No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark
... 75 Curiosamente, el propio Josefo señala en esta ocasión que en las multitudes suelen producirse abusos: τινὲς δὲ καὶ λοιδορίᾳ χρώμενοι ὕβριζον εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα, οἷα δὴ φιλεῖ πράσσειν ὅμιλος (AJ XVIII, 60). 76 Como se ha señalado acertadamente, "his presentation of the violence as one-sided may reflect his desire to present the Jews as generally peaceable" (Marcus 2009(Marcus , 1030 con caballería e infantería fuertemente armada; ahora bien, Josefo afirma que los samaritanos se habían presentado armados. 79 Por otra parte, conviene observar que los escasos incidentes sobre Judea mencionados por Josefo para la época de Pilato tienen lugar en un contexto jerosolimitano, donde las autoridades judías desempeñaron una función de control del descontento. ...
... eisler 1929Reimarus, cf. eisler -1930Brandon 1967;MaccoBy 1973;Montserrat 2007;Piñero 2010;BerMejo 2013;Id. 2013a;Id. ...
Existen valoraciones llamativamente discrepantes sobre la situacion politica de Judea bajo la egida de los prefectos romanos (6-41 e.c.). Segun una opinion, este habria sido un periodo de persistente agitacion revolucionaria; segun otra –mas extendida–, habria sido tranquilo, de acuerdo a la aseveracion de Tacito sub Tiberio quies . El presente articulo examina de nuevo criticamente las principales fuentes disponibles –en particular, la obra de Flavio Josefo, los evangelios canonicos y Tacito– con el objeto de ofrecer una reconstruccion historica mas fiable. El examen arroja resultados que ponen en cuestion nociones extendidas e insuficientemente matizadas acerca del periodo referido. A su vez, esto permite reflexionar sobre los factores extra-epistemicos que pueden contribuir a explicar la genesis de tales nociones.
... Much more focused on the actions and praxis of Jesus, we witness the embodiment of this teaching to love one's enemies in Mark's Gospel, too. Considered by many to be the first Gospel written, I find myself in resonance with scholars such as Ched Myers ([1988] 2008) and Joel Marcus (1992), who contend that Mark was likely written sometime during the Jewish Revolt (66-70) for an audience in either northern Palestine or Syria. Like the Matthean audience, the Markan audience would have been familiar with communal trauma, especially during a time such as the Jewish Revolt. ...
The COVID-19 pandemic proved challenging and traumatic for many, with its effects still being felt four years later. This article contends that the witness of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian communities can serve as guides for navigating post-pandemic life. This article will do so by examining the historical context of first-century Jewish Palestine with attention given to the Roman Empire’s brutality and traumatizing impact. It will then provide an analysis of the Matthean Jesus’ call to love one’s enemies and the Markan Jesus’ emphasis on bearing the cross as constructive responses to the trauma Matthew and Mark’s communities went through. Lastly, it will show how Jesus and the early Christian communities reveal that pain and trauma can be healthily transcended for better ways and behaviors. Thus, what has happened to us, however painful, can bear the seeds of a healthy purpose and meaning that can lead to us and our world becoming more humanized. The research methodology in this article is interdisciplinary, employing biblical theological, historical, and psychological methodologies.
... Theissen situates the discussion in the region of Syria. On the other hand, Joel Marcus (1992), in his paper entitled The Jewish War, situates the discussion in the Decapolis (Theissen 1991;Marcus 1992, pp. 441-62;Roskam 2004, pp. ...
The analysis delves into the conflict inherent within the thematic discourse surrounding the two tables as portrayed in Mark’s Gospel, with particular emphasis on the section concerning the multiplication of loaves of bread (Mk 6–8). Noteworthy is the conflict arising from the juxtaposition of Jewish and pagan individuals at a shared table. This theological tension finds resonance in the narratives presented by Paul in Galatians and Romans, albeit Galatians 2:9 intimates a seemingly facile resolution, a departure from the intricate portrayal in Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s narrative accentuates two salient dimensions: firstly, the ethnic substrate of the conflict, and secondly, its contextual specificity within the historical milieu of Syria after the Jewish war. The ethnic genesis of this conflict, as delineated in the accounts of Flavius Josephus, furnishes a background essential for comprehending the dual incidents of bread multiplication: the initial instance catering exclusively to Jews and the subsequent occurrence inclusive of both Jews and other disparate ethnic groups “from afar” (Mk 8:3). The spatial symbolism in the section pertaining to the multiplication of loaves may symbolically represent the heterogeneous composition of the recipients, thereby exacerbating the challenges inherent in reconciling conflicts rooted in ethnic diversity.
This study proposes a new reading of Jesus’ confrontations with the elemental and the demonic on the sea of Galilee – the stilling of the storm (Mk 4.35–41), the Gerasene demoniac (5.1–20) and Jesus walking on water (6.45–52) – in light of literary and material records associating hydromachy (battles against sea and river gods) with the conquest of land. Taken together these episodes reveal a Galilean Messiah who by subduing demonic waters is able to go on and conquer territory long held to be part of Israel, thereby fulfilling well-documented hopes for the restoration of the land and becoming the Jewish (as opposed to Roman) ‘lord of land and sea’.
Mark 13:24–27 is often interpreted as a prediction of the parousia at the consummation of history. In this article the author proposes that these verses, derived entirely from OT texts, metaphorically refer to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The first part of the article provides the narrative context by focusing on the genre and structure of Mark 13 along with the chapter's narrative proximity to Jesus' criticism of the Temple hierarchy in chapters 11–12. The second part of the article explores the function of cosmic portents, the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering of the elect as they appear in the OT and subsequent exegetical traditions. The temporal function of this language provides an important precedent for its function in Mark.
While the verb forgive/let go/leave (ἀφίημι) is frequently used in the Gospel of Mark, it is never translated as "forgive" in its context, except Mark 11: 25. The two times "you forgive….Father forgive" is exceptional in the Marken narrative. By applying narrative criticism and audience criticism, mainly Gentile readers, this paper will argue that the purpose of the temple action narrative is to differentiate the Christ-follower community from the Jewish community. Mark introduced a temple-replacement theology to the first readers in the post-70 era. Instead of strictly observing the Torah, Mark posed three apparent contradictory elements in the narrative (11:11, 13, 16) to hint at the readers' curiosity and attention. Jesus' discipleship teachings in vv.20-25 pointed out the relevance of Jesus' evaluation of the Jewish temple to the Gentile readers. As the antithesis of corporate cultic practice for receiving forgiveness of God/gods through making sacrifices, Christ-followers practice equal-for-all gospel (11:17) and forgiveness to offenders (11:25) to receive God's forgiveness. The social identity approach on collective behaviour may be utilised to delineate the relevance of Jesus' command to forgiveness and identity formation of Christ-followers. Jesus' forgiveness command in 11:25 refers to collective prayers and collective forgiveness against those who persecute the Christ-followers. The meanings are different from other Gospels. Temple action narrative in Mark and the following forgiveness command generate order and purpose for Christ-followers. 11:25 forms the climax of Mark's three apparent contradictory elements in the narrative (11:11, 13, 16). The temple action narrative is NOT a judgment call against unjust oppression per se; it is primarily a call from the founder Jesus for a social identity formation of an embracing and forgiving community.
How do we know what we know about the origins of the Christian religion? Neither its founder, nor the Apostles, nor Paul left any written accounts of their movement. The witnesses' testimonies were transmitted via successive generations of copyists and historians, with the oldest surviving fragments dating to the second and third centuries - that is, to well after Jesus' death. In this innovative and important book, Markus Vinzent interrogates standard interpretations of Christian origins handed down over the centuries. He scrutinizes - in reverse order - the earliest recorded sources from the sixth to the second century, showing how the works of Greek and Latin writers reveal a good deal more about their own times and preoccupations than they do about early Christianity. In so doing, the author boldly challenges understandings of one of the most momentous social and religious movements in history, as well as its reception over time and place.
This article analyzes Mark 14:51–52 and 16:5–7, in which a young man (νεανίσκος) appears who is only mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, through a socio-rhetorical approach, and argues that the texts are self-descriptions of the Markan community. Mark 14:51a represents the ideal past of the Markan community when a young man wears a blanket around his bare body and follows Jesus. Mark 14:51b–52 represents the present appearance of the Markan community in crisis when the young man abandons the blanket and flees from Jesus. Moreover, Mark 16:5–7 represents the hopeful future of the Markan community when the young man wears white and commands the women from the right of the place where Jesus lay.
Mark 13:24–27 is often interpreted as a prediction of the parousia at the consummation of history. In this article the author proposes that these verses, derived entirely from OT texts, metaphorically refer to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The first part of the article provides the narrative context by focusing on the genre and structure of Mark 13 along with the chapter's narrative proximity to Jesus' criticism of the Temple hierarchy in chapters 11–12. The second part of the article explores the function of cosmic portents, the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering of the elect as they appear in the OT and subsequent exegetical traditions. The temporal function of this language provides an important precedent for its function in Mark.
El artículo vuelve sobre los temas del silencio mesiánico y las tensiones relacionales de Jesús en el evangelio según Marcos, tratando de indagar las razones teológicas, contextuales y literarias de aquellos. Además de retomar y ampliar las propuestas explicativas sobre la incomprensión discipular, se quiere valorar el ho-rizonte de lectura propuesto por Elsa Tamez, desde la hermenéutica latinoameri-cana, que busca entender tales motivos a la luz de las vivencias suscitadas por el conflicto en Colombia. A partir de esta comprensión brindada por el contexto actual, como respuesta dialogal al arco interpretativo, se plantean algunos desafíos suge-ridos desde el relato marcano a la realidad colombiana.
Glavni je cilj ovoga rada usporediti što se o farizejima može doznati iz izvanbiblijskih izvora, s onime što se može doznati iz naracije u Mk 1,21-3,35, s ciljem da se postavi povijesni temelj za Markov izvještaj. Prvi dio prikazuje povijesno dostupnu građu sa zaključkom da je ambivalentna, dok se u drugom dijelu prikazuje razvoj konflikta između Isusa i farizeja, koji na kraju osvjetljuje povijesne činjenice prema zaključku da je Markov opis farizeja povijesno plauzibilan te time Markovo evanđelje može doprinijeti povijesnoj diskusiji o farizejima. Rad je stoga podijeljen na dva glavna dijela. Prvi, povijesni dio, bavi se pokušajem rekonstrukcije odnosa Isusa i farizeja na temelju povijesti, a drugi, egzegetski, na temelju naracijske kritike razgrađuje povijest i kerigmu.
The main purpose of this paper is to compare the facts about the Pharisees that we learn from extra-biblical sources against the facts we learn from the narrative in Mk. 1:21-3:35, with the purpose of setting a historical foundation for Mark’s account. In the first section we show the available historical accounts and we conclude it to be ambivalent, while in the second section we portray the developing conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, which in turn sheds light on historical facts in line with the conclusion that Mark’s description of the Pharisees is historically plausible, because of this Mark’s Gospel can be used for its contribution to the historical discussion about the Pharisees. The paper is divided into two sections. The first, historical, section deals with the attempt to reconstruct the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees based on historical data, and the second, exegetic section, uses narrative criticism to develop the history and the kerygma.
The reign of Constantine was momentous for Christianity. Before it, and indeed during Constantine's first years, Christians continued to suffer persecution; after it, all but one emperor followed Constantine's example in supporting Christianity. The term the 'peace of the church', used by Christians to denote the ending of persecution, is something of a misnomer in light of the violent quarrels which followed during the rest of the fourth century and after. The years 305-12 CE saw the breakdown of the tetrarchic system established by Diocletian under the pressure of individual ambition, of which Constantine was by nomeans innocent. Constantine is remembered for his alleged vision of a cross in the sky immediately before he went into battle against Maxentius. This version depends on the later and highly embellished story in Eusebius's De vita Constantini, which he claims came from the emperor himself. © Cambridge University Press 2006 and Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Jesus and his first disciples were Jews, and for several centuries after his death Christians of Jewish origin were a significant presence both inside and outside of the land of his birth. The history of Jewish Christianity in the first few Christian centuries begin with Jesus brother James, the leader of the Torah observant, the predominant faction in the Jerusalem 'mother church' until its dispersal in the Jewish revolt of 66-73 CE, and perhaps even afterwards. James continues to be a model of Torah piety in the second-third century Jewish Christian sources embedded in the fourth-century Pseudo-Clementine literature. James and Peter were important figureheads, but they themselves were only the tip of a huge Jewish Christian iceberg that is mostly invisible to us because of the eventual triumph of Gentile Christianity. Paul himself, in his battle against it, provides compelling evidence of its power, for example in his letter to the Galatian Christians. © Cambridge University Press 2006 and Cambridge University Press, 2008.
The contrast between 'Jew' and 'Greek' can denote the linguistic divide between the Hebrew and Greek tongues, with 'Greek' also serving as a metonymy for the entire cultural and cultic difference between those whose world-view is circumscribed by the polytheistic pantheon of Greek religion and literature. The earliest and most important sources for Gentile Christianity are the seven authentic letters written by Paul c. 50-60 to assemblies of Christians. In recounting the geographical spread of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles, follow the terms of Roman provincial organisation and urban place names which Paul himself chose to employ in his letters. From Macedonia Paul and co-workers Timothy and Silvanus moved into mainland Greece. Early catholicism is sometimes used to refer to the developments in Gentile, particularly Pauline, Christian communities in the third generation, as they are known to everyone in the Pastoral Epistles, the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the Acts of the Apostles. © Cambridge University Press 2006 and Cambridge University Press, 2008.
In his expository remarks on 1 Pet 5:13, Clement of Alexandria portrays Mark as the preserver of the apostle Peter's gospel proclamation to those who not only dwell in Rome, but also belong to the Roman elite. In this regard, Clement's testimony coincides with the near unanimous voice of the Church Fathers, who locate the composition of the Gospel of Mark in the city of Rome (e.g., Irenaeus Haer . 3.1.1; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.15.2).
Dieser Text ist ein Beitrag zu einem interdisziplinären Kolloquium am 17. und 18. November 2000 in Münster, das unter dem Titel »Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. Geschehen, Wahrnehmung, Bewältigung« stattfand. Er fragt danach, wie die die zeitgenössischen Christen die Zerstörung des Jerusalemer Tempels 70 n. Chr. verarbeitet haben, und liest dazu das Markusevangelium als Dokument dieser Krisenerfahrung. Der Text geht (1) kurz auf die wichtigsten Beiträge zu dieser Thematik ein und erörtert, (2) wie man sich die Situation der christlichen Gemeinden im Jüdischen Krieg vorstellen kann. Anschließend (3) werden die Indizien überprüft, die dafür sprechen, das Markusevangelium in die Zeit um 70 n. Chr. zu datieren. Die Interpretation des Textes befasst sich zuerst (4) mit der Tempelthematik im Markusevangelium. Der Text schließt (5) mit einer Erörterung der Frage, welche Funktion die Form des Evangeliums als Erzählung im Angesicht der zeitgeschichtlichen Krise hat.
Mark 4:35–41 provides an interpretive lens for Jesus as Teacher in the earliest Gospel. It is a lens of inclusive politics. Jesus teaches the Reign of God by how he lives his ministry. That teaching focuses on breaking down the boundaries that separate humans from each other.
A few years ago I visited Nicaragua as part of a program sponsored by my university. We traveled by bus to the coffee country outside of Matagalpa and met with members of the Union of Organized Women of Yasica Sur, in a community center the women had built in a hollow beside the road. The president of the group described how thirty years ago, she and a small group of women organized to improve the supply of drinking water for their children. Over time, the women moved from providing water to providing schools and bridges, and then affordable medical care and medicines. The organization now has about one thousand members and is one of the most effective in the region. Yet the needs are still great.
Many of the women had walked for over an hour in their best clothes to visit with us. As we listened to them, I heard also my aunts and grandmothers, who did not look so very different from these women, who were just as smart, determined and hard-working, and whose lives were not so very different, except their crop was not coffee: it was sugarcane and pineapple. The sense of connection was shortlived, however. There was a question-and-answer period, and the president asked us what we did at home. One of my colleagues shared she was an environmental engineer, who specialized in lakes. The president smiled and said, “We could use you here.” Then I told her I taught international law. The president listened for the translation, regarded me and said, “I am not educated. Your work is too high for me.” So much for my solidarity with the Union of Organized Women of Yasica Sur.
Broad references to ‘suffering’ in early Christian literature can give the false impression that all early Christians conceived of suffering in the same way, and that depictions of suffering in early Christian texts all function similarly. And yet, close attention to specific texts reveals the opposite: early Christian authors depict suffering differently, and the rhetoric of suffering functions in diverse ways in individual texts. My thesis is as follows: The two motifs that have long taken pride of place in Markan scholarship – Jesus’ suffering and the disciples’ repeated incomprehension (the so-called ‘misunderstanding motif’) – are in fact two sides of the same coin. In Mark, being misunderstood is a form of social ostracism, and thus contributes to the suffering that Jesus must endure.
Three times within Matt 5, 17-20 passage Matthew uses the verb signaling its importance. Consequently, I will focus on two historical events around which these words cluster; the Antiochan persecution and the destruction of the Temple, Since Jewish literature characterizes the Hellenizers of the Maccabean period as law abolishcrs, labeling a group as such implicated it in endangering the nation. As Josephus' Jewish War demonstrates, after the Jewish Revolt, law abolishers were blamed fur the Temple's destruction. Thus, Matthew addresses the charge that Jesus abolished the law and, in so doing, brought about the destruction of the Temple.
Rome or Syria? This article addresses the issue of the provenance of Mark's Gospel by exploring affinities between the second Gospel and Jewish sectarian groups of the first centuries
bce
and
ce
. It is argued that Mark displays certain sectarian tendencies, and that these tendencies, most notably seen in the Gospel's negative evaluation of the Jerusalem temple and its priestly overseers, strongly suggest that the Gospel was written in close geographical proximity to Jerusalem and its temple. Accordingly, an area in the Syrian Decapolis is a much more likely place of origin for Mark's Gospel than that of Rome.
In this article I propose an interpretation of the Marcan fig tree episode (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25) in its final form that draws on a vegetable metaphor widely known in Antiquity, and highlights the connection between the episode and the temple scene (Mark 11:15-19) that divides it. This interpretation addresses the problem posed by the narrator's commentary in verse 13d and makes of it a key element to understand the Marcan Jesus' attitude towards the temple. With the aid of James C. Scott's work on resistance discourse of subordinated groups, I show that this text, together with the other Marcan references to the temple's destruction, belong to one type of Scott's resistance discourse, and deduce some implications for the social setting of the Gospel of Mark.
Mark 13 predicts that certain events will occur literally within the generation of Jesus' contemporaries, and today's reader recognizes that some of these events have not taken place. The reader therefore appropriates the text as a false configuration of the world because it describes the world differently from how it is. However, the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur enables a reader to appropriate the text as a presentation of truth. His argument for textual autonomy supports the contention that a text's meaning is not limited to what the author intended and the original readers perceived. In new reading contexts, the meaning that comes from the text itself creates an evocative dialectic between the reader's lived world and the world description of the text. Although Mark 13 was originally understood literally, today's audience is able to read it as metaphor. Metaphor is not a rhetorically attractive literary trope; it is a transgression of language codes and categories. Through its association of previously unrelated concepts, metaphor creates new, multiple meanings and changes the linguistic structures within which it operates. Metaphor is able to present truth, not as a verifiable presentation of the world as it is perceived by the reader, but as a manifestation of the world in a new way. The reader recognizes this truth only as she is willing to engage with the text without imposing her preconceptions upon it. Mark 13, as it is read by today's reader, functions as metaphor because of the double dissonance first between the configured world of the text and the lived world of the reader and second between claim that Jesus is able to predict when the events will take place (v. 30) and the assertion that he is not able to do so (v. 32). One option for today's reader to appropriate the metaphor of Mark 13 as truth is a perception of the presence in the world of forces that challenge and subvert powers which appear to be dominant, and which deceive, destroy, and persecute.
The realm of Judea went through profound changes between the end of the 2nd century B.C and the year 70 A.D. Facing the Hellenistic and Roman powers, Jewish society was going to keep its identity while losing its lighthouse : the Temple. From 66 A.D., the war against Rome revealed political, social and religious tensions. There were different Judaisms, not only one. More and more arrogant, sacerdotal aristocracy tried to maintain its influence at any price. A part of the population challenged the structure of society. These rebels, so much criticized by Flavius Josephus, were often to fight to defend an ideal combining a form of patriotism to Judaism.
This article investigates the concepts of eschatology and kingdom in Mark from a narratological point of view. Special attention is given to the narrator's use of story time and plotted time, the narrative function of Mark 13, and the Son of man sayings in the Gospel. The two most important conclusions reached are that Mark uses the Son of man sayings in a non titular way, and that the coming of the son of man (parousia) refers to Jesus' vindication by God at his resurrection. In Mark the kingdom is equated with Jesus' new household, a household that replaces the temple. The concepts of kingdom (new household), eschatology and son of man are thus so closely linked in Mark's narrative that eschatology is the kingdom and the kingdom is eschatology. A possible sociohistorical setting for Mark's community, in which the above understanding of the concepts of kingdom, eschatology and Son of man sayings would have made sense, is also postulated.
The following paper asks about the systematic and biblical development of the concept of conversion in order to do an analysis of the particular theological treatment in the Gospel of Mark. It is found that conversion in this gospel, though announced, is not explicitly narrated as an action performed during Jesus' public teaching, but is prefigured as an eventuality from the meeting with the crucified-resurrected; such meeting, since it produces a whole transformation in the person through grace, constitutes a necessary condition of an authentic following of Christ, which fits in with the lonerganian concept of religious conversion.
There have been many attempts to characterize the Marcan audience in recent years, though most of these have concentrated on various ethnic, geographical, or religious aspects of the group's identity. By contrast, the interest here is in understanding the social location of those for whom Mark wrote. Assuming recent work which places Mark in rural Syria-Palestine, the article first addresses the crucial issues of social stratification and literacy in the rural areas. It then seeks to locate the characters in Mark's story on a social map using a model drawn from macro-sociological studies of agrarian societies. Finally, it suggests ways in which the readers/hearers would see in the drama being played out by the characters in Mark's story a mirror of their own lives. The conclusion is that Mark's story had a special plausibility for peasants, the degraded, the unclean, and expendables.
Early Christian writings provide little information about the Jesus movement in Galilee, but the study of the pre-Synoptic-, and especially the pre-Markan collections, can shed some light on this important period of the beginnings of Christianity. This essay starts by reconstructing the pre-Markan collection of Galilean controversies (Mk 2:1-3:6) and argues that its composition could have taken place in Galilee. These controversies reflect a process of construction of group identity whose main traits can be identified with the aid of social identity and cultural memory studies. This process can also be placed in the historical context of the emergence of sectarian groups within Second Temple Judaism. The contention of this enquiry is that the pre-Markan collection of the Galilean controversies can provide valuable information about the first disciples of Jesus in Galilee.
Eschatology and kingdom in Mark
This article investigates the concepts of eschatology and kingdom in Mark from a narratological point of view. Special attention is given to the narrator’s use of story time and plotted time, the narrative function of Mark 13, and the Son of man sayings in the Gospel. The two most important conclusions reached are that Mark uses the Son of man sayings in a non titular way, and that the coming of the son of man (parousia) refers to Jesus’ vindication by God at his resurrection. In Mark the kingdom is equated with Jesus’ new household, a household that replaces the temple. The concepts of kingdom (new household), eschatology and son of man are thus so closely linked in Mark’s narrative that eschatology is the kingdom and the kingdom is eschatology. A possible sociohistorical setting for Mark’s community, in which the above understanding of the concepts of kingdom, eschatology and Son of man sayings would have made sense, is also postulated.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.