Author: S. Daniel Owens

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↩

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.

Before I get into my comments on Dr. Crossley’s article I must note that I have not read much of his work (I have only read two articles that he published). The reason for not having read much of his work is not that I am uninterested, but, I simply have not had the time to get to them since his dissertation on dating the Gospel of Mark is high on my “Reading List.” I attended a critique of his most recent book at the last SBL and found him to be quite entertaining and bright.

As for his article I have two positive areas of agreement. The first area of agreement is over Crossley’s consistent call for caution in overdetermining (if I may use the Douglas Campbell phrase) the meaning of a text or parallel. His whole article basically consists in him pointing out that the conclusions supported by scholars are not supported or denied by the evidence. One of the issues I have with some of the scholarship I read is the felt freedom that scholars possess to blur the line between conjecture and argumentation. Here Crossley points out that many of scholars conclusions are really the result of question begging or maybe just overdetermining. Personally, I consider scholar’s great when they refuse to blur the line between conclusions based on solid evidence and conclusions based on assumption or stand corrected when someone points out that they have unconsciously fell into this trap. Most recently I remember Dale Allison admitting that his (and many) argument for the Historical Jesus is circular. Wow! Only a great scholar would admit such problem with their view. (You can probably tell that, historically speaking, I am a minimalist; but not a mythicist!)

The second area of agreement that I found with this article is that of Crossley’s understanding of Early Christianity and its Jewishness (if I may use that very imprecise term). I am completely baffled by the assumption that the Gospels ended the Law for Christians. This view is only asserted and never demonstrated through evidence and logic. One possible reading of one text is in no way enough to hold this view (i.e., their is not enough evidence to lead to such a huge conclusion). If Jesus and his followers were competing in the Jewish religious realm, then it should be understood that they acted like religious Jews. For Jesus (or, better the Gospels) to overturn such a fundamental aspect of faith and practice one would need multiple, clear instances of this new direction. Crossley’s interpretation of 7:19 seems to me the most plausible.

As much as I loved the article I must say I was left a little confused for my anticipated reading of his dissertation on the dating of Mark. After reading such a great article that is so dependent on insisting scholars must use caution in coming to their conclusions, when lack of evidence is an issue, I doubt I will be able to take his theory on the Gospel of Mark’s (very early) date seriously. Dating the Gospels, in my opinion, is a very speculative endeavor. I understand that it is somewhat certain to say that this or that text is from the 1^st or 2^nd century, but, to say that evidence leads one to place it in a certain decade is not scholarship since there is very little actual evidence. I have found that what scholars call “evidence” is not really evidence at all, it is merely conjecture (e.g., a Gospel does or does not speak about the destruction of the temple in real historical terms as having already happened, proposed dates on the time it would have taken for theology to have developed to what is contained in a certain text).

Having said that I am still sure that I will profit greatly from reading anything that such a careful scholar like him publishes and I am looking forward to being pleasantly surprised by evidence that I was not aware of. All in all, I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed this article for its attention to method.

The summary of his article may be found here.