A colonial heritage in scholarly interpretations of Mark's gospel

University of Gothenburg ^ | December 13, 2011

[decimon]

When the story of Jesus known as The Gospel of Mark began to circulate as a written text in the ancient Mediterranean cities, it became engaged in a form of negotiation with the Roman imperial culture. A newly published dissertation from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) shows, however, that a European colonial heritage probably has caused biblical scholars to neglect the earliest Gospel's primary act of negotiation with its imperial context.

Biblical scholar Hans Leander has investigated how Mark's Gospel was related to Rome's Empire when it began to circulate among the early Christians during the first century C.E. He has approached the question from the supposition that the Bible is connected to a colonial heritage and that biblical interpretation, including the academic kind, is always affected by the interpreter's location and perspective. In order to verify the existence of a colonial heritage, he has studied how nineteenth century biblical commentaries on Mark were influenced by that epoch's colonial mindset.

[decimon]

Subtle yet clear ping.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Ok, I read that twice.

I am still not sure what the dude is talking about.

[decimon]

I am still not sure what the dude is talking about.

Well, the dude is a biblical scholar so he's doing scholarly stuff.

He's apparently more putting the Gospel of Mark more into the context of the times. He's saying Mark's audience would have understood religion in context of Roman rule. He's saying the gospel was subtly subversive to Roman rule.

Or some such.

[count-your-change]

“When the story of Jesus known as The Gospel of Mark began to circulate as a written text in the ancient Mediterranean cities, it became engaged in a form of negotiation with the Roman imperial culture. A newly published dissertation from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) shows, however, that a European colonial heritage probably has caused biblical scholars to neglect the earliest Gospel's primary act of negotiation with its imperial context.”

Pseudo intellectual swill. No doubt this dissertation had to be rewritten until it made absolutely no sense to anyone. At that point it's ready to be defended.

[Ace's Dad]

As I also think; Jesus was “subtly subversive to Roman rule.” Maybe not so subtle at times. Mark (15:17-19) has him “chasing vendors and shoppers.” (SV)

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

He's saying the gospel was subtly subversive to Roman rule.

On one hand "duh!" On the other, "not really bub."

The place were Rome and Christianity came into conflict was the same place that Rome and Judaism came into conflict, both refused to worship the state as god. However Judaism was a established religion so while the Romans often scratched their heads in puzzlement over it they mostly understood that it was nothing personal. However in the case of Christianity once it split off from Judaism and became a spreading popular religion the refusal to worship the state was seen as dangerously subversive.

He would be more correct to say that Rome saw it as subversive, not that it actually was. If Roman had still be a republic rather then a quasi-theocracy headed by a god/emperor I dare say the conflict would have been minimal.

[BenKenobi]

You’d have considerable benefit in reading Chesterton. He explains why not.

Same reason why Akhenaten was defiled.

[pierrem15]

The relationship between the Gospel of Mark and the Roman Empire, Hans Leander argues, has primarily been understood from the modern separation between religion and politics. But the dissertation criticizes such an understanding.

"Such a separation was alien to the first recipients of the Gospel of Mark. There was no secular political sphere that was separate from religion. We must think beyond this modern separation if we are to understand the significance of Mark for its first audience", says Hans Leander.

Mark, 12:17--

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Kind of hard to square that circle.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Why it was not subversive or it was?

And which book? I have read most of his stuff but I am always ready to find something new.

[Steelfish]

Nothing subtle and nothing new. The Kingdom of Christ was not of this world and the Romans only knew of this world -the tangible. Thus whatever Mark wrote was subversive (in speaking about the new Kingdom and new King) and it would not have mattered in which place or time he lived.

[BenKenobi]

It, along with Judaism would never have been accepted.

The everlasting man talks about this point in Christian history where the Romans were perfectly willing to have Apollo = Christ. That even became the official religion of the Empire, thanks to Marcion, but it FAILED.