Kata Markon

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>]

George Young wrote:

> J. Gibson wrote:
>
> > I think you might have to explain that [i.e., why Mark has to explain
> Jewish traditions to his readers] to Paul >who, writing earlier than AMark,
> to Roman Christians could and does assume much much more in this regard.
>
> Well, since Paul is long dead, this would be a formidable task indeed.  My
> suspicion, however, is that when Paul wrote to the Romans, the Roman Church
> may have still been predominately made up of Jewish Christians, or Paul may
> have underestimated the large Gentile population of the Church (after all,
> he had never been to Rome at the time).  Whereas Mark, writing from Rome (if
> indeed this is the case), would have been much more informed of his
> audience.

If we accept Chp. 16 in Romans as authentic, we have strong evidence that Paul
had lots of contacts with the communities in Rome and therefore that he was
fairly well apprised of what the ethnic make up of those communities were. We
also know that Paul has known Jewish inhabitants of Rome -- Prisca (Priscilla)
and Aquila -- who, one may presume, not only are back in Rome by the time Paul
writes Romans, but have kept in touch with Paul. Moreover, since a crucial
element in Paul's intended evangelizing of the West is securing the help of 
the
Roman communities for this enterprise, and that he wants his letter to the
Romans to be successful in eliciting this help, it is reasonable to surmise,
that Paul actively engaged in investigating what the situation in Rome current
with his writing was.

Then, of course, there's the question of how many of the Gentile christian
population in Rome had been god fearers originally or had already been
Christians before they came to Rome.

In any case, Suetonius gives us some reason to think that the Christian
communities existed in Rome from at least 48 ce, and surely this is enough 
time
for Gentile members -- who are explicitly addressed in Romans -- to have 
become
familiar with the biblical tradition that Paul assumes they know, and 
therefore,
that Mark could assume they knew as well if he was writing to a Roman
congregation. And should we not take into account the tradition that Peter had
already preached in Rome before Mark wrote?

> > As those on the List who are familiar with my JSNTS 1993 article on the
> Markan
> > version of Jesus Wilderness "Temptation" story and my book on the
> "temptation"
> > traditions" know, I  have grave doubts that your assertion about the
> nature of
> > the wilderness PEIRASMOS not being spelled out in correct.  And it seems
> to me
> > that the way you write about the nature of the other "tests" that Jesus is
> said
> > to experience and/or be subjected to in GMark indicates that you have
> > misunderstood my understanding of what PEIRAZW and PEIRASMOS mean in
> GMark --
> > not an academic test but a proving of faithfulness.
>
> My apologies, if I misunderstood.  Although, my references to PEIRASMOS in
> GMark, along with brief observations, were simply intended to highlight the
> paucity of its occurances in Mark  (where Jesus is concerned)  as well as
> the allusive or problematic nature of at least two of those occurances (1:13
> & 10:2) (that is, in my own view).  I do not suggest that your reading of
> PEIRASMOS in these instances is incorrect; but I wanted to highlight the
> passages because you seem - if I understand you correctly - to place great
> emphasis upon this particular word, and assign it a narrow band of meaning -
> to the exclusion of others.   Have you managed, or, do you see any relevence
> to investigating the other Greek words that may include/imply nuances of
> "tempt," "trial," "test" and so forth within Mark, albeit in a 'defeated'
> sense (e.g., EPITHUMIA in Mark 4:19)?      Also, just out of interest, do
> you see any worth in investigating the Latin equivalents to PEIRASMOS, e.g.,
> TEMPTA?
>

I have indeed investigated the terms that the instances of PEIRAZW and 
PEIRASMOS
indicate are their synonyms (i.e., DOKIMAZW). And I have also carried out an
investigation of the narrative evidence, that is, theme of the "tested one" 
like
Odysseus, Namertes (Plutarch), Abraham, Israel, etc. etc., to find what sort 
of
additional themes. terminology, and associations these stories bring into the
picture. They did not alter my conclusion that the PEIRAZ, etc. is used with a
fairly narrow range of meaning -- a conclusion, by the way,  that was mooted
with great force for the biblical literature in 1937 by Jacob Korn in his
seminal study on PEIRASMOS. I have NOT done enough work on the Latin 
equivalents
-- which would be valuable -- though I note that C.F.D. Moule **has**
investigated the matter (cf. his "An Unsolved Problem in the "Temptation" 
Clause
of the Lord's Prayer"). Interestingly, his conclusion was that even in the 
Latin
equivalents the range of meanings is narrow and is limited primarily to "test"
not "temptation" in the sense of seduction/enticement.

I wonder what others have to say about the make up of the Roman community in 
60s
and 70s ce and, if predominantly Gentile, what their grounding in Biblical
tradition and imagery was?

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net