Largest Debate on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text in Recorded History?

Rob Marcelo with Friends of CSNTM (Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) said via facebook today: “Tickets are continuing to sell fast, and this is now going to be the largest single debate on the Reliability of the text of the New Testament in recorded history! Make sure to pick up your tickets soon at www.smudebate.com

So there you have it. This should be an interesting and lively debate between Bart D. Erhman of UNC Chapel Hill and Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Though there have been debates similar to this one in this past, from a bit of insider information, there has been an inordinate amount of preparation for this debate on both sides. I think both scholars see this debate as a huge opportunity to bolster support for their agenda on both sides. The debate has garnered so much attention that the ticket sales have forced them to move locations to McFarlin Auditorium at SMU which has a seating capacity of 2,386 people. I’m excited about this and if you are in Dallas, Texas on October 1st and have any interest in New Testament studies, you should be there!

A New Blog on Teaching Koine Greek as a Living Language

I would like to give a warm welcome to one of my long time academic mentors and friends, Dr. Daniel R. Street, who has finally joined the blogging world. The blog, cleverly entitled “καὶ τὰ λοιπά“, meaning “and so on” or “et cetera” (etc), will be dedicated primarily to the teaching of Koine Greek as a living language, although he will be including posts on New Testament studies and cognate fields. Streett’s pedagogical methodology has been incredibly successful in the classroom at Criswell College as seen in the example of first year Greek students who have come out with a vocabulary triple that of a regular first year student at a normal university or seminary. He focuses on a strictly inductive approach focusing on attempting to create an immersive environment that engages the students on multiple levels.

There are many ways Streett attempts to create the immersive environment needed for the success of his method: giving simple commands and having students actively respond (stand, sit, walk around, pick up your book, etc), pointing and describing while students imitate, asking simple questions, describing pictures using Koine, etc. He has worked hard to find pictures that correspond to all the vocabulary learned in the class. Students will get together and have simple conversations only in Koine or write notes to each other either on paper or on Facebook. It is exciting to see this methodology taking off and the possibilities for it’s development and advancement in the near future.

Make sure and stop by the blog “καὶ τὰ λοιπά” and check it out. If you are interested in learning more about learning Greek as a living language or actually participating in or taking a class with Dr. Daniel R. Streett, feel free to email him at danstreett@gmail.com or contact Criswell College about signing up for classes for the following semester.

“The Time Has Been Shortened” Has Officially Joined the Biblioblog Community

It is finally official! “The Time Has Been Shortened” is now a part of the Biblioblog community. Thanks goes out to Steve Caruso and Dan McClellan for their service at Biblioblog headquarters, we appreciate you guys. We look forward to engaging with such a rich and diverse collection of voices in the biblical studies blogging world. We will continue to post on topics of interest (mainly our interest that is) in biblical studies and related literature, book reviews, interaction with other biblical scholarship in general, and the occasional Interview Series. We also look forward to hearing feedback from others on the related issues or interpretations we may bring to the table on this blog. Thank you to the readers who already subscribe and look forward to many more in the future.

Jordan Lead Codices… Certainly Forgeries.

If you still are in question at the authenticity of the Jordan Lead Codices check out my friend Dan McClellan’s blog here. With the aid of other bibliobloggers, he helps expose much of the Elkington’s (those behind the “find”) fervent efforts to suppress the mounting evidence against the authenticity of the codices. It has been demonstrated by metallurgists that “… this is not characteristic of lead that has been buried”, referring to the fact that, and I quote the original transcript, “… it would be expected that the surface crust would be thicker and that there would be greater penetration of the metal leaving, at least, a pitted surface.” This transcript had been tampered with by the Elkingtons, removing this statement. It is time for them to be ignored and for any remaining hype to go away.

My comments on Willits, “Paul and Matthew: A Descriptive Approach”

Before sharing my thoughts on Joel Willitts article, I think I should share some of my thoughts on the “school-of-thought” to which he belongs. First, in many ways I am in agreement with his “assumption” that Paul was a Torah-observant Jew (although, I will state my concerns with this claim later). Second, while I have a certain affinity with this “assumption,” I do realize that it is an “assumption” so when arguments are built on that foundation the results ought to be held cautiously. Third, I cannot stand arguments that negatively critique other “shools-of-thought” for necessitating certain  “shaky” assumptions, yet, then they allow themselves that very freedom.

In the tradition of the One Minute Manager, I will start with my negative comments. First, I was a bit saddened when I realized that three of the four first articles of this book amounted to a three-on-one fight with David Sim (I am including the next article in the three). While I do not agree with all (or many) of Sim’s conclusions it would have been nice to allow him a chance to respond here. Maybe he was given a chance and he declined or was unable, I do not know, but it seemed a bit unfair. Also, so far in this work I have not come across an actual critique of Sim’s work but there have been many assertions that his work is wrongheaded.

Second, Willits claims that in order for Sim to, “convince a reader, one has to agree to several controversial conclusion ― built on a growing mound of educated guesses ― about both Paul and Matthew.” I would have like him to actually named some of these “controversial conclusions” so that I can hold him, that is Willitts, to his same standard of judgment. What is the definition of controversial in a “post-consensus” era (his term)? Unfortunately, as is the trend so far in this work, this luxury is not afforded to the reader. What scholar does not forward a hypothesis that is built on some assumptions? The Conservative Evangelical school? The F.C. Bauer’s school? The New Perspective school? I think all do it to a varying extent and these assumptions should be allowed inasmuch as they are clearly stated up front as unverifiable.

Willits of course is explicitly guilty of not allowing assumptions for others while allowing them for himself in the article when he says, “I will be conducting the study on Matthew and Paul with the assumption that both were Torah-observant Jews and members of a new form of Judaism that has recently been labelled ‘apostolic Judaism.’” Now, excuse me if I can conceive of this statement as “controversial.” Does this mean that his work is as valuable as Sim’s?  Not only that but what exactly does it mean to say Paul was Torah-observant? I mean, from whose perspective is this label considered to be accurate? Paul does make statements that would lead one to conclude that at least some of the time he does not “keep” the Torah from a strict perspective. On top of that, we have a statement by a member of so-called “apostolic Judaism” (James) that claims if one breaks even one command then they have broken the whole Torah. Would James have considered Paul to be Torah-observant? I think much more work needs to be done in explaining this viewpoint before it can be assumed without this assumption being a problem or, dare I say controversial[1]. I am not in disagreement with this “school,”  I am very excited about its promise, but, I do not think it is good to try and have one’s cake and eat it too.

Third, Willits claims, “apostolic Judaism was allogeneic,” i.e., when related to Judaism it is, “genetically dissimilar but belonged to the same species.” While I like the biological image and agree this is a good direction to try, his assertion seems to demand more than what he has stated ― while Judaism was not normative “apostolic Judaism” was normative. I am not sure that this is a safe assumption considering it is the very thing Sim has tried to exegetically demonstrate as wrong! It is at least possible that Christianity was not monolithic or normative in its early stages.

Fourth, when discussing the theme of judgment-according-to-works he assumes that both writers are working with the same definition of the theme. Would Sim disagree that in some way both writers had an understanding of judgment-according-to-works as a reality (even if they nuance it differently? If Matthew understood this judgment to be “works of Torah” and Paul has explicit statements that can easily understood as countering this claim (e.g., by works of the Law no one is saved), then it seems reasonable for a scholar to follow that path to its logical conclusion. For the life of me I cannot understand why Willitts “descriptive” project would not include Jesus’ command to his followers, which only appears in Matthew’s Gospel, that if they did not keep all of the Torah they would be called least in the Kingdom? One would think a description of this theme in Matthew would have to account for that statement.

Fifth, I completely agree with Willitts, who quotes Mohrlang, that the biggest difficulty in comparing Paul to Matthew is that of genre. I really wish his article would have teased out and/or demonstrated how this can skew ones exegesis. Unfortunately, he does not do this. Instead he states that his opinion regarding the production of synthetic comparisons between two corpa via exegesis, “are counterproductive and unnecessary.” Again, it is unfortunate that he does not follow through on this statement since I cannot think of one reason why this claim would be true! He does, though, leave us with a quote worth thinking about, “There is a high probability when Matthew and Paul address the same topic that they deal with it for different reasons and to accomplish different ends.” Ok, great proposition but can you demonstrate this?

Finally, I would like to reiterate that I am very friendly with this “school” and its direction. I do believe that scholarship will benefit from the work that is produced based on its new assumptions. Just because comparing Paul and Matthew is hard, or difficult, that does not mean that scholars should not attempt the endeavor. Willitts prefers caution while Sim (appears to) like paradigm busting. Both polarities have their benefits and drawbacks.



[1] I am well aware of and have learned much from the work of Mark Nanos and Anders-Runesson.

Honoring Scholar and Pastor, C. K. Barrett

Last night at 6:30 pm 8/26/11, C. Kingsley Barrett passed away. Born in 1917, Dr. Barrett died at the age of 94. C. Kingsley Barrett was a world renown new testament scholar teaching at Durham University for 37 years from 1945 to 1982. Not only was he a prolific author, but his legacy is passed down through his influential roll of students such as Ben Witherington, Morna Hooker, etc. A list of Barrett’s bibliography can be found here. Barrett of Durham was one of the great British new testament scholars of his day along with G. B. Caird of Oxford, C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge, and F. F. Bruce of Manchester to name a few. Barrett was and will remain part of a rich heritage of new testament scholarship at Durham in the ranks of J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Wescott, A. Plummer, H. E. W. Turner, Barrett himself, C. E. B. Cranfield, James D. G. Dunn, and currently John Barclay and Francis Watson. He is being honored around the blogosphere and by scholars and students who have been encouraged in new testament studies by his work. He will long be remembered.

“In Christ Jesus, God is for us; and it is in Christ Jesus that we know him and trust him.” – C. K. Barrett[1]



[1] Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans (London: Hendrickson Publisher, 1991), 163.

Summary of, “Paul and Matthew: A Descriptive Approach from a Post-New Perspective Interpretative Framework

a. Critique of Comparative Methodology

In this article, Joel Willitts [1]will seek to show the Letters of the Apostle Paul and the Gospel of Matthew share a, “basic theological affinity.” In his opinion, before a scholar may embark on comparing Paul and Matthew, one must pause to consider the obstacles which accompany this task. He claims that such an endeavor is of the highest order (here I assume he is referring to Bloom’s taxonomy for the term “higher”), synthesis, and much caution and reflection is required in accomplishing such a comparison. After the scholar has reflect on the arduousness of this task, they will correctly conclude, “that it is nearly impossible to present a convincing comparison of the two authors.” His main reason for this pessimism is that, when comparing the two figures, one compares something called “Paul” to something called “Matthew.” These two entities that are being compared would then be the result of the breadth of scholarly consensus that has developed, but, he then claims that this difficulty is only exacerbated by the state of “post-concensus” that New Testament studies now finds itself in, that is, scholarship in both fields is splintered.

He then turns to the work of one scholar in particular, David Sim, who has argued for an explicit offensive attack on the communities that have formed around the theology contained through interpreting Paul’s letters. The reason for using Sim as an example of failing to grasp the difficult synthetic process is, “Sim is apparently making it fashionable again to claim that Matthew was directly attacking Paul.” He claims Sim’s aforementioned thesis requires the reader, “to agree to several controversial conclusions ― built on a growing mound of educated guesses ― about both Paul and Matthew.” (Unfortunately for Willits’ reader he does not give an example of one of these controversial conclusions.) Willits claims that Sim needs to get his portrait of Matthew and Paul exactly right before this task of synthesis is even started or the hostility will, “disappear like the Wicked Witch of the West.”

Having stated his doubts about comparing Paul and the Matthew, he then goes on to claim a certain type of comparison, i.e., descriptive, may actually be instructive. By this term, descriptive, he appears to means that Paul and Matthew can be compared for similarities. He then gives his crucial methodological principle, “the interpreter must limit herself primarily to the descriptive task and resist the urge to draw speculative conclusions.”

b. Paul and Matthew Within “Apostolic Judaism:” An Alternative Interpretative Framework

In this section, Willitts claims that he will provide a framework that is suitable for his desired descriptive comparison that is as accurate, “as possible with the socio-historical settings of the authors and documents in question.” For Willitts, the particular form of Judaism that Paul and Matthew were members of should be labeled apostolic Judaism, which like all forms of Judaism is Torah-observant. While he believes Matthew and Paul were both part of Judaism, he points out that there sect was not compatible with other forms of Judaism or, as he says, “apostolic Judaism was allogeneic.” He then claims that he is part of the “growing number of scholars” who believe the two should be viewed in this framework and that, “Paul’s letter’s were written to Gentile believers in Jesus within an ethnically diverse yet Jewish social setting, while Matthew’s Gospel was written to Jewish believers in Jesus with an ethnically restricted Jewish social context.” As for the supposed differences, they are the result of, “when Matthew and Paul address the same topic … they deal with it for different reasons and to accomplish different ends.”

c. Case Studies

He then turns to demonstrating how to properly compare Paul and Matthew. Before gives us the names of his test cases he pauses to tell us why he chose to employ these themes: 1) both authors unmistakably these traditions and 2) these traditions are obvious when a post-New Perspective framework is used. Also, it is important for his reader to know that he will not use detailed exegesis to come to his conclusions, instead, he will rely on the work of others that has already been done. (He claims that detailed arguments are “counterproductive and unnecessary!”) the authors in the areas of a) Davidic Messianism and b) Judgment according to works.

As for his claim that David Messianism is in Paul and Matthew, Willits shows that Rom. 1:1-6, 15:8-12 and Matthew 1 have been understood by some scholars to indicate that, “Davidic Messianism was basic to both Matthew and Paul.” If anyone objects because Matthew and Paul employ these themes in different manners, Willits answers, “my suspicion is that he would have used Davidic Messianisms as Matthew did, if he had written to the same audience for the same reason using the same genre.”

Next he discusses the theme of judgment according to works. He then turns to the work of Simon Gathercole and Roger Mohrlang. The work of these two scholars have shown that both Paul and Matthew employ texts from the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Prov. 24:12, Psalm 61.13) in their eschatological descriptions that envision a judgment according to works. Of course, Willits is careful to point out that Mohrlang denies that this judgment is salvific, but, if the believer does not have the proper works one may be disqualified. So, on the theme of judgment according to works, Willits believes that these two texts agree and are in sync with the Judaism from which they originated.

d. The Relationship Between Matthew and Paul

Having come to the conclusion that there is ample valid evidence for understanding Matthew and Paul as being in agreement on two major themes of the Judaism from which they emerged, Willits gives his take on how the two should be thought of as relating to one another. First, they should not be thought of as enemies because the Antioch Incident is no longer thought to reveal a break between the two strands of Christianity (i.e., Judaean and Hellenistic), plus, it is falling out of fashion to understand Matthew as having been written in Antioch. So, if there is no evidence to support a hostile relationship between the two authors (or, communities) then a cautious and careful scholar is left with two poles: 1) the two were unlike each other 2) the two were similar to each other. In the end Willits believes, “one can justifieably conclude that Matthew was either pro-Pauline … or un-Pauline.”

  1. [1] footnotes on WordPress do work

Mark 13.24–27 Revisited: A Proposal for a Corporate Son of Man and Its Implications

There is nothing like mulling over a concept for a few days to engender new ideas. The problem is that sometimes these new ideas conflict with previous thoughts. And this seems to be the case with my new thoughts in relation to my last post on Mark’s apocalyptic discourse, specifically his use of the “coming of the Son of Man.” In that post I argued that the phrase “coming of the Son of Man” represented Jesus’ enthronement and vindication, which portrays Jesus as the new Temple. I further argued that Mark did not anticipate, or at least did not write about, a parousia. However, upon (re)reading Thomas Kazen’s article in JSHJ entitled, The Coming of the Son of Man Revisited, I would like to propose a different (although similar in many ways) view: i.e., the Son of Man should be identified as the holy ones, or the faithful remnant.

Much of this argument rests of the notion that the Son of Man imagery in Daniel 7 speaks of a faithful remnant. Thus, the ascension of the Son of Man is the vindication of the remnant, who receives the kingdom and dominion. This is the view that Kazen promotes in his article, to which he applies to the Gospel accounts, specifically Mark and Matthew. However, before he explicates how this view makes sense of some odd passages in Mark, he first deals with the parousia tradition in Paul. Dealing specifically with 1 Thess 4.13–18, he notes that while Jesus is directly linked to the parousia (v. 15; i.e., Jesus is expected to return), the Son of Man imagery is instead reflected upon the believers[1]. Note that v. 17 envisions the holy ones as being “caught up in the clouds” and so vindicated. Thus, while the Son of Man imagery and the parousia are linked, their only connection is that they are incorporated into the same event, not that they represent the same person! Furthermore, if this is Paul’s understanding of the Danielic “Son of Man” imagery, we are confronted with evidence that at least some Jews interpreted the imagery in a collective sense, representing kingdom restoration for the faithful remnant.

This interpretation alleviates some critical tensions with my previous view of Mark 13.24–27 (although, it may engender other tensions). One major problem was the question of where the parousia tradition began and how to account for its absence or presence in certain NT authors. If the tradition originated with Jesus, we would certainly expect Mark to pick up on it. If it did not originate with Jesus, did Paul invent the anticipation of a second coming and why? But with Kazen’s insight into Paul’s restorative anticipations, Mark’s account becomes clearer and even harmonizes with an early tradition (against my last post)[2]. Thus, what we find in Mark is the destruction of the Temple (13.24–25) followed by the Son of Man tradition (13.26), which, in this view, represents the vindication of the holy ones[3]. Verse 27 alludes to Isa 11.12 as “he” will gather the elect. If the one who sends the angels is to be identified as Jesus, we may find here an expectation of parousia. Mark’s account does not necessarily indicate a descending Jesus as much as an appearing Jesus, but nevertheless, it can easily be seen as referring to the same event. But there is a key distinction to be made, that while Mark does indicate a parousia, Jesus and the parousia are only connected with the Son of Man tradition via an event and not because the latter is personified by former. In this sense, the parousia is not directly identified with the Son of Man tradition but is rather identified with the gathering of the saints and the restoration of kingdom! Therefore, what we find in Mark 13.24–27 is the anticipated restoration of the kingdom to the remnant (Dan 7 and “Son of Man”) and the gathering of God’s people (Is 11.12)[4].

One implication of this interpretation is that Jesus is no longer being set up as the new Temple in and of himself. With the claim of destroying the Temple only to build another in three days (14.58), it is difficult to remove Jesus from the Temple imagery. But this does not mean that the holy ones cannot be assumed into the new Temple at restoration and thus become a part of its structure.

In line with the last consideration the idea of Theosis is prominent in Mark 13.24–27 and certainly applicable to this new Temple ideology. The holy ones are mentioned in a context containing theophanic imagery: “clouds” (Exod 16.9–10; 24.9–17) and “glory” (Exod 16.9–10; 24.9–17; 34.18)[5]. Furthermore, the vindication follows the distress of the “stars,” which fall from heaven, and the “powers” (angels? gods?). Notice also that the shaking “powers” are most likely those who see the holy ones coming in “power” (Mark 13.25–26), possibly emphasizing the replacement of roles and positions. In other words (if I may get back to my main point), it seems plausible that Jesus and the holy ones constitute the new Temple, as the holy ones are portrayed in theotic imagery. Thus, in the same way we see Paul anticipating a future resurrection in light of the resurrection of Jesus, Mark anticipates the believers’ constitution of the new Temple in light of Jesus’ as the already reconstructed new Temple.

Overall, with this interpretation there are many facets to be examined and many more books to be read.

 



[1] Coming, 159; Contra Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, who asserts that 1 Thess 4.16–17 is unique in that it is the only passage in which believers are in the clouds. He makes this case by presuming that the Gospel accounts speak of the “Lord” coming in the clouds (60). But this interpretation reflects an a priori assumption that the Son of Man is Jesus in the Gospel accounts.  Edwards Adams also recognizes that the clouds are associated with the believers but fails to make a connection between the cloud imagery of 1 Thess 4.17 and the Son of Man imagery in Daniel 7.13 (“The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition,” in Biblical Traditions and Transmissions, 14). Major commentaries follow suit in affirming Jesus as the Son of Man in the Gospels, which proves seminal for their interpretations of the cloud imagery primarily reflecting Jesus and only secondarily connect to the remnant (Fee, Thessalonians, NICNT, 180; Wanamaker, Thessalonians, NIGTC, 175; Malherbe, Thessalonians, AB, 276–77; Bruce, Thessalonians, WBC, 105).

[2] Coming, 168–69.

[3] This view, in my opinion, removes the tension of Jesus’ double vindication associated with identifying Jesus as the Son of Man, in which he is vindicated following the destruction of the Temple, and his vindication at the resurrection, when he assumes the role of the new Temple (Mark 14.58). In the present view of this post, Jesus’ vindication is at the resurrection and the vindication of the Son of Man is reserved for the holy ones.

[4] While Daniel 7 includes a judgment on the fourth kingdom, Mark does not explicitly reflect a judgment at this time. While it may be assumed, it is Matthew’s account that explicitly emphasizes judgment and identifies Jesus as judge (Kazen, Coming, 169; Sim, David C. Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. Vol. 88 SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1996.

[5] Burnett has a good article on Paul’s realized theotic expressions in Colossians, in which he provides many Biblical and extrabiblical references for theophanic imagery involving “clouds” and “glory.” In fact, much of what David suggests is being revealed in Paul’s language could be transferred to Mark’s account.

My thoughts on Birds, “Mark, Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul”

Before I get to my comments on Michael F. Bird’s article, I think it will be best to give my impression of his work in general so my remarks are not misconstrued. My first encounter with Dr. Bird’s work was in 2007, which was just about the time N.T. Wright’s influence in my thinking began to wane. I read Dr. Bird’s book on the righteousness of God and was very impressed by his research and judiciousness, even though I did not always agree with him. I then became a follower of the blog that he and Joel Willits (the author of the book’s next article) contribute to and so, one could say, he introduced me to the Biblioblogsphere. Overall, I have been very impressed by his ability to write well, his irenic attitude along with his sense of humor (especially at his speech he gave at IBR after N.T. Wright). So the things I have to say are comments on the article in question and not him or his work in general.

The first of the three theological areas that he forwards as being shared uniquely by Paul and Mark is that of their explication of the theology of the cross. Bird notes that the proclamation of the cross was an identity marker of Early Christianity, yet he still attempts to show Paul and Mark are similar. I must admit, I was skeptical of this argument from the beginning. As for a theology of the cross, it is true that this is, “conducive to Pauline proclamation,” but, the same can be said for other writers of the NT. I, for the life of me, cannot see a huge difference in this area between Mark and Matthew, except maybe, Matthew includes other themes in his gospel so it may leave the impression that this theme is not “central.” Personally, I doubt that potential impression.

Next he points out Triumphal imagery as being unique to Mark and Paul yet of the one verse he sighted from the Undisputed Letters appears to be wrong (2Cor 4:9 says, “persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed”). Then he points out the “mystery” language coupled with the heavenly portents, darkness at noon and the torn temple veil all show that Mark shares and apocalyptical perspective with Paul, yet, his point becomes moot when it is pointed out that Matthew also has all of these apocalyptic imagers[1] (don’t forget the other resurrections in Matthew!).

Next he claims that, “only Mark and Paul portray Jesus’ crucifixion as a royal triumph (Mark 14―15; Rom 8:37; Col. 2:15). I looked up this claim regarding Romans 8: 37 in commentaries on Romans by Fitzmyer, Shreiner, Dunn, Jewett and Barrett and none of them stated that they saw this imagery in the text. The Colossians text definitely employs royal triumph in that “rulers and authorities” are triumphed over, but, one must admit that this imagery is unique to Paul in this letter which, of course, has has a major question of authenticity hanging over its head. As for Mark being the only Gospel that employs “royal triumph,” I am not sure how one could say that this theme is not present in Matthew.

The second area that he believes exhibits an unique similarity is that of the specific terminology that is employed when they speak of salvation. Particularly, he points to the use of απολυτρωσις (redeemed) as a similarity, yet, he then points out that Hebrews and Luke each use the term, or its cognate, twice! After that, he forwards as evidence precisely that which James Crossley disputed in the first article, i.e., that Mark was concerned with a Gentile mission in the same way Paul was. Overall, the argument gives the reader very little reason to believe that a clear and unique usage of salvation terminology exists between the two writers.

In the last area of supposed influence, that of the attitude to the Law, again he makes a distinction yet never shows the reader how the two entities are distinct from the rest of the NT. In order to find unique similarity with Paul on this theme he claims, against Crossley, that Mark 7:19, “certainly opens up of some persons eating foods that some others considered unclean.” But, when he considers Peter’s dream in Acts (i.e., the evidence that would disprove the unique similarity) he says, “the vision does not legitimate culinary licence, but shows that God is impartial.” I could not help but wonder why this distinction is made since this is not a conclusion that is apparent from the text. Remember, Bird’s point is that Mark’s editorial comment could lead to an understanding by some that eating taboo foods was now permitted but the text in Acts, where God tells Peter three times to “kill and eat” unclean animals could not just as easily lead to the same conclusion.

Now, I do agree with Bird, the pericope in Acts is not about food being clean but it is about Gentiles being clean, yet, food is a major part of the imagery in Peter’s revelation. Assuming Dr. Bird’s distinction between the meaning of the two texts is true it still seems to me that, against Dr. Bird, both texts can just as easily lead to the same misunderstanding.

Overall, I did not get the impression that the evidence led to Bird’s conclusion. By this, I do not mean that Mark and Paul do not share similarities; I only disbelieve they share unique similarities. If their similarities are not unique then Dr. Bird’s thesis is weakened substantially. Also, when one attempts to make an argument by sheer accumulation of “minor” evidence on must be sure that the evidence is clear which, in this case, I cannot agree that it is.

  1. [1] mystery in Mt. 13:11; darkness at noon Mt. 27:45; the torn curtain 27:51

Michael F. Bird’s “Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul”

I. Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul

In the introduction, Dr. Bird explains that the Gospel of Mark derives its title from the  Greek inscription ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. He believes this title is derived from the name of a certain John Mark who’s found in the New Testament (two times in Acts, three times in the Pauline corpus, once in Peter). His view is that it is reasonable to understand the author of this gospel to have been the one time road companion of Paul and, later, the scribe of Peter.

Next he turns to the history of scholarship in regards to Paul in the Gospel of Mark. He says there have been basically two options 1) Paul influenced Mark in his Gospel 2) Peter influenced Mark in his Gospel. Dr. Bird does not believe that the evidence of the Gospel of Mark leads to either of these two conclusions. Instead, he believes that the evidence is best interpreted as something like a synthesis of these two opposing ideas:

“The  Gospel of Mark points to an early synthesis of Peter and Paul: Petrine testimony shaped into an evangelical narrative conducive to Pauline proclamation.”

 

II. Gospel of Mark as Petrine testimony

Here Bird remarks that there is a problem with proving any theory that claims the Gospel of Mark relies on Peter’s testimony. The problem is that there is very little authentic Petrine literature that can be used to test any theories of supposed influence. While lack of abundant literature is a problem, he does not think it is an insurmountable fact. He then notes why some scholars have doubted the apostle Peter’s influence on Mark’s Gospel. He lists the four main reasons for this doubt as being:

  1. Mark was probably derived from multiple sources and traditions.
  2. Mark is not the most Petrine gospel.
  3. The Gospel of Mark contains a polemic against Peter.
  4. The testimony of Papias is the only reason scholars have for postulating a Petrine tradition behind Mark.

After noting the traditional reasons for doubting Peter’s influence on Mark, Bird then gives his reason for doubting these propositions:

  1.  Richard Bauckham has shown that the Gospel of Mark speaks of Peter at the beginning and end of the Gospel. This is an example of an ancient technique called inclusio, which was used to indicate the source for eyewitness accounts.
  2. Noting the work of other scholars, Bird claims that Peter, “is the most dominating personality among the disciples and Mark.”
  3. Bird claims that two things in the Gospel of Mark indicate that the gospel does operate from Peter’s viewpoint:  (a) Peter is a round character in Mark’s Gospel in that he acts as antagonist and protagonist in the plot. (b) The third person plural verbs and Mark can easily be switched to first person, which, indicates a possible trace of personal testimony.
  4. Finally, he claims that there is the same narritival pattern in Peter’s speech in Acts 10 and in the Gospel of Mark. This is, in his opinion, enough evidence for a scholar to postulate Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark without using Papias’s testimony.

After giving us his negative responses to the scholars who doubt Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark, which has been the historical explanation of the title ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ, he then moves on to give us a positive construction of commonalities between Mark and Paul.

a. Theology of the Cross

When it comes to preaching the cross bird claims that this, “was a feature of general Christian proclamation according to Acts.”  He even notes that he doubts any earlier forms of Christianity existed that did not, “assign a significant place of some kind to the cross of Jesus in their identity forming-narrative, ethics and theology.” Even though he considers the proclamation of the cross an important aspect of identity formation in for all of Early Christianity, he goes on to claim that Mark and Paul can be compared by their, “centrality that they both assigned to the cross of Jesus and the definitive saving event performed by the God of Israel.”

b. Salvation

As for this similarity, Bird notes that all of Early Christian writings appears to share an emphasis on salvation, but, he believes that the two, “share, more acutely with each other than with other Christian groups.” The first acutely shared aspect of salvation is the use of the term εὐαγγέλλιον. He notes that many Christians in the first century used this term but some used it differently (although, he gives only one example found in Revelation 14:6). He then demonstrates that both Paul and Mark used the term in four distinct ways: (a) they speak in some way of a beginning, (b) they attach this term with God, (c.) the term is connected to discipleship, (d) the term is connected to the Gentiles (e) individuals may be associated with preaching the gospel.

The second shared feature of salvation is in the use of the term “redemption.” On this point he claims that Paul and Mark used this term, or better the accompanying phrase, in the same way (Mk 10:45; Rom 5:8). The third area may be found in how salvation relates to the Gentiles. He claims that both Mark and Paul’s writings share the “same social context,” i.e., the Gentiles have been included in the restoration of Israel.

c. Attitude to the Law

Before getting too far into this aspect of similarity, Bird notes, “ there is surely no topic of Pauline theology so perplexing and so baffling as the apostle Paul in the Law.”  He goes on to claim that both Paul and Mark share the same attitude toward the law which is best summed up in this quote, “Paul’s Law free gospel is really a proselytism free gospel since his antithetical remarks about the law pertained primarily to instances where Gentile believers are compelled to be circumcised and adopt the Jewish way of life.” He then goes on to note that he disagrees with Crossley’s (who wrote the book’s previous article) interpretation of 7:19. Bird believes that this text is best understood as opening, “the possibility of some persons eating food that some others considered unclean.” he does not believe the episode with Peter in Acts 10 should be interpreted as opening up “culinary licence.”

IV. Conclusion and Appendix

In the conclusion Bird states, “Even if the Gospel of Mark was not written by Cyprian Jewish Christian John Mark, the document is very probably indebted to Peter and tradition and exhibits a pro-Pauline theological texture.” He then attaches an appendix to the article where he discusses the reasons for believing that the title of the Gospel was meant to indicate that a person named Mark was the author.