Kata Markon

["Sidney A. Martin II" <smartin AT webzone.net>]

The stimulating discussion of the date and audience of Gmark between Karel Hanhart and Eszter Andorka raises intriguing questions about the meaning of Mark=s Gospel for the original readers. Both agree that the word AJerusalem@ must have had a strong impact right after 70, with the inevitable association with Judaea Capta and Titus= arch of triumph. Karel, who favors a post 70 dating for Gmark, argues that Mark was not free to mention the rebellion and the fall of Jerusalem, and resorted to two track language which would be cryptic to officialdom but which would be immediately recognizable to insiders. The surface story is the death of Jesus, the hidden one is the destruction of the Temple, or the killing of Jesus by the Romans.

Eszter doubts that it is possible to combine a parallel surface story which produces the same response in the uninitiated reader as to the insider, with one which has the opposite effect. Karel views Gmark as a radical revision by Mark of a pre-70 Passover Haggadah in reaction to the traumatic experience of the Fall of Jersualem. Eszter, on the other hand, believes that immediately after the trauma of the war that topic should be more central to the presentation of the Gospel. Moreover, Karel views the Gospel written exclusively for Jews (or Judeans), while Eszter sees signs of a Gentile presence in the intended audience.

Another dimension of this problem has been discussed by Thomas Schmidt in two articles: AMark 15.16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,@ NTS 41 (1995)1, and AJesus= Triumphal March to Crucifixion: the Sacred Way as Roman Procession@, BR 13(1) (Feb. 1997) 30. Schmidt sees Mark=s account of the crucifixion as reflecting a triumphal procession in Rome which ends at the Capitolium, or place of the head, a temple to Jupiter, just as Jesus= procession ends at Golgotha, place of the skull. I came to the same conclusion a number of years ago. 

 I differ from Schmidt primarily in his view that Mark wanted his readers to see Jesus cast in the role of the Triumphator who celebrated his victory by sacrificing to Jupiter at the climax of the procession.  In my view, it is the conquered king who was led in procession and executed as a prelude to celebration of the victory whom Mark would have the reader identify with Jesus, the King of Jews, executed as a rebel against Rome. His purpose was not to reveal Jesus as the Atrue lord@ made manifest but to heighten the humiliation of the man mocked as king and parodied as the son of god by unbelieving bystanders.

This bears directly on the date and provenance of Gmark because the use of Roman imagery strongly suggests that the Gospel was directed to Jews in Rome who could best appreciate the imperial parody. Contrary to Schmidt, who dates Gmark to the sixties, I would argue that Mark was directly addressing the triumphal procession of Vespasian and Titus who celebrated their triumph in 71 and executed Simon bar Giora as the rebel Aking@ of the Jews.

Mark, who may well have witnessed the Flavian triumph, struggled to resolve the paradox of a martyred messiah defeated in death who triumphs only when he rises from the dead. The dreariness of the death scene is unrelieved by any triumph on Jesus= part. The tone of Mark=s gloomy gospel, with its tragic hero who dies an undeserved death at the hands of an Aevil empire@, very well suits what must have been the temper of the Roman Jewish community in the years immediately following the Fall of Jerusalem.

Later writers, dissatisfied with the Markan solution, sought to minimize the implications of the crucifixion and elaborated instead on the resurrection, only starkly suggested in Mark, and its aftermath, which is entirely absent in Mark. As the impact of the destruction receded with the passage of time and the readership of successive Gospels became less Roman and less Jewish, the hidden message of Mark was lost sight of and the surface story revised and refined.

Sid Martin, attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA