Mark:
Bartlett & Wilson
1/16/96:
Lecture (Walter Wilson)
Introduction
to Mark:
A
historical approach to the text will be emphasized. Three parts: the historical setting, the
historical literary nature of Mark, and the Christology, or figure of Jesus, is
central in Mark.
The
historical setting: when, who, and where.
Not much to go on. Dealing with
speculation. Consider the textual
tradition, but it did not begin until the third century, so we have no way
through it to reconstruct Mark. 'Mark',
as we have it, is a combination of many Mark manuscripts. Also, we have it in translation. Also consider the two source hypothesis: Mt
and Lk used Mk and Q as independent sources.
Mt and Lk--between 80 and 100 C.E.
So, Mk was probably not written after 80, C.E.. Look at Mt. and Lk. as commentaries on
Mk. See Synoptic Parallels. The author of Mark was with Paul for a time,
so he probably died in the sixties. See Ch. 13: Mark anticipates the descruction of the Temple . But, was this written before of after the
descruction. The Jewish-Roman was seems
to serve as the general historical and theological setting in Mark. Downplay of apocolyptic expectations, for
instance. Who wrote Mark? Originally, it
had not title, so why was 'Mark' chosen as a name to attribute the
authorship. It may have been John-Mark,
a companion of Paul. But, he lived in Palestine and the author does not seem to know much about Palestine or of Pauline
Theology. The author may have been
written by someone at Rome
with Peter. Where was it written: Rome , Syria ,
or Judea .
Markson: Mark is critical of the Jerusalem
church, and he highlighted Galalee as having theological significance. The use of narrative space is used in Mark
theologically. Of Rome , see the Sibylline Oracles (a combo of
Jewish and Christian documents): Nero as the anti-Christ. Mark hints of
this. Also, Mark seems to have a gentile
audience. He assumes the right of
divorce, which is in Roman rather than Jewish law. Also, he had to translate the Aramiac. So, Rome
seems most likely to be the location.
Mark's
literary structure, genre, and narrative qualities. The literary pre-history: Mark probably
relied on other sources. The need to
reform the pre-existing traditions is in Mark, so he sought to change that which
is in his sources. The Parables Chapter
(in Ch. 4) is probably based on pre-Markian sources. The miracle stories in ch.s 4-8 were based on
such pre-Markian sources. Also, the
apocylipitic thought in ch. 14 is from Jewish sources on the subject. Also, his Passion Narrative was probably
based in other sources. Mark is written
with an eye to the passion story. The
secrecy suggests that the stories and teachings of Jesus can not be understood
without the passion story. Look at the
two fishing stories. The first in ch. 6
is a Markian view of the other in ch. 8 which is probably from pre-Markian.
The
structure of Mark: use it as a basis for
literary theories of Mark.
Three
main sections: Introduction: 1.16-8.21, Jesus' preaching in Jerusalem : 11.1-16.8(Jesus in the temple, his
prediction of the temple, and the destruction thereof), and the link (three
passion predictions, bracketed by Jesus-healing blindness stories):
8.22-11. Each section begins optimistic,
looking forward, and ends pessimistic, looking backwards.
The
genre: theories thereof. That is a
unique genre, but it uses other sources.
That it is a tragedy (see G. Bilezikiam). That it is a Greco-Roman biography, like
Philo's work (B. Robins). Suffering and
death for what one believes is the foundation of the symbolic myth. It was believed that things should not change
from their origins. So, biographies of
founding figures were popular. But he
did not begin with the birth and end
with his death. Or, that it is an
apocalyptic history, to show the life and actions as having changed reality and
world history. See Daniel, 1 Enoch,
too. They, as Mark, have a cosmic
setting, and make use of the divine warrier myth. The combat myth of the ancient Near
East. This has implications for how we
identify Jesus.
The
narrative: a funnelling pattern in the passion narrative. Also, a concentric pattern.
The
Christology: Mark is oriented to connecting Jesus' identity with his
crucificion. Little of direct teaching
about who Jesus is, so how does it come out in Mark? How representative or distinctive of Mark's
view of the figure of Jesus? Also,
consider the context--how is it used to show the Markian Christology? What are the implications of Mark's
Christology? What kind of person would it make me? What sort of religion does
Mark want to create.
There
are two basic methods of doing Christology in Mark. M.E. Booring: focus on confessional
statements. What do the titles mean in the context? By whom were they used? The explicit
method. The implicit method: what
others say about Jesus. His secret
identity. It is not just Christological,
but a narrative devise: a progressive knowing of his identity. Also, an ethical
element to this: Jesus does not announce himself, but simply does God's
work. William Radee: Jesus never
identified himself as Messiah during his lifetime. Early Christian communities were in a spot as
Jesus was a nobody. So, Mark invented
his identity. In contast, H. Raisanen,
claims that no human character can know who Jesus was until the passion. Jesus knew that his mission could only be
understood after the Passion.
Possible
Markian Christologies: Don Juael: Jesus as a royal figure--a Davidic king. Mark was putting Jewish categories against
hellonistic misinterpretations. Second:
the Son of Man(Ted Weeden): the theios aner (the divine man), as appied to
Apollonius of Tyana by later writers.
An epiphany of God. Mark agrees
with this, but modifies it. Jesus is not
the divine wonder-worker but a suffering servant and an eschatological
figure. Interpret Son of God as of Son
of Man. Only Jesus used the term, Son of Man. Also, we don't know in what usage it was
used; it could have meant just self-reference. Or, it could be used as in
Daniel.
A
synthetic, or Son of God, Christology (Jack Kelley): Mark wants to lump
together the titles under the Passion Story. See: 1.1., 9.7., and 15.39. Note who said it.
The
content of Mark's Christology: The
starting point is the Kingdom
of God Kingdom of God Kingdom of God Wilson : this seems to go along with the
eschatological divine warrior figure in a cosmic battle wherein power and
weakness are salient dynamics. 1.7: John
the Baptist says that Jesus is stronger than him. Also, see ch. 3: Jesus is able to bind the
strong man who is satin. So, Jesus'
death ransoms many from satin.
Old
Testament concepts are used, and Jesus is loyal to the Torah and the Temple . Jesus is shown in a way similar to
Moses. But the crucificion destroys the Temple . Also, he wanted to bring in gentiles. His conflict with Jewish authorities--related
to Jesus as a figure in a cosmic conflict?
1/23/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
Mark
& Method:
The
question of the meaning of a text is fundamental here. This begs the question, What is
'meaning'? Is it in the text itself, or
in the author's intension or his context?
Or, is it in the response of the reader?
Testimony is part of the meaning--this is relatively objective. But it is also subjective, a trend lately in
Biblical interpretation. Part of the
meaning of text involves what I am bringing to a text. Preaching is about what the text means. A text can mean different things in different
settings and to different people. So,
consider who we are and where we are, as well as the text, its intended author
and readers, its sources (and the forms thereof) and compilation thereof, and
its context. So, 'meaning' involves a
variety of factors. Also, consider the
kind of language. 'Meaning' is not
limited to descriptive language. There
is also the larger question of the meaning of a text vis a vis the larger text
and the context of the text.
The
Hans Frei puzzle. He argues that since
the Enlightenment, interpreting the Bible has been confused because the text
was taken as separated from history.
Questions were asked about the historical accuracy (e.g Mark, especially): the truth of a story
depends on the truth of the historical events).
Also, there is the flawed method of reconstructing the history of the
text. Frei wants the Gospel read as
'realistically accurate', as a historical novel. So, don't read it as the real account,
historically accurate. Also, don't
discard it because it is not historically accurate. Rather, just read it as history-like
narrative; the power is in the narrative rather than its historical
accuracy. So, don't ask whether it is
historically accurate. The Yale School
Paul
Ricouer. In a book on the parables, he
claims that a parable creates a world in front, rather than behind or within,
the text when read right. The text is in
the middle, with a world behind and in front of it, and there is the reader
looking at it. The world behind the text
is the concern of social science criticism.
A lot of historical criticism is of that world. What do we know of first century communities,
for instance. Literary criticism claims
that it is the text itself that counts.
The reader-response method: meaning is in the interaction in the present
(in the reading) between the text and the reader. Consider the interaction between my presuppositions
and the text to get the meaning. The
post-modern deconstructionists: it is the interpretation that I make of the
text that counts. See Steven Moore. It is in the reader who creates the meaning.
The
historical methods treat the Bible as testamony, whereas the later methods do
not. Bartlett : anchor faith in history, but don't
let faith be dependent on history. The
witness is part of history, but what it bears witness to cannot be 'verified'
or 'rejected' on the basis of its historical accuracy.
How
can these methodologies be used for a moral use? The reader-response criticism is particularly
oriented to the moral dimension of interpreting a text.
Pre-Enlightenment
interpretation involved allegory and anagogical meanings. We tend to ignore these ways of understanding
Scripture. Enlightenment methodologies:
Source criticism: what sources did Mk use?
We take Mt. and Lk. as using Mk., so we take Mk. to be the earliest
Gospel. Form criticism: what were the
forms of the sources used? Not much of
the author's intention is assumed to get through; rather, a text is viewed as a
compilation. Redaction criticism: look
at the author's intention. This is
easier for Mt. and Lk., because they changed Mk. material. We don't have Mk.'s sources, but we can look
at parallel stories within Mk. that differ to infer Mk.'s theology. Bartlett :
historical criticism is/should be the root of narrative criticism; otherwise,
the latter may wander too much.
Mk.
5: 21-43
Narrative(literary)
Criticism: In the middle of one story,
another one emerges, then back to the first story. Both stories have to do with healing and
impurity, as well as having faith. There
is realism (the girl's parents had sought healing in several places) and there
is an anticlimax. Also, there is a lot
of dialogue in each story. Consider the
characters, their context and interactions, and the plot.
Reader-response
Criticism: How does one hear the story in its place in the reading
experience. See: Robert Fowler, Let the
Reader Understand... Look at the
implied reader(what response should I have from the implied author) as well as
the implied author. Just before this
passage, the reader knows that Jesus is Messiah. The characters except Jesus don't know
this. Where is the reader in this? Consider that not only nature obeys him, but
that he heals and recussitates the dead.
Who is this guy? He tells the
people to be quiet; by the end of the passage, they are. How does this look vis a vis the rest of the
passage just read, as well as the larger text already read.
Deconstruction:
Every interpretation depends on the interpreter. What it means to me is the question. What
counts is my reading, which is more of me than about the text. Danger: the logic of this method reduces to
who I am. How can there be discussion
based on this? Is this to emphasize
piety too much, losing the text. But,
each of us does bring our biases and presuppositions to the text. There is no neutral reading of a text.
Social
Criticism: Wayne Meeks and Malherbe.
Geertz: a thick description of society back then; get as much facts as
we can about it. Reconstruct what that
world felt like. Second, one can use
abstract Anthopological models.
Necessary to test the model with the text. Such models can be used cross
culturally. Third, Marxist social
approach. Bartlett : it is not enough to say that it is
wrong; it has had influence in biblical studies. Power relations is salient here.
The
New Historicism: it came from
deconstructionism which is interested on little bits in the text. Here, use a little thing (e.g. a way of
eating) in the text to how we know that little thing was in that society.
Canonical
Criticism: It is concerned with the text, on how it operates on its own and in
relation to the Scripture as a whole.
Historical criticism is in the background here; theology is
forefront. Find a larger truth by
looking at Mk. vis a vis the rest of Scripture.
1/30/96:
Lecture (Wilson )
The
theme of discipleship is salient in it.
In general, the style is rapid shifts without transitions: interpret
things in terms of the context. The
first 15 verses are introductory: on Jesus' ministry. The first of three
sub-sections of the introduction: 1.16-21(1.1-8--on John Baptist). It is an
opening in which the writer addresses the reader. v. 1: what does 'the beginning' refer
to? Not the gospel, but from a phrase in
the O.T. The 'good news' is not that
gospel or Jesus, but is the message that Jesus teaches (from Deut: an
announcement of salvation). On the
messenger: from Mal. 3.1, Is. 40.3, and Ex.: the original referent was God, not
Jesus. The messenger was Elisih in the O.T.
On the wilderness, in the O.T.: an ideal time of depending completely on
God. No human society. It was also a time of preparation for a new
age (E. Mouser, Chirst in the Wilderness). On John's baptising: repentence and forgiveness of sins. But in the context and O.T., baptism was used
for ritual purification. They were
repeated when one comes into contact with ritual impurity. John's baptism is only once, for a new type
of existence, that goes well beyond what the Jews used it for. But, Jewish converts were baptised: humans
were considered unclean. See II Kings ,
Ch.
vv.9-11:
Jesus' baptism was fundamentally different than those of others. Jesus is not
converted or repenting. Hooker: it
represents a commission by God to be a prophet.
An indication that he had been deemed worthy by God with the gift of the
spirit. See Acts 9 where Paul is
baptized. The Holy Spirit makes the
commission real. Both Jesus and Paul
were driven into the wilderness. A sense
that the spirit is a source of energy.
Jesus is the only one who hears the voice (Mt. and Lk.: it was
public). v. 11 is important on Jesus'
identity and mission. The declaration is
based in Ps. 11.2. This, plus other
declarations of Jesus' identity in Mk (e.g. 15.39--symbolic connection between
barial and baptism--evidence is from Paul that this is how the hearers would
have interpreted the verse). The ripping
of the curtains in the temple are like the opening of the heavens. Again, a connection between the crucifixion
and baptism. The testing episode: anyone
in that time who wanted to have the authority had to be tested. Jesus is engaged in a cosmic battle: guided
by God's spirit and his adversary is satin.
Unlike the other gospels, the outcome is unstated. This seems to colour the rest of Mk. The wilderness was seen as a place of testing
and repentence.
v.v.
14-15. John was 'handed over', as Jesus
was in his passion. This section ends
with the term 'gospel', as 1.1. began.
The gospel is divine, of the kingdom.
It concerns the kairos--the eschatological end-time. So, the kingdom concerns the cosmos
reality. The kingdom concerns repentence
and faith. In contrast to kairos, they are of personal
reality. A cosmic and personal reality,
and both are divine in some sense.
1.16- :The body of the gospel. It begins with Jesus' ministry. Four
episodes: 1.16-20: another commissioning story. Just as Jesus was commission,
so he commissions others. They are
called upon to do something. The
response of the disciples is portrayed here as remarkable. They follow him
immediately after he says one sentence.
Discipleship involves following a leader, leaving one's prior life
immediately. Mark has little interest in
12 disciples; he tells of only four commissionings. There seems to be a privileged group within
the group. Some of the four leave
economic security. They are called to be
fishers of men. Readers would interpret
this as an announcement of an impending eschatological judgment. Four disciples listen in ch. 13 as well. vv. 21-28 has a Jewish setting--in a
synagogue. Jesus comes into conflict
with the establishment there. Jesus is a
teacher. The miraculous is associated
with Jesus' activities: Jesus is in a cosmic conflict. Jesus wants his identity to be secret. These themes revolve around exousia
(authority). Where does it come from,
how is it used, and what is it good for?
The conflicts here are resolved and depend on these questions. Exousia as teaching and actions had been
viewed as separate, but for Jesus they were not. This is indicative of the Kingdom. Mk. shows the nature of Jesus' miracles. Many other figures were doing magic. Mark wanted to show that Jesus was unique to
differentiate his actions here. vv.29-31: a matching episode. Suggests that no all disciples stopped contact
with their families. vv.32-34: a
summary. Mk stops periodically to summarize.
vv.
35-45. vv. 35-39: some overtones of the passion. see 16.1 and 15.33. Like the passion, it shows Jesus' ironic
loneliness; he seems to be an otherworldly person who wants to get away. He
came to save humanity, but humanity does not understand. Also, 'early in the morning' seems to
anticipate the passion. People seek
after him, rather than he after them. vv. 40-45 seems climatic. The healing here takes place only after
Jesus' authority has been acknowledged.
The Leper had been seen as completely unclean, cut off from
society. Ironic: Jesus was cut off from
society, and yet he makes the Leper able to be ritually clean and able to enter
the city. And yet Jesus could not enter
the cities. Jesus shows respect for the
Law of the Torah, but the man healed disobeyed Jesus and did not go to give
respect to the Law by going to the Temple .
He was not obedient to Jesus in not obeying the Torah: implied--the authority
of Jesus supercedes the authority of the Torah.
But he disobeys Jesus not only here, but in telling people about
Jesus. The first disobedience seems good
while the other does not. Ambiguous:
whether Jesus' followers should respect the Law. Jesus' anger: to the demon in the man. Compare with Jesus' anger later at the Temple . For Mk., Jesus is in a cosmic battle, so he
confronts demons. That his opponents
rather than his allies would recognize him is interesting. Mk., unlike others in his context, saw supernatural
forces (i.e. demons) interacting in humans rather than merely away from
humans. So too for Jesus, the
supernatural (miracles) is linked to the human(teachings).
Discipleship
is the central theme in Markian ethics.
There are characters in the story that don't change: they are flat and
predictable. The disciples are 'round',
it that they are changing and we don't know what is to come of them. Jesus' group is characterized by
discipleship. It involves a relation to
the teacher (Wilson :
and who Jesus was). The disciples are ambiguous: they leave with Jesus
immediately, share his final meal and get the secret meaning of the
Kingdom. Yet, they were unable to
understand Jesus and his actions and predictions. See the boat scenes, the three passion predictions. Also, consider the absence of them on Good
Friday and Easter, as well as their sleeping while Jesus prayed before his
passion. Why this ambiguity? The group may be Mk.'s church which was
primarily made of gentiles. A debate
within his church; Mark's position is anti-traditional. Or, the pastoral view: discipleship is portrayed
as it is in the real world--the humanness of them makes it easier for us to
identify with them. Subtle hints suggest
(13.9-13; 14.28, and 16.7--all prophesies made by Jesus) that the disciples
will ultimately succeed. Mark takes it
that Jesus' prophesies will come true (as was the view of the Jews of the
Mosiac prophets). What is discipleship
in Jesus' case? It is to follow Jesus,
but not to do so by imitating him.
Humans fall short of doing what he does.
Mark likens Jesus to the Pharasiac (Rabbinic) schools by having him
called rabbi, but he calls his disciples, and they do not have to pass certain
tests. Also, the rabbinic goal is to do
what the teacher does. Teachers train
their successors. Jesus does not do
this. Jesus has unique authority. Also, the pharasic school emphasized
traditional modes of thinking and a fixed body of law; Jesus called people away
from these. There were also messianic
movements at the time which revolved around a supernatural figure who would
usher in the eschaton. These movements
defined themselves against the establishment (society). Jesus' case seems like these movement.
The
moral dimension of discipleship. A
graduated ethic. Some of the disciples
had to give up everything (8.34-38; 10.17-31).
But, others like Simon didn't have to. But, 5.18-20: Jesus commands a
man healed by Jesus not to follow him but to go home. So, various modes of discipleship. Meaning: there are many ways of following
Jesus, some quite unexpected. Those who are not public disciples can turn
out to be better followers than the
disciples in that they do what he taught--not that they necessarily knew who
Jesus was. The widow and the centurian. Not acknowleging who Jesus was but doing
what he taught. Discipleship means firstly
knowing who Jesus is. It also involves
public witness, being willing to suffer for your convictions in a public
arena. Evangelism: disciples participate
in the proclaiming of Jesus' message to others.
Also, animinity. People are not
given any credit. Fifth, doing the
unexpected. They expect the unexpected.
2/6/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
Preaching:
It
is the interpretation of a biblical text, rather than of theology. As distinct from exegesis, it is for the
needs of particular people; a link between the text and the lives of the
people. On how exegesis informs
preaching: preach on the meaning of the text as Markian, rather than merely
saying what I think about the subject.
Preaching illustrations, or stories, should do serious theological
work. Have one ending, where it is
natural. See: Thomas Long, Witness of Preaching, Craddocic, Preaching.
Mark
2-3
In
general, Mk.: is it great gospel but bad style.
Past and present tenses switch, key information to a story is added
later. Is the author doing this
intentionally? We can't do this by going
directly to the author's intention; rather, we must go to the text. Range of interpretations on this. Did he use 'immediately' to say something or
as a folksy habit of writting.
2.1-3.6:
The
structure. Possibilities: The center is
in middle of the passage. Healings
border, then feedings, with the new wine in old sack as the center. Or, one can see the structure as climatic,
where the stories heighten the story to a climax. Or, ch.s 2-3 is the first part
of Jesus being increasingly cut-off. On
the cross, God falls away. Increasing
isolation. Did Mk intend this?
Overall,
a series of conflict stories. We tend to
assume the gospel writers put in what counted for his church. What is there in
his church that makes it important for him to show Jesus in conflict with the
Jewish leadership? Mk.'s people may be
unsure of Jesus' authority? Were his
people involved in the Jewish-Chrisitan conflict? Were they gentiles not wanting to follow
Mosiac law?
2.1-12:
The paralytic through the roof. The form
of the miracle stories in general: show the illness, the healing, proof of the
healing. But in this case, there is a
bit about forgiveness in the middle.
Sickness-forgiveness-sickness: maybe sickness is to be seen as a
manifestation of sin. Rhetorical
devices: irony: where the wrong person says the right thing for the wrong
reasons. Rhetorical questions: 'which is
easier, ...' It is an unanswerable
question. Rather, it is a puzzle on the
relation of sin and sickness. Also there
is the device of the omniscient narrator.
Theme of this passage: who is this guy?
Maybe the conflicts with the Jews are to show who Jesus is. Mk. does not say that Jesus is God. Rather, he referred to Jesus as 'Son of
Man'. Did Jesus actually say it, or was
it added later? Just because it was put
on Jesus' lips does not necessarily mean that it was not added later by
redactors in the church. On the themes
in the passage: the Word is already taken as gospel. Second, we know that faith counts for
salvation. Use for adult baptism
arguments! Jesus says 'child' your sins
are forgiven. If you are isolated or cut
off, maybe 'child' is to say that one is not really unconnected. Third, the syntex is odd. Is 'so you will know that the son of man has
authority to forgive sins' addressed to the reader.
2.12-17:
Levi the tax-collector is called. The
punch-line comes at the end: I have come to call not the righteous but the
sinners. Controversies:how does Jesus
relate to sins (he forgives them) and how doe he relate to sinners (he reaches
out to them). Jesus brings those who are
farthest from Jesus, he brings closer to him.
So those who are closest to Jesus are pushed aside by Jesus. The sinners and tax collectors not only
follow him but eat with him too (agn Jewish law). Jesus' identity and the
identity of his followers is at issue.
3.1-6:
The withered hand story. The pharesees
are again following him so they can get him.
Jesus is angry at the disorder of illness as well as the going after
someone: that which does harm angers Jesus.
The pronouncement: is it lawful to do good or to harm on the
Sabbath. Ironic, in claiming to do good,
the Pharesees are the killers on the Sabbath.
Jesus: in doing bad according to the law, he is really doing what is
good.
3.20-45:
The family of Jesus. Structure:
Family(he's nuts), Pharasees(he works for satin), and the family(he is
nuts). Three sayings by Jesus about his
relationship to satin: how can satin caste out satin, the house divided on itsel
cannot stand, and the talk of the strong one--Jesus has tied up the strong man,
stronger than satin. On the sin against
the H.S.: to give satin credit for what the holy spirit is doing. It is in not to give credit where credit is
due. Jesus' family is downplayed in
Mk. Mary is not a strong player. Jesus relinquishes his old ties to enter the
Kingdom. His new ties: those who follow God's
will. There are brothers, sisters, and
mothers, but not fathers, because Jesus claimed that God was his title. No one fills that role because God does.
Misc:
On
the 'twelve': 1 Cor. 15: Paul refers to the twelve. Peter, Andrew, James, Matthew and Judas took
on added significance for the early church.
Mk.
seems to see Jesus as God's agent, rather than being God. Son of God meant an agent of God. Like that in the Psalms.
The
outsiders are not necessarily the oppressed as in Lk.; rather, they are those
who would not be thought to be saved but have faith. Jesus could be read as saying that it is
their faith that heals, rather than saying that he healed them as God's
agent. Mk does not have an incarnational
view of Jesus; Jesus is an agent of God.
2.23-28:
Walking through the grain fields. It
shows how the kingdom is: when law and human need conflict, it is compassion
that prevails. How does any human
tradition to be treated when it conflicts with human needs? The law was made for man; not man for the
law. Jesus did not come to destroy
Torah, so it is not to do away with the law.
We have to guess what the pharesees were doing because all we know of
the rabbinic tradition is of a few centuries after Jesus. The proclamation: The Son of Man is Lord of
the Sabbath. Jesus could have been
saying that people are the lord of the Sabbath (i.e. our faith); Mk. imposes a
theological bent on 'son of man' as meaning the lordship of Jesus, even though
Jesus may not have meant it that way.
Are the pharasees against that which is done against the Sabbath or
against the hospitality idea of Jesus or against the idea that Jesus was
claiming that authority of the Torah comes from outside?
Mk
and Jn: the issue of Jesus' identity is salient, not just a view imposed on the
text from the angle taken by the Church.
Mt. and Lk: this is less salient.
2/20/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
On
the structure of Mk:
A(Jesus
as Son of God)
B (conflict with authorities beings)
2-3
C(discourses on the Kingdom of God--
x (Peter's
statement on who Jesus was) 8-10
C(discourses on the Kingdom of God--
B (conflict intensifies)14-15
A(Resurrection)
16
The
Kingdom will come in a consummation of human history. We do not yet see it but we hear the words
which are making it happen.
The
Parables:
In
Mk., shorter statements such as puzzling figures of speech or riddles are
considered to be parables.
Interpreting
parables:
1.
Allegory (C.H. Dodd: Augustine on the nativity story) Allegory: words stand for something
else. The parables were understood that
way until Ulagar. Dodd and Euremais
claimed that Ulagar's emphasis on the historical setting was too much. They
have dominated the field of parablic interpretation since. The parable of the vineyard only works
allegorically. That of the seed can be
understood allegorically. But to take a
parable in one sense only is to ignore their multivaliency. For instance, it can work by way of a
metaphoric comparison. The parables are
narratives which can not be reduced to propositions (as sermon points).
It
follows the dispute about who his family really is. Who is inside and who is outside. The parables reinforce the claim that there
are both and that one can not be sure that these can be known or are as they
appear to be.
Structure:
A
1-2(bigness. hint a small story will
have enormous consequences)
B 3-9: understanding this parable:
if you learn how to understand this parable, you can
understand the others. It is a parable
of hope. Jesus saw his own
ministry as sowing which has different effects on different
kinds of people. Punch-line: despite the
opposition, enormous
good will come out of it. The Kingdom
survives opposition
and goes on to triumph. Jesus' authority
is the power of his
word. So, hearing is an important element
of response.
C 10-12: Disciples as
insiders get the mystery explain.
Parables are
given
publically for outsiders. Donahue: the
mystery here is the mystery
of the cross (1 Cor. 1-2; Rom. 16.23, Eph. 3.3). Bartlett :
the mystery in the parables is in them, rather than something in the
future. The mystery is of the Kingdom
rather than the crucifiction.
The insider/outsider dimension is important.
Those who were
once insiders (Peter) were later outsiders.
Jesus tells parables
in order to separate the insiders from the outsiders. We want
those who have harden hearts should not understand. Those of
hardened hearts are destined to be outside. Why is it
that some do not believe? We assume that
it is a matter of fate
(election). God has harden the hearts of
some and not
others. This is an exclusive moment in
the story. A parable does not
necessarily entice one to the Kingdom.
X 13-26:
Jesus is worried about whether his disciples are really on
the inside. Soil and seed work
allegorically. Mary
Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Word. : the
different kinds of soil
represent the main sets of characters in the gospel of Mk. Those snached by satin are the Pharasees
(those who
just never get it), those on the stone (flee in persecution,
such as Peter). The disciples are of
this type. The thorn
group (cares of the world carry them away, such as
the rich man and Judas) The good soil
(the anonomous believers--the
centurian and the woman who touches Jesus
and is healed)
C 21-25: eschatological:
the presence of the kingdom is breaking in and will come in
fulfillment.
B26-32: The mustard seed. The sowing has to do with hearing. Small beginnings come to big
ends. The seed as well as the tree is
the Kingdom.
A
33-34: he tells them in parables so that some will be enabled to hear. We don't know if the
disciples understood this. In
Mk. parables are to separate those who will and won't hear. It is a hidden eschatological mystery which
is linked to the greatness of the fullness of the Kingdom. The hearers are those on good soil; the
insiders are the anonamous believers.
The parables are understood by the 'chosen' and by the demonic, and is a
sorter of those in-between. The
ambiguity of understanding in the parables may have served the Mkian church in
understanding why so many do not believe.
vv.
26-29 parable:
An
allegory: the metaphors are code but are not central; something else such as a
doctrine is included that does not depend on the metaphors. A
metaphor: X is like Y.
The
meaning of the parable: we don't know how the Kingdom of God Rome
(the parable in the context of that context and the entire book): the seed is
the kingdom. Preaching then in Rome met with
opposition. It may have been important
for them to know that all they could do was preach rather than get the
harvest. The work of God extends beyond
human intensions (i.e. social causes) in
his own work.
2/27/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
The
Messianic Secret:
See:
Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of
Mark's Gospel.
One
theory(Grada): if it were not secret, everyone would believe it but if it were
completely secret no one would believe it.
This could have been used to explain why some but not all believed
Jesus. Jesus saw himself as the messiah
from the beginning.
Luz:
the messianic secret is one of many themes in Mk.
Another
theory: the author of Mk. did not recognize the contradiction.
Why
the silence? It is only in Jewish
territory. Jews had the messianic
tradition, so why make it easy. They
have misleading view of it. Bartlett : Mk. was a
preacher to gentiles. His congregation
would have heard it as: they should be like the demonic gentile who was told to
tell others of the healing. Me: but Mk.
has Jesus tell him that he could not follow him. And Jesus did not teach him or give him a
passion prediction. Gentiles can tell what Jesus did for them.
On
the demons:
Mk.
probably found some exorcism stories.
The demons consistently confess who Jesus is. It is not yet time for humans to know it.
Humans need to see who he is after the cross. Otherwise, it would be faith from
magic.
The
disciples don't get the passion predictions.
While they don't get it, anonomous people get it. How do we decide who gets it and why?
The
parables show mystery. Mysterious
revelation in the passion narrative runs mainly through irony. The reader is an insider if he recognizes it
as irony. Salvation is the moment when
he saves others by not saving himselves.
At the end of Mk. is not appearances and revelation but silence and
mystery. Mk. seems to be writing to screen
the insiders from the outsiders. His
book is a mystery which, as a narrative, either helps to reader (insider) or
not(outsider). Parallels in the Jewish
apocolyptic literature: if you are an insider you get it. Mk.'s insiders see that Jesus is God's Son on
the cross. A Christology on the Cross.
Mk.
4.35-41: Power over Wind and Waves
Key:
who is Jesus that he has such power? The
answer is not in a title but is in what he does. Jesus treats the sea as he did the
demons:'Peace, be still'. Natural forces
were seen in that culture as demonic. On
discipleship: there is good fear and bad fear.
Jesus: 'Don't you have faith yet?'.
The fact that the disciples are still scared of a sea storm told Jesus
that they did not yet have faith in spite of his having explained his parables
and done healings.
Mk.
5.1-20: Power over Demons
Gentile territory.
Jesus has power there too. Two
traditions weaved together here or dumb redactor. The one of distress is isolated. Saying 'clean up your act' won't necessarily
do. What possesses him is not only one
thing. Addiction. But don't reduce to psychology. Mk.: no one was strong enough to bind the
demon here. Tillich: the demonic touches
the holy without going into it. The man
respects Jesus but does not want to follow him until he is healed. Scary to the people because a bad person was
then good. Mustard seed: one man set
freed is a sign of when all satin's powers are sent back. The man recovered begs Jesus to let him
follow. Jesus refuses and tells him to
go back to his people. It is easy to
mission to strangers once one is healthy; it is harder to go back to those who
knew one back when one was possessed.
E.g. the dysfunctional family is scared when the scapegoat no longer
plays the game and shows himself to be healthy. Difficult to go back to them
and spread the word.
Mk.
5.21-43: Power to restore life
Two
stories of women who where healed by faith.
Extraordinary faith by those one would not expect it to be in. Two twelve-year things. The messiah was to reunite the twelve tribes.
Two cultically unclean people. There is
a magical sub-text in that world. Magic
attributed to Jesus. This is not our
cosmology. The woman could have healed
herself without touching Jesus because she had faith. The synagogue leader could have raised the
little girl without Jesus. Their faith
in Jesus is in this sense a detraction from them seeing the faith in
themselves.
Mk.
6.1-6
His
hometown people and his family don't have faith. The mission to the outsiders.
Mk.
6.6-13
The
disciples, despite their ambivolence, still do what Jesus had done.
Mk.
6.14-29: The Death of John the Baptist
This
story is written with more sophistication.
The who question: was Jesus the Baptist.
A message: the end of faith is death (to powers of this world). John's disciples stick around to bury John
whereas Jesus' disciples do not stick around to bury him. John's disciples were better than those of
Jesus.
Mk.6.32-45:
Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand
Moses
fed the Hebrews manna; Jesus feeds bread and fish. Jesus surpasses Moses. A story of compassion and of teaching. It foreshadows the story of the last supper.
3/5/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
On
doing social-scientific study on the Bible:
Historical
research, use a sociological model (which is cross-cultural) to understand the
text, or ideological-sociology(e.g. Marxist--interpreting the Bible as of
oppressors and the oppressed). On a
model's use, consider whether the model as applied really works or must it be
streached. Also consider whether a model
says anything new about a text. Is the
vocabulary of the theory jargonish? Are
the conclusions from a model consistent with what we know of the historical
culture? Does the theory lead us away
from the text, going beyond it? Does the
theory help us to understand the relation of the parts to the whole (of the
text).
For
instance, a theory of contending factions being behind conflict would view that
conflict stories represent a Palestinian debate between two contending
factions, rather than something going out in the Markian community. Beware of reading the conflicts in Christian
terms (Jews are legalists). E.P.
Sanders, for instance, argues that first century Judaism was not primarily legalistic. So, sociological work can cut through
stereotypes but it can also fall prey to them.
Purity:
Judaism
in Antiquity: Jacob Neusner has written a lot about first-century Judaism. He sympathetic to both the Pharasees and to
the Christians. How to get along in
this world was seen in distinguishing between the clean and unclean. For the Hebrews, this was seen in terms of
bodily functions. The pharasees took
purity laws that had applied to the priesthood and applied it to all Hebrews.
It was assumed here that history was stable and purity laws is a way to live in
it. In contrast, the Qumran
culture was more concerned with eschatology and history than what is
nature. It saw the world as
unstable. So, some folks were seen as
clean and others were unclean. Neusner:
the Jesus movement was closer to the latter.
There
was a major debate about whether one must wash one's hands before or after
mixing the food in a bowl. Washing hands
before hand is more conservative; it takes the outside(the bowl) to
matter. The other side: it is the food
(the inside) that counts for cleansiness.
Jesus took the latter (Hillel) insight over and applied it to the
person(inside vs. outside--the heart being inside).
We
have third-sixth century rabbinic texts from which we try to see what first
century Pharaseeism. This is weak. So, even rabbis look to Mark to know about
first-century pharaseeism.
Mk.
7.1-8:
This
introduces the question of the discerning between human and God things. Here, what comes from Torah is of God;
traditions that come out of it are of man.
Jesus is in a sense here a 'back to the Bible' movement. Was the Jesus movement an attempt to get back
to the beginnings of Judaism? Do most
radical groups tend to have this intent?
With
all the attention on what Jews did around their meals, Mk. was probably written
for gentile Christians. But why would
they be concerned with Jewish rituals? Bartlett : was the Mkian
church making rules to distinguish it from Judaism?
The
debate in the text is from the Christian view; it was not a Christian-Jewish
dialogue.
The
word 'hypocrite' came from the theatre, meaning that the outward differs from
the inward. A strong contrast between
God's way and man's.
Mk.
7.9-13:
Why
was this included? Did it get to
something going on in Jesus' time or in Mk.'s?
If it is included to show Jesus winning again, why all the detail? 'Corban' means that which is brought near;
that which is devoted to sacrifice; that which is devoted to God. It is in the last sense that it is used
here. So, it can be used by the son in
his life and it would go to the Temple
when he dies. The pharasees' tradition:
that such money should not be spent on others (parents). This is not of cleansiness and thus purity;
rather, it on the tension between the ways of God and man. Jesus: Torah is what God said, so he calls
the pharasees back to it. But this does
not account fully for the tension between God's way and man's way. Jesus contrasts what Moses said (the word of
God: honor parents) with what the pharesees said(don't do anything for
them). Mk. explains what corbon is. This
does not necessariy mean that it was written for non-Jews. The conflict is part of what is leading to
the crucifixion. The question is about
distinguishing what is being done by the heart (true to God) from what is done
of our own interests. This applied to
the times of Jesus and Mk, as well as our time. Neglecting the former in pursuing the
latter. For instance, teaching human
ideas as infallable doctrine; a lack of compassion due to pursuing one's
interests(theology, doctrines, interests, ideology). Jesus was talking to harden hearts (the
leaders) knowing that they would not change, but perhaps he challenged them in
hopes that their followers might see their hypocricy.
Mk.
7.14-23:
The
audience shift: from the crowds to the disciples. Public pronouncements are not being
understood so he has to take his disciples aside and explain it to them. The author of Mk. interprets Jesus' saying
as: all foods are clean. This makes
sense as he was writing to gentile Christians.
The assumption that Jesus has the authority to declare all food clean
implies that Jesus is superior to Moses.
The
Isaiah saying: 'lips' may mean 'what they eat' rather than what they say. That it is not what you do but what is inside
your heart that counts is the point.
This theme is in Amos too. So, it
was not a new teaching.
Mk.
7-24-30:
Looks
like a simple miracle story. But, she
kneels down before Jesus. She is a
gentile. Jesus puts down the
gentile. Jesus changed his mind on the
healing. Food was often used
metaphorically for salvation.
Then,
a deaf man: the disciples still don't get it.
Mk.
8.1-10: Feeding the Four-Thousand
Fowler
claims that the feeding of the four-thousand was in the oral tradition and Mk.
added the prior five-thousand feeding to show that disciples just don't get
it. Bartlett : more must be going on with the
stories. We already have material on the
problem of the disciples' lack of understanding. The outsiders are not who you thought while
the insiders are not who you thought.
The disciples did not understand his power. With the extra baskets full: meaning is that
the power of God is much abundant.
Jesus
used 'hardness of heart' to refer to the disciples as well as the
pharisees. Ironic that the 'insiders'
wind up as the pharisees and Pharoh.
3/26/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
In
Mk. the closer the disciples come to Jeruselum, the farther they are from discipleship
to Jesus. In this process, there are the
cases of the anonomous disciples whom the twelve do not understand.
Mk
8.27-38:
Jesus
asks 'Whom do you say that I am?'. Did
folks really have this question, or was it in Mk.'s church/time? Mt. has Peter say 'Son of God'. Mk has Peter say 'Christ'. Jesus does not confirm this. Is this because Jesus did not see himself of
the Messiah but as the son of man? When
Jesus talks of his own authority and of the suffering figure as well as the
figure coming at the end of time, he uses the term 'son of man'. Bartlett :
that the son of man would come in glory came from the Jewish tradition; what
was new was that this figure has authority now and will suffer before coming at
the end of time.
Mk.
8.31, 9.30, and 10.33-4: Jesus predicts his suffering and refers to himself as
the son of man. None of these prediction
is without the resurrection mentioned.
Still, the disciples don't understand it.
After
saying that Jesus is the Christ, Peter tells Jesus not to suffer. Jesus calls Peter 'satin', meaning that he
was tempting Jesus and that Peter was in the grips of satin. What offends Peter is not so much that Jesus
has to suffer, but that he too would have to suffer. The point to the readers: we, too, will suffer
(take up our cross--face persecution) if we follow the teachings and example of
Jesus. Discipleship is set in terms of
one's eternal destiny. Bartlett : the disciples may represent the
church leaders of Mk.'s time.
Mk
9.1: They believed that Jesus would return within their life-times.
Mk.
9.2-8: The Transfiguration
Theologically,
it looks ahead to the resurrection and second-coming. Also, it reminds the reader that Jesus is the
son of God. Elijah did not die but was
taken bodily up to heaven. Moses was
thought by some to not have died but still be on the edge of the land of
promise. Peter, wanting to build booths
for each, views as them as being equal.
Mk.
9.14-29: The Dumb Spirit is Driven Out.
The
generation of a lack of faith. The
public information is the healing; the private is that it is the people's faith
that heals them. The disciples don't
have the girl's dad's faith.
Mk.
9.33-7: Greatness
They
are to welcome and be like children.
Those who are childlike, as innocent and vulerable. The first shall be last.
Mk.
10.1-10: Divorce
The
setting is Roman gentiles. Jesus here is
stricter than the rabbis: no divorce.
Hardness of heart is what the gospel is to overcome. Jesus goes behind Moses to the Creation time
when man and woman are one. The Mosiac
law is for an interval of hard times.
Then, with Jesus we live in a new creation where man and woman are
one.
Mk.
32-45: The Third Passion Prediction and the Disciples' response
Was
the detail on the passion added later in the writing, because Jesus as a
prophet would not have the power to be that specific in his prediction? A sense of Jesus pushing ahead, with the
disciples scared and dragging behind.
They may have been afraid because they were headed for Jerusalem where those who had been opposing
Jesus were based. Ironic that there is
so much talk of the resurrection throughout this book, even though it does not
end with the resurrection but with his death.
Why did James and John ask to be on his right and left side? Because
they thought he would be the king of Jerusalem . Or, because James and John had seen the
transfiguration, did they want to be in the places of Moses and Elijiah. So,
they may have realized that the kingdom would not just be of Jerusalem .
They wanted the glory but not the suffering. They may have thought that the right and
left hand would be as Moses and Elijah in glory, but they did understand
because the two people who were actually on his left and right hand were the
two criminals on the other two crosses.
It is suffering, and glory through it, rather than just glory.
On
the taking of his cup and baptism: In Isaiah, the suffering servant is said to
drink of the cup of God's wrath. What was the meaning of baptism then. It was some kind of identification or
connection between people. Was this the
meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper for the apostles after Jesus died?
Jesus
repeated his claim that the first will be last, and the last first, and added
that he is not to be served but to serve.
Are we serving Jesus in worshipping him or praying in his name?
Mk.
10.46-52: Bartimaeus, the Blind Man
Jesus
tells him that it is by your faith that you are healed. Mercy is given to those who ask, whereas
greatness is not given to those who ask for it.
Bartimaeus followed Jesus.
So,
discipleship is to follow Jesus on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem .
The twelve are not good examples of it.
Either they are ignorant of it or afraid of it. Jesus is driven to go to his suffering
whereas the twelve run from it.
4/2/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
Three
literary/themes in Mk.: 1.16-8.21: Jesus' ministry in Galilee ;
8.22-10: Passion predictions, and 11-16: the Passion.
Of
the third part:
ch.s
11-12 Jesus' arrival at the Temple
and preaching there.
An
increase in the historical account, only one parable (unlike those in ch. 4),
only one miracle, the disciples play a less prominent role(Jesus stands alone),
no more proclamation of the good news, no more exorcisms, a change from rural
to urban--Jesus being a foreigner there--to the Temple and the Jewish
authorities; an antagonism revolving around Jesus' authority. More emphasis on judgment. Jesus takes the initiative against his
enemies. The messianic secret is under
strain here. The true nature of Jesus
and his conflict is reaching out for a form.
What sort of form does Mark have in mind. How is it significant
theologically?
Two
sections: 11.1-12.12: symbolism is salient.
Three main points: the point of the conflict is on Jesus' authority; the
forces that stand behind the two antagonists; the destinies of the two parties
involved. The destinies are
intertwined. The death of Jesus is
different than the death of his adversaries.
Jesus'
'triumphant'(probably irony) entry into Jerusalem .
If there was support for him then but then not in the Passion story, Mk. may be
compressing time to make a theological point: the urgency--importantce--of
Jesus' passion. Or, the crowd may have been disappointed that Jesus' march did
not give rise to the messianic figure and world that they had expected.
Messianic signals, but they are contradictory.
Positive: the mount of olives, the title Lord, the palms, the reference
to David.
Behind
this: the myth of march of the divine warrior. See: P.D. Miller, The Divine warror... See Exodus 15 and Judges 5. Also in many other Near Eastern religions
then and before. Often, the divine
warrior is viewed as marching triumphantly.
Also, there was the tradition of civil generals as proceeding into a
city after a victory. Vision of him was
seen as an epiphany. The general goes to
the temple, making a sacrifice to the indigenous god or goddess of the
city.
Jesus
does not live up to all of these expectations.
He does not come to destroy Israel 's enemies or lay claim to
the city. He finds that it is not yet
time. He challenges the authorities' view
of how God operates in the world.
The
fig tree was a symbol of messianic coming and peace. Jesus reacts to the fig tree as he does to
the temple. He curses the tree and
disqualifies the temple. Jesus' messiahship is unlike that which the Jewish
authorities expect? When Jesus discusses prayer, he is not in the temple. Hurling 'this mountain' into the sea: echo of
Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple. The theme of Jesus' prayer
discourse is forgiveness. The temple
(and the Jewish authorities) are without forgiveness.
12.13-44:
the content of the dispute. Why does the
temple establishment condemn Jesus. (ch.
11: Jesus says that the Temple
should be a house of prayer for all nations)
Conflict stories revolving around Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God
At
the beginning of 12 is the parable of the tenants. 12.1-10: The focus of the conflict is Jesus'
authority(exousia). Clear link to Isaiah
5. The parable is clearly
allegorical. The vineyard is Israel , the tower is the temple, the wine is the
blood sacrifices, the tenants are probably the Jewish establishment (or Israel ). The
time of the harvest is the KOG's time.
The servants include John the Baptist. The son of the owner is
Jesus. He is killed and thrown out of
the vineyard. Following which God (the
owner) will come himself and kill the tenants. The stone rejected becoming the
cornerstone is the resurrection. This
parable encapsulates the entire plot of the gospel. The parable links Jesus with John the baptist
as well as his enemies.
Then,
concrete episodes that show the content of the dispute. Specific points where Jesus is in conflict with them. 12.13-17: pharisees on what one should render
to the ruler. 12.13-27: in light of God's power, there is resurrection.
12.13-17:
the pharisees ask Jesus whether he opposes the civil authority. A question set up not answerable. Jesus responds with a question. Give to God that which bears his
likeness--render one's whole person to God; forget about the coin (give it to
Caesar--it has his image).
12.18-27:
The Sadducees accepted only the Torah (not oral tradition). They did not believe in resurrection. The Pharisees were more willing to listen to
oral tradition, and did believe in resurrection. The Sadducees may have seen Jesus as a
Pharisee. The Sadducees try to show a contradiction in the opposition (the
resurrection believers). Jesus shows how
the contradiction is not there in the resurrection belief. Implicitly, he calls
the Sadducees hypocrites by pointing to their authority (the Torah) to remind
them that God is not for the dead but for the living. Jesus was showing them
how they had gone away from their own belief in asking a question about
resurrection--if they really believed that it is this life that is of God, then
they would not do something bad (i.e. trying to trip someone) in their lives
and they would not be concerned with matters that are of the dead
(resurrection). In using Moses as an authority, Jesus shows that he is not a
rebel but is working from the authority within the tradition (implying
that his enemies' authority comes from
outside).
12.28-24: scribe being close to the Kingdom of God
12.35-38:
Jesus claims that the Messiah is not the earthly son of David, but actually
surpasses him. The messiah is David's Lord, recognized so by David. It goes on to indicate a messianic task: to
put those opposed to God under God.
12.38-40: the hypocricy and greed of the
scribes; 12.41-4: character of the widow's mite. Parellels to the rabbinic literature: four
sets of questions given to the rabbis.
First, morality. Second,
questions designed to ridicule one's belief, Third, on the law. Fourth, on
contradictions in scripture. Another
parellel: to the passover meal. Four
questions are put. Pious son asks about
sacrifice. Wicked son asks about why have the meal at all. Wise man asks about the law. The fourth son
asks about an anomoly but he did not know how to ask the question. Why important here? It shows Jesus as an authoritative figure in
Judaism. It shows the completeness of Jesus'
wisdom. Is Mk. assuming that his
listeners know the passover liturgy? If
so, how is he using this knowledge to make a theological point. The passion
story was already part of tradition, so his audience may have known of both.
ch.
13: Apocalyptic discourse
ch.s
14-15: Passion story
ch.
16: epilogue
4/2/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
Mk.
13:
How
'Markian' is it? Some of it came before
Mk. was written. Is it an
apocolypse? Of what kind? How does it relate to the writer's
environment? How do the events in the
chapter relate to the historical situation of the readers? Specifically, how does it refer to the
destruction of the temple? How is this
event related to the parasea(the end-time)? What are the moral implications of
it?
The
chapter develops the writer's notion of discipleship (being in a
community). The chapter has an unusual
form to it. It has a sustained discourse, rather than a
number of narrative scenes. The only
parallel is the parables in ch. 4.
Hearing in ch. 4; seeing in ch. 13.
Both have Jesus speeches on the topics of discipleship and
evangelicalism. The chapter is between
the temple story and the passion narrative.
It is a speech presented to a closed audience--insiders--just four of
the twelve disciples. In antiquity, the
last words of a hero to his friend was important as a testament. Gen. 39: the last words of Jacob. Later, the last words of Moses. The testament genre. Testaments usually have three types of material: narration
(autobiographical--the wise sage narrates his life), paranesis (moral
exertation--on the obstacles coming with his death), and apocolyptic forcasting
(predictions about the world after the hero dies). Mk. 13 has a lot of these latter two.
Apocolyptic
literature: 'apocolypse' means 'a
revelation'. The secrets are of the
temporal and/or eternal. These realities
interact. Usually, this disclosure is
through a vision--of an other-worldly figure, for instance. A dualism: light and darkness. Insiders and outsiders. Also, a heaven-earth
correlation. Determinancy: God
determines this. There is pessimism on
the human condition (thus God must intervene) and a belief that God will
correct it.
Mk.
13: no vision, other-worldly journey, or symbolism thereof. Also, no description of the resurrection, the
last judgment, and punishment and rewards.
Unclear that there is an other-worldly figure here. Also, no time-table on which to forecast
events. So, Mk. 13 doesn't seem
apocolyptic in these senses. Is the
writer assuming that the listeners are already aware of these things?
Where
is ch. 13 vis a vis the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. v. 14: vague destruction. v. 2--a reference to the destruction of the
temple. Ch.s 11, 12, 14, and 15 also
hint at its destruction. The writer sees
a link between Jesus and the destruction of the temple. Wilson : Ch. 13 does
refer to the temple.
Ch.
13 begins as a link to Jesus' disqualification of the temple in Ch. 12. The buildings will fall. Predictions about the fall of the temple were
common. Jeremiah 16 and 26.6. No explanation is required. The writer can assume that his listeners know
this. Then, Jesus is sitting on the Mt. of Olives
The
apocolyptic discourse:
Three
units of three apocolyptic time. Each unit has two parts: of the signs and
applying them to disciples. The writer
assumes a real risk that the signs will be misinterpreted.
I.A.
vv. 5-8: events that precede the destruction.
Warnings to beware throughout--that people will be misled. General events are described as beginnings of
the birth-pangs. There will be many
false Messiah's---claiming that they hold Jesus' status, asserting their
divinity. Also, beware natural disasters
and wars.
I.B.
vv. 9-13: events specific to the disciples.
Warnings concern the sufferings the disciples will undergo as
Christians. Discipleship means suffering
and public testamony. Like Jesus, they
will be beaten, betrayed, and hated, taken to courts. This reflects Jesus' own passion. Proclamation of the Gospel to all nations
(tribes of Israel ?)
is also necessay.
II.
vv. 14-23: The Suffering: a definite event and place, which calls for
action. What is the desolating sacralege
(Daniel 12--referring to the desecration of the the temple then)? We know that pagan Roman gods were put up and
worshipped at the temple in 70 A.D. The
listeners are to see this not just as an event in history, but in salvation
history as well in which Jesus is the key player. So, eschatological significance. Where is this in the writer's community? An invasion having happened having
eschatological significance. But the
writer sees the destruction of the temple as distinct from the end of
time. The writer accepts the eschatological significance of the
destruction, but wants to distance it from the parasia. In the meantime, false Christs--to mislead
the elect. v. 23 seems to be a summary whereas v. 24 seems like an
introduction--to the next step--the parasia.
III
vv. 24-37: Three events associated with the parasia. Cosmic signs (portents)--a composite of
passages from Isaiah. In the old world,
cosmic powers were seen as personalized, needing to be defeated. The coming of the son of man--from Daniel
12. Finally, the elect will be gathered
from the earth and heaven. Recall that
Jesus had said that the vineyard will be given to outsiders, and that the
temple should be a place of prayer for all peoples. On the fig tree--it was a symbol of the
messianic age, and in Mk. it is also a
symbol for judgment. v. 29: 'these
things' refer to vv. 14-23, in which case the 'he' is the son of man. When you see the destruction of the temple,
the son of man will come. Or, see the
'these things' as including the parasia, in which case the 'he' is God who will
come. So, after the parasia, God's own
self will come.
v.
30: it could mean that the writer's readers will see this. Or, it could mean that the four disciples
will see this--the parasia. If the
former, the writer was wrong; if the later, Jesus was wrong. But the writer puts this on the lips of
Jesus, so it is at least intended to mean that Jesus is to be seen as having
predicted it.
V.
32: Jesus does not know when God will come after the parusia, although he knows
when the parusia will come and the leading signs thereof. Jesus is not involved in that final
judgment. v. 35: discipleship having an
eschatological nature to it. Unlike the
parusia, it will come unexpectedly. God
is off some place and will return unexpectly.
In the meantime, Jesus stands for God.
Be alert also has implications for the night at Galseminee. The disciples slept.
The
writer's listeners: Jewish Christians in Rome . Persecuted as Jews. Like the exiled Hebrews in Babylon after the deportation, they would
have seen themselves as the remnant in exile waiting for God's presence to
return. They would have looked for this
to occur back in Jerusalem --that
the temple would be rebuilt.
In
summary, how we look to the heavenly realm affects how we are to act here. The writer sees satin as occupying the world;
only Jesus can overcome him. Humans, by
ourselves, do not have the power to overcome evil.
4/16/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
Mk.
14:
The
Passion Narrative:
What
is the genre? It originates from the
jewish stories of the punishment of a righteous person. See: Joseph, Ester, as well as Daniel (3-6),
Susanna, Song of Soloman (ch.s 1-5).
Also, 4 Macabees and the fourth Isaiah.
Also, Ps. 22, 38, 41, 42, and 69.
The death of the righteous is mixed with martyr theology here. The vindication of the person does not imply
defying death. They are vindicated
anyway. But the writer of Mark considers
the crucifixion to be more than merely a martyr's death. It is the fulfullment of the eschatological
prophesy of Jesus in ch. 13. Both are linked to the Kingdom of God
The
passion narrative in ch. 14 has seven episodes, each with three parts. Episode 1: (vv. 1-11): 14.1-2--narrative
introduction on the plot, setting the narrative in a definite time and
place. It was during Passover which
celebrates Israel 's coming
redemption, vv3-9--of bethany :
a woman is commended as recognized as what no one else does. She annoints Jesus, a hint of his coming
death and of his royalty(divine warriar in ch.s 11 and 12), vv. 10-11--Judas,
in contrast to the anonomous woman. He is an insider; she was an outsider. He 'handed over' (echos of Jesus' passion
predictions) Jesus,.
Episode
2: the Last Supper. vv. 12-16--echos of
ch. 11 on how the meal is prepared.
Jesus shows that he understands his destiny. Virtually everything Jesus
says in the narrative here is prophetic ; vv. 17-21--the theological logic
behind his lot--it is God's will, known in scripture, that rules the Son of
Man; vv. 22-25--Jesus explains the meaning of his death. The bread is his body; the wine is his
blood--the same as the blood of the covenant--see Ex. 27. Jesus' blood establishes a new relationship
between Israel
and God. Poured out for many--of the Isaiah suffering servant? See Mk. 10.45. Universal significance in this--being poured
out for many.
Episode
3: Jesus at the mount of olives. See ch.
11 and 13 on the mount of olives. vv.
26-52: interpolation(sandwiching). vv. 26-41: three prophetic predictions which
explain why the passion happens as it does.
Zac. 13.7-9 is fulfilled. After
the resurrection, Jesus will lead the way (for the disciple) to Galilee . Peter
will deny him. Two pessimistic predictions
between an optimistic one. v 42: Jesus
goes off to pray at Geshemini. Addresses
God as Abba (something between Father and pappa). Jesus acknowledges God's sovereignty. Now Jesus' hour has come. Wilson :
this is the hour that only the Father knows.
Jesus finds the disciples asleep.
vv. 43-52: the arrest. The disciples flee. See 13.14-20.
Jesus complains of being treated as a robber (recall he had viewed the Temple authorities as
robbers). Then on, he is passive.
Episode
4: the Trial. The denial of Peter. Jesus had emphasized public testimony. vv. 53-54: Peter follows Jesus to the court ;
vv 55-65; vv66-72: Peter's denial. Sandwiched
(interpolation). Historical problems
with what the Sanhendran could do at that time.
How do we interpret this problem?
Our information could be wrong or incomplete or the writer may not have
known much about judicial process or he doesn't care about it. Or, our information is correct and the writer
wants to portray it as an illegal trail.
Also, problems: the false witnesses' accusations (that Jesus will
destroy and rebuild the temple) don't match the Sanhendran's questions (on
Jesus' identity). For the writer, the
two are linked. The high priest
interprets the accusations in the light of his identity. The irony is that Jesus never claimed to
destroy and rebuild the temple. All see
it as a messianic claim. Three of Jesus'
titles are invoked: Jesus is asked if he
is the Christ, the Son of God(see 1.1, 8.25, and 15.39). Jesus says 'I am'. Wilson :
an acknowledgment. Jesus says the Son of
Man will come to judge all at the end of time.
Jesus is condemned as a blasphemer.
What does this mean? Then, the
mockers ask him to prophesize. vv.
66-72: The disciples have abandoned Jesus; now, Peter does. This goes to the writer's view of
discipleship. This story of Peter is
related to Jesus' prediction of his denial--reference to the cock crow (see ch.
13). A dramatic build-up as each denial
comes. Peter, saying 'I don't know',
thinks he knows and is lying, but he really does not know. Knowledge is an important theme in Mk.
The
cup was an ancient metaphor for one's destiny.
4/23/96:
Lecture (Bartlett )
Mk.
15:
The
Passion Narrative(cont):
It
begins at the morning of Good Friday.
The Sanhedran handed Jesus over to Pilate. Why?
They did not have the authority at that time--even to stone. Crucificion was a Roman penalty. It was reserved for political
insurgents. So, the Romans are
ironically acknowledging Jesus' true identity: king of the Jews. Jesus' kingship is salient only in this
chapter. The blame for the crucifixion
is laid at the Jewish authorities in Mk.
They stirred up the crowd, sent Jesus to Pilote, and mocked him. By contrast, Pilote seems to be an unwilling
player; he seeks to release Jesus, declaring him innocent. Is the writer of Mk. laying open the
possibility of Christianity to the Romans of his day.
Episode
5: vv. 1-5Jesus before Pilote. A Jewish
messiah poses a threat to Roman authority.
vv. 6-15: release of Barabus. We
know nothing about such a practice.
Perhaps it is used here to show the Roman ambivolence. The crowd is prompted by the priests to ask
for Barabus (a murderer). Jesus is
punished as an insurrectionist in the place of a real insurrectionist. This prefigures Jesus as a ransom in his
crucifixion. vv. 16-20: Jesus is
flogged. He is dressed in purple,
crowned with thorns, and beaten. Other
religions have a ritual wherein a false king is teased so the real one won't
suffer.
Episode
6: The crucifixion. vv. 1-27: the
crucifixion itself. A simple narrative style. Allusions to Ps. 22. Mk 24 p. v.18; 23, 15; 29, 7; 31, 8; 32, 6;
33, 2. Jesus literally picks up his
cross. An anonomous figure (an outsider)
helps him with his cross. The
crucifixion itself is depicted as an enthronement. Jesus had been hailed when he entered the
city, was annointed, was proclaimed by Pilate to the people as the king of the
Jews, and is between two theves (places of honour). vv. 29-32: the mockery of Jesus while he was
on the cross. Some folks pass by call
him a temple destroyer and challenge him to come off the cross. The chief priests say that although Jesus
could save others, he can't save himself.
They also challenge him to save himself.
Ironic: the priests are right: Jesus can't save himself because only God
can save him. They are seeing the
ultimate sign of his divinity and they don't realize it. People revile him. His rejection by society is complete. vv. 33-39: the account of Jesus' death. During the first three hours, he is mocked;
during the last three hours, darkness covers the land. See Amos 8.9: reference to the Day of
Judgment. Mk. 13.24: darkness would
precede the coming of the Son of Man.
Ex.: then darkness passed over the entire land before the exodus and the
first covenant. v. 34: Jesus has been
betrayed by his disciples, taunted by his fellow victims. Ps. 22.1: the words that Jesus crys out. Even God has abandoned him. The Ps. words connect Jesus' suffering with a
divine reality. Scripture is to
anticipate what Jesus did and Jesus acted according to scripture. The temple curtain is torn in two. Disruption in the temple. God's presence was thought to be confined to
the holy of holies; God's presence breaks through and is no longer limited to it. The confession of the centurian. Is it
ironic? Lots of irony in Mk. But it is
an appropriate remark from a gentile.
When he saw how Jesus had died, he said 'surely this man is God's
son. Mk. 1.1: J.C., the Son of God. Also at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration,
God declared him to be the Son of God.
On trail in he Sanhedran, Jesus admits it. But the centurion is the first human to see
it. The reader is urged to see this:
only when Jesus loses his life does he actualize his identity. The passion narrative is the key that unlocks
the identity of Jesus. Jesus is a divine
figure who possesses a special relationship to God. That the centurion would confess Jesus' true
identity goes to show that anyone can.
Episode
7: the burial. Bracketed by statements
about the female followers. v. 40-41: at
sundown, Joseph asks the centurian for the body. Where he buries him is left vague. He was buried in a place where it could not
have been stolen. That Jesus was really
dead is shown by the centurion checking the body. No indication that Joseph was a follower of Jesus.
To follow Torah and bury him before dark would have been a rebuke of
Jesus. The temple still stood. The women
take the place of the disciples, remaining with Jesus at his death.
The
short and long endings of the gospel:
The
majority of the ancient texts have the long or the short and the long
endings. However, the long ending is not
in our oldest manuscripts from the fourth century. Alternative language (early) manuscripts do
not have the longer ending. Jerome saw
the longer ending as an addition.
Internal evidence: even in English, the language and style changes. The lack of connection between vv. 1-8 and
9-20. The women's silence and nothing
about going to Galilee . It seems that copists added a description of
the resurrection. A drive toward
uniformity in the early church.
Also,
v. 8 seems to use irony to show Jesus' Christology and his view of
discipleship. The lack of faith is
ironic.
