[JSNT212 (2004) 169-192] ISSN0142-064X

Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse* T. J. Rogers Department of Religious Studies UNC Chapel Hill, CB# 3225, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA tjrogers85@hotmail.com

Abstract The mission discourse in Mark has produced no exegetical consensus among scholars, particularly with regard to the list of items in w . 8-9 and the dustshaking gesture in v. 11. The author critiques the most commonly offered interpretations and argues that the pericope is best understood when read in the context of ancient hospitality norms, implied in v. 10. The list of items restricts the self-sufficiency of missionaries to the point of requiring them to receive the hospitality commanded in the following verse. Likewise, the dust-shaking is best understood as a testimony that their feet were not washed according to the customs of hospitality. The plausibility ofthis interpretation is then tested against the social-historical context of Christianity in thefirstcentury. Beginning in Mk 6.7,1 Jesus sends out his disciples as itinerant preachers two by two, allowing for their mission neither bread, nor bag, nor money, nor a second tunic. They are permitted only a staff and a pair of sandals as they kick up dust along the road, preaching the gospel among the local Galilean villages. Thus, Jesus tells his elite group of twelve to heal the sick and cast out demons, residing at any house that will receive them for the duration of their visit. If, however, any place turns them away, Jesus'

* The author would like to thank Adela Y. Collins of Yale University for providing much helpful feedback on this article. 1. Cf.Mt. 10.5-15; Lk. 9.1-6; 10.1-12. The focus ofthe present study centers on Mark's mission discourse specifically. Since Markan priority is assumed, the synoptic parallels in Matthew and Luke do not bear directly on the pericope as it stands in the second Gospel.
2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi)

170

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

instruction to his emissaries is to perform a gesture that involves shaking off the dust from beneath their feet. The myriad questions and problems raised in association with this pericope commonly known as Mark's mission discourse have for years been exegetical fodder for scholars of the Synoptic Gospels: What significance lies behind the list of forbidden and permitted items, both individually and collectively? Are they connected by a single theme, or does the list reflect more than one concern? Does it reflect a concern with the practices of itinerant Cynics, and if so what is the evangelist's interest in Cynicism: positive, negative, or competitive? What is the significance of the dust-shaking gesture? What is the character of the CJTOS? Is this testimony or witness intended for the sake of others as a warning, or against them as an imprecation? The cacophony of questions has been augmented further by a multitude of proposed solutions for each question that scholars have contrived over the years. The present article aims to pacify the clatter, so to speak, by unifying all of the interpretive problems under a single theme: the institution of hospitality as it was understood in antiquity. In what follows, section 1 will survey examples of hospitality as seen through ancient eyes in the Jewish, Christian and Greco-Roman worlds. Section 2 will then examine the exegetical problems of the mission discourse under the lens of hospitality as spelled out in the previous section. Section 3 will discuss the social setting of these exegetical conclusions, whose relevance to the evangelist will be demonstrated through a comparison of issues related to hospitality in other early Christian literature. The concluding section, section 4, will list a number of reasons for preferring the arguments outlined in the present study over any others hitherto proposed. 1. Hospitality in Antiquity Hospitality as it was understood in the ancient world refers to the process by which the stranger is received and socially transformed from stranger to guest.2 This differs markedly from the modern day idea of hospitality where familiar acquaintances and family are received and entertained for a time. For example, in modern times upon leaving a party or an evening dinner, one might hear guests thank the host for his or her 'hospitality'.

2. B.J. Malina, 'The Received View: What it Cannot Do: John and Hospitality', &?iw?ia35(1986),p. 181.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 171 To welcome an uninvited stranger into one's house is almost unheard of. Contrary to this modern conception, hospitality in the ancient near eastern and Mediterranean regions went beyond merely hosting pleasant dinner parties for friends and family to extending one's very familial boundaries by welcoming travelers who were otherwise out of place, away from family and friends.3 A twentieth-century analogue to this ancient institution could be found in the practices of the desert Bedouin of Israel and Jordan. As Roland de Vaux observed of them, 'Hospitality is a necessity of life in the desert, but among the nomads the necessity has become a virtue and a most highly esteemed one. The guest is sacred.'4 As a guest under the aegis of a host in the ancient world, one could expect, among other things,5 the following accommodations. First, when a stranger arrived and was welcomed, the host either provided water for him to wash his feet, or else washed them himself, thereby marking the transition from stranger to guest.6 Second, the host would assume responsibility for the personal well-being of the guest. This required the host to play the role of patron not only in providing food and shelter,7 but also assuring the guest's personal safety.8 Such practices were almost ubiquitously recognized as virtuous, even morally imperative, throughout the ancient near eastern world, as is clearly reflected in Jewish and Christian literary traditions. Throughout the Jewish and Christian tradition, the exemplars in matters of hospitality are Abraham and Lot. In Gen. 18, Abraham sees three (presumably divine) men near his dwelling and eagerly runs up to greet them. Observing the honored customs of hospitality he says,
My lord, if I find favor with you, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on (18.3-5).

Afterwards, when 'the men' trek over to the city of Sodom, they receive
3. T.R. Hobbs, 'Hospitality in the First Testament and the "Teleological Fallacy'", 750795(2001), p. 17. 4. R. De Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw Hill, 1961), p. 10. 5. See Hobbs, 'Hospitality', pp. 10-19; W.W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), p. 56. 6. Malina, 'Received View', p. 183; W. Janzen, Old Testment Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Lousville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 36-37. 7. Hobbs, 'Hospitality', pp. 13-16. 8. Hobbs, 'Hospitality', p. 1.

172

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

similar treatment from Lot, who says to them, 'Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way' (19.2). Additionally, Lot insures their safety as honored guests when men from the city surround the house and demand that they be sent out to be sexually violated. But rather than contravene the customary laws of hospitality expected of him as host, Lot offers his two virgin daughters as a substitute: 'Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof (19.8). In later traditions, these accounts of Abraham and Lot would become archetypal in addressing matters of hospitality. The story of the Lvite and his concubine in Judg. 19 bears an obvious resemblance to the story of Lot in Sodom.9 The author of Hebrews, most likely invoking the generosity of Abraham and Lot, exhorts the reader to 'show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it' (Heb. 13.2). The Testament of Abraham, dated to the first century CE, ranks hospitality as Abraham's chief virtue: 'He was very hospitable. He made his home near Driea the Black, at the crossroads where he received strangers that passed byrich, poor, princes, kings, nobles, the sick, the weak, neighbors' (T Abr. 1.1-2). Later, he receives an angel disguised as a traveling stranger and commands his son Isaac, 'Take the basin and fill it with water that we may wash the feet of this stranger, for he has come to us from a long way off and is worn out' (. Abr. 3.7). Around the same time, I Clement says of Abraham, 'For his faith and hospitality a son was given unto him in old age' (10.7), and of Lot, 'For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom' (11.1). Other instances of exhortation and praise for hospitality are interspersed throughout the Jewish and Christian literary traditions. In the Hebrew 10 Bible Laban runs out ( ) to meet Abraham's servant and offers to wash his feet and tend to his camels (Gen. 24.29-33); the Deuteronomist exhorts love for strangers as God loves them, 'for you were strangers in the land of Egypt' (Deut. 10.17-19), which is echoed in Ps. 146.9; for her display of hospitality, Elijah rewards a wealthy woman of Shunem by promising her a son, despite the advanced age of her husband (2 Kgs 4.8-17); Job
9. S. Lasine, 'Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot's Hospitality in an Inverted World', JSOT29 (1984), pp 37-59. 10. This act mimics Abraham in Gen. 18.2 who also ran ( p i ) to invite the three men into his dwelling.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 173 recalls his own righteousness, 'The stranger has not lodged in the street; I have opened my doors to the traveler' (Job 31.32). Such examples abound in the New Testament as well. In addition to the exhortation of an anony mous author in Heb. 13.2, Paul urges the Roman community to 'extend hospitality to strangers' (Rom. 12.13), and reminds the Galatian churches of their first encounter, how they received him when he was physically unwell, welcoming him 'as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus' (Gal. 4. 4); the Matthean evangelist expresses a similar sentiment in his apoca lyptic discourse where Jesus judges the nations, praising the righteous: was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me some thing to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.. .just as you did to one of the least of these who are my brothers, you did to me' (Mt. 25.3540). Outside biblical literature one finds copious references to hospitality as well. In the rabbinic tradition, the high esteem in which this sacred institution was held is exemplified in the words of R. Judah: 'Hospitality to wayfarers is greater than welcoming the Divine presence (Shechinahy (b. Sabb. 127a).11 The Patristic authors also show a special affinity for hospitality, such as Origen, who reads Paul's charge in Rom. 12.13 to pursue () hospitality as a directive not only to receive guests when they arrive at the doorstep, but actively to seek out strangers who might be without a roof over their heads {Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 9.13).12 One finds a similar disposition in the Greco-Roman world. The patron deity of wayfarers among the Greeks was none other than Zeus, who was known under the epithet Zeus Xenios in this capacity.13 Roman folklore maintained this assignment for the ruler of the gods, as the story of Baucis and Philemon shows in Ovid's Metamorphoses. The story, which bears a striking resemblance to the accounts of Abraham and Lot in Genesis, begins with Jupiter and Mercury who disguise themselves as mortals seeking refuge. They are turned away from a thousand houses until they come upon a humble looking house belonging to an old couple,
11. See also b. Ber 10b, 63b; b. Peah 8.7; m. Abot 1.5, 5.10. 12. See also A.G. Oden, And You Welcomed Me: A Sourcebook on Hospitality in Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001). 13. L.B. Zaidman, Religion in the Ancient Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 44. In Homer's Odyssey Odysseus requests hospitality of the Cyclops Polyphemos, appealing to the authority of Zeus, who 'is the avenger of the suppliant and the stranger; he is the stranger's friend and waits on worthy strangers' (9.305-307). See also 2 Mace. 6.2.

174

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

Baucis and Philemon, who make an extravagant effort to accommodate their two guests. Then, just before they are about to slaughter their only goose to prepare a meal in honor of them, the gods reveal themselves, promising to reward the old couple for their generosity, and punish the remainder of the city with a greatfloodowing to their inhospitality (8.615724). This latter act of divine punishment exemplifies the normative ethical position towards those who refused to offer safe haven to strangers. Opposed to the virtue of hospitality is the sin of inhospitality, a transgression that often does not go unpunished by the deity. The archetypal example of this in the Jewish and Christian traditions is Sodom, which was considered by many ancient commentators to have been destroyed for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexual behavior (see below). Similarly, the Matthean Jesus, in rendering judgment on the nations, pronounces the eschatological consequence of inhospitality:
1 was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me... And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life' (25.4346).
4

Whether or not it was actually commonplace to receive strangers into one's home in the ancient world is impossible to determine. Perhaps like so many other virtues, ancient and modern, hospitality was far more commonly extolled than practiced. However, suffice it to say that hospitality was ubiquitously regarded &$ a sacred institution in the ancient world, so much so that the deity (or deities) often weighed in on the matter. Accordingly, hospitality was believed to merit divine approval as inhospitality was thought to incur divine wrath. Hospitality also lies at the center of Mark's mission discourse, both figuratively and literally. In 6.10 Jesus instructs the apostles, 'Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that place'. The expectation here is that, while preaching at a town or city, the twelve are to take up residence at a house and rely on the hospitality of the host.14 The directive is one of three explicitly stated in the mission discourse, the other two

14. H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) p. 164; W. Barclay, The Gospel ofMark (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975) pp. 143-44; J. Marcus, Mark 1-8 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), pp. 388-89; E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1970), p. 130; B. Witherington, The Gospel ofMark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 210.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 175 being (1) the list of items forbidden and permitted in 6.8-9 and (2) the dust-shaking command in 6.11, neither of which have yielded an overwhelming exegetical consensus among scholars. The imperative in 6.10, on the other hand, is almost undisputedly accepted as pertaining to hospitality. With this in mind, it might be profitable to look to the one noncryptic instruction in the mission discourse as an exegetical key to the other two. If persuasive arguments can be formed when the passage is viewed under the lens of hospitality, then all three elements can be unified under a single motif, thus bringing a certain cohesion to the pericope. 2. Exegesis of the Mission Discourse Before commissioning the twelve to preach his message of repentance, Jesus outlines very strict parameters pertaining to what they are and are not permitted to bring for the journey. The items are divided into two lists, each beginning with one of the two items permitted. The first pertains to miscellaneous gear that any traveler undertaking a journey would want to bring: a staff is allowed, but not bread, bag or money. The second treats only traveler's apparel: sandals are permitted, but not a second tunic. Some attempt has been made to discern a common thread tying together all the items mentioned in vv. 8-9.15 In this vein, much has been made of the similarity to equipment typically attributed to itinerant Cynics. Martin Hengel, for example, proposes that the evangelist, writing to a Gentile audience, sought to compare the teachings of Jesus with those of the Cynics, who would have been familiar to, and looked upon favorably in, Gentile milieus;16 Howard Kee seems to favor a hypothesis that presents the list as a way of drawing clear lines of distinction between Christian missionaries and itinerant Cynics;17 Joel Marcus sees a competitive force
15. Robert Gundry enumerates seven different interpretations that have been offered to explain the significance of the items listed in vv. 8-9, none of which he endorses, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 308-309. 16. M. Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and his Followers (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 33. Other scholars such as J.D. Crossan {The Historical Jesus: The Life ofa Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [San Francisco: Harper, 1991], pp. 338-39) account for the Cynic-like features in such passages as 6.8-9 by casting the historical Jesus as a Jewish Cynic. See also Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 67-74. 17. H. Kee states (Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977], p. 89), 'The list of total items included and

176

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

at work, 'intended to trump Cynic austerity'.18 The fact that defensible arguments can be made for each of these three mutually exclusive solutions, the 'positive', 'negative' and 'competitive', is illustrative of the problem with appealing to Cynicism to account for the items in vv. 8-9: each of the three proposals' strengths point directly to the others' weaknesses. For example, the image of impecunious itinerant Christians carrying staffs advances the 'positive' hypothesis. Cynics were often portrayed as being contemptuous of all forms of material wealth.19 This depiction problematizes the 'negative' position, since prohibiting money in the mission discourse would be strange for a list designed to distinguish Christians from Cynics. On the other hand, the 'negative' hypothesis points to the injunction against bringing a wallet (), which is one of the Cynics' primary accoutrements.20 Surely no description intended to compare Christians to Cynics in a positive light would delib erately prohibit this item. However, if the evangelist's aim was to trump Cynic austerity as Marcus maintains, then foregoing a wallet would make perfect sense. But this 'competitive' position would have to account for the permission to wear sandals, which is an amenity that many Cynics went without.21 Ultimately, each of the Cynic hypotheses has some merit, although none is entirely persuasive. Another proposal, recently espoused by Joel Marcus, argues for an

excluded clearly reflects the equipment employed by the Cynic-Stoic itinerant charis matic preachers reported by Diogenes Laertius (6.13,33). In the case of these wandering philosopher-preachers, the begging bowl was an indispensable factor, since it was on charity alone that they subsisted. But in the case of the Markan itinerants, charity was to be sought solely in the form of basic food and shelter'. 18. Marcus, Mark, pp. 3 83-84. Witherington also mentions competition as a possible explanation, Mark, p. 211. 19. Epictetus commended the Cynic life of poverty over against a life of wealth: 'Look at the rich nowadays, the amount of lamentation with which their life is filled' (3.22.27); Diogenes Laertius relates a tradition where 'Diogenes persuaded Crates to give up his fields to sheep pasture, and throw into the sea any money he had' (DL 6.87). See also DL 6.93; Pseudo-Diogenes 28.6. 20. 'The word "disabled", Diogenes held, ought to be applied not to the deaf or blind, but to those who have no wallet' (DL 6.33). 21. Musonius asserts, 'Going barefoot, if you can, is better than wearing sandals' (19). Diogenes Laertius says of the famous Cynic Diogenes of Sinope that he instructed his master's children to walk 'lightly clad, barefoot, silent' (6.31 ; see also 6.34). In the pseudepigraphal epistle of Anacharsis, he speaks of the skin of his feet serving as shoes, A.J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 43.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 177 exodus motif in the list of items in vv. 8-9.22 Marcus observes that just as the twelve are instructed not to bring bread or an extra tunic, neither did the Israelites need to bring bread for their forty years in the wilderness owing to the manna that fell from the sky (Exod. 16), nor did they need to replace their garments, presumably due to divine intervention (Deut. 8.4, 29.5). Furthermore, he observes that three of the items mentioned in the mission discourse (clothes, bread and sandals) come together in Deut. 29.5-6, and that the sandals and walking staff (), the only two items the Markan Jesus permits for the mission, are mentioned together at Exod. 12.11. He concludes, 'Mark probably wishes to imply that the disciples' missionary journey will be a participation in the new Exodus inaugurated by Jesus'. 23 But there are two problems with this position. First, his proposed exodus motif fails to account for two of the items on the list: the prohibition of the bag and the money. Second, those items that do overlap with the exodus tradition are not found in a single passage, but are disparately interspersed throughout Exodus and Deuteronomy. Main taining the exodus motif would require the evangelist to have an extra ordinarily good memory for minute details, or else to have diligently mined the exodus tradition in the Pentateuch for the items in his list. Thus, the speculative requirements of Marcus's arguments render them less than convincing. Apart from these two hypotheses, there do seem to be important common alities between the forbidden and permitted items when one considers the function of the items themselves in relation to the mission. The permitted items, the staff and the sandals, are both things that aid a traveler in the actual journey itself. They serve only to expedite the traveler's ultimate arrival at his destination and assist in contending with any obstacles that might hinder the journey.24 The staff would be used to assist in negotiating 25 rough terrain and also for self-defense against wild animals and bandits. The value of wearing sandals is obvious enough, as it allows the traveler

22. Marcus, Mark, p. 389. See also J.R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 181; E. LaVerdiere, The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark, I (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999), pp. 155-56. 23. Marcus, Mark, p. 389. 24. As Gundry observes, 'The rocky and often precipitous paths from village to village in Galilee make a staff and sandals necessary for protecting the feet and the whole person', Apology, p. 308. 25. Marcus, Mark, p. 389.

178

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

to walk free of concern for stepping on sharp stones and the like. Conversely, the forbidden items, the bread, bag, money and extra tunic, are all items that help the traveler care for his own survival needs, both on the road and upon reaching the final destination. Typically, a well-prepared traveler would not leave on a journey without providing for his basic needs: food (bread), an extra tunic to keep warm at night,26 money for whatever unforeseen circumstances may arise, and a bag in which to carry all the aforementioned equipment or perhaps to beg for food and money should the need arise.27 By limiting the missionaries ' equipment only to accoutrements that assist in the journey itself and explicitly forbidding items that allow them to sustain themselves both on the journey and beyond, the evangelist describes the mission in terms that make self-sufficiency particularly difficult, if not impossible. In so doing, he essentially directs missionaries not to be self-sufficient.28 But this of course prompts the question of how they will sustain themselves on these missions. Many commentators have taken the position most recently articulated by Marcus:
The fact that the Twelve have received an endowment of spiritual power from Jesus indicates that God is on their side, and so they need not worry about how they are to support themselves along the way; the same God who has given them dominion over superhuman foes will certainly supply their physical needs. 29

Although this line of reasoning may be quite at home in an analysis of the Matthean and Lukan mission discourses, where one could appeal to similar sentiments expressed elsewhere in the Gospels (Mt. 6.25-34; Lk. 12.2232), in Mark it is a non sequitur. To extend the authority over unclean spirits given to the twelve in order to encompass their physical needs for the journey, even as an inference, is to make this detail do more work than the text permits. Receiving divine assistance with respect to food and shelter on the journey does not follow necessarily or logically from receiving special authority over unclean spirits. More compelling is the solution
26. Marcus, Mark, p. 389; Gundry, Apology, p. 308. 27. Barclay, Mark, pp. 142-43. 28. According to Gerd Theissen, lack of possessions characterized the earliest Christian 'wandering charismatics', The First Followers of Jesus (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1978), pp. 12-14. See also F.J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 122. 29. Marcus, Mark, p. 388. cf. Anderson, Mark, p. 163; Barclay, Mark, p. 143; Moloney, Mark, p. 122; Schweizer, Good News, pp. 129-30.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 179 proposed by Gundry and Witherington, that the disciples were merely expected to rely on the food and shelter offered by those to whom they preached,30 precisely what is demanded in v. 10 immediately following the list. The list in vv. 8-9, then, is constructed in order to pose the problem to which hospitality is the solution (see section 3 below). The evangelist's strict list elevates hospitality from a highly esteemed social virtue to a factor necessary to the mission's success. The mission as stated cannot succeed except for the willingness of people to support the agents of Jesus. Refusal to welcome Jesus' representatives is tantamount to hindering the mission itself; there can be no neutral or lukewarm position. Thus the Markan Jesus commands, 'If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is under your feet as a testimony against them' (6.11). The command is constructed as a conditional statement and, like all conditionals, is composed of a protasis and an apodosis. Syntactically, the protasis is comprised of two parts: // any place (1) will not welcome you and (2) they refuse to hear you?1 Some scholars have chosen to favor one part over the other. Schweizer, for example, treats only the rejection of the message and says nothing about the rejection of hospitality.32 This bias toward one to the exclusion of the other is as unnecessary as it is undesirable. In all likelihood, these are not two separate types of rejection, but one and the same. For the evangelist there is no significant difference between refusing to offer hospitality and refusing to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. But this functional similarity should not obscure the rhetorical distinction that accounts for the inclusion of the two parts. The rejection of hospitality is the focus, since it is mentioned prior to the reference to the refusal to hear the message. Also, the greater context of the passage, particularly the immediately preceding verse (6.10), which discusses hospitality explicitly, suggests where the evangelist's main concern lies. The rejection of the

30. Gundry, Apology, pp. 307-308; Witherington, Mark, pp. 210-11. Marcus also acknowledges that 'their needs for food and shelter will be catered to those who receive their message', but adds, 'In a deeper sense the disciples will be looked after by God' {Mark, pp. 388-89). 31. Although the Greek text lacks the ' if.. .then' construction common to conditional statements, the semantic thrust carries an implied conditional sense that can be reliably translated as an 'if...then' clause. 32. Schweizer states, 'This verse is based upon the awareness that the rejection of the message must not be considered so innocuous that the results of such a rejection are ignored' {GoodNews, p. 130).

180

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

message qualifies what it means to refuse an apostle of Christ hospitality. Accordingly, it is impossible for one to accept the gospel while refusing to welcome Jesus' agents into one's home, which precludes the possibility of inhospitable Christians. The apodosis explains what to do with such people: 'Shake off the dust that is under your feet as a testimony against them'. The enigmatic character of this gesture has brought out a variety of interesting expositions, including some that attempt to cast the directive as intentionally humorous.33 Some commentators seem so perplexed by the issue that they opt not to address it at all.34 But the majority of scholars have seen in the dust-shaking a gesture similar to one found in rabbinic literature whereby a Jew traveling in Gentile lands is expected to remove even the dust of the impure foreign nation from his person before returning to the holy land. Thus, in commanding this action to be taken against those cities of Galilee that reject the apostles, Jesus equates them with an unclean pagan city;35 any place that rejects the emissaries of Jesus and refuses to hear the gospel is likewise rejected symbolically in the dust-shaking gesture and cut off from Israel. There is a certain appeal to this interpretation. The Markan Jesus is one who relaxes the restrictions against working on the Sabbath (2.233.6), disregards the tradition of hand washing before meals, and criticizes some types of Corban offerings (7.1-13), all of which are told in the context of controversies with the Jewish leadership. Accordingly, an ironic rejection of Jewish cities that oppose Jesus, by means of a Jewish custom, would be consistent with the evangelist's program vis--vis non-Christian Jews. It would exemplify Mark's Tendenz of polemicizing against nonChristian Jewish opponents using Jewish tradition. However, unlike this proposed connection between the mission discourse and the dust-shaking
33. John Keenan {The Gospel of Mark: A Mahayana Reading [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995], p. 154) states that the dust-shaking 'makes more sense if one envisages it not as a rejection or curse, but as a somewhat comic act'. See also Crossan, Historical Jesus, p. 352. 34. In LaVerdiere's commentary on Mark, the section entitled 'The Commissioning of the Twelve (6.7-13)' lacks any mention of the dust-shaking {The Beginning of the Gospel, pp. 153-56). 35. Witherington, citing m. Ohal 2.3, m. Tohar. 4,51 and b. Sabb. 15b, cautiously echoes this widely held position: 'perhaps the point is to treat such inhospitable people as foreigners' {Mark, p. 211). See also Barclay, Mark, pp. 143-44; W.L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 208-209; Moloney, Mark, p. 123; Schweizer, Good News, pp. 130-31 ; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark (New York: St Martin's Press, 1966), p. 305.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 181 in rabbinic tradition, in each of the three aforementioned examples the significance of the gesture in question is mentioned explicitly. Ifthe significance of the dust-shaking reflects customs found in later rabbinic literature then it only does so implicitly, which is out of character for an evangelist who likes to provide small expositions along with his references to Jewish practices.36 Furthermore, the late date of the rabbinic tradition poses a problem for a comparison with this Markan passage. As Christine Hayes has argued, prior to rabbinic literature there is no evidence that Jews considered Gentile lands to be inherently impure.37 As she states,
The impurity of Gentile lands is essentially a postbiblical innovation that builds on the scriptural principle that Gentile corpses convey impurity and is based on the belief that Gentiles bury their dead throughout their lands and within their dwellings.38

Thus, despite the similarity between the rabbinic and Markan dust-shaking exhortations, the evidence for any connection between the two is slim. A second solution favored by Jeremas looks to the book of Nehemiah, which includes a conditional imprecation against Jerusalem: also shook out the fold of my garment and said, "so may God shake out everyone from house and from property who does not perform this promise"' (Neh. 5.13).39 Thus, Jeremas argues, shaking the dust from under foot actually means shaking the dust that was stirred up by the feet off the cloak. In opposition to this, Davies and Allison, referring to the Matthean version (Mt. 10.14), correctly observe that the language used most naturally evokes an image of shaking dust from the feet.40 Nevertheless, one finds an intriguing connection between the curse of Nehemiah and the Markan

36. In the Sabbath controversies, the evangelist explains through the mouths of Jesus' Jewish opponents the importance of the Sabbath: 'Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?' (2.24). In the hand-washing reference, it is explained in a narrative parenthesis that 'the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands... ' (7.3-5). With 'Corban', both devices are employed: a parenthetical definition of the word (7.11) and a dialogical explanation of its significance (7.12-13). 37. C. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 115-16, 199-204. 38. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, p. 204. 39. J. Jeremas, New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1971), p. 238; See also Gundry, Apology, pp. 309-10. 40. W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, II (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), p. 178

182

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

dust-shaking in the book of Acts. While leaving Antioch Paul and Barnabas shake the dust off their feet ( ) in response to rejection from the Jews (13.51); at Corinth Paul shakes his garments ( $ ) also in response to rejec tion from the Jews (18.6). The parallels between these two accounts are interesting. Both actions, the foot-shaking and the garment-shaking (, cf. Mk 6.11), are given in response to rejection of the gospel. Both accompany departure from a town; both are explained as an action taken against41 the group who rejects the gospel. The similarity between these two acts tells us that, at least around the turn of the first century CE, the dust-shaking references ofthe synoptic mission discourses were under stood by some as a curse similar to what is seen in Nehemiah. But intriguing as the connection in Acts may be, it tells us more about how the third evangelist interpreted the dust-shaking than about what Mark intended. Therefore, although Luke may weigh in as one of the earliest interpreters of the passage in question, a factor that should not be considered lightly, without further evidence the Nehemiah parallel leaves something to be desired. A more compelling solution for this text surfaces when read under the lens of hospitality. As a gesture suited to this context, the dust-shaking serves as a testimony, as evidence that hospitality had not been offered. Had the twelve entered the town and been extended hospitality, as v. 10 directs, they would have been admitted into a house and their feet would have been washed according to custom. Thus, they would have been with out dust on their feet to shake. However, any town not offering hospitality would likewise not wash the feet of the apostles. Accordingly, upon leaving, their feet would remain soiled from the dust of the road, which, when shaken off, serves as evidence that hospitality was not offered. Thematically, this solution fits the best of any hitherto proposed. The preceding context sets up the mission as one that requires hospitality as a factor for success (vv. 8-9), and then explicitly presents this arrangement in the imperative (v. 10). Following this, the protasis of v. 11 introduces a condition where the twelve are refused hospitality. In natural thematic sequence, the apodosis too should pertain to matters of hospitality, specifi cally the consequence of refusing to offer it. The first (and to my knowledge only) commentator to draw an explicit
41. Paul and Barnabas perform the dust-shaking gesture against them ( ' CCUTOUS) in Acts 13.51, and in 18.6 Paul accompanies his cloak-shaking with a curse: 'Your blood be on your own heads. I am clean. From now I will go to the Gentiles.'

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 183 connection between the dust-shaking gesture of the mission discourse and the hospitable gesture of foot-washing is Origen of Alexandria in his Homilies on Genesis:
Abraham, the father and teacher of nations, is, indeed, teaching you by these things how you ought to receive guests and that you should wash the feet of guests.. .he was not unaware of the importance ofthat precept, indeed, in which the Savior says, 'If any shall not receive you, shake off even the dust which clings to your feet for a testimony to them. Truly I tell you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for that city'. He wished, therefore, to anticipate that and to wash their feet lest perhaps any dust should remain, which, shaken off, could be reserved 'in the day of judgment' for a testimony of unbelief {Homily on Genesis 4.2).

Although Origen's eisegetical interpretation focuses on Genesis rather than the Synoptics, reading the mission discourse into the story of Abraham in order to give it an eschatological dimension, it shows that the dust-shaking of the mission discourse was understood as a response to inhospitality as early as the mid third century. Later, towards the end of the fourth century, John Chrysostom will expound a similar interpretation:
You are to seek out the houses of those who are worthy. If you shake the dust off your feet, you are showing either that you have not been received and heard or that you are attesting to them the long journey you have traveled for their sake {Horn. Matt. 12.8).

Here, Chrysostom does not make the foot-washing connection, as does Origen, at least not explicitly. He does indicate, however, that the dustshaking gesture in some way signifies a refusal of hospitality. It is noteworthy that Chrysostom does not elaborate on this point, as though he assumes the obvious connection between being refused hospitality and shaking dust from the feet. The most plausible explanation for this silence is that the connection in fact would have been obvious to the audience for whom he was writing. If foot-washing was a culturally normative practice associated with hospitality, as we have every reason to believe it was, then anyone in Chrysostom's time reading the above excerpt would readily understand why shaking dustfromthe feet implies inhospitality; no further explanation would be required. Tertullian also connects the dust-shaking with hospitality:
So, again, he commands that dust be shaken off against them, as a testimonythe very particles of their ground which might cleave to the

184

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004) sandal, not to mention any other sort of communication with them. But if their churlishness and inhospitality were to receive no vengeancefromhim, for what purpose does he premise a testimony, which surely forebodes some threats? {Against Marcion 4.24).

For Tertullian the testimony in the dust-shaking is a response to 'churlish ness and inhospitality'. Indeed, his rhetorical question implies that he saw no other purpose for the gesture than an act of vengeance against those who rudely refuse to receive strangers. Aside from these three important Patristic sources, there may be yet another interpretation ofthis cryptic gesture found in the mission discourse of Matthew as well as the mission of the seventy in Luke, often attributed to Q. In both accounts, immediately after the dust-shaking gesture, the text reads, 'Truly I tell you, it will be easier for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town' (Mt. 10.15; cf. Lk. 10.12). This is also attested in several witnesses of Mark as early as Alexandrinus, probably a result of textual assimilation to Matthew. Con trary to the common contemporary understanding of Sodom's sin as one of homosexual behavior, in antiquity Sodom was widely considered to be the antithesis of Abraham with regard to hospitality, as an example of egregious inhospitality. Such readings are attested in the Hebrew Bible (Ezek. 16.49; Wis. 19),42 later Jewish commentators like Josephus {Ant. 1.11.1-4) and a number of rabbinical texts (m. Abot 5.10;>\ Sanh. 109a). The comparison of those cities who reject the emissaries of Jesus with a city notorious for its inhospitality, coming as it does immediately after the missionaries are instructed to shake the dust from their feet, suggests that the Q tradition found in Matthew and Luke interpreted this gesture similarly to Origen, Chrysostom and Tertullian as a response to the cities' inhos pitality, to which the dust on their feet testifies. On a surface reading, one understands why certain scribes copying Mark felt compelled to insert the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. By itself there is nothing particularly terrifying about a person leaving town and shaking dust off his feet; it is certainly not as fearsome as the image 42. So Fields, 'Given the explicit legal prohibition of homosexuality in biblical law, one might have expected the later biblical authors, especially the prophets, to present the destruction of Sodom as punishment for their attempted homosexual relations. But only Ezekiel uses the word (16.58) in his comparison of Israel with Sodom, a word carrying overtones of sexual depravity... But when he specifies the sin of Sodom he focuses not on the aberrant sexuality of its inhabitants, but on their parsi monious callousness toward the poor and needy' {Sodom and Gomorrah, pp. 123-24).

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 185 of sulfur andfireraining from heaven. Calling upon the tradition associated with the two doomed cities specifies and embellishes the horrific conse quence of provoking an apostle to shake the dust off his feet, an otherwise seemingly innocuous gesture. Also, in the presence of this saying the CCUTOS most naturally carries the sense of a 'testimony against them'. But the Gospel as it was originally penned most likely lacked any reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, as the majority of the earliest textual witnesses affirm. This prompts the question ofwhether or not the auTOis is still best translated as 'a testimony against them'. Some commen tators have rendered it as 'a testimony to them' (emphasis added), thereby defining the testimony as a warning, a last ditch attempt for the apostles to demonstrate to the hard-hearted the error of their ways.43 C S . Mann argues for this interpretation citing Acts 13.51 and 18.6.44 However, neither of these verses supports Mann's position in any decisive way. Quite the contrary, Paul's accompanying comment in 18.6, 'Yourbloodbe on your own heads. I am clean', seems to work against this argument. The context of the discourse favors the dust-shaking as a testimony against them. Unlike the Matthean, the Markan Jesus does not encourage his disciples to turn the other cheek or go the extra mile. The refusal to offer hospitality stated in the protasis, coming as it does immediately after the importance of hospitality is stressed, most naturally elicits a hostile response.45 But what is the payoff of this response? What devastating result of the dust-shaking did the evangelist expect or wish to convey, which Matthew and Luke (or Q), and later copyists of Mark felt the need to embellish? Although it remains unspoken in Mark, the evangelist most likely intended the dust-shaking as an imprecation designed to invoke divine judgment against the cities. An analysis of the word as it is used in the mission discourse bears this out. As a testimony 'against them', it 43. Lane, Mark, p. 208; CS. Mann, Mark (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), p. 293. 44. Mann, Mark, p. 293. 45. H. Strathmann (', , , in the New Testa ment', TDNT, IV, pp. 489-504), surveying the uses of in the LXX and the New Testament, concludes that the term when used with a dative and preceded by eis most frequently denotes a testimony or witness against someone. See also R. Guelich, Mark 1-8.26 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 77. Cf. 1 Cor. 11.29 where another forensic noun, , immediately preceding the dative carries a similar sense, thus 'a judgment against himself.

186

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

requires four terms: the testifying party, the testimony itself, the party against whom the testimony is offered and the judge to whom the testimony is offered. Put in modern legal terms, it requires a plaintiff, a testimony, a defendant and a judge. In the mission discourse most of these terms are self-evident. The plaintiffs are the apostles, the testimony is the dust-shaking gesture, and the defendants are the cities who refuse to offer hospitality. Only the judge is left undefined in this forensic scheme. But despite this absence we may reasonably infer that this role is filled by none other than God, since no other party is mentioned and since the gesture as described is too subtle for any human to take notice. The evangelist implies that God will notice the testimony, the dust shaken from the feet of an apostle, and, as judge, will execute punishment on the city against whom it had been performed. 3. Social Setting In a historical-critical investigation, the value of any exegesis, no matter how plausible on a literary level, is limited to how well it fits within the known social environs where and when the passage in question was written. The present interpretation should thus be tested against what we know, or are able to reconstruct, of Christianity in the first century. For example, it has been argued above that the mission discourse in part deliberately stipulated that missionaries should not be self-sufficient. This may strike the modern reader as odd. Why would anyone at any time find it desirable to send missionaries to preach the gospel without any provision for basic survival needs, presumably even if such provisions were readily available? The understandable incredulity behind this question is based on the premise, shared by many, that the mission discourse was designed to be hortatory for future missionaries. Indeed, as practical instructions for the Markan community, most scholars agree that the discourse was written for missionaries as a code of conduct. According to Marcus, the Markan community was probably supposed to identify with the twelve. The discourse itself was 'an important message for the members of the Markan community'.46 Rudolf Bultmann held a similar, albeit nuanced position.47 He believed the instructions were excerpted from an earlier tradition more completely preserved by Q(Mt. 10.5-15; Lk. 10.1-12) that reflected early
46. Marcus, Mark, p. 390. 47. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. J. Marsh; New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 145.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 187 church regulations with which the evangelist was familiar, but no longer regarded as relevant or useful in missions to the Gentile world. Thus he included them as procedures that were observed only during Jesus' lifetime, similarly to the Lukan evangelist who also sought to limit the contemporary relevance of these missionary guidelines (Lk. 22.35-36). But as far as the Markan community was concerned, the mission discourse held little or no practical value. Bultmann may have recognized the impracticality of the requirements outlined in the mission discourse. Prohibiting missionaries from providing for their own support is disadvantageous not only with respect to basic survival, but potentially with regard to winning converts as well. It would be very difficult to preach to people who may be suspicious of itinerant holy men trying to take advantage of their hospitality. Thus, Bultmann believed that the second evangelist, like the third, sought to limit the relevance of these inconvenient missionary guidelines. Although the evangelist is likely historicizing, Bultmann's argument for obsolescence based solely on these grounds is unconvincing. This position precludes the possibility that the evangelist is historicizing in order to present a model to his community, which I argue is the most likely option. Yet, Bultmann rightly perceives some problems with the commands in the discourse as prescriptive guidelines to prospective missionaries. As such, they could be more of a hindrance than anything else. As the Didache ch. 11 shows, some communities were suspicious of itinerant preachers who expected compensation in return for their services:48
Accordingly, receive anyone who comes and teaches you all that has been said above.. .let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. He shall stay one day, or if need be, another too. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet. When the apostle leaves, let him receive nothing but bread until hefindslodging. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.. .You shall not listen to anyone who says in the spirit, 'Give me money, or something', but if he is asking that something be given for others who are in need, let no one judge him {Did. 11.1-12).

Clearly the Markan guidelines would not go over well in circles influenced by this text. Whereas the second evangelist envisions a network of hospitality offered by Christian communities to missionaries for indefinite durations of time (6.10), the Didache sets a two-day limit for itinerant preachers to remain as guests under the hospitality of the community and
48. See Theissen, First Followers, pp. 20-21 ; D.G. Horrell, 'Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology', in D.G. Horrell (ed.), Social Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), pp. 320-21.

188

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

strictly forbids any form of compensation aside from sufficient bread for short-term sustenance upon their departure. Suspicion would have been a natural response to itinerant preachers for people in the greater Hellenistic world as well. As Theissen observes, Christian missionaries would have been looked upon as itinerant philosophers and that 'among such philoso phers were "serious men" and "imposters and cheats"'. 49 This latter variety of swindling itinerants may have been whom Paul had in mind in his deal ings with Corinth when referring to his opponents as 'those who peddle the word of God' ($ , 2 Cor. 2.17). Given the dubious reputation of such types, it would seem strange for the Markan evangelist to instruct would-be preachers to equip themselves in a manner that may have aroused suspicion among potential proselytes. This is not to say that Mark could not have intended the mission discourse to be prescriptive for missionaries in his community, despite the apparent inconveniences it entails. Obviously this is a tenable and well-represented position. Instructions driven by religious motives do not always need, and often do not show, any obvious practical payoff. However, when examined from another angle, we find an alternative that, on the surface, would have lent an advantage to the evangelist in his own missionary endeavors. As a useful evangelistic tool, the mission discourse probably would not have been directed at those who would preach the gospel, but at those to whom the gospel would be, or had been, preached. Accordingly, Jesus' instructions do not add up to a prescriptive model for future missionaries, but a descriptive apologetic for the evangelist's own missionary practices. The evangelist may have been concerned about criticism, actual or anticipated, about the manner in which he and others like him conducted missionary work: by living off the generosity of others. The mission discourse provided the ammunition needed to answer or obviate these criticisms. It enabled him to claim that his missions were conducted in no other way than what Jesus himself had commanded. He could claim that the Lord did not want ministers of his word to be burdened by the labors of self-sustenance, thus detracting from the proliferation of his gospel. For this reason hospitality is essential to the mission. The evangelist then combined this defensive response with an offensive maneuver, threatening divine judgment on all who fail to comply with this missionary program. Here it may be appropriate to ask just how far the evangelist expected

49. G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (trans. J. Schtz; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), p. 39.

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 189 this hospitality to extend and also what form of support was expected from the houses and communities that received him. From the Didache, cited above, we learn that controversies relating to itinerant preachers first touched upon the appropriate duration of time they may remain. The text of the mission discourse is clear in this directive, as 6.10 states, 'Wherever you enter a house, remain there until you leave'. For Mark the duration of time is indefinite. A second, more complicated issue addresses money and remuneration. Were wages expected in the form of money or was the mere offer of hospitality (food and shelter) sufficient for the community to fulfill all material obligations to its itinerant spiritual authority? Whereas the Didache vehemently opposes any form of monetary remuneration to the point of vilifying any apostle who expects it, the second evangelist neither prohibits nor endorses remuneration explicitly. In light of this, it is worth noting that hospitality as traditionally understood in antiquity and as it has been addressed in this study generally does not entail any exchange of money between the guest and host in either direction. Nor, for that matter, would remuneration necessarily entail hospitality. Thus, remuneration simply may not be an issue in the mission discourse. On the other hand, there may be an implicit expectation of monetary support embedded in the list of forbidden items in vv. 8-9. In addition to depicting the apostles as generally indigent and in need of support, it may also have served as an itemized list designed to indicate specifically what they lacked and needed the community to provide. Given this possibility, the prohibition against money would ironically require missionaries to be paid for their services. But outside of this speculation there is no evidence to suggest that the evangelist expected to be paid in addition to the hospitality he received. Still, one more thing should be said about remuneration vis--vis hospitality. Despite the disconnection between the two, one not necessarily having any relation to the other, for the purposes of this study they share an important similarity. Both could be seen as placing an unwelcome burden on the community, a commonality seemingly recognized by the Didachist as evinced by his treatment of both subjects in close proximity to one another {Did. 11.4-6). As a matter of social relevance for the early church, the concern of itinerant preachers burdening Christian communities under the pretense of providing for an apostle was a controversial issue. This is illustrated directly in the Didache, as shown above, and indirectly in the letters of Paul. In the Corinthian correspondence the reader of the epistle is privy to a community controversy analogous to that between Socrates and the

190

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

Sophists, the former criticizing the latter for accepting money in exchange for teaching wisdom. But in Corinth, Paul comes under criticism for refusing to accept money as an apostle of Christ. Paul's initial response is to acknowledge that apostles have a right to accept support in exchange for preaching the gospel, but that he forgoes this privilege in order to give himself grounds for boasting above others. Chapter 9 of the first epistle illustrates this position well: If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this so that they may be applied in my case. Indeed, I would rather die than that; no one will deprive me of my ground for boasting (1 Cor. 9.11-15). Paul allows that remuneration is a perfectly acceptable practice, sanctioned by the highest authority, even if he elects not to participate in it.50 However, in his later correspondence the apostle takes a more aggressive stance in his defense, implying in the so-called letter of tears that taking money for the gospel would financially 'burden' (, 2 Cor. 11.9; 12.13-4; , 2 Cor. 12.16) the community, and also referring derogatorily to those who accept remuneration as those who 'peddle' the word of God (2Cor.2.17). 51 A number of studies have demonstrated that Paul's reluctance to accept 52 payment at Corinth does not reflect a reluctance to encumber his churches as it does his refusal to compromise his freedom by entering into a patron53 client relationship. But irrespective of his actual motive, the rhetoric of 50. Though outside the scope of this study, it is striking that Paul treats what he terms a command () of Jesus as optional ( ). See D.G. Horrell, '"The Lord Commanded.. .But I Have not Used..." Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor 9.14-15', NTS 43 (1997), pp 587-603. 51. B. Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 373. 52. Phil. 4.16 and Rom. 15.24 suggest that Paul had no ideological compunctions about receivingfinancialassistance from the churches he founded. 53. R. Hock, The Social Context ofPaul 's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 61-62; D. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The

ROGERS Shaking the Dust off the Markan Mission Discourse 191 Paul's argument appeals to the issue of burdening the community. Apparently many found this kind of rhetoric persuasive. In addition to the Didache's endorsement, which has already been discussed in detail, the Lukan Jesus' revocation of his mission discourses' austere requirements (Lk. 22.35-6) indicates that the third evangelist also wanted itinerant missionaries of his own time to be self-sufficient and not burden communities to which they preached.54 This is confirmed in Acts 20.33-5 where, as David Horrell says referring to the agraphon in v. 35, 'Luke is quoting Jesus against Jesus in support of Paul' in order to lend Paul 'dominical justification for his policy of self-support'.55 All of this suggests that between the time Paul wrote in the middle of the first century, and the writing of Luke-Acts and the Didache towards the end of the century, there was a trajectory of influence, perhaps shaped by Paul's rhetoric, against itinerants living off the generosity provided by Christian communities.56 Writing around the year 70, it seems the Markan evangelist weighed in on this controversial issue at a time when some communities were beginning to grow suspicious of itinerants who expected long-term support of any kind, be it in the form of money or hospitality. His defense to those who would criticize him in this regard came in the form of the mission discourse. 4. Concluding Observations Over the years a variety of solutions have been offered in response to the problems associated with Mark's mission discourse. Thus, the present interpretation will either merely add to the number of explanations hitherto proposed or emerge as the most persuasive exegesis of the group. In pursuit of the latter, the following observations are put forth in favor of interpreting the mission discourse within the context of ancient hospitality norms. First, many exegeses ofthe mission discourse, a relatively short pericope
Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 138-39. 54. H. Conzelmann states that Luke 'explicitly annulled' the requirements of the mission discourse, The Theology of St Luke (trans. G. Buswell; London: Faber & Faber, 1960), p. 13. 55. Horrell, '"The Lord Commanded"', p. 598. 56. This influence may also be attributed to a gradual shift in power from the itinerant leadership of earliest Christianity to the resident leadership of local communities. See Horrell, 'Leadership Patterns', pp. 309-37.

192

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004)

of a mere seven verses, draw from a number of divergent themes and traditions to explain the significance of the different pieces of the puzzle. Put another way, no single theme or tradition has been able to account for all its conundrums. The Cynic hypotheses speak to the lists of forbidden and permitted items, but contribute nothing to interpreting the meaning of the dust-shaking. Conversely, the rabbinic tradition of dust-shaking might seem a compelling solution to the dust-shaking in Mark, but it does not explain the two lists in vv. 8-9. Likewise, Marcus's intertextual reading of Exodus addresses the lists, but not the dust-shaking, and the intertextual reading of Nehemiah addresses the dust-shaking, but not the lists. On the other hand, reading the text in light of hospitality accounts for both the lists as well as the dust-shaking. Furthermore, it provides the most satisfying explanation for why dust is shaken specifically from the feet and no other place. A second and related reason for preferring the present interpretation over any other is Ockham's Razor which states, 'Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate'; plurality should not be posited without necessity. There are two prevailing interpretations of this philosophical axiom. The first holds that, everything else being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the most likely. Given this principle, the present interpretation should be preferred since its exegesis requires only a single theme, as opposed to all others, which require at least two. The second reading of Ockham's Razor states that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Again, the present study coheres best with this basic philosophical principle. Explicitly stated in v. 10 of the mission discourse is an instruction to seek out hospitality. As such, it is indisputable that the evangelist was concerned with hospitality to some extent. Accordingly, since hospitality is known to have been a concern for the evangelist, the mysteries of the mission discourse should first be examined under this light.

^ 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.