Kata Markon

["K. Hanhart" <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>]

Subject: Mark 7:3-4 and the readers of Mark

Stefan Lücking  wrote Sun, 20 Feb 2000:
> The long explanation of Jewish purity customs in Mark 7,3-4 normally > 
> serves as argument that the Markan readers are gentile Christians. But > 
> the uniqueness of this gloss...

Stefan, Thanks for your poignant questions, important especially for
those who opt for Markan priority. I too abandoned the notion that Mark
was written for "Gentile Christiasns". (1) My first question to you is
"why call it a gloss"? I visualize the ecclesia of Mark's readers (in
Rome?, Alexandria?)to consist of mainly baptized Judeans together with a
growing number (not of 'proselytes') but of baptized Gentiles. I further
believe Mark revised a pre-70 'gospel' or 'haggadah' used for the
catechism of proselytes and for the reading during the season of Pesach
(alongside the haftara). So the 'gloss' may already date back to the
pre-70 'Ur-Markus' at the time of Claud who expelled the Judeans
(temporarily) from Rome. The 'gloss' may also be part of Mark's post-70
revision, our canonical Gospel. However, the possibility that it is a
2nd or 3rd century gloss should be left open. 
  
>... within the gospel of Mark makes me doubt if it
> alone is sufficient proof for this thesis with its repercussions on > the  
> understanding of the whole Gospel.

I fully agree.

>         Second, the use of "all Jews/Judaeans" (PANTES hOI IOUDAIOI) > is 
> unique to the gospel and appears to me very unmarkan. 
 
Qu. (2) Is it unmarkan? The reasons, mentioned above, may suffice.
Sociologically speaking, the ecclesia must have evolved within the
Judean quarters of large cities in the Mediterranean hemisphere. 
Throughout the centuries migrants from a foreign country tend to settle
down in a particular section of town. Early christians lived f.i.in the
Judean section of Rome and were likely part of the local synagogue. But
sooner or later they formed their own house of learning. It seems
reasonable to believe that a number of proselytes formed part of this
process of separation (cmp Acts 18,7). The LXX terms 'ecclesia' and
'synagogue' both refer to the people of Israel. The baptized Gentiles
were made to feel part of the 'people of God'.  

> Elsewhere, Mark uses the word
> "Judaeans" (IOUDAIOI) only in the mouth of gentiles 
Qu 3 You spell the word as "Judaean". I myself use not "Judaean" but
"Judean" following the example of the RSV. At any rate, the use of
Judaean or Judean in stead of "Jews" is important, of course. The
non-jewish exegete must adopt the stance of a Gentile who knows little
more of first century Judaism (and in certain respects less) than the
average citizen of Rome or Corinth. Present day media tell us much of
"the Jews" and offer a kaleidoscopic range of opinions about them. But
the exegete is dealing with the Jewish people of two millennia ago who -
when among themselves - spoke Aramaic and Hebrew to boot. Our knowledge
of them is very limited. So, have you got specific reasons for the
spealling "Judaeans"?
Qu 4. How do you interpret Mk 1,23: tei synagogei 'autoon'? To me it
simply refers to the people of Capernaum, who in their reaction to Jesus
modeled any Judean town. To Mark's readers (in Rome, Alexandria?) this
would be the normal meaning of 'autoon'.

> Third, there are so many unexplained allusions to and suppositions from a
> Jewish background in the gospel of Mark, that I can hardly imagine how
> gentile Christians could understand large parts of the gospel 
(e.g., the
> prologue) 

Agreed.

>...christian "proselytes" or so).
A basic question here is whether Mark knew Paul's letters and was
influenced by them or not. If so, Paul would not have called the Gentile
members of the ecclesia "proselytes". Their baptism would signify their
incorporation into the ecclesia, and thus in the local christian-Judean
community.

>  Fourth, I don t see where problems which are specific for gentile
> Christians (as e.g. social relations to the gentile environment) are
> treated. 

Mark seems to be much aware of the Roman presence in the Judaea province
at the time of Jesus. So the Latin term Legio, who symbolized Roman
occupation forces and surely the centurion's confession  near the cross. 

? Is there any other evidence for gentile Christian readers
> in the Gospel of Mark? 

a. The strange role of Andrew as 'brother' of Simon might be explored.
Andrew was called at the same time as Simon and the sons of Zebedee,
thus forming a foursome (in Judean numerology the number 4 may stand for
the nations (viz. the 4 main direction of the compass: N - E - S - W). 
But Andrew plays no role in the gospel accept hearing Jesus' words on
the future (13,3). Andreas is a typically Greek name just as Sjemon is
Hebrew. They appear to be "spiritual" brothers in a Pauline sense. So
the 'house' in Capernaum (1,29 - Andrew is there) stands model for the
ecclesia of Mark. 
b. The feeding of the 4000 (after the feeding of the 5000) as Nineham
already explained in his commentary represents the teaching of Torah to
the Gentiles followed by incomprehension of the disciples (8,21). 

> If so, how could these readers understand the
> allusions and hidden quotes from Scripture and other Jewish literature? 

I think, because the local presbyter would be the interpreter for the
members of the ecclesia, both Judean and Gentile.  

I am looking forward to your reactions. As I said, your questions are
difficult to answer and every answer can be no more than a hypothesis.
cordially 
Karel Hanhart