[1] Schweizer, E., The Good News According to Mark, trans. Madvig, D. H. (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1970) 63.Google Scholar

[2] E.g. Nineham, D. E., The Gospel of St Mark, Pelican NT Commentaries (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963) 99Google Scholar; Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1955; New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955) 204Google Scholar; Swete, H. B., Commentary on Mark (London: Macmillan, 1913; reprinted., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1977) 41Google Scholar; Bratcher, R. G. and Nida, E. A., A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, Helps for Translators, vol. 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill for The United Bible Societies, 1961) 85–6.Google Scholar But not Ernst Lohmeyer, who states (with out argument) that 2. 15 refers to Jesus' house in Capernaum; in fact, Lohmeyer' German translation of 2. 15 begins: ‘Und es geschieht, dass Er beim Mahle liegt in Seinem [note the capital S] Hause, und viele Zöllner und Sünder lagen beim Mahle mit Jesus und Seinem Jüngern;…’ (Das Evangelium des Markus [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967] 55).Google Scholar

[3] Nineham, , Gospel, 99Google Scholar. Cf. The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., and Murphy, R. E., 2 vols. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 2Google Scholar: Mark 2. 15.

[4] Taylor, , Gospel, 204.Google Scholar But see the exegetical comment of The Interpreter's Bible, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1952–1957), 7:673Google Scholar: ‘15. In his house presumably means Jesus' house. This is certainly true if vss. 13–14 and 15–17 were originally independent.’ It is my understanding that this is also true when 13–17 are read together in their present Markan setting.

[5] Taylor, , Gospel, 205.Google Scholar Cf. Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Marsh, J., rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1963) 18.Google Scholar

[6] Kelber, W. H., The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 19.Google Scholar While Kelber suggests that Mark may have ‘added’ 2. 17 to 2. 15, Bultmann, (History, 18, 331)Google Scholar regards 2. 17b as an originally unattached saying and 2. 15 as a story designed for it. Citations to both opinions are given in Bultmann, , History, supplement to n. 3 (p. 18)Google Scholar on p. 384.

[7] Taylor, , Gospel, 207.Google Scholar Cf. Bultmann, , History, 18.Google Scholar

[8] Today's English Version separates verses 13–14 from 15–17 as paragraphs, links them under the subheading ‘Jesus Calls Levi’, and yet translates 2. 15 as ‘Later on Jesus was having a meal in Levi's house ….’

[9] Note the exegetical comment of The Interpreter's Bible on 2. 13–14Google Scholar: ‘It is a question whether these two verses form an independent section (similar to 1:16–20), or are intended as the introduction to vss. 15–17’ (7:672).

[10] ‘Since in the Gospels the verb άκολουθοῡν (sic) is used of Jesus' disciples, never of those who were hostile to him, a full stop should follow αύτℸ. Unmindful of this usage, copyists transferred the stop to follow πολλοί and inserted καί before ίδόντες.’ Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (third edition) (United Bible Societies, 1971) 78.Google Scholar

[11] On the wider Markan significance of the repetition of πολλοί and the ‘allusive γάρ clause’ see Bird, C. H., ‘Some γάρ Clauses in St. Mark's Gospel’, J.T.S. n.s. 4 (1953) 171–87, esp. 182–3.Google Scholar

[12] Swete's suggestion is a sign of a former era in synoptic studies: ‘Mt., speaking of his own house, omits αύρού a house to its owner or tenant is simply ή οίκία’ (Commentary, 40).Google Scholar

[13] Contra Bultmann, according to whom, ‘copyists [!] like Matthew and Luke take pains to make the incomprehensible situation of vv. 15 f. somewhat more understandable’ (History, 18).Google Scholar

[14] Following the punctuation of The Greek New Testament (third edition), ed. Aland, K. et al. (United Bible Societies, 1975)Google Scholar, against that of the RSV translation.

[15] It is possible that at 9. 33 the reference to Capernaum qualifies the house as Jesus' home. According to Taylor, the house at 9. 33 is ‘presumably that of Peter as in 1.29’ (Gospel, 404)Google Scholar. Bratcher and Nida agree, adding that Peter's house, ‘it would seem, had become Jesus' “home” in Galilee’ (Handbook, 293)Google Scholar. However, the idiom used in 2. 1, where Jesus' home in Capernaum is first mentioned, έν οἴκω (‘at home’), is not used at 9. 33 – έν τήοίκίᾳ (‘in the house’). Nor does a possessive adjective modify ‘the house’ as at 2. 15, nor a reference to Jesus' family, οί παρ αύτο, signal the house as his personal home as at 3. 20–21. In fact the bare phrase employed at 9. 33,έντῇ οίκίᾳ, appears uniquely generalized, as each of its three other Markan occurrences is modified by a genitive noun or pronoun (2. 15; 6. 4; 14. 3).

[16] Συναγωγή, deriving from συνάγω gather or collect, originally meant the act of gathering, and then was applied to the place of the building in which the gathering takes place (Taylor, , Gospel, 172Google Scholar; Bratcher, and Nida, , Handbook, 44)Google Scholar. The initial Markan use of συνάγω occurs in conjunction with the house, 2. 1–2. Cf. έπισυνάγω, gather together, in conjunction with door (of the house) at 1. 33 and συνέρχομαι come together, in conjunction with house at 3. 20 (RSV 3.3_legacy9–20). But see also έπισυνάΥω, which shares the same root as συναγωγή, and which has acquired an ‘eschatological note’ from its use in the LXX (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. συναγωγή, by Schrage, , 843)Google Scholar in conjunction with the universe (heaven and earth) at 13. 27.

[17] The scribes seek honour not only in synagogues but in private houses as well, that is, ‘at feasts’.

[18] Taylor, , Gospel, 529.Google Scholar

[19] Both Elijah (1 Kings 17. 19, 23) and Elisha (2 Kings 4. 10,11) were associated with an‘upper room’ (LXX ύπερῷον).Elijah carries out the resuscitation of the widow's son there, and there Elisha prophesies the birth of the wealthy woman's son, whom he later resuscitates in that space. Cf. also the dπερῷον in which the disciples gather after the Ascension according to Acts 1. 13, which ‘commonly is taken to be the same room’ as the άνάγαιον of Mark 14. 15 and Luke 22. 12 (Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1962], s.v. [Upper Room], by O. R. Sellars).Google Scholar

[20] Lightfoot, R. H., Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (New York/London: Harper & Bros., [1938]) 56Google Scholar: ‘In St. Mark's gospel, therefore, the passion narrative begins and ends with a reference to anointing …’

[21] Lévi-Strauss, C., ‘The Structural Study of Myth’, Journal of American Folklore 68 (1955), 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[22] As Günter Stemberger notes specifically of 9. 28, but also suggests more generally, ‘the house which Jesus and his disciples enter … is more a literary-theological idea than a real house’ (‘Galilee - Land of Salvation?’, appendix IV in The Gospel and the Land, by Davies, W. D. [Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1974] 419).Google Scholar In addition, ‘house’ is the most verbally elaborated architectural space in Mark - with seven words that refer to it or its parts: οικία (house), οίκος (house), θύρα (door), στέγη (roof), δμα (housetop), κατάλυμα (guest room), άνάγαιον (upper room).

[23] Bratcher, and Nida, , Handbook, 8–9Google Scholar; Taylor, , Gospel, 153Google Scholar; Schweizer, , Good News, 31Google Scholar; Nine-ham, , Gospel, 60.Google ScholarBlack, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (third edition) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967) 99Google Scholar, argues that here ‘Mark is interpreting the Aramaic to suit his argument.’

[24] For Donahue's argument see Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, SBL Dissertation Series, no. 10 (Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), esp. 108–9Google Scholar, and ‘Temple, Trial, and Royal Christology (Mark 14. 53–65)’, in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16, ed. Kelber, W. H. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), esp. 69–71.Google Scholar My own analysis concurs in significant ways with Donahue's analysis of the ‘anti-Jerusalem and anti- Temple polemic which runs through the Gospel’, but diverges from his conclusion that Mark ‘brings to a culmination’ this polemic by attributing 14. 58 to Jesus as a true statement in reference to the new community. Indeed, the new community is opposed to the old community in Mark; and; indeed, the old community is signaled metaphorically by the ‘temple’. But the evidence for the temple ‘not made with hands’ as a metaphor of the new community comes not from Mark but from New Testament letters and Qumran documents, as Donahue notes on p. 69 of ‘Temple, Trial’. Thus I agree with Donahue that the Markan gospel suggests a theological response of the Christian community to the crisis of the destruction of the Temple; but, on the basis of the entire system of architectural references as well as the immediate context of 14. 58, I disagree that Mark does so by ‘creat[ing] a Christian exegesis of Temple expectations (‘Temple, Trial’, 67–9Google Scholar).

For Juel's argument see Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, SBL Dissertation Series, no. 31 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, 1977).Google Scholar Although Juel (32–9) distinguishes his methodology (literary analysis and background studies) from that of Donahue (redaction criticism), Juel also notes ‘a good number of similarities’ (214) between their approaches. Both regard 14. 58 as false in some sense and true in some sense, and both regard the temple ‘not made with hands’ as a metaphor for the Christian community. Mark 14. 58 is more central to Juel's dissertation than to Donahue's, and thus Juel presents the evidence and argues the case more fully; one wonders, however, if 14. 58 can bear this full weight. On the basis of his literary analysis of Mark and his background studies, Juel contends that the temple charge (14. 58) ‘has a place in the trial as part of the messianic imagery. The temple charge provides further testimony to Jesus as the Messiah and further defines his Messiahship. He is not only the Messiah who must suffer and die; he is also the Messiah who will build the eschatological temple “not made with hands’” (57–8). But Juel, like Donahue, must argue for the temple ‘not made with hands’ as a metaphor for the community primarily on the basis of extra-Markan (Exodus 15. 17; Colossians 2. 11; Ephesians 2. 11; Hebrews 9. 11, 23–24; 1 Corinthians 3. 16; 2 Corinthians 6. 16; Ephesians 2. 20–22) and extra-biblical (Qumran documents, targumic traditions, rabbinic traditions) texts. It is interesting to note that the preferred designation for the temple in the seven Qumran texts Juel discusses as relevant to Mark 14. 58 (159–80) is ‘house’.

[25] ‘Primitive Christianity structured its congregations in families, groups and “houses”. The house was both a fellowship and a place of meeting’ (T.D.N.T., s.v. οἶκος, by Michel, 130).

The argument of Sverre Aalen concerning ‘“Reign” and “House” in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels’ (N.T.S. VIII [1962] 215–40)Google Scholar is interesting at this point and may be compared with that of Ernst Lohmeyer, Lord of the Temple: A Study of the Relation Between Cult and Gospel, trans. Todd, S. (Edinburgh/London: Oliver & Boyd, 1961) 62–9.Google Scholar (Except for a reference to the metaphorical use of ‘house’ in Mark 3. 23 ff., the Beelzebul incident, Aalen does not discuss the Markan text in particular.) It is not possible here to evaluate Aalen's thesis - especially his view of the New Testament meaning of ‘kingdom of God’, but his conclusion is worth noting: ‘We have seen that the Nathan prophecy in I Chron. xvii. 7–14 forms the starting-point for a trend of tradition in Judaism which no longer understood “house” in the sense of a royal family with its descendants, but as the people of God, the true religious community. Parallel to this change or development in the word “house” there has been an analogous process with regard to the idea of God's kingdom. This word came to mean a realm, a community, something very near to the new concept of “house”, and no longer kingship or reign of God. Only in fragments has this new view been preserved in the Jewish documents. How dominant it has been in Judaism it is impossible to say. It was not “typically Jewish”. Jesus has adopted it and made it the fundamental view of the N.T.’ (240).

[26] It must be noted, however, that my literary observations concerning the way in which house functions in the Markan narrative in opposition to synagogue and temple are neither based upon nor offered as conclusive evidence for external historical conclusions. My exegesis focuses on the internal relations of the text. Yet a gospel, as myth interpreting history and history functioning as myth (Perrin, Norman, The New Testament: An Introduction [New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovano-vich, 1974] 26–34)Google Scholar, can be abstracted from its historical context only analytically, not finally. Given (1) the judgment of some scholars that behind Mark's gospel lies the crisis of the destruction of the ritual centre of Judaism, the Jerusalem temple, and (2) the archaeological observation that the ‘house church’ became the ritual centre of early Christianity after its expulsion from the synagogue, intriguing historical questions concerning the basis of the Markan architectural schema arise. Could it be that in Mark's gospel, which integrates myth and history, the architectural symbols of house, synagogue, and temple received their power from the historical experiences of early Christians? And could it be that Mark's gospel, in its narrative manipulation of these architectural symbols, suggested a way of responding meaningfully to those historical realities? Could it be that the Gospel of Mark in its mythic dimension marked the establishment of a new ritual centre after the destruction of an old one?

[27] Best's, ErnestFollowing Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981)Google Scholar appeared after I had completed this essay. Best's evaluation of the αύτού at 2. 15 is as follows: ‘As it stands it is not clear grammatically whose house is intended in v. 15; since there is no evidence that Jesus possessed a house and since he is regularly found in the houses of others we must assume that the house is Levi's; yet in v. 14 Levi set out to follow Jesus!’ (175). The reader should also see 175–9 on 2. 14, 213–25 on ‘The Church as Temple’, 226–9 on The Church as House and Household‘, and Idem, The Role of the Disciples in Mark’, N.T.S. 23 (1977) 400Google Scholar, on the disciples and ‘house’. The most significant discussion of ‘house’ to appear since I completed this essay is unquestionably Elliott, John H.'s A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).Google Scholar