Kata Markon

[Stefan L�cking <stefan.luecking AT uni-muenster.de>]

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