Mark, a Pauline Theologian: A Re-Reading of the Traditions of Jesus in the Light of Paul's Theology (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe) 9783161595059, 9783161595066, 316159505X

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

521

Mar Pérez i Díaz

Mark, a Pauline Theologian A Re-reading of the Traditions of Jesus in the Light of Paul’s Theology

Mohr Siebeck

Mar Pérez i Díaz, born 1970; degree in classical philology; doctorate in Sacred Scripture; currently working as a teacher for Latin and Greek as well as New Testament at the Ateneu Universitari Sant Pacià of Barcelona and Synoptic Gospels and Pauline Letters at the Institut Superior de Ciències Religioses-IREL of Lleida. orcid.org/0000-0001-7173-2549

ISBN 978-3-16-159505-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-159506-6 DOI 10.1628 / 978-3-16-159506-6 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Viris meis, cum amore

Preface This monograph on the Gospel of Mark is the result of several years of research on a hotly-debated issue in biblical theology: the Pauline influence on the second Gospel. While in recent years many biblical scholars have taken a stand on the subject, and articles and studies on this controversy have proliferated, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the Pauline imprint on Mark’s Gospel. The importance of exploring the topic, as a means to learning more about how the early Christian communities carried out their evangelization after the death and resurrection of Jesus, led me to study and draw together a significant amount of corroborating evidence that points to the influence of Paul on the oldest Gospel that has come down to us. I wish to express my gratitude for all the help received in the preparation of this volume, to the many people and institutions who have supported me in carrying out this research. First of all, I would sincerely like to thank Professor Xavier Alegre for his critical and enthusiastic guidance in my research on Pauline links with the Gospel of Mark. Secondly, I would like to thank the Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya and its former Dean, Joan Planellas, currently Archbishop of Tarragona, and the Rector of the Ateneu Sant Pacià, Armand Puig, for their incitement to publish this volume in English. For the years of study and work in this centre, I also extend my gratitude to all the professors of the faculty, especially to Agustí Borrell for having always encouraged me to go further. Furthermore, I cannot fail to mention my colleagues from the Associació Bíblica de Catalunya who urged me, by their example, to follow in their footsteps in the task of communicating the Word of God. I am also deeply grateful to Àlvar G. for his constant collaboration in the English translation of the text and to Dr Julie Robb for her final copy-editing of it. I would likewise like to acknowledge the support of Antonio L. and Laura D. for their assistance in IT matters. 1st June, 2020

Mar Pérez i Díaz

Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... VII Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................... XIII

Introduction ..........................................................................................

1

1. Scope and rationale of the subject .................................................... 2. Methodology .................................................................................... 3. Structure of the work ........................................................................

1 5 7

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis ..................... 11 1.1. Authors who deny any Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark ............. 1.2. Authors who advocate Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark .............. 1.3. Authors in favour of Marcan Paulinisms, but with some reluctance 1.4. Authors who defend Petrine and Pauline influence on Mark’s Gospel 1.5. Conclusions ...................................................................................

12 16 23 25 27

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative............................... 29 2.1. The Gospel of Mark and its structure............................................. 2.2. Structural reading key: Who is Jesus? ........................................... 2.3. Proposed structure ......................................................................... 2.3.1. First part of the Gospel of Mark .......................................... 2.3.2. Second part of the Gospel of Mark ...................................... 2.3.3. Conclusions .........................................................................

29 32 34 34 39 42

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark .................................................................................. 45 3.1. The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον ..................................................... 3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus ................................. 3.2.1. The family of Jesus ............................................................. 3.2.2. The disciples of Jesus .......................................................... 3.2.3. Conclusions ......................................................................... 3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul ....... 3.3.1. From Capernaum to Galilee: Mark 1.21–45......................... 3.3.2. The authority of Jesus before the Law: Mark 2.1–3.6 ..........

46 52 53 59 74 80 80 85

X

Table of Contents

3.3.3. First conclusions ................................................................. 3.3.4. The difficult question of purity ............................................ 3.3.5. Second conclusions ............................................................. 3.3.6. Consequences and confirmation of the Pauline and Marcan conception of the Law ......................................................... 3.3.7. Conclusions on Paul’s and Mark’s understanding of the Law 3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark ........ 3.4.1. Importance of the broad and immediate context of Mark 6.34–44 and Mark 8.1–10. Marcan accents within the two stories. ................................................................................. 3.4.2. Structure in parallel cycles .................................................. 3.4.3. The Eucharistic tradition in Paul and Mark and the section of the loaves in Mark........................................................... 3.4.4. Conclusions ......................................................................... 3.5. The mission to the pagans ............................................................. 3.5.1. The Marcan Jesus and the pagans ........................................ 3.5.2. Conclusions: The Gospel of Mark is the Gospel to the Gentiles ............................................................................... 3.6. The end of the Temple................................................................... 3.6.1. The Curse of the Fig Tree and the Purification of the Temple (11.12–25) .............................................................. 3.6.2. Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple: Mark 13.1–2 3.6.3. “I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands”: Mark 14.58 .......................................................................... 3.6.4. Conclusion: A paradigm shift in Mark and Paul .................. 3.7. What relationship does Jesus have with Roman power? ................ 3.7.1. Is the tax to be paid to Caesar?: Mark 12.13–17 .................. 3.7.2. Considering Mark 12.13–17 and Romans 13.1–7 ................ 3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8) ..................................... 3.8.1. The passion of Jesus of Nazareth: Mark 14.1–15.32 ............ 3.8.2. The death of Jesus of Nazareth: Mark 15.33–47 .................. 3.8.3. The empty tomb and the announcement of the resurrection: Mark 16.1–8 ........................................................................ 3.8.4. Conclusions ......................................................................... 3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark ................................................ 3.9.1. Women and Jesus in Mark................................................... 3.9.2. Women in Paul’s letters ...................................................... 3.9.3. Conclusions: Women in Paul and Mark ...............................

91 96 111 112 119 120 121 124 127 129 131 132 147 151 152 155 156 156 158 158 161 164 166 170 173 175 178 178 185 189

Chapter 4: Christology ...................................................................... 191 4.1. Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ against Mark’s corrective Christology 192

Table of Contents

4.1.1. Origin and meaning of the Hellenic concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ ........................................................................... 4.1.2. Corrective Christology ........................................................ 4.1.3. Conclusion: A Christology of contrasts with some corrective elements .............................................................................. 4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the Cross ........................... 4.2.1. Son of God .......................................................................... 4.2.2. A note on the messianic secret ............................................ 4.2.3. The announcements of the passion ...................................... 4.2.4. The Theology of the Cross in Paul and Mark ...................... 4.2.5. The ransom logion............................................................... 4.3. The other Christological titles ....................................................... 4.3.1. Son of David ....................................................................... 4.3.2. Christ .................................................................................. 4.3.3. The Lord ............................................................................. 4.3.4. The Son of Man and the Servant ......................................... 4.3.5. Conclusions ......................................................................... 4.4. Victory over demonic powers ........................................................ 4.4.1. Jesus and the demons in the Gospel of Mark. The Christology of the New Adam ............................................. 4.4.2. Jesus and the demons in the Pauline letters ......................... 4.4.3. Conclusion .......................................................................... 4.5. Jesus’s fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament ..................... 4.5.1. Mark 1.2–3 .......................................................................... 4.5.2. Fulfilment of God’s plan of salvation .................................. 4.5.3. Romans 9–11 ...................................................................... 4.5.4. Conclusions .........................................................................

XI

192 194 197 200 200 202 204 206 213 220 220 223 224 225 228 228 228 234 235 236 236 238 240 242

Chapter 5: Conclusions ..................................................................... 245 5.1. Summary of conclusions ............................................................... 245 5.2. Over-arching conclusion ............................................................... 251 Bibliography............................................................................................. 253 1. Sources............................................................................................. 1.1. Biblical texts – Dictionaries ...................................................... 1.2. Christian, Greco-Latin and Jewish sources ................................ 2. Mark’s Gospel commentaries ........................................................... 3. Mark’s Gospel studies ...................................................................... 4. Pauline studies ................................................................................. 5. Others ..............................................................................................

253 253 253 254 256 267 269

XII

Table of Contents

Index of Biblical References .................................................................... 275 1. Old Testament .................................................................................. 275 2. New Testament ................................................................................ 277 Index of Authors ...................................................................................... 291 1. Ancient Authors ............................................................................... 291 2. Modern Authors ............................................................................... 291 Index of Subjects ...................................................................................... 297

Acronyms and Abbreviations I. Collections, reference works and reviews AB ABE ABRL AJBI AnBib AR ARGU AsSeign ATR BAC BEB BETL Bib BibInt BibRes BibS BibTB BNTC BSReL BSReL BTB ButABCat BZ BZNW CBQ CBNTS CBQMS CGTC CivCatt Comm CPL

Anchor Bible Asociación Bíblica Española Anchor Bible Reference Library Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute Analecta Biblica Art and Religion Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums Assemblées du Seigneur Anglican Theological Review Biblioteca de Autores cristianos Biblioteca de Estudios Bíblicos Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblical Research Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblioteca di Scienze Religiosea Bulletin for the Study of Religion Biblical Theology Bulletin Butlletí de l’Associació Bíblica de Catalunya Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series Cambridge Greek Testament Commentaries La Civiltà Cattolica Communio International Catholic Review Centre de Pastoral Litúrgica

XIV CRRA CThMi CuBR CUP CurTM DCLY EB ECNT EDB EDV Enc EQ ET EtB ETL ExpTim FB FES FilNeot FRLANT FW Int JBL JR JSHJ JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JTS KeK LBS LBS LCL LD LNTS LXX NICNT NovT NovTSup NRT NTA

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Catholic Research Resources Alliance Currents in Theology and Mission Currents in Biblical Research Cambridge University Press Currents in Theology and Mission Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Yearbook Estudios Bíblicos Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna Editorial Verbo Divino Encounter The Evangelical Quarterly Études théologiques Études Bibliques Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Finnisch Exegetical Society Filología Neotestamentaria Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschung und Wissenschaft Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Library of Biblical Studies Linguistic Biblical Studies Loeb Classical Library Lectio Divina Library of New Testament Studies Septuagint The New International Commentary on the New Testament Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum Nouvelle Revue Théologique Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

Acronyms and Abbreviations

NTL NTR NTS NTT NTTS PerspRelSt PG PUF RAC RB RCatT ResB RevLatTeol RevExp RivB RSPT RSR RTR Sal. SBB SBL SBL.DS SBL.Sem.St SBM SBT SCMPress ScrBib SelTeo Semeia SemeiaSt SJLA SJT SNT SNTECL SNTSMS SNTW SPB SPCK SPNT SPS StT StUNT SyBU

New Testament Library New Testament Readings New Testament Studies New Testament Theology New Testament Tools and Studies Perspectives in Religious Studies Patrologia Graeca Presses Universitaires de France Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Revue Biblique Revista Catalana de Teologia Reseña Bíblica Revista Latinoamericana de Teología Review & Expositor Rivista Biblica Italiana Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques Recherches de Science Religieuse Reformed Theological Review Salesianum Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature. Semeia Studies Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien Studies in Biblical Theology Student Christian Movement Scripta Biblica Selecciones de Teología Semeia Semeia Studies Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology Studien zum Neuen Testament Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series Studies of the New Testament and its World Studia Post-Biblica Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge Studies on Personalities of the New Testament Sacra Pagina Series Studia Theologica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses

XV

XVI TANZ TDNT TZ TZTh WBC WD WMANT WUNT ZNW ZThK

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theologische Zeitschrift Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie Word Biblical Commentary Wort und Dienst Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction 1. Scope and rationale of the subject 1. Scope and rationale of the subject

For many centuries, the statement of the second century Bishop Papias of Hierapolis was decisive for the interpretation of the Gospel of Mark.1 It was generally accepted that the Gospel of Mark had been written by John Mark, a figure known from the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles. This John Mark was an aide to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12.25; 13.5), only to Barnabas (Acts 15.36–41) or only to Paul (Phlm 1.24; Col 4.10; 2Tim 4.11). In addition, the apostle Peter and John Mark himself appear connected in 1Peter 5.13, where Peter calls Mark “my son”. Likewise, Luke’s description of the church in Jerusalem suggests that Peter visited John Mark’s house at least once (Acts 12.11–17).2 As a result of Papias’ statements, it was accepted that the Gospel of Mark was a Petrine Gospel, that is, a Gospel in line with the church of Jerusalem and that, therefore, Mark, in his narrative, had interpreted Peter’s teaching as he remembered it.3 Today, however, many scholars believe that Papias’ arguments were apologetic in intent and aimed at consolidating the authority and prestige of the oldest Gospel, indirectly linking it to the apostle Peter. However, since the beginning of the last century, scholars have reconsidered these ideas transmitted by the early Church Fathers and, contrary to what was

1

The affirmation of Papias about the Gospel of Mark is quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. Eccl. III.39.15), by Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. Eccl. II.15.1–2; VI.14.5–7), and implicitly by Justin Martyr (Dial. 106.3). 2 It should be noted that, although we do not agree with this interpretation of tradition for the reasons that we explain at length in our work, especially in the chapter in which we analyse the history of exegesis, today there are still some authors who consider it valid. This is the case of Richard BAUCKHAM, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Grand Rapids, M. William B. Eerdmans 2006, pp. 179–180.205– 210.417–437; Richard BAUCKHAM, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, M. Baker Academic 2007, p. 53; Monte Allen SHANKS, Papias and the New Testament, Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications 2013, pp. 261–275. 3 Joachim GNILKA, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1–8,26), (EKK II/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchener 1978, pp. 32–33.

2

Introduction

claimed, argued that the Gospel of Mark was a Gospel strongly influenced by the apostle Paul. Historically, the relationship between the apostle Paul and the evangelist Mark 4 has been approached from a variety of perspectives. Some have affirmed that the Gospel was written by Mark to defend Paul against the church of Jerusalem, others have claimed that it is a narrative of a follower of Paul, and a third position currently widely held is that Mark was a representative of Hellenistic Christianity, independent of Paul, but that the Gospel displays Pauline features. As for the studies on Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark, some scholars agree that a particular aspect of the Gospel of Mark is Pauline, but do not extend this to consider Paulinisms throughout the Gospel. More recently, a large group of scholars have identified three or, in some cases, four Pauline elements; however, we have not found any scholar who has argued for these Pauline elements as being important within the Gospel. Therefore, the task before us is arduous, wide-ranging and complex and the scope of the task must be narrowly defined in order to avoid the temptation to discuss related but tangential issues. We will not be discussing issues of authorship, dating or genre of the Marcan narrative, as we believe that each one of these would, in itself, require an investigation as extensive as the one we are considering here. Regarding these questions, the latest research by J. Marcus,5 X. Pikaza,6 A. Yarbro Collins,7 F. Moloney, 8 W. Telford, 9 address these issues, and their conclusions align with those of this study. The reader’s attention is drawn to these. The objective of this study is to search for and analyse passages in Mark’s Gospel that are distinctly Pauline in theology, or are in harmony with Paul’s thought or those in which the evangelist has independently echoed Pauline ideas. 10 Consequently, we intend to find out whether the evangelist, when 4

C. Clifton BLACK, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (SPNT 1), Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 1994, pp. 72–73, footnote 63. 5 Joel MARCUS (ed.), Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 27), New York: Doubleday 2000, pp. 17–56. 6 Xabier PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos. La buena noticia de Jesús, Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2012, pp. 34–154. 7 Adela Yarbro COLLINS, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2007, pp. 1–43. 8 Francis J. MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 2002, pp. 11–24. 9 William Rodgers TELFORD, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (NTT 1), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999, pp. 9–17. 10 The edition used for the texts of Paul and Mark is the Greek edition of Nestle-Aland in the last corrected edition of 2015 (N-A28). For their translation into English, the 1989 edition of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is used. The analysis is conducted following the Greek texts, although we usually quote in English. It is only where we have

1. Scope and rationale of the subject

3

composing, organising and writing his narrative, had in mind the theology of the apostle Paul as a key to interpreting the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, we must also make clear what we mean by Paulinisms or Pauline theology.11 First of all, we must note that the entire Pauline corpus has not been used in the search for elements of confluence between the apostle and the evangelist. We have strictly limited ourselves to the letters considered to be authentically Paul’s: the Epistle to the Romans, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Philippians, the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, and the Letter to Philemon. Consequently, we have not engaged with the other letters attributed to the apostle: those that are considered pastoral and not written by Paul, that is, the two letters to Timothy and the Letter to Titus, because they are subsequent to Mark and, therefore, they cannot have influenced him, and also the letters that are doubtful as to Paul’s authorship, that is, the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Epistle to the Colossians and the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 12 Dealing with the authorship of the disputed Pauline epistles would require another investigation entirely. Additionally, we must identify those elements of theology that are recognised as being distinctly Pauline: the importance of the theology of the cross, Christian freedom, criticism of the Law, love of neighbour, openness to pagans, non-patriarchalism, the relationship with Roman power, the concept of ‘Gospel’, Jesus portrayed as the New Adam, issues such as table fellowship and the food laws, justification by faith, the importance of the Temple, the relationship with the disciples and victory over demons, in order to contrast them with the Gospel and find the Pauline imprint. Consequently, we have chosen the subject with the conviction that a comprehensive study of Pauline elements in the second Gospel is an interesting and worthwhile project. Furthermore, it will contribute to an understanding of the process of evangelisation and growth of the early Church, to an underconsidered it necessary, either because of the nuances of the original language or when comparing certain texts, that the text has been quoted in Greek. As for the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia has been used. 11 Heike OMERZU, “Paul and Mark – Mark and Paul”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 51–61, thinks that when we try to compare Mark and Paul we must define what is meant by “Paulinisms” or “Pauline theology” and what is included or excluded from the comparison, a qualification with which we concur in order to delimit the concepts to which we will refer. 12 Hans KLEIN, Entwicklungslinien im Corpus Paulinum und weitere Studien zu Paulustexten (FRLANT 265), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2016, p. 301; Richard I. PERVO, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in early Christianity, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2010, pp. 63–64.116–118.

4

Introduction

standing of how the message of Jesus of Nazareth was communicated within different communities and the different emphases given in interpreting and understanding that message. In order to carry out our purpose, we have tracked Paul’s imprint within the Gospel and what is of a specifically Pauline nature, with respect to the words and actions of Jesus, the characters and situations around him, and also the structure and theology that emerges from these. Knowing to what extent the apostle to the Gentiles influenced the writing of the first of the Gospels is of importance in order to understand the functioning, structure and development of Mark’s own Gospel, but also in knowing what was the first message proclaimed inside and outside of Israel. Nevertheless, we do not intend to affirm that everything we read in Mark is Pauline, but rather we intend to show how the evangelist Mark reworked and changed the sources he received so that they are in agreement with Paul. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the synoptic parallels, do not retain these nuances of Pauline tonality, since the former is a Gospel of Judeo-Christian tendency13 and the latter, despite being influenced by Paul, is too late to pick up the freshness, radicalism and conviction of Paul himself.14 However, because much of the theology of the sources he received coincided with that of Paul, the evangelist did not have to rework his sources at every point and so we cannot argue for direct Pauline influence in every instance. Thus, even though we believe that Mark’s narrative style is imbued with Paulinisms when it comes to making people understand who Jesus is, we do not want to argue that all the traditions that Mark embodies in his Gospel are influenced by Paul, because many of them come from sources that are common to the entire tradition of the Church. We therefore intend to examine those fragments where Mark has modified the traditions he received so as to align them with Paul’s thought. However, if we were only looking for indications and if there were no structural elements in common that evidenced Paul’s presence, perhaps we could be accused of being naïve when preparing our study. For this reason, we argue that it is the structure of the Gospel which is the cohesive element making the whole narrative Pauline in character, because Mark was the creator of both this new literary form and its structure. At the same time, we believe that because each writer used different literary genres and because the letters were written in very different and specific contexts – since Paul responded to concrete problems within communities and Mark presented Jesus to his community – we should not expect to find 13 Rafael AGUIRRE MONASTERIO – Antonio RODRÍGUEZ CARMONA, Evangelios sinópticos y Hechos de los apóstoles (Introducción al Estudio de la Biblia 6), Estella (Navarra): Editorial Verbo Divino 1992, pp. 235–236. 14 Ibid., 313–314.

2. Methodology

5

typical Pauline words or expressions in the Marcan narrative. Mark does not want to present Paul, but rather to interpret Jesus through a Pauline lens. As for the rationale for the choice of the subject, we believe that it is reinforced by the enormous amount of studies and articles written in the last fifty years on Paul’s influence on the Gospel of Mark. For this reason, this study seeks to be placed within this context of the research carried out on the theme of Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark, considering the arguments for and against the thesis I will present. Since the publication of Martin Werner’s book, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium, 15 which claimed that all the coincidences between Paul and Mark were a reflection of primitive Christianity in general, some scholars considered the question settled and so denied any kind of relationship or influence of Paul on the Marcan narrative. However, since this work was published, some significant work has been done by scholars in this area, some supporting Werner’s conclusions, but others disputing these. In addition, there has been a recent increase in the number of social-scientific studies analysing aspects of the Gospel of Mark where elements of Pauline theology are present. The majority of these have shown that the Gospel of Mark was written in a milieu close to that of Paul. All of these studies, however, only deal in depth with a single logion of Jesus, a specific scene of the Gospel, a recurring theme that provides clarification, the structure of the narrative or the importance of the theology of the cross. However, none state that Mark is a Pauline Gospel, as they only deal with a few aspects of the Gospel and do not consider the breadth of indicators that together point to such a conclusion. In short, motivated by the desire to deepen our knowledge of the Gospel of Mark, the first narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, we have tried to bring together in this monograph all those aspects of Mark that betray the imprint of Paul in order to establish, as far as possible, what was first preached to the early Christian communities following the death and resurrection of Jesus.

2. Methodology 2. Methodology

In analysing the Pauline and Marcan texts, we will utilise the historicalcritical method specifically redaction criticism, 16 as this will enable us to 15

Martin WERNER, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium (BZNW 1), Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann 1923. 16 Criticism of the writing, a method recommended by “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” (1993), has endeavored to find criteria that enable us to discover the hand of the evangelist Mark in the work and in specific texts. A nuanced opinion on this matter

6

Introduction

understand the composition of the Gospel. This will provide a set of followup criteria that will aid us in understanding the structure of the text and in describing and analysing the narrative of Mark. In addition, we have also taken into account the narrative method which, together with redaction criticism, is necessary in the study of sources, since it allows us to focus on the synchronic dimension of the story, that is to say, on the narrative itself, which considers the text reworked by the evangelist in its final form as a coherent narrative. Mark is not only the writer who has modified the traditions received, but he is also the author who has created this work: the characters, their relationship with the plot, the actions of the narrator and the protagonist of the story and the scenarios in which the action takes place, some of which give intentional information about geography, others of which have symbolic and metaphorical value. In short, the construction of the narrative discourse, which presents us with his particular vision of the facts, is Mark’s own work. We will be studying two very different types of literature, because the Gospel of Mark is a narrative, evangelistic in intention, that seeks to recover the traditions of Jesus to encourage discipleship, while Paul’s letters are written to build communities and to help them in their difficulties. Evidently, they are different genres, Gospel and epistolary, with different purposes, one more narrative and the other more theological, necessitating the use of different language styles where the language of Mark’s narrative is simpler in style to that of Paul’s more theological style of writing. However, despite these dissimilarities, we confront specific texts of Mark’s Gospel with texts from the letters of the apostle Paul in order to find similarities between them and to demonstrate that Mark has Paul’s theology in mind when he narrates his Gospel, without falling into anachronism. We are able to consider a large number of texts and this enables us to demonstrate that there are many similarities between the evangelist and the apostle. Therefore, our hypothesis, i.e., that Mark’s Gospel is a Gospel under Pauline influence, can be corroborated through the weight of cumulative evidence provided. If we were to present only a few common elements between the two writers, we could question the veracity of the conclusions, as many critics of our hypothesis do. However, we are convinced that so many points in common, so many similarities and so many elements in agreement are not the result of coincidence, but intended by the evangelist Mark.

is found in MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 59–62, who argues that Mark has creatively crafted the traditions he has incorporated into his Gospel. Also in TELFORD, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 18–29; Detlev DORMEYER, Das Markusevangelium, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2005, pp. 67–81. In our study we will indicate what criteria lead us to think where the hand of Mark is visible.

3. Structure of the work

7

Consequently, and in keeping with what Cardinal Henry Newman affirmed in his letter to Canon Walker in 1864, a teaching can be recognised as solid and consistent if there is a concatenation of evidence that corroborates it: July 6, 1864... The best illustration of what I hold is that of a cable, which is made up of a number of separate threads, each feeble, yet together as sufficient as an iron rod. An iron rod represents mathematical or strict demonstration; a cable represents moral demonstration, which is an assemblage of probabilities, separately insufficient for certainty, but, when put together, irrefragable. A man who said, “I cannot trust a cable, I must have an iron bar”, would in certain given cases, be irrational and unreasonable: – so too is a man who says I must have a rigid demonstration, not moral demonstration, of religious truth.17

This is precisely what we intend to demonstrate about the Gospel of Mark. On the one hand, it is a simple narrative for those who find themselves ‘outside’ the community, who do not belong to the ‘circle of Jesus’ and only understand its meaning on a first level (Mark 4.11), because they approach the mystery of Jesus without faith. On the other hand, it is a text with a deeper meaning, addressed to believers, which explains and interprets the facts narrated, which transcend themselves. It is on this second level of interpretation that we want and can follow in Paul’s footsteps. Mark’s genius lies in how he arranges and modifies the data and sources he received, thus generating a progressive dynamism within the structure of a well thought out and meditated work. Of course, it is a difficult and complex task to discover the author’s intention, which is why our argument will be based on the distinctive Pauline structure of the Gospel devised by Mark, as well as on a series of passages whose intentionality is manifestly comparable to other passages in Paul’s writings and in which the teaching arising from both texts requires joint interpretation.

3. Structure of the work 3. Structure of the work

In our research for this subject, it became clear that may authors have analysed and discussed Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark. However, no one has carried out an exhaustive analysis of theological elements nor has collected them in a research paper. For this reason, if we want to fully understand the meaning of Mark’s narrative, we need to identify, compare and evaluate the different approaches to the texts of the Gospel and the Pauline letters. Therefore, it is appropriate, especially after the publication of two volumes in 2014, the first of which was entitled Paul and Mark, and the second, Mark and Paul, for the Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissen17 Wilfrid Philip WARD, The Life of John Henry, Cardinal Newman: Based on His Private Journals and Correspondence, vol. 2, London: Longmans, Green, 1921, p. 43.

8

Introduction

schaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche series, to present the evidence for Paulinisms within Mark in order to expand our knowledge of the exegesis of the Gospel. The argument will proceed through the following five chapters. The first of these covers the history of research in Marcan studies that specifically consider Pauline influence on the Gospel. Presented diachronically, first we will consider those who deny Pauline influence in Mark and second, those who argue for it, without forgetting those authors who, although they do not believe that there is direct and indisputable evidence of Mark’s dependence on Paul, agree that they are related. Reference is also made to those authors who argue that Mark is both a Petrine and a Pauline text. The second chapter considers the structural unity of the Gospel of Mark as being the guiding thread which enables the evangelist to present a Jesus filtered through the prism of Paul. In addition, we argue that because the evangelist has created this new literary form, the structure of the Gospel is the work of the editor. The following chapter presents the theological elements of Mark’s Gospel which converge with those of Paul: the meaning of the word εὐαγγέλιον; the misunderstanding of the disciples, focusing on the family of Jesus and on the figure of Peter; the issue of the Law and the Marcan controversies; the meaning of the two multiplications of the loaves; openness to pagans; criticism of the Temple; the relationship between Jesus and the power of Rome; the passion, death and resurrection narratives; and finally, the role and place of women in the Gospel. Taking an exegetical approach to each of these subjects enables us to emphasise the significant elements of the biblical texts, to briefly present the content of the selected pericopes, and finally to engage those texts with texts from the Pauline letters, in order to reach conclusions that allow us to identify Pauline elements in the Marcan fragments. When it is a question that involves the Gospel text in its totality, the theological element is analysed from both Pauline and Marcan theologies, but remaining within specific Marcan and Pauline texts at all times. The fourth chapter considers Marcan Christology as a Pauline Christology. Three fundamental questions are asked in order to establish the Pauline nature of Mark: the Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ before considering its corrective, the Christological title “Son of God” and the theology of the cross. The other Christological titles appearing in the Gospel are analysed later in this study. The last two sections examine the victory of Jesus over the demonic powers, and the portrayal of Jesus, both in the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline letters, as a fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament. The last chapter assembles and summarises the general conclusions reached as a result of the preceding chapters and, after stating briefly the

3. Structure of the work

9

different conclusions drawn from these chapters, presents the final observations on Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark.

Chapter 1

History of research. Status quaestionis The analysis of the Paulinisms of the Gospel of Mark, especially the influence of Paul himself and Pauline ideas on the evangelist, has been one of the most debated issues in Marcan biblical exegesis during the last few years. It is no longer argued that the Gospel of Mark is a mere collage of traditions, but rather it is accepted that it is the narrative work of an author who fully controlled the material used. For a long time it was thought that this Gospel was just a summary of Matthew’s Gospel, as St. Augustine stated,1 when he referred to the Gospel of Mark calling it pedisequus et breviator, and stated that, therefore, it did not deserve to be analysed in depth. However, from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards, this all changed as the orientation of Marcan studies began to consider it the oldest of the Gospels and, consequently, the closest to the life and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and the most faithful to his message. As a result, the Gospel of Mark has become one of the most studied texts of the New Testament with numerous monographs, commentaries and articles discussing a variety of issues in order to help clarify and enhance understanding of its message. The most recent studies focus mainly on the question of when and where the Gospel was written, on the type of community for which the author wrote and on the possible Pauline influence on the author of the Gospel. This last aspect is the subject of our study. We will present the different arguments for or against the Pauline influence on the Gospel of Mark. This journey through the history of research will focus on studies carried out in the last one hundred years, since it is as that point that the question became relevant. During the 1950s, studies on Mark were greatly boosted by the school of redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte), which understands the Gospel as a literary and theological unit. The interest of redaction criticism lies in studying the final stage of the history of the tradition and the authors of the Gospels, accepting that they were the true authors of these writings and that

1

ST. AUGUSTINUS HIPPONENSIS, De consensu Evangelistarum 1.2.4; Cf. HEINRICH JOVOGELS, De consensu Evangelistarum. Unter vornehmlicher Berücksichtigung ihrer harmonistischen Anschauungen (Biblische Studien 13.5), Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 1908. Precisely, St. Augustine stated: “Marcus eum [Petrum] subsecutus tamquam pedisequus et breviator eius videtur”.

SEPH

12

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

they wrote in accordance with the needs of the community to which they were addressed.

1.1. Authors who deny any paulinisms in the gospel of Mark 1.1. Authors who deny any paulinisms in the gospel of Mark

Prior to the use of redaction criticism in Gospel studies, the topic of Paulinisms in Mark had been considered by a number of authors. We will begin by presenting chronologically the most significant research that denied Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark. However, we will postpone criticism of their conclusions until we analyse the Marcan texts in the third chapter of our study, although, if appropriate, we will engage critically with the most significant arguments. The reference work, quoted by all those who deny Pauline influence on the Gospel of Mark, is that of Martin Werner.2 Werner analysed Marcan Christology by considering the titles attributed to Jesus in the Gospel and compared them with the idea of the Messiah that is found in Paul. He also compared the issue of the Law and insisted that it was much more important in Paul, where it has a soteriological significance, than in Mark. Likewise, he studied the use of the word ‘Gospel’, the concepts of faith and sin, and pointed out the different conceptualisation of the evangelist and the apostle, since in the latter he finds a more theological and theoretical belief. Werner furthermore contrasted the way of understanding the sacraments and eschatology in Paul and Mark through linguistic parallels. He also compared the presentation of the first apostles, who are much more present in the Gospels than in the Pauline letters, and how the Jewish people are presented, a concept that in Mark includes both people and religious leaders while in Paul this is not the case. Finally, he claimed that the so-called mission to the pagans is a concept completely absent in the Gospel of Mark, because, in his opinion, Jesus never extended his mission beyond the Jewish people. Werner ended his study with a comparison between the vocabularies of Mark and Paul, and concluded that, where Paul and Mark coincide, so do all the primitive Christian communities. Moreover, when comparing the textual parallels of the two authors, he thought that he could prove that they were not exactly the same and, therefore, asserted that one cannot speak of Pauline influence on Mark’s Gospel in any sense. Consequently, for Werner – who is still quoted today by some scholars as the definitive text on the subject of Marcan Paulinisms – the themes and aspects shared by both authors are not distinctively Pauline, but universally Christian, and the ideas considered specifically Pauline are absent or are explicitly rejected by Mark, because the evangelist’s concern focuses

2

WERNER, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium.

1.1. Authors who deny any paulinisms in the gospel of Mark

13

on presenting the life of Jesus, a topic that does not seem to be of interest to the apostle. Similarly, a few years later, Vincent Taylor,3 claimed that “the great Pauline ideas of justification by faith, faith union with Christ, and life in the Spirit” are absent from Mark, limiting himself to what he called the ideas “distinctively Pauline”. Mark, as Taylor pointed out, does not mention the issue of circumcision, an issue on which Paul concentrated in relation to the question of observance of the Law, nor does Mark link the Pauline controversy against Peter and the family of Jesus with the subject of the observance of the Law as Paul does in Galatians 2. During the 1960s, Léon-Dufour,4 while not adding anything new to Werner’s study, insisted that Mark’s apologetic and theological perspective could not be attributed to Pauline influence, given the conclusions of Werner. He claimed that although Mark’s vocabulary has some affinities with Paul’s, Mark never speaks of ‘righteousness’ or ‘proof’. Furthermore, he argued that the Christology of Mark is that of a pious believer who attenuates the idea of universalism, distinctive of Paul, and who understands the eschatological tradition differently from that of Paul. In the same manner, Trocmé5 denied Pauline influence on the Gospel of Mark, agreed with what Werner said about the concept of ‘Gospel’, refuted the idea that the figure of Peter had been presented more critically within Mark’s Gospel – an idea that some proponents of Marcan Paulinisms argued – and affirmed that Peter is presented in the Gospel as a collaborator of the Lord. In addition, according to Trocmé, Mark’s use of the kerygma went back to the primitive church, and was not a distinctive variant of the Gospel of Mark. A decade later, K. Romaniuk6 addressed the problem of the Paulinisms in Mark’s Gospel by presenting the theses of detractors and defenders. He pointed out that there were two main trends within which scholars could be grouped. On the one hand, there were those who agreed that there were coincidences between Mark’s Gospel and Paul’s theology, but affirmed that Mark was not dependent upon Paul’s theology. On the other hand, there were those who argued for a direct influence of Paul on Mark. Romaniuk is included among those of the first group, and he analysed critically the hypothesis of Paul’s influence on Mark through an examination of terminology and lexicon, 3

Vincent TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark: Τhe Greek Τext with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, London: Baker Books 1953, pp. 125–129. 4 Xavier LÉON-DUFOUR, Les Évangiles et l’histoire de Jésus (Parole 1), Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1963, pp. 169–170. 5 Étienne TROCMÉ, La formation de l’Évangile selon Marc (Études d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 57), Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF) 1963, pp. 110–168. 6 Kazimierz ROMANIUK, “Le Problème des Paulinismes dans l’Évangile de Marc”, NTS 23 (1977), 266–274.

14

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

and argued that the author of the Gospel did not use Pauline vocabulary, even though he admitted that Mark was located within an environment evangelised by Paul. In his article, he also argued, in the same manner as Werner that, with regard to theology, both Christological and soteriological, Paul and Mark did have common elements but these were, at the same time, common to the whole of primitive Christianity. Only in two cases, in Mark 3.28–29, the logion about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and Mark 4.2, in the Marcan pericope on the parables, did he recognise a degree of Pauline influence, but stressed that a deeper exegetical study of all the other elements postulated as Pauline confirmed that these were not Pauline, and these two texts did not seem to him sufficient to build a theory of Pauline influence on the writing of the Gospel. In 1977, the publication of H. C. Kee’s7 book was an important milestone in the history of research into Mark’s Gospel as it brought new insights into the Gospel. Its originality consisted in linking the Gospels to social and literary research. In a detailed study, Kee presented a large number of texts from Mark’s Gospel which were contrasted with texts from the Old Testament. This allowed him to argue that Mark drew all his ideas from the Old Testament and not from Paul, since he postulated that for Mark the Gospel was a divine plan determined by God and an imprint of this plan can be identified throughout Scripture. Therefore, Kee went back to the books of the Old Testament and not to the common traditions of the primitive communities – which, until that point, had been the argument given against Pauline influence – in order to provide the rationale for the particular way the evangelist understood the message of Jesus. During the recent years of the 21st century, there remain those who argue against Pauline influence on the Gospel of Mark. In the same manner to what had been previously said, R. Riesner8 believes that the tradition of the primitive Church, with respect to the author of Mark’s Gospel and his relationship with the Petrine tradition, rests on solid internal and external arguments – referring to the pre-eminence of Peter’s figure, on the one hand, and to Papias’ claims, on the other. At the same time, he rejects any Pauline influence other than the common one that lies behind all the writings of the early Christian communities. He studied the ransom logion (Mark 10.45) and, despite recognising that Paul uses it, he argues, based upon the comparison with Matthew and Luke, that it is a pre-Pauline tradition. However, he seems to have forgotten that these are post-Mark Gospels, and that these authors would

7 Howard Clark KEE, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel (NTL), London: SCM Press 1977, pp. 165–188. 8 Rainer RIESNER, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28)”, JSHJ 1 (2003) 171–199.

1.1. Authors who deny any paulinisms in the gospel of Mark

15

have had the ransom logion available to them at the point they wrote their accounts of Jesus. James C. Crossley,9 in a recent article, analyses some passages from Mark that proponents of Paulinisms use to advocate their position, and he rejects their ideas. He begins with the purity issue in Mark 7.15 and concludes that the issue of what is clean or unclean is too complex, if one considers the Jewish background, to firmly assert that Mark and Paul understood it in the same way. He also doubts that the Pauline idea of atonement is the one found in Mark 10.45 and argues that it was “in the air around earliest Christianity”, contrary to what Seeley claimed, as we will see later.10 As for the theology of the cross, he criticises Joel Marcus11 for rendering it the nerve centre of the understanding of Mark as an interpreter of Paul, since according to Crossley it could be that a significant number of Christians had shared similar ideas before the year 70, although he acknowledges that we do not have enough material to know for certain. In the same manner, he states that if we were to date Mark’s Gospel earlier, we might even think that Paul is an interpreter of Mark. He also looks at the question of the Gentiles and takes into account the text of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30) and the two miracles of the loaves (6.30–44; 8.1–10). He argues that these texts do not prove Paulinisms in Mark, since Paul and the leaders of Jerusalem agreed on the question of the Gentiles, as stated by Paul himself in Galatians 1–2. In addition, Crossley maintains that Mark does not use the distinctive language of Paul, arguing that Mark could have been influenced from a variety of people and locales. As for Pauline vocabulary in Mark, he agrees with Kee, stating that “none of the characteristic theological language of Paul appears in Mark, or if roughly similar terms occur, they are used in a significantly different conceptual framework”. Crossley also opposes the corrective Christology and the terms ‘Son of God’ or ‘Son of Man’, conferred upon Jesus, as he considers it very daring to claim there were Christians in the 1st century who objected to a ‘divine’ and supposedly non-Jewish Christology, as opposed to the Hellenistic Christology of the Son of God. As a result, he concludes that many studies exaggerate Paul’s influence on Mark because they forget that Paul was one of the most important and well-known figures of the time, so it is reasonable to accept overlaps and shared interests but that, although the possibilities are multiple, there is no specific argument that can be considered definitive. Without a doubt, Crossley’s research work is interesting, because it is based on an accumulation of evidence, as will this study, but we believe that his 9

James G. CROSSLEY, “Mark, Paul and the Question of Influences”, in Paul and the Gospels. Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (LNTS 411), New York – London: T & T Clark 2011, pp. 10–29. 10 David SEELEY, “Rulership and Service in Mark 10:41–45”, NovT 35 (1993) 234–250. 11 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 75–79.

16

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

interpretation does not respect the text of Mark, while ours is more faithful to it, as we will begin from a structure that develops from and for the cross, and it develops in greater detail all the evidence and what the consequences are as a result. More recently, M. Kok12 has argued against Pauline influence on Mark’s Gospel and he has questioned the Pauline interpretation of some Marcan ideas, stating that the similarities have been exaggerated and that the most significant differences have not been dealt with in depth. His main contribution is that he argues that Mark’s emphasis on the soteriological significance of Jesus’ crucifixion does not go back to Paul, but is a consequence of the author’s own location at the “social margins”. For Kok, the Gospel of Mark is an invitation for readers to take up their cross in order to receive the same vindication that Jesus received and to understand the redemptive value of the suffering of Jesus. We believe that the stress placed upon, and the way in which Mark presents, the cross have Pauline resonances that are not only due to the fact that he writes “on the margins”, as Kok describes it, but also because the Pauline prism is present throughout the Gospel when issues are addressed for which there were different opinions. Having presented the arguments against Paulinisms in Mark, which will be critically analysed, when appropriate, through the rest of this study, the arguments of those who argue that Mark was influenced by Paul in the development of his Gospel will now be reviewed.

1.2. Authors who advocate Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark 1.2. Authors who advocate paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark

During the 19th century, the main motivation in the search for the connection between Mark and Paul was of a historical nature. The most radical proposal was that of G. Volkmar13 in 1870, who proposed reading the Gospel of Mark as an allegory of Pauline teaching, that is to say, as a life of Paul rather than a life of Jesus. He was supported in his theory by C. Holsten14 and H. Schulze,15 who, although addressing the question differently, agreed with Volkmar that Mark’s text was an apologia for Paul and his theology.

12

Michael KOK, “Does Mark Narrate the Pauline Kerygma of ‘Christ Crucified’? Challenging an Emerging Consensus on Mark as a Pauline Gospel”, JSNT 37 (2014) 139–160. 13 Gustav VOLKMAR, Die Evangelien, oder Markus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien: Nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Kommentar, Leipzig: Fues 1870, pp. 645–647. 14 Carl HOLSTEN, Die drei ursprünglichen, noch ungeschriebenen Evangelien, Karlsruhe: Reuther 1883, pp. 66–73. 15 Hermann SCHULZE, Die Ursprünglichkeit des Galaterbriefes, Leipzig: Richard Wöpke 1903, pp. 51–72.

1.2. Authors who advocate paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark

17

At the beginning of the 20th century, A. Loisy16 argued for Paulinisms in Mark’s Gospel by analysing the behaviour of the disciples in the narrative, since he realised that they are described as deaf to the prophecies of passion, worrying more about their glory than the glory of Christ and falling asleep in Gethsemane. Additionally, the disciples are presented as those who do not understand the miracles of Jesus, neither the calmed storm, nor why Jesus walked on the waters, or the multiplication of the loaves. In this description of the misunderstanding of the disciples, Loisy found the meaning of the second Gospel, so he came to the conclusion that Mark’s narrative could never have been written by a disciple of Peter, but by an adherent of Paul. For Loisy, Mark’s Paulinisms are not limited to a few expressions, to some words or phrases or to a specific doctrine taken from the apostle to the Gentiles, but are to be found in the general intention, in the dominant ideas and in the spirit of the book. He accepted that the evangelist did not enter into the details and subtleties of Pauline doctrine, because they were of no relevance for his narrative, either because he wished to present general conceptions, or because he knew Paul through some intermediary. Nevertheless, just like the apostle, Mark wanted to demonstrate that Jesus is the true Saviour and wanted to explain that if the Jews did not recognise him, it was because they had failed to understand his mystery. A few years later, B. W. Bacon,17 analysed Pauline and Marcan Christology based upon the Christological titles given to Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, compared these to those in Paul, and brought them into engagement with the other synoptic Gospels and John. Bacon concluded that the Christology of Paul and Mark is the same, because they both rejected the Son of David Christology, which was characteristic of the leading group in Jerusalem, and applied the Servant Christology, shaping their writings on passages from Isaiah. They both used, to a greater or lesser extent, Son of Man Christology, although both modified and universalised it. Both considered the title, Son of God, as the one which best expressed the reality of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Bacon, it was not a question of Mark copying expressions from the Pauline letters or adopting Pauline elements, but rather of finding the footprint of Paul in the selection and adaptation of material and in what he omitted rather than in what he included. Therefore, it was not a question of literary dependence, but of the fact that the total conception of the apostolic message of the evangelist is Pauline.

16

Alfred LOISY, L’Évangile selon Marc, Paris: Librairie Émile Nourry 1912, pp. 37–44. Benjamin Wisner BACON, The Gospel of Mark: Its Composition and Date, New Haven: Yale University Press 1925, pp. 221–271. 17

18

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

In the 1950s, J. C. Fenton18 took up again the theme of Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark and defended the thesis that the Gospels should be read with the help of the Epistles, and more specifically, that Mark’s Gospel should be read alongside the Pauline letters. In his study he analysed aspects of the Gospel such as the fulfilment of Scripture, the fact of being a disciple and eschatology, and compared Paul’s letters with the Gospel and interpreted Mark in the light of Paul. Thus, he concluded that Mark’s and Paul’s writings are the only Christian writings that survived the period before the fall of Jerusalem and that, as a result, significant similarities are perceptible between Paul and Mark. Continuing the comparative approach initiated by Fenton, at the end of the 1960s, a study by W. Marxsen19 proposed that Paul and Mark used the term εὐαγγελίον, understood as ‘the good news’ and as a central axis of their theology. About ten years later, with the publication of J. Gnilka’s20 commentary on Mark’s Gospel, and with the investigations of E. Schweizer,21 the subject of Paulinisms in Mark was enthusiastically resumed. These scholars affirmed that both Paul and Mark highlighted Jesus’ victory over demonic powers (exorcisms of Mark, Rom 8.38–39; 1Cor 15.24), that both explained the misunderstanding of the disciples and that both described, negatively, Peter and some members of Jesus’ family (Mark 3.20–21, 31–35; 8.31–33; Gal 2), in order to demonstrate the opposition between Jews and Gentiles and, consequently, the openness to pagans. Additionally, they commented on the importance of the section concerning the loaves and the controversy about the Law in the Marcan narrative, and that these followed Paul’s line. In addition, both Gnilka and Schweizer proposed a five-part structure to the Gospel of Mark in which the backbone is the cross of Jesus as the key to interpreting the whole Gospel, in a similar manner to Paul where the cross becomes ‘saving foolishness’ (1Cor 1.18–22). In the 1980s, an article by J. Marcus,22 in which he studied Mark 4.10–12 and analysed the link between apocalypticism and epistemology in Mark, was a step forward in understanding the question of those ‘inside’ and those ‘outside’ raised by the evangelist. He argued that the evangelist used this as an allegory concerning those who commit themselves and listen to the Gospel 18 Joseph Clifford FENTON, “Paul and Mark”, in NINEHAM, E. (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, Oxford: Blackwell 1955, pp. 89–112. 19 Willi MARXSEN, Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1956, pp. 77–101. 20 Joachim GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I; Joachim GNILKA, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 8,27–16,20), (EKK II/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchener 1978. 21 Eduard SCHWEIZER, The Good News according to Mark, Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press 1970, pp. 11–27. 22 Joel MARCUS, “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology”, JBL 103 (1984) 557–574.

1.2. Authors who advocate paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark

19

and those who do not understand the message and have become deaf to the words of Jesus. A few years later, Th. E. Boomershine 23 affirmed that the cross of Christ is the centre for understanding Paul and Mark, but that we must bear in mind – as J. Marcus argued – the significant elements present in the parables of Jesus which help to clarify the mystery for those who receive the revelation. In the same year as J. Marcus published his article, the German scholar P. Dschulnigg24 published a study in which he asserted that Mark expressed the essence of Paul’s thought through his use of the Jesus tradition, in order to counteract the attacks that the apostle’s message had received. He also argued that Mark’s Gospel, like the Pauline message, fought against Christians from a pagan background who had an erroneous understanding of Jesus and his divinity. Towards the end of the 20th century, M. D. Goulder25 commented in detail on the pericope of Mark 4.10–12 focusing, in particular, on the expression “those outside” and strengthened the idea that the misunderstanding of the disciples and the family of Jesus is one of the features that the proponents of the Paulinisms of Mark could claim demonstrates the Pauline nature of the scene and the similarities between Paul’s and Mark’s thought. In the year following the publication of this article, H. Räisänen26 analysed Mark 7.15 and proposed that this passage reflected an attempt to find a theological justification for the practices of the Gentile community. Furthermore, he asserted that Mark based this on Rom 14.14, 20, arguing that the evangelist was someone close to Paul or even belonged to his group. In 1996 C. Clifton Black27 raised a more general question about the relationship between Paul and Mark, between the letters and the Gospel. He intended to reopen the debate on Marcan Paulinisms and advocated that this question should be considered again for three reasons: Pauline theology should be located within primitive Christianity and given that Mark’s Gospel had been written only twenty years after the letters, they should offer some 23

Thomas E. BOOMERSHINE, “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages in Paul, Jesus, and Mark: Rhetoric and Dialectic in Apocalyptic and the New Testament”, in Apocalyptic and the New Testament, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1989, pp. 147–167. 24 Peter DSCHULNIGG, Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums. Eigentümlichkeiten der Sprache des Markus-Evangeliums und ihre Bedeutung für die Redaktionskritik (SBB 11), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1984, pp. 550–561. 25 Michael Douglas GOULDER, “Those Outside (Mark.4:10–12)”, NovT 33 (1991) 289– 302. 26 Heikki RÄISÄNEN, “Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays”, JSNTSup 43 (1992) 127–148. 27 C. Clifton BLACK, “Christ Crucified in Paul and in Mark” Reflection on an Intracanonical Conversation”, in Theology and Ethics in Paul and his Interpreters: Essays in honor of Victor Paul Furnish, edited by Lovering, Eugene H., Jerry Sumney L. and Victor Paul Furnish, Nashville: Abingdon 1996, pp. 184–206.

20

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

help in understanding the Gospel; Paul and Mark’s way of doing theology is different but they are in the same orbit; and, finally, the inclusion of both authors in the Christian canon attests to their importance. Black chose two important texts to compare Paul and Mark: 1Corinthians 1.18–2.16 and Mark 15.16–41, and concluded that the key idea that unites them is the similar way of understanding the cross. The key idea in both is that behind the cross of Jesus, there is God, and that through the cross humanity knows God and God knows humanity. A few years later, W. Telford28 argued for Marcan Paulinisms by looking at a large number of affinities in thematic and theological issues between Mark and Paul. In his book, he very briefly presented different aspects of Paul and Mark in which they coincide. Although, he added nothing new to what had been previously argued, it is helpful in that it brought together all those aspects that had hitherto been taken into account. It is also worth mentioning the commentary on Mark’s Gospel by P. N. Tarazi,29 whose working hypothesis is that Mark’s Gospel is absolutely Pauline because it was written precisely to defend Paul from his Jerusalemite opponents. This is an interesting hypothesis, since he argues that the agreements with Paul were highly nuanced, in complete contrast to those who deny any Pauline element to the Gospel of Mark, although we believe that his conclusion, that Paulinisms permeate the entire Gospel, should be additionally argued and clarified. Since the beginning of the 21st century, works on Marcan Paulinisms have multiplied and there are numerous scholars who have published on the issue that concerns us here. We highlight the publication of the first volume of the commentary on Mark’s Gospel by Joel Marcus30 in 2000 and the second volume in 2009. In the introduction to the commentary, he discusses the relationship between Paul and Mark, comparing the aspects on which both agree and also pointing out the criticisms levelled at the scholars who attribute the similarities to the influence of the primitive churches in the early days of Christianity. Marcus mainly focuses on the conclusions of M. Werner, whom he criticises for ignoring theological points that Mark highlights and which are explicit Pauline statements. These are the apocalyptic vision that the evangelist relates as he presents the earth submitted to the cosmic powers of perversion – the demons – and the consequent function of these perverse powers in the death of Jesus, on the one hand, and the theology of the cross that hovers over the work of 28

TELFORD, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 164–169. Paul N. TARAZI, The New Testament: An Introduction: Paul and Mark, vol. 1, Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1999, pp. 32–64. 30 MARCUS, Mk 1–8; Joel MARCUS (ed.), Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 27A), New Haven: Yale University Press 2009. 29

1.2. Authors who advocate paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark

21

the Gospel and the Pauline letters, on the other. Therefore, J. Marcus concludes that it is most reasonable to affirm that Mark writes within a sphere of Pauline activity and that this influence is reflected in his thought. In 2002, T. K. Heckel31 analysed the term ‘crucified’ in Paul and Mark. He outlined the possible dependencies between both authors, analysing at a theological level, primarily, the words used by each and particularly the meaning of the word ἐσταυρωμένος. He argues for Marcan dependence on Paul’s theology of the cross, and points out that this element is not found in the other synoptic Gospels, so it is as if the paths of Paul and Mark had intersected at this point. Shortly afterwards, B. Byrne32 united the Marcan description of the death of Jesus (15.37–39) and Paul’s allusion to God’s presentation of Christ as ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3.25, with the common background of two texts of the Pentateuch: Exodus 25–26 and Leviticus 16. The author, by comparing texts, wanted to show that both Paul and Mark reflect the primitive tradition of atonement in the death of Christ, and relates it to the tearing of the Temple curtain. One year later, M. Patella33 affirmed that Paul, in transmitting the kerygma, the imagery, the iconography and the cultural heritage, draws from the Mithraic cult proper to the city of Tarsus. At the same time, he argued that the community for which Mark writes his Gospel is a community linked to Paul, and, therefore, interprets the kerygma within Pauline thought. In this sense, Patella argues that Mark proclaims a cosmic Christ, in the style of the Pauline beliefs influenced by the Oriental cults to Mithra. This influence is apparent in the treatment of the baptism of Jesus, in the emphasis on discipleship and on the path of the cross, in the Bartimaeus pericope and especially at the end of the Gospel (16.8) with the awe and wonder of the women. Consequently, with this research, Patella introduced new elements to be considered in studying Paulinisms in Mark. Xabier Pikaza,34 in his 2012 commentary on Mark’s Gospel, discusses extensively the theme of Pauline influence on Mark. He analyses issues already dealt with by previous scholars, such as internal tensions, the Christological background and the universal mission. However, what is innovative is the fact that he underlines that both Paul and Mark insist on the urgency of proclaiming the Gospel, although in Paul the message is still more pressing. 31 Theo K. HECKEL, “Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, BZ 46 (2002) 190–204. 32 Brendan BYRNE, “Paul and Mark before the Cross. Common Echoes of the Day Atonement Ritual”, BSReL 187 (2005) 217–230. 33 Michael PATELLA, Lord of the Cosmos: Mithras, Paul, and the Gospel of Mark, London: T & T Clark 2006, pp. 69–122. 34 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 49–68.

22

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

Finally, in order to endorse how important research into the influence of Paul on Mark has become in recent years, it should be noted that the Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft collection, published, in 2014, a first volume entitled, Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity, and in the autumn of the same year, a second volume with the title Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark, both of which contain articles about the issues being considered in this study. In the first volume, among the scholars clearly positioned in favour of Marcan Paulinisms, it is worth mentioning A. H. Cadwallader,35 who defends it based upon the domestic code that appears in the Gospel and in the deuteroPauline Epistle to the Colossians; A. Lindemann,36 who likewise defends the influence of Paul on Mark based upon the meaning of the word ‘Gospel’; U. Schnelle,37 who, by comparing Pauline and Marcan Christology, is clearly in favour; and D. Sim,38 who analyses the description of the family of Jesus and the treatment of the disciples in Mark’s Gospel, and argues that Paul and Mark were united in their description of these. In this same volume, M. P. Theophilos 39 analyses the continuity between the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans and argues that there are points in common between the two texts, such as the frequency, importance and soteriological meaning of the term εὐαγγέλιον, the shared theological vision of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Church’s mission, the chronological priority of Israel in sacred history, the emphasis on the abrogation of the laws of food, the hermeneutic use of the Hebrew Bible for the condemnation of Jewish obstinacy, as well as a similar Christological perspective and similar kerygmatic elements in the theological meaning of the cross.

35

Alan H. CADWALLADER, “The Struggle for Paul in the Context of Empire: Mark as a Deutero-Pauline Text in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 557–587. 36 Andreas LINDEMANN, “Das Evangelium bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 313–359. 37 Udo SCHNELLE, “Paulinische und markinische Christologie im Vergleich”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 283–312. 38 David SIM, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark: Taking Sides in the Early Church’s Factional Dispute”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 73–99. 39 Michael P. THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 45–72.

1.3. Authors in favour of Marcan Paulinisms, but with some reluctance

23

In the second volume, O. Wischmeyer40 analyses Mark 1.1–3, compares it with Rom 1.1–7, and concludes that, despite the differences, both authors express the same idea of Jesus; J. Dochhorn41 argues that Marcan Christology is Pauline based upon the analysis of the Christological title Son of Man, and K. Bro Larsen 42 delves deeper into Mark 7.1–23 and determines that it is legitimate to defend Paulinisms in Mark, but that more evidence is needed – apart from the text studied – to maintain that Mark is of Pauline tendency.

1.3. Authors in favour of Marcan Paulinisms, but with some reluctance 1.3. Authors in favour of Marcan Paulinisms, but with some reluctance

In order to complete the review of the latest studies on the subject, it is necessary to take into account the authors who, despite not defending a direct and indisputable dependence of Mark’s Gospel with respect to Paul, agree that there is some relationship between them. These are the ones we have grouped under the name of “authors in favour, but with some reluctance”. In the mid-twentieth century, M-J. Lagrange, 43 in his commentary on Mark’s Gospel, reviewed Loisy’s study and affirmed that, although the echo of an oral tradition reminiscent of Pauline catechesis can be recognised with certainty within the Gospel, Loisy manipulated the Gospel’s contents to sustain his theory. According to Lagrange, texts cannot be treated as witnesses as Loisy does. In a similar way, Romaniuk 44 criticised Lagrange because he restricts his argument to literary Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark and disagrees with the argument that they are doctrinal or partisan Paulinisms, as Pauline soteriology and Christology, in his view, differs from Mark’s. Furthermore, when it comes to the role of the Twelve, this is presented differently in Paul compared with that in Mark.

40

Oda WISCHMEYER, “Romans 1:1–7 and Mark 1:1–3 in Comparison”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 121–146. 41 Jan DOCHHORN, “Man and the Son of Man in Mark 2:27–28”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 147–168. 42 Kasper Bro LARSEN, “Mark 7:1–23: A Pauline Halakah?”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 169–187. 43 Marie-Joseph LAGRANGE, Évangile selon Saint Marc (Études bibliques – Ancienne Serie 10), Paris: Librairie Lecoffre J. Gabalda et Compagnie, Edition corrigée et augmentée 1947. 44 ROMANIUK, “Le Problème des Paulinismes dans l’Évangile de Marc”, 266–274.

24

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

In 1993, D. Seeley45, in a very interesting article, analysed the pericope of Mark 10.41-45. He went back to Plato, Xenophon, the Hellenistic thinkers and the cynics of classical Greek literature to find the roots of what is affirmed in the Gospel. He also focused on the word ‘λύτρον’ (ransom), in which he saw a trace of Paul, both with regard to the coincidences of meaning and to the fact that Paul also speaks of a death that frees the people from slavery in Rom 6.6-13. Nevertheless, Seeley believed that Mark gives a different meaning to the Pauline metaphor, endowing it with a new semantic content in order to be able to reach all churches, both Pauline and nonPauline. In 2005, W. Schenk 46 compared the chapter of the last supper of 1Corinthians 11 with Mark 14. In his article, he argued that Mark’s words depend, only in part, on those of Paul. He pointed out all the similarities and also the lexical and semantic differences, in order to conclude that, although Mark is based on Paul, he introduces new elements, since at that historical moment one cannot know for sure what the exact words of the last supper were. On this same point, E. V. Dowling,47 while admitting similarities and dependence between Paul and Mark regarding the tradition of the last supper, pointed to a fundamental difference between the two, since in the Gospel of Mark the idea of having remembrance of or doing in remembrance of Jesus does not appear while it is present in the Pauline narrative. W. Loader48 recently published an article that distinguishes common and discordant elements between Paul and Mark. He agrees that Paul and Mark share aspects of common interest, with particular nuances, when they talk about the inclusion of the Gentiles, the radical nature of their message or about their desire to redefine the Law. However, Loader also claims that they present different soteriologies and pneumatologies, since the concept of redemption is only proper to Mark as opposed to what Paul conceives when he speaks of faith, understood as a commitment which “engenders ethical fruits”. Moreover, the Spirit, understood in the apostle’s style as the one who is adopted as a child of God, does not appear in the evangelist, where the relationship of kinship is only granted to those who do the will of God.

45

SEELEY, “Rulership and Service in Mark 10:41–45”, 234–250. Wolfgang SCHENK, “Die Rezeption der paulinischen Herrenmahlworte bei Markus. Gottes Wort in der Zeit”, FW 12 (2005) 261–270. 47 Elisabeth V. DOWLING, “‘Do this in Remembrance’: Last Supper Traditions in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 221–241. 48 William LOADER, “The Concept of Faith in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 423–464. 46

1.4. Authors who defend Petrine and Pauline influence on Mark’s Gospel

25

In the same line of comparison between the two authors, but based only on the purity issue, L. Scornaienchi49 argues that in Romans 14 and Mark 7 the use of the word κοινός meaning ‘defiled’ comes from Hellenistic literature and the books of the Maccabees and that both, in using it, refer to the defilement of food. However, his research concludes that although it seems that Paul and Mark belong to the same tradition, more indications are needed to be able to affirm that Mark is Pauline. We must also take into account the article by J. Svartvik,50 who argues that Paul and Mark understand the Torah in the same way. He points out, however, that where they differ is in the emphasis of their writings, since Mark emphasises the causality that has to do with the narrative genre per se, while Paul stresses the purpose, understood as a result of his belief that he has been called to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Mark begins his narrative by saying: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ”, with all sixteen chapters constituting this beginning, while Paul explains and emphasises the end of the gospel, that is, how the narrative ends.

1.4. Authors who defend Petrine and Pauline influence on Mark’s Gospel 1.4. Authors who defend Petrine and Pauline influence on Mark’s Gospel

Finally, a few scholars have recently proposed that Mark is a Gospel with Petrine and Pauline influences, and we believe it is necessary to present the most outstanding of these, in order to take into account all known viewpoints regarding the subject under consideration. First, G. Leonardi51 has an interesting proposal. He analysed the Gospel utilising structural, narrative and rhetorical methods and affirmed that in Mark a theological Paulinism is perceived in the convergence of such disparate themes as the concept of Gospel or the concept of mystery. In contrast, when he studied the editorial variations of the Gospel, he noted that there are words from Mark’s Gospel which, although not appearing in either Matthew or Luke’s Gospel, are present in the two letters of Peter and in Paul, so that Leonardi concluded that Mark had been in contact with both Petrine and 49 Lorenzo SCORNAIENCHI, “Die Relativierung des Unreinen. Der Einfluss des Paulus auf ‘Markus’ in Bezug auf die Reinheit”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 505–526. 50 Jesper SVARTVIK, “‘East is East and West is West’: The Concept of Torah in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 172–185. 51 Giovanni LEONARDI, Vangelo secondo Marco: Traduzione strutturata, analisi letteraria e narrativa, messaggio e problemi introduttori (Sussidi Biblici 66–67), ReggioEmilia: Edizioni San Lorenzo 1999, pp. 137–167.

26

Chapter 1: History of research. Status quaestionis

Pauline environments, in line with the ancient tradition transmitted to us through the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12.12; 13.5, 13). In his 2002 commentary on Mark’s Gospel, J. R. Donahue, 52 explained Mark’s relationship with Paul and Peter. He briefly and clearly pointed out, in accordance with Bacon and Marcus, the aspects in which Mark coincides with Paul: terminology and theology, similar community interests and the structure of the work. But he also believes that the Gospel of Mark can be associated with Peter and Rome, on the basis that the patristic tradition that sees Mark as an interpreter of Peter should not be contested, since, although at the beginning of the second century, it was intended that the four Gospels should depend upon apostolic figures so that the Gospel of Mark could have been attributed to Peter, yet the figure of Mark as the author of the Gospel was maintained. The novelty of the article published in 2011 by M. Bird53 is the intermediary position he clearly proposed. For Bird, the Gospel of Mark is an early synthesis of Peter and Paul; it is the Petrine testimony moulded in an evangelical narrative that is propitious for the Pauline proclamation. He proposed that Mark is the union of the tradition of Jesus from the Petrine perspective, since Peter is a dominant personality in the Gospel and is a complicated and complete figure present in the decisive moments, and from the Pauline perspective, in the way he addresses the theology of the cross, salvation, the concept of the Gospel, the openness to Gentiles and the attitude towards the Law. Mark’s Gospel was therefore a work of complex literary synthesis in order to unite what lies in Peter and Paul and, according to Bird, it was a writing intended to reconcile the two most important schools of primitive Christianity. Similarly, G. Theissen, 54 in a recently published article, argues that the Gospel of Mark is the expression of a mediation, in which the stories of tradition common to the whole synoptic tradition are recorded and in which the support of primitive communities in the area of Syria influenced by Paul is also reflected.

52

John R. DONAHUE – Daniel J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel of Mark (SPS 2), Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press 2002, pp. 38–41. 53 Michael F. BIRD, “Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul”, in Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (LNTS 411), London – New York: T & T Clark 2011, pp. 30–61. 54 Gerd THEISSEN, “‘Evangelium’ im Markusevangelium”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 63–86.

1.5. Conclusion

27

1.5. Conclusion 1.5. Conclusion

As we conclude our discussion of the history of research on the Pauline influence on Mark’s Gospel, we have been able to demonstrate the different proposals and interests motivating the scholars. First, we have presented the most significant scholars who argue against the idea that Mark’s Gospel was influenced by Paul or has distinctly Pauline elements. Second, we have outlined the conclusions of others who argue for Paulinisms in the Gospel of Mark, based either on disparate and specific elements, or general and unifying ones. Third, we have also commented on the studies of other scholars who connect Paul and Mark, but who do not openly state that the theological, structural or thematic association between the two works is a decisive element in allowing us to speak of Pauline elements in Mark. Finally, we have underlined the position which affirms that Mark’s Gospel is the result of both Petrine and Pauline influences and that, consequently, it is a synthesis of the two most emblematic tendencies of the early stage of Christianity. Hence, given the diversity of opinions on the subject under discussion, our research will be devoted essentially to the analysis of different texts of Mark’s Gospel which confirm the hypothesis that Mark is indeed a Gospel of Pauline theology. As a result, we will clarify different issues in order to present the evidence that demonstrates and justifies our working hypothesis.

Chapter 2

The structure of Mark’s narrative 2.1. The Gospel of Mark and its structure 2.1. The Gospel of Mark and its structure

Eminent scholars1 agree that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest text we have about the life of Jesus of Nazareth and also argue that both the narrative and the structure are Mark’s work. As for the content, Mark’s way of exposing and unfolding his Gospel makes it possible to affirm that it is a text that interprets the life of Jesus through Paul’s eyes. Mark invented what we now call ‘Gospel’. It was he who created the structure of the narrative and the distribution of the text, either by sticking to tradition or by conceiving of it anew. When the evangelist creates, he presents the facts under the perspective of the apostle Paul, with the proviso that he is writing about Jesus and not about Paul. Mark writes a Gospel, not a commentary on the Pauline letters. Mark, therefore, has the freedom to create, because he was the first to write a Gospel and to structure his work in the form of a Gospel, since until then the traditions of Jesus were gathered in blocks of miracles, words, the story of the passion or were isolated pericopes. For this reason, we believe that his work reveals his theological intention, although the sequence life – death – resurrection had already been elaborated by the primitive Christian kerygma and by pre-Marcan narratives of the passion. Furthermore, we consider that there is another significant element in the Gospel of Mark that allows us to defend the thesis of Mark’s creative independence. It is the guiding thread of the whole work: the shadow of the cross, present from the beginning to the end of the narrative and which appears with new shades and colours providing a clearly Pauline flavour to the entire exposition. For this reason, in order to have an overall vision of the text we are dealing with, we insist on the importance of taking into account Paul’s influence in the elaboration of Mark’s narrative structure, since from the perspective of the whole, the parts can be better understood and studied. Additionally, if we defend a certain structure it is because we believe that it was elaborated by

1 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 17; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 40; PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 28.

30

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

Mark with the intention of making his own theological contribution with a Pauline background. We begin by presenting the different structures that have been defended throughout the history of exegesis. The structure of Mark’s Gospel has been much debated among scholars. Some even believe that there is no structure at all. Loisy2 affirms that the Gospel of Mark is “tout autre chose qu’un recueil mal agencé de traditions orales qu’un écrivain populaire aurait couchées pour la première fois par écrit”. Despite the difficulty, however, numerous and different structures have been proposed based on detailed, interconnected and meaningful Gospel networks, although unfortunately there is no consensus on these details. In order to determine the structure of the Gospel, scholars have weighed elements of different types. Thus, some of the proposed structures are based on the internal elements, those that do not change, and on some specific pericopes or summaries, as in the case of Schenke;3 others, base the structure on geographical or temporal indications, as Taylor4 or Gundry5; others, focus on Christological elements, as Lagrange6 does; others compare the Gospel with extra-textual models – especially the tragedies of classical Greece – looking for similarities with the literature of the time in which the Gospel of Mark was written, as Derrett,7 Scott,8 Schille9 and Carrington10 do; others, take into account literary elements, such is the case of Schweizer, 11 Léon-Dufour, 12 Cook,13 Kee,14 Humphrey15 and Boomershine;16 others, are based on the dif2

LOISY, L’Évangile selon Marc, 15. Ludger SCHENKE, “Jesus als Weisheitslehrer im Markusevangelium”, in Die Weisheit – Ursprünge und Rezeption, Münster: Aschendorff 2003, pp. 125–138. 4 TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 105–113. 5 Robert Horton GUNDRY, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 1993, pp. 1045–1049. 6 LAGRANGE, Évangile selon Saint Marc, 59–66. 7 John Duncan Martin DERRETT, The Making of Mark. The Scriptural Bases of the Earliest Gospel: From the Transfiguration to the Anastasis, vol. 2, Shipston-on-Stour, GB: P. Drinkwater 1985, pp. 41–42. 8 M. Philip SCOTT, “Chiastic Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel”, BibTB 15 (1985) 17–26. 9 Gottfried SCHILLE, “Bemerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums III. Das Evangelium als Missionsbuch”, NTS 4 (1957) 1–24. 10 Philip CARRINGTON, According to Mark: A Running Commentary on the Oldest Gospel. Behold, There Went Out a Sower to Sow, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1960, pp. 4–7. 11 SCHWEIZER, The Good News according to Mark, 11–27. 12 LÉON-DUFOUR, Les Évangiles et l’histoire de Jésus, 185–187. 13 John Granger COOK, The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark: A Linguistic Approach (Semeia Studies 28), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1995, pp. 11–52. 14 KEE, Community of the New Age, 62–74. 3

2.1. The Gospel of Mark and its structure

31

ferent theological issues addressed by the evangelist, as in the case of Gnilka, 17 Larsen 18 and Lane, 19 and finally others, including Lewis, 20 Martin 21 or Bowman,22 adopt as their starting point the Sitz im Leben of the Gospel. It is also true that many scholars have combined different elements, especially thematic issues and spatial changes, because, in fact, scholars have rarely relied on a single element to try to determine the structure proposed. Perhaps Mark’s text, by its narrative nature, resists the attempt to find an “absolute structure”, as Cook23 says, but of all the proposals we believe there is one, that of Schweizer,24 which – although it will be nuanced in some respects –25 we think endorses our hypothesis and is the most faithful to Mark’s intention, because of its arguments, seriousness and rigor. We believe that, if we want to discover the structure of the narrative, we must necessarily rely on the text itself, which, through different indications, will allow us to detect the plot and the organisation. Since it is a narrative text, the indications are, on the one hand, changes of place, time, or person, key repetitions, parallelisms and summaries, and, on the other hand, theological and Christological aspects that are glimpsed through the text itself.

15

Hugh M. HUMPHREY, “He is Risen!”: A New Reading of Mark’s Gospel, New York: Paulist Press 1992, pp. 1–5. 16 Thomas E. BOOMERSHINE, “Peter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics”, Semeia 39 (1987) 47–68. 17 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 25–32. 18 Kevin W. LARSEN, “The Structure of Mark’s Gospel: Current Proposals”, CuBR 3 (2004) 140–160. 19 William L. LANE, The Gospel according to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (NICNT 2), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 1974, pp. 25–32. 20 Philip B. LEWIS, “Indications of a Liturgical Source in the Gospel of Mark”, Encounter 39 (1978) 385–394. 21 Ralph Philip MARTIN, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, Carlisle: Paternoster Press 1979, pp. 156–162. 22 John BOWMAN, The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah (Studia Post-Biblica 8), Leiden: Brill 1965, pp. 90–102. 23 COOK, The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark, 50–51. 24 Eduard SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, in The interpretation of Mark, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1995 (original 1964), pp. 42–63; SCHWEIZER, “Die theologische Leistung des Markus”, in Das Markusevangelium (Evangelische Theologie 24), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1979, pp. 337–355. 25 Ignace de LA POTTERIE, “De compositione evangelii Marci”, Verbum Domini 44 (1966) 135–141; Xavier ALEGRE, Memoria subversiva, “Marcos o la corrección de una ideología triunfalista. Pautas para la lectura de un evangelio beligerante y comprometido”, Madrid: Trotta 2003, pp. 92–109.

32

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

2.2. Structural reading key: Who is Jesus? 2.2. Structural reading key: Who is Jesus?

The central question of Mark’s Gospel can be summed up in the question: Who is Jesus?, which appears explicitly in the central pericope of the narrative (8.27) and which, in fact, is present throughout the whole Gospel. Coupled with this question, the evangelist shows his blatant interest in knowing who the true disciple of Jesus is, as will be developed in the narrative, through the activity of Jesus and the men that surround him. So Mark says: “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (4.41), who has power over demons (1.21–28; 5.1–20), who cures the paralytics and forgives sins (2.1–12), who raises the dead (5.21–43), who multiplies the loaves (6.34–44; 8.1–9), and cares for the deaf-mutes (7.31–37) and the blind men (8.22–26)? Who is this one who calls, with power, men to follow him (1.16– 20; 2.14; 3.13–19), and heal and cast out demons (6.7–13)? Who is he who freely and authoritatively interprets the Law and the Word of God (2.1–3.5; 7.1–23)? The answer is found in two key moments: in the first verse (1.1) and when Jesus is nailed to the cross and dies before the centurion (15.39). In the first place, we will analyse the phrase with which the Gospel begins, which allows to understand the literary configuration of the entire narrative: “Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]” in Mark 1.1. This phrase presents Jesus under two titles, which are those that are found in the two confessions of faith regarding the identity of Jesus given by Peter and the Roman centurion in 8.29 and 15.39 respectively, and which are determining moments within the narrative. As for the title υἱός θεοῦ, most of the most reliable and ancient manuscripts include it and add it to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, although it is absent from the codex Sinaiticus and other textual testimonies. Joel Marcus26 – a great defender of the Paulinism of the Gospel of Mark – affirms that this is a later addition of a scribe, reasoning that since it is such an important epithet, it is unlikely that it is the result of an omission or the fact that a scribe, as soon as the transcription of the manuscript had begun, forgot it was not very careful when copying it. We believe that the suppression of υἱός θεοῦ in some manuscripts is due to the unusual characterisation at the beginning of this Gospel – since Matthew and Luke begin with the stories of childhood and John with a prologue –, and is evidence in favour of it being there from the beginning. Dean B. Deppe27 argues that the omission of υἱός θεοῦ is a textual corruption because of an accidental omission in some documents, due to a periblepsis caused for a homeoteleuton, an extremely frequent error in the copy of 26

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 141. Dean B. DEPPE, “Markan Christology and the Omission of υἱὸς θεοῦ in the Mark 1:1”, FilNeot 21 (2008) 45–64. 27

2.2. Structural reading key: Who is Jesus?

33

manuscripts. We also advocate this possibility and add another reason, arising from the Gospel itself: Marcan Christology. If the υἱός θεοῦ of Mark 1.1 were not in the title of the Gospel, the Gospel would lose something basic and fundamental for understanding the Marcan Jesus. For Mark, Jesus is both the triumphant Christ and the Son of God who suffers, that is why from the beginning of his work the two epithets must appear. Likewise, along with Joachim Gnilka, 28 we also consider that Jesus of Nazareth is, for Mark, the Son of God from the very beginning (1.1), which is confirmed by the centurion’s confession in 15.39b when he says: “ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν”, because by using the imperfect indicative form of the verb εἰμί, the reader is reminded of the affirmation of the evangelist at the beginning of the work. What the evangelist affirms at the beginning of the work is what the centurion recognises at the end of the Gospel: the one crucified is the Son of God. Although the principle for determining the Marcan structure is under debate, as we have seen with the multiple structures proposed,29 it can be affirmed that there is almost unanimous consensus in distinguishing the two main parts of the Gospel: 1.1–8.26 and 8.27–16.8. We agree with this consensus, since we consider the Gospel of Mark to be a Gospel structured around two confessions of faith. These two confessions situated at crucial moments in the narrative, structure the whole story into two complementary parts. First, the magisterial and thaumaturgical activity of Jesus, centred primarily in Galilee, which will allow the first of the disciples to recognise Jesus and confess him as the Messiah in Caesarea Philippi: “You are the Messiah” (8.29). Peter’s incomplete and imprecise confession, in which the title of Messiah does not include the mystery of Jesus’ identity, determines the division into two parts of the narrative. It is precisely on this specific and particular character of the messianic disclosure that the whole second part of the Gospel will focus, where action is directed towards Jerusalem and where it will reach its climax with the confession of the Roman centurion at the foot of Jesus’ cross: “Truly this man was God’s Son!” (15.39). The stories of the burial and resurrection of Jesus (15.42–16.8) corroborate this confession and mark the end of the second part.

28

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 42–43. Ibid., 30–32; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 62–64; Adela Yabro COLLINS, Mark, 85–93; Mercedes NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos (Guía de Lectura del Nuevo Testamento 1), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2000, pp. 13–15; PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 165–166. 29

34

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

2.3. Proposed structure 2.3. Proposed structure

The narrative begins with a prologue made up of a triptych which precedes and prepares for the public activity of Jesus (1.1–13), consisting of the title (1.1), John the Baptist (1.2–8) and the baptism and temptations of Jesus (1.9– 13). Mark’s work finishes in 16.8,30 and the epilogue of 16.9–20 is an addition from the second century, probably with the intention of mitigating the surprising end of the narrative. Before presenting the structure, it should be noted that many of our comments on specific texts now only point to what we will further develop more broadly in our research work. 2.3.1. First part of the Gospel of Mark The theological and narrative structure that we propose for the first part of the Gospel of Mark is as follows:31 First part (1.14–8.26): Revelation of Jesus as Messiah 1) Power of Jesus – blindness of the religious authorities of Judaism: Pharisees and Herodians (1.14–3.6): a. Summary of the preaching of the Gospel (1.14–15) Vocation of the first disciples (1.16–20) b. Jesus teaches and heals with power (1.21–45) Controversies with the scribes and Pharisees (2.1–3.5) c. Blindness of the Pharisees and Herodians (3.6) 2) Revelation of Jesus in words and signs – blindness of his relatives and fellow countrymen (3.7–6.6a): a. Summary of healings and exorcisms (3.7–12) Institution of the Twelve (3.13–19) b. Wrong opinions of the scribes about Jesus and misunderstanding by his family (3.20–35) Jesus teaches with parables (4.1–34) and heals (4.35–5.43) c. Blindness of Jesus’ fellow citizens (6.1–6a)

30

It is important to note that the original work of Mark’s Gospel ended at 16.8 and that vv. 9–20 are canonical, but later, and therefore, were not written by the evangelist, as Mark’s scholars now affirm, GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 350–358; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 1088–1096; David W. HESTER, Does Mark 16:9–20 Belong in the New Testament?, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock 2015; Paolo MASCILONGO, Il Vangelo di Marco: commento esegetico e teologico, Roma: Città Nuova 2018, pp. 886–887. 31 SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 42–62; ALEGRE, Memoria subversiva, 97–99; LA POTTERIE, “De compositione evangelii Marci”, 135–141.

2.3. Proposed structure

35

3) Jesus prepares the disciples – blindness of the disciples (6.6b-8.26) a. Summary of Jesus’ teaching (6.6b) Mission of the Twelve (6.7–13) b. Misguided opinions about Jesus (6.14–16) Death of John the Baptist: prefigures that of Jesus (6.17–29) “Section of the loaves”: − First multiplication of the loaves (6.30–44) − Jesus walks on the waters (6.45–52) − Summary of healings (6.53–56) − Discussion about that which defiles (7.1–23) − Healing of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30) − Healing of the deaf-mute man (7.31–37) − Second multiplication of the loaves (8.1–9) − Jesus crosses the lake and goes to Dalmanutha (8.10) − Discussion on the sign from heaven (8.11–13) c. Blindness of the disciples (8.14–21) Transition: Healing the Blind man of Bethsaida (8.22–26) The unity and coherence of the first part of the Gospel is due to the progressive disclosure of the portrayal of Jesus as Messiah.32 The narrative is developed following a scheme that is repeated three times consecutively and clearly marks the three sections that make up this part. The whole first part has a guiding thread that leads to Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. It begins with a summary of Jesus’ thaumaturgical activity to show the glory of the Son of God, followed by a disciple-centred account of what Jesus says and does, and ends with the attitude of those who stand before him. Paradoxically, the deeds of power of Jesus do not automatically lead to belief in him, but on the contrary, the more his power is revealed, the more those to whom he shows himself are opposed. The first section presents the revelation of Jesus and the blindness of the religious authorities. After exposing the nucleus of Jesus’ preaching (1.14– 15) and the call of the first disciples (1.16–20), the evangelist is interested in presenting Jesus in relation to the multitude (1.21–45) and to the religious leaders of Judaism (2.1–3.6). The setting is the region of Galilee and, above all, the village of Capernaum. The relationship of Jesus with the multitude is evident in different teaching or healing events, which take place in the synagogue (1.21–28), around the house of Peter (1.29–34) and the neighbouring villages (1.35–45). Jesus’ actions are not limited to the religious sphere; they extend equally to the private and profane sphere and the news of this spread everywhere (1.28.45). 32 Secundino CASTRO SÁNCHEZ, El sorprendente Jesús de Marcos. El evangelio de Marcos por dentro, Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer 2005, pp. 9–35.

36

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

Jesus is portrayed with an authority that surprises and raises the question about his person (1.27: “What is this? A new teaching – with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him”). This action invites us to see in Jesus the one who has power to save man from his deepest miseries. His actions speak for themselves. However, it is still too early to make an accurate judgment about his true identity. Like demons, man must shut up and wait. Mark is interested in stressing that Jesus carries out a new teaching with power, both in deeds and words, which contrasts with the teachings of the Jewish scribes in ‘their’ synagogues. Jesus’ actions are opposed by the Jews, as the Judaizers will later oppose Paul. Mark insists on a new doctrine taught with authority33 to point out the contrast and to speak in favour of Pauline ideas. Jesus’ relationship with the religious authorities of the village appears in a series of five controversies that provoke an increasingly marked estrangement. These controversies all develop in a very similar way: setting, discussion and words of Jesus in the form of saying. The conclusive saying of Jesus does not only offer a concrete solution, but it is always a true revelation of his own person. The set is carefully structured: the first two controversies show Jesus’ relationship with God, when his deeds are reflecting God’s power and way of acting; the last two touch on Jesus’ relationship with man, releasing him from suffocating burdens. Both relationships are found in the central controversy (2.18–22), in which Jesus presents himself as “the bridegroom”, that is, the one who incarnates God’s passionate love for His people and whose presence allows only joy and happiness among them. This pericope is significant not only because it presents the divinity of Jesus, but also because it points to the cross, just like Paul, who did not pretend to adapt following Christ to Judaism, but instead presented it and lived it as something totally new, for Jesus has overcome sin and the Law,34 as the evangelist tells us. The blindness of the world to God’s revelation is first observed in the Pharisees. Among the religious and political authorities of Judaism, the powerful manifestations of Jesus, far from arousing admiration, as happens with the multitude, provoke exasperation and the firm decision to kill him (3.6). The shadow of the decisive conflict is already beginning to be cast, and we begin to sense the shadow of the cross at the beginning of chapter 3 of the Gospel. As we have said, Mark makes the cross present from the very beginning of the narrative (3.6) and Jesus, overcoming the Law of the Sabbath

33 34

Cf. Mc 1.22. SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 48.

2.3. Proposed structure

37

(3.1–5), provokes the openness of the Gospel to the Gentiles, which can only lead to the cross.35 The second section presents again the revelation of Jesus and the blindness of his relatives and of the inhabitants of Nazareth, his village (3.7–6.6a). First, there is a summary of Jesus’ activity (3.7–12), followed by the election of the Twelve (3.13–19); Second, Jesus continues to reveal his identity gradually before the multitude and the disciples, and the narrative underline in a special way the reaction of Jesus’ family and the inhabitants of Nazareth. The dominant stage is the shore of Lake Gennesaret and the core of the section, framed between scenes of misunderstanding (3.20–35; 6.1–6a), presents Jesus’ parabolic teaching (4.1–34) and his prodigious performance (4.35–5.43). In this context of misunderstanding, Jesus’ parabolic teaching has a very concrete objective: to help those who listen to Jesus to know their own hearts. A decision must be made about his person and his message. The parabolic language is the most itobscures; it discloses, but at the same time hides. This parabolic teaching of Jesus is explained by the evangelist. Two different languages correspond to two different auditoriums: the multitude is instructed with a series of parables, all drawn from agricultural life (4.3–9; 4.26–32), while the group of disciples receive additional instruction in private, with explanations about parabolic language (4.10–25). These explanations are those that constitute the centre of the narrative and, as Paul expresses, it in Romans 11.8 and Mark in 4.12, present blindness and disclosure as the way God reveals Himself.36 The central place is reserved for the parable of the sower (4.13–20), especially apt to stimulate the followers of Jesus to reflect on their own attitude and identity. Jesus’ prodigious deeds confirm and complete his teaching in parables. Indeed, in addition to ratifying his preaching on the definitive establishment of the Kingdom of God, these actions reveal, at the same time, the mystery of his person. The order in which the evangelist narrates these miracles of Jesus is nothing short of eloquent. The power of God in Jesus extends from the natural elements (windstorm calmed in 4.37–41) to death (resurrection of the daughter of Jairus in 5.22–43), passing through pagan territory (healing of the man possessed by demons from Gerasa in 5.1–20) and legal uncleanness (healing of the woman who suffered haemorrhages in 5.25–34, whom Jesus praises because she is the first one that dares to break the Law and trust him, that is, she dares to transgress the Law for his faith in Jesus). The eyewitnesses of these miracles are the disciples, the recipients of a revelation “in private”, which seeks to bring forward their understanding of the mystery of the Kingdom of God as the true family of Jesus.

35 36

Cf. Is 52.13–53.12. SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 50.

38

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

The inhabitants of Nazareth, who transform their initial amazement into misunderstanding, do not want to belong to this family. They refuse to recognise God in what is known; they look, but do not see; they listen, but do not understand. This concludes the second section, reminding the reader of the end of the previous section. The third section of this first part includes once again the revelation of who Jesus is and the initial recognition by his disciples (6.6b-8.33). Also, like the second section, it begins with a brief summary of the teaching activity of Jesus, followed by a story about the sending and mission of the Twelve (6.6b13). The core of the section is a narrative that is distinctive of the Gospel: what has been called the “section of the loaves” (6.30–8.21). It is a series of stories in which bread is the dominant note, ending with the blindness of Jesus’ disciples (8.14–21). This contrast between the progressive revelation of Jesus’ identity and the progressive misunderstanding of all those who come to know him seems to have a very concrete meaning in the Marcan account. To understand who the Messiah is, it is necessary to understand who Jesus of Nazareth is: that is, the Son of God must be understood within the historical coordinates in which he lived. The different stories in this first part are intended to show who Jesus is, but it also seems that this revelation should remain unspoken, a secret. It is the so-called “messianic secret”. This is not about Mark opposing the manifestation of the glory of Jesus, but rather about understanding the miracles within the coordinates in which they are to be placed, that is, within the framework of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The first part ends with a transitional pericope: the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida (8.22–26),37 which has the same structure as the healing of the deaf-mute of 7.31–37. 38 This pericope forms an inclusio with another healing of a blind man, the blind man of Jericho (10.46–52) and has a meaning that connects it directly with the blindness of the Pharisees, Herodians, disciples and family members of Nazareth. Only God has the capacity to make people see who Jesus is, because knowing Jesus is God’s gift and is part of the grace that is given to people. Only God opens eyes to the way of the cross already initiated in the first part of the Gospel – as Mark informs us throughout the second part of the narrative. In the meantime, Peter and the other disciples must go through a transitory stage of imperfect vision – a partial blindness (Mark 8.27–30) –, before reaching the full perception sym37

CASTRO SÁNCHEZ, El sorprendente Jesús de Marcos. El evangelio de Marcos por dentro, 33. 38 Narry F. SANTOS, Slave of All: The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 237), London: Sheffield Academic Press 2003, pp. 148–149; SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 52.

2.3. Proposed structure

39

bolised by the final condition of the healed blind man.39 Blindness is used by the evangelist to reveal to the reader who Jesus of Nazareth is. Despite having affirmed in 1.1 that Jesus is the Son of God, the evangelist is gradually revealing his identity. Mark offers us the most thaumaturgical and glorious aspect of Jesus in the first part of his Gospel, although Jesus is not identified by anyone as Messiah. It seems that the evangelist wants to reveal who Jesus is, but the more power he manifests, the greater the blindness of those around him. The second part of the Gospel is marked by a growing misunderstanding of the person of Jesus. Only at the end, does a pagan recognise the mystery of the cross and the weakness of the God of love as he is enabled to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God,40 as stated by Paul in 1Cor 1.17–18. 2.3.2. Second part of the Gospel of Mark The theological and narrative structure that we propose for the second part of the Gospel of Mark is as follows: The Revelation of Jesus as the Messiah Son of God (8.27–16.8) 1) Revelation of Messiah’s painful path (8.27–10.52) Peter’s confession (8.27–30) a. First passion announcement (8.31) Misunderstanding of the disciples (8.32–33) Instruction on the following of the cross (8.34–9.1) Catechetical accounts: transfiguration and exorcism (9.2–29) b. Second passion announcement (9.30–31) Misunderstanding of the disciples (9.32–34) Instruction on being servants to the community (9.35–50) Catechetical accounts of marriage, children and wealth (10.1–31) c. Third passion announcement (10.32–34) Misunderstanding of the disciples (10.35–37) Instruction on Serving (10.38–45) Transition: Healing the Blind man from Jericho (10.46–52) 2) Revelation of Jesus as judge and Lord of the Temple (11.1–13.37) a. Messianic entry into Jerusalem (11.1–11) Jesus curses the fig tree / purifies the Temple (11.12–25)

39

MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 608; Ernest BEST, “Peter in the Gospel according to Mark”, CBQ 40 (1978), 549–550. 40 ALEGRE, Memoria subversiva, 100–109.

40

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

b. Disputes with opponents (11.27–12.44) 1st series: the power of Christ (11.27–44) parable of the vineyard (12.1–12) 2nd series: the tribute (12.13–17) the resurrection (12.18–27) the first commandment (12.28–34) Christ, Lord of David (12.35–37) Warning against the scribes (12.38–40) Contrast: the offering of the poor widow (12.41–44) c. Eschatological discourse (13.1–37) Introduction (13.1–4) Precursor signs (13.5–23) The Parousia of the Son of Man (13.24–27) Exhortation to be ever vigilant (13.28–37) 3) Revelation of Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God (14.1–16.8) a. Conspiracy against Jesus and anointing in Bethany (14.1–11) b. Last supper (14.12–25) c. Gethsemane: Prayer and Capture (14.25–52) d. Passion, death and burial (14.53–15.47) e. The empty tomb and the proclamation of the resurrection (16.1–8) Later canonical appendix: appearances of the Risen One (16.9–20) Peter’s confession41 is a point of arrival that quickly becomes a starting point. It cannot be said that Jesus is the Messiah without specifying what ‘Messiah’ means. Mark proposes that only at the end of the way leading to the cross is Jesus’ Messianism fully revealed. The pericope that initiates the second part becomes the ‘hinge’ that joins the two parts of the narrative. The evangelist intentionally puts the word ‘Messiah’ in Peter’s mouth and takes advantage of it to show the reader that, if even Peter finds it so difficult to understand who Jesus is, disowns him and is not able to understand until after the resurrection, and despite all this, God welcomes him and waits for him in Galilee (16.7), then the very same thing can happen to us. Consequently, we must flee from false theologies of glory, which forget the way of the cross, which is what truly leads to Jesus. Just like the first part of the Gospel, this second part also consists of three sections well delimited by topographical indications and by the different thematic particularities. The first section consists of the revelation of Messiah’s painful path (8.27– 10.52). The evangelist presents Jesus walking toward Jerusalem. The Messiah must go through this path, although it is painful, to reach glory. Therefore, 41

SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 52.

2.3. Proposed structure

41

the path becomes a symbol, in which believers can mirror themselves. It is a difficult journey, full of suffering and leading to the cross. The announcements of the passion and resurrection appear three times, configuring the narrative into three different units, constructed in parallel: misunderstood proclamation, instruction and catechetical account (8.27–9.29; 9.30–10.31; 10.32–52). After every announcement of the passion,42 an episode of misunderstanding of his disciples is depicted. In the first proclamation, although Peter has just called him Messiah, he does not accept that Jesus has to suffer and die and, therefore, Jesus is forced to strongly rebuke him by calling him Satan (8.33). After the second announcement, Mark tells us that the disciples did not understand anything and were afraid to ask him about what he was telling them, and he narrates how, instead of wanting to follow the way of the cross proposed by Jesus, they only worry about knowing who will be the greatest among them. The same happens after the third announcement, in which James and John are eager to sit on the right and left of Jesus when he is glorified by God, which also indicates how wrong they were in understanding Jesus’ message. Only through the cross comes the resurrection, as Paul affirms in Rom 1.4; 6.5; Phl 3.10–11. Consequently, Mark reveals who Jesus is: the one who dies on the cross and at the same time invites the believer to follow him taking up their own cross. The second section depicts Jesus’ revelation as judge and Lord of the Temple (11.1–13.37). The stage is Jerusalem and concretely the Temple. There are temporal indications that can help to differentiate the three days Jesus is in the city, returning to Bethany at the end of each day. But the determining element of the narrative units are the different literary genres used in this second section; first, symbolic actions (11.1–26) that present Jesus as the Messiah who enters Jerusalem acclaimed by the multitude and at the same time as the one who can speak about the Temple and its cult with authority, as the one who can “purify the Temple”. This subsection is delimited by the episodes of the fig tree, which somehow prepare the readers for what will be narrated. Second, Jesus’ actions provoke the reaction of the Jewish authorities, which through these controversies (11.27–12.34) accentuates the fierce opposition to Jesus and the drama that will happen. Specifically, in 12.1–12, in the parable of the vineyard, Jesus is presented by Mark as the cornerstone – of which Isa 8.14; 28.16 had spoken – which allows Jesus to reinterpret the Law and which, once rejected by the majority of the Jews, will be given to the pagans. Finally, the eschatological discourse (13.1–37), a comprehensive teaching that incorporates the future historical plan and answers the two questions raised by the disciples about the destruction of the Temple and the sign that will warn them of the moment in which it occurs. Jesus responds, how42

Ibid., 53–54.

42

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

ever, by reversing the order, which gives a Christological tone to the entire discourse, for it is the Son of Man who must die, who will one day come with great power and glory so that all who have remained faithful share in his triumph. The third and final section of the Gospel is where Jesus fully reveals himself as Messiah, Son of God. Jesus reveals himself in the passion, death and resurrection in Jerusalem. This third section consists of two long chapters and eight verses culminating in what Mark intended from the beginning of his story: to lead us to the cross. Throughout the section, Easter and Passion resound, but topographical and chronological indications help us to discern seven different units: 1) Anointing between conspiracy and betrayal (14.1–11: Bethany); 2) Last supper prepared and celebrated (14.12–25: Cenacle); 3) Hymn and prediction (14.26– 31: way to the Mount of Olives); 4) Prayer in solitude and detention in darkness (14.32–52: Gethsemane); 5) The teacher and the disciple under interrogation (14.53–72: Palace of the high priest); 6) Jesus before Pilate and his soldiers (15.1–20: Praetorium); 7) Jesus’ crucifixion and death (15.21–41: Golgotha); 8) Jesus’ burial and Easter message (15.42–16.8: tomb). 2.3.3. Conclusions Mark was the first to write a Gospel, thus creating a new literary form. This new creation takes existing collections into account, but Mark imprints his own seal on it because he adds, removes, chooses and decides what details he includes and what he leaves aside in its elaboration. The choice made by the evangelist makes it clear that he is in tune with the apostle Paul.43 The structure of Mark’s Gospel has a guiding thread that reaches its peak at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross. The cross is a constant shadow within the Marcan narrative, since it always appears whenever some of Jesus’ interlocutors try to identify him as Messiah, or they do not fully understand the kind of Messiah Jesus refers to, or they refuse to accept that the Anointed One has to suffer and die on the cross. The reason for all this is that Mark structures the Gospel according to his own criteria. The cross is the end of the Law and, at the same time, the beginning of the mission to Gentiles. Paul is precisely the apostle to the Gentiles, as he himself says in Romans 11.13. The abrupt and surprising ending of the Gospel is a narrative technique of the evangelist, in consonance with all his work, which serves to stress the importance of the cross. It is now widely recognised that the Gospel of Mark ends in 16.844 and that this is its last true verse. 43

SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 43–44. Camille FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant. Recueil d’essai (BETL 194), Leuven: Leuven University Press 2006, p. 358; Xavier ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, in La palabra no está encadenada: aproximaciones al Nuevo 44

2.3. Proposed structure

43

The message of the cross reveals how God, contrary to human expectations, chooses what is weak and destroys what is strong, as the evangelist expresses in his work, in harmony with what Paul affirms in 1Cor 1.18–25. For this reason, the way in which Mark presents Jesus evokes the Pauline conception that rejects the triumphalism of the Lord of glory, as we see in 1 and 2 Corinthians. The cross of Jesus is essentially directed against all religious illusion and brings man to recognise his own humanity.45 The theology of the cross enables us to look at everything from the perspective of the cross itself and, therefore, to give a different interpretation to the life of Jesus. The strength of God is revealed in weakness, so the cross disrupts values (1Cor 1.20). In the community of Corinth, as happened in the Marcan community, there are “false Christs and false prophets” 46 (Mark 13.22), who by means of false signs and wonders, are identified with the θειοὶ ἀνδρές. In Corinth, the expectation of an imminent end had been combined with the pneumatic gifts of the spirit of the elected ones (1Cor 1.18–31). Paul, as Mark does by presenting the misunderstanding of the disciples and by holding back every ‘glorious’ purpose of Jesus with the three predictions of passion, tries to rescue the Corinthians from the ecstasy and perfection of this expected world so as not to confuse faith with the vision of the future and to let love and hope be a certainty for the future (1Cor 13.13). Another surprising element which links Paul to Mark, is the fact that it is precisely a Roman centurion, therefore a pagan man, who, at the end of the Gospel and before Jesus crucified expresses the only true confession of the Gospel “Truly this man was God’s Son!” in 15.39. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, defends, in his letters, the preaching of the Gospel to all nations and, in the Gospel of Mark, a pagan proclaims who Jesus is at the right time. This is contrary to what had happened when Peter had confessed Jesus as Messiah, because then Mark counteracted his statement with the words of Jesus who affirmed that the Messiah should suffer humiliation up to the cross. Therefore, Mark opposes the portrayal of Jesus as the one who just works miracles, and he does not believe that a boasted and triumphantly presented faith is authentic faith (1Cor 1.25). For both Paul and Mark, the way that leads Jesus to the cross is neither easy nor glorious. Testamento en clave liberadora, San Salvador: Universidad Centroamericana (UCA Editores) 2009, pp. 124–135. 45 Ernst KÄSEMANN, Perspectives on Paul. The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1982, pp. 32–69. 46 Theodore J. WEEDEN, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, in The interpretation of Mark, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1985, pp. 64–77. On the other hand, we have opted for a more literal translation of the Greek word ψευδόχριστοι, translating it as “false Christs” instead of “false Messiahs” as NRSV does, because even though from an etymological point of view they have the same meaning, throughout history they have incorporated somehow different semantic contents.

44

Chapter 2: The structure of Mark’s narrative

At the end of Mark’s Gospel, the element of silence is present again, displayed in a manner contrary to the evangelist’s custom. The angel of the Lord tells the women that Jesus has been raised and that they should let the disciples know, and the evangelist informs us that they were silent. The silence of the women serves to keep the cross of the Risen One in mind as a catalyst for the following of Christ always and at all times, as Paul affirms in 1Corinthians 1.18: “For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God”. If we consider the other synoptic Gospels,47 we can affirm that most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke had before them the Marcan narrative when they wrote their Gospels. Matthew, however, changes the structure of Mark’s Gospel, adding the chapters of infancy and the appearances of the risen Jesus at the end, and follows Mark from chapter 12 onwards. In addition, he centres his account around five discourses of Jesus, although he also presents the theology of the cross. Matthew tries to appease the Judeo-Christians and, consequently, dims Mark’s Paulinism. Luke is a Pauline-like Gospel but, although he follows Mark, he gives more importance to the road to Jerusalem, since he adds 10 chapters. He therefore nuances Mark’s way of the cross and he also adds the chapters of childhood and appearances. The structure of Mark’s Gospel, which has the mystery of the cross as its guiding axis, gives a fundamental reading pattern for understanding what Mark says. The evangelist does not deny that Jesus acted with glory and power, but he suggests that these deeds cannot reveal who Jesus is, that is, that Jesus is the Son of God. Mark wants us to bear in mind that Jesus is the Crucified, as the apostle also affirms in his letters (Rom 6.6; 1Cor 1.23; 2.2; Gal 2.19); a crucified one who invites us to follow his path.

47 David SIM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace his Primary Source?”, NTS 57 (2011) 176–192.

Chapter 3

Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark In this chapter we present a series of theological elements within the Gospel that will be analysed and then confronted with texts from Paul’s letters with which they are in harmony. First, we analyse the meaning of the word εὐαγγέλιον every time it appears in the Marcan narrative, noting the similarities with Paul’s use in his letters. Secondly, we will consider two highly studied and debated questions of Mark’s Gospel; on the one hand the misunderstanding of those around Jesus as a literary constant in the entire Marcan narrative, both in regard to the disciples, above all Peter, and to the family of Jesus, and, on the other hand, the hard Marcan controversies in which Jesus questions the Law, insisting above all on the subject of purity, a fundamental feature of the Jewish religion. This will be followed by an examination of the question as to why Mark provides two accounts of the multiplication of the loaves; next, we go deeper into the importance of the pagan world in the Gospel of Mark and, therefore, the close relationship that he maintains with Paul, called the apostle to the Gentiles. The study will then focus on the Temple to analyse the relationship that Jesus maintains with the sacred place par excellence in the Jewish world. We will also consider the texts that explain how Jesus related to the Roman power, which then occupied politically and militarily the land of Palestine. The eighth point will deal with the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, going deeper into the analysis of the texts and the similarities and differences between Paul and Mark. Finally, we will focus on Jesus’ relationship with the women who are depicted in the Gospel, and on the importance of female characters in the development of the Marcan narrative. In all these theological elements, we will look for similarities and agreements with the texts of the Pauline letters, in an attempt to verify the trace of the apostle’s influence on the evangelist.

46

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

3.1. The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον 3.1. The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον

The Greek term εὐαγγέλιον is a key word in Christian proclamation and teaching from the beginning to the present day. It can be translated as ‘the good news’, but this would be simplifying the term and reducing it to its basic meaning, since it has been subject to multiple semantic charges in the Christian tradition. Scholars 1 do not agree on the meaning of the word εὐαγγέλιον; while some argue that it is a word comparable to rfb, which is proper to the Jewish scriptures (2Sam 4.10; 18.19; 2Kgs 7.9), others argue that its meaning is influenced by the Greco-Roman world, especially related to the cult of the emperor, because of an inscription found in Priene,2 an aspect that we will analyse later. The Gospel of Mark begins precisely this way: “Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]” nevertheless, the term εὐαγγέλιον was not used to refer to a book, in this first verse its meaning must be found elsewhere. The fact that the Letter to the Romans begins in a similar way (Rom 1.1–7) may help to establish its meaning. There are many similarities between the two texts: the authority of the prophets, the proclamation of the εὐαγγέλιον and the person of Jesus as Messiah (Χριστός) and Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ),3 and above all the transmission of one same message, the εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ. In the same vein, as M. P. Theophilos4 affirms, a distinctive and prominent characteristic common to Mark’s Gospel and Paul’s writings is the importance of the term εὐαγγέλιον and the frequency with which it appears. Mark uses this noun – not attested in this sense by Luke and John – to describe his literary narrative of Jesus’ life and death, as well as the content of Jesus’ teaching. Mark uses the word εὐαγγέλιον on seven occasions, in 1.1, 14–15; 8.35; 10.29; 13.10; 14.95 and only in the first case, in 1.1, is it deter1

Adam WINN, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda (WUNT 245), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008, pp. 95–96. 2 W. DITTENBERGER (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Olms: Hildesheim 1960, pp. 2.48–60. Certainly, as WINN, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 97, notes, it is notorious that Augustus was identified as God, and that Mark describes Jesus as the Son of God (1.1). Therefore, during the first century of our era it would not be strange to associate the words of the imperial inscription with those that Mark proclaimed in his Gospel. In any case, Peter STUHLMACHER, “Das paulinische Evangelium”, in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1983, pp. 196–203, adds that the use of the word εὐαγγέλιον had a rather secular and political sense rather than a religious one during the first century. 3 WISCHMEYER, “Romans 1:1–7 and Mark 1:1–3 in Comparison”, 127. Although as the author points out, the Gospel of Mark lacks the personal introduction that emphasises the authorship, person, mission and authority of the apostle Paul. 4 THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, 53–54. 5 In Mark 16.15, in the addition of the second century, the vv. 9–20 of chapter 16 of the Gospel of Mark, we also find the word εὐαγγέλιον, but it does not have the usual meaning

3.1. The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον

47

mined by the genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In all other cases it appears in an absolute form without further complement. When Mark uses the noun εὐαγγέλιον, he updates the content of the word ‘Jesus’. This is the reason he introduces it where Jesus is mentioned, thus becoming a representative of Christ. The grammatical formula εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ places us before the old discussion of whether the genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ indicates the subject or the object of the Gospel. Both options must be taken into account.6 Mark wants to inform about Jesus Christ and wants to convert the traditions of the words and deeds of Jesus into a content of proclamation, into information to be valued as an expression recovered from what has been historically recalled. In other words, if we wanted to summarise the content of the Gospel, in the case of Mark’s Gospel we would summarise it as ‘Jesus Christ’. In a similar manner, W. Marxsen7 notes that in all cases, except for 1.1, Mark consistently uses the noun εὐαγγέλιον in its absolute form without any genitives to modify it, unlike what Matthew will later do in εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας (Μatt 4.23; 9.35; 24.14) or εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο (Matt 26.13), where the meaning of the word will change, moving it towards the genitive that accompanies it. As for the use of the word εὐαγγέλιον in Paul, we can say that it is very broad.8 Looking only at the epistles considered authentic, we see that in the Epistle to the Romans Paul uses it nine times (1.1, 9, 16; 2.16; 10.16; 11.28; 15.16, 19; 16.25); in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, seven times (4.15; 9.12, *14,9 18, 23; 15.1); in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, eight times (2.12; 4.3, 4; 8.18; 9.13; 10.14; 11.4, 7); in the Epistle to the Galatians, six times (1.6, 7, 11; 2.2, 5, 14); in the Epistle to the Philippians, nine times (1.5, 7, 12, 16, *27; 2.22; 4.3, 15); in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, six times (1.5; 2.2, 4, 8, 9; 3.2) and in the Letter to Philemon, once (1.13). According to Paul, the Gospel of God, condensed in the Passover of Jesus, is expressed in the universal mission. In other words, the Gospel is the proclamation of God’s definitive salvation to be proclaimed as joyful grace for all

of the Marcan text, but it is understood as the exaltation of the risen Christ over creation, in GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 355–356. 6 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 42–43. 7 MARXSEN, Der Evangelist Markus, 84–92. 8 KLEIN, Entwicklungslinien im Corpus Paulinum und weitere Studien zu Paulustexten, 113–116. It should be noted that although Klein includes the times that Paul uses the verb εὐαγγελίζομαι in Rom 1.15; 15.20; in 1Cor 1.17; 9.*16, 18; 2Cor 10.16; Gal 1.*8.9; and also the times that in the Letter to the Romans it appears with pronouns referring to the noun εὐαγγελίον as in Rom 1.2, 7, we only cite in our text the cases in which Paul explicitly uses the word. 9 An asterisk (*) in front of a number indicates that in that verse the word εὐαγγέλιον appears twice.

48

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the nations. The εὐαγγέλιον is salvation anticipated in the present.10 Several philosophical and political systems had postulated and sought the universality of human life and salvation. Some had done so through reason or intellectual dialogue and others through power, that is, military or economic conquest. Indeed, Paul announces and seeks, through the Gospel, the messianic unity of all nations, as he expresses it when he speaks of unity in faith and in communion. This is the unity that springs from the experience of the risen Jesus, and that is what Paul has discovered and what makes him feel joyful. The concept of the Gospel for the apostle Paul is the δύναμις of God,11 his saving power, revealed by Christ. At one time it may have seemed to be Greek wisdom or the Law of the Jewish people, but Paul has discovered that God’s power is manifested in the Gospel of the cross of Christ (1Cor 1.17– 30). It is not an abstract truth about God or Christ, nor a kind of beautiful or reasoned discourse, but the power of God, becoming present in a saving way to all men. Paul proclaims the universal unity in Gal 3.28, because the Gospel of Jesus is for Paul a message, that is, a word that is proclaimed, not a kind of moral law or mental wisdom, but a message that is incarnated in the very life of the messengers, who are the followers of Jesus. When we read Mark’s Gospel, the echo of Paul’s use of the word εὐαγγέλιον is present,12 since both give it a value linked to the terminology of the mission. For both, the Gospel is Jesus Christ and not only as the one who is historically remembered, but also as the one who is defined by the cross and resurrection. For Mark, the word εὐαγγέλιον has more to do with the quality of the ‘announcement’ and the dynamism of the Word than with the novelty of the message. Similarly, in Romans 1.16–17, the announcement is precisely the primordial distinguishing sign of the apostle, and the Word is the one that builds the churches on the foundation of the crucified and risen Jesus for the salvation of those who have faith. In the same way, the first words of Mark’s Gospel, directed towards the future, are understood as “joyful announcement”.13 As we have seen, Mark only uses the word ‘Gospel’ seven times, but each of them can be correlated with Paul’s use of the term:14

10 Petr POKORNÝ, From the Gospel to the Gospels: History, Theology, and Impact of the Biblical Term Euangelion (BZNW 195), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2013, p. 58. 11 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 64. 12 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, pp. 42–43. 13 Jean DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc: lecture intégrale du deuxième évangile, vol. 1 (LD 219), Paris – Montréal: Cerf – Médiaspaul 2007, pp. 34–35. 14 BIRD, Mark, pp. 44–45.

3.1. The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον

49

Mark 1.1: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”.

Paul begins the Epistle to the Romans with references to the Gospel (1.1) including Jesus’ messianic status as the Son of David (1.3). Paul also uses the word “Gospel” indicating the beginning of a new stage of his ministry (Phl 4.15).

Mark 1.14–15: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’”

Paul also preaches “the Gospel of God” (Rom 1.1; 15.16; 1Thess 2.2, 8–9; 2Cor 11.7) and refers to the “proclamation of Christ” (Rom 10.17; 16.25). The Gospel of the Kingdom is analogous to the power of God of Paul.

Mark 8.35: “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the Gospel, will save it”. Mark 10.29–30: “Jesus said: ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions – and in the age to come eternal life.’”

Paul connects the Gospel to the fact of being a disciple. Paul himself is not ashamed of the Gospel (Rom 1.16); he is a servant of the Gospel (Rom 1.9; 15.16; Phl 2.22). Paul preaches the Gospel and shares in its blessings (1Cor 9.23). Paul quotes the Lord’s words according to which those who proclaim the Gospel should get their living by the Gospel (1Cor 9.14) and expects persecution for the sake of following the Gospel (1Thess 3.2–3).

Mark 13.10: “And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations”.

Paul believes that the Gentile nations are the particular object of his effort to make the Gospel known (Rom 15.16; 2Cor 10.14), and he points to the fruit of the Gospel among the nations (Rom 15.19).

Mark 14.9: “Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her”.

Paul can underline the role of particular individuals in preaching the Gospel, Titus (2Cor 8.18), Timothy (Phl 2.22; 1Thess 3.2) and Euodia and Syntyche (Phl 4.2–3).

Paul had developed his particular network of ideas associated with the concept of Gospel; these ideas can be followed in the Gospel of Mark. Specifically, we can highlight: the connection of the Gospel with the narrative that culminates in Jesus’ death, the theocentric dimension of the Gospel, and service. For this reason, when Paul proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Gospel, ‘Jesus’ becomes the subject and ‘Gospel’ becomes the predicate and, therefore,

50

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the subject refers to the person and the predicate to what defines the person. In this way, Paul was able to speak of the ‘Gospel’ in Christian communities, and everyone knew that he was referring to Jesus, and the word quickly became a formula known and accepted by Christian circles. When the term comes to Mark, the evangelist says, the Gospel is Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is the subject and object of the Gospel.15 Mark sees in Jesus both the earthly man and the exalted man. Mark does not present the crucified of Pauline theology through the adoption of this concept but through the tradition of the earthly Jesus. Paul, despite coinciding with Mark, focuses his vision on the risen Jesus, and in this way the exalted is always the crucified. Consequently, Mark writes a Gospel, a narrative, where he tries to make the reader discover who Jesus is; Paul, instead, writes letters to different communities from the perspective of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but both identify Jesus with the word Gospel. Thus, Paul and Mark understand the same thing when they say the word εὐαγγέλιον, the only difference being that Mark explicitly says what Paul certainly believes but does not say, that is, what Paul only insinuates. In other words, Mark writes a ‘Gospel’ which is the commentary on the concept of ‘Gospel’ that appears in Paul. Paul uses the concept with a theological emphasis, while the Marcan use replaces the Pauline fullness with tradition. Thus, Mark says the same thing but in another way. Mark links theology and tradition,16 because he is writing a narrative, while still serving theological proclamation. These small nuances are the result of the experience of each one of them and of the communities in which they move. Mark speaks of ‘Gospel’, within his historical time, as a concept that expresses the way in which the Lord is present and active in the Marcan community. Therefore Mark, when he speaks of the Gospel, places more emphasis on proclamation, while Paul understands it more as a saving preaching (1Cor 15). That is why Mark gives it the meaning of a new historical stage that must be proclaimed17 and which, with the presence of Jesus, has begun and will continue with its realisation on earth. In other words, Mark is in line with Paul’s conception of the Gospel as Jesus’ message and proclamation. However, while for Paul the εὐαγγέλιον is just preaching, for Mark the εὐαγγέλιον becomes a book of the messianic history of Jesus. Mark is post-Paul, and in fact, as we have already said, it will not be until 50 years after writing the Gospel that it will be considered a 15

If in Mark 8.35 and 10.29–30 the concept of the Gospel is understood, as advocated by MARXSEN, Der Evangelist Markus, 85–86 as an epexegetical genitive, it becomes more evident that the εὐαγγέλιον is a δύναμις that reveals God's saving righteousness, that is to say that the Gospel is power, because it reveals (Rom 1.17). 16 Ibid., 83–92.98–101. 17 LINDEMANN, “Das Evangelium bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, 322–324.

3.1. The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον

51

new literary genre. For Paul it would have been unthinkable to admit another narrative as a sacred book, because he had no Scripture other than that of Israel’s. This is Mark’s greatest novelty: he translated the message of Jesus in the form of a book, that is, he turned it into a messianic story, and he did so in an exemplary way, so that it became normative for all later Christianity. On the other hand, it should be noted that the concept εὐαγγέλιον reaches the synoptic tradition through Mark. Now, the frequent appearance in Paul of this term shows that the evangelist was not the first to use it; it is the apostle who borrows it from Jewish tradition or Hellenistic rhetoric, and gives it a new semantic charge, the same one that Mark will later give it in his Gospel.18 For Mark, what it means is clear: the Gospel is the saving power that intervenes in the lives of men and, therefore, it is the same concept that is found in Paul. Important for our study, and one that we must consider, is the work of Lindemann,19 for an understanding of the common use of the meaning of the word εὐαγγέλιον in Paul and Mark. The scholar affirms that the term εὐαγγέλιον was intimately linked to the cult of the Roman emperor to varnish his action with a mythical aureole. This mythical element related to ‘the good news’ and had to do with the birth, coronation, triumphs and victories of each emperor, but at the same time it was related to the expectation and hope that is entailed in the semantic charge of the word εὐαγγέλιον, ‘the good news’, and therefore, to something positive and hopeful. Although we are inclined to defend the Jewish heritage of the term εὐαγγέλιον in Paul and Mark, we cannot fail to mention this theory because we believe that it may have influenced some pagan communities.20 Similarly, the comparison of the use of the word εὐαγγέλιον in Paul and Mark, shows, according to Lindemann,21 that it was not an unknown concept in the society in which both moved, especially when it is found in the absolute sense without any genitive determining it. For both, the Gospel is the good saving mission that must be adopted for those who want to be followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Consequently, the word εὐαγγέλιον, in both Paul and Mark, is the good news. Hence, although we do not have any document that explicitly states that Mark is directly dependent on Paul, there is no doubt that Mark’s use coincides with that of Paul.

18

THEISSEN, “‘Evangelium’ im Markusevangelium”, 67. LINDEMANN, “Das Evangelium bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, 316–320. This idea is also found in the article by THEISSEN, “‘Evangelium’ im Markusevangelium”, 77. 20 We believe that to deepen into the inheritance that received the term εὐαγγέλιον would be the object of another work. 21 LINDEMANN, “Das Evangelium bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, 355–356. 19

52

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus 3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

If one tries to prove that Mark is in or very close to the Pauline circle, the portrait that the evangelist makes of both the family and the disciples of Jesus is an inescapable subject. Much has been written in the last fifty years22 about the Marcan portrayal of these characters as a key argument in the defence of Marcan Paulinisms. Mark’s attitude toward the family of Jesus is the harshest in the New Testament, the one that leaves us most perplexed, because the mother and brothers of Jesus do not understand him, neither do they follow him, nor do they want him to preach the good news, but they rather try to keep him away from the multitudes by treating him as mad (3.21). Moreover, the disciples are not depicted any more positively. The first part of the Gospel presents them unable to understand who Jesus is, because, despite the continuous manifestations of his messianic nature with innumerable healings, exorcisms and miracles, they remain surprisingly obtuse in the face of the messianic drama.23 After Peter’s confession in 8.27–33, the disciples’ understanding goes from practically imperceptible to null. It becomes evident that although Peter, and in his name the rest of the disciples, identify Jesus with the Christ, they are not able to grasp the type of Messianism Jesus represents. In fact, Peter is the one who understands him the least, since he refuses to accept that the concept of Messiah may have anything to do with a commitment that leads to suffering and death (8.31), and he rejects death on the cross (1Cor 1.23). The final stage of Jesus’ relationship with his disciples begins with the betrayal of Judas (14.10–11, 17–21, 43–47). The disciples still do not understand Jesus and, furthermore, they betray, reject and abandon him. It is not only a question of the betrayal of Judas, but of all the disciples fleeing from Gethsemane (14.50). Peter also ends up disowning him three times and reneging on him (14.66–72). Furthermore, it could be argued that, at least, the women, who have been present in the Gospel as models of faith (5.34) and of action (7.24–30; 12.41– 44; 14.3–9), escape this criticism of the evangelist. They have followed the Nazarene from Galilee and are the only ones at the foot of the cross (15.40– 22 LOISY, L’Évangile selon Marc, 41–44; MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 22–24.174– 208.297–300.307–309.348–352; Karl-Georg REPLOH, Markus: Lehrer der Gemeinde: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Jüngerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums (SBM 9), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1959, pp. 75–88; SCHWEIZER, The Good News according to Mark, 160–174; SIM, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark”, 73–99; TELFORD, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 164–169; WEEDEN, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, 64–77. 23 Unsok HUR, “The Disciples’ Lack of Comprehension in the Gospel of Mark”, BiTB 49, 1 (2019) 41–48, argues that the ignorance of the disciples is a creation of the evangelist Mark.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

53

41). They are the ones who, on Sunday when the sun had risen, go to the tomb (16.1) where they receive as their first fruits the divine revelation of Jesus’ resurrection and the mission of communicating it to Peter and the disciples (16.5–7). However, the women, faced with these events at the tomb, will flee in fear and their silence will expose their misunderstanding. This is so because, as we will see in the following paragraph, only faith leads to Galilee (14.28; 16.7) and brings about the following of Jesus.24 The relationship between Jesus and his family, on the one hand, and between Jesus and his disciples, on the other, is presented by the evangelist Mark tinged with misunderstanding, rejection and abandonment. This way of telling us the facts cannot be considered accidental or casual, because it is constant in the Marcan narrative and it is done with care and in detail. The purpose of this account and the relationship it holds with Paul is what we intend to demonstrate below. 3.2.1. The family of Jesus Although in the Gospel of Mark the family of Jesus only appear in two passages, it is important to understand the way they are presented by the evangelist. The first text is 3.21–35. In the episode preceding this pericope, Jesus chooses the Twelve. In 3.20, it is explicitly mentioned that he comes home, highlighting the spatial framework of the narrative that follows in order to place the scene in an intimate and conducive context for a meal.25 His family goes out to take charge of him and they say that he’s out of his mind, or possessed by a demon in 3.21: ἔλεγον γὰρ ὁτι ἐξέστη. The mother and brothers of Jesus are specifically mentioned in vv. 31–35, an occurrence which is unexpected and surprising unless the above narrative refers to it. In addition, the content is reinforced by the typical Marcan sandwich structure26 that begins with the family of Jesus – παρ’αὐτοῦ – and ends with his mother and brothers, suggesting that both groups are one and the same.27 The fact that the 24

In the Gospel of Mark only faith can save, and it is no coincidence that Jesus says in 5.34: “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your disease” and that he says it precisely to a woman. 25 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 232; Pedro ARANDA, La casa, espacio de memoria e identidad en el evangelio según Marcos, Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2012, pp. 86–90; John PAINTER, “When is a House not Home? Disciples and Family in Mark 3.13–15”, NTS 45 (1999) 499–500. 26 SIM, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark”, 86; Camille FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc (Commentaire Biblique: Nouveau Testament 2), Paris: Cerf 2004, p. 147. 27 PAINTER, “When is a House not Home? Disciples and Family in Mark 3.13–15”, 498–513 affirms that in 3.13–35 the evangelist raises criticism to four different groups: first to the Twelve in 3.19–21, then to the multitude in 3.20–21, then to the scribes of

54

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

relatives of Jesus believe that he was possessed by a demon is evidenced by the word ἐξέστη, which literally means “to be out of one’s mind”,28 because in the ancient world madness was often associated with demonic possession.29 Joel Marcus 30 believes that this rejection is due to a historical background mentioned by the evangelist John in 7.3–5, supporting the idea that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. Bauckham31 also argues that the family of Jesus in the 70’s of the first century was very influential within the church of Jerusalem and that James, Jesus’ brother, was a staunch defender of the observance of the Law (Gal 2.12; Acts 21.18–25). He also includes Peter within this group, in opposition to which, as Trocmé affirms,32 Mark would represent a Gentile Christianity that did not feel compelled to fulfil the Torah. The material that follows immediately afterwards, that is the Beelzebul controversy, also has to do with demonic possession and in this way the evangelist reinforces the thesis that v. 21 also refers to it. Mark wanted the reader to understand that the family of Jesus believed that he was possessed by a demon and that they tried to take charge of him to hide him from public view, which is why he uses different literary means to put it beyond doubt. We must remember that Jesus’ victory over demons is a recurring theme in the Gospel of Mark. Demons, the embodiment of evil, first appear in 1.12–13, when the evangelist informs us that Jesus spends forty days in the desert tempted by Satan and, as Mark says, Jesus is served by the angels. A few verses later in 1.21–28, Jesus casts out an evil spirit that obeys him and recJerusalem in 3.22–30 and finally to the natural family in 3.31–35. According to Painter, criticism of the family is not as harsh as the criticism of the disciples, who are the ones who have failed and will fail continuously until the end of the narrative. Therefore, the οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ would refer to the disciples, for they were those who accompanied Jesus in his preaching through Galilee. Although we believe that his study should be taken into account because of the rigour with which it is expounded, we do not share its conclusions with the author, because we believe that 3.19–21 are verses in which the evangelist alludes to the natural family of Jesus, and as it is stated by Max ZERWICK, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci (Scripta Pontificii Istituti Biblici 107), Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1960, p. 84, since the participle ἀκούσαντες with an appositive value cannot refer to the disciples, who were with Jesus at that time, but to relatives. In addition, the fact that the content of the pericope is reinforced by the sandwich structure supports our interpretation. 28 Ibid., 84: “me sisto extra me”; Henry George LIDDELL et al., A Greek-English Lexicon: with a Supplement 1968, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 91940; repr. 1994, p. 595 translates: “one out of his senses, confound, amaze”; Anatole BAILLY et al., Dictionnaire grecfrancais, Paris: Hachette 2000, p. 708, translates: “faire sortir quelqu'un de son raisonnement, mettre quelqu'un hors de son bon sens”. 29 Cf. Jn 10.20; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 148. 30 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 279–280. 31 R. BAUCKHAM, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1990, pp. 5–133. 32 TROCMÉ, La formation de l’Évangile selon Marc, 110–113.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

55

ognises him as the Holy One of God. The evangelist makes clear the authority of Jesus in the face of evil, as he will also do in other moments of the narrative (4.41; 5.13). The power of Jesus overcomes evil, as Paul affirms in 1Corinthians 5.4–5 and Galatians 3, because Jesus is the New Adam who has overcome sin (Rom 5.12; 2Cor 5.21).33 Then, in the Beelzebul controversy in 3.22–30, Mark follows and extends the theme of Jesus’ demonic possession. In this pericope, some scribes who have travelled from Jerusalem accuse Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, and affirm that it is precisely this association that enables Jesus to successfully perform exorcisms (3.22). Jesus answers this accusation by posing a question that manifests their incoherence: “How can Satan cast out Satan?” (3.23). Jesus argues that no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. The meaning is clear. Jesus has tied up and controlled Satan and it is his power over the prince of demons that enables him to possess his house and exorcise his demonic subordinates (3.27). Next, Jesus explains the consequences for those who make such accusations. All sins and blasphemies can be forgiven, with one exception: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.34 In order to give a final clarification, Mark concludes this short section with an author’s commentary: “for they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’” (3.30). From the evangelist’s perspective, any accusation that Jesus was possessed by a demonic entity is tantamount to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Mark had said in the scene of Jesus’ baptism, through John the Baptist’s mouth, that Jesus was filled or possessed by

33

Carlos GIL ARBIOL, “El fracaso del proyecto de Pablo y su reconstrucción” EB 73 (2015) 398. 34 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 279–287, and GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 151–153 affirm that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a very controversial and discussed text in the history of exegesis. All the great theologians of history have wondered about its meaning: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Luther or Hegel. From 3.28–30 onwards, Jesus goes on the offensive, since it is not he who has sinned, agreeing with Satan, as his enemies intended, but rather they are the ones who, with their false accusation, have committed an unforgivable sin. The promise of universal forgiveness in v. 28 is immediately nuanced in the following verse. According to Marcus – with whom we share the opinion –, the evangelist is in the same line as Judaism when he affirmed that there are sins that cannot be forgiven. Therefore, these verses would fit into the Jewish theology of atonement: all sins are forgivable except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that is, except the rejection of the definitive revelation of God's will in Jesus. According to ELERT, in his work Der christliche Glaube: Grundlinien der lutherischen Dogmatik, Berlin: Furche, 1940, p. 601ff., the sin against the Holy Spirit is the denial of obedience to it, and in J. Gnilka’s view it is the use that man makes of his freedom, since he can sin against God and, consequently, against himself or place himself under the sovereignty of the Creator God.

56

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the Spirit, who had descended on him from heaven (1.9–11). 35 To accuse Jesus of demonic possession rather than possession by the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the latter. An important question therefore arises. There is no doubt that the scribes of Jerusalem are identified as blasphemers, for they clearly affirm that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul. But it is also true that Mark identifies the relatives of Jesus with those who have also committed this unforgivable sin. They have accused Jesus of being out of his mind or possessed by a demon, which, if applied to the scribes of Jerusalem, should necessarily also apply to the family and relatives of Jesus. According to this, ironically, it is the enemies of Jesus, that is, those who accuse him of a covenant with the devil, who are bound to Satan.36 So, Mark explains that the mother and brothers of Jesus come and stay outside the house where Jesus is, and then they address him and call him. A group around Jesus tells him that his family members are outside and calling him. Then Jesus answers: “‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’. And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’” (3.33–35). They announce to Jesus the arrival of his mother and his brothers and sisters, and he not only refuses to submit to their claims – they want to take him away from his mission –, but he turns his gaze to the multitude that surrounds him and declares that his family are the ones who accomplish God’s will. The words of Jesus are reinforced by the image that the evangelist offers us. Jesus is described with people sitting around him, τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους, an image that evokes a patriarch surrounded by his children (Ps 128.3; Job 29.5).37 Therefore, Jesus is presented as the centre of a new family circle.38 Consequently, Jesus clearly rejects kinship relationships, if they are not tied to the acceptance of the Gospel. As a result of their blasphemy and sin, his family and relatives are no longer his mother, brothers or sisters, and they are therefore replaced by those who listen to Jesus and do the will of God. This negative conception of the Jesus’ family becomes even more evident when compared to the parallel text of Luke.39 In 8.19–21, Luke modifies the pericope in a way that seems to indicate that Jesus includes his family in those who believe, as if the biological family were part of Jesus’ followers. 35

FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 150. MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 285. 37 Ibid., 325. 38 Narry F. SANTOS, “The New Family of Jesus and the Relativization of the Natural Family: An Exposition on Honor and Shame (Mark 1:16–20; 2:13–14; 3:13–35)”, RevExp 115, 4 (2018) 592–601. 39 Joseph A. FITZMYER, The Gospel according to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 1 (The Anchor Bible v. 28–28A), Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1st ed. 1981, pp. 722–723. 36

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

57

Many years have passed since the death of Jesus, and James, the brother of Jesus, has been an important leader within the community, a referent and a martyr; that is why Luke takes the scene out of the Marcan context with the purpose of giving this passage a different interpretation from that found in Mark. The family of Jesus has become a link between Jesus’ time and that of the Church. Mark had concentrically drawn an extremely negative picture, as both the family and the Pharisees opposed Jesus’ teaching. In addition, Mark had placed the scribes who called Jesus ‘possessed’ in the centre of the picture. Specifically, Luke suppresses Mark 3.21, which is in line with the accusations of the scribes and Pharisees in the Marcan context. Luke’s fundamental change consists in presenting the mother of Jesus and his brothers – the sisters are not mentioned – as models of discipleship. They become the chief example of those who hear the word of God with “an honest and good heart” (Luke 8.15). Luke’s portrayal does not imply a relinquishment of family ties or a criticism of his relatives, but rather speaks of a kind of voluntary and free adherence, which accepts the word of God as a rule of one’s own life, which is what Jesus preaches. For this reason, Luke locates the text, unlike Mark, after the parables of the sower (8.11–15) and the lamp under a jar (8.16–18), which may lead us to think that the family of Jesus is precisely the one that bears fruit and, therefore, is the supreme example of this new type of adherence. It must be admitted that Mark’s account of the family of Jesus is surprising, to say the least. Mark places Jesus’ relatives clearly outside of the relationship with the multitude, who are inside (Gal 2.6). Mark creates a unique scene in the synoptic tradition, a crowd sitting around Jesus in a circle, listening to his words and being his true family.40 Related to this question, there is also another important text, Mark 6.1–6, for understanding how the evangelist presents the relationship between Jesus and his family and relatives. In this pericope, the negative portrait of the relatives and family of Jesus of chapter 3 continues. Jesus visits Nazareth and teaches in the synagogue on Shabbat. Those who hear his words are astonished and wonder where Jesus has received his wisdom and miraculous powers. They know Jesus and his family very well and they say to each other: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (6.3). In short, they are offended by the fact that someone familiar to them can speak and act with such wisdom and authority. Jesus defends himself and says: “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house” (6.4). These words are directed against the people of his 40

FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 152 puts forward the hypothesis that we defend even though he considers it unlikely, because he believes it is not supported by any clear evidence. With our work, we expect to show enough evidence to counteract his doubts.

58

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

town, who show a lack of belief and understanding. But the family of Jesus also lives in Nazareth, i.e. it is also included in the indictment, so it seems that the evangelist wants to put on record that during the earthly life of Jesus, they did not believe in his message or in his person. It was not until after the resurrection experience that they believed.41 It is significant that on this occasion the Marcan Jesus identifies the members of his family and calls his mother with the name of Mary, his four brothers James, Joses, Judas and Simon and also an undetermined number of unnamed sisters. It is as if Mark did not want there to be any doubt as to who his accusations were directed against.42 These two texts (3.21–35; 6.1–6) give us a damning portrait of the relatives of Jesus in the Marcan narrative. His family, including his mother and brothers, show their misunderstanding of Jesus and his mission. His concept is equated with blasphemy. For his part, Jesus admits to rejecting these relationships, even if they are kin, and to replace them with those who believe in him and do God’s will.43 However, what does this portrayal of Jesus’ family have to do with Paul? Although Mark’s narrative description is situated within the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, this had important repercussions on the later Christian movement. The brothers of Jesus, after his death and resurrection, played the role of leaders of the early church of Jerusalem and, as we have just seen, Mark presents them as blasphemous and guilty of a sin with no easy solution. We know the efforts of Paul to be accepted as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the church of Jerusalem and we also know, from what he himself affirms in the Epistle to the Galatians and the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, that his apostolic authority had been questioned by those who had seen Jesus and shared life with him. Therefore, it can be said that Mark adopted the cause of Paul and that the criticism of James 44 before Easter is much harder than that by the apostle. Paul was content to criticise James, and especially his followers, for having 41

COLLINS, Mark, 292. FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 221. 43 SIM, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark” 88–90. David Sim believes that Mark's narrative description of the family and relatives of Jesus will have important repercussions on the later Christian movement. The brothers of Jesus, who played leadership roles in the early church of Jerusalem, have committed blasphemy and are guilty of a sin for which there can be neither redemption nor atonement. This, says Sim, would mean that their sin remains during the time of the Church and affects above all James, the brother of Jesus, who ran the church of Jerusalem. Therefore, it would be a direct and sour attack against James. We think that Sim's arguments should be nuanced because it is also true that they were reconciled after Easter, as Paul himself explains in 1Cor 15.7, and that Paul never discredited James or the brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem. 44 John Dominic CROSSAN, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus”, NovT 15 (1973) 81–113. 42

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

59

broken his word in the apostolic council and for trying to undermine the Pauline mission to the Gentiles (Gal 2.12), but he never accused James of eternal sins. The fact that Paul had to carry the collection to Jerusalem suggests that he had some hope that James might accept his way of thinking. Mark, by comparison, is much sterner, surely because his way of experiencing it is subsequent to Paul’s. By the time he wrote his Gospel, James had already died and he knew that James had always been strongly opposed to Paul.45 All in all, Mark felt the need to support Paul’s theology and mission and, therefore, he had to show the weaknesses and contradictions of those who had raised themselves with authority against the apostle Paul. For this reason, the portrayal of the family of Jesus is negative, not because it is “the family”, but because revelation is only a gift from God. 3.2.2. The disciples of Jesus In the Gospel of Mark there are several characters who follow Jesus, but ‘the disciples’ par excellence are the Twelve. This group is made up of those whom he had called by their own name (Mark 3.13–19), the ones who accompany him as witnesses of what he does and says, and then are sent to announce and to make present the good news (Mark 6.7–13).46 The Marcan portrayal of the disciples begins with different favourable traditions that progressively darken, first towards misunderstanding and then towards non-acceptance, selfishness and rejection, until reaching treason, denial, and final abandonment. We begin with the traditions that are favourable to the disciples and that are found especially at the beginning of the narrative.47 This favourable portrayal of the disciples changes as the narrative progresses and, although there are some negative indications from the beginning, these increase with the course of events. The disciples are called by Jesus and they immediately leave everything and follow him (1.16–20; 2.13–14). This decision implies total surrender to Jesus. He, in return, promises them that those who make this commitment will receive eternal life (10.28–31). The disciples support Jesus when he eats with tax collectors and sinners (2.15). Jesus defends them when they are accused of not fasting (2.18–22) and of breaking the Sabbath commandment 45

But we must not lose sight of the fact that James died a martyr, and the fact that Paul is not contrary to James, as he states in 1Cor 1.11–16. Now, the evangelist Mark is aware of the difficulties of the church of Jerusalem to accept the way in which Paul incarnates faith. 46 Santiago GUIJARRO, El camino del discípulo: seguir a Jesús según el Evangelio de Marcos (Nueva Alianza 230), Salamanca: Sígueme 2015, p. 23. 47 Fernando CAMACHO, “Jesús pone a Pedro en su sitio (Mc 8,33/ Mt 16,23)”, Comm 34 (2001) 181–200.

60

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

(2.23–28). Jesus appoints the twelve disciples, led by Simon Peter, when they are sent to preach and exorcise (3.13–19a). Then the disciples are sent in pairs to preach repentance, perform exorcisms and heal (6.7–13). As a result of the success of their mission, Jesus commands them to come and rest (6.30– 31). In 6.30 Mark calls them ‘apostles’ (ἀπόστολοι), this being the only time that the Twelve are so named in the Gospel and with the same meaning as in Paul, as those to whom has been entrusted the proclamation of the Christ event.48 From the beginning of his ministry, the disciples are always present when Jesus acts. Therefore, he wants them with him when he teaches, when he performs miracles and when he preaches, though always emphasising their misunderstanding or incomprehension. The special position of the disciples is clear when Jesus explains that they alone are given the secrets of the Kingdom, while “those outside” are excluded (4.10–12). As for the word μυστήριον of 4.11,49 it is especially Paul who uses it in the New Testament, referring to the fulfilment of God’s great saving project, which is realised in Christ (1Cor 15.51; Rom 11.25–33). The mystery is also the victory of the cross, where the power and wisdom of God converge, but where the powers of this world have not recognised the Lord of glory (1Cor 2.7–8). It is the same thing that Mark points out by means of the messianic secret, because the proclamation of the Kingdom happens in a nontriumphalist way, respecting human freedom. However, it is not long before the disciples show their lack of understanding of Jesus’ teaching and their failure to understand the nature of his mission.50 The disciples do not understand his messianic condition and this fact is a constant throughout the whole Marcan account and this misunderstanding increases as the narrative progresses.51 We have seen how in the first part of the Gospel the disciples ask Jesus about his parables (4.10) and Jesus questions whether they will ever understand them (4.13). In the episode of Jesus calming the storm, the disciples demonstrate their lack of faith (4.35–41), which will then affect their ability to cast out an evil spirit (9.18–19, 28–29). Neither do they understand the two multiplications of the loaves, nor do they believe that it is Jesus who walks on the water (6.51–52).52 The misunderstanding of the disciples is a matter of the heart; it is their hardness that does 48

COLLINS, Mark, 314–315. José M. GONZÁLEZ RUIZ, “Paralelos en las teologías marcana y paulina”, RCatT 14 (1989) 328–329. 50 Camille FOCANT, “L’incompréhension des disciples dans le deuxième évangile”, RB 82 (1975) 181. 51 Terrence PRENDERGAST, ‘Without Understanding’ (Marc 7:18): A Redaction Critical Study of the References to the Disciples’ Lack of Understanding in Mark’s Gospel, Toronto: Regis College 1977, pp. 350–352; WINN, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 140–146. 52 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 256. 49

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

61

not allow them to ‘understand’ and takes them away from the ‘understanding’ of who Jesus is.53 The disciples never understand the suffering of Jesus’ messianic mission, despite the constant teaching of Jesus. The passion predictions make this fact sufficiently clear. In Caesarea Philippi, Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the Messiah (8.29). Jesus then teaches the disciples that his mission involves suffering and that he must die and then rise from death (8.31). Peter refuses to accept it and rebukes Jesus (8.32). Jesus responds by associating him with Satan (8.33). Jesus then explains to all his disciples and the people who follow him that there is a real possibility of death (8.34). In the second passion prediction (9.31–32), Jesus again teaches the disciples that he must suffer, die and rise, but again they do not understand him and are afraid to ask him about what he just said. The disciples then condemn themselves when they argue about who is the greatest of them, while Jesus instructs them on his final destiny (9.33–37). The episode ends with Jesus criticising the disciples for complaining about a man who, although he was not his follower, did exorcisms in his name (9.38–41) and with the disapproval of Jesus because the disciples do not let the children approach him (10.13–16). Jesus explains for the third time the need for his suffering, death and resurrection (10.32–34), but his teaching only provokes a response from James and John as to what place is reserved for them in the glory of God (10.37). He then concludes with a radical teaching on service, as opposed to the cravings for power of those who dominate the world (10.42–45). The paradoxical attitude of Jesus54 increases the incomprehension of the disciples who, despite wanting to understand him, do not do so, and therefore, although in a different position, align themselves with the religious authorities who do not understand Jesus either. Later, in the passion narrative, Jesus prophesies that one of his disciples will betray him (14.17–21), that the rest of his disciples will abandon him (14.27–28) and that Peter will deny him three times (14.29–31). In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter, James and according to the prophecies of Jesus, Judas betrays him, all the disciples flee when Jesus is arrested (14.50) and Peter denies him three times (14.66–72). These acts of betrayal, cowardice and denial conclude the activities of male disciples in Mark’s Gospel. Moreover, no one is found at the foot of the cross, where only women remain (15.40– 41). In the description of the disciples we discover the Marcan brushstrokes that demonstrate the lack of understanding of the disciples during Jesus’ mis53 Jin Young CHOI, “The Misunderstanding of Jesus’ Disciples in Mark: An Interpretation from a Community-Centered Perspective”, in Mark, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2011, pp. 64–65. 54 SANTOS, Slave of All, 143–144.

62

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

sion and that hide serious questions that played a significant role in the period of the Church. It is important to note that the Marcan Jesus brings the good news to both Jews and Gentiles, although the disciples are not able to understand it. Openness to pagans is in the common interest of Mark and Paul. Mark presents a Jesus who travels to a pagan land (4.35), who cures demoniacs in regions outside Jewish territory (5.1–20), who multiplies the loaves to Jews and Gentiles (6.34–44; 8.1–10), and who presents a laxer conception of the Law than within strict Judeo-Christian circles (7.1–23). But the disciples do not realise what this fierce and radical criticism of the institutions and the Law itself entails. Therefore, Mark, as a consequence of the situation experienced by his community and in order to defend the authenticity of Paul as an apostle of Christ, describes disciples as not grasping the content of their teacher’s teaching. The disciples were reluctant to embrace the Gentile mission, as was the case in Mark’s time, because there were Jewish groups resisting openness to pagans.55 As was the case when Jesus was among them, these continued to observe the Torah and to make it a banner of exclusion for all who did not conform to its prescriptions. By contrast, it was Paul who addressed his mission to the Gentiles and affirmed that the rituals required by the Torah were no longer necessary in the light of the Christ event. Mark, in a very Pauline way but in narrative form, speaks of justification by faith, as Paul does in Romans 1.17; 3.5, 21, 25–26; 5.21; 8.10; 10.13, because faith is the only thing capable of saving mankind. Before stating our conclusions concerning these points, we must analyse verses 4.10–12 and the figure of Peter, who among all the disciples deserves to be treated separately, because despite everything he was the one Jesus put at the head of the group. a) “Those outside”: Mark 4.10–12 Mark picks up the expression “those outside” from the Targum of Isaiah 6.9– 10, and therefore it has to be considered as a traditional wording, since it deviates from the Masoretic text and from that of the LXX, as such significant authors as Gnilka, Marcus and Theophilos affirm.56 The end of Mark 4.12 is not found in either Matthew 13.13 or Luke 8.10. Mark is inspired by Isaiah, but in a personal and singular way, different from the rest of the authors of the New Testament. The others use Isaiah 6.9–10 to show Israel’s rejection of Jesus; on the contrary, Mark is interested in this, but above all he wants to interrogate those who hear or read his Gospel and invite them to know the mystery. Therefore, he does not explicitly quote any version of Isaiah 6.9–10, he simply uses the verses to describe men who are hard of heart and do not 55

Cf. Ga 2.1–10. GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 163; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 305–307; THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, 59. 56

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

63

see, otherwise they might try to follow him and not remain outside, as the disciples have done until then.57 Much has been written about the words ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω, because they are not easy to understand. Different scholars have arrived at a diverse range of interpretation proposals on 4.10–12. Thus, Goulder58 postulates that when Mark says “those outside”, he is referring to the family of Jesus that had already been excluded in 3.31–35. Jesus’ family is outside his circle. When Jesus asks who his mother and brothers are, he himself responds that they are the ones who do God’s will. Therefore, the Church are all those who do the will of the Father. Or, as the parable of the sower puts it, those who hear the Word, receive it and bear fruit. Instead, his natural family is outside the circle. Goulder59 also considers that these words have to do with the situation of the Marcan community at the time when the evangelist writes his narrative, and affirms that this text manifests the tension that existed between the church of Jerusalem and the Pauline mission, while at the same time defending the Paulinism of the Marcan text. On the other hand, Boomershine60 proposes an allegorical interpretation of these verses (4.10–12). “Those outside” do not understand the Kingdom and those within understand it, so the parables become a source of confusion and misunderstanding, as if they were “apocalyptic weapons that blind rather than reveal”. 61 Joachim Gnilka 62 points out that Mark contrasts the disciples with “those outside” by identifying them with those who had refused to receive the message of the earthly Jesus; therefore, the evangelist would be referring to the Jews. Consequently, says Gnilka, the meaning of the parables is only discovered by those who realise that they have to do with the Messiah Jesus. God is the one who gives this knowledge, because without it everything is quite enigmatic. In this way, the parables become the paradigmatic case of the misunderstanding of Jesus’ action. Reploh63 also argues that “those outside” are those who lack conversion and faith in the community where Mark writes and adds that the disciples are shown as an example of these shortcomings. The community, therefore, is at the same level as those who are called “those outside” in Mark 4.11. Accordingly, the hardness of heart – an element so proper to Mark (3.5; 6.52; 8.17; 10.5) – is not only present in those who are outside, but also in all those who follow Jesus. In the same vein, Joel Marcus64 thinks that the ex57

FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 179–181. Michael Douglas GOULDER, “Those Outside (Mark 4:10–12)”, 289–302. 59 Ibid., 293–294. 60 Thomas E. BOOMERSHINE, “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages in Paul, Jesus, and Mark”, 160–161. 61 Ibid., 161. 62 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 165–167. 63 REPLOH, Markus, 75. 64 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 302–307. 58

64

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

pression “those outside” would remind Mark’s audience of their own situation, since they too are trying to become members of the true family of Jesus (cf. 10.29–30), and they too, in 4.11–12, listen to his secret teachings, from which “those outside” are excluded. The difference between the two groups does not lie in the fact that some listen to the parables and the others do not, but rather that some listen to them in order to understand them, while the others listen to them superficially without being able to ‘see’, ‘hear’ and ‘convert’. In this sense, a constant among the various interpretations of this text (Mark 4.10–12) is to affirm that “those outside” are those who do not believe in Jesus completely. The evangelist Mark contrasts this attitude with that of the disciples, to whom Jesus explains the meaning of the parable (Mark 4.15– 20), but without failing to say in 4.13: “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?”. It is clear, therefore, that the disciples find it difficult to believe in Jesus, to follow him, to convert, as it is demonstrated when Jesus is surprised in 8.17–21 by their lack of understanding and has to the two miracles of the loaves, because despite all his explanations they still do not understand:65 17

And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” They said to him, “Twelve.” 20 And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 Then he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

B. Bacon 66 goes even deeper and relates Mark’s meaning to the one Paul himself gives to it in his texts: “is difficult to account for unless we suppose the evangelist to have been familiar with the parallel argument of Paul, which employs the same quotations in the same interest”, linking both in terms of the meaning of the expression. In fact, the expression “those outside” is also found in Paul in 1Corinthians 5.12 and in 1Thessalonians 4.12. The apostle always refers to “those who do not believe”, when he uses it. Therefore, we deduce that Mark understands the same as Paul when he uses the expression ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω.

65 Jean DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 537–540; Cédric FISCHER, Les disciples dans l’Évangile de Marc: une grammaire théologique (EtB 57), Paris: Gabalda 2007, pp. 90–93. 66 BACON, The Gospel of Mark, 263.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

65

b) The figure of Peter Peter, in the Gospel of Mark, is a pre-eminent figure that appears in numerous passages. Specifically, he appears fifteen times, which we will follow through the Marcan narrative.67 The first time he appears he is called Simon and is named together with his brother Andrew, saying that they were fishermen of the Sea of Galilee (1.16); then Jesus calls them – they are his first disciples – to follow him and become fishers of men (1.17–18); in the house of Simon and Andrew in Capernaum, Jesus heals Simon’s mother-in-law (1.29–31); when Jesus was praying after a day of healings in Capernaum, Simon and his companions went to look for him and let him know that everyone was looking for him, but Jesus expressed his desire to continue preaching the good news to the nearby villages (1.35– 39). Through the name of Simon, reinforced by the healing of his mother-inlaw in his house, the evangelist presents a close relationship between Peter and Jesus.68 In chapter 3, Jesus designates the Twelve to be with him, to be sent out to preach and to drive out demons. The first of these, in the list of names, is Simon “to whom he gave the name Peter” (3.14–16). We observe that when Jesus enters the house of Jairus, the head of the synagogue, to raise his daughter, he does not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John (5.37).69 Next, on the way to Caesarea Philippi, in response to Jesus’ question to his disciples: “Who do people say that I am?” Peter answers: “You are the Messiah”. Jesus warns them not to tell anyone about him, and teaches the disciples of the passion, death, and resurrection of the Son of Man. When Peter rebukes Jesus, Jesus curses him and calls him ‘Satan’ (8.27–33).

67

Karl P. DONFRIED – John REUMANN – BROWN, RAYMOND EDWARD, Peter in the New Testament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1973, pp. 95–103; Rafael AGUIRRE MONASTERIO, Pedro en la iglesia primitiva (Institución San Jerónimo 23), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 1991, pp. 29–42; Robyn WHITAKER, “Rebuke o Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”, CBQ 75 (2013) 666; Robert C. TANNEHILL, “The disciples in Mark: The function of a Narrative Role”, JR 57 (1977) 386–405. 68 Joachim GNILKA – Víctor Abelardo MARTÍNEZ DE LAPERA, Pedro y Roma: la figura de Pedro en los dos primeros siglos de la Iglesia, Barcelona: Herder 2003, p. 122. 69 This is the first of the three traditional scenes (5.37; 9.2; 14.33) that suggest the existence of a “small group” of three disciples within the Twelve. Much has been written about the triumvirate of Peter, James and John and the primacy of Peter or James as we read in Paul, the synoptics or Acts. S. G. F. BRANDON commentary on the subject in his book The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity, London: SPCK 1951, pp. 31–53, is suggestive as he affirms that the description of the church of Jerusalem leaders is clearly unpleasant in the second Gospel despite the fact that he tries to dissociate Jesus from the connection with his Jewish environment.

66

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

But, despite the last scene highlighted above, Jesus takes Peter, James and John with him and leads them up to a high mountain and is transfigured before them. Peter suggests making three dwellings, one for Jesus, one for Moses and one for Elijah (9.2–13) and Jesus tells them that the Son of Man has come to suffer, based on Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Peter responds to Jesus: “we have left everything and followed you” and Jesus promises them that those who have left family or possessions to follow him would receive a hundredfold now in this age and in the age to come eternal life (10.28–30). The day after Jesus had cursed the fig tree (11.12–14), when Jesus and his disciples pass through that place, Peter remembers and draws attention to the withered tree and Jesus tells them to have faith in God (11.20–22).70 While Jesus sits on the Mount of Olives, having foretold the destruction of the Temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew ask him when it will happen, and Jesus’ answer gives rise to the apocalyptic discourse (13.3ff). At the Last Supper, Jesus predicts that all of them will fail away when he is dead, but that he will rise and will go ahead of them into Galilee (14.27– 28). Peter says, “Even though all become deserters, I will not”. Jesus then predicts that Peter will also deny him three times that night, but Peter insists that he will never do so (14.29–31); in Gethsemane, Jesus tells the other disciples to sit down while he prays and takes Peter, James and John with him and lets them know how deeply grieved he is. He asks them to stay there and keep watch with him. Jesus returns three times to where they are and on all three occasions finds them sleeping. The first time he says to Peter: “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour?” (14.32–42); when Jesus is arrested and brought before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, Peter follows him at a distance, right into the courtyard (14.54). Then he disowns Jesus three times, swearing and cursing. The second time the cock crows, Peter remembers the words of Jesus and weeps (14.66–72), and finally the young man dressed in white says to the women when they find the empty tomb: “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you” (16.7). It must also be said that in the overall framework of Mark’s Gospel, the evangelist creates an inclusio from the beginning to the end of the text, since the name of Simon or Peter is the first and the last name of a disciple quoted in the narrative. As J. Gnilka points out,71 it is as if the disciple embraced all 70 Mark contrasts the cult of the Temple with prayer and faith, to contrast the foundations of the Judaizers with those of Mark himself, who, like Paul (Rom 3.27–31), bases salvation on faith in Jesus. Also in the line of MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 793–794, readers who have followed the story closely can easily deduce that Jesus' curse against the tree has negative implications for the Temple with which the tree has been linked by the sandwich structure of Mark. 71 GNILKA – MARTÍNEZ DE LAPERA, Pedro y Roma, 124.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

67

the public life of Jesus, from Galilee to Jerusalem, from the time he begins to preach until he rises. Even if Mark had not told us that Peter was the first of the disciples to be called, together with Andrew, all these passages highlight that, for Mark, Peter was the most important of the Twelve.72 As G. Minette de Tillese73 writes, Peter fills the entire Gospel of Mark, he appears in each of the pages of the narrative and the more it advances, the more significant his role is. Precisely on those occasions when the disciples of Jesus do not act as expected, Peter often personifies the error of them all. That is why some scholars, like Donfried,74 consider him a symbol and not just a person, because Peter becomes the prototype of a disciple both for his generosity and for his mistakes. Others, like J. Gnilka, 75 argue that he is an archetypal disciple, while also having a special importance in the narrative. Damgaard76 suggests that Mark has created an ambiguous portrait of Peter to imitate the biography of Paul’s conversion and to bring the two great apostles together, gaining authority for the text he wrote. Moreover, Peter, in the Pauline tradition, becomes an example of “justification by faith”, for he was not able to achieve merit through his actions. For this reason, because Peter had denied him and with oaths, Jesus calls him again, once risen, to give him the opportunity to “go into Galilee” (14.28 and 16.7),77 which is the condition to follow Jesus. Related to the interpretation of Peter, there is another very controversial and debated topic that has to do with the interpretation of Marcan Christology: the concept of the ‘divine man’. In the late 1960s, T. J. Weeden78 saw in 72

AGUIRRE MONASTERIO, Pedro en la iglesia primitiva, 33. G. MINETTE DE TILLESSE, Le secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (LD 47), Paris: Cerf 1968, p. 439. In this same vein Peter MUEMA, The Relationship between Peter and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, Nairobi, Kenya: CUEA Press 2010, pp. 243–252. 74 DONFRIED – REUMANN – BROWN, RAYMOND EDWARD, Peter in the New Testament, 334–350. In this same vein, WHITAKER, “Rebuke o Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”, 667 and also in Rafael AGUIRRE MONASTERIO, Pedro en la iglesia primitiva, 34. 75 GNILKA – MARTÍNEZ DE LAPERA, Pedro y Roma, 122. 76 Finn DAMGAARD, “Persecution and Denial – Paradigmatic Apostolic Portrayals in Paul and Mark”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative essays Part II for and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 295–310. 77 Both verses are editorial, as it is argued by Joachim GNILKA, in Evangelium nach Markus, II, 252.338, in line with what is also defended by HIRSCH, Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums: Erstes Buch: Das Werden des Markusevangeliums, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1941, p. 155; Emil WENDLING, Die Entstehung des Markus-Evangeliums: Philologische Untersuchungen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1908, p. 170; Alfred SUHL, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn 1965, p. 64. 78 Theodore J. WEEDEN, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, 145–58 specifically says that both Peter and the Twelve are incorrigible. With a different tone to what 73

68

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the second Gospel the effort to counteract the Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ79 that existed in the Marcan community, portraying a Jesus who corrects his disciples concerning a theology of suffering and the cross. Peter, then, would be the spokesman for an erroneous Christology that the evangelist wanted to eliminate from his community. The topic is still open today and will be dealt with in the section on the analysis of the Pauline and Marcan Christology. But in any case, what do we do with texts that speak well of Peter and the other disciples?

Weeden asserts, Camille FOCANT, in Marc, un évangile étonnant, 107–109, affirms that the portrait of the disciples and Peter in the Gospel of Mark is a literary construction intended to challenge the reader and make him understand that the following to which he himself has been called is far from easy. 79 A mode of approach to Mark's Christology, which begins with Ferdinand C. BAUR, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom”, TZTh 4 (1831) 61–206 at the end of the 19th century, has to do with the Hellenistic concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ. Rudolf BULTMANN, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Uni-Taschenbücher 630), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 91984, pp. 132–133 applied this concept to Jesus in a positive way, relating the miracles of Jesus in the Gospel to the way Paul presents Jesus. Likewise William WREDE, Das Messiasgeheimnis in der Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1901, pp. 71–79 and Ludwig BIELER, Theios Aner: Das Bilde des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum, Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1967, pp. 2–5 assessed this conception positively and related it to the Pauline letters, fruit of a common Hellenic idea about “the divine man”. In the mid-20th century, the concept of “divine man” is interpreted by other scholars in a negative sense. So, Siegfried SCHULZ, Die Stunde der Botschaft: Einführung in die Theologie der vier Evangelisten, Bielefeld: Luther 1982, pp. 54–59.64–79, Ulrich LUZ, “Das Geheimnis-Motiv und die markinische Christologie”, ZNW 66 (1965) 28, T. J. WEEDEN, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, 115–134 and Norman PERRIN, The Christology of Mark. A Study in Methodology in the Interpretation of Mark, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1974, p. 110 affirm that Mark becomes the spokesman of the Hellenistic Christology of the divine man, but not only to present Jesus as a man capable of performing miraculous wonders, but above all to combat this triumphalist Christology and correct it. Therefore, the purpose of the use of the concept θεῖος ἀνήρ would have been contrary to what might appear at first sight. Recent research has called into question the conception of θεῖος ἀνήρ, both from a methodological and semantic point of view, was something totally fixed and determined in the Greek world of Mark's time, as tells us Jack Dean KINGSBURY, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1983, pp. 25–45 and MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 75–79. For this reason, scholars today are more cautious about fully identifying the content of Christology with this concept. In this vein, we believe that it is not enough to take into account only “the divine man” in order to grasp the Christology of the Gospel of Mark.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

69

Let us consider three fundamental texts to understand the role that Peter plays in the Gospel narrative. We will begin with 8.27–3380 when Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say that I am?”81 This is an important question, with a rhetorical burden that does not imply a simple answer. The reader perceives that the characters to whom Jesus addresses his question cannot answer, because they do not yet know who Jesus is. 82 The answers of the disciples contain part of the truth, although they are not totally true, and that is why the Jesus of Mark asks them again in v. 29: “Who do you say that I am?”, and Peter answers in the name of the others: “You are the Messiah”. Immediately afterwards, Jesus forbids his disciples from telling anyone that he is this Messiah that Peter recognised in Jesus. The categorical nature of the prohibition does not imply a devaluation of his confession, but rather a call for prudence in the face of the political and theological repercussions that may result, in addition to being in line with the Marcan messianic secret.83 Peter’s statement is not erroneous, but it is not yet time to reveal it nor is it fully known to him, for only after the death and resurrection of Jesus will the true essence of his royalty be revealed.84 The parallelism of this passage with the preceding narrative of the healing of a blind man in two phases (8.22–26) reaffirms this interpretation against that of other scholars, 85 who consider Peter’s affirmation as an erroneous answer. The healing account suggests that Peter and the other disciples have to go through an intermediate stage of imperfect vision and partial blindness, before reaching the full perception symbolised by the complete healing of the blind man. This relationship is reinforced by the fact that, in Jewish traditions and in the New Testament, Satan and demons are often the cause of man’s blindness.86 After Peter’s confession, Mark places the first announcement of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection87 in a singular way and through a verbal para80

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 9–21; Jean DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc: lecture intégrale du deuxième évangile, vol. 2 (LD 223), Paris: Cerf 2008, pp. 41–42. 81 It is the main question Jesus asks them and that Heikki RÄISÄNEN, in The “Messianic Secret” in Mark (SNTW), Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1990, p. 174 rightly characterises as “socratic”. 82 SANTOS, Slave of All, 153. 83 Ernest BEST, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1981, p. 21. 84 Mark L. STRAUSS, Mark (ECNT 2), Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2014, p. 366; WINN, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 116–121. 85 Terence V. SMITH, Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity: Attitudes towards Peter in Christian Writings of the First Two Centuries (WUNT 2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1985, p. 164. And also in James D. G. DUNN, The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D.G. Dunn, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1998, pp. 126–128. 86 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 609–610. 87 The same is true of the three synoptic Gospels Mark 8.31, Matt 16.21 and Luke 9.22.

70

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

phrase, typical of Mark, ἤρξατο διδάσκειν,88 presenting the announcement as a teaching of Jesus to his disciples. This announcement does not lead to triumph or earthly glory, but to failure and surrender of one’s own existence. That is why, immediately afterwards, Mark describes the reaction of Peter, who opposes what Jesus said, and shows that it is inconceivable to him that the Messiah could suffer, be rejected and die infamously. Peter’s reaction is the most natural and consistent with the Jewish conception of the Messiah, which was associated with triumph and not death and rejection. Thus, Jesus’ response to Peter’s reaction is overwhelming. The evangelist tells us that Jesus turns his back on him to show complete dissatisfaction with his words and, looking at the disciples, he says to him: ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ,89 (8.33) forcing Peter to move away from him and at the same time showing a parallelism with Jesus’ energetic reaction to Satan himself in the passage of temptations (1.13). In Jesus’ mouth the verb ἐπιτιμάω is a forceful action.90 Jesus rebukes demons, chaotic nature and those who know his true identity, both demons and men (1.25; 3.12; 4.39; 8.30, 33; 9.25); but now Peter rebukes Jesus. Peter expects Jesus to be a powerful Messiah who will save the Jewish people by force and violence, and therefore refuses to accept what Jesus has announced. Jesus addresses Peter with the same language he used when he initially called him ὀπίσω μου (1.17). As for the verb ὑπάγω, it is not uncommon for Mark to use it to indicate ‘to go’; hence, both the bleeding woman and blind Bartimaeus are addressed with this verb ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε, ὕπαγε (“your faith has healed you, go...”) in 5.34 and 10.52; therefore, the value of the verb is part of a positive statement. Other times, ὑπάγω simply indicates an order, as when the angel speaks to women in 16.7. Consequently, 8.33 is the only example of the Gospel where it has a negative charge. Perhaps, as J. Marcus says, Mark tries to summarise the path of the following of the cross that Peter has momentarily forgotten91 because, rebuking Jesus, he behaves as if he were the master. Being a disciple means being obedient in the following and taking up one’s own cross in the suffering.

88 We often find the formula ἤρξατο + infinitive in the Gospel of Mark (1.45; 6.7; 10.32, 47 and 14.33, 69) and it could be editorial to indicate that an action is beginning to take place, in 8.31 the fact of preaching the disciples; this is the view of GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 142 and Hans-Josef KLAUCK, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (NTA 13), Münster: Aschendorff 1978, p. 286. 89 Hence, the translation we propose would be “Get behind me, Satan!”, because Peter with his attitude of rejection and incomprehension had placed himself before Jesus and wanted to prevent him from advancing along the path that led him to passion, as explained by GUIJARRO, El camino del discípulo, 27, making reference to the text of the Comentarii in Matthaeum 12.22 of ORIGEN. 90 WHITAKER, “Rebuke o Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”, 671. 91 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 613–615.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

71

Jesus calls him ‘Satan’ when he considers Peter’s expectations, shared also by all the other disciples, as one totally opposed to God’s plan and, therefore, unsuitable for someone who pretends to be his follower.92 In fact, the Marcan Jesus says: “For you are setting your mind not on divine things, but on human things” (8.33). In this way, Mark contrasts two radically different ways of thinking and feeling, two different projects: that of God and that of men. Peter behaves as if he were blind and, precisely, Satan is the king of darkness and incomprehension before the light (2Cor 4.4).93 Peter’s blindness indicates his mistaken understanding of Jesus’ true identity. But Peter will again be mentioned as part of the group who will accompany Jesus on the mount of transfiguration (9.2) without any further explanation from the evangelist. Consequently, it is not a definitive rejection, but a trait shared by those who want to follow the way of Jesus. On the contrary, in Matthew’s Gospel (16.16–19), Peter’s confession is a true confession, because Peter not only calls Jesus the Messiah, but also the Son of the living God and, moreover, the confession is attributed to a revelation from God. In Matthew 16.23 the Marcan words are present, but they have lost the strength and meaning of the Gospel of Mark, since Peter in Matthew 16.18–19 is presented as the one who holds the keys of the Kingdom. As for Luke’s Gospel, Peter’s mistake in not understanding Jesus’ prediction of his passion is not present. None of the other evangelists wanted to preserve this story with this sense, only Mark did, because he presents the disciples, especially Peter, as those who do not understand anything, and this aspect is essential to the narrative of our evangelist.94 Another important text is 14.32–42 in which Mark presents Peter’s behaviour in Gethsemane as an example of his inability to understand the necessity of Jesus’ death and as a refusal to obey his commandments,95 since Jesus asks Peter, James and John to keep awake with him, but they fall asleep. A little later, in this same chapter, the evangelist relates the denials of Peter in 14.54, 66–72, the only episode in the Gospel in which the protagonist is only a disciple and, in fact, it is also the last in which a male disciple appears on the scene. Once again, a ternary composition, which reinforces, through triple repetition, what is expressed and what is very common in the biblical texts, as in the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane (14.32–42) and the dialogue between Pilate and the crowd (15.6–15). In addition, the text is immersed in another text (14.53, 55–65), forming a sandwich, to indicate that the two events happen simultaneously and that, therefore, Mark is showing the con92 93

STRAUSS, Mark, 364–365. WHITAKER, “Rebuke o Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”, 674–

675.

94 95

BEST, Following Jesus, 137. SMITH, Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity, 173–178.

72

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

trast between Jesus and Peter. While the former asserts his identity and assumes the consequences it entails, the latter disowns him.96 The contrast is overwhelming: the fidelity of Jesus until death, in the face of the denial, fear and incapacity of Peter, who here again represents all the disciples. The questions to Peter have to do with discipleship, because first they tell him that he was μετὰ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ Ἰησοῦ (14.67), making his origin known, and then they remind him that he is γαλιλαίος, an expression that in Mark has a profound meaning associated with discipleship, since Peter is called to follow Jesus in Galilee and it is precisely to there where Jesus will precede them when Peter is called again (16.7). Finally, we still have another text to consider in order to understand who Peter is in the Gospel of Mark. This is the last scene of the Gospel. In 16.5–8 the women find the tomb empty without the body of Jesus and a young man dressed in white tells them to warn the disciples and Peter. Although there are parallels97 in the other synoptics, only Mark mentions Peter. In these verses some women who follow Jesus come into action. 98 One might think that, at least, women have been described in the narrative as models of fidelity to Jesus, because in fact they are constantly presented as true disciples who have faith in the Lord. Although the role of women in Mark’s Gospel will be discussed in a specific section of this study below, it is worth mentioning briefly their role in the narrative, as disciples, and the number of women who appear in the story.99 The first woman to appear is Peter’s mother-in-law (1.29–31), of whom it is said that when Jesus healed her she began to serve him. Mark uses the verb διακονέω which is a term that Paul also uses (Gal 4.9). Mark emphasises precisely that service is what should characterise the true disciple of Jesus, in the style of Paul. Another is the woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years (5.25–34). The Law forbids approaching her, but she has faith and knows that if she touches Jesus, she will be healed, so she dares to break the Law, a very Pauline idea too. Jesus invites her to publicly acknowledge that she has done 96 For an in-depth look at the text of Peter's denial on a rhetorical and narrative level the research by Agustí BORRELL, The Good News of Peter’s Denial. A Narrative and Rhetorical Reading of Mark 14:54.66–72 (University of South Florida. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 7), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1998, presents a detailed study of all formal issues. WHITAKER, “Rebuke o Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”, 675 also comments on the importance of the way the facts are presented, as the sandwich technique helps to place the two actions simultaneously. 97 Matt 28.7 is more similar than Luke 24.6. 98 Xavier ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, 121–189. 99 The evangelist Mark presents women in a way which is reminiscent of Paul's respectful and considerate treatment of his female evangelising companions (Rom 16). Here we consider them in contrast to those of Jesus' family.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

73

something forbidden but, in fact, with her attitude and behaviour, she has put into practice the words of Jesus himself when he says that the Law is made for man and not man for the Law (2.27). It is significant to note how the little pericope ends: “ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε” (5.34), which recalls what Paul says in Romans 4.16; 9.30 and in Galatians 2.16, where the apostle insists that only by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by observing the Law, may we be justified before God. A third woman is the Syrophoenician, a pagan. Her daughter is sick, but she has faith in Jesus and trusts that Jesus will heal her. In any case, Jesus cannot simply accede to her request, because he knows that he has been sent especially for the sheep of Israel (6.34). That is why, from the outset, he rejects her request; however, the woman does not lose her faith in Jesus but insists that the limits of Israel can be overcome. Then Jesus lets himself be taught by her – by a woman who is also a pagan –. Without a doubt, this is an important text, because Mark, when writing, has in mind his own community that he wants to make understand the Gospel has passed from Israel to the pagan world, something that Paul did throughout his life. The fourth woman is the poor widow (12.41–44) who throws two coins into the Temple treasury. She too is praised by Jesus. Finally, Mark presents the woman who spends her entire wage for one year on a perfume she uses to anoint the head of Jesus (14.3–5). Men criticise her, but Jesus defends her and says that her action will be remembered forever, since she was the first person capable of understanding that Jesus’ death is of infinite value and is priceless. In this context it is no longer surprising that at the foot of the cross there are only women. Women are those who followed him to Jerusalem and served him from Galilee. These are Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses, and Salome, as well as others who had witnessed the crucifixion (15.40–41). These women will be the ones who will attend the burial of Jesus and who will go to the tomb on Sunday morning. Therefore, they will be the first to receive the divine revelation that God has raised Jesus from the dead. Now, contrary to what we have just explained, at the end of the Gospel of Mark, women are also those who appear to be incapable of understanding the message of Jesus. Their flight from the tomb recalls the flight of the disciples and their silence shows that they have not understood the meaning of the resurrection of the crucified one and the task that God has entrusted to them: to be witnesses of the itinerary that leads to the Easter experience, an itinerary that Mark symbolises with the word ‘Galilee’. The women did not understand either, because they were looking for Jesus among the dead and, consequently, they had forgotten or had not believed the word of Jesus, who had announced, several times, his resurrection on the third day.

74

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

The silence of women100 at the end of the Gospel will serve as a perennial reminder of the difficulty of the message of the cross, even after the resurrection of Jesus. Mark, with deliberate intention, eliminates the last possibility for readers to identify with some concrete characters of the Gospel.101 Now, the angel’s message is clear and forceful: Jesus awaits them; Jesus continues to trust them despite everything. Thus, after Peter’s betrayal and denial, Jesus opens the door to hope and reconciliation. Peter’s denials are the last word from the disciples, but we must stress that the last word about the disciples found in the Gospel is Jesus’ invitation to meet him in Galilee.102 3.2.3. Conclusions After analysing how the evangelist Mark portrays Peter and the disciples, one wonders if this portrait has anything to do with the defence of Paul as an apostle. Let us first examine what the biblical texts tell us about the relationship of Peter and Paul.103 In the Pauline corpus, Peter is only mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians (1.18–19; 2.6–9; 2.11–14) and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1.12; 3.21–22; 9.5 and 15.5). In all cases Paul calls him Κηφᾶς, except in Galatians 2.7–8 where he calls him Peter.104 Peter and Paul met in Jerusalem on a private visit and spent about two weeks together (Gal 1.18). Paul does not consider this visit as a time of learning and evokes this encounter with cordiality and without conflict. According to the book of the Acts, Peter visited the existing communities in the Jewish cities of Lydda and Joppa (9.32–43). Later he baptised the sympathizer Cornelius in Caesarea (10.1–48), which brought him problems with the primitive community of Jerusalem (10.45). The community is persecuted by Herod Agrippa and Peter escapes from prison and returns to Caesarea. However, when the assembly of the apostles is convened, Peter returns to Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter feels responsible for the Judeo-Christian communities, as he says in Galatians 2.7. A part of the Jerusalem community strictly observes the Law, and Peter is forced to give explanations to James. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 agree on Peter’s conduct during the assembly: he acknowledges Paul’s mission in which Gentiles are not subordinate to the 100

ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, 152–162. Peter EDMONDS, “Mark’s Gospel. Discipleship and Formation”, The Way 56/1 (2017) 9–22. 102 Ernest BEST, Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1986, pp. 162–176. 103 Jürgen BECKER, Paulus: der Apostel der Völker, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1989, pp. 104–107. 104 AGUIRRE MONASTERIO, Pedro en la iglesia primitiva, 107. 101

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

75

Law, but remains a symbol of Judeo-Christianity. Only in the visit to the pagan-Christian community in Antioch does the rupture between Peter and Paul occur (Gal 2.11ff). From then on, all reliable traces of Peter disappear. According to 1Corinthians 1.12; 3.22, it seems that there was a group of followers of Peter in Corinth. This does not mean that Peter was personally in Corinth, although it is known that he visited communities with his wife and that in Corinth this fact was known (1Cor 9.5). In the areas of Pauline mission, he was considered the first witness of Easter. There is another indication that allows Peter to be placed in the paganChristian area: the tradition of his stay in Rome105 and his martyrdom in this city. This trip to Rome was after that of Paul, for if it were not so, when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, he would surely have kept in mind Peter’s presence in Rome and would not have omitted a greeting. Therefore, until the incident in Antioch, Peter and Paul maintained a good relationship. Peter influenced the acceptance of the Pauline concept of mission. However, this relationship was disturbed in Antioch because Peter leaned toward the more rigid Judeo-Christian stance of the followers of James, as he gradually yielded to the pressures of the envoys of Jerusalem. The two apostles did not meet again later. It is quite possible, however, as we read in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that Peter would have reconsidered his Antiochian option and returned to a more open attitude towards the pagan-Christians, in the line of the Jerusalem assembly, because in the First Epistle to the Corinthians there is no text from which one could deduce that Paul had anything against him. Now, Paul describes his message as the Gospel “to the uncircumcised” as opposed to that of Peter, whose message is considered the Gospel “to the circumcised” (Gal 2.7–9). It is one of the examples where it can be discerned that the apostle Paul recognises that those who have been converted through the teaching he has given them have received a Gospel different from that which is taught by the more conservative part of the church of Jerusalem. Paul considered that his Gospel was especially suitable for the Gentiles and, consequently, that it was legitimate to include in this Gospel concepts and terms that could be easily understood by those who had been educated in the culture of the Greco-Roman world. Paul vigorously affirms that his conversion was by the direct intervention of God (Gal 1.1–2) and that, during the decisive period of his transformation, he was independent of the church of Jerusalem. In other words, Paul maintains that he converted to the new faith not because of arguments of JudeoChristianity, but because he had a profound experience of God, which burst 105

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, Hist. Eccl., II.15,1–2; III.36. Also in Gaétan MINETTE DE TILLESSE, Le martyre de Pierre et Paul en Saint Marc, Bologna: Dehoniane Bologna (EDB) 2000, pp. 699–704.

76

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

into his life, and which he interpreted as a revelation of the risen Christ (1Cor 9.1–2; 15.8–11; Gal 1.11–14). This fact is important because it means that he had believed in Jesus Christ through means other than Judeo-Christians and, furthermore, he had done so independently of the knowledge of the historical Jesus.106 In this sense, we have texts from Paul that explain the apostle’s relationship with Jerusalem and we know that there were strong discrepancies between Peter and Paul (Gal 2.11.14). We also know, according to 1Corinthians 15.3–11, that Paul was never included in the official list of witnesses to the resurrection compiled by the church of Jerusalem when he reminds the Corinthians that the preaching they have received is the same as the one he had received. Paul then adds his own encounter with the risen Christ (1Cor 15.8) and there is nothing to suggest that he is reporting a traditional formula but that the apostle is adding his own experience to the official list. In summary, there are three interesting aspects to bear in mind in the face of all this information. The first is to note that the Jerusalem authorities did not include Paul in the official list of the witnesses to the resurrection, because the formula had already been established when Paul met the risen one. But, although this would be the official reason, it is considered implausible, since after reading these verses and taking into account the tone and comments of Paul himself (Gal 2.1–10), the most likely reason for not being included is that the most conservative part of the church of Jerusalem, James and his collaborators, would have been suspicious of Paul’s claim that the Lord had appeared to him personally (Acts 9.26). The second significant aspect is that the formula quoted by Paul states that Jesus had appeared to all the apostles. Paul, therefore, defends his apostolic status and emphasises the fact that the risen Christ had appeared to him last of all (1Cor 15.8). James and his collaborators were suspicious of Paul and did not consider him a legitimate apostle; they argued that Paul was under the direct authority of Jerusalem and that he should be responsible to them. Moreover, it seems that his opponents spread the word that Paul was breaking the terms agreed at the Jerusalem council, because he was continuing his mission to the Gentiles without the Law. The third aspect is that Paul denies all the accusations made against him. He is an apostle through Christ himself; he is independent of Jerusalem and is not breaking any agreement (1Cor 15.10). On a number of important occasions, however, James sends missionaries to overly liberal Christian churches with the demand that Gentiles must keep the Torah (Gal 5.11). To achieve this, he uses as a strategy the fact of questioning the status of Paul as a true apostle (1Cor 9.2) and the validity of his Gospel devoid of the Law. Paul 106

SIM, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark”, 11.

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

77

responds to these incursions with a powerful polemic, defending his experience of the risen Christ (Phl 3.3–7), his commission to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9) and challenging the leaders of the church in Jerusalem who are at the root of his problems (Gal 2.11,14). As J. Gnilka107 states, it is unquestionable that there were rivalries between Judeo-Christian and pagan-Christian communities. In addition, due to the unresolved conflict between Paul and some authorities of Jerusalem, later Christians had to decide where they stood when writing their texts. Therefore, the early Church was divided into two major groups that were in conflict with each other on the question of the Torah and their role within the movement associated with Jesus of Nazareth.108 On the one hand there were a group of Judeo-Christians who claimed that all the followers of Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles, were obliged to keep the traditional Mosaic Law; and, on the other hand, another group, which included the Hellenists and Paul, who thought that in the light of Christ the Torah, the Law which had previously distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles, was no longer necessary because it had become redundant. Faith in Christ is all that was necessary. The dispute between these two great lines of the Christian tradition was not simply confined to the first generation. Many later texts continued the Pauline battle against the Torah and the judaizing tendencies that continued to exist despite the destruction of the Judeo-Christian community in Jerusalem in 70 CE. That is why Mark gives us a portrait of the family and the disciples, and especially of Peter, which is unexpected. Peter and James are apostles of Jesus Christ. Peter was called by Jesus during his earthly ministry, but as he failed, Jesus called him again after Easter (16.7). James was called after Easter, not before, because he did not believe in Jesus (3.21; 6.3). Paul agreed that James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, the disciple, were authorities in the early Church to whom the risen Lord had appeared (1Cor 15.3–7). But at the same time, like Mark in his Gospel, Paul was very critical of them for their opposition to his independent apostolate and their refusal to preach a Gospel devoid of the Law in the Gentile churches. Opposition to the Pauline mission and his Gospel continued throughout the years 50–70 and, in fact, no settlement was ever reached. Despite Paul’s desire that the church of Jerusalem accepted the collection of the Gentile churches (2Cor 8.4), some scholars109 107

GNILKA – MARTÍNEZ DE LAPERA, Pedro y Roma, 125. S. G. F. BRANDON, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 54–73. 109 SIM, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark”, 89–90; CROSSAN, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus”, 112–113; M. D. GOULDER, St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995, p. 11; John PAINTER, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1997, pp. 30–31. 108

78

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

suggest that this was not the case and that there was no reconciliation between Paul and the pillars of Jerusalem. In writing a few years after Paul, Mark takes a more critical stance than Paul. He provides a different view of the church of Jerusalem, since Jesus, although born a Jew, had not remained faithful to the exclusivist traits of his people, but had shown himself to be a much greater Messiah than the one expected by the Jewish people. The traditional interpretation of the church of Jerusalem had been overcome by Paul and by Mark also, who in his account made it clear that the first disciples had not grasped the true nature of Jesus. Although they had come to recognise his messianic character, they had not understood the necessity and importance of his death, which, on the contrary, the Roman centurion at the foot of the cross had in recognising Jesus as the Son of God (15.39). Therefore, the Marcan Jesus defends a Gospel devoid of the Law when he teaches and does all he can to discredit some leaders of Jerusalem. The family of Jesus, especially James, the brother of Jesus, who led the church of Jerusalem, had rejected Jesus, and Peter had been rebuked by Jesus for not properly understanding his Messianism. Did Mark really intend these facts to demonstrate that James was unsuitable for leading the Christian Church? The disciples of Jesus, including Peter and John, who together with James formed the triumvirate in Jerusalem, fare a little better. The evangelist recognised that Jesus had chosen them and that they had responded to him. If we take Mark 10.28–31 seriously, Mark had accepted that the disciples had gained eschatological gifts and eternal life. The disciples are treated much better than the relatives of Jesus, and yet the evangelist questions the disciples’ competence to lead the early Christian movement until the point of the resurrection account, because during his ministry none of the disciples had understood Jesus’ teaching, and had misinterpreted the nature of his messianic mission, abandoning him, betraying him and disowning him. This portrait by the evangelist was intended to defend Paul, and the way to do it was through literary finesse and extraordinary subtlety. We think that Mark does not want to discredit the family of Jesus or the disciples of the church in Jerusalem, but rather he wants to show us how they truly were, apart from the faith in Jesus that was gifted to them in the Easter experience, a pure and gratuitous initiative of the Risen Jesus (16.7). They were fleshand-blood men, with a multitude of shortcomings, full of weaknesses, incongruities and fears, who followed Jesus faithfully but without understanding anything, because they were weak, fickle, disloyal men; in short, they were men of all times.110 They were men who had not understood how to open the 110

FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 78–79. We agree with the conclusions proposed by C. Focant, since he believes that the true purpose of the misunderstanding of the disciples is to draw the attention of the readers of his community and of today, to the fact

3.2. The misunderstanding of those around Jesus

79

Gospel to the Gentiles, to the rest of the world, men who were not able to fully trust Paul, who were zealous of what they knew and who were suspicious of any new contributions to the Gospel. We cannot, therefore, fail to note the sharp contrast between the central place occupied by the disciples in the story and their limited value as models of the following of Jesus. Narrating the story in this way – in contrast to Matthew and Luke – the narrator invites the reader to distance himself from the Twelve, to relativise the concrete form of following that they embody and to open themselves to other forms of discipleship, such as that of the minor, secondary and marginal111 characters who often have an attitude that corresponds to that of the true disciple, such as the mother-in-law of Peter, the possessed by demons from Gerasa, the bleeding woman, the Syrophoenician woman, the blind Bartimaeus, the woman who anoints Jesus, the women... “The other disciples” are those who can become significant and models of discipleship. Yet Paul explicitly and implicitly recognises the special place of Peter in the early communities, both in his leadership and in his discernment of the doctrine and practice consistent with the announcement of Jesus. Paul, however, does not consider himself inferior to Peter and, therefore, has the right and the duty to correct everything he considers to be wrong, so that he does not feel bound or frightened by Peter and can carry out another way of living, loyal to the Gospel.112 It is also interesting to note that Paul’s criticism of the members of the family of Jesus and his disciples is restricted to their activities in the time of the Christian movements and in their relationship with Paul himself. The apostle says nothing, whether positive or negative, about them during Jesus’ historical mission. There is no mention of the lack of acceptance on the part of Jesus’ family or of the disciples’ lack of understanding. What mattered to Paul were the dangers they posed to his apostolate, which is why Paul insisted on the fact that he had been visited by the risen Christ, his legitimacy as an apostle and on his version of the Gospel. In contrast, Mark was forced to adopt a new strategy, writing a narrative of Jesus’ earthly mission. Mark could not defend Paul and criticise the actions that man is incapable of knowing God without his help. Focant defends that Mark takes a historical fact – the misunderstanding of the disciples – and amplifies it literally, to make it clear how difficult it is to enter into the mystery of the cross of Jesus. Although he questions the fact that Mark disputes with some members of the church of Jerusalem and therefore presents them as obtuse before the message of Jesus, saying that in order to defend this idea, scholars only rely on texts from the second part of the Gospel. We have noted through texts from the book of the Acts and various Pauline letters that Mark is in harmony with them, but we also agree with Focant that Mark wanted to call the attention of believers of all times to the difficult task of following the crucified one. 111 GUIJARRO, El camino del discípulo, 86–107. 112 AGUIRRE MONASTERIO, Pedro en la iglesia primitiva, 117–118.

80

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

of the Jerusalem leaders in the Church’s time. Mark does not question the legitimacy of their apostolate and, looking at Peter, Mark offers to ancient and present readers a re-evaluation of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth according to a crucified Messiah dying on the cross.113 They are all apostles, Paul too. What Mark does question, however, is the way in which the disciples and the family of Jesus interpreted his message and, therefore, the way in which the Church should function.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul 3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

Now we have seen Mark’s presentation of the family and the disciples of Jesus, we will now focus on a theme which is fundamental for the defence of the Paulinism of the Gospel of Mark: the understanding that the Marcan Jesus has of the Law. In this sense, we will analyse different texts of Mark in which Jesus transgresses, corrects or qualifies the Law, starting with the beginning of the Gospel, 1.21–45, where a programmatic presentation is made of the breaking-off that Jesus’ teaching implies with respect to the Jewish Law. Next, we will focus on pericope 2.1–3.6, in which a series of five controversies of Jesus with the scribes and Pharisees accumulate. Later, we will turn to 7.1–23 to deepen the concept of purity that the evangelist places in the mouth of Jesus and we will finish with different texts that corroborate and confirm what has been previously shown about the Law in Mark and Paul. 3.3.1. From Capernaum to Galilee: Mark 1.21–45 In the previous pericope Jesus called four disciples (1.16–20) to follow him and to witness what will happen in this first battle with the forces of evil. As D. Dideberg and P. Mourlon-Beernaet114 point out, this pericope has a concentric structure that can be divided into two stages: on the one hand, the stay in Capernaum (1.21–34) and, on the other, the mission to Galilee (1.35– 45). In these two stages the disciples act as intermediaries (1.29–31, 35–38). This structure clearly indicates the intention of the evangelist, although traditionally this pericope has been divided into five scenes for most of scholars.115 113

WHITAKER, “Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”,

682.

114

D. DIDEBERG – MOURLON-BEERNAERT P., “‘Jésus vint en Galilée’: Essai sur la structure de Marc 1,21–45”, NRT 98 (1976) 306–323. 115 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 186–190. The text we are now discussing has traditionally been divided into five scenes: 1.21–28, Jesus teaches in Capernaum and heals a man possessed by an evil spirit; 1.29–31, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; 1.32–34, numerous

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

81

Moreover, there is no other pericope equivalent in either Luke’s or Matthew’s Gospel. Thus, if we compare this narrative set with Luke, we see that Capernaum is not presented as a prototype of the mission to Galilee (Luke 4.14, 31, 44; Mark 1.39) and that it is not clear that the leper’s healing takes place there either (Luke 5.12). Likewise, Matthew does not give the same meaning or significance to the word Capernaum as Mark and the few elements from this Marcan pericope that appear in his Gospel are scattered. In the two stages (1.21–34 and 1.35–45), there are different parallels to be noted: the exorcism of a man with an unclean spirit in the synagogue of Capernaum (1.21–27) and the purification of the leper in Galilee (1.40–45) in a profane place;116 the intervention of Simon and his companions in the house of Capernaum (1.29–31) and outside the city in the desert (1.35–38); the fame of Jesus spreads from Capernaum to the surrounding region and becomes a prelude to his activity in Galilee (1.28, 39). This passage begins with a presentation of the facts (1.21–22), the confrontation between Jesus and the demons (1.23–26) and the praise of the crowd for Jesus (1.27–28).117 The first and third parts focus on the reaction of the crowd to Jesus, while the second part highlights the struggle between the two supernatural antagonists. The theme of the first section is the teaching of Jesus that of the second is his power; the third section links the two themes, causing the crowd to praise Jesus for both the teaching and the exorcisms. First, Mark places the reader in time and space: Saturday and Capernaum and he even points out the concrete place where the action takes place: the synagogue, so that we can have an accurate picture of what will happen. Therefore, we are in the region of Galilee, the country of Jesus; it is the Sabbath, the day of rest and dedication to the study of the Word of God and in a synagogue, a place of prayer and Jewish teaching. All this information is not accidental but seems to have been meditated on and elaborated with a single purpose on the part of Mark: to make it clear to the reader that Jesus is in a Jewish environment. In fact, the Greek text shows, with the use of the healings; 1.35–39, Jesus leaves Capernaum in secret and goes through all Galilee and 1.40–45, the healing of a leper. The structure of the passage is presented in a very similar way in GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 76–94. 116 It is significant that the first time that Mark presents Jesus, he does so, precisely, touching an unclean person in the synagogue, a Jewish gathering place and a fact that is reprehensible by Jewish cultural norms regarding the need to remain clean. Mark anticipates the concept of purity, which we will discuss later in this chapter. In the Gospel he presents a Jesus who abolishes the cultural laws of purity, because man must always be first over the Law. The purification of the leper of Galilee anticipates the fact that Jesus heals in unholy places, in this case in Peter's house, and prepares the openness to the pagan world, because the Temple is no longer a place of worship and, therefore, of healing, and consequently it is no longer the only place where God manifests Himself. 117 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 186–195.

82

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

demonstrative with possessive value – αὐτῶν –, that the evangelist tries to oppose the action of Jesus with that of the Jews, because he speaks of ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν (their synagogue), against what the teaching of Jesus entails and, above all, will entail.118 Next, we are in the house of Simon (1.29–31), where Jesus heals his mother-in-law at the request of the disciples. The space has moved to a private and concrete place where Jesus also cures an illness. The transition from their synagogue – theirs – into Peter’s house is significant from the ecclesiological point of view, since it establishes the Church as a community and notes that the cell of the Christian communities is the domestic community.119 In this sense, it coincides with the domestic image that Paul sets out in his letters (Rom 16.5, 10–11; 1Cor 16.19) and, hence, links the two writings together. For Mark’s readers, these passages binding the house and the sacred space together legitimise this new action in the Church’s time, because Jesus had already acted and manifested his power in private houses during his public ministry (2.1–2, 15; 3.20). In 1.32–34 we can see that the people congregate at the door of the house, and not at the synagogue, and Jesus does all this on a Sunday, as the Marcan description shows, which places us in the evening time “that evening, at sundown” (v. 32a), because he wants to point out that it has moved from the synagogue to the house, and from Saturday to Sunday. The divine power of Jesus and his authority is compared and contrasted with that of the scribes, the teachers of the Law, who will be his opponents from now until the end of the Gospel. The scribes took care to watch over the traditional interpretation of the Law and the novelty of Jesus’ teaching clashed with their understanding of it. The crowd admires and listens to Jesus. The evangelist Mark explains that what he was teaching and how he was doing it aroused expectation among his listeners. Mark writes verses 1.22, 27–28120 to clearly mark the opposition between Jesus and the scribes. Jesus 118

FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 91. ARANDA, La casa, espacio de memoria e identidad en el evangelio según Marcos, 342; Elizabeth S. MALBON, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark (The Biblical Seminar 13), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1991, pp. 117–120.131–136. 120 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 190–191. Marcus offers arguments based on the vocabulary and the characters and qualifies by saying: “Verse 1.22 is probably also editorial; it is extravagant to have two reactions of astonishment in one passage, and both Jesus’ teaching and the opposition between him and the scribes are frequent Markan themes. Much of the vocabulary of 1.22 moreover is distinctively Markan (...). Similarly, editorial is the reference to “new teaching with authority” in 1.27, which repeats the vocabulary of 1.22 and is out of place after an exorcism. It is also likely than 1.28 expresses the typically editorial theme of the spreading of Jesus’ fame”. Likewise, GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 77, states that: “22 ist ganz redaktionell. Die Lehre Jesu ist sein besonderes Anliegen. Schwierig ist 27 zu bestimmen”. In the same vein, Gudrun GUTTENBERGER, Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium (BZNW 123), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2004, p. 103 reads: “Die Redeeinleitung ist jedoch höchstwahrscheinlich redaktionell: Die Wen119

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

83

taught with ἐξουσία, with an authority that did not come from knowledge or experience but came from God. The evangelist repeats this idea again in verse 27b, insisting on the novelty and authority of Jesus’ teaching. In the morning Jesus leaves Capernaum (1.35–38) and goes to a desert place, where he meets Simon and his companions, and from there he spreads the good news of the Kingdom and drives out demons throughout Galilee (v. 39).121 dung ist ausserhalb des Markusevangeliums sehr selten (Mark 1,27). And also Thomas HIEKE, Q 6:20–21: The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning, Leuven: Peeters Publishers 2001, p. 47 when he says: “dass die Wendung redaktionell ist Mark 1,22”. In short, a language proper to the evangelist Mark that leads us to affirm that these verses are editorial additions of Mark himself. 121 In the Gospel of Mark, the word ‘Galilee’ has a special meaning. It is the land from which Jesus came (1.9), the homeland of the Gospel (1.14, 39) and where the fame of Jesus spread rapidly (1.28). Near the lake of Galilee Jesus calls his first disciples (1.16). A large crowd from Galilee follows him (3.7). Then Jesus makes the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem to suffer (7.31; 9.30; 15.41). The risen one precedes the disciples to Galilee and will meet them again (14.28; 16.7). Since all of these verses quoted are editorial, as it is stated by Joachim GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 69–71, many scholars have wondered if the term Galilee does not hide a theological intention in itself. There are several answers to this question. According to T. Alec BURKILL, Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark’s Gospel, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1963, pp. 256–257, Mark presents Galilee and Jerusalem in radical opposition, for the despised Galilee is presented as the one chosen by God, the seat of the Gospel and the revelation of the Son of Man, while the holy city of Jerusalem, the house of Jewish piety and patriotism, becomes the centre of hostility and continual sin. Galilee is the sphere of revelation in front of Jerusalem that is only a scene of rejection. Along this same lines is positioned MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 205; Elizabeth S. MALBON, Narrative space and mythic meaning in Mark, 44–46; Francis J. MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 11–15, and SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 56–57. For Xabier PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 131–134, Galilee sets the essential geographical and theological direction of the Gospel. Mark assumed and surpassed, from a theology similar to that of Paul, the function of Jerusalem, thus enabling us to understand the meaning of Galilee, which will be evident in 16.7 where the evangelist points again to Galilee as a kerygmatic place that defines the beginning of the Markan church. For Pikaza, a conception we share, in the Gospel of Mark Galilee is not an imaginary landscape but a concrete land, where women are expected to arrive, with the disciples and Peter, to “see” Jesus and restart the Gospel. Galilee becomes a symbol, which does not prevent it from also being understood as a historical place. Therefore, if you want to understand what Galilee means in Mark’s Gospel, you have to bear in mind that Jesus makes the way from Galilee to Jerusalem and that after the resurrection the disciples are told that they have to make the opposite way to the one made by their master. In Galilee, where Jesus taught the most, they must truly understand him. As stated by GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 69–71, the line that starts from Jerusalem can be understood as an indication to reach the Gentiles, as the evangelist himself says in 13.10. In tune with Gnilka, Werner H. KELBER, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1974, pp. 130–134 states that, in juxtaposing Galilee and Jerusalem, Mark wants

84

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Immediately after the action of v. 39, Mark places the healing of the leper by Jesus (1.40–45), because in this way he manages to put the scribes on the side of the demoniacs and the authority of Jesus dazzles in a more overwhelming way. The evangelist writes it in a provocative way – perhaps in the style of Paul – because Jesus heals a leper and simply touches him to heal him, so he does not only use words when he heals. Moreover, the healed does not observe the Law, because he does not appear before the priests as Jesus had commanded him but spreads the news everywhere. This episode of the leper anticipates the healing of the haemorrhaging woman who will dare to touch Jesus, even though she is a woman. It should be noted that this will be the first time that faith is more important than keeping the Law. The conclusion of each of the stages reveals that the name of Jesus was known throughout Galilee (1.28–45), something that corroborates the eschatological tone of the scenes and which is a characteristic of God’s anticipated action at the end of the times. Therefore, Mark uses this pericope as an expression of the beginning of Jesus’ public activity, an activity that will involve confrontation with a part of Israel and which will also become a powerful demonstration of his doctrine of the Kingdom. With his attitude, the Jesus of the Gospel of Mark relegates the scribes to the shadows, presenting them as opponents of Jesus, and at the same time underlines the exorcisms that reveal who Jesus is.122 All the above cannot be considered coincidental. It is no mere coincidence to pass from their synagogue on the Sabbath, where Jesus heals a man with an unclean spirit without keeping the Law, to Peter’s house on Sunday – right in the middle of the chiasmus – to open up to Galilee with the leper’s final healing. It is no mere coincidence that the sacred space passes from the Jerusalem of the teachers of the Law to the Galilee of Jesus of Nazareth, nor that one passes from the Sabbath afternoon in the synagogue of Capernaum to Sunday morning in all of Galilee. In other words, it cannot be by chance that the summary of Jesus’ healing activity is presented precisely on Sunday and in Peter’s house. Finally, the announcement made in vv. 21–28 is confirmed in the following chapter and at the beginning of chapter 3. Although Jesus had managed to cast out demons and spread the good news through exorcisms and healings, the demons will attack Jesus again because they know he has been sent by

Galilee to represent his community, which understands the way of the cross and communicates the Gospel to the Gentiles, in front of Jerusalem, which represents the church associated with Peter, the Twelve and the family of Jesus, which is opposed to the Gentile mission and maintains that we must have an authentically Jewish way of life (Shabbat, laws of purity). Therefore, Galilee is presented in a positive way, while Jerusalem is presented in a negative way. For more information on this topic see COLLINS, Mark, 658–667. 122 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 82.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

85

God to destroy them. This attack is presented by the evangelist with a set of discussions between Jesus and the Pharisees, who embody evil in themselves. 3.3.2. The authority of Jesus before the Law: Mark 2.1–3.6 In the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is continually presented in conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. The narrator contrasts the authoritative teaching of Jesus with that of the scribes, who, despite being experts in the Law, are lacking in authority.123 This attack is divided into five small concentric units124 in which Jesus discusses with the scribes and Pharisees questions concerning the practice of the Law. Jesus’ opponents question the way in which he carries out his ministry (2.7, 16, 18 and 24) and in each passage Jesus answers the question he is asked in a forceful way. At both ends the evangelist places a miracle125 that reinforces Jesus’ response, and in the others, Jesus simply speaks. Jesus’ response is always in the central part of the passage (2.10, 17, 19–20, 27–28; 3.4). Of these five units, the first two are concerned with sin (2.1–12, 13–17), the last two on the Sabbath (2.23–28; 3.1–6) and the three central units deal with food (2.13–17, 18–22, 23–28). In fact, as J. Dewey126 argues, the central passage (2.18–22) unifies the entire section, since the incompatibility between the old and the new is the crux of Jesus’ words. a) Jesus forgives sins and heals the paralytic man in a home: Mark 2.1–12 The forgiveness of sins communicated to the people through the ministry of the high priest was linked to worship and sacrifice. Moreover, blasphemy should be punished by the death penalty (Num 15.30 and Lev 24.11–16). 123 124

COLLINS, Mark, 181–182. FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 104; FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 128–

129.

125

The miracles in the Gospel of Mark are always symbolic as we read in Xavier ALEMemoria subversiva, 110–114. Mark's miracles are not of historical or biographical interest but of Christological interest, because they are testimonies of faith at the service of the mission. For this reason, the evangelist places them in strategic places to express something more than what the miracle itself says. In this case, Mark consciously places two miracles of paralysis – the paralytic and the man with the paralysed hand – at the beginning and at the end of the pericope. By these two miracles of paralysis Mark means that Jesus is capable of overcoming evil. Conversely, the Law is not able to overcome it because it only paralyses. Furthermore, as GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 224–226, says, miracles for Mark are a part of the revelation of God that He accomplished in Jesus. Now, we must bear in mind that for Mark the way of Jesus passes through the cross, because only from the cross can Jesus be fully known, and therefore miracles cannot be understood except before the cross. 126 Joanna DEWEY, “Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience”, CBQ 53 (1991) 221–236. GRE,

86

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Therefore, the most severe reproach of all controversies is that found in the first unit127 (v. 7). The healing again takes place inside a house (2.1), as in the previous pericope.128 The miracle of healing becomes an argument for the powerful word on the forgiveness of sins.129 The paralytic marches free from sickness and sin; healing, however, is carried out to reveal the power of the Son of Man. However, this dazzling revelation, which is true, must be fixed on the cross, so Mark ends the pericope 2.1–3.6 with the Pharisees and Herodians planning how to kill Jesus. The progression of 2.1–12, from the “word” of Jesus in 2.2 to the “faith” in him in 2.5, is reminiscent of the language of Romans 10.17, for the faith of the friends of the paralytic is what made healing possible. They are those who brought him before Jesus, as in Galatians 6.2, when Paul relates the Christian practice of intercession to “bear one another’s burdens”.130 It should also be stressed that it is not a priest who announces the word in this pericope, but Jesus, who was not a priest, and that the action takes place in a house (2.1b2a), as happens in the Pauline communities, and not in the Temple of Jerusalem, because what Mark tells us is that it is no longer the Temple that gives access to God, but faith (11.22–23).131 In short, it is significant that the first controversy of the series (2.1–12) has a markedly Christological tone, 132 because it does not merely question the action of Jesus, but also raises the question of his identity (2.7b: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”). The two questions cannot be separated and, therefore, once it is stated that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins, the Jesus of Mark demonstrates this in the next episode by eating with sinners. b) Jesus sits with publicans and sinners: Mark 2.13–17 The episode is divided into two parts.133 First, Mark presents Jesus outside the house of Capernaum walking by the lake of Galilee and surrounded by a crowd who want to hear him. Jesus’ gaze turns to Levi, who abandons his profession as a tax collector and follows Jesus. It is a call in the style of those he had made with his disciples before (1.16–20). However, Levi is a publi127

Heinz-Wolfgang KUHN, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (StUNT 8), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1971, pp. 91–94. 128 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 108. 129 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 101–102; Michael TAIT, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18–22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded (AnBib 185), Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press 2010, p. 94. 130 H. J. KLAUCK, “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mark 2,1–12 parr.)”, BZ 25 (1981) 223–248. 131 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 166. 132 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 110. 133 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 232–233.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

87

can, an unscrupulous man, dishonest and considered unclean by the scribes and Pharisees. In the second part, Jesus sits at the table with him and with his fellow sinners also. This fact provokes the scribes’ question about this choice of the diners, because eating with tax collectors and sinners, who were unclean people, implied that those who ate with them also became so.134 Therefore, instead of avoiding contagion to maintain ritual purity, Jesus causes impurity, since he eats with people of very bad reputation which breaks the rules of the Law. The attitude of Jesus in all controversies is provocative, since his words or actions provoke, that is, they trigger an accusation and, consequently, a defence that always ends with a verdict of Jesus himself in favour of what he has done or said.135 In this unit, Mark presents a problem raised within his community about whether it was possible to share the same table with former Jews and former Gentiles. 136 This situation reminds us of what Paul says in Galatians 2.12 about sitting down to eat with uncircumcised people,137 which also refers, as Kuhn138 says, to his comment in Romans 14.1–6 on sharing the same table with pagans. Jesus responds to the censorship of the Pharisees with a saying: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous, but sinners” (2.17b). In this new situation posed by Jesus, what is contagious is no longer the impurity but the sanctity of Jesus himself.139 Jesus is not unclean through contact with publicans and sinners, but on the contrary, he overcomes and destroys uncleanness through his power, which is a mockery of the Pharisaic claim to righteousness. c) The disciples do not fast: Mark 2.18–22 As we have seen, Jesus has just defended his mission as consisting precisely in sitting down with publicans and sinners, and then he defends the reason why his disciples do not fast. This episode is strategically placed at the centre of the entire controversy section to highlight the incompatibility between the novelty of Jesus’ eschatological ministry and a way of acting that belongs to the past. Mark speaks of the bridegroom, as Hosea does in 2.4, 18, because he identifies Jesus with a 134

James Douglas Grant DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1990, pp. 17–19. 135 Yoon-Man PARK, Mark’s Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1–3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan OralAural Narrative (LBS 2), Leiden – Boston: Brill 2010, pp. 209–210. 136 TAIT, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, 99–100. 137 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 106. 138 KUHN, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium, 58–61.91–95.98.232–234. 139 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 231.

88

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

title proper to God in the Old Testament and because he wants to make an allusion to the cross (2.20), by identifying Jesus with the one who dies and “is taken away from them”. After the question of v. 18, the passage is divided into two parts:140 on the one hand, the parable of fasting at the time of the wedding in 2.19–20 and, on the other, the two parables on the subject of the old and the new in 2.21–22. Through the image of the wedding, Jesus justifies the behaviour of his disciples141 and expresses the conviction that the messianic age has arrived and that, consequently, penance practices are no longer necessary. The set of allegorical images was already known to Paul when he spoke to the Galatians, Corinthians or Romans of Christ as the bridegroom and of the community as the wife or bride (1Cor 6.15–20; 2Cor 11.2 and Rom 7.4).142 In fact, it is common in the Old Testament to find the image of the wedding, especially in the prophets, to indicate God’s relationship with Israel (Hos 2; Ezek 16; Jer 2.2; Isa 54.7).143 Moreover, Jesus’ confident and firm tone suggests that it is not just about his disciples, but that he himself behaves in a similar way when it comes to fasting.144 The two parables that follow are about the consequences of trying to mix the old with the new – whether it is fixing a patch of clothing or putting the wine in wineskins to store it – and are proof of the tension that the new eschatological interpretation of Jesus brought.145 It is in these two central verses of the pericopes on the controversies between Jesus and the scribes (2.1–3.6) that the evangelist concentrates the message on the Law and Jesus in order to present his new doctrine. We must read the whole pericope of vv. 21–22 to understand the novelty of the Gospel message. Consequently, this divine authority of Jesus immediately produces the reaction of his opponents: the old order will sooner or later put an end to the life of Jesus, because he has dared to disturb, with his new teaching, what was established, wounding the bowels of Judaism. The behaviour of Jesus and his disciples goes beyond the breaking of some established rules, because Jesus frees his disciples from formalistic constraints, which confirms the phrase added at the end: “but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins”. In the following section, Mark’s Jesus will address another important issue on the Law.

140

Ibid., 263. Gerard MUSSIES, “Rabbinischer Index. Verzeichnis der Schriftgelehrten. Geographisches Register”, in M. J. VERMASEREN (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religions, Leiden – Boston: Brill 1979, pp. 189–214. 142 COLLINS, Mark, 199; TAIT, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, 228–238. 143 TAIT, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, 135–200. 144 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 114. 145 DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 20–21. 141

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

89

d) Plucking some heads of grain on the Sabbath: Mark 2.23–28 In this section, the disciples are accused not only of breaking some of the traditions of the Pharisees linked to food, but also of something much more serious: violating one of the fundamental precepts of the written Law according to which it is forbidden to work on the Sabbath (Exod 20.10). The passage is divided into three parts.146 First, Mark describes the disciples’ action of plucking ears of grain to eat – and he does not justify it, as the evangelist Matthew in 12.1, by stating that they are hungry. This is followed by the objection of the Pharisees (Mark 2.23–24) and the first answer of Jesus based on 1Samuel 21.2–7 (Mark 2.25–26),147 and finally, the pericope ends with the second answer of Jesus, based on the original purpose of the Sabbath (Mark 2.27–28). This section is marked by a deliberate irony when the disciples of Jesus, accused by the Pharisees of violating a biblical law, are presented with a formula from the Old Testament, καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν, which is expanded by Jesus’ response appealing to a biblical precedent in 2.25–26. Intelligently, Jesus displaces the Law with the Law.148 Although the example he chooses about David and the consecrated bread cannot be considered entirely appropriate for the action of Jesus’ disciples,149 it is interesting to note their intentional use. The Pharisees regard the Sabbath as the sign and foundation of Israel’s choice. Therefore, the absolute and unquestionable validity of the Torah on the Sabbath is being discussed. The Jesus of Mark abolishes the Sabbath and prepares for what will happen later in the Pauline communities, since the day of worship will be Sunday and not the Sabbath.150 Man should not be a Sabbath slave, Jesus says, aware that Judaism was very legalistic at that time. That is why Jesus dismisses the Sabbath as a possible way of salvation; now the only possible way for man to be saved is faith in Jesus. The validity of human actions depends on the Son of Man; consequently, as happened in 2.10, Jesus appears to be invested with an authority that is proper to God.

146

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 243–244. The evangelist confuses Ajimelech with Abiathar, thus in 1Sam 21.2: «%l, m , ø y xi a ] dr: ’ x / Y < w : !hE + K o h ; %l, m , Þ y xi a ] - la, hb, n O ë ‘dwI d ’ abo Ü Y ’ w : % T’ ) a i !yae î vyai Þ w > ^D< ê b ; l . ‘hT' a ; [: W DÜ m ; ‘Al rm, a YO Ý w : dwI © D ’ tar: ä q . l i ” , », while in Mark 2.26: “πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν;” Cf. Ibid., 241–242. 148 FENTON, “Paul and Mark”, 94–96. 149 For a more detailed explanation of the meaning of the citation, see MARCUS, Mk 1– 8, pp. 244–245. 150 TAIT, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, 107. 147

90

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

The evangelist Matthew does not narrate the episode with the radicalism of Mark, because the Jesus he presents does not abolish the Sabbath but establishes a new relationship between man and the Sabbath, clarifying how it should be observed (Matt 12.1–8).151 Mark, on the other hand, tries to accentuate the conflict around the ἐξουσία of Jesus; therefore, in the next and last section, the one who breaks the precept of the Sabbath is Jesus himself, as he sets himself up as Lord of the Sabbath with the Christological title “the Son of Man”152 in Mark 2.28: “So the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath”. e) A man healed on the Sabbath: Mark 3.1–6 The theme of this last pericope, as we have already said, is the fulfilment of the precepts of the Sabbath, but the evangelist goes even further as he presents Jesus as the one who transgresses the Law. The passage is divided into three parts and is presented in a concentric way, with, at the centre, the question of the Sabbath raised by two antitheses (3.4).153 The first part (3.1–2) describes the entering of Jesus into a synagogue, where he meets his adversaries who observe him attentively, and a sick man. This Marcan description reminds us of the description in the first section (1.21–39), although in this case the acclaim of the crowd is deliberately lacking, since the situation is much more tense and difficult for Jesus. Just as the Sabbath defines a time in time, the synagogue defines a space in space,154 because both are a privileged time and a privileged place for relationship with God in respect to Jewish practices and their fulfilment. Consequently, the action of Jesus is surrounded by highly symbolic elements, so that his action can institute a new understanding of the Sabbath and, therefore, of a relationship with God. In the second part (3.3–4), Jesus confronts the Pharisees, makes the man with the shrivelled hand stand in the centre of the scene and asks them if it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. In the third part (3.5–6), Jesus challenges the Pharisees by healing the man and they respond by going out and beginning to devise the plot to kill him.155 On the contrary, the evangelist Matthew is less radical with regard to particular laws, because he replaces the statement of Jesus with a more rabbinical argument (Matt 12.11–12), that is, instead of an open principle he cites a concrete case – a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath – and argues in the rabbinical style a minore ad maius.

151

DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 22. Jan DOCHHORN, “Man and the Son of Man in Mark 2:27–28”, 147–168. 153 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 251; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 200. 154 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 199. 155 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 133–134. 152

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

91

Jesus heals on the Sabbath: Jesus works a miracle. However, for the Pharisees this fact is not proof of his divine sonship because, as a result of the hardness of their hearts they are not able to see what is truly new. In their pride they feel hurt and humiliated and they can only find one solution: to kill Jesus and, consequently, to exclude themselves from the presence of God.156 In retrospect, Jesus’ challenge in 3.4 is not seen as a question about abstract principles, but as a clairvoyant expression of the evil of the Pharisees. The root of the perversion is confirmed by comparing 3.6 to 1.24. The final verse of the Marcan pericope157 evokes what Paul says in Romans 2.16 about what will happen to all those who do not recognise God and oppose Jesus’ acts of power and mercy – to the point of wanting to kill him in the Gospel of Mark. Attentive readers know that the Pharisees act as instruments of the devil, as anticipated in 1.21–28. Moreover, for the first time, the cross appears explicitly in the Gospel. The Sabbath violation will lead Jesus to the cross, as Paul writes in the Epistle to Galatians 6.12–14. 3.3.3. First conclusions The series of five controversies that had begun in 2.1 ends in 3.6 and places before the reader a serious conflict between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. Mark reveals that the Son of Man meets with misunderstanding and ends up provoking in his adversaries the will to condemn him to death. It must be kept in mind that although the miracle is for Mark the legitimation of revelation, it must always be seen in connection with the death of Jesus, which has been caused precisely by his powerful action. In the tradition that comes to us through Mark, Jesus’ attitude toward the Law coincides, to a great extent, with that of Paul.158 The main difference is that in Paul’s time the question was whether or not Gentile Christians had to be circumcised – the basic hallmark of the Covenant – and this aspect does not appear in Mark. Openness to pagans becomes conflictive when the Christian Church realises that pagans can be fully-fledged members of God’s people. That is when the problem of circumcision comes up. Hence, Mark cannot put on Jesus’ lips the fact of being circumcised or not as a problem, because it would be an anachronism. Circumcision was not a problem during Jesus’ earthly ministry – in fact, no Gospel speaks of it – but it was a later problem, about which Paul wrote extensively in Romans 2.25–29; 3.1; 4.10–12 and also in 1Corinthians 7.19 or Galatians 2.12. Nevertheless, the fundamental question was the same, obedience to the Law as the primary hallmark of 156

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 126–128. DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 23–24. 158 Ibid., 27–29. 157

92

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

God’s people. On this point, both Mark’s and Paul’s Jesus give the same answer: no, the main hallmark of those who want to be faithful to the Gospel is not the Law, but faith and love. Paul, and in the same way the Jesus of Mark, do not criticise in the Judaizers the cooperation of the action of God and of men in the attainment of salvation, but the human failure to try to achieve by their own works, and apart from the previous gratuitous action of Jesus, the justification by faith – of which Paul speaks –, which is the only one that makes salvation possible.159 The conceptual framework opposed by Paul is firmly rooted in the Scriptures because Israel is the chosen nation, the promise of the covenant given to the descendants of Jacob, the forgiveness and atonement given to God’s people through the Law of Moses. However, to be a beneficiary of God’s righteousness, one must be a member of the covenant people. That is, above all, to bear the mark of circumcision, on which the terms of the covenant with Abraham leave no room for dispute (Gen 17.9–14). Nevertheless, to be a member of the chosen people also means to observe the Law throughout one’s life, a set of rules among which stand out those regulations that characterise and mark the Jews distinctly as the only people of God – the laws relating to food and the Sabbath – and that occupy a pre-eminent place in both Jewish self-awareness and the Greco-Roman perception of the Jews as a people.160 As we have already said, the problem is not only “the rules of the Law that separate Israel from other peoples”, but also the fact of wanting to obey the whole Law (Gal 3.10, quoting Deut 27.26; cf. also Gal 5.3), since Paul insists that if someone is circumcised he must obey the whole Law, because this implies considering the Law as the way of salvation. However, it is not possible that any man can do it by himself (Rom 7). Romans 1.18–3.20 will formulate as a fundamental principle revealed even in the Old Testament (Rom 3.9–20) that all human beings, both pagan and Jewish, are, apart from Christ, incapable of fulfilling the Law because of their sin. Moreover, a Law that only affects the external aspects of man cannot be absolutely fulfilled according to Paul – as Mark 2.27 also states – without a discernment coming from the Spirit, since where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is also freedom from the merely external Law.161 In this sense, the evangelist Mark presents a Jesus who questions the selfunderstanding of the faith of his own people in these episodes that are pre159

Xavier ALEGRE, “El Nou paradigma en la interpretació de Pau. Una anàlisi crítica”, RCatT 41 (2016) 59–94. 160 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 32–36. 161 ALEGRE, “El Nou paradigma en la interpretació de Pau. Una anàlisi crítica”, 12; Xavier ALEGRE, Carta a los romanos, (Guía de Lectura del Nuevo Testamento 6), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2012, pp. 207–226.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

93

served as a single unit (Mark 2.1–3.6). Jesus’ freedom of action is that of which Paul speaks in Galatians 2.4; 5.1, 13; Romans 8.19–21 and 1Corinthians 9.1–2. Christ has come to free man from the tyranny of the Law (Rom 3.20; 4.13; 6.14; Gal 1.4–5 etc.). Therefore, the issues that trigger the Marcan Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisaic Halachah are no different from those faced by Paul. It should be noted that Paul’s rejection of the proselytising model is rooted in a fundamental distinction between the time of the Law and the time of the Messiah.162 By entering the realm of Jesus Christ, believers have died to the Law and are released from its power (Gal 2.19; 5.18; Rom 7.6). The Law was only a temporarily valid model that united God’s proposals about Israel under the promise made to Abraham and that ended with the revelation of the Messiah. At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind another element in this discourse, the cross, in order to fully understand what Paul and Mark affirm. Mark depicts a Jesus confronted with the Law, who like Paul completely invalidates it as a way of salvation. Both the apostle and the evangelist are grounded on the cross of Christ which renews the Covenant (1Cor 11.23–26) and bestows on humanity the salvation that comes from Christ. That is why, without Jesus, no one can be saved. This fact means that the Law, despite being good and holy (Rom 7.7, 12) and indicating to man what God expects him to do, can never give him the strength he needs to be fully obeyed. Therefore, it cannot be the way of salvation. Forgetting it entails fostering man’s pride and not letting God be the God of grace, as Jesus reveals Him on the cross. By having the Law as the way of salvation man would claim to be obedient to God and ultimately gain his favour by his own works. As for the fact of sharing the table with those who were considered unclean in Mark 2.13–17, he recalls Paul’s reflection on Cephas’ action in Galatians 2.11–18 and expresses the same idea of acceptance and welcoming of sinners. The criticism of the legalism of the Law taken to the extreme, proper to the teachers of the Law of 2.23–28 and 3.1–6, has a parallel in Paul in Galatians 4.8–11 and Romans 14.5–6, where the question of the observance of the festivities is discussed. For Paul and Mark, the Law must be reread from Jesus and is totally relativised according to Romans 13.8–10 and Mark 12.28–31. Likewise, and exclusively in the New Testament, only Paul and Mark speak of the hardening of heart163 of a part of Israel or of the scribes and Pharisees at the words of Jesus (Rom 11.25; Mark 3.5). The Jesus of Mark creates a universal principle based on a concrete fact, “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch 162 163

BIRD, Mark, 48–52. LOADER, “The Concept of Faith in Paul and Mark”, 451–454.

94

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made” (Mark 2.21). The radical nature of the evangelist is evident in the fact that the Law is not presented as the way to salvation, but rather that the way to salvation is Jesus, in the style of what Paul affirms in Romans 3.28; 10.4; in 1Corinthians 9.21 or in Galatians 2.16. The Christian groups who preserved this account (Mark 2.21) indicated that they wanted to follow Jesus by living more in accordance with this principle than with the multiple terms of the Halachah. Thus, Mark preserves the tradition in the way in which the story would have been told in the Hellenistic churches founded by Paul, more than the other evangelists such as Matthew do. We can go a little further and say that it is a unity that probably reflects a stage of maturity towards which Paul’s interpretation of tradition tends. Had the Law lost its importance?164 According to Paul and the Jesus of Mark, it had completely lost importance, because man – who lives trapped in sin – cannot, of his own will, fulfil the whole of the Law, even if he intends to do so. For this reason, God, who so dearly loves humanity, has presented a new way that justifies the sinner, first to the Jews and then to the pagans, and sent his only Son into the world so that by dying on the cross and rising again (1Cor 15.3–5) he might offer the true way of salvation: faith. This way presupposes the humility necessary to assume and accept it, because it will no longer be the good works that each one does, but the pure grace of God in justification – in Pauline terminology –, which will make the salvation of men possible. The Law will remain holy (Rom 7.12) and will help the sinner to know where he is (Rom 3.19–20), that is, to discover that he cannot be saved on his own, and to realise that only the free and loving action of Christ, through faith, can be the way of salvation.165 So, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3.4). The Christian mission will leave behind this delimitation of boundaries (Rom 14.5, 17; Gal 2.12; 5.3–4). Paul affirms that the commitment of the Christian life is no longer derived from the Law but from the faith that is translated into love.166 Or said in the language of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, the Spirit moves to sanctification, instructs about the will of God and creates the willingness to do it (1Thess 4.8–12; Gal 2.1ff). 164 Johan Christiaan BECKER, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1980, pp. 131–136. 165 ALEGRE, “El Nou paradigma en la interpretació de Pau. Una anàlisi crítica”, 63. 166 In Rom 13.8–10 Paul makes it clear that love is the determining criterion. It is no longer just about ritual laws, but above all about ethical issues. Therefore, the Law must be reread from the perspective of love of neighbour, which must be the new paradigm for the life of the Christian, in the same line Gal 5.6 and 1Thess 1.3.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

95

Therefore, Paul suggests that the Jewish Law is not necessary, because the Spirit within urges us to do well. This is what the Jesus of Mark says when he states “new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mark 2.22b), because Jesus’ message is different and new. In this sense, Paul cannot refer only to the cultural laws that separated Jews and pagans. The change he proposes, and that Mark follows, is much more radical. Salvation cannot be based on the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law but must be based only on faith in Christ. Consequently, our good deeds are not the fruit of our capacity or will but are made possible by God himself (Phl 2.13). At the same time, Paul makes the old pagans understand how the new faith implies a new life and, therefore, religion and moral life are intimately linked, as Jesus shows when he eats with sinners (Mark 2.15). It is never a question of the formal fulfilment of duties, but of the unity between the acts and the person. Christian conduct is a matter of man’s responsibility before God, a responsibility that demands full and free surrender to God’s will. Therefore, Paul presents the Old Testament as the sacred authority for ethical conduct, but at the same time he says that the Law cannot be fulfilled by human will alone, but that the help of the Spirit is necessary to carry it out (Rom 8.1–4), in the manner spoken of by Jeremiah in 31.33–34: 33

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

The Torah is still sacred, but it cannot be read outside Christ (Rom 10.4), because Christ is the τέλος,167 that is to say, Christ is where the Law tends. The Gospel leads to fullness and at the same time is the end of the Law understood as the way of salvation, because the way now and forever is and will be the Christ.168 The purpose and result of man trying to fulfil the Law is negative – as Jesus asserts in the Gospel of Mark and Paul does in his letters –, because man then seeks his own righteousness and does not submit to God’s righteousness 167

Some scholars such as Ulrich WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 6–11, (EKK 6/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 4, 1980, pp. 222–223, affirm that Christ put an end to a perverse observance of the Law, to human desire that cares about its own image, its own merits; Rudolf BULTMANN, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 260–270 says that Christ would be the end of the Law in the sense that it would be the end of the efforts of godly man to justify himself before God through the works of the Law, not realising that the external Law is not the way of salvation. However, we argue that Christ was not the end of the Law, but the goal – a meaning that the Greek word τέλος also admits – in the sense that Christ is the goal toward which the Law points. Mark is affirming, according to our interpretation, that Christ is both the end and the goal of the Law. 168 ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 276–277.

96

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

(Rom 10.3). The Judaizers of Paul and Mark’s time did not understand that Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but sinners (Mark 2.17). Therefore, paradoxically, pagans who did not seek the righteousness of God now find it through having opened themselves to God’s free love, to the faith revealed to them by Christ. On the other hand, the Jews who boasted of seeking it with their works and not by grace have not found it, as Luke 18.9–14 – a third generation follower of Paul – narrates, when he presents the tax collector and the Pharisee as paradigmatic models of those who have understood, and those who have not. The true way of salvation is faith in Jesus and love. Now, we must bear in mind that Jesus is not a legislator who teaches the precept of love, but someone who reformulates the Law according to the principle of love of neighbour and it is precisely this idea that Mark picks up from Paul and that he embodies in the narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. We will now analyse the purity logion of chapter 7. Jesus declares all foods clean and points out that what defiles a man is not what enters into the man from outside, but what goes out from his heart. It should be noted that it is a key text for the defence of Marcan Paulinisms, and that it is intimately related to the Law. 3.3.4. The difficult question of purity a) The concept of purity in Paul and Mark’s time In Judaism, the Levitical prescriptions on purity are part of a religious practice that presupposes the distinction between clean and unclean people, animals, objects and things.169 This distinction stems from a conception which argues that man dealing with the deity must place himself in a high state and purify himself of all that could disturb the divinity and provoke its wrath. There are different types of purification: on the one hand, the preparatory ones, which propitiate the encounter with God, and on the other hand, those that have an expiatory character and restore the state lost in having had contact with something unclean. This system of purity differentiates between clean and unclean animals and takes into account all the impurities that men can get through sexual intercourse, childbirth or disease (Lev 11; 19.19–37; Deut 14.3–21), because meeting the standards of purity is a fundamental issue within Jewish ritual. At the heart of these prescriptions is the idea that Israel must be, for its God, a holy and clean people which dwells in a holy and clean country (Lev

169 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 279–280; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 474–482.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

97

20.7). 170 Impurity is something that can be removed by washing, either by spraying or by immersion. Levitical purity could become a symbol of moral purity in certain orthodox environments, and for this reason the prophets were forced to fight against the demands of Levitical purity reduced to something external, and questioned it. In the same vein, Jesus continues their critique of the laws of purity and goes even further. Mary Douglas171 asserts that the idea of purity has to do with systematised structures, classifications and judgments, which make up different social groups. It is about there being a place for every thing, and that every thing is in its place; consequently, when something is in the right place it is clean, but otherwise it transgresses the laws of the system to which it belongs and becomes unclean. As N. Calduch-Benages says, 172 at the time of Jesus, the complex code of purity was applied strictly and Jesus was expected to respect it. However, Jesus does not respect the rules concerning time, as we have seen with the Sabbath (Mark 2.23–28; 3.1–6), nor places, because he heals at home and not in the synagogue (Mark 2.1–12), nor people, because he touches lepers, bleeding women and corpses (Mark 5.25–43). Moreover, he does not comply with ablutions either, he eats with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2.15) and even declares all foods clean (Mark 7.19). b) The context of Mark 7.1–23 The passage of Mark 7.1–23 is located within the so-called section of the loaves (Mark 6.30–8.21), between the two miracles of multiplication, one in Jewish territory (6.31–44) and the other in pagan territory (8.1–9). The themes of this section, which is decisive in the educational itinerary of the disciples and about which Mark is attentively concerned, are their misunderstanding regarding “the loaves”, their hardening of heart and Jesus’ gift of working miracles for the pagans (the Syrophoenician woman in 7.24–30 and the second multiplication of the loaves in 8.1–10). The episode of 7.1–23 is the introduction to Jesus’ ministry among the Gentiles. This passage presents a stylistic feature typically Marcan, the progression of the action in three periods according to the recipients to whom

170

Camille FOCANT, “Opérer une brèche dans les règles de pureté en vue d’être sauvée. Le cas de la femme qui souffrait d’hémorragie (Mc 5,24–34)”, in Barbara BAERT – Niels SCHALLEY (eds.), The Woman with the Blood Flow (Mark 5,24–30): Narrative, Iconic and Anthropological Spaces (Art and Religion 2), Leuven: Peeters Publishers 2014, p. 42. 171 Mary DOUGLAS, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London – Boston and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1980, pp. 42–60, deals extensively with the norms and prescriptions of ritual purity in the Judaism in Jesus' time. 172 Núria CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli. Jesús es troba amb les dones (Saurí 185), Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat 2014, pp. 22–28.

98

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Jesus teaches: vv. 1–13 to the Pharisees, vv. 14–15 to the crowd and vv. 17– 23 to the disciples.173 The exordium inserts the passage into the secondary plot: the conflict with the Pharisees. This conflict began with the dramatic prologue to the disputes in chapter 2 and the decision to kill Jesus in 3.6, as we have discussed in the first part of this section. Now Mark presents Jesus abolishing the laws of purity relative to food, a real scandal for Jewish religiosity. c) The structure of Mark 7.1–23 Of all the structures proposed by scholars, we have selected three that we believe to be significant. First, we present the structure defended by Büchler174 who divides the pericope into four parts. In the first part, he places the statement of the Pharisees on the fact that some of Jesus’ disciples do not wash their hands before eating and the reproach to this behaviour, broken off by the explanation of Mark himself on the custom of washing one’s hands before eating and on the tradition of the washing of utensils (7.1–5). In the second part, Jesus repays the reproach instead of answering, and says that the Pharisees stand apart from God’s commands and are holding on to the traditions of men; furthermore, Mark quotes Isaiah 29.13 (7.6–8). In the third part, Jesus gives an example of an oath in which the observance of tradition prevails over biblical law (7.9–13). Finally, Jesus explains for the first time to the crowd, and then in more detail to his disciples, that according to the Pharisees eating without faithfully following the ritual of purity makes a man unclean, when in fact, what really makes a man unclean is what comes out of him, his evil deeds (7.14–15). Moloney175 divides the pericope into three parts. The first (7.1–5) about which he states that the passage begins abruptly and is vaguely linked to the preceding summary by means of a paratactic καὶ. Jesus is in Israel – Gennesaret – and the Pharisees and scribes come from Jerusalem. There is an atmosphere of aggression and threat in their behaviour. The conflict erupts when the Pharisees observe the activity of some of the disciples. The fact that only ‘some’ of the disciples eat in an unclean way is significant, as it indicates that others do not, and therefore there is division among the disciples. According to Moloney, there is no criticism or censorship of the practices 173

Annalisa GUIDA, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti...’ (Mc 7,19c). Marco interprete di Gesù alla luce di Paolo? Ipotesi sulla ricezione di un – presunto – dictum Iesu”, in Dario GARRIBBA – Sergio TANZARELLA (eds.), Giudei o cristiani?: quando nasce il cristianesimo? (Oi christianoi – Nuovi studi sul cristianesimo nella storia / Antichita), Trapani: Il pozzo di Giacobbe 2005, pp. 123–133. 174 Adolf BÜCHLER, “The Law of Purification in Mark 7:1–23”, ExpTim 21 (1909) 34– 40. 175 MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 136–144.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

99

themselves, the narrative is simply intended to illustrate the practices of the Pharisees and Jews before eating, including some disciples. The rest of the passage is Jesus’ response to all this. The second part (7.6–13), focuses on Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and scribes, which provokes confrontation. Jesus accuses them of hypocrisy and refers to Isaiah 29.13. The accusation is against a religiosity that turns human precepts into doctrine (7.7). In this sense, Mark reworks the final words of Jesus. Jesus attacks the traditional interpretation of the Pharisees and scribes, rather than claiming that their traditions are opposed to the Law. For Moloney, Jesus does not deny a place to tradition, but simply rejects human interpretations of a tradition that sets the letter of the Torah against its spirit. Finally, in the third part (7.14–23) Jesus confronts the Torah, asking something very profound: what is more important, the ritual of purity or moral purity. Moloney draws our attention to the fact that both moral purity and the ritual of purity are sustained by the Torah. Nevertheless, we do not fully agree with Moloney’s interpretation of Jesus’ words. If the Jesus of Mark eats with sinners (2.16–17), allows his disciples to ignore the traditional practices of fasting (2.18–22), allows his disciples to gather grain on the Sabbath day (2.23–28) and to eat without performing the ritual of purification (7.5), the principle that determines his actions regarding the different behaviours of his disciples, is that what defiles a person is the moral impurity and not the ritual impurity. Therefore, it is not simply a question of highlighting that there are disciples who follow the ritual of purity and others who do not follow it, but that Jesus goes further and with his words frees man from the bondage of the Law. We believe that the text contains sufficient evidence to show that the disciples were divided on how to act. 176 This assessment of the disciples’ attitude with regard to the novelty of Jesus’ message concerning the traditions of Israel, is subtly related to the fact that some members of the Christian communities make use of these practices again in order to feel safer. The tensions within the Marcan community, questioned by the Gentile world, will then be raised in the narrative as Jesus goes outside of Israel to feed the Gentile multitudes on the lake shore (8.1–9). The last proposed structure we present is that of Joel Marcus,177 who divides the passage into two large parts: 7.1–15 and 7.16–23. The first part is divided into four sections determined by the verbs ‘to say’ and ‘to ask’: 7.1– 5, the challenge of the Pharisees; 7.6–8, the first scriptural refutation of Jesus; 7.9–13, the second scriptural refutation of Jesus and 7.14–15, the proclamation of Jesus on purity. The second part is divided into two sections: 7.17–19, 176

GUIDA, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti...’ (Mc 7,19c)”, 123–133. MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 439–454. This same structure is also uphold by COLLINS, Mark, 342; STRAUSS, Mark, 296–297. 177

100

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

with the disciples’ question and Jesus’ answer, and 7.20–23, with Jesus’ second answer. We believe that this last structure of the pericope is very accurate, because it is based on the questions and answers of the different interlocutors and, therefore, the parallels between the different sections (ABBCA’B’B’)178 can be noticed and, at the same time, the centrality and the importance of vv. 14–15 can be visualised. d) The argument of Mark 7.1–23 Authors such as Bultmann 179 and Collins 180 argue that it is a composition received from tradition that the evangelist has reworked and to which he has added some verses. The argument181 of the dispute of 7.1–23 focuses on the ablutions not carried out by the disciples in v. 2. The Marcan digression of vv. 3–4 also deals with ablutions and unclean, unwashed hands, which is where the accusation of v. 5 lies. The dispute of Jesus with scribes and Pharisees does not have to do, at the beginning of the pericope, with the purity or impurity of food, but with a purity or impurity of contact and hence transitory. As the scene progresses, the question of the purity of food and the existence of clean and unclean food per se is addressed, while the subject of ablutions does not reappear. To the provocative question of the Pharisees, Jesus answers by firmly opposing God’s commandment against the tradition of men in vv. 8–9. The whole answer is built on this marked opposition, based on the prophecy of Isaiah 29.13. This antithesis is represented in the text by two nouns, ἐντολή and παράδοσις, commandment and tradition, which clearly indicate that while Jesus is on the side of God – ἐντολή –, the scribes and Pharisees are on the side of men – παράδοσις.182 Until this point, Jesus does not attack the Law but reiterates the importance of the Torah, but attacks the way that men want to have their word on how it should be implemented. Jesus is presented by Mark in the style of the ancient prophets, for exposing the falsehood and hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Jesus remembers the breaking of God’s commandments. Focant,183 in his commentary on the Gospel of Mark, proposes a picture on which he contrasts the points on which the Pharisees, on the one hand, and Jesus and his disciples, on the other, are based. The difference lies in the areas of purity of the one and the other. 178

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 448 offers a very clarifying summary table for the reading of the parallels structured in questions and answers. 179 Rudolf Karl BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, New York: Harper & Row 1963, p. 105. 180 COLLINS, Mark, 343. 181 GUIDA, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti...’ (Mc 7,19c)”, 123–133. 182 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 287–289. 183 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 47–48.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul PHARISEES

101

JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES

The rules of purity are 613 laws that arise around the Torah.

The rules of purity concentrate on the Ten Commandments, the heart of the Torah.

The concern about purity is centred on hand washing and washing the crockery, the outer surfaces.

The concern about purity is centred on the heart, in the interior of man.

The rules try to prevent impurity from entering.

The rules are intended to prevent impurity from flowing from the inside to the outside.

Purity has to do with specific external actions involving the use of the hands and mouth.

Purity is kept within the person and has to do with the faith and confession of Jesus.

The rules of purity are particular and separate Israel from its unclean environment.

The rules of purity are inclusive and allow the pagans and the unclean to enter the Kingdom of God.

But the differences between Jesus and the Pharisees can also be explained by elements that social anthropology consider important in the constitution of a ritual or religious system. Thus, while for the Pharisees the central value is in the holiness of God, for Jesus and his disciples it is in the mercy of God; while the Pharisees are based on creation and its order, Jesus and his group are based on the Kingdom of God; while the structural implications of the Pharisees are based on a very strict and exclusion-prone system of purity, for Jesus and his followers, the system of purity is presented as weak and prone to inclusion; for this reason, the former use a defensive strategy, while Jesus and the disciples act offensively. As for the legitimation of both groups, although they both quote Scripture, they are based on different texts, since while the Pharisees have as references, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Jesus and the disciples quote Genesis and the Prophets. After this first moment, Jesus, turning to the crowd, with authority, pronounces the words of v. 15. It is one of the two central verses of the passage: “οὐδεν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὅ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον”.184 184

This verse has been studied a lot to know if it is about ipsissima verba of Jesus or if they are the words of the evangelist Mark. One or the other positioning will also determine the conception of the entire passage. For this reason, we present the most significant authors in both senses. R. BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 105, positions himself in favour of the authorship of Jesus, based on the radicalism of the saying and

102

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

The verse seems quite consistent in the context of the controversy with the Pharisees. Jesus affirms that there is nothing that, going from the outside into a man, can contaminate him, that is to say, can make him unclean. We are, therefore, in the field of a controversy linked to ablutions; if we try to make it emphasises in his assessment the criterion of the “discontinuity” of Jesus with the Hebrew world of the first century to argue that they are ipsissima verba; E. KÄSEMANN, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus”, in Essays on the New Testament Themes (SBT 41), London: SCM Press 1964, pp. 15–47, claims that, with sovereign freedom, Jesus himself reflects the very foundations of Judaism; N. PERRIN, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, London: Harper & Row 1967, p. 150, believes that it is Jesus Himself who says it – Perrin says “it is certainly authentic” – precisely because the saying has no parallel in the Jewish world and is the most radical of all Jesus' tradition; C. STETTLER, “Purity of Heart in Jesus’ teaching: Mark 7.14–23 par. as an expression of Jesus Basileia Ethics”, JTS 55 (2004) 467–502, for whom the whole section of Mark 7.14–23 in its essential contents goes back to Jesus, adapting well to the other synoptic logia on purity and on the Torah, in which Jesus expresses a new self-awareness of the irruption of the ethics of the Kingdom. Also in favour, but not so strongly, J. D. G. DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 47 claims that v. 15, in its present form, suffers from evident reworking by Mark, but the very fact that it has been necessary to explain it in vv. 17–19 and that this editorial explanation has been attached very soon to Mark 7.15 would confirm Jesus’ authorship of the verse; and G. JOSSA, Giudei o cristiani?: I seguici di Gesù in cerca di una propria identitat (Studi Biblici 142), Brescia: Paideia 2004, p. 78, according to whom the affirmation itself, given the absolute radicalism and conformity of Jesus' attitude towards the other types of impurity (such as the leper of Mark 1.40–44 and the woman suffering from hemorrhage of Mark 5.25–34), cannot but come from Jesus himself. On the other hand, there are also authors who openly express themselves against Jesus’ authorship of the text and argue that it is a saying that fits exclusively with the first history of the Christian community and the evident congruence with the interests of the mission to the Gentiles. In this sense are positioned authors like H. RÄISÄNEN, “Jesus and the Food Laws”, in The Tora and Christ. Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity (FES 45), Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society 1986, pp. 219–41, who argues that despite the broad consensus of New Testament scholars who believe that these words belong to the core of the ipsissima verba, the authenticity of these words is still in serious doubt because, although the verse could fit Jesus’ teaching, there is absolutely no trace of their reception in the early church.; E. P. SANDERS, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Allen Lane – The Peguin Press: London 1993, pp. 220–222, affirms that the passage from the book of the Acts 10–11 and the Pauline letters show that neither Luke nor Paul thought or knew that Jesus had abolished the food laws and the Sabbath laws. For Sanders, circumcision, the Sabbath and food are, above all, arguments of debate between Jews and Christians and, if they are found so often in the Gospels, it is because they “reflect the situation of the Christian churches after the Gentiles started to be admitted to the movement”; and finally, V. FUSCO, “Gesù e le Scritture di Israele”, in La Bibbia nell’antichità Cristiana, vol. 1: Da Gesù a Origene, Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna 1993, p. 46, who says that the verse simplifies the historical action of the understanding of the disciples in contact with the pagans and “anticipa all’insegnamento prepasquale l’abolizione delle norme di purità alimentare, e con essa l’abbattimento della barriera fra giudei e pagani”, emphasising with insistence that the disciples, at that time, did not understand their meaning.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

103

explicit, the discourse remains consistent, that is, by ingesting a food that has been touched with unclean man is not contaminated.185 In this sense, it is the narrator himself who then exhorts us with a change of place, situation and audience – since Jesus speaks to his disciples and does it at home – defines the words of Jesus as a ‘parable’ in v. 18, and comes to the conclusion of v. 19c: “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα”, i.e. all foods are clean. Mark does not put these words into the mouth of Jesus, but it is an editorial verse186 which seeks to clarify what is said in v. 15. The verses 20–23 are a catalogue of evils that come out of men’s hearts, which belong to a literary genre fixed and known in the New Testament: the so-called “lists of vices”. If we accept the scheme drawn up by Wibbing,187 all words have a similar root and remind us of the list found in Galatians 5.19–21 and Romans 1.29–31.188 The text deliberately ends in a paradoxical way with the repetition and extension of the second half of the saying about purity of 7.15, where it is stated that only what comes from inside a man makes a man unclean, in 7.23. e) State of the question The purity logion of 7.1–23 is one of the most analysed and debated texts of the Gospel of Mark189 because from the interpretation given to it – especially of vv. 15 and 19 – derives one or another conception of the Jesus of Mark, either more respectful and tolerant of the Law, or more ground-breaking and radical with it. We present some authors who defend one or the other argument. There are authors who believe that the Gospel of Mark is very critical of the Law. In this line Schweizer190 believes that Mark wants to help the reader understand that God does not expect an external cultural observance but ra-

185

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 452–454; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 284–287; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 488–491. 186 GUIDA, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti…’ (Mc 7,19c)”, 123–133; Joel MARCUS, “Scripture and Tradition in Mark 7”, in The Scriptures in the Gospels (BEThL 131), Leuven: Leuven University Press 1997, pp. 177–196; DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 40–41; Christine JACOBI, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus?: Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (BZNW 213), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2015, pp. 37–53; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 272–273; COLLINS, Mark, 356. 187 Siegfried WIBBING, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte (BZNW 25), Berlin: Töpelmann 1959, pp. 86–89. 188 TELFORD, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 167–168. 189 MASCILONGO, Il Vangelo di Marco, 431–433. 190 SCHWEIZER, “Die theologische Leistung des Markus”, 21–42.

104

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

ther the piety of the heart; Hübner191 argues that the authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark does not rest on the Law but on the strength of the Gospel so that the Law is abrogated in the text of Mark. Similarly, for U. Luz,192 Mark retains practically nothing of the preaching of Jesus, except for the critical part of the Law, because what the evangelist intends to express is that the laws have been given to men for their good, but also that they are subject to the love and authority of the Son of Man and, hence, the commandments on purity have been totally abrogated. Similarly, Vouga193 believes that Mark is not interested in the question of the Law, but primarily focused on proclaiming a liberating Gospel. Finally, we can also place the comments of Bird,194 Marcus,195 Painter,196 Scornaienchi197 and Gnilka198 along the same lines. On the other hand, Focant,199 Pokorný200 and Dunn201 defend the “new paradigm” in the interpretation of the Law of Paul and the evangelist Mark. They believe that both Paul and Mark did not intend to present Jesus as the one who abolishes the Law, but as the one who explains how to observe and carry it out. For these scholars, Paul did not oppose the Law, nor did he reject works as such, but only rejected the observances of the Law that could exclude pagans from being part of God’s people. Other scholars consider the Marcan position, with respect to the Law, to be ‘divided’, that is on the one hand, conservative and, on the other, liberating. Thus, Werner 202 affirms that, although the Jesus of Mark, as Messiah, is placed by the evangelist above the Law, the origin of the Mosaic Law is not questioned in the whole of the Gospel. Schulz203 thinks that Mark is not systematically against the Law and accepts certain theological solutions to con-

191

H. HÜBNER, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition: Studien zur These einer progressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition, Witten: Luther 1973, pp. 213–226. 192 LUZ, “Das Geheimnis – Motiv und die markinische Christologie” 28. 193 F. VOUGA, “Das Markusevangelium als literarisches Werk: Eine Weiterentwicklung des paulinischen Evangeliums?”, WD 23 (1995) 109–124. 194 BIRD, Mark, 30–61. 195 MARCUS, “Scripture and Tradition in Mark 7”, 177–195. 196 John PAINTER, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 527–553. 197 SCORNAIENCHI, “Die Relativierung des Unreinen. Der Einfluss des Paulus auf ‘Markus’ in Bezug auf die Reinheit”, 505–524. 198 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 284–288. 199 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 36–54. 200 POKORNÝ, From the Gospel to the Gospels, 120. 201 DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 37–60. 202 WERNER, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium, 79–98. 203 Siegfried SCHULZ, Die Stunde der Botschaft, 81.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

105

tinue to keep it present in his communities. Räisänen204 believes that in the Gospel of Mark there is an implicit distinction between ritual precepts and the divine ethical will and that the editorial commentaries and words attributed to Jesus are not presented as a criticism of the written Torah. Likewise, Larsen, 205 while acknowledging that Mark 7 is closer to Paul than other types of Halachah within early Christianity, believes that the logion of purity is proper to Gentile communities, but not necessarily Pauline. We believe that his opinion is legitimate, but it is not convincing, because it is limited to only one aspect of the Gospel of Mark and because, although we do not know with certainty if there were Gentile communities founded by others besides Paul and his followers, of these ‘others’ no document has survived that supports their strong influence on Mark, unlike Paul and the Pauline school. Finally, Crossley 206 nuances the most common translations of v. 19 and considers the translation “all foods permitted in the Law are clean” to be good and claims that Matthew is the one who really understood Mark’s message. In the same vein, Boyarin affirms that Mark was a Jew and that Mark’s Jesus preserves the kosher laws,207 and seeks to separate the question of the purity of food from the question of whether or not it is eaten, statements that Marcus,208 in an article recently republished, has refuted in an appendix based on the text, the context, the Old Testament and the rabbinical texts. f) Synoptic parallels We will now analyse the logion of purity in Mark by comparing it with its synoptic parallels. As J. Marcus209 proposes, if we compare Matthew 15.11 and Mark 7.15 we see that the saying of Matthew is less radical than that of Mark:

204

RÄISÄNEN, “Jesus, Paul and Torah”, 212. LARSEN, “Mark 7: 1–23: A Pauline Halakah?”, 172–174. 206 James G. CROSSLEY, “Mark 7.1–23: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean’”, in The Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester – Lausanne Seminar of June 2008, London – New York: T & T Clark 2009, pp. 8–20. 207 Daniel BOYARIN, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, New York: The New York Press 2012, p. 216. 208 Joel MARCUS, “Mark – Interpreter of Paul”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 45–49. 209 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 446. 205

106

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark Matt 15.11

Mark 7.15

It is not what goes into the mouth

there is nothing outside a person that by going in

defiles a person

can defile

but it is what comes out of the mouth

but the things that come out

that defiles

are what defile

15.20b: but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile

7.19c: Thus, he declared all foods clean

In Matthew the universal expansion clause is missing and he omits Mark’s editorial conclusion according to which Jesus declared all food clean. Instead of these words, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus restricts the implications of the saying and limits it to the conclusion of the text (Matt 15.20).210 This lack of radicalism of Matthew reflects the Judeo-Christian perspective from which he wrote his Gospel linking it closely to the observance of the Law. The translation and interpretation of 7.15 proposed by Crossley211 tries to soften Mark’s words. The author argues that a person is not ‘so’ stained by what goes into him from the outside as by what comes out of him. Crossley proposes a reading in which he spiritualises the idea of ritual impurity, avoiding the abrogation of the external laws of purity of the Torah, in line with what the evangelist Matthew does. In addition, Crossley interprets 7.19c as stating that food does not become unclean by not washing hands, because all food allowed by the Law is clean. Painter 212 rejects this hypothesis, as he believes that Crossley has not taken into account the obvious discomfort of the evangelist Matthew to the story of Mark and has not wanted to take into account the radical nature of the parabolic response of Jesus to those who criticise him. For Painter, then, in the Gospel of Mark, what makes a man unclean is what comes out of his heart (7.19a, 20–23) and, moreover, the Jesus of Mark is turning a concrete fact into a universal norm. According to Guida,213 Matthew 15.1–20 displays the same narrative elements as Mark with regard to the Pharisees-multitude-disciples scheme, but there is a lack of diversification of the locations and also an explicit affirmation of the particular teaching to the disciples. Moreover, the worried question of the disciples leads to the insertion of the words “they are blind guides of the blind” of v. 14, which is absent in Mark. Matthew omits the commentary of Mark 7.19c, and consequently Guida deduces that the first evangelist 210

SIM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, 178–181. CROSSLEY, “Mark 7.1–23”, 8–20. 212 PAINTER, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, 527–553. 213 GUIDA, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti...’ (Mc 7,19c)”, 123–133. 211

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

107

did not feel obliged to be totally faithful to Mark and omitted the conclusion because he considered that these were not the words of Jesus. Matthew closes the diatribe with the Pharisees with the issue of unwashed hands, and makes Jesus overcome his adversaries, so it is a passage with less ‘absolute’ implications than that of Mark. On the other hand, Dunn214 suggests two possible reasons for understanding the differences between the two versions. On the one hand, he thinks that Matthew, aware of the controversy and hardness of Mark’s version, reformulated it in order to diminish the radicalism of those who followed the rules of the Torah and, on the other hand, he thinks that Matthew would have preserved an older form of the saying that Mark transmits and, consequently, that the differences were introduced by the editor of Mark’s Gospel. We believe and argue that in Matthew 15.1–20 we can see that the evangelist softens and limits the implications of Mark’s passage on purity of 7.1–23. Matthew overlooks the fact that it is a universal saying and limits it to the concrete fact of washing one’s hands. Matthew’s modifications of Mark seek to neutralise the radical perspective expressed by the latter. As for the Gospel of Luke, in line with what Guida,215 Buchler216 and Marcus217 argue, we can say that in 11.37–54 no dispute over the tradition of the ancients or the parallel of the saying of Mark 7.15 is found, although the purity logion is placed in a context of controversy with the Pharisees in the style of Mark.218 The language and theme of chapter 7 of Mark are present; the antithesis between those inside and those outside and the statement about the negligible importance of ritual purity over that of the heart are also present, but Luke’s theological interest is directed toward mercy. Consequently, the weight of the passage falls on the invitation to almsgiving and the concern for the righteousness and love of God. The evangelist, although 11.41 ends in a form reminiscent of the theme and language of Mark 7.19c, is a man of the third generation of Christians and, consequently, the radicalism of the beginnings has already faded away. In short, a first conclusion can be drawn from the comparison with the synoptic texts, which we will expand on later. In Mark there is an absolute priority of the word of God over the tradition of men, represented in the logion of purity through Pharisaic practices. Jesus himself, with forcefulness and authority, abolishes the ritual laws of purity and defends the purity of the heart, from which all the evils of men really arise.

214

DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 37–60. GUIDA, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti...’ (Mc 7:19c)”, 123–133. 216 BÜCHLER, “The Law of Purification in Mark 7:1–23”, 34–40. 217 MARCUS, “Scripture and Tradition in Mark 7”, 177–195. 218 We also find in Matt 23.25–26. 215

108

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

g) Mark 7.15, 19 and Paul of Tarsus The parable saying of Mark 7.15, attributed to Jesus, is consistent with the Paulinism of the Gospel of Mark and is reinforced by the editorial conclusion of 7.19. There is, therefore, a need for Judeo-Christians to accept the unity in Christ of the Jewish-Gentile community.219 Before Mark wrote his Gospel, Paul had to settle the question of purity on different occasions, either in the Corinthian community with the problem of the flesh sacrificed to idols (1Cor 8–10),220 or in the conflict over respect for the conscience of those who are scandalised by seeing ‘unclean’ flesh eaten (Rom 14). In Mark 7.15, Jesus pronounces a sapiential maxim, which explains the theme of the whole pericope. It is the verse that constitutes the climax221 of the passage we analyse. Mark frames the dispute within the theological horizon,222 and thus, in a broader sense, turns it into a derogation of the Mosaic Law. The Jesus of Mark says: 15

οὐδεν ἐστιν ἐξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὅ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον (15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile).

Many scholars223 have related the words of Mark 7.15 with those of Paul in Rom 14.14, 20: 14

οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίω Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδεν κοινὸν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν (I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean). 20

μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ. πάντα μὲν καθαρά, ἀλλὰ κακὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῷ τῷ διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίοντι (Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat).

219

Paul N. TARAZI, The New Testament an Introduction: Paul and Mark, vol. 1, Crestwood – New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1999, p. 182. 220 COLLINS, Mark, 356. 221 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 452–453. 222 BIRD, Mark, 59. 223 MARCUS, “Scripture and Tradition in Mark 7”, 193–195; BIRD, Mark, 49; GUIDA, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti...’ (Mc 7,19c)”, 131–133; RÄISÄNEN, “Jesus, Paul and Torah”, 140–148; SCORNAIENCHI, “Die Relativierung des Unreinen. Der Einfluss des Paulus auf ‘Markus’ in Bezug auf die Reinheit”, 515–519; JACOBI, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus?, 349–370; STRAUSS, Mark, 308; José M. GONZÁLEZ RUIZ, “Paralelos en las teologías marcana y paulina”, 327–328; Armand PUIG I TÀRRECH, “El lloc del Jesús de la història i de la història de Jesús en l’Evangeli de Pau”, in Pau Fundador Cristianisme? (ScrBib 12), Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya – Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat 2012, p. 94.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

109

Paul addresses the issue of purity to indicate the difficulties caused by Jewish scruples regarding the laws of food in the different communities of Rome. As Dunn224 states, this verse shows that purity issues were the subject of some dispute in the new Christian congregations of the Diaspora and that Paul made a basic legal distinction between clean and unclean food. Dunn acknowledges that the interpretative addition of Mark 7.19: “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα” and the affirmation of Romans 14.20: “πάντα (βρώματα) μὲν καθαρά”, are very similar. In this sense, but with more emphasis on finding the true words of Jesus, C. Jacobi225 argues that the terminology used in Mark 7.15, 19–20 is clearly Pauline, since the evangelist follows the theology of the Gentile mission of Paul as expressed in the Epistle to the Romans. In Mark 7.19 the evangelist radicalises the argument of 7.15 and places it on a different plane, by providing his editorial comment: ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα (since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? (Thus, he declared all foods clean).

Mark no longer looks at the physical process but emphasises Jesus’ authority to redefine the sense of ritual purity, because it is Jesus who declares all foods clean. According to Bird,226 this verse is an editorial variant intended for Gentile readers – which makes it clear why in Mark 7.3–5 the Pharisaic customs are explained – since Mark would be stating that for Gentile readers all foods are clean, or what is the same – says Bird –, the laws of purity relating to food are optional. But, in this context and through the evangelist, is Jesus only speaking to Gentile believers? Or is Jesus really, with this sentence, abolishing all the ritual laws of purity related to food for anyone regardless of their origin? If we compare Mark 7.15 and Romans 14.14 we see that Mark’s editorial comment follows the line of Paul; while Mark 7.15 is probably a logium of Jesus, Mark 7.19 is a Pauline Halachah. There are basically three similarities between the two texts.227 First, both Paul and Mark apply the principle of purity of food in the context of the mission to the Gentiles. Paul treats it in Romans 14.1–15 when he analyses the relationships between the strong and the weak in the Roman churches, and Mark in 7.1–23 when he addresses the Gentile group in the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30), when he travels to Tyre, Sidon and the region of the Decapolis (7.31–37), and in the meal with the 224

DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 48–50. JACOBI, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus?, 363. 226 BIRD, Mark, 59–60. 227 Roger P. BOOTH, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7, (JSNTSup 13) Sheffield: JSOT Press 1986, pp. 215–223. 225

110

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

four thousand at the Gentile shore of Lake Galilee (8.1–10). Mark, therefore, would agree with Paul about the cultic law and would be aware of the problems of imposing the whole Law on the converted Gentiles and the good that came with freeing them from it. Secondly, the criticism of the “human traditions” of Mark 7.8–9 is similar to the negative comments on the tradition of Galatians 1.13–14 and finally, regarding the maintenance of the commandment of the Decalogue on the parents of Mark 7.10, we note that it is in tune with the positive references to the Decalogue of Romans 13.9. Therefore, Mark follows Paul when he states that unclean food does not defile a person. The Gentiles must not follow the customs of the Jewish laws of food and the Jews must not adhere to the laws of purity of food, because these become optional, for “there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile”. In addition, we think there is a Pauline rereading of the tradition that Mark received when he presented it in v. 19, because the evangelist further radicalises the interpretation of Jesus’ words. Linguistic affinities also seem significant. The root καθαρ- is not usual in the vocabulary of Mark, but in chapter 7, compounds and derivatives are found; also rare is the use of the word βρώματα, which appears only in 7.19c, while both words are present in the Pauline vocabulary (1Cor 6.13). It is also helpful to focus on the word κοινός,228 used by both Paul and Mark, to understand Mark’s direct dependence on Paul. Κοινός is the name for ‘common’ in Greek, but sometimes it can have the meaning ‘unclean’, especially if it applies to communities. As this is not the usual meaning of the word, Mark is forced to give a detailed explanation and therefore uses Paul’s lexicon, κοινός and κοινόω, to refer to the ritual of defilement of food, as was customary in the Hellenistic Jewish language. The use of the same lexicon with an unusual meaning by both of them corroborates our argument that the evangelist Mark borrows from Paul when expressing his conception of ritual purity. It is also interesting to note that Jesus’ saying about purity of 7.15 is a performative statement,229 that is, it fulfils the purification that it itself proclaims. Such a forceful statement by Jesus – all food can be eaten, because there is no clean or unclean food– was positively valued in Christian circles, especially in the communities of believers who were mostly Gentile, because it was necessary to make decisions on these questions, as Paul himself explains in Galatians 2.11–16. Therefore, if Mark uses a terminology so close to that of Paul when he declares “all foods clean”, he is informing us that this problem was not yet solved in the communities of his time.230 228

SCORNAIENCHI, “Die Relativierung des Unreinen. Der Einfluss des Paulus auf ‘Markus’ in Bezug auf die Reinheit”, 512–515. 229 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 457. 230 Heikki RÄISÄNEN, “Jesus and the Food Laws. Reflections on Mark 7:15”, JSNT 16 (1982) 79–100.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

111

The text of Mark 7.15, as interpreted by the evangelist in 7.19, opens the doors of the Church to the integration of the Gentiles since it destroys the barriers posed by the laws of purity that divided Jews and Gentiles. This, it must be borne in mind, was one of the objectives of Paul of Tarsus: to bring the Gospel to the pagans, to make Jesus known and loved to the Gentiles, to break down the barriers that hindered the openness to pagans (Rom 3.29–30; 9.24; 11.13; Gal 1.16; 2.2). 3.3.5. Second conclusions The centre of the logion on the purity of the Gospel of Mark 7.1–23 are the verses 15 and 19, which give the key to reading the whole passage. Mark places Jesus’ words (v. 15) and his own words (v. 19c) within a Jewish dispute over the authority of the ancients. Jesus replies to his opponents with a parabolic phrase; however, only the private explanation of Jesus to his disciples allows for an understanding of its hidden meaning. The editorial conclusion of Mark has a clear Pauline echo, since it declares all foods clean, eliminating the important barrier that separated Jews and Gentiles, as Paul did in Romans 14.14. Mark’s language undoubtedly suggests a Pauline influence, since there are some specific meanings of Paul which are reused by Mark. The criticism of some scholars as to why Paul did not use this logion in the controversy against the Judaizers can be answered with Paul’s own words in Romans 14.14 as a clear reference to the tradition about Jesus. The use of κοινός meaning ‘unclean’ applied to food is characteristic of Paul, and precisely, this is the use recorded by Mark. The Law separates Israel from the nations and the Pharisaic tradition subdivides Israel into those who observe and those who do not observe tradition. The purpose of the Law and tradition is not to exclude those outside but to sanctify Israel. The laws of purity on food and other regulations made the relationship between Jews and Christian Gentiles very difficult. If you cannot eat with someone, it is hard to fraternise with him or fully accept the other. It is no coincidence, then, that in the Marcan narrative, Jesus overcomes the laws of purity, which represented a wall between Jews and Gentiles, so that all men can sit at the table together. Specifically, this is another element common to Paul and Mark: the acceptance by both of them that the words they gather up are the words of Jesus himself and that, consequently, both are appealing to the authority of Jesus in their statements.231 There is one more point on the question of purity. It is the use of the word ἄνθρωπος in this logion. It is the last word of 7.23 and appears in 7.7, 8, 11 and 15 – in this last verse three times – 18, 20, 21 and 23. A total of eleven 231 SCORNAIENCHI, “Die Relativierung des Unreinen. Der Einfluss des Paulus auf ‘Markus’ in Bezug auf die Reinheit”, 515–519.

112

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

times is a surprising figure. Perhaps it is about putting man at the centre and not the Law?232 It seems that Mark, as J. Marcus points out, wanted to indicate that the basic problem that Christians should be concerned about is not the way they should eat, nor the food they should eat, but the inner corruption of the ἄνθρωπος, which is precisely what makes the tradition not faithful to God. In addition to this linguistic aspect – as C. Jacobi explains in his doctoral thesis –233 it is also plausible that Mark should bring traditional data to his own communicative ends in the light of Pauline theology. In this sense, theological and pastoral demands common to Paul and Mark are discernible, since both have to make the non-Jew understand something Jewish, and they must reread the history of salvation for those who have entered ex novo, but not turning back, rather advancing towards universalism. The passage ends with the repetition and extension of the second half of 7.15, which states that only what comes out from within, can defile a person (7.23). It is paradoxical that what comes from within defiles, when what usually defiles is what comes from outside. Mark’s Jesus reverses the notion of ‘defilement’, just as he has reversed the concept of purity and impurity with regard to food. For all who do not accept Jesus as God’s messenger, everything he says will be understood as chaos and disorder to what has been established by tradition and, therefore, his message will be a radical challenge to the norms and boundaries imposed by the Jewish religion. 3.3.6. Consequences and confirmation of the Pauline and Marcan conception of the Law The conception of the Law that we have presented in this part of our study confirms that the behaviour of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark breaks with the norms of the Jewish people. To confirm this Marcan conception we can add three further passages that show the different way in which Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees understand the Law. We will look at the text of the woman suffering from haemorrhages in 5.25–34, the rereading of divorce in 10.2–12 and the commandment of love in 12.28–34. a) Jesus and the woman suffering from haemorrhages: Mark 5.25–34 The rules on purity234 restrict women’s participation in the cult, since according to Leviticus 12.7; 15.19–33; 20.18, women remain unclean for seven days of the month because they menstruate – the same happens when they become 232

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 460–461. JACOBI, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus?, 364. 234 DOUGLAS, Purity and Danger, 42–60. 233

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

113

mothers. Every thing or person that touches an unclean woman becomes unclean. That is why women are practically excluded from social life and, if they do not want to be completely excluded from human relationships, they are obliged to pay to the Temple for their purification. In Mark 5.25–34,235 Jesus heals a woman suffering from haemorrhages and thus breaks down the schemes established by the legal system of purity and the resulting social discrimination. 236 Jesus overcomes the Law and gives value to women, because he restores their dignity as women, as children of God (v. 34: θυγάτηρ). It is not by chance that he says to her: “θυγάτηρ, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε”; in this sense, if we pay attention to the vocative we discover how Jesus, with his word, incorporates her into the group and, consequently, loves her, because love for God and for your brother is first and foremost on the scale of values presented by the evangelist (Mark 12.28–34). It must be stressed that the first person to break the Law is a sick and isolated woman, whom Jesus will restore in dignity and love. In vv. 25–27, the evangelist reports on the sufferings of the woman through seven aorist participles:237 οὖσα, παθοῦσα, δαπανήσασα, ὠφεληθεῖσα, ἐλθοῦσα, ἀκούσασα, ἐλθοῦσα. These participles describe the situation this woman has been suffering as a result of her illness for twelve years: exclusion, estrangement and loneliness. Mark breaks this slow movement that the participles transmit238 with the aorist of the indicative ἥψατο, causing the climax of what he narrates through the accumulation of participles. Hence, there is a harmony between the content and the form of the narrative, because the daring of the woman is enormous as the fact of breaking the rhythm underlines: an unclean woman dares to touch a public man and, although she does not dare to approach Jesus openly because she touches him from behind, ὄπισθεν, she takes advantage of the fact that the crowd is large and she can go unnoticed. However, the woman touches Jesus’ cloak. Her desire for healing is stronger than Jewish laws and traditions and, above all, by her boldness she shows that she trusts in Jesus, in his healing power. The encounter with Jesus is sublime. The woman comes face to face with the one who has healed her, with the one who has recognised, accepted and restored her and all thanks to the faith she herself had placed in the person of

235

To go deeper see Barbara BAERT, The Woman with the Blood Flow (Mark 5:24–34): Narrative, Iconic, and Anthropological Spaces (Art & Religion 2), Leuven: Peeters 2014. 236 CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli, 24–28; FOCANT, “Opérer une brèche dans les règles de pureté en vue d’être sauvée. Le cas de la femme qui souffrait d’hémorragie (Mc 5,24–34)”, 39. 237 Xavier MATOSES, “Fede incompleta e incontro con Gesú. Studio sul racconto dell’emorroissa (Mc 5,25–34)”, Sal. 79 (2017) 603–621; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 367. 238 “being, having endured, having spent, having benefited, having gotten worse, having heard, having come” is my own translation.

114

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Jesus. 239 Mark’s irony is evident: the woman has obtained her healing and salvation because she has been able to transgress the precepts of the Law which, hypothetically, should have saved her. 240 The evangelist presents again the opposition between Jesus and the Jewish authorities by means of a miracle that implies and needs faith and not the works of the Law.241 Mark describes the woman “in fear and trembling” (v. 33) when she is discovered by Jesus, but the loving gaze of the one who understands suffering makes this woman cope with the greatness of the one who has healed her and, at that time, she tells him “the whole truth” (v. 33b). Jesus answers her: ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε in v. 34, which constitutes the climax of the passage, because it is not fulfilling the Torah which saves, it is not works of the Law which save, but faith in Jesus, in the Gospel. Jesus blesses her by saying: “ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην” (go in peace) as a gift for a life that is lived with grace and faith,242 the only time these words are found in the Gospel of Mark. The cross has invalidated the law of men. Matthew and Luke include in their respective narratives the episode of the woman suffering from haemorrhages (Matt 9.20–22; Luke 8.43–48). Matthew narrates it very briefly and reduces the episode to three verses, omitting all the details that bring the reader closer to the suffering of the woman, and Luke changes the intimate tone of Mark (Mark 5.33: “But the woman, knowing what had happened to her,...”; Luke 8.47: “When the woman saw that she could not remain hidden...”) and thus loses the strength of the Marcan narrative. Although Luke explains it in more detail than Matthew, he introduces subtle changes such as omitting v. 29 where the woman discovers that she is healed and also v. 33 where she exposes herself telling “the whole truth”, to the one who liberates and saves. Both modify the general atmosphere of the scene,243 because the episode of healing is linked to the episode of salvation that comes from touching the dress of Jesus, that is, from ‘believing’. In conclusion, the Jesus of Mark cancels the social and religious codes of his time and proclaims that the body of the woman is not unclean, it does not need constant purification, but, like that of the man, it lacks spaces of salva239 In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus and Gospel are two words that are identified: The Gospel is the saving power that intervenes in the lives of men, as in this passage happens to the woman suffering from haemorrhages in touching Jesus. 240 CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli, 31–32. 241 Mary D’ANGELO, “Power, Knowledge and the Bodies of Women in Mark 5:21–43”, in Barbara BAERT – Niels SCHALLEY (eds.), The Woman with the Blood Flow (Mark 5:24– 30): Narrative, Iconic and Anthropological Spaces (Art & Religion 2), Leuven: Peeters Publishers 2014, p. 98. 242 Megan MCKENNA, On your Mark: Reading Mark in the Shadow of the Cross, Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books 2006, p. 78. 243 FOCANT, “Opérer une brèche dans les règles de pureté en vue d’être sauvée. Le cas de la femme qui souffrait d’hémorragie (Mc 5, 24–34)”, p. 36.

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

115

tion.244 The encounter between the body of Jesus and the body of the woman suffering from haemorrhage is a personal and intimate encounter that transmits true liberation. In this passage, moreover, there is a set of editorial verses245 (vv. 28–29, 34) with which Mark expresses his opinion and his way of understanding the facts, because the evangelist wishes to transmit a certain interpretation of what is happening and that is in keeping with the conception of the Pauline Law. The idea of saving faith is explicitly mentioned in the Pauline texts,246 as in Romans 1.16a: “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith”; and also in 10.9–10: “9 because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved”. For Paul it is not the works of the Law but faith in Christ that saves, as he also says in Romans 9.32: “Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone”; in Galatians 3.11: “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith’”, and in Philippians 3.9: “and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith”. Paul asserts that God’s justification is not a mathematical result of the fulfilment of the works of the Law, but the effect of God’s irruption on man, who has another opportunity to believe. The rich man of Mark 10.17–31, accustomed to achieving everything with money, believes in good faith that it will also be so with eternal life, but lo and behold, Jesus turns man’s reasoning upside down and allows man to be saved through the utmost freedom. Salvation now depends only on faith.247 The very faith of the woman who was haemorrhaging that, in the words of Jesus himself, confirms that only full trust in Him can liberate man and save him. Mark, therefore, places himself in the same sphere of Paul and shares the primacy of faith over the Law.

244

The expression “ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε” is also found in the healing of the blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10.52. Bartimaeus' sight is restored and he decides to follow Jesus. It is the way of the discipleship, which is perceived as a logical consequence of the faith, that saves and that has freed him from darkness. Bartimaeus becomes a model for Jesus' new disciple. 245 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 214; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 212– 213. 246 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 361. 247 José M. GONZÁLEZ RUIZ, “Paralelos en las teologías marcana y paulina”, 326–327.

116

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

b) Rereading divorce: Mark 10.2–12 This pericope is divided into two parts. The first part describes a dispute with the Pharisees (vv. 2–9), in which Jesus goes beyond the commandment of divorce given by Moses through Scripture itself; in the second part there is a dialogue with the disciples (vv. 10–12), in which concrete rules are offered for a reinterpretation of divorce. The Pharisees approach Jesus and ask him about the possibility of dissolving a marriage, which was legally possible by official Judaism contemporary to Jesus.248 The question is not whether the Mosaic Law has the authority to do so, but how it should be interpreted. The will of God, which Jesus proclaims, is opposed to that proclaimed by Moses, and shows the strong antiJewish character of the paragraph, since Moses appears on the side of the Pharisees. In fact, this opposition is reinforced in 10.5 through the use of the personal pronoun of the second person of the plural ὑμῶν and ὑμῖν, twice in the same verse, to indicate that it is the Pharisees and their ancestors who are the recipients of the Mosaic commandment on divorce. To give an account of why the commandment had been lowered, 249 Jesus also alludes to their σκληροκαρδία (hardheartedness). The Jesus of Mark answers with an argument of authority250 and uses the texts of Genesis 1.27 and 2.24 to appeal to the will of God as something inscribed in creation and, therefore, to justify and give a reason for what he affirms. 251 In addition, Mark presents the antithesis between θεός and ἄνθρωπος, that is, between divine and human actions, just as he had done in previous passages, as we have seen in 7.1–23 on purity. In the second part (10.10–12), it is the disciples who receive the teaching of Jesus. The scene changes place and is located at home. The disciples ask, not to tempt Jesus, as the Pharisees had done, but to understand him.252 Jesus does not speak of the separation between the spouses, but of the fact of “committing adultery” as it is said in Exodus 20.14 or Deuteronomy 5.18. It is surprising that in Mark 10.9, Jesus speaks of ἄνθρωπος when he affirms that the person should not oppose the act of God in a sign of equality between man and woman, as well as 10.12, in which he speaks of the possibility, for

248

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 71–72; COLLINS, Mark, 459–460. MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 708–709. 250 PUIG I TÀRRECH, “El lloc del Jesús de la història i de la història de Jesús en l’Evangeli de Pau”, 86. 251 COLLINS, Mark, 467. 252 ARANDA, La casa, espacio de memoria e identidad en el evangelio según Marcos, 203–206. 249

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

117

both man and woman, of divorcing, which in is compatible with the laws of divorce of the Roman world.253 The parallel passages of Matthew 5.28–32 and Luke 16.18 demonstrate a greater degree of moral instruction and, therefore, a radicalisation of his conception with more Judaizing features. The treatment of this theme is also found in Paul in 1Corinthians 7.10–16. It is not the man who assumes the property of the woman, but both mutually enrich each other. 254 Paul comes even closer to the Roman conception of divorce. For Mark, the external Law, which has been modified by Moses, does not oblige man, because it is the relativisation of the Law of God; on the other hand, the divine Law, which was announced at the beginning of time is still valid, because since the time of Christ there has been a rereading of the Law as something that is not binding in itself, but is born from within man and springs from the Spirit.255 Mark presents Jesus urging men to overcome all legal institutions to take into account the divinely ordained human structure, thus restoring a reading of the Scripture prior to their ‘hardheartedness’, as provided for in the Mosaic Law.256 c) The commandment of love: Mark 12.28–34 In the passage that we present as the culmination of this string of controversy texts on the conception of the Law in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus’ interlocutor is a scribe. Now, while the previous interlocutors, Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes, with whom Jesus had been meeting since the beginning of the Gospel narrative had been steadfast opponents of Jesus, he is presented in a positive way as a man of religious authority and with a great attitude of service. The 253 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 375; COLLINS, Mark, 465; Xavier ALEGRE, “Jesús i la indissolubilitat del matrimoni segons els Sinòptics”, in El Matrimoni i l'ús dels béns a la Bíblia (ScrBib 8), Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya – Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat 2008, pp. 201–217. 254 GONZÁLEZ RUIZ, “Paralelos en las teologías marcana y paulina”, 331. 255 We cannot fail to mention what Paul says in 1Cor 7.15 “15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you”. It is evident that what Paul says does not fit with the words of Mark that we have just mentioned. The Jesus of Mark presents the radical nature of the love of marriage immersed in the Jewish environment and, at the same time, radically defends the woman, who was marginalised by the norms of marriage and equates her situation with that of the man. However, Paul, who knows God's mercy, softens the radical Christian value of marriage because of the circumstances in which the Corinthian community lived and the problems it faced. For his part, Mark presents it in the most absolute radical way because from 8.31 to 10.45 he exposes the Christian ideals that lead to the cross, and he wants to present Jesus as the one who, through his radical fidelity to God, is led to the cross. 256 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 143–144.

118

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

scribe’s will to serve is perceived in his desire to learn from Jesus, his openness to the new message that Jesus teaches and his humility in not opposing but in identifying him with the will and the Kingdom of God.257 It is surprising that in the parallel texts of the Gospel of Matthew (22.34–40) and Luke (10.25–28), the scribe is a hostile character. It is also worth noting that the similarities between Matthew and Luke are greater than those with Mark. It is certainly a question of later harmonisation on the part of the copyists or of the common knowledge of the later evangelists of a different version from that of Mark.258 The text begins with an important question: “Which commandment is the first of all?” (Mark 12.28). Jesus’ answer begins with the Shema of Deuteronomy 6.4–9, which is the basic creed of Judaism. Mark’s Jesus quotes the first two verses of Deuteronomy 6.4–5, in Mark 12.30: “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” which is the precept of loving the Lord above all things. And then he adds the second commandment: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” in 12.31. The precept of loving God is intimately linked to that of loving others. The Jesus of the Gospel of Mark says nothing that his interlocutors did not know,259 because these commandments are also found in Deuteronomy 6.4–5 and in Leviticus 19.18. The novelty of Jesus’ answer lies in the fact that this love surpasses the sacrifices made in the Temple (Mark 12.33), which indicates that Mark argues the same thing he has been arguing until this point in the Gospel: love for God and others is over and above the Law. Mark is in tune with Paul (Rom 13.9–10; Gal 5.14)260 in this regard also. Jesus’ answer can be considered an epitome of the whole Law because, for the Christianity of the time, the words of Jesus were considered a summary of the two tables of the Decalogue. In fact, Jesus had already put love for others above the Law when he reformed the Sabbath (2.23–28; 3.1–6) and abolished the commandments of

257

SANTOS, Slave of All, 226. BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 23; COLLINS, Mark, 571; TAIT, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, 128.130; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 841. In this passage Matthew and Luke agree on different issues: “both call Jesus’ questioner a “lawyer”, both have him address Jesus as “teacher” in his initial approach, and both substitute “in the Law” for “of all” in the parallels to Mark 12.28”. They also share a number of significant omissions: “the first sentence of the Shema (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4), the scribe's approbatory repetition of the answer (12.32–33) and Jesus’ encomium of him (12.34)”. 259 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 164–165. 260 PUIG I TÀRRECH, “El lloc del Jesús de la història i de la història de Jesús en l’Evangeli de Pau”, 90. 258

3.3. The question of the Law. The Marcan controversies and Paul

119

purity (7.1–23).261 The neighbour is anyone that Jesus meets on his way. Love for others is a consequence of love for God and this in turn entails faith in the Gospel, which is none other than Jesus himself. In the same vein, a few years earlier Paul had stated in Rom 12.9–10: “9 Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; 10 love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour”; in 13.10 where he says: “Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law”. Additionally, in 1Corinthians 13.13 he says: “And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love”; in Galatians 5.6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love”, and in 5.14: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’” Therefore, Paul and Mark argue that only love for God and for others can fully enforce the Law. 3.3.7. Conclusions on Paul’s and Mark’s understanding of the Law For the Pharisees, the behaviour of Jesus and his disciples seriously violates the Law of Israel, God’s chosen people. We have seen how Jesus and those who follow him do not respect even the time that the Law dedicates to absolute rest (2.18–20, 23–28; 3.1–6), nor the people whom the Law considers unclean and sinful (1.41; 2.13–17; 5.25–34; 7.24–31), nor the places (11.15– 16; 13.2), nor the aspects and rules of purity of food (7.1–23), nor certain interpretations of the ancient covenant (10.2–12; 12.28–34) and, consequently, the group, with Jesus at the head, becomes unclean and sinful in the eyes of the scribes and Pharisees. These differences between Jesus and his opponents do not imply there is no continuity between Jesus and the faith of Israel. For Jesus, the Law, the Shabbat, purity and the Temple are not the way of salvation. However, Jesus does not ignore the Law, he takes it into account. Now, his key for interpretation is different from that of the scribes. Mark underlines this by recalling Jesus’ teaching on the radical novelty and on the prohibition of mixing the old and the new (2.21–22).262 If we take into account the different texts of Paul presented to show the interest shared by the apostle and the evangelist, we see that the keystone that unites them is to deliver man from the Law, that is, to deliver him from the punishment he would have to pay, to deliver him from death, to deliver him from the obligation of having to fulfil the Law with his own resources. For 261

Thomas SÖDING, “Das Liebesgebot bei Markus und Paulus. Ein literarischer und theologischer Vergleich”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 465– 503. 262 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 36–54.

120

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

that is what the Christ did, who paid with his life the debt that we had all incurred through sin. Jesus’ position is radical and ground-breaking and allows, through faith in Christ, the doors to the pagans to be opened.263 We have shown how the relationship between Jesus and the scribes is a key issue for both Paul and Mark, because both present the Jewish Law in the service of man (Mark 3.4; Rom 2.28–29).264 Paul and Mark oppose faith to the Law as a means of salvation (Rom 3.31; Mark 5.34).265 The Law is still good news for the apostle and for the evangelist, but not as a way of salvation. It is necessary that the Law be considered made for man and not to subdue man (Rom 9.31–32; Mark 2.19). Some ways of living the Law are not adequate because they do not reflect what God wanted (Rom 5.20–21; Mark 7.15); if the interpretation of the Law prevents us from saving a life or doing good, we must transgress it (Mark 3.4) The Law must be taken into account above all in love for God and for neighbour, with Jesus as the goal and end (1Cor 13.13; Mark 12.28–34). The external Law is abolished, because man does not have sufficient strength to fulfil it motu proprio (Rom 14.14; Mark 7.15–19). Therefore, we need a new way of approaching God. We must believe in Jesus and understand him as the fulfilment of the Law and the end of it. This is how Paul in his letters and Mark in the Gospel present it; the Christ of Paul and the earthly Jesus of Mark break with the Law, which is the bearer of death and hardheartedness. In the next section we will analyse the two passages of the multiplication of the loaves and the Eucharistic tradition in Paul and Mark. These are the two pericopes that frame a text already studied, 7.1–23, and that will allow us to understand how these two miracles are decisive in speaking of the Paulinism of the Gospel of Mark, since the evangelist will again present the hardheartedness of his disciples and the gift of performing miracles in pagan lands, in harmony with the words of Paul in his letters.

3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark 3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark

Through our analysis of the two accounts of the multiplications of the loaves located within the context of the Gospel of Mark, we will demonstrate once again that the theology of the writer of the Gospel is Pauline.

263

LOADER, “The Concept of Faith in Paul and Mark”, 460–462. The openness to pagans is a central point of the Gospel of Mark and of the Pauline letters. 264 SVARTVIK, “‘East is East and West is West’: The Concept of Torah in Paul and Mark”, 180–185. 265 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 50–54.

3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark

121

Mark probably brings together two traditions of the same miracle,266 the Judeo-Christian version and the pagan-Christian version.267 In order to understand the reason for the presence of two miraculous stories, we will look at the broad context in which they appear – the first part of the Gospel of Mark – and their immediate context. With the intention of discovering the Pauline theology that lies behind this section (6.30–8.21), we will take into account the Pauline and Marcan Last Supper rituals to find the echo of the Eucharistic words in the section of the loaves. Finally, we will present our conclusions on the ‘enigmatic’ meaning of the two multiplications in the Gospel of Mark. 3.4.1. Importance of the broad and immediate context of Mark 6.34–44 and Mark 8.1–10. Marcan accents within the two stories We begin our analysis by locating the fragment of 6.30–8.21 within the broad context of the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel begins with a theological prologue that prepares the reader for the public activity of Jesus (Mark 1.1–13). In the first part of the Gospel (Mark 1.14–8.26), Jesus reveals himself as the Messiah and acts with power, both in word and in deed, but in every case, the response of those who hear and see him is blindness as to who he really is;

266

Xavier ALEGRE, “Les multiplicacions dels pans en Marc (Mc 6,34–44; 8,1–10): una invitació a rellegir críticament els textos evangèlics”, RCatT 35 (2010) 413–440; Karl Paul DONFRIED et alt., “The Feeding Narratives and the Marcan Community: Mark 6.30–45 and 8.1–10”, in Kirche: Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1980, pp. 95–103. 267 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 255–256, states that the two traditions of the account of the multiplications are two developments of a common fundamental tradition, based on the discordant elements that appear in one or the other. The number of loaves, fish, baskets, people and conversations with the disciples are different in each story. Moreover, in the first the action starts with the disciples and in the second with Jesus. These discords corroborate the fact that these were two catecheses for two different communities, one of Jewish origin and the other of pagan origin. In the same line MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 491. On the other hand, there are some scholars who believe that Mark devised and created the multiplication of the five thousand (6.30–44) on the model of the multiplication to the four thousand (8.1–10) this is the case of Robert M. FOWLER, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBL 54), Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1981, pp. 91–128; Karl Paul DONFRIED et alt., “The Feeding Narratives and the Marcan Community”, 95–103. We think that these are two traditions of the same miracle, because although it is common to find editorial alterations in the Marcan narrative, it is not the fact that the evangelist invents miracles of Jesus; moreover, when Mark writes his Gospel there are already pagan-Christian communities that may have created the second miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. Camille FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 209–214, on the other hand, argues that this is a doublet created by Mark, based on the parallels of the composition and the narratology of the pericope.

122

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

first that of the Pharisees and Herodians (3.6), then of the relatives and countrymen (6.1–6a) and finally of the disciples (8.14–21). This first part of the Gospel ends with the “section of the loaves” (6.30– 8.21), which can be structured as follows: the first multiplication of the loaves (6.30–44), Jesus crosses the lake and walks on the water (6.45–52), a summary of healings (6.53–56), the discussion on what is clean (7.1–23), the healing of the Syrophoenician in a pagan land (7.24–30), the healing of the deaf-mute in a pagan land (7.31–37), the second multiplication of the loaves (8.1–9) and Jesus who crosses the lake again (8.10), the discussion about the sign from heaven (8.11–13), and the blindness of the disciples (8.14–21). This fragment begins and ends with the element of ‘the boat’, which moves Jesus from one side to the other (Mark 6.32 and 8.14). First on the Jewish side – where Jesus performs the first multiplication – and then on the pagan side – where he performs the second. The ‘boat’ is an editorial element, typical of Mark, which he often uses to indicate a change of scene268 and also as a link between the stories (cf. Mark 4.1–2, 36; 5.2, 18, 21; 6.32 etc.). The boat and the sea offer the propitious space and time to bridge the gap between Jesus and his disciples.269 It is worth noting that, in this section, the word ‘loaves’ (ἄρτοι) appears 15 times out of a total of 18 times in the Gospel of Mark.270 The verb ‘to eat’ (ἐσθίω οr φαγέω) appears 12 times271 out of a total of 25 times in the Gospel, and ‘to be satisfied’ (χορτάζω) appears 4 times in this fragment alone. All these lexical elements are not accidental, but are indicators of the symbolic importance of food, meals and the act of eating, as they serve to mark social differences, set limits or strengthen bonds. Sitting at the table to eat with someone is not just any act, but it is a key element in understanding the reason for the two multiplications. We will now analyse the immediately preceding context of the first multiplication of the loaves (6.30–44). Verses 30, 31–33 are an editorial summary of the evangelist.272 Mark begins by indicating that the disciples have acted and taught as they had seen Jesus do (v. 30) and ends with the formula “λέγει αὐτοῖς” (he said to them) of v. 31, recalling their success (vv. 32–33). Verse 268

ALEGRE, “Les multiplicacions dels pans en Marc”, 417; Roger David AUS, Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30–44 par. and John 6:1– 15 (Studies in Judaism), Lanham: University Press of America 2010, p. 127. 269 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 550. 270 Dietmar NEUFELD, “Jesus’ Eating Transgressions and Social Impropriety in the Gospel of Mark: A Social Scientific Approach”, BTB 30 (2000) 15–26. The word ἀρτος appears in Mc 2.26; 3.20; 6.8, 37, 38, 41, 44, 52; 7.2, 27; 8.4, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17, 19; 14.22. And the verbs ἐσθίω/φαγέω appear in Mc 1.6; 2.16, 25, 26; 3.20; 5.43; 6.31, 36, 37, 42, 44; 7.2, 3, 4, 5, 28; 8.1, 2, 8; 14.12, 14, 18, 22. 271 ALEGRE, “Les multiplicacions dels pans en Marc”, 417. 272 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 255.

3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark

123

31b contains a literary procedure typical of Mark, since it is linked to the previous text with a ‘γάρ’ (for/since) with explanatory value (cf. Mark 1.16, 22, 38; 2.13; 3.21; 5.8, 28, 42; 6.14, 18, 31, 52; 7.3; 16.8b, etc.), which is considered by scholars to be editorial.273 The immediately subsequent context of the first multiplication has as its object another miracle, since Mark presents Jesus walking on the water (6.45–52). It is a Christophany of Jesus,274 which ends with the repeated misunderstanding of the disciples (6.52),275 and thus prepares for what will be the end of the section, which also ends by underlining the misunderstanding of the disciples (8.17–21). As for the second multiplication (Mark 8.1–10), the immediately preceding context is the healing of a deaf-mute (7.31–37) in a pagan land, because Jesus is on the eastern shore. This fact is significant, as is the text that precedes this miracle: the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30). A woman dialogues with Jesus and makes him understand that the pagans can also benefit from his saving action. Moreover, it is no coincidence that between the first multiplication of the loaves and those miracles in a pagan land that precede the second multiplication, Mark placed the difficult and controversial pericope on purity (7.1–23). The discussion of what was clean or unclean was a burning and difficult issue for the early Pauline communities, because cultural purity was an indispensable element of Jewish identity, which they considered should be maintained as an exclusive element of God’s people in Christian communities too. Mark, on the other hand, declares that these norms are no longer valid and, therefore, he argues for the same position as Paul, since if Jesus has annulled the obligatory nature of certain norms of the Law: the Sabbath (2.23–28; 3.1–6) and the norms of cultural purity (2.15–17; 7.1–23),276 then it can be affirmed, as Paul does in Galatians 3.28, that there is no longer any difference between Jews and non-Jews. 273

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 414–415; TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 371–

375.

274

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 421 comments as follows: “Jesus as the realization of these hopes: he is the expected revealer and shepherd of the people who will lead them to final victory. (...) Jesus, then, fulfils the Mosaic model, he also transcends it. This point will be reinforced in the next story (6.45–52), which on the one hand will recall a theophany to Moses, but which on the other hand will present Jesus not in the Mosaic role but in the divine one”. Also in GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 269–271. 275 The v. 52 is editorial as stated by GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 267 and defended by MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 429, because the misunderstanding of the disciples is a typically Marcan theme that the evangelist is interested in emphasising. 276 Only the evangelist Mark 7.19b states: “Thus he declared all foods clean”, words that prepare for the fact that Jesus acts in a pagan land in 7.24–37 and the second multiplication for the pagans in 8.1–10, because after what he says in 7.19b, we must leave the limits of the land of Israel to take the Gospel to all nations. This statement is in tune with Paul in Romans 14.14, 20.

124

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

In the context immediately following the second multiplication we find two stories. First, the Pharisees demand of Jesus a sign from heaven (8.11– 13), an attitude that corroborates their hypocrisy and their distance from Jesus, as we have seen elsewhere in the Gospel277 (2.16, 18, 24; 3.6). The Pharisees react with complete hardening of hearts. Jesus’ answer shows that he will never give a sign like the one they demand. Only the heart, that opens (6.52; 8.17) can recognise Jesus. Therefore, conversion and faith are needed to believe in the miracle. Then, once again, Mark records the incomprehension of the disciples (8.14–21), who receive from Jesus the same reproaches that the pagans deserved in 4.10–13. Here too, Mark speaks in an editorial form.278 The commentary of 6.52 is categorical: the disciples have not understood anything about the episode of the loaves and, therefore, their hearts are hardened. The disciples run the risk of becoming men without faith, unbelievers with hardened hearts, like the Pharisees. Jesus in 8.14–16 warns them that their concern about the lack of bread is superfluous. Jesus will take care of them and feed them, as well as the hungry crowd. In 8.17–21, the criticism is made in a broader way, although it seems to be softened in form since it is made by means of a question. Moreover, the evangelist seems to have left “a door open” in indicating that the disciples “have not yet” understood with the implication that they may yet come to understand Jesus. Therefore, the content of 6.52 is not the last word in the disciples’ assessment. 3.4.2. Structure in parallel cycles Having analysed the immediately preceding and subsequent contexts of each of the multiplications, it seems reasonable to consider each multiplication as a new beginning and thus to place the two narratives at the beginning of parallel sequences.279 Furthermore, the healing of the blind man after the second boat trip to Bethsaida can be understood as the end of the second sequence, and can be contrasted with the healing of the deaf-mute. The two sections 277

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 502 states that this little pericope contains elements of lexicon specific to Mark, then he says: “The ‘framework’ verses 8.10, 13 employ characteristic Marcan vocabulary (‘immediately,’ ‘entered,’ ‘boat,’ ‘with the disciples,’ ‘again,’ ‘went away,’ ‘the other side,’) and therefore were probably heavily edited by the evangelist”. Thus, it has probably been edited and transformed by the evangelist. Surely it was also Mark’s hand that turned Jesus' interlocutors into Pharisees in 8.11, for these are the enemies of Jesus throughout the Gospel. 278 REPLOH, Markus, 75–88. 279 John C. HURD, “Isaiah’s Curse according to Mark. Earlier Letters of Paul and Other Studies”, ARGU 8 (1973) 85–96; Camille FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 207. In this same vein GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 300 reads: “Die Geschichte vom Mahl der Viertausend kann nur in Verbindung mit ihrer Doublette in 6.30–44 beurteilt werden”.

3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark

125

relating to controversies with the Pharisees, on the Law in the first cycle and on the signs in the second, can also be aligned. As for the passage of the Syrophoenician woman of the first multiplication and the discussion in the boat of the second, if we bear in mind that both passages have to do with ‘bread’, because the Syrophoenician woman seeks “children’s crumbs” and in the boat the disciples are warned against “the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod”, we have, then, these parallel structures: Multiplication of the loaves for the 5000 (6.34–44)

Multiplication of the loaves for the 4000 (8.1–9)

Boat trip (6.45–53)

Boat trip (8.10)

Controversy with the Pharisees (7.1–23)

Controversy with the Pharisees (8.11–13)

Children’s crumbs (Syrophoenician woman) (7.24–30)

The yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod (8.14–21)

Healing of a deaf-mute (7.31–37)

Healing of a blind man (8.22–26)

Clearly, there are considerable similarities between the two multiplication stories, but there are also differences. The two passages are unbalanced in terms of the wording of the boat trip, because in the first there are nine verses on the subject (6.45–53), while in the second there is only one (8.10). The discussion with the Pharisees takes up much more space in the first cycle (7.1–23) and, in contrast, only two verses in the second cycle (8.11–13). The final healings are similar, but somehow different. What does Mark intend? The first cycle ends with the healing in a pagan land of the deaf man who cannot speak.280 Note the association between listening and speaking. When his ears open, he speaks well, so listening and speaking are two sides of the same coin. In the same vein, we observe that the story of the Syrophoenician woman consists precisely in her intelligent response which causes Jesus to say that her words have saved her (7.28–29); she is, therefore, a woman who “speaks well” and is therefore rewarded. Mark, moreover, takes care to make it clear to the reader that the woman is not Jewish but Greek, of the Sy280 Mark is very symbolic in describing miracles. It is no accident that he places the miracle of a deaf-mute in a pagan land. The pagans were considered “deaf” because they did not listen to the Word of God, and “mute” because they did not praise God. If Jesus heals a deaf-mute in a pagan land it is precisely because, after having declared all the foods clean, there is nothing preventing Jesus or the Marcan community from taking the Gospel to a pagan land; there is nothing preventing the Marcan community from sharing the Eucharist – the table – with the pagans. So states MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 472 when he says that pagans are often related in the Old Testament to deafness because of their insensitivity to the Word of God (Isa 42.17–19; 43.8–9; Mic 7.16). Likewise, GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 297 corroborates the openness to pagan lands narrated by Mark 7.31–37.

126

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

rophoenician race, therefore pagan and, furthermore, insists that she has heard (7.25: ἀκούσασα). The second cycle closes with the healing of a blind man (8.22–26), of whom Jesus asks if he can see after restoring his vision, and about whom Mark states in v. 25b: “and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly”. When his eyes open, he sees, because to see means to understand. This miracle is unparalleled in Matthew and Luke; they deliberately omit it because they do not use Mark’s symbolic paradigm in their writings.281 Likewise, Jesus asks his disciples, in the boat, if they have understood the miracles of the loaves in 8.18–21: 18

Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?’ They said to him, “Twelve.” 20 “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 Then he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

By using the quote from Jeremiah 5.21, Mark is linking Jesus’ disciples to the blind man in the pun on blindness and misunderstanding. P. Sellew282 affirms that this passage was reworked by the evangelist utilising two traditions of didactic character that he found in the material he used. Mark establishes a symbolic link between sight and hearing.283 The people of Israel have become deaf to the Word of God because they reject Jesus and even ask him for “signs from heaven”, as the Pharisees do in order to have a reason to kill him. Mark warns the disciples of the ‘yeast’ of the Pharisees and that of Herod. Additionally, Paul284 in 1Corinthians 5.6–8 uses the symbol of the yeast to refer to evil. In Galatians 5.7–12, the yeast represents the corrupt influence of the teachers who try to persuade the community of Galatia to be circumcised. This is not the case in the Gospel of Matthew, who interprets yeast as teaching (Matt 16.6, 11–12), while in the Gospel of Luke it is interpreted as hypocrisy (Luke 12.1). On the contrary, in the Gospel of Mark it is precisely the deaf-mute man and the Syrophoenician woman, both pagans, who are able to hear and understand who Jesus is. Mark has consciously constructed the first cycle on the theme of listening and speaking and the second on the theme of seeing. The two multiplications have the same function: true vision comes only through Jesus; he is the only one who opens the ears of the deaf and the eyes of the blind wherever they 281

COLLINS, Mark, 392. Philip SELLEW, “Composition of Didactic Scenes in Mark’s Gospel”, JBL 108 (1989) 613–634. 283 HURD, “Isaiah’s Curse according to Mark. Earlier Letters of Paul and Other Studies”, 94–96. In the same vein, MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 496, states that “leaven and bread are linked with misunderstanding and spiritual blindness”. 284 COLLINS, Mark, 386. 282

3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark

127

come from, because the evangelist equates Jews and pagans, recalling Paul’s statement in Galatians 3.28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”. 3.4.3. The Eucharistic tradition in Paul and Mark and the section of the loaves in Mark There is a lack of consensus among the scholars as to the night on which the Last Supper occurred,285 and neither is there a consensus between the synoptic Gospels (Mark 14.12; Matt 26.17; Luke 22.8) and Paul (1Cor 11.23–26). There has been extensive analysis of the synoptic texts and the First Epistle to the Corinthians (11.23–26) on the Eucharistic traditions contained therein286 and, although it is not part of our research to clarify these complicated questions, in view of the widespread objection to the incompatibility between the Pauline text and the Marcan text, this question must be addressed briefly. Critics of our thesis argue that the evangelist does not mention in his account that the events that Jesus puts into practice during the Last Supper must be remembered, while Paul does mention it. This is an element that sets the apostle apart from the evangelist. For this reason, we find particularly interesting the story of the woman who anoints Jesus in Mark 14.3–9, as Elisabeth V. Dowling287 proposes. Within the Pauline narrative, Jesus entrusts his disciples to repeat his actions in remembrance of him (εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν) in 1Corinthians 11.24. The absence of the remembrance phrases of the Last Supper ritual in Mark suggests the possibility that Mark did not know the Pauline words. However, if we take into account the story of the woman who anoints Jesus, we see that it is Jesus himself who tells his disciples who are at table with him, that what the woman has done will be told in remembrance of her (εἰς μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς) – breaking the jar and pouring the ointment, anticipating with these actions those that Jesus himself will carry out at the Last Supper, where he will break the bread and will pour his blood. The equivalence of ἀνάμνησιν and μνημόσυνον is seen in the fact that both are used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew root zkr. Therefore, Mark uses the narrative of the anointing to 285

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 240; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 963; Paul N. TARAZI, The New Testament an Introduction: Paul and Mark, I, 120.216–217. 286 MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 285–287; TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 664–669; LOISY, L’Évangile selon Marc, 563; DONAHUE – HARRINGTON, The Gospel of Mark, 319–325; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 240–243; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 963–964; SCHENK, “Die Rezeption der paulinischen Herrenmahlworte bei Markus. Gottes Wort in der Zeit”, 261–263. 287 DOWLING, “‘Do This in Remembrance’: Last Supper Traditions in Paul and Mark”, 221–241.

128

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

include the action of remembrance (1Cor 11.24–25 and Mark 14.9) in a different way, because the genre in which he writes is different from that of Paul. After this short excursus and focusing on what is of interest to our work, we compare the following texts:288 Mark 6.41

Mark 8.6

Mark 14.22

Taking the five loaves / ἄρτους

he took the seven loaves / ἄρτους

he took a loaf of bread / ἄρτον

blessed / εὐλόγησεν

after giving thanks / εὐχαριστήσας

after blessing it / εὐλογήσας

broke the loaves / κατέκλασεν and gave them to his disciples / ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ

Matt 26.26

gave it to them / ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς

1Cor 11.23–24

Jesus took a loaf of he took a loaf bread / of bread / ἄρτον ἄρτον

took a loaf of bread / ἄρτον

after blessing it / εὐλογήσας

when he had given thanks / εὐχαριστήσας

when he had given thanks / εὐχαριστήσας

he broke it / ἔκλασεν

he broke it / ἔκλασεν

he broke them / he broke it / he broke it / ἔκλασεν ἔκλασεν ἔκλασεν

and gave them to his disciples / ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ

Luke 22.19

gave it to the disciples / δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς

and gave it to them/ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς

This table makes clear that the repetition of words is overwhelming both in terms of the noun ‘loaf/bread’ and the aorist participles which express the blessing and the final verbs of breaking and giving bread. Even if, beyond the lexical similarities, we look at the whole verse without eliminating anything, the Eucharistic echo is deafening. Many Marcan scholars consider that the section of the loaves has a direct relationship with the Eucharist289 because of the lexical and symbolic similarities of the three fragments, especially in the presentation of Jesus’ action of blessing. 288

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 409–410. FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 249; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 410–411; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 256; NEUFELD, “Jesus’ Eating Transgressions and Social Impropriety in the Gospel of Mark”, 23–24; PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 54–55; ALEGRE, “Les multiplicacions dels pans en Marc, 149; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 528–529; AUS, Feeding the Five Thousand, 151–152. 289

3.4. The enigma of the two multiplications of the loaves in Mark

129

Mark wants his readers to remember the Eucharist in the context of the multiplications of the loaves and to do so he uses a Eucharistic terminology. In 7.3–5, 23, Mark has already used παραδίδοναι and παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, language proper to the Pharisaic tradition from the oral Torah which guaranteed the continuity between the rabbinic and the Mosaic tradition. This is also found in 1Corinthians 11.23, just before the words of Jesus that instituted the Eucharist indicating that in Paul’s time there was already a specific terminology being used in a fixed way.290 Bread is the central element in the Eucharist; therefore, the bread becomes the paradigmatic symbol of Jesus himself, and the link between the section of the loaves and the Eucharist is clear. This connection must have been especially clear to the early Christians for whom the Eucharistic celebrations always involved a full meal (1Cor 11.20–34).291 Despite all that has been stated, we still need to consider why Mark included two multiplications of the loaves in his narrative and what relationship with the apostle Paul it might have. 3.4.4. Conclusions In Mark 8.3 it is said that those who listen to Jesus have come from a great distance, ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν, the usual way in which the people of Israel alluded to non-Jewish nations in the Old Testament292 (cf. Deut 29.21; 1Kgs 8.41; Josh 9.6, 9; 2Chr 6.32; Tob 13.13; Isa 5.26; Jer 4.16; Ezek 23.40 etc.) and in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2.39; 22.21; Eph 2.12–13). In addition, the evangelist indicates that Jesus and the disciples arrive with the boat on the other shore, understood as pagan land.293 If Mark wanted to keep the two stories294 it is because this doublet allows him to include the pagans in the Eucharistic meal thanks to the action of Jesus

290

JACOBI, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus?, 275. William David DAVIES, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, London: SPCK 1948, pp. 268–270. 292 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 487. 293 Ibid., 505–506; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 306–307; ALEGRE, “Les multiplicacions dels pans en Marc”, 418; Jean-Marie VAN CANGH, “La multiplication des pains et l’eucharistie”, in Evangile selon Marc, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1988, pp. 309–346. 294 In the Gospel of Matthew there are two multiplications of the loaves, in 14.13–21, the first one, and in 15.32–39 the second one, but without any remark in which the evangelist says “some of them have come from a great distance”, because in the Judeo-Christian context, in which the Gospel was written, the idea of openness to pagans did not fit in until after Passover. The Gospels of Luke and John only include an account of the multiplication in a Jewish context. 291

130

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

when he performed the multiplication miracles. 295 It is Jesus himself who made it possible for the pagans to participate in the Eucharist without having to be Jewish by religion, because he stated this in 7.1–23, when he declared all foods clean and, therefore, he opened the door to sitting at the table with those on the other shore. The miracles of Jesus with the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman, a Gentile woman (7.24–30) who asks him to cast out a demon that his daughter has, and with the deaf-mute man (7.31–37) – in a pagan land – are further proof of Mark’s intention to include the pagans.296 In addition, there is another lexical issue we need to consider that supports our thesis. In the second multiplication of the loaves, 8.7 reads: “καὶ εἶχον ἰχθύδια ὀλίγα· καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτὰ εἶπεν καὶ ταῦτα παρατιθέναι”. The aorist participle εὐλογήσας agrees with ἰχθύδια (fish). The action of blessing, in this case some fish, would never have been done by a Jew since only God blesses. The Greek language of the verse is another element to affirm that Jesus acts in a pagan land.297 The evangelist insists that Jesus heals people who are not Jewish and gives it an ecclesiological meaning, because he wants to include them in the community of believers. The healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman by Jesus and the woman’s response, aware that God’s plan is offered first to the people of Israel, and after Easter, also to the pagans, is in line with what Paul affirms in Romans 1.16–17. Likewise, the healing of the deaf-mute man by Jesus – the way in which the Jews identified the pagans since they were not able to hear the Word of God – enables the pagans to sit at the table with the Judeo-Christians and share the Eucharist, because it is Jesus himself who has healed both. Mark, as a good disciple of Paul (Rom 9–11), includes the two stories to make communion between the Judeo-Christian and pagan-Christian communities possible. The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves becomes a Eucharistic catechesis,298 taking advantage of the symbolism of the loaves. At the same time, the context surrounding the section on the loaves of bread includes a critique of the Judeo-Christianity that does not accept Pauline Christianity with its openness to pagans, since it identifies the Pharisees with the generation of unbelievers in the desert. It also contains a criticism of Judeo-Christians who question the full inclusion of pagans in the communities, something so radically defended by the apostle Paul.

295

Eric K. WEFALD, “The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark: A Narrative Explanation of Markan Geography, the Two Feeding Accounts and Exorcisms”, JSNT 60 (1995) 16–26. 296 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 476–477. 297 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 301–302. 298 ALEGRE, “Les multiplicacions dels pans en Marc”, 425.

3.5. The mission to the pagans

131

The estrangement of Jesus from the Jewish religion and the consequent confrontation with the Pharisaic authorities 299 will mean that Christians of pagan origin can fully participate in the Eucharist with the same right as Christians of Jewish origin. The truth of the Gospel implies the communion table is for all those who believe in Jesus over and above their differences – whether they come from Judaism or paganism – without any pre-conditions for participation. 300 As Paul states in Galatians 2.3–4, the Gentiles are not compelled to be circumcised nor are they to keep the Jewish Law. The Gospel entails sitting together at table, sharing bread (Gal 2.12), without barriers of purity (Mark 7.1–23). The message that Mark conveys in the so-called section of the loaves (6.30–8.21) is one of the significant elements of agreement between Paul and Mark, since, starting from different presuppositions, both have highlighted the central character of the communion table. For Paul, this communion is based on the Easter experience of Jesus, who overcomes the particular law of Judaism by uniting all believers in faith and in eating. Mark, on the other hand, develops the theme of the communion table from the earthly story of Jesus, basing it on what he did when he shared the table in the field with all those who followed and listened to him, as indicated in the section on the loaves. However, both claim that all followers of Jesus, regardless of origin, can sit at the table together.

3.5. The mission to the pagans 3.5. The mission to the pagans

The connection between Paul and Mark is also reinforced by the shared theological vision of the role of the Gentiles in the evangelical mission.301 We know that Paul in his letters called himself “the apostle to the gentiles”302 and that he travelled through the territories outside of Israel taking the Gospel to the pagans. The Gospel of Mark, a few years later, is the corroboration that Paul’s action was right and an imitation of what Jesus himself had done during his earthly life, since, as the evangelist shows, Jesus had travelled to pagan lands and had healed, liberated and saved non-Jewish men and women.

299

This estrangement and confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees is evident throughout the whole Gospel, thus in 2.6–10, 15–17, 18–22, 27; 3.4–6; 7.1–23; 8.11–13; 11.18; 12.9–12 etc. 300 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 49–55. 301 MASCILONGO, Il Vangelo di Marco, 444–450. 302 Rm 11.13; Ga 1.16; 2.8; 1Te 2.16, in DUNN, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 89–95; Pablo T. GADENZ, Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11 (WUNT 267), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009, pp. 318–328.

132

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Jesus’ action justifies the Pauline mission and directly connects the apostle Paul and the evangelist Mark. Paul does not betray Jesus by evangelising outside of Israel; on the contrary, Paul becomes the one who really understood what Jesus had done. Therefore, Paul does not invent openness to the pagan world, but it was Jesus himself who went to the pagan world and freed men and women by healing them and offering them salvation. 3.5.1. The Marcan Jesus and the pagans In the Gospel of Mark we find a particular interest in Gentile mission.303 In Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, Mark includes the Gentiles as followers of Jesus and does not differentiate between Jews and Gentiles (3.7–10); Jesus makes three trips to Gentile territory (4.35–5.20; 7.24–37; 8.1–9.29), indicating that the mission goes beyond the boundaries of Israel;304 Jesus speaks of the corruption of the Temple and cites Isaiah 56.7 to indicate that the Temple should be a place of prayer for all the nations (11.17); the eschatological discourse of chapter 13; and Jesus tells the disciples that the Gospel should be proclaimed in the whole world (14.9). Additionally, in all these situations, in which the evangelist makes clear Jesus’ openness to the pagan world, we find pagans who are receptors or witnesses of the Gospel: when Jesus heals a man possessed by demons in the territory of the Gerasenes (5.1–20); when he goes to Tyre, in the boundaries of Israel, where he heals the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24– 30), and there, passing through Sidon, he heals a deaf-mute (7.31–37). Likewise, shortly after having fed five thousand Jews, he feeds four thousand Gentiles who follow him (8.1–10). Finally, at the end of the Gospel, when the curtain of the Temple is torn from top to bottom, it is a Roman centurion – a pagan – who confesses the divinity of Jesus.305 Among all these narratives, we believe that the story of the Syrophoenician woman is the key text to understand the openness to the pagans that the evangelist proposes through the action of Jesus. Before analysing this text in depth, however, there is another text which must be considered because it anticipates what will happen in chapter 7. We begin with the miracle of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac in 5.1–20. 303

Cornelis BENNEMA, “Gentile Characters and the Motif of Proclamation in the Gospel of Mark”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 217–218. 304 WEFALD, “The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark”, 9–14; Michael FLOWERS, “Jesus’ ‘Journey’ in Mark 7:31 Interpretation and Historical Implications for Markan Authorship and Both the Scope and Impact of Jesus’ Ministry”, JSHJ 14/2 (2016) 158–185, pp. 177–178. 305 MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 13.

3.5. The mission to the pagans

133

a) Jesus heals the Gerasene demoniac: Mark 5.1–20 From the beginning of this pericope, the evangelist locates the action of Jesus in a pagan land. Mark states that “they came to the other side of the sea”, therefore, to a foreign, non-Jewish land,306 where Jesus goes with a boat, an element that has already be found in other texts (3.9; 4.1, 36, 37; 5.2, 18, 21; 6.32, 45; 8.10) and which serves to indicate that Jesus moves to different places and goes to those who need him. This miracle takes place in Gerasa, one of the most important pagan cities of the Decapolis.307 According to Taylor,308 the narrative consists of four parts: Jesus meets the demoniac man (5.1–10); the demons are cast out and enter the swine (5.11– 13); the reaction of the inhabitants of the city (5.14–17); and the one who has been healed proclaims the news of the miracle (5.18–20). It can also be understood chiastically as F. Moloney suggests:309 [A] The demoniac man approaches Jesus (5.1–5); [B] the encounter of Jesus with the demoniac man (5.6–12); [C] the demons enter the swine (5.13); [B ‘] the encounter of Jesus with the people of the city (5.14–17); and [C ‘] the purified man approaches Jesus (5.18–20). Verses 5.1–17 offer a typical story ‘of exorcism. Moreover, the text has been embellished by the narrator with elements from the Old Testament (Isa 65.1–7; Ps 65.7–8; 68.6; Exod 14–15) to prove that God manifests his mercy to his people, but also to his enemies.310 The possible relationship of the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac with the book of Exodus is confirmed by a spell of exorcism which invokes God and Jesus is presented as fulfilling the mission of Moses through his incomparable divine power. Moreover, as J. Marcus affirms, 311 Jesus’ power is greater than that of Moses, because he shows how divine sovereignty extends beyond the Israelite nation. After placing us in space – the other side – he introduces us to “a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him” (5.2; cf. 1.23). This man is tormented by a group of unclean spirits called ‘Legion’; 312 it is therefore an exorcism, and it does not seem to be by chance that it is. Just as the first nar306

DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 338; COLLINS, Mark, 267; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 196; STRAUSS, Mark, 215. 307 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 200–201. 308 TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 271. 309 MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 102. 310 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 348; Stuart ROCHESTER, Good News at Gerasa: Transformative Discourse and Theological Anthropology in Mark’s Gospel, Oxford - New York: Peter Lang 2011, p. 191. 311 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 348. 312 ROCHESTER, Good news at Gerasa, 139–140 includes the different hypotheses regarding the fact that the word ‘Legion’ can be interpreted as a direct reference to the Roman occupation; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 351–352, underlines that it can have a political meaning.

134

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

rative of Jesus’ public ministry in Jewish land was the description of an exorcism (1.23–26), the first narrative of Jesus’ ministry outside Palestine must also be an exorcism (5.1–20). For Mark, Jesus’ exorcisms are the essence of his ministry. If we find similar stories in Jewish and pagan lands it is because the good news is for Jews and pagans and, above all, to insist on openness to the pagans.313 This is followed by a short dialogue between the demon-possessed man and Jesus himself, in which the demons call and address Jesus as the “Son of the Most High God” (5.7), suggesting the unlimited power of Jesus and anticipating his final success in exorcism. This name was often used to refer to Zeus (ὕψιστος) and used by the Jews of the Diaspora.314 Therefore, within the Gentile world, this way of addressing Jesus is entirely proper when referring to the God of Israel, as is demonstrated in the Old Testament in referring to the sovereignty of God manifested over the whole earth including that of the Gentiles (Deut 32.8; Dan 4.14).315 The fact that demons are sent into the swine by Jesus is not a coincidence either, because swine are unclean animals for the Jews (Lev 11.1–8; Deut 14.8) and it was a known fact that these animals were identified with the Gentiles in many Jewish circles.316 The swine plunged into the sea, a symbol of evil, and therefore the place of the devil, and is the way in which the evangelist Mark expresses the fact that Jesus really cleansed the pagan land of demons, that is, of evil. The reaction of the inhabitants of the city is surprising as they are afraid of Jesus’ action and ask him to leave because they are unable to understand his action. In contrast, the behaviour of the one who has been healed stands out because he is the only one who understands who Jesus is and begs to be allowed to follow him.317 Jesus does not allow the man who has been healed to join the group of the Twelve, who are the companions of his earthly ministry and who are destined to become the first witnesses of his resurrection (16.7). Instead, Jesus offers him the possibility of returning home to his friends and there proclaim from his own experience “how much the Lord has done for you” (5.19b).318 The 313

Daryl Dean SCHMIDT, The Gospel of Mark: With Introduction, Notes, and Original Text; Featuring the New Scholars Version Translation, Sonoma: Polebridge Press 1991, p. 72. 314 MCKENNA, On Your Mark, 71. 315 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 342–344. 316 Molly WHITTAKER, Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge Commentaris on writings of the Jewish and Christian world 6), Cambridge: University Press 1984, pp. 73–80; ROCHESTER, Good news at Gerasa, 143. 317 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 206–207. 318 BENNEMA, “Gentile Characters and the Motif of Proclamation in the Gospel of Mark”, 219–220; STRAUSS, Mark, 221.

3.5. The mission to the pagans

135

demoniac has become a follower of Jesus, but he must not accompany him across the lake, because the Gentiles do not have to become Jews to be followers of Jesus.319 The people to whom the demoniac must speak are Gentiles, like himself, and so this proclamation that the man must make is presented by Mark as the first proclamation of the good news about Jesus in Gentile territory, thus being an anticipation of the proclamation of the Gospel that will be spread throughout the world after Easter (13.10). In this way, the announcement of this man healed by Jesus symbolises an important moment in the history of Christianity and helps to understand why Jesus tells him not to follow him to Palestine, but to stay in Gentile land. 320 b) Jesus heals the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman: Mark 7.24–30 The story of the Syrophoenician woman recapitulates a controversy of early Christianity concerning the status of Gentile believers who believed that Jesus was the Messiah.321 The progression from 7.1–23 to 7.24–30 is logical, because Jesus has confronted the Pharisaic regulations on purity and the food laws of the Old Testament and has ended up declaring all foods clean (7.19b). These rules separated the Jews from the Gentiles socially, but after Jesus’ words this separation has disappeared. Impurity can no longer be associated with the Gentiles who do not comply with the prescriptions of the Torah and, therefore, the Jesus of Mark can respond to the request of the Syrophoenician woman when she asks him to heal her daughter.322 The location of this pericope is the region of Tyre (7.24), a predominantly Gentile area. This verse is editorial,323 as the evangelist portrays Jesus moving from Galilee to the region of Tyre and, consequently, to the Gentile land. It is a border area. Tyre was a very prosperous Phoenician city-state; its wealth depended on metal processing, the production of purple ink and trade with all the regions of the Mediterranean. According to Flavius Josephus,324 Herod the Great ordered the decoration of the city’s halls, porticoes, temples and markets during his regular visits to Tyre. Mark presents Jesus’ journey to

319

MCKENNA, On Your Mark, 74. FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 200; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 352–353; ROCHESTER, Good news at Gerasa, 148. 321 T. Alec BURKILL, “The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24–31)”, NovT 9 (1967) 161. 322 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 283.286. 323 COLLINS, Mark, 365; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 287. 324 Flavius JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War, 2.588, Aylesbury: The Peguin Classics 1959. 320

136

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the Tyre region as an “excursion into gentile territory”325 and consequently, his message becomes universal. After the healing of the Gerasene demoniac (5.1–20), the next time Jesus is in Gentile territory is found in chapter 7. Jesus tries to go unnoticed (7.24), as he had also tried to do in 5.19–20 and will try to do in 7.36–37; but, whenever he finds himself in pagan lands, he is unsuccessful in doing so. Marcus326 says that the glory of God cannot remain secret, as it is the case with the Gospel that, precisely because it is good news, it cannot remain locked up in Israel. The fact that the power of God goes beyond the limits of Israel has a couple of precedents in the Old Testament; 327 on the one hand, in 1Kings 17.8–16, the prophet Elijah works a miracle for a Gentile woman and her son in the region of Tyre and Sidon – which we also find in this narrative – and, on the other hand, in 2Kings 4.18–37 the healing of the son of a rich Shunammite woman is explained with attitudes reminiscent of the Syrophoenician woman of Mark 7.24–30. The two stories in the narrative cycle of Elijah and Elisha present the figure of a prophet who helps someone who lives outside the land of Israel. In this text, Jesus also goes beyond the borders of Israel to meet those who live outside. In the opinion of a significant number of scholars,328 this story has been placed in Tyre on the evangelist’s own initiative since Mark wants to show that the apostolic mission to the Gentiles has antecedents in the earthly work of the Messiah. In the same way, Mark is the author329 of Jesus changing his attitude towards the woman at the height of the narrative, as the fruit of her faith, because for the evangelist, faith and prayer are what truly saves. As for the type of text, many scholars believe that this is a miracle of exorcism,330 but as it shows a special interest in the dialogue between Jesus and the woman, J. Gnilka331 argues that it is really a didactic conversation, since it is from dialogue that the teaching of the pericope has to be drawn.

325

Gerd THEISSEN, The Gospels in Context Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1992, p. 68; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 499; COLLINS, Mark, 364. 326 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 467. 327 CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli, 40–41. 328 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 290; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 462–465; T. Alec BURKILL, “The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24–31)”, 165–166; T. Alec BURKILL, “The Syrophoenician Woman: The Congruence of Mark 7:24–31”, ZNW 57 (1966) 72–73; Alessandro SACCHI, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a). Gesù ed i gentili nel vangelo di Marco”, RivB 33 (1998) 137. 329 BURKILL, “The Syrophoenician Woman”, 73. 330 CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli, 42. 331 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 290–291; BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 38.

3.5. The mission to the pagans

137

The Syrophoenician woman has heard about Jesus, and when she sees him she bows down at his feet in an attitude of respect and prayer (7.25). Mark describes her prostrate at the feet of Jesus, using an image that alludes to a supplicant. Although Mark has already informed the reader that the woman has a daughter with an unclean spirit in v. 25, it is in v. 26 that the woman asks Jesus to “cast the demon out of her daughter”.332 The attitude of this woman reminds us of that of the woman with the haemorrhage of 5.27, 33, who “had heard about Jesus” and who “fell down before him”. This similarity between the two women is further enhanced by the fact that, being pagan, the Syrophoenician is ritually unclean, like the haemorrhaging woman – albeit for different reasons. In addition, her daughter has an unclean spirit, as all the food in the previous pericope (7.1–23) was unclean until Jesus declares that all foods that enter the man are clean (7.19b). In spite of her impurity, just like the haemorrhaging woman, the Syrophoenician woman expects the healing action of Jesus. The fact that Mark first informs us of her Syrophoenician origin, indicating the ethnic group to which she belongs and, later, that she was Greek, is the way in which the evangelist ensures that there is no doubt that she was a pagan woman.333 It must be said that the term ‘Ἑλληνίς’ (v. 26) is equivalent to ‘pagan’, because here the adjective does not have an ethnic meaning but a cultural and religious one. In fact, the NRSV translates the word ‘Ἑλληνίς’ as ‘Gentile’, and we find the same in Romans 1.16 and in 1Corinthians 1.22–24, when the apostle Paul refers to pagans.334 This is followed, in vv. 27–28, by the two most controversial and difficult verses of this periscope. First, the woman asks Jesus to heal her little daughter and Jesus refuses to do so, because first, πρῶτον, it is necessary that the children are fed, τὰ τέκνα, and it is not right to throw the bread to the dogs, κυναρίοις (7.27). The interpretations of this verse have been very diverse. Nevertheless, despite the offensive tone of Jesus’ words, we consider the most faithful reading to be the most literal. Verse 27 begins with the adverb πρῶτον, which only appears in the Gospel of Mark and which we do not find in Matthew 15.21–28,335 because Mark wants to make it clear that Jesus came first for the Jews and then for the Gentiles,336 words that evoke those of Paul in Romans 1.16; 11.2, 11.337 Further332

John PAINTER, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, 539. BENNEMA, “Gentile Characters and the Motif of Proclamation in the Gospel of Mark”, 221. 334 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, 462; COLLINS, Mark, 365. 335 PAINTER, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, 540. 336 Michael F. BIRD, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (LNTS 331), London - New York: T & T Clark 2006, pp. 46–57. 337 BURKILL, “The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24–31)”, 162–163; Susan MILLER, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, in 333

138

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

more, J. Gnilka338 affirms that Mark presents the historical-salvific order of Paul by saying that first the Jews will be saved and then the pagans, although their rejection is not affirmed. Likewise, Iverson’s study 339 of the Gentile characters of the Gospel of Mark states that the mission to the Jews takes place before the mission to the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles also receive the benefits of Israel’s inheritance through the mission of Jesus. Another important concept within v. 27 points to bread, a concept that refers to the immediately preceding (6.30–44) and subsequent (8.1–10) context. The bread is the Gospel that Jesus gives first to the Jews in the first multiplication to the five thousand and then to the Gentiles in the multiplication to the four thousand. For this reason, the bread, which is also the bread of the Eucharist, and which, therefore, is Jesus himself who delivers himself to men and women, is given to all peoples, to all nations, as he will say later in 13.10: “And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations”. Therefore, bread cannot be anything other than the healing, the salvation of which Jesus is the agent.340 As for the term κυναρίοις (puppies), there are some scholars who have tried to give it a positive meaning; thus, V. Taylor341 speaks of Mark’s freedom to use diminutives and considers that the use of the diminutive κυναρίοις in 7.27 softens the apparent rudeness of the words of Jesus to the Syrophoenician woman; on the other hand, he also affirms that Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre because the mission in Galilee had failed and thus justifies the mission to the Gentiles. Bundy, 342 following a suggestion made by E. Lohmeyer, emphasises the warmth of the verse, because he believes that this phrase is given in a humble home of Galilee in which the puppies wait under the table for the crumbs to fall and, consequently, he maintains that this is a descriptive verse and not a “hateful comparison”. However, he does not provide any reasons that might explain why the third evangelist omits the story.

Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, p. 181; STRAUSS, Mark, 315–316. 338 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 292. 339 Kelly R. IVERSON, Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: Even the Dogs under the Table Eat the Children’s Crumbs (LNTS 339), London – New York: T & T Clark 2007, pp. 182– 186. 340 BURKILL, “The Syrophoenician Woman”, 82–84; COLLINS, Mark, 367. 341 TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 349–350. 342 Walter Ernest BUNDY, Jesus and the First Three Gospels, an Introduction to the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955, p. 280; Ernst LOHMEYER, Das Evangelium des Markus, vol. 2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967, p. 148.

3.5. The mission to the pagans

139

Others like F. V. Filson343 suggest that the expression on Jesus’ face and the tone of his voice should indicate that the rejection was not definitive. All these ideas are no more than speculation and cannot be derived from the text, so we believe that we must accept that the words of 7.27, as Jesus said them, led to the rejection of the request of the Syrophoenician woman. J. Marcus344 affirms that, although some scholars have tried to soften the expression by saying that it is a diminutive, koiné Greek does not semantically distinguish the word form within the Gospel from the usual one κυῶν. Moreover, at the time Mark wrote, calling someone ‘dog’ was – without a doubt – an insult (Matt 7.6; Luke 16.21; Phl 3.2; with the same value we find it in the Old Testament in 1Sam 17.43; Isa 56.10–11), because dogs were normally wild animals living outside the cities and feeding on carrion. They were, in fact, unclean animals. R. Feldmeier 345 states that the association between dogs and Gentiles is found in contexts where separation between Jews and non-Jews is necessary. Similarly, J. Gnilka346 affirms that the word κυναρίοις refers to the nickname that the Jews applied to the Gentiles as dogs, but he remarks that the Syrophoenician woman is equated to a domestic dog and not a street dog, so it is not so hard and offensive. The Syrophoenician woman and her daughter present themselves as dogs, but domestic dogs and, of course, positioned in a lower place to that of the children. The children are the Jews and, although in the Gospel, Jesus never denies that the Gentiles can also be called children, it seems that there is a preference for the former, because the Israelites, as Burkill argues,347 are the children of God in a special sense (Exod 4.22; Deut 14.1; Isa 1.2). Along the same lines, Paul affirms that sonship belongs to Israel (Rom 9.4), which implies that other peoples must have a lower status. God is universally revealed to all, but the Gentiles had become idolaters, thieves, sodomites and slanderers of the truth, as Paul reminds us in Romans 1.18–32 or 1Corinthians 6.9– 11, so the name ‘dogs’ can be attributed to them because it has a scriptural basis. The woman’s response in v. 28 is even more significant than the previous verse. The Syrophoenician woman, instead of being offended or humiliated by the words of Jesus, reacts positively and intelligently, showing an open 343 Floyd Vivian FILSON, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, London: Hendrickson Publishers 1987, p. 180. 344 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 463. 345 R. FELDMEIER, “Die Syrophönizierin (Mark 7, 24–30) – Jesu ‘verlorenes’ Streitgespräch”, in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden (WUNT 70), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1994, p. 218, where he says: “Wer mit einem Götzendiener isst, ist wie einer, der mit einem Hund isst”. 346 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 293. 347 BURKILL, “The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman”, 169.

140

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

and understanding attitude that contrasts with that of the scribes and Pharisees in Mark 7.1–23.348 In fact, the transcendence of the woman’s response is corroborated by the use of the biblical formula: ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ (she answered and says to him) in v. 28a, which introduces the woman’s words. In addition, she addresses Jesus as Κύριε (Sir), which implies the woman’s recognition of who Jesus is.349 On the lips of the woman, Jesus is the Risen One, the Son of God, and with this recognition the place that the Gentiles and women must occupy in the Church is also revealed.350 The woman takes advantage of the opportunity to speak that Jesus gives her, and replies. Then, using the same metaphor that Jesus used, she accepts the name ‘dogs’ and begs him to allow her to enjoy the crumbs that the children drop from the table. In other words, she accepts what Jesus tells her but, thanks to her cunning, asks for a special concession: the crumbs that fall from the children’s table. She is, therefore, a woman who has not lost hope and who trusts in Jesus and his capacity for dialogue. She is convinced that the bread can be shared.351 In this manner, the Syrophoenician woman’s words refer us back to the multiplication of the loaves of bread in 6.30–44 from which there was plenty of bread left over, as stated in 6.43. Precisely because there was so much left over, the Gentiles can also be well fed by Jesus (8.1–10). So, if the bread is the bread of life, then the bread is the Gospel, and the Gospel is Jesus himself. This is the message of the evangelist: the Gentiles have access to salvation. As a result of the woman’s words, Jesus’ attitude changes and he no longer rejects the woman’s request but heals her daughter.352 The woman’s attitude is consistent with his action, because the woman has faith, she believes in Jesus. It is the faith of the Syrophoenician woman that has changed everything. The woman’s answer is linked to that of Jesus and his action; the woman, at the same time, becomes the prototype of a pagan believer 353 who, after Easter, will receive the Gospel that the Jews will reject. This is Mark’s mes-

348

CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli, 49. GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 292–293. Only in the mouth of the Syrophoenician woman does Mark treat Jesus as ‘Sir’, a title that corroborates his faith in the risen Christ, which is also argued by BURKILL, “The Syrophoenician Woman”, 89–90. 350 MCKENNA, On your Mark, 102. 351 CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli, 49. 352 Guy SAYLES, “Jesus and the Challenging Gift of the Other: An Expository Article on Mark 7:24–30”, RevExp 114/1 (2017) 110–117. 353 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 293; PAINTER, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, 540. 349

3.5. The mission to the pagans

141

sage – in keeping with Paul’s – which we do not find in Matthew or Luke’s Gospel. Matthew and Luke present it differently. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus acts in a pagan land in 8.28–34 in healing the Gerasene demoniac and in 15.21–28, where he heals the daughter of the Canaanite woman. In the first case, Matthew tries to prepare for the end of his narrative because he does not state at the end of this story that the demoniac became a missionary of the Gospel in his home; in the second case, Matthew can include the miracle because he has already warned his disciples not to evangelise the pagans in 10.5b-6, and because the story itself states that ‘first’ one must go to the Jews and then to the pagans. In the text of the Canaanite woman (15.21–28), the crumbs that fall from the table are those who receive the Gentiles who ask for help to the God of Israel. 354 Mark’s Syrophoenician woman establishes an intimate relationship with Jesus, while Matthew narrates a public encounter and a confession of faith mediated by Judaism, alongside a clear statement by Jesus that his mission was restricted to the people of Israel, with some exceptions. Thus, where the Jesus of Matthew emphasises the great faith of the woman based on her success, the Jesus of Mark attributes to her perceptive response the fact that God’s blessings can, through Jesus, reach the Gentiles directly. Therefore, the two miracles performed by Jesus in pagan lands are justified within the narrative context of the Gospel of Matthew (8.5–13: Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant; 21.28–32: the parable of the Two Sons; 21.33– 46: the parable of the Wicked Tenants; 22.1–14: the Wedding Banquet). It will not be until after Easter that the Gospel reaches the pagans. As for the Gospel of Luke, we find only one case, in 8.26–39, in which Jesus performs a miracle in a pagan land, and it is the account of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac. If we bear in mind what F. Bovon says,355 we should not see in this episode an announcement that pagans should be evangelised because later Luke forgets about the trip to Tyre and Sidon. Moreover, it will not be until after Peter’s visions in Acts 10.1–48 that it will be possible to evangelise in pagan lands and, consequently, Jesus’ action in Gerasa is not significant within Luke’s Gospel. According to Burkill,356 the evangelist Mark intended to illustrate with this account (7.24–30) that the apostolic mission to the Gentiles was carried out by Jesus himself during his earthly ministry. The story of the Syrophoenician woman of 7.24–30 is closely linked to 7.1–23, because both texts deal with 354

Ulrich LUZ, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 8–17), (EKK I/2), Zürich: Benziger 1990, pp. 433–435. 355 François BOVON, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 1,1–9,50), (EKK III/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verl., 2. Aufl 2012, pp. 428–429. 356 BURKILL, “The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman”, 173–74.

142

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the early Christian controversy about the place of the Gentiles in the Gospel of the crucified one. In Mark 7.19b, Jesus declared all foods clean and, therefore, there is no longer any reason to exclude the Gentiles from the table and, consequently, from the Eucharist. In fact, the situation was not easy, as Paul explains in Galatians 2.1ff, because the apostle had great difficulty in persuading Peter and the other pillars of the church of Jerusalem that the laws of ceremonial purity, which prevented them from sitting at table with the Gentiles, were no longer operative. The story of the Syrophoenician woman is exceptional and strange to the Gospel of Mark.357 In fact, it is the only example in the Gospels of a person who wins over Jesus with her arguments. Furthermore, Mark presents a Jesus who appears insensitive to the woman’s request. It is a surprising passage in a Gospel that shows Jesus in constant conflict with the Jewish principles that regulate the daily life of Judaism (7.1–23), understood as an old order, incapable of containing the new wine that the proclamation of the Kingdom supposes (2.21–22). We find a Jesus who announces and anticipates the destruction of the Temple and all those who control it (11.12–25; 12.1–9; 13.1–2; 15.38), and the Jews asking Pilate to crucify Jesus (15.11–14). On the contrary, in the passages where the Gentiles appear, Jesus is usually solicitous (5.1– 20; 7.31–37). For all these reasons, 7.24–30 is a strange passage. After Easter, the Jews lost their exclusivity in salvation (Rom 1.16–17), which is in line with the oldest Gospel we have and which we also find in the Pauline material: after Israel’s rejection, salvation reaches the Gentiles (Rom 11.11).358 For Mark, according to Sacchi359 and as we have seen, Jesus, during his lifetime, declared that the usual interpretation of the Law was incorrect, and he broke the connection with official Judaism. At the same time, Jesus offers signs of the Kingdom of God among the Gentile showing that they too had been called to salvation. Therefore, during the earthly life of Jesus, the “after Easter” had already begun, that is, the time when salvation is offered to all. In this account, which Mark has placed in front of the conflict of Jesus with the scribes of Jerusalem, we find the universal Christian mission. What Paul has presented as a harsh discussion in his letters to the Romans and Galatians, is expressed by Mark here, in 7.24–30, with the example of a woman who appears as the bearer of the mission to the Gentiles.360 In the story of the Syrophoenician woman, Mark expresses, in contrast to other voices within the

357

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 470–471. José M. GONZÁLEZ RUIZ, “Paralelos en las teologías marcana y paulina”, 325. 359 SACCHI, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a)”, 152–153. 360 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 544; POKORNÝ, From the Gospel to the Gospels, 120–121. 358

3.5. The mission to the pagans

143

early Christian tradition, the openness to pagans through the work of Jesus himself and, therefore, the universal mission. c) Jesus heals a deaf-mute: Mark 7.31–37 After having healed the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman, Jesus continues his journey in pagan lands (v. 31). This verse is Mark’s own editorial comment designed to confirm that Jesus continues his ministry outside Palestine and to corroborate the fact that the Gospel must be offered to pagans.361 Examining a map of the region, it becomes clear that Mark’s description contains many errors but, if we take into account the background and not what is said, we can find a symbolic meaning to Mark’s “geographical error”. G. Theissen362 points out that the errors of 7.31 and 5.1, the latter saying that Gerasa is on the shores of the Sea of Galilee (5.13), are of the same category, because both confusions refer to the region of Syria next to Palestine. These two geographical indications advance evangelisation to the Gentiles and are found at the beginning of the pericope, where it is evident that the evangelist’s editorial activity has been important. Perhaps it was an intentional ‘error’ on the part of the evangelist, who according to Theissen intended to bring Jesus close to his community, or perhaps it was a matter of insisting that Jesus was not in Israel. Therefore, as J. Gnilka states,363 although we cannot say precisely which city or town Jesus visited, the text leaves no doubt that it is a pagan land in the midst of the Decapolis. In addition, we find other types of editorial touches typical of Mark: ‘he returned’, ‘region’ and ‘Sea of Galilee’, words that the evangelist usually uses when he moves on to another story and which indicate the intention to reinterpret the text.364 In the midst of a pagan context, Jesus heals a deaf-mute man just as he had previously healed the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman. The narrative can be divided into two main parts: vv. 31–34 which describe the scene, and the petition healing of the deaf-mute man and vv. 35–37 where the healing is acclaimed by all. This miracle connects with the exorcisms that Jesus did in the first part of the Gospel (1.23–28; 1.34; 3.11–12; 6.13), because if Jesus had exorcised unclean spirits among the Jews, he must also exorcise unclean spirits among the pagans.365 Moreover, the way he does it is a common form in the ancient 361

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 297; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 475–476; COLMark, 369. 362 Gerd THEISSEN, The Gospels in Context, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1992, pp. 243– 245. 363 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 298–299; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 511–512. 364 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 477. 365 Ibid., 562. LINS,

144

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

world,366 although it was unsuitable for Jews since he uses saliva for healing and it was considered unclean. Jesus again breaks the norms of purity, a question that was widely developed in the discussion of 7.1–23. Thus, Jesus’ technique for healing the deaf-mute puts him dangerously close to ritual impurity.367 As for the use of words in Aramaic, we know that the pagans of the region of Decapolis understood it and probably also spoke it, so it is not strange that Mark put words in Jesus’ mouth in this language, which was the usual language of Jesus. Verse 34 contains a word of Jesus, Efatà, in Aramaic, perhaps because of the popular belief in the power of the original words of Jesus.368 The evangelist had also done this in 5.41: Talitha cum, always accompanied by the Greek translation. The second part of the narrative (vv. 35–37) focuses on the order of silence369 that Jesus addresses to the healed man and those around him. Yet they ignore and acclaim the action of Jesus. In this story, we find significant symbolic elements, since in the Jewish world the Gentiles were identified with the deaf, because they did not listen to the Word of God and with the mute because they did not praise God,370 as we saw in analysing the pericope of the Gerasene demoniac. Now, in 7.31–37, a pagan man has been freed by Jesus from his deafness and muteness and, consequently, the Gospel can now be proclaimed by pagans in pagan lands. Another important point to note in this pericope is that in 7.37 Jesus is linked to the one who does all things well, understood as a reference to Genesis 1.31 (LXX), when at the end of the sixth day of creation God looks at everything he had made and, indeed, it was very good. Hence, even though Jesus is the agent of the miracle, ultimately it is God who works the miracle. This healing also recalls the text of Isaiah 35.5–6, where the prophet announces 366

7.

367

PLINY, Historia natural, 28.4.7; TACITUS, Historiae, 6.19; SUETONIUS, Vespasianus,

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 478. Ibid., 558. 369 The theme of the messianic secret is an element only found in the Gospel of Mark and has been widely studied and debated among researchers. The miracles that Jesus performs can only be understood in the light of the cross, that is why Mark 9.9 is a key verse for understanding Jesus’ order to keep silent “9As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead”. Miracles cannot be read on the fringes of the crucified one and here Mark follows Paul again. Therefore, we see how the apostle in 1Cor 12.28–31 puts the action of performing miracles in fourth place, because the fundamental and basic thing is the cross. The theology of the cross is fundamental and decisive to understanding who Jesus is, both in Paul and in Mark. Let us cite here two works that explain and complete this question and the bibliography on the subject: GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 167–170; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 525–527. 370 STRAUSS, Mark, 324. 368

3.5. The mission to the pagans

145

that the blind shall see, the deaf shall hear, the mute shall speak and the lame shall leap for joy; thus, the healing of the deaf-mute refers to the eschatological advent found throughout the Gospel,371 albeit with a different nuance from that of the prophet Isaiah and which clearly distinguishes Mark from what was affirmed in the Jewish Scriptures. The evangelist evokes the prophetic statement in a context of liberation and healing in which Jesus casts out a demon who possesses a Gentile man who cannot hear or speak; consequently, it is no longer about the exclusivism of Israel referred to by Isaiah, nor about Jesus’ charismatic or magical power, but about openness to the pagans and the signs that lead to a new world.372 Consequently, it is clear that the Gospel has been opened to the pagans.373 Thus, the miracle of the deaf-mute takes on symbolic significance. The disciples are unable to understand anything; Jesus himself has told them and will tell them that they are deaf, that they are blind, and that their hearts have hardened (7.18; 8.17–21). The fact that Jesus opens his ears and tongue to the deaf-mute means that Jesus opens the doors to faith and its proclamation. After this healing, the evangelist relates the second multiplication of the loaves (8.1–10), and this narrative becomes the confirmation of the openness to pagans. Jesus remains in the pagan land374 and, as he had done before in Israel (6.34–44), he feeds with ‘bread’ those who “come from a great distance” and do not belong to Israel, specifically four thousand, in reference to the four cardinal points. After distributing the bread to the Gentiles, seven baskets are left over, which is the number that characterises “the other nations” in the Jewish Scriptures (Gen 10). Moreover, the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves can also be related to the miracle of the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman, because she asks Jesus to let them eat, after the children are satiated, the ‘bread’ crumbs that fall from the table375 and Jesus feeds four thousand Gentiles with ‘bread’. There is no doubt, then, that Mark understands the multiplication of the loaves as an acceptance of the sharing of the Eucharist by Jews and Gentiles, and as an anticipation of the salvation conferred upon the pagan crowd. In this way the Gospel is offered to all people, Jews and pagans.

371

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 297–298; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 480–481. MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 481. 373 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 521. 374 SACCHI, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a)”, 150–152. 375 THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, 54–55. 372

146

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

d) The tearing of the curtain of the Temple and the reaction of the centurion: Mark 15.38–39 In the history of biblical exegesis, the tearing of the curtain of the Temple376 (15.38) has had two interpretations. On the one hand, there are scholars 377 who argue that Mark intended to express that, with the death of Jesus, the Temple and all that surrounded it had lost all meaning and the only thing that could possibly happen was its destruction. On the other hand, it is affirmed378 that, in the Temple of Jerusalem, the curtain before the sancta sanctorum had the function of veiling the appearance of the Lord and preventing the revelation of the majesty of God, as Exodus 26.33 says. If this curtain is torn, then access to God for those who are not Temple priests and for the Gentiles is opened. We believe, as J. Gnilka379 says, that the two interpretations can be combined, since they are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Therefore, it can be said that the death of Jesus triggers the openness of God’s revelation to the pagans. God manifests Himself in the cross of his son Jesus and then makes Himself accessible to all people, without distinction, including the Gentiles. This idea is reinforced by the words of the centurion who confesses the divine sonship of Jesus in 15.39: “Truly this man was God’s Son!”. The Roman centurion, although only mentioned in three verses (15.39, 44– 45), plays a determining role in the Marcan narrative. 380 The centurion is presented as a gentile who, standing before the cross, observes the death of Jesus. His words are a consequence of the cry of Jesus and of everything that has happened up to the point Jesus dies on the cross. In addition, v. 39 is editorial, 381 because the linguistic features proper to Mark are visible and because the verse is the result of the evangelist’s special concern for the Gentile question. The words of the centurion contrast sharply with the attitude of the Jewish authorities, who are incredulous, demanding proof of his Messianism and 376

MALBON, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark, 126. Mark's interpretation of the Temple is unique in the Gospels. 377 SCHENKE, Jesus als Weisheitslehrer im Markusevangelium, 45–47; SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 55–57. 378 Eta LINNEMANN, Gleichnisse Jesu Einführung und Auslegung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1964, pp. 158–163. 379 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 323–324; FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 284. 380 Brian K. GAMEL, Mark 15:39 as a Markan Theology of Revelation: The Centurion’s Confession as Apocalyptic Unveiling (LNTS 458), London - New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark 2017. Gamel’s narrative-critical interpretation provides a useful tool for entering and appreciating Mark 15.39 in the context of the world created by the author of Mark’s Gospel. 381 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 324–325; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1058.

3.5. The mission to the pagans

147

who, in the end, take him to the cross. The centurion expresses his faith at the foot of the cross. Unbelief is overcome by the confession of faith of a Gentile. With this phrase, the evangelist achieves two objectives sought from the beginning of the narrative. First, it shows that only from the cross can one understand who Jesus is, and thus links the end and the beginning of the Gospel of Mark (1.1; 15.39) and, second, it shows that the miracles of Jesus, despite being signs of his sonship (3.11; 5.7), need the cross in order to be understood. Moreover, the fact that Mark puts these words into the mouth of a pagan is a clear statement of the fact that faith alone saves and that, as Paul said in Galatians 3.28, there is no longer any distinction between Jews and Greeks. The title that Jesus receives from the centurion’s mouth, “God’s Son”, is the same as the one we find in 1.1 when Mark introduces his narrative: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. For Mark it is crucial to understand who Jesus is, and while Peter, in the name of the disciples, professes Jesus as the Christ in 8.29, it is a Gentile centurion who recognises that Jesus is the Son of God, precisely in the shadow of the cross.382 “God’s Son” was not a title commonly used in the Jewish world to refer to the Messiah and, therefore, could be a Christian confession proper to the Marcan community.383 The centurion sees that the crucified is the Saviour. The consummation of salvation, however, will not take place until after the resurrection but Mark anticipates it in the words of the Roman centurion which are presented as an authentic profession of faith.384 3.5.2. Conclusions: The Gospel of Mark is the Gospel to the Gentiles The connection between Mark and Paul is also reinforced by the shared theological vision of the role of the Gentiles within the evangelical mission. In the Gospel of Mark, the healing of the Gerasene demoniac (5.1–20), the declaration of all foods clean (7.19), the encounter with the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30), the healing of the deaf-mute (7.31–37) and the multiplication of the loaves to the four thousand (8.1–10) show the action of Jesus in pagan lands during his earthly life and, therefore, are the basis for the openness to pagans of Paul. Mark’s use of Gentile characters to illustrate the mission to the Gentiles is a strategy of the evangelist who, through secondary characters, instructs his audience about true discipleship. Therefore, the different characters we meet

382 BENNEMA, “Gentile Characters and the Motif of Proclamation in the Gospel of Mark”, 228. 383 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 323–324. 384 SACCHI, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a)”, 149.

148

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

in pagan lands are not passive recipients of Jesus’ mission but play an active role in the proclamation of the Gospel.385 Paul’s letters predate the Gospel of Mark, but the evangelist relates a time before Paul wrote his letters to the various pagan communities. Hence, if Jesus worked miracles in pagan lands (7.24–30; 7.31–37), if Jesus went to pagan lands and healed pagan demoniacs (5.1–20), as the evangelist tells us, Pauline activity in pagan lands is justified, because Jesus’ action supports Paul’s activity.386 Moreover, Paul describes himself as the apostle to the pagans in Romans 11.13; 15.16, 18 and 1.16, while Peter and the church of Jerusalem are the ones who preach the Gospel to the Jews (Gal 2.8–9). The mission to the Gentiles of the Marcan narrative justifies the Pauline Gentile mission. Paul and Mark affirm that the proclamation of salvation must be brought first to the Jews and then to the pagans, as we find in the story of the Syrophoenician woman in which Jesus’ harsh response to the woman’s cry for help in 7.27 points to Israel’s priority in Jesus’ ministry: καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτῇ· ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τὲκνα, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν. (He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”)

The adverb πρῶτον implies the chronological and qualitative priority of the Jews in the history of salvation and this is precisely the emphasis Paul explains in Romans 1.16:387 Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηερίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι. (For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.)

Paul adheres to this principle theologically, but also in practice, since his mission emphasises the proclamation of the Gospel to the pagans. This principle of going first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles if the former reject the Messiah Jesus, is further developed by Paul in Romans 9–11, 388 where he argues that he has gone the Gentiles in order to provoke the jealousy of the Jews. This rejection has made them lose the first place in the plan of salvation even though the covenant with the people of Israel remains irrevocable (Rom 11.29). 389 In the Marcan narrative, the Syrophoenician woman admits the secondary mission to the Gentiles but appeals to the crumbs that fall from the 385

BENNEMA, “Gentile Characters and the Motif of Proclamation in the Gospel of Mark”, 230. 386 THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, 53–61. 387 COLLINS, Mark, 367. 388 PAINTER, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, 549–552. 389 SACCHI, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a)”, 153–154.

3.5. The mission to the pagans

149

table because her faith opens the door to dialogue with Jesus. It is no longer a question of being Jewish or Gentile, male or female, but of having faith, of believing in Jesus, as Paul says in Galatians 3.28. In short, it is about the acceptance of all believers without distinction. Paul’s actions, however, had not been understood by the church of Jerusalem (1Thess 2.16) 390 and the relationship between Jews and pagans in the different communities located in pagan territory had caused serious confrontations and problems between Peter, James and Paul. One of the most problematic was the sharing of the table and meals with the pagans,391 since it was unthinkable for the Jews to break the traditional precepts of purity (Rom 14.1–6). However, the Marcan Jesus had declared all foods clean (7.19) and this made it possible to share the table, something that had caused so many problems for the apostle (Gal 2.11–12). Therefore, the words of Mark 7.19 reflected the Pauline mission and prefigured the mission to the nations, free from the Law as Paul himself states in Romans 14.14.392 Furthermore, there is a common element in the different Marcan texts which can help in understanding the intention of the evangelist. Thus, in the dialogue between the Syrophoenician woman and Jesus (Mark 7.27–28), bread is used symbolically – the crumbs that fall from the table. Additionally, in the second multiplication of the loaves (8.1–10) carried out in a pagan land, the bread is the element that refers us to the possibility of JudeoChristian and pagan-Christians sharing the last supper at the same table, just as Jesus himself had done in Mark 2.13–17 when he shared the table with publicans and sinners. Therefore, the bread, which is precisely the symbol with which Jesus will identify himself at the Last Supper, is what makes possible openness to the pagans. Consequently, Mark writes a Gospel centred on the communion of faith and table, since this is the basic experience of the first Christians of Jewish and Gentile origin following the agreement between Peter and Paul. However, the intervention of some of James’ groups led to the creation of two communities with the same faith but with separate tables because of the JudeoChristian insistence on maintaining the purity laws. Paul firmly opposed this division, affirming that it went against the truth of the Gospel, which is expressed at a common table (Gal 2.12). This, too, is a key element in the Gospel of Mark, as we have seen in the analysis of the texts (7.24–30; 8.1–10). 390 The specialists discuss whether vv. 15–16 are of Paul or are a later interpolation; thus in C. GIL ARBIOL, Primera y segunda carta a los Tesalonicenses, Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino, 2004, pp. 39–66 the reasons for and against these alternatives are discussed, and you can also consult the bibliography in the same book, pp. 65–66. In any case, Paul's opposition to the church of Jerusalem is unquestionable. 391 KUHN, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium, 91–95. 392 PAINTER, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, 530.

150

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Both Paul and Mark start from different assumptions but come to the same conclusion. For Paul, the openness to pagans is based on the Easter experience of Jesus, which goes beyond the particular Law of Judaism (Rom 10.4); for Mark the healings in pagan lands (5.1–20; 7.24–30; 7.31–37), and table fellowship with pagans during Jesus’ ministry (2.13–17; 8.1–10) justify the proclamation of the Gospel to the pagans.393 The relationship between Jews and pagans is a key issue for both Paul and Mark. In fact, for both the apostle and the evangelist, revelation to the Gentiles is truly decisive. The cross is the determining element for both, because it is the end of the Law and the beginning of the Gentile mission.394 The Law must remain relevant to Judeo-Christians and a valid option for Gentiles, though not necessary. Mark begins his narrative in 1.1 by saying that he begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and continues, after this beginning, through sixteen chapters. Paul explains and emphasises the end of the Gospel and, therefore, the culmination of who Jesus is and the consequences of Jesus being the Son of God.395 Beginning and end seem to require each other to have a full sense. Therefore, it seems that the Marcan narrative was made to serve different needs, as Brandon states. 396 Jesus, even during his earthly ministry, had shown that he was much greater than the Jewish Messiah and thus the traditional interpretation of the church of Jerusalem, which had been overcome by Paul, was corroborated by the teacher’s own life. This fact is also related to the disciples’ misinterpretation of the messianic nature of Jesus and their constant misunderstanding of his actions during their proclamation and of his passion and death. The tearing of the curtain of the Temple (15.38) is a symbol of the end of an era.397 The Temple has lost its meaning, has come to an end and has nothing left to do but wait for its destruction. Furthermore, the disappearance of the Temple reaffirms the openness of access to God for the Gentiles. Therefore, with the death of Jesus, the revelation of God to those who had hitherto been forbidden is brought about. By his atoning death,398 Jesus has saved us all (Rom 3.22–23). The righteousness that God has given him is not based on the Law, but on faith (Rom 3.27–28). 393

PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 54–55. SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 54–57. 395 SVARTVIK, “‘East is East and West is West’: The Concept of Torah in Paul and Mark”, 184–185. 396 BRANDON, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 204–205. 397 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 323–324. 398 Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, Christologie in der Paulus-Schule: Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte des paulinischen Evangeliums (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 1), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2000, pp. 40–41. 394

3.6. The end of the Temple

151

God makes Himself accessible on the cross of his Son (1.1; 15.39) to all people, including the Gentiles, or perhaps it should be said that it is precisely to them because only the Roman centurion is able to grasp that the crucified is the true Son of God. Only a pagan sees in the man nailed to the cross of Calvary the Son of God.

3.6. The end of the Temple 3.6. The end of the Temple

Within Mark’s Gospel, unlike the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Temple is only mentioned in polemical contexts, controversies, allusions to its destruction, judgment of Jesus and crucifixion. As a result, it can be demonstrated that Mark’s treatment of the Temple is original, because the love of God and one’s neighbour “is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” as he says in 12.33b. This differs from what we read in the other synoptics, where Matthew and Luke present the two greatest commandments without setting them in opposition to the Temple (Matt 22.34–40 and Luke 10.25–28).399 The first time we find the word ‘Temple’ in the Gospel of Mark is after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem at 11.11. Then Jesus withdraws, in 11.11b, and returns to the holy city and the Temple. On the way, he curses a fig tree (11.12–14) and then enters the Temple and violently drives out the vendors he meets (11.15–19). He returns to Bethany with his disciples, and they realise that the fig tree cursed by Jesus has surprisingly dried up. Jesus uses a prophetic sign, understood as a symbolic action400 in which the fig tree is a metaphor for the Temple which does not fulfil its function despite its appearance and, at the same time, it becomes the starting point for his teaching on faith and prayer (11.20–25). According to Lohmeyer,401 the curse of the fig tree, in principle, has no symbolic meaning, but it is the evangelist Mark who gives it this meaning in his narrative. In any case, W. Telford402 argues that the fact of presenting a tree that does not bear fruit is a proleptic sign that prefigures the destruction of the Temple’s cult. The other times that the Temple appears in the Gospel of Mark are: explicitly in the mouth of Jesus in the prediction of the destruction of the Temple in 13.1–2; when Jesus is accused, in the judgment of the Sanhedrin, of having wanted to destroy and rebuild the Temple in three days in 14.58; and when

399

Camille FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 270–271. NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 408–410. 401 LOHMEYER, Das Evangelium des Markus, 2, 235. 402 William TELFORD, The Barren Temple and the Withered Fig Tree (JSNTSup 1), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1980, p. 238. 400

152

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the evangelist says that, when Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was torn in 15.37–38.403 3.6.1. The Curse of the Fig Tree and the Purification of the Temple (11.12–25) Mark is probably responsible for dividing the story of the fig tree into two halves and putting the purification of the Temple in the middle in order to highlight the message he wants to convey. Therefore, Mark probably wrote the introductory verse (11.12) and those found in verses 20–25 using a typically Marcan literary strategy such as the sandwich structure.404 We have divided the section into three small parts: Jesus curses the fig tree (11.12–14), Jesus and the merchants of the Temple (11.15–19) and the lesson of the fig tree (11.20–25). a) Jesus curses the fig tree: Mark 11.12–14 The evangelist informs us that Jesus is heading again towards Jerusalem (11.12). Jesus is hungry and comes to a fig tree to pick a fruit, but there is none (11.13). Then he curses the fig tree, telling it that it will never bear fruit again (11.14). It is clearly symbolic, because Jesus would have known that in spring there can be no figs. In both Old and New Testaments, we find fig trees and other trees symbolising good or bad people, the leaders of Israel or the Jewish nation (cf. Jer 24.1–10; Matt 15.13; Luke 13.6–9); this symbolism is also used in eschatological contexts and shows the relationship between the trees, Jerusalem and its Temple. Telford405 highlights five Old Testament passages (Isa 28.3–4; Jer 8.13; Hos 9.10, 16; Joel 1.7, 12; Mic 7.1) that like Mark 11.12–14, 20 use a fig tree that withers as a symbol of Israel’s eschatological judgment. J. Gnilka406 states that the symbolism of the fig tree indicates that Israel rejects the words of Jesus. Israel has let pass its καιρός, the propitious eschatological time. The fig tree has not borne the fruit that Jesus asked and it will never again bear fruit. The dried fig tree becomes an expression of Israel’s rejection and as a result of that, Israel has lost its exclusivity. However, just as the text of Mark does not speak of the whole people of Israel, because it is said that “the whole crowd” was still with Jesus (11.18), so the evangelist refers specifically to the priests and scribes, who are opposed to the action and message 403

Simon J. JOSEPH, “Jesus and the Temple Incident: A New Proposal”, JSHJ 14 (2016) 80–83; Timothy C. GRAY, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role (WUNT 2, Reihe 242), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008, pp. 198–200. 404 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 425–426; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 788–789; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 122; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 246. 405 TELFORD, The Barren Temple and the Withered Fig Tree, 187–189; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 123–125. 406 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 126; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 789.

3.6. The end of the Temple

153

of Jesus (11.18; 12.12; 14.1–2). Furthermore, the sterility of the fig tree anticipates the destruction of the Temple which will be prophesied in 13.2. Consequently, for Mark, the Temple is presented as meaningless, empty and sterile. b) Jesus and the merchants of the Temple: Mark 11.15–19 Jesus enters the Temple of Jerusalem and rebels against the trade that is practiced there (11.15) – probably in the courtyard of the Gentiles – drives out the buyers and sellers (11.15b), and overturns the tables and the seats of those who sold doves (11.15c). According to Sanders,407 this action of Jesus is more symbolic than economic, because a single person could not have expelled all the trade that was done in that great courtyard. Sanders408 states that the purpose of Jesus’ attack is to indicate the impending destruction of the Temple. At the same time, Mark emphasises the authority of Jesus in presenting him overturning the tables and throwing out the vendors.409 The idea of the Messiah united to the restoration of the Temple is typical of the Jewish tradition.410 It appears that the Jesus that Mark presents follows this tradition but in a particular way, because the Messiah and the Temple are intimately united in Mark, although to indicate the exact opposite of what was usual in the Jewish tradition. Mark presents a Messiah who is interested in the mission to the Gentiles and in making the Temple a place of prayer for all the nations (Mark 11.17; Isa 56.7); moreover, in line with what Jer 7.11 says, the Temple, which is the house of God, has become a “den of robbers”. Here we find an antithetical parallelism: a house of prayer for all the nations and a den of robbers. What God wants for the Temple and what man has made of it are in opposition.411 The Temple is condemned because the Jewish leaders did not know how to give God the fruits that were needed at the right time that is, accepting the one that God had sent as the Saviour of all humanity.412 This question is also addressed by the evangelist Mark in the parable of the Wicked Tenants (12.1–12) with a markedly allegorical sense.413 Jesus appears as the Son rejected by those who believed themselves to be the masters of the vineyard – the hierarchy of the Jewish people – and, therefore, the vineyard itself – the Kingdom of Lord – will be given to other winegrowers, that is to 407

Ed Parish SANDERS, Jesus and Judaism, Philadelphia – London: Fortress Press – SCM Press 1985, pp. 69–70. 408 Ibid., 61–76. 409 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 128–129. 410 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 791–793. Jewish tradition was militantly anti-Pagan and its roots went back to the Davidic dynasty, the aim being to maintain Israel's independence and its peculiar religion. 411 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 129. 412 SACCHI, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a)”, 148; FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 274–275. 413 COLLINS, Mark, 542.549.

154

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

say, to all people, whatever their nation. The allusion to “the rejected stone” (12.10), which becomes “the cornerstone”, shows, that the Temple that now wants to destroy Jesus, will be demolished according to divine expectations.414 In short, Mark presents, on the one hand, a Jesus who fulfils the messianic expectations with his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (11.7–10), but who at the same time, through a dramatic action, affirms his authority over the Temple by purifying it and so defying the traditional messianic image of his world. The Marcan Messiah purifies the Temple by expelling the merchants who desecrate it and prevent it from becoming “a house of prayer for all the nations”. For this reason, the Messiah is not presented as the one who will restore the Temple but as the one who will destroy it.415 The chief priests and scribes respond as expected: they conspire against Jesus to kill him because they see that the multitude is spellbound by his teaching (11.18). It is one of the harshest reproaches against the Jewish leaders within the Marcan narrative. The reaction of the religious leaders, in this chapter, recalls the one they manifested when Jesus performed the first miracle in the synagogue of Capernaum in 1.21–28. Additionally, in that passage the crowd was astounded at the action of Jesus and his teaching (1.22, 27), and the scribes were deprived of authority (1.22). Therefore, the crowd is presented as Jesus’ protection before the authorities but, at the same time, amazement is not yet faith, which is what is required to be saved, and thus, there is still a long way to go to the cross. This part ends with Jesus’ departure from the city of Jerusalem at sunset (11.19). c) The lesson of the fig tree: Mark 11.20–25 Jesus returns to Jerusalem and Peter, seeing the fig tree withered away to its roots, remembers the curse of the previous day (11.21). The readers of the Gospel know that the curse against the tree has negative implications for the Temple with which it has been closely linked given the sandwich structure utilised by Mark in arranging the narrative.416 Jesus’ imperative response to Peter: “Have faith in God” (11.22) and “Whenever you stand praying, forgive” (11.24–25) can be considered a small summary of what saves people,417 because if faith is the trust placed in God, prayer is the expression of this faith. 414

DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 298–300; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 141–150; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 810–815; SACCHI, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a)”, 148. 415 TELFORD, The Barren Temple and the Withered Fig Tree, 261–263. 416 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 793–794. 417 David E. GARLAND, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, published by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2015, p. 486; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 134.

3.6. The end of the Temple

155

Jesus rebels against the Temple – which is the place of prayer par excellence – and then says that prayer, without the Temple, will be more effective because the guarantee of its effectiveness is not the Temple but faith in Jesus, in God Himself. Furthermore, Jesus adds that there is a third indispensable element: forgiveness (11.25). We must be forgiven by the Father in heaven and we must forgive other people, just as God forgives us, so that people might be saved. 3.6.2. Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple: Mark 13.1–2 Since the beginning of chapter 11, the Temple has been the context in which Jesus has acted in Jerusalem. Now, Jesus leaves Jerusalem never to return and pronounces its condemnation (13.1–2). It is accepted by most scholars that the introductory passage is Mark’s composition,418 because it is full of Marcan vocabulary and themes (genitive absolutes, ‘teacher’, ‘look’, ‘privately’, ‘all’, ‘began to say’). With this editorial passage, Mark builds a bridge providing an introduction to the premarcan narrative of Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple. Jesus has argued with the priests, scribes and elders in the Temple (11.27– 12.37), denounced their behaviour (12.38–40) and praised the poor widow’s small contribution to the Temple treasury (12.41–44). Then Jesus comes out of the Temple (13.1), but a disciple stops and admires the magnificent building that makes it up. Jesus replies with a prophecy in 13.2: “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down”. According to J. Marcus, the prophecy of Jesus is essentially historical,419 since it is attested in different independent strata of the evangelical tradition and of the book of the Acts of the Apostles (Mark 14.58; John 2.19; Acts 6.14). Why does Jesus prophesy the destruction of the Temple? The evangelist framed the action of the purification of the Temple by Jesus (11.15–19) with the account of the curse of the fig tree (11.12–14, 20–21), and that sandwich structure gave the narrative an allusion to the destruction of the Temple. On the other hand, the prophecy about the destruction of the sanctuary of chapter 13.1–2 must also be understood as a judgment against the leaders of Israel, especially against the hierarchy of the Temple for rejecting Jesus.420

418 COLLINS, Mark, 594–598; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 870; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 181–182. 419 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 871; BRANDON, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 37–38. 420 Theodore J. WEEDEN, “The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark 15:20b-41)”, in John R. DONAHUE – Werner H. KELBER (eds.), The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1976, p. 123.

156

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

A similar connection between the rejection of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple is also suggested at the end of the Gospel, when in 15.37–38 the evangelist explains that, after Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was torn, so that what was inside the Temple was made visible to all those who were outside including the Gentiles. Consequently, we agree with Byrne421 that the tearing of the curtain of the Temple represents the opening of the Temple to the pagans and the fact that the Temple has lost its meaning because, with God’s revelation on the cross through His son, Jesus becomes accessible to all people. 3.6.3. “I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands”: Mark 14.58 The word ‘ἱερόν’ (Temple) appears for the last time in the Marcan narrative in 14.49. Mark then replaces it with the Word ‘ναός’ (sanctuary). The change is significant, because ‘Temple’ designates the material building, while ‘sanctuary’ is a symbol of the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection on the third day.422 Within the passion of Jesus, specifically in the passage of the judgment of the Sanhedrin (Mark 14.53–65), Jesus is interrogated, false witnesses accuse him and he is found guilty. One of the accusations against Jesus is his intention to destroy the Temple and build a new one. Although this idea ties in with the Jewish hope that a new Temple and city will have to be built at the time of eschatological salvation, the Sanhedrin cannot understand it. The evangelist, in speaking of the destruction of the Temple, refers to the end of the ancient cult, because the risen Lord will replace and invalidate the Temple.423 However, the Sanhedrin is unable to understand either the words of Jesus or his silence as they accuse him, and it is presented by the evangelist as a failure to understand the prophetic word about the judgment of Israel and the resurrection of Jesus on the third day.424 3.6.4. Conclusion: A paradigm shift in Mark and Paul With his presentation of the Temple, Mark reinforces the tradition of its destruction, since he narrates this within the pericope of the curse of the fig tree. Paul seems to refer to an oral version in 1Corinthians 13.2.425 Matthew and 421 BYRNE, “Paul and Mark before the Cross. Common Echoes of the Day Atonement Ritual”, 217–218. 422 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 281; WEEDEN, “The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark 15:20b-41)”, 123. 423 Pino DI LUCCIO, “Le distruzioni del tempio”, CivCatt 3861 (2011) 231–234. 424 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 279–280; NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 408. 425 COLLINS, Mark, 532.

3.6. The end of the Temple

157

Luke, however, present the story of the fig tree in very different contexts (Matt 21.19–21; 24.32; Luke 13.6–7; 21.29–32). Moreover, after the words of Jesus, the Temple, Jerusalem and Israel, no longer have the historic-salvific role that had always been attributed to them. For Mark, Jesus’ intervention in the Temple has to do with the abolition of the ancient cult. Now there is something new as the Temple will be “house of prayer for all the nations” (11.17).426 These words will find their foundation in the death of Jesus on the cross, a death thought and wished for by the leaders of the people of Israel, but which will result in the tearing of the curtain of the Temple and, therefore, openness to pagans. Without wanting to, it is precisely the scribes and teachers who will bring about what Jesus announced. Jesus’ words justify the invalidation of the Temple in its role as a regulator of the belief system. The Marcan narrative proposes prayer as a new space where the believer can stand before God and so independent of the Temple.427 Thus, the cultural system is replaced by a relational regime based on Christology without the Temple, so that faith becomes the key to salvation. Thus, in 11.22–24 he says: 22

Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”

Like the fig tree that, withered away to its roots, can no longer bear figs, the Temple will no longer bear fruit, but what will bear fruit is faith, as Paul says in Romans 1.17: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith.’” It is an attitude of trust in God and in Jesus (Rom 4.5, 24; 9.33; 10.11; Gal 2.16; Phl 1.29). The righteous person is so by faith, by fidelity to God, 428 without distinction of race or origin, because the death of Christ opens faith to all people, as Paul affirms in Romans 3.22–23 when he says: “22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. In the same manner Mark, when he speaks of “a house of prayer for all the nations” in 11.17, suggests that the house of God is for all nations and its cornerstone is Jesus crucified.429 The exclusiveness of the Temple of Jerusalem has been overcome by faith in Jesus, and the origin of the one who believes no longer matters, as the apostle says in 2Corinthians 6.16: “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the 426

Giancarlo BIGUZZI, “Io distruggerò questo tempio”. Il tempio e il giudaismo nel vangelo di Marco, Roma: Urbaniana University Press 1987, pp. 58–61. 427 FISCHER, Les disciples dans l’Évangile de Marc, 154–161. 428 ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 59–60. 429 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 289.

158

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’”. The Temple of God is no longer the Temple of Jerusalem, but every person who believes in Him is his Temple for this is where God lives. Just as Mark appeals to prayer in 11.24–25, so does Paul in Philippians 4.6: “Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” and in Romans 12.12: “Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer”. Prayer is one of the fruits of faith; it is the expression of faith in Jesus. Prayer helps in difficult times by strengthening faith in the God of love.430 Therefore, the priority of Marcan faith and prayer over against the place of the Temple in Jerusalem is in total harmony with the Pauline idea that faith and prayer are the fruit of all those who truly believe in God. This can only be achieved through faith in Jesus of Nazareth and through prayer to the Father in order to have this faith. The Temple has lost its meaning, as Paul declares in Romans 12.1–2: 1

I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.

As in the Gospel of Mark, the Temple is presented as sterile (11.14), something that no other evangelist states so explicitly.

3.7. What relationship does Jesus have with Roman power? 3.7. What relationship does Jesus have with Roman power?

After the parable of the Wicked Tenants (12.1–12), Jesus is questioned by the Herodians and Pharisees about the payment of taxes to the Roman authority. Both try to deceive Jesus by asking him a trick question (12.13), to try to get him to make a statement against the power of Rome and, in this way, to have even more reason to seize him, condemn him and kill him. Jesus’ opponents act hypocritically because they call him ‘teacher’ (v. 14)431 as if he could lead them on the way to God when, in reality, their question is about the payment of taxes to Roman authority. 3.7.1. Is the tax to be paid to Caesar?: Mark 12.13–17 The passage can be divided into two parts. The first characterised by the parataxis, where the initiative is with the opponents of Jesus (12.13–14) and the 430

Ulrich WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 12–16, (EKK 6/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1982, pp. 20–22. 431 TAIT, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, 122.

3.7. What relationship does Jesus have with Roman power?

159

second, characterised by the hypotaxis, where the initiative lies with Jesus (12.15–17).432 Scholars433 warn us about the unrealistic portrait that Mark presents, as it is difficult to imagine the Herodian elite sent along with a group of Pharisees to ask Jesus a question, since Herod’s dynasty was supported by the Romans and the Pharisees were Orthodox Jewish nationalists. Therefore, it seems that Mark has included the Herodians434 motu proprio, to show that both groups, the powerful in religious and political terms, act against Jesus and intend the same thing: to kill him. The evangelist presents both groups praising the words of Jesus with a false flattery about the truthfulness of Jesus’ words and the authenticity of his relationship with God (12.14). They end up asking Jesus a trick question: “14b ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15 Should we pay them, or should we not?’”. The currency used to pay taxes to Rome was the denarius. The denarius had the image of the emperor of Rome,435 and the multitudes who listened to Jesus knew that this image and the inscription that accompanied it meant the emperor’s divinity. On the one hand, paying the tribute to Rome implied the recognition, not only of Roman sovereignty over Israel, but also the compatibility with its theocratic ideals,436 an idea contrary to the biblical conception that land is the inheritance and property of God (Gen 1.1; 2.4; Exod 9.29; 19.5). On the other hand, it also implied the recognition of the divine status of the emperor – a conception which began to develop at the beginning of the first century – and which was in contradiction to the first commandment of the Law of God in Deuteronomy 6.5.437 Consequently, the Herodians and the Pharisees intended to incite Jesus to commit an act of impiety and political rebellion against the emperor and against Rome.

432

MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 822. GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 151–152; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 818–822. 434 John P. MEIER, A Marginal Jesus: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 3 (AB), New York: Doubleday 1991, pp. 560–565; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 150–151, states that “So wird man annehmen dürfen, dass Vers 13 ganz von Markus gebildet wurde, oder – was wahrscheinlicher ist –, dass der Eingang analog zu 12,18.28”. 435 Henry St John HART – E. BAMMEL – C. F. D. MOULE, “The Coin of ‘Render unto Caesar...’ (A Note on Some Aspects of Mark 12:13–17; Matt 22:15–22; Luke 20:20–26)”, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambrigde: Cambrigde University 1984, p. 258. As it is said, on the head side of the coin, the head of Tiberius with a laurel crown was shown, surrounded by the inscription TI[BERIVS] CAESAR DIVI AVG[VSTI] F[ILIVS] AVGVSTVS (Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, also he Augustus). On the reverse side of the coin was an inscription that read: PONTIF [EX] MAXIM [VS] and the representation of a woman, Peace, incarnation of the PAX AVGVSTA. 436 Flavius JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War, 2.188, Aylesbury: The Peguin Classics 1959. 437 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 823–825. 433

160

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

As for Jesus’ attitude, he seems to have deliberately ignored the fact that the inscription and portrait of the emperor linked Caesar to God, a strategy comparable to that used by Paul to deny the real existence of idols in 1Corinthians 8.4–6. Jesus realises their hypocrisy and tells them so and, before giving them an answer, asks them to let him see a denarius. They probably carried their own coins – not having to ask anyone else for them – which some scholars believe may indicate that they recognised the emperor as the sovereign of the country.438 Furthermore, Mark uses the conjunction ἵνα with final value,439 “so that I can see it”, missing in Matthew and Luke, a word that is not superfluous as it will allow Jesus to expose the true nature of the Roman coin and, consequently, the tax for which it is intended. Jesus’ answer, Mark states, amazes them: “16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ 17 Jesus said to them, ‘Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were utterly amazed at him” (Mark 12.16–17). Why are they amazed? In the coin two areas were conjoined, the religious and the political, since the emperor was represented as a god, an intolerable idea for the Jews. Multiple interpretations of these two verses have been offered. There are those with a Marxist tendency, such as Horsley,440 who suggest that Jesus forbade the payment of the tax because in the Jewish tradition everything belongs to God and nothing to Caesar, the oppressive force. Other interpretations are of a moderate tendency, such as J. Jeremias,441 who interprets Jesus as an antizealot, saying that with these words Jesus manifests his opposition to the revolution. However, the approach most often taken by scholars is to argue that Jesus approves the payment of the tax to Rome. Thus, J. Marcus 442 believes that it is wiser to see Jesus as the defender of payment, because he says that Caesar must be paid with what is his: the coin. J. Gnilka443 is of the opinion that Jesus’ concluding statement is ambiguous and that this is why it causes surprise among the interlocutors. A. Yarbro Collins444 believes that the game ends in a tie, because Jesus pays them in the same coin forcing them to decide what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. Jesus, therefore, ensures that the Romans have no reason to arrest him but, at the same time, those who listen to him are able to discern the moment 438

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 152–153. MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 823–824. 440 Richard A. HORSLEY, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel, Westminster: John Knox Press 2001, p. 43. 441 Joachim JEREMIAS, Neutestamentliche Theologie. Teil 1: Die Verkündigung Jesu, Gütersloh: Mohn, 4. Aufl 1971, pp. 219–221. 442 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 825–826. 443 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 153–154. 444 COLLINS, Mark, 557. 439

3.7. What relationship does Jesus have with Roman power?

161

when Caesar’s claims come into conflict with those of God. That is why the Marcan Jesus recognises the authority of the emperor but puts limits on it: the authority of God. Thus, Mark seems to point to the idea that the demands of God and Caesar do not always conflict. It is possible to be loyal to both providing political power never usurps that of religious matters. Nevertheless, when divine power and earthly authority collide, the decision that is made can only be made towards God. This responsibility is always a challenge and this is why the Herodians and Pharisees are surprised at his response. 3.7.2. Considering Mark 12.13–17 and Romans 13.1–7 The pericope of Mark 12.13–17 and Paul’s teaching in Romans 13.1–7 have been understood by most scholars as voices offering similar answers to similar ethical dilemmas. Both texts speak of the relationship that must be established with the Roman power and, for that reason, these texts have been much debated throughout the history of biblical exegesis. In this sense, there are two main lines of hermeneutic interpretation. The first interpretation is defended by O. Cullmann,445 who affirms that both Jesus and Paul understand the state as something ordained and wanted by God even though it is not, in itself, divine and this is not its ultimate purpose. F. F. Bruce446 and C. K. Barrett447 argue that Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, and Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, speak of the importance of the payment of tax by good citizens. The same goes for X. Alegre448 who believes that Paul recommends Roman Christians to pay their taxes in order to avoid possible future difficulties with the Roman authorities. Similarly, U. Wilckens449 states that Paul exhorts obedience to state authorities, but that this text (13.1–7) is not a Christian theory of the functioning of the state; rather, it deals with the behaviour that Romans living at that time in the city of Rome, ruled by the emperor, were to adopt. Despite the nuances of this first line of interpretation, these texts are problematic for anyone familiar with the brutal and oppressive actions of Rome – or with any dictatorial system at any time in history – because both Jesus’ 445 Oscar CULLMANN, The State in the New Testament, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1956, p. 59. This idea is also advocated by Bruno BLUMENFELD, Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship In a Hellenistic Framework (JSNTSup 210), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2001, pp. 264–301. 446 F.F. BRUCE, “Render to Caesar”, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge: CUP 1984, pp. 249–263. 447 Charles K. BARRETT, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, London: A & C Black 1971, p. 248. 448 ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 316. 449 WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 12–16, pp. 40–41.

162

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

debate with the Herodians and the Pharisees in the Gospel of Mark and Paul’s exhortation to the Romans are written under an imperial regime. Therefore, it is unsurprising that both refer to taxes and duties and the behaviour that Christians should exhibit towards the powers of the world. However, does the behaviour they propose correspond to Christian thought? In this sense, we find the second line of interpretation with authors, such as Tannehill, 450 who argue that Jesus’ answer is an aphorism through which Jesus proposes an intermediate position according to which it is permissible to pay taxes but it is more important to remember that everything belongs to God. W. R. Herzog 451 believes that there are good reasons to question the readings that attribute to Jesus a teaching that supports the payment of taxes without any subtlety or intention. Herzog argues that in order to understand Jesus’ answer one must look at the coin he asks to be brought to him and at Jesus’ answer to his enemies through an antithetical aphorism: if everything belongs to God, the country, the earth and all that it contains, the heavens and the riches of the earth, what belongs to Caesar? Just one thing: the coin he mints with his own image. This one can be returned to Caesar because it is his. Therefore, Jesus was not telling Herodians and Pharisees that taxes must be paid. Rather, he was using an ambiguous code through which he was saying that we must reject Caesar and not serve him. Jesus’ opponents are astonished because they do not understand his words. His cunning and his encrypted language leave them without grounds to arrest him and instead allow Jesus to speak under a hidden code of resistance that can be understood by the crowds. The text of Paul in Romans 13.1–7 is just as surprising and disturbing, so some scholars think that it is an interpolation, 452 for as Wilckens says: 453 “Dieser Eindruck wird dadurch verstärkt, dass in dem ganzen Abschnitt ‘keine Spur einer speziell christlichen Begründung’ zu finden ist”. Those who argue for the first interpretation, that is, that Paul exhorts the citizens to pay taxes to the imperial power, believe that the apostle, in this 450

Robert C. TANNEHILL, The Sword of His Mouth (SBL 1), Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1975, pp. 173–176. 451 William R. HERZOG, “Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12.13–17 and Romans 13.1–7”, PerspRelSt 21 (1994) 339–360. In this same line DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 308–309.311, argues that Jesus only says that we must return to Caesar what is his, the coin, because it is his and has been made by his government. However, God is in another dimension that allows Jesus to remain free before the powers of the earth. 452 Otto MICHEL – Heinrich August Wilhelm MEYER, Der Brief an die Römer, (KeK 4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966, p. 312; Martin DIBELIUS, “Vier Worte des Römerbriefs”, SyBU 3 (1944) 3–17; KÄSEMANN, Perspectives on Paul. The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul, 336–338. 453 WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 12–16, p. 30.

3.7. What relationship does Jesus have with Roman power?

163

fragment of the letter, used a traditional exhortation from Hellenistic Jewish paraenesis without any modification.454 Nevertheless, it is strange that Paul does not refer to the abuses of power which were visible and common throughout the Empire and which he himself had suffered. At the time Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, the persecution of Christians had not yet begun and those living in Rome, if they did not want to have any problems, had to know how to cohabit with the Roman power and comply with the obligation to pay taxes and tributes. In fact, what some authors pose as problematic is the obedience and submission that Paul seems to advocate. According to W. R. Herzog,455 Paul only speaks of righteous authority, as if his argument were confined to the righteous ruler. If Paul was dissembling, he had to make it clear, and that is why he begins by saying in Rom 13.1: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God”. As a result, Paul is instructing his readers to give the authorities what they are entitled to and nothing more; an act that implies resistance to a powerful elite who want everything. Thus, Paul, as Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, expresses himself with an aphorism as the scholars who argue for the second interpretation claim. In Romans 13.7: “Pay to all what is due them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due”, Paul says once again that each must give what is due to the other and nothing more. It is necessary to be obedient but also to practice resistance so that the latter does not compromise the Roman Christian community located, as it was then, within a dictatorial system. Therefore, Paul affirms the same thing that Jesus had said to the Herodians and Pharisees in Mark 12.17b: “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. Whichever interpretation is chosen, both interpretations relate the Marcan text of 12.13–17 with that of Paul in Romans 13.1–7. This has been the case throughout church history456 and scholars today continue to relate the two. D. Wenham457 suggests that there is an echo of the Pauline text when we read

454

DIBELIUS, “Vier Worte des Römerbriefs”, 185; CULLMANN, The State in the New Testament, 51. 455 HERZOG, “Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12.13–17 and Romans 13.1–7”, 358–359. 456 Graham N. STANTON – Guy G. STROUMSA, Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998, pp. 173–184. 457 David WENHAM, “Paul’s Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples”, in Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus tradition outside the Gospels, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1985, p. 15.

164

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Mark 12.12–17, especially in v. 17. In addition, Charles E. B. Cranfield 458 states that the connection is extremely likely and that it can be accepted not only by the common reference to the question of paying taxes, but also because of the use of the word ἀπόδοτε by the two authors, and the similarity of ideas between τὰς ὀφειλάς and τὰ τοῦ [...]. Michael P. Theophilos459 compares the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans and relates the two closely at this point. Thus, he affirms that there is, in both, a brief interlude on the resurrection followed by a debate on the greatest of the commandments, the second of which is “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom 13.9; Mark 12.31). Therefore, the affinity of themes and lexicon is another aspect that supports the connection of the two texts. As for the two interpretations referred to above, we believe that the first one is more faithful to the meaning of what is expressed, although we must point out that Paul does not defend the absolute power of any ruler, and we believe that we must read these texts within the entire Pauline corpus (1Cor 7.6–7; 12.13–14; Gal 3.28) and the Gospel of Mark. In doing so, it is clear, as Paul argued, that authority must be at God’s service to do good and that God is above all authority (Rom 13.1–2). Therefore, if an authority does not submit to the principles that God has revealed, the Christian is at liberty to not obey and, consequently, the Christian can legitimately rebel against unjust authority, against an authority that is not faithful to that of Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 1.22, 27; 11.28).

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8) 3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

Martin Kähler’s460 well-known affirmation that “one could call the Gospels passion narratives with extended introductions” can be applied particularly to the Gospel of Mark, because everything we have read thus far has prepared us for this fundamental and indispensable section in which Jesus’ identity is confirmed (2.20; 3.6; 11.18; 12.12). Mark presents the life of Jesus as a drama that from the very beginning is marked by the struggle against evil. The temptations of Jesus in 1.12–13 symbolise this. Moreover, the whole Gospel account makes it clear that Jesus struggles against the forces of evil that oppress people. On many occasions within the narrative, Jesus is in discussion with his adversaries revealing the power of evil incarnated in structures and people, because Mark wants to 458

Charles E.B. CRANFIELD, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1994, p. 669. 459 THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, 60–61. 460 Martin KÄHLER – Carl E. BRAATEN – Paul TILLICH, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1988, p. 80, footnote 11.

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

165

show Jesus opposed to the political, economic and religious powers of the world and to show that Jesus’ action involves reversing the values of the world.461 The passion and death of Jesus are the climax of this drama and occupy a relatively long fragment of the narrative (14.1–15.47). Only eight verses refer to the resurrection (16.1–8) as Mark does not narrate the appearances of the Risen One. This story is located at the end of the Gospel and presented according to the following structure: Revelation of Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God (14.1–16.8): a. Conspiracy against Jesus and anointing in Bethany (14.1–11) b. Last supper (14.12–25) c. Gethsemane: prayer and capture (14.25–52) d. Passion, death and burial (14.53–15.47) e. The empty tomb and the announcement of the resurrection (16.1–8) Later canonical appendix: appearances of the Risen One (16.9–20) The story of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus is a carefully elaborated text in which historical and symbolic elements are inextricably linked.462 The story of the Passion differs from the rest of the Gospel in that it narrates events chronologically and, consequently, cannot be read out of context. The topographic and chronological details help us identify eight different units within the set: 1) “Two days before the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread”, Jesus’ anointing is placed in between conspiracy and betrayal in Bethany (14.1–11); 2) “On the first day of Unleavened Bread”, is the day of the Last supper with preparation and carrying out in the Cenacle (14.12–25); 3) Hymn and prediction on the way to the Mount of Olives (14.26–31); 4) Prayer in solitude and detention in the darkness, in Gethsemane (14.32–52); 5) The teacher and the disciple under interrogation, the High Priest’s Palace (14.53–72); 6) “As soon as it was morning”, Jesus before Pilate and his soldiers, in the Praetorium (15.1–20); 7) “It was nine o’clock in the morning”, Crucifixion and death of Jesus, at Golgotha (15.21–41); 8) “When evening had come ... the day before the sabbath”, Burial of Jesus and Easter message, in the tomb (15.42–16.8).

461 Xavier ALEGRE, “La oscuridad en el seguimiento. El evangelio de Marcos: una iniciativa a vivir sin ‘apariciones pascuales’”, in Al acecho del reino diferente. Temas bíblicos básicos en clave liberadora, Madrid: Nueva Utopía 2012, pp. 197–244. 462 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 925.

166

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

R. Brown463 says that most scholars believe that Mark depends on an earlier composition but that he reworks the materials by adding significant details. The proclamation of a crucified Messiah was a scandal for Jews and pagans as Paul affirms in 1Corinthians 1.23. For this reason, Christians would have needed a written account of the passion very early on in order to give an account of why Jesus had been crucified, although Mark is responsible for the emphasis of the Passion narrative and the choice of material.464 In the account of the passion, death and resurrection, there are numerous Old Testament quotations, such as Psalm 22, which deal with the Righteous One who suffers, used to underline the suffering that Jesus must undergo, a suffering that will he endure alone, because all will abandon him, including God (15.34).465 3.8.1. The passion of Jesus of Nazareth: Mark 14.1–15.32 The passion, death and resurrection of Jesus have been announced three times in the narrative prior to chapter 14, so that the reader knows that what happens is what had to happen. Thus, the evangelist in 8.31; 9.31 and 10.33–34 warns the reader that Jesus will suffer, die and finally rise again. These announcements are now beginning to come true. The structural character of the three Passion announcements in the Gospel of Mark is confirmed, since they appear together in a section where the theme of the journey is recurrent, and they mark the journey that leads Jesus and his disciples from Caesarea Philippi (8.27) to Jerusalem (11.1). In addition, staging the scandal of the cross, of which Paul speaks in 1Corinthians 1.18–25, each of the Passion announcements is followed by a double motif of the misunderstanding of the disciples and the teaching of Jesus on what constitutes true discipleship. We also remember that the three announcements are framed by two healings of blind men (8.22–26 and 10.46– 52), which correlate through an inverse parallelism 466 and which indicate what the awakening of those who want to follow Jesus should be like.467 463

Raymond E. BROWN, The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL 27), New York: Doubleday 1994, pp. 46–57. 464 KOK, “Does Mark Narrate the Pauline Kerygma of ‘Crist Crucified’?”, 142–143. 465 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 217–218; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 928. 466 The blind man of Bethsaida has no name and is brought by others to Jesus who heals him before sending him home; the blind man of Jericho, Bartimaeus, has a name and responds to Jesus' call despite the opposition of the people. Mark is suggesting that during life, suffering helps to open one's eyes. Therefore, the last blind man healed becomes the symbol of the new disciple of Jesus, in line with what is said in MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 761–766. 467 Élian CUVILLIER, “La croix chez Marc: approche exégètique et théologique”, in La Croix: représentations théologiques et symboliques, Genève: Labor et Fides 2004, p. 31.

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

167

In chapters 11, 12, and 13, preceding the story of the Passion, Mark presents the hostility between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders and lays the foundation for what will follow in the Passion. Jesus confronts the priests and the scribes in the Temple (11.15–19) and explains the parable of the Wicked Tenants (12.1–12), through which he harshly attacks the Jewish authorities. Chapter 13, eschatological and prophetic, is linked to the end of chapter 12 where Jesus praises the poor widow (12.38–44) before the scribes and Pharisees. Chapter 14 begins by saying that the teachers of the Law and the chief priests plotted the death of Jesus (14.1–2), in accordance with what had been announced from the beginning of the Gospel in 3.6 and with what will be said in 14.10–11. It is a statement through which the narrator, at the beginning of the narrative, demonstrates the attitude of those around Jesus. In addition, the fact that these verses are editorial indicates that Mark created his introduction to the story of the Passion in order to insist on the hostility of the Jewish authorities towards Jesus.468 Next, Jesus appears in Bethany where an anonymous woman anoints him (14.3b) despite the opposition of those present. Jesus defends her by saying that the woman is preparing him for burial. The two absolute genitives of the verse, ὄντος αὐτοῦ and κατακειμένου αὐτοῦ, are the evangelist’s addition,469 because readers have already been informed that Jesus is in Bethany and because it appears to be an intentional addition to the traditional narrative. It is important to note the connection between Mark 14.3–9 and 1Corinthians 11.24–25 regarding the action of ‘remembrance’. In fact, at the beginning and end of the Passion story there is the anointing of Jesus, first by the woman of Bethany and, at the end, it will also be the women who will go to the tomb with the intention of anointing the body of Jesus (16.1).470 This reiteration is not accidental, as Mark intentionally presents Jesus as the Anointed One, the Messiah.471 Finally, Judas goes to look for the priests to hand Jesus over. In the Gospels, the action of Judas is described with the verb ‘παραδιδόναι’472 (the one who delivers), underlining his freedom to act against Jesus. Afterwards, the 468

COLLINS, Mark, 640; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 219; MARCUS, Mk 8– 16, p. 937; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 512.517; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 415. 469 COLLINS, Mark, 641. 470 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 515–516; FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 364–366. 471 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 217; Ludger SCHENKE, Der gekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Bestimmung der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte (SBS 69), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1974, pp. 119–140. 472 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 229.

168

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

Last Supper is prepared (14.12–16) Jesus prophesies his betrayal (14.17–21) and bread and wine are shared after the bread has been broken (14.22–26). In the first part of the passion, the evangelist’s editorial activity is combined with the sources received.473 In the next section (14.27–31), Jesus announces that he will be abandoned by his disciples, that Peter will deny him three times, and his death and resurrection. In this passage, verse 28 is editorial and is a Marcan addition474 full of the evangelist’s own vocabulary in which he explains that following Jesus will only be possible after Easter. Those who had been blind to the cross will understand it and will be able to carry out the tasks entrusted to them by Jesus. The idea that Jesus will precede them to Galilee will reappear in 16.7; however, Jesus does not say in that verse that he will lead the disciples to Galilee but that when they arrive, they will find him there, making a clear allusion to his resurrection and to what the evangelist had already said in 14.28: “But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee”. In reading 16.7, the words of 14.28 resonate: “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you”. It is faith in the word of Jesus that will make the experience of Jesus’ resurrection possible. Next, Jesus suffers, is distressed and prays in Gethsemane (14.32–42). It is only in this episode of the Gospel of Mark that we find Jesus addressing his Father with the expression ‘Abba’ (v. 36). The only other author who uses this word is Paul in two acclamations proper to a liturgical context in Romans 8.15–16 and Galatians 4.6.475 Jesus himself announces in 14.41 that the Son of Man is about to be handed over to sinners and that his hour has come, repeating what has already been said in 10.45 and 14.24. These verses are also reminiscent of Paul when he speaks of Christ saying that he made him sin for the good of humanity in 2Corinthians 5.21: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”. Then in 14.43–52, Jesus is taken and the story changes because the way Jesus is presented is different from this moment onwards. Jesus has a more passive role until the end of the Gospel although the action will revolve around him.476 In these verses there are many Marcan editorial elements that corroborate his interest in modifying the sources:477 when the Sanhedrin con473

COLLINS, Mark, 645. MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 970; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 252; SCHENKE, Der gekreuzigte Christus, 370–373. 475 COLLINS, Mark, 678-679; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 260–261; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 977; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 540. 476 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 995–996. 477 COLLINS, Mark, 684–687. 474

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

169

demns Jesus for blasphemy (14.53–65); when using the sandwich technique in three scenes (14.53–54; 14.55–61a; 14.61b-65);478 and finally, when giving false testimony against him, some accuse Jesus of having said that he wanted to destroy the Temple and then rebuild it in three days (14.58), an allusion by the evangelist to the resurrection of Jesus on the third day.479 The trial is followed by the dramatic section of Peter’s denial (14.66–72), where editorial elements are found at the beginning and end of the pericope (14.66 and 14.72bc); thus, the “ἀπὸ μακρόθεν” tag, referring to the disciples, because Mark wants to make it clear that it is a wrong following as the true disciple follows Jesus by getting behind his cross. Mark presents Peter as a man, a follower of Jesus who is wrong and inconsistent in his actions. The evangelist is quite clear as to the failure of the disciples. All of them deserted him and fled (14.50). However, as Paul says in 2Corinthians 4.7, God wants the power that makes it possible to follow Jesus to come from Him and not from us when it comes to our actions. Jesus is judged again and condemned to death by Pilate (15.1–15). The second judgment against Jesus is very similar to the first before the Jewish Sanhedrin. For Mark there is a theological reason for this parallelism since the same hostile power that had carried out the condemnation of Jesus on the part of the Jewish authorities is now condemning him on the part of the Gentiles. Mark emphasises Jesus’ vulnerability in the judgments (14.32–39) and his silence in the face of torture (14.60–61; 15.3–5). Prominent scholars480 consider that this exemplifies the Pauline principle of the exercise of divine power in human weakness as in 2Corinthians 12.9: “but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.’ So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me”. Marcus481 states that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s emphasis on suffering and weakness. Matthew in 26.37 subtly rewrites the words of Mark 14.33, ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι (began to be distressed), as ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι (began to be grieved) and Luke omits any sign of weakness, fear or doubt in Gethsemane and even presents Jesus sure of himself. Therefore, Mark is the one who is most attuned to Paul’s Gospel since he presents Jesus as the one who is strong and weak, glorious and humiliated. In both Paul and Mark, God Himself is really at work on the cross of Jesus (1Cor 2.7–8; Mark 14.21, 61–62). God, therefore, has been crucified (1Cor 478

Ibid., 698.1164. GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 280. 480 FENTON, “Paul and Mark”, 101–103; MARTIN, Mark, 157–160; TELFORD, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 167; Joel MARCUS, “Mark: Interpreter of Paul”, NTS 46 (2000) 480–482; BIRD, Mark, 42. 481 MARCUS, “Mark”, 483–484. 479

170

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

2.2; Mark 15.24), and people have known His humanity, because He has made Himself known.482 Both the apostle and the evangelist present the cross of Jesus as a historical fact that has transcended history and that implies a radical division between “the rulers of this age” of 1Corinthians 2.8 and the “Kingdom of God” of Mark 1.15.483 The passion of Jesus ends with the mockery and crucifixion of the “King of the Jews” (15.16–32), a passage containing numerous doublets (15.23 and 15.36; 15.24 and 15.25; 15.29–30 and 15.31–32),484 which may be the result of the different traditions that Mark gathers and which, at the same time, seem to be a motif of deliberate insistence typical of Mark. Jesus is crucified and, paradoxically, the inscription of the cross (15.26) and the fact that he is in between two thieves, – an addition of the evangelist in 15.27 –485 intentionally and ironically express the truth.486 Faith must overcome the scandal of the cross in order to recognise the Saviour in the Crucified One. The scene ends with the exchange of garments. The game is over to give way to a much more cruel reality, the death of Jesus. 3.8.2. The death of Jesus of Nazareth: Mark 15.33–47 The story of Jesus’ death is the cornerstone upon which Mark’s entire work is built.487 Marcan’s presentation alternates supernatural events (15.33, 38), the profound voice of Jesus at the moment of his death (15.34, 37) and the reactions of those who witness his agony and death (15.35–36, 39–41). Before the death of Jesus, the environment Mark describes is full of mockery and sarcasm; once Jesus has died it becomes compassionate and fearful. Again, as in the Passion, we find doublets (15.34 and 15.37; 15.35–36b and 15.36a) that can be understood as Mark bringing together different traditions and his intention to emphasise the solitude, abandonment and distance of everyone with regard to Jesus (15.40). Consequently, once again we find Mark’s editorial contributions to this account.488 The text is divided into two parts: the first part relates the death of Jesus (15.33–41) and can be subdivided into two parts: the events leading up to the death of Jesus (15.33–37) and what happens immediately after it (15.38–41). The second part, the burial of Jesus (15.42–47), can also be divided into two parts: Joseph of Arimathea’s request to Pilate for the body of Jesus (15.42– 45) and the burial of Jesus (15.46–47). 482

BLACK, Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters, 201–203. Ibid., 201. 484 COLLINS, Mark, 744–746; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1046. 485 COLLINS, Mark, 748; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 569.575. 486 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1051; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 569. 487 ALEGRE, “La oscuridad en el seguimiento”, 198. 488 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1061; STRAUSS, Mark, 701. 483

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

171

The first part of the passage begins with a time indication, from the evangelist, of the moment at which the action takes place489 and it continues with the heartbreaking cry of Jesus as he pronounces, in prayer, Psalm 22.2, expressing his despair. Mark’s use of the Old Testament has a narrative function.490 Furthermore, on the cross, Jesus discovers that the only God present at his side is the God who dies with him, and not the one who could avoid his death,491 so in Mark 15.33–34 we read: “33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’”. Paradoxically, the cry of Jesus becomes good news, 492 reminiscent of Mark’s Pauline soteriology, because by identifying himself with people’s sin, Jesus saves humanity (2Cor 5.21).493 So, Jesus dies so that humanity can live. Jesus identifies himself, on the cross, with the cursed and servile condition of humanity to which a death on the cross corresponds, as Paul says in Philippians 2.7–8: “7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross”. The death of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, in Pikaza’s words,494 has not just been a failure, but has also been the supreme revelation of messianic love, of the love of God. This is also the heart of Pauline theology: what, in one sense, is the greatest failure, in another sense is the greatest triumph, as the apostle says in Galatians 2.20, 2Corinthians 5.14–15 and Romans 5.6–8. The evangelist knows, like Paul, that the mystery of God is centred on the death of Jesus – and the resurrection, which we will analyse later– but Mark explains it in a narrative way, through a biographical form, in order to make us understand the reason for what happened from baptism to death. Mark has simply moved the centre of gravity but not the meaning of the message. After his words, once again Jesus is mocked by those who listen to him, finds no one to comfort him and he is given vinegar to drink (15.35–37). Those who ‘see’ him are actually blinded because they do not know who Jesus is. The world has gone mad and even what seems to be an act of help ends up being a mockery, because the cross, as Paul had said in 1Corinthians 1.22–23, is a mockery for all those who do not recognise Jesus as the Messi-

489

MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 768–769; Camille FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 324–328 includes the different interpretations of the use of Psalm 22.2 in the history of exegesis. 490 Jean-Nöel ALETTI, “Mort de Jésus et théorie du récit”, RSR 73 (1985) 159. 491 CUVILLIER, “La croix chez Marc: approche exégètique et théologique”, 28–29. 492 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1064. 493 STRAUSS, Mark, 703. 494 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 63–65.

172

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

ah. The scene of Mark’s crucifixion, following Pauline logic, is absurd and irrational for the religious man and for the rational man.495 In 15.38–39, the tearing of the curtain of the Temple and the confession of the Roman centurion show that God is revealed in the cross of His Son,496 and that from that moment on God has become accessible to all, including the Gentiles.497 The fact that it is a Roman centurion, a pagan, standing before the cross, who observes the death of Jesus and utters the words that define who Jesus of Nazareth really is is very significant, because the proclamation of the divine sonship of Jesus must be connected to his death, for the identity of Jesus cannot be separated from the cross.498 This confession is attributed to the hand of the evangelist499 because Mark intends to say two things to the readers of his work: only after the death of Jesus on the cross can we know who Jesus is and, from that point, all people, without distinction, are called to follow him. For Byrne,500 Mark tries to make the reader understand that the tearing of the curtain of the Temple is a sign that represents the shedding of the blood of Jesus when he dies atoning for the sins, not only of Israel, but of the whole world, or at least of those who recognise in the crucified one the true Son of God, as the centurion did. Therefore, the Marcan portrait of Jesus’ death offers a narrative presentation of a Pauline way of stating things: the justification of the non-divine through faith in God’s action in Christ (Rom 3.24–25). Furthermore, as Moloney argues,501 with the tearing of the curtain of the Temple “God enters the story”. The tearing of the curtain of the Temple is a symbolic element with two interpretations: a positive one, preparing the way initiated by the centurion for those who will believe (Rom 1.5) and obey Christ until death (Phl 2.8), and a negative one, because it indicates the end of the system of atonement in force until that point: the sacrificial system of the Temple of Jerusalem. The last passage of this first part mentions the women who, although far away, are present. The evangelist introduces them with names and affiliations (15.40b) and further reminds us that they had already followed him when he was in Galilee (15.41a), had helped him there (15.41b) and had gone up with him to Jerusalem (15.41c).502 495

ALEGRE, “La oscuridad en el seguimiento”, 199. FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 584–585. 497 Michael PATELLA, Lord of the Cosmos, 98–99.111; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 566–567; STRAUSS, Mark, 706. 498 SANTOS, Slave of All, 257. 499 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 324; COLLINS, Mark, 764. 500 Brendan BYRNE, “Paul and Mark before the Cross. Common Echoes of the Day Atonement Ritual”, BSReL 187 (2005) 218. 501 MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 328. 502 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 1068–1069. 496

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

173

Mark places two different groups of people at the foot of the cross. In one group there are those who believe: women and the centurion, and in the other, those who do not believe and still seek signs of the divinity of Jesus due to the hardening of their hearts (15.32b). The evangelist proposes in 15.39 a new beginning of the Gospel in making a Gentile recognise that he who is nailed to the cross is the Son of God.503 The second part (15.42–47) begins with two-time indications of an editorial nature, “when evening had come... the day before the sabbath”, and with the presentation of Joseph of Arimathea in 15.42–43: 42

When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the Kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

It would seem more logical that the women, of whom Mark had spoken in 15.40–41, would have been responsible for burying Jesus, but the evangelist says that “a respected member of the council” takes care of everything. Two of the three women mentioned above reappear at the end, in 15.47, in an editorial verse504 that prepares for the narrative at the end of the Gospel, confirming what the men – Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate and the centurion – said and did. They are the same women who will return to the tomb on Sunday morning to complete the preparation of the corpse, something that Joseph of Arimathea was unable to do. Finally, it should be noted that both Paul and Mark emphasise the importance of the death of Jesus, the former for theological reasons and the latter for historical necessity. Therefore, Mark insists on the causality of Jesus’ death while Paul emphasises the purpose of this death.505 However, the meaning of his death, both in the apostle and in the evangelist, is the same: to free people from sin and death and to show all people that the power of God is manifested in the cross of Christ (1Cor 1.17–30; Mark 15.38–39). 3.8.3. The empty tomb and the announcement of the resurrection: Mark 16.1–8 The reason why Mark ends his Gospel so abruptly is important, since the beginning and the end of a work are two essential elements in understanding its intricacies. The end of the narrative is enigmatic and open.506 503

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 327–331. COLLINS, Mark, 779. 505 SVARTVIK, “‘East is East and West is West’: The Concept of Torah in Paul and Mark”, 174–175. 506 O. Wesley ALLEN JR., “Easter Sunday: Mark 16:1–8”, CThMi 44/4 (2017) 20–24. In the same vein, FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 341–358, affirms that silence must be interpreted in the light of the Gospel account itself. The whole narrative is permeated with intrigue from the beginning. Failure is the call to begin anew, in Galilee, to renew one's 504

174

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

The previous passage ends with two of the three women who had seen Jesus die observing the place where Joseph of Arimathea had left his body (15.47). Now the three women return to the tomb to anoint Jesus. This pericope can be divided into two parts: 16.1–4, the trip to the tomb and 16.5–8, the encounter with the young man. Although the account of the empty tomb is believed to have preceded Mark’s, we once again find a number of editorial elements.507 The first part begins with a time annotation, typical of the evangelist “when the sabbath was over” (16.1)508 and with an enumeration of the women who go to the tomb to anoint Jesus. The intention to perform the anointing refers to 14.3–9, because just as the anointing in Bethany pointed to the death of Jesus, the anointing of the women in the tomb introduces the account of the resurrection.509 Then, in 16.2 and with great detail, Mark locates precisely the timing of the events: “very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen”. The rising of the sun on the day of Jesus’ resurrection (16.2), faced with the descent into darkness at his crucifixion (15.33), is a metaphor for what the resurrection will mean for people.510 When the women, in 16.4, see that the stone had been removed, they raise their eyes upwards, a sign of revelation of divine power, indicating that what has happened is an action of God, in consonance with what Paul says in Romans 10.9 because only God could raise Jesus of Nazareth, his Son. The second part narrates the women’s encounter with the angel. The young man realises their discomfort and tries to calm them down. Then, in 16.6, we read: “But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him’”. The words ‘of Nazareth’ and ‘crucified’ sound like an early Christian confession,511 in line with what we read in Acts 2.22– 24; 3.15; 4.10; 5.30; 10.39–40; Romans 4.25; 1Corinthians 15.3–4. The Marcan version of this confession uses the perfect passive participle to indicate the crucifixion of Jesus, ἐσταυρωμένον, just as Paul does in 1Corinthians 1.23; 2.2 and Galatians 3.1. Jesus remains the ‘crucified one’ even after his

status as a disciple. We have to consider that the end is 16.7–8 and that is when we realise that Mark's end encourages a re-reading of the work from the beginning in order to understand the full meaning of all the apparent incongruities of the first reading. Therefore, the end cannot be understood literally because then we reduce the understanding of the whole work. 507 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 338; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1083. 508 COLLINS, Mark, 795; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 594; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 338–339. 509 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 340–341. 510 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1083; DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 582. 511 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1085.

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

175

resurrection. 512 In the Gospel of Mark, he still remains the one ‘of Nazareth’,513 unlike Paul who makes no mention of it. Mark, like Paul, concentrates on the importance of the death of Jesus and that is why Jesus is the crucified one. However, Mark writes a Gospel that explains the facts of Jesus’ life prior to the Passion and, for this reason, he continues to refer to Jesus as the one ‘of Nazareth’,514 for it is the life of Jesus that explains why he had to die on a cross. At the same time, it is the clue – symbolised by the order to go to Galilee of 14.28 and 16.7 – to be able to experience, within the Marcan community, that the risen one is still alive. On the other hand, the fact that the body is not in the tomb indicates that the body is also risen, which Paul also states when he speaks of ‘σῶμα πνευματικόν’ (spiritual body) in 1Corinthians 15.44,515 insisting that Jesus is not to be sought in a tomb. 3.8.4. Conclusions Mark places his narrative in a context close to Paul, as the announcements of the passion and the account of death show, culminating in the words of the young man on Easter morning calling Jesus ‘the crucified one’ (16.6). Mark develops historical, political and social reasons for the crucifixion of Jesus and does not narrate any Easter appearances, while Paul overlooks the historical life of Jesus and begins with his death and the Easter appearances (1Cor 15.1–11). However, this does not prevent us from noticing that a point of union has been established between the two, found in the fact that this very same Jesus, descendent from David according to the flesh (Rom 1.3–4), has been declared to be Son of God with power by the resurrection. This is the paradox of Paul’s theology, which Mark has developed in a thematic way, since he who failed as the Son of David, is the Son of God and has always been the Son of God; that is why Mark writes, in his Gospel, about the deeds and words of Jesus of Nazareth.516 The last verse is particularly significant. The angel commands the women to go and inform the disciples and ‘Peter’ (16.7a), the first of the disciples to 512 LAGRANGE, Évangile selon Saint Marc, 416; CUVILLIER, “La croix chez Marc: approche exégètique et théologique”, 26–27; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 602. 513 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 342; FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 597. 514 KÄHLER – BRAATEN – TILLICH, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, 80, footnote 11. 515 Michael Douglas GOULDER, “Jesus Resurrection and Christian Origins. A Response to N.T. Wright”, JSHJ 3 (2005), 187–188. According to Goulder, there are two traditions in understanding the resurrection in early Christianity. A more spiritual one, associated with the church of Jerusalem and another that insists more on the resurrection of the body, associated with the Pauline churches and which is represented in the narrative of Mark 16.1–8. 516 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 55–62.

176

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

be called by Jesus (1.16–18), the first to acknowledge that he was the Messiah (8.29) and to whom Jesus appeared first. However, the ‘καὶ’ can also have an increasing value517 and mean ‘also, even’, so that it reminds us of the disciple who angered Jesus so much that he rebuked him and called him ‘Satan’ (8.33), his complaint of eternal fidelity (14.29–31), and the three times he denied Jesus by swearing that he did not know him (14.66–72). Paul and Mark agree once again that it was Peter to whom the risen Jesus first appeared, because Paul, as Mark does in 16.7, sets Peter apart from the group of disciples when he mentions the appearances of the risen one in 1Corinthians 15.5: “and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”. Peter, however, had not been able to believe in Jesus because he had denied him – three times – and abandoned him, like the others. Nevertheless, Jesus appears to him in the first place, not because he has merited it or deserves it, but so that he has the possibility of following him. It is what Paul calls righteousness through faith (Rom 1.17; 3.21–26; 2Cor 5.21). The disciple must stand behind the risen one (Mark 16.7); faith in Jesus is necessary (Phl 3.10). The angel’s message also includes the message that Jesus will go ahead of them to Galilee (16.7bc) and that they will see him there as he had promised them (14.28). Returning to Galilee518 has a theological, kerygmatic and geographical meaning and defines the beginning of the Marcan church in a place where the heritage of the message and life of Jesus seems to have been more strongly maintained. The Easter experience becomes free, because the initiative is of God (Gal 1.15), as in the Gospel. The women, Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James, and Salome, are frightened because they are confronted by the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection (16.8): “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid”. Mark intended, like Paul, to present their experience as the one that is felt before the mysterion tremendum et fascinans of the living God.519 The women’s motif of silence seems to be editorial and not apologetic,520 since it fits better with the motif of the messianic secret, which is not apologetic but of a kerygmatic nature. There is a reversal of the sequence we have found so far in the Gospel. The way of Jesus and his disciples has been from Galilee to Jerusalem, but now the sequence is from Jerusalem to Galilee, which means leaving Judaism behind and turning to the Gentiles.521 The silence with which the Gospel ends is a sign of the mystery that the women 517

LIDDELL (ed.), An intermediate Greek-English lexicon, 391. FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 599–600; PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 131–134. 519 PATELLA, Lord of the Cosmos, 118–119. 520 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1082. 521 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 343; ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, 144.151. 518

3.8. Passion, death and resurrection (14–16.8)

177

face. The angel tells them that Jesus has been raised, but the women do not see the risen one; therefore, they are not before a vision but before a proclamation, as it was and always has been after the appearances to the disciples.522 Thus the Gospel of Mark ends523 in 16.8, without Easter appearances to the disciples, and in a surprising way, as Moloney says.524 It is precisely in this surprising end, where something profoundly Pauline is going on in what Mark is doing, when he eliminates all initiative on the part of people and puts it in the hands of God. God has raised Jesus from the dead – an event that explains why his body is not in the tomb; but to make a detailed account of the appearances of the Risen One is not conditio sine qua non for affirming the reality of the resurrection. Consequently, the decisive events of the history of salvation have already happened, and the prophesied appearances only confirm what the angel has proclaimed: God has raised Jesus but he is still the crucified one. After the commission to the women, they decide not to say anything to anyone because they are scared. For X. Alegre525 this is a catechetical strategy of the evangelist, since what Mark intends is that darkness, which necessarily passes through the cross, be inherent in the faithful following of Jesus (8.34). In other words, this disconcerting end (16.8) was consciously designed by Mark as the culmination and key to reading his entire Gospel. Therefore, the silence of women is nothing more than a literary strategy to clearly express the paradox of Christian revelation: the following of a crucified one.526

522

Carl R. KAZMIERSKI, Jesus, the Son of God: A Study of the Markan Tradition and Its Redaction by the Evangelist (FB 33), Würzburg: Echter 1979, pp. 207–208. 523 The secondary end of Mark 16.9–20 is a canonical text, but it does not seem to have been written by the evangelist and, therefore, was not the original conclusion of the Gospel but an addition of the second century. Matthew and Luke strictly follow Mark’s account up to 16.8, but beyond that they radically diverge, which suggests that the Gospel of Mark ended in 16.8. Furthermore, vv. 9–20 do not appear in the best and oldest Greek manuscripts and when they do appear they are separated from the rest by scribe's signs or by notes indicating that these verses are not found in some texts. In general, 16.9–20 can be considered a compressed summary of the appearances of the risen from other Gospels. For a more exhaustive discussion of the issue see DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 588–592; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 1088–1096; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 350–358; LEONARDI, Vangelo secondo Marco, 120–136. 524 MOLONEY, The Gospel of Mark, 351. 525 ALEGRE, “La oscuridad en el seguimiento”, 197–294. 526 ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, 184–189; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 344–345.

178

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark 3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark

3.9.1. Women and Jesus in Mark The Gospel of Mark contains a significant number of portraits of female characters: Jesus praises the faith of the haemorrhaging woman (5.25–34); he takes into account the words of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30); he praises the generous almsgiving of the poor widow (12.41–44); he defends the action of the woman who anoints him with an expensive perfume (14.3– 9) and at the end of the Gospel a group of women are mentioned at the moment of Jesus’ crucifixion, women who followed him and served him from Galilee and accompanied him to Jerusalem (15.40–41). Three of these women, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome, go to the tomb of Jesus and witness the announcement of his resurrection (16.1–8). Each and every woman in the Gospel527 helps the reader to understand the role of the true disciple in the following of the Nazarene, although in the context of first century Jewish society within which Jesus acts, it was not usual or right for women to follow a teacher like him. By the will and decision of the God of the Law, women in Israel were second-class creatures, subordinate in all things to men, and their existence justified solely by the fact of motherhood. Socially, women were subject to theoretical and theological principles on the basis of which their status in marriage and divorce was explained. There is abundant literature528 asserting that in Jewish culture of the first century, women did not participate in public life, they had to go unnoticed in public, and the rules of good behaviour prohibited meeting a woman alone, looking at a married woman or even greeting her. The patria potestas gave the father the right to sell their youngest daughters to another Jew (Exod 21.7). The women’s opinion was of no value, as Philo of Alexandria recalls:529 Virgins and wives are not allowed full control of their vows by the law. It puts the virgins in subjection to their fathers and sets the husbands to judge for their wives whether the oaths are to hold good or to be cancelled. That is surely reasonable, for the former, owing

527

Except for the women who belong to Jesus' family, who do not understand Jesus' actions, the other women who appear in the narrative, despite being minor characters, are of great importance, since they complement the role of the disciples in the Gospel, as stated by Elizabeth Struthers MALBON, In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 2000, pp. 41–69. 528 Joachim JEREMIAS, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, London: SCM Press 51982 (11962), pp. 359–376. 529 PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, De specialibus legibus, II, 24 in Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) VII (The Loeb Classical Library 320), translated by Francis Henry Colson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 61998, pp. 320–321.

3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark

179

to their youth, do not know the value of oaths, so that they need others to judge for them, and the latter often, through wan of sense, swear what would not be to their husbands’ advantage; and therefore it gave the husbands power to maintain the promise, or the reverse.

As for religion, Jewish women of the first century had no access to the study of Scripture and were confined, in the Temple, to a special courtyard made for them, the women’s atrium, which was separated from the priests’ atrium and that of the men of Israel, as the prophet Ezekiel puts it in 46.21–22. Consequently, the Jewish woman of Jesus’ time had no rights whatsoever, she was always considered a minor, confined at home,530 with few possibilities for social contacts, absent from the Temple for a few days due to the laws of purity and relegated at all times to a special place,531 and without the right to be taught the Law. Jesus of Nazareth did not believe that this should not be so and that GodAbba not only saw women differently but he also behaved differently towards them.532 For this reason, the Jesus depicted by the evangelist Mark is often depicted relating to women whom he meets by chance or who accompany him from Galilee, and Mark uses different women to demonstrate the attitudes required for truly following, that is, those required for those who would be a true disciple. We will now consider the female characters in the Gospel. 530

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, In Flaccum II, 89: “They were pleased that the refutation of the calumny would be self-evident but indignant first that such grave slanders, fabricated against them by their enemies, were so readily believed, secondly that their women kept in seclusion, never even approaching the outer doors, and their maidens confined to the inners chambers, who for modesty’s sake avoided the sight of men, even of their closest relations, were displayed to eyes, not merely unfamiliar, but terrorising through the fear of military violence”, in PHILO, Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes). IX (The Loeb Classical Library 363), translated by Francis Henry Colson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 51985, pp. 350–351. 531 Flavius JOSEPHUS, Guerre des juifs. 3: Livres IV et V (Collection des universités de France-Budé 199), translated by André Pelletier, Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1982, p. 136. 532 As MEIER, A Marginal Jesus, 3, 73–80 argues, the various testimonies of the sources (Mark, John and Luke) speak in favour of the existence of female followers of Jesus. The Gospels, and specifically the Gospel of Mark, speak of the women who travel with him, who are near him on the day of the crucifixion, and who are the first witnesses of the resurrection, when all the male disciples have abandoned Jesus. What enables discipleship is the service and fidelity to Jesus up to the cross, contrary to the situation of women in Jewish society of the first century. Therefore, the fact that women, not controlled by their husbands, fathers or children, accompanied Jesus in his ministry in Galilee and then to Jerusalem, must have been a truly shocking fact, because Jesus, as attested by the sources, allowed the women to follow him and serve him. Similarly, Gerd THEISSEN – Annette MERZ, Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996, pp. 203–208, note that women appear in the traditions of Jesus as the recipients of his message. Jesus heals many women and among the followers around Jesus were women, contrary to what was usual in Jewish society at the time of Jesus.

180

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

In the first chapter, Jesus’ healing of Simon’s mother-in-law is recounted (1.30–31). From the synagogue we go to the house, the usual space of the Marcan community, on a Saturday, the Sabbath day. 533 Mark reports that Simon’s mother-in-law had a fever and that Jesus cures her. Mark presents us with a woman who undergoes a transformation in her understanding of personal, relational and gender interactions as a result of the fact that Jesus frees her from the fever.534 It is significant that the evangelist indicates that after being cured “she began to serve them”, using the verb διακονέω and, therefore, making reference to the attitude that anyone who wants to be a follower of Jesus must have (9.35).535 It should be noted that women were forbidden to serve at the table. This was done by the male slaves or the youngest children in the family. The women stayed in the kitchen, away from the men’s activities. Simon’s mother-in-law knows how to respond to Jesus, who heals her on the Sabbath day, by serving food, a gesture that marks, from this point on and until the end of the Gospel, the traits of anyone who wants to follow Jesus (2.27).536 In chapter 5.21–43 there are two female figures: on the one hand, Jairus’ daughter (5.21–24, 35–43) and, on the other, the haemorrhaging woman (5.25–34). Jesus liberates the two women, victims of personal and family oppression: one is young, the daughter of the synagogue chief, and it seems that she can only end up dying on her twelfth birthday (adulthood in Israel at the time); the other is now an adult, and has had menstrual problems for twelve years. Both are called daughters; in both healings he uses the verb σώζω; those who beg prostrate themselves before Jesus, both Jairus and the woman; and in the end, faith becomes the true protagonist of the two healings.537 The restrictions imposed on women during the days of menstruation, based on the idea that blood contains life and that it belongs only to God and, therefore, that women remain unclean during those days (Lev 15.25–30), was the basis for the isolation of women and it kept them away from social and religious matters. For this reason, the woman appeared before Jesus “in fear and trembling” and “fell down before him” (5.33) because it was believed that contact with an unclean woman made the one who had touched her un-

533

PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 263; ARANDA, La casa, espacio de memoria e identidad en el evangelio según Marcos, 96–99. 534 NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 80. 535 Elizabeth Struthers MALBON, “Fallible Followers – Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark”, Semeia 28 (1983) 41; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 196; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 83. 536 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 262. 537 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 207.

3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark

181

clean.538 The Marcan Jesus, however, is neither surprised nor rejects her but, on the contrary, he accepts her and affirms that it is the faith of the woman that has healed her because she has fully trusted in the power of God, who has acted through Jesus. Jesus calls her ‘θύγατερ’ (daughter), a loving term that appears here, for the first time in the Gospel, related to faith, that is, to freedom of the person and to the absence of fear.539 Faith in Jesus saves the woman; therefore, the woman passes from fear to trust. Faith is an indispensable element for those who want to follow Jesus; a constant that is repeated in Mark 2.5; 5.34, 36; 10.52. The same is found in the apostle Paul, who affirms in his letters that only faith can save people (Rom 1.16; 10.9–10; 1Cor 1.21) because, as he says in Rom 1.17: “The one who is righteous will live by faith”. Likewise, Jesus frees Jairus’ twelve-year-old daughter from death (5.21– 24, 35–43). It is no coincidence that the numbers match as the evangelist indicates that, just as the woman has been saved, so too can the girl. The number twelve evokes the nation of Israel and the twelve disciples of Jesus. Both women are united by sickness and Jesus heals them so that they may have a dignified life.540 Jesus asks the haemorrhaging woman to explain “the whole truth” (5.33–34), because the woman cannot live under the yoke imposed by the Jewish ecclesial hierarchy;541 to Jairus and his family he asks for silence, because the resurrection of the girl anticipates the resurrection of Jesus even though it is not yet Passover time. In addition, death is presented by the evangelist as a penultimate reality, because “the child is not dead but sleeping” (5.39b) and, for this reason, Jesus again relates faith to overcoming fear when he says in 5.36b: “Do not fear, only believe”. Paul in 1Thessalonians 4.13–14 speaks of death as something that is not definitive, but as something that has been overcome by Jesus through the action of God, who raised him from the dead. The pericope of the Syrophoenician woman in 7.24–30, also discussed above, presents the plea of a pagan woman for the life of her daughter and reiterates the idea that it is the faith of the woman what has changed Jesus’ attitude. In fact, from the very beginning, the Syrophoenician woman’s gestures and words express her faith in Jesus and manifest that she has been accepted as God’s daughter. As the dialogue between the woman and Jesus progresses, her faith becomes firmer and more tenacious. Jesus does not mention faith, which is never mentioned in the Gospel of Mark in the case of pagans, but the gestures and words of faith are lucid and conscious, coherent 538

LOHMEYER, Das Evangelium des Markus, 2, 130; Susan MILLER, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, 177–178. 539 NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 194. 540 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 436–437. 541 MILLER, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, 180.

182

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

and permanent on the part of the Syrophoenician woman.542 Consequently, a woman is once again a model of what the disciple who follows Jesus should be like. The woman sees her daughter healed and the message of Jesus becomes universal, because he heals a pagan. The borders finally fall and the dialogue, far from fear, triumphs, as a result of the courage of the woman who dares to address Jesus in spite of all the fears and cultural restrictions of impurity.543 In front of the rich, who give only what they have left over, the offering of the poor widow (Mark 12.41–44) who gives everything she has, is praised by Mark. A widow, at that time, was a woman who did not have what could define her as a woman because she did not have a husband who could support her and through whom she had a place in society. Mark points out her social, civil and religious status, because he says she is a poor widow.544 The scene takes place in the Temple, a significant place for the Jews, where, unlike the scribe who perverts religion to his advantage, this widow understands and fulfils the deepest sense of Jewish piety as an exercise of gratuitousness and trust in God.545 Her generous action puts the widow in God’s hands, in accordance with Jesus’ words about prayer and trust in 11.23–25.546 In addition, reinforcing the praise of the widow’s action, the scene is depicted full of contrasts. On the one hand, some men, in front of a woman; rich, instead of poor; many, in front of just one; a lot of money, in front of two small copper coins (12.42). This woman, unlike the aforementioned men, does not ask Jesus for help. However, when speaking of her, Jesus presents her as a model of a true believer, exalts her and, at the same time, recalls the words of the evangelist himself when he speaks of Jesus as the one who gives his life as a sacrifice in 10.45 and 14.22, 24. The widow, therefore, becomes an example of faith and self-giving (12.41–44). In the same way, it is also an anonymous woman, unknown to Simon’s family, who enters the room where Jesus and his disciples are gathered and pours a jar of precious, expensive and perfumed ointment on Jesus’ head (Mark 14.3–9). In other words, it is a woman who prepares Jesus for burial. The disciples oppose her action and Jesus rebukes them, because they do not understand that the action of the woman is ‘καλὸν ἔργον’ (a good service), since by pouring the perfume that anoints the head of Jesus, ‘she’ will be remembered, her proleptic action will be memorable and not that of the men 542

NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 279. CALDUCH-BENAGES, El perfum de l’evangeli, 50; MILLER, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, 182. 544 NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 453–454. 545 Elisabeth Struthers MALBON, “Reflections on Mark 12:38–44 for the Twenty-fifth Sunday after Pentecost”, CThMi 44/4 (2017) 37–42; PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 873. 546 MILLER, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, 185. 543

3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark

183

who scolded her.547 The woman of Bethany is the sign of all the Easter believers who accompany Jesus to the tomb, waiting and announcing his future life. While Peter, James and John have tried to prevent the path that Jesus has to take (8.32; 10.35–40), and while the priests, scribes and Judas seek to catch and kill him (14.10–11), this woman understands him and helps him in his messianic task.548 The woman who anoints Jesus is the first to understand the infinite value of Jesus’ death – and it is precisely a woman.549 That is why the perfume she pours on his head costs a year’s salary, to indicate that the death that Jesus has to suffer is priceless and not measurable in money, because it is worth more than any perfume. As we have seen, all these women are examples of humility and selfless service despite the different greedy and destructive actions that are opposed to their actions (5.25–34; 12.38–40; 14.1–2, 10–11). Women are worthy of being imitated: they are models of discipleship.550 There is still another group of women who play a decisive role in the outcome of the story. Immediately after the centurion’s confession (15.39), Mark presents the women who followed Jesus from Galilee. These women will be the protagonists of the Gospel from that point until the end of the story (15.40–16.8). Although, when he is crucified, they do not run to help him, the portrait of the evangelist is not negative, rather they are presented as those who have not abandoned him. Mark gives their names: “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (15.40b). The evangelist affirms that they are those who have followed him from Galilee (15.41a), those who have served him (15.41b), and those who have come up with him to Jerusalem (15.41c).551 They are those who will bear witness to the burial and the empty tomb and will proclaim the resurrection (16.1–8). They are the eyewitnesses of the kerygmatic triad: Jesus dies, is buried and rises,552 as Paul describes it in 1Corinthians 15.3–5. Therefore, the action of women frames the entire Gospel of Mark, because from 1.31, where the evangelist affirms that Simon’s mother-in-law serves him, until the end of 16.8, the women are present and accompany Jesus without abandoning him. In the first part we find Simon’s mother-in-law (1.29– 31), the haemorrhaging woman, the twelve-year-old daughter of Jairus (5.21– 45), and the Syrophoenician (7.24–30). In the second part, we find the poor widow (12.41–44), the anonymous woman of Bethany (14.3–9) and the 547

NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 498. PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 958. 549 Laura C. SWEAT, The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark (LNTS (JSNTS) 492), London – New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark 2013, pp. 93–94. 550 MILLER, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, 187. 551 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1069. 552 W. D. ALLISON – D. C. DAVIES, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (The International Critical Commentary 3), Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1997, p. 637. 548

184

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

women present at the crucifixion and the empty tomb (15.40–41; 16.1–8).553 In the first part of the Gospel, women are in need of help from Jesus, while in the second part we find them linked to his ultimate destiny, passion, death and resurrection. In this context, it is important that in Mark 10.28–31 Jesus promises the disciples that those who have left everything will receive a hundredfold, except of fathers (10.30), an omission that demonstrates an open attitude towards women, similar to that found in Paul’s authentic letters. Consequently, the domestic code that the evangelist presents is not patriarchal. Values are reversed. When Jesus asks his disciples about their discussion on the way to Jerusalem, they remain silent in shame. He calls them and sit in their midst, an action with an ambivalent value,554 as it is the most visible place for all those who sit down and so a symbolic place of attention, but it is also a place where one is defenceless before others. Right there, Jesus places a child and says to them in 9.35: “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all”. This saying of Jesus ends the discussion of the disciples, because not only does Jesus say it, he also exemplifies it by placing in their midst a child whom he embraces as a sign of love. We know that in ancient Jewish society children were ignored or rejected and that Jesus’ love for children shows the attitude to be adopted by the community towards the small and insignificant. Jesus wants these to be the first, because they are in last position on the social scale and to prove this he identifies with them.555 This verse explains what the community should be like, a community in which there are no hierarchies as all are equally important. Therefore, relations must be egalitarian and circular. There are no fathers (Mark 10.28–31), but rather διακονοῖ, that is, servants who help each other in the task of following the way of Jesus by carrying the cross. Those who ‘serve’ in the Gospel of Mark are the women because the male disciples follow Jesus (1.18; 2.14; 8.31, 34), but, curiously, they do not serve him. Jesus said that whoever wants to be a disciple must be a servant, like the women who, starting with Peter’s mother-in-law, serve Jesus.556 Thus, it can be said that Jesus had disciples, servants, who were women. The two verses before the ransom logion (10.45) prepare the way for service. So in Mark 10.43–44 he says: “43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever 553 Mark points to what truly differentiates a Christian from a Gnostic: praxis. In other words, it is not enough to know that God has raised Jesus, but that one must go to Galilee, that is to say, one must follow Jesus, taking up one's own cross, if one wants to have a true Easter experience. 554 NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 340–341. 555 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 56–57. 556 MILLER, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, 189.

3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark

185

wishes to be first among you must be slave of all”, for he who comes to understand what the Gospel is, knows that the only possible sovereign is God himself. The powerful abuse their power, but the Marcan community must be governed by another law. Whoever wants to be someone important must put themselves at the service of all, as the slave does; they must not be carried away by ambition, but by the willingness to serve, so that in communities there may be equality and no one may be superior to another. In the same manner, Paul’s phrase in Galatians 3.28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” confirms that Mark and the apostle 557 wanted a community organisation in which all members would have equal status and consideration, because for those baptised into Christ all differences are eliminated and the similarities of all in him have been accentuated.558 3.9.2. Women in Paul’s letters We know Paul not only by the discourse and thought that we can extract from his letters, but also by the historical context that he lived in and that shaped him. Paul was a man formed within Judaism and within Greco-Roman society; taking these two worlds into account will help to understand his words. The texts of the deutero-Pauline letters (Eph 5.21–25, 33; Col 3.18–22 and 1Tim 2.9–15) are well known and suggest attitudes that can be described as misogynistic. Even in the so-called authentic letters there are two moments when the apostle seems to censure certain feminine behaviours with excessive harshness (1Cor 11.2–16; 559 14.34–35). Whether they are considered later interpolations of Paul’s disciples, as is the case with 1Corinthians 14.34– 35,560 an attempt to differentiate between men and women in the behaviour in the assembly,561 or just customs of the time in which he lived,562 the fact is that they puzzle us.

557

GIL ARBIOL, “El fracaso del proyecto de Pablo y su reconstrucción”, 398. Heinrich SCHLIER, Der Brief an die Galater (KeK VII), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14. Auflage. 5. Auflage der Neubearbeitung 1971, pp. 174–175; cf. 1 Co 3.1–4, 13. 559 Aurélie CALDWELL, Paul, misogyne ou promoteur de l’émancipation féminine?: étude de 1Co 11,2–16 (Études bibliques – Nouvelle Serie 72), Leuven – Paris – Bristol: Peeters Publishers 2016, pp. 366–368.373–375. The author makes an exhaustive study of the Pauline citation and concludes that far from being a misogynistic text, 1Corinthians 11.2–16 expresses the total interdependence between men and women and dignifies the importance of women in communities. 560 ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 344–349. 561 Jerome MURPHY-O’CONNOR, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 2002, pp. 5–39. 558

186

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

However, there are other passages in his letters in which he addresses women who are his colleagues in evangelisation in which we can observe that the tact, esteem and respect with which he expresses his views is not in accordance with the above-mentioned texts. Thus, in Philippians 4.2–3, Paul speaks of Euodia and Syntyche, two Christian women who had defended the Gospel at his side. Paul asks that the disagreements between them be resolved, but he recognises that they are two prominent women in the community, that they have the right to express their opinions and that these have an impact on the life of the assembly. Paul respects their autonomy, does not impose his apostolic authority on them, nor does he refer them to the authority of any male figure within the Church. On the contrary, he asks a fellow man to help them, while also highlighting the trajectory of these women who “have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel”. Similarly, the end of the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 16, is another good example where Paul repeatedly expresses his attitude toward women. He lists about twenty people with whom he has worked at different times in the missions in the eastern provinces of the Empire, and among these there are ten women, a substantial number. Paul does not find it strange that women should occupy positions of responsibility within communities and that they should develop them with firmness and tenacity. The women Paul mentions show the wide range of roles they assumed in the Christian mission and in the early churches. 563 Thus, in Romans 16.1, Paul presents Phoebe 564 with the term διακονός (specifically, he says διακονόν), a masculine word that expresses a ministerial title of the Christian movement that Paul attributes to himself and that also applies to other missionaries and leaders within the Christian community (1Thess 3.2; 1Cor 3.5). In other words, Phoebe exercises a recognised ministry in the ecclesial community of Cenchreae, the port of Corinth in the Aegean Sea, a very difficult place for Paul and where it was very difficult to share the Gospel. In Romans 16.2 Paul again insists on the prominent position of Phoebe when he says that she is προστὰτις of many and even of him. The term προστὰτις, also masculine in gender, is common in Jewish and pagan religious communities and always refers to a person of importance within the community who presides over the group and devotes time and effort to its

562

Edith STEIN, “The Vocation of Man and Woman according to Nature and to Grace”, in Hilda GRAEF (ed.), Writings of Edith Stein, London: Peter Owen 1956, pp. 105–106. 563 André-Marie DUBARLE, “Paul et l’antiféminisme”, RSPT 60 (1976) 267–279. 564 Susan MATHEW, Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16: A Study of Mutuality and Women’s Ministry in the Letter to the Romans (LNTS 471), London – New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark 2013, p. 5.

3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark

187

functioning.565 Paul encourages the Christians in Rome to receive Phoebe in a dignified way, since it is precisely she who is in charge of taking the Epistle to the Christians in Rome. Therefore, Phoebe is the emissary of Paul, which indicates that she is an independent and, almost certainly, a rich woman, because she could assume responsibilities at the same level as those of Paul and had money to make the trip to Rome. From all this, we can deduce that Paul had to have a relationship of trust and esteem with Phoebe. Moreover, Paul’s words about Phoebe also suggest that Phoebe’s dignity gave him valuable support in his efforts to gain acceptance within the church in Rome, which he considered essential, since he intended to carry the mission to Hispania (Romans 15.22–24). In vv. 3–4 of the same chapter, Paul says that he greets Prisca, together with her husband Aquila.566 Paul calls them his collaborators or colleagues, συνεργοὶ, in the work of Christ, work that led them to risk their own lives in solidarity with Paul. Thus, Paul feels very close to the couple. Paul greets them, as they are already settled in Rome, and bears witness to the importance of their work in other churches. Far from considering Prisca as a subordinate assistant to Aquila, he names her first.567 Prisca and Aquila were well acquainted with the Greco-Roman world, from their original province of Pontus to the capital of the Empire, and had previously been in exile in Corinth, and then in Ephesus, where they welcomed the Church into their home, as stated in 1Corinthians 16.19. Later, in Romans 16.7, Paul greets Andronicus and Junia 568 as οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, that is, as those who “are prominent among the apostles”.569 Therefore, they are apostles, since Paul clearly distinguishes between the Twelve and the apostles. Furthermore, Paul states that they too had taken the risks of a missionary vocation since they had been imprisoned with him. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul acknowledges that the most common form of work among the apostles was in pairs, man and woman (1Cor 9.5). The fact that women were considered to be as suitable as men to be apostles made it difficult for some Bible translators and exegetes from the Middle Ages to recognise Junia as a woman, as the fact that a couple, a man and a woman, could be called ‘apostles’ seemed so incredible that they preferred to read the masculine Junias instead of the feminine, Junia. No one in 565

Therefore, the translation “benefactor” of the NRSV is not – in our opinion – quite accurate; it should rather be “the first, the head, the guide”. 566 WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 12–16, pp. 134–138. 567 MATHEW, Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16, p. 7. 568 Peter BOLT – Mark THOMPSON (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission: In honour of Peter T. O’Brien, Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press – Apollos 2000, pp. 229–232. 569 MATHEW, Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16, pp. 8–9.

188

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

the early Church would had been shocked that Junia was a woman, for it was not an isolated case, as we have read in Paul himself (1Cor 9.5). Furthermore, Romans 16.7 indicates that they were not mute companions of their husbands, but that they could participate in the missionary task and that they had apostolic authority. As Paul wrote in 16.7, it can be said that the apostolate of Andronicus and Junia was no different from that of Paul.570 So, was Junia a woman or a man?571 In the text we find the word ᾿Ιουνιαν, in accusative and without accentuating, so we can read both ᾿Ιουνíαν, that is to say Junia, a name of a woman, and ᾿Ιουνιᾶν, for which there is a remote possibility that it is the abbreviation of the name ᾿Iουνιανός, a masculine name that never, in any other text of antiquity, has been found abbreviated as it appears in the biblical text. It, therefore, seems more plausible that it derives from the name ᾿Ιουνíαν, a Latin name for a woman that is often found in ancient times. On the other hand, the fact that both Andronicus and Junia are called ‘apostles’ in the masculine form is not strange either as the concordance, when two different genders are used for the plural, is usually masculine in the Greek language. This transformation of Junia into a ‘man’ seems to be the result of male prejudice. This would be one of the many examples of androcentric reconstruction of the history of early Christianity. In fact, nobody before Egidio of Rome (1245–1316) interpreted Junia as referring to a man. Moreover, the Greek Fathers, closer to Paul than we are, affirm that Junia was an extraordinary woman and apostle. John Chrysostom says:572 Being an apostle is something extraordinary. Consider the glorification of being eminent among them. [Andronicus and Junia] were highly regarded for their works, for their good works. How great the virtue must have been of this woman who was worthy to be called an apostle!

As for the rest of the missionaries and pastors that Paul greets in this chapter, the most remarkable thing is the way in which Paul recognises their work. Paul greets Mary (16.6), Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (16.12), who have “worked hard” in the Lord. With the same verb, κοπίαω, Paul characterises their work and that of other male leaders of the Christian movement (1Cor 15.10; 1Thess 5.12). That is, Paul uses the same verb to express the work that women and men do. He makes no distinction, but places the women on an equal footing with the men who work for the Lord. Towards one of them in particular, Paul professes a profound esteem: it is the “beloved Persis”. With570

Wolf-Henning OLLROG, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission (WMANT 50), Neukirchen – Vluyn: Neukirchener 1979, p. 51. 571 ALEGRE, Memoria subversiva, 343–346. 572 Ioannes CRYSOSTOMUS, Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos (PG 60), Paris: edited by J. Migne 1862, pp. 669–672.

3.9. The women in the Gospel of Mark

189

out a doubt, therefore, we can affirm that Paul respects women as colleagues in a full sense and praises their dedication to the work of the Church. Paul’s greetings to his female friends and mission companions paints a picture of Christian leadership in which women, like men, took on responsibilities, confronted dangers and worked hard to bring the Christian faith across the Mediterranean. Paul considers them to be companions and not subordinate to his authority. In this sense, Paul incorporates, without any apparent difficulty, women as protagonists within the community and accepts their equality with men in the liturgical assembly. However, when the women of Corinth take on new responsibilities, tensions arise, and the apostle makes use of arguments that are valid in his time and culture and that clash with our mentality. It is a question of reading the apostle in an integrated way and not of reading texts in isolation. It is also a question of understanding the universal character of some texts as opposed to others that only address a specific situation. 3.9.3. Conclusions: Women in Paul and Mark In the Gospel of Mark, women are present from the beginning (1.30–31) to the end (16.8) as followers of Jesus faithful to their teacher, as daring women who ask him for help, even though they know that they should not do so, and as those who are always listened to by Jesus and whose faith and ability to serve others is recognised. At the end of the Gospel,573 of the women who follow Jesus from Galilee, none belong to Jesus’ family.574 Neither do the letters of Paul mention any of the women of Jesus’ family as being important in the community nor are any praised by the apostle. The women we meet in the Gospel of Mark are presented as examples of true disciples of Jesus. In fact, they are all models of discipleship. The disci573 There are some authors such as PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 1116; NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 570, who argue that “Mary the mother of James” referred to in 15.40b is the mother of Jesus. In the first part of the Gospel, in 3.32–35, the evangelist has not drawn an unconditional following of the mother with regard to the son, but rather has placed her within the group of family members who are opposed to Jesus' actions when they say: ὅτι ἐξέστη, who has gone out of his mind! (3.21). The figure of Mary is enigmatic and difficult in the Gospel of Mark – if this Mary to whom the evangelist alludes is his mother – because Mary has no word of her own, and appears as a personage bound together with other women... Why does not Mark, if it is the mother of Jesus, implicitly express that this Mary is his mother? Certainly for consistency with 3.31–35, where the Christian value of genealogical maternity is rejected whenever those of Nazareth speak about it (6.3). We believe that if it were Mary, the mother of Jesus, the evangelist Luke would not have failed to make this explicit in his Gospel when he mentions the women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning (Luke 24.10). 574 CROSSAN, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus”, 81–113.

190

Chapter 3: Pauline theological elements within the Gospel of Mark

ples of Jesus of Nazareth must not desire power, but be servants, like the mother-in-law of Peter and the women who follow Jesus to the cross and from Galilee (1.31; 15.41). They must be courageous and have faith, like the haemorrhaging woman (5.25–34). They must believe in the resurrection of Jesus, like the daughter of Jairus who anticipates that of Jesus himself (5.21– 24, 35–43). They must be able to denounce and transgress unjust laws, like the Syrophoenician woman who violates the laws of purity (7.24–30) and they must be poor and share what they have, like the poor widow (12.41–44). They must love Jesus in a humble and disinterested way, like the woman who anoints him in Bethany (14.3–9) and, finally, they must be faithful until death, a death on the cross, like the women who followed him from the very beginning (15.40–41; 16.1–8). The women of Paul’s letters are important women within the community, holding positions of responsibility and whom the apostle himself considers to be colleagues in the apostolate because, from the very beginning, women played an important role within the Christian community.575 It is the same thing that Mark describes in his Gospel, in the narrative of the life of Jesus, presenting him as a man who welcomed women regardless of their origin, of their economic, social or life situation, which recalls the words of Paul in Galatians 3.26: “for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith”.576 Consequently, when studying discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, we must not only consider the disciples, but also the other characters who, in their relationship with Jesus, are models of discipleship, as is the case with women and other secondary characters in the narrative.577

575 Elisabeth FIORENZA, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad 1994, p. 140; MATHEW, Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16, pp. 112–113. 576 FIORENZA, In Memory of Her, 212–213; Brendan BYRNE, Paul and the Christian Woman, Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press 1988, pp. 1–14. 577 Joel F. WILLIAMS, Other followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark’s Gospel (JSNTSup 102), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1994, pp. 205–206.

Chapter 4

Christology Comparing the Christologies that emerge from the letters of Paul 1 and the Gospel of Mark is an immense task requiring a separate study. Given the proposal of the present work, we will confine our discussion to those elements that demonstrate the influence of Paul’s theology on Mark’s Christology. Knowing what Christ Mark intended to present has been a source of debate and discussion in the history of biblical scholarship. It is our contention that, in order to properly understand the Marcan Jesus, one must look at Paul. Historically, it was argued, and still is on occasion today, that Mark wrote his Gospel in order to correct a false Christology. It was said that the evangelist sought to correct the triumphalism linked to the risen Christ that was hurting his community. Therefore, the Gospel tried to fight, through the socalled corrective Christology, the Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ, understood as the presentation of Jesus with the Hellenistic categories of a miracleworking hero. This had led the community to live an exultant and glorious faith, full of charismatic enthusiasm but which had rejected difficulties and problems. Currently, although some scholars do still argue for this, it is not considered the central point of Mark’s presentation of the figure of Jesus. On the other hand, Marcan Christology has also been analysed as one which presents Jesus as the one who overcomes demons, as the New Adam, as the interpreter and fulfilment of the Old Testament, as the Son of Man and as the Son of God. We will show that in all these categories there are elements of Pauline theology in the evangelist’s presentation of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, it is our observation that scholars focus on a particular aspect of Mark’s Christology while neglecting other aspects, while we argue that there is a significant Pauline and Marcan element that makes all these elements cohere, the cross. The cross is a determined way of understanding the whole Gospel and entails specific consequences for those who wish to follow Christ. Therefore, we believe that the Gospel of Mark is covered by a shadow that is cast from the first to the last word: the shadow of the cross of the crucified, in the style of what Paul says in 1Cor 1.23: “but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”. The cross 1 Whenever we speak of the Pauline letters we are referring to those considered authentic by most scholars: Rom, 1Cor, 2Cor, Gal, Phil, 1Thess and Phlm.

192

Chapter 4: Christology

in Paul and Mark is like the sap that runs through the tree, without which the tree would die, because without it Jesus would have lost the essence that makes him the Son of God crucified. We begin this new chapter by analysing the relationship between the Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ and the corrective Christology found within the Gospel.

4.1. Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ against Mark’s corrective christology 4.1. Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ against Mark’s corrective christology

4.1.1. Origin and meaning of the Hellenic concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ A way of approaching Mark’s Christology, which was very significant among scholars and which was related to Paul, began with F. C. Baur 2 at the end of the 19th century and has to do with the Hellenistic concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ. The divine man is a person who, in spite of being human, has a genius who invests him with something divine distinguishing him from others by his wisdom and his supernatural power to perform miracles. The Marcan Jesus is characterised by the evangelist as one who performed a great number of prodigious deeds. Baur devoted himself to researching the history of the writing of the Gospels and their relationship to Paul through this concept. At the beginning of the 20th century, Dieter Georgi3 suggested a working hypothesis in which he related one of the anti-Pauline groups appearing in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians with the synoptic tradition of miracles and connected this with the Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ. This Hellenistic category had never before been related to Paul’s adversaries, but for Georgi this conception was one of the decisive features for understanding Mark, since Georgi believed that Paul’s opponents were not Gnostic groups, but Hellenised Judeo-Christian missionaries from the Hebrew Diaspora, characterised by competing among themselves in terms of virtue and ideological syncretism to denounce the shortcomings of Paul and to glorify themselves in a triumphalist manner. R. Bultmann4 was one of the first to apply the concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ positively to the Gospel of Mark, relating the miracles of Jesus that appear in the narrative to the way Paul presents Jesus. For his part, J.

2 BAUR, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom”, 61–206. 3 Dieter GEORGI, The Opponents of Paul in 2Corinthians, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress 1986, pp. 333–450. 4 Rudolf BULTMANN, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Otto Merk (Uni-Taschenbücher 630), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 91984, pp. 178–184.

4.1. Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ against Mark’s corrective christology

193

Schreiber5 was the first to raise the possibility of conflict between the writer of the Gospel and the tradition received by Mark, understanding that the Gospel was a polemic against other Christian groups with a triumphalist Christology like those opposed by Paul in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Later, W. Wrede6 acknowledged that the scene of Jesus’ baptism was “die hervorragend bedeutungsvolle und sehr klare Erzählung” in the evangelist’s description of how the Spirit descended on Jesus and how the voice from heaven was heard announcing to him that He was the Beloved Son of God (1.9–11). Consequently, the Messiah, through the reception of the Spirit, was endowed with a supernatural nature by virtue of which he could perform miracles and impart his teachings with wisdom and knowledge. Likewise, L. Bieler7 was the first to outline the ancient Greco-Roman concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ as that of a genius who, although human, was invested with something divine. He came to the conclusion that christologically the Son of God in the Gospel of Mark was the same figure as the Son of God in the theology of Paul. The only difference between them is that the second evangelist did not incorporate in his Christological portrait of the Son of God the notion of preexistence. In a similar manner, W. Marxsen8 argued for the conception of the θεῖος ἀνήρ in the account of the Passion in Mark’s Gospel, dwelling on the importance of the cross towards which this Gospel points. The studies of W. Wrede, L. Bieler and W. Marxsen are very important when considering the conception of the θεῖος ἀνήρ, as they affirmed that, except for the idea of transcendence, the conception of Jesus as Messiah, Son of God within the Gospel of Mark was fundamentally the same as that found in the Pauline letters, establishing a relationship between Paul and Mark, and demonstrating that basis of a common Hellenic idea about the divine man. From the 1950s onwards, the theory of the θεῖος ἀνήρ has been assessed more negatively. On the one hand, there are scholars who affirm that Mark became the spokesman for the Hellenistic Christology of the divine man which he had received from his tradition, but that the result in Mark’s Gospel is inferior to that found in Paul or John. On the other hand, there are others who argue that Mark dealt with this conception to fight against and to correct it. Thus, S. Schulz9 argued that the evangelist’s debt to the conception of the θεῖος ἀνήρ was the paradoxical fact of presenting Jesus as a miracle-worker 5

Johannes SCHREIBER, “Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums: Beobachtungen zur Theologie und Komposition des zweiten Evangeliums”, ZThK 58 (1961) 154–183. 6 WREDE, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums, 71–73. 7 BIELER, Theios Aner: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum, 2–5. 8 MARXSEN, Der Evangelist Markus, 112–128.141–147. 9 SCHULZ, Die Stunde der Botschaft, 54–59.64–79.

194

Chapter 4: Christology

and one who goes to the cross; thus, he transforms the theology of the cross into a theology of glory. In his research on Mark’s messianic secret, U. Luz10 considered that the strategy of the second evangelist was not to eliminate the Christology of the divine man or his miracle narratives, but to use these stories to exalt the glory of a Jesus whose true majesty lies in following the way of the cross. Furthermore, B. Blackburn11 argued that it was totally inappropriate to identify the miracle narratives with the Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ because they focused on the culminating moments of Jesus’ miracles. In summary, it is clear that from Wrede onwards the attitude that the second evangelist adopted towards the Hellenistic concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ as an interpretative key to discovering the Christology of the Gospel of Mark has been variously assessed by the scholars. Essentially, the history of research has demonstrated two strands of thought. In the first, the term ‘divine man’ is used positively to argue the thesis that Mark was merely trying to proclaim the same kerygma as Paul. On the other hand, according to the second, the term ‘divine man’ is seen as a concept that needs correction and, consequently, the evangelist is criticised for his supposed defence of the theology of glory. However, there are also authors who believe that the evangelist took a critical stance against JudeoHellenism and the tradition of the Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ, fighting and correcting this Christology through his defence of the theology of the cross and the use of the Christological title, Son of God. This theory is discussed in the following section of this research paper. 4.1.2. Corrective Christology During the second half of the twentieth century, a number of scholars12 proposed that Mark was not fighting against a type of Christian gnosis, but against a heresy opposed to his concept of the Gospel. It is a JudeoChristianity that observes the Law, similar to the one Paul faced in Antioch (Gal 2), in Jerusalem (Rom 15.31; Acts 15) and in some sectors of the church of Rome. These authors emphasise the way in which the evangelist presents Peter, the Twelve, and the family of Jesus, who, despite being characters 10

LUZ, “Das Geheimnis-Motiv und die markinische Christologie”, 28. Barry BLACKBURN, Theios anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: a Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions used by Mark (WUNT 40), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1991, pp. 263–266. 12 WEEDEN, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, 69–70; PERRIN, The Christology of Mark, 95–108; BIELER, Theios Aner: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum, 145–152; SCHWEIZER, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, 42–43; Carl R. HOLLADAY, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology (SBL 40), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press 1977, pp. 1–45. 11

4.1. Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ against Mark’s corrective christology

195

linked to the Christian community of Jerusalem, do not come out too well in his Gospel. In order to defend their thesis, these scholars also take into account the question of the abolition of the Jewish food laws and the emphasis on the mission to the Gentiles. T. J. Weeden13 suggests that Mark wrote his Gospel to combat the false Christs and false prophets who had invaded the community (Mark 13.22). They announced that Jesus was the great θεῖος ἀνήρ and affirmed that he was still among them and spoke through them, insisting that authentic Christianity found meaning and fulfilment not in suffering, but in the glory of the existence of the θεῖος ἀνήρ. Hence for this group, the evangelist would have made a big mistake in his description of Jesus as the way of the cross and the disciples as men discredited by their lack of understanding. Weeden argues that Mark described the disciples as advocates of the ‘divine man’ when confronted with that of the suffering Messiah. Furthermore, he argues that there is no historical basis for claiming that this kind of dispute occurred between Jesus and his disciples and, consequently, he concludes that the only possibility is that the Sitz im Leben of the Marcan community was the one we encounter in this confrontation. The Marcan community, Conzelmann14 added, was oriented towards the expectation of the ἔσχατον (13.28–37) and was, therefore, trapped in the Zwischenzeit, a time between the resurrection and the Parousia, in which the Lord was absent. It is precisely this situation that led them to see Jesus as the great θεῖος ἀνήρ and not as the suffering Servant. Therefore, they needed a Christology based on the pneumatic glory of the divine man. On the contrary, for N. Perrin15 the key to Marcan Christology lies in determining the relationship between the Son of Man and the Son of God, titles that Mark uses in his Gospel to refer to Jesus. According to Perrin, Mark gives a correct content to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, rejecting the connotations of the θεῖος ἀνήρ and emphasising the need for suffering. Thus, Mark sought to correct a false Christology prevalent in his church and taught the true Christology and its consequences for the disciples of Christ. In a similar manner, Donahue 16 affirms that the title, Son of Man, is the most appropriate in Mark because unlike the other titles assigned to Jesus – the Christ, the Son of God, the Son of David or the Lord – it is never associated with a false meaning. For Weeden and Perrin this is a ‘corrective’ approach, which considers the Gospel to be an attempt to cool down the over-excited eschatology of some Christians in the church of Mark, along the same lines as Paul. According to 13

WEEDEN, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, 64–77. H. CONZELMANN, “Geschichte und Eschaton nach Mk 13”, ZNW 50 (2009) 210–221. 15 PERRIN, The Christology of Mark, 95–108. 16 John R. DONAHUE, Are You the Christ?: The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBL 10), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press 1973, pp. 178–184. 14

196

Chapter 4: Christology

these scholars, Mark’s opponents were theologians in the style of the ‘divine men’ who believed that, through union with the risen Lord, they could participate in his risen life in their earthly existence and that, therefore, they had the power to work miracles. Mark opposes this glorious theology of the ‘divine men’, which in the narrative is represented by the disciples and seems to be linked to the Christological title of Son of God. Confronted by this ideology, Mark offers a portrait of Jesus in which he suffers and, at the same time, focuses on the title of Son of Man. The miracles of the first part of the Gospel, attenuated by the messianic secret, and the theology of the cross present in the second part of the narrative, alongside the strong misunderstanding and final abandonment of Jesus by his disciples, are the elements that are argued to be how the Gospel of Mark should be read christologically. This approach to Mark’s Christology, considering it as corrective, has been rejected by J. Marcus17 and J. D. Kingsbury18 for a number of reasons. First, the term ‘divine man’ does not seem to have been part of a fixed terminology in the Hellenism of the first century CE. Moreover, when this term is used it does not seem to be connected particularly with miracles or with the title of Son of God. On the other hand, it is far from clear that Mark shows such a negative attitude towards miracles as Weeden and Perrin think. Although the miracles gradually disappear in the second part of the Gospel, at the last moment, the greatest of all miracles, the resurrection, appears. To argue this last idea, the observations of A. Rofé,19 are relevant. He compares the end of the Gospel of Mark with the prophetic narratives of the Old Testament (for example, 2Kgs 2.1–18; 13.14–17), and with the Hassidic narratives about rabbis who work miracles, in which the end of the life of the seer is often marked by a struggle against the forces of the Sheol and which culminates in a miracle greater than any that he might have done previously. However, the presence of miracles in the first part of Mark’s narrative is so significant and they are so positively evaluated by all observers that it is hard to believe that Mark does not approve of them, even though he recognises the ambivalence of these miracles, since they can also be performed by false Christs and false prophets (13.22). Moreover, the only ones who negatively judge Jesus’ miracles in the Gospel are his enemies, the scribes; and Jesus accuses them of blaspheming the Holy Spirit for doing so (3.28–30).

17

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 75–79. KINGSBURY, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 25–45; J.-D. KINGSBURY, “The Divine Man as the Key to Mark’s Christology – The End of an Era?”, Int 35 (1981) 243–257. 19 Alexander ROFÉ, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History, Jerusalem: Magnes Press 1988, pp. 42– 55. 18

4.1. Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ against Mark’s corrective christology

197

Marcus and Kingsbury also believe that in the Gospel of Mark the disciples are like confused puppets, but they are not traitors. In spite of their mistakes, in most of the narrative they do follow Jesus, despite being scared (10.32–34). Moreover, the fact that at the end of the Gospel they abandon him seems to have been overcome by the promise of Jesus, who speaks to them of a renewed attachment to him after the resurrection (14.28; 16.7). The fact that this promise has been fulfilled, according to Mark, is confirmed by the prophecies that predict that some members of the Twelve will suffer martyrdom for the sake of Jesus and the Gospel (10.29; 13.9–13). As with some Old Testament characters such as Abraham, Moses, David and Jonah, the mistakes and sins of the disciples do not prevent them from becoming instruments of God’s transcendent power (2Cor 4.7). These two scholars also argue that the term Son of Man does not deny the glorious connotation of the Son of God, but reinforces it, because here the Son of Man is not a suffering figure but a triumphant one who comes from the clouds of heaven to judge his enemies, according to the biblical background of Dan 7. 4.1.3. Conclusion: A Christology of contrasts with some corrective elements Since the middle of the 20th century, the Hellenistic conception of the θεῖος ἀνήρ has been much debated and discussed. Authors such as Betz20 consider that it is difficult for the concept to have passed from paganism to Judaism in a coherent and compact way and from this to Christianity without suffering any fragmentation or multiplicity in its meaning and scope. Perhaps, as Tiede21 says, an attempt has been made to connect the θεῖος ἀνήρ too closely with the figure of the thaumaturge, so that they have become identified with each other and, therefore, any miraculous act was enough to suggest the presence of the Hellenistic category. It was therefore necessary to specify whether all thaumaturges were considered a θεῖος ἀνήρ and to what extent the biblical tradition and Christianity had been influenced by this.22 The problems in the study of the θεῖος ἀνήρ in Christianity are basically three: the influence on the tradition of the miracles of Jesus, the possibility of making a hypothetical Christology from this concept and the relationship with the miraculous signs that accompanied the Christian missionary activity of the early church.

20

Otto BETZ, “The Concept of the So-Called ‘Divine Man’ in Mark’s Christology”, in Jesus, der Messias Israels (WUNT 42), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1987, pp. 227–240. 21 David Lenz TIEDE, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBL.DS 1), Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature 1972, pp. 243–245.289–292. 22 BIELER, Theios Aner: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum, 145–150.

198

Chapter 4: Christology

At present, scholars23 agree to locate the majority of the narratives of miracles not in a Hellenistic background, but in a background of Jewish eschatological expectations, and to recognise a historical nucleus in the thaumaturgical activity of Jesus without excluding other possible influences. Nevertheless, there are others who consider that, properly speaking, a “Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ” has never existed in Christianity, and that, as Bieler24 says, the most that can be said is that when the person of Jesus was presented to the pagans, he was given some traits proper to the divine men in order to demonstrate that he was the highest fulfilment of all their theological aspirations. In fact, by the end of the 20th century, significant scholars25 had questioned whether the term θεῖος ἀνήρ had a status or had been a fixed concept in the ancient world, since they argued that the θεῖος ἀνήρ had never been a technical term or an established expression before the early church, nor had the Son of God been a title applied to the divine man. Moreover, Tiede26 demonstrated that until the second century, there were basically two types of heroes in the Greek world – including within Judeo-Hellenism – one characterised by his wisdom and moral virtue and the other by his divinity as a consequence of his power to perform miracles. Therefore, scholars have become more cautious in saying that the θεῖος ἀνήρ in the Gospel of Mark was a fixed and well-known concept. However, scholars such as J. Marcus27 insist that, despite the weakness of the arguments for the concept of the θεῖος ἀνήρ in Marcan Christology, the inclusion of a corrective element within that Christology should not be dismissed. Based on the misunderstanding of the disciples, as C. Focant28 also argues, Marcus points out that the fact that Jesus’ followers constantly misinterpret him and that he often scolds them for this lack of understanding indi23 Vittorio FUSCO, “Avversario di Paolo – avversario di Marco. Un contatto attraverso la cristologia del ‘theios aner’? appunti sulla discussione” en Nascondimento e rivelazione: studi sul Vangelo di Marco (Studi Biblici 153), Brescia: Paideia 2007, pp. 180–186. An example that leads us to think of thaumaturges of pagan origin is the use of saliva for healing that we find in Mark 7.31–37; 8.22–26, but this feature is not sufficient to think that it is the category of the divine man. 24 BIELER, Theios Aner: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum, 148–150. 25 Fritzleo LENTZEN-DEIS, Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern: literaturkritische und gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Frankfurter Theologische Studien 4), Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht 1970, pp. 273–276; BETZ, “The Concept of the So-Called “Divine Man” in Mark’s Christology”, 229–240; Howard C. KEE, “Aretalogy and Gospel”, JBL 92 (1973) 402–422; Gerd THEISSEN, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (SNT 8), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus 1974, pp. 262–282. 26 TIEDE, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker, 4–13.98–99.289–291. 27 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 75–79. 28 FOCANT, “L’incompréhension des disciples dans le deuxième évangile”, 161–185.

4.1. Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ against Mark’s corrective christology

199

cates that the confusion of the disciples reflects the Marcan community’s lack of understanding. Previously, we have seen that Jesus’ followers frequently fail to understand him (4.13; 7.18; 8.14–21, 33), misinterpret him or have an incomplete perception of his message (4.41; 8.4; 9.6, 10, 32; 14.40). In this way, according to J. Marcus, Mark dealt with the problems of his own time (10.10–12; 13.3–37) through the attitude of the disciples and, as a consequence, some of their Christological misunderstandings. Peter’s reluctance to accept the suffering of the Messiah in 8.31–33 and 14.40, alongside his inability to understand the meaning of the glory of Jesus transfigured (9.5–6) are proof of his misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity. Likewise, in the multiplications of the loaves (6.52; 8.14–21), the lack of understanding of the disciples indicates the inability of the Marcan community to admit the presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic meal. The life-giving and explosive power of the God who is present in Jesus goes against these attempts to build on what is old (2.21–22). However, this power is only visible through the eyes of faith, for it does not manifest itself outwardly by removing weakness, suffering, and death from the lives of the members of the community (as it did not in the life of Jesus either: 8.31).29 Rather, this power of God is revealed in the midst of contrary realities such as weakness, suffering and death (15.16–20). Once again, this message is remarkably similar to that of the apostle Paul, who boasts of the power of God who makes himself present in the midst of His own weakness in 2Corinthians 12.9. The result of this investigation is that Mark’s Christology and the theology that follows is not ‘corrective’ in the radical sense proposed by T. J. Weeden, because Mark does not wish to anathematise a heretical group within his community. Those who “lead many astray” of 13.6–7, 22–23 are not within the community, but outside it. The concern is that they may “deceive the elect”, as others have done. Mark’s theology attempts to correct a tendency of some members of his church, who appear to have forgotten the ‘massive’ change brought about by Jesus’ death and resurrection. This Christological amnesia may have led some members of the community of Mark to take refuge in the certainties of the Mosaic Law (7.17–19). However, an even more important concern of the Gospel is that Christians in the Marcan community may feel frightened by the situation in which they live, threatened by a “suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be” (13.19). Mark responds to their fear and despair by telling the story of Jesus, who overcame the wind and the waves, and who even walked on the stormy sea of death to the place where his disciples were (6.45–52). Therefore, the evangelist again asks his audi-

29

REPLOH, Markus, 81.

200

Chapter 4: Christology

ence to keep the Christological memory; in other words, he asks them to keep the faith (4.40). Therefore, we believe that the Gospel of Mark reveals a Jesus in whom power and weakness meet. On the one hand, a Jesus who is powerful, who is supported by the Spirit of heaven in baptism and transfiguration (1.10–11; 9.7) and who heals the incurables with power and glory (3.1–6; 5.1–20; 7.24– 30; 7.31–37). On the other hand, Mark reveals a Jesus who fails (15.18–19), who is misunderstood (8.17–21), and who is distressed by death and loneliness (14.34). Therefore, the evangelist does not present a closed Christology but one that is full of contrasts and in development; that is, one that requires an interpretative effort on the part of the reader who is shaken and questioned every time he believes he has grasped the identity of Jesus.30 In short, it is not a question of Mark presenting two opposing Christologies in his Gospel but rather the opposite, because what the evangelist has done is to reconcile them.31 For this reason, although the evangelist makes clear the identity of Jesus from the beginning of the Gospel in 1.1: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”, this identity will be continually called into question until the last line of the narrative, where the reader, who had thought that with the resurrection of Jesus his identity had become clear, is challenged by the silence and fear of the women.

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross 4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

4.2.1. Son of God Son of God is the most significant and important Christological title in the Gospel of Mark and the one most in tune with Paul’s theology of the cross.32 On six occasions Jesus is called “Son of God” in the Gospel of Mark, in 1.1, 11; 3.11; 5.7; 9.7 and 15.39. 33 Four times we find the complete title (1.1; 3.11; 5.7 and 15.39) and twice without the complement of the name (1.11 and 9.7). Every time it appears, however, it is an important moment in the Gospel narrative34 because it is the way in which Mark identifies Jesus. Moreover, on occasion the use of this title is accompanied by cosmic manifestations that corroborate the divinity of Jesus (1.1, 11; 9.7; 15.39). Furthermore, on two 30

Agustí BORRELL, “L’Evangeli de Marc, una cristologia narrativa”, RCatT 39 (2014) 789–801. 31 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 77–78; WINN, The purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 17–18. 32 POKORNÝ, From the Gospel to the Gospels, 130–136; GARLAND, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 227–232. 33 ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, 183–184. 34 PERRIN, The Christology of Mark, 101–102.

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

201

occasions it is the demons who identify Jesus as the Son of God (3.11 and 5.7).35 Consequently, although it is not the most common way of referring to Jesus in the Gospel of Mark – the title “Son of Man” occurs more frequently –, the evangelist reserves this title for crucial moments within the narrative to express the true identity of Jesus. It should also be noted that on only one occasion within the Gospel is Jesus pronounced “Son of God” by a man and it is no coincidence that this is precisely a pagan and not a Jew. He is a Roman centurion, which is not superfluous to the narrative (15.39), since Mark demonstrates how it is precisely on the cross that the pagans have access to the faith. It should be stressed that, precisely at the foot of the cross, where Jesus dies crying out and in agony – therefore in a context that is not at all glorious– the centurion recognises Jesus as God (15.39). It is obvious that at the foot of the cross one can freely confess the divine filiation of Jesus, because in that place and circumstance there is no danger of falling into a triumphalist or deceptive error in the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, the Son of God. In addition, Mark puts the confession on the lips of a Roman centurion, using the word κεντυριῶν and not the Greek ἑκατονταρχής, to further emphasise his imperial attachment, while underscoring the openness of the Gospel to the Gentiles.36 The title “Son of God” also rarely appears in its entirety in the Pauline letters, although this is how it is presented in Romans 1.4; 2Corinthians 1.19 and Galatians 2.20. However, it is found without the complement of the name on many other occasions when the apostle has explicitly referred to God earlier, in Romans 1.9; 5.10; 8.3, 29, 32 and Galatians 1.16; 4.4, 6.37 Romans 1.2–4 and Mark 1.1 have similarities because in both it is announced that God’s plan has been fulfilled in Jesus, His Son.38 In Paul, this way of referring to Jesus expresses his union with the Father and also his mediating role in the salvation of humanity. 39 Although Paul addresses himself to God the Father because it is his gratuitous love that is the source of salvation, he also affirms that the mediation of Jesus Christ is necessary and that through his death and resurrection he has freed humanity from the slavery of sin (Rom 3.24–25), has saved us (Rom 5.1, 11; 2Cor 5.17–21) and that with his faith, in which Christians participate (Rom 3.26), we have become part of the people of God.40 Our reconciliation with God does not come from our initiative but from Christ, understood as the Son of 35

DEPPE, “Markan Christology and the Omission of υἱὸς θεοῦ in the Mark 1:1”, 45–64. PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 1109. 37 Ulrich WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 1–5, (EKK 6/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1978, pp. 64–66. 38 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 35. 39 Udo SCHNELLE, “Paulinische und markinische Christologie im Vergleich”, 291–298. 40 ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 46–47. 36

202

Chapter 4: Christology

God, who through his death has allowed us to be reconciled with God himself.41 4.2.2. A note on the messianic secret The messianic secret (das Messiasgeheimnis) is a modern term first expressed by William Wrede in 190142 to refer to specific literary and theological features of the Gospel of Mark. Wrede concluded that the Gospel of Mark is a revelation of the theology of the early Church but also of the evangelist, since it conveys the traditions of the early communities and the author’s own theology.43 Jesus’ orders not to tell anyone about his healing miracles or his Messianism are a distinctly Marcan literary feature.44 It is important to remember that the messianic secret exists at the level of the narrative only and not at the level of the discourse, because the readers know beforehand the identity of Jesus, as the evangelist himself had revealed that with his affirmation in 1:1 that Jesus is the Son of God.45 The silence requested by Jesus is a motif proper to Mark, often found in the mouth of Jesus himself after performing a miracle (1.44; 5.43; 7.36), when he dialogues with evil spirits (3.12), just after Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah (8.30), and after the disciples are witnesses of his transfiguration (9.9).46 The insistence on the messianic secret motif indicates that, for the evangelist, it contains an important theological idea so that, in the first part of the narrative, the identity of Jesus seems to remain secret. Bultmann47 and many other scholars consider the messianic secret a creation of the evangelist which serves to unite the proclamation of the Hellenistic Christian community of Jesus as the Son of God on earth with the narrative traditions of Jesus. More recently, G. Theissen48 has suggested that the

41

WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 1–5, p. 298. WREDE, Das Messiasgeheimnis in der Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums, 66. 43 Elizabeth Struthers MALBON, “History, Theology, Story: Re-Contextualising Mark’s Messianic Secret as Characterization”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London - New York: Bloomsbury 2014, p. 37. 44 Dietmar NEUFELD, Mockery and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel (LNTS 503), London – New York: T & T Clark 2014, pp. 182–184. 45 SANTOS, Slave of All, 281. 46 ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, 156–159. 47 BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 347–348; RÄISÄNEN, The “Messianic Secret” in Mark, 55. 48 Gerd THEISSEN, “Die pragmatische Bedeutung der Geheimnismotive im Markusevangelium. Ein wissenssoziologischer Versuch”, in H. G. KIPPENBERG – G. G. 42

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

203

messianic secret has a pragmatic function, since Mark wants to protect a social group from the danger posed by knowing the identity of Jesus. J. Dunn49 considers that some elements of the messianic secret may have their origin in the historical Jesus, while others are of a theological character and are, therefore, the fruit of the author’s hand. E. S. Malbon50 argues that, despite the tension between the order to keep silent made by Jesus and the voice of the narrator who calls him “Son of God” (1.1; 15.39), Mark’s presentation of Jesus focuses on God, so that this tension, rather than making understanding difficult, points to the mystery. In the second part of the Gospel (9.9), it is clear that the orders to keep silent are related to the cross and the resurrection of Jesus.51 Mark is not opposed to the manifestation of the glory of Jesus, but opts to take this perspective into account alongside others. Consequently, he presents this glory in the light of the death of Jesus and the cross, as well as the subsequent resurrection, which are the theological frameworks for the miracles and Christological titles that Jesus of Nazareth receives in the Gospel of Mark. In other words, only from the perspective of the crucified can it be said that Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore, we agree with X. Alegre, that it is an eloquent silence,52 since it is a silence that will become a cry of hope and proclamation after the resurrection of Jesus. Consequently, the cross becomes the catalyst for Mark’s thought, as it is in Paul’s also.53 Following Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is only possible after Easter because it is a following that involves the way of the cross. In all four Gospels, Jesus’ death on the cross is fundamental to understanding his identity but Mark, from the very beginning of his narrative, leads his readers by a different route from the other Gospels since, through his use of the messianic secret, he hides the identity of Jesus as the Son of God. Therefore, until the point at which Jesus dies on the cross, no one in the narrative, apart from the demons and God himself, knows who Jesus is.

STROUSMA (eds.), Secrecy and Concealment. Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, Leiden: Brill 1995, pp. 225–245. 49 James Douglas Grant DUNN, “The Messianic Secret in Mark”, in The Messianic Secret, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1983, pp. 122–126. 50 MALBON, “History, Theology, Story: Re-Contextualising Mark’s Messianic Secret as Characterization”, 53–56. 51 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 525–527; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 167–170. 52 ALEGRE, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, 159–163. 53 John R. DONAHUE, “The Quest for the Community of Mark’s Gospel”, in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift F. Neyrinck, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1992, pp. 817– 838; John R. DONAHUE, “Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark’s Gospel”, CBQ 57 (1995) 1–26; GOULDER, “Those Outside Mark 4:10–12”, 289–302; MARCUS, “Mark”, 479–481; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 52–54; RÄISÄNEN, “Jesus, Paul and Torah”, 127–148.

204

Chapter 4: Christology

Why does Mark wait until after Jesus’ death on the cross to reveal Jesus’ true identity? The reason is found in the cross itself. Only beyond the cross can one understand who Jesus is and what he means. The conflicts with the Jewish authorities eventually take Jesus to the cross, so this moment becomes the climax of the narrative because it is where the conflict is solved and his identity is fully known. Precisely because both aspects culminate in the cross demonstrates that this is the climax of Mark’s Gospel.54 4.2.3. The announcements of the passion Analysing the literary structure of the Gospel of Mark reveals the importance of the three passion predictions (8.31–9.1; 9.30–37; 10.32–45). All three have the same structure: prediction-incomprehension-teaching and each is a form of interpretation of Peter’s confession.55 For this reason, the first prediction of the passion is found at the beginning of the second part of the Gospel in 8.31 and provides the key to understanding the two that follow. As a result of this announcement, the fate of Jesus, hitherto predicted in a hidden way, becomes known. The first confession of the disciples of Jesus’ identity, in 8.29, cannot appear without the proclamation of his death in 8.31 and, consequently, there can be no Messianism that does not pass through death. If, until that narrative moment, the fate of the Son of Man has been announced in parables, now it appears plainly: the Messiah will suffer, be rejected, die and rise again on the third day. However, the idea that Christ must suffer an infamous death at the hands of the Jews is a scandal to Peter (8.31). Peter, a character already analysed in this study, is the one who rejects the understanding of a Messianism that embodies suffering. As the evangelist tells the story, Peter understands Jesus to be the Davidic eschatological figure, that is, the real Messiah who is to liberate the people from oppression and establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Peter will have to fall asleep in Gethsemane (14.37), flee before the guardians (14.50), deny Jesus (14.70–71) and not go to the crucifixion (15.40–41), in order to understand that the Messiah is only found in weakness. Thus, the reader will realise that the fact of confessing Jesus as Messiah does not imply that one has understood who Jesus is because, like the blind man (8.22–26; 10.45–52), Peter sees badly, that is, he does not understand how God is revealed in Jesus. This can only happen once the resurrection has taken place so that, by grace, Peter can go back to Galilee (16.8), as Paul says in Romans 3.24; 11.5–6.

54 Jack Dean KINGSBURY, “The Significance of the Cross within Mark’s Story”, Int 47 (1997) 95–105. 55 PERRIN, The Christology of Mark, 97; FISCHER, Les disciples dans l’Évangile de Marc, 103; SANTOS, Slave of All, 146.

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

205

Jesus’ reaction corresponds to his obedience to God. In this sense, the following section of the narrative offers us another possible interpretation of the death of Jesus.56 In 8.34–38, Jesus is described as a model of behaviour for Christians. Therefore, it is not only a question of imitating the attitude of Jesus and following him, but above all it is a question of taking up one’s own cross and making one’s own way. Only those, who lose their life, will save it (8.35). The paradigmatic status of Jesus’ death on the cross becomes a valuable model for all his followers.57 In the same sense, R. Tannehill58 comments that the rhetorical combination of 8.35 reinforces this idea, because “This strange combination of opposites, with reversal of the two terms in the second clause, illustrates the striking use of words typical of the antithetical aphorism... All of this contributes to forcefulness”. The second prediction in 9.31 confirms the interpretation of the first. Jesus repeats the prophecy of his death and resurrection and, once he has told it, Jesus himself responds to the disciples that “whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all” (9.35b). Once more a paradox is indicated, because the first will not be the rich and powerful but those who are servants. In addition, Jesus illustrates his words by placing a child in the midst of the disciples (9.36) in a clear invitation to reverse the hierarchical order established in Jewish society at the time. The third prediction of the passion59 in 10.32–34, is also preceded by a key text that of the rich young man (10.17–22). The conversation that Jesus has with the disciples at the end of this encounter concludes with the sentence: “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first” in 10.31. Immediately after the third prediction (10.35–40), we find Jesus answering the questions of the sons of Zebedee and changing the hierarchy of values to affirm that the slaves will be the first. Thus, the Jesus of Mark presents, on the one hand, the values that his Gospel proclaims for the Marcan community and, on the other, the chalice from which those who wish to follow him must drink. Therefore, the evangelist reminds his readers that taking the way of the cross proposed by Jesus will potentially lead to martyrdom. Thus, the announcements of the passion are in keeping with the eschatological title, “Son of Man”, since they speak of the future, even if it is an impending future. They can be called, as J. Adam proposes, “Der Anfang vom Ende”,60 since 56

Jesper Tang NIELSEN, “The Cross on the Way to Mark”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 290–291. 57 SANTOS, Slave of All, 162–163. 58 TANNEHILL, The Sword of His Mouth, 99. 59 NIELSEN, “The Cross on the Way to Mark”, 292–293. 60 Jens ADAM, “‘Der Anfang vom Ende’ oder ‘das Ende des Anfangs’? Perspektiven der markinischen Eschatologie anhand der Leidens-ankündigungen Jesu”, in Hans-Joachim ECKSTEIN – Hermann LICHTENBERGER – Christof LANDMESSER (eds.), Eschatologie –

206

Chapter 4: Christology

they are the beginning of the end of the earthly Jesus and open the door to the risen Christ. Following Jesus involves two requirements:61 self-renunciation and taking up one’s own cross (8.34). The verb ἀπαρνέομαι can be considered synonymous with the Pauline use of the verb καυχάομαι which means ‘to follow Jesus’, in the sense of refusing to glorify oneself or to trust in one’s own human existence. The action of taking up one’s cross can be understood as an invitation to accept the utmost consequences, if necessary. In short, following Jesus means a break with the logic of the world, but it also means following him from one’s own weakness, misery and deprivation. In this sense, Paul’s words in Galatians 2.20 resonate: “and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” and in Romans 6.6: “We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin”. Thus, the challenge of the Gospel of Mark is to interpret the death of Jesus on the cross as Good News. The Easter event and the cross are the good news of salvation, because “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it” (8.35). 4.2.4. The Theology of the Cross in Paul and Mark As R. H. Gundry states:62 “Mark’s meaning lies on the surface. He writes a straightforward apology for the Cross, for the shameful way in which the object of Christian faith and subject of Christian proclamation died, and hence for Jesus as the Crucified One”. Martin Kähler says:63 “Ohne Kreuz keine Christologie, und in der Christologie auch kein Zug, der nicht im Kreuze seine Berechtigung aufzuzeigen hätte”, that is, the centrality of the cross in the Gospel of Mark has led to this Gospel being called “the Gospel of the cross”.64 Eschatology: The Sixth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium: Eschatology in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (WUNT 272), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011, pp. 120–122. 61 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 50–56; CUVILLIER, “La croix chez Marc: approche exégètique et théologique”, 31–36. 62 GUNDRY, Mark, 1. 63 Karl Martin August KÄHLER, Das Kreuz: Grund und Mass für die Christologie. Vorlesungen von Martin Kähler, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1911, p. 13. 64 KINGSBURY, “The Significance of the Cross within Mark’s Story”, 95–105; BIRD, Mark, 39; BECKER, Paul the Apostle, 229–289; F. NIEDNER, “Precious, Inevitable Scandal: Theology of the Cross in Mark”, CurTM 32 (2005) 425; PERRIN, The Christology of Mark, 96–97; THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, 67; MARTIN, Mark, 161– 162; MARCUS, “Mark”, 479–481; WEEDEN, “The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

207

Mark prepares his readers to understand Jesus’ death long before it is narrated. The Gospel portrays Jesus as the servant of God who has come to bring salvation and forgiveness, although the reader also knows that Jesus must die in a scandalous and shameful way because throughout the narrative the shadow of the cross is present. At the beginning of the Gospel, the death of Jesus appears as a threat in 1.14a because when Mark uses the verb παραδοθῆναι, understood as “was delivered” in speaking of John the Baptist, he is alluding to the passage of Isaiah 53.6, 12 concerning the suffering Servant and to the Psalms of the suffering Righteous One (Ps 27.12; 41.2) which he also uses to refer to Jesus.65 The eschatological references that appear in the death of John the Baptist (6.17–29) prefigure the death of Jesus. In addition, we find references to the death of Jesus in 2.20 in the parable of fasting and in 3.6 in the intention of the Herodians and Pharisees to kill Jesus. Later in the narrative, following Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah (8.29), the evangelist immediately narrates the first passion prediction (8.31), which clearly states that Jesus must die, as with the predictions of 9.31 and 10.33–34. The question of James and John as to who will sit at the right hand of Jesus in his glory is answered by Jesus’ reference to sharing the cup and going through the same baptism, metaphors of the future passion of Jesus (Mark 10.35–40). The parable of the Wicked Tenants, in which the son is killed and thrown out of the vineyard (Mark 12.1–12), clearly alludes to the death of Jesus and his warning to the disciples that he will leave and that they must keep awake for his return (13.34–37) is a direct reference to the cross. Furthermore, we should not forget the persistence of the messianic secret in the narrative which, as we have seen, seeks to hide Jesus’ true identity as the Son of God and which announces his inescapable death.66 Jesus’ death is the central scene of the Marcan narrative. The Gospel of Mark is dominated by the crucifixion of Jesus as a fundamental and formative element. The Son of Man must suffer (8.31), and his suffering will be the guarantee for all people on the day of the final resurrection (9.9–13). Jesus clearly says that humans alone, in their own strength, are incapable of reaching the Kingdom; therefore, only God can make the impossible possible (10.26–27). The death of the Son of God, of the Servant, of the Son of Man is necessary to rescue people from sin (10.45); one must drink from the cup of the covenant (14.23–25); one must go to Gethsemane (14.32–42) to feel the

15:20b-41)”, 115; CUVILLIER, “La croix chez Marc: approche exégètique et théologique”, 25–36. 65 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 171. 66 Peter G. BOLT, “Feeling the Cross: Mark’s Message of Atonement”, RTR 60 (2001) 4–5; BIRD, Mark, 38–43.

208

Chapter 4: Christology

growing emotion of the story and to empathise with the heart-wrenching pain of Jesus and the task that awaits him.67 Turning our attention now to the Pauline letters, we discover that the crucified in Paul is the risen one, the Christ, and he is always identified with the crucifixion he suffered in the past. From this fact, Paul draws consequences for the life of believers, because the cross implies a life of suffering, while at the same time it is also the specific place where the glory of God is manifested, as the apostle affirms in Galatians 2.19b: “I have been crucified with Christ”. It is important to note that, according to Heckel,68 no source prior to Paul contains this terminology or such a theologically significant statement; therefore, it seems that, at least in part, it can be attributed to Paul himself. Paul understands the divinity of God to be revealed in the cross because the cross is proclamation, but also it destroys the illusion that people can transcend themselves through presumption or their own piety. The cross takes people from illusory heroism to the humanity of creatures.69 The cross and the resurrection are deeply connected; although they are distinguishable, they are not divisible. What makes Jesus different is the cross, which is the foundation of Christology, but it is inseparable from the resurrection. Like Paul, Mark calls Jesus, the crucified one.70 In the last pericope of the Gospel, the young man in the tomb speaks of the crucified to the women who went there to anoint the body of Jesus (16.6–7). The young man tells them that Jesus of Nazareth, who had died on the cross, has risen and is no longer among the dead, but is alive. Verse 7 is editorial71 because the evangelist cites 14.28. It is probable that Mark found the confession of faith in verse 6 in the pre-marcan tradition of the empty tomb. The evangelist not only reports on a past event but also introduces the readers into the conversation of the women (16.3). The young man’s mission to the women has, unequivocally, to do with the risen Jesus and represents a proclamation of Jesus and of the continuity of the appearances of the risen one about which Mark did not write. Jesus’ resurrection has a fundamental effect on the preaching of the disciples since the time of the prohibition to reveal the secret is over (9.9). It is now possible to understand why Jesus silenced Peter harshly (8.33) in identifying him with the Messiah and one can also understand the meaning of the so-called messianic secret which has finally faded, because one can now speak of the glory of the crucified one. 67

BOLT, “Feeling the Cross: Mark’s Message of Atonement”, 10–16. HECKEL, “Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, 194–199. 69 KÄSEMANN, Perspectives on Paul. The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul, 41–43. 70 Ibid., 200–204. 71 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 337–338; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 1080–1082; NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 577. 68

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

209

Both Paul and Mark recognise that the first reaction of people to the cross is the rejection of a Messiah crucified in weakness (2Cor 13.4). Both know that this is scandalous because understanding God’s power through weakness and humiliation is not usual. Paul expresses this in Galatians 5.11 and 1Corinthians 1.23 and Mark in the confession of the centurion before the cross (15.39) after having insisted on the misfortune (Mark 14.65; 15.24), the mockery (14.65; 15.16–19) and the abandonment of God (15.34) on the cross. As for the language used by the apostle and the evangelist, there are scholars72 who point to the term ἐσταυρωμένος as specifically Pauline. This participle is also found in Mark, which has led some to accept the dependence of Mark’s Gospel on the theology of the cross developed by Paul. This term also appears in Matthew 28.573 and is taken from Mark 16.6 but without sharing Mark’s theological identification with Paul, 74 because the sections where Mark makes the centrality of the cross in preaching to coincide with the structure of his Gospel are modified by Matthew. Although Matthew does change Mark in places, with respect to Mark’s theology of the cross, Matthew does little to change this, albeit that his use of this is nuanced. In the scene where Jesus is arrested, Matthew introduces a saying in which Jesus himself points out that if he wanted to, he could, even at that point, escape arrest by appealing to an intervention from heaven (Matt 26.53–54). Therefore, in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is in control of the situation in contrast to the situation in Mark; the Jesus of Matthew abandons (ἀφῆκεν) his spirit (27.50), while in Mark 15.37 Jesus expires (ἐξέπνευσεν). Matthew also dilutes the centrality of the cross in the narrative by changing the acclamation of the centurion of Mark 15.39 for the observation of an earthquake and other phenomena that accompany it in Matthew 27.54. The Gospel of Luke is even further removed from Mark’s theology, because in his narrative he never uses either the participle ἐσταυρωμένος or the term εὐαγγελιον. 75 In different ways, both Matthew and Luke mitigate the emphasis on the weakness and abandonment experienced by Jesus in the Marcan passion narrative. In the scene in Gethsemane, Luke eliminates the Marcan distress and, although Matthew does not eliminate it, he changes the infinitive ἐκθαμβείσθαι, ‘to get distressed’ from the Gospel of Mark 14.33, to the less sharp and caustic λυπεῖσθαι, which means ‘to grieve’ (Matt 26.37). In Mark, Jesus seems overwhelmed by the threat of death and falls to the ground to pray; in Luke he kneels down and prays in a dignified and exemplary man72

SCHNELLE, “Paulinsche und markinische Christologie im Vergleich”, 304–308; MARCUS, “Mark”, 480; BACON, The Gospel of Mark, 261–271. 73 MARCUS, “Mark”, 483. 74 Ulrich LUZ, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 26–28), (EKK I/4), NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Theologie 2002, p. 404. 75 FITZMYER, The Gospel according to Luke, 1, pp. 22–23.71–73.

210

Chapter 4: Christology

ner (Luke 22.41). Luke does not describe the beating of Jesus found in Mark 15.19. Even on the cross, Jesus is not abandoned by everyone because one of the thieves crucified with him becomes his follower (Luke 23.39–43). In a similar manner, it is significant that Luke changes the words of Jesus at the moment of death and instead of quoting “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (15.34) from Psalm 22.2 as the Gospel of Mark, Luke quotes from Psalm 31.6: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (23.46). The Gospel of John has nothing in common with Mark’s scene of death. In addition, his Gospel points in the opposite direction to Mark’s emphasising that Jesus is the one who controls the events of the passion.76 In John, Jesus does not give up his Spirit until he decides that “all was now finished” and even says “I am thirsty”, in order to fulfil the scripture (John 19.28–30). It is not possible to say that the Johannine Jesus, died μορφὴν δούλον λαβών, as can be said, on the contrary of Mark’s Jesus and in line with what the apostle Paul says in Philippians 2.8. Therefore, we find closeness between Paul and Mark that is quickly lost in the other synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of John. After Mark, the theological paths taken by the other evangelists drifted apart more than they did between Paul and Mark. The modifications were carried out very soon, because in the second century addition to the Gospel of Mark (16.9–20), the word ‘crucified’ is avoided, in a similar manner to Matthew and Luke. Therefore, Mark is distinguished from the other evangelists in his treatment of the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross, understood as a paradoxical instrument for the revelation of God’s power in a crucified man77 and totally in tune with Paul. It must also be remembered, as Black points out,78 that in both Paul’s letters and Mark’s Gospel, the cross is placed in a broader perspective in that the cross of Jesus is a historical event of trans-historical significance, which expresses a radical division between “the rulers of this age” (1Cor 2.8) and “the Kingdom of God “ (Mark 1.15). Moreover, for both, although hidden, the real agent behind the cross of Jesus is God. The cross, therefore, is the seal of God’s radical freedom and sovereignty to judge and save in a way that goes beyond all human expectations. For Paul “Christ crucified” is the hidden wisdom of God, ordained before all times, to the consternation of the wisdom of the world (1Cor 1.18–25; 2.1). For Mark, Jesus’ death on the cross fulfils the hidden designs and purposes of God (Mark 9.2–3, 9, 31). Moreover, both Paul and Mark agree that the cross of Jesus makes it possible for humanity to know God and for it to be known by Him. Paul presents 76 Raymond E. BROWN, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1988, pp. 92–94. 77 MARCUS, “Mark”, 484. 78 BLACK, Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters, 201–206.

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

211

Christ crucified as a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks (1Cor 1.23); Mark dramatises this idea in the scene of the crucifixion (Mark 15.16, 20, 28–32, 35–36). The apostle and the evangelist agree that humanity has a misunderstanding of the crucifixion of Jesus since it confuses self-sacrifice with powerlessness. However, for both Paul and Mark, this interpretation of the death of Jesus arises from an evident lack of faith that manifests itself in the demand for signs (1Cor 1.22) that they do not understand (Mark 6.1–6). It is a question of proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God as the centurion does (15.39), but not as a consequence of his miraculous deeds, as his adversaries required, but because he dies in solitude and weakness.79 Consequently, the entire Marcan narrative is the Gospel: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1.1), whose theological centre of gravity is the Son of Man, dead and crucified (8.31; 9.31; 10.33– 34). At the end of the Gospel (15.39), Jesus crucified is the prism through which humanity recognises not only Jesus, but also God, whose Son is Jesus. It is the same thing that Paul explicitly writes in 1Corinthians 1.18–21. For this reason, we can affirm with J. Tang Nielsen that the cross is “Umwertung aller Werte”,80 because what is rejected by humans has, on the contrary, the favour of God (1Cor 1.18–2.16). This inversion of all values has two consequences: those who understand the cross as central and fundamental in the following of Jesus will see it as a sign of the revelation of God’s power and wisdom; those who do not understand it in this way will see the cross as absurd and scandalous. For Paul, the cross makes it possible for those who want to follow Christ to have faith and believe. In the same way, in the Gospel of Mark, the cross has different consequences for those who want to be disciples of Jesus. First, Jesus’ obedience is presented by the evangelist as an intrinsic element of the narrative structure, because Jesus is the Son of God from the beginning of the Gospel (1.1) to the end (15.39); moreover, Jesus’ death is interpreted as a “ransom for many” and therefore has a salvific character. Second, the different scenarios in which the passion predictions take place present the death of Jesus as a paradigmatic element that reverses the existing hierarchy of values. A third consequence is the memorial, that is, the ritual repetition of the death of Jesus in the Eucharist as a significant element that is included in the Christ event. In this manner, E. Best81 argues that, to understand what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, one must have a true understanding of who Jesus is. Likewise, F. Matera 82 affirms that there is a

79

WEEDEN, “The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark 15:20b-41)”, 120. NIELSEN, “The Cross on the Way to Mark”, 288–294. 81 BEST, Following Jesus, 12. 82 Frank J. MATERA, What Are They Saying about Mark?, New York: Paulist Press 1987, p. 54. 80

212

Chapter 4: Christology

close link between Marcan Christology and the fact of being a disciple when he says: There is an intimate connection between Christology and discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. Both meet at the cross. Just as one cannot understand who Jesus is apart from the cross, so one cannot grasp the true meaning of discipleship unless he or she is willing to follow Jesus “on the way”. That way, of course, leads to the cross.

Likewise, E. Schweizer 83 argues that people cannot understand Jesus until they learn that Jesus’ sonship is revealed in his rejection, suffering and death. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that Paul elaborates his understanding of the death of Jesus in a rhetorical context. His portrayal of the cross often serves as the basis for the arguments in his letters.84 Paul develops the traditions received through different theological structures to provide convincing reasons for the arguments he will present. His key point is the saving effect of Jesus’ death and the connection between Christ’s obedience and his death for sins. It points, therefore, to the paradigmatic character of Christ’s death on the cross to reverse all values. Likewise, the Marcan interpretation of Jesus’ death takes place in a complete and finished narrative. The understanding of the divine identity of Jesus as Saviour is presented as the fulfilment of the obligation to give his life for the ransom of many. In short, the obedience of Jesus is the model for reversing the values of the Christian community. Therefore, Mark elaborates and follows Paul’s interpretation of the early traditions of Jesus’ death.85 Mark writes his narrative on the basis of Paul’s interpretation of Christ’s obedience, who is presented as the one willing to give his life for our sins. This obligation runs through the entire Gospel of Mark.86 Moreover, both Paul and Mark consider that this event, the death on the cross of Jesus, is the cornerstone to understand what it means to be a Christian and to understand who Jesus is, the Son of God crucified. However, Mark does not do it in a theological manner as Paul, nor does he give eschatological arguments, but rather he integrates references to the cross in decisive moments within his narrative that are the cornerstone for understanding his Gospel. Mark and Paul share the perspective on the death of Jesus as a means of power in weakness.87 It is precisely this lack of power of Jesus in his death that expresses the power to save others (Mark 15.31–32). Jesus preaches the Kingdom of God, which the evangelist corroborates at the end of the story 83

Eduard SCHWEIZER, “The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark”, Int 32 (1978) 387–399. 84 ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 121–123. 85 NIELSEN, “The Cross on the Way to Mark”, 294. 86 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 17.53–54.94–95. 87 BIRD, Mark, 52–53.

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

213

with the announcement of the Kingdom of the crucified one in the titulus of the cross (Mark 15.26), marking the moment when the Kingdom of God will come with power (Mark 9.1). This way of presenting the death of Jesus is clearly in line with Paul’s descriptions of the humiliated, weak and yet triumphant Jesus, when he writes in 2Corinthians 8.9: “For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich”, and in 13.4: “For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God”. The cross is what allows the reader to understand that Christological revelation can only take place in it, from it and through it, because it is on the cross that Jesus is proclaimed Son of God by the centurion (Mark 15.39).88 Moreover, this idea is distinctly Pauline, as we read in Galatians 2.19–20: “19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” and also in Galatians 4.4–5 and Romans 5.10; 8.3. In conclusion, we can affirm that the Gospel of Mark is an apology for the cross, in order to persuade readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not despite the cross, but precisely because of it. In his account, Mark informs the reader that the foolishness of the Pauline cross is the manifestation of God’s power. It is enough to have faith which, in both Paul and Mark, means to believe in Jesus and to have confidence in God.89 This interpretation is confirmed by the ransom logion of Mark 10.45 which we will now analyse. 4.2.5. The ransom logion a) Marcan context In Mark 10.45 we read: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many”; it is the so-called ransom logion located within the pericope in which Jesus speaks of the fact of serving or being served as part of his response to disciples’ discussion about who should take the first place. Bultmann and Collins90 consider that this pericope was received by Mark from tradition but that the evangelist has reworked and elaborated upon it. We set the context. Jesus responds to the disciples by reversing the way greatness is measured in the world and by teaching how to achieve the Kingdom of God (10.42b88

MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1057. POKORNÝ, From the Gospel to the Gospels, 142. 90 BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 24; COLLINS, Mark, 494. 89

214

Chapter 4: Christology

43). Verse 43 is the key to understanding the kingdom, because Jesus says to them: “But it is not so among you”, so that they may understand that they must become servants of others in order to become truly great (10.43–44). This idea had already appeared in Mark 9.35 and 10.31, but now it is being radicalised in presenting it through a slavery-related lexicon. For the GrecoRoman world, slavery was a degradation of social status that almost meant death. Jesus wants his followers to assume a condition that would have been considered the height of humiliation; yet Jesus, paradoxically, proclaims that it is the way of glory.91 In fact, the parallelism expressed first in a negative and then in a positive way indicates that the second term completes the first one.92 Consequently, Mark 10.45 expresses that the way to be exalted within the Kingdom is to be a servant of all (10.43–44), just as Jesus had served others. It is about taking Jesus as the paradigm. The Christological affirmation is unequivocal in that to surrender oneself to death means to continue the service that arises from the fact itself.93 In addition, the image of the servant of 10.42–44 recalls the fact of serving at the table and so it prepares for the Last Supper of Jesus.94 b) Biblical references? Scholars95 claim that the Old Testament passages referred to in Mark 10.45 are from the book of Daniel and the prophet Isaiah. In Daniel 7–12, “the people of the holy ones” linked to the Son of Man, who endures eschatological tribulation, makes many turn to ‘justice’ and is enthroned with ‘many’ in the splendour of eternal life (Dan 7.18, 25–27; 12.1–3).96 In Isaiah 52.13–53.12, the suffering Servant of the Lord, who bore the sin of ‘many’ and suffered an atoning death in their name, is exalted and glorified. However, although we find an echo of these fragments in Mark 10.45, we must point out that these passages are different from those of the evangelist, because the Son of Man, unlike the figure in Daniel 7.14, did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom, as in fact appears to be the case in Isaiah 53.97 The allusion to Isaiah 52–53 at the end of the ransom logion in Mark refers to the suffering Servant of the Lord who exposes his soul to death to atone for 91

MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 754–757. NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 378. 93 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 103–104. 94 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 218. 95 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 103–104; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 749–750; NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 378–379. 96 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 758; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 750. 97 Charles Kingsley BARRETT, “The Background of Mark 10:45”, in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of TW Manson, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1959, pp. 1–18 (p.8). 92

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

215

the iniquity of many. Thus, it happens that service to others is the same as service to God. The sacrifice of the Servant becomes a great victory, a triumph that includes miraculous events such as deserts blooming, valleys flattening, deaf hearing and blind seeing (Isa 29.18; 35.1–7; 40.1–11; 42.1–17). It is not surprising, then, that the ransom logion on the servile death of the Son of Man comes immediately after another in which the Son of David miraculously opens the eyes of a blind man. It is interesting to note the work of J. C. Edwards98 in which he affirms that the references to Daniel 7 and 9.24– 27 are doubtful, because there is no mention of the Son of Man nor of the ransom logion, while the influence of Isaiah seems more likely, because it emphasises the death of the Servant because of sin which can be related to the death of Jesus. There are other Old Testament references in which the terminology of the ransom is used to designate the atonement, such as Exodus 21.30; 30.10–12; Numbers 35.31. There are also some texts of the Diaspora in which we find ransom terminology, for example Philo,99 who affirms that the wise person is a ransom for the foolish, and the Fourth Book of Maccabees, which describes the sacrificial life of a righteous man as a ransom for the sins of a nation (4 Macc 6.28–29; 17.21–22).100 In contrast, D. Seeley argued that Mark has not relied on Old Testament texts, but has used traditions from classical and Hellenistic thinking about what the true ruler should be like and combined these with ideas from the Cynic Philosophers. Therefore, unlike those who rule over the nations, a disciple of Jesus should become a servant, διάκονος, if he wants to be pleasing to all, and become their slave, δοῦλος, if he wants to be the first. Dion Chrysostom101 (40–112 CE), a Hellenistic philosopher, says that he, who honours, loves and is good, extends his care to all, and that for a good king there is nothing so gratifying as practicing philanthropy, since in him a kind and gentle soul is shown to all. Dion Chrysostom’s idea is the same as that found in his teacher, the stoic Musonius Rufus102 (30–100 CE), who argued that the 98

J. Christopher EDWARDS, The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew: Its Reception and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels (WUNT 2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012, pp. 155–157. 99 PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, XXXVII, 121 in PHILO, Philo: in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) II. (The Loeb Classical Library 227), translated by Francis Henry Colson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 62001, pp. 180–183. 100 Sam K. WILLIAMS, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1975, pp. 165–202; William Ralph CHURTON (ed.), The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, London: Whitaker 1884, pp. 577.595–596. 101 Dio CHRYSOSTOM, Discourses, 38.24–40. 102 Caius MUSONIUS RUFUS, The Roman Socrates, vol. 10, London: Yale University Press 1947, pp. 65–67.

216

Chapter 4: Christology

first duty of a king is to be able to protect (σώζω) and benefit (εὐεργετέω) his people. Plato and Xenophon also write about what a good ruler should be like and affirm that he should be a good servant to his subjects. Plato103 says in The Republic that the true ruler does not seek his own profit but that of those he governs, and Xenophon,104 who like Plato was a pupil of Socrates, declares that his master said that a king who is elected should not look after himself but after the good of those who have elected him. We see how in the Greek and Hellenistic world there was a long tradition of describing the ruler with the traits of servitude. Seeley believes that these traditions could have influenced Mark as they were within his reach, not directly, but through philosophy. Reading philosophical texts from the time of Mark, we find that Plutarch105 stated that if a good ruler is guided by a philosopher, it can benefit many. Seneca106 characterised the rulers as philosophers or lovers of wisdom, and Musonius Rufus,107 according to Seneca, argued that the philosopher is a real person; that is, if a philosopher is a ruler, he must include service to his subjects. Accordingly, Seeley 108 opposes the influence, argued for by many scholars, of the book of Isaiah on this logion because the text, he states, says nothing about the death of the suffering Servant who frees someone from slavery or captivity. Nor does he think it has anything to do with the Fourth Book of Maccabees, as the liberating aspect of the martyr’s deaths seems to be linked to the particular situation they faced; therefore, he advocates a Greco-Roman origin for the ransom logion. c) The logion and the Synoptics We will now compare Mark 10.45 with the other Synoptics. The rescue logion is also found in Matthew 20.28 and Luke 22.26–27. Matthew’s parallel is clearly a copy of Mark because of the similarity of the lexicon and because Matthew’s Jesus, like the Marcan Jesus, announces his death as an act of

103

PLATO, Plato’s Republic, published by I. A. Richards, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1966, pp. 23–28. 104 XENOPHON, Memorabilia et Oeconomicus, II.3, III, vol. 1, (Budé 119), Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1951. 105 PLUTARCH, Moralia, vol. 1, published by Benedict Einarson and William C. Helmbold, Harvard: Harvard University Press 1960, p. 777A. 106 Lucius Annaeus SENECA, Lettres a Lucilius (Collection des Universités de France), translated by Henri Noblot, published by François Préchac, Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres” 1962, XIV.90.5. 107 MUSONIUS RUFUS, The Roman Socrates, vol. 10, pp. 65–67. 108 SEELEY, “Rulership and Service in Mark 10”, 245–246.

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

217

reparation. In Luke’s Gospel, on the other hand, despite having its origin in Mark 10.45, some scholars claim that Luke has transformed the original.109 Thus, according to Riesner, 110 if we analyse the writings of the Pauline wing of the church, in which the Gospel of Luke is included, it is possible to trace the perfume of the ransom logion. He begins by analysing Ac 6.11–14 to see how the description of Stephen’s martyrdom recalls the passion of Jesus and how the text points to Paul’s martyrdom as a paradigmatic model for anyone who wants to follow Jesus as a servant. He also comments on the texts of Luke 19.10 and Acts 20.28–35, which state, on the one hand, that it is more important to give than to receive and, on the other, that the Son of Man has come to save what has been lost, in clear allusion to the logion of Mark 10.45. Riesner, moreover, proposes many other texts (John 13.16–17; Col 1.11–14; 1Tim 2.5–6) and in every case indicates that in the Pauline wing of the church, of which Luke was a member, and even in the Gospel itself, although Mark’s ransom logion does not appear explicitly, there are multiple references to what Mark affirms in 10.45. In the same way he analyses texts from Paul’s authentic letters in which it becomes clear that he knew the ransom logion, as we see in 1Cor 7.22–23; Phil 2.7; Rom 5.15. d) Conclusions: Pauline influence and importance of 10.45 in the Gospel of Mark If we confine ourselves to the letters considered to be truly Pauline, Dunn111 proposes that, in many situations, Paul has in mind the ransom logion from which Mark will later draw. We find it in 1Corinthians 10.33–11.1 where Jesus is presented as a model of behaviour for all who want to follow him, in 9.19–23 where the words of Mark’s Gospel, 10.44, are echoed and specifically in 9.19 where the apostle says: “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them”. Additionally, 1Corinthians 7.22–23 recalls the ransom logion when Paul says: “22 For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters”. Similarly, Philippians 2.6–11, in which Paul describes, with a hymn, the example of the humility of Jesus is affirmed as a clear allusion to the ransom

109

BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 93; Joachim JEREMIAS, “Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mark 10.45)”, Judaica 3 (1947) 249–264; GUNDRY, Mark, 586–593; Peter STUHLMACHER, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2005, pp. 120–122.127–130. 110 RIESNER, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion–Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28)”, 171–187. 111 James D. G. DUNN, “Jesus Tradition in Paul”, in Studying the Historical Jesus Evaluations of State of Current Research, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1994, pp. 168–173.

218

Chapter 4: Christology

logion of the Gospel of Mark by H. Riesenfeld,112 J. Marcus,113 J. A. Fitzmyer114 and L. W. Hurtado.115 Paul also describes Jesus’ death as a ἀπολύτρωσις (a ransom) and as a ἱλαστήριον (atonement) in Romans 3.24–25. 116 Likewise, Stuhlmacher 117 believes that Romans 5.15–19 recalls the ransom logion. Similarly, in Galatians 1.4, 10; 2.17–21; 3.13; 4.5 we find some verses 118 dealing with the theme of Mark’s logion. We therefore see that there are many who relate Pauline texts to the ransom logion and that there are many Pauline texts that recall, or allude to, Mark’s assertions. Pokorný goes a little further when he considers that Mark’s ransom logion was an alternative way of expressing the justification by God’s grace which Paul referred to in Romans 3.24.119 Regarding this question, Seeley120 asserts that Paul must be taken into account when seeking to explain the logion of Mark 10.45, giving as his reason the fact that Paul is the only Christian theologian who speaks of a death that frees people from slavery (Rom 6.6–13). Likewise, Seeley argues that it is not credible that the ransom logion of Mark 10.38–39, 45 should have so many points of coincidence with Paul and yet have nothing to do with him. A Christian like Mark, so committed as to write the oldest of the gospels, must have known Paul. For this reason, the logion of 10.45 can be read as a response to Paul’s symbols. For Seeley, Paul understands the cup, baptism and death of Christ as the symbol of suffering and paradigmatic martyrdom that Mark proposes in 10.45. To moderate Paul’s language, Mark uses the word

112 Harald RIESENFELD – L. M. DEWAILLY, Unité et diversité dans le Nouveau Testament (LD 98), Paris: Cerf 1979, pp. 99–112. 113 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 756–757. 114 Joseph A. FITZMYER, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33), New York: Doubleday 1993, pp. 421–422. 115 Larry W. HURTADO, “Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5–11”, in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press 1984, pp. 113–126. 116 COLLINS, Mark, 503. Although there are other scholars, such as Ernst KÄSEMANN, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1980, p. 314, who believe that Mark is unlikely to be dependent on Paul in v. 45 and that it is more likely that Mark has taken these words from a tradition older and independent of that of Paul. However, we also argue for Paul's influence in this logion because, coincidentally, he is the only one with whom Mark agrees in his conception. 117 Peter STUHLMACHER, Der Brief an die Römer (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 6), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1989, pp. 78–82. 118 RIESNER, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion–Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28)”, 189–191. 119 POKORNÝ, From the Gospel to the Gospels, 120. 120 SEELEY, “Rulership and Service in Mark 10”, 247–248.

4.2. The “Son of God” and the theology of the cross

219

λύτρον as it moved the text away from martyrdom and towards service, influenced by Greco-Roman traditions and by the texts of the Jewish Scriptures. Mark uses the word λύτρον, which comes from the verb λύειν (liberate), and is often used to indicate the amount paid in exchange for prisoners of war, slaves and debtors. However, the most common context in which the word appears is that of slavery. Both in the Greek world and in the LXX it means the ransom price for a life marked by guilt, and indicates the bond paid for a slave or prisoner of war.121 The Son of Man pays with his life in place, and on behalf of, many who have fallen into perdition, thereby freeing people from sin. Moreover, he does so voluntarily, as we have seen in the analysis of the theologia crucis. The narrative is built around the question of whether or not Jesus wants to fulfil his obligation as the Son of God. Jesus’ failure or success is decided by his ability to endure the action of salvation, because his obedience is defined by his death as a ransom for many. The act of obedience has to do not only with the identity of Jesus, but also with his function.122 Furthermore, the word πολλῶν, ‘of many’, has been interpreted in different ways. Thus, J. Jeremias 123 affirms that ‘many’ often means ‘all’ based on Isaiah 52.13–53.12, where not only Jews but also pagan peoples are included (52.14–15). For this reason, Mark 10.45 includes all humanity and this is confirmed by the words of the apostle in 1Timothy 2.6. Others, like J. Marcus,124 argue that ‘of many’ is probably the elected community and not the whole of humanity, based on Mark 10.31 and referring to the persecuted Christian community. Likewise, authors like J. C. Edwards 125 argue that the ransom logion of Mark 10.45 alludes to the pre-existence of which Paul speaks, because the Gospel is located in time between the apostle’s teaching and the open expression of the pre-existence of Jesus in the Gospel of John. We think Mark describes Jesus as a transcendent figure but this does not mean that he is preexistent. Yet Mark 10.45 can be associated with Philippians 2.6–8, as we have already noted, and so we are faced with the fact that Mark clearly wrote within a Pauline sphere of influence, sharing with Paul the sequence of preexistence, service and voluntary death. Recapitulating, with this pericope, Mark closes a section of the Gospel marked by the three passion announcements (8.31; 9.31; 10.32–34). They indicate Jesus’ way to Jerusalem. The contemplation of the atoning death for 121

Sydney H. T. PAGE, “The Authenticity of the Ransom Logion (Mark 10: 45b)”, in Gospel Perspectives. Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, vol. 1, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1980, pp. 131–161; COLLINS, Mark, 500–501. 122 NIELSEN, “The Cross on the Way to Mark”, 290–291. 123 Joachim JEREMIAS, “Polloi”, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Stuttgart: Eerdmans 1958, pp. 536–545. 124 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 750. 125 EDWARDS, The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew, 136–137.

220

Chapter 4: Christology

many is an impressive end to the ambition of the Twelve which precedes the logion. The community must learn that it must be guided by the service and giving of the life of the Son of Man.126 There is, therefore, an inversion of values in which lies the paradox that the more conscious one becomes of one’s servitude the more dignified and free one becomes. This is the novelty of Jesus as unlike the world that seeks power, he believes in service. The Gospel is a guide to being a servant, not a manual for success or for earning money or dominating others. Therefore, all those who have ever sought power within the Church have got the wrong Messiah and confuse God and evil.127 Without a doubt, the ransom logion has a central importance in the Gospel of Mark, because it is the clearest Marcan reflection on the saving objective of Jesus’ death (cf. 14.24). This death must be a ‘ransom’, the price that ‘many’ are unable to pay for themselves. Jesus sells himself as a slave to free people from slavery.

4.3. The other Christological titles 4.3. The other christological titles

As we have already stated when we considered the theology of the cross, the most significant title of the Gospel of Mark is that of “Son of God.“ As for the identification of Jesus with the New Adam, it is a title that we will discuss when we explain the victory of Jesus over the demonic powers. For this reason, in this section of our work, we will stick to the titles that appear both in Paul and in Mark, and then we will consider those that Mark has collected from non-Pauline traditions, but which, nevertheless, are in consonance with Paul. 4.3.1. Son of David The restoration of the kingdom of David, understood as a messianic ideal and in which a small governing group of the relatives of Jesus was maintained in Jerusalem while waiting for his return, was not a Christology adapted to the Gentile world where Paul presented the Gospel. The pagan world would not have understood a proclaimed Gospel as a redeeming mission that would liberate Israel through a Messiah who would fulfil the promises made to the patriarchs. Consequently, the Christology of the Greek-speaking churches was not that of the “Son of David” unlike the Judeo-Christian churches, as we see in the Gospel of Matthew, where this title is used many times (1.1; 9.17; 12.23; 126 127

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 104–105. PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 760.

4.3. The other christological titles

221

15.22; 20.30–31; 21.9, 15; 22.42–45). In fact, the agreement made in Jerusalem to prevent the proliferation of idols and the imposition of kosher feeding rules in the churches, both Jewish and Gentile, was a decision that, despite James’ instructions, was not carried out by either Paul or Silas in the Gentile communities they visited (Acts 17.4) in order to avoid controversy with the pagan world.128 For this reason, in the Pauline letters this Christian title is only found in Romans 1.3 and nuanced with the addition κατὰ σάρκα, “according to the flesh”, because in his letters Paul does not speak of the earthly Jesus. Therefore, it is a confession that is prior to Paul and one that he uses in his epistolary greeting in Romans,129 but it is not a title explicitly granted to Jesus by the apostle. The designation of Jesus as the Son of David appears on four occasions in the Gospel of Mark: twice in the mouth of blind Bartimaeus in 10.47–48, at the triumphal entrance to Jerusalem in 11.9–10 and in an explicit way on Jesus’s lips in 12.35. Mark, therefore, knows a Son of David Christology, although scholars do not agree on the meaning that the evangelist wants to grant to this title.130 There are some who consider that Mark uses it in a hostile way 131 and others who argue that he tries to harmonise it with the rest of the Gospel. However, there is no consensus regarding the use the evangelist makes of it.132 For this reason, we believe that Mark presents this title in an ambivalent way, so that precisely this ambivalence reflects the calling into question of the title when attributed to Jesus. Blind Bartimaeus calls Jesus “Son of David” twice, at the precise moment when the evangelist closes the section containing the passion announcements (Mark 8.28–10.50) and when Jesus’ journey towards Jerusalem begins (Mark 128

BACON, The Gospel of Mark, 221–222. ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 36–45; WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 1–5, pp. 57–61; Heinrich ZIMMERMANN, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1966, pp. 192–202. 130 For the current state of the matter, see Max BOTNER, “What Has Mark’s Christ to Do with David’s Son? A History of Interpretation”, CuBR 16/1 (2017) 50–70. 131 BACON, The Gospel of Mark, 221–222. 132 Paul Brooks DUFF, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the GrecoRoman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem”, JBL 111 (1992) 55–71; Earl S. JOHNSON JR, “Mark 10: 46–52: Blind Bartimaeus”, CBQ 40 (1978) 191–204; Christopher D. MARSHALL, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (SNTSMS 64), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994, p. 127; David R. CATCHPOLE, “The Triumphal Entry”, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984, pp. 319–334. Some claim that the acclamations of Bartimaeus and the crowd are illusory; Bartimaeus is a blind man, in spite of everything, and the crowds will end up turning their backs on Jesus. Others have argued that 12.35–37 does not amount to a denigration of the Davidic image. There are also authors who try to unite the one and the other title and believe that perhaps it is a matter of affirming that Jesus is both Son of David and Son of God, as we read in MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 1119. 129

222

Chapter 4: Christology

11–13; 14–15). The section that had begun with the healing of the blind man from Bethsaida in 8.22–26 comes to an end. Blindness becomes a symbolic element of the misunderstanding of those around Jesus on his way to Jerusalem.133 The blind Bartimaeus represents humanity in its entirety as those condemned to blindness.134 It is the marginalised of humanity, who survive on the side of the road with small alms, but who are attentive and who care to know who passes, who thus maintain hope. In this case, it is also the faith of the blind man and the confidence in the fact that Jesus is the awaited “Son of David” that will save them from their slavery, as had occurred in other passages of the Gospel (1.44; 2.11; 5.19; 7.29).135 Later, the crowd acclaims Jesus upon entering Jerusalem, as they had done with his father David and, consequently, they are proclaiming him as Messiah (11.10). Consequently, his messianic and real quality is recognised.136 In fact, the account of blind Bartimaeus (10.47–48) and the acclamation of the multitude (11.10) are a turning point for this particular Christological title as it will soon be rejected in the Gospel. In Mark 12.35–37, the evangelist proves that the Anointed One, the Christ, must be the one whom God exalted to his right without having, as a requirement, Davidic lineage. It is Jesus himself who affirms that “Son of David” is an insufficient title for him because he is more than the Son of David. 137 Hence, his authority does not derive from his origin but comes directly from God. Conversely, in Matthew 1.1, 6, 17, 20 the importance of being a descendant of David is foregrounded and very significant, because Matthew tells the story of Jesus with a more strongly Judeo-Christian flavour than Mark, and so the Davidic origin of Jesus is fundamental to his messianic status.138 In the Gospel of Mark, on the other hand, it is God himself who proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth, His Son, according to what Paul states in Romans 1.3 and that Mark repeats, as we have seen, in 12.35–37. The scribes call him “Son of David”, but David himself calls him “Lord”. Thus, the Christology of the Son of David is rejected in Mark 12.35–37 as a delusion of the scribes and Jesus denies the Davidic descent of the Messiah. 139 Mark shows respect for the leading group in Jerusalem, but, above all, he points out their conceptual misunderstandings (3.21, 31–35; 6.4; 9.38–40; 10.28–31, 35–45).

133

BEST, Following Jesus, 134. PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 761–768. 135 COLLINS, Mark, 511. 136 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 414. 137 SANTOS, Slave of All, 227–228 and COLLINS, Mark, 581 defend that 12.35–37 are editorial verses. 138 SIM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, 184–188. 139 FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc, 467. 134

4.3. The other christological titles

223

4.3.2. Christ Paul uses the title, “the Christ” or “Christ” to refer to Jesus, 166 times in the so-called authentic letters. This title appears in all his letters and is the usual way for Paul to refer to Jesus,140 as the one who has borne all the guilt and sin of the world in order to free humanity from evil. As for the Gospel of Mark, the title “Christ” is found in 1.1; 8.29; 9.41; 12.35; 13.21; 14.61 and 15.32. 141 On four of these occasions (8.29; 13.21; 14.61 or 15.32), the title “Christ” is immediately corrected because Mark considers that it is misused and he replaces it with “Son of Man”. The evangelist does not want the light of messianic glory to hide the cross, which is necessary in order to follow the Lord Jesus. In other words, Mark warns his readers that when using the title “Christ” they must avoid a return to standard messianic imagery with its exclusivity and include in this word what Jesus teaches on the way to the passion of the “Son of Man”, because if this is not the case their discourse will not be a confession of faith, but an exaltation of the imagery.142 For this reason, although both Paul and Mark use the term “Christ”, the semantic load they put on the word is expressed from very different viewpoints, because Mark wants to hide Jesus’ glorious messianic identity, 143 whereas Paul describes Jesus precisely from this glory, presenting him as Lord, Anointed by God, to redeem the whole world. Therefore, unlike Mark, Paul speaks of Jesus from, and only from, his resurrection. On the contrary, Mark tells us about Jesus, the Christ’s, earthly ministry but without a full manifestation of his glory. Nevertheless, Mark wants this title to be fully identified with the Christian confession of Jesus of Nazareth’s identity and the identity of his followers. Consequently, in 9.41 the evangelist presents Jesus of Nazareth through the Davidic filiation and as the “Christ”, the Messiah (Mark 12.35).144 In short, “Christ” is a title that appears in Mark’s Gospel as well as in the Pauline letters, but we find it deafened by the cross since most of the time it is corrected, in order to hide the true identity of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the “Christ”, yet to be crucified.

140

Jordi SÁNCHEZ BOSCH, Mestre dels pobles. Una teologia de Pau l’Apòstol (Colꞏlèctania Sant Pacià 80), Barcelona: Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya 2003, pp. 73– 75. 141 PERRIN, The Christology of Mark, 100–101. 142 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 219. 143 Francis J. MOLONEY, Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 2004, p. 136. 144 WINN, The purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 100.

224

Chapter 4: Christology

4.3.3. The Lord Mark uses the term κύριος in a variety of ways. The word appears 16 times in his Gospel. Sometimes he uses it to refer to God and sometimes he uses it to refer to Jesus. Moreover, when he uses it in regard to Jesus, he does not always use the title in the same way. There are four cases in which Mark unequivocally uses “Lord” to refer to Jesus.145 In 1.2–3, Mark begins his description of John the Baptist’s ministry with a citation in which he uses Malachi 3.1 and Isaiah 40.3, to specifically state, “prepare the way of the Lord”, in order to show that the way that John the Baptist prepared is the way of Jesus. The second time he uses κύριος is during his account of Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees about the Sabbath and Mark says that “the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” (2.28). We also find this Christological title in 7.28 when the Syrophoenician woman addresses Jesus as κύριε in her wise and humble response to his apparent refusal to help her demon-possessed daughter. Finally, this title is found in 12.36–37 in a Scriptural citation, when Jesus comments on and teaches about its meaning so as to clarify the relationship between Christ and David. Ultimately, in Mark’s Gospel, “Lord” is a title for Jesus and is used is in connection with the use of other titles such as Christ or Son of Man. As for Paul, in comparison with all the other titles that he attributes to Jesus, Lord is the one he uses most often. In this regard, Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 5.21; 6.23; 7.25; 8.39; 1Cor 1.9); the Lord Jesus (Rom 14.14; 1Cor 1.3; 2Cor 1.14), Jesus our Lord (Rom 4.24); the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 1.7; 13.14; 1Cor 8.6; 2Cor 1.2; Gal 1.3); Lord (Rom 10.12; 12.11, 19; 14.4; 16.2; 1Cor 4.4); Jesus the Lord (Rom 10.9); our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5.1, 11; 15.6, 30; 1Cor 1.8; 2Cor 1.3; Ga 6.14, 18), are just some of the many examples in which the apostle identifies Jesus with the Lord. It is significant to note that, whenever the evangelist Mark and the apostle Paul use this title, they do so in order to give authority to Jesus,146 although in Paul it is so common that in the end it is incorporated into the very name of Jesus. The use of “Lord” equates Jesus with God, who is the other subject receiving this title both in the Gospel and in the Pauline letters (Mark 12.29– 30; 13.19–20; Rom 9.29; 10.16), and the only one referred to in this way in the Jewish religion.

145 Joel F. WILLIAMS, “The Characterization of Jesus as Lord in Mark’s Gospel”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 112–113. 146 Ibid., 115.

4.3. The other christological titles

225

4.3.4. The Son of Man and the Servant In Paul’s writings, explicit reference to the Christology of the Son of Man is only found in the Epistle to the Thessalonians (1.10) because Paul does not quote the prophecies from Daniel of the apocalyptic type, but uses those of Isaiah. The title “Son of Man” is never directly applied to Jesus, but we can find expressions such as “the second man is from heaven” or “the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being” in Romans 5.15, 1Corinthians 15.21, 47 and Philippians 2.7. Paul rarely uses this title because he focuses on the dead and risen Christ and is rarely concerned with the earthly life of the man Jesus. It must be said, however, that it is a title compatible with that of “Christ” and “Son of God” since the three titles link Jesus to God as king and governor of the world.147 When it comes to the Gospel of Mark, its use is due to the influence of the pre-Marcan traditions. In fact, there are even scholars148 who argue that it was a title used by Jesus himself. The traditions received by the evangelist Mark are not necessarily Pauline, but the use of “Son of Man” is in harmony with the writings of Paul and with the totality of a Gospel configured under Pauline influence. This expression comes from the Jewish Scriptures and applies to any man born of woman who participates in human precariousness. The Son of Man is a figure in which all humanity can be recognised, because both ‘man’ and ‘son’ represent the condition of every person.149 Later, in the book of Daniel, it acquires an apocalyptic nuance related to universal royalty, understood as a fragile and mortal figure that participates in some divine attributes (Dan 7.13).150 In the case of Jesus, it indicates that he is who reveals to people, through his deeds and words, something that is beyond him, in that he unites humanity with God.151 It is a title that conforms to Mark’s Christology of the secret of Jesus’ identity until after his resurrection.152 The enigmatic figure of the Son of Man is in keeping with Mark’s paradoxical Christology.153 In fact, it is used above all by the evangelist, since it was not a title the early Church usually used to speak of Jesus.154 In Mark’s Gospel, it appears thirteen times (2.10, 28; 8.31, 38; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33, 45; 13.26; 14.21, 41, 62), twice in the first part of the Gospel as a Christological title expressing the authority of Jesus in his ministry through 147

WINN, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 107. MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 531–532; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 100. 149 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, II, 43. 150 Marius NEL, “‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of Mark”, Skriflig 51/3 (2017) 1–9. 151 DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 171–172. 152 TELFORD, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 115. 153 FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 115. 154 WINN, The purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 103. 148

226

Chapter 4: Christology

Galilee, and the remainder are in the second part where it is used to evoke the Suffering Son of Man or the Son of Man in eschatological glory.155 Its interpretation baffles scholars, because Mark’s use is not homogeneous156 as he adapts the title to the specific moment he narrates in the life of Jesus. However, a significant number157 agree that it has three fundamental uses as a reference to the apocalyptic, the suffering or the authority of the Son of Man. The first text with apocalyptic value is found in Mark 8.38. The evangelist refers to Daniel 7.13–14 and he accepts the meaning found in its original context.158 Furthermore, in Mark 13.26, it is clear that it is Jesus who will come on the clouds with great power and splendour to judge people, reminding the reader of its referent in Daniel 7. Likewise, in Mark 14.62, the image of Psalm 110.1 and of Daniel 7.13 is used to describe the future exaltation of Jesus in his divinity. The three Marcan texts conclude with the future enthronement of Jesus as Son of Man and refer to texts from the Jewish Scriptures, in which Jesus is presented as the fulfilment of these. However, J. Marcus 159 nuances this interpretation and argues that it is more plausible that Jesus spoke of himself as the Son of Man in a non-apocalyptic sense and that it was the Church which later assigned this meaning to this title. With regard to the use of this title to accentuate the suffering of Jesus, this is found predominantly in the passion predictions (8.31; 9.31; 10.33–34), in which “Son of Man” as a referent to Jesus serves as an orientation for his teaching on discipleship and is a clear allusion to the suffering that Jesus and all those who want to follow him have to undergo. Finally, in Mark 2.10, 28, Jesus forgives sins and proclaims himself Lord of the Sabbath, in an evident reference to the authority of Jesus during his earthly ministry.160 Jesus appears endowed with an authority that is proper to God. Only God can forgive sins, only God is Lord of the Sabbath. This open declaration about the divine nature of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel is only valid if, 155

Ibid., 129; Morna H. HOOKER, The Son of Man in Mark. A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” and Its Use in St Mark’s Gospel, London: SPCK 1967, pp. 179– 182. 156 PERRIN, The Christology of Mark, 102–106. 157 John R. DONAHUE, “Recent Studies on the Origin of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels”, CBQ 48 (1986) 484–498. 158 John Joseph COLLINS, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity, New York: Crossroad 1984, pp. 78–80, considers that this verse has taken on the meaning of the book of Daniel but has suffered from the radical influence of the ancient Near East, so that Son of Man became understood as a figure enthroned next to God and granted dominion over the universe. 159 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 531–532. 160 Amaury BEGASSE DE DHAEM, “Sur le pas du Fils de l’homme: la christologie selon saint Marc”, NRT 133 (2011) 5–27.

4.3. The other christological titles

227

despite everything, we continue to look towards the cross; that is why the evangelist refers to it in 8.34. Mark does not intend to obscure the power of the Son of Man but to place it where it belongs. For this reason, the title is only significant within the ministry of Jesus but loses relevance at the moment he is glorified, which explains its presence in the Gospel and its absence from the Pauline corpus.161 As for the Christology of the Servant and the Righteous One, although it does not conflict with Paul, it is yet another case of influences received from the pre-Marcan tradition.162 Paul uses the Christology of the Servant in Romans 4.25 when he says: “who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification”, a text which is based on the fourth Servant song in Isaiah (52.13; 53.2.11), indicating that the death of Jesus took place for the expiation of sins and his resurrection as a justification of our salvation.163 Also in 1Corinthians 15.3 Paul affirms that Jesus died for our sins and suffered the consequences of evil in the world, assuming sin and bearing its weight to save us. The figure of the Son of Man and that of the Servant of Deutero-Isaiah (52.13–53.12) are found combined in some texts of Mark, since both titles had a strong corporate dimension for Jews and both become crystallised in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.164 In Mark’s Gospel, the suffering of Jesus is announced in the passion predictions (8.31; 9.31; 10.33–34) and is also explained in 9.12, where the evangelist says, in a clear allusion to the suffering that Jesus has to undergo: “He said to them, ‘Elijah is indeed coming first to restore all things. How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt?’”. Jesus of Nazareth is the Just One incarnated, and Mark takes advantage of this allusion to level a harsh criticism against the messianic conceptions of Peter, James and John, who have not yet understood the authentic messianic way of Jesus.165 The other text in which Jesus appears as Servant is Mark 10.45, where it is openly said that Jesus has come to give his life for others. Finally, in the parable of the Wicked Tenants (12.2, 4), set in the second part of Mark’s Gospel, the mystery of the Son of Man is revealed who, rejected by scribes, priests and Pharisees, is to die on the cross (8.31) and is condemned by the Sanhedrin (15.1) and by the Romans

161

HOOKER, The Son of Man in Mark. A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” and Its Use in St Mark’s Gospel, 190–192. 162 BACON, The Gospel of Mark, 223–224. 163 WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 1–5, pp. 278–279. 164 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 531–532. 165 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 633; MARCUS, Mk 8–16, pp. 650–651.

228

Chapter 4: Christology

(15.5).166 Mark narrates the fulfilment of Isaiah’s promise (42.1–25; 52.13– 15; 53.5–12). Jesus incarnates the Suffering Servant who, in spite of being exalted, will have to suffer an ignominious death and will be murdered by his father’s vinedressers, as the apostle Paul affirms in a similar manner in his letters. 4.3.5. Conclusions We can affirm that the Christological titles used by Paul and Mark have one and the same use, setting aside the differences relative to the time in which they wrote and also considering the different literary genres used by each. Both make very little use of, and in some cases reject, the Christology of the Son of David of the Jerusalem leadership group, using the same Scripture passage – Psalm 110. Both identify Jesus with Christ, as the crucified Messiah who has freed humanity from sin, although Mark mutes this aspect so that no one is confused and he identifies the Christ with Jesus of Nazareth, crucified, which Paul does not do in his letters because it is unnecessary. As for the Christology of the Servant and the Righteous One, built on the passages in the books of Isaiah and Psalms, we noted that, although Paul does not make use of this in his letters, Mark’s use of these titles is in harmony with Paul’s Christology of the Cross. The same applies to the title “Son of Man” which, despite being the result of pre-Marcan influence, is also in harmony with Pauline theology.

4.4. Victory over demonic powers 4.4. Victory over demonic powers

Another element found in both Paul and Mark is Jesus’ power over the kingdom of evil167 whether that of demons themselves or that of evil incarnate. 4.4.1. Jesus and the demons in the Gospel of Mark. The Christology of the New Adam The term Satan appears five times in the Gospel of Mark (1.13; 3.23, 26; 4.15 and 8.33) always in the first part of the Gospel, although evil is present in the whole narrative. The Jesus of Mark is the destroyer of Satan, a power that acts in sickness, in madness, in human oppression.168 As the story begins, Mark narrates the temptations of Jesus in 1.12–13, through which demons try to destroy Jesus, in order to incapacitate his will 166 Xavier ALEGRE, “La paràbola dels vinyaters homicides segons la versió de Marc (Mc 12, 1–12)”, RCatT 14 (1989) 163–174. 167 Gil ARBIOL, “El fracaso del proyecto de Pablo y su reconstrucción”, 398. 168 PRENDERGAST, ‘Without Understanding’ (Marc 7:18), 320–321.

4.4. Victory over demonic powers

229

and mission as they did with the first Adam, whom they made to fall into temptation, as Paul says in Romans 5.12–21 and 1Corinthians 15.45–50. It should be noted that the figure of Satan appears at the very beginning of the narrative, because the evangelist intends to show that Jesus is facing evil in the context of his earthly ministry, not the oppressive power of Rome, nor Herod Antipas or the leaders of Galilee, but the evil that destroys humanity. The antagonism between Satan and Jesus is announced by the very name of Satan, which means ‘the adversary’ and causes temptation. The text does not specify any struggle or dialectical debate, but rather Satan’s action: πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ (1.13), which means “to incite evil, to tempt” 169 with the same meaning as that found in 1Corinthians 7.5 and in 1Thessalonians 3.5. As for the Christological tradition of the New Adam, we believe that the Pauline construction of the opposition between Adam and Christ170 is similar to that which appears in some texts of the Gospel of Mark.171 Paul presents the life of Adam and Christ in parallel, but with opposite results: Adam is disobedient and introduces sin and death into the world, as the apostle says in Romans 5.14: “Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come”. Christ, on the other hand, is obedient and introduces justice and life, as Paul says in 5.15: “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many”. As Paul is arguing, just as Adam’s sin has consequences for all humanity, this is also the case for the righteousness of Christ. Adam failed, but Christ triumphs, for he anticipates the aspects of the order of creation that were inherent from the beginning before human disobedience caused the fall. It is Christ who must restore the fullness of creation as God Himself has entrusted to him.172 For this reason, Paul says in 1Corinthians 15.22: “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ”. Christ is the New Adam and after his resurrection he takes his rightful place. Both Adam and Christ have collective consequences, but while one brings death and condemnation to the world, the other brings justice and grace. In fact, Christ triumphs where Ad169

DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 65. NIELSEN, “The Cross on the Way to Mark”, 287. 171 Hermann MAHNKE, Die Versuchungsgeschichte im Rahmen der synoptischen Evangelien: ein Beitrag zur frühen Christologie, Frankfurt: Lang 1978, pp. 28–38; Ulrich MELL, “Jesu Taufe durch Johannes (Markus 1.9–15): zur narrativen Christologie vom neuen Adam”, BZ 40 (1996) 161–178; Joel MARCUS, “Mark: Interpreter of Paul”, 475. 172 Nicholas A. MEYER, Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology (NovTSup 168), Leiden – Boston: Brill 2016, pp. 228–229. 170

230

Chapter 4: Christology

am failed as a result of the very constitution of each one, as the apostle says in 1Corinthians 15.45–47: “45 Thus it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven”.173 The evangelist Mark, in his account of Jesus’ temptations by Satan, recalls different fragments of the book of Genesis174 and, therefore, evokes the figure of Adam, the first man. In Mark 1.13, the evangelist tells us that Jesus: “was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him”, a text that refers to Genesis 3.1–5 in which the first man and woman are tempted by the serpent that crawls. The animals that accompany Jesus in the desert recall Adam’s power over animals of all kinds in Genesis 2.20, and the angels who serve him are a good reason to affirm that Jesus is presented as the New Adam, since they are elements that affect Jesus’ dominion of the cosmos (Gen 1.27; 2.19). Furthermore, it is interesting to note the association that J. Dochhorn175 establishes between the Christological concept of the New Adam and that of the Son of Man in Mark 2.27–28, where the evangelist says: “27 Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath; 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath’”, identifying the Son of Man as the Man par excellence or New Adam. This concept has its parallel in 1Corinthians 15, where the Son of Man is associated with Christ as the Man or New Adam.176 The text of Mark 2.27–28 is surely the most important testimony to this Pauline idea the roots of which lie in Psalm 8.5–9.177 Later, in Mark 1.16–20, Jesus calls four men so that they abandon what they were doing and follow him to fight Satan. In 1.23–26, these same disciples witness the first battle against the evil one, an exorcism. According to J. P. Meier,178 Mark consciously places these scenes at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, in contrast to Matthew, who begins with the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7), to Luke, who introduces it with the inaugural sermon in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4.16–30); and to John, who begins with the marriage at Cana (John 2.1–11). Each evangelist highlights what is most 173

E. Earl ELLIS, Paul’s use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd 1957, pp. 64–65. 174 José M. GONZÁLEZ RUIZ, “Paralelos en las teologías marcana y paulina”, 324. 175 Jan DOCHHORN, “Die Christologie in Hebräer 1,1 – 2,9 und die Weltherrschaft Adams in Vit. Ad. 11–17”, in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Berlin – New York: De Gruyter 2009, pp. 281–302. Likewise Joel MARCUS, “Son of Man as Son of Adam”, RB 110 (2003) 38–61. 176 Michael GOULDER, “Psalm 8 and the Son of Man”, NTS 48 (2002) 18–29. 177 DOCHHORN, “Man and the Son of Man in Mark 2:27–28”, 167–168. 178 John P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1(AB), New York: Doubleday 1991, p. 409.

4.4. Victory over demonic powers

231

important about Jesus to him and his community. According to Käsemann, “the Gospel of Mark speaks of clearing the earth of demons”.179 Jesus’ mission focuses on the affirmative answer to the question of demons: “Have you come to destroy us?” (1.24), and relates to what will be said in 3.28–30180 regarding the unforgivable sin that supposes the perverse interpretation of exorcisms. The exorcism of Mark 1.23–28 depicts a man who had an evil spirit that appears unexpectedly and provokes fear in those around him. The devil confirms Jesus’ identity with his words:181 “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (v. 24). The denomination “the Holy One of God” points to the charismatic fullness of power revealed in the action of Jesus, 182 and is an attempt by the devil to gain magical control over Jesus after discovering his identity. Jesus responds by commanding him to be silent and to come out of the man (v. 25). The demon does not submit quietly and causes the man to convulse and to shout (v. 26), although the demon eventually comes out of the man, thus demonstrating that Jesus is truly the Holy One of God. It is the novelty of Jesus with his superior authority that allows humans to be free human beings not subject to demons and external powers. Therefore, Jesus’ action with authority delivers from the oppressive religion of Israel that is full of sterile disputes. 183 For this same reason, Jesus opposes the scribes and Pharisees, who seek to bind people to laws that do not free them from demons – while Jesus does – and, at the same time, they impose laws of purity that enslave them (7.1–23). As a result, the power of God Himself has begun to manifest itself, through Jesus, right at the beginning of the Gospel, indicating that presenting Jesus as the one who delivers from evil is a very important for the evangelist. From that point within the Gospel, we also find brief summaries in which Mark insists that Jesus performs exorcisms, delivers people from demons and goes about doing good (1.29–31, 34, 39), verses that some scholars184 claim are properly Marcan because they have typical Marcan stylistic elements such as the time location, the lexicon or the attempt to avoid the discovery of Jesus’ identity. The powerful manifestation of Jesus, so present in healings and struggles against evil, will be present throughout the Marcan narrative, although with a muted voice. 179

Ernst KÄSEMANN, Jesus Means Freedom, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1970,

p. 58. 180

PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 311–312. MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 192. 182 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 81–82. 183 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 252; NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 73. 184 BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 341; MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 197– 198; GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 77. 181

232

Chapter 4: Christology

Moreover, in 3.10–12, the evangelist summarises the many healings of demoniacs that Jesus performed185 and the statements of these allies of Satan who recognise Jesus’ true identity: “Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, ‘You are the Son of God!’” (3.11), this is contrasted with the scribes and teachers of the Law who come down from Jerusalem and accuse him of being an ally of Satan (3.22–27). People come to Jesus to be healed and, at the same time, Jesus acts as Lord of the unclean spirits that proclaim who he is. Therefore, the demons submit to his power, as Paul says in vv. 10–11 of the hymn in the Epistle to the Philippians: “10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. Jesus, therefore, is close to people but he also has great authority over the evil one, who accepts his power. The fact that the scribes and Pharisees accuse Jesus of being a demoniac indicates that they are still caught up in the dialectics of violence.186 Once again, and explicitly, the evangelist points out that Jesus’ authority is far greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees (1.22), since it comes from God, while that of the scribes and Pharisees comes from human laws because they have forgotten that humans come before the Law. Even though it supposes and demands the oppression of demoniacs, the scribes needed to impose their Law in order to be good and feel confident and that is why Jesus answers them that by their actions they destroy themselves by sinning against the Holy Spirit (3.22–29).187 Later, outside of Jewish territory, we find again in Gerasa (5.1–15), a demoniac man who unexpectedly appears before Jesus possessed by an evil spirit188 that totally controls him (5.3–5) and from whom Jesus casts out a legion of demons. 189 The demons call Jesus “Son of the Most High God” recognising his divine sonship and, consequently, admitting that his strength 185

BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 341; COLLINS, Mark, 211. PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 311–312. 187 It is interesting to observe the image that the evangelist depicts. In v. 29 he informs that the scribes accuse Jesus of being possessed by an “unclean spirit”; Jesus in v. 30 tells them that they are sinning against “the Holy Spirit”. The opposition of the terms has been deliberately placed in this way by the narrator, since he intends to present, symbolically, Jesus’ action in opposition to that of his opponents, as stated by DELORME, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc, I, 242. 188 The use of ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ is intended by the evangelist to demonstrate the contrast between Jesus, who breaks the limits of purity established by Judaism, and demons, as explained by Nicholas A. ELDER, “Of Porcine and Polluted Spirits: Reading the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5: 1–20) with the Book of Watchers (1Enoch 1–36)”, CBQ 78 (2016) 434–436. 189 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 203–208. 186

4.4. Victory over demonic powers

233

is far greater than that of any legion of demons. The word “legion” unequivocally alludes to the oppression of Roman power, so the evangelist seems to be referring to the violent Roman domination suffered by the Jewish people. It should be added that it is surprising that, when Jesus heals the demoniac of Gerasa, the evangelist says that those who were present were afraid. It would have seemed more logical, as M. Navarro points out,190 that fear would have taken over those who contemplated the situation before when the man was possessed by a demon. Thus, Mark seems to want to insist on the fact that Jesus’ action unmasks the fear of violence and madness while creating spaces of freedom. The last exorcism of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark has an analeptic relationship with the casting out of demons of the man of Gerasa (5.1–20) and of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30), and also evokes the healing of Jairus’ daughter (5.22–24, 35–43). In 9.14–29 Jesus exorcises a demon that had taken over the body of a young boy. This healing establishes a relationship between what happens on the mountain of transfiguration and what happens on the plain where Jesus defeats the demon.191 When the child appears before Jesus, the devil shows his power192 – as the scribes had done with the disciples who had failed in their attempt to expel him – and Jesus rebukes the evil spirit: “You spirit that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!” (9.25b). The context presented by the evangelist is apocalyptic and the order given to the devil has an eschatological dimension because it is part of God’s definitive victory over the forces of evil.193 However, in this exorcism there appears a new element that we have not found in the previous two, a determining element for the action of Jesus and for the healing of the young: faith. This is a key element, not only in this scene, but in the whole Gospel of Mark, because as J. Gnilka says:194 “Heilung kann nur geschenkt werden in der Preisgabe jeder falschen Selbstsicherheit und im bedingungslosen Anschluss an Jesus”. It should be noted, although it is very controversial, that some authors such as W. Thüsing see in this an allusion to the faith of Jesus, of which Paul also speaks in Romans 3.21–26 and which is what makes it possible for Jesus to perform the miracle.195 190

NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 183. Ibid., 331. 192 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 47–48. 193 MARCUS, Mk 8–16, p. 664. 194 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 50; PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 643–644. 195 Karl RAHNER – Wilhelm THÜSING, Christologie, systematisch und exegetisch: Arbeitsgrundlagen für eine interdisziplinäre Vorlesung (Quaestiones disputatae 55), Freiburg: Herder 1972, pp. 218–222. The πίστις in Paul is a global reality from which different aspects stand out: God's relationship with humans, Christ's relationship with God and humanity’s relationship with God. Therefore, God's πίστις would be revealed in Christ's 191

234

Chapter 4: Christology

The opposition between what is demonic and what is humanly evil is intertwined throughout the Gospel and culminates in the crucifixion of Jesus, because Mark, as J. Marcus suggests,196 wants his readers to understand that the conspiracy of Jewish leaders to eliminate Jesus (3.6; 11.18) corresponds to the demons’ fear of Jesus’ power to destroy them (1.23). This demonic interpretation of Jesus’ death is reinforced by the cosmic elements that accompany the description of Jesus death in Mark, as we see in 15.33: “When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon”. In short, Mark characterises Satan as the lord of darkness who instigates demonic possession (5.1–20; 7.24–30), causes physical and mental illnesses (5.25–34; 7.31–37), creates chaos in the world and alienates people from God’s will. Therefore, Satan’s activity in Mark’s Gospel is not relegated to the opponents of Jesus but also extends to his followers (8.33–34) and Jesus himself, to the point that Satan tempts Jesus on the cross (15.31, 34–35).197 4.4.2. Jesus and the demons in the Pauline letters Apart from the Christological tradition of the New Adam, which we have noted previously, the apostle Paul also speaks of the power of Jesus Christ over the demonic kingdom, thus in Romans 8.38–39 he says: “38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord”. It is the victory of the crucified one with his love for us. His strength is superior to the suffering and powers that dominate the earth and humans. 198 There is not, nor can there be, any power, however great, that can separate us from the love of Christ. Paul speaks from his own experience, because he knows that to follow the crucified one is to follow a path full of persecution and suffering in which the tentacles of the evil one: power, ambition, selfishness, hatred and manipulation, are present. Paul is aware, however, that his strength lies in the love of God who frees him from slavery by enabling him to resist by faith even in the midst of the sufferings of the world. It is the

πίστις, that is, what exists in God is manifested through Jesus, who performs this action, by believing, through a trusting and radical obedience. See also ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 115–117. 196 MARCUS, “Mark”, 485–86. 197 Elizabeth SHIVELY, “Characterising the Non-Human: Satan in the Gospel of Mark”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 127–151. 198 WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 6–11, pp. 175–176.

4.4. Victory over demonic powers

235

power of God against the power of the forces of evil that will triumph at the end of time and what triumphs here and now in people of faith.199 In 1Corinthians 15.24–25 Paul asserts: “24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet”. The annihilation of the powers of evil is the consequence of Jesus’ death on the cross which marks the consummation, the end of all Satan’s action. Jesus Christ becomes the subject of the action in v. 25 because it is he who subdues under his feet the enemies of life, of God’s action and of those who do not allow God to reign.200 In the same way, at the beginning of his letter to the Galatians, Paul says: “4 who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” (1.4). The saving event consists in the free gift of Jesus, who thus completes the work of God – an idea also found in Romans 4.25; 8.32 and Galatians 2.20 – because what Jesus wants is to free us from evil, from the power of the evil one present in the world. For this reason, in Galatians 4.3 also, he says: “3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world”, in clear reference to the worldly elements regulated by the Law that enslaved humanity.201 This is in harmony with the personification of evil that the evangelist Mark demonstrates with the scribes and Pharisees, as those who not only oppose the action of Jesus but try to kill him from the beginning of his earthly ministry (Mark 3.6). 4.4.3. Conclusion Recapitulating, both the evangelist and the apostle present Jesus subduing the forces of evil. On the one hand, Mark presents this in his Gospel narrative as good news, announcing that, with the coming of Jesus, the powers of the evil one know that they are before the Son of God, the Holy One of God who subdues them. These scenes anticipate what will happen with Jesus’ death on the cross through which evil will forever be subdued. On the other hand, Paul presents Jesus as the New Adam who has definitively overcome the forces of evil to save humans from all who enslave them. Davidsen 202 asserts that the Adam-Christ typology predates Paul although, without the letters of the apostle, we would not have known of it. He believes 199

ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 244–245. Robert SOMERVILLE, La Première épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Chapitres 8–16, Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac 2005, pp. 198–205. 201 SCHLIER, Der Brief an die Galater, 190–194. 202 Ole DAVIDSEN, “Adam-Christ Typology in Paul and Mark: Reflections on a Tertium Comparationis”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 270–271. 200

236

Chapter 4: Christology

that it is unlikely that Mark had Paul in mind, simply because the letters are prior to the Gospel and argues that the evangelist may have introduced this typology as a result of other Hellenistic influences. Although we consider Davidsen’s approach to be legitimate, we argue, on the contrary, that what Mark wanted to express was in complete harmony with Paul and the Pauline communities and that, precisely for this reason, Mark uses a Christological title that Paul bestows on Jesus, as we have reasoned previously. The crucified will be the one who, with the power of the weakness of one who dies on the cross, will end up freeing people from the slavery of evil and demonic power, as we have noted the apostle affirms at different points in his letters. In what follows, we will address the question of how Jesus of Nazareth is presented as the fulfilment and fullness of the Jewish Scriptures, both in the Gospel of Mark and in the Pauline letters.

4.5. Jesus fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament 4.5. Jesus fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament

The relationship between Paul and Mark is also demonstrated by the meaning attributed to Scriptural quotations used by both.203 The writings of the apostle Paul reveal a personality immersed in the Jewish Scriptures. Kennedy,204 in his study of the religious terminology of Paul, comes to the conclusion that practically each and every one of the Pauline conceptions is rooted in these texts. To show how Paul and Mark present Jesus as the fullness and fulfilment of the Jewish Scriptures, we will rely on Romans 9–11 and Mark 1.2–3, texts that we consider fundamental for our purpose. 4.5.1. Mark 1.2–3 Mark begins his Gospel by saying that Jesus is the Son of God in 1.1. The following two verses place Jesus at the end of the line of the historical and salvific purposes of God and he begins with a prophecy in which he mixes texts from the books of Exodus, Isaiah, and Malachi. Later, Mark will present John the Baptist as a fulfilment of prophetic hope and, hence – in a very Pauline sense – does not identify the Gospel with the Law.205

203

THEOPHILOS, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, 57–59. Harry Angus Alexander KENNEDY, “St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions”, The Expositor 8 (1913), 154–160. 205 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 179. 204

4.5. Jesus fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament

237

At the beginning of the narrative, the evangelist says in 1.2: “As it is written in the prophet Isaiah”,206 a quotation in which Mark not only alludes to Isaiah 40.3, but also refers to all the writings of the prophet. From verse 3 onwards, Mark continues to evoke Isaiah, especially with texts from DeuteroIsaiah, of which there are numerous hints within the first fifteen verses of Mark’s Gospel. These are: the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1.4; cf. Isa 43.25; 44.22); the symbol of the desert (Mark 1.4; cf. Isa 40.3; 43.19; 48.20–21); the tearing apart of heaven and the descent of the Spirit (Mark 1.10–11; cf. Isa 11.1–2; cf. Isa 11.1–2; 42.1; 63.11–19); the scene in which Jesus is portrayed with the animals in peace (Mark 1.13; cf. Isa 11.6–8; 65.25) and finally, the initial proclamation of Jesus, which proclaims the good news of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1.14–15; cf. Isa 40.9–10; 52.7; 61.1–11). Consequently, each and every one of Mark’s five pericopes at the beginning of the Gospel has a connection with the second part of the book of Isaiah.207 Not only do these features remind us of Isaiah, the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1.4), the descent of the Spirit and the tearing apart of heaven (Mark 1.10–11),208 the demonic powers and the implicit typology of the new Adam (Mark 1.12–13), but they are also apocalyptic features that will partly determine the content of Mark’s Gospel. Mark 1.2–3 is a quotation that gathers and unifies two basic elements of Scripture. On the one hand, it is the word of God, because God speaks (Mark 1.2 with quotation of Exod 23.20 and Mal 3.1) and, on the other hand, it is a commentary that defines the identity of the angel of God (Mark 1.3 with quotation of Isa 40.3). The experience of Exodus, the rereading of the exile and the apocalyptic dimension are gathered together by Mark in this quotation which presents Jesus as the one who fulfils the prophecy and the hope of salvation, not only for the Israelites, but for all people.209 As for verse 2 of the first chapter of the Gospel, R. Guelich210 argues that γέγραπται acts as a bridge between what the evangelist has just said – Jesus is the Son of God – and the Scriptural quotation which subsequently confirms what he has said. In fact, the expression “in the prophet Isaiah” is found again in Romans 9.27 because what is meant may apply to what he says or may mean that the words that follow are of God. Continuing in verse 2, we note that the words: ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, which literally mean: “See, I am sending 206

Joel MARCUS, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992, pp. 12–47. 207 MARCUS, Mk 1–8, p. 139. 208 Andrew T. LE PEAU, Mark through Old Testament Eyes: A Background and Application Commentary (Through Old Testament Eyes New Testament Commentary Series), Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic 2017, pp. 31–37. 209 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 183. 210 R. GUELICH, Mark 1–8.26 (WBC 34A), Dallas: Word Books 1989, p. 6.

238

Chapter 4: Christology

my messenger before your face”, are from Exodus 23.20. These words refer to the angel that God promises to send before the Israelites in the desert; Mark applies this term to John the Baptist.211 Furthermore, the words of Mark 1.2: ὅς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου are those of Malachi 3.1: “to prepare the way before me”, are also a reference to John the Baptist, who calls for conversion of the people of Israel and who is presented as a forerunner of the Messiah. In short, they are words that situate the figure and the way of Jesus in a context of entry into the Promised Land, that is, of messianic fulfilment.212 In verse 3: ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight”, the words of Isaiah 40.3 (LXX)213 resound strongly. Mark applies the expression to John the Baptist, because this is the ‘angel’ who asks people to convert and prepare the way of the Lord and, consequently, the way of Jesus. Mark connects the phrase “in the wilderness” with the voice that, crying out, calls Jesus with the name of Κύριος, implicitly identifying him, according to a tradition witnessed in Paul, with the Lord of Israel, who is God himself. Certainly, Mark does not say that Jesus is God, but he attributes to him divine traits from the very beginning.214 4.5.2. Fulfilment of God’s plan of salvation As early as verse 1, Mark announces that it is the “good news”: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ] and that this always implies novelty. For Mark, however, it is also important that Jesus is in continuity with what has preceded. For this reason, Mark affirms that Jesus is in continuity with the plan of salvation prepared by God in the prophecies of Scripture. In the same way, we find that Paul makes specific the dimension of something new and that of the liberty proclaimed in Deutero-Isaiah in the Christian freedom he refers to in Romans 8.21, 1Corinthians 10.29 and Galatians 2.4; 5.13. As we find in other New Testament texts, such as the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews, at the beginning of his narrative, Mark relates the story of Jesus to the Jewish Scriptures, with the expression “καθὼς γέγραπται” (v. 2). The perfect tense of the Greek verbal form is particularly suitable for such a formula, because it suggests that it is not a dead letter, but that it is alive and present. In addition, it is an expression of legal and normative language subordinate to Malachi 3.1 in which the messenger is given the name of Elijah who, in Jewish tradi-

211

MARCUS, Mk 1–8, pp. 141–143. PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 181. 213 Peter G. BOLT, “Feeling the Cross: Mark’s Message of Atonement”, 4–6. 214 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 184. 212

4.5. Jesus fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament

239

tion, was the forerunner of Yahweh or the Messiah.215 The combination of Exodus and Malachi indicates that, at the end of time, the events of the exodus will be repeated again through the Son of Man, Jesus, who will return to free people from slavery. Speaking through Isaiah, God announces that He will send someone before Jesus (1.2b-3), and Mark evidences the intimacy between Jesus and God. The evangelist does not identify Jesus with God, but the action of Jesus becomes that of God himself. Neither does the apostle Paul call Jesus God, not even in Romans 9.5. 216 Indeed, the fact that the first words that appear in Mark’s Gospel are from God is no coincidence, since Mark wants to indicate that God takes the initiative in the salvation of humans. John the Baptist’s identification with Elijah (Mark 9.11–13)217 makes it possible to interpret the Gospel as the coming of God. Between John the Baptist and Jesus, the work of God’s salvation is revealed. In addition, John the Baptist is a man who anticipates the disciples whom Jesus and God will send out to spread the good news. N. Perrin218 and D. C. Duling add that John the Baptist is not only the one who anticipates Jesus but, as the evangelist says, he is also the one who prepares for him the way of the cross, because the Baptist preaches and dies (1.7, 14), so Jesus will preach and die (1.14; 9.31; 10.33) and so will those who deny themselves, take up their cross and follow him (8.34). The quotation, therefore, indicates the origin of Jesus, the Word of God, and the paradoxical character of Jesus and his history: an end time, which is breaking through but not fully realised, and for which Jesus is the turning point,219 since Mark does not explain the genealogy (Matt 1–2) or the birth of Jesus (Luke 1–2) because he does not need to legitimise Jesus’ messianic identity outside the cross. There are numerous references to the Jewish Scriptures within the Marcan passion narrative (11.17; 12.1, 11, 19, 27, 30, 33, 36; 13.24–25; 14.27, 62; 15.24, 34). These quotations are not from Paul, but from the pre-Marcan passion narrative that the evangelist incorporated into his narrative. For this reason, these Scriptural allusions will not be analysed in our research since they were present in the tradition, rather than Pauline in origin. Nevertheless, they are in harmony with the apostle and that is why, surely, Mark uses them. Mark has redacted the end of his passion narrative through the addition of 215

GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, I, 44–45. ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 252; WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 6–11, pp. 188–189. 217 GNILKA, Evangelium nach Markus, II, 41–42. 218 Norman PERRIN, The New Testament, an Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 21982 (11974), pp. 110.239. 219 NAVARRO PUERTO, Marcos, 44–46. 216

240

Chapter 4: Christology

15.38–39 and turning this into an interpretative key as this annuls the Jewish cult and confirms that faith is necessary in order to have access to God, as he corroborates, through the lips of a pagan, the confession of faith. In the rest of the Marcan passion narrative, there are no further editorial interventions by Mark because they are texts that conform to Pauline theology and that Mark found in the tradition. 4.5.3. Romans 9–11 Paul’s use of Scriptural texts can be found in direct quotations, intentional and appropriate allusions, and in dialectical and theological themes. The texts may appear in different forms, but, for the most part, he reproduces passages albeit with small variations, in accordance with the new context within which the apostle speaks. Most of these references are taken from the LXX as has been widely recognised.220 Dodd evaluates Paul’s well-thought-out exegesis in Romans 9–11, asserting that: This is evidence of the thorough and extensive biblical research which lies behind Paul’s exposition of the Gospel. It should be added that the argument, compressed and complex as it is, proceeds by strict sequence from step to step, and is, with one or two possible exceptions, completely cogent, granted the presuppositions common to Paul and to those whom he addressed. The qualification indeed is itself scarcely necessary; if one takes the pains to understand exactly what is implied in the various steps of the argument, there is very little which does not contribute to a strictly logical presentation of his case from first principles.221

In chapter 9 of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul explains how God has revealed himself in history, first in the election of Israel (vv. 4–5) and then in the pagans converted to Christianity (v. 24). The Jewish Scriptures are the fullness of God’s revelation. The three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans we are dealing with are loaded with Scripture quotations that corroborate each and every one of the apostle’s phrases.222 Israel, except for a small remnant (Rom 11.1–10), rejected the revelation of God through Jesus and believed that they had enough with the Law to be able to fulfil the project for which God had made them His people (Rom 10.3). The chosen people did not accept that Jesus revealed God’s free mercy to sinners who broke the Law (Mark 2.15–17)223 – which the Gospel itself confirms in Mark 12.1–12– and, as a result, the Gospel was now being of220

ELLIS, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 12. Charles Harold DODD, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, London: Collins 1965, p. 18. 222 James D. G. DUNN, “Romans 9–16”, in Romans (WBC 38B), Dallas: Word Books 1988, p. 518. 223 CRANFIELD, The Epistle to the Romans, II, 550; ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 273–274; ELLIS, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 84. 221

4.5. Jesus fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament

241

fered to pagans because the Jews had not borne fruit, in line with what Paul affirms in Romans 2. Israel did not understand that the Law, as the way of salvation, had come to an end with the cross of Jesus. For this reason, Mark proposes at the beginning of his Gospel that Jesus, who begins a journey that others, among them John the Baptist (Mark 1.3), had taken before him, is the true and only way. Salvation occurs as a result of accepting Jesus as the Son of God and as the one who has brought the good news of God to humanity (Rom 10.16–17). His gratuitous and merciful love, which is the best and definitive rereading of the Jewish Scriptures, is accessible to all through participation in the faith of Jesus, who is the one who makes obedience to the Gospel possible. The God who saves and proclaims the Gospel is the same God who chose Israel. The righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel is the same covenant righteousness with which God chose the patriarchs and set up all the institutions of salvation.224 The most radical Judeo-Christians, those of James, are scandalised by Paul’s theses on the Law and by his statement that God has called the pagans, while Israel retains only a ‘remnant’. The rejected stone of Mark 12.10 and Romans 9.33, in which the rejection of Israel is implicit, also has its origin in the Scriptural text of Psalm 118.22. Paul identifies the followers of Christ with the “true Israel” or with a remnant. The problem lies in the fact that the group of Jews, whom Paul opposes, believed that with their own merits they could be saved if they fulfilled the Law’s requirements (Rom 9.31). In Romans 9–11, Paul inserts and intersperses ‘proofs’ from Scripture, making an apologetically Christian interpretation of these texts. Paul insists that the true Israel are not the physical descendants but the “children of the promise” who have been chosen by God, as he says in Romans 9.6–13 in the choice of Isaac and the rejection of Ishmael225 and in the choice of Jacob instead of Esau.226 God’s favour has been directed to Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9.24) because they have been justified by Christ. The Jews had not understood that what their Scriptures revealed was that one should open oneself to the love of God, which is why, paradoxically, the pagans who had not sought the righteousness of God found it in the faith revealed to them in Jesus.227 Romans 10 contrasts justification by works and faith, and states that the former requires perfect obedience to the Law. Israel has chosen the Law but Paul concludes (Rom 11) that the rejection of Israel is not universal but that

224

WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 6–11, p. 182. Cf. Gen 21.12 226 Cf. Gen 18.10 227 ALEGRE, Carta a los Romanos, 276–277. 225

242

Chapter 4: Christology

there is a ‘remnant’ which, together with the Gentiles, will be converted and believe in the Messiah and will become the new Israel (Rom 11.25–26).228 Consequently, salvation comes by faith, especially if it is the faith of Jesus,229 as we also see in Mark 2.5; 5.34, 36 and 10.52. The inclusion of the Gentiles and the openness of the Gospel to all nations are corroborated by Scripture itself, which supports the apostle’s teaching and, later, that of the evangelist Mark in his account of Jesus’ ministry in pagan lands. 4.5.4. Conclusions The significance of the Jewish Scriptures for Pauline theology cannot be understated. Paul’s Damascus Road experience radically altered his understanding of Scripture. The apostle re-reads Scripture in the light of his experience of Jesus but, in no case, does this diminish its importance; rather, his encounter with Christ enabled him to discover Scripture’s true meaning.230 In this way, for Paul, Jesus became the fullness and fulfilment of the Law because he is the way that leads to salvation. For Paul, the Christ event is continuous with God’s previous saving action with Israel. The Gospel had already been proclaimed by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures (Romans 1.2). The justification of all sinners, proclaimed in the Gospel and accepted in faith, has a historical and salvific horizon, since, as it states in Galatians 6.16, the Church is the “Israel of God”.231 In Mark 1.2–3, the evangelist ratifies the Jewish past of Jesus and his own Gospel. Although the Gentile Christians may have been able to separate Jesus from Israel, Mark has confirmed the experience and choice of Paul, interpreting the Gospel based on Jewish prophecy. In this way, he indicates that Jesus is Jewish and that his life should be understood as the fulfilment of prophetic promises. Accordingly, the subsequent controversies of the Gospel of Mark against official Judaism must be understood from this statement: Jesus had not come to position himself against Judaism, but had come to ratify that his Gospel was faithful to Scripture in a radically Jewish way.232 Likewise, Paul presents the death of Christ on the cross as paradigmatic and frequently in his letters he raises arguments to support what he says 228

ELLIS, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 121–124. RAHNER – THÜSING, Christologie, Systematisch und Exegetisch, 213–226. Thüsing affirms that in Mark 9.23, the evangelist speaks of the faith of Jesus who is able through prayer to heal the young epileptic, as Paul says in Romans 3.21–26 where the apostle speaks of the “faith of Christ” as obedience unto death, in terms of dynamism towards life for God (Rom 6.10). Therefore, both Mark and Paul present as guarantors for salvation the faith of Jesus which comes from God and returns to Him in his only and singular Son. 230 ELLIS, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 149. 231 WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer 6–11, pp. 181–182. 232 PIKAZA, Evangelio de Marcos, 180–181. 229

4.5. Jesus fullness and fulfilment of the Old Testament

243

against this background. Mark’s Christology is that of one who has grasped the essence of Paul’s thought, although it is often expressed in language and terminology not found in Paul, but that is in agreement with his thought and continues his kerygma. In short, we can affirm that Paul and Mark have a similar Christology, presenting Jesus as the one who is the fullness and fulfilment of the Scriptures, reinterpreting it in a radically new way from the perspective of the cross.

Chapter 5

Conclusions

The Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul considered authentic by most scholars are the oldest and most extensive writings we have of early Christianity. Recent studies on the Gospel of Mark have once again taken an interest in the Pauline influence on Mark’s writing. For this reason, we considered it important and necessary to return to the question of the relationship between Paul and Mark. Since the publication of the work of M. Werner in 1923, who opposed any connection between the apostle and the evangelist that was not common to all the texts of early Christianity, some scholars have closed the question, and others, while admitting some similarities between Paul and Mark, were reluctant to raise direct connections. Today, however, this trend has changed and many scholars claim that Mark should be located within the sphere of Pauline influence. Nevertheless, these connections are considered to be confined to one or two only, and none has asserted that, in writing his Gospel, the evangelist Mark was strongly and comprehensively influenced by Paul’s theology. Our work has provided sufficient evidence to affirm that the Gospel of Mark is a rereading of the traditions of Jesus inspired by Pauline theology as we know it from Paul’s letters. Therefore, as a conclusion, we will first summarise briefly each of the elements that provided the impetus for our research, given that, in each of the preceding chapters, we have provided welldeveloped conclusions. Second, and finally, we will provide an over-arching final conclusion.

5.1. Summary of conclusions 5.1. Final conclusions

In the first chapter of our study, we presented the history of research, both of the authors who oppose any Paulinism in Mark, of those who argue for it, and for those who argue for an intermediate position showing the plurality of interpretations. We noted, also, that no author, except M. Werner – whose conclusions do not seem convincing to us –, has made a global study of Pauline influence on the writing of Mark’s Gospel.

246

Chapter 5: Conclusions

In the second chapter, we analysed the structure of the narrative as a cohesive and comprehensive element that corroborates the existence of Paulinisms within the Gospel of Mark. Scholars agree that the structure of Mark’s Gospel is editorial, i.e. clearly created by Mark, because he was the first to write a Gospel and to organise the different materials that circulated in the existing communities, whether they were clusters of miracles, the narrative of the Passion, the logia of Jesus or compilations of hymns and creeds. We have seen that it is the evangelist who decided that his work should have the cross as its guiding thread, in consonance with Paul, and that its shadow should be present throughout the whole narrative, in order to understand the life of Jesus from the cross itself and to interpret his words and deeds in the light of it. The climax of the work, therefore, lies precisely in the death of Jesus on the cross because, ultimately, it is a question of following the crucified one (Rom 6.6; 1Cor 1.23; Gal 2.19; Mark 8.34). In the third chapter we presented the different Pauline theological elements found in the Gospel. They are specific fragments in which Mark has modified the traditions he received in order to qualify them and preserve them according to Pauline thought. The traditions which he did not modify coincide with Paul’s thought. First, we considered the concept of the Gospel, which is used in a significant way by both Paul and Mark. Mark is in harmony with Paul (Mark 1.14; Rom 1.1; 15.16) because both understand it as a message and proclamation of Jesus, as a saving power (Rom 1.1b–7; 1Cor 15.1–2; Mark 8.35) that intervenes in the lives of people. Mark makes use of the concept εὐαγγέλιον, conscious that he is developing and updating Paul’s Gospel and focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, for both the Gospel is Jesus; the good news is Jesus. The fact that the evangelist wrote after the apostle makes it possible to include “book of messianic history” in the meaning given to the term Gospel, a meaning that would have been unthinkable for Paul because the apostle had no Scripture other than the Jewish one. Nevertheless, both understand the Gospel as good news and as salvation for all nations (Mark 13.10; Rom 15.16). In fact, the concept εὐαγγέλιον reached the synoptic tradition through Mark. Second, we analysed the incomprehension of those around Jesus. Mark describes how Jesus’ family and disciples did not understand the true nature of his Messianism. The evangelist challenges, with his narrative, the fact that they be paradigmatic models of what Jesus’ disciples should be like, since none of them, before Easter, had grasped the true meaning of his message. The followers of James, the leader of the church of Jerusalem, called into question Paul’s apostleship; the relationship with Peter had not been easy and his interpretation of Jesus’ lawless message, in his mission to the pagans, was not accepted. Therefore, Mark, in harmony with Paul, describes family and disciples in a surprising way: away from the mission of Jesus, deaf to the

5.1. Final conclusions

247

prophecies of the passion and death on the cross, worried about the positions they will occupy in the Kingdom of God, asleep in Gethsemane, weak and defecting at the last moment. We have concluded that the evangelist calls all those who do not believe in Jesus “those outside” (Mark 4.11). Therefore, when members of the family of Jesus or the disciples turn out to be obtuse, unbelieving and lacking in understanding of the message or works of Jesus, they are included in this group. It should also be noted that of all the apostles, the figure of Peter embodies all the shortcomings that the disciples may have: impulsive, unbelieving, betrayer... and yet he is recognised as the one to whom it is announced that Jesus has risen and that he and the others must go to Galilee (Mark 16.7). Mark, therefore, did not want to discredit those closest to Jesus, but he wanted to show what his family and those who followed him were really like and, consequently, to affirm that faith was given to them in the Easter experience, because the truth is that they had not earned this through their own merit. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that the second Gospel was written by a follower of Peter, as the tradition of the Church Fathers asserts, and it is more plausible that he was a disciple, admirer or follower of Paul. The third indicator presented was the conception of the Law that we find in the Gospel of Mark. We divided our consideration into two parts. First, we analysed the Marcan controversies of 2.1–3.6 and then the purity logion of 7.1–23. As for the disputes with the Pharisees and the scribes, Mark’s Jesus questions the understanding of the Law of his people (2.1–3.6), in harmony with Paul (Rom 3.20; 4.13; 6.14; 8.12; 9.31–32). The Law is no longer the way for salvation to be made possible because then it is humanity who, by their own deeds, seeks to earn God’s favour. Salvation, both in Paul and Mark, is Jesus, and consequently it is the grace of God, Paul’s understanding of justification (Gal 2.16) or Marcan faith (Mark 5.34; 10.52), which saves. Therefore, salvation cannot be based on one’s own will to be saved, it can only be based on faith in Christ (Phl 2.13). Christ is the τέλος to which the Law tends so that Jesus is the end and fulfilment of the Law, understood as the way of salvation. In a second part of this same section, we considered the purity logion of Mark 7.1–23, and we reached the conclusion that these verses have a clear Pauline echo, since all foods are declared clean and, consequently, all barriers that separate Jews and Gentiles are removed, just as Paul also states in Romans 14.14. In this sense, both Mark and Paul consider that Jesus frees people from having to fulfil the Law, and both present a new way of relating to God, faith and love. Mark’s Jesus reverses the parameters and turns the concept of purity on its head, because what defiles a person is what comes out of his heart and not what enters the body. In short, both the apostle and the evangelist free people from the Law and from the obligation to fulfil it with their own strength, because it is Jesus who has paid with his death the debt that all had acquired because of sin. Jesus enables a new kind of rela-

248

Chapter 5: Conclusions

tionship with God based on love and faith. We noted three consequences that derive from this conception of the Law: only faith can save (Mark 5.25–34; Rom 1.16; Gal 3.11); a rereading of the laws on divorce must be made (Mark 10.1–12; 1Cor 7.10–16), in order that people might go beyond every juridical institution and so that the reading of Scripture that preceded their hardened hearts might be restored; and the greatest commandment of all is love (Mark 12.28–34; Rom 12.9–10; 1Cor 13.13) because this fulfils the Law fully. A fourth indicator that we have considered is the story of the multiplication of the loaves, appearing twice in the Gospel of Mark. We believe that the doublet was clearly intended by the evangelist because, given the Eucharistic rereading of the two texts, one Judeo-Christian and the other GentileChristian, both Jews and pagans can be included in the Eucharistic meal, as Paul argued (Rom 9–11), and as Mark affirms editorially (Mark 7.19b) in Jesus’ declaration that all foods are ‘clean’, thus abolishing the Jewish laws of cultural purity. The two pericopes are in keeping with the miracles of Jesus performed in pagan lands–the Gerasene demoniac (5.1–20), the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7.24–30) and the deaf-mute man (7.31–37)– because it is Jesus himself who made it possible for the Gentiles to participate in the Eucharist without becoming Jews (Gal 2.14). In this regard, in the fifth indicator we considered the mission to the pagans. Paul describes himself as the apostle to the Gentiles in Romans 11.13; 15.16, 18 and in Galatians 1.16, while Peter and the church of Jerusalem are the ones who preach the Gospel to the Jews (Gal 2.8–9). Therefore, Jesus’ mission to the Gentiles in Mark’s account justifies the Pauline Gentile mission which, only a few years earlier, had been conducted by Paul. Paul does not betray Jesus when he evangelises outside Israel, but he becomes the one who really understands what Jesus has done, because it was not Paul who implemented the openness to pagans but Jesus himself who went to pagan lands and freed men and women by healing them and offering them salvation. Closely linked to these two indicators, we find the sixth, in which we showed that Paul and Mark have undergone a paradigm shift with respect to the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple, in line with what was said about pagans and the openness to the Eucharist of the two multiplications, will no longer bear fruit (Mark 11.12–14); instead, what will bear fruit is faith in Jesus, in keeping with what Paul says in Romans 1.17. There is no distinction between the followers of Jesus, whether that of race, origin, fidelity to the Law or to the Temple: all are righteous as a result of faith (Rom 3.22). The seventh indicator considered the relationship that the followers of Jesus need to have with the Roman power. Since the earliest times, on this issue, Paul and Mark have been considered to be related because of two pericopes, Mark 12.13–17 and Romans 13.1–7, in which most scholars understand there to be similar answers to similar ethical dilemmas. Both are texts to be read in the context of the entirety of Paul and Mark’s work and, although the

5.1. Final conclusions

249

interpretations have been many and varied, we believe it is significant that they have always been interpreted together and, therefore, as illuminating each other. In the eighth indicator, we analysed the texts of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel, contrasting them with the Pauline tradition, in order to clarify the concordance between them. Paul’s paradoxical affirmation of Jesus as the one who has been constituted Son of God in power by the resurrection is what Mark developed in a thematic way in his Gospel, with the gestures and words of Jesus of Nazareth. Both the apostle and the evangelist agree that Peter was the first to whom the risen Jesus appeared (Mark 16.7; 1Cor 15.5). Although the end of Mark’s narrative is surprising because of the lack of Easter appearances, it is precisely in this end that something profoundly Pauline is revealed, since Mark subordinates everything to faith, which is a gift of God (Rom 1.17; 3.22; 1Cor 16.13). That is to say, it is a question of trusting in the word of Jesus who had already proclaimed in Mark 14.28 what the angel reminds the reader in Mark 16.7: we must go to Galilee to meet Jesus again. The last indicator we have proposed deals with the way in which women are presented by the evangelist and the apostle. We have seen how women appear in the Gospel, from the very beginning (1.30–31) to the end (16.8), as faithful followers of Jesus, as models of true disciples who have understood that the disciple must serve, love and have faith. The women who appear in Paul’s letters have significant roles within the communities, deal with relevant issues and are colleagues, on an equal footing, with their peers (Rom 16). Therefore, if women held positions of responsibility in the early communities, as Paul explains, it is logical that Mark should present them as important members of the group around Jesus of Nazareth. In the fourth chapter, we dealt with Pauline and Marcan Christology and we have confronted different aspects of one and the other in order to discover the parallels between the Jesus of Mark and that of Paul. In the first section, we presented the arguments for a corrective Christology – much debated and studied in the Gospel of Mark – to reach the conclusion that Marcan Christology is full of contrasts, without excluding any corrective element. Paul and Mark affirm that God reveals himself in the midst of weakness, suffering and death (Mark 4.13–20; 2Cor 12.9), but also in power and glory (Mark 1.10–11; 3.1–6; 5.1–20; 1Cor 12.28; 2Cor 4.7). Thus, the evangelist, in harmony with Paul, does not present a closed Christology, but rather it needs the effort of interpretation of the reader who is shaken and questioned every time they believe they have grasped the identity of Jesus. Therefore, Mark does not place two different Christologies in opposition but tries to reconcile them. In the second section, we analysed different elements related to the theology of the cross common to Paul and Mark. We studied the title Son of God, the concept of the messianic secret and the announcements of the passion in

250

Chapter 5: Conclusions

the Gospel of Mark in comparison with the Pauline writings. Next, we linked the theology of the cross of the apostle and of the evangelist and concluded by stating that Mark differs from the other three Gospels in the way he presents the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross, understood as scandal and madness, because in it God reveals himself in a crucified man. For Paul, the crucified Christ is the hidden wisdom of God (1Cor 1.18–25); for Mark, the death of Jesus on the cross fulfils the hidden plans and purposes of God (Mark 9.2–3, 9, 31). Both agree that the cross of Jesus is what gives access to the knowledge of God on the part of humans and equally, both Paul and Mark give the cross a paradigmatic value, because it has changed all the values of the world. We have shown that Mark has written his account of the Pauline interpretation of Christ’s obedience presenting him as the one who is willing to give his life for our sins, and that both claim that Jesus’ death on the cross is a means of power in weakness (Mark 15.31–32; 2Cor 8.9; 13.4). The Gospel of Mark is an apology for the cross because it seeks to convince readers that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, but not despite the cross, but because of it. Mark tells us that the madness of the Pauline cross is the manifestation of God’s power. Faith alone is enough to grasp it for both the apostle and the evangelist. The final point in this section dealt with the ransom logion of Mark 10.45 and its relationship with Paul. Mark, like Paul in his letters, reverses the values of the world, saying that the more one becomes aware of one’s servitude, the freer one becomes. That is, unlike the world that seeks power, Jesus offers service (1Cor 7.22–23; 10.33–11.1; Phl 2.6–11; Mark 9.35). In the third section, we considered other Christological titles used by Paul and Mark. Both make little use of the Jerusalem church’s Christology of the Son of David and, in some cases, they even reject it. Both the apostle and the evangelist identify Jesus with Christ as the crucified Messiah who has delivered humanity from sin. Likewise, they make use of the titles Lord, identifying him with God, and Son of Man, in consonance with the Christology of the cross present both in the letters and in the Gospel. In the fourth section, we also analysed the relationship that Jesus has with the forces of evil both in the Gospel and in the Pauline letters. Paul and Mark present Jesus subduing the demons, either as the Holy One of God or as the New Adam. In the last section of that chapter we showed the significance of Jewish Scriptural texts in Pauline theology and in the Gospel of Mark. For Paul, Jesus is the fullness and fulfilment of the Law (Rom 10.4), because he himself is the way that leads to salvation and is continuous with the salvific action of the God of Israel. Mark presents the Jewish past of Jesus (Mark 1.2– 3), interpreting the Gospel through the lens of Jewish prophecy. Both reinterpret the Scriptures in a similar but radically new way from the perspective of the cross.

5.2. Over-arching conclusion

251

5.2. Over-arching conclusion 5.2. Over-arching conclusion

Mark’s genius lies in the fact that he was able to write a biographical account of Jesus of Nazareth. He was the first to do so, or at least it is the oldest New Testament text to survive to the present day, along with Paul’s letters. We believe that after all the Christological indications and arguments presented in our work, that those who argue against the presence of Paulinisms in the Gospel do not have enough arguments to refute our study. M. Werner’s arguments, on which all those who oppose Pauline influence on Mark have grounded themselves, have been widely refuted and counteracted by our investigation, because it is not true, as we have demonstrated, that the agreements between Mark and Paul are a result of each simply absorbing the point of view of primitive Christianity. We believe that there is every reason to believe that Mark incorporated elements of Pauline theology into the traditions of the earthly Jesus. Werner, and those who think like him, forget that the Gospel of Mark is a narrative full of contrasts and antithetical situations: on the one hand, the miracles of Jesus and, on the other, the passion, suffering, weakness and death of Jesus on the cross, elements that are in tension and that are reminiscent of Pauline theology, which combines strength and weakness, glory and submission, life and death. The cross is foolishness, but it is also the power of God for both Paul and Mark (Rom 1.1b–7; 1Cor 1.18; Mark 15.39). Jesus is the crucified one (1Cor 1.23; Gal 3.1; Mark 16.6) who has overcome death and saved all people from sin. That is why the cross provides the climax to the Gospel of Mark. The cross is the cornerstone that allows the reader to recognise the true path that the disciple of Jesus of Nazareth must follow. The cross is the thread of the whole Gospel of Mark, as Paul proclaimed in his letters and as he defended against the problems and unbelief of the many communities which he addressed. With our analysis of the texts we consider that we have amply and rigorously proved that the Gospel of Mark is a Pauline interpretation of the Gospel tradition. Mark’s Paulinism is not limited to a few expressions, words, phrases or doctrine of Paul, but rather it is reflected in the general intention of the evangelist when he structures his narrative by looking at the cross, making it present at different moments and turning upside down the concept of the Messiah expected by Israel, in accordance with Paul. His Paulinism is retained in the dominant ideas and spirit of the work, which is evidenced in his presentation of Jesus’ family of Jesus and the hesitant and disconcerted disciples, who do not understand Jesus’ identity until after Easter and, therefore, outside the Marcan Gospel account. It is also evidenced when he announces clearly the action of Jesus in pagan lands, legitimising openness to Paul’s pagan mission, when he presents the weak and forsaken, such as the women, as the model of discipleship of Jesus and when he subdues evil and

252

Chapter 5: Conclusions

the power of the evil one because Jesus is the New Adam. Finally, this is evidenced in the Gospel when Mark eliminates all differentiation between what is clean and unclean, because only that which comes out of a person can make one unclean before God. In short, Mark turns all values upside down, in Pauline fashion, from the cross and through the cross of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark leads the reader to the knowledge of Jesus’ identity gradually, with many ups and downs, sometimes incomprehensible and perplexing, because the reader does not understand – like the disciples – a Jesus who is Son of God, who works so many miracles liberating people from sickness and pain and who, at the same time, manifests himself before the world in weakness and death. To fully understand Mark’s narrative, one simply has to read the Pauline letters in order to grasp what Mark expresses in a narrative way through the theological language of the apostle Paul. Simultaneously, if we want to fully understand Paul’s letters, it is enough to read the Gospel of Mark, in order to know the historical Jesus who makes possible the action of Paul in the mission to the Gentiles, the relationship with Roman power, the role of women in Pauline communities, the difficulty of following a crucified one and why the Law has been overcome by faith and love in Jesus. Mark does not present a completed Christology of Jesus, but offers an image in process, in continuous elaboration, made up of opposing situations and elements that challenge readers who try to discover who Jesus of Nazareth is. Pauline theology illuminates the Marcan narrative and facilitates its authentic understanding, because it completes the meaning of the Gospel and complements its intentionality. In conclusion, we wish to reiterate our conviction that the large number of indications in Mark’s narrative that converge with Pauline theology cannot be the result of chance, but of the will of the evangelist Mark to harmonise his work with the thought of the apostle Paul.

Bibliography 1. Sources 1. Sources

1.1. Biblical texts – Dictionaries BAILLY, Anatole – CHANTRAINE, Pierre – EGGER, Émile – SÉCHAN, Louis, Dictionnaire grec-français, Paris: Hachette 261963 (11894). BROWN, Francis – DRIVER, Samuel R. – BRIGGS, Charles A., The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic; Coded with the Numbering System from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version Bible, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2016 (11989). KITTEL, Rudolf – ELLIGER, Karl – RUDOLPH, Wilhelm – RÜGER, Hans Peter – WEIL, G. E. (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Editio quinta emendata 2007 (11977). LIDDELL, Henry George – SCOTT, Robert – JONES, Henry Stuart – MCKENZIE, Roderick, A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Supplement 1968, Oxford: Claredon Press, 1940; reprinted 1994. NESTLE, Eberhard et al. (eds.), Novum testamentum Graece begründet von Eberhard und Erwin Nestlef, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 28th revised edition, 4th corrected printing 2015. ZERWICK, Max, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci (Scripta Pontificii Istituti Biblici 107), Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1960.

1.2. Christian, Greco-Latin and Jewish sources DIO CHRYSOSTOM, Discourses, edited by H. Lamar Crosby and J. W. Cohoon, London: Heinemann 1932. DITTENBERGER, W. (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Olms: Hildesheim 1960. EUSEBIUS OF CESAREA, Historia eclesiástica (BAC 349), Madrid: Editorial Católica 1997. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, Guerre des juifs (Collection des universités de France – Budé 199), translated by André Pelletier, Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1982. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War, Aylesbury: The Peguin Classics 1959. GAIUS MUSONIUS RUFUS, The Roman Socrates, vol. 10, London: Yale University Press 1947. GAIUS PLINIUS SECUNDUS, Historia Natural, I. Translated by Gómez Santamaría, Madrid: Cátedra 2007. GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, Vespasiano, Tito, Domiciano. Translated by José María Requejo Prieto, Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas 2010.

254

Bibliography

JOHN CRYSOSTOM, Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos (PG 60), Paris: J. Migne 1862. JUSTIN MARTYR, Dialogo con Trifone, (Letture cristiane del primo milenio 5), Giuseppe Visonà (ed.), Milano: Edizioni Paoline 1988. LUCIUS ANNAEUS SENECA, Lettres a Lucilius (Collection des Universités de France), translated by Henri Noblot and edited by François Préchac, Paris: Société d’ Édition “Les Belles Lettres” 1962. ORIGEN, Commentarii in Matthaeum, in Il commento a Matteo di Origene: atti del X convegno di studi del Gruppo italiano di ricerca su Origene e la traduzione alessandrina (Supplementi Adamantius 2), Teresa Piscitelli (ed.), Brescia: Morcelliana 2011. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, XXXVII, 121 in Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) II (The Loeb Classical Library 227), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, reprint. 62001. –, De specialibus legibus, II, 24 in Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) VII (The Loeb Classical Library 320), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, reprint. 61998. –, In Flaccum, II, 89 in Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) IX (The Loeb Classical Library 363), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, reprint. 51985. PLATO, Plato’s Republic, edited and translated by I. A. Richards, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1966. PLUTARCH, Moralia, vol. 1, edited by Benedict Einarson and William C. Helmbold, Harvard: Harvard University Press 1960. ST. AUGUSTINE, De consensu Evangelistarum (Biblische Studien 13.5), Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 1908. TACITUS, Historiae, vol. 1–3, translated by C.H. Moore, (The Loeb Classical Library 111), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1925. TERTULLIAN, On Idolatry and the Limits of Tolerance, Stroumsa: Guy G. 1998. XENOPHON, Memorabilia et Oeconomicus, vol. 1, (Budé 119), Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1951.

2. Mark’s Gospel commentaries 2. Mark’s Gospel commentaries BACON, Benjamin Wisner, The Gospel of Mark: Its Composition and Date, New Haven: Yale University Press 1925. CARRINGTON, Philip, According to Mark: A Running Commentary on the Oldest Gospel. Behold, There Went out a Sower to Sow, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1960. COLLINS, Adela Yarbro, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2007. CRANFIELD, Charles E.B., The Gospel according to St. Mark, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1959. CUVILLIER, Élian, L’évangile de Marc (Bible en Face), Paris – Genève: Labor et Fides 2002. DELORME, Jean, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc: lecture intégrale du deuxième évangile, vol. 1 (LD 219), Paris - Montréal: Cerf - Médiaspaul 2007. –, L’heureuse annonce selon Marc: lecture intégrale du deuxième évangile, vol. 2 (LD 223), Paris: Cerf 2008.

2. Mark’s Gospel commentaries

255

FOCANT, Camille, L’évangile selon Marc (Commentaire Biblique: Nouveau Testament 2), Paris: Cerf 2004. GNILKA, Joachim, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1–8,26), (EKK II/1), NeukirchenVluyn: Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchener, 5. Aufl. 1978. –, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 8,27–16,20), (EKK II/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchener, 6. Aufl. 1978. GUNDRY, Robert Horton, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 1993. LAGRANGE, Marie – Joseph, Évangile selon Saint Marc (Études bibliques – Ancienne Serie 10), Paris: Librairie Lecoffre J. Gabalda et Compagnie, Edition corrigée et augmentée 1947. LANE, William L., The Gospel according to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (The New International Commentary on the New Testament 2), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 1974. LEONARDI, Giovanni, Vangelo secondo Marco: Traduzione strutturata, analisi letteraria e narrativa, messaggio e problemi introduttori (Sussidi Biblici 66–67), Reggio-Emilia: Edizioni San Lorenzo 1999. LOHMEYER, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Markus, vol. 1–2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967. LOISY, Alfred, L’Évangile selon Marc, Paris: Librairie Émile Nourry 1912. MANN, Christopher S., Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday 1986. MARCUS, Joel (ed.), Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 27), New York: Doubleday 2000. –, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 27A), New Haven: Yale University Press 2009. MASCILONGO, Paolo, Il Vangelo di Marco: commento esegetico e teològico, Roma: Città Nuova 2018. MOLONEY, Francis J., The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 2002. NAVARRO PUERTO, Mercedes, Marcos (Guía de Lectura del Nuevo Testamento 1), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2000. PIKAZA, Xabier, Evangelio de Marcos. La buena noticia de Jesús, Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2012. SCHMIDT, Daryl Dean, The Gospel of Mark: with Introduction, Notes, and Original Text; Featuring the New Scholars Version Translation, Sonoma: Polebridge Press 1991. STRAUSS, Mark L., Mark (Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 2), Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2014. TAYLOR, Vincent, The Gospel according to St. Mark: the Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, London: Baker Books 1953.

256

Bibliography

3. Mark’s Gospel studies 3. Mark’s Gospel studies ADAM, Jens, “‘Der Anfang vom Ende’ oder ‘das Ende des Anfangs’? Perspektiven der markinischen Eschatologie anhand der Leidens-ankündigungen Jesu”, in Hans-Joachim ECKSTEIN – Hermann LICHTENBERGER – Christof LANDMESSER (eds.), Eschatologie – Eschatology: The Sixth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium: Eschatology in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (WUNT 272), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011, pp. 91–124. ALEGRE, Xavier, “La oscuridad en el seguimiento. El evangelio de Marcos: una iniciativa a vivir sin ‘apariciones pascuales’”, in Al acecho del reino diferente. Temas bíblicos básicos en clave liberadora, Madrid: Nueva Utopía 2012, pp. 197–244. –, “La paràbola dels vinyaters homicides segons la versió de Marc (Mc 12,1–12)”, RCatT 14 (1989) 163–174. –, “Les multiplicacions dels pans en Marc (Mc 6,34–44; 8,1–10): una invitació a rellegir críticament els textos evangèlics”, RCatT 35 (2010) 413–440. –, Memoria subversiva, “Marcos o la corrección de una ideología triunfalista. Pautas para la lectura de un evangelio beligerante y comprometido”, Madrid: Trotta 2003. –, “Un silencio elocuente o la paradoja del final de Marcos”, in La palabra no está encadenada: aproximaciones al Nuevo Testamento en clave liberadora, San Salvador: Universidad Centroamericana (UCA Editores) 2009, pp. 121–189. ALLEN JR., O. Wesley, “Easter Sunday: Mark 16:1–8”, CThMi 44/4 (2017) 20–24. ARANDA, Pedro, La casa, espacio de memoria e identidad en el evangelio según Marcos (ABE 60), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2012. AUFFRET, P., “La syro-phénicienne (Mc 7,24–30). Étude structurelle”, Theoforum 42 (2011) 189–196. AUS, Roger David, Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30–44 par. and John 6:1–15 (Studies in Judaism), Lanham: University Press of America 2010. BAERT, Barbara, The Woman with the Blood Flow (Mark 5:24–34): Narrative, Iconic, and Anthropological Spaces (Art & religion 2), Leuven: Peeters 2014. BARRETT, Charles Kingsley, “The Background of Mark 10:45”, in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T.W. Manson, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1959, pp. 1–18. BAUCKHAM, Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 2006. BAUCKHAM, Richard, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2007. BEGASSE DE DHAEM, Amaury, “Sur le pas du Fils de l’homme: la christologie selon saint Marc”, NRT 133 (2011) 5–27. BENNEMA, Cornelis, “Gentile Characters and the Motif of Proclamation in the Gospel of Mark”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark, (LNTS 483) London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 215– 231. BEST, Ernest, Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1986. –, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1981.

3. Mark’s Gospel studies

257

–, “Mark’s Preservation of the Tradition”, in L’Evangile selon Marc, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1988, pp. 21–34. –, “Peter in the Gospel according to Mark”, CBQ 40 (1978) 547–558. BETZ, Otto, “The Concept of the So-Called ‘Divine Man’ in Mark’s Christology”, in Jesus, der Messias Israels (WUNT 42), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1987, pp. 227–240. BIELER, Ludwig, Theios Aner: Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1967. BIGUZZI, Giancarlo, “Io distruggerò questo tempio”. Il tempio e il giudaismo nel vangelo di Marco, Roma: Urbaniana University Press 1987. BIRD, Michael F., “Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul”, in Paul and the Gospels. Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (LNTS 411), London – New York: T & T Clark 2011, pp. 30–61. BLACK, C. Clifton, “Christ Crucified in Paul and in Mark” Reflection on an Intracanonical Conversation, in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish, Nashville: Abingdon 1996. –, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (SPNT 1), Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 1994. –, The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 2012. BLACKBURN, Barry, Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark (WUNT 40), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1991. BOLT, Peter G., “Feeling the Cross: Mark’s Message of Atonement”, RTR 60 (2001) 1–17. BOOMERSHINE, Thomas E., “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages in Paul, Jesus, and Mark: Rhetoric and Dialectic in Apocalyptic and the New Testament”, in Apocalyptic and the New Testament, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1989, pp. 147–167. BOOTH, Roger P., Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTSup 13), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1986. BORRELL, Agustí, “L’Evangeli de Marc, una cristologia narrativa”, RCatT 39 (2014) 789– 801. –, The Good News of Peter’s Denial: A Narrative and Rhetorical Reading of Mark 14:54.66–72 (University of South Florida. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 7), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1998. BOTNER, Max, “What Has Mark’s Christ to Do with David’s Son? A History of Interpretation”, CuBR 16/1 (2017) 50–70. BOWMAN, John, The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah (Studia Post-Biblica 8), Leiden: Brill 1965. BÜCHLER, Adolf, “The Law of Purification in Mark 7:1–23”, ExpTim 21 (1909) 34–40. BURKILL, T. Alec, Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark’s Gospel, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1963. –, New Light on the Earliest Gospel: Seven Mark Studies, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1972. –, “The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24– 31)”, NovT 9 (1967) 161–177. –, “The Syrophoenician Woman: The Congruence of Mark 7.24–31”, ZNW 57 (1966) 48– 120. BYRNE, Brendan, A Costly Freedom: A Theological Reading of Mark’s Gospel, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 2008.

258

Bibliography

–, “Paul and Mark before the Cross. Common Echoes of the Day Atonement Ritual”, BSReL 187 (2005) 217–230. CADWALLADER, Alan H., “The Struggle for Paul in the Context of Empire: Mark as a Deutero-Pauline Text in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 557–587. CASTRO SÁNCHEZ, Secundino, El sorprendente Jesús de Marcos. El evangelio de Marcos por dentro, Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer 2005. CHOI, Jin Young, “The Misunderstanding of Jesus’ Disciples in Mark: An Interpretation from a Community-Centered Perspective”, in Mark, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2011, pp. 55–69. CONZELMANN, H., “Geschichte und Eschaton nach Mc 13”, ZNW 50 (1959) 210–221. COOK, John Granger, The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark: A linguistic Approach (Semeia Studies 28), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1995. CROSSAN, John Dominic, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus”, NovT 15 (1973) 81–113. CROSSLEY, James G., “Mark 7.1–23: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean’”, in The Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-Lausanne Seminar of June 2008, London – New York: T & T Clark 2009, pp. 8–20. –, “Mark, Paul and the Question of Influences”, in Paul and the Gospels. Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (LNTS 411), New York – London: T & T Clark 2011, pp. 10–29. CUVILLIER, Élian, “La croix chez Marc: approche exégètique et théologique”, in La Croix: représentations théologiques et symboliques, Genève: Labor et Fides 2004, pp. 25–36. DAMGAARD, Finn, “Persecution and Denial – Paradigmatic Apostolic Portrayals in Paul and Mark”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II for and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 295–310. D’ANGELO, Mary, “Power, Knowledge and the Bodies of Women in Mark 5,21–43”, in Barbara BAERT – Niels SCHALLEY (eds.), The Woman with the Blood Flow (Mark 5,24–30): Narrative, Iconic and Anthropological Spaces (Art & Religion 2), Leuven: Peeters Publishers 2014, pp. 81–106. DAVIDSEN, Ole, “Adam-Christ Typology in Paul and Mark: Reflections on a Tertium Comparationis”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 243–272. DEPPE, Dean B., “Markan Christology and the Omission of υἱός θεοῦ in Mark 1:1”, FilNeot 21 (2008) 45–64. DERRETT, John Duncan Martin, The Making of Mark. The Scriptal Bases of the Earliest Gospel: From the Transfiguration to the Anastasis, vol. 2, Shipston-on-Stour, GB: P. Drinkwater 1985. DEWEY, Joanna, “Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forescasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience”, CBQ 53 (1991) 221–236. DIDEBERG, D. – MOURLON-BEERNAERT, P., “‘Jésus vint en Galilée’: Essai sur la structure de Marc 1,21–45”, NRT 98 (1976) 306–323. DI LUCCIO, Pino, “Le distruzioni del tempio”, La Civiltà Cattolica 3861 (2011) 223–235. DOCHHORN, Jan, “Man and the Son of Man in Mark 2:27–28”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 147–168. DONAHUE, John R., Are You the Christ?: The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBL 10), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press 1973.

3. Mark’s Gospel studies

259

–, “The Quest for the Community of Mark’s Gospel”, in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift F. Neyrinck, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1992, pp. 817–838. –, “Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark’s Gospel”, CBQ 57 (1995) 1–26. DONAHUE, John R. – HARRINGTON, Daniel J., The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina Series 2), Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press 2002. DONFRIED, Karl P. – REUMANN, John – BROWN, RAYMOND EDWARD, “The Feeding Narratives and the Marcan Community: Mark 6.30–45 and 8.1–10”, in Kirche: Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1980, pp. 95–103. DORMEYER, Detlev, Das Markusevangelium, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2005. DOWLING, Elisabeth V., “‘Do This in Remembrance’: Last Supper Traditions in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 221–241. DSCHULNIGG, Peter, Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums. Eigentümlichkeiten der Sprache des Markus-Evangeliums und ihre Bedeutung für die Redaktionskritik (SBB 11), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1984, pp. 550–561. DUFF, Paul Brooks, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the GrecoRoman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem”, JBL 111 (1992) 55–71. DUNN, James D. G., “The Messianic Secret in Mark”, in The Messianic Secret, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1983, pp. 116–131. DUPONT, J., “Encore la parabole de la semence qui pousse toute seule (Mc 4,26–29)”, in E. ELLIS– E. GRÄSSER, Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1975, pp. 96–101. EDMONDS, Peter, “Mark’s Gospel. Discipleship and Formation”, The Way 56/1 (2017) 9– 22. EDWARDS, J. Christopher, The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew: Its Reception and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels (WUNT 2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012. ELDER, Nicholas A., “Of Porcine and Polluted Spirits: Reading the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1–20) with the Book of Watchers (1Enoch 1–36)”, CBQ 78 (2016) 430–446. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Troels, “Paul in Mark 8:34–9:1: Mark on What It is to Be a Christian”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 189–209. FELDMEIER, R., “Die Syrophönizierin (Mark 7,24–30) – Jesu ‘verlorenes’ Streitgespräch”, in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden, (WUNT 70), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1994, pp. 211–227. FENTON, Joseph Clifford, “Paul and Mark”, in NINEHAM, E. (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, Oxford: Blackwell 1955, pp. 89–112. FISCHER, Cédric, Les disciples dans l’Évangile de Marc: une grammaire théologique (Études Bibliques 57), Paris: Gabalda 2007. FLOWERS, Michael, “Jesus’ ‘Journey’ in Mark 7:31 Interpretation and Historical Implications for Markan Authorship and Both the Scope and Impact of Jesus’ Ministry”, JSHJ 14/2 (2016) 158–185. FOCANT, Camille, “L’incompréhension des disciples dans le deuxième évangile”, RB 82 (1975) 161–185. –, Marc, un évangile étonnant: recueil d’essais (BETL 194), Leuven: Leuven University Press 2006. –, “Opérer une brèche dans les règles de pureté en vue d’être sauvée. Le cas de la femme qui souffrait d’hémorragie (Mc 5,24–34)”, in Barbara BAERT – Niels SCHALLEY (eds.),

260

Bibliography

The Woman with the Blood Flow (Mark 5,24–30): Narrative, Iconic and Anthropological Spaces (Art and Religion 2), Leuven: Peeters Publishers 2014, pp. 35–50. FOWLER, Robert M., Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBL 54), Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1981. FUSCO, Vittorio, “Avversario di Paolo – avversario di Marco. Un contatto attraverso la cristologia del ‘theios aner’? Appunti sulla discussione”, in Nascondimento e rivelazione: studi sul Vangelo di Marco (Studi Biblici 153), Brescia: Paideia 2007, pp. 159–190. GAMEL, Brian K., Mark 15:39 as a Markan Theology of Revelation: The Centurion’s Confession as Apocalyptic Unveiling (LNTS 458), London – New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark 2017. GARLAND, David E., A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2015. GONZÁLEZ RUIZ, José M., “Paralelos en las teologías marcana y paulina”, RCatT 14 (1989) 323–332. GOULDER, M. D., “Those Outside (Mark.4:10–12)”, NovT 33 (1991) 289–302. GRAY, Timothy C., The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role (WUNT 2, Reihe 242), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. GUELICH, R., Mark 1–8.26 (WBC 34A), Dallas: Word Books 1989. GUIDA, Annalisa, “‘Così dichiarava puri tutti gli alimenti...’ (Mc 7,19c). Marco interprete di Gesù alla luce di Paolo? Ipotesi sulla ricezione di un – presunto – dictum Iesu”, in Dario GARRIBBA – Sergio TANZARELLA (eds.), Giudei o cristiani?: quando nasce il cristianesimo? (Oi christianoi – Nuovi studi sul cristianesimo nella storia / Antichita), Trapani: Il pozzo di Giacobbe 2005, pp. 123–133. GUIJARRO, Santiago, El camino del discípulo: seguir a Jesús según el Evangelio de Marcos (Nueva Alianza 230), Salamanca: Sígueme 2015. GUTTENBERGER, Gudrun, Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium (BZNW 123), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2004. HART, H. – BAMMEL, E. – MOULE, C. F. D., “The Coin of ‘Render unto Caesar...’ (A Note on Some Aspects of Mark 12:13–17; Matt 22:15–22; Luke 20:20–26)”, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambrigde: Cambrigde University 1984, pp. 241–248. HECKEL, Theo K., “Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, BZ 46 (2002) 190–204. HENGEL, Martin, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, London: SCM Press 1985. HERZOG, William R., “Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12.13–17 and Romans 13.1–7”, PerspRelSt 21 (1994) 339–360. HESTER, David W, Does Mark 16:9–20 belong in the New Testament?, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock 2015. HIRSCH, Emanuel, Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums: Erstes Buch: Das Werden des Markusevangeliums, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1941. HOOKER, Morna H., The Son of Man in Mark. A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” and Its Use in St Mark’s Gospel, London: SPCK 1967. HORSLEY, Richard A., Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel, Westminster: John Knox Press 2001. HUMPHREY, Hugh M., “He is risen!”: A New Reading of Mark’s Gospel, New York: Paulist Press 1992. HUR, Unsok, “The Disciples’ Lack of Comprehension in the Gospel of Mark”, BibTB 49, 1 (2019) 41–48.

3. Mark’s Gospel studies

261

HURD, John C., “Isaiah’s Curse according to Mark. Earlier Letters of Paul and Other Studies”, ARGU 8 (1973) 85–96. INCIGNERI, Brian J., The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel (BibInt 65), Leiden - Boston: Brill 2003. IVERSON, Kelly R., Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: Even the Dogs under the Table Eat the Children’s Crumbs (LNTS 339), London – New York: T & T Clark 2007. JEREMIAS, Joachim, “Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mark 10, 45)”, Judaica 3 (1947) 249–264. –, “Polloi”, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Stuttgart: Eerdmans 1959, pp. 536–545. JOHNSON JR, Earl S., “Mark 10:46–52: Blind Bartimaeus”, CBQ 40 (1978) 191–204. KAZMIERSKI, Carl R., Jesus, the Son of God: A Study of the Markan Tradition and Its Redaction by the Evangelist (Forschung zur Bibel 33), Würzburg: Echter 1979. KEE, Howard Clark, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel (NTL), London: SCM Press 1977. –, “The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11–16”, in Jesus und Paulus: in E. ELLIS– E. GRÄSSER, Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1975, pp. 175–188. KELBER, Werner H., The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1974. KINGSBURY, Jack Dean, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1983. –, “The Divine Man as the Key to Mark’s Christology – The End of an Era?”, Interpretation 35 (1981) 243–257. –, “The Significance of the Cross within Mark’s Story”, Interpretation 47 (1997) 95–105. KLAUCK, Hans-Josef, “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mark 2,1–12 parr.)”, BZ 25 (1981) 223–248. KOK, Michael, “Does Mark Narrate the Pauline Kerygma of ‘Crist Crucified’? Challenging an Emerging Consensus on Mark as a Pauline Gospel”, JSNT 37 (2014) 139–160. KUHN, Heinz-Wolfgang, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 8), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1971. LA POTTERIE, Ignace de, “De compositione evangelii Marci”, Verbum Domini 44 (1966) 135–141. LARSEN, Kasper Bro, “Mark 7:1–23: A Pauline Halakah?”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 169–187. LARSEN, Kevin W., “The Structure of Mark’s Gospel: Current Proposals”, CuBR 3 (2004) 140–160. LE PEAU, Andrew T., Mark through Old Testament Eyes: A Background and Application Commentary (Through Old Testament Eyes New Testament Commentary Series), Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic 2017. LEWIS, Philip B., “Indications of a Liturgical Source in the Gospel of Mark”, Encounter 39 (1978) 385–394. LINDEMANN, Andreas, “Das Evangelium bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 313–359. LOADER, William, “The Concept of Faith in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 423–464.

262

Bibliography

LUZ, Ulrich, “Das Geheimnis-Motiv und die markinische Christologie”, ZNW 56 (1965) 9– 30. MALBON, Elizabeth Struthers, “Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark”, Semeia 28 (1983) 29–48. –, “Galilee and Jerusalem: History and Literature in Marcan Interpretation”, CBQ 44 (1982) 242–255. –, “History, Theology, Story: Re-Contextualizing Mark’s Messianic Secret as Characterization”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 35– 56. –, In the company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 2000. –, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark (The Biblical Seminar 13), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1991. –, “Reflections on Mark 12:38–44 for the Twenty-fifth Sunday after Pentecost”, CThMi 44/4 (2017) 37–42. MARCUS, Joel, “Identity and Ambiguity in Markan Christology”, in Seeking the Identity of Jesus, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 2008, pp. 133–47. –, “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology”, JBL 103 (1984) 557–574. –, “Mark – Interpreter of Paul”, NTS 46 (2000) 473–487. –, “Mark – Interpreter of Paul”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 29–49. –, “Scripture and Tradition in Mark 7”, in The Scriptures in the Gospels (BEThL 131), Leuven: Leuven University Press 1997, pp. 177–196. –, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. MARSHALL, Christopher D., Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (SNTSMS 64), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994. MARTIN, Ralph Philip, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, Carlisle: Paternoster Press 1979. MARXSEN, Willi, Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1956. MATERA, Frank J., What Are They Saying about Mark?, New York: Paulist Press 1987. MATOSES, Xavier, “Fede incompleta e incontro con Gesú. Studio sul racconto dell’emorroissa (Mc 5,25–34)”, Sal. 79 (2017) 603–621. MCKENNA, Megan, On Your Mark: Reading Mark in the Shadow of the Cross, Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books 2006. MELL, Ulrich, “Jesu Taufe durch Johannes (Markus 1,9–15): zur narrativen Christologie vom neuen Adam”, BZ 40 (1996) 161–178. MILLER, Susan, “Women Characters in Mark’s Gospel”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 174–193. MINETTE DE TILLESSE, Gaétan, Le secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (LD 47), Paris: Cerf 1968. –, “Le martyre de Pierre et Paul en Saint Marc”, in Mysterium regni, ministerium verbi (Mc 4,11; At 6,4), Bologna: Dehoniane Bologna (EDB) 2000, pp. 699–704. MOLONEY, Francis J., Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 2004. MOORE, W. Ernest, “‘Outside’ and ‘Inside.’ Paul and Mark”, ExpTim 103 (1991) 331–336.

3. Mark’s Gospel studies

263

MUEMA, Peter, The relationship between Peter and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, Nairobi, Kenya: CUEA Press 2010. NEL, Marius, “‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of Mark”, In die Skriflig 51/3 (2017) 1–9. NEUFELD, Dietmar, “Jesus’ Eating Transgressions and Social Impropriety in the Gospel of Mark: A Social Scientific Approach”, BTB 30 (2000) 15–26. –, Mockery and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel (LNTS 503), London – New York: T & T Clark 2014. NIEDNER, F., “Precious, Inevitable Scandal: Theology of the Cross in Mark”, CurTM 32 (2005) 417–425. NIELSEN, Jesper Tang, “The Cross on the Way to Mark”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 275–294. OMERZU, Heike, “Paul and Mark – Mark and Paul”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 51–61. PAGE, Sydney H. T., “The Authenticity of the Ransom Logion (Mark 10:45b)”, in Gospel Perspectives. Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, vol. 1, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1980, pp. 137–161. PAINTER, John, Mark’s Gospel: Worlds in Conflict (New Testament Readings 1), London – New York: Routledge 1997. –, “When is a House not Home? Disciples and Family in Mark 3.13–15”, NTS 45 (1999) 498–513. –, “Mark and the Pauline Mission”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 527–553. PARK, Yoon-Man, Mark’s Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1– 3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan OralAural Narrative (Linguistic Biblical Studies 2), Leiden – Boston: Brill 2010. PATELLA, Michael, Lord of the Cosmos: Mithras, Paul, and the Gospel of Mark, London: T & T Clark 2006. PÉREZ HERRERO, F., “El plan de Marcos”, ResB 17 (1998) 13–20. PERRIN, Norman, The Christology of Mark. A Study in Methodology in the Interpretation of Mark, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1974. PRENDERGAST, Terrence, ‘Without Understanding’ (Marc 7:18): A Redaction Critical Study of the References to the Disciples’ Lack of Understanding in Mark’s Gospel, Toronto: Regis College 1977. PRYKE, E. J., Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark (SNTSMS 33), Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press 1978. RÄISÄNEN, Heikki, “Jesus and the Food Laws. Reflections on Mark 7:15”, JSNT 16 (1982) 79–100. –, “Jesus and the Food Laws”, in The Tora and Christ. Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity (FES 45), Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society 1986, pp. 219–241. –, The “Messianic Secret” in Mark (SNTW), Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1990. REPLOH, Karl-Georg, Markus: Lehrer der Gemeinde: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Jüngerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums (SBM 9), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1959.

264

Bibliography

RIESNER, Rainer, “Back to the Historical Jesus through Paul and His School (The Ransom Logion – Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28)”, JSHJ 1 (2003) 171–199. ROCHESTER, Stuart, Good News at Gerasa: Transformative Discourse and Theological Anthropology in Mark’s Gospel, Oxford - New York: Peter Lang 2011. RODRÍGUEZ CARMONA, A., “Marcos, Una cristología correctiva”, ResB 17 (1998) 5–12. ROMANIUK, K., “Le Problème des Paulinismes dans l’Évangile de Marc”, NTS 23 (1977) 266–274. RUDOLPH, David J., “Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7,19b”, EQ 74 (2002) 304–308. SACCHI, Alessandro, “‘Lascia prima che si sazino i figli...’ (Mc 7,27a). Gesù ed i gentili nel vangelo di Marco”, RivB 33 (1998) 137–154. SANTOS, Narry F., Slave of All: The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 237), London: Sheffield Academic Press 2003. –, “The New Family of Jesus and the Relativization of the natural Family: An Exposition on Honor and Shame (Mark 1:16–20; 2:13–14; 3:13–35)”, RevExp 115, 4 (2018) 592– 601. SAYLES, Guy, “Jesus and the Challenging Gift of the Other: An Expository Article on Mark 7:24–30”, RevExp 114/1 (2017) 110–117. SCHENK, Wolfgang, “Die Rezeption der paulinischen Herrenmahlworte bei Markus. Gottes Wort in der Zeit”, FW 12 (2005) 261–270. SCHENKE, Ludger, Der gekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Bestimmung der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte (SBS 69), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1974. –, “Jesus als Weisheitslehrer im Markusevangelium”, in Die Weisheit – Ursprünge und Rezeption, Münster: Aschendorff, 2003, pp. 125–138. SCHNELLE, Udo, “Paulinische und markinische Christologie im Vergleich”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 283–312. SCHREIBER, Johannes, “Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums: Beobachtungen zur Theologie und Komposition des zweiten Evangeliums”, ZThK 58 (1961) 154–183. SCHULZ, Siegfried, “Mark’s Significance for the Theology of Early Christianity”, in The Interpretation of Mark, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1964, pp. 158–166. SCHWEIZER, Eduard, “Die theologische Leistung des Markus”, in Das Markusevangelium (Evangelische Theologie 24), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1979, pp. 337–355. –, “Mark’s Theological Achievement”, in The Interpretation of Mark, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1995, pp. 42–62. –, The Good News according to Mark, Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press 1970. –, “The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark”, Interpretation 32 (1978) 387–399. SCORNAIENCHI, Lorenzo, “Die Relativierung des Unreinen. Der Einfluss des Paulus auf ‘Markus’ in Bezug auf die Reinheit”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 505–526. SCOTT, M. Philip, “Chiastic Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel”, BTB 15 (1985) 17–26. SEELEY, David, “Rulership and Service in Mark 10:41–45”, NovT 35 (1993) 234–250. SELLEW, Philip, “Composition of Didactic Scenes in Mark’s Gospel”, JBL 108 (1989) 613–634.

3. Mark’s Gospel studies

265

SHANKS, Monte Allen, Papias and the New Testament, Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications 2013. SHIVELY, Elizabeth, “Characterizing the Non-Human: Satan in the Gospel of Mark”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 127–151. SIM, David, “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?”, NTS 57 (2011) 176–192. –, “The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark: Taking Sides in the Early Church’s Factional Dispute”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 73–99. SÖDING, Thomas, “Das Liebesgebot bei Markus und Paulus. Ein literarischer und theologischer Vergleich”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 465– 503. STETTLER, Christian, “Purity of Heart in Jesus’ Teaching: Mark 7:14–23 par. as an Expression of Jesus’ Basilea Ethics”, JTS 55 (2004) 467–502. SUAU, Teodor, Mujeres en el evangelio de Marcos: de la servidumbre a la fe (Colección Emaús 20), Barcelona: CPL 1996. SUHL, Alfred, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn 1965. SVARTVIK, Jesper, “‘East is East and West is West’: The Concept of Torah in Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 172–185. –, Mark and Mission: Mark 7.1–23 in Its Narrative and Historical Contexts (CBNTS 32), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell 2000. SWEAT, Laura C., The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark (LNTS (JSNTS) 492), London – New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark 2013. TAIT, Michael, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18–22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded (Analecta Biblica 185), Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press 2010. TAKAHASHI, Yoshimoto, “The New Testament View of ‘People’ and ‘Race’ as Represented in the Letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark”, AJBI 21 (1995) 73–91. TANNEHILL, Robert C., “The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role”, The Journal of Religion 57 (1977) 386–405. –, The Sword of His Mouth (SBL 1), Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1975. TARAZI, Paul Nadim, The New Testament: An Introduction: Paul and Mark, vol. 1–2, Crestwood – New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1999. TELFORD, William Rodgers, Mark, Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press 1995. –, The Barren Temple and the Withered Fig Tree (JSNTSup 1), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1980. –, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (New Testament Theology 1), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999. THEISSEN, Gerd, “Die pragmatische Bedeutung der Geheimnismotive im Markusevangelium. Ein wissenssoziologischer Versuch”, in HANS G. KIPPENBERG / GUY G. STROUMSA (eds.), Secrecy and Concealment, Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, Leiden: Brill 1995, pp. 225–245. –, “‘Evangelium’ im Markusevangelium”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 63–86.

266

Bibliography

–, “Lokal und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syrophönikischen Frau (Mark 7.24– 30)”, ZNW 75 (1984) 202–225. THEOPHILOS, Michael P., “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark”, in Paul and Mark. Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (BZNW 198), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 45–72. TROCMÉ, Étienne, La formation de l’Évangile selon Marc (Études d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 57), Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF) 1963. VAN CANGH, Jean-Marie – OTHERS, “La multiplication des pains et l’eucharistie”, in L’Evangile selon Marc, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1988, pp. 309–346. VOLKMAR, Gustav, Die Evangelien, oder, Markus und die Synopsis der Kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien: Nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar, Leipzig: Fues 1870. VOUGA, François, “Das Markusevangelium als literarisches Werk: Eine Weiterentwicklung des paulinischen Evangeliums?”, Wort und Dienst 23 (1995) 109–124. WEEDEN, Theodore J., “The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark 15:20b-41)”, in John R. DONAHUE – Werner H. KELBER (eds.), The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1976, pp. 115–134. –, “The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel”, in The Interpretation of Mark, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1985, pp. 64–77. WEFALD, Eric K., “The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark: A Narrative Explanation of Markan Geography, the Two Feeding Accounts and Exorcisms”, JSNT 60 (1995) 3–26. WEISS, Johannes, Das älteste Evangelium: ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des MarkusEvangeliums und der ältesten evangelischen Uberlieferung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1903. WENDLING, Emil, Die Entstehung des Markus-Evangeliums: Philologische Untersuchungen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1908. WERNER, Martin, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium (BZNW 1), Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1923. WHITAKER, Robyn, “Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”, CBQ 75 (2013) 666–682. WILKINSON DURAN, Nicole (ed.), “Other People’s Demons: Reading Mark’s Demons in the Disbelieving West”, in Mark (Texts @ contexts), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2011, pp. 35–52. WILLIAMS, Joel F., Other followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark’s Gospel (JSNTSup 102), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1994. –, “The Characterization of Jesus as Lord in Mark’s Gospel”, in Christopher W. SKINNER – Matthew RYAN HAUGE (eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 483), London – New York: Bloomsbury 2014, pp. 107–126. WINN, Adam, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda (WUNT 245), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. WISCHMEYER, Oda, “Romans 1:1–7 and Mark 1:1–3 in Comparison”, in Mark and Paul. Comparative Essays Part II. For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (BZNW 199), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2014, pp. 121–146. WREDE, William, Das Messiasgeheimnis in der Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1901.

4. Pauline studies

267

4. Pauline studies 4. Pauline studies AAGESON, James W., “Scriptures and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11”, CBQ 48 (1986) 265–89. ALEGRE, Xavier, Carta a los Romanos (Guía de Lectura del Nuevo Testamento 6), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2012. –, “El Nou paradigma en la interpretació de Pau. Una anàlisi crítica”, RCatT 41 (2016) 59– 94. BARRETT, Charles Kingsley, A commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, London: A & C Black 1971. BAUR, Ferdinand C., “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom”, TZTh 4 (1831) 61–206. BECKER, Johan Christiaan, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1980. BECKER, Jürgen, Paulus: der Apostel der Völker, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1989. BELLEVILLE, Linda L., Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2Corinthians 3.1–18 (JSNTSup 52), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1991. BIRD, Michael F., Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (LNTS 331), London New York: T & T Clark 2006. BLUMENFELD, Bruno, Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework (JSNTSup 210), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2001. BOLT, Peter – THOMPSON, Mark (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission: in Honour of Peter T. O’Brien, Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press - Apollos 2000. BOYARIN, Daniel, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Contraversions: Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society 1), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press 1994. BYRNE, Brendan, Paul and the Christian woman, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1988. CALDWELL, Aurélie, Paul, misogyne ou promoteur de l’émancipation féminine?: étude de 1Co 11,2–16 (Études bibliques – Nouvelle Serie 72), Leuven – Paris – Bristol: Peeters Publishers 2016. CRANFIELD, Charles E.B., The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1–2, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1994. DAVIES, William David, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, London: SPCK 1948. DIBELIUS, Martin, “Vier Worte des Römerbriefs”, SyBU 3 (1944) 3–17. DUBARLE, André-Marie, “Paul et l’antiféminisme”, RSPT 60 (1976) 267–279. DUNN, James D. G., “Jesus Tradition in Paul” in Studying the Historical Jesus Evaluations of State of Current Research, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1994, pp. 155–178. –, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1990. –, Romans (WBC 38B), Dallas: Word Books 1988. –, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Michigan – Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans 2006. ELLIS, E. Earl, Paul’s use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd 1957. FITZMYER, Joseph A., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33), New York: Doubleday 1993. –, Teología de San Pablo: síntesis y persperctivas, Madrid: Cristiandad 1975.

268

Bibliography

GADENZ, Pablo T., Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11 (WUNT 267), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009. GEORGI, Dieter, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem, Hamburg: Herbert Reich 1965. –, The Opponents of Paul in 2Corinthians, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress 1986. GIL ARBIOL, Carlos, “El fracaso del proyecto de Pablo y su reconstrucción”, EB 73 (2015) 373–408. –, Primera y segunda carta a los Tesalonicenses, Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2004. GOULDER, M. D., St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1995. HURTADO, Larry W., “Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5–11”, in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press 1984, pp. 113–126. JACOBI, Christine, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus?: Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (BZNW 213), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2015. KÄSEMANN, Ernst, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1980. –, Perspectives on Paul. The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1982. KENNEDY, Harry Angus Alexander, “St. Paul and the Mystery-religions”, The Expositor 8 (1913) 154–160. KLEIN, Hans, Entwicklungslinien im Corpus Paulinum und weitere Studien zu Paulustexten (FRLANT 265), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2016. MARTYN, J. Louis, “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles”, in The Galatians Debate, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 2002, pp. 348–361. MATHEW, Susan, Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16: A Study of Mutuality and Women’s Ministry in the Letter to the Romans (LNTS 471), London – New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark 2013. MEYER, Nicholas A., Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology (NovTSup 168), Leiden - Boston: Brill 2016. MICHEL, Otto – MEYER, Heinrich August Wilhelm, Der Brief an die Römer (KeK 4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. MURPHY-O’CONNOR, Jerome, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 2002. OLLROG, Wolf-Henning, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischer Mission (WMANT 50), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1979. PERVO, Richard I., The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2010. PUIG I TÀRRECH, Armand, “El lloc del Jesús de la història i de la història de Jesús en l’Evangeli de Pau”, in Pau, fundador del cristianisme? (ScrBib 12), Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya – Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat 2012, pp. 83–115. RÄISÄNEN, Heikki, “Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays”, JSNTSup 43 (1992) 127– 148. SÁNCHEZ BOSCH, Jordi, Mestre dels pobles. Una teologia de Pau l’Apòstol (Colꞏlectània Sant Pacià 80), Barcelona: Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya 2003. SANDERS, Ed Parish – PESCE, Mauro – BORI PIER, Cesare, Paolo e il Giudaismo palestinese: Studio comparativo su modelli di religione (Biblioteca Teologica 21), Brescia: Paideia 1986.

5. Others

269

SCHLIER, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater (KeK VII), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1971. SCHOLTISSEK, Klaus, Christologie in der Paulus-Schule: Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte des paulinischen Evangeliums (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 1), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2000. SCHULZE, Hermann, Die Ursprünglichkeit des Galaterbriefes, Leipzig: Verlegt bei Richard Wöpke 1903. SOMERVILLE, Robert, La première épître de Paul aux Corinthiens, Vaux-sur-Seine: Édifac 2002. –, La Première épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Chapitres 8–16, Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac 2005. STUHLMACHER, Peter, “Das paulinische Evangelium”, in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1983, pp. 157–182. –, Der Brief an die Römer (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 6), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1989. TILLING, Chris, Paul’s Divine Christology (WUNT 2. Reihe 323), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012. WEDDERBURN, Alexander J. M., Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup 37), Sheffield: Academic Press 1989. WENHAM, David, “Paul’s Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples”, in Gospels Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1985, pp. 7–37. WILCKENS, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer 1–5, (EKK 6/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1978. WILCKENS, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer 6–11, (EKK 6/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1980. WILCKENS, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer 12–16, (EKK 6/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1982.

5. Others 5. Others AGUIRRE MONASTERIO, Rafael, Así empezó el cristianismo, Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 2010. –, Pedro en la iglesia primitiva (Institución San Jerónimo 23), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 1991. AGUIRRE MONASTERIO, Rafael – RODRÍGUEZ CARMONA, Antonio, Evangelios sinópticos y Hechos de los apóstoles (Introducción al Estudio de la Biblia 6), Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino 1992. ALEGRE, Xavier, “Jesús i la indissolubilitat del matrimoni segons els Sinòptics”, in El Matrimoni i l’ús dels béns a la Bíblia (ScrBib 8), Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya – Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat 2008, pp. 201–217. ALETTI, Jean-Nöel, “Mort de Jésus et théorie du récit”, RSR 73 (1985) 147–160. ALLISON, W. D. – DAVIES, D.C., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (The International Critical Commentary 3), Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1997. AUNE, David, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press 1987. BAUCKHAM, R., Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1990.

270

Bibliography

BERNHEIM, Pierre-Antoine, James, Brother of Jesus, London: SCM Press 1997. BETZ, Hans Dieter, “Gottmensch II (Griechisch-romische Antike und Urchristentum)”, RAC 12 (1982) 234–311. BINDER, Stephanie E., Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways between Christians and Jews, Leiden: Brill 2012. BONSIRVEN, J., Textes Rabiniques des deux premiers siècles chrétiens pour servir à l’intelligence du Nouveau Testament, Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1955. BOOMERSHINE, Thomas E., “Peter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics”, Semeia 39 (1987) 47–68. BOVON, François, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 1,1–9,50), vol. 1 (EKK III), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verl., 2. Aufl. 2012. –, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 9,51–14,35), vol. 2 (EKK III), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verl., 2. Aufl 2008. –, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (15,1–19,27), vol. 3 (EKK III), Zürich: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger; Neukirchener 1989. –, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (19,28–24,53), vol. 4 (EKK III), Zürich: NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger; Neukirchener 1989. BOYARIN, Daniel, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, New York: The New York Press 2012. BRANDON, S. G. F., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity, London: SPCK 1951. BROWN, Raymond E., The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1988. –, The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the grave: A Commentary on the Passion narratives in the four Gospels (ABRL 27), New York: Doubleday 1994. BRUCE, F.F., “Render to Caesar”, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press 1984, pp. 249–263. BULTMANN, Rudolf, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Uni-Taschenbücher 630), published by Otto Merk, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 91984. –, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, New York: Harper & Row 1963. BUNDY, Walter Ernest, Jesus and the First Three Gospels. An Introduction to the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1955. CALDUCH-BENAGES, Núria, El perfum de l’evangeli. Jesús es troba amb les dones (Saurí 185), Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat 2014. CAMACHO, Fernando, “Jesús pone a Pedro en su sitio (Mc 8,33/ Mt 16,23)”, Comm 34 (2001) 181–200. CATCHPOLE, David R., “The Triumphal Entry”, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984, pp. 319–334. COLLINS, John Joseph, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity, New York: Crossroad 1984. CULLMANN, Oscar, The State in the New Testament, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1956. CHURTON, William Ralph (ed.), The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, London: Whitaker 1884. DOCHHORN, Jan, “Die Christologie in Hebräer 1,1 – 2,9 und die Weltherrschaft Adams in Vit. Ad. 11–17”, in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Berlin – New York: De Gruyter 2009, pp. 281–302. DODD, Charles Harold, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, London: Collins 1965.

5. Others

271

DONAHUE, John R., “Recent Studies on the Origin of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels”, CBQ 48 (1986) 484–498. DONFRIED, Karl P. – REUMANN, John – BROWN, RAYMOND EDWARD, Peter in the New Testament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1973. DOUGLAS, Mary, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London – Boston and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1980. DUNN, James D. G., Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2011. –, The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D.G. Dunn, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1998. ELERT, W., Der christliche Glaube: Grundlinien der lutherischen Dogmatik, Berlin: Furche 1940. FILSON, Floyd Vivian, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, London: Hendrickson Publishers 1987. FIORENZA, Elisabeth, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad 1994. FITZMYER, Joseph A. (ed.), The Gospel according to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 1 (The Anchor Bible 28), Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1981. –, The Gospel according to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 2 (The Anchor Bible 28A), Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1985. FUSCO, Vittorio, “Gesù e le Scritture di Israele”, in La Bibbia nell’antichità cristiana. I: Da Gesù a Origene, Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna 1993. GALLAGHER, Eugene V., Divine Man or Magician?: Celsus and Origen on Jesus (SBL 64), Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1982. GNILKA, Joachim – MARTÍNEZ DE LAPERA, Víctor Abelardo, Pedro y Roma: la figura de Pedro en los dos primeros siglos de la Iglesia, Barcelona: Herder 2003. GOULDER, M. D., “Psalm 8 and the Son of Man”, NTS 48 (2002) 18–29. –, “Jesus Resurrection and Christian Origins. A Response to N.T. Wright”, JSHJ 3 (2005) 187–195. HEINEMANN, Isaak, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung, Breslau: M&H Markus 1932. HIEKE, Thomas, Q 6:20–21: The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning, Leuven: Peeters Publishers 2001. HOLLADAY, Carl R., Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology (SBL 40), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press 1977. HOLSTEN, Carl, Die drei ursprünglichen, noch ungeschriebenen Evangelien, Karlsruhe: Reuther 1883. HÜBNER, H., Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition: Studien zur These einer progressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition, Witten: Luther 1973. JEREMIAS, Joachim, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, London: SCM Press 51982 (11962). –, Neutestamentliche Theologie. Teil 1: Die Verkündigung Jesu, Gütersloh: Mohn, 1971. JOSEPH, Simon J., “Jesus and the Temple Incident: A New Proposal”, JSHJ 14 (2016) 71– 95. JOSSA, Giorgio, Giudei o cristiani?: I seguaci di Gesù in cerca di una propria identità (Studi Biblici 142), Brescia: Paideia 2004. KÄHLER, Karl M. A., Das Kreuz: Grund und Mass für die Christologie: Vorlesungen von Martin Kähler, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1911.

272

Bibliography

KÄHLER, Martin – BRAATEN, Carl E. – TILLICH, Paul, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1988. KÄSEMANN, Ernst, Jesus Means Freedom, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1970. –, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus”, in Essays on the New Testament Themes (SBT 41), London: SCM Press 1964, pp. 15–47. KEE, Howard C., “Aretalogy and Gospel”, JBL 92 (1973) 402–422. KLAUCK, Hans-Josef, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 13), Münster: Aschendorff 1978. LENTZEN-DEIS, Fritzleo, Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern: literaturkritische und gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Frankfurter Theologische Studien 4), Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht 1970. LÉON-DUFOUR, Xavier, Les Évangiles et l’histoire de Jésus (Parole 1), Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1963. LINNEMANN, Eta, Gleichnisse Jesu Einführung und Auslegung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1964. LUZ, Ulrich, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1–7), (EKK I/1), Zürich: Benziger 1985. –, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 8–17), (EKK I/2), Zürich: Benziger 1990. –, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 18–25), (EKK I/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie 1997. –, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 26–28), (EKK I/4), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie 2002. MAHNKE, Hermann, Die Versuchungsgeschichte im Rahmen der synoptischen Evangelien: ein Beitrag zur frühen Christologie, Frankfurt: Lang 1978. MARCUS, Joel, “Son of Man as Son of Adam”, RB 110 (2003) 38–61. MEIER, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1–5 (AB 4–5), New York: Doubleday 1991–2001. MORITZ HERMANN SCHULZE, Evangelientafeln, Dresden: A. Dieckmann 1861. MUSSIES, Gerard, “Rabbinischer Index. Verzeichnis der Schriftgelehrten. Geographisches Register”, in M. J. VERMASEREN (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religions, Leiden – Boston: Brill 1979, pp. 189–214. PAINTER, John, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1997. PERRIN, Norman, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, London: Harper & Row 1967. –, The New Testament, an Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 21982 (11974). POKORNÝ, Petr, From the Gospel to the Gospels: History, Theology, and Impact of the Biblical Term Euangelion (BZNW 195), Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2013. RAHNER, Karl – THÜSING, Wilhelm, Christologie, systematisch und exegetisch: Arbeitsgrundlagen für eine interdisziplinäre Vorlesung (Quaestiones disputatae 55), Freiburg: Herder 1972. RAURELL, Frederic, “Déu creà la humanitat mascle i femella (Gn 1,27)”, in Del text a l’existència (Saurí 48), Barcelona: Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya 1980, pp. 318– 319. RIESENFELD, Harald – DEWAILLY, L.-M., Unité et diversité dans le Nouveau Testament (LD 98), Paris: Cerf 1979. ROFÉ, Alexander, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, their Literary Types and History, Jerusalem: Magnes Press 1988. SANDERS, E. P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, London: Allen Lane – The Peguin Press 1993.

5. Others

273

–, Jesus and Judaism, London: Fortress Press SCM 1985. SCHILLE, Gottfried, “Bemerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums III. Das Evangelium als Missionsbuch”, NTS 4 (1957) 1–24. SCHULZ, Siegfried, Die Stunde der Botschaft: Einführung in die Theologie der vier Evangelisten, Bielefeld: Luther 1982. SELLIN, Gerhard – CORNILS, Anja – HEINEMANN, Krischan – VOUGA, François – ALKIER, Stefan, Logos und Buchstabe: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Judentum und Christentum der Antike (TANZ 20), Karlsruhe: Francke 1997. SMITH, Terence V., Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity: Attitudes towards Peter in Christian Writings of the First Two Centuries (WUNT 2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1985. STANTON, Graham N. – STROUMSA, Guy G., Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press 1998. STEIN, Edith, “The Vocation of Man and Woman according to Nature and to Grace”, in Hilda GRAEF (ed.), Writings of Edith Stein, London: Peter Owen 1956. STUHLMACHER, Peter, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2005. THEISSEN, Gerd, The Gospels in Context, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1992. –, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (SNT 8), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus 1974. THEISSEN, Gerd – MERZ, Annette, Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996. TIEDE, David Lenz, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS 1), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press 1972. WARD, Wilfrid Philip, The Life of John Henry, Cardinal Newman: Based on His Private Journals and Correspondence, vol. 2, London: Longmans, Green, 1921. WHITTAKER, Molly, Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge Commentaris on writings of the Jewish and Christian world 6), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984. WIBBING, Siegfried, Die Tugend-und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte (BZNW 25), Berlin: Töpelmann 1959. WILLIAMS, Sam K., Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1975. ZIMMERMANN, Heinrich, 1915-, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1966.

Index of Biblical References 1. Old Testament Genesis 1.1 1.27 1.31 2.4 2.19 2.20 2.24 3.1–5 10 17.9–14

159 116, 230 144 159 230 230 116 230 145 92

Exodus 4.22 9.29 14–15 19.5 20.10 20.14 21.7 21.30 23.20 25–26 26.33 30.10–12

139 159 133 159 89 116 178 215 237, 238 21 146 215

Leviticus 11 11.1–8 12.7 15.19–33 15.25–30 16 19.18 19.19–37 20.7 20.18

24.11–16

96 134 112 112 180 21 118 96 97 112

85

Numbers 15.30 35.31

85 215

Deuteronomy 5.18 6.4–9 6.4–5 6.4 6.5 14.1 14.3–21 14.8 27.26 29.21 32.8

116 118 118 118 159 139 96 134 92 129 134

Joshua 9.6 9.9

129 129

1 Samuel 17.43 21.2–7 21.2

139 89 89

2 Samuel 4.10 18.19

46 46

1 Kings 8.41 17.8–16

129 136

276

Index of Biblical References

2 Kings 2.1–18 4.18–37 7.9 13.14–17

196 136 46 196

Isaiah 1.2 5.26 6.9–10 8.14 11.1–2 11.6–8 28.3–4 28.16 29.13 29.18 35.1–7 35.5–6 40.1–11 40.3 40.9–10 42.1–25 42.1–17 42.1 42.17–19 43.8–9 43.19 43.25 44.22 48.20–21 52.7 52–53 52.13–53.12 52.13–15 52.13 52.14–15 53 53.2 53.5–12 53.6 53.11 53.12 54.7 56.7 56.10–11 61.1–11 63.11–19 65.1–7

139 129 62 41 237 237 152 41 98, 99, 100 215 215 144 215 224, 237, 238 237 228 215 237 125 125 237 237 237 237 237 214 37, 214, 219, 227 228 227 219 66, 214 227 228 207 227 207 88 132, 153 139 237 237 133

65.25

237

Jeremiah 2.2 4.16 7.11 8.13 24.1–10 31.33–34

88 129 153 152 152 95

Ezekiel 16 23.40 46.21–22

88 129 179

Hosea 2 2.4 2.18 9.10 9.16

88 87 87 152 152

Joel 1.7 1.12

152 152

Micah 7.1 7.16

152 125

Malachi 3.1

224, 237, 238

Psalms 8.5–9 22 22.2 27.12 41.2 65.7–8 68.6 110 110.1 118.22 128.3

230 66, 166 171, 210 207 207 133 133 228 226 241 56

Job 29.5

56

277

2. New Testament Daniel 4.14 7–12 7 7.13–14 7.13

134 214 197, 215, 226 226 225, 226

7.14 7.18 7.25–27 9.24–27 12.1–3

214 214 214 215 214

2. New Testament 2 Chronicles 6.32

129

Tobit 13.13

129

Matthew 1–2 1.1 1.6 1.17 1.20 4.23 5–7 5.28–32 7.6 8.5–13 8.28–34 9.17 9.20–22 9.35 12.1–8 12.1 12.11–12 12.23 13.13 14.13–21 15.1–20 15.11 15.13 15.14 15.20 15.21–28 15.22 15.32–39 16.6 16.11–12 16.16–19 16.18–19 16.21

239 220, 222 222 222 222 47 230 117 139 141 141 220 114 47 90 89 90 220 62 129 106, 107 105, 106 152 106 106 137, 141 221 129 126 126 71 71 69

16.23 20.28 20.30–31 21.9 21.15 21.19–21 21.28–32 21.33–46 22.1–14 22.34–40 22.42–45 24.14 24.32 26.13 26.17 26.26 26.37 26.53–54 27.50 27.54 28.5 28.7 Mark 1.1–8 1.1–13 1.1–3 1.1

1.2–8 1.2–3 1.2b–3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9–13

71 216 221 221 221 157 141 141 141 118, 151 221 47 157 47 127 128 169, 209 209 209 209 209 72

26 34, 120 23, 237 32, 33, 34, 39, 46, 49, 147, 150, 151, 200, 201, 203, 211, 223, 236, 238 34 224, 236, 242, 250 239 237, 238 237, 241 237 122 239 34

278 1.9–11 1.9 1.10–11 1.11 1.12–13 1.13 1.14–8.26 1.14–3.6 1.14–15 1.14 1.14a 1.15 1.16–20 1.16–18 1.16 1.17–18 1.17 1.18 1.21–45 1.21–39 1.21–34 1.21–28 1.21–27 1.21–22 1.22 1.23–28 1.23–26 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27–28 1.27 1.27b 1.28–45 1.28 1.29–34 1.29–31 1.30–31 1.31 1.32–34 1.34 1.35–45 1.35–39 1.35–38

Index of Biblical References 56, 193 83 200, 237, 249 200 54, 164, 228, 237 70, 228, 229, 230 34, 120 34 34, 35, 46, 49, 237 83, 239, 246 207 170, 210 32, 34, 35, 59, 80, 86, 230 176 65, 83, 123 65 70 184 34, 35, 80 90 80, 81 32, 35, 54, 80, 84, 91, 154 81 81 36, 82, 83, 123, 154, 164, 232 143, 231 81, 134, 230 133, 234 91, 231 70, 231 231 81, 82 36, 82, 83, 154, 164 83 84 35, 81, 83 35 65, 72, 80, 81, 82, 183, 231 180, 189, 249 183, 190 80, 82 143, 231 35, 80, 81 65 80, 81, 83

1.38 1.39 1.40–45 1.40–44 1.41 1.44 1.45 2 2.1–3.6 2.1–3.5 2.1–12 2, 1–2 2.1b–2a 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.6–10 2.7 2.10 2.11 2.13–17 2.13–14 2.13 2.14 2.15–17 2.15 2.16–17 2.16 2.17 2.17b 2.18–22 2.18–20 2.18 2.19–20 2.19 2.20 2.21–22 2.21 2.22b 2.23–38 2.23–28 2.23–24 2.24 2.25–26 2.25

123 81, 83, 84, 231 81, 84 102 119 202, 222 35, 70 98 35, 80, 85, 86, 88, 93, 247 32, 34 32, 85, 86, 97 82 86 86, 91 86 86, 181, 242 131 85, 86 85, 225, 226 222 85, 86, 93, 119, 149, 150 59 123 32, 184 123, 131, 240 59, 82, 95, 97 99 85, 122, 124 85, 96 87 36, 59, 85, 87, 99, 131 119 85, 88, 124 85, 88 120 88, 164, 207 88, 119, 142, 199 94 95 60, 118, 123 85, 89, 93, 97, 99, 119 89 85, 124 89 122

2. New Testament 2.26 2.27–28 2.27 2.28 3.1–6 3.1–5 3.1–2 3.3–4 3.4–6 3.4 3.5–6 3.5 3.6

3.7 3.7–6, 6a 3.7–12 3.7–10 3.9 3.10–12 3.11–12 3.11 3.12 3.13–35 3.13–19 3.13–19a 3.14–16 3.19–21 3.20–35 3.20–21 3.20 3.21–35 3.21 3.22–30 3.22–29 3.22–27 3.22 3.23 3.26 3.27 3.28–30 3.28–29 3.29 3.30 3.31–35

122 85, 89, 230 73, 92, 131, 180 90, 224, 225, 226 90, 93, 97, 118, 119, 123, 200, 249 37 90 90 131 85, 90, 94, 120 90 63, 93 34, 36, 91, 98, 122, 124, 164, 167, 207, 234, 235 83 34, 37 34, 37 132 133 232 143 147, 200, 201, 232 70, 202 53 32, 34, 37, 59 60 65 53, 54 34, 37 18, 53 53, 82, 122 53, 58 52, 53, 57, 77, 123, 189, 222 54, 55 232 232 55 55, 228 228 55 55, 196, 231 14, 232 55 18, 53, 54, 63, 189, 222

3.32–35 3.33–35 4.1–34 4.1 4.1–2 4.2 4.3–9 4.10–25 4.10–13 4.10–12 4.10 4.11–12 4.11 4.12 4.13–20 4.13 4.15–20 4.15 4.26–32 4.35–5.43 4.35–5.20 4.35–41 4.35 4.36 4.37–41 4.37 4.39 4.40 4.41 5.1–20

5.1–17 5.1–15 5.1–10 5.1–5 5.1 5.2 5.3–5 5.6–12 5.7 5.8 5.11–13 5.13 5.14–17 5.18–20 5.18 5.19–20

279 189 56 34, 37 133 122 14 37 37 124 18, 19, 60, 62, 63, 64 60 64 7, 60, 63, 247 37, 62 37, 249 60, 64, 199 64 228 37 34, 37 132 60 62 122, 133 37 133 70 200 32, 55, 199 32, 37, 62, 132, 133, 134, 136, 142, 147, 148, 150, 200, 233, 234, 248, 249 133 232 133 133 143 122, 133 232 133 134, 147, 200, 201 123 133 55, 133, 143 133 133 122, 133 136

280 5.19 5.19b 5.21–45 5.21–43 5.21–24 5.21 5.22–43 5.22–24 5.25–43 5.25–34

5.25–27 5.27 5.28–29 5.28 5.29 5.33–34 5.33 5.33b 5.34

5.35–43 5.36 5.36b 5.37 5.39b 5.41 5.42 5.43 6.1–6 6.1–6a 6.3 6.4 6.6b–8.33 6.6b–8.26 6.6b–13 6.6b 6.7–13 6.7 6.8 6.13 6.14–16 6.14 6.17–29 6.18 6.30–8.21

Index of Biblical References 222 134 183 32, 180 180, 181, 190 122, 126, 133 37 233 97 37, 72, 102, 112, 113, 119, 178, 180, 183, 190, 234, 248 113 137 115 123 114 181 114, 137, 180 114 52, 53, 70, 73, 113, 114, 115, 120, 181, 242, 247 180, 181, 190, 233 181, 242 181 65 181 144 123 122, 202 57, 58, 211 34, 37, 122 57, 77, 189 57, 222 38 35 38 35 32, 35, 59, 60 70 122 143 35 123 35, 207 123 38, 97, 121, 122, 131

6.30–44 6.30–31 6.30 6.31–44 6.31–33 6.31 6.31b 6.32–33 6.32 6.34–44 6.34 6.36 6.37 6.38 6.41 6.42 6.43 6.44 6.45–53 6.45–52 6.45 6.51–52 6.52 6.53–56 7 7.1–23

7.1–15 7.1–13 7.1–5 7.2 7.3–5 7.3–4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6–13 7.6–8 7.7 7.8–9 7.8

15, 35, 120, 122, 124, 138, 140 60 60, 122 97 122 122, 123 123 122 122, 133 32, 62, 120, 125, 145 73 122 122 122 122, 128 122 140 122 125 35, 122, 123, 199 133 60 63, 122, 123, 124, 199 35, 122 25, 96, 105, 107, 110, 136 23, 32, 35, 62, 80, 97, 98, 100, 103, 107, 109, 111, 116, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 130, 131, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142, 144, 231, 247 99 98 98, 99 100, 122 109, 129 100 122, 123 122 99, 100, 122 99 98, 99 99, 111 100, 110 111

281

2. New Testament 7.9–13 7.10 7.11 7.14–23 7.14–15 7.15–19 7.15

7.16–23 7.17–23 7.17–19 7.18 7.19–20 7.19 7.19a 7.19b 7.19c 7.20–23 7.20 7.23 7.24–37 7.24–31 7.24–30

7.24 7.25 7.26 7.27–28 7.27 7.28–29 7.28 7.28a 7.29 7.31–37

98, 99 110 111 99, 102 98, 99, 100 120 15, 19, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 120 99 98 99, 102, 199 103, 111, 145, 199 109 97, 103, 105, 108, 109, 111, 147, 149 106 123, 135, 137, 142, 248 103, 106, 107, 110, 111 100, 103, 106 111 103, 111, 112, 129 123, 132 119 15, 35, 52, 97, 109, 122, 123, 125, 130, 132, 135, 136, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 178, 181, 183, 190, 200, 233, 234, 248 135, 136 126, 137 137 137, 149 122, 137, 138, 139, 148 125 122, 139 140 222 32, 35, 38, 109, 122, 123, 125, 130, 132, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 198, 200, 234, 248

7.31–34 7.31–32 7.31 7.34 7.35–37 7.36–37 7.36 7.37 8.1–10

8.1–9 8.1–9.29 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.10 8.11–13 8.11 8.13 8.14–21 8.14–16 8.14 8.16 8.17–21 8.17 8.18–21 8.19 8.22–26

8.25b 8.26 8.27–16.8 8.27–10.52 8.27–9.29 8.27–33 8.27–30 8.27 8.28–10.50

143 83, 143 144 143, 144 136 202 144 15, 62, 97, 110, 120, 123, 132, 138, 140, 145, 147, 149, 150 32, 35, 97, 99, 122, 125 132 122 122 122, 199 122 122, 128 130 122 35, 122, 124, 125, 133 35, 122, 124, 125, 131 124 124 35, 38, 122, 124, 125, 199 124 122 122 64, 123, 124, 145, 200 63, 122, 124 126 122 32, 35, 38, 69, 125, 126, 166, 198, 204, 222 126 33 39 39, 40 41 52, 65 38, 39, 69 32, 33, 166 221

282 8.29 8.30 8.31–10.45 8.31–9.1 8.31–33 8.31

8.32–33 8.32 8.33–34 8.33 8.34–9.1 8.34–38 8.34 8.35 8.38 9.1 9.2–29 9.2–13 9.2–3 9.2 9.5–6 9.6 9.7 9.9–13 9.9 9.10 9.11–13 9.12 9.14–29 9.18–19 9.23 9.25 9.25b 9.28–29 9.30–10.31 9.30–37 9.30–31 9.30 9.31–32

Index of Biblical References 32, 33, 61, 69, 147, 176, 204, 207, 223 70, 202 117 204 18, 199 39, 52, 61, 69, 70, 166, 184, 199, 204, 207, 211, 219, 225, 226, 227, 39 61, 183 234 41, 61, 70, 71, 176, 199, 208, 228, 39 205 60, 177, 184, 206, 227, 239, 246 46, 49, 50, 205, 206, 246 225 213 39 66 210, 250 65, 71 199 199 200 207 144, 202, 203, 208, 225, 250 199 239 225, 227 233 60 242 70 233 60 41 204 39 83 61

9.31

9.32–34 9.32 9.33–37 9.35–50 9.35 9.35b 9.36 9.38–41 9.38–40 9.41 10.1–31 10.1–12 10.2–12 10.2–9 10.5 10.9 10.10–12 10.12 10.13–16 10.17–31 10.17–22 10.26–27 10.28–31 10.28–30 10.29–30 10.29 10.30 10.31 10.32–52 10.32–45 10.32–34 10.32 10.33–34 10.33 10.35–45 10.35–40 10.35–37 10.37 10.38–45 10.38–39 10.41–45 10.42–45 10.42–44 10.42b–43 10.43–44

166, 205, 207, 210, 211, 219, 225, 226, 227, 239, 250 39 199 61 39 180, 184, 214, 250 205 205 61 222 223 39 248 112, 116, 119 116 63, 116 116 116, 199 116 61 115 205 207 59, 78, 184, 222 66 49, 50, 64 46, 197 184 205, 214, 219 41 204 39, 61, 197, 205, 219 70 166, 207, 211, 226, 227 225, 239 222 183, 205, 207 39 61 39 218 24 61 214 213 184, 214

2. New Testament 10.43 10.44 10.45–52 10.45

10.46–52 10.47–48 10.47 10.52 11 11.1–13.37 11.1–26 11.1–11 11.1 11.7–10 11.9–10 11.10 11.11 11.11b 11.12–25 11.12–14 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15–19 11.15–16 11.15 11.15b 11.15c 11.17 11.18 11.19 11.20–25 11.20–22 11.20–21 11.20 11.21 11.22–24 11.22–23 11.22 11.23–25 11.24–25 11.25

214 217 204 14, 15, 168, 182, 184, 207, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 250 38, 39, 166 221, 222 70 70, 115, 181, 242, 247 167 39, 41, 222 41 39 166 154 221 222 151 151 39, 142, 152 66, 151, 152, 155, 248 152 152 152, 158 151, 152, 153, 155, 167 119 153 153 153 132, 153, 157, 239 131, 152, 153, 154, 164, 234 154 151, 152, 154 66 155 152 154 157 86 154 182 154, 158 155

11.27–12.44 11.27–12.37 11.27–12.34 11.27–44 11.28 12 12.1–12 12.1–9 12.1 12.2 12.4 12.9–12 12.10 12.11 12.12–17 12.12 12.13–17 12.13–14 12.13 12.14 12.15–17 12.16–17 12.17b 12.18–27 12.18 12.19 12.27 12.28–34 12.28–31 12.28 12.29–30 12.29 12.30 12.31 12.32–33 12.33 12.33b 12.34 12.35–37 12.35 12.36–37 12.36 12.38–40 12.41–44 12.42

283 40 155 41 40 164 44, 167 40, 41, 153, 158, 167, 207, 240 142 239 227 227 131 154, 241 239 164 153, 164 40, 158, 161, 163, 248 158 158, 159 158, 159 159 160 163 40 159 239 239 40, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, 248 93 118, 159 224 118 118, 239 118, 164 118 118, 239 151 118 40, 222 221, 223 224 239 40, 155, 183 40, 52, 73, 155, 167, 178, 182, 183, 190 182

284 13 13.1–37 13.1–4 13.1–2 13.1 13.2 13.3–37 13.3 13.5–23 13.6–7 13.9–13 13.10 13.19–20 13.19 13.21 13.22–23 13.22 13.24–27 13.24–25 13.26 13.28–37 13.34–37 14 14.1–16.8 14.1–15.47 14.1–15.32 14.1–11 14.1–2 14.3–9 14.3–5 14.3b 14.9 14.10–11 14.12 14.12–16 14.12–25 14.14 14.17–21 14.18 14.21 14.22–26 14.22 14.23–25 14.24 14.25–52 14.26–31 14.27–31

Index of Biblical References 167 40, 41 40 142, 151, 155 155 119, 153, 155, 156 199 66 40 199 197 46, 49, 83, 135, 138, 246 224 199 223 199 43, 195, 196 40 239 225, 226 40, 195 207 24, 166, 167 40, 164, 165 165, 222 166 40, 42, 165 153, 167, 183 52, 127, 167, 174, 178, 182, 183, 190 73 167 46, 49, 128, 132 52, 167, 183 122, 127 168 40, 42, 165 122 52, 61, 168 122 169, 225 168 122, 128, 182 207 168, 182, 220 40, 165 42, 165 168

14.27–28 14.27 14.28 14.29–31 14.32–52 14.32–42 14.32–39 14.33 14.34 14.36 14.37 14.40 14.41 14.43–52 14.43–47 14.49 14.50 14.53–15.47 14.53–72 14.53–65 14.53–54 14.53 14.54 14.55–65 14.55–61a 14.58 14.60–61 14.61b–65 14.61–62 14.61 14.62 14.65 14.66–72 14.66 14.67 14.69 14.70–71 14.72b 14.72c 15.1–20 15.1–15 15.1 15.3–5 15.5 15.6–15 15.11–14 15.16–41

61, 66 239 53, 67, 83, 168, 175, 176, 197, 208, 249 61, 66, 176 42, 165 66, 71, 168, 207 169 65, 70, 169, 209 200 168 204 199 168, 225 168 52 156 52, 61, 169, 204 40, 165 42, 165 156, 169 169 71 66, 71 71 169 151, 155, 156, 169 169 169 169 223 225, 226, 239 209 52, 61, 66, 71, 169, 176 169 72 70 204 169 169 42, 165 169 227 169 228 71 142 20

285

2. New Testament 15.16–32 15.16–20 15.16–19 15.16 15.18–19 15.19 15.20 15.21–41 15.23 15.24 15.25 15.26 15.27 15.28–32 15.29–30 15.31–32 15.31 15.32 15.32b 15.33–47 15.33–41 15.33–37 15.33–34 15.33 15.34–35 15.34 15.35–37 15.35–36 15.35–36b 15.36 15.36a 15.37–39 15.37–38 15.37 15.38–41 15.38–39 15.38 15.39–41 15.39

15.39b 15.40–16.8 15.40–41 15.40 15.40b

170 199 209 211, 246 200 210 211 42, 165 170 170, 209, 239 170 170, 213 170 211 170 170, 212, 250 234 223 173 170 170 170 171 170, 174, 234 234 166, 170, 209, 210, 239 171 170, 211 170 170 170 21 152, 156 170, 209 170 146, 172, 173, 240 142, 146, 150, 170 170 32, 33, 43, 78, 146, 147, 151, 173, 183, 200, 201, 203, 209, 211, 213, 251 33 183 52, 61, 73, 173, 178, 184, 190, 204 170 172, 183, 189

15.41 15.41a 15.41b 15.41c 15.42–16.8 15.42–47 15.42–45 15.42–43 15.44–45 15.46–47 15.47 16.1–8

16.15

83, 190 172, 183 172, 183 172, 183 33, 42, 165 170, 173 170 173 146 170 173, 174 40, 165, 173, 175, 178, 183, 184, 190 174 53, 167, 174 174 208 72, 174 53 208 174, 175, 209, 251 174 40, 53, 66, 67, 72, 77, 78, 83, 134, 168, 175, 176, 197, 247, 249 175 176 21, 33, 34, 42, 176, 177, 183, 189, 204, 249 123 34, 40, 46, 165, 177, 210 46

Luke 1–2 4.14 4.16–30 4.31 4.44 5.12 8.10 8.11–15 8.15 8.16–18 8.19–21 8.26–39

239 81 230 81 81 81 62 57 57 57 56 141

16.1–4 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.5–8 16.5–7 16.6–7 16.6 16.7–8 16.7

16.7a 16.7bc 16.8

16.8b 16.9–20

286 8.43–48 8.47 9.22 10.25–28 11.37–54 11.41 12.1 13.6–9 13.6–7 16.18 16.21 18.9–14 19.10 21.29–32 22.8 22.19 22.26–27 22.41 23.39–43 23.46 24.6 24.10

Index of Biblical References 114 114 69 118, 151 107 107 126 152 157 117 139 96 217 157 127 128 216 210 210 210 72 189

15.36–41 17.4 20.28–35 21.18–25 22.21 Romans 1.1–7 1.1b–7 1.1 1.2–4 1.2 1.3–4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.15 1.16–17 1.16 1.16a 1.17

John 2.1–11 2.19 7.3–5 13.16–17 19.28–30

230 155 54 217 210

Acts 2.22–24 3.15 4.10 5.30 6.11–14 6.14 9.26 9.32–43 10–11 10.1–48 10.39–40 10.45 12.11–17 12.12 12.25 13.5 13.13 15

174 174 174 174 217 155 76 74 102 74, 141 174 74 1 26 1 1, 26 26 74, 194

1.18–3.20 1.18–32 1.29–31 2 2.16 2.25–29 2.28–29 3.1 3.5 3.9–20 3.19–20 3.20 3.21–26 3.21 3.22–23 3.22 3.24–25 3.24 3.25–26 3.25 3.26 3.27–31 3.27–28 3.28

1 221 217 54 129

23, 46 246, 251 47, 49, 246 201 47, 242 175 49, 221 41, 201 172 47, 224 47, 49, 201 47 48, 130, 142 47, 49, 137, 148, 181, 248 115 50, 62, 157, 176, 181, 248, 249, 92 139 103 241 47, 91 91 120 91 62 92 94 247 176, 233, 242 62 150, 157 248, 249 172, 201, 218 204, 218 62 21 201 66 150 94

2. New Testament 3.29–30 3.31 4.5 4.10–12 4.13 4.16 4.24 4.25 5.1 5.6–8 5.10 5.11 5.12–21 5.12 5.14 5.15–19 5.15 5.20–21 5.21 6.5 6.6–13 6.6 6.10 6.14 6.23 7 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.12 7.25 8.1–4 8.3 8.10 8.12 8.15–16 8.21 8.29 8.32 8.38–39 8.39 9–11 9.4–5 9.4 9.5 9.6–13 9.24 9.27

111 120 157 91 247 73 157, 224 174, 227, 235 201, 224 171 201, 231 201, 224 229 55 229 218 217, 225, 229 120 62, 224 41 24, 218 44, 206, 246 242 247 224 92 88 93 93 93, 94 224 95 201, 213 62 247 168 238 201 201, 235 18, 234 224 130, 148, 236, 240, 241, 248 240 139 239 241 111, 240, 241 237

9.29 9.30 9.31–32 9.31 9.32 9.33 10 10.3 10.4 10.9–10 10.9 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.16–17 10.16 10.17 11 11.1–10 11.2 11.5–6 11.8 11.11 11.13 11.25–33 11.25–26 11.25 11.28 11.29 12.1–2 12.9–10 12.11 12.12 12.19 13.1–7 13.1–2 13.1 13.7 13.8–10 13.9–10 13.9 13.10 13.14 14 14.1–15 14.1–6 14.4 14.5–6

287 224 73 120, 247 241 115 157, 241 241 96, 240 94, 95, 150, 250 115, 181 174, 224 157 224 62 241 47, 224 49, 86 241 240 137 204 37 137, 142 42, 111, 131, 148, 248 60 242 93 47 148 158 119, 248 224 158 224 161, 162, 163, 248 164 163 163 93, 94 118 110, 164 119 224 25, 108 109 87, 149 224 93

288 14.5 14.14

14.20 15.6 15.16 15.18 15.19 15.20 15.22–24 15.30 15.31 16 16.1 16.2 16.3–4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.10–11 16.12 16.25 1 Corinthians 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.11–16 1.12 1.17–30 1.17–18 1.17 1.18–2.16 1.18–31 1.18–25 1.18–22 1.18–21 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.22–24 1.22–23 1.22 1.23

1.25 2.1

Index of Biblical References 94 19, 108, 109, 111, 120, 123, 149, 224, 247 19, 108, 109, 123 224 47, 49, 148, 246, 248 148, 248 47, 49 47 187 224 194 72, 186, 249 186 186, 224 187 82 188 187, 188 82 188 47, 49

224 224 224 59 74, 75 48, 173 39 47 20, 211 43 43, 166, 210, 250 18 211 44, 251 43 181 137 171 211 44, 52, 166, 174, 191, 209, 211, 246, 251 43 210

2.2 2.7–8 2.8 3.5 3.21–22 3.22 4.4 4.15 5.4–5 5.6–8 5.12 6.9–11 6.13 6.15–20 7.5 7.6–7 7.10–16 7.15 7.19 7.22–23 8.4–6 8.6 8–10 9.1–2 9.2 9.5 9.12 9.14 9.16 9.18 9.19–23 9.19 9.21 9.23 10.29 10.33–11.1 11 11.2–16 11.20–34 11.23–26 11.23–24 11.23 11.24 11.24–25 12.13–14 12.28–31 12.28 13.13 14.34–35

44, 170, 174 60, 169 170, 210 186 74 75 224 47 55 126 64 139 110 88 229 164 117, 248 117 91 217, 250 160 224 108 76 76 74, 75, 187, 188 47 47, 49 47 47 217 217 94 47, 49 238 217, 250 24 185 129 93, 127 128 129 127 128, 167 164 144 249 43, 119, 120, 248 185

289

2. New Testament 15 15.1–11 15.1–2 15.1 15.3–11 15.3–7 15.3–5 15.3–4 15.5 15.7 15.8–11 15.8 15.10 15.21 15.22 15.24–25 15.24 15.25 15.44 15.45–50 15.45–47 15.47 15.51 16.13 16.19

50 175 246 47 76 77 94, 183 174 74, 176, 249 58 76 76 76, 188 225 229 235 18 235 175 229 230 225 60 249 82, 187

2 Corinthians 1.2 1.3 1.14 1.19 2.12 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.14–15 5.17–21 5.21 6.16 8.4 8.9 8.18 9.13 10.14 10.16 11.2 11.4 11.7 12.9

224 224 224 201 47 47 47, 71 169, 197, 249 171 201 55, 168, 171, 176 157 77 213, 250 47, 49 47 47, 49 47 88 47 47, 49 169, 199, 249

13.4 Galatians 1–2 1.1–2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11–14 1.11 1.13–14 1.15 1.16 1.18–19 1.18 2 2.1–10 2.1 2.2 2.3–4 2.4 2.5 2.6–9 2.6 2.7–9 2.7 2.8–9 2.8 2.9 2.11–18 2.11–16 2.11–14 2.11–12 2.11 2.12 2.14 2.16 2.17–21 2.19–20 2.19 2.19b 2.20 3.1 3.10

209, 213, 250

15 75 224 218, 235 47 47 47 47 218 76 47 110 176 111, 131, 201, 248 74 74 13, 18, 74, 194 62, 76 94, 142 47, 111 131 238 47 74 57 75 74 148, 248 131 77 93 110 74 149 75, 76, 77 54, 59, 86, 91, 94, 131, 149 47, 76, 77, 248 73, 94, 157, 247 218 213 44, 93, 246 208 171, 201, 206, 235 174, 251 92

290 3.11 3.13 3.26 3.28

Index of Biblical References

4.3 4.4–5 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.8–11 4.9 5.3 5.3–4 5.6 5.7–12 5.11 5.13 5.14 5.18 5.19–21 6.2 6.12–14 6.14 6.16 6.18

115, 248 218 190 48, 127, 147, 149, 164, 185 235 213 201 218 168, 201 93 72 92 94 94, 119 126 76, 209 238 118, 119 93 103 86 91 224 242 224

Ephesians 2.12–13 5.21–25 5.33

185 185

Philippians 1.5 1.7 1.12 1.16 1.27 1.29 2.6–11 2.6–8 2.7–8 2.7 2.8 2.10–11 2.13 2.22

47 47 47 47 47 157 217, 250 219 171 217, 225 172, 210 232 95, 247 47, 49

3.2 3.3–7 3.9 3.10–11 3.10 4.2–3 4.3 4.6 4.15

139 77 115 41 176 49, 186 47 158 47, 49

Colossians 1.11–14 3.18–22 4.10

217 185 1

1 Thessalonians 1.3 1.5 1.10 2.2 2.4 2.8–9 2.8 2.9 2.16 3.2–3 3.2 3.5 4.8–12 4.12 4.13–14 5.12

94 47 225 47, 49 47 49 47 47 131, 149 49 47, 49, 186 229 94 64 181 188

1 Timothy 2.5–6 2.6 2.9–15

217 219 185

2 Timothy 4.11

1

Philemon 1.13 1.24

47 1

1 Peter 5.13

1

Index of Authors 1. Ancient Authors Augustine St. 11 Clement of Alexandria 1f Dion Chrysostom 215 Eusebius of Caesarea 1f, 75f Flavius Josephus 135, 159f, 179f John Chrysostom 188 Musonius Rufus 215–216 Origen 70f

Philo of Alexandria 178, 179f, 215 Plato 216 Pliny 144f Plutarch 216 Seneca 216 Suetonius 144f Tacitus 144f Xenophon 216

2. Modern Authors Adam, J. 205 Aguirre, R. 4f, 65f, 67f, 74f, 79f Alegre, X. 31f, 34f, 39f, 42f, 72f, 74f, 85f, 92f, 94f –95f, 117f, 121f –122f, 128f –130f, 157f, 161, 165f, 170f, 172f, 176f, 177, 185f, 188f, 200f– 202f, 203, 212f, 221f, 228f, 234f, 235, 239f, 240f–241f Aletti, J. N. 171f Allen, O. W. 173f Allison, W. D. 183f Aranda, P. 53f, 82f, 116f, 180f Aus, R. D. 122f, 128f Bacon, B. W. 17, 26, 64, 209f, 221f, 227f Baert, B. 113f Bailly, A. 54f Bammel, E. 159f Barrett, C. K. 161, 214f Bauckham, R. 1f, 54 Baur, F. C. 68f, 192 Becker, J. C. 74f, 94f, 206f Begasse de Dhaem, A. 226f

Bennema, C. 132f, 134f, 137f, 147f– 148f Best, E. 39f, 69f, 71f, 74f, 211, 222f Betz, O. 197, 198f Bieler, L. 68f, 193, 194f, 197f, 198 Biguzzi, G. 157f Bird, M. 26, 48f, 93f, 104, 108f, 109, 137f, 169f, 206f–207f, 212f Black, C. C. 2f, 19–20, 170f, 210 Blackburn, B. 194 Blumenfeld, B. 161f Bolt, P. 187f, 207f–208f, 238f Boomershine, Th. E. 19, 30, 63 Booth, R. P. 109f Borrell, A. 72f, 200f Botner, M. 221f Bovon, F. 141 Bowman, J. 31 Boyarin, D. 105 Braaten, C. E. 164f, 175f Brandon, S. G. F. 65f, 77f, 150, 155f Brown, R. E. 65f, 67f, 166, 210f Bruce F. F. 161 Büchler, A. 98, 107

292

Index of Authors

Bultmann, R. 68f, 100, 101f, 118f, 136f, 192, 202, 213, 217f, 231f–232f Bundy, W. E. 138 Burkill, T. A. 83f, 135f–138f, 139, 140f, 141 Byrne, B. 21, 156, 172, 190f Cadwallader, A. H. 22 Calduch Benages, N. 97, 113f–114f, 136f, 140f, 182f Caldwell, A. 185f Camacho, F. 59f Carrington, P. 30 Castro Sánchez, S. 35f, 38f Catchpole, D. R. 221f Choi, J. Y. 61f Churton, W. R. 215f Collins, A.Y 2, 33f, 58f, 60f, 84f–85f, 88f, 99f, 100, 103f, 108f, 116f–118f, 126f, 133f, 135f–136f, 148f, 153f, 155f–156f, 160, 167f–170f, 172f– 174f, 213, 218f–219f, 222f Collins, J. J. 226f Conzelmann, H. 195 Cook, J. G. 30, 31 Cranfield, Ch. E. B. 164, 240f Crossan, J. D. 58f, 189f Crossley, J. G. 15, 105–106 Cullmann, O. 161, 163f Cuvillier, E. 166f, 171f, 175f, 207f D’Angelo, M. 114f Damgaard, F. 67 Davidsen, O. 235–236 Davies, D. C. 183f Davies, W. D. 129f Delorme, J. 48f, 53f, 64f, 69f, 86f, 90f, 96f, 103f, 117f, 122f, 128f, 133f, 136f, 145f, 152f, 154f, 167f, 172f, 174f, 177f, 201f, 206f, 214f, 223f, 225f, 229f, 232f Deppe, D. B. 32, 201f Derret, J. D. M. 30 Dewey, J. 85 Di Luccio, P. 156f Dibelius, M. 162f–163f Dideberg, D. 80f Dittenberger, W. 46f Dochhorn, J. 23, 90f, 230

Donahue, J. R. 26, 127f, 195, 203f, 226f Donfried, K. P. 65f, 67, 121f Dood, Ch. H. 240 Dormeyer, D. 6 Douglas, M. 97, 112f Dowling, E. V. 24, 127 Dschulnigg, P. 19 Dubarle, A. M. 186f Duff, P. B. 221f Dunn, J. D. G. 68f, 87f–88f, 90f–91f, 102f–103f, 104, 107, 109, 131f, 203, 217, 240f Edmonds, P. 74f Edwards, J. C. 215, 219 Elder, N. A. 232f Elert, W. 55f Ellis, E. E. 230, 240f, 242f Feldmeier, R. 139 Fenton, J. C. 18, 89f, 169f Filson, F. V. 139 Fiorenza, E. 190 Fischer, C. 157f, 204f Fitzmyer, J. A. 56f, 209f, 218 Flowers, M. 132f Focant, C. 42f, 53f–54f, 56f–58f, 60f, 63f, 68, 78f, 82f, 85f–86f, 90f, 92f, 97f, 100, 103f, 104, 113f–115f, 119f–121f, 124f, 128f, 133f, 135f, 151f–153f, 156f–157f, 167f–168f, 170f–176f, 180f, 198, 200f, 222f, 225f Fowler, R. M. 121f Fusco, V. 102f, 198f Gamel, B. K. 146f Gandez, P. T. 131f Garland, D. E. 154f, 200f Georgi, D. 192 Gil Arbiol, C. 55f, 149f, 185f, 228f Gnilka, J. 1f, 18, 29f, 31, 33, 34f, 47f– 48f, 55f, 62–63, 65f, 66–67, 69f–70f, 77, 81f–88f, 91f, 96f, 100f, 104, 115f–116f, 118f, 121f–125f, 127f– 130f, 133f–134f, 136, 138–139, 140f, 143, 144f–145f, 146, 147f, 150f, 152, 153f–156f, 159f, 160,

2. Modern Authors 166f–169f, 172f–177f, 180f, 184f, 208f, 212f, 214f, 220f, 231f–232f, 233, 239f González Ruiz, J.M. 60f, 108f, 115f, 117f, 142f, 230f Goulder, M. D. 19, 63, 77f, 175f, 203f, 230f Gray, T. C. 152f Guelich, R. 237 Guida, A. 98f–100f, 103f, 106–107, 108f Guijarro, S. 59f, 70f, 79f Gundry, R. H. 30, 206, 217f Guttenberger, G. 82f Hart, H. J. 159f Heckel, T.H. 21, 208 Herzog, W. R. 162–163 Hester, D. W. 34f Hieke, Th. 83f Hirsch, E. 67f Holladay, C. R. 194f Holsten, C. 16 Hooker, M. 226f–227f Horsley, R. A. 160 Hübner, H. 104 Humphrey, H. M. 30 Hur, U. 52f Hurd, J. C. 124f, 126f Hurtado, L. W. 218 Iverson, K. R. 138 Jacobi, C. 103f, 108f, 109, 112, 129f Jeremias, J. 160, 178f, 217f, 219 Johnson, E. S. 221f Joseph, S. J. 152f Jossa, G. 102f Kähler, M. 164, 175f, 206 Käsemann, E. 43f, 102f, 162f, 208f, 218f, 231 Kazmierski, C. R. 177f Kee, H. C. 14, 15, 30, 198f Kelber, W. H. 83f Kennedy, H. A. A. 236 Kingsbury, J. D. 68f, 196–197, 204f, 206f Klauck, H. J. 70f, 86f

293

Klein, H. 3n, 47f Kok, M. 16, 166f Kuhn, H. W. 86f, 87, 149f La Potterie, I. 31f, 34f Lagrange, M-J. 23, 30, 175f Lane, W. L. 31 Larsen, K. B. 23, 31, 105 Le Peau, A. T. 237f Lentzen-Deis, F. 198f Leonardi, G. 25, 177f Léon-Dufour, X. 13, 30 Lewis, Ph. B. 31 Liddell, H. G 54f, 176f Lindemann, A. 22, 50f, 51 Linnemann, E. 146f Loader, W. 24, 93f, 120f Lohmeyer, E. 138, 151, 181f Loisy, A. 17, 23, 30, 52f, 127f Luz, U. 68f, 104, 141f, 194, 209f Mahnke, H. 229f Malbon, E. S. 82f, 146f, 178f, 180f, 182f, 202f, 203 Marcus, J. 2, 6, 15, 18–21, 26, 29f, 32, 33f, 34f, 39f, 54, 55f–56f, 62–63, 66f, 68f–69f, 70, 80f–82f, 86f–87f, 89f–90f, 99, 100f, 103f, 104–105, 107, 108f, 110f, 112, 113f, 115f– 116f, 118f, 121f, 123f–130f, 133, 134f–135f, 136, 137f, 139, 142f– 145f, 153f–154f, 155, 159f, 160, 165f– 168f, 169, 170f–172f, 174f, 176f–177f, 180f, 183f, 196–199, 203f, 206f–210f, 213f–214f, 218– 219, 221f, 225f, 226, 227f, 229f– 231f, 233f, 234, 237f–238f Marshall, D. 221f Martin, R. Ph. 31, 169f, 206f Martínez de la Pera, V.A. 65f–67f, 77f Marxsen, W. 18, 47, 50f, 193 Mascilongo, P. 34f, 103f, 131f Matera, F. J. 211 Mathew, S. 186f–187f, 190f Matoses, X. 113f Mckenna, M. 114f, 134f–135f, 140f Meier, J. P. 159f, 179f, 230 Mell, U. 229f Merz, A. 179f

294

Index of Authors

Meyer, H. A. W. 162f Meyer, N. A. 229f Michel, O. 162f Miller, S. 137f, 181f–184f Minette de Tillese, G. 67, 75f Moloney, F. J. 2, 52f, 83f, 98–99, 127f, 132f, 133, 172, 177, 223f Moule, C. F. D. 159f Mourlon-Beernaert, P. 80f Muema, P. 67 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 185f Mussies, G. 88f Navarro, M. 33f, 151f, 156f, 180f– 184f, 189f, 208f, 214f, 233, 239f Nel, M. 225f Neufeld, D. 122f, 128f, 202f Newman. J. H 7 Niedner, F. 206f Nielsen, J. T. 205f, 211, 212f, 219f, 229f Ollrog, W. H. 188f Omerzu, H. 3f Or, E. 34f Page, S. H. T. 219f Painter, J. 53f–54f, 77f, 104, 106, 137f, 140f, 148f–149f Park, Y.-M. 87f Patella, M. 21, 172f, 176f Perrin, N. 68f, 102f, 194f, 195–196, 200f, 204f, 206f, 223f, 226f, 239 Pervo, R. I. 3f Pikaza, X. 2, 21, 29f, 33f, 48f, 83f, 128f, 131f, 142f, 150f, 171, 175f– 176f, 180f–183f, 189f, 201f, 214f, 220f, 222f, 227f, 231f–233f, 236f– 238f, 242f Pokorný, P. 48f, 104, 142f, 200f, 213f, 218f Prendergast, T. 60f, 228f Puig i Tàrrech, A. 108f, 116f, 118f Rahner, K. 242f Räisänen, H. 19, 69f, 102f, 105, 108f, 110f, 203f Reploh, K. G. 52f, 63, 124f, 199f Reumann, J. 65f, 67f

Riesenfeld, H. 218 Riesner, R. 14, 217, 218f Rochester, S. 133f–135f Rodríguez Carmona, A. 4f Rofé, A. 196 Romaniuk, K. 13, 23 Sacchi, A. 136f, 142, 145f, 147f–148f, 153f–154f Sánchez Bosch, J. 223f Sanders, E. P. 102f, 153 Santos, N. F. 38f, 56f, 61f, 69f, 172f, 202f, 204f–205f, 222f Sayles, G. 140f Schenk, W. 24, 127f Schenke, L. 30, 146f, 167f–168f Schille, G. 30 Schlier, H. 185f, 235f Schmidt, D. D. 134f Schnelle, U. 22, 201f, 209f Scholtissek, K. 150f Schreiber, J. 193 Schulz, S. 68f, 104, 193 Schulze, H. 16 Schweizer, E. 18, 30, 31, 34f, 36, 37f, 38f, 40f–42f, 52f, 83f, 103, 146f, 150f, 194f, 212, Scornaienchi, L. 25, 104, 108f, 110f– 111f Scott, M. P. 30 Seeley, D. 15, 24, 215–216, 218 Sellew, P. 126 Shanks, M. A. 1f Shively, E. 234f Sim, D. 22, 44f, 52f–53f, 58f, 76f–77f, 106f, 222f Smith, T. V. 69f, 71f Söding, Th. 119f Somerville, R. 235f Stanton, G. N. 163f Stein, E. 186f Stettler, C. 102f Strauss, M. L. 69f, 71f, 99f, 133f–134f, 144f, 171f–172f Stroumsa, G. G. 163f Stuhlmacher, P. 46f, 217f, 218 Suhl, A. 67f Svartvik, J. 25, 120f, 150f, 173f Sweat, L. C. 183f

2. Modern Authors

Tait, M. 86f–89f, 118f, 158f Tannehill, R. C. 65f, 162, 205f Tarazi, P. N. 20, 108f, 127f Taylor, V. 13, 30, 123f, 133, 138 Telford, W. R. 2, 6, 20, 52f, 103f, 151– 152, 154f, 169f, 225f Theissen, G. 26, 51f, 136f, 143, 179f, 198f, 202 Theophilos, M. P. 22, 46, 62, 145f, 148f, 164, 206f, 236f Thompson, M. 187f Thüsing, W. 233, 242f Tiede, D. L. 197–198 Tillich, P. 164f, 175f Trocmé, E. 13, 54 Van Cangh, J. M. 129f Vermaseren, M. J. 88f Vogels, H. J. 11f Volkmar, G. 16 Vouga, F. 104

295

Ward, W. Ph. 7f Weeden, Th. J. 43f, 52f, 67–68, 155f– 156f, 194f, 195–196, 199, 206f, 211f Wefald, E. K. 130f–132f Wendling, E. 67f Wenham, D. 163 Werner, M. 5, 12, 13, 14, 20, 104, 245, 251 Whitaker, R. 65f, 67f, 70f–72f, 80f Whittaker, M. 134f Wibbing, S 103 Wilckens, U. 95f, 158f, 161–162, 187f, 201f–202f, 227f, 234f, 239f–242f Williams, J. F. 190f, 224f Williams, S. K. 215f Winn, A. 46f, 60f, 200f, 223f, 225f Wischmeyer, O. 23, 46f Wrede, W. 68f, 193–194, 202 Zerwick, M. 54f Zimmermann, H. 221f

Index of Subjects Announcements of the passion 204–206 Christ (title) 223 Christian freedom 3, 238 Christology of the θεῖος ἀνήρ 8, 192– 194 Circumcision 13, 91–92, 109 Corrective Christology 8, 15, 194–197 Crucified 21, 206–213 Death of Jesus 8, 21, 170–173 Divorce 116–117 Early Christian communities 3–4, 12, 14, 15, 20 Eschatology 12, 18, 195, 206 Εὐαγγέλιον 8, 12, 18, 22, 46–51 Food laws 3, 22, 97–112 Fulfilment of the Old Testament 8, 14, 18, 236–243 Gerasene demoniac 133–135 Haemorrhages Woman 112–115 Healing of a deaf-mute 143–146 Jesus and Roman power 3, 7, 158–164 Jesus and the disciples 3, 7, 12, 17, 22 Justification by faith 3, 13, 19, 62–67, 92–94, 241–247 Last Supper 24, 40–42, 127 Lord (title) 224 Love of neighbour 3, 96, 111–112, 117–119 Marcan Christology 12, 17, 22, 192– 197

Marcan Controversies 80–91 Messianic secret 202–204 Misunderstanding family 8, 13, 18, 22, 53–59 Misunderstanding of the disciples 17, 18, 59–62 Multiplications of the loaves 8, 15, 18, 120–131 Openness/mission to the pagans 3, 7, 12, 15, 18, 23, 91, 131–151 Passion of Jesus 8, 166–170 Pauline Christology 17, 22, 217–220 Pauline vocabulary 12, 14, 15 Pauline/Petrine Gospel 1–2, 11, 25 Peter 8, 13, 18, 65–74 Purity issue 15, 23, 96–111 Question of the Law 3, 8, 12, 18, 24, 80–96, 119–120 Ransom logion 24, 213–217 Resurrection of Jesus 8, 173–175 Servant 17, 184, 214–215, 225–228 Son of David 17, 220–222 Son of God 8, 15, 200–202 Son of Man 17, 23, 225–228 Soteriology 23, 24 Structure of the Gospel of Mark 4, 7, 13, 29–44 Syrophoenician woman 15, 135–143 Table fellowship 3, 127–131 Tearing of the curtain 146–147 Temple 3, 7, 151–158 Theology of the cross 3, 8, 15, 19, 20, 21, 206–213

298

Index of Subjects

Those outside 17, 18, 62–64 Victory over demon 3, 8, 18, 20, 228– 236

Women – in Paul’s letters 185–189 – in the Gospel 8, 178–185