Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (Library Of New Testament Studies)

library of new testament studies

The Date of Mark’s Gospel Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity

James G. Crossley

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

266

Editor

Mark Goodacre

Editorial Board

Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, David Catchpole, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, George H. Guthrie, Robert Jewett, Robert W. Wall

The Date of Mark's Gospel Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity

James G. Crossley

T8.T CLARK INTERNATIONAL

A Continuum imprint L O N D O N

•

N E W Y O R K

Copyright © 2004 T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint Published by T&T Clark International The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, New York, NY 10010 www.tandtclark.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Typeset by CA Typesetting, Sheffield

EISBN 9780567081957 0-567-08195-8 (paperback)

In Memory of Paul Francis Crossley (1950-2001)

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations INTRODUCTION

ix xi 1

Chapter 1 THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

1. Irenaeus and the'Anti-Marcionite'Prologue 2. Clement of Alexandria 3. 'The Second Year of Claudius' 4. First-Century Evidence for Peter in Rome in the Forties? 5 Papias and Markan Authorship 6. M. Hengel on Gospel Authorship 7 Conclusions

6

6 9 11 11 12 15 17

Chapter 2 MARK 13

1. 2. 3. 4.

N.T. Wright and the Historicity of Mark 13 The Abomination of the Desolation The Caligula Crisis and Mark 13 Other Possible Historical Contexts: From the Mid-Thirties to the Jewish War 5. Antichrist, Unfulfilled Prophecies and the Problems with Dating 6. Mark 13 and the Jewish War 7. The Narrative Frame: Mark 13.1-2 8. Conclusions

19

19 27 29 37 39 40 41 43

Chapter 3 THE DATE OF MARK AND MODERN GOSPEL CRITICISM

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Source Criticism Paul as a Source for Mark? Form Criticism The Composition of Mark's Gospel Redaction and Literary Criticisms D.Seeley on Mark 11.15-17 G. Theissen and J. Marcus on Mark 11.15-17 Mark 11.15-17: From the Historical Jesus to Markan Redaction Markan Redaction and Replacement Symbolism

44

44 47 56 58 62 62 71 73 74

viii 10. 11. 12. 13.

The Date of Mark's Gospel Markan Redaction, the Jewish War and Nationalist Movements Markan Redaction and Persecution A New(-ish) Approach to the Date of Mark Conclusions

76 79 80 81

Chapter 4 JESUS' TORAH OBSERVANCE IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

1. Jesus and the Torah according to Mark 2. Jesus and the Torah according to Matthew 3. Jesus and the Torah according to Luke 4. Conclusions

82

82 98 111 123

Chapter 5 THE TORAH AND EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Stephen and the 'Hellenists' Zeal for the Law Paul's Early Attitude towards the Law Peter's Vision (Acts 10-11.18) The Antioch Controversy (Gal. 2.11-14) The Jerusalem Conference Christianity and Law in the Forties Conclusions

125

126 131 134 138 141 154 155 157

Chapter 6 DATING MARK LEGALLY (I): 2 TEST CASES (MK 2.23-28; MK 10.2-12)

1. 2. 3.

Sabbath: Dating Mark through Mk 2.23-28 and Parallels Divorce and Remarriage: Dating Mark through Mk 10.2-12 and Parallels Conclusions

159

160 172 182

Chapter 7 DATING MARK LEGALLY(II): MARK 7.1-23

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Handwashing Mark 7.4 and Other Traditions Qorban Mark 7.1-23 and 'Tradition' The Transmission of Impurity TebulYom Gospel Editing Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

183

183 185 188 191 193 197 200 204 206

210 225 242

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is a slightly revised version of my PhD thesis, supervised by Maurice Casey in the Department of Theology, University of Nottingham. He has often commented on his own supervisor, C.K. Barrett, recalling his extraordinary learning and helpfulness combined with a lack of bureaucracy and interference remaining a model to which to aspire. I can't think of a better way to describe Maurice. I would like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) for funding this research. I am extremely grateful for this. I would also like to thank other people who have discussed with me the various issues in this study, particularly Andy Angel, Ed Ball, Richard Bell, Richard Crossley, Seth Kunin, Crispin Fletcher-Louis, and Thelma Mitchell. I would also like to thank the members of the learned Old Testament in the New Testament Seminar held annually in Hawarden for their comments on my ideas. I would also like to thank the Heads of Department of Theology at Nottingham, Alan Ford and Hugh Goddard, for their continual support, and the departmental secretaries Mary Elmer and Janet Longley for countless things. I would also like to thank the following for their welcome distractions at various stages of the research: Maddy Humberstone, Callum Millard, Aurelio Sanchez, Rob Thorne and Caroline Watt. Caroline Watt in particular stopped this work from being finished earlier. She never wanted to stay in and is interested in doing many other unmentionable things. She also read through the entire manuscript. The Watt family should also be thanked for providing me with clothes. I am also grateful to Henrietta Beane for giving me somewhere to stay in London in order to study at the British Library and to Emma Crossley for giving me somewhere to stay in St Neots in order to study at Cambridge University Library. I would also like to thank what was formerly called Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited (VSEL) for inadvertently showing me just how boring life could be after three tedious years as a shipyard electrician and for making me see that sixth-form college was the only way forward. I will always hate you VSEL. I would also like to thank Gerald Garbutt who took my father's funeral and was good friends with him despite his views on religion. Gerald has shown me that it is not impossible for a member of the clergy to be intelligent and decent. He has also discussed several issues surrounding this thesis. I would also like to thank my family. My mother Pamela Crossley read through the entire thesis. She deserves far, far greater acknowledgement than this for what she has done for others in her life. My brother Richard Crossley, who talked about everything with me from the English Premiership to Continental football to a certain football management computer game to structural anthropology, and whose

x

The Date of Mark's Gospel

hatred of work is something to be admired. My grandparents, the late Florence Gardner, the late Roger Gardner, the late Frank Crossley, and Ruth Crossley have all been exceptionally kind and encouraging. My Auntie Suzanne also took a keen interest in my academic work. Finally, this thesis is dedicated to the most important man in my life, my father Paul Crossley, who died while this research was in progress, in November 2001. He was funny, intelligent, resilient, laid-back, foul-mouthed, and opinionated. He smoked too much, ate unhealthily, and didn't mind a drink. I admire him more than any other man.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD

'Abod Zar. 'AbotR.Nat. Abr. ABRL Add. Esth. Acts Acts Pet. Adv. haer. Aland, Synopsis

Ann. Ant. Apion Apoc. 'Arak. Aris teas As. Mos. b. Bar. BCE

BDB Ber. BGAD3

Bib. Bib. Ant. BNTC B. Qam. BTB c. CBQ CD CE

CGTC 2 Chron. 1 Clem.

Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 'Abodah Zarah 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan De Abrahamo Anchor Bible Reference Library Additions to Esther Acts of the Apostles Acts of Peter Adversus haereses K. Aland (ed.), Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum etpatrum adhibitis edidit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1963, 1996) Annales Antiquities of the Jews Contra Apionem Apocalypse 'Arakhin Letter ofAristeas to Philocrates Assumption of Moses Babylonian Talmud Baruch Before the Common Era Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Berakoth F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 3rd edition based on previous editions by W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich [eds.] 2000) Biblica Biblical Antiquities Black's New Testament Commentaries Baba Qamma Biblical Theology Bulletin circa Catholic Biblical Quarterly Damascus Document Common Era Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary 2 Chronicles 1 Clement

Xll

Col. Comm. Dan. Cong.

ICor. 2 Cor. Dan. Deut. Decal Dem. De Vir. III. Eccl. 'Ed. I En. Eph. 'Erub. Esth. ET

ETL lEsd. Eus. Exod. ExpTim Ezek. Fug. Gaium Gal. Git. Gos. Thorn. Gk Hag. HE Hev Hist. Hos. HSCP HTR HUCA Huh Hyp. ICC Ign. Iren. Isa. JBL Jdt. Jer. JJS Jn Jos. Jos. Asen. JPJ JRS

The Date of Mark's Gospel Colossians Commentary on Daniel De congressu eruditionis gratia 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Daniel Deuteronomy De decalogo Demai De viris illustribus Ecclesiastes 'Eduyoth 1 Enoch Ephesians 'Erubin Esther English Translation Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 1 Esdras Eusebius Exodus Expository Times Ezekiel Defuga et inventione De legatione ad Gaium Galatians Gittin Gospel of Thomas Greek Hagigah Historia ecclesiastica Nahal Hever texts Histories Hosea Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Hullin Hypothetica International Critical Commentary Ignatius Irenaeus Isaiah Journal of Biblical Literature Judith Jeremiah Journal of Jewish Studies John De Josepho Joseph andAseneth Journal of Progressive Judaism Journal of Roman Studies

Abbreviations JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSP JTS Jub. Judg. Ker. Ketub. lKgs 2Kgs LCL Lev. Lk LXX

m. Ma'as 1 Mace. 2 Mace. 3 Mace. 4 Mace. Mak. Maksh. Mai. Mart. Isa. Meg. Mek. Exod. Menah. Mic. Migr. Miqw. Mo'edQat. Mos. Mt. MT

Mur Mur. Canon Ned Neg. Neh.

Neof Neot. NICNT NIGTC NovT NTS Num. Num. Rab. OCBC Pea Pesh.

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Theological Studies Jubilees Judges Keritoth Ketuboth 1 Kings 2 Kings Loeb Classical Library Leviticus Luke Septuagint Mishnah Ma 'aseroth 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Makkoth Makshirin Malachi Martyrdom of Isaiah Megillah Mekhilta Exodus Menahoth Micah De migratione Abrahami Miqwa 'oth Mo 'ed Qatan De vita Mosis Matthew Masoretic Text Wadi Murabbaat texts Muratorian Canon Nedarim Nega 'im Nehemiah Neophyti Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament The New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Numbers Numbers Rabba Oxford Church Bible Commentary Peah Peshitta

Xlll

XIV

Pesah. IPet. 2 Pet. Philemon Prov. Ps./Pss. Ps.J. Pss. Sol. lQapGen 4QEnGiants Qidd. 4QMMT lQpHab. 4QpNah. 1QS 11QT Rev. RevQ Rom. RSLR 2 Sam. Sank. Sem. SFSHJ Shabb. Shebi. Sheqal. Sib. Or. Sir. SJT SNTSMS Sobr. Spec. Leg. Sukk. Syr. Apoc. Bar. t. Taan T. Abr. Targ. T. Benj. T.Dan % 1 Thess. 2 Tim. T.Job T. Judah T. Levi Tob. Tohar. T Rub. TS TynBul

The Date of Mark's Gospel Pesahim 1 Peter 2 Peter Philemon Proverbs Psalm/Psalms Pseudo Jonathan Psalms of Solomon Genesis Apocryphon Book of Giants Qiddushin Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah Habakkuk Pesher Nahum Pesher Community Rule Temple Scroll Revelation Revue de Qumrdn Romans Revista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 2 Samuel Sanhedrin Semahoth South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism Shabbat Shebi'it Sheqalim Sibylline Oracles Sirach Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series De sobrietate De specialibus legibus Sukkah Syriac Apocalypse ofBaruch Tosephta Ta 'anith Testament of Abraham Targum Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan Theodotion 1 Thessalonians 2 Timothy Testament of Job Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Tobit Toharoth Testament of Reuben Theological Studies Tyndale Bulletin

Abbreviations T. Yom -i7tslv f) yeuaaoOai xi ev amolv f\ 6noap6"aw; cf. active npnttf) with the Greek aorist active participle dnoXvaaaa with a gentile audience in mind. Worth comparing in this respect is the Codex Bezae version of Lk. 16.18c, anohzko\iivvp yauo)v uoixeua, which may have retained an early, more literal translation of the saying.59 It is not difficult to see how a 'mistake' could be made by Mark because, as is widely noted, women were allowed to divorce in the Roman world. Whether this is a Markan addition or a change made in the translation process in the light of the gentile mission, the earliest possible date for a passage like 10.11-12 is the early 30s. More generally it should be noted that all the arguments given here concerning Mk 10.2-12 as a whole do not mean that the passage necessarily goes back to the historical Jesus but there is no compelling reason to say that it could not. This means that the earliest possible date for Mk 10.2-12 in the form we have it is also the time when the traditions were first translated into Greek. The latest possible date, however, can only be settled after the other New Testament teachings on divorce and remarriage are considered. 1 Corinthians 7.1 Off. also contains the apparently absolute prohibition of divorce. There are, however, indications that it had caused some problems and hence the qualification, 'but if she does separate (xo)pia0rj), let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband' (1 Cor. 7.11). But does xcopioOf] indicate separation or divorce here? It can be argued that Paul is reflecting a very early tradition and/or his Jewish upbringing enabled him to distinguish between a Jewish woman normally being unable to initiate divorce compared with the assumption that the Jewish man could initiate divorce hence the use of a different verb when he mentions the man, 'and that the husband should not divorce (dcpiivai) his wife (7.1 lb)' .60 The problem with this of course is that Paul is not necessarily dealing with Jewish people and he could hardly have been ignorant of the fact 59. Cf. T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 135-38; J.A. Fitzmyer, 'Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence', TS 37 (1976), pp. 197— 226, here pp. 200-202. 60. Cf. E.P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989), p. 327.

178

The Date of Mark's Gospel

that gentile women could initiate divorce.61 Indeed x « P ^ can also mean 'divorce', as known from Greek literature (e.g. Polybius, Hist. 31.26.6) and Greek marriage contracts.62 In support of this approach Paul in 1 Cor. 7.10-11 implicitly acknowledges the possibility of women remarrying by warning them not to remarry, which suggests that he was dealing with divorce. In the following verses there is another qualification in the divorce ruling in which Paul uses x ^ p t ^ in the sense of divorce, 'But if the unbelieving partner separates (xcopi^exai), let it be so; in such a case the brother or the sister is not bound' (7.15). In addition to this it is worth noting that Mark uses %eopi£a) and anoXvw in the sense of divorce both in the same passage (Mk 10.2, 4, 9, 11-12). This evidence provides an argument of strong collective weight for 1 Cor. 7.10 dealing with a woman divorcing a man in the sense that she would ordinarily be free to remarry. It is difficult to imagine the saying being taken in any different way by Paul's audience. It should therefore be concluded that Paul has used two different words for divorce, perhaps either for stylistic reasons and/or due to influence of an earlier tradition although still aware of his contemporary audience. Most importantly for our debate is that Paul has two clear qualifications on the divorce ruling: firstly, the woman who divorces should be reconciled or remain unmarried (7. lla, perhaps implied for the man in 7.1 lb); secondly, divorce in the case of an unbeliever leaving a believer is permitted (7.15). Importantly, 1 Corinthians can be dated with some certainty to the mid to late fifties,63 which gives a date for the Pauline qualification of the divorce and remarriage theme and already hints at the possibility of the Markan passage, lacking in the qualifications of 1 Cor. 7, being written prior to 1 Corinthians. It will become clear that dating of 1 Corinthians is also important for dating Matthew's treatment of the divorce and remarriage theme, which will in turn be of importance for dating the Markan passage and so Matthew must now be discussed. The Matthean discussions of divorce (Mt. 5.31-32; 19.3-9) contain significant differences. In Mt. 19.3-9 (/Mk 10.2-9) Matthew makes it explicitly clear that Jesus did not challenge biblical Torah in any way and brings it explicitly in line with Deut. 2AA-4, hence the addition in Mt. 19.3 to the question, 'Is it lawful/ permitted (e^eoxiv) for a man to divorce his wife...?', of 'for any reason' (Kara nacav aliuxv) and the explicit permission for divorce in the case ofrcopveia(19.9). As argued, Mark assumed that Jesus did not oppose the biblical acceptance of divorce in certain circumstances so these Matthean changes would have to be made in light of the widespread gentile mission. Significant is the fact that Matthew shows distinct problems with Jesus' ruling on divorce and, as with Paul, a qualification to the attack on divorce. Here it is worth quoting Mt. 19.10-11 once more: 'His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to 61. Cf. D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956), pp. 362-65; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Black, 1968, 2nd edn, 1971), p. 162; G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 293-94; D. Instone-Brewer, '1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the GraecoRoman Marriage and Divorce Papyri', TynBul. 52 (2001), pp. 101-116. 62. See especially Instone-Brewer, 'Graeco-Roman', pp. 105-107, 116. 63. A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000), pp. 29-32.

6. Dating Mark Legally (I)

179

marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given."' It is significant that Matthew alone records this tradition, which suggests that it was an addition in the light of the difficult divorce ruling. This really was a genuine problem for the early church, no doubt influenced by the view noted above that a man was almost obliged to divorce his wife if she did not please him (e.g. Sir. 25.26; m. Git. 9.10). It is, however, the addition of the exception 7ropv8ia that is perhaps more fruitful in terms of dating because some rcopveia controversies in early Christianity can be dated with reasonable certainty. The term TTOpveux is controversial so some discussion is required. The unqualified use ofrcopveuxin Jewish literature in Greek consistently means something like sexual immorality or fornication, summed up conveniently in Tob. 4.12, 'Beware my son of every kind of 7iopv£iot\ It is thus a general term that can be qualified for use in different and more specific instances. For example, it can be used as a metaphor for Israel's deviation from God, especially in prophetic literature (e.g. Hos. 4.11-12; Jer. 13.27; and numerous times throughout Ezekiel64), which can include idolatry (e.g. Jer. 3.9; Wis. 14.12). It can be used in specific cases of types of sexual immorality, such as the sins of Sodom (e.g. T. Ben. 9.2), lust or sexual desire (e.g. Tob. 8.7), and prostitution (e.g. Gen. 38.24; T. Judah 12.2). It should be emphasised that in all such cases the more precise use of Tiopveia is clearly qualified. The fact that 7ropveia required qualification when referring to specific sexual sins or to deviation from God is important for the Matthean exception clauses. They are both unqualified and can only be taken in a general sense, something like 'sexual immorality'. It is often translated as 'adultery'. Adultery alone would not be a fully accurate translation because, as is so often noted, the word for adultery is uoixeux and the verb forms uotxaco and uoi%eu(o are used in a passage which really does discuss adultery, Mt. 5.27-30, a passage which also directly precedes the first Matthean divorce ruling with exception clause (5.31-32). It is also widely noted that uoi%8ux andrcopveuxare distinguished in lists of sins (e.g. Mk 7.21-22; cf. Gk Bar. 4.17; 8.5; 13.4). This of course does not mean that Ttopveux excludes adultery, a point which is particularly clear in light of the above noted semantic area of Tcopveia. Another interpretation ofrcopveuxin the Matthean exception clauses is that it refers to incestuous marriages described in Lev. 18 and implied in Acts 15,65 This has been rightly criticised for the reason that LXX Leviticus does not usercopveiato refer to incestuous marriages. However, Fitzmyer has noted that mat in CD 4.12-5.14 refers to incestuous marriages and that mat is predominantly translated with 7iopveia in LXX which goes some way to countering the criticisms of interpreting 7iopveia as incestuous union in Matthew.66 There is, however, a 64. See E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2nd edn, 1998), p. 1194c for the numerous references. 65. E.g. J.P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel: A Redactional Study ofMt. 5:17-48 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), pp. 147-50; Fitzmyer, 'Divorce', pp. 216-21; B. Witherington, 'Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 - Exception or Exceptional Situation', NTS 31 (1985), pp. 571-76. 66. Fitzmyer, ' Divorce', pp. 216-21.

180

The Date of Mark's Gospel

more decisive criticism, namely that 7Eopveux is unqualified in the Matthean exception clauses which in the light of the unqualified general meaning of 7iopveia could hardly be a reference to incestuous marriages alone. It would have to be qualified, just as, significantly, rmr is in CD 4.12-5.14 where the marrying of aunties and uncles is included in the term. On the other hand 7topvsia does not exclude incestuous marriages. This is supported by evidence from first-century Christianity that clearly opposes incestuous union (1 Cor. 5.1-2). In addition it looks as if Acts 15.19f., with its prohibition of rcopveia for gentile converts, is loosely based on Lev. 18-19 which prohibits, among other things, incestuous marriages for Israel and the resident alien.67 In this case it does not matter that LXX Lev. 18-19 does not usercopveiabecause other sexual sins are covered, such as homosexuality and bestiality (Lev. 18.19-23) and so the unqualified use ofrcopveuxin Acts 15.19f. is an extremely convenient word to cover a variety of sexual sins. Although it is likely that Acts 15.19f. is loosely based on Lev. 18-19 various acts such as adultery should also be included in the term rcopveia: it would be extremely difficult to argue that James would have excluded such acts. In addition to incestuous marriages and other sexual sins there is further complementary evidence that could have necessitated the Matthean exception clauses, again to be found in 1 Corinthians. People who committed Ttopveia in 1 Cor. 5 were not to be present at the meal table and should be excommunicated, something which is particularly strict for Paul (cf. Gal. 2) and thus highlighting the severity of the issue. Here Tiopveux includes having relations with a father's wife (1 Cor. 5.1-2) and in 1 Cor. 6.13-18 it includes having relations with a prostitute. It is a logical progression from this to ask what would become of the partners of such sinners and so it is unsurprising that there is the inclusion of the Matthean exception clauses. It is unlikely that Matthew would have disagreed with Paul's ruling on those who committed 7topveia and so divorce would have to be an option and one that would have to be made explicit. This is not to say that Matthew is directly reacting to the Corinthian issue but something along these lines may well have partially necessitated the Matthean exception clauses. At this stage it is worth recalling BockmuehPs argument, noted above, that adultery and rape would automatically mean that a woman would have to be divorced (e.g. Prov. 18.22 [LXX]; lQapGen. 20.15; Philo^Z>r. 98; Mt. 1.19; Tg. Neof. Deut. 24.4). Bockmuehl's evidence combined with the evidence discussed in the previous paragraph provides a general Sitz im Leben for Matthean exception clauses, namely that Matthew added these exception clauses in the light of Christian 7ropveia controversies and the assumption that women must be divorced in certain circumstances. Certain Christianrcopveuxcontroversies can also be dated with a reasonable amount of certainty because, as noted, 1 Corinthians was written around the mid to late 67. This does not mean that Acts 15.19f. is directly and exclusively referring back to Lev. 1819 as is often argued. Similar laws can be found elsewhere in later literature. See C.K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. II, XV-XXVIII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp. 733-35, including a convenient overview of the different scholarly positions with bibliography.

6. Dating Mark Legally (I)

181

fifties. The implication of this is that there is now evidence from both Matthew and Paul which show that the strict ruling on divorce was causing problems by the midfifties. This again suggests that, as Mark gives no indication of difficulties with the prohibition, the gospel could have been written before the mid-fifties otherwise Mark might have been expected to have made some comment. One objection could be placed against this, namely that it is commonly argued that Luke accepts an absolute prohibition of divorce and that this conflicts with biblical law,68 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery (ml 6 dnol£kviievK]v and avSpoq yauarv uoixeuei) (Lk. 16.18). However, Luke too shows signs of editing the divorce and remarriage theme. It isfirstmade explicitly clear that Jesus did not oppose the Torah, 'But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter of the law to be dropped' (16.17), which, like Matthew, suggests a date in the light of the disputes over the validity of the biblical Torah for Luke but more significantly raises the possibility that Mark was written before disputes over the validity of the Torah, i.e. sometime before the mid-forties. This may be supported by the omission of Mk 10.2-9 which could have invited the unwanted conclusion that Jesus was critical of biblical law.69 Secondly, and contrary to many commentators, Luke does not actually stress the apparent prohibition of divorce in Mk 10.2-9. Luke, like Mk 10.11— 12 and Mt. 5.32, attacks divorce and remarriage together thereby toning down the Markan emphasis. Moreover, as Nolland correctly stresses, it is remarriage and not divorce that should be regarded as the adulterous action.70 This coheres well with the thrust of Jesus' sayings recorded in Mark, Matthew, and Paul. Yet whereas Matthew and Paul deal with the problem of a strict ruling on divorce directly, Luke is more indirect by omitting the saying on divorce alone and only including the saying on divorce and remarriage which does not rule out the possibility of divorce so long as the person does not remarry. While it may seem strange to us that divorce may be permitted but remarrying is not because it is adulterous, it would make some sense in first-century Christianity. After all, Paul wrote that a woman should not divorce/leave her husband but if she did she should not remarry (1 Cor. 7.10) which may suggest that, while Lk. 16.18 reflects an early tradition, in its present context here is a gospel writer with some knowledge of the argument of 1 Cor. 7. However, what should be emphasised is the most significant outcome of this discussion of Lk. 16.18: all the occurrences in the New Testament of the divorce ruling were qualified in some way with the sole exception of Mark, adding some weight to the argument that Mark was written before the mid-fifties.

68. E.g. Wilson, Law, pp. 30f., 45-47; Blomberg, 'Law', p. 61. 69. Cf. J Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), p. 139; Salo, Law, pp. 146-50; Loader, Jesus' Attitude, p. 338. 70. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), pp. 821-22.

182

The Date of Mark's Gospel

3. Conclusions In Mk 2.23-28 there is an assumption that Jesus did not reject the Sabbath because plucking grain does not override any biblical law. It does however contrast with a stricter interpretation of the Sabbath. Matthew 12.1-8 and Lk. 6.1-5 both have this tradition in their gospels and both have significant additions, in particular the emphasis that the disciples ate the grain immediately, which makes it clear, from their perspectives, that Jesus was not engaging in any kind of work, in the biblical sense, on the Sabbath such as carrying grain home to prepare food. Such additions would have to be mentioned in the light of Sabbath controversies in the early church (e.g. Rom. 14.1-6; Gal. 4.10; Col. 2.16; Jn 5.1-18) to make it clear that Jesus did not advocate working on the Sabbath. The most secure and important dating is that of Romans (mid to late fifties) and Galatians (mid-forties to mid-fifties). This implies that Mark was written at the latest by the mid fifties, at a time when Mark could assume what Matthew and Luke could not. Alone this evidence is not conclusive and so it is significant that there is another tradition which suggests a similar date, namely that of divorce (Mk 10.2-12/Mt. 19.3-10; Mt. 5.31-33/Lk. 16.18; 1 Cor. 7.10-16). This is a little different because divorce was not something that explicitly caused problems for entry into Christianity in the same way as say something like Sabbath observance or circumcision. Jesus' hyperbolic prohibition of divorce did however cause big problems in every case of this well-attested tradition with the notable exception of Mark. Paul's qualifications in 1 Corinthians imply that Mark was written before the epistle, i.e. before the mid-fifties. This is further enhanced by the problems the early church had with TtopvsLct (something like 'sexual immorality'), some of which can be dated during the fifties, with the implication being that the Matthean exception clauses were written in the light of such controversies and that Mark was written before them. The relevance of the divorce argument to the Sabbath argument for dating Mark can now be seen fully: it is complementary and provides an argument of collective weight. Mark's gospel must surely have been written at a time when certain assumptions concerning Sabbath and divorce laws could be made, namely sometime before the fifties. It is also possible that the qualifications made in Matthew and Luke point to a date for Mark before the mid-forties, i.e. before the first controversies over the validity of the Torah in Christianity. This suggestion would be stronger with further evidence and so it is to Mk 7.1-23 we will now finally turn.

Chapter 7 DATING MARK LEGALLY

(II): MARK 7.1-23

An argument of collective weight is of course always helpful. The previous chapter provided two separate arguments for an early date for Mark and this chapter will provide a third and more precise date. This chapter will follow the same procedure, i.e. a given passage on an aspect of the Torah in Mark which assumes what other writers could not, so the Markan passage must have been composed before such disputes arose in early Christianity. In this chapter, however, we turn to a passage which atfirstsight would appear to contradict the arguments given in this study as the passage is one that is usually viewed as strongly challenging the validity of biblical food laws, namely Mk 7.1-23, especially 7.19, with Mt. 15.1-20 changing this to an attack on handwashing. To anticipate the conclusion, it will be argued that this is wrong and an alternative reading makes much better sense of the passage: Mark, like Matthew, attacks handwashing and accurately portrays Jewish legal practices but Mark was writing when the food laws were largely observed by Christians thereby making certain assumptions which Matthew could not. This can only be shown through detailed discussion of the legal issues in Mk 7.1-23. Only then will it be possible to proceed to more general questions of dating. 1. Handwashing Thefirstlegal issue to be discussed, and one to which we will return, is handwashing before ordinary (i.e. non-priestly, non-Temple) food, mentioned in Mk 7.2-3, 5. Some aspects of the Markan description remain unclear, particularly the mysterious TEvyuf], 'with the fist' (cf. LXX Exod. 21.18; LXX Isa. 58.4). It is still not entirely clear how the Markan TrDyuf) is to be taken (cf. m. Yad. 1.1 f; 2.3; b. Hul. 106a-b; b. Sota 4b),1 although it may simply be that it is intended to distinguish the washing of the hands from immersion in a miqweh (cf. Lev. 12.4; m. Hag. 2.5). Most importantly for our study is, however, the fact that the practice of handwashing before ordinary meals by at least some Jews is discussed in the rabbinical literature (e.g. m. Hag. 2.5; Hul. 2.5; Yad. 3.2; t. Ber. 4.8; 5.6; t. Dem. 2.11-12; b. Ber. 1. In addition to the commentators see e.g. S.M. Reynolds, 'PYGMI (Mark 7:3) as "Cupped Hand"', JBL 85,1966, pp. 87-88; M. Hengel, 'Me 7,3 Truynrj: Die Geschichte einer exegetischen Aporie und der Versuch ihrer Losung',ZNW60 (1969), pp. 182-98; W.D. McHardy, 'Mark7:3: A Reference to the Old Testament?', ExpTim 87 (1975-76), p. 119; J.M. Ross, 'With the Fist', ExpTim 87 (1975-76), pp. 374-75; T.C. Skeat,' A Note on Truy^ inMark7:3\ JTS41 (1990), pp. 525-27.

184

The Date of Mark's Gospel

52b; Hul. 105a; 106a; 'Erub. 21b; Shabb. 62b; Sota 4b; cf. m. Yad. 1-2). While it is disputed whether this practice goes back to the time of Jesus, there is good evidence that it does.2 Handwashing is attributed to Aqiba around the time of the Bar Kochba revolt where it is mentioned that he had been observing it since his youth (b. 'Erub. 21b; cf. Num Rab. 20.21) and it is attributed to thefirst-centuryHouses (e.g. m. Ber. 8.2; t. Ber. 5.26; b. Ber. 52b; cf. t. Dem. 2.11-12) where details are disputed thus assuming general practice at that time.3 The most important evidence for handwashing being practised around the time of Jesus should be that from Mark. Sanders, however, believes Mark was mistaken. He argues that Mk 7.1-5 may be reflecting a practice of handwashing before prayer in the Diaspora.4 This is unlikely not least because Mark explicitly discusses washing before food, a practice clearly found in later rabbinical literature. The gospel evidence should therefore be regarded as decisive for afirst-centurydate for handwashing before ordinary meals. It would be a remarkable coincidence if Mark had invented or misunderstood a Jewish custom only for it to appear in later Jewish literature. Another strong argument for handwashing before ordinary food in the first century is the existence of the parallel in Matthew 15, which if anything has a greater emphasis on this practice by adding a further attack to his Markan source (Mt. 15.20). It is highly unlikely that Matthew would alter Mk 7.19 to explicitly attack handwashing before eating ordinary food if such a practice did not exist. Matthew has a good knowledge of Jewish law so it is entirely consistent that Matthew would know if certain Jews washed hands before ordinary food. Another New Testament reference to handwashing before ordinary food is Jn 2.6 where the 'six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification' were surely used for handwashing.5 This is now an argument of powerful collective weight for handwashing before ordinary food being an established practice around the time of Jesus. The polemical nature of some of the rabbinical discussions of handwashing (cf. m. 'Erf. 5.6-7; b. 'Erub. 21b; Hul. 106a; Shabb. 62b; Sota 4b) suggests that Mark is exaggerating when he says that 'all the Jews' (jcdvieq oL Iou8aioi) handwashed before eating. There is a similar generalisation made in the second-century BCE Aristeas 305f., 'At the first hour of the day they attended the court daily, and after 2. For further discussion see e.g. J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1973); G. Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (ET; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), pp. 190-234; E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law From the Bible to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), pp. 131-254; R. Deines, Judische Steingefdfie undpharisdische Frommigkeit: eine archdologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verstdndnis von Joh 2,6 und derjudischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993); H.K. Harrington, 'Did Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity?', JSJ26 (1995), pp. 42-54; J.C. Poirier, 'Why did the Pharisees Wash their Hands?, JJS, vol. XLVII.2 (1996), pp. 217-33; E. Regev, 'Pure Individualism: The Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism', JSJ 31.2 (2000), pp. 176-202. 3. Sanders believes that because the details of handwashing are discussed here it was not a deeply rooted practice {Jewish Law, p. 230). Even if Sanders is right it still remains that the passage assumes that it was an established practice at the time of the first-century Houses. Cf. Deines, Steingefdfie, pp. 269ff. 4. Sanders, Jewish Law, pp. 39^40. 5. See especially Deines, Steingefdfie.

7. Dating Mark Legally (II)

185

offering salutations to the king, retired to their own quarters. And following the custom of all the Jews (ndm xol