One way to probe far the audience of Mark is to analyze the element of sodai stratification that is so apparent in his

gospel-story. Whereas the "crowd" is an indicator of the sodai location of Mark's audience, the "disdples"point most diredly to the audience itself Overall, the sodai milieu in which Mark's audience lived was that of the peasant class of antiquity.

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

Richard L. Rohrbaugh Professor of Religious Studies Lewis and Clark College ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE the social location 1 of the Markan audience are faced with a formidable obstacle right from the start: Scholars have b e e n unable to agree o n its place of origin. In r e c e n t decades, the view of many scholars, p e r h a p s a majority, has b e e n that Mark's Gospel was written for people in Rome. If that is correct, a n d if Mark is thus to be u n d e r s t o o d as an u r b a n Gospel, we must locate its a u d i e n c e a m o n g the nonelite of the preindustriai city.2 But an increasing n u m b e r of scholars locate Mark's readers or hearers in the rural areas of southe r n Syria, Transjordan, or u p p e r Galilee. 3 Obviously, if this is the correction location, the Markan a u d i e n c e must t h e n be located a m o n g largely nonliterate peasants in a village or small town context. Since we c a n n o t address the debate over geographical locale, however, the p r e s u m p t i o n of this article will be that Mark's Gospel was in fact written in a village or small town context in either s o u t h e r n Syria, Transjordan, or u p p e r Galilee a n d at a date very close to the events of A.D. 70. O u r task, t h e n , is b o t h to provide a m a p of the various social groups present in, or having an impact u p o n , village life a n d to specify a few ways in which the Gospel of Mark would have struck a familiar c h o r d in that kind of setting. Before we begin, however, we n e e d to discuss several preliminary matters.

380

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

Literacy and Schools

In any attempt to gauge the social level of Mark's audience, it is essential to consider the extent of reading and writing in the type of village in which Mark's Gospel may have originated. Just how widespread was literacy in rural SyriaPalestine? Are we to imagine the recipients of Mark as reading privately to themselves, just as any modern American might do? Should we picture Mark's community as being literate or even scholastic, one in which educated persons studied the scriptures? Or did one of the literate members of Mark's community read the Gospel aloud for the majority who could not read for themselves?4 In answering these questions, we shall take a view that differs substantially from many recent studies of Mark. Among both classicists and New Testament scholars, there has been a longstanding tendency to imagine widespread literacy during the Roman period. It has been claimed that schools were common and that at least elementary education was broadly available. Yet, recent studies suggest that both literacy and the scope of the Hellenistic school system have been sharply overestimated.5 Probably no more that two to four percent of the population in an agrarian society could read, or read and write, and the vast majority of these people lived in the cities. Especially important for our understanding of Mark's audience is the lack of evidence that significant schooling existed at the village level.6 Literacy rates (of at least a minimal sort) among elite males were indeed high, even a distinguishing mark of such status. In addition, officials, bureaucrats, servants of the elite, and high-ranking military officers were mostly literate, as were many Italian legionaires. But in spite of the fond wishes of scholars, the fact is that country people, artisans, slaves, and women were mostly nonlite rate. Not only could very few village people read or write, but many could also not use numbers. The reason for this can be traced to the cost of written materials and their relative scarcity at the village level. It was also due to the degree to which writing played a role in the control of the nonliterate. Fear of writing and of those who could write was widespread among peasants, who often regarded letters as a tool of elitist deception. This was especially true where the literate group was small and the nonliterate group large, which was exactly the situation in rural Syria-Palestine in the first century.7

The Audience of Mark's Gospel

A number of recent studies have located the author of Mark among the educationally sophisticated, usually by comparing the Gospel's literary structure to the rhetorical models of the Hellenistic schools. The commonly held view is articulated by Mary Ann Beavis, who asserts that "since the evangelist was literate,
Interpretation 381

we can assume that h e was e d u c a t e d in a Graeco-Roman school. His r e a d e r / a u d i e n c e would thus have b r o u g h t certain skills a n d interests to the composition a n d r e a d i n g of the text which can be illumined by data o n education in the R o m a n empire." 8 Beavis believes that Mark's audience was m a d e u p of "competent" first-century Markan readers "trained to make connections between parts of a narrative" a n d able to catch sophisticated literary allusions the a u t h o r might have used. Because of the difficulty of catching such things d u r i n g oral performances, however, she hypothesizes that Mark's was a scholastic community in which his rhetoric might have b e e n studied closely a n d therefore properly appreciated. 9 Perhaps Beavis is correct. But if Mark's Gospel originated in a Christian c o m m u n i t y that reflected in any significant measure the social profile of a typical peasant village, a n d if Mark nonetheless expected his village readers to appreciate such rhetorical matters as literary allusion, style, a n d structure, then o n e thing must be m a d e clear: Mark h a d precious little company. In fact, if Mark's Gospel e m b o d i e s the plot, structure, a n d novelistic a n d dramatic features that would have b e e n "attractive a n d instructive to Graeco-Roman audiences," as Beavis a n d many others claim, we are in a literary world that would have b e e n lost o n ninety-eight p e r c e n t of the people in rural Syria. For o u r purposes, however, it is e n o u g h to assert that it is n o t necessary that the social level of the audience match that of the author, especially since Mark's Gospel was almost certainly written to be read aloud or recited from memory. T h e r e is n o d o u b t that a few literate people, such as Beavis envisages, were in Mark's audience; a n d it is likely that o n e of t h e m read his Gospel aloud for nonliterates. In fact, given the widespread fear of writing a m o n g nonliterates, it is highly unlikely that a Gospel like Mark could have gained broad acceptance in a village without b e i n g read aloud with great frequency. 10 In what follows, therefore, we shall p r e s u m e a mixed audience for Mark, m o r e nearly like the profile of an ancient village, a n d see if the evidence in the Gospel supports such a view.

Social Stratification in Mark's Story

Given the f u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e of social stratification in agrarian societies, we must begin by describing key social groups that would have b e e n p r e s e n t in, or h a d an impact u p o n , the life of the villages a n d small towns of u p p e r Galilee, s o u t h e r n Syria, or Transjordan. T o o r d e r our c o m m e n t s , we shall refer to the following diagrammatic description of social relationships in the H e r o d i a n p e r i o d that was typical of advanced agrarian societies. 11 We shall look at each g r o u p in t u r n a n d t h e n specify its presence in the story-world of Mark.

382

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

t
o w e

Social Stratification in the Herodian Period Roman Emperor [Prefect/Procurator] _ Client King, Tetrarch or Ethnarch ("King") Herodians

r e s t i g e

<-

Population

->

Urban Elite
As can be seen in the diagram above, the urban elite made up about two percent of the total population. At its upper levels, this stratum included the highest ranking military officers, ranking priestly families, the Herodians, and other ranking aristocratic families. These persons lived in the heavily fortified central areas of the cities, usually enclosed in separate walls, and hence were physically and socially isolated from the rest of the society. The literacy rate among this group was high, in some areas even among women. Together with their retainers, they controlled writing, coinage, taxation, and the military and judicial systems. Their control of politics and economics was legitimated by the religious and educational bureaucracy that had become the keepers of the socalled "Great Tradition." Although birth rates were high in all segments of society, survival rates meant that large, extended families were characteristic only of this urban elite. Socially, culturally, and politically, they had little in common with the lower levels of society. Since they maintained their own etiquette, vocabulary, speech patterns, and dress, they could easily be recognized. The wealth of the elite was primarily based on land ownership and taxation, which effectively drained the resources of the rural areas. In most agrarian
Interpretation 383

societies, between o n e a n d three p e r c e n t of the population owned the majority of the arable land, a fact readily attested in Galilee, southern Syria, and Transjordan at the time Mark wrote. Recent studies indicate significant loss of land by peasants in that region as large estates came u n d e r the control of the H e r o d i a n s a n d o t h e r powerful families. Those m e m b e r s of the u r b a n elite we can identify in Mark are listed below.

Urban Elite Mentioned in Mark Caesar, 12:14, 17 Pontius Pilate, 15:2, 8, 15 Rulers of the gentiles, 10:42 Herod, 6:14; 8:15 Herodias, 6:17 Herodias's daughter, 6:22 Philip, 6:17 Governors, 13:9; 15:16 High Priest, 2:26; 14:47, 53, 54, 60, 61, 63, 66 Chief Priests, 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 14:1, 10, 43, 53, 55; 15:1, 3, 10, 11, 31 Scribes, 1:22; 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:11, 14; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 12:28, 35, 38; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31 Strong man, 3:27 Those who have, 4:25 Elders, 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1 Rich man, 10:22 Wealthy, 10:23, 25 Vineyard owner and son, 21:1, 6 Sadducees, 12:18 Family of seven brothers, 12:20 Rich people, 12:41 Kings, 13:9 Man going on a journev, 13:34 Owner of upper room, 14:14 Joseph of Arimathea, 15:43 Jairus and his familv, 5:22, 23, 40

Because of the p r o m i n e n t role that conflict plays in Mark's story, it is n o t surprising that all of Jesus' o p p o n e n t s c o m e from this g r o u p or its retainers. T h e fact that Jesus' o p p o n e n t s c o m e from a single social stratum a n d act in solidarity with o n e a n o t h e r is sufficient to d e m o n s t r a t e that their conflict with Jesus is social as well as theological. P r o m i n e n t in the list above are the scribes. U r b a n scribes were often sages of considerable influence, t h o u g h evidence from the Tebtunis papyri makes it clear that village scribes were m o r e likely to be retainers b e h o l d e n to the u r b a n aristocracy for their appointments. 1 2 Mark's readers are warned to "beware of the scribes, who like to go a b o u t in long robes, a n d to have salutations in the market places a n d the best seats in the synagogues a n d the places of h o n o r at feasts, who devour widows' houses a n d for a pretense make long prayers" (12:38-40). T o g e t h e r with the Pharisees, the scribes engage Jesus in controversy over ritual cleanliness (2:13-17; 7:1-23), which is why Mark explains that Pharisees a n d J u d e a n s (usually incorrectly translated as 'Jews") wash themselves a n d their eating vessels in keeping with the "tradition of the elders." T h e latter, of course, is the Great Tradition of the literate aristocracy that few peasants could afford to u p h o l d . In Mark's story Jesus' disciples are clearly identified with this peasant 384

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

inability (7:5), while the scribes show a typical aristocratic incomprehension of peasant attitudes or capabilities (Why do your disciples. . . ?). In a retort to the scribes, Jesus not only defends the peasant attitude but also sharpens his criticism of the scribes and Pharisees (7:9-13) and thus distances himself from the practices of the elite ("your" tradition). In Mark's passion narrative, Jesus' conflict with the elite intensifies as the scribes and Pharisees link up with the elders (nonpriests by birth) and chief priests. The latter are clearly the most powerful members of the Jewish aristocracy, and their struggle with Jesus is primarily one for political influence over the nonelite (11:18). Mark predicts that the chief priests will not only reject Jesus but also, in the end, destroy him (10:33). Pilate, another member of the (Roman) elite, clearly understands this struggle (15:10). So also do the Herodians and Sadducees whom Mark describes as joining the other elite groups in solid opposition to Jesus (12:13-17, 18-27; 3:1-6). Three exceptions stand out in this list: the scribe who is "not far from the kingdom" (12:34), Joseph of Arimathea (15:43), and Jairus (5:21-43). The first two are clearly urbanits, though the latter is probably part of village leadership. As Elizabeth Malbon has pointed out, these exceptions prevent us from excluding members of the elite from Jesus' community and may indicate that some such were part of the Markan community.13

Retainers
In a continuum from the lower echelons of the elite and ranging downward toward nonelite levels were those whom social scientists call retainers. These persons included lower-level military officers, officials and bureaucrats such as clerks and baliffs, personal retainers, household servants, scholars, legal experts, and lower-level lay aristocracy. They worked primarily in the service of the elite by extending governmental and religious control to the lower strata and village areas. Still, they did not wield power independently but depended for their position on their relation to the urban elite.
Retainers Mentioned in Mark Pharisees, 2:16, 18, 24; 3:6; 7:1, 3, 5; 8:11, 15; 10:2; 12:13 People from Jairus's house, 5:35 Men arresting John the Baptist, 6:17 Soldier of the guard, 6:27 Levi, 2:14 Those selling in the temple, 11:15 Servant-girl of the High Priest, 14:66 Crowd sent from Chief Priests, scribes, and elders, 14:43 Physicians, 2:17; 5:26 Galilean priest, 1:44 Courtiers, officers, 6:21 Judas Iscariot, 14:11 Tax collectors, 2:15, 16 Moneychangers, 11:15 Doorkeeper, 13:34 Soldiers, 15:16 Centurion, 15:39 Slave/servant, 1:20; 9:35; 10:43, 44; 12:2, 4; 13:34; 14:47

Interpretation

385

In Mark's story such functionaries as these play key roles. Significantly, there are m o r e p e o p l e in this g r o u p who are followers of Jesusthe people from Jairus's house, Levi, tax collectors, a n d the c e n t u r i o n t h a n in the elite g r o u p . By the same token, the key actors are the Pharisees, a n d they are o p p o n e n t s of Jesus. As A n t h o n y Saldarini has shown, the Pharisees (of Mark's day) were a g r o u p of retainers c o m p e t i n g with a d h e r e n t s of Jesus for influence a m o n g the nonelite. A l t h o u g h they possessed n o i n d e p e n d e n t wealth or power, they nonetheless could n o t have developed "their own interpretation of J u d a i s m a n d p r o p a g a t e d it a m o n g the p e o p l e [had they b e e n ] full-time lower-class peasants." 1 4 Despite the fact that, in Mark's story, the Pharisees associate with the scribes (2:13-17; 7:1-23) a n d H e r o d i a n s (3:1-6; 8:15; 12:13-17), they later prove n o t to be the chief o p p o n e n t s of Jesus. Most likely, they were literate local village leaders (in Mark, c o n t r a J o s e p h u s , the Pharisees are in Jerusalem only in 12:13) who d e p e n d e d o n the elite for their livelihood a n d o p e r a t e d as brokers between the nonelite a n d the u p p e r echelons of society. From that position they j o i n e d in with all of Jesus' elite o p p o n e n t s to form a u n i t e d front. Before leaving these various g r o u p s of retainers, we should take n o t e of the great n u m b e r of references to t h e m in Mark's story. These n u m e r o u s references d o n o t a p p e a r because a large part of Mark's story takes place in an u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e these groups lived. It is r a t h e r because retainers e x t e n d e d elite control into the rural areas in a pervasive way (on the a p p o i n t m e n t of village scribes, see above). Conflict between these groups of retainers a n d the rural populations they sought to control was a constant reality in agrarian life.

Urban Nonelite
A third g r o u p playing a role in Mark's story is the nonelite of the cities. This g r o u p included m e r c h a n t s , artisans, day laborers, a n d service workers of various kinds that in most agrarian societies r e p r e s e n t e d n o m o r e than five to eight p e r c e n t of the population. T h e e c o n o m i c situation of these persons could vary from e x t r e m e poverty a m o n g day laborers a n d certain artisan groups to considerable wealth a m o n g successful merchants. Yet even the rich a m o n g t h e m exercised little social or cultural influence. Urban Poor Mentioned in Mark Those buying in the temple (likely includes peasants), 11:15 Crowd/people, 1:5; 11:18, 32; 12:12, 37, 41; 14:2, 43; 15:8, 11, 15 Widow, 12:42 Most of the u r b a n p o o r lived in segregated areas at the o u t e r edges of the cities, w h e r e n e i g h b o r h o o d or craft associations were a c o m m o n m e a n s of 386

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

creating the social networks that e n a b l e d t h e m to survive. T h e i r health and nutrition were often worse than in the villages, a n d life expectancies were shorter. A child b o r n in the lower social levels in the city of R o m e d u r i n g the first century h a d a life expectancy of only twenty years. O n e should n o t be surprised that the u r b a n p o o r play a very small role in Mark's Gospel because, aside from the passion narrative, so little of Mark's story takes place in an u r b a n setting (the Jesus of Mark avoids all cities except Jerusalem) . W h e r e sentiments can b e ascertained, the crowd is with Jesus until it is stirred against h i m by the authorities (15:11). T h e o n e person in this g r o u p who is clearly identified, the widow in 12:42, is pictured as unwittingly victimized by the redistributive e c o n o m i c system of the temple.

Degraded, Unclean, and Expendables

Outside the walls of every preindustrial city lived the d e g r a d e d , u n c l e a n , a n d expendables: beggars, low-status prostitutes, the poorest day laborers, t a n n e r s (forced to live outside the cities because of their o d o r ) , a n d even some m e r c h a n t s . They were p r e s e n t in b o t h cities a n d villages, t h o u g h m u c h m o r e n u m e r o u s in the former. All such persons were locked o u t of the cities at n i g h t b u t frequented t h e m d u r i n g the daytime to beg or find work. T h e poorest lived along the hedgerows of adjacent fields. While n o t a large p o r t i o n of the population, the living conditions of these p e o p l e were appalling, a n d their o p p o r t u n i ties virtually nil. Unclean, Degraded, and Expendables Mentioned in Mark Man with an unclean spirit, 1:23 The sick and demon-possessed, 1:32-34, 39; 6:9, 13, 55; 9:38 Leper, 1:40 Paralytic, 2:3 Man with withered hand, 3:1 Those who have nothing, 4:25 Demoniac, 5:2 Hemorrhaging woman, 5:25 Syro-Phonecian woman and daughter, 7:25, 26 Deaf man with speech impediment, 7:32 Blind man, 8:22 Boy with an unclean spirit, 9:14 Blind Bartimaeus, 10:46 Simon the leper, 14:3 Swineherds, 5:14 Man carrying ajar, 14:13

Owing to the fact that these p e o p l e constituted only a b o u t ten p e r c e n t of the population, the striking thing a b o u t t h e m in Mark's story is their n u m b e r a n d the frequency with which Jesus interacts with t h e m (1:28, 32-34, 45; 3:7-10; 6:31-34, 54-56; 7:36-37). In fact, Mark wants us to know early o n that Jesus' healing activity a m o n g these p e o p l e is a major reason for the r e p u t a t i o n h e develops (1:28). N o t e that two g r o u p s in the list above, swineherds a n d porters, are cited t h e r e because of despised occupations. A n o t h e r figure, the SyroP h o n e c i a n woman, may originally have b e e n a person of h i g h e r status, t h o u g h Interpretation 387

with a daughter afflicted by an unclean spirit she would probably be understood by villagers as marginalized or ostracized.

Rural Peasants and Other Villagers

In agrarian societies such as that of the New Testament era, the cities dominated culturally, economically, and politically. Yet ninety percent of the population lived in the villages and rural areas, engaging in what social scientists call "primary" industries: farming and extracting raw materials. We want to look briefly at several of these rural groups who appear in Mark's story: freeholding peasants, tenant farmers, day laborers, slaves, and the various landless groups that included fishermen, artisans, and other craftsmen. Freeholders. Although there is substantial debate over the percentage of land held by Galilean freeholders in the late first century A.D., nearly all scholars agree that if land held by the freeholders was the majority, it was not by much. Since land was the basis of most wealth and yields were both low and unstable, peasant debt leading to loss of land was epidemic. Determining standards of living for freeholding peasants has proved difficult, however, especially in view of the variability of soil and rainfall from area to area. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that peasants enjoyed minimal levels of survival. At the same time, the burden they bore of supporting the temple, priesthood, Herodian regime, and Roman needs for tribute (estimates for the total vary from 15% to as high as 3 5 50%) were crushing. Combined with other needs, this burden pushed peasant economic viability to the brink. Isolated farms, on which peasant families lived separately from their neighbors, gradually disappeared prior to the New Testament period. The majority of peasants came to live in villages or small towns, going out to the fields daily. Self-sufficiency was the ultimate goal for peasant families, who were the unit of both production and consumption. Barter sufficed for the majority of needs, and few peasants participated heavily in the slowly spreading monetarization of the economy. Evidence suggests that by New Testament times the extended families of an earlier period were being replaced by nuclear families living in close proximity around courtyards or clustered along narrow alleys. Tenants, Day Laborers, and Slaves. Evidence for aristocratic control of major portions of arable land is most abundant for the period following the Jewish War that broke out in A.D. 66. From these years, we get a clear picture of large estates employing both tenant farmers, landless laborers, and slaves in producing crops for absentee landowners. Some tenants paid fixed rents in kind, others in money, and still others paid a percentage of the crop. Rents could go as high as two-thirds of a crop, though Rabbinic sources more commonly mention figures ranging from one-fourth to one-half.
388

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

In addition to t e n a n t farmers, t h e r e were b o t h day laborers a n d slaves. 15 While day laborers were n o t necessarily landless p e o p l e (freeholders often worked for others to s u p p l e m e n t their farming i n c o m e ) , those w h o were i n d e e d without land were n e a r the b o t t o m of the social-economic scale. Commonly, they were either peasants who h a d lost land t h r o u g h indebtedness or the n o n inheriting sons of large families. Many such landless p e o p l e drifted to the cities a n d towns that were in frequent n e e d of new labor, n o t because of e x p a n d i n g e c o n o m i c opportunity, b u t because of extremely high d e a t h rates a m o n g the u r b a n nonelite. O t h e r Rural G r o u p s . Besides peasant farmers, most village a n d rural areas c o n t a i n e d at least several o t h e r groups. Lower level retainers a n d lay aristocrats often provided village leadership, a n d most villages of any size h a d a council to govern local affairs. Artisans, craftsmen, fishermen, a n d h e r d e r s were also c o m m o n , t h o u g h few artisans or craftsmen could m a k e a living in the smaller villages a n d thereby h a d to work in several locations. Since p e o p l e w h o wand e r e d a b o u t were considered socially deviant by villagers, itinerant workers were very low o n the social scale. S h e p h e r d s were especially despised, being stereotyped as thieves without h o n o r because their grazing s h e e p t e n d e d to w a n d e r into the fields of others. As o n e m i g h t expect, these last groups, which were m u c h the largest in a n c i e n t societies, are p r o m i n e n t t h r o u g h o u t the story-world of Mark. Peasants or Villagers Mentioned in Mark Jesus, passim Those from the Judean countryside, 1:5 Peter, Andrew, 1:16 James, John, Zebedee, 1:19-20 Simon's mother-in-law, 1:30 Sower, 4:3 Seed scatterer, 4:26 Mary, 6:3 James, Joses, Judas, Simon, and Jesus' sisters, 6:3 Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, Joses, Salome, 15:40 Little ones, 9:42 Children, 10:13 Bystanders in Bethphage, 11:5 Those buying in the temple (likely included urban poor as well), 11:15 Tenants, 12:1 Simon of Cyrene, 15:21 Crowd, 2:4, 13; 3:9, 20, 32; 4:1, 36; 5:21, 24, 27, 30, 31; 6:14, 17, 34, 39, 45; 7:14, 17, 33; 8:1, 2, 6, 34; 9:14, 15, 17, 25; 10:1, 46

An especially i m p o r t a n t g r o u p h e r e is the crowd (Greek: ochlos, used 38 times in Mark, translated variously in the RSV). Mark uses "crowd" b o t h as a t e r m for the p o o r (the equivalent of cam ha caretz) a n d as an indicator of the social location of his own a u d i e n c e . T h e rabbis taught that observant Jews should n e i t h e r eat n o r travel with the cm ha caretz, t h o u g h the Jesus of Mark does b o t h (e.g., 21:13-17; 8:1-8). Interpretation 389

Another important group is the disciples. Mark tells us much about their fears, emotions, immaturity, stupidity, disloyalty, and eventual failure. While we cannot repeat here the many studies of the disciples as the prime indicators of Mark's audience, it is especially important to note that since failings were things talked about inside but not outside a Mediterranean family, we can only construe Mark's talk about the disciples' failures as "insider" or surrogate family talk. By taking the reader into his confidence on such matters, Mark indicates that he is writing for members of the Christian family. Our primary interest is in Mark's social characterization of the disciples, though social information is readily available for only four of the twelve. Peter, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen, a despised occupation as Cicero sees it, since fishermen "cater to sensual pleasures."16 Whereas James and John used a boat to fish (1:19), Peter and Andrew appear to have been net casters (1:16-18). Although Mark notes that James and John left their father with the hired hands (1:20), this does not automatically imply that the family was better off than most. Tax farmers often hired day laborers to work with contract fishermen. In any case, the four disciples that can be socially located are clearly members of the exploited nonelite. Socially and economically, they were below even peasant farmers and had less long-term security. The persons from the Judean countryside (1:5), the sower (4:5), little ones (9:42), bystanders in Bethphage (11:5), tenants (12:1), and various other persons listed above were probably peasant farmers. Jesus and his family, however, were artisans. Though Mark does not mention the Bethlehem tradition, if Jesus' family was originally Judean, we can assume that a predecessor there had lost the land or they would not have moved to Galilee where it would be difficult to make a living in a small village. (As the first chart shows, village artisans were even below peasants on the socio-economic scale.)

T h e Social Level of Mark's Audience

Although there have been many attempts to characterize the Markan audience in recent years (e.g., Beavis, Malbon, Hengel, Tannehill), most have focused on various ethnic, geographical, or religious aspects of the group's identity. In contrast, it is our aim to locate the place of Mark's audience on the social spectrum we have heretofore described. In looking over the five lists of characters in Mark cited above, we can safely say that the narrative world of Mark accurately re-creates the sharply stratified peasant society of his day. We can be sure that at some points this narrative world corresponds with the real world of Jesus, while at others it almost certainly does not. In the same way, Mark's narrative world and real world are probably not exact equivalents either, though the simple requirement of versimilitude and
390

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

relevance in literature designed to be persuasive makes substantial overlap between Mark's story-world and Mark's real world probable. The "truth" of Mark's text would be self-evident to a reader in large measure from the way it overlapped (or contravened) the real world. Trying to find contraventions or correspondences between the real world of social antagonisms described above and the story-world of Mark is thus the only real choice we have for finding the social location of Mark's audience. Basically, of course, it will come down to a question of how high or low on the social scale we might imagine it to be.

Group Boundaries and Self-Definition

We begin here with recent studies of the boundary language used by Mark so as to clarify the lines of demarcation between his own community and those outside.17 As Jerome Neyrey has suggested, the pervasive conflict between Jesus and the temple authorities or their representatives belies a certain defensiveness on Mark's part about both Jesus and his own community. Mark reports that Jesus is affirmed as the "Holy One of God" (1:24), but this view is not shared by his elite opponents. The standards by which the latter define themselves as Israelites are disregarded by Jesus in ever)7 important respect. Jesus repeatedly violates the purity rules regarding persons (1:41; 2:13-14; 4:35-42; 5:24-28; 5:41; 7:24-30; 7:31) by coming in contact with the diseased, the dead, the malformed, and the demon-possessed. Jesus violates rules about the body (7:33; 8:23), meal practice (6:37-44; 8:1-10), times (2:24; 3:1-6), and places (11:15-16; 12:33). It is not surprising that in the controversy over the source of Jesus' power his opponents claim his rule-breaking has its origin in Satan (3:22-27). Mark's defense of Jesus is a spirited one, however, and one that simultaneously functions as a form of self-definition for Mark's community. Mark asserts that, appearances notwithstanding, Jesus' purity is affirmed by God in both his baptism (1:10-11) and transfiguration (9:2-8). Mark claims that the scriptures offer justification (2:25-26; 7:6; 10:5; 11:17) for Jesus' actions even though others judge them to be violations of the rules of purity. As Mark sees it, Jesus legitimately promulgates new purity rules which imply that holiness is an internal matter of the heart rather than an external matter of protecting body surfaces and orifices (7:18-23). The key to acknowledging this lies in one's ability to confess Jesus to be the Christ (8:27-30). Moreover, as Neyrey reminds us, the membership criteria for belonging to the circle of Jesus' disciples in Mark are not the same as those of the synagogue, where blood and physical or genealogical concerns were paramount. Jesus' surrogate family is nonbiological and made up of believers: "Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother" (3:35). What makes one an outsider in Mark is objection to Jesus' teachings or practices (2:7; 7:1-4) or lack of belief in him (6:3-6). The key point that Neyrey makes in all this, however, is that in constructing

Interpretation

391

a defense for Jesus, Mark is also defending his own community. Mark's Jesus disregards the purity rules of the religiously correct a n d welcomes the unclean, the marginal, a n d gentiles. In telling the r e a d e r this, Mark is actually "re-drawing the b o u n d a r i e s of his own community." 1 8 H e wishes to include all those unholy types with w h o m Jesus interacts in his story a n d who, in Mark's day, were to be d e f e n d e d as being part of the p e o p l e of God in the same way that Mark's Jesus defends himself. Focus o n b o u n d a r y definition is i m p o r t a n t in yet a n o t h e r respect. As Michael White shows in his study of Matthew, b o u n d a r y definition is especially i m p o r t a n t for c o m m u n i t i e s caught in conflict or crisis. 19 Such definition draws the lines between insiders a n d outsiders, loyalists a n d o p p o n e n t s . Similarly, C h e d Myers argues that in the crisis of the i m p e n d i n g Jewish-Roman war, groups in the b o r d e r areas of u p p e r Galilee a n d s o u t h e r n Syria were forced to define a n d declare themselves in terms of the e m e r g i n g dispute. Myers's thesis that Mark 13 describes the situation j u s t prior to the war, when Christians were in d a n g e r of being h a n d e d over to councils a n d beaten in synagogues in an a t t e m p t to force t h e m to declare for o n e side or the other, is p e r h a p s o p e n to debate. 2 0 But h e is surely correct when h e claims that the community of Mark was caught in a crisis that r e q u i r e d struggle o n two fronts. O n the o n e h a n d , the reconciliation of Jew with gentile was o p p o s e d by Pharisees for reasons of purity; o n the o t h e r h a n d , it was e n c o u r a g e d by R o m a n s on imperialistic g r o u n d s . Consequently Christians who reconciled themselves with Jews, b u t on pointedly nonimperialistic g r o u n d s , i n c u r r e d the wrath of b o t h sides. Thus, as Myers suggests, the dilemma that Jesus faces in 12:13-17 over the question of w h e t h e r to pay taxes to Caesar may reflect the kind of crisis that faced the c o m m u n i t y for which Mark wrote. T h e choice seemed to be God or Caesar. T o many Jews or Romans these were the only two alternatives. I m p o r t a n t as these studies of purity a n d b o u n d a r i e s are, they tend to overlook a critical factor in peasant life. T h e historical Jesus may have b e e n seen as unholy a n d unwashed by the religious elite, a n d his behavior may have s e e m e d iconoclastic or even perverse, b u t to a peasant it would n o t have seemed to be anything o u t of the ordinary. Very few peasants could have observed the Great Tradition even if they h a d wanted to. They came into constant contact with bodily secretions, d e a d animals, a n d unwashed foods. They could n o t always have afforded to keep Sabbaths a n d holy days: In dry-land farming with marginal or uneven rainfall, each day that passed between the first rains a n d plowing r e d u c e d the final yields. N o r could they always have afforded the prescribed sacrifices or g u a r a n t e e d the cleanliness of meal c o m p a n i o n s . We must point out, therefore, that the very rules that the Markan Jesus breaks c o n c e r n i n g dietary laws, washing, Sabbath observance, a n d temple sacrifice are precisely those that peasants h a d the most difficulty keeping. T o the peasants of Mark's day Jesus' lifestyle would have b e e n thoroughly familiar. At the same time, Jesus' defense of

392

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

an internal purity that could be maintained without heavy expense or the disruption of necessary peasant farming practices would have come as a surprise to them. Jesus' lifestyle as such would not. Thus, if Mark's Jesus is also defending Mark's community, what Mark really asserts is that purity before God is possible within the limits of a peasant way of life.

The Character of the Folkloric Tradition

The social level of Mark's audience can be inferred in yet another wa\. To attempt to correlate Mark's audience with the social elite of his story-world would make it extremely difficult to explain the characteristics of the folkloric tradition in the way Mark has perpetuated it. We may take it for granted that Mark was not simply a passive purveyor of what came down to him. He was a creative author. Nonetheless, as Vernon Robbins has shown, Mark's way of telling his story functioned to create social cohesion in the Markan community. It did so by articulating conflicts and antagonisms harbored by group members who still perceived themselves to be victims of the adversaries in the story.21 By portraying the attitudes of the elite toward Jesus as being rejected and the responses of the degraded as being vindicated, Mark created a story that could be used to perpetuate identity, to educate children and new members, and to ensure conformity to the group's norms in contrast to those of their opponents. 22 It could be objected, of course, that Mark holds up the negative examples of the elite in his story-world and the contrasting actions of Jesus to rescue the weak as a form of social criticism aimed at elite members of Mark's audience. This is certainly possible, though a narrative plotted to achieve this effect is much more evident in Luke's Gospel than in Mark's. Accordingly, it is best to conclude that Mark's particular way of telling his story implies a group of readers who celebrated the victories of the weak and the defeats of the strong and who found mirrored in the characters of the story and the events that engulf them the dramas of their own lives. In any event, the latter plainly seems to be the case relative to the disciples. They are representative of Mark's audience. 23 As Mark's plot-line returns again and again to the disturbing inability of the disciples to grasp what Jesus does and says, it invites the readers to question the clarity and meaning of their own responses to him. Within Mark's story, the disciples at the last abandon Jesus. The question this raises for the disciples or readers outside the story is whether they will do the same. Perhaps they will. But the Gospel also celebrates the many victories of faith on the part of peasants, the degraded, the unclean, and expendables. So many are these people that they repeatedly crowd Jesus. They are key actors on Mark's stage. Moreover, as Mark often points out (e.g., 5:30; 6:2; 7:37; 12:34), two things
Interpretation 393

frequently astonish t h e m : Jesus' healing power, of which they are the beneficiaries, a n d his ability to defeat his elite adversaries at every turn. These elements in the social d r a m a of Mark's narrative inevitably e n g e n d e r expectations a n d hopes in the life of its real readers or hearers. In fact, given the n u m b e r s of such lowlevel a n d d e g r a d e d p e o p l e who were presumably a part of Mark's real world, if high expectations a n d h o p e s for j u s t these kinds of persons were n o t the essence of Mark's story, the latter could hardly have b e e n t e r m e d "Good News."

NOTES 1. By this term we simply mean a position in a social system shared by a group of people. 2. This traditional location for Mark has been extensively argued on many occasions. Perhaps the best is Martin Hengel, "Entstehungzeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums," in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literageschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, ed. H. Cancik, WUNT 33, 1-45. Donald Senior summarizes Hengel's case in " 'With Swords and Clubs . . .'The Setting of Mark's Community and His Critique of Abusive Power," BTB 17 (1987), 10-20." 3. The case for Syria may be found in Howard C. Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), pp. 102-05; also see Ched Meyers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988); and most recently Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Syyioptic Tradition, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 238-39. A detailed review of the arguments for both locations that comes down on a Syrian, but not Galilean, provenance is Joel Marcus, "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark, JBL III (1992), 441-62. 4. William V. Harris argues that early Christianity did little to encourage ordinary believers to read for themselves and may, in fact, have contributed to a decline in literacy, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 305, 311, 319, 326. 5. Ibid., pp. 241-44, 329, et al 6. Contrary to the widely used comments of C. H. Roberts, "Books in the GraecoRoman World and in the New Testament," Cambridge History of the Bible, I, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). For a crituque of Roberts, see Harris, who argues that the school system was in decline, at least in the eastern provinces, Ancient Literacy, p. 281. 7. Harris, Ancient Literacy, p. 333. 8. Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4: 11-12 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 21. 9. Ibid., pp. 42-44. 10. Frequent reading aloud was a key test of canonicity for Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.6. 11. Dennis Duling, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1993), Chap. 2, based on Gerhard and Jean Linski, Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), pp. 207-62. 12. Loeb, Select Papyri II: Non-Literary (Public Documents), 9.339, p. 393. 13. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, "The Jewish Leaders in the Gospel of Mark: A Literary Study of Marcan Characterization," JBL 108 (1989), 275-76. 14. "The Social Class of the Pharisees in Mark," in The Social World of Formative

394

The Social Location of the Markan Audience

Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee, ed. J. Neusner et al. (Philadelphia; Fortress Press, 1988), p. 71. 15. Sources indicate that they worked by the hour, day, month, year, three years, or seven years; see David Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land Is Mine (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991), p. 85. 16. DeOffims 1.150-51. 17. This discussion of purity in Mark is summarized from Jerome Neyrey, "The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel," in Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World, ed. John H. Elliott, Semeia 35 (1986), 91-128. See also David Rhoads, "Social Criticism: Crossing Boundaries," in New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. J. C. Andeison and S. D. Moore (Minneapolis; Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 135-61. 18. Neyrey, Purity in Mark, p. 124. 19. "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance: The Social Location of the Matthean Community," in David L. Balch, Social History of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 221-28. 20. Myers, Strong Man, pp. 323-28. Marcus takes a similar view, "Sitz im Leben of Mark " p. 453. 21. Jesus the Teacher: A Soao-Rhetoncal Interpretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 8. 22. Ibid. 23. Robert C. Tannehill, 'The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role," JR 57 (1977), 386-405; Joanna Dewey, "Point of View and the Disciples in Mark," 1982 Seminar Papers, ed. Kent H. Richards (Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1982), pp. 97-106; Malbon, Markan Characters and Readers, pp. 104-30; et al.

Interpretation

395

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.