Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Mark 7:3-4 and the readers of Mark

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Stefan L�cking <stefan.luecking AT uni-muenster.de>
  • To: Kata Markon <GMark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Mark 7:3-4 and the readers of Mark
  • Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:03:48 +0100


Thank you all for your instructive responses to my mail from Sunday. I really
did not expect
so many replies to my questions in such a short time. And I already think
that your
contributions have cleared up my mind a lot. As there were so many replies
and it is quite
hard for me to write in English I will give some answers to your questions
collectively.
Maybe, next weekend I'll find time give some more detailed answers.

First of all, I recognized that the question is not if there were gentile
readers of Mark at all.
The topic of relations between gentiles and Jews as it is treated in Mark 7
and 8 (most of
all 7:24-30) was probably an important question for the community of Mark.
But, I can't
follow the characterization of Mark's gospel as the "gospel of gentile
Christians" or as written
from a gentile Christian point of view. I also don't think that the gospel
Mark was written
by a gentile Christian to a community of gentile Christians (or at least with
a majority of
gentile Christians) as most German introductions to the New Testament and
commentaries
on the Gospel of Mark want make us to believe. My problem is that to speak of
mainly
'gentile Christian' readers of Mark or of a 'gentile Christian' perspective
of his gospel suggests
an outsider perspective on Judaism. But - apart from Mark 7:3-4 (and maybe
the phrase
SUNAGWGH AUTWN in Mark 1:23 and 39, but see the mail from Karel) - I don't
see any
hints for such an outsider perspective in the gospel of Mark. Even those
passages which deal
with the relations to gentiles (as Mark 7:24-30 or 8:1-9) describe this
relation from a Jewish
point of view.

I agree that gentiles did not need explanations on Sabbath or the avoidance
of pork, but that
does not explain why I should presume gentile Christian readers as the
intended addressees
of Mark's gospel.

The question of the knowledge of scriptures is somewhat different. My stress
on scriptural
allusions is due to the fact that ancient Greek writers who wrote about
Judaism normally did
not know much about the content of Jewish scriptures (at least this is what
experts on
Hellenism as Arnaldo Momigliano say). They relied their information on oral
traditions,
instead of reading such "barbarian" works as the Septuagint. Hence, I think
that normal
gentiles could not understand scriptural allusions in the gospels. If gentile
Christians could
understand at least those allusions which are necessary for an basic
understanding of the
gospel they must have received an instruction on Jewish scriptures.

But in this case I doubt if it is appropriate to call them "Heidenchristen",
because this
German term - normally meaning 'gentile Christians' - sounds a bit like
'pagan Christians' -
which is a pure nonsense. If gentile Christian readers had received an
instruction on Jewish
scriptures they will also identify themselves with Israel as the 'people of
God', and - before
the 'parting of the ways' - this implies an identification with (a certain
denomination of)
Judaism. But then the German term 'Heidenchristen' would be misleading. Here,
Karel's hint
to Paul's letters is very instructive. Paul would not call gentile members
"proselytes" because
he is against any ethnic definition of "Israel" as the people of God.

Concerning the translation "Judeans" for IOUDAIOI ("Judaeans" just was a
misspelling) I agree
that 'Jews' normally would be a better translation, but I don't agree that
the Johannine usage
is a good analogy. The term 'IOUDAIOI' is typically for John who uses the
word 71 times,
but in the Gospel of Mark the narrator himself uses this word only in 7:3. In
1:5 he uses the
adjective IOUDAIOS in a geographical sense. In Mark 15 Jesus is called 'King
of the Jews' by
the Romans that is to say Jesus himself is recognized as Jew. Contrary to the
gospel of John
the opponents of Jesus are never called IOUDAIOI.
I used the translation 'Judeans' to avoid an understanding of 'Jew' in the
religious sense
(because in German theology it is often understood in this sense although
concerning the
gospels and the letters of Paul this would be an anachronism). In Mark 7:3
IOUDAIOI most
probably has an ethnic sense, but it might also have an geographical sense as
the narrator
emphasizes that Jesus discusses with scribes from Jerusalem. If it is used in
an ethnic sense
the phrase "all Jews" is a clear exaggeration because even gentile Christian
readers would
have known that Jesus and his disciples were Jews.

Concerning Mark 7:3-4, I used the term 'gloss' to describe the rhetorical
form of the text
(a long explanation which interrupts the syntactical order of the text)
without implying that
it is a secondary addition. I called it 'unmarkan' because it is not typical
for Mark - just the
contrary: it is unique to the gospel as a whole. Certainly, both - the
rhetorical form and the
uniqueness - are hints that it might by a later addition. But as far as there
is no text-critical
evidence in ancient manuscripts I don't think that it is as late as the 2nd
or 3rd century. So
I have to treat it as a unique element in the gospel as it was written in the
1st century.

These are some answers and comments to your replies. I apologize that - at
the moment -
I could not give to all your comments the weight that they deserve.

Yours,

Stefan Lücking
University of Münster, Germany




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page