This article attempts to address a certain lack of interest in the senses in New Testament studies by conducting a sensory survey of the Gospel of Mark. Informed by cross-cultural anthropology of the senses, the Gospel of Mark is revealed as an audio-centric text in which hearing is the pre-eminent sense and deafness the gravest sensory impairment. Mark’s ambivalence surrounding the faculty of sight is viewed as a resistance to the pre-eminence of the visual within imperial propaganda.
Avalos, H.2007‘Introducing Sensory Criticism in Biblical Studies: Audiocentricity and Visiocentricity’, in H. Avalos, S. Melcher and J. Schipper (eds.), This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature): 31-46.
2.
Barton, C.2001Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones ( Berkeley: University of California Press).
3.
Beavis, M.A.1998‘From the Margin to the Way: A Feminist Reading of the Story of Bartimaeus’, JFSR14: 19-39.
4.
Boring, M., K. Berger and C. Colpe (eds.) 1995 Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995).
5.
Classen, C.1997‘Foundations for an Anthropology of the Senses’ , International Social Science Journal153: 401-12.
6.
2005‘McLuhan in the Rainforest. The Sensory Worlds of Oral Cultures’, in D. Howes (ed.), Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader (Oxford : Berg): 147-63.
7.
Classen, C., D. Howes and A. Synnot1994Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell (London: Routledge).
8.
Dalby, A.2000Empire of Pleasure: Luxury and Indulgence in the Roman World ( London: Routledge).
9.
Evans, C.A.2000‘Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel’, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism1 ( 2000): 67-81.
10.
Eve, E.2008‘Spit in your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria’, NTS54: 1-17.
11.
Fredrick, D. (ed.) 2002The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power and the Body (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
12.
Geurts, K.L.2002Culture and the Senses: Bodily Ways of Knowing in an African Community (Berkeley: University of California Press).
13.
Gundry, R.1993Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross ( Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
14.
Hibbits, B.1992‘Coming to our Senses: Communication and Legal Expression in Performance Cultures’, Emory Law Journal accessed online, at http://faculty.law.pitt.edu/hibbitts/ctos.htm on 31 July 2009.
15.
Horsley, R.2008Jesus in Context: Power, People and Performance ( Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
16.
Howes, D. (ed.) 2005Empire of the Senses (Oxford: Berg).
17.
Howes, D.2006‘Cross Talk between the Senses’, Senses and Society1.3: 381-90.
18.
Lawrence, L.J.2002‘For truly I tell you, they have received their reward’ (Matt 6:2). Investigating Honour Precedence and Honour Virtue’, CBQ64: 687-702.
19.
Maier, H.O.2005‘Barbarians, Scythians and Imperial Iconography in the Epistle to the Colossians’, in A. Weissenrieder et al. (eds.), Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 385-406.
20.
2009‘Reading the New Testament with Imperial Imagination: Ecphrasis, Imperial Iconography and Persuasion in Early Christianity’ (unpublished paper distributed and discussed by author at Exeter University).
21.
Moxnes, H.2003Putting Jesus in his Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom ( Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
22.
Myers, C.1988Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (New York: Orbis Books).
23.
Nelson, A.J.2005A Companion to Rationalism (Oxford: Blackwell).
24.
Rose, M.L.2003The Staff of Oedipus: Transforming Disability in Ancient Greece ( Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
25.
Scarry, E.1985The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).
26.
Seremetakis, C.N. (ed) 1996The Senses Still: Perception and Memory as Material Culture in Modernity ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
27.
Smith, M.2007Sensory History (Oxford: Berg).
28.
Telford, W.R. (ed.) 1995The Interpretation of Mark: Studies in New Testament Interpretation ( Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
29.
Weeden, T.1995‘The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel’ , in Telford1995: 89-104. [1968]
30.
Weissenrieder, A. et al. (eds.) 2005Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images ( Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
31.
Winn, A.2008Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
32.
Yong, A.2007Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press).
