Book Review: Gathered Around Jesus (Eric Stewart)

Does Mark accurately reflect the layout of ancient Palestine in his descriptions of where Jesus and his disciples walk? This might seem like an odd question, but I have read many commentators who were puzzled over why Jesus took the Sidon detour on his trip from Tyre to the Decapolis. While this book doesn’t set out to answer Mark’s purportedly wonky geography, Eric Stewart—professor of religion at Augustana College—shows that Mark does know what he’s doing in relation to space, and he takes a stab at how Mark redefines space in his Gospel. 

Chapter one surveys three different groups of scholars who have tackled this issue.

1. The first group (Lohmeyer and Lightfoot) stressed the theological dimensions on Mark’s presentation of Galilee (positive) and Jerusalem (negative). Jesus preaches the message of the kingdom and calls followers only in Galilee, whereas Jerusalem is the place of Jesus’ rejection and death.
2. However, the second group has noted places in Mark where Galilee is not presented so positively, such as when Jesus’ hometown rejected him (6:1–6). Regarding Jerusalem, there may be hints that it would inevitably become a messianic center.
3. The third group took into consideration architectural, topographical, and cosmic space.

However, these studies have not considered issues of the critical theory of space, made use of Greek and Roman geographical traditions in any significant way, nor have they paid much attention to the social element of the Gospel’s of Mark’s use of space.

In chapter two, Stewart examined modern theories of space and place. This includes the idea that “space encodes social practices and power relations. Those who control space exert their control by means of particular spatial practices” (221). This is seen in actions like zoning laws and the previous segregation laws. Space has a relational significance through the interactions of places and particularly of people who exert control.

In chapter three we read about how geography was viewed from ancient geographers. The central aspect of ancient geography is the oikoumenē, “the inhabited world” (62). The oikoumenē is clearly distinguished from uninhabited and unliveable areas. Greek and Roman geography was divided into two major types: scientific and human. The more prevalent type is human geography, found in many forms of literature, describing those people who live (or populate) in various areas of earth. Those living at the “center of the earth” were the Greeks and Romans, and they “believed themselves to hold the best position for ruling in terms of the balance of their geographical zone” (106). However, Jews considered Jerusalem the center of the earth (Ezek 5:5; 38:12; cf. Isa 19:24). 

The farther away someone lived from these areas, the more they were described in fabulous and grotesque terms. People were judged both according to their physical distance from Greece and Rome and by their cultural difference. Cultivation of soil was “the mark of civilization for the Greeks and Romans, and “in most instances, remote cultures are considered savage by the Greeks and Romans” (85). As well, in his conclusion, Stewart writes, “Those who cultivated the soil, like the Greeks and Romans, were presented in far more human terms, while those who lived in areas where such cultivation was impossible were considered savages and uncivilized” (222).

How do you go against the grain and usurp the dominate ideology of what constitutes “proper space”? You write books. “The socially produced spaces” of the Greeks and Romans were challenged most often in texts—“representational spaces.” These texts offered alternatives to the actual spatial practices. They created imaginary worlds allowing one to understand life differently. A “what-if-life-were-this-way?” sort of approach that classified space differently from the ruling majority. 

Chapter four examined architectural and topographic places within the Greek and Roman oikoumenē. Stewart analyzed how the city and village were understood in relation to each other. Cities were places for elites, and they took resources from the villages around them. They were also administrative centers which imposed various kinds of social practices on the surrounding spaces (such as villages). Villages were home to peasants and produced much of what was consumed in those cities.

While the possibility of travel had expanded under Roman rule, various texts and their literary imaginations never let go of the idea that travel by road or by water was terrifying and deadly. The “ideal” Greek or Roman could till soil. That ideal is put at risk by those who adopted different spatial practices. Some of the geographic stereotypes that applied to those far from Rome also applied to those living in “uncivilized” areas such as mountains (Mk 3:13; 5:5), border regions, and wilderness areas (1:4, 12). These people were considered unable to cultivate soil, making them enemies of those who lived on fertile soil. People who met difficulties in villages and towns would sometimes find refuge in the mountains and wilderness. This would result in new groups and spatial practices being formed (177). Stewart observes, “The formation of a new people in the wilderness is a frequent theme in early Jewish literature and an important component of the Gospel of Mark” (223).

In chapter five, Stewart explored the role of people (emperors, philosophers and teachers, for example), as geographic centers. To give one example, philosophers traveled abroad to see the world’s great sites and to find more of the world’s wisdom. When they would return, many considered them foremost experts on wisdom who could teach their disciples about matters of the oikoumenē.

What in the World Does This Book Have to Do With the Gospel of Mark?

I’m glad you asked. Let me tell you.

Stewart believes Mark focuses on topographical and geographic stereotypes. In Mark, Jesus challenges the spatial practice of the synagogues and the Jerusalem temple, which pushes its purity rules on the Jews of Judea and Galilee. Jesus rejects many of these rules and so challenges the spatial power of the authorities in charge of those places. 

Because he does this, the rulers spy on Jesus, hunt him down, and accuse him of demon possession and other lies. They are unable to restrain Jesus. “His opponents are unable to control him even on their own turf, since he is able to speak freely and come and go as he pleases” (219). When Jesus enters these locations, he “cleanses” them (through either exorcisms or flipping tables). This suggests that these places are defiled and need a different kind of purification. Ultimately, the temple, the center, will be destroyed.

What is the alternate space? This new space is centered on Jesus himself. “The kingdom of God exists spatially in the area around Jesus in which the new community ‘gathers.’ People come to him, send embassies to him, and follow him throughout the Gospel” (224). Even the scribes and teachers of the law come to Jesus to question him about the law. Jesus stills storms, something Roman and Greek rulers could supposedly do. Jesus’ disciples expand the space of God’s kingdom through preaching, healing, and exorcisms by being sent out by the Son of God. This space will cover the earth when the Son of Man returns.

Recommended?

I was suspicious about this book when critical theory and power dynamics were brought into play in chapter two. I had certain assumptions, but I wanted to keep an open mind about the book in case Stewart was heading in a different direction. Thankfully, he did take a different tact. And although it took quite a while in the book to get to Mark’s Gospel and how these ideas apply, once he did arrive there, the previous chapters  aspect was helpful. Stewart. Thought a lot of his evidence and instead of laying it over Mark’s Gospel to force it into his mold, he showed how his ideas fit with what Mark was doing (at least, as it appears). Stewart accomplishes his goal of showing how Jesus reorients space around himself. I found his take on this in Mark really intriguing. This is a work that would be beneficial for scholars.