Kata Markon

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

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> Kata Markon Digest for Friday, May 05, 2000.
>
> Subject: pre or post 70? Jewish or mixed audience?

Dear Eszter Andorka,

    Thank you for your helpful comments re. my book, in particular your 
remarks
concerning cryptic speech. Could you tell me a bit more of your study on the
suibject? In my attempt to recover the religious/political context in which 
Mark
wrote his 'Good News' and in which his intended readers or hearers received 
it,
the need for cryptic speech became more and more evident. In earlier
contributions to GMark Digest I already referred to e.g. the Hungarian, 
Polish,
Czecholoslavakian people who were forced to adopt cryptic speech living under
the  dictature of  the omnipresent hostile forces that occupied their country.
The secret police certainly was not invented in the 20th century; a similar
organization was active in antiquity.
    In apocalyptictic literature cryptic references to hostile 'powers that 
be'
is obvous, particularly so in the vision of the bar nash in Dan 7, written in
the time of the oppression  under Antiochus Epiphanes. The vision plays an
importanmt role in Mark, of course. Incidentally, distinction must be made
between cryptic subversive speech as used in apocalyptic literature and 
midrash
used by the early christians,although in Mark the two are at times combined.
   I would respond to your remarks, as follows:
1.  I  believe Marks's audience was a mixed one, consisting of Judeans and
Gentiles; hence not "exclusively Jewish" as you interpreted my essay.
    The reason I call Mark's Gospel a Judean Gospel  is because its subject
matter is thoroughly Judean. I would repeat  my reason for adopting the term
'Judean'  for the genre Gospel and 'Christian Judean' for the recipients of
Mark.
It was chosen because our knowledge of the early christians is extremely vague
and limited. When we write the words Jews and Jewish, a modern person has 
quite
definite ideas of whom and about what he is writing. These 'definite' ideas
developed in the past 2000 years and are highly colored by the christian
tradition and by the upheavals of the 20th century in our days. No one will 
deny
that whatever a theologian writes about the ancient Gospel, it will also have 
an
effect on the relation of present day Christians and Jews. In order to 
approach
the Gospel story as objectively as possible, I chose the term Judean (Gr
Ioudaios). For we know even less about the Jewish people of the first century
than the average citizen somewhere in the Roman Empire when he was referring 
to
the rebellion of the Judeans (toon Ioudaioon). It is an admission that we read
this Judean story in a Greek 'translation', so to speak, and we read it with 
the
eyes of  outsiders, in other words of Gentiles.  So 'Judean' reflects the 
rather
limited knowledge the exegete professes to have; not only because he lives 20
centuries later but also because he is a foreigner. In short, one wants to 
avoid
- in so far that is possible - to read the Gospel through the eyes of a
(christian) theologian.
    The subject matter is the story of a Judean prophet-like person, named
Jeshu'a, after the great Joshua of Scripture, The time is the all important
festive season of Passover. The circumstances are the  memory of historic 
events
in the Roman province of Judaea, like his crucifixion in Jerusalem in ± 33; 
the
destruction of the temple in 70 and the flight of many Judeans to Judean 
centres
in the diaspora. Mark too became an exile. While the members of his ecclesia
(Rome, Alexandria?), - being 'insiders' - spoke their mother tongue at home 
and
sang the Psalms in Hebrew they also conversed in Greek, the language spoken by
outsiders. Moreover, in their ecclesia's a number of sympathizers, God fearers
and baptized members were of non-Judean origin. In Mark's view they  had 
become
through baptism  part of the people of God, the ecclesia. In other words, Mark
had accepted Paul's views on ecclesiology and  purposefully included the 
Gentile
co-readers and co-hearers in their assembly.
    I met a number of your countrymen, who fled to Canada after the Hungarian
uprising against the Sovjets. They spoke Hungarian, many also spoke some
English, German, even Russian. They had 'Canadian' friends; they attended
Canadian gatherings and in the end their children married Canadians. So in the
Hungarian Presbyterian Church also non-Hungarians participated in worship and
needed to be addressed in English. Such is the near universal situation of
migrants in antiquity as well as in modern times. Again we know very little of
an ecclesia like that in Corinth - but in this respect Mark's readers were 
more
like these Hungarian Presbyterian congregations than the congregations of
Westminster Cathedral in London or the Notre Dame of Paris or the Eastern
Orthodox cathedral in Belgrado. In fact, to outsiders (like us) they must have
resembled most a diaspora synagoge of the first century.
    The above remarks may answer your objections re. Gentile presence in Mark.
In fact, I agree Mark is addressing the situation of Gentile converts. It is 
the
reason why I  call Andrew the 'spiritual' brother of Simon. Mark is not 
writing
a biography but a hagada. His readers, who had never heard of an apostle named
Andrew before, recognizded immediately the play on words. Sjemon is Hebrew and
Andreas is a Greek name, par excellence. So Andrew can only play a role in the
great calling "to fish for people" in a setting near the "thalassa" (with its
double meaning of Lake Kinnereth and Mediterranean Sea)  and he may be present
in the prophecy of the future in chapter 13. But he cannot be with Peter on 
the
mount of Transfiguration. Mark wants to reflect that the mission to Gentiles
came later.
    Incidentally, why do you think that 2,18; 12,18; 12,42 and 15,42  refer to
Gentiles? I agree with you, that 'time' is indicated in Hellenistic terms in
6,48;   that is self evident. Mark is writing in Greek! But he also tries to
render temporal expressions re. the Judean  festivals such as in  15,42 and
16,2  in the Greek language assuming an audience that knows the Hebrew
equivalent well. You are right, of course, that 10,11f does not meet Judean
circumstances re. marriage and divorce. However, in the diaspora situation of
his audience, this Markan transposition from a Judean Sitz im Leben to 
marriage
laws prevailing in Rome is quite understandable. All in all,  I agree with you
that there was a Gentile presence in  Mark's audience.
    I wonder if your proposal to designate the early christians as 
'Israelites'
would meet with Jewish approval, as you suggest. Indeed. the term is used
especially by Luke,. But it is a title used by Judeans adressing other 
Judeans.
Paul too calls himself an Israelite' (Rm 11,1). The term  is in other words 
not
'objective' , but 'subjective', used among themselves as insiders.  The 
exegete
iis in a different situation. We must try to bridge the gap between the
knowledge of 20th century Gentiles and the inside knowledge of first century
Judeans.The term Israelite, moreover, has another disadvantage. In Jewish
history the term Israel can also be associated with the Northern Kingdom
overgainst the Southern Kingdom in Tenach.
    With reference to your helpful distinctions in cryptic speech, I would 
think
that Mark used all three types.  The healing of the lame man in 2,1ff  would
respond to your 'parallel speech'. The vision of Daniel 7 is, I think, of the
third kind, what you call 'real double speech'. The situation of its author
meets in my opinion your description very well,
    " But in a real dictature the surface text is needed. Nobody dares to
publish a mysterious text, which obviouslycontains           hidden
message.Remember how hostile was the Stalinism to abstract arts. They found it
dangerous because of the possible hidden meanings. The dictature always 
suspects
rebellion. The best stategy is to distract its attention by a seemingly 
innocent
surface story".
   I donot recognize myself, however,  in your assesment of my interpretation.
No, I donot regard the "story of the death of Jesus" as "the surface story". 
It
is his basic story and his rendering of Jesus' death he took from the pre-70
hagada read in the ecclesia during Passover. It is at the very heart of the
Gospel. Paul may have referred to this original passage in Gal 3,1, "It was
before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibiterd as crucified!". But
in his post-70 revision Mark tried to relate this historical basic fact and 
his
beliefs about it to the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. 
So
he altered the depiction and extended it, especuially with the Barabbas 
section
and the rending of the curtain. It now is deliberately a two-layered story.

    Finally, the socalled hostility of Mark against James is an exegetical
construct (of the Tuebinger School?) that I donot share. Where in Mark is 
James
discussed in such a negative way? I will try to answer the question further in
my reply to Ted Weeden.
But thank you in the meantime for your helpful comments.
Karel


>