Ben C Smith

I agree that is possible. I just want to avoid an immediate leap to Papias said Rome, when in fact we are having to put out some arguments for it.

Moreover, just to clarify, I tend to prefer a Roman provenance for Mark myself; I just do not want to use the wrong kind of argument for it. And spin is right; not all of those Latinisms are military or judicial.

Ben.

Vinnie

Yeah, I think I mentioned that in the other thread. They are not all military or Judicial but I remain unconvinced by spin about syro--I am simply undecided either way on that. I would agree the nature of ALL the Latinisms seems to favor Rome.

But as I mentioned to spin, I do not know the exact circumstances under which the author wrote. Was his work meant to be distributed locally or to be widely disseminated? I suppose if its the latter we may find evidences for several areas attested inside. Ws it written for a persecuted community in Rome and then copied and spread later? Multiple recipients from the get go? Largely unresovable, but possibly pertinent questions IMO.

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

Frankly, the whole Syrophoenician thing makes my head spin (pardon the pun). I have read both Hengel and Theissen on that one, and I beg your indulgence to just sit that one out.

IMVHO, the former. His unusual mention of the children of two gospel characters implies that he thinks his readers will know who they are, since identifying someone by his or her kids is not standard ancient practice. Also, the wording that Clement of Alexandria uses of the gospels seems to lead along the same lines, namely that Mark was published privately, not publicly at first. That Papias calls Mark notes (the first stage of ancient book production, not usually the final form) seems to imply the same thing.

Ben.

spin

I haven't read either, but Josephus has no trouble with the notions of Syria and Phoenicia: they are separate entities, suggesting that Josephus and perhaps anyone from the region would not use a term such as "Syrophoenician". Those who use the terms "Libyphoenician" and "Syrophoenician" seem either to be Romans, such as Livy or Pliny the Elder, or writers of Greek living in Rome, Polybius or Justin. If someone wants to argue against a Roman perspective in such terms, they need to supply sources outside the Roman orbit. I assume this has not been done.


spin

DCHindley

Spin,

I'm not quite sure why you would find this use to be so utterly amazing. If you don't want to go beyond the formal boundaries of the province of Syria, the term does bring to mind someone who is native to the region of Tyre & Sidon, which is where the author of Mark places this pericope. All the towns and cities along the Mediterranean coast had heavy Phoenician influence, as well as population, even in territories ruled by Herod the Great (Caesarea, etc). In fact, Herod did not automatically get control of these towns along the coast in the regions grented to his kingdom,. They operated semi-autonomously and remained under Roman protection through the governor of Syria. Herod slowly won control of them from the Romans through negotiations and concessions. Jews certainly settled in these regions too, and probably lived in close proximity to gentiles. What else are you going to call the natives of these regions who were not Jews?

I think the author's point was to emphasize the fact that (his) Jesus reached out to a gentile who accepted her subordinate position (as a gentile) in relation to Jewish people (the "children" Jesus speaks of). This account is not really about demons and healing, but about the change between Jewish eschatological expectations an the author's (Christian) universal salvation message through Christ, effected through Jesus.

The clue to what this pericope signifies is in the term "first". Taking this gospel as primarily an apology for Christianity, the author emphasized that their (the Christian) Christ first offered to heal/feed the Jews, but that they rejected him while some gentiles did not. As a result, God removed the promise of healing to the land of the Jews and instead bestowed redemption to all nations (gentiles). This is all about repudiating to the Roman audience who may have been reading/hearing Mark any idea that Christians still embraced Jewish earthly kingdom beliefs. They had a better way in their Christ.

It might also suggest that the first "Christians" originated in the coastal regions of Syria, but that is a red herring in the discussion at large.

Amen

DCH

Mark 7:24-30 24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house, and would not have any one know it; yet he could not be hid. 25 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29 And he said to her, "For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." 30 And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone.

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

There appears to be to be a harmonization between conflicting traditions concerning the Gospel of Mark. There is a claim by the Church fathers that before "Mark" there was no Alexandrian Christianity. There is an understandable desire by the Church Fathers to have the gospel written at Rome, but an explanation was needed that the gospel was first preached in Alexandria.

There are a number of traditions that insinuate that Mark wrote in Rome, but then is followed by declarations that Mark first preached his gospel in Alexandria.
"And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria." Eusebius, EH 2.16.1 .
"So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence..." Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 8

cf Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses li, 6.

But of course we know that proto-orthodoxy was not the first Christianity of Alexandria. The claims noted above that St. Mark brought Christianity to Alexandria are all rather late. Indeed, the earliest Christianity from Alexandria was gnostic, as is illustrated by Basilides. It is noteworthy that Basilides was an adoptionist (as opposed to the proto-orthodox Incarnation) and adoptionism is the Christology apparent in GMark. This fits with Ireneuas' statement that the Gospel of Mark was before his time in the hands of the "Separatists" by which he means those who separate the human Jesus from the spiritual Christ who came upon him at the baptism.

The Alexandrian Gnostics even claimed their own connection to Peter. According to Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.106.4. Basilides was said to be a disciple of Glaucias, the interpreter (hermenea) of Peter. Since Clement knew and quoted Basilides' works, we can presume the claim goes back to Basilides himself. Clement dates Basilides vaguely to the reigns of Hadrian and Antonius Pius. This would make Papias and Basilides near contemporaries. (See Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, page 237 ff).

Remember that, according to Eusebius, Papias said that Mark was the "hermeneutes" of Peter. So who is right, Eusbius re Papias in the 4th century (Peter->Mark) or Clement re Basilides in the early 3rd century (Peter-> Glaucias)?

The point is that a bit of caution is needed when evaluating the competing claims by the proto-orthodox Church headquartered in Rome. I think there is an understandable tendency to overvalue the traditions of the proto-orthodox because they won the doctrinal battles (the suvivorship bias).

Best,
Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

I posted on Glaucias et al in interpreters-of-peter-at-alexandria

Andrew Criddle

spin

"[U]tterly amazing"? I don't know where you got such a notion. I merely pointed out the non-Levantine nature of the term of reference "Syrophoenician", which you don't seem to address here.

Phoenicians. As I indicated, Josephus was happy to distinguish between Phoenicia and Syria -- see for example AJ 13.395. Phoenicia may not have been a political entity at this stage, but it certainly was a geographically acceptable one, eg BJ 1.409, 3.35 or 7.39, and obviously one of origin.

There is no support for a non-Roman origin of "Syrophoenician" and your argument here seems to support the fact by pointing to a Roman perspective.


spin

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

That is a nice article identifying three traditions:
1. That of Peter->Mark->Papias reported by Eusebius (as a friendly witness) in the fourth century.
2. That of Peter->Glaucias->Basilides reported by Clement of Alexandria (as a hostile witness) in the early third century.
3. An antignsotic claim that Mark established Christianity in Alexandria

Now, it is obvious that #3 is the latest. It is a proto-orthodox reaction against early Christian Gnosticism in Alexandria.

It is not clear to me that #1 must be older than #2. There is always the tendency of the proto-orthodox (and scholars who favor their side) to date sources that they agree with as early as possible, and heretical sources as late as possible. But such may not be the case.

Despite Clement of Alexander's concern to date Basilides as late as possible, Basilides was active already in the reign of Hadrian. IMO, Basilides and Papias are near contemporaries, with both broadly being dated to late 110's through 140's CE.

Thus remains two alternatives:
#1. That Papias and Basilides represent two independant tradions
#2. That Papias' reputed statements about the gospels were motivated by anti-Gnostic apologetic.

I favor #2 at this time because Papias' reputed testimony fits with Eusebius' stated purpose "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own;." EH 1.1.1. The testimony of Papias may represent nothing more than 4th century garnish. ymmv.

Jake Jones IV