bauckham's gospel for all christians revisited

EuroJTh (2006)15:1,5-13 0960-2720

Bauckham's The Gospel For All ChristiansRevisitedMike Bird

Highland Theolq0ical College, Dingwall, Scotland

SUMMARY

Richard Bauckham's hypothesis that the canonical Gos-pels were written for circulation among Christians in gen-eral and not simply for isolated communities has drawn

much criticism. This study presents a response to worksthat have criticized Bauckham's thesis including those byPhilip Esler, Joel Marcus, David Sim, and Margaret Mitch-ell. The subsequent discussion attempts to defend theutility of Bauckham's proposal in light of these criticisms.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Die Hypothese Richard Bauckhams, dass die kano-nischen Evangelien mit der Absicht geschrieben wurden,unter Christen im Allgemeinen zu zirkulieren und nichteinfach fur isolierte Gemeinschaften, ist oft kritisiert wor-

den. Dieses Buch prasentierteine Erwiderungauf Werke,die Bauckham kritisiert haben, unter ihnen die Buchervon Philip Esler, Joel Marcus, David Sim und MargaretMitchell. Die darauf folgende Diskussion versucht, dieNutzlichkeit von Bauckhams Vorschlag im Lichte dieserKritiken zu verteidigen.

RESUME

Selon une hypothese avancee par Richard Bauckham,les evangiles canoniques ont ete ecrits pour etre diffusesparmi les Chretiens en general et non pas simplement

pour des communautes isolees. De nombreuses critiqueslui ont ete opposees. La presente etude repond aux tra-vaux de critiques de la these de Bauckham comme PhilipEsler, Joel Marcus, David Sim et Margaret Mitchell, et visea montrer I'utilite de la proposition de Bauckham.

IntroductionOver the last hundred years New Testament schol-arship has reached a near consensus that the Evan-gelists wrote for, and to some extent about, theirown respective communities. On this view, Mark,for instance, wrote for a 'Marcan community' andMatthew for 'Matthean community' and so forth.Scholars subsequently debate where these commu-nities were located and what internal facet of theseconimunities is mirrored in the Gospel texts. How-ever, this entire approach of perceiving the Gospelsas windows into particular communities has beencalled into question by Richard Bauckham andassociates in the book The Gospel far All Christians(1998).' Bauckham provocatively argues that the

Gospels were not written for any single commu-nity but for all Christians or as many that mightread them.

In the opening essay Bauckham begins by ques-tioning why the community hypothesis is so wide-ly assumed when, in fact, so little argumentationhas been offered to substantiate it.^ He proposesa wider audience for the Gospels based on sev-eral arguments. First, the Gospels are not like thePauline epistles and they lack the particularity ex-hibited in Paul's correspondence with his churches.If the Gospels are analogovxs in genre to bios thena more generalized audience is implied since a bioswas not meant for internal consumption by smallcommunities but propagated political, philosophi-cal and religious viewpoints further a field. ̂ Sec-

EuroJTh 15:1 • 5

MIKE BIRD

ond, Bauckham asserts that the early Christianmovement did not comprise isolated enclaves ofbelievers, but made up 'a network of communitieswith constant, close communication among them-selves'.* The mobility of Christians in the RomanEmpire, especially among its leaders, meant thatauthors would have known, if not expected, theirworks to come into contact with several Christiangroups. The wide circulation of literature and ex-changes of communication between churches lendscredence to this proposal, as does the fact that Mat-thew and Luke (perhaps also John) had copies ofMark at their disposal.^ Bauckham concludes that'the idea of writing a Gospel purely for the mem-bers of the writer's own church or even for a newneighboring churches is unlikely to have occurredto anyone'.*

Bauckham was not the first to postulate a gen-eral audience intended for the Gospels.'' Neverthe-less, Bauckham has renewed and invigorated thedebate and his proposal has been welcomed insome quarters.' At die same time the communityhypothesis is quite robust and remains firmly en-trenched in Gospel scholarship. Bauckham has notconvinced everyone and in fact several criticismshave been leveled against his thesis.' In view ofthat, the aim of this study is to demonstrate theviability of Bauckham's proposal in light of thesecriticisms.

Philip EslerThe first major response to Bauckham and Gospelfar All Christians was from Bauckham's St Andrewscolleague Philip Esler. ̂ ° Esler's main arguments arethat modern authors are culturally distant from thefirst century Jesus-movement. As such, modernauthors (like Bauckham and company) run therisk of ethnocentrism and anachronism in project-ing modern ideas of reading and publishing ontothe first-century Mediterranean environment. Asociolinguistic approach recognizes the culturalhorizons and group-dynamics of antiquity andavoids this error.̂ ^ On Esler's view it is a sociolin-guistic 'instincf that the Gospels must be attachedto a community of some form where the Evange-lists related the Jesus tradition to their context. ̂ ^According to Esler, the fact that Luke and Matthewre-write Mark is evidence that they repudiated hiswork and that they did not want their own Gospels'savaged' as Mark's Gospel was.̂ ^ Esler admits thatalthough the Gospels were composed for their owncommunities the Evangelists may have 'contem-

plated the possibility that it would travel furtherafield ... and even supplant the unsatisfactory Gos-pels of others'. Such a process Esler terms 'coloni-sation' where 'one group thinks that it has the truthand it is important to get other Christian groupsto adopt it'.'* Esler rejects the analogy with bios forthe Gospels' distribution since the Greco-Romanbioi were composed for the elite echelons of society,a situation different from the Jesus-movement.

In the same journal, Bauckham responds with abrief but penetrating riposte.'^ I shall briefly sum-marize his response and add a few counter-argu-ments of my own. Bauckham notes that a Gospelshaped in accordance with the faith of the Evan-gelist's commionity is entirely consistent with hisscheme, as it does not disallow the possibility thathe wrote also for Christians beyond his own com-munity. Despite the value of sociolinguistic ap-proaches, Bauckham asserts that Mediterraneananthropology provides no fitting analogy for thesocial phenomenon of early Christianity. I wouldadd the words of Robin Lane Eox, who proteststhat histories of early Christianity usually tell astory of unimpeded growth and omit the com-plexities of its emergence, but nevertheless states:'Christians spread and increased: no other cult inthe Empire grew at anything like the same speed,and even as a minority, the Christians' success rais-es serious questions about the blind spots in paganculture and society."* This shows the dangers oftrying to force sociolinguistic models onto a move-ment for which no precise analogy exists. Bauck-ham refuses to accept the dichotomy of choosingbetween either sociological views of group dynam-ics or modern individualism, as if these were theonly options. In defence of Bauckham I wouldadd, first, that Esler's rejection of bios as an anal-ogy for the dissemination of the Gospels is pre-mature. It is perhaps true that works like Tacitus'Agricola was composed for political elites, but thisremains a fairly broad target audience as it couldencompass any person of the upper classes whowere interested in the events of Domitian's life.If one presses Esler's logic do we need to posit a'Tacitean community'?''' In any event, the sheerexpense of writing materials in the ancient world(especially a two-volume work like Luke-Acts) andthe fact that the Evangelists wrote in a prestigelanguage like Greek as opposed to local languages(which would be more suitable for purported lo-cal traditions) suggests that the Evangelists delib-erately wrote as part of the literary and culturalelite thus the analogy with the bioi holds. Perhaps

6 • EuroJTh 15:1

Bauckham's The Gospel For All Christians Revisited

the Evangelists even wanted to sound elitist andpromote the authority of their Jesus-stories in thewider Christian movement. Second, Elser's socio-linguistic 'instincf about the link between Gospeland community sounds a lot like an assumption indesperate need of testing. Third, Esler cannot haveit both ways about the circulation of the Gospels.He asserts that Matthew and Luke would not wanttheir Gospels to circulate and risk being 'savaged'as Mark was, but then allows the possibility thatMatthew and Luke may have wanted to distrib-ute their works widely so as to colonize competingChristian groups. Eourth, Esler's reference to thediversity ofthe Gospels is always in negative termsand not, as is at least plausible, in complimentaryand irenic terms.

Joel MarcusJoel Marcus contests Bauckham's proposal for sev-eral reasons.'* Eirst, Marcus denies that writing isalways a substitute for presence when the Gospelof Mark could have been written to preserve tradi-tions in the face of potential death and to shapean audience through the repeated performance ofthe Gospel in the hope that 'its deeper secrets ofstructure and meaning^ may be revealed." Whythis concern has to be restricted to a 'Marcan com-munity' and not to all Christians in general is neverstated.

Second, Marcus proposes that the diversity ofthe Gospels implies local support for each of Gos-pels since their very survival against each otherwas contingent upon local support.^" Althoughthe plurality of the Gospels posed a certain theo-logical problem for the early church and was ap-proached variedly (e.g. Gospel harmony by Tatianin the Diatessaron, formulating a truncated versionof Luke by Marcion, or allegorizing the quality of'four' by Irenaeus), we do not find evidence in theNew Testament and beyond of competition be-tween the canonical Gospels that Marcus proposes.To the contrary, it was the wide circulation of theGospels in the chiorches that was instrumental intheir canonization.

Third, Marcus cites several Jewish and Christianworks (e.g. Epistle of Aristeas, Joseph and Aseneth,and ITje Teaching ofAddai) to show that writingdoes necessarily imply absence.^' Yet Aristeas andJoseph andAseneth are works that deal with conten-tious topics, and interest in their resolution wouldnot be confined to Jews living in Alexandria. Thequestion of the authority of the Septuagint {Ari-

steas) was relevant to the entire Greek-speakingDiaspora. The issue of accepting proselytes, racialintermarriage and advancing in the echelons ofRoman society was likewise an issue for all Jewsin the Greek-speaking cities (Joseph and Aseneth).Moreover, the primary purpose of Bauckham'scontrast of the Gospels and Paul's letters is not toadvocate that writing is only ever a proxy for oralcommunication, but to deny that the Gospels areconcerned only with addressing the situation andneeds ofa single community in the same sense thatPaul's letters were.

Eourth, Marcus appeals to local traditions inMark, such as the reference to Rufus and Alexander(Mk. 15:21), that make it difficult to view Mark asan encyclical text.^^ Even if Rufus and Alexanderwere not figures widely known in the early church(hence Matthew and Luke's omission), local col-ouring does not necessarily imply that the docu-ment was restricted to a localized audience.

David SimDavid Sim criticizes Bauckham's hypothesis andreasserts the validity of Gospel communities.^' Simmisrepresents Bauckham when he describes Bauck-ham as believing that the Gospels were written for'each and every Christian church'^* but elsewhereacknowledges that Bauckham's view is that theGospels 'were designed for any and every Chris-tian community to which they may have circulated^'.''•^This is a subtle difference and only the latter viewis true of Bauckham.

In the first part of his article Sim questionsBauckham's argument on several grounds. Simlevels that the charge that Bauckham's evidence iscircumstantial and it depends on the nature of hisclaims about the Christian movement. He objectsthat Bauckham's observations about the Gospelsare generalizations and not based on the internalevidence ofthe Gospels.^* Unfortunately the inter-nal evidence often cited in favour ofa Gospel com-munity is circular, depends upon allegorical read-ings of the text, and are grossly speculative. C.C.Black correctly notes that Mark's Gospel is lessdescriptive of its original readers than it is prescrip-tive for a certain theological stance.^'' In contrast,Bauckham's evidence is that of a literary artifactand what the phenomenon of its distribution in-forms us of its purpose.

Another facet of Bauckham's argument thatSim rejects is that there was no such a thing as theearly Christian worldwide movement.^* Sim pos-

EuroJTh 15:1 • 7

MIKE BIRD

its an overarching disunity within the early churchbetween Paul and the Judaizers that negates anynotion of worldwide Christian movement. Simwrites:

In light of the diverse and polemical natureof the early Christian factions, it is extremelyimprobable that any follower of Jesus the Christwould have classified the world, as Bauckhamimplies they did, simply into Christian and non-Christian. At the very least they would havedivided the Christian category between trueChristians and nominal but false Christians.^'The ramification of this for the Evangelists in

Sim's view is that they would have written onlyfor those Christians who shared their particulartraditions. But this argument can be rebutted onseveral grounds: (1) The status of Gentiles and themeans of their entrance into the church (as indica-tive of Christian disunity according to Sim) wasresolved by 70 CE and issues like circumcision aresignificantly absent from the Gospels. (2) Sim ap-pears to assume that all forms of diversity connoterivalry, conflict and opposition, which does notfollow. Despite the axiomatic assumption in NewTestament research that 'diversity' has strictly nega-tive connotations of disunity, diversity can equallymean 'different but not incompatible' or 'disagree-able but not hostile'. Perhaps Peter Bolt's sugges-tion of 'complexity' might be a more appropriateterm to use.'" (3) There is one text which explicitlydivides the world into Christian and non-Christiangroups. In 1 Cor. 1:18-24, Paul contrasts believ-ing Jews and Greeks with unbelieving Jews andGreeks. This is evidence of the overall unity ofChristians over and against the unbelieving world,and the Christians included here a unified bodycomprising Jews and Gentiles. (4) Another factoris that diverse Christian groups did share manytraditions in common: the Jewish Scriptures, theJesus tradition, and general Christian paranesis.Luke and Matthew share a common tradition inQ and Mark as sources for their Gospels. If we ac-cept Sim's premise that the Gospels were writtenonly for those groups who shared their tradition,one could easily imagine Luke writing for a 'Mat-thean Commvinity' or Matthew for a 'Lucan com-munity' since they share a tripartite tradition ofJewish Scripture, Q and Mark. (5) Sim overlooksthat there already was a precedent for a worldwidereligious movement: Judaism. Judaism was just asschismatic and fragmented as many allege the earlyChristian movement to have been. Several com-

mentators go so far as to speak of Judaisms ratherthan Judaism." Even given this diversity, the Jewsstill had a sense of corporate identity and theirunity can be construed in a variety of ways includ-ing 'pillars of Judaism',̂ ^ sharing a common 'story,symbol and praxis'̂ ^ or 'web of social and religiouscommitments'.'* Several Jewish authors, no doubtaware of the varieties of Jewish belief, employ thesingular designation 'Judaism' {loudaismos) with-out hesitation (2 Mace. 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; 4 Mace.4:26; Gal. 1:13-14).'^ The Christian movement'ssense of corporate identity was largely inheritedfrom its parental religion and the distinctive ethosof the first Christians was borne out of a particularbrand of messianism expressed in devotion to Jesusthe Christ.

Additionally, Sim contends that rival Christianfactions had little contact with each other.̂ * Mark'sGospel, which arguably stems from Pauline Chris-tianity, has come to be in the possession of Mat-thew who represents a form of Jewish Christianity.yVhereas scholars since EC. Baur have postulatedtwo competing Pauline and Petrine missions in theearly church, the entire notion of distinct 'Paulinechurches' has recently been called into question byDavid Horrell's 2005 British New Testament Con-ference paper 'The Letters to All Christians? WereThere Pauline Churches?' As the title suggests,Horrell derives the impetus for his paper fromBauckham, and he argues that despite die diver-sity in the early church one cannot assume that thedifferences were necessarily 'embodied in distinctcommunities, factions, or churches'. '̂' I would addthat Paul and Pauline sympathizers were in corre-spondence with churches that were either suspi-cious of Paul or hostile to him, most notably of all,Rome (Rom. 3:7-8; 16:1-16).'* Paul also expressesa surprising sense of solidarity and compassion forchurches that he was in opposition to. In 1 Thess.2:14, Paul praises the Thessalonians for being imi-tators of the churches of Judea as the Thessaloni-ans have experienced a comparable persecution. InRom 15:27, Paul considers the Gentile Christiansto have an obligation to meet the physical needs ofJewish Christians in Jerusalem. This idea of soli-darity in persecution and compassion for the needybetween Jewish and Gentile churches suggests asense of shared identity, though it certainly doesnot imply a uniformity of convictions.

Sim rejects the idea that Matthew and Luke in-tended their Gospels to circulate as widely as Mark.Sim goes on to say that Matthew and Luke believedthat Mark was wrong and that they radically altered

8 • EuroJTh 15:1


Mark's perspective to suit their own agendas.^'There is no question that Matthew and Luke edit,alter and smooth out Mark at times, but alterationdoes not necessarily mean repudiation. Luke andMatthew incorporate approximately 95% of Markinto their own narratives and in many cases followhis text word for word - hardly indicative of a re-nunciation. Sim suggests that Matthew and Lukedid not want their Gospels to circulate widely be-cause they did not want their work to be misinter-preted or re-written in the same manner as Mark'shad been. Apart from the fact the Sim still does notexplain how it was that Matthew and Luke came topossess a copy of Mark, his own premise could leadto the opposite conclusion. Precisely because Lukeand Matthew disagreed with Mark they wantedtheir narratives to circulate just as widely to com-pete with what they thought was an aberrant storyof Jesus (i.e. Esler's idea of'colonisation').

The genre of a Gospel as bios is dismissed bySim as evidence for an indefinite readership.** Buta genuine analogy with Greco-Roman biographyseems validated when the Gospels, like bios, areconcerned with narrating the major events of" theprotagonist's life and encouraging the cultivationof the protagonist's virtues among a wide audi-ence. Sim's reference to the Gospel of Thomas andother Jewish Christian Gospels as being indicativeof a narrowly designed readership is unconvincing.Thomas is a different literary genre from the canon-ical Gospels, with a distinct absence of narrativeand no interaction with the Jewish Scriptures.*' IfThomas is dependent upon the canonical Gospels,as many believe, then Thomas may even constitutethe earliest known evidence of use of the fourfoldGospel collection.*^ That the author of Thomascame into contact with all four canonical Gospelsca. 125-60 CE, is inconceivable apart from Bauck-ham's theory of Gospel circiJation. How did Tho-mas access documents or traditions from a Marcancommunity, a Lucan community, a Matthean com-munity^ and a Johannine community if these com-munities were not in contact with each other?

Little is known about the origination and dis-semination of the Jewish Christian Gospels fromwhich to infer target audiences. The Jewish-Chris-tian Gospels were probably composed for Naza-renes or Ebionites wherever they were - a plausiblehypothesis given that the Ebionites had congrega-tions in places such as Cyprus and the Trans-Jor-dan.*^ The fact that most of the Jewish ChristianGospels rely on canonical Matthew {Gospel oftheHebrews is a possible exception) signifies their in-

teraction with other Jewish Christian groups thatwere positively disposed towards Gentile Chris-tians.**

In the second half of the article, Sim constructsa positive argument for assigning communities toeach of the Gospel. He advocates that the exist-ence of these communities is 'a perfectly justifiableassumption' given that productions of the Gospelrequired painstaking activity of composition andreflection in a communal environment.*^ Grant-ing this assumption, which is disputable itself,there is no guarantee that a document written 'in' acommunity was necessarily written 'for' that com-munity and even 'about' that community Sim isaware of this objection and tries to substantiate hispoint by inferring that the theological divergencesbetween the Gospels and their use of special tradi-tions indicate that the Gospels were composed inindependent churches that were geographically re-moved from each other.** However, I fail to see howtheological divergences require geographical dislo-cation. Groups with radically different theologicalperspectives could easily co-exist in the same city(as I write this article I'm overlooking a street thatcontains a Church of Scotland, a Catholic church,and a Scottish Episcopalian church in the space of100m). And why the Sonderquellen of 'E and 'M'require independent localities is anybody's guess.If, as Kim Paffenroth has argued, 'E was writtenby Jewish-Christians in Palestine between 40-60CE,*^ how is it that Luke, somewhere in the widerMediterranean, has gained access to this sourceand has been able to use it for a Gentile audience?If sources were limited to locations, how is it thenthat Matthew and Luke have gained access to bothMark and Q? The fact is that written traditionswere not limited by location, but circulated widelyjust as Bauckham has suggested. Sim's contentionthat the Gospels were formed on the basis of'localtraditions' is therefore indefensible.**

Sim's final argument is that the particular theo-logical emphases ofthe Gospels (e.g. Mark and suf-fering, Matthew's polemic against the Pharisees)are best explained by recourse to separate commu-nities.*' There is no denying these differences, butthe default setting of explaining them by separatecommunities is only one possible solution.

Margaret MitchellFrom a different perspective Margaret Mitchellsurveys patristic literature and identifies authorswho ascribed both local and universal audiences to

EuroJTh 15:1 '9

• MIKE BIRD

the Gospels.̂ " Mitchell offers a stringent critique ofBauckham's method and presuppositions as well asnoting how patristic authors wrestled with a dia-lectic tension between the specific and indefinitereaders of the Gospels. Eor her, this demonstratesthat the earliest exegetes did not think that theGospels were composed for all Christians.

She contends that Bauckham's decision to limithis study to the canonical narratives brackets outthe diversity in early Christian literature.^' Further-more, several of the extra-canonical Gospels nomi-nate specific audiences or promulgators (e.g. Gospelofthe Hebrews, Gospel ofthe Egyptians, and Gospel ofthe Nazarenes etc).̂ ^ Thomas Kazen argues simi-larly that the extra-canonical Gospels are no lesssectarian than the canonical Gospels and that bothwere intended for liturgical use in a cluster of like-minded churches." In response, however, the ex-tra-canonical Gospels are later creations dependenton the canonical Gospels. They were written bygroups largely on the fringes of the early Christianmovement and were never serious contenders forthe status of 'Scripture' among the wider church.The canonical Gospels won the day not due to thesuppression of rival groups that composed theirown literature, but because the canonical Gospelswere used widely in the churches and connectedthe story of Jesus to the story of Israel. The gnos-tic Gospels like Thomas were composing literaturefor a new religion that disconnected Jesus from Is-rael's sacred traditions.^* Kazen may be right thatThomas and Matthew are both sectarian,̂ ^ but inradically different contexts. Matthew seeks to es-tablish a place for the Christian movement vis-a-visJudaism, whilst Thomas seeks to establish a placefor Christian-gnosticism vis-a-vis other Christians.That makes Thomas an intra-Christian sectarianwriting. Also the Jewish Christian Gospels wereprobably intended for all Jewish Christians. In thecase of the Gospel of Peter we can only speculate asto its origin and reception, but it may have intend-ed to circulate widely as the canonical Gospels asevidenced by its use in Antioch and Egypt.̂ * Insum, some extra-canonical Gospels (like Thomas)were intended for a limited readership and that isattributable to their intra-Christian sectarian ten-dency. Other extra-canonical Gospels were meantfor wide circulation (Jewish Christian Gospels andGospel of Peter) largely out of imitation of the ca-nonical Gospels. Bauckham is quite right then tofocus on the canonical Gospels, as they alone cameto be regarded as the couriers of the apostolic tra-dition about Jesus despite the diversity inherent

within their portraits and the problems posed bytheir plurality.

Second, Mitchell believes that Bauckham doesnot adequately show how the existence of a 'worldwide Christian movement' comports with the factthat there were various versions of Christianity andthat the Gospels may have be tailored towards suchversions.̂ ^ It is precisely the ability to embraceunity and diversity within the Christian move-ment that is the genius of Bauckham's proposal.Eor instance, the Gospel of Mark arguably standsin relation to Pauline Christianity since Mark givesspecial emphasis to Christ's death, particularly itsredemptive significance (Mk. 10:45; 14:22-25;Rom. 3:21-25; 1 Cor. 11:23-26); his view oftheLaw seems thoroughly Pauline (Mk. 7:19; Rom.14:14); his use ofthe term euOagge/lion is similarto Paul (Mk. 1:1, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9;Rom. 1:1-4, 16-17; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Cor. 15:1-2);and his emphasis on Jesus feeding the children ofIsrael 'first' parallels Pavil's emphasis on the priorityof Israel (Mk. 7:27; Rom. 1:16; 15:8).58 The Gos-pel of Mark was used as a template by Matthewwho belongs to a form of'Jewish Christianity', andby Luke who arguably represents a form of post-Pauline 'Hellenistic Christianity'. The question ofa relationship between Mark and John is notori-ously difficult to resolve, but there is a reasonableprobability that the Gospel of John knows of Markand builds upon the Marcan Gospel even if it takesthe story in a new direction as a manifesto for 'Jo-hannine Christianity'.^' In this case the circulationand utilization ofthe Gospel of Mark demonstrateshow, even amidst the conflicting diversity of theChristian movement (cf Gal. 2:4,11-14; Phil. 3:2;1 Jn. 2:18-25; Jude 4, 8-16; Rev. 2:2, 14-16, 20-23), 'Pauline Christianity' interfaced with 'JewishChristianity', 'Hellenistic Christianity' and 'Johan-nine Christianity'. This interface was mostly posi-tive in that the Gospels posterior to Mark have notrepudiated Mark's narrative christology, but havelargely repeated his material, followed his outline,updated the story to suit their own interests, andexpanded his account where Mark's interests mettheir own. This indicates that Mark's Gospel wasindeed tailored for communities beyond his ownimmediate circle.

Third, Bauckham admits that the Evangelistshad different understandings of Jesus and Mitchellcomplains that production of the Gospels in dif-ferent localities might explain this distinctiveness.*"This may well be the case, but locale is only onefactor that can contribute to distinctiveness, and

10 • EuroJTh 15:1


it is almost impossible to prove that locale washermeneutically determinative for any element ofthe Evangelist's individual viewpoint.

Mitchell raises several other objections againstBauckham's thesis, and since they relate to her de-scription of how patristic authors understood theGospel audiences I shall broadly address that facetof her argument. Mitchell raises the valid point thatpatristic authors did attribute to the Gospels par-ticularistic audiences. Even so, I fail to see how thisimpugns Bauckham's argument that the Evange-lists wrote for a broad audience. Mitchell's detailedinquiry into patristic Gospel criticism is no morethan a Wirkungsgeschicte of how the Gospels wereunderstood in the early centuries of the commonera and provides no evidence of who the intend-ed flesh and blood readers were. She makes thispoint explicitly: 'The point for our purposes ... isnot to argue that this tradition is historically accu-rate, but to insist that it does represent what someearly church readers thought about the origins ofthe gospels (in this case, Mark).'*^ The statementfrom Papias referring to the origins of Mark (Euse-bius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15) is the source most likelyto convey a kernel of historical information, butthat is only going to convince one side of the de-bate about Mark's origins since proponents of theGalilee/Syria view reject all the arguments from pa-tristic traditions.

Mitchell labours the point that that Bauckhamwas wrong to assert that 'all readers without excep-tion before the mid-twentieth century missed the(alleged) hermeneutical relevance ofthe Mattheancommunity to the interpretion of Matthew'.*^ No-where does Bauckham deny that readers prior tothe twentieth century were aware of traditions oflocality, rather his point is that the particularity as-signed to the Gospels did not carry the hermeneuti-cal baggage that modern authors assign to thesepurported Gospel communities. Mitchell's attemptto identify particiolarized audiences as havinghermeneutical significance for patristic interpreters(e.g. John Chrysostom)*^ conRises hermeneuticswith apologetics. Associating the Evangelists withparticiilar figures or places (e.g Mark in Rome withPeter) anchored the Gospels in apostolic testimony,and accounted for the plurality of Gospels and di-vergence in details. Apart from apologetic cameos,audiences were not invoked in order to provide ahermeneutical grid through which the details ofthe Gospel were interpreted.

A further problem is that some of the patristicauthors whom Mitchell cites in favour of limited

audience prove the exact opposite. If, as severalpatristic authors insist, Matthew wrote for JewishChristians (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16; Origen,Erag. in Matt. 1.8) and Luke for Gentile Chris-tians (Anti-Marcionite Prologue; Origen, Erag. Excomm. in Matt. 1.19-20) then we are dealing withlarge groups of people spread across the RomanEmpire and not isolated communities in one lo-cation. If patristic notions of particularity encom-pass all the Gentile Christians in the Greco-Romanworld, one cannot help but think that the meaningof particularity is being stretched.

Finally, a detail worth noting is that the repeatedobjection that the Gospels might have been writ-ten initially for an immediate group of readers likea Christian house church or a Christian benefac-tor and his household and only then for widercirculation is wholly compatible with Bauckham'sthesis.** The hypothesis does not demand the par-ticular/ universal dichotomy that many impute toBauckham. The centre of gravity of the Gospel farall Christians is that the literary phenomenon ofthe Gospels is not conducive to the type of intra-community origination normally assigned to theirorigin given what is known of the circulation ofChristian leaders and literature in the first-century

ConclusionDespite the criticisms leveled against Bauckham'sGospel far all Christians the hypothesis that theGospels were written for both immediate sup-porters and for broad circulation is arguably sus-tainable. The common appeals to diversity in theearly church and the non-canonical Gospels do notundermine the integrity ofthe notion that the Gos-pels were composed for audiences wider than anyone specific community. What is more likely to meis that the Gospels were written to tell the story ofJesus for Christians in the Greco-Roman world.

Notes1 Richard Bauckham, ed.. The Gospel far All Christians:

Rethinkingf the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1998).

2 Richard Bauckham, 'For Whom Were the GospelsWritten?' in The Gospel fin-All Christians, ed. RichardBauckham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998),pp. 9-48.

3 Bauckham, 'For Whom Were the Gospels Written!"pp. 26-30.

4 Bauckham, 'For Whom Were the Gospels Written.?'p. 30.

EurofTh 15:1 • 11

• MIKE BIRD

5 Bauckham, 'For Whom Were the Gospels Written?'pp. 30-44.

6 Bauckham, 'For Whom Were the Gospels Written?'p. 44.

7 Ralph P. Martin, Mark - Evangelist and Theologian(Carlisle: Paternoster, 1972), p. 79; Robert M.Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function ofthe FeedingStoreis in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, CA:Scholars, 1981), p. 83; Mary Anne Tolbert, Sowingthe Gospel: Mark's World in Literary atid HistoricalPerspective (Minneapolis: Fotress, 1989), pp. 53,304-4; M.A. Beavis, Mark's Audience: The Literaryand Social Setting of Mark 4.11-12 (Sheffield: Shef-field Academic Press, 1989), pp. 171-72; BengstHolmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: AnAppraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 199), pp. 124-25;H.F Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 102;Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospeloffesus Christ (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM,2000), pp. 106-15.

8 See reviews in: J. DU£F,V4MOT7 16 (1999), pp. 134-35; Paul Ellingworth, EQ 71 (1999), pp. 273-75;B.E. Bowe, CurThM 27 (2000), pp. 295; CraigL. Blomberg, Themelios 25 (2000), pp. 78-80; T.Baxter, Evangel 19 (2001), pp. 55; Mark Matson,ResQ^ 43 (2001), pp. 54-56. Other positive estima-tions can be found in Ben Witherington, The Gospelof Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 28-30; R.T.France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 36; Thorsten Moritz,'Mark, Book of,' in Dictionary for Theological Inter-pretation ofthe Bible., ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), p. 480.

9 For a survey of the debate see Edward W Klink,'The Gospel Community Debate: State of theQuestion,' CBR 3 (2004), pp. 60-85 and Peter G.Bolt, 'Mark's Gospel,' in The Face of New TestamentStudies: A Survey of Recent Research, eds. Scot McK-night and Grant R. Osbome (Grand Rapids, MI:Baker, 2004), pp. 395-96; H.N. Roskam, The Fur-pose of" the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and SocialContext (NovTSup 114; Leiden: BriU, 2004), pp.17-22; Richard A. Burridge, 'Who writes, why,and for whom?' in The Written Gospel, eds. MarkusBockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (Cambridge:CUP, 2005), pp. 110-12.

10 Philip E Esler, 'Community and Gospel in EarlyChristianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham'sGospels for All Christians,' SJT 51 (1998), pp. 235-48.

11 Esler, 'Community and Gospel in Early Christian-i t / , pp. 237-38.

12 Esler, 'Community and Gospel in Early Christian-ity', p. 239.



15 Richard Bauckham, 'Response to Philip Esler,' SJT51 (1998), pp. 249-253.

16 Robin Lane Fox, Fagans and Christians in the Medi-terranean World from the Second Century A.D. to theConversion of Constantine (2d ed.; London: Pen-guin, 1986), p. 271.

17 Burridge, 'Who writes, why, and for whom?' pp.114-15.

18 Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (AB; New York: Doubleday,1999), pp. 26-28.

19 Marcus, Afor;̂ 1-8, p. 26.20 Marcus,iW«>-^i-5, pp. 26-27.21 MiTcus,Markl-8,p.27.22 MAtcas,Mark 1-8, pp. 27-28.23 David C. Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians? A

Response to Richard Bauckham,'JSNT 84 (2001),pp. 3-27.

24 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' pp. 4, 27.25 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' p. 5; Bauck-

ham, 'For Whom Were the Gospels Written?' pp.10-11 (italics added).

26 Sim, 'The Gospel for AU Christians?' p. 9.27 C. Clifton Black, 'Was Mark a Roman Gospel?'

£!^riO5(1993), p. 39.28 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' pp. 9-11.29 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' p. 10.30 Peter Bolt, 'Review: I. Howard Marshall, New Testa-

ment Theology,' ExpT 117 (2006), p. 166.31 Robert A. Kraft and George W E. Nickelsburg,

'Introduction,' in Early Judaism and Its ModemInterpreters (Adanta: Scholars, 1986), p. 2.

32 James D. G. Dunn, The Farting ofthe Ways BetweenChristianity and Judaism and Their Significance forthe Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991),pp. 18-36.

33 N.T Wright, The New Testament and the Feople ofGod (COQG 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp.215-43.

34 J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diasporafrom Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE -117CE) (Edin-burgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 442.

35 Cf. E.P S-3nde.Ts,Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah(London: SCM, 1990), pp. 255-56; RichardBauckham, 'The Parting of the Ways: What Hap-pened and Why,' ST 47 (1993), pp. 137-38; MartinGoodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing inthe Religious History ofthe Roman Empire (Oxford:Clarendon 1994), p. 39; Barclay,/fWi in the Medi-terranean Diaspora, p. 401.

36 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' pp. 11-16.37 An abstract ofthe paper is available on the internet

at: http://www.ntgateway.com/bnts/papers.html.38 It is the apparent reservations that the Romans

have towards Paul that provides the background ofThomas Tobin's recent monograph Faul's Rhetoricin its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody:

12 • EuroJTh 15:1

Bauckham's The Cospel For All Christians Revisited

Hendrickson, 2004).39 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' pp. 16-18.40 Sim, 'The Gospel for AU Christians?' pp. 18-19;

cf. Emest van Eck, 'A Sitz for the Gospel of Mark?A Critical Reaction to Bauckham's Theory on theUniversality of the Gospels,' HTS 54 (2000), pp.997-98; Roskam, The Furpose ofthe Gospel of Mark,pp. 19-20.

41 FE Bruce, 'When is a Gospel not a Gospel?' BJRL45 (1963), pp. 319-39.

42 John Halsey Wood, 'The New Testament Gospelsand the Gospel of Thomas: New Directions,' NTS 51(2005), p. 595.

43 On bringing this point to my attention I amindebted to Prof Richard Bauckham and personalcorrespondence dated 11-11-05.

44 Cf. Craig A. Evans, 'Jewish Versions of the Gospelof Matthew: Observatiotis on Three Recent Publi-cations,'AfifMaw 38 (2003), pp. 70-79.

45 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' p. 21.46 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' p. 23.47 Kim Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus according to L

(JSNTSup 147; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1997).

48 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' p. 23.49 Sim, 'The Gospel for All Christians?' p. 26.50 Margaret M. Mitchell, 'Patristic Counter-Evidence

to the Claim that "The Gospels Were Written forAll Christians,"'J^5 51 (2005), pp. 36-79. Bauck-ham wrote a response to an earlier draft of Mitch-ell's paper that was read at the SBL Annual Meetingin Adanta in November 2003. The letter is avail-able on-line at: http://www.ntgateway.com/gospels/bauddiam2.pdf.

51 Several authors such as William Wrede, ('The Taskand Methods of "New Testament Theology,"' inThe Nature of New Testament Theology: The Con-tribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter, ed.Robert Morgan [SBT 25; London: SCM, 1973],pp. 68-116), Helmut Koester {Trajectories throughEarly Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971],pp. 272-73) and Heikki Raisanen {Beyond New Tes-tament Theology [London: SCM, 1990], p. 100)have objected that it is arbitrary to limit a study ofearly Christianity to the New Testament canon andhave instead urged wider approach encompassingextra-canonical literature. Alternatively, Peter Balla{Challenges to New Testament Theology: An Attempt

to Justify the Enterprise [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1998], pp. 144-46) identifies in first century Chris-tianity a process of already elevating certain writingsto a high level of authority based on an analogy withthe formulation of the Old Testament canon, inter-testamental discussions of canonical material, andthe widespread acceptance of apostolic authority.

52 Mitchell, 'Patristic Counter-Evidence', p. 39.53 Thomas Kazen, 'Sectarian Gospels for Some Chris-

tians? Intention and Mirror Reading in the Light ofExtra-Canonical Texts,' NTS 51 (2005), pp. 561-78.

54 D. Moody Smith, 'When Did the Gospels BecomeScripmre?'/SZ, 119 (2000), pp. 13-14.

55 Kazen, 'Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians?' pp566-67.

56 Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.17; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.3.3.2; 3.25.6-7; 6.12.2-6; POxy2949.

57 Mitchell, Tatristic Counter-Evidence', pp. 39-40.Note the similar objection of Eck ('A Sitz for theGospel of Mark?' p. 994) who erroneously carica-tures Bauckham's position as, 'the early Christianmovement was one table, one shared meal, a move-ment practicing open commensality wider as onecan imagine'.

58 Cf. Joel Marcus, 'Mark - Interpreter of Paul,' NTS46 (2000), pp. 473-87.

59 Cf. D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris,An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 1992), p. 163; Richard Bauck-ham, 'John for Readers of Mark,' in The Gospelfor all Christians, ed. Richard Bauckham (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 147-71; IanD. Mackay, John's Relationship with Mark (WIJNT2.182; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004), pp. 302-3.For an alternative perspective see Wendy E. Spros-ton North, 'John for Readers of Mark? A Responseto Richard Bauckham's Proposal,'/SJVT 25 (2003),pp. 449-68.

60 Mitchell, 'Patristic Counter-Evidence', pp. 43-44.61 Mitchell, 'Patristic Counter-Evidence', p. 51.62 Bauckham, 'For Whom Were the Gospels Written?'

p. 47; Mitchell, 'Patristic Counter-Evidence', p. 46.63 Mitchell, 'Patristic Counter-Evidence', pp. 69-75.64 Esler, 'Community and Gospel in Early Christian-

ity, p. 242; Marcus, Afffrfe 1-8, p. 26; Witherington,The Gospel of Mark, p. 30; Bauckham, 'Response toPhilip Esler', p. 249.

EuroJTh 15:1 • 13

bauckham's gospel for all christians revisited

Documents