three year cycle of reading Mark alongside the Torah and the Psalms. While
Monshouwer concedes his construction is hypothetical, he seems to have shown that
Mark is concerned with connecting the early Christian story of Jesus with the Torah and the Psalms. This much can be appreciated.
In 1990 Heikki Sariola published a monograph in which he concluded that Mark’s knowledge of the law was not particularly accurate. Sariola also attempts to show that
Mark was written at a time when controversies over the law and dietary restrictions had ceased.137 He rightly concludes that Jewish purity laws are no longer a problem for the
Markan evangelist and his readers.138
Quite relevant to Crossley’s thesis is the dissertation of Jesper Svartvik published in 2000 under the title Mark and Mission: Mark 7:1–23 in its Narrative and Historical
Contexts. Svartvik downplays the conventional notion that the passage points to an unambiguous rejection of Jewish food and purity laws, which has had more historically to do with the separation of Christianity from Judaism than any other text.139 Like Booth,
Svartvik cannot conceive of a Palestinian Jew, which Jesus is believed to be, making such
137 Heikki Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung (Annales academiae scientiarum fennicae dissertationes humanarum litterarum 56; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990).
138 Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz, 57–60.
139 Jesper Svartvik, Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts (ConBNT 32; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2000). 68 a statement. He devotes his third chapter to discussing the history of this texts influence in Jewish and christian relations noting that in contexts of anti-Jewish polemic the fathers invoked the more anti-nomistic version of the cardinal saying in Mark. From this
Svartvik concludes that the Matthean redaction presents a more nomistic Jesus. In chapter
5, like Booth, Svartvik argues that Mark 7:14–23 addresses Gentile Christians, and so it is for Gentiles that “all foods are clean,” and this makes sense in the light of Pauline theology140 but not the historical Jesus who was thoroughly Jewish. Svartvik’s work demonstrates that Mark is portraying Jesus for Gentiles.
In 2002 Thomas Kazen’s Upsalla dissertation was published, entitled Jesus and
Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity?141 Kazen seeks to show that Jesus does demonstrate discontinuity with his Jewish environment. This discontinuity seems to be found scattered throughout the gospel tradition. Kazen affirms that ordinary Jews of the period constantly sought to avoid impurity, pointing to immersion pools, and stone vessels as archaeological evidence. He evaluates the hand washing controversy in Mark 7 and, contra Crossley, concludes that the preoccupation of the Markan redaction between clean and unclean food likely reflects a chronologically late period associated with the
Gentile mission. This supposition is in line with Svartvik’s work. Kazen then points to the episode where Jesus touches a leper claiming Jesus is clearly portrayed by Mark here to be indifferent to some purity concerns. One fascinating evidence of the portrayal of
Jesus in regards to purity, for Kazen, is the exorcistic activity of Jesus.142 Particularly the
140 On this point, see Svartvik, Mark and Mission, 344–48.
141 Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? (ConBNT 38; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2002).
142 Here Kazen is influenced by the work of the late Geza Vermes, who categorized Jesus as a Jewish “holy man.” See Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins; 69 demoniac in Mark 5 displays on behalf of Jesus a disconcern with purity. In this episode,
Jesus enters a graveyard, near a herd of pigs, and confronts an unclean spirit. For Kazen,
Jesus, as the agent of the Kingdom, is portrayed by Mark as possessing a purity so powerful it could cleanse away various forms of impurity including leprosy and the demonic. In this way, for Kazen, Jesus is portrayed as indifferent to some forms of purity with which many Jews of his era would have been very concerned.143
4.0.1.1: Conclusions from Recent Research on the Torah in Mark
Banks concluded that Jesus viewed himself as unique in authority to abrogate the Torah.
Booth, Sariola, and Svartvik all put forward that in some ways Mark’s portrayal of the law is imprecise, or inaccurate at various places. Booth, Sariola, Kazen, and
Monshouwer, all persuasively demonstrate that, contra Crossley, Mark 7 displays a later
Gentile context after controversies over food laws had already taken place. These recent dissertations that specifically focus on Mark and the law comport with the scholarly consensus that Mark is written for a Gentile audience. This is a strike against Crossley’s thesis which assumes Mark’s gospel is written for a thoroughly Jewish community.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).
143 For additional studies on Jesus and the Law, see Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Teil I: Markus und Parallelen (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972); François Vouga, Jésus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique (Le monde de la Bible 563; Paris: Labor et Fides, 1988); Meinrad Limbeck, Das Gesetz im Alten und Neuen Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997) 97–114. On purity specifically, see Bruce Chilton, “Purity and Impurity,” in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, eds., Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997) 988–96, esp. 990–92; Craig A. Evans, “‘Who Touched Me?’ Jesus and the Ritually Impure,” in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU 39; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 353–76; Scot McKnight, “A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity,” in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds., James the Just and Christian Origins (NovTSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 83–129; Tom Holmén, “Jesus and the Purity Paradigm,” and William Loader, “Jesus and the Law,” in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols., Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3:2709–44 and 3:2745–72, respectively. 70
4.0.2: Mark Portrays Jesus as Unconcerned with Purity
Does Mark portray Jesus as one thoroughly familiar with and observant to the purity laws of the Torah?144 It does not seem so. At least, one could say, Jesus’ view of purity and impurity was not typical of the religious teachers of his day. Mark 1:41–44 portrays Jesus touching the leper and pronouncing him cleansed. Jesus tells the cleansed man to offer the sacrifice as a testimony to the priests.145 Jesus is a mamzer from the tribe of Judah who has arrogated to himself the role of a levitical priest by pronouncing the leper clean and commanding him to offer sacrifice.146 What authority does Jesus have to do this?147
In Mark 2:5 Jesus seems to jump over Leviticus by directly and immediately offering forgiveness for sins.148 Mark portrays Jesus exercising a kingly authority over the
144 Crossley also argues that Mark exhibits a sophisticated understanding of the Law. As Booth argued, Mark 7:3 does seem to be either imprecise or uninformed when Mark uses the phrase “all the Jews.”
145 Jesus commands the cleansed leper to show himself “to the priest” (Mark 1:44), that is, to the local village priest. But the concluding statement, “as a testimony to them” (also v. 44) is somewhat ambiguous. It could refer to all the village priests that hear of it, or it could refer to the prominent men of the leper’s village, who will be impressed by the leper’s cleansing and by the village priest’s declaration that he is now clean and eligible to return to living in the village. It could also refer to the priests of Jerusalem, where the offering will be made, “which Moses commanded.”
146 Leviticus 14 stipulates that a priest from the tribe of Levi is to pronounce a leper clean and instruct the cleansed one to make sacrifice. For an interpretation of Jesus’ self-understanding in the light of his possible identification as a mamzer, see Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. The Jewish Life and Teaching that Inspired Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2000). See also Scot McKnight, “Jesus as Mamzer (‘Illegitimate Son’),” in Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, eds., Who Do My Opponents Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus (LNTS 327; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2008) 133–63.
147 In the episode concerning the leper, the Markan author specifies that Jesus ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο (reached his hand and touched him). Why does the Markan author give us this detail? He seems to be emphasizing that Jesus disregarded the law in Leviticus 14. Not only is Jesus disobeying Torah by not referring him immediately to an accredited priest, Jesus touches the leper as if protesting the levitical regulation need not be followed. Additionally, the leprous man is in disobedience to the Torah according to Lev 14:2 which stipulates that the leper should be going to an official priest. Surely, Jesus is not an accredited priest.
148 According to Lev 16:16, 30 the High Priest alone was to make amends for the impurity and sin of the people. 71
Sabbath.149 Jesus seems to disregard matters of purity by eating with tax collectors and the ‘am ha-ares who neglected levitical law.150 This would make Jesus ritually impure.151
A hemorrhaging woman touches Jesus and he does not rebuke her.152 Jesus touches a dead person.153 Jesus enters a cemetery, near a herd of swine, in Gentile territory, and encounters an impure spirit.154 Gentile people bring their sick into the marketplace and
149 See Sven-Olav Back, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandments (Abo: Abo Akademi University Press, 1995). Back shows that Jesus appeals to the pattern of King David’s when David set aside the Torah law to eat the bread which, according to the Torah, was reserved for priests only. Why does Mark portray Jesus as thinking this appeal to King David has any relevance to the Pharisees? It seems Mark wants his readers to assume that Jesus had a kingly self-understanding and could therefore act as a Son of David on the sabbath, even if that meant setting aside the Torah. In this way, the historical truth that oral and written Torah disagree at this point in regards to gleaning on the sabbath is not relevant. It is Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ appeal to a davidic authority to be lord of the sabbath that is the issue of importance in this survey. Mark seems to be portraying Jesus here as thinking he has a kingly connection to David, and therefore authority to abrogate the Sabbath when he and his band needed. Is Mark portraying Jesus here as only disputing the oral traditions of the elders? That line of thinking is not even brought up in Mark’s text.
150Crossley argues that Jesus could probably contracted impurity and this would not be breaking Torah. The gospel tradition never once says Jesus was made unclean. The tradition attests that Jesus touched people and they were cleansed. It could be conceded to Crossley that the historical Jesus contracted impurity yet this concession would matter nothing on Crossley’s thesis. Crossley argues that Jesus is never portrayed in Mark’s gospel as breaking the Torah. But is this true? Jesus is portrayed as touching and being touched by unclean people. According to the Torah Jesus would be unclean. If Mark is aiming to portray Jesus as torah observant why does the Markan author constantly portray Jesus as maintaining cleanliness? Never once does the Markan author say Jesus was made unclean and went to wash in a mikvot. (Indeed, the legendary but very realistic story in P.Oxy 840 suggests that Jesus did not need to undertake ritual bathing.) Never once does Mark say Jesus went to seperate himself from the community because he contracted impurity. Why? It seems to account for more data to argue that the Markan author is not out to portray Jesus as obedient to Torah. Mark is aiming to portray Jesus as Christ with authority over impurity. See also Tom Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenantal Thinking (BIS 55; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 221–37.
151 M. Bird, “Jesus as Law-Breaker,” in McKnight and Modica, eds., Who Do My Opponents Say I Am?, 12–24. See also C. L. Blomberg, “The Authenticity and Significance of Jesus’ Table Fellowship with Sinners,” in Bock and Webb, eds., Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, 215–50.
152Menstrual impurity is a large concern in Lev 15:19–33 and becomes the subject of an entire tractate of the Mishnah (Niddah). Defilement with a normally menstruant woman should be scrupulously avoided. This woman is even more unclean because of the nature of her menstruation. Why does Mark not portray Jesus as washing in mikvot following this episode so the thoroughly Jewish community can know Jesus obeys Torah?
153Another example of flouting the purity laws Mark 5:35–43. This lack of concern about contracting impurity seems negligent of Torah. Again, the gospels never depict Jesus washing in mikvot after these occurrences. That is a huge oversight for the Markan author seeking to portray Jesus as thoroughly obedient to Torah.
154 In Mark 5:1–20 rather than contracting impurity the Markan author portrays Jesus as one with contagious holiness. See also Kelly R. Iverson, Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: ‘Even the Dogs Under the Table Eat the Children’s Crumbs’ (LNTS 339; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2007) 20–39. 72
Jesus does not rebuke them (Mark 6:56). All of this works against the idea that Jesus perfectly obeyed the purity laws of the written and oral Torah, as most religious teachers understood it. Furthermore, Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, which Jesus should not do if he is simply a good Torah-observant Jew.155 These texts all seem to point in one direction. Mark’s gospel depicts a Jesus who is not primarily concerned with purity, at least not in any conventional way.156
When the scribes from Jerusalem come to challenge Jesus in Mark 7 for not obeying oral Torah Jesus publicly shames the leaders of Israel, quoting from Isaiah, referring to them as hypocrites in a way that is clearly operating in prophetic authority.
Jesus then issues his statement to the crowds within earshot of the Jerusalem leaders ,
“nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them” (Mark 7:15). This statement confirms what the gospel has been portraying of Jesus. He is not concerned with purity but is concerned with establishing God’s new order in Israel.157
155 In Mark 6:4 the Markan Jesus refers to himself as a prophet. If Jesus is not a prophet he has presumed on the God of Israel. According to Deut 18:20 a prophet who presumes to speak for the God of Israel, and is not speaking for God, is false and deserving of death.
156 How is it that with all the first-century mikvot we have uncovered in the land of Israel and with all the impurity Jesus seems to have contracted from sinners, dead people, hemorrhaging women, lepers, and the sick we never once in any of the gospels have a portrayal of Jesus washing himself in mikvot? We never once have an episode in the gospels where Jesus washes his hands according to the oral Torah. We never once have an episode where Jesus separates himself from the community, as leviticus states he should, because he has contracted impurity. Crossley's thesis is strained.
157 Michael Bird argues, “In the Gospels Jesus is depicted as both radical in setting aside elements of Torah but also conservative in intensifying some commands further. The radical sayings about the Sabbath and disregarding the duty to bury of one’s parents were not an attempt to abrogate Torah. Instead, they were issued out Jesus’ conviction that where the mission of the kingdom and Torah conflicted that Torah had to give way. The intensifications of certain commands (e.g., prohibition on divorce and antitheses) were anchored in the view that the kingdom would transform human existence to an edenic state that would render many of the Mosaic regulations as redundant. Importantly, relaxation and intensification of the law is a standard feature of Jewish renewal movements.” See http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2006/03/jesus- and-torah-iii-4-theses.html (posted 20 March 2006). 73
4.0.3: Mark portrays Jesus as the Christ
How does Mark portray Jesus in the gospel? From the start Jesus is declared to be God’s
Son, the Christ. Mark has dealt us his cards early.158 For Mark, Jesus is the Christ.
Claiming Jesus to be the Christ though readers know Jesus was crucified would at the outset for Jewish readers be ignoring the teaching of Deut 21:23, “anyone hanged on a tree is cursed by God.” The Markan author is arguing, despite the Torah teaching, that the crucified one is the Christ, not cursed.159 Jesus is portrayed as a prophet greater than John who is anointed with the eschatological Spirit and affirmed as a new Davidic king.160
Jesus heralds the eschatological kingdom of God.161 When Jesus enters the synagogue he teaches with Moses-like authority, not like the teachers of the law (Mark 1:27; cf. Deut
18:18).162 With no need to use the name of Solomon, Jesus casts demons out with a word
(Mark 1:24).163 He touches lepers, eats with sinners, forgives sins, and steps into Gentile territory. The crowds of sick, leprous, and unclean, are constantly molesting Jesus. In his controversies with the religious leaders he refers to himself as the bridegroom bringing new wine and new wineskins to Israel (Mark 2:21–22).164 He refers to himself as “The
158 Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009) 58–66.
159 Robert Horton Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
160 As in Mark 1:8–11; cf. Psalm 2; Joel 2:28–30.
161 Principally in the language of Isaiah, which also announces the good news of God’s reign (or kingdom). See esp. Isa 40:1–9; 52:7; 61:1–2.
162 One may ask how it is that Jesus teaches with more authority than the scribes. The scribes were trained to pass on the authoritative traditions of Moses. Does Jesus have a teaching more authoritative than the traditions of Moses?
163 Recall also the saying from Q in which Jesus speaks of himself as a “greater than solomon” (see Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31).
164 See R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 74
Son of Man” who has authority to make declarations about the Sabbath (Mark 2:27–
28).165 He appoints twelve disciples.166 He accuses the Jewish leadership of blaspheming the Holy Spirit’s power at work in him (Mark 3:28–30).167 Like Isaiah, Jesus teaches in parables about the unfolding nature of God’s kingdom.168 Jesus rebukes storms and the storms obey Him (Mark 4:35–41). Jesus raises a dead girl (Mark 5:35–43). Jesus feeds thousands in the wilderness like a New Moses (Mark 6:35–44; 8:1–10).169 Jesus walks on water (Mark 6:47–52).170 Jesus predicts his death in terms of Isaiah’s servant (Mark
10:45).171 Jesus is transfigured and appears with Elijah and Moses (Mark 9:2–8). He heals the blind (Mark 8:22–26; 10:46–52).172 He rides into Jerusalem to shouts of David’s
2002) 142. The old skins and the old garment are, in the narrative context, the structures of the existing religious tradition, as represented especially by the Pharisees and their scribal teaching, whether in theology (the forgiveness of sins) or practice (purity of table fellowship; fasting). Attempts to contain Jesus with these constraints have already proved futile, and his followers must be prepared to break free.
165 For a selection of current essays, see Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen, eds., ‘Who is This Son of Man?’ The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus (LNTS 390; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2011).
166 See Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979) 153–58; John P. Meier, “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus’ Ministry?” JBL 116 (1997) 635–72; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” BBR 11 (2001) 203–31; revised and expanded as “Jesus and the Twelve,” Bock and Webb, eds., Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, 181–214.
167 For an excellent discussion of Jesus as exorcist, see Graham H Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (WUNT 2.54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993).
168 Richard N. Longenecker, ed., The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (revised ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012); Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration (SNTSMS 117; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
169 Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (WUNT 2.88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; repr. Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000).
170 Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 432.
171 Scot McKnight, Jesus and his Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005) 60–68, 170–71, 289–90.
172 Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers 75 restored kingdom (Mark 11:1–11).173 Like Jeremiah, he pronounces judgment on the temple (Mark 11:17).174 He alludes to Isaiah’s vineyard parable (Isa 5:1–7) to intimate that he is the Son of the One who owns the vineyard of Israel (Mark 12:1–12).175 He teaches that the Messiah is David’s Lord (Mark 12:35–37).176 He threatens the teachers of the mosaic law for their corrupt leadership (Mark 11:17; 12:12).177 He predicts the fall of
Jerusalem (Mark 13:2).178 He takes the Passover meal and reinterprets it around himself referring to his body and blood as the New Covenant meal (Mark 14:22–25).179 He is delivered up, crucified, and buried (Mark 14–15). Three days later his tomb is empty and the man in white declares Jesus is risen from the dead (Mark 16)!180 After rehearsing this
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999); Barry Blackburn, “The Miracles of Jesus,” in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 353–94; idem, “The Miracles of Jesus,” in Graham H. Twelftree, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Miracles (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 113–30.
173 See Brent Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry into Jerusalem,” in Bock and Webb, eds., Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, 383–427.
174 On the significance of the Old Testament passages (Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11) in Jesus’ criticism of the temple establishment, see Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993) 93–110.
175 On the authenticity of the parable of the Vineyard and its setting in the Synoptic Gospels, see Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 276–99. Snodgrass and others rightly reject claims that the oldest form of this important parable has been preserved in the Gospel of Thomas (at §§65–66).
176 See Bruce Chilton, “Jesus ben David: Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage,” JSNT 14 (1982) 88– 112; repr. in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds., The Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader (BibSem 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 192–215.
177 Jesus’ criticisms of the temple establishment cannot be adequately probed and understood apart from careful consideration of the Old Testament passages quoted or alluded to. See Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001) 174–79, 223–31.
178 For a contextualization of Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction, see Craig A. Evans, “Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple in the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Scrolls, and Related Texts,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 10 (1992) 89–147; repr. in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Qumran Questions (BibSem 36; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 92–150.
179 See McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 259–334.
180 For a massive and compelling defence of the resurrection of Jesus, see Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010). 76 brief portrayal of Jesus through Mark’s gospel does it seem that Mark is portraying Jesus as one who is always observant to the Torah? Does it seem plausible that Mark is going to great lengths to portray Jesus as a thoroughly Jewish man and nothing more? Or is
Mark seeking to portray something else about Jesus?
Crossley does not seem open to the possibility that Jesus understood himself as something more than a mere man. Crossley is sure that the Aramaic bar enasha is not an allusion to Daniel 7 but is no more than a circumlocution Jesus uses for himself.181
Maurice Casey has demonstrated that an Aramaic retroversion means just this.182 But an
Aramaic retrojection is beside the point on Mark’s Greek gospel. Written in Greek Mark constantly uses the definite article ho uios tou anthropou to portray Jesus as the Son of
Man, on earth (Mark 2:10),183 coming with the clouds (Mark 14:62) referenced in Daniel
7.184
181 Maurice Casey, “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; 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 International, 2004) 214.
182 Casey, Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel; Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (reprint ed. London and New York: Continuum, 2009); idem, Jesus of Nazareth an independent historian's account of his life and teaching. London; New York: Continuum, 2010); idem, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979); James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (JSNTSup 266; London: T&T Clark International, 2004) 214.
183 ‘ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς’ Why does Mark have Jesus add the awkward phrase τῆς γῆς ‘on earth’? Where else would the ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου have authority? If ‘Son of Man’ is an allusion to Daniel 7 then the place where the Son of Man has authority is in heaven. Mark seems to be portraying Jesus as the heavenly Son of Man from Daniel 7 now exercising his authority on earth. See Craig A. Evans, “Mark,” in James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson, eds., Eerdmans Com- mentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 1064–1103, here 1071.
184 See Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 450–52. 77
In my view Mark portrays Jesus a bit differently from the portraits proposed by
Crossley and Casey. Mark portrays Jesus as the Christ, endowed with the Spirit to heal,185 and sent with authority186 from God to bring the Kingdom back to Israel so that Israel may be restored for the eschatological in breaking of God’s new order over the entire world.187 Jesus is depicted as the New Moses, the New Passover lamb, and the one who inaugurates a New Covenant.188 How can all of this be ignored in favor of concluding that Jesus is a thoroughly Jewish man who in all respects obeys the Torah? It should not be ignored. If this evidence is ignored, unadressed, and unaccounted for, as it is in
Crossley's construction then Crossley has mislead his reader. On McCullagh’s approach to historiography misleading your reader is improper.189 If Jesus was thoroughly obedient to Torah he would not have been opposed and delivered up to be crucified as a messianic pretender. The construction of a Jesus who in no ways broke Torah can neither account for the criterion of crucifixion190 nor for the persecution of early Christians.191
185 Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 vols., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011).
186 Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Fortress Press, 1997).
187 Bruce Chilton, Pure Kingdom: Jesus’ Vision of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, 58–94; N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).
188 Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) 296–302; Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark, 351–65.
189 C. Behan McCullagh, The Logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective (New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2004).
190 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 177. No proposed portrait of Jesus can be recommended if it cannot explain how the Galilean Jesus is executed on a Roman cross in Jerusalem as “king of the Jews.”
191 Bird has argued that not everyone would have regarded the Christians as Law-observant. See Michael F. Bird and James G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence (London; Peabody, MA: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008) 136. 78
4.0.4: Conclusions on the Meaning of the Jewish Law in Mark
I conclude this chapter by summing three principal findings. First, while the Gospel of
Mark does exhibit an awareness of purity laws and hand washing traditions of the
Pharisees the gospel also seems to be inaccurate on a few occasions regarding Torah or
Jewish traditions.192 Second, Mark does portray Jesus as ignoring established purity laws.
If Martin Jaffee’s understanding of Torah — both written and oral — is correct, then
Jesus is, by first-century socio-cultural standards and as portrayed by Mark, a breaker of the Torah. Jaffee will not tolerate a separation between written texts and oral traditions.
Jesus being viewed as a breaker of the Torah comports well with the Jewish tradition that
Jesus “practiced sorcery and lead Israel astray,”193 as well as his rejection by the religious leaders and his crucifixion. Third, Mark does not seem concerned with portraying Jesus as a Torah-observant Jew, but as the Christ and Son of God, despite his shameful crucifixion.194
192 The wrong Priest, Abiathar, is mentioned in Mark 2:26. Mark 7:3 is either imprecise or uninformed as Roger Booth has shown. Mark does not seem to be exceptionally well informed about Judaism as Crossley would suggest. (According to 1 Sam 21:1–9, the high priest was Ahimelech, father of Abiathar.)
193 As in b. Sanhedrin 43a: “It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days proclaiming, ‘He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray.’” See Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 114. See the discussion above.
194 Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (reprint ed. Fortress Press, 1977); Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross. For further critical study of crucifixion in the time of Jesus, see David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (WUNT 2.244; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
Chapter Five: Conclusions
Dating the gospels is notoriously difficult and requires tremendous patience to assess the evidence and construct an explanation of that evidence which accounts for the most evidence with the fewest difficulties. A number of reviewers have expressed reservations about Crossley’s thesis and this reviewer can be added to that number.195 In chapter one it was shown that Crossley has demonstrated dating Mark based on the eschatological discourse is not secure. However, his negative estimation of the patristic tradition’s value for dating Mark seems incongruent with the evidence. It seems Hengel’s positive estimation on the patristic tradition is currently the position that accounts for the most data in the best way without multiplying hypotheses. In chapter two Crossley’s proposal was put forward. Crossley argues that the way Mark portrays the Torah disputes between
Jesus and the Jewish leadership reveals both that Jesus observed Torah and that Torah disputes in early Christianity had not yet arisen at the time of Mark’s writing. In chapter three Crossley’s proposal was critiqued in six major ways: (1) The patristic tradition is not as unreliable as Crossley supposes, (2) Crossley misinterprets Mark 7:19, (3) The
Markan Jesus does in fact abrogate biblical Torah, (4) Crossley implausibly assumes a linear development to the Torah in early Christianity, (5) To bifurcate between halakah
195See the reviews by David du Toit and John Painter in Review of Biblical Literature (both posted January 2006); by David Instone-Brewer in Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006) 647–50; and by Hyun Chul Won, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: A Perspective on its Eschatological Expectation (unpublished doctoral dissertation; University of Birmingham, 2009) 140–43.
79 80 and written Torah is incorrect according to Jaffee, (6) The origin of a tradition can not establish the date of its composition. In chapter 4 a literature review on Mark and the law was provided. This review demonstrates the idiosyncrasy of Crossley’s thesis. It was then argued that Mark portrays Jesus as unconcerned with purity laws. Mark portrays Jesus as the Christ who brings God’s kingdom and restores Israel in preparation for the ingathering of the Gentiles.
This thesis has aimed to assess Crossley’s proposal for dating Mark in light of current scholarship. This thesis has not aimed to provide a full scale treatment for dating
Mark. That project would require much more space.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature and Resources The Aramaic Bible. 20 vols. Michael Glazier and Liturgical Press, 1987–. Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Bratcher, R. G. and Nida, E. A. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Helps for Translators 2; Leiden: Brill, 1961. Chilton, B. D., et al., eds. A Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark. The New Testament Gospels in their Judaic Contexts 1. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Danby, H. The Mishnah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933. Epstein, I., ed. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 30 vols. London: Soncino, 1960; repr. 1990. Evans, C. A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005; reprint: Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Evans, C. A., ed. The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary. Volume 1: Matthew– Luke. Colorado Springs: Cook Publications, 2003. Lachs, S. T. A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Hoboken: Ktav, 1987. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1889. Neusner, J. The Tosefta. 6 vols. New York: Ktav, 1977–86. Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Wüttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935; 3rd ed., 1947; repr. 1971.
81 82
Secondary Literature
Allison Jr., Dale, and John Dominic Crossan, and Amy-Jill Levine, The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. Anderson, Hugh. Mark. NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Aune, David Edward. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.
Back, Sven-Olav. Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandments. Abo: Abo Akademi University Press, 1995.
Banks, Robert. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 28. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Bauckham, Richard. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
———. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Berger, Klaus. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984.
———. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Teil I: Markus und Parallelen. WMANT 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.
Bird, Michael F. Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission. JSNTSup 331. London and New York: Continuum, 2006.
Bird, Michael F. and James G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence. London: SPCK; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Blomberg, Craig. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012.
Bock, Darrell L. and Robert L. Webb, eds. Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Booth, Roger P. Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7. JSNTSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986.
Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. 83
Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity. London: SPCK, 1957.
———. “The Date of Mark’s Gospel.” NTS 7 (1961) 126–41.
Branscomb, Bennett Harvie. Jesus and the Law of Moses. New York: R. R. Smith, 1930.
Bryan, Christopher. A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Settings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Bryan, Steven M. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration. SNTSMS 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Burridge, Richard A. What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo An Introduction to the New Testament Second Edition; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Casey, Maurice. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979.
———. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. SNTSMS 102. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
———. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. Reprint ed. London and New York: Continuum, 2009.
———. Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching. London and New York: Continuum, 2010.
———. Is John’s Gospel True? London and New York: Routledge, 1996.
———. “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.
Chapman, David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. WUNT 2.244. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Chapman, John. “St Irenaeus and the Dates of the Gospels.” JTS 6 (1904–5) 563–69.
Charlesworth, James H. ed., Qumran Questions. BibSem 36. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
———. The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.
Chilton, Bruce. Pure Kingdom: Jesus’ Vision of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. 84
———. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. The Jewish Life and Teaching that Inspired Christianity. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Chilton, Bruce and Craig A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration. AGJU 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
———. James the Just and Christian Origins. NovTSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
———. Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. Is Mark’s Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre. The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 1990. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1990.
———. Mark. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Crossley, James G. The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. JSNTSup 266. New York: T & T Clark, 2004.
Cunningham, Phillip J. Mark: The Good News Preached to the Romans. New York: Paulist Press, 1995.
DeSilva, David Arthur. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Dodd, C. H. “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947) 47–54.
Donaldson, T. L. “Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s Christ–Torah Antithesis,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989) 655–82.
Dunn, James D.G. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. and Scot McKnight, eds. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Dunn, James D. G. and John W. Rogerson, eds. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Du Toit, David. Review of The Date of Mark's Gospel. In Review of Biblical Literature 8 (2006) 417–20.
Edmundson, George. The Church in Rome in the First Century. Bampton Lectures 1913. London and New York: Longmans, Green, 1913. 85
Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
———. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
———. Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography. Revised ed. NTTS 24. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1996.
———. From Jesus to the Church: The First Christian Generation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014. Forthcoming.
———. “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993) 93–110.
Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. The Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader. BibSem 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Evans, Richard J. In Defence of History. London: Granta Books, 2012.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
———. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale Press, 1971.
France, R. T. and David Wenham. Gospel Perspectives: Vol. 2 Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
Grant, F. C. The Earliest Gospel: Studies of the Evangelic Tradition at its Point of Crystallization in Writing. New York and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943.
Green, Joel B. and Max Turner, eds. Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989.
Gundry, Robert Horton. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.
Güttgemanns, Erhardt. Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph series 26. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1979. 86
Haenchen, Ernst. Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklärung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968.
Harnack, Adolf. The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1911.
Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
———. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. London: SCM Press, 2000.
———. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
———. “Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems in the Gospel of Mark.” In The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. P. Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Pp. 209–51.
Holmén, Tom. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking. BIS 55. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2001.
Holmén, Tom. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Holtzmann, H. J. Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863.
Hooker, Morna Dorothy. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Reprint ed. London and Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
Hurtado, L. W. and Owen, Paul L., eds. ‘Who is This Son of Man?’ The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. LNTS 390. London and New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2011.
Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel. BIS 65. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2003.
Iverson, Kelly R. Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: ‘Even the Dogs Under the Table Eat the Children’s Crumbs’. LNTS 339. London and New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2007.
Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE–400 CE. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Johnson, Jeremiah J. The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Tradition- Historical Study of the Akhmîm Gospel Fragment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation; London: Middlesex University, 2013. 87
Johnson, Sherman E. The Gospel according to St. Mark. BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1972.
Kazen, Thomas. Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? ConBNT 38; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2002.
Keener, Craig S. Miracles the Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
———. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Kelber, Werner H. Mark’s Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
———. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.
Klostermann, Erich. Das Markusevangelium. HNT 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950.
Kummel, W. G. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
Lachmann, Karl. “De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis.” TSK 8 (1835) 570– 90. Translated in part by N. H. Palmer, “Lachmann’s Argument,” NTS 13 (1967) 368–78.
Lagrange, M. J. Évangile selon Saint Marc. Ébib. 3rd ed. Paris: Gabalda, 1920.
Levine, Amy Jill, Dale C Allison Jr., John Dominic Crossan, eds. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Licona, Mike. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Limbeck, Meinrad. Das Gesetz im Alten und Neuen Testament. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997.
Loader, William R. G. Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels. WUNT 2.97. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
th Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Markus. MeyerK 2. 11 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951.
Longenecker, Richard N. The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. 88
Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Martin, Ralph. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
Martin, Ralph P. and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
McCullagh, C. Behan. Justifying Historical Descriptions. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
———. The Logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective. New York: Psychology Press, 2004.
———. The Truth of History. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
McKnight, Scot. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005.
———. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
McKnight, Scot and Joseph B. Modica, eds. Who Do My Opponents Say I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against Jesus. LNTS 327. London and New York: T & T Clark, 2008.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
———. “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus’ Ministry?” JBL 116 (1997) 635–72.
Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979.
Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
Monshouwer, Dirk. Markus en drie jaar Torah: Het evangelie gelezen als drie jaargangen schriftuitleg. Kampen: Kok, 1989.
Mosse, Martin. The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2007.
Neill, S. C. The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1961 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. 89
Nineham, Dennis E. The Gospel of St Mark. The Pelican Gospel Commentaries. New York: Seabury, 1963.
Peterson, Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. BIS 48. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000.
Porter, Stanley E. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals. JSNTSup 191. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Reicke, Bo. “Synoptic Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem.” In Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. Allen P. Wikgren and David E. Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Pp. 121–34.
Robinson, John A T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.
Roskam, Hendrika Nicoline. The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context. NovTSup 114. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004.
Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Sariola, Heikki. Markus und das Gesetz: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung. Annales academiae scientiarum fennicae dissertationes humanarum litterarum 56. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News according to Mark. Atlanta: John Knox, 1970.
Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Stacpoole, A. J. “A Note on the Dating of St Mark’s Gospel,” Scripture 16 (1964) 106– 10.
Svartvik, Jesper. Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts. ConBNT 32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2000.
Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel according to St Mark. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1909.
Talbert, Charles H. What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
———. Review of Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel. In Perspectives in Religious Studies 33 (2006) 524–27.
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s, 1966. 90
Telford, William. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Telford, William R. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Temporini, Hildegard and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. II. Bd. 25 Principat. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982.
Theissen, Gerd. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Twelftree, Graham H., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Miracles. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
———. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT 2.54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.
———. Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Van Iersel, Bas. Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary. JSNTSup 164. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. London: Collins; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.
Votaw, Clyde Weber. The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies in the Greco-Roman World. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.
Vouga, François. Jésus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique. Le monde de la Bible 563. Paris: Labor et Fides, 1988.
Waetjen, H. C. A Reordering of Power: A Sociopolitical Reading of Mark’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. WUNT 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Repr. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
Wenham, John William. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
———. “Did Peter Go to Rome in A.D. 42?” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972) 94–102.
Wiarda, Timothy. “Peter as Peter in the Gospel of Mark.” NTS 45 (1999) 19–37. 91
Witherington, Ben III. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Wright, N T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.