No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Role of Jesus' Opponents in the Markan Drama
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
Discussions on the possibility that Mark's Gospel may have been modelled, either consciously or subconsciously, on Greek tragic drama have gathered momentum in recent years. It has also been shown that a most important feature of Greek tragedy is the repetitive device of ‘foreshadowing’, a technique which has rightly been seen as essential to the development of mnemonic structures in oral epic. The use of this device in the Bible, it may be argued, is no less pronounced than in Greek drama. C. H. Lohr, in particular, has argued strongly for the presence of foreshadowing in Matthew's Gospel, and it is our purpose here to enquire whether the writer of the Second Gospel, too, was aware of this dramatic device. Matthew achieved the desired effect by means of dream episodes (Matt 1. 20; 2. 12, 13, 19, 22; 27. 19) and the repetition of divine names, especially ‘Son of David’, at strategic points (Matt 9. 27; 12. 23; 15. 22; 20. 30, 31; 22. 43). There are certainly no dream narratives in Mark's Gospel, and even the references to divine titles may seem to have been arranged in a somewhat arbitrary fashion at first glance. On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that we find in Mark's vivid account an inexorable drift towards death: the inevitable shadow of the cross falls across the text even as early as Mark 2. 20 – the disciples may not fast until ‘that day’ when the bridegroom is taken from them. And there is the hint of opposition to Jesus even prior to that! There is little doubt in my mind that Mark was keenly aware of the effective use to which the device of foreshadowing could be put, but his technique differs from that which Lohr has ascribed to Matthew. In true tragic style he wants to emphasise the inevitability of the cross as the omega point of Jesus' destiny, and to do that he uses not dreams or prophecies, but actors who engage Jesus in controversy or conflict at strategic points within the gospel story. It matters to Mark who these actors are, what role they play, and precisely when and where they make their entrances on stage. We shall thus be concerned to show, in the remainder of this paper, how the Evangelist treats the various groups of Jewish opponents as a literary device for foreshadowing Jesus' crucifixion.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989
References
page 161 note 1 Burch, E. W., ‘Tragic Action in the Second gospel: A Study in the Narrative of Mark’, JR 11 (1931) 346–58Google Scholar; Carré, H. B., ‘The Literary Structure of the Gospel of Mark’, Studies in Early Christianity (ed. Case, S. J.; New York: Century, 1928) 105Google Scholar; Beach, C., The Gospel of Mark (New York: Harper & Bros., 1959) 37–59, esp. 48–51Google Scholar; Stock, A., Call to Discipleship: A Literary Study of Mark's Gospel (Wilmington: Glazier; Dublin: Veritas, 1982) esp. 16–30Google Scholar; Bilezikian, G. G., The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977).Google Scholar
page 161 note 2 The definitive work on ‘foreshadowing’ in Greek literature is Duckworth, G. E., Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius and Vergil (Princeton: University Press, 1933)Google Scholar; but see also Stemplinger, E., ‘Die ästhetische Spannung’, Sokrates 74 (1920) 70–81Google Scholar; Wieniewski, I., ‘La technique d'annoncer les événements futurs chez Homère’, Eos 27 (1924) 113–33Google Scholar; Jones, F. W., ‘The Formulation of the Revenge Motif in the Odyssey’, TAPA 72 (1941) 195–202Google Scholar; Porter, H. N., ‘Repetition in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’, AJP 70 (1949) 249–72Google Scholar; Notopoulos, J. A., ‘Continuity and Interconnection in Homeric Oral Composition’, TAPA 82 (1951) 88–91Google Scholar; Sandy, G. H., ‘Foreshadowing and Suspense in Apuleius' Metamorphoses’, CJ 68 (1973) 232–5Google Scholar; Bilezikian, , Liberated Gospel, 125–6.Google Scholar
page 161 note 3 Foreshadowing has been regarded variously as an aesthetic device (Stemplinger, Wieniewski); an aid to easy oral versification (Parry, M., ‘Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making’, HSCP 41 [1930] 138Google Scholar); and a technique for unifying or co-ordinating the disparate units of the composition as a whole (Jones, Porter, Notopoulos).
page 161 note 4 On the use of dreams for foreshadowing in the OT, see Ehrlich, E. L., Der Traum im Alten Testament (BZAW 73; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1953) 125–36.Google Scholar Foreshadowing in the NT is discussed briefly by Giet, S., ‘Nouvelles remarques sur les voyages de Saint Paul à Jérusalem’, RSR 31 (1957) 329–42, esp. 330–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lohr, C. H., ‘Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew’, CBQ 23 (1961) 411–14.Google Scholar
page 162 note 1 See also Mark, 14. 10, 11, 18, 42, 44Google Scholar; 15. 10. A more extensive study of παραδίδωμι (παραδιδόναι) in Mark can be found in Perrin, N., ‘The Use of (παρα)διδόναι in Connection with the Passion of Jesus in the New Testament’, Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Festschrift J. Jeremias (ed. Lohse, E., Burchard, C., Schaller, B.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 204–12.Google Scholar
page 163 note 1 Mark uses a wide range of ‘astonishment’ words: έκπλήσσω – 1. 22; 6. 2; 11. 18; θαμβέω – 1. 27; 10. 24, 32; ⋯ξίστημι – 2. 12; 5. 42; 6. 51; 16. 8; θαυμάζω – 12. 17.
page 164 note 1 So RSV. Berkeley (‘to others’), Moffatt (‘to men’) and GNB (‘to everyone’) have the same sense.
page 164 note 2 So Coutts, J., ‘The Messianic Secret and the Enemies of Jesus’, Studia Biblica: II – Papers on the Gospels (ed. Livingstone, E. A.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1978) 39Google Scholar; van der Loos, H., The Miracles of Jesus (NovTSup VIIII; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965) 486.Google Scholar
page 164 note 3 Dewey, J., ‘The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2. 1–3. 6’, JBL 92 (1973) 394–401Google Scholar; idem, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure and Theology in Mark 2. 1–3. 6 (SBLDS 48; Chico: Scholars, 1980) 109–16Google Scholar, et passim; Clark, D. J., ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm’, LB 35 (1975) 63–72Google Scholar; Mourlon-Beernaert, P., ‘Jésus controversé. Structure et théologie de Marc 2. 1–3. 6’, NRT 95 (1973) 129–49.Google Scholar The last-named scholar, however, delineates the chiasm somewhat differently from the others.
page 164 note 4 Albertz, M., Die synoptischen Streitgespräche (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1921) 5–32Google Scholar; Easton, B. S., ‘A Primitive Tradition in Mark’, Studies in Early Christianity, 85–101Google Scholar; Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels: I – Mark (ed. Chadwick, H.; Cambridge: University Press, 1953) 8–16Google Scholar; Kuhn, H. W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 53–98Google Scholar; Maisch, I., Die Heilung des Gelähmten (SBS 52; Stuttgart: KBW, 1971) 111–20Google Scholar; Thissen, W., Erzählung der Befreiung: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mk 2. 1–3. 6 (FzB 21; Würzburg: Echter, 1976) esp. 192–223Google Scholar; Cook, M. J., Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (NovTSup 51; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) 34–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hultgren, A. J., Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979) 151–74Google Scholar, et passim. It has to be said, however, that no two attempted reconstructions agree, and this should lead us to suspect that there may never have been a pre-Marken controversy collection.
page 165 note 1 Citing M'Neile (though unfortunately without adequate documentation), Dunkerley, H. (‘The Bridegroom Passage’, ExpTim 64 [1952–1953] 303)Google Scholar reports the view that άπαρθ1F74; (2. 20) could not signify violent death or removal because it is never so used in the LXX.
page 165 note 2 So Wood, H. G., ‘The Priority of Mark’, ExpTim 65 (1953–1954) 17–19Google Scholar; Dewey, , Markan Public Debate, 117–19Google Scholar; Carré, , Studies in Early Christianity, 113–15.Google Scholar
page 165 note 3 Kolenkow, A. B., ‘Healing Controversy as a Tie Between Miracle and Passion Material for a Proto-Gospel’, JBL 95 (1976) 636Google Scholar; and, for a similar view about the later conflict stories, Burkill, T. A., ‘Anti-Semitism in Mark's Gospel’, NovT 3 (1959) 41.Google Scholar
page 166 note 1 Daube, D., ‘Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 166 note 2 b. Besa 13b. Of course, drawing on the Talmud to shed light on first-century Judaism tends to present the danger of anachronism. We should say that it is possible that the halakha about the plucking of grain on the Sabbath existed in Jesus' day, not that it certainly did.
page 167 note 1 The view of Kolenkow, (JBL 95 [1976] 629)Google Scholar is that a pre-Markan redactor added the γραμματεîς to the other two groups in the passion narrative (the chief priests and elders) in order to provide continuity between the controversy stories and the passion. On this hypothesis, however, it would remain to be explained why certain references to the opponents in the passion narrative do not refer to the scribes (14. 10, 55; 15. 3, 10, 11).
page 168 note 1 Kolenkow, , JBL 95 (1976) 629.Google Scholar
page 169 note 1 Dewey, , Markan Public Debate, 121.Google Scholar
page 169 note 2 Dibelius, Both M. (From Tradition to Gospel [Cambridge: J. Clarke & Co., ET 1971] 44, 45)Google Scholar and Bultmann, R., (History of the Synoptic Tradition [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ET 1963] 52)Google Scholar regard the verse as editorial. The latter observes that, were this not the case, the problem would be raised as to why the opponents are not identified until the final sentence, whereas in all other controversies they are named at the outset.
page 169 note 3 So Easton, B. S., Studies in Early Christianity, 87, 92Google Scholar; Cook, Mark's Treatment, 47, 48.Google Scholar
page 169 note 4 von Dobschütz, E., ‘Zur Erzählerkunst des Markus’, ZNW 27 (1928) 193–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wood, , Exp Tim 65 (1953–1954) 17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and many others.
page 170 note 1 Indeed, Mark appears to use the participle, καταβάντες in deliberate contrast to his use of άναβαίνω to describe Jesus' journey towards the Holy City (10. 33). Jesus was to ‘go up’ thence, so naturally, the scribes had to ‘come down’ to Galilee.
page 170 note 2 Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952) 225Google Scholar.
page 170 note 3 Mark, 2. 1, 15Google Scholar; 3. 19b, and – by implication – 7. 1, 2. See also the comments of Lane, W. L., The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 28.Google Scholar
page 170 note 4 That the unit is, indeed, composite is widely agreed. So Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 17, 18Google Scholar; Knox, , Sources, 1: 53Google Scholar; Taylor, , Mark, 96Google Scholar; and many others.
page 171 note 1 Knox, , Sources, 1: 53Google Scholar; Lemcio, E. E., ‘External Evidence for the Structure and Function of Mark iv. 1–20. vii. 14–23. and viii. 14–21.’, JTS ns 29 (1978) 333–4.Google Scholar
page 171 note 2 The reading preferred by RSV, οί γραμματεîς τἱν Φαρισαίων, has a variant in ADθf1f13pl Lat – οἱ γραμματεîσ καî Φαρισαίοι. If the variant is correct, the presence of the Pharisees themselves is implied in this verse. But Cook, (Mark's Treatment, 65, n. 28)Google Scholar is probably correct to prefer the lectio difficilior; the variant could be an assimilation to passages elsewhere in the gospels where the scribes and Pharisees are conjoined (see especially the Lukan parallel in Luke 5. 30).
page 172 note 1 Best, E. (The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology [SNTSMS 2; Cambridge: University Press, 1965] 31, 33)Google Scholar takes πειράζοντες in 8. 11 as a temptation of Jesus, and feels that the similar references in 10. 2; 12. 13 can be taken in the same way.
page 173 note 1 On the distinction between story-line and discourse-line, see Stock, , Call to Disciple-ship, 32, 33.Google Scholar
page 173 note 2 For the view that Παρισαίοι here is an interpolation, see Turner, C. H., ‘Marcar Usage: Notes Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel’, JTS 29 (1928) 5Google Scholar; Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, 52Google Scholar; Taylor, , Mark, 417Google Scholar; Burkill, T. A., New Light on the Earliest Gospel: Seven Markan Studies (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1972) 223 n. 57Google Scholar; Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2 1974) 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The omission occurs in Dabdkr1sy3.
page 173 note 3 Mark, 7.Google Scholar 10 – see Exod, 20. 12Google Scholar; 21. 17; Lev, 20. 9Google Scholar; Deut, 5. 16Google Scholar: Mark, 10. 4Google Scholar – see Deut, 24. 1–4.Google Scholar
page 173 note 4 Taylor, , Mark, 339, 415.Google Scholar
page 174 note 1 Mark, 5. 9Google Scholar; 7. 5, 17; 8. 23, 27, 29; 9. 11, 16, 21, 28, 32, 33; 10. 2, 17; 11. 29; 12. 18, 28, 34; 13. 3; 14. 60, 61; 15. 2, 4, 44.
page 174 note 2 Matt, 12. 10Google Scholar; 16. 1; 17. 10; 22. 23, 35, 41, 46; 27. 11.
page 174 note 3 Luke, 2. 46Google Scholar; 3. 10, 14; 6. 9; 8. 9, 30; 9. 18; 17. 12; 18. 18, 40; 20. 21, 27, 40; 21. 17; 22. 64; 23. 6, 9.
page 174 note 4 The use of ⋯περωτάω in Mark, 7. 17Google Scholar to introduce the disciples' request for an explanation of Jesus’ pronouncement on defilement is innocuous enough, as is its appearance in 12. 28 where true hostility is not in question.
page 174 note 5 Greeven, H., ⋯περωτάω, TDNT 2 (1964) 687.Google Scholar
page 175 note 1 Dewey, Contra, Markan Public Debate, 156–63.Google Scholar
page 176 note 1 Mark uses άγρεύω here in a manner which conforms to the sense behind his use of πειράζω in 8. 11; 10. 2.
page 176 note 2 Bennett, W. J., ‘The Herodians of Mark's Gospel’, NovT 14 (1972) 9–14.Google Scholar
page 176 note 3 Hoehner, H. W., Herod Antipas (SNTSMS 17; Cambridge: University Press, 1972) 331–42.Google Scholar
page 177 note 1 Daube, D., ‘Four Types of Question’, JTS ns 2 (1951) 45–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 177 note 2 In Matt, 22. 41–46Google Scholar it is Jesus who poses the question (note the use of ⋯περωτάω), and the opponents, who are specified as being present, are the Pharisees. It is their answer to the double question, Τί ύμîν δοκεî περἱ τοû χριστοû; τίνος νἱος ⋯στιν; which inspires the reply of Jesus shared by all the synoptists (Matt 22. 43–45. Mark 12. 35–37. Luke 20. 41–44).