Latest Posts:
- Another advocate for an early Matthew—New Testament Apologetics, by Robert Clifton Robinson—a mixed review
New Testament Apologetics: Proving the Historical Jesus by Documentary Evidence. By Robert Clifton Robinson. Phoenix, AZ: Teach the Word Publishing, 2024, 592 pages.
This is a massive work and Robinson must be applauded for his efforts to defend the integrity of the NT, both in this book and on-line, where much of the book’s contents have also been posted. My immediate interest was limited to Robinson’s discussion of the dating and circumstances surrounding the publication of the Synoptic Gospels. This is mostly covered in chapter four but is also touched on elsewhere. Some aspects of the manuscript were helpful, yet there were also frustrations.
The Prompt Publication of Gospels
In the Preface and later, I appreciated his forthright assertion that “the men who saw and heard Jesus … immediately recorded the events we find in our modern NT, and they distributed these texts just as Jesus commanded—to “the ends of the earth” (p. xxv). Similarly:
Does anyone really think that Jesus came into the world to die for all sins, perform over 40 miracles that had never been seen on earth before, be crucified in paying for the sins of the world, and raised from the dead, only to call illiterate men who were incapable of recording what they saw? (p. xxv).1
Later, Robinson adds:
In John 9:4, Jesus told the disciples, “We must quickly carry out the tasks assigned to us by the one who sent us.” Jesus did not want these men to delay their witness to the world. Jesus intended that the men who saw and heard Him, would “quickly carry out the task” of telling the world what they had witnessed. They did this by writing on papyrus the things they had seen and heard and sending them out to the Christian churches that already existed in Asia Minor. These churches copied the letters of testimony written by the men who saw Jesus, and they distributed them all over the Roman Empire.
The reason Jesus emphasized the urgency of sending out a written testimony is clear: God wanted the whole world to know that salvation was available to everyone. God had kept His promise to send the world a Savior, and He desired that every person would have a chance to hear what Jesus had done and be saved. Jesus wanted the people who were alive at that time, in every distant land of the world, to also have the opportunity to receive Jesus and obtain salvation. The idea that the Gospels would not be written for decades, or that Jesus did not intend that the Apostles would write a testimony about Him and send it to the world, is preposterous (p. 62–63).
While Robinson’s translation of John 9:4 is unfamiliar, the point is valid, that the apostles were obligated to promptly communicate the Gospel to the world. With regard to the Great Commission, Joel Grassi has similarly argued: “In fact, it is scripturally sound and theologically reasonable to conclude that Matthew was writing Matthew during the events recorded in Matthew and that he published it as soon as possible in obedience to the Great Commission.”2
Later, Robinson aptly picks up this theme again. These are the kinds of arguments that I most appreciated.
The evidence that the Gospels were written immediately after Jesus rose from the dead is found in the text itself where Jesus makes this requirement an imperative. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that these men waited for decades to write their testimony. The only source for this late-date idea comes from liberal scholars, who have an agenda to try and rob the Gospels of their eyewitness testimony.3
How could any scholar know the precise decade when the Gospels were written? Those who guess say later; those who read Jesus’ words see that He said: “What you see, write in a book and send it now…” The two Gr. imperatives “write” (γράφω) and “send” (πέμπω) are peremptory, authoritative aorists. “Do It Now!”
Until it can be proven, by evidence, that the Gospels actually were written late in the first century, I will maintain an early date for their writing. There is no proof they were written late; there is tremendous internal proof within the New Testament that the Gospels were immediately written (p. 86).
Robinson also reasonably argues that Paul needed a written Gospel for his missionary campaigns in order “to prove that the Gospel of Christ was authentic and reliable,” since Paul was not a witness to the events and teaching of Jesus. (p. 69). With Robinson (p. 69), I have also argued that Paul used the Gospels when in the synagogues, examining the Scriptures. Yet, I suggest that Robinson goes too far when claiming that references to the “word of God” in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:13 definitively refer to published Gospels (p. 69), as the phrase often refers to that which has been spoken (e.g., Acts 4:31).
Gospel Publication Dates
Robinson identifies dates for several of the events in Acts—the famine of Acts 11:27–28 is in 46–47 AD, Paul is on trial before Festus in 58–59 AD, the arrival of Paul in Rome per Acts 28:1–16 in 60 AD, etc. (p. 63–66). Based on the ability to date events in Acts, and knowing that the Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, Robinson jumps to the conclusion that Luke was written by 44 AD (p. 66).4 This is evidently on the questionable premise that the author of Acts could not have recorded (or observed?) events related to Paul’s ministry until after Luke was published. At the same time, no driving circumstance for the publication of Luke is offered, given that Matthew and Mark had recently been published. I tend to favor a later date for Luke, after an emergent need necessitated a new Gospel.
A handy timeline is provided which dates the resurrection at 32 AD, Matthew and Mark at 33 to 43 AD, Luke at 44 AD, initial work on Acts at 46 AD, etc. (p. 75). These dates for Matthew and Mark are not far from what I affirm; however, Robinson does not explain how he got to the date for Mark in this chapter, other than assuming that it was before Luke. And then later, when arguing that the Gospel of Mark was not anonymous, a different date is given: “The Gospel of Mark was probably one of the first books written in the New Testament, likely near 55–59 AD” (p. 102). — This sentence is also on Robinson’s website.5I hope that in response to this review, Robinson will update the website to convey the desired date.
A Couple Other Thoughts, as I Jumped Around
In chapter five, Robinson addresses whether the Gospels were anonymous and what this meant to their reliability. I found this observation to be insightful:
John tells us why he didn’t put his name on the Gospel he wrote:
John 7:18 “Those who speak for themselves want glory only for themselves, but a person who seeks to honor the one who sent him speaks truth, not lies.”
John had heard Jesus say this, and it had a profound effect on his decision to not place his name at the beginning of his testimony about Jesus. Only an honest and truthful person writes a testimony about someone and leaves their name off of the documents. … they were seeking to glorify Jesus … The fact that these four Gospels do not specifically indicate the name of the writer, yet they leave us clues to their identity throughout the text, is certain evidence they wrote a truthful narrative with honest intentions (p. 90).
In chapter thirteen, Robinson surveys the writings of the church fathers—Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement, etc. He taps their testimony in support of a couple of his arguments, but fails to address their conflicting testimony, and those statements that potentially go against the early dates. This cherry-picking is a failure that I see in both apologists and critics—and is what led me to propose some novel solutions in A Trustworthy Gospel. Also, Robinson asserts, based on his reading of Papias’ testimony that “Peter dictated the words of Mark’s Gospel” (p. 283). It is unclear how this meaning is extracted from his quote of Papias.
In Summary
In summary, for the material that I surveyed, I appreciated the arguments for the prompt publication of Gospels and the insight into why the Gospel authors might have refrained from identifying themselves. At the same time, there were some arguments that were overstated. I do look forward to one day reading through the many chapters on other apologetic topics.
I always appreciate other voices who are trying to work through the Synoptic problem, while unashamedly expecting the apostles and their team to publish early for the benefit of the growing Christian community. For that reason, I encourage others to read the book, although with a critical eye, recognizing that some arguments warrant further reflection. Robinson’s website also has a wealth of content, including large excerpts from the book.
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
- A Caesarean Provenance for Mark
In A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel, I argued that Matthew was published in Greek within roughly a decade of the resurrection for the benefit of Jewish believers, coincident with the events in Acts 10–11, as Peter and Paul began their outreach to the Gentiles. To reconcile the testimony of Irenaeus with this assertion, I also argued that when Irenaeus discussed the origin of the Gospels in Against Heresies 3.1.1, his reference to Rome should be understood as referring to Rome, the empire. Interestingly, from this perspective, both “Irenaeus and Clement can also be understood as affirming a publication of Mark shortly thereafter, presumably at the request of the converts in Caesarea Maritima.”1
If we read Mark’s Gospel on the premise that it was published shortly after Matthew, with full awareness of the earlier Gospel, then what insights would we gain as we note how the author of Mark has leveraged Matthew’s text in his own composition? I’ve explored a few of these insights in earlier articles.
In this article, we survey several authors who have similarly concluded that Mark was written for the benefit of the Greco-Roman believers in Caesarea Maritima, the Roman provincial stronghold on the Mediterranean coast that Herod the Great developed.
Are my readers aware of any other authors who have claimed that Mark was published in Caesarea Maritima?
Thomas Birks (1852) contends that Mark was written at Caesarea, or for the local Roman converts, during the reign of Claudius around AD 48. Then, transported to the city of Rome within two or three years.2 For more on Birks, see the article from last month.3
J. H. Farmer (1915) suggests that the place of composition may be “Caesarea or Antioch, and the date not earlier than AD 50,” on the assumption that the exodon in Irenaeus refers to the departure of Peter and Paul “from Palestine or Syria [e.g. Antioch], rather than from Rome [the city].”4
Bo Reicke (1986) contends that the final redaction of Mark occurred in Caesarea, during Paul’s imprisonment circa AD 58–60. “Since the Gospel of Mark has a completely Palestinian stamp, there is reason to assume that Peter was still in the holy country when the evangelist wrote down what the apostle told or taught.”5 Reicke sees the “far-reaching harmony in the Gospels of Mark and Luke” as evidence that there were exchanges between the authors during this period.6
E. Earle Ellis (2002) argues that “one location in Palestine best fits four characteristics of Mark: the Gospel’s association with Peter, its Latinisms, its Gentile perspective and its Galilean interests. That place is Caesarea, predominantly Gentile and the Roman capital of the province of Judea.”7 Ellis also speculates that the church in Caesarea was the “other place” (Acts 12:17) to which Peter fled “given Peter’s previous mission there [Acts 10], the protective friendship of the Roman officer, Cornelius, and the large size of the city.”8 Accordingly, “the church at Caesarea would have provided the most accessible refuge after Peter’s deliverance from prison.”9 Ellis speculates that Mark traveled with Peter to Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12) and then on to Rome in AD 53–54 and, while there, “agreed to provide the churches there with a written collection of Gospel episodes. … Returning to Palestine in the mid-fifties, he composed (the first version of) his Gospel, probably AD 55–58 in Caesarea … and in the mid-sixties ‘delivered’ it to churches in Italy.”10 Ellis’ reconstruction has Peter confronting Simon Magus in Rome in c. 53–54.11
My views presently align most closely with those of Birks. While Matthew was published to support the early Jewish believers, Mark was published to support early Greco-Roman believers, at the request of those in Caesarea Maritima. Correspondingly, I suspect that it was written coincident with the events in Acts 12, prior to Mark joining Paul and Barnabas on their trip to Antioch (Acts 12:25), as the Gospel is said to reflect the teachings of Peter.
Again, if any of my readers are aware of any other scholars who have supported a Caesarean provenance, then please let me know!
I should perhaps also acknowledge awareness of various iterative or multi-redaction theories of Markan development, some of which may place the authoring of one of the early versions of Mark (e.g., an Ur-Markus or Proto-Mark) in Caesarea, such as Holdsworth’s theory, which postulates editions of Mark (i.e., Peter’s preaching) being published in Caesarea, Alexandria, and Rome.12 Am less interested in such complex speculations.
Image copyright 2019. bibleplaces.com. Used by permission.
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
- Thomas Birks’ Horæ Evangelicæ on the dates and provenance of the Synoptic Gospels
Thomas Birks’ 1852 book, Horæ Evangelicæ, encourages us to seriously consider much earlier dates for the Gospels than is presently popular. In Birks’ day, liberal German theologians (e.g., David Strauss) were characterizing the Gospels—”not as real histories, but as a collection of early legends that had their origin in ideal conceptions of the Messiah, which gradually assumed a definite form. … [having] a date very considerably removed from the events they profess to record.”1 Speculations were being advanced that the Gospels were composed thirty, sixty, or more years after the crucifixion, and this “mythical theory” allowed for suspicions that “facts and legends” had been “confounded together.”2 Even those theologians rejecting these propositions as a whole were allowing for “errors and inconsistencies in the Gospels.”3 These challenges to the integrity of the Gospels persist even today.
Accordingly, Birks conducted his own assessment of the Synoptic Gospels with regard to their dates, provenance, consistency, structure, design, etc. With respect to dates and provenance, his conclusion was that Matthew “was written only twelve or fourteen years after the ascension.”4 The Gospel of Mark was written, “not at Rome, but at Caesarea, a few years later; and that of St. Luke, still a few years later, or about AD 52, in the neighborhood of Antioch.”5 Birks recognized the apologetic benefit to this approach: “If the reasoning is just, it is needless to remark the strong proof, which is thus afforded to the church, of their apostolic authority.”6 While I would date these Gospels even a few years earlier, I am intrigued by his efforts.
In this article, we will survey several highlights from his text, but with a primary interest in his proposed dates and provenance for the Synoptic Gospels.
PART I. ON THE MUTUAL RELATION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
In the first major part of the book, Birks argues that each Gospel author had access to prior Gospels, that the Gospels were composed in Matthew-Mark-Luke order, that Luke’s chronology is to be preferred, etc. Birks then proceeds to compare and contrast the four Gospels over the course of several chapters. These are important topics, but our immediate interest is more narrow. Nonetheless, this mid-section summary is helpful:
The principle, then, that each later Evangelist knew the writings of his predecessors, will by no means imply, as some have hastily assumed that he would become a mere copyist, even in the parts common to both writers. Each of them was an original authority, possessed of independent information, and
might either use it independently, or combine it with the previous accounts, according to the plan and object of his own work. We may assume, as certain, that each later gospel would have a double purpose; to furnish a new testimony of facts already on record, or to communicate new facts and discourses, and place those in a new light, which had been previously given. The former object would require that many particulars should be the same; and the latter, that many should be different.7PART II. INTRODUCTION. ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS.
The second major part of the book is concerned with establishing the date of Acts and the events therein, followed by assessments of the Gospels. Birks assigns the crucifixion to AD 30, conversion of Paul to AD 37, conversion of Cornelius to AD 41, beginning of the 1st Missionary Journey to AD 45, the Jerusalem council to AD 50, beginning of the 2nd MJ to AD 51, 3rd MJ to AD 54, and so on.8 The “unfinished air” which concludes the narrative in Acts leads Birks to believe that Acts was completed shortly after the final events of the account.9 However, Birks contends that all but the last two chapters were composed during Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea Maritima, “and only the conclusion added at Rome.”10 This Caesarean provenance provided convenient access to those who could provide historical details. In sum, Birks asserts that Acts was published in AD 63.11
Birks then argues that Theophilus, the believing Gentile recipient of Acts (per Acts 1:1), was located in Antioch. This determination will subsequently play into the proposed provenance of the Gospel of Luke. Theophilus was a person of rank who “was not a resident in Palestine and had not even visited Jerusalem.” This is demonstrated by the apparent need to explain that Capernaum was in Galilee per Luke 4:31, the need to explain that Mount Olivet was near Jerusalem per Acts 1:12, etc.12 Yet, Theophilus was expected to have a general “acquaintance with the geography.”13 Nor was he familiar with the activities at the Aeropagus in Athens (Acts 17:21), nor “well acquainted with Macedonia (16:12),” nor with Corinth or Ephesus.14 Ultimately, Birks also dismisses Italy as the possible residence of Theophilus, in favor of somewhere in Syria or Asia Minor, given the interest in local political figures such as Quirinius, references to Greek coins, familiarity with regional place-names (e.g., Cyprus, Antioch, Seleucia, Caesarea), etc.15 Birks settles on Antioch, largely because of the significance of Antioch to Acts and the minimal details offered regarding the city, the church, evangelistic activities, sermons preached there, etc.16 Birks also subsequently proposes that the author, Luke, was also “a native or a resident” of the city.17
Birks attention then turns to the period of time separating the publication of Luke and Acts, on the premise that they were both composed by Luke. Contrary to some scholars, Birks argues that there are indications within these texts that a substantial time had transpired.18 Furthermore, Birks points to the passage which speaks of the ‘brother who is famous in the gospel’ (2 Cor. 7:18) as referring to Luke and his Gospel.19 Next, Birks surveys Luke’s travels with Paul and proposes that, before Luke joined Paul in Troas on the 2nd journey (Acts 16:10-16), Luke had composed his Gospel in Antioch.20 Hence, the Gospel of Luke was composed around AD 51–52.21 Bringing the Gospel with him, Luke joined Paul briefly before settling in the major city of Philippi, as his base for distributing his Gospel “to the churches of Macedonia and Greece.”22
Next, Birks considers the Gospel of Mark. He rejects claims that the Latinisms in Mark imply a Roman provenance, noting the frequency of Latinisms that are also found in the other Gospels.23 Instead, implications that geographic locations were known already [by the audience] and the assumption of “a general acquaintance with the customs of the Jews,” both indicate “that it [the Gospel] was addressed to residents in Palestine.”24
Early church history, as presented in Acts, is naturally divided into three periods, with the initial spread of the gospel among the Jews, the early spread of the gospel among Gentiles (up to the time of the Jerusalem council), and the subsequent rapid spread of the gospel throughout the known world.25 Accordingly, Mark fits well into the second period, serving those such as Cornelius in Caesarea. Notably, on the premise that Mark was “written at Caesarea, or for the Roman converts in that place, [at] about AD 48, it [Mark] would probably be soon carried to Rome.”26 This scenario might explain the tradition that Mark was written in Rome, according to Birks.27
Backing up further, Birks asserts that Matthew was written in the first period of Acts in or near Jerusalem, around AD 42, to serve the needs of Jewish believers.28 According to Birks, this was spurred on by the “conversion of Cornelius and the call of the Gentiles.”29 Birks discounts Irenaeus’ testimony concerning the origins of Matthew, given Irenaeus’ assertion that Mark was published after the death of Peter and Paul.30 [However, many scholars have countered that this “after the death” translation of Irenaeus is not valid.] Birks also dismisses the tradition that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.31 Overall, he offers a number of arguments in support of an early Matthew that are of varying quality. Perhaps most useful are his observations concerning (1) the identification of “several minute allusions in the Gospel” to “local circumstances and incidents of our Lord’s personal ministry”; (2) allusions to individuals with whom readers were expected to be familiar; and (3) the Jewishness of the Gospel, with its “frequent quotations from the prophets.32
PART III. INTRODUCTION. THE HISTORIC REALITY OF THE GOSPELS.
This next portion of Birks treatise is beyond the scope of our immediate interest. However, he does helpfully defend the integrity of the Gospels on the basis of not only “undesigned coincidences”—as had been argued by several contemporaries and more recently by Lydia McGrew—but also on the basis of “reconcileable diversity.”33
PART IV. ON THE IDEALITY OF THE GOSPELS.
This final section explores the nature of the Gospels, as being higher and nobler, and as divine revelation.34
SUMMARY
There is much to appreciate in Birks’ work. I highly recommend it to those who are open to considering early dates. Per Birks, Matthew was published around AD 42 in or near Jerusalem, Mark in AD 48 in or for those in Caesarea Maritima, and Luke in AD 51–52 in Antioch. His arguments are of various quality—some are well-grounded and some are more circumstantial, subjective, and even reversible. On the whole though , he offers a perspective which I affirm as correctly positioning the publication of the Synoptic Gospels in alignment with the phased expansion of the Christian church. That said, I am resolved that Matthew and Mark were published a few years earlier than Birks argues. I am also intrigued by the proposed date and provenance of Luke; yet need to ruminate on such further. Phil Fernandes, in his “Redating the Gospels” (which largely echoes John Wenham) suggests publication dates of AD 35–42 for Matthew, as early as AD 45 for Mark, and AD 45–50 for Luke.35 I believe that these are in the ballpark.
David Alan Black, in his Why Four Gospels? (echoing Bernard Orchard), offers a similar publication paradigm, where Gospels are said to be published coincident with the phased expansion of the church. His treatise is also worthy of consideration; although, Black and Orchard defer Mark to a later “Roman Phase” in the AD 60s.36 This late date and his Matthew-Luke-Mark publication sequence is in deference to Clement of Alexandria’s testimony that the Gospels “containing the genealogies” were published first.37 In contrast, I continue to preference Irenaeus’ testimony on publication order, once we resolve some of his difficult statements, as I have attempted in A Trustworthy Gospel.38
Before we conclude, I want to recommend two additional resources, with which Birks frequently interacts. First is Thomas Townson’s Discourses on the Four Gospels.39 Second is Edward Greswell’s Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of an Harmony of the Gospels. While Birks differed with Greswell in some areas, he found the work to overall be valuable.40
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
- What do Mark’s Aramaic to Greek translations suggest concerning Mark’s original audience?
The Gospel of Mark offers Greek translations for a variety of transliterated Aramaic words. What does this tell us about Mark’s intended audience? Many scholars claim that Mark’s translations demonstrate that his audience was not familiar with Aramaic. However, if we look closely at how both Mark and Matthew handle the particular words involved, particularly if we assume Matthean priority, then I suggest that Mark’s translations actually indicate that Mark’s original audience, though primarily Greek speaking, actually did have a limited familiarity with Aramaic, which suggests that the original audience was located in a region where the language was spoken, such as Caesarea Maritima.
This article (1) begins by surveying various scholars who make the “not familiar with Aramaic” claim, then (2) surveys Mark’s Aramaic translation passages along with the parallel passages in Matthew, and finally, (3) argues that Mark’s original audience was expected to have some familiarity with Aramaic.
PERSPECTIVES ON MARK’S TRANSLATIONS
Here are excerpts from various scholars who make the claim that Mark’s translations demonstrate that his audience was not familiar with Aramaic.
The need to translate Aramaic terms into Greek for his readers, as Mark does on several occasions, also suggests that he wrote in an area where Aramaic was not familiar.1 (France, Mark, NIGTC, 2002, 41)
There can be little doubt that Mark wrote for Gentile readers, and Roman Gentiles in particular. Mark quotes relatively infrequently from the OT, and he explains Jewish customs unfamiliar to his readers … He translates Aramaic and Hebrew phrases by their Greek equivalents. … He also incorporates a number of Latinisms by transliterating familiar Latin expressions into Greek characters.2 … These data indicate that Mark wrote for Greek readers whose primary frame of reference was the Roman Empire, whose native tongue was evidently Latin, and for whom the land and Jewish ethos of Jesus were unfamiliar. Again, Rome looks to be the place in which and for which the Second Gospel was composed.3 (Edwards, Mark, PNTC, 2002, 10)
Mark translates Aramaic words into Greek for his readers … which appears to rule out a Palestinian (or Syrian?) audience.4 (Strauss, Mark, ZECNT, 2014, 34)
Another suggestion, that the gospel was written in Galilee … is at odds with Mark’s lack of geographical knowledge and his explanation of Aramaic terms. All we can say with certainty, therefore, is that the gospel was composed somewhere in the Roman Empire—a conclusion that scarcely narrows the field at all!5 (Hooker, Mark, BNTC, 1991, 7–8)
From within Mark we learn a great deal about the audience for whom it was written. We know it was a Greek-speaking audience that did not know Aramaic, as Mark’s explanations of Aramaic expressions indicate.6 (Stein, Mark, ECNT, 2008, 9)
Similar assertions are made by deSilva,7 Turner,8 Guthrie,9 Taylor,10 etc.
Alan Cole offers several interesting proposals that might support the above assertions, arguing that the Aramaic words were either “vivid Petrine memories” or else “unselfconscious reproduction of words which already were ‘fossilized’ in the Greek tradition as it came to Mark.”11 Alternatively, perhaps Mark “was not at the stage of sophistication where he would have felt it necessary to remove uncouth ‘foreign’ words.”12 As an illustration of fossilized words, Cole notes that certain “Hebrew and Aramaic words or phrases” have continued to be “embedded” in our modern Christian vocabulary, such as hallelujah, amen, and hosanna.13
MARK’S TRANSLATIONS AND THE PARALLEL PASSAGES IN MATTHEW
The Gospel of Mark, written in Greek, includes a variety of transliterated Aramaic words, along with their Greek equivalents, suggesting to many that Mark was written for an audience not intimate with the Aramaic terms.14 However, I suggest that, before one draws conclusions regarding Mark’s implied audience, one should first assess the specific passages alongside their Matthean parallels.
In the following instances where Mark uses an Aramaic word, Matthew has either (1) omitted the Aramaic word while providing the Greek equivalent; (2) omitted the word of interest; (3) or has altogether omitted the event.
- Mark 3:17. Jesus gives to James and John “the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder.” This detail is not included in Matthew 10:2.
- Mark 5:41. Jesus speaks to the girl who has died, “‘Talitha cumi,’ which means, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise’.” Matthew omits these words in his account (Matt 9:25).
- Mark 7:11. Jesus chastises the Pharisees for both their failure to comply with the law and their hypocrisy, in their practice of identifying certain things as “‘Corban‘ (that is, given to God),” such that the possessions can’t then be used to help their parents financially. In contrast, Matthew explains the practice without using the term: “But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, ‘What you would have gained from me is given to God,’ he need not honor his father”” (Matt. 15:5 ESV).
- Mark 7:34. Jesus, as he cures a man’s deafness and speech impediment, says to him “‘Ephphatha,’ that is, ‘Be opened’.” Matthew omits the details of this and other healings (Matt. 15:29–31).
- Mark 10:46. Jesus, as he was leaving Jericho, came upon “Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus” and Jesus cures the blindness. Here, Mark is explaining the meaning of the man’s name. Matthew’s account omits the name (Matt. 20:30).
- Mark 14:36. In the garden of Gethsemane, Mark begins his prayer with, “Abba, Father,” whereas Matthew simply begins with “My Father” (Matt 26:39).
In a few instances, both Gospels offer the same translation. For example, Golgatha is translated as “Place of a Skull” in both Gospels (Mark 15:22; Matt 27:33), perhaps suggesting that this was a local place name that might not be familiar to either audience. Additionally, both Matthew and Mark provide Jesus’ final words on the cross in both transliterated Aramaic and Greek (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34), presumably because of the significance of these final words.
MARK’S ORIGINAL AUDIENCE
What do these Aramaic to Greek translations tell us about Mark’s audience? First, let’s accept the testimony of the church fathers that Mark’s Gospel was written at the request of those who wanted a record of Peter’s preaching (e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Clement per Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.6). Second, let’s accept that certain words and phrases were adopted into the early Christian culture, as suggested by Cole. However, this neither proves nor disproves the assertion that Aramaic was or was not otherwise familiar to Mark’s original audience.
On the popular theory that Mark was the first Gospel, then Alan Cole’s first proposition might be appealing, that Mark was simply retaining the vividness of Peter’s storytelling by including the occasional Aramaic word. And yet, if this reflects Peter’s storytelling in Rome, thirty years after the resurrection as is commonly asserted, then one must wonder whether Peter would still be inserting foreign words into a sermon for an audience unfamiliar with such. Would one speaking to an English-speaking audience randomly insert words in Japanese or Egyptian? Perhaps this proposition, rather than being applicable to the ancients, instead reflects the familiarity and reverence that biblical scholars have for biblical languages.
Or even if Peter did slip in random foreign words, what obligation would Mark have had to retain such? Are we to accept that Mark, the one who had traveled with apostles and had edited together a Gospel-length piece of literature, was unsophisticated, per Cole?
The fossilized word theory is intriguing. However, if Mark was indeed the first Gospel, then why do the other Gospels not echo more of Mark’s Aramaic terms? Further, if there was widespread embrace of fossilized Aramaic words within Christian culture, then why do we not find more examples of such in the rest of the NT? In Paul’s writings, we have Abba (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) and Maranantha (1 Cor. 16:22). Where are the other examples? The bottom-line is that it is hard to accept either Cole’s propositions or the generic claim that the transliterations and translations demonstrate that the audience did not know Aramaic.
If, in contrast, we work on the premise that Matthew was the first Gospel, followed by Mark, then one must then explain why Mark would add the Aramaic words that Matthew had omitted. As I envision Matthew, it was published as Peter and Paul began preaching to those outside of the land of the Jews, coincident with the events of Acts 10–11.15 However, its intended audience had in view “Jews, devout men from every nation,” as had been present at Pentecost (Acts 2:5).
Again, if Matthew was written with only a few significant transliterated Aramaic words, then why would Mark insert more Aramaic? At this point, it appears that the only viable theory is that Mark expected his original audience to have at least some familiarity with the Aramaic words, even though Aramaic was not their primary language. This suggest that the intended audience was composed of Greek-speaking non-Jews, who were located in a region where Aramaic was spoken, such as Caesarea Maritima.
Other suggestions?
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
- Gospel publication assumptions impact the exegesis of the parable of the wicked tenants
In this article, we explore yet another instance where assumptions concerning the publication dates of the Gospels ultimately impact one’s understanding of the Gospels.1 Below, the parable of the wicked tenants is said by several scholars to convey that those who would soon assume oversight of the vineyard, the “others,” would be Gentiles (non-Jews), because Mark was (purportedly) published several decades after the resurrection, at a time when there were more Gentile Christians than Jewish Christians.
In Jesus’ parable of the tenants, the story is told of the owner of a vineyard and wine press who seeks to receive the fruits of the vineyard from tenant farmers who have leased the vineyard. The tenants beat, abuse, and then kill the servants of the owner who are sent to collect what is due. Ultimately, the owner sends his son, whom the tenants kill. Of course, Jesus was referring to himself as the son who would soon be killed. Jesus concludes by asking,
What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Mark 12:9 ESV).
In Mark’s Gospel, the parable comes immediately after (1) Jesus’ clearing of the merchants from the temple grounds, much to the ire of the chief priests and scribes who were plotting how to destroy him (11:15–18); (2) the report of the withering of the fig tree, cursed for being fruitless, which symbolized judgement against the Jewish leaders, or perhaps against the temple, or Israel, more broadly (11:20–21);2 and (3) the challenge brought by the chief priests, scribes, and elders against Jesus’ authority to teach in and otherwise disrupt the temple (11:27–33). Given this escalating conflict, it is not surprising that the Jewish authorities quickly recognized that the parable of the tenants was directed against themselves (Mark 11:12), especially since Jesus was leveraging language in their own Scriptures to condemn them. Per Isaiah:
The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders and princes of his people: “It is you who have devoured the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?” declares the Lord God of hosts. (Isa. 3:13–14).
For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry! (Isa. 5:7)
Jeremiah, employing the imagery of sheep and shepherds, similarly prophesied against the leaders of Israel, while promising that the Lord would someday displace the present evil shepherds in favor of shepherds who would care for the sheep, under the righteous rule of a descendant of David. (Jer. 23:1–6).
Again, it is clear that the parable was directed against the Jewish leaders. But here is where it gets interesting. Who in the parable are the “others” to whom the vineyard would be given, after the evil tenants are removed (Mark 12:9)? This is where we see dating assumptions impact one’s interpretation of the passage.
Since many scholars postulate that Mark was published in the AD 60s, give or take, it is not surprising that they take this into account when assessing what Mark was intending to convey in its reporting of the words of Jesus, and how the original audience of this Gospel would have understood the text.
France: Mark’s readers would have had no difficulty in identifying the ἄλλοι (others) as the church, but Jesus’ words remain uninterpreted to those who heard him in the temple.3
Edwards: By Mark’s day, the “others” were certainly understood to mean Gentiles.4
Hooker: The others to whom the vineyard is to be given ought logically—at least in the setting Mark gives the parable—to be new leaders, since it is said to be directed against the Jewish authorities. But by Mark’s day the new tenants who are taking over the vineyard are Gentiles.5
Stein: Matthew 21:43 refers to the vineyard being ‘taken away and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom,’ which suggests that the new covenant would involve a community whose ethnicity would consist of both Jew and Greek. By the time of the evangelists [Gospel authors], it may very well have come to contain more Gentiles than Jews.6 … The “others,” to whom the vineyard is given (12:9), would have been understood by Mark’s readers to involve not a new group of chief priests, scribes, and elders and not just Jesus and the disciples but also the new Israel of God, the church. … In the “others,” Mark’s readers would almost certainly have seen the church, and its Gentile element in particular.7
But what if we accept that Mark was published in the early to mid 40s, for the benefit of new Greco-Roman believers in Caesarea Maritima (e.g., Cornelius and friends), as I have previously proposed?8 In my A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel, I argue that Irenaeus’ reference to “Rome” should be understood as “Rome, the empire.” Thus:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in a language contrasting with their own, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, the empire, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure to other lands, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also . . . . Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. — Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.19
Accordingly, in this early to mid 40s time-frame the Gentiles would have yet been a small contingent of Jesus-followers, including those in Caesarea Maritima, Antioch, and elsewhere. Thus, Mark’s original audience would have had no reason to presuppose that Jesus was (purportedly) anticipating that vineyard oversight might be given to Gentiles. Rather, the following assessment of the “others” better reflects the situation of Mark’s original audience:
Strauss: The ‘others’ that the vineyard passes to are not the Gentiles alone, but the leadership of the church made up of the restored remnant of Israel and the Gentiles who respond (Luke 2:30–32; 22:30; Acts 15:16–17; Rom 11:1–6, 25).10
In summary, my point in this article is that we must recognize that our assumptions regarding the publication dates of the Gospels implicitly (or explicitly) impact our interpretation of the text. With respect to the Gospels, we appropriately consider not only how Jesus and his immediate audience might have understood his teachings, but also how a Gospel author and their original audience might have understood these teachings.
[Vineyard image is copyright BiblePlaces.com.]
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)