Marcan Provenance & Lucan Salvation

Two Recent Journal Articles

Where was Mark’s Gospel Written?

One perennial question is Gospel studies is the social and historical location of Mark’s Gospels. Was it written in Rome under the shadow of empire? Or was it written in Syria-Palestinian against the backdrop of internecine Christian-Jewish rivalry? You can find lots of protagonists for either view and I have huge bibliographies for both sides.

Many have argued, however, that we cannot know for certain where Mark was written and it does not matter.

In a recent article by Morten Horning Jensen, he concludes

Mark does not need a precise location in time and place to be “explained” and relvant. Mark’s main concerns were longstanding issues for first-century Jews. I present this as a consolidating argument to those who have proposed a reading of Mark as writing without a specific audience in mind, most notably Richard Bauckham and Mary Ann Tolbert. In combination, I propose that the sound way of approach Mark is to keep provenance as a historical question, avoiding using a specific date and provenance as a hermeneutical crutch of interpretation.

Morten Horning Jensen, “Provenance and the Holy Grail of Purpose in Recent Markan Research,” NovT 63.1 (2021): 1-21 (20-21).

I have argued similarly in an older article, Michael F. Bird, “The Marcan Community, Myth or Maze?” Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006): 474-86. There I argued that even if there was a Marcan community, you cannot assume that Mark’s Gospel is a window into it, because Mark’s communal experience could have (hypothetically at least) spanned Jerusalem, the Pauline churches, Rome, and Alexandria.

What does it mean to be “saved” according to Luke?

An older generation of scholarship argued that Luke was interested in “salvation-history,” a periodizing of history, to put things in perspective, and to prepare the church for a phase of mission in lieu of a not-as-imminent-as-we-thought-return-of-Jesus.

I was convinced long ago by I. Howard Marshall that such an approach is wrong-headed. Luke is not interested in “salvation-history” as much as “salvation” in its scriptural and holistic dimensions.

Philip La G. Du Toit has a good article arguing that salvation is very Israel-centred in Luke-Acts. He writes:

In acknowledging historical Israel’s salvation in Luke-Acts, the natural order of salvation, Israel first and then the Gentiles, is confirmed. But more importantly, in this perspective, the salvation and restoration of Israel also has a profound diachronic dimension in that it includes all Israel right from the start of their existence and does not only involve a small group right at the end of their history.

This is helpful as it shows how Luke’s idea of “salvation” remains tethered to Israel, while it also tells us something of Luke’s view of the Jews vis-a-vis salvation.

Philip La G. Du Toit, “Reconsidering the Salvation of Israel in Luke-Acts,” JSNT 43 (2021): 343-69 (362)