The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary 9783631647158, 9783653043006, 3631647158

Table of contents :
Cover
Acknowledgments
Contents
Introduction
A record of Palestinian oral traditions?
Mark and Paul
Sequential hypertextuality
1. Mk 1-7 (cf. Gal)
1.1. Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)
1.2. Mk 1:9-20 (cf. Gal 1:13-16b)
1.2.1. Mk 1:9 (cf. Gal 1:13-14)
1.2.2. Mk 1:10-11 (cf. Gal 1:15a.16a)
1.2.3. Mk 1:12-13 (cf. Gal 1:15b)
1.2.4. Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b)
1.3. Mk 1:21-2:12 (cf. Gal 1:16c-17)
1.3.1. Mk 1:21-28 (cf. Gal 1:16c)
1.3.2. Mk 1:29-34 (cf. Gal 1:17a)
1.3.3. Mk 1:35-45 (cf. Gal 1:17b)
1.3.4. Mk 2:1-12 (cf. Gal 1:17c)
1.4. Mk 2:13-3:6 (cf. Gal 1:18-20)
1.4.1. Mk 2:13-17 (cf. Gal 1:18)
1.4.2. Mk 2:18-22 (cf. Gal 1:19a)
1.4.3. Mk 2:23-28 (cf. Gal 1:19b)
1.4.4. Mk 3:1-6 (cf. Gal 1:20)
1.5. Mk 3:7-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:21-24)
1.5.1. Mk 3:7-19 (cf. Gal 1:21)
1.5.2. Mk 3:20-35 (cf. Gal 1:22)
1.5.3. Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)
1.5.4. Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24)
1.6. Mk 5:21-43 (cf. Gal 2:1-2)
1.6.1. Mk 5:21-24a (cf. Gal 2:1-2a)
1.6.2. Mk 5:24b-34 (cf. Gal 2:2bc)
1.6.3. Mk 5:35-43 (cf. Gal 2:2d-f)
1.7. Mk 6:1-6 (cf. Gal 2:3-5)
1.8. Mk 6:7-44 (cf. Gal 2:6-14)
1.8.1. Mk 6:7-13 (cf. Gal 2:6-10)
1.8.2. Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13)
1.8.3. Mk 6:30-44 (cf. Gal 2:14)
1.9. Mk 6:45-56 (cf. Gal 2:15-3:9)
1.9.1. Mk 6:45-52 (cf. Gal 2:15-3:4)
1.9.2. Mk 6:53-56 (cf. Gal 3:5-9)
1.10. Mk 7:1-23 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:21)
1.10.1. Mk 7:1-13 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:15)
1.10.2. Mk 7:14-23 (cf. Gal 5:16-21)
1.11. Mk 7:24-37 (cf. Gal 5:22-6:18)
1.11.1. Mk 7:24-30 (cf. Gal 5:22-26)
1.11.2. Mk 7:31-37 (cf. Gal 6:1-18)
2. Mk 8-13 (cf. 1 Cor)
2.1. Mk 8:1-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-31)
2.1.1. Mk 8:1-9 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-16)
2.1.2. Mk 8:10-13 (cf. 1 Cor 1:17-23)
2.1.3. Mk 8:14-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:24-31)
2.2. Mk 8:22-26 (cf. 1 Cor 2:1)
2.3. Mk 8:27-9:1 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2-6)
2.3.1. Mk 8:27-30 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2a-c)
2.3.2. Mk 8:31-33 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2d-5)
2.3.3. Mk 8:34-9:1 (cf. 1 Cor 2:6)
2.4. Mk 9:2-13 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-9)
2.4.1. Mk 9:2-8 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8)
2.4.2. Mk 9:9-13 (cf. 1 Cor 2:9)
2.5. Mk 9:14-29 (cf. 1 Cor 2:10-3:17)
2.6. Mk 9:30-50 (cf. 1 Cor 3:18-6:11)
2.6.1. Mk 9:30-32 (cf. 1 Cor 3:18-19)
2.6.2. Mk 9:33-35 (cf. 1 Cor 3:20-4:13)
2.6.3. Mk 9:36-37 (cf. 1 Cor 4:14-17)
2.6.4. Mk 9:38-41 (cf. 1 Cor 4:18-21)
2.6.5. Mk 9:42-50 (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-6:11)
2.7. Mk 10:1-16 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:16)
2.7.1. Mk 10:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:11)
2.7.2. Mk 10:13-16 (cf. 1 Cor 7:12-16)
2.8. Mk 10:17-31 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-40)
2.8.1. Mk 10:17-22 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-28)
2.8.2. Mk 10:23-27 (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-32b)
2.8.3. Mk 10:28-31 (cf. 1 Cor 7:32c-40)
2.9. Mk 10:32-52 (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-9:27)
2.9.1. Mk 10:32-34 (cf. 1 Cor 8)
2.9.2. Mk 10:35-40 (cf. 1 Cor 9:1-17)
2.9.3. Mk 10:41-45 (cf. 1 Cor 9:18-19)
2.9.4. Mk 10:46-52 (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-27)
2.10. Mk 11:1-19 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-11:26)
2.10.1. Mk 11:1-11 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-8)
2.10.2. Mk 11:12-14 (cf. 1 Cor 10:9-13)
2.10.3. Mk 11:15-19 (cf. 1 Cor 10:14-11:26)
2.11. Mk 11:20-12:17 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-15:11)
2.11.1. Mk 11:20-25 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-14:20)
2.11.2. Mk 11:27-33 (cf. 1 Cor 14:21-40)
2.11.3. Mk 12:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-4)
2.11.4. Mk 12:13-17 (cf. 1 Cor 15:5-11)
2.12. Mk 12:18-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-31)
2.12.1. Mk 12:18-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-22)
2.12.2. Mk 12:28-34 (cf. 1 Cor 15:23-24)
2.12.3. Mk 12:35-37 (cf. 1 Cor 15:25-27a)
2.12.4. Mk 12:38-40 (cf. 1 Cor 15:27b-28)
2.12.5. Mk 12:41-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:29-31)
2.13. Mk 13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-16:24)
2.13.1. Mk 13:1-13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-33)
2.13.2. Mk 13:14-23 (cf. 1 Cor 15:34-52)
2.13.3. Mk 13:24-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:53-58)
2.13.4. Mk 13:28-32 (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-12)
2.13.5. Mk 13:33-37 (cf. 1 Cor 16:13-24)
3. Mk 14-16 (cf. Phlp)
3.1. Mk 14:1-25 (cf. Phlp 1:1-18)
3.1.1. Mk 14:1-11 (cf. Phlp 1:1-15a)
3.1.2. Mk 14:12-16 (cf. Phlp 1:15b-16)
3.1.3. Mk 14:17-21 (cf. Phlp 1:17)
3.1.4. Mk 14:22-25 (cf. Phlp 1:18)
3.2. Mk 14:26-52 (cf. Phlp 1:19-30)
3.2.1. Mk 14:26-31 (cf. Phlp 1:19ab)
3.2.2. Mk 14:32-42 (cf. Phlp 1:19c-28a)
3.2.3. Mk 14:43-52 (cf. Phlp 1:28b-30)
3.3. Mk 14:53-15:15 (cf. Phlp 2:1-3:3)
3.3.1. Mk 14:53-72 (cf. Phlp 2:1-10)
3.3.2. Mk 15:1-5 (cf. Phlp 2:11-16)
3.3.3. Mk 15:6-15 (cf. Phlp 2:17-3:3)
3.4. Mk 15:16-37 (cf. Phlp 3:4-20)
3.4.1. Mk 15:16-20 (cf. Phlp 3:4-9)
3.4.2. Mk 15:21 (cf. Phlp 3:10-12)
3.4.3. Mk 15:22-27 (cf. Phlp 3:13-17)
3.4.4. Mk 15:29-32 (cf. Phlp 3:18-19)
3.4.5. Mk 15:33-37 (cf. Phlp 3:20)
3.5. Mk 15:38-16:8 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:23)
3.5.1. Mk 15:38-41 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:2)
3.5.2. Mk 15:42-47 (cf. Phlp 4:3-9)
3.5.3. Mk 16:1-8 (cf. Phlp 4:10-23)
General conclusions
Bibliography
Primary sources
Israelite-Jewish
Graeco-Roman
Inscriptions and papyri
Literary texts
Early Christian (I-II c. ad)
Secondary literature
Index of ancient sources
Old Testament
New Testament
Other Israelite–Jewish Works
Other Graeco–Roman Works
Other Early Christian Works

Citation preview

Bartosz Adamczewski

The Gospel of Mark A Hypertextual Commentary

European Studies in T heolog y, Philosophy and Histor y of Relig ions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

This commentary demonstrates that the Gospel of Mark is a result of a consistent, strictly sequential, hypertextual reworking of the contents of three of Paul’s letters: Galatians, First Corinthians and Philippians. Consequently, it shows that the Marcan Jesus narratively embodies the features of God’s Son who was revealed in the person, teaching, and course of life of Paul the Apostle. The analysis of the topographic and historical details of the Marcan Gospel reveals that they were mainly borrowed from the Septuagint and from the writings of Flavius Josephus. Other literary motifs were taken from various Jewish and Greek writings, including the works of Homer, Herodotus, and Plato. The Gospel of Mark should therefore be regarded as a strictly theological-ethopoeic work, rather than a biographic one.

Bartosz Adamczewski is Associate Professor of New Testament exegesis at Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw (Poland). He has published several books on the relationships between biblical writings themselves, and between them and historical facts.

The Gospel of Mark

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 8

Bartosz Adamczewski

The Gospel of Mark A Hypertextual Commentary

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Adamczewski, Bartosz. The gospel of Mark : a hypertextual commentary / Bartosz Adamczewski. – 1 [edition]. pages cm. – (European studies in theology, philosophy, and history of religions, ISSN 2192-1857 ; v. 8) ISBN 978-3-631-64715-8 1. Bible. Mark–Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. Mark– Commentaries. 3. Intertextuality in the Bible. I. Title. BS2585.52.A33 2014 226.3'07--dc23 2014005517

ISSN 21921857 ISBN 978-3-631-64715-8 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-653-04300-6 (E-Book) DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-04300-6 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2014 All rights reserved. Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH. Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This book is part of the Peter Lang Edition list and was peer reviewed prior to publication. www.peterlang.com

Acknowledgments

I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and friends; my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; and the community of the Catholic Parish of St Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement, prayers, and spiritual support during my writing this book. I especially appreciate the spiritual presence of St Mark as the patron saint of the parish in which I have written this commentary. The beautiful depiction of the text of the Marcan Gospel in the apse of my parish church as bringing Christ forward to the Church, rather than referring back to him, has been particularly inspiring to me in my work. My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for their help during my summer bibliographical research. Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped turn the electronic version of the text into a book.

Contents

Acknowledgments................................................................................................ 5 Introduction........................................................................................................ 11 A record of Palestinian oral traditions?............................................................ 11 Mark and Paul.................................................................................................. 17 Sequential hypertextuality............................................................................... 22 1. Mk 1-7 (cf. Gal).............................................................................................. 31 1.1. Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)......................................................................... 31 1.2. Mk 1:9-20 (cf. Gal 1:13-16b)................................................................... 38 1.2.1. Mk 1:9 (cf. Gal 1:13-14)................................................................. 38 1.2.2. Mk 1:10-11 (cf. Gal 1:15a.16a)...................................................... 39 1.2.3. Mk 1:12-13 (cf. Gal 1:15b)............................................................. 41 1.2.4. Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b)...................................................... 42 1.3. Mk 1:21-2:12 (cf. Gal 1:16c-17)............................................................... 47 1.3.1. Mk 1:21-28 (cf. Gal 1:16c)............................................................. 47 1.3.2. Mk 1:29-34 (cf. Gal 1:17a)............................................................. 49 1.3.3. Mk 1:35-45 (cf. Gal 1:17b)............................................................. 49 1.3.4. Mk 2:1-12 (cf. Gal 1:17c)............................................................... 51 1.4. Mk 2:13-3:6 (cf. Gal 1:18-20).................................................................. 52 1.4.1. Mk 2:13-17 (cf. Gal 1:18)............................................................... 53 1.4.2. Mk 2:18-22 (cf. Gal 1:19a)............................................................. 55 1.4.3. Mk 2:23-28 (cf. Gal 1:19b)............................................................. 56 1.4.4. Mk 3:1-6 (cf. Gal 1:20)................................................................... 57 1.5. Mk 3:7-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:21-24).................................................................. 59 1.5.1. Mk 3:7-19 (cf. Gal 1:21)................................................................. 59 1.5.2. Mk 3:20-35 (cf. Gal 1:22)............................................................... 62 1.5.3. Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)............................................................... 64 1.5.4. Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24).................................................... 70 1.6. Mk 5:21-43 (cf. Gal 2:1-2)....................................................................... 76 1.6.1. Mk 5:21-24a (cf. Gal 2:1-2a).......................................................... 76 1.6.2. Mk 5:24b-34 (cf. Gal 2:2bc)........................................................... 77 1.6.3. Mk 5:35-43 (cf. Gal 2:2d-f)............................................................ 78

8

Contents

1.7. Mk 6:1-6 (cf. Gal 2:3-5)........................................................................... 80 1.8. Mk 6:7-44 (cf. Gal 2:6-14)....................................................................... 81 1.8.1. Mk 6:7-13 (cf. Gal 2:6-10)............................................................. 82 1.8.2. Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13)......................................................... 83 1.8.3. Mk 6:30-44 (cf. Gal 2:14)............................................................... 88 1.9. Mk 6:45-56 (cf. Gal 2:15-3:9).................................................................. 91 1.9.1. Mk 6:45-52 (cf. Gal 2:15-3:4)........................................................ 92 1.9.2. Mk 6:53-56 (cf. Gal 3:5-9)............................................................. 93 1.10. Mk 7:1-23 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:21)................................................................ 94 1.10.1. Mk 7:1-13 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:15)...................................................... 94 1.10.2. Mk 7:14-23 (cf. Gal 5:16-21)....................................................... 97 1.11. Mk 7:24-37 (cf. Gal 5:22-6:18).............................................................. 99 1.11.1. Mk 7:24-30 (cf. Gal 5:22-26)....................................................... 99 1.11.2. Mk 7:31-37 (cf. Gal 6:1-18)....................................................... 100 2. Mk 8-13 (cf. 1 Cor)....................................................................................... 103 2.1. Mk 8:1-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-31).................................................................. 103 2.1.1. Mk 8:1-9 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-16).......................................................... 103 2.1.2. Mk 8:10-13 (cf. 1 Cor 1:17-23).................................................... 106 2.1.3. Mk 8:14-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:24-31).................................................... 107 2.2. Mk 8:22-26 (cf. 1 Cor 2:1)...................................................................... 108 2.3. Mk 8:27-9:1 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2-6)................................................................. 110 2.3.1. Mk 8:27-30 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2a-c)...................................................... 110 2.3.2. Mk 8:31-33 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2d-5)...................................................... 111 2.3.3. Mk 8:34-9:1 (cf. 1 Cor 2:6).......................................................... 113 2.4. Mk 9:2-13 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-9).................................................................... 114 2.4.1. Mk 9:2-8 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8)............................................................ 114 2.4.2. Mk 9:9-13 (cf. 1 Cor 2:9)............................................................. 117 2.5. Mk 9:14-29 (cf. 1 Cor 2:10-3:17)........................................................... 118 2.6. Mk 9:30-50 (cf. 1 Cor 3:18-6:11)........................................................... 120 2.6.1. Mk 9:30-32 (cf. 1 Cor 3:18-19).................................................... 120 2.6.2. Mk 9:33-35 (cf. 1 Cor 3:20-4:13)................................................. 121 2.6.3. Mk 9:36-37 (cf. 1 Cor 4:14-17).................................................... 121 2.6.4. Mk 9:38-41 (cf. 1 Cor 4:18-21).................................................... 122 2.6.5. Mk 9:42-50 (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-6:11)................................................... 123 2.7. Mk 10:1-16 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:16)........................................................... 124 2.7.1. Mk 10:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:11)................................................. 124 2.7.2. Mk 10:13-16 (cf. 1 Cor 7:12-16).................................................. 128 2.8. Mk 10:17-31 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-40)............................................................ 128 2.8.1. Mk 10:17-22 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-28).................................................. 129



Contents

9

2.8.2. Mk 10:23-27 (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-32b)................................................ 131 2.8.3. Mk 10:28-31 (cf. 1 Cor 7:32c-40)................................................ 132 2.9. Mk 10:32-52 (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-9:27)........................................................... 133 2.9.1. Mk 10:32-34 (cf. 1 Cor 8)............................................................ 133 2.9.2. Mk 10:35-40 (cf. 1 Cor 9:1-17).................................................... 134 2.9.3. Mk 10:41-45 (cf. 1 Cor 9:18-19).................................................. 136 2.9.4. Mk 10:46-52 (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-27).................................................. 137 2.10. Mk 11:1-19 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-11:26)....................................................... 139 2.10.1. Mk 11:1-11 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-8).................................................... 139 2.10.2. Mk 11:12-14 (cf. 1 Cor 10:9-13)................................................ 141 2.10.3. Mk 11:15-19 (cf. 1 Cor 10:14-11:26)......................................... 143 2.11. Mk 11:20-12:17 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-15:11)............................................... 144 2.11.1. Mk 11:20-25 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-14:20)......................................... 144 2.11.2. Mk 11:27-33 (cf. 1 Cor 14:21-40).............................................. 146 2.11.3. Mk 12:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-4).................................................... 147 2.11.4. Mk 12:13-17 (cf. 1 Cor 15:5-11)................................................ 148 2.12. Mk 12:18-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-31)........................................................ 149 2.12.1. Mk 12:18-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-22).............................................. 149 2.12.2. Mk 12:28-34 (cf. 1 Cor 15:23-24).............................................. 151 2.12.3. Mk 12:35-37 (cf. 1 Cor 15:25-27a)............................................ 152 2.12.4. Mk 12:38-40 (cf. 1 Cor 15:27b-28)............................................ 153 2.12.5. Mk 12:41-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:29-31).............................................. 154 2.13. Mk 13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-16:24).............................................................. 156 2.13.1. Mk 13:1-13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-33)................................................ 156 2.13.2. Mk 13:14-23 (cf. 1 Cor 15:34-52).............................................. 158 2.13.3. Mk 13:24-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:53-58).............................................. 161 2.13.4. Mk 13:28-32 (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-12)................................................ 161 2.13.5. Mk 13:33-37 (cf. 1 Cor 16:13-24).............................................. 162 3. Mk 14-16 (cf. Phlp)...................................................................................... 165 3.1. Mk 14:1-25 (cf. Phlp 1:1-18).................................................................. 165 3.1.1. Mk 14:1-11 (cf. Phlp 1:1-15a)...................................................... 165 3.1.2. Mk 14:12-16 (cf. Phlp 1:15b-16).................................................. 168 3.1.3. Mk 14:17-21 (cf. Phlp 1:17)......................................................... 170 3.1.4. Mk 14:22-25 (cf. Phlp 1:18)......................................................... 170 3.2. Mk 14:26-52 (cf. Phlp 1:19-30).............................................................. 172 3.2.1. Mk 14:26-31 (cf. Phlp 1:19ab)..................................................... 172 3.2.2. Mk 14:32-42 (cf. Phlp 1:19c-28a)................................................ 174 3.2.3. Mk 14:43-52 (cf. Phlp 1:28b-30).................................................. 176 3.3. Mk 14:53-15:15 (cf. Phlp 2:1-3:3).......................................................... 177

10

Contents

3.3.1. Mk 14:53-72 (cf. Phlp 2:1-10)...................................................... 177 3.3.2. Mk 15:1-5 (cf. Phlp 2:11-16)........................................................ 181 3.3.3. Mk 15:6-15 (cf. Phlp 2:17-3:3).................................................... 181 3.4. Mk 15:16-37 (cf. Phlp 3:4-20)................................................................ 184 3.4.1. Mk 15:16-20 (cf. Phlp 3:4-9)........................................................ 184 3.4.2. Mk 15:21 (cf. Phlp 3:10-12)......................................................... 185 3.4.3. Mk 15:22-27 (cf. Phlp 3:13-17).................................................... 186 3.4.4. Mk 15:29-32 (cf. Phlp 3:18-19).................................................... 188 3.4.5. Mk 15:33-37 (cf. Phlp 3:20)......................................................... 188 3.5. Mk 15:38-16:8 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:23)........................................................ 190 3.5.1. Mk 15:38-41 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:2).................................................. 190 3.5.2. Mk 15:42-47 (cf. Phlp 4:3-9)........................................................ 192 3.5.3. Mk 16:1-8 (cf. Phlp 4:10-23)........................................................ 193 General conclusions......................................................................................... 197 Bibliography..................................................................................................... 203 Primary sources.............................................................................................. 203 Israelite-Jewish....................................................................................... 203 Graeco-Roman........................................................................................ 203 Early Christian (I-II c. ad)...................................................................... 204 Secondary literature....................................................................................... 205 Index of ancient sources.................................................................................. 223

Introduction

This commentary greatly differs from other modern commentaries on the Gospel of Mark. The difference results from the particular methodological approach which has been adopted therein. Instead of explaining the Marcan Gospel in historicalcritical terms as a result of redactional use of earlier sources or traditions, in narratological terms as a set of narrative-organizing devices, etc., this commentary aims at explaining it as a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of three Pauline letters: to the Galatians, the first to the Corinthians, and to the Philippians. This methodological approach, unlike many others, does not originate from any particular literary theory. It rather reflects the recent discovery of the phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in numerous biblical writings. This phenomenon occurs in the writings of both the Old and the New Testament: Gen, Exod-Lev-Num, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr; Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev.1 These writings, taken together and measured by their extent, constitute almost a half of the Christian Bible. Accordingly, it is fully justified to perform a thorough analysis of the Marcan Gospel, taking this important literary discovery into full consideration.

A record of Palestinian oral traditions? The understanding of the Gospel of Mark as a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of Paul’s letters is particularly hindered by the widespread tendency 1

See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 227-399, 419-430; id., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 83-132; id., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 39-121; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 55-66, 79-86, 99-103, 117-119, 129-163; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25-280; id., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 14-62.

12

Introduction

to explain the origin of the Marcan work in terms of the evangelist’s use of early Christian oral traditions concerning Jesus. This tendency goes back to the patristic views concerning the origin of the Marcan Gospel. This anonymous literary work, which evidently reflects the main principles of Paul’s theology, but also narratively highlights the importance of Peter, was probably in the mid-second century ad attributed to Mark (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.10.5; 3.11.8; 3.16.3), the person who was mentioned in the Pauline letters (Phlm 24; cf. Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11), but also in a letter attributed to Peter (1 Pet 5:13). However, while the reference to Mark in Phlm  24 can be regarded as historically reliable, the remark concerning Mark in 1 Pet 5:13 has a clear ethopoeic function. It is aimed at presenting the person of Peter as generally agreeing with Paul: in the final travel to Rome (presented in 1 Pet as ‘Babylon’, the place of exile of the pious Jew: 1 Pet 5:13; cf. 1 Pet 1:1.17; 2:11; cf. also Acts 2:10-11; 12:17),2 in the submissive instructions concerning civil authorities (1 Pet 2:12-17; cf. Rom 12:18-13:8),3 in numerous references to Isaiah and to other prophets and psalms (cf. esp. Rom 9-11), and in references to those Pauline co-workers who bore Latin names, namely Silvanus and Marcus (1 Pet 5:12-13; cf. 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Cor 1:19 and Phlm 24).4 Therefore, the ethopoeic ‘adoption’ of Mark by Peter, which consisted in presenting the historical Paul’s co-worker named Mark as also Peter’s ‘son’ (υἱός: 1 Pet 5:13; cf. also Acts 12:12), reflects the early Christian desire to reconcile in a rhetorical-literary way the theological heritage of Paul with the ethopoeic image of Peter. Consequently, it does not reflect any historical link between Peter and Mark.5 Nevertheless, the particular idea that the Gospel of Mark should be regarded as closely related to the authority of Peter, an idea which is in fact highly implausible in view of the very negative presentation of Peter in the Marcan Gospel (Mk 8:22-23; 9:5-6; 14:29-30.37.66-72 etc.), was later developed in the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’. This text is contained in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16, 2 3 4 5

Cf. O. Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse: Mit einer kritischen Edition der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage (UALG 96; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2009), 7-12. Cf. K. M. Schmidt, Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel: Epistolographie, Rhetorik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe (HBS 38; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2003), 235-241. Cf. U. Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2917; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2007), 577-578. Cf. J. C. Fenton, ‘Paul and Mark’, in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 89-112 (esp. 111); B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 230; id., Constructing, 111.



A record of Palestinian oral traditions?

13

and it is traditionally dated to the beginning of the second century ad, although this dating is by no means certain.6 According to this patristic text, the Gospel of Mark was based on oral traditions which had been handed down to the evangelist by the apostle Peter. Precisely for this reason, the Gospel of Mark was for centuries regarded as a predominantly ‘Petrine’ work, which had been based on Peter’s oral catecheses (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1; 3.10.5 etc.), and which had been generally uninfluenced by the Pauline literary and theological heritage. However, a close analysis of the composition of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ reveals that this text was not primarily concerned with the sources of the material which is contained in the Gospel of Mark and in other Gospels, because in such a case it would have referred to the origin of all four canonical Gospels, and not just two of them. In fact, the bipartite structure of this patristic text reveals that it was only aimed at explaining the differences between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, as well as the striking features of the Matthean Gospel. The author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ rightly perceived the Gospel of Matthew as having two apparently contradictory features. On the one hand, this Gospel seems to be a result of literary enhancement and rhetorical improvement of the relatively short and simple Gospel of Mark. On the other hand, in difference to the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, with its particular wording and theological stance, seems to be a very ‘Hebrew’, so apparently primitive Gospel. Consequently, it is reasonable to ask whether the Matthean Gospel should be regarded as written after or before the Gospel of Mark. The so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ presents an early Christian attempt to answer this difficult literary-theological question, which in fact constitutes one of the most important elements of the so-called synoptic problem. According to the ‘testimony of Papias’, the Marcan Gospel originated from a set of Peter’s oral catecheses, and therefore, as the patristic text repeatedly stresses, it was not well organized in terms of a carefully composed literary work (οὐ… τάξει, οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15).7 The patristic text further suggests that as a consequence of this fact, ‘so then (μὲν οὖν) Matthew arranged the [Lord’s] oracles […] in an orderly way’ (συνετάξατο: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16). Accordingly, the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, through its 6 7

Cf. U.  H.  J.  Körtner, ‘Papiasfragmente’, in U.  H.  J.  Körtner and M.  Leutzsch (eds.), Papiasfragmente, Hirt des Hermas (SUC 3; Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1998), 1-103 (esp. 30-31). Cf. D. Farkasfalvy, ‘The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris, and J. W. Thompson (eds.), The Early Church in Its Context, Festschrift E. Ferguson (NovTSup 90; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 92-106 (esp. 93-97).

14

Introduction

correlated references to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, explained the evident posteriority of the apparently ‘Hebrew’ Gospel of Matthew against the apparently ‘Gentile’ Gospel of Mark in terms of necessary literary improvement of the allegedly poorly organized Gospel of Mark. In order to lend credence to this thesis, the author of the ‘testimony of Papias’ argued that the things which could be rearranged in the Marcan Gospel, without compromising the truth of them, were the Lord’s and Peter’s allegedly isolated oracles or discourses (λόγια: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16).8 In this way, the surprising idea that the Gospel of Mark should be regarded as a combination of mutually independent fragments which originated from oral tradition, and not an internally coherent literary-theological work, came into being. Accordingly, the suggestion that the Gospel of Mark had its origin in some orally transmitted discourses or oracles (λόγια: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15) evidently functioned in the ‘testimony of Papias’ only as a secondary, in fact merely postulated element of the principal rhetorical argument concerning the necessity to rearrange the contents of the Gospel of Mark into the better-organized Gospel of Matthew. However, this suggestion had great consequences for Christian exegesis and theology. Christian commentators were henceforth encouraged to interpret the Gospel of Mark as a set of loosely interrelated, allegedly historical sayings of the Palestinian Jesus, and not as an internally coherent, narrative, christologicalecclesiological treatise which reflected the most important features of the Pauline theology of law-breaking mission among unclean Gentiles, which was based on the faith in Christ’s salvific suffering and resurrection.9 The evident common features of the Marcan Gospel and the Pauline letters are usually explained by modern scholars by means of the hardly verifiable hypothesis of Mark and Paul’s common use of early Christian traditions, liturgical formulae, etc.10 It is usually suggested, rather than proved, that it were oral traditions, and not written texts, that widely circulated among early Christian communities 8

9 10

The author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ evidently recognized the fact that the canonical Gospels, with all the differences between them, cannot be regarded as strictly historical in their variegated presentations of Jesus’ life and activity. However, he tried to defend the reliability of the Gospels by suggesting that they contain discourses (λόγια) of the historical Jesus. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 125-127. Cf. e.g. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007), 678-679 as concerns the use of the same, complex, Greek-Aramaic phrase ‘abba, the Father’ (αββα ὁ πατήρ) in both Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6 and Mk 14:36.



A record of Palestinian oral traditions?

15

across the Mediterranean. The scholars who espouse this hypothesis do not explain why it would have been easier to pass over from one community to another oral traditions rather than written texts, for example those of the Pauline letters. In fact, Paul’s letters demonstrate that even if short pieces of information could be transmitted orally (1 Cor 1:11), extensive instructions and discussions concerning the main features of Christianity were usually transmitted with the use of written media of communication (1 Cor 5:9.11; 7:1; 2 Cor 2:3-4.9; 7:12; Rom 15:15; Phlp 3:1 etc.). At times, scholars even try to reconstruct the extent of the oral traditions which were allegedly used by Mark, and which should be regarded as historically reliable. For example, Adela Yarbro Collins has recently made a list of six events which were allegedly contained in such a hypothetical pre-Marcan ‘chronicle’. A half of these events refer to the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist.11 However, in reconstructing the postulated pre-Marcan ‘chronicle’, which allegedly reflected Palestinian oral traditions concerning Jesus, Yarbro Collins, like many other scholars, has uncritically assumed that John the Baptist baptized Jesus, and that John was executed before Jesus’ death.12 The American scholar has based her claims on the postulated date of the execution of John the Baptist ‘in 28 or 29 C.E’, supporting her view in a footnote: ‘On the date of John’s execution, see P. W.  Hollenbach, “John the Baptist,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. D. N. Freedman; 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:887’.13 When a curious reader follows the reference to Hollenbach’s allegedly detailed discussion on the subject, he or she merely finds the following general statement concerning John the Baptist: ‘His popularity and the revolutionary possibilities of his message of social justice led to his arrest, imprisonment and execution by Herod Antipas, probably in a.d. 28 or 29.’14 In fact, the execution of John the Baptist in the Trans­ jordanian fort of Machaerus took place c. ad 36 (Jos. Ant. 18.116-119),15 so most probably almost a decade after the death of Jesus in Jerusalem (c. ad 26-27; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64 [in its original form]),16 and consequently it is quite possible that they never met each other. 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ead., ‘Mark and the Hermeneutics of History Writing’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew II: Comparative Readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (WUNT 304; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 231-244 (esp. 235). Ibid. Ibid. 234 n. 21. P. W. Hollenbach, ‘John the Baptist’, in ABD, vol. 3, 887-899 (here: 887). Cf. W. Eckey, Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 228; B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 17-18, 61, 100-101. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 27-29. For a recent discussion concerning the authenticity of a part of Jos. Ant. 18.63-64, see id., Hypertextuality, 86-88.

16

Introduction

Similar reservations should be voiced as concerns the historical reliability of the allegedly pre-Marcan traditions concerning Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God, as well as Jesus’ performance of disruptive acts in the Jerusalem temple,17 for both these ideas are not attested outside the Gospels. Consequently, the only historically reliable element of the oral tradition which was allegedly used by Mark, as it is postulated by Yarbro Collins, is Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.18 However, it is evident that Mark could have borrowed the basic data concerning Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection from the letters of Paul the Apostle.19 Accordingly, the hypothesis of Mark’s use of early Christian oral traditions concerning Jesus is in fact unverifiable, if not entirely implausible.20 As concerns the literary genre of the Marcan work, Eve-Marie Becker has recently argued that the Gospel of Mark has numerous features of a historiographic work.21 However, as the German scholar has rightly noted, the formal features of the Marcan Gospel as a historiographic work do not necessarily prove that the content of this Gospel is historical from the modern point of view.22 The parahistorical Pentateuchal narratives evidently show that in biblical literature there are numerous literary works which have the formal features of historiographic works, and nevertheless their truly historical value cannot be simply taken for granted on the basis of their literary genre, but it should be assessed with the use of various methods of historical verification.23 In particular, the structural literary and conceptual parallels between the references to the destruction of Jerusalem in Mk 13:14-27 and in Jos. B.J. 6.271-315, which have been noticed by Becker,24 do not necessarily prove the historical value

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Mark and the Hermeneutics’, 235. Cf. ibid. It should be noted that in her detailed commentary on the Gospel of Mark, A. Yarbro Collins has referred to a number of possible background texts for the Marcan Gospel, but she has almost never analysed in this role the letters of Paul the Apostle. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 71-76. E.‑M.  Becker, Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie (WUNT 194; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006), passim. Cf. ibid. 393-396, esp. 396: ‘Als historischer Kernbestand von […] Mk 10,46ff lassen sich […] der Gang Jesu nach Jerusalem and seine dortige Hinrichtung wahrscheinlich machen’. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 25-223. E.‑M. Becker, Markus-Evangelium, 89-92.



Mark and Paul

17

of the Marcan Gospel in the modern sense of this word,25 for it seems that the Gospel of Mark is literarily dependent on the works of Flavius Josephus.26 Likewise, Detlev Dormeyer’s hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark resembles Hellenistic ideal biographies, and that it has much in common with the Old Testament ideal biographies of Elijah (1 Kgs 17:1-19:21; 2 Kgs 1:1-2:18 etc.) and David (1 Sam 16:1-23 etc.),27 is certainly insightful. However, the German scholar failed to recognize the fact that these Old Testament ideal biographies are the results of the sequential hypertextual reworking of the structurally corresponding sections of Deuteronomy.28 Consequently, if it can be argued that the Marcan work formally resembles these Old Testament biographies,29 it should also be argued that it likewise resulted from a sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts, in this case of the letters of Paul the Apostle (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp).30 Consequently, the Marcan work can be categorized as scriptural biography because of its authoritative status for the believers, its sequential hypertextual use of earlier theological texts, its apparently biographic form, and its very loose connection with the historical facts.31

Mark and Paul The problem of the relationship between the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul the Apostle has a long history in modern scholarship. Although the Marcan work was traditionally related to the Petrine area of influence, many scholars detected theological, and at times also literary links between the Marcan Gospel and the Pauline epistolography. 25 26 27 28 29

30

31

Cf. ibid. 90: ‘Die Auswertung dieser Motivparallelen zwischen Josephus und Mk  13 macht ihren historischen Wert sichtbar […]’. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 100-102. D. Dormeyer, Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener (SBB 43; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1999), 38, 88-102. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 232-260, 263-271. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 148-153; T. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OACB: St Paul, Minn. 2012), 207-210. For this reason, it was not Philo of Alexandria, with his allegorical biographies of the scriptural figures, who paved the way for the Marcan ‘allegorical-biographizing’ presentation of Christ-figures, as it has been argued by H. Tronier, ‘Markusevangeliets Jesus som biografiseret erkendelsesfigur: “Ny skabelse” fra Paulus til Markus’, in T. L. Thompson and H. Tronier (eds.), Frelsens biografisering (FBE 13; Museum Tusculanum: København 2004), 237-271. Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 201-220, who argues for the genre of ‘scriptural historiography’.

18

Introduction

The German scholar Gustav Volkmar was the first modern exegete who argued that the Gospel of Mark in a symbolic-narrative way praised and defended not so much the Petrine tradition, but rather the Pauline teaching and activity among the Gentiles.32 Although Volkmar’s analysis of the presence of distinctively Pauline motifs in the Marcan work was rather selective, he paved the way for the understanding of the earliest Gospel as closely related to Paul’s theological and literary heritage. Somewhat later, the German scholar Moritz Hermann Schulze supported Volkmar’s ideas and argued that the Gospel of Mark had been composed as an apology for the person and life of Paul, so that the whole life of Paul agrees in it with the narrated life of Jesus.33 In opposition to Volkmar’s ideas, the Swiss scholar Martin Werner strongly argued that the differences between the theological ideas, as well as vocabulary, of Mark and Paul are too significant to allow for a theological influence of Paul on Mark. Moreover, in Werner’s opinion Paul and Mark share general early Christian ideas, rather than the particularly Pauline viewpoints.34 However, at the end of his influential book the Swiss theologian explained his basic methodological presuppositions, which also reveal the methodological shortcomings of his work. Werner’s first presupposition consisted in his deliberate, in fact fundamentalist, rejection of Volkmar’s method of the analysis of possible allusions to Paul’s letters in the Gospel of Mark. According to the Swiss theologian, Volkmar’s method should be regarded as allegorizing, and consequently presumably non-scholarly.35 However, such a view evidently involves a highly problematic decision about what ‘scholarly’ truly means. Werner’s second presupposition consisted in his assumption that the original Pauline ideas should be extracted from the body of general, early Christian ideas which are allegedly contained in Paul’s letters.36 After almost a century of critical reflection on Paul’s literary-theological heritage, it is evident that such a 32 33

34 35 36

G. Volkmar, Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R. Reisland): Leipzig 1870), viii, 644-646 et passim. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), iv, x-xxvi. M. Werner, Der Einfluß paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium: Eine Studie zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (BZNW 1; Alfred Töpelmann: Gießen 1923). Ibid. 210. Ibid.



Mark and Paul

19

procedure also presupposes a particular, in fact highly problematic, definition of what should be regarded as ‘originally Pauline’, and what should be regarded as ‘generally Christian’. Following Werner’s way of argumentation, other modern scholars in the twentieth century also noted the absence of important Pauline theological themes, such as justification by faith, union with Christ by faith, life according to the Spirit, soteriological value of Jesus’ resurrection, etc., in the Gospel of Mark.37 More recently, however, a number of scholars have tried to interpret the Gospel of Mark as a post-Pauline, rather than post-Petrine or generally Christian work. For example, the British scholar Michael D. Goulder has argued that the Marcan stories about the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees in fact reflect the controversies between Paul and his Jacobite opponents which were recorded in the Pauline letters.38 Coming down to the linguistic level, Wolfgang Schenk has argued that numerous Pauline words and phrases were used in the Marcan Gospel. The German scholar has noted that a number of them (ἀββά, ἀδημονέω, ἀκυρόω, ἀλαλάζω, ἁμάρτημα, ἀσύνετος, ἄτιμος, ἀφροσύνη, etc.) can be found, as concerns the New Testament, exclusively in Paul’s letters and in the Gospel of Mark (and at times also in the parallel texts of Luke and Matthew), a fact which strongly suggests Mark’s indebtedness to Paul’s literary heritage.39 On a theological level, in opposition to the conclusions of Martin Werner, John Painter has argued that Paul and Mark have important ideas in common: concentration on the passion of Jesus, a critique of law, the use of ‘gospel’ language, not observing the Sabbath, invalidating Jewish food and purity laws, etc.40 Likewise, William R. Telford has argued that Mark and Paul share a number of ideas and literary motifs: a tension with the Jerusalem church; a similar attitude to the Law, table fellowship, and the food laws; a common strategy in regard to dealings with the Roman state; the rejection of ‘Son of David’ christology; regarding the title ‘Son of God’ as of supreme importance; the theology of the cross, the salvific death of Jesus, and the universality of salvation engendered by it; the importance of faith in Jesus for appropriating his divine power; the distinc37 38 39 40

See e.g. K. Romaniuk, ‘Le problème des paulinismes dans l’évangile de Marc’, NTS 23 (1977) 266-274 (esp. 273). M. D. Goulder, ‘A Pauline in a Jacobite Church’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck (BETL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 859-875. W. Schenk, ‘Sekundäre Jesuanisierungen von primären Paulus-Aussagen bei Markus’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), Four Gospels, 877-904. J.  Painter, Mark’s Gospel: Worlds in Conflict (NTR; Routledge: London · New York 1997), 5-6.

20

Introduction

tion between the ‘flesh’ and the ‘spirit’; similar catalogues of vices; the motif of ‘hardness of heart’; the use of the word ‘gospel’ (εὐαγγέλιον) to denote the proclamation of the message of salvation; etc.41 In his introductory commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Paul Nadim Tarazi has interpreted the Marcan ‘gospel story’ as a reflection of the ‘gospel story’ which was earlier presented in Paul’s letters (especially in the letters to the Galatians and to the Philippians) and which followed the major contours of Paul’s life and activity as an apostle. According to the Orthodox scholar, such a reworking of the ‘gospel story’ of Paul the Apostle into a ‘gospel story’ concerning Jesus was justified by the practical equivalence between the person of Jesus and the words of the gospel concerning him in the letters of the Apostle. Moreover, it followed the pattern of the hypertextual reworking of prophetic writings in the historical books of the Old Testament, so that the image of Paul shows through in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus, just as the image of Jeremiah shows through in the Pentateuch’s depiction of Moses.42 Likewise in opposition to Werner’s conclusions, Joel Marcus has argued for a Pauline influence on Mark in a number of ideas: the centrality of the term εὐαγγέλιον in his theology, the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion as the apocalyptic turning point of the ages, Jesus’ victory over demonic powers, Jesus’ advent as the dawn of the age of divine blessing prophesied in the Scriptures, the portrayal of Jesus as a new Adam, the importance of faith in Jesus and in God, negative views about Peter and about members of Jesus’ family, the inclusion of ungodly sinners and the Gentiles in the sphere of Jesus’ salvific activity and atoning death, an abrogation of the Old Testament food laws, etc.43 Jesper Svartvik has similarly argued that Mark shares with Paul the interest in the importance of the cross, a profound critique of the twelve disciples, and the problem of Christian commensality.44 The Swedish scholar has summarized his conclusions in the simple statement, ‘Mk may be understood as a Pauline Gospel’.45 More precisely, ‘the Gospel of Mark may best be described as a narrative presentation of the Pauline Gospel’.46 41 42 43 44

45 46

W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (NTTheol; Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York · Melbourne 1999), 164-169. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999), 127-132. J. Marcus, ‘Mark – Interpreter of Paul’, NTS 46 (2000) 473-487 (esp. 475-476, 486-487). J. Svartvik, Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1-23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts (ConBNT 32; Almqvist & Wiksell International: Stockholm 2000), 345-346, 402; id., ‘Matthew and Mark’, in D.  C.  Sim and B.  Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (LNTS 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27-49 (esp. 31-33). Id., Mark and Mission, 346. Cf. id., ‘Matthew and Mark’, 33. Id., Mark and Mission, 403. Cf. id., ‘Matthew and Mark’, 34.



Mark and Paul

21

In a more cautious and general manner, John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington have noted intriguing contacts between Mark and Paul or the Pauline tradition, especially as they are present in the Letter to the Romans. According to these American scholars, there are striking similarities between Mark and Paul in terminology and theology, community concerns, and the structures of the community.47 Troels Engberg-Pedersen has interpreted the paraenesis which is contained in the Marcan Gospel as an indirect, narrativized, in fact biographized version of the paraenesis which can be found in the Pauline letters.48 In a rather circumspect manner, Oda Wischmeyer has argued that Mark’s overall conception of εὐαγγέλιον and his use of the Jewish Bible, of Isaiah in particular, his interest in the topic of purity (Mk 7), as well as the apocalyptic horizon of his interpretation of the figure of Jesus, traces back to Jewish origins as well as to Christian education in a community that was influenced by Pauline theology.49 On the other hand, Tom Dykstra has recently argued that the primary purpose for writing the Gospel of Mark was to defend the vision of Christianity championed by Paul the Apostle against his ‘Judaizing’ opponents.50 In the opinion of the American scholar, the distinctively Pauline traits of the Gospel of Mark include defending the Gentile mission, presenting Jesus as the crucified one, discrediting Jesus’ disciples and family, alluding to Paul in the main parables and the ending of the Gospel, as well as appropriating Paul’s language and example.51 Somewhat similarly, Petr Pokorný has recently argued that the Pauline influence on Mark can be detected in Mark’s use of the Pauline soteriological concepts of the death of Jesus on the cross, the relativization of all the dietary regulations of the Jewish tradition, the solution to the problem of the common Table of the Lord for Christians of Jewish origin and Christians of non-Jewish origin, and the use of the term εὐαγγέλιον as denoting the content of the post-Easter salvific proclamation, especially Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection.52

47 48 49

50 51 52

J. R. Donahue and D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 2002), 40. T.  Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Biografisering: Teologi og narration i Markusevangeliet kap. 8-10’, in T. L. Thompson and H. Tronier (eds.), Frelsens biografisering, 177-189. O. Wischmeyer, ‘Forming Identity Through Literature: The Impact of Mark for the Building of Christ-Believing Communities in the Second Half of the First Century C. E.’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (WUNT 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 355-378 (here: 365). T. Dykstra, Mark, 23, 38. Ibid. 69-157. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel to the Gospels: History, Theology and Impact of the Biblical Term euangelion (BZNW 195; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 118-141, 196-197.

22

Introduction

Accordingly, Werner’s arguments against any Pauline theological and literary influence on the Marcan Gospel have been countered by a number of strong counterarguments. However, it is also hard to avoid the conclusion that the kind of arguments which have been hitherto used in this discussion cannot be regarded as decisive. If some scholars point to a number of theological and linguistic differences between Paul’s letters and the Marcan Gospel, other scholars point to a number of similarities between them. The problem consists in the fact that both groups of scholars refer to isolated words or ideas, and consequently the only way of solving the problem would have to consist in describing more elements than the opponents do. Therefore, a way out of the impasse can only be found in a more systematic approach to the problem. If it is demonstrated that Mark used not only isolated Pauline words or ideas, but also Paul’s letters in their entirety, than the theological differences between Paul and Mark can be attributed to Mark’s creative reworking of the Apostle’s theological views. In fact, the demonstration of the fact that Mark creatively but systematically used Paul’s entire letters has been made possible thanks to recent analyses of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in biblical writings.

Sequential hypertextuality The notion of sequential hypertextuality adequately reflects the kind of reworking of the Pauline letters which can be traced in the Gospel of Mark. The term intertextuality is widely used in modern biblical scholarship. It is usually understood as denoting a dialogical relationship between texts, as was suggested by the Bulgarian scholar Julia Kristeva and other literary theorists. In line with this idea of ‘dialogical intertextuality’, the canon of Scripture is regarded as a mutually interpreting or dialogical collection of texts.53 However, other scholars have argued that such a ‘synchronic’, ‘spatial’, or ‘hard’ intertextual theory in fact does not provide much new insight into specific 53

S.  Moyise, ‘Intertextuality, Historical Criticism and Deconstruction’, in T.  L.  Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 24-34 (esp. 25). Cf. also T. R. Hatina, ‘Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship?’, BibInt 7 (1999) 28-43; S. Alkier, ‘Die Bibel – das Buch der Bücher: Kanongeschichtliche, theologische, intertextuelle und poetologische Anmerkungen zu einem Bestseller’, in S. Alkier and R. Hays, Kanon und Intertextualität (Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main 1; Otto Lembeck: Frankfurt am Main 2010), 11-52 (esp. 43-49).



Sequential hypertextuality

23

texts, and moreover it is scholarly unverifiable.54 Therefore, these scholars argue for appreciation of the intertextual method of interpreting texts, an idea which John Barton calls ‘diachronic’, ‘temporal’, or ‘soft’ intertextuality. In fact, such a concept of intertextuality can at times be found in the works of Julia Kristeva, and especially in the works of the French literary theorists Michael Riffaterre and Gérard Genette.55 In this diachronic approach to textually verifiable literary relationships between texts, ‘intertextuality […] is a network, not a method; but it opens the way to a method—the tracing of that network’.56 If such an approach includes analyzing the chronological sequence of the composition of literary works, and consequently the possibility and real existence of variegated but unidirectional influence of chronologically earlier works on the composition of later writings, it can be called ‘critical intertextual research’.57 The concept of diachronic intertextuality was developed by Gérard Genette, who argued for using the term hypertextuality in the cases of loose intertextual relationships. According to the French scholar, hypertextuality can be defined as any relationship uniting a text B (which is in such a case called hypertext) to an earlier text A (which is called hypotext), upon which it grafts itself in a manner that is not that of commentary.58

54 55 56 57

58

See e.g. J. Barton, ‘Déjà lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory?’, in K. J. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually (LHBOTS 574; Bloomsbury: New York [et al.] 2013), 1-16 (esp. 15). Cf. ibid. 7-9, 12, 14; W. Kynes, ‘Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119’, in K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce (eds.), Biblical Interpretation and Method, Festschrift J. Barton (Oxford University: Oxford 2013), 201-213 (esp. 202-206). T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Introduction: Tracing the Development of the Epistles—The Potential and the Problem’, in eid. (eds.), Intertextuality, 1-9 (here: 5). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 10-11. It should be noted that the adoption of the purely ‘dialogical’ concept of intertextuality can lead to serious exegetical errors, for example in the interpretation of Paul’s letters against the background of the later Acts of the Apostles. Later texts at times offer consciously misleading interpretations of earlier writings, and consequently our understanding of earlier writings can be seriously disoriented by the interpretative perspectives which are offered in later texts. Therefore, the idea of intertextual ‘dialogicality’ cannot replace influence criticism. G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 13: ‘Hypertextualité [:] J’entends par là toute relation unissant un texte B (que j’appellerai hypertexte) à un texte antérieur A (que j’appellerai, bien sûr, hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d’une manière qui n’est pas celle du commentaire.’

24

Introduction

By definition, hypertextuality is not based on verbatim repetition of the wording of the hypotext. For this reason, the research on hypertextuality should not be limited to the study of rather literal use of a given earlier text in a later text (for example, the use of the Gospel of Mark in the Gospel of Matthew), but it should consist in looking for common (but on the other hand, creatively transformed) literary themes, ideas, and motifs of both texts, and only additionally in detecting common wording.59 Moreover, in the case of a truly hypertextual relationship between two given texts, a high degree of literary creativity and imagination on the part of the author of the hypertext should be allowed for. For example, the authors of hypertexts frequently made various kinds of thematic, diegetic, and pragmatic transposition,60 especially by using the sophisticated procedures of transdiegetization,61 interfigurality,62 internymic deviation,63 transsexuation,64 temporal translation,65 spatial translation,66 transpragmatization,67 transmotivation,68 transvalorization,69 elaboration, compression, conflation, substitution of images and ideas, and form-change.70 In fact, numerous examples of very subtle, at times hardly identifiable allusions to earlier texts, as well as highly creative reworkings of them, can be found 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Cf. S. Holthuis, Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993), 91-94, 140-147, 214-215 (esp. 145: ‘Nicht selten […] sind [komplexe Texttransformationen] damit zu verstehen als komplexe “Umdeutungen” oder “semantische Re-Interpretationen”, die allenfalls dem Postulat einer “bedeutungskompatiblen” Transformation folgen’). Cf. also R.  Reuter, ‘Clarifying the Issue of Literary Dependence’, in K. Liljeström (ed.), The Early Reception of Paul (SESJ 99; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki 2011), 23-35 (esp. 24-30). Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 418. Cf. ibid. 419-421. Cf. W. G. Müller, ‘Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures’, in H. F. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory: Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 15; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1991), 101-121. Cf. ibid. 104-105. Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423-424. Cf. ibid. 431. Cf. ibid. Cf. ibid. 442. Cf. ibid. 457. Cf. ibid. 483. Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 10-13. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method—Suggested Guidelines’, in eid. (eds.), Intertextuality, 284-296 (esp. 288-290), who list 39 techniques of literary adaptation and group them into the categories of basis adaptation techniques, combinations and rearrangements, focus techniques, transformation, and substitution.



Sequential hypertextuality

25

both in classical literature71 and in biblical writings.72 The ancient metaphor of bees producing honey from various flowers, so that the product clearly differs from its sources, aptly illustrates the ancient hypertextual procedure of rhetorical aemulatio.73 The research on hypertextuality is fascinating because ‘in this process, every sign in a text can trigger an intertextual relation. Once a marker is recognized, other texts come into focus and readers can look for further elements proving or supporting their first association.’74 This phenomenon was very well known to the Fathers of the Church, who interpreted biblical texts as closely related to other biblical texts, even if the existence of such a relationship was at times postulated on the basis of just one particular association.75 Is it therefore possible to interpret the Gospel of Mark as remaining in a hypertextual relationship to the letters of Paul the Apostle? Mogens Müller has recently argued that when the understanding of the Gospel of Mark as a narrativization of concepts which in one way or another are central in the letters of Paul is done, ‘the amount of meaning which is indisputably present in the text it [sic] is quite extraordinary, but it is only seen when one forces oneself to read it in this way.’76

71

72

73 74 75 76

Cf. S. Hinds, Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (RLIC; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1998), esp. 17-47, 99-122; E. Finkelpearl, ‘Pagan Traditions of Intertextuality in the Roman World’, in D. R. MacDonald (ed.), Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (SAC; Trinity International: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 78-90 (esp. 82-90); T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 8-17. Cf. M.‑É.  Kiessel, ‘Intertextualité et hypertextualité en Jn  11,1-12,11’, ETL 81 (2005) 29-56; D. Ziegler, Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte – eine intertextuelle Lektüre (Religion und Biographie 18; Lit: Berlin 2008), passim; S. Butticaz, ‘“Has God Rejected His People?” (Romans 11.1): The Salvation of Israel in Acts: Narrative Claim of a Pauline Legacy’, in D. P. Moessner [et al.] (eds.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel, vol. 2, Paul and the Heritage of Israel: Paul’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy in Luke and Acts in the Light of the Pauline Letters (LNTS 452; T&T Clark: London 2012), 148-164; J.  Descreux, ‘Apocalypse 12 ou de l’art d’accommoder les mythes’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010 (BETL 248; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 345-359 (esp. 355-356). Cf. K.  O.  Sandnes, The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon (NovTSup 138; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 39-41. S.  Gillmayr-Bucher, ‘Intertextuality: Between Literary Theory and Text Analysis’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), Intertextuality, 13-23 (here: 19). Cf. J. Barton, ‘Déjà lu’, 1-2. M. Müller, ‘The Place of Mark and Matthew in Canonical Thought: A Historical Perspective’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew II, 259-269 (here: 263).

26

Introduction

Consequently, the interpretation of the Gospel of Mark as a result of a hypertextual reworking of the letters of Paul can only be regarded as truly scholarly, and not merely imaginative, if it is based on some literary criteria and some exegetical observations. The most important criterion for detecting hypertextual relationships, at least between biblical writings, is the criterion of order. If two given works reveal thematic or other correspondences which follow a sequential pattern, it is reasonable to suppose that the author of one of these works in a hypertextual way reworked the other work, preserving the basic sequence of its themes, ideas, and at least selected literary motifs.77 In such a case, the relationship between these works may be called sequential hypertextuality. The criterion of order is particularly useful when the relationship between both texts is truly hypertextual, and consequently the level of verbal agreement between the corresponding elements of both texts, a feature which in biblical scholarship usually functions as a token of literary dependence, is very low. In such cases, the weakness of purely linguistic signals of literary dependence (quoted or imitated sentences, reproduced characteristic phrases, etc.) is recompensed by the consistency of the strictly sequential reworking of the conceptual elements of one work (ideas, images, arguments, references to time, directions of movement, functions of characters, etc.) in the other one. The criterion of order is particularly compelling if it refers not only to larger sections or pericopes, but also to individual sentences or even clauses and phrases. In such cases, its argumentative force is very high, even if the level of verbal or formal agreement between the compared texts is very low. It is namely true that the detection of a sequence of several similar elements, something which is at times used in scholarship for postulating the existence of various chiastic, concentric, and parallel patterns in biblical texts, can be regarded as more or less subjective. However, the degree of interpretative subjectivity is much lower if the common sequence of conceptually corresponding elements consists of tens or hundreds of sequentially arranged items.78 77

78

Cf. e.g. B. Kowalski, Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes (SBB 52; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2004), 307-426, 464-472; D. R. MacDonald, ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s Imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D.  R.  MacDonald, and S.  E.  Porter (eds.), Intertextuality, 211-225 (esp. 212); A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 21; D. P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009), 347. Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 45.



Sequential hypertextuality

27

The second important criterion for detecting sequential hypertextuality is the criterion of the complete use of a source. It points to the cases in which the whole source text was systematically used in the later text.79 This criterion is, likewise, especially important if the verbal agreement between the corresponding elements of both texts is very low. In such cases, the demonstration of the fact that the whole earlier text in all its parts (and not just selected fragments thereof) was in a creative way used in the later text lends credence to the hypothesis of the existence of a hypertextual relationship between them.80 The use of this criterion does not exclude the cases in which several source texts were systematically used in one later text, for the example of Virgil’s Aeneid, which can be regarded as a hypertextual reworking of Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad,81 clearly shows that such a procedure was known to ancient writers. The use of this criterion is quite difficult if the earlier text was in its turn composed as a systematic reworking of yet another hypotext.82 In such cases, it is not easy to say which hypotext should be regarded as the principal, structure-giving hypotext for the hypertext in question. Such a multi-tier hypertextual relationship can be traced, for example, between several letters of Paul the Apostle (1 Thes → 1 Cor → Rom → Gal).83 The analysis of the sequential hypertextual relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the Pauline letters can be obscured by this fact, and consequently it may lead to imprecise results.84 79

80 81 82

83 84

Cf. M. Pfister, ‘Konzepte der Intertextualität’, in U. Broich, M. Pfister, and B. SchulteMiddelich (eds.), Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 35; Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1985), 1-30 (esp. 28: ‘Kriterium der Strukturalität […] während wir uns in dem Maße dem Zentrum maximaler Intensität nähern, in dem ein Prätext zur strukturellen Folie eines ganzen Textes wird’). Cf. also T. L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Oxford University: New York [et al] 2001), 429; A. M. O’Leary, Judaization, 21-22. Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 45. Cf. S. Hinds, Allusion, 108-110, 116. For example, the Marcan story about the storm on the sea (Mk  4:35-41) seems to be based on a hypertextual reworking of the Book of Jonah, which was in its turn composed with the hypertextual use of Homer’s Odyssey. In such a case, it is difficult to say what was used by the evangelist: the Old Testament story or its classical prototype? Cf. M. M. Mitchell, ‘Homer in the New Testament?’, JR 83 (2003) 244-260 (esp. 253); H. Tronier, ‘Markusevangeliets’, 260-266. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 47-48, 56-60, 62-66. For this reason, the pattern of the sequential hypertextual relationship between the Gospel of Mark and Paul’s letters which is presented in this commentary considerably differs from that which was presented in my first work on this subject: B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 227-274.

28

Introduction

The third important criterion for detecting sequential hypertextuality and, more generally, literary dependence on another work, is the criterion of the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and somewhat surprising features in the later text. The fact that the later text was written as a sequentially organized reworking of an earlier text, and not as a freely composed expression of the author’s ideas, often results in some minor inconsistencies, logical errors, and somewhat surprising features in the later text. Even if the author of the later text in his quite free, hypertextual use of earlier works tries to conceal the fact that in his literary activity he used some other writings, such a type of literary production often leaves some not easily perceivable traces, which can be detected in the text in the course of its detailed analysis.85 Understandably, most such traces can only be detected in the original version of the text, and not in its textually corrected versions, which were made by later copyists in order to resolve the literary problems which they encountered in the text. Moreover, not easily perceivable inconsistencies and somewhat surprising features of the text can only be detected if the interpreter is ready to perceive them as inconsistencies, errors, etc. It should be noted that scholarship, especially in the humanities, is capable of explaining almost every surprising feature of the analysed object with the use of an ad hoc formulated theory. Biblical scholars often construct their explanatory hypotheses with the use of references to postulated, not otherwise attested or only later attested customs,86 not adequately proven events,87 hypothetical sources and redactional strata, allegedly widely circulating 85

86 87

Pace G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 555, who has argued that the hypertext, being semantically autonomous, does not contain any perceivable internal ‘agrammaticality’. Genette’s general idea does not always refer to all minor details of the hypertext because the inevitable tension between the intratextual and intertextual levels of the meaning of the hypertext often results in some consciously or unconsciously created disruptions to its intratextual logic. On the other hand, the hypertext does not necessarily contain aberrant features, ungrammaticalities, anomalies, inconsequences, non sequiturs, the loss of narrativity, etc. which are so evident that they function as really sylleptic, and consequently compulsory in their impelling the reader to pursue the search for a hypotext, as it has been argued by M. Riffaterre, Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993), 90-91. It should be noted that, for example, rabbinic traditions which refer to various Jewish customs cannot be regarded as by definition uninfluenced by the New Testament writings. In biblical scholarship, the historical facticity of many events is often postulated on the basis of the biblical writings which somehow refer to them. However, such a procedure is based on the erroneous presupposition concerning the historical value of the biblical works as relatively faithfully reflecting the historical realities. See B. Adamczewski, Constructing, passim; id., Retelling, passim.



Sequential hypertextuality

29

oral traditions, insufficient knowledge on the part of the author, etc. Consequently, biblical commentaries are often full of inadequate, allegedly historically plausible solutions to complex literary problems. Furthermore, the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, especially of the Gospels, are so familiar with them that they often regard most of their features as natural. Consequently, they do not ask the fundamental question, ‘why?’. In this context, it should be reminded that ‘there is no other beginning of philosophy than wondering’ (Plato, Theaet. 155d), so that all true scholarship begins in wondering. If the interpreters, especially educated ones, start their analyses with the idea that they know quite much about the Gospels, they may be unprepared for perceiving many of their features as in fact surprising or even astonishing. Accordingly, the analyses of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality can be regarded as particularly reliable if their explanatory capability concerns not only the well-known exegetical problems, which can easily influence educated readers in their understanding of the biblical texts, but also various minor surprising features of the texts, which are only rarely perceived as requiring an adequate explanation. In fact, there are usually many theories which aim at solving major problems, but there are only few theories which reveal and explain a number of minor, but somehow detectable, intriguing phenomena. The fourth important criterion for detecting hypertextuality is the criterion of the function of the postulated hypertextual use of a hypotext. This criterion refers to the possibility of explaining not only the fact of the creative use of an earlier work in the later text, but also the plausible authorial intention in applying such a sophisticated literary procedure.88 Accordingly, this criterion clearly differentiates the analysis of a consciously created hypertextual relationship between two given texts from merely noticing some parallels between them, an approach which if often called ‘parallelomania’. If it is possible to reconstruct the author’s purpose in creatively using another writing in his own work, then it can be argued that both works are connected by the literary relationship of hypertextuality, and not by mere partial similarity. The main aim of this commentary consists in analysing the sequential hypertextual reworking of Paul’s letters in the Gospel of Mark. Therefore, other Marcan allusions will only be analysed here in a selective way, in order not to overload the work with mentioning all possible intertextual references.

88

Cf. A. M. O’Leary, Judaization, 22. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 46, who uses the criterion of the intelligibility of the differences between both texts.

30

Introduction

It is also evident that this commentary has been written from a particular interpretative perspective. As such, it resembles modern commentaries which are based on a particular interpretative approach to the text: reader-response, reception-historical, social-scientific, feminist, etc.89 Therefore, it significantly differs from ‘traditional’ commentaries, which aim at describing and evaluating various scholarly solutions to all problems that are posed by the commented text.90 Nevertheless, it answers the most basic questions which are discussed in every commentary: the meaning of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, pericopes, and ultimately the meaning of the whole book.91

89 90 91

For a discussion on such a way of writing commentaries, see M. Y. MacDonald, ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from Experience’, JSNT 29.3 (2007) 313-321 (esp. 317-320). For this type of commentary, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, List do Filemona, List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (NKBNT 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). Cf. M. Y. MacDonald, ‘Art’, 320.

1. Mk 1-7 (cf. Gal)

The first part of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 1-7) resulted from a strictly sequential hypertextual reworking of the Letter to the Galatians. The sequence of the main themes, ideas, literary motifs, and at times vocabulary of the Letter to the Galatians was preserved, but on the other hand sophistically elaborated, in Mk 1-7. The Letter to the Galatians describes the origin and the beginnings of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel of Christ, and most probably for this reason it was chosen by the evangelist as the hypotext for the first part of his story of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1.1. Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12) The opening section of the Marcan Gospel, which refers to the gospel of Christ, Jesus Christ, being sent from God, the believers being freed from their sins, being taken out from the evil Judaean world according to the will of God, confessing to God, living a Jewish version of the gospel, having no other gospel, presenting the preaching of a heavenly messenger, pleasing not humans but Christ, being a slave of Christ, and presenting not a human gospel, but a revelation of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:1-8), is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the likewise opening, thematically corresponding section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1-12). The first phrase of the Marcan work, ‘the beginning of the gospel’ (ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου: Mk 1:1), is quite surprising.1 Normally, no one begins a literary work with the paratextual remark ‘the beginning of the work’ (but cf. Hos 1:2 LXX).2 It is also implausible that such a remark was added by a later copyist at the beginning 1 2

Cf. E.‑M. Becker, Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie (WUNT 194; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006), 102-105. A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Mark and the Hermeneutics of History Writing’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew II: Comparative Readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (WUNT 304; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 231244 (esp. 232) has cited the examples of the explicitly stated ‘beginnings’ of the writings of Polybius (Hist. 1.3.5) and Tacitus (Hist. 1.1). However, in difference to Mk 1:1, these statements evidently function as links between the narrated time of their works and other historical events.

32

Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)

of the scroll or codex which contained the Marcan Gospel,3 for the actual reader was supposed to know where the scroll or codex began.4 For this reason, it is reasonable to assume that the opening phrase of the Marcan Gospel has a different, in fact hypertextual function. Instead of (or in addition to) proleptically referring to the literary work which follows it, the phrase ‘the beginning of the gospel’ (ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου: Mk 1:1) most probably in an intertextual, allusive way refers to ‘the beginning of the gospel’ which was proclaimed by Paul the Apostle in the whole world, especially among the Gentiles (Phlp 4:15).5 In the evidently post-Pauline theology of Mark, the gospel was from the beginning destined to be proclaimed to all the nations (Mk  13:10) and in the whole world (Mk 14:9).6 However, in difference to Phlp 4:15, Mark presented the ‘beginning of the gospel’ as located not in Macedonia, but in the environs of Jerusalem, in Judaea (cf. Rom 15:19);7 and not in the post-resurrection proclamation of Jesus Christ, but in Jesus Christ’s earthly life.8 In this way, the evangelist achieved the same aim as once did the author of Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers in his historizing reworking of Deuteronomy:9 he presented the rather unhistorical theological-halachic ideas of the earlier normative writing as deeply rooted in a narrated history. The expression ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) was used by Mark only in the opening phrase of his Gospel (Mk 1:1). Normally, Mark used the term ‘the gospel’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον: Mk  1:15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

Pace N. C. Croy, ‘Where the Gospel Text Begins: A Non-Theological Interpretation of Mark 1:1’, NovT 43 (2001) 105-127 (esp. 120-125). Cf. D. E. Aune, ‘The Meaning of Εὐαγγέλιον in the Inscriptiones of the Canonical Gospels’, in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations, Festschrift J. C. VanderKam [vol. 2] (JSJSup 153/II; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 857-882 (esp. 861-862). Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999), 133; T. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2012), 141 n. 186. Cf. E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (NTOA 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 51, 79. The concept of the Jewish homeland of Jesus as including Judaea proper and Galilee (but not Samaria, Peraea, etc.), together with the presentation of the main narrative thread of the story as located first shortly in Judaea, then in numerous places in Galilee, and then in Jerusalem (with almost no reference to other places in Judaea), seems to emulate Josephus’ self-presentation of his Jewish activity in his Vita: cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 101. Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel to the Gospels: History, Theology and Impact of the Biblical Term euangelion (BZNW 195; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 122-124, 196-197. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 183-223.



Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)

33

14:9) or the phrase ‘the gospel of God’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ: Mk 1:14). In some cases, he paralleled the person of Jesus with the gospel (Mk 8:35; 10:29), but nowhere else did he use the fully developed theological formula ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: Mk 1:1). For this reason, this unusual formula should be regarded as a result of the conflation of the formula ‘the gospel of Christ’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ), which is evidently non-Marcan (only used in Mk 1:1), but which is typically Pauline (Gal 1:7 etc.),10 with the full christological title ‘Jesus Christ’ (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός), which is likewise non-Marcan (only used in Mk 1:1),11 but which was widely used by Paul (Gal 1:1 etc.).12 For the understanding of Mk 1:1-8 as a hypertextual reworking of the opening section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1-12) it is important to note that the key term ‘gospel’ (εὐαγγέλιον: Mk 1:1) also occurs in Gal 1:6-7.11,13 the phrase ‘the gospel of Christ’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ: Mk 1:1) occurs in Gal 1:7, and the title ‘Jesus Christ’ (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός: Mk 1:1) occurs in Gal 1:1.3.12. Accordingly, the whole strikingly solemn phrase ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (Mk 1:1) alludes to the opening section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1-12) with its passionate discussion concerning the identity of the Pauline gospel, which should be regarded as the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:7), and which originates from Jesus Christ himself (Gal 1:11-12). With the use of this theology-laden phrase, Mark presented his work not as a simple story about Jesus, but as a narrative version of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was proclaimed, but also theologically defined, by Paul the Apostle. If the title ‘the Son of God’ (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) in Mk 1:1 (B, D, W et al.) is original,14 then the whole phrase ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ) additionally alludes to the bipartite confession of the identity of Jesus as it was proclaimed in the Pauline gospel: the Davidic Messiah/ Christ and the powerful Son of God (Rom 1:1-4).15 The opening quotation in Mk 1:2-3 constitutes a very strange element of the Marcan Gospel.16 In a standard Graeco-Roman biography, after a prologue, at the 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

Cf. E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien, 75. Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 122. Cf. D.  E.  Aune, ‘Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (WUNT 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 145-175 (esp. 165). Cf. J. Marcus, ‘Mark – Interpreter of Paul’, NTS 46 (2000) 473-487 (esp. 475). See B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 1998), 62. Cf. E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien, 75. Cf. C.  Focant, ‘Une christologie de type “mystique” (Marc 1.1-16.8)’, NTS 55 (2009) 1-21 (esp. 3).

34

Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)

beginning of the narrative, the reader would expect some descriptions of the early stages of the life of the main hero: some references to his ancestry, birth, childhood, and education.17 The Gospel of Mark contains no such features.18 In place of them, there is a clearly intertextual element: an extended quotation. This fact alerts the reader to the consciously intended intertextual character of the whole Marcan narrative.19 It suggests that the Marcan Gospel should be interpreted as a set of references not so much to historical facts, but rather to other texts. Consequently, other, pre-Marcan texts constitute the most important hermeneutic key to the understanding of the Marcan Gospel. The way of introducing the quotation in Mk 1:2 is typically Pauline. The Jewish exegetical formula ‘as it has been written’ (καθὼς γέγραπται: Mk 1:2), used to introduce an explicit scriptural quotation (cf. 2 Kgs 14:6 LXX etc.),20 occurs many times in Paul’s letters (2 Cor 8:15; 9:9; Rom 1:17; 2:24; 3:4; 4:17; 8:36 etc.), and almost nowhere else in the New Testament (cf. Lk 2:23; Acts 7:42; 15:15). Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that Mark followed here Paul’s way of using Scripture for substantiating his theological ideas. The content of the quotation in Mk  1:2-3 is quite strange because, contrary to the Marcan declaration (Mk 1:2a), only the second half thereof originates from the prophet Isaiah (Mk 1:3; cf. Is 40:3 LXX). The first part of the quotation (Mk 1:2bc) does not derive from Isaiah, but rather from Exod 23:20ab LXX (ἰδοὺ… ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου + ὁδός). In fact, the insertion of this opening quotation, which refers to sending (ἀποστέλλω) a messenger from God (Mk 1:2b; cf. Exod 23:20a LXX), illustrates Paul’s opening idea from the Letter to the Galatians, namely that he was an apostle 17

18 19

20

Cf. R. A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1992), 146, 178-179; id., ‘Biography’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 b.c.–a.d. 400 (Brill: Boston · Leiden 2001), 371-391 (esp. 379, 383). Cf. id., Gospels, 207-208; M. E. Vines, The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel (SBLAB 3; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, Ga. 2002), 123. Cf. C.‑A. Steiner, ‘Le lien entre le prologue et le corps de l’évangile de Marc’, in D. Marguerat and A. Curtis (eds.), Intertextualités: Le Bible en échos (MdB 40; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000), 161-184 (esp. 178-184); P. Phillips, ‘Biblical Studies and Intertextuality: Should the Work of Genette and Eco Broaden our Horizons?’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 35-45 (esp. 40); S. Alkier, Neues Testament (UTB Basics; A. Francke: Tübingen · Basel 2010), 164-165. Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 1, Mk 1-8,26 (EKKNT 2/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998), 44; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007), 134.



Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)

35

(ἀπόστολος) who was sent not through man, but through Jesus Christ and through God (Gal 1:1; cf. 1:3). The additional idea of preparing the way (ὁδός: Mk 1:2c; cf. Exod 23:20b LXX) links the quotation from Exod 23:20a LXX with that from Is 40:3 LXX (Mk 1:3). The subsequent scriptural quotation from Is 40:3 LXX (Mk 1:3), which justifies the evidently post-Pauline idea of forgiveness (ἄφεσις) of the believers’ sins (ἁμαρτίαι: Mk 1:4; cf. Rom 4:7; Col 1:14; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.117), alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea from the Letter to the Galatians, namely that of the believers being freed from their sins (Gal 1:4a). The subsequent thought that the believing and confessing people from the whole region of Judaea and from Jerusalem were going out (ἐξ*) to the wilderness (Mk 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the believers are taken out (ἐξ*) from this evil world according to the will of God (Gal 1:4bc), which leads to a confession of God (Gal 1:5). In the Marcan elaboration of Gal 1:4b-5 the quotation from Scripture (Mk 1:3), together with its ‘scriptural’ actualization (Mk 1:4), illustrates the ‘scriptural’ will of God the Father (Gal 1:4c); the whole region of Judaea, especially Jerusalem (Mk 1:5a), stands for the present evil world (Gal 1:4b), in agreement with the post-Pauline perception of the motherland of Judaism (cf. Gal 2:11-14; 4:25-26; Phlp 3:2 etc.); and the unhistorical depiction of baptism as accompanied by confessing sins (ἐξομολογέω: Mk 1:5c; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.117) is a reworking of the idea of confessing to God (Gal 1:5; cf. Rom 14:11; 15:9). However, since Paul presented Jesus Christ, and not God, as the one who took out the believers from this world (Gal  1:4b), Mark slightly reworked the quotation from Is 40:3 LXX, in order that it might point to ‘the Lord’ Jesus Christ (κυρίου… αὐτοῦ: Mk 1:3), rather than to ‘our God’ (τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν: Is 40:3 LXX). Besides, the surprising use of the scriptural, prophetic quotation (Mk 1:2-3), as well as the unhistorical depiction of John the Baptist as a scriptural prophet (Mk 1:4-8; cf. Mk 11:32; 2 Kgs 1:8 LXX; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.116-119), who was active before the activity of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:9-16:8; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64 [in its original form]), illustrate the Pauline idea that the gospel concerning Jesus Christ was promised beforehand through the prophets of God in the Holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2). The historical data concerning John the ‘immerser’21 can be deduced from the relatively credible remark of Josephus, which was almost certainly not in21

In agreement with Jos. Ant. 18.116-117, Mark did not use the term ‘John the Baptist’ as a fixed formula (cf. e.g. Mk 6:24-25), as it was later done by Luke (Lk 7:20.33; 9:19), and especially by Matthew (Mt 3:1; 11:11-12; 14:2.8; 16:14; 17:13). Cf. A. Malina, Ewangelia według św. Marka: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz, part 1, 1, 1 – 8, 26 (NKBNT 2/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2013), 78.

36

Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)

fluenced by early Christianity (Jos. Ant. 18.116-119). According to this text, a certain John, who lived somewhere in Peraea (in the borderland between the territories of Herod Antipas and Aretas: cf. Jos. Ant. 18.109-116, 119), was nicknamed ‘immerser’/’baptizer’ because he was a very effective preacher of Jewish purity, which was presented by him as resulting from both moral purity (achieved beforehand through practising righteousness) and ritual cleanness (achieved now through immersing bodies in water). This image well suits the religious ideas of Judaism of the first century ad. Consequently, only this relatively simple picture of John should be regarded as strictly historical. The subsequent image of John as a man clothed with hair and ‘a leather belt around his waist’ (ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ: Mk 1:6a) originates from 2 Kgs 1:8 LXX,22 and therefore it presents John as a new Elijah.23 Consequently, this reference to John illustrates the subsequent Pauline reference to those who lived another, exceedingly Jewish version of the gospel (Gal 1:6). The Pauline idea of an exceedingly Jewish version of the gospel (Gal  1:6) is further elaborated in the image of John as always eating ritually clean food (Mk  1:6b; cf. Gal  2:12.14):24 only locusts (ἀκρίδας: cf. Lev  11:22 LXX)25 and wild, so certainly clean,26 honey (μέλι ἄγριον: cf. Deut  32:13 LXX). This diet evidently included no meat, because meat among the Gentiles could be defiled through its use in idol worship (1 Cor 8:4.7; 14:2.21). For this reason, in order to illustrate the text which referred to the Gentile Galatians who had adopted a Jewish version of the gospel (Gal 1:6), Mark created the ‘ascetic’, unhistorical image of John as eating only locusts and wild honey (Mk 1:6). Moreover, in order to present a specifically Jewish Christian, that is presumably merely messianic version of the gospel (Gal 1:6; cf. Rom 1:3), the evangelist conflated Josephus’ account concerning John the ‘immerser’ (Ant. 18.116-119) with those concerning Theudas (Ἰορδάνης ποταμός, prophet: Ant. 20.97) and anonymous pretenders who led the crowd into the wilderness (*ἔρημ: B.J. 2.259; Ant. 20.167, 188). Each of these accounts, taken separately, well suits its original context in Josephus’ work: (a) John the ‘immerser’ as a preacher of moral righteousness and ritual cleanness who was active in the region of Machaerus by the time of Herod Antipas’ war against Aretas in that region (c. ad 36), (b) Theudas as a new Joshua dividing the Jordan River, and (c) the Egyptian pretender as both 22 23 24 25 26

Cf. J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel: Worlds in Conflict (NTR; Routledge: London · New York 1997), 28. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 145; W. Eckey, Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 71. Cf. J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel, 28. Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 71. Home-made honey could be rendered unclean through contact with unclean people.



Mk 1:1-8 (cf. Gal 1:1-12)

37

a new Moses in the wilderness and a new Joshua conquering the land of Israel. Mark conflated all these accounts into the artificial, unhistorical image of John the ‘baptizer’ as a preacher of repentance who was active in the wilderness in Judaea by the Jordan River before the activity of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:4-6). The probably unhistorical presentation of John’s immersing activity (βαπτ*: Mk  1:5; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.117-118) as taking place in the Jordan (ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ: Mk 1:5) could also be influenced by 2 Kgs 5:14 LXX. The subsequent, evidently unhistorical image of John as wholly subordinated to Jesus Christ (Mk  1:7a-c; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64 [in its original form], 116119)27 illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that there is no other gospel than that which was preached by the Apostle, and any Judaizing version thereof should be regarded as completely distorted (Gal  1:7-9). In particular, the insertion of the submissive preaching of John (Mk 1:7a-c), notwithstanding the fact that he was earlier presented as a messenger (ἄγγελος) sent from God (Mk 1:2), illustrates the Pauline thought that even if a messenger from heaven would proclaim something contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which was preached by Paul, such a messenger should be cursed (Gal 1:8-9; cf. 1:7). The subsequent statement that John was not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of Christ’s sandals (Mk 1:7d-f) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that he was a slave of Christ (Gal 1:10). The subsequent thought that the Jewish messenger John baptized merely with water (Mk 1:8a) in a negative way illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that his version of the gospel was not a mere human invention (Gal 1:11-12b). On the other hand, the subsequent, revealing prediction that Jesus Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk 1:8b) illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that his gospel reflects a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12c). This revelation (Gal 1:12c; cf. 1:16) will be further illustrated in Mk 1:10-11. Accordingly, in comparison to the relatively credible, ideologically neutral image of John as a ritual ‘immerser’ in Jos. Ant. 18.116-119, with the use of the hypertextual procedures of transpragmatization, transmotivation, and transvalorization, Mark created in Mk 1:2-8 a highly artificial image of John as a prophetic, Judaean precursor of Jesus Christ. This image consists of various elements which were taken from the opening section of Paul’s letters to the Galatians, from various accounts of Josephus, and from the Jewish Scriptures. Using his vivid literary imagination, Mark combined these elements to form a persuasive image of a quasi-scriptural prophet, who lived a distinctively Jewish version of the gospel, but who in effect subordinated himself to the true version of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 27

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Mark and the Hermeneutics’, 234.

38

Mk 1:9 (cf. Gal 1:13-14)

1.2. Mk 1:9-20 (cf. Gal 1:13-16b) The subsequent section of the Marcan Gospel (Mk  1:9-20) is a result of a sequential reworking of the contents of the subsequent section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:13-16b), with the use of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization. However, since the Pauline statement Gal 1:15-16b is very complex from the syntactic point of view, the evangelist likewise illustrated its main ideas in combination with one another.

1.2.1. Mk 1:9 (cf. Gal 1:13-14) The story about Jesus’ coming from his Jewish origin to be baptized by John (Mk 1:9) sequentially, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization, illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline story concerning his Judaic origins (Gal 1:13-14). The opening temporal remark, which places the events in the relatively distant past (Mk 1:9) by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation alludes to Paul’s temporal remark concerning his behaviour ‘once’, in the relatively distant past (Gal 1:13a). The subsequent remark concerning Jesus’ coming from Nazareth (Mk 1:9b) is in fact quite strange. There is no trace of the use of the name ‘Nazareth’ before the composition of the Marcan Gospel. This name occurs neither in biblical nor in extrabiblical pre-Christian sources. It was never mentioned by Josephus in his detailed accounts of his activity in various parts of Galilee.28 Moreover, it was mentioned neither in Paul’s letters nor in Mark’s second reference to Jesus’ hometown (Mk 6:1-6). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the name ‘Nazareth’ (Mk 1:9b) is in fact an artificial name, which was created by Mark in order to illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea of his distinctively Jewish roots (Gal 1:13). Mark combined this idea with that of Jesus’ Jewish origin and Davidic identity ‘according to the flesh’ (Rom 1:3; cf. Mk 1:9), as distinct from his identity as God’s Son revealed ‘according to the Spirit of holiness’ (Rom 1:4; cf. Mk 1:10-11). Therefore, the evangelist created the artificial name ‘Nazareth’, which by means of linguistic assonance, by recalling the Hebrew word ‫( נצר‬nēṣer)29 that was used in the well-known messianic text referring to the ‘sprout’ of Jesse (Is 11:1 MT), illustrates the idea of Paul’s distinctively Jewish roots (Gal 1:13), as well as that of Jesus’ belonging to the offspring of David (Rom 1:3). 28 29

Cf. V. Wagner, ‘Mit der Herkunft Jesu aus Nazaret gegen die Geltung des Gesetzes?’, ZNW 92 (2001) 273-282 (esp. 274); W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 74. Cf. V. Wagner, ‘Herkunft’, 279-281.



Mk 1:10-11 (cf. Gal 1:15a.16a)

39

A  similarly artificial, not simply geographical, use of the name ‘Nazareth’ (Mk 1:9) can also be found in another Marcan text, in which the strange in itself, suggested by the evangelist, semantic correspondence between the terms ‘Nazareth’ and ‘son of David’ is constitutive for the narrative logic of the story: ὁ Ναζαρηνός → υἱὲ Δαυίδ (‘of Nazareth’ → ‘son of David’: Mk 10:47). It can be argued that in his allusive reference to the prophetic-messianic text Is 11:1, which was used according to the logic of Rom 1:3 in order to illustrate Jesus’ Davidic identity (Mk 1:9), Mark was influenced by Paul, who in the same Letter to the Romans quoted a related Isaian text concerning ‘the root of Jesse’ (Is 11:10) as prophetically referring to Jesus (Rom 15:12). The apparently superfluous remark that Nazareth was located in Galilee (Mk 1:9b) illustrates the fact that Paul’s Jewish origins (Gal 1:13) could be found in the diaspora (Gal 1:17c).30 Accordingly, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation the Marcan Galilee generally represents the territory of the Gentiles, especially those among whom Jews live in a diaspora. The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk  1:9bc; diff. 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his people, being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14).

1.2.2. Mk 1:10-11 (cf. Gal 1:15a.16a) The section Mk  1:10-11 by means of the hypertextual procedures of transdiegetization and interfigurality illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline hypotext Gal 1:15a.16a, especially the thought concerning the well-pleased revelation of God’s Son in the human protagonist of the story. The story about Jesus’ baptism (Mk 1:10-11) in a narrative way illustrates the main idea of the subsequent fragment of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:15a.16a) and the subsequent statement of the Letter to the Romans (Rom 1:4; cf. the earlier use of Rom 1:3 in Mk 1:9), namely that of Jesus’ revealed divine sonship (cf. also 2 Cor 12:1-4). Mark borrowed from Gal  1:15a.16a Paul’s idea of God being well pleased (εὐδόκησεν) to reveal his Son (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ) in him (ἐν ἐμοί). The evangelist illustrated this particular idea by the image of a heavenly (but on the other hand,

30

Mark rightly assumed that Paul had persecuted the church of God (Gal 1:13) in the diaspora (Gal 1:17), and not in Judaea (Gal 1:18-19.22).

40

Mk 1:10-11 (cf. Gal 1:15a.16a)

private)31 revelation of Jesus as God’s Son (ὁ υἱός μου) and of God being well pleased (εὐδόκησα) in him (ἐν σοί: Mk 1:10-11).32 Likewise, from Rom 1:4 the evangelist took over the ideas of Jesus’ powerful resurrection (illustrated by the image of his immediately coming up: Mk 1:10), Jesus’ divine sonship as related to the divine Spirit of holiness (illustrated by the image of the Spirit descending to Jesus like a dove: Mk 1:10),33 and Jesus’ divine sonship as declared by God (illustrated by the image of a heavenly voice declaring Jesus ‘my son’: Mk 1:11; cf. Ps 2:7 LXX etc.).34 This image was additionally influenced by another Paul’s account of the initial revelation which had been given to him, namely 2 Cor 12:1-4. From this account, Mark borrowed the motifs of the main hero’s heavenly vision and revelation, ‘forcefully’ seeing through numerous heavens, and hearing words not to be spoken by humans. The evangelist reworked these motifs in his story about Jesus’ seeing the heavens (οὐρανοί in pl.) forcefully ‘torn’ (Mk 1:10; diff. e.g. Ezek 1:1 LXX), the voice coming from heavens (οὐρανοί in pl.: Mk 1:11), and humans not publicly proclaiming Jesus’ divine status (Mk 1:24-25.34.44; 3:11-12; 9:7.9; cf. also 2:10 etc.: ‘son of man’).35 At this point of the story, it is already evident that the Marcan Jesus, as a result of the evangelist’s consistent use of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transdiegetization (especially including transpragmatization and transmotivation), has the features not simply of the historical person who lived in Judaea at the beginning of the first century ad, but predominantly of God’s Son who was revealed in the person of his particularly chosen Apostle. Such a presentation of the person of Jesus fully agrees with Paul’s understanding of his own person and life as revealing God’s Son, Christ the Lord, to the whole world (cf. e.g. 1 Thes 1:6; 1 Cor 11:1; Gal 1:16; 2:20; Phlp 3:17-18),36 an 31

32 33 34 35 36

The baptism of Jesus is presented in Mk 1:10-11 in terms of a private revelation, and not of a public one. According to Mk 1:10-11, only Jesus saw the heavens ‘torn’ and the Spirit descending to him, and the voice from heavens was likewise directed only to him. Cf. A. Malina, Ewangelia, 97-100. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 138. Dove (περιστερά: Mk 1:10) was perceived in the Old Testament as a clean animal, which could be offered as a sacrifice (cf. Gen 15:7; Lev 1:14; 5:7 LXX etc.), and therefore it could represent the idea of holiness. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 53; R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2000), 49; P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 130. For this reason, at the beginning of the Marcan story, only spirits, and not humans, know and proclaim Jesus’ divine status (Mk 1:23-25.34; 3:11-12). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 443; id., Construct-



Mk 1:12-13 (cf. Gal 1:15b)

41

understanding which was adopted and narratively reworked by the post-Pauline evangelist Mark.

1.2.3. Mk 1:12-13 (cf. Gal 1:15b) The story about the expulsion of Jesus from Judaea to the wilderness (Mk 1:1213) in a narrative way illustrates the main ideas of Paul’s hypotext Gal  1:15b, which refers to his being separated from his mother’s womb. The surprising statement that the Spirit immediately drove Jesus out to the wilderness (Mk 1:12)37 illustrates Paul’s statement that God separated him from his mother’s womb, so presumably also from other people (Gal 1:15b). For this reason, Mark depicted Jesus as forcefully ‘thrown out’ (ἐκβάλλω)38 from the company of other people (cf. Mk 1:5.8-9) into the wilderness (Mk 1:12), and his living there alone, only with wild animals and spiritual beings, in contact with no other people (Mk  1:13). The particular idea of being tempted (πειράζω) by Satan (ὁ σατανᾶς) because of being separated for some time from other people (Mk 1:13) could have been borrowed by the evangelist from the Pauline text 1 Cor 7:5. Besides, the image of Jesus as being expelled from the holy land of Israel to the wilderness for forty days (ἡμέρα), and being tempted there, presumably also for forty days, by Satan (Mk 1:13) reflects the scriptural halachic idea of uncleanness, and consequently separation from holy things, as lasting for forty days after the birth of a son (Lev  12:2.4 LXX).39 Consequently, this idea also alludes to Paul’s statement that God separated him from his mother’s womb, presumably after his birth (Gal 1:15b). The sharp contrast between the revelation of God’s Son in Jesus (Mk 1:1011) and the following temptation which he had to endure (Mk 1:12-13) may also reflect the logic of Paul’s thought in 2 Cor 12:1-9, which describes the revelation which Paul received (2 Cor 12:1-6; cf. Gal 1:16a, Mk 1:10-11) and then, in contrast to it, the satanic temptation which he had to overcome with God’s grace (2 Cor 12:7-9; cf. Mk 1:12-13). Consequently, the Marcan statement that Jesus, by the divine will, was tempted by Satan (σατανᾶς: Mk 1:12-13b) may reflect Paul’s

37 38 39

ing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 136. Cf. B. Standaert, Évangile selon Marc (EBib, ns 61; J. Gabalda: Pendé 2010), [vol. 1,] 110. This verb could refer to giving birth to children (especially prematurely) and to exposing children after their birth: LSJ, s.v. ἐκβάλλω, I.3, VI. For other possible scriptural allusions in Mk 1:13, see e.g. J. Marcus, ‘Son of Man as Son of Adam’, RB 110 (2003) 38-61, 370-386 (esp. 55-56, 373); J. P. Heil, ‘Jesus with the Wild Animals in Mark 1:13’, CBQ 68 (2006) 63-78 (esp. 73-74); B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 234-235.

42

Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b)

idea of his being tempted by a messenger of Satan (2 Cor 12:7). The surprising statement that Jesus was with wild beasts (Mk 1:13c)40 may illustrate Paul’s idea that Christ’s power dwelt in him (2 Cor 12:9c-e). The related Marcan statement that the angels served Jesus (Mk  1:13d) may illustrate Paul’s related idea that God’s grace was sufficient for him (2 Cor 12:9b). The idea that God separated Paul him from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15b) seems to have been additionally combined by the evangelist with Paul’s idea that immediately (εὐθέως) after the revelation of God’s Son in him (Gal  1:16c; cf. 1:16a) he went away to Arabia (Gal 1:17b). The remark that immediately (εὐθύς) after the revelation of God’s Son in Jesus (Mk 1:10-11) the Spirit drove him out into the wilderness (Mk 1:12) aptly illustrates the latter Pauline idea,41 especially because of the Pauline association between Arabia and the wilderness of Sinai (Gal 4:25). In such a case, the motif of forty days (τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας: Mk 1:13) would allusively point to Moses’ forty-day-long stay on Mt Sinai (Exod 24:18; Deut 9:9 LXX),42 to his being tempted there (Exod 32:7-35; Deut 9:8.12-21), and to his remaining in the company of angels (Gal 3:19). Besides, this Marcan motif could also allude to Elijah’s forty-day-long travel to Mt Horeb (1 Kgs 19:8 LXX).43

1.2.4. Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b) The story about the movement of the main narrative character from the region of the wilderness of Judaea to Galilee (Mk 1:14-20; cf. 1:4-13) by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates the idea of Paul’s being called to proclaim God’s Son among the Gentiles (Gal 1:15c.16b). The remark concerning the imprisonment of John as preceding Jesus’ preaching of the gospel of God (Mk 1:14) in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s idea that the epoch of the prophets preceded the epoch of the gospel of God (Rom  1:12). This remark, however, evidently contradicts Josephus’ unprejudiced historical data concerning the activity and execution of John as following (by the time 40 41

42 43

Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 57. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xi; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 139. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 151; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 79; H. F. Bayer, Das Evangelium des Markus (HTANT; SCM R. Brockhaus: Witten 2008), 117. Cf. H. F. Bayer, Markus, 117.



Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b)

43

of Herod Antipas’ war against Aretas c. ad 36: cf. Jos. Ant. 18.109-119) and not preceding the activity and execution of Jesus (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64 [in its original form]).44 Mark had a good reason for changing the historical data, in order to illustrate the Pauline idea of the epoch of the prophets as preceding the epoch of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:2). On the other hand, in Josephus’ story Jesus and John have no particular significance. Consequently, the Jewish historian had no reason to change the chronological order of their activities. Therefore, it must have been Mark, and not Josephus, who reworked the historical data in his narrative presentation of John as chronologically preceding Jesus. The statement concerning Jesus’ preaching the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) in Galilee (Mk 1:14-15) illustrates Paul’s statement that he was called to preach the gospel (εὐαγγελίζω) among the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b). Consequently, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, Galilee evidently again functions here (cf. earlier Mk 1:9b) as the territory of the Gentiles. The particular idea of preaching the gospel of God (κηρύσσω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ) as summarizing the activity of the main character in a non-Judaean territory (Mk 1:14) is evidently Pauline (1 Thes 2:9; cf. 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 2:2; cf. also Col 1:23).45 Likewise, the idea of the fullness of time (πληρ*: Mk 1:15) was borrowed from the Pauline text Gal 4:4;46 and the non-scriptural phrase ‘the kingdom of God’ (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: Mk 1:15 etc.)47 was borrowed from the Pauline texts 1 Cor 4:20; Rom 14:17 etc. (cf. Col 4:11). Moreover, the programmatic message concerning the fundamental role of faith (πιστ*) in the gospel (εὐαγγελ*) for reaching the kingdom of God (Mk 1:15b.d) is evidently post-Pauline (cf. Rom 1:16; Gal 1:23 etc.). The phrase ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, somewhat surprisingly used as an indirect complement (Mk 1:15),48 can also be regarded as characteristically Pauline (cf. 2 Cor 10:14; Phlp 4:3 etc.).49 The calling scene Mk 1:16-20 further illustrates Paul’s idea of being called to preach the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 1:15c.16b). The key Pauline verb ‘call’ (καλέω: Gal 1:15c) was used in Mk 1:20. 44 45 46

47 48 49

Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 82. Cf. W. Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus (ÖTKNT 2; 2nd edn., Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1986), 98. Cf. ibid.; T.  Dykstra, Mark, 147. Pace M.  Palu, Jesus and Time: An Interpretation of Mark 1.15 (LNTS 468; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 220-224, who has in fact simply compared the ideas of Mk 1:15 with those of Gal 4:4 (esp. ibid. 222), and has not offered any convincing arguments for the reverse direction of influence (from Mk 1:15 to Gal 4:4). Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 84. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 70. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Mark 1-8 (AB 27; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000), 173.

44

Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b)

The particular motif of the sea (θάλασσα: Mk 1:16 etc.) evidently, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, alludes to the realm of the Gentiles. In difference to Josephus (B.J. 1.326; 2.573; 3.57, 463, 506; Ant. 18.28, 36; Vita 349), and later also Luke (Lk 5:1-2; 8:22-23.33), who in agreement with the geographical realities consistently called Gennesaret ‘lake’ (λίμνη; cf. also 1 Macc 11:67; Jos. Ant. 13.158: τὸ ὕδωρ / τὰ ὕδατα: ‘water/s’),50 Mark insisted on calling Gennesaret ‘sea’ (θάλασσα: Mk 1:16; 2:13; 3:7 etc.;51 cf. also Num 34:11; Josh 12:3; 13:27 LXX, in which, however, it is always associated with the name Chinnereth).52 In fact, the use of the motif of the sea (and not of a lake) in the Gospel of Mark is surprising, but not accidental. The Marcan ‘sea’ refers to the Galilean lake of Gennesaret, but also, on the allusive-intertextual level, to the sea which functioned as the gate to the Pauline mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:16b), namely the Mediterranean Sea.53 For this reason, Mark could use the image of catching fish in the sea (Mk 1:16) as a metaphor for converting humans of Gentile origin to faith in Christ (Mk 1:17). The characters of the most important apostles (Mk 1:16.19) evidently allude to the three ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem church: Peter (Cephas), James, and John (Gal 2:79; cf. 1 Cor 15:5.7; Gal 1:18-19; 2:11-12.14). The issue of the attitude of these ‘pillars’ (especially Cephas-Peter and James) to Paul and his mission among the Gentiles was a matter of great controversy in early Christianity.54 For this reason, Mark resolved to present their features in a consciously artificial, ethopoeic way. The attitude of Cephas-Peter towards the Gentiles, as it was seen from the Marcan post-Pauline perspective, was very ambiguous. On the one hand, he bore an Aramaic name (Cephas: 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9.11.14), was mainly concerned with the salvation of his fellow-Israelites (Gal 2:7-8), and was reluctant to approve thoroughly the liberal halachic regulations which were proposed by Paul (Gal 2:11-12.14-21). On the other hand, he alone resolved to host Paul in his Jerusalem home for a relatively long period of time (fifteen days: Gal 1:18-19), used a Greek version of his name (Peter: Gal 2:7-8), and engaged in some kind of missionary activity outside Judaea (Gal 2:7-8.11; cf. also 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5). 50 51 52 53 54

Cf. R. S. Notley, ‘The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym’, JBL 128 (2009) 183-188 (esp. 185). Cf. D. R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000), 57. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 72. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 141. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 18-28, 48, 55-56; id., Constructing, 39-42.



Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b)

45

Mark depicted this ambiguous attitude in a quite sophisticated way. He created two narrative characters, presented as brothers, who embodied the two main aspects of Cephas-Peter’s attitude towards the Gentile-oriented mission. One of these characters, later identified with Peter (Mk 3:16), bore the well-known Jewish name Simon, often associated with leadership (Σίμων: cf. Sir 50:1; 1 Macc 14:27-47 etc.), which represented Cephas’ leadership over the Jewish messianic community, and a nationalist-separatist attitude towards the Gentiles. The second character, namely that of the otherwise unknown Peter’s ‘brother’ Andrew, bore a Greek name (Ἀνδρέας),55 which represented Peter’s more favourable attitude towards the Gentiles. Consequently, the Marcan Simon points to Peter’s Jewish identity, and the Marcan Andrew functions as Peter’s Gentile-oriented alter ego. Both brothers are described in Mk 1:16 as working on the sea and casting nets around them (or ‘on both sides’: ἀμφιβάλλω),56 which alludes to Peter’s missionary activity predominantly among the Jews in and around Israel, but also with the use of his Greek-oriented name and identity (Gal 2:7-8). The brothers were, however, called to abandon this safe area and follow the itinerant, Pauline-style Jesus, wherever he would lead them (Mk 1:17). Their initial response was very positive. It closely resembled that of Paul. They ‘immediately’ (εὐθύς: Mk 1:18) left their narrow-scope nets and followed the itinerant Jesus in the Gentile-like Galilee (cf. Gal 1:16b-17).57 The second pair of Marcan ‘brothers’, namely that of James and John (Mk 1:1920), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization depicts the features of the two remaining Jerusalem ‘pillars’: James and John (Gal  2:9).58 Mark’s presentation of these characters is distinctly negative, which reflects the attitude of the post-Pauline evangelist to Paul’s main halachic opponent, namely James the Lord’s brother (cf. Gal 2:12). Mark introduced the characters of James and John, in agreement with 1 Cor 15:5.7; Gal 1:18-19, but not with Gal 2:9, after his presentation of Simon-Peter and Andrew (Mk  1:19-20; cf. 1:16-18). In this way, the evangelist rhetorically subordinated James to Peter, by presenting Peter (and not James) as the leader 55 56

57 58

Cf. W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (3rd edn.; Akademische: Graz 1959), 86-87. Cf. G.  Volkmar, Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R. Reisland): Leipzig 1870), 79. Alternatively, this verb can also mean ‘be doubtful, be uncertain, vacillate’, and thus it can allude to the vacillating attitude of Peter (and his Gentile-oriented alter ego) towards the Gentiles: cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 141. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xi-xii. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 143.

46

Mk 1:14-20 (cf. Gal 1:15c.16b)

of the Jewish Christian community (cf. 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18). Moreover, Mark described Peter as appointed to this position by Jesus himself (cf. 1 Cor 15:5; cf. also Gal 2:7-8). In this way, in line with the principles of Paul’s theology, Mark presented divine grace and election (cf. Gal 1:15c) as more important than blood relationships with Jesus (cf. Gal 1:16c). On the other hand, the evangelist consciously distanced James from Jesus by concealing James’ blood relationship to the Lord (Mk 1:19; diff. Gal 1:19). He presented James not as ‘the brother of the Lord’ (cf. Gal  1:19), but as one called by Jesus in a manner which was similar to that of Paul (καλέω: Mk 1:20; cf. Gal 1:15c). In this way, the evangelist created the narrative character of James who was apparently different from James the Lord’s brother. The resulting problem of two Jameses, one known from Paul’s letters (Gal 1:19 etc.) and the other known from Mark’s Gospel (Mk 1:19 etc.) was later solved by Luke, who let the ‘Marcan’ James die in Acts 12:2 in order to make room for the introduction of the ‘Pauline’ James in Acts 12:17. Moreover, Mark described James, together with John, as the sons of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαῖος: Mk 1:19-20; 3:17; 10:35). In this way, he alluded to the scriptural character of Achan (Josh  7:1-26), who was identified by Josephus as a son of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαίου παῖς: Jos. Ant. 5.33). In the scriptural story, Achan was a greedy person, who took (‘stole’) some of the things which were devoted to Yahweh (Josh 7:1.11.21). Mark used this negative scriptural example to illustrate the decision of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, who demanded financial support from Gentile believers (Gal  2:10a), thus changing their religiously motivated, voluntary gift to the ‘saints’ in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8-9) into an authoritatively imposed financial obligation for the benefit of the Jewish Christian community. Besides, Mark described James and John, in difference to Simon-Peter and Andrew (Mk 1:16), as engaged not in fish-catching activity, but in putting the nets in order (καταρτίζω: Mk 1:19). In this way, the evangelist alluded to the followers of James’ interest in legal perfection, and to their accusations against Paul’s way of evangelizing the Gentiles (Gal 2:12). In their turn, James and John, in difference to Simon-Peter and Andrew (cf. Mk 1:18), did not react to Jesus’ call in a Pauline manner: ‘immediately’ (εὐθύς: Mk 1:20; cf. Gal 1:16c). As it is suggested in a double way in Mk 1:20, in order to become Jesus’ disciples, James and John should fulfil an important condition. They should leave their father Zebedee, that is their likeness to the negative scriptural example of greed in a holy realm (cf. Josh 7:1-26; Jos. Ant. 5.33-44), and they should renounce their affinity with hirelings (μισθωτός: Mk  1:20). In this way, they can meet the high moral, self-renouncing standards of the Pauline apostleship (1 Cor 9:17-18; cf. 9:4-16).



Mk 1:21-28 (cf. Gal 1:16c)

47

On the other hand, James and John, in difference to Simon-Peter and Andrew (cf. Mk 1:17), did not become fishers of people. They left their boat and followed Jesus on his land route (Mk 1:19-20), thus becoming apostles of the land, presumably the land of Israel (cf. Gal 2:9). The evangelist’s message expressed in Mk 1:16-20 is therefore clear. The Jerusalem ‘pillars’ can be considered true followers of Jesus inasmuch as they meet the most important criteria of apostleship which were laid down by the Apostle of the Nations.

1.3. Mk 1:21-2:12 (cf. Gal 1:16c-17) The subsequent section of the Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:21-2:12) in a sequential way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization, illustrates the main ideas of the subsequent section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:16c-17).

1.3.1. Mk 1:21-28 (cf. Gal 1:16c) The section Mk  1:21-28 illustrates the content of the Pauline text Gal  1:16c, namely the idea of Paul’s boasting that after the revelation of God’s Son in him (cf. Gal 1:16a) he acted immediately (εὐθέως) and did not refer the matter of his evangelistic activity among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:16b) for the consideration of any human authority (οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι). Mark illustrated this idea in a vivid, narrative way. He presented Jesus’ activity after the call of the first disciples (Mk 1:16-20) as taking place in Capernaum (Mk 1:21). The toponym Capernaum (Καφαρναούμ: Mk 1:21; 2:1; 9:33), which could not be found in the Old Testament, and whose Greek version is surprisingly identical with that in Jos. B.J. 3.519,59 notwithstanding the fact that the name could have been rendered from Aramaic in various Greek forms (cf. Jos. Vita 403: Κεφαρνωκόν), must have been borrowed by the evangelist from Jos. B.J. 3.519. The evangelist most probably used precisely this toponym because of its prominence in Josephus’ description of the Galilean country of Gennesaret (Jos. B.J. 3.516-521). Quite surprisingly, the almost unknown, northern, Galilean village (Jos. Vita 403) or place of Capernaum (Jos. B.J. 3.519) was presented by Mark as a ‘city’ (πόλις: Mk 1:33). Evidently, the evangelist again used here the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, and by means of the reference to the northern ‘city’ of Capernaum in fact alluded to the well-known northern city of Damascus (cf. Gal 1:17c; 2 Cor 11:32). 59

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 161.

48

Mk 1:21-28 (cf. Gal 1:16c)

The somewhat surprising statement that Jesus immediately (εὐθύς), having on the Sabbath entered the synagogue, taught (Mk 1:21), so that he presumably did not talk with anyone before the beginning of his teaching in the synagogue, illustrates Paul’s ideas that his evangelistic activity began immediately (εὐθέως) and that he did not refer the matter of his evangelistic activity for the consideration of any human authority (Gal 1:16c). Paul’s idea that he did not refer the matter of his evangelistic activity for the consideration of any human authority (Gal 1:16c) was further illustrated by Mark in the form of the narrative presentation of Jesus as teaching with his own incomparable authority, which did not resemble that of various subordinate officials (Mk 1:22). Paul’s idea of his not referring the matter of his evangelistic activity among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:16b) for the consideration of any human authority (Gal 1:16c) was also further illustrated by means of the story concerning a powerful healing of an unclean person (Mk 1:23-28). In this story, Mark again used the key Pauline adverb ‘immediately’ (εὐθύς: Mk 1:23; cf. Gal 1:16c: εὐθέως). This Marcan literary borrowing gave rise to the awkward expression: ‘And immediately there was a man…’ (Mk 1:23). Moreover, Mark presented Jesus’ evangelistic activity among unclean people (surprisingly in plural: ‘us’)60 as solely depending on God (Mk 1:24) and as being performed with Jesus’ own powerful authority (Mk 1:24-25.27), with no reference to Jewish religious leaders, who were concerned with the issue of uncleanness (Mk 1:22; cf. Gal 1:16c: ‘flesh and blood’, in fact alluding to Jerusalem leaders). The distance from Jerusalem and its leaders (Gal  1:16c-17a) is also expressed in the conclusive remark that Jesus’ fame spread in the whole neighbourhood of Galilee (Mk 1:28), with no reference to Judaea and Jerusalem (diff. Mk 3:7-8). The particular way of healing the unclean man, namely without any contact with his body (Mk 1:25-26; diff. 1:31.41 etc.), may also allude to Paul’s idea of his not referring to ‘flesh and blood’ (Gal 1:16c). It should be noted that the Marcan image of Jesus as mainly teaching (διδα*) and doing wonderful things among both Jews and Gentiles, which attracted to him numerous people (Mk 1:21-28; 7:24-37 etc.), is generally non-Pauline (diff. 1 Cor 2:13; 12:28-30; 14:6.26; Rom 12:6-8; Gal 1:12 etc.). Moreover, it could not be derived from the idea of Jewish messianism (Rom 1:3; 11:26-27 etc.). Consequently, this image most probably originated from Josephus’ remarks concerning Jesus’ activity as a teacher and miracle-worker, who was popular among both Jews and Greeks (Jos. Ant. 18.63 [in its original form]).

60

Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 156.



Mk 1:29-34 (cf. Gal 1:17a)

49

1.3.2. Mk 1:29-34 (cf. Gal 1:17a) In Mk  1:29-34 the issue of Jesus’ relationship with the Jerusalem apostles and with the ‘city’ comes to the fore. Consequently, in this pericope Mark illustrated the main ideas of the Pauline text Gal 1:17a. The fragment Mk 1:29-31 presents Jesus as dominating the situation in the house of Simon and Andrew, in the presence of the two other Jerusalem apostles: James and John. The evangelist depicted the Jerusalem leaders as powerless and unable to cope effectively with the issue of uncleanness, to which the illness of a woman in their house presumably led. In contrast to their evident weakness (Mk  1:30), Jesus’ revealed the power of his resurrection (ἐγείρω: Mk  1:31; cf. 1 Cor 15:4 etc.).61 In this way, Mark elaborated Paul’s idea that in his evangelistic activity he solely relied on the revelation of God’s Son in him (cf. Gal 1:16a), and was therefore independent of the authority of the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1:17a). Moreover, the evangelist depicted Peter as needing to be freed from his marriagerelated concerns in order to become a Pauline-style itinerant apostle (Mk 1:30-31; cf. 1 Cor 9:5.15). The fragment Mk 1:32-34 surprisingly depicts Jesus’ stay in the northern ‘city’ (πόλις: Mk 1:33) of Capernaum.62 In this way, the evangelist alluded to Paul’s initial stay in the northern city of Damascus, and not in Jerusalem, before his travel to Arabia and his return again to Damascus (Gal 1:17). In order to allude more closely to the Gentile city of Damascus, the ‘city’ of Capernaum was presented by Mark as inhabited by numerous unclean people, who were ill and possessed with demons (Mk 1:32.34; cf. also 1:23-27). On the other hand, the idea of casting out demons (τὰ δαιμόνια) from unclean people (Mk 1:34 etc.) reflects Paul’s arguments that the Gentile believers should not have any fellowship with demons (1 Cor 10:20-21).

1.3.3. Mk 1:35-45 (cf. Gal 1:17b) The section Mk 1:35-45 in a narrative way illustrates the main idea of Paul’s enigmatic statement ‘but I went away to Arabia’ (Gal 1:17b). The Pauline statement ‘I went away to Arabia’ (ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν: Gal 1:17b) was almost verbatim reproduced in the opening statement of the section Mk 1:3545: ‘he went away to a deserted place’ (ἀπῆλθεν εἰς ἔρημον τόπον: Mk  1:35b). The semantic correspondence between Arabia (Gal  1:17b) and a deserted place (Mk 1:35b) reflects the Pauline association of Arabia with Mt Sinai (Gal 4:25). 61 62

Cf. C. Focant, L’évangile selon Marc (CBNT 2; Cerf: Paris 2004), 93. Cf. P. Pilhofer, ‘Städtische Wurzeln des frühen Christentums’, ThPQ 161 (2013) 158-165 (esp. 158 n. 4).

50

Mk 1:35-45 (cf. Gal 1:17b)

Other remarks in Mk  1:35 also contain elements of the Marcan interpretation of Gal  1:17b. The opening statement: ‘And early in the morning, when it was still very dark, having risen up, he went out’ (Καὶ πρωῒ ἔννυχα λίαν ἀναστὰς ἐξῆλθεν: Mk 1:35a), by means of the references to early morning (cf. Mk 16:2), overcoming darkness (cf. Rom 13:11-12; Mk 4:35-41; 6:47-52; 16:2), rising up (cf. 1 Thes 4:14; Mk 5:42; 8:31; 9:9-10.27.31; 10:34; 12:23.25), and going out (like from the tomb: cf. Mk 16:8), links Paul’s travel to the deserted place of Arabia with the consequences of the experience of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Gal 1:16a). On the other hand, the statement ‘and he was praying there’ (κἀκεῖ προσηύχετο: Mk 1:35c) interprets that enigmatic travel to Arabia as devoted to solitary prayer (cf. Exod 3:1-4:17; 1 Kgs 19:8-18), because of the Pauline association of Arabia with Mt Sinai (Gal 4:25). The story which presents the Jerusalem apostles as searching for Jesus in the deserted place (Mk 1:36-37), and Jesus as preaching the gospel in all Galilee with its small towns and demons (Mk 1:38-39) again alludes to the Pauline statements concerning his not going up to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17a), but remaining in the provincial and unclean region of Arabia (Gal 1:17b). It is possible that the verbs καταδιώκω (‘pursue, hunt down’) and ζητέω (‘search, want’) are used in Mk 1:36-37 in a hostile sense,63 thus presenting the Jerusalem apostles, as well as all other Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 4:29; 5:11; Mk 3:32), as pursuing the formerly persecuting, but now converted Paul in Arabia (cf. Gal 1:17ab.23). The same idea of Paul’s going to Arabia (Gal 1:17b) is further illustrated in the story concerning Jesus’ cleansing (καθαρίζω) a leper (λεπρός) from leprosy (λέπρα: Mk 1:40-45). This story, with the use of the scriptural motif of cleansing a Gentile leper (2 Kgs 5:1-19 LXX),64 and by means of the scriptural association of being a leper, as well as leprosy, with the need of being cleansed (Lev 14:2-3 LXX),65 alludes to Paul’s activity among the ritually unclean Gentiles in Arabia (Gal 1:17b). Jesus’ strong command to go to the Jerusalem priest with an offering, which was required by the Mosaic law (Mk 1:44; cf. Lev 14:2-32), was surprisingly not fulfilled (Mk  1:45; cf. Gal  1:17a).66 This behaviour provides another narrative reason for Jesus’ stay in deserted places (Mk 1:45), which again alludes to Paul’s 63 64 65

66

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 145; T. Dykstra, Mark, 119 n. 150. Cf. M. Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (SCM: London 1994), 131. Cf. J.‑D. Hopkins, ‘Levitical Purification in the New Testament Gospels’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (LNTS 469; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 179-191 (esp. 187). Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 110; P. Müller, ‘Nicht nur rein, auch gesund (Heilung eines Aussätzigen) – Mk 1,40-45 (Mt 8,1-4 / Lk 5,12-16 / P.Köln 255’, in R. Zimmer-



Mk 2:1-12 (cf. Gal 1:17c)

51

remark concerning his travel to Arabia (Gal 1:17b). This time, in difference to the opening statement of this section (Mk 1:35), Mark suggested that the stay in the deserted region, far from the northern ‘city’, lasted relatively long (Mk 1:45-2:1), which reflects the ambivalence of Paul’s reference to the three years of his stay (Gal 1:18a): in Arabia (Gal 1:17b) or in Damascus (Gal 1:17c). It should be noted that the Marcan image of Jesus as a prophetic miracleworker, who resembled Elisha (Mk  1:40-45 cf. 2  Kgs 5:1-19; Mk  5:38-42 cf. 2 Kgs 4:21-37; Mk 6:37-44 cf. 2 Kgs 4:42-44) even more than Elijah (Mk 7:24-30 cf. 1 Kgs 17:8-24), could have been influenced by Josephus’ reference to Jesus as a doer of incredible deeds (παράδοξα + ἔργα: Jos. Ant. 18.63 [in its original form]), a reference which resembled Josephus’ characterization of the prophet Elisha (Jos. Ant. 9.182).67

1.3.4. Mk 2:1-12 (cf. Gal 1:17c) The story about Jesus’ return to Capernaum, after some time spent in deserted places (Mk 2:1-12; cf. 1:45), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to Paul’s return to Damascus, after some time spent in Arabia (Gal 1:17c; cf. 1:17b). In Mk 2:1 (cf. also 2:13) Mark retained much of the Pauline vocabulary: ‘and’ + verb of movement + ‘again’ + ‘to’ + name of the northern city (καί + [movement] + πάλιν + εἰς + [city]: Gal  1:17c). Moreover, he surprisingly presented Capernaum as Jesus’ hometown (‘at home’: Mk 2:1; diff. 1:9), which alludes to Paul’s remark concerning his return to his apparently home city of Damascus (Gal 1:17c).68 Since Damascus (Gal 1:17c) was a Gentile city (cf. 2 Kgs 5:1-19; 2 Cor 11:32 etc.), the story Mk 2:1-12 alludes to Paul’s activity there by illustrating the basic content of Paul’s evangelistic proclamation among the Gentiles, namely faith in Jesus’ resurrection (πιστ* + ἐγείρω: Mk 2:5.9.11-12; cf. Rom 10:9; cf. also 1 Cor

67 68

mann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 221-234 (esp. 223-224). Cf. A. Merz, ‘Der historische Jesus als Wundertäter im Spektrum antiker Wundertäter’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium, vol. 1, 108-123 (esp. 116). The idea that Paul was born in the city of Tarsus, which was well known in antiquity as a place of good education (cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13-15), is a later Lucan invention (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3). Cf. M. S. Enslin, ‘Luke, the Literary Physician’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Festschrift A. P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33; Brill: Leiden 1972), 135-143 (esp. 140); B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 35. On the basis of Paul’s remark that he ‘returned’ to Damascus (Gal 1:17c) Mark could have reasonably assumed that the Apostle originated from that city.

52

Mk 2:1-12 (cf. Gal 1:17c)

15:14.17; Rom 1:4-5; 4:24 etc.). To these two fundamental issues, Mark added the Pauline idea of forgiveness of sins as resulting from faith (Mk 2:5.7.9-12; cf. Rom 4:5-7; cf. also 1 Cor 15:17; Rom 3:22-26; 4:24-25 etc.), as well as that of the mediating role of the human person of the Apostle in the work of reconciling people with God and remitting human sins (Mk 2:10; cf. 2 Cor 5:18-20 etc.). The introductory statement Mk 2:2 depicts Jesus’ word as leading to faith, an idea which is well known from Paul’s letters (Rom 10:17 etc.). The story about carrying a paralytic to Jesus (Mk 2:3-4) illustrates Gentile-style faith, which is expressed not in scriptural terms, but in actions which can be performed also by the people who do not know Scripture. Likewise, the significant, triple repetition of the three key verbs: ‘arise’, ‘take up’ (your mat), and ‘walk’, which leads from a promise and command to fulfilment (Mk 2:9.11-12), in a narrative way presents the Gentile-style faith as obedience to the words of Jesus (cf. Rom  10:16-17; 15:18 etc.). Moreover, it illustrates the idea of Jesus’ resurrection in terms which are easily understandable to the Gentiles: rising up from a horizontal position of the body, regaining vital energy after being passively carried, and going out from the place in which the body was laid down. It should be noted that in this way Mark heavily influenced the Christian understanding of faith. He presented the complex, Pauline idea of salvific faith in a relatively simple, widely understandable way, namely as a belief that Jesus had the power to perform supernatural miracles. The motif of the doubting people who relied on Scripture (Mk 2:6-8.10) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the critical attitude of the Jewish Christians towards Paul’s activity among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:19 etc.). The concluding remark that the criticism of the Jews was overcome, and that they glorified God (δοξάζω + τὸν θεόν) because of Jesus’ activity in the northern ‘city’ of Capernaum (Mk 2:12) alludes to Paul’s positive conclusion concerning the outcome of his activity in the northern countries of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:24; cf. 1:21).

1.4. Mk 2:13-3:6 (cf. Gal 1:18-20) The section Mk 2:13-3:6 in a sequential way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization, illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text Gal 1:1820. The Marcan text focuses on the issues of hospitality, eating, as well as the main hero’s relationships with Jerusalem-based religious authorities and the apostles, issues which are explicitly discussed in Gal 1:18-20.



Mk 2:13-17 (cf. Gal 1:18)

53

1.4.1. Mk 2:13-17 (cf. Gal 1:18) The section Mk 2:13-17 alludes to the problems related to Paul’s stay in Jerusalem, and to his relationship with Cephas (Gal 1:18). The opening, narrative location of the story Mk 2:13-17, namely not more in the ‘city’ of Capernaum (cf. Mk 2:1-12) but again by the sea (παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν: Mk 2:13), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates the idea of Paul’s opening statement concerning his again leaving Damascus and setting out for a mission in the basin of the Mediterranean (Gal 1:18a; cf. 1:21-24). Moreover, this location explicitly recalls the location of the story concerning the call of Peter with Andrew (παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν: Mk 1:16-18; diff. 1:19-20).69 Therefore, the subsequent description of the call of Levi (καὶ παράγων + εἶδεν + name + professional activity + καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ + ‘follow me!’ + καί + part. aor. + ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ: Mk 2:14), which likewise closely resembles that of the call of the ‘pillars’ (Mk 1:16-20), especially Peter with Andrew (Mk 1:16-18), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Paul’s subsequent idea concerning his meeting with Cephas (Gal 1:18b). The related, double identification of the called character, namely as Levi, the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), is quite surprising. The priestly name of Levi (Λευί) evidently alludes to the Jerusalem temple and to strong attachment to the Mosaic law (cf. Exod 32:26-28; Num 3:6-8; 18:2-4; Deut 10:8; 31:9; 33:8-10; 1 Chr 23:2432 etc.). Moreover, it alludes to the right to receive tithes from God’s people (cf. Num 18:21.24 etc.). Consequently, in the post-Pauline Gospel of Mark it alludes to the Jewish, Jerusalem-based identity and allegiance of Cephas (Gal 1:18b; cf. 2:11.12d-f) and to his demand concerning receiving financial support from Gentile believers (Gal 2:10a), which could be regarded by them as a kind of Church ‘tithe’. The latter idea is further evoked by means of the surprising Marcan remark concerning the profession of the priestly character of Levi, namely a tax collector (Mk 2:14; cf. 2:15-16). On the other hand, the name ‘Alphaeus’ (Ἀλφαῖος: Mk 2:14; cf. 3:18) was scarcely, if ever, used before the composition of the Marcan Gospel.70 Therefore, it seems that this name, because of its association with the first letter of the Greek alphabet (ἄλφα: ‘alpha’ → Ἀλφαῖος: ‘Alpha-eus’), was created or used by Mark, presumably on the basis of the Greek name Alpheios (Ἀλφειός: Homer, Il. 11.728 69 70

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 190. Pace T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1, Palestine 330 bce – 200 ce (TSAJ 91; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2002), 24, 382, there is no reason to identify the name of Alphaeus (Ἀλφαῖος: Mk 2:14; 3:18), which was apparently used as a Greek name in Egypt c. ad 115-120 (P.Brem. 44.15: Αλφαι(ου)), with the Jewish name of Chalphi (Χαλφι: 1 Macc 11:70) / Chapseus (Χαψέος: Jos. Ant. 13.161).

54

Mk 2:13-17 (cf. Gal 1:18)

etc.),71 in order to allude to Cephas’ Greek name Peter (Πέτρος: Gal 2:7-8). In this way, by means of the double identification of the called person as Levi, the son of Alpha-eus (Mk 2:14), Mark alluded to the double, Jewish-Greek identity of the person of Cephas-Peter (Gal 1:18b; cf. 2:7-9.11-14). The subsequent Marcan statement shows that in difference to other disciples (cf. Mk  1:16-20; 3:13-19; 10:28.52; 15:41 etc.), including the similarly named ‘James the son Alphaeus’ (Mk 3:18), Levi did not follow the itinerant Jesus, but welcomed him at his home (Mk 2:15).72 Accordingly, this behaviour of Levi illustrates the welcoming behaviour of Cephas, which was described in the subsequent Pauline statement Gal 1:18c. Likewise, the whole scene of Jesus’ eating together (συνανάκειμαι, ἐσθίω μετὰ τῶν…) with tax collectors and sinners in Levi’s house (Mk  2:15-17) alludes to Paul’s idea of eating together (συνεσθίω μετὰ τῶν…) with the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:12b.14e),73 an idea which was initially presumably accepted in Cephas’ house (Gal 1:18c). Similarly, the rebuke of the Scripture-adherents of the Pharisees (Mk 2:16) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the behaviour of James the Lord’s brother and his circumcised followers (Gal 2:12a.c-f).74 The Marcan hypertextual identification of James the Lord’s brother with the Pharisees is at least partly justified by Josephus’ description of the sympathy of the Pharisees, regarded as ‘those who are thought to be […] exact as concerns the laws’ (ἐδόκουν… περὶ τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβεῖς: Jos. Ant. 20.201) and ‘those who are thought to explain the laws exactly’ (οἱ μετὰ ἀκριβείας δοκοῦντες ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα: Jos. B.J. 2.162), for James against the Sadducean high priest Ananus (Jos. Ant. 20.199-201). This association suggests that James might have had something in common with Pharisaism.75 Jesus’ subsequent public response to the Scripture-adherents of the Pharisees (Mk 2:17) by means of the combination of the key words δικαιο* and ἁμαρτωλοί alludes to Paul’s subsequent public response to the Jewish party, primarily led by the followers of James, in Antioch (Gal 2:15-17; cf. 2:12).76 Accordingly, with the 71 72 73

74 75 76

Cf. W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wörterbuch, 67. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 116-117. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1971), 92; M. D. Goulder, ‘A Pauline in a Jacobite Church’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck (BETL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 859-875 (esp. 863); A. Malina, Ewangelia, 183. Cf. G.  Volkmar, Evangelien, 145-146, 150, 153; M.  H.  Schulze, Evangelientafel, xiv; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 148. Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘Pauline’, 862; B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 75. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xiv; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 148; T. Dykstra, Mark, 84.



Mk 2:18-22 (cf. Gal 1:19a)

55

use of the ideas and vocabulary contained in Gal 2:7-17, Mark plausibly reconstructed in Mk 2:13-17 the positive attitude of Cephas-Peter (Gal 1:18bc) and the negative one of James (Gal 1:19b) towards Paul during his first visit in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18a).

1.4.2. Mk 2:18-22 (cf. Gal 1:19a) The story about the disciples of John and the Pharisees as fasting (Mk 2:18-22) illustrates the unwelcoming attitude of other Jerusalem apostles towards Paul’s presence as Cephas’ guest in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19a). The otherwise unknown disciples of John (Mk 2:18)77 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, on the basis of the use of the same name of John by two historical characters, represent John the Jerusalem ‘pillar’ (cf. Gal 2:9). The Marcan Pharisees (Mk 2:18; cf. 2:16) likewise again stand for James the Lord’s brother and his followers (Gal 1:19b; 2:12). The strange fasting of both these groups at the time when the bridegroom was with them, and consequently they were supposed to have meals together with him as long as they had him with them (Mk 2:18-20),78 illustrates the reserved attitude of other apostles, especially John and James who were known to the evangelist by name (Gal 2:9), towards hosting Paul in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19a). According to Paul’s autobiographical statement (Gal 1:19), none of the other Jerusalem apostles, unlike Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18), either welcomed him at home or at least shared a meal with him. The Marcan idea of fasting instead of having meals together (Mk 2:18-20) illustrates this unwelcoming attitude of the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1:19a). It should be noted that Mark surprisingly presented the disciples of John and the Pharisees as not participating in the dialogue with Jesus, as though they were not present close to Jesus (Mk 2:18bc). They were only referred to by Jesus’ interlocutors, who asked him a question in the third person: ‘Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast?’ (Mk 2:18d). In this narrative way, the evangelist illustrated Paul’s idea that he did not have any personal contact with the other Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1:19a). The particular metaphor of Jesus as the bridegroom (Mk 2:19-20) is of course of Pauline origin (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; cf. also 1 Cor 7:32-35).79 77 78 79

There is no mention of any particular ‘disciples’ of John the Baptist in Jos. Ant. 18.116-119. Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 128-129. Pace A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 199, who has uncritically assumed that the direction of the dependence was reverse: from the complex images in Mk 2:19-20 to the simple idea in 2 Cor 11:2.

56

Mk 2:23-28 (cf. Gal 1:19b)

On the other hand, the pair of images depicted in Mk 2:21-22, namely that of not patching an old outer garment (ἱμάτιον παλαιόν: Mk 2:21) and that of putting new wine into new and not old wineskins (οἶνος + ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς + ἀσκοὺς καινούς: Mk 2:22), by means of the scriptural allusion to Josh 9:4-6.13 LXX80 further illustrates the ideas of Paul’s coming to the Jewish city in a poor condition from a far Gentile country (Gal 1:18a) and his generally not being welcomed there (Gal 1:19a).

1.4.3. Mk 2:23-28 (cf. Gal 1:19b) The story about Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees (Mk 2:23-28) illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his meeting with James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19b). The opening image of the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees as taking place not at home but in the grain fields, when Jesus and his disciples were travelling and were hungry, presumably because they did not have the opportunity to spend the Sabbath as guests in anyone’s house (Mk  2:23), illustrates Paul’s statement that he merely saw James the Lord’s brother, as though in passing (Gal 1:19b). The particular halachic example of eating grain which could be found in the field, as well as the related accusation of the Pharisees (Mk  2:23-24) seem to reflect the rule which was expressed in the Pharisees-related Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law,81 which is usually called the Damascus Document: ‘No one should eat on the Sabbath day […] from what is lost in the field’ (CD 10:22-23;82 cf. also Exod 16:25-30). It seems that Mark knew such Pharisees-related, not explicitly scriptural halachic regulations, and alluded to them in order to illustrate plausibly the views of James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19b). The key scriptural argument concerning the behaviour of the fugitive David (Mk 2:25-26) was borrowed by Mark from 1 Sam 21:2-7.83 However, the evangelist reformulated this scriptural story by describing David as having been in 80 81 82

83

Cf. M. Tait, Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18-22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded (AnBib 185; Gregorian and Biblical: Roma 2010), 320 n. 227. For a discussion concerning the name and the Pharisees-related features of that work, see B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 20-21. Cf. B.  Chilton [et al.] (eds.), A  Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark: Comparisons with Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Scrolls, and Rabbinic Literature (NTGJC 1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 131; J. G. Crossley, The New Testament and Jewish Law: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark, London · New York 2010), 34; id., ‘Mark, Paul and the Question of Influences’, in M. F. Bird and J. Willitts (eds.), Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (Library of New Testament Studies 411; T&T Clark, London · New York 2011), 10-29 (esp. 21). Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 141; C. Focant, Marc, 126-127.



Mk 3:1-6 (cf. Gal 1:20)

57

need and hungry (Mk  2:25), by relocating the scriptural event from Nob with its priest Ahimelech (1 Sam 21:2-7) to Jerusalem with its ‘house of God’ and its ‘high priest’ Abiathar (Mk 2:26; cf. 2 Sam 15:29.35 etc.), and by suggesting that the feeding of David had taken place in the house of God (Mk 2:26).84 In this way, Mark formulated an allusive reproach to James (cf. Gal 1:19b), namely that he should have behaved like the Marcan high priest (Mk 2:26) by helping the hungry (πεινάω: cf. also 1 Cor 4:11) fugitive Paul in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18a; cf. 2 Cor 11:32-33).85 Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees concerning the violation of Jewish food and Sabbath laws by his law-breaking followers (Mk 2:24.27-28) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the conflict between Paul and the followers of James concerning table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12), as well as the post-Pauline disputes concerning non-observation of Jewish Sabbath laws by the Gentiles (Col 2:16; cf. Gal 4:10).86 Mark evidently assumed that already during Paul’s meeting with James in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19b) the Apostle must have disputed such issues with the Lord’s brother. Paul’s liberal interpretation of the Jewish law was therefore illustrated by the evangelist in Mk 2:27-28.

1.4.4. Mk 3:1-6 (cf. Gal 1:20) The story about Jesus’ public discussion with the Pharisees and the Herodians in a synagogue (Mk 3:1-6) illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text Gal 1:20, which refers to Paul’s not lying in the presence of God in the issue of his relationships with James and Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18-19). The location of the story, namely a synagogue (Mk 3:1), illustrates Paul’s idea of being in the presence of God (Gal 1:20b). The related Pauline idea of a public testimony (Gal  1:20b) is further illustrated by the image of the unclean man’s standing in the middle (Mk 3:3), in the midst of the opponents (Mk 3:2). Jesus’ theological-halachic question presents the Pauline liberal interpretation of the law as subject to public criticism of his Jewish opponents (Mk 3:4a-f). In this way, it alludes to Paul’s idea of not lying in the presence of God (Gal 1:20) in the issue of his relationships with his Jewish Christian opponents (cf. Gal 1:18-19). The fact that it was Jesus himself who answered this question (Mk 3:4g-5) by displaying God’s power which was active at the resurrection, as it was narratively 84 85 86

Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 141; B. Adamczewski, ‘Dekalog w nauczaniu Jezusa’, RTWP 2 (2002) 3-24 (esp. 17 n. 59). For a discussion concerning the historical identification of Paul’s escape from Damascus (2 Cor 11:32-33) with his first visit in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18), see B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 45-46, 60. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xv; M. D. Goulder, ‘Pauline’, 865.

58

Mk 3:1-6 (cf. Gal 1:20)

shown by the evangelist with the use of the ideas of rising up (ἐγείρω: Mk 3:3c; cf. 1 Cor 15:4 etc.), saving life (Mk 3:4e), and being restored (Mk 3:5f), illustrates Paul’s idea that he, and not his opponents, told the truth in the presence of God (Gal 1:20bc). The related idea of a withered hand (Mk 3:1c) alludes to the ‘withering’ of the bodies in the aftermath of death (cf. 1 Cor 6:14; 15:35-44; Rom 8:11 etc.), which sets the stage for the discussion concerning the resurrection (Mk 3:4-5). The presentation of Jesus’ violation of Jewish halachic rules as caused by his desire to do good (Mk 3:4) illustrates the liberal principles of Paul’s theology addressed to the Gentiles (cf. 1 Thes 5:15; 2  Cor 5:10; Rom  2:10; 13:3-4 etc.; 1 Thes  2:16; 1  Cor 9:22; 10:33; Rom  10:9-13 etc.). The idea of the hardening (πώρωσις) of Jewish hearts (Mk 3:5) is likewise Pauline (cf. Rom 11:25; cf. also 2 Cor 3:14; Rom 11:7).87 The motif of increasing enmity towards Jesus’ saving activity (Mk 3:2), which culminated in the Pharisees and the Herodians’ attempt to destroy Jesus (Mk 3:6), illustrates the increasingly negative attitude of James and Cephas towards Paul. As was noted above (cf. Mk  2:16.18.24), the Marcan Pharisees (Mk  3:6) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality refer to James and his followers (Gal 1:19b; 2:12). On the other hand, as will be demonstrated below, by means of the same procedure the character of ‘King Herod’ in Mk 6:14-29 refers to Cephas, the most important leader (the ‘king’) of Jewish Christianity (cf. Gal 2:12-14). Accordingly, the otherwise unknown Marcan ‘Herodians’ (Mk  3:6; 12:13; cf. only Josephus’ references to the followers of Herod the Great: B.J. 1.319: Ἡρωδεῖοι; Ant. 14:450: οἱ τὰ Ἡρώδου φρονοῦντες)88 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality refer to Cephas and his Jewish Christian followers (cf. 1 Cor 1:22 etc.). Mark knew that the relatively positive reception of Paul in Jerusalem by Cephas (Gal 1:18) and the unwelcoming attitude to him on the part of James (Gal 1:19b) ended up in a conflict with Paul (Gal  2:12.14) because of his apparently lawbreaking activity among the Gentiles (Gal 2:16-21). Therefore, by means of the concluding statement concerning the destructive plans of the Pharisees and the Herodians (Mk 3:6), which reflected the increasingly negative attitude of James and Cephas towards Paul (Gal 1:19; 2:12.14), Mark narratively explained why the fugitive Paul (cf. 2 Cor 11:32-33) had to leave Jerusalem after only fifteen days (Gal 1:18c) and go to the distant regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). According to the evangelist, who followed the idea expressed in Gal 1:20, the fault for 87 88

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 150; T. Dykstra, Mark, 89; P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 139. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 128; J. P. Meier, ‘The historical Jesus and the historical Herodians’, JBL 119 (2000) 740-746 (esp. 742); J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, Mark 8-16 (AB 27A; Yale: New Haven · London 2009), 816.



Mk 3:7-19 (cf. Gal 1:21)

59

this unpleasant course and ending of Paul’s first visit in Jerusalem lay not with the sincere Paul, who only showed the halachic consequences of Jesus’ resurrection, but with the increasingly hostile Jerusalem apostles.

1.5. Mk 3:7-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:21-24) The section Mk 3:7-5:20 describes Jesus’ departure from the city in which there was a Jewish synagogue to the sea, and then his travel to the other side of the sea. Consequently, it narratively, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization, illustrates the sequence of the main ideas of the thematically corresponding section Gal 1:21-24.

1.5.1. Mk 3:7-19 (cf. Gal 1:21) The story about Jesus’ departure from a city with a Jewish synagogue (cf. Mk 3:16) to the seashore, meeting there people from various regions including the nonJewish northern cities of Tyre and Sidon, and then constituting the group of the apostles (Mk 3:7-19) illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his departure from Jerusalem to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). The opening remark concerning Jesus’ withdrawal from the city with a Jewish synagogue to the sea (Mk 3:7a), a basin which evidently alludes to the Mediterranean Sea, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his departure from Jerusalem in the direction of the Gentile, maritime regions of Syria (especially including the maritime city of Antioch: cf. Gal 2:11) and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). The Marcan list of regions from which sick people came to Jesus, including not only the regions of Galilee, Judaea and Jerusalem, as well as Idumaea and Transjordan, but also the northern, maritime, evidently Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon (Mk  3:7b-8), illustrates the idea that Paul’s mission by that end of his first visit in Jerusalem was directed not only to the inhabitants of Damascus (Gal 1:17c), Jerusalem and Judaea (Rom 15:19), as well as Arabia (Gal 1:17b), but also to the northern, evidently Gentile regions of Syria (especially including the northern, maritime city of Antioch) and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). The Marcan remark that Jesus told his disciples to keep a small boat ready for him (Mk 3:9ab) additionally illustrates Paul’s resolve to evangelize the whole basin of the Mediterranean, beginning with the maritime regions of Syria (especially including Antioch) and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). The surprising image of Jesus as being pressed to leave the land and go to the sea (Mk 3:9c), together with the remarks that the people around Jesus were sick

60

Mk 3:7-19 (cf. Gal 1:21)

and unclean (Mk  3:10-11) in a narrative way additionally answer the question why Paul had to leave the land of Israel and go to the Gentiles living in the maritime regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). Besides, Mark narratively argued that although the converted people remained ritually unclean, they confessed that Jesus is the Son of God (Mk 3:11), thus fulfilling the Pauline criteria of Gentile-style faith (1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 1:19; Rom 1:4 etc.). On the other hand, the surprising Marcan ‘secret’, which concerns not making Jesus’ identity as the Son of God widely known (Mk 3:12),89 reflects Paul’ refraining from boasting of his particular relationship with God and of his missionary successes (cf. 2 Cor 11:30; 12:1-6 etc.). The story about the creation of the group of the twelve apostles (Mk 3:13-19) in a narrative way reconstructs Paul’s farewell exhortations to the Jewish Christian leaders at the time of his departure from Jerusalem for the apostolic mission in the Gentile regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). The opening statements that Jesus went up to the mountain and called (*καλέω) to him those whom he himself wanted, and that they went away (ἀπέρχομαι) to him (Mk 3:13) suggest that all Jewish Christian leaders, including James, were called by Jesus (and were not simply his relatives: cf. Gal 1:19b), and that they went away after Jesus, just as Paul the apostle did (cf. Gal 1:15.17). Accordingly, they were summoned to meet the standards of Paul’s apostleship (Gal 1:21; cf. earlier Mk 1:16-20). Moreover, in his presentation of the desired, from a post-Pauline point of view, functions of the Jewish Christian leaders (Mk  3:14-15), Mark suggested that the Jewish Christian ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:9), the ‘twelve’ (1 Cor 15:5b), and the ‘apostles’ (1 Cor 9:5; 15:7b; 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11; Gal 1:17.19) in fact constituted just one group, which was described by him as the twelve (Mk 3:14a.16-19) who were called apostles (Mk 3:14b.d) and included the three particularly named people (Mk  3:16-17). The evangelist presented the tasks of them all in evidently Pauline terms of being apostles (ἀπόστολος: Mk 3:14b; cf. 1 Cor 1:1 etc.), being with Jesus (Mk 3:14c; cf. Phlp 1:23 etc.), and being sent (ἀποστέλλω: Mk 3:14d; cf. 1 Cor 1:17 etc.) to preach (κηρύσσω: Mk 3:14e; cf. 1 Thes 2:9 etc.) among unclean people who were possessed with demons (δαιμόνια: Mk 3:15; cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21). The order and the names of the apostles in the list of the twelve (Mk 3:16-19) also reflect post-Pauline ideas. 89

Cf. D. W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1901), 31; S. de Vulpillières, Nature et fonction des injonctions au silence dans l’évangile de Marc (EBib, ns 62; J. Gabalda: Pendé 2010), 193-199.



Mk 3:7-19 (cf. Gal 1:21)

61

In agreement with Gal 1:18b (cf. also 1 Cor 15:5a), although in difference to Gal 2:9 (which probably reflected the real position of James as the Lord’s brother in the Jerusalem community), Mark placed Peter at the first place of his list (Mk 3:16). Moreover, in agreement with Gal 2:7-9, he argued that the name of Peter was in fact a second, Greek name of this apostle, which was added to his first, Semitic one: Simon. In this way, the evangelist suggested that Cephas/Simon, by receiving from Jesus the Greek name of Peter, was like Paul ready to undertake missionary activity among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:21). The second place of James in the list Mk 3:16-19 likewise reflects Paul’s rhetorical arguments concerning the great importance of James in the Jerusalem community (Gal 1:19b; 2:9), but also the lesser importance of James in comparison to that of Cephas (Gal 1:19b; cf. 1 Cor 15:5.7). The third place of John in the Marcan list (Mk 3:17; cf. 1:19.29 etc.) evidently reflects the third place of John in the Pauline text Gal 2:9. The fact that all three leading apostles (Simon, James, and John) receive second names (Mk 3:16-17) reflects Paul’s remark concerning the three named Jerusalem ‘pillars’: Cephas, James, and John (Gal 2:9).90 However, in difference to the Greek second name of Simon (Peter: Mk 3:16; cf. Gal 2:7-8), the Hebrew second name of James and John (‘Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder’: Mk 3:17)91 conveys the idea that these two ‘pillars’ were presumably hostile towards the mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:12). The two names of Andrew (Ἀνδρέας) and Philip (Φίλιππος) are typically Greek (cf. Jos. Ant. 12.18; 11.304 etc.)92 Consequently, they suggest great openness to Paul’s mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:21). However, the three following names, namely Bartholomew (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.5: Θολομαῖος), Matthew, and Thomas, are evidently Semitic,93 and consequently they imply criticism against the Pauline mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:12). The two following pairs, namely the Greek-related James the son of Alphaeus (cf. Mk 2:14), who is followed by the Semite Thaddaeus, and the half-Gentile Simon the Canaanite (Καναναῖος; cf. Gen 10:18 LXX etc.: Χαναναῖος), who is followed by the Jewish betrayer Judah (Ἰούδας: cf. Gen 35:23 LXX etc.) named

90 91

92 93

Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 118. Mark apparently understood the Greek name βοανηργές (Mk 3:17), which was probably pronounced as boaneerges, as rendering the Hebrew words ‫‘( בני רגז‬sons of thunder’: cf. Job 37:2), which was probably pronounced as bnee rges. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 219-220. Cf. W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wörterbuch, 86-87, 1621-1623. Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, part 1, 191-196, 304-305, 416.

62

Mk 3:20-35 (cf. Gal 1:22)

Iscarioth,94 reflect the same pattern of favourable and hostile attitude of the Jewish Christian leaders towards Paul’s mission among the Gentiles (Gal 1:21; cf. 2:12). Accordingly, the whole list of names Mk 3:16-19, which begins with SimonPeter and ends with the betrayer Judah Iscarioth, illustrates the ambiguous, but in fact increasingly negative attitudes of the Jewish Christian leaders to Paul’s mission among the Gentiles (Gal  1:22): from the favourable one of Cephas to the reserved and afterwards negative one of James and other Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1:18c-19; 2:11-14).

1.5.2. Mk 3:20-35 (cf. Gal 1:22) The section Mk 3:20-35 refers to Jesus’ distanced relationships with his Jewish relatives and with his Jerusalem-based opponents. In this way, it illustrates the main idea of the Pauline text Gal 1:22, according to which Paul was unknown by sight to the churches in Judaea which were in Christ. The statement that Jesus ‘came home’ (οἶκος: Mk 3:20a) recalls the earlier remark that Jesus came home (Mk 2:1), which, as was noted above, referred to Paul’s return from Arabia to Damascus in Syria (Gal  1:17c). Accordingly, the present statement that Jesus came home (Mk 3:20) likewise, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, allusively refers to Paul’s coming to his home city of Damascus (Gal 1:21; cf. 1:17c), and consequently it points to the distance between Syria and Judaea (Gal 1:22). The statement that the crowd again came together (Mk 3:20b) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the pressure which was exerted by the ‘crowd’ of the Syrian Gentiles, who waited for Paul’s evangelistic activity again among them (Gal 1:21; cf. 1:17c). The thought that Jesus could not even eat bread with the apostles (Mk 3:20cd) suggests that he was so busy with the Gentile crowd, that he somehow neglected his Jewish companions. In this way, Mark illustrated the situation in the Syrian city of Antioch (Gal 1:21), where Paul was predominantly concerned with the Gentile believers in Christ (cf. Gal 2:12b). The statement that Jesus’ Jewish relatives heard (ἀκούω) what people were repeatedly saying about him while he was distanced from them (Mk 3:21a.d) alludes to Paul’s statements that he was unknown by sight to the churches in Judaea which were in Christ (Gal 1:22), and that the churches of Judaea in Christ were repeatedly hearing some news about him while he was distanced from them (Gal 1:23a). The remarks concerning the suspectful attitude of both Jesus’ relatives and, more generally, his kinsfolk towards him (Mk 3:21b-e) evidently allude to 94

It can be argued that the enigmatic name Iscarioth is related to the Hebrew phrase ‫‘( אישׁ שׁקר‬man of falsehood’; cf. Exod 20:16 etc.).



Mk 3:20-35 (cf. Gal 1:22)

63

Paul’s remark concerning his strained relationship with James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19b), who was the leader of the ‘churches of Judaea which were in Christ’ (Gal 1:22; cf. 2:9).95 The particular Jewish Christian accusation that the main hero was out of his senses (ἐξέστη*: Mk 3:21e) was borrowed from 2 Cor 5:13.96 The surprisingly inserted story about the experts in Scripture who came down from Jerusalem (Mk  3:22-30), who were repeatedly saying (ἔλεγον) that Jesus had Beelzebul (Mk 3:22bc), and who were also repeatedly saying (ἔλεγον) that Jesus had an unclean spirit (Mk 3:30), evidently answers the question who was repeatedly saying (ἔλεγον) that Jesus was out of his senses (Mk 3:21e). In this way, this story narratively solves the problem of who brought the news concerning Paul from Syria and Cilicia to Jerusalem (Gal 1:23a) if at that time Paul was unknown by sight to the churches in Judaea which were in Christ (Gal 1:22). By means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, Mark suggested that some influential members of the Jerusalem community, especially Cephas and his followers, came from Jerusalem to the home place in which the main hero was with the crowd (Mk 3:22a; cf. Gal 2:11a.12b), and that they spread such defamatory opinions about him (Mk 3:21e.22bc.30). The charge of the experts in Scripture who came down from Jerusalem (Mk 3:22a) consisted in saying that Jesus’ activity among the Gentiles (‘casting out demons’: Mk 3:22d) was a demonic work (Mk 3:22cd), which was performed in the despicable state of constant uncleanness (Mk 3:30). The scriptural but not Septuagintal name of the demon (‘Beelzebul’),97 which was allegedly unlawfully invoked for salvific activity (Mk 3:22cd; cf. 2 Kgs 1:2-3.6.16), further illustrates the excessively Jewish, anti-Pauline stance of the Jerusalem-based opponents (Mk 3:22-30). The description of Jesus’ response to the Jewish accusations as taking place in parables (Mk 3:23-27), that is in the way which was generally not understood by the majority of his Jewish opponents (cf. Mk 4:2-34), alludes to Paul’s idea that he was generally not known/understood (ἀγνοέω) by the churches in Judaea (Gal 1:22). Jesus’ triple answer to the experts in Scripture who came down from Jerusalem (cf. Mk 3:22a), namely that concerning Satan (σατανᾶς, and no more Beelzebul), a kingdom (βασιλεία), and a house (οἰκία: Mk 3:23c-25; cf. 3:26-27) is suited to the features of Cephas, who was later explicitly called ‘Satan’ (Mk 8:33), who

95 96 97

Cf. J. Marcus, ‘Interpreter’, 475. Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 154 n. 211. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 229-231; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 159; E. E. Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22-30 (BZNW 189; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 60-61.

64

Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)

exercised the rule over the ‘kingdom’ of the believers (Gal 2:11-14; Mk 6:14-29), and in whose house Paul was welcomed (Gal 1:18; Mk 1:29; 2:15). The particular image of a kingdom divided against itself, so that it cannot stand (βασιλεία + μερισθη* + σταθη*: Mk 3:24), was borrowed from the scriptural text Dan 11:4 LXX. Likewise, the image of binding a strong man (ἰσχυ*) and plundering his property (σκ*: Mk 3:27) was borrowed from Is 49:24-25 LXX98 (cf. also Herodotus, Hist. 1.76, 86, 88: ἰσχυρός + δέω + διαρπάζω). The thought that all sins (ἁμαρτήματα), even Gentile blaspheming (βλασφημέω), will be forgiven to humans (Mk  3:28) is evidently Pauline (cf. Rom  2:24; 3:23-26). Likewise, the statement that the believers’ blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) is tantamount to rejecting God (Mk 3:29) reflects similar Pauline ideas (1 Thes 4:8; Gal 3:2-4 etc.). The surprising story which presents Jesus’ relatives as remaining outside the place in which Jesus was active, encircled by the crowd of his followers (Mk 3:3135),99 in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s statement that he was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea which were in Christ (Gal 1:22). In particular, the image of Jesus’ relatives as only indirectly communicating with Jesus (Mk 3:31-32) illustrates the Pauline statement concerning his not being known by face to the Judaean Christians (Gal 1:22). Likewise, the motif of Jesus’ Jewish relatives, who were distanced from him in spiritual terms (Mk 3:33-34), alludes to the churches of Judaea which were, apparently only fleshly, in Christ (Gal 1:22). The particular remarks concerning Jesus’ mother and brothers (ἀδελφός: Mk 3:31-35) allude to Paul’s remark concerning his strained relationship with James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19b), who was the leader of the ‘churches of Judaea which were in Christ’ (Gal 1:22; cf. 2:9). The concluding, general idea that the Gentiles of both sexes, if they do the will of God (θέλημα + θεοῦ), without following detailed halachic regulations, can be saved (Mk 3:35) was borrowed from the Pauline letters (1 Thes 4:3; 2 Cor 8:5; Rom 12:2).

1.5.3. Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a) The section concerning Jesus’ teaching in parables (Mk 4:1-34) is composed with the use of the key verb ‘hear’ (ἀκούω), which is repeated thirteen times in this section. Accordingly, the section Mk 4:1-34 illustrates the Pauline idea that the Jewish believers were repeatedly hearing the news concerning his preaching (Gal 1:23a). 98 99

Cf. J.  Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 150; W.  Eckey, Markusevangelium, 161; E.  E.  Shively, Apocalyptic, 73, 223, 229, 231, 262. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 151; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 162; B. Standaert, Marc, 293-294.



Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)

65

The opening statement Mk  4:1, with its motifs of Jesus’ going by the sea (παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν: Mk 4:1a; cf. 1:16; 2:13; cf. also 3:7), being with a numerous crowd (ὄχλος: Mk 4:1b; cf. 2:13; cf. also 3:7), and entering a boat (πλοῖον: Mk 4:1c; cf. 3:9), allusively refers to Paul’s activity as directed to the Gentiles in the Mediterranean regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). However, in difference to Mk 3:9, where the boat was merely kept ready for Jesus, in Mk 4:1c Jesus gets into the boat. This apparently superfluous narrative detail, together with the subsequent, surprising description of Jesus as teaching the crowd while he was in the boat and was ‘sitting in the sea’ (καθῆσθαι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ: Mk 4:1d),100 so that he was only heard (ἀκούω: Mk 4:3 etc.) from a distance by the crowd which remained at the Jewish side of the sea, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark that the churches of Judaea were only hearing the things relating to him (Gal 1:23a). Consequently, the barely understanding crowd, remaining in the land of Israel while Jesus was already at the sea, so in the realm of the Gentiles (Mk 4:1e; cf. 4:35-36), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality stands for the members of the Jewish Christian churches in Judaea, who were left by Paul at the onset of his travel to Syria and Cilicia, and who were only hearing the news about his evangelistic activity among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23a).101 For this reason, the rather untypical of Mark use of the plural verb form ‘were’ (ἦσαν) with the noun ‘crowd’ (Mk 4:1e; diff. 2:13; 3:20.32; 4:1c; 8:1 etc.) seems to reflect the Pauline use of the plural verb form ‘were’ in Gal 1:23a. The elaborated section concerning Jesus’ teaching in parables (Mk 4:2-34) is not a collection of originally independent sayings, as it was assumed in form-critical research on the Gospels, but a carefully organized, internally coherent composition. The internal structure and contents of the set of five parables (Mk 4:3-32) illustrates the reconstructed way in which the churches of Judaea were hearing and receiving the news concerning Paul’s evangelistic activity among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23a). In his autobiographical remark, Paul stated that the churches of Judaea were repeatedly hearing about him (ἀκούοντες ἦσαν: Gal 1:23a). Mark in a narrative way illustrated this remark, especially its iterative meaning, by composing five consecutive, apparently separate parables, which together suggest that the crowd at the Jewish side of the sea repeatedly, iteratively heard (ἀκούω) what Jesus was saying to them (Mk 4:3.9.23-24.33). In order to strengthen the link with the Pau100 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 156-157; R. H. Gundry, Mark, 190; C. Focant, Marc, 159, 161. 101 Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 132.

66

Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)

line hypotext (Gal 1:23a), the evangelist repeatedly used in Mk 4:2-34 the key Pauline verb ἀκούω (10 times: Mk 4:3.9.12.15-16.18.20.23-24.33).102 The particular literary form which was given to Jesus’ teaching in Mk 4:2-34, namely that of parables (παραβολή: Mk  4:2), which in the Marcan Gospel are especially directed to the unbelieving Jews (cf. Mk 3:23; 4:11; 7:17; 12:1.12), illustrates the idea that the churches in Judaea were rather doubtfully hearing about Paul’s activity among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23a; cf. 1:23b). The parable about the sower (Mk  4:3b-8) describes three unsuccessful and one successful attempt to sow the seed. Among the three unsuccessful attempts (Mk 4:4b-7), the second one (Mk 4:5-6) is quite particular because it is described in a most detailed way (33 words). Moreover, only this attempt, unlike the first and the third one, is explicitly described as resulting in the initial springing up of the seed (Mk 4:5), even if it eventually brings no fruit (Mk 4:6). Besides, this attempt is related to the place which is described with the very rarely used substantive τὸ πετρῶδες (Mk 4:5.16), which in this context evidently means ‘rocky/ stony ground’, but which also linguistically alludes to the name of Peter (Πέτρος: Gal 2:7-8; Mk 3:16 etc.). Consequently, on the hypertextual level, as related to the reaction of the churches in Judaea to Paul’s activity among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23a), the second attempt (Mk 4:5-6; cf. 4:16-17) illustrates the behaviour of Cephas, who first received Paul with joy (Gal 1:18; cf. Mk 4:16), but later most seriously fell away (Gal 2:11-14; cf. Mk 4:17; 14:29-30: σκανδαλίζομαι).103 Since there are three unsuccessful attempts (Mk 4:4b-7; cf. 4:15-19), among which the second one refers to Cephas, the first and the third one must refer to the other Jerusalem ‘pillars’: James and John (Gal 2:9). The relationship between the person of James and the way (Mk 4:4b-d; cf. 4:15) is unclear. It can be based on the Pauline remark that the brothers of the Lord took their wives along with them, apparently while travelling (1 Cor 9:5). On the other hand, the relationship between James and the very effective influence of Satan (Mk 4:15) is much easier to understand, for James was regarded as the main opponent of Paul (Gal 2:12). Since Mark had no biographic data concerning John the ‘pillar’ (Gal  2:9), in the allusive reference to him (Mk 4:7; cf. 4:18-19) he simply used the wellknown scriptural motif of thorns (ἄκανθα) opposed to sown, cultivated plants (cf. Gen 3:18-19; Jer 4:3; 12:13 LXX). Likewise, the idea of the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and other desires (Mk 4:19a-c) suits John only in a 102 The doubled occurrences in Mk 4:9.12.23 are not counted here. Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 302-307, 310. 103 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 284; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 158; T. Dykstra, Mark, 129-130.



Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)

67

general way, namely as one of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:9), who demanded financial support from the Gentile believers (Gal 2:10a). Against this background, the fourth, fully successful attempt, with its three grains bearing much fruit (Mk 4:8; cf. 4:20) and thus counterbalancing the three former ones (Mk 4:4-7), illustrates the idea of bearing the fruit of the gospel as based on faith. This idea is depicted with the use of the image of the more and more astonishing, in fact naturally implausible yield of the crop: 30, 60, and 100 grains in one ear of grain (Mk 4:8.20; diff. Sir 7:3).104 Accordingly, the fourth attempt refers to the believers who with faith received the Pauline gospel (Gal 1:23a), which highlighted the role of faith (Gal 2:16 etc.). Therefore, the fourth attempt refers to the Pauline Gentile believers (Gal 1:21), rather than to the generally doubting members of the churches of Judaea (Gal 1:22-23b). The plot of the parable and of its explanation (Mk 4:3b-8.14-20) was constructed on the basis of the particular combination of the motifs which were borrowed from the post-Pauline text Col  1:5-6.10: hearing the word of the gospel (ἀκούω: Col 1:5-6; cf. Mk 4:15-18.20), the word of the gospel (λόγος: Col 1:5; cf. Mk 4:14-20), bearing fruit of the gospel (καρποφορέω: Col 1:6.10; cf. Mk 4:20), and spiritually growing (αὐξάνω: Col 1:6.10; cf. Mk 4:8).105 In particular, the surprising sequence of first bearing fruit and then growing (Mk 4:8) reflects the sequence of these ideas in Col 1:6.10. This sequence is natural in Col 1:6 (the gospel as bearing fruit in particular places and growing to spread in the whole world) and Col 1:10 (the believers as bearing fruit in every good work and growing in the knowledge of God), but in Mk 4:8 it is rather surprising. In fact, the evangelist avoided reproducing this difficulty in Mk 4:20. These facts, in line with the criterion of the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and logical errors in the passages that are paralleled in another writing, in which the inconsistency or error in question is absent,106 point to the literary dependence of Mk 4:8 on Col 1:6.10, and not vice versa.107 Likewise, the contrasting combination of the motifs of having a root (ῥίζα: Mk 4:7.17) and being seduced by vain deceit (ἀπάτη: Mk 4:19) seems to have been borrowed from Col 2:7-8.108

104 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 160; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 168. In Gen 26:12 such yield of the crop is related to God’s special blessing for Isaac. 105 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 159; B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 75 n. 4; T. Dykstra, Mark, 128-129, 145. 106 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 201-202. 107 Pace A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 246, who has simply suggested that the direction of the dependence was reverse: from Mk 4:8 to Col 1:5b-6. 108 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 75 n. 4.

68

Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)

The section concerning the incomprehension of the parables (Mk 4:10-13) is introduced with the question of those around Jesus with the Twelve (Mk 4:10). The question took place when Jesus was with them alone (κατὰ μόνας: Mk 4:10a), that is in private (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν: Mk 4:34b). Accordingly, the question of the closest disciples, together with the explanation which was given only to them (Mk 4:1120; cf. 4:34b) allude to Paul’s explanation of his evangelistic activity among the Gentiles, which was given in private only to the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:2d-f). The untypical of Mark use of the phrase κατὰ μόνας, and not κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (‘alone’), in Mk 4:10 (diff. 4:34; 6:31-32; 7:33; 9:2.28; 13:3) seems to reflect the use of the adverb μόνον (‘only, alone’) in Gal 1:23a. By means of this allusion to the reception of Paul’s gospel by the Jerusalem leaders, the evangelist suggested that the news concerning Paul’s activity among the Gentiles (Gal 1:21), which reached the Jerusalem church (Gal 1:23a), were in some way explained to the leaders of the Jerusalem community (Mk 4:11-20; cf. 4:34b). The thought that the Jerusalem leaders have been given the mystery of the kingdom of God (Mk 4:11b) is evidently Pauline (1 Cor 4:1; cf. 3:22; Gal 2:2d-f). On the other hand, ‘those outside’ (ἔξω: Mk 4:11c), evidently related by the evangelist to Jesus’ Jewish relatives (cf. Mk 3:31-32),109 and presented as generally not understanding the idea of proclaiming the gospel based on faith (Mk 4:12; cf. 4:8), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality represent the real, at least from the Marcan perspective, attitude of the simple members of the Judaean churches, led by James the Lord’s brother, towards the Pauline mission among the Gentiles (Gal 1:22-23b; cf. 2:12 etc.). The use of the scriptural quotation from Is 6:9-10 LXX (also influenced by Rom 11:8: not seeing followed by not hearing)110 in Mk  4:12 additionally hints at the presumably typical way of thinking of the Jewish Christians (Gal 1:22-23b). The explanation of the parable about the sower (Mk 4:14-20) somewhat differs from the parable itself (Mk 4:3b-8). It identifies the seed not simply with the proclaimed word (Mk  4:14; cf. 4:4-8: neut.), but rather with people (Mk  4:1520: masc.). Accordingly, it more directly points to the particular persons of the doubtful recipients of Paul’s gospel in Judaea, namely James, Cephas, and John (Gal 1:22-23b; 2:2.9-10a.12), and on the other hand to Paul’s Gentile believers (Gal 1:21). The two following parables, namely that about the lamp (Mk  4:21-22) and that about the measure (Mk  4:24-25), are presented as further directed to ‘them’ (αὐτοῖς: Mk 4:21a.24a), that is to those around Jesus with the Twelve (cf. Mk 4:10b). Accordingly, they further illustrate the idea of Paul’s explanation of his gospel as directed to the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:2d-f). 109 Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 132, 155. 110 Cf. ibid. 132.



Mk 4:1-34 (cf. Gal 1:23a)

69

The image of the lamp (λύχνος) put on (τίθημι + ἐπί) the lampstand (λυχνία) and thus giving light (φαν*: Mk 4:21-22) was borrowed from the scriptural description of the temple lampstand, with seven lamps put on it and giving light (Exod  25:31-37 LXX). Accordingly, it alludes to the leaders of the Jerusalem church, who should not hide the light of God’s revelation in their Judaean home (Mk 4:21b-d; cf. Gal 2:7c-8a), but similarly to Paul bring it to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:21). The parable about the measure (μέτρον: Mk 4:24-25) reflects the scriptural injunction not to make the measure small (Am 8:5; cf. Deut 25:14 LXX etc.). Accordingly, it contrasts the Pauline measure of grace (illustrated with the image of giving, even more than one deserves: Mk 4:24-25b) with the Jerusalem leaders’ measure of lacking grace (illustrated with the image of taking away, in fact everything that one has: Mk 4:25c-e). Consequently, it illustrates the content of Paul’s proclamation of faith among the Gentiles (Gal 1:21) as contrasted with the strictly retributive mentality of the Jewish Christians (Gal 1:23ab). The next two parables, namely the second one and the third one about sowing the seed (Mk  4:26-29.30-32), are directed not simply to ‘them’, that is to the closest disciples with the Twelve (cf. Mk 4:21a.24a), but rather to more general audience (Mk 4:26a.30a). Their distinctly positive contents correspond to the fourth part of the parable about the sower (Mk 4:8.20). Moreover, unlike the three previous parables (Mk 4:3b-25), they are not directly related to hearing (ἀκούω: cf. Gal 1:23a). Accordingly, they illustrate the outcome of Paul’s preaching of the gospel based on grace (Gal 1:21), as contrasted with the doubtful attitude of the Judaean churches towards it (Gal 1:23ab). The second parable about sowing the seed (Mk 4:26-29) depicts the importance of grace, which is illustrated with the surprising image of the earth bearing fruit ‘automatically’ (Mk  4:28-29), and the non-importance of human ‘works’, which are illustrated with the surprising image of the farmer scattering the seed on the ground and then not caring for it (Mk 4:27).111 Accordingly, it illustrates the content of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles, especially the importance of grace (Gal 1:21; cf. 1 Cor 3:6-7; 15:10; Rom 11:6; Gal 2:9.21 etc.). The third parable about sowing the seed (Mk  4:30-32) with the use of the image of a mustard seed which becomes a great plant (Mk 4:31-32) depicts the power of grace, which is incomparable with human ‘works’ and which surpasses all human expectations. In this way, Mark again illustrated the content of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles, especially the importance of grace (Gal  1:21; cf. 1  Cor 3:6-7; 15:10; Rom  11:6; Gal  2:9.21 etc.). The surprising thought that the birds of the air can make nests under the shade of the mustard 111 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 220; C. Focant, Marc, 181.

70

Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24)

plant (Mk 4:32)112 again alludes to Paul’s mission among the Gentiles (Gal 1:21), which should function as a positive example for the Judaean churches (Gal 1:23a). The concluding statements that Jesus’ used to speak in parables as the people were, quite surprisingly, able to hear (ἀκούω: Mk 4:33-34a), and that he used to explain everything to his disciples in private (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν: Mk  4:34b) allude to Paul’s statements concerning the churches of Judaea as repeatedly hearing about him (Gal 1:23a; cf. 2:2bc), as well as his explaining everything to the Jerusalem leaders in private (Gal 2:2d-f).113 In this way, these concluding statements illustrate the variegated reception of Paul’s missionary activity among the Gentiles by the churches of Judaea which were in Christ (Gal 1:23a; cf. 2:2).

1.5.4. Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24) The story about Jesus’ travel to the other, Gentile side of the sea (Mk 4:35-41)114 and the following story about the taming of a once violent person in the country of the Gerasenes (Mk 5:1-20) illustrate Paul’s statements concerning his former persecutions of Christians and concerning Gentile-style preaching of faith which he once tried to destroy (Gal 1:23b-24). The opening, surprising remark that Jesus resolved to undertake a travel to the other side of the sea when evening had come (Mk 4:35)115 points to the unhistorical character of the whole account. No one in antiquity would normally undertake such a sea-crossing travel at night, especially in the company of other boats (Mk 4:36), because of the danger of collision with rocks and with other boats. Therefore, the whole story should be interpreted as a reworking of other texts, with the use of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation. The maritime motifs which were used in Mk 4:35-41 evidently originate not from the biblical world, but from the literature of ancient Greece, especially from Homer’s Odyssey, which was almost universally known among literate people in antiquity.116 112 Cf. D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity in the Gospel Parables’, TynBul 62 (2011) 161-172 (esp. 162-164). 113 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, v, xvi; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 163; T. Dykstra, Mark, 155-156. 114 Cf. J. Svartvik, Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1-23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts (ConBNT 32; Almqvist & Wiksell International: Stockholm 2000), 238: ‘In sum, the spatial setting of 4:35-6:6 can certainly be outlined as a dichotomy between the Jewish west side of the sea and the Gentile east side of the sea’. 115 Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 357. 116 Homer was by far the most popular Greek author in antiquity. For example, among classical authors whose works were kept at Oxyrhynchus in I-II c. ad, Homer unquestionably



Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24)

71

In Mk  4:35-41 the evangelist seems to have used at least two stories from Homer’s Odyssey: the story about a sea storm during Odysseus’ long-distance travel towards the Greeks (Od. 5.291-393) and the description of a sea storm which revealed divine power over the power of the sea (Od. 13.70-169). From the former story, Mark borrowed both the main literary motif of a night sea storm (Od. 5.294, 388), as well as several Greek key words which were related to this motif: ‘wind’ (ἄνεμος: Mk 4:37.39; cf. Od. 5.293, 305, 317, 330, 343, 368, 383, 391), ‘wave’ (κῦμα: Mk 4:37; cf. Od. 5.296, 313, 320, 325, 327, 352353, 363, 366, 385, 388, 393), ‘perish’ (ἀπόλλυμι: Mk 4:38; cf. Od. 5.347, 349; cf. also 5.305-306, 389), ‘calm’ (γαλήνη: Mk 4:39; cf. Od. 5.391), ‘great’ [natural phenomenon] (μέγας: Mk 4:39; cf. Od. 5.296, 313, 320, 327, 366, 393), and ‘cowardly’ (δειλός: Mk 4:40; cf. Od. 5.299).117 From the latter story, the evangelist borrowed the motif of the main character’s sleep in the stern of the ship like in the abyss of death (Od. 13.73-76, 7980, 92, 117-119),118 as well as several Greek key words and expressions which were related to this motif: ‘wind’ (ἄνεμος: Mk 4:37.39.41; cf. Od. 13.99), ‘wave’ (κῦμα: Mk  4:37; cf. Od. 13.84, 88, 91, 99), ‘stern’ (πρύμνη: Mk  4:38; cf. Od. 13.75, 84), ‘sleep’ (*εὕδω: Mk 4:38; cf. Od. 13.74), ‘sea’ (θάλασσα: Mk 4:39.41; cf. Od. 13.70, 85, 88), and [comment] ‘to one another’ (πρὸς ἀλλήλους: Mk 4:41; cf. Od. 13.165).119 These Homeric maritime motifs were used in Mk 4:35-41 in order to illustrate the main ideas of its main Pauline hypotext (Gal 1:23bc), namely the experience of the transforming power of Jesus’ resurrection (Gal 1:23b) and the proclamation of the faith therein (Gal 1:23c) during Paul’s long-distance evangelistic travel towards the Gentiles, especially those living in Cilicia (Gal 1:21). In order to illustrate these ideas, Mark enriched the Homeric literary motifs with recognizable allusions to the power of Jesus’ resurrection, which was regarded by the evangelist (cf. Mk 2:1-12 etc.) as the main content of Paul’s evangelistic proclamation among the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor 15:14; Rom 10:9 etc.). holds the first place (548 fragments found and published until now), only remotely followed by Demosthenes (76 frags.), Hesiod (68 frags.), Euripides (66 frags.), Menander (59 frags.), Thucydides (57 frags.), and others. Cf. L. H. Blumell, Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus (NTTSD 39; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 328. Cf. also K. O. Sandnes, The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon (NovTSup 138; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 6-11. 117 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 60 n. 21. 118 Cf. U. Schnelle, M. Lang, and M. Labahn (eds.), Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum and Hellenismus, vol. 1.1, Texte zum Markusevangelium (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2008), 209. 119 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 59 n. 18.

72

Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24)

The narratively surprising remark concerning the evening (ὀψίας γενομένης: Mk 4:35), and consequently the night-time of the storm and of its powerful overcoming by Jesus (Mk 4:37-39), by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation illustrates the idea of the night-time of Jesus’ burial and resurrection (cf. Mk 15:42-16:1). Likewise, the statement that the people in the boat were perishing (Mk 4:38) evokes the idea of being dead (cf. Mk 3:6; 11:8 etc.). The word διεγείρω (‘wake up’: Mk 4:39) evidently recalls the word ἐγείρω (‘raise’), which in Paul’s theology refers to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:4 etc.). This idea was combined by Mark with that of faith (πίστις: Mk 4:40; cf. 2:5.9-12 etc.), in order to illustrate the fundamental content of Paul’s evangelistic proclamation among the Gentiles (Gal 1:21), namely the faith (Gal 1:23c) in Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:14; Rom 10:9 etc.). The statement: ‘And they were afraid with great fear’ (καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν: Mk  4:41) recalls the biblical story about Jonah and the Gentile sailors coming to faith in God (Jon 1:10; cf. 1:16 LXX).120 With the use of this allusion, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, Mark again evoked the Pauline idea of proclaiming faith among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:21). Likewise, the thought that even the wind and the sea obeyed Jesus (Mk 4:41) illustrates the Pauline idea of Jesus’ lordship, which was regarded as one of the fundamental christological ideas in the proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles (cf. Rom 10:9 etc.). On the other hand, the idea of the calming of the violent, destructive storm by the risen Jesus (Mk 4:37-39) illustrates the transforming influence of the risen Jesus upon the former violent persecutor Paul (Gal 1:23b). Thanks to the power of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:4-8), the one who formerly persecuted Christians (Gal 1:23b; cf. 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13) afterwards became the preacher of the faith therein (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1 Cor 15:10; Gal 1:16-17.21). Accordingly, in Mk  4:35-41 the evangelist illustrated the Pauline hypotext Gal  1:23bc by describing the devastating storm as calmed by the risen Jesus (Mk 4:37-39) and the disciples as coming to faith in Jesus’ resurrection in a Gentile-style way (Mk 4:40-41). Mark depicted the Pauline idea of the transforming influence of Jesus’ resurrection upon the former persecutor Paul (Gal 1:23b), as well as that of the evangelistic proclamation of the faith in Jesus as the risen Lord to the Gentiles who lived overseas (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:21) with the use of the typically Gentile, widely known, Homeric concept of faith in surviving a sea storm thanks to divine protection. The subsequent story about Jesus’ meeting with a Gerasene demoniac (Mk 5:120) illustrates the subsequent ideas of the Pauline hypotext Gal 1:23b-24, namely 120 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 308, 310; B. Standaert, Marc, 368-370.



Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24)

73

that of ceasing to persecute people and destroy the faith (Gal 1:23b.d) and that of glorifying God in the main narrative character (Gal 1:24). It is relatively easy to notice the hypertextual correspondences between the Marcan story about Jesus’ meeting with a powerful Gerasene demoniac (Mk 5:120) and the Homeric stories about Odysseus’ meeting with the pagan Cyclops Polyphemus (Od. 9.181-542), as well as the transformation of Odysseus’ warriors into pigs (Od. 10.238-243). The Homeric stories were the sources of Mark’s hypertextually reworked, at times narratively surprising ideas of a remote, completely pagan location of the story (Mk 5:1; cf. Od. 9.106-180, 275-277);121 rocky tombs on a slope of a mountain (ὄρος: Mk 5:2-3.5.11; cf. Od. 9.315); a half-legendary strongman (Mk 5:34; cf. Od. 9.185); the strongman as a solitary, savage, and dangerous individual (Mk 5:3-5; cf. Od. 9.188-192); attempts to tame (δαμάζω) the strongman (Mk 5:4; cf. Od. 9.373, 454, 516); the strongman crying at night (νυκτός: Mk 5:5; cf. Od. 9.404); the strongman moving stones (λίθοις: Mk  5:5; cf. Od. 9.185, 240-243, 305, 313-314, 340, 416, 481-484, 537-541); the strongman crying out with a loud voice (μεγάλῃ: Mk 5:7; diff. Mk 1:26; 15:34.37; cf. Od. 9.257, 399); asking about the stranger’s name (ὄνομα: Mk 5:9; cf. Od. 9.355, 364, 366); answering the question about the name in an enigmatic way (Mk 5:9; cf. Od. 9.366); a great herd of pigs feeding on a steep mountain slope (Mk 5:11; cf. Od. 9.184); a transformation of ‘warriors’ into pigs (Mk 5:12-13; cf. Od. 10.238-243); the herd of pigs running down the rocky cliff to the sea (Mk 5:13; cf. Od. 9.464-465); an unexpected appearance of other Gentiles, who wondered what could have happened (Mk 5:1415; cf. Od. 9.399-406); and a concluding dialogue from a distance, after getting into the boat (ἐμβαίνω: Mk 5:18; cf. Od. 9.471-525).122

121 It should be noted that Gerasa was located over 50 km from the Lake of Gennesaret (in a straight line, and not along ancient roads): cf. R. Zimmermann, ‘Auslegungskunst: Sehe­ punkte zur Wundererzählung vom Besessenen aus Gerasa (Mk 5,1-20)’, BN, nf no. 152 (2012) 87-115 (esp. 90). This problem was already perceived by ancient writers, who substituted the original, surprising, but well attested in the manuscripts, Marcan remark concerning the Gerasenes (Mk 5:1 ‫*א‬, B et al.; cf. also Lk 8:26.37 p75, B et al.) with the remarks concerning the Gadarenes (cf. Mt 8:28 et al.), ‘Gergesenes’ (Origen et al.; cf. Jos. Ant. 1.139), ‘Gergestenes’, and ‘Gergystenes’ (Epiphanius et al.): cf. B. M. Metzger, Commentary, 72; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 263-264. However, the Marcan expression evidently does not have a biographic meaning, but it allusively, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, points to a region which was geographically distanced from Israel, and was entirely Gentile from the cultural point of view (Gal 1:21): cf. S. T. Rochester, Good News at Gerasa: Transformative Discourse and Theological Anthropology in Mark’s Gospel (Peter Lang: Oxford [et al.] 2011), 155-156. 122 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 63-76, 175-176; B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 23-33.

74

Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24)

Mark used these Homeric motifs in order to illustrate in a literarily apt, easily recognizable way the idea of Paul’s evangelistic activity among the Gentiles who lived overseas (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:21). For the same reason, the evangelist additionally reworked the Homeric motifs by substituting, for example, being savage (Od. 9.188-192) with being possessed with an unclean spirit (Mk 5:2.8.13; cf. 5:15-16.18), a cave (Od. 9.182-183) with ritually unclean tombs (Mk  5:3), and mountain sheep and goats (Od. 9.184, 464-465) with ritually unclean pigs (Mk  5:11-13.16).123 Besides, the Gerasene’s confession, expressed in a Gentile way which resembled that of the scriptural Gentile priest Melchizedek (Gen 14:1820 LXX),124 namely that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God (Mk 5:6-7), also alludes to the Gentile identity of the region of Cilicia (Gal 1:21). As concerns the Marcan topographical details, the name of the Gerasenes (Γερασηνοί: Mk 5:1) could have been borrowed from Jos. B.J. 2.480; 4.503; Ant. 13.398 (cf. also B.J. 1.104; 2.458; 3.47; 4.487), and the name of the Decapolis (treated as one feminine word Δεκάπολις: Mk 5:20; 7:31) could have been borrowed from Jos. B.J. 3.446. However, there are certain elements of the Marcan story which evidently neither originate from the reworking of Homer’s accounts (Od. 9.181-542; 10.238243) nor allude to Paul’s preaching the faith among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:21). In fact, they illustrate the other statements of the Pauline hypotext Gal 1:23b24, namely that Paul ceased to persecute his compatriots (Gal 1:23b.d) and that they glorified God in him (Gal 1:24). The main narrative thread of the Marcan story, namely the transformation of an aggressive demoniac into a civilized evangelizer (Mk 5:2-20),125 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the transformation of Paul from a former persecutor of his compatriots into a zealous missionary of the Gentiles (Gal 1:23b-d). This transformation, in line with Mark’s post-Pauline theology, occurred thanks to the power of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:8-10 etc.), and was therefore first illustrated by the evangelist with the image of going out of tombs (Mk 5:2-3.5).126 The description of the demoniac as being very aggressive and dangerous to his compatriots (Mk 5:3-4) evidently does not originate from the Homeric story 123 Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; William B.  Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Carlisle 2002), 227; S. T. Rochester, Good News, 126; B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 24-29, 32. 124 Cf. M. D. Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (BNTC; Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1991), 143; K. Stock, Marco: Commento contestuale al secondo Vangelo (BeP 47; ADP: Roma 2003), 89; B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 75-77. 125 Cf. S. T. Rochester, Good News, 160-162, 166-167. 126 Cf. ibid. 218.



Mk 4:35-5:20 (cf. Gal 1:23b-24)

75

about Polyphemus (Od. 9.181-542; esp. 9.399-406). On the other hand, it very likely illustrates the thought that Paul was once persecuting his compatriots and destroying their faith (Gal 1:23b.d; cf. 1:13). Likewise, the surprising Roman military name of the demon (‘legion’: Mk  5:9.15)127 can aptly allude to Paul, who bore the evidently Roman name Paulus,128 as a violent persecutor who was pursuing the believers (Gal 1:23b) and destroying their messianic faith in Christ (Gal 1:23d; cf. 1:22). It can also refer to the presence of the Roman legions which stationed in Syria, a province which was mentioned in Gal 1:21 (cf. e.g. Jos. Ant. 18.120, 126).129 Accordingly, Mark seems to have reasonably assumed that Paul’s persecution of the believers took place in Damascus (cf. Gal 1:17c), and precisely for this reason Paul was not personally known to the believers in Judaea (cf. Gal 1:22; cf. also 1:18).130 The somewhat surprising idea that the converted persecutor was not allowed to be together with Jesus and come to the land of Israel, but he was called to announce (ἀπαγγέλλω) the gospel in his home region of the Decapolis (Mk 5:1820c), illustrates Paul’s statements that he did not come back to Judaea (Gal 1:22), but proclaimed (εὐαγγελίζομαι) the gospel in his home region of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:17c.21). Besides, the remark that the Lord had mercy on the Gerasene (ὁ κύριός… ἠλέησέν σε: Mk 5:19) alludes to Paul’s statement that the Lord had mercy on him (ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ κυρίου: 1 Cor 7:25). The concluding statement that all people were amazed at the evangelistic activity of the converted persecutor (Mk 5:20d) illustrates Paul’s concluding remark that his compatriots glorified God in him (Gal 1:24).

127 Cf. B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, transl. W. H. Bissche­ roux (JSNTSup 164; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 199; C. Focant, Marc, 198, 203. 128 Cf. H. Solin and O. Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Alpha – Omega A.80; 2nd edn., Olms and Weidmann: Hildesheim · Zürich · New York 1994), 376. 129 Cf. also M. Klingardt, ‘Legionsschweine in Gerasa: Lokalkolorit und historischer Hintergrund von Mk 5,1-20’, ZNW 98 (2007) 28-48, who has in Mk 5:1-13 traced a narrative allusion to the Tenth Legion’s ideology of ‘swimming wild boars’ (ibid. 45). 130 Luke’s description of Saul’s persecuting activity as taking place mainly in Judaea (Acts  7:58; 8:1.3; 9:13), and only later in Damascus (Acts  9:1-2.14), presents another solution of this biographic problem. However, the Lucan solution does not explain Paul’s remarks that he first met Cephas three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18) and that he was unknown by face to the churches in Judaea (Gal 1:22).

76

Mk 5:21-24a (cf. Gal 2:1-2a)

1.6. Mk 5:21-43 (cf. Gal 2:1-2) The surprising, tripartite structure of the section Mk  5:21-43, which describes Jesus as being called to go to a Jewish leader (Mk 5:21-24a), but being first active in a large crowd (Mk 5:24b-34), and only thereafter dealing in private with the Jewish leaders (Mk 5:35-43),131 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization reflects the thematic structure of Gal 2:1-2: Paul’s being called to go to Jerusalem to meet the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:1-2a), but presenting the gospel first to the whole Jerusalem community (Gal 2:2bc), and only thereafter in private to the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:2d-f).

1.6.1. Mk 5:21-24a (cf. Gal 2:1-2a) The pericope Mk 5:21-24a sequentially illustrates the main idea of the Pauline text Gal 2:1-2a, namely that of coming back to Jerusalem because of a particular revelation. The introductory statement concerning crossing again (πάλιν) from the Gentile region to the Jewish side of the sea (Mk 5:21) by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to Paul’s introductory statement concerning his going up again from the Gentile regions to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1). The subsequent account concerning the Jewish synagogue leader Jairus’ calling Jesus to come to his house (Mk 5:22-23) and Jesus resolve to go to him (Mk 5:24a) in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s subsequent remark that he came to Jerusalem because of a revelation (Gal 2:2a). The context of Gal 2:2d-f suggests that this revelation involved the need to come back to Jerusalem and discuss with the Jerusalem leaders the legitimacy of Paul’s missionary activity among the Gentiles before his planned travel to Rome and Spain (cf. also Rom 15:2332).132 For this reason, Mark interpreted the revelation received by Paul as an indirect summons from the Jerusalem leaders to come to Jerusalem and to present the arguments which would justify his mission among the Gentiles. Accordingly, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality the evangelist depicted Jesus as being called by one of the Jewish ‘rulers of the assembly’ to come to his home and to display the power of the resurrection as being active in him (Mk 5:22-23).

131 Such a structure is usually described in scholarship as a Marcan intercalation or ‘sandwich’. However, if analysed in purely narratological terms, its function in Mk 5:21-43 is not entirely clear. 132 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 51-52.



Mk 5:24b-34 (cf. Gal 2:2bc)

77

The particular Jewish name of Jairus (Ἰάϊρος),133 as the name of an important Jewish leader (Mk 5:22), was probably borrowed by Mark from Jos. B.J. 2.447, where it was borne by the father of Eleazar, one of the most important Jewish leaders, who was active a generation later, during the Jewish War.

1.6.2. Mk 5:24b-34 (cf. Gal 2:2bc) The story about the healing, based on faith, of an unclean woman in the midst of a large crowd (Mk 5:24b-34) illustrates the main idea of the Pauline text Gal 2:2bc, namely that of communicating the contents of Paul’s Gentile-style gospel to the whole Jerusalem community. The woman’s particular illness, namely that of a flow of blood (ῥύσις αἵματος: Mk 5:25), points to her as being virtually always unclean (cf. Lev 15:25 LXX). Moreover, according to the Mosaic law, everyone who touched her (ἅπτω: Mk 5:27-28.30-31) was rendered unclean (Lev 15:27; cf. 15:19 LXX).134 In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, she represents the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:2c), who according to the Jewish law are always unclean and render the Jews unclean. Besides, the idiomatic phrase ‘the spring of her blood’ (ἡ πηγὴ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς: Mk 5:29) was borrowed from the scriptural text concerning the end of the woman’s impurity (Lev 12:7 LXX).135 The remark that the woman was virtually unclean for twelve years (Mk 5:25; cf. 5:42) probably alludes to the period of time of Paul’s stay among the Gentiles (fourteen years: Gal 2:1). The idea of Jesus’ power (δύναμις: Mk 5:30) particularly alludes to the power of his resurrection (cf. Rom 1:4), that is to the basic content of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal  2:2bc), as it was expressed in the Pauline creedal statement Rom 10:9. Likewise, the idea that the woman with her prostrating gesture and the words of her mouth confessed Jesus as the Lord (Mk 5:33) and that her faith (πίστις: Mk 5:34) saved her (σῴζω: Mk 5:34; cf. 5:28) in a narrative way illustrates the contents of the Pauline creedal formula Rom 10:9-10. 133 Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, part 1, 111; H. M. Cotton [et al.] (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae / Palaestinae, vol. 1, Jerusalem, Part 1: 1-704 (CIIP; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), nos. 164, 400-402, 452. 134 Cf. W.  Eckey, Markusevangelium, 205; J.‑D.  Hopkins, ‘Levitical’, 188-189; W.  Kahl, ‘Glauben lässt Jesu Wunderkraft heilsam überfließen (Die Tochter des Jaïrus und die blutflüssige Frau) – Mk 5,21-43’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium, vol. 1, 278-293 (esp. 286-287). 135 Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 215; R. H. Gundry, Mark, 280; W. Eckey, Markusevange­ lium, 208.

78

Mk 5:35-43 (cf. Gal 2:2d-f)

Consequently, the whole story Mk 5:25-34 presents the reconstructed contents of Paul’s gospel preached among the Gentiles, which was communicated by him to the whole Jerusalem church (Gal  2:2bc). Mark reconstructed these contents as agreeing with Paul’s creedal statements Rom 10:9-10. Accordingly, he illustrated them with the images of a Gentile-style, at the beginning somewhat magic faith in Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 5:25-29), which was supplemented with a public confession of his lordship (Mk 5:30-33), and which led to salvation (Mk 5:34). Therefore, the complicated plot of the Marcan story Mk 5:25-34 reflects the complicated logical structure of Rom 10:9-10. On the one hand, faith in Jesus’ power leads to salvation (Rom 10:9; cf. Mk 5:25-29), but on the other hand, it requires a public confession of Jesus’ lordship in order to bring salvation (Rom 10:10; cf. Mk 5:30-34).

1.6.3. Mk 5:35-43 (cf. Gal 2:2d-f) The story about Jesus’ raising someone from the dead in a Jewish leader’s house, in the presence of Peter, James, and John, after some hesitation concerning the purpose of going and having come there (Mk 5:35-43), illustrates the main idea of the Pauline text Gal 2:2d-f, namely that of Paul’s communicating the contents of his Gentile-style gospel in private to the Jewish Christian Jerusalem leaders, after some hesitation whether he might run, or had run, in vain. The opening statement of the story (Mk 5:35) depicts the situation of hesitation whether Jesus’ going to Jairus’ house might perhaps be in vain. Since Jesus was earlier described as having begun to go to Jairus’ house (Mk 5:24a), the image of some Jews, who came from the ‘ruler of the assembly’, as saying that there is no sense in Jesus’ going further (Mk 5:35) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the opinion of some Jewish Christians, presumably the followers of James (cf. Gal 2:4.12), that Paul ran in vain (Gal 2:2e). The image of Jesus’ overcoming their doubts (Mk 5:36) illustrates Paul’s intended negative answer to the Jewish Christian doubting opinion (‘lest perhaps’: Gal 2:2e). The motif of believing in the possibility of raising the dead (πιστεύω: Mk 5:36) again alludes to the basic contents of Paul’s gospel which he preached among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2bc), namely believing that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 10:9; cf. Mk 5:25-29). The list of the three disciples: Peter, James, and John (Mk  5:37) as being allowed to witness the power of the resurrection in a special way in the private house of the Jerusalem leader (Mk 5:38a.40c-43) illustrates Paul’s statement that he communicated the contents of his gospel in private to the Jewish Christian Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:2d), in particular to James, Cephas, and John (cf. Gal 2:9).



Mk 5:35-43 (cf. Gal 2:2d-f)

79

The inserted remark that the doubting members of the household of the Jewish leader said that there was no sense in Jesus’ having come there (Mk 5:38b-40a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s thought that some Jewish Christians, presumably the followers of James (cf. Gal 2:4.12), expressed their opinion that Paul had run in vain (Gal 2:2f). The image of Jesus’ overcoming their doubts by putting them all outside (Mk 5:40b) illustrates Paul’s intended negative answer to the Jewish Christian doubting opinion (‘lest perhaps’: Gal 2:2e; cf. 2:5). The account of the raising of the dead child (Mk 5:41-42; cf. 5:35) evidently illustrates the idea of Jesus’ being raised from the dead (ἐγείρω: Mk  5:41; cf. Rom 10:9 etc.), that is of his rising from the dead (ἀνίστημι: Mk 5:42; cf. 1 Thes 4:14).136 Mark illustrated this idea with the use of the scriptural motifs borrowed from the story about the raising of a young boy from the dead (εἰς τὸν οἶκον, εἰσέρχομαι, ἀπέθανεν, παιδίον, μήτηρ: 2 Kgs 4:21-37 LXX). The idea that Paul’s gospel which was preached among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2bc) centred on the issue of Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 5:41-42; cf. 2:9.11-12 etc.) is evidently Pauline (1 Thes 1:10; 1 Cor 15:12-34; Rom 10:9; Gal 1:1 etc.). Besides, the remark concerning Jesus’ physical contact with the dead child (Mk  5:41; cf. 1:31), which according to the Jewish law would render Jesus unclean,137 illustrates Paul’s thought that through contact with the believers the children of partly unclean Gentiles are rendered holy (1 Cor 7:14). The use of Aramaic in Mk  5:41, which is surprising in the context of the fact that the whole gospel was written in Greek,138 additionally illustrates Paul’s idea of his communicating his gospel to the Jewish Christian leaders in private (Gal 2:2d). According to Mark, this communication presumably occurred in Aramaic (Mk  5:41). Mark could have deduced this idea from the fact that Paul’s interlocutors in that private meeting, namely James, Cephas, John, and Barnabas (Gal 2:9), bore Hebrew or Aramaic names. The narratively superfluous remark concerning twelve years (Mk 5:42) evidently links the story Mk 5:35-43 to the preceding story Mk 5:24b-34.139 In this way, the evangelist illustrated Paul’s thought that he communicated the same gospel, which he preached to the Gentiles (Gal 2:2c), first in public to the Jerusalem community as a whole (Gal 2:2b; cf. Mk 5:24b-34) and then, in a private meeting, to the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:2d-f; cf. Mk 5:35-43).

136 Cf. S. Betsworth, The Reign of God is Such as These: A Socio-Literary Analysis of Daughters in the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 422; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 113. 137 Cf. J.‑D. Hopkins, ‘Levitical’, 187. 138 Cf. B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark, 209; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 285-286. 139 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 286; S. Betsworth, Reign, 108.

80

Mk 6:1-6 (cf. Gal 2:3-5)

The strict order that no one should know it (Mk 5:43ab) again illustrates Paul’s statement that he discussed the legitimacy of his gospel only with the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:2d-f). On the other hand, the narratively redundant order to give to the girl something to eat (Mk 5:43cd)140 most probably alludes to the idea of Jewish–Gentile communion, especially including table fellowship (Gal 2:9-10.12).

1.7. Mk 6:1-6 (cf. Gal 2:3-5) The section Mk  6:1-6 sequentially, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization, illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline account Gal 2:3-5, especially its remark concerning ‘false brothers’ (Gal 2:4). The introductory statement Mk  6:1, which presents Jesus as coming to his ‘fatherland’ followed by his wandering disciples (Mk 6:1bc), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the conflict situation which was sketched in Gal 2:3-4, namely the tension between Paul’s ‘false brothers’ on the one hand (Gal 2:4) and his travelling follower/disciple Titus on the other (Gal 2:3; cf. 2:1). The fact that Jesus’ fatherland (Mk 6:1b) was surprisingly not identified by the evangelist either with Nazareth (cf. Mk 1:9.24 etc.) or with Capernaum (cf. Mk 2:1; 9:33) additionally points to the intertextual meaning of this reference. The related presentation of Jesus’ missionary activity as mainly expressed in wisdom (σοφία) and deeds of power (δύναμις: Mk 6:2) alludes to the similar Pauline presentation in 1 Cor 1:24 (cf. 12:8.10).141 Likewise, the identification of the main character as a builder (τέκτων: Mk 6:3) was most probably borrowed from 1 Cor 3:10 (ἀρχιτέκτων: ‘master builder’).142 The surprising in the Jewish context, solely matrilineal identification of Jesus, with no mention of his father (Mk 6:3),143 reflects that made in Gal 4:4 (‘born of a woman’). The particular name Maria (Μαρία: Mk 6:3), which could be perceived as a result of the assimilation of a Jewish name (cf. Jos. B.J. 6.201)144 to a Latin name (Maria as a feminine form of the Latin name Marius: Rom 16:6? et al.),145 alludes to Paul’s Jewish identity combined with a Latin name (Paulus: 1 Thes 1:1 etc.).146 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 218. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xvi. Cf. ibid. xvii; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 167; T. Dykstra, Mark, 156-157. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 231; C. Focant, Marc, 223; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 290291. 144 Cf. e.g. H. M. Cotton [et al.] (eds.), CIIP, vol. 1, Part 1, nos. 21, 49, 71, 116, 134, 162, 168, 192, 232, 238, 312, 384, 445, 476, 564. 145 Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, part 1, 245; H. Solin and O. Salomies, Repertorium, 113. 146 Cf. H. Solin and O. Salomies, Repertorium, 376. 140 141 142 143



Mk 6:1-6 (cf. Gal 2:3-5)

81

The subsequent remark concerning the main character’s Jewish brothers (ἀδελφός: Mk 6:3a), which in the context of Mk 6:3c-4 expresses a theologically wrong identification of him as a mere member of his family, alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement concerning his Jewish ‘false brothers’ (ψευδάδελφος: Gal 2:4). This allusion is reinforced by the thought that the members of Jesus’ widely understood family (fatherland, kin, and household) did not believe in him (Mk 6:4; cf. 6:6c), so that his Jewish brothers (Mk 6:3) in fact turned out to be his ‘false brothers’ (cf. Gal 2:4). The names of the brothers, which are listed in Mk 6:3, are typically Jewish. In addition to the historically reliable name of James (cf. Gal 1:19), the other names in Mk 6:3 (Joses, Judah, and Simon) are the names of scriptural patriarchs,147 with the change of the ‘northern’, ‘Samaritan’ name of Joseph (Ἰωσήφ: cf. Gen 48:120 LXX etc.) to the more ‘neutral’ name of Joses (Ἰωσῆς),148 and with the retaining of the ‘southern’ names of Judah (Ἰούδα: cf. Gen 29:35 LXX etc.) and Simon. Jesus’ subsequent, negative response to the attempt of making him a typical Jew (Mk 6:4) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that he did not yield in submission to his Jewish ‘brothers’ (Gal 2:5a). The subsequent thought that Jesus expected faith on the part of his Jewish ‘brothers’, but could not find it among them (Mk  6:5-6) alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement that he preserved the truth of the gospel, which was preached among the Gentiles (Gal 2:5b), namely the gospel based on faith (cf. Gal 2:16 etc.). The related motif of Jewish unbelief (ἀπιστία: Mk 6:6a) was borrowed from Rom 3:3; 11:20.23. The summarizing statement that Jesus preached the gospel, and presumably also performed miraculous deeds of power (Mk 6:5), in the villages around his home region (κύκλω: Mk 6:6b) most probably alludes to Paul’s likewise summarizing statement that he preached the gospel and performed miraculous signs of power around Jerusalem (Rom 15:19).149

1.8. Mk 6:7-44 (cf. Gal 2:6-14) The tripartite section Mk  6:7-44, which surprisingly refers first to the Twelve, then to a ‘play-actress’, and then again to the Twelve, in a sequential way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transdiegetization, illustrates the main

147 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 218. 148 For the Jewish name of Jose(s), cf. e.g. H. M. Cotton [et al.] (eds.), CIIP, vol. 1, Part 1, nos. 46, 81, 116, 231, 475, 573, 583. 149 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 345.

82

Mk 6:7-13 (cf. Gal 2:6-10)

ideas of the Pauline section Gal 2:6-14, which describes Paul’s relationships with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, with Barnabas, and again with the Jerusalem apostles.

1.8.1. Mk 6:7-13 (cf. Gal 2:6-10) The pericope Mk 6:7-13, with its instructions concerning the apostleship, sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Gal 2:6-10. The pericope Mk  6:7-13 begins with a remark concerning the Twelve (Mk 6:7a). Mark somewhat surprisingly presented them as again called by Jesus (cf. Mk 3:13). In this way, the evangelist illustrated the Pauline idea that the leaders of the Jerusalem community should be judged not according to their natural, fleshly proximity to Jesus, as was the case with James (cf. Gal 1:19), but according to their worth for God (Gal 2:6). The subsequent statement concerning the sending (ἀποστέλλω) of the Twelve (Mk 6:7b), who in this way became apostles (ἀπόστολοι: cf. Mk 6:30), alludes to Paul’s subsequent statements concerning the apostleship (ἀποστολή) of Peter as corresponding to the apostleship of Paul (Gal 2:7-8; cf. 1:1 etc.). The subsequent idea that Jesus began to send the apostles in pairs (δύο δύο: Mk 6:7b; cf. Gen 6:19-20; 7:2-3.9.15; Sir 33:15 LXX), which is narratively superfluous because it adds nothing to the content and realization of their mission (cf. Mk 6:30), illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that his activity as an apostle to the Gentiles was paired with that of Barnabas (Gal 2:9; cf. 1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:1). The related idea of giving to the apostles authority over the unclean spirits (Mk 6:7c) illustrates Paul’s related idea that he and Barnabas were given authority over the mission among the Gentiles (Gal 2:9; cf. 2:7). Accordingly, the call of the twelve apostles (Mk  6:7) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the apostolic call of Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:6-9; cf. Mk 1:16-18). The subsequent instructions which were received by the apostles, namely to be eager to conduct the mission in a poor way (Mk 6:8-9), allude to the subsequent instruction which was received by Paul, namely to remember the poor, something which he had been eager to do (Gal 2:10). On the other hand, the instructions concerning the apostles as going out of the house (Mk 6:10) and away from the place because of not being heard there (Mk 6:11), as well as the statements concerning going out and preaching repentance (Mk 6:12) among unclean people (Mk 6:13), allude to Paul’s going away from Jerusalem, where he was not adequately heard, and preaching the gospel in Antioch (Gal 2:10; cf. 2:11). In particular, the negative accent on judgement (Mk 6:11) reflects Paul’s bitter remark concerning the financial demand of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:10). Accordingly, the missionary instructions given to the Twelve (Mk 6:8-13) by means of the hypertextual



Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13)

83

procedure of interfigurality allude to the features of Paul’s mission among the Gentiles and in Jerusalem (Gal 2:7-10).

1.8.2. Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13) The story about the killing of John the Baptist (Mk 6:14-29) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text concerning the rejection of Paul and his ideas in Antioch (Gal 2:11-13). In order to dramatize these ideas, Mark conflated the Pauline motifs taken from Gal 2:11-13 with those borrowed from Josephus’ set of stories about Herod’s brother (ἀδελφός) Philip; Herod’s not lawful marriage (γαμ*) with Herodias (Ἡρωδιάς), who was the wife (γυνή) of his brother (ἀδελφός); and putting to death the bound (δέσμ*) and imprisoned moral preacher John the Baptist (Ἰωάννης ὁ […] βαπτιστής), who was widely regarded as a good and righteous (δίκαιο*) man (ἀνήρ: Jos. Ant. 18.106-119, 136). In the account of Josephus, Herod Antipas’ half-brother Herod, the husband of Herodias, a woman who had with him a daughter named Salome and who later divorced him while he was still alive (Jos. Ant. 18.109-111, 136),150 is evidently different from the recently deceased (in the narrated time of Josephus’ story) tetrarch Philip, the husband of the aforementioned Salome, who had with her no children (Jos. Ant. 18.106-108, 137).151 It was Mark who presented Herodias’ husband and Philip as one and the same person (Mk 6:17).152 The motifs which are contained in Mk  6:14-29 were also borrowed from Herodotus’ well-known story about the oriental king (βασιλεύς) Xerxes, who fell in love with the wife (γυνή) of his brother (ἀδελφός); the woman’s daughter (θυγάτηρ) as pleasing the king; the king’s swearing (ὀμνύω) that he would give (δίδωμι) her whatever (ὅ τι) she would ask for (αἰτέω), even a part of his kingdom; the daughter’s request as completely different from the king’s expectations; the king’s reluctant fulfilment of the oath; the queen’s vengeance; the queen’s waiting till the royal banquet (δεῖπνον) on the day (ἡμέρα) of the king’s birthday (γενε*); a tradition that the king should give (δίδωμι) something valuable to the participants of the banquet; a woman’s request concerning giving her a living, innocent person; the king’s hesitation because of such a request; the king’s obligation to fulfil the request made during the royal banquet; the king’s blameworthy desire to have (ἔχω) the wife (γυνή) of his brother (ἀδελφός); the sending of king’s soldiers, who 150 Cf. N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (JSPSup 30; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 265-266; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 228. 151 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 228. 152 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 307.

84

Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13)

mutilated the requested person’s head; and the sending of king’s soldiers, who killed the requested person (Herodotus, Hist. 9.108-113).153 The particular, repeated references to Herod Antipas as a king (Mk 6:14.22.2527) evidently do not agree with the consistent references to him as a tetrarch and not as a king in Josephus’ writings (Jos. B.J. 1.664, 668; 2.94, 167-168, 178, 181183; Ant. 17.188; 18.36, 102, 109, 122, 136, 148, 240, 252; Vita 37, 65) and in other sources (coins, inscriptions, etc.).154 This discrepancy can be explained as a result of Mark’s reworking of his hypotext Gal 2:11-13, which describes Paul’s conflict with Cephas, the most important leader (at least according to 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 15:5; Gal 1:18), and consequently ‘king’ of Jewish Christianity. Mark already in Mk 3:6 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alluded to Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18) through a reference to Herod. For these reasons, it can be argued that the narrative character of ‘King Herod’ in Mk 6:14-27 alludes to the person of Cephas. As was noticed above in the course of the analysis of Mk 1:14, the Marcan idea that the activity and imprisonment of John the Baptist preceded the activity and execution of Jesus Christ is unhistorical.155 In fact, it illustrates Paul’s idea that the epoch of the prophets preceded that of the gospel of God (Rom 1:1-2). Josephus, who in this case had no reason to manipulate the historical data, de153 Cf. U.  Schnelle, M.  Lang, and M.  Labahn (eds.), Neuer Wettstein, vol. 1.1, 282-285; R.  A.  Culpepper, ‘Mark 6:17-29 in Its Narrative Context: Kingdoms in Conflict’, in K. R. Iverson and C. W. Skinner (eds.), Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (SBLRBS 65; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2011), 145-163 (esp. 151). 154 Cf. M. H. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee (WUNT 2.215; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006), 90-100, 203-211; C. Karakolis, ‘Narrative Funktion und christologische Bedeutung der markinischen Erzählung vom Tod Johannes des Täufers (Mk  6:14-29)’, NovT 52 (2010) 134-155 (esp. 144); G.  Gelardini, ‘The Contest for a Royal Title: Herod versus Jesus in the Gospel According to Mark (6,14-29; 15,6-15)’, ASE 28 (2011) fasc. 2, 93-106 (esp. 94-99). 155 It should be noted that in his discussion on the chronology of John’s death, in order to argue that the death of John the Baptist took place before and not after the death of Jesus, Bruce Chilton had to conjecture that Herod Antipas’ visit to Rome, which is described in Jos. Ant. 18.110-111 as immediately preceding the war with Aretas (so c. ad 35, probably in the aftermath of the death of Philip in ad 33/34, in order to discuss the governance of Philip’s tetrarchy: cf. Jos. Ant. 18.108), in reality took place much earlier in the course of the tetrarch’s life, by the time which is referred to in Jos. Ant. 18.36, so c. ad 19: see B. Chilton, ‘John the Baptist: His Immersion and his Death’, in S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross (eds.), Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (JSNTSup 234; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 25-44 (esp. 42-43); id., ‘John the Baptist’, in C. A.  Evans (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (Routledge: New York · London [2008]), 339-342 (esp. 340-341).



Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13)

85

scribed the activity and execution of John as having taken place not before, but after the activity and execution of Jesus Christ (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64 [in its original form]), namely by the time of Herod Antipas’ war against Aretas, that is c. ad 36 (Jos. Ant. 18.109-119).156 Since according to the Jewish historian some Jews saw a connection between the destruction of Herod’s army and the death of John the Baptist (Jos. Ant. 18.116), the time and the place of John’s activity and imprisonment must have been close to those of Antipas’ war against Aretas. People would hardly have interpreted Antipas’ defeat as a divine punishment for killing John the Baptist if John had been killed more than five years before that war,157 and moreover far from the region in which the war took place, namely in the distant Galilee. Since according to Josephus the war was fought in the borderland between the territories of Herod Antipas and Aretas, at the time which directly preceded the death of Tiberius (Jos. Ant. 18.109-124), it should be assumed that John was also active somewhere in Peraea, at most two years before the death of Tiberius (so c. ad 35-36). This hypothesis is additionally confirmed by the fact that according to Josephus, John was imprisoned in Machaerus (Jos. Ant. 18.119), a fort which was located in Transjordan, close to the border between the territories of Herod Antipas and Aretas. Accordingly, it was Mark, and not Josephus, who by means of the hypertextual procedures of temporal and spatial translation manipulated the historical data by describing the death of John the Baptist as having taken place before the death of Jesus (Mk 6:14-16), and not after it (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.116-119), and moreover somewhere in Galilee (Mk 6:21), and not in Machaerus (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.119).158 The surprising, opening presentation of John the Baptist as related to having been raised from the dead (Mk  6:14-16)159 illustrates the opening thought concerning Paul’s preaching in Antioch, among the Gentiles (Gal 2:11a), namely as centring on Christ’s having been raised from the dead (cf. 1 Thes 1:10; 1 Cor 15:12-34; Rom 10:9; Gal 1:1 etc.; cf. also Mk 2:9.11-12; 5:41-42 etc.). The related thought that ‘King Herod’ and other Jewish believers heard about the powerful activity of Jesus, which was somehow related to resurrection 156 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 228. 157 Cf. B. Mahieu, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and His Sons in Their Struggle for Recognition: A Chronological Investigation of the Period 40 BC-39 AD With a Time Setting of New Testament Events (OLA 208; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 415. Scholars usually suggest that John was executed c. ad 28-29: cf. e.g. P. W. Hollenbach, ‘John the Baptist’, in ABD, vol. 3, 887-899 (esp. 887); A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Mark and the Hermeneutics’, 234. 158 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 228-229. 159 Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 248.

86

Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13)

(Mk 6:14-15), in a narrative way explains the reason of Cephas’ coming to Antioch (Gal 2:11a), as it was earlier suggested in the Letter to the Galatians, namely because of Paul’s resurrection-related activity in Syria, which became known to the ‘king’ of the Jerusalem community and to the whole Jerusalem church (Gal 1:21.23). Mark allusively presented Cephas as being ready to believe in the power and halachic implications of Jesus’ resurrection (Mk  6:14.16; cf. 1  Cor 15:5; Gal  2:12ab), but other Jewish believers as interpreting Paul’s gospel rather in terms of fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies (Mk 6:15; cf. Gal 2:12c-13). In particular, the name of Elijah (Mk  6:15b) may recall the story about his raising a Gentile from the dead in a northern city of the Gentiles (1  Kgs 17:8-24; cf. Gal 2:11-12b). On the other hand, the reference to ‘a prophet like one of the prophets [of old]’ (Mk 6:15cd) most probably alludes to the person of Barnabas, who bore the name which means ‘son of a prophet / prophesying’, and who initially supported Paul’s activity among the Gentiles (Gal 2:13). The subsequent, unhistorical description of the reason for putting John in prison, namely John’s bold, directly stated reproaches to the king (Mk 6:17-18; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.118),160 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality refers to Paul’s statements concerning his bold, directly stated reproaches to ‘king’ Cephas (Gal 2:11bc). Likewise, the unhistorical, evidently Greek name of Philip (Mk 6:17; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.109, 136: Herod)161 as the person whom Herod Antipas deprived of his wife (Mk 6:17)162 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the Greek-speaking Gentiles in Antioch, whom Cephas effectively ‘deprived’ of their apostle Barnabas (Gal 2:12-13; diff. 2:9). The subsequent, similarly unhistorical description of Herod’s initial respect for John and his words (Mk 6:20; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.118) alludes to the subsequent thought concerning Cephas’ initial respect for Paul and his teachings relating to table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12ab; cf. 2:7). The issue of Cephas’ eating with the Gentiles in the northern city of Antioch (Gal  2:12ab; cf. 2:11a) was further illustrated by the evangelist in the description of Herod’s banquet for, among other people, military tribunes and prominent Galileans (Mk 6:21). Precisely in order to allude to that important northern city, Mark surprisingly changed the location of John’s imprisonment and death from

160 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 319; R. S. Kraemer, ‘Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy?’, JBL 125 (2006) 321-349 (esp. 345-349); W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 229. 161 Cf. W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wörterbuch, 1621-1623. 162 Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 249; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 307; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 228, 231.



Mk 6:14-29 (cf. Gal 2:11-13)

87

the south-eastern military fort Machaerus (Jos. Ant. 18.119)163 to the northern region of Galilee, presumably to its capital (Mk 6:21). The subsequent motif of the dancing, play-acting girl, who made a show to the king and to all participants of the banquet (Mk 6:22; diff. Herodotus, Hist. 9.108110) in a narrative way, by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation (in this case: feminization), illustrates the subsequent statement concerning the behaviour of Barnabas, who was described by Paul with disregard as a play-actor, who performed a stage show (ὑπόκρισις: Gal 2:13b; cf. 2:13a). The person of Barnabas was additionally alluded to in Mk 6:22 by the surprising remark that Herodias at the time of her dancing suddenly became ‘his’, that is the king’s, daughter (τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος: Mk 6:22 ‫א‬, B et al.).164 In this surprising way, the evangelist illustrated the idea that Barnabas, by behaving as a play-actor, became similar to Cephas (Gal 2:13b), and consequently became like his ‘son’. This allusion is additionally confirmed by the fact that in Mk 15:715 the evangelist alluded to the person of Barnabas by means of the narrative character of Barabbas. The artificial name of Barabbas (Mk 15:7.11.15), which means ‘the son of the father’, conveys the same surprising idea that an adult person became like a child of the father (Mk 6:22; cf. 6:24). Accordingly, the whole story about Herodias’ abandoning her Greek-named husband (Mk  6:17), her hostility towards John the Baptist (Mk  6:19), and her pleasing the Jewish ‘king’ and other participants at a banquet (Mk 6:22) in a narrative way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, illustrates Barnabas’ abandoning the side of Paul (Gal 2:9) and his going over to the side of Cephas and other Jewish Christians in the issue of table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal 2:13b; cf. 2:12). The thought that the king was ready to give to Herodias a half of his kingdom (ἕως ἡμίσους τῆς βασιλείας μου: Mk 6:23; cf. Esth 5:3; 7:2;165 diff. Herodotus, Hist. 9.109) seems to illustrate the thought that Cephas in Antioch entrusted to Barnabas, and no more to Paul, the Gentile ‘half’ of the Church (Gal 2:13b; cf. 2:9). 163 Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 251; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 229. 164 The original, difficult, but most strongly attested reading αὐτοῦ (‘his’) in Mk 6:22 was later corrected in various ways by the majority of copyists: see B. M. Metzger, Commentary, 77; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 295, 308. For the problems arising from the attempts to identify historically the daughter of Herod Antipas, who is known to us only from the Gospel of Mark, see e.g. N. Kokkinos, Herodian, 232-233, 270. It should be noted that by the time of John the Baptist’s death (Jos. Ant. 18.116-119) Salome, the daughter of Herodias, was not a girl, but an adult woman, already after her first marriage with Philip the tetrarch (Jos. Ant. 18.106, 137): cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 228, 231. 165 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 309-310; U. Schnelle, M. Lang, and M. Labahn (eds.), Neuer Wettstein, vol. 1.1, 280-281; B. Standaert, Marc, [vol. 2,] 482.

88

Mk 6:30-44 (cf. Gal 2:14)

The character of the now anonymous woman (Mk 6:24; diff. 6:17.19), now referred to as the mother of the child (Mk 6:24.28), a woman who was distanced from the banquet (Mk  6:24), who was also involved in Herodias’ play-acting (Mk 6:24.28), and who somehow led Herodias away from the banquet (Mk 6:24), alludes to the anonymous characters of other Jewish Christians, who gave the example to Barnabas, who distanced themselves from table fellowship with Gentile believers, who were also involved in ‘play-acting’, and who somehow led Barnabas away from table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal 2:13a; cf. 2:13b). The fact that the influential woman’s malicious plan prevailed over the king’s hesitation at the Galilean banquet (Mk 6:25-28) illustrates the fact that the anti-Pauline stance of the influential Jewish Christians prevailed over the hesitation of Cephas in the issue of table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal 2:13; cf. 2:12). The surprisingly introduced motif of a platter (Mk 6:25.28),166 which does not correspond to that of the beheading since in ancient literature cut-off heads were usually carried by hair, in a bag, in a basket, in a chest, or impaled (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs 10:7; Jdt 13:9-10.15; Herodotus, Hist. 4.103; Euripides, Bacch. 1141-1142; cf. also L. Annaeus Seneca Maior, Controversiae 9.2.4, 9.2.24),167 additionally alludes to the issue of table fellowship (Gal 2:12b).168 In this way, Mark depicted the controversy in Antioch (Gal 2:11-13) as a ‘beheadal’ of Paul in the issue of table fellowship (Mk 6:25.27-28).

1.8.3. Mk 6:30-44 (cf. Gal 2:14) The story about the feeding of five thousand (Mk 6:30-44) sequentially, in a narrative way illustrates the main idea expressed in Gal 2:14, namely the correction of the apostles’ wrong, separatist ways of thinking. The opening fragment Mk 6:30-31 describes a correction of the apostles’ way of behaviour: it was wrong that they did not eat (Mk 6:31). In this way, the evangelist illustrated Paul’s idea of correcting the apostles’ wrong ways of thinking about eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:14ab; cf. 2:12). The image of Gentile-style sailing in a boat, and not going by foot (Mk 6:32; cf. 3:9; 4:1.36-41; 5:18), may additionally allude to Paul’s accusation that the Jewish Christian apostles did not ‘walk straight’ (ὀρθοποδέω: Gal 2:14b). The subsequent idea of the apostles’ departure for a deserted place by themselves (Mk 6:32) illustrates Paul’s subsequent reference to the Jewish Christian temptation to withdraw from the Gentiles and separate from them in having meals 166 Cf. R. S. Kraemer, ‘Implicating’, 344; S. Betsworth, Reign, 124. 167 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 311-312. 168 Cf. P.‑B. Smit, ‘Eine neutestamentliche Geburtstagsfeier und die Charakterisierung des „Königs” Herodes Antipas (Mk 6,21-29)’, BZ, nf 53 (2009) 29-46 (esp. 40, 45-46).



Mk 6:30-44 (cf. Gal 2:14)

89

in an exclusively Jewish place and company (Gal 2:14b; cf. 2:12). The related remark that Jesus saw (εἶδεν) a great multitude and had compassion for them (Mk 6:34; cf. 6:33) illustrates Paul’s related statement that he saw the incorrectness of the decision to withdraw and separate from the Gentiles (Gal  2:14ab). Cephas in fact abandoned the Gentiles (Gal 2:12), so that they became like sheep not having a shepherd (Mk 6:34de). The image of the apostles as wanting to send people away, so that the people might go and buy their own food (Mk 6:35-36), further illustrates the idea of the apostles’ separation from the Gentiles in the issue of common meals (Gal 2:14b; cf. 2:12). Jesus’ subsequent response that the apostles should share their meal with the multitude (Mk  6:37a-c) illustrates Paul’s subsequent correction of the Jewish Christian separatist attitude in the issue of sharing meals with the Gentiles (Gal 2:14c). The motif of giving (δότε) to a number of men (ἄνδρες) a few loaves of bread (ἄρτους) to eat (ἐσθίω), as well as the servants’ understandable question, together with the statement that the people in a miraculous way ate (καὶ ἔφαγον) and left rests (Mk 6:37-38.41-44), were evidently borrowed from 2 Kgs 4:42-44 LXX.169 The subsequent idea that the apostles, being Jews, surprisingly had much Roman money (two hundred denarii: Mk 6:37f),170 but nevertheless wanted the Gentiles to eat only bread, and thus no possibly unclean meat (Mk 6:37fg; cf. 1 Cor 8:13; Rom 14:20-21), illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that Cephas, being a Jew, lived in the manner of the Gentiles and not of the Jews (Gal 2:14de), but nevertheless compelled the Gentiles to live in a Jewish fashion (Gal 2:14fg; cf. 2:12). The idea of sharing the apostles’ food with the multitude (Mk 6:38.41) further illustrates Paul’s idea of Jewish Christians’ table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal  2:14fg; cf. 2:12). The surprising, non-eucharistic remarks concerning fish (Mk 6:38.41.43; diff. 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:23-29; Mk 14:22-25) illustrate the idea of a halachic compromise between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. On the one hand, eating fish means eating more than simply bread, contrary to the initial proposal of the Jewish Christian apostles, with their zeal for halachic cleanness, for the multitude (Mk  6:37). On the other hand, fish meat is ritually clean (cf. 169 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 320, 326. 170 It should be noted that denarii are almost completely absent in the archaeological material from Judaea of the time of Jesus, until the Flavian period. Cf. S. Ostermann, ‘Lepton, Quadrans und Denar: Drei Münzen im Jerusalemer Tempel zur Zeit Jesu’, in G. Theißen [et al.] (eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie – Topographie – Theologie, Festschrift M. Küchler (NTOA 70; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 39-56 (esp. 52); D. Furlan Taylor, ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, CBQ 71 (2009) 580-596 (esp. 582-585).

90

Mk 6:30-44 (cf. Gal 2:14)

Deut 14:9; Lev 11:9), so that the Jewish Christians could it eat together with the Gentiles. Such a halachic compromise was suggested by Paul: ‘It is good not to eat [animal] meat or drink wine or do anything by which your brother stumbles’ (Rom 14:21). Mark somewhat reformulated the Pauline proposal, suggesting that at common, Jewish–Gentile meals it is good to consume bread and fish, but not animal food or wine, in order not to offend the Jewish Christians (Mk 6:38.41.43). Besides, since bread should be regarded as the fruit of the land (presumably Israel: cf. Mk 1:19-20 etc.), the number of the loaves of bread (five: Mk 6:38) alludes to the number of the Jewish participants of the Jerusalem agreement (James, Cephas, John, Paul, and Barnabas: Gal 2:9). On the other hand, since fish allusively refer to people caught in the sea (presumably Mediterranean: cf. Mk 1:16-18), the number of the fish (two: Mk 6:38) most probably alludes to the number of the closest Gentile co-workers of Paul, people who could have been present with him in Antioch: Titus (cf. Gal 2:1.3) and Timothy (cf. Phlp 2:22). Consequently, both numbers and both kinds of food (Mk 6:38) illustrate the idea of Jewish–Gentile church unity at the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 10:17). The image of reclining at the meal ‘in symposia’ (συμπόσια συμπόσια: Mk 6:39) alludes to the topos of Gentile-style banquets,171 especially to the famous Plato’s work Symposion. Consequently, it further illustrates Paul’s idea of letting the Gentiles live in a Gentile manner (Gal 2:14fg). The related image of reclining on the green grass (Mk  6:39) conveys the idea of having a common, Jewish–Gentile meal in a ritually presumably clean place, and not in the Gentiles’ possibly unclean homes. The combination of these ideas again illustrates the Marcan, post-Pauline halachic compromise concerning Jewish–Gentile table fellowship (cf. Gal 2:14fg). The related, evidently scriptural image of the multitude as reclining in hundreds and fifties (Mk 6:40; cf. Deut 1:15.19; Exod 18:21.25) conveys the Pauline idea of letting the Gentiles at the Eucharist spiritually share in Israel’s experience of going through the wilderness (1 Cor 10:1-4.6.11).172 The clearly eucharistic motif of taking (λαμβάνω) bread (ἄρτος), blessing (εὐ*), and breaking (*κλάω) it (Mk 6:41; cf. 1 Cor 11:23-24; Mk 14:22)173 illustrates the idea that the table fellowship of the Jewish Christians with the Gentile 171 Cf. A. Standhartinger, ‘„Und alle aßen und wurden satt” (Mk 6,42 par.): Die Speisungserzählungen im Kontext römisch-hellenistischer Festkultur’, BZ, nf 57 (2013) 60-81 (esp. 75-76) [also as id., ‘“And All Ate and Were Filled” (Mark 6.42 par.): The Feeding Narratives in the Context of Hellenistic-Roman Banquet Culture’, in N. MacDonald, L. Sutter Rehmann, and K. Ehrensperger (eds.), Decisive Meals: Table Politics in Biblical Literature (LNTS 449; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 62-82 (esp. 76)]. 172 Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 156-157. 173 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xviii; P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 157.



Mk 6:30-44 (cf. Gal 2:14)

91

believers should include at least sharing in Jesus’ Last Supper. According to Mark, such a common participation in the Lord’s Supper should fill all its participants with Scripture-based blessing (Mk  6:42; cf. Ps  78[77]:29 LXX: καὶ ἐφάγ* καὶ *σθησαν).174 Consequently, Mark suggested that this basic, fundamental, eucharistic level of Jewish–Gentile table fellowship is sufficient for maintaining the unity of the Church. The conclusion of the story (Mk  6:43-44) presents two expected outcomes of such common Jewish–Gentile participation in the Eucharist. The first of them consists in the spiritual fulfilment of Scripture. In line with Mark’s post-Pauline theology, all believers, united at the Eucharist, constitute the ideal, spiritual Israel (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-11), which is symbolized by the number twelve (Mk 6:43).175 The second expected outcome consists in the unity of the Church. In line with Mark’s post-Pauline theology, all believers participating in the Eucharist become one body, united in partaking of the same bread (cf. 1 Cor 10:17). This idea is conveyed by the number of five thousand men (Mk 6:44) as partaking of, and not simply consuming (cf. Mk 6:43), five loaves of bread (Mk 6:38.41). In the Marcan narrative-theological calculation, the great, symbolic number of a thousand men could partake of one bread (cf. 1 Cor 10:17: ‘We who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread’). Accordingly, the somewhat surprising Marcan calculation has an important symbolic-theological meaning. At the beginning of the meal, there were only five Jewish apostles and two Gentile co-workers (cf. Mk 6:38). However, as a miraculous outcome of the common Jewish–Gentile Eucharist, the prophecies concerning the ideal Israel were fulfilled, and numerous Jews and Gentiles, partaking of the same bread, became one body in Christ (cf. Mk 6:43-44).

1.9. Mk 6:45-56 (cf. Gal 2:15-3:9) The section Mk 6:45-56, which presents the preparations for a second missionary travel to the Gentiles, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Gal 2:15-3:9.

174 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 326; A. Standhartinger, ‘Und alle aßen’, 78 [also as id., ‘And All Ate’, 79]. 175 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 239; T. Dykstra, Mark, 80; P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 157.

92

Mk 6:45-52 (cf. Gal 2:15-3:4)

1.9.1. Mk 6:45-52 (cf. Gal 2:15-3:4) The story about Jesus’ temporary separation from his apostles and their subsequent non-recognition of his person (Mk 6:45-52) in a sequential, narrative way illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text Gal  2:15-3:4, especially those of Paul’s temporary separation from his Gentile followers (Gal 2:15-21) and the Galatians’ non-recognition of the signs of Jesus’ presence among them (Gal 3:1-4). The opening, surprising image of Jesus as temporarily separating from his disciples, sending them alone to Bethsaida on the Gentile side of the see, and remaining without them in the Jewish territory (Mk 6:45-46a)176 illustrates Paul’s opening, harsh, pro-Jewish, apparently anti-Gentile statement: ‘We are Jews by birth, and not sinners of the Gentiles’ (Gal 2:15). The name of Bethsaida (Βηθσαϊδά), as referring to an important village or city on the other side of the lake of Gennesaret (Mk 6:45), was known to the evangelist from Jos. Ant. 18.28, a text which refers to the important village-city of Bethsaida located in the tetrarchy of Philip. The subsequent image of Jesus as intensively praying on the mountain (Mk 6:46bc) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization alludes to the subsequent statements concerning the ‘faith/faithfulness of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ: Gal 2:16). In line with the ideas of Gal 2:16, Mark presented the solitary going to the Sinai-like mountain (εἰς τὸ ὄρος: Mk 6:46b; cf. Deut 5:5; 9:9; 10:1.3 LXX etc.) as related no more to Moses and the law (Gal 2:16-18), but to the faith/faithfulness of Christ (Gal 2:16). This shift in devotion from the ‘works of the law’ to the faith/faithfulness of Christ (Gal 2:16) was expressed in the Marcan story in terms of engaging in a Pauline-style intensive prayer for the distanced believers (προσεύχομαι: Mk 6:46c; cf. 1 Thes 5:17; Phlp 1:9; Col 1:3.9 etc.). The subsequent, frightening statements that ‘evening came (ὀψίας γενομένης), the boat was in the middle of the sea, and he was alone on the land’ (Mk 6:47) evoke Paul’s subsequent idea of dying with Christ (Gal 2:19a; cf. Mk 15:42-47). The subsequent image of the disciples as tortured (βασανίζω) at rowing against the wind (Mk 6:48a-d) through the similarity to the torturing work of the rowers whose hands were bound to the wooden oars evokes the subsequent idea of having been crucified with Christ (Gal 2:19c). Moreover, it may additionally illustrate the idea of performing the ‘works of the law’, which do not bring to the desired goal of justification (Gal 2:16). On the other hand, the subsequent image of Jesus as having compassion for the disciples and coming to them by dawn, astonishingly walking on the sea (Mk 6:48ef), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization illustrates the subsequent ideas of Christ’s love for the believers and of the post-resurrection, spiritual presence of the Son of God (Gal 2:20; cf. Rom 1:4). The related, 176 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 255, 258.



Mk 6:53-56 (cf. Gal 3:5-9)

93

subsequent image of Jesus as intending to pass the disciples by (Mk 6:48gh) illustrates the subsequent idea of the possibility of the believers’ rejecting the grace of God (Gal 2:21a.c). The two subsequent, correlated ideas that the disciples did not recognize Jesus, but they thought that he was a ghost (Mk 6:49), allude to Paul’s two subsequent statements that the Galatians were not understanding (Gal 3:1a), and that someone bewitched them (Gal 3:1b). The subsequent, related Marcan statement that they all saw Jesus and were terrified (Mk 6:50ab) alludes to Paul’s subsequent thought that Jesus Christ was set forth before the eyes of the Galatians as crucified (Gal 3:1c). The subsequent image of Jesus as talking to the disciples and encouraging them to believe in his spiritual presence with them (Mk  6:50c-g)177 illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of the hearing of faith as bringing about the presence of the Spirit (Gal 3:2). The Marcan narrative identification of the risen Lord with the Spirit (Mk 6:48-50; cf. Gal 3:2) is evidently post-Pauline (2 Cor 3:17). The subsequent, surprisingly negative thought that Jesus ‘got into the boat to them and the wind ceased, but they were greatly confused in themselves’ (Mk 6:51) alludes to the subsequent, negative idea that the Galatians were still very foolish, for they began in the Spirit, and ended in the flesh (Gal 3:3). Likewise, the concluding statements that the disciples ‘did not understand about the loaves, but their heart was hardened’ (Mk 6:52; cf. 6:41-44) illustrate Paul’s thought that the Galatians experienced so great things, but really to no avail (Gal 3:4).

1.9.2. Mk 6:53-56 (cf. Gal 3:5-9) The short account Mk 6:53-56 illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text Gal 3:59, namely that miracles were worked among the Gentiles on the basis of their faith (Gal 3:5), and that faith leads to justification (Gal 3:6-9). The narratively surprising, midway position of Gennesaret (Mk 6:53) on the way from the Jewish side of the Lake of Galilee to Bethsaida, which was located on the other, presumably Gentile side of the ‘sea’ (Mk 6:45; 8:22),178 by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to the midway position of Galatia (Gal 3:5) on the way from the Jewish country of Judaea to the Gentile country of Achaea. The Marcan version of the name of Gennesaret (Γεννησαρέτ: 177 Cf. D. S. du Toit, Der abwesende Herr: Strategien im Markusevangelium zur Bewältigung der Abwesenheit des Auferstandenen (WMANT 111; Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 2006), 98-99; id., ‘Vom Winde verweht (Jesu Erscheinen auf dem See) – Mk 6,4553’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium, vol. 1, 304-312 (esp. 306). 178 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 257, 261-262.

94

Mk 7:1-13 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:15)

Mk 6:53; diff. 1 Macc 11:67 etc.) most probably originates from Jos. Ant. 18.28 (Γεννησαρίτις). The narratively superfluous, surprisingly used, harbour technical term προσορμίζω (‘moor, come to anchor’: Mk 6:53; diff. 5:1.21) evokes the idea of supplying with goods, and thus alludes to the Pauline idea of supplying with the Spirit (Gal 3:5a). The same idea is illustrated by the surprising description of Jesus’ activity as always taking place in marketplaces (Mk 6:56). The subsequent image of people hearing (ἀκούω) that Jesus was present among them (Mk 6:55; cf. 6:54) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of the hearing (ἀκοή) of faith (Gal 3:5d). The related image of many sick people (Mk 6:55-56) alludes to the Gentile identity of the addressees of Gal 3:5. The Pauline idea of Gentile-style faith (Gal 3:5d) was further illustrated by the image of sick people begging Jesus that they might touch even the hem of his cloak (Mk 6:56). The concluding statement that as many sick people as touched Jesus were saved (Mk 6:56), illustrates Paul’s ideas of working miracles among the Gentiles (Gal 3:5b) and of the faith of the Gentiles as leading to justification (Gal 3:6-9).

1.10. Mk 7:1-23 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:21) The section Mk 7:1-23, which describes Jesus’ halachic discussions with the Jews, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline highly argumentative text Gal 3:10-5:21.

1.10.1. Mk 7:1-13 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:15) The story about Jesus’ halachic discussions with the Pharisees and the experts in Scripture (Mk 7:1-13) in a narrative way summarizes the Pauline scriptural discussion which is contained in Gal 3:10-5:15. The characters of the Pharisees and some of the experts in Scripture from Jerusalem (Mk 7:1; cf. 7:5) allude to the Jewish Christian, Jerusalem-based opponents of Paul in Galatia (Gal 3:10a). In particular, the Marcan Pharisees (Mk 7:1.5; cf. 3:6) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality allude to the followers of James (Gal 2:12).179 Likewise, the Marcan experts in Scripture from Jerusalem (Mk 7:1; cf. 3:22), who are later called ‘hypocrites’ (ὑποκριτής: Mk 7:6), allude to the ‘hypocritical’ Jerusalem Christian opponents of Paul (Gal 2:12-13:

179 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xviii; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 177; T. Dykstra, Mark, 150-152.



Mk 7:1-13 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:15)

95

*ὑποκρίνομαι).180 Accordingly, both these groups represent those whom Paul called ‘as many as are of the works of the law’ (Gal 3:10a). The initial discussion concerning halachic cleanness (Mk 7:2-5) refers to the Mosaic law in a very disparaging way, similar to that of Gal 3:10-12. Mark presented the law as prescribing very strange habits (like washing one’s hands with the fist: Mk 7:3a)181 and as a mere tradition (παράδοσις) of the elders (Mk 7:3c.5; cf. 7:8-9.13), in the latter case using the Pauline formula borrowed from Gal 1:14 (‘tradition of ancestors’).182 Moreover, the evangelist presented the law as a set of numerous detailed, really strange instructions (like dipping cups, pitchers, and bronze vessels: Mk 7:4e),183 thus illustrating the Pauline idea of the law as a set of worthless prescriptions, which all should be done, but which do not lead to being justified before God (Gal 3:10-12). The accusation of the Pharisees and experts in Scripture (Mk 7:5; cf. 7:2) alludes to Paul’s thought that the law can be interpreted as a curse (Gal 3:10). The subsequent scriptural argument against the law (Mk 7:6-7; cf. Is 29:13 LXX;184 cf. also Col 2:22: διδασκαλίας… ἀνθρώπων) corresponds to Paul’s subsequent scriptural argument concerning the abrogation of the curse of the law (Gal 3:13), and additionally presents the Mosaic law in a disparaging way as a set 180 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 177. 181 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 266; M. Meiser, ‘Reinheitsfragen und Begräbnissitten: Der Evangelist Markus als Zeuge der jüdischen Alltagskultur’, in R. Deines, J. Herzer, and K.‑W. Niebuhr (eds.), Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: III. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 21.-24. Mai 2009, Leipzig (WUNT 274; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 443-460 (esp. 446). Pace J. G. Crossley, ‘Halakah and Mark 7.3: “with the hand in the shape of a fist”’, NTS 58 (2012) 57-68 (esp. 68), the immersions depicted in Mk 7:3-4 came to be regarded as somehow natural only later, in rabbinic writings, and consequently they should not be considered ‘known Jewish practices of the time’. The understanding of rabbinic writings as faithfully reflecting Jewish practices of Jesus’ time, as though there were no Christian literature between Jesus’ time and the composition of the rabbinic writings, was a common scholarly mistake until the discovery of the pre-Christian Judaism of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nowadays, the possibility of Christian influence on the ideas of rabbinic Judaism should be taken into serious consideration. In many respects, rabbinic Judaism is not only a continuation of pre-Christian Judaism, but also a response to nascent Christianity. 182 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 178. 183 Cf. B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark, 238-239; C. Focant, Marc, 269; E. Rau, ‘Die Ablehnung Jesu durch „dieses Geschlecht”: Ein tiefgreifendes Ereignis in der Sicht der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums’, ETL 87 (2011) 57-87 (esp. 74). 184 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 253; K. S. O’Brien, The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative (LNTS 384; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010), 205; B. Standaert, Marc, 537-538.

96

Mk 7:1-13 (cf. Gal 3:10-5:15)

of merely human commandments (Mk 7:7). The subsequent, transitory statement concerning the validity of God’s commandment (Mk 7:8) alludes to Paul’s subsequent, transitory statement concerning the validity of the blessing of Abraham (Gal 3:14). The subsequent argument put forward in Mk 7:9-13, which refers to declaring God’s commandment invalid (ἀθετέω: Mk 7:9), clearly alludes to Paul’s subsequent argument concerning declaring a covenant invalid (Gal 3:15).185 Likewise, the idea of making the word of God void (ἀκυρόω: Mk 7:13) clearly alludes to the Pauline idea of making God’s covenant void (Gal 3:17; cf. 3:15), a correspondence which is additionally confirmed by the fact that the word ἀκυρόω (‘make void’) is distinctive of Gal 3:17 and Mk 7:13 (par. Mt 15:6) in the New Testament.186 Consequently, the covenant with Abraham (Gal 3:16-18) was presented in Mk 7:9-13 as God’s commandment and word, and the Mosaic law (Gal 3:17) was presented in Mk 7:3-13 as a merely human tradition. The particular example of the commandment to honour one’s father and mother (Mk 7:10ab; cf. Exod 20:12; 21:17 LXX),187 which is further elaborated with the use of the key phrase ‘father and mother’ (Mk 7:10c-12), in an apt way summarizes the Pauline arguments presented in Gal 3:15-4:26 because they point to a thankful attitude of an adult person to the father (Gal 3:15-4:18; cf. esp. πατήρ: Gal  4:2.6) and to the mother (Gal  4:19-31; cf. esp. μήτηρ: Gal  4:26). Accordingly, the father in Mk 7:10-12 stands for God in Gal 3:15-4:18, and the mother in Mk 7:10-12 stands for the Church in Gal 4:19-31. The additional statements that one should not speak evil of father and mother in order not to be put to death (Mk 7:10cd), and that one should benefit (ὠφελέω) the father and the mother, and not follow a literal meaning of the law (alluded to by the surprising use of the transliterated Hebrew word corban: Mk 7:11-12), allude to Paul’s ideas that the believers should not reject Christ, who benefits them (Gal 5:1-4), and that the whole law should be interpreted according to the Spirit (Gal 5:5-9), as fulfilled by loving the neighbour (Gal 5:6.13-15), and not in a literal sense (Gal 5:10-12). Besides, the idea that the transliterated Hebrew word corban (κορβᾶν), which means a sacrificial offering, should be semantically identified with the word ‘gift’ (δῶρον), as Mark suggested in the statement: ‘corban, that is a gift’ (κορβᾶν, ὅ

185 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 178. 186 Cf. ibid. 187 Cf. C. Breytenbach, ‘Die Vorschriften des Mose im Markusevangelium: Erwägungen zur Komposition von Mk  7,9-13; 10,2-9 und 12,18-27’, ZNW 97 (2006) 23-43 (esp. 27); W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 249, 254; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205.



Mk 7:14-23 (cf. Gal 5:16-21)

97

ἐστιν δῶρον: Mk 7:11), is somewhat surprising.188 In fact, this semantic identification was directly borrowed not from the Septuagint (which does not use the transliterated word κορβᾶν: cf. Lev 1:2 LXX etc.), but from the work of Josephus, who stated that ‘corban… this means gift in the language of the Greeks’ (κορβᾶν… δῶρον δὲ τοῦτο σημαίνει κατὰ Ἑλλήνων γλῶτταν: Jos. Ant. 4.73).

1.10.2. Mk 7:14-23 (cf. Gal 5:16-21) The discussion concerning external and internal uncleanness (Mk  7:14-23) sequentially illustrates the main idea of the Pauline text Gal  5:16-21, which describes the tension between the flesh and the Spirit. The opening, narratively superfluous reference to Jesus’ repeated saying (λέγω) (Mk 7:14b)189 alludes to Paul’s initial statement ‘I say’ (Gal 5:16a). The related exhortations to listen and understand, expressed with the use of verbal imperatives (Mk 7:14cd), allude to Paul’s similarly formulated exhortation to walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:16b). The particular idea that understanding (συνίημι: Mk 7:14d) could be in a hypertextual way related to the Spirit (πνεῦμα: Gal 5:16b) was suggested to the evangelist by the conflated idea of ‘spiritual understanding’ (σύνεσις πνευματική) in the post-Pauline, but pre-Marcan text Col 1:9 (cf. also the use of Col 1:5-6.10; 2:7-8 in Mk 4:3-8.14-20). The subsequent antithetic statements concerning external and internal reasons of uncleanness (Mk 7:15) illustrate Paul’s subsequent antithetic arguments concerning the desire of the flesh and the desire of the Spirit (Gal 5:16c-17). In particular, the Marcan argument concerning the importance of internal moral integrity, and not external ritual uncleanness (Mk 7:15), illustrates the Pauline thought that it is the internal ‘fleshly’ corruption that causes the destruction of human religious and moral integrity (Gal 5:16c-17) with the use of the evidently Pauline argument concerning the general non-existence of ritual uncleanness (Rom 14:14: οὐδέν + κοινο*). The subsequent direct address to the disciples (Mk 7:17-19) alludes to Paul’s subsequent direct address to the recipients of the letter (Gal 5:18).

188 In Jewish inscriptions from Judaea before ad 70, the word qorban functioned as a warning or curse against all who would use the objects marked with this word (esp. ossuaries and jars) against their intended, presumably religiously motivated purpose: cf. H. M. Cotton [et al.] (eds.), CIIP, vol. 1, Part 1, nos. 8, 287, 466, 528, 643. For this reason, the word qorban was semantically equivalent to ‘closed’: cf. ibid., no. 605. Cf. also S.  Gathercole, ‘Jerusalem and Caesarea Inscriptions and New Testament Study: A Review Article’, JSNT 35.4 (2013) 394-401 (esp. 398-399). 189 Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 543.

98

Mk 7:14-23 (cf. Gal 5:16-21)

In particular, the reproach that the disciples were void of understanding (ἀσύνετος: Mk 7:18b) by means of the same hypertextual link which was used in Mk 7:14d, that is understanding (συνίημι) as related to the Spirit (πνεῦμα: cf. Gal 5:16b; Col 1:9), alludes to Paul’s conditional statement concerning the believers’ being led by the Spirit (πνεῦμα: Gal 5:18a). The same Pauline theological idea of being led by the Spirit (Gal 5:17a) was further, in a negative way illustrated by means of the ironic argument concerning the impossibility of being ‘fleshly’ defiled by the things which go into a person from outside, so that they go not into the heart but to the stomach, and then go out to the latrine (Mk 7:18d-19c). The subsequent, somewhat strangely added theological-halachic idea of declaring all foods clean (Mk  7:19d)190 illustrates Paul’s subsequent theologicalhalachic idea of not being under the law (Gal  5:18b). The particular formula ‘declaring all foods clean’ (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα: Mk 7:19d) originates from Paul’s argument concerning food (βρῶμα), namely that ‘all things are clean’ (πάντα… καθαρά: Rom 14:20).191 The subsequent, narratively redundant, general theological statements: ‘What comes out of a person, that defiles a person. For from within, out of the heart of people, proceed evil thoughts’ (Mk 7:20-21a) illustrate Paul’s statement that ‘the works of the flesh are evident’ (Gal 5:19a). The subsequent catalogue of vices (Mk  7:21b-22) originates from the subsequent Pauline catalogue of vices Gal 5:19b-21a. In particular, the position of fornication (πορνεία) at the beginning of the list Mk  7:21b-22 closely corresponds to its position at the beginning of the list Gal 5:19b-21a. Other elements of the list Mk 7:21b-22 partly originate from Gal 5:19b-21a, as well as from other Pauline and post-Pauline catalogues of vices (esp. Rom 1:29):192 murder (φόνος: cf. Rom  1:29), avarice (πλεονεξία: cf. Rom  1:29), wickedness (πονηρία: cf. Rom 1:29), deceit (δόλος: cf. Rom 1:19), licentiousness (ἀσέλγεια: cf. Gal 5:19; Rom 13:13), and slander (βλασφημία: cf. Col 3:8). Mark arranged them in three groups in decreasing level of importance: (a) those borrowed from the second tablet of the scriptural Decalogue (theft, murder, and adultery: cf. Rom  13:9),193 (b) those borrowed from the Pauline catalogue Rom 1:29 (avarice, wickedness, and deceit), and (c) other vices (licentiousness, evil eye, slander, pride, and folly). Moreover, the evangelist ordered Paul’s mixed

190 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 272-273; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 356. 191 Cf. M. F. Bird, ‘Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul’, in M. F. Bird and J. Willitts (eds.), Paul and the Gospels, 30-61 (esp. 50); T. Dykstra, Mark, 88-89, 145; P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 120. 192 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 383. 193 Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 1, 285; C. Focant, Marc, 273.



Mk 7:24-30 (cf. Gal 5:22-26)

99

list of vices referred to either in singular or in plural (Gal 5:19b-21a) by using first plural and then singular forms (Mk 7:21b-22). The concluding, narratively redundant statement that ‘all these evil things come from within and defile a person’ (Mk  7:23) alludes to Paul’s concluding thought that all the above listed, evil things (cf. Gal 5:19b-21a) prevent inheriting the kingdom of God (Gal 5:21b-e).

1.11. Mk 7:24-37 (cf. Gal 5:22-6:18) The section Mk 7:24-37, which describes Jesus’ travel to Gentile territories, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the concluding part of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal  5:22-6:18), which presents Paul’s code of behaviour for the Gentile believers.

1.11.1. Mk 7:24-30 (cf. Gal 5:22-26) The narratively strange story about Jesus’ Jewish, harsh way of healing a Gentile child (Mk 7:24-30) illustrates Paul’s thought that Gentile-style Christian virtues should prevail over harsh attitudes which result from observing the Jewish law (Gal 5:22-26). The Syro-Phoenician region of Tyre and Sidon (Mk  7:24 ‫א‬, A, B et al.)194 should be regarded as clearly Gentile, not least because of the intertextual link of the Marcan account Mk 7:24-30 to the scriptural story about the coming of the Israelite prophet Elijah to a Gentile widow who lived in Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, and about healing her child (1 Kgs 17:8-24).195 The same idea is conveyed by the remarks that the woman’s daughter had an unclean spirit (Mk 7:25b; cf. 7:26d.29-30) and that the woman was a Gentile, a Syro-Phoenician by birth (Mk 7:26ab). Jesus’ initial resolve to avoid contact with the inhabitants of that Gentile region (Mk 7:24cd) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the separatist attitude of the Jews, observing the Mosaic law, to the Gen-

194 The omission of the phrase ‘and Sidon’ (καὶ Σιδῶνος) in some textual witnesses of minor importance (D et al.) can be explained as originating from the desire to reconcile Mk 7:24, which refers to Jesus’ coming to the region of Tyre and Sidon, with Mk 7:31, which refers to Jesus’ departure from the region of Tyre and his subsequent travel through Sidon. 195 Cf. J. R. Donahue and D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 2002), 236.

100

Mk 7:31-37 (cf. Gal 6:1-18)

tiles (Gal 5:23b).196 Likewise, Jesus’ exceptionally harsh response to the Gentile woman (contemptuously referred to as a dog: Mk 7:27),197 which only to a certain degree resembles Elijah’s haughty attitude to the widow at Zarephath (first the Israelite: 1 Kgs 17:13), illustrates Paul’s idea that the Jewish separatist law (Gal 5:23b) leads to being vainglorious, provoking one another, and envying one another (Gal 5:26). On the other hand, the humble response of the woman (Mk 7:28) illustrates Paul’s idea of the fruit of the Spirit in the Gentile believers as including peace, forbearance, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22-23a). Moreover, it illustrates Paul’s exhortation to crucify one’s emotions and yearnings (Gal 5:24). Besides, it may also allude to the idea of accepting one’s place in a row in an ascending series (στοιχέω: Gal 5:25b). The evangelist conflated in Mk 7:28 the ideas taken from Gal 5:22-25 with those which were evidently borrowed from Rom 1:16 (soteriological precedence of the Jews over the Gentiles),198 Rom 10:9 (soteriological importance of the Gentiles’ confession of Jesus as the Lord: κύριος), and Gal 2:1121 (arguing for table fellowship of the Jews with the Gentiles).199 The positive conclusion of the story, which presents Jesus’ provoking attitude as overcome by the woman’s forbearance (Mk  7:29-30), illustrates the Pauline idea that the fruit of the Spirit prevails over the restrictions of the Jewish law (Gal 5:23b).

1.11.2. Mk 7:31-37 (cf. Gal 6:1-18) The conclusion of the story about Jesus’ travel to Gentile territories (Mk 7:31-37) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the conclusive fragment of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 6:1-18), especially that of gently restoring others (Gal 6:1). The topographically strange description of Jesus’ itinerary, namely as going from the Gentile region of Tyre first to the north to the likewise Gentile city of Sidon, then to the south-east in the midst of the clearly Gentile region of Decapolis, and finally to the west to the land of Israel, ‘to the Sea of Galilee’ (Mk 7:31),200 alludes to the thematic order of the conclusive fragment of the Letter to the Ga196 In Mk 7:24-30 the procedure of interfigurality exceptionally links Jesus with a non-Pauline attitude to the law. This exception was probably caused by the desire to adapt the scriptural story concerning Elijah’s dealing with the Gentiles (1 Kgs 17:8-24) to the needs of the Marcan Gospel. 197 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 288-289; S. Betsworth, Reign, 128. 198 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 386. 199 Cf. J. Marcus, ‘Interpreter’, 475, 487; P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 120-121, 157. 200 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 290; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 369; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 229.



Mk 7:31-37 (cf. Gal 6:1-18)

101

latians (Gal 6:1-18), which first still refers to the Gentiles (Gal 6:1-11), but then again to the Israelites (Gal 6:12-16; esp. 6:16). The image of a man who was deaf and speechless (Mk 7:32a) depicts the behaviour of someone who was caught in advance of a transgression (Gal 6:1a). The subsequent image of taking the man aside from the crowd, privately (Mk 7:33a), illustrates Paul’s subsequent exhortation to restore such a man not by punishing him, but in a spirit of gentleness, but also in such a way that his temptation might not influence others (Gal 6:1b-d). The subsequent, surprising description of Jesus’ putting his finger into the man’s ears, and having spat, touching the man’s tongue, thus establishing direct bodily contact with the man’s disease (Mk 7:33b-d), and thereafter looking up to heaven and groaning (στενάζω), thus expressing pain or weariness under a burden (Mk 7:34ab; cf. 2 Cor 5:4: στενάζομεν βαρούμενοι), in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of bearing the burdens (βάρη) of others (Gal 6:2a). On the other hand, the image of putting directives (by metonymy, fingers: cf. Deut 9:10 LXX) into the ears (εἰς τὰ ὦτα: Mk 7:33b) is a scriptural metaphor for teaching the law (cf. Exod 24:7; Deut 31:11.28.30; 32:44 LXX). The subsequent, likewise surprising use of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) verb ephphatha (ἐφφαθά: Mk 7:34c),201 which was evidently intended by Mark to function as a Hebrew (or Aramaic) equivalent of the Greek command ‘Be opened’ (Mk 7:34de; cf. 7:35a),202 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that the Jewish law (cf. Mk 7:33b) was replaced with the authoritative like Hebrew Scripture, but halachically ‘open’ law of Christ (Gal 6:2b). The statement that the healed man spoke rightly (λαλέω + ὀρθῶς: Mk 7:35c) alludes to the scriptural idea that the believers accepted the role of a new, Moseslike, authoritative mediator between God and them (Deut  18:15-18 LXX), and thus it again illustrates the Pauline idea of the law of Christ (Gal 6:2b). For the same reason, the related, strange image of Jesus’ spitting and touching the man’s tongue, thus sharing with him the ability to speak (Mk  7:33cd; cf. 7:35b), alludes to the related scriptural idea that God will put his word into the mouth of his mediator (cf. Gal 6:2b), and that he will speak to the hitherto deaf believers (Deut 18:18; cf. 18:16 LXX). The subsequent command not to tell anyone about the healing, an injunction which was not obeyed, but not through Jesus’ fault (Mk 7:36), in a narrative way

201 Cf. B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark, 253. 202 The Greek word ἐφφαθά (ephphatha) seems to be an imprecise transliteration of the Hebrew niphal imperative verb form ‫( הפתח‬hippataḥ), or possibly of the Aramaic ithpeel or ithpaal imperative verb form ‫( אתפתח‬ethpataḥ). Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 294; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 1, 474.

102

Mk 7:31-37 (cf. Gal 6:1-18)

illustrates Paul’s subsequent exhortation not be haughty, but to take pride in one’s own work, and not in boasting before others (Gal 6:3-5). The concluding, general statement that Jesus has done (perf. πεποίηκεν; diff. Gen 1:31 LXX) all things (πάντα) well (καλῶς: Mk 7:37c) alludes to Paul’s general idea of doing good (καλὸν ποιέω: Gal 6:9) to all (πρὸς πάντας: Gal 6:10). Moreover, by means of the evident intertextual link to the scriptural account of God’ doing (ποιέω) all things (πάντα) as good (καλός: Gen 1:1-31; esp. 1:31 LXX),203 this Marcan statement alludes to Paul’s conclusive idea of the new creation, which has overcome the impediments of the Gentile believers (Gal 6:15) in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 6:18).

203 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 376; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 267; C. Jochum-Bortfeld, Die Verachteten stehen auf: Widersprüche und Gegenentwürfe des Markusevangeliums zu den Menschenbildern seiner Zeit (BWANT 178; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008), 289-291.

2. Mk 8-13 (cf. 1 Cor)

The second major part of the Gospel of Mark, namely Mk 8-13, in a consistently sequential, but on the other hand highly creative, hypertextual way illustrates the contents of the First Letter to the Corinthians. This letter was most probably regarded by the evangelist as presenting Paul in the prime of his missionary activity among the Gentiles, and presumably for this reason it was chosen as the main hypotext for the middle part of the Marcan Gospel.

2.1. Mk 8:1-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-31) The section Mk 8:1-21, with its main ideas of Church unity, demanding a sign, and not understanding, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 1:1-31.

2.1.1. Mk 8:1-9 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-16) The story about the second feeding of numerous people (Mk 8:1-9) in a significant way differs from that about the first feeding (Mk 6:30-44). The differences between the two stories resulted from the evangelist’s resolve to illustrate sequentially in the second story (Mk 8:1-9) the main ideas of the opening section of the First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:1-16), especially those of eagerly awaiting the day of the Lord’s power, God’s faithfulness, participation in Christ, the believers’ completeness, Church unity, and only a few baptized Gentiles. The opening statement of the second feeding narrative (Mk 8:1) focuses on the crowd, whereas the opening fragment of the first feeding narrative (Mk 6:30-34) focused on the disciples. This notable difference resulted from the fact that the opening section of the First Letter to the Corinthians, which was reworked in Mk 8:1, primarily refers to Paul’s audience (1 Cor 1:1-3; esp. 1:2), whereas Gal 2:14, which was used as a hypotext for Mk 6:30-34, primarily referred to Cephas. The subsequent thought that the people for some days (ἡμέρα) eagerly but patiently awaited a sign of Jesus’ power, which, as they presumably expected on the basis of their previous knowledge of Jesus, would strengthen them in their fainting (Mk  8:2), a thought that was absent in the thematically corresponding

104

Mk 8:1-9 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-16)

text Mk 6:34-35, by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and temporal translation illustrates the Pauline thought that the believers eagerly await the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, who by his previously given grace, speech, knowledge, and testimony will strengthen them in being blameless to the end, until the day of his power (1 Cor 1:4-8). Jesus’ subsequent, deep concern that the people were completely exhausted after the three days of painful remaining with him (Mk 8:3; cf. 8:2), a thought which cannot be found in the thematically corresponding text Mk 6:34,1 in the Marcan theology points to the believers’ participation in Jesus’ cross and the three days of awaiting his resurrection (cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; cf. also 1 Cor 15:4). Accordingly, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, this concern illustrates Paul’s subsequent ideas of God’s faithfulness and the believers being called to participation with/in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:9), which in the context of the opening section of the First Letter to the Corinthians primarily refers to sharing in Christ’s cross (1 Cor 1:13.17-18). Likewise, the unexpectedly introduced scriptural content of the disciples’ question, which refers to satisfying people with loaves of bread (ἄρτοι) in the wilderness (ἐρημ*: Mk 8:4; cf. Exod 16:4.8.12.29.32 LXX; diff. Mk 6:37),2 illustrates the scriptural thought that God is faithful (1 Cor 1:9a), which according to Paul was particularly revealed in God’s not allowing Israel to be excessively tempted in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:13; cf. 10:1-12). The subsequent question: ‘How many do you have of loaves?’ (πόσους ἔχετε ἄρτους: Mk 8:5), which refers to the number rather than to the kind of food, in difference to the thematically corresponding text Mk 6:38 highlights the importance of the evidently symbolic number seven (Mk 8:5-6; cf. 8:8). This symbolic number conveys the idea of completeness,3 and consequently it illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the believers should be made complete (καταρτίζω: 1 Cor 1:10) and that the Church should maintain her unity (1 Cor 1:10). Therefore, the fragment Mk 8:4-5, which alludes to 1 Cor 1:9-10 and henceforth in a rather neutral way describes the disciples’ question and Jesus’ answer to 1 2 3

Cf. B.  Standaert, Évangile selon Marc (EBib, ns 61; J.  Gabalda: Pendé 2010), [vol. 2,] 572-574. Cf. ibid. 574-575. Cf. W. Eckey, Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 272; P. Pokorný, From the Gospel to the Gospels: History, Theology and Impact of the Biblical Term euangelion (BZNW 195; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 158; R. Metzner, ‘Der Mensch lebt nicht vom Brot allein, es darf noch Fisch dazwischen sein (Die Speisung der Viertausend) – Mk 8,1-10 (Mt 15,32-39)’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 332-340 (esp. 335).



Mk 8:1-9 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-16)

105

it, significantly differs from the thematically corresponding fragment Mk 6:35-37, which in terms of strong disagreement described the disciples’ resolve to send the people away, as well as Jesus’ correction of their idea, in order to illustrate Paul’s statement concerning his correction of Cephas’ resolve to separate from the Gentile believers (Gal 2:14; cf. 2:12). The subsequent description of the multitude as sitting on the ground in one group (Mk  8:6ab), which significantly differs from the previous description of the multitude as divided into numerous groups (Mk 6:39-40), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the unity of the believers in the one Church is not reconcilable with any divisions (1 Cor 1:11-13; cf. 3:8; 12:4-27 etc.). The Marcan narrative suggests that this unity should be particularly visible in the Eucharist (Mk 8:6c-h; cf. 1 Cor 10:17), which is alluded to in Mk 8:6 with the use of the words evidently borrowed from 1 Cor 11:23-24 (λαμβάνω + ἄρτος + εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν + the disciples repeating Jesus’ action). The subsequent, parenthetically added remark concerning a few small fish (ἰχθύδια: Mk 8:7), an addition which notably differs from the preceding description of feeding the people with bread and two fish (ἰχθύας: Mk 6:41), alludes to Paul’s subsequent, parenthetically added remark that he baptized only a few Gentile believers (1 Cor 1:14-16). The allusive meaning of fish as referring to believing Gentiles ‘caught’ in the basin of the Mediterranean Sea was already noticed in the Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:16-18; 6:38.41.43). The repeated number seven (Mk 8:8; diff. 6:43) again conveys the idea of the unity of the Church (1 Cor 1:10-13). For the same reason, the particular number of the people, namely around four thousand (Mk  8:9), which evidently differs from that of five thousand in the thematically corresponding text Mk 6:44, alludes to the number of four parties in the Corinthian community (1 Cor 1:12). Accordingly, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, the evangelist presented the Church, with its various internal groups, as united in the one bread of Jesus Christ’s Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 10:17). The omission of the reference to ‘men’ (Mk 8:9), which was present in the thematically corresponding text Mk 6:44, may additionally allude to the Gentile church in Corinth as based not only on the faith of men, but also on that of women (cf. 1 Cor 1:11: Chloe). At this point of the analysis of the Marcan Gospel, it is evident that Mark’s surprising, repeated use of two similar stories concerning miraculous feeding of the people (Mk 6:30-44 and Mk 8:1-9) reflects the repeated references to the issue of Church unity in the Pauline hypotexts of the Marcan Gospel (Gal  2:14 and 1  Cor 1:10-16). According to Mark, this unity should be particularly visible in the Eucharist, and for this reason the evangelist illustrated it with two feeding accounts: one pointing to the issue of Jewish–Gentile table fellowship

106

Mk 8:10-13 (cf. 1 Cor 1:17-23)

(Mk 6:30-44; cf. Gal 2:14) and one pointing to the unity within the Gentile communities (Mk 8:1-9; cf. 1 Cor 1:10-16).

2.1.2. Mk 8:10-13 (cf. 1 Cor 1:17-23) The story about the Pharisees demanding a sign (Mk 8:10-13) evidently illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 1:17-23. The location of the story Mk 8:10-13, which describes Jesus and his disciples as coming to the otherwise unknown region of Dalmanutha (Mk 8:10),4 is very enigmatic. Already the author of the Gospel of Matthew perceived the name of Dalmanutha as too perplexing, and therefore he substituted it with the name which at least resembled a Semitic one (Mt 15:39).5 In fact, the name of the maritime region of Dalmanutha (Mk 8:10) probably, by means of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation, alludes to the name of the maritime region of Dalmatia.6 In antiquity, Dalmatia constituted the southern part of Illyricum.7 In Rom 15:19, Paul referred to Illyricum as the farthest point which he had reached in his mission of the proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles before his second travel to Jerusalem, and consequently before the composition of the letters to the Corinthians and to the Romans, which point to Paul’s resolve to come back to Jerusalem before going yet farther to the west, to Rome and to Spain (1 Cor 16:4; 2 Cor 8:19; Rom 15:25-28.30-31).8 Dalmatia was regarded in antiquity as a barbarian, generally wild region (Strabo, Geogr. 7.5.5; cf. 7:5.6-7, 10). For this reason, in Mk 8:10 the evangelist could have used the reworked name of Dalmatia in order to allude to Paul’s text which described his preaching as performed not with eloquent wisdom, but in terms of the foolishness of the cross, which destroys the wisdom of the wise (1  Cor 1:17-19; cf. 1:26). The second part of the name of Dalma-nutha (Δαλμα-νουθά: Mk 8:10) also has sapiential connotations (e.g. νουθετέω: ‘admonish, instruct’: Col 1:28 etc.), which suits the hypertextual reference to Paul’s text concerning true wisdom (1 Cor 1:17-19). 4 5 6 7 8

Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 579-580. Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 274. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999), 183. Cf. J. McRay, ‘Illyricum’, in ABD, vol. 3, 388-389 (esp. 388). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 27, 46-47, 57, 119; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 39, 55.



Mk 8:14-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:24-31)

107

The subsequent Marcan statements that the Pharisees in vain disputed (συζητέω) with Jesus (Mk  8:11ab), and sought (ζητέω) a sign (σημεῖον) from heaven (Mk 8:11) evidently, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, present Paul’s subsequent thought that the experts in Scripture and the disputers (συζητητής) of this age (1 Cor 1:20) in vain demand signs, and seek wisdom (1 Cor 1:22; cf. 1:21.23).9 Since Paul referred to the whole world (1 Cor 1:20-21) as demanding signs and seeking wisdom (1 Cor 1:22), therefore Mark likewise, somewhat surprisingly, replaced the initially introduced Pharisees (Mk 8:11) with the entire ‘this generation’, presented as seeking a sign (Mk 8:12c.e). The narratively superfluous remark that Jesus groaned (ἀναστενάζω) in his spirit (Mk 8:12a), which expressed his great pain (cf. Mk 7:34b: στενάζω; cf. also 2 Cor 5:4: στενάζομεν βαρούμενοι),10 additionally, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization, alludes to the idea of proclaiming Christ as crucified (1 Cor 1:23).

2.1.3. Mk 8:14-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:24-31) The story about the disciples’ incomprehension of Jesus’ power (Mk 8:14-21) illustrates the main Pauline ideas which are expressed in 1 Cor 1:24-31, especially that of Christ’s being God’s power and wisdom for those who believe in him. The sudden change of Jesus’ interlocutors from the Pharisees and this generation, who rejected Jesus (Mk 8:11-13), to Jesus’ disciples (Mk 8:14-21) reflects the similar change in the Pauline hypotext: from those who reject Christ (1 Cor 1:18-23) to those who are called to believe in him (1 Cor 1:24-31). The statement that the disciples in the boat had only one bread (εἷς ἄρτος: Mk 8:14) illustrates the Pauline idea that the community of those who are called by God (1  Cor 1:24a) consists of both Jews and Greeks (1  Cor 1:24b). Mark evidently again recalled here Paul’s argument that ‘because the bread is one (εἷς ἄρτος), we, who are numerous, are one body, for we all partake of the one bread’ (1 Cor 10:17). 9

10

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xix; M. D. Goulder, ‘A Pauline in a Jacobite Church’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck (BETL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 859-875 (esp. 868-869); T. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2012), 85, 145. Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 275.

108

Mk 8:22-26 (cf. 1 Cor 2:1)

The subsequent, evidently Jewish-style command that the disciples should ‘look away from’ the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod (Mk 8:15) illustrates the subsequent Pauline confession that Jesus is not only the Jewish Messiah, but also, for both Jews and Greeks, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24c-e). The negative references to the Pharisees (Mk 8:15d) and to Herod (Mk 8:15e), who in the Marcan Gospel by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality represent the followers of James (cf. Mk 2:16.18.24; 3:6; 7:1.3.5; 8:15 etc.) and Cephas (cf. Mk 3:6; 6:14-27), also illustrate the Pauline negative references to the followers of James and Cephas as opposing the idea of the unity of the Jewish– Gentile Church (1 Cor 1:24b; cf. Gal 2:12). For this reason, the Marcan disciples should partake of the one bread at the Jewish–Gentile Eucharist (Mk 8:15.17-21; cf. 1 Cor 10:17), and they should beware of the old, separatist ‘leaven’ (ζύμη) of the followers of James and of Cephas (Mk 8:15; cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; Gal 2:12). The accusations that the disciples failed to understand Jesus’ activity (Mk 8:1718) with the use of a scriptural quotation (Is 6:9-10 LXX; cf. Rom 11:8; Mk 4:12) allude to the Pauline-scriptural idea that the wisdom of God in Christ is wiser than men (1 Cor 1:24e-25a.27ab). Likewise, the references to Jesus’ powerful miracles (Mk 8:19-20) illustrate the Pauline idea that the power of God in Christ is stronger than men (1 Cor 1:24d.25b.27cd). The concluding reference to Jesus as leading the disciples to understanding (Mk 8:21) alludes to Paul’s concluding reference to Christ as the one who became wisdom from God for the believers (1 Cor 1:30-31).

2.2. Mk 8:22-26 (cf. 1 Cor 2:1) The story about the gradual healing of a blind man at Bethsaida (Mk 8:22-26) in a narrative way illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:1, especially those of coming to a Gentile maritime city, not excelling in speech or wisdom, and revealing the mystery of God. The opening statement of the story: ‘And they came (ἔρχομαι) to Bethsaida’ (Mk  8:22a) alludes to Paul’s statement concerning his coming to the Corinthians (1 Cor 2:1a). In fact, the narrative logic of the Marcan Gospel, as concerns the coming to Bethsaida, is quite strange. Jesus sent his disciples to Bethsaida after the first multiplication of loaves (Mk 6:45), but they failed to come there (Mk 6:53). Thereafter, Jesus went to Tyre, Sidon, Decapolis, and back to the Sea of Galilee (Mk 7:24.31). Subsequently, he travelled with his disciples to Dalma-



Mk 8:22-26 (cf. 1 Cor 2:1)

109

nutha (Mk 8:10) and to the other side of the sea (Mk 8:13). Only thereafter, he came with his disciples to Bethsaida (Mk 8:22).11 Such an itinerary is difficult to explain on the purely narratological level. However, it can be explained on the level of hypertextual allusions to Paul’s explicit or implicit statements concerning his travels through various regions of the Mediterranean. As was noted above, the first departure for the Gentile city of Bethsaida (Mk 6:45) by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to the assumed departure of Paul’s disciples from Antioch, apparently in the direction to the Gentile region of Achaea (Gal 2:15; cf. 2:1); the arrival in the northern region of Gennesaret (Mk 6:53) alludes to Paul’s arrival in the northern country of Galatia (Gal  3:5); the travel deep into the Gentile regions of Tyre, Sidon, Decapolis, and back to the Sea of Galilee (Mk 7:24.31) alludes to Paul’s activity in ‘deep’ Galatia, among pure Gentiles (Gal 5:22-6:11), but also directed to the Israelites (Gal 6:12-16; esp. 6:16); the travel to Dalmanutha (Mk 8:10) and back to the other side of the sea (Mk 8:13) alludes to Paul’s travel to Illyricum/ Dalmatia (Rom 15:19) and back to Achaea; and the arrival in the Hellenistic village-city of Bethsaida, which was located on the Gentile side of the lake of Gennesaret (Mk 8:22; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.28), alludes to Paul’s arrival in the Gentile city of Corinth (1 Cor 2:1). The image of a certain number of people leading a blind man (Mk 8:22b), which differs from the subsequent image of a lone blind man coming to Jesus (Mk 10:50), may allude to Paul’s statement concerning his coming to a certain number of ‘brothers’ in Corinth (1 Cor 2:1a). The particular kind of Jesus’ activity at Bethsaida, namely that of healing a blind man (Mk 8:22b-25), which did not previously occur in the Marcan Gospel (diff. Mk 7:32 etc.), alludes to Paul’s cognitive idea of proclaiming the mystery of God among the Gentiles (1 Cor 2:1c). Mark illustrated this idea of Greek-oriented religious ‘mystery’ with the use of the motif of initiation into mystery religions, which was often presented as a passage from the darkness of the night to the light of the day (cf. e.g. Apuleius, Metam. 11.23-24, 29). The surprising description of Jesus’ leading the blind man out of the village (Mk 8:23ab.26), which differs from the previously used, thematically corresponding, more natural phrase ‘aside from the multitude’ (Mk 7:33), further illustrates the Pauline idea of proclaiming the mystery of God (1  Cor 2:1c) by means of evoking the image of mystery rituals, which were usually performed somewhat secretly outside the city (cf. e.g. Euripides, Bacch. 217-220, 810, 1043-1057; Apuleius, Metam. 10.35-11.17). 11

Cf. B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, transl. W. H. Bissche­ roux (JSNTSup 164; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 278-279; B. Standaert, Marc, 519, 594.

110

Mk 8:27-30 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2a-c)

The likewise surprising image of Jesus’ spitting in the eyes of the blind man (Mk 8:23c; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 4.81.1: genas et oculorum orbes… respergere oris excremento; Suetonius, Vesp. 7.2: oculos… inspuisset),12 which presents Jesus’ activity as somehow oral, but also evidently inelegant, in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s idea that his proclamation was performed not with excellence of speech or wisdom (1 Cor 2:1b). The surprising description of Jesus’ healing as performed in two stages (Mk 8:24-25),13 something which occurs nowhere else in the Marcan Gospel (diff. Mk 6:5; 7:32-35 etc.), evokes the idea of mystery religions with their gradual initiation (cf. e.g. Apuleius, Metam. 11.26-30), and consequently it further alludes to Paul’s statement concerning the mystery of God (1 Cor 2:1c). It should be noted that mystery religions were practised, among other places, near Cenchreae, the harbour town of the city of Corinth (Apuleius, Metam. 10.35). This fact could have additionally influenced Mark’s resolve to illustrate the fragment of the First Letter to the Corinthians which referred to proclaiming the mystery of God (1 Cor 2:1c) with the use of the image of secret initiation into a mystery religion (Mk 8:23-26).

2.3. Mk 8:27-9:1 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2-6) The section Mk 8:27-9:1, which argues that Jesus the Messiah is in fact a crucified and risen Messiah, is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:2-6, which describes Paul’s faith in Jesus Christ as crucified, and in God’s power which is active through such faith.

2.3.1. Mk 8:27-30 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2a-c) The story about Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Mk 8:27-30) illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:2a-c. The name of Caesarea of Philip (Καισάρεια ἡ Φιλίππου), as referring to an important city which was located far in the north in the tetrarchy of Philip, so that Jesus and his disciples had to ‘go out’ to it (Mk 8:27), was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 2.168; Ant. 18.28 (Φίλιππος… Καισάρειαν). This imperial name provided an 12

13

Since the Gospel of Mark was written after the works of Josephus (which, as should be noted, contain no reference to Vespasian’s miracle: Jos. B.J. 4.656-658), so presumably c. ad 100-110, the influence of Tacitus, Hist. 4.81, which was presumably also written c. ad 100-110, on Mk 8:23 cannot be excluded. Cf. also E. Eve, ‘Spit in Your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria’, NTS 54 (2008) 1-17. Cf. C. Focant, L’évangile selon Marc (CBNT 2; Cerf: Paris 2004), 309-310; B. Standaert, Marc, 597.



Mk 8:31-33 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2d-5)

111

appropriate setting for the confession of Jesus as the royal Messiah (Mk 8:29; cf. 8:30), who was crucified by the Romans (Jos. Ant. 18.63 [in its original form]; Mk 8:34; 15:15 etc.), but who will bring about the kingdom of God with power (Phlp 2:9-11; Mk 9:1 etc.).14 Moreover, the imperial name of Caesarea alludes to the content of the Jewish Christian proclamation of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah,15 as it was presumably formulated in Rome, under the authority of the Jerusalem community, with its leader Cephas (Mk 8:29; cf. Rom 15:30-31). The three answers to Jesus’ question: ‘Who do people say that I am?’ (Mk 8:27), which falsely identify Jesus as John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets (Mk 8:28; cf. 6:14-15), and consequently point to other important characters except Jesus, illustrate Paul’s idea that he decided to know nothing among the Corinthians, except Jesus (1 Cor 2:2a-c). The subsequent confession of Jesus as the Messiah/Christ (ὁ χριστός: Mk 8:29) in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s confession of Jesus as Christ (Χριστός: 1 Cor 2:2c). In the Marcan Gospel, such a confession, which was put by the evangelist in the mouth of Peter (Mk 8:29), is in itself evidently insufficient because it expresses merely Jewish Christian faith in Jesus as the Jewish royal Messiah (cf. Mk 8:30-9:1).16 In fact, Mark presented Peter as believing in Jesus as the royal Messiah (Mk 8:29) but not in the Pauline halachic consequences of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Mk 8:31-33; cf. Gal 2:12.16-21).17

2.3.2. Mk 8:31-33 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2d-5) Jesus’ dialogue with Peter concerning the importance of understanding the kerygmatic plans of God, and not those of humans (Mk 8:31-33), illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:2d-5, especially that of preaching the power of God, and not the wisdom of humans. Jesus’ kerygmatic prediction of his great suffering, being rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the experts in Scripture, being killed, and after three days rising again (Mk 8:31), which was presented as his astonishingly open, proclaiming speech (λόγος: Mk 8:32a), illustrates Paul’s idea that when he accepted Jesus’

14 15 16 17

Cf. M. Ebner, ‘Evangelium contra Evangelium: Das Markusevangelium und der Aufstieg der Flavier’, BN, nf 116 (2003) 28-42 (esp. 30, 32). Cf. J. Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Mark 8-16 (AB 27A; Yale: New Haven · London 2009), 610, 612. Cf. P. Mascilongo, «Ma voi, chi dite che io sia?» Analisi narrativa dell’identità di Gesù e del cammino dei discepoli nel Vangelo secondo Marco, alla luce della “Confessione di Pietro” (Mc 8,27-30) (AnBib 192; Gregorian and Biblical: Roma 2011), 95-96. Cf. A. Loisy, L’Évangile selon Marc (Émile Noury: Paris 1912), 245-246.

112

Mk 8:31-33 (cf. 1 Cor 2:2d-5)

cross, as well as weakness, fear, and much trembling (1 Cor 2:2d-3), his speech and proclamation consisted in a demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor 2:4). The particular elements of the Marcan kerygmatic description of Jesus’ passion and resurrection (Mk 8:31) originate from Paul’s presentation of the Jews as inflicting suffering (πάσχω) and as killing (ἀποκτείνω) Jesus (1 Thes 2:14-15), Josephus’ remark concerning the principal men among the Jews as having caused Jesus’ death (Jos. Ant. 18.64 [in its original form]), Paul’s reference to Jesus’ rising again (ἀνίστημι) after his death (1 Thes 4:14), and the Pauline creedal statement that Jesus has been risen on the third day (ἡμέρα) in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:4).18 Moreover, the image of the Son of Man (υἱὸς + ἀνθρώπου) as both suffering and glorious (Mk 8:31; cf. 8:38) originates from the Scriptures (esp. Ezek 2:3-3:11; Dan 7:13-14 LXX).19 It should be noted that the triple prediction of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34) creates an evidently tragic thread in the presentation of Jesus’ life in the Marcan Gospel. In fact, such a repeated prediction of the death of the main hero, who is conscious of his inevitable fate, and nevertheless proceeds on his way to meet his tragic destiny, clearly evokes Greek epic and tragedy, especially Homer’s Iliad. In this most famous work of Greek literature, Hector repeatedly receives predictions that he will soon die (Il. 6.407-410, 447449; 16.852-854, 859; cf. 15.68, 612-614; 16.800; 18.133; 21.296-297; 22.5 etc.), and nevertheless goes ahead to fight against Achilles (Il. 6.441-446; 16.860-861; 22.92-130). Mark in a similar way depicted the behaviour of Jesus (Mk  8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; 14:32-42).20 In fact, the Marcan interpretation of the primary reason for Jesus’ death, which is expressed in the form of an impersonal, quasi-oracular ‘must’ (δεῖ: Mk 8:31; cf. 9:31; 10:32-34), is post-pagan (cf. e.g. Herodotus, Hist. 8.53: ἔδεε) rather than post-Pauline (cf. e.g. Rom 8:32-39; Gal 2:20: loving and giving oneself). It can be argued that Mark depicted Jesus with the features of Hector, the only Asian royal character who was highly respected by the Greeks after the Persian wars, in order to present Jesus, the Jewish and consequently Asian Messiah, who was confessed

18 19

20

Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 131-132. Cf. H.  F.  Bayer, Das Evangelium des Markus (HTANT; SCM R.  Brockhaus: Witten 2008), 316-317; É.  Nodet, ‘Évangiles: de Jean à Marc’, RB 120 (2013) 182-219 (esp. 198); J. D. G. Dunn, ‘The Son of Man in Mark’, in J. H. Charlesworth and D. L. Bock (eds.), Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (JCTCRS 11; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2013), 18-34 (esp. 22-29, 34). Cf. D. R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000), 132-134, according to whom Jesus’ predictions of his inevitable death more closely resemble those of Achilles.



Mk 8:34-9:1 (cf. 1 Cor 2:6)

113

as the Lord over the whole world (1 Cor 15:27-28; Rom 14:9; Phlp 2:9-11 etc.), in a way that could be understandable and acceptable to his Hellenistic audience.21 The subsequent description of the blameworthy behaviour of Peter as rebuking Jesus (Mk 8:32b-d) in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of persuasive words of merely human wisdom (1 Cor 2:5a; cf. 2:4a). Jesus’ related rebuke, which was directed to Peter and also to Jesus’ disciples, namely that Peter’s words resulted from being prudent not in the things of God but in those of humans (negation + θεοῦ + ἀλλά + ἀνθρώπων: Mk 8:33), with the use of the sapiential term φρονέω (‘be prudent’) instead of the Pauline σοφία (‘wisdom’) illustrates Paul’s related idea that our faith should be not in the wisdom of humans but in the power of God (negation + ἀνθρώπων + ἀλλά + θεοῦ: 1 Cor 2:5).

2.3.3. Mk 8:34-9:1 (cf. 1 Cor 2:6) The paradoxical sapiential instructions concerning Christ’s wisdom as opposed to the wisdom of the world, which is about to perish (Mk 8:34-9:1), sequentially illustrate the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:6. The opening instruction, which was formulated in a sapiential way as a conditional sentence and which was directed to Christian believers (Mk  8:34), illustrates Paul’s statement concerning his speaking wisdom among mature ones (1  Cor 2:6a). The content of this particularly Christian instruction, namely the exhortation to come after Jesus by denying oneself, taking up one’s cross, and following Jesus (Mk 8:34), reflects Paul’s definition of Christian wisdom as based on imitating Christ crucified (1 Cor 2:2c-3; cf. 2:4.8). The subsequent sapiential monologue (Mk 8:35-38) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that the Christian wisdom is not of this age/world (1 Cor 2:6b). The first set of examples, which concerns saving or loosing one’s life/soul (ψυχή), compares Christian wisdom with common wisdom of the world (Mk  8:35.37). In order to illustrate the Pauline idea that Christians should oppose common human wisdom (1 Cor 2:6b), Mark drew the famous example of Socrates, who argued that a philosopher who obeys God should prefer to care for his soul (ψυχή) rather than for his property (Plato, Apol. 29d-30b). The additional motif of gaining (κερδαίνω) or loosing (ζημιόω) the highest values in one’s life (Mk 8:36) was borrowed from Phlp 3:8 (cf. 3:7).22 The instruction concerning not associating oneself with this (οὗτος) generation because it will perish when the Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father 21 22

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 267-269; id., Constructing, 139-140. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 190; T. Dykstra, Mark, 100, 145.

114

Mk 9:2-8 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8)

with the holy angels (Mk 8:38) illustrates Paul’s idea of not following the wisdom of this age/world because it is doomed to perish (1 Cor 2:6b; cf. 2:6c). The image of the Son of Man (υἱὸς + ἀνθρώπου) as coming (ἔρχομαι) in heavenly glory (δόξα: Mk 8:38) originates from Dan 7:13-14 LXX.23 The subsequent, perplexing prediction that some of the people who are standing here will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God as having come with power (Mk 9:1) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that the rulers of this age/ world are doomed to perish (1 Cor 2:6c). In fact, the Marcan image (Mk 9:1) indirectly presents the rulers of this age/world as doomed to be soon replaced with the powerful kingdom of God. The solemn prediction of a triumphal Parousia of Christ and of the kingdom of God (βασιλεία + θεός) as coming with power (δύναμις) before the death of some of the believers (Mk 9:1; cf. 13:30) evidently originates from 1 Cor 15:23-24.51-53 (cf. 1 Thes 4:15.17; 2 Cor 5:4).24

2.4. Mk 9:2-13 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-9) The section Mk 9:2-13, with its main theme of future glory, regarded as hidden but predicted in Scripture, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 2:7-9.

2.4.1. Mk 9:2-8 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8) The story about Jesus’ transformation to his future glory, which was somehow predicted in Scripture (Mk 9:2-8), illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:7-8. The opening, narratively superfluous remark concerning the time after six days (Mk 9:2a; diff. Exod 24:16 LXX: ‘on the seventh day’) evidently alludes to the day of the Sabbath, which was regarded as the day of blessing, holiness, and rest (Gen 2:2-3),25 and consequently as foreshadowing in a mysterious way, al-

23 24

25

Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 2, Mk 8,27-16,20 (EKKNT 2/2; 5th edn., Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 26; É. Nodet, ‘Évangiles’, 198. It should be noted that such eschatology was characteristic of Paul’s early letters, when he still hoped to proclaim fully the gospel of Christ to the whole Gentile world, from Jerusalem and its environs in the east to Spain in the west (Rom 15:18-19.23-24), during his lifetime (Rom 15:28). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 38. Cf. M. E. Thrall, ‘Elijah and Moses in Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration’, NTS 16 (1969-1970) 305-317 (esp. 311); W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 297.



Mk 9:2-8 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8)

115

ready before the ages of the history of the world, the future glory of the believers, an idea which was expressed in 1 Cor 2:7. The image of Jesus’ leading three chosen apostles up to a high mountain (εἰς ὄρος), apart by themselves (Mk 9:2ab), in a narrative way, with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from Exod 24:15-16 LXX,26 illustrates the Pauline idea of revelation of a hidden mystery (1 Cor 2:7ab). The Marcan motif of revealing something to the three ‘pillar’ apostles, namely Peter, James, and John, in private (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν: Mk 9:2ab; cf. 13:8; cf. also 4:34; 6:31-32; 7:33; 9:28) evidently originates from the Pauline statement concerning his discussion with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ in private (Gal 2:2).27 The subsequent image of Jesus’ transformation into a glorious, heavenly person (Mk 9:2c-3) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of leading the believers to their future glory (1 Cor 2:7c), as well as that of Jesus as the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8c). The particular idea of transformation (μεταμορφόω: Mk 9:2c) most probably originates from Rom 8:29-30, which expresses a similar Pauline idea of being predestined (προορίζω: Rom 8:29-30; cf. 1 Cor 2:7c) to be conformed (σύμμορφος: Rom 8:29; cf. Mk 9:2c) to the image of God’s Son, and consequently to be glorified (δοξάζω: Rom 8:30; cf. 1 Cor 2:7c). In his description of Jesus’ transformation into a glorious, heavenly person Mark evidently also used the motifs borrowed from Dan 7:9 LXX: clothing, being white (λευκός), and fiery flames/rays. The characters of Elijah with Moses, listed in this surprising, non-scriptural order (diff. Mk 9:5),28 as talking with Jesus (Mk 9:4) in a narrative way further illustrate Paul’s idea of God’s mystery as predetermined (hence the importance of the prophet Elijah) already in the past, before the ages (1 Cor 2:7c), so presumably in Scripture (1 Cor 2:9), especially through its prophets (Rom 1:2 etc.). Peter’s subsequent reaction presents him as understanding Jesus merely as ‘my great one’ (‘rabbi’: cf. 4Q529 frag. 1:6-7.9-12: ‫)רבי‬, placing Jesus merely at the same level with the scriptural authorities Moses and Elijah (diff. Mk 9:7: God’s beloved Son),29 and regarding strict adherence to the Mosaic law as more important than believing in the prophecies, which predicted the glory of the believers (Mk 9:5; cf. 1 Cor 2:9; Rom 1:2). Consequently, the words of Peter (Mk 9:5), the leader of the Jerusalem community (Gal 1:18), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality represent illustrate Paul’s subsequent thought that the rul26

27 28 29

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007), 417; W.  Eckey, Markusevangelium, 297; A.  Wypadlo, Die Verklärung Jesu nach dem Markusevangelium: Studien zu einer christologischen Legitimationserzählung (WUNT 308; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 294-296. Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 155-156. Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 298; A. Wypadlo, Verklärung, 162. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 639.

116

Mk 9:2-8 (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8)

ers of this world did not understand the mystery of God (1 Cor 2:8a; cf. previously Mk 8:32-33 and 1 Cor 2:5a).30 The motif of making tents (ποιέω + σκηνή) related to the mountain (Mk 9:5) evidently originates from Exod 25:9 LXX etc.31 The sapiential statement that Peter did not know what to say (Mk 9:6ab) further illustrates the Pauline idea that the rulers of this world did not understand the wisdom of God (1 Cor 2:8a). The somewhat surprisingly added remark that they (in pl.) were terrified (Mk 9:6c), a statement which refers to the three ‘pillar’ apostles (cf. Mk 9:2a), who ruled over the Jerusalem community (Gal 2:9),32 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s statement that the rulers of this world (in pl.) did not understand God’s wisdom (1 Cor 2:8a). Therefore, the behaviour of Peter and the other ‘pillar’ apostles in Mk 9:5-6 again reflects Paul’s negative statements concerning Cephas and other Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:12.16-21). The subsequent, scriptural image of God’s voice (φωνή) coming out of an overshadowing (ἐπισκιάζω) cloud (νεφέλη), which revealed God’s mystery to the Jewish Christian chosen ones (Mk 9:7a-c; cf. Exod 19:16; 24:15; 40:35; Ezek 1:28 LXX),33 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that the Jewish ‘rulers of this world’, who were educated in Scripture, should have understood God’s wisdom (1 Cor 2:8b; cf. 1 Thes 2:15-16; Gal 2:12.16-21). The subsequent, scriptural phrase ‘the beloved Son’ (ὁ υἱός + ὁ ἀγαπητός), which revealed Jesus’ divine sonship, but also his Isaac-like sacrifice (Mk 9:7d; cf. Gen 22:2.12.16 LXX),34 illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that the Lord of glory, in fact God’s own Son, was crucified (1 Cor 2:8c; cf. Rom 8:32). The related command to obey Jesus (ἀκούω + gen. αὐτοῦ: Mk 9:7e) further illustrates Paul’s idea of Christ’s lordship (1 Cor 2:8c). Likewise, the concluding statement that suddenly, when the disciples looked around, they saw no one anymore, especially Moses with Elijah (cf. Mk 9:4-5), but only Jesus with themselves (Mk 9:8) alludes to Paul’s idea that only Christ, glorious as well as weak, is the Lord for the believers (1 Cor 2:8c).

30 31 32 33 34

Therefore, the Semitic title rabbi (‘my great one’) functions in Mk 9:5 as a Jewish Christian, christologically unsatisfactory counterpart of the Pauline title ‘the Lord’ (1 Cor 2:8c). Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 417, 424. Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 118. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 425; A. Wypadlo, Verklärung, 222, 224, 290-291, 296. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 426; A. Wypadlo, Verklärung, 228, 277.



Mk 9:9-13 (cf. 1 Cor 2:9)

117

2.4.2. Mk 9:9-13 (cf. 1 Cor 2:9) The story about the disciples’ questions concerning the resurrection of the believers as foretold in Scripture (Mk 9:9-13) illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:9. The opening command not to describe to anyone the things that the disciples saw (Mk 9:9b-d), which differs from the preceding similar commands Mk 5:43; 7:36 in the use of the verbs ‘see’ (ὁράω) and ‘describe’ (Mk 9:9cd), alludes to the idea of the future glorious things as ‘the things which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and have not entered to the human heart’ (1 Cor 2:9b-d). Mark illustrated this Pauline-scriptural idea with the use of the image of glorious things which only few people saw, and which should not be described to others because they would certainly be misunderstood, in fact even by the Jewish Christian disciples (Mk 9:9-10). The related statement concerning the resurrection of the suffering Son of Man (Mk 9:9e; cf. 9:12d-f) presents him, in line with the Pauline thought which was expressed in 1 Cor 2:8c, as the crucified Lord of glory. On the other hand, the disciples’ subsequent question concerning universal resurrection (Mk 9:10cd) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the glorious things as prepared by God for the believers (1 Cor 2:9ef). The unexpectedly introduced question concerning the opinion of the experts in Scripture (γραμματεῖς: Mk 9:11c) alludes to Paul’s remark that the future glorious things will happen according to what has been written (γέγραπται), apparently in Scripture (1 Cor 2:9a). The scriptural content of the disciples’ question, namely that Elijah should come (ἔρχομαι) first (Mk  9:11de), so presumably before the coming of the eschatological day of the Lord (cf. Mal 3:23 LXX [Eng. 4:5]),35 further illustrates this Pauline idea. Moreover, the Pauline formula ‘as it has been written’ (καθὼς γέγραπται: 1 Cor 2:9a), was further used in Jesus’ Scripture-based response to the disciples’ question (Mk 9:12-13; esp. 9:12d.13e). The related, paradoxical idea of the suffering of the glorious characters of the Son of Man (Mk 9:12d-f) and of Elijah (Mk 9:13cd), the latter of which being surprisingly presented as having already been afflicted (Mk 9:13bc),36 presumably unwittingly in the beheadal of John the Baptist by ‘King Herod’ (Mk 6:14-29), illustrates Paul’s related thought that the rulers of this world have unwittingly crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8bc). Since the combination of the Pauline statements 1 Cor 2:8c-9a presented the crucifixion of the Lord of glory (1 Cor 35 36

Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 341, 343; K. S. O’Brien, The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative (LNTS 384; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010), 210; B. Standaert, Marc, 668. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 432.

118

Mk 9:14-29 (cf. 1 Cor 2:10-3:17)

2:8c) as having been somehow predicted in Scripture (1 Cor 2:9a), Mark likewise, somewhat surprisingly,37 presented the suffering of not only the Son of Man, but also of the eschatological character of Elijah, as having been predicted in Scripture (Mk 9:13e).

2.5. Mk 9:14-29 (cf. 1 Cor 2:10-3:17) The story about the healing of an epileptic, with its repeated references to a spirit (Mk 9:14-29), illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text concerning fleshly and spiritual people (1 Cor 2:10-3:17). The opening image of a dispute between Jesus’ disciples and experts in Scripture (Mk 9:14-16), which is untypical of Mark, who used to present Jesus as disputing with experts in Scripture (Mk 8:11; 12:28 etc.), in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s idea of the opposition between two kinds of religious wisdom: that taught by God’s Spirit and by Christ on the one hand, and that taught by humans and by a literal understanding of Scripture on the other (1 Cor 2:10-16; esp. 2:13.16). The related image of Jesus’ disciples and Jesus himself as surrounded by a great crowd which expressed great sympathy for them (Mk 9:14b.15; cf. 9:1617a) illustrates the related Pauline idea that spiritual people influence other spiritual people (1 Cor 2:13), and they are not judged by anyone (1 Cor 2:15b). Moreover, the particular way of addressing Jesus by someone from the crowd, namely as a teacher (διδάσκαλος: Mk 9:17b), additionally alludes to the idea of spiritual wisdom as related to being taught (διδακτός: 1 Cor 2:13). The subsequent, somewhat redundant image of a sick son (Mk 9:17b), who was later referred to as a child (Mk 9:24) who was sick from his childhood (Mk 9:21), paradigmatically, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, illustrates the subsequent Pauline metaphor of spiritually immature believers as infants in Christ (1 Cor 3:1). The related, surprising description of the spirit (πνεῦμα) which was in the child as a non-speaking (ἄλαλον) spirit (Mk 9:17c), and later as a non-speaking and deaf spirit (Mk 9:25e), something which is untypical of Mark,38 who used to present evil spirits as crying out within possessed people (Mk 9:26; cf. 1:23.26; 3:11; 5:2.5.7-8), illustrates the related Pauline thought concerning the believers who were no more spiritual (πνευματικός), so that Paul could not speak (λαλέω) to them (1 Cor 3:1), and their speech became wrong in terms of faith (1 Cor 3:4).

37 38

Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 42. Cf. T. Nicklas, ‘Formkritik und Leserrezeption: Ein Beitrag zur Methodendiskussion am Beispiel Mk 9,14-29’, Bib 90 (2009) 496-514 (esp. 504, 508).



Mk 9:14-29 (cf. 1 Cor 2:10-3:17)

119

The subsequent image of the sick boy as bursting, foaming at the mouth, gnashing his teeth, and becoming rigid, apparently because of his epilepsy (Mk 9:18b-e; cf. 9:20c-f), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transmotivation illustrates the highly emotional behaviour of the people who were subsequently referred to by Paul as overcome by envy and strife (1 Cor 3:3b). The particular image of foaming at the mouth (Mk 9:18c.20f) alludes to the Pauline idea of giving milk to drink (1 Cor 3:2a). In fact, Mark in an imaginative way combined two originally unrelated actions, namely that of being fed with milk (1  Cor  3:2a) and that of expressing strife (1 Cor 3:3b), to form the vivid image of foaming at the mouth (Mk 9:18c). The Marcan idea that the disciples were not strong enough to cast out the evil spirit because of their deficient faith (Mk  9:18-19.22-24.28-29: δύναμαι + πιστεύω) illustrates the Pauline idea that the spiritually immature believers, whose faith (πιστεύω: 1 Cor 3:5c) is deficient (1 Cor 3:1.3-4), are not strong (δύναμαι: 1 Cor 3:2cd). The surprising thought that Jesus was already too long with this generation (Mk 9:19bc)39 alludes to Paul’s thought that he merely planted, and others should now work in his place (1 Cor 3:6). The same Pauline idea of progress of work (1 Cor 3:6) seems to be alluded to by the narratively superfluous Marcan idea of the passage of time (Mk 9:21). The surprising and in fact narratively redundant idea of often throwing the child both into the fire (πῦρ) and into the water, in order to destroy him (Mk 9:22bc), alludes to Paul’s arguments concerning both the role of water in agriculture (1 Cor 3:6-9b) and the destructive danger of fire in house-building (1 Cor 3:9c-15). The image of the child as one dead, so that many said that he was dead (Mk 9:26d-f), and the related image of Jesus as taking him by the hand and raising (ἐγείρω) him, so that he arose (ἀνίστημι: Mk 9:27), which evidently evoke the idea of the resurrection from the dead (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-4; 1 Thes 4:14; Mk 5:41-42; 12:25-26 etc.),40 allude to Paul’s recurrent eschatological idea of the resurrection of the believers (1 Cor 3:8.13-15). The concluding statement concerning the necessity of prayer (προσευχή: Mk 9:29; cf. 9:28) illustrates the likewise concluding Pauline idea of the believers as the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16-17), for Mark regarded the temple of God as the house of prayer (προσευχή: Mk 11:17). Consequently, the textual addition ‘and fasting’ (και νηστεια: Mk 9:29 p45vid, A et al.) is evidently a later, ascetic gloss,41 which has nothing to do with the original, hypertextual meaning of Mk 9:29 as 39 40 41

Cf. ibid. 510; B. Standaert, Marc, 684-685. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 664. Cf. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 1998), 85.

120

Mk 9:30-32 (cf. 1 Cor 3:18-19)

alluding to the idea of the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16-17) by means of the widely understandable motif of prayer in the temple (cf. Mk 11:17).

2.6. Mk 9:30-50 (cf. 1 Cor 3:18-6:11) The section Mk 9:30-50, which refers to the issues of not understanding the words about the cross and resurrection, comparing apostles to one another, being servants, being like a father to children, being sent, acting elsewhere with power, showing kindness towards others, and rejecting some of the members of the body, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 3:18-6:11.

2.6.1. Mk 9:30-32 (cf. 1 Cor 3:18-19) The prediction of Jesus’ death and resurrection, together with the remarks that people could not understand its divine logic (Mk 9:30-32), sequentially alludes to Paul’s statements concerning not understanding God’s wisdom (1 Cor 3:18-19). The second prediction of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection (Mk 9:3032) evidently differs from the first one (Mk  8:31-33) in its opening, surprising statement that Jesus passed through Galilee, but did not want anyone to know it (Mk 9:30b-d). This cognitive statement in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s opening exhortations not to deceive oneself (1 Cor 3:18a) and to become apparently foolish and not wise in this world (1 Cor 3:18b-d). The subsequent prediction of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection (Mk 9:31) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of becoming wise, presumably with God’s wisdom (1  Cor 3:18e), which in Paul’s theology was tantamount to the logic of the power of God in Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:18.23-24; 2:7-8). Besides, the somewhat vague reference to delivering (παραδίδωμι) the Son of Man into human hands (Mk 9:31c; diff. 8:31cd) originates from 1 Cor 11:23c (‘on the night when he was delivered’). The subsequent statement that the disciples did not understand Jesus’ saying about his death and resurrection (Mk 9:32a; cf. 9:31) illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the wisdom of this world is in fact foolishness with God (1 Cor 3:19a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising statement that the disciples were afraid to ask Jesus (Mk 9:32b),42 which significantly differs from the preceding repeated descriptions of their asking Jesus (Mk 7:17; 9:11.28), in a narrative way illustrates the subsequent scriptural-Pauline statement that God ‘catches the wise in their craftiness’ (1 Cor 3:19b). 42

Cf. H. F. Bayer, Markus, 344-345; B. Standaert, Marc, 696-697.



Mk 9:33-37 (cf. 1 Cor 3:20-4:17)

121

2.6.2. Mk 9:33-35 (cf. 1 Cor 3:20-4:13) The story about the apostles as comparing themselves one to one another, together with the exhortation to be servants of others (Mk 9:33-35), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 3:20-4:13. The introduction to the pericope, which somewhat surprisingly suggests that Jesus knew what the disciples were debating (διαλογίζομαι: Mk  9:33), and the subsequent statement that the disciples became ashamedly silent because they had debated (διαλέγομαι) with one another who was greater (Mk  9:34) illustrate the scriptural-Pauline statement that ‘the Lord knows the debates/thoughts (διαλογισμός) of the wise, that they are futile’ (1 Cor 3:20). The subsequent thought that the disciples, in particular the Twelve, debated who among them was greater and first (Mk 9:34bc.35b-e) alludes to Paul’s subsequent exhortations not to boast among humans (1 Cor 3:21) and not to compare Paul with Apollos, and especially Cephas (1 Cor 3:22; cf. 4:6; 15:9-10), who was presented by Paul as the most prominent Jewish Christian apostle and the leader of the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18-19; 2:8). The subsequent ideas that an apostle shall be last (ἔσχατος) of all and servant (διάκονος) of all (Mk 9:35f) evidently illustrate Paul’s subsequent ideas that the apostles should be considered servants of Christ (1 Cor 4:1; cf. 3:5: διάκονος)43 and last ones (1 Cor 4:9). Mark reversed the Pauline order of ideas (servants – last ones: 1 Cor 4:1-13) in Mk 9:35 (last ones – servants) in order to develop smoothly the preceding idea of comparing the apostles with one another (1 Cor 3:21-22; Mk 9:34).

2.6.3. Mk 9:36-37 (cf. 1 Cor 4:14-17) The example of being like a father to children, an idea which exhorts the disciples to receive the one who was sent by God (Mk 9:36-37), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 4:14-17. The narratively redundant remark that Jesus took a little child and set it in the midst of the disciples (Mk 9:36ab), so that the child could be ashamed but also admonished, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Paul’s somewhat redundant remark that he intended not to shame his followers, but to admonish them (1 Cor 4:14a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising, indeed bold description of Jesus’ hugging the little child (παιδίον),44 like a father does to his children whom he loves and whom he begot (Mk 9:36a.c), illustrates Paul’s subsequent declaration that his at43 44

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 194. Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 703.

122

Mk 9:38-41 (cf. 1 Cor 4:18-21)

titude to his believers could be compared to that of a father to his beloved children whom he begot (1 Cor 4:14b.15bc), and not that of a ‘child-leader’ (παιδαγωγός) to those who were merely entrusted to him (1 Cor 4:15a). The paradigmatic function of the subsequent example of Jesus’ behaviour (Mk 9:36d) illustrates Paul’s subsequent exhortation that his believers should become imitators of him (1 Cor 4:16). The somewhat surprising content of the subsequent paradigmatic exhortation, namely that the disciples should receive one of these little children in the name of Jesus, and in this way receive Jesus himself, who was sent by the Father (Mk 9:37), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Paul’s subsequent exhortation that his believers should receive Timothy, who was sent by Paul and who was Paul’s beloved child in Christ, and in this way receive the apostle and his universally binding teaching, which was based on the authority of Christ (1 Cor 4:17).

2.6.4. Mk 9:38-41 (cf. 1 Cor 4:18-21) The paradigmatic story about acting elsewhere with power and showing kindness towards others (Mk 9:38-41) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 4:18-21. The opening idea that John and other Jewish Christian apostles saw someone who did not accompany them, and nevertheless was active among the Gentiles in an evangelistic way in Jesus’ name, but the Jewish Christian apostles tried to forbid him (Mk 9:38), illustrates Paul’s idea that he was active elsewhere in Christ’s name, presumably in other churches of the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor 4:17), but some of his presumably Jewish Christian opponents were puffed up against him (1 Cor 4:18). Jesus’ subsequent rebuke (Mk 9:39) alludes to Paul’s subsequent rebuke (1 Cor 4:19-20). In particular, the argument that the physically absent apostle works deeds of power (δύναμις) in Jesus’ name (Mk 9:39d) alludes to Paul’s argument that he brings about the kingdom of God in power (1 Cor 4:20b; cf. 4:19d). On the other hand, the related remark concerning speaking evil words (κακολογέω) against Jesus (Mk 9:39f) alludes to Paul’s related remark that his opponent speak evil words (λόγος) against him (1 Cor 4:19c.20a). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly added statement concerning someone who is not against the believers, so he is with them (Mk 9:40), alludes to Paul’s subsequent thought that he intended to come to the believers not with a stick, but with love (1 Cor 4:21bc). The concluding, likewise somewhat surprisingly added, paradigmatic statement concerning a particular way of showing kindness towards the believers



Mk 9:42-50 (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-6:11)

123

(Mk 9:41) alludes to Paul’s concluding thought that he intended to come to the believers with a spirit of gentleness (1 Cor 4:21c).

2.6.5. Mk 9:42-50 (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-6:11) The set of instructions concerning rejecting some of the members of the body (Mk 9:42-50) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 5:16:11, which refers to excommunicating some of the members of the Church. The opening statement concerning someone who would scandalize other believers (Mk 9:42ab) alludes to Paul’s statement concerning a scandalizing sin of one of the members of the community (1 Cor 5:1). The subsequently described, strange way of punishing such a person, namely by hanging a millstone operated by a donkey (and not by a woman, so very heavy) around his neck and throwing him (down) into the sea (Mk 9:42c-e)45 by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization alludes to Paul’s subsequent idea that the members of the community, who sided with the scandalizer, should not be puffed up, but should mourn (1 Cor 5:2ab). Mark evidently imagined someone puffed up (so floating) on the surface of the sea, but mourned when a heavy millstone was hung around his neck. The three subsequent, correlated instructions concerning cutting off and removing various members of the body (Mk 9:43-48)46 illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea of removing the scandalizer from among other members of the community (1  Cor 5:2c-5), which should be regarded as the body of Christ (1  Cor 12:1227). The example of the three particular members which are pointed to in the Marcan text, namely the hand (χείρ: Mk 9:43), the foot (πούς: Mk 9:45), and the eye (ὀφθαλμός: Mk 9:47) likewise originates from the Pauline text 1 Cor 12:1227, which in a particular way correlates the eye, the hand, the head, and the feet (1 Cor 12:21; cf. 12:15-17). From among these members, Mark chose those which are present in a human body in pairs, so that one of them could be removed: the eye, the hand, and the foot (Mk 9:43.45.47). The related ideas of entering life (Mk 9:43d.45d) and entering the kingdom of God (Mk 9:47d) allude to Paul’s related idea of being saved on the day of the Lord (1 Cor 5:5b). On the other hand, the particular descriptions of the destruction of the scandalizing members of the body in Gehenna (Mk 9:43f.45f.47f), namely by means of fire which is never quenched (Mk 9:43g.48b) and a worm which never 45

46

Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 64; R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2000), 512; D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity in the Gospel Parables’, TynBul 62 (2011) 161-172 (esp. 164). Cf. D. Seccombe, ‘Incongruity’, 164.

124

Mk 10:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:11)

dies (Mk 9:48a; cf. Is 66:24 LXX),47 in a graphic way illustrate Paul’s idea of delivering the scandalizing member of the community to Satan for the destruction of his flesh (1 Cor 5:5a). The particular, Semitic name of Gehenna (Mk 9:43f.45f.47f) was used by the evangelist as a metonymic allusion to the likewise Semitic name of its main inhabitant: Satan (1 Cor 5:5a). The subsequent, very enigmatic statement that everyone will be salted with fire (Mk 9:49)48 in a loose way alludes to Paul’s subsequent thought that the believers should be regarded as unleavened bread made from new dough (1  Cor 5:6-8). Mark referred here to common knowledge that salt and fire are necessary to make bread from dough. The subsequent, likewise astonishing statements that salt is good, but it may loose its flavour, so the believers should have salt in themselves (Mk 9:50a-d), allude to Paul’s subsequent ideas that it is possible that a believer may loose his Christian identity (1 Cor 5:11), but the community should retain it within itself (1 Cor 5:9-10.12-13; 6:1-11). The related, concluding exhortation to be at peace with one another (Mk 9:50e) illustrates Paul’s related idea of keeping peace with other members of the community (1 Cor 6:7). The particular formula: ‘Be at peace with one another’ (εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις: Mk 9:50e) originates from 1 Thes 5:13 (‘Be at peace among yourselves’: εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς), but Mark reformulated it in order to allude more clearly to Paul’s idea of keeping peace in relationships with other members of the community, notwithstanding conflicts with them (1 Cor 6:7-8).

2.7. Mk 10:1-16 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:16) The section Mk 10:1-16, with refers to marriage and children, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1  Cor 6:12-7:16.

2.7.1. Mk 10:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:11) The halachic dispute concerning divorce (Mk 10:1-12) sequentially elaborates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 6:12-7:11. The somewhat surprising introduction to the story, which presents Jesus as unexpectedly leaving Galilee (Mk 10:1a; cf. 9:30.33) and coming to the region of Judaea and beyond the Jordan (Mk  10:1b), an itinerary which is difficult to 47 48

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 454; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 321; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 367.



Mk 10:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:11)

125

explain in purely geographical terms of a travel from Galilee to Jerusalem (cf. Mk  10:32), alludes to the change of themes in the First Letter to the Corinthians: from ecclesiological and christological issues (1 Cor 1:1-6:11) to halachic and moral discussions concerning the validity of the Jewish law for the Gentiles (1 Cor 6:12-11:16). Accordingly, the surprising Marcan location of the story in the border region of ‘Judaea and beyond the Jordan’ (Mk 10:1b)49 alludes to the question of the application of Jewish halachic-moral rules to the life of the Gentile recipients of the letter (1 Cor 6:12-7:11; cf. Mk 10:1c-e). The question of the Pharisees ‘whether it is lawful (ἔξεστιν) for a man to divorce his wife’, a question which was meant as a test (Mk 10:2), alludes to Paul’s statements that all things are lawful, but not all things confer a benefit (1  Cor 6:12). The related argument that although the divorce is lawful according to the Mosaic law (Mk 10:3-4; cf. Deut 24:1 LXX),50 it does not benefit Jesus’ believers, who do not live according to the hardness of heart (Mk 10:5; cf. Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4 LXX: ‘circumcise your hardness of heart’),51 illustrates the same Pauline idea that although all things are lawful, not all things confer a benefit for the Pauline believers (1 Cor 6:12). The subsequent, combined quotation from Gen 1:27; 2:24a.c LXX in Mk 10:6852 is an expanded and more exact version of the subsequent, similar quotation from Gen  2:24c LXX in 1  Cor 6:16. The subsequent argument that what God (θεός) has joined together, a man (ἄνθρωπος) should not separate (Mk 10:9) illustrates the subsequent Pauline arguments concerning the strong bond between God, man, and his own body, that is also by metonymy his wife (1 Cor 6:17-20; cf. 6:16), with the use of the verb ‘separate’ (χωρίζω), which evidently does not originate from Gen 1:27; 2:24 LXX, but from the Pauline argument concerning a case in which a wife separates from her husband, although she is bound to him by the divine law (1 Cor 7:10-11; cf. 7:15).53 The subsequent, somewhat surprising statement that the disciples in the house again asked Jesus about this matter (Mk 10:10)54 alludes to the subsequent change 49 50 51 52

53 54

Cf. ibid. 371-372. Cf. ibid. 372-373; C. Breytenbach, ‘Die Vorschriften des Mose im Markusevangelium: Erwägungen zur Komposition von Mk 7,9-13; 10,2-9 und 12,18-27’, ZNW 97 (2006) 2343 (esp. 32); W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 325. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 72; C. Focant, Marc, 377. Cf. K.  S.  O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205; A.  Herrmann, Versuchung im Markusevangelium: Eine biblisch-hermeneutische Studie (BWANT 197; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2011), 187-188; F. De Carlo, ‘«Dal principio della creazione» (Mc 10,6; 13,19: La riscrittura marciana della Genesi’, RStB 24 (2012) no. 1-2, 227-254 (esp. 228). Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘Pauline’, 871. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 375; B. Standaert, Marc, 728.

126

Mk 10:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:11)

of the discursive mood in 1 Cor 7:1, namely from a more general-instructive one (1 Cor 6:12-20) to that of answering the disciples’ questions (1 Cor 7:1-40). The subsequent halachic instruction contained in Mk 10:11-12 is a reworking of the subsequent Pauline halachic instruction 1 Cor 7:10-11.55 In fact, contrary to the widespread opinion, the Pauline ‘command of the Lord’ concerning divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11) should be interpreted against the background of the earlier scriptural text Deut 24:1, and not of the later text Mk 10:11-12. In full agreement with the Jewish law (Deut 24:1), Paul permitted divorce and remarriage to the husband, but not to the wife (1 Cor 7:10-11; cf. 7:27-28; Jos. Ant. 15.259).56 This view is additionally confirmed by the fact that in both 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2-3 (which is, as a result of the sequential hypertextual reworking of the whole First Letter to the Corinthians in the whole Letter to the Romans, an elaboration of the structurally corresponding hypotext 1 Cor 7:10-11.39)57 Paul similarly referred only to the wife as bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives (cf. Deut 24:1),58 without mentioning any similar obligation of the husband. The command not to leave the wife (ἀφίημι: 1 Cor 7:11d; cf. 2 Sam 15:16; 20:3 LXX; cf. also Song 3:4; Ezek 16:39 LXX)59 probably referred to the practice of the Jerusalem apostles (which was interpreted as an authoritative ‘command of 55

56

57 58 59

Cf. G.  Volkmar, Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R.  Reisland): Leipzig 1870), 476-480; M.  D.  Goulder, ‘Pauline’, 871-872. The context of 1 Cor 7:10-11 additionally confirms that Paul permitted divorce and remarriage of the husband in agreement with the Jewish law (Deut 24:1). With the use of the verbs δέω (1 Cor 7:27a; cf. 7:39; Rom 7:2), λύω (1 Cor 7:27bc), and γαμέω (1 Cor 7:28ab), the Apostle described the case of being married, divorced, and married again. Moreover, Paul’s teaching concerning getting married (1 Cor 7:36.39) evidently qualified his earlier teaching concerning unmarried men (ὁ ἄγαμος: 1 Cor 7:32), unmarried and hence presumably divorced women (ἡ ἄγαμος: 1 Cor 7:34), and virgins (ἡ παρθένος: 1  Cor 7:34). The statements 1  Cor 7:12-15 concern the issues of not abandoning the household with the children, and letting the spouse go away from the household if he or she wishes to do so. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 57. Cf. P. J. Tomson, ‘Divorce Halakhah in Paul and the Jesus Tradition’, in R. Bieringer [et al.] (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (JSJSup 136; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 289-332 (esp. 319-320). It should be noted that the use of the verb ἀφίημι in the meaning ‘divorce’ can only be traced in Herodotus, Hist. 5.3, and even there presumably in the more general sense ‘dismiss’. The verb ἀφίημι was never used in the meaning ‘divorce’ in Hellenistic papyri: cf. D. Instone-Brewer, ‘1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri’, TynBul 52 (2001) 101-115 (esp. 107); P. Arzt-Grabner [et al.], 1. Korinther (PKNT 2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006), 269.



Mk 10:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 6:12-7:11)

127

the Lord’), who did not leave their wives while travelling (1 Cor 9:5).60 In Paul’s view, leaving the wife for a longer period of time could expose the couple to the temptation of sexual immorality, which should be avoided at all costs by the people who belong to the Lord (1 Cor 6:13-18; 7:2-5). Accordingly, the ‘command of the Lord’ in 1 Cor 7:10 refers both to the rule of the Jewish law (Deut 24:1) and to the practice of the Jerusalem apostles (1 Cor 9:5), but not to a saying of the historical Jesus.61 In difference to the Mosaic law and to Paul’s instructions, Mark imposed the legal obligation not to divorce and remarry on both the husband and the wife (Mk  10:11-12). This change was most probably suggested to the evangelist by the immediate context of 1 Cor 7:10-11, in which the apostle treated the obligations of the husband to his wife as being equal to those of the wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:2-5.12-16).62 Moreover, in place of the ambiguous Pauline verb ἀφίημι (‘leave’: 1 Cor 7:11d), Mark used the verb ἀπολύω (Mk 10:11-12), which in the marital context clearly refers to divorcing the spouse (cf. λύω: 1 Cor 7:27bc). The surprising argument that the one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (μοιχάω) against her (Mk 10:11; cf. 10:12)63 resulted from the evangelist’s conflation of the idea of the prohibition of divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11) with the thematically related thought that a wife is an adulteress (μοιχαλίς) if she lives with another man while her husband is alive (Rom 7:3). The Marcan reworking of the scriptural-Pauline, unilateral prohibition of divorce as directed solely to the wife as long as her husband lives (1 Cor 7:10-11; cf. 7:39; Rom 7:2-3; Deut 24:1) into a bilateral prohibition of divorce as directed both to the husband and to the wife as long as the spouse lives (Mk 10:11-12) has evidently had far-reaching cultural and civilizational consequences, leading to general stability of marriage relationships in Christianity on the hand, and numerous cases of conflicts of conscience of the believers on the other. Therefore, the question how normative for Christians today is the Marcan idea of the prohibition of divorce as directed to all married people as long as their spouses live (Mk 10:11-12) is not easy to answer.64

60 61 62 63 64

Cf. the similar line of argumentation concerning God-imposed obligation to support the apostles, which was regarded as an authoritative ‘command of the Lord’, in 1 Cor 9:4-6.810.13-14. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 78-79. Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 476-480; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 197. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 533, 541; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 469. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 167-168.

128

Mk 10:13-16 (cf. 1 Cor 7:12-16)

2.7.2. Mk 10:13-16 (cf. 1 Cor 7:12-16) The story about Jesus’ blessing children (Mk 10:13-16) illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 7:12-16, which refers, among other things, to the holiness of children (1 Cor 7:14). The Marcan story begins with the surprising statement that some people brought little children to Jesus in order that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked the people for doing that (Mk 10:13).65 This statement by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline thought that the presumably not-yet-believing children of mixed marriages could be regarded as unclean (1 Cor 7:14c). In fact, the Marcan disciples behaved in Mk 10:13 as though the children, who were brought to Jesus, were ritually unclean, and for this reason Jesus should not touch them. Jesus’ response that the little children should be allowed to come to him, presumably to touch him (Mk  10:14c-e), as he did to them by hugging them (Mk  10:16a), illustrates Paul’s argument that the not-yet-believing children of mixed marriages are not unclean (1 Cor 7:14c). Jesus’ subsequent words, which surprisingly present children as paradigmatic examples of those for whom is the kingdom of God (Mk 10:14f) and who will enter it (Mk 10:15),66 and consequently as examples of holy people, illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea that the children of the believers are holy (1 Cor 7:14d). The related, somewhat surprising image of Jesus’ first hugging the little children, as though they were his own ones (Mk 10:16a; cf. 9:36), and then blessing the children by laying his hands on them (Mk 10:16bc) illustrates two correlated Pauline ideas of sanctifying non-believing family members (1 Cor 7:14ab) and of the holiness of the believers’ children (1 Cor 7:14d).

2.8. Mk 10:17-31 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-40) The section Mk 10:17-31, which refers to the Lord’s callings in particular situations and to renouncing wealth and family life, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 7:17-40.

65 66

Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 379-380. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 544; C. Focant, Marc, 380-381; P. Spitaler, ‘Welcoming a Child as a Metaphor for Welcoming God’s Kingdom: A  Close Reading of Mark 10.13-16’, JSNT 31.4 (2009) 423-446 (esp. 432-433, 439).



Mk 10:17-22 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-28)

129

2.8.1. Mk 10:17-22 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-28) The story about a man who asked Jesus for a counsel concerning the best way to inherit eternal life in his particular situation (Mk 10:17-22) in a narrative way illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 7:17-28, namely Paul’s counsels concerning people of various religious, social, and marital status. The opening, somewhat surprising image of the man as running up to Jesus and kneeling down before him while Jesus was going his way (Mk 10:17a-c)67 alludes to Paul’s ideas that Jesus is the Lord (1 Cor 7:17a) and that each one should walk his way, as God called him (1 Cor 7:17bc). The related problem of what to do in one’s particular situation in order to inherit eternal life (Mk 10:17d-f) alludes to Paul’s counsels for people of various religious, social, and marital status (1 Cor 7:17-28). The somewhat surprising statement concerning the difference between Jesus and God, who alone is good (Mk 10:18),68 probably reflects the Pauline thoughts which suggest a difference between the Lord, who assigns to everyone a particular way of life: being circumcised or not, being a slave or not, etc. (1 Cor 7:17a; cf. 7:18.21), and God, who graciously calls everyone to peace, freedom, living with Christ, etc. (1 Cor 7:17b; cf. 7:15.22-23). The subsequent statement that the man certainly knew the Mosaic commandments (ἐντολή: Mk 10:19) and the man’s answer that he had kept all these from his youth (Mk 10:20) illustrate Paul’s subsequent statement concerning the one who was called as circumcised (presumably, from his childhood), namely that he should not conceal his circumcision (1 Cor 7:18ab; cf. 7:20), as well as the statement that what matters is keeping the commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19). In his particular, unusual list of the Mosaic commandments (Mk 10:19), Mark borrowed and reworked the Pauline list which was contained in Rom  13:9. In particular, Mark only quoted the commandments of the ‘second tablet’ of the Decalogue which were also quoted by the Apostle: ‘You shall not commit adultery’, ‘You shall not murder’, and ‘You shall not steal’ (Mk  10:19b-d).69 Moreover, Mark in its proper place added the commandment of the ‘second tablet’ which 67 68 69

Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 738; R. Hicks, ‘Markan Discipleship according to Malachi: The Significance of μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς in the Story of the Rich Man (Mark 10:17-22)’, JBL 132 (2013) 179-199 (esp. 188-189). Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 552-553; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 332. On the basis of the untypical of Luke, non-Septuagintal form of the commandments in Lk 18:20 (μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, μὴ φονεύσῃς; diff. the corrected, ‘Masoretic’ order and traditional form of them in the later text Mt 19:18), it can be argued that Luke preserved in Lk 18:20 the original lection of Mk 10:19 (μη μοιχευσης, μη φονευσης: Mk 10:19 A et al.), and consequently both the Marcan and the Lucan order of these two commandments correspond to that of Rom 13:9 (cf. also Jas 2:11) and Deut 5:17-18 LXX; P.Nash; Philo,

130

Mk 10:17-22 (cf. 1 Cor 7:17-28)

was omitted by the Apostle: ‘You shall not bear false witness’ (Mk 10:19e; cf. Exod 20:16; Deut 5:20). Mark also reformulated the final Mosaic commandment (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21), which was generalized by Paul as: ‘You shall not covet’ (Rom 13:9d), into the thematically related directive ‘You shall not defraud’ (μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς: Mk 10:19f), which was borrowed from 1 Cor 7:5 (‘do not deprive’: μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε),70 a text which could be found in the preceding hypotextual section 1  Cor 6:12-7:11 (cf. Mk  10:1-12). Thereafter, the evangelist added the commandment which also refers to the neighbour, but which was not mentioned by Paul (but cf. Rom 13:9e: ‘and if there is any other commandment’), namely: ‘Honour your father and mother’ (Mk 10:19g; cf. Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). In the end, by means of the images of the man as stating that he kept all these (commandments) from his youth (Mk 10:20) and of Jesus as looking at him and loving him (Mk 10:21ab), Mark narratively illustrated Paul’s idea that all these and other commandments are summed up in the command to love (ἀγαπάω) the neighbour as oneself (Rom 13:9fg).71 The subsequent, apparently Cynic exhortation to sell everything that one has, give it to the poor, in order to have treasure in heaven, and come to follow Jesus (Mk  10:21f-i) alludes to Paul’s subsequent, also apparently Cynic exhortations not to be concerned about one’s social status because all believers were bought at a price, and consequently they should live as free people (1 Cor 7:21-24). Moreover, the Marcan idea probably also alludes to Paul’s exhortation to remain unmarried and to have no troubles related to family life (1 Cor 7:25-27). The concluding statement that the man was gloomy and distressed because he had many possessions (Mk 10:22) in a negative way illustrates Paul’s ideas that the believers should avoid being troubled at both social status (1 Cor 7:21-22.24) and family obligations (1 Cor 7:25-26.28e), and that such trouble in the flesh can be spared them if they give up pursuing social career and family life (1 Cor 7:28f).

70 71

Decal. 121, 132, 168, 170 (cf. also Exod 20:13-15 LXX: οὐ μοιχεύσεις… οὐ φονεύσεις). Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 562. R.  Hicks, ‘Markan Discipleship’, 187, has argued that the meaning of ἀποστερέω in Mk 10:19 is similar to that in 1 Cor 7:5 and Jas 5:4: ‘denying benefits to those who rightfully deserve them, for personal gain’. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Ethopoeia and Morality in the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount’, in W.  Pikor (ed.), Moralność objawiona w Biblii (AnBibLub 7; KUL: Lublin 2011), 137-145 (esp. 139).



Mk 10:23-27 (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-32b)

131

2.8.2. Mk 10:23-27 (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-32b) The dialogue concerning the spiritual danger of having wealth (Mk  10:23-27) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 7:29-32b. Jesus’ initial, eschatological instruction directed to the disciples, concerning entering the kingdom of God (Mk 10:23), alludes to Paul’s initial, eschatological instruction directed to the believers, namely that the time has been reduced (1 Cor 7:29ab). The related, astounding thought that those who have usable things (χρήματα; etym. related to χράομαι; diff. κτήματα: Mk 10:22) will hardly enter the kingdom of God (Mk 10:23-24a) illustrates Paul’s related, astounding thought that those who use (χράομαι) this world should be as those who do not make use of it (1 Cor 7:31ab). The subsequent, unusual way of addressing the audience as ‘children’, as though they were socially not yet mature people (Mk 10:24d), alludes to Paul’s subsequent thought that those who have wives should be as those who have none, like socially not yet mature people (1 Cor 7:29cd). The subsequent, surprising idea that for some general reason it is difficult to enter the kingdom of God (Mk  10:24de) illustrates Paul’s subsequent, general, psychologically difficult idea that those who weep should be as though who do not weep, and those who rejoice should be as though who do not rejoice (1 Cor 7:30a-d). Similarly, the subsequent, astonishing thought that it is extremely hard for rich people to enter the kingdom of God (Mk 10:25; cf. 10:26a)72 illustrates Paul’s subsequent, likewise astonishing thought that those who buy should be as those who do not possess (1 Cor 7:30ef). The particular image of a camel, used by humans to carry trade wares (Mk 10:25a; cf. Gen 37:25 LXX etc.), additionally alludes to the Pauline idea of buying things (1 Cor 7:30e). The related image of the eye of a needle as an extremely reduced passage for a camel, instead of a normal gate (Mk 10:25a), may additionally allude to the Pauline idea of the extreme reduction of the amount of available time (1 Cor 7:29b). The subsequent idea of being saved (Mk  10:26c), a thought which is supplemented with that of God’s universally reaching power (Mk 10:27), alludes to Paul’s subsequent, threatening idea that the form of this world is passing away (1 Cor 7:31c), presumably because of God’s powerful decision to reduce its time of existence (1 Cor 7:29b). The concluding idea of trust in God’s power (Mk 10:27e) additionally alludes to the concluding Pauline idea of being free from anxieties (1 Cor 7:32ab). 72

Cf. P. Spitaler, ‘Biblical Concern for the Marginalized: Mark’s Stories about Welcoming the Little Ones’, ETL 87 (2011) 89-126 (esp. 115).

132

Mk 10:28-31 (cf. 1 Cor 7:32c-40)

2.8.3. Mk 10:28-31 (cf. 1 Cor 7:32c-40) The discourse concerning abandoning family life for the sake of Jesus (Mk 10:2831) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 7:32c-40. The opening statement that the particularly chosen apostles, in difference to all disciples (cf. Mk 10:23), have left everything and followed Jesus (Mk 10:28) illustrates Paul’s idea that the relatively few men who remained unmarried because of Jesus, especially the Apostle himself, care for the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord (1 Cor 7:32cd). The subsequent, detailed statement concerning the one who has left various elements of family life (house, family, and fields) for the sake of Jesus and for the sake of his gospel (Mk 10:29) in a negative way alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement concerning the one who cares about the things of the world, how to please his wife (1 Cor 7:33), instead of caring for the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord (1 Cor 7:32cd). In his reworking of 1 Cor 7:32-33, Mark omitted the key Pauline idea of remaining unmarried (1 Cor 7:32c), for he knew that Peter, James, and the other Jerusalem apostles did not meet this high Pauline standard of apostleship (1 Cor 9:5). For this reason, the evangelist presented Peter and the other Jerusalem apostles, presumably including James, as having left everything (Mk 10:28), but not their wives (Mk 10:29). The subsequent, surprising idea of a temporal-multiplicative, as well as eternal, reward for leaving all for the sake of Jesus (Mk  10:30)73 illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of a benefit from abandoning family life (1 Cor 7:35a), an attitude which should lead to respected, constant attendance beside the Lord without distraction (1 Cor 7:35c). The concluding, surprising idea of reversal, according to which the last ones (ἔσχατος) will be first (Mk 10:31),74 alludes to the concluding statement concerning the position of Paul the apostle (1 Cor 7:40cd), who was called as the last one (1 Cor 15:8) but achieved more than those who were called before him (1 Cor 15:10), and by remaining unmarried (1 Cor 7:38cd; cf. 7:40b) he did better than those who got married (1 Cor 7:38ab), as the Jerusalem apostles did (1 Cor 9:5).

73

74

Cf. L. Iwuamadi, «He Called unto Him the Twelve and Began to Send Them Forth»: The Continuation of Jesus’ Mission According to the Gospel of Mark (TGST 169; Gregorian University: Roma 2008), 153-154, 159-164; P. Muema, The Relationship Between Peter and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: An Exegetico-Theological Study (Catholic University of Eastern Africa: Nairobi 2010), 140-141. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 389; H. F. Bayer, Markus, 370; B. Standaert, Marc, 754.



Mk 10:32-34 (cf. 1 Cor 8)

133

2.9. Mk 10:32-52 (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-9:27) The section Mk 10:32-52, with its themes of Christ’s death as an example to be followed, comparing the authority of the apostles, renouncing authority rights, being a slave of all, and being like both a Jew and a Greek, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1  Cor 8:1-9:17.

2.9.1. Mk 10:32-34 (cf. 1 Cor 8) The third prediction of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Mk 10:32-34), which significantly differs from the two preceding ones (Mk 8:31; 9:30-32), illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 8, which also refers to Christ’s death as an example to be followed. The introduction to the prediction (Mk 10:32) contains some narratively surprising, in fact apparently superfluous elements. The introductory statement that Jesus was going up to Jerusalem (Mk 10:32b; cf. 10:33), which is erroneous on the purely literal level of the Markan narrative because it suggests that Jesus ascended to Jerusalem before coming from Transjordan or from the Jordan valley (Mk 10:1) to Jericho (Mk 10:46), for the first time mentions the name of the city as the destination of Jesus’ travel (diff. Mk 10:1.17). Accordingly, the double mention of Jerusalem precisely at this point of the gospel story (Mk 10:32-33) was evidently for some reason important for the evangelist. It seems that the repeated scriptural motif of going up (ἀναβαίνω) to Jerusalem (Mk 10:32-33) alludes to the role of this city as the widely known place of monotheistic worship (cf. e.g. Ps 24[23]:3; 122[121]:4 LXX), and consequently it alludes to Paul’s discussion concerning monotheistic worship as contrasted to pagan one (1 Cor 8:4-6). The three narratively superfluous, thematically correlated statements that Jesus was walking ahead of others (Mk  10:32c), and that people were amazed (Mk 10:32d), but those who came after were afraid (Mk 10:32ef),75 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrate the complex ecclesiastical situation described by Paul in 1 Cor 8, namely that the Apostle excelled his followers in religious knowledge (1  Cor 8:1.3.4-6.8), and that his followers were puffed up because of their knowledge (1 Cor 8:1-2), but some ‘weak’ members of the community were still afraid in their conscience (1 Cor 8:7.9-11). Accordingly, the evangelist depicted the weak members of the community (1 Cor 8:7.9-11), who were assaulted in their conscience by the strong ones (1 Cor 8:12), as the ones who during the ascent to Jerusalem walked more slowly, behind the main group (Mk 10:32e), and who were afraid of the stronger ones 75

Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 393; B. Standaert, Marc, 756-757.

134

Mk 10:35-40 (cf. 1 Cor 9:1-17)

(Mk 10:32f). Likewise, the solution to the situation of the internal division within the community (Mk 10:32d-f), which was contextually suggested by drawing the example of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Mk 10:32g-34), alludes to Paul’s idea that Christ’s death for the weak brothers (1 Cor 8:11) should restrict the arrogance of the strong members of the community (1 Cor 8:1-3.8-13). The particular reference to Christ’s death (θάνατος: Mk 10:33c), which differs from the preceding references to killing Jesus (Mk  8:31; 9:31), alludes to the Pauline idea that Christ died (ἀποθνῄσκω; etym. related to θάνατος) for the weak brothers (1 Cor 8:11). Similarly, the thought that Christ will be delivered to the Gentiles (Mk 10:33d), which differs from the preceding, more general one that he will be delivered into hands of humans (Mk 9:31), probably alludes to the Pauline thought that the weak brother, for whom Christ died, will be delivered to the influence of Gentile worship (1  Cor 8:10-11). Likewise, the subsequent image of mocking Jesus, spitting on him (ἐμπτυ*), and whipping him (μαστιγ*: Mk 10:34a-c), which also differs from the preceding predictions of Jesus’ death (Mk 8:31; 9:31), by means of the allusion to the scriptural description of a suffering Jew (Is 50:6 LXX)76 alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea of the sufferings of the weak, presumably Jewish Christian, members of the community as assaulted by the stronger ones (1 Cor 8:12).

2.9.2. Mk 10:35-40 (cf. 1 Cor 9:1-17) The story about the sons of Zebedee, who wanted to have more authority than other apostles had (Mk 10:35-40), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 9:1-17, which presents a comparison between Paul and other apostles. The opening identification of James and John as the sons of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαῖος: Mk 10:35a), which is narratively redundant (cf. Mk 1:19; 3:17) and could therefore be omitted (cf. Mk 1:29; 5:37; 9:2.38), by means of the intertextual reference to the scriptural story about the greedy Achan (Josh 7:1-26), who took for himself some of the things which were devoted to Yahweh (Josh 7:1.11.21), and who was identified by Josephus as a son of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαῖος: Jos. Ant. 5.33), alludes to Paul’s discussion concerning financial demands of the Jerusalem-based apostles and brothers of the Lord (1 Cor 9:5-6.12), presumably including the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ James and John (cf. Gal 2:9-10a). The surprisingly bold, opening request of James and John: ‘We want that you should do for us whatever we ask of you’ (Mk 10:35c-e)77 presents them as 76 77

Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 340; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 742. Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 764.



Mk 10:35-40 (cf. 1 Cor 9:1-17)

135

free people, who gave orders to Jesus. In this way, this request alludes to Paul’s statement that he, like other apostles, was a free man (1 Cor 9:1). The second request, namely to give them the privilege of sitting at the right and at the left hand of Jesus in his glory (Mk 10:37; cf. Ps 110[109]:1; 1 Kgs 2:19; 1 Chr 18:18 LXX), which would suggest that they enjoyed a special relationship with Jesus and had more authority then other apostles, illustrates Paul’s arguments concerning making comparison between Jesus’ apostles (1 Cor 9:1b), especially concerning their privileged relationships with him (1  Cor 9:1c) and having more authority than others (1 Cor 9:1d-2). The subsequent, negative response of Jesus to the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ James and John (Mk 10:38a-c) alludes to Paul’s subsequent, apologetic statement against his Jerusalem-based opponents (1 Cor 9:3). The subsequent, enigmatic question concerning the apostles being in a position to drink (πίνω) the cup which Jesus drinks (Mk 10:38d-f), together with the apostles’ positive answer (Mk  10:39ab) and Jesus’ confirming statement (Mk 10:39de), allude to Paul’s subsequent arguments concerning his having the right to drink (1 Cor 9:4) and to consume the fruit of the vineyard (1 Cor 9:7c). Likewise, the subsequent, related question and statement concerning being in a position to be washed (βαπτίζομαι: Mk 10:38gh.39fg; cf. 1:4-5.8a.9; 6:14.24; 7:4) with ritual washing (βάπτισμα: Mk 10:38g.39f; cf. 1:4; 11:30), which evoke Jewish cultic imagery, allude to Paul’s subsequent, related argument concerning the rights of temple ministers to partake of temple offerings (1 Cor 9:13). Besides, the metaphorical association of baptism (βάπτισμα) and being baptized (βαπτίζομαι) with Jesus’ death (Mk 10:38) is evidently of Pauline origin (Rom 6:3-4).78 The subsequent statement concerning the apostles’ drinking Jesus’ cup and being baptized with Jesus’ baptism (Mk 10:39d-g), which evidently evokes the idea of their sharing in Jesus’ suffering and death (cf. Mk 14:23-25), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent ideas of being ready to die for the gospel (1 Cor 9:15d), and being under an existential obligation to proclaim it (1 Cor 9:16c). In this way, Mark again presented the Jerusalem apostles as called to meet the high standards of the Pauline apostleship (cf. Mk 1:16-20; 3:13). The concluding statement that the future reward for the apostles has been prepared by God (Mk 10:40) alludes to Paul’s concluding argument that he did not have any temporal reward for being an apostle (1 Cor 9:17). Accordingly, just as the suffering apostle Paul distanced himself from the Jerusalem-based apostles, who by their financial demands received their temporal reward from the communities (1 Cor 9:1-17), the evangelist distanced the 78

Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 401.

136

Mk 10:41-45 (cf. 1 Cor 9:18-19)

suffering Jesus from James and John, who partook of the benefits from being close to the earthly Jesus, but who would rather not be regarded by God as more meritorious than Paul the apostle (Mk 10:35-40; cf. 1 Cor 15:10).

2.9.3. Mk 10:41-45 (cf. 1 Cor 9:18-19) The exhortation to renounce authority rights and to be a slave of all, following the example of Christ (Mk 10:41-45), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 9:18-19. The statement concerning those who exert authority over others (Mk 10:42), regarded as an example which should not be followed by the apostles (Mk 10:43a; cf. 10:41), illustrates Paul’s argument concerning his refraining from making full use of his authority in the gospel (1 Cor 9:18d). In particular, the evangelist somewhat surprisingly used in Mk 10:42 two compound verbs with the prefix κατα(Mk 10:42fg).79 The first one, which refers to the apostles lording it over other believers (κατακυριεύω: Mk  10:42f), was borrowed and reworked from 2  Cor 1:24 (κυριεύω). The second one (κατεξουσιάζω: Mk  10:42g), which consists of the prefix κατα- and the main verb ἐξουσιάζω (‘exercise authority’), is not attested in Greek literature before the composition of the Marcan Gospel, and consequently it was most probably Mark who formed it from the noun ἐξουσία (‘authority’). This unusual Marcan wording linguistically alludes to the Pauline statement 1 Cor 9:18d, in which the apostle used a compound verb with the prefix κατα- (καταχράομαι) and the noun ἐξουσία. Besides, the surprising reference to the rulers who do not exercise their authority in a Pauline-style way (Mk  10:42-43a), but behave in a manner which resembles that of James and John (cf. Mk  10:35-41), as being merely reputed (οἱ δοκοῦντες) to be rulers (Mk  10:42d)80 alludes to the Pauline references to the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, including James and John, as being merely reputed to be something (Gal 2:2.6.9).81 The subsequent exhortations that the apostles should be servants of others (Mk 10:43) and slaves (δοῦλος) of all (πᾶς: Mk 10:44), following the example of Christ (Mk 10:45a-c), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality evidently illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea that he made himself a slave (δουλόω) to all (1 Cor 9:19b).82 79 80 81 82

Cf. ibid. 398. Cf. ibid. 398, 402; B. Standaert, Marc, 770. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxii; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 200; T. Dykstra, Mark, 103-104, 145. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxii; T. Dykstra, Mark, 102.



Mk 10:46-52 (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-27)

137

The concluding statement that the Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many (πολύς), which was composed with the use of the economic term ‘ransom’ (Mk 10:45d; cf. 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 3:24),83 alludes to the Pauline concluding clause, ‘so that I might gain more (πολύς) people’, which was also composed with the use of the economic term ‘gain’ (1 Cor 9:19c).

2.9.4. Mk 10:46-52 (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-27) The story about the strangely named man Bartimaeus, who was blind, but ran to meet Jesus (Mk  10:46-52), illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 9:20-27. The narratively superfluous, opening statements that Jesus and his followers came to the Judaean city of Jericho, but went out of Jericho (Mk 10:46ab)84 create uncertainty concerning the Jewish identity of the location of the whole story Mk 10:46-52 in order to illustrate Paul’s statements concerning his becoming both as a Jew and as a non-Jew (1 Cor 9:20-21). The strange name of the blind beggar, namely ‘the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus’ (Mk 10:46c),85 illustrates the same Pauline idea. The name of Bartimaeus consists of the Aramaic noun bar, which means ‘son’, and of the evidently Greek name Timaeus.86 Consequently, the composite, Aramaic-Greek name of Bar-Timaeus illustrates Paul’s idea that he became as a Jew to the Jews, and as a Gentile to the Gentiles (1 Cor 9:20-21). In order to make his allusion clearer, the evangelist supplemented the Aramaic-Greek name Bar-Timaeus with the explanatory, semantically redundant addition: ‘the son of Timaeus’ (Τιμαῖος: Mk 10:46c). Even a not highly educated reader of the Marcan Gospel could recognize the name of Timaeus as the title 83

84

85 86

Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 119-120. On the other hand, J. C. Edwards, The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew: Its Reception and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels (WUNT 2.327; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 52, in a way which is typical for scholars who were trained in Form-Criticism, has argued that the expression concerning ‘ransom’ (Mk  10:45d) had an independent oral existence before its incorporation into Mk 10:45 because it can be found in various forms in several New Testament writings. He does not prove, however, that these writings were in fact literarily independent from each other. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 506; B. Standaert, Marc, 779; D. Dormeyer, ‘Bedingungslose Nachfolge heilt Blindheit (Die Heilung des blinden Bartimäus bei Jericho) – Mk 10,4652 (Lk 18,35-43)’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium, vol. 1, 359-369 (esp. 360, 365). Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 405; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 508; B. Standaert, Marc, 780. Cf. W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (3rd edn.; Akademische: Graz 1959), 1526.

138

Mk 10:46-52 (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-27)

name of Plato’s famous, in fact thematically religious dialogue about knowing God from the visible universe: Timaeus (Τίμαιος).87 Therefore, the surprising but narratively highlighted combination of the Judaean setting of the story, as well as the Aramaic noun bar, with the well-known Greek name Timaeus (Mk 10:46) evokes the image of acting for the benefit of both Jews and Greeks, and thus it alludes to 1 Cor 9:20-21. The description of Bartimaeus as a blind beggar who cried for mercy (Mk  10:46c-48) additionally alludes to Paul’s idea of acting for the benefit of those who are weak (1 Cor 9:22a). The evidently Jewish ways of calling Jesus with the use of the Jewish messianic term ‘of Nazareth’ (ὁ Ναζαρηνός: Mk 10:47b; cf. 1:9.24), which linguistically alludes to the Hebrew term ‫( נצר‬nēṣer) in the well-known messianic text referring to the ‘sprout’ of Jesse (Is 11:1 MT), the likewise messianic title ‘son of David’ (Mk 10:47f.48d; cf. 11:10; 12:35), and the Jewish term rabbouni (Mk 10:51) further illustrate Paul’s idea of his acting for the benefit of the Jews and of those who are under the Mosaic law (1 Cor 9:20). The particular combination of the ideas of being under the Mosaic law and being weak (Mk 10:46-48) is also evidently Pauline (1 Cor 8:7.9-13; Rom 14:1-2.5-6). The reaction of Jesus, who stopped his march (cf. Mk 10:46b) and stood still, in order to help the blind, weak beggar (Mk 10:49), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of becoming weak to the weak, in order to win the weak (1 Cor 9:22ab). The subsequent exhortation to have courage (θαρσέω: Mk 10:49f), which in the Marcan Gospel alludes to salvation (Mk 6:50), and to rise (ἐγείρω: Mk 10:49g), which linguistically alludes to the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Mk 2:9.11; 3:3; 5:41), illustrate the subsequent Pauline idea that he acted in order to save people (1 Cor 9:22d). The subsequent, surprisingly speedy reaction of Bartimaeus, who threw off his cloak, leaped up, and thus, half-naked, came to Jesus (Mk 10:50), illustrates the subsequent Pauline ideas of running in a race in order to win a prize (1 Cor 9:24; cf. 9:26ab), struggling as an athlete (presumably without clothing) in a contest (1 Cor 9:25; cf. 9:26cd), as well as disciplining and subjugating one’s body (1 Cor 9:27ab). The subsequent dialogue relating to regaining sight (Mk  10:51), which is somewhat surprising after the repeated remarks that Bartimaeus was blind 87

Cf. M. A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Fortress: Minneapolis 1989), 189 n. 21; B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark, 340; E. Hilgert, ‘The Son of Timaeus: Blindness, Sight, Ascent, Vision in Mark’, in E. A. Castelli and H. Taussig (eds.), Reimagining Christian Origins, Festschrift B. Mack (Trinity: Valley Forge, Pa. 1996), 185-198 (esp. 191).



Mk 11:1-11 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-8)

139

(Mk 10:46c.49d.51d) and that Jesus stopped to help him (Mk 10:49a-c),88 alludes to Paul’s ideas of his running not aimlessly and boxing not as beating the air, presumably as though he were blind (1 Cor 9:26). The statement that the faith of the beggar saved him (σῴζω: Mk 10:52c) further alludes to Paul’s idea that he acted in order to save people (1  Cor 9:22d), presumably by proclaiming the gospel (1 Cor 9:23), which required the response of faith (1 Cor 15:2; Rom 1:16; Phlp 1:27-28 etc.). The concluding, narratively superfluous statement that Bartimaeus went and followed Jesus on the road (Mk  10:52b.e), presumably ascending to Jerusalem (Mk  10:32; 11:1), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s concluding thought that he himself, having preached to others, should not be disqualified (1 Cor 9:27cd).

2.10. Mk 11:1-19 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-11:26) The section Mk  11:1-19, with its main themes of the glory and the fall of Israel, as well as provoking the Lord and having evening meetings, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding section 1  Cor 10:1-11:26.

2.10.1. Mk 11:1-11 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-8) The story about a glorious entry of Jesus and his followers, who cherished Israel’s hopes for an eschatological restoration of the past glory, into Jerusalem, and about Jesus’ apparent disappointment at the holy city of Judaism (Mk  11:1-11) illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 10:1-8, which refers to the glorious past of Israel as a sign for the eschatological generation, and to God’s disappointment at Israel’s sinful behaviour. The remark concerning the otherwise unknown villages of Bethphage and Bethany (Mk  11:1a) is narratively superfluous.89 In fact, immediately after the story with the composite, Aramaic-Greek name of Bar-Timaeus (Mk 10:46), the reader is prepared to interpret these two names as likewise composite, AramaicGreek ones: Beth-phage (Βηθ-φαγή: ‘the house of eating’)90 and Beth-ania (Βηθἀνία: ‘the house of grief’). The name Beth-phage (‘the house of eating’), as the 88 89 90

Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 785; D. Dormeyer, ‘Bedingungslose’, 361-362. Cf. L. Gasparro, Simbolo e narrazione in Marco: La dimensione simbolica del secondo Vangelo alla luce della pericope del fico di Mc 11,12-25 (AnBib 198; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 265-266. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 203 n. 7.

140

Mk 11:1-11 (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-8)

place where both Jesus and the crowd were present (Mk  11:1a), alludes to the Pauline idea that all Israelites ate (ἔφαγον) the same spiritual food (1 Cor 10:3), presumably because of the presence of Christ with them (1 Cor 10:4; cf. 3:2). The intertextual function of the name of Bethany, however, becomes clear only at the end of the story (Mk 11:11). On the other hand, the name of the Mount of Olives (τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν), as the mountain which lies before Jerusalem on the east (Mk 11:1a), is evidently scriptural (Zech 14:4 LXX).91 The account of the entry of Jesus and his followers to Jerusalem (Mk 11:1b11) was composed with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from at least three scriptural texts. The account of the disciples bringing a young, new foal (πῶλος), on which no one has ever sat anyone, and Jesus’ sitting upon (ἐπί) it and on (ἐπι-) the people’s cloaks, and thus joyfully coming to Jerusalem as a king (Mk 11:1b-7.10-11), with its quite complicated narrative thread which explained how Jesus could use a new foal, upon which no one has ever sat (Mk 11:1b-6), evidently resulted from a hypertextual, narrativizing reworking of the prophetic text Zech 9:9 LXX, which predicted a joyful coming to Jerusalem of a future king, who would go up (ἐπι-) upon (ἐπί) a new foal.92 The somewhat surprising image of spreading (στρωννύω) cloaks (ἱμάτιον) under the newly appointed king of Israel (Mk 11:7-8)93 was borrowed from 2 Kgs 9:13 LXX (cf. Jos. Ant. 9.111: *στρωννύω).94 The quotation in Mk 11:9-10 evidently resulted from a reworking of the ‘Davidic’ psalms Ps 118[117]:25-26; 148:1,95 with an additional remark concerning the coming of the blessed kingdom of David (Mk 11:10ab).96 By means of these scriptural motifs, which present the glorious coming of the Jewish ancestor (πατήρ) King David and of other royal characters from Israel’s history as typologically fulfilled in those who walked to Jerusalem in the company (ἀκολουθέω) of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah/Christ (Mk 11:7-10), the evangelist illustrated Paul’s theological idea that the events concerning Israel’s ancestors, who walked to the Holy Land in the company of the Messiah/Christ, functioned as typological examples for Paul’s audience (1 Cor 10:1-4.6a). Accordingly, the scriptural Davidic motifs were repeatedly used in the account of accompanying Jesus to Jerusalem (Mk  11:7-10) in order to allude to the scriptural-Pauline idea of the accompanying Messiah/Christ (1  Cor 10:4c). Likewise, the historically rather implausible image of many Jews as walking in 91 92 93 94 95 96

Cf. L. Gasparro, Simbolo, 267. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 517-518; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 772, 778, 780. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 117-118; R. H. Gundry, Mark, 626. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 416; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 519. Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 357-358; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 210. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 519-520; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 774-775.



Mk 11:12-14 (cf. 1 Cor 10:9-13)

141

the company of Jesus the Messiah to the gates of Jerusalem (Mk 11:8-10; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.85-87) was created by the evangelist by means of the hypertextual procedures of spatial and temporal translation in order to allude to the scripturalPauline image of the people of Israel as walking in the company of Christ through the wilderness (1  Cor 10:4c). Moreover, the surprising remark that the Jewish people cut straw (and not leafy branches, as it was later explained in Mt 21:8) from the fields (Mk 11:8b) additionally illustrates the Pauline idea of the people of Israel as walking through the wilderness (1 Cor 10:3-4; cf. 10:5). The subsequent, surprising thought that Jesus alone,97 without the accompanying crowd, which presumably dispersed before entering the city, went into Jerusalem and into the temple, but had no time for a detailed visit there (although he wanted to get there at least from Mk 10:1.32-33), so that he hastily left Jerusalem in the company of the twelve alone (Mk  11:11),98 illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that God was not well pleased with most of the Israelites who walked in the company of Christ, so that the were scattered in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:5; cf. 10:4). The remark that in the evening Jesus went to Beth-ania (Βηθ-ἀνία: ‘the house of grief’: Mk 11:11cd), and not to Beth-phage (Βηθ-φαγή: ‘the house of eating’: Mk 11:1a), although both names were mentioned together in Mk 11:1a, illustrates the scriptural-Pauline ideas that the people, presumably in the evening, sat down to eat (φαγεῖν) and drink, and rose up to play (1 Cor 10:7d-h), but twenty-three thousand of them fell in one day (1 Cor 10:8c). Mark illustrated these ideas by means of the topographical remark that in the evening Jesus did not go to ‘the house of eating’ (Beth-phage: cf. Mk 11:1a), but to ‘the house of grief’ (Beth-ania: Mk 11:11d).

2.10.2. Mk 11:12-14 (cf. 1 Cor 10:9-13) The evidently strange story about Jesus’ cursing an unfruitful fig tree (Mk 11:1214)99 illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 10:9-13, which refers to God’s destroying the sinful Israelites. The opening remark that on the following day, presumably in the morning, when Jesus and his disciples went out from Beth-ania (‘the house of grief’: cf. Mk  11:1a.11d), where they had spent the night (Mk  11:12a), but not from 97

98 99

Cf. L. Schenke, Das Markusevangelium: Literarische Eigenart – Text und Kommentie­ rung (W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005), 264-265; P. Dschulnigg, Das Markusevangelium (TKNT 2; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2007), 296; T. C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in its Narrative Role (WUNT 2.242; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 23. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 521. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 421; L. Gasparro, Simbolo, 11.

142

Mk 11:12-14 (cf. 1 Cor 10:9-13)

Beth-phage (‘the house of eating’: cf. Mk 11:1a), Jesus was hungry (Mk 11:12) further illustrates Paul’s thought that the believers should feel grief for those who fell in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:8), and not follow the example of those who, presumably during the night, sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play (1 Cor 10:7). Moreover, the surprising idea that Jesus was hungry and, having seen from a distance a fig tree having leaves, went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it (Mk  11:12b-13d)100 by means of the hypertextual procedures of transpragmatization and interfigurality alludes to Paul’s ideas that Christ should not be tempted (1 Cor 10:9a) and that the temptation which has overtaken the believers is common to humans (1 Cor 10:13). The Marcan choice of the fig tree (συκῆ) with its leaves (φύλλα) as the tree of the temptation to eat a fruit of a tree in irrational circumstances (Mk 11:12-13; cf. 11:20-21) reflects Paul’s combination of the ideas of scriptural temptation (1 Cor 10:9b) and being destroyed by the serpents (ὄφις: 1 Cor 10:9c), a combination which could recall the scriptural story about the first humans as tempted by the serpent to eat a fruit of a tree in prohibited circumstances close to a fig tree with its leaves (Gen 3:1-4.7 LXX). Mark evidently associated the tempting of Christ, to which 1 Cor 10:9 somewhat ambiguously referred, not only with that by the Israelites in the wilderness (Num 21:4-6 LXX), but also with that by the first humans in paradise (Gen 3:1-4.7 LXX).101 Therefore, the motifs of seeing (ὁράω) the tree, prohibition (μη*) of eating (ἐσθίω) the fruit (καρπός) of the tree, and not bearing fruit to eternity (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: Mk 11:13-14) were borrowed from Gen 3:1-3.56.11.17.22 LXX. On the other hand, the idea that in the effect of Jesus’ curse (Mk 11:14c) the fig tree dried up from its roots (Mk 11:20) alludes to the scriptural-Pauline idea of God’s destruction of the sinful Israelites in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:9-10) and to the admonition that the one who thinks that he stands firm should take heed lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12). The concluding, narratively superfluous remark that the disciples heard Jesus’ quasi-scriptural curse (Mk 11:14d) alludes to Paul’s concluding thought that the scriptural curses should function as an admonition to the audience of the letter (1 Cor 10:11-13).

100 Cf. L. Gasparro, Simbolo, 391-396. 101 The interpretation of the tempting of Christ (1 Cor 10:9) as having taken place in paradise could have been suggested to Mark by the Pauline Adam–Christ typology (1 Cor 15:2122.45-49; Rom 5:12-19 etc.).



Mk 11:15-19 (cf. 1 Cor 10:14-11:26)

143

2.10.3. Mk 11:15-19 (cf. 1 Cor 10:14-11:26) The story about the expulsion of merchants from the temple (Mk 11:15-19) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 10:14-11:26, which refers, among other things, to idol worship, Jerusalem temple, provoking the Lord, and evening gatherings. The surprising description of the religiously motivated expulsion of merchants from the temple of Jerusalem, as though their financial activity obscured the true aim of the monotheistic worship (Mk 11:15a-d),102 a description which stands in a striking contrast to the previous remark that Jesus merely looked around with no great interest at all things in the temple (Mk 11:11), originates from the Pauline combination of strong prohibitions of engaging in idol worship (1 Cor 10:14.20) with the example of the Israelites as partaking of the temple altar, presumably in Jerusalem (1 Cor 10:18). The subsequent image of overturning the tables (τράπεζα) of money changers in the temple (Mk 11:15e) alludes to the Pauline prohibition of partaking of the table of demons (1 Cor 10:21cd). The subsequent, surprisingly violent, and in fact absurd image of Jesus as not allowing anyone to carry any object through the temple (Mk 11:16)103 in a graphic way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization, illustrates the subsequent Pauline ideas that the believers should not provoke the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor 10:22a) and that they are not stronger than the Lord (1 Cor 10:22b). The subsequent, Scripture-based thought that God’s house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations (Mk 11:17d; cf. Is 56:7 LXX)104 illustrates Paul’s subsequent instructions concerning the right way of worshipping God by the Gentile believers (1 Cor 10:23-31), which should consist, among other things, in giving thanks to God in a prayerful way (1 Cor 10:26 cf. Ps 24[23]:1 LXX; 1 Cor 10:30-31). The subsequent idea of the Jerusalem temple as a den of robbers (Mk 11:17e), a thought which was obviously borrowed from Jer 7:11 LXX,105 alludes to Paul’s subsequent remarks concerning the authoritative church of God, presumably in Judaea (1 Cor 10:32; 11:16; cf. 1 Thes 2:14; 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13). The church 102 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 423; T. C. Gray, Temple, 25-28. 103 Cf. P. Dschulnigg, Markusevangelium, 302; T. C. Gray, Temple, 29; B. C. Dennert, ‘Mark 11,16: A «Status Quaestionis»’, ASE 28 (2011) fasc. 1, 279-288. 104 Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 783; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205; L. Gasparro, Simbolo, 427. 105 Cf. L. Perkins, ‘The Markan Narrative’s Use of the Old Greek Text of Jeremiah to Explain Israel’s Obduracy’, TynBul 60 (2009) 217-238 (esp. 225-227); K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 208; L. Gasparro, Simbolo, 427.

144

Mk 11:20-25 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-14:20)

in Judaea was presented by Paul as unduly demanding financial support from the Gentile believers (Gal  2:10a), and consequently the post-Pauline evangelist alluded to it as to the scriptural ‘den of robbers’ located in the place of the Jerusalem temple (Mk 10:17e). The related statements concerning the hostile attitude of the Jerusalem chief priests and experts in Scripture towards Jesus, notwithstanding the fact that the crowd was amazed at his teaching (Mk 11:18), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality further allude to the Pauline remarks concerning the leaders of the church of God in Jerusalem, who could be offended by the apparently licentious behaviour of the Gentile communities (1 Cor 10:32; 11:16), which were instructed by Paul (1 Cor 10:32-11:16). The subsequent, narratively superfluous statement that whenever evening came, Jesus and his disciples were going out of the city (Mk 11:19), a statement whose iterative meaning (ὅταν + imperf. ἐξεπορεύοντο)106 is quite surprising, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to Paul’s subsequent discussion concerning the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-26), which was repeatedly celebrated by Jesus’ disciples in the evening or at night (1 Cor 11:21.23), and generally not in their homes (1 Cor 11:22). The evangelist could have briefly summarized the important Pauline Eucharistic text 1 Cor 11:23-26 in Mk 11:19 because he elaborated it further in Mk 14:22-25.

2.11. Mk 11:20-12:17 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-15:11) The section Mk 11:20-12:17, with its main themes of being cursed, having faith, working miracles, praying, forgiving, being a prophet, Jesus’ death and resurrection as having occurred according to the Scriptures, and the authority of the Jerusalem leaders, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 11:27-15:11.

2.11.1. Mk 11:20-25 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-14:20) The set of instructions concerning being cursed, having faith, working miracles, praying, forgiving, and being like children in case of doing evil things (Mk 11:2025) sequentially illustrates the main themes of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 11:27-14:20. The opening temporal remark that Jesus and his disciples passed by the fig tree early in the morning (Mk 11:20) alludes to the Pauline discussion concerning the outcome of the night-time celebration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:27-32). 106 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 647.



Mk 11:20-25 (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-14:20)

145

The related statement that the fig tree withered from its roots (Mk 11:20b.21e) as the outcome of Jesus’ curse (Mk 11:21d; cf. 11:14) alludes to the related Pauline idea that the believers who participate in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner will draw condemnation upon themselves (1 Cor 11:27-29.34), and for this reason many of the members of the community are weak and ill, and some have died (1 Cor 11:30). The related, narratively superfluous thought that Peter remembered (ἀναμιμνῄσκω) the cursing words of Jesus (Mk 11:21a; cf. 11:14) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline idea that the believers should celebrate the Lord’s Supper in remembrance (ἀνάμνησις) of the Lord (1 Cor 11:24-25), which also involves remembering the words of the Lord’s possible condemnation (1 Cor 11:27-29). The post-Pauline evangelist had a reason to present Peter, by means of the hypertextual procedure of transpragmatization, as participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner (Mk 11:21; cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29), namely as referring to Jesus in a purely Jewish way (rabbi: Mk 11:21c; cf. 9:5; 14:45), recalling the words of the Lord’s condemnation (Mk 11:21de; cf. 14:72), and not having faith (Mk 11:22). According to Paul, Cephas rejected table fellowship, and consequently common celebration of the Lord’s Supper, with Gentile believers (Gal 2:12), thus showing that for him obedience to the law was more important than faith (Gal  2:14.16.19-21). Therefore, the Semitic title rabbi (‘my great one’) in the mouth of Peter functions in Mk 11:21c (cf. 9:5; 14:45), as an evidently Jewish Christian, christologically unsatisfactory and ecclesiologically isolationist, counterpart of the Pauline universalistic title ‘the Lord’ (1 Cor 11:23.26-27). The subsequent exhortation to have faith (πίστις) in God (Mk 11:22; cf. 11:23) alludes to Paul’s subsequent idea of the gifts of God’s Spirit (1  Cor 12:1-11), among which faith is very important (1 Cor 12:9a). Likewise, the subsequent image of performing an extremely powerful miracle (Mk 11:23) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of performing deeds of power (1 Cor 12:10a.28-29). The related Marcan image of being taken up from the mountainous land (so from Israel) and being thrown to the sea (so to the Gentiles in the Mediterranean) as related to strong faith and to speaking (Mk 11:23) may also illustrate the related Pauline idea of his apostleship among the Gentiles (1 Cor 12:28-29). In any case, the surprising image of moving a mountain (ὄρος),107 regarded as an outcome of having strong faith (πιστ*) in the power of speaking (λαλέω) with faith (Mk  11:23-24; cf. 11:22), was borrowed by Mark from 1 Cor 13:1-2. The subsequent instruction concerning forgiving, which was presented by the evangelist as a necessary condition for praying (προσεύχομαι: Mk 11:25a-d; cf. 107 Cf. ibid. 649; H. F. Bayer, Markus, 407.

146

Mk 11:27-33 (cf. 1 Cor 14:21-40)

11:24b), illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that love, which is forbearing, merciful, not irritated, not counting evil, passing over in silence, and enduring (1 Cor 13:4-5.7), should be regarded as more important than praying in tongues (1 Cor 12:30-14:19; esp. 14:13-15).108 The subsequent idea that if we forgive others, our Father in heaven will forgive us our trespasses, which suggests that the believers should be in a relationship resembling that of children to the father in case of doing some evil things (Mk  11:25e), alludes to Paul’s subsequent thought that the believers should be mature in thinking, but infants in evil (1 Cor 14:20).

2.11.2. Mk 11:27-33 (cf. 1 Cor 14:21-40) The story about revealing the trickiness of the unbelievers, as well as being really a prophet or not (Mk 11:27-33), illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 14:21-40. The opening image of coming to Jerusalem and walking in the temple (Mk 11:27ab) alludes to Paul’s quotation from the law (1 Cor 14:21; cf. Is 28:1112), which in fact mainly concerned speaking to Israelite priests in the temple (Is 28:7-12). The subsequent idea that when Jesus and his disciples came (ἔρχομαι) again to Jerusalem, those who did not believe in his authority came (ἔρχομαι) to him (Mk  11:27a.c; cf. 11:28) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that when the whole church comes together (συνέρχομαι) at the same place, outsiders and unbelievers at times come (εἰσέρχομαι) to them (1 Cor 14:23a.c). The characters of the unbelieving Jerusalem leaders (Mk 11:27) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality additionally represent the Jewish Christian leaders, who according to Paul lacked faith (πίστις: cf. Gal 2:16 etc.), and consequently could be associated by Mark with unbelievers (ἄπιστοι: 1 Cor 14:23c). The subsequent thought that the Jewish opponents raised questions (λέγω) concerning Jesus’ authority (Mk 11:28) illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the outsiders and unbelievers will raise questions concerning the state of mind of the believers (1 Cor 14:23de). The subsequent idea that Jesus publicly asked them a question to which they did not want to give an answer, so that their trickiness was revealed to everyone (Mk 11:29-33), in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that if 108 Consequently, the famous ‘Lord’s Prayer’ (Mt 6:9-13, which is a reworking of Lk 11:2-4, which is in turn a reworking of Mk 11:25) is in fact an elaboration of Paul’s famous hymn about love (1 Cor 13; esp. 13:4-5.7).



Mk 12:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-4)

147

all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider is convicted by everyone, called to account by everyone, and thus the secrets of his heart are revealed (1 Cor 14:2425a). The particular content of Jesus’ question, namely concerning the origin of the baptism of John (Mk 11:30), which required answering the question whether John was a prophet (προφήτης) or not (Mk 11:32) and whether they should have believed (πιστεύω) him or not (Mk 11:31), illustrates Paul’s ideas that prophecy (προφητεία) is a sign only for those who believe (πιστεύω: 1 Cor 14:22cd), and that if people prophesy (προφητεύω), an unbeliever or outsider is convicted and called to account (1 Cor 14:24; cf. 11:29-32.37-40). The related idea that all people regarded John as truly (ὄντως) a prophet (Mk 11:32d) illustrates Paul’s statement that the convinced people will say that God is truly among the believers (1 Cor 14:25b-e).

2.11.3. Mk 12:1-12 (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-4) The Scripture-based parable about vineyard tenants (Mk 12:1-12), in which the texts from various Scriptures (Isaiah and Psalms) explain the death of the owner’s beloved son and his vindication, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the Pauline text 1 Cor 15:1-4, which refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection as having occurred according to the Scriptures. The first part of the story (Mk 12:1-9) is an evident elaboration of the Isaian song about an unfruitful vineyard and its owner (Is 5:1-7 LXX). The motifs of the vineyard (ἀμπελών), planting (φυτεύω), putting a fence (φραγμός) around it (περιτίθημι), digging (ὀρύσσω) a vat (*λήνιον), and building (οἰκοδομέω) a tower (πύργος: Mk 12:1c-f) were evidently borrowed from Is 5:1-2 LXX.109 Likewise, the question, what (τί) will the owner of the vineyard (ἀμπελών) do (ποιέω: Mk 12:9a) was borrowed from Is 5:4-5 LXX.110 To these scriptural motifs, the evangelist added the motif of sinful, greedy tenants, who killed (ἀποκτείνω) both many servants and the owner’s beloved son (Mk 12:1g-9).111 This motif evidently alludes to the Pauline text concerning the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets (1 Thes 2:15). However, since the idea of financial greed of the tenants is repeatedly stressed in Mk 12:23.7, on the basis of Paul’s negative reference to the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ as demanding financial support from the Gentile believers (Gal 2:10a) it also alludes to the 109 Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 802, 811; L. Gasparro, Simbolo, 281; K. R. Iverson, ‘Jews, Gentiles, and the Kingdom of God: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Narrative Perspective (Mark 12:1-12)’, BibInt 20 (2012) 305-335 (esp. 308). 110 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 439; J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Isa 5:1-7 LXX and Mark 12:1, 9, again’, NovT 46 (2004) 12-19 (esp. 15); B. Standaert, Marc, [vol. 3,] 848. 111 Cf. K. R. Iverson, ‘Jews, Gentiles’, 310.

148

Mk 12:13-17 (cf. 1 Cor 15:5-11)

leaders of the Jerusalem community (cf. Mk 11:27; 12:12). By means of the latter allusion, Mark in a negative way illustrated the Pauline reference to the Jerusalem community as the original source of the tradition about the death of the Messiah/ Christ for our sins as having occurred according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3bc). In this way, the post-Pauline evangelist equated the Jewish Christian leaders with the Jews who persecuted Paul and forbade him to speak to the Gentiles (1 Thes 2:15-16; cf. Gal 2:12 etc.). The subsequent, second part of the story (Mk 12:10-12) is based on the verbatim quotation from Ps 118[117]:22-23 LXX in Mk 12:10b-11.112 This quotation presents the divine vindication of the death of the owner’s beloved son as foretold in the Scripture (γραφή: Mk  12:10a). In this way, it illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that Christ, after his death and burial, was raised according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:4). The related reference to the Jerusalem leaders, who were apparently greedy and hostile against Jesus, but at that time did him no harm (Mk 12:12; cf. 11:27), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality again alludes to the apparently greedy and hostile leaders of the Jerusalem community (Gal 2:10a.12), who at the time of the Jerusalem agreement did Paul no harm (Gal 2:9). The allusion to them illustrates Paul’s idea that the tradition concerning Jesus’ resurrection as having occurred according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:4b) originates from the Jerusalem community (1 Cor 15:3b; cf. 15:5-7).

2.11.4. Mk 12:13-17 (cf. 1 Cor 15:5-11) The story about a tax problem of the Jerusalem leaders (Mk 12:13-17) illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 15:5-11, which concerns the authority of the Jewish Christian leaders of the Jerusalem community with reference to Paul. The opening remark, which presents concerning some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians as being sent (ἀποστέλλω: Mk 12:13a), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the Jewish Christian leaders who were referred to in 1 Cor 15:5-7: the Judaizing James (1 Cor 15:7; cf. Gal 2:12; Mk 2:16.18.24; 3:6; 7:1.3.5; 8:15 etc.), the ‘king’ Cephas (1 Cor 15:5; cf. Gal 2:1112.14-21; Mk 3:6; 6:14-27; 8:15), and other Jewish Christian apostles (ἀπόστολος: 1 Cor 15:7). Their hostile attitude to Jesus’ words (Mk 12:13b), as well as their hypocrisy, which was both narratively depicted (Mk 12:14a-g) and explicitly named (ὑπόκρισις: Mk 12:15a), illustrates the negative attitude of the Jewish Christian leaders to Paul’s teaching (Gal 2:4-6.12), as well as their hypocrisy (Gal 2:13). 112 Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 808, 814; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205; B. Standaert, Marc, 849.



Mk 12:18-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-22)

149

The particular statement that Jesus cares for no one and does not (οὐ) regard the personal status (πρόσωπον) of anyone (ἄνθρωπος: Mk 12:14ef) evidently alludes to Paul’s statement that what sort of people the ‘pillars’ once had been made no difference to him because God does not consider the personal status of anyone (Gal 2:6c-e).113 The related question concerning paying the tax to Caesar (Mk 12:14h-k), followed by Jesus’ positive answer: ‘Pay’ (ἀπόδοτε), namely both to Caesar and to God (Mk  12:15b-17), evidently illustrates Paul’s exhortation: ‘Pay’, namely to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due, fear to whom fear is due, etc. (Rom 13:7).114 However, in the context of the negative allusive references to the Jewish Christian leaders in Mk 12:13-15a, the Marcan tax problem of the Jerusalem leaders also alludes to the financial demands of the Jewish Christian leaders (Gal 2:10a), which were met by Paul, although they were regarded by him as a kind of unjustly imposed tax (Gal 2:10b). Accordingly, the whole story about a tax problem of the Jerusalem leaders (Mk 12:13-17) indirectly alludes to the issue of the authority of the Jewish Christian leaders, especially Cephas and James (1 Cor 15:5-7), with reference to Paul and his evangelistic work among the Gentiles, which was based on grace and toil (1 Cor 15:8-11), and not on imposing an obligatory tax on others (Gal 2:10a; cf. Rom 13:7).

2.12. Mk 12:18-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-31) The section Mk 12:18-44, with its main themes of questioning the resurrection, proximity to the kingdom of God, quoting the scriptural text concerning putting the enemies under Christ’s feet (Ps 110[109]:1 LXX), being subordinated and not subordinating, respecting God, and offering one’s life to God, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1  Cor 15:12-31.

2.12.1. Mk 12:18-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-22) The story about some people who questioned the resurrection (Mk  12:18-27) illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1  Cor 15:12-22. 113 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxiii. 114 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 522; M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxiii; M. D. Goulder, ‘Pauline’, 872-873.

150

Mk 12:18-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-22)

The opening statement that some Sadducees, who (*τινες) say (λέγουσιν) there is (εἰμί) no resurrection (ἀνάστασις), came to Jesus (Mk 12:18ab; cf. 12:23a) verbatim alludes to the opening Pauline question concerning some of the believers, who say that there is no resurrection (1 Cor 15:12cd; cf. 15:13.21).115 Likewise, the repeated arguments concerning being raised (ἐγείρω) from the dead (νεκρός: Mk 12:25-27) illustrate the repeated Pauline arguments concerning being raised from the dead (1 Cor 15:12-17.20-21).116 The evangelist elaborated these Pauline ideas (1 Cor 15:12-21) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, with the use of the example of some Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, who also questioned the resurrection, namely the Sadducees (Mk 12:18a). The idea that among the Jewish believers precisely the Sadducees did not believe in afterlife (Mk 12:18ab) was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 2.165; Ant. 18.16. Likewise, the idea that the Sadducees accepted only the things which were written (γραφ*) in the law of Moses (ἐν… Μωϋσέως: Mk 12:19.24.26) was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 13.297; 18.16. The evangelist aptly elaborated this idea with the use of the references to the Mosaic, Pentateuchal texts Deut 25:5-6; Gen 38:8 LXX in Mk 12:19,117 as well as Exod 3:2-4.6 LXX in Mk 12:26 (cf. also Mk 12:24).118 The story about a wife (γυνή) of seven (ἑπτά) brothers, who one after another took her and died, leaving no children, and last of them the woman died (ἀποθνῄσκω) also (Mk 12:20-22.23b), is a reworking of the story about Sarah, the wife of seven husbands, who one after another died, leaving no children, so that she was about to die as well (Tob 3:7-10.15).119 Although the latter story was not contained in the Pentateuch, it could be regarded by the evangelist as also scriptural (cf. Mk 12:24). The somewhat surprising idea that those who rise from the dead neither marry (γαμέω) nor are married (γαμίζω: Mk 12:25a-c), which is in fact based on the understanding of the Scriptures as binding the woman to the husband only as long as he lives (1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2-3),120 alludes to Paul’s exhortation to remain not married (1 Cor 7:8.25-26.27d.32.34.37-38.40), for the time of this world, including its marriages, has been reduced, and consequently the form of this world, 115 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxiii. 116 Cf. ibid. 117 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 559; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 390, 393; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 211. 118 Cf. A.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 562-564; W.  Eckey, Markusevangelium, 390, 395; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 211. 119 Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 827. 120 Cf. B.  R. Trick, ‘Death, Covenants, and the Proof of Resurrection in Mark 12:18-27’, NovT 49 (2007) 232-256 (esp. 241-244).



Mk 12:28-34 (cf. 1 Cor 15:23-24)

151

including its marriages, is passing away (1 Cor 7:29-31). Similarly, the idea that those who rise from the dead, both men and women, are like angels in heaven (Mk 12:25d) illustrates Paul’s idea that the unmarried person, either a man or a woman, cares for the Lord and for the things of the Lord, in order to be holy both in body and in spirit, and in order to constantly serve the Lord without distraction (1 Cor 7:32.34-35), and does not care for the things of this world (1 Cor 7:33-34). The concluding statement that God is God not of the dead, but of the living (ζάω: Mk 12:27ab) alludes to the concluding Pauline statement that as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (ζωοποιέω: 1 Cor 15:22).

2.12.2. Mk 12:28-34 (cf. 1 Cor 15:23-24) The story about a discussion concerning the first commandment, which was presented as defining the believer’s proximity to the kingdom of God (Mk 12:28-34), in a narrative way, sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 15:23-24, which refers to the degrees of proximity to the kingdom of God. The opening question: ‘Which is the commandment that is first of all?’ (Mk 12:28g), a question which hardly corresponds to the common Jewish understanding of the law as binding in its entirety, alludes to the opening Pauline idea of having a certain place in the eschatological sequence of elements (1 Cor 15:23a). The subsequent element of the story, namely Jesus’ explanation of the first commandment as the commandment of love (Mk 12:29-31), which is evidently a peculiarly Christian idea, alludes to the subsequent Pauline thought that the first one in the sequence is Christ, as the scriptural first fruits (1 Cor 15:23b). The evangelist illustrated the Pauline idea of the identity of Christ as explained in scriptural-legal terms (ἀπαρχή: 1 Cor 15:23b; cf. Exod 22:28 etc.) by means of the scriptural commandment which, as Paul repeatedly taught, reflects the essence of the gospel of Christ and sums up the whole law: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31; cf. Lev 19:18 LXX;121 Rom 13:9-10;122 Gal 5:14). However, since Paul also presented Christ as being second to God (θεός) the Father (1  Cor 15:24), the evangelist likewise preceded the christological, ‘second’ commandment to love the neighbour (Mk 12:31) with the similarly formulated (ἀγαπήσεις: ‘You shall love’), theocentric, ‘first’ commandment to love God (Mk 12:29-30; cf. Deut 6:4-5 LXX;123 diff. Mk 10:19: ‘You shall not murder’). 121 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 461-462; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 398-399; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205. 122 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxiii; M. Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (SCM: London 1994), 36-37; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 208. 123 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 398-399; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205; B. Standaert, Marc, 872-874.

152

Mk 12:35-37 (cf. 1 Cor 15:25-27a)

The subsequent element of the story, namely the narratively redundant, mirrorizing response of the expert in Scripture to Jesus’ explanation (Mk 12:32-33; cf. Deut 6:4-5; 4:35; Lev 19:18 LXX),124 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea that afterward, as the next ones in the sequence, there will be those who are Christ’s during his presence (1 Cor 15:23c). The evangelist illustrated the Pauline abstract theological idea of being Christ’s during his presence (1 Cor 15:23c) by means of the image of Jesus’ interlocutor as almost verbatim copying Jesus’ words (Mk 12:32-33). The subsequent element of the story, namely the statement that Jesus’ interlocutor was close to the presumably eschatological kingdom (βασιλεία) of God (θεός: Mk 12:34d), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that at the end of the eschatological sequence, after those who are Christ’s during his presence, the eschatological kingdom of God will be realized (1 Cor 15:24ab). The concluding, narratively superfluous, surprisingly general remark that no one ever more dared question Jesus (Mk 12:34ef)125 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s concluding idea that at the end Christ will invalidate every rule and every authority and power (1 Cor 15:24c).

2.12.3. Mk 12:35-37 (cf. 1 Cor 15:25-27a) The discussion concerning the Messiah as the son of David, which includes the quotation from Ps  110[109]:1 LXX (Mk  12:35-37), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 15:25-27a. The opening question concerning the Messiah/Christ (Χριστός) as the son of David, which presents Christ as a merely Jewish kingly Messiah (Mk 12:35de), alludes to Paul’s opening statement that Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:23b) should reign as a king (1 Cor 15:25ab). The related idea that this christologically unsatisfactory belief was held by the experts in Scripture, who in the Marcan Gospel generally, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, allude to the leaders of the Jerusalem community (Mk 2:16; 3:22; 7:1 etc.), illustrates the idea that the ‘fleshly’ confession of Jesus as merely the descendant of David, so the Jewish royal Messiah, was characteristic of the Jewish Christians (cf. Rom 1:3). The subsequent argument based on the quotation from Ps 110[109]:1 LXX,126 concerning putting the enemies under Christ’s feet (Mk 12:36), is a corrected version of the subsequent Pauline, more freely taken quotation from Ps 110[109]:1 124 Cf. K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205, 208, 211-212; B. Standaert, Marc, 876; L. Gasparro, Simbolo, 304. 125 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 577. 126 Cf. C.  Focant, Marc, 469; W.  Eckey, Markusevangelium, 405; K.  S.  O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 205-206.



Mk 12:38-40 (cf. 1 Cor 15:27b-28)

153

LXX in 1 Cor 15:25cd, which was corrected and additionally conflated by Mark with Ps 8:7 LXX (‘under’: ὑποκάτω),127 a text which was likewise rather freely used in the immediate Pauline context (1 Cor 15:27a). The subsequent statement that Christ is called Lord (Mk 12:37a) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that Christ should reign even over death (1 Cor 15:26; cf. 15:25). The concluding, narratively superfluous statement that the large crowd gladly obeyed Jesus (ἀκούω + gen. αὐτοῦ: Mk  12:37c; cf. 6:20 etc.) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s concluding thought that God has put everything under Christ’s feet (1  Cor 15:27a; cf. previously Mk 12:34ef and 1 Cor 15:24c).

2.12.4. Mk 12:38-40 (cf. 1 Cor 15:27b-28) The instruction concerning the haughtiness of the experts in Scripture (Mk 12:3840) in a negative way illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 15:27b28, which presents Christ’s lowliness and subjection to God the Father. The opening, narratively superfluous remark: ‘And he was speaking in his teaching’ (Mk 12:38a; 12:35a-c), alludes to Paul’s opening remark: ‘But when he (presumably, God) has said’ (1 Cor 15:27b), which refers to the preceding, scriptural quotation (1 Cor 15:27a; cf. Ps 8:7). Moreover, this opening remark (Mk 12:38a), which closely resembles that of the preceding pericope (Mk 12:35a-c), links the instruction concerning the haughtiness of the experts in Scripture (Mk 12:38-40) to the preceding discussion concerning their not acknowledging the supreme lordship of Christ (Mk 12:35-37). Consequently, this opening remark (Mk 12:38a) presents the experts in Scripture as one the other hand questioning the lordly status of Christ (Mk 12:35), and on the other hand elevating their own socioreligious status (Mk 12:38-40b), which made their behaviour particularly blameworthy (Mk 12:40c). In this way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, the evangelist negatively illustrated Paul’s idea that on the one hand Christ is the Lord over all (1 Cor 15:25-27c), but on the other hand he is subjected to God, the supreme sovereign (1 Cor 15:27de; cf. 15:28). The related, somewhat strange, dissuasive instruction: ‘Look away from the experts in Scripture’ (βλέπετε ἀπό: Mk 12:38b),128 alludes to Paul’s related idea 127 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 469; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 579; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 846-847. 128 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 726; C. Quispe López, La nueva alianza durante las enseñanzas de Jesús en el Templo de Jerusalén: Análisis retórico bíblico y semítico de la secuencia de Mc 11,27-12,44 (TGST 189; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 230.

154

Mk 12:41-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:29-31)

of clarity (δῆλος) of the meaning of the divine Scripture (1 Cor 15:27d), which presumably does not require any Jewish Christian interpretation (cf. Mk 8:15). The subsequent, somewhat surprising statement that the experts in Scripture wanted to walk in long robes (στολή: Mk 12:38cd)129 presents them as wanting to imitate high priests or kings, who wore long robes (Exod  28:2; 2  Chr 18:9; Esth 6:8 LXX etc.).130 Therefore, it presents them as usurping for themselves a sacred or royal status, and consequently as opposing Paul’s subsequent idea that even Christ, with his elevated status, did not usurp for himself God’s supreme rule (1 Cor 15:27e). The subsequent images of desiring greetings in the marketplaces, desiring first seats in the synagogues and first couches at banquets, devouring widows’ houses, and making long prayers for the sake of appearance (Mk  12:38e-40b) also, in a negative way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrate the subsequent Pauline idea of Christ’s being voluntarily subjected to God (1 Cor 15:28b). All these Marcan images of the negatively presented experts in Scripture (Mk  12:38c-40b), including that of devouring (κατεσθίω) widows’ houses (Mk 12:40a), commonly allude to the leaders of the Jerusalem community (cf. Mk 2:16; 3:22; 7:1; 12:35 etc.), and consequently they illustrate Paul’s moral arguments against them (2 Cor 11:13.15.18.20; Gal 2:10 etc.). The concluding, eschatological idea that the experts in Scripture, that is Jesus’ main opponents, who usurped for themselves a sacred status, will receive a verdict which will be more severe than that for other guilty people, a verdict which will in fact be tantamount to eternal damnation (Mk 12:40c), in a negative way alludes to Paul’s concluding thought that at the end, when everything and everyone, including all Christ’s enemies, will be subject to God (cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28c), God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:28d).

2.12.5. Mk 12:41-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:29-31) The story about a widow who offered her whole life to God (Mk 12:41-44) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1  Cor 15:29-31, which refers to the people whose close relatives died, and to the believers offering their whole life to God. The location of the story in the temple (Mk 12:41; cf. 12:35: ἱερόν) alludes to the Pauline idea of ritual washing (βαπτίζομαι: 1 Cor 15:29b.d), just as, in a reversed way, the previous discussion concerning being washed (βαπτίζομαι) with 129 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 727; C. Focant, Marc, 470. 130 Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 174 n. 3; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 852.



Mk 12:41-44 (cf. 1 Cor 15:29-31)

155

ritual washing (βάπτισμα: Mk  10:38-39) alluded to Paul’s idea of the rights of temple (ἱερόν) ministers to partake of temple offerings (1 Cor 9:13). The particular, surprising image of throwing money into the treasury (Mk 12:41-44)131 probably also, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, alludes to the idea of total immersion in water (βαπτίζομαι: 1 Cor 15:29b.d). The image of a widow, that is of a woman whose husband died (Mk 12:42-43; cf. 12:40.44), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality further alludes to Paul’s argument concerning those who are baptized for the dead, presumably for their deceased close relatives (1 Cor 15:29b.d). Mark evidently assumed that the Pauline argument mainly applied to widows, who wanted to be baptized for the sake of their deceased husbands. The subsequent statement that the poor widow put into the temple treasury two Greek coins, that is a Roman coin (Mk  12:42), which meant that she renounced from everything that she possessed (Mk 12:44), similarly, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that he was taking a risk every hour (1 Cor 15:30). Besides, the particular, surprising image of two Greek coins, that is a Roman coin, as brought to the Jerusalem temple (Mk  12:42bc)132 allusively illustrates the scope of Paul’s collection, namely from Macedonia and Achaea, with some support from Rome, for the Jerusalem church (1  Cor 16:1-4; 2  Cor 8-9; Rom 15:26.30-31). Similarly, the image of the poor (πτωχός) widow as putting into the Jerusalem temple treasury the smallest Greek and Roman coins (lepton, quadrans: Mk 12:42),133 which were tantamount to everything that she possessed, in fact to her whole life (Mk 12:44), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea that the collection for the Jerusalem saints was made by the people who lived in the conditions of extreme poverty (πτωχεία: 2 Cor 8:2), who nevertheless offered for the Jerusalem saints even beyond their means (2 Cor 8:3-4), first having offered themselves to the Lord (2 Cor 8:5). The paradoxical idea that in such a way the poor widow gave more than those who abounded (περισσεύω) in money (Mk 12:43-44) reflects Paul’s idea that the poor 131 The treasury was not normally accessible for ordinary people. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 857-858. It should be noted that the later rabbinic descriptions of money receptacles in the Jerusalem temple could have been influenced by the Christian Gospels. 132 The Marcan equation 2 lepta = 1 quadrans (Mk 12:42) was by no means self-evident in its historical context: cf. M. Reiser, ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Bib 81 (2000) 457-488 (esp. 478-479). Moreover, all coins which were minted by the Roman prefects or procurators of Judaea bore Greek and not Latin inscriptions: cf. Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Yad Ben-Zwi: Jerusalem and Amphora: Nyack, NY 2001), 167. These facts are significant for discovering the allusive, and not simply historical, meaning of Mk 12:42 (cf. also 12:15). 133 Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 589; B. Standaert, Marc, 892.

156

Mk 13:1-13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-33)

Macedonian churches in fact abounded more than the Corinthians, who should follow the Macedonians’ example (2 Cor 8:2.7; cf. 8:14: περισσευ* + ὑστέρη*).134 The subsequent, related thought that the widow put into the temple treasury her whole life (Mk 12:44c) illustrates Paul’s subsequent, related thought that he died every day (1 Cor 15:31a). The related, elaborated description of Jesus’ praise of the poor widow, who offered her whole life to God (Mk 12:43-44), alludes to Paul’s related idea that his dying every day (1 Cor 15:31a) paradoxically strengthened his pride in his followers, pride which he had in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 15:31bc).

2.13. Mk 13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-16:24) The section Mk 13, which refers to persecutions, universal destruction, and the approaching return of the main hero, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 15:32-16:24.

2.13.1. Mk 13:1-13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-33) The set of instructions concerning the destruction of the present world, not being deceived, corruption of formerly benevolent attitudes, and being aware of the danger from one’s social company (Mk 13:1-13) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 15:32-33. The opening, topographically surprising statements concerning the greatness of the stones and large edifices in the city of Jerusalem outside the temple (Mk 13:1-2b), apparently on the way east of the city to the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), in fact, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation, allude to the large edifices of the city of Ephesus (1  Cor 15:32a). Mark could assume that Paul’s fight with wild animals at Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32a) had taken place in the city’s great Hellenistic-Roman theatre (cf. Acts 19:29-31), which was a large, imposing edifice, made of great stones, and located to the east of the city centre.135 The subsequent statement concerning future total destruction of these large edifices, and consequently of the present world (Mk 13:2cd), alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea of the future eschatological resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:32bc). The subsequent, narratively superfluous remark that Jesus and his disciples were sitting on the Mount of Olives, which imaginatively suggests that they could 134 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxiv. 135 Cf. R. E. Oster, Jr., ‘Ephesus’, in ABD, vol. 2, 542-549 (esp. 545-546).



Mk 13:1-13 (cf. 1 Cor 15:32-33)

157

freely eat olives an drink olive oil there (Mk 13:3a), evokes the subsequent Pauline image of freely eating and drinking (1  Cor 15:32de). The reference to the Mount of Olives (τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν) as located opposite (κατέναντι) Jerusalem and its temple (Mk 13:3a) originates from Zech 14:4 LXX.136 The subsequent question of the Jewish Christian apostles concerning the time when all things will come to an end (Mk 13:4) in an appropriate way, with the use of the scriptural dialogue concerning the soon end of all these things (πότε + ταῦτα + συντελέω + πάντα: cf. Dan 12:6-7 LXX),137 illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that in a short time we will all die (1 Cor 15:32f). The fact that this question was asked in private (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν) by the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ in a Gentileoriented version, that is including the Greek-named Andrew (Mk  13:3b), illustrates the Pauline idea that he talked to them in private about his Gentile-oriented gospel (Gal 2:2b-d)138 with a good result (Gal 2:9), but afterwards their behaviour towards the Gentiles was corrupted (Gal 2:12), so that the related saying concerning corrupted habits (1 Cor 15:33b) could also apply to them. The subsequent instruction not to be deceived (μή + πλανάω: Mk  15:5-6) illustrates the subsequent, similarly formulated Pauline instruction not to be deceived (1 Cor 15:33a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea that the destruction by wars between presumably formerly peaceful nations and kingdoms should be interpreted as a sign of the eschatological time (Mk 13:7-8) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea that the destruction (φθείρω) of formerly benevolent habits towards other people (ἤθη χρηστά: 1 Cor 15:33b) should be interpreted as a consequence of rejecting the belief in an eschatological reward (1 Cor 15:32c-f). The particular idea of universal destruction presented as birth pangs (ὠδίν: Mk 13:8) was borrowed by the evangelist from the Pauline text 1 Thes 5:3, in which the metaphor of birth pangs was applied in a more natural way, namely not so much to the destruction itself, but rather to its unexpectedness (cf. 1 Thes 5:2). On the other hand, the exhortation not to be frightened (μή + θροέω) by the events which might point to the soon coming of the end of the world (Mk 13:7b) may have been borrowed from 2 Thes 2:2. The subsequent set of instructions concerning the believers being hatefully delivered and brought by their social company, including their closest relatives, to various hostile authorities (Mk 13:9-13) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Paul’s subsequent idea of a destructive influence of the believers’ bad company (1 Cor 15:33b). 136 Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 869, 873. 137 Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 485; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 867, 870; B. Standaert, Marc, 910-911. 138 Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 155-156.

158

Mk 13:14-23 (cf. 1 Cor 15:34-52)

The particular idea that the believers will be violently persecuted for the sake (ἕνεκεν) of Jesus (Mk 13:9), so that they will even be delivered (παραδίδωμι) to death (εἰς θάνατον) and killed (θανατόω: Mk 13:12; cf. 13:9.11), was borrowed from 2 Cor 4:11; Rom 8:36, but it may also allude to Paul’s preceding statement concerning his fighting with wild animals because of the gospel (1 Cor 15:32a). Likewise, the evidently Pauline thought that the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) must first be preached (κηρύσσω) to all the nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη: Mk 13:10) may allude to Paul’s preceding statement concerning his courageous preaching of the gospel, which was destined for all the nations (cf. Rom 1:5), in the Gentile city of Ephesus, notwithstanding strong opposition there (1 Cor 15:32a; cf. 16:8-9). Similarly, the thought that the believers ought not to worry beforehand about what they should say, for they should say whatever will be given them at that time by the Holy Spirit (Mk 13:11) may by means of the image of a divinely recalled inspiring proverb allude to the proverbial form of the Pauline statement 1 Cor 15:33b.

2.13.2. Mk 13:14-23 (cf. 1 Cor 15:34-52) The set of various instructions concerning turning away from ungodliness, generating new human beings, the beginning of the creation, false ideas concerning the Messiah, and predicting eschatological things (Mk 13:14-23) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1  Cor 15:34-52. The opening idea of seeing the pagan ‘abomination of desolation’ (βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως) as having been placed in the Jerusalem temple, as the reader who knows the Scriptures (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc 1:54 LXX)139 should understand it, so that those who will be in Judaea should flee to the mountains, presumably in order to flee from pagan ungodliness (Mk 13:14), illustrates the Pauline thought that the believers should become consciously righteous, apparently in a Jewish-style way, refrain from sinning, and avoid pagan-like people who have no knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34a-c). For Mark, the Pauline remark concerning those who have no knowledge of the true God (1 Cor 15:34c) could apply to the Romans, as the scriptural-historical allusion to a pagan who has stood (masc. perf. ἑστηκότα) in the Jerusalem temple, where he ought not to be (Mk 13:14a-d), evidently shows.140 139 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 424; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 208; B. Standaert, Marc, 926-927. 140 Mark’s use of Josephus’ writings generally suggests that the date of the composition of the Gospel was not earlier than ad 100. However, the allusion to some pagan person and/ or object as having stood in the place of the Jerusalem temple (Mk  13:14) could suggest that the Marcan Gospel was composed c. ad 130-135, under the rule of the emperor



Mk 13:14-23 (cf. 1 Cor 15:34-52)

159

The subsequent, correlated ideas that the one who went to the housetop should not go down to the house, and the one who went to the field should not turn back to the house (Mk  13:15-16), presumably because of the rule of ungodliness in Judaea (cf. Mk 13:14), commonly illustrate the Pauline exhortation concerning the believers turning about (ἐντροπή), presumably away from ungodliness (1 Cor 15:34d; cf. 15:34a-c). The subsequent woe to those who will carry or nurse newly conceived humans (Mk  13:17) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the subsequent Pauline discussion concerning the coming of humans in new bodies (1 Cor 15:35). The subsequent idea that a particular danger can be caused by the winter (Mk 13:18) in a negative way alludes to the subsequent Pauline metaphor of new life in agriculture, which has its time of growth from the spring to the autumn, but not in winter (1 Cor 15:36-38). Accordingly, in line with the Pauline agricultural metaphor 1 Cor 15:36-38, if the eschatological time comes in winter (Mk 13:18), it will not bring about any transformation into new life. The subsequent statement concerning the days of affliction (Mk 13:19a; cf. Dan 12:1 LXX),141 which will happen before the final resurrection (cf. Mk 13:2427), alludes to the subsequent Pauline thought that the perishable, unrespected, weak, merely physical human existence of necessity precedes the existence of the risen ones (1 Cor 15:42-44). The subsequent, somewhat surprising reference to the time of the creation of the world, which was added to the scriptural quotation concerning the ‘affliction which has not come into being’ (γίνομαι: Mk  13:19b; cf. Dan  12:1 LXX: ἡμέρα + ἐκείνη + θλῖψις οἵα οὐ + γίνομαι + ἀπό + ἕως),142 a quotation which was elaborated by Mark so as to refer both to the beginning of the creation which God had created (Mk 13:19c) and to the things which will come into being (γίνομαι: Mk 13:19d),143 alludes to Paul’s subsequent, likewise elaborated scriptural reference to the first man Adam, who came into being as a living creature, understandHadrian. The lack of undisputed manuscript attestation or quotations from the Gospels before the second half of the second century ad allows for such a hypothesis. For the dating of early New Testament manuscripts, see recently P. Orsini and W. Clarysse, ‘Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography’, ETL 88 (2012) 443-474 (here: 466): ‘There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (p52, p90, p104, probably all the second half of the century) […]’. 141 Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 197; B. Standaert, Marc, 930. 142 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 427; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 896; B. Standaert, Marc, 930-932. 143 Cf. F. De Carlo, ‘Dal principio’, 233-237.

160

Mk 13:14-23 (cf. 1 Cor 15:34-52)

ably at the time of the creation of the world, as the prototype of the last man Christ (1 Cor 15:45). The subsequent statement concerning the shortening of the days of affliction for the sake of the elect ones, whom the Lord chose, a statement which suggests that despite the Lord’s salvific activity, the affliction must inevitably happen (Mk 13:20), alludes to the subsequent Pauline thought that the chronological sequence of epochs must be retained: the physical, perishable existence must have its time first, and only afterwards the spiritual reality will come (1 Cor 15:46). In his reworking of 1 Cor 15:46, Mark evidently substituted the Pauline, somewhat abstract notion of ‘spiritual existence’ with the more understandable one of ‘being chosen’ or ‘being elect’ (Mk 13:20c; cf. 13:22.27). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the futility of looking for Christ here or there, presumably somewhere on the earth (Mk 13:21), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that whereas the first man was from the earth, the second man, that is Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:45c), will be from heaven (1 Cor 15:47). The subsequent idea of the opposition between false messiahs and false prophets, who will show some deceiving signs and prodigies, and the elect ones (Mk 13:22) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of the opposition between those who are followers of the earthly man and carry the image of merely the earthly man, and those who are followers of the heavenly man, that is Christ, and carry his image (1 Cor 15:49; cf. 15:48). Again, in his reworking of 1 Cor 15:48-49, Mark substituted the Pauline, somewhat abstract notion of a ‘heavenly man’ with the more understandable one of ‘being elect’ (Mk 13:22; cf. 13:20.27). On the other hand, the idea of satanic falsehood (ψευδο*) as working deceiving (πλαν*) sings (σημεῖα) and wonders (τέρατα: Mk 13:22a-c) may have been borrowed from 2 Thes 2:9.11.144 The concluding statement that Jesus predicted (*λέγω) all eschatological things (πάντα) to his followers (Mk 13:23b) alludes to Paul’s concluding formal prediction (λέγω), directed to his followers, of the eschatological things which will happen to all believers (πάντες: 1 Cor 15:51-52; cf. 15:50). The related exhortation to watch out (Mk 13:23a) alludes to the related Pauline statements that the believers will not all fall asleep (1 Cor 15:51b) and that the eschatological change will happen in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor 15:51c-52b).

144 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxiv.



Mk 13:24-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:53-58)

161

2.13.3. Mk 13:24-27 (cf. 1 Cor 15:53-58) The prediction concerning the triumphal Parousia of Christ (Mk  13:24-27) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 15:53-58. The scriptural, Isaianic references to the eschatological, cosmic destruction of the present world (Mk 13:24-25; cf. Is 13:10; 34:4 LXX etc.)145 allude to the Pauline idea of the eschatological end of the perishable things as the precondition for the final resurrection of the dead, and to its scriptural, Isaianic justification (1 Cor 15:53-54; cf. Is 25:8). The subsequent, scriptural reference to the glorious coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26; cf. Dan 7:13-14 LXX)146 likewise alludes to Paul’s subsequent scriptural reference to the eschatological victory (1 Cor 15:55; cf. Hos 13:14). The concluding thought that the elect ones will be gathered with the Son of Man (Mk 13:27) illustrates the concluding Pauline thought that the believers will participate in the final victory of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:57; cf. 15:58). Besides, the statement that the believers, who will presumably be alive at the time of the Parousia, will be taken up from the earth to the heaven (Mk 13:27b) is a reworking of the Pauline statement that the believers, who will be alive and remaining at the time of the Parousia, will be caught up, presumably from the earth, in the clouds to the sky (1 Thes 4:17). Accordingly, Mark again substituted the somewhat unclear Pauline idea of those who will be alive and remaining at the time of Christ’s Parousia (1 Thes 4:17a) with the more understandable one of being elect (Mk 13:27b; cf. 13:20.22).

2.13.4. Mk 13:28-32 (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-12) The set of instructions concerning the approaching, but on the other hand uncertain time of the arrival of the main hero (Mk 13:28-32) illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 16:1-12. The Jewish-style ‘parable’ (παραβολή) about the fig tree (Mk 13:28a; cf. 3:23; 4:2-34; 7:17; 12:1.12), the branch of which becomes tender and puts forth leaves in the spring,147 thus pointing to the fact that the summer is near (Mk 13:28b-e), il-

145 Cf. W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 429; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 208, 212; B. Standaert, Marc, 937-938. 146 Cf. W.  Eckey, Markusevangelium, 429; G.  Martin, ‘Procedural Register in the Olivet Discourse: A Functional Linguistic Approach’, Bib 90 (2009) 457-483 (esp. 474-476); K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 212-213. 147 Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 910.

162

Mk 13:28-32 (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-12)

lustrates Paul’s statement that he wanted to remain in Ephesus presumably for the whole spring, until the spring-summer Jewish feast of the Pentecost (1 Cor 16:8). The related idea of the spring as the time of the opening of the doors (θύρα) for Jesus, who is already close to his believers (Mk 13:29; cf. 13:30-31), by means of the hypertextual procedures of spatial translation and interfigurality alludes to Paul’s statements that in Ephesus a door has opened to him (1 Cor 16:9), and he will soon come to his Corinthian followers (1 Cor 16:5). The comparative phrase ‘so you also’ (οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς: Mk 13:29a), which relates the preparations of the believers (Mk 13:29) to the present spring time (Mk 13:28), linguistically alludes to the similar use of this phrase in Paul’s statement 1 Cor 16:1, which relates the preparations of the Corinthians (1 Cor 16:1b) to his present activity in Galatia and Asia, before the feast of the Pentecost (1 Cor 16:1a; cf. 16:8). The idea of the uncertain day of Jesus’ coming (Mk 13:32) by means of the hypertextual procedure of temporal translation alludes to Paul’s idea of the imprecise date of his coming to Corinth (1 Cor 16:3.6-7), as well as the imprecise dates of the coming of Timothy (1  Cor 16:10-11) and Apollos (1  Cor 16:12). The related, somewhat surprising statement that Jesus’ words will not pass away (Mk 13:31) illustrates the related Pauline idea that his preaching activity, regarded as the work of the Lord, will be faithfully continued in that of Paul’s successor Timothy (1 Cor 16:10; cf. 4:17). Moreover, the idea of the approaching ‘parousia’ of Paul and his co-workers in Corinth (1 Cor 16:1-12) was illustrated by the evangelist with the use of the Pauline statements concerning the eschatological Parousia of Christ. In particular, the thought that the present generation will see Christ’s Parousia (Mk 13:30; cf. 9:1) was borrowed from Paul’s early letters, especially from 1 Thes 4:15.17;148 1 Cor 15:51-53; 2 Cor 5:4. Likewise, the thought that the date of Christ’s Parousia is known neither to the angels in heaven, nor to the Son, but only to the Father (Mk 13:32) could be deduced from Paul’s statement that the Lord will descend from heaven at the command, at the call of the archangel, and at the sound of God’s trumpet (1 Thes 4:16; 1 Cor 15:52), so that it is evidently God, and not the Lord or the archangel, who will decide on the date of the Parousia.

2.13.5. Mk 13:33-37 (cf. 1 Cor 16:13-24) The set of instructions concerning being watchful, giving authority to the servants, and the coming of the lord (Mk 13:33-37) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 16:13-24.

148 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxiv.



Mk 13:33-37 (cf. 1 Cor 16:13-24)

163

The repeated exhortations to be watchful (γρηγορέω: Mk  13:34-35.37; cf. 13:33) illustrate the similar Pauline exhortation to be watchful (1 Cor 16:13a; cf. 16:13b-14). The subsequent image of a man who went away on a journey and gave to his servants the authority over the house, as well as a particular work (ἔργον) to each of them (Mk 13:34), by means of the hypertextual procedures of spatial translation and interfigurality illustrates the subsequent thought of the Apostle, who went away on a journey from Corinth to Ephesus and other cities around the Aegean Sea, that the household of Stephanas, who devoted themselves to the service for the church, as well as others who work with them (*εργέω) for the church, should be regarded as having authority over the believers (1 Cor 16:15-19). The subsequent thought that the lord (κύριος) of the house will come at the time which is hard to predict (Mk  13:35) alludes to the Pauline invocation to the Lord: Marana tha! (‘O Lord, come!’: 1  Cor 16:22). Mark elaborated this invocation with the use of the image of the Lord who will come at an unknown time (καιρός), like (ὡς) someone who comes unexpectedly (*αιφν), during the night (*νύκτ), so that he may find the inhabitants of the house sleeping (καθεύδω: Mk 13:33b-34a.35b-36), an image which was evidently borrowed from 1 Thes 5:1-7. The concluding, narratively superfluous reference to all (πᾶς) Jesus’ disciples (Mk 13:37)149 alludes to the concluding reference to all Paul’s addressees (1 Cor 16:24).

149 Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 958.

3. Mk 14-16 (cf. Phlp)

The Marcan narrative concerning Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection, which describes the end of his life (Mk 14-16), is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, which likewise refers to Paul’s Roman imprisonment, Jewish Christian betrayal, suffering, approaching death, and hope for resurrection, and which gives an image of the end of his life.

3.1. Mk 14:1-25 (cf. Phlp 1:1-18) The section Mk 14:1-25, which presents a good work done for Jesus, Jewish Christian envy, anonymous good-will support for Jesus’ activity, a Jewish Christian intrigue against Jesus, and widely sharing Christ, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding section Phlp 1:1-18.

3.1.1. Mk 14:1-11 (cf. Phlp 1:1-15a) The story about a Gentile-style good work, which was done in a Roman setting for Jesus, Jesus’ approaching death, and the gospel, against the background of Jewish Christian envy and strife (Mk 14:1-11), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 1:1-15a. The narratively superfluous remark concerning the soon approaching, decisive festival of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread, which should occur after, numerically counted, two days (ἡμέρα: Mk 14:1a; cf. 14:2),1 illustrates the Pauline idea of the period of time between the first day (Phlp 1:5) and the soon approaching, decisive day of Christ Jesus (Phlp 1:6; cf. 1:10). The subsequent, narratively superfluous remark concerning the extremely hostile, in fact deadly attitude of the chief priests and the experts in Scripture towards Jesus (Mk 14:1b-2) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent remarks concerning his chains, defence, and confirmation of the gospel (Phlp 1:7c-e), which were associated by the evangelist with the predominantly hostile attitude of the Jewish Christians leaders, especially 1

Cf. B. Standaert, Évangile selon Marc (EBib, 970-971.

ns

61; J. Gabalda: Pendé 2010), [vol. 3,]

166

Mk 14:1-11 (cf. Phlp 1:1-15a)

after the Antiochene crisis (cf. Gal 2:11-14), towards Paul (Phlp 1:15a.17). Likewise, the remark concerning Beth-ania, that is ‘the house of grief’ (Mk 14:3a; cf. 11:1.11-12), by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to the difficult situation of the imprisoned Paul (Phlp 1:7c; cf. 1:13-14 etc.). The significance of the location of the story in the house of Simon the leper (Mk 14:3a) is more difficult to decipher. On the one hand, the name of Simon (Σίμων) evidently recalls the Marcan motif of Simon-Peter (Mk 1:16.29-30.36; 3:16; 14:37). On the other hand, the surprising remark that Simon was a leper, which meant that he was constantly unclean (Mk 14:3a; cf. 1:40),2 evidently evokes the image of living in a Gentile environment. For this reason, it seems that the particular location of the Marcan story (Mk  14:3a) alludes to the Roman location of the place of the composition of the Letter to the Philippians (cf. Phlp 1:13; 4:22).3 The Christian community of Rome was not founded by Paul (Rom 1:13.15; 15:15.22), and consequently it was under a strong influence of the Jerusalem community, which was led by Cephas (cf. Rom 15:30-31). On the other hand, it included many Gentile believers (Rom 16:3-15; cf. Phlp 4:22). Therefore, the image of the Jew Simon, who was nevertheless always unclean (Mk 14:3a), aptly illustrates the main features of the Christian community of Rome.4 The subsequent, narratively superfluous remark concerning Jesus’ sitting at the table (Mk 14:3b; cf. 2:15) evokes the Pauline motif of table fellowship with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12.14), thus illustrating Paul’s subsequent thought that his Gentile believers shared in his grace (*κοινων: Phlp 1:7f; cf. 1 Cor 10:16; Gal 2:9). The subsequent image of a certain woman, understandably having an uncertain status as concerns ritual cleanness and thus evoking the idea of unclean Gentiles (Mk 14:3c; cf. 5:25), as bringing something valuable to Jesus (Mk 14:3d-f) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the Gentile Philippians offered him some valuable support while he was in Rome (Phlp 1:9b; cf. 4:10.15-18). 2 3

4

Cf. C. Focant, L’évangile selon Marc (CBNT 2; Cerf: Paris 2004), 514, 517. For Rome as the place of the composition of the Letter to the Philippians, see B. Adamczewski, Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 56-57, 81-82, 101-106; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 41-42, 71. It seems that the character of Simon the leper does not represent in Mk 14:3 the person of Peter because the Jewish Christian leaders are alluded to in Mk 14:1-11 by means of the characters of the chief priests and the experts in Scripture (Mk 14:1) and of the indignant ‘some’ (Mk 14:4-5). The tradition concerning Peter’s stay in Rome is first attested in 1 Pet 5:13.



Mk 14:1-11 (cf. Phlp 1:1-15a)

167

The subsequent description of the particular object which was brought by the woman to Jesus, namely sensually smelling perfume (μύρον) of nard (νάρδος), which was known for its attracting fragrance (Mk 14:3d; cf. Song 1:12 LXX), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the Gentile believers should abound in sensual-like perception (αἴσθησις) in their expressions of love (Phlp  1:9b), which were concretized in their having brought to Paul the ‘smell of fragrance’ (Phlp 4:18). The related, surprisingly used adjective πιστικός (‘faithful’: Mk 14:3d)5 most probably likewise alludes to the related thought concerning the faith of the Philippians, which was expressed in their ‘fragrant offering’ to Paul (Phlp 4:18). The subsequent remark that the perfume was very expensive (Mk 14:3d; cf. 14:5b), together with the remark concerning the luxurious alabaster jar (Mk 14:3d), which was extravagantly broken so that the costly perfume was poured on Jesus’ head (Mk 14:3ef; cf. Song 1:3 LXX), illustrates Paul’s subsequent thoughts that the Gentile believers should evaluate what is worth more than other things (Phlp 1:10a) and that they should be sincere (Phlp 1:10b). The surprisingly contrasting, indignant reaction of the Jewish Christians to the sincere Gentile-style expression of love of the woman (Mk 14:4-5; cf. 14:3) further illustrates the Pauline thought concerning the Gentiles’ sincerity towards Christ and him (Phlp  1:10b) as contrasted with the Jewish Christian envy and strife against him (Phlp 1:15a). The surprising way of calculating the worth of the perfume, namely in Roman denarii (Mk 14:5b), alludes to the Roman location of Paul’s imprisonment (cf. Phlp 1:13; 4:22). On the other hand, the particular idea of financial interest of the Jewish Christians, who insisted that the money should have been given to the poor (πτωχός: Mk 14:5c), alludes to the financial demand of the Jewish Christian leaders, who requested money for the Jewish Christian ‘poor’ (Gal 2:10a). The subsequent statement that the woman was not guilty and should not suffer any harm (κόπος: Mk 14:6bc) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that his Gentile followers should be free from harm because of not giving offence (*κοπος: Phlp 1:10b). The subsequent thought that the woman did a good work (ἔργον) for Jesus (Mk 14:6d), which had a quasi-liturgical value (Mk 14:7), illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the Gentile believers should be filled with the fruit of righteousness, which goes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God (Phlp 1:11), and which is tantamount to doing a good work (Phlp  1:6). The parenthetically inserted, somewhat surprisingly formulated thought concerning the lesser value of having done (aor. ποιῆσαι) good to the poor (πτωχός: Mk 14:7a-d)6 alludes to 5 6

Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 517. Cf. ibid. 518.

168

Mk 14:12-16 (cf. Phlp 1:15b-16)

Paul’s negative evaluation of the idea of having done good to the Jewish Christian ‘poor’ (Gal 2:10). The related statement that the woman anointed Jesus’ body (σῶμα) beforehand for its burial (*ταφ: Mk 14:8) with the use of the Jewish image of the righteous work of burying (θάπτω) dead bodies (Tob 1:17-19) further illustrates Paul’s Jewish-style idea that the believers should be filled with the fruit of righteousness (Phlp 1:11). Moreover, this statement also illustrates Paul’s remarks concerning his approaching death (Phlp 1:20; 2:16-17) as a Roman prisoner (Phlp 1:7.13-14). The subsequent statement concerning preaching (κηρύσσω) the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον: Mk 14:9b) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of preaching the gospel (Phlp 1:12; cf. 1:15). The subsequent, evidently Pauline thought that the gospel is preached in the whole (ὅλος), presumably Gentile, world (Mk 14:9b) by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation alludes to the subsequent Pauline thought that the gospel of Christ has become known in the whole, evidently Gentile, praetorium (Phlp 1:13). The subsequent statement that what the woman has done will be spoken of (λαλέω), together with the preaching of the gospel, in memory of her (Mk 14:9cd), alludes to Paul’s subsequent, praiseful statement that many Gentile believers participated in the preaching of the gospel by fearlessly speaking the word (Phlp 1:14; cf. 1:15b). The subsequent remark concerning a Jewish Christian hidden betrayal of Jesus (Mk 14:10-11) alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning Jewish Christian hidden envy and strife against him (Phlp 1:15a; cf. 1:17). The typically Jewish name of the betrayer, namely Judah (Ἰούδας: Mk  14:10; cf. 3:19; 14:43),7 additionally illustrates Paul’s idea that the hidden envy and strife against him was harboured by the Jewish Christians (Phlp 1:15a.17; 3:2-3). The narrative description of gradually betraying/handing Jesus over (παραδίδωμι: Mk  14:10-11; cf. 14:18.21.41-42.44; 15:1.10.15) illustrates the Pauline statement that Jesus was betrayed/handed over apparently gradually (imperf. παρεδίδετο: 1 Cor 11:23c).

3.1.2. Mk 14:12-16 (cf. Phlp 1:15b-16) The story about preparing a room for Jesus’ Passover (Mk 14:12-16) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text Phlp 1:15b-16, which refers to the people who from their goodwill and love support the evangelistic activity.

7

Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1, Palestine 330 bce – 200 ce (TSAJ 91; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2002), 118.



Mk 14:12-16 (cf. Phlp 1:15b-16)

169

The temporal remark which equates the first day of Unleavened Bread (ἄζυμος) with the time when the Jews sacrificed (θύω) the Passover sacrifice (πάσχα: Mk 14:12ab; diff. Num 28:16-17; Jos. Ant. 3.248-249; 6.423) was probably based on similarly overlapping or imprecise (between two days etc.) calculations in Ezek 45:21-22;8 Deut 16:1-7; Josh 5:10-11; Lev 23:5-7; Num 9:11.13; 28:17-23; Jos. B.J. 2.10; Ant. 10.70; 14.21; 18.29; 20.106. In any case, the Marcan presentation of that festival day as the day of the trial and death of Jesus Christ (Mk 14:12-15:47), which is rather implausible from the historical point of view (cf. also no such idea in 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:17-34; Jos. Ant. 18.64 [in its original form]),9 in a narrative way illustrates Paul’s statement that the believers are unleavened because Christ was sacrificed for us as our Passover sacrifice (1 Cor 5:7; cf. 5:8).10 The complicated narrative thread of the Marcan story (Mk  14:12-16) first introduces the anonymous character of a certain man who carried a heavy jar of water in the direction of Jesus’ disciples, but surprisingly, notwithstanding his busyness, led them in their direction to the place for the Passover (Mk 14:13). This strange character by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline idea of certain people who showed goodwill towards the apostle’s evangelistic activity (Phlp 1:15b). In his illustration of the idea of goodwill (εὐδοκία: Phlp 1:15b), Mark was probably influenced by Paul’s idea of God as somehow leading the believers both to will and to work beyond normal goodwill (Phlp 2:13), especially by their doing all things without complaints and disputes (Phlp 2:14). The subsequent anonymous narrative character of a householder who, likewise surprisingly, generously offered a large, furnished, and prepared room upstairs as a lodging (so: ‘lying’) place for the Teacher and his disciples, presumably because he had already known Jesus’ teaching activity (Mk 14:14-15; cf. 14:16),11 in a similar way illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of certain people who out of love helped preach Christ, having known that the apostle is ‘laid’ (κεῖμαι: ‘lie’) for the defence of the gospel (Phlp 1:16).

8 9 10 11

Cf. K. S. O’Brien, The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative (LNTS 384; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010), 43-44. Cf. É. Nodet, ‘On Jesus’ Last Supper’, Bib 91 (2010) 348-369 (esp. 368-369); id., ‘Chronologies de la Passion: Leur sens’, RB 118 (2011) 362-407 (esp. 378). Cf. K. L. Knoll, ‘Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus’, in T. L. Thompson and T. S. Verenna (eds.), ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (CopIS; Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol, Conn. 2012), 233-266 (esp. 248). Cf. W. Eckey, Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 445.

170

Mk 14:17-21 (cf. Phlp 1:17)

3.1.3. Mk 14:17-21 (cf. Phlp 1:17) The story about the Jewish Christian intrigue to betray Jesus (Mk 14:17-21) illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 1:17. The opening temporal remark that Jesus’ eucharistic meal with his disciples (cf. Mk 14:18ab.22-25) took place when evening came (Mk 14:17) reflects Paul’s statement that Jesus had his last supper at night (1 Cor 11:23c; cf. 11:23d-25). Likewise, the thought that Jesus was betrayed (παραδίδωμι: Mk  14:18e.21; cf. 14:10-11.41-42.44) was borrowed from 1 Cor 11:23c. On the other hand, the thought that Jesus was betrayed by one of his Jewish Christian disciples (Mk 14:17b.18e.20b) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea that he was betrayed by some of the Jewish Christians, who wanted to add affliction to his chains in Rome (Phlp 1:17). The thought that Jesus was betrayed by one of the Twelve who ate together with him (Mk 14:17b-20) also alludes to the statements concerning Peter’s betrayal of Paul and his idea of table fellowship in Antioch (Gal 2:12; cf. 2:13). Moreover, the particular description of the intended Jewish Christian betrayal, namely as committed by the disciple who not only ate with Jesus (Mk 14:18f), but also insincerely tried to conceal his guilt (‘Certainly, not I?’: Mk 14:19), and went on to dip with Jesus into the bowl (Mk 14:20c), so that the betrayal turned out to be an outcome of a very insincere intrigue, illustrates Paul’s idea that he was betrayed by the Jewish Christians who engaged in an intrigue (ἐριθεία) against him, and who were not sincere towards him (Phlp 1:17ab). The idea that the death of Jesus occurred according to what had been written of him (Mk 14:21) evidently illustrates the Pauline idea that Christ died according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3). The particular formula ‘as it has been written’ (καθὼς γέγραπται: Mk 14:21b) was also evidently borrowed from Paul’s letters (1 Cor 1:31 etc.).

3.1.4. Mk 14:22-25 (cf. Phlp 1:18) The story about Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist (Mk 14:22-25), notwithstanding the planned Jewish Christian betrayal of him (Mk  14:18-21), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text Phlp  1:18, which refers to Paul’s proclamation of Christ notwithstanding Jewish Christian intrigues against him (cf. Phlp 1:17). The Marcan description of the eucharistic actions and words concerning bread (λαμβάνω ἄρτον + part. aor. ‘having blessed’ + ἔκλασεν + καὶ εἶπεν + τοῦτο + ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα + μου: Mk 14:22b-d.f.h) evidently originates from 1 Cor 11:23d-



Mk 14:22-25 (cf. Phlp 1:18)

171

24d (cf. 1  Cor 10:16: εὐλογέω).12 On the other hand, the Marcan substitution of the idea of receptively giving thanks (εὐχαριστέω: 1 Cor 11:24a; cf. Mk 8:6; 14:23) with that of actively and joyfully pronouncing (*λογ) a blessing (εὐλογέω: Mk 14:22c; cf. 1 Cor 10:16), as well as the addition of the positive ideas of giving and taking (Mk 14:22e.g), together with the omission of the negative idea of remembering Christ’s death (1 Cor 11:24de; cf. 11:26), evoke the image of joyfully sharing Christ’s body, which by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the Pauline idea of proclaiming Christ in various ways with joy accompanying that (neut. τοῦτο: Phlp 1:18a-e). Similarly, the subsequent description of the eucharistic actions and words concerning the cup (λαμβάνω + ποτήριον + εὐχαριστήσας + πίνω + λέγω + τοῦτο + ἐστίν + αἷμα + ‘my’ + ἡ διαθήκη + ὑπέρ: Mk 14:23ab.d.24) evidently originates from the subsequent Pauline text 1 Cor 11:25, but also from the text concerning the bread (1 Cor 11:23d.24a.d),13 in order to reflect the Pauline idea of similarity (‘in the same way’: 1 Cor 11:25a), and in order to clarify the meaning of the phrase ‘for you’ (1 Cor 11:24d),14 which in the Marcan text understandably refers to pouring out blood (Mk  14:24c) and not to Christ’s body (Mk  14:22h; diff. 1 Cor 11:24d). On the other hand, the addition of the positive ideas of giving, all disciples drinking, and pouring out for many (Mk 14:23cd.24c), together with the omission of the negative idea of remembering Christ’s death (1 Cor 11:25d.f; cf. 11:26), evoke the image of widely sharing Christ’s cup, which again alludes to the Pauline idea of proclaiming Christ in various ways with joy accompanying that (neut. τοῦτο: Phlp 1:18a-e). Mark also omitted the Pauline idea of drinking the cup after the supper (1 Cor 11:25a), probably in order to make his account more easily understandable.15 Likewise, with the use of the scriptural idea of ‘the blood of the covenant’ (τὸ αἷμα… τῆς διαθήκης: Mk 14:24b; cf. Exod 24:8 LXX),16 the evangelist reworked 12

13 14 15 16

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999), 217; W. Schenk, ‘Die Rezeption der paulinischen Herrenmahlworte bei Markus’, in C. Barnbrock and W. Klän (eds.), Gottes Wort in der Zeit: verstehen – verkündigen – verbreiten, Festschrift V. Stolle (Lit: Münster 2005), 261-269 (esp. 261-263); F. Watson, ‘“I Received from the Lord…”: Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper’, in T. D. Still (ed.), Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007), 103-124 (esp. 117-118). Cf. W. Schenk, ‘Rezeption’, 261-263; F. Watson, ‘I Received’, 118. Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel to the Gospels: History, Theology and Impact of the Biblical Term euangelion (BZNW 195; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 150. Cf. F. Watson, ‘I Received’, 119-120. Cf. C.  Focant, Marc, 526; J.  Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Mark 8-16 (AB 27A; Yale: New Haven · London 2009), 958, 966; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 103, 227.

172

Mk 14:26-31 (cf. Phlp 1:19ab)

the idea of the new covenant (1 Cor 11:25c), thus presenting his post-Pauline view that the covenant in Jesus’ faithfulness (expressed in his intense prayer, instead of practising the ‘works of the law’) and blood (expressed in his sacrifice) is the only true covenant between God and his people (cf. 2 Cor 3:14; Mk 1:12-13.35; 6:46). The concluding, somewhat surprising, non-Pauline idea of a future drinking from the fruit of the vine in the kingdom of God, which will on the one hand continue that during the Lord’s Supper, but on the other hand it will bring something new (Mk  14:25),17 alludes to the Pauline concluding idea of future joy at that (neut. αὐτό: Phlp 1:18f), which will have something in common with the present joy (cf. Phlp 1:18e), but on the other hand it will mean something new, as referring to the future salvation (cf. Phlp 1:19ab). For this reason, the evangelist surprisingly substituted the Pauline noun ‘cup’ (ποτήριον: 1 Cor 11:25; Mk 14:23) with the neuter-gender descriptive scriptural phrase ‘the fruit of the vine’ (τὸ γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου: Mk 14:25b; cf. Is 32:12 LXX etc.), in order to continue the allusive reference to the Pauline neuter-gender pronoun (τοῦτο: Phlp 1:18e) in the phrase ‘drink it’ (αὐτὸ πίνω: Mk 14:25c), which because of the intended allusion to future joy (Phlp 1:18f) had to refer to wine (in Greek: masc. οἶνος). Accordingly, Jesus’ firm conviction that after his suffering (cf. Mk 14:22-24) he will participate in the glorious banquet of the kingdom of God (Mk 14:25) reflects Paul’s firm conviction that his present suffering (cf. Phlp 1:17-18e) will turn out for his future, supernatural joy (Phlp 1:18f; cf. 1:19ab).

3.2. Mk 14:26-52 (cf. Phlp 1:19-30) The section Mk 14:26-52, which refers to God’s overcoming the Jewish Christian betrayal, prayer and spiritual support while facing death, and the followers fighting together for the gospel, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 1:19-30.

3.2.1. Mk 14:26-31 (cf. Phlp 1:19ab) The story about the Jewish Christian betrayal as overcome by God (Mk 14:2631) illustrates the main idea of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 1:19ab.

17

Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 2, Mk 8,27-16,20 (EKKNT 2/2; 5th edn., Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 246.



Mk 14:26-31 (cf. Phlp 1:19ab)

173

The opening, narratively superfluous remark that Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn (Mk 14:26a)18 probably, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, alludes to Paul’s thought that the prayer of his followers, as well as the assistance of the Spirit will help him (Phlp 1:19; cf. Col 3:16: ‘spiritual hymns’). Likewise, the superfluous remark concerning going out from the place of the Jewish Christian intrigue against Jesus (cf. Mk  14:17-25) to the Mount of Olives (Mk 14:26b) may by means of the hypertextual procedures of spatial translation and interfigurality allude to Paul’s idea of getting out (ἀποβαίνω) from the Jewish Christian intrigues against him (cf. Phlp 1:17) to deliverance (Phlp 1:19b). Jesus’ prediction that he will be abandoned by all Jewish Christian disciples, and nevertheless God will raise him, so that he will be able to depart for the safe region of Galilee (Mk 14:27-28; cf. 14:29-31), with the use of the reworked quotation from Zech 13:7 LXX, which explains the Jewish Christian betrayal as foretold and overcome by God,19 illustrates Paul’s idea that the Jewish Christian betrayal of him (cf. Phlp 1:17) will turn out (ἀποβαίνω: lit. ‘depart’) for his salvation (Phlp 1:19ab) with the support of the divine Spirit (Phlp 1:19d). Mark evidently conflated the Pauline idea of the support of the divine Spirit (πνεῦμα: Phlp 1:19d) with that of the Spirit’s engagement in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Rom 1:4), and consequently he reformulated the idea of overcoming the Jewish Christian betrayal (Phlp  1:19ab) from that caused by the support of the divine Spirit (Phlp 1:19d) to that caused by raising Jesus from the dead (Mk 14:28a). The related, somewhat superfluous prediction of Peter’s betrayal of Jesus (Mk 14:29-31d) alludes to Peter’s betrayal of Paul in Antioch (Gal 2:12). Peter’s initial assurance that even if all Jewish Christian disciples will be scandalized by Jesus (cf. Mk 14:27), he will not be (Mk 14:29; cf. 14:31a-d), illustrates Cephas’ initially positive attitude towards Paul and his ideas (Gal 1:18; 2:7-9). The subsequent, strangely formulated statement: ‘before the cock crows two times, you will deny me three times’ (Mk 14:30cd) alludes to the idea of Peter’s subsequent, soon committed, violation of the Jerusalem accord between the apostles: ‘2 plus/against 3’ (Gal 2:12; cf. 2:9).20 The concluding remark that all other Jewish 18 19

20

In fact, we have no detailed information concerning the order of the celebration of the Passover in Jewish families at Jesus’ time. The later rabbinic descriptions may have been influenced by the Christian Gospels. Cf. K.  S.  O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 123-124, 206, 230; A.  Herrmann, Versuchung im Markusevangelium: Eine biblisch-hermeneutische Studie (BWANT 197; W.  Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2011), 219; W.  Baxter, ‘Matthew, Mark, and the Shepherd Metaphor’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (WUNT 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 263-282 (esp. 273). Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 220.

174

Mk 14:32-42 (cf. Phlp 1:19c-28a)

Christian apostles in fact likewise betrayed Jesus (Mk 14:31e; cf. 14:50) alludes to Paul’s thought that all other Jewish Christian leaders in fact likewise betrayed him in Antioch (Gal 2:13).

3.2.2. Mk 14:32-42 (cf. Phlp 1:19c-28a) The story about prayer and expected spiritual support while having to choose between life and death, as well as being absent but coming again to the disciples (Mk 14:32-42), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 1:19c-28a. Since the remark concerning the Mount of Olives, to which Jesus and his disciples went out (Mk 14:26), previously alluded to the Pauline idea of freely eating and drinking, presumably olives and olive oil (Mk 13:3; cf. 1 Cor 15:32de), then the related but intensified remark concerning Gethsemane, which means ‘oil press’ (Mk 14:32ab), most probably alludes to the Pauline idea of generous supply (ἐπιχορηγία: Phlp 1:19d), presumably with great quantities of olive oil. The semantic link between olive oil (cf. Mk 14:32b) and the divine Spirit (cf. Phlp 1:19d) could be found in the scriptural text 1 Sam 16:13. The image of Jesus as praying (Mk 14:32.35.39) and exhorting his disciples to pray (Mk 14:38), especially in the situation of his facing death (Mk 14:34-36), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea that he will be saved thanks to the prayer of his followers, especially in the situation of his facing death in the Roman prison (Phlp 1:19c). The related idea of being watchful (γρηγορέω: Mk 14:34.37-38) by means of the Pauline semantic link to standing firm (στήκω) in faith (1 Cor 16:13ab) illustrates the Pauline idea of standing firm in spirit (Phlp 1:27f). On the other hand, the idea of sleeping (καθεύδω), as a counterpart of being watchful (Mk 14:37.4041), was borrowed from 1 Thes 5:6. The related image of the three ‘pillar’ apostles, namely Peter, James, and John (Mk 14:33a), and among them especially Peter (Mk 14:37d-g), as not praying, but spiritually abandoning Jesus (Mk 14:37.40-41) illustrates the Pauline idea of the three Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:9),21 especially Cephas, as abandoning their loyalty towards Paul (Gal 2:12).22 Therefore, these Jewish Christian leaders function in the Marcan story as a negative counterpart of Paul’s Gentile followers, who faithfully prayed for the Apostle (Phlp 1:19c).

21 22

Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2012), 118-119. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 220.



Mk 14:32-42 (cf. Phlp 1:19c-28a)

175

The subsequent description of Jesus’ being in an emotional state between life and impending death (θάνατος: Mk 14:33b.34b.35-36; cf. 14:41f-42) with the use of the reworked quotation from Ps 42[41]:6.12; 43[42]:5 LXX (περίλυπος + εἰμί + ψυχή), which refers to emotional oscillation between despair and hope,23 illustrates Paul’s subsequent description of his emotional state while having to choose between life and death, while facing the perspective of impending death (Phlp 1:2025). In particular, Jesus’ wish not to die (Mk 14:35-36c) illustrates Paul’s similar wish (Phlp 1:25). The phrase ‘abba, the Father’ (αββα ὁ πατήρ: Mk 14:36b), which was related to both suffering and divine vindication (Mk 14:36b-e), was evidently borrowed from Rom 8:15 (cf. 8:16-17).24 The subsequent image of Jesus’ coming (ἔρχομαι) to his disciples (Mk 14:37; cf. 14:40-41) illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of his coming to his followers (Phlp 1:26-27). The related idea of Jesus’ coming again (πάλιν) to his disciples (Mk 14:40; cf. 14:39) illustrates Paul’s related idea of coming again to his followers (Phlp 1:26). The resulting image of Jesus’ alternately coming to his disciples (and then finding them in a certain state) and being absent from them (Mk 14:35.37.3941) illustrates Paul’s idea of either coming to his followers (and then seeing them) or being absent from them (Phlp 1:27b-d). The subsequent, negative combination of the idea of the apostles being watchful (γρηγορέω: Mk 14:37g.38a), which like in Mk 14:34 alludes to standing firm (στήκω: Phlp 1:27f), with the idea of having a willing spirit (πνεῦμα: Mk 14:38d), even when Jesus is absent from his disciples (Mk  14:34-35.37-41), illustrates Paul’s subsequent idea of the believers standing firm in spirit (Phlp 1:27f), even when he is absent from his followers (Phlp 1:27d). The subsequent opposition between the willing spirit (πνεῦμα) and the weak flesh (σάρξ: Mk  14:38de), which evidently originates from the Pauline letters (Rom  8:2-9.12-13; Gal  5:15-25 etc.), as well as the negatively presented ideas of having one’s eyes very heavy (Mk  14:40d), not knowing what to answer (Mk 14:40e), and resting (Mk 14:41d), illustrate Paul’s subsequent idea of mentally struggling for faith (Phlp 1:27g). The related idea of getting up (Mk 14:42a) further illustrates the Pauline idea of standing firm in spirit (Phlp 1:27f). 23 24

Cf. F. De Carlo, „Dio mio, Dio mio, perché mi hai abbandonato?” (Mc 15,34): I Salmi nel racconto della passione di Gesù secondo Marco (AnBib 179; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2009), 94-96; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 104, 127-128, 208. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xxv; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 219 n. 15; É. Trocmé, L’Évangile selon saint Marc (CNT 2; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000), 347.

176

Mk 14:43-52 (cf. Phlp 1:28b-30)

The concluding exhortation to go courageously together to meet the approaching betrayer (Mk 14:42bc; cf. 14:43) illustrates the concluding Pauline ideas of standing firm in one spirit (Phlp 1:27f) and being in no way frightened by the opponents (Phlp 1:28a).

3.2.3. Mk 14:43-52 (cf. Phlp 1:28b-30) The story about a struggle during the arresting of Jesus (Mk 14:43-52) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 1:28b-30. The opening description of a crowd armed with swords and clubs, who precisely at that moment came with Judas to arrest Jesus (Mk 14:43), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality further illustrates the Pauline idea of having dangerous opponents (Phlp 1:28a). The subsequent image of indicating Jesus by giving a sign, which surprisingly consisted in giving him the kiss of death (Mk  14:44-45),25 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of an indicating sign (ἔνδειξις), which in fact indicates eschatological destruction of the opponents (Phlp 1:28b). The subsequent account of a violent arrest of Jesus, which was met with no resistance of his part (Mk 14:46), illustrates Paul’s subsequent exhortation to endure suffering for Christ’s sake (Phlp 1:29). The subsequent description of a violent reaction to this arrest on the part of the Jewish Christian disciples, a reaction which consisted in fighting with a sword against the people who were also armed with swords (Mk 14:47; cf. 14:43.48), illustrates Paul’s thought that his followers have the same fight, which they earlier saw in him (Phlp 1:30ab). In the Marcan reinterpretation of this Pauline thought, the Jewish Christian disciples somehow fought for Jesus (Mk 14:47), but their fight was in fact wrong because they answered to violence with violence (Mk 14:4647; cf. 14:48), and not with patient submission to the will of God (cf. Phlp 1:29; Mk 14:36), which was expressed in the Scriptures (αἱ γραφαί: Mk 14:49; cf. 1 Cor 15:3). Moreover, at the end all the Jewish Christian disciples simply abandoned Jesus (Mk 14:50). On the other hand, the story about a certain naked young man who followed Jesus (Mk  14:51-52) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline idea of a correct, Jesus-like way of struggling for the faith of the gospel (Phlp  1:30ab; cf. 1:27g). The young man, having heard the 25

Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2000), 878; C. Focant, Marc, 543, 546.



Mk 14:53-72 (cf. Phlp 2:1-10)

177

words of Jesus (Mk 14:48-49), did not answer with violence, but followed Jesus (Mk 14:51a) and was arrested (κρατέω: Mk 14:51c), apparently in the same way as Jesus was (cf. Mk 14:44.46.49), and only thereafter fled (Mk 14:52). Accordingly, his behaviour illustrates Paul’s ideas that his followers not only believe in Christ, but also suffer for him (Phlp 1:29), and that they have the same struggle which they saw in Paul and hear that is in Paul (Phlp 1:30).26 The highlighted fact that the young man was naked (γυμν*: Mk  14:51-52) points to his Gentile, rather than Jewish, identity (cf. 1 Macc 1:14; 2 Macc 4:9.12 etc.). Consequently, the image of a young man of Gentile identity, who faithfully followed his master up to the point of his arrest (Mk 14:51), but was in fact not arrested (Mk 14:52), particularly illustrates to the behaviour of Paul’s young Gentile follower Timothy (cf. Phlp 2:22),27 who faithfully followed the Apostle up to the point of his arrest (Phlp 1:1), but unlike Paul, he was not arrested (Phlp 2:19.23).

3.3. Mk 14:53-15:15 (cf. Phlp 2:1-3:3) The section Mk 14:53-15:15, with its main themes of Christ’s being obedient to the point of death, being the exalted Son of God, being regarded as the ruler by the Gentiles, and being innocent, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 2:1-3:3.

3.3.1. Mk 14:53-72 (cf. Phlp 2:1-10) The two scenes of the interrogation of Jesus by the high priest (Mk  14:55-65) and of the interrogation of Peter by the servants of the high priest (Mk 14:66-72) are evidently linked together (cf. Mk 14:53-54.66) to form a single thematic unit, which is composed with the use of the principle of contrast between the exemplary behaviour of Jesus on the upper level and the blameworthy behaviour of Peter on the lower level.28 26 27

28

For a recent analysis of the link between loosing one’s cloak and the situation of conflict, see E. Vearncombe, ‘Cloaks, Conflict, and Mark 14:51-52’, CBQ 75 (2013) 683-703 (esp. 694-702). It should be noted that Timothy was regarded by Paul as his Gentile co-worker (Rom 16:21; cf. Col 4:10-11). The presentation of Timothy as a half-Jew, under the influence of the post-Pauline ethopoeic texts 2 Tim 1:5; 3:5 etc., was a later invention (Acts 16:1-3). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 91-97, 102 n. 6. Cf. P. Dschulnigg, Das Markusevangelium (TKNT 2; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2007), 379-382; P.  Muema, The Relationship Between Peter and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: An Exegetico-Theological Study (Catholic University of Eastern Africa: Nairobi 2010), 208209, 211-217, 229-230; B. Standaert, Marc, 1061.

178

Mk 14:53-72 (cf. Phlp 2:1-10)

Consequently, these two scenes, which present Christ as becoming obedient to the point of death and being the exalted Son of God, as well as Peter as not imitating the behaviour of Christ (Mk 14:53-72), in a contrasted, positive and negative way, sequentially illustrate the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 2:1-10. Besides, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality these two scenes allude to the anti-Pauline stance which was adopted by James’ party in Jerusalem, and to Peter’s cowardly betrayal of Paul in Antioch (Gal 2:12). The opening description of Peter’s initially courageous following Jesus right into the courtyard of the high priest (Mk 14:54) illustrating Paul’s opening ideas of having some encouragement in Christ, encouragement of love, spiritual fellowship, affection, and compassion (Phlp 2:1). The related image of the assembly of the high priest with other chief priests, elders, and experts in Scripture (Mk 14:53) alludes to the assembly of the highly influential party of James (Gal 2:12c). Likewise, the description of Peter as initially courageously following Jesus (Mk 14:54) alludes to Cephas’ initially pro-Pauline stance in Antioch (Gal 2:12ab). The subsequent description of the Jewish testimonies brought against Jesus, which did not agree with each other (Mk 14:55-59), in a negative way illustrates Paul’s subsequent ideas of thinking the same thing, having the same love, being spiritually united, and being of one mind (Phlp 2:2). Moreover, the preconceived ideas, decidedly hostile to Jesus, which were held by the chief priests and the whole Jewish council (Mk  14:55; cf. 14:56) illustrate the strongly anti-Pauline ideas of the Jewish Christian party of James (Gal 2:12c). According to Mk 14:5759, these anti-Pauline ideas mainly diminished the theological-halachic importance which Paul attached to Jesus’ resurrection (2 Cor 5:15-17; Rom 4:22-25; 10:9-12; cf. Col  2:12-17 etc.). The particular idea of destroying (καταλύω) the temple made with hands, and building (οἰκοδομ*) another, not made with hands (ἀχειροποίητος), regarded as a metaphor of the resurrection (Mk 14:58), was borrowed from 2 Cor 5:1. The subsequent image of Jesus as keeping silent and answering nothing to the potentially deadly charges which were made against him (Mk 14:61ab; cf. 14:60) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of Jesus’ being humble, emptying himself, and becoming humbly obedient to the point of death on a cross (Phlp 2:3-8). The related question concerning Jesus’ being the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (Mk  14:61c-e), which was followed by Jesus’ positive answer to it (ἐγώ εἰμι: Mk  14:62ab),29 an answer that in Jewish-style terms referred to God’s son and to God himself (cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Exod 3:14 LXX etc.), alludes to Paul’s related, 29

Cf. L. A. Huizenga, ‘The Confession of Jesus and the Curses of Peter: A Narrative-Christological Approach to the Text-Critical Problem of Mark 14:62’, NovT 53 (2011) 244-266 (esp. 265).



Mk 14:53-72 (cf. Phlp 2:1-10)

179

double confession of Jesus as the Messiah/Christ (Phlp 2:5; cf. Rom 1:3) and as the Son of God, being in the form of God, in fact equal with God (Phlp 2:6; cf. Rom 1:4). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly added, Scripture-based statement concerning seeing the Son of Man (ἄνθρωπος) as, surprisingly, first sitting at the right hand of the Power (Mk 14:62cd; cf. Ps 110[109]:1 LXX) and only thereafter coming with the clouds of heaven (οὐρανός: Mk 14:62e; cf. Dan 7:13 LXX)30 alludes to the subsequent Pauline, Scripture-based confession of Jesus, who had the form of a man (cf. Phlp 2:7cd), as being first highly exalted (Phlp 2:9a) and only thereafter given the name at which every knee should bend, primarily of those in heaven (*ουραν) (Phlp 2:9b-10). The subsequent description of the high priest’s indignation (Mk 14:63), the council’s condemnation of Jesus to death (θάνατος: Mk  14:64), and the Scripture-based humiliation of Jesus by others (Mk  14:65; cf. Is  50:6 LXX: ἐμπτυ* + πρόσωπον + ῥαπίσματα),31 which presents the people in a descending order of importance (the high priest, the council, and the servants) as rejecting Jesus (Mk 14:63-65), in a negative way, by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation, alludes to Paul’s subsequent idea of the descending order of importance of those who will confess Jesus’ name in the future (those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth: Phlp 2:10), and against this background (cf. Mk 14:62) illustrates the related Pauline idea of Jesus’ humbling himself and becoming obedient to the point of death (Phlp 2:8). Moreover, it reflects Paul’s statement that Jesus was killed by the Jews (1 Thes 2:15).32 The related account of the interrogation of the Jewish Christian leader Peter, who three times denied his association with Jesus, and even refrained from pronouncing his name (Mk 14:66-72), in a contrasting, negative way illustrates the Pauline thought that the believers, being encouraged by the example of Christ and by love, spiritual fellowship, affection, and compassion (Phlp 2:1), should imitate the attitudes and behaviour of Christ Jesus up to the point of dying the death on a cross (Phlp 2:2-8), and make a triple confession of the name of Jesus (Phlp 2:910). In particular, the descending order of importance of the interrogating people (a servant girl of the high priest, the servant girl, and the bystanders: Mk 14:66-

30 31 32

Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 556; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1008. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007), 707; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1017-1018; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 108, 140-141, 262. Cf. E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (NTOA 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 83.

180

Mk 14:53-72 (cf. Phlp 2:1-10)

71)33 and of the places in which the interrogation took place (the warm courtyard of the high priest, and the forecourt: Mk 14:66-68) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and spatial translation alludes to the descending order of agents and realms confessing Jesus (those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth: Phlp 2:10). In order to present the Pauline ideas expressed in Phlp 2:1-10 as not fulfilled by the Jewish Christian leaders (cf. Phlp 1:15a.17), Mark illustrated them with the use of the image of Peter’s cowardly betrayal of Jesus (Mk 14:66-72), which alludes to Cephas’ cowardly betrayal of Paul (Gal 2:12).34 The description of the interrogation of Peter as taking place below, in the courtyard of the high priest (Mk 14:66a), evidently contrasts the exemplary, morally superior behaviour of Jesus (Mk 14:61-65) with the cowardly, morally inferior behaviour of Peter (Mk 14:66-72). The image of the interrogation of Peter as caused by one of the female slaves of the high priest, who came (ἔρχομαι) to the place where Peter was by a fire (Mk  14:66-67b; cf. 14:54), by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation (in this case: feminization) illustrates the Pauline thought that Cephas was confronted with certain followers of James, who came to the place where he was eating together with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12a-c). The image of Peter as withdrawing from the court to the forecourt because of his being afraid of the servants of the high priest (Mk 14:68; cf. 14:70-71) illustrates the Pauline idea that Cephas withdrew and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were of the circumcision (Gal 2:12d-f).35 The suggestion that Peter must have been a follower of Jesus because he was a Galilean (Mk  14:70) alludes to the half-Gentile identity of Cephas, who was also called by the Greek equivalent of his name, namely as Peter (Gal 2:7-8), and consequently he could have been suspected of having pro-Gentile views. The concluding, surprising thought that Peter’s betrayal consisted in his acting three times against the cock, a loudly crowing bird which evidently alludes to the announcing activity of Paul and Barnabas, a bird which unexpectedly acted two times (Mk 14:72 B et al.; cf. 14:30; diff. Mk 14:68 ‫א‬, B et al.: no mention of the first crow of the cock), again alludes to Cephas’ violation of the Jerusalem accord ‘3 against 2’ (Gal 2:12d-f; cf. 2:9).

33 34 35

Cf. the previous, semantically corresponding triad: the high priest, the council, and others present there (Mk 14:63-65). Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel, xxv. Cf. ibid.



Mk 15:1-5 (cf. Phlp 2:11-16)

181

3.3.2. Mk 15:1-5 (cf. Phlp 2:11-16) The story about a Gentile attitude to Jesus as the ruler, and about Jesus’ being innocent (Mk 15:1-5) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 2:11-16. The somewhat surprising image of the Jewish leaders as early in the morning handing Jesus over (παραδίδωμι) to Pilate (Πιλᾶτος: Mk  15:1)36 resulted from a combination of the Pauline idea that Jesus was betrayed/handed over at night (1 Cor 11:23) with Josephus’ statement that on the basis of a demonstration of the most prominent people among the Jews, Pilate punished Jesus (Jos. Ant. 18.64 [in its original form]). The surprising image of Pilate as unexpectedly asking Jesus, ‘You are the king of the Jews?!’ (Mk 15:2ab) and Jesus as answering, ‘You say it!’ (Mk 15:2ce; diff. 14:62),37 as though the Gentile Pilate confessed Jesus as the king (cf. Mk 15:9.12),38 illustrates the Pauline ideas that every, presumably Gentile, tongue will confess that Jesus is the lord (Phlp 2:11), and that God effectuates in the Gentiles both to will and to act for his pleasure (Phlp 2:13). The subsequent description of the surprising behaviour of Jesus in the midst of Jewish baseless charges (Mk 15:3-4), namely as answering nothing, and thus causing the admiration of Pilate for Jesus as for someone really innocent (Mk 15:5; cf. 15:10.14),39 illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the believers should not engage in disputing (Phlp 2:14), but should be blameless and innocent in the midst of a crooked and depraved generation, in order to shine among them like stars (Phlp 2:15).

3.3.3. Mk 15:6-15 (cf. Phlp 2:17-3:3) The story about Jesus’ death as related to the Jewish sacrificial festival, the release of the ‘son’ and fellow soldier Barabbas, who was close to death but was shown mercy, and the danger caused by the Jews (Mk 15:6-15), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 2:17-3:3. The Marcan account of the Jewish liberation of Barabbas, who was arrested together 36

37 38 39

Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 563. It should be noted that Mark assumed that his readers knew who Pilate was (‘Pilate’: Mk 15:1; diff. ‘King Herod’: Mk 6:14 etc.): cf. W. Klaiber, Das Markusevangelium (BNT; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2010), 294. This fact again betrays the acquaintance of the evangelist and his implied readers with the works of Josephus (B.J. 2.169-175; Ant. 18.35-89, 177). Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 563-564. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1033. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 925; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1034-1035, 1037.

182

Mk 15:6-15 (cf. Phlp 2:17-3:3)

with Jesus (Mk  15:6-15), also alludes to the Jewish Christian ‘exoneration’ of Barnabas, who was presumably accused together with Paul in Antioch (Gal 2:13). The surprising reference to an otherwise unattested Pilate’s custom of releasing one prisoner, who was requested by the people, in relation to the Jewish sacrificial festival (Mk 15:6.8; cf. 14:1-2.12)40 alludes to Paul’s thought that his death could be regarded as a bloody sacrifice (Phlp 2:17), a thought which was combined by the evangelist with the Pauline idea of Christ’s death as a Passover sacrifice (1 Cor 5:7). Although from the historical point of view it is hard to imagine Jesus’ crucifixion as having taken place during the festival of Passover (cf. Mk 14:12), Mark depicted such a situation in order to illustrate these Pauline ideas (1 Cor 5:7; Phlp 2:17). The artificial name of Barabbas (Βαραββᾶς: Mk  15:7.11.15), which is not attested before the composition of the Marcan Gospel,41 means ‘the son of the father’. Mark evidently knew the meaning of the Aramaic word bar, which means ‘son’ (cf. ‘the son of Timaeus, Bar-Timaeus’: Mk 10:46), and of the Aramaic word abba, which means ‘the father’ (cf. ‘abba, the Father’: Mk 14:36; cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). Moreover, the conscious use of the wordplay ‘the son of Timaeus, BarTimaeus’ (Mk 10:46) as evoking the image of acting for the benefit of both Jews and Greeks, and thus alluding to 1 Cor 9:20-21, reveals that Mark was capable of creating composed names of the type of Bar-abbas in order to illustrate some particular Pauline ideas. Consequently, the subsequent remark concerning the person who bore the artificial name of Barabbas, which simply means ‘the son of the father’, and thus conveys no more meaning than merely a reference to one’s filial relationship to another man (Mk 15:7.11.15),42 by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to Paul’s subsequent remarks concerning his co-worker Timothy (Phlp 2:19-23), who was described by Paul as someone who could be sent as a free person from the place of Paul’s imprisonment (Phlp 2:19.23) and whose relationship to Paul was like that of a particularly faithful son to his father (Phlp 2:22; cf. 1 Cor 4:17). The subsequent description of Barabbas as one of the insurrectionists who fought in the otherwise unknown insurrection (Mk 15:7c),43 and who was presum40 41

42 43

Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 304; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 714-717; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1028, 1031. Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, part 1, 357. It should be noted that the readings and meaning of the word ‫’( אבא‬b’) in H. M. Cotton [et al.] (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae / Palaestinae, vol. 1, Jerusalem, Part 1: 1-704 (CIIP; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), nos. 18, 288, 347, as well as ‫’( אבה‬bh) in ibid. no. 55, are evidently disputable. Cf. B. Standaert, Marc, 1106. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1029; B. Standaert, Marc, 1106.



Mk 15:6-15 (cf. Phlp 2:17-3:3)

183

ably close to death because he had committed murder (Mk 15:7d), but was shown mercy and released from prison (Mk 15:11; cf. 15:6-7), likewise alludes to the subsequent Pauline remarks concerning Epaphroditus (Phlp 2:25-30), who was Paul’s ‘brother’ (so apparently a son of the same father) and fellow soldier (Phlp 2:25), who was close to death because he risked his life for the work of Christ (Phlp 2:27a.30), but God had mercy on him (Phlp 2:27b), and therefore he could be sent as a free person from the place of Paul’s imprisonment (Phlp 2:28; cf. 2:25). Moreover, against the background of these two positive allusions, the Aramaic name of Barabbas (Βαραββᾶς: Mk 15:7.11.15) in a negative way, by means of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation, also alludes to the likewise Aramaic name of Barnabas (Βαρναβᾶς: Gal  2:13). In contrast to Timothy and Epaphroditus, who faithfully served the imprisoned Apostle (Phlp 2:19-30), the Aramaic-named Barnabas betrayed him by siding against him with Cephas, and in this way he was ‘released’ from the Jewish Christian suspicion concerning his pro-Gentile stance (Gal 2:13). Consequently, Bar-nabas (Gal 2:13), instead of being truly (nomen omen) ‘son of prophecy’ (cf. Mk 14:65), became merely ‘the son of the father’ Cephas, thus meriting the semantically vague name Bar-abbas (Mk 15:7.11.15). This interpretation of the significance of the name of Barabbas in Mk 15:7-15 is additionally confirmed in the preceding story Mk 6:22-28, in which the ‘play-actor’ Barnabas was allusively presented as a dancing child of King Herod, that is, allusively, of Cephas (esp. Mk 6:22). The related thought that the Jewish leaders betrayed/handed Jesus over to a Roman official out of envy (διὰ φθόνον: Mk 15:10) was borrowed from Phlp 1:15a.44 In fact, the thought that the trial of the imprisoned (δεσμ*) Jesus before the Roman official was caused by Jewish false accusations against him (Mk 15:3) additionally, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, alludes to Paul’s references to his Roman imprisonment as at least partly caused by the envy of his Jewish Christian fellow believers (Phlp 1:15a.17), by evoking the image of the earlier betrayal of Paul by his Jewish Christian fellow believers in Antioch (Gal 2:13). The subsequent, historically rather implausible description of the whole crowd of the Jews, and not just the Jewish leaders, as requesting the death of Jesus (Mk  15:12-15; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.64 [in its original form]) illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the believers should beware of the circumcised ones, that is of the Jews in general (Phlp 3:2-3). The related statement that Pilate (Πιλᾶτος) handed Jesus over (παραδίδωμι) to be flogged and crucified (σταυρόω: Mk  15:15d-f) resulted from a combination of the Pauline idea that Jesus was 44

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 226.

184

Mk 15:16-20 (cf. Phlp 3:4-9)

betrayed/handed over (1 Cor 11:23) and Josephus’ statement that Pilate punished Jesus with the death on the cross (σταυρός: Jos. Ant. 18.64 [in its original form]).

3.4. Mk 15:16-37 (cf. Phlp 3:4-20) The section Mk 15:16-37, which refers to public humiliation, participation in Jesus’ sufferings, being seized for Christ, being conscious of the awaiting future things, movement upwards, imitating the example of Jesus’ crucifixion, enemies of the cross of the Messiah/Christ, and having no hope on the earth, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 3:4-20.

3.4.1. Mk 15:16-20 (cf. Phlp 3:4-9) The story about a public humiliation of Jesus, especially of his Jewish identity (Mk 15:16-20), sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 3:4-9. The narratively superfluous remark concerning leading the imprisoned Jesus to praetorium (πραιτώριον: Mk 15:16ab) by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation illustrates Paul’s idea that he was detained in the Roman praetorium (Phlp 1:13). The related, historically rather implausible image of calling together the whole (ὅλος) cohort, in order that they all, presumably Roman soldiers, might know the imprisoned Jesus (Mk 15:16c)45 illustrates Paul’s related statement that his chains became known in the whole praetorium, and to all others, presumably Romans (Phlp 1:13). The following description of the Romans’ treatment of the imprisoned Jesus as the king of the Jews (Mk 15:17ab.18.19cd) further illustrates Paul’s statement that his chains have become known to the Romans as borne in the Messiah/Christ (Phlp 1:13). However, the description of the Romans as in fact mocking Jesus’ royal Jewish dignity (Mk 15:17c.19ab.20a-c) alludes to Paul’s thought that his extraordinary Jewish dignity was in fact regarded by him as being worthless (Phlp 3:4-8). In particular, the depiction of Jesus’ messianic honours (Mk  15:17-18; cf. 15:20a-c) alludes to Paul’s enumeration of his Jewish titles (Phlp 3:4-6).46 45 46

Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 940; C. Focant, Marc, 568; B. Standaert, Marc, 1116. Mk 15:17-18 also seems to take up the motifs from Philo, Flacc. 37-39, which refers to the mocking a Jewish king. Cf. E.‑M. Becker, ‘The Gospel of Mark in the Context of Ancient Historiography’, in P. G. Kirkpatrick and T. D. Goltz (eds.), The Function of Ancient Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies (LHBOTS 489; T&T Clark: New York · London 2008), 124-134 (esp. 132-134).



Mk 15:21 (cf. Phlp 3:10-12)

185

The subsequent image of striking Jesus’ head with a reed, as though Jesus were a stupid school pupil, whose ways of thinking were erroneous (Mk 15:19a), alludes to Paul’s subsequent, apparently erroneous cognitive idea of regarding everything as loss and rubbish because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ (Phlp 3:7-8). The related motif of spitting on Jesus (ἐμπτύω: Mk 15:19b; cf. 10:34; 14:65) was borrowed from Is 50:6 LXX.47 The subsequent remark concerning leading Jesus to be crucified (σταυρόω: Mk 15:20de) alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea of the righteousness as coming not from the law, but through faith (Phlp 3:9), and therefore through Christ’s having been crucified (cf. Gal 2:16-3:1; Phlp 3:10).

3.4.2. Mk 15:21 (cf. Phlp 3:10-12) The short, narratively superfluous story about compelling Simon the Cyrenian to carry the cross of Christ (Mk 15:21)48 illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 3:10-12. The image of a passer-by, a Jewish-named Cyrenian diaspora stranger, going in the opposite direction, as being compelled to join Christ (Mk 15:21a-c) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea of his being seized by Christ (Phlp 3:12e). Moreover, the entirely redundant remarks49 that Simon was the father of a Greek-named son Alexander50 and of a Latin-named son Rufus (Mk  15:21d)51 illustrate the scope of the Pauline apostolic ministry at the time of the composition of the Letter to the Philippians, namely as reaching to the Greeks and to the Romans (cf. earlier Rom 15:19.23.26). The particular name of Rufus (Ῥοῦφος: Mk 15:21d), apparently known as a member of the Roman Christian community (Rom  16:13), conveys the idea that Simon in effect joined Jesus not only in a physical way, but also in a spiritual one, namely by somehow coming to faith in Jesus and bringing his sons up in this faith.52 Moreover, the image of Simon the Cyrenian as Rufus’ father (Mk 15:21d) reflects Paul’s idea that he was somehow related to Rufus’ mother (Rom 16:13). 47 48 49 50 51 52

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 727-728. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 572; B. Standaert, Marc, 1121. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 315. Cf. W. Pape and G. Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (3rd edn.; Akademische: Graz 1959), 55. Cf. H. Solin and O. Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Alpha – Omega A.80; 2nd edn., Olms and Weidmann: Hildesheim · Zürich · New York 1994), 158, 394. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 315; B. Standaert, Marc, 1122.

186

Mk 15:22-27 (cf. Phlp 3:13-17)

Consequently, the surprising image of the apparently believing Simon as carrying the cross of Christ (Mk 15:21e; diff. 8:34: everyone should carry his own cross)53 illustrates Paul’s ideas of his sharing in the sufferings of Christ and becoming conformed to his death, presumably on the cross (Phlp 3:10bc). The fact that the Marcan story contains no remark concerning the end of Simon’s going together with Jesus (Mk 15:21-22) probably additionally illustrates Paul’s thought that he was still on the way to his ultimate goal (Phlp 3:11-12d; cf. 3:13-14).

3.4.3. Mk 15:22-27 (cf. Phlp 3:13-17) The story about Jesus’ being conscious of the future things which awaited him, movement upwards, and two people who imitated the example of Jesus’ crucifixion (Mk 15:22-27) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 3:13-17. The narratively superfluous topographical remark concerning the otherwise unknown ‘place of a skull/head’ (Mk 15:22b)54 alludes to Paul’s idea of calculating or considering (λογίζομαι: Phlp 3:13a), which is naturally associated with the human head (cf. ‫ גלגלת‬in Exod 16:16; 38:26; Num 1:2 etc.). The two correlated names of the place, namely one Aramaic (Golgotha) and one, exceptionally translated in Mk 15:22 (diff. Mk 1:9.21; 6:45; 11:1 etc.), Greek (κρανίον: ‘skull’; cf. Judg 9:53; 2 Kgs 9:35 LXX), may additionally allude to the semantically related idea of mentally comprehending (καταλαμβάνω: Phlp 3:13b; cf. Eph 3:18). The subsequent, somewhat surprising image of Jesus’ refraining from drinking wine flavoured with myrrh (Mk 15:23) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea of forgetting the things which are behind (Phlp 3:13c) and reaching to the things which are ahead (Phlp 3:13d). For Paul, this meant consciously sharing in Christ’s sufferings (cf. Phlp  3:10.12) and accepting the impending death for the crucified Christ (cf. Phlp 1:20-23; 2:8.17). For the Marcan Jesus, likewise, this meant refraining from drinking good, spiced, somewhat bitter wine (cf. Mk 14:25; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 14.92-93)55 and consciously facing the suffering on the cross (Mk 15:24). 53 54 55

Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 315; B. Standaert, Marc, 1121-1123. ‘Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word necessarily signifies a skull in the sense of the dried-out head of a skeleton’: A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 738. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (CGTC; Cambridge University: London · New York 1974), 455; C.  Focant, Marc, 573; R. Manzinga Akonga, Le dernier cri de Jésus sur la croix (Mc 15,34): Fonction pragmatique de la citation du Ps 22,2a dans le contexte communicatif de Mc 15,3341 (TGST 191; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2012), 301-302.



Mk 15:22-27 (cf. Phlp 3:13-17)

187

The subsequent image of crucifying Jesus (Mk 15:24a), which was supplemented by the evangelist with the evidently schematic and rather unexpected (cf. Mk 15:33)56 temporal remark concerning the early, third hour, which marks the sun rising upwards (Mk 15:25), alludes to the subsequent Pauline idea of hastening toward the goal of the upward call (Phlp 3:14). The parenthetically inserted motif of dividing clothes by casting lots for them (διαμερίζω + τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ + βάλλω κλῆρον + ἐπί: Mk 15:24bc; cf. 15:24d), which evidently originates from Ps 22[21]:19 LXX,57 illustrates the Pauline idea that Christ died according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).58 The subsequent, historically rather implausible statement concerning the written superscription (ἐπι*) which was, as Mark repeatedly insisted, placed over (ἐπι*) Jesus and revealed the messianic identity of Jesus,59 in fact viewed from the Jewish Christian point of view (Mk 15:26; diff. 15:39: ‘Son of God’), alludes to Paul’s subsequent exhortation to think about the things which lead upwards in Christ Jesus (Phlp 3:15a; cf. 3:14) and to his statement that if the believers, presumably under the influence of Jewish Christians, think in a different way, God will reveal them the true significance of suffering with Jesus (Phlp  3:15bc; cf. 3:10; cf. also 1 Cor 1:24). The subsequent image of two other people, who were crucified as though imitating the crucifixion of Jesus (Mk 15:27; cf. Is 53:12), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the subsequent Pauline ideas of conforming to the right model at the place where the people arrived (Phlp 3:16), as well as becoming imitators of the suffering apostle (Phlp 3:17a; cf. 3:10) and looking at those who behave according to his pattern (Phlp 3:17b-d).

56 57

58

59

Cf. P. Dschulnigg, Markusevangelium, 396; F. Herrmann, Strategien der Todesdarstellung in der Markuspassion: Ein literaturgeschichtlicher Vergleich (NTOA 86; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2010), 376-377; A. Herrmann, Versuchung, 257. Cf. H.  C.  Carey, Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-century Understanding of the Intertextual Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel (LNTS 398; T&T Clark: London · New York 2009), 141; F. De Carlo, Dio mio, 209-213; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 147, 209, 275-276. It should be noted that although Ps 22[21] evidently functioned as an important hypotext for Mk 15:24.30-32.34-36, it was not sequentially elaborated in Mk 15:22-37, as the reverse use of Ps 22[21]:19 in Mk 15:24, Ps 22[21]:8-9 in Mk 15:30-32, and Ps 22[21]:2 in Mk 15:34-36 clearly shows: cf. V. K. Robbins, ‘The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck (BETL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1161-1183 (esp. 1176-1180); C. Focant, Marc, 582; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 498-499. Cf. A. Herrmann, Versuchung, 257 n. 514.

188

Mk 15:29-32 (cf. Phlp 3:18-19)

3.4.4. Mk 15:29-32 (cf. Phlp 3:18-19) The story about mocking Christ at the cross (Mk 15:29-32) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline text Phlp 3:18-19, which refers to the enemies of Christ’s cross. The opening statement concerning those who were passing by (Mk 15:29a) alludes to Paul’s opening statement concerning those who walk (Phlp 3:18a). The subsequent, blaspheming words of those passing by, concerning coming down from the cross (σταυρός: Mk 15:29b-30), illustrate the subsequent Pauline idea of those who are enemies of the cross (Phlp 3:18d). The parenthetically inserted motif of those who mocked Jesus as shaking their heads (κινέω + κεφαλή: Mk 15:29c), ridiculing Jesus’ trust in the power of the resurrection (Mk 15:29ef; cf. 14:58), and saying that Jesus should save himself (σῴζω + *αὐτόν: Mk 15:30a), a motif which evidently originates from Ps 22[21]:8-9 LXX,60 illustrates the Pauline idea that Christ died according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3). The related, mocking words of the chief priests and the experts in Scripture concerning the Messiah/Christ (ὁ χριστός), who should save himself (σῴζω + *αὐτόν) and come down from the cross (σταυρός: Mk 15:31-32a; cf. Ps 22[21]:9 LXX),61 further illustrate the related Pauline idea of those, presumably Jewish Christians, who are enemies of the cross of Christ (Phlp 3:18d). The concluding reference to the lack of faith on the part of the chief priests, the experts in Scripture, and those who were crucified with Jesus (Mk 15:32b-d) illustrates the concluding Pauline thought that the enemies of the cross of Christ set their minds on merely earthly things (Phlp 3:19d). The related thought that Christ was insulted (ὀνειδίζω) by many people (Mk 15:32d) was borrowed from Rom 15:3 (cf. Ps 69[68]:10 LXX).62

3.4.5. Mk 15:33-37 (cf. Phlp 3:20) The story about Jesus’ dying on the cross while having no hope on the earth (Mk 15:33-37) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 3:20. The opening, historically implausible idea that when the sixth hour had come, darkness (σκότος) came over (ἐγένετο + ἐπί) the whole earth (ὅλη ἡ γῆ:

60 61 62

Cf. H.  C.  Carey, Jesus’ Cry, 141-142; F.  De Carlo, Dio mio, 217-223, 225-226; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 108-109, 147-148, 276-277. Cf. H. C. Carey, Jesus’ Cry, 141-142; F. De Carlo, Dio mio, 222-223, 225-226. Cf. E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien, 83.



Mk 15:33-37 (cf. Phlp 3:20)

189

cf. Tob 14:6) until the ninth hour (Mk 15:33),63 an idea which resulted from a reworking of the scriptural text Exod 10:21-22 LXX, presents the dying Jesus (cf. Mk 15:34-37)64 as having nothing in common with the earth, which was covered with darkness, just as the departing Israelites had nothing in common with the land of Egypt, which was covered with darkness (Exod 10:21-24). Consequently, by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality, this image illustrates the Pauline thought that our citizenship is not on the earth, but in heaven (Phlp 3:20a). The subsequent, Aramaic and Greek quotation in Mk 15:34 (cf. 15:35-36) evidently originates from Ps 22[21]:2.65 Its reworked version in Mk 15:34, with the omission of the hopeful appeal to God: ‘attend to me’ (πρόσχες μοι: Ps 22[21]:2a LXX), as well as the change of the possibly trustful question ἵνα τί (‘what for?’: Ps 22[21]:2b LXX) to the strong reproach εἰς τί (‘for what on earth?’: Mk 15:34; cf. 14:4),66 conveys the idea of having no hope on the earth (cf. Phlp 3:20a), and consequently it illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that we eagerly await a saviour from heaven (Phlp 3:20b). Moreover, this quotation, together with the subsequent scriptural motif of giving vinegar to drink (ποτίζω + ὄξος: Mk 15:36; cf. Ps 69[68]:22),67 further illustrates the Pauline idea that Christ died according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3). By referring to the Aramaic and Greek versions of Ps 22[21]:2 as having predicted that Jesus would be forsaken by God, Mark clearly demonstrated the Pauline idea that Jesus’ shameful, apparently ungodly death on the cross in fact occurred in full agreement with the Jewish Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3). 63

64

65 66 67

Cf. P.‑G. Klumbies, ‘Das Raumverständnis in der Markuspassion’, in id., Von der Hinrichtung zur Himmelfahrt: Der Schluss der Jesuserzählung nach Markus und Lukas (BibTS 114; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2010), 25-49 (esp. 39); A. Herrmann, Versuchung, 259. It should be noted that according to Mk 15:33-34 darkness over the whole earth preceded the death of Jesus, and not accompanied or followed it; cf. B. M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A  Reader-Response Commentary, transl. W.  H.  Bisscheroux (JSNTSup 164; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 474; R. H. Gundry, Mark, 964. The latter idea would be expected if Mark simply used here the symbolic motif of darkness or eclipse as associated with the death of a famous person, a motif which was known from Graeco-Roman literature: see A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 752. Cf. H. C. Carey, Jesus’ Cry, 152-170; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 147, 213-214, 283; R. Manzinga Akonga, Dernier cri, 138-141. Cf. H.‑U. Rüegger and A. Hämmig, ‘»Mein gott: varzuo hastu mich gelassen?« Philologische Annäherung an eine theologische Frage (Mk 15,34)’, ZNW 102 (2011) 40-58 (esp. 52); R. Manzinga Akonga, Dernier cri, 140. Cf. H. C. Carey, Jesus’ Cry, 89-90; F. De Carlo, Dio mio, 244-245; K. S. O’Brien, Use of Scripture, 111-112, 146-147, 285. It should be noted that Ps 69[68] was used in Mk 15:36 because it was also previously recalled in Mk  15:32d (with a reference to Rom  15:3, which quoted Ps 69[68]:10 LXX).

190

Mk 15:38-41 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:2)

The statement that Jesus breathed his last, having uttered a loud cry (Mk 15:37), additionally illustrates the Pauline idea of eagerly awaiting a saviour from heaven (Phlp 3:20b).

3.5. Mk 15:38-16:8 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:23) The section Mk 15:38-16:8, which refers to standing faithfully by Jesus, female followers being united because of Jesus, a male companion helping the female ones, asking with courage, doing honourable and righteous things, having the opportune time to be concerned about Jesus, offering a fragrant smell, satisfying the needs of the believers in glory in Christ Jesus, passing greetings from a saint, and encouraging to rely on Jesus’ grace, in a sequential way illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 3:21-4:23.

3.5.1. Mk 15:38-41 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:2) The story about the person who faithfully stood by Jesus’ cross at the time of his death and about female followers being united because of Jesus (Mk 15:38-41) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 3:21-4:2. The opening image of the death of Jesus (cf. Mk 15:37) as surprisingly leading to the destruction of the curtain (καταπέτασμα) of the temple (ναός: Mk 15:38),68 a curtain which symbolized the prohibition of direct access to God in Jewish worship (Exod 26:33 LXX etc.),69 alludes to the Pauline idea of the transformation of the humiliated body (σῶμα) of the believers into one conformed to the glorious body of Christ (Phlp 3:21a), which in the post-Pauline theology functions as the temple of new worship of God (cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20; Mk 14:58). The subsequent, narratively superfluous remark that the curtain was torn from above downwards, which evidently points to the heaven as the origin of the miracle (Mk 15:38),70 illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea that the heavenly saviour, Jesus Christ, has the power which enables him to subject all things to himself (Phlp 3:21bc; cf. 3:20).

68 69 70

Cf. H. F. Bayer, Das Evangelium des Markus (HTANT; SCM R. Brockhaus: Witten 2008), 575; A. Herrmann, Versuchung, 264. Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 324. Cf. T. C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in its Narrative Role (WUNT 2.242; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 185; J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1066; B. Standaert, Marc, 1147.



Mk 15:38-41 (cf. Phlp 3:21-4:2)

191

The subsequent image of the Gentile centurion who, standing (*στηκ) opposite Jesus and having seen that Jesus in this way (οὕτως) expired, confessed his faith in him as Son of God (Mk  15:39), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the Gentile believers should in this way, faithfully, stand in the Lord (Phlp 4:1). The related thought that the Gentile believers confess the Lord Jesus (cf. Phlp 4:1) as Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ), because he is related to power and the spirit (*πνευ: Mk 15:39; cf. 15:38), is in fact also Pauline (Rom 1:4).71 The subsequent image of two Jesus’ female followers as bearing the same name Mary (Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses) and being united through observing Jesus from a distance (Mk 15:40) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that his two distant female followers should think the same things in the Lord (Phlp  4:2). Mark’s particular, redundant way of enumerating these women by repeating the conjunction: καί… καί (‘and... and’: Mk 15:40) reflects the similar Pauline way of referring to Euodia and Syntyche by repeating the verb: ‘I urge… and I urge’ (παρακαλῶ καί… παρακαλῶ: Phlp 4:2). The fact that Mary the Magdalene was always mentioned first, and consequently she narratively paved the way for the other women (Mk 15:40.47; 16:1), may illustrate the meaning of the name Euodia (Phlp 4:2a), as referring to a ‘prosperous way’. On the other hand, the fact that the second Mary in Mk 15:40.47; 16:1 appears to be identical with Jesus’ mother (cf. Mk 6:3),72 suggests that it was only Jesus’ mother, and not his influential brother James (Gal 2:9.12), here called ‘the little one’ (Mk 15:40; diff. 6:3), who was present at Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and the empty tomb.73 The Gentile-Semitic name of Mary (Μαρία: Mk 15:40.47; 16:1)74 was known to Mark from Rom 16:6, and it well suited the evangelist’s aim of substituting two Greek names (Phlp 4:2ab) with a doubled Semitic one (Mk 15:40.47; 16:1). On the other hand, the somewhat superfluously added, Semitic name of Salome (Σαλώμη: Mk 15:40; 16:1; cf. Jos. B.J. 1.181 etc.)75 could by means of the hypertextual procedure of internymic deviation additionally allude to the similarly sounding, Greek name of Syntyche (Συντύχη: Phlp 4:2b). The subsequent remark that Jesus’ female, now distanced followers once together with others actively supported his activity by following him, serving him, and coming up with him (συν*) to Jerusalem (Mk 15:41), illustrates the subsequent Pauline remark that his female, now distanced followers once together with 71 72 73 74 75

Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 134-135. Cf. F. Herrmann, Strategien, 341-342; T. Dykstra, Mark, 108-109. Cf. K. M. Schmidt, Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexte des Markusevangeliums (NTOA 74; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2010), 275-277. Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, part 1, 245. Cf. ibid., 249-253.

192

Mk 15:42-47 (cf. Phlp 4:3-9)

others struggled along with him in the gospel (Phlp 4:3c). The particular idea of female followers as serving (διακονέω) Jesus (Mk 15:41b) may originate from the Pauline remark concerning Phoebe, the female servant (διάκονος) of the church in Cenchreae (Rom 16:1).

3.5.2. Mk 15:42-47 (cf. Phlp 4:3-9) The story about Jesus’ male companion who helped the female ones, asked with courage for the body of Jesus, and did the honourable and righteous thing of burying Jesus’ body (Mk 15:42-47) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 4:3-9. The character of Joseph of Arimathea (Mk  15:43a), who was Jesus’ male companion and who did the things which the previously mentioned women understandably could not do (going to Pilate, taking down Jesus’ body, and rolling a stone: Mk 15:43b-47; cf. 16:3), by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the Pauline reference to his true male companion, who should help the previously mentioned women (Phlp  4:3ab; cf. Mk  15:40-41). The particular name of Arimathaia/Ramathaim (Αριμαθαία: Mk 15:43a), which was not a Judaean city, but an Ephraimite one (1 Sam 1:1 LXX: Αρμαθαιμ; cf. Jos. Ant. 6.47, 220-221 etc.: Αραμαθά),76 may additionally allude to the Pauline thought concerning his legitimate (in the genealogical sense: γνήσιος) companion (Phlp 4:3a) because Paul’s family likewise originated not from Judaea, but from the territory of Benjamin (Rom 11:1; Phlp 3:5). The subsequent remark that Joseph was a respected member of the council, so that he was presumably widely known for his balanced judgements (Mk 15:43a), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that the believers should be known to all people for their tolerant attitude to the law (Phlp 4:5a). The subsequent, eschatologically oriented statement that Joseph of Arimathea was himself waiting for the kingdom of God (Mk 15:43b) alludes to Paul’s subsequent statement that the Lord is near (Phlp 4:5b). The subsequent thought that Joseph of Arimathea showed courage, went in to (πρός) the ruler Pilate, and requested (αἰτέω) the body of Jesus (Mk 15:43c-e; cf. 15:44-45) illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that the believers should have no anxiety, but by way of entreaty they should make their requests (αἰτήματα) known to God (Phlp 4:6). The related, somewhat surprising remark that Pilate presented the body as a gift to Joseph (Mk 15:45b)77 alludes to Paul’s related remark that the believers should make their requests with thanksgiving (Phlp 4:6b). 76 77

Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 777. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark, 981; C. Focant, Marc, 590-591; B. Standaert, Marc, 1167.



Mk 16:1-8 (cf. Phlp 4:10-23)

193

The subsequent, general idea of burying Jesus (Mk  15:46) originates from 1 Cor 15:4a. However, the particular description of doing the righteous, virtuous, and praiseworthy thing of burying Jesus’ body in a honourable, pure, lovely, and commendable way, namely as wrapped in a linen cloth which was specially bought for this purpose, laid in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and protected with a stone which was rolled over the entrance to the tomb (Mk 15:46),78 illustrates the subsequent Pauline exhortation that the believers should think about all things which are honourable, righteous, pure, lovely, commendable, as well as virtuous and praiseworthy (Phlp 4:8). The motif of a prominent Israelite, who did not originate from Judaea, as buying (ἀγορα*) important things and burying the body, an act which was regarded as a righteous (δικαι*) thing (Mk 15:46; cf. Phlp 4:8), was borrowed from Tob 1:3.13.17-18; 2:7-8.79

3.5.3. Mk 16:1-8 (cf. Phlp 4:10-23) The concluding story about having the opportune time to be concerned about Jesus, offering a fragrant smell, God’s satisfying the needs of the believers in glory in Christ Jesus, passing greetings from a saint, and encouraging to rely on Jesus’ grace (Mk 16:1-8) sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding, concluding Pauline text Phlp 4:10-23. The opening statement that Jesus’ female followers waited until the Sabbath was over (Mk 16:1a), so that they might again show their concern for the dead Jesus (cf. Mk 15:47), now by coming and anointing him (Mk 16:1cd), a statement which is quite surprising in the context of, above all, all the things which Joseph of Arimathea had managed to do during the evening of the day of Jesus’ death (Mk 15:42-46; cf. 14:8),80 by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and temporal translation illustrates Paul’s idea that his followers now at last revived their concern for the imprisoned Apostle, although they were surely concerned for him before, but they had no opportune time to show it (Phlp 4:10). The related thought that Jesus was raised on the third day after his death (Mk 16:1a; cf. 15:42; 16:6) is evidently Pauline (1 Cor 15:3-4). 78

79 80

It should be noted that round, rollable stones (Mk 15:46) were very rarely used for closing tombs in Judaea of the Second Temple period: see R. Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (JSJSup 94; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 62-64; A. Kloner and B. Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (ISACR 8; Peeters: Leuven · Dudley, Mass. 2007), 55-56. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark, vol. 2, 1074. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 595, 602; W. Eckey, Markusevangelium, 517; G. J. Williams, ‘Narrative Space, Angelic Revelation, and the End of Mark’s Gospel’, JSNT 35.3 (2013) 263284 (esp. 268-269).

194

Mk 16:1-8 (cf. Phlp 4:10-23)

The subsequent, financial idea that the women bought the things which they brought to Jesus (Mk 16:1b) reflects Paul’s subsequent, financial idea that he provided a receipt for the valuable gift which he had received from his followers (ἀπέχω: Phlp 4:18a). The subsequent thought that the female followers offered to Jesus fragrant spices (Mk 16:1b) illustrates Paul’s subsequent thought that his followers offered to him a fragrant smell (Phlp 4:18e). The related, somewhat surprising thought that the women resolved to come (and not go) to Jesus, as though the whole story were narrated from his point of view (Mk 16:1c), illustrates Paul’s related thought that he received the gift which was brought by Epaphroditus, who came to him (Phlp 4:18a-d). The related, somewhat superfluous chronological remark that Jesus’ resurrection was revealed very early (πρωΐ) on the first (μία) day of the week, when the sun had risen (Mk 16:2; cf. 16:1),81 an idea which is nowhere attested before the composition of the Marcan Gospel, with the use of the scriptural motif of the creation of light on the first day of the creation of the world (Gen 1:3-5 LXX) illustrates the Pauline thought that Jesus’ resurrection inaugurated a new creation (2 Cor 5:15.17; cf. 4:6). Moreover, the use of the motif taken from the scriptural text Gen 1:3-5 LXX in the story about Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 16:2) illustrates the Pauline idea that Jesus was raised according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:4b). The subsequent, surprising thoughts that the women were in need of help, which should consist in rolling away for them the stone from the entrance to the tomb (Mk 16:3),82 and that when they looked up, as though towards heaven, they saw that the very large stone had already been rolled away (Mk 16:4)83 illustrate the subsequent Pauline thought that God will fully satisfy every need of the believers (Phlp 4:19a). The subsequent image of a young man, who was somewhat surprisingly sitting (κάθημαι) on the right (δεξιός) and clothed (περιβάλλω) in a white (λευκός) robe (Mk 16:5), by means of the scriptural motifs of the Messiah/Christ as sitting at God’s right hand (cf. Mk 12:35-36; Ps 110[109]:1 LXX)84 and of God as sitting and having his clothing (περιβολή) like snow and his hair like white wool (Dan  7:9 LXX) illustrates the subsequent Pauline idea of God’s abundance in glory in Christ (Phlp 4:19bc; cf. 4:20). Moreover, these scriptural motifs further 81 82

83 84

Cf. J. Gnilka, Markus, vol. 2, 341; G. J. Williams, ‘Narrative Space’, 272. Cf. G. J. Williams, ‘Narrative Space’, 274: ‘This seems problematic, because of the foolish or pointless nature of the question. The women make careful preparations to visit the tomb and anoint the body of Jesus, but it is only once they arrive that they consider how they might get inside. […] the action is irrational.’ Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 795. Cf. C. Focant, Marc, 596; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 795; B. Standaert, Marc, 1182.



Mk 16:1-8 (cf. Phlp 4:10-23)

195

illustrate the Pauline idea that Jesus was raised according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:4b). The subsequent statement that the perplexed women looked for the crucified Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) the Nazarene, that is, merely the Jewish Messiah (cf. Mk 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; cf. also Is 11:1 MT), but he had been raised in a miraculous way, presumably by God (Mk  16:6), illustrates the subsequent Pauline thought that God will fully satisfy every need of the believers according to God’s riches in glory in Christ (that is, the Messiah) Jesus (Phlp 4:19c). According to the Marcan reworking of Phlp 4:19, God’s answer to the perplexity of the believers (Mk 16:3.5; cf. Phlp  4:19a) consisted in his miraculous, glorious raising of Christ Jesus (Mk  16:4.6; cf. Phlp  4:19bc). Besides, the perfect passive participle ‘crucified’ (ἐσταυρωμένος: Mk 16:6) was borrowed from 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2; Gal 3:1.85 Likewise, the confession of faith that the crucified Jesus Christ was raised (ἠγέρθη) by God (Mk 16:6) originates from Rom 6:4.6. The subsequent idea of passing encouraging information from the young glorious man, who reflected the risen Jesus (cf. Mk 16:5-6),86 to Jesus’ Jewish disciples and Peter (Mk 16:7ab) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates the subsequent idea of passing greetings from Paul’s brothers/ saints, who were with him and reflected him in his greetings, to every Jewish-style saint in the Messiah/Christ Jesus (Phlp 4:21-22). The subsequent statement that Jesus Christ is going ahead of his Jewish disciples to Galilee, and that there they will see him, just as he told them (Mk 16:7ce), a statement which implies Jesus’ graceful forgiveness of their betrayal of him (cf. Mk 14:27-28),87 illustrates the subsequent Pauline exhortation to receive the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (Phlp 4:23). Moreover, this statement suggests that Peter, together with other Jewish Christians, should engage in missionary activity in Galilee (Mk 16:7bc), that is among the Gentiles (cf. Mk 1:16-18 etc.), and thus overcome the Antiochene crisis (cf. Gal 2:11-14). The particular statement that Jesus’ disciples, including Peter, will see (ὁράω) the risen Jesus (Mk 16:7d) reflects the Pauline statement that the risen Jesus was seen by Cephas and by his other Jewish followers (1 Cor 15:5-7). However, the negative ending of the Marcan Gospel (Mk  16:8), in the context of the positive exhortation to receive the grace of the risen Lord Jesus Christ (Mk 16:7; cf. Phlp 4:23), illustrates the Pauline thought that even though Cephas and other Jew-

85 86 87

Cf. T.  K.  Heckel, ‘Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium’, BZ, nf 46 (2002) 190-204 (esp. 195-202); C. Focant, Marc, 602; E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien, 84. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 795. Cf. ibid. 797; P. Muema, Relationship, 237, 241; R. Whitaker, ‘Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel’, CBQ 75 (2013) 666-682 (esp. 678).

196

Mk 16:1-8 (cf. Phlp 4:10-23)

ish followers in fact saw the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:5-7),88 in difference to Paul they failed to comprehend the significance of the divine grace for the believers (1 Cor 15:8-10; cf. Gal 2:11-21; Phlp 4:23).89 Therefore, the concluding thought that the women fled from Jesus’ tomb, for trembling perplexity had seized them, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid (φοβέομαι: Mk 16:8), an idea which must be crucial for the understanding of the Marcan Gospel, but which casts serious doubts over Peter’s role as the main witness of Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 16:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:4), illustrates the crucial Pauline thought that Cephas did not ‘walk straightforward’ in the truth of the gospel, and said nothing to the Jewish Christians about the halachic consequences of Jesus’ death and resurrection, for he was afraid of the Jewish followers of Jesus (Gal 2:12.14-21). Accordingly, at the end of the Marcan Gospel the fearful Cephas (Gal 2:12) was by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation (in this case: feminization) alluded to with the image of fearful women (Mk 16:8). Consequently, the surprising conclusion of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 16:8) in fact refers its readers not to Peter (cf. Mk 16:7), but to Paul.90 In his narrative Gospel, the post-Pauline evangelist tried to persuade his readers that it was not Peter, but Paul, in whom God was well pleased to reveal his Son (Mk 1-7; cf. Gal), who presented the right interpretation of the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ (Mk 8-13; cf. 1 Cor), and who was assimilated to Jesus in his being betrayed by the Jews and killed by the Romans (Mk 14-16; cf. Phlp).

88 89 90

Cf. P. Pokorný, From the Gospel, 123, 128, 134. The Letter to the Philippians, which ends in Phlp 4:23, evidently does not contain any hypotext for Mk 16:9-20. This fact additionally proves that Mk 16:9-20 is a later addition of the original text of the Marcan Gospel. Cf. T. Dykstra, Mark, 139.

General conclusions

The detailed intertextual analysis of the Gospel of Mark in its relationship to the letters of Paul the Apostle has revealed that the Marcan work is a result of a systematic, strictly sequential, but on the other hand highly creative, hypertextual reworking of Paul’s letters to the Galatians (in Mk 1-7), the first to the Corinthians (in Mk 8-13), and to the Philippians (in Mk 14-16). The common features of the Marcan work and the Pauline letters have already been noticed by a numbers of scholars. However, this commentary for the first time in history in a detailed and systematic way explains their strictly sequential arrangement. The detection of the strictly literary basis of the similarities between the Marcan Gospel and the Pauline letters was possible thanks to the consistent application of the criterion of the order of parallels between them. This criterion, which turned out to be decisive in the detection of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in numerous other biblical works (Gen, Exod-Lev-Num, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr, Mt, Lk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev), turned out to be decisive in the case of the Gospel of Mark as well. In fact, the detailed intertextual analysis of the Marcan Gospel and the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) has revealed that the Gospel of Mark in a highly creative, hypertextual, but on the other hand strictly sequential way reflects the series of around 300 semantic elements, which are contained in these letters. Consequently, the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) are linked by a series of around 300 creatively constructed semantic correspondences, which sequentially follow one another. The character of the correspondences between the structurally parallel elements in the Marcan Gospel and in the Pauline letters is highly diverse. Sometimes, the evangelist almost verbatim reproduced the corresponding phrases of the respective fragments of the Pauline hypotexts.1 Usually, however, the cor1

E.g. ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν (Gal  1:17b) → ἀπῆλθεν εἰς ἔρημον τόπον (Mk  1:35b); λέγουσιν… τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις… οὐκ ἔστιν (1  Cor 15:12cd) → οἵτινες λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι (Mk  12:18ab); free quotation from Ps  110[109]:1 LXX (1 Cor 15:25cd) → corrected quotation from Ps 110[109]:1 LXX (Mk 12:36).

198

General conclusions

respondences between the Marcan hypertext and its Pauline hypotexts are very loose, truly hypertextual. They are conceptual (illustrating theological-halachic ideas etc.) rather than linguistic; they refer to images (movements, features, typical behaviour, etc.) rather than to words; they are creative rather than reproductive. In fact, in his reworking of the contents of the Pauline letters the evangelist used a number of typically hypertextual procedures, such as transdiegetization,2 interfigurality,3 internymic deviation,4 transsexuation,5 temporal translation,6 spatial translation,7 transpragmatization,8 transmotivation,9 elaboration,10 compression,11 conflation,12 substitution of images and ideas,13 and form-change.14 Consequently, the analysis of the Gospel of Mark in terms of its hypertextual reworking of the 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

E.g. the tripartite story about Paul’s being called to go to Jerusalem to meet the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:1-2a), but presenting the gospel first to the whole Jerusalem community (Gal 2:2bc), and only thereafter in private to the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:2d-f) → the tripartite story about Jesus’ being called to go to a Jewish leader (Mk 5:21-24a), but being first active in a large crowd (Mk 5:24b-34), and only thereafter dealing in private with the Jewish leaders (Mk 5:35-43). E.g. the well-pleased revelation of God’s Son in the person of Paul (Gal 1:15a.16a) → the well-pleased revelation of God’s Son in the narrative character of Jesus (Mk 1:10-11). E.g. Barnabas (Βαρναβᾶς: Gal 2:13b) → Barabbas (Βαραββᾶς: Mk 15:7.11.15). E.g. certain presumably male followers of James (Gal  2:12a.c) → one of the female slaves of the high priest (Mk 14:66-67.69). E.g. the believers having no opportune time to show their concern for the imprisoned Paul (Phlp 4:10) → the women waiting until the Sabbath was over in order to show their concern for the dead Jesus (Mk 16:1; cf. 15:46-47). E.g. the northern city of Damascus (Gal  1:17c) → the northern ‘city’ of Capernaum (Mk 1:21.33; 2:1). E.g. Christ’s faith/faithfulness (πίστις Χριστοῦ: Gal  2:16) → Jesus’ intensive, solitary prayer on the mountain (Mk 6:46). E.g. being overcome by envy and strife (1 Cor 3:3b) → bursting, foaming at the mouth, gnashing the teeth, and becoming rigid because of epilepsy (Mk 9:18.20). E.g. the short remark concerning repeatedly hearing (ἀκούω) about Paul’s evangelistic activity (Gal 1:23a) → the elaborated set of parables, which should be repeatedly heard (ἀκούω used 10 times: Mk 4:2-34). E.g. Paul’s elaborated Scripture-based argumentation (Gal  3:10-5:15) → Jesus’ short halachic discussion (Mk 7:1-13). E.g. the prohibition of divorce for the wife (1 Cor 7:10-11; cf. Deut 24:1-4; Rom 7:3) + the presentation of the obligations of the husband as equal to those of the wife (1 Cor 7:25.12-16) → the prohibition of divorce for both spouses (Mk 10:11-12). E.g. the abstract notions of spiritual existence (1 Cor 15:46), being a heavenly man (1 Cor 15:48-49), and participating in Christ’s final victory (1 Cor 15:57) → the more understandable notion of being chosen (Mk 13:20.22.27). E.g. Scripture-based revelation (1 Cor 2:9) → account of a Scripture-based dispute concerning revelation (Mk 9:9-13).



General conclusions

199

Pauline letters requires much skill in detecting merely conceptual correspondences, veiled literary allusions, and complex semantic transformations.15 However, the lack of extensive verbal repetition of the Pauline hypotexts in the Gospel of Mark is recompensed by the generally strictly preserved order of their use in the Marcan work. The detailed analysis of the sequentially arranged, conceptual correspondences between the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) has revealed that their common order can usually be traced down to individual sentences, clauses, and phrases, and not merely to large thematic sections or pericopes. The existence of the long series of around 300 sequentially arranged pairs of semantically corresponding elements in the Gospel of Mark and in the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) cannot be a result of mere coincidence. It must have resulted from the post-Pauline evangelist’s resolve to present the details of the contents of the Pauline letters in a widely understandable, and nevertheless semantically rich, narrative way, namely in the form of a hypertextual biography of the Palestinian character of Jesus Christ. Therefore, in the Marcan Gospel, in line with Paul’s self-understanding of his own ministry (cf. 1 Thes 1:6; 1 Cor 11:1 etc.), the narrative character of Jesus Christ generally does not reflect the historical features of the person of Jesus who was called the Messiah (cf. Rom 1:3 etc.), but it has the features of the suffering and risen Son of God, who was revealed to the world in the person, teaching, and course of life of Paul the Apostle (cf. Rom 1:4; Gal 1:16 etc.). The detection of such a long series of sequentially arranged, semantically corresponding elements in the Gospel of Mark and in the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) conclusively proves that the earlier attempts of numerous scholars (G.  Volkmar, M.  D.  Goulder, P.  N.  Tarazi, and others) to trace the literary indebtedness of the Marcan work to the Pauline letters were at least basically correct, even if these scholars failed to detect the strictly sequential character of this literary, hypertextual connection. The sequential hypertextual reworking of the Pauline letters (Gal, 1  Cor, and Phlp) in the Gospel of Mark, which has been described in detail in this commentary, also meets the criterion of the complete use of a source. This commentary, in difference to numerous other attempts to trace the literary use of various Pauline themes and motifs in the Marcan Gospel,16 demonstrates that the evangelist in his 15 16

Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Ma­drid 1994), 156: ‘Hay que leer con fantasía lo que se escribió con fantasía.’ For my earlier attempt, which did not meet this criterion by erroneously postulating, for example, the sequential hypertextual use in Mk 11-13 not of the concluding part of the First Letter to the Corinthains (1  Cor 10-16), but of its thematically related hypertext

200

General conclusions

literary work used entire Pauline letters, and not just selected fragments or sections thereof. The recognition of this fact additionally proves that Mark resolved to narrativize the contents of Paul’s letters in a consistent, strictly sequential way. Moreover, the fact that the Marcan reworking of the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) meets the criterion of the complete use of its sources at times helps to solve some text-critical problems. For example, the lack of any semantically corresponding Pauline idea for the textual variant ‘and fasting’ (και νηστεια: Mk 9:29 p45vid, A et al.) in the structurally corresponding hypotext of Mk 9:29, namely in 1 Cor 3:16-17, suggests that this textual variant should be regarded as a later, ascetic gloss, which has nothing to do with the original, hypertextual meaning of Mk 9:29 as alluding to the idea of the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16-17) by means of the widely understandable motif of prayer in the temple (cf. Mk 11:17). Likewise, the fact that there is no structurally corresponding Pauline hypotext for the textually variegated endings of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 16:9-20; cf. the concluding use of Phlp 4:23 in Mk 16:7-8) additionally proves that these endings should be regarded as later additions to the original Marcan work. This commentary also highlights the importance of the criterion of the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and somewhat surprising features in the hypertext. This criterion additionally proves the thesis concerning the strictly sequential reworking of the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) in the Gospel of Mark by pointing to the presence of some resulting from this procedure, somewhat surprising narrative details in the Marcan work. Such not easily perceivable inconsistencies and other surprising elements are only rarely discussed by the exegetes. However, this commentary demonstrates that most of these intriguing details can be explained as resulting from the evangelist’s consistent use of the procedure of strictly sequential reworking of other texts. In fact, the resolve to use this highly sophisticated procedure significantly restricted the evangelist’s literary freedom, and therefore it resulted in some minor, not easily perceivable logical tensions and other somewhat surprising elements in his narrative. Therefore, the criterion of the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and somewhat surprising features in the Marcan work is functionally related to the criterion of explanatory capability. This commentary demonstrates that the detailed analysis of the phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of the Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) in the Gospel of Mark can explain Rom 11-15 and hypotext 1 Thes, see B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 257-262. Cf. also id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 47-48, 58-59.



General conclusions

201

around 200 more or less surprising literary features and narrative details of the Marcan work. For example, the analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in the Gospel of Mark enables us to explain the insertion of the quotation from Exod 23:20a LXX in the allegedly Isaian opening quotation (Mk 1:2-3; cf. Gal 1:1.3), the use of the motif of the sea and not of the lake of Galilee (Mk 1:16 etc.; cf. Gal 1:16b), the description of Jesus as teaching the crowd while he was sitting in the sea (Mk  4:1d; cf. Gal  1:23a), the tripartite ‘sandwich’ structure of the sections Mk 5:21-43 (cf. Gal 2:1-2) and Mk 6:7-44 (cf. Gal 2:6-14), the use of Aramaic vocabulary in the Greek text of the Gospel (Mk  5:41 etc.; cf. Gal  2:2d), the presentation of Herod Antipas as a king (Mk  6:14.22.25-27; cf. Gal 2:11-12), the location of John’s imprisonment and death in Galilee and not in Machaerus (Mk 6:21; Gal 2:11a), the remark that Herodias suddenly became the king’s daughter (Mk 6:22; cf. Gal 2:13b), the use of a platter for the cut-off head (Mk 6:25.28; cf. Gal 2:12b), the suggestion that the disciples had much Roman money (Mk  6:37; cf. Gal  2:14de), the description of Jesus as temporarily separating from his disciples (Mk 6:45-46a; cf. Gal 2:15), the use of the harbour technical term προσορμίζω (‘moor, come to anchor’: Mk 6:53; cf. Gal 3:5a), the description of Jesus’ activity as always taking place in marketplaces (Mk 6:56; cf. Gal 3:5a), etc. The analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in the Gospel of Mark, which has been presented in this commentary, also meets the criterion of explaining the function of the hypertextual use of the Marcan hypotexts, and not merely noticing Marcan parallels with other texts, an approach which is usually aptly termed ‘parallelomania’. In particular, the detection of the sequentially ordered semantic correspondences between the Gospel of Mark and its main hypotexts, namely three Pauline letters (Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp), helps to clarify the function of Mark’s allusive use of other texts, even if the fact of such use was already noticed by other scholars (e.g. D. R. MacDonald for Greek pagan texts). For example, the basic hypertextual use of the reference to Paul’s evangelistic activity among the Gentiles in the maritime regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:23c; cf. 1:21) in Mk 4:35-5:20 explains the reasons for the additional, illustrative use of numerous motifs taken from Homer’s Odyssey, which was widely known in the Gentile world, in this Marcan section. Likewise, the basic hypertextual use of Paul’s statement concerning his becoming as a Jew to the Jews, and as a Gentile to the Gentiles (1 Cor 9:20-21) in Mk 10:46 explains the reasons for the additional use of the allusion to Plato’s widely known dialogue Timaeus in the composite, Aramaic-Greek name of Bar-Timaeus, the son of Timaeus (Mk 10:46c).

202

General conclusions

Similarly, the fact that the Marcan account of Jesus’ being tempted to eat a fruit of a fig tree in irrational circumstances (Mk  11:12-13; cf. 11:20-21) in a basic hypertextual way illustrates the combination of the Pauline ideas of scriptural temptation (1 Cor 10:9b) and being destroyed by the serpents (ὄφις: 1 Cor 10:9c) explains the reasons for the additional allusive use of the scriptural story about the first humans as tempted by the serpent to eat a fruit of a tree in prohibited circumstances, and close to a fig tree (συκῆ) with its leaves (φύλλα: Gen 3:1-4.7 LXX), in this Marcan account. The question arises, how did Mark learn the method of sequential, hypertextual, narrativizing reworking of the contents of other normative works written in a different literary genre (in this case: Gal, 1 Cor, and Phlp) after c.400 years of its apparent unuse?17 Is it possible to explain the Marcan use of this method only in terms of Mark’s learning and following the example of the earlier Pauline letters which were written with the use of the procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of other letters, but without the change of their literary genre (Rom, Gal, cf. also 2 Thes)? Alternatively, should we regard the use of this method by Mark as the evangelist’s reinvention, and consequently as a proof that both the Old Testament and the New Testament narratives were written under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit? The readers are free to answer this question in their own ways.

17

Cf. the earlier use of this method in Sam-Kgs c.300 bc: B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 225-280. The Gospel of Mark was written not earlier than c. ad 100-110, as it follows from the creative use of the works of Flavius Josephus (Mk 1:4-6.19-21; 5:1.20.22; 6:17-27.45.53; 7:11; 8:27.31; 12:18-19; 15:1.15) and maybe also Tacitus (Mk 8:23) in the Marcan narrative. Moreover, the allusion to some pagan person and/or object as having stood in the place of the Jerusalem temple (Mk 13:14) can suggest that the Marcan Gospel was written under the rule of the emperor Hadrian, so c. ad 130-135.

Bibliography

Primary sources Israelite-Jewish

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1-16 (Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931‑ ). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft: Stuttgart 2006). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1-40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955‑2011). [Philo] Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, ed. R. Arnaldez [et al.], vol. 1-36 (Cerf: Paris 1961-1988). Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. B. Niese, vol. 1-7 (Weidmann: Berolini 1887-1895). Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico: Der Jüdische Krieg: Griechisch und Deutsch, ed. O. Michel and O. Bauernfeind, vol. 1-3 (1-3 edn., Kösel: München 1963-1982). Flavius Josèphe, Guerre des Juifs [I-V], ed. A. Pelletier, vol. 1-3 (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1975-1982). Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités juives, ed. É. Nodet [et al.], vol. 1- (Cerf: Paris 1990‑ ). Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem Leben (Vita): Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar, ed. F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, and M. Vogel [et al.] (2nd edn.; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011).

Graeco-Roman Inscriptions and papyri [P.Brem.] Die Bremer Papyri, ed. U. Wilcken (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1939, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 2; Akademie der Wissenschaften: Berlin 1936).

204

Bibliography

Literary texts Homer, Ilias, ed. M. L. West, vol. 1-2 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; vol. 1: Teubner: Stutgardiae et Lipsiae 1998, vol. 2: Saur: Monachii et Lipsiae 2000). Omero [Homer], Odissea, ed. S. West [et al.], trans. [ital.] G. A. Privitera, vol. 1-6 (Scrittori greci e latini; Mondadori: Roma · Milano 1981-1986). Herodotus, Historiae, ed. H. B. Rosén, vol. 1-2 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Teubner: Stutgardiae · Lipsiae 1987-1997). Euripides, Bacchae, Iphigenia in Aulis, Rhesus, ed. D. Kovacs (Loeb Classical Library 495; Harvard University: Cambridge, Mass. · London 2002). Plato, Opera, ed. E. A. Duke [et al.], vol. 1-5 (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis; 1-2 edn., Oxford University: Oxonii 1963-1995). Strabo, Geography: With an English Translation, ed. H. L. Jones, vol. 1-8 (Loeb Classical Library; Harvard University: Cambridge, Mass. and Heinemann: London 1960-1969 [repr.]). Seneca Maior, L. Annaeus, Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae, divisiones, colores [Contoversiae et Suasoriae], ed. L. Håkanson (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; B. G. Teubner: Leipzig 1989). Plinius Secundus, C., d.  Ä [Pliny the Elder], Naturkunde [Naturalis Historia]: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. R. König, G. Winkler, and K. Bayer [et al.], vol. 1-38 (Tusculum; 1-2 edn., Heimeran [s.l.] and Artemis & Winkler: München [et al.] 1973-2004). Tacitus, C., Historiarum libri [Historiae], ed. K. Wellesley (Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt 2/1; Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; B. G. Teubner: Leipzig 1989). Suetonius Tranquillus, C., Die Kaiserviten [De vita Caesarum], Berühmte Männer [De viris illustribus]: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. H. Martinet (Tusculum; Artemis & Winkler: Düsseldorf · Zürich 2000). Apuleius, Metamorphoses, ed. J. A.  Hanson, vol. 1, Books I-VI, vol. 2, Books VII-XI (Loeb Classical Library 44, 453; 2nd edn., Harvard University: Cambridge, Mass. · London 2001, 1998).

Early Christian (I-II c. ad) Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (28th edn., Deutsche Bibelge­ sellschaft: Stuttgart 2012). The Greek New Testament, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (4th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 2003). The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, ed. P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999).



Bibliography

205

Secondary literature Adamczewski, B., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011). Adamczewski, B., ‘Dekalog w nauczaniu Jezusa’, Roczniki Teologiczne Warszawsko-Praskie 2 (2002) 3-24. Adamczewski, B., ‘Ethopoeia and Morality in the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount’, in W. Pikor (ed.), Moralność objawiona w Biblii (Analecta Biblica Lublinensia 7; KUL: Lublin 2011), 137-145. Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the PseudoTitus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013). Adamczewski, B., List do Filemona, List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny NT  12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). Adamczewski, B., Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and SamuelKings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012). Alkier, S., ‘Die Bibel – das Buch der Bücher: Kanongeschichtliche, theologische, intertextuelle und poetologische Anmerkungen zu einem Bestseller’, in S. Alkier and R. Hays, Kanon und Intertextualität (Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main 1; Otto Lembeck: Frankfurt am Main 2010), 11-52. Alkier, S., Neues Testament (Uni-Taschenbücher Basics; A. Francke: Tübingen · Basel 2010). Alonso Schökel, L. and Bravo Aragón, J. M., Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994). Arzt-Grabner, P. [et al.], 1. Korinther (Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006). Aune, D. E., ‘Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew’, in E.‑M.  Becker and A.  Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew  I: Comparative

206

Bibliography

Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 145-175. Aune, D. E., ‘The Meaning of Εὐαγγέλιον in the Inscriptiones of the Canonical Gospels’, in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations, Festschrift J. C. VanderKam [vol. 2] (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153/II; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 857-882. Barton, J., ‘Déjà lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory?’, in K. J. Dell and W. Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 574; Bloomsbury: New York [et al.] 2013), 1-16. Baxter, W., ‘Matthew, Mark, and the Shepherd Metaphor’, in E.‑M. Becker and A.  Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew  I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 263-282. Bayer, H. F., Das Evangelium des Markus (Historisch-Theologische Auslegung: Neues Testament; SCM R. Brockhaus: Witten 2008). Becker, E.‑M., ‘The Gospel of Mark in the Context of Ancient Historiography’, in P. G. Kirkpatrick and T. D. Goltz (eds.), The Function of Ancient Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 489; T&T Clark: New York · London 2008), 124-134. Becker, E.‑M., Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 194; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006). Betsworth, S., The Reign of God is Such as These: A Socio-Literary Analysis of Daughters in the Gospel of Mark (Library of New Testament Studies 422; T&T Clark: London · New York 2010). Bird, M. F., ‘Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul’, in M. F. Bird and J. Willitts (eds.), Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (Library of New Testament Studies 411; T&T Clark, London · New York 2011). Blumell, L. H., Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 39; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012). Breytenbach, C., ‘Die Vorschriften des Mose im Markusevangelium: Erwägungen zur Komposition von Mk 7,9-13; 10,2-9 und 12,18-27’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 97 (2006) 23-43. Brodie, T. L., The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004).



Bibliography

207

Brodie, T. L., Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Oxford University: New York [et al] 2001). Brodie, T.  L., MacDonald, D.  R., and Porter, S.  E., ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method—Suggested Guidelines’, in eid. (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Mono­graphs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 284-296. Brodie, T.  L., MacDonald, D.  R., and Porter, S.  E., ‘Introduction: Tracing the Development of the Epistles—The Potential and the Problem’, in eid. (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 1-9. Burridge, R. A., ‘Biography’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 b.c.–a.d. 400 (Brill: Boston · Leiden 2001), 371-391. Burridge, R. A., What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 70; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1992). Butticaz, S., ‘“Has God Rejected His People?” (Romans 11.1): The Salvation of Israel in Acts: Narrative Claim of a Pauline Legacy’, in D. P. Moessner [et al.] (eds.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel, vol. 2, Paul and the Heritage of Israel: Paul’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy in Luke and Acts in the Light of the Pauline Letters (Library of New Testament Studies 452; T&T Clark: London 2012), 148-164. Carey, H.  C., Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-century Understanding of the Intertextual Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies 398; T&T Clark: London · New York 2009). Chilton, B. [et al.] (eds.), A Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark: Comparisons with Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Scrolls, and Rabbinic Literature (The New Testament Gospels in their Judaic Contexts 1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010). Chilton, B., ‘John the Baptist’, in C. A. Evans (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (Routledge: New York · London [2008]), 339-342. Chilton, B., ‘John the Baptist: His Immersion and his Death’, in S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross (eds.), Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 234; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 25-44. Cotton, H. M. [et al.] (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae / Palaestinae, vol. 1, Jerusalem, Part 1: 1-704 (Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae / Palaestinae: A multi-lingual corpus of the inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad; De Gruy­ ter: Berlin · New York 2010).

208

Bibliography

Cranfield, C.  E.  B., The Gospel according to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary; Cambridge University: London · New York 1974). Crossley, J. G., ‘Halakah and Mark 7.3: “with the hand in the shape of a fist”’, New Testament Studies 58 (2012) 57-68. Crossley, J. G., ‘Mark, Paul and the Question of Influences’, in M. F. Bird and J. Willitts (eds.), Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (Library of New Testament Studies 411; T&T Clark, London · New York 2011), 10-29. Crossley, J. G., The New Testament and Jewish Law: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark, London · New York 2010). Croy, N. C., ‘Where the Gospel Text Begins: A Non-Theological Interpretation of Mark 1:1’, Novum Testamentum 43 (2001) 105-127. Culpepper, R. A., ‘Mark 6:17-29 in Its Narrative Context: Kingdoms in Conflict’, in K.  R.  Iverson and C.  W.  Skinner (eds.), Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 65; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2011), 145-163. De Carlo, F., ‘«Dal principio della creazione» (Mc  10,6; 13,19: La ri-scrittura marciana della Genesi’, Ricerche Storico Bibliche 24 (2012) no. 1-2, 227-254. De Carlo, F., „Dio mio, Dio mio, perché mi hai abbandonato?” (Mc 15,34): I Salmi nel racconto della passione di Gesù secondo Marco (Analecta Biblica 179; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2009). Dennert, B. C., ‘Mark 11,16: A «Status Quaestionis»’, Annali di storia dell’esegesi 28 (2011) fasc. 1, 279-288. Descreux, J., ‘Apocalypse 12 ou de l’art d’accommoder les mythes’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 248; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 345-359. Donahue, J. R. and Harrington, D. J., The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina 2; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 2002). Dormeyer, D., ‘Bedingungslose Nachfolge heilt Blindheit (Die Heilung des blinden Bartimäus bei Jericho) – Mk 10,46-52 (Lk 18,35-43)’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 359-369. Dormeyer, D., Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener (Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 43; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1999).



Bibliography

209

Dschulnigg, P., Das Markusevangelium (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2007). Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The Son of Man in Mark’, in J. H. Charlesworth and D. L. Bock (eds.), Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 11; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2013), 18-34. Dykstra, T., Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OACB: St Paul, Minn. 2012). Ebner, M., ‘Evangelium contra Evangelium: Das Markusevangelium und der Aufstieg der Flavier’, Biblische Notizen, nf 116 (2003) 28-42. Eckey, W., Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008). Edwards, J. C., The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew: Its Reception and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.327; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012). Engberg-Pedersen, T., ‘Biografisering: Teologi og narration i Markusevangeliet kap. 8-10’, in T. L. Thompson and H. Tronier (eds.), Frelsens biografisering (Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese 13; Museum Tusculanum: København 2004), 177-189. Enslin, M. S., ‘Luke, the Literary Physician’, in D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Festschrift A. P. Wikgren (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 33; Brill: Leiden 1972), 135-143. Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 1-4, ed. G. Bardy (Sources chrétiennes 31, 41, 55, 73; Paris 1952-1960). Eve, E., ‘Spit in Your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria’, New Testament Studies 54 (2008) 1-17. Farkasfalvy, D., ‘The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris, and J. W. Thompson (eds.), The Early Church in Its Context, Festschrift E. Ferguson (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 90; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 92-106. Fenton, J. C., ‘Paul and Mark’, in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 89-112. Finkelpearl, E., ‘Pagan Traditions of Intertextuality in the Roman World’, in D. R. MacDonald (ed.), Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Trinity International: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 78-90. Focant, C., ‘Une christologie de type “mystique” (Marc 1.1-16.8)’, New Testament Studies 55 (2009) 1-21. Focant, C., L’évangile selon Marc (Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament 2; Cerf: Paris 2004).

210

Bibliography

France, R. T., The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Carlisle 2002). Furlan Taylor, D., ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009) 580-596. Gasparro, L., Simbolo e narrazione in Marco: La dimensione simbolica del se­ con­do Vangelo alla luce della pericope del fico di Mc  11,12-25 (Analecta Biblica 198; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012). Gathercole, S., ‘Jerusalem and Caesarea Inscriptions and New Testament Study: A Review Article’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35.4 (2013) 394-401. Gelardini, G., ‘The Contest for a Royal Title: Herod versus Jesus in the Gospel According to Mark (6,14-29; 15,6-15)’, Annali di storia dell’esegesi 28 (2011) fasc. 2, 93-106. Genette, G., Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982). Gillmayr-Bucher, S., ‘Intertextuality: Between Literary Theory and Text Analysis’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 13-23. Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 1, Mk  1-8,26 (Evangelischkatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998); vol. 2, Mk 8,27-16,20 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2/2; 5th edn., Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 1999). Goulder, M. D., ‘A Pauline in a Jacobite Church’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 859-875. Goulder, M., A Tale of Two Missions (SCM: London 1994). Gray, T. C., The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in its Narrative Role (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.242; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008). Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2000). Hachlili, R., Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 94; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005). Hatina, T. R., ‘Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship?’, Biblical Interpretation 7 (1999) 28-43.



Bibliography

211

Heckel, T. K., ‘Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium’, Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 46 (2002) 190-204. Heil, J. P., ‘Jesus with the Wild Animals in Mark 1:13’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006) 63-78. Herrmann, A., Versuchung im Markusevangelium: Eine biblisch-hermeneutische Studie (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 197; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2011). Herrmann, F., Strategien der Todesdarstellung in der Markuspassion: Ein literaturgeschichtlicher Vergleich (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 86; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2010). Hicks, R., ‘Markan Discipleship according to Malachi: The Significance of μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς in the Story of the Rich Man (Mark 10:17-22)’, Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 179-199. Hilgert, E., ‘The Son of Timaeus: Blindness, Sight, Ascent, Vision in Mark’, in E. A.  Castelli and H.  Taussig (eds.), Reimagining Christian Origins, Festschrift B. Mack (Trinity: Valley Forge, Pa. 1996), 185-198. Hinds, S., Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (Roman Literature and Its Contexts; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1998). Hollenbach, P. W., ‘John the Baptist’, in D. N. Freedman [et al.] (eds.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1992), vol. 3, 887-899. Holthuis, S., Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993). Hooker, M.  D., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Black’s New Testament Commentary; Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1991). Hopkins, J.‑D., ‘Levitical Purification in the New Testament Gospels’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (Library of New Testament Studies 469; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 179-191. Huizenga, L. A., ‘The Confession of Jesus and the Curses of Peter: A NarrativeChristological Approach to the Text-Critical Problem of Mark 14:62’, Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 244-266. Iersel, B. M. F. van, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, transl. W. H. Bisscheroux (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 164; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998). Ilan, T., Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1, Palestine 330 bce – 200 ce (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 91; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2002).

212

Bibliography

Instone-Brewer, D., ‘1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri’, Tyndale Bulletin 52 (2001) 101-115. Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies [Adversus haereses], ed. A.  Rousseau and L. Doutreleau [et al.] (Sources chrétiennes 100, 152-153, 210-211, 263-264, 293-294; Cerf: Paris 1965-1982). Iverson, K.  R., ‘Jews, Gentiles, and the Kingdom of God: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Narrative Perspective (Mark 12:1-12)’, Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 305-335. Iwuamadi, L., «He Called unto Him the Twelve and Began to Send Them Forth»: The Continuation of Jesus’ Mission According to the Gospel of Mark (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 169; Gregorian University: Roma 2008). Jensen, M. H., Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.215; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006). Jochum-Bortfeld, C., Die Verachteten stehen auf: Widersprüche und Gegenentwürfe des Markusevangeliums zu den Menschenbildern seiner Zeit (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 178; W.  Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008), 289-291. Kahl, W., ‘Glauben lässt Jesu Wunderkraft heilsam überfließen (Die Tochter des Jaïrus und die blutflüssige Frau) – Mk 5,21-43’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 278-293. Karakolis, C., ‘Narrative Funktion und christologische Bedeutung der markinischen Erzählung vom Tod Johannes des Täufers (Mk  6:14-29)’, Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 134-155. Kiessel, M.‑É., ‘Intertextualité et hypertextualité en Jn 11,1-12,11’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 81 (2005) 29-56. Klaiber, W., Das Markusevangelium (Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2010). Klingardt, M., ‘Legionsschweine in Gerasa: Lokalkolorit und historischer Hintergrund von Mk 5,1-20’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 98 (2007) 28-48. Kloner, A. and Zissu, B., The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 8; Peeters: Leuven · Dudley, Mass. 2007). Klumbies, P.‑G., ‘Das Raumverständnis in der Markuspassion’, in id., Von der Hinrichtung zur Himmelfahrt: Der Schluss der Jesuserzählung nach Markus und Lukas (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 114; Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 2010), 25-49.



Bibliography

213

Knoll, K. L., ‘Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus’, in T. L. Thompson and T. S. Verenna (eds.), ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Copenhagen International Seminar; Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol, Conn. 2012), 233-266. Kokkinos, N., The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 30; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998). Körtner, U. H. J., ‘Papiasfragmente’, in U. H. J. Körtner and M. Leutzsch (eds.), Papiasfragmente, Hirt des Hermas (Schriften des Urchristentums 3; Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1998), 1-103. Kowalski, B., Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 52; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2004). Kraemer, R. S., ‘Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy?’, Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006) 321-349. Kuhn, H.-W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 8; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1971). Kynes, W., ‘Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119’, in K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce (eds.), Biblical Interpretation and Method, Festschrift J. Barton (Oxford University: Oxford 2013), 201-213. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S. [et al.], A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn. with a revised supplement; Clarendon: Oxford 1996). Loisy, A., L’Évangile selon Marc (Émile Noury: Paris 1912). MacDonald, D. R., ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s Imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211-225. MacDonald, D. R., The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000). MacDonald, M. Y., ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from Experience’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.3 (2007) 313-321. Mahieu, B., Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and His Sons in Their Struggle for Recognition: A Chronological Investigation of the Period 40 BC39 AD With a Time Setting of New Testament Events (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 208; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012). Malina, A., Ewangelia według św. Marka: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz, part 1, 1, 1 – 8, 26 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny NT 2/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2013).

214

Bibliography

Manzinga Akonga, R., Le dernier cri de Jésus sur la croix (Mc  15,34): Fonction pragmatique de la citation du Ps 22,2a dans le contexte communicatif de Mc 15,33-41 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 191; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2012). Marcus, J., Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible 27; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000); vol. 2, Mark 8-16 (Anchor Yale Bible 27A; Yale: New Haven · London 2009). Marcus, J., ‘Mark – Interpreter of Paul’, New Testament Studies 46 (2000) 473487. Marcus, J., ‘Son of Man as Son of Adam’, Revue Biblique 110 (2003) 38-61, 370386. Martin, G., ‘Procedural Register in the Olivet Discourse: A Functional Linguistic Approach’, Biblica 90 (2009) 457-483. Mascilongo, P., «Ma voi, chi dite che io sia?» Analisi narrativa dell’identità di Gesù e del cammino dei discepoli nel Vangelo secondo Marco, alla luce della “Confessione di Pietro” (Mc 8,27-30) (Analecta Biblica 192; Gregorian and Biblical: Roma 2011). McRay, J., ‘Illyricum’, in D. N. Freedman [et al.] (eds.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1992), vol. 3, 388-389. Meier, J. P., ‘The historical Jesus and the historical Herodians’, Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000) 740-746. Meiser, M., ‘Reinheitsfragen und Begräbnissitten: Der Evangelist Markus als Zeuge der jüdischen Alltagskultur’, in R. Deines, J. Herzer, and K.‑W. Niebuhr (eds.), Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: III. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 21.-24. Mai 2009, Leipzig (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 274; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 443-460. Merz, A., ‘Der historische Jesus als Wundertäter im Spektrum antiker Wundertäter’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 108123. Meshorer, Y., A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Yad Ben-Zwi: Jerusalem and Amphora: Nyack, NY 2001). Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 1998). Metzner, R., ‘Der Mensch lebt nicht vom Brot allein, es darf noch Fisch dazwischen sein (Die Speisung der Viertausend) – Mk 8,1-10 (Mt 15,32-39)’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 332-340.



Bibliography

215

Mitchell, M. M., ‘Homer in the New Testament?’, Journal of Religion 83 (2003) 244-260. Moyise, S., ‘Intertextuality, Historical Criticism and Deconstruction’, in T. L. Bro­ die, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 24-34. Muema, P., The Relationship Between Peter and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: An Exegetico-Theological Study (Catholic University of Eastern Africa: Nairobi 2010). Müller, M., ‘The Place of Mark and Matthew in Canonical Thought: A Historical Perspective’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew II: Comparative Readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 304; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 259-269. Müller, P., ‘Nicht nur rein, auch gesund (Heilung eines Aussätzigen) – Mk 1,4045 (Mt 8,1-4 / Lk 5,12-16 / P.Köln 255’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 221-234. Müller, W. G., ‘Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures’, in H. F. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory: Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 15; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1991), 101-121. Nicklas, T., ‘Formkritik und Leserrezeption: Ein Beitrag zur Methodendiskussion am Beispiel Mk 9,14-29’, Biblica 90 (2009) 496-514. Nodet, É., ‘Chronologies de la Passion: Leur sens’, Revue Biblique 118 (2011) 362-407. Nodet, É., ‘Évangiles: de Jean à Marc’, Revue Biblique 120 (2013) 182-219. Nodet, É., ‘On Jesus’ Last Supper’, Biblica 91 (2010) 348-369. Notley, R. S., ‘The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym’, Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009) 183-188. O’Brien, K. S., The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative (Library of New Testament Studies 384; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010). O’Leary, A. M., Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Library of New Testament Studies 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006). Orsini, P. and Clarysse, W., ‘Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A  Critique of Theological Palaeography’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012) 443-474. Oster, R. E., Jr., ‘Ephesus’, in D. N. Freedman [et al.] (eds.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1992), vol. 2, 542-549.

216

Bibliography

Ostermann, S., ‘Lepton, Quadrans und Denar: Drei Münzen im Jerusalemer Tempel zur Zeit Jesu’, in G. Theißen [et al.] (eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie – Topographie – Theologie, Festschrift M.  Küchler (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 70; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 39-56. Painter, J., Mark’s Gospel: Worlds in Conflict (New Testament Readings; Routledge: London · New York 1997). Palu, M., Jesus and Time: An Interpretation of Mark 1.15 (Library of New Testament Studies 468; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012). Pape, W. and Benseler, G., Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (3rd edn.; Akademische: Graz 1959). Perkins, L., ‘The Markan Narrative’s Use of the Old Greek Text of Jeremiah to Explain Israel’s Obduracy’, Tyndale Bulletin 60 (2009) 217-238. Pfister, M., ‘Konzepte der Intertextualität’, in U. Broich, M. Pfister, and B. SchulteMiddelich (eds.), Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 35; Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1985), 1-30. Phillips, P., ‘Biblical Studies and Intertextuality: Should the Work of Genette and Eco Broaden our Horizons?’, in T.  L.  Brodie, D.  R.  MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 35-45. Pilhofer, P., ‘Städtische Wurzeln des frühen Christentums’, Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 161 (2013) 158-165. Pokorný, P., From the Gospel to the Gospels: History, Theology and Impact of the Biblical Term euangelion (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 195; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013). Quispe López, C., La nueva alianza durante las enseñanzas de Jesús en el Templo de Jerusalén: Análisis retórico bíblico y semítico de la secuencia de Mc 11,27-12,44 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 189; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012). Rau, E., ‘Die Ablehnung Jesu durch „dieses Geschlecht”: Ein tiefgreifendes Ereignis in der Sicht der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 87 (2011) 57-87. Reiser, M., ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Biblica 81 (2000) 457-488. Reuter, R., ‘Clarifying the Issue of Literary Dependence’, in K. Liljeström (ed.), The Early Reception of Paul (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 99; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki 2011), 23-35. Riffaterre, M., Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993).



Bibliography

217

Robbins, V. K., ‘The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1161-1183. Rochester, S. T., Good News at Gerasa: Transformative Discourse and Theological Anthropology in Mark’s Gospel (Peter Lang: Oxford [et al.] 2011). Romaniuk, K., ‘Le problème des paulinismes dans l’évangile de Marc’, New Testament Studies 23 (1977) 266-274. Rüegger, H.‑U. and Hämmig, A., ‘»Mein gott: varzuo hastu mich gelassen?« Philologische Annäherung an eine theologische Frage (Mk  15,34)’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 102 (2011) 40-58. Sandnes, K. O., The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 138; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011). Schenk, W., ‘Die Rezeption der paulinischen Herrenmahlworte bei Markus’, in C. Barnbrock and W. Klän (eds.), Gottes Wort in der Zeit: verstehen – verkündigen – verbreiten, Festschrift V. Stolle (Lit: Münster 2005), 261-269. Schenk, W., ‘Sekundäre Jesuanisierungen von primären Paulus-Aussagen bei Markus’, in F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 877-904. Schenke, L., Das Markusevangelium: Literarische Eigenart – Text und Kommentierung (W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005). Schmidt, K.  M., Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel: Epistolographie, Rhetorik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe (Herders biblische Studien 38; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2003). Schmidt, K.  M., Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexte des Markusevangeliums (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 74; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2010). Schmithals, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 2; 2nd edn., Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1986). Schnelle, U., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Uni-Taschenbücher 2917; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2007). Schnelle, U., Lang, M., and Labahn, M. (eds.), Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum and Hellenismus, vol. 1.1, Texte zum Markus­ evangelium (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2008). Schulze, M. H., Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis

218

Bibliography

zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886). Seccombe, D., ‘Incongruity in the Gospel Parables’, Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011) 161-172. Shively, E. E., Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22-30 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 189; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012). Smit, P.‑B., ‘Eine neutestamentliche Geburtstagsfeier und die Charakterisierung des „Königs” Herodes Antipas (Mk  6,21-29)’, Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 53 (2009) 29-46. Solin, H. and Salomies, O., Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Alpha – Omega A.80; 2nd edn., Olms and Weidmann: Hildesheim · Zürich · New York 1994). Spitaler, P., ‘Biblical Concern for the Marginalized: Mark’s Stories about Welcoming the Little Ones’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 87 (2011) 89-126. Spitaler, P., ‘Welcoming a Child as a Metaphor for Welcoming God’s Kingdom: A Close Reading of Mark 10.13-16’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.4 (2009) 423-446. Standaert, B., Évangile selon Marc (Études bibliques, ns 61; J. Gabalda: Pendé 2010). Standhartinger, A., ‘„Und alle aßen und wurden satt” (Mk 6,42 par.): Die Speisungserzählungen im Kontext römisch-hellenistischer Festkultur’, Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 57 (2013) 60-81 (esp. 75-76) [also as id., ‘“And All Ate and Were Filled” (Mark 6.42 par.): The Feeding Narratives in the Context of Hellenistic-Roman Banquet Culture’, in N. MacDonald, L. Sutter Rehmann, and K. Ehrensperger (eds.), Decisive Meals: Table Politics in Biblical Literature (Library of New Testament Studies 449; T&T Clark: London · New York 2012), 62-82 (esp. 76)]. Steiner, C.‑A., ‘Le lien entre le prologue et le corps de l’évangile de Marc’, in D.  Marguerat and A.  Curtis (eds.), Intertextualités: Le Bible en échos (Le Monde de la Bible 40; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000), 161-184. Stock, K., Marco: Commento contestuale al secondo Vangelo (Bibbia e preghiera 47; ADP: Roma 2003). Svartvik, J., Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1-23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts (Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 32; Almqvist & Wiksell International: Stockholm 2000).



Bibliography

219

Svartvik, J., ‘Matthew and Mark’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27-49. Tait, M., Jesus, The Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18-22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded (Analecta Biblica 185; Gregorian and Biblical: Roma 2010). Tarazi, P.  N., The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999). Telford, W. R., The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (New Testament Theology; Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York · Melbourne 1999). Thrall, M. E., ‘Elijah and Moses in Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration’, New Testament Studies 16 (1969-1970) 305-317. Toit, D. S. du, Der abwesende Herr: Strategien im Markusevangelium zur Bewäl­ tigung der Abwesenheit des Auferstandenen (Wissenschaftliche Monogra­ phien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 111; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006). Toit, D. du, ‘Vom Winde verweht (Jesu Erscheinen auf dem See) – Mk 6,45-53’, in R. Zimmermann [et al.] (eds.), Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen, vol. 1, Die Wunder Jesu (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2013), 304312. Tolbert, M. A., Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Fortress: Minneapolis 1989). Tomson, P. J., ‘Divorce Halakhah in Paul and the Jesus Tradition’, in R. Bieringer [et al.] (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 136; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 289-332. Trick, B. R., ‘Death, Covenants, and the Proof of Resurrection in Mark 12:18-27’, Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 232-256. Trocmé, É., L’Évangile selon saint Marc (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 2; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000). Tronier, H., ‘Markusevangeliets Jesus som biografiseret erkendelsesfigur: “Ny skabelse” fra Paulus til Markus’, in T. L. Thompson and H. Tronier (eds.), Frelsens biografisering (Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese 13; Museum Tusculanum: København 2004), 237-271. Vearncombe, E., ‘Cloaks, Conflict, and Mark 14:51-52’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013) 683-703. Vines, M. E., The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel (Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica 3; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, Ga. 2002). Volkmar, G., Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R. Reisland): Leipzig 1870).

220

Bibliography

Vulpillières, S. de, Nature et fonction des injonctions au silence dans l’évangile de Marc (Études bibliques, ns 62; J. Gabalda: Pendé 2010). Wagner, V., ‘Mit der Herkunft Jesu aus Nazaret gegen die Geltung des Gesetzes?’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 92 (2001) 273-282. Watson, F., ‘“I Received from the Lord…”: Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper’, in T. D. Still (ed.), Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007), 103-124. Werner, M., Der Einfluß paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium: Eine Studie zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1; Alfred Töpelmann: Gießen 1923). Whitaker, R., ‘Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013) 666-682. Williams, G.  J., ‘Narrative Space, Angelic Revelation, and the End of Mark’s Gospel’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35.3 (2013) 263-284. Wischmeyer, O., ‘Forming Identity Through Literature: The Impact of Mark for the Building of Christ-Believing Communities in the Second Half of the First Century C. E.’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their FirstCentury Setting (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 355-378. Wong, E. K. C., Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012). Wrede, D. W., Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1901). Wright, D. P., Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009). Wypadlo, A., Die Verklärung Jesu nach dem Markusevangelium: Studien zu einer christologischen Legitimationserzählung (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 308; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013). Yarbro Collins, A., Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007). Yarbro Collins, A., ‘Mark and the Hermeneutics of History Writing’, in E.‑M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew II: Comparative Readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 304; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 231-244. Ziegler, D., Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte – eine intertextuelle Lektüre (Religion und Biographie 18; Lit: Berlin 2008).



Bibliography

221

Zimmermann, R., ‘Auslegungskunst: Sehepunkte zur Wundererzählung vom Besessenen aus Gerasa (Mk 5,1-20)’, Biblische Notizen, nf no. 152 (2012) 87-115. Zwierlein, O., Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse: Mit einer kritischen Edition der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 96; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2009).

Index of ancient sources (selected)

Old Testament Genesis 1:1-31      102 1:3-5      194 1:27      125 1:31      102 2:2-3      114 2:24      125 3:1-4      142, 202 3:1-3      142 3:5-6      142 3:7      142, 202 3:11      142 3:17      142 3:18-19      66 3:22      142 6:19-20      82 7:2-3      82 7:9      82 7:15      82 10:18      61 14:18-20      74 15:7      40 n. 33 22:2      116 22:12      116 22:16      116 26:12      67 n. 104 29:35      81 35:23      61 37:25      131 38:8      150 48:1-20      81 Exodus 3:1-4:17      50 3:2-4      150 3:6      150

3:14      178 10:21-24      189 10:21-22      189 16:4      104 16:8      104 16:12      104 16:16      186 16:25-30      56 16:29      104 16:32      104 18:21      90 18:25      90 19:16      116 20:12      96, 130 20:13-15      130 n. 69 20:16      62 n. 94, 130 20:17      96, 130 22:28      151 23:20ab      34 23:20a      34-5, 201 23:20b      35 24:7      101 24:8      171 24:15-16      115 24:15      116 24:16      114 24:18      42 25:9      116 25:31-37      69 26:33      190 28:2      154 32:7-35      42 32:26-28      53 38:26      186 40:35      116 Leviticus 1:2      97

224 1:14      40 n. 33 5:7      40 n. 33 11:9      90 11:22      36 12:2      41 12:4      41 12:7      77 14:2-32      50 14:2-3      50 15:19      77 15:25      77 15:27      77 19:18      151-2 23:5-7      169 Numbers 1:2      186 3:6-8      53 9:11      169 9:13      169 18:2-4      53 18:21      53 18:24      53 21:4-6      142 28:16-17      169 28:17-23      169 34:11      44 Deuteronomy 1:15      90 1:19      90 4:35      152 5:5      92 5:16      130 5:17-18      129 n. 69 5:20      130 5:21      130 6:4-5      151-2 9:8      42 9:9      42, 92 9:10      101 9:12-21      42 10:1      92 10:3      92 10:8      53

Index of ancient sources 10:16      125 14:9      90 16:1-7      169 18:15-18      101 18:16      101 18:18      101 24:1-4      198 n. 12 24:1      125, 127 25:5-6      150 25:14      69 31:9      53 31:11      101 31:28      101 31:30      101 32:13      36 32:44      101 33:8-10      53 Joshua 5:10-11      169 7:1-26      46, 134 7:1      46, 134 7:11      46, 134 7:21      46, 134 9:4-6      56 9:13      56 12:3      44 13:27      44 Judges 9:53      186 1 Samuel 1:1      192 16:1-23      17 16:13      174 21:2-7      56-7 2 Samuel 7:14      178 15:16      126 15:29      57 15:35      57 20:3      126

1 Kings 2:19      135 17:1-19:21      17 17:8-24      51, 86, 99, 100 n. 196 17:13      100 19:8-18      50 19:8      42 2 Kings 1:1-2:18      17 1:2-3      63 1:6      63 1:8      35-6 1:16      63 4:21-37      51, 79 4:42-44      51, 89 5:1-19      50-1 5:14      37 9:13      140 9:35      186 10:7      88 14:6      34 1 Chronicles 18:18      135 23:24-32      53 2 Chronicles 18:9      154 Tobit 1:3      193 1:13      193 1:17-19      168 1:17-18      193 2:7-8      193 3:7-10      150 3:15      150 14:6      189 Judith 13:9-10      88 13:15      88

Index of ancient sources

225

Esther 5:3      87 6:8      154 7:2      87 1 Maccabees 1:14      177 1:54      158 11:67      44, 94 11:70      53 n. 70 14:27-47      45 2 Maccabees 4:9      177 4:12      177 Job 37:2      61 n. 91 Psalms 2:7      40 8:7      153 22[21]      187 n. 58 22[21]:2      187 n. 58, 189 22[21]:8-9      187 n. 58, 188 22[21]:9      188 22[21]:19      187 24[23]:1      143 24[23]:3      133 42[41]:6      175 42[41]:12      175 43[42]:5      175 69[68]      189 n. 67 69[68]:10      188, 189 n. 67 69[68]:22      189 78[77]:29      91 110[109]:1      135, 149, 152, 179, 194, 197 n. 1 118[117]:22-23      148 118[117]:25-26      140 122[121]:4      133 148:1      140 Song of Songs 1:3      167

226 1:12      167 3:4      126 Sirach 7:3      67 33:15      82 50:1      45

Index of ancient sources 7:13      179 9:27      158 11:4      64 11:31      158 12:1      159 12:6-7      157 12:11      158

Isaiah 5:1-7      147 5:1-2      147 5:4-5      147 6:9-10      68, 108 11:1      38-9, 138, 195 11:10      39 13:10      161 25:8      161 28:7-12      146 28:11-12      146 29:13      95 32:12      172 34:4      161 40:3      34-5 49:24-25      64 50:6      134, 179, 185 53:12      187 56:7      143 66:24      124

Hosea 1:2      31 13:14      161

Jeremiah 4:3      66 4:4      125 7:11      143 12:13      66

Matthew 3:1      35 n. 21 6:9-13      146 n. 108 8:28      73 n. 121 11:11-12      35 n. 21 14:2      35 n. 21 14:8      35 n. 21 15:6      96 15:39      106 16:14      35 n. 21 17:13      35 n. 21 19:18      129 n. 69 21:8      141

Ezekiel 1:1      40 1:28      116 2:3-3:11      112 16:39      126 45:21-22      169 Daniel 7:9      115, 194 7:13-14      112, 114, 161

Amos 8:5      69 Jonah 1:10      72 1:16      72 Zechariah 9:9      140 13:7      173 14:4      140, 157 Malachi 3:23 [Eng. 4:5]      117 New Testament

Mark 1-7      31-102, 196-7

1:1-8      31-7 1:2-3      33-5, 201 1:4-13      42 1:4-6      37, 202 n. 17 1:4-5      135 1:4      35, 135 1:5      35, 37, 39, 41 1:8-9      41 1:8a      37, 135 1:9-16:8      35 1:9-20      38-47 1:9      38-9, 51, 80, 135, 135, 186 1:9b      38-9, 43 1:10-11      37-42, 198 n. 3 1:12-13      41-2, 172 1:14-20      42-7 1:14      33, 42-3, 84 1:15      32, 43 1:16-20      43, 47, 53-4, 60, 135 1:16-18      53, 82, 90, 105, 195 1:16      44-6, 65, 166, 201 1:19-21      202 n. 17 1:19-20      45-7, 53, 90 1:19      44, 46, 61, 134 1:21-2:12      47-52 1:21-28      47-8 1:21-24      53 1:21      47-8, 186, 198 n. 7 1:23-27      49 1:23-25      40 n. 35 1:23      48, 118 1:24-25      40, 48 1:24      48, 80, 138, 195 1:26      73, 118 1:29-34      49 1:29-30      166 1:29      61, 64, 134 1:31      48-9, 79 1:33      47, 49, 198 n. 7 1:34      40, 49 1:35-45      49-51 1:35      50-1, 172 1:35b      49, 197 n. 1 1:36      166 1:40      166

Index of ancient sources 1:41      48 1:44      40, 50 1:45-2:1      51 2:1-12      51-3, 71 2:1      47, 51, 62, 80, 198 n. 7 2:5      51, 72 2:9-12      72 2:9      51, 79, 85, 138 2:10      40 2:11-12      51, 79, 85 2:11      138 2:13-3:6      52-9 2:13-17      52-5 2:13      44, 51, 53, 65 2:14      53-4, 61 2:15      54, 64, 166 2:16      54-5, 58, 108, 148, 152, 154 2:18-22      55-6 2:18      55, 58, 108, 148 2:23-28      56-7 2:24      57-8, 108, 148 3:1-6      57-9 3:3      57, 138 3:6      58, 72, 84, 94, 108, 148 3:7-5:20      59-75 3:7-19      59-62 3:7-8      48 3:7      44, 65 3:9      65, 88 3:11-12      40 3:11      60, 118 3:13-19      54, 60 3:13      60, 82, 135 3:16      45, 61, 66, 166 3:17      46, 61, 134 3:18      53-4 3:19      168 3:20-35      62-4 3:20      62, 65 3:22      94, 152, 154 3:23      66, 161 3:31-32      64, 68 3:32      50, 65 4:1-34      64-70 4:1      65, 88

227

228

Index of ancient sources

4:1d      201 4:2-34      63, 65-6, 161, 198 n. 10 4:3-8      97 4:12      66, 68, 108 4:14-20      67-8, 97 4:34      68, 115 4:35-5:20      70-5, 201 4:35-41      27 n. 82, 50, 70-2 4:35-36      65 4:36-41      88 5:1-20      70, 72-3 5:1      73-4, 94, 202 n. 17 5:2      74, 118 5:5      73-4, 118 5:7-8      118 5:18      73-4, 88 5:20      74, 202 n. 17 5:21-43      76-80, 201 5:21-24a      76-7, 198 n. 2 5:21      76, 94 5:22      77, 202 n. 17 5:24a      76, 78 5:24b-34      76-9, 198 n. 2 5:25      77, 166 5:35-43      76, 78-80, 198 n. 2 5:37      78, 134 5:38-42      51 5:41-42      79, 85, 119 5:41      79, 138, 201 5:42      50, 77, 79 5:43      117 6:1-6      38, 80-1 6:3      80-1, 191 6:5      81, 110 6:7-44      81-91, 201 6:7-13      82-3 6:14-29      58, 54, 64, 83-8, 117 6:14-27      84, 108, 148 6:14-15      86, 111 6:14      84, 86, 135, 181 n. 36, 201 6:17-27      202 n. 17 6:20      86, 153 6:21      85-7, 201 6:22-28      183 6:22      84, 87, 183, 201

6:24-25      35 n. 21 6:24      87-8, 135 6:25-27      84, 201 6:25      88, 201 6:28      88, 201 6:30-44      88-91, 103, 105-6 6:30-34      103 6:30      82 6:31-32      68, 115 6:34      89, 104 6:34-35      104 6:35-37      105 6:37-44      51 6:37      89, 104, 201 6:38      89-91, 104-5 6:39-40      105 6:41-44      89, 93 6:41      89-91, 105 6:43      89-91, 105 6:44      91, 105 6:45-56      91-4 6:45-52      92-3 6:45-46a      92, 201 6:45      92, 108-9, 186, 202 n. 17 6:46      172, 198 n. 8 6:47-52      50 6:50      138 6:53-56      93-4 6:53      93-4, 108-9, 201, 202 n. 17 6:56      94, 201 7      21 7:1-23      94-9 7:1-13      94-7, 198 n. 11 7:1      94, 108, 148, 152, 154 7:3      108, 148 7:4      135 7:5      94-5, 108, 148 7:11      97, 202 n. 17 7:14-23      97-9 7:17      66, 120, 161 7:24-37      48, 99-102 7:24-30      51, 99-100 7:24      99, 108-9 7:31-37      100-2 7:31      74, 99 n. 194, 100, 108-9



Index of ancient sources

7:32-35      110 7:32      109 7:33      68, 109, 115 7:34b      107 7:36      101, 117 8-13      103-63, 196-7 8:1-21      103-8 8:1-9      103-6 8:1      65, 103 8:6      105, 171 8:10-13      106-7 8:10      106, 109 8:11      107, 118 8:13      109 8:14-21      107-8 8:15      108, 148, 154 8:22-26      108-10 8:22-23      12 8:23      110 n. 12, 202 n. 17 8:27-9:1      110-14 8:27-30      110-11 8:27      110-11, 202 n. 17 8:30-9:1      111 8:31-33      111-13, 120 8:31      50, 104, 111-12, 133-4, 202 n. 17 8:31cd      120 8:32-33      116 8:33      63, 113 8:34-9:1      113-14 8:34      111, 113, 186 8:35      32-3, 113 8:38      112, 114 9:1      111, 114, 162 9:2-13      114-18 9:2-8      114-16 9:2      68, 134 9:5-6      12, 116 9:5      115-16, 145 9:7      40, 115 9:9-13      117-18, 198 n. 14 9:9-10      50, 117 9:9      40 9:11      120 9:14-29      118-20 9:18      198 n. 9

9:20      198 n. 9 9:27      50, 119 9:28      68, 115, 119-20 9:29      119, 200 9:30-50      120-4 9:30-32      120, 133 9:30      124 9:31      50, 104, 112, 120, 134 9:33-35      121 9:33      47, 80, 121, 124 9:36-37      121-2 9:36      128 9:38-41      122-3 9:38      122, 134 9:42-50      123-4 10:1-16      124-8 10:1-12      124-7, 130 10:1      133, 141 10:11-12      126-7, 198 n. 12 10:13-16      128 10:17-31      128-32 10:17-22      129-30 10:17      133 10:17e      144 10:19      129, 130 n. 70, 151 10:22      130-1 10:23-27      131 10:23      131-2 10:28-31      132 10:28      54, 132 10:29      32-3, 132 10:32-52      133-9 10:32-34      112, 133-4 10:32-33      133, 141 10:32      125, 133, 139 10:34      50, 104, 185 10:35-41      136 10:35-40      134-6 10:35      46 10:38-39      155 10:41-45      136-7 10:46-52      137-9 10:46      133, 138-9, 182, 201 10:46c      137, 139, 201 10:47      39, 195

229

230 10:50      109, 138 10:52      54 11-13      199 n. 16 11:1-19      139-44 11:1-11      139-41 11:1      139, 166, 186 11:1a      139-42 11:8      72 11:10      138 11:11-12      166 11:11      140-1, 143 11:12-14      141-2 11:12-13      142, 202 11:14      145 11:15-19      143-4 11:17      119-20, 200 11:20-12:17      144-9 11:20-25      144-6 11:20-21      142, 202 11:20      142, 144 11:27-33      146-7 11:27      146, 148 11:30      135, 147 11:32      35, 147 12:1-12      147-8 12:1      66, 161 12:12      66, 148, 161 12:13-17      148-9 12:13      58 12:15      155 n. 132 12:18-44      149-56 12:18-27      149-51 12:18-19      202 n. 17 12:18ab      150, 197 n. 1 12:23      50 12:25-26      119 12:25      50 12:28-34      151-2 12:28      118 12:34ef      152-3 12:35-37      152-3 12:35-36      194 12:35      138, 153-4 12:36      152, 197 n. 1 12:38-40      153-4

Index of ancient sources 12:40      155 12:41-44      154-6 12:41      154 13      156-63 13:1-13      156-8 13:3      68, 156, 174 13:8      115, 157 13:10      32, 158 13:14-27      16 13:14-23      158-60 13:14      158-9, 202 n. 17 13:20      160-1, 198 n. 13 13:22      160-1, 198 n. 13 13:24-27      159, 161 13:24-25      161 13:27      160-1, 198 n. 13 13:28-32      161-2 13:30      114, 162 13:33-37      162-3 14-16      165-97 14:1-25      165-72 14:1-11      165-8 14:1-2      182 14:4      189 14:8      168, 193 14:9      32-3 14:10-11      168, 170 14:12-15:47      169 14:12-16      168-9 14:12      182 14:17-25      173 14:17-21      170 14:18      168 14:21      168, 170 14:22-25      89, 144, 170-2 14:22-24      172 14:22      90 14:23-25      135 14:25      172, 186 14:26-52      172-7 14:26-31      172-4 14:27-28      173, 195 14:29-30      12, 66 14:30      180 14:32-42      112, 174-6



Index of ancient sources

14:36      14 n. 10, 176, 182 14:37      12, 166, 174-5 14:41-42      168, 170 14:43-52      176-7 14:43      168, 176 14:44      168, 170, 177 14:45      145 14:50      174, 176 14:53-15:15      177-84 14:53-72      177-80 14:58      104, 178, 188, 190 14:62      179, 181 14:65      179, 183, 185 14:66-72      12, 177, 179-80 14:66-67      198 n. 5 14:67      195 14:69      198 n. 5 14:72      145, 180 15:1-5      181 15:1      168, 181, 202 n. 17 15:3      183 15:5-6      157 15:6-15      181-4 15:7-15      87, 183 15:7      87, 182-3, 198 n. 4 15:10      168, 181, 183 15:11      87, 182-3, 198 n. 4 15:15      87, 111, 168, 182-3, 198 n. 4, 202 n. 17 15:16-37      184-90 15:16-20      184-5 15:21-22      186 15:21      185-6 15:22-37      187 n. 58 15:22-27      186-7 15:29-32      188 15:29      104 15:30-32      187 n. 58 15:32d      188, 189 n. 67 15:33-37      188-90 15:33      187, 189 15:34-36      187 n. 58 15:34      73, 189 15:37      73, 190 15:38-16:8      190-6

15:38-41      190-2 15:39      187, 191 15:41      54, 191 15:42-16:1      72 15:42-47      92, 192-3 15:46-47      198 n. 6 15:47      191, 193 16:1-8      193-6 16:1      191, 194, 198 n. 6 16:2      50, 194 16:3      192, 194-5 16:7-8      200 16:8      50, 195-6 16:9-20      196 n. 89, 200 Luke 2:23      34 5:1-2      44 7:20      35 n. 21 7:33      35 n. 21 8:22-23      44 8:26      73 n. 121 8:33      44 8:37      73 n. 121 9:19      35 n. 21 11:2-4      146 n. 108 18:20      129 n. 69 Acts 2:10-11      12 7:42      34 7:58      75 n. 130 8:1      75 n. 130 8:3      75 n. 130 9:1-2      75 n. 130 9:11      51 n. 68 9:13      75 n. 130 9:14      75 n. 130 12:2      46 12:12      12 12:17      12, 46 15:15      34 16:1-3      177 n. 27 19:29-31      156 21:39      51 n. 68

231

232

Index of ancient sources

22:3      51 n. 68 Romans 1:1-4      33 1:1-2      42, 84 1:2      35, 43, 115 1:3      36, 38-9, 48, 152, 179, 199 1:4      38-40, 60, 77, 92, 173, 179, 191, 199 1:5      158 1:13      166 1:15      166 1:16      43, 100, 139 1:17      34 1:29      98 2:10      58 2:24      34, 64 3:3      81 3:4      34 3:23-26      64 3:24      137 4:7      35 4:17      34 4:22-25      178 5:12-19      142 n. 101 6:3-4      135 6:4      195 6:6      195 7:2-3      126-7, 150 7:2      126 n. 56 7:3      127, 198 n. 12 8:2-9      175 8:11      58 8:12-13      175 8:15      14 n. 10, 175, 182 8:16-17      175 8:29-30      115 8:29      115 8:30      115 8:32-39      112 8:32      116 8:36      34, 158 9-11      12 10:9-13      58 10:9-12      178 10:9-10      77-8

10:9      51, 71-2, 77-9, 85, 100 10:10      78 11-15      200 n. 16 11:1      192 11:6      69 11:7      58 11:8      68, 108 11:20      81 11:23      81 11:25      58 11:26-27      48 12:2      64 12:6-8      48 12:18-13:8      12 13:3-4      58 13:7      149 13:9-10      151 13:9      98, 129 13:9d      130 13:9e      130 13:9fg      130 13:11-12      50 13:13      98 14:1-2      138 14:5-6      138 14:9      113 14:11      35 14:14      97 14:17      43 14:20-21      89 14:20      98 14:21      90 15:3      188, 189 n. 67 15:9      35 15:12      39 15:15      15, 166 15:18-19      114 n. 24 15:19      32, 59, 81, 106, 109, 185 15:22      166 15:23-32      76 15:23-24      114 n. 24 15:23      185 15:25-28      106 15:26      155, 185 15:28      114 n. 24

15:30-31      106, 111, 155, 166 16:1      192 16:3-15      166 16:6      80, 191 16:13      185 16:21      177 n. 27 1 Corinthians 1:1-6:11      125 1:1-31      103-8 1:1-16      103-6 1:1      60 1:9      60, 104 1:11      15, 105 1:12      44, 84, 105 1:17-23      106-7 1:17-18      104 1:17      60 1:18      120 1:21      58, 107 1:23-24      120 1:23      107, 195 1:24-31      107-8 1:24      80, 187 1:26      106 1:30      137 1:31      170 2:1      108-10 2:2-6      110-14 2:2      195 2:2a-c      110-11 2:2c-3      113 2:2d-5      111-13 2:5a      113, 116 2:6      113-14 2:7-9      114-18 2:7-8      114-16, 120 2:8      113 2:8bc      117 2:8c-9a      117 2:8c      115-18 2:9      115, 117-18, 198 n. 14 2:10-3:17      118-20 2:13      48, 118 3:2      140

Index of ancient sources 3:3b      119, 198 n. 9 3:5      121 3:6-7      69 3:8      105, 119 3:10      80 3:16-17      119-20, 200 3:18-6:11      120-4 3:18-19      120 3:20-4:13      121 3:22      44, 68, 84, 121 4:1      68, 121 4:11      57 4:14-17      121-2 4:17      122, 162, 182 4:18-21      122-3 4:20      43 5:1-6:11      123-4 5:6-8      108, 124 5:7      169, 182 5:8      169 5:9      15 5:11      15, 124 6:12-11:16      125 6:12-7:16      124-8 6:12-7:11      124-7, 130 6:14      58 6:19-20      190 7:1-40      126 7:1      15, 126 7:2-5      127, 198 n. 12 7:5      41, 130 7:8      150 7:10-11      125-7, 198 n. 12 7:12-16      127-8, 198 n. 12 7:12-15      126 n. 56 7:14      79 7:15      125, 129 7:17-40      128-32 7:17-28      129-30 7:27-28      126 7:25-26      130, 150 7:25      75 7:27a      126 n. 56 7:27bc      126 n. 56, 127 7:27d      150

233

234 7:28ab      126 n. 56 7:29-32b      131 7:29-31      151 7:32-35      55 7:32-33      132 7:32      126 n. 56, 150-1 7:32c-40      132 7:34-35      151 7:33-34      151 7:34      126 n. 56, 150 7:36      126 n. 56 7:37-38      150 7:39      126-7, 150 7:40      150 8:1-9:17      133-9 8      133-4 8:4      36 8:7      36, 133, 138 8:9-13      138 8:13      89 9:1-17      134-6 9:4-16      46 9:4-6      127 n. 60 9:5      44, 49, 60, 66, 127, 132 9:6      82 9:8-10      127 n. 60 9:13-14      127 n. 60 9:13      135, 155 9:15      49 9:17-18      46 9:18-19      136-7 9:20-27      137-9 9:20-21      137-8, 182, 201 9:22      58 10-16      199 n. 16 10:1-11:26      139-44 10:1-12      104 10:1-11      91 10:1-8      139-41 10:1-4      90, 140 10:6      90 10:7      142 10:8      142 10:9-13      141-2 10:9b      142, 202

Index of ancient sources 10:9c      142, 202 10:11      90 10:13      104, 142 10:14-11:26      143-4 10:16-17      89, 169 10:16      166, 171 10:17      90-1, 105, 107-8 10:20-21      49, 60 10:33      58 11:1      40, 199 11:17-34      169 11:23-29      89 11:23-24      90, 105 11:23      144-5, 181, 184 11:23c      120, 168, 170 11:23d-25      170 11:23d-24d      170-1 11:23d      171 11:24-25      145 11:24a      171 11:24de      171 11:24d      171 11:25      171-2 11:25a      171 11:25c      172 11:25d      171 11:25f      171 11:26-27      145 11:26      171 11:27-15:11      144-9 11:27-14:20      144-6 11:29-32      147 11:37-40      147 12:4-27      105 12:8      80 12:10      80 12:12-27      123 12:15-17      123 12:21      123 12:28-30      48 14:2      36 14:6      48 14:21-40      146-7 14:21      36, 146 14:26      48



Index of ancient sources

15:1-4      147-8 15:2      139 15:3-4      119, 193 15:3      170, 176, 187-9 15:4-8      72 15:4      49, 58, 72, 104, 112, 138, 148, 196 15:4a      193 15:4b      148, 194-5 15:5-11      148-9 15:5-7      148-9, 195-6 15:5      44-6, 61, 84, 86, 121, 148 15:5a      61 15:5b      60 15:7      44-5, 61, 148 15:7b      60 15:8-10      74, 196 15:8      132 15:9-10      121 15:9      72, 143 15:10      69, 72, 132, 136 15:12-34      79, 85 15:12-31      149-56 15:12-22      149-51 15:12cd      150, 197 n. 1 15:14      51-2, 71-2 15:17      51-2 15:21-22      142 n. 101 15:23-24      114, 151-2 15:24-28c      154 15:24c      152-3 15:25-27c      153 15:25-27a      152-3 15:25cd      153, 197 n. 1 15:27-28      113 15:27b-28      153-4 15:29-31      154-6 15:32-16:24      156-63 15:32-33      156-8 15:32de      157, 174 15:34-52      158-60 15:35-44      58 15:45-49      142 n. 101 15:46      160, 198 n. 13 15:48-49      160, 198 n. 13 15:51-53      114, 162

15:52      162 15:53-58      161 15:57      161, 198 n. 13 16:1-12      161-2 16:1-4      46, 155 16:4      106 16:8-9      158 16:13-24      162-3 16:13ab      174 2 Corinthians 1:19      12, 60 1:24      136 2:3-4      15 2:9      15 3:14      58, 172 3:17      93 4:6      194 4:11      158 5:1      178 5:4      101, 107, 114, 162 5:10      58 5:13      63 5:15-17      178 5:15      194 5:17      194 7:12      15 8-9      46, 155 8:2      155-6 8:3-4      155 8:5      64, 155 8:7      156 8:14      156 8:15      34 8:19      106 9:9      34 10:14      43 11:2      55 11:4      43 11:5      60 11:13      154 11:15      154 11:18      154 11:20      154 11:30      60

235

236

Index of ancient sources

11:32-33      57-8 11:32      47, 51 12:1-9      41 12:1-6      41, 60 12:1-4      39-40 12:7-9      41 12:7      42 12:9b      42 12:9c-e      42 12:11      60 Galatians 1:1-12      31-7 1:1      33, 35, 79, 82, 85, 201 1:3      33, 35, 201 1:12      33, 48 1:13-16b      38-47 1:13-14      38-9 1:13      38-9, 72, 75, 143 1:14      39, 95 1:15-16b      38 1:15      60 1:15a      39-41, 198 n. 3 1:15b      41-2 1:15c      42-7 1:16-18      45 1:16-17      72 1:16      37, 40, 199 1:16a      39-42, 47, 49-50, 198 n. 3 1:16b-17      45 1:16b      42-8, 201 1:16c      42, 46-8 1:16c-17      47-52 1:16c-17a      48 1:17      49, 60 1:17ab      50 1:17a      49-50 1:17b      42, 49-51, 59, 197 n. 1 1:17c      39, 47, 51-2, 59, 62, 75, 198 n. 7 1:18-20      52-9 1:18-19      44-5, 57, 121 1:18      44, 46, 52-5, 57 n. 85, 58, 64, 66, 75, 84, 115, 173 1:18a      51, 53, 55-7 1:18b      53-4, 61

1:18c-19      62 1:18c      54, 58 1:19      46, 55, 58, 60, 81-2 1:19a      55-6 1:19b      55-8, 60-1, 63-4 1:20      57-9 1:21-24      59-75 1:21      58-62, 65, 67-75, 86, 201 1:22-23b      67-8 1:22      62-4, 75 1:23      43, 50, 86 1:23ab      69 1:23a      62-70, 198 n. 10, 201 1:23b-24      70-5 1:23b      66, 71-5 1:23c      71-2, 74-5, 201 2:1-2      76-80, 201 2:1-2a      76-7, 198 n. 2 2:1      76-7, 80, 82, 90, 109 2:2      43, 68, 70, 115, 136 2:2b-d      157 2:2bc      70, 76-9 2:2b      79 2:2c      77, 79 2:2d-f      68, 70, 76, 78-80, 198 n. 2 2:2d      78-9, 201 2:3-5      80-1 2:3      80, 90 2:4-6      148 2:4      78-81 2:5      79 2:6-14      81-91, 201 2:6-10      82-3 2:6c-e      149 2:7-17      55 2:7-9      44, 54, 61, 173 2:7-8      44-6, 54, 61, 66, 82, 180 2:7      82, 86 2:7c-8a      69 2:8      121 2:9-10      80, 134 2:9-10a      68 2:9      44-5, 47, 55, 60-1, 63-4, 66-7, 69, 789, 82, 86-7, 90, 116, 136, 148, 157, 166, 173-4, 180, 191



Index of ancient sources

2:10      82, 154, 168 2:10a      46, 53, 67, 144, 147-9, 167 2:10b      149 2:11-21      100, 196 2:11-14      35, 54, 62, 64, 66, 166, 195 2:11-13      83-8 2:11-12      44, 148, 201 2:11      44, 53, 59, 82, 2:11a      63, 85-6, 201 2:12-14      58 2:12-13      86, 94 2:12      36, 45-6, 54-5, 57-8, 61-2, 66, 68, 78-80 87-9, 94, 105, 108, 111, 116, 145, 148, 157, 166, 170, 173-4, 178, 180, 191, 196 2:12a-c      180 2:12ab      86, 178 2:12a      54, 198 n. 5 2:12b      54, 62-3, 88, 201 2:12c-f      54 2:12c      178, 198 n. 5 2:12d-f      53, 180 2:13      86, 88, 148, 170, 174, 182-3 2:13b      87-8, 198 n. 4, 201 2:14-21      44, 148, 196 2:14      36, 44, 58, 88-91, 105-6, 145, 166 2:14de      89, 201 2:14e      54 2:15-3:9      91-4 2:15-3:4      92-3 2:15-17      54 2:15      92, 109, 201 2:16-3:1      185 2:16-21      58, 111, 116 2:16      67, 81, 92, 145-6, 198 n. 8 2:19-21      145 2:20      40, 92, 112 2:21      69 3:1      195 3:2-4      64 3:5-9      93-4 3:5      93-4, 109 3:5a      94, 201 3:10-5:21      94-9 3:10-5:15      94-7, 198 n. 11

3:19      42 4:4      43, 80 4:6      96, 14 n. 10, 182 4:10      57 4:25-26      35 4:25      42, 49-50 4:29      50 5:11      50 5:14      151 5:15-25      175 5:16-21      97-9 5:22-6:18      99-102 5:22-6:11      109 5:22-26      99-100 6:1-18      100-2 6:12-16      101, 109 6:16      101, 109 Ephesians 3:18      186 Philippians 1:1-18      165-72 1:1-15a      165-8 1:1      177 1:9      92 1:13      166-8, 184 1:15a      166-8, 180, 183 1:15b-16      168-9 1:17-18e      172 1:17      166, 168, 170, 173, 180, 183 1:18      170-2 1:19-30      172-7 1:19      173 1:19ab      172-4 1:19c-28a      174-6 1:20-23      186 1:20      168 1:23      60 1:27-28      139 1:28b-30      176-7 2:1-3:3      177-84 2:1-10      177-80 2:8      179, 186 2:9-11      111, 113

237

238

Index of ancient sources

2:11-16      181 2:11      181 2:13      169, 181 2:14      169, 181 2:16-17      168 2:17-3:3      181-4 2:17      182, 186 2:19      177, 182 2:22      90, 177, 182 2:23      177, 182 3:1      15 3:2-3      168, 183 3:2      35 3:4-20      184-90 3:4-9      184-5 3:5      192 3:7      113 3:8      113 3:10-12      185-6 3:10      185-7 3:13-17      186-7 3:17-18      40 3:18-19      188 3:20      188-90 3:21-4:23      190-6 3:21-4:2      190-2 4:3-9      192-3 4:3      43 4:10-23      193-6 4:10      166, 193, 198 n. 6 4:15-18      166 4:15      32 4:18      167 4:22      166-7 4:23      195-6, 200

1:28      106 2:7-8      67, 97 2:12-17      178 2:16      57 2:22      95 3:8      98 3:16      173 4:10-11      177 n. 27 4:10      12 4:11      43

Colossians 1:3      92 1:5-6      67, 97 1:5      67 1:6      67 1:9      92, 97-8 1:10      67, 97 1:14      35 1:23      43

2 Thessalonians 2:2      157 2:9      160 2:11      160

1 Thessalonians 1:1      12, 80 1:6      40, 199 1:10      79, 85 2:9      43, 60 2:14-15      112 2:14      143 2:15-16      116, 148 2:15      147, 179 2:16      58 4:3      64 4:8      64 4:14      50, 79, 112, 119 4:15      114, 162 4:16      162 4:17      114, 161-2 4:17a      161 5:1-7      163 5:2      157 5:3      157 5:6      174 5:13      124 5:15      58 5:17      92

2 Timothy 1:5      177 n. 27 3:5      177 n. 27 4:11      12



Philemon 24      12 James 2:11      129 n. 69 5:4      130 n. 70 1 Peter 1:1      12 1:17      12 2:11      12 2:12-17      12 5:12-13      12 5:13      12, 166 n. 4 Other Israelite–Jewish Works Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q529 frag. 1:6-7      115 4Q529 frag. 1:9-12      115 CD 10:22-23      56 Philo of Alexandria De decalogo 121      130 n. 69 132      130 n. 69 168      130 n. 69 170      130 n. 69 In Flaccum 37-39      184 n. 46 Flavius Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 1.139      73 n. 121 3.248-249      169 4.73      97 5.33-44      46 5.33      46, 134 6.47      192 6.220-221      192 6.423      169 9.111      140 9.182      51

Index of ancient sources 10.70      169 11.304      61 12.18      61 13.158      44 13.161      53 n. 70 13.297      150 13.398      74 14.21      169 14:450      58 15.259      126 17.188      84 18.16      150 18.28      44, 92, 94, 109-10 18.29      169 18.35-89      181 n. 36 18.36      44, 84 18.63-64      15, 35, 37, 43, 85 18.63      48, 51, 111 18.64      112, 169, 183-4 18.85-87      141 18.102      84 18.106-119      83 18.106-108      83 18.106      87 n. 164 18.108      84 n. 155 18.109-124      85 18.109-119      43, 85 18.109-116      36 18.109-111      83 18.109      84, 86 18.110-111      84 n. 155 18.116-119      15, 35-7, 55 n. 77, 85, 87 n. 164 18.116-117      35 n. 21 18.116      85 18.117-118      37 18.117      35 18.118      86 18.119      36, 85, 87 18.120      75 18.122      84 18.126      75 18.136      83-4, 86 18.137      83, 87 n. 164 18.148      84

239

240 18.177      181 n. 36 18.240      84 18.252      84 20.5      61 20.97      36 20.106      169 20.167      36 20.188      36 20.199-201      54 20.201      54 Bellum judaicum 1.104      74 1.181      191 1.319      58 1.326      44 1.664      84 1.668      84 2.10      169 2.94      84 2.162      54 2.165      150 2.167-168      84 2.168      110 2.169-175      181 n. 36 2.178      84 2.181-183      84 2.259      36 2.447      77 2.458      74 2.480      74 2.573      44 3.47      74 3.57      44 3.446      74 3.463      44 3.506      44 3.516-521      47 3.519      47 4.487      74 4.503      74 4.656-658      110 n. 12 6.201      80 6.271-315      16 Vita 37      84

Index of ancient sources 65      84 349      44 403      47 Other Graeco–Roman Works Homer Ilias 6.407-410      112 6.441-446      112 6.447-449      112 11.728      53 15.68      112 15.612-614      112 16.800      112 16.852-854      112 16.859      112 16.860-861      112 18.133      112 21.296-297      112 22.5      112 22.92-130      112 Odyssea 5.291-393      71 9.106-180      73 9.181-542      73-5 10.238-243      73-4 13.70-169      71 Herodotus Historiae 1.76      64 1.86      64 1.88      64 4.103      88 5.3      126 n. 59 8.53      112 9.108-113      84 9.108-110      87 9.109      87 Euripides Bacchae 217-220      109

810      109 1043-1057      109 1141-1142      88 Plato Apologia 29d-30b      113 Theaetetus 155d      29 Polybius Historiae 1.3.5      31 n. 2 Strabo Geographica 7.5.5      106 7:5.6-7      106 7:5.10      106 14.5.13-15      51 n. 68 L. Annaeus Seneca Maior Controversiae 9.2.4      88 9.2.24      88 Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 14.92-93      186 Tacitus Historiae 1.1      31 n. 2 4.81      110 n. 12 4.81.1      110 Suetonius Vespasianus 7.2      110 Apuleius Metamorphoses 10.35-11.17      109 10.35      110 11.23-24      109

Index of ancient sources 11.26-30      110 11.29      109 P.Brem. 44.15      53 n. 70 Other Early Christian Works Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.1.1      13 3.10.5      12-13 3.11.8      12 3.16.3      12 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.15-16      12, 14 3.39.15      13-14 3.39.16      13

241

European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

Vol.

1

Bartosz Adamczewski: Retelling the Law. Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy. 2012.

Vol.

2 Jacek Grzybowski (ed.): Philosophical and Religious Sources of Modern Culture. 2012.

Vol.

3 Bartosz Adamczewski: Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels. 2013.

Vol.

4 Edmund Morawiec: Intellectual Intuition in the General Metaphysics of Jacques Maritain. A Study in the History of the Methodology of Classical Metaphysics. 2013.

Vol.

5 Edward Nieznaski: Towards a Formalization of Thomistic Theodicy. Formalized Attempts to Set Formal Logical Bases to State First Elements of Relations Considered in the Thomistic Theodicy. 2013.

Vol.

6 Mariusz Rosik: “In Christ All Will Be Made Alive” (1 Cor 15:12-58). The Role of Old Testament Quotations in the Pauline Argumentation for the Resurrection. 2013.

Vol.

7 Jan Krokos: Conscience as Cognition. Phenomenological Complementing of Aquinas's Theory of Conscience. 2013.

Vol.

8 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Mark. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2014.

www.peterlang.com