Mark Commentary

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
164
Executive Editor
Stanley E. Porter
Editorial Board
David Catchpole, R. Alan Culpepper, Margaret Davies,
James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler,
Robert Jewett, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Robert W. Wall
Sheffield Academic Press

Mark
A Reader-Response
Commentary
Bas M.F. van Iersel

translated by W.H. Bisscheroux
Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Supplement Series 164
Copyright © 1998 Bas M.F. van Iersel
Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

Mansion House
19 Kingfield Road
Sheffield SI 19AS
England
The Scriptural quotations in this publication are from the New Revised
Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1989 by the Division of
Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in
the USA, all rights reserved.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library
EISBN 9781850758297
CONTENTS
Preface 7
Abbreviations 9
Introduction
Chapter 1
READING AND READERS 14
Chapter 2
AUTHOR AND READERS, PLACE AND TIME 30
Chapter 3
MARK AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 58
Chapter 4
A COMPOSITION IN LINES AND CIRCLES 68
Commentary
PROLOGUE: IN THE WILDERNESS
Chapter 5
VOICES IN THE WILDERNESS (1.1-15) 88
PART I: ACTION IN GALILEE

Chapter 6
T H E STRUCTURE OF PART I 110
Chapter 7
A WANDERING JEW (1.16-4.1) 127
6 Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary
Chapter 8
STORIES AND IMAGES (4.2-34) 176
Chapter 9
CROSSING BOUNDARIES (4.35-8.21) 193
PART II: THE WAY
Chapter 10
THE STRUCTURE OF PART II 270
Chapter 11
GOING HIS OWN WAY (8.22-10.52) 278
PART III: PASSION IN JERUSALEM
Chapter 12
THE STRUCTURE OF PART III 346
Chapter 13
WINNING IN THE TEMPLE COURT (11.1-12.44) 351
Chapter 14
THE END OF THE TEMPLE AND THE WORLD (13.1-37) 387
Chapter 15
LOSING HIS LIFE (14.1-15.39) 413
EPILOGUE: AT THE TOMB

Chapter 16
WAY WITHOUT END (15.40-16.8) 482
An Added Epilogue 507
Bibliography 509
Index of References 527
Index of Authors 553
PREFACE
With this book I keep an old promise that goes back to 1960 when I
agreed to write a commentary on Mark for a Dutch-language series of
commentaries on the New Testament, of which I was one of the edi-
tors1 and which unfortunately had to be stopped prematurely. Because
of administrative tasks at the university I was unable to fulfil my
promise. What is more, about the same time such radical changes were
taking place in the field of biblical studies that it was not an attractive
idea to add a literary-historical commentary in Dutch to those already
existing in other languages, since most of those interested could read
German, English and French anyway. However, I felt that the newer
approaches had not yet sufficiently developed to be applied to a running
commentary on one of the Gospels.
Near the end of my academic career that development had reached
the point at which a different type of commentary could be attempted. I
therefore decided to write a provisional book first, which I considered
as a try-out. Written in Dutch and published in 1986, the book was
translated into English, Italian and German.2 Because it was a try-out,
the opinion of my colleagues was of the utmost importance to me. The
reviews were, with one exception, favourable and sometimes laudatory.
Several reviewers pointed out that, although the book was written for
the general reader, it also deserved the interest of members of the bibli-
cal guild. I therefore felt it my duty, although the above series had
stopped in 1986, to fulfil my former promise, and started work on a
running commentary. From 1987 to 19921 had little or no time to spare,
during the first three years because of my duties as Vice-Chancellor of
the University of Nijmegen, and later because of another, honourable
1. Het Nieuwe Testament Vertaald en Toegelicht (ed. W. Grossouw, B. van

lersel and F. Neirynck; Roermond: Romen, 1965-73; Bussum: Romen, 1974-82;
Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1983-86).
2. Marcus: Belichting van het Bijbelboek (Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting;
Brugge: Tabor, 1986). For the translations see the Bibliography.
but time-consuming, task, and a period of illness. In the autumn of 1992

I could at last fully devote my time to this commentary.
From the outset I have had two editions in mind, a Dutch and an
English edition. The first, intended for readers who know my work
through a number of books and numerous articles, appeared in May
1997.3 Because I think that my interpretation of biblical texts is pri-
marily a service to those readers, I regard them as my first and real au-
dience. On the other hand, I also feel obliged to justify my interpreta-
tion towards my colleagues, for only they are qualified to judge the
validity of the method adopted and the views expressed in the commen-
tary. Hence this English edition, which engages with other scholarly lit-
erature in the more extensive footnotes. The English edition should
therefore be considered as the editio maior.
Apart from the notes, the text of the authorized English translation
differs from the Dutch edition only in a few places. The translation is
by my friend Willy Bisscheroux and has been checked by a native
speaker, Mrs Sue Houston. I am very grateful to them both; to Willy
Bisscheroux for drawing my attention to a number of obscurities in the
text, and to Sue Houston for accomplishing this work under difficult
personal circumstances. My gratitude is not restricted to them. I have
learned from many. I should mention first of all my students and col-
leagues at the New Testament department of Nijmegen University. In
seminars and workshops we have participated together on the develop-
ments in biblical research that have ultimately made the writing of this
commentary possible. I would also like to mention two seminar groups
of the Society of New Testament Studies. The first one, which at the
time of my introduction was chaired by Bernard Lategan and Edgar V.
McKnight, and is currently chaired by Bernard Lategan and James
Voelz, operated under several names and is now called 'Hermeneutics
and the Biblical Text'. The second group concerns itself with the Gos-
pel of Mark and is chaired by Cilliers Breytenbach and Adela Yarbro
Collins. The many colleagues to whom I am indebted for many of the
ideas and insights expressed in this commentary will find their names in
the bibliography. The book could not have been written without them.
Bas van Iersel
Nijmegen, October 1997
3. Marcus, uitgelegd aan andere lezers (Baarn: Gooi en Sticht; Kampen: Kok,
1997).
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
ABR Australian Biblical Review
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
AGSJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und des
Urchristentums
AnBib Analectabiblica
ANRW Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und
Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms
im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
1972-)
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bib Biblica
Biblnt Biblical Interpretation
BN Biblische Notizen
BibRes Biblical Research
BIS Biblical Interpretation Series
BNTC Black's New Testament Commentaries
BT The Bible Translator
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series
ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Testament
EKKNT Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
EBib Etudes bibliques
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
ETR Etudes theologiques et religieuses
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
EvT Evangelische Theologie
ExpTim Expository Times
FEG Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft
FGN F. Van Segbroeck et al (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992

(Festschrift F. Neirynck; 3 vols.; BETL, 100; Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1992)
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
Greg Gregorianum
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Hervormde Teologiese Studies
Int Interpretation
IRT Issues in Religion and Theology
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement
Series
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KB ANT Kommentare und Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen Testament
LB Linguistica biblica
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LD Lectio divina
Neot Neotestamentica
NIBC New International Biblical Commentary
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995)
NTL New Testament Library
NTS New Testament Studies
NTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies
PW August Friedrich von Pauly and Georg Wissowa (eds.), Real-
Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart:
Metzler, 1894-)
RAT Revue africaine de theologie
RB Revue biblique
RechBib Recherches bibliques
RellntL Religion and Intellectual Life
RW Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten
SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage
Abbreviations 11
SBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity

SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
SBLSS SBL Semeia Studies
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SemBib Semiotique et Bible
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
TBe Theologische Beitrdge
TGegw Theologie der Gegenwart
TD Theology Digest
THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
TijdTheol Tijdschrift voor Theologie
TWNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches
Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (11 vols.; Stuttgart:
W. Kohlhammer, 1932-79)
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
VD Verbum domini
VT Vetus Testamentum
Way The Way: Contemporary Christian Spirituality
WBC World Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
WNT Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament: Griechisch-deutsches
Worterbuch (W. Bauer)
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZKT Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie
ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1
READING AND READERS
This chapter deals with recent ideas about the role of the reader in the
reading process and the way in which the author of a reader's com-
mentary should take them into account.
Commentaryy Research and Reading

Biblical scholars write Gospel commentaries to make the findings of
their research useful to readers of the Gospels and to define their posi-
tions over against those of their colleagues. In most commentaries the
writer's interest is focused on the situation in which the text originated,
and especially on the intentions of the author. In adopting this method
commentators join the ranks of scholars who examine ancient docu-
ments.
For several disciplines the investigation of earlier written texts is im-
portant for gaining access to the past. If knowledge about the past is the
primary goal of investigation, some texts lend themselves better to that
purpose than others. The texts that first come to mind, then, are docu-
mentary texts like laws, contracts, regulations, registers, resolutions,
decrees, minutes, reports, notes, and so on, which are drawn up and
kept precisely with the object of recording and retaining information for
future reference. Other texts, especially literary texts, are much less
suitable for this type of research, simply because they are not written
for that purpose. There is something artificial and spurious about the
scholar interrogating a literary text for the information it contains about
its own previous history. When a writer produces a literary work, such
as a poem or a novel, it is not with the intention of recording facts and
events as a chronicler might. Poets and novelists are in search of read-
ers with whom they can communicate by means of their texts. Natu-
rally, the investigation of a documentary text involves reading it, but
1. Reading and Readers 15
the reading required need go no further than taking stock of its con-
tents. Anyone who uses literature to extract knowledge from it about
how people used to live, organize themselves, or run their affairs, does
not do anything unseemly, of course, but values a literary work as a
historical source and so does not read it in the way it is meant to be
read.
The Diachronic Approach of Biblical Exegesis

This observation holds true of the diachronic approach to biblical texts.
Questions typical of this approach are: Does a given passage from
Mark contain material that already existed in oral or written form be-
fore it entered into the Gospel? If so, how does that material, in, for ex-
ample, the case of a text dealing with a saying attributed to Jesus, relate
to an authentic saying of Jesus and what did he mean by it? Or, if a pas-
sage deals with a narrated incident, is that incident a historical event or
not? Related questions are: If a passage consists of incorporated mate-
rial, how does that relate to cognate material within and outside of
Mark? What can be said about the origin and history of the pre-existing
text and about the situation in which it originated and developed? Did
the author of Mark incorporate that text without changing it or did he
edit or adapt it? What was his motive for incorporating and adapting it?
How does the passage relate to parallels in Matthew and Luke? Most of
these questions assume a developmental view of the text, which ex-
plains why biblical scholars explore its origin and formation, and why
their research is called diachronic research.
The standard commentaries on Mark, like those on the other Gospels,
usually bear the diachronic imprint and give a passage-by-passage ac-
count of this type of research. Since most passages have their own pre-
vious history, this approach brings with it an emphasis on what is called
the micro-exegesis of the text, or exegesis at the lowest text level, that
is, of the individual episodes. It is only fair to say that some of these
commentaries also take the final text, which is, after all, the product of
a development, into consideration. Still, as can be expected from this
particular approach, the Gospel as a whole usually does not get the
attention it deserves.
A commentator who follows this line of inquiry assumes the role of
the expert who explains and illuminates what the author wishes to
express. Consequently, if a line is drawn between author and readers,
between narrator and listeners, such a commentator stands almost au-

tomatically on the side of the author. This is even explicitly stated in
the maxim that the decisive criterion is the intention of the author. The
maxim implies that both exegetes and readers are determined by what
the author wants to say with his or her text.
Apart from the question of whether in the case of the Gospels there is
another way to get to the intention of the author besides the text itself,
the usefulness of this approach, when applied to a narrative text, is lim-
ited by at least two circumstances. First, as the method starts from
assumptions which in the present circumstances are ultimately unprov-
able, its results are bound to remain largely hypothetical. Secondly, the
outcome of the investigation, just like the investigation itself, is incon-
sistent with the way in which readers deal with a narrative text. The
reading of a story involves the reader in both the narrative time and the
time sequence of the narrated events. The diachronic method of inquiry
attempts to reveal a different chronology in the text of Mark, namely,
the order in which the various layers of the text originated. The two
time systems are incompatible, as are the inquiry and the reading
model. Reading and investigating presume two different attitudes: the
investigator approaches Mark as a textual object, the reader experiences
it as a communication addressed to him or her and responds to it
accordingly. For these reasons it is neither feasible nor desirable to
combine the two approaches in one commentary.
The Synchronic Approach to Biblical Exegesis

In contrast to the diachronic study of the Bible stands the synchronic
approach.1 It is called 'synchronic' because, instead of inquiring into
1. See the following works on Mark, usually with methodological introduc-

tions: B.H.M.G.M. Standaert, L'Evangile selon Marc: Composition et genre lit-
teraire (Zevenkerken-Brugge: St Andriesabdij, 1978); Y. Almeida, Uoperativite
semantique des recits-paraboles. Semiotique narrative et textuelle: Hermeneutique
du discours religieux (Bibliotheque des Cahiers de l'lnstitut Linguistique de Lou-
vain, 13; Paris: Cerf; Louvain: Peeters, 1978); R.M. Fowler, Loaves and Fishes:
The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS, 54; Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1981); idem, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response
Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991); D. Rhoads
and D. Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983); C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political
the genesis and historical development of the text before it assumed its
final form, it concentrates on the text as it now presents itself in written
form and as a complex whole of text signals. This approach can either
view the text as a stable whole, examining its components in their in-
terdependent relationships, or focus on the text's function in the com-
munication process between author and reader. The narrative text as an
instrument of communication has been the object of various types of
investigation. Two of them are of particular importance in this context.
The first has analysed precisely the relation between author/narrator
and reader. A diagram designed by Seymour Chatman is commonly
used to show how the narrative text achieves the communication be-
tween author and reader.2 (See Fig. 1.)
narrative text
real implied implied real

(narrator) - • (narratee)
author author reader reader
Figure 1
The flesh-and-blood or real author involves and affects the flesh-and-

blood or real reader through the text of his narrative, and in particu-
lar through the image of the reader that he creates in the text. This
representation is called the implied reader and amounts to the textual
Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2nd edn, 1990);
S.D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); B. van Iersel, Reading Mark (trans. W.H.
Bisscheroux; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989);
M.A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989); J.C. Anderson and S.D. Moore (eds.), Mark
and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1992); J.P. Heil, The Gospel of Mark as a Model for Action: A Reader-Response
Commentary (New York: Paulist Press, 1992); H.M. Humphrey, He Is Risen! A
New Reading of Mark's Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1992); O. Davidsen, The
Narrative Jesus: A Semiotic Reading of Mark's Gospel (Aarhus: Aarhus University
Press, 1993); P.L. Danove, The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study (BIS,
3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993); D.H. Juel, A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
2. S. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), p. 151.
elements that invite the actual reader to respond to the text in certain
ways. Although there is no need to distinguish between the implied
reader and the narratee in the case of Mark, they are both mentioned in
the diagram for the sake of completeness. The positions of the reader
correspond to those of the author. When an author uses a character to
tell the story, we speak of an explicit narrator. One example is the
monk Adso in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Although Mark
does not have an explicit narrator, there are traces in the text of both an
implied author and an implied narrator, who form the mirror image of
the two readers posited by the text.
The above model has one serious shortcoming. R.M. Fowler has
questioned the fact that in Chatman's diagram, which contains only
arrows pointing in the direction of the reader, there is no indication of
any active involvement of the reader.3 To my knowledge Fowler has
not designed a diagram that does justice to the generative function of
the reader.
This function of the reader has received explicit attention in a type of
inquiry that deserves special notice. W. Iser in particular has made it
clear that, besides being passive, readers are active by, among other
things, filling the blanks that are always present in a literary text.4 To
that end P.L. Danove has devised an adapted diagram, which is pre-
sented in Figure 2.5
community/world
text
real implied implied real

- ^ . (narrator) —•(narratee)
author author reader reader
Figure 2
The arrow pointing to the real reader has been replaced with an arrow
pointing in two directions to indicate that the reader is not just pas-
sively or receptively, but also actively, involved in assigning meaning
to the written text. The outer rectangle also directs attention to the fact
3. Fowler, Reader, p. 34 n. 31.

4. W. Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction
from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974).
5. Danove, The End, p. 64.
that author and reader share the same encyclopaedic knowledge, and
that the interpretive community6 plays a part in the interpretation of the
text. This diagram is an improvement on Chatman, but it still does not
give sufficient credit to the reader's role in the process of giving mean-
ing to a text. The meaning assigned to the text by the reader is initiated
and guided by the written text but is neither identical to it nor to the
intention of the author when he wrote the text. Properly considered, it
is both more and less extensive than the written text. Less extensive
because the actual reader does not realize every possible meaning con-
tained in it, and more extensive because every actual reader fills the
blanks of the text with meanings reflecting his or her own experience
and perception of the world. Therefore, the central piece of the diagram
of Chatman-Danove should be extended to do better justice to the role
of the reader in the interpretation process. This is represented in Figure
3.
written text
real implied implied

— • (narrator) -•(narratee)
author author reader
•real
implied
-<— narrator • reader
author
i 1
(auditive and) mental representation of the text
Figure 3
In the diagram the text represented by the reader is marked off from the
written text. The representation can take different forms. When a narra-
tive text is read aloud, the visual image of the written text is first trans-
formed into an aural and then into a mental representation. When the
text is not read aloud, the visual image is transformed directly into a
mental representation. At one point the diagram needs correcting. The
6. The term is from S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of
Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), who
thinks that interpretive chaos is averted by the fact that readers belong to an inter-
pretive community that determines their assumptions and reading strategies.
part where the written text and the representation of it by the reader
overlap is usually much larger than the parts they do not share. The
dotted line around the text produced by the reader draws attention to
the fact that the mental or vocal representation has only an ephemeral
existence and can therefore never attain the stability and permanence of
the written text. When that representation is in its turn written down, it
obtains as (meta)text a stable and permanent character but remains as a
representation a derivative of the read text.
The double place of the reader in the diagram indicates that the
reader possesses a receptive relation to the written text and a generative
relation to his or her representation of the read text. Because of this the
arrows in the two planes point in opposite directions. That the read text
is a product of the reader is expressed in the lower plane of the dia-
gram. That is also important for the position of the implied author/
narrator on the one hand and that of the implied reader/narratee on the
other. The diagram expresses the idea that each of the partners in the
communication process forms an image of his or her counterpart. The
author forms an image of his or her readers and has that image in mind
when writing the narrative. The reader forms an image both of the
author and of the subject of the narrative voice on the basis of certain
textual elements (the implied author and the narrator in the lower rect-
angle). These images, too, are generated by the reader.
At this point in the process, however, an essential difference presents
itself. It has to do with the antithesis between presence and absence.
During the reading of a text both reader and text are present and in
direct contact with each other. Apart from the situation in which an
author reads from his or her own work, author and text are not simul-
taneously present when the text is read. Still, although absent or long-
since dead, the author continues to guide the reading process and affect
the reader by virtue of his or her image of the reader immanent in the
text. The reader, on the other hand, is—exactly as reader—incapable of
exercising a similar influence on the real author, even if he or she is still
alive7 and has not been dead for centuries, like the author of Mark. Ac-
cordingly there is no arrow pointing left outside the lower rectangle.
That does not alter the fact that the reader can form a distinct picture
of the implied author/narrator and attribute certain qualities to him or
7. The reader may, of course, contact the author or sendflowersto him, but
none of this changes the text. If the author were to publish an adjusted edition, it
would be a different text from the one already read.
her. What this means for the reader of Mark can be illustrated by the
following. After reading only a few pages, the reader is aware that the
narrator is fond of the explanatory 'for' (yap), which characterizes his
voice as that of someone taking great pains to be understood correctly.
The representation may go considerably further when the reader grad-
ually comes to identify the voice of the narrator with the voice of a
messenger who joins the other messengers appearing in the book: John
the baptist, Jesus himself, the man who is delivered from a legion of
demons in the country of the Gerasenes, and the young man at the
tomb. The reader may even feel tempted to visualize this messenger,
and ascribe his voice to the youth who, dressed in the white robe of the
messenger, brings the good news of the resurrection.8
Story and Discourse

An important distinction, elaborated by several precursors, concerns the
presence of two levels in Mark's text. This distinction goes back to
S. Chatman,9 but has its roots in the structuralist semiotics of Greimas,
who distinguished between the narrative and the discursive aspects of a
narrative.10 R.M. Fowler describes the two as follows:
Story refers to the what of a narrative—its settings, characters, happen-
ings, and actions; discourse refers to the how of the narrative—how the
narrative is told, employing the resources of narrative rhetoric. Roughly,
story refers to the content of the narrative, and discourse refers to how
the content is communicated.11
This description has the drawback that it is vague and overlooks the
hierarchical order of the two aspects. In spite of Fowler's justified criti-
cism of the critical vocabulary used by Juel, I prefer to speak with Juel
of two 'levels', but then not with the distinction between an 'upper' and
a 'lower' level in the sense in which Juel uses these terms: 'On the sur-
face, the characters in the drama play out their roles as they understand
them; beneath is the level at which only the reader understands the real
8. See B. van Iersel, * "His Master's Voice": De impliciete verteller in Mar-

cus', TijdTheol 34 (1994), pp. 115-28.
9. Chatman, Story and Discourse, p. 9 and passim.
10. A.J. Greimas and J. Courtes, Semiotique: Dictionnaire raisonne de la
theorie du langage (Paris: Hachette, 1979), cols. 102-106.
11. Fowler, Reader, p. 16.
meaning of the events'.12 Holding fast to Juel's distinction between two

levels I suggest, however, that the hierarchical relationship between
them be defined in exactly the opposite way, because the discursive
level totally embraces the narrative level, and not the other way round.
That is already clear from the title (1.1), which, with a discursive func-
tion, introduces and directs at least the first episode but more likely the
whole story, without itself forming part of the narrative text. It is also
clear from the citation in 1.2-3, which qualifies both the appearance of
John and that of Jesus but forms no part of the narrative text. In addi-
tion to these, the explanatory ydp clauses, which occur between 1.16
and 16.8, stand outside the narrative text yet form part of the discursive
framework. It seems significant in this context that the last two words
of the book also belong to the discursive framework, so that the story is
embedded in and interspersed with elements belonging not to the story
level but to the level of discourse. On the other hand, the whole narra-
tive is part of the discourse. That corresponds with the fact that the
story is embedded in the communication between the implied author
and implied reader and in that between the real author and real reader in
Figures 1, 2 and 3 of this chapter.
The tension between these two levels is one of the characteristics of
the book. The narrator gives the reader from the outset information that
is not available to the characters, and that remains so until the very end
of the book, where it says that the women tell no one what they have
heard from the young man at the tomb. On the other hand, I would not
go as far as Fowler and suggest that the secret contained in the story—
whether that is called the messianic secret or not—exists only for the
characters and not for the readers.13 I have given my opinion on this
question elsewhere14 and shall, of course, return to it at a later point.
12. D.H. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark
(SBLDS, 31; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 178-79.
13. Fowler, Reader, pp. 19-20.
14. See my articles 'Les recits-paraboles et la fonction dxi secret pour les desti-
nataires de Marc', SemBib 45 (1987), pp. 23-35; 'Het geheim in Marcus nader
bezien: De parabelverhalen en de functie van het geheim voor de lezer', TijdTheol
27 (1987), pp. 335-55; and The Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of
Connotations', Semeia 48 (1989), pp. 83-114, which, as far as I am aware, have
only attracted the attention of compilers of bibliographies.
Intended and Later Readers

Most written and all published texts are, in principle, accessible to
everyone. This means that readers of one and the same text may differ
considerably, especially when they come from different periods of his-
tory and different cultures. That is particularly true of the Gospel of
Mark, which was written almost 2000 years ago, and is still being read
today. Like any other author, the author of Mark had at least some im-
pression of the intended readers. They were, after all, his contempo-
raries and the possibility cannot be ruled out that he knew some of them
personally. But even in the unlikely event that he had a suspicion that
his little book would still be read so many years after his death, he can-
not have had a concrete image of present-day readers.
The question of the relation between the implied and intended reader
is complex, and can be answered from two different perspectives. From
the author's perspective, the implied reader is the expression in the text
of the author's understanding of the intended readers. Analysts follow
the opposite route; by analysing the textual signals present in Mark they
form an image of the implied reader, and from that image derive con-
clusions about the identity of the intended readers.
The most important reason why Mark's target readers are in a special
and privileged position compared with later readers is that the author
attuned his text to them. Author and intended readers have much in
common, so that the communication between them can be achieved
without too many problems.15 They have the same language (relatively
simple Greek), are familiar with the same literary conventions (for ex-
ample, a certain preference for the use of concentric structures), share
by and large the same presuppositions (for example, some acquaintance
with the First Testament in Greek), the same world-view, a similar fund
of general knowledge, a number of comparable experiences and ideas,
and so on. In consequence of this much can be left unsaid because it is
simply supposed or implied in the text.
Later readers of Mark are in a considerably less favourable position.
Even native speakers of Greek, not to mention those who know only
school Greek, are bound to miss numerous nuances of the text. Readers
unable to read Mark in the original have no access to the book except
15. Danove, The End, pp. 169-202.

indirectly through another language. It is no exaggeration to say that

because of this distance a lot must get lost.
One of the principal means of bridging or at least diminishing the
distance between later readers and the text is examination of the pre-
sumed effect of the story on its original audience. This attempt is open
to similar objections to those raised to the diachronic approach and the
questing back to authorial intentions, since data giving a definite
answer about the identity of the intended readers are hardly or not at all
available outside the text. On the other hand, it is sometimes possible to
find indirect evidence both within and outside the text that admits of
more or less probable conclusions concerning the authorial audience.
This is also true for Mark. Of particular importance are the textual data
referring to a situation of persecution, and in that context notably the
agreement of 13.12 with Tacitus's remark in Annals 15.44, which
serves as a basis for the view, recently proposed by Radcliffe, that
Mark focuses so constantly on the failure of the disciples because of its
significance for the failure of the Roman Christians during the Nero-
nian persecutions.16 Although this view cannot pretend to be the last
word on the problem of the negative portrayal of the disciples, it
seems—along with the view that Mark was addressed to Christians in
Rome around 70 CE—probable enough to serve as a starting-point for
considerations about the meaning of passages supposedly relating to the
authorial audience.17 This commentary will therefore regularly compare
the position of the first readers with that of present-day readers.
First Reading and Subsequent Readings

So far I have spoken about reading a text as if there were no difference
between the first reading and all further readings of a narrative text.
That there is a difference, a very real difference in fact, is easily ex-
plained. A narrative text, or any text for that matter, cannot be taken in
16. See B. van Iersel, The Gospel According to St Mark: Written for a Perse-
cuted Community?', NTT 34 (1980), pp. 15-36; T. Radcliffe, "The Coming of the
Son of Man": Mark's Gospel and the Subversion of the Apocalyptic Imagination',
in B. Davies (ed.), Language, Meaning and God (Festschrift Herbert McCabe;
London: Chapman, 1987), pp. 167-89. For a critical analysis of his argument see
my essay Tailed Followers in Mark: Mark 13:12 as a Key for the Identification of
the Intended Readers', CBQ 58 (1996), pp. 244-63.
17. See Chapter 2.
at once. It is not a whole of which the reader can have an instant overall
view, as someone can who looks at a painting. Reading is a process ex-
tending over a period of time, simply because a narrative constitutes a
sequence in time. It follows that when a story is read for the first time,
the reader is ignorant of the outline of the story and in particular of its
outcome. At any moment of the reading process, however, the reader
knows the preceding portion of the story but not the portion that is still
to follow. This implies that the reading process is in part determined by
the extent to which the expectations raised by what has already been
told are satisfied or not satisfied by what follows. This is different at
every following reading when the audience not only knows the conclu-
sion of the story but also has the whole of the story in mind.
That both aspects play a role in all subsequent readings of Mark can
be illustrated by two examples. At the first reading the reader does not
know that the consultation mentioned in 3.6 ultimately leads to Jesus'
death, and is equally unaware of the fact that this is not the last word.
Neither does the first-time reader know that the voice from heaven that
makes itself heard at the beginning of the book in 1.11 speaks once
more in 9.7, and that what the voice says is not repeated by any human
being except the Roman centurion at the end of the book in 15.39.
The question is how to deal with this in a commentary. Since both
the commentator and the users of this commentary are familiar with the
narrative, it would seem obvious to discuss each part of the story in its
relation to the whole story, rather than adopt the perspective of a first
reading. As a consequence of this approach, however, the commentary
would in no way reflect the reading in progress, that is, the reading pro-
cess of the reader who accumulates information while moving forward.
So, in order to clarify that aspect of the reading process as well, I have
decided to maintain the fiction of the first reading in the body of the
commentary, and place all observations relating to later portions of the
text in the notes. This may be useful for readers who want to acquaint
themselves with what the commentary has to say on a certain passage,
without having to take the whole of the commentary into account. In
this commentary, therefore, the lines of the story are not made clear
from the start, but become clear only gradually.
Role of the Commentator

Historical-critical commentaries approach the written text as a histori-
cal document that cannot be understood properly except in terms of its
origin, that is, the time and place where the text originated, the use of
sources in the production of it, and the persons and events occurring in
it. When the text is a narrative, attempts are made to come to a valid re-
construction of the events underlying it. An important question in this
context is what led the author to write his work and to what extent he
realized his intentions in accordance with the literary conventions cur-
rent in his time.
As the first three Gospels are interrelated through the use of common
sources, through direct mutual interdependence, or through both, the
study of these documents is concerned with the traditions underlying
the Gospels and the composition of the Gospels. 'Form criticism' (For-
mgeschichte) investigates the forms and origin of the pre-existing tradi-
tions; 'redaction criticism' (Redaktionsgeschichte) examines how each
of the three redactors selected, arranged and adapted his material in
view of the purpose of his Gospel. These diachronic methods serve a
retrospective end and base their conclusions as much as possible on
objective arguments derived from the text itself and other documentary
evidence of the time.
Commentators who adopt the synchronic approach regard the writer
of Mark not as a redactor but as an author in his own right, and the
Gospel of Mark as a coherent whole like any other literary text. The ex-
amination of the sources does not combine well with this approach and
had better be omitted in this type of commentary, the more so since his-
torical-critical commentaries and countless monographs offer enough
information on that subject. Writers of synchronic commentaries can
focus either on the given written text, or explicitly take the reading pro-
cess into consideration. In the first case it is an illusion to think that
reading a text is possible without interpreting it. In the second case the
commentator enters the vast area of fluctuating and never-ending inter-
pretations that have been and are given of the text. The study of earlier
interpretations is called reception-criticism or the study of the Wirkung-
sgeschichte, as this is found, for instance, at the end of each entry in the
Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Contem-
porary interpretations can be examined empirically with social-scien-
tific instruments such as questionnaires or recordings. These explorat-
ions in the field of given interpretations are retrospective in character;
they deal not so much with the text of Mark as with documents con-
taining interpretations of it.
Besides these, a commentary is needed that has a prospective rather

than a retrospective function, and is primarily concerned with the clari-
fication of the text on behalf of its future readers and users.18 In accor-
dance with this difference in purpose the reading position of the com-
mentator changes. In contrast to the writer of a literary-historical com-
mentary, who takes up a position as near as possible to that of the au-
thor and his environment, the commentator with a prospective outlook
naturally prefers a reading position that approximates the situation of
the actual readers. In conformity with this position, the commentator
attempts to strengthen the hermeneutical competence of his readers by,
among other things, making them sensitive to the 'stable backdrop of
direction for the reader' and 'the challenge to the reader' that lies in the
many moments of 'indirection'.19 This will be one of the chief lines of
approach chosen in this commentary. Although disputable as a means
of attaining that goal, it is nevertheless the only one available. If the
commentator analyses his own reading process it is not to tempt his
readers to adopt or copy his interpretations but to help and challenge
them to perform their own reading process.20 To this I must add some-
thing that is of even greater importance. The commentator's reading
process, as that of any reader, takes place in a dialogue with other
18. See also the observations by Juel, A Master of Surprise, pp. 123-26.
19. I borrow these terms from Fowler, Reader, p. 81.
20. The question is whether the commentator is really able to fulfil this func-
tion. Regarding this see R.M. Fowler, 'Who Is "the Reader" in Reader-Response
Criticism?', Semeia 31 (1985), pp. 5-26 (5-10), and Reader, pp. 26-31. He seems
rather sceptical, pointing out that the critic, being part of a guild or an 'interpretive
community' in Stanley Fish's sense, writes 'to be heard by fellow critics'. With
reference to an essay by George Steiner, he then analyses the difference between
the critic and the reader. As to Fowler's first observation, I think that within a guild
or any other interpretive community one may also take up the position of a dissi-
dent, albeit within certain limits. I underline, in addition, that my project intention-
ally comprises two books, of which one addresses only the general reader (my
Dutch audience), and the other—this English edition provided with notes—also my
fellow critics. The antithesis between critic and reader is not absolute, for they
normally overlap. An author's position on this sliding scale largely depends, in my
opinion, on the extent to which he or she primarily regards a text like Mark as a
score to be examined or as a score to be reproduced in a factual reading. The publi-
cations by R.M. Fowler stand nearer to the former, whereas this commentary exper-
iments with the latter position. The second part of Tolbert's Sowing the Gospel,
which is entitled 'Interpreting the Gospel' (pp. 85-209), stands nearer to the posi-
tion of the critic, but somewhere in between Fowler's position and my own.
reading possibilities. It is, of course, impossible to consider and assess

all of them, but it is not impossible to direct attention, whenever that is
useful, to the two that are of greatest importance, the original and the
present reading situation. It goes without saying that the original read-
ing situation can no more be fully reconstructed with complete cer-
tainty than the identity, situation and intention of the author. However,
to pay extra attention to the first rather than to the second is less far-
reaching in that both reader and commentator are nearer to the intended
reader than to the author. It is also far less pretentious because the step
towards the author presumes that the intention of the author is valid for
each and every reader, while the step towards the intended reader
attempts to trace only one of several valid interpretations, albeit a privi-
leged one which at any rate deserves consideration at every later read-
ing.
Thus, the commentator of this commentary does not pose as an expert
who tries to establish the meaning of Mark from its supposedly proven
author's intentions. Rather, he exercises the function of a professional
or trained lector who, like the author of Mark, with his many explana-
tory clauses, guides the reader through the meaningful whole of the
book. In that capacity he will regularly point out the effects which the
narrator probably intended his story to have on the readers he had in
mind, and connect these with the meanings that present-day readers are
likely to assign to the story of Mark.
Whether and to what extent this approach bears the hallmarks of
sound scholarship apparent in the historical-critical method is a ques-
tion that need not be answered here. It will suffice to refer to a number
of features that the two methods, for all their differences, have in com-
mon. In the first place, both have an important empirical component as
they are primarily concerned with the observation of objective textual
phenomena. Secondly, the conclusions of both can, at least to some
extent, be verified or falsified. Thirdly, they depart from assumptions
the correctness of which cannot be demonstrated with complete cer-
tainty. Finally, and this is perhaps the feature most in evidence, they
have a strong hermeneutical component in that both of them intend to
assign meanings to the given text.21
21. I refrain from an attempt at a 'postmodern', 'deconstructive' approach. Al-

though fascinating, such interpretations are usually too subjective to lend them-
selves to a reasoned argument about their merits or demerits in comparison with
other interpretations, and are, therefore, less suitable for a reader's commentary. I
Summary
As the writer of this commentary I see myself first of all as a reader of
Mark, who presents his own experience of reading the Gospel to other
readers. I do not place myself on the side of the author or even between
the author and the readers, but try to remain consistently on the side of
the readers. Whenever I say that 'the reader' infers or understands
something from the text, I cannot leave myself out. Actually, 'the
reader' is a formal function rather than a flesh-and-blood reader. At any
rate, this way of speaking does not mean that I regard myself as a
model reader, and even less that I pretend to speak the final word about
a passage. On the contrary, I am convinced that there is no final word,
at least not here and now. I have written this commentary in the hope
not only that other readers will read my book, but especially that they
will extract their own meanings from the text and add them to those
already found.
refer the interested reader to T.F. Berg, 'Reading in/to Mark', Semeia 48 (1989),
pp. 187-206; S.D. Moore, Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus
Begins to Write (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992); Anderson and Moore
(eds.), Mark and Method; D. Seeley, Deconstructing the New Testament (BIS, 5;
Leiden: E J . Brill, 1994); T.J. Keegan, 'Biblical Criticism and the Challenge of
Postmodernism', Biblnt 3 (1995), pp. 1-14.
Chapter 2
AUTHOR AND READERS, PLACE AND TIME
According to current beliefs, questions about the author, and where

and when the book was written, also have some importance for the
understanding of Mark. It would be a great help if the book itself or ex-
ternal sources provided reliable information on these matters, but un-
fortunately that is not the case. The question about the first readers is
more important for my explanation. Nevertheless, I cannot ignore the
other questions.
The Author and his Time

The reader does not find the author's name at the beginning or any-
where else in the book. That the Gospel appeared anonymously is not
self-evident, however, as is clear from Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of
Jesus Son of Sirach. Neither does the book assume a respectable pseu-
donym, as is found for instance, at the beginning of the Proverbs of
Solomon. Nor does the author of Mark, in contrast to the author of
Tobit for instance, give a name to the narrator, who anyhow remains
implicit. Consequently, the reader cannot but respect that the Gospel
presents itself as anonymous. If I nevertheless continue to speak of
'Mark', it is because there is hardly any other way to distinguish the
book from other books.
The Greek titles Kaxd MdpKov or E-uayyeîov Kaxd MdpKov (the
Gospel according to Mark), found in numerous old manuscripts, are of
a younger date than the original version, and merely reflect the view of
the copyist or the public opinion of the time. The attribution to Mark
goes back to a well-known quotation in Eusebius's church history,
which ascribes it to Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (around
100-150). Papias in his turn refers this information to an anonymous
'elder':
2. Author and Readers, Place and Time 31
This also the elder used to say: 'When Mark became Peter's interpreter,
he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered
of what the Lord had said or done'. For he had not heard or followed the
Lord, but later, as I said, [heard and followed] Peter, who used to adapt
his teaching to the needs [of the moment], without making any sort of
arrangement of the Lord's oracles. Consequently, Mark made no mistake
in thus writing down certain things as he remembered them. For he was
careful not to omit or falsify anything of what he had heard.1
Since Peter had been in Rome and had died there during the Neronian
persecution according to other old traditions, the idea that Mark must
have been written at Rome also took root quite early on. On the face of
it, this seems a valuable piece of information. We must, however,
reckon with the possibility that Papias's note is tendentious. The ascrip-
tion of the Gospel to Mark and via him to Peter may, after all, have
been motivated by the retrospective desire to give it greater authority.
Nowadays a book bears not only the name of the author but also the
place and date of publication. Such data are lacking in the old manu-
scripts of Mark. Scholars generally agree, however, that Mark was
written in 65 CE at the earliest and shortly after 70 CE at the latest, say
in the first half of the seventies.21 shall return to this issue later.
The Provenance of Mark

For many critical scholars, doubt about the reliability of the Papias
tradition has also meant the dismissal of Rome as the locus of Mark.3
1. V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1957),

pp. 1-7, gives the original versions and translations of Eusebius, Historia Ecclesias-
tica 3.39.15, and the passages relating to Mark found in the Anti-Marcionite Pro-
logue, Justin, Irenaeus, the Muratorian canon, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and
Jerome.
2. A few exceptions concern an earlier date. See esp. G. Zuntz, 'Wann wurde
das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?', in H. Cancik (ed.), Markus-Philologie: His-
torische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evan-
gelium (WUNT, 33; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1984), pp. 47-71; C.S. Mann, Mart A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1986), pp. 72-77.
3. For hypotheses favouring Rome see especially S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of
Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Over-
throw of AD 70 on Christianity (London: SPCK, 1978); idem, T h e Date of the
Markan Gospel', NTS 1 (1961), pp. 126-41; idem, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of
They rather think of the south of Syria, even without having any direct
information from reliable sources. In the absence of such evidence one
may well ask if it is not better to let Mark's provenance and authorial
audience remain an open question.
In that case we take the text as it lies before us, without asking our-
selves what meanings it may have had in the situation in which it origi-
nated. This is, in fact, the usual way of reading the Gospel. At one end
of the scale stands the average reader who is simply led by the views of
the interpretive community to which he or she belongs, or who feels his
or her way through the text in his or her own way. At the other end
stands the deconstructionist, who sees the text of Mark, just like every
other text, as a playing field where signifiers are freely and playfully
exchanged for others, and a definitive signified is perpetually deferred.4
This commentary starts from neither of these extreme positions. Not
from the first, because the readers I have in mind are different from
both the naive reader and the readers who allow themselves to be com-
pletely guided by the constraints of their interpretive community. These
constraints are restrictive because they fix on some meanings and ex-
clude others in advance, while it is my aim to bring out new meanings
whenever that is justified. Nor from the second position, because I try
to explain Mark as a coherent whole of meanings, while deconstruc-
tionists insist that texts lack coherence. These two extreme reading po-
sitions can be practised without reflecting on the tension between di-
rection and indirection.5 The intermediate positions cannot ignore this
tension, which means in addition that they must come to an understand-
ing about the situation of the author, the text and the ancient readers.
It is, therefore, necessary to look again at the question of whether
Mark was written in Syria or in Rome. The poor reputation of Papias's
note would justify a negative answer to Rome as the home of Mark if it
were the only or principal evidence. That is not the case, however.
the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons;
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), pp. 221-82; C. Masson,
L'Evangile de Marc et VEglise de Rome (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1968).
4. See Keegan, 'Biblical Criticism'. For an example of a deconstructive read-
ing, see, Moore, Mark and Luke. Berg ('Reading in/to Mark', pp. 187-206) com-
bines deconstructive operations with the tracing of elements that seem strange
to her because they stand in tension with her own feminine and Jewish points of
view. The chapter that Seeley (Deconstructing, pp. 53-79) devotes to Mark is
disappointing.
5. See Fowler, Reader, pp. 155-227.
True, apart from Eusebius, no other external evidence is available, so it

must be clear in advance that an answer to this question can never be
known with certainty. Even so, a number of indications internal to the
Gospel are worthwhile investigating. These indications are of various
kinds. Apart from a curious coincidence of a personal name, they con-
cern a linguistic characteristic peculiar to Mark, and a striking number
of references to important themes.
The first indication needs only a brief discussion, the more so because
it is not clear enough to be accepted as an argument. After naming
many other persons, Paul asks in Rom. 16.13 to be remembered also to
'Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother—a mother to me also'. The
possible coincidence is that Mark mentions a Rufus as well. Like Mark,
Matthew and Luke call the man compelled by the soldiers to carry
Jesus' cross Simon the Cyrenian, but only Mark specifies him as 'the
father of Alexander and Rufus' (15.21). This description would be
pointless if the intended audience did not know at least one of them.
That would clearly be the case if the Rufus named in Romans were the
same person as the Rufus referred to in Mark, but that cannot be
proved. The Latin rufus means 'redhead', and is, as a personal charac-
teristic, particularly suitable as a proper name. This is confirmed by the
fact that it was one of the most common names in ancient Rome.6 The
reference to Rufus's father in Mark and that to his mother in Romans
are intriguing but really tell us nothing about the identity of the son. It
must, then, remain a curious coincidence, which in fact has little if any
probative value.
Latin Words and Expressions

In modern literature about the origin of the book authors pointed out
early on that the Latinisms in Mark are far more numerous than in the
other Gospels, and that this may be an indication that Mark was written
in Rome.7 The Latinisms cited fall into three categories. The first com-
prises words that are Greek transcriptions of current Latin words, such
6. P. Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhun-

derten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (WUNT, 2.18; Tubingen: J.C.B.
Mohr, 2nd edn, 1988), p. 139, gives 374 known cases, against 1400 cases of Julia
and 841 of Hermes.
7. For a more detailed account of this argument see my 'De thuishaven van
Marcus', TijdTheol 32 (1992), pp. 125-42.
as caesar, modius, speculator, denarius, sextarius, census, fragellare,

centuriof quadrans, praetorium, legio, grabatus and vae. The second
comprises words that must be regarded as literal translations of Latin
words, such as GV|iPoi>Xiov (consilium, 3.6) and nx>y\ii] (pugno or
pugillo, 7.3), and Greek words that are given a meaning known in Latin
but not in Greek, for instance, e%co (habere in the sense of 'regard as',
11.32). Finally, the third category consists of dog Greek transpositions
of well-known Latin idioms into un-Greek word combinations, not
found in Matthew or Luke, such as TO iicavov Ttoieco (satisfacere,
15.15), pa7ria|iaaivtaxuPdvco(verberibus accipere, 14.65), 656v rcoiecG
(viamfacere, 2.23), ecxdxax; e%co (ultimum habere, 5.23), XIGTHII xd
yovaxa (genua ponere, 15.19), KaxaKpivco Bavdxcp (capite damnare,
10.33).
A stronger linguistic indication is a phenomenon again found only in
Mark. In two cases the author explains an ordinary Greek word by
means of a Graecized Latin expression, while he never does the oppo-
site. In 12.42 the poor widow's offering of two Xercxd is explained thus:
6 eoxiv Ko5pdvxr|<; (this is a quadrans). The second occurs in 15.16
where Jesus is led into the a\)A,f|, a word followed by the explanation 6
eaxiv Ttpaixcopiov (which means praetorium). These two explanatory
notes obviously suppose an audience more familiar with the Latin than
the current Hellenistic Greek terms.
The evidential value of these indications for the Roman provenance
of Mark has been rightly questioned. The words and expressions con-
cerned are also found in contemporary papyri of diverse origin. This is
not surprising since words especially referring to the administration, the
military, and the world of money, measures and weights were used
throughout Roman-occupied territory.
Two Latinisms Not Previously Adduced as Evidence

In addition to the words and expressions given above there are two
Latinisms in Mark that so far have not been cited as evidence. They
point to the influence of a Latin-speaking milieu on speakers whose
mother-tongue was not Latin. The first Latinism concerns the position
of the verb in the sentence, and the place of the substantive in relation
to the pronoun that belongs to it. In Greek, in contrast to Latin, the verb
usually precedes the accusative or dative depending on it. In Mark, such
deviations from Greek word order are more frequent than in the parallel
materials in Matthew and Luke. Against the thirty-seven cases in Mark,

there are twelve cases in Matthew (of which only two are different from
Mark) and five cases in Luke (again with two of them being different
from Mark). The second phenomenon relates to places where the Greek
iva is used in the non-final sense of the Latin ut after verbs of speaking,
asking, commanding, and the like. Of the thirty-one occurrences of this
Latinism in Mark only eight have been preserved in the parallels of
Matthew and only four in those of Luke. Where the other synoptics
have not left out the passage concerned, the authors of Matthew and
Luke usually replace 'iva with an imperative in direct speech, an infini-
tive, or another paraphrase. In passages that have no parallel in Mark
the iva construction occurs only twice in Matthew and four times in
Luke.8
The frequent use of these two Latinisms considerably increases
the relative frequency of Latinisms in Mark, outnumbering those in
Matthew two and a half times to one, and those in Luke even four times
to one. This is probably best explained in terms of a more than average
influence on the language of Mark by a milieu in which the author was
regularly exposed to Latin in the streets, in the marketplace, or wher-
ever. The chance of such an influence was much greater in Rome than
in an arbitrary part of Galilee or Syria.
Arguments in Favour of Other Locations

Various authors prefer other settings within the Roman Empire, Galilee
and Syria being the most important candidates. They adduce the pres-
ence of Aramaisms in support of both locations. There are two reasons,
however, why their presence, in contrast to the presence of Latinisms,
does not require a specific explanation. First, there was a large Jewish
colony in Rome and many Christians were of Jewish origin. The regu-
lar traffic between Rome and Palestine and the steady arrival of new
Jews from Palestine had been and still was instrumental in bringing
about a Jewish-coloured subculture, whose lingua franca was Koine
Greek but strongly affected by Aramaic. The second reason is that the
traditions underlying Mark are, for the most part, of Aramaic origin,
and Mark still bears the imprint of that origin.
8. Mt. 4.3 par. Lk. 4.3; Mt. 28.10; Lk. 7.36; 10.40; 16.27. For the complete list
of references mentioned in this section see my preliminary study 'De thuishaven
van Marcus', pp. 134-35.
The case in favour of Galilee has been argued by W. Marxsen in the

context of a redaction critical analysis of Mark.9 In this analysis he has
pointed both to the redactional character of most of the references to
Galilee and to the function of 14.28 and 16.7, which would summon the
Christian community to assemble at a place in Galilee, because the sec-
ond coming of Jesus would take place there very shortly. It is not sur-
prising that this view has met with little approval. From the point of
view of narrative technique it is practically impossible for readers to
understand Jesus' announcement to the disciples in 14.28 and the in-*
structions from the young man at the tomb in 16.7 as a summons di-
rectly addressed to them. Furthermore, the idea that the book originated
in Galilee and was directed to Galilaean readers is incongruous with the
fact that Mark gives the impression that the author was not really famil-
iar with Palestinian topography.
A greater number of commentators favour the Syrian provenance of
Mark.10 They generally base their view mainly on the Palestinian-Syr-
ian colour of many stories in Mark. The assumption is that this could
not very well be the work of an author writing in a metropolis like
Rome, an argument which is at odds with the fact that, according to the
same authors, these stories formed part of pre-existing collections, and
therefore do not come directly from the author of Mark. Apart from this
inconsistency, the view is open to the obvious objection that the local
colour of a story requires no specific explanation when it agrees with
that of the place where the story is set. Other scholars in favour of Syria
relate Mark not to the Syrian countryside but to Antioch. In addition to
the presence of Aramaisms, they refer both to the relation of the
'elder'—quoted by Papias—with Antioch and to Antioch as an impor-
tant centre of Roman-Hellenistic culture; older authors also refer to the
link between Antioch and Peter.
The most detailed and closely reasoned argument for Syria is from
G. Theissen.11 His arguments are of three kinds: textual indications of
9. W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des

Evangeliums (FRLANT, 67; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1959),
pp. 33-76; J. Marcus, The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark', JBL 111
(1992), pp. 441-62.
10. See, for example, H.C. Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's
Gospel (NTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), pp.
100-105.
11. G. Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the
the socio-ecological milieu of Mark, the origin of certain traditions

observable in it, and the statements about places, in particular the so-
called geographical errors.
Among the indications of the socio-ecological milieu, Theissen
attaches special significance to the use of the term 'sea' (QaXacoa),
which stems from the tradition but is also found in some connecting
passages of the book. In particular the construction with the genitive in
6dâaoa8 xflc; Faîâiaq ('Sea of Galilee', 1.16; 7.31) deviates from
Latin and Greek usage, which usually renders a further qualification by
means of an adjective. Accordingly, the term lacus Iudaeae in the work
of Mark's contemporary Pliny the Elder should be seen as an excep-
tion. The occurrence of this construction in Mark would point to a mi-
lieu in which the use of names is determined by Aramaic idioms, and
the Mediterranean world is not predominant. Anyone who knows the
Mediterranean would not easily designate the little Galilaean lake as a
'sea.'
The argument is compelling but not convincing. What Theissen over-
looks is that the author of Mark was intimately familiar with the Septu-
agint, where 'sea' is not an unusual term for an inland lake. In the Sep-
tuagint, QaXacca refers not only to 'the great sea' (r\ GdXaaaa r\ jney-
d^r|, Num. 34.6, etc.), or simply 'the sea' (regularly in the derived
sense of 'westward', e.g. Ezek. 47-48), and to the Red Sea (indeed with
an adjective: fi epi)9pf| 6dA,acaa, Exod. 10.19, etc.), but also to areas of
water with the features of an inland lake. In the Septuagint, it is neither
unusual for an area of water to refer via a subsequent genitive or an
imitation status constructus to a certain place or peculiarity. That goes
even for the Mediterranean, which is twice called QaXacoa 'lonw^q
(2 Chron. 2.16; 2 Esd. 3.7), and for the lake of Gennesaret, which is
called Q&Xaooa XevepeB (Num. 34.11; Josh. 12.3; 13.27)!
Other cases in which Q&Xaaaa refers to an inland lake are: 9dâaaa
"Apafkx (Josh. 3.16); QaXacca xr\q Tea (Josh. 8.9); GdAxxaca BaXayd8
(Josh. 12.7); OdXaaaa lepdiccov (Josh. 19.46), and finally, besides
edtaxoaa f] d?U)Kf| (Num. 34.3, 12), Bdâaaa dA,6<; (Josh. 3.16) and
GdAxxGGCt T(5v dAxov (Josh. 18.19). In addition to these examples, 8dA,a-
aaa is used metaphorically for an artificial water basin: the bronze
'sea' in Solomon's Temple (2 Kgdms 8.8; 3 Kgdms 3.1; 7.23-44; 1
Synoptic Tradition (translation of Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evan-

gelien by L.M. Maloney, with emendations by the author; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991), pp. 235-58.
Chron. 18.8; 2 Chron. 4.2-15), and the water reservoir around the sacri-
ficial altar on Mount Carmel (3 Kgdms 18.32-38). It is in this context
important to note that the author knew the Septuagint version of
Joshua—where most of the cases just mentioned are found—quite well,
as the quotation in Mark 12.30, 35 confirms, and that he also had a
special relationship with the Elijah cycle,12 to which 3 Kgdms 18.32-38
belongs. It should be noted, too, that his vocabulary is relatively small
in comparison with that of Matthew and Luke, and that this is particu-
larly true with regard to the use of names.13 Finally, it is remarkable
that in Mark the term GdXaaaa appears for the first and last time in the
combination 6dA,acaa xf|<; raA,iAaia<; (1.16 and 7.31). Because of this,
the name of the inland lake, which is perhaps the author's own creation,
becomes one of the markers of the Galilaean character of the first main
part of the book.
Neither can the high frequency of terms referring to regions around
cities or villages be accepted as evidence for the Syrian countryside. In-
stead of an indication of the Syrian provenance of Mark, it is possible
to explain this as belonging to the local colour of the story, as I have
already observed above.
Theissen derives his second argument for Syria from the origin and
combination of traditions incorporated in Mark. He refers to pre-Pauline
traditions (the term evayY^Mov and the tradition of the last supper in
14.22-25) and Pauline-influenced traditions (the list of vices in 7.21-
22). In addition he refers to traditions stemming from the community of
Jerusalem and Judaea (ch. 13 and the passion narrative) and to popular
tales (5.1-21; 6.17-29), and, finally, to stories originating from the dis-
ciples themselves (1.16-20; 2.14; 6.7-11; 10.17-30). A number of these
the author would have picked up on his travels through Galilee and
South Syria, others he would have heard from wandering charismatics,
who are hard to imagine in Rome but not in Palestine and Syria. This
view is interesting and illuminating, but it does not alter the fact that
these traditions cannot serve as evidence for Syria and Palestine unless
two postulates are fulfilled. First, that the author of Mark obtained them
12. Where the Greek has a Hebrew counterpart, the Masoretic Text has always
yam, except in 1 Kgs 18 (3 Kgdms 18), where we find Fala.
13. R. Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zurich:
Gotthelf, 2nd edn, 1973), p. 164, mentions for Matthew, Mark and Luke respec-
tively a vocabulary of 1691, 1345 and 2055 words (§3), and 126, 74 and 162 names
(§4).
not through the agency of others but directly from the persons in ques-
tion. Secondly, that he incorporated them into his book there and then,
and not at some other place later. Theissen makes no attempt, however,
to prove that these two assumptions are realized. The same holds good
for the assumption that the author must have become acquainted with
somewhat deviating traditions personally and on the spot (7.1-23; 9.28-
29, 33-37; 10.10-12). It is not clear to me why the author could not
have obtained this information at second or third hand, or, if he learned
of these traditions on the spot, why he could not have incorporated
them later and elsewhere. It is curious that Theissen brings up these
possibilities in connection with the date but not with the place of com-
position.14
I shall not enter here into the third category, which concerns 5.1-20,
7.26 and 7.31. These passages have been discussed in numerous other
places, where they are interpreted in the opposite sense. From Theis-
sen's, again excellent, contribution one can infer at the most that the
discussion is far from closed and that the data can be used in different
ways. Although Theissen's views on the location of Mark's Gospel
deserve serious attention, my conclusion is that his arguments, properly
considered, do not turn the scales in favour of Syria.
Persecutions
Apart from the many Latinisms, there is a thematic undercurrent in
Mark which, according to most authors, shows the origin of the book to
be connected with a situation of persecution.15 This feature of Mark's
14. Theissen, The Gospels in Context, p. 258: '...a temporal determination for
Mark 13 is made more difficult by the fact that it reworks traditions from the year
40C.E.'.
15. See my The Gospel according to St. Mark', and 'Mark 9,43-48 in a Marty -
rological Perspective', in A.A.R. Bastiaensen et al. (eds.), Fructus Centesimus
(Festschrift G.J.M. Bartelink; Instrumenta Patristica, 19; Steenbrugge: Sint-
Pietersabdij; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989), pp. 333-41. See also M. Hengel, 'Entste-
hungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums', in Cancik (ed.), Markus-Philolo-
gie, pp. 22-36. Juel (A Master of Surprise, p. 145) thinks that 13.12 has no relation
to persecutions but deals with internal conflicts, as is also the case with 9.33-37 and
10.35-45, and relates to the rest of the passage, which is about false leaders. He
overlooks, however, that in the verses surrounding 13.12, namely, 9-11 and 13,
there is no mention of internal tensions but of external, public bodies. Juel also
thinks that the metaphor of the doorkeeper (13.33-37) says more about the situation
Gospel has long been recognized, but its presence in places other than a
few passages in ch. 13 has not been fully appreciated.
Can this thematic undercurrent help to place the work? Some of the
authors who think so consider that Mark 13 points towards Syria rather
than Rome.16 In their opinion, the chapter contains references to the
environment where the Jewish War was fought, but no specific refer-
ences to the persecution of Christians by Nero. It is partially for this
reason that they take the passages in Mark 13 as reflecting the persecu-
tion of Jews, which took place, among other places, in Syria. During
these persecutions the Christians, who were largely of Jewish origin,
would have been treated in the same way as the members of the Jewish
community. For several reasons this idea is untenable.
First, the data available on persecutions outside Rome do not tally
with what we read in Mark. Flavius Josephus's reports on the persecu-
tion of Jews in his Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War refer,
without exception, to pogroms and lynchings carried out by civilians.17
The victims could perhaps have saved themselves by taking flight or
going underground, but not by abjuring their faith or by denouncing Je-
sus. Mk 8.34-38 and 9.42-48, as well as 13.9-13, clearly relate to situa-
tions characterized by arrests and interrogations of individuals, who
apparently can avoid torture and execution by denying that they are
Christians. If the two 'stories of martyrdom' in 2 Mace. 6.18-7.42 form
the background for Mk 9.42-47, as I have argued elsewhere,18 then they
confirm two things which are in conflict with pogroms.19 First, the per-
secutors are not mobs taking the law into their own hands, but officials
acting in the name of the authorities. This is also the supposition of
13.9-11. Secondly, the persecuted belong to a distinct group, but stand
trial and speak as individual members of that group (13.11). Moreover,
of the congregation for which the book is meant, than the passages about perse-
cutions (pp. 77-88). Against this I should state that Juel fails to give adequate
attention to several passages outside ch. 13 relating to persecutions.
16. For example, L. Schenke, Das Markusevangelium (Urban-Taschenbiicher,
405; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988), pp. 40-41.
17. Josephus, Ant. 18.376-79; 20.1-9; War 2.19-20, 266-70, 284-92, 407-19,
457-68,477-98, 559-65; 3.9-28; 7.41-62,437-44.
18. Van Iersel, 'Mark 9,43-48 in a Martyrological Perspective'.
19. G.W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1995), pp. 9-12, reckons with the possibility that these two stories origi-
nated in the second half of the first century. That would mean that they are almost
contemporaneous with Mark.
as 8.38 and 13.9-11 make clear, they are persecuted because they are
followers of Jesus, a motive which has no place in the pogroms and
massacres reported by Josephus.
Finally, it is justifiable to recognize specific resemblances between
the scene depicted in Mk 13.12-13 and Tacitus's note in Annals 15.44
about the Neronian persecutions. We read in Mark that brother will de-
liver brother, and the Annals underline that arrested members of the
Roman community have reported fellow members to the authorities:
'Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo
ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis con-
victi sunt' (Those who confessed that they were members of the Chris-
tian sect were arrested first, and then, on their disclosures, a great many
others were convicted, not of arson but of hatred of mankind'). This
mention of odium humani generis (hatred of or hated by mankind)20
also has a counterpart in Mk 13.13a: 'You will be hated by all (EOEOQE
|iiao\)H£voi vno Tcdvxcov) because of my name'.
For these reasons the thematic undercurrent present in Mark is, in my
opinion, explicable only by the persecutions under Nero. According to
Tacitus, Nero persecuted the Roman Christians for a short period but
with great intensity in order to suppress rumours that he himself was
responsible for the burning of Rome in 64 CE.21 The way in which
Mark speaks about the persecutions gives no specific details about the
fire of Rome and the tortures occasioned by it. On the other hand, all
other persecutions known to us, such as those by Domitian (81-96),
happened later or were mere incidents. The latter also holds good for
the two executions that took place in Jerusalem: that of Stephen in 37
and that of James in 62. Therefore, if Mark is to be connected with anti-
Christian violence, the only remaining possibility is the persecution that
took place under Nero shortly after 64. This brings us again to Rome as
the place of composition.
20. Hengel ('Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums', pp. 35-

36) interprets Tacitus's odium generis humani in the sense that the Christians are
hated by all humankind, but the phrase is usually understood to mean 'aversion to
humankind', similar to the Greek |iiaav9pamia. Cf. A. Wlosok, 'Die Rechtsgrund-
lagen der Christenverfolgungen der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte', in R. Klein (ed.),
Dasfriihe Christentum im romischen Staat (Wege der Forschung, 267; Darmstadt:
WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1971), p. 181 n. 16.
21. Tacitus, Annals 15.44.4-9; cf. M. Sordi, The Christians and the Roman
Empire (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 29-31.
Before or After 70 CE?

As Mark 13, from v. 2 onwards, deals in its entirety with the time after
Jesus' death, the chapter may contain references to the situation in
which the book originated. This is not self-evident, however, because
the discourse consists largely of apocalyptic stereotypes.22
The first passage to be considered is 13.7-8, which is sometimes re-
garded as a reference to the Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 CE.23 There
are, however, two textual phenomena that are difficult to harmonize
with this view.
The first is that in v. 7 'war' (KOXEILOC) is twice used in the plural,
which means that the word does not refer to one specific war but to sev-
eral wars or to wars in general. The Jewish War could be one of them
but, at any rate, is not the only one. This confirms Hengel's view that
vv. 7-8 refer to the disturbances that followed Nero's suicide in
September 68 CE: a civil war that cost three successive emperors their
thrones and their lives within a year, the concurrent revolts of the Bata-
vians and other Germanic and Gallic tribes, and the unrest in Britain,
Africa, Pontus and on the Danube frontier.24 It is precisely the coin-
cidence of these disturbances, nowhere better known than in Rome, that
could cause unrest and panic. That we have contemporary reports about
earthquakes in Italy and hunger riots in Rome may provide an extra-
textual confirmation of v. 8b.25
22. For a careful analysis of these elements see L. Hartman, Prophecy Inter-
preted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological
Discourse Mark 13 par. (trans. N. Tomkinson and J. Gray; ConBNT, 1; Lund:
C.W.K. Gleerup, 1966), pp. 145-77.
23. See particularly Marcus ( T h e Jewish War', pp. 446-48), who further de-
rives the connection with the Jewish War from Mk 11.17 (pp. 448-56) and 12.35-37
(pp. 456-60). He connects 11.17 with the Zealots, who occupied the temple during
the Jewish War to keep out Gentiles, but he makes no attempt to explain why this
verse is about traders and money-changers. A. Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the
Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 82,
also referred to the Jewish War, but has changed her opinion. In T h e Apocalyptic
Rhetoric', BibRes 41 (1996), pp. 5-36 (19), she now suggests that vv. 7-8 refer not
to historical events but to very general apocalyptic themes.
24. Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation', p. 33.
That Mark's audience was directly involved in these wars26 is alto-

gether excluded by the text. In v. 7 the listeners or readers are told not
to be alarmed by rumours of war. Whatever wars may be meant, the
words 'when you hear of wars and rumours of war' (oxav... dKOwryce
noXeôvq Kai dico&qrcoAinxov)suppose that the intended readers are at
a distance from the scene of war, which implies that they are outsiders
rather than participants or victims. In other words, v. 7 is about rumours
of wars, and not about a war in which they are personally involved, not
even as civilian casualties, as are the people in Judaea in vv. 14-17.27
The verb dKotico with the accusative TIOA,£|J,OV can have the meaning
that one hears the noise of war with one's own ears,28 but it cannot have
that meaning with the plural 7ioXe|nov<;. Similarly, dicof| 7coXi|icov cer-
tainly does not refer to noises of war. The combination dicof| 7toA,e^cov
is found nowhere else in the Septuagint and the New Testament, but in
nearly all cases in which the noun dicof| occurs in the Septuagint (ex-
cepting the construction dicofi aicovco), namely 26 times out of 28, it
has the meaning of a report, message or rumour.29 That is also the case
in Mk 1.28, where the term refers to reports of Jesus' fame. For this
reason it is incorrect to conclude from v. 7 that the authorial audience
should be located in the vicinity of any of the wars mentioned. Of
course, a great many places are at a distance from those wars, but since
Rome is the capital and centre of the empire, rumours of wars will have
circulated there rather than anywhere else.
26. Thus, for example, Schenke, Markusevangelium, p. 36.

27. Thus also J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKKNT, 2.1-2; 2 vols.;
Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-79), I,
p. 187.
28. See Exod. 32.17 (Joshua hears sounds that he interprets as <()covr| rcoXeno'u);
Jer. 4.19 (I hear the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war, (t>covfiv c&Xniyyoq...
Kpocuyfiv 7toA,euoi)); 49.14 (...Egypt, where we shall see no war, or hear the sound
of the trumpet, ^covnv oaXmyyoq).
29. These places are: Exod. 23.1; 1 Sam. 2.24; 15.22; 2 Sam. 13.30; 22.45;
23.23; 1 Kgs 2.28; 10.7; 2 Chron. 9.6; Tob. 10.13; Job 42.5; Ps. 111.7; Wis. 1.9;
Sir. 27.15; 42.1; 43.24; Obad. 1.1; Hab. 3.2; Isa. 52.7 (dicof| eipf|VTi<;); 53.1; Jer.
6.24; 29.14; 30.23; 33.18; 44.5; Ezek. 16.56. 'AKOTJ refers twice to a kind of sound
that is different from that of a report, namely in Job 37.2 and Jer. 10.22.
Pseudo-prophets and Messianic Pretenders

Two other passages in ch. 13 that could contain a reference to events
and situations significant for the original audience are vv. 5-6 and 21-
22 about the pseudo-prophets and messianic pretenders. M. Hengel is
of the opinion that they should be connected with the authority vacuum
left by the death of the great leaders Paul, James, and Peter between 62
and 64 CE.30 For this reason he thinks not so much of the well-known
Jewish pseudo-prophets—although Christians may also have fallen un-
der their spell—as of people who created unrest within the Christian
communities by, for example, claiming to be the risen Jesus or his rep-
resentative. In this context one could also think of Simon Magus, the
famous magician and, according to Acts 8.13, a convert to Christianity,
who, according to Justin, also demonstrated his magical powers in
Rome, in the days of Claudius.31
A.Y. Collins, on the other hand, considers the reference to these
Christian prophets improbable. Her objection is that this view does not
explain how the warning is linked to the predictions of war, the rumours
of war, and the related eschatological traditions that follow in vv. 7-8.32
Instead she identifies the pretenders in vv. 5-6 and 21-22 with such
Jewish freedom fighters and prophets as are referred to by Josephus in
several places. Besides Menahem, who entered Jerusalem as a king in
66 CE,33 the names of two others have been preserved. The first is John
of Gischala, a gang leader34 who rose to be the head of the Zealots in
Jerusalem.35 The second is Simon, son of Gioras, a former gang leader
like John,36 who was involved in repelling an attack by the Romans on
Jerusalem in 66 CE.37 Josephus speaks of several others in the context
of the destruction of the Temple. He mentions, among others, a pseudo-
prophet who had persuaded a multitude of 6000 people not to flee but

31. Justinus, Apologia 1.26, quoted by Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation',
p. 8.
32. Collins, The Apocalyptic Rhetoric', p. 15.
33. Josephus, War 2.433.
34. Josephus, War 2.585-631.
35. Josephus, War 4.84-127.
hide themselves in one of the Temple buildings, with false promises

that God would deliver them.38
A.Y. Collins attributes messianic pretensions to some of these per-
sons. Those of Simon, for instance, she derives from Josephus's de-
scription of him as a man 'affecting to tyrannize, and being fond of
greatness' (6 8e rupctwicav iced jieydAxSv eîejiievoq).39 His acceptance
as a messianic leader by large sections of the population she infers from
the words that they were 'obedient to him as a king' (ax; npoc, (iacnAea
7C£i6ap%ia).40 At his entry into Jerusalem in 69 CE he was acclaimed as
'saviour and protector' (acoxfip.. .Kai KT|8e|i<Sv),41 and during the siege
in the spring of 70 CE his men had so much 'reverence and awe'
(cd8cb<;... Kai 5eoq) for him that they were ready to give their lives for
him.42
Collins's view is open to all kinds of scholarly question. Where her
argument particularly lacks force is in the claim that the quoted terms
provide evidence of messianic pretensions. These terms are so vague
and general compared to those used in v. 6 (eyeb £ini in the mouths of
people speaking in Jesus' name) and v. 21 (I8e G>8e 6 Xpiaxoq, I8e
8K8i) that they cannot be understood as clear indications of the mes-
sianic pretensions of these freedom fighters.
Her objection to Hengel's view—the absence of a connection be-
tween the Jewish War in v. 7 and the appearance of deceivers in v. 6—
is even weaker. It is highly disputable whether they are represented in
the text as two simultaneous events. Verse 7 begins with OTCCV 8e (but
when), and, as in 11.19; 13.11, 14 (also with 8E), 28 and 29, oxav
marks a caesura rather than a connection.43 Neither does it seem obvi-
ous to regard them as happening in one and the same place, for, as I
have explained above, v. 7 is exclusively concerned with rumours of
war. Therefore I see no reason to link the pseudo-prophets and mes-
sianic pretenders to a war situation.

43. It is strange Collins (The Apocalyptic Rhetoric', p. 21) should see the oxav
5e in v. 14 as an indication of a caesura, but apparently not that in v. 7, to which
she refers.
The Destruction of the Temple

The third element is the destruction of the Temple. Whether the text of
the book, especially vv. 1-2 and 14, supposes that Mark was written be-
fore or after the destruction of 70 CE is a moot point. The problem is
not only that opinions are divided into two camps of equal size and
strength,44 but that the arguments are few and mainly negative in na-
ture. Not surprisingly they lack cogency, which means that a small shift
in the argumentation may be enough to lead to a change of opinion.45
The most important argument for dating the completion of the book
before the destruction of the Temple is the absence of even the faintest
allusion to that event or the siege and conquest of Jerusalem, of which a
number of details are known from Josephus.46 That is all the more re-
markable because Luke (21.20), in contrast to Mark, mentions explic-
itly the surrounding of Jerusalem by army units (axpaxo7ce8a, perhaps
to be translated as 'legions') and the destruction of the city. While fires
of imposing, historic buildings tend to make a great impression there is
not a single trace of the burning of the Temple in Mark. In 13.2 the
book says no more about the Temple than that 'not one stone will be
44. Before the destruction: W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus

(THKNT, 2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2nd edn, 1962), p. 19; Taylor,
Mark, pp. 31-32; Myers, Binding the Strong Man, p. 41; Schenke, Markusevan-
gelium, pp. 35-38; C. Breytenbach, Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach
Markus: Eine methodenkritische Studie (ATANT, 71; Zurich: Theologischer Ver-
lag, 1984), pp. 311-16; Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation', pp. 10-33; Collins,
Beginning, pp. 75-76, 86. After the destruction: Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem,
pp. 185-205; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder,
1976-77), I, p. 14; II, pp. 292 and 300; Gnilka, Markus, I, p. 34 and II, p. 184;
D. Luhrmann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT, 3; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987),
p. 343; R.A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC, 34A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), pp.
xxxi-xxxii; M.D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (BNTC; Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1991), p. 8; J.R. Donahue, 'Windows and Mirrors: The Setting
of Mark's Gospel', CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 1-26 (24); G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and
the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 1993), mentions, in addition, a number of authors in favour of the second
view: G. Minette de Tillesse (p. 190); W. Kelber (p. 203), and W. Schmithals
(p. 337).
45. Compare the Dutch edition of this book, Marcus, uitgelegd aan andere lez-
ers (Baarn: Gooi en Sticht; Kampen: Kok, 1997), p. 44.
46. Josephus, War 5 and 6.
left here upon another; all will be thrown down'. This hyperbole can
hardly be seen as a reference to what is left of the building after it has
been destroyed by fire; and so v. 2 cannot be accepted as an indication
that Mark was written after the Temple's destruction in 70 CE.47
Are there no other arguments for or against to be found in ch. 13? Is
it impossible to argue in the light of v. 18 for instance that Mark was
written before the destruction? In this verse Jesus advises his audience
to pray that the tribulation following the incident at the sight of which
the inhabitants of Judaea should flee to the mountains (14) may not
happen in winter. We know from Josephus, however, that the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple took place in the
height of summer.48 Is this not an indication that the author was igno-
rant of this date and wrote the book before these events? The answer is
no, for it is possible to interpret the presence of this element as having
the function of illustrating with a concrete example that Jesus was
indeed ignorant of the exact time of the end, as he explicitly says in
13.32.
The arguments for dating Mark after the destruction are not convinc-
ing either. Morna D. Hooker says—without arguing this—'that Mark
13 reflects the trauma of those who had assumed that the temple's de-
struction was the sign which heralded the end of this era'.49 She refers
in particular to vv. 21-22 where the pseudo-prophets are announced for
the second time. According to M.D. Hooker their appearance would be
thought after the sign of 14a, in her opinion the destruction of the city,
and therefore she thinks it likely that 'Mark and his readers are living
after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70'. 50 Her argumentation, however, is
disputable on several counts. The argument assumes that v. 14 refers
to the destruction of the Temple, which is not impossible but has not
been demonstrated either. The 'desolating sacrilege' is interpreted in
many different ways: the occupation of the Temple by the Zealots, the
47. For a detailed discussion see Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation', pp.
21-25. Collins ('Apocalyptic Rhetoric', p. 22) points out that by no means all
stones became dislodged at the destruction, and that this could be an indication that
the Temple had not yet been destroyed. Nevertheless, she rightly concludes that the
wording of the prophecy is best taken as hyperbolic and does not admit of any
conclusion as to the question whether it was coined before or after the destruction.
49. Hooker, Saint Mark, p. 8.
50. Hooker, Saint Mark, p. 303.
profanation of the Temple, the destruction of the Temple, the erection

of a Roman sacrificial altar or statue in the Temple, the setting up of the
Roman standards in the Temple, an inspection of the sanctuary by
Titus, the manifestation of the antichrist (perhaps in the figure of a Nero
redivivus), or a combination of two of these events. In addition, she
sees vv. 21-22 as part of a chronological scenario. Until the temporal
reference jiexct vr\v 9A,i\|/iv EKEIVTIV in v. 24 there is no timetable, how-
ever, as Beasley-Murray rightly observes, after a comparison with the
current apocalyptic scenarios.51
All things considered, there is, in my opinion, not one single text
element in the narrative that clearly points to the historical event of the
Temple's destruction. The absence of any such reference makes it more
likely that the Temple is still standing than that it has already been
destroyed.52 So, the words of J.M. Lagrange are, apart from the cate-
gorical formulation, still true: '...It is utterly impossible to date the
Gospel of Mark after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem'.53
A detailed argument for this view has meanwhile been given by
M. Hengel,54 who assigns an exact date to Mark, namely the autumn of
69 CE.
All of the forgoing concerns the situation of the author. The reading
situation is an entirely different matter. The completion of a book can
be tied to a specific moment but the reading cannot. A text cannot be
read before it exists. For that reason I also had to consider the question
of dating. Once a book has been written, however, it can be read in ever
new situations by different readers and be reread by the same readers
who never find themselves in exactly the same situation. For Mark, this
implies two things, which are more or less self-evident, but must never-
theless be said explicitly. If the book was written after the destruction
of the Temple, it cannot have been read before that event. If, on the
other hand, the book was written before the destruction, it can have
been read both before and after that event. It seems evident that the
readers who were familiar with the Temple's destruction, compared to
readers before the disaster, formed other mental images and experi-
enced other emotions while reading the text. That is particularly true
51. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days, p. 373.

52. See also Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation', p. 21-25.
53. M.J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc (Ebib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 4th edn,
1947), p. xxxi.
54. Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation'.
of the readers who had watched the Temple treasures being carried
through Rome in the triumphal procession in the summer of 71 CE,55
which for the inhabitants of Rome symbolized the end of the Temple
establishment.
Whether Mark was written before or after the destruction need be no
problem for this commentary. Whenever that is relevant, I shall draw
attention to the implications for the readers who, impressed by the
calamity and/or the triumphal procession of Vespasian and Titus, read
the book shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
My conclusion is that there are no reliable external data about the
date and place of composition, and that none of the internal indications
provides conclusive evidence either. Still, what evidence there is—the
influence of spoken Latin on the Greek of Mark and especially the
book's focus on persecutions—seems to support the hypothesis that
Rome is the most likely place of the origin of Mark's Gospel. Even if
Mark was not written in Rome but on the east coast of the Mediter-
ranean basin in 65 CE, there is little doubt that the Gospel was read by
Roman Christians in the seventies. This seems to me to be a realistic
and sensible assumption for a reader-response commentary that wants
to take Mark's readers in antiquity explicitly into account.
The Christians in First-Century Rome

Our knowledge of the first-century Christians of Rome derives mostly
from a number of passages from the classical authors and Paul's Letter
to the Romans.
In Rome, as elsewhere, the oldest proclamation of the Christian faith
probably started within one or more of the many Jewish synagogues in
the city. Suetonius reports that the emperor Claudius expelled the Jews
from Rome because they were continually causing unrest at the instiga-
tion of Chrestus. Suetonius will have thought of some Jewish trouble-
maker, but Chrestus may be a corruption of Christus,56 in which case
the unrest may have been due to conflicts between Jews and Jewish
Christians over the proclamation of Christ in the synagogues.

56. Suetonius, Claudius 25.4; that Chrestus meant Christus is not undisputed.
See about this U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, I (EKKNT, 6.1; Zurich: Ben-
ziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), pp. 35-36.
Claudius's edict against the Roman Jews had left the Christians of
non-Jewish descent undisturbed. When the Christian Jews, together
with the other Jews, returned to the city in 54 CE, they probably found a
relatively large and fairly structured Gentile Christian community.
When Paul writes his letter to the Roman Christians around the year 58
CE, he can send personal greetings to many of them (Rom. 16) and bear
witness to the fact that people all over the world are impressed by their
faith (Rom. 1.8). Apparently, many members of the Roman Christian
community were non-Jews.57 We know from Rom. 16.4 that one house-
hold community gathered in the house of the Jewish Christian couple
Prisca and Aquila, and from 16.14-15 that there were two other house-
hold communities, which, judging from the names mentioned there,
probably comprised Gentile Christians. The existence of household
communities of diverse cultural and social backgrounds in Rome at the
end of the first and the beginning of the second century has also been
demonstrated. It is interesting in this context to note that the names
mentioned by Paul in the final chapter of his letter refer to Roman
citizens, noblemen, slaves and freedpersons.
In Rome, as in other places, the Christians founded communities
whose activities and way of life distinguished them from their Gentile
and Jewish fellow inhabitants. Their household gatherings were not
open to outsiders, and were often held at unusual and nocturnal hours.
At these gatherings they gave instructions, prayed and sang together,
but also performed strange rituals, such as the breaking of bread and an
unusual initiation rite with water. The Christians called one another
brothers and sisters, and lived by a code based on solidarity with one
another, and sometimes even held everything they owned in common.
They contributed towards the costs of the community in accordance
with their means and collected money to help their poorer brothers and
sisters. They did not participate much in public life, or visit the theatre
or circus, or compete in sporting events, and some of them refrained
from buying and eating sacrificial food. Their way of life brought with
it a certain isolation from society at large, and implied disapproval of
the lifestyle of the average Roman citizen. Conversely, these early
Christians were accused of being unwordly people who despised the
world, and because they did not have temples, of being godless.
57. See Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen, pp. 1-165.

Was Mark Written for a Special Occasion?

Assuming that the author wrote his Gospel for Roman Christians be-
tween 65 and 70 CE, why did he write exactly at that moment? Accord-
ing to the tradition that saw Mark as the spokesman of Peter, the
Gospel was occasioned by Peter's death or the request of Peter's listen-
ers to preserve his reminiscences of Jesus.58 Present-day researchers
have also attempted to answer the question of Mark's purpose.
The most important of them is S.F.G. Brandon, who in a series of
articles and books has argued the connection between the Jesus move-
ment and the Zealots, and in that context has raised the question of the
Sitz im Leben of Mark.59 He dates the Gospel in the year 71 CE, after
Titus's triumphal procession in Rome, when the Christians were, in his
opinion, in danger of being associated with the rebels in the province
Judaea who had just been defeated. The author of Mark would have
written an Apologia ad Christianos Romanos to make it clear that Jews
and Christians could not be lumped together. To that end, says Bran-
don, the author suppressed that one of Jesus' followers was a Zealot
(compare 3.18 with Lk. 6.15 and Acts 1.3), presented Jesus' condem-
nation as the result of a conspiracy of the Jewish authorities, and, in
contrast to Zealotic propaganda, emphasized in 12.13-17 that the
Christians did well to pay taxes to the emperor. For all its acuteness and
learning, Brandon's argument carries little conviction as a whole. Mark
offers few starting points for the opinion that the author wanted to em-
phasize the differences between Christians and Jews, unless one iden-
tifies Jesus' opponents, whenever they are mentioned, with the Jews.
In an essay that has gone practically unnoticed, T. Radcliffe has of-
fered a quite different interpretation.60 Like Brandon, he situates Mark
in Rome after 70 CE, that is, after the persecution under Nero and after
the destruction of the Temple. The first event especially had caused a
crisis in the Christian community of Rome, and undermined its percep-
tion of the world, which was strongly coloured by apocalyptic expecta-
tions. Moreover, community members were tormented by remorse and
shame, because on the authority of Tacitus we must reckon with the
58. See Pesch, Markusevangelium, I, p. 4.

59. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 185-205; Jesus and the Zealots,
pp. 167-282.
60. Radcliffe,' "The Coming of the Son of Man'", pp. 167-89.
fact that during the persecutions Christians had reported fellow Chris-
tians to the authorities. What more natural, then, than that those who
had survived the persecutions should have agonizing feelings of frus-
tration and guilt? For that reason they needed figures with whom they
could identify themselves and who could help them come to terms with
their failure. It was in response to this need, says Radcliffe, that the
Gospel of Mark was written. Until then the Christian communities had
communicated by means of letters, but the situation in Rome made the
use of another literary genre necessary, a genre using the form of nar-
rative. The Gospel of Mark is such a narrative. It deals with the theme
of persecutions and refers to the betrayal by relatives (13.12),61 and at
the same time, focuses attention on the theme of failure, presenting its
hearers with many examples of followers of Jesus who fail.
Radcliffe's reconstruction seems to me to be more plausible than
Brandon's proposal. I use the word 'plausible' because, in the absence
of other communications by the author of Mark, certainty with regard
to what occasioned his book is clearly unattainable. If we leave autho-
rial intentions aside, however, and look at the purpose of Mark from the
point of view and situation of the Roman readers, then Radcliffe's hy-
pothesis provides a valuable insight into the way in which the Roman
reader experienced the book between 70 and 80 CE. All in all, his claim
that the situation in Rome after 70 CE occasioned the writing of Mark is
questionable; but that this situation occasioned or at least attributed to
the negative portrayal of the disciples seems to me to have a fair mea-
sure of probability. As human failure is a reality of all times, his view is
also significant for readers today.
One other view deserving consideration is that Mark wrote for a cat-
echetical purpose or was meant to be read at a liturgical assembly. This
thesis has been proposed by B. Standaert, who characterizes the Gospel
as catechesis appointed to be read in its entirety to the catechumens
during the Easter Eve celebration.62 From this perspective he attributes
fascinating meanings to some details in Mark. Several authors sub-
scribe to this view,63 which, however, lacks sufficient extratextual and
61. It is incomprehensible that B.J. Malina, The Social World of Jesus and the
Gospels (London: Routledge, 1996), who discusses both the role of shame and the
importance of family ties for the self-understanding of the ancient inhabitants of the
Mediterranean (esp. pp. 35-96), makes no reference whatever to this passage.
62. Standaert, L 'Evangile selon Marc, pp. 496-618.
63. A. Stock, The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington, DE: Michael
intratextual indications, especially when one refers to authorial inten-

tion.64
Divisions within the Roman Community

Some 15 years earlier Paul had written the Letter to the Romans to a
community of faith in which Gentile Christians were in the majority
and set the tone, but in which Jewish Christians were relatively numer-
ous.65 Only in one section of the letter does Paul address himself to
specific problems of the Roman community, namely in 14.1-15.13. He
clearly mentions the presence of internal divisions, and calls on the
'strong' to show concern for the 'weak'. It is probably too easy to label
the two groups as progressive and conservative Christians, or identify
them exclusively with the Gentile and Jewish Christians of Rome.
One of the divisive issues is about eating and drinking. If Rom. 14.2
really refers to vegetarians in our sense of the word, then we are prob-
ably dealing with Christians of Gentile background who do not eat
meat because they had abstained from meat before their conversion,
like the Pythagoreans, for instance. On the other hand, the combination
of meat and wine in 14.21 is also reminiscent of ancient Jewish Nazirite
traditions, which may well have lived on among the Jewish Christians.
In 14.20-21 the eating of meat and the drinking of wine are connected
with purity laws. Here the scruple concerns the consumption of meat
and wine which have been used in pagan sacrificial rites and are there-
fore unclean and defiling.66 That is, at any rate, an issue on which the
Roman Christians were so much divided that it occasioned Paul to in-
tervene and ask the 'strong', who appealed to the motto 'everything is
clean' (Rom. 14.20), not to insist on being right but to have considera-
tion for the 'weak'. It is exactly that motto, I think, that is a clear indi-
cation of a discussion about the validity of the Jewish purity laws for
Christians. The 'everything is clean' from Rom. 14.20 could well be
Glazier, 1989), pp. 16-18; M. McVann, 'Reading Mark Ritually: Honor-Shame and
the Ritual of Baptism', Semeia 67 (1995), pp. 179-89.
64. See C.S. Lahurd, 'Response to Mark McVann: Exactly What's Ritual about
Hearing/Reading Mark's Gospel?', Semeia 67 (1995), pp. 199-208.
65. See besides Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen, pp. 53-58, Wilckens, Der
Brief an die Romer, I, pp. 33-41.
66. Cf. 1 Cor. 8.1-13; 10.23-11.1.
echoed by Mk 7.19 where the narrator interrupts Jesus' speech with the
comment that he thereby declared all foods clean.
In 14.5-6 of the letter Paul deals with the distinction made by some
members of the community between special and ordinary days. Again it
is not quite clear what Paul has in mind, but he seems to refer to the
observance of the sabbath (cf. Col. 2.16), or to a difference of opinion
about the celebration of the Jewish fasting days. The only fast stipu-
lated in the Torah was the Day of Atonement (Num. 29.7); later on
fasts were observed at times of calamities or in commemoration of
some national tragedy. However, even if Rom. 14.5-6 relates to prob-
lems of a calendaric nature, we still have to address discussions con-
cerning the observance or non-observance of certain ritual laws.
The main theme of Paul's Letter to the Romans—the saving power
of the gospel for both Jew and Greek (1.16-17)—was of vital interest to
every Christian community but especially to the community of Rome.
As the capital of the civilized world, Rome was the most appropriate
place to reflect on topics of general interest and on the relationship be-
tween Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. In this respect there is perhaps
a remarkable equivalence between 'first the children' in Mk 7.27 and
the triple 'first the Jew and then the Gentile' in Rom. 1.16; 2.9, 10.
Finally, it ought to be remembered that not only ordinary members of
the Roman community but also major known figures like Peter and
Paul probably lost their lives in the persecution by Nero. The testimony
of 1 Clement about their martyrdom is widely accepted. This memory
adds an extra note of drama to certain passages about Peter in Mark.
I shall have to consider regularly how these themes are related to
similar themes in Mark. In several passages in Mark there is reference
to oppression and persecution.67 The relations between Jews and Gen-
tiles,68 the purity laws,69 the sabbath70 and fasting71 are other themes in
Mark that deserve to be considered because they were unquestionably
important issues in Rome between 65 and 71 CE.
67. In addition to 13.9-12 and textual signals such as 4.17 and 10.30, see 8.34-
38 and 9.43-49.
68. See 5.1-20; 6.30-8.21; 12.1-12.
.69. See 5.25-34; 7.1-23.
70. See 2.23-3.6.
71. See 2.18-22.
Foreknowledge of the Roman Readers

In conclusion I must raise the question of the foreknowledge presumed
for Mark's Roman readers, if only because it is this rather than any-
thing else that distinguishes the modern from the intended, or at least
the first, Roman audience. This foreknowledge concerns the world-
view, the cultural milieu, and suchlike. On the other hand, Christian
readers of today have in common with the intended Christian readers
that Jesus is no stranger to them, at least in the trivial sense of the word.
It is already clear from the first page of the book that the readers are
people who not only have heard of Jesus but also know so much about
him that the narrator is able to come straight to the point. In other
words, they have already been initiated into the Christian faith.
Additionally, it is clear from the opening lines and many passages of
the Gospel that the author of Mark expects his audience to have at least
a nodding acquaintance with the Old Testament, and then in the Greek
Septuagint version (LXX).72 The Gospel contains not only literal scrip-
tural citations, with and without explicit references, but also unmistak-
able allusions that can be recognized only by readers familiar with the
Old Testament. This implies that the intended readers either had a Jew-
ish upbringing in a Hellenistic environment, or had regularly heard
readings from the Old Testament whether or not at assemblies of the
community. The extent and depth of scriptural knowledge will actually
have varied greatly from individual to individual,73 and in this respect
Christians of Jewish background obviously had the advantage over
their fellow Christians. They could identify the Scripture quotations
and most of the allusions as well, and were therefore able to see a
72. See M. Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
(JSOTSup, 206; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
73. Juel (A Master of Surprise, pp. 134-36) turns things round. He assigns to the
implied reader all the knowledge that is, in his opinion, displayed by the author.
That is, not only knowledge of the Scriptures but also the way the Scriptures were
used in the Jewish community. That raises at least three questions. The first ques-
tion is whether it is methodologically justified to ascribe all knowledge displayed
by the author to the implied reader as well. The second is the classic question of
whether rabbinic interpretive methods employed later may be simply attributed to
the preceding period. The third question is whether it is acceptable to equate what
scholars have found out about this in the twentieth century with the knowledge and
skills of the implied reader.
dimension in Mark that probably escaped those who were less familiar
with the Old Testament. That is why the early period knew more and
less profound readings.74
What Mark's readers are not expected to know, however, is the geog-
raphy of Palestine. Anyone who tries to retrace the journeys of Jesus on
a modern map is bound to run into difficulties. In the days of Mark
maps were very rare, and, more important, geographical representations
were quite unlike those applied in cartography today. For that reason
present-day readers would be wise to content themselves with a few
summary facts such as the difference between Galilee with some small
towns, on the one hand, and Judaea with the capital Jerusalem, on the
other, and a rough idea of the relative place of the Sea of Galilee, of
Jericho, Tyre and Sidon.
In common with most Christian readers today, the intended readers
had little knowledge of Jewish customs. At any rate, the author of the
book reckons seriously with the possibility that many of his audience
are unfamiliar with them, as is particularly clear from 7.2 and 7.3-5.
It will not have escaped the reader's notice that some of the things
here mentioned are inconsistent with one another, most notably the
supposed knowledge of the Old Testament in the Septuagint version
and the non-Jewish background of the supposed readers. The problem
cannot be solved, in my opinion, by referring to an authorial audience
of proselytes. The supposed knowledge of the Old Testament can only
be acquired by long-term familiarity and not by short-term acquain-
tance. The tension between these two elements is a counter-indication
of the view defended here, but I do not see how it may be solved with-
out causing other problems.
Summary
The view that Mark was written for Christians in Rome before or in 70
CE cannot be proved beyond question, but is easier to argue than other
hypotheses for the origin of Mark. Even if the book was not written in
Rome, there can be little doubt, however, that Roman Christians read
the book at about that time and connected it with their own experiences.
The explanation given in this commentary can, of course, only address
readers of today. The Gospel of Mark is written in such a vigorous and
lively way that we tend to forget that it is an old book, intended for
74. I will return to this in Chapter 3.

people in a situation wholly different from ours. Yet it is better not to

neglect the gap in time and keep those Roman readers in mind. Some
knowledge of the literary conventions of the time and what the first
readers had experienced can bring out meanings that would otherwise
remain hidden.
Chapter 3
MARK AND THE OLD TESTAMENT
Even the reader who takes no more than a quick glance at the first lines
of Mark's Gospel cannot fail to notice that they contain a reference to
another book, called 'the prophet Isaiah' (1.2). This explicit reference
activitates the reader's sensitivity to intertextual effects and makes him
or her receptive to other possible quotations and allusions in the book.
In the lines that follow, the reader who is sufficiently familiar with the
Old Testament will recognize allusions to Zech. 13.4 and 2 Kgs 1.8 (in
1.6), to Ezek. 1.1 (in 1.10), and, at the point where the voice from
heaven makes itself heard, a cluster of allusions derived from Gen.
22.2, Ps. 2.7, andlsa. 42.1 and62.4 (in 1.11).
Explicit and Implicit Quotations, Allusions

When the reader has finished the book, he or she will have come across
a whole network of Scripture quotations. Limiting myself to the quota-
tions indicated as such in the margin of the text edition by Nestle,1 I
count thirteen formal quotations, of which three are provided with a
reference to 'the Scripture' (twice with yeypa7CTai, in 11.17 and 14.27,
and once with f) ypa(|>f|, in 12.10), seven with a reference to a book by
an author or to the author himself (two to a book, namely, Isaiah in 1.2;
Moses in 12.26; five to the author, namely, Isaiah in 7.6; Moses in 7.10;
10.6; 12.19; David in 12.36), and three with a reference to 'the com-
mandments' (cd evxoXai, in 10.19; f] evxoA,f| in 12.28, 31).
These formal quotations are taken from the following books of the
Old Testament:
1. E. Nestle and K. Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 26th edn, 1979).
3. Mark and the Old Testament 59
1.2 Malachi3.1
1.3 Isaiah 40.3
7.10 Exodus 20.12; 21.17; Deuteronomy 5.16; Leviticus 20.9
10.6-8 Genesis 1.27; 2.24; 5.2
10.19-20 Exodus 20.12-16; Deuteronomy 5.16-20; Sirach 4.1
11.17 Isaiah 56.7
12.10-11 Psalm 118.22-23
12.26 Exodus 13.6
12.29-30 Deuteronomy 6.4-5; Joshua 22.5
12.31 Leviticus 19.18
12.36 Psalm 110.1
14.27 Zechariah 13.7
In addition to these explicit quotations from the Old Testament, a

reader well versed in the Old Testament will recognize a number of
implicit quotations. In Nestle the following places are marked as such
in italics:
4.12 Isaiah 6.9-10
4.32 Psalm 103.12
6.34 Numbers 27.17, etc.
8.18 Jeremiah 5.21; Ezekiel 12.2 or Isaiah 6.10
9.11 Malachi 3.23
9.48 Isaiah 66.24
11.9-10 Psalms 118.25-26; 148.1
11.17-18 Isaiah 56.7; Jeremiah 7.11
12.32-33 Deuteronomy 4.35; 6.4-5; LXX Joshua 22.5; Isaiah 45.21
13.14 Daniel 11.31; 12.11
13.24-25 Isaiah 13.10; 34.4
13.26 Daniel 7.13-14
14.34 Psalms 42.6,12; 43.5
14.62 Daniel 7.13
15.24 Psalm 22.19
15.34 Psalm 22.2
All these quotations are without exception from the Torah, the Prop-
hets, and the Psalms. Depending on his or her knowledge of the Old
Testament, the reader will also recognize many allusions to it. These,
too, are quite numerous, as is clear from the list of allusions in Nestle,2
even though one may feel doubtful about the inclusion of some and the
omission of others.
2. Nestle and Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, pp. 739-75.

Specific Passages from the Old Testament

From all this it is evident that the Gospel should be read against the
background of the Old Testament. A. Suhl has shown, however, that
neither the scheme of prediction and fulfilment nor the paradigm of sal-
vation history play a part in the book, which means that the quotations
are never used as scriptural proof in the strict sense of the word.3 To
quote Suhl's conclusion: 'Markus benutzt das Alte Testament als quali-
fizierte Sprache zur Interpretation' ('Mark uses the Old Testament as
the appropriate language for interpretation').4 After Suhl, numerous au-
thors have raised the question of the function of Old Testament quota-
tions and allusions in Mark. A number of their proposals will be briefly
considered.5
One group of scholars sees a connection between the synagogue
cycle of readings from the Torah and the Prophets on the one hand and
the episodes of Mark on the other. Ever since Ph. Carrington suggested
that the kefalaia-division of Codex B was a system of directions for the
liturgical use of pericopes,6 others have offered similar suggestions.7
3. A. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im

Markusevangelium (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965).
4. Suhl, Zitate, p. 169.
5. For a survey see W.M. Swartley, Israel's Scripture Traditions and the Syn-
optic Gospels: Story Shaping Story (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 9-31.
6. Ph. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study of the Making of
the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).
7. See the only partly overlapping surveys in D. Monshouwer, Markus en de
Torah: Een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen het evangelie en de synagogale
lezingen in de eerste eeuw (Kampen: Kok, 1987), pp. 124-33, and Swartley, Scrip-
ture Traditions, pp. 16-19. The most recent variant is L. Hartman's 'Das Mark-
usevangelium, "fur die lectio solemnis im Gottesdienst abgefaBt?'", in H. Lichten-
berger (ed.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reftexion. III. Friihes Christentum (Festschrift
Martin Hengel; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996), pp. 147-71. The author answers the
question of the title in the affirmative. In support of his view he refers to features
distinguishing the book from a pioq: the biblical character of the language, the
kola-structure, the book's focus on Jesus' role as saviour, and a composition that
makes it easy to use the episodes separately. For the situation in which these
episodes could have functioned, he refers to the assemblies of which Col. 3.16
speaks. The expression Xoyoq Xpiaxoa) could refer, via Col. 1.5-6 (6 X6yoc,...xox)
e\)cxYYeA,io'u), to the reading from the Gospel. In addition, Hartman could have
pointed to Mk 4.14-33, where 6 tayyog can also refer to the message about Jesus.
This does not alter the fact that I do not find the proposal convincing. Although the
Two remarks by J. van Goudoever express the widely shared sceptism

about the lectionary hypotheses regarding Mark: 'It cannot be proved
that the Church of the first century read the Gospels each Sunday. Even
less can it be proved that Mark's Gospel is meant to be read each Sun-
day.'8
Without referring to a given cycle of readings, other scholars are of
the opinion that the author of Mark was guided in his work by particu-
lar Old Testament texts. Proponents of this view are J.D.M. Derrett,
W. Roth, H. Humphrey and W.M. Swartley.
J.D.M. Derrett thinks that for the intertextual infrastructure of Mark
special significance should be attached to Lamentations, attributed to
Jeremiah in the Septuagint.9 According to Derrett, they can be read ret-
rospectively (with a reference to the ruins of Jerusalem, destroyed in
586 BCE) and statically (with submission to the deserved punishment),
but also prospectively and dynamically. Then they point the way from
punishment to repentance, and from repentance to reconciliation and
salvation. This reading, which is in line with Isaiah and the Psalms,
agrees with the attitude of the Jewish martyrs, as this comes to expres-
sion in 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees. Derrett refers to the following
places in Mark where the background of Lamentations would be par-
ticularly recognizable: 2.39 (Lam. 4.18); 8.36 (Lam. 1.12, 21; 2.1, 22);
10.30 (Lam. 4.18-19); 13.20 (Lam. 3.22-26; 4.18); the passages about
Judas 3.19, 9.31 and 14.41 (Lam. 1.14); 13.35 (Lam. 2.19); 14.65
(Lam. 3.30); 15.17 (Lam. 3.5); 15.29-32 (Lam. 1.12; 2.15) and 15.40
(Lam. 3.53).10
The question one should ask, however, is whether this infrastructure
is clear enough to be recognized by the reader. After all, in most cases
episodic structure as such supports Hartman's view, the fact that the name 'Jesus' is
often lacking right at the beginning of an episode, and a number of episodes—some
of them of considerable length—do not mention the name at all, argues against it:
1.29-45 (see, however, the variant with the proper name in 1.41); 2.23-28; 3.1-6;
3.13-4.41; 6.6-13; 6.35-56; 7.1-8.13; 9.14-27 (where the name does not appear
until the final verse!). That is why the current liturgical pericope books have added
the name at the beginning of a pericope.
8. J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars (Leiden: E J . Brill, 2nd edn, 1961),
p. 241.
9. J.D.M. Derrett, The Making of Mark: The Scriptural Bases of the Earliest
Gospel (3 vols.; Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1985), I, pp. 26-27.
10. Derrett, The Making of Mark, H, pp. 301-302, 306.
the lexical agreements are few in number and inconclusive. In Mk

15.29, for instance, oircaparcopeDOêvoi(the passers-by) would refer
the reader to Lam. 1.12, but since the term is also found in Jer. 18.16
and Pss. 79.12 and 88.41, its evidential value is limited. Along with KI-
vowxeq T&C; Kecâ^dq (shaking their heads), oi TiapaTcopevonevoi could
also refer to oi rcaparcope'uoiievoi who eidvriaav xfiv KeâAriv amcav
in Lam. 2.15 if these phrases did not occur in such a different context
and the two places were not so contrary in content: in Lam. 2.15 people
wag their heads at Jerusalem, whereas in Mk 15.29 the Jerusalemite
temple authorities shake their heads at the crucified Jesus. Rather than
to Lamentations, the words in Mk 15.29 contain a reference to Ps. 22.8
where it is the enemies who shake their heads at their victim. In Mk
15.17—to give another example—there is not a single element that also
occurs in Lam. 3.5. Most of the other places cited by Derrett contain, as
a rule, no lexemes similar enough to those in the passages from Lamen-
tations to establish a literary relation between them. That is true at least
of Mk 2.39; 3.19; 8.36; 9.31; 13.20; 14.41, 65; and 15.17, 40. In fact,
the reader of Mark hardly receives any impulses from the text to use
Lamentations as intertext.11
W. Roth is of the opinion that the story about John the baptist and
Jesus has been modelled on the narratives about Elijah and Elisha in
1 Kings 7-2 Kings 13.12 He refers to identical paradigms and corre-
sponding numbers, as well as to identical and related word combi-
nations. The similarities cited are numerous, but exactly for that reason
far from convincing. Some similarities are rather arbitrary, for example,
the number of 16 miracles in Mk 1.23-7.37, which would agree with
the same number in 2 Kgs 2.13.13 Other similarities are far-fetched and
hardly recognizable to the general reader, for example, the similarity
between the call of the first followers in 1.16-20 and the motif that
Roth describes as 'the disclosure of the good news and its four bearers',
which could be developed in the story of the four lepers in 2 Kgs 7.3-
16.14 He underlines elsewhere—and in this case rightly—the similari-
11. This is confirmed by the lack of any reference to Lamentations in Nestle's

apparatus to Mark.
12. W. Roth, Hebrew Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark (Oak Park: Meyer-
Stone, 1988).
13. Roth, Hebrew Gospel, pp. 5-8.
14. Roth, Hebrew Gospel, p. 49. See also Swartley, Scripture Traditions,
pp. 20-21 nn. 59-61.
ties between 1.16-20 and 2.14 and the call of Elisha in 1 Kgs 19.19-21.
However, these similarities should rather be seen as a counter-indica-
tion of Roth's thesis that the prophetic duo Elijah and Elisha has served
as a model for the pair John and Jesus, for, while Elisha is called by
Elijah, Jesus is not called by John. Actually, it is Jesus who calls a
number of people to follow him. According to Mark, Jesus follows not
in Elisha's but in Elijah's footsteps, which seems to me to be irrecon-
cilable with Roth's view.
H.M. Humphrey favours the view that the wisdom literature and the
Wisdom of Solomon in particular form the most important Jewish back-
ground for the interpretation of Mark.15 A comparison of the Greek par-
allels (found in the Appendix to Humphrey's book16) with the Greek
texts of Wisdom and Mark leads to the conclusion, however, that the
lexical similarities are confined to passages relating to the persecution
and vindication of the righteous.17 In the other places in Mark cited by
Humphrey there are no clear verbal resemblances to Wisdom. Of
course it is possible to read Mark against the background of the wisdom
literature, but the view that reading Mark against that background
would do more justice to the Gospel than reading it against the back-
ground of other Old Testament texts is insufficiently grounded.
W.M. Swartley's study is not confined to Mark, but relates to all
three synoptics.18 In his view they have the same intertextual infrastruc-
ture, which comprises the following four thematic clusters from the Old
Testament:19 the Exodus-Sinai tradition, the entry-conquest theme, and
the themes of temple and kingship. Most remarkable is the way in
which he connects these four themes with the opposition present in
Mark and the other synoptics between Galilee and Jerusalem. Swartley
finally summarizes his view as follows:
I propose that the Synoptic Gospels in their bipolar structure of Galilee
and Jerusalem, reflect the northern and southern settings of the origins
and development of Israel's major faith traditions. A direct correlation of
emphases is evident in the Synoptic narrative pattern. The Galilean and
15. Humphrey, He is Risen!.

16. Humphrey, He is Risen!, pp. 161-77.
17. Especially Wis. 2.10-20 and 5.1-13.
18. Swartley, Scripture Traditions.
19. In this context he always refers to 'the Hebrew Bible', thus overlooking the
important role played by the Greek Septuagint translation in the synoptics, espe-
cially in the case of Mark.
journey sections develop Israel's northern traditions of exodus-libera-

tion, Torah-instruction, and way-conquest; the prepassion and passion
narratives located in Jerusalem develop Israel's southern traditions of
temple and kingship.20
It will be clear without further explanation that these conclusions—
whether true or untrue, it makes no difference—are of little relevance to
the original or present-day audience. They are not based on actual or
possible reading experiences, but on conclusions drawn from scholarly
research, which relate not to the texts themselves but to their situations
of origin. Even if Swartley's views were more than a hypothesis, they
do not belong to the domain of readerly competence but to the field of
study or research.
All these views reflect the personal preferences of their authors and
offer interesting reading possibilities, but they do not stand up to a crit-
ical examination and therefore cannot claim to be generally valid.
These and similar attempts to define Old Testament intertextuality con-
fine themselves to particular parts or themes and can therefore be char-
acterized as reductionist or specific. It seems to me that over against
such views it is possible to place an approach which, by analogy, may
be called holistic and generic.
A Generic Approach
The untenability of the attempts considered above is particularly clear
from the way in which they ignore the presence of the formal citations
in Mark. These citations illustrate the author's general familiarity with
the whole of the Old Testament, which he could obviously quote from
and allude to according to his needs, as is confirmed by the list of cita-
tions and allusions included in Nestle. The variety of quotations and
allusions admits of only one conclusion, namely that the author of
Mark had in mind the books from the Torah ascribed to Moses, those of
the Prophets, especially Isaiah, and the Psalms of David as well.
Elijah and Elisha

This is not to deny that certain Old Testament passages play a promi-
nent part in the Gospel. That is definitely true of the Elijah-Elisha
cycle, and of the figure of Elijah in particular. Perhaps this also helps to
20. Swartley, Scipture Traditions, p. 271.

explain why in Mk 9.4 Elijah is mentioned before Moses, and why Eli-
jah's name, in contrast to that of Elisha, which does not occur in Mark,
is mentioned more often than any other Old Testament name.21 The
following list contains the agreements between Mark and the Elijah-
Elisha cycle which cannot escape even the superficial reader.
Mark Theme 1 Kings 2 Kings
1.6 the prophet's cloak and the leather belt 1.8
1.9 by and in the Jordan 2.6-18
1.13 in the loneliness of the wilderness 17.2-6
1.13 food supplied by heavenly messengers 19.1-8
1.14-15 the message of the prophet 18.21 1.6-7
1.16-20 the calling of helpers/successors 19.19-21
1.40-50 healing of a leper 5.1-14
5.21 -43 restoration to life of a dead child 17.17-24 4.8-37
6.17-29 death threat on the part of the court 18.1-19.18 6.32-33
6.35-44 little food for many /much is left 4.42-44
8.1-8 little food for many /much is left 4.42-44
12.1-9 blood and murder around a vineyard 21 9.30-37
16.1-8 death does not have the last word 2.1-14 13.20-21
The equivalence between John and the returned Elijah is emphasized

both by Jesus (9.11-13) and the narrator (1.6), but, as I have already
pointed out, that does not imply that Jesus, who comes after John as
Elisha comes after Elijah, is seen as a second Elisha by Mark. There
are, after all, a number of episodes in which Jesus is seen to perform
actions that show a strong resemblance to actions performed by Elijah.
The relationships are definitely more complicated than in Roth's pre-
sentation. The Elijah-Elisha cycle may also have been used as a model
by Mark because it gives no information about the youth of the two
prophets, and relates their career in relatively short episodes that do not
refer to each other. The intertextual relationship between Mark and the
passages from 1 and 2 Kings is perhaps best described as follows: the
author of Mark viewed the Elijah-Elisha cycle as an example that
helped him devise a life story of Jesus arranged in episodes, or, to quote
Suhl a second time, 'Markus benutzt das Alte Testament als quali-
fizierte Sprache zur Interpretation'.
One other point to be made here concerns the placing of the citations
and allusions in Mark. In this respect the narrative and spoken text
show a remarkable difference. The citations and allusions that are taken
21. Mk 6.15; 8.28; 9.2-13; 15.35-36.

from the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms occur, almost invariably,
in the spoken text, usually in the spoken text of Jesus, and exception-
ally in that of other characters.22 Only three times out of a total of
twenty-three does the narrator use a citation or allusion.23 In the case of
the allusions to the Elijah-Elisha narrative the proportions are exactly
the opposite. Only the allusions in the parable of the vineyard (12.1-12)
appear in the spoken text and are uttered by Jesus. All the other allu-
sions from the above list are to be found in the narrative text. One can
therefore say without exaggeration that this cycle has served as a model
for elements in the story about Jesus.
Reading with and without Intertext

Numerous events and sayings receive an extra value when Mark is read
with these Old Testament passages in mind. This raises a difficult
question because it means that readers unfamiliar with the Torah, the
Prophets and the Psalms, not to mention 1 and 2 Kings, are unable to
realize the meanings that presume this knowledge. It is interesting to
observe that the majority of readers today share this inability with the
non-Jewish readers of the Gospel in Rome between 70 and 80 CE. The
importance of the reader's knowledge of these Old Testament texts can
be illustrated by the following examples. Someone unacquainted with
the Elijah cycle has no means of inferring from the way in which
John's clothes are described in v. 1.6 that the baptist is presented as the
second Elijah because he answers the description of the prophet in 2
Kgs 1.8. Such a reader will also be unable to realize how mistaken is
the identification of Jesus with Elijah, to which Jesus' disciples refer in
6.15a. Similarly, the allusions to the disobedient Old Testament prophet
Jonah in the story about the first crossing are lost on the reader who
does not know the book devoted to him. As the understanding of a per-
son is partly accomplished through seeing agreements and differences
between other persons it will be more difficult for such readers to an-
swer the crucial question posed in 4.41: 'Who is this man exactly?'
This problem is perhaps best solved by recognizing that every text,
every story, and every book is not only understood by every reader in
his or her own way, but that in addition to this more qualitative aspect
22. In the mouth of Jesus: 4.12, 32; 7.10; 8.48; 10.6-8; 11.17-18; 12.10-11, 29-
30, 36; 13.24-26; 14.27, 34, 62; 15.34; of other characters: 9.11; 11.9-10; 12.32-33.
23. 1.2; 6.34; 15.24.
the problem also has a more quantitative aspect. Depending on their

competency, readers will understand more or less of the book. Those
who do not know the language concerned, for example, cannot under-
stand anything at all unless they have a translation at their disposal.
Something similar is true of the rules of the genre of a book. Someone
who reads an instruction manual as a story is bound to be deceived.
That also applies to someone who reads a classical pioq (life) as if it
were a modern biography. Similarly, readers unaware of intertextual
references in the text do not read the text as it is meant to be read, or at
least understand less than someone who knows the intertext and is able
to identify references to it. This is not to say that such readers are un-
able to understand the story; the internal structure of Mark's narrative,
the recurring themes, the interactions between the story characters, the
plot of the story and suchlike are understandable without such knowl-
edge. However, the reader who knows many other texts can establish
many links which deepen and increase understanding. That is especially
true of the intertexts to which the author refers the reader through
explicit and implicit quotations and recognizable allusions.
Summary
Summarizing the above account of the relationships between Mark and
the Old Testament I conclude that the better the readers know the Old
Testament, the more they recognize in Mark. The view that the author
listened exclusively or principally to a specific part of the Old Testa-
ment, for example, Lamentations, is inconsistent with the fact that
Mark's text refers to very different books of the Old Testament. It is
obvious, however, that the author derived inspiration from some texts
rather than others. First among these are the Elijah-Elisha narrative and
a number of Psalms.
Chapter 4
A COMPOSITION IN LINES AND CIRCLES
The last introductory chapter is concerned with the composition of the

Gospel. This is one of the many subjects in Markan research on which
scholars are divided. The extent of the division is clear from the fact
that some see the book as an unstructured collection of anecdotes,
while others regard it as a whole, well constructed to the smallest de-
tail.
Story-lines
I noted in Chapter 2 the observation by Papias's elder that Mark wrote
things down accurately, although not in order (oii jiievTOi xdêi). It is
far from clear what he meant, but his words cannot be understood to
mean that the book is merely a collection of anecdotes that have no
relation to one another except that they are about the same main charac-
ter. It is no less an exaggeration to say that the chronology, for instance,
is limited to John baptizing at the Jordan, Jesus' successful ministry in
Galilee, and his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. A less important
action like the taking on of fellow workers is also told at the appropri-
ate point. Jesus first calls four fishermen, who will continue to function
as a kind of inner circle, and subsequently a larger group of followers;
from this large group he then singles out twelve men to act as his close
assistants; later he sends the twelve on a practice mission; after com-
pleting it successfully, they return to Jesus to report back to him.
Something similar is the case with Jesus' opponents. They are also in-
troduced gradually, but at a faster pace than the supporters.
In addition to this, the author sometimes establishes links between
episodes that stand at some distance from one another. Thus, through
one of Jesus' sayings about all the parables in 4.13 he refers to the
parables that are still to follow, including the one recounted in 12.1-9.
4. A Composition in Lines and Circles 69
In 8.18-21, he has Jesus connect the two mass meals of chs. 6 and 8 and
complain about the disciples' incomprehension, one of the basic threads
running through the story. This is not to deny that entire parts of the
first half of the book in particular make a structureless impression.
Thus, some of the healing stories seem to be interchangeable as far as
their place in the book is concerned.
That does not alter the fact that the book contains at least one and
probably two plots with recognizable taut story-lines. The first lies
at the level of the narrated public events and concerns the opponents
whose fierce and intensifying opposition to Jesus eventually leads to his
death. The second lies at the level of the understanding and relates to
the disciples who do not to understand the man they have followed and
when things come to a head, desert him or even contribute to his down-
fall. In a sense, the two story lines finally converge in the voice an-
nouncing Jesus' resurrection and telling the disciples that he will go
ahead of them in Galilee (16.7).
Lines as well as Circles?

As a story contains, almost by definition, a sequence of events, is it not
better to leave it at this and not go on looking for other structures in the
book? There are two reasons why we should look further. The first rea-
son is found within and the second outside the book, and this has to do
with the literary conventions of the time.
One of the characteristics of Mark is that two episodes are sometimes
connected to form what used to be called a 'sandwich construction'.1 It
means that one episode is embedded into another, like the filling be-
tween two slices of bread. Of the six or seven generally accepted cases
I give two examples. In 11.12-14 the reader hears Jesus say to a fig tree
that has leaves but no fruit that it will never bear figs again. In 11.15-19
Jesus drives the traders out of the Temple because they have turned the
house of prayer into a den of robbers. Then, in 11.20-21, the first story
continues, with Peter's observation that the fig tree has withered to the
roots. To explain this typical construction one could say that the first
story is interrupted to allow time for the fig tree to wither, even if Jesus'
1. Whether it was part of a greater number of textual devices characterized by

repetition or duality need not be considered here. See the exhaustive description of
these phenomena in F. Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the
Markan Redaction (BETL, 31; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2nd edn, 1988).
words are instantly effective elsewhere (with the obvious exception of

the healing recounted in 8.22-26). It is hardly possible to attribute the
same function to the story of the healing of the woman with the haem-
orrhage, which is told between the first and second part of the story
about the healing of Jairus's daughter in 5.22-24 and 5.35-43. It could
have been inserted at any point where Jesus is surrounded by a crowd,
for instance in 3.9-12 or 4.1.
The reader who has noticed this will find other cases where there is
no question of an episode being interrupted, but where two related epi-
sodes frame one or several other episodes. In these cases, too, we can
speak of an a-b-a construction. An example of this is the concentric
pattern formed by the two episodes about the healing of a blind man in
8.22-26 and 10.46-52, which frame the central part of the book where
Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem.
However strange it may seem to us, it is a historical fact that in semi-
literate cultures it was natural to structure texts in this way. In the
Graeco-Roman world of the time this compositional device was ob-
served under the names of hysteron proteron ('the latter first'), prohys-
teron and hysterologia,2 and pupils were schooled in it.3 They had to
learn the alphabet not just forwards and backwards but also in pairs of
2. Thus J.W. Welch (ed.), Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exe-

gesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981), p. 14. He cites as examples Cicero, Atticus
1.16.1, the Roman commentators Servius and Donatus, and the scholiast Aristar-
chus, Scholia A on Odyssey 56, the Scholia Euripides Orestes 702, and the Scholia
Euripides Phoenissae 887.
3. See H.I. Marrou, Histoire de Veducation dans Vantiquite (Paris: Du Seuil,
6th edn, 1965), pp. 229-34, 251-52, 400-15. On chiastic constructions see N.W.
Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1942); C.H. Lohr, 'Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew', CBQ 23
(1961), pp. 403-35; S. Bar-Efrat, 'Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure
and Biblical Narrative', VT30 (1980), pp. 154-73; Welch (ed.), Chiasmus in Antiq-
uity; D.J. Clark, 'Criteria for Identifying Chiasm', LB 35 (1975), pp. 65-72; A. Di
Marco, 'Der Chiasmus in der Bibel', LB 36 (1975), pp. 21-97; 37 (1976), pp. 49-
68; 39 (1976), pp. 37-85; 44 (1979), pp. 3-70; J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate:
Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1-3:6 (SBLDS,
48; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 29-39; Rhoads and Michie, Mark as
Story, pp. 51-55; Fowler, Loaves and Fishes, pp. 47-49, 69-71, 164-65; Reader, pp.
151-52; J. Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and
Beyond (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994).
the first and last letter (alpha-omega, beta-psi, etc., up to and including
mu-nu).4
This way of composing a text need not have started as a literary de-
vice or a figure of speech, but may have resulted from the need to di-
vide a text into coherent segments.5 Ancient manuscripts had barely
any of the visible indications such as new pages, different letter types,
headings, blank lines, punctuation, and so on, that are used today to
divide a text into parts, chapters, paragraphs and sentences. Therefore,
readers in antiquity needed some other means to guide them through
the text. Moreover, as reading was done aloud and reading was nearly
always to an audience, they needed such help perhaps even more than
we do today. It is therefore probable that the concentric structures
found in much ancient literature were originally a structuring and mne-
monic device, which had the function of helping reciters structure the
text for their listeners.6
The various forms of concentric composition all have one common
characteristic: the crosswise repetition of one or several elements,
usually placed around one element in the middle. It is evident that the
efficiency of such a structuring device is proportionate to the recogniz-
ability of the concentric structures concerned. It is equally evident that
if the construction increases in complexity and length it will be more
4. It is precisely because the concentric structure of texts will have been ham-
mered into their heads at school that they would automatically have applied the de-
vice to their own writings. In the absence of any communications from the author
of Mark there is really no evidence for the opinion of Breck (The Shape, p. 171)
that 'Mark, like most biblical authors, is fully aware of the structure he gives to his
writing'.
5. This also answers Fowler's sceptical remark that 4nowhere in the ancient
handbooks of rhetoric or poetics is chiasm as such ever discussed' (Reader, p. 152).
See also Welch, Chiasmus, p. 14, and Breck, The Shape, p. 59.
6. If this view is correct then the chiastic structure proposed by M.P. Scott,
'Chiastic Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of Mark's Gospel', BTB 15 (1985),
pp. 17-26, has no function for the organization of the written text. He structures the
book around the two questions of 3.33 and 12.35, and sees the statement of 9.7 both
as the answer to these questions and as the centre of the book, around which the
other components are concentrically arranged. Breck (The Shape, pp. 15-66) does
not accept this structure. He refers, among other things, to the forced character of
the parallel between thefirstelement, 4(1.2) An angel witnesses to his coming', and
the last, '(16.6) An angel witnesses to his going', pointing out that 1.2 is about John
the baptist, and only 16.6 about an angel. He overlooks, however, that not the
veaviaKoq but John is called an
difficult for reciters and readers to recognize it. This is, of course, even
more true of present-day readers who are not used to this phenomenon
and whose ability to appropriate a text aurally has decreased and in
some respects even disappeared.
Concentric Structures at Micro- and Mesolevel

The presence of concentric structures at the microlevel of Mark's text
has long been recognized. In a number of cases the structure is so evi-
dent that there is no room for a difference of opinion. Concentric struc-
tures are found at the microlevel of one episode and at the mesolevel of
a combination of episodes.7 The two call stories in 1.16-18 and 1.19-20
are examples of concentrically composed episodes. See Figure 4.
1— Jesus is on his way 1.16a 1.19a

1— he sees people working at their trade 1.16b 1.19b
he calls upon them to follow him 1.17 1.20a
1— they give up their livelihood 1.18a 1.20b
— and follow Jesus on his way 1.18b 1.20c
Figure 4
In other cases two episodes are telescoped, or three episodes are so con-
nected with one another that a concentric combination arises which can
be represented by the formula a-b-a or a^b-a 2 . The reader will not
find it difficult to identify the seven combinations in Figure 5.
a - b a
relatives-enemies-new family 3.20-21 22-30 31-35

healing of a woman and a girl 5.21-24 25-34 35-43
sending out-John's death-return 6.7-13 14-29 3O[-31]
fig tree-Temple-fig tree 11.12-14 15-18 20-25
plotting-anointing-betrayal 14.1-2 3-9 10-11
Peter-Jesus-Peter's denial 14.53-54 55-65 66-72
sentence-mockery-execution 15.6-15 16-20 21-32
Figure 5
7. Breck gives the concentric structure of practically all episodes (The Shape,
Several authors have also pointed to the concentric composition of

larger sections at the mesolevel of the text. 8 1 will occasionally do the
same in this commentary. As is to be expected, the proposed structures
differ considerably, because—as can be seen above—at mesolevel it is
possible for readers to connect passages in more ways than one, with-
out it being clear which one is preferable. It is possible, however, to
formulate criteria by which the various segmentations and connections
can be weighed against each other.9 These criteria are diverse in
character depending on whether they apply to the segmentation of the
text into episodes or to the linking of episodes, because, like a word in
a grammatical sentence, an episode need not always be semantically
connected primarily with the two nearest segments.
For the segmentation of a longer text into episodes we should take
into consideration things like the transition to a different type of text
(for example, from narrative text, in which the narrator himself is
speaking, to a longer discourse of a character), changes of place or
time, changes in the constellation of story characters or the action, the
transition to another theme. Linking episodes with one another is more
complicated, if only because the relation between two episodes may
also be contrary or contradictory. With respect to the question of which
episodes are connected with one another within a concentric arrange-
ment, we can apply such criteria as identical or equivalent words, simi-
lar forms and sounds, identical or similar semantic contents, similarity
pp. 144-64). He notes in this context that 9.33-50 and 11.20-25 are not concentri-
cally structured because they derive from a source (p. 164). This seems to me to be
a thoughtless remark because it implies that all or most other episodes do not derive
from a source, and that concentric patterning is a characteristic of Mark and does
not occur elsewhere. Besides, why could the author of Mark not have reshaped the
episodes transmitted to him?
8. See, for example, F.G. Lang, 'Kompositionsanalyse des Markusevangeli-
ums\ ZTK 74 (1977), pp. 1-24; Di Marco, 'Der Chiasmus', LB 39 (1976), pp. 37-
85 (57-61); L.F.X. Brett, 'Suggestions for an Analysis of Mark's Arrangement',
in C.S. Mann (ed.), Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary (AB, 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 174-90; W. Stenger, '"Die
Grundlegung des Evangeliums von Jesus Christus": Zur kompositionellen Struktur
des Markusevangeliums', LB 61 (1988), pp. 7-56; Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, pp.
311-15; Humphrey, He is Risen!, pp. 1-5.
9. See particularly Lund, Chiasmus, pp. 40-41; Clark, 'Criteria'; B. van Iersel,
'Concentric Structures in Mark 2,1-3,6 and 3,7-4,1: A Case Study', in C. Focant
(ed.), The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism
(BETL, 110; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), pp. 521-30.
in the characters involved and similarity in their actions, and so on.

When there is a choice between several connections, as is often the
case, the preferable connection is the one supported by the strongest,
most numerous, and most easily identifiable text signals. Thus, rare
words produce a stronger signal than words with a high frequency,
identical words are stronger than synonyms, and identical forms
stronger than declined or inflected forms. Examples of the application
of these criteria are found in Chapters 6, 10 and 12 which deal with the
structure of the three main parts.
I mention two examples of a concentric composition at mesolevel
here, because they lead to the question in the next section of whether
the concentric principle can or should also be assigned a structuring
role at the macrolevel of the whole book. The presence of two—and no
more than two—large portions of spoken text in the book is, after all,
quite remarkable (4.3-32 and 13.5-37). Due to their function and form,
they have a special status that clearly distinguishes them from the narra-
tive text around them. For this reason and because they are easily rec-
ognizable, these two parts perform a structural function in the book.10
Their position is significant too. The first discourse stands at more or
less the same distance from the beginning of the book (roughly 218
lines according to the Greek text edition of Nestle) as the second stands
from the end (210 lines).11 In addition, the two sections each form the
clear centre of a major part of the book—the parable discourse of the
part set in Galilee, the eschatological discourse of the Jerusalem part of
the book. The full argumentation is given in Chapter 6.
10. As far as I am aware, of the older authors only E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu:
Eine Erkldrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen
(Sammlung Topelmann, 2.6; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966), p. 33, has drawn
attention to this.
11. See also Lang, 'Kompositionsanalyse', p. 14, who speaks only of the global
distance from the beginning and end without counting the number of lines. He does
give exact numbers for other parts (p. 13). Of the 1515 lines of the book the double
section 3.7-8.21 has 505 lines (one-third exactly), the middle piece, 8.27-10.45,
252 lines (i.e. one-sixth). The two Jerusalem sections 10.46-13.37 and 14.1-16.8
consist of 280 and 282 lines, respectively. Section 1.14-3.6 comprises 155 lines
(one-tenth). The arithmetic centre of the book lies at the beginning of 9.10.
Concentric Structures at Macrolevel?

If it is correct to say that such large sections are concentrically arranged
around a centre, one wonders if the entire book is perhaps structured in
this way. That the proposed divisions of the book are almost as numer-
ous as the authors proposing them is not encouraging, but it is no rea-
son to abandon another attempt in this new context. It is unfortunate
that of the criteria mentioned above only those for segmenting the text
are applicable, but not those for recognizing connections, while the lat-
ter kind in particular need a convincing argument. Seen over the whole
book there is no change in the configuration of characters until the end
of ch. 14, when all of the twelve have left the stage. Before that point
Jesus, his followers and disciples, his opponents and 'the crowd' are
more or less equally present. In the case of indications of time, usually
the backbone of a narrative, things are different, however. Apart from a
number of occurrences in 11.11-20, they are absent from the larger part
of the book which runs from 1.1 to 13.37, while they are relatively fre-
quent and gradually become more detailed in 14.1 to 16.8, where they
pass from a division into days (14.1, 12; 15.42; 16.1) to a division into
hours (15.1, 6, 25, 33, 42; 16.2). It is clear from this that the passion
narrative presents itself as a separate segment, but that is not something
new.
In contrast to indications of time, indications of place are relatively
numerous, and a number of them are strongly tied to specific parts of
the book.12 It may therefore prove worthwhile to use them as a starting
point for the purpose of structuring the story as a whole.
As early as some 60 years ago it became generally accepted that
Mark is made up of two parts, of which the first takes place in Galilee
and the second in Jerusalem. At that time the reason was attributed to
all sorts of motives other than the desire to structure the story. Before
discussing the division itself, I remind the reader that each part contains
one of the two discourses mentioned above, and that in each case the
discourse is preceded and followed by two different subsections. Before
the discourse of 4.2-34 Jesus manifests himself exclusively in Galilee
and neighbouring regions, and after the discourse, which is addressed
from a boat, Jesus regularly sails to and fro, and continues to do so until
he sets off for Jerusalem. The second discourse, 13.5-37, is preceded by
12. Thus also Lang, 'Kompositionsanalyse', pp. 3-13.

discussions between Jesus and his opponents in the Temple square at

Jerusalem and followed by his arrest, interrogation and execution. Be-
fore I can employ the two locations for further analysis, I must first ex-
amine their structural character.
Galilee and Jerusalem

These two names cannot have the assumed effect on the hearers and
readers of the story unless they have something in common or belong
to the same paradigm. Both are geographical names, albeit that they do
not match perfectly, as Galilee and Judaea would, or Jerusalem and
Alexandria. Jerusalem is the name of a city as well as of a capital, while
Galilee is the name of a region, which is, moreover, located away from
the centre of the country. The two names are distributed over the whole
book, each of them occurring several times in the part devoted to the
other. When Jesus is proclaiming the good news in Galilee, for exam-
ple, his opponents come from Jerusalem (3.22; 7.1), and when Jesus
stands trial in Jerusalem, a servant-girl of the high priest says to Peter,
'Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilaean'. In this way the
two parts are connected and contrasted with one another. It is not sur-
prising, however, that 'Galilee' and 'Jerusalem' occur most frequently
in their own parts, namely in 1.14-10.52 and 11.1-16.8, as is clear
from the following list.
Of the twelve times that 'Galilee' occurs in the story, it is found ten
times in narrative text and twice in spoken text, namely in 14.28 and
16.7. The spoken text refers to what will happen outside and after the
time of the story. Of the ten occurrences in the narrative text seven are
found in the part of the book set in Galilee (1.14-8.21), namely, 1.14,
16, 28, 39; 3.7; 6.21 and 7.3; one of the three remaining occurrences is
in the preceding part, in 1.9 (Jesus leaves Nazareth of Galilee), another
in the next part, in 9.30 (Jesus travels incognito through Galilee), and
the third near the end of the book, in 15.41, from where it points back
to what has happened in Galilee (women who had followed Jesus and
ministered to him when he was in Galilee). Seven of the ten occur-
rences mentioned above have a clear and identical signal function for
the reader: they localize the part of the story concerned in Galilee.
'Jerusalem' occurs ten times in all, and is, in addition, three times
referred to as 'the city' (11.9; 14.13, 16). Of these ten occurrences two
are found in 11.1 and 15.41, which function as a frame around the part
set in Jerusalem (11.1-15.41?), and three are found in between (11.11,

15, 27). Of the five remaining occurrences in the preceding parts of the
book two point forward to the treatment to which Jesus will be sub-
jected by his opponents in Jerusalem (10.32, 33), while two of the three
occurring in the Galilaean part qualify the opponents as people coming
down from Jerusalem (3.22; 7.1), and the one remaining mentions Jeru-
salem among the many regions and towns where people have heard
about Jesus and flock towards him (3.8).
The conclusion is that 'Galilee' and 'Jerusalem' clearly function to
guide the audience through the story. As the story enfolds, the reader
also becomes aware of their thematic importance. A certain opposition
is already given with the geographical references themselves, but the
inherent contrasts between Galilee and Jerusalem are reinforced by the
events located in each. The semantic oppositions of the first kind are
represented in Figure 6, those of the second in Figure 7.
given oppositions
Galilee Jerusalem
remote corner of the country centre of the country

province capital
many synagogues one Temple
inhabited by fishermen, farmers, seat of the Temple authorities and scribes
tax-collectors, of whom many do
not know the law
Figure 6
Thus the book is divided into two main parts, each with its own local
colour and standing in thematic contrast to the other. The first part be-
gins in 1.14 where Jesus returns to Galilee to start his ministry, and the
second in 11.1 where Jesus arrives in the vicinity of Jerusalem. The
question as to where the two parts end will be discussed in the next two
sections.
The Central Part: On the Way

In view both of the contrast between Galilee and its counterpart Jeru-
salem, and the author's predilection for concentric compositions, the
question arises whether the part between them could be the centre of
such a structure. Readers will be disappointed, however, if they expect
oppositions marked by the story
theme Galilee Jerusalem
home of Jesus and his followers of temple authorities

proclamation yes no
fruit much fruit (4.1-20) no fruit (12.1-2)
healings many healings no healings
exorcisms many exorcisms no exorcisms
public responds positively responds negatively
Jesus' authority is acknowledged is rejected
beginning and end beginning of the kingdom end of the Temple
Jesus subject of action object of passion
people Jesus helps people Jesus falls into their hands
disciples follow Jesus desert Jesus
the good news meets with response is smothered in blood
atmosphere euphoria dysphoria
Figure 7
to find evidence for this in geographical names like Galilee or Jeru-

salem. The names and indicators of place found in this part do not seem
to form a well-balanced series: 8.27—the villages of Caesarea Philippi;
9.2—led them up a high mountain; 9.9—down the mountain; 9.28—in
a house; 9.30—through Galilee again but now incognito; 9.33—in a
house at Capernaum; 10.1—on the way to Jerusalem and beyond the
Jordan; 10.32—on the way to Jerusalem; 10.46—arrival at and depar-
ture from Jericho; 11.1—at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of
Olives, in the immediate surroundings of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the
series contains the text signal that the reader is looking for in 10.32:
Jesus is 'on the way... to Jerusalem'. The syntagm also contains the text
signal itself, the word combination 'on the way' or 'on the road' (ev xfi
65<5), which occurs at the beginning and the end, namely in 8.27 and
10.52, as well as between these two places in 9.33, 34; 10.17 (in the
form eiq 686v). Outside this part of the text the combination occurs
only in 8.3 ('if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint
on the way') and 11.8 ('many people spread their cloaks on the road').
'On the way', like 'Galilee' and 'Jerusalem', is a term with a topo-
graphical meaning, but unlike them it is not a geographical name, nor
does it indicate a fixed location. It can apply to different locations, as
long as they are between two villages, cities or countries, or other fixed
places like two mountains or two rivers. 'On the way' refers here to the
different points of the itinerary between Galilee and Jerusalem.
The differences between the central part and the surrounding parts
are represented in Figure 8.
Galilee On the way Jerusalem
home and place of action itinerary place of action

Jesus travels to and fro goes in one direction enters and leaves
appoints the twelve goes ahead of them they abandon him
he speaks to whoever private instruction no instruction,
cares to listen of the twelve but disputes
he speaks in parables speaks frankly tells one more parable
continual healings only occasional healings no healings at all
opponents attack Jesus opponents are absent Jesus attacked
Jesus is successful hardly any contact the crowd turns
with the crowd with the crowd against him
two mass meals no meal a meal with the twelve
opponents plot Jesus' death Jesus announces his death opponents kill Jesus
Figure 8
The Framework around the Central Part

As I have already observed above, the part about the way is framed by
the only two stories about the healing of a blind man. The first (8.21-
26) is situated after the last crossing at Bethsaida, and is thematically
connected with the preceding passage by the fact that the healing of the
blind man stands in opposition to the possibly incurable blindness of
the disciples. The second (10.46-52) rounds off the journey of Jesus
and his followers because it marks the last stage, which begins at Jeri-
cho and ends in the vicinity of the city to which they have been travel-
ling since 8.27. After Jesus has cured his blindness, Bartimaeus follows
him 'on the way' (10.52). Unlike the disciples, who are amazed and
afraid (10.32), he is apparently untroubled by doubts of any kind.
In this way it becomes increasingly clear to the reader that the book
consists of three concentrically arranged main parts, and that the central
part is framed by two related episodes. This structure is represented in
Figure 9.
1 Jesus proclaims his message in Galilee 1.14-8.21

1— Jesus heals a blind man at Bethsaida 8.22-26
Jesus is with the disciples on the way 8.27-10.45
'— Jesus heals a blind man at Jericho 10.46-52
— Jesus is executed in Jerusalem 11.1-15.?
Figure 9
The Beginning and the End

Are the beginning and end of the book different enough in content and
form from the other parts to complete the concentric composition of the
whole Gospel? It is generally accepted that the beginning, as the intro-
duction to the story, has a distinctive character of its own. Things are
different in the case of the end of the book. That is why Figure 9 ends
with a question mark. It seems obvious to let the Jerusalem part run on
to the very end of the book, which would then conclude with Jesus'
burial and the women's visit to his tomb. That in the last episode a
young man announces that Jesus has risen and that he will again go
ahead of the disciples is not in itself sufficient ground for regarding it as
a separate part. After all, the three predictions (8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34)
also connect the resurrection directly with the arrest and the execution.
It is clear, on the other hand, that the end consists of two separate epi-
sodes, of which the first deals with the burial and the second with the
resurrection. They are, moreover, marked by a different time indication
(15.42 and 16.1-2) and a different constellation of characters: Joseph of
Arimathea and Pilate in the first, and some women and a mysterious
young man in the second. The women connect the two episodes as wit-
nesses, as 'silent witnesses' in fact, for apart from exchanging a few
words at the beginning of the second episode, they remain silent. But
this, too, by no means excludes that the two episodes round off the
main part, which takes place in Jerusalem.
However, the text of the two episodes contains a signal that leads us
to consider them as the concluding main part of the book. Once again
that signal is a topographical indication, which joins the two episodes
together and at the same time distinguishes them from Jerusalem,
namely, 'a (the) tomb' (15.46; 16.2, 3, 5, 8). The word 'tomb' (\ivr\\i-
eiov) is rare elsewhere in the book, occurring only in 5.2, 3, 5 (once
|ivr||ieiov and twice the synonym \ivr\iia, but each time in the plural),
the passage about the demoniac who lives among the tombs at Gerasa,
and in 6.29, where John's disciples bury their dead master in a tomb at
an unspecified place. The place of Jesus' tomb is similarly unspecified.
The reader should not suppose it to be in Jerusalem, however, for, as is
apparent from the passage about the demoniac possessed by Legion in
5.1-20, graves are not in towns or villages but outside the inhabited
world. Apart from other reasons, burying the dead in the wilderness
lessens the risk of people being threatened by the demons thought to be
present at a tomb, or of their being defiled by touching a tomb. The
reader should therefore assume that the women who in 16.2 are going
to visit the tomb have to leave the city for that. If place indicators do
have the important compositional function I assign to them, then the
last two episodes can be regarded as a separate final part about Jesus'
entering and leaving the tomb.
Looking back from the end to the opening of the book the first thing
to be considered is whether there is a dominant place indicator that is
connected to the one at the end by equivalence or opposition, and that
is equivalent to the four locational references already found. The most
important place indicator at the beginning is without doubt 'in the
wilderness' (ev xf) epf||a,cp), which occurs twice at the beginning of the
first episode (1.3, 4—John's appearance in the wilderness) and twice at
the end of the second (1.12, 13—the Spirit drives Jesus into the wilder-
ness, where he is tempted by Satan).
It is not hard to understand in what sense the concept of 'wilderness'
differs from 'Galilee' and 'Jerusalem', which refer to places in the in-
habited world. This goes also for 'the way' between 'Galilee' and 'Jeru-
salem', which passes through villages and small towns (8.27; 9.33;
10.46), and along which there are houses where travellers are welcome
(9.28, 33; 10.10). The wilderness, on the other hand, does not form part
of the inhabited world, as appears from many places in the Old Testa-
ment. It is a barren and hostile area that offers little or no protection.
Unfit for cultivation and human habitation, it is the domain of tough
plants and wild animals. Dangerous demons have a preference for these
lonely and desolate places, and may harm and defile people passing
through. Travellers run great risks in the wilderness and may easily lose
their way there. That is why they stick to the caravan routes or fixed
tracks across the desert, such as those of which Isa. 40.3 speaks. A
number of associations evoked by the wilderness are realized in the first
two episodes of Mark. John's audience have come out to him in the
wilderness from Judaea and Jerusalem (1.5). Since John is not supplied
with food and drink by a heavenly messenger, as Elijah was long before
him (1 Kgs 19.6-7) and as Jesus will be after him (1.13), he has to live
on the unconventional food provided by the desert (1.6). Thus, 'wilder-
ness' contrasts with 'Galilee', 'way' and 'Jerusalem', but has in com-
mon with 'way' that they are both places where people do not stay but
travel through.
The semantic relation of 'wilderness' to 'tomb' is more difficult to
see, yet two meanings immediately present themselves. First, they both
refer to places uninhabited by people, and secondly, like the wilderness,
a cemetery is a dangerous place for people. Not only does a Jew con-
tract ritual uncleanness by touching a grave, but cemeteries are, in ad-
dition, the favoured dwelling places of demons. It is no accident that
Jesus is tempted by Satan in the wilderness and that the Gerasene
demoniac is staying in barren surroundings, where he lives in caves and
tombs (5.2-5). Both are places of death and destruction. In another re-
spect they are each other's opposites, for the wilderness is a place one
travels through, while the grave is a place where the dead rest forever.
In addition to the semantic similarities between 'wilderness' and
'tomb', there are some remarkable narrative correspondences between
the two outer parts of the book.13 They are the only places where, be-
sides Jesus, a messenger appears: John in 1.4-9, and a young man in
16.5-7. Their dress is mentioned as well, which is exceptional in Mark:
the hairy mantle of the prophet and the white robe of the bringer of
good news. Both passages also speak of the coming/going of Jesus, of
his coming after the baptist in 1.6, and of his going ahead of the disci-
ples in 16.7. In addition both parts mention the important theme of the
way of Jesus: explicitly through the citations of 1.2-3, and implicitly
through the announcement of Jesus going on before his disciples in Gal-
ilee in 16.7. Finally, in both passages there is mention of a new begin-
ning, even a transition from death to life: in the first through the bap-
tism of repentance, and in the second through Jesus' resurrection from
the dead.
Therefore, the composition consists of three relatively large parts and
a smaller introductory and final part (1.1-15 and 15.40-16.8). Whatever
13. J. Lee Magness, Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the End-
ing of Mark's Gospel (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 89-101, also un-
derlines the relation between the beginning and end of the book.
the latter two may lack in length, they make up in content. The five-part
structure, then, is as follows: Prologue (wilderness), Galilee, The Way,
Jerusalem, Epilogue (the tomb).
Two Hinge Passages (1.14-15 and 15.40-41)?

The middle part about the way from Galilee to Jerusalem appears to be
surrounded by two short episodes—healings of a blind man—that func-
tion as a framework and at the same time mark the transition to another
main part. In view of this coherent and well-balanced structure the
question arises whether it is possible to recognize similar transition
devices at the beginning and end of the two outer main parts. On closer
inspection such a function could be attributed to 1.14-15 and 15.40-41.
These two short passages—both no longer than one compound sen-
tence, too short to be characterized as an episode—join the outer to the
next inner parts of the text, blending more or less into them. For this
reason I call them hinge passages or transitional links.
The first hinge passage is different from the preceding verses, but is
at the same time clearly connected with the preceding introductory part
and the subsequent main part. It is a summary statement of Jesus'
proclamation in Galilee, and looks forward to the entire part devoted to
Galilee. At the same time, it twice takes up the word 'good news' from
the title.
The second hinge passage introduces the women who will play a
leading part in the final part of the story. Here they are not yet pre-
sented as acting characters. At first their role is—in contrast to the
acivities of Joseph of Arimathea—confined to that of spectators and
witnesses. Although the primary function of 15.40-41 is to point for-
ward to what follows, the notice points back as well. In a flashback it
tells the reader that the women who are watching the scene at Golgotha
from a distance, had followed and ministered to Jesus in Galilee, and
have come up with him to Jerusalem. It is not without significance that
at this point in the book the reader finds the three central parts of the
above outline summed up by the narrator himself: Galilee, Jerusalem,
and the way to Jerusalem.
The two hinge pieces are in a sense each other's mirror image in so
far as the looking-back function of the second reflects the looking-for-
ward function of the first. They are opposed to each other in that the
first is about Jesus alone, and the second about a large group of female
followers around Jesus. Although 15.40-41 is the most disputed of the

hinges, it is perhaps also the most important because it moves the end
of the Jerusalem part from 16.8 to 15.39, the centurion's confession of
faith. The reader who is not convinced that 1.14-15 and 15.40-41
should be regarded as transitional links would do well, in my opinion,
to include the first with what precedes and the second with what fol-
lows.
The overall structure of the text after the title in 1.1 is represented in
Figure 10.14
— prologue, the wilderness 1.2-13

— prospective hinge 1.14-15
— Galilee 1.16-8.21
1— frame, blind — • seeing 8.22-26
the way 8.27-10.45
'— frame, blind — • seeing 10.46-52
' Jerusalem 11.1-15.39
—retrospective hinge 15.40-41
— epilogue, the tomb 15.42-16.8
Figure 10
The Way Again

In the overall concentric structure of the book the thematic emphasis
falls on the middle part, where location and theme reflect each other. To
define this part we cannot confine 'the way' to its literal meaning. In
almost all religions the term also has a second, metaphorical meaning,
which refers to views and actions governing a specific way of life. In
this sense the word is also found in the New Testament.15 As to content
14. See also my article 'Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark', LB 53

(1983), pp. 45-54, and Reading Mark, pp. 18-30. Breck {The Shape, pp. 189-90 n.
20) erroneously attributes this division to Standaert, who proposes quite a different
division. Besides a Prologue and Epilogue, Standaert has the following parts—Nar-
ration (1.14-6.13); Argumentation (6.14-10.52); Denouement (11.1-15.47)—a
division based on the structure of classical drama (L'Evangile selon Marc, pp. 25-
37, 263-372).
15. The most notable places are Acts 22.4, where 'the way' (TJ oSoq) without
any further qualification stands for the Christian community and its beliefs, and
and form the central part marked by ev Tfj 65(5 has as its backbone the
three predictions of Jesus' death and resurrection (8.31; 9.31; 10.33-
34), and is about the way of Jesus and the way of those following in his
footsteps (8.34-9.1; 9.42-48; 10.35-45).
In the central part Jesus speaks time and again of his mission. He
tries to make it clear to his disciples that in view of the programme he
carries out by God's order and the plans of his opponents to liquidate
him, he has to choose between being unfaithful to his mission and risk-
ing his life, and that as a consequence he has to meet his execution in
Jerusalem. At the same time he tries to make them see that his way can-
not remain without consequence for his followers. In this figurative
sense, 'the way' not only takes up the central position in the story, but
also forms the central theme upon which Mark wants to focus the inter-
est of his readers. Accordingly the reader understands why the first
lines of the book already announce this theme (1.2-3), and the last epi-
sode rounds it off with the announcement, 'He is going ahead of you in
Galilee'.
The Lines and the Circles

Finally there is the question of the relation between the linear and
circular aspects of the composition, and in particular the question of
whether they do not counteract each other during the reading. As a
tentative answer I propose the following. The linear construction
continually moves forward. The narrated events follow each other as
they happen in time, thus creating suspense for the reader, who
wonders what will happen next. A circular construction operates the
other way round. The reader does not become aware of its presence
until he or she has passed the centre of the construction and begins to
recognize that the components following the centre correspond in
reverse sequence to those preceding it. Whenever the construction is
recognized, the reader is invited to look back to what has been read and
connect the related elements. If the linear or sequential construction of
the composition chiefly sustains the suspense, inducing the reader to go
on reading, circular constructions compel the reader to pause and con-
template the meanings he or she has assigned to the text. As phrased,
the two constructions really do seem to have a contrary effect, but one
Acts 24.14, which makes it clear that Christians refer to themselves by that term,
whereas their opponents call them a sect,
which is in conformity with the two levels of the story, the narrative
development and the discourse. Perhaps one could therefore go so far
as to suggest that the linear construction is the structure of the narrative
development and the circular construction that of the discursive level of
meaning, of which the story is the vehicle.
Summary
After the forgoing the reader of this commentary will understand why
each main part opens with a chapter devoted to structure, and why the
book contains a number of diagrams to visualize concentric structure.
As our literary conventions differ from those practised in ancient litera-
ture, and concentric compositions have found little acceptance in our
literature, visual models are needed to see what people at that time
heard without such aids. The linear structure of a text, on the other
hand, is so well known that I need not pay any special attention to it.
Commentary
PROLOGUE: IN THE WILDERNESS
Chapter 5
VOICES IN THE WILDERNESS (1.1-15)
Equipped with the information from the introduction the reader enters
the world that the narrator has created for his audience. The narrator
brings the reader into the appropriate frame of mind through the title
and a quotation and by introducing him or her to the main character
whom he installs in the Prologue and places between God in heaven
and Satan in the wilderness. The voices in this brief part are numerous.
Besides the voices of John the baptist and Jesus himself the reader
hears a voice from heaven. At the beginning he or she also hears the
voice of the author-narrator himself and, from the distant past, the
voice of the prophet Isaiah.
The Title (1.1)

The Beginning of the Good News of Jesus Messiah (the Son of God).l
1.1. The book begins with a title.2 This is so full of meaning that the
few words it contains invite a separate discussion. When the Bible was
written it was less common to give a book a title than it is today, but
neither was it unusual or remarkable. In the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament and the Greek Septuagint translation of it Hosea, Proverbs,
1. The translation is from the NRSV. The few places where I deviate from it are
marked with an * or f.
2. For an extensive argument see also C.H. Giblin, The Beginning of the On-
going Gospel (Mk 1,2-16,8)', in FGN, II, pp. 975-85. His observation (p. 975) that
until then no argument derived from the ending of the Gospel had been advanced
for regarding 1.1 as the title of the whole book is not entirely correct. See my Read-
ing Mark, p. 31. Danove (The End, p. 136 n. 9) refutes the argument because '1.1
identifies the main character, Jesus, and introduces the possibility for narrating 1:2-
16:8'. His reasoning falters, however, because 1.2-8 does not presume this
identification and 1.11 gives it the authority of a voice which is of a higher order
than that of the author-narrator.
5. Voices in the Wilderness (1.1-15) 89
Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs have titles comparable to the one found
at the beginning of Mark. Greek and Latin authors also gave titles to
their books.3
What can the reader of Mark learn from the title of the book? When
Mark was written, the word evayyEôv did not yet refer to a special
type of book, so the first generation of readers, in contrast to later read-
ers, could not tell from the title that Mark was a sort of life story. If
they were familiar with some of Paul's letters or the formulae of faith
used by him, which is quite probable, they could assume that the book
dealt with Jesus' death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15.3-5 and Rom. 1.1-4).
There is also every reason to suppose that the word e-uayye^tov re-
minded them of God's messenger (Hebrew nfbasser, Greek eiKXYyeî-
£6|ievo<;), to whom there are several references in Isaiah. If in classical
Greek the £\)dyY£A,o<; is the messenger who announces peace, a victory,
or an ordinary event like a marriage or the birth of a child, in Isaiah the
evayyeXiôiiEvoc; is the herald who proclaims that God's kingdom has
come, and that this is a time of salvation and celebration (Isa. 40.9-11;
52.7; 61.1). That the reader rightly thinks so is confirmed by the fact
that the title is immediately followed by an express reference to Isaiah
with a quotation from ch. 40.
The title presents what follows as the beginning of the good news.
This can be understood in several ways.4 Readers who look only at the
first page are soon convinced that this constitutes the beginning. At the
end of the page the book takes leave of John the baptist (14) and intro-
duces Jesus as the messenger bringing the good news. With the twofold
repetition of the word eixxyyeXiov (14-15) the beginning is rounded off
and framed by the same term from the title. In applying the word
'beginning' to the first page, the readers are not mistaken. Even so they
may have to think again at the end of the book where the youth in the
white robe announces the resurrection of the crucified Jesus in the
3. One is reminded of the titles of the books written by Flavius Josephus, la-
xopia 'Io\)5aiKOi) noXeiiov (History of the Jewish War) and Ilepi aXcoaeox; (About
the Destruction), and by Philo of Alexandria, Flepi TOV pioti Mcoiiaeox; (About the
Life of Moses) and Ilepi raw 5eica Xoycbv (About the Decalogue), two authors from
the same period. This seems to have escaped the notice of Danove (The End, p. 136
n. 9), who dismisses the view that 1.1 is the book's title as an anachronism.
4. The current commentaries regard the opening words as the book's title but
relate the word 'beginning' exclusively to the first part of it.
words of the shortest possible summary of what Paul calls his

yetaov (1 Cor. 15.1-5). When the readers see the title again at a second
reading, they realize that it has more than one meaning. The first page
is about how Jesus began to proclaim the kingdom of God, whereas the
book relates the beginning of the proclamation about Jesus.
These words implicitly answer the old question of how the genitive
'of Jesus Messiah' should be understood. The reader who does not look
beyond vv. 14-15 thinks that Jesus will be presented as the messenger
of the good news, the herald to whom Isaiah refers. True, throughout
the book Jesus is portrayed as bringing the good news in word and
deed. In the second half of the book Jesus speaks three times about the
death and resurrection of the Son of Man (8.31; 9.31; 10.33-34), and
once even about what he himself will do after he is raised up (14.28),
but these sayings are strikingly dissimilar in content and tone from
what the reader associates with good news. It is only on the last page of
the book that we hear from the young man in the tomb that Jesus him-
self—and in particular his death on the cross and his resurrection—is
also the content of the good news. So the genitive construction 'the
good news of Jesus Messiah' means that the good news is both from
and about Jesus.
The term Xpiaxoq can also be understood in several ways. It is usu-
ally seen as part of the proper name 'ITICOIX; Xpiaxoq. However, the
combination does not occur as a proper name elsewhere in Mark. In
fact, the only compound name to be found in the book is 'IT|GOIK;
Naâprivoc;,5 and when Xpictoq stands alone, it has the functional
meaning of 'Messiah',6 although its occurrence in 9.41 is better read as
a proper name. For that reason I prefer to render the title e-uayyî-ov >
'ITIGOV Xpioiox) as 'the good news of Jesus Messiah' (contrary to
NRSV).7
Before concluding this part a remark about the identification of Jesus
as 'Son of God', the words that are placed between brackets in the title.
The brackets are found in most critical editions of the Greek text; the
editors were clearly unable to make a definite choice. The manuscripts
5. 1.24; 10.47; 14.67; 16.6.

6. 8.29; 12.35; 13.21; 14.61; 15.32.
7. Thus also, albeit on other grounds, J.D. Kingsbury, The Christology of
Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 64. Of theother compound
names found in Mark two or three refer to the father (3.17, 18; 15.47(7), cf. 10.46;
15.7, 11), five to a place (3.18, 19; 15.21,43,47; 16.1), and one to a disease (14.3).
with and without these words balance each other, and that holds also
for the arguments given for and against their original presence in the
text. An answer to the question of whether they were there from the
beginning or were added later is really not of much importance to the
content. Before turning the first page the reader hears a voice from
heaven say to Jesus: 'You are my son' (1.11). The authority of this
voice is, of course, far greater than that of the author who put the words
'Son of God' in the title, or of the copyist who added them.
Readers from a Gentile background did not know the meaning of the
Hebrew title 'Messiah', but the words 'Son of God' must have sounded
familiar to them. After all, moq QEOV was the current translation of the
title Divi Filius used, among others, by the emperor Augustus.8
Before stepping back into the wings as the narrator of the story, the
author of the book appears in front of the footlights to announce the
title, to which may be added the quotations in 2-3 with which the story
begins. In this way he establishes himself as the narrator, at the same
time defining the narrator's position relative to the listeners or readers
of the story, for it is clear from the opening words that this narrator
does not content himself with merely telling a story. As the bringer of
an etiayYîov he also installs himself as eTjayyEîôêvoc;, a messen-
ger who wants to bring his readers good news with the story of Jesus
Messiah.9
Voices in the Wilderness (1.2-13)

2
As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,
'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way;
3
the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight"',
4
John was baptizing10 in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of
8. See P. Wulfing von Martitz, 'moq', TWNT, VIII, p. 336; A. Deissmann,

Licht vom Osten (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 4th edn, 1923), pp. 294-96; L. Koep,
'Antikes Kaisertum und Christusbekenntnis im Widerspruch', in R. Klein (ed,),
Dasfruhe Christentum im romischen Staat (Wege der Forschung, 267; Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971), pp. 315-17.
9. For the rhetorical device of the 'narrator' see Rhoads and Michie, Mark as
Story, pp. 35-43.
10. Contrary to the NRSV rendering ('John the baptizer appeared in the wilder-
ness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance'), my translation is based on the reading
repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5And people from the whole
Judaean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to
him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
6
Now John was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around his
waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7He proclaimed, The one who
is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop
down and untie the thong of his sandals. 8 I have baptized you in* water;
but he will baptize you in* Holy Spirit.'11
9
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by
John in the Jordan. 10And just as he was coming up out of the water, he
saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.
11
And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my son, the beloved; with
you I am well pleased.' 12And the Spirit immediately drove him out into
the wilderness. 13He was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by
Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
*NRSV, 'with'.
1.2. After the title the text of the book begins with a quotation,12 which
according to the introductory formula is taken from the prophet Isa-
iah.13 As the quotation largely determines how the story about John the
eyeveto 'Icodvvr|<; pa7rci£cDV...Kai KTipuoacov, because I regard the article before

Parcxi^cov as a secondary addition. The difference in meaning is neither negligible
nor insignificant. The MSS hardly permit a choice because, if the presence of Kai is
certain enough, the above reading is shorter and more difficult and therefore prefer-
able.
11. In contrast to the NRSV, 'the Holy Spirit'. My translation omits the article.
Verse 8 is the only place in Mark where n\ev\ia ayiov occurs without the article.
12. Cf. Suhl, Zitate, pp. 133-37.
13. J. Delorme, 'Evangile et recit: La narration evangelique en Marc', NTS 43
(1997), pp. 376-84 (378-79), connects the quotation from Isaiah with the preceding
verbless sentence of v. 1, which he then does not, of course, regard as the title. His
argument is based on the fact that elsewhere in the book quotations introduced by
Ka8dx; always refer to what precedes. There are two reasons—one from the stand-
point of the reader and another from that of the author—why I cannot agree with
this. The first reason is that the reader, who cannot know on first reading that from
this point KaGdx; interprets what precedes, will automatically read on after xpipoix;
(a\)to\)) and put in a caesura after v. 1. Delorme is also wrong if we consider the is-
sue from the standpoint of the author. In the whole of the LXX, in which, according
to my rough estimate, more than one thousand sentences begin with Kai eyevexo or
eye VETO 5e, there is hardly a sentence that begins with eyevexo not followed or
preceded by a conjunction. I have been able to find only three instances, namely 1
Mace. 2.8, Ezek. 21.22, and Wis. 2.14, and not one of them occurs in a narrative
text. I think, therefore, that the possibility of there being a caesura before eyevexo
must be excluded.
baptist should be understood, we have to delve more deeply into it. It

refers the reader not only to another book, that of the prophets, which
together with the Law and the Scriptures already had the kind of unity
and status associated with the Bible, it also links the time of the story
about John and Jesus with times long past, placing what begins here in
the context of a long and eventful history. By passing beyond the time
limits of the story the book shows that the story about Jesus—although
important in itself—is part of a greater whole.
The sentence that begins in v. 2 continues in v. 4, so that the quota-
tion is directly connected with the appearance of John of which the be-
ginning is told in v. 4. For that reason the quotation refers to the open-
ing story of the book, which makes it difficult—although in view of its
content it would be quite possible—to read it as a motto prefixed to the
whole book. By twice using the word 'way' and the third time the re-
lated word 'paths' shortly after one another, the quotation nevertheless
calls attention to one of the main themes in Mark, that is, the way. This
is a standard theme in all sorts of religious traditions but it receives a
very specific colouring in the book.
Yet readers who know the Old Testament are immediately faced with
a problem, namely, that the first half of the quotation, which the book
ascribes to Isaiah, is not from Isaiah but from Malachi.14 That confuses
readers who are not used to such liberties.15
For Christian readers today, who read the Bible as one coherent
whole, the reference to Malachi has a peculiar effect. This is due to the
14. Some think that v. 2 is a citation composed of two different passages: Exod.
23.20 about the heavenly guide and protector who is to accompany Israel to the
promised land, and Mai. 3.1, where the messenger of the end time is announced.
However, the differences from Mai. 3.1 are easy to explain without recourse to
Exod. 23.20, so that it seems better to take the words of v. 2 as a rewritten citation
of Mai. 3.1.
15. J.C. Meagher, Clumsy Construction in Mark's Gospel: A Critique ofForm-
and Redaktionsgeschichte (Toronto Studies in Theology, 3; Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1979), p. 36, says that 'Mark alone adds the quotation...about the
Messenger, but he omits to credit his source, leaving the impression that the entire
passage comes from Isaiah. Awkward'. However, he overlooks that it was quite
customary to combine passages. See H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, II
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966), pp. 304-305. Such quotations are as a rule given
without the mention of a specific book. See e.g. Mt. 21.5, 42; Rom. 3.10-18; 9.33;
Heb. 1.5-14; 1 Pet. 2.6-10. When an author is mentioned, it is not, I think, 'to credit
a source'.
combination of two facts, namely, that in all current text editions

Malachi stands last among the books of the Old Testament, and that the
last lines of Malachi concern the identity of the messenger. Conse-
quently, the reference suggests that the two Testaments form a seamless
whole, and that the transition between the time of the Old and the time
of the New Testament is smooth and natural. So far as we can tell,
Malachi was not the last book in the manuscripts and copies of the Old
Testament in Mark's time, if indeed there was a fixed sequence, so that
the quotation cannot have made the same impression on the first readers
of Mark. At least not in that way, for it is likely that Christians ac-
quainted with the Jewish tradition did know that Malachi—then thought
of as a proper name—was considered the last prophet in a long line of
predecessors.
The messenger announced in Malachi was also a sign that the end
time had come. That is underlined by a later addition to Malachi, 4.5-6,
which identifies the messenger with the prophet Elijah who, as we
know from 2 Kgs 2.11, did not die but was taken up to heaven, and
who will be sent again before the day of God's wrath. For Mark, John
is Elijah returned to earth (see v. 6). In this capacity John also forms an
unmistakable link between the Old and New Testaments for the first
readers.
The author does not quote Mai. 3.1 to the letter. Yhwh says there: 'I
am sending my messenger to prepare a way ahead of me', whereas we
find in v. 2: 'I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will pre-
pare your way'. The question is to whom 'you' and 'your' refers. Not
to the reader, who is directly addressed in Mark only once (13.14). So
far only two names have been mentioned: Jesus Messiah and Isaiah.
The latter must be excluded, if only because the words ev ico 'Haata (in
Isaiah) refer to the book and not to the person. The only one who re-
mains is Jesus. At the outset of the book the way by which Yhwh
would come to do justice has been subtly changed into the way that
God's messenger will prepare for Jesus. For a reader coming to the
book for the first time, it is impossible to imagine what the way of Jesus
will actually be like.
1.3. In this verse follows the announced quotation from Isaiah. It is

from the same passage to which the words 'good news' in the title refer
(Isa. 40). These quotations and references considerably strengthen the
relationships between the passages at the beginning of the book.
The citation from Isa. 40.3 follows the Septuagint version, which, in
contrast to the Hebrew text, connects 'in the wilderness' with 'the voice
of one crying' instead of with the verb 'prepare'. The quotation is now
directly applicable to the proclamation of John, for his voice is the only
one heard in the desert. The voice from heaven in v. 11 makes itself
heard not in the wilderness but at the Jordan. 'The Lord' in Isa. 40.3
refers, of course, to God himself. That may also be the case in v. 3, but
the reader has no difficulty identifying 'the Lord'—to whom 'his' in
v. 3 refers—with 'you' in v. 2, and thus arrives at the way and paths of
Jesus.
With this the thematic coherence of the two parts of the quotation is
complete: the way of Jesus will be prepared by someone else. This
other person is a messenger who goes on ahead to announce him. His
voice will be heard in the wilderness. This is an unlikely location for an
announcement; the wilderness is a place where wild animals dwell,
where people only travel through but do not stay or live. However,
what seems at first glance a strange detail will be solved presently.
In any event, the way and the wilderness are important places in the
book. The wilderness is the scene where the short, introductory part
takes place, and where, to begin with, John carries out his ministry. The
way stands for the way of Jesus, which will be prepared by John.
The quotation precedes the narrative to make clear that this is not just
another story. Stories are usually meant to amuse or entertain. Some
stories, however, are told or even written down because they want to
communicate something that does not simply coincide with what is
being told. One manner of conveying this is to place a quote from a
well-known passage as a motto above the story. What happens here in
vv. 2-3 is not exactly the same but has some affinity with it.
1.4-5. The story summarily relates the appearance of John. He baptizes,

and, curiously enough, does so in an environment where water is scarce
and immersion in water hardly conceivable. That is why the wilderness
is no dwelling place for people. Hearing the word 'wilderness', the
reader recalls from Israel's previous history that it is much more than a
geographical location. As the place of Israel's trials, the wilderness or
desert has powerful connotations both for Christians and Jews. In the
Christian tradition of the Old Testament they live on as reminders of
Israel's stubborn resistance to the orders of Yhwh and the mercy that
Yhwh nevertheless continued to show to his people by, among other
things, making his voice heard precisely in the desert (see, e.g., 1 Cor.
10.1-13; Acts 7.30-44). The question of whether people can be baptized
in the barren desert is also answered: John baptizes in the Jordan (v. 5).
In point of fact, the river does run through desertlike and arid areas
north of the Dead Sea. Whether the author and his Roman readers also
knew this is doubtful. Be that as it may, in the story there is both desert
and water.
Actually, the desert has always been a place of retreat or refuge for
Jewish reform movements and political agitators. A clear example of
the first is the purist sect of Qumran, of which John may have been a
member. For this community the existence of a freshwater well near the
Dead Sea was doubly important. Besides drinking water it also supplied
them with the water they needed for their numerous ritual washings. It
appears that baptizing is not the only and principal activity of John in
Mark. He has something to say as well. In the rather tortuous opening
sentence it says that John places his baptismal activity in the context of
his call for repentance and the forgiveness of transgressions. In his call
for a change of heart John does not differ from a number of his con-
temporaries.
Whatever the author and his first readers may or may not have known
about the exact geographical circumstances that made baptizing in the
desert possible, they certainly knew from the Scriptures that the Jordan
was a most appropriate place for a rite of passage like baptism. The
river is a place full of memories of Israel's past. In Joshua 3-A an event
takes place at the Jordan which is a 'passage' in the literal sense of the
word. The passing of the river by the Israelites led by the ark of the
covenant is presented as a sacred ritual. The second circumcision and
the celebration of Passover in Gilgal, where the people of Israel eat the
first food produced by Canaan itself, are related to this ritual as signs of
a new beginning (Josh. 5). As a reminder of this rite of passage and a
testimony to God's faith and power a memorial of twelve stones was
erected in Gilgal.
Other events around and in the Jordan have left lasting memories.
With his mantle Elijah made a dry path through the Jordan for Elisha
and himself, and after he was taken up to heaven on the other side,
Elisha used the mantle the prophet had left behind to effect a dry return
(2 Kgs 2). Finally, Naaman the Syrian was healed because on the
advice of Elisha he immersed himself seven times in the Jordan (2 Kgs
5). Immersing oneself in the Jordan means participating in the major
events of Israel's past, each of which in its own way marked a new be-
ginning. The first marked a new beginning for the people of Israel, the
second for Elisha, and the third for the pagan Naaman.
To emphasize the importance of the event, the narrator uses the hy-
perbole that 'people from the whole Judaean countryside and all the
people of Jerusalem' go out to John in the wilderness to confess their
faults, make a new beginning, and, as a sign of their good intentions,
descend into the Jordan to be baptized by him. Not yet informed about
the extensive and border-crossing activities of Jesus, the reader can see
the locational reference as an indication in advance of the regional
influence of John as opposed to the widespread influence of Jesus (see
1.28, 45; 3.7-8). There is one snag in the mention of all the people of
Jerusalem. It implies that the Temple authorities, who will be out for
Jesus' life, have also received John's baptism of repentance.
1.6. Before having John make his announcement, the narrator draws the
audience's attention to his clothing—camel's hair and a leather belt—
and diet—a standard menu of locusts and wild honey. Clothing and diet
characterize him as an ascetic living in the desert. The description of
John's clothing has a very specific function: the hairy mantle is the
characteristic garb of the prophet (Zech. 13.4), while John's total outfit
appears to be the same as the clothing that identifies the prophet Elijah
in 2 Kgs 1.8. On the basis of this and the quotation in v. 2, which pre-
dicts the return of Elijah, the reader is quite certain that John is pre-
sented as the long-awaited prophet Elijah. This fact characterizes
everything that follows as belonging to the end time, and lends greater
authority to John's words.
1.7-8. The reader is now ready to take note of the announcement itself.
Pointing to the one who comes after him,16 John declares categorically
that this one is greater and more powerful than he himself. It is easy to
imagine that Christians enjoyed quoting this declaration in discussions
with the followers of John the baptist (cf. Acts 19.1-7). If John actually
spoke thus it is probable that by the more powerful one he meant Yhwh
himself, who will come in judgment (e.g. Mai. 3) to separate the good
from the bad with his breath, as the wind winnows the grain.17 Placed at
16. Here begins a series that contains the catchword omaco uoi), and comprises
Jesus, the first four followers, and eventually the readers as well: 1.17, 20; 8.34.
17. The motif of the winnow and the wind, which separate the chaff from the
this point of the story, the announcement of the more powerful one is
without doubt a reference to Jesus himself. The baptist states frankly
that he relates to Jesus as the servant who humbly unstraps his master's
sandals, which is reflected in the great difference between the baptism
in water and that in Holy Spirit.
That Jesus will baptize in Holy Spirit is a more cryptic communica-
tion than is apparent at first sight. As the words do not occur again in
the book, the question arises whether they refer to a future event out-
side the time of the story. Any thought of the Christian baptism, in
which the baptizand receives the Holy Spirit (Acts 19.1-7; Tit. 3.5), is
absent from the story of Mark. Actually, in contrast to Jn 3.22-36, Mark
never mentions any baptismal activity by Jesus. Neither can the out-
pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2) be meant here.18 In the repre-
sentation of the story the 'you' in John's promise—'he will baptize you
in Holy Spirit'—does not refer to Jesus' followers but to those baptized
by John himself, namely, the inhabitants of Judaea and Jerusalem. It is
most unlikely that those of Jerusalem, who, as is suggested by 11.31,
did not believe John's words, can count on something positive when
they receive the baptism in Holy Spirit. What that baptism does refer to
still remains obscure but will perhaps be clarified later.
Now that John has been installed as the baptist, messenger and fore-
runner of Jesus Messiah, as Elijah returned, and consequently as the
prophet of the end time, the scene of Jesus' baptism can be told. Im-
mediately after this John will make way for Jesus, the mightier one who
comes after him. The baptism takes place at the river Jordan. The loca-
tion is reminiscent of the scene enacted at the Jordan and told in 2
Kings 2: Elisha takes over the prophet's cloak from Elijah and is
equipped with a double share of his spirit to follow in his footsteps.19
grain, is a recurrent theme in the prophetic writings. See Isa. 5.24; 27.8; 30.27-28;
41.15-16; 47.15; Jer. 15.2, 6-7; 18.17; 22.22; 51.2. The Q tradition elaborated this
motif and used it to characterize John and his mission in Mt. 3.12 par.
18. C D . Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative (SNTSMS, 64; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 28, thinks that familiarity with the
story of Pentecost was part of the knowledge shared by the author and his readers.
This cannot be excluded, but is, without further argumentation, a gratuitous remark.
19. Roth (Hebrew Gospel) is of the opinion that the Elijah-Elisha cycle should
be regarded as a paradigm for the structure of Mark. In many places the parallelism
perceived by Roth seems exaggerated. Although in these cases the duo Elijah-
Elisha serves as a model for the relationship between John and Jesus, Roth does not
1.9-13. The story of Jesus' baptism begins with an explicit and detailed
opening formula, which creates the impression that in comparison with
the forgoing it is only at this point that the really important things are
actually beginning to take place. The one who is to come after John
now steps on to the stage. He comes from Nazareth in Galilee: one sin-
gle man over against the masses from Judaea and Jerusalem. The text
does not say why Jesus decides to leave his hometown and go to the
Jordan, but he probably has the same motive as all the others, namely,
to make a new beginning. The wilderness as a location fades into the
background for a moment. At the Jordan Jesus joins the many people
who have come to confess their transgressions and want to start a new
life. The baptism itself is mentioned only in passing. In fact it receives
so little attention that the reader may overlook that what happens here
is exactly the opposite of what John has announced: Jesus does not
baptize in Holy Spirit but is baptized in Holy Spirit. The point at issue,
however, is what Jesus sees and hears when after the immersion—
which is always something of a death-sensation for someone unable to
swim—he emerges freed and reborn. What happens to Jesus seems to
be a personal experience of Jesus alone, without there being any indi-
cation that John or anyone else is aware of it. In fact, from this point
they seem no longer present.
Jesus sees two things that are connected with one another: the open-
ing of the heavens and the descent of the Spirit.20 The tearing of the
heavens is reminiscent of what happens to Ezekiel on the banks of the
point to the parallel that can be observed between them when the second of each
pair takes over the prophetic role from the first at the Jordan.
20. J. Painter, Mark's Gospel (New Testament Readings; London: Routledge,
1997), p. 30, thinks that not Jesus but John saw this when he emerged from the
river after baptizing Jesus. He gives two reasons for his view. The first is that since
John is the agent of the baptism, v. 10 also sees him as the agent of the seeing. The
second, that the last word of v. 10 is not the reflexive form of the personal pronoun
(ea\)i6v) but cmxov, and therefore does not refer to the one who is the subject of the
sentence. Both are incorrect. The grammatical subject of v. 9 is not John but Jesus,
who is therefore also the subject of v. 10. As for the second reason, v. 10 is not the
only place in the book where the reflexive form is not used. Another example is
3.34. Besides, as C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 119, has pointed out, most ancient
MSS do not distinguish between ocuxov and the regularly used contraction a\)iov,
because they leave out the spiritus asper and lenis.
river Chebar when he is called by God and receives the Spirit (Ezek.
1.1-2.7). However, it should not be directly connected with the tearing
of the Temple curtain in 15.38, although in both places the same verb is
used (a%i£co). For, in contrast with the curtain, the heavens are not torn
in two, and neither are they irreparably damaged or torn apart for good.
It is rather a matter of a temporary opening through which something
can be lowered or come down, as in Acts 10.11. Mark does not say that
the Spirit becomes visible 'in the form of a dove', yet owing to the
influence of Lk. 3.22 and the Old Testament, where the dove more than
any other bird is associated with the divine, he is usually read that way.
Is it not simpler to connect 'like a dove' with 'descending', and, bearing
in mind that the first meaning of the Greek KVEV\IOI (spirit) is 'wind'
and 'breath', think of a gust of wind which, like the stormy wind in
Ezek. 1.4, descends on Jesus like a dove? However that may be, the
Spirit descending 'on' or 'into' Jesus (sic, has both meanings) takes
possession of him, and it seems evident that Jesus' superiority to John
is due to his being equipped with a particular spiritual power. The visi-
ble opening of heaven and the descent of the Spirit is followed by a
voice speaking from heaven. The voice must be understood as coming
from God, because just as the Hebrew word for heaven, Mmayim, the
Greek o\)pavo<; and its plural oupavoi are used to represent the divine
name, which is never mentioned in a Jewish milieu and always
replaced by an equivalent. That the voice speaks in terms of T and
'you' is another reason for taking oi)pav6<; as a designation of God
here.
The voice is surprising in the first place for what it does not say. In
the light of Ezekiel 1-2 and other well-known passages like Isaiah 6
and Jeremiah 2, the reader expects that Jesus, after having been en-
dowed with the necessary strength, will now receive his mission, as is
usual in call stories; but no, the voice of God does not tell Jesus what
he must say or do.21 It states instead that Jesus has or will have a special
relationship with God and that he is particularly dear to him. That
means that we cannot read the passage as a call story. It is rather the
story of an installation. It is made known here—at least to the readers—
that Jesus is God's son. Because of this knowledge they are privileged
21. R.C. Tannehill, The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology', Semeia 16

(1979), pp. 57-95 (64-65), sees in the words from heaven a commission by God,
and thinks that the author emphasizes the parallel between Jesus' commission and
the disciples' commission, but this view is not supported by the text.
above the characters in the story, including Jesus' intimates, who do not
know who Jesus really is; only the demons appear to be aware of Jesus'
identity. Furthermore, this advantage of the listeners and readers over
the story characters lends a particular tension to the reading of the
book. It does not mean, however, that the reader already knows every-
thing there is to know about Jesus' identity.22
In the declaration of the heavenly voice the reader recognizes old,
familiar words from the Scriptures. The address, 'You are my son', is
from Ps. 2.7, where it forms part of a sort of enthronement formula
used at the installation of a king. The father-son relationship also plays
a part in the prophecy of Nathan in 2 Samuel 7, where the prophet says
about David's descendant that God will be a father to him, and he shall
be a son to God. If the first readers were Roman Christians, they would
remember that in his letter to them Paul had raised the same theme by
quoting an old confession of faith, albeit with an essential variation: Je-
sus was descended from David... and declared Son of God on the occa-
sion of the resurrection (Rom. 1.1-4). When that son is in addition
called 'the beloved', the reader is reminded of Abraham, whose son
Isaac is called thus when God puts Abraham to the test (Gen. 22.2).
The term 'the beloved' does not distinguish one son from other sons;
the Hebrew ydhid rather stands for an only son who is loved precisely
because there is no other. Whether the first readers could detect an echo
of Isa. 42.1 in the declaration, and consequently recognize Jesus as the
servant of Yhwh, is difficult to judge. The Greek version of Isa. 42.1
6 7tai<; (io\), dvTi^f|\|/o|iai ai)xo\); 'Iapaf]^ 6 EKÊKTOC; JIO\),
o amov fj \|A)%TI |io\), 'Jacob is my servant, I will help him;
Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him') is rather different from
the words spoken by the voice from heaven in v. 11.
1.12-13. The story proceeds immediately. This is the second time after
v. 10 that actions are linked by 'immediately', 'at once' or whatever
word may be used to translate the Greek adverb evOtx;. The frequent
use of the word, which occurs no less than 42 times in Mark, quickens
the pace of the story. The narrator is obviously anxious to move on.
The word sometimes opens a new episode, but is also used to tie differ-
ent events together within one episode, as is clearly the case in v. 10.
22. Jesus' identity remains an enigma even after the reading of the book. See
J. Delorme, 'Intertextualities about Mark', in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in
Biblical Writings (Festschrift Bas van Iersel; Kampen: Kok, 1989), pp. 38-42.
The present passage is so short that it can hardly be regarded as a sepa-

rate episode. It seems therefore preferable to take evQix; here as a con-
necting device operating within one episode, the more so since the
Spirit, which has only just taken possession of Jesus, immediately
drives him into the wilderness.23 The use of the verb 'drive' (EKpdMxo)
here is extremely piquant because elsewhere in Mark it nearly always
refers to the casting out of demons.
As the word 'wilderness' is preceded by the definite article, we still
are in the wilderness of v. 4, yet, as the place of Jesus' 40 days' trial, it
reminds the reader of Israel's 40-year ordeal in the wilderness of Sinai
(e.g. Deut. 8). The presence of wild animals suggests the absence of
human beings. Because there is nothing about how Jesus behaves
among the wild beasts or how they react to his presence, it is somewhat
arbitrary to picture the scene as an idyllic or eschatological paradise. In
the wilderness Jesus is put to the test not, like Israel, by God, but by
Satan, God's adversary. The extremely brief description does not say
how and why Jesus is put to the test, nor how he undergoes it. The fact
that Jesus—probably after the trial—is served by (no doubt heavenly)
messengers gives the impression that after a fast imposed on him by
heaven Jesus is now supplied with a meal and that this indicates that he
has overcome the temptation and passed the test. This scene about
Jesus in the wilderness, and particularly the messengers ministering to
him there, remind the reader of Elijah who was able to walk 40 days to
Mount Horeb in the Sinai desert after a heavenly messenger had twice
supplied him with food (1 Kgs 19.1-8). If the baptist is the returned
Elijah, and Jesus in his turn appears here to be drawn with features bor-
rowed from the prophet, things seem to become rather complicated; but
this is a problem that resolves itself as the story continues.
Now that the narrator has introduced Jesus as the main character, or,
narratively speaking, has installed Jesus as the protagonist or hero of
the story—a 'hero' who may nevertheless assume the features of an
'anti-hero'—he can start to relate his doings. The reader knows already
that Jesus is possessed by God's Holy Spirit, and that God regards and
treats him as his son. From now on Jesus is himself, his real self. Did
he become himself only at his baptism, and was the Holy Spirit not in
23. Painter (Mark's Gospel, p. 29) holds exactly the opposite view. The effect
of the frequent use of evQvq is 'that it loses its force and should be understood as
meaning little more than "next"'. He gives no arguments for his view so that it is
impossible to weigh or refute them.
him before? That is what the story seems to suggest. Does it also imply
that he was not God's son before his baptism? Or was he God's son
without being aware of it? The story does not answer these questions.
All we can say is that if the narrator had wanted to say this, he would
have done better to quote also what follows after 'You are my son',
namely, 'today I have given you life' (Ps. 2.7). The fact that he did not
makes it less probable that the reader should think of a sort of (re)birth
or adoption of Jesus that would formally have made him Son of God.
Besides the hero himself, one of his helpers, John the baptist, has
also been introduced to the reader. In his capacity as Jesus' forerunner
John has announced Jesus to the people of Judaea and Jerusalem. By
immersing Jesus in the water of the Jordan John has also put him in the
position where he receives the Spirit and hears that he is God's son.
There are other important characters who form part of the constella-
tion around Jesus. There is, to begin with, the one who has addressed
Jesus from heaven, namely, God himself, who by calling Jesus his son
has qualified himself as father. Perhaps the Spirit, too? If in v. 10 the
Spirit has entered Jesus—a natural action for a spirit—in v. 12 it is
more an inner, inherent force than a character in its own right. Someone
who definitely acts as an independent character in the book is 'Satan'.
This is a Hebrew word that originally referred to the prosecutor in a
lawsuit, but eventually became the proper name of God's adversary, the
Evil One, the Devil, or whatever else he may be called. The same
applies to the 'angels' (dyyeôi), literally 'messengers', and in Mark
always messengers of God, who, although it is not clear exactly how
the narrator imagines or visualizes them, differ from human beings, as
will appear later in the book. Should the wild animals be regarded as
proper characters? Apart from the fact that they do not appear again in
the story, it seems best to take them as belonging to the normal
environment of the desert. To sum up, the story has a number of char-
acters besides human beings who are not inhabitants of the earth but
who have nevertheless everything to do with what happens to Jesus and
the other characters in the book.
A similar situation arises with the places in the book. The first part of
the story is set in the wilderness, which, since we are used to thinking
in opposites, evokes the inhabited world. This is specified as the regions
of Judaea and Galilee, the capital Jerusalem, and the insignificant pro-
vincial town Nazareth. Later in the book Galilee and Jerusalem, and—
to a much lesser degree—Nazareth will receive a distinct meaning of
their own. The world of the story is nevertheless larger than the inhab-
ited world for, as we have seen, the book also refers to heaven. That is
first of all the sky spread above the earth, but it is also the place on high
from where God makes his voice heard and communicates with the
people below through his messengers.
The introductory chapter is also important for the underlying time
structure. The story opens with the baptism and announcement by John,
but really begins on the day when Jesus, after accepting baptism at the
hands of John, emerges from the Jordan and is moved by the Spirit. The
story also looks back and recalls what is written in the Scriptures. The
narrator points out to the audience that what takes place in the story had
been written in Isaiah ages before the story begins.
Proclaiming the Good News of God (1.14-15)

14
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the
good news of God, 15and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.'
These two verses have the same structural function at the beginning of
the book as 15.40-41 at the end. They connect the Prologue, which is
set in the wilderness, with Part One, which is about Galilee, just as
15.40-41 connect the Epilogue, which is set at the tomb, with Part
Three, which is about what happens in Jerusalem. They clearly serve as
transition or hinge pieces joining the two outer, smaller panels to the
three main panels in the middle. As to their content, each provides a
concise summary of a major part of the book: 14-15 looks forward to
Jesus' ministry in Galilee, while 15.40-41 looks back on everything
that the book has told about Jesus before.
1.14-15. The passage draws a clear dividing line between the forerunner
and the protagonist of the story. John has played an essential though
subsidiary role in the introductory phase, but now his time is over and
the time of Jesus begins. John leaves the stage and Jesus enters.24 The
24. What Meagher {Clumsy Construction, p. 43) writes about this is typical of
his way of reading: 'He [Mark] does not relate John's imprisonment to his previous
account of John, nor does he relate the beginning of Jesus' ministry to his previous
account of Jesus. It appears as though Mark is content to recall that these details
and sequences were mentioned in the version that came to him...without troubling
to coordinate them with anything that has gone before, geographically, temporally
words that tell of John's departure sound ominous, for the verb used for
his arrest (rcapa5i8co|Lu) points forward to what will happen to Jesus
and his followers.25 The time of John may be over, but he belongs for-
ever to those who are persecuted because of the gospel.
Jesus starts his ministry in Galilee, the region to which he belongs
and now returns after his 40 days in the desert, and which provides the
title for the next part of the book. Everything that now follows happens
in and around Galilee until Jesus in 8.27 ends his Galilaean wanderings
and resolutely sets out for Jerusalem.
In terms echoing the title Jesus is said 'to proclaim... the good news'
(icr|p\)coG)v TO evayyeîov). In addition to the double occurrence of
'good news' (euayyeXiov), the reader notices that in v. 14 the word is
followed by 'of God' and not by 'of Jesus'. The difference is intriguing
and the question is what it means. The combination does not occur
again in Mark,26 but it is quite customary in the letters of Paul, where
the good news 'of God'27 alternates with the good news 'of mine/
ours'28 and 'of Christ/Jesus'.29 In a doxology added to Rom. 16.25 are
the latter two combined in 'my good news and the proclamation of
Jesus Christ'. It is God himself who has sent the messenger with the
or thematically.' The geographical link is established by means of Galilee in v. 9;

the temporal sequence lies precisely in that John's exit takes place before Jesus
starts his public activity; and thematic links are established through the words
'proclaim' (icnp'uaGCG) in vv. 4 and 14 and 'good news' (evayyeXiov) in vv. 1, 14
and 15, and through the power which is given to Jesus in v. 11 and the authority
with which he is able to speak in v. 15. Although John's arrest is not related to what
has gone before, it does not remain an isolated piece of information but is followed
later by the account of his execution in 6.17-29, which in its turn follows naturally
on the rumours about Jesus' identity and Herod's view about Jesus in 6.14-16.
25. See for Jesus: 3.19; 9.31; 10.33; 14.10, 11, 18,21,41,42,44; 15.1, 15; for
Jesus' followers: 13.9, 11, 12.
26. Painter (Mark's Gospel, p. 34) writes about the end of v. 15: '...the call to
belief in the gospel was new. The construction used by Mark is rare in the NT.. .but
common in the LXX.' As a matter of fact the singular eiKxyyeîov does not occur
even once in the LXX, and the construction nicxevco ev only twice, both times as
ev TOO Bed) (Ps. 77.22 and Dan. 6.23), but never as KIOXEVO) ev xcp ev-
27. Rom. 1.1; 15.16; 2 Cor. 11.7; 1 Thess. 2.8, 9; see also 1 Pet. 4.17.
28. Rom. 2.16; 2 Cor. 4.3; 1 Thess. 1.5; 2 Thess. 2.14; 2 Tim. 2.8.
29. Rom. 15.19; 1 Cor. 9.12; 2 Cor. 2.12; 9.31; 10.14; Gal. 1.7; Phil. 1.27;
1 Thess. 3.2; 2 Thess. 1.8.
good news. This goes for Paul and in v. 14 for Jesus. Verse 15 sum-
marizes Jesus' proclamation in his own words. It consists of two
announcements and a twice repeated call for response: the time is
fulfilled and God's kingdom has come near, and this contains a call
addressed to Jesus' audience as well as the readers of the book to
reorganize their lives and believe in the good news. These four ele-
ments constitute the core of Jesus' message, with the emphasis on the
two announcements. In the first announcement the emphasis is not so
much on what is about to happen as on the fact that the time has come
and that whatever is to happen may happen any moment now. This
raises two questions. The first question is what is meant by the kingdom
of God, and the second, what is meant by its having come near, because
that is the literal meaning of the Greek TyyyiKev. Both questions should
be considered, not only in their mutual connection but also in con-
nection with eixxyyeAiov.
Of course, other commentaries deal with these questions too, but they
usually consider them in the light of the question of what Jesus may
have meant here, and how his audience understood his proclamation.
As this commentary approaches the story from the perspective of its lis-
teners or readers, I am first of all interested in how they understand
Jesus' proclamation. Here, if anywhere, it is necessary, however, to dis-
tinguish clearly between the original and other readers.
Although the phrase 'kingdom of God' occurs here for the first time,
it is preceded by the definite article (TyyyiKev f] (iaaiêia xov Qeov, 'the
kingdom of God has come'), as is the case in the rest of the book. Cer-
tainly at a first occurrence it could have been written without the article,
as is clear from the letters of Paul.30 Preceded by the definite article, the
term 'kingdom' gives readers the impression that they have to reckon
with a regularly occurring and therefore well-known expression, the
meaning of which is sufficiently determined. Actually, the impression
that the phrase occurs regularly is not correct. As a fixed combination it
hardly ever occurs in the period prior to the New Testament,31 and the
Roman Christians had come across it only once or twice in Paul's letter
to them (Rom. 14.17). The phrase must, however, have appeared regu-
larly in 'sayings of Jesus' such as they were transmitted in the common
30. See 1 Cor. 6.9-10; 15.50; and Gal. 5.21.

31. J. Schlosser, Le regne de Dieu dans les dits de Jesus, I (Ebib; Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1980), p. 70, mentions 22 places, but of these only two have the precise
combination 'kingdom of God': Wis. 10.10; T. Benj. 9.1.
source of Matthew and Luke;32 but even if this source was a written
document, it is not certain that the first readers of Mark knew it. The
question arises, then, whether those readers had a knowledge of the
phrase in some other way. In fact, the answer has already been given
for, as I pointed out earlier, the book itself refers the reader to another
book, namely to Isaiah, and in particular the chapters 40, 52 and 61. In
Isaiah 40 and 52 the motif of God's kingdom is not only clearly pre-
sent, but it is precisely the coming of God's kingdom which is an-
nounced by the messenger. It is clear that 'kingdom' (fJaaiteia) does
not refer to God's actual control of what happens in nature and history,
but rather to the outward manifestation and recognition of his kingdom.
That the time is up (see also Gal. 4.4), the first element of Jesus' procla-
mation, and a common theme in Jewish apocalyptic, leaves no doubt
that the end time—already clearly marked by the appearance of the
returned Elijah—has actually begun.
In this context the question arises whether in the scenario of the
coming kingdom a local representative of God, in the figure of a mes-
sianic king from the house of David, is foreseen to bring in the new
age. That is definitely the case in the old tradition preserved in Rom.
1.3-4: '...his Son, who was descended from David according to the
flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the
spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our
Lord...' However, that royal son of David—who in the Psalms of Sol-
omon is presented as a warlord rather than a king33—is for the present a
king incognito in Mark. That seems also to be the case in the rest of the
book. On the whole Jesus does not appear at all as a royal figure in the
book. He is recognized and acknowledged as the son of David only by
someone who cannot see, namely, blind Bartimaeus (10.46-48). Fur-
ther, his kingship is hardly ever mentioned without irony. When Jesus
enters Jerusalem, the crowds acclaim him as though he were the mes-
sianic king (11.8-10), but before the event the narrator has Jesus him-
self direct his arrival in such a way that he rides into the city on the
donkey from Zech. 9.9, a guarantee of the lack of pretension on the part
32. See Mt. 5.3; 6.(10), 33; 8.11; 10.7; 11.11, 12; 12.28; 13.33; and the parallel
places in Lk. 6.20; 7.28; 9.2; 11.(2), 20; 12.31; 13.20, 29; 16.1. Matthew replaces it
with paaiXeia xcov otipavriw and retains xov 9eo\) only once (12.28). See H. Schur-
mann, Gottes Reich—Jesu Geschick: Jesus ureigener Tod im Licht seiner Basileia-
Verkundigung (Freiburg: Herder, 1983), pp. 65-152.
33. Especially Pss. Sol. 17 and 18.
of its rider (11.1-7). Pilate proclaims Jesus King of the Jews before
having him executed (15.2-15). Next, the Roman soldiers mock the
newly-proclaimed king (15.16-20). Finally, when the board inscribed
with the words The King of the Jews' has been fastened to the cross
holding the tortured and broken man, the Temple authorities challenge
him: 'Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross
now, so that we may see and believe!' (15.25-32).
Another question is how the first readers responded to the coming of
God's kingdom and the call for repentance and faith. As the book does
not seem to be written for outsiders, they will generally have regarded
themselves as having already answered the call. On the subject of the
coming of God's kingdom, they will have thought it similar to the seed
in the metaphors of 4.3-8, 26-32: it has unmistakably begun and pushes
through irresistibly, but it is not yet completed. The book will come to
speak about the completion of the kingdom in 9.1, 13.26-37 and 14.61-
62, where I shall, of course, return to it.
The readers of later generations, including our own, are confronted
with the considerable problem that the interval between the moment
these words were written and the moment of reading becomes greater
and greater, so that it will be increasingly difficult to understand the
nearness of God's kingdom as something that can be measured in
hours, days, years, generations and centuries. Accordingly, those read-
ers will understand and experience the nearness of God's kingdom dif-
ferently.
Part I
ACTION IN GALILEE
Chapter 6
THE STRUCTURE OF PART I
In the opening chapter of each new part I look first at the structure of
the part concerned. Part I is more complicated than Parts II and HI,
and therefore demands more time and attention. Insight into the struc-
ture of what at first sight seems to be a structureless whole can help us
perceive how the different elements are related and where the em-
phases lie.
The Parable Chapter as Key to the Division

The criteria that are generally accepted for segmenting the text at
microlevel are also applied for segmenting the text at macrolevel: indi-
cators of place and time, changes in the constellation of characters or
the action, changes in theme or subject matter, and the transition from
one type of text to another, for example, from spoken to narrative text.
An aspect that usually receives too little attention in studies concerned
with the structure of Mark's Gospel is the place of an episode within a
sequence. That this should be added to the above criteria is especially
clear when the sequence is concentric in structure and conflicting or
alternative divisions present themselves. A case in point is the parable
section in ch. 4, which is of vital importance for the structure of the first
main part because of its place and the type of text used in it. It shares
both these characteristics with the only other great speech by Jesus in
ch. 13.
As regards the place: the two speeches form the centre of the main
part in which they occur (1.16-8.21 and 11.1-15.39), and stand at
almost equal distance from the beginning or the end of the book: the
parable chapter begins at about 230 lines after 1.1, and the discourse in
ch. 13 ends at about 240 lines before 16.8.
6. The Structure of Part I 111
Furthermore, both consist almost entirely of spoken text, while the

greater part of the book consists of narrative text. The spoken text of
the parable chapter is, moreover, spoken text of a quite specific kind.
While passages referred to as 7tapapo5lai (3.23; 7.17; 12.1, 12; 13.28)
are distributed over the whole book, 4.3-32 constitutes the only collec-
tion of parables that is internally consistent as to motif and theme, and
is presented as a speech by Jesus. Although the speech is interrupted by
an indication of a change of scene with an aside (4.10) and by the
recurring introductory formula 'and he said (to them)' (4.11, 13, 21, 26,
30), the reader perceives it as a continuous discourse owing to the unity
of place and time. Besides, in contrast to other sayings of Jesus in
Mark, the discourses in chs. 4 and 13 contain notable signals stressing
the importance of Jesus' words for the reader. In the first discourse I
note the following: 'Listen!' (4.3) and 'Let anyone with ears to hear lis-
ten!' (4.9), the two verses framing the first parable; the explanation
about hearing (4.15-20); the two brief parables of the lamp and the
measure, and, inserted between them, once again 'Let anyone with ears
to hear listen!' (4.21-25). In the second discourse there is one very ex-
plicit signal in the final sentence: 'And what I say to you I say to all'
(13.37). In addition, both discourses contain signals relating to a hidden
meaning that requires to be brought to light by the reader (4.10-13, 22-
25 and 13.14).
Mark's favourite framing technique supplies further evidence that
4.3-32 forms a unit in its own right. It is easy to recognize a double
frame around the spoken text. The inner frame underscores the specific
nature of the instruction: when teaching the crowd Jesus employs meta-
phors (4.2) and metaphors only (4.33-34). The outer frame draws atten-
tion to the place where Jesus delivers the speech: sitting in the boat,
while the people are standing on the shore (4.1). The boat, really a
means of transport, functions here as a means to create distance. It both
protects Jesus from the pushing crowd and provides him with a plat-
form from which to address them (4.1). After he has finished speaking,
the boat sails away. Leaving the crowd behind on the shore, the disci-
ples take Jesus to the other side (4.35-36).
The significance of the boat is highlighted by two other data. In 3.9
Jesus orders his disciples to have a boat ready for him in case the crowd
pushes closer. When in 4.1 Jesus actually gets into a boat to be safe
from the pressure of the crowd, the reader imagines it may well be the
boat of 3.9, despite the absence of a definite article. The second datum
also concerns an order. Jesus' order in 3.9 to prepare a boat corresponds

to his order in 4.35 to cross over to the other shore. The order is then
carried out in the boat in which Jesus is already sitting. It is typical of
this section that in contrast both to the preceding one, where he stays
ashore, and to the next, where he sails regularly, Jesus sits in the boat
without sailing in it. The boat remains alongside, and Jesus is—so it
seems from 4.1-2, 35-36—the only one sitting in it when he addresses
the crowd.
The frame also shows a clear connection with the place where Jesus
gives his second address. The verb KdOimca ('sit') is used eleven times
in Mark but only twice with regard to Jesus, namely in 4.1 and 13.3.
In 4.1, Mark presents Jesus 'sitting on the lake' (KaGfjaGai ev xfj
QaXacGK}), and in 13.3, 'sitting on the Mount of Olives' (icaGrmevoi)
a\)xo\) eic; TO "Opo<; TCOV 'Eâicav). Properly speaking, then, the loca-
tional reference in 4.1 'sitting in the boat' is not rendered adequately. It
would be more exact to say that Jesus enters the boat and then—'sitting
on the water'—pronounces the parable discourse. Taking into account
the specific meaning of Kd6r||nai, this remarkable and unique indication
of place reinforces the similarities between 4.3-32 and 13: they are the
two places in the book where Jesus, seated on a Ka0e8pa, teaches his
audience or announces to them what is to happen. These macrosyntac-
tic signals make it clear to the reader that the parable chapter, like ch.
13, is a unit in its own right, which, moreover, occupies a central posi-
tion in the part in which it occurs.
The conclusion is that the first main part, like the three main parts
taken together, forms a trilogy. The three sections of the first main part
are represented in Figure 11.
I— Jesus is active on one side of the lake 1.16-4.1

Jesus addresses the crowd from the boat 4.2-34
'— Jesus repeatedly crosses the lake 4.35-8.2
Figure 11
The two narrative sections surrounding the spoken text of the central
piece differ from each other in locality and theme. While in 1.16-4.1
Jesus proclaims the good news on the side of the lake where Caper-
naum lies, in 4.35-8.21 he repeatedly crosses the lake to be active in
various places on the other side, some of which are non-Jewish (5.1-20;
7.24-8.10). It is noteworthy that even when travelling overland Jesus'
range of action in the third section is considerably larger than in the

first, extending, in fact, as far as the country of the Gerasenes (5.1),
Tyrus and Sidon (7.24), and the Decapolis (7.31).
The difference in theme concerns the twelve, who are selected and
appointed in the first section, but increasingly show signs of incompre-
hension in the third. This theme is first referred to in 4.13 but becomes
really apparent when Jesus and the twelve start travelling across the
lake. During the three crossings the theme is further developed and
linked with the loaves of the mass meals both by the narrator (6.50-51)
and by Jesus himself (4.40; 7.18; 8.17-21).
The Specific Character of 1.

Does 1.14-4.1 have sufficient internal cohesion to function as a unit in
its own right?1 At first sight the internal cohesion of 1.14-4.1 is less ev-
ident than its difference from 4.35-8.21. That alters, however, when we
apply to it some of the generally accepted criteria: the places and times
in which the stories are set, the characters figuring in them, and the
themes with which they are concerned.
All the episodes told here take place in Galilee (1.14). The narrator
takes the readers four times to the shore of the lake (1.16; 2.13; 3.7;
4.1), and, also four times, to the synagogue at Capernaum (1.21, 23, 29;
3.1), where, as in the other Galilaean synagogues (1.39), Jesus teaches
on the sabbath, and where the narrator sets two individual stories. Then,
again four times, he places incidents in a house, probably three times
the house of Jesus' followers Simon and Andrew (1.29; 2.1; 3.20) and
1. See about this my two articles 'Concentric Structures in Mark 2,1-3,6 and
3,7-4,r and 'Concentric Structures in Mark 1:14-3:35 (4:1): With Some Observa-
tions on Method', Biblnt 3 (1995), pp. 75-98. For other divisions, I refer particu-
larly to Brett, 'Suggestions', pp. 179-83; Stenger, 'Die Grundlegung', pp. 28-50;
Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, pp. 311-12; Humphrey, He is Risen!, p. 4; Breck, The
Shape, pp. 168-71. Breck has the second section (3.7-6.29) overlap the first (1.16-
3.19) in 3.7-19, and leaves out the entire parable chapter (ch. 4). Then he has the
third section (5.21-9.29) overlap the second in 5.21-6.29, and again leaves out an
episode (8.22-26). As an answer to these 'irregularities' he says that 'the author was
working less from a tightly structured outline than from an acquired sense for bal-
ance and heightening' (p. 170). I think, nevertheless, that the omissions in particu-
lar undermine his division. From the reader's point of view the proposal is unclear
and confusing, the more so since the reader cannot disregard the omitted passages
when reading the proposal.
once that of Levi, the tax-collector, who had also followed Jesus (2.15).
Four episodes are set in some other place, mostly and probably always
in the open air: in a lonely spot (1.35), in the grainfields (2.23), on a
mountain (3.13), and at some unspecified location outside, where a
crowd is sitting around Jesus (3.32). True, the summaries refer regu-
larly to activities taking place all through Galilee and to people flocking
from far and near to see and hear Jesus (1.28, 38-39; 2.13; 3.8-12).
Still, on the basis of 1.38, where Jesus proposes to go to the nearby
towns, the reader situates these separate events without exception in
Capernaum and the immediate vicinity of that town, so that this section
has a clear unity of place. Compared with the next two sections, where
Jesus either stays in the boat near the shore (4.2-34) or regularly sails to
and fro (4.35-8.21), in 1.14-4.1 everything happens on the shore, that
is, in Capernaum and its environs, and therefore on the Jewish side of
the lake.
Indicators of time are known to be infrequent in this part of the book,
yet it is remarkable that events occurring on the sabbath happen only in
the part set in Galilee, and that, with the exception of 6.2, they are all
found in the first three chapters. They relate to Jesus' teaching in the
synagogue (1.21; 6.2), or to activities which, according to the scribes,
are strictly forbidden for anyone on the sabbath (2.23-24; 3.2). This
probably has everything to do with the fact that discussions on the
observance of the sabbath—no doubt a controversial issue between
Christians of Jewish and non-Jewish background—play here a more
important part than elsewhere in the book.
As far as the characters around Jesus are concerned, there are four
categories besides the crowd: Jesus' twelve fellow workers, a larger
circle of followers, his opponents, and the occasional sufferers whom
he cures or delivers from the power of demons. The first three groups,
who belong to the fixed constellation of characters until the end of the
book, are introduced at the beginning of this section.
The first and four most important fellow workers are selected by
Jesus, who asks them to join him (1.16-20). They accompany Jesus as
an inner circle of friends among a growing group of followers (1.21,
38; 2.15, 23; 3.7, 9). Around the core of these four Jesus forms a group
of twelve. To this end he singles out from his followers the persons
who, along with the four selected earlier, constitute 'the twelve'. He
finally installs them on a mountain, giving them the power to proclaim
the word and cast out demons as he does himself (3.13-19). In this way
the installation of the twelve is rounded off.
Jesus also appeals to others to follow him, not only by addressing
people in the synagogue or on the shore and curing the sick and casting
out demons, but also through personal contacts. One example is Jesus'
meeting with Levi (2.14), who becomes his follower but is not selected
as one of the twelve (3.16-19). In this way, a larger group of followers,
next to the twelve, forms around Jesus (2.15). The formation of this
group is also rounded off, namely when Jesus excludes his mother and
brothers—who do not answer his call but try to have him called away
(3.31)—and designates those sitting around him as his new family
(3.32-35).
Jesus' opponents are introduced more gradually. First, the scribes are
only named as men from whom Jesus distinguishes himself by his
teaching, without them yet being present (1.22). In 2.1-12 some scribes
are, seemingly by chance, present in the house where Jesus assures a
paralytic of the remission of his sins. Shocked by this claim, they in-
wardly accuse Jesus of blasphemy, but Jesus, reading their thoughts, re-
futes their allegation by laying the blame of blasphemy at their door
(2.6-9). From then on they start agitating against Jesus, first by com-
plaining to the disciples about his behaviour (2.16), then by calling him
to account for theirs (2.18, 24), and finally by spying on him in the syn-
agogue at Capernaum in the hope of finding incriminating evidence
against him (3.1-6). When they are sure they have found it, they begin
making plans to liquidate him (3.6). However, Jesus' opponents do not
come out into the open until they—now qualified by the narrator as 'the
scribes who came down from Jerusalem'—accuse Jesus of having
made a pact with the highest demonic power, which enables him to cast
out demons (3.23-30). Thus, for the reader the introduction and presen-
tation of the opponents, too, has reached its climax before Jesus tells
his parables from the boat to the crowd on the shore.
Finally, the reader recognizes 1.14-4.1 as a thematic unity. This is
best summed up by the word 'authority' (eôvaia). Though not used
frequently, the term occurs with some regularity precisely in this part of
the book, and, what is equally significant, at very important moments
(1.22, 27; 2.10; 3.15). Jesus' authority also comes to expression in a
number of places where the word itself is not mentioned. The immedi-
ate response of the first four followers demonstrates the authority that
the fishermen attribute to Jesus' summons. The first healing stories con-
tain formulations which make it clear that through Jesus' intervention
people are delivered not only from diseases and sufferings but also
from demons (1.31, 42) and even from sins (2.5, 7, 10). If Jesus' au-
thority implies even the power to forgive sins, which is the sole pre-
rogative of God, it is unforgivable to impute that power to his being in
alliance with the prince of demons (3.23-30).
Concentric Patterns in 1.14-4.1

On the face of it, the section before the parable chapter seems to be a
mosaic of loosely connected episodes. Closer inspection reveals, how-
ever, that it consists of three sequences, each of them arranged accord-
ing to the concentric principle: 1.14-45//2.1-3.6//3.7-4.1. The first se-
quence, 1.14-45, is made up of the seven episodes represented in Figure
12.
Place Time Action
Galilee proclaim 14-15

1 the lake - call and follow 16-20
•—synagogue sabbath teach and cast out demons 21-28
house of Simon sabbath heal and minister to 29-31
I—at the door after the sabbath heal and cast out demons 32-34
lonely place - leave and call back 35-39
heal and be proclaimed 40-45
Figure 12
This concentric pattern requires some explanation. The beginning

and end are interrelated. The sequence begins with Jesus coming into
Galilee to proclaim the kingdom of God (KTipvaaco) and call upon his
hearers to repent and believe his message (TO ewxyyeAiov) (1.14-15). It
ends with a mirror image of this: the leper who, contrary to Jesus' or-
der, proclaims (Krip-uoaco) the message (TOV ôyov), with the result that
Jesus becomes so well known that he can no longer enter a town
openly, and people come flocking to him from everywhere (1.45). The
messenger himself has now—against his will?—become the content of
the message.
The reader who has perceived the relation between the two framing
episodes can hardly fail to notice the opposition between the story of
the four fishermen who decide to follow Jesus (1.16-20), and its coun-
terpart, the story of Simon and his companions who go searching for
(Kaxa5ic6KCo) Jesus when he seems to withdraw from his followers and
goes to a place where he is all by himself, just as at the time before the
four followed him (1.35-39). Between these two stand three episodes:
the public casting out of a demon in the synagogue at Capernaum on
the sabbath (1.21-28), and as its counterpart the public cures and exor-
cisms in front of the house after sunset, when the sabbath is over (1.32-
34); between these two stands the cure of Simon's mother-in-law in the
seclusion of the house on the sabbath (1.29-31).
The intriguing thing about this structure is that the central position,
on which concentric compositions usually focus attention, seems to be
occupied by the least important incident: almost casually, and with no
other witnesses present but his four followers, Jesus cures one single
woman, Simon's mother-in-law, who suffers from fever. It is therefore
unlikely that the episode forms the central element of a concentric
structure, unless it deserves this special attention on macrosyntactic
grounds. After the cure the woman may seem to drop out of the picture.
That she does not is something that the reader does not discover until
the last page of the book, where the narrator mentions a number of
women who ministered to Jesus when he was in Galilee (15.40-41). As
it is, this information is anticipated in the first part of the book by the
mention of at least one woman who ministered to Jesus and his com-
panions in Galilee (1.31). These are the only two places in Mark where
the verb 8ictKoveco ('minister to') is used for people in Jesus' company.
The second sequence which consists of five concentrically arranged
episodes is represented in Figure 13.
Place Action
Capernaum/house healing of the paralysed legs 2.1-12

i— tollhouse/house eat with toll collectors and sinners 2.13-17
no place indicator no fasting, old and new 2.18-22
1— in the fields find something to eat on the sabbath 2.23-28
' Capernaum/synagogue healing of the withered hand 3.1-6
Figure 13
Unlike the passages on either side of them, the five episodes deal each
with a polemical incident. In addition, the central and outer episodes
contain veiled yet unmistakable references to Jesus' violent death: in
2.7 through the way in which the scribes' silent allegation anticipates
the high priest's accusation in 14.64; in 2.20 where the taking away of
the bridegroom alludes to Jesus' death; and in 3.6 where the Pharisees
start consulting with the Herodians how they can destroy Jesus. More-
over, the three central episodes involve the disciples and are concerned
with eating (eating versus fasting; fasting versus not fasting). The first
and last two episodes also have a theme in common: the first two the
forgiveness of sins, the last two the extent of the sabbath regulations. In
the first two the forgiveness of sins is very appropriately linked to
Jesus' function as Son of Man (2.10), and in the last two this function is
extended to the title 'Lord' in connection with the limited validity of
the sabbath law (2.28). I supplement this series with a structural ele-
ment that has not been noticed before. It concerns the nature of the
cures narrated in the first and the last episode. Hand and foot are so
clearly part of one semantic paradigm that the beginning and final epi-
sode are also connected on account of this binary opposition, and thus
form an even clearer inclusion than would have been the case otherwise.
In contrast to analysts who place a caesura before 4.1 and let the
sequence end with 3.35,21 regard the spoken text of ch. 4, together with
vv. 2 and 33-34, as one unit, and 4.1 as belonging to the sequence 3.7-
4.1. 3 Thus, 3.7-4.1 forms the concentrically arranged sequence repre-
sented in Figure 14.
Place Action
1 lake instruction, large crowds, preparation of a boat 3.7-12

1— mountain Jesus forms a circle of twelve 3.13-19
house discussions on the source of Jesus' authority 3.20-30
I—outside Jesus forms a new family 3.31-35
1 lake instruction, large crowds, Jesus enters a boat 4.1
Figure 14
2. E.g. Stenger, 'Die Grundlegung', p. 42, and J. Lambrecht, Marcus interpre-

tator: Stijl en boodschap in Me. 3,20-4,34 (Paris: Desclee De Brouwer, 1969),
p. 80; idem, The Relatives of Jesus in Mark', NovT 16 (1974), pp. 241-58 (252).
3. It may seem a problem that 4.1 is also seen as part of the outer frame around
the parable discourse (see the section The Parable Chapter as Key to the Division'
The first and the last episode, which are set by the lake, are the only
places in Mark that mention both the presence of a huge crowd (noXi)
nXr\Qo(; in 3.7, 8 and 6%\oc, KXEIGTOC, in 4.1) and the possibility of
avoiding it by means of the boat. The two episodes in the second and
the fourth position, 3.13-19 and 3.31-35, are also related. In the first,
Jesus selects and appoints the circle of twelve; naturally the choice of
some implies the exclusion of others (Levi, for instance). In the second,
Jesus excludes his relatives, who have opposed him in the preceding
episode (3.21), and designates those who do God's will as his new
family; they form a larger circle of followers around Jesus and the
twelve (3.34-35). The centre of the sequence is taken up by the contro-
versy about the nature and source of Jesus' authority. The scribes who
came down from Jerusalem attribute his power to a pact with Satan,
and are told that that there is no forgiveness for them.
Thus, the third and last sequence of this section has a rounding-off
function. The small circle of Jesus' fellow workers is now complete
(though they do not become operational until 6.7-13). The larger circle
around Jesus (among whom Levi and Peter's mother-in-law) has also
been formed. Finally, the opposition has already hardened its attitude,
and even at this early point of the story Jesus has already denounced the
Jerusalemite opponents before they have been able to carry their plans
into effect.
It is easy to see that the entire section 1.14-4.1 is concentric. This
structure is represented in Figure 15.
I— Jesus attracts followers and evokes opposition 1.14-45

Jesus meets increasing opposition 2.1-3.6
'—Jesus creates the twelve and forms a new family 3.7-4.1
Figure 15
As has been pointed out above, the centre of the middle sequence and
hence the focal point of the whole section, is occupied by the saying
about the incompatibility of the old and the new (2.21-22). The relation
between old and new is also the main theme of this section. In 1.21-28
it is precisely Jesus' new way of speaking that evokes the reaction,
'What is this? A new teaching—with authority!' The emphasis on the
above), but owing to its position the verse has a dual function, namely to close the
preceding and open the next sequence.
newness represented by Jesus also pervades the rest of the section, from
Jesus' announcement of God's kingdom in 1.15 to the creation of a new
family in 3.32-35. At the beginning of the narrative Jesus calls four
men away from their trade (1.16-20), and appoints them, with eight
others, to be his fellow workers (3.16-19). Jesus not only speaks as one
having authority, and not like the scribes (1.22), but he also makes his
authority visible in his power to cast out demons, heal the sick, and
even remit sins (1.23-2.12). That Jesus' assertion of his authority ap-
pears to involve a mortal battle between Jesus and the religious estab-
lishment illustrates that the old and the new are incompatible (2.1-3.6,
22).
The Specific Character of 4.35-8.21

The composition of the parable chapter will be discussed in Chapter 8.
Like the first section, 4.35-8.21 gives the impression of being poorly
organized, but contains some striking repetitions: one doublet (two
mass meals: 6.35-44 and 8.1-9) and one triplet (three crossings of the
Sea of Galilee: 4.35-41; 6.45-52; 8.13-21).4 Taken together, they are
the double backbone of this section. The two are internally and mutu-
ally connected by various sayings in a way that is unique to the story.
Thus, the first crossing is linked to the third by means of a question
from Jesus, who reproves the disciples for their lack of trust and un-
derstanding (oimco, 'not yet', in 4.40 and 8.17-21). The first mass meal
and the second crossing are connected by an explanatory note from the
narrator, who equally refers to the disciples' lack of understanding and
hardness of heart (6.52). Finally, the two mass meals are linked to one
another and to the third crossing by a double saying by Jesus on the
same topic (8.17-20 and 21). Owing to their interdependence and posi-
tion the accounts of the first and the last crossing function as the begin-
ning and conclusion of the whole section, and consequently as a kind of
frame.
The section starts with a crossing, and this sets the tone for the whole
passage. The boat has been mentioned before, namely in 3.9 and 4.1,
where it served Jesus as a refuge and a Ka9£5pa, but it is only in 4.35
4. Strangely enough, Fowler {Reader, pp. 67-69) discusses only thefirsttwo as

interrelated stories. When discussing 8.14-21 (pp. 145-46) he does refer to the two
earlier crossings but without pointing out that they, along with 8.14-21, form a
triplet.
that Jesus actually puts to sea. From then on Jesus and his disciples
make several journeys by boat until they finally arrive at Bethsaida in
8.22. Apart from the three crossings referred to above, various other
crossings are mentioned (5.21; 6.32, 53; 8,10), but it is impossible to
determine their exact number or to localize the places of departure and
arrival exactly. This creates the impression that Jesus is constantly
crossing the lake. Of the various crossings only three are the subject of
a story.
In these stories, the boat appears to have several functions. It is first
and foremost a means of transport, which takes Jesus and the disciples
to their destination on the opposite shore despite a storm (4.37) or an
adverse wind (6.47-48). In addition to this, the boat is an enclosed
space resembling the house where Jesus and his disciples seek refuge
from the crowds. In this section, the boat is clearly not a means of pub-
lic transport like the ship in Acts 27, but a place where Jesus can be
alone with his disciples and talk to them confidentially, without others
being involved.
By means of these repeated crossings Jesus extends his range of
action beyond Galilee. He leaves Jewish territory and crosses the bor-
der into an area that is Gentile in character. The first border-crossing
journey is recounted in 4.35-41. This is followed by another journey,
for in 7.24-31 Jesus is travelling overland to Tyre and from there
through Sidon and across the Gentile territory of the Decapolis to the
Sea of Galilee. The reader imagines that the healing of the deaf-mute in
7.32-37 takes place in the Decapolis, and the second mass meal on the
Gentile side of the lake. It is noteworthy, however, that we are not told
why Jesus travels to these parts.
The present section does not confine itself to border-crossing events
in the literal sense. Other boundaries are crossed, in particular those
between Jews and Gentiles and between clean and unclean. It begins
with Jesus fighting and conquering a legion of demons in Gerasa. The
people of the region do not give Jesus the opportunity to proclaim the
message himself, but the formerly possessed man makes Jesus' name
known in the whole Decapolis (5.18-20). The story about the woman
and the girl who are healed by Jesus in an unspecified place in Galilee
shows a border-crossing event of another kind (5.22-34). In the healing
of both Jesus breaks the current purity laws: he allows the woman who
is suffering from haemorrhages to touch him, and he touches the girl
who—at least in the eyes of those around her and perhaps also in the
narrator's—is dead. This transgression by Jesus smoothes the transition

from the Jewish to the Gentile world. The purity laws, but now with re-
gard to food and meals, are also at issue in 7.1-23, where the narrator
assigns a very radical meaning to Jesus' pronouncements (7.19c). In the
next story, about the healing in Tyre, the relation between Jews and
Gentiles is thematically expressed in the metaphors of bread and
crumbs, children and puppies. Because of this theme and standing as it
does between the two mass meals, the story also prepares for the sec-
ond mass meal, which takes place on the Gentile side of the lake and is
attended by some who 'have come from a great distance', which means
that they are not Jews but Gentiles.
It is in the context of these border-crossing events that the story
focuses attention on the disciples' failure to understand Jesus. There
has already been a premonition of it in the parable section (4.10-13),
but the true extent of their failure shows itself during the first two
crossings when they are caught in a storm (4.35-41) or impeded by a
headwind (6.45-52). During the third crossing, after the two mass
meals, their lack of understanding earns the disciples the bitter reproach
from Jesus that they are blind and deaf (6.52; 8.18), as the outsiders
who did not understand the parables (4.11-12). The crisis appears to be
connected with the mass meals in which the disciples themselves
played an active role (6.35-44, 52; 8.4-9, 14-21). The theme is also
prominent in the framing verses of the section, where the question
'have you still no trust?' (ovnco £%exe 7ciaxiv, 4.40), in the meanwhile
reinforced by 'do you also fail to understand?' (OUTCD^ iced viielc,
dauvexoi ecrce, 7.18), climaxes in the reproach 'do you not yet under-
stand?' (oimco voeixe o\)6e ouviexe, 8.17-21).
Another striking feature of the present section is that quite a number
of the events related here surpass the events narrated before both in
scale and range. In the preceding sections Jesus' exorcisms are confined
to the expulsion of individual demons; now Jesus destroys an entire
army of them (5.9). The woman with the flow of blood has been ill for
twelve years, spending her whole fortune on a succession of doctors
who have been unable to help her (5.29-34). Jairus's daughter is at the
point of death and actually dies while Jesus is on his way to the house
(5.35). In the earlier part of the book Jesus is rejected by the scribes, the
Pharisees, the Herodians and his next of kin; now a whole region and
his own hometown turn away from him (5.17 and 6.3-4). In the previ-
ous sections Jesus selects and appoints his disciples; now he sends them
out to do what so far he has only done himself (6.7-13, 30). There is
also a marked difference in the nature and scope of the signs worked by
Jesus. He controls the forces of nature, and the miraculous feedings are
events of unprecedented magnitude (4.39; 6.51; 6.35-44; 8.1-9).
The Concentric Structure of 4.35-8.21

The structure of the third section of the first main part is less transpar-
ent than the reader would wish. The delimitation is clear enough. The
preceding section ends with 4.33-34, and the next main part begins with
the healing of a blind man in 8.22-26 (which, along with the healing of
blind Bartimaeus in 10.46-52, forms an inclusion around the central
part). The first and the last of the three crossings, one at the beginning
and the other at the end of this section, function as a kind of inner
frame (4.35-41 and 8.10-21). It is difficult, however, to recognize a
clear structure in the material within the frame. There are two reasons
for this.
The first reason is that in addition to the crossings at the beginning
and the end there is an account of another crossing in the middle of the
section (6.45-52). This second crossing is somewhat confusing, espe-
cially at a first reading when the reader is still unfamiliar with the three-
fold repetition of similar events, as are the three passion predictions in
the central part of the book (8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34). Therefore, after the
second crossing it is easy for the reader to think that the first two
crossings serve as a framework around 5.1-6.4.
Secondly there is the difficulty that, on the face of it, the structural
function of the triple crossing is complicated by the presence of the two
mass meals in 6.35-44 and 8.1-9, which in their turn can be regarded as
structural elements. However, on closer inspection it becomes evident
that the crossings and mass meals are related. Not only do the stories
about the second and the third crossing follow immediately on the first
and the second mass meal respectively, but the crossings and mass
meals are also explicitly connected to one another. The narrator men-
tions the first mass meal at the second crossing (6.52), while Jesus con-
nects both the mass meals with the theme of the disciples' incompre-
hension and lack of trust during the third (8.17-20).
If we consider the composition of the section in relation to the
sequence of episodes, we can recognize a number of concentric ar-
rangements at the microlevel of the text. The healing story of the two
women in 5.21-43 has long been recognized as the clearest example of

the concentric pattern in Mark. Taking this passage as the centre of the
sequence consisting of 5.1-20, 5.21-43, and 6.1-6,1 note a number of
striking equivalences and oppositions. The rejection of Jesus by a
whole region (5.14-17) and then by a whole town (6.1-6), which has no
parallel in the book, connects the two outer stories. Two striking op-
positions are that between the command to tell what has happened
(5.18-20) and the injunction to tell no one (5.43), and that between Je-
sus' being able to do deeds of power (5.1-43) and his being unable to
do so (6.1-6). On account of these I recognize the two outer episodes as
each other's counterparts, and the whole sequence as a concentric con-
struction.
The three episodes vary considerably in length, but this is hardly
surprising in a section where practically all related episodes, unless
they are about a crossing or a mass meal, are notable for their differ-
ence in length. Similarity in length between corresponding episodes
seems to be the exception rather than the rule here, as is clear from Fig-
ure 16.
Relatively long Relatively short
5.1-20 rejected by the Gerasenes 6.1-6 rejected by his hometown

5.21-24 healing of a girl 5.25-34 healing of a woman
+ 35-43
6.7-13 mission of the twelve 6.30-34 return of the twelve
7.1-23 discussion on purity laws 6.53-57 healing
+ 7.24-31 healing
7.24-31 healings in Gentile territory 6.53-57 healings at Gennesaret
Figure 16
The passage about the death of John the baptist, 6.14-29, forms the
obvious centre of the sequence 6.7-13//14-29//30-34. Inserted between
the episodes relating the mission of the twelve and their return, the
flashback story confronts the reader with the fate that awaits people
who are sent out to call for repentance. Apparently the sequence is
about the twelve and the baptist rather than Jesus, but after 3.6 the
reader cannot but interpret the execution of the forerunner as a sign of
what will happen to Jesus.
The place of 6.7-34 within the whole of 4.35-8.21 is much more
problematic than its own inner structure. The reason for this is that it
has no counterpart in any of the other clusters in the present section.

Beyond the borders of this section, however, it could form part of the
series that begins with the calling of the first four fellow workers (1.16-
20), and continues with the appointment of the twelve (3.13-19) and
their initiation into the meaning of the parable of the seed (4.10-20, 34).
That series would then conclude with the account of the mission of the
twelve and their return in 6.7-34. The sequence prepares for the role of
the twelve in the two mass meals, for it is only after Jesus has sent them
out on a sort of training mission (6.12-13) and after they have reported
back to him (6.30) that they become active in distributing the loaves
(6.35-44 and 8.1-9). Nevertheless, the somewhat problematic place of
the cluster cautions the reader against the balance usually supposed to
be present in a concentric pattern. It goes without saying that the same
is also true of the more or less concentric survey represented in Figure
17.
i 1.35-41 first crossing
5.1-20 rejection in the country of the Gerasenes

5.21-43 healing of two women
6.1 -6 rejection in hometown
6.7-13 mission of the twelve

6.14-29 violent death of John
6.30-34 return of the twelve
6.35-44 first mass meal
6.45-52 second crossing
6.53-56 healings at Gennesaret

7.1-23 abrogation of the purity laws
7.24-37 healings in Tyre and the Decapolis
8.1-9 second mass meal
8.10-21 third crossing
Figure 17
Although the place of 6.7-34 in the above schema is disputable be-

cause it has no counterpart or parallel in 4.35-8.21, it is, in fact, the
logical consequence of the value that I assign to the principal structural
elements of this section, namely, the triple crossing and the two mass
meals. Each of the mass meals calls for a connection with the preceding
episode. The first with 6.7-34 because of Jesus' order in 6.31, the sec-
ond with 7.1-31 because the meal is attended by Gentiles. They are
both followed by departures (in 6.45 and 8.10), which suggests the
presence of a caesura between each mass meal and the next episode.
The three crossings provide overall cohesion to the whole section,
while the last crossing establishes the relationship between the two
mass meals by underlining their relevance to the disciples' incompre-
hension, which is also the theme of the first two crossings. If the reader
is thus led to grasp 4.35-8.21 as one coherent whole, the structural
schema of Figure 17 seems to be preferable to the structuring which
connects 5.1-6.6 directly with the first crossing.
Finally, let us look at 6.53-7.37. The middle piece 7.1-23, in which
Jesus abrogates the ritual purity laws for his followers, is preceded by a
summarizing account of his therapeutic activity at Gennesaret and fol-
lowed by two stories about an exorcism or healing in Tyre and the heal-
ing of a deaf-mute in the Decapolis. While Jesus performs the healings
at Gennesaret in public, he tries in vain to prevent knowledge of the
two healings in Tyre and the Decapolis from reaching the public (7.24,
36). The teaching of the central episode provides a natural transition
from the first meal, which is laid on for Jewish participants, to the sec-
ond, which is attended by Jews and Gentiles.
The composition of the whole section may then be described as fol-
lows. The episodes are arranged in a concentric pattern at three levels.
At the lowest level they are concentrically arranged in three sequences
(5.1-6.6; 6.7-34; 6.53-7.37). At the middle level these sequences are
joined together in two—not symmetrically arranged—segments (5.1-
6.34 and 6.53-7.37), each of which leads on to a mass meal. At the
third level the two segments are connected to one another by three
accounts of a crossing. The final sentence of the second account (v. 52)
expresses the problematic position of the twelve with regard to the first
mass meal. The accounts of the first and the last crossing function as a a
sort of frame around the whole section, as has already been observed
above. Finally, the account of the last crossing presumes the two mass
meals and reveals the disciples' obtuseness in the matter of the loaves.
Chapter 7
A WANDERING JEW (1.16-4.1)
After the hero of the story has been installed and his message summa-
rized, the reader expects Jesus, like John the baptist, to attract a large
audience. Many people do indeed flock around Jesus, but whether they
respond to him is another matter. He starts his activities in his own,
Jewish surroundings. This implies two things. It means, first, that he
can easily reach his audience on foot, without having to make use of
any form of transport, and secondly, that as a matter of course he ex-
clusively addresses people within the Jewish community. Although
there is no reason to suppose that they all shared the same religious
convictions down to the smallest detail, they are usually lumped to-
gether in this respect. The most important exception are the Sadducees,
whose deviating convictions are mentioned in part in 12.18. Jesus
behaves as a member of the Jewish community, but in his message ex-
poses certain practices of the leading circles.
Jesus Calls Four Fellow Workers (1.16-20)

16
As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his
brother Andrew casting a net into the lake—for they were fishermen.
17
And Jesus said to them, 'Follow me and I will make you fish for peo-
ple.' 18And immediately they left their nets and followed him. 19As he
went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John,
who were in their boat mending the nets. 20Immediately he called them;
and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and
followed him.
The book has several stories with a similar structure, but nowhere
else in Mark are such twin stories found nearer to each other than here.
The effect of one story repeating the other is enhanced by the fact that
each of them is about two people. In this respect the stories anticipate
another important event in the lives of Jesus' fellow workers, namely,
when Jesus sends them out two by two on a practice mission (6.7). The
direct sequence of two almost identical stories is remarkable enough to
convince the reader that the two brief narratives are not so much about
two separate incidents as about a course of events that is characteristic
of the way in which people come to follow Jesus. This is confirmed by
the occurrence of yet a third story with the same structure in 2.14. Each
of the three stories contains five elements arranged in a concentric fash-
ion, which means that the two outer and two inner elements reflect each
other, and thus focus attention on the element in the middle. The struc-
ture is represented in Figure 18.1
1— Jesus is (alone) on his way 1.16a 1.19a

i— he sees one or more persons at work 1.16b 1.19b
he calls upon them to come after him 1.17 1.20a
'— without delay they leave their work 1.18a 1.20b
— they follow him on his way 1.18 1.20c
Figure 18
Whether stories of this type already had this standardized form at the
time Mark was written cannot be established with sufficient certainty.
For a story that is similarly constructed I can, however, refer to the
story in 1 Kgs 19.19-21 about Elisha, who is called by his predecessor
Elijah to take over both his prophet's cloak and his function.2 Here
there is a first example of how the portrayal of Jesus in Mark is drawn
in lines and colours borrowed from the representation of the two prop-
hets in the Elijah-Elisha cycle in 1 and 2 Kings, but the connection of
the Markan call stories with the passage from 1 Kings also brings to
light that the second part of Jesus' pronouncement in v. 17 is not one of
the stock elements of the genre.3
1. For a more extensive treatment see B.M.F. van Iersel, 'La vocation de Levi
(Me, II, 13-17, Mt., IX, 9-13, La, V, 27-32): Traditions et redactions', in I. de la
Potterie (ed.), De Jesus aux evangiles (Gembloux: Duculot; Paris: Lethielleux,
1967), pp. 212-32 (215-16).
2. On similar stories in the writings of Xenophon, Iamblichus, Philostratus and
Ben Sira, see W.T. Shiner, Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS,
145; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 35-167.
3. See R. Pesch, 'Berufung und Sendung, Nachfolge und Mission: Eine Studie
zu Mk 1,16-20', ZKT91 (1969), pp. 9-18.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 129
The link of the two brief stories with the Prologue is rather loose but
not absent. There is no explicit connection with regard to time. In that
respect the two stories are left unrelated to their context, as are most
episodes in this part of the book. Neither are there any text signals from
which it is unambiguously clear that the four men had witnessed the
appearance of John the baptist or heard Jesus announce the kingdom of
God and call for repentance, or even that they had heard of either Jesus
or John from others. On the other hand, the reader will almost automat-
ically infer from the sequence within 1.14-20 that these men do not
follow a complete stranger but the man who proclaims that the king-
dom of God has come and who invites people to believe this good
news.4
1.16. This is the first time that the Sea of Galilee is mentioned.5 After
the general reference to the region of that name in 1.14 this is a more
definite indicator of place. Sea of Galilee differs from the names Sea of
Kinneret and Sea of Tiberias used by older writers, and is supposedly
invented by the author to remind his audience of Galilee as the place
where this entire part is situated. It is important to notice that the sec-
ond mention of the name (7.31) is also the last reference to the lake.6
The first two men taken on by Jesus are Simon and Andrew, two broth-
ers. Simon is a name that occurs regularly both in Greek and in Hebrew
and Aramaic. Andrew is a Greek name. That Simon is the first and—
since Andrew is called Simon's brother and not the other way around—
also the more important of the two will not surprise readers already
aware of the role of Peter, which is most certainly the case with the
readers in ancient Rome. Other readers will only gradually discover
4. Marshall (Faith, p. 136) establishes a rather direct link between the two im-
peratives in v. 15 and the imperative in vv. 16-20. Anyone who reads vv. 14-15 as a
summary of what is told in the first main part can hardly read vv. 14-20 as one
coherent sequence. On the priority of ideals over family ties, see S.C. Barton,
Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (SNTSMS, 80; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 57-124.
5. I replace 'sea' with 'lake' whenever I do not use the proper name. Cf. NRSV,
p. xx. For the translation 'sea' rather than 'lake' see E.S. Malbon, 'The Jesus of
Mark and the Sea of Galilee', JBL 103 (1984), pp. 363-77.
6. The opinion of Stock (The Method and Message of Mark, p. 66) that 1.16
and 7.31 frame Jesus' activities around the Sea of Galilee does not take enough ac-
count of the fact that after 7.31 there follow a number of important events both on
the other side of the Sea of Galilee and at Bethsaida.
how important his role is. Up to 3.16 he is referred to as Simon, at

which point his name is changed. The two men are fishing with a round
net that is cast into the water from the shore or from the shallow waters
along the shore (dn^pdMxo).
In spite of this separate mention is made of the two brothers being
fishermen, which seems at first glance rather clumsy. In fact it is not,
and for several reasons. Fishing with a round net, which is done with or
without a boat, can also be pursued by amateurs. The word 'fishermen'
underlines exactly the point at issue; not everyone who tries to catch a
fish occasionally is a fisherman. The two brothers go fishing because it
is their livelihood, and when Jesus calls them, they do not just stop
fishing but also leave their nets behind, for they will no longer need
them. Moreover, the explanatory clause prepares for Jesus' pro-
nouncement in v. 17.7
7.77. The actual calling is identical to the LXX version of a somewhat

different appeal made by Elisha in 2 Kgs 6.19, which strengthens the
resemblance between Jesus and Elisha. In his pronouncement on the fu-
ture of the two men Jesus uses the metaphor 'fishers of people'. Agri-
culture, cattle-breeding, hunting and fishing have provided many ex-
pressive metaphors and sayings, such as 'to fish in troubled waters' and
'to swallow a story, hook, line and sinker'. 'To fish for people' is also a
much-used metaphor.8 This phrase often has a negative sound, certainly
for the people caught or to be caught, but in a derived sense for the
catchers as well. A negative meaning is also noticeable in Jer. 16.16,
Ezek. 29.4,9 Amos 4.2 and Hab. 1.14-15, where similar metaphors are
found. The same holds for two of the psalms from the documents of
Qumran, 1QH 3.26 and 5.7-8,10 which show that these negative associ-
ations still existed around the beginning of the Christian era. There are
no real clues for a different meaning of the metaphor in a Jewish-
Palestinian milieu. The opposition fish-people has a positive sound,
7. Pesch, 'Berufung und Sendung', p. 15.

8. W.H. Wuellner, The Meaning of 'Fishers of Men' (Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster Press, 1967), pp. 64-231, gives numerous examples, and links them frequently
to metaphors derived from hunting, bird-catching and the herding of animals.
9. In Ezek. 47.9-10, however, fishing has a positive meaning; the great number
of fishermen indicates rich fishing-grounds.
10. Thus C.W.F. Smith, 'Fishers of Men: Footnotes on a Gospel Figure', HTR
52 (1959), pp. 187-203.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 131
however, in the aphorism of an old philosopher, quoted by Diogenes

Laertius: 'If afishermanrisks a soaking to catch a fish, would I not do
the same to catch a human being?'u In v. 17, as in this saying, the tenor
of the contrast between 'people' and 'fish' is that the former are 'supe-
rior' and the latter 'inferior', so that one could say that with these words
Jesus calls the twofishermenfrom a lesser to a greater task in life. In its
positive meaning the metaphor will have been more easily understood
in a Graeco-Roman than in a Palestinian environment.12 Jesus calls the
two men not only to follow him but also and in particular to become his
fellow workers later on.13
11. Thus Haenchen (Der Weg Jesu, p. 81 n. 4), who, like many predecessors,
refers to Diogenes Laertius 2.67 and attributes the saying to Aristippos (fourth
century BCE); Wuellner {The Meaning of 'Fishers of Men', p. 72) attributes it to
Solon (sixth century BCE). Gnilka {Markus, I, p. 74 n. 14) refers in addition to other
places in Diogenes Laertius, but these do not seem relevant to me since they relate
to philosophers from the third century CE.
12. Thus also E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark
(JSNTSup, 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), p. 170. If the metaphor referred to the
gathering of people on behalf of the judgment, as is regularly suggested, the fishers
of men would have a function as messengers (aYYeXoi/&7t6aToAxn) at the (escha-
tological) judgment. In that case a number of places in Mark and Matthew would
present a fascinating whole; see apart from Mk 1.16 also Mk 13.27 par.; Mt. 13.36-
42, 47-50; 25.31-46. The sitting of the two sons of Zebedee on either side of Jesus
(Mk 10.38) as assessors of the tribunal would perhaps also fit into that picture. A
prohibitive objection to this view, however, is that the equation dtyyeXoi/
anooToXoi, despite the intrinsic affinity between the two words, does not occur
even once in Mark or the other Synoptics. For the various attempts to give this
metaphor a positive meaning, see J. Mdnek, 'Fishers of Men', NovT 2 (1957-58),
pp. 138-41; Smith, 'Fishers of Men', pp. 187-204; F. Agnew, 'Vocatio primorum
discipulorum in traditione synoptica', VD 46 (1968), pp. 129-47 (141-43); Pesch,
'Berufung und Sendung', pp. 16 and 20-24; Wuellner, The Meaning of 'Fishers of
Men', p. 72. J.D.M. Derrett, "Haav yap dîeiq (Mk i 16): Jesus's Fishermen and
the Parable of the Net', NovT 22 (1980), pp. 108-37, attempts to infer a positive
meaning from Ezek. 47.10. Derrett's suggestion on p. I l l n. 6 is fascinating:
Simon and Andrew stand fishing in the shallow water along the shore. Jesus, acting
as a fisherman, catches them in that water as if they were fish. The reason why I
cannot accept this suggestion, however, is that fishing with a round net was also
done from the shore and the text does not say whether the brothers were fishing
from the shore or from the shallow waters along the shore.
13. To show that the saying refers to a universal mission—which is more
clearly present in 13.9-10 and 14.9—both Pesch ('Berufung und Sendung') and
1.18. Jesus' words have an immediate effect. That this is achieved

without there being any mention of how and why the two men take this
dramatic decision14 has puzzled many a researcher. It had better be real-
ized from the start that the book is not interested in the psychology of
its characters. The book does, however, impress on its readers basic
words and phrases like 'behind me' (orciaco \iov) and 'follow' (dicoA,-
OI)0ECG). It is noteworthy that the descriptive and accurate verb for
fishing with a round net (dn<|)pdM,co) in v. 16 is not followed in v. 18 by
the corresponding noun for such a net (d|u<|)3A,r|GTpov) but by the most
general word used for nets (id SiKT-oa).15 Perhaps the author knew the
difference less well than his use of the word dji^pd^co seems to
suggest.
1.19. The Greek word 8iKToa for 'nets' does, however, connect the first
story with the second, which deals with another pair of brothers, named
James and John. Both names are a Greek version of two Hebrew names
known to have been used in Palestine for centuries. James is the more
important of the two, and because another James will be introduced
later, his father Zebedee is mentioned as well. The opening words of
the second story indicate that Jesus calls James and John immediately
after he calls Simon and Andrew.16 Zebedee and his two sons are also
fishermen. Theirs is a family business, they own a boat and have hired
workers. James and John are getting the large drag-nets (5iicn)a) ready
for the next fishing expedition,17 a job done by day while the fishing it-
self, at least with a drag-net, is carried out by night.
Wuellner (The Meaning of 'Fishers of Men') have to go to great lengths. As yet, it

is difficult for a reader to recognize text signals of such import in 1.16-18.
14. The more so since in 1 Kgs 19.20 there is evidence of delay, if not of hesi-
tancy.
15. See Wuellner, The Meaning of 'Fishers of Men \ pp. 232-33.
16. Gnilka (Markus, p. 72) thinks that the first story took place during the night
and the second during the day, because the fishermen prepared the nets by day and
went fishing by night. This may be true of fishing with a drag-net (cf. Lk. 5.4-5) but
not of fishing with the much smaller round net that is used to catch fish that can be
seen swimming in the water. This, of course, takes place during the day. See for
fishing in antiquity G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina, VI (Giitersloh:
C. Bertelsmann, 1939), pp. 343-70, and Wuellner, The Meaning of 'Fishers of
Men', pp. 11-63.
17. Cf. G.R. Wynne, 'Mending their Nets', Expositor 7.8 (1909), pp. 282-85.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 133
7.20. The second story is almost identical to the first, the only differ-
ence being that James and John are said to leave their father and his
workers. A similar part is played by Elisha's father in 1 Kgs 19.20
when Elisha asks Elijah to let him first say goodbye to his father.
A reader struck by the radical way in which the fishermen leave
everything to follow Jesus does well to compare their conduct with the
drastic measures taken by Elisha. He not only quits his job and liveli-
hood but even resorts to what today is called the destruction of capital:
he slaughters his team of oxen, roasts the meat demonstratively over a
fire made from the yokes of the oxen, and feeds it to the eleven work-
men who, each with his team of oxen, are still at work in the field (1
Kgs 19.21). A more radical way of burning one's boats is hardly con-
ceivable.
Looking back, the reader continues to be intrigued by the question of
why the twin call narratives stand at this point of the story and not, for
instance, after the first appearance of Jesus in the synagogue of Caper-
naum, related in 1.23-28 (in which case the first verb of v. 21 would
have to be in the singular). The people won over by Jesus would then
have had at least some reason to let themselves be persuaded by him. A
reader trained as a theologian will easily see the given order of Mark as
theologically inspired and interpret it as saying that, if things happen as
they ought to happen, one word from Jesus is enough to induce people
to respond at once. However, the remarkable place of the two call sto-
ries can also be approached in a simpler manner. The—if I may say—
instant calling of the four fishermen is clearly reminiscent of the calling
of Elisha, which is told in an equally abrupt way. Another reason for
recognizing the actual position as adequate could be that the four are
the only disciples who as individuals or members of a subgroup will
later play speaking roles in the book. That is why the narrator may have
thought it necessary to introduce Jesus' four most important supporters
immediately after the introduction of Jesus himself in 1.9-15 and before
the first mention of his opponents in 1.22. Yet another reason may be
that in consequence of their calling being told here, these four men can
be said to have witnessed all that Jesus does and says from the begin-
ning.18
The reader who knows what is to come will recognize in this
episode, which is linked with 2.14-15, the first of three phases.19 In the
18. Thus Pesch, 'Berufung und Sendung', p. 26.

19. For such thematic and narrative series of three in Mark, evident in several
first phase, Jesus calls people to follow him (1.16-20 and 2.14-15) and
become his fellow workers later on. In the second, he forms a group of
twelve fellow workers (3.13-19). In the third, he sends the twelve out to
call for a change of heart, cast out demons, and heal the sick (6.7-13).
A New Teaching with Unheard-of Authority (1.21-28)

21
They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the
synagogue and taught. 22They were astounded at his teaching, for he
taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 23Just then
there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, 24and he cried
out, * What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to
destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.' 25But Jesus re-
buked him, saying, 'Be silent, and come out of him!' 26And the unclean
spirit, throwing him into convulsions and crying with a loud voice, came
out of him. 27They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one an-
other, 'What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands
even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.' 28 At once his fame began
to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee.
1.21-22. After the quietly unfolding account of the calling of the first
fellow workers the reader is surprised by this exciting action-packed
episode. Accompanied by the four Jesus enters Capernaum. Somehow
the reader has the impression that the preceding episode took place near
Capernaum and that the fishermen come from that town. This is con-
firmed by the way in which other places suggest that the town and the
lake are nearby.20 On the first sabbath after his arrival at Capernaum
Jesus goes to the synagogue, the religious meeting-place of the local
community,21 in order to give instruction there. This procedure will
gradually appear to be characteristic of many of the episodes in this part
of the book.22 Thereafter Jesus will not visit another synagogue except
in his hometown (6.1). It is equally remarkable that in all concrete sto-
ries there is always mention of the sabbath as well.23 That explains why
places but in a number of other places probably also important for the composition,
see V.K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 19-51.
20. See 1.16 in combination with 1.21; 2.1 with 2.13; and 3.1-6 with 3.7.
21. See E. Schurer and G. Vermes, The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87), II, pp. 423-54.
22. See especially 1.39.
23. See 1.21; 3.1; 6.1.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 135
readers who know that the synagogue is also visited on other days24 get
the impression that Jesus goes to the synagogue only on the sabbath.
Some readers may wonder why Jesus' action of casting out a demon on
the sabbath does not seem to meet with any objections. The reason for
this is not so much the lack of interest in the sabbath issue on the part
of the intended readers,25 as the fact that the opponents of Jesus have
not yet been introduced.
This episode is eventful and exciting because all the characters that
appear regularly in the narrative are here presented and brought into
contact with one another. There are first of all the people who through
illness, some physical defect or demonic possession are dependent on
others; secondly, the unclean spirits who control the possessed individ-
uals in their power; next, the smaller or larger anonymous crowd, here
no bigger in size than the capacity of a synagogue permits; and finally
also the opponents.
Though not yet present in person, the opponents are already men-
tioned: the scribes,26 whose teaching is sharply contrasted with that of
Jesus. They are named with good reason in this context. Although
every man in the synagogue is allowed to give the instruction, and
guests may occasionally be given preference, scribes are commonly
regarded as the right persons for the job. They are the professional,
though unpaid, teachers of the Torah who, since they are also author-
ities on the oral traditions, interpret the written law for present-day
situations. Furthermore, they are expert members of the courts of
justice. In mentality and outlook, most of them would hold the same
views as the Pharisees. More than anyone else, they also assist people
in what is now called 'lernen'. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the wor-
shippers in the synagogue at Capernaum like the instruction of Jesus,
who is not a scribe, better than that of the experts.
1.23-26. No scribes seem to be present, but an unclean spirit is. The

spirit appears to have a man in his power who has no will of his own
and is entirely at the mercy of the demon within him. In those days it
was commonly accepted—and we have no reason to think that Jesus
did not share this view—that there existed an intermediary world
accommodating both heavenly messengers and accomplices of Satan.
24. See Schurer and Vermes, History, II, p. 454.

25. This is the opinion of Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, p. 49.
26. About the scribes, see Schurer and Vermes, History, II, pp. 322-36.
While the former, though mentioned in Mark, do not appear as charac-

ters in the story, the latter do, and frequently. Besides being called
'unclean spirits', they are referred to as 'demons'. The former name
shows that these spirits are seen as counterparts of the Holy Spirit or
the Spirit of God by whom Jesus lets himself be guided in everything
he says and does. Demons are dependent on humans in the sense that
they seem unable to act unless they have taken possession of a human
being whom they can then use as their instrument. Their knowledge, on
the other hand, appears to be greater than that of humans. The demon in
the synagogue knows Jesus' name, knows that Jesus has come to de-
stroy them, and even knows who he is, 'the Holy One of God'. Through
this identification the unclean spirit puts Jesus on the side of the Holy
Spirit. The title does not occur again in Mark but is later replaced by
the title Son of God (3.11; 5.7). Despite his superhuman power and
knowledge, the spirit is impotent to resist Jesus' command to leave the
man.
1.27-28. The interaction between the various characters is very emo-

tional. The listeners in the synagogue respond with great enthusiasm to
Jesus' teaching. The man possessed with the demon roars and screams
at Jesus, while Jesus, in his turn, lashes out against him, and the people
who have witnessed the event are puzzled and shocked.
Although this episode exhibits all the characteristics of a story of
healing or demon expulsion,27 its central concern is to stress Jesus'
exceptional authority, which is manifest both in his teaching and in his
ability to exorcise the demon; but what also matters is the refreshing
novelty of Jesus' approach and appearance. In several respects the story
thus sets the tone for what will be told about Jesus' appearance in Gali-
lee, an aspect that is explicitly stated in the last sentence. In this part of
the book the reader will regularly come across this sort of generalizing
27. Collins (Beginning, pp. 46-56) has convincingly demonstrated how obvious
it was in the cultural situation of that time to present Jesus as a therapist and exor-
cist. Davidsen (The Narrative Jesus, p. 68) shows the close resemblance between
these two functions. On the basis of the division of roles he argues that we should
continue regarding them as miracle stories, in which Jesus fulfils the role of protec-
tor (pp. 61-63). In my opinion, the miracle story remains a modern genre because it
presumes a different conception of nature. See about this P.J. Achtemeier, 'Mira-
cles and the Historical Jesus: A Study of Mark 9:14-29', CBQ 37 (1975), pp. 471-
91 (486-91).
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 137
ending, which is always found next to brief stories about single inci-
dents and summarizing notes.28
Jesus Heals Simon's Mother-in-Law (1.29-31)

29
As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon
and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Now Simon's mother-in-law was
in bed with a fever, and they told him about her at once. 31 He came and
took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she
ministered to them.*
* NRSV, 'she began to serve them'.
1.29-31. Barely longer than the ending just mentioned, the present
episode strikes the reader as a miniature story. The incident is located at
Simon's house, visited by Jesus after the sabbath service at the local
synagogue. The house is apparently at Capernaum. In a somewhat
artificial manner the narrator explains that the first four followers of
Jesus are all present. The reader infers from the plural in the opening
sentence that they have also been to the synagogue with Jesus. Their
experience there may have motivated them to take Jesus along to the
house of Simon and Andrew,29 where Simon's mother-in-law is sick
with a fever,30 and persuade him to heal her.
At the mention of Simon's mother-in-law the reader realizes that the
story tells almost nothing about the family circumstances of Jesus' fel-
low workers.31 We now know that Simon has or had a wife, but the
woman herself is not mentioned, and neither are the relatives of most
other fellow workers of Jesus. Exceptions are the father of James and
John, whose name Zebedee has been preserved in 1.20, 3.17 and 10.35,
28. Such endings are also found in 1.14-15, 32-34, 39; 3.7-8, 10-12.
29. See about the house and the family C. Osiek, The Family in Early Chris-
tianity', CBQ 58 (1996), pp. 1-24.
30. Liihrmann (Markusevangelium, p. 52) thinks that for readers in antiquity
fever meant danger of life. Fever is certainly connected with diseases for which
there were few therapies at the time. An interesting analysis of the four possible
causes of the fever of which readers might think is given by J.G. Cook, 'In Defence
of Ambiguity: Is There a Hidden Demon in Mark 1.29-31?', NTS 43 (1997), pp.
184-208: an illness, an astrological cause, a punishment by God, the work of a
demon. This results in four reading possibilities. In my opinion, Cook overlooks
that in antiquity too a reader may have read the text without filling this blank.
31. Being a general saying Mk 10.29-30 does not specifically refer to them ei-
ther.
and the father of the other James, whose name is Alphaeus according to
3.17. It is clear from this, though, that the name of the father is men-
tioned only to distinguish between two fellow workers who have the
same name. A counterpart to this is found in 15.40, 47, and 16.1, which
distinguish two women named Mary from their namesakes by mention-
ing the names of their sons.
Jesus responds positively to what the men tell him, which no doubt
implies a request to cure the woman from the fever. Jesus' healing
power works through a gesture that for us holds hardly any therapeutic
significance but is a stereotype in antique healing stories:32 he simply
takes her by the hand, helps her out of bed, and the fever appears to
have left her. A simpler healing story is hardly conceivable. All the
standard elements are present here: the diagnosis of the disease, the re-
quest for help, the therapeutic action, and the effect, in this case the ef-
fect on the sick person. The last element is shown by the activity of the
woman: she looks after the five men. It has been pointed out time and
again that this 'looking after' concretely refers to the serving of a meal.
One sometimes overlooks, however, that the verb is not in the aorist but
in the imperfect, which brings to expression that she looks after them
repeatedly, not just once. Hence the different rendering chosen here:
she ministered to them or became their attendant.33
A very important point is left undiscussed when the episode is read
only as an independent miniature story and not as a part of the whole
book.34 Anyone who does read the story in its context will no doubt
remember that Jesus heals Simon's mother-in-law on the sabbath, that
is, after his return from the synagogue and before sunset. In particular,
readers who lived, like the early Christians in Rome, in a milieu in
which the observation of the sabbath law was a matter in dispute, can-
32. See O. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunder-

glauben der Griechen undRomer (RVV, 8.1; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1909),
pp. 1-75.
33. K. Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktions-
geschichtliche Untersuchung (Munich: Kosel, 1970), p. 62, favours, with Schweizer,
an attitudinal interpretation. They relate the * serving' to the service of Jesus in
10.41-45 and then speak of 'die Nachfolge des Dienens' and 'der Dienst an den
Mitmenschen'. Although this is not impossible, I see 1.31 as also an anticipation of
what in 15.41 will be said of a number of other women. Cf. Van Iersel, 'Concentric
Structures in Mark 1:14-3:35(4:1)', pp. 93-94.
34. Luhrmann {Markusevangelium, p. 52) denies that this episode has any con-
nection with the sabbath.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 139
not have missed this. They would have noticed as well that Jesus does
not seem to have a problem with performing a cure on the sabbath, yet
anyone who thinks that the sabbath law is not violated by a healing
should take account of the reaction of Jesus' opponents who, when Je-
sus again heals someone on the sabbath in 3.1-6, consider the healing
sufficient reason to examine how they can eliminate Jesus. The most
important difference between the two stories is that the healing told in
1.29-31 takes place in the privacy of the house of Simon and Andrew,
without anyone being present who is hostile to Jesus. Here begins—for
the reader, not for the characters—the conflict over the question of
whether the sabbath regulations are still valid. In principle the answer is
already given here, but the issue will still cause a great deal of contro-
versy within the book.
The story makes it clear that besides proclaiming the coming of
God's kingdom and calling for a change of life, Jesus saves people
from demons and heals them of illnesses and ailments. The story also
says something about the range of Jesus' authority. Not only people
and demons but also illness obeys him.
Healings after the End of the Sabbath (1.32-34)

32
That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or
possessed with demons. 33And the whole city was gathered around the
door. 34And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and
cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak,
because they knew him.
1.32-34. Just as v. 28, after the appearance of Jesus in the synagogue on

the sabbath, briefly indicates the effect of his teaching and exorcistic
power in terms of his spreading fame, so vv. 32-34, after the cure of
Simon's mother-in-law, summarily declare that Jesus continues and ex-
pands his healing activities at the end of the day. As Jesus' fame has
been established by his appearance in the synagogue, it will have been
in consequence of this rather than of the cure of Simon's mother-in-
law, which after all takes place in the seclusion of Simon's house, that
the whole town gathers at the door in the evening. Since the sabbath
ends with the setting of the sun, no scribe can have any objection to
people bringing their sick or anyone helping them. In the synagogue,
Jesus had resolutely muzzled the demon who knew his identity. Here,
this too is generalized, not through a command of Jesus quoted by the
narrator but through a communication of the narrator himself, who says

that Jesus orders the demons beforehand to keep silent. The motive for
this—'because they knew him'—is remarkable, because you make
known to others exactly what you know yourself, unless of course that
knowledge concerns confidential or secret information, but the demons
are forbidden to speak precisely because they know who Jesus is. That
the preceding verses do not mention this knowledge suggests the gen-
eral character of the prohibition. The injunction to speak presents the
reader with questions such as: does Jesus want his identity to remain
unknown? If this is so, to whom does the injunction apply? Should the
truth in that case remain hidden? And what can be the reason for this?35
Jesus Retires to a Lonely Place (1.35-39)

35
In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a
deserted place, and there he prayed. 36 And Simon and his companions
hunted for him. 37 When they found him, they said to him, 'Everyone is
searching for you.' 38 He answered, 'Let us go on to the neighbouring
towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I
came out to do.' 39 And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the
message in their synagogues and casting out demons.
1.35-39. There is something enigmatic about this passage. Its opening

definitely creates the impression that Jesus feels the need to seek a quiet
place to recover from the strains of the day before. The text does not
say in so many words that Jesus is unable to cope with the crowds and
the expectations he has raised in them, yet due to the contrast with what
precedes, the beginning of the passage betrays something of this ten-
sion. Added to this there is the suggestion that leaving the house with-
out being noticed, Jesus seems to withdraw from the people around
him, including his first followers. That impression is reinforced by the
way in which Simon and those with him are introduced: they do not
know where Jesus is and find him only with difficulty. They seem to
35. Berg ('Reading in/to Mark', pp. 197-98) asks other questions, which lead up
to her explanation: T o recognize Jesus is to become unclean. To become unclean is
to recognize Jesus. The connection between being unclean and recognizing Jesus
becomes very perplexing indeed.' These postmodern equations overlook that the
saying in 1.34 refers not to everyone who is 'unclean' but only to 'unclean spirits'
(rcveijuma dKdeapta, e.g. 3.11), and results from her not knowing what people at
that time meant by an unclean spirit.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 141
fear that Jesus is on the verge of withdrawing altogether. When they tell
Jesus that everyone is looking for him, his attitude seems to change. If
this is true then the passage may be seen to some extent as a counter-
part to the call story in 1.16-20. As Jesus has first moved the four
fishermen to come along with him, so they now persuade him to take
courage and resume his activities.
But the last few sentences give a different representation. From his
answer to Simon it appears that Jesus himself has taken the initiative to
shift his activities elsewhere. He explains that his departure, which has
been reported in v. 35, was motivated by the conviction that in accor-
dance with his programme in 1.14-15 he should extend his ministry to
other places in Galilee. In this representation, the praying of Jesus also
has another function: instead of being a reaction to the strains of the
previous day it prepares him for the work to come.
The enigmatic character of the passage is caused by the lack of clar-
ity about the two possible but mutually contradictory motives behind
Jesus' departure. Of course, the reader is inclined to prefer Jesus' own
explanation, yet some doubt remains. As yet it is not clear what the
object of this ambiguity is. Does the narrative wish to communicate
that Jesus is beset by doubts after his first successful appearance and
that Simon and his companions help him overcome them? Does it mean
to confront the readers with a misunderstanding of the first followers?
Or does it want to make the reader think about the inscrutability of
Jesus' identity at the first possible opportunity?
Whatever the answer, the last sentence gives a summary of Jesus'
task in the following chapters. The indeterminate 'their synagogues' is
automatically understood by the modern reader to refer to the syna-
gogues of the Jews. There is no reason to suppose that this will have
been any different for the first readers of Mark. The phrase does ex-
press a certain aloofness, but there is no evidence in the narrative point-
ing to tensions between Jesus and the synagogues or the Jews visiting
them, or even that Jesus adopts a negative attitude towards the syna-
gogue or the Jews. Jesus' later hostility is clearly directed against the
Temple and the Temple authorities; so the aloofness is found rather at
the level of the narrator and the authorial audience. More or less the
same alienation is expressed by the term 'the Jews' found in a comment
clause from the narrator in 7.3. Apparently the narrator and his intended
readers had experienced a growing away from the Jewish synagogue,
which did not yet exist at the time of Jesus.
The Healing of a Leper (1.40-45)

40
A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, 'If you
choose, you can make me clean.' 41Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out
his hand and touched him, and said to him, *I do choose. Be made clean!'
42
Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 43 After
sternly warning him he sent him away at once, ^saying to him, 'See that
you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer
for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.'
45
But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the
word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out
in the country; and people came to him from every quarter.
The fragment seems—certainly as far as the last two sentences—a good

example of a self-contained episodic substory. Still, as is evident from
the total absence of the name of the principal character, that impression
is not entirely correct. From that alone it is clear that the substory re-
quires embedding either into a larger story or into a situation that leaves
the reader in no doubt as to the identity of the main character. The way
the leper looks to Jesus for help, however, also makes it difficult to
accept the beginning as it is written. Prior to his protestation of trust in
Jesus the leper must have had grounds for believing that Jesus was able
to cure him.
1.40-43. Apart from this it is strange that the incident appears to be

unrelated in time and place to what has gone before. The reader auto-
matically presumes that the healing takes place while Jesus is on his
way through Galilee. Even without much foreknowledge of the ostra-
cized position of lepers the reader realizes that the story does not take
place in one of the synagogues visited by Jesus. On closer inspection
the place of the cure, however unspecified, shows that Jesus is extend-
ing his ministry to other places. Until now Jesus has been active in
places that provided him with some shelter: the synagogue at Caper-
naum, the house of Simon, the space in front of that house with the safe
door at the back for cover. The cure of the leper, on the other hand,
happens somewhere in the open and certainly not in the centre of a vil-
lage, as the reader derives from the fact that the leper can approach
Jesus without any problem. In a sense the story already assumes what
will happen in consequence of the cure, namely, that Jesus stays out in
the country, but that people manage to find him even there.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 143
'Leprosy' is a collective term for all kinds of skin diseases. Some

kinds are regarded as contagious and may cause ritual uncleanness.
Chapters 13 and 14 of Leviticus give very detailed directions for the
various procedures. The priests play a central role both in the diagnosis
of the disease and in the purification rite of the leper, which includes
the prescribed sacrifice of reparation.
The location is not the only element in regard to which this remark-
able episode gets ahead of itself. After the information that the cure has
succeeded, the reader gets confused because the two characters are only
referred to as 'he' and 'him'. Who gets enraged with whom (in 1.43)?
However, the confusion does not last long, for the addressee can only
be the cured leper and Jesus must be the one who is angry. Then the
question of why Jesus is angry arises. Perhaps because of what happens
next? Obviously the leper disregards Jesus' urgent command to silence
and loudly reports everywhere that Jesus has healed him; but that seems
to contradict the logic of events. Jesus' indignation should be explained
in relation to what precedes, namely, the contrast between what Jesus
considers to be his mission and the nature of his success. At 1.35 the
question arises why Jesus retired early in the morning unseen. If his
dissatisfaction has the same cause here it is because numerous people
come to him to be cured of their ailments,36 while his proclamation of
the kingdom of God and his call for repentance seem to go unheard.37
A second and equally strong emotion is mentioned in 1.41. Jesus is
deeply moved. The reason is not given, so that readers will fill in a
motive themselves: the deplorable state of the leper, the trust radiating
from his urgent appeal, or Jesus' realization that he is able to help him.
36. See J. Delorme, Au risque de la parole: Lire les evangiles (Paris: Du Seuil,
1991), pp. 24-25; 31-32.
37. It is remarkable that the book contains numerous occasions when Jesus
summons people to listen carefully (4.3, 9, 23, 24; 7.14, 16) and emphasizes the
importance of listening and understanding in other places (4.12, 15-20; 8.17-18;
9.7), but says next to nothing about any response to Jesus' word. Actually 1.22 and
6.2 are the only exceptions. But 6.2 is problematic because of 6.3 (see also 6.4-6),
and in 1.22 it is the novelty of his teaching that astonishes and excites the listeners,
rather than what he says. The only place where the crowd is said to gather about
Jesus while he is speaking is 4.1. In all the other places people come to him because
they have heard of the things he does (1.45; 3.8; 5.27; 6.14, 16, 55; 7.25) or where
he is (2.1; 3.21 [?]; 6.55). That stands in contrast to the way the book tells how
Herod listens to John (6.20), apart from the fact that he does not draw the right
conclusions from John's words.
The function of the touching with the hand is different from that of the
taking by the hand of Simon's mother-in-law or the laying-on of hands.
Owing to their disease lepers are outcasts and untouchables. The touch
breaks the isolation and restores social contact.
1.44. The cure seems to take place without anyone being present. Yet it
does not remain unknown. Jesus tells the man to go to the priest, not
only to undergo the legally prescribed purification ritual but also 'to
prove it to them'. It is not clear who is meant by 'them' and what ex-
actly is to be proved by the visit to the priest and the offering. One may
think not only of the leper's relatives who receive evidence of his heal-
ing and can readmit him in their midst, but also of the Temple author-
ities, who in this way receive notification that Jesus does not ignore the
requirements of the law, let alone despise the law. That is of no little
significance to the first readers of the book. In discussions between law-
observant Jewish Christians and their fellow Christians it is extremely
important that Jesus reminds the man of the law of Moses and orders
him to observe it. There is nothing in the story to show that this hap-
pens. On the contrary, the story draws attention to the leper's complete
disregard of Jesus' other command, his injunction to silence.
1.45. On his journey to the priests in Jerusalem, the cured leper tells
everyone who cares to listen what has happened to him. That in conse-
quence of this Jesus becomes a public figure is inevitable. Actually, the
reader is surprised at the tone in which this is told. For it is evident that
Jesus does not like the way things are going, and again he seems to
withdraw from publicity, but the text does not say why. Yet the reader
would like to know. For is it not quite reasonable to expect that Jesus'
mission and proclamation would benefit greatly from his fame? The
reader finds the matter intriguing, especially because the spreading of
Jesus' fame throughout Galilee has been mentioned before (1.28), to be
followed shortly after that by the startling information that Jesus im-
posed silence on the demons in Capernaum because they knew him
(1.34). Here Jesus sees his fame as a reason for hiding himself, instead
of turning it to advantage now that his word has gained force.
The strange connection between Jesus' unexpected indignation (43),
the command to silence he imposes on the leper (44), the leper's trans-
gression of this command (45a), and Jesus' conclusion from this (45b),
raises several questions. Readers are obviously left with the impression
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 145
that the events around Jesus do not take place in the usual way, and ex-
pect that yet more strange things may happen. Meanwhile they presume
that the tension between what is known and what is hidden will in one
way or another continue to play a role in what follows. At the level of
the story they expect that Jesus will no longer stay in towns or villages
but visit them only occasionally, causing large gatherings when he does
so.
A Paralytic and the Son of Man (2.1-12)

^ h e n he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that
he was at home. 2So many gathered around that there was no longer
room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the
word to them. 3Then some people came, bringing to him a paralysed
man, carried by four of them. 4 And when they could not bring him to
Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after
having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay.
5
When Jesus saw their trust,* he said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are
forgiven.' 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in
their hearts, 7 'Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy!
Who can forgive sins but God alone?' 8 At once Jesus perceived in his
spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and
he said to them, 'Why do you raise such questions in your hearts?
9
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven", or to
say, "Stand up and take your mat and walk"?' 10But so that you may
know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins—he said
to the paralytic—*l 'I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your
home.' 12And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out
before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, say-
ing, 'We have never seen anything like this!'
*NRSV, 'faith'.
2.1-2. The beginning of this episode tells graphically and concretely

what the preceding verses have described summarily: people gather as
soon as they recognize Jesus. This is all the more so when, after a few
days, Jesus returns to Capernaum, where people already know him as
someone who has something new to offer, who radiates exceptional
authority, imposes his will on demons, and heals people of illnesses and
saves them from demons.
The house in which Jesus is staying reminds the reader—though the
text does not actually say or suppose so—of the house of Simon at
which he stayed before (1.29-34) and which he had left after the many
healings in the latter part of the night (1.35). Again there is mention of
the hustle and bustle in the space before the door (cf. 1.33). The place
in front of the house in which Jesus is speaking is so crowded that four
men carrying a paralysed man are unable to get through.
2.3-4. That the men nevertheless manage to get on to the roof with their
complicated burden is not so strange as may appear at first glance. At
the time of the story houses usually had an outside stone staircase
leading to the flat roof. Making an opening in the roof was also quite
simple, even if the hole had to be rather big as in this case: one needed
only remove the wattle and daub between two roof-beams. All this does
not alter the fact that the men deal with the problem creatively and sur-
prisingly. Whoever tries to visualize the scene realizes that the remark-
able action cannot have escaped the attention of the people inside the
house, and that it must have had a comical effect as well.
2.5. When Jesus sees the pallet with the cripple coming down from the
opening in the roof, he shows less surprise at the ingenuity of the men
than at the trust they put in him. The Greek word used here, niciic,, is
often rashly translated as 'faith', which leads easily to the misunder-
standing that we are dealing here with an attitude that is more or less
the same as Christian conviction or belief. Therefore, 'trust' seems to
be a more appropriate rendering in most places.
The continuation of the episode is not in line with the expectations of
the reader who after 1.25-26, 34, 41-42 cannot but expect that Jesus
will heal the paralytic. That does not happen until after a most surpris-
ing intermezzo, which gives this episode a distinctive character of its
own. The reader is struck by the unusual warmth and intimacy with
which Jesus speaks to the paralysed man. He addresses him as 'child',
the literal meaning of the Greek TEKVOV. After that Jesus says to the
paralytic that his sins are forgiven. With this an entirely new element is
introduced, at least as far as Jesus is concerned. The subject of the for-
giving of sins has already been mentioned on the first page of the book,
where the narrator describes the appearance of John as the proclamation
of a baptism with water as a sign of a change of conduct resulting in the
forgiveness of sins (1.4). An important difference is that the people
who go out to hear John and be baptized by him give evidence of feel-
ing guilty and acknowledging their guilt (1.5). That is out of the ques-
tion here. That the paralysed man has sinned and needs pardoning is not
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 147
disclosed—in any case for the reader—until Jesus tells him, and him
alone, that his sins are forgiven.
The wording of this assertion is not without ambiguity. Jesus does
not say in so many words that it is he who forgives the man's sins. The
passive used here can be interpreted as a divine passive, which is em-
ployed to circumscribe the name of God. In that case Jesus would not
be speaking in his own name but in the name of God. Yet it is also
possible that Jesus speaks on his own authority, in which case we
would be dealing with a performative word, that is, a word that brings
about what it says. As yet the reader lacks the necessary data to make a
choice between the two.
Another question is whether the intended audience believed there
existed a causal connection between the man's disability and his sins.
This, too, is far from clear. At any rate neither the narrator nor any of
the story characters mentions a possible connection.38 On further con-
sideration it even seems that such a connection is actually excluded, for
if the two were directly connected, the man should have been able to
walk from the moment his sins were forgiven. These two aspects are
clearly distinguished in the story.
2.6-7. However, there is a second surprise. It appears that 'some of the

scribes' are present in the house. So far these men have not played a
part in the story, but the reader knows from the narrator that their
teaching compares unfavourably to that of Jesus (1.21). That they are in
the house comes as a surprise because the reader really expects only
people who are well disposed towards Jesus. Why they have come and
how they have managed to get into the house is not mentioned. It is
immediately clear, however* that they are not sitting there without rea-
son. They appear to be 'silent witnesses', for when Jesus declares the
man's sins forgiven, they accuse him in their minds—but without say-
ing anything—of blasphemy. When they adduce as a motive for their
secret accusation that the forgiving of sins is the prerogative of the one
God, there can be no doubt about the tenor of v. 5: Jesus is supposed,
38. The two are connected in Jas 5.15-16. See also Jesus' question in Lk. 13.2
and his rejection of the connection in Jn 9.2. In contemporary Jewish thinking the
connection was normal; it is clearly implied in Sir. 38.1-15. Cf. H.L. Strack and
P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch
(6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922-56), II, pp. 193-97; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A
Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973), pp. 59-63.
not to declare forgiveness in the name of God, but to do what only God
can do and forgive sins himself. At a second reading of the book the
reader realizes that the accusation of blasphemy is exactly the charge
on which the members of the high council will later sentence Jesus to
death (14.64). Readers who are aware of this begin to suspect that the
book is carefully composed and that they may make yet other discover-
ies on an attentive reading.
2.8-9. Although the narrator has already spoken about inner experi-
ences of characters (1.41), it is only now that he shows himself to be an
omniscient narrator who does not need visible facts or audible utter-
ances to communicate to his readers what the characters in the story
feel or think. What is most unusual, however, is that he shares that
omniscience with the omniscience of his protagonist. Not only the nar-
rator but also Jesus appears to know what the scribes are thinking,
without them having said anything.39 What the narrator, who stands
outside the story after all, cannot do within the story unless by means
of a literary aside, Jesus can and does: he responds to the scribes'
thoughts, first, by letting them know through a rhetorical question that
he sees through them, but afterwards also by challenging them.
Whether or not someone's sins have been forgiven cannot be estab-
lished by human beings, but the difference between someone who can-
not walk and someone who can is easy to see. Of course the scribes do
not answer that question, for, as is the case with all rhetorical questions,
asking the question is the same as answering it.
2.10. Reading further the reader gets confused. This is less true when
the text is read in translation than in the original because translations
generally use quotation marks that are not found in the Greek text. The
reader who has to do without quotation marks starts reading v. 10 on
the assumption that Jesus is still speaking to the scribes, but coming to
the main clause at the end of the sentence ('he said to the paralytic') the
39. Fowler (Reader, pp. 74 and 142) observes that in v. 8 the narrator has Jesus
affirm what he has just said himself, and thus enhances his own authority in the
eyes of the reader. Marshall (Faith, p. 185) considers v. 8 from the perspectives of
opposition between Jesus and his opponents and from the opposition between the
opponents and the narrator: while the opponents deny Jesus the divine prerogative
to forgive sins, the narrator attributes to him the ability reserved for God to see into
peoples' hearts.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 149
reader becomes aware of being on the wrong track. The 'he' is none
other than Jesus, and the clause itself comes from the lips of the narra-
tor-author. The reader wonders if this is also true of the protasis or in-
troductory clause, 'But to show you that...' If that is so, the narrator
lays down his role as narrator for a moment and addresses himself di-
rectly to his readers in order to tell them how the story should be under-
stood. In that case the 'you' does not refer to the scribes addressed by
Jesus but to the readers addressed by the author. Accordingly, against
the reader's expectation, the author has in his own way reacted to the
narrated response of the scribes. The purpose of his intervention is to
point out to the readers that Jesus, who in the story pardons the sins of
the paralytic and makes him walk again, is the Son of Man who has the
authority to forgive sins on earth.40
This is the first time that the reader comes across the term 'Son of
Man' in Mark. Nowadays many readers are used to it. We should real-
ize, however, that the expression (6 md<; xov dvOpcoTiov) must have
sounded strange and barbarian, and even meaningless to Greek ears.
The term raises numerous questions. Some are outside the scope of this
commentary, others will be addressed later, but one thing can be said
here: strange as the expression may have sounded and may still sound,
40. The view defended here, that v. 10 is a narrative comment adressed to the
audience, was first put forward by G.H. Boobyer, 'Mark II. 10a and the Interpreta-
tion of the Healing of the Paralytic', HTR 47 (1954), pp. 115-20, but has never been
able to win general support. For the opinion of those who approach the text via nar-
rative analysis, cf. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, p. 136 n. 18, who rejects it, and
Fowler, Reader, pp. 102-103, who favours it. Guelich (Mark, p. 91) rejects the view
supported here and gives two counter-arguments. The first is that the text does not
contain a signal telling the reader that there is a change of addressee between v. 9
and v. 10. The second is that this would be the only place where the term 'the Son
of Man' is not on the lips of Jesus. The first is correct and creates the reason for the
confusion. The second is not correct if, with Fowler (Loaves and Fishes, p. 162),
2.28 is also seen as a comment by the narrator. An important argument against the
view that v. 10a is directed to the scribes is, in my opinion, the resulting inconsis-
tency with 8.12. In that case Jesus would in 2.10 announce the healing of the para-
lytic as a sign legitimizing his authority, whereas he says in 8.12 that no sign shall
be given to this generation. Two indications against the view upheld here seem to
be: first, that no other narrative comment has the form of an address in the second
person plural, and secondly, that the only obvious case of an address aimed directly
at the reader, namely 13.14, has not only an entirely different form but also an
entirely different function.
there is no doubt to whom it refers here—the Son of Man is none other

than Jesus himself.41
A second point worth mentioning is that the interpretation given by
the scribes of Jesus' declaration 'your sins are forgiven' is plainly also
that of the narrator, for he states explicitly that the Son of Man has the
right to forgive sins. The narrator underlines that the Son of Man can
forgive sins 'on earth'. The reader wonders if the phrase implies that
Jesus can forgive sins not only in the world of the story but also in the
world of the reader.
2.11-12. The story ends as stories of healings usually do. Jesus tells the
paralytic to stand up, take his mat and go home. Exit the cured paralytic
with the pallet on his back, watched by the crowd expressing its amaze-
ment and glorifying God. The way in which the narrator describes the
reaction of the onlookers is interesting and unexpected. On the one
hand he has them exclaim in direct speech something neutral like, 'We
have never seen anything like this', and on the other specifies that as
'glorifying God'. There is a touch of piquancy in this phrase, for what
Jesus has done is condemned by the scribes as blasphemy and the
crowd which, in contrast to Jesus, the narrator, and the readers, is igno-
rant of what the scribes have been thinking, says exactly the opposite.
It is noteworthy that the people witnessing the event respond only to
what they see and not to the words by which Jesus pronounces the
man's sins forgiven but, on reflection, this need not be surprising be-
cause it may very well refer to the crowd assembled before the house.
With this the story ends. Readers who would like to know how things
return to normal in the overcrowded town, and especially whether the
scribes leave it at that, are not told anything at the moment. Instead the
narrator takes them to the place where Jesus is going next. Readers do
realize, however, that the narrator, having already presented a small
number of helpers, has just introduced the opponents of Jesus. This is a
complicating factor that the reader expects will somehow influence the
rest of the story.
41.. R.M. Fowler, The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of
Mark', Semeia 48 (1989), pp. 115-35 (121-24), and Reader, pp. 129-31, points out
that the 'Son of Man' sayings are among the most important instances of implicit
commentary. See the notes to 10.35-37 and 14.61b-62 below.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 151
At Table with Levi and Company (2.13-17)

13
Jesus went out again beside the lake; the whole crowd gathered around
him, and he taught them. 14As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of
Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, 'Follow me.' And
he got up and followed him. 15And as he sat at dinner in his* house,
many tax-collectors and lawbreakers! were also sitting with Jesus and
his disciples—for there were many who followed him. 16 When the
scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with lawbreakers! and
tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, 'Why does he eat with tax-col-
lectors and lawbreakers?'! 17When Jesus heard this, he said to them,
'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are
sick; I have come to call not the righteous but lawbreakers.'!
*NRSV, 'Levi's'.
! N R S V , 'sinners'.
2.13-14. With a few words the reader is taken to the shore of the lake.
That people are said to flock towards Jesus—already a stereotype with
a predictable effect42—gives the reader the impression that the crowd of
2.2-4 has followed Jesus to the lake and is now listening to him again.
The story about Levi is a miniature story rather than an episode. The
tax booth refers to Levi's livelihood, and the fact that he gets up to
leave it. The brief account contains the same five basic elements found
in the two call stories in 1.16-20. The name of Levi's father is men-
tioned but in contrast to 1.20 there is no reference to his leaving his
family. This is perhaps implied by the fact that he follows Jesus.43 From
now on the company consists of a tax-collector besides the four
fishermen. A tax-collector is not an official, but a private person who
has hired a toll where he collects the required tax. In the Galilee of
Jesus' days these collectors had a bad reputation and were regarded as
profiteers and thieves,44 and there is no doubt that the intended readers
of Mark thought the same.
2.75. Whose house is meant here? The pronoun (aim)!)) relates either
to Levi or to Jesus, who is also referred to by the last word of v. 14
(a\)T(p). It is impossible to answer the question at a first reading, but
42. See 3.9, 20; 4.1; 5.21, 24; 6.34; 7.14; 8.1; 10.1; 11.18; 12.37.
43. See 10.28-30.
44. See O. Michel, 'xeXcovriq', TWNT, VIII, pp. 101-103.
that is different when the reader can review the whole book.45 Jesus is
frequently said to enter or stay at a house. Sometimes the owner of the
house is mentioned,46 but usually is not.47 There is never any question,
however, of a house that Jesus can call his own. That is why this must
be Levi's house. The meal with Jesus and his disciples—four so far—
reminds the reader of a farewell dinner. It is very surprising that, apart
from many tax-collectors, there are other people of suspicious charac-
ter48 among the guests. The combination 'tax-collectors and lawbreak-
ers' is possibly a standard expression.49 That they are joined together
has the effect of suggesting that the toll collector, too, becomes a sort of
lawbreaker.
The explanation at the end of v. 15 is directly addressed to the reader.
Just as the house at the beginning of v. 15, the sentence must have
puzzled Greek readers, at least at a first reading. The literal translation
is: 'For they were many and followed him'. Does the pronoun refer to
the tax-collectors and company, or to the disciples?50 In the first case
45. E.S. Malbon, 'Tfi OIKIQI orirco: Mark 2:15 in Context', NTS 31 (1985), pp.
282-92, thinks that it must be Jesus' house.
46. 1.29; 5.38; 14.3, 14.
47. 2.1; 3.20; 7.17; 9.28, 33; 10.10.
48. Usually rendered as 'sinners', but as this gives rise to misunderstanding, we
should probably prefer a vaguer word like 'scoundrels'. The story requires a word
denoting a recognizable social group which, like that of the tax-collectors, is in bad
odour with the general public. Cf. Guelich, Mark, pp. 101-102. The word 'law-
breakers' seems a close enough rendition of the Greek, provided that 'law' is
understood to mean the Torah.
49. See Mt. 11.19//Lk. 7.34 and 15.1. A comparable combination is to be found
in Mt. 21.31-32: 'the tax-collectors and the prostitutes'.
50. The last two constituents of v. 15 and the first part of v. 16 can be connected
in two different ways. Apart from the reading given above, it is also possible to fol-
low a number of MSS that add a conjunction at the beginning of v. 16, and read the
text as saying, 'For they were many. And also the scribes of the Pharisees followed
him. And when they noticed him eating with lawbreakers and toll collectors, they
said to his disciples...' Thus Guelich (Mark, pp. 97-98 and 102), who thinks that
B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London:
United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 78, is wrong in preferring the other reading,
because—says Guelich—the verb 'to follow' (dKota>t>9eco) has a neutral meaning
also in 3.7-8, 5.24, 10.32, 11.9 and 14.13, 54. However, in my opinion this is only
the case in 14.13, which, moreover, is not about the following of Jesus. Even more
important is that the reader who so far has not met the verb except in reference to
the attitude and activity of a follower of Jesus (1.18 and twice in 2.14), can hardly
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 153
the explanation says that those suspicious characters have been follow-
ing Jesus in large numbers, and in the second, that the disciples of Jesus
are numerous because many people have joined his group. Readers
cannot choose between the two at first reading. At a following reading
they remember that tax-collectors and lawbreakers are never mentioned
again. It is therefore highly unlikely that the explanation is about them.
Apart from this there is a specific reason for relating the information to
the disciples. In 3.13-14 it is narrated how Jesus singles out twelve men
from a larger group of followers to be his fellow workers, but nowhere
is it explained how there came to be such a large number unless the
disciples are the subject of the explanatory sentence in 2.15.
2.76. The forgoing merely serves to prepare the reader for the scene
told in vv. 16-17. As in 2.6, adversaries turn up from nowhere, object-
ing to Jesus' behaviour. On the earlier occasion scribes kept their ideas
about Jesus' activities to themselves, now they express their thoughts
openly. Are these scribes the same as those mentioned in 2.6? If they
were, they would not have been introduced so unusually. The designa-
tion 'scribes of the Pharisees' does not occur again in Mark.51 The
Pharisees formed a group of men who regarded themselves as strict ob-
servers of the law. Their observance of the law was in fact stricter than
strict, for apart from the Torah and its prescribed interpretation, they
also kept the special rules regarding cleanliness applying to priests on
duty in the Temple.52 Pharisees came from all strata of society but es-
pecially from the rank of the scribes. The scrupulous observance of the
Torah required by the Pharisees involved, after all, a thorough knowl-
edge both of the written Torah and of the oral traditions governing its
interpretation. In the present episode some Pharisee scribes blame Jesus
for mixing with people whose way of life may cause one to contract
ritual uncleanliness. Eating with such people is particularly risky, for
during a meal contacts are more diverse and intense than usual, and in a
household that does not keep close control on the observance of the
understand it any differently in 2.15, and will not for a moment think of a kind of
watching someone's every step in order to catch him.
51. Nor elsewhere in the New Testament. Only Lk. 5.30 seems to echo Mk
2.16: 'the Pharisees and their scribes', which sounds strange, since the latter group
is already included in the former.
52. See Schiirer and Vermes, History, II, pp. 381 -401.
dietary laws, with the result that the food is not kosher, the guests are
easily defiled.
2.77. Jesus responds at once. First with a current proverb,53 which is

built up round a metaphor more in keeping with the preceding cures
than the meal. Commonplace in content the expression as such cannot
be ironical. It is ironical owing to the situation in which Jesus uses it:
the men taking exception to Jesus' conduct regard themselves as ritu-
ally clean or healthy but the tax-collectors and company as unclean and
not quite right. It is exactly through this proverb, though at first glance
it seems inappropriate, that Jesus introduces a new element. He associ-
ates with lawbreakers precisely because they need him. In acknowledg-
ing their situation they make a silent appeal to him, just as the sick
appeal to a doctor. The second pronouncement clarifies the first. The
translation 'I have come to call not the righteous but sinners' gives rise
to misunderstandings. Today these terms have a theological load they
did not have at the time. The result is that the saying thus translated
goes further than what the reader of Mark is supposed to understand.
The opposition between the two groups does not exceed that between
the Pharisees and those they considered ritually unclean. It cannot be
extended to include the opposition between good and bad people.54 In
1.14-15 Jesus has come to Galilee to call all the Galilaeans to conver-
sion and repentance. He addresses himself expressly to everyone who
needs conversion, but to understand this as implying that there could be
people among Jesus' listeners who need not change their conduct,
would cause further misunderstanding. The implication of the saying is
rather the opposite: properly considered, no one can regard himself or
herself as 'righteous'.
Now and Later, Old and New (2.18-22)

18
Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came
and said to him, 'Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Phar-
isees fast, but your disciples do not fast?' 19Jesus said to them, 'The
wedding-guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?
As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 The
53. Guelich (Mark, p. 104) refers to examples in Plutarch, Apophteomata La-

conica, pp. 230-31, and Diogenes Laertius, Anthist. 6.1.6.
54. That opposition, with comparable and partly identical terms, is found in
Rom. 5.6-11 and 1 Tim. 1.8-11.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 155
days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then
they will fast on that day. 21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an
old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old,
and a worse tear is made. 22And no one puts new wine into old wine-
skins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and
so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.'
2.18. The introduction is simple and straightforward. The objection,

like the one in v. 16, is expressed indirectly, albeit the other way
around—that is to say, the objectors address their complaint about the
disciples to Jesus. They object not to what the disciples do but to what
they fail to do, namely, fasting.55 The neglect may relate to an obliga-
tory or a voluntary fast. If the issue is an obligatory fast, it is less obvi-
ous to refer to specific groups keeping the fast, as happens here; but if
the objection concerns a voluntary day of fasting there is really no rea-
son to make a problem of it. The reader is surprised that mention is
made of disciples of John, because they have not been mentioned be-
fore,56 but even more that people are quoted as speaking of the disciples
of the Pharisees. So far as we can now tell, the Pharisees had no disci-
ples. Was the author possibly less well informed about this than we
are?
2.19. Jesus answers with a metaphor. It assumes a contrast between

mourning and rejoicing. Without an answer the question would have
been more evocative, also for the reader. On the other hand, the posi-
tive answer facilitates the transition to v. 20 because v. 19b names a
new element, that of the time factor, which allows a division into peri-
ods.
2.20. The verse is not clear on first reading. It remains unclear not only
what the taking away of the bridegroom refers to, but also who or what
is responsible for it. Only a reader aware of Jesus' death understands
the reference, although the pronouncement remains rather vague even
then. There is no uncertainty about the fact that the contrast between re-
joicing and mourning is here linked to the opposition between the days
of Jesus' presence and those of his absence. The non-fasting of Jesus'
55. For fasting see Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV, pp. 77-114; Schurer
and Vermes, History, II, pp. 483-84.
56. They occur again in 6.29, and followers of the baptist are also mentioned in
Acts 18.25 and 19.1-7.
disciples is the point at issue in this episode, but the fact that they will
fast later is not the outcome of the story. The episode is rather about the
transitional stage between Jesus' presence and his absence. On the basis
of 1.14-15 the reader might expect that after Jesus the kingship of God
would have been realized. In these verses we encounter for the first
time clear evidence of less rosy expectations for the future. Such an
outlook was not surprising to readers in Rome and is even less surpris-
ing to readers who are able to look back over a much longer period.
2.21-22. Jesus' answer is followed by two new metaphors. Their status

within the text is not entirely clear. At first the reader is inclined to
regard them as two more sayings of Jesus giving further comments on
what he has said before. However, the reader gradually comes to realize
that they are in fact a considerable extension of Jesus' argument, and
discovers that these sayings can also be read as a comment by the narra-
tor on the forgoing. Whatever their status, in both cases the two sayings
are read as an authoritative explanation of the preceding sayings, point-
ing the way in which the story should be understood. The first metaphor
refers to a complication effected by the mending of an old garment. The
second to a complication resulting from putting new, still fermenting
wine into old wineskins, which, being brittle, cannot withstand the
forces released during fermentation. Each of the metaphors separately,
but certainly when taken together, expresses a standpoint that admits of
one interpretation only: the old and the new are quite incompatible, and
any attempt to reconcile them will come to nothing. That the new
stands no chance whenever an attempt is made to combine it with the
old is a common empirical fact, but the two pronouncements say in
addition that not only the new but the old is also destroyed. Neither of
the two can withstand combination with the other.
The two metaphors stand in the centre of both the smaller cluster,
2.1-3.6 and the larger one, 1.14—4.34.57 The possible references are
very intriguing. The essential point they have in common concerns the
customs and rules, values and norms peculiar to different periods. A
present-day reader will easily think of the two periods called the Old
Testament and New Testament, the time before and the time after
Jesus. It should be borne in mind, however, that this episode is really
about two other periods, the period of Jesus' lifetime and the time after
57. See van Iersel, 'Concentric Structures in Mark 2,1-3.6 and 3,7-4,1',
pp. 521-30; idem, 'Concentric Structures in Mark 1:14-3:35 (4:1)', pp. 75-98.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 157
Jesus. Prompted by the two metaphors, Roman readers will have as-
signed yet another and broader meaning to old and new. Indeed, it was
possible for them to be led by their recollection of Rom. 7.6, in which
Paul had defined the opposition between old and new as a contrast be-
tween the time of the 'letter' (ypd|4ia) and that of the 'spirit' (nvex>iia).
This corresponds with the programmatic aspects of Jesus' first public
action in the synagogue of Capernaum, where his competence appears
to differ in kind from that of the scribes (ypamtaxeic;), and where the
audience, after the expulsion of a demon, concludes that Jesus brings a
'new teaching', while the reader knows from the Prologue that this
newness is due to the Spirit that has taken possession of him.
As yet we do not know, and will perhaps never know, how meta-
phors such as these functioned in the controversy between Jewish and
Gentile Christians in Rome. To Jews and Christians engaged in dia-
logue today, the two metaphors present a challenging, even provocative
image. They do not say that the old would have become worthless and
that only the new would still have validity. Neither do they exclude that
the two can meaningfully exist beside one another. Old wine can be put
into old and new wine into new wineskins, and a patch of new cloth
will not damage a new cloak. The joining together of old and new is
rejected because neither of them is proof against it. The two sayings are
definitely thought-provoking, but being metaphors and therefore patient
of more than one interpretation, they never lead to a binding conclu-
sion.
Plucking Ears of Grain on the Sabbath (2.23-28)

23
One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made
their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees
said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sab-
bath?' 25 And he said to them, 'Have you never read what David did
when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26 He
entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the
bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat,
and he gave some to his companions.' 27Then he said to them, The sab-
bath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28 so
the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.'
2.23-24. In what seems to be an ongoing discussion the opponents now

tackle Jesus himself, albeit not on his own conduct but on that of his
disciples. The act by which the disciples would have violated the
sabbath law is not explicitly stated. Perhaps the disciples covered too
great a distance, although that would also apply to the Pharisees who
happened to be on the same spot.58 Picking grain or grapes as such was
not forbidden,59 but sowing and reaping, besides baking and cooking,
are two of the few specifications of the sabbath law to be found in the
Torah.60 That plucking a handful of ears of wheat came under reaping
is rabbinic interpretation.61 Perhaps the activity of the disciples was
also regarded as a transgression of the prohibition of making prepara-
tions for a meal on the sabbath, in which case they would be guilty on
two counts in the eyes of the Pharisees.
2.25-26. The reply—a counter-question really—is quite elaborate.62

The first part is relevant to people living in the Jewish tradition rather
than to those who are slightly or not at all familiar with it. Whether the
first readers noticed that Jesus' words do not agree with the facts as 1
Samuel 21 tells them63 it is impossible to say. Today the average reader
.58. It was forbidden to cover a distance of more than 2000 yards from home.
See Schurer and Vermes, History, II, p. 472.
59. See Deut. 23.24-25.
60. Exod. 16.23; 34.21. In other places in the Torah the sabbath law is not
specified; an exception is Exod. 35.3, which forbids the lighting of a fire; one can
derive from other places that the gathering of wood (Num. 15.32-36), the transport
of loads (Jer. 17.21-22; Neh. 13.15-22), and trading (Isa. 58.13; Neh. 10.32; 13.15-
22) were also against the sabbath regulations. In the rabbinic tradition a detailed list
of 39 activities was established (Schurer and Vermes, History, II, p. 468).
61. Schurer and Vermes, History, II, p. 468 n. 5.
62. The elaborateness is partly caused by the explanatory clause 'which it is not
lawful for any but the priests to eat'. Fowler (Reader, pp. 106-107) takes it as a par-
enthetical comment by the narrator that is more important for the reader than for the
story characters. It would not just provide the additional information that is neces-
sary to understand the story, but implicitly prepare the thematics of Jesus' royal and
priestly functions. The second claim seems rather exaggerated. The argumentation
developed by Fowler on pp. 104-109 to recognize in relative clauses comments of-
fered by the narrator to the reader is also for other places not strong, in my opinion.
63. Four things do not agree with 1 Sam. 21. Nob had a sanctuary but not a
temple, so that the term 'house of God' is less appropriate (for the contrast between
tent and house see 2 Sam. 7.1-13); no high priest was attached to that sanctuary; the
officiating priest was not Abiathar but his father Ahimelech (the former is, how-
ever, closely connected with David: 2 Sam. 15.24-36; 19.12; 20.23-26); the loaves
in question were not the twelve loaves of the Presence, which are replaced each
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 159
will be unaware of this discrepancy. Jesus' reply has a hidden meaning.

In the first place, it expresses something that is very similar to the
maxim 'necessity knows no law', which also applied to the sabbath
law, albeit only in cases of danger to life. Actually, the necessity is not
so grave in this story, but the counter-question has yet another purpose.
To begin with, it appeals to the Scriptures, and thereby implies that the
speaker puts Scripture above the rabbinic tradition, yet equally impor-
tant is that it compares both the action of Jesus' companions and the
reaction of Jesus himself to what David did for his men. Thus the audi-
ence is made sensitive to things that Jesus has in common with David,
which is not without significance for the rest of the story.64
2.27-28. It is worth noting that this saying, which could have continued
in direct speech, has its own introduction and is thus given special em-
phasis. It expresses in the form of a general rule the underlying princi-
ple of a number of exceptions to the rabbinic sabbath regulations that
are admitted for humanitarian reasons.65 It is not clear whether the con-
clusion that rounds off the story is added by the narrator in his own
name or is attributed by him to Jesus, like the words preceding it. If in
2.10 the narrator is speaking, that will also be the case here.66 Another
uncertainty concerns the meaning of 'son of man': does it simply stand
for 'human being', or does it refer to Jesus? In the context of the book
there can be no doubt that after 2.10 the term refers to Jesus. At any
rate the conclusion gives the reader food for thought. 'Lord of the sab-
bath' refers to the competence to make further arrangements with
regard to the sabbath law. This reference, in conjunction with 2.10,
would then underline that Jesus has powers that the rabbis and even the
Scriptures attribute to God,67 but this by no means implies that the
sabbath and put on a special table in the temple (Lev. 24.5-9), but loaves which, on
some occasion or other, have been offered to God (Exod. 29; Lev. 23).
64. See 10.47-48; 11.10; 12.35-37.
65. See Schurer and Vermes, History, II, pp. 473-74; Strack and Billerbeck,
Kommentar, II, p. 5.
66. Here I entirely agree with the view of Fowler, Reader, pp. 103-104.
67. See the many places where the institution of the sabbath is attributed to
Yhwh, such as Exod. 16.23-30 and in particular the expressions 'my sabbath' and
'a sabbath to/for the Lord' (Kiipioq, 'Master') in Exod. 16.23, 25; 31.13; 35.2; Lev.
19.3, 30; 23.3, 38; 26.2; Deut. 5.14; Isa. 56.4, 6; Ezek. 20.12-24; 22.8, 26; 23.38;
44.24.
narrator would thereby suggest the divinity of Jesus.68
Doomed to Die (3.1-6)

1
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a with-
ered hand. 2They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the
sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had
the withered hand, 'Come forward.' 4 Then he said to them, 'Is it lawful
to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?' But they
were silent. 5 He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at
their hardness of heart and said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' He
stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and
immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy
him.
3.1-2. In the story it is still sabbath, but the scene has been shifted to
the sabbath service in the synagogue, again at Capernaum. This in
combination with 1.21 gives the impression that Jesus visits the syna-
gogue to attend the sabbath service of worship with his fellow Jews.
Again there is someone in the congregation who has a physical defect.
First a man with paralysed legs, now a man who has something wrong
with his hand, a disability that can be cured just as well the day after
the sabbath. Among those present are a number of persons to whom the
narrator vaguely refers as 'they' without saying who 'they' are. What
he does say is that they have come to the synagogue in the hope that
Jesus will perform a cure and thus violate the sabbath so that they can
bring charges against him. This leads the reader to suspect that 'they'
have even arranged for the man with the withered hand to be present.
Though the story does not confirm this suspicion, it is remarkable that
after the healing no mention is made of the man in question and neither
is there any reaction by the onlookers, which is rather unusual for sto-
ries of healings.69
3.3-5. It is also unusual that no one asks Jesus to act.70 Jesus himself
takes the initiative. If the man with the withered hand is a trap set up
68. Thus S. Kuthirakkattel, The Beginning of Jesus' Ministry According to

Mark's Gospel (1,14-3,6): A Redaction Critical Study (AnBib, 123; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1990), p. 224.
69. See 1.27-28, 31, 45; 2.12; 3.10-12; 5.14-20; 7.36-37.
70. See 1.30, 32,40; 2.4; 5.23, 27-28; 7.25, 32; 8.22; 9.17-18; 10.47.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 161
for him by his opponents, Jesus sees what they are up to. He counter-
attacks with a question. It is a rhetorical question, because a crime is
always forbidden and a murder is never allowed, on the sabbath or on
any day. The opposite, however, is not undisputed in Jewish society.
Medical treatment as such is not on the list of the 39 forbidden activi-
ties,71 but as can be deduced from later rabbinic literature it was never-
theless regarded as illegal to treat someone not in danger of death.72
The silence of the bystanders is significant. In the synagogue they seem
to have lost their voice. In fact, Jesus is the only one who speaks. His
adversaries do not speak until they have left the synagogue, and then
only with a view to furthering their plan to do away with Jesus. When
Jesus next addresses the sufferer, his words are clearly meant for his
adversaries. The healing of the man's hand is demonstrative.73 What
Jesus demonstrates, however, is not first of all his miraculous power but
the true nature of his adversaries: they are criminals and murderers,
doing on the sabbath what is not permitted on any day, let alone on the
sabbath. At the same time he exposes the stubborness of their criminal
mentality, for it cannot be expected that this demonstration will per-
suade them to see the error of their ways and end their activities. On the
other hand, it is clear to the reader that the activities of his enemies
cannot deter Jesus from continuing to act and speak as he has so far
done.
71. See the list in Schurer and Vermes, History, II, p. 468.
72. See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, pp. 622-29.
73. Both J.D.M. Derrett, 'Christ and the Power of Choice (Mark 3, 1-6)', Bib 65
(1984), pp. 153-74, and S.H. Smith, 'Mark 3,1-6: Form, Redaction and Community
Function', Bib 75 (1994), pp. 153-74, see in the stretching out of the hand an allu-
sion to Exod. 13-15. In Mk 3.5, the gesture would then be a sign of the exercise of
divine authority. The episode would, moreover, have played a part in discussions
between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians in Rome on the question of whether the
community had the authority to exempt its members from the sabbath law (cf.
Rom. 14.1-15.13). I have two objections to this interpretation. The expression
eKieivco xfjv xeipa occurs no less than 70 times in the LXX, which makes it seem
arbitrary to take Mk 3.5, without further argument, as an allusion to Exod. 13-15.
Besides, in Exod. 14.21, 27, Moses stretches out his hand over the sea (erci TTJV
Gdtaxaaav), that is, an object over which he exercises authority. In Mk 3.5, on the
other hand, the man simply stretches out his hand to show that it is no longer
deformed.
3.6. That the adversaries persist in their plans appears from the end of
the episode. It is clearly irrelevant to them what Jesus has said. They
are only interested in what he has done. The moment the man shows his
healed hand, they go away, having attained their object. It is intriguing,
though, to observe that Jesus has not really performed an action. He has
only spoken. In the last sentence the narrator finally reveals that the
persons referred to as 'they' in v. 2 are the Pharisees, who from now on
make common cause with the Herodians against Jesus. The last phrase
is also revealing and implies that, before coming to the sabbath service,
the opponents had already decided that Jesus was to be eliminated.
When it is so strongly intimated that Jesus is doomed to die, the only
remaining question seems to be how and when the murder will be car-
ried out. From here on the reader knows what the main conflict of the
story is and that it may be resolved by the death of the main character.
A Boat Is Put in Readiness (3.7-12)

7
Jesus departed with his disciples to the lake, and a great multitude from
Galilee followed him; 8hearing all that he was doing, they came to him
in great numbers from Judaea, Jerusalem, Idumaea, beyond the Jordan,
and the region around Tyre and Sidon. 9 He told his disciples to have a
boat ready for him because of the crowd, so that they would not crush
him; 10for he had cured many, so that all who had diseases pressed upon
him to touch him. l Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell
down before him and shouted, 'You are the Son of God!' 12 But he
sternly ordered them not to make him known.
3.7-9. While the centre (v. 9) is constituted by a unique incident, the

episode has the character of a summary. That is not the first, because
1.14-15, and to a lesser degree 1.21-22, and to a greater degree 1.29,
32-34 have the character of a summary. Such episodes exceed the level
of isolated incidents and become typical of what is going on. Jesus and
his disciples go to the lake, and a crowd of Galilaeans accompanies
him, possibly even as followers.74 From Galilee and Judaea, but also
from remote places like Idumaea—an area that is not mentioned
again—people come in large numbers, attracted by what they have
heard. Jesus' influence extends further than that of the baptist (1.5), but
there is no baptizing here.
74. Up to now dKoA,o\)6eco (follow) has been used in this sense; it can also have
a local sense: 11.9; 14.13,54.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 163
3.10-12. The narrator summarizes what people have heard: Jesus had
cured so many that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch
him,75 and unclean spirits fell down before him. What the narrator
means of course is people in the power of demons, but even then the
statement is somewhat ironical or ambiguous. These spirits know that
Jesus wants to destroy them (1.24), while their victims possibly know
that Jesus can free them from their power. What the possessed individ-
uals shout is expressed by the spirits that possess them. Readers cannot
help being surprised by that. They have already learned from 1.24 and
1.34 that the demons know Jesus and are therefore not allowed to say
anything. Now readers realize that the demons are in the same position
as they are themselves, because they know exactly what the voice from
heaven has said about Jesus. That Jesus again forbids the demons to
divulge their knowledge does not surprise the reader any more. Instead
he or she wonders whether the people present never hear what the
demons say. If they do, the injunction to silence has already been over-
taken by the events when it is imposed. Thus far there has been no
evidence, however, that the onlookers, including the disciples, hear or
understand what the demons shout at Jesus.76 However improbable in
reality, it is possible in a story.
3.9. In the middle of the summarizing passage stands one single inci-
dent, which is given special emphasis by reason of its central position
and specific character: the order of Jesus telling his disciples to arrange
for a boat to save him from being crushed in case the crowd pushes
closer. The reader wonders at Jesus' preoccupation with his own safety.
Should he not rather be concerned about all those people who have
come to him from far and wide and of whom many are ill or suffering
from some disability? As will appear later, the disciples have not put
the boat ready for nothing.77
75. That will recur in two episodes: 5.27, 33 and 7.25.

76. Meagher (Clumsy Construction, p. 180) sees this as one of Mark's inconsis-
tencies. For an excellent reply see J. Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark's Gospel: Text
and Subtext (SNTSMS, 72; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp.
103-107.
77. See 4.1, where Jesus gets into a boat (in the Greek without an article; the
same boat as that of 3.9?), and the crossings recorded between 4.35 and 8.22.
The Twelve (3.13-19)

l3
He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted,
and they came to him. 14And he appointed twelve, whom he also named
apostles, 78 to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message,
15
and to have authority to cast out demons. 16So he appointed the twelve:
Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17James son of Zebedee and
John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is,
Sons of Thunder); 18and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and
Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and
Simon the Cananaean, 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
3.3-15. The transition is rather abrupt and unexpected. The crowd and
the lake with the little fishing boat have vanished from sight. Jesus
retreats to a mountain79—the reader should not think of a steep or
snow-capped mountain top—where far away from the crowd he calls
to him a dozen loyal men, inviting them to be his close helpers. The
text does not say that they come from the larger group of followers,
but that seems obvious. Twelve is not exactly a small number, but
good leadership can keep track of a group of twelve, and even within a
group that size it should not be impossible to keep confidential
information confidential. Besides, by calling to mind the twelve tribes
and twelve patriarchs of Israel the body of men appointed by Jesus
expresses completion and fullness.80 From the position of the audience
78. Pesch (Markusevangelium, I, p. 203 n. a and p. 204 n. 4) refers to an inter-

esting analogy in Exod. 18.25-26, and qualifies the phrase 'whom he also named
apostles', which is found only in a limited number of MSS, as a harmonization with
(Matthew)-Luke, and is therefore better not read with the rest. Luhrmann
(Markusevangelium, p. 70) points out that in 6.30 it is taken for granted who 'the
apostles' are and that this argues for the presence of the phrase in the original
manuscript. Yet in that case it remains a moot point why copyists should have
dropped the phrase if the addition had been meaningful.
79. Besides places in the geographical sense, there are socially and culturally
defined places that play an important part in the book. Until the entry into Jeru-
salem the following are the places to which Jesus retires in Galilee: a lonely place
in the open, 1.35, 45; 6.31-35; 8.4; a mountain, 3.13; 6.46; 9.2; cf. 13.3; 14.26; a
boat, 4.1, 36; 5.18, 21; 6.32, 45-51; 8.10, 13-22; a house, 1.29; 2.1, 15; 3.19; 5.38;
7.17, 24; 9.28, 33; 10.10; cf. 14.3, 12-16.
80. This applies not only to the twelve tribes of Israel but also to ancient Greece
and Italy, where completeness suggested by the number twelve was probably con-
nected with the division of the year into twelve months and with the groups in
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 165
the commission given to the twelve has a double time perspective. In

retrospect, they represent the authorized link with Jesus and his life
story. In prospect, precisely or partly as participants in Jesus' life, they
have the knowledge and ability necessary to do what Jesus has done
before them, that is, spread the good news and—requiring special
competence and power—drive out the demons.
3.16. Thus Jesus has completed the inner circle of his helpers. It is a
fixed group and regularly referred to as 'the twelve' from here on. A list
contains their names and even their nicknames if they have them.
Heading the list is Simon, named in 1.16 as one of the two brothers
called first by Jesus. It is interesting that Simon is named on his own
and apart from his brother Andrew, who is named fourth in the list,
without mention being made of the family connection, this in contrast
to James and John. Jesus gives Simon the nickname of Peter. It is
understandable that the narrator explains the cryptic nickname of John
and James, which sounds Aramaic rather than Greek, but does not
explain the Greek nickname of Simon. The fact that in one letter of
Paul the Aramaic Cephas is used rather then the Greek Peter, and in
another both appear,81 raises questions that the reader of Mark is unable
to answer. Of greater importance for the reader is that from now on the
narrator of Mark will invariably call Simon by the name of Peter, but
has Jesus call him Simon on the only occasion he addresses his first
disciple by name (14.37). The name of Peter, which according to the
narrator was for Jesus a nickname of Simon, has become the real name
for the narrator himself. That name needs no explanation. In Greek it is
just as clear—and equally ambiguous—as 'rock' or 'stone' would be in
English. In the book the name can only be ironical,82 because, as will
appear later, Peter is anything but a rock that Jesus can rely on.83
charge of a sanctuary for one month each. See K.H. Rengstorf, '8oa5eKa\ TWNT,
II, pp. 321-22.
81. In 1 Corinthians only Cephas (1.12; 3.22; 9.5; 15.5), probably in an older
formula; in Galatians both: Cephas in 1.18; 2.9, 11, 14, and Peter in 2.7, 8.
82. See Rhoads and Michie, Mark as Story, pp. 127-29, and Fowler, Reader,
p. 182.
83. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, pp. 145-46) holds an entirely different view.
While she takes the nickname riexpoq in Matthew to be ironic on account of the
7texpa in Mt. 16.18, she thinks that the nickname in Mark is explained by TO
KETptidec, in 4.5 and 4.16-17. It means that Simon would have been called Peter
because his behaviour is like the rocky ground where the seed of the word cannot
3.17-18. Perhaps the nickname of James and John is also ironical.84 In

Rome, the Greek \)ioi ppovrnq (literally 'sons of thunder'), given as
explanation of the incomprehensible Boavripyeq, may have raised a
connotative reference to the twins Castor and Pollux, sons of the god of
thunder Zeus/Jupiter (Zebedee?), who were held in high regard in the
capital. Unlike Peter and Andrew, James and John are nearly always
mentioned together,85 and therefore seem as inseparable as twins. That
they are the only ones said to have left their father (Zebedee) in order to
follow Jesus (1.20) may have raised the idea that they rejected Zeus for
the sake of Jesus. The first three disciples on the list will later form a
smaller circle of even closer companions of Jesus.86 To a lesser degree
this is also true of Andrew, who is next on the list. Along with his
brother Simon he was called first and is on two occasions also men-
tioned as a member of the small subgroup.87 Then the eight other names
follow, two of them with some further qualification to distinguish them
from someone with the same name. The second James is called James
of Alphaeus. Does he have the same father as Levi (2.14)? Or is it an-
other Alphaeus? Two more questions that remain unanswered in the
book. The last but one name on the list is that of Simon, the Cananaean.
The addition 'the Cananaean' will not have been much clearer to the
authorial audience than it is to us. It is probably a Greek transcription
of the Aramaic qan dyyd, which means 'enthusiast' or 'fanatic', and
might refer to connections with 'the Zealots', a group of extremist free-
dom fighters who did not shrink from using force.88 A few names are of
take sufficient root and appears powerless in the face of persecution. This is a
fascinating view that is certainly supported by the text. Yet it is hardly reconcilable
with the idea that Mark was probably written after 64 CE and for Roman readers.
They knew then that Peter had stood firm during the Neronian persection, and that
is diametrically opposed to what 4.17b says of the people or the attitude to which TO
7t£Tp<»§e<; refers.
84. Fowler, Reader, p. 182.
85. 1.19, 29; 3.17; 5.37; 9.2; 10.35,41; 13.3; 14.33; the only exception is 9.38.
86. The three occasionally form a subgroup: 5.37; 9.2; 14.33.
87. See 1.29; 13.3.
88. See M. Hengel, Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur judischen Freiheitsbewe-
gung in der Zeit von Herodes I bis 70 n. Chr. (AGSJU, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2nd
edn, 1976); Schiirer and Vermes, History, II, pp. 598-606; D. Rhoads, 'Zealots',
ABD, VI, pp. 1043-54. Lk. 6.15 explicitly adds the qualification 'Zealot' to Simon's
name.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 167
Greek origin, namely Philip, Andrew—the name of his brother, Simon,

occurs in both culture areas—and Thomas.
3.19. Judas, a Jewish name again, is qualified by two attributives. The

first, Iscariot, is not used to distinguish him from another disciple, be-
cause there is no other Judas in this list,89 nor is it explained, as is the
nickname Boanerges. Of the nine existing explanations the two most
plausible present him either as a member of the terrorist Sicarii (Latin,
sica, 'dagger'), which would make him a Zealot like the said Simon, or
as someone from Kerioth (Hebrew, t$ Qeri6t).90 The second note antic-
ipates the end of the book. A reader unfamiliar with the story's out-
come is rather in the dark as to what exactly the phrase refers.91 A
reader who knows the story, however, will not fail to notice that there is
a connection between the following three elements: in 3.6 the oppo-
nents deliberate about how they may eliminate Jesus; in 3.11-12 the
demons scream out that Jesus is the Son of God, while Jesus tries to
enjoin silence on them but, as will appear later, to no avail. Here in
3.19 the narrator announces casually, not only that Jesus will be handed
over (7capa8i8co|Lii), which reminds the audience of the handing over of
John indicated briefly at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in 1.14, but
also by whom. From now on, readers know that not every member of
Jesus' select company will prove to be worthy of the trust placed in
him.
It would be unfeasible to enter frequently into something that is not
in the text, but here is an exceptional case. Prior to the formation of the
twelve Jesus had called five, not just four men, to follow him. The fifth
was Levi, the son of Alphaeus (2.14), yet he is not part of the twelve.
This goes to show that the words of 3.13 should be taken seriously and
that Jesus is indeed selective in his choice.92
89. But Lk. 6.16 and Acts 1.13 have 'Judas, the son of James' besides 'Judas
Iscariot'. Cf. R.D. Miller, 'Judas 6-9', ABD, III, p. 1090.
90. See W. Klassen, 'Judas Iscariot', ABD, III, pp. 1091-92.
91. Fowler {Reader, pp. 105-106) points to the shock the statement must have
produced in the first readers. I do not stress this point too much, because in 3.19 it
is not yet clear after all what 7tapa5i5co|ii actually implies. That becomes gradually
clear in the story about the death of John in 6.17-29 and in that about the way in
which Judas betrays Jesus in 14.10-46.
92. In Matthew the name of the tax-collector is not Levi but Matthew (9.9), and
the list of apostles speaks of 'Matthew the tax-collector' (10.3).
'He Is Possessed by BeelzebuV (3.20-30)

20
Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they
could not even eat. 21 When his family heard it, they went out to restrain
him, for people were saying, 'He has gone out of his mind.' 22 And the
scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebul, and by
the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.' 23 And he called them to
him, and spoke to them in parables, 'How can Satan cast out Satan? 24If
a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if
a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
26
And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot
stand, but his end has come. 27But no one can enter a strong man's house
and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then
indeed the house can be plundered. 28Truly I tell you, people will be for-
given for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever
blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin'—30for they had said, 'He has an unclean spirit'.
3.20. This episode contains quite a number of blanks that have to be

filled by the reader. The first question is whether Jesus enters the house
and which part of the story takes place there. There is every reason to
suppose that the house remains the scene of the action until Jesus
begins to teach beside the lake in 4.1. Whether he enters the house
remains unclear. In 7.17 it says explicitly that 'he entered the house
away from the crowd' (eiafiA,6ev eiq OIKOV and xov 6%kov). In this
episode the crowd has assembled to be in the presence of Jesus, and
this invokes—at least initially—the image of 2.1-2 where Jesus is
addressing the crowd in front of the house at which he is staying. The
fact that the crowd is said to gather here, although it plays no part in the
episode, seems no more than an obligatory device, yet in 3.32-4.2 the
crowd comes again to the front, and then, just as here, clearly as the
counterpart of Jesus' family. Readers know by now why people again
and again flock to Jesus. They expect him to heal the sick and those
possessed by evil spirits,93 while Jesus uses their presence to proclaim
the good news.94 That Jesus and his company cannot eat (literally 'eat
bread', dpxov (|>aY£iv) indicates that the bustle of the crowd interferes
with their daily routine, but that it is said in this way—just as later in
6.31—is remarkable and makes the reader think.
93. 1.32-34; 2.2-3; 3.7-11.

94. 1.38-39; 2.2, 13.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 169
3.21. This is the first time that the relatives of Jesus are mentioned. The
story does not say where they live, but as Jesus is from Nazareth in
Galilee (1.9), the reader presumes that they set out from there to stop
Jesus continuing his activities. This is exactly the opposite of what the
public wants. The motive for their action is that they95 believe Jesus to
be out of his mind (eêorn). With this piece of information on Jesus'
family the narrator takes the readers for a moment away from the house
where Jesus is staying.
3.22. What the narrator tells about Jesus' relatives is a preparation for
what follows. Verse 22 can be read in several ways depending on
whether the scribes are thought to be present at the house or not. The
second possibility seems more probable because they do not address
Jesus directly,96 and neither does Jesus address them.97 Jesus and the
scribes speak about rather than to one another. Now that the readers are
away from the house, the narrator takes them back to some previous
moment when Jesus became involved in a discussion with a number of
opponents. Just as Jesus' family leave Nazareth to put an end to the
actions of their relative, so at some previous moment the scribes had set
out from Jerusalem to go to Galilee. For anyone reading the book for
the first time it is impossible to know at this point that there is yet
another antithesis between the two places besides the ordinary contrast
between the capital and the province, the town and the country, and
everything that is connected with it. At a second reading they realize
that the scribes arouse suspicion just because of their association with
Jerusalem. Whether they are other scribes than the ones who have pre-
viously played a part (2.6, 16) is not quite clear and not very important
either. Their reaction to Jesus, though, is definitely much more radical
and also more malicious than that of Jesus' relatives: Jesus may drive
out demons but he derives the power to do so from the leader of the
demons who dominates him. How much they themselves look down on
that superdemon appears from the term of abuse by which they refer to
95. The NRSV translation, 'people were saying', is possible but seems less cor-
rect because it refers to the multitude or to people in general rather than to Jesus'
relatives; 6.14-15 and 8.28 are about what 'people' think of Jesus.
96. As is the case in 2.18; 7.5; 11.28,33; 12.14, 19.
97. As in 2.25; 3.4; 7.6-13; 10.3, 5; 11.29, 33; 12.10, 15, 17, 24-27.
him: Beelzebul, an outlandish name which perhaps means 'lord of the

flies'.98
3.23a. Jesus' reaction is no less radical. He calls 'them' to him. The

pronoun refers of course to the scribes, but judging by Jesus' second
simile about the division within a family, to his relatives as well. On the
face of it this seems inconsistent with the continuation of the story in
3.31, at which point Jesus' family is said to arrive where Jesus is, but if
this part of the episode is thought to have taken place earlier, it is quite
possible. It is intriguing then that in the world of the story Jesus' rela-
tives and the scribes make common cause to repudiate Jesus. Jesus
speaks to them in parables, but only after he has shown by means of a
rhetorical question that the allegation of the scribes is self-contradic-
tory. He calls Beelzebul 'Satan', the name known to the reader from the
temptation in the desert (1.13).
3.23b-26. The question in v. 23a is not really a rhetorical question,

because after the two metaphors, which underline the contradiction in
the accusation, Jesus himself answers it. The first metaphor is derived
from the macrosphere of political institutions but also evokes the king-
ship or kingdom of God heralded by Jesus. If Jesus were at the same
time an instrument of Satan, the kingship of God would not be able to
secure any permanent influence through him. The second metaphor is
derived from the microsphere of the family. It evokes several things,
first of all the opposition between Jesus and his family, who make
common cause with the opponents, and next the division in Jesus' own
select company of twelve, one of whom will hand over Jesus, as the
reader knows from 3.19.
The joint occurrence of the two metaphors of the kingdom and the
house indicates that the kingdom of God also has something of a house
or home about it." This second metaphor fits in with places in Mark
where the emphasis is not on the temporal nearness or future realization
of 'the kingdom',100 but on its aspect as location and seclusion, such as
'enter the kingdom', 'be near the kingdom' and 'drink wine in the king-
dom'.101 As a result, the occasions when Jesus and his followers stay at
98. See T.J. Lewis, 'Beelzebul', ABD, I, pp. 638-40.

99. Thus also Juel, A Master of Surprise, pp. 71-72.
100. 1.15; 4.26, 30; 9.1; 15.43.
101. 9.47; 10.23-25; 12.34; 14.25.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 171
a house come to stand for temporary, avant la lettre household com-

munities, in which something of God's kingdom has already been
realized in a proleptic way.
3.27. This saying presents another metaphor, which is in a sense a mir-

ror image of the two preceding metaphors about division and the exis-
tence of two oppositional positions within a political or familial unit.
The metaphor is about a house with one single inhabitant—a 'bruiser'
—and the possibility of a successful attack from the outside. The strong
man must first be overcome and tied up before his house can be
plundered; but to whom or what does the metaphor refer? The term 'the
strong one' (6 icxupoq) recalls 1.7 and would then refer to Jesus. Is that
impossible? Not if the reader thinks of 3.21, where the relatives are said
to set out for the house at which Jesus is staying, in order to restrain
him and free the public from the hold of an irresponsible fanatic. It is
also possible, however, that the bruiser is Satan, from whose control
Jesus is to liberate people and who therefore must first be overpowered.
Although there is no decisive evidence for either view, it seems
preferable to identify the strong one as Satan and the intruder as Jesus,
because the preceding sentence is about the end of Satan and the con-
text focuses attention particularly on the supposed relationship between
Jesus and Satan.102
102. Unless one agrees with Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 100), who, if I un-
derstand her correctly, connects the two opposite meanings with the various part-
ners in the communication. Distinguishing between the communication that takes
place between the characters within the parable, and that between the narrator and
his audience, she understands the 'strong one' to stand for Satan in thefirst,and for
Jesus in the second. This understanding of Jesus' parable would lend an interesting
tension to the reading of the Gospel. It would also imply that the reader who is
aware of this should opt for the second interpretation. The question is, of course,
whether Tolbert's representation is borne out by a sequence of actions in Mark. E.
Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (SNTSMS, 2;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 11-15, thinks that the binding
of the strong one is narrated in the account of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. I
find it difficult to read 1.12-13 in that way. In fact, as the passage does not relate
Jesus' victory over Satan, Best's interpretation is really his way of filling the
narrative gap between 1.13b and 1.13c. I am more inclined to agree with Camery-
Hoggatt, Irony in Mark's Gospel, pp. 132-33, who sees 4.35-41 as the binding of
the strong chief of demons, and 5.1-20 as Jesus entering the house of the strong one
to take away his goods. The question raised by Camery-Hoggatt as to whether the
sea can accommodate demons (p. 132) is not a real problem, because at the time the
3.28-30. The saying concludes this part of the episode. As the charge of
v. 22 is repeated at the end, the saying is directed against the scribes. It
is as harsh as the accusation to which Jesus responds, and as irreconcil-
able as the opposition between the Holy Spirit, by whom Jesus lets
himself be guided, and Satan, who is in charge of the unclean spirits.
The stress lies on the unforgivable nature of the blasphemy of the
scribes against the Holy Spirit,103 but the first half of the saying must
also be taken seriously. It is precisely the fact that all sins, with the ex-
ception of blasphemies against the Holy Spirit, are forgivable that is of
special importance for those Roman readers who had betrayed fellow
Christians by disclosing their names and addresses to the authorities.
The severe and definitive repudiation of the scribes at such an early
point in the story is explicable both by their extreme attitude and the
circumstance that the opponents had already decided to eliminate Jesus
in 3.6. True, the ones named there are the Pharisees and Herodians, but
it seems clear that the decision lies with one single group, consisting of
a Galilaean and Jerusalem variant, with the scribes having a rightful
place in both.104 Verse 29 especially appears to be formulated as a
general rule of law, here declared applicable by Jesus to the scribes.
This justifies the question of the original context of this rule and what
the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would have referred to there. On
the basis of 13.11 a good argument can be made for the view that this
relates to what Christians profess or deny when hauled before courts in
a situation of persecution. The unforgivable sin would then be the de-
nial of a Christian who declares in court that he has nothing to do with
Jesus.105
sea itself was seen as a demonic monster (see J. Day, 'Dragon and Sea, God's
Conflict With', ABD, II, pp. 228-32). Camery-Hoggatt's view is attractive in that
the country of the Gerasenes, a barren wilderness with tombs, can be seen as the
house of Satan and his followers. It is, however, inconsistent with the fact that
Jesus has already cast out demons before this episode (1.21-27, 34, 39; 3.11-12).
103. In Mark, in contrast to classical Greek, pXaac|)r|(j.e(o always means speak
irreverently about God. See H.W. Beyer, 'pâa^rmeco', TWNT, I, pp. 620-23.
104. The Pharisees no longer play any part after Jesus' arrest, whereas the chief
priests and the elders appear on the scene when Jesus enters the Temple (11.27),
and continue to be present when Jesus is arrested, tried and executed.
105. See van Iersel, 'The Gospel according to St. Mark', pp. 27-28. R.H.
Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1993), p. 184, rejects this.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 173
The discussion, ending with the rule of law in v. 29 and linked to

v. 21 by means of the causal clause in v. 30, has filled the time it takes
Jesus' family after their departure in v. 21 to arrive at the place where
Jesus is, in v. 31. 106 The material inserted between the departure and ar-
rival of Jesus' family is not arbitrary but has a clear function. The rela-
tives of Jesus are lumped together with the scribes from Jerusalem,107
who will later prove to belong to the core of those who want to kill
Jesus. The portrayal of Jesus' family as making common cause with
Jesus' opponents was particularly important to the Roman readers
shortly after 70 CE. They found themselves in a situation in which
members of household communities had reported fellow Christians to
the Roman authorities. The words of v. 25 along with those of v. 28
apply especially to such a household community. The knowledge that
even the family of Jesus had sided against him made them acutely
conscious of their own failure, while the prospect of forgiveness en-
abled them to make a new beginning.
A New Family of Kindred Spirits (331-4.1)

3
'Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent
to him and called him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him; and they said
to him, 'Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking
for you.' 33 And he replied, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?'
34
And looking at those who sat around him, he said, 'Here are my
mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does the will of God is my brother
and sister and mother.'
4 J Again he began to teach beside the lake. Such a very large crowd
gathered around him that he got into a boat on the lake and sat there,
while the whole crowd was beside the lake on the land.
3.31. After the interlude members of Jesus' biographical family arrive

at the house where Jesus is preoccupied with the crowd around him
(3.21). They are Jesus' former house-mates and next of kin, his mother
and brothers.108 Since the brothers are mentioned in one and the same
breath, an unprejudiced reader cannot but think that they are sons of the
106. A similar filling-in of time takes place between 6.13 and 6.30.
107. In that respect it is also important that Nazareth in 6.1-6 will appear to be as
hostile as Jerusalem.
108. The MSS with and those without 'and his sisters' balance one another out
with respect to number and importance.
same mother.109 When Jesus' relatives arrive at the house, they do not
go in but remain outside. At least that is the reader's impression, for at
first glance the word 'outside' (e^co) suggests a situation in which Jesus
is inside the house without his relatives entering it. When a little later,
however, the public appear to be sitting around Jesus (34), the reader
cannot exclude that the scene takes place in the open and that the rela-
tives keep distant from the circle of people around Jesus. As they are
unwilling to bridge the gap between themselves and Jesus, the relatives
are characterized as outsiders who are incapable of direct contact.
3.32. In their eyes the crowd constitutes a closed circle around Jesus.
They do not address Jesus directly, nor do they receive a direct answer
from him. The message that they are looking for Jesus may have come
from someone they have sent to him, or from an anonymous voice at
the back asking the people in front to pass it on. This indicates the mea-
sure of their alienation from Jesus since he left his hometown.
3.33-34. Jesus' rhetorical question makes the gap between himself and
his biographical family practically unbridgeable. His mother and broth-
ers no longer constitute the base community in which he lives. With the
ties of blood relationship broken, the place of the family is now occu-
pied by those sitting around Jesus, and, as appears from 1.15, 38, and
2.13, by those who respond positively to what he tells them about the
kingdom of God. So far as the family of Jesus are concerned, they have
obviously failed to make him see reason. Whether the present rift
between them and Jesus will prove to be definitive is a question that
only the continuation of the story can answer. Perhaps 15.40-41 will
give a surprising answer to this.
3.35. The scene in or near the house closes with a general conclusion
by Jesus. It is interesting that it begins with the same words as v. 29 and
has the same generalizing effect: what is true of those around Jesus
applies also to the readers of the book, then and now. The new family
of Jesus is not a naturally closed group of relatives, nor is it limited to
the characters in the story. It is, in fact, an open circle with room for
many—that is to say, for all kindred spirits. These are not just charac-
ters in a story but also flesh and blood human beings outside the text,
109. They are mentioned again, though not as story characters, in 6.3, and some
of them appear—albeit in guarded terms—in 15.40.
7. A Wandering Jew (1.16-4.1) 175
who whether or not as readers of the story respond to Jesus with faith.
The narrator concludes the scene with the saying of Jesus. It is remark-
able that he makes no attempt to mention the exit of the relatives or the
withdrawal from the scene by the scribes who had already faded into
the background.
4.1. The reader is again taken to the lake where Jesus is addressing the
crowd. The numerous people present seem to be the crowd of 3.7-12,
rather than the crowd which was with Jesus in the house just now. The
boat put ready in 3.9 to cope with the danger of the pressing crowd is
now used for that purpose. Thus 4.1 rounds off the series of episodes
beginning with that of 3.7-12. The little boat protects Jesus from the
large crowd gathering around him but also provides him with a chair in
the centre of the amphitheatre formed by the rising shores. The sitting
on the water will later receive a parallel in the location from where
Jesus will deliver the second great speech.110 With this everything is
ready for the first great speech.
110. See 13.3 where Jesus sits down on the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple.
Chapter 8
STORIES AND IMAGES (4.2-34)
The central section of Part I (1.16-8.21) comprises one of the two great
speeches in the book. The speech in 4.2-34 is not a continuous whole.
On one occasion a number of those present ask for an explanation
(v. 10), and Jesus complies with their request (11-13 and 14-20). After
that, every new metaphor or image is announced as a separate apho-
rism (21, 24, 26, 30). The unity of the spoken text, however, is such that
one can speak of one speech. That impression is confirmed by the
framing verses 2 and 33-34, as well as by the concentric structure of
the part as a whole and its thematic unity. I shall look first at the nar-
rative frame.
Images That Reveal and Conceal (4.2, 33-34)

2
He began to teach them many things in parables, and in his teaching he
said to them...
33
With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able
to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained
everything in private to his disciples.
The emphasis is on two aspects. The first aspect is that Jesus teaches
the crowd by way of parables, that is, by way of metaphors or images.1
The specific reason for the use of imagery—to captivate the listeners or
facilitate their understanding—is not given. The second is that Jesus
reveals everything to his disciples when he is alone with them. The two
aspects combined suppose that images clarify and reveal but at the
same time veil and conceal. That may also explain why the speech is
1. See E. Cuvillier, Le concept de I1APAB0AH dans le Second Evangile (Ebib

NS, 19; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1993).
8. Stories and Images (4.2-34) 111
punctuated with sayings about listening, seeing and perceiving, obscur-

ing and revealing (3, 9, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24).
The opening and closing words show a growth in intensity and ex-
plicitness. The functional 'he taught them many things in images' of
v. 2 becomes in v. 33 'with many such images he spoke the word to
them' (A,aA,eco xov Xoyov), which is loaded with very specific meaning.
If v. 2 has Jesus teach in images, v. 34 says explicitly that he never
spoke without using images. The two new elements contained in the
final verses—'so that they were able to hear' (33) and 'to his disciples
he explained everything' (34)—are clearly at odds with one another. Is
the reader meant to infer from this that the listening does not involve
understanding, or that there are different levels of listening and under-
standing which, perhaps, differ for the average listener and the disciple?
The speech is characterized by the use of similar metaphors. The first
part is an extended metaphor depicting the way from seed to grain in
four different kinds of soil (3-8). After the appeal to listen carefully (9)
and the question of the disciples, and Jesus' response (10-13) follows
the speaker's interpretation of the image (14-20). At the end of the
speech, the reader comes upon two images similarly concerned with
seed (26-29 and 30-32). This raises the question of whether the dis-
course is constructed according to the concentric principle. The answer
is positive in the sense that the middle piece is governed by its own
thematic field: that of the lamp and the bushel or measure (21-22 and
24-25). The measure occurs in both sayings, first in a negative sense as
an object obstructing the light (21), then in a positive sense (24b). It
also forms the link between the passages about the seed and the grain
because, at a transaction, the measure serves to measure the quantity of
grain that can be used as seed. Central to these two images stands a
saying about concealment and disclosure (22), followed by a double
warning to listen attentively (23-24a). The concentric structure is not
perfect, however, for in the last part of the passage (26-32) there is
nothing that corresponds to the question for an explanation, and that
weakens the evidence for a concentric structure here.2 The whole
structure, including the framing verses at the beginning and end (4.2
and 4.33-34), is represented in Figure 19.
2. That is also true of other divisions, such as the one in Cuvillier, Le concept
de IIAPABOAH, p. 117, and no less of the divisions mentioned there in n. 104.
— teach in images 2
1— the seed 3-9
1— reaction to the question for an explanation 10-13
1— the image of the seed explained 14-20
1— the lamp and the measure 21
conceal-reveal 22-23
1—the measure's measure 24-25
—the seed growing by itself 26-29
— what is an apt image for God's kingdom? 30
— the large shrub grown from the small seed 31-32
— speak in images, explain to the disciples 33-34
Figure 19
The Story of the Sower and the Seed (4.3-9)

3
'Listen! A sower went out to sow. 4And as he sowed, some seed fell on
the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Other seed fell on rocky
ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since
it had no depth of soil. 6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and
since it had no root, it withered away. 7Other seed fell among thorns, and
the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. 8 Other seed
fell into good soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing
and yielding thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.' And he said, 'Let any-
one with ears to hear listen!'
The first question is what readers understand of this image before read-
ing the interpretation. Present-day readers should take account of the
condition of the soil and the way in which farmers used to work the
land at the time of Jesus, otherwise certain things are incomprehensible.
The Palestinian soil was rocky and full of stones. As far as possible the
stones were removed and piled into low walls. In the absence of herbi-
cides there was a rampant growth of thorns, thistles and other weeds.
We should also realize that it was customary to sow the seed first and
then plough it under.3 That explains why part of the seed should fall
along the path made by people walking across the field, and why birds
can easily spot and eat it. It is also evident that, with so much of the
seed falling among thistles and on stony ground, the net yield cannot be
expected to be very high.
3. See Dalman, Arbeit und Sine, I, p. 179.

What does the reader now make of the image? His or her first im-
pression is that it shows a double movement: of the total quantity of
seed sown only very little falls into good soil, but that small quantity
yields an unusually large crop. On closer inspection the reader realizes
that it is not just one image but a cluster of images telling a story. Apart
from the question of whether the sower or the seed is the principal
character of the story, there is a vast difference between the initial and
final situation: the grain finally produced is many times greater than the
seed sown. The transition from little to much comes about through a
reversal, by which the initial disadvantage of the poor quality of the soil
is radically overcome.
The parable story works up to a double climax, which reinforces its
dramatic power. The first climax relates to the seed sown, which fares
increasingly worse on three successive occasions. That is expressed in
two different ways. First, through a quantative and qualitative differ-
ence: the first failure (4b) receives far less attention than the second and
third (5-6 and 7), and only in case of the third failure is the fact ex-
pressly mentioned that the seed produces nothing at all (7). The second
way is related to the increasing prospect of success, which is equivalent
to the three phases of growth named in 4.28: shoot, grow and yield
fruit.4 The first portion of seed is immediately eaten up without it being
able to germinate; the second portion germinates and manages to shoot;
the third portion seems—for it does not say in so many words—to grow
up with the thorns but is unable to bear fruit, which is explicitly stated.
The second climax relates to the produce of the seed planted in good
soil. Although there is no question of three portions as in the preceding
part, there is a triple climax of a thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold
harvest. That this is quite an extraordinary production will have been
less clear to a Roman than to a Galilaean audience. Present-day readers,
too, are unable to value it properly unless they realize that, at the time,
the average yield was seven or eight to one, and that today, with the
help of modern techniques, it has been stepped up to the level of thirty
to one, but certainly not to that of a hundred to one.5
4.3-9. Every reader recognizes the story as one of successive failures,

which is eventually followed and completely overshadowed by a
wholly successful outcome. A question that remains unanswered is that
4. Cf. Almeida, Uoperativite semantique, pp. 201-202.

5. See Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, p. 84.
of the role of the sower. Does he merely serve to set things going with-
out himself participating in them? Or i£ he, because he owns the seed,
the principal character, and therefore, after the initial failure, the one to
profit from the ultimate produce in the form of food, merchandise, or
new sowing-seed? As yet, there is no certainty about this. It is clear,
however, that the story deals with one of the basic needs of every indi-
vidual and every society, namely, the need for food, which is threatened
by every bad harvest.6 Because of this, the story is eminently suited to
serve as a fundamental paradigm.
Taken on its own, this story in images allows several interpretations.
Emphasis may be put on the increasing opposition—from the birds, the
sun and the thorns—followed by the story telling people not to lose
heart. Alternatively, the emphasis may fall on the lack of success, fol-
lowed by the story showing great promise for the future. Of far greater
importance, however, is the reading or interpretation by the reader who
has reached this point in the book.
The reader has been told again and again that Jesus addresses the
crowd,7 but what Jesus says has only once been summarized in four
lapidary sentences. They comprise only a few words each and can be
reduced to the following key words: kingdom of God, the waiting is
over, repent, and believe in the gospel (1.15). For the first time in the
book, the readers are placed among the people listening to Jesus. Natu-
rally, they expect to hear what Jesus has to say and how he says it. The
fact that Jesus deploys imagery is in line with their expectations, but the
fact that they do not recognize any of the key words from the summary
of 1.15 is not. That may seem strange at first but on second thoughts is
not, for imagery involves a transformation of ordinary words. The only
problem is that the immediate recognition often produced by that trans-
formation fails to occur here, with the result that the story raises rather
than answers questions about its relation to 1.15. Two things can be of
some help to the reader at this point. A reader well versed in the Scrip-
tures remembers that Gen. 26.12 says that the hundredfold harvest
reaped by Isaac is an effect of God's blessing. The hundredfold yield of
4.8 is probably also to do with God, and—whether or not connected
with this—the good news of God (1.14) and the acceptance of it (1.15)
could be related to the image of the good soil that bears fruit. The
summons to listen in v. 3 and the repetition of this in the saying of v. 9

7. 1.14, 21, 39; 2.2, 13.
would then also refer to the good news. To go beyond this the reader
has to return to the text.
The Secret of the Kingdom (4.10-13)

10
When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve
asked him about the parables. u A n d he said to them, T o you has been
given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything
comes in parables; 12in order that
"they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven".'
13
And he said to them, 'Do you not understand this parable? Then how
will you understand all the parables?'
4.10. The questions raised by the parable story are not answered at
once. The readers are not the only ones who have more questions than
answers. It is also true of Jesus' followers—the crowd he had desig-
nated as his new family in 3.34-35?8—and the twelve. It is as if they
take Jesus aside—he seems no longer to be in the boat—to confront
him with the urgent question which is as much on their mind as the
readers'.
4.11. The narrator puts the opposition 'inside' and 'outside', already
present in the story since 3.20-21, 31-32, on the lips of Jesus himself,
although those outside are extended from the relatives to include all the
outsiders. As in the places referred to, they are at a disadvantage. They
have to make do with images only, whereas the followers and the
twelve receive something else in addition to images. To them 'has been
given the secret of the kingdom of God'. The combination of the words
'secret' and 'give' is unusual and even unique.9 It makes clear that we
8. Barton (Discipleship and Family Ties, p. 72) rightly answers this question
in the affirmative. See rcepi crutdv in 3.32 and 4.10.
9. For the Greek verbs that take 'secret' as a direct object see van Iersel, 'Les
recits-paraboles', p. 24. Both Mt. 13.11 and Lk. 8.10 choose the same solution by
adding the verb 'to know': 'To you it has been given to know the secrets of the
kingdom of God', which deprives the phrase of its unusual character. The only
comparable case I have found is 1 En. 68.1: 'And after that my grandfather Enoch
gave me the teaching of all the secrets in the book of all the parables which had
been given to him, and he put them together for me in the words of the book of the
must not think here of the unveiling or revelation of the secret. It is

somehow or other confided to them but they do not know its content.
The difference between the two groups would then lie in this, that while
the outsiders know the images and metaphors without realizing that
they refer to something else, the insiders know both the images and
metaphors, and realize besides that they refer to something else but not
to what. In other words, it seems that in the case of both groups know-
ing and unknowing go hand in hand, but that the insiders have pro-
gressed further on the way to understanding.
The place of the readers is as yet uncertain. They can, in any case,
not count on it that 'the secret of the kingdom' will automatically be
revealed to them.
4.12. This is affirmed by the next verse of the interlude. Although there
is no direct reference to Isaiah as in 1.2 and the quotation is far from
literal, the words are so strongly reminiscent of Isa. 6.9-10 that they re-
fer the reader to the call vision of the prophet who is sent on a mission
that verges on the cynical: he must speak and go on speaking, but no
one will understand his message until town and country have been
destroyed. Judaea will be stripped like an oak of which only the stump
remains. Then, as if in a postscript, the Hebrew original and two of the
three versions of the Greek text add:10 'That stump is a holy seed'. This
reminds the reader of the main theme of the parable of the seed: the
small quantity of seed that remains will eventually produce an un-
speakably large crop. However, the allusion to Isaiah is dominated by
Israel's incomprehension, and it is this which links the inhabitants of
Judaea and Jerusalem in the days of Isaiah to the outsiders in Mark,
who refuse to listen to the word of Jesus. The end of the quotation, in
particular, has puzzled many a reader, but the classic problem of the so-
called hard-heartedness of Israel has become a pseudo-problem, since it
was proved to be based on the mistaken equation of the outsiders with
Israel.] l To solve the problem of Jesus using riddles and imagery to
keep people from conversion, it has been suggested to translate 'ivcc in
v. 12a and IIT\KOXE in v. 12c, not as 'in order that' and 'in order
parables' (R.H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
in English [repr.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978], p. 232).
10. It is absent from the version of Origen's Hexapla, but has been added with
an * to indicate that he knew it from the Masoretic text.
11. Suhl, Zitate, pp. 145-52.
that.. .not', but as 'so that' and 'unless'.12 However, with a reference to
what both the narrator and Jesus say about conversion (in 1.4 and 1.15
respectively), R.M. Fowler has shown convincingly that vv. lib-12
cannot but be understood ironically.13
4.13. The transition from the interlude to the interpretation is surpris-

ing. Before answering the question of 4.10 Jesus underlines that his fol-
lowers and even the twelve do not understand the parable of the seed,
so their advantage over the outsiders is only relative. Both outsiders
and insiders hear everything by means of images, but the insiders,
knowing them to be just images, can try to understand them. The ques-
tion with which the interlude ends—'Then how will you understand all
the parables?'—presents the reader with several problems. What notion
can the reader have of the understanding of all the parables when the
only parables he or she has come across are the three narrated in 3.23-
27, of which two were quite intelligible (3.24-25) and one rather
obscure (3.27)? How should the reader understand Jesus' question? As
a rhetorical question, like the question in 3.23, which is also introduced
with 'how' (Trcaq)? In that case, the answer would likewise have to be
negative, as in 3.23. Still, since the 'how' can also mean 'in what way',
that answer would be premature. For the present, then, 13c is really an
open question, both for those around Jesus and for the readers.
The Interpretation of the Story (4.14-20)

14
The sower sows the word. 15These are the ones on the path where the
word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away
the word that is sown in them. 16And these are the ones sown on rocky
ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy.
17
But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble
or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall
12. T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1959), pp. 76-80.
13. Fowler, Reader, pp. 102. It is less probable, however, that 4.11-12 can be
read as an authorial comment like 2.10. Although such a protasis does not occur
elsewhere in Mark, the iva clause of 2.10 may be read as a clause of purpose that
depends on Xeyei TCG 7iapaAAmK(p at the end of the sentence. That is impossible in
the case of 4.12-13, as v. 13 begins with KOCI êyei crutoig. If the clause of purpose
of 4.12 is read as depending on icai eXeyev aircoiq at the beginning of v. 11, the
plural 'you' in v. 1 lb constitutes an insuperable problem. It is best, I think, to read
v. 12 also as a pronouncement of Jesus himself. Of course, this is no reason for
away. 18And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones
who hear the word, 19but the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth,
and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields
nothing. 20 And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the
word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.'14
4.14. The interpretation opens laconically, with the shortest sentence of

the entire passage. In this verse the speaker explains one element only,
namely what the seed stands for. It is noteworthy that the explanation
of the first element differs in formulation from the explanation of the
other elements. Of each of them the speaker says what its equivalent is,
using the verb 'to be' (ei|ii) to express the equivalence, 'this is', which
is best translated as 'this means', or 'this is the meaning'. Here he does
not say 'the seed is the word', although that is the meaning. In 'the
sower sows the word' the two terms of the comparison are somehow
mixed up, with the result that the question of the identity of the sower is
passed over. Is this due to carelessness or intentional, so that besides
revelation concealment also takes place here? However, the fact that
v. 14 differs from vv. 15, 16, 18, and 20 suggests that the absence is
deliberate. 'The word' (koyoc) is part of the set phrase 'to speak the
word' (XaXeco xovtaSyov)used elsewhere in the book and refers to the
message of Jesus.15 The term recurs in almost every sentence of the
interpretation, in total no less than seven times, and, for the benefit of
the reader who has not recognized that 'the word' is the key to the
code, it sounds once more in the conclusion (v. 33). The reader infers
from this that the image of 'the sower' refers to whoever proclaims the
considering it to be any other than ironical. In this connection Fowler (Reader,

p. 115) also regards the fact that Jesus is reintroduced as speaker in 4.13 as evi-
dence that 4.12 is a comment by the narrator to the narratee. However, this also
happens in 4.21, 26, 30, and is characteristic of the parable chapter compared to ch.
13, where the discourse continues without interruption.
14. At first sight, the Greek text seems confused. If, however, OIJTOI in V. 15 is
supplemented with the participle cnreipoêvoi, which occurs in vv. 16 and 18 and
recurs in v. 20 as arcapevceQ, the construction is clear. Another difference relates to
the meaning and translation of eiciv (third person plural of 'to be') in vv. 15, 16,
18, 20.1 understand it to have the sense of 'to mean' and would prefer to translate it
as 'the meaning of...[is]'. This choice is based on the fact that 6 ecrciv and TOUT'
ecrciv are used in Mark to indicate 'this means' (3.17; 5.41; 7.2, 11, 34; 12.42;
15.16, 22, 34, 42, and also, I think, 14.22, 24, where Jesus, and not the narrator, is
speaking), and that OTJTOI eiaiv can be directly derived from it.
15. 1.45; 2.2; 4.33; 8.32.
word but primarily to Jesus himself, and that the sowing of the seed
stands for the beginning of his proclamation in Galilee. That the rest
of the parable must be decoded with the help of the same key is
sometimes doubted on the ground that the interpretation as from v. 15
concerns other equivalents, namely, those between the conditions of the
soil and the attitudes of the listeners. This doubt seems unjustified,
however.
4.15-20. The two terms of the comparison are mixed up in the rest of
the interpretation, as well: in v. 15 the interpreter speaks twice of the
word being sown, in v. 17 of listeners having no root, in v. 19 of desires
choking the word and making it unfruitful, and at the end of v. 20 he
repeats the image of the thirty, sixty and hundredfold harvest, but pre-
sents the listeners of the word as those who produce it.
Due to this constant mixing up of image and application, the inter-
pretation is rather confusing, especially when it is taken sentence by
sentence. Nevertheless, it is understandable enough as a whole. The
basic seed-word metaphor is put first as the foundation for the four
more elaborate metaphors that follow. A second basic metaphor, not
explicitly stated but underlying them, is the equation of the conditions
of the soil with the attitudes of the listeners. The portion of seed falling
on the path is an image of the listeners who hear the message but do
not, as the reader derives from v. 16, make themselves familiar with it.
Satan can just take it away, or—as a present-day reader would say—the
message will simply evaporate so that there is not even the beginning
of an effect. The seed falling on the rocky ground stands for the
listeners who assimilate the word but not so deeply that it can stand up
to the pressure of persecution. The message has some effect but does
not hold out. The seed among the thorns is an image of the listeners
who initially accept the word, but are subsequently led by desires that
destroy its effect. Of the listeners represented by the good soil, the
interpretation says really no more than that they accept the word, and
concludes with more or less the same words as those found at the end
of the parable. The only difference is that the thirty, sixty and hun-
dredfold harvest is now produced by the listeners instead of by the
good earth. That is not a very satisfactory explanation, but the listeners
and readers outside the story understand it to mean that the message of
the story will have a lasting and ever-growing effect on their own be-
haviour if they take it to heart and make it their own. Exactly what the
speaker means by the amazing increase of the harvest is unclear. Do the

ones who accept the message grow in numbers or do they grow in
goodness?
It is also unclear whether the four metaphors refer to four kinds of
listeners or rather to four types of listening. Another, related question is
whether these different types are reflected in the story. Mary Ann
Tolbert goes so far as to suggest that the four basic responses to Jesus'
word are actually illustrated by four groups of characters in the book.16
The first response is illustrated by the scribes and the Pharisees; the
second by Jesus' disciples, in particular by Peter,17 James and John; the
third by Herod and the rich man of 10.17-22; and the fourth response,
represented by the seed that falls on good earth, is illustrated by the
demoniac and the two women who in 4.21-5.43 are healed by Jesus on
account of their faith. In accordance with this she understands the para-
ble as a plot synopsis of the first part of Mark.
This interpretation meets with serious difficulties, however. Against
Tolbert's identification of the first group, one can object that the scribes
and the Pharisees are clearly not among Jesus' listeners in Galilee,
where people invariably and unanimously respond with great enthusi-
asm to Jesus.18 The scribes oppose Jesus from the moment they appear
on the scene (2.6, 12; 3.2), and Jesus, in his turn, only disputes with
them so that the reader identifies them straightaway as opponents of
Jesus. To speak in terms of the parable, in their case the seed has not
even fallen on the path. The disciples, who according to Tolbert are
portrayed as the illustration of the second response, do fail, but not
because they are persecuted—at least in the world of the story—as they
only do so when Jesus falls into the hands of his opponents in
Jerusalem. Their failure is already manifest in 4.35-8.20. Finally, as
Tolbert herself admits,19 the faith in Jesus' message is not raised in 5.1-
20, while in 5.34 and 36 it is not a response to what Jesus himself has
said. On the contrary, 5.27 says explicitly that the diseased woman had
heard about Jesus.
Rather than look for story characters that illustrate the different
responses to the message, it seems to be more in keeping with the
16. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel pp. 123-24, 153-59, 164-72, 181-82, 195-211.
17. She sees a wordplay between the rocky ground (nexp(odr\c,) and Peter's
name (Sowing the Gospel, p. 146).
18. 1.27-28, 32; 2.1-2, 12-13; 3.7-8.
19. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel p. 168.
admonitions in vv. 9 and 23 to concentrate on the four different condi-

tions of the soil that make it possible for the seed to germinate, grow,
and bear fruit in one place rather than another. The express mention of
persecutions in this context is understandable if the intended readers of
Mark were actually Christians who had failed in a situation of persecu-
tion.
Thus, the interpretation presents itself as an appeal to the reader. It is
necessary to listen with one's ears but that is never enough. For Jesus'
message to produce its intended effect, listeners should internalize (16-
17) and integrate it (20), and not allow themselves to be unduly influ-
enced by internal obstacles such as wordly cares, and the love for riches
and other desires (19), or to be thrown into confusion by external
obstacles such as persecutions and oppressions (17). Similarly, readers
should think of themselves rather than of story characters. It is not for
nothing that the last sentence of the interpretation is about whoever
(oixivec;) hears and accepts the word.
Furthermore, the interpretation reveals the basic structure of this part
of the book: Galilee is like an unsown field where everyone who cares
to listen is offered the opportunity of a new beginning. A lot of things
may go wrong, but the outcome will be successful. As at the beginning
of the parable chapter, crowds will continue to flock towards Jesus to
listen to him.
The Lamp and the Measure (4.21-25)

21
He said to them, 'Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel bas-
ket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand? 22 For there is nothing
hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to
light. 23 Let anyone with ears to hear listen!' 24 And he said to them, 'Pay
attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure
you get, and still more will be given you. 25 For to those who have, more
will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have
will be taken away.'
These sayings seem at first glance to use images that are completely
unrelated to the imagery employed in the parable and the interpretation.
Since the measure (|i65io<; in 21 and (XETpov in 24) is used for measur-
ing the grain, the place of the two sayings at this point is not illogical;
but this is only a superficial connection. The real connection is deeper
and more significant, and has everything to do with the forgoing. The
tension between inside and outside, which seemed absent for a moment
but was actually continued in the seed ploughed into the soil and the
seed lying on the path, is here present in the lamp placed on the lamp-
stand and the lamp hidden under the measure. That is even more
evidently the case with the contrast between concealment and disclo-
sure, knowing and not knowing, secret and revelation.
4.21. The reader wonders where Jesus pronounces the two sayings. Are
they the continuation of the speech addressed from the boat? Or is
Jesus still alone with his disciples who asked him to interpret the para-
ble for them? The content of what follows enables the reader to choose
between the two possibilities. Up to v. 26 the text continues the contrast
between those who have to make do with images and those who receive
further instruction, so Jesus is still speaking to the questioners.
The first contrast is that between the various places where one can
put a burning oil lamp. To place the lamp where it cannot give light is
absurd. As is often the case with images, they can be interpreted in
several ways. Since the Greek original says, 'Does the lamp come
(£p%£iai) to...', it is sometimes thought that this particular verb has
been chosen to refer to the coming of the kingdom20 or the coming of
Jesus as the Son of Man,21 but ep%o|Liai is used much more generally
than to 'come' in English, and seems to be overloaded by this specific
meaning. It is more obvious to suppose that the oil lamp evokes Ps.
119.105 ('Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path'), and
thus refers to the central term of 4.14-20, the Greek ôyoc;, 'word'. The
lamp is then an image of the illuminating and clarifying character of
Jesus' message, the good news of 1.14-15. That message cannot remain
hidden but will spread further and further through people who have
heard and accepted it (4.20), until it has reached all nations (13.10).
4.22-23. Yet v. 22 makes the reader doubt whether that is the most im-
portant aspect of it. On the one hand, Jesus' message is not hidden or
mysterious, for he has proclaimed it repeatedly and openly,22 even
though the reader knows it only in global (1.14-15) and symbolic terms
(4.3-9, 14-20). On the other hand, the repeated saying of v. 9 in v. 23
affirms the impression already given by the interpretation that there are
different types and degrees of listening. Only he or she who listens
20. 9.1; 11.10.

21. 2.17; 10.45; 11.9; 13.26; 14.62.
22. 1.14-15, 21, 38; 2.2, 13; 4.1-2.
carefully will penetrate to a form of knowing or understanding to which

superficial listening has no access.
4.24-25. That is confirmed by the renewed appeal, now directly ad-

dressed to the audience and readers, to listen very attentively. The two
sayings are formulated in such broad terms that they are capable of
different interpretations. The question is: what is measured with the
measure, and what is meant by what one has, or receives, or what is
taken away from one. And what can be made of the final sentence,
which is clearly contradictory, for how can you lose what you have not
got? It is exactly for these reasons that the sayings represent a challenge
to the reader, who must read and reread them in the given context in the
hope of arriving at an interpretation into which the following elements
are integrated: listen with much, little or no attention; conceal and re-
veal; understand and comprehend. The sayings mean then: the measure
of the listeners is the degree or extent of their attention; to whoever has
much attention, much will be revealed, even more than could be ex-
pected; whoever has little attention will also understand little; and who-
ever has no attention will understand nothing, so that even what he or
she knows loses all importance.
It Grows While You Sleep (4.26-29)

26
He also said, The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed
on the ground, 27 and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed
would sprout and grow, he does not know how. 28 The earth produces of
itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 But
when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the
harvest has come.'
4.26. In vv. 26-32 the theme of the kingdom of God is explicitly re-
sumed with two new images, which give an even more euphoric pre-
sentation of it than the parable of the seed, albeit from another perspec-
tive. The farmer, who in the first parable and the interpretation is only
mentioned in the first sentence, and in each case with just one word,
constitutes here the centre of interest.
4.27-28. The point is not what the farmer does, but rather what he does
not do. He does not concern himself with the event on his land. His ac-
tivity is confined to going to bed at night and getting up in the morning.
Over against his inaction stand the activities of the seed, sprouting and
growing, and of the earth causing the sprouted seed to deliver up its
harvest of ripe ears full of grain. The crucial term in the parable is 'of
itself, but as seen from the perspective of the farmer and the narrator.
4.29. That the farmer swings into action the moment he knows it is har-
vest-time emphasizes his previous patient idleness but also what he
knows and does not know. The choice of words refers the reader to Joel
3.13. Through the final part of Joel 3.9-21, associations are called up
with the final judgment (vv. 12-13) but particularly with the abundance
of the harvest (v. 18). The point of comparison is not difficult to estab-
lish. By way of a mysterious process, which can neither be influenced
nor controlled, the kingdom of God pushes through irresistibly, like the
seed that the farmer has sown on his land. It is remarkable that this
parable, unlike the parable of the seed, does not mention any of the
numerous adversities that may threaten the crop.
A Shrub of Disproportionate Size (4.30-32)

30
He also said, 'With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what
parable will we use for it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown
upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; 32 yet when it is
sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth
large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.'
4.30-32. Of the three similes, this has the longest and most elaborate
introduction. Compared with the quantity of sowing-seed scattered over
the field in the first two parables, the amount used in the third parable is
very little, could not be any less in fact: the one, proverbial, small
seed.23 It is unclear whether the seed is actually sown or just happens to
fall on the ground. The Greek verb in vv. 31 and 32 (cnteipco) means 'to
sow', but the same verb is also used in places where it does not mean
'to sow' in the technical sense.24 On the other hand, the mustard is a
plant grown for its leaves and seeds.25 Over against this, the smallest
of all seeds, stands the largest of all shrubs produced by it. That its
branches are so large that birds can nest in its shade is a picturesque and
23. See C.H. Hunzinger, 'oivcwci', TWNT, VII, pp. 287-88.

24. ICor. 15.42, 44; Jas 3.18.
25. See Hunzinger, 'divani', p. 287.
idyllic detail. The idyll is found in affiliated Old Testament passages

like Dan. 4.9, 18; Ezek. 17.23; 31.6; Ps. 4.12.26 Here, it shows that
birds can play a friendlier role than in 4.4 and thus underlines a
favourable outcome.
No reader will have any doubt about the meaning of the parable. The
kingdom of God may seem small and insignificant in its beginning—
one single man from Galilee with only stories and images at his dis-
posal and twelve men to help him—yet it will have an amazing out-
come in spite of opposition and disappointments. However, this parable
does not mention the dangers, either.
4.33-34. Verses 33-34 have already been discussed at the beginning of

this chapter, but, after the forgoing, they can no longer be read so un-
suspectingly. Jesus may have told his message in numerous images and
stories so that the people were able to go on listening to him, but, as the
reader can now say with certainty, that is not the whole story. For, if the
listeners in Mark—and those reading his story—had understood every-
thing, there would have been no need for Jesus to provide explanations
for his disciples. So there must be a meaning that the average listener
does not understand. The reader is, of course, inclined to look for that
meaning in what Jesus says to the twelve and his followers in 4.11-25.
It is, therefore, all the more disappointing that v. 11 speaks of the secret
of the kingdom of God without it being clear what its content is, and
that vv. 12-25 relate to the specific listening that is needed to grasp the
secret, but without telling the reader how to put that specific listening
into practice when reading or listening. Finally, the reader is also in the
dark as to the advantage of the twelve and the supporters over the out-
siders, who have to make do without explanations.
While the reader is accustomed to people responding with enthusi-
asm not only to what Jesus does but also to what he says,27 there is no
reaction here,28 neither from the crowd standing opposite Jesus on the
shore, nor from the twelve or the followers who have heard the inter-
pretation, as well as the parables. It is also a burning question whether
the readers belong to those who have been given the secret, and, even
more important, what that secret really is or what it refers to. What the
26. They speak of trees as a rule; that Mk 4 does not mention an impressive tree
but a plant grown for its produce seems to be consistent with the other parables.
27. 1.16-20, 22, 27; 2.2-3(7), 14.
28. As opposed to the reaction to the last parable in 12.12.
reader has learned from this chapter, however, are four things that are
of great importance for the chapters that follow. The first is that Jesus'
message will meet with protracted and fierce opposition. The second,
that it will eventually be accepted in spite of all opposition. The third,
that there are different levels of listening and understanding, and that
full understanding is granted only to insiders, even though it is meant
for all. The fourth, that listening attentively offers no guarantee that the
secret will be revealed, but is nevertheless a necessary condition for a
possible revelation.29
Finally, the reader observes that in vv. 4.26, 30 the last two parables
are explicitly connected to the principal theme of Jesus' proclamation,
the kingdom of God, expressed earlier in 1.14-15. Therefore, the pro-
cess of sowing and harvesting in both parables also relates to the con-
tent of Jesus' proclamation. In retrospect, that is also true of the first
parable. The term 'the word', which dominates the interpretation in vv.
14-20, refers then metonymically to the content of Jesus' message, as
does 'the word' in the phrase 'proclaim the word' (XaAico xov koyov).
Thus, the parables say of the kingdom and kingship of God that it does
not break through overnight, but is the end of a long process, during
which much opposition must be overcome, and it is for a long time un-
certain how the outcome will be. Therefore, conversely, we can also
say with Temma F. Berg that the kingdom of God itself is a metaphor
and a parable.30
29. This view differs from that of Juel (A Master of Surprise, pp. 45-63), who,
in my opinion, not only ignores the impact of the repeated summons to hear and
understand but also pays too little attention to the promises of 4.22-25.
30. See Berg, 'Reading in/to Mark', pp. 198-99.
Chapter 9
CROSSING BOUNDARIES (4.35-8.21)
The stories and metaphors have put the readers in a euphoric mood.
They expect Jesus' ministry and proclamation to be successful. On the
other hand, they wonder if the explanation that Jesus has given to his
disciples will be communicated to them as well. After Jesus has used
the boat as a protection against the surging crowds and as a platform
from which to address them, he orders the disciples to push the boat
off. Finally used as a means of transport, the boat takes Jesus and the
disciples repeatedly across the lake. During these crossings strange
things happen. The boat also serves as a mobile place of refuge where
Jesus can be alone with his disciples and discuss topics with them that
are not meant for other ears. Whenever they go ashore, the same things
happen as in the preceding sections. Additionally, two mass meals take
place in the open air, where Jesus, with a minimum of bread and fish,
lavishly feeds a maximum number of people. His trusted followers do
not know what to think of these events. The reader is no less puzzled
than they are.
First Crossing: The Storm (4.35-5.1)

35
On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, 'Let us go
across to the other side.' 36And leaving the crowd behind, they took him
with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. 37 A
great gale arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was
already being swamped. 38But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion;
and they woke him up and said to him, 'Teacher, do you not care that we
are perishing?' 39He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea,
'Peace! Be still!' Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He
said to them, 'Why are you afraid? Have you still no trust?'* 41And they
were filled with great awe and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that
even the wind and the sea obey him?' 5 !They came to the other side of
the lake, to the country of the Gerasenes.
*NRSV, 'faith'.
4.35. In contrast to the generalizing character of the two preceding sen-

tences, v. 35 introduces another incident. The time reference is both
connective—the same day—and separative—the coming of the eve-
ning. The impending darkness can offer protection but at the same time
creates uncertainty about the presence of invisible dangers. For some
time now Jesus' name has not been mentioned. Nor is it mentioned here
where he takes the initiative to continue the journey announced in 1.38.
Surprisingly, he proposes to cross over to the other side. Thus there
comes an end to his travelling in the neighbourhood of Capernaum. As
will appear later, the crossing leads into Gentile territory. That this was
Jesus' intention is not said explicitly but is suggested by the fact that he
himself takes the initiative.
4.36. It appears that Jesus is still in the boat in which he had embarked
in 4.1 and of which the reader had more or less lost sight. It is striking
how passive Jesus is after he has given the order to go to the other side.
Is the reader to suppose that Jesus is worn out after the day's events and
now leaves it to his companions to carry out the order? Who his com-
panions are—the twelve, some of them, or still others—the text does
not say. The reader supposes that one or some of them belong to the
four fishermen, who had probably also put the boat ready in 3.9, and on
whom Jesus can rely. The information that other boats are with Jesus
scarcely attracts the reader's attention, for by now he or she knows that
Jesus is constantly being followed by all sorts of people. Only when the
party is in peril of death in v. 38 does the presence of the other boats
strike the reader as strange. They could perish as well, or render assis-
tance in case of a shipwreck, so perhaps the other boats are added to
heighten the drama of the impending disaster.1 When the reader never
encounters an accompanying boat in the book again, questions like
these multiply, but that does not mean that any of them is answered.
4.37-38. At some point during the crossing—the reader is not told how
far the boats have progressed, and whether it has meanwhile grown
dark or has already begun to grow light—a heavy storm blows up. The
Sea of Galilee is known for its rapid weather changes and dangerous
storms. By contrast the story tells that Jesus is asleep, lying on a cush-
ion in the stern. To see this as evidence of Jesus' trust in God,2 it is

2. See Gnilka, Markus, I, p. 195; Guelich, Mark, p. 220.
9. Crossing Boundaries (4.35-8.21) 195
necessary to assume that Jesus did not go to sleep until the storm
threatened or broke, but there is really no reason to think that. Both the
terminology describing the blowing up of the storm and Jesus sleeping
are strongly reminiscent of Jonah.3 The influence of the book of Jonah
can also explain why the story first mentions the storm and then the
sleeping.4 The definite article before 'cushion' suggests that the term
refers to the cushion for the rower that belongs to the boat's outfit,
rather than to a pillow that just happens to be in the boat. Just like
Jonah, the sleeping Jesus is woken up with the cry 'we perish'
(ct7toMA>|ie6a; Jon. 1.6, a7ioAx6|ie6a), followed by an appeal for help.
Jonah is requested to pray to his God, Jesus receives a vaguer, less ele-
vated request in the form of a reproach. The wording of the reproach
reminds the reader of other Old Testament passages, in which perse-
cuted Israel, desperate for help in the face of imminent destruction, asks
God the same question as the one put to Jesus by the disciples in Mark,
especially Pss. 44.24-27; 59.6.5 As a result Mark has specific connota-
tions for readers who are actually suffering persecution or are living in
constant fear of it. In the deadly terror of the disciples, with Jesus
meanwhile sleeping peacefully, they recognize their own moments of
despair when it is only possible to utter the disciples' cry of distress.
4.39. When the story develops, the reader realizes that Jesus is featured
as the direct opposite of Jonah. Here rescue is effected not because the
prophet is thrown overboard, as in Jonah, but because the prophet
Jesus, taking the fate of those on board to heart, stands up and stills the
wind and the waves with a single word of power, just as he exacts obe-
dience from the demons in other places of the story.6 The silence is as
sudden, powerful and overwhelming as the storm itself.
3. The following Greek terms from LXX Jon. 1 deserve mention: TCAXHOV, KXX>-
5cov \ieya<; ev ir\ 0aX,daorj, £Kd9e\)5e, dvdaxa, drcotaoLieOa, e(t>o(5f|6T|cav <|)6Pov
lieyav; see B.M.F. van Iersel and AJ.M. Linmans, T h e Storm on the Lake: Mk IV
35-41 and Mt VIII 18-27 in the light of Form Criticism, "Redaktionsgeschichte"
and Structural Analysis', in T. Baarda (ed.), Miscellanea Neotestamentica, II
(NovTSup, 48; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), pp. 17-48 (21).
4. See Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, p. 97, and cf. Jon. 1.4 and 6.
5. On the waking of Yhwh see also Ps. 78.65.
6. The parallelism is particularly underlined by the verb emxi^do) (1.25; 3.12;
4.39). See also Davidsen, The Narrative Jesus, p. 86 and Camery-Hoggatt, Irony,
p. 132.
4.40. The reader expects the rescued to respond with gratitude and joy,
like the people present at the cure of the paralytic in Capernaum (2.12),
but things turn out differently. First Jesus speaks as harshly to his com-
panions as he spoke to the wind and the waves. Just as they expressed
their disappointment in Jesus during the storm, so Jesus now tells them
in no uncertain terms that he is disappointed in them. Is it simply that
the one disappointment calls up the other, or is there more to it than
that? This is not clear. Since the end of the parable section the reader
has looked in vain for information from the narrator that the disciples
have come to understand Jesus. The narrator now makes up for this
deficiency, though not in the way expected by the reader. He has Jesus
himself tell them outright that their fear is a clear sign of lack of trust.
In this respect, the twelve—for the reader realizes that they are in the
boat with Jesus—are the counterparts of the four men who opened the
roof in Capernaum to take the paralytic to Jesus (2.3-5).
4.41. Then the disciples respond to the event. What strikes the reader as
quite remarkable is not their great awe, but the fact that they do not in
any way react to their own rescue but only to what they have seen,
namely, that upon the word of Jesus the storm subsided and the sea
calmed down. The question at the end of the passage suggests that the
event has brought home to the disciples that there is more to Jesus than
they have so far realized. Unlike the readers who have heard on the first
page who Jesus is and assume that they are fully initiated, the disciples
do not know what is lacking in their knowledge about Jesus. Those on
board the ship do not even know that Jesus, who lets himself be guided
by what God requires of him, is greater than Jonah,7 because this in-
terpretation implies the mould in which the narrator has cast the story.
5.7. Despite the storm, Jesus and his companions arrive safely on the
opposite shore in the country of the Gerasenes, a name with which
neither the first nor the modern readers of Mark can associate anything.
It is quite unlike Niniveh, where Jonah called the people to conversion
and repentance, except perhaps for the fact that Jesus appears there
alone, that is, without the disciples who seem not even to have disem-
barked.8
7. Cf. Mt. 12.41//Lk. 11.42, where this is said in so many words.

8. Much ink has been spilt on the problems connected with the fact that Gerasa
lies too far from the lake to be the city mentioned in 5.14. For an extensive survey
A Legion of Demons (5.2-20)

2
And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the
tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3 He lived among the tombs; and
no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4for he had often
been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched
apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to
subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he
was always howling and bruising himself with stones. 6 When he saw
Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7 and he
shouted at the top of his voice, 'What have you to do with me, Jesus,
Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.'
8
For he had said to him, 'Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!'
9
Then Jesus asked him, 'What is your name?' He replied, 'My name is
Legion; for we are many.' 10He begged him earnestly not to send them
out of the country. l ! Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was
feeding; 12and the unclean spirits begged him, 'Send us into the swine;
let us enter them.' 13So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits
came out and entered the swine;, and the herd, numbering about two
thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the lake, and were drowned
in the lake. 14The swineherds ran off and told it in the city and in the
country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. 15They
came to Jesus and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his
right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid.
16
Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the
swine reported it. 17Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neigh-
bourhood. 18 As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been
possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. 19But Jesus
refused, and said to him, 'Go home to your friends, and tell them how
much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.'
20
And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much
Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.
see Guelich, Mark, pp. 275-77. However, J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The
Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1957), p. 695,
s.v. 'xcopa', mention a passage in a papyrus in which the Nile delta is referred to as
'the region of the Alexandrians' ('AXeâv5peo)v X^Pa)» a construction not unusual
with 'city' (noXxq): Mt. 10.5; Lk. 9.52; Acts 16.14; 2 Cor. 11.32. If Mk 5.14 refers
not to Gerasa which has not been mentioned before, but to another city, then there
is no problem. Anyway, the name constitutes a problem only for someone who has
sufficient geographical knowledge. As a rule, the readers of Mark cannot be sup-
posed to have that knowledge, and it is generally accepted that even the author had
only vague ideas of the geographical situation.
5.2. The only one to get out of the boat is Jesus. The disciples play no
part in the next part of the story and are not mentioned until 5.31. Thus
the reader cannot but think that they stay on board. That Jesus is alone
is all the more striking because in the wake of his encounter with the
possessed man he has many others to contend with: an army of demons,
a group of swineherds, and an indefinite number of people from the
surrounding district.
5.3-5. At first all attention is focused on the demoniac. The narrator de-
scribes the situation in a way that is uncommonly verbose and repeti-
tious for him, but words are clearly inadequate to express how much
the possessed man is beyond human aid. The hopelessness of the crea-
ture is only redeemed by his superhuman strength and the definite glee
with which the story is told. Its chaotic structure reinforces the impres-
sion that it is about a chaotic event. In contrast to the possessed man of
1.23-26, the demoniac is cut off from society and lives in a tomb. This
cannot be far from the inhabited world, for several tombs together indi-
cate the presence of a residential area, albeit at some distance. In Pales-
tine a tomb of well-to-do people has a small open space, often cut out
of the rock, with recesses along the three walls, and an entrance closed
from the outside with a man-sized stone. Such a tomb forms an easy
shelter for anyone who can gain access to it. The story suggests that the
demoniac, because he was considered troublesome and dangerous, had
been chained unsuccessfully in such a tomb. When Jesus arrives, he
appears to have escaped again.
5.6-8. The story does not keep close track of the events but mentions
Jesus' intervention in a concluding clause, as a result of which the
reader is unable to determine when, according to the narrator, Jesus
ordered the demon to leave the man. In 1.23 it was the possessed man
who took the initiative. To suppose the same here is rather difficult
because of the explanatory clause of 5.8, but the reader does not quite
know where else to put Jesus' command. Already discomfited by being
uncertain about the right order, the reader is further embarrassed by the
contradiction in the way the demoniac approaches Jesus. His physical
bearing is full of respect,9 but his tone of voice and utterances are
9. The verbrcpooicuveconever means a purely physical action; it usually refers

to homage paid to a deity and always implies this element of homage even if the
object is not a deity.
9. Crossing Boundaries (435-8.21) 199
aggressive. The doubleness betrayed by this is not surprising because

the one who acts and speaks is double himself: the demon and his vic-
tim, who, although they have diverse interests, are thrown into each
other's company, a partnership to which the man cannot but submit.
Confronted with this schizophrenic situation, the reader may wonder
how the address 'Son of the Most High God' should be understood
here, and consequently in all the other places where demons use this or
a similar name when speaking to or about Jesus. It seems most likely
that it is meant ironically, even sarcastically. In addition there is reason
to suspect that the irony of the demons refers implicitly to what the
voice from heaven has said at Jesus' baptism. It is interesting in this
connection that the injunction to use Jesus' name is nevertheless repeat-
edly ignored. The observation in the synagogue of Capernaum that the
demons obey Jesus (1.27) is not untrue, but it is not the whole truth ei-
ther, for contrary to the injunction they speak time and again.
What happens next is even more confusing. The demoniac reverses
the roles so that the irony is carried to extremes.10 He speaks to Jesus in
the language of an exorcist dealing with a case of demonic possession.
If the reader knows that in antiquity the knowledge of a name was
assumed to give power over the person named,11 he or she will under-
stand that the knowledge and use of Jesus' name gives that exorcism a
sense of reality. However, this is not the only reversal, for the demon,
who then implores Jesus not to hurt him, reverses the fate of the demo-
niac suffering from the demon he accommodates.
5.9-10. The story takes a surprising turn when the demon, on Jesus'
request, reveals his name, and thereby—in accordance with the belief
of the time—surrenders to Jesus. Because of this he may ask a favour
of Jesus, namely, that he will not be forced to leave the country. His
request is based on the popular belief that demons, just as deities, are
bound to a particular place. The demon's name is also surprising: the
Latin Legio, 'Legion' in English, which is explained by the demon
himself. Until now there has been no reason to suppose that there
should be more than one demon, but on hearing the name, the reader
understands why it was so easy for the demoniac to tear the chains and
fetters with which one had tried to control him. He had the power of an
entire army unit because a multitude of demons—a legion numbers
10. See also Camery-Hoggatt, Irony, p. 137.

11. See H. Bietenhard, '6vo|ia\ TWNT, V, pp. 242-83 (250-51; 268-69; 277).
between 5000 and 6000 men12—had taken possession of him. Return-

ing to the beginning of the story, the reader wonders if the same collec-
tive power had not been behind the sudden storm of 4.37 which had
nearly caused Jesus' crossing to end in a disaster.
5.11-12. The demon's request is not granted before the narrator has
mentioned an immense herd of swine together with those looking after
them. Their presence proves the Gentile character of the region. Even
someone only superficially acquainted with Jewish customs knows that
pork is a forbidden food and that swine are unclean animals not kept by
Jews. This also means, of course, that there is some affinity between
unclean spirits and unclean animals, which implies that the request is
not so strange as it seems. In the swine the demons are, so to speak, at
home, and therefore find a relatively safe shelter in them.
5.73. Jesus' reaction is no less surprising than the demons' request. The
reader sees no reason whatever why Jesus should give them the plea-
sure of a safe shelter; yet that is what he does, and almost at once it be-
comes clear why. Jesus has—to use a trivial phrase, but this is a theme
to be expected in popular tales—tricked his adversaries by letting them
choose the way to their destruction. With the drowning of the swine the
demons perish, too.
5.14-17. It comes as no surprise that the man who has been delivered
from the demons disappears from sight for a moment and that the story
continues with the reaction of the swineherds to the massive suicide of
the swine. This is quite the opposite of what the reader has learned to
expect from earlier stories of healing and from the previous casting out
of a demon by Jesus. There the reaction of those present was positive,13
here they take to their heels. Those who have heard of the event and
come to look at Jesus are frightened, which is a surprising reaction be-
cause what they see is quite a peaceful scene. Instead of the ranting and
raving bruiser, who probably wore nothing but the broken pieces of the
shattered fetters and shackles, they are now watching the same man, in
full possession of his faculties and normally dressed, sitting there qui-
etly. Informed by the swineherds who have come back with them or
12. See D. Kennedy, 'Roman Army', ABD, V, pp. 789-98.

13. See 1.27-28, 45; 2.12.
perhaps other unnamed witnesses of the event, they appeal to Jesus to

leave the district.14 As to their motive the reader is left in the dark.
5.18-19. When Jesus complies with their request, the story once more
takes an unexpected turn. The former demoniac begs Jesus that he may
be allowed to keep him company. For ever? That seems the obvious
supposition. The story is thus the counterpart of the call stories, in
which Jesus takes the initiative by asking people to follow him; but
with each new sentence the story becomes more and more contrary, for
Jesus refuses to grant the request. The reason for the refusal is not ex-
plicitly expressed, but since the man is set a task which is the opposite
of the one requested, the reader cannot but think that the two must be
connected. This too reinforces the impression that the episode is a
reversed story of calling. While the four fishermen of 1.16-20 leave
their families, this man is sent back to his family and friends, from
whom he had certainly become estranged due to his traumatic
experiences. The sole or even main purpose of Jesus' order is not that
the man should restore broken contacts but rather that he should tell his
relatives and friends what has happened to him. That, too, is the
opposite of what usually happens in similar stories.15 The words with
which Jesus says this are intriguing because they raise the question of
who is meant by 'the Lord'. Does the term refer to God? Or does it
refer to Jesus, who after all casts out demons by the power of God's
spirit? At any rate it was at Jesus' command that the demons were
forced to leave the demoniac. So 'the Lord' must also refer to Jesus, but
the original readers of the Greek text needed only slight knowledge of
the Old Testament to know that 'the Lord' (6 ieupio<;) is the standard
title reserved for the one whose name is ineffable to the pious Jew.
From an earlier part of the story the reader remembers that the Son of
Man Jesus is 'lord' or 'master' (icupioc;) of the sabbath (2.28), and from
the very beginning of the book, that the title 'Lord' from Isa. 40.3,
where it refers to God, is also used of Jesus. If the readers in ancient
Rome still had memories of the letter from Paul, they also knew that
the combination 'Jesus Christ our Lord' is a fixed formula recurring on
14. Camery-Hoggatt (Irony, p. 137) points out the parallels between vv. 10 and
17, which are also connected with each other and with v. 18 by means of the term
rcapaKcxAico. He does not draw a conclusion from this, however; it is strange that he
does not mention v. 12 in this connection.
15. See 1.44; 5.43; 7.36; 8.26(7).
almost every page or column of the letter, and that in quite a few places
in the same letter Jesus is regularly called 'the Lord'.16
5.20. The man does what he is told, but through the choice of a particu-
lar verb (Kripvooco) the narrator makes a Christian proclaimer of him
and in addition turns the whole Decapolis into his field of action, where
he succeeds in making everyone marvel at his proclamation. It would
appear, then, as if the nameless man is added as a sort of thirteenth
member to the circle of twelve selected by Jesus in 3.13-15, although it
is apparently not necessary for him to accompany Jesus for a while, or
in some other way prove first his competence. The connection with
3.13-15 and 6.7-13 is underlined by the fact that 5.18-20 contains a
number of elements also found in the other two passages.17 A striking
difference with these two passages is that in 5.20 there is no question of
conversion or even a summons to conversion.
The episode differs so much from what is told in other places of the
book that it is necessary to find out how this contrary story affects the
reader. The most important question is whether it has in any substantial
sense changed or adjusted the image that the reader has so far received
of Jesus. The answer is negative, because whether we consider his atti-
tude towards the demoniac or his attitude towards the demons, the im-
age remains the same. A second question concerns how readers of
Gentile and Jewish origin are affected by the fact that the story is set in
Gentile territory. It is definitely interesting that Jesus does not announce
the dawning of God's kingdom or the coming of the day of judgment
and punishment, nor does he call people to repentance. This is espe-
cially striking after 4.35-5.1, where Jesus is represented as a greater
prophet than Jonah, the prophet who succeeded in persuading the Gen-
tile Ninevites to convert themselves at his word. That demons are par-
ticularly numerous in Gentile regions is not surprising. Another conclu-
sion to be drawn from our story is that the good news of Jesus is also
meant for the Gentile world but that the proclamation of it is un-
dertaken by others acting in his name.
Finally, the effect of this story on the reader is entirely different from
that of the standard stories of healing and demon expulsion. As they
16. Rom. 1.1-4, 7; 4.24; 5.1, 11, 21; 6.11, 23; 7.25; 8.11, 39; 10.9; 13.14; 14.14;
15.6,30; 16.18,20,24.
17. iva net1 axrcov f\ (3.14; 5.18); Kripvoaco (3.14; 5.20; 6.12); £K(3dMco
5ai|i6via (3.15); noXka 5ai|iovia (6.13).
have more or less the same structure and consist of similar elements
with nearly identical functions, those stories easily assume a matter of
course character. The present episode breaks down the predictability of
the standard story, challenging the reader to realize that much of what
he or she thinks of as normal might have turned out differently.
Two Women Cured (5.21-43)

21
When Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great
crowd gathered around him; and he was by the lake. 22 Then one of the
leaders of the synagogue named Jairus came and, when he saw him, fell
at his feet 23 and begged him repeatedly, 'My little daughter is at the
point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be
made well, and live.' 24 So he went with him. And a large crowd fol-
lowed him and pressed in on him.
25
Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages
for twelve years. 26 She had endured much under many physicians, and
had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse.
27
She had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and
touched his cloak, 28 for she said, 'If I but touch his clothes, I will be
made well.' 29Immediately her haemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her
body that she was healed of her disease. 30Immediately aware that power
had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said,
'Who touched my clothes?' 31 And his disciples said to him, 'You see the
crowd pressing in on you; how can you say, "Who touched me?"' 32 He
looked all around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing
what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling, fell down before
him, and told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, 'Daughter, your faith
has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.'
35
While he was still speaking, some people came from the leader's
house to say, 'Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher any fur-
ther?' 36 But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the leader of the
synagogue, 'Do not fear, only believe.' 37 He allowed no one to follow
him except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James. 38 When they
came to the house of the leader of the synagogue, he saw a commotion,
people weeping and wailing loudly. 39 When he had entered, he said to
them, 'Why do you make a commotion and weep? The child is not dead
but sleeping.' 40 And they laughed at him. Then he put them all outside,
and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and
went in where the child was. 41 He took her by the hand and said to her,
'Talitha cum', which means, 'Little girl, get up!' 42 And immediately the
girl got up and began to walk about (she was twelve years of age). At
this they were overcome with amazement. 43 He strictly ordered them
that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.
This episode is one of the clearest examples of a sandwich construc-

tion, the joining of two stories, each of which might have been told
separately, by means of the insertion of one story in the middle of an-
other. The second story is placed at the point where the action of the
first implies a shift of scene, in other words, the cure of the woman
takes place when Jesus is on his way to the house of Jairus. Because
they have a number of things in common, the two stories are extremely
suitable for being connected in this way,18 as we shall see below.
5.27. Verse 21, which serves as a hinge between the preceding and the
present subsection, places Jesus on the Galilaean side of the lake again.
At first the reader wonders if Jesus is the only one to disembark, and it
is not until v. 31 that the answer is given. The place where Jesus and his
disciples have come ashore is only vaguely described, but owing to the
fact that a ruler of the synagogue is reported to be seeking out Jesus in
the crowd that in no time has gathered about him, and the only syna-
gogue so far mentioned is that of Capernaum (1.23; 3.1), it is natural to
situate the events in that by now familiar town.
5.22-24. It is highly exceptional for figures who are only mentioned in

passing to have a name in the book.19 In this case it may be a reflection
on the status of the man. When Jairus gets to Jesus, he throws himself
at his feet, just as the demoniac in the preceding story (5.6) and the
woman in the next (6.33). The reader notices that Jairus is the first dig-
nitary who puts his trust in Jesus. On account of the fact that he owes
his prestige to the synagogue, this Galilaean dignitary becomes a coun-
terpart to the Temple authorities in Jerusalem, who play such an
important negative part in the second half of the book. That he must
have heard about Jesus just as a synagogue ruler at Capernaum would
be an obvious supposition (see 1.21-27 and 3.1-6). Jesus immediately
complies with his plea and goes with him, while he is followed by the
crowd surging around him (as in 3.9 and 4.1).
18. Marshall (Faith, p. 93) draws a distinction between the similarities that led
to the linking of the two substories (a therapeutic touch by an unclean woman and a
period of twelve years) and the similarities that tie the episodes together at the dis-
course level in a mutually interpretative manner. It seems strange to me not to
count all similarities as being of the second type.
19. Levi (2.14); Legio (5.9); Bartimaeus (10.46); Simon the leper (14.3); Simon
of Cyrene (15.21).
5.25-28. The story is soon interrupted by the incident of the woman

who has been suffering from a haemorrhage for twelve years. This is
not just a physical ailment; in a Jewish milieu haemorrhage, like men-
struation, causes ritual uncleanness, as is known to the reader familiar
with Leviticus, from which the story borrows a number of terms.20
Consequently, for all those years the woman has been excluded from
all sacrificial ceremonies in the Temple, but because her impurity is
also considered contagious, which means that anyone touching her be-
comes unclean as well, she has also been isolated socially. Her situation
must have been unbearable, and it is obvious that she has tried every-
thing possible to be cured. It is the first and only time that the book
speaks of someone being under medical treatment, the high fees for the
protracted therapy, and the absence of any positive effect. The reader
takes this as an illustration of the seriousness and especially the incur-
ability of the disorder, and therefore of the hopelessness of her position.
Who then would disapprove of her seeking alternative treatment as a
last resort? Particularly when a healer of great fame happens to be in
the neighbourhood. The bustling crowd, which in other places is por-
trayed as troublesome and dangerous, works to her advantage as it
allows her to do, without being noticed, what she had planned to do
when she first heard about Jesus. Other sick people want to touch Jesus
himself because that is how they expect to be cured (3.10). This woman
hopes that physical contact is not necessary and that it will suffice to
touch his clothes. This would moreover reduce the danger of being
found out by anyone in the crowd or by Jesus himself. Of course, his
clothes will be unclean, but—as she may have thought—what the eye
does not see the heart does not grieve over.
5.29-32. Her strategy is successful, the cure is immediate and complete.

There are few places in the book where the role of the omniscient narra-
tor is so much in evidence as here. He knows what no one but the per-
son in question can know. The woman feels that the bleeding ceases,
and so she knows positively that she is healed. Nevertheless, she has
not reckoned with the possibility that the power curing her may also be
felt by the one from whom it emanates. Jesus is aware that power has
20. Pesch, Markusevangelium, I, p. 301, recognizes in yovi) ovoa. ev pt>aei

ai\iaxoq ('a woman who had a flow of blood') of 5.25 the words from Lev. 15.25
y\)vfi, edv p-uaei ai|iaxo<;, and in TJ n^yi] xov di[iazoq aircfjc; ('the source of her
bleeding') of v. 29 the phrase from Lev. 12.7 Tfjg mxwq xov diiuxzoq ai)Tf|<;.
gone out of him, but unlike the narrator he does not know where it has
gone. The reader who knows that the woman is unclean wonders how
her touching him has affected Jesus.
It is intriguing that in the narrator's representation Jesus appears to
know less than the narrator and the reader, unless his question is only
rhetorical.21 In earlier situations Jesus did know what was on people's
minds (2.8; 3.1-6), but here he neither knows what the woman is think-
ing nor is he fully conscious of what is happening. That is why he has
to ask who it was who touched his clothes. The narrator is not wholly
consistent here, for Jesus has only been aware of a power emanating
from him, whereas the question put into his mouth is not 'who touched
me ' but 'who touched my clothes'. The disciples, who appear to be fol-
lowing Jesus towards Jairus's house, respond with utter amazement,
pointing out that with the crowds constantly pressing around him it is
impossible to find out who touched him. Not satisfied with their expla-
nation, Jesus keeps looking round to see who did it.
5.33-34. From this the woman gains the impression that Jesus is dis-
turbed by something. She has cause to feel worried because her action
has made his clothes unclean. Therefore she comes forward, and pros-
trating herself before him, tells everything. After what has gone before,
Jesus' response is very surprising. Not only to the woman, because
Jesus is not upset at all, but also to the reader, who has been told by
the narrator that the cure was the result of a power residing in Jesus
and was felt to become effective through the touch of the woman.
Therefore the reader expects that the cure will be attributed, if not to the
therapist alone, at least to the interaction of therapist and sufferer. The
pronouncement of Jesus, though, attributes the cure entirely to the
woman's trust in him. Admittedly, her faith in Jesus' power is so great
that she is healed, but to identify it as the sole cause of the cure comes
as a surprise nevertheless. Although all this is taking place in the pres-
ence of a large crowd, no one is said to overhear and respond to what
the woman tells Jesus about her cure and to what Jesus says in reply to
her.
21. Fowler (Reader, p. 69) mentions the characters' several different points of
view, pointing out that the reader cannot share the perspective of the disciples in
v. 31, but the fact that the reader knows more than Jesus at this point seems to have
escaped his notice.
5.35. Before the events of the second story have time to run their
course, the reader is confronted with a dramatic change in the initial
story. While Jesus is still talking to the woman, a message arrives from
the house where the girl is dangerously ill, saying that it is too late. The
way in which the two incidents are linked suggests that Jesus would not
have been late if the cure of the woman had not delayed him.22 Al-
though not addressed to him, the message concerns Jesus too, and in
the second sentence actually refers to him. After it has been applied to
him in 4.38, the term 'teacher' seems here—especially because it is not
used as a term of address23—to indicate the esteem the household of
Jairus has for him. Esteem and care are also expressed by the rest of the
sentence.
5.36. The girl's father and Jesus are apparently walking so close to each
other that Jesus cannot help overhearing the message. He responds to it,
not by cancelling the therapy, which would be the obvious thing to do
after the news of the girl's death, but, on the contrary, by urging the dis-
tressed father not to lose trust in spite of the hopeless situation. The
reader takes it more or less for granted that, if not the crowd, at any rate
the man who finds himself so close to Jesus, must have heard the
woman telling her story and Jesus' response to it. That is important
precisely because the story of the woman shows what trust is able to
accomplish. On the other hand, the reader knows perfectly well that the
cure of an illness that had lasted as long as twelve years is no compari-
son with the restoration to life of a twelve-year-old girl. This very dif-
ference raises the tension as to what is about to happen.
5.37. The tension is further increased when the reader is first told
something that in itself has nothing to do with the father and his dead
daughter. Jesus reduces the massive and disorderly cortege to a mini-
company of three, Peter, James and John. This has not happened before.
Where all the other people go and how Jesus has managed to persuade
them not to go with him to the house remains a complete mystery. For
22. See Pesch, Markusevangelium, I, p. 306.

23. With the exception of 14.14, where Jesus tells two of his disciples what they
should say to the owner of the upper room, it is always used as a term of address,
once by an outsider (9.17), in the other cases by disciples or would-be followers
(4.38; 9.38; 10.17, 20, 35; 13.1), or by people who converse with Jesus (12.14, 19,
32).
some time they will not be mentioned again. The reader also wonders
why Andrew is not invited; he was after all one of the four who formed
the first cell of the Jesus movement (1.16-20) and shortly after wit-
nessed the cure of Peter's mother-in-law (1.29-31).
5.38-40. On entering the house they find the next of kin, together with
friends and acquaintances, weeping and wailing loudly for the dead
child. When Jesus interrupts the ritual mourning, saying that the child is
not dead but sleeping, they do not believe him. They even jeer at him.
Their laughter strikes a jarring note and contradicts the sadness of the
occasion. Yet the confident attitude of the relatives raises a peculiar
doubt in the reader's mind about the truth of the matter. Is the girl dead
or not?24 So far there has been no reason for the reader to doubt the
truth of anything Jesus has said, but now there is. Jesus has only just
come into the house and has not even seen the girl. Besides, only a
short time ago he did not know who had touched his clothes (vv. 30-
32). At any rate, the message from Jairus's house that the child is dead,
which is duly confirmed by the reaction of the family, and the claim of
Jesus that she is not, cannot both be right at the same time. As yet un-
able to judge either way, the reader is all the more anxious to know the
outcome.
5.40-42. The answer is not long in coming. Jesus sticks to what he has
said. Turning everyone out, so that the ceremonial mourning automati-
cally stops, he takes the child's parents and his three companions along
to the girl, grasps her hand, as he had done—then in the presence of
Peter, James, John and Andrew—in the case of Peter's mother-in-law
(1.31), and makes her get up. Now the narrator mentions, besides the
24. According to Marshall (Faith, pp. 98-99) and Camery-Hoggatt (Irony, pp.
139-40) the girl is really dead, but seen from the perspective opened by Jesus her
death is only transitory. That may be so at the discourse level but is less likely at
the story level. According to Marshall, the narrator has Jesus say that the girl is
asleep in order to keep it a secret, not that she has been healed, but that she has
been raised from the dead (p. 100). This opinion overlooks that Jesus also com-
mands healed people to keep silent (see 1.43; 7.37; 8.26). M.R. Thompson, The
Role of Disbelief in Mark: A New Approach to the Second Gospel (New York:
Paulist Press, 1989), p. 152, connects the ambiguity with the intention to weaken
the laudatory aspect of the story. As elsewhere in her book, she derives this from a
comparison with Matthew and Luke, an unacceptable way of reasoning for anyone
who accepts the priority of Mark.
words spoken by Jesus while doing this, words in a language foreign to

both the intended and present-day readers. Only experts know that it is
Aramaic, the tongue spoken in Galilee at the time of Jesus. The mean-
ing is given in translation, something that thus far the narrator has done
only in the case of the naming of James and John (3.17). The transla-
tion shows that the content of Jesus' words is not in any sense remark-
able, which raises the question of why the narrator represented them in
Aramaic. Precisely because their meaning is fairly obvious, the render-
ing of Jesus' words in this particular form must have been thought to
possess a performative power comparable to that of magic spells or rit-
ual formulas. This implies that something else must have happened,
apart from the fact that Jesus wakes the sleeping girl25 and that the girl
gets out of bed. The minimum one should accept is that the girl was
indeed critically ill, and that Jesus cured her after she had fallen asleep;
but the reader continues to think that the child may indeed have been
dead, after all. The express reference to the fact that she begins walking
about makes in any case clear beyond doubt that now she is very much
alive again. The age of twelve shows that the girl is no longer a child,
but has reached marriageable age.26
5.43. The observation that the parents and disciples are in ecstasies over
what they have witnessed is immediately followed by Jesus' command
that no one is to know about this. Even if the five obey, it is evident that
the desired effect of the command is bound to fail. The people who
only a short time ago saw the synagogue ruler turning to Jesus for help,
and in particular those who participated in the mourning ritual and
laughed at Jesus when he said that the girl was not dead, will make the
question of what has happened to her unavoidable. The order to give
the girl something to eat is generally seen as a concluding element that
provides unmistakable evidence of how effective the intervention has
been, but the fact that the girl begins walking about immediately after
getting out of bed could surely be seen as more than enough proof of
25. A similar ambiguity is found in Jn 11 with respect to the death of Lazarus.

The most important difference is that where in Mark Jesus says that the girl is not
dead but sleeping, he does not say in John that Lazarus is not dead. On the contrary,
when the disciples appear to think that Jesus has been talking about Lazarus being
asleep, Jesus tells them that he is dead. See esp. vv. 11-14.
26. See J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1958), pp. 236-38.
that. For a reader who supposes the girl to have been fatally undernour-
ished owing to anorexia—an illness known to have existed since time
immemorial—the order to give her something to eat is specific evi-
dence of the cure. In this view the two stories are even more closely in-
terrelated in that both the women suffer from an exclusively or at least
predominantly female affliction.27
Whether the girl is dead or sleeping is not the kind of question likely
to arise in pure fiction, where characters and their actions are, after all,
creations of the author. The reason why the reader of the story finds it
impossible to decide one way or the other is, I think, due to the fact that
Jesus—obviously not the Jesus of flesh and blood but the Jesus of the
story—and the narrator each give a different representation of things.
This is a hazardous thesis to propose because it is based on the assump-
tion that the author of Mark made use of an existing story when writing
his version of it. The Jesus of the story, then, would have maintained
that the girl was sleeping, and that it was an error to think that she was
dead and premature to mourn for her. The narrator then moulded the
story into a raising from the dead. Consequently the doubting reader
who allows him or herself to be guided by the narrator understands the
girl to be dead. This adds a new dimension to the story, for Jesus is not
the first or only one to be credited with the power to raise the dead. The
reader who knows from the first page that the book should be read
against the background of the Elijah-Elisha cycle,28 will no doubt think
of the parallels recorded there. A raising from the dead, besides other
miracles, is told of Elijah in 1 Kgs 17.17-24 and of Elisha in 2 Kgs
4.18-37. Accordingly Jesus is portrayed as one who is not only greater
than John the baptist but also greater than Elijah and Elisha. That would
have been less clear if Jairus's daughter had not been dead. Now that
Jesus, according to the reading of the narrator, restores the girl to life,
it is striking how little he has to do for it in comparison with the
27. Davidsen (The Narrative Jesus, p. 81) interprets Jesus' order exclusively in
terms of his concern about her physical well-being, because hunger and satisfaction
are as opposed to one another as death versus life and sickness versus health. The
question then arises why this is the only place where, after a healing or resuscita-
tion, this order is given. Therefore it seems obvious to think of a more specific
meaning.
28. See Roth, Hebrew Gospel, who is of the opinion that this cycle served as a
model for the design of Mark, in which the prophetic duo John and Jesus is painted
in colours of the earlier pair from the Old Testament, Elijah and Elisha. Though a
fascinating thesis, it is difficult to agree with the author all the way.
strenuous efforts of Elijah and Elisha. Elijah not only prays to God but
also applies something like a mouth-to-mouth resuscitation no less than
three times. Elisha first has his staff laid over the boy's body, and then
administers a treatment similar to Elijah's, aimed at warming the dead
body. Jesus, on the other hand, need only grasp the girl's hand and say
Talitha cum' to wake her from the dead.
Finally it is necessary to examine what semantic value is added to
5.21-43 by its concentric structure. The centre of interest of such sand-
wich constructions is in the middle piece. A comparison of the two
stories should start from the two female main characters.29 They are
parallel figures not only because they are women but also on account of
the number twelve and the fact that they are both marked as daughters.
To begin with the last aspect, the mere fact that she is a daughter
already gives the girl a privileged position. Her social status is higher
because she has a father who stands up for her, whereas the woman is
apparently left to fend for herself. To be cured from her illness, she
consults one doctor after another who succeed only in swindling her out
of her money, so that she has nothing left. Besides, the girl's father is a
local dignitary for whom it is relatively easy to get things done; not sur-
prisingly he need not take much trouble to get Jesus to come along. The
woman, on the other hand, meets with opposition rather than anything
else, as appears from the fruitless therapies that have swallowed up her
money, and indirectly from the surly way in which the disciples in the
story respond to the question of Jesus who has touched his clothes.
Owing to her illness the woman has had twelve years of her life com-
pletely wasted, whereas the twelve years of the girl rather stand for her
youth, which on the twelfth birthday ends with the reaching of mar-
riageable age. Finally, before she met Jesus, the woman had the added
disadvantage that as a result of her illness she had become socially
isolated, whereas the girl has the advantage of belonging to a respected
family.
However, the privileged position of the girl is reversed in the com-

bination of the two stories. Though the father is the first to appear on
the scene and Jesus decides to oblige him, he actually helps the woman
first: the inferior is given precedence, the first will be the last and the
last the first; but there is more at issue than order. The woman who
has no one to fall back on is addressed by Jesus as 'daughter', and is
29. See Myers, Binding the Strong Man, pp. 200-203.

thereby shown to belong to the new family of Jesus. The daughter of

Jairus, though, is addressed as 'talitha', which is explicitly translated
into the Greek Kopdaiov, which means 'girl'.
In his Hometown (6.1-6)

*He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed
him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who
heard him were astounded. They said, 'Where did this man get all this?
What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power
are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary
and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sis-
ters here with us?' And they took offence at him. 4 Then Jesus said to
them, 'Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and
among their own kin, and in their own house.' 5 And he could do no deed
of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and
cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief. Then he went about
among the villages teaching.
6.1. Accompanied by his disciples, who are mentioned again although

they do not play any part in this episode, Jesus is still travelling through
the countryside of Galilee to announce that God's kingdom is about to
be realized and that people should repent and change their conduct. The
only village so far mentioned by name is Capernaum. Here a second
village is mentioned; it is referred to as Jesus' hometown. The name of
the village is not given, but as Jesus had gone out from Nazareth to the
wilderness to be baptized by John (1.9), the reader associates Jesus'
hometown with Nazareth. There can be little doubt that relatives of his
are still living there, and that the villagers are sure to recognize him as
one of them. Accordingly the reader is anxious to know how Jesus'
relatives in particular will respond to his visit. The recent confrontation
between Jesus and his biographical family and the estrangement that
ensued from it (3.21-35) are still fresh in his or her memory.
6.2-3. Jesus acts the same as elsewehere (1.39), which means that he
speaks in the synagogue on the sabbath as though his position in
Nazareth differed in no way from that in other villages.30 Except for the
30. I disagree with Barton (Discipleship and Family Ties, p. 93), who sees the
synagogue as a bad omen. The synagogue of 3.6 stands in contrast to that of 1.21-
28 and the many synagogues of 1.39.
scribes and Pharisees, people have so far responded favourably to

Jesus' activity and teaching. In fact, their response has been so over-
whelming that Jesus has become renowned in the whole of Galilee.31 In
his hometown, however, his appearance raises questions in the minds
of the villagers with regard both to what they hear from Jesus himself
in the synagogue and to Jesus' fame that had already reached them
before his visit. These two questions reveal their astonishment at the
unusual wisdom of his words and the extraordinary character of his
deeds. So far their questions are in keeping with the question of the
disciples in the boat (4.41), and initially there is no reason to take them
in any other than a positive sense and see the villagers' astonishment
also as a sign of their admiration for Jesus. The third question, how-
ever—where does Jesus get it from?—makes the reader feel doubtful.
For the answer given by the visitors to the synagogue appears to be
entirely different from that in the mind of the reader, who knows that
Jesus is moved to speak and act as he does by the spirit of God working
in him (1.10; 3.23-30). The inhabitants of Nazareth, on the other hand,
are convinced they see through Jesus, in that they recognize the speaker
in their synagogue as the village carpenter,32 who comes from an
average family. The way in which Jesus' next of kin are described is
somewhat peculiar. His mother, as well as four brothers of his, are
mentioned by name. There is no mention at all of his father, but sisters
of his are said to be still living in their hometown. There is nothing in
the text to suggest why the reader of the book should doubt that these
persons are Jesus' own brothers and sisters, or that his father has been
dead so long that people hardly remember him.33 The meaning of these
questions is still ambiguous because by themselves they could be
regarded as expressing the trust people put in Jesus because they know
him; but the narrator hastens to exclude this interpretation by stating in
unmistakable terms that at any rate the last questions are meant to
express that Jesus' compatriots simply do not want to believe that he is
in any sense exceptional.
31. 1.22, 27, 32, 37,45; 2.1-2, 12; 3.7-10, 32; 4.1.
32. For the contrast between the scribe and the artisan see Camery-Hoggatt
(Irony, p. 141), who correctly refers to Sir. 38.24-39.11.
33. On the brothers and sisters of Jesus see J.P. Meier, The Brothers and Sis-
ters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective', CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 1-28, and the reaction
of R. Bauckham, The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to
John P. Meier', CBQ 56 (1994), pp. 686-700.
6.4-6. Jesus responds with a proverb.34 As a reaction to what has just

happened it goes partly beyond what is being told in 6.1-6 because it
explicitly mentions relatives and family who after all play no part in
this rejection of Jesus. It can and even must, then, also be read as a sec-
ond and belated reaction to the information given in 3.32. The conclu-
sion of the story is also somewhat belated and therefore surprising. In
contrast to what Jesus did in Capernaum, where he cured and exorcised
numerous people in the synagogue and in the privacy of a house on the
day of the sabbath, and in front of the house after the sabbath (1.23-34),
he sees no opportunity to perform any powerful works in his home-
town. The reason is not that he is no longer able to wield the power that
only recently brought healing to the woman with the haemorrhage
(5.30)?35 and as if to prevent any misunderstanding on this score, the
narrator mentions a few not very spectacular cures that Jesus effects by
laying his hands on a few sick people. Why it is impossible for Jesus to
do in Nazareth what he did in Capernaum is told in the final sentence,
in which the narrator has Jesus marvel at the lack of trust shown by his
own hometown. It is a counterpart to those final sentences in which
people give expression to their amazement when having witnessed par-
ticularly impressive works by Jesus (1.27; 2.12). The sentence rounds
off both the stories told after the disembarkation in 5.21 about the
power of trust and those about the increasing number of Jesus' own
people turning away from him. Through their rejection of Jesus his
fellow villagers, like his relatives, have put themselves in the position
of outsiders, and by giving the wrong answers to the right questions
have shown the reader what is meant by the saying that to the outsiders
everything happens in riddles (4.11). The sentence that marks the tran-
sition between this story and the next reminds the reader that these
episodes are united by Jesus' itinerary through Galilee.
34. Thompson (Disbelief, p. 129) suggests that Jesus possibly uses the word
'prophet' ironically here, because he has not yet prophesied. It depends on what is
meant by 'prophesy'. In any event, Jesus has spoken about the failure and future
success of his proclamation in ch. 4, albeit in images. The latter was not unusual for
the classic prophets either.
35. The reader might think this because 5vvaui<; is found both in 5.30 and in
6.5.
The Twelve as Trainees (6.7-13)

7
He called the twelve to him and began to send them out two by two,
and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He ordered them to
take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money
in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. 10He said
to them, 'Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the
place. n I f any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you,
as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony
against them.' 12So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent.
13
They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were
sick and cured them.
6.7. Here the narrator picks up the thread of the story relating to the
position and activities of the twelve. In 3.13-19 he has recorded the
formation of the group and stated its function: the twelve are to accom-
pany Jesus in preparation for their future mission, which is to spread
Jesus' message and cast out demons in his name. Later, the twelve are
among those who ask for an explanation of the parable of the sower and
to whom, in addition to the explanation (4.10, 34), the secret of the
kingdom of God is also given (4.11). After that the disciples are twice
referred to as a group of people who accompany Jesus (5.31; 6.1), but
they do not play a part of their own there. It is clear that the twelve
belong to that group. In the present story they are actually sent out, not
on a definitive, but on a sort of trial mission, as appears from their
return and report in 6.30. The fact that they are sent out two by two
reminds the reader of the story in 1.16-20, where the first four also
follow Jesus in pairs.36 Although the goal of their mission—to proclaim
Jesus' message—is not explicitly mentioned, it is clear from v. 13 that
the reader is supposed to remember the description of the purposes for
the appointment of the twelve given in 3.14-15. Neither in 3.14 nor
here is the precise content of the message mentioned. As long as there
is no evidence to the contrary, the reader presumes that it is about the
dawning of God's kingdom, just as the core of Jesus' own message is
summarized in 1.15.
36. I disagree with Thompson (Disbelief, p. 53) who thinks that in 6.7 the disci-
ples take up the role of the disbelievers. True, their disbelief develops between 4.25
and 8.21 but 6.7 plays no specific part in this development.
6.8-11. Explicit mention is made of other duties, which concern the

conduct of the twelve en route. The formulation of these instructions is
rather chaotic and confused in that the narrator begins by using indirect
speech (v. 8), then switches to direct speech (vv. 9-11), and in the mid-
dle of this interposes a new narrative beginning (v. 10). Their coher-
ence with respect to content is also rather loose. The first two instruc-
tions deal with provisions for the journey, and show a certain similarity
despite the difference in formulation. In both of them, the things the
twelve should take along—a stick37 and sandals—are named first, and
the supplies not to be taken along—food, money, another set of clothes
and a bag—are named second. The reader gathers from this that the
twelve are to travel light, and make do with whatever they get or earn
on the journey, so as to be able to move and, if necessary, to leave
quickly. Their outfit is even more austere than that of the wandering
Cynic philosophers, who, in addition to a stick and a coat, carried a
beggar's bag for a little money and leftovers, and were thus able to
keep something in reserve.38 The third instruction (v. 10) concerns the
accommodation offered to them during the journey. They should be
satisfied with the accommodation they get and never look for a place
they might like better. Roman readers had got to know such an itinerant
missionary in the person of Paul, although they had probably seen and
heard him only in the place where he was held under house arrest. It
seems that this instruction assumes a situation in which travelling
preachers could not yet rely on sympathizers who would willingly put
them up for the night. While the first three instructions are about the
way of life en route, the fourth tells the twelve how they should go
about their proper task. It is obvious that this consists in bringing a
message. The twelve are forewarned that there may be places where
people are so strongly opposed to the message that the two disciples
concerned will find neither accommodation nor an audience there. If
that happens, they are to leave at once, but not without telling the peo-
ple in clear symbolic terms that they have had their chance.
6.12-13. The episode is rounded off with the information that the twelve
have carried out their assignment. The reader notices, however, that
even now the content of the message to be proclaimed on their mission
37. A stick to defend themselves with, rather than a staff or walking stick. Thus
also Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, p. 110.
38. Thus Diogenes Laertius 6.13, quoted and translated in Luhrmann, Markuse-
vangelium, pp. 273-74.
is not specified. True, there is mention of change of conduct as in 1.15,

but the translation given above—where the change of conduct is the
object of the message—is not the only one possible. The sentence can
also be rendered to mean that the twelve address people with the inten-
tion of making them change their conduct, a translation easy to defend
on the ground that the verb 'proclaim' (KripvoaG)) is found without an
object in other places, too.39 In that case the passage does not say a
word about the content of their message.40 The casting out of demons is
one of the purposes for the appointment of the twelve (see 3.15 and
6.7), but the healing is not, and this comes therefore as a surprise. Even
more unexpected is the fact that they effect healing through the anoint-
ing with oil. This is quite different from the way in which healing is ef-
fected by Jesus, who confines himself to a few words (2.11; 3.5), a
mere touch (1.41), or taking by the hand (1.31; 5.41), or who allows
people to touch him or just his clothes (3.10; 5.28-30). This is the first
mention of a therapeutic treatment as applied by medical practitioners
at the time. This raises the question of whether the cures by the twelve
are perhaps of a different order from those by Jesus himself. In other
words, does the healing with oil practised by the twelve presuppose the
same or a similar kind of trust as the healing effected by Jesus, pre-
cisely because it is told after the three preceding episodes? If this is so,
then in whom or what should the sufferer put his or her trust, in the
healer or his power or in something else? The doubt whether the mes-
sage brought by the twelve is identical to the message the narrator puts
in the mouth of Jesus in 1.15, on the one hand, and the clear difference
in healing between the twelve and Jesus, on the other, also raise the
question of how exactly the reader is to imagine the exorcisms of the
twelve.41
39. 1.38-39; 3.14.

40. Later (8.35; 10.29; 13.10-11; 14.9) it appears to be 'the good news' (TO
41. Indirectly the reader is given a decisive answer about this in 9.38-40, where
an outsider is said to exorcise demons in Jesus' name. If trust is equally important
for the effectiveness of the cures by the twelve as is the case with the cures by
Jesus, the reader would not be wrong in thinking that it is a matter of trust in the
power of Jesus' name.
The Execution of John (6.14-29)

14
King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known. Some were
saying, 'John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this rea-
son these powers are at work in him.' 15But others said, 'It is Elijah.'
And others said, 'It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.' 42
16
But when Herod heard of it, he said, 'John, whom I beheaded, has been
raised.' 17For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him,
and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife,
because Herod had married her. 18For John had been telling Herod, 'It is
not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.' 19 And Herodias had a
grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, 20for
Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and
he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet
he liked to listen to him. 21 But an opportunity came when Herod on his
birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and for the leaders
of Galilee. 22 When his daughter Herodias came in and danced, she
pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, 'Ask me for
whatever you wish, and I will give it.' 23 And he solemnly swore to her,
'Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom.' 24 She
went out and said to her mother, 'What should I ask for?' She replied,
'The head of John the baptizer.' 25Immediately she rushed back to the
king and requested, 'I want you to give me at once the head of John the
Baptist on a platter.' 26 The king was deeply grieved; yet out of regard for
his oaths and for the guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27Immediately
the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John's head. He
went and beheaded him in the prison, 28brought his head on a platter, and
gave it to the girl. Then the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disci-
ples heard about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.
Now that the twelve have set off on their trial mission—and it will be
some time before they return—the reader realizes that the preceding
narrative, despite the break of a few days between 1.45 and 2.1, creates
the impression that all the events told happen directly one after the
other. The regularly repeated 'at once' (e-oOix;) reinforces that impres-
sion. In contrast to the gap in 2.1, the interim perod is here filled with a
story that takes up some reading time and thereby also creates some
narrative time between the sending out of the twelve and their return in
6.30. By quoting an opinion about Jesus that assumes the death of John,
the narrator effects the transition to the story about John's execution. In
42. Literally translated: 'A prophet like one (= "one" or "just one") of the
prophets'.
9. Crossing Boundaries {435-821) 219
this way, during the absence of the twelve, the reader is taken to an-
other place, the palace of king Herod, and to another time, when John
was held a prisoner and was executed there. As the only flashback in
the book the story about the fate of the baptist has a unique and re-
markable position in Mark.
6.14. Herod is, together with John the baptist and later Pilate, one of the
figures who connect the narrative with extratextual reality and history.
Herod is here presented as king. Actually he held the position of a
tetrarch,43 and was therefore lower in rank than a king, but this is not
information likely to be in the possession of the average reader in an-
tiquity or today, nor is it relevant to the meaning.44 The transitional
clauses are intriguing to the reader who tries to understand how they
connect with what precedes. Like 1.35; 3.13-20; 4.10-25, and 5.40-43,
the passages immediately preceding this episode deal with events that,
in so far as they concern Jesus, have not taken place in public. What
Herod has heard about Jesus must therefore relate to events told before
6.7-13. The reader assumes that the rumours in circulation about Jesus45
have also reached the palace. In a few words the narrator tells what
has come to Herod's attention. The point in these rumours is how to ex-
plain Jesus' remarkable successes as a therapist (8i)vd|H£i<;). Jesus' own
townspeople, who a short while ago had been equally astounded by his
therapeutic powers, had only queried them (6.2-3), but Herod already
hears rumours about the identity of the therapist.
The readers, who know about John's arrest from 1.14, are completely
surprised to hear that John has since died. And this they hear in the first
instance only indirectly through the narrator, who passes on the rumour
that John has been raised from the dead. Very likely readers in antiquity
did not quite know what to make of this rumour. That the dead, either
all of them or just the righteous, rise from death at the end of time was
a common view both in the days of Jesus46 and in those of the intended
readers of Mark. To the reader of the book the interim resurrection of
someone may be within the bounds of possibility after 5.42, but that is
43. See Mt. 14.1; Lk. 3.19; 9.7; Acts 13.1.

44. The question of which Herod this is presumes a knowledge of history that
neither the original nor the present-day average reader of Mark can be expected to
have.
45. 1.28, 39,45; 3.7-12.
46. See 12.18.
something entirely different from what is perhaps best described as the

reincarnation of a person just dead in the body of someone else,47 who
is not much younger. The fantastic opinion that Jesus is John reincar-
nated appears to be held by Herod himself (v. 16), who probably has
moral qualms about the fact that he unwillingly ordered John to be
killed and is now haunted by the thought that the murdered John has re-
turned. The reader knows of course that Herod's view is a delusion that
does not, and cannot, accord with the facts.
6.15-16. This is no less true of the two other views about Jesus' iden-
tity, though to a different degree. That Jesus could be Elijah returned to
earth conflicts with what the reader knows about John the baptist, who
is represented as Elijah come back on the first page of the book. The
reader realizes that the mistaken identification of Jesus with John per-
sists in that of seeing Jesus as Elijah. The third view, that Jesus is a
prophet like other prophets, is not altogether false but may easily be-
come so if it is taken to be the whole truth about Jesus. In Herod's
conclusion the first of the three views recurs and is recognized as a
delusion of Herod, who is filled with remorse for killing the man of
whom he was so fond. While from what was said in v. 14 about the
resurrection of John the reader could infer only that he had died after
his arrest, here it appears that instead of a natural death due to sickness,
age or an accident, John had actually suffered a violent death at the
hands of Herod.
The transition passage has yet another important effect. It brings
home to those hearing or reading the story that the persons who play a
part in it are completely unaware of the announcement made in the
Prologue that Jesus is God's son. The contradictory reactions to
Jesus—on the one hand, people who in large numbers keep on flocking
towards him, as opposed to others who urge him to leave their territory,
and on the other hand, people who look upon him as their saviour, as
opposed to others who want to kill him—lead also to conflicting views
about Jesus' identity. The reader knows them to be mere guesses that
do not even begin to answer the disciples' question of who Jesus really
is (4.41).
47. Elijah is no exception to this either, for he did not die and therefore may or
even must as yet return.
6.17-20. The beheading of John requires an examination into the cir-

cumstances of the execution.48 The first sentences are somewhat clum-
sily connected by the causal conjunction 'for' (yap, vv. 17, 18, 20),
which makes the reader look back twice or perhaps even three times,
via v. 17 to the time of the beheading, and via v. 18 to the time when
John upbraided Herod with his misconduct, and in v. 20 to the time
when Herod liked listening to John but without changing his conduct.
John's objection to Herod recalls the message of Nathan, who is sent to
David to tell him that manslaughter and murder will strike his royal
house since he has committed adultery with the wife of Uriah.49 The
curse inflicted on the Davidic dynasty now seems to have struck the
court of Herod. The evil genius in the story is Herodias, who attempts
to persuade Herod to kill John. As John has admonished Herod for hav-
ing an illicit union with her and Herod nevertheless regularly lends an
ear to John, she is probably actuated by motives of revenge and perhaps
jealousy. From the order in which the events are told the reader derives
that Herod's visits to John take place after he has thrown him into
prison. The passage takes the reader to a royal court with all the deca-
dence and intrigue appertaining to it. It is precisely the fact that the
wife of the 'king' wants to kill John that reminds the reader of Queen
Jezebel, whose marriage to King Ahab is strongly condemned by the
narrator of 1 Kings (16.31). After killing many other prophets, she does
everything in her power to eliminate Elijah as well, but does not suc-
ceed (1 Kgs 18.11-13; 19.2-9). That the relations between Herod,
Herodias, her first husband Philip, and Herod's and Herodias's daugh-
ter, who play a crucial part in the rest of the story, do not correspond
with the data known from other sources is irrevelant to the reader, who
is not supposed to know this.50
6.21-25. In the course of a banquet in celebration of Herod's birthday

Herodias seizes the opportunity to realize the evil thoughts she has
nourished for so long. The reader imagines that having had one too
many Herod is so careless as to offer his daughter a blank cheque in
48. Two recent publications are J.C. Anderson, 'Feminist Criticism: The Danc-
ing Daughter', in Anderson and Moore (eds.), Mark and Method, pp. 115-33, and
J.A. Glancy, 'Unveiling Masculinity: The Construction of Gender in Mark 6:17-
29', Biblnt 2 (1994), pp. 34-50.
49. 2 Sam. 12.
50. Cf. among others Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, pp. 114-15.
appreciation of her delightful dancing.51 At the instigation of her

mother, the girl asks for the head of John the baptist. Coming so soon
after the raising of Jairus's daughter from the dead the incident seems
like a perverse reversal of it. Each of he stories has in common that
there is a father who has great confidence in a prophet. The stories are
each other's opposites in the sense that Jesus saves the life of Jairus's
daughter but that Herod's daughter is instrumental in bringing about the
death of the baptist. In both stories there is also a mother: in the first
story, she is inside and witnesses the dead child getting up, but she does
not play an active part in anything that happens; in the second story,
she is outside and plays a leading part in the events without witnessing
them. However gruesome in some of its details, the episode about the
death of John the baptist has great dramatic power.
6.26-28. Though no less sincere than Jairus's joy at the resurrection of

his daughter (5.42), Herod's sorrow at the impending fate of John does
not prevent him from acting in conformity with his promise. Instead of
breaking his foolish oath or at least deferring John's execution, Herod
implements it immediately, as his daughter had insisted. A soldier of
the guard cuts off John's head in the prison, and carrying out the girl's
request to the letter, puts it on a platter and presents it to her, after
which the girl delivers it to her mother.52
This scene too is the bizarre perversion of another, but since that
comes at the end of the book it cannot be recognized at a first reading.
The bringing in and passing on of John's head like a dish upon a platter
at the banquet in Herod's palace is a perversion of what takes place
later at Jesus' farewell dinner with his disciples on the passover festi-
val. In both cases the host presents his guests with a sign that refers not
to an arbitrary death but to a brutal murder committed by the authorities
51. That he offers her half his kingdom is not unusual at a royal court, espe-
cially when the king has had a drop too much. King Ahasuerus addresses Esther
twice in the same way in Est. 5.3, where the king is impressed by her beauty, and in
7.2, where he has had some wine.
52. Camery-Hoggatt (Irony, pp. 145-46) rightly emphasizes that the atrocious
character of the story causes strong dramatic irony, but he thinks that the irony is
specially directed at the figure of Herod, and writes about the head on the platter: I t
is the king's own head, blood-spattered, ghastly, gagging on the monstrosity he has
created'. I wonder, however, if the story is so much interested in Herod himself. If,
as I think, the issue is rather Herod's opinion that Jesus is John raised from the
dead, then the irony would rather be related to this.
and made possible in the first case by the host's daughter and in the
second by one of his followers. In both cases the sign assumes the form
of a dish that refers to the victim of the murder. In a scene that is as
grotesque as it is brutal, the severed head of the victim is served up like
a dish, and the subsequent deliverance of the head by the headsman to
the girl and by the girl to the mother is a kind of participation in the sat-
isfaction of vindictive Herodias. The second sign, the breaking and dis-
tribution of the bread and the pouring and passing round of the wine, is
an iconic reference to Jesus' body and blood, which will be broken and
shed for all those who eat the bread and drink the wine in order to keep
his memory alive.53 In contrast to the serving up and passing on of the
dish on Herod's birthday, the second sign is so ordinary and modest
that despite its iconic character, words are needed to clarify its mean-
ing. Another and more important difference is that in the first story the
character of the host coincides with that of the murderer, and in the sec-
ond story with that of the victim. For this reason the host in the second
story has to interpret the sign before he is murdered.
6.29. The episode ends with the burial of the baptist. There is nothing
surprising in the fact that his disciples—the reader knows from 2.18
that the baptist, like Jesus, has disciples—come and take his body and
lay it in a tomb; but it does bring out in advance just how painfully un-
faithful Jesus' disciples are when they leave the burial of their dead
master to an outsider.
Finally, the story has yet another function. The reader remembers
from 3.6 that the Pharisees—the standard adversaries of Jesus—have
begun to plot with the Herodians to kill Jesus. The Herodians, unlike
the Pharisees and the scribes, are not a known group. It is evident that
in Mark they are connected with Herod by reason of their name. Even
at a first reading, the audience interprets Herod's execution of the
prophet as a premonition that they must reckon with the possibility that
Jesus will not fare much better than John. At a second reading, they are
surprised to find that the episode of John's death reads like a passion
story, and that the narrator, besides quoting someone on Jesus, also
quotes someone on John, who says that he has risen from the dead.
53. See also Anderson, 'Feminist Criticism', p. 132.

The Apostles Look for a Quiet Place (6.30-34)

30
The apostles gathered around Jesus, and told him all that they had done
and taught. 31He said to them, 'Come away to a deserted place all by
yourselves and rest a while.' For many were coming and going, and they
had no leisure even to eat. 32And they went away in the boat to a deserted
place by themselves. 33Now many saw them going and recognized them,
and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of
them. 34As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had com-
passion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and
he began to teach them many things.
This is one of the pieces that connect two episodes rather than forming
episodes themselves. It concludes the preceding story of the mission of
the twelve by taking them back to Jesus again and also arranges for a
large crowd to be on the lonely spot together with Jesus and the twelve.
6.30-31. On their return the twelve report on their experiences to Jesus.

It is remarkable that the narrator, who usually calls the disciples 'the
twelve', 54 here refers to them as 'apostles' (drcocrcoXoi), a term with
just one other occurrence in Mark (3.14), and that one based on a lim-
ited number of manuscripts. In this way the narrator underlines the rela-
tion between the sending out (anocxeXkco in 6.7) and the return of the
twelve. The report does not say whether their mission has been success-
ful or not, but the reader sees no reason to assume that there is a special
motive behind this silence. It is clear from the context that the disciples
are not alone with Jesus, but it is not clear whether the people in the
crowd are trying to get to Jesus, or whether they are attracted by the
activities of the twelve. The reader is inclined to think the first. It is
noteworthy that the narrator points out for the second time that on ac-
count of the hustle and bustle they do not get the opportunity to eat (see
3.20). Given Jesus' advice in v. 31, the reader would have expected the
narrator to say that they did not get the opportunity to sleep. This sur-
prising reference to eating raises expectations within the audience that
the narrator has something in store for them on the subject of eating.
Jesus' advice to the disciples is entirely in keeping with what has been
said about Jesus himself (1.35).
54. 3.14; 4.10; 6.7; 9.35; 10.32; 11.11; 14.10, 14, 17,20,43.
6.32-34. The failure to retire55 and the gathering of the crowd56 are also
in keeping with what thus far has been told about Jesus. How much the
people have meanwhile got used to the movements of Jesus and the
twelve is clear from the fact that so many of them see at once where
they are heading and then go there themselves. That they cover the
longer distance along the coast on foot in less time than Jesus and his
party the shorter distance by boat across the water forms a climax in the
interaction between Jesus and the crowd that takes place on the shore
of the lake. Now that Jesus and the twelve have failed to achieve the
object of the crossing, the question is what they will do next. Will they
embark again and find a place not crowded with people? After v. 31
this is to be expected. Considering this expectation, the narrator specifi-
cally tells the reader why it does not happen. As Jesus disembarks and
sees the waiting crowd, he is reminded—the omniscient narrator
reports—of a metaphor that regularly occurs in the Old Testament.57
Motivated by this Jesus does what he always does when confronted
with a multitude: he addresses them.
Five Loaves and Two Fish (6.35-44)

35
When it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, 'This is a
deserted place, and the hour is now very late; 36send them away so that
they may go into the surrounding country and villages and buy some-
thing for themselves to eat.' 37 But he answered them, 'You give them
something to eat.' They said to him, 'Are we to go and buy two hundred
denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?' 38 And he said to
them, 'How many loaves have you? Go and see.' When they had found
out, they said, 'Five, and two fish.' 39Then he ordered them to get all the
people to sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in
groups of hundreds and of fifties. 4 1 Taking the five loaves and the two
fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave
them to his disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish
among them all. 42 And all ate and were filled; 43 and they took up twelve
baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. ^Those who had eaten the
loaves numbered five thousand men.
55. See 1.36-37, 45.

56. Cf. 1.45; 2.2, 13; 3.7-10; 4.1; 5.21.
57. Num. 27.17; 1 Kgs 22.17; 2 Chron. 18.16; Jdt. 11.19; Ezek. 34.5, 8 (con-
trast 34.23).
This story is often referred to as the miraculous multiplication of bread

or the miraculous feeding, yet this characterization is far from self-evi-
dent. Until now the reader has not come across a miracle story in Mark
without the one directly involved or those present noticing the remark-
able change, and as a rule the narrator either records their amazement
or has them respond exuberantly to the miraculous event.58 Here, on the
other hand, no one seems to be aware of the remarkable proportion of
five loaves to five thousand people. Even on the part of the twelve, who
counted the loaves and fish before distributing them to between four
and five hundred people each, there is no reaction whatever. Neither
have Jesus' disciples or the twelve played a part in a similar event be-
fore. The obvious supposition that their help must have been necessary
in case of a meal with so many guests is contradicted by what is said
about the fish in v. 41. All that raises the question of whether this story
should be read in the same way as that of the cure of the paralytic in
2.1-12 and that of the two women in 5.21-43.
6.35-36. If a certain time—be it of indefinite duration—has elapsed

since the sending out of the twelve, the mass meal is situated on the
same day as the return of the apostles and the problems linked with the
next crossing. According to the representation of the story, Jesus for-
gets the time while addressing the crowd, and the disciples interfere be-
cause it is getting late. Whether the term 'disciples' refers to a bigger
group than that of the twelve is not clear, although the twelve baskets
of leftovers rather reminds one of the twelve apostles. That it is late
does not mean that night is already falling.59 There is only the danger
that soon it may be difficult or impossible to get the people back home
in time or provide them with food on the spot.60 That is why the disci-
ples suggest to Jesus that he should finish his speech so that the people
still have time to buy provisions in the neighbourhood.
6.37-38. Jesus counters their proposal, however, by suggesting that they

themselves should give the crowd something to eat. Is it possible to
58. 1.27, 31, 42, 45; 2.12; 3.5; 5.15, 20, 29, 42.
59. For this Mark usually employs the term oxj/iac; y£vou£vr|<; (1.32; 4.35; 6.47;
14.17; 15.42) and once ovj/iag o w n s TTI<; o)pa<; (11.11).
60. Nevertheless, this does happen later, because Jesus' concern for the people
does not apparently prevent him from still sending them away after nightfall, al-
though they have eaten by then.
understand these words as being any other than ironic in intention?

After all, no one has made any arrangements for a massive event like
this, so, for the present, the reader can only see it as an ironical order
that cannot possibly be carried out. Except that the disciples seem to
have a different idea. Whether their reaction is read as a question—as
in the current edition of Nestle—or as an intention61—as here—makes
no difference in that respect. If necessary the disciples will solve the
problem by going to buy bread for 200 denarii—the value of as many
days' wages for one labourer and so a considerable sum of money for
which a lot of bread may be bought.62 The reader who remembers that
the disciples gave up their livelihood when they first followed Jesus
(1.18, 2063), wonders whether they own money, and if so, whether they
have such a great amount.64 Whether Jesus' order is ironical or not, if
the disciples have no money, their proposal to go and buy bread for so
much money certainly is.65 Jesus' immediate response gives the reader
the impression that Jesus is pursuing a purposeful strategy, though one
that is not yet clear to the reader. This time Jesus sets the disciples a
simple, performable task. They are to find out how many loaves they
have. The number five may have symbolic value but seems easy
enough to explain in connection with the other fives in the story: the
five thousand people who are being fed, and the groups of fifties and of
hundreds (that is, twice fifty), into which the five thousand are divided.
The number five also plays a role in a similar story about Elisha (2 Kgs
4.42-44), who at a time of famine orders his servant Gehazi to give
twenty loaves to a hundred prophets to eat; that is in the proportion of
one loaf to five persons. Here it is one loaf to a thousand people. The
61. The ancient MSS lack punctuation and the text has no signal, such as an
interrogative particle, indicating an interrogative sentence. Besides, there is no
reason to interpret the disciples' reaction as a question. Rendering it as intention
has the additional advantage of bringing out the very active role played by the
disciples in this episode.
62. J.W. Betlyon, 'Coinage', ABD, I, pp. 1076-89 (1086).
63. Later they will refer to the fact that they have left everything (10.28).
64. That they have a common purse is in line with Jn 12.6 where Judas is repre-
sented as helping himself from the money bag in his charge.
65. It is therefore strange that C. Focant, 'La fonction narrative des doublets
dans la section des pains', in FGN, II, pp. 1039-63 (1052), should regard the dis-
ciples' question in 6.37 as a violation of Jesus' order in 6.8 not to take money with
them, for the question by no means implies that they actually have that money at
their disposal.
fish are rather a side-dish in the story: Jesus does not ask the disciples
how many fish they have, and the sentence structure suggests that they
have somehow been dragged in (vv. 38 and 43).
6.39-41. Now it becomes quite clear to the reader that Jesus has a plan,
making a virtue of necessity. The disciples are ordered to have all the
people sit down in groups.66 The division into more or less equal groups
seems to be intended to reduce the unwieldy mass into neatly arranged
units so as to estimate the number of portions of bread needed and to
facilitate the later distribution. Having the story about Elisha in mind,
the reader knows more or less what to expect: a mass meal, with a num-
ber of loaves that is dispropoitionally small in relation to the number of
participants. The mention of green grass evokes yet another context. It
refers the reader beyond the present episode back to v. 34, which pre-
sents Jesus looking compassionately at the multitude because they are
like a flock of sheep without a shepherd, and which in its turn refers
implicitly to Psalm 23, which sings not only of meadows of green grass
and resting at the waterside but also of reclining at Yhwh's table.
When everything is ready, Jesus does what may be expected of a
host. He speaks the blessing to God and breaks the bread. There is no
reason to think here of a reference to the last supper.67 Jesus then hands
the portions of bread to the disciples who in their turn serve them to
those present, just as Gehazi served the twenty loaves to the hundred
prophets. Of the fish it says simply—and as a kind of afterthought—
that Jesus divides them among them all. The reader is aware that the
fish receive a different treatment from the loaves but is unable to decide
whether this is an indication that they deserve special notice or just the
opposite. Given Jesus' question in v. 38, the reader assumes as yet that
the fish are mentioned casually, without any particular reason. The
66. Here translation and chosen reading must be delicately tuned to each other.
Some MSS have the passive dvaKA,i9f|vai, others the medial dvaicXivai. Also, be-
cause amoig refers to the disciples, it is consistent to read with Nestle (26th edn),
avaicAlvai. In that case it is the disciples who are ordered to make the people sit in
groups.
67. As I once thought; see B. van Iersel, 'Die wunderbare Speisung und das
Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition', NovT 8 (1964), pp. 167-94. Camery-
Hoggatt (Irony, p. 201 n. 87) largely agrees with my earlier view in 'Die wunder-
bare Speisung'. I now rather think that the two feeding stories, precisely because
the disciples do not understand what is going on and the reader shares this non-
understanding, increase the tension that is released in the story of the last supper.
narrator could not have treated the meal itself more soberly. The little
he says suggests that the people do not just eat but fill their stomachs
abundantly. After the meal they collect guilelessly what is left: that it
amounts to twelve baskets does not seem to surprise them. The number
may refer to all of Israel, which can still be fed with them. It may also
be based on the fact that there is one full basket left for each apostle,
but in this case things would have been clearer if the narrator had spo-
ken about 'the twelve' in this episode. From 6.7, when it was used last,
the term has faded into the background through the use of 'apostles'
and 'disciples'. The leftovers of the fish are again referred to as a neg-
ligible element. If in this sentence there is already clear evidence of a
considerable disparity between the original five loaves and the twelve
baskets full of leftovers, the final sentence really shows how great the
disproportion is between the five loaves and the 'five thousand men'—
which, incidentally, includes women and children68—who have enjoyed
the meal. It also shows that the meal laid on by Jesus and his disciples
is far more abundant than that provided by Elisha and Gehazi recorded
in 2 Kgs 4.42-44. Just as in the story about Elisha, this story about
Jesus gives little indication that the people who have eaten so abun-
dantly have noticed anything out of the ordinary. That this is true of
those who have enjoyed the meal, the reader can easily imagine, but
that it is equally true of the disciples, the reader finds more difficult to
understand.
Precisely because of this the reader is faced with the problem of how
this unusual and therefore amazing event should really be understood.
Perhaps it is impossible to say as yet. The solution largely depends on
the answer to the question to which characters the narrator draws the
audience's attention. The current interpretation is that the story belongs
to the so-called miracle stories, which are mainly about Jesus miracu-
lously meeting the needs of the crowd in difficult situations. There is no
real emergency here, and there is certainly no question of famine, as in
68. The express restriction to men is found only in Mt. 14.21 and 15.38, which
is possibly a secondary interpretation of Mark. The appeal of Guelich (Mark, pp.
341 and 344) to the division into groups in v. 39 as a reason why that restriction
should be thought present in Mark as well, seems to me to be less justified on
account of the reference to Exod. 18.25, since in 18.17-26 the whole people is
divided into groups in view of the administration of justice and women also made
use of this (cf. 1 Kgs 3.16-28).
the Elijah and Elisha narratives. Apart from that, the usual interpreta-
tion does not explain why there is at the same time so much emphasis
on the role of the disciples. Perhaps the real point of the story is that,
instead of following their suggestion, Jesus answers the disciples that
they should give the people something to eat: and is not this what hap-
pens in the end? Besides, at which point of the story does the recogni-
tion of the miraculous, the element of surprise, become visible? Is it
when Jesus gives the disciples so much bread that they have enough for
everyone? Or at the moment when the disciples distribute the little
Jesus has given them to so many people? The story is usually read from
the first view, but it is also possible to read it from the second, which
seems to be more in line with the major part assigned to the disciples in
the story. In any case the episode could not have been better placed
than here, so soon after 6.7-31, the 'apprenticeship' of the disciples.
The story shows that the training of the disciples continues and that
Jesus has just taught them how the impossible can be made possible. In
that case the episode does not belong to the story-line concerned with
what Jesus does for the sick and possessed, but to the story line relating
to the disciples, to whom Jesus presents wholly new emphases pre-
cisely in this part of the book.
Second Crossing: A Ghost on the Water (6.45-53)

45
Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to
the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After say-
ing farewell to them, he went up on the mountain to pray. 47 When
evening came, the boat was out on the lake, and he was alone on the
land. 48 When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an
adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on
the lake. He intended to pass them by. 49 But when they saw him walking
on the lake, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; 50for they all saw
him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said,
Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.' 51 Then he got into the boat with
them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, 52for they
did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
53
When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and
moored the boat.
6.45-46. The narrator takes the readers again to the Sea of Galilee,
where—in a sort of panoramic view—they see and hear what happens
both on the water and the shore. It seems that the disciples have to be
forced to sail without Jesus, which gives the reader the impression that
the disciples and Jesus have meanwhile become inseparable. Why they
are sent to Bethsaida rather than anywhere else remains unanswered.
Only after they have been to Gennesaret (6.53) and many other things
have happened does the company finally arrive at Bethsaida.69 Jesus
dismisses the crowd that same evening. Except for this once, the book
never mentions the departure of the crowd. As a result, the audience
just loses sight of it, and does not even know whether to think of it as
consisting of the same people or to assume that it is made up of differ-
ent people at each new appearance.70 That Jesus takes leave of the dis-
ciples also occurs only once in the book. It is connected with the forced
separation of Jesus and the disciples, who now go their own way,
although not for long. Jesus retreats to the mountain to pray. It was also
on 'the mountain' that Jesus installed the twelve (3.13), without it being
clear which mountain was meant and how the reader was supposed to
know it. It is apparently easier for Jesus to retire alone than in the com-
pany of the twelve (6.31-32).
69. Much has been written about this journey, which because of the delayed
arrival at Bethsaida is generally regarded as an irregularity in the story. The
location of the places by the lake plays an important part in this, while it is doubtful
whether the author and the authorial audience knew their position. A summary of
the solutions is given by S.H. Smith, 'Bethsaida via Gennesaret: The Enigma of the
Sea-Crossing in Mark 6,45-53', Bib 77 (1996), pp. 349-74, who rejects the solu-
tions proposed thus far. E.S. Malbon, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in
Mark (Biblical Seminar, 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 27-29, is of the
opinion that 'the disciples' failure to reach Bethsaida at the outset is indicative of
their obduracy, and in particular their resistance to the idea that the gospel could
possibly be meant for Gentiles as well as for Jews' (summary from Smith, p. 362).
Smith suggests a more far-reaching solution. 'The aborted voyage of 6,45-53 can
be seen as...an instance of suspension tactic' (p. 374), not only with regard to the
Gentile mission, as E.S. Malbon thinks, but also with regard to Jesus' identity: 'The
fundamental question is not who the bread is for, but who the all-sufficient bread is'
(p. 373). In my opinion, this is a problem for scholars rather than readers. Readers
can very well read the story as a consistent whole, especially when they are unaware
of the position of these places. The voyage to Bethsaida begins then in 6.45, and
ends, after disembarkations at Gennesaret (6.53) and Dalmanutha (8.10), in 8.22.
That there is mention of 'the other side' or 'crossing over' is natural in the case of a
lake (6.45, 53; 8.13). The only time that a ship is not said to sail to the other side is
in 6.32, where Jesus and the disciples go to a deserted place in the vicinity, as
appears from the fact that the people going there on foot arrive ahead of them.
70. 2.13; 3.7-10, 32-35; 4.33; 5.24-37; 8.9-10; 9.14-27; 10.46-52.
6.47-48a. Whether Jesus is still on the mountain while the disciples are
facing a crisis on the water is not clear. It is also possible that he finds
himself on the shore on the same level as the boat. At any rate, perhaps
helped by the light of the moon or the first daylight Jesus can perceive
that the disciples are making hardly any headway owing to the wind.
There is no indication, however, that the disciples have the feeling that
their lives are in danger, as in 4.37-38.
6.48b-51. Jesus himself takes the initiative about 'the fourth watch of
the night', as the text says literally, that is, the last period of three hours
before daybreak. He goes towards them, 'walking on the lake'. The
disciples in the boat discern the approaching figure, and the reader also
has no difficulty in visualizing it. However, what no one can see but
what the narrator, who again shows himself to be omniscient, neverthe-
less communicates, is Jesus' intention in doing this: he wants to pass
them by. That is something quite different from—and in a sense even
the opposite of—getting into the boat with them, as the reader had ex-
pected. Why may Jesus wish to do that? Unfortunately, the narrator
does not say, but it is not surprising that the gap has given rise to nu-
merous interpretations and suppositions.71 Most in accord with the
usual configuration of the group presented elsewhere in the book would
be that Jesus, after the disciples have gone ahead of him by boat, now
wants to walk past them in order to regain his position in front and
show them the way again.72 Be that as it may, the disciples not only fail
to understand what Jesus intends doing but also fail to recognize him,
interpreting the dim figure walking on the lake as a ghost. It seems as if
the narrator wants to apologize to the reader for their terrified screams
by underlining once more that they all saw him and were frightened.
Meanwhile their ideas about Jesus have deteriorated considerably since
the first crossing. There their experience caused them to wonder who
Jesus was (4.41), here they take him for an apparition.
6.50-51. Jesus responds differently to their terror from last time. Then
he rebuked them for having no trust yet (4.40), which is a very serious
accusation in the context of the book; now he reassures them that the
supposed ghost is a product of their fear and that he himself is walking
71. See B.M.F. van Iersel, 'KAI H0EAEN IIAPEA0EIN AYTOYI: Another
look at Mk 6,48d\ in FGN, II, pp. 1065-76.
72. Van Iersel, 'nAPEA0EIN\ pp. 1074-76.
on the water. Whether or not they recognize him on account of this

information, the text does not say. The narrator, who is especially inter-
ested in Jesus himself, tells that Jesus—implicitly abandoning the plan
to overtake the disciples—climbs into the boat beside them, and that
the adverse wind ceases like the storm in 4.39. As a consequence of
Jesus' presence? The text does not say, but that is certainly what the
reader is meant to infer. Far from being reassured by what Jesus tells
them, the disciples are quite upset. In the reading adopted here73 one
adverb is not enough for the narrator to express his feelings.
6.52. To the rebuke by Jesus the narrator adds in an apodosis a rebuke

of his own: the disciples are upset because they had not understood
about the loaves; they are too headstrong for that.74 In this way the nar-
rator, who does not say what the disciples did not understand, also
warns the reader that there is more to the loaves than appears at first
sight, and that whoever does not understand it—whether he or she be-
longs to the world of the story or to the real world outside it—is seri-
ously at fault. That the story of the mass meal has no proper ending
appears not to be a mistake or negligence on the part of the narrator, but
rather forms part of his narrative strategy. The purpose of this strategy,
however, does not become evident here. The reader can only hope that
the remainder of the book will help provide an answer to that question.
6.53. When Jesus and the disciples eventually arrive, it is not at the
place for which they have been heading! Whether this is due to adverse
weather conditions, or to the fact that Jesus did not take up his position
in front after all, or perhaps to carelessness by the narrator, is not clear.
The casualness with which the story continues at Gennesaret suggests
that even the last possibility cannot be ruled out.
Whoever Touches Him Is Made Well (6.54-56)

54
When they got out of the boat, people at once recognized him, 55 and
rushed about that whole region and began to bring the sick on mats to
wherever they heard he was. 56 And wherever he went, into villages or
73. That of A, / 1 3 , 2ft, lat, syh, reproduced in square brackets by Nestle (26th
edn). Chosen here because, linguistically speaking, the two adverbs that are not
connected must be counted as a more difficult reading, and, from a literary stand-
point, they can be seen as pointing forward to the rebuke that follows.
74. Literally, 'their hearts were hardened'.
cities or farms, they laid the sick in the market-places, and begged him
that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it
were healed.
The reader recognizes this passage as one of the summaries with which
this part of the book is interspersed and which keep reminding the au-
dience of Jesus' words and actions75 and the reactions to them.76 At first
they occur frequently and very close together; sometimes they are very
brief, but gradually they become less frequent yet at the same time
more extensive. That is not the only difference. Perhaps it is even more
important that there is a gradual shift in emphasis from Jesus who pro-
claims the word,77 to the people who are attracted by the magnetic force
radiating from his healings and demon expulsions.78 Touching plays an
increasingly important role in Jesus' cures. In 1.31 Jesus takes Peter's
mother-in-law by the hand, in 1.41 he touches the leper with his hand,
and in 3.10 numerous people having ailments are said to benefit from
touching Jesus. A reader who would look at such touchings with con-
tempt is corrected in the story about the woman with the haemorrhage.
Not only does the narrator make it clear that when the woman touches
Jesus' cloak, Jesus experiences a special sensation (5.30) and the
woman is instantly cured (5.29), but also that her cure is the effect of
her trust (5.34). Consequently the touching is, at least partly, a sign of
trust, and meets with Jesus' appreciation, albeit after some hesitation on
his part (5.30-32).
6.54-56. After 6.33 the audience is not surprised to hear that Jesus is
recognized as soon as he goes ashore. It is remarkable, however, that
whereas in 6.33 Jesus and the disciples are recognized, the recognition
is here confined to Jesus alone. With elements borrowed from 1.32 and
2.2-4 the narrator then tells how the people, whenever Jesus is in the
neighbourhood, comb the whole area for the sick and begin to bring
them on mats to wherever Jesus is. The narrator reports these goings-on
in such a way that the reader attaches a positive meaning to them. This
is also true of the touching, which invariably results in the actual
healing and which in 5.34 Jesus himself interprets as a sign of faith.
Besides, the touchings become more and more distant. First Jesus
75. 1.14-15, 32-34, 39; 2.13; 3.10-12.

76. 1.22, 28, 32-33, 45; 2.2, 13; 3.7-8, 20; 4.1; 5.14-17; 6.33.
77. 1.14-15, 39; 2.13.
78. 1.32-34; 3.7-12 and here in 6.56.
himself is touched (3.10), then his clothes (5.27), and here the tassel,
worn by law-abiding Jews on the corners of their garments.79 Yet,
partly as a result of these summaries a question slowly but surely forces
itself on the reader. The people may be crowding towards Jesus from
far and near and constantly bring their sick to him, but what about their
response to what Jesus has to tell them? Does Jesus' proclamation also
meet with response outside the small circle of the twelve and his
disciples? Or, put differently, is there no notable tension between the
attention Jesus receives as a therapist and the interest shown in him as
the bringer of the good news? Or does the narrator perhaps want to
suggest that those who collect and bring the sick and beg Jesus to heal
them are people who have understood the good news and have turned
round on their path to do what it demands of them?
Eating without Washing One's Hands (7.1-13)

'Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from
Jerusalem gathered around him, 2 they noticed that some of his disciples
were eating [bread] with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.
3
(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly
wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and they do
not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also
many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and
bronze kettles [and beds].) 5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him,
'Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders,
but eat [bread] with defiled hands?' 6 He said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied
rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
'This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines."
8
You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.'
9
Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the command-
ment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10For Moses said, "Honour
your father and your mother"; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or
mother must surely die." n B u t you say that if anyone tells father or
mother, "Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban"
(that is, an offering to God)— 12 then you no longer permit doing any-
thing for a father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God
through your tradition, that you have handed on. And you do many
things like this.'
79. In accordance with Num. 15.38-39.

7.1. As regards place and time, these two interdependent episodes are
somewhat left in the air. In the preceding part of the story, Jesus wan-
dered, after disembarking at Gennesaret, from one place to the other in
Galilee. In this part the narrator does not take his audience to a place re-
ferred to by name. That the story is still situated in Galilee is implicitly
confirmed by the fact that, just as in 3.22, Jerusalem is mentioned as the
home base of the scribes. In this way the narrator not only underlines
their competence as interpreters of the Torah but also reminds the
reader of their denunciation of Jesus in 3.22 and points forward to the
city where the adversaries of Jesus have the final word and are probably
planning his downfall. Not tied to any particular place or time by its
content, the episode presumes only that Jesus already has followers and
opponents, and that some of those followers do not observe certain
regulations. Yet the reader is somewhat surprised that the incident is
told at this point of the story. The recollection of 3.22 raises the ques-
tion of whether it would not have been better placed before or after the
discussion of 3.22-30 or even before, or in between 2.18-22 and 2.23-
28, where the disciples are also involved in a dispute. Perhaps the best
place for the story would have been after the discussion recounted in
2.23-28, which is also about the eating of bread (2.26). Does the
episode, placed at this juncture in the story, perhaps have a surplus
value because the disciples have meanwhile had loaves in their hands
and distributed them to others? Then the question arises why the story
stands no nearer to that of the mass meal related in 6.35-44? Only when
the reading continues will the reason for the place of these two episodes
at this point in the book become clear to the reader.80
One thing is certain, however. As the present discussion is not placed
along with the discussions referred to, it has a specific function, and
this compels the reader to take note of its subject matter as something
with its own proper significance. This is strengthened by the fact that a
particular action is gradually made to represent a whole lifestyle. The
washing of hands practised by some pious Jews is extended to a custom
expected of all Jews. Thus the washing or not washing of hands comes
to stand for observing or not observing the Jewish tradition. Next, this
is extended to contradictory behaviour that becomes visible in the
observance of the less important and the neglect of the most important
precepts. Finally, in the following episode, the Jewish dietary laws also
come up for discussion. For a situation in which Gentile and Jewish
80. See my commentary on 7.24-30 below.

Christians were engaged in debate, 7.1-23 is of central importance, the

more so because immediately after this the relationship between Jews
and Gentiles is brought to the audience's attention, and again via a dis-
cussion about eating.
7.2-5. In contrast to the dietary laws, the washing or rather the ritual
rinsing of the hands is not enforced by the written Torah. It is even a
matter of doubt whether the practice was already in use in the time of
Jesus. It is probably only in the period between 60 and 70 CE that a
limited number of people began to observe it, and it is only in the year
100 that it was first mentioned as a general rule.81 If the practice is of
such a recent date, the story may have been written that way in the time
of Mark, but it cannnot have happened exactly that way in the time of
Jesus. The situation in vv. 1-2 is reminiscent of that in 2.23-24. An
interesting difference between them is that in our episode the gathering
of the opponents is mentioned first. This creates the impression that
here, as in 3.2-6 but in contrast to 2.23-24, where they happen to see
what the disciples are doing, the opponents are watching Jesus and his
party to see if there is anything in his or their conduct that may be held
against him. The narrator presumes that his readers are unfamiliar with
the practice of the ritual rinsing of hands before meals—for 'eating
bread' refers not just to a meal consisting mainly of bread but to every
meal, because bread is always the main course. He therefore explains
the custom in an aside, which here as elsewhere in the book has the
form of a ydp clause (yap means 'for'). It is clear that the Pharisees
81. See S.T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987), pp. 246-47, who
refers in particular to a few older publications of S. Zeitlin; Guelich (Mark, p. 364),
on the other hand, is of the opinion that it was already a general practice in the time
of Jesus, and refers to Ep. Arist. 305, Jdt. 12.7, and Sib. Or. 591-93. These three
places do deal with the rinsing of the hands but not as a ritual purification before
eating. The strong terminological similarity between Mk 7.3 and the said passage
from the Epistle of Aristeas is, however, interesting. For this practice see Schurer
and Vermes, History, II, pp. 475-78; R.P. Booth, Jesus and the Law of Purity: Tra-
dition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTSup, 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1986), pp. 113-203. It is remarkable that Juel (A Master of Surprise, pp. 136-38),
while stressing the importance of the implied reader's inside knowledge of Jewish
customs, does not point out that 7.3 assumes that Mark's audience is in any case
ignorant of this practice. If Lachs is right, the information given by Mark is incor-
rect.
expect the disciples not to go to table without ritual preparation,

because not only they themselves but all Jews—thus the historically
incorrect representation of the narrator82—adhere to the rule of cleans-
ing their hands at least with a minimal quantity of water83 before
eating.84 The rule is based on what is called 'the tradition of the elders'
both in the explanation by the narrator (v. 3) and in the story itself by
Jesus' adversaries (v. 5). By means of this term—in Hebrew dibre
zeqenim or miswot zeqenimS5—the oral Torah is distinguished from the
written Torah. Jesus calls it 'the tradition of men' (v. 8) and even 'your
tradition' (v. 9), thereby clearly distancing himself from that tradition.
As a result the audience too will feel a certain distance, which is further
increased by the irony of the phrase 'tradition of the elders', at least if
at the time of the writing of the book the practice is indeed of a recent
date and the reader is aware of this.
The mere mention of yet other, to the reader strange, rinsing prac-
tices—whether Jesus' followers observe them or not is neither clear nor
important in this context—leads the reader to suspect that the ritual
82. Apart from that it may be useful to alert present-day readers to the danger of
walking into an otherwise unintentional trap. The term 'all the Jews' may easily
linger in their memory, and thus create the impression that Jesus fulminates against
the Jews in vv. 6-13 because they cling to that kind of tradition. That would be mis-
reading the text, however, for Jesus' words in vv. 6 and 9 are exclusively directed
against the scribes and Pharisees—and possibly only against those belonging to the
school of Shammai, as is the opinion of A. Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher
of Nazareth: A Study of their Background, their Halachic and Midrashic Teach-
ings, the Similarities and Differences (AGSJU, 4; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974), pp.
140-41—and his objection there is not that they do not keep this rule but that they
interpret it without giving priority to the written Torah.
83. The interpretation of KW(\ir\—'with a handful', thoroughly', etc.—has been
greatly disputed. See for a survey Guelich, Mark, pp. 364-65. The question has not
been settled yet.
84. Referring to an article by Hengel, Juel (A Master of Surprise, p. 135) sees
behind this passage a learned rabbinic discussion and concludes that the intended
readers must have known it and were familiar with the rabbinic method of biblical
interpretation. This view raises the question of whether recently acquired scholarly
knowledge may be attributed to the intended readers. Although I see no convincing
arguments to answer this question either in the negative or in the affirmative, I
think nevertheless that the question must be raised. Meanwhile it is clear to me that
the intended readers I have in mind lead me to favour a negative rather than a posi-
tive point of view.
85. See Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, p. 246.
handwashing before meals is not an isolated ritual. It is in fact part of a

whole system in which the old distinction between clean and unclean
animals in regard to human consumption86 has been supplemented with
numerous purity rites that are characteristic of Judaism and lend par-
ticular colour to the daily life of a Jew. In this way the narrator prepares
the reader for future discussions on the same subject and for the gener-
alization of the reproach implied in the question of the opponents,
namely, that the conduct of the disciples does not agree with the oral
Torah which for Jews has the same validity as the written Torah. The
last item on the list, 'beds', to which the NRSV refers in a note, occurs
only in a few manuscripts.87 It is not only completely incongruous with
the other items but also gives the enumeration a forced character, with
the possible result that non-Jews may find it somewhat ridiculous.88
7.6-8. Jesus speaks out against the general validity of the practice. He
does so in two ways. By means of a personal but broadly worded re-
proach he tells his opponents frankly that they are hypocrites, people
who know how to impress others but are not what they seem. To add
force to his view he then quotes some lines from Isaiah (29.13).
This is the third time that the prophet is quoted in the book, reason
enough to mark time and consider for a moment what the reader can
learn here about reading and interpretation. In 1.2-3 the narrator has not
only explicitly quoted the book of Isaiah, but also explicitly referred to
the name of the author. The one speaking is the narrator as reader of the
book of Isaiah, who wishes to establish then and there that what he is
going to say about the appearance of John corresponds with what is
86. See for the principle Lev. 20.25-26 and for its application to eating Lev. 11.
In Lev. 15 washings are provided for impurity caused by seminal discharge and
menstruation.
87. Here the choice is against the principle that the shorter version deserves
preference. An addition by a copyist is difficult to imagine in this case, an omission
on the other hand seems quite probable because the beds do not fit in at all with the
other items on the list.
88. See H. Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz: Eine redaktionskritische Unter-
suchung (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes Humanarum
Litterarum, 56; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990), p. 48 n. 153, who
refers to Z. Kato, Die Volkermission im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktions-
geschichtliche Untersuchung (Europaische Hochschulschriften, 23.252; Bern: Peter
Lang, 1986), p. 78: 'Dieser Vers klang wahrscheinlich lustig in den Ohren des hei-
dnischen Lesers, aber unverschamt fur den Leser, der eine judische Herkunft hatte'.
written in Isaiah and what he has read there. To that end he does not
hesitate to produce his own reading, which by means of an ambiguous
'of him' makes the way of God also the way of Jesus. In 4.12 the narra-
tor puts words from Isaiah into the mouth of Jesus but does not say so
to the reader; so Jesus becomes implicitly a reader of Isaiah who bor-
rows his words and makes them his own without underpinning them
with the direct authority of the prophet. Here in 7.6—the third time
Isaiah is quoted—the narrator has Jesus mention the name of the prop-
het, as he has done himself in 1.2-3. Unlike the passage in 1.2-3,
however, the one put into the mouth of Jesus in 7.6 does not have the
status of a quotation drawn from a book to illustrate something. Instead,
Jesus has the prophet himself direct his words—which, as any reader of
Isaiah can deduce from 29.1, 5, 8, are addressed to the people of Judaea
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem—to his own opponents, a number of
whom have come from Jerusalem. Through this interpretation of Jesus,
the words of Isaiah, which were written down much earlier, seem only
now to reach their destination. Thus the narrator turns Jesus too into a
reader of Isaiah, who not only gives the words of the prophet a personal
interpretation through the context into which he puts them, but also
designates their addressees. This seems too interesting for the theory of
reading, interpretation, and readerly conduct with regard to Scripture
not to mention it here.
With the ironic 'rightly' (KaAxoq) Jesus declares himself to be in
agreement with the pronouncement of Isaiah without explicitly making
it his own. Two contrasts are of central importance in the words of Isa.
29.13. The first is the contrast between the lips as the organ with which
people express their thoughts and feelings, and the heart, which stands
for their inner self. The inside and outside of a person should corre-
spond to each other. If someone's inside appears to be less pretty than
what is shown by his or her outside, that person deserves to be called a
hypocrite, and certainly when the inside is the opposite of the pretty
outside. Hypocrites are here represented as people who are turned
towards God with their mouths but are turned away from him with their
hearts. The second contrast is that between God and his commandment
on the one hand and the people with their self-made precepts and regu-
lations on the other. This opposition, which is implicitly present in the
last two lines of Isa. 29.13, becomes explicit in the three antitheses
employed by Jesus to describe the attitude of the Pharisees and scribes:
abandon-hold to, commandment-tradition, and God-human (v. 8).
Thus Jesus rounds off the interpretation of Isaiah: 'hypocrites' crisply

defines the first half of the quotation, and v. 8 the second.
7.9-13a. By also introducing the further words of Jesus the narrator

causes a caesura, which is emphasized by the repetition of both the
ironic 'fine' (KaX&q again) and what has been said just before. None-
theless v. 9 is not mere repetition: 'the tradition of men' becomes 'your
tradition', and is thus lowered to the position of an arbitrary mutual
convention. The negative condescending manner in which the narrator
has Jesus speak about the Jewish tradition has so far not been argued
either by Jesus or the narrator. Does that happen in what follows? What
Jesus argues, or rather argues against, is at first sight only the injustice
of their attack on the disciples for not observing the rulings of the
tradition. He accuses them of placing greater importance on the tra-
dition than on one of the ten commandments of Moses and therefore on
God's own commandment. In doing so they permit the breaking of
God's commandment, and, as a consequence of their interpretation,
even forbid its execution (v. 12). Jesus reproves them, then, not for
their own behaviour but for the way in which they in their capacities as
scribes interpret the fourth commandment. To the reader unfamiliar
with the element of the oral tradition quoted as an example, and there-
fore also with the practical significance of that element, the meaning of
'corban' is nonetheless clear from the combination of the explanatory
'offering'—provided by the narrator—with what Jesus says in vv. 12-
13a. Initially the reader is under the impression that v. 13a shows a new
extension, because it speaks not of an order, rule, or law coming from
God but of 'the word of God' (6 X6yo<; xov Qeov). According to the
understanding of the reader Jesus thus sets the tradition passed on by
humans over against the word that comes from God. The terminology
is striking because, in contrast to 'the word' (6taSyoc;),which is used
only of the message of Jesus, the combination 'the word of God' does
not occur again in Mark. Perhaps it is therefore no more than a
synonym of what in the lines above is called the commandment of God.
7.13b. At the end of the discussion with the adversaries Jesus' objec-
tions no longer apply to one specific point but have become general-
ized. His final observation makes it clear that the corban casuistry can-
not be regarded as an unhappy incident but is, in fact, symptomatic of a
structural legalistic attitude towards the law, and that that is the reason
why Jesus opposes the Pharisees and scribes in the story.
All Foods Declared Clean (7.14-23)

14
Then he called the people again and said to them, 'Listen to me, all of
you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside a person that by going in
can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.'
17
When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked
him about the parable. 18He said to them, Then do you also fail to un-
derstand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside
cannot defile, 19since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes
out into the sewer?' (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, 'It
is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from
the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder,
22
adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander,
pride, folly. 23A11 these evil things come from within, and they defile a
person.'
7.74-75. The reader is inclined to distinguish a new episode here

because of the change of Jesus' addressees. The narrator has removed
the Pharisees and scribes from the stage without mentioning their exit.
Their place is taken by the crowd. The emphatic way in which Jesus
summons them, and the urgency of his opening words to them, under-
line the particular importance of what Jesus is about to say, not only for
the characters but also for the readers of the story. The two imperatives
in the opening sentence, 'listen' and 'understand', suggest the presence
of a double meaning.
After the discussion about the ritual washing of hands and the valid-
ity of the oral tradition in the preceding episode, the theme of unclean-
liness continues to be the issue in the following sayings. The first say-
ing sounds quite apodictic—also in Greek—but is at the same time
extremely cryptic. The reason is obvious: a pronouncement so broadly
formulated is bound to have almost the maximum of possible mean-
ings. After all, the things entering people from the outside are quite
numerous and extremely varied, and the same applies to things leaving
the human body. Present-day readers may think of air that is breathed
in and breathed out again, of stimuli received by the senses on the out-
side and from there transmitted to the inside, or of a piece of broken
glass in a foot or even of words that are spoken or written, to say noth-
ing of a child that is born from a mother's womb. However, if the
9. Crossing Boundaries (435-821) 243
saying is a metaphor—and that is intimated by the opening sentence

and confirmed by v. 17—readers will rather think of something con-
crete and graphic like a sower, an oil lamp under a bushel, or a small
seed that grows into a big shrub. With the image of the prescribed
washing of hands still fresh in their memory but without any personal
experience of daily ritual washings, they may even be reminded of
some hygienic practice or custom. To readers who do not immediately
associate the saying with Jewish purity laws, its closing formula may at
first seem to allude to excreta, in the sense that not food but excrement
can defile a person.89 On second thoughts, however, they realize that
such an interpretation of the saying is both too banal to fit the image
they have thus far formed of Jesus and his teaching and too trivial to be
consistent with the gravity of its introduction.90 As there is no mention
of any response on the part of the crowd that Jesus had summoned to
listen to him,91 the reader is as yet unable to understand the meaning of
the metaphor.
7.17-18a. The disciples, who did not play an active part in the discus-
sion although their conduct had given rise to it, do respond here, in the
seclusion of a house. Unlike that of 2.1-12 and 3.20, this house is not
accessible to the crowd, so the disciples are able to question Jesus
without anyone overhearing their conversation. Before answering,
Jesus expresses his exasperation at their lack of understanding in words
that echo similar rebukes delivered on earlier occasions.92 Next, in ac-
cordance with the narrator's observation in 4.34, Jesus gives the disci-
ples a fairly detailed explanation, which clarifies the issue to the reader
as well.
89. See for comparison the prescriptions concerning camp hygiene and impuri-
ties resulting from seminal discharge and menstruation in Deut. 23.10-15; Lev. 15;
Num. 5.1-4.
90. C. Breytenbach, 'Vormarkinische Logientradition', in FGN, II, pp. 725-49
(733-35), correctly points out the close affinity between 7.15 and Rom. 14.14.
91. The opinion of H. Hubner, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition: Stu-
dien zur These einer progressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der
synoptischen Tradition (Witten: Luther, 1973), p. 217, and Sariola, Markus und das
Gesetz, p. 51, that in contrast to the disciples the people would have understood
Jesus' metaphor, seems to me not to be based on anything in the text.
92. 4.13, 40; 5.31; 6.49, 52.
7.18b-23. Jesus' explanation consists of two proverbial sayings, which,

being each other's mirror images, resume in the same order the nega-
tive and positive element of the statement of v. 15. The first saying
(18c-19a) fills in what Jesus in the metaphor of v. 15a meant by what
enters people from the outside without being able to defile them. This is
the food that goes the way from the mouth to the stomach—a different
way from that between the heart and the lips (v. 6). It comes as a sur-
prise that the first saying does nevertheless make mention of what.
passes out into the sewer so, in retrospect, the reader's first impression
suggested by the metaphor of 15b was right after all. Further, the reader
thinks again for a moment that the interpretation given in vv. 18-19
fully explains the whole of the metaphor in v. 15. In fact, the reader has
been put on the wrong track. By first affirming the reader's initial
understanding of the saying suggested by his or her reading of 15b—an
interpretation that on second thoughts the reader had rejected again—
and by subsequently substituting that interpretation for another, the text
appears to have a little game with the reader. It is only in the compara-
tively extended second part of the explanation, which begins at v. 20,
that the intended meaning of the metaphor of the things that come out
of people and defile them (15b) is clarified. It becomes clear that the
reader's first understanding of 15b as referring to the waste products of
the metabolism cannot be correct. What was described in 15b as 'the
things that come out' proves to refer, instead, to the wrong actions of a
person. Only now does it become clear that the inside of people is rep-
resented as having two different circuits, namely, the stomach into
which the food goes, and the heart from which thoughts and actions
arise. What enters people from the outside (v. 15) refers to the food
they eat, and what comes out of people refers to their conduct; so the
thesis proposed in these sayings is that human defilement is not caused
by food but by evil actions. From this it follows that just as the stom-
ach, along with what enters it, is opposed to the heart and to what
comes out of it, so ritual impurity caused by unclean food is opposed to
moral impurity, showing itself in wrong actions. Only the second form
of impurity is recognized by Jesus. The first has had its day.
The list of evil thoughts and actions is interesting because of the use
made of the number three. The total of twelve wrongs and the division
into two groups of six, of which the first is in the plural and the second
in the singular, are both multiples of three. They are also related to the
decalogue.93 The last named flaw, folly or incomprehension (d<|)po-

awr|), does not fit well in the list. On the other hand it is precisely the
failing with which the disciples are upbraided both by Jesus and the
narrator himself, not only in v. 18 but also in other places.94
Finally, in the lapidary sentence between the two sayings comes yet
again to expression—in a tone of voice that will not be contradicted
and without any nuance—what the consequence of Jesus' pronounce-
ment is according to the narrator:95 Thus he declared all foods clean'
(v. 19c). Although this statement is only an affirmative recapitulation of
the negative saying in 15a, and therefore does not really say anything
new, the narrator effects a definite shift in emphasis with it. His pri-
mary concern is not to express agreement with the explanation of Jesus
that real impurity is moral impurity, but to emphasize as a corollary to
it the definitive and total abrogation of the ritual impurity of food. It
means that for Jesus' followers the law on clean and unclean foods no
longer applies.
This declaration goes much further than anything said in the preced-
ing episode, which denies only the binding force of the oral Torah upon
the disciples of Jesus. In this episode the validity of the written Torah is
at stake, for instead of being a later development like the regulations
and practices rejected earlier by Jesus, the dietary laws are laid down in
prescriptions of the written Torah itself,96 which have been observed by
all Jews for centuries, and for which, according to stories that are gen-
erally known, Jewish martyrs sacrificed their lives.97 By emphasizing
the fact that Jesus has declared all foods clean, the narrator, who has
already undermined the sabbath obligation, now removes yet another
93. See Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz, p. 59.

94. 4.13,41; 6.52; 9.6; and 8.18-21 in particular.
95. Fowler {Reader, pp. 113-14) sees the expression eXeyev 5e in v. 20 as an
indication that v. 19c must be regarded as a comment by the narrator. From another
perspective Cuvillier (Le concept de I1APABOAH, p. 162), who takes v. 19c as an
editorial addition, arrives at a similar conclusion.
96. For the rules concerning clean and unclean animals, see Lev. 11; 14.3-20;
how the slaughter of cattle and the killing and butchering of wild animals are
affected by the general prohibition of blood consumption, see Lev. 1.26-21', 19.26;
Deut. 12.21-25; the separation of the preparation of milk and meat products is
based on Exod. 23.19 and Deut. 14.21.
97. Eleazar (2 Mace. 6.18-30) and the seven Maccabaeans and their mother
(2 Mace. 7).
support from under the religious life of the law-abiding Jew. This im-
plicitly raises a question concerning the nature and extent of obligation
towards the Torah. This implicitness, for it is quite remarkable that in
the second of the two episodes dealing with purity laws the relation of
these laws to the Torah receives no thematic attention whatever, is the
reason why some scholars even wonder if the author knows what is
written in the Torah about it.98
Read in Rome in the early seventies of the first century, a declaration
like this one must have been a significant factor in the controversy be-
tween Jewish and Gentile Christians over the Jewish dietary laws. The
eating of meat was an explosive issue, as is clear from Rom. 14.1-15.6.
What may well have played a part in the discussion is that since it was
impossible to be sure whether meat came from pagan sacrificial rites or
not, a number of scrupulous Christians, who were convinced that
sacrificed meat was unclean, did not eat any meat at all to be on the safe
side. Paul had written to the Christians of Rome: 'Do not, for the sake
of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is
wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat
meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister
stumble' (Rom. 14.20-21). To this Paul had added the warning that the
more liberally minded, who know that it cannot do any harm to eat
even sacrificed meat, ought to realize that by their eating they may
cause trouble to those less liberal and therefore had better not eat meat
or drink wine in such cases (Rom. 15.1-2). The statement by the narra-
tor 'Thus he declared all foods clean' in 7.19 is very similar in content
to Paul's 'Everything is indeed clean' in Rom. 14.20, but it breathes a
wholly different, more militant spirit, and lacks the mild pastoral atti-
tude of Paul.
The present-day reader, who due to the Shoah has become sensitive
to the disastrous consequences of anti-Semitism, has an entirely differ-
ent problem. When the narrator has Jesus declare the end of the dietary
laws, which form such an integral part in the everyday life of the ortho-
dox Jew, do we not have to conclude from this that the author of the
book—and even Jesus himself if he did express himself in this way"—
encourages anti-Jewish feelings? To answer this question we have to
reckon with the following considerations. For one thing, the rejection
98. See Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz, pp. 56-57, who on this ground believes
that the author is of Gentile descent.
99. As is the conclusion of Hubner, Gesetz, pp. 142-75.
of the dietary laws by the author of Mark and perhaps Jesus himself, or,
in other words, the negation of the compulsory character of some liter-
ally-taken prescriptions of the Torah does not imply the rejection of the
Torah itself. As if to contradict such a supposition, he has Jesus declare
in 7.10 the fourth of the ten rules attributed to Moses—formulated in
Exod. 20.1-7 and Deut. 5.6-21 and supplemented with Exod. 21.17 and
Lev. 20.9—as fully binding on all, and in 7.13 designate this rule as
'the word of God'. Nor can it be said that the rejection of the oral tradi-
tion is directed against Jewish persons or groups because they are Jew-
ish. In so far as these sayings stem from Jesus, they are criticisms made
by a Jew addressing Jews, just as some prophets had criticized the
sacrificial cult—prescribed and regulated in Leviticus 1-710°—and the
Essenes in their time probably attacked the Temple establishment.101 If
the author of Mark is not of Jewish descent, he cannot speak as a Jew to
fellow Jews and may well have found himself on the non-Jewish side
of the onset of a schism between Jewish and Gentile Christians. How-
ever, even though the author takes a clear stand on the question of the
sabbath and the dietary laws, and thus takes sides in the conflict, it does
not follow that he is anti-Jewish. After all, he plays his part in the cur-
rent discussion within Christianity on the question of whether these
laws of the Torah are still valid for Christians. Besides, and perhaps
most important of all, the author of Mark presents this and other issues
in the form of opposites, using contrast and emphasis to dramatize the
difference between the favoured and the rejected position. The same
applies to the way he portrays his characters. A case in point is the con-
trast between Jesus and the disciples, which has become apparent
before and is also present in this episode, namely when Jesus in v. 18
rebukes them in terms reminiscent of 6.52 for their opacity (o\) a w -
fjicav—dawexoi eaxe). In 6.52, they are also depicted as having hearts
of stone, which is not a metaphor for insensitivity but for incom-
prehension, the failing mentioned last in the list of actions (vv. 21-22),
which—coming from the heart—make people unclean ('incompre-
hension', 'folly', d^poa-uvri). Before long the contrast between Jesus
and the disciples will find expression in a criticism more severe than
anything directed against any opponent (8.33).
100. For example, Isa. 1.10-20; Jer. 7.20-28; Hos. 6.6; Amos 5.21-24; Mic. 6.6-
101. For the different views, see J.J. Collins, 'Essenes', ABD, II, pp. 621-24.
All this does not alter the fact that the reader must be on the alert,
because history has taught us that unjustified generalizations, like the
one that identifies scribes and Pharisees with 'the Jews', have had and
may again have dire consequences. From this angle, even a relatively
innocent generalization like the narrator's reference to 'all the Jews' in
7.3 is a potentially dangerous statement because inadvertent readers
may be tempted to pull it out of context and make other more serious
generalizations about Jews that are not present in Mark.
A Greek Woman Gets her Own Way (7.24-30)

24
From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered
a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not
escape notice, 25but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit
immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet.
26
Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged
him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, 'Let the
children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and
throw it to the dogs.' 28 But she answered him, 'Sir, even the dogs under
the table eat the children's crumbs.' 29 Then he said to her, Tor saying
that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.' 30 So she went
home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
7.24. The episode opens with a change of scene.102 Seen from the pre-
ceding episode the wording of the shift is somewhat careless, for the
narrator has Jesus get up, though he has not been sitting, and go away
from there, without the reader knowing which town or village 'there'
refers to. It is clear, however, that Jesus is now represented as travelling
outside Galilee in Gentile territory. In retrospect it is also clear that, in
creating a distance from specifically Jewish practices, the two discus-
sions on ritual washing and dietary laws preceding this section have
paved the way for Jesus' contact with the Gentiles. His motive for the
trip is not stated but the opening verse suggests that any such contacts
will not be established on his initiative. That Jesus regularly wants to
get away from the public by retiring alone or with others to a house or
quiet place comes no longer as a surprise to the reader. Neither that he
sometimes fails in his attempt, as is the case in this episode, where
102. Regarding this episode see J.F. Baudoz, Les miettes de la table: Etude syn-
optique et socio-religieuse de Mt 15,21-28 et de Me 7,24-30 (Ebib NS, 27; Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1995).
Jesus, on arriving in the region of Tyre, is approached by a Gentile

woman.
7.25-26. The woman who manages to get into the house is presented in
much detail. Being the mother of a girl with an evil spirit she has come
to plead with Jesus to heal her daughter. In concrete stories Jesus has
so far met possessed persons only by accident,103 and cases of people
bringing demoniacs to Jesus have only been mentioned in brief sum-
marizing passages.104 The latter does not happen here either. There is
some similarity between the woman and Jairus. They are both worried
about the health of their respective daughters, which both leave at home
while setting out themselves to ask Jesus to help them. Similarly, for
both of them there is no question about Jesus having the power to do so
if he wishes. One of the differences between the two healing stories
concerns the nature of the illness. The woman's daughter is in the
power of a demon, while Jairus's daughter is critically ill, but it is un-
likely that this difference was as great to the first readers as it is to
readers today. Another difference concerns the content of their propos-
als. Jairus has a little scenario in his head: Jesus is to come along to his
house, lay his hands upon the girl, and so save her life. The woman
merely asks Jesus to free her child from the power of the demon, with-
out saying how.
That the woman is a Gentile is suggested by the locational reference
to Tyre, but is stressed yet again by an explanatory parenthesis, con-
nected with the story through the conjunction Greek 5e, instead of the
usual yap.
7.27-29. After the woman's question the story takes an entirely differ-
ent course than Jairus's story. There Jesus goes along to the house at
once, here he objects, expressing his unwillingness to comply with the
request.105 The reason why Jesus objects comes as a surprise after the
two preceding episodes in which he has so clearly distanced himself
from typically Jewish customs. The fascinating and playful discussion
ensuing from the objection is unique in the book. The exchange is play-
ful because of its content and the sound affinity between the words
'little daughter' (Guydipiov) and 'little dog' (icuvapiov). This and the
103. 1.23-24; 5.6-7?

104. 1.32, 39; 3.11; 6.55-56?
105. Camery-Hoggatt {Irony, p. 150) calls the answer 'peirastic irony'.
use of diminutives make the reaction of Jesus to the woman's request

acceptable.
Jesus' reply and the woman's repartee each contain a metaphor. The
first is the metaphor of the children and the little dogs. That the girl is
likened to a little dog—the similarity in sound between the two words
may have led to the comparison—has everything to do with the fact
that the episode is about the relation between Jews and Gentiles, and
that dogs, particularly stray dogs, are despised and regarded as un-
clean.106 Along with the pig, the dog is symbolic of the Gentile, who is
often referred to as living like a dog.107 To call up that image in the
presence of a Gentile woman is unfriendly, even crude, but the use of
the diminutive relativizes this. These little dogs are not stray or watch
dogs but well cared for pets that share the life of the family. The sug-
gested image is that of a well-to-do family, as is confirmed by the cir-
cumstance that meals are not served on a floor mat but on a real table,
under which the little dogs can find a spot for themselves.108 The
'children-little dogs' relation is a metaphor for the relation between
Jews—the children of Israel—and Gentiles. The second metaphor is
that of the bread and the crumbs. With this the story remains in the
sphere of food and eating that has been so prominent in the two preced-
ing episodes, and also remotely recalls the thematics of the mass meal
related in 6.35-44. The metaphor of the bread and the crumbs is an
equivalent of the (in comparison with the metaphor, material) loaves
and leftovers from that meal.109
In this sharp verbal exchange Jesus employs this metaphor in an
attempt to shrug the woman's request off with a joke. The Jews come
first (7tpo>TOv). Roman readers who remember what Paul wrote to them
will recall Rom. 1.16 in which he says of his 'gospel' that it is a power
106. Partly because they are scavenging animals: 1 Kgs 14.11; 16.4; 21.24; 2
Kgs 9.36; Ps. 22.21; Jer. 15.3. 'Dog' is a common term of abuse, especially in the
word combination 'dead dog', in which the uncleanness is, as it were, doubled: 1
Sam. 17.43; 24.15; 2 Sam. 9.8; 16.9.
107. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, p. 725; O. Michel, 'KTJCOV', TWNT, III,
pp. 1100-103; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, p. 140.
108. A most curious parallel is to be found in the story of the rich man and
Lazarus in Lk. 16.19-31. Verse 21 says of Lazarus who, covered with sores, lay at
the rich man's gate: '[He] longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich
man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores'.
109. And also anticipates the second mass meal in 8.1-9. See van Iersel,
'Speisung',pp. 188-90.
for every one who has faith, 'to the Jew first and also to the Greek',
words that are repeated twice in the same letter (2.9 and 10). The time
of the Gentiles has not yet come. Jesus still has too much to do in
Galilee to attend to them. The woman accepts Jesus' metaphor but adds
one of her own, saying that the little dogs are content with the crumbs
from the children's table. What she asks of Jesus—to free her daughter
from her demonic obsessions—is so little that the Jews need not miss
anything. Jesus recognizes the sharpness and aptness of her retort and
gives in.
7.29-30. The first words of Jesus' answer seem to differ completely

from the references to trust found in comparable situations,110 but may
in fact imply a similar meaning; for it is very well possible to under-
stand the woman's reply as an expression of trust. Some other elements
of the story are different, however. First, Jesus performs no action and
directs not one single word to the demon, in contrast to his conduct in
similar cases,111 and there is no mention of any power emanating from
him (5.30). Secondly, the casting out of the demon takes place from a
distance and in the presence of no other witness but the victim herself.
In the story of Jairus the house is full of people who have first to be
sent away by Jesus; here, the girl is the only one in the house. On her
return home the mother witnesses only the effect of Jesus' power. Her
daughter's cure is the mirror image of the cure of Jairus's daughter, in
the sense that the latter is woken up from her sleep (of death?) and then
gets up, whereas the Greek woman's daughter is made to fall asleep
quietly without being woken up.
The story marks a border-crossing that is integral to the book. In 5.1-
20 the narrator has Jesus disembark on the other side of the lake in
Gentile territory to cast out a large crowd of demons, but that crossing
of the border receives no thematic development. That this is definitely
the case here is evidenced by the explicit indication of the origin and
cultural identity of the woman, as well as by the geographical setting of
the story and the content of the conversation in which Jesus capitulates
and actually revokes the conditional 'first' of his objection. Whenever
Gentile Christians disagreed with Jewish Christians in ancient Rome or
elsewhere, they must have felt greatly encouraged by this story.
110. 2.5; 5.36; 10.35.

111. 1.25, 31, 41; 2.5, 11; 3.5; 4.39; 5.8, 41; 6.51.
The Cure of a Deaf-mute (7.31-37)

31
Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon
towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. 32They
brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech; and
they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 He took him aside in private,
away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and
touched his tongue. 34 Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to
him, 'Ephphatha', that is, 'Be opened.' 35 And immediately his ears were
opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 Then Jesus
ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more
zealously they proclaimed it. 37They were astounded beyond measure,
saying, 'He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear
and the mute to speak.'
7.31. This is one of the places in the book where a present-day reader
who consults a map gets into trouble. To travel from Tyre by way of
Sidon in the direction of the lake is a detour, for which the reader
would expect an explanation; but if the narrator/author did not have a
map and never knew the region from personal experience, the pairing
of Tyre and Sidon, and in this order, was as obvious to him112 as it is to
the ideal reader, because that is the way the two towns are bracketed in
the Old Testament.113 The episode seems to have taken place some-
where in the Decapolis rather than close to the lake. Like the episodes
of 5.1-20 and 7.24-30 it would then be situated in Gentile territory. This
receives no thematic treatment, however.
7.32. As he is less dependent on others a deaf person is considerably

less in need of being brought to Jesus than a paralytic (2.3) or a blind
man,114 although in a milieu where only a few people are able to read
and write deafness must be a much more serious handicap than in a lit-
erate society. Reading this episode the reader begins to notice that in
the healing stories there is evidence of variation and some form of
112. The only other place in Mark where they occur together is 3.8, and this has
them in the same order. The same applies to Matthew and Luke. See Mt. 11.21-22;
15.21; Lk. 6.17; 10.13-14. Copyists, too, are so accustomed to the combination that
a number of the oldest MSS have Tyre and Sidon' also in Mk 7.24.
113. Joel 3.4; Zech. 9.2; LXX Jer. 23.8; 25.22; 29.4; 34.3. The order 'Sidon and
Tyre' occurs only in Jdt. 2.28.
114. See 8.22.
arrangement, in the sense that related or similar stories are not told too
far apart. After a woman suffering from attacks of fever (1.29-31), a
man with paralysed legs (2.3-12), and another with a paralysed hand
(3.1-6), all three of them healed in a house or in the synagogue at
Capernaum, and a leper (1.40-44), cured—as he should be—outside the
village and in the open, followed two women suffering from a women's
complaint (5.25-43), the one cured in the street and the other in a
house—also at Capernaum?—and now it is the turn of a deaf and later
of a blind man, both somewhere in the open air. That the sufferer is a
deaf-mute is probable, though two different words, deaf and 'having a
speech impediment' (KGX|)6V and |ioyiA,dA,ov) are used. His companions
ask for an imposition of hands, clearly the treatment expected of this
wandering therapist.115
7.33-35. In fact Jesus does much more than that. To begin with, he
retires with the man from the crowd, which has not been mentioned in
this episode before, and seeks out a private place, probably with the ob-
ject of preventing anyone seeing or hearing what he does. The reader,
however, is taken along to witness a scene in which Jesus, contrary to
the preceding healing stories, performs a specific therapeutic action.
The manual action is twofold: one for the ears and one for the tongue,
and in the order in which the two disabilities are mentioned in v. 32.
Whether the therapies suppose a causal connection or have a purely
symbolical function is not clear. Jesus does not confine himself to these
actions. As with the blessing before the mass meal (6.41) he looks up to
heaven, an action which after the last time can only be understood as
Jesus seeking a sort of eye contact with God, perhaps with the object of
obtaining special power to effect the cure. The sighing can also be ex-
plained in several ways—for example, as an intensification of a silent
prayer or as the introduction of the cure—but the text itself offers no
evidence for a specific motivation. Finally, the complicated treatment is
concluded with a short and vigorous utterance, which—like the phrase
in 5.41—is in a language the reader does not know.116 It is explained by
the narrator as a command addressed to the man but which rather seems
to be meant for his affected organs. So far the reader has not come
across a healing involving such elaborate preparations, and neither does
115. Compare the role of the hand in 1.31,41; 3.5; 5.41; 6.5.
116. It seems to be a corruption, but the experts are divided on the question of
whether an Aramaic or a Hebrew word lies at the root of it, or even both.
the rest of the book contain one. The series of activities is presented to
the reader as a complex whole made up of elements that together pro-
duce the desired effect. The healing of this sufferer is therefore the best
example of a type of healing story in which the healing is entirely
dependent on the therapist and his abilities. In contrast with this there is
the type in which the healing is not effected by the therapist but by the
trust of the sufferer. The two types are the extremes of a sliding scale,
whose centre is constituted by the two stories of 6.21-43 in which the
cure is effected both by the trust of the suppliant—sufferer or father—
and the power or action of Jesus.
7.35-37. As usual, the cure takes place instantaneously and with com-
plete success. The way it is narrated establishes an almost direct link
between the manual gestures of Jesus and the cure itself. The effect on
the ears and the frenum of the tongue could not, of course, be known to
the onlookers without a medical or at least a physical examination.
Naturally, the omniscient narrator does not need an examination, and
those present need something that is wholly different from an examina-
tion. It is partly for their benefit that the narrator says that the man
speaks plainly.
It is remarkable that in the Greek it is not the aorist that is used but
the imperfect (eX&Xei). Unlike the aorist, the imperfect tense does not
really bring to expression that the man started talking properly at once
and while still in the presence of Jesus and the others, but rather that
from then on he proved able to speak clearly whenever he spoke. Here,
as in other places, the narrator makes things difficult for the reader
because of an inner contradiction in the story. The reader has inferred
from v. 33 that Jesus has taken the man aside from the crowd to treat
him in private. The speaking of the man—sign of the success of the
cure—is inconsistent with that, and so is the subsequent command to
secrecy. The observation that the command is disregarded, not just
once but several times, is rather general in intent because it really pre-
sumes a repetition of the command, and therefore does not refer to this
incident only. The sentence can best be read as a comment by the narra-
tor, comparable to that of v. 26. A generalization is also found at the
end of the episode, where the crowd applauds explicitly not only what
Jesus has just done but also his appearance in general, expressing their
enthusiasm in words that cannot be more general. The account of the
cure of the deaf-mute is not just another healing story: apart from
adding a new sort of affliction, namely, of one of the senses, to those

already cured by Jesus, it is the first healing story recounting a
relatively complicated treatment that has both medical and religious
aspects.
Seven Loaves and a Few Fish (8.1-9)

*In those days when there was again a great crowd without anything to
eat, he called his disciples and said to them, 2 'I have compassion for the
crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have
nothing to eat. 3 If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will
faint on the way—and some of them have come from a great distance.'
4
His disciples replied, 'How can one feed these people with bread here
in the desert?' 5 He asked them, 'How many loaves do you have?' They
said, 'Seven'. 6 Then he ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground;
and he took the seven loaves, and after giving thanks he broke them and
gave them to his disciples to distribute; and they distributed them to the
crowd. 7 They had also a few small fish; and after blessing them, he
ordered that these too should be distributed. 8 They ate and were filled;
and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 9 Now
there were about four thousand people. And he sent them away.
8.1. Time indicators are very rare in this part of the book, and the one
found here is so vague that it hardly gives any real information. At first
it is also unclear where the meal takes place. From what follows (v. 10)
the reader infers that it is situated not far from the lake, and from what
precedes he or she can derive with some probability that it takes place
at the end of the trip Jesus has made from Tyrus and Sidon to the
Decapolis and the Sea of Galilee (7.31). That this mass meal, like the
one recounted in 6.34-44, happens somewhere in the wilderness
becomes clear only when the disciples refer to it in v. 4, but the place is
given no greater explicit attention by the narrator than is the time.
Anyway, the opening situation of this meal is basically the same as that
of 6.35-37.
8.2-3. Apart from this, the story shows a different development. It is

not the disciples who observe that there is a problem but Jesus himself.
The feeling of compassion, which in 6.34 was mentioned by the narra-
tor, is here also expressed by Jesus. The period of three days gives the
reader the impression that all that time Jesus has been engaged in
addressing the people. That some of them have come a great distance
deserves special notice. Perhaps it underlines only that they have even
more chance of fainting on the way home. The detail may also indicate,
however, that a number of the participants are Gentiles. Some places in
the Scriptures, as well as a number of rabbinic pronouncements, defi-
nitely support this meaning of the opposition nearby-far off.117 These
people did not have to come from far in the material sense of the word,
because the story takes place on the Gentile side of the lake. In the
cultural and religious sense, however, they come from a different
world. That creates a certain tension within the story. It is precisely be-
cause of this that the episode is of important relevance to readers wres-
tling with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles: at Jesus' table
there is equal room for guests of both kinds.
8.4-5. The disciples' response astonishes the reader. He or she is struck

by the surly tone and especially the content of their counter-question.118
Obviously, the disciples do not remember that an almost identical situ-
ation has occurred before, and have apparently forgotten where the
bread they themselves distributed had come from. In the absence of any
specific temporal indicators the reader can really have no idea of the
time interval between the two occasions, but owing to the relatively
brief reading time that has meanwhile elapsed, it is impossible to get
away from the impression that it must be short. As a result, this gap in
the disciples' memory baffles the reader.
The recollection of places in the Old Testament about Yhwh provid-
ing bread119 rather leads the reader away from the answer he or she will
117. Deut. 28.49; 29.21; Josh. 9.6, 9; 1 Kgs 8.41; 2 Chron. 6.32; Tob. 13.13; Isa.
49.1; Jer. 4.16; 8.19; Ezek. 23.40; Acts 2.39; 22.21; Eph. 2.13, 17. For the rabbinic
pronouncements see Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, III, pp. 585-86.
118. See also Fowler, Reader, pp. 67-69.
119. Derrett (The Making of Mark, I, p. 143), with reference to Q. Quesnell, The
Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark 6,52
(AnBib, 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1969), pp. 174-76, refers via
LXX Ps. 132.15 to Num. 11.13—where mention is made of meat in contrast to
bread—and the ruse of the Gibeonites in Josh. 9.8-9, and arrives with him at the
conclusion that the answer 'God' is supposed here. In my opinion, the reference to
the gift of manna also creates misunderstanding rather than understanding. Accord-
ing to Exod. 6 manna falls from heaven in a measured quantity, and that each
morning for forty years, whereas the two mass meals are no structural provision but
occasional events, without the availability of bread in plenty being attributed to
God.
spontaneously give to the disciples' question of how anyone can possi-

bly come by enough bread in the desert. The reader knows that answer
because, in contrast to the disciples, he or she remembers very well
what happened at the previous meal. On that occasion the disciples had
provided a few loaves and Jesus had broken them for the benefit of the
crowd, after which they themselves had been able to give all those pre-
sent plenty to eat. It is entirely in line with the expectation of the
reader, then, that, just as in 6.38, Jesus asks the disciples how many
loaves they have. The number of loaves available this time is seven.
There is clearly a relation between the number of loaves and the num-
ber of baskets of leftovers, but it remains unclear whether there are
seven loaves in view of the seven baskets or the other way round. There
has been much speculation about the number, but justly none of the
views that have been put forward has met with general assent,120 so that
the reader—in the knowledge that seven is a sacred number in the
Scriptures121—can spare himself or herself the trouble of looking for a
deeper or hidden meaning. In contrast to 6.38, the disciples' answer
does not mention the availability of fish, which makes the reader think,
at first, that they have no fish on this occasion.
8.6-7. Jesus tells the people to sit on the ground, but this time there is
no mention of groups or numbers. Then, with small differences that are
only visible under the magnifying glass of the investigator but which
the reader will not notice unless he or she puts the two passages beside
one another,122 the text tells how Jesus once again in his capacity as
host speaks the blessing, breaks the bread, and gives it to the disciples
to distribute.
While the reader had almost forgotten them, the fish—mentioned
neither in the question of Jesus nor in the answer of the disciples—now
120. The same also holds for my earlier view, argued in van Iersel, 'Speisung',
pp. 185-86, that the story fits into a Hellenistic setting and that the seven deacons of
Acts 6.1-6 would account for the seven baskets and the seven loaves.
121. See K.H. Rengstorf, 'enrd', TWNT, II, pp. 623-31.
122. Apart from the way in which the fish are introduced, the main differences
are: the speaking of the blessing is expressed in different terms (e\)X,oyeco and e\>-
Xapiaxeco); at the second mass meal Jesus does not bless God but—and this is un-
Jewish—the loaves; at the second meal Jesus is not said to look up to heaven; the
breaking of the bread is rendered by two different but related terms (KaxaK^dco and
K^dco); only at the second meal are the disciples explicitly said to distribute the
loaves.
get a place in the episode. Very briefly the narrator states the three most
important elements: they have a few fish, Jesus blesses123 these, and
then has them distributed, just like the bread. The detail about the fish
gives the reader the impression of having been added as an afterthought
and therefore seems of less importance.
8.8-9. When everyone has eaten their fill, much is left and afterwards
collected as in the first story, but, in contrast to the first, it is not said by
whom. It is obvious that the reader thinks of the people themselves, but
if he or she thinks of the disciples, that is not inconsistent with the text
either. This time there are seven baskets with fragments to a number of
about four thousand people. Especially after the preceding stories of
healing and exorcism the reader is again struck by the absence of any
response from the participants or the disciples.
At a first reading the reader is inclined to wonder for what purpose
the author may have wanted to tell these two stories. There is a strange
contradiction in this. On the one hand, the reader is aware of a certain
progression in so far as the account of the first mass meal—which takes
place somewhere in Galilee—makes no mention of non-Jewish partici-
pation, whereas the account of the second meal—which takes place
somewhere in the Gentile Decapolis—does, albeit indirectly. That is
not without a certain artificiality, and because the narrator's observation
that people come to Jesus from everywhere (1.45), including Gentile
regions (3.7-8), is inconsistent with the representation that the only
guests present at the first meal would have been Jews. However, the
change that takes place in ch. 7 nevertheless justifies this progression.
In stark contrast to this stands the fact that another story line shows no
development at all and even gives the impression of utter fixation. That
is the story line concerned with the disciples' attitude. It looks as if the
disciples have made no progress at all and have learned absolutely
nothing from witnessing the first mass meal; or rather, they give the
impression that they have completely suppressed this experience. The
'forgetfulness' of the disciples is so amazing and unexpected that the
reader may even be tempted to think of carelessness on the part of the
narrator.
123. It is remarkable that the verb used for the benediction in the first story, but
not in the first part of the second, is used again here
No Sign Whatsoever (8.10-13)

10
And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the
district of Dalmanutha. n The Pharisees came and began to argue with
him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12And he sighed
deeply in his spirit and said, 'Why does this generation ask for a sign?
Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.' 13And he left
them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side.
8.10-11. Although one of the shortest in the book, this episode requires
due attention. The opponents of Jesus played no part in the immediately
preceding episodes, which is understandable because the action
reported there took place in non-Jewish, outlying districts. Now that
Jesus has come back to Galilee, it is natural that his opponents should
seek him out again. The episode opens with this double movement: Je-
sus is on his way back to Galilee, and more or less at the same time the
Pharisees, who must have heard of his coming, set out in order to have
a discussion with him.
Dalmanutha, the place-name of Jesus' destination, is otherwise
totally unknown, with the result that copyists adapted the text to their
geographical knowledge or to the name found in another gospel,124
which explains the names Dalmoenai, Magdala and Mageda in old
manuscripts. A less informed reader who is unaware of this problem
spontaneously imagines it as a village or small town that lies some-
where on the shore of the lake. He or she will not fail to notice, how-
ever, that after the second mass meal, just as after the first (6.45), Jesus
departs by boat, this time in the company of his disciples.
Like the scribes, and in cooperation with them, the Pharisees have
continued their opposition to Jesus since they decided to kill him (3.22-
30; 7.1-13). The way they go about it here is different, and the reader
who has a comprehensive view of the whole book knows that this is the
last time that they approach Jesus in Galilee. Wanting to test him, they
ask Jesus for a sign from God to prove his authority. What the Phar-
isees, in accordance with the role the narrator has assigned to them,
would imagine that sign to be, does not become clear. The reader
knows why the Pharisees like to test Jesus but wonders if perhaps the
name 'the Holy One of God', which was cried out by the demoniac in
the synagogue at Capernaum (1.24), and which may afterwards have
124. Matthew has Magadan (15.39).

spread through Galilee like wildfire (1.28), is printed in their memory.

Maybe they heard the demons scream that Jesus is 'the Son of God'
(1.34; 3.11)? About all this the narrator leaves the reader in the dark, so
that a positive as well as a negative answer is possible. The reader
remembers one case, however, which admits of only one interpretation,
namely, the fact that at the beginning of the book the scribes had al-
ready witnessed an event which, with a little goodwill, could be inter-
preted as a sign of God but which they explained in exactly the opposite
sense (2.2-12). Should or can the reader imagine that Jesus' opponents
have afterwards witnessed other healings than those of 2.2-12 and 3.1-6
and possibly exorcisms, so that they have experienced yet other events
that can be understood as signs? The narrator does not answer this
question either. It is also unclear whether in the representation of the
story the adversaries are usually or only occasionally part of the crowds
that are attracted by Jesus and that in other places of the book also
witness healings and exorcisms.125 In 3.8 people from Jerusalem are
explicitly numbered among the crowd, but there is no reason to suppose
that they belong to Jesus' adversaries (cf. 3.22; 7.1). In 7.1 the text
creates the impression that the Pharisees and scribes have not been
present at the events narrated in 6.54-56. On the whole, it rather seems
that the narrator has enacted his story in such a way that the crowd and
the adversaries have their own episodes in which they play their sepa-
rate parts.126
Another question is what the narrator himself understands by a sign
from heaven. There is reason to suppose that, for him, the healings and
exorcisms do not come under this heading. In Mark the healings are not
associated with heaven or God, and the few times something is said
about their operation it is with reference to a special power of Jesus, the
trust of the sufferer or both.127 In 3.28-30 the exorcisms are actually
connected with the Holy Spirit, and since the Spirit descends on Jesus
directly from heaven, they might be regarded as signs from heaven. In
13.4 and 13.22, however, the other two places where the word 'sign'
(or||ieiov) is used in Mark, it has the same meaning as in most places of
the Old Testament. There, just as in 13.4, a sign is a special, sometimes
previously announced, perceptible event providing the certainty that
another announcement—in 13.4 the destruction of the Temple—will in
125. 1.32-34, 39; 3.7-10; 5.21-34; 6.33-44; 6.54-56.

126. That will remain so until 15.11.
127. See W. Grundmann, •8-uvajiai', TWNT, II, pp. 286-318 (303).
the long term also come true.128 In 13.22 the text speaks of 'signs and
omens' produced by people to legitimize themselves as prophets.129
What the Pharisees want must also be a legitimation. In fact, there has
already been mention of a legitimizing sign from heaven at the onset of
the book, namely in 1.10-11, where after Jesus' baptism the heavens are
torn open and Jesus sees the Spirit descending upon him and hears the
voice from heaven. In Mark this sign is perceived only by Jesus himself
and revealed to the reader by the communication of the narrator. There
is no indication that anyone in the story, and certainly not the Pharisees,
have any knowledge of it.
Meanwhile the reader may well wonder if the request for a sign
should be taken seriously. Would the Pharisees really be prepared to re-
consider their attitude towards Jesus if they were given a sign from
God?130 The reader does not really expect that at all. Moreover, the nar-
rator clearly qualifies the request as an attempt to 'try out' or 'test'
(jceipd^co) Jesus. This reinforces the reader's conviction that the re-
quest is meant ironically or even sarcastically. The Pharisees are trying
to see how far they can go with Jesus and how he will react to a request
for a sign that they suppose he is unable to perform. If they do not hon-
estly seek a sign from Jesus, there is really no need to wonder what
kind of sign they might have in mind; but the reader cannot help trying
to visualize it. Heavenly signs belong to apocalyptic and the end
time,131 but of such portents it is not said that they are 'given'. The
point at issue is a sign from heaven that God could and would perhaps
even be willing to give, as he had done in confirmation of the authority
of Moses and Aaron. Finally, the reader familiar with the book Isaiah
may also recognize this confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees
as a counterpart to Isa. 7.11-17.132 There the prophet invites King Ahaz
128. See K. Rengstorf, 'ori|ieiov\ TWNT, VII, pp. 199-261 (209-14). A clear ex-
ample is found in 1 Sam. 2.34, where a prophet announces to Eli the simultaneous
death of his two sons as a sign or proof (LXX: orpeiov) that also the announcement
will come true that no one of Eli's family will grow old.
129. It is a standard syntagma for the legitimization of Moses before the Israelites
in Exod. 4.1-9; that of Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh: Exod. 4.17; 7.3, 9 (LXX);
7-12; Deut. 4.34; 7.19; 11.3; 26.8; 29.2; 34.11; Neh. 9.10; LXX Ps. 77.43; 134.9;
Wis. 10.16; LXX Jer. 39.20-21; Bar. 2.11; and that of prophets in Deut. 3.1-2.
130. See 15.31-32.
131. Isa. 13.10; Joel 2.10; 3.3-4; Mk 13.24-26.
132. Most words of v. llb-c stand literally or via synonyms in Isa. 7.11-12,
especially if and TOV ovpavoi) must be understood as and xov Qeov.
to ask for a sign from the depths of the underworld or the heights of
heaven. When the king declines, saying that he will not put God to the
test, Isaiah himself promises a sign that Yhwh will 'give' on his own
initiative, not a cosmic and far-away sign but one that is simple and
nearby: a young girl shall have a baby who will be called Immanuel
and who will usher in a new age, a time so good as never before.
8.12-13. Where the guardians of the spiritual establishment, acting on

their own authority, summon someone to furnish a sign from heaven as
proof positive of the authenticity of his mission, there—and this ele-
ment, too, is the opposite of Isaiah 7—the sign is refused. That Jesus
sighs deeply may have to do with the prophetic character of his refusal,
but by sighing deeply Jesus also tunes himself in to the wavelength of
the spirit (nvex>\ict) before pronouncing the apodictic-sounding judg-
ment.133 It is a very hard judgment indeed, and it shows that Jesus sees
through their game. Presuming that Jesus is unable to produce a sign
from God, the Pharisees are served hand and foot and get no sign. They
are referred to as 'this generation' (f) yeved ainri). With only one
occurrence in the Old Testament, namely, Gen. 7.1, where it refers to
the contemporaries of Noah, the term has such a strong connotation of
incorrigible depravity that it is also dominant in places134 where that
depravity is not expressed. The term denotes a kind of contempt, which
also colours the end of the episode. So far, Jesus has never sought con-
tact with his opponents. Until now it has always been the Pharisees and
scribes who—albeit sometimes only with an inner condemnation as in
2.6-7 or an unspoken, aggressive intention as in 3.2—have attacked
Jesus.135 Without so much as giving them another look Jesus gets into
the boat again to resume his interrupted journey. This is Jesus' last
meeting with the Pharisees in Galilee.
Third Crossing: The Blindness of the Disciples (8.14-21)

14
Now the disciples had forgotten to bring any bread; and they had only
one loaf with them in the boat. 15And he cautioned them, saying, * Watch
out—beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.'
133. See Ezek. 21.6-7, where the LXX also uses verbs from the stem axevd^co, as
the verb 'to sigh deeply' found in Mk 8.12.
134. See H.M.F. Buchsel, 'yeved', TWNT, I, pp. 660-61 (661).
135. 2.6-7, 16, 18, 24; 3.2, 22; 7.1-5; 8.11.
16
They said to one another, 'It is because we have no bread.' 17And
becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, 'Why are you talking about
having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your
hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears,
and fail to hear? And do you not remember? 19When I broke the five
loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did
you collect?' They said to him, Twelve.' 2O'And the seven for the four
thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?' And
they said to him, 'Seven.' 21Then he said to them, 'Do you not yet
understand?'
This episode, like the previous one, has a rounding-off function and
ends on a negative note. The opponents will have to do without a legit-
imizing sign, and the disciples, who have been Jesus' close associates
for some time now, do not understand the meaning of his mission. The
astonishment felt by the reader when the disciples at the second mass
gathering of thousands of people without food did not remember any-
thing of the first, turns here to confusion. The possibility that we may
have to consider here some carelessness on the part of the narrator must
now be rejected. Exactly the opposite appears to be the case. The narra-
tor establishes a direct link between the mass meals. He has Jesus ex-
plicitly mention the two meals and connect their interrelation with the
incomprehension of the disciples.
8.14. For the third time, the narrator takes the readers for a boat trip on
the lake. After a delay Jesus and the disciples are still on their way to
Dalmanutha. Things have already twice gone wrong during such a
crossing, and the reader does not count on it that it will be different this
time. He or she rather expects that a storm or headwind will cause
complications again; but what happens this time is so little the result of
adverse weather conditions that it could have taken place anywhere.
'Forget' is the first verb of this part of the narrative, and right from the
start the forgetting is connected with the loaves. This immediately lends
irony to the story. Not long before re-embarking the disciples had col-
lected seven baskets of leftovers from the mass meal (8.8), but no
sooner have they pushed off than the narrator points out that they have
forgotten to take loaves with them in the boat. Why they should need
loaves now, while that was not the case on the two previous trips, the
narrator does not say. The reader finds this all the more intriguing
because he or she assumes that Jesus and the disciples have only just
eaten with the others present at the mass meal. Before finishing the end
of the first sentence the reader becomes even more intrigued by what
the narrator tells next. Although they have forgotten to bring bread,
they nevertheless have one loaf on board. Would that be one of the
seven loaves mentioned in 8.5? Or a loaf from one of the seven bas-
kets? The narrator does not answer these questions, but, as will appear
presently, by means of the two words 'forget' and 'loaves' he has con-
fronted the reader with the two basic ideas of this part of the narrative.
8.15. Before coming to the point—at any rate so it seems to the

reader—the narrator mentions a cryptic saying by Jesus. Cryptic
because it contains an obscure image, and also because it is unclear
how the saying connects with the theme of the passage. Contrary to
what the narrator has said earlier, namely, that Jesus explains all images
to his disciples (4.34), the reader is not aware of any explanation being
given here of what the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod may refer to.
Both in Paul136 and the rabbinic writings,137 yeast stands for a perni-
cious source of corruption. The reader has encountered the Pharisees
and Herodians together only once, namely in 3.6 where they plot to kill
Jesus. How effective Herod's women and men are in executing such
plans the reader knows only too well from the beheading of John (6.17-
29). Used with reference to the Pharisees the saying is full of irony.138
'Leaven' has a negative connotation owing to a number of proscrip-
tions in the Torah. Leaven must not be used in the week after the
passover (Exod. 13.3-7; Deut. 16.3-4), and the Israelites must therefore
rid their houses of it on the first day of that week (Exod. 12.15). Grain
offerings have to be completely without leaven (Lev. 2.11). It is with
this very leaven that the Pharisees, who assert themselves pre-emi-
nently as people who observe the Torah, are compared! And if what
happens to the Pharisees also threatens to happen to the disciples, could
that not be the blindness of which v. 18 speaks? For it is blindness that
threatens to make the disciples become like the outsiders of 4.12.139
For readers who know the rest of the book, Jesus' saying in v. 15
contains an unmistakable but as yet obscure reference to the passover
meal that Jesus will celebrate with his disciples (14.22-25). That occa-
sion is twice characterized as the day of unleavened bread (id d£
136. 1 Cor. 5.6-8.

137. See Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, pp. 253-54.
138. See Camery-Hoggatt,/row?, p. 153.
139. For a very similar interpretation see Camery-Hoggatt, Irony, p. 153.
14.1, 12). If the reader also remembers what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthi-
ans about the old leaven and the new unleavened paschal bread (5.6-8),
and the one bread shared by all (10.16-17), he or she begins to suspect
that Jesus' farewell meal with the twelve will perhaps provide the key
that unlocks the interpretation of what is said here about the one loaf.
8.16-18. After this enigmatic saying the story returns again to one of its
main themes, the subject of the loaves, but now it is the disciples them-
selves who discuss the lack of bread. They do so in a way that shows
that they experience this lack as a deficiency (16). Why and how the
absence of bread should imply a deficiency—for apart from bread there
are of course many other things they do not have with them—does not
become clear. Besides, the conversation of the disciples is no longer
about the one loaf in the boat referred to before. Would the disciples,
unlike the narrator, be unaware of its presence? In that case the readers
know, again, more than the disciples, even though the importance of
this knowledge is as yet unclear.
The reproach by Jesus emphasizes the disciples' incomprehension.
The choice of words reminds the reader of the reproach in 4.40, the first
time that the disciples were afraid in the boat. The present situation is
more serious, however. Not only is there no trust, as in 4.40, but also no
understanding of what is going on. The astonishment expressed by the
open question of 4.41—'Who then is this?'—has here become sheer in-
comprehension. Jesus' reproach that their hearts are hardened cannot
but sound sarcastic to the reader, who realizes that the saying is couched
in the same terms as the accusation made by the narrator against the
Pharisees in 3.5. What the reader sees at work here is a device that the
narrator has applied before: he puts words first used by himself into the
mouth of Jesus (6.34 and 8.2). Although the fronts have not changed,
the use of the same derogatory language for both the friends and
enemies of Jesus shows that the position of the disciples seems far less
removed from that of Jesus' opponents than has previously been the
case in the book. This is specially underlined by an allusion to Jer. 5.21
in v. 18. Originally directed to Judah and put in the third person ('who
have eyes, but do not see'), the words of the prophet are made to
apply—in the second person and therefore more aggressively—to the
disciples, and prove to be unpleasantly similar to the quotation from
Isa. 6.9-10 which in 4.12 described the situation of the outsiders.
Against this background the saying about the yeast also has a clear
function. Whether it is coincidental or not, if the last words of v. 17
remind the reader of both 3.5 and 3.6, then he or she can hardly avoid
seeing the incomprehension of the disciples as an equivalent of the re-
jection of Jesus by the Pharisees. That rejection will ultimately lead to
Jesus' death. The saying about the yeast points out to the disciples what
may be the consequences of their failure to understand Jesus. That this
covert warning is not unnecessary, but not effective either, the reader
knows—even if he or she does not know the further developments of
the story—from the reference to Jesus' betrayal by Judas Iscariot in
3.19.
8.19-20. It appears that the lack of understanding has to do with the

loaves, after all; not with the loaves the disciples have forgotten to take
with them in the boat, but with the loaves of the mass meals. At the
second meal, the memory of what had happened at the first appeared to
have been completely wiped out or suppressed. Appeared to, for on the
twofold question of Jesus they do remember the number of baskets
filled with what was left of the loaves that Jesus had broken for the
multitude.140
8.21. Jesus repeats the embarrassing question that is really the issue of
this passage. The assumption is probably that this memory should be
enough to understand what must be understood, and to interpret cor-
rectly what happened at the mass meals. The interpretation problem is
140. The difference in the proportions between the number of loaves and the
number of eaters, which at the first mass meal was one loaf to a thousand people
and at the second one loaf to five hundred and seventy people, is so great that the
one loaf is obviously more than enough for the disciples and Jesus himself. What
Jesus says about this must be a hint as to how something else should be understood.
The disciples do not understand, however. It is not enough to recognize, with
Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 102), the irony of the situation. At the discourse
level the reader, too, wonders what the hint may refer to. In addition to the
proportions mentioned above there is the one loaf that may refer to the bread that
Jesus breaks for his disciples in 14.22,and which via the urcep noXktiv ('for many')
pronounced over the wine in 14.24 echoes the ctvxi noXXm ('for many') of 10.45.
The one loaf on board could then contain a reference to the Son of Man who gives
his life for others. What Jesus' presence in the boat makes clear in any case is that
worrying about the absence of bread after 6.35-44 and 8.1-9 is totally unwarranted,
improper even.
9. Crossing Boundaries (435-821) 267
clearly the most important aspect of this episode. It is, indeed, a story
raised to a square, a story that relates to the proper story, or at least part
of it, and its meaning. This is clear from the fact that the episode is
replete with words relating to seeing (16), knowing (17), remembering
(18), and understanding (17, 21), as well as to the respective organs the
heart (17), the eyes, and the ears (18), with the emphasis on understand-
ing. That is no doubt a key datum for the reader. It is exactly for this
reason, however, that it is incomprehensible that the disciples are not
provided with the key to the solution of the problem. It would seem as
if all elements necessary for the understanding are present, but that the
disciples are unable to recognize the connection that organizes those el-
ements into a meaningful whole.
For the present, then, Jesus' painful question concludes the story line
concerned with the disciples: they are deaf and blind, and, although the
secret of the kingdom has been given to them, they do not understand
what they are supposed to understand. If readers are prepared to let this
sink in for a moment, they realize that in this respect they are not in a
more favourable position than the disciples, and so the questions of vv.
17, 18 and 21 apply as much to them. They, too, do not quite under-
stand what Jesus is driving at, and therefore wonder how they should
arrange the fragments of their knowledge to arrive at the necessary in-
sight.
After the two feeding stories the readers, who are aware of the pres-
ence of the loaf on board, understand, of course, that it will not be
difficult for Jesus to let the thirteen on board the ship eat enough from
one loaf.141 At the same time they think it unlikely that Jesus would be
concerned with something so trivial. Thus, readers begin to understand
that the fact of their having been initiates from the beginning of the
book, as a result of which they are able to speak correctly about Jesus'
identity, is apparently not enough. For the time being, however, they
can do no more than bear the last question of this episode in mind. This
is discouraging, but they know that the book is far from being finished
yet.
141. See Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel p. 102.

Part II
THE WAY
Chapter 10
THE STRUCTURE OF PART II
The reader now reaches the thematic and narrative centre of the book.
The structural elements in this part are in a sense the mirror image of
those in the preceding section. If the alternation of three crossings and
two meals in that section is summarized as al-bl-a1-b2-a3y the struc-
ture of this part, with two blind men and three predictions of what will
happen in Jerusalem, can be summarized as at-tf-tf-tf-c?.
Just as the two mass meals form the heart and the three crossings the
frame of the previous section, so the healings of two blind men form
the frame of the central part (8.22-26 and 10.46-52), while the three
predictions of Jesus' death and resurrection, and the implications of this
for Jesus' followers, are the backbone of the composition (8.27-38;
9.31-50; 10.32-45). There is a wide consensus about the structural
function of these elements. On the basis of the action, the characters in-
volved, the location, and the theme, the two structural lines made up of
those elements are visualized in Figure 20.
Action Characters Theme
1— 8.22-26 healing blind man 1 public, blind man blind-see

8.27-38 prediction 1 disciples, Peter, public death-life-follow
L_U
9.30-50 prediction 2 the twelve, John death-life-follow

10.32-45 prediction 3 disciples, James, John death-life-follow
' 10.46-52 healing blind man 2 public, blind man blind-see
Figure 20
The two structural lines are carefully composed. The three predic-
tions are quite similar in vocabulary so that the reader has no difficulty
identifying the first line. They clearly form an ascending series which,
starting from indirect speech in the first prediction and changing to
10. The Structure of Part II 271
direct speech in the second, leads up to the climax in the third, the most
detailed and elaborate of the three. Evidence of careful composition is
equally evident in the case of the two healings, which owing to their
placement form the frame around this part. As they are the only two
stories in the book where Jesus heals a blind person, when the reader
comes to the second healing, he or she recalls the first and realizes the
differences between them. The first healing needs considerable effort
on the part of Jesus and takes place in two stages. As in the case of the
deaf-mute in 8.33-34, Jesus applies a theraphy that embraces two
treatments. He first moistens the blind man's eyes with saliva and then
lays his hands on him. The therapy is only partly successful, though, so
that repetition of part of the treatment is necessary to complete the cure.
In the second healing story there is also mention of a repetition, but
now the man's request, along with the application of the remarkable
address 'son of David' to Jesus, are repeated. His healing needs no
therapeutic treatment by Jesus, who attributes it to the trust of the blind
man himself. However, the most striking difference from the first heal-
ing is that the healed man is not sent to his home, for the story ends
with the words 'and he followed him on the way', which underscores
the theme of this part of the book.
These two lines are so clearly etched into this part that every reader
recognizes them as structural elements. The structure of the episodes
standing between them is far less clear, however. There have been sev-
eral attempts to demonstrate that they are concentrically arranged, but
none of them has been wholly successful.
Thus, Stenger stresses in particular the similarities between 9.2-29
and 10.1-31 because they structure the episodes in between.1 The two
clusters are linked to one another by four similarities. First, by a certain
similarity in the locations: the mountain (9.2) and the house (9.28) in
the first cluster correspond to Judaea and the region beyond the Jordan
(10.1), the house (10.10) and 'on the way' (10.17) in the second. In
both clusters these would be places for esoteric instruction of the disci-
ples. The second similarity relates to the presence of the opponents,
who do not appear in this part except in these two clusters (9.14 and
10.2). Thirdly, both clusters include elements related to the theme of
Jesus' identity. In the first cluster, the voice from the cloud tells the
disciples to listen to Jesus, thereby placing Jesus as Son of God above
1. Stenger, 'Die Grundlegung', pp. 26-28.

Moses and Elijah (9.7); in the second, Jesus considers himself compe-
tent to interpret with authority a command given by Moses (10.5-8).2
Fourthly, the two clusters are thematically united by the power of trust,
which comes to expression in the sayings 'all things can be done for the
one who believes' (9.23) and 'for mortals it is impossible, but not for
God' (10.27), both with the words navxa 8i)vaxa.3 Finally, Stenger
points out that the two clusters contrast with the passages about the Son
of Man, who is on the way to the cross but whose messiahship is not
acknowledged by his disciples.4
In my opinion, the similarities between the two clusters are compara-
tively few and, moreover, the result of a rather arbitrary selection. What
is more, the purely semantic correspondences can only be detected by
the experienced analyst and are, therefore, unlikely to be of much help
to the reader. Consequently, Stenger's attempts to assign a counterpart
to each episode between these two clusters are open to serious question.
Other divisions are offered by Tolbert (see Figure 21)5 and Hum-
phrey (see Figure 22).6 The main difference between the two proposals
is that for Humphrey 8.22-10.52 is concentric in all its episodes.
Both proposals depart from the framework of the two healings and
the structural function of the three predictions. Incidentally, it is note-
worthy that Tolbert speaks of the 'predictions of the passion' and Hum-
phrey of the 'predictions of the resurrection', while the three pre-
dictions themselves explicitly refer to both elements (8.31; 9.31; 10.33-
34). In contrast to Tolbert, Humphrey establishes a structural link be-
tween the predictions and the disciples' misunderstanding in the ele-
ments b-i-b', which considerably strengthens the connection between
them. On the other hand, it is not difficult to see that a number of corre-
spondences perceived by Humphrey are based on a selective if not ar-
bitrary way of reading the text. Typical examples are a and a', d and d'.
The paired passages a and a' are very different and do not contain any
signal inviting the reader to see a similarity between them. The
description of d as 'The blessedness of Jesus the Son' does not do
justice to the content and textual form of Jesus' glorification on the
mountain in 9.2-8. For these reasons I think that the detailed structuring
2. Stenger, 'Die Grundlegung', p. 26.

3. Stenger, 'Die Grundlegung', p. 27.
4. Stenger, 'Die Grundlegung', pp. 26-27.
5. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, pp. 312-13.
6. Humphrey, He is Risen!, p. 79.
proposed by Humphrey will no more stand up to an accurate and

critical analysis than the one put forward by Stenger.
The two models represented in Figures 21 and 22 do, however, reveal
a number of elements that are important for the structure of this part.
1 8.22-26 healing of a blind man

2 8.29-9 29 first passion prediction unit
a 8.27-30 Peter identifies Jesus as Christ
b 8.31 first passion prediction
c 8.32-33 Peter rebukes Jesus and Jesus rebukes Peter
d 8.34-9.13 Jesus teaches, save life/lose life
1 8.34-39 save/lose; shame/glory
2 9.2-13 transfiguration
a 9.2-8 on the mount, Elijah and Moses
b 9.9-13 down the mount, Elijah
e 9.14-29 healing of a boy
1 9.14-27 healing
2 9.28-29 need for prayer
3 9.30-10.31 second passion prediction unit
a 9.30-10.31 second passion prediction
b 9.31 disciples do not understand
c 9.33-10.16 care for the least
1 9.33-1C).16 care for the least
a 9.33-50 receive children
1 9.33-37 receive child in Jesus' name
2 9.38-41 non-follower exorcises in Jesus' name
3 9.42-50 reject causes of falling away
b 10.1-12 rejection of divorce
110.1-9 response to Pharisees
2 10.10-12 response to disciples
c 10.13-16 receive children; kingdom of God
2 10.17-31 reject riches/gain eternal life
a 10.17-22 rich man
b 10.23-3 riches/new family and eternal life
c 10.31 first/last
4 10.32-52 third passion prediction unit
a 10.32-34 third passion prediction
b 10.35-40 James and John request seats of glory
c 10.41-45 Jesus teaches, greatest/servant
[5] d 10.46-52 calls and heals Bartimaeus, who follows him on the way
Figure 21
[8.22-26 A blind man receives his sight]
a 8.27-30 The contrast between what people say about Jesus and what the disciples say
b 8.31-33 A resurrection prediction, an uncomprehending reaction by the disciples,
corrected by Jesus
c 8.34-9.1 The necessity of death to self
d 9.2-8 The blessedness of Jesus the Son
e 9.9-13 Jesus interprets the scriptures, against the scribes, for the
disciples, privately
f 9.14-15 The crowds acclaim Jesus, the scribes are hostile
g 9.16-27 Jesus casts out an unclean spirit in response to
faith in a faithless age
h 9.28-29 Jesus alone with the disciples, in a house,
deals with their failure
i 9.30-32 A resurrection prediction and the disciples'
misunderstanding reaction
h' 9.33-37 Jesus, alone with the disciples, in a house,
deals with their failure
g1 9.38-50 Jesus permits others to cast out demons; speaks
of faith, and of scandalizing that faith
f 10.1-9 The crowds acclaim Jesus, the Pharisees test Jesus
e' 10.10-12 Jesus interprets the scriptures, against the scribes, for
the disciples, privately
d' 10.13-16 The blessedness of all who become like children
c* 10.17-31 The necessity of giving up what one owns, for Jesus and the
gospel, in order to enter the kingdom of God
b1 10.32-40 A resurrection prediction, an uncomprehending reaction by the
disciples, corrected by Jesus
a' 10.41-45 The contrast between what people say and do and what disciples
must do
[10.46-52 A blind man receives his sight]
Figure 22
I mention the following:

1. Each of the three predictions is followed—as Humphrey
rightly observes—by the explicit or implicit observation that
the disciples do not understand it (8.32b; 9.32; 10.32). Signs
of their misunderstanding, which contrast sharply with Jesus'
frankness (nappi\ciq xov Jtoyov e^dXei, 8.32a), occur fre-
quently in this part.7
7. In particular 9.6, 10, 32, 34; 10.38.

2. This paradoxical aspect returns in almost everything Jesus

says. These paradoxes are, along with a number of opposi-
tions, easy to notice in Tolbert's schema. I mention the fol-
lowing:
- 8.34-38: 'save life' versus 'lose life'; 'gain the whole
world' versus 'lose one's life'; 'shame' versus 'honour';
- 9.1: 'die' versus 'see the kingdom of God come with pow-
er';
- 9.2-13: 'pay tribute to someone' (Jesus, v. 7) versus 'mal-
treat someone' (Elijah, v. 13b);
- 9.14-29: 'fail to exorcise' versus 'succeed in exorcising
demons';
- 9.33-37: 'first' versus 'last';
- 9.41: 'a cup of water' versus 'a (great) reward';
- 9.42: 'one of these little ones' versus 'a severe punish-
ment';
- 9.43-48: 'a part of the body' versus 'the whole life'; 'enter
eternal life/the kingdom of God' versus 'be thrown into
Gehenna';
- 10.2-12: 'God who joins together' versus 'people who dis-
solve';
- 10.13-15: 'children' versus 'adults';
- 10.17-31: 'possessions in this life' versus 'a treasure in
heaven'; 'possess goods' versus 'give up goods'; 'a camel'
versus 'the eye of the needle'; 'give up' versus 'receive';
'last' versus' first';
- 10.35-45: 'greatest' versus 'servant'.
3. This paradoxical effect is also present in the fact that the two
blind men gain their sight, while Jesus' disciples persist in
their incomprehension, and consequently do not gain sight.
4. Exactly for this reason it is necessary to respect the equally
paradoxical character of the three predictions. That is why nei-
ther Tolbert nor Humphrey is right in defining them the way
they do. The predictions refer to an event in which shame and
honour, death and life, little and great, last and first come
together because they are announcements of a total event that
comprises execution as well as resurrection.
5. With regard to the concentric aspects of the structure of this
part, I think it is best to confine them to the framework of the
two healings and the main line of the three predictions, which
contain the execution and the resurrection as well as the disci-
ples' misunderstanding.
6. Rather than submit to systematism it seems wiser, as long as
no better proposals are put forward, to abandon a detailed
concentric structuring.
It is evident, however, that the supporting structural elements of this
part build up to a climax. This is recognizable, first of all, in the three
passion summaries. The second summary (9.31) is shorter than the first
(8.31), but the third is considerably longer than either of them (10.33-
34). Here Jesus tells the disciples for the first time that Jerusalem—the
seat of Jesus' opponents—forms the end point of the journey begun at
8.27. Furthermore, the third sumtnary contains details about what
awaits Jesus after his arrest, which do not occur in the other summaries.
The three passages about Jesus' identity also show an important cli-
max. In 8.28, the popular opinions about Jesus, already mentioned in
the previous part (6.14-16), are repeated and, in 8.29, substituted by
Peter's identification of Jesus as the Messiah, a name which so far has
only been applied to Jesus in the title of the book. In 9.7, the voice from
heaven tells the three disciples that Jesus is the Son of God, a name
already familiar to the reader from (1.1, 11). Before this the unclean
spirits called Jesus by that name (3.11), and thereby tried to gain power
over him (5.7), but the story creates the impression that the disciples
did not hear that. Whether the experience in 9.2-8 has really opened
their eyes to the truth about Jesus remains to be seen. Finally, in 10.45,
Jesus adds a crucial element to all that has so far been said about his
identity. Meanwhile he has three times announced the execution of the
Son of Man in the passion summaries, but there his death is no more
than a murder, plotted by his opponents. Here, in 10.45, his death
receives a new dimension. The Son of Man, Jesus, is robbed of his life,
but at the same time gives his life as a ransom for others. This aspect
throws a new light on 'the way' of Jesus and that of his followers.
The healings of the blind men also show a climax. The first blind
man is unnamed, does not ask for healing himself, and is brought to
Jesus by others. (8.22). He is healed in two stages (8.23, 25), and is
then sent home and told not to go into Bethsaida again (8.26). The
second blind man, whose name is Bartimaeus, takes the initiative him-
self, calls out to Jesus repeatedly, and has to overcome the obstruction
of the crowd (10.46-48). He is healed on account of his trust without a
therapeutic treatment (10.50-52a), and then follows Jesus on the way

(10.52b).
Thus, the two blind men, and the second in particular, are the coun-
terparts of the disciples who, in spite of Jesus' attempts to free them
from their blindness, are no more perceptive at the end of this part than
they were in 8.14-21. As a result it is almost impossible for the reader
to imagine that they journey with Jesus to Jerusalem as resolutely as
Bartimaeus.
Our structural analysis would be incomplete without the following
observation. Although all of the elements mentioned above build up to
a climax at the end, the emphasis in this part falls markedly on three
dramatic and memorable passages at the beginning. These passages are:
Peter's confession and the consequent confrontation between Jesus and
Peter in 8.27-33; Jesus' grave and challenging statements in 8.34-9.1;
and in particular Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain in 9.2-13. The
latter scene not only intensifies and expands the words addressed by the
heavenly voice to Jesus alone at the baptism (1.11), but also prepares
for the centurion's confession at the foot of the cross (15.39). This
explains why the transfiguration story has a stronger effect at the
macrolevel than at the microlevel of the text, and why its position in the
middle of the book is quite functional. Its function at the microlevel is
equally clear. Now that Jesus has announced for the first time his exe-
cution and resurrection, it is particularly important that the Son of Man,
who is doomed to be killed, should show here in a flash the other side
of the picture.
Chapter 11
GOING HIS OWN WAY (8.22-10.52)
In this, the central part of the book, the restless wanderings have come
to an end, while the disciples and the reader have received no answers
to the questions they have asked themselves in the previous part. After
the first frame story Jesus travels to what we would call the far north,
and from there starts out in a direction not mentioned at first. It soon
becomes clear that Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem. Somewhere along
this route he climbs a high, unnamed mountain, passes Galilee as unob-
trusively as possible and, from the more southerly situated Judaea,
makes a detour across the river Jordan to reach the vicinity of Jerus-
alem by way of Jericho. Fewer things happen than the reader has been
accustomed to in the forgoing parts. This part mainly consists of dis-
cussions about the way Jesus thinks he must go. The response of his
small company, however, still breathes misunderstanding rather than
comprehension.
A Blind Man Sees (8.22-26)

22
They came to Bethsaida. Some people brought a blind man to him and
begged him to touch him. 23He took the blind man by the hand and led
him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid
his hands on him, he asked him, 'Can you see anything?' 24And the man
looked up and said, 'I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.'
25
Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and
his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. Then he sent him
away to his home, saying, 'Do not even go into the village.'
8.22. The reader who remembers that the boat was heading for Dal-
manutha (v. 10)—a name otherwise completely unknown—will be sur-
prised a second time that it arrives somewhere else. Still more surpris-
ing is that the place of arrival, Bethsaida, coincides with the destination
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 279
the disciples were sent to in 6.45 but did not then reach. Perhaps the
solution is that the narrator supposes that Jesus had met the Pharisees in
Dalmanutha in 8.11—which is then thought to lie on the Galilaean
shore of the lake—and had sailed from there to Bethsaida on the non-
Jewish shore in 8.13. On the basis of these clues, and the assumption
that the narrator intended to write a consistent story, I present the fol-
lowing overall picture. For the sake of convenience, I call the Jewish
side of the Sea of Galilee the western, and the non-Jewish side the east-
ern side.
The first journey (4.35-5.1) takes Jesus and the disciples across the
lake from west to east, and naturally their return voyage (5.18-21) ends
on the western side again. The next journey (6.32-34) is to another
place on the western shore. Jesus then tells the disciples to go ahead to
Bethsaida, on the eastern side (6.45), but they land, with Jesus, in the
plain of Gennesaret (6.53), which is not on the eastern but on the west-
ern side. Next, they travel overland to Tyre and Sidon (7.24), and from
there to the eastern side of the lake (7.31). From a place on the eastern
side they sail back to the western side, and arrive at Dalmanutha in
Galilee (8.10). The last crossing is from west to east again and brings
Jesus and the disciples to Bethsaida, where their sailing comes to an
end (8.22).
It is difficult to detect a plan or motive in this restless sailing to and
fro across the Sea of Galilee. On closer inspection it becomes evident
that, apart from the journey undertaken to find a lonely spot (6.32) and
the unsuccessful attempt to reach Bethsaida (6.45, 53), every outward
journey across the lake is in an easterly direction, that is, towards Gen-
tile territory (4.35-5.1; 6.45; 8.13-22), and that the other crossings must
be regarded as return journeys to Galilee. The frequent journeys be-
tween the two regions imply that Jesus, at this stage of his ministry,
divides his attention more or less equally between Gentiles and Jews.
That would be of special importance to readers who live in a place
where Jewish and Gentile Christians, caught in a circle of animosity
and distrust, are striving for the upper hand.
The cure of the blind man takes place at non-Jewish Bethsaida. As
for its place in the narrative, it is of great importance that the account
comes immediately after the most painful manifestation so far of the
disciples' blindness, as well as after the disorientating experience of the
reader, who has proved unable to acquire the insight on which Jesus
puts so much stress in the book. Given this particular context, the cure
of the blind man offers a word of hope to readers of the book who are
unable to see clearly or not at all. It means that they may still see—if
not at once then, perhaps, in stages—what so far has remained unclear
to them.
The story is also well placed in another respect. The reader has be-
come accustomed to each new healing story relating to a new physical
disability. Just as the healing of a man with paralysed legs (2. 3-12) was
followed by that of a man with a paralysed hand (3.1-5), so it is now—
after a deaf-mute (7.31-37)—the turn of a blind man.
8.22-24. In case the reader has failed to see the connection between the
healing of the blind man and that of the deaf-mute, there are a good
few similarities to bring that connection to his or her attention. Both
stories are situated on the Gentile side of the lake; in both instances
some people bring the man to Jesus, and beg Jesus to touch and cure
him; in both cases Jesus does more than what is asked of him, and each
time the narrator mentions that Jesus' treatment includes the use of
saliva; finally, Jesus orders both men to keep silent.
Besides the absence of a healing word in the second story, the main
difference between them is that here—and that is the only time so
far1—the healing does not succeed immediately, so that a second
treatment is necessary. That is clear from what the man says in
response to Jesus' question after the first treatment. He sees only the sil-
houettes of big moving figures, and interprets them (perhaps because he
hears them speak?) as people. The story supposes that he realizes the
difference between normal sight and defective vision.
8.25-26. When Jesus lays his hands on him a second time, things hap-
pen double-quick, as is suggested by the very short sentences with
which the account of the treatment ends. The command not to enter the
village is one of the various ways in which the narrator calls attention
to the fact that Jesus does not want the healings to become widely
known (1.44; 5.43; 7.36).
The reader is not told whether the man obeys Jesus' instruction or
not. Thus, the episode ends as laconically as the previous one, where
the reader was uncertain about a reaction by the disciples to Jesus'
severe accusations (8.14-21). Only now does the reader realize that the
disciples are not said to be present at the cure of the blind man nor at
1. And also the only time in the book.

11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 281
that of the deaf-mute (7.31-37). As the arrival at Bethsaida is told in

the plural, the reader thinks at first that the disciples are present at the
event. According to v. 23, however, Jesus seems to cure the man in pri-
vate. It follows that the story—which has a word of hope for the
reader—does not function like that for the disciples. Or is it better to
say that the narrator is more concerned with the reactions and emotions
of his readers than with those of his characters?
'Who Do You Say That I Am?' (8.27-33)

27
Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesaraea Philippi;
and on the way he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that I am?'
28
And they answered him, 'John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still
others, one of the prophets.' 29 He asked them, 'But who do you say that
I am?' Peter answered him, 'You are the Messiah.' 30 And he sternly
ordered them not to tell anyone about him. 31 Then he began to teach
them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected
by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after
three days rise again. 32 He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him
aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and looking at his disci-
ples, he rebuked Peter and said, 'Get behind me, Satan! For you are
setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.'
8.27. Here the narrator takes the reader into the centre of the book. That
is an important step but one diametrically opposed to the change of
location in the story, where Jesus leads his disciples to an outlying dis-
trict. Whether the narrator knows that the town, Caesaraea, lies some
way north of Galilee is not clear. The shift in locality does not have the
character of an excursion, like Jesus' journey to Tyre and Sidon (7.24
and 31). Jesus goes to that remote corner to make it the starting point of
a long journey to the centre, that is, Jerusalem. There he will reach his
destination in more senses than one. It is unclear whether we should at-
tach significance to the fact that Jesus begins this journey in the vicinity
of the Roman town Caesaraea, named Caesaraea Philippi after its
builder—the Philip of 6.17—to distinguish it from the Caesaraea on the
Mediterranean. In this region Jesus is beyond the reach of his enemies,
who, as the reader knows from 3.16, intend to kill him.
There is no mention, yet, of Jesus retiring with his disciples (cf. 9.30-
31), but it will gradually appear that this is more often the case here
than in the previous part of the book. It will soon be evident, however,
that discussions with the disciples—relatively rare in that part2—play a

much greater role here. From now on there will no longer be any doubt
as to whether the disciples are present at some event or not. In fact,
there is never a moment at which the disciples are not present or play
only a supporting parti Up to 10.52 inclusive Jesus is continually on the
way with his disciples, and any events situated at specific places3
always take place on or along the way from Caesaraea to Jerusalem.
8.27-28. The narrator leaves the reader in no doubt that Jesus and the
disciples talk abdut Jesus' identity on their way to Jerusalem. Even at
the beginning of Jesus' ministry the people in the synagogue at Caper-
naum (1.22) wondered about Jesus' identity, and so did the disciples
when caught in the storm during the first crossing (4.41). Here, Jesus
raises the question himself. First indirectly by inquiring about public
opinion on his identity. The reader remembers the various guesses and
rumours said to be circulating after the execution of John the baptist
(6.14-15). They sound like prefabricated standard answers, which have
lost the startling quality of the communication when the reader first
heard of the resurrection of the baptist, even before hearing of his
death.
8.29-30. After this indirect inquiry Jesus asks the disciples straight out
who they say that he is, and immediately the question receives a per-
sonal and existential character. This is an exciting moment. The reader
has heard enough from the narrator to answer this question but can
hardly suspect what the disciples will reply to it. The discussions in the
boat, especially the last that is still fresh in his or her mind (8.15-21),
make the reader fear the worst. The answer given by Peter, as leader
and spokesman of the disciples, is both firm and brief, and, in compari-
son to what other people think of Jesus, to the point as well. This
apposite word has not yet been used by anyone in the story, but the
reader remembers it as one of the significant words in the title of the
book. The text does not say on what Peter grounds his declaration.
Perhaps the experience of hearing and seeing Jesus has had the same
effect on the disciples as his spittle and hands on the blind man from
Bethsaida. There is yet another clear parallel with this episode: whether
right or wrong, Peter's answer is reason for Jesus to forbid
2. 4.10-25, 38-41; 6.35-38; 7.17-23; 8.15-21.

3. 9.2,28,30; 10.10,46.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 283
the disciples to speak about him to other people. That reminds the
reader of the commands to silence imposed on many of the sick and
handicapped (1.44; 7.36; 8.26), on people with an unclean spirit (1.25;
3.11-12), and even on a group of witnesses, among whom were the
three intimates of Jesus (5.43). Here, though, the reader thinks first of
all of the demons who are not permitted to speak because they know
Jesus (1.34; 3.11-12). It seems that, for some reason, Jesus' identity
must be shrouded in mystery.
8.31-32a. Could that mystery be connected with what now follows? It

is noteworthy that the narrator, who has only just related Jesus' injunc-
tion to secrecy without quoting his words, now explicitly quotes Jesus,
after calling special attention to the following pronouncement. It is the
first in a series of three announcements often referred to as the predic-
tions of the suffering, or the summaries of the passion. Both terms are
misleading because they leave out the last element. The first an-
nouncement is considerably longer than the second (9.31), but much
shorter than the third (10.32-34); yet there is one element that appears
only here, namely, the first word of the quotation (8ei). It is obviously
meant to underline the inevitability of what is about to happen to Jesus
in Jerusalem. This 'must' has been the subject of much discussion. At
one time, theologians confined the necessity to the passion, and more-
over thought of it as an absolute rather than a hypothetical necessity,
which is at least dependent on the fact that Jesus' adversaries had
already decided to liquidate Jesus. Thus, they related the necessity to a
plan of salvation that they thought had been written into the Old Tes-
tament. Later, one even derived the 'divine must' from the satisfaction
which God would demand for the injustice done to him, and for which
Jesus' blood would be the only acceptable price. One wonders, though,
if God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18.23, 32;
33.11), how could he then desire the death of his Son as satisfaction?
The necessity expressed by 'must' refers not only to the passion but to
the whole of Jesus' pronouncement, including the resurrection. It also
presumes the decision of Jesus' adversaries to kill him. It refers, then,
to the duty of Jesus not to give in to his enemies but remain true to his
mission, even at the risk of his life.4
4. That 5ei in v. 31 would refer to an unconditional divine necessity of Jesus'

passion and death is a fairly general view. See, only recently, Collins, Beginning,
pp. 64-66. Her position is partly based on 9.12; 14.21 and 14.36. From the last
Although Jesus does not speak in the first person, it is evident that he
is referring to himself. It is remarkable that Jesus employs the term
'Son of Man' used earlier (2.10, 28), and not 'Messiah', the term used
by Peter just now. It is not difficult for the reader to recognize in the
succession of maltreatment and rehabilitation the vicissitudes of 'one
like a son of man' in the dream of Daniel 7 and its explanation, and of
'the righteous man' in Wis. 2.10-24.
This is the first signal to the reader that the adversaries of Jesus will
be successful in their attempt to eliminate him. The fact that Jesus
appears to know the scenario places him, in the eyes of the reader, in a
very special position: Jesus is the object of the actions of his adver-
saries, but at the same time the one who understands the situation
completely. This announcement, just like the two announcements that
are still to follow, is also important in that it makes the reader see the
different episodes of the liquidation as one coherent whole.
passage she concludes: 'From the point of view of the following narrative, this
prayer implies that it is God's will that Jesus die' (p. 65). It is remarkable that she
then discusses a number of passages from the Psalms and Isaiah without seeing any
reason to reconsider or modify her conclusion. The Old Testament passages that
form the background of that divine Set show that there is no question of an absolute
and unconditional necessity but that this 'must' presupposes opponents who are out
after blood. In the Psalms concerned the suffering righteous one is invariably perse-
cuted by enemies seeking his downfall. Pesch (Markusevangelium, II, pp. 13-14)
has composed a long list of passages with the passio-justi motif that are quoted or
alluded to in the passion narrative. Most of these contain references to enemies who
want to kill the righteous one. That is true at least of Pss. 21; 26; 31; 34-37; 40-42;
68; 70; 85; 108; 117. It is also true of Wis. 2.16-20 and Isa. 50 and 53, and no less
of two of the Psalms to which Collins refers, namely 63 and 88.1 have dealt with
the subject in my article 'Jezus' dood een heilsgebeuren?', in J.P. Heering (ed.),
Jezus' Visie op Zichzelf: In Discussie met de Jonge's Christologie (Nijkerk: Cal-
lenbach, 1991), pp. 100-113. My conclusion is that 5ei in v. 31 refers to a condi-
tional 'must', all the more so because the people responsible for Jesus' violent
death are explicitly mentioned both in 8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34 and in 14.12.1 therefore
think there is every reason to reconsider the current view: if God wants Jesus'
death, it is not because God wants for some reason to see blood but because there
are people who wish to eliminate Jesus on account of his message and way of life,
and God does not want Jesus to give in to them. Tannehill ('Narrative Christology',
pp. 65 and 74-78) goes still further and sees 8.31 as part of Jesus' commission. For
him the Temple authorities are therefore not so much opponents as instruments for
realizing this commission. This view seems to me to be inconsistent with the repre-
sentation of the Temple authorities in Mark, especially in 3.22-30.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 285
To the disciples, however, Jesus' prediction cannot but come as a

complete surprise. That the Pharisees and Herodians intend to kill Jesus
the reader has already known since 3.6, but there is no reason to sup-
pose that, until now, the disciples have had any knowledge of this. The
hints and communications in 2.7; 2.20; 3.4 and 19 are also clear enough
to the reader, but not to the disciples or other characters in the story.
Now, however, the disciples as well as the readers face the painful
question of how the impending, ignominious death of Jesus relates to
the coming of God's kingdom. Jesus is the herald of this kingdom
(1.14), but it is not clear that yet another role will be assigned to him.
Does Jesus' resurrection offer a new perspective? That remains to be
seen. In this connection the reader wonders at the parallel evoked by
the prediction between the life story of Jesus and that of the baptist,
who heralded his coming (1.7-8). Despite John's arrest (1.14) and vio-
lent death (6.17-29), Jesus continued to proclaim the good news. Even
the murder of Jesus need not necessarily mean the end of God's king-
dom coming near.
The narrator rounds off Jesus' prediction with the comment that
Jesus spoke plainly. This does not imply that the disciples can tell
everybody what Jesus has just announced to them, but neither does it
mean that they should keep silent about it. The comment does, how-
ever, reinforce the possibility that the veil surrounding the identity of
Jesus is connected with his rejection, death, and resurrection.
8.32b-33. The episode culminates in what is one of the most painful

scenes in the book. It stands in stark contrast to the preceding scene,
in which Peter's response was so much nearer the truth than public
opinion. Peter's reaction this time is one of disapproval and reproof
(e7cixi|iaco again). He speaks to Jesus confidentially so that no one can
hear what he is saying. It looks as if Peter has not heard, or perhaps not
understood, the words about the resurrection. The latter possibility is
worth considering because on the next page the reader finds Peter and
two other disciples questioning what 'rising from the dead' means
(9.10). He would then resist either Jesus' liquidation itself or the in-
evitability of it, which are equally stressed by Jesus; but Jesus reacts
immediately. To understand what Jesus does and says, it is important to
realize the actual—in contrast to the usual—position of the members of
the group. When Peter pulled Jesus towards him (rcpoaAxxuPdvco), he
came to stand opposite Jesus, while the other disciples were behind
Jesus, as is clear from v. 33. Peter's change of position is also a change

in attitude. Before saying anything, Jesus turns round and looks at the
eleven behind him, but he does not look at Peter—who had just created
a tete-a-tete with him—and thus breaks the confidentiality between
them. It is only then that Jesus speaks. His words are unusually harsh.
'Away there' (vnaye) refers to the place Peter has taken up against
Jesus, and 'behind me' (ojciaco \iov) refers Peter back to the place
which is his, in view of the fact that Jesus leads the way and the dis-
ciples follow (1.17-18, 20; 2.14). Finally, Jesus addresses Peter as
'Satan'.5 He could not have used a sharper word because Satan is the
one who tempted Jesus in the wilderness (1.13), who is the prince of
demons (3.22-30), and who destroys the. word of the proclamation
(4.15). The explanatory note with which Jesus concludes his pro-
nouncement is somewhat peculiar. Isa. 55.8-9 also sets the thoughts and
ways of God over against those of men, but although divine things
frequently conflict with human things, the opposition between them is
markedly different from that between God and Satan. God and people
belong together and even need each other in the kingdom of God,
where God is concerned about people and people do the will of God,
where their ways cross and their thoughts meet.
The Way of Those Who Follow Jesus (834-9A)

34
He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, I f any want
to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their
cross and follow me.35For those who want to save their life will lose it,
and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel,
will save it. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and
forfeit their life? 37 Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
38
Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he
comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.' 9 1 And he said to
them, 'Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste
death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.'
After Jesus has told the disciples what is going to happen to himself, he
goes on to speak of what the future has in store for them. The repetition
of 'for those who' and 'for what' (oq yap and xi yap in vv. 35 and 36)
5. All attempts to give 'Satan' the weaker meaning of 'adversary' here (cf.
Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, p. 54) must fail on account of the fact that the
specific meaning applies everywhere else in Mark.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 287
reinforces the thematic unity of the sayings. Apart from the last, they
contain metaphors which, each from its own angle, illuminate the cen-
tral theme: the readiness to defy death.
8.34a. From the point of view of the narrative it is strange that Jesus
calls the multitude to him. In this part of the book the people play only
a very marginal role (9.14-27; 10.1-9). The reader—who has the im-
pression that Jesus and the disciples are still in the area of Caesaraea—
wonders where they suddenly come from. Besides, the sayings presume
that the people know what Jesus has said about his own death, while he
has spoken about it only to his disciples. Moreover, the crowd is not
mentioned again in this episode, nor for some time to come. That raises
the question of why the narrator mentions them at all. The only satisfac-
tory answer is that he finds the sayings so important that others, and in
particular the readers of the book, ought to hear them as well.
8.34b-37. The tension between the possible effects of Jesus' words on

his listeners and the readers of Mark makes itself felt, especially in case
of the first saying. Here, Jesus uses 'cross' with the definite article (xov
GTcmpov a\)TO\)), although the word has not occurred in the book
before. This particular use presumes a familiarity with the term on the
part of the audience, which neither the disciples nor the crowd can be
supposed to have. Although the saying refers not to the carrying of the
cross by Jesus but to the carrying of one's own cross, its implications
are only clear to someone who can connect the metaphor with the cross
that serves for the execution of Jesus, and that Simon of Cyrene will
carry for him to the place of execution (15.21). The immediate hearers
and followers of Jesus are unable to see that connection. Indeed, apart
from a number of women, they remain ignorant of the crucifixion for
the rest of the book, for neither the cross nor the crucifixion are men-
tioned in the two following predictions (9.31; 10.32-34). Further, when
the story reaches the point where Pilate sentences Jesus to crucifixion
(15. 15), and the said Simon carries Jesus' cross to the place of execu-
tion (15.20-21), the disciples have already fled (14.50). Moreover,
although crucifixions were common both in Rome and the provinces, it
was a punishment reserved for mutinous soldiers, rebels, and dangerous
criminals guilty of murder and robbery, and administered particularly
to slaves.6 This form of punishment is well outside the experience of

Jesus' disciples and probably also of most of his other listeners.
For Mark's original Roman audience things are different. Tacitus
speaks of the cruel revenge of Nero who had Christians crucified and
set on fire to serve as torches at nightfall (Annals 15.44.4). Thus, they
were both crucified and burnt at the stake. As the victims had to carry
the cross or cross-beam themselves, the metaphor will certainly have
appealed to the first readers. Moreover, to them the connection with
Jesus' cross must have been obvious. It is quite unthinkable that there
were Christians who did not know that Jesus had been crucified, espe-
cially since the current confessional formulas spoke not only of Jesus'
death but also of his crucifixion.7 These readers did not need the infor-
mation provided in 15.21—where the words xov axa\)pov amoii are
repeated—to grasp the implications of the metaphor of 8.34.
The beginning of the first saying is reminiscent of the first three call
stories (1.16-20 and 2.14), which brought home to the reader that any-
one who wishes to follow Jesus should be prepared to give up the secu-
rity of family and livelihood. Here, a follower of Jesus is expected to go
further and deny himself or herself. The verb 'deny' (d7capveo(iai)
occurs once more in the book, namely in the account where Peter
denies Jesus (14.30, 31, 71-72). If, then, in this context the word 'self-
denial' is used, it stands in opposition, not to something like 'self-love',
but to the 'denial of Jesus', and therefore means 'the risk of one's own
life for the sake of Jesus'. That evokes the situation of a trial, as
described in the Martyrdom of Poly carp, where Bishop Polycarpus is
demanded to abjure Jesus by cursing him.8 That this context determines
the meaning here is confirmed by two facts. The first is that a cru-
cifixion presumes a judicial decision, and the second that v. 38 sum-
mons up the image of the Son of Man as judge of the end time who will
redress the balance by making sure that whoever renounces him here,
and thereby prolongs his or her life, will not avoid punishment.
6. See G.G. O'Collins, 'Crucifixion', ABD, I, pp. 1207-210 (1208).

7. Indications for this are to be found in 2 Cor. 13.4 and Acts 2.35; 4.10. Cf.
V.H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (NTTS, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), pp. 46 and 121.
8. See also the terminology used in 1 Cor. 12.3; cf. Mk 13.9-13. In Martyrdom
of Polycarp the proconsul demands from Polycarpus: 'Swear and I will release you,
curse Christ' (9.3).
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 289
The three sayings in between are variations on the theme that comes
to expression in the word life (\|fu%r|). All three of them have something
of proverbs that receive different meanings from different contexts.
Here the meaning is determined by the demand that a follower of Jesus
must be true till death. The first saying has the form of a paradox,
which involves the opposites save and lose. The paradox operates
thanks to the two meanings of 'life'. Here it refers to Christians who,
hauled up before a court, know that death awaits them if they do not
curse Jesus. The saying calls on them to be prepared to give their lives
for the cause of Jesus, as Eleazar and the seven brothers in 2 Mace. 6-7
gave theirs for the Torah. The paradox is given special emphasis by
what some of the brothers say to their executioners. The second brother
sets the present life that is being threatened against the eternal life he is
going to receive (2 Mace. 7.9). The fourth brother goes even further
than this: 'Death at men's hands is desirable through the promise of
God that we shall be raised up by him; whereas for you there can be no
resurrection, no new life' (7.14). The followers of Jesus have a different
motive: 'for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel'. Through this
motive a universally valid proverb becomes a pronouncement on a
specific situation, and the mention of the good news prolongs the
validity of the paradox until the time after Jesus, that is, the time of the
reader.
The rhetorical question of the second saying relates to a truth that is
logically evident, rather than to a paradox. It is built around a double
opposition. The first is 'gain' versus 'give up'—equivalent to 'save'
versus 'lose' in the first saying. The second is 'the whole world' versus
'one's own life'. In other words, the riches of the whole world cease to
be of importance for the owner from the moment he or she loses his or
her life. Even the most precious object loses its value for a subject at
the moment the subject itself ceases to exist.
The answer to the rhetorical question of the third saying seems trivial
at first, and is already found in Job 2.4: 'AH that a man has he will give
for his life'. Nevertheless, the context adds an extra dimension to the
question. The price of life is clearly established in the Old Testament in
Exodus 21, where as punishment for murder or culpable homicide the
law prescribes the death penalty in accordance with the norm 'life for
life' (v. 23). Far from being given, that price was enforced by law, and
had to be paid for the life of someone else,9 while Mk 8.37 is about the
9. Exod. 30.11-16 might give the impression that a human life can be
price one would like, or has to give, for one's own life. Seen in con-
nection with v. 35, the answer can hardly be called trivial, and is defi-
nitely less trivial than that of Job 2.4. It really means 'one life for
another life', for if true till death the followers of Jesus will—just like
the Maccabaean brothers and their mother—gain the real life or save it
for good.
8.38. The saying about the Son of Man is connected with what precedes
through the words 'those who', just like the other sayings. It is, never-
theless, somewhat different and thus also forms a transition to what
follows. Jesus uses the first person, as in the first two sayings. In addi-
tion, he speaks about the Son of Man, and does so in such a way that
'Jesus' and 'the son of man' can stand for both one and two persons in
this passage. The reader has known since 2.1-2, however, that the Son
of Man is none other than Jesus himself. This has, moreover, been
affirmed by the announcement of 8.31. The saying offers an unexpected
surprise, though. Jesus speaks about the Son of Man as one who is not
present but still to come.10 Its placement gives evidence of careful
composition, for 8.31 mentions not only Jesus' execution but also his
resurrection. Both of them together imply Jesus' departure and thus
make a return possible. The meaning of the saying is that followers of
Jesus who, for fear of losing their lives, do not confess to their judges
that they belong to Jesus, should realize that the Son of Man, Jesus, will
not acquit them at the final judgment.11 The connection of the Son of
Man with 'his father' and 'the holy messengers/angels'12 is intriguing.
safeguarded at the fixed sum of half a shekel, but the passage deals exclusively with
the yearly Temple tax levied on every Jew, which still existed in the period of Mark
(cf. Mt. 17.24).
10. In a way that no other 'Son of Man' saying does, the one in 8.38 causes us,
with Fowler (Reader, pp. 129-31), to keep wondering about the meaning and rele-
vance of the designation 'Son of Man'. 'Son of Man' statements should definitely
be seen as commentary by Jesus/the narrator on the role of Jesus. Even so, Fowler's
closing sentence, 'if the reader is not persuaded by the "Son of man" sayings,
alongside the "truly, I say to you" and "whoever" sayings, then Mark's whole nar-
rative effort runs aground' (p. 131), seems rather one-sided and exaggerated to me.
11. What Jesus says here clearly evokes, at a second reading, what the narrator
tells about Peter in 14.27-31, 54-72; 16.7.
12. This combination recurs in 13.32 where, however, it is not the term 'the son
of man' that is used but 'the son'. In 13.27 the angels seem to assist the Son of Man
in order to gather the elect.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 291
The first is reminiscent of Dan. 7.13-14, where one like a son of man—
a metaphor for Israel—receives from God, represented as one of ad-
vanced years, the dominion over all peoples and nations. It is remark-
able that the latter is here called the father of the son of man. The
'angels' or 'messengers' perform duties for the Son of Man without it
being clear what those duties might be.
As the identity of the author of Mark is unknown, we do not know
whether he himself experienced persecutions during which Christians
were interrogated and threatened with torture or were actually tortured.
Things may be different, however, in the case of the first readers in
Rome, for we know from Tacitus that the persecutions under Nero were
not pogroms, like the persecutions of Jews on which Josephus reports,13
but that those persecuted were arrested and interrogated by the authori-
ties.14 If the author had no knowledge of these Roman persecutions,
he—and Jesus himself, if the words derive from him—could evoke a
situation of oppression or persecution by employing elements from the
stories about the Maccabaean martyrs, with which they could expect
their audience to be familiar.
Today's readers must be careful not to see this passage as being
unrelated to a possible situation of persecution, and interpret it, for
instance, as a call for an ascetic way of life that is characterized by self-
renunciation or even self-contempt. Such an interpretation can only be
thought reasonable when the Greek V|/D%T| is translated as 'soul', which
is clearly incorrect in this context. The sayings are not about anything
so vague as general lifestyle, but about a person's willingness to give
his or her life for the sake of Jesus when this ultimate sacrifice is
demanded.15
9.7. Starting with an affirmative formula, the next saying enters on

what seems at first glance to be an entirely different theme, namely, the
period in which the kingdom of God is expected to break through. That
13. Josephus, War 2.266-70, 457-98; 7.41-62,407-19.

14. Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
15. This is overlooked by Malina (The Social World, pp. 67-96), who reduces
the meaning of Mk 8.34 to that of Mt. 10.37 and Lk. 14.26 on the grounds of the
relational nature of the Mediterranean people. The fact that both combine the latter
saying with the one about the carrying of the cross (Mt. 10.38 and Lk. 14.27) bears
him out on this, but that does not apply to the meaning that the saying has in the
Markan context.
must be the reason why the present text editions start a new chapter
here. A number of old manuscripts, the fifth-century Codex Alexandri-
nus, for instance, begin a new chapter at 9.2.16 This seems to me to be a
more appropriate point. The most important reasons are: the specific
time reference, which for Mark seems to bridge an unusually long in-
terval; the exceptional shift of scene to a high mountain; and, finally,
the change in the constellation of characters. Moreover, if 9.1 is not
connected with what has gone before, the reference to a number of
people who are there and then present in person is left hanging in the
air. Just as the preceding sayings are connected to one another by com-
mon themes and pronouns, so is the saying of 9.1. In the Greek text
nveq.. .ouiveq in 9.1—here translated as 'some... who'—corresponds
to Tiq ('anyone who') in 8.34, which is in its turn continued in xi
('what') in vv. 36 and 37 as regards sound, and in 6q edv ('whoever')
in vv. 35 and 38 as regards content. Two elements are of thematic im-
portance. The first is that 9.1 also remains within the thematics of death
and life. The second is that in 9.1, as in 8.38, there is mention of the
'coming' of an extraordinary and unique reality: in 8.38 that of the Son
of Man who comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels, and
in 9.1 that of the kingdom of God, which has become a present reality.
This does not alter the fact, however, that v. 9, besides rounding off
what precedes, also points forward to what follows.
The saying emphasizes the nearness of the kingdom of God in point
of time. It is, in fact, so near that a number of those present will see it
come to realization in their lifetime. What is the implication of this?
Jesus has said in 1.15 that the kingdom of God is at hand. Does it imply
that God's kingdom will arrive shortly after, and that it has already
come in Jesus' healings and exorcisms, to which thus far the crowds
seem to have responded more readily than the disciples? The parable
section, on the other hand, gives the disciples and readers to understand
that the full realization (4.30-32) can be expected only after numerous
failures (4.2-8, 14-20) and after considerable time (4.26-29). For the
characters in 9.1 that full realization lies as yet in the future. Besides,
the noun 'power' (5t>vaîq) of 9.1 and the noun 'glory' (86£a) of 8.38,
as well as the verb 'see' (albeit with another verb in Greek, namely
6\|/o|iai), will recur in the saying of 13.26 where Jesus speaks about the
coming of the Son of Man. It is, therefore, obvious to think of this com-
ing in 9.1, as well.
16. Indicated by chapter no. 25 in the inner margin of Nestle (26th edn) at 9.2.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 293
That definitely adds an element of suspense to the verse. When the

first readers heard or read the Gospel of Mark, some 30 years of the in-
terim period of 9.1 had passed. Since people had a life expectancy of
only 25 years,17 there were probably few survivors. The death of Peter
in Rome can only have heightened the intensity of that suspense.
Actually, when the reader comes to 9.2-8, he or she will have to con-
clude that the meaning assigned to 9.1 on account of its link with the
preceding sayings is not so plausible after all. That will necessitate
reconsidering what the narrator may have had in mind when he wrote
9.1.
For a Moment Clothed with Glory (9.2-8)

2
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led
them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured
before them, 3and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on
earth could bleach them. 4And there appeared to them Elijah with
Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5Then Peter said to Jesus, 'Rabbi, it
is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one
for Moses, and one for Elijah.' 6He did not know what to say, for they
were terrified. 7Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud
there came a voice, This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!'
8
Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any
more, but only Jesus.
Linked as it is to 9.1 by means of the phrase 'after six days', this is a

puzzling episode. As people who are in good health count their age not
in days but in years,18 and the preceding verse suggests that a number
of those present will have died before the survivors see the kingdom of
God come with power, the reader does not expect at all that six days
later people will already see something that the narrator somehow
identifies with it.
It is clear, however, that the above interpretation of v. 9.1, which
identified the full realization of God's kingdom with the coming of the
Son of Man in judgment, is untenable. Or perhaps it is better to say that
9.1 admits of more than one interpretation, depending on whether the
words are read as a sequel to 8.38 or as a preliminary to 9.2-8.
17. Thus J. Pohier, Dieu Fractures (Paris: Du Seuil, 1985), p. 143.

18. See, for instance, Gen. 5.5, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23; 9.29; 25.7; 50.26; Deut. 34.7;
Josh. 24.29.
9,2a. A time reference denoting an interval of a certain number of days

is unique in this part of the book, as opposed to the last. Naturally, the
phrase 'after six days' has given rise to numerous speculations about its
origin and meaning. The reader understands 'after six days', first of all,
as a simple indication of time, but on further consideration also as a
reference to Exodus 24, from which the episode seems to have bor-
rowed the following elements: Moses, who with three named intimates,
ascends the mountain where they see Yhwh; the glory of God, which
covers the mountain in the form of a cloud for six days; the voice of
God, which on the seventh day addresses Moses out of the cloud.19 The
three disciples are Peter, James and John, the same three that Jesus
allowed to enter the house of Jairus with him (5.37). They are the privi-
leged witnesses of an extraordinary event, as is suggested at the begin-
ning and stated explicitly at the end (9.9). Rather than try to find the
high mountain in Palestine or on a map it should be looked for in
Exodus 24. Mountains are not only inaccessible and desolate; they also
evoke the almost palpable presence of the divine, no doubt because
mountain tops reach up to heaven.
9.2 b-3. From the start, the story differs from Exodus 24. Instead of
showing himself as in Exod. 24.10-11, God makes visible who Jesus is
by giving him, for a moment, the appearance of a figure that belongs to
heaven. God is not mentioned, but the passive 'he was transfigured'
(|aexE|iop(t)c60r|) is a divine passive (so called because it denotes a di-
vine action), as appears from the way in which the voice from the cloud
will later refer to Jesus as 'my son'. Jesus' garments become intensely
white, whiter than the robes of the heavenly messenger who appears on
the last page of the book (16.5), and whiter than anyone could ever
bleach them.20 The white of Jesus' clothes reflects that of the clothes
and hair of the aged figure who sits on the heavenly throne in the vision
of Dan. 7.9. Jesus' clothes thus show the true character of Jesus, which
so far has been hidden from the disciples. For a moment, the three dis-
ciples see the Son of Man clothed with God's glory.
19. M. Ohler, 'Die Verklarung (Mk 8:1-8): Die Ankunft der Gottesherrschaft
auf der Erde', NovT 38 (1996), pp. 197-217 (203-204), questions the connection
with Exod. 24, but gives no explanation for the striking similarities between the
two passages.
20. See W.D. Michaelis, 'tevicoq', TWNT, IV, pp. 252-56.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 295
9.4. Besides Jesus himself, the three glimpse two other figures, who are
talking to Jesus. The narrator—and, as is clear from v. 5, Peter as
well—identifies them as Elijah and Moses. That the narrator mentions
the two men in an order contrary to both the chronology of their
appearance and the significance generally accorded them21 is remark-
able, the more so since Peter in v. 5 names them in the more natural
order. The appearance of Elijah in this heavenly context does not en-
tirely come as a surprise to readers who know from the Old Testament
that Elijah did not die but was taken up to heaven before the eyes of
Elisha (2 Kgs 2.1-18).22 Of Moses, on the other hand, the Old Tes-
tament says explicitly in Deut. 34.5 that he died and was buried.
However, the information in v. 6 that the place of his grave is unknown
is thought to have led to speculation, especially among Hellenistic
Jews, that Moses was taken up to heaven, whether or not with body and
soul.23 Since Elijah and Moses appear in this unusual order, the reader
thinks of them as important ancestors who now belong to the divine
and heavenly sphere, rather than as representatives of the Law and
Prophets. The first readers possibly also connected them with a tradition
related to martyred prophets. Traces of that tradition are also present in
Rev. 11.5-12. The passage concerned is a strange story about two
witnesses who are killed and, after God has breathed life into them,
ascend to heaven in a cloud at the order of a heavenly voice. They are
described in terms of Elijah and Moses, and in that order, just as here.
If the reader also remembers that white clothes are the uniform of the
martyr in that book (Rev. 6.11; 7.4-17), he or she imagines that Jesus,
Elijah and Moses are talking about the destiny of Jesus, who will die a
martyr's death like other prophets before him.
In retrospect, the reader wonders about the identity of 'the holy
angels' in 8.38. Reading the Greek word dyyeôi not as angels but as
messengers—the word has both meanings—the reader suspects that
Elijah and Moses are cast here as messengers sent to Jesus by God, and
have been announced as such in 8.38. Admittedly, this role is inconsis-
tent with the fact that, while messengers regularly play a part in both
21. The allusions to Elijah and Moses in Rev. 11.5-6 follow the same order.
22. The only other figure said to have been taken up to heaven is Enoch: Gen.
5.24 and Sir. 44.16.
23. See G. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu (SANT, 26; Munich: Kosel, 1971),
pp. 61-69.
the stories about Moses and those about Elijah,24 neither Elijah nor
Moses are ever called messengers themselves. In Mk 1.2, on the other
hand, the forerunner of Jesus—John-Elijah—is called dyyeôq in the
quotation from Mai. 3.1.
As to the topic of the conversation, the reader is left in the dark, so
that his or her assumption that the three are talking about Jesus' mar-
tyrdom is neither affirmed nor denied. As regards the disciples, the
reader has the impression that they do not even hear the voices of the
three, let alone understand what they are talking about. Until now they
seem to have observed things only with their eyes.
9.5-6, Only two voices make themselves heard in direct speech. The
first is the voice of Peter. He makes a proposal to Jesus that the narrator
is quick to dismiss, suggesting that something inspired by fear cannot
be a good idea. It is clear, then, that Peter's proposal must be regarded
as inappropriate but the reader does not know why. The three tents are
probably meant to serve as dwellings for Jesus and his mysterious
companions. In that case, the plan presumes the stay on the mountain
top to be a protracted one, like Moses' seven days on the mountain in
Exod. 24.16 or his forty days and nights in 24.18. Thus, through Peter's
proposal and his own reaction to it, the narrator emphasizes that the veil
covering the secret of Jesus' identity is lifted only for a moment. Or in
other words: Jesus will first have to complete his way before he can ap-
pear as Son of Man.
9.7. The second voice comes out of a cloud that overshadows those
present. Though it is not said in so many words, it seems as though the
cloud removes the three figures from sight, so that the disciples no
longer see, but hear. As a voice made itself heard from heaven in 1.11,
so here a voice makes itself heard from a cloud. The two utterances are
very much alike. The first part differs from that of 1.11 in one respect
only. Here, the third person is used instead of the second because it is
addressed to the three bewildered disciples.25 They now hear what
24. See, for example, for Elijah: 2 Kgs 1.1-17; 5.10; 6.32-33; 9.18; 10.8. 1 Kgs
13.18 rather contrasts a prophet with a messenger sent by God to reveal something
to him. Also in Exod. 3.2 Moses is not a messenger of God but sees a messenger of
God.
25. That is the reason why I cannot agree with Tannehill ('Narrative Christolo-
g y \ pp. 74-75) who sees a commission in the words of the voice from the cloud.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 297
readers of the story have known since they witnessed the first declara-
tion immediately after Jesus' baptism. The second part has the same
number of syllables—and perhaps also the same rhythm—as that of the
declaration in 1.11 (ev aoi £\)56iaioa as against otKovexe amov), but is
different in content. The voice tells the disciples to listen to Jesus.26 It is
true that Jesus himself has done so many a time,27 but an urgent plea
coming from God himself naturally has special authority. Moreover,
the divine warning comes at a moment when the relationship between
Jesus and the twelve has reached a critical point. After the disciples
have repeatedly failed to understand Jesus, their spokesman Peter has
just defied Jesus on his teaching that the mission of the Son of Man in-
volves his suffering and death (8.31-32).
9.8. When the voice has died away, the cloud has dissolved too. The
disciples can freely look around again. Along with the cloud, Elijah and
Moses have also vanished from sight. The reader presumes that they
have returned to the heavenly world to which they belong. On the
mountain top the disciples see no one but Jesus, dressed in his everyday
clothes.
The three disciples have become initiates because, like the demons,
they are aware of Jesus' hidden identity. The reader expects that their
extraordinary experience and special knowledge will affect the other
disciples and have a positive influence, at least on their own behaviour
in the rest of the story.
Lips Sealed until the Resurrection (9.9-13)

9
As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no
one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from
the dead. 10So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this
rising from the dead could mean. n Then they asked him, 'Why do the
scribes say that Elijah must come first?' 12He said to them, 'Elijah is in-
deed coming first to restore all things. How then is it written about the
Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with
contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him
whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.'
26. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 206) detects a note of irony in the summons
to listen, because from the beginning the episode is about visual perceptions. After
8.31, 33, 34-37, however, irony seems to be the last thing that can be said of this
summons.
27. 4.3, 9, 23, 24; 7.14, 16; 8.18.
9.9-10. The reader's expectation that the experience of the three may
also be beneficial to the other disciples is frustrated by Jesus himself,
who charges them to tell no one. After the injunctions to silence im-
posed upon the demons (1.25, 34; 3.12) and some of the sick and
handicapped (1.44; 7.36; 8.26), this is the third time that the disciples
are forbidden to speak (5.43; 8.30). The injunction is different from all
others in that a definite time limit is set to it. The chosen three are not
allowed to reveal what they have witnessed28 until Jesus has risen from
the dead. The narrator and his Christian readers, including those of the
first generation, know of course the meaning of the phrase 'rising from
the dead', but putting himself in the position of his characters, the nar-
rator realizes that before Jesus' resurrection has taken place one can
hardly imagine what those words mean.29 At the time of the story,
belief in the resurrection is so common among Jewish people that those
who deny it have to be explicitly mentioned (12.18). This belief, how-
ever, concerns the resurrection of all the dead or of the righteous at the
end of time. It is true that the raising of an individual dead person is
told both in the Elijah (1 Kgs 17.17-24) and in the Elisha cycle (2 Kgs
4.18-37; cf. the posthumous incident in 13.20-21), but these stories
focus attention on the prophet who performs the miracle (cf. Sir. 48.4-
5, 13-14) rather than on the one who returns from death to life. 'Rising
from the dead', in contrast to 'raising of the dead', is an unknown con-
cept. That may be the reason why the three disciples wonder what the
expression means. Curiously enough, when there was mention of Jesus'
resurrection before (8.31), the disciples did not ask themselves any
questions about it. Is the wording of 8.31—without the phrase 'from the
dead' (EK veKpcav)—less intriguing? Or does the narrator suppose that
they were so bewildered by Jesus' prediction of his violent death that
they barely heard what Jesus said next?
9.11. The informed reader is surprised that the disciples attribute the
pronouncement about Elijah to the scribes. It is, in fact, from the
28. The Greek el8ov refers to more than a visual experience also in other
places: 10.14; 12.25,28,34.
29. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 207) observes that particularly these three
disciples ought to know what rising from the dead means since they have witnessed
the resuscitation of Jairus's daughter. That is, however, less evident than it may ap-
pear because Jesus had said in their presence that the girl was not dead but sleeping
(5.38-39).
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 299
Scriptures, and occurs in Mai. 4.5, though not in exactly the same
words. Does the author/narrator not know? Or does he intentionally
represent the disciples as ignorant people? That would fit in with his
unfavourable portrayal of them. Actually, the relation to Mai. 4.5
solves another question for the reader. If Elijah must come first, what is
to follow next according to the scenario? The quoted scribes cannot
have said or intended that the coming of Elijah will precede Jesus' res-
urrection, and neither is there anything in Malachi to suggest it. The
book does say, however, that Elijah's coming takes place before the
terrible 'day of Yhwh', that is, the day of judgment, which is also the
subject of Mk 13.24-32. That raises several questions. On the face of it,
the mention of that day here seems quite unexpected, but if the reader
looks further back in the story, it is not. For that same judgment was
also at issue at the end of the series of sayings preceding the apparition
on the mountain (8.38-9.1). Consequently, that event is framed by
sayings referring to the last day. The second question is how the com-
ing of Elijah—which for the disciples in v. 11 seems like an event in
the future—relates to the appearance of John the baptist, whom the
readers—in contrast to the disciples, they begin to suspect—know to be
none other than Elijah returned.
9.12-13. Jesus' answer to the three disciples deals with the second ques-
tion. He affirms that Elijah comes first, and also explains why; namely,
to restore all things. The verb 'restore' (ct7COKa0icrcr}|ii) also occurs in
the Greek version of Mai. 4.5 and Sir. 48.10. In Malachi it refers to the
bridging of the generation gap between ('orthodox'?) fathers and ('lib-
eral'?) sons;30 in Sirach to the reunion of the twelve 'tribes of Jacob' in
a free and independent country (compare the prayer in Mai. 3.1-19). It
is not immediately clear what is meant by the phrase 'to restore all
things'. Perhaps it is connected with the memorable sentence in 1.5,
saying that all Judaea and all the people of Jerusalem go to John to be
baptized by him and start a new life. Meanwhile, the reader knows only
too well that not all those from Jerusalem have really changed their
lives, and that precisely the scribes mentioned in v. 11 have turned
against Jesus (3.22; 7.1), and will, in collaboration with the Temple
authorities, finally kill him (8.31). In view of the close connection
between these data, it is not surprising that Jesus should mention the
30. In this connection one could think of youngsters attracted to all kinds of
things that were common practice in Hellenism but inconsistent with the Torah.
end of his life again by referring to the Scriptures. The question as to

whether or not the disciples are able to cite places in the Scriptures pre-
dicting the suffering and rejection of the Son of Man is left unan-
swered. However, a reader familiar with the Old Testament thinks of
passages such as Isa. 52.13-53.12; Psalms 22 and 69, and Wis. 2.10-20,
particularly when he or she remembers from earlier readings of Mark
that citations and allusions referring to them occur in ch. 15.31
In the second part of his answer, Jesus tells the disciples—albeit in
guarded terms—what the reader has known from the beginning of the
book: in the figure of John the baptist, Elijah has returned as the one
who prepares the way for Jesus. Whether the three disciples understood
the meaning of this remains unclear. The vague communication that
'they did to him [Elijah] whatever they pleased' cannot have helped
them further, even if they knew of John's death (8.27-28), and the same
is true of Jesus' appeal to the Scriptures. The reader is aware of the
close similarity between the history of the baptist at the court of Herod
and Herodias and that of Elijah at the court of Ahab and Jezebel,
because either prophet is in danger of losing his life through the
plotting of the queen; but whereas Jezebel had failed in the case of
Elijah in the days of Ahab, Herodias succeeded in the case of Elijah
returned in the time of Herod. Thus, the reader sees fulfilled in John the
baptist what Jezebel had told Elijah she would do to him: 'So may the
gods do to me, and more also, if I do not make your life like the life of
one of the [killed] prophets by this time tomorrow' (1 Kgs 19.2). For
the reader the fulfilment of this scriptural word is a strong indication
that the word about the suffering which the Son of Man will have to
endure at the hands of his fellow men will likewise come true.
As a result, the word 'first' of v. 12 receives a double meaning. In the
traditional scenario it refers to the sequence: return of Elijah—the day
of Yhwh. In the case of John, Elijah returned, this sequence remains
intact. At the same time, the old scenario is extended to include the
31. Fowler (Reader, p. 112) suggests that the words 'How then is it written
about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with
contempt?—as it is written about him' may be a comment by the narrator, compa-
rable to that in 1.2-3. This suggestion deserves serious consideration. That the
words in between would not be part of the narrator's comment weakens Fowler's
position, in my opinion. Apart from this, there is the question of whether it makes
as much difference to the general reader as to the critic when the words quoted
above belong not to the story but to the discourse.
11. Going his Own Way (8,22-10.52) 301
events which, according to Mark, are the fulfilment of the Scriptures:

the return of Elijah in John the baptist; the ministry of Jesus; the
beheading of John; the execution of the Son of Man; the resurrection of
the Son of Man on the third day; the day of Yhwh and the coming of
the Son of Man in the glory of his Father.
Thus far we have hardly encountered a passage in the book in which
the tension between the role played by the disciples and that of the
reader is so clearly felt. It is also clear from the passage what the narra-
tor is really interested in. Actually, he is more concerned with his
hearers and readers than with his characters. In other words, the effect
of the story on his audience is more important to him than the question
of what the disciples understand of Jesus' words. The communication
between Jesus and his disciples is put completely at the service of the
communication between the author/narrator and his hearers or readers.
This is also the reason why things said by Jesus to the disciples in the
story readily interfere with what the narrator himself directly or indi-
rectly—through the way the story is told and through explanatory notes
added to it—communicates to the audience.
A Demon Resists the Disciples (9.14-29)

14
When they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd around them,
and some scribes arguing with them. 15When the whole crowd saw him,
they were immediately overcome with awe, and they ran forward to
greet him. 16He asked them, 'What are you arguing about with them?'
17
Someone from the crowd answered him, Teacher, I brought you my
son; he has a spirit that makes him unable to speak; 18and whenever it
seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and
becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they could
not do so.' 19He answered them, 'You faithless generation, how much
longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you?
Bring him to me.' 20 And they brought the boy to him. When the spirit
saw him, immediately it threw the boy into convulsions, and he fell on
the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 Jesus asked the
father, 'How long has this been happening to him?' And he said, 'From
childhood. 22 It has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to
destroy him; but if you are able to do anything, have pity on us and help
us.' 23Jesus said to him, 'If you are able!—All things can be done for the
one who believes.' 24Immediately the father of the child cried out, 'I
believe; help my unbelief!' 25 When Jesus saw that a crowd came
running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'You spirit
that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come
out of him, and never enter him again!' 26After crying out and con-
vulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that
most of them said, 'He is dead.' 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and
lifted him up, and he was able to stand. 28 When he had entered the
house, his disciples asked him privately, 'Why could we not cast it out?'
29
He said to them, 'This kind can come out only through prayer.'
9.14-16. While the three have had an exceptional and illuminating

experience on the mountain, the other disciples have suffered a grave
disappointment in the plain below. The situation there is somewhat
confused, which is reflected in the way the story is told. Jesus is not
mentioned before v. 23, and the story is full of pronouns (in Greek
partly verb forms, for example in v. 26), without it being immediately
clear to whom they refer. A case in point are the pronouns in v. 19. On
their return to the plain, Jesus and the three find the disciples involved
in a discussion with some scribes in the midst of a large crowd. With
the arrival of Jesus the situation changes completely. He instantly
becomes the centre of the event, for there can be no doubt that the
pronoun in v. 15 refers to him. Jesus asks what the disciples and the
scribes are arguing about. The reader presumes that Jesus puts the
question to the disciples, but whether the second person plural refers to
them or to the scribes remains unclear, also because the verb 'argue
about' (cru£r|T£iv) is used of both parties in the rest of the book (8.11;
9.10, 14; 12.28).
9.17-18. An unexpected change occurs when Jesus' question is not an-

swered by one of the disciples or scribes to whom it is addressed, but
by a man from the crowd. It is the father of a boy who is unable to
speak—later, Jesus will say that he is dumb and deaf (26)—and for
whom the father tries to find comfort. The man does not, and perhaps
cannot, answer Jesus' original question, so the reader is left wondering
about the subject of the discussion between the disciples and the
scribes. It appears the father had first looked for Jesus but had turned to
the disciples when he could not find him, perhaps because he knew of
their exorcistic activity (6.7, 13). The fact that the boy, besides being a
deaf-mute, also suffers from epileptic fits is enough reason to think of a
demon who, at regular intervals, has complete power over him. At any
rate, the disciples have been unable to help the boy. Was the demon too
strong for them? Or was their exorcistic power not great enough?
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 303
9.79. Jesus responds with a severe verdict. The literal translation of it is

'O generation without trust'. The words are very similar to those used
by Jesus both in his judgment on the Pharisees in 8.12 and his denun-
ciation of the adversaries in 8.38. The present verdict, however, can
hardly be directed against the scribes, who after Jesus' arrival on the
scene are not mentioned again in this episode; nor to the crowd that has
given Jesus such a hearty welcome. In view of v. 24, the father could
certainly be regarded as one of those who are 'without trust', but it is at
least remarkable that, in all other cases in which the narrator or Jesus
himself stresses the power of trust, there is never a demoniac in-
volved.32 Besides, there is the plural 'them' (amoic;) in the introductory
clause, so it would seem that the words 'generation without trust' refer
either to the disciples, who failed to free the boy from the evil spirit, or
to all those who happened to be present at the foot of the mountain, in-
cluding the disciples. That the disciples should fall under the verdict,
anyway, is in accordance with Jesus' characterization of them in 4.40
and 8.17-20. The two rhetorical questions express Jesus' frustration.
They make clear to the reader that Jesus' mission is far from finished.
9.20-24. When he is brought to Jesus, the boy instantly has a fit. After
the father has told Jesus that his son has had these dangerous fits from
childhood, he implores Jesus to cure his son, but not without making
the reservation that Jesus may not be able to do so. That is the point of
the story. Jesus responds—and the reader can hear a note of sarcasm in
his voice—by repeating the words, 'If you are able!' Contrary to the
reader's expectation, however, the indignation does not concern the
implication that Jesus is perhaps unable to give the requested help, but
the fact that they do not understand that the one who believes can do
anything.33 This is in keeping with what Jesus has said to the disciples
and all those present in v. 19. In retrospect, it was lack of trust, and not
demonic resistance, that caused the disciples' failure to cast out the evil
spirit.
Trust in what or in whom? The text does not say. In the represen-
tation of the narrator, the father had at least enough faith to turn to
Jesus for help, but it is possible that he did not have enough faith in the
32. 2.5; 4.40; 5.34; 10.52; 11.22; cf. 6.4-6.

33. Marshall (Faith, pp. 118-20) rightly draws attention to the very general
meaning of this saying and it being applicable, albeit in different ways, to Jesus, the
father, and the disciples.
disciples when he found that Jesus was absent. The disciples may also
have had too little faith in the authority they had received from Jesus in
6.7 and exercised successfully in 6.13, or in their own competence and
power.34 The response of the father, who expresses his trust in Jesus, is
one of the most paradoxical but also one of the most moving sentences
in the book.
9.25-27. Jesus hurries to perform the cure, probably because he wishes

to avoid the crowd (as in 3.9; 4.2; 6.31). He heals the boy, not by thera-
peutic treatment, but by freeing him from the evil spirit. Neither does
Jesus look up to heaven, as in the cure of the deaf-mute in 7.33-34.
This exorcism, which is the last in the book, is carried out in almost the
same way as the first in the synagogue at Capernaum in 1.23-27, except
that it is not preceded by a verbal dispute, as are the exorcisms at
Capernaum in 1.23 and Gerasa in 5.5-12. That may be connected with
the fact that the demon-possessed boy is dumb, but the reader realizes
that, as he is deaf as well, the spirit would also have been unable to
hear, let alone understand, the expulsion formula.
The ending has close affinities with the healing of Jairus's daughter.
In both cases the victim remains so motionless that people think that
the child is dead (5.35 and 9.26), until Jesus takes the child by the hand
(5.41 and 9.27) and lifts her or him up (5.42 and 9.27). Two of the three
clauses that make up the last sentence of the story are found almost lit-
erally in 5.41, and the third in 5.42. The narrator does not tell the reader
whether or not the boy could speak and hear again.
9.28-29. The reason is simple: the narrator is interested not so much in

the boy or the demon or even the boy's father, as in the disciples who
could not cast out the demon. For the reader, the question of the disci-
ples is superfluous because the answer has already been given in the
words of Jesus in vv. 19 and 23: the disciples have no trust at all or
only—like the father—conditional trust, thus resembling the inhabi-
tants of Jesus' home town (6.6). Nonetheless, Jesus' answer is surpris-
ing. First, because of the wordplay contained in the Greek O\)5EVI,
which means 'by no one' as well as 'with nothing'. To bring out the
double meaning, v. 29 should be translated as follows: 'This kind can-
not be driven out by anything or anyone but prayer'. The first element
refers to the activity mentioned at the end, 'prayer', the second to
34. See 11.23.

11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 305
persons attempting an exorcism, and the two of them together to a fault

of the disciples. It is not clear whether 'this kind' refers to demons as a
specific category of beings, or to a specific category of demons, such as
very powerful ones who require a special approach. In any case, which-
ever category is meant, 'this kind' cannot be exorcised without prayer.
Looking back on the scene of the exorcism, the reader is surprised
that Jesus does not apply the requested means in the story. This is all
the more remarkable because Jesus' looking up to heaven in the scene
of the deaf-mute in 7.31-37 is a gesture that seems to imply a prayer.
The answer of v. 29, then, does not really seem to fit in well with the
preceding episode.
All in all, after the exceptional experience of the three on the moun-
tain and the successful exorcisms by the disciples mentioned in 6.13,
this substory is a bit of an anticlimax. Could it mean that Peter has not
really taken Jesus' words of 8.33 to heart and that his companions are
also still setting their minds on human rather than divine things?
The First Must Be Last (9.30-37)

30
They went on from there and passed through Galilee. He did not want
anyone to know it; 31for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them,
'The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill
him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.' 32 But they did
not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him.
33
Then they came to Capernaum; and when he was in the house he asked
them, 'What were you arguing about on the way?' 34 But they were
silent, for on the way they had argued with one another who was the
greatest. 35 He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, 'Whoever
wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.' 36 Then he took a
little child and put it among them; and taking it in his arms, he said to
them, 37 'Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me,
and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.'
9.30. As now becomes clear, the preceding part of the story has taken
place outside Galilee. As Jesus is now travelling through Galilee, there
is every chance that the crowds will flock to him again, with the result
that he will not have time to devote himself to the preparation of the
disciples. Attempts to avoid the crowds have so far failed,35 so the
reader wonders if Jesus will succeed this time.
35. 1.45; 2.2; 3.9-10; 4.1, 21; 6.31, 54-56.

9.31-32. The teaching of Jesus concerns his execution and resurrection.

As to the choice of words it is different from the prediction in 8.31, but
as to content it is practically the same, although there is no mention of
the suffering, the necessity of it, and the Temple authorities. The reac-
tion of the disciples is as inappropriate as that of Peter in 8.32. Just as
any other teacher, Jesus wants to be understood, but instead of asking
Jesus what he meant the disciples remain silent. The text does not say
why they are afraid to ask. It is also unclear what they do not under-
stand. There are two possibilities: either they do not understand the
saying at all, or, as in 9.10, they do not understand the part concerning
the resurrection. To Christian readers, whether of ancient Rome or of
today, that makes no difference. They know full well what Jesus is
talking about, and simply cannot imagine—even if they have doubts
about the resurrection—that Jesus' words are hard to understand. Non-
Christian readers will have no difficulty understanding the first part of
the saying, and so all readers are conscious of the tension caused by the
fact that they understand quite well what remains incomprehensible to
the disciples, but do not understand what and why the relatively simple
language remains incomprehensible to them.
9.33-34. While Jesus is well known at Capernaum, it is hardly the place

for him to find the privacy he seeks for himself and the disciples, but
'the house'—probably the same as the one mentioned earlier (1.29; 2.1;
3.19)—offers a solution. Everything that follows seems to take place
there until Jesus leaves Galilee again in 10.1. While the disciples were
afraid to ask Jesus a question just now, Jesus attempts to continue his
teaching by putting a question to them. The question seems artless
enough and merely designed to open the conversation, but it is soon
clear that Jesus knows what they have been talking about. Perhaps he
has overheard their conversation or just knows, as he has been aware of
peoples' thoughts or seen through a situation before.36 He clearly in-
tends to use their answer to lecture them, but the disciples remain
silent.
Only then does the narrator inform the readers that the disciples have
been discussing the question of who is the greatest. The formulation is
so vague and general that the reader, putting himself or herself in the
position of the disciples, can think of a number of possible answers, for
example, Moses, Elijah, the Messiah or Jesus himself. As appears from
36. 2.8; 3.1-4; 5.30, 39; 9.1.

11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 307
Jesus' reaction, however, the question was not open at all, but specifi-
cally concerned one of the twelve. It has the same drift as the request
that the reader will find later in 10.35, but to the names of James and
John mentioned there we should at least add the name of Peter, who not
only belongs to the inner circle of the twelve37 but sometimes also acts
as spokesman for the whole group.38 All this, however, is left unsaid in
the story. In contrast to the first prediction in 8.31 and the third in
10.32-34, the second prediction here in 9.31 is not followed by any
name. And that is exactly what sets the reader thinking.
9.35. That Jesus then calls the twelve confirms that the following say-
ings—which, when taken on their own, apply to everyone—concern the
relations within the circle of the twelve. Jesus' response to their silence
leaves no doubt that he has put his finger on a sore spot. The saying is
remarkably similar in form to the sayings in 8.34-35. In both passages
the sequence is the same: first one saying beginning with 'if anyone
wants' (ei xiq OeXei, 8.34 and 9.35), and then a number of sayings be-
ginning with 'whoever' (6<; [e]dv, 8.35-38; 9.37-42). The two passages
are, moreover, full of paradoxes. There are two in 9.35, of which the
first is complete—first versus last—and the second consists only of one
term, 'servant', which automatically evokes the contrary term 'master'
or 'lord'. Jesus' saying is not a direct answer to the question that the
disciples have been discussing among themselves, but it does under-
mine the assumption on which it rests. No one is superior on account of
rank or position. The only appropriate conduct on the way of Jesus is to
serve others.
9.36-37. The contrary relations first-last, master-servant, evoke a

whole paradigm of binary oppositions centred on the basic antithesis
superior-inferior, of which two are expressed here: adult-child, ruler-
messenger. The first is made visible in a metaphorical action, which
consists of Jesus putting a child in the midst of a group of adults. By
embracing the child Jesus cancels the opposition, with the result that
the child, precisely as a child, is received into the company of grown-
ups and can feel comfortable and happy among them. If the child
belongs to the family—as seems obvious—Jesus' saying involves the
reverse of what seems to be the case here, namely, that not the child but
37. 1.16-20, 29; 5.37; 9.2.

38. 8.29, 32; 9.5
Jesus himself is received as a guest at the house where he had been a

guest before.39
Furthermore, a real play of equivalences and oppositions is at work
here, as a result of which the reader is invited to assign several mean-
ings at once to the metaphorical event and the saying. First, there is an
equivalence between the offering of hospitality and the reception and
embracing of the child, who as a result feels at home in the company of
the adults who are staying at the house as guests. Consequently there is
also an equivalence between the child and the person of Jesus, who was
only recently proclaimed Son of God (9.7), while on the other hand
there is a marked opposition between the mature man and the young
child. Receiving one such child in Jesus' name is at the same time one
of the services required of a follower of Jesus;40 but there is also a kind
of equivalence between Jesus as God's messenger and the one sending
him, because the one who is sent (Hebrew, Sdliah) is always and
everywhere the legitimate representative of the one who sends him.41
That means, for Jesus' hosts in our episode, that by extending hospi-
tality to Jesus they have God in their midst.
Thus, the story establishes a host of connections regarding the posi-
tion of Jesus. On the way, Jesus walks in front as the teacher and guide
of the little procession. When he falls into the hands of men, he will be-
come, last of all, the victim of murderers, a fate he will bear willingly
and without resentment, like the servant of God in Isa. 52.13-53.12 and
the righteous one in Wis. 2.12-20. In the house, Jesus puts the child in
front of the disciples and embraces it. At the same time, there is equiva-
lence between Jesus and the child. At the end of the episode Jesus is
presented as inferior to the one who defies every equivalence: God,
who has sent him to bring the news that God's kingdom is imminent,
but for anyone who welcomes and receives Jesus, some such equiva-
lence nevertheless exists.
Followers in Trouble (9.38-50)

38
John said to him, Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in
your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us/
39
But Jesus said, 'Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power
39. 1.29; 2.1; 3.19.

40. Mt. 25.40 and the negative counterpart in v. 45.
41. See K.H. Rengstorf, 'drcoaxotax;', TWNT, I, pp. 414-46 (414-20).
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 309
in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever

is not against us is for us.
41
Tor truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because
you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.
42
'If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones
who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were
hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.
43
'If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to
enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the un-
quenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is
better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown
into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better
for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes
and to be thrown into hell, 48 where their worm never dies, and the fire is
never quenched.
49
'For everyone will be salted with fire. 50Salt is good; but if salt has lost
its saltiness, how can you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at
peace with one another.'
9.38-50. This episode seems incomplete but I have omitted vv. 44 and
46 (merely repetitions of v. 48) because they are lacking in the best
manuscripts. The episode gives a rather disjointed impression, yet
it possesses more coherence—certainly in Greek—than may at first ap-
pear. The different sayings are linked to one another by identical or
equivalent catchwords and phrases, as well as by similarly-sound-
ing opening words. The catchwords and phrases are represented in
Figure 23.
37 one such child- in my name...

38 in your name...
39 in my name...
41 in the name of Christ
42 cause to fall one of these little ones it is better.. .thrown
43 cause to fall Gehenna/fire it is better...thrown
45 cause to fall it is better...thrown
47 cause to fall Gehenna it is better...thrown
48 fire
49 fire salted
50 salt salted
Figure 23
In Figure 24 the opening words are given in Greek because the sound-
associations (especially yap 6<;...Kai 6q...6<; Ydp...7ia<; yap) are lost
in translation.
37 dv
KOtl be, dv
39 oi)8e\<;Yap...6<;
40 6 ; yap
41 oqydp dv
42 Kai dv ... KaXov eaxiv
43 KOI edv ... KaXov eaxiv
45 Kai edv ... KaXov eaxiv
47 Kai edv ... KaXov eaxiv

49 na<; yap
50 KaXov
... edv
Figure 24
Despite the unifying character of these elements, the impression

remains that the sayings do not really fit together. That would seem to
indicate that the author has inserted an existing series of sayings in his
book without properly adjusting them.
9.38-39. Since no other disciple but Peter has so far been presented as a
speaking character, it strikes the reader that John acts as spokesman
here. What he says stresses the exclusive character of the circle of the
twelve. He mentions an event that the reader has not come across in the
story before. The reported incident must have taken place at a moment
when Jesus and the twelve were not in each other's company. The sepa-
ration between the disciples and Jesus when he and the three were on
the high mountain (9.2-13), must be eliminated because John belonged
to the three (9.2). The only occasion that remains is the time when the
disciples were away on their mission to cast out demons by the power
Jesus had given them (6.7-30). For the audience who have just heard
the father tell Jesus about the disciples' failure to free his son from an
evil spirit (9.18), John's complaint creates an ironic contrast. The suc-
cessful exorcism by one thought incompetent by the disciples puts their
own failure in an unfavourable light.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 311
The way in which John qualifies the man as an outsider, namely, not
as someone 'who does not follow Jesus9 but as someone 'who does not
follow us' is unexpected although after John's introductory remark, un-
derstandable. Taken on its own the 'us' in John's description can mean
either the twelve alone or a group including the twelve and Jesus, but
on all other occasions when the disciples talk to Jesus, the pronoun
refers only to the disciples and, moreover, places them over against
Jesus.42 When Jesus speaks of 'us'—as in v. 40—it obviously refers to
Jesus himself and the disciples.43 That difference says something about
the difference in 'us'-feeling between Jesus and the twelve.
Jesus' reply comes as a surprise after the passage about the sending
out of the twelve in 6.7-13. Although there was nothing in that passage
to suggest that the authority over the unclean spirits was given exclu-
sively to the disciples, the reader nevertheless had the impression that
they needed an official mandate to be able to cast out demons. It is clear
from Jesus' reply, however, that an outsider who calls upon the name
of Jesus can also share in that power, provided that his appeal implies a
positive attitude towards Jesus. In this indirect way the story alerts the
readers to the fact that they, too, can play a part in fighting evil.
9.40. This generalizing saying is somewhat peculiar in this context.

Apart from two brief appearances in 9.14 and 10.2 and three references
to them as the future murderers of Jesus in 8.31, 9.31 and 10.33-34, the
opponents of Jesus and his followers rarely appear as characters in the
central part of the book. The function of this lapidary and proverb-like
utterance at this point is therefore unclear. It is not difficult to imagine
other moments in the story at which the saying would have a proper
function, for example, as a reaction to the crowds that come flocking
round Jesus whenever he appears. Its placement at this point is less
appropriate because neither the forgoing nor the following relate to the
opposition between the opponents and supporters of Jesus.
9.41. This saying is in several ways connected with the other sayings,
as appears from the list of similarities above, and therefore makes a less
isolated impression than the previous one. Furthermore, there is a con-
tent-related correspondence between this saying and the situation in the
house, where, thanks to the hospitality offered them, Jesus and the
42. See 9.5, 28; 10.28, 35, 37; 13.4.

43. See also 14.15.
twelve can be alone without being disturbed; and hospitality is much

more than a cup of water, which you can give to someone at the door.
The carelessness with which the narrator has Jesus refer to himself as
'Christ' is at odds with what both the twelve and the readers have thus
far come across in the book. 'Christ', without the article, is a proper
name, which occurs neither in the narrative text nor in any of Jesus'
pronouncements.44 Unlike the twelve, the reader knows the term from
the title of the book, and the Roman reader will remember it from
Paul's letter to them.45 Apart from that, this saying would also make
more sense elsewhere, such as between 6.10 and 6.11.
9.42. With the verb aicavSaAi^co—which may have the meaning

'induce to apostatize'—the narrator introduces a new, and perhaps the
central, theme of the series of sayings. The following sayings have
great visual power, partly because of their hyperbolic and brutal charac-
ter. The precise meaning of the first saying remains obscure as long as
there is uncertainty about who is meant by 'one of these little ones'.
The copyists who, probably departing from Mt. 18.6, are responsible
for the version found in some manuscripts, 'one of these little ones who
believe in me', have removed this uncertainty: according to them, the
little ones are members of the Christian congregation. In case of the
version without 'who believe in me', the reader cannot but suppose that
after 9.36-37 'these' refers to the children who are present in the house
where the scene is set, and that for the disciples listening to Jesus,
'these little ones' refers to small children who, through inexperience
and age, still trust everyone. For the reader these innocent and trusting
children are, in addition, a metaphor for believers who are tempted to
renounce their faith. The thought behind the saying is that those
responsible for their apostasy will be most severely punished at the
judgment: the unquenchable fire from without and the ceaseless gnaw-
ing from within, of which especially v. 48 speaks. This punishment is
so unbearable that it would be better for them to be thrown into the sea
with a millstone round their neck, if that could prevent them from
44. Fowler {Reader, pp. 99-100) takes the words oxi Xpiaxoi) eaxe (because
you belong to Christ) as a parenthetical comment by the narrator, mainly because in
Mark Jesus never uses 6 Xpiatog to refer to himself. A counter-indication, how-
ever, is that \)|Liag and \>ulv then have another reference than eaxe.
45. Rom. 5.6, 8; 6.4, 8, 9; 8.9, 10, 17; 9.1; 10.4, 6, 7, 17; 12.5; 14.9, 15; 15.8,
18,20,29; 16.5,7,9,10.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 313
committing that offence. The hyperbole of the millstone that fits like a
collar round the neck intensifies the brutality of that kind of death. At
the same time, it indirectly stresses the seriousness of the offence and
the gruesome character of the punishment awaiting the offender. To
tempt someone to apostatize is obviously a very serious matter.
The reader should not overlook the fact that the millstone and the
drowning do not refer to a real event but are metaphors, employed by
Jesus to emphasize the severity of his warning against causing one of
these little ones to fall away from him. The warning is addressed to
both disciples and readers, and several equivalences and oppositions
play a part in it. There is equivalence between defenceless children and
simple believers who are in danger of falling prey to people who want
them to abandon their trust in Jesus. Further, there is equivalence and
opposition between the horrible drowning and the punishment awaiting
those who are guilty of that offence: to be thrown into the water and to
be thrown into the fire. There is also opposition between the insignifi-
cance of the child being tempted and the extreme punishment of the
tempter. Who the tempter might be is still unclear, as well as the con-
text in which the temptation is supposed to take place.
9.43-48. At first glance that also seems to be the case with the thrice
repeated exhortation that one should dispose of a hand, foot or eye
rather than sin with it, and as a result not be allowed to enter eternal life
but end up in Gehenna. It is an intriguing passage, whose representation
of bloody self-mutilation is no less grotesque and horrible than that of
the neck with a collar of stone in the previous saying. Should we see
this, too, as a representation of a non-real event? Against it, one can
object that the cutting off of fingers and toes or hands and feet, as well
as the putting out of eyes, are referred to and even narrated in stories of
the Old Testament.46 Eye, hand and foot, as well as tooth—which is not
mentioned here—occur, moreover, in the so-called lex talionis, the law
that lays down the rule that the punishment to be suffered must be equal
to the injury inflicted.47 Whether amputations as punishment were ever
actually applied is another question. There is no evidence of any cases
46. The cutting off of fingers and toes (Judg. 1.6-7), of extremities (2 Mace.
7.4), hands (2 Mace. 7.10); the putting out of one (1 Sam. 11.2) or both eyes (Judg.
16.21).
47. Exod. 21.24; Deut. 19.21; cf. Lev. 24.17-21. That the tooth is lacking in Mk
9.43-48 is not surprising.
of preventive self-mutilations on moral grounds about the beginning of

the Christian era.48 What was generally known at the time, however, is
the story of the torture of Eleazar in 2 Maccabees 6, and of the seven
brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees 7, who at the king's com-
mand had their extremities cut off before their execution. The reader
who has this story in mind will have no difficulty in placing the atro-
cious details of these sayings in some such context because Christians
run the risk of being tortured, too. The sayings assume that it is possible
to avoid being tortured by renouncing Jesus' name or by cursing Je-
sus.49 We can, therefore, say that martyrdom is the choice of a Christian
who under threat of death does not renounce Jesus. In an indirect sense,
a person cuts off his hands or feet and tears out his eye, even if the
mutilation is actually inflicted by the executioner.
In retrospect, I can now also assign a more concrete interpretation to
v. 42. The little ones, who still trust everyone, are an equivalent of the
believers who have fallen into the hands of the judge and executioner,
and the punishment which is worse than any violent death will be
inflicted on the judge and executioner who succeed in making the tor-
tured believer abjure Jesus.50
Depending on his or her choice, the believer enters into life or ends
up in the unquenchable fire of Gehenna. This is the Greek name for
Gehinnom, a valley to the south-west of Jerusalem, where at one time
children were sacrificed as burnt offerings51—an idolatrous practice
fiercely attacked by Jeremiah52—and which later became the city's
dumping ground, a place of ever-smouldering and stinking rubbish
heaps. The valley is a metaphor for the place of punishment of the
48. The case of Nachum from Gimzo (Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, pp.
779-80) is also not one of material self-mutilation.
49. Also 1 Cor. 12.3 must refer to this.
50. This interpretation, which I have proposed before in several places, has met
with approval as well as rejection. Derrett (The Making of Mark, p. 164) agrees, but
Gundry (Mark, p. 525) raises several objections. The interpretation that v. 42 refers
to the executioner can help to meet at least one of them. Derrett detects in the pas-
sage a real, though conditional, call to self-mutilation to prevent sexual transgres-
sions, an opinion held before him by Origen, who preferred castration to inadmis-
sible sexual conduct. In Mark there is no reference to a sexual connotation. This is
read into Mark from Mt. 5.27-30.
51. See 2 Kgs 16.3; 21.6; 2 Chron. 28.3; 33.6.
52. Jer. 7.31-33; 19.1-15; 32.35.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 315
wicked after death. Verse 48 sums up their perpetual torment with an

implicit quotation from the last sentence of the book of Isaiah (66.24).
9.49-50. The transition to v. 49 is effected through the catchword 'fire'.

It is difficult to construe a satisfactory reading of the first sentence as it
stands. Perhaps the metaphor of the sprinkling of salt offers a solu-
tion.53 In accordance with ancient imagery, to be salted would then re-
fer to the testing fire of the Last Day, which will descend on everyone
then living. This representation may be visually supported by the tradi-
tional image of the stars falling from heaven (Mk 13.2554). Then,
through association, the salt itself appears. The reader understands from
the conclusion that it stands for lasting peace among people. This may
have some connection with the use of salt in covenant transactions.55
The last sentence probably refers back to the discussion about great-
ness—but then seen as an argument rather than a discussion—which
the disciples have had on the way (9.33-34).
Adultery (10.1-12)
!
He left that place and went to the region of Judaea and beyond the Jor-
dan. And crowds again gathered around him; and, as was his custom, he
again taught them.
2
Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, 'Is it lawful for a man
to divorce his wife?' 3 He answered them, 'What did Moses command
you?' 4 They said, 'Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dis-
missal and to divorce her.' 5 But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your
hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the
beginning of creation, "God made them male and female". 7 "For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
8
and the two shall become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one
flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'
10
Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. l lUe
said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery.'
53. See Gundry, Mark, p. 515. For the sprinkling of salt cf. Sir. 43.19; Ezek.
43.24.
54. Joel 2.2-3; 2 Cor. 3.12-25; 2 Thess. 1.7-8; Mt. 3.11-12; Heb. 10.27.
55. Lev. 2.13; Num. 18.19; 2 Chron. 13.5.
10.1. The journey continues. Jesus leaves Galilee heading in a southerly

direction. A reader who looks at the map of the area may wonder why
the narrator does not mention Samaria, the region between Galilee in
the north and Judaea in the south. Actually, the name of Samaria does
not occur in the book, not even in 3.8, where the narrator lists the dis-
tricts whose inhabitants came to listen to Jesus when he was active by
the Sea of Galilee. An informed reader knows that Jews travelling to
Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover festival went through the area east
of the Jordan to avoid Samaria. It is unlikely that the first readers,
any more than most readers today, will have noticed the absence of
Samaria. The region 'beyond the Jordan' is mentioned explicitly both
here and in 3.8, but not one single scene of the story is situated there.
The reader is surprised by the presence of the crowds. The inhabitants
of Judaea and the territory on the other side of the Jordan know of Jesus
because many of them have been to Galilee to listen to him (3.7-8). The
main impression left by 8.27 and 9.30, however, is that Jesus wants to
devote himself entirely to the instruction of the disciples and that his
attempts to avoid the crowds have been more successful than in
Galilee. The presence of the crowds at this point in the narrative is,
therefore, perhaps best understood as an indication that they are never
far away. This is confirmed by the final words of v. 1, which refer to
what Jesus usually does rather than to what is most appropriate at this
point from a functional point of view.
70.2. The omniscient narrator tells the reader beforehand that the ques-
tioners are not interested in a serious discussion with Jesus. They only
try to elicit a compromising statement from him. The subject they
choose for the question—which is presented in indirect speech—seems
at first glance inappropriate for the purpose, for it is difficult to see how
a negative answer in itself could lead to any serious action against
Jesus. The rabbis differed about the grounds for divorce, but over the
lawfulness of divorce there was no difference of opinion in the Jewish
community.56 There is every reason to suppose, then, that in raising this
question the narrator actually addresses a problem that confronts his
audience rather than Jesus' contemporaries.
On further consideration, however, a negative answer may neverthe-
less get Jesus into trouble, especially because he is now travelling
through Peraea, east of the Jordan, a territory ruled by Herod. This is
56. See Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, pp. 99 and 326.

11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 317
the same Herod who had executed Jesus' predecessor, John the baptist,
because he had criticized his marriage with his brother's wife (6.18). A
negative reply from Jesus, whose name had for some time been known
to Herod (6.14), could likewise be interpreted as a condemnation of
Herod's marriage with Herodias and have similar consequences. In any
case, the attempt by the Pharisees to trick Jesus in this way would fit in
well with a common strategy resulting from their deliberations with the
Herodians about how to liquidate Jesus (3.6). Whatever the precise
background of the question, on the basis of it the narrator develops a
lively discussion between Jesus and his opponents.
10.3-4. Jesus answers with a counter-question, which is presented in

direct speech. There are two points to be made here. The first point is
that, by asking his inquirers what Moses prescribed in the Torah, Jesus
replaces the general validity of the original question with a specifically
Jewish approach. Secondly, by placing the pronoun 'you' before the
verb (xi i)\i\v evexeiAmo MctyOcfj*;) Jesus underlines that his question-
ers are the ones directly involved. In their answer the Pharisees appeal
to Deut. 24.1-4. This prohibits a man from remarrying the woman to
whom he had earlier given a certificate of dismissal. It does not pro-
nounce the lawfulness of divorce, but assumes it.
10.5-9. Not only the narrator but also the protagonist knows everything.
Here they both know why Moses wrote the passage of the Torah to
which the Pharisees refer and, as if endowed with an extraordinary
knowledge, the cited author Moses appears to have foreseen that Jesus'
opponents would be hard-hearted people. In vv. 6, 7, and 8 the narrator
has Jesus act as a rabbi combining two other places from the Torah.
With an allusion to Gen. 1.1 Jesus appeals to the order of creation. Next
he joins together Gen. 1.27b and 2.24 from the Septuagint version—
without, however, presenting them as quotations—to form one new
saying.57 With two slight variations he then repeats the last words from
Gen. 2.24 by way of conclusion. Jesus rounds off his answer with a
57. It is usually called 'scriptural evidence'. K. Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung

Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alien Testament, I
(WMANT, 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), p. 545, thinks that
this way of citing Scripture is typical of Mark and refers to 12.19, 33; but 1.3; 7.6;
11.17; 12.10, 36; 14.27 give a different picture and are the reason why I cannot see
a formal citation here.
general saying. This is less far-reaching than the preceding one: the two
sayings speak respectively of one flesh (|da adp£, v. 8) and one couple
(GVÊvyvvî, v. 9), but the name of the one who is behind the order of
creation appears only in v. 9. The last saying is the actual answer to the
question of v. 2: because it is God who has united them, the union of
man and woman is indissoluble and ought not to be tampered with by
man. The opposition expressed here is not so much an opposition be-
tween God and Moses,58 as one between God and every man or woman
responsible for a divorce. Jesus' answer is cleverly constructed. God
originally created man as male and female. Every man and woman
(dvGpomoc;) breaking the unity of the parental home by leaving father
and mother, form in their turn a new couple which, through sexual in-
tercourse and living together, becomes a unity that no one (avQpvmoc)
is authorized to break.
We do not know how the readers of ancient Rome, where divorce
constantly occurred, responded to this teaching. The reader of today,
however, cannot help questioning the argument.59 Mark is not the only
book from that time using the words from Gen. 1.27 in support of con-
jugal fidelity. With more or less the same introduction and a similar
meaning they are also quoted in one of the books of the Qumran com-
munity, probably in disapproval of bigamy, condemned there as prosti-
tution: The principle of the creation is: He created them male and
female'.60 In Mark, Jesus appeals, likewise, to the order of creation as
the manifest expression of God's will which is beyond the Mosaic
law.61 The reader wonders, however, why the unity of man and woman
revealed in the order of creation should automatically imply that each
and every marriage is to be a permanent bond. In Jesus' pronouncement
of vv. 7-8, resulting from the combination of Gen. 1.27 and 2.24, it is
also not God, the anonymous subject of 1.27, but the man and woman
concerned, who cause the couple to become 'one flesh'.62
58. See Suhl, Zitate, p. 75.

59. Suhl (Zitate, pp. 72-76) arrives at a similar conclusion regarding the autho-
rial intention: 'Diese Funktion dieser atl. Argumente besteht aber nicht in der
Begrundung der eigenen Position, sondern in der Widerlegung der Gegner' (p. 76).
60. CD IV, 21.
61. Suhl, Zitate, p. 72; Hiibner, Gesetz, p. 62; Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz,
pp. 140-41.
62. That God unites husband and wife directly is, in my opinion, not found in
Tob. 8.7, as Sariola thinks {Markus und das Gesetz, p. 141 n. 133). It could lie at
the basis of T. Reub. 4.1, but the words 'until the Lord give you a wife, whom He
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 319
The direct involvement of God in the coming about of the union is

explicitly posited in v. 9, but, apart from clarifying this statement, the
preceding verses do not really argue it. Perhaps that was less necessary
for ancient readers than it is for readers today. The notion that husband
and wife are joined by God or the gods was far from unusual, but
divorce was equally widespread.63 Yet nowhere else did that notion
lead to the conclusion that marriage was, therefore, indissoluble. In
today's cultural situation, where divorce is generally accepted, a reader
would prefer a well-reasoned argument. In fact, the narrator appeals to
the authority of Jesus and the will of God which, according to Jesus, is
recognizable in the order of creation. Clarity with regard to the sub-
stance of the reason is clearly unattainable.
10.10-12. Would the disciples have similar questions? There is no rea-

son to think so. It seems more likely that their questions at this point
conform to a familiar, literary, standard procedure (4.10; 7.17; 9.28),
whose function corresponds with that of 4.34: Jesus explains things
only to his disciples. This is confirmed by the word 'again' (n&Xiv).
The explanation concerns, among other things, the mdSdl or proverbial
saying of v. 9. Jesus goes further than what he has so far said on the
subject. The answer does not deal with the question raised earlier by the
reader, for it refers not to the validity of the argument but to its conclu-
sion. This is now formulated without reference to the metaphorical sto-
ries of Genesis 1-2. Without returning to the issue of divorce, which he
has already rejected in v. 9, Jesus declares that remarrying someone
else after one has divorced one's own partner is adultery no less admis-
sible than that committed by a married person having intercourse with a
third person. Three aspects of Jesus' answer call for attention. Verse 12
supposes a sociocultural situation in which the wife could also divorce.
That was impossible in the Palestine of Jesus but not in Rome, the
will' need not necessarily imply this idea. The patriarchal stories vary on this point.
Abraham already has a wife when he is called in Gen. 12; God's name is regularly
mentioned in the case of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 24), but it does
not occur in the case of Jacob's marriages to Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29), neither in
that of Joseph's marriage to Asenath (Gen. 41.45). Berger refers to Homer, Odyssey
4.208 and 15.26 (GesetzauslegungÎ, p. 536, see also n. 1), and Strack and Biller-
beck mention a number of rabbinic places (Kommentar, I, pp. 803-804).
63. See Gnilka, Markus, II, pp. 76-79. Mai. 2.14-16 protests against frivolous
separations but does not assume the general and total prohibition of divorce.
home of Mark's first readers. What Jesus says to the Pharisees and
disciples is, therefore, intended for those readers rather than for the lis-
teners in the story. The second aspect concerns a detail which may be
overlooked at a superficial reading, namely, the two last words of v. 11:
When a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adul-
tery against her. Seen against the background of Jewish as well as
Graeco-Roman culture, where a woman could commit adultery against
her husband but not a man against his wife, this is a decisive step for-
ward: the woman is no longer considered the inalienable property of
her husband, without any rights of her own. The third aspect has to do
with the function of the answer in the story as a whole. The answer,
which until v. 9 was vague and somewhat ambiguous, implies, in retro-
spect, a condemnation of Herod's marriage as well, but as this condem-
nation is pronounced in the privacy of a house, it does not endanger
Jesus.
All in all, the episode leaves the reader unsatisfied with the position
that the narrator has Jesus take on the question of marriage. Jesus' posi-
tion is clear, but the principle on which the total prohibition of divorce
is based continues to raise questions, because the reason advanced is
not so convincing in the case of a concrete married couple as when
applied to the complementarity of man and woman. These questions are
all the more urgent in a cultural situation where marriage is not
regarded as indissoluble and where another marriage with another
partner is commonly accepted. In that respect our society does not
differ from Palestine in the time of Jesus64 and Rome in the second half
of the first century, except for the position of the woman which, at least
in theory, is equal to that of the husband.
As a Little Child (10.13-16)

13
People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch
them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. 14But when Jesus saw this,
he was indignant and said to them, 'Let the little children come to me;
do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God
belongs. 15Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of
God as a little child will never enter it.' 16And he took them up in his
arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.
64. Only the Qumran sect differs from current ideas, see 11QT 57.17-19.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 321
10.13, 16. Jesus is still in the house of v. 10, which he will leave only in
v. 17. As well as a man and a woman there are also children in a house,
so it is only natural that Jesus should pay attention to them as well. The
reader, who for some time now has become used to the unfavourable
part played by the disciples, is not really surprised by their reaction.
The present-day reader would like to know why they object, but the
narrator is obviously not interested in such questions. By placing the
words of Jesus between two opposing movements he presents the scene
as a miniature story, which begins with the disciples' attempt to keep
the children away from Jesus and ends with Jesus' embracing and
blessing them. As Jesus does even more than was asked of him, the
desired communication comes about in the best way imaginable.
10.14-15. Communication—receiving God's kingdom and entering his

reign—is also the theme of the saying itself. It begins with the aforesaid
children but then switches to others who share their receptivity and
simplicity. Jesus contrasts the disciples with children, as two groups
who embody opposing attitudes and values. Although not made fully
explicit, the opposition is clear enough in the light of 9.33-42, to which
it refers by repeating certain words ('child' and 'do not stop', rcai8iov
and |Lif| KcoMexe, in 9.36 and 39), and by using rare words that have
similar sound patterns ('speak evil of, KCXKOXOYECO, in 9.39 and 'speak
well of or 'bless', KaTeiôyeco, in 10.16). In 9.33-42 the disciples
have already shown themselves to be preoccupied with status and posi-
tion (v. 34), and to be concerned with exclusion rather than inclusion
(v. 38). In that episode Jesus has equated his faithful followers with
'little ones' (jiiKpoi, v. 42). In this episode the disciples are again
staying with Jesus in the house. The saying means to bring home to
them that as long as they indulge in megalomania and thereby continue
to be different from children, they will not be admitted to the kingdom
of God. The reader is still rather in the dark as to what the term 'king-
dom of God' concretely refers. It is used here with three meanings: as
a place which people will be allowed to enter or will be excluded from
in the future (v. 15b65); as an imminent or already existing reality
to which people attune or do not attune their conduct (v. 15a66); and as
a general metaphor comprising the first two meanings (v. 1467). The
65. Cf. 9.47; 10.23, 24, 25; 12.34; 14.15.

66. Cf. 1.15; 9.1; 11.10; 15.43.
67. Cf. 1.14; 4.11, 26, 30.
saying contained in the miniature story far outweighs the value of an

idyllic scene. That Jesus discusses the theme of service and true great-
ness a second time, and that it will recur a third time (10.35-45), indi-
cates how important the narrator thinks it is for the reader to grasp its
implications.
Property and Family Ties (10.17-31)

17
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him,
and asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
18
Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God
alone. 19You know the commandments: "You shall not murder; You
shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false
witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother."' 20 He
said to him, 'Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.' 21 Jesus,
looking at him, loved him and said, 'You lack one thing; go, sell what
you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven; then come, follow me.' 22 When he heard this, he was shocked
and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
23
Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, 'How hard it will
be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!' 24 And the
disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again,
'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to
enter the kingdom of God.' 26 They were greatly astounded and said to
one another, 'Then who can be saved?' 27Jesus looked at them and said,
'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are
possible.'
28
Peter began to say to him, 'Look, we have left everything and followed
you.' 29 Jesus said, 'Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or
brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake
and for the sake of the good news, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold
now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and
fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 3 1 But
many who are first, will be last, and the last will be first.'
70.77. After leaving the house, Jesus continues through Judaea and
Transjordania on his way to Jericho (v. 46), which is the last stage but
one of his journey to Jerusalem. The theme of vv. 13-16—the condi-
tions of admission to the kingdom of God—is resumed and expanded.
The stranger whom Jesus meets on the way formulates his question in
terms that are different from those used in 13-16: he asks Jesus how he
may gain eternal life. After the first occurrence of the term in v. 17,
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 323
Jesus repeats it in v. 30, thus creating an inclusion. 'Eternal life' does

not occur again in the book, but the reader has come across 'life',
without the adjective, in combination with 'enter' in 9.43 and 45, and
where it is clearly an equivalent of 'enter the kingdom of God' in 9.47.
This equivalence is confirmed by 10.17-30. The nuances expressed by
'receive' and 'enter' with respect to the kingdom of God (10.15) are
also present in 'eternal life' (10.17, 30, contrast 9.43, 45), but although
the two terms are equivalent, they are not synonymous. 'Eternal life'
refers rather to the human side, whereas 'kingdom', even when God's
name is not mentioned, refers to the side of God. In the Old Testament,
belief in eternal life and resurrection is asserted for the first time in
Dan. 12.2, and afterwards in Hellenistic Judaism, where it relates par-
ticularly to martyrs (2 Mace. 7.9, 14, 36) but later to all the righteous
(Wis. 3.4; 5.15). In a milieu influenced by dualistic thinking, the notion
of eternal life is connected with the immortality of the soul (Wis. 3.4;
15.3). In contrast to the dismal existence of the spirits of the dead in the
dark caves of Sheol, eternal life is a state of pure joy and happiness. It
is clear that the man, apparently a devout Jew, asks a question he could
have answered himself in the light of the Old Testament: by living the
life of a just man.
10.18. The reader is surprised by the fact that Jesus, before answering
the question, draws attention to the word 'good' in the address. Though
unusual, it does not seem out of place because it shows the positive atti-
tude of the man towards Jesus. He appears sincere and respectful, and
the epithet is in line with his kneeling before Jesus and his haste to
approach him. As on many other occasions, the conversation continues
with a question that begins with 'who' or 'what' (xiq and xi).68 Readers
understand by now that this is a signal alerting them to the fact that the
question is meant to make them think about possible answers and stim-
ulate their hermeneutical creativity.69 Although open-ended, the ques-
tion seems nevertheless to imply that the address deserves disapproval.
68. In the mouth of Jesus: 2.8, 9; 3.33; 4.30 (twice), 40; 5.9, 30, 31, 39; 8.12,
17, 27, 29, 36, 37; 9.16, 33; 10.3, 18; in the mouth of others: 1.24, 27; 2.7 (twice),
18, 24; 4.41; 5.31, 35; 6.2, 24; 7.5; 10.17.
69. For the function of questions see Rhoads and Michie, Mark as Story, pp. 49-
51; Fowler, Loaves and Fishes, pp. 167-68, Reader, pp. 131-34, who counts no less
than 114 questions, of which 77 are without an answer (p. 132 n. 8).
The pronouncement that no one is good but God alone is unprece-

dented. The Old Testament refers regularly to the goodness of God70
and uses 'good' (Greek crya96<;, Hebrew fob) also of human beings.71
The objection that can be heard in Jesus' reply is at odds with a maxim
like 'whoever is good may count on Yhwh' (2 Chron. 19.11). The pro-
nouncement is especially surprising because it concerns Jesus himself,
whom the reader knows to be led by God's Spirit, which gives him the
power to resist Satan (1.13), to fight successfully Satan's accomplices,72
to proclaim God's good news (1.14), and to help those who are in need
of help. As God's voice has not only declared that Jesus is his dear son
(1.11) but has also insisted that one must listen to him (9.7), the reader
cannot but accept that Jesus is a reliable and good teacher. In short,
Jesus' pronouncement amazes the reader because it goes right against
everything he or she has heard so far. The last words of v. 18 (el \ii\ eiq
6 Qeoc) agree literally with what the scribes in the house at Capernaum
were thinking: 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?' (2.7). However,
this correspondence makes it even more difficult to see an opposition
between God and Jesus, as Jesus' pronouncement seems to suggest. It
would be going to the other extreme, however, to conclude from the
saying that Jesus possesses the goodness that belongs exclusively to
God.73 Rather, the pronouncement confronts readers with questions
about Jesus' identity, which continue to engage their interest precisely
because they cannot answer them.
70.79. The second part of Jesus' answer gives the impression that he
has nothing special to offer. He refers the man—as any rabbi or scribe
would—to the rules of life expressed in the Torah. What makes the re-
sponse noteworthy is that the question of what one must do is chiefly
answered with what one must not do. The rules are not cited in the
order of the Greek but of the Hebrew version, where the prohibition to
70. 1 Chron. 16.34; 2 Chron. 5.13; 2 Esdr. 4.11; LXX Pss. 117.1-4; 135.1.
71. Plural in Prov. 14.19, 22; singular in 1 Sam. 15.28; 29.6, 9, 10; 2 Chron.
19.11; Prov. 13.2; with 'man' or 'men' in 1 Sam. 9.2; 25.15; 1 Kgs 2.32; 2 Kgs
10.3; Prov. 13.22; 14.14; Sir. 29.14; with 'woman' in Prov. 18.22; Sir. 26.1, 3. That
is also the case in the other Gospels; cf. Mt. 5.45; 12.35; 22.10; 25.21, 23 (par.);
Lk. 6.45; 23.50. In a sense, Mark is consistent as the adjective is never used of a
human being.
72. 1.23-27, 34, 39; 3.11, 22-30; 5.1-13; 7.25-30; 9.17-29.
73. Thus Gundry, Mark, p. 553.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 325
kill precedes those of divorce and theft, instead of following them. The
five prohibitions are followed by the commandment to honour parents,
which comes first in the current lists (Exod. 20.12-16; Deut. 5.16-20).
The prohibition of coveting another man's property and wife has been
replaced with the prohibition of fraud, a variant on that of theft. Perhaps
this variant subtly anticipates the riches the man appears to possess.
Another reason for this replacement could be that hardly anyone can
claim never to have broken the law against coveting someone else's
property.74 A third reason might be that this law forbids an attitude
rather than a course of action, while the man has asked what he must
do. Jesus does not say in so many words that the way to eternal life is to
observe the well-known rules of conduct, but that is the implication of
his response.
10.20-21. Like Jesus' answer in v. 18, the man's reply begins with the
Greek 6 6e, which, marking the beginning of both the response of Jesus
in v. 21 and the final reaction of the man in v. 22, structures the conver-
sation. After Jesus has reminded him that keeping the law is the way to
eternal life, the stranger—who now addresses Jesus simply as 6i6d-
CKa'ke ('teacher') without dyctGe ('good')—points out that he has done
so all his life. Only now does Jesus answer the positive approach of the
man with a similar, though non-verbal, reaction: 'Jesus, looking at him,
loved him'. Contemporary readers, who live in a culture that tends to
place a high value on the expression of feelings, cannot help noticing
that this is the first time that Jesus is said to show affection for some-
one. They realize how seldom the narrator speaks of Jesus' emotions.
The only other places where they are explicitly mentioned are 1.41 and
6.34 (compassion), 3.5 (anger and sorrow), and 11.15 (anger). In this
episode Jesus' affection is directly connected with the fact that the
stranger is a faithful observer of the law.
Against all the things the man says he has done, Jesus explicitly sets
one single thing he has not done so far. He then mentions not one but
four actions. The first two are clearly introductory, but even then two
remain: to give the proceeds of the sale to the poor and follow Jesus.
Surprisingly, Jesus' demand concerns not only the man's surplus pos-
sessions but everything he has. It is noteworthy in this context that in
the case of the five men that first followed him (1.16-20; 2.14), Jesus
did not demand that they should sell all their possessions and give the
74. See Gundry, Mark, p. 553.

proceeds to the poor. They responded to Jesus' call and followed him,
but it is not clear from the story whether it was on their own initiative
or on Jesus' express order that they left their trade and family. In this
episode, following Jesus and giving up everything are inextricably
linked. With this demand Jesus takes up a position that is quite different
from the view of some rabbis who teach exactly the opposite, namely,
that you should not give away what you need for your own support, be-
cause if you do you become a burden to others.75 Treasure in heaven is
the counterpart of wealth enjoyed by rich people here on earth. The
phrase does not occur again in the book.76 The metaphor of the treasure
arises from the fact that the well-to-do have reserves, which are avail-
able for use in the future. Thus formulated, the answer is in tune with
the question of the man on how to secure eternal life. It then creates a
paradox similar to that of 8.34-37, albeit that here livelihood, rather
than life itself, is at stake.
70.22. The point of the story, that possessions lead to being fixated on
property, is revealed only at the end of the passage.77 In comparison
with the two stories about the first followers this is a story about a
vocation that fails. The failure is, moreover, paradigmatic because the
concluding causal clause gives the reader the impression that a vocation
is, as a rule, doomed to fail when someone has many possessions.
People tend to watch and cherish their possessions as a precious
treasure; but exactly for that reason possessions bind their owners and,
although riches offer numerous possibilities that the poor do not have,
they make it very difficult for the rich to follow the way of Jesus.
75. See Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, p. 331 n. 6. Actually, some rabbis are
known to have given away everything, in spite of this teaching (pp. 331 and 332
n.7).
76. It is found in other sayings of Jesus in Matthew (6.19-21) and Luke (12.33-
34).
77. Fowler (Reader, p. 98) observes that as a result the reader's interest is sus-
tained until the end of the story. That 'the narrator induces an experience of surprise
and disappointment in the reader that corresponds to the surprise and disappoint-
ment the man himself experiences in the story' applies only, I think, to readers
who, like the man in the story, have many possessions and are unable to part with
them. Barton (Discipleship and Family Ties, p. 102) rightly characterizes the man
as a figure that contrasts with Bartimaeus, the widow in the temple, the woman who
anoints Jesus, and Peter and his companions, who have nothing or have left every-
thing. The continuation of the episode underlines this aspect.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 327
10.23. The extension of an incident to a structural problem—already

suggested in the causal clause of v. 22—is now explicitly expressed in
the saying that closes the forgoing discourse and opens the next. Now
that the man has left, Jesus addresses the disciples. There has been no
mention of their presence at the preceding dialogue, but the reader will
have understood from 9.30-31 that they are still on the way with Jesus.
The passage confirms the reader's interpretation of the previous story.
The Greek expressions e%cov Kxruiaxa ('having many possessions', in
v. 22) and %pf||iaTa e%cov ('having wealth', in v. 23), which are linked
to one another by sound associations and chiastic ordering or inverted
parallelism, strengthen the relation with what precedes, while the word
5I)GK6A,GX; ('hard') points forward to what follows in vv. 24-25. The
alternating terms 'to enter the kingdom of God' and 'to inherit eternal
life' (vv. 15, 17, 23, 25) appear to be equivalents for a future condition
of euphoria that can only be expressed in metaphors.
10.24-25. The reaction of the disciples comes as a surprise to the reader

who supposes that not just the five whose calling has been related, but
all disciples have left their goods and chattels to follow Jesus. Of the
other followers, including the majority of the twelve, we know only that
they have followed Jesus in large numbers (2.15). On second thoughts,
the reader may read the disciples' reaction as an indication that not all
followers meet the requirements, or that leaving hearth and home does
not mean that they have burned their boats, as it were, and are therefore
unable to resume their old activities.78 It is also possible that the dis-
ciples are not so much upset about their own situation as about that of
their relatives, whom they have left behind.79
How Jesus noticed their anxiety the story does not say. Perhaps he
read it in their eyes, for the number of times that eye-movements are
mentioned in this part of the text is relatively great (vv. 21, 23, 26).
Jesus addresses the disciples as 'children' (xeicva80), a term that is used
only once with respect to the disciples. It is an informal address that
expresses more than usual emotion and intimacy. The theme of 'fol-
lowing', with which Jesus concluded his appeal to the stranger (v. 21),
78. The second assumption is the view presented in Jn 21.1-3.

79. Lk. 8.3 mentions a number of well-to-do followers of Jesus.
80. In 2.5 Jesus addresses the paralytic as 'child' (XEKVOV). The address occurs
sixteen times in the singular and twice in the plural in Jesus Sirach (Sir. 23.7;
41.14), where the term is used by the teacher addressing his pupils.
does not return here. Jesus underlines once more how hard it is—for
anyone observing the rules of life, the reader assumes—to gain en-
trance to the kingdom of God. Using one of the strongest hyperboles in
the book Jesus then stresses the extremely unfortunate starting-point of
the rich. This is the first time that the word 'rich' is used, and the con-
text in which it appears makes it almost impossible for the word yet to
receive a positive connotation in the book. Attempts to explain or clar-
ify the comparison with the 'camel' and the 'eye of a needle' by sup-
posing, for instance, that the 'eye of a needle' referred to a narrow gate
in Jerusalem through which a camel could only pass unpacked, deny its
metaphorical character. Similarly, the copyists of some younger manu-
scripts, who wrote Kd|nita)<; ('cable') instead of K&[ii\koq ('camel'),
overlooked the fact that the hyperbole has an additional, comical effect
because of its bold use of exaggeration, and that this softens the shock
of the saying. For Roman readers, who did not see a camel every day,
the strange humpbacked animal will have enhanced the comical effect.
This in no way alters the fact, however, that riches are seen as a most
serious obstacle to a way of life that is in accordance with Jesus'
message.
10.26-27. Unlike the reader, the disciples are unaware of the comical
side of the saying. Their only reaction is one of alarm. This is as amaz-
ing as their anxiety in v. 24, because the metaphor of the eye of the
needle is exclusively concerned with the rich. Since most people are
not rich, the disciples' question is wide of the mark. It is also unneces-
sary because Jesus has just answered it. Salvation—an equivalent for
entering the kingdom of God and the possession of eternal life—is
reserved for the poor, for people who are neither rich nor poor, and for
the rich who do as Jesus has told the man in v. 21: sell what you own
and give the money to the poor.
Instead of this obvious answer, there follows quite a different saying
of Jesus, which has a disorientating effect. Reversing the order, Jesus
does not answer the disciples' question 'who can be saved?' but an-
other question, 'who can save?' For an answer to the second question it
is easy to find elements in the preceding part of the book. For instance,
in the twin stories about Jairus's daughter and the woman with a haem-
orrhage. In the inner story, salvation stands for the cure of an illness
through the touching of Jesus' clothes (5.28; 6.56), in the outer story
for the return from death, when Jesus wakes the girl (5.23, 41-42). The
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 329
reader recalls a difference of opinion about the cause of the cures. The
girl's father and the woman think that the physical contact with Jesus is
the cause of the cure (5.23, 28), while Jesus attributes the cure to their
trust (5.34, 36). Whether the same goes for the others who are saved by
touching Jesus (6.56) the text does not say, but the reader cannot or will
not give up that thought easily. If these passages are mainly about re-
covery from illness, the pronouncement of 8.35 is concerned with sal-
vation, where life and death—in two meanings—are at stake: Tor those
who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for
my sake, and for the sake of the good news, will save it.' The sayings
of Jesus in this episode imply that it is impossible for human beings to
achieve healing, salvation and life by themselves. Even a rich man who
gives everything he has to the poor, or those who live in accordance
with the rules of life laid down in the Torah, do not obtain eternal life
automatically or in return for what they have done. Treasure in heaven'
is not the result of saving or collecting or of any transactions that are
customary among people, just as salvation in the sense of 'eternal life'
is not something one can acquire for oneself or for others. All the
reader can do is to be receptive to it, but even then eternal life remains a
gift of God. In the Greek Bible Job says twice to Yhwh: 'You can do
all things' (Job 10.13; 42.2). That applies to the saving power to effect
eternal life, because only God is eternal, the one who has always been
and will always be. It also applies to the kingdom of God—which,
according to Jesus' proclamation, is at hand (1.15)—because God's
kingship is the time and his kingdom the place where God has the final
word.
10.28-30. Peter's question and Jesus' reply round off the exchange
between the disciples and Jesus concerning the qualifications required
for entry into the kingdom of God. Peter is clearly speaking on behalf
of the disciples. The narrator has Peter use a vocabulary that reminds
the reader of the call stories in 1.16-20 and perhaps 2.14: 'leave behind'
and 'follow'. As the verb 'leave behind' is followed by the object
'everything', Peter's question also recalls 10.21. Jesus' answer is of an
almost comical redundancy. He uses three elements to clarify the mean-
ing of 'everything': house, family (specified as five possible relation-
ships) and fields.
The last element is remarkable because 1.16-20 was about four
fishermen, their boats and nets, and 2.14 about a tax collector sitting by
the customs house. There was no mention of fields. Neither will the
readers in Rome, as city dwellers, have possessed more than the plot of
land on which their house was built.81 There is only one other reference
to a field that may be connected with property, namely, the field from
which Simon of Cyrene is said to be on his way home in 15.21. If the
Rufus to whom Paul asks to be remembered in Rome (Rom. 16.13)
were the same person as the one of 15.21, it could be that this Rufus
was known to have sold his farmland for the benefit of the poor and
that the story implicitly referred to it. However, that is a rather specula-
tive assumption.
The second part of Jesus' answer is not merely redundant, but hyper-
bolical as well. It is difficult to imagine 100 brothers, sisters and chil-
dren, to say nothing of 100 mothers. It is curious that two categories are
lacking. Fathers are mentioned in the first but not in the second sen-
tence, and wives are not mentioned at all.82 The meaning of the saying
is clear enough and agrees with v. 21: whoever gives away everything
receives eternal life from God in the age to come, and already in this
age a new home and a new family, which is, moreover, far more
numerous than the family left behind.
Even more remarkable than the mention of fields is the reference to
persecutions. In this context the phrase 'with persecutions' is not only
incongruous, it is also quite contradictory to the promise of the good
things the disciples are to receive—houses, relatives and fields. After
4.17, 8.34-38, and 9.42-48 the thread of a situation of persecution is for
a moment visible again. Persecutions are obviously not a main issue
here, otherwise the speaker could easily have characterized 'this age' of
10.30 as a 'time of persecutions'.83 Nevertheless, they seem to belong
explicitly to what will happen to the disciples of Jesus. The passage
81. The selling of land and putting the proceeds at the disposal of the commu-
nity has in Acts (4.37; 5.1-6) a similar symbolic value as here.
82. Barton (Discipleship and Family Ties, p. 107) sees this as an indication that
the structure of the marital relations is not affected. Malina (The Social World, pp.
67-122) gives no explanation either.
83. Such genitives with Kaip6<; are not rare; see Mk 11.13; Mt. 13.30; 21.34,
41; Lk. 1.20; 8.13; 19.44; 21.24. This age' is, however, not only a time of perse-
cutions and of the adulterous and sinful nature of the present generation, as Barton
{Discipleship and Family Ties, p. 101), with a reference to 8.38 and 9.19, observes;
it is as much the time of the good news and of repentance which, according to 1.14,
has come.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 331
does not make clear, however, whether and how persecutions are a nec-
essary part of the promise of relatives and fields; but if the assumption
is correct that the book reflects to some extent the experiences of
Christians, who—whether or not under pressure—reported fellow
Christians to the authorities, then the strange combination in v. 30 loses
something of its problematic character.84
10.31. The final saying may confuse the reader at first, as it seems to be
unrelated to the forgoing. On second thoughts, however, it will be clear
that this is not the case. If we regard the five called in 1.16-20 and 2.17
as 'first', it is natural to suppose that they are also the first to enter the
kingdom of God or receive eternal life. Compared to them, readers can
only be 'last', and this holds good for readers in ancient Rome as much
as for readers today. It is, therefore, gratifying to hear that the order in
which people are called is not only reversible but will, in fact, often be
reversed.85
Serve and Give One's Life (10.32-45)

32
They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking
ahead of them; they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.
He took the twelve aside again and began to tell them what was to hap-
pen to him, 33 saying, 'See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of
Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they
will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles;
34
they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and
after three days he will rise again.'
35
James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to
him, Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.' 36 And
he said to them, 'What is it you want me to do for you?' 37 And they said
to him, 'Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in
your glory.' 38 But Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are
asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with?' 39 They replied, 'We are able.' Then
Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the
baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at
84. Barton {Discipleship and Family Ties, p. 99), on the other hand, says: 'This
phrase comes as no surprise', with a reference to 4.17, 6.11 and 13.12. The fact,
however, that this part of the saying is consistent with other places does not exclude
that in this context it is experienced as strange.
85. The theme recurs in another form in 10.35-40.
my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for
whom it has been prepared.'
41
When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John.
42
So Jesus called them and said to them, 'You know that among the
Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and
their great ones are tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but
whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, ând
whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son
of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom
for many.'
10.32. The narrator has told his audience that Jesus is travelling from
Caesaraea Philippi (8.27), through Galilee (9.30) to Judaea and the
other side of the Jordan (10.1), but not what his destination is. Here he
tells them for the first time that Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, the
home of his opponents (3.22; 7.2). The reader understands immediately
that the goal of the journey is also the end of Jesus' life, for among
those plotting against Jesus are, besides the scribes and the elders,
also the chief priests (8.31), who naturally reside near the Temple in
the capital. Understandably, the people around Jesus are afraid and
depressed, and the reader shares their feelings in spite of the fact that
Jesus' resolve seems to grow in the face of the approaching end of his
journey.
10.32-34. For the third time Jesus tells his disciples what lies ahead of
him. The reader now realizes the connection between the way that leads
from Caesaraea to Jerusalem and the path of Jesus' life, which in that
town will be brought to a violent end by a judicial murder. This predic-
tion is more circumstantial than the first two, and contains a number of
details that point forward to what will be related later: that Jesus will be
condemned to death (14.64) and handed over to the authorities—here
referred to as 'the Gentiles' (15.1); that he will be beaten, spat upon and
flogged (14.65; 15.15-19), and that he will rise again after three days.
The resurrection is the most constant element in the predictions.
10.35-37. The inappropriate response of Jesus' followers is similar to

Peter's reaction in 8.32 and that of the twelve in 9.33-35, where they
persevered in misunderstanding Jesus by arguing about who was the
greatest.86 The latter theme returns here but is now as a request brought
86. 10.32-37 raises the question of whether Fowler is right when he says that
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 333
to Jesus' attention by James and John, who, with Peter, belong to the
circle closest to Jesus. Their starting point seems to be the exact oppo-
site of Peter's in 8.32. Where Peter seemed to have heard only what
Jesus had said about the execution of the Son of Man Jesus, James and
John give the impression that they have heard only what he has said
about his resurrection. They have apparently taken note of Jesus'
announcement in 8.38 that the Son of Man will come in the glory of his
Father, and already picture themselves occupying the seats of honour
next to Jesus. Do they wish to be Jesus' assessors when he sits in judg-
ment in God's kingdom,87 or do they perhaps wish to be his most hon-
oured guests at the messianic feast?88 The narrator does not specify
their wish. The rest of the episode only makes clear that the point at
issue is the contrast between the highly and lowly placed, between
those wanting to be served and those who serve. The Greek word used
in 10.45 for 'to serve' (8iaKoveco, 'to wait at table') suggests rather a
messianic meal.
10.38. Jesus answers with a counter-question, which is preceded by a

very assertive introduction. The introduction belongs to the category of
places that deal directly or indirectly with the theme of not knowing
and not understanding,89 but has nevertheless a colour of its own.
Rather than expressing a reproach, as in a number of the other places, it
strongly suggests that the answer to the counter-question will be nega-
tive. The question itself is somewhat enigmatic because of the meta-
phor employed. Until now the cup has not been used as a metaphor in
Jesus' Son of man sayings function primarily at the discourse level because no one
in the story ever demonstrates uptake of these sayings (Reader, p. 130). To begin
with, the reader has the impression that partly as a result of the repetition of dv-
apaivco eiq 'lepoc6Xv\ia. in v. 33, the feelings of amazement and fear in v. 32 refer
proleptically to Jesus' words in vv. 33-34, or analeptically to the whole journey
begun in 8.27. More important, however, is that the reader understands James and
John's question to be a reaction, albeit an inappropriate one, to Jesus' saying. In
8.32 and 9.32, too, there is mention of an explicit reaction to Jesus' words. For this
reason I find it difficult to agree with Fowler's assertion that there is no uptake of
the three Son of Man sayings of 8.31, 9.31 and 10.32-34 by anyone in the story. A
negative reaction to them implies at least some understanding of what Jesus is say-
ing. •
87. See also 14.62 where the Son of Man sits at the right hand of the power.
88. Camery-Hoggatt (Irony, p. 161) thinks of political ambitions.
89. See 4.13,40?; 6.36-37,49, 52; 7.18; 8.4, 17-21; 9.6, 32; 10.13.
the book, and also in the Septuagint it is not a usual image for suffering
or persecution. Its current symbolic reference is rather to the wrath of
God.90 Neither is immersion or baptism a current image for suffering or
persecution.
Given the reluctance of the twelve to comprehend Jesus whenever he
predicts his death, it should not surprise the reader if the two disciples
fail to understand the question. Although they have raised the matter of
their position in Jesus' glory in response to Jesus' third prediction, it
may well be that they have done so without giving much thought to the
phase in between. The question presents no problem to the reader, who
has met the fixed sequences death-new life, execution-resurrection
before, and who has gathered that they apply not only to Jesus but also
to his followers (8.34-35; 9.43-47). Using cup and baptism as symbols
for his passion, Jesus asks James and John if they are able to risk losing
their lives for his sake.
10.39-40. To the reader's surprise the answer is not negative or even

hesitant, but positive and firm, as can be expected of two disciples
known as 'the sons of thunder'. In fact, the words come out so
assuredly and rashly that the reader reckons with the possibility that the
two have misunderstood Jesus, perhaps taking the baptism metaphor to
refer to the baptism of conversion that Jesus had received at the hands
of John the baptist. The reader has to dismiss this thought immediately,
though, because it is clear that Jesus himself takes their answer seri-
ously, and even confirms the correctness of it. At this point a present-
day reader may well wonder if the author/narrator and his first readers
did not know what later readers knew from other sources, namely, that
James had meanwhile been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I, and so had
drained the cup to the last drop. After all, James is the only one of the
twelve whose martyrdom is related in the New Testament (Acts 12.1-
2), and there is no reason to think that this event, which had taken place
a few decades before Mark was written, was not generally known
among Christians. In retrospect, this can also explain the resolute tone
of the assurance that the narrator puts on the lips of the two disciples.
However, if the reader expects Jesus to let them have their way, he or
she will be disappointed. In fact Jesus neither grants nor denies their
request, pointing qgt that he is not entitled to do either. Here, the reader
remembers that, earlier on, Jesus did not speak about his own glory, as
90. Thus L. Goppelt, 'rcoiripiov', TWNT, VI, pp. 148-60 (149-52).

11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 335
the two disciples suppose, but about the glory of his Father (8.38). And
this makes it quite clear that the places of honour in question—if they
exist at all—have already been awarded by God. To whom? That is left
unanswered, but the reader who remembers that the saying of 8.38 is
followed by the account of Jesus' glorification on the mountain (9.2-8)
cannot but think of the scene that Peter, James, and John witnessed
there: Elijah and Moses in conversation with Jesus. That would also
explain why Jesus is indignant at the request of James and John. As
witnesses of the transfiguration they should know to whom those places
are due.
This interpretation is not without importance to the situation of the
intended audience in Rome. If Jewish Christians were shocked by the
narrator inferring from Jesus' words in 7.19 that there are no longer any
unclean foods, it appears here that Moses and Elijah being next to Jesus
on the mountain is not an isolated incident but a precedent of lasting
consequence. They will retain places of honour in the kingdom of God.
The history of the old Israel does not end with the coming of Jesus but
is part of the total messianic event.
At a second reading of the book the reader will also remember that
two men are crucified, one on the right and one on the left of Jesus,
who are referred to as 'bandits'. They drink the cup that Jesus drinks
and are, like him, immersed in their own blood.91 The scene shows the
reader what it means to want to be close to Jesus, as is the desire of
James and John.
10.41-44. When the other disciples hear that James and John have tried
to secure the best places for themselves, they get angry. Their motive is
obvious, they want to have the same privileged position. It is unlikely
that they have heard Jesus' reply to the request, because if they had
their anger would have been superfluous. Moreover, v. 35 gives the
impression that the two had approached Jesus in the absence of the
others. The story does not say that the ten made their indignation
known to Jesus, but the fact that Jesus calls them to him suggests that
they did not.
Jesus seizes the opportunity to lecture his disciples, including James
and John—and, through them, the reader—on the essential difference
between the Jesus movement and other organizations. Referring to
what everyone knows from personal experience or direct observation,
91. See Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, pp. 31-32.

Jesus first describes the effects of the principle governing the relation-
ships between rulers and subjects. It is in consequence of the principle
of dominance (KaxaK\)piE\)co) and supremacy (Kaxeôwid^co) that the
strong act against (iccrcd) the weak and suppress them. In the capital of
the Roman Empire, the seat of power that dominated the peoples of the
then known world, comprising South, West and Central Europe, Asia
Minor, West Asia, and North-east Africa, this was as evident for con-
temporary readers then as it is for readers today, who observe the
modern world. Jesus declares that the principle that should govern the
relationships within the Jesus movement is exactly the reverse. This is
expressed in a saying which, together with the saying preceding it,
forms a concentric structure that made the contrast audible to the first
listeners and which for today's readers may be visualized in Figure 25.
rulers tyrannize their subjects the great ones assert their power
whoever wishes to become

X whoever wishes to be first
great must be your servant must be slave of all
Figure 25
A few details deserve further attention. If what Jesus says about the re-
lations between rulers and subjects has the character of a factual obser-
vation, his second saying is not concerned with what is but with what
ought to be, and is therefore a call to change the present order of things.
The call, which Jesus addresses to his followers, shows a climax in that
he speaks three times of 'among you\ but the fourth time of 'the slave
of alV. Through the saying 'whoever wishes to be first', a connection is
made both with the final saying of the preceding episode in v. 31,
which announces the reversal of 'the first and the last', and with the
saying of 9. 35, which, with minor alterations, expresses the same
reversal.
10.45a. This saying rounds off the present episode and concludes all
the sayings spoken by Jesus 'on the way' in the central part of the book.
It can be regarded as a summary of what Jesus has to say to his disci-
ples about himself and them.
The term 'Son of Man' alone highlights the particular importance of
the saying, in that it links this saying with the predictions of the Son of
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 337
Man's execution and resurrection and coming in glory.92 All the more
so because the title 'Son of Man' must be seen as a self-reference by
Jesus, as appears from other places where he simply uses T and 'me'. 93
The form of the saying is reminiscent of 2.17, where Jesus employs the
same expression with reference to his ministry, saying that he 'has not
come to.. .but to...' (O\)K r\KQev. ..aXka...). In both instances, the ex-
pression occurs in a context of controversy, with the difference that in
2.17 Jesus argues against the scribes and here against his own disciples.
Both passages are closely connected with the direction of Jesus' life.
It is in response to the two disciples' request that Jesus states the con-
trast between his order of priorities and theirs. In this saying—where
'serve' (8iaKOveco) still has the connotation of waiting at table on
account of its connection with v. 37—the place of honour is conceived
of as a place at a festive meal. There are higher and lower places, those
nearer or further away from the host. As the saying does not confine
itself to the difference between the places at table but includes the ser-
vants as well, it accentuates the contrast by setting guests over against
servants. Again, Jesus proposes a reversal of priorities. If in 2.17 it was
the relation between the righteous and sinners, here it is that between
guests and servants at the messianic meal. When the reader realizes that
Jesus is actually referring to the messianic meal, the saying appears to
have an explosive meaning. Not only does the host of the messianic
meal deny himself the right of occupying the place of honour at the
head of the table, but he prefers not to sit at the table at all but help the
other servants dish up the meal and look after the wellbeing of the
guests.
10.45b. As if this were not enough, the portrayal of Jesus as a servant at

the messianic meal is superseded by the wholly different presentation
of Jesus giving his life for many. Underlying these few words are sev-
eral lines of thought that supply food for reflection about the issues in-
volved in them.
There is, in the first place, the presentation of the Son of Man giving
up his life. The condemnation and execution of the Son of Man has
been the constant concern of the opponents ever since they decided to
destroy him. Jesus himself has not really changed his behaviour and
therefore seems a willing victim for his enemies. In fact, he is still
92. 8.31, 38; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33-34.

93. 8.35, 38; 9.19, 25, 37, 39; 10.14, 18, 21, 29, 36,40.
moving steadfastly towards the goal God has set for him, although he
knows what will happen as a consequence of his determination. Almost
as an afterthought, the verse tells the reader not only that Jesus will be
killed but also that he knowingly and willingly gives his life for the
benefit of many. With Jesus claiming his own role in the events leading
to his death, the assumption that he might be a victim with no will of
his own proves invalid.
The motive for this active role links up with two other lines of
thought, both evoked by the word 'price' (kmpov). In the Roman con-
text, where slavery was still a common phenomenon, readers will have
thought first of the ransom money paid for the release of a slave.
Although the plural Mxpa 94 is commonly used with reference to this
payment, the use of the singular \\fv%r\ (life) may also have led to the
use of the singular Mxpov. The readers in Rome will no doubt have
recalled the theme of slavery and freedom in Paul's Letter to the
Romans (Rom. 6.16-23; 8.14-24) and found their idea confirmed that
v. 45b refers to deliverance from slavery. The verse does not reveal the
identity of the master from whom the many are set free. The forgoing
stories suggest that the slavery concerned is the state in which humans
are in the power of demons and consequently in that of their ruler,
Satan (3.22-27; 4.15). For readers in Rome, the theme of deliverance
from slavery will have led on quite naturally to yet another line of
thought, namely, that this deliverance is effected by the shedding of
Jesus' blood (Rom. 3.24-25; 5.6-11). For today's reader, who realizes
that in v. 45 Jesus' death is seen as the price paid for the liberation of
many, the question arises to whom this price has to be paid. This
question, however, cannot be answered on the basis of 10.45.95
The Son ofTimaeus and the Son of David (10.46-52)

46
They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were
leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind man, was sitting by
the roadside, begging. 47When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he
began to shout out and say, * Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!'
48
Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more
loudly, 'Son of David, have mercy on me!' 49 Jesus stood still and said,
94. Thus W. Bauer, 'Mxpov', WNT, col. 954.

95. The answer actually depends on the question of whether what we have here
has to do with sacrificial terminology, and that depends, again, on how 14.24 is
read.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 339
'Call him here.' And they called the blind man, saying to him, 4Take
heart; get up, he is calling you.' 50 So throwing off his cloak, he sprang
up and came to Jesus. 51Then Jesus said to him, 'What do you want me
to do for you?' The blind man said to him, 'Rabboni, let me see again.'
52
Jesus said to him, 'Go; your faith has made you well.' Immediately he
regained his sight and followed him on the way.
10.46. The reader has known since 10.32 where Jesus is heading.
Whether the intended Roman readers already understood from the men-
tion of Jericho that Jesus is not far from his goal, it is impossible to say,
but they will hear so presently, namely at the beginning of the next part
(11.1). It is remarkable that arrival and departure are mentioned without
anything at all happening in between. The reader may wonder why the
incident is not told at the arrival in the town, when Jesus passes the gate
where beggars usually sit. The end of the passage makes it clear, how-
ever, that this is not just a story of healing. What it is besides cannot be
told until Jesus leaves the town to set off for Jerusalem.
That the narrator mentions the presence of a crowd is not in itself
remarkable. True, in this part of the book, and particularly in the pas-
sage relating Jesus' journey through Galilee, where people know him
(9.30), Jesus attempts to avoid the crowds because he wants to teach his
disciples. Once or twice, however, Jesus is seen teaching the crowds,
for instance when he is travelling through Judaea and beyond the Jor-
dan (10.1), two regions he had not visited before. With the exception of
Jerusalem and its environs, Jesus has been active in all parts of the
country (8.34; 9.14-29; 10.1). The crowd mentioned at the beginning of
this story, however, has a very specific function: its audible presence
tells the blind man that something unusual is going on.
The name of the blind man deserves attention for two reasons. Apart
from the fact that he is given a name at all, the name itself is most un-
usual. Proper names occur frequently in the book, but the naming of
characters follows a particular pattern. The names of Jesus, John the
baptist, and the disciples appear with great regularity. Stories about
healings and exorcisms, however, as a rule contain no proper names.
There are only two exceptions, namely Legion (5.9) and Jairus (5.22),
to which must be added that the former, besides being symbolic, has a
specific function in the story in which it occurs. The compound name of
the blind man is unusual, in the sense that in the Greek version the
name of the father, Timaeus, precedes that of the son, Bartimaeus. In all
comparable cases in Mark it is just the opposite.96 As a result, the name

of the father attracts more than usual attention. The two names them-
selves are also unusual. Bartimaeus, which means 'son of Timaeus', is
half Aramaic (bar) and half Greek (Tinatoq), and probably a hybrid
invention that never existed outside the book. The name Timaeus is
unknown in one respect and well known in another. Unknown because
it does not belong to the Jewish-Palestinian world where the story is
set,97 well known because educated readers of ancient Rome and today
cannot but think of 'Timaeus', one of the principal dialogues of Plato,
which anyone who has some knowledge of Greek philosophy is sup-
posed to recognize.98
For those readers, 'Timaeus' could have a symbolic connotation (like
'Legion'), in which case the story would not just be about some blind
beggar whose name happens to be Bartimaeus.99 In other words, if the
cloak of the beggar hides a well-known figure from Hellenistic-Greek
culture, then the story resumes the theme expressed earlier by the ex-
orcism of 'Legion' in the country of the Gerasenes (5.1-20), the cure of
the daughter of the woman referred to as the Hellenist (fEXA,T)viq, 7.24-
30), and the feeding of the four thousand, many of whom are said to
have come from afar, meaning that they are Gentiles (8.1-9).
It is natural for a beggar to sit beside the road,100 but for the reader
who knows Jesus to be on the way to Jerusalem in this part of the book,
96. 1.19; 2.14; 3.17, 18; 10.35. Just as the name of the father follows that of the
son, explanatory translations follow the name (3.17) or term that is being explained
(5.41; 7.11, 34; 12.42; 15.22,34).
97. Timaeus is not among the more than 2000 proper names found in the Old
Testament, and is cited once in the combination bereh di rab Timdi by a rabbi at the
end of the third century (Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, p. 25).
98. Thus Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel p. 189 n. 21.
99. This is argued more fully in B.M.F. van Iersel and J. Nuchelmans, 'De zoon
van Timeiis en de zoon van David: Marcus 10, 46-52 gelezen door een grieks-
romeinse bril', TijdTheol 35 (1995), pp. 107-24.
100. The oldest MSS give two readings: 'the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind
beggar, was sitting by the roadside' (» and B) and the version chosen above,
'...Bartimaeus, a blind man, was sitting by the roadside, begging' (A). The latter
could imply that the story is not so much about a blind man who has to beg for his
living, as about a blind man who, although he may be begging, is for another reason
one of the main characters. This reading is, perhaps, more open to an interpretation
that regards Bartimaeus as something other than an ordinary beggar. This interpre-
tation is not ruled out by the first reading, however.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 341
his being there at the moment that Jesus is leaving Jericho to resume his
journey is hardly accidental. At the beginning of the passage, however,
Bartimaeus remains behind at the side of the road while Jesus and the
disciples pass by.
10.47. Contrary to the blind man of 8.22, who is brought to Jesus by

others who ask Jesus to touch him, Bartimaeus himself takes the initia-
tive as soon as he knows that the bustle around him is connected with
Jesus of Nazareth. The acclamation 'son of David', by which Barti-
maeus tries to attract the attention of Jesus, is both impressive and
surprising. There is nothing in the story to suggest that anyone from
outside the circle of the followers would use a term so charged with
meaning. The reader would expect a character that makes such a sud-
den appearance in the book, to address Jesus as 'teacher' (4.35; 9.17,
38; 10.17, 20, 35), or 'lord' (7.28), or 'rabbi' (9.5). With the exception
of Peter (8.29), so far only the voice from heaven (1.11; 9.7), the
demons (1.24; 3.11), and those possessed with demons (5.7), who know
who Jesus is (1.24, 34), have employed terms that refer to a kind of
identity that is different from the identity referred to by terms used by
people to identify each other and themselves. In only two comparable
places is Jesus addressed as 'son', namely 3.11 and 5.7, where there is
mention of 'son of (the Most High) God'. The two titles 'son of David'
and 'son of God' will have sounded familiar to the intended Roman
readers. From the elaborate and solemn address of the Letter to the
Romans, which was probably imprinted on their memory, they will
have been able to recall the phrases 'born of David's offspring' and
'son of God' (Rom. 1.1-4). That does not mean, however, that they
were less surprised by Bartimaeus's address than we are today. The
readers' surprise also concerns the sequence 'son of David, Jesus',
which is unusual because the proper name does not precede but follows
the qualification (1.1, 24; 5.7; 10.47a; 16.8).101 Apart from emphasizing
the address itself, the sequence acquires a specific function on account
of the fact that the titles 'son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus' and 'son of
David, Jesus' occur in the same episode and, moreover, refer to the two
101. An exception is 14.67, where the sequence qualification—proper name (iov

Na£apr)vo\)...TO\) Iriaou) seems to have been motivated by the identification of
Jesus and Peter as Galilaeans (14.70).
main characters in it. The question of the nature of the connection

between the two identical, unusually phrased titles cannot be fully
answered at this point. Suffice it to say that, in the figure of this Greek
disguised as a blind beggar, Greek culture seeks contact with the Jew
Jesus. In any case, the thought that the beggar's acclamation is meant to
flatter Jesus and increase his chances of a generous gift is too trivial to
do justice to an address that is absolutely unthinkable in a normal social
context. The same applies to the beggar's appeal, 'have mercy on me',
which seems to refer not so much to alms as to some other wish of his.
10.48-50. An angry exchange develops between the blind beggar and

the crowd, which soon shows a complete reversal, owing to Jesus' in-
terference. At first many102 try to silence the man, hoping to deter him
from making contact with Jesus, but they end up encouraging him to go
to Jesus. In the course of the dispute it becomes clear, however, that the
blind man will not be put off, and starts crying out even more loudly,
using the same challenging address and expressing the same wish.
There is something comical about Jesus interrupting his journey and
asking precisely those who have tried to quieten the blind man, to see
to it that he will come to him. At this point in the story the same verb is
used three times, first by Jesus, then by the narrator, and finally by the
crowd: 'call' (<|)coveco). As a result, events take a different turn and the
character of the story changes. The scene reminds the reader of the call
stories (1.16-20; 2.14; 3.13).
The way in which Bartimaeus responds continues the narrative style
of the call stories. He not only begins to move but also leaves behind
his cloak. Whether he had used it to sit on or to collect alms in does not
matter. A cloak is all that a beggar has and, therefore, the only thing he
can part with,103 as others leave behind their boat, nets or tollhouse.
102. That the reader should think here of the many of v. 45—thus D.O. Via, The
Ethics of Mark's Gospel: In the Middle of Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1985), p. 15—seems to me to be incorrect. The referents differ too much. Those of
v. 45 are not story characters but an unspecified group of persons outside the book,
whereas those of v. 48 are an unspecified group of concrete story characters within
this episode of the story.
103. Exod. 22.26-27 prescribes that a cloak taken in pawn should be restored
before sunset because the owner needs it as cover at night.
11. Going his Own Way (8.22-10.52) 343
10.51-52. For all its brevity, the dialogue between Jesus and Barti-
maeus underlines that the beggar is not after a generous sum of money.
He approaches Jesus, not as a beggar but as a blind man, which is
stressed by the fact that the qualification 'a blind man' precedes his
actual request. As he no longer needs to shout to bridge the distance
between himself and Jesus, the blind man now uses a more normal but
by no means usual form of address. This is the only place in the book
where Jesus is addressed as 'rabboni'. It is hardly possible to establish
if the Roman readers realized that the title is derived from 'rabbi' and
has a strong emotional charge. It definitely enhances the Palestinian
colour of the story. If, for the reader, the son of Timaeus represents
Greek culture, the title rabboni points to the story's affinity with the
Jewish world.
The reader is not surprised by Jesus' reply. His 'Go' means that the
request has been granted and that the man is able to resume his daily
life without help from Jesus.104 The words that follow, 'your trust has
made you well' (cf. 5.34), cause readers to switch their attention back
to Bartimaeus again. Here, trust implies faith in Jesus as the son of
David, the Messiah. The healing is quite different from the cure of the
blind man at Bethsaida recounted in 8.23-26: in accordance with Jesus'
words there is no action or intervention on his part, nor is there any
question of a healing process. The change in Bartimaeus's condition is
instantaneous and happens spontaneously. The blind man regains his
sight, and if this were an ordinary healing story, the episode would now
end.
The laconic sentence that follows marks the story definitively as a
call story. It contains, however, three words not found in the other call
stories (1.18, 20; 2.14): 'on the way'. Like the other followers of Jesus,
Bartimaeus takes part in the last stage of the journey to Jerusalem,
where Jesus will meet his execution. His unquestioning and immediate
response stands in sharp contrast to the terror of the other followers
(10.32). As a result of what they have seen and heard, the disciples
have gradually become blind, unaware of what is happening before
their eyes, whereas Bartimaeus has become a seer. The twelve follow
Jesus with fear in their hearts, and it remains to be seen where that will
lead them. Untroubled by fears or doubts of any kind, Bartimaeus joins
104. Cf. 1.44; 2.11; 5.19, 34; 7.29; 8.26.

Jesus as a matter of course. Perhaps readers would rather identify with

Bartimaeus than with the twelve.105
This episode rounds off the part about 'the way'.
105. That Bartimaeus is 'the first in a row of curious passers-by', as I wrote in

Reading Mark (p. 130), the reader does not discover until later when he or she
encounters similar figures in the story. On the importance of these 'minor charac-
ters' in Mark see Rhoads and Michie, Mark as Story, pp. 129-36; J.F. Williams,
Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark's Gospel
(JSNTSup, 102; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994); E.S. Malbon, The Major Impor-
tance of the Minor Characters in Mark', in E.S. Malbon and E.V. McKnight (eds.),
The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (JSNTSup, 96; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1994), pp. 58-86. They consider many more characters to belong to this cat-
egory than I did then. My list was confined to Bartimaeus, the poor widow (12.41-
44), the woman who anoints Jesus (14.3-9), the man carrying ajar of water (14.13;
I would not include him now), the boy who flees away naked (14.51-52), Simon of
Cyrene (15.21) and Joseph of Arimathaea (15.43-46). According to the above
authors, the people healed by Jesus also belong to this group. Whether these minor
characters are also major figures in Mark's Gospel, as is expressed by the subtitle of
Williams's book, depends on how one defines them. Malbon describes a minor
character in Mark as one 'who lacks a continuing or recurrent presence in the story
as narrated'. With this the aspect of 'major figures' named by Williams gets lost, I
think. That is why I would supplement Malbon's definition with the element that
such a character is 'the subject of an unforeseen action'. This definition is meant to
bring out the specific function of this group of characters, which is to offer the
reader an alternative to the attitude and the reactions of the disciples.
Part III
PASSION IN JERUSALEM
Chapter 12
THE STRUCTURE OF PART III
At the beginning of Chapter 6 I discussed the starting point for the

structure of the third main part of the book. In the central section of
this part Jesus sits down on the Mount of Olives as on a judge's chair
facing Jerusalem. The other two sections are harmoniously arranged
around the centre.
The third main part has the same general structure as the first. In the
centre stands Jesus' discourse (13.5-37), preceded by Jesus moving
from the Temple to the Mount of Olives (13.1-4), a dialogue between
Jesus and one of the disciples taking place along the way (13.1-2), and
a subsequent question by the four whom Jesus had called first (13.3-
4). The episodes of the cluster preceding the central section nearly all
take place in the Temple (11.1-12.44), while the episodes of the clus-
ter following it are located in various places in and around Jerusalem
(14.1-15.39). The third and the first main part are also similar in a
quantitative sense: in both cases the narrative part after the discourse
(4.35-8.21 and 14.1-15.39) is not only considerably longer than the
part before the discourse (1.16-4.1 and 11.1-12.44), but the events
told in it also cover a larger area.
The First Cluster (11.1-12.44)

The first cluster, which consists largely of controversies between Jesus
and his opponents, is framed between two episodes in which Jesus
observes the goings-on in the Temple (11.1-11 and 12.41-44). The
first controversy (11.27-33) concerns Jesus' authority to interfere in
things concerning the Temple. His opponents in this cluster are, not
surprisingly, the Temple authorities in the strict sense of the word: the
chief priests, the scribes, and the elders (11.18, 27). After Jesus has
12. The Structure of Part III 347
told the parable of the vinegrowers to them (12.1-11), the narrator

says explicitly that they want to seize Jesus (12.12), but he makes no
mention of their intentions. For this we cannot refer to 3.6, for the
men who even at that early point start plotting Jesus' downfall are not
the same as the opponents mentioned here. Nevertheless, the reader
knows their intentions from the passion summaries (8.31; 9.31;
10.33), where Jesus announces that it is precisely the three groups of
opponents who are connected with the Temple who will condemn him
to death and hand him over to the Gentiles.
After the parable of the vinegrowers and the authorities' reaction to
it the situation changes. Although Jesus continues debating in the
Temple square until 13.1, his opponents are no longer the Temple
authorities but the people who had already troubled him in Galilee:
the Pharisees and Herodians, already mentioned in 3.6, and the Sad-
ducees, who deny the resurrection (12.13, 18). The scribes are here
not active as a group. Just one of them seeks contact with Jesus, not to
put him to the test but to receive a guideline from him for his own
way of life (12.28). After this no one else interrogates Jesus, and Jesus
himself begins asking questions about the views of the scribes (12.35)
and criticizing their conduct (12.38-40).
This means that the episodes of this cluster are arranged on either
side of the parable, which forms the turning point in this section. By
means of this metaphorical story Jesus gives his opponents to under-
stand both what his own identity and position is and where they stand
in the conflict, and what the consequences of their opposition will be
for both parties. On the basis of the narrated events and the characters
involved, the concentric structure of this section is represented in Fig-
ure 26.
preparation of the temple inspection and entering 11.1-11

I— cleansing of the temple and eradication of the fig tree 11.11 -26
I— in discussion with the temple authorities 11.27-33
parable of the winegrowers 12.1-13
I— in discussion with other Jewish leaders 12.14-27
— various sayings about scribes 12.28-40
conclusion of the inspection, leaving the temple 12.41-44
Figure 26
It is noteworthy that Jesus is victorious in both the violent action

against the traders in the Temple and the verbal confrontations with
his opponents. The cluster shows a climax in the sense that after the
initial attacks by the opponents Jesus himself takes the initiative.
This section stands in opposition to the section after the discourse,
where the opponents are successful in their attempts to arrest and con-
demn Jesus and have him executed.
The Third Cluster (14.1-15.47)

More than any other part, the structure of this cluster is determined
by the sequence of the narrated events. From a chronological stand-
point, only a few incidents, such as Jesus' anointing by the woman at
Bethany (14.3-9) and Peter's denial (14.66-72), could have been placed
at some other point. In most cases, however, each narrated incident
supposes the incident preceding it, so that the sequence of events
largely agrees with the order in which things happen in reality. This
particular order has already been indicated in the third passion
prediction (10.33-34). The sequence includes the following episodes:
the plotting of the arrest (14.1-2); the offer of the traitor (14.10-11);
the movement to the place of arrest (14.26-32); the arrest (14.43-47);
the flight of the disciples (14.48-52); the transfer of the prisoner to
the house of the high priest (14.53); the trial before the Temple au-
thorities (14.55-64); the mockery and maltreatment by the Temple
authorities and their servants (14.65); the handing over to Pilate
(15.1); the interrogation and sentence by the governor (15.2-20); the
taking away to the place of execution (15.20-22); the crucifixion and
the mockery by the Temple authorities and passers-by (15.24-32);
Jesus' death (15.33-37); and finally his burial (15.42-47).
In addition to the chronological order of events, the composition
shows some chiastic features. The action of the woman who anoints
Jesus for burial (£vxa(|)iaojj,6v) establishes a link between 14.3-9 and
the account of the actual burial in 15.42-47, a connection that is
strengthened by the contrast that three women from the circle of
Jesus' followers buy spices (dpc6|LiaTa) to repeat what the one woman
had already done on her own in 14.3. Furthermore, the section con-
tains a number of unmistakable concentric combinations. The best-
known instance is the complex that consists of Jesus' trial before the
high council (14.55-65) bounded on either side by the two parts of the
12. The Structure of Part III 349
account of Peter's denial (vv. 54 and 66-72), this being framed by

Jesus' arrival at the high priest's house (14.53) and his being led to
Pilate (15.1). Another instance is the account of Jesus' way to Gol-
gotha and his crucifixion (15.20b-27), which is surrounded by two
mocking scenes, in the first of which Jesus is mocked by the Roman
soldiers (15.16-20a) and in the second by the passers-by and chief
priests (15.29-32).
In addition, a number of episodes at the beginning of the cluster are
surrounded by notices relating to temporal circumstances. Thus, the
episode at Bethany (14.3-9) is embedded in the question of the au-
thorities as to the most appropriate moment of Jesus' arrest (14.1-2)
and the answer to that question made possible by Judas' offer to betray
Jesus (14.10-11). After the episode about the preparation of the pass-
over meal, the subject of Judas' betrayal returns during the con-
versation at the beginning of the meal (14.18b-21). Two other epi-
sodes—the passover meal and the prediction of Peter's denial—are
framed by notices indicating a change of place: 14.17//18-25//26 and
14.26//27-31//32a. These notices continue to appear in 14.53-54, 15.1,
and 15.20c until Golgotha is reached in 15.22. The primary function
of these changes in location is not to help the audience remember the
text by means of concentrically structured units, but to help them fol-
low the development of the action. Nevertheless, their additional con-
centric effect is occasionally so strong that in the experience of the
reader linear sequence and concentric structuring sometimes combine.
Owing to the length of the section, the episodes can be connected in
more ways than one, with the result that several divisions are possible.
After weighing the elements mentioned above I think that the division
represented in Figure 27 is the most obvious.1
1. This division largely agrees with that proposed by Humphrey (He is Risen!,
pp. 122-47), who, however, characterizes some elements differently and speaks un-
acceptably of 'the Jews' in a too general manner. A different division is offered by
Breck (The Shape, pp. 171-72). He structures 14.1-16.8 as one single syntagm. It
is only with the greatest difficulty, however, that I can recognize the proposed
equivalence between a number of elements. I mention as an example 'D (14.12-16):
Paschal lambs are sacrificed (preparation for the Passover)' and ' D ' (15.42-46):
Jesus is buried (preparation for the Resurrection)', which gain their interrelatedness
only thanks to Breck's additions. More serious objections are, first, that the centre of
the construction lies in 14.66-72, Peter's denial, and secondly, that the changes in
location, which play such an important part elsewhere and are so prominent here
(14.53 and 15.1), are completely disregarded by Breck.
1—a woman anoints Jesus for his burial 14.1-9
1—Judas offers to deliver Jesus to the authorities 14.10-11

— two of the disciples prepare the passover meal 14.12-16
1—Jesus announces Judas' betrayal 14.17-21
broken bread :: body / poured wine :: blood 14.22-275
•—Jesus announces that the others will desert him 14.26-31
— Jesus is deserted by his disciples 14.32-42
'—Judas betrays Jesus, the others take flight 14.43-52
1— Jesus is taken to the Temple authorities 14.53

1— Peter follows Jesus at a distance 14.54
Jesus affirms his identity 14.55-65
1—Jesus is denied by Peter 14.66-72
1— and taken to Pilate 15.1
1—Pilate's question: Are you the king of the Jews? 15.2-5

—the crowd rejects Jesus as king of the Jews 15.6-15
1— soldiers mock Jesus as king of the Jews 15.16-20a
and crucify him as king of the Jews 15.20b-27
1—the Temple authorities mock Jesus as king of Israel 15.29-32
— Jesus' death, the end of the Temple establishment 15.33-38
—the centurion's reaction: Jesus was God's Son 15.39
— women concern themselves about Jesus' body 15.40-16.1
Figure 27
The structure of the central section, with Jesus' discourse, will be

discussed at the beginning of Chapter 14.
Chapter 13
WINNING IN THE TEMPLE COURT (11.1-12.44)
The story has already dealt with a number of conflicts between Jesus
and the Temple authorities. Up till now each confrontation has been
provoked by his opponents, but now Jesus takes up the challenge,
entering the lion's den. Both Jesus himself and the reader know the
outcome, even the main lines along which things will happen. Taking
note of a brief summary, however, is by no means the same as
responding to the detailed story in terms of one's own reading experi-
ence. In the first section of this part, Mark presents Jesus as going to
meet his opponents undaunted.
Entrance into Jerusalem (11.1-11)

^ h e n they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near
the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2and said to them, 'Go
into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will
find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3If
anyone says to you, "Why are you doing this?" just say this, "The Lord
needs it and will send it back here immediately."' 4They went away and
found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it,
5
some of the bystanders said to them, 'What are you doing, untying the
colt?' 6They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take
it. 7Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he
sat on it. 8Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread
leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9Then those who went ahead
and those who followed were shouting, 'Hosanna! Blessed is the one
who comes in the name of the Lord! 10Blessed is the coming kingdom of
our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!' n Then he entered
Jerusalem and went into the Temple; and when he had looked around at
everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.
11.1a. The journey is nearly finished,1 the planned end of the way al-
most in sight (10.33). The place where Jesus has meanwhile arrived is
described in unusual detail. Whether Jesus sends the two disciples to
Bethphage or to Bethany is unclear, but since he is said to 'go' to and
not to 'return' to Bethany at the end of the episode, it seems plausible
that he sends them to Bethphage. That would also explain why both
the villages are mentioned.
ll.lb-6. From the fact that Jesus sends the two disciples—the number
corresponds with 6.7—the reader infers that Jesus continues to take
the initiative in what follows. While his first plan—announcing God's
kingdom—is nearing its completion, Jesus now starts on a new plan. It
is not clear if everything told about his arrival in Jerusalem and what
happens there is part of this plan, but the fact that his precise and
detailed foreknowledge of what the two are going to find and experi-
ence comes true gives the reader the impression that that is the case.
The reader's attention is drawn particularly to the colt, which is
mentioned no less than three times. First, in the announcement of
Jesus. Hearing Jesus tell the two disciples that they will find a colt tied
up in the village, the reader thinks of Jacob's blessing of Judah (Gen.
49.11), the ancestor of David, who was to become the first king of the
tribe of Judah (2 Sam. 2.4). Jacob says to Judah that he will bind his
foal (7iri)A,o<;) to the vine and his donkey's colt (ntiXoc) to the choice
vine, a sign of prosperity and abundance. Recalling Bartimaeus's
acclamation of Jesus by the title 'son of David', the reader suspects a
connection. When the colt appears to be tethered near a door, how-
ever, it seems that what we have here is merely a precaution: whoever
does not want his donkey to run off should tie it up.
Jesus' instruction to the disciples contains an ambiguity that is dif-
ficult to render into English. The NRSV has 'The Lord needs it', but
other translations have 'the owner needs it'.2 The Greek icupioq means
both, also in Mark,3 and can have three different referents here: the
1. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel pp. 119-20) sees similarities between 11.1-11
and 1.14-15. As far as their form and content are concerned, I see no reason to con-
nect the two. The resemblance goes no further than their function.
2. That dircou belongs to KVpwq (Gundry, Mark, p. 624) is less probable, see
W. Bauer, 'xpeia', WNT, col. 1749.
3. Compare 12.9 and 13.35 with 12.11.
13. Winning in the Temple Court (11.1-12.44) 353
owner of the donkey, Jesus4 and God.5 It may even be that the narra-
tor plays on these different meanings. The bystanders, to whom the
disciples explain their action, are supposed to think of the owner, but
then the communication that he will send the colt back immediately
hardly makes sense. Jesus uses 6 icupiog with reference to himself, as
he did earlier in 5.19, and the reader can, moreover, understand it as
referring to God, who in the Septuagint is usually called 6 leupioc;
where the Hebrew text has Yhwh.
11.7-8. Like the author of Matthew, the reader thinks of Zech. 9.9,
where the Messiah is pictured entering Jerusalem riding on a young
donkey that no one has yet ridden.6 The Greek word ntb'koq, translated
above as colt, probably reminded the Roman reader of a horse rather
than a donkey.7 The first representation is more in accordance with a
Palestinian, the second with a Roman street scene. This different rep-
resentation does not block the reference to Zechariah, however. The
Greek singular of n&Xoc, appears in the Septuagint only in Gen. 49.11
and Zech. 9.9, so that the visual and ideological image is not affected
by the first audience having in mind a young horse instead of a young
donkey. The son of David—for so Bartimaeus has just identified
Jesus—has too many features in common with the figure depicted in
Zech. 9.9 for that.
The direction, but not the whole preparation, is in the hands of
Jesus. After bringing the colt to Jesus, the two do not leave it at that
but put their cloaks on its back before Jesus sits on it. Next, in a
spontaneous display of admiration and respect, many people spread
their cloaks on the road while others cover it with greenery, thus
turning Jesus' entry into Jerusalem into a sort of triumphal proces-
sion. That this is no reason for Jesus to stop the procession confirms
the reader in the view that Jesus had foreknowledge not only of the
whereabouts of the colt and what would happen to it but also of the
entry itself, and moreover that he himself directed the event.
4. 1.3; 5.19.
5. Cf. 11.9; 12.11,36; 13.20.
6. Mt. 21.2-7 speaks expressly of a donkey and her colt, and refers to Zech. 9.9
in an explicit citation.
7. Thus W. Bauer, 'ncbXoq', WNT, col. 1450, but see O. Michel, '
TWNT, VI, pp. 559-61, who refers to the meaning of the word in the LXX.
11.9-10. Curiously enough, the actual entry is hardly described; yet

the reader has no difficulty picturing this unusual triumphal proces-
sion: a group of enthusiasts cheering a man on a colt adorned with
cloaks. Readers in ancient Rome will unconsciously have compared
this motley party with the legendary triumphal procession of Vespasian
in 71 CE, shortly after the conquest of Jerusalem. It is reported by
Flavius Josephus in War 7.158-62:8 Emperor Vespasian in a chariot
and his son, Titus, on horseback, preceded by an endless procession of
images wrought of silver and gold, of splendid tableaux representing
the principal victories, and—conspicuous above all—the treasures and
cult objects from the temple of Jerusalem. The triumphal procession
of Jesus is, by comparison, an extremely humble affair. In fact, the
story about his entry into Jerusalem is perhaps best read as the epit-
ome of irony. For this event cannot claim to celebrate one single vic-
tory, and the son of David now riding into Jerusalem knows that, even
though the unceremonious crowd cheers him.
The crowd's hurrays are not free from irony either. They are
embedded in a Hebrew term that is not translated and probably meant
even less to the Roman audience than it does to present-day readers,
who at least are able to interpret 'Hosanna' as a shout of praise. The
acclamation is taken from Ps. 118.25 and is a plea to God for help,
meaning: save us. The word is connected with the name Jehoshua, the
Hebrew original of the name of Jesus, who is hailed here—again with
words from Ps. 118.25—as the one who comes in the name of God.
The crowd's cheers take a peculiar turn, however, when they speak of
'the coming kingdom of our ancestor David'. That fits in with Barti-
maeus's identification of Jesus as the son of David, but not with Jesus'
announcement in the summary of 1.15, that the kingdom of God has
come near. The acclamation 'Hosanna in the highest heaven' sounds
rather cryptic, and reminds actual readers today of 'Glory to God in
the highest heaven', which they recall from Lk. 2.14 as a song that is
sung by the angels from heaven.
11.11. The story fizzles out, somehow. Jesus—the story switches un-
expectedly to the singular—enters the city alone, although in the next
sentence the twelve appear to accompany him to Bethany. Apparently
unconcerned with disposing of what a modern reader would call loose
ends, the narrator does not answer the question of whether Jesus rides
8. Thus also Gundry, Mark, p. 634.

or walks into the city. Instead, he has Jesus proceed straight to the
Temple. Jesus' behaviour there is not that of an ordinary visitor. He
looks around at everything, inspecting the scene as it were, which
typifies him in the eyes of the reader as one qualified to form an
opinion about what goes on in the Temple and the persons responsible
for it.
In the evening, Jesus and the twelve leave Jerusalem to spend the
night in a village nearby. To leave the city at such a late hour is
unusual. Normally, inhabitants and visitors make sure that they are
inside the city walls before the gates are closed in order to be safe
from robbers and other unsavoury characters. For Jesus, however,
Jerusalem is the place from where he has been troubled earlier (3.22),
and where his opponents are hatching a plot against his life (3.6). In
his case the closed city is more like a prison than a place offering
protection against the dangers of the night.
The Temple and the Fig Tree (11.12-25)

12
On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry.
13
Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps
he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but
leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14He said to it, 'May no one
ever eat fruit from you again.' And his disciples heard it.
15
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the Temple and began to
drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the Tem-
ple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of
those who sold doves; 16and he would not allow anyone to carry anything
through the Temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, I s it not written,
"My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations"? But you
have made it a den of robbers.' 18 And when the chief priests and the
scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were
afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching.
19
And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.
20
In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away
to its roots. 21Then Peter remembered and said to him, 'Rabbi, look! The
fig tree that you cursed has withered.' 22 Jesus answered them, 'Have
faith in God. 23Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, "Be taken up
and thrown into the sea", and if you do not doubt in your heart, but
believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So
I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received
it, and it will be yours. 25Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you
have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also
forgive you your trespasses.'
11.12-13c. Here begins the travelling to and fro which—especially

after the repetition of vv. 11-12 in vv. 19-20—creates the impression
that Jesus goes to Jerusalem every day, entering the city in the morn-
ing and leaving it in the evening. That Jesus stops to see if there is any
fruit on a fig tree because he is hungry is a harmless beginning to an
episode that is full of menace. The mention of the fig tree in leaf keeps
up this harmless character because it shows the tree to be normal and
healthy. Already slightly alarming, however, is the fact that Jesus
finds nothing on it but leaves.
11.13d-14. What puts the signal at danger is the communication by the

narrator, 'for it was not the season for figs'.9 The reader wonders for
a moment if Jesus can be so ignorant as not to know that figs are out
of season,10 but dismisses the idea immediately. The questions raised
by the story become really confusing, however, when Jesus uses the
incidental seasonal absence of fruit as a pretext for expressing the
wish that no one may ever eat figs from that tree again. The reader as-
sumes that, coming from Jesus, such a wish is something other than a
wish of someone else. A wish of Jesus is very near an order, and may
be expected to come true, as has been the case with earlier orders of
his.11 Does it also mean that Jesus' pronouncement will cause the in-
tended effect? In that case we would be dealing here with a curse, but
as long as the reader does not know Peter's reaction (v. 21), other
interpretations are just as valid; after all, the mere fact that no one
eats a tree's fruit does not mean that that tree bears no fruit, and even
less that it is cursed. The only thing said about the disciples is that they
hear Jesus' words. That appears to be important later because it antic-
ipates what will happen when they pass the fig tree the next day. At
this point of the story, however, there is no evidence of any surprise
or curiosity on the part of the disciples, which in turn surprises the
audience and keeps them in suspense. That is not to say that the reader
rejects the possibility that Jesus did indeed curse the tree, but then in
9. Here the function of the yap clause is especially important. See Fowler,
Reader, pp. 96-97.
10. The presentation of Gundry {Mark, p. 636) that Jesus is not looking for figs
but for fresh eatable buds is not only unfounded but could only be accepted by
Roman readers if they themselves ate buds. Today, readers think automatically of
figs.
11. 1.25, 41; 2.11; 3.5; 4.39; 5.41; 7.29, 34; 9.25.
the sense of a metaphorical symbolic action, like those enacted by the

prophets.12 Then the curse would answer perfectly what Jeremiah says
about the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 'When I wanted to gather them,
says the Lord, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree'
(Jer. 8.13).
11.15-16. Jesus enters the Temple for the second time. The first time,
he had had a quick look around and left the city almost immediately
because it was already late (v. 11). Now he has a full day ahead of
him. Jesus' action is summarized in a few explosive sentences. Jesus
deals first with the sellers and buyers, then with the money-changers
and dove merchants, demonstratively overturning their tables and
chairs. The latter two have a specific function. The money-changers
enable people to acquire the money they need to pay their Temple tax,
the dove merchants sell the doves needed for small private sacrifices.
Jesus' last action is mentioned without further elaboration and is an
anticlimax for the reader.
77.77. Jesus concludes with a saying that motivates his action. He ap-
peals to a passage from the Scriptures, Isa. 56.7, quoted according to
the Septuagint. The verse is drawn from a part of Isaiah concerned
with the place of the other nations within the communion of Yhwh.
This aspect is not the most relevant here. The primary emphasis lies
on the contrast between the Temple as a house of prayer and as a
trading centre for people bent on profit. The reproach that the traders
have turned the Temple into a den of robbers goes considerably fur-
ther. The reader should notice that the action is not aimed explicitly at
the Temple authorities.
77.7S. The scene shifts to the high priests and scribes, who—informed
of the event in the Temple—come into action, and thereby show them-
selves to be the authorities responsible for the sacrificial ceremonies,
as well as for all other activities taking place in the Temple. For the
moment they restrict their action to backstage consultations. The
reader recognizes the words 'they kept looking for a way to kill him'
12. Figs and fig trees, like wine and vines, are regularly used as metaphors:
Judg. 9.8-13; Isa. 34.4; Jer. 24.1-10; 29.17; Hos. 9.10; Nah. 3.12; Prov. 27.18.
Examples of symbolic actions or situations are found in 1 Kgs 11.30; 22.11; Isa.
8.18; 20.1-6; Jer. 16.2; Ezek. 24.17; Hos. 1.2-9; 3.1-5.
as similar to those used of the Pharisees and Herodians at the begin-

ning of the book (3.6). The story does not say whether or not the
Herodians are still participants in the plot. Meanwhile, the reader un-
derstands that Jesus has as little to expect from the Temple authorities
as from the fig tree.
11.19-21. In the evening Jesus and the disciples leave the city, pre-
sumably to return to Bethany. The reader hears nothing about the fig
tree. That subject turns up in the morning when Jesus and his party go
back to the city again. Is that the morning of the next day? The story
does not say, but the reader takes that for granted. It appears that the
fig tree has withered to the roots. Peter is quick to interpret this as the
effect of Jesus' intervention. Although the reader has learned not to
accept Peter's interpretations without question (8.32-33; 9.5-6), it is
quite reasonable to follow his explanation in this case, even if it pre-
sents the reader with the question of why the fig tree deserved a curse,
and, if so, why it had to be punished so radically. The curse has come
true in a very short time, and in a way that is both demonstrative and
hyperbolic, for the tree has not just become uninteresting to people
searching for figs, it also appears to be stone-dead.
As a reaction to the absence of fruit, Jesus' cursing of the tree is so
extreme that it confirms the idea that this may be a symbolic action.
The story of the fig tree is, together with that of the healing of the two
women in 5.21-43, one of the most recognizable examples of a sand-
wich construction. When two incidents—here the cursing of the fig
tree and the cleansing of the Temple—are arranged and combined in
this way, they illuminate each other and thereby strengthen their
effect on the audience. The fig tree in leaf is a metaphor for the mag-
nificent Temple buildings.13 The infertility of the tree is an image of
the decay of the Temple, which has changed from a house of prayer
into a robbers' den.14 Its being withered to the roots stands for the
13. See the observation in 13.1.

14. Berg ('Reading in/to Mark', p. 200) illustrates how this story can also be
read in another way: 'Why kill the tree? Why such an arbitrary display of power?
Perhaps I was particularly struck by this event because I am a Jew. What will happen
to those who do not believe. . . ? If the fig tree is meant to supply an answer, it is a
frightening one indeed.' However, the story gives no answer to this question at all,
and, what is more, it does not even raise the question.
definitive character of the destruction of the Temple.15 Jesus' action in

the Temple makes clear that the story of the fig tree is not really about
the tree but about what is to happen to the Temple.16 The Roman
readers may have watched the triumphal procession in 71 CE, when
the holy objects from the Temple were carried as trophies into Rome.
The explanation in v. 13, that it is not the season for figs, indicates one
of the differences between the Temple and the fig tree. While the fig
tree is subject to the cycle of the seasons, the Temple and the people
connected with it are not. For the time has come (1.15), and this calls
for a change of heart, including those responsible for the Temple.
Jesus' curse applies not to the fig tree but to the Temple and the
leaders17 of the Temple establishment.18
11.22-25. As the following words of Jesus are introduced as a reaction

to what has gone before (drcoKpiGei*;), the reader expects Jesus to
respond to Peter's observation. Since that is not the case, the reader
becomes disoriented. Neither in content nor in form—and that is par-
ticularly true with regard to the beginning of the saying—is there a
recognizable connection with the preceding. Jesus addresses the disci-
ples as if he had nothing to do with the withered fig tree. He begins to
speak of trust in God, yet in his account of the fig tree the narrator
has not said anything even remotely connected with it. At first sight,
things are further complicated by the reference to the mountain that
throws itself into the sea. The mountain must be the Mount of Olives
mentioned in 11.1, which, according to the impression given by the
15. The withering to the roots, that is, from the roots upwards, or from its start-
ing point, evokes at subsequent readings of Mark the image of the Temple curtain
that in 15.38 is torn in two from its starting point, that is, from top to bottom.
16. The metaphorical references of a plant and a building are closer to each other
for the authors of the Old Testament and Paul than for us: Jer. 1.10; 1 Cor. 3.6-17;
in Mark the parable of the vinegrowers, which ends in the metaphor of the corner-
stone of a building.
17. That they have received John's baptism of repentance is implied by 1.5,
where the predeterminer 'all' before Jerusalemites is in a marked position; that they
have not really repented, however, will come up in 11.27-33.
18. For arguments against a symbolic interpretation see Gundry, Mark, pp. 671-
81. Not one of them seems really convincing. Their unusually large number and
diversity gives the impression that the author himself is not impressed by any of
them.
story, Jesus passes whenever he travels from Bethany to Jerusalem.19

However, although the Mount of Olives is visible to the disciples, the
nearest sea—the Dead Sea—is not; but this observation presumes a
knowledge of geography that the average reader cannot be expected to
have. On further consideration the reader sees a connection after all.
Since to be thrown into the sea means certain death (5.13; 9.42), the
fate of the Mount of Olives covered in trees presents a hyperbolic
analogue of the destruction of the fig tree. The introduction in v. 22,
'Have faith in God', as well as the last words of v. 23, 'it will be done
for you' (eaxai awco), leave no doubt that the cursing of the moun-
tain depends for its fulfilment on God. To the thought world of the
Bible, a curse is like a blessing that has no direct effect. Both are de-
pendent on God's plans with regard to human beings,20 and have
therefore—strange as it may sound to us—something of a prayer.
That goes not only for the human world, nations and human beings,
but also for the world of nature.21 This also explains why the conclud-
ing sayings deal with the subject of prayer, which connects them with
the words from Isa. 56.7, quoted by Jesus in v. 17.
Though generally phrased, the last two sentences may have had
quite a specific meaning for the original readers in Rome after the
year 70 CE. In particular, survivors and relatives of victims of the
Neronian persecution possibly knew Christians or even members of
their own household community who had reported fellow Christians
to the authorities. They were bound to bear a grudge against the
informants among them. Jesus' saying about the forgiving Father in
heaven kills two birds with one stone. It motivates the injured party to
be forgiving, and reminds the guilty party that forgiveness is possible.
19. W.R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-criti-
cal Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark's Gospel and its Rela-
tion to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition (JSNTSup, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
2nd edn, 1995), pp. 95-127, and Swartley, Scripture Traditions, p. 160, favour a
different view. They take 'this mountain' in v. 23 to be the mountain on which the
Temple stood. This interpretation fits in extremely well with the context of the
episode, but what speaks against it is that there is nothing in the text to suggest that 6
opog oirax; should be identified with the Temple mount'. The Mount of Olives, on
the other hand, is explicitly mentioned in 11.1, and, moreover, 11.20-25 does not
take place in the Temple but on the way and in the vicinity of Bethany, which in 11.1
is said to be 'near the Mount of Olives'.
20. Cf., for example, Gen. 12.7-9; 19.14; Num. 23-24; Amos 1-2.
21. Gen. 3.14-17; Isa. 24.6-7; Jer. 23.10.
This is the first and only place in the book where God is called 'your
Father in heaven'.22 Everywhere else, as in v. 22, the narrator and the
story characters use the word 'God' (6 6e6<;).23 An unexpected finding
for readers who also know the other Gospels.
The Baptism of John (11.27-33)

27
Again they came to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the Temple, the
chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to him 28and said, 'By what
authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority to do
them?' 29Jesus said to them, 'I will ask you one question; answer me, and
I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 Did the baptism of
John come from heaven, or was it of human origin? Answer me.' 31They
argued with one another, 'If we say, "From heaven", he will say, "Why
then did you not believe him?" 32But shall we say, "Of human origin"?'—
they were afraid of the crowd, for all regarded John as truly a prophet.
33
So they answered Jesus, 'We do not know.' And Jesus said to them,
'Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.'
11.27-28. Again, and now for the last time, Jesus and the disciples
enter the city and the Temple, which he will leave definitively in 13.1.
That the Temple authorities approach Jesus only now, and not imme-
diately after his action in the Temple, is due to two circumstances.
First, in the presentation of the story, they had not been eye witnesses
of the incident themselves but had been informed of it by others. Sec-
ondly, after that they had first consulted one another on how they
might eliminate Jesus (11.18). The latter aspect in particular deter-
mines the nature of their question, whose only object is to trap Jesus
into saying something that could lead to his destruction. The reader
understands that the questioners assume that Jesus speaks as a prophet
(cf. 6.14-15; 8.28) who has no authority to do so, and is therefore,
according to Deut. 18.20, guilty of a capital offence. As with all ques-
tions, the reader automatically thinks of possible answers. If the ques-
tion were not a trap, the appropriate answer would be that Jesus
derives his authority not from someone outside him but from the Holy
Spirit, who is active in him (1.8, 10); but if Jesus were to say that he
would walk straight into the trap. Would that really be so very bad?
22. Jesus will use the word 'father' for God very exceptionally in the rest of the
story, namely only in 13.32 and 14.36.
23. 2.7, 26; 3.35; 5.7; 7.8, 9, 13; 8.33; 10.9, 18, 27.
After all, some time ago he announced that it would be exactly those
who are now putting this type of question to him (8.31) who would
engage in activities resulting in his death.24
11.29-30. Jesus' response to the situation is in line with his conduct

since his arrival in the city. Instead of answering, Jesus parries the
attack with a counter-question, which confronts his opponents with a
dilemma. 25 Unlike the question with which the Temple authorities
approach him, Jesus' question does not seem to be aimed directly
against them. On second thoughts, though, the reader knows better.
John and his baptism are, after all, not a safe and innocuous topic for
these inhabitants of Jerusalem. The narrator has insisted earlier that
all Judaea and all the people of Jerusalem had gone out to John, and
had been baptized by him, professing they had changed their way of
life (1.8). Consequently, among John's baptisands and listeners there
were also those who are now challenging the authority of Jesus and
who are out to kill him. The wording of Jesus' counter-question
mirrors the question of the Temple authorities. He wants them to tell
him from whom John had received his authority. The reader knows
the answer quite well: The one who sends the messenger is mentioned
in the adapted citation from Malachi in 1.2, and the one who autho-
rizes the voice in the wilderness in the quotation from Isaiah in 1.3.
John received his mandate from none other than God himself. The
reader knows that from the citations that the narrator has incor-
porated in his narrative and, although the Temple authorities were, of
course, familiar with the citations taken from Malachi and Isaiah, the
narrator will not have expected them to connect those passages with
John.
11.31-32. Even though the Temple authorities, in contrast to the read-

ers, did not know that John was, in fact, the returned Elijah sent by
God, they will no doubt have regarded him as a prophet, at least if
they had gone out to John with the same sincerity as the others. Or
does Jesus suggest that their baptism and the conversion of which it
24. The answer to this question follows in ch. 14: even as the victim of his ad-
versaries, Jesus directs the events of the last days in Jerusalem.
25. See M. Reiser, Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der Hel-
lenistischen Volksliteratur (WUNT, 2.11; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1984), pp. 121-
23.
was a sign, had not been sincere? John's baptism ought to have changed
the course of their lives. Their murderous intentions, however, show
rather the opposite. That would seem to imply either that their con-
version had not been sincere or that they have since gone astray. What
the narrator tells us about their considerations is somewhat ambigu-
ous. If they reply that John's baptism was from heaven, Jesus will
unmask them by confronting them with the awkward question about
why they did not believe John. What can that belief relate to? That his
baptism of repentance would result in the forgiveness of sins (1.4)?
Or that the one who would come after him would be more powerful
than he was (1.7-8)? The reader can only guess. On the other hand, if
they say that John's baptism was not from heaven, they are bound to
come into conflict with public opinion, for everyone takes John for a
prophet. Moreover, the Temple authorities realize that it is difficult to
put their plan into effect without the cooperation of the crowd. At the
end of the episode the reader has the impression that the narrator
represents the discussion as taking place in public, maybe in one of the
buildings or forecourts of the Temple. The crowd's impression of the
discussion seems to be of decisive importance for the outcome of the
conflict between Jesus and the leaders of the Temple establishment.
11.33. They refuse to answer the question posed by Jesus, and Jesus in
his turn prefers not to answer theirs. The first attempt to put the plan
for Jesus' liquidation into operation has failed. The suspense is not
resolved, but it relates not so much to whether the Temple authorities
will succeed, as to how they will carry off their plan.
The Vinegrowers and the Son of the Landlord (12.1-12)

lr
Then he began to speak to them in parables. 'A man planted a vineyard,
put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower;
then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 2When the season
came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the
produce of the vineyard. 3But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him
away empty-handed. 4 And again he sent another slave to them; this one
they beat over the head and insulted. 5Then he sent another, and that one
they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others
they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to
them, saying, "They will respect my son." 7But those tenants said to one
another, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be
ours." 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vine-
yard. 9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and
destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10Have you not read
this Scripture: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cor-
nerstone; n this was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes"?'
12
When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they
wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went
away.
12.1a. After Jesus has paid the Temple authorities in kind, the reader
expects them to slink off and wait for an opportunity to make another
attempt later. Before they get a chance to leave, however, Jesus begins
to tell a parable, and just like everyone else who, having heard the
beginning of a story, also wants to hear the end, the Temple authori-
ties stay to listen. Even more surprising is that Jesus, through the
story he tells them, now answers the question he had left unanswered
in 11.28, and thereby exposes the position they have chosen to occupy
in the conflict with him. There is also a thematic link between the pre-
sent story and the last episode, where the authorities questioned the
source of the prophetic teaching of Jesus but were unable to answer
Jesus' question concerning the origin of the baptism of John. The
parable, then, is about prophets sent by God, and how people respond
to them.
12.1b. The place and situation are described in a few ultra-short sen-
tences. Readers familiar with Isaiah recognize them as a summary of
the opening lines of the song of the vineyard (Isa. 5.1-7). This deter-
mines their reading of the parable in two ways. First, owing to the
song's atmosphere of failure and destruction they expect the parable to
end in catastrophe and tragedy, too. Secondly, they understand the im-
agery of the parable from the start, for as it says in Isa. 5.7: 'The
vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the people of
Judah are his pleasant planting'. The story will be about things hap-
pening between God on the one hand and Israel—more specifically
perhaps one or more persons connected with Judah—on the other.
Even by the end of the first series of sentences, however, Jesus' para-
ble differs from the song of Isaiah in that it has human characters,
who play a distinctive part in it. Besides the landlord, who has built
and prepared the vineyard, there are tenants, many servants, and
finally the son. In contrast to the owner in Isaiah, the owner in Jesus'
story goes on a journey abroad. After his departure the story takes its
own course, albeit in the same atmosphere of failure and destruction.
It is no longer a story about a vineyard but about people connected
with a vineyard, in particular the tenants and their landlord.
12.2-5. The story really starts moving when the vineyard—and this is
another difference from the song of Isaiah—appears to prosper so that
the owner may count on a share of its produce. The story creates the
impression that the rent is to be paid in kind (v. 2) and that the absen-
tee landlord has to send someone to collect it. When the servants come
back empty-handed or do not return at all because the tenants have
murdered them, the story reaches its climax. The detailed and com-
prehensive account of the futile journeys of the succession of ser-
vants—which is in decided contrast to the summary opening of the
story—suggests that any further attempts to collect the rent are point-
less and, if the rent is to be paid in kind, also unnecessary. The reader
recognizes that the ill-treated servants stand for the whole series of
prophets whom God has sent to Israel, and of whom the last was only
recently beheaded in Herod's prison (6.14-29; 11.32).
72.6. At this point the story takes a dramatic turn. After the death of
the last servant the only possible course of action left to the owner is
to send his son. That he is the only son adds to the drama. Fathers tend
to love an only son more. On the other hand, the father of an only son
is more vulnerable. After the loss of his son the father cannot live on
in anyone bearing his name, and his family will sink into oblivion af-
ter his own death. There is yet another aspect of the story that height-
ens the drama. The reader immediately recognizes the son as Jesus,
who has twice been called 'my beloved son' by the voice from heaven
(1.11; 9.7), and in exactly the same words as are used here at the be-
ginning and end of v. 6 (6 i)io<; dyaTrnxoq and 6 moq \iov).26 Consid-
ering the past conduct of the tenants, it seems extremely naive of the
father to send his only son. However, it is perhaps exactly because of
26. Davidsen, The Narrative Jesus, p. 183: There is no metaphorical relationship

between the son and Jesus but between the relationships, which are characterized by
similarity'. In a formula: Son : Tenants :: Jesus : authorities. In my opinion, David-
sen is right only within the narrative text of the parable, but not within that of the
book. After all, Jesus there is also 6 mog fioi) 6 ayanr\x6(; (1.11; 9.7) without the
opposition of the Temple authorities.
this that, for Jesus' audience, the fictional world of the story collapsed
to make place for the real world in which they stood listening to Jesus
in the Temple square. Those listeners are, after all, unaware of what
readers of the story know about this son, and therefore need other
signals to understand what the narrator wants to say with his story.
Besides, the readers have known for some time that the son Jesus, just
like some of the prophets, is doomed to die, and that it is the Temple
authorities who want to kill him. The Temple authorities in their turn
are planning Jesus' death, but without knowing what the readers know
about the identity of Jesus.
The supposition of the landlord that the tenants will spare his son,
naive as it may seem, has nevertheless an important side effect on the
readers of today who, in addition to the fiction (that is, the story told
by Jesus), consider the reality mirrored by it. For they are able to as-
certain that the owner of the vineyard does not say: 'True, my son
will not survive this mission, but that is the inevitability of the scenar-
io'. This means that there is a tension between the story and the tradi-
tional Christian representation that God had to demand the life of his
son as a peace offering, which seems to imply that the death of the son
is part of some sinister master plan to which God is also subjected! On
the other hand, taking the owner to be an image of God these readers
are puzzled by the consideration that leads to the sending of the son.
The thought that God would not know what Jesus knows, namely, that
he will meet his death, is inconsistent with what the readers know of
both, and thus reminds them that metaphor and reality do not com-
pletely coincide.
It is due to the tension between these two aspects and its own richly
suggestive character that the story, and what it stands for, raises all
sorts of complicated—and sometimes contrary—feelings and thoughts,
which make it difficult for the reader to come to terms with it.
12.7-8. The detail about the inheritance and the heir also has alienat-
ing aspects.27 Even if a legal principle were behind the action of the
tenants, its application here would legitimize the greatest injustice
imaginable. It is almost as if the naivety of the tenants matches that of
27. That there was a regulation according to which the property of proselytes
who had died without an inheritor could be claimed by the first one to take posses-
sion of it (Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, p. 355), will have been unknown to the
Roman readers, as it is to readers today.
the owner. In any event, the considerations of the tenants immediately

make it clear that the optimistic expectations of the owner will not be
fulfilled. When the tenants, besides killing the son, desecrate his body
by throwing it out of the vineyard, where it will be a prey to animals,
the reader remembers that this incident has a precedent in the Elijah
cycle: after the murder of Naboth, King Ahab gains possession of
Naboth's vineyard, and Jezebel, who was responsible for the murder,
dies a gruesome death, after which her body falls prey to dogs (1 Kgs
21 and 2 Kgs 9.30-37). Against this background the menacing charac-
ter of the situation becomes even more acute. With the murder and
desecration of the son the story comes to an abrupt end.
72.9. In spite of this, Jesus goes on speaking. Instead of finishing the

story, however, he asks the listeners what they think the owner will
do. This may seem a rhetorical question, put into the mouth of Jesus
by the narrator to heighten the drama of the story. In fact, it is not,
because the question is not in the aorist, the tense in which the parable
is told, but in the future, which means that with the question Jesus
leaves the time order of the narrated story for that in which he is
speaking to his listeners. Apart from the change in time order ex-
pressed by the future tense,28 the fictional characters of the parable
continue to determine the other aspects of the discourse, and in par-
ticular what Jesus wants to convey with his story. The same applies to
the answer that Jesus gives to his own question without waiting for
someone from the audience to answer it. It deals with the owner, the
tenants, and the vineyard, but is again formulated in the future tense,
as if these story figures belonged to the same world as that in which
the communication between Jesus and the Temple authorities takes
place. Again, the fictional reality of the narrated story merges with
the reality of the total story. This partly explains why readers do not
really ask themselves what means of power the landlord has at his dis-
posal to destroy the tenants; they automatically identify the one who
will come as God. What, then, do the Temple authorities think of the
parable? They are, after all, the ones primarily addressed. According
to v. 12 they realized that Jesus had aimed the parable at them, and it
would seem that they had been aware of this from at least v. 9.
28. On this question see the classic work of H. Weinrich, Tempus, Besprochene
and erzdhlte Welt (Sprache und Literatur, 16; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 3rd edn,
1977), which also pays attention to the Greek (pp. 288-93).
Although the readers obviously understand more than the audience,

that is not to say that they understand everything. The similarities
between the beginning of the parable, on the one hand, and Isa. 5.1
and the pronouncement of 5.7 about Israel and Judah, on the other,
could easily suggest that the vinegrowers represent the entire Jewish
people and that, by implication, the parable announces the end of the
special place and role of Israel.29 In that case, Mark would really go
much further than Paul in Romans 9-11. Besides, it would confront us
with the exciting question of how this standpoint by the author of
Mark would relate to the ideas of Jesus, the protagonist of his story.
The characteristic openness of Mark towards non-Jews, however, by
no means implies the exclusion of Jews or the end of the privileged
position of Israel. The very strong rejection concerns only the Temple
authorities, and not other persons, whether Jews or not. Once the
destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had become a fact and author
and readers knew about it, the extermination of the vinegrowers
would seem to make every extratextual reference difficult or even im-
possible. Be that as it may, it seems unjustified to read v. 9 as saying
that God now gives the privileged position of Israel to the Gentiles.
The transfer that Jesus announces concerns rather the displacement
of the Temple authorities in favour of the twelve, whom he has
appointed to proclaim the kingdom of God and cast out demons, just
as he does himself (3.14-15; 6.7-13).
12.10-11. With his unexpected question of v. 9, followed by his own

answer, Jesus has not yet finished speaking, however. Leaving the
parable story unfinished he continues with a quotation from Ps.
118.22, quoted literally according to the Septuagint (Ps. 117.22). To
the metaphor of the vine and the metaphorical action of planting, the
quotation adds that of the house and the action of building, and thus
29. J. Gnilka, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Freiburg: Herder, 1994),

p. 171, erroneously asserts: 'Die Einleitung des Gleichnisses von den bosen Winzen
kann. . . . nicht ohne einen Bezug auf Israel gelesen werden. Die durch die Able-
hnung der Propheten gepragte Geschichte des Volkes erfahrt jetzt einen AbschluB in
der Zuruckweisung des "geliebten Sohnes" (12.1 ff.).' Even the direct context puts
Gnilka in the wrong. Those who, according to v. 12, understand the parable to be
directed against them are the Temple authorities mentioned in 11.27, and not the
crowd, let alone Israel or the Jews.
connects this episode with 11.11-18.30 It is also an essential addition to

the unfinished parable story. The contrast between the rejection of the
stone31 and its privileged place as the cornerstone of the building sug-
gests that the murder of the son by the tenants will be followed by his
rehabilitation, or, to put it in terms of the total story, by his resurrec-
tion from the dead, mentioned in the three announcements of suffer-
ing (8.31; 9.31; 10.34).
With this addition the parable story appears to be a mirror story of
what happens to Jesus in the last part of the book, which deals with the
death and resurrection of Jesus but also—albeit in the form of an
announcement and symbolic action—with the destruction of the Tem-
ple. As a mirror story it is then the counterpart of the parable of the
sower (4.3-8), which expresses in miniature what the first main part
of the book tells about Jesus.32
The parable story also appears to round off the theme of the pre-
ceding episode. The question of Jesus' authority is raised here in fig-
urative and indirect terms, as is usual in a parable story. Both the
many servants and, eventually, the only son are sent by the landlord,
as the prophets and Jesus are sent by God. The tenants stand for the
Temple authorities who, unwilling to listen to the message, smother
the voice of the messenger.
72.72. As in 11.18, the Temple authorities want to get hold of Jesus in

order to silence him, just as the vinegrowers silenced the servants and
the son and, as before in 11.18, they are afraid of the crowds. What
strikes the reader in particular is that the Temple authorities have no
trouble in recognizing the parable as being directed against them.33
Apparently, they need no further explanation to understand that. This
stands in sharp contrast to the inability of the disciples to comprehend
the parables (4.13) and the meaning of the loaves (6.52; 8.17-21). The
30. The fact that Mk 12.10-11 is a literal quotation from the LXX makes it less
probable in my opinion that the Hebrew wordplay between ben (son) and 'eben
(stone) also plays a part here, the more so because the Aramaic term for son, bar, is
then even further removed from 'eben. Neither the first nor the present-day readers
would be able to recognize a wordplay of that nature, anyway.
31. For the choice of the verb 'reject' see 8.31.
3 2. See Almeida, L 'operativite semantique, passim.
33. Fowler {Reader, p. 95) rightly observes that this explanatory yap clause is
essential for the decoding of the parable.
fact that the Temple authorities understand the story increases their
guilt. If they nevertheless decide to go through with their plan and
keep the inheritance for themselves, it will not be possible for them to
say later: 'We did not know what we were doing'.34 When they now
leave the field to Jesus, the reader understands that this is not a
definitive retreat but a strategic return to their former positions.
Paying Tax to the Emperor (12.13-17)

13
Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him
in what he said. 14And they came and said to him, Teacher, we know
that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard
people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth.
Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15Should we pay them, or
should we not?' But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, 'Why are
you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.' 16And
they brought one. Then he said to them, 'Whose head is this, and whose
title?' They answered, 'The emperor's.' 17Jesus said to them, 'Give to the
emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are
God's.' And they were utterly amazed at him.
12.13. Realizing that Jesus' thrust in the preceding episode has weak-
ened their position, the Temple authorities try to achieve their objec-
tives in a roundabout way. They call on the Pharisees and Herodians,
who in 3.6 had already begun to conspire how to destroy Jesus, after
the Pharisees had succeeded in catching Jesus breaking the rules of the
sabbath. This time they may trap him into making a rash, incriminat-
ing statement. The precise motive behind the operation is not clear in
advance. Do they intend to discredit Jesus with the authorities, or with
the people? That the incident is staged in the busy Temple square,
where a meaty discussion is bound to attract a large audience eager to
take sides, suggests that they in any case try to disengage the crowds
from Jesus.
12.14-15a. When they address Jesus, their voices ooze with flattery.
What they say is not untrue or exaggerated. On the contrary, it is all
true, but as they do not mean what they say, their glowing tributes to
the sincerity, impartiality and truthfulness of Jesus sound false in the
extreme. In contrast to the elaborate address, the question that follows
34. The words of Lk. 23.24 are not quite consistent with 20.19.
is brief, matter-of-fact, and to the point, but it is no less cunning. It is

impossible for Jesus to evade it, while whichever answer he may give
will get him into trouble. If he says yes, he will antagonize the people
of Jerusalem and the large crowds attending the passover celebrations,
who offer passive resistance to the occupying authorities by dodging
taxes wherever they can. If he says no, he will have the full support of
the public but run the risk of being reported to the Romans for stir-
ring up the people. Jesus will have a hard job to make a good move in
this critical position.
12.15b-16. Like the Temple authorities, Jesus uses a diversionary tac-

tic, deferring a definite reply. The gain of time keeps the readers in
suspense. To start with, the narrator confirms the reader's impression
that the questioners try to hoodwink Jesus by flattering him. This he
underlines first in the narrative text, then also in the first part of Jesus'
answer. After that, neither of the two preprogrammed answers fol-
lows. Instead, Jesus asks for a denarius. That is a Roman silver coin,
being the ordinary pay for a day's labour at the time. It would be
readily available in the Temple square as it was also used for paying
the Temple tax.35 Hearing the word denarius Roman readers immedi-
ately saw the coin in their minds' eye, and if it was that of Vespasian,
with his head on one side and the inscription Judea capta (Judaea con-
quered) on the other,36 it definitely produced an ironic recollection.
Actual readers can form a picture of it with the help of a photograph
of a denarius with the head of Tiberius.37 None of this is necessary,
however, to understand the story. The place of the readers is, after
all, among the bystanders who are following the discussion with inter-
est, wondering who is going to win, but who probably do not get a
close view of the coin, either. Anyway, both the people present and
the readers hear from the opponents what is on the coin. It would
seem, though, that neither the bystanders nor the opponents see what
the reader sees, namely, that the sending for the denarius is a trick to
distract them rather than a serious part of a logical argumentation.
35. See Betlyon, 'Coinage*, pp. 1076-89. In the New Testament the denarius is
regularly mentioned: besides Mk 6.37; 12.15; 14.5, it is found six times in Matthew,
three times in Luke; twice in John, and twice in Acts.
36. See the picture in Betlyon, 'Coinage', p. 1081.
37. See M.S. Miller and J.L. Miller, Encyclopedia of Bible Life (London: A. &
C. Black, 1952), 111. 90.
12.17. The reply that Jesus eventually gives is a verbal conjuring trick
that amuses the reader who understands it, for although the coin bears
the name and image of Caesar, it is not the emperor's property. The
head serves only as the hallmark of the coin's authenticity. It indicates
that the coin was issued by the imperial mint, and guarantees its value.
Jesus' reply has more senses than one. On the one hand it sounds pro-
found, namely in the part relating to God, on the other hand it is
trivial and meaningless. It definitely does not answer the question, but
it is precisely that that amuses the reader and must also have pleased
the bystanders. The attackers, who have been silenced by the second
part of Jesus' answer, are in no position to react to his words without
exposing themselves to the mockery of those present. The reader won-
ders whether the ones said to be amazed at Jesus' reply are his ques-
tioners or the bystanders. The question is left unanswered, but the fact
that just before this episode there have been several mentions of the
public's sympathy and the Temple authorities' fear of the crowd
(11.18, 32; 12.1238) makes it likely that the people see Jesus as the
winner of this argument, and admire him for it.
The questioners are unpleasantly surprised by the outcome of their
attempt. They have put an improper question to Jesus, and Jesus has
paid them in kind by giving them an improper answer. In the eyes of
the listeners, however, they have been outwitted and defeated by Jesus.
In spite of the dramatic nature of the encounter, the reader finds it
amusing that Jesus has decided the argument through a piece of verbal
jugglery. With this undignified and anonymous exit, the Pharisees and
Herodians disappear into nothingness. Neither group is mentioned
again in the book.
Resurrection: Yes or No? (12.18-27)

i8
Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and
asked him a question, saying, 19 Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a
man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the
widow and raise up children for his brother. 20There were seven brothers;
the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21 and the second
married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22 none
of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the res-
urrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.7
38. And again in 12.37.

24
Jesus said to them, 'Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you
know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25For when they rise
from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like
angels in heaven. 26And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in
the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, "I
am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? 27 He
is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.'
12.18. A new category of opponents is put on the stage. They belong

to the Sadducees, who have not appeared in the book before. The text
does not say that they are sent, but after the foregoing the reader can-
not but imagine that they, too, are accomplices of the Temple authori-
ties. As they are unknown to the reader, the narrator introduces them
with a few words. His characterization agrees with what we know
about the Sadducees from other sources. They keep to the written
Torah and do not accept the authority of the oral Torah. As the writ-
ten Torah says nothing about the resurrection of the dead—and, for
that matter, with the exception of Dan. 12.2, neither do the prop-
hets—the Sadducees, in contrast to the other Jews,39 reject the belief
in resurrection. The author of Mark or the first teller of this partic-
ular story must have known this, for that is exactly the subject he has
them discuss with Jesus. It is noteworthy that the characterization of
the Sadducees is not represented as an explanation given by the nar-
rator, elsewhere often incorporated in a sentence beginning with 'for'
(yap), but forms part of the narrative text itself.
72.79. To introduce the subject the adversaries refer to a precept from

the Torah that is found in Deut. 25.5-10. It is briefly summarized in
words derived partly from Deuteronomy and partly from the story
about Onan and Tamar, who sabotaged this precept (Gen. 38). It has
everything to do with the theme that lies at the basis of the question
about life and death. After all, the purpose of the levirate marriage is
to prevent a man's name being blotted out in Israel and thus protect
him from permanent death (Deut. 25.6).
12.20-23. The Sadducees try to put Jesus in a difficult position by re-

lating a case in which seven brothers successively enter into a levirate
marriage with the same woman. The Sadducees could, of course, have
39. See Schurer and Vermes, History, II, pp. 404-12; Acts 23.8.
taken the case of the three sons of Judah, whose story is told in Gene-
sis 38, but even the hyperbolic number of seven husbands is not with-
out precedent. It reminds the reader of Tobias, whose wife had had
seven bridegrooms, each one of whom was killed by a demon on the
wedding night (Tob. 6). The question of whose wife she will be in the
resurrection appeals to the imagination and sense of humour of both
listeners and readers. With this the Sadducees will certainly have had
the laugh on their side. It is indeed a comical sight, these seven men
who hope to be reunited with their former wife in the next world but
then discover that they have six rivals. Precisely because they are so
many, the implicit reasoning works as a reductio ad absurdum.
12.24-27. Jesus gives a relatively detailed reply. In contrast to the

Sadducees, he immediately gets personal, rebuking them for not
knowing the Scriptures, an allegation that is highly pertinent with
regard to adversaries who recognize only the written Torah. His
answer consists of two parts, of which the first deals with the relations
between men and women, and the second with the resurrection. In this
context, it speaks for itself that Jesus appeals to a passage from the
Torah to prove his point.
The reader is somewhat surprised by a difference in terminology.
Verse 26 speaks of the rising of the dead, which is the issue put for-
ward by the Sadducees. Yet v. 25 speaks of something that coincides
only partly with that, namely, 'rising from (EK) the dead'. This termi-
nology is used in the case of John the baptist in 6.14, 17 and in that of
the Son of Man in 9.9. In this connection it is important to remember
that the disciples asked themselves what 'rising from the dead' could
mean (9.10). Faced with the same question here, the reader comes to
the conclusion that the phrase concerns the resurrection of one indi-
vidual at a moment when it has not yet been granted to (the) others
that have died. That is the notion that the Roman readers encountered
frequently in Romans, where Paul speaks about the resurrection of
Jesus from the dead in identical terms.40 It is evident, however, that
Mk 12.18-27 is about the resurrection of the eight people concerned
or possibly even of all the dead. If readers want to take the prepo-
sition 'from' seriously, they might perhaps think of the resurrection
of the righteous, an idea that would agree with one of the two current
40. Rom. 4.24; 6.4, 9; 7.4; 8.11; 10.7, 9; unlike 1.4, where Paul probably uses
a traditional credal formula.
presentations, according to which only the just would rise from the
dead. 41 That the woman and six of the seven men are just is clear
from the fact that they have observed the divine precept of the levi-
rate.
It is noteworthy that an explicit reference to the Scriptures is not
found before v. 26. If the author of Mark regarded the book of Enoch
also as Scripture—as was not unusual at the time—v. 25 would con-
tain an implicit reference.42 The comparison of the risen just with
angels links up with Enoch,43 and is at the same time an implicit rejec-
tion of the Sadducees' denial of the existence of angels.44 The risen
dead are not like the angels who—as the 'sons of God' in Gen. 6.1-4—
left heaven to play around with women, but like the angels who stayed
in heaven and exercise no sexual activities.
There can be no doubt that from v. 26 Jesus is talking about the
resurrection of the dead. Outside Enoch there are not many places in
the Scriptures that unmistakably deal with this subject. Quite a few
places can be read that way, but it is really only in Dan. 12.2-3 and
2 Maccabees 7—the story of the seven Maccabaean brothers—that the
issue is mentioned in so many words.
To oppose the views of the Sadducees Jesus appeals to the Torah,
and cites, just as they have done, a book of Moses. Still, Jesus' quota-
tion carries more weight with the reader than that of the Sadducees in
v. 19. In their quotation Moses is speaking, while in that of Jesus it is
God himself. Jesus then infers from the words of God that Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob are still living and that, consequently, the Sadducees
41. As one of the two presentations of the resurrection known from 2 Mace. 7.9.
In the New Testament also Lk. 14.14. According to this presentation the wicked are
not raised from the dead, as 2 Mace. 7.14 states explicitly.
42. According to Charles (Apocrypha, II, p. 165), Enoch was considered to be
canonical in Jewish and Christian circles of the first two centuries. Cf. Jude 14. The
reference to the celibate state of the angels in Mk 12.25 may be an implicit citation
from 1 En. 12.4; 15.1-12. We cannot exclude that the Roman readers of the first
century understood the reference. There is a Latin fragment of Enoch that gives the
impression of being a part of a complete translation; see Charles, Apocrypha, II,
p. 167. The allusion of Enoch to the conduct of the 'sons of God' in Gen. 6.1-4
makes it clear that one did not see angels as sexless beings but as heavenly creatures
of the male sex.
43. With 1 En. 39.4-8, where Enoch describes how he sees the just and the good
angels living in heaven.
44. See Schiirer and Vermes, History, II, p. 411; Acts 23.8.
are quite wrong to deny the resurrection of the dead. Thus Jesus him-
self answers his own rhetorical question posed at the beginning of the
reply.
Perhaps Christian readers of ancient Rome had no problems with
the argument. Readers of today, however, do not find it convincing
and cannot help feeling disappointed.45 They have only Jesus' word
for it, just as for Jesus' own resurrection they have only his word
(8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34) and that of an anonymous young man (16.6).
As for the Sadducees within the story, there is, of course, no question
of them being convinced by Jesus' argument. It is not only because
they are prejudiced, but also because Jesus' argument probably pre-
supposes an interpretation they definitely could not agree with. God's
power to raise the dead is derived from his own nature, namely, that
he is not the God of the dead, but of the living. This is, in its turn,
derived from the self-reference 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob',
but that looks suspiciously like a petitio principii. Even if we think of
the three patriarchs as living with God, not one of them has risen or
returned to life so far.46 Faced with objections of this kind, the reader
would do well to read the passage in accordance with its function in
the structure of the book, which is not to convince the reader or the
Sadducees of the resurrection of the dead, or of the fact that this can
be derived from Exod. 3.6, but only to beat off the Sadducees' attack.
As after the previous discussion with the Pharisees and Herodians,
the narrator does not say whether Jesus is successful or not. Neither
does he answer the question of whether the Sadducees leave the Tem-
ple court or stay to listen to the following discussion. This strengthens
the impression that, in this chapter, each new element forms part of
one complex event that takes place in the Temple square. It represents
the final trial of strength between Jesus and the Temple authorities be-
fore they seize him, and shows Jesus' dominance over his adversaries
45. Thus also Gundry, Mark, p. 704.

46. According to Pesch (Markusevangelium, II, p. 234), the contemporary Jew-
ish tradition saw the three patriarchs as living with God or even as having already
risen. For this he refers to T. Benj. 10.6. Since the communication about the resur-
rection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is immediately followed by the mention of the
resurrection of the twelve patriarchs (10.7), of all the other dead (10.8), and the gen-
eral judgment (10.9), it is wrong, in my opinion, to cite T. Benj. 10.6 as evidence
here.
as long as they attack him with words, and not with swords and
clubs.47
The First Commandment (12.28-34)

28
One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one an-
other, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, 'Which
commandment is the first of all?' 29 Jesus answered, T h e first is, "Hear,
O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
mind, and with all your strength." 31 The second is this, "You shall love
your neighbour as yourself." There is no other commandment greater than
these.' 32Then the scribe said to him, 'You are right, Teacher; you have
truly said that "he is one, and besides him there is no other"; 33 and "to
love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the
strength", and "to love one's neighbour as oneself—this is much more
important than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.' 34 When Jesus
saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, 'You are not far from the
kingdom of God.' After that no one dared to ask him any question.
12.28. The last one to approach Jesus comes alone. He has heard Jesus'
answer. The opening words of this episode confirm the earlier impres-
sion of the reader that the discussions take place in the presence of an
audience. It is important for the parties engaged in this trial of
strength to get the public on their side. Is this man also sent by the
Temple authorities, like the group of Pharisees and Herodians and that
of the Sadducees in the forgoing episodes? Has he also come to dis-
credit Jesus?48 It is not clear at first. If he approaches Jesus in a posi-
tive manner, it is surprising that he comes from the circle of scribes,
who want to liquidate Jesus. The reader may recognize this as a small
but unmistakable sign that not one single position is fixed in advance
and for good, and that each group has its dissidents, whether it is the
circle around Jesus or that of his opponents.
The scribe's question, too, can be understood in two ways. It is pos-
sible that he is impressed by Jesus' reply to the Sadducees, and there-
fore responds positively to Jesus, but it is also possible that the
preceding unsuccessful attempts have convinced him that another and
47. See the repetition of 14.43 in 14.48.

48. Cf. Williams (Other Followers, p. 174), who sees him from the positive
position only, without considering the other possibility.
better attempt is needed to discredit Jesus. Depending on the reader's

choice between these two possibilities, the discussion with the scribe
can be read in two ways. Anyone who assumes that the scribe's atti-
tude is positive will see him as a witness to the fact that Jesus has won
the first rounds. The second reading sees this as the last round, in
which the scribe revises his views in response to Jesus' reply.
In either case the reader meets a scribe who agrees with Jesus'
answer to the question about the resurrection of the dead. To argue
his case Jesus has appealed to the Scriptures, and Scripture is the
scribe's speciality. Through his comment that this expert is impressed
by Jesus' answer the narrator makes it clear that, in the eyes of those
present, Jesus has so far met the challenge of his adversaries and tri-
umphed.
The scribe's question is an appropriate one on the lips of a scribe. It
raises the much debated issue among rabbis about which was the most
important commandment of the Torah. Actually, the scribe asks which
is the first of all the commandments, whether they are in the Torah or
not. That makes the question more accessible to the many members of
the community in Rome who have no previous Jewish history.
12.29-31. In his answer Jesus literally quotes the opening verse of the
Shema, the great Jewish prayer and confession of faith with which
Jews begin and end the day.49 It seems unthinkable that the average
member of the community of Rome, which numbered many Chris-
tians with a Jewish background, did not immediately recognize this
shibboleth of the Jewish identity.50 In this answer Jesus shows that he
is born and bred in the Jewish tradition. It also provides a significant
counterbalance to earlier pronouncements of Jesus on the relative
importance of typically Jewish practices regarding the sabbath (3.28)
and the cleanness of food (7.19). At the same time the quotation
reminds the audience that the one God of Israel is, of course, also the
only God of Jesus and of all Christians. It reminds the readers of
49. Schlirer and Vermes, History, II, pp. 454-55. It is remarkable and not with-
out interest that the beginning of the Shema occurs only in Mark. It is not found in
the other three Gospels, neither in the parallels of Matthew and Luke nor anywhere
else.
50. He or she who pronounces it accepts 'the yoke of the kingdom of heaven',
thus a set Jewish phrase quoted by Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, p. 280, who
refers to m. Ber. 2.2, 5.
today that the Jewish and Christian religions cannot possibly be re-
garded as mutually exclusive ways. Another aspect of the confession
of faith, the absolute uniqueness of God, was of direct importance for
the readers in Rome who knew that deification of any creature—
whether of emperor or another being—was, therefore, out of the
question. Jesus relegates the gods and semi-gods of Greek-Roman
mythology to the realm of fantasy.
If Jesus' reply and the way of life recommended by him thus prove
to be in full conformity with the basic conviction on which the faith of
every Jew and proselyte is based, then the rest of his answer also
agrees with the Jewish tradition for, in that tradition, the two com-
mandments cited by Jesus in the form of quotations from Deut. 6.4
and Lev. 19.18 had already been combined to form a single code of
behaviour in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, namely in
T. Iss. 5.2 and T Dan. 5.3.51
The second commandment comes, nevertheless, as a surprise to the
reader, for the scribe has not asked about it. Does that mean that the
first commandment cannot be kept without the second? Jesus does not
say that in so many words, but it follows from his answer. In any case,
as Jesus rounds off his answer at this point, the two commandments
are set apart from all other commandments. They clearly form a class
of their own, and always take priority over other precepts if they
should conflict with them.
12.32-33. The scribe fully agrees with Jesus' answer. The word that
the narrator used in v. 28 (KOLXCOC) to express the scribe's appreciation
of Jesus' answer to the Sadducees, is now used by the scribe himself.
This ends the uncertainty about the position of the scribe. It would
seem that he has chosen the side of Jesus, if not after Jesus' answer to
the Sadducees, then now after Jesus' answer to his own question. By
putting his approval in the form of an implicit quotation of several
51. Thus Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, p. 281. One element of the first quota-
tion occurs neither in the LXX nor in the Hebrew text, namely the third part of the
enumeration: with all your mental power (e£ oXrjq tf\<; 5iavota<; aot)). It seems un-
necessary to appeal to Hellenistically coloured variants because quotations are often
not verbatim and there is no question of a formal quotation here. Apart from that it is
probable that, because of its Hellenistic colour, the term 5iavoia had a certain famil-
iarity for the educated Roman. In a similar context it also occurs in the LXX version
of Josh. 22.5.
passages from the Scriptures (Deut. 4.35 and Isa. 45.21), which repeat
the same commandment in other words, the scribe once more displays
his professional competence. By way of conclusion he adds that the
fulfilment of both commandments takes precedence over the precept
to offer sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem. Whether the original
Roman readers of Mark could still think of these sacrifices as actually
taking place is another question. After the destruction of the Temple,
the rebuilding of at least part of it would have been necessary to make
regular offerings possible. With his closing words the scribe is
in good company, for since Samuel (1 Sam. 15.22) prophets had
denounced mere external sacrificial practice, and the same criticism is
also found in the later books of wisdom.52
12.34. The encounter ends in harmony. As the scribe has agreed with
Jesus, so Jesus agrees with him. According to Jesus, the scribe is not
far from 'the kingdom of God'. That is the key phrase of the rabbini-
cal expression for the confession of faith with the words of the Shema:
'to accept the yoke of God's kingship'. It is also the key word of Jesus'
proclamation,53 where it refers to the state of society in full confor-
mity with God's will. The kingdom of God is capable of growth and
development, 54 but in Jesus it is close at hand. People can live in
expectation of it (15.43), receive it (10.15), or enter it.55 It deserves
attention that this is the only time in the book that someone is told that
they are not far from it. The reader understands this to mean that the
scribe, if he continues on his way and does not meet with any special
obstacles, will definitely enter God's kingdom. The scribe is therefore
the counterpart of the rich man of 10.17-22, who would like to inherit
eternal life but is reluctant to sell his possessions for the benefit of the
poor. He also compares favourably with the twelve. It seems to me
that we can place this scribe in the list of occasional characters which
begins with Bartimaeus and ends with Joseph of Arimathaea.56 If Bar-
timaeus represents the truth-seeking Hellenist intellectual, then the
52. See for instance Isa. 1.10-20; Jer. 7.20-23; Hos. 4.13-14; 6.6; 8.13; Amos
5.21-25; Mic. 6.6-8; Mai. 1.6-14; Pss. 40.7-9; 50.8-13; 51.18; 69.31-32; Prov.
21.3; Sir. 34.21-26; 35.1-5.
53. 1.4-15; 4.26, 30; 9.1, 47; 10.14-15, 23-24.
54. 4.26, 30; 9.1.
55. 9.47; 10.14, 15,23,24,25.
56. Thus also Williams, Other Followers, pp. 172-76.
13. Winning in the Temple Court (1L1-12A4) 381
scribe and Joseph of Arimathaea—who is also waiting for God's king-

dom (15.43)—stand for the law-abiding Jew, who lives with the
Scriptures, tries to understand them, and puts them into practice. The
last two characters also illustrate that members of an ill-reputed group
do not necessarily need to act as is expected of them.
The final sentence has no direct bearing on the episode with the
scribe but rather closes the whole series of discussions begun in 11.27.
It confirms the impression of the reader that, as long as the contests
between Jesus and the adversaries are verbal, Jesus stands out head and
shoulders above them. As after the previous discussion the narrator
mentions no change of location. The scribe does not leave the Temple
square, nor does he join Jesus in the next scene. He does not, of
course, cease to exist as a story character, but after enacting his part
he is not mentioned again, as is the case with other characters who
have only a walk-on part in the book.57
Son of David, Lord of David? (12.35-37)

35
While Jesus was teaching in the Temple, he said, 'How can the scribes
say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36David himself, by the Holy
Spirit, declared, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I
put your enemies under your feet.'" 37David himself calls him Lord; so
how can he be his son?' And the large crowd was listening to him with
delight.
12.35. The trial of strength between Jesus and the Temple authorities
seems to be over. Nevertheless, Jesus is still in the Temple, and the
events related here still take place on the day that started with the sur-
prising discovery of the withered fig tree. Jesus is teaching (8i5d-
CFKCOV). Does the verb refer to the same activity Jesus was engaged in
while in Galilee and on the way to Jerusalem? It would seem that it is
used in a different sense in this, the Jerusalem part of the story. In
11.17 Jesus taught the merchants in the Temple a lesson (e8i8aaK£v),
giving them a severe dressing-down for turning the house of God into
a robbers' den. In the present episode it has more or less the same
meaning, just as in 14.49, where Jesus himself uses the same verb to
refer to his appearance in the Temple. This would mean, then, that
Jesus has repelled the attacks of his adversaries and now takes the
57. See also 12.44; 14.9; 15.21, 39, 46.

initiative by lecturing his audience. On the other hand, this brief

passage contains so many blanks that it may be read in other ways, as
well. The reader is in the dark about the identity of the addressees and
about the tone of Jesus' voice—does it express surprise, disbelief or
reproach? The beginning of Jesus' question is equally vague. The
Greek interrogative TCCOC; can have any of the following meanings: In
what way? How is it possible? On what grounds? What can they be
thinking of? In what sense? Since, in the next sentence, Jesus gives
ground for saying something else about the Messiah, one of the last
two meanings seems the most obvious.
While Jesus was very generous in his praise of a dissident scribe
only a minute ago, he now questions a pronouncement that he
attributes to the scribes. The reader wonders why Jesus should want to
do that, and what the nature is of his questioning. The reader also re-
members that, only a few pages ago, the blind seer Bartimaeus has ad-
dressed Jesus as 'son of David', upon which Jesus cured him, saying
that his trust or faith (nicxiq) had made him well. Is it possible that
what is a commendable saying in the mouth of the blind seer is objec-
tionable in the mouths of the scribes? Perhaps the readers in Rome
remembered the declaration in the address of the Letter to the
Romans: that, according to God's prophets, Jesus was descended from
David according to the flesh. Every reader who is at all familiar with
the Old Testament knows that the scribes may well have got the title
'son of David' from 2 Samuel 7, where Nathan promises David a son,
whom God will also consider as his son. The promise is also the theme
of Psalms 2 and 89, which elaborate on it without using the term 'son
of David' .58 In fact it is attributed to the Messiah only once, namely in
Pss. Sol. 17.23, which shows that it was not a current messianic title.
It makes the reader wonder just what Jesus or the narrator would have
expected the scribes to answer if Jesus had put the question to them,
and not to the audience, but the text offers no information on this.
12.36-37a. Jesus quotes David himself from one of the Psalms bearing
his name, namely LXX Psalm 109. As they are identical, the words
'the Lord' and 'to my Lord' (lcupioq and icopicp) tend at first to con-
fuse the reader, but the meaning is clear enough: the one whom David
calls 'my Lord' is to the reader the Lord of David. Jesus contrasts
58. That holds also for 4QFlor., which contains an explanation of 2 Samuel and
Pss. 1 and 2.
'Lord of David' and 'son of David' in order to emphasize the differ-

ence between them. Although they are not each other's linguistic
counterparts, as are father-son and master-servant, they are neverthe-
less mutually exclusive, so that the provisional answer the reader had
given to the question of v. 35 on the basis of 2 Samuel and Psalm 2
somehow loses its strength.
Jesus quotes not only the opening words of LXX Psalm 109, but
almost the entire first verse. For the reader who remembers that
Mk 1.1, 34 and 8.29 pronounce Jesus to be the Messiah, the words of
David evoke an image that is far removed from the events in the
Temple. It shows Jesus seated at the right hand of God and his enemies
humiliated and put under his feet. This image surpasses everything
that has been said about Jesus in the book so far. It suggests at least
that, if Jesus as Messiah is also David's son, he is for God and, there-
fore, also for the reader both above David and more important than
David. What Jesus says here focuses attention, once again and very
explicitly, on his identity.
The question of the disciples in 4.41 ('Who then is this?') is increas-
ingly becoming a question of the reader, who begins to suspect that
however much is said about Jesus' identity all words are inadequate to
answer the question of who he really is.
12.37b. The concluding sentence affirms the impression of the reader

that Jesus has found an equally sympathetic and large audience in Jeru-
salem, as before in Galilee. That the crowd enjoys listening to Jesus
reminds the reader of the story of John the baptist: Herod liked lis-
tening to John (6.20), but that did not keep him, in a drunken fit, from
having John decapitated. The reader, meanwhile, is faced with a num-
ber of confusing questions about Jesus' identity, but they are not
answered.
'Beware of the Scribes' (12.38-40)

38
As he taught, he said, 'Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around
in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the market-places, 39 and
to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honour at banquets!
40
They devour widows' houses and for the sake of appearance say long
prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.'
One can read this passage and the next as two episodes or as one. The
change of place and the explicit call of the disciples, who have disap-
peared from the reader's sight after vv. 20-27, argue for the first.
That it is precisely the scribes who, in v. 40, are blamed for the wid-
ows' poverty argues for the second. Of greater importance, however,
is the contrastive effect of the two passages.
12.38-40a. The scribe praised by Jesus in v. 34 is obviously an excep-

tion. Jesus does not care much for his colleagues. They have mis-
trusted him from the beginning, and constantly rejected and fought
him, even in the Temple court. As a matter of fact, they are planning
his liquidation at this very moment. Jesus explicitly warns the crowd
to be on their guard against these men. In the Greek, the list of accu-
sations shows evidence of slipshod composition. Upon the main verb
in v. 38 depend one infinitive ('walk around') and three nouns
('salutations', 'places of honour' and 'first seats at table'). In v. 40 the
text continues with two participles. As a result, the relationship
between the different elements is obscure and the way in which the
translation orders them is open to question. It is noteworthy that Jesus
does not in any way refer to the tensions that have developed between
him and the scribes. He confines himself to objections more general in
character, criticizing their vanity and denouncing them as men who
are a danger to society since they mask their real nature behind a hyp-
ocritical display of piety. This accusation is very serious, all the more
so since the Jewish community has a high regard for the study of the
Torah and for those professionally engaged in it. When the scribes are
so well off that they can permit themselves the luxury of long robes
(cTotaxi), it is partly because they take possession—no doubt by clever
but disputable means—of the houses of unprotected widows.
12.40b. Jesus' diatribe against the scribes ends with the sentence that
they will receive the greater condemnation on judgment day. There is
no obvious reason to read the comparative 'greater' as a superlative.
On the other hand it is not clear what other behaviour their miscon-
duct is compared to, nor which of the last two actions mentioned—
extortion or hypocrisy—deserves the greater condemnation. Perhaps
it is exactly the combination of the two that explains Jesus' strong
condemnation of their conduct.
The Penny of the Widow (12.41-44)

41
He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting
money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor
widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny.
43
Then he called his disciples and said to them, Truly I tell you, this poor
widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury.
^For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of
her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.'
12.41-42. This miniature story has only a remote connection with the
story as a whole. Unlike the preceding episodes, it is not a dispute, and
the public, though present and active, plays quite a different role here.
Yet the reader is not really surprised by the presence of the short
scene at this point of the story. It is the last scene of the chapter
devoted to Jesus' activities in the Temple, and describes how Jesus
resumes and ends his inspection of the Temple begun in 11.11. In the
previous episode, Jesus has said that the scribes are to blame for the
fact that widows lose their houses. The present episode continues the
antithesis 'well-to-do men'-'needy women' of vv. 39-40, which is
detectable in the Greek text where the adjective 'rich' has a masculine
ending (nkovoiox).
After the scribes, who in 11.27 and 12.13 are actually strutting
around the Temple square, the narrator now puts a widow on the
stage. The reader imagines that the rich men and the poor widow can
be recognized by their clothing and behaviour.59 The woman puts her
last money into the treasury. The value of the two coins is indicated
by a word transcribed from the Latin (Ko8pdvxr|<;, quadrans, here
translated as 'penny'). The amount is so negligible that it contrasts
sharply with the large sums of the rich.
12.43-44. This is the first time that Jesus addresses the disciples since
the party has arrived at the Temple court. He praises the woman lav-
ishly without it being clear whether she is present or not. To make
clear why she deserves praise, Jesus calls attention to yet another con-
trast besides that between one very small sum and many large sums of
vv. 41-42, namely, the contrast between everything and a quantity of
59. Jdt. 8.6 tells that Judith still dresses as a widow more than three years after
her husband's death.
something that is not needed. Because the widow puts in all she had to
live on, she becomes completely dependent on others. It is noteworthy
that, although widows are usually represented as needy and vulnerable
and the object of social care, there are some stories in the Old Testa-
ment that speak with appreciation of enterprising widows in the old
Israel.60 The widow in this episode, however, is not praised because
she is enterprising but because she gives all she has to give. The ques-
tion as to whether the praise concerns her generosity or her trust in
God is left unanswered. Both readings are possible, and other inter-
pretations cannot be excluded, either. After Bartimaeus of Jericho and
the scribe of 28-34, the widow is the third in a row of figures who
make only a brief appearance but yet leave a lasting memory of their
commendable behaviour.61 She is, moreover, the counterpart of the
scribes of 12.28-40 and the rich man of 9.17-22. In the procession of
exemplary characters she would seem to be the least, but Jesus holds
her up as an example to his disciples. Even though the story does not
say so, she may count on a place in the kingdom because she expresses
the very core of Jesus' teaching in one single deed.
60. Tamar in Gen. 38, the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kgs 17, and Judith in
Jdt. 8-16.
61. See Williams, Other Followers, pp. 176-78.
Chapter 14
THE END OF THE TEMPLE AND THE WORLD (13.1-37)
Jesus' second discourse deals with the horrors of the end time and the
salvation of the faithful Unlike the first, it is not addressed to a large
crowd—as one would expect of a speech held on a mountain slope—not
even to the twelve, but to four intimates. Will Jesus now explain the
meaning of the stories and metaphors as he has promised the disciples?
It does not sound like it, the more so because the message of the dis-
course is meant for everyone.
The End of the Temple (13.1-4)

1
As he came out of the Temple, one of his disciples said to him, 'Look,
Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!' 2Then Jesus asked
him, 'Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here
upon another; all will be thrown down.' 3 When he was sitting on the
Mount of Olives opposite the Temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew
asked him privately, 4 T e l l us, when will this be, and what will be the
sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?'
13.1-2. It has been an extremely eventful day when Jesus leaves the
Temple. It is not dark yet, for the Temple buildings are still clearly vis-
ible. It looks for a moment as if Jesus comes out of the Temple alone,
but it becomes clear almost at once that one of the disciples is with him.
As he is referred to as 'one of the twelve', the reader assumes that Jesus
is accompanied by all the twelve. Before he or she has time to think
about this, though, the unnamed disciple draws Jesus' attention—and
the reader's as well—to the large stones and large Temple buildings.
The Roman readers must have had some idea of the impressive Temple
complex with its imposing walls, splendid gates, and spacious fore-
courts, or else they will have imagined the Temple to be like one of the
numerous Temples in Rome. Present-day readers have seen the Wailing
Wall so often on photographs and television that they can easily visual-
ize the magnitude of the Temple buildings. Jesus responds immediately
to the disciple's exclamation of admiration. All of this will be
destroyed. The Roman readers who read Mark shortly after 70 CE and
knew that the Temple had meanwhile actually been destroyed must
have been deeply stirred by the passage.1 What for the modern reader is
only a memory, immortalized in representations on Titus' triumphal
arch, was an almost tangible reality for them. They probably watched
the spoils of the Temple being carried through Rome in the triumphal
procession of Vespasian and Titus in 71 CE, or saw them later at the
Temple of Peace where the holy objects from the Temple—excepting
the Torah and the purple Temple curtain, which were kept in the impe-
rial palace—were exhibited.2 Greater evidence of the destruction of the
Temple and the end of the Temple establishment is hardly imaginable.
The passage offers no clue as to whether Jesus feels sorry about the
destruction of the Temple or approves of it, but a passage in the previ-
ous part of the book allows of only one conclusion. It is found in 11.15-
21. If the fig tree is a metaphor for the Temple, then Jesus cannot but
announce its destruction with approval. As a result the announcement
has the character of a sentence. This interpretation is borne out by the
downfall of the tenants at the end of the parable of the vineyard (12.1-
12), and the quotation from Psalm 118, which speaks of the rejected
stone that will become the cornerstone. The tenants are destroyed
because they have murdered the son of the landlord. Their fate is here
transferred to the Temple. Obviously it is not exclusively or mainly the
Temple as a building that will be destroyed, but rather the establish-
ment of which the Temple complex is the seat and material expression.3
1. A.Y. Collins, 'The Eschatological Discourse of Mark 13% in FGN, II,

pp. 1125-40 (1127); and Beginning, p. 76, points out that v. 2 is so vague and gen-
eral that the author gives no evidence of knowing how the situation is after the
destruction of the Temple. She objects particularly to the fact that the words 'not
one stone will be left here upon another' are seen as an indication that the destruc-
tion had already taken place. Undoubtedly, she is right, but I would add that the
wording of the saying neither excludes that Jerusalem and the Temple had already
been destroyed. Furthermore, she cites ev eiceivaiq xctiq fpepai<; (v. 24) as evi-
dence that in the time of Mark the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled and the Tem-
ple was still standing (The Eschatological Discourse', p. 1136; Beginning, p. 86).
2. Josephus, War 7.122, 148-50, 158-62.
3. The connection of this announcement with 14.57-59 and 15.29 appears only
on second reading.
14. The End of the Temple and the World (13.1-37) 389
13.3-4. Without transition the narrator proceeds to the next scene,

where he presents Jesus sitting on the top or a steep slope of the Mount
of Olives. For readers unfamiliar with the site he adds that Jesus faces
the Temple. The setting is similar to that of the extended discourse in
the first part of the book, where Jesus is sitting in a boat that serves him
for a Ka6e8pa when he addresses the crowd on the shore (4.1). Here,
too, the locational reference is more than an indication of the place of
action. Jesus 'sits' on the mountain as if it were his second teacher's
chair, or even his judge's chair. Readers familiar with the Old Testa-
ment remember Ezek. 11.23 where the mountain east of Jerusalem is
the place to which the glory of Yhwh retreats after abandoning the
wicked city. The reader expects somehow that Jesus, in his capacity as
judge, will now motivate his sentence on the Temple, but that expecta-
tion does not come true.
Only four of the twelve disciples appear to be with Jesus on the
mountain, namely Peter, James, John, and Andrew. They were the ones
first called by Jesus (1.16-20), and the first in the list of apostles (3.16-
19). They are mentioned as a group in three other places, once with
Andrew (1.29), and twice without him (5.37; 9.2). The reason for this
small and select group may be connected with the fact that Jesus is
about to deliver a speech on a topic which, in the apocalyptic literature
of that time, was often dealt with in the form of a writing or a speech of
an esoteric character. Such a speech would demand a select group of
listeners and explain why the audience is restricted to the four close
disciples.
Contrary to the reader's expectation,4 Peter's response to Jesus'
announcement is not one of shock, incomprehension, confusion or sur-
prise.5 Neither does he ask how or why the huge Temple buildings will
be destroyed, but only when, and how it can be foreseen. To those
readers of ancient Rome who knew that the Temple had been destroyed
such questions had become irrelevant, so that for them Peter's question
had an ironic ring to it.
4. Cf. 8.32; 9.5, 32; 10.28; 11.21.

5. The absence of such a response is one of the main reasons why the fascinat-
ing idea of W.H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), that Mark is a reaction to the destruction of the
Temple and intended to encourage the Jewish Christians in Judaea, cannot be ac-
cepted. Precisely the response of Peter should reflect something of the horror felt
by those Christians.
The End (13.5-37)

5
Then Jesus began to say to them, 'Beware that no one leads you astray.
6
Many will come in my name and say, "I am he!" and they will lead
many astray. 7 When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be
alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. 8 For nation
will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be
earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the
beginning of the birthpangs.
9
'As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and
you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors
and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10And the good news
must first be proclaimed to all nations. n When they bring you to trial
and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say;
but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak,
but the Holy Spirit. 12Brother will betray brother to death, and a father
his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to
death; 13and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one
who endures to the end will be saved.
14
'But when you see the desolating sacrilege standing where it ought not
to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judaea must flee to the
mountains; 15someone on the housetop must not go down or enter the
house to take anything away; 16someone in the field must not turn back
to get a coat. 17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are
nursing infants in those days! 18Pray that it may not be in winter. 19For
in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the
beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will
be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be
saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short
those days.
21
'And if anyone says to you at that time, "Look! Here is the Messiah!"
or "Look! There he is!"—do not believe it. 22 False messiahs and false
prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if
possible, the elect. 23But be alert; I have already told you everything.
24
'But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and
the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heav-
en, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see
"the Son of Man coming in clouds" with great power and glory. 27Then
he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds,
from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
28
'From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender
and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when
you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very
gates. 30Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these
things have taken place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my
words will not pass away.
32
'But about that day or hourno one knows, neither the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Beware, keep alert; for you do not
know when the time will come.
34
'It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his
slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to
be on the watch. 35Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when
the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at
cockcrow, or at dawn, 36 or else he may find you alseep when he comes
suddenly.
37
'And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.'
It is relatively easy to see that the discourse is concentric as a whole

and in its parts, as is shown in Figure 28.6 The division and interrela-
tions between the parts and subparts will be clarified below whenever
necessary.
Signs |— pseudo-teachers 5-6

1— wars and disasters 7-8
persecutions 9-13
1— desecration and flight 14-20
— pseudo-messiahs 21-23
1—the clearance of the heavens 24-25

The Coming the coming of the Son of Man 26
'—the gathering of the elect 27
1— parable of the fig tree 28-29

day and hour known only by God 30-32
Signs 1— parable of the doorkeeper 33-37
Figure 28
Nowhere in the story does the narrator have Jesus speak so long and
without interruption as here. The speech concerns the future of the
Christian community and of the whole human race and the world. For
listeners and readers this is an extremely important subject, because the
future in the story of Jesus, which refers to the time following the
6. According to Stenger ('Die Grundlegung', pp. 16-18) the discourse forms

part of a larger segment that comprises 11.1-13.37. He regards 13.1-23, which he
calls the 'Ansage der Tempelzerstorung', as the counterpart of the cleansing of the
period described in the book, is their time, their presence as well as

their future. A story creates its own world and its own time, which do
not coincide with the place and time of the narrator and listener or
reader. In most languages the standard verb form of the story is there-
fore a quasi-past tense,7 so a narrator cannot speak about the extra-
textual world or its future except through a character. For obvious
reasons, in Mark that character is Jesus.
In the case of a narrated speech, the roles of the audience present at
the speech and the listeners or readers of the story are to some extent
interchangeable and sometimes blend together. That also happens here.
Moreover, the reader is explicitly stimulated to change these roles—for
example, through the frequent use of the second person plural and
because at the end a connection is made between the four disciples pre-
sent and all other people (v. 37). In the narrative the second person plu-
ral refers to the four disciples named in v. 3 but in the discourse it also
refers to the readers. Verses 14-20 have a double as well as a confusing
effect. In v. 14 the second person plural distinguishes the four from
'those in Judaea', who are referred to in the third person. However, that
leaves undecided whether the four disciples belong to that group or not.
And the readers? If the intended readers lived in Judaea, they would
naturally think that the injunction was meant for them, but however
much opinions differ about the place where the author pictured the
intended audience, hardly anyone thinks of Judaea. This is somewhat
Temple in 11.12-26, and 13.24-37, called the 'Ansage des Kommen des Menschen-
sohnes', as the counterpart of the entrance into Jerusalem and the Temple in 11.1-
11. Brett ('Suggestions', p. 186) sees in 13.5-23 a 'hanging chain' pattern:
— 5\ /23 —
false claims refuted—6\ /21-22—false claims refuted
when you hear—7-10\ /14-20—when you see
Ul-13/
when you are handed over
It is unclear why he takes this element separately. Breck (The Shape, pp. 174-75)
has quite another division. This is based on the fact that he takes the introductory
conversation and the discourse itself as one whole and attempts to make visible that
here as elsewhere a helical movement is perceptible (about this see Breck, The
Shape, pp. 38-59).
7. 'Quasi-past' because it does not refer to what has happened but to a time
distinct from that of the narrator and reader. See Weinrich, Tempus, Besprochene
and erzdhlte Welt, pp. 28-90.
confusing, and in any case confirms other readers in the view that the
verses are not about themselves. It means that some of the events an-
nounced by Jesus do not seem to concern the four disciples and the
readers directly. They should be identified with events tied to times and
places other than those of the characters and readers. I will look at this
more carefully when discussing v. 14.
The Time before the Coming of the Son of Man

13.5-8. In response to Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple
Peter—speaking also for the others—has asked a two-part question.
The first part of the question concerns the time when the Temple^—for
that is what 'this' (lama) in v. 4 refers to—will be destroyed. The sec-
ond is: what sign or portent will indicate that this is about to happen?
The reader expects that Jesus will either respond to these two questions
or say that he does not, and if such should be the case why not. This
expectation primarily determines the reading strategy here. The more so
since the narrator could have linked Jesus' discourse to the sayings on
the Temple by means of other questions. With Peter's question in mind,
then, the reader anticipates a pronouncement by Jesus on the destruc-
tion of the Temple.
In the first part at least, there is no such pronouncement. There are,
on the contrary, several sayings referring to the hard times ahead, but
what surprises the reader most of all is that, instead of the destruction
of the Temple, Jesus brings up the subject of 'the end' (TO TEAXX;, VV. 7
and 13). The events mentioned in this context belong to the standard
repertoire of apocalyptic. This is not to say that the author of the book
reveals himself or Jesus as an apocalyptist. The reader who is familiar
with the genre will not find it difficult to recognize numerous differ-
ences from the typical contemporary apocalyptic.8 In fact, it is clear
from the discourse itself that it does not mean to disclose esoteric
knowledge of the end time to a circle of kindred spirits. Its warnings
against threatening dangers and its exhortations to adopt the right atti-
tude are obviously meant for many. The numerous imperatives used to
express these warnings and exhortations define the tone of the present
discourse,9 and it is significant that the speech opens and closes with
such an imperative. Several warnings occur more than once and should,
8. For a list of differences see Gundry, Mark, pp. 751-52.

9. They occur in vv. 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21,23, 28,29, 33,35 and 37.
therefore, be regarded as the most urgent. An example is the warning

against the appearance of individuals who are determined to mislead
Jesus' followers and get a large following of their own. The theme of
these attempts to 'mislead' or 'lead astray' ties in with the word 'way',
which has such an important function in the prologue and the central
part of the book.
As for the identity of the 'you', of whom 'many' will be led astray,
readers naturally think first of the four that Jesus is speaking to. They
soon realize, however, that they can hardly be the ones primarily
addressed, for it is inconceivable that the disciples, who have known
Jesus so intimately, will be susceptible to the fair speeches of men who
claim to come in Jesus' name and employ as self-reference the 'I am
he' of Jesus himself (6.50), or—even worse—the abbreviated name of
Yhwh of Exod. 3.6. Thus, readers begin to understand that the ones
addressed here are first-century and later Christians, including them-
selves. As a result every plural 'you' in the discourse may, and often
does, extend to the members of the later Christian community, and
therefore also to each and every reader of the book. For today's readers
of Mark these sayings refer no longer to specific individuals pretending
to be the Messiah, but that was probably different for the intended
readers. In this context one sometimes refers to messianic figures in
Judaea,10 but the discourse is about persons who pose as the returned
Jesus, or at least claim to represent him. Although the terminology of
Rom. 16.17-18 is very vague and not directly connected with that of
Mk 13.6,11 the passage leaves no doubt that the Roman readers of Mark
knew the phenomenon of teachers who by smooth talk try to deceive
Christians and create dissension among them. There is every reason to
10. See J.R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of
Mark (SBLDS, 10; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), pp. 220-
21, who refers among others to Menahem, son of Judah, mentioned by Josephus
(War 2.433-40). Josephus, however, does not use the term 'Messiah' of Menahem.
That term is applied to him in a rabbinic Haggadah, to which Hengel (Die Zeloten,
p. 301) refers. According to the legend recounted there, however, he was born on
the day of the destruction of the Temple. The legend supposes in its turn that
Menahem was too young in 70 CE to present himself as a messianic pretender to the
throne.
11. Incidentally, that also applies to what Josephus tells about Menahem. In
War 2.433-40 Menahem clearly appears as a freedom fighter, but the cause of Jew-
ish freedom is absent from Mk 13.6. Wars and rumours of war, as well as other dis-
asters, are not mentioned until 13.7-8.
think that particularly in the sixteenth chapter of his letter, which has so
many names in it, Paul thought of specific individuals, but as he never
mentioned them, the reader can only guess at their identity.
Then the text immediately passes on to problematic situations of a
more general nature: wars and natural disasters. Although wars and dis-
asters happen with unfailing regularity, in apocalyptic they are seen as
signs that the time of the Messiah is approaching.12 The separate men-
tion of rumours reminds current readers of a situation in which the
available ways of communication cannot transmit reliable and rapid in-
formation about faraway events. That the narrator speaks of the 'hear-
ing of wars' and rumours of war at all can, moreover, be seen as an
indication that he assumes that his listeners are not involved in a war
themselves. They are called upon not to allow themselves to be alarmed
by these rumours. They are told next that the predicted events are not
the end but only the beginning of the 'birthpangs', a metaphor that is
easy to understand.13
At the mention of this chronological announcement current readers
should realize that there have always been wars and natural disasters.
They should also remember that with the identification of John as
Elijah and the references to Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3 at the beginning of
the book (1.2-6; cf. 9.11-13), the end time had already been ushered in.
It is a time characterized on the one hand as a period of terror and fear
(Mai. 3.23), and on the other as a time of joy and happiness (Isa. 40.9-
11). As a result, the beginning of the birthpangs precedes the wars that
will break out later, and the Jewish war as well, if the text actually
refers to it.
Persecutions
13.9-13. After predicting the coming of impostors and disasters Jesus
announces persecutions. These verses form the centre of the part about
12. Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, pp. 379-80, refers to Gen. R. 42.4; Sib. Or. 3.
538, 653 ff., 660, 5.361 ff.; 4 Ezra 13.29-31; b. Sank. 97a.
13. The comparison of oppression and pains—also of men—with 'birthpangs'
is not unusual in the Old Testament. See for example Ps 48.6; Isa. 13.8; 21.3;
26.17; 37.3; 66.7; Jer. 6.24; 8.21; 13.21; 22.23; 30.6; 49.24; 50.43; Hos. 13.13.
Strack and Billerbeck (Kommentar, I, p. 950) mention a rabbi who in 90 used the
phrase 'the labour pains of the Messiah' to refer to the distress and oppression of
the period prior to the coming of the Messiah.
the time before the coming of the Son of Man, and are likewise ar-
ranged in a concentric pattern, which is set out in Figure 29.
E
people will have to stand trial in Jewish and Gentile courts 9
thus the whole world will get to know the good news 10-11
Figure
relatives will deliver each other 29
to persecutors and judges 12-13
After repeating the warning to be on the alert, the passage evokes a

situation of persecution that becomes increasingly serious and tragic.
At first the text speaks only of those standing trial without mentioning
the crime they are accused of, nor the persons responsible for their
arrest and punishment. The courts and penalties, too, have only a lim-
ited local range. The courts are Jewish courts (croveSpia), and the
penalties beatings in the synagogue. Only in the second instance does
the text speak of governors and kings, and eventually of the whole
world and all the nations.
The real tragedy comes to light in the third part of the passage, where
relatives are said to betray each other to the persecuting authorities.
Family divisions attended by murder and manslaughter are a standard
theme of last days scenarios in apocalyptic writings,14 but here the
theme receives a distinct colour of its own. To begin with, the reader
reads v. 12 in conjunction with vv. 9-10, with which it is linked by the
verb 'deliver' (7iapa8i5co|ii). Secondly, and more importantly, through
the second person plural in vv. 11 and 13, the reader connects v. 12 too
with that second person plural and, in consequence, applies the saying
directly to himself or herself.15 This tragic sense of the passage must
have been keenly felt, especially in the Roman situation after 64 CE. It
also provides a key to a component of the story that is usually over-
looked.16 Something that will not have struck Mark's first readers, but
definitely attracts the attention of readers today, is that the passage, in
contrast to 3.31-35 and 10.29-30, does not mention any female rela-
tives. Could it be that only men were guilty of disclosing the names of
14. See, e.g., Mic. 7.2, 6; Isa. 3.5-6; 19.2; 1 En. 100.1-2; 2 Esd. 5.9; 6.24; Jub.
23.19.
15. According to R. Pesch, Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13
(KBANT; Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968), p. 134.
16. See the Introduction, Chapter 2.
fellow Christians to the authorities, a deed that cost other men their
lives? Or is it due to the masculine character of society at the time?
Probably the latter.17 Things are no different in the case of the letters of
Paul, who in Romans alone addresses his readers eleven times exclu-
sively as 'brothers'. This makes a sexist impression on contemporary
readers.
It is not clear what sort of family relationship is at issue here, the kin-
ship of blood relations or rather the spiritual relationship of members of
a household community. A present-day reader will automatically think
of blood relations. However, after 3.31-35 and particularly 10.29-30,
which promises that whoever has left his relatives for the sake of Jesus
will already in this age receive numerous new relatives, it is equally
possible and probably even better to understand the kinship terms in
v. 12 as referring to the relationship existing between fellow members
of a Christian community. Rom. 16.4 and 16.14-15 enable us to iden-
tify at least one Jewish Christian and two Gentile Christian household
communities in Rome. On the other hand, precisely because these
communities had a family basis, it will not have been exceptional that a
number of the community members were also relatives of each other,
so that the two meanings need not have excluded one another. In v. 13
Jesus underlines that the motive for the arrests and trials following on
the denunciations is that the accused are suspected of professing Jesus'
name.
Spoken by Jesus at this point of the story, the saying is proleptic of
events taking place after the narrated time of the story. Within the story
the saying has both a prospective aspect in that it refers to the passion
narrative that follows, and a retrospective aspect in that it points back to
the three predictions in 8.31, 9.31, and 10.33-34. It is clear from Jesus'
triple announcement of his execution that his followers will suffer a
fate similar to his own. According to the three predictions the scenario
of Jesus' suffering and death is that one of his brothers will hand him
over to the Temple authorities (9.31; 10.33 in combination with 3.19);
that they will put him on trial and convict him (8.31; 10.33), and de-
liver him to the Gentiles (10.33), who will mock him, spit upon him,
beat him, and finally kill him (8.31; 9.31; 10.34). The execution of
John, told in ch. 6, also has features of that scenario, albeit in a trans-
formed form, as is appropriate in the case of a perverted court. John is
also handed over (1.14), but those behind his arrest are not his next of
17. See for instance Marrou, Histoire de Veducation, pp. 61-73.

kin nor even his followers but Herod's adulterous wife and their daugh-
ter. He is put to death without trial, and he is not mocked until after his
death, when the headsman presents his head as a culinary speciality of
the cook, and the dish is passed from hand to hand until it reaches
Herod's wife, the cause of John's execution (6.17-28).
The centre of the passage is made up of vv. 10-11, where a paradoxi-
cal function is assigned to the fateful events of betrayal, arrests and tri-
als because disasters are transformed into a salvation event. The mo-
ment of truth comes when the accused, while under interrogation18 and
pressure to renounce Jesus (8.38), seize the opportunity to confess their
faith in him. For the reader who remembers the story of the seven Mac-
cabee brothers and their mother (2 Mace. 7) it is not difficult to visual-
ize the scene. Under atrocious torments and the threat of death they
profess their faith with legendary fearlessness. In 9.43-47 Jesus has
already demanded the same fearlessness from his followers. Like the
seven brothers and their mother in the story of 2 Maccabees 7, Jesus'
followers need not look for words because God's spirit will prompt
them what to say.19 What happens then is exactly what the persecutors
want to prevent: the good news is proclaimed to all nations and be-
comes known everywhere.20
The passage ends with words of encouragement. Those who perse-
vere to the end will be saved. The sentence is not without a certain
ambiguity. Before this, 'the end' has been used in the sense of 'the
18. 1 Cor. 12.3 seems to presume a similar interrogation.

19. This, too, is mentioned in 1 Cor. 12.3.
20. Fowler (Reader, pp. 117-18) regards v. 10 as a comment by the narrator. He
suggests that e9vr| may well mean Gentiles here, and consequently sees the verse
fulfilled as it is read, especially when the book is read by a non-Jewish reader. As
arguments for this he refers to the different content of v. 10, the possibility of
reading the passage without v. 10, and the fact that the reader would associate the
e\)ayYeX,iov with the story he or she is reading. However attractive, the view raises
the following objections. Whether rcdvxa e0vr| makes one think primarily of Gen-
tiles here is questionable because in the immediate context there is also mention of
cruve5pia icai awcr/coyac;, namely in v. 9. The absence of a content-related corre-
spondence between verse 10 and the surrounding verses is less evident than Fowler
thinks. It is precisely the speaking of the accused before their judges that may be
seen as the proclamation of the good news. Finally, it is also less probable that
already within the book euayYeîov can refer to the story or the book. I wonder if
in his opinion on v. 10 Fowler has not been led by the clearly editorial character of
the verse. In my opinion, an editorial addition need not necessarily be seen as
commentary from the narrator.
end of time' (v. 7). That is obviously the meaning here, but 'the end'
(xeXoq) may also refer to the end of a person's life. Jesus used the word
in that sense when he spoke of the end of Satan in 3.26. Here the word
can be understood in both these meanings. Depending on personal
circumstances, one person will be asked to be faithful to the end of his
or her life and another to the end of time. Present-day readers, who can
connect the latter term with nothing that still has validity for them, will
automatically understand the word in the first sense. In Jesus' call to be
faithful and his promise of salvation they see the red thread that runs
through the central part of the book and is clearly visible, not only in
Jesus' predictions of his future execution but also in 8.34-38, 9.43-47,
and 10.28-30.
Desecration and Flight

13.14-20. This section begins in a way that is bound to disorientate the
readers. The transition from 'you' to 'the one who' in the preceding
sentence has led to a generalization that they expect to be continued
here. The use of the plural 'you' had given them the impression that
they are in a sense part of the small circle around Jesus whom he
addresses with 'you'. That is the reason why they had begun to regard
the words spoken by Jesus as being addressed also to them. Verse 14
causes confusion, however. They are now confronted with three differ-
ent addressees, who are explicitly distinguished from each other: Jesus'
listeners, addressed as 'you'; the readers themselves, who in parenthe-
sis receive a hint from the author/narrator, but without being addressed
in the second person; and the people in Judaea, who receive an order
from Jesus. Moreover, the relationship between these three is not very
clear. When those addressed as 'you'—in the first instance the four dis-
ciples—see a certain incident, the people in Judaea must flee without
delay. The text does not say how the four can observe the incident and
how the Judaeans are informed of it. The reader has no doubt about the
position of the four; they are definitely characters in the story. Is that
also true of 'those in Judaea?' Judaeans have twice appeared in the
story before, first as members of John's audience who are subsequently
baptized by him (1.5), and later as members of Jesus' audience (3.7 and
perhaps 10.1). It would seem that 'those in Judaea' should be regarded
as story characters, and not as flesh-and-blood Judaeans living at the
time of the author. There is the complication, however, that the preced-
ing future tenses in vv. 5-13 refer to a time outside the book and even
to the time of the intended readers. Besides, the reader knows on sec-
ond reading that the incident in question does not happen within the
narrated time, while he or she has learned to expect that events an-
nounced by Jesus are as a rule realized within the time of the story, un-
less they have to do with events that will happen after his death.21 In the
light of those future tenses, the reader is inclined to understand the
Greek imperative êvyexcoaav ('must flee') as referring to something
that happens at the time of the intended readers, and the Judaeans as
people of flesh and blood, and not as story characters.
Verse 14 makes readers think not only about the position of 'those in
Judaea' but also about their own. They have got used to the narrator
now and then explaining things they may not understand, such as the
meaning of foreign words,22 customs,23 and events or situations.24 Here
they look up in surprise, though, because in this parenthesis they are
directly and explicitly addressed as 'the reader',25 and are thus given to
understand that the whole story is told and written for them. At the
same time the clause alerts the reader to the fact that not everything in
the book is easy to understand and that the author is well aware of this,
perhaps even intends it. That is clear from the parenthesis as well as
from the incident to which it refers, for that incident remains obscure,
certainly for the reader of today but probably also for the contemporary
reader.
The expression 'the desolating sacrilege' (TO P8eX\)Y|ia if|<; epr|-
(icoaeax;) is derived from Dan. 9.27, 11.31 and 12.11, where it refers to
21. See for the passages already read: 1.17 in 6.12-13; 8.31, 9.31, and 10.33-34
in 14.1-16.7; 9.1 in 9.2-4; 11.2-3 in 11.4-6; 11.14 in 11.20. This is not true for 2.20,
which refers to the time after Jesus' death and therefore falls outside the story; nei-
ther for 10.30, 39, which I think is a similar case to 2.20. Of the passages still to be
read the following will be realized within the book: 14.13-15 in 14.16; 14.17 in
14.44-45; 14.27, 30 in 14.50, 66-72. Not realized within the book are: 13.22; 14.9,
28; and 16.7. In the case of 13.22 and 14.9 the reader does not expect that because,
with regard both to place and time, they fall outside the narrated time; in the case of
14.28 and 16.7 the absence of the realization within the book increases the tension
in a similar way to here.
22. 3.17; 5.41; 7.11, 34; 12.42.
23. 7.3-4.
24. 1.16; 5.42; 9.6; 10.22; 11.13, 32.
25. Whether the reader thus addressed is a public or private reader makes no
difference. The original audience did not read but listened to the text that was being
read out to them by a public reader.
the profanation of the Temple. The formulation of the phrase in Mark,

where the participle ecxi\KOxa ('standing') is masculine and therefore
does not agree with the neuter fibeXvyiia ('horror'), suggests either the
representation of a man or the statue of a man.26 The possibilities are
fairly numerous. The reader familiar with Josephus's description of the
destruction of the Temple could think of the Roman soldier who set fire
to a window of the sanctuary, and thus caused the burning of the Tem-
ple (in 70 CE).27 One could also think of what happened soon after-
wards when the Romans set up their standards opposite the east gate,
sacrificed to them, and acclaimed Titus imperator.28 Further, one could
think of a statue because statues play an important part in Daniel: in
Daniel 2, it is the statue of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay that Neb-
uchadnezzar saw in his dream; in Daniel 3, it is the golden statue that
the three young Jews refused to worship; and in one of the Greek
additions to the Hebrew text ('Bel and the Dragon', Daniel 14), the idol
of Bel. In the light of these passages and particularly those from Daniel
9, 11, and 12, the reader takes v. 14 to refer to a statue causing the des-
ecration of the central sanctuary, a place surrounded by taboos, without
being able to verify the correctness of this impression. In addition, the
term 'desolation' (epr||ic6ai<;) makes it difficult for the reader not to
think of the destruction of the Temple as well. It remains a moot point,
however, that an incident or event intended to be a signal is so vague.
What of the intended readers of the first century? Whether they must
be situated in Rome, Syria, or Alexandria, the author had clearly no
intention of applying to them the injunction to flee. The vagueness of
the signal and consequently the moment at which to flee, presented
26. The passages in Daniel are thought to refer to the altar in honour of Zeus
erected by Antiochus IV in the Jerusalem Temple in 167 BCE. Both the narrator and
readers may have connected the phrase in Mark with Caligula's plan to have his
own statue erected in the Temple as evidence of the victory of the imperial cult.
The plan caused a great commotion at the time, but before he could carry it out
Caligula died in 41 CE. At the time of the story the plan did not yet exist and for the
intended readers it was something that had happened many years ago. Thus the
'desolating sacrilege' cannot refer directly to Caligula's plan, although the way it
was conceived or presented could be connected with it. The question remains, then,
how the Roman readers of Mark, who had had no part in that commotion, could
have thought of it, but that applies also to the intended readers thought to live in
other places.
27. Josephus,War 6.252.
28. Josephus,War 6.316.
therefore no practical problems to the first readers. That is particularly

true when the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had already
taken place. In that case the injunction to the Judaeans was only of doc-
umentary interest to the first readers.29
Incidentally, it is possible that the intended readers had extratextual
information that enabled them to understand what the words of v. 14
actually referred to,30 but it is equally possible that in trying to under-
stand these words they came up against the same aporia that faces read-
ers today.
The instructions to the people of Judaea, on the other hand, are obvi-
ous: they insist on the greatest possible speed. Whoever is on the roof
must flee across the flat roofs of the adjoining houses without going
down. The mountains offer protection against the approaching catastro-
phe.31 It will be especially difficult for expectant and nursing mothers to
reach the safety of the mountains in time. The advice to pray that it may
not happen in winter implies that for Jesus as a character in the story
the time of the event is still an open question. Perhaps that points for-
ward to v. 32, where he professes his ignorance of the day or hour.
However, what Jesus apparently did not know was known to the in-
tended readers. Without needing further instruction most of them will
have been aware that the Temple had been destroyed in summer, taking
the fact of its destruction as a sign that the prayer recommended by
Jesus had been answered. According to Josephus, the fire of the Temple
happened on the tenth of the month Lous [Ab], that is, in the height of
summer. Again, readers are aware that this passage is not about them
but about others, and clearly relates to the past. It will not have been
very different for the readers of ancient Rome than it is for readers
today.32
The words used in v. 19 are conventional terms again. They echo the
threatening language of Moses (Exod. 9.18; Deut. 4.32) and of the
prophets Daniel (12.1) and Joel (2.2). Precisely because Jesus employs
29. And may then, perhaps, be seen as an indication that Mark was written after
the destruction of the Temple.
30. That seems to be the opinion of Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, pp. 263-64.
31. Pace Kelber, The Kingdom, pp. 120-21. Mountains provide shelter in grottos
and caves.
32. Perhaps v. 18 can also be regarded as an indication that the Temple had al-
ready been destroyed at the time of the writing of Mark and that the injunction to
flee had lost its validity at the time of the reader.
overfamiliar words here, the reader sees no contradiction between

Jesus' announcement of the great tribulation and his ignorance of the
time of those events.
Just as at the end of v. 13, the passage ends by encouraging the
readers: God will be loyal to those who have remained faithful to him.
What these words say about the time aspect, and in particular about
the relation between what has already happened and still is to happen,
remains unclear, but that does not alter the fact that the communication
is encouraging. The wording of the saying implies that Jesus, though
ignorant of the specific time sequence, refers the reader to views that
are generally known for the outlines of the scenario.
Pseudo-Messiahs
13.21-23. The last part about the time before the coming of the Son of
Man resumes the theme of vv. 5-6, but with more details. Thus it
becomes clear what in v. 6 is meant by 'I am he!' It also appears that
those pretending to come in Jesus' name actually pose as the Messiah.
In a Christian context it can only mean that they pose as a second Jesus
or even as the returned Jesus.33 One can think here specifically of
Christian prophets who, posing as interpreters of what the risen Jesus
wants to say through them, speak in his name. To speak in Jesus' name
has then a far greater significance than casting out demons or healing
the sick in Jesus' name (9.38-40). It is noteworthy that Jesus says ex-
plicitly that the signs and portents produced by these pseudo-figures are
so convincing that even the elect must be on their guard. This statement
by Jesus undermines once and for all the evidential value of all signs
and miracles. All signs and miracles performed after Jesus in his name
are therefore suspect from the start. It is worth bearing in mind that this
is not something new. In Deut. 13.2-3 people are already being warned
against the danger of being impressed by signs and portents coming
true. Viewed in this light, Jesus' refusal to give the Pharisees a sign that
will substantiate his claims (8.11-13) is even better to understand.
When Jesus does remarkable works in Mark it is not to demonstrate his
credibility but to help people in need.
33. Donahue {Are you the Christ?, pp. 220-21) refers, I think wrongly, to a
messianic fever in Judaea during the Jewish war. That was about Jewish messian-
ism, due to the appearance of Jewish messianic pretenders. Whoever acts as a mes-
siah-pretender before Christians, however, is in a totally different situation.
The Coming of the Son of Man

13.24-27. The coming of the Son of Man constitutes the centre both of
this section and of the whole discourse. The section is linked with and
forms the counterpart of vv. 14-20. The connections and contrasts be-
tween them are represented in Figure 30.
7-20 24-27
the earth collapses the heavens break down

the four disciples see all see
the 'desolating sacrilege' the Son of Man coming
the Judaeans must flee the elect are gathered
Figure 30
Opposite the presence of the 'desolating sacrilege' in the sanctuary

stands the figure of the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven.
Only the four are said to witness the 'desolating sacrilege', while the
coming of the Son of Man is witnessed by all. The Judaeans must flee
to the mountains, while the elect will be gathered by heavenly messen-
gers. How the group of the elect relates to the four addressed by Jesus,
to the Judaeans and the readers, remains obscure.
The brief section consists of three scenes, whose interdependence is
underlined by the concentric arrangement. The first scene (vv. 24-25),
set in the skies, has a disintegrating and destructive character, the third
scene (v. 27), set on the earth, has an integrating and healing character.
The scene in the centre (v. 26), set between heaven and earth, repre-
sents the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. The
section contains no specific indication of the date of the event. Jesus
says only that it will occur after the tribulations, persecutions, and dis-
asters described in the preceding verses. However, even if Jesus had
said that the coming of the Son of Man would take place immediately
after those events, the audience would still have been unable to deter-
mine the exact date of the coming, since the text says nothing about the
length of the preceding period. It is precisely the absence of specific
chronological data that marks Jesus' words off from the typical apoca-
lyptic that is especially interested in calculating the date and duration of
future events.34 Such computations clearly serve to show that the length
34. See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV.2, pp. 977-1015: 'Excursus 30:
of the persecution and its attendant miseries is of limited duration. Still

reminiscent of that function is v. 20, which presumes a limited, though
unknown duration, but underscores that, for the sake of the elect, God
has shortened the time of distress.
The Clearance of Heaven

13.24-25. The beginning of the passage is largely made up of implicit
quotations from the Old Testament. The utter darkness due to the ex-
tinguishing of the sun and moon, a regular feature of the apocalyptic
scenario, is almost literally taken from Isa. 13.10. The same is true of
the falling of the stars, which, for example in Isa. 34.4, is likened to the
falling of withered vine leaves and dried figs. The shaking of the celes-
tial bodies is derived from Isa. 34.4.35
To the contemporary readers of Gentile origin in ancient Rome and
also in Syria, the passage will have evoked other images besides that of
a cosmic catastrophe.36 In antiquity sun, moon, planets, and stars were
regarded as heavenly bodies equipped with divine power.37 Actually,
there were Roman coins in circulation bearing the images and names of
the sun god Sol and the moon goddess Luna,38 which constantly im-
pressed the reference to Graeco-Roman deities on their minds. The
planets, too, had names of gods: Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Mercury, Venus.
As in Latin, the Greek words for sun and moon, HA,io<; and EefaivTi,
were also the names of gods. Before they became Christians, the first
Roman readers of Mark, like other citizens of Rome, had worshipped
Vorzeichen und Berechnungen der Tage des Messias'.

35. Literally: 'the powers in the heavens will break down', which in the context
refers to planets being thrown off course rather than to invisible heavenly hosts
fleeing in disarray or something similar.
36. See B. van Iersel, The Sun, Moon, and Stars of Mark 13:24-25 in a Greco-
Roman Reading', Bib 7 (1996), pp. 84-92.
37. On this subject see H. Dorrie, 'Die Solar-Theologie in der kaiserzeitlichen
Antike', in I.H. Frohness and U.W. Knorr (eds.), Kirchengeschichte als Missions-
geschichte (Munich: Kaiser, 1974), pp. 283-92; K. Latte, Romische Religions-
geschichte (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 5.4; Munich: Beck, 1976), pp.
132-33, 274, 281, 291, 296, 328-29, 349-51; M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 5.2.2; Munich: Beck,
1984), pp. 486-519, 540; and on the religious significance of the planets also PW,
40, cols. 2112-121.
38. PW, II.5, col. 905, s.v. 'Sol'.
these pagan gods.39 These readers, who still had to come to terms with
the suffering caused by the Neronian persecutions, will have attached
special importance to the fact that Nero had had a 30 m. high bronze
statue erected in his palace, representing him as sun god.40 When He-
lios-Sol and Selene-Luna stop giving light, the stars start falling from
heaven, and the planets are thrown off course, not only the cosmos
breaks up but also the Graeco-Roman world of pseudo-gods, who are
dethroned and flung from heaven, including Nero. After their deposi-
tion and eviction from heaven, the house of God41 is made ready for the
coming of the Son of Man in the clouds and for his installation at the
right hand of God (13.26; 14.62).
The Coming of the Son of Man and the Gathering of the Elect
13.26-27. This is not the first time that the narrator has Jesus speak
about the coming of the Son of Man. The reader remembers that 8.38
spoke of the role of the Son of Man Jesus at the judgment of those who
were ashamed of Jesus and his words. At this point in Mark the Son of
Man's coming is for the first time connected with the end of the world.
Verse 26 reflects Dan. 7.13-14, but the words have been so selected and
rearranged that they receive another meaning. Daniel 7 describes the
nocturnal vision of a seer. After the image of the four great beasts com-
ing up out of the sea there appears in the vision the image of one like a
son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, who is subsequently pre-
sented before the ancient one to be invested with royal power. In the
light of the context the son of man is commonly interpreted as a figure
of the holy people of the Most High, who are given the power to rule
for ever over the nations of the world (vv. 18, 22, and 27). The scene in
Mark, however, is not a vision of an exceptional seer but a public mani-
festation. Moreover, the one who comes is briefly called 'the Son of
Man', and is without doubt none other than Jesus himself. His arrival is
visible from the earth, and his power—which is clearly not conferred
on him now (see also 2.10)—is made visible. Since the announcement
is no longer expressed in terms of a vision and the comparative 'like' of
39. See Rom. 1.25.

40. Thus D.L. Jones, 'Christianity and the Roman Cult', in ANRW, 2.32.2,
p. 1029.
41. In 13.24-36, just as in 3.24-27, the two metaphors of kingdom and house of
God are combined.
Daniel has been left out, its metaphorical character is less recognizable.
Readers should realize, however, that the announcement remains a
metaphor for an event that does not lend itself to a descriptive render-
ing. It is difficult to say just how the first-century Roman readers under-
stood the announcement. All we can say is that the intended Christian
readers seem to have been familiar with the image of the coming, for it
occurs regularly—even without the term 'Son of Man'—in nearly all
books of the New Testament.42 Non-Christian and non-Jewish readers
of Mark probably found it a strange idea, and that will also be true for
readers today.
All this applies to v. 27 as well, where the chosen, who have endured
the hardships of those disastrous events, are assembled by the heavenly
messengers sent out by the Son of Man. No mention is made of what
will happen to them afterwards, nor of the lot of the other survivors. In
any case, the ones who have persevered are saved (v. 13; cf. 8.33;
10.26). The reader remembers earlier places where salvation is ex-
pressed by other metaphors: the saved are admitted to the house where
God's kingship is fully realized (10.15, 24), and where the inhabitants
may live for ever, while the others will end up in eternal fire (9.43-48;
10.17,30).
The Signs
Jesus eventually deals with Peter's question about the time and the sign,
but he answers the question quite differently from the way the ques-
tioner had intended. Jesus does not speak about the moment when the
Temple will be destroyed, nor about the sign that points forward to its
destruction. The words 'these things' refer to all the above events, with-
out it being clear whether or not the destruction of the Temple will be
part of them. Should this be seen as evidence that, for the author and his
Roman readers, the destruction of the Temple was already a thing of
the past? In that case the author has missed the opportunity tohave
Jesus prophesy exactly when the Temple would be destroyed. In other
places of the book he has Jesus announce what will happen to him-
self and sometimes also to his disciples and followers.43 Occasionally
42. See for example 1 Thess. 2.19; 3.13; 4.15; 5.23; 2 Thess. 2.1, 8; 1 Cor.
15.23; Jas 5.7, 8; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28.
43. See for announcements that come true within the story: 8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34;
these announcements contain specific information on time and place,44

though never a calendar date or something equally exact. Although it is
impossible to know with certainty why the author does not have Jesus
predict the moment of the destruction of the Temple, the reader can
safely assume that the reason lies in his conviction that other sides of
Jesus are more important than the possession of special foreknowledge.
Actually, the naming of a date would conflict with the meaning and
content of v. 32.
In this section, too, the concentric structure is readily apparent. The
passage begins and ends with a metaphor referring to things that one
can or precisely cannot anticipate, while in the central part Jesus speaks
explicitly, and without using metaphors, of the time of the events an-
nounced in the preceding part of the discourse. Jesus does not mention
the destruction of the Temple here, and since it is not clear whether
v. 14 refers to it or not, the question of how all this relates to that event
cannot be answered. The structure of the section is represented in Fig-
ure 31.
I — the parable of the budding fig tree 28-29

the total ignorance of day and hour 30-33
I — the parable of the doorkeeper 34-37
Figure 31
13.28-29. The little parable of the fig tree deals with a sign derived
from the change of seasons. The change is so regular that the succes-
sion of the seasons is the height of predictability. That predictability is
then assigned to the sequence of events announced earlier as a sort of
scenario with a timetable: v. 7, the end is not yet; v. 8, the beginning of
the birthpangs; v. 13, endure to the end; v. 21, and then; v. 24, after that
suffering; v. 26, and then; v. 27, and then. It remains as yet unclear how
the two phases of the parable—the budding of the tree and summer—
can be applied to the entire scenario, and especially where, in the latter,
the caesura lies between the sign and the signified. Only the second lit-
tle parable makes it clear that the caesura lies between what precedes
14.13-15, 18-20, 27-31. For announcements reaching beyond the story: 11.2; 13.9,
12-13; 14.9,25,62.
44. This applies to the resurrection after three days (8.31; 9.31; 10.34), but also
to the events foretold in 11.2; 14.13-15, 27-30.
the coming of the Son of Man and the coming itself, as is roughly also
the case in the structure of the discourse.
Since a fig tree, and not some other tree, is used to illustrate the point,
the tree of vv. 28-29 functions indirectly as the counterpart of the fig
tree of vv. 11.12-21. The tender branch and new leaves of the tree, with
the prospect of fruit, suggest that the death of the fig tree in vv. 11.12-
21 is not the final word. On reflection, the indicative value of the blos-
soming tree is small, because a yearly phenomenon can hardly signify
that a unique event is about to take place. It is quite possible that this,
rather than anything else, is in keeping with the purpose of the parable.
13.30-32. The central piece is concerned with the time. Jesus is equally
firm about what can and what cannot be communicated. He reveals that
everything—and this the reader understands as up to and including the
coming of the Son of Man—will happen before this generation has
passed away. The reader remembers that Jesus has said something simi-
lar with regard to the manifestation of God's kingdom (9.1). What
Jesus does not reveal, however, is the exact moment when these events
will take place. Whereas in 9.1 it was possible for readers not to relate
Jesus' saying to themselves, that is no longer the case here.
Verse 31 is linked to the last verse by means of the catchword 'pass
away'. The saying summarizes the cosmic upheavals of vv. 24-25, ex-
tending the passing away of the actual generation to the whole of the
cosmos. With this generation the house of creation also comes to an
end. That Jesus' words will not pass away is of central importance to
the reader, particularly in this context. It implies that all his predictions
and promises remain, even when the last human being has disappeared
from the face of the earth and the last bit of heaven and earth has
ceased to exist.
However powerful his words and promises, Jesus is not able to pre-
dict exactly when the said events will take place. It is interesting and,
after the forgoing where he appeared to know so much, also very sur-
prising that Jesus professes his ignorance so emphatically. Also note-
worthy is the paradoxical way in which he says this. It is the only
saying in the book where Jesus, who normally uses the first person and
occasionally the self-designation 'Son of Man', refers to himself as 'the
son'. Coming as it does after 8.38, where Jesus speaks of 'the Son of
Man' who comes in the glory of 'his Father' with the heavenly mes-
sengers, and after v. 26, the self-reference can, of course, be understood
as an abbreviated form of 'Son of Man'. That, however, is far from

obvious, for there are places more deeply imprinted on the readers'
memory, where the author himself (1.1), a voice from heaven (1.11;
9.7), and the demons (3.11; 5.7) have called Jesus 'Son of God'. It is
also only a little while ago that Jesus has refreshed that memory in the
parable of the vineyard, in which the loved son and his father, the
owner of the vineyard, occupy such prominent places (12.1-12). More-
over, in the present episode Jesus uses the word pair son-father. Al-
though in 8.38 'Son of Man' and 'Father' occur together and in relation
to one another, the combination is so unconventional that the reader
does not automatically take 'son' as a shortened form of 'Son of Man'.
Whether Jesus speaks as 'Son' or as 'Son of Man', the statement em-
barrasses the reader. Why should Jesus have knowledge of his resurrec-
tion on the third day and the Son of Man be ignorant of the time when
he has to complete his programme? Jesus seems to be in the position of
a main character who does not know when he must come on stage for
the final scene.
On the other hand, the function of the ignorance is obvious enough.
Precisely because the day and hour are unknown it is necessary to be
constantly on the watch for the supreme moment when the hour (copa)
of 13.32 and the time of God's kingship (Kcapoq) of 1.15 will coincide.
Present-day readers have yet another reason to feel embarrassed. The
coming of the Son of Man, which is so emphatically announced by
Jesus as happening in the not too distant future, has still not taken
place. In fact, this is an age-old problem, which already existed not only
in the time of Mark but also long before him, as is clear from the
numerous expressions of impatience with the delay of 'the day of
Yhwh' or 'the day of the Lord' (LXX) in the Old Testament, and the
day of the coming of Jesus, indicated by the same Greek phrase, in
the New Testament. Perhaps for convenience's sake, such expressions
are sometimes attributed to contumelious enemies,45 and that has not
changed since Mark.46 It does not seem possible really to remove these
feelings of embarrassment. We can, at most, consider that 'the day' has
so repeatedly been announced as near and just as often proved not to be
near that, for this reason alone, it can be understood as a metaphor for
the radical change of the present situation to a final state of perfect har-
mony and pure salvation.
45. Jer. 17.15-16 and Ezek. 12.21-25.

46. 2 Pet. 3.3-4.
Be Vigilant
13.33-37. Perhaps this is the best moment to point out an aspect that
does not often receive sufficient attention. In the Greek the present dis-
course of Jesus contains a whole series of plays on words and sound-
associations that cannot be adequately translated. The phrase eyyix; xo
9epo<; ('summer is near', v. 28) refers back to ovnco to xeAxx; ('the end
is not yet', v. 7), which to a Greek audience is an echo of the xeXoq
contained in oxav \ieXXr\ xavxa auvxeêiaOai rcdvxa ('when all these
things will be accomplished') of the original question (v. 4). The whole
phrase yivcoaicexe oxi eyyvq xo 0epo<; eaxiv ('you know that §iimmer is
near', v. 28) is in its turn resumed in yivcocicexe oxi eyytx; eaxiv em
Otipaic; ('you know that he [or it] is near, at the very gates', v. 29). The
two devices considerably reinforce the unity of this extended discourse
of Jesus. Assonance also strengthens the connection between the two
little parables at the end. The eyytx; em GvpaK; ('near the gates') of
v. 29 is echoed in the Gupoopo*; ('doorkeeper') of v. 34, and thus the
reader's attention is indirectly focused on the master of the house in vv.
34-36.
The metaphor in the second parable finally answers the question of
who or what is coming. The doorkeeper is waiting at the door for his
master to return from his journey. The master of the house refers to the
Son of Man who returns in the night when the sun and the moon have
broken down.
The parable of the doorkeeper waiting for his master links up with
the basic idea of what has gone before. It is embedded in a framework
in which Jesus calls first on the four (vv. 33-36), and then on each and
everyone to act like a true night-watchman (v. 37). The parable deals
with the watchman's duties. Metaphor and application shade into one
another so that some aspects of the parable become clear only in the
application (vv. 35-36). One of the (many) servants is to keep watch at
the gate. The application suggests that he has been appointed to be on
duty during the night when dangers from outside make it necessary to
keep the door of the house locked, but the most important part of his
job is to be ready to open the door when the master comes home. The
possibility that the master might return by day is not considered. To
stay awake in the daytime is usually no problem. Only in the night is it
difficult not to fall asleep, especially when the night seems to go on
forever and there is no sign of the traveller yet.47 The mention of the
four periods into which Roman usage divided the night, suggests that
the master is late in coming. Perhaps it is even more important that he
may come at any of these hours. For although in the parable only one of
the servants is appointed as night watch, the application assumes that
every reader has something of the doorkeeper, and that for each of them
the coming of the Son of Man may take place at any of the four points
of time mentioned, albeit before the end referred to in v. 13. 'Watch
and wait' is therefore the message with which the parable begins and
ends. There is no mention of the waiting being repeated night after
night, but the allocation of their tasks to the various servants already
implies that the master will be away for some time. The parable is
rounded off in two phases. In vv. 35-36, where Jesus uses the second
person plural again,48 he tells the four disciples to be watchmen in the
night. Verse 37 confirms that what Jesus has just said applies to all who
are prepared to listen. They, too, must stay awake; that is, remain alert
to the dangers threatening from the side of misleading pseudo-saviours
and persecutors with their accomplices.
The final exhortation especially has involved the reader directly in
the message communicated by the narrator through Jesus' discourse.
The most important part of the message meant for the reader is found in
the chain of imperatives, which all hammer at the same point: beware
(v. 5), do not be alarmed (v. 7), beware (v. 9), do not worry (v. 11),
pray (v. 18), be alert (v. 23), beware, keep alert (v. 33), keep awake (vv.
35, 37)—and the saying of v. 13 in the centre: 'The one who endures to
the end will be saved', which implies the conviction that the Son of
Man Jesus has the final word.
Perhaps it is because he wants to prolong the reader's involvement
that the narrator, instead of closing the account of the discourse with
words of his own as in 4.33-34, has it end on Jesus' last call to vigi-
lance. As a result the development of the story is for a moment left in
the air. The narrator does not even say whether Jesus and the four leave
the Mount of Olives. When he takes up the thread of the story in 14.1 it
is not only after a distinct caesura but after a clear hiatus in the time as
well.
47. There is a clear connection between the parable and its counterpart, the
story about Jesus' followers sleeping in the garden (14.31-42), but the connection
can only become evident on second reading.
48. As in 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30 and 33.
Chapter 15
LOSING HIS LIFE (14.1-15.39)
With the discourse about the end time Jesus has said all that was
needed to be said. He has already foretold what lies in store for him in
Jerusalem. That undoubtedly also determines the expectation of the
reader.
Anointed with Precious Perfume (14.1-11)

!
It was two days before the Passover and the festival of Unleavened
Bread. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest
Jesus by stealth and kill him; 2for they said, 'Not during the festival, or
there may be a riot among the people.'
3
While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at
the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of
nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.
4
But some were there who said to one another in anger, 'Why was the
ointment wasted in this way? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for
more than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.' And
they scolded her. 6 But Jesus said, 'Let her alone; why do you trouble
her? She has performed a good service for me. 7 For you always have the
poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish;
but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has
anointed my body beforehand for its burial. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever
the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will
be told in remembrance of her.'
l0
Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief
priests in order to betray him to them. n When they heard it, they were
greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look
for an opportunity to betray him.
Even an untrained reader cannot miss the concentric structure of this

passage. The central part is set in the privacy of the house of Simon the
leper at Bethany. The setting of the two outer parts is not specified, but
the reader assumes that the event takes place somewhere in the pre-
cincts of the Temple in Jerusalem. Moreover, the apparent continuity
between vv. 1-2 and 10-11 suggests that the incidents recounted there
and in 3-9 happen simultaneously. In that case Judas would not have
been involved in or even have witnessed the incident that occurred
during the meal.1 As to content, the connections are better dealt with
after the parts have been discussed separately.
14.1-2. The beginning constitutes one of the clearest caesuras in the

whole book. It is not until v. 3 that the present episode is connected—
and that quite implicitly—with the preceding episode. That is all the
more remarkable because 11.11-12 forms the start of a time track that
will continue to the end of the book. There was every reason, then, to
let it run on via 14.1-2, but just that does not happen. Instead, the time
track is interrupted by a time reference linking the episode to an event
that will take place two days later,2 namely, the passover and the feast
of unleavened bread, a clear indication to Christian readers that the
Jewish pesach is meant. Before 11.11-12 the order of events corre-
sponds to the sequence or the order of the episodes, but in 11.12-14 the
time of the action is linked to a certain time of the year, albeit only
vaguely and unemphatically, namely through Jesus' words that it is not
the season for figs (11.13). At the beginning of this episode, in 14.1-2,
that kind of connection is made explicitly, not in the form of an adjunct
or a subordinate clause, as is the case with the indications of the hour of
the day in other places,3 but by way of a main clause, which stands,
moreover, at the beginning of an episode. Here, if anywhere, the reader
is made aware of the fact that a new part of the narrative is about to
1. In Jn 12.4-6 Judas is assigned the part that in Mark is played by some of the
unnamed people present, but because of the difference between the singular and the
identification of the complainer in John and the plural and the anonymity in Mark
the present-day reader is careful not to fill the open space in the one with knowl-
edge derived from the other.
2. Some commentators think that fxexa 5t)0 fpepag (literally 'after two days')
means the next day. See U. Sommer, Die Passionsgeschichte des Markusevangeli-
ums: Vberlegungen zur Bedeutung der Geschichte fur den Glauben (WUNT, 2/58;
Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1993), p. 29, and the authors mentioned there. Others, who
presume that the narrator would then have used xr\ enavpiov ('on the following
day') as in 11.12, take the phrase to refer to events taking place two days before the
pesach festival.
3. 1.32, 35; 4.35; 6.35, 47,48; 11.11, 19.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 415
begin. In addition, the first sentence has yet another effect. The separate
mention of unleavened loaves links the episode so explicitly to the Jew-
ish pesach that the reader expects there to be a specific connection
between them. This expectation is fulfilled almost immediately.
After 3.6 and the three announcements of 8.31, 9.31, and 10.33-34 in
particular, it does not come as a surprise to the reader that Jesus' oppo-
nents are looking for a way to seize and kill him. The same goes for the
fact that it is not the Pharisees and Herodians, as in 3.6, but the chief
priests and the scribes who intend to take action. That they need a
stratagem to achieve their aim confirms the reader's conviction that
their plan must be inconsistent with the existing laws and regulations.
Connected as it is with the pesach festival, the mention of the plot to
kill Jesus receives a new dimension, at least at the level of secondary
meanings. The connection recalls the stories of Exodus 11-13 about the
deliverance of the Jews from Egypt, how Yhwh spared the firstborn of
the Israelites while the angel of death went from door to door killing
the firstborn of the Egyptians and their cattle. It is bitter irony that pre-
cisely in this festive week the Temple authorities, instead of sparing the
only Son of God, should be engaged on planning his death.4 Although,
initially, they do not want Jesus' arrest and death to take place during
the paschal celebrations, once the ball has been set rolling they are
unable to stop it, so that the cynical coincidence occurs nevertheless.
The narrator's explanation in v. 2 of why the Temple authorities do
not wish to seize Jesus during the festival seems at first glance to be
more trivial and points to a different problem. It is Jesus' popularity
with the people—of whom the narrator, using the same word (kaoq),
has said in 11.32 that they were on the side of John—that compels the
adversaries to defer their plans. Among the numerous pilgrims visiting
Jerusalem for the celebrations there are bound to be many who have
good memories of Jesus, as is suggested by the frequent reports of his
fame and success with the crowd.5 The feast' (eopxii) may refer to
both the festive gathering and the feast day. It is best to leave that open.
On closer consideration, the authorities' motive for delaying their action
against Jesus is not so trivial after all because precisely through its
4. The Roman readers may also have thought of Rom. 8.32, which shows the
other side of the coin, namely, that God too did not spare his own Son, as he did the
son of Abraham in Gen. 22.1-8.
5. 1.28; 3.7-8; 4.1; 5.20; 6.33, 54-56; 8.1.
combination with 6taxoq(the people) it underscores the distance, even

the opposition between the Temple authorities and the Jewish people.6
14.3. The inserted story of the anointing of Jesus takes place at Bethany
and confirms the reader's impression gained from 11.11-27 that Jesus is
active in Jerusalem in the daytime and spends the night outside the city
at Bethany. Jesus must have returned to Bethany after 13.37. It is not
clear from the text whether the related event happens that same evening
or the next day. The reader imagines that Jesus has a pied-a-terre at
Bethany, just as he had at Capernaum. That his host is called 'Simon
the leper' is probably connected with the fact that the book has several
characters named Simon.7 The hospitality that Jesus enjoys is really
incompatible with the leprosy of the host,8 unless Simon has meanwhile
recovered from his illness. That he eats at his house—presumably
reclining at table with a man who, the reader imagines, is still lep-
rous—makes things worse. It once again characterizes the attitude of
Jesus, who gives priority to people over regulations. The incident itself
is over in a flash. The narrator stresses the high price and first quality
of the perfume. Since the woman breaks open the jar, it cannot be
closed again. That indicates her lavish use of the precious ointment: she
pours the whole of the contents of the jar on Jesus' head. The narra-tor,
who elsewhere regularly informs his readers about motives and back-
grounds, says nothing about the woman's motive for her action. Her
exit is as sudden as her entrance, and after the event she is as anony-
mous as before, so that what Jesus will say about her turns into a para-
dox, for how can we remember someone who is nameless?9
14.4-5. The generous act of the woman contrasts sharply with the sour
comments of some of those present. Who they are is unclear. They may
be Simon and members of his family, or disciples of Jesus, or perhaps
some of the other guests.10 They consider what the woman has done to
6. This accords well with the consistent use of 6 OXÔQ (the crowd) in 15.6-14,
where they demand the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.
7. 3.16, 18; 6.3; 15.21.
8. See S. Lucking, Mimesis der Verachteten: Eine Studie zur Erzdhlweise von
Mk 14,1-11 (SBS, 152; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993), p. 71.
9. Thus Lucking, Mimesis, p. 71.
10. Of the later evangelists Matthew identifies the complainers with the disci-
ples (Mt. 26.8). In his rewriting of the story Luke locates it at the house of a Phar-
isee named Simon, who inwardly protests against the action of a woman he
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) All
be a senseless waste, complaining that the expensive ointment could

have been sold and the money given to the poor. To the reader their in-
dignation does not seem unjustified, for their proposal is consistent with
Jesus' recommendation to the rich man of 10.21: sell what you own,
and give the money to the poor. The only valid objection in this context
is that Jesus' advice should be put into practice rather than impressed
upon others, but if it were the disciples who criticized the woman,
things would be different, because they could rightfully say that they
had already done so (10.28; cf. 1.16-20).
14.6-8. Although the objectors may be right, Jesus dismisses their mis-
givings as irrelevant because this specific moment calls for different
priorities. The objectors, and everyone else for that matter, can give
money to the poor whenever they wish. However, now that the authori-
ties have decided to kill Jesus, it is Jesus himself who needs help,
namely, that his body be made ready for burial. It is the last service that
may be rendered to a loved one, and that is what the woman has done.
She has not just sprayed costly perfume over Jesus but embalmed him
at the moment he was doomed to die and the plans for his execution
needed only to be put into effect.
Whether those criticizing her conduct are disciples of Jesus or not—
and the reader begins to suspect that the former is very well possible—
the woman, who appears in just one sentence of the story, contrasts
sharply with the twelve. Not first of all because she is a woman and
alone, but mainly because she understands Jesus and acts accordingly
while the twelve men remain obstinately unaware of what is going to
happen to him. She is similar to the blind seer Bartimaeus, who also
saw what remained hidden to the others (10.46-52). Jesus' words 'she
has done what she could' also place her next to the poor widow in
12.41-44, who 'has put in everything she had'. It is perhaps typical of
both women—and the same goes for Peter's mother-in-law in 1.29-
31—that not one word from them is recorded in the story. This is es-
pecially striking with the woman in Bethany because, although she
does not speak, she is singled out for special praise and has become the
explicit subject of memory and conversation.
presumes to be sinful, and is severely reprimanded by Jesus (Lk. 7.36-50). John

puts the protest into the mouth of Judas, and, besides his betrayal, also mentions the
fact that Judas stole money from the common purse of which he was in charge (Jn
12.4-6).
The story is another clear example of narrative irony. The signifi-

cance of the incident is hardly comprehensible to the characters within
the story, and even the reader cannot really understand it until he or she
has reached the end of the book.
74.9. The words spoken by Jesus in the woman's defence give the little
incident a unique status: her deed will be related wherever the good
news is proclaimed. No other action in the book is given such promi-
nence and permanence. If women refer to the episode today it is not to
congratulate themselves but merely to quote what Jesus has said of no
one but this anonymous woman.11 The paradox that her name is not
mentioned is removed by the fact that the mention of the incident lends
a performative power to the words that the narrator puts into Jesus'
mouth in v. 9.12 How these words were received in the masculine cul-
ture of Rome in the first century we can only guess; but even more than
the story about Bartimaeus, this little miniature, like that of the widow
in 12.41-44, is at odds with what is customary in antiquity. The official
literature of the day confines itself to illustrious figures with great
names, and looks down on children, women, and slaves. In Mark these
roles are reversed:13 not only do children and women have the marked
attention of Jesus and the narrator,14 but Jesus himself dies the death of
a slave and chooses the image of the slave as the key to his significance
(10.45).
14.10-11. The mention of the chief priests solves the problem of 1-2.
We are back in Jerusalem, where the Temple authorities are consider-
ing the problem of Jesus' arrest in a city that is crowded with his sup-
porters. We witness how Judas enters into a plot with them to dispose
of Jesus, enacting the part that the narrator has intended for him since
3.19.15 With the explicit statement that Judas was one of the twelve, the
11. E. Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Recon-

struction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, \9S3), passim.
12. Lucking, Mimesis, p. 81.
13. Lucking, Mimesis, pp. 24-26, 29-30, 114-15.
14. See besides 15.40-41, already mentioned in conjunction with 1.29-31, the
passages 5.21-43; 7.24-30; 9.33-37; 10.13-16.
15. In Greek the name 'Ioi)5ag has a closer connection with 'Io\)5aioi than
'Judas' has with 'Jew' in English. B.L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and
Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), p. 305, brings the two very
close to each other: 'If Judas is a fiction, the Jews have become Mark's scapegoat'.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 419
narrator begins the account of the complete failure of the circle round
Jesus.
In Mark, Judas does not ask or demand money for his delivery of
Jesus. In fact, the narrator offers no explanation for his action, so that
the reader is completely in the dark about his motives for betraying
Jesus. The money is offered to him afterwards, and is probably meant
to make him keep his word and stimulate him to complete the betrayal.
In that same sense the reader also understands the verse concluding the
episode. When Judas has been offered the money, he goes on looking
for an opportunity that will make it possible for the authorities to arrest
Jesus without causing too much of a stir.
The mention of money has yet another effect on the reader. It under-
lines the opposition between the anonymous woman and Judas. She has
spent a great deal of money to do what had to be done for Jesus at this
hour. Judas, on the other hand, benefits from his treason financially.
However, that is only a side issue. The real opposition lies in the fact
that a disciple of Jesus hands him over, violating the trust that Jesus had
put in him, whereas this anonymous woman stands by him in his hour
of need.
Preparations for the Passover (14.12-16)

12
On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is
sacrificed, his disciples said to him, 'Where do you want us to go and
make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?' 13So he sent two of
his disciples, saying to them, 'Go into the city, and a man carrying ajar
of water will meet you; follow him, 14and wherever he enters, say to the
owner of the house, "The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I
may eat the Passover with my disciples?" 15 He will show you a large
room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.'
16
So the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as
he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal.
14.12. The story says nothing about the scene of the action, but it is
clear from the context that it must take place somewhere outside
In the case of Mark this view seems exaggerated. 'IovSaq is quite a common name;
in fact, one of Jesus' brothers is named Judas (6.3). In Mark, when applied to the
disciple, the name is always followed by the epithet 'IcicapicoG or some other
qualification (3.19; 14.10, 43), which makes it difficult, in my opinion, to see the
plural 'Io\)5aioi as a kind of generalization of 'Io\)5a(;.
Jerusalem. The reader therefore assumes that Jesus is still at Bethany in

the house of Simon. There the disciples address him concerning the
preparations for the passover. Whether they are staying with Jesus at
the same house remains unclear. The day already mentioned in 14.1 has
now come. It is the day on which at sunset, after the slaughter of the
lambs in the Temple, every family eats the passover meal in commem-
oration of the deliverance from Egypt and the sparing of Israel's first-
born from an untimely death. Many pilgrims also gather toward sunset
in groups that are big enough to consume a whole lamb. During the
festival it was customary for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to accom-
modate them and also enable them to celebrate the passover according
to the current regulations. Similarly, the question of the disciples con-
cerns the house where Jesus expects to keep the passover with them.
14.13-15. Jesus' answer is very similar to the instruction regarding the

colt in 11.2-3. Here, as there, he sends two disciples. Why two again?
Perhaps because the narrator is fond of having the disciples—earlier
called in twos (1.16-20) and sometimes named as a duo (1.29; 3.17)—
operate in pairs (6.7; 10.35). Perhaps because their joint experience is
stronger testimony to the correctness of the remarkably detailed fore-
sight of Jesus. This time Jesus knows beforehand that somewhere in
town the two will meet a man carrying a jar of water. That is conspicu-
ous enough to serve as a sign. In Palestine women and girls used jars to
fetch water from a central reservoir or well, and carried them home on
their heads, whereas men carried beverages and other liquids in bags
made of goatskin. Whether the house owner, whom they find by follow-
ing the man with the jar, is or is not an acquaintance of Jesus and/or of
the two disciples the story does not tell, but even if he were a total
stranger, the story would not be incredible because of the custom of
offering pilgrims a room for eating the passover meal.
14.16. In a few words the reader is told that they found everything as
Jesus had said they would. In the upstairs room indicated to them the
two make the necessary preparations. What these preparations involved
is left unspecified, but as in v. 12 the slaughter of the passover lambs
has been explicitly mentioned, the reader imagines that the two have
also supplied the slaughtered lamb needed for the meal.
The episode has the same function as 11.1-6. The recurrence of the
motif of Jesus' foresight considerably strengthens the impression of the
reader that, although it is not given to Jesus to know when the end time
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 421
comes (13.32), he knows exactly what awaits him and his disciples in
Jerusalem. Moreover, it arouses the expectation that, even when he falls
into the hands of his opponents and they do with him as they please,
Jesus will nevertheless in some hidden way remain in control of events.
At Table with the Twelve (14.17-25)

17
When it was evening, he came with the twelve. 18And when they had
taken their places and were eating, Jesus said, Truly I tell you, one of
you will betray me, one who is eating with me.' 19They began to be dis-
tressed and to say to him one after another, 'Surely, not I?' 20 He said to
them, 'It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the bowl
with me. 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to
that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better
for that one not to have been born.'
22
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he
broke it, gave it to them, and said, Take; this is my body.' 23 Then he
took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them
drank from it. 24 He said to them, This is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many. 25Truly I tell you, I will never again drink
of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom
of God.'
14.17-18. Now that everything is ready for the passover meal, the
reader joins the narrator in the guest room to await coming events. At
nightfall Jesus arrives accompanied by the twelve, his confidants. The
party also includes Judas, designated as Jesus' future traitor earlier in
the story,16 and now apparently back from his meeting with the high
priests. When Judas was chosen by Jesus in 3.19, the reader had
assumed that he was in good faith, although the text nowhere excludes
that he had conceived the plan to deliver Jesus even then. From 3.19
until 14.10 Judas has been an inconspicuous member of the twelve,
without his name ever being mentioned. To this anonymous presence
16. Although Greek has specific words for this, such as 7cpo5i5co|ii andrcpo-
56xr|<;, in view of both the context and the reading context of ancient Rome it is bet-
ter to translate the verb TtapaSiScoui when it is used for the action of Judas (3.19;
14.10, 11, 18, 21, 42, 44) as 'betray', pace S. Legasse, Le proces de Jesus. II. La
Passion dans les quatre evangiles (LD Commentaires 3; Paris: Cerf, 1995), p. 30 n.
9.
the narrator put an end—at least for the reader—just before the prepara-
tion for the passover. The reader supposes that the twelve are still igno-
rant of the betrayal, but is not sure whether Jesus, who has been shown
to possess the gift of prescience, is also unaware of it. Jesus has pre-
dicted that the Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of men
(9.31) and that it is the chief priests and scribes who will hand him over
to the Gentiles (10.33), but there is no indication whether or not Jesus
knows of Judas' part in the betrayal. On the other hand, because of the
two passages attesting to Jesus' detailed foreknowledge (11.2-6; 14.13-
16), and especially because the second of these immediately precedes
the passover, the reader really takes it for granted that Jesus knows
about Judas. The question remains, however, from what moment Jesus
has known of the betrayal. These question marks make the relationship
between Jesus and Judas extremely intriguing.
After the party has gone to table, the character of the passover meal
fades into the background. The point at issue has nothing whatever to
do with a passover meal, and is in fact in flagrant contradition with it.
The first scene is full of tension. Jesus appears to know, after all, that
one of the twelve will betray him. This he tells them straight out, and
on his own initiative, but without identifying the traitor. He refers
directly to the traitor's presence at table in terms that remind the reader
of LXX Ps. 40.9, where the sharing of bread is considered a sign of
close friendship and the attack of a table companion a most bitter and
painful experience.
14.19-20. The reaction of the twelve is one of shock. It is very impor-

tant to the reader that all the twelve without exception ask Jesus if he is
the guilty one. It brings the reader face to face with the fact that anyone
may become a traitor. It is a detail that must have had a particularly
strong effect on a community in which some members had been per-
suaded to report fellow Christians to the authorities, and had thereby
endangered their lives. Without answering the question put to him by
each one of them in turn, Jesus reiterates the announcement in different
words. The reader takes Jesus' repeated announcement as a last, almost
desperate, appeal to Judas to retrace his steps and break his promise to
the Temple authorities. Since there is no reaction from Judas, the disci-
ples as yet remain ignorant of the name of the traitor.
14.21. The story continues, without the twelve being given any indica-
tion of his identity. After all, they have all dipped bread into the bowl
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 423
with Jesus. The reader, who does not hear anything either, realizes that
Judas would not have been called a traitor in 3.19 if he had not kept his
promise to the Temple authorities, and therefore concludes that every-
thing will go according to plan.
Even the threatening words of Jesus in v. 21 are apparently unable to
change the course of events. The protasis attracts special attention. It is
the second time after the cryptic words in 9.12 that the narrator has
Jesus explicitly connect the death of the Son of Man with what is writ-
ten of him. Again the reader wonders where the Scriptures speak of
this. Perhaps in LXX Ps. 40.9-11 after all? It is intriguing in this context
that the Old Testament frequently mentions the suffering and death, and
sometimes the vindication of the righteous man or the servant of Yhwh,
but never of the Son of Man or the Messiah.17 Be that as it may, the
betrayal by a trusted friend and table companion is mentioned only in
LXX Ps. 40.9. The wording of the threat in the apodosis (icaXov amcp
ei, 'it would be better for him') recalls 9.42-48. The passage is about
the punishment imposed on those who have caused the downfall of
others, and implicitly evokes the image of the traitor being cast into
Gehenna. The closing sentence is not free from a strange ambiguity.
'Him' (amco) seems on first reading to refer to the aforementioned Son
of Man, and only at the end of the sentence does the reader realize that
it refers to the traitor. The series of oppositions evoked by the phrases
'that man' and 'the Son of Man' adds to the ambiguity of the saying,
which applies—though with different meanings—to both the Son of
Man and Judas.
14.22-24. The meal continues as if the forgoing conversation had not

taken place. This comes to expression in the laconic repetition of 'while
they were eating' (auxcov... eaGiovxcov) of v. 18. The phrase ignores the
fact that a close circle of friends would find it impossible to continue
eating in the presence of a traitor. It also disregards the question of
whether the meal continues as a passover meal—according to the usual
regulations and with its various symbolic actions—or as a farewell din-
ner of friends. Either possibility is conceivable.
The two actions of Jesus in the story are obviously elements of any
meal consisting of bread and wine. As such they lack the metaphorical
expressiveness and peculiar solemnity of the annually celebrated Jew-
ish seder meal, which impressively combines the commemoration of
17. The Old Testament does speak of the son of God (Wis. 2.18).
the exile in Egypt and the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage
with the unleavened bread, the bitter herbs, and the words spoken at the
close. On the other hand, they are so much loaded with specific sym-
bolic meaning that they are also something other than mere expressions
of fellowship and friendship. That is especially true of the breaking of
the bread and the pouring of the wine. The twice pronounced explana-
tion Jesus obviously directs at the disciples.
Apart from its function at the level of the interaction between the
characters, the explanation has an additional function at the discourse
level. In the formula 'this is' (xomo eaxiv) the reader has no difficulty
recognizing an expression which, in this or a variant form (6 eoxiv,
omoi eioiv), occurs in many places of the book. It is used by Jesus to
explain the parable of the seed to his disciples, and by the narrator to
explain things to his readers. In all these places the verb in 'this is' or
'they are' has the meaning of 'to mean'.18 At the same time the formula
is reminiscent of OWOQ EGTIV (TOWO ecrav), which in an interrogative19
or affirmative sentence20 refers to the identity of Jesus. Through the use
of this formula the broken bread and poured wine acquire a symbolic
meaning that in the preceding parts of the book has been prepared in
the parables of the sower and the vinegrowers (4.3-8 and 12.1-11). In
the parable of the sower, which is the metaphoric summary of the part
about Galilee, the grain is produced that is needed for the baking of
bread. In that of the vinegrowers, which is the metaphoric summary of
the part about Jerusalem, the grapes are produced that are needed for
the making of wine.21 From the perspective of what Jesus says and does
here the reader finally understands what neither the characters nor the
readers could understand when they first heard or read the two parable
stories, as is indicated by 4.13. In retrospect, the words and actions of
Jesus in the story of the passover reveal a new metaphoric reference
and a coherent set of equivalences and oppositions that also provide the
delayed explanation of the two parable stories. That revelation can be
summarized in a survey which, represented in Figure 32, visualizes the
various equivalences and oppositions.
18. 3.17; 4.15-20; 5.41; 7.2, 11,34; 12.42.

19. 1.27; 4.41; 6.3.
20. In 9.7, which refers back to 1.11, and in 12.7.
21. For the interrelationship between the two parable stories and their function
as mirror stories of the two parts in which they are embedded, see Almeida,
L'operativite semantique, pp. 150-432.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 425
field vineyard
grain grapes
bread -r body : blood -r wine
taking taking
breaking •f killing : shedding -r pouring out
giving giving
eating drinking
Figure 32
Since these equivalences also show the interrelationship between the

two mirror stories, of which the first reflects Jesus' success in Galilee
and the second his downfall in Jerusalem, the present passage functions
as a key to the central meaning of the whole book. Here the reader rec-
ognizes the book's central connotation in a simple yet appealing visual
representation: the broken bread and the poured wine as metaphors for
Jesus' murdered body22 and shed blood.23
The story does not confine itself to evoking this visual representation,
however. After breaking the bread and pouring out the wine, Jesus
hands the bread and the cup to his table companions, who accept them,
eat and drink. The narrator explicitly mentions the drinking, not the eat-
ing, and emphasizes that all drink from the cup. The reader takes this to
refer to the eating as well. For unlike the bread of the presence in the
Temple, which only the priests are allowed to eat (2.25-26), this bread
and this wine are meant to be eaten and drunk by 'many' of both Jew-
ish and non-Jewish descent, as was already clear in 6.35-44 and 8.1-9,
where Jesus had pity on the multitude and broke the bread for many.
Thus bread and wine also visualize the words of Jesus in 10.45, that the
Son of Man had come to give his life for many.
The word navxec, (all) in v. 23 is given special emphasis by reason of
its position at the end of the sentence. In the case of such a small party,
in contrast to the large crowd in 6.41-42 for instance, the word should
really be superfluous. It leaves the reader in no doubt, however, that the
22. Compare Mt. 10.28 and Lk. 12.4 for this somewhat peculiar term.
23. This has been overlooked by Almeida. See for a more extensive treatment
my articles 'Les recits-paraboles'; 'Het geheim in Marcus nader bezien'; T h e
Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of Connotations'. The metaphor of wine
for shed blood is not new; see Isa. 49.26 and Zech. 9.15 in the Greek version of
Aquila and in a conjecture based on it in the MT of this passage.
still nameless traitor eats and drinks with Jesus and his fellow disciples.
By joining in the communal meal he makes a mockery of the friendship
and fellowship it is intended to express.
Jesus' words over the wine are more elaborate than those spoken
over the broken bread. To begin with, there is Jesus' reference to the
covenant. It summons to mind the two places in the Old Testament
which mention the 'blood of the covenant' (ai|id tfjc; 5ia0f|KTi<;): Exod.
24.8, where the Israelites are sprinkled with the blood of the covenant
that Yhwh has made with his people, and Zech. 9.11-15, which recalls
that event. Thus the drinking of the wine, which refers to Jesus' shed
blood, is aligned with the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant. Sec-
ondly, the use of the term 'to shed, pour out' is also relevant in this con-
nection. In the Old Testament the syntagm 'to shed, pour out blood' is
frequently used for the unlawful killing of a person,24 the slaughter of
sacrificial animals,25 and the forbidden eating of the slaughtered ani-
mal's blood.26 Thirdly, the words 'for many' are pronounced over the
wine but not over the bread. Perhaps the reader does not need them
there because Jesus has already twice broken the bread for a great many
people (6.41-44; 8.6-9). Even if that is not the reason, their absence in
case of the bread may be explained by the fact that the killing of Jesus'
body and the shedding of his blood, just like eating and drinking, really
form one single pattern of action, so that the phrase 'for many' also
refers to the breaking of the bread and the killing of his body. Since
blood is considered the seat of life,27 eating this bread and drinking this
wine can be seen as an equivalent of appropriating Jesus' life, which he
makes available by having himself killed, that is, by not evading his
violent death (cf. 8.36).
There is every reason to suppose that the first Roman readers—and the
same is true of Christian readers today—could not read this account of
Jesus' passover meal with the twelve without thinking of the liturgical
24. See Gen. 9.6; 37.22; Num. 35.33; Deut. 19.10; 21.7; 25.31; 2 Kgs 21.16;
24.4; 1 Chron. 22.8; 28.3; LXX Pss. 78.3, 10; 105.38; Prov. 1.16; 6.17; Joel 3.19;
Zeph. 1.17; Isa. 57.6; Jer. 7.6; 33.2; Lam. 4.13; Ezek. 16.38; 22.3-27; 1 Mace. 1.37;
7.17; 2 Mace. 1.8.
25. See Exod. 29.12; Lev. 4.7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8.15; 9.9; 2 Kgs 16.15.
26. See Lev. 17.4, 13; Deut. 12.16, 24; 15.23.
27. See Gen. 9.4-5; Lev. 17.11, 14; Deut. 12.23; 1 Chron. 11.19; Ezek. 3.16-21;
33.1-9.
texts of a eucharistic celebration or communion service. As a result the

account has a specific, even unique effect, in that the ritual known from
personal experience and the narrated ritual evoke each other. For a
moment the narrated reality becomes identical with the ritual reality,
which has a singular relationship with the world and time of the reader.
On the other hand, the reader may become easily confused by the story.
True, the absence of a precept to repeat the eating of the bread and the
drinking from the cup28 does not deprive the connection between the
ritual and the story of its foundation, but it nevertheless makes it less
self-evident than when the instruction had been part of the text.29
The two parts of the passover account (vv. 17-21 and vv. 22-25)—
characterized by betrayal on the one hand and voluntary submission on
the other—are concerned with two contrary aspects. The connecting
element is Jesus himself, who is the main speaker in the first and the
only speaker in the second part. In the first part Jesus reveals that one
person, a disciple and friend now with him at table, will deliver him to
his enemies. In the second Jesus says to his disciples that he himself
gives up his life for the benefit of 'many', and that he offers himself to
them in bread and wine as signs of his body and blood, so that they can
share in his life through a symbolic action after his death.
14.25. The narrator rounds off the episode with a final announcement
by Jesus about himself. For the twelve his words contain the first clear
indication that the predicted treason and Jesus' death are near. The wine
that Jesus shares with the twelve is the last he drinks here. At the
moment Jesus is not saddened by this thought. On the contrary, he
speaks with joy about the time that comes afterwards. Then he will
drink wine of a new and very special vintage, the wine of the new mes-
sianic meal. Jesus is not speaking about the coming of the Son of Man,
as in 13.26, but about the kingdom of God already begun. Jesus has
said earlier that the kingdom of God will come before all the people
then living had died (9.1). In any case, for Jesus the time between the
last cup of the old and the first cup of the new wine will be short. The
first Roman readers could still conceive of the kingdom of God being
established soon. Present-day readers, however, cannot ignore that
28. This instruction is explicitly expressed with regard to both bread and wine
in 1 Cor. 11.24-25, and with regard to the bread in Lk. 22.19.
29. As this instruction is not found in Mark it is, I think, incorrect to character-
ize his account of the last supper as an 'institution story'.
almost 20 centuries have passed since Jesus announced the coming of

God's kingdom. They will therefore conclude either that Jesus was very
much mistaken about the time, or that the metaphoric way of speaking
in this closing sentence also applies to the time aspects of the
announcement, which consequently cannot be accepted as calendar
times.
To the Mount of Olives (14.26-31)

26
When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
27
And Jesus Jesus said to them, 'You will all become deserters; for it is
written, "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered."
28
But after I am raised up, I will go before you in* Galilee.' 29 Peter said
to him, 'Even though all become deserters, I will not.' 30 Jesus said to
him, 'Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows
twice, you will deny me three times.' 31 But he said vehemently, 'Even
though I must die with you, I will not deny you.' And all of them said
the same.
*NRSV, 'to'.
14.26. From the mention of the singing of a hymn the reader who
knows that the passover meal closes with the second part of the Hallel,
Psalms 114-118, derives that the meal has been held in accordance
with the traditional ritual, after all. For the second time Jesus goes to
the Mount of Olives, accompanied this time not only by the four of
13.3 but by all twelve. Only later will it become clear that Judas
approaches Jesus from somewhere else (in 14.43), but the story does
not say when he leaves the group nor how he knows that Jesus will be
on the Mount of Olives later that night and exactly where. It seems to
the reader that Judas, on arrival at the garden, sneaked away under
cover of darkness and went back into the city to report where Jesus
could be apprehended. Knowing that the city gates close at night the
reader wonders how things could go as smoothly as the story supposes.
On the way to the Mount of Olives there develops between Jesus and
the disciples one of the most dramatic conversations of the whole book.
Suggestive of the seriousness of the subject matter are, for instance, the
dialogue in direct speech, the solemn tone, the repeated assurances, the
accumulation of time references in v. 30, and the double negation in
v. 31.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 429
14.27-28. The conversation opens with a saying of Jesus that is dis-

couraging and encouraging at the same time. Below the surface the
saying links up with what Jesus has said about the betrayal of one of
the twelve at the beginning of the meal. In 14.17-31 it is easy to recog-
nize a concentric structure. This is represented in Figure 33.
I— Jesus announces that one of the twelve will hand him over 18-21
Jesus gives his life for many 22-25
' — Jesus predicts that they will all fall away 26-31
Figure 33
If one of the twelve betrays Jesus, all twelve will desert him. This is
underlined by 'all' (navxeq) in v. 27. The word does not include Judas
as in 14.23, but refers to each individual disciple who earlier that
evening asked 'Surely not I?' Jesus now tells them that they are all
guilty and that not one of them does what is expected of him. The verb
used in conjunction with 'air (cKav5aAi£o|Liai) is a very vague and
general description of what the story is to tell about them later, namely,
that they will all—navxeq as in vv. 27-29—abandon Jesus and flee
(14.50). It is precisely because the verb is so clearly linked with a sit-
uation of persecution in 4.17 and 9.42-48, and the emphasis falls so
strongly on the failure of all, that a saying like v. 27 would be a great
help to the failed followers of Jesus in Rome after 64 CE, the more so
because failure does not have the last word here.
As it stands the quotation from Zech. 13.7 is clear: the disciple will
not fare better than the master.30 When Jesus falls into the power of
his opponents, the twelve will lose their centre and be scattered. The
somewhat mysterious passage in Zechariah refers to a leader who is
wounded or killed in a purge. The first person singular and the future
30. Fowler (Reader, p. 99) takes the quotation with the introductory oxi ye-
Ypa7txai and the continuation of the saying about the resurrection as a comment by
the narrator. His argument is that 'Peter is silent about the scriptural quotation in
14:27b and about the haunting and enigmatic utterance in 14:28, as if he had heard
neither'. It is exactly the continuation of Jesus' saying in v. 28 that renders this
view less likely, the more so since Jesus speaks there in the first and second person.
That Peter does not respond to the end of Jesus' saying is not without precedent.
Something similar happens in 8.31-32.
tense of the quotation are found neither in the Hebrew nor the LXX ver-
sion of the text.31 However, readers have no difficulty identifying the
T here, because before this they have automatically understood the
first person singular in other formal quotations from the Scriptures as
referring to God.32 So far there has always been mention of human
actors being the cause of Jesus' future execution,33 but however much
readers dislike the thought of Jesus being struck down by God, they can
hardly think of anyone but God here.
The metaphor of the shepherd walking in front of his flock refers
back to Jesus who went ahead of his disciples to Jerusalem (10.32), on
the one hand, and, on the other hand, offers the prospect of Jesus re-
gathering the disciples and going before them again in Galilee.34 After
the discouraging things Jesus has said about the disciples, this is most
encouraging: in spite of their infidelity, Jesus will remain loyal to them.
This was true in Jerusalem, and no less in ancient Rome; and it will be
true whenever and wherever people are willing to follow him.
14.29-31. The most dramatic part of the exchange concerns Peter.

Jesus' reply to his protest is firm and emphatic, and reminds the reader
of his response to Peter in 8.32, where he addressed him as 'Satan'.
Peter's fall will be more tragic than the defection of the others because,
in spite of Jesus' detailed announcement, he will disown Jesus three
times before the night is over. The reader takes Jesus' announcement to
Peter, like his words in v. 20, as a last warning, which, however, falls
on deaf ears. What Jesus announces will take place later in the story. As
such it belongs to the narrated reality, and will therefore come up for
discussion later (14.53-72).
In the second round Peter refuses to budge. The terms in which he
expresses his undying loyalty to Jesus must have sounded extremely
harrowing in ancient Rome, where Peter's martyrdom was still fresh in
the mind of every Christian. Owing to the tension between the narrated
reality of 14.66-72 and the actual reality of Peter's death his solemn
31. See however K. Elliger, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Hag-
gai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ATD, 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 7th edn,
1975), p. 174, who reads with Horst 'akkeh hakkeh in the MT.
32. See 1.2; 7.6-7; 11.17; 12.26.
33. See 3.6; 8.31; 9.32; 10.33; 11.18; 12.8, 10; 14.1, 21.
34. For the translation 'in Galilee' instead of 'to Galilee' see below, pp. 497-
500, 505-506.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 431
declaration had heavy ironical overtones for them. They knew that
Jesus' prediction about Peter's denial, just as his announcement about
Judas' betrayal, had come true and that Peter had actually renounced
Jesus, as will also appear in the story. In that sense Peter's words in
v. 31 are the opposite of the truth. They knew also, though, that not
long before the appearance of the book Peter had kept his word in the
second instance: he did not renounce Jesus then and died with him.
Armed with this knowledge, they were better protected against the
painful episode in the story which relates Peter's denial.
That 'all' the other disciples join Peter in affirming their loyalty can,
of course, only be true in a general sense; but the word 'all' is of great
importance. First, it dominates the beginning and the end of the epi-
sode, and so serves as a framework around the episode. Secondly, it has
a function for the readers of the book. The announcement of the failure
of all the disciples and their presumptuousness in contradicting this
announcement acts as a warning to those members of the congregation
who similarly failed in the days of oppression and persecution.
The episode is open-ended. There is no reaction from Jesus in the
second round, perhaps because the most telling response to Peter's
monumental self-assurance is silence, or because Jesus and the twelve
—or eleven, if Judas is already on his way to the city—have reached
their destination (14.32).
Agony in the Garden and Arrest (14.32-52)

32
They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples,
'Sit here while I pray.' 33 He took with him Peter and James and John,
and began to be distressed and agitated. 34 And he said to them, 'I am
deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.' 35 And go-
ing a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it
were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, 'Abba, Father,
for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I
want, but what you want.' 37 He came and found them sleeping; and he
said to Peter, 'Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one
hour? 38 Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of
trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' 39 And again he
went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And once more he
came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they
did not know what to say to him. 41 He came a third time and said to
them, 'Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has
come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let
us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.'
43
Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve,
arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the
chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given
them a sign, saying, The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead
him away under guard.' 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once
and said, 'Rabbi!' and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and
arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and
struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said
to them, 'Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as
though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the Temple
teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.'
5O
A11 of them deserted him and fled.51A certain young man was follow-
ing him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him,
52
but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.
This story is usually divided into two episodes. But the transition
'while he was still speaking' (exi amov âA,owTOQ) in v. 43 has also in
5.35 been used for linking two episodes instead of separating them. In
addition, the passage shows complete unity of place and, by reason of
the immediate succession of events, unity of time as well. Since there
are, moreover, two thematical oppositions—that between the passive
disciples and the active traitor with his henchmen on the one hand, and
that between the at first wavering and afterwards fearless Jesus on the
other—it is better to read the passage as one single episode.
14.32. Their walk to the Mount of Olives ends in an orchard. Gethse-

mane, which means 'olive press', probably does not mean anything to
the original and modern readers of the book. Perhaps the name was
used to distinguish it from other orchards without an oil press. Of the
eleven disciples still with him—Judas must have left by now—Jesus
leaves eight behind near the entrance. This reminds the reader of the
distinction the narrator has made earlier within the group of direct fol-
lowers. Jesus tells the eight to stay there while he is praying in another
place. The reader hears no more of them until all the disciples take
flight. That implies that they are at or near the place where Jesus will be
arrested later that evening.
14.33-34. Jesus takes the three who form the inner circle of the group
further along to a place where he can easily reach them. It would seem
that in his distress Jesus needs their companionship. This is the fifth
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 433
time that Jesus' emotions are mentioned.35 There have been references
to the sadness of the rich man,36 the fear and astonishment of the disci-
ples, 37 but nowhere are feelings so emphatically expressed as here
(nepiXvnoq is an intensive form that is further intensified by the phrase
'even to death', ecoq Gavaxoi)).38 That on the same Mount of Olives
Jesus had asked the same three only the night before to keep awake
(13.33-37) makes what follows even more painful. All the more so
because there is a clear parallel between the three times that Jesus
comes and finds them asleep, and the three different times mentioned
there (13.35) in connection with the coming of the hour (13.33 and
14.41). To the command to be watchful, so that the master of the house
may not find them asleep when he comes, with which the mini-parable
of the doorkeeper ends (13.36), the disciples do not respond.
14.35-36. Jesus has sought privacy to pray before (1.35; 6.46), but not
under such dramatic circumstances as here. In those places there was no
mention, however, of what Jesus said and in what position he prayed.
Here Jesus is presented as throwing himself on the ground and—what
is very exceptional and provides particular emphasis—his prayer is
reported both in indirect and in direct speech. The prayer, that the hour
might pass, sounds enigmatic at first. Does 'the hour' (f) oipa) refer to
the time indicated by 'this day' and 'this very night' in v. 30 or to the
time indicated by the same term (EV eiceivT) xfj dipa) in 13.11? Or does
it refer not so much to the hour itself as to an event appointed to take
35. The other places are 1.43; 3.5; 10.14, 21.

36. 10.22.
37. 4.38-41; 6.50-51; 10.24,32.
38. Why Jesus is so sad is left for the reader to fill in. That it is not fear of death
but fear of being abandoned by God, as H.C. Waetjen thinks in A Reordering of
Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1989), p. 214, is as acceptable and disputable as any other interpretation. The reader
rather thinks of fear of death. R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah. From Geth-
semane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four
Gospels (ABRL; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1993), I, pp. 217-18, points out
that Hellenistic Jews, who knew the martyrdom accounts of Eleazar and the seven
brothers and their mother, must have thought that Jesus did not compare with these
martyrs in this respect. Graeco-Roman readers will, continues Brown, have com-
pared the story with the account of Socrates' death and will not easily have had
much respect for Jesus' reaction to his impending death in the Garden of Olives.
place at that hour?39 The term recurs in v. 41, while it becomes clear in
v. 42 that the event in question is the betrayal and everything that fol-
lows from it, which, not surprisingly, is expressed in an hourly time-
table.40
In the prayer quoted in direct speech other things ask for attention. In
the first place the way in which Jesus addresses God.41 The Aramaic
'abba is somewhat clumsily translated into Greek as the nominative 6
jcaxfip, instead of the obvious vocative naxep. The Roman Christians
know the word abba from Rom. 8.15,42 which also has a(3(3a 6 rcaxfip,
and not the vocative.43 That familiar address occurs also in contempo-
rary Jewish texts,44 but has a particular tone for the audience of Mark.
They hear in it a reflection of or even an answer to what the voice from
heaven has said to and about Jesus (1.11 and 9.7). The address raises
the expectation that God can hardly refuse to answer his prayer. This is
underlined by Jesus' appeal or conviction that for God all things are
possible (also 10.27), certainly when the one who asks trusts to be
heard (11.24). As to the request for the removal of 'this cup', however,
readers know from Jesus' own repeated announcements of his violent
39. In this sense copa is also used in 3 Mace. 5.13.

40. 15.25, 33, 34. See W.H. Kelber, T h e Hour of the Son of Man and the
Temptation of the Disciples (Mark 14:32-42)', in W.H. Kelber (ed.), The Passion
in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 41-60
(44-45).
41. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, pp. 214-16) calls Jesus' words a classic exam-
ple of an 'interior monologue', as they regularly occur at dramatic moments in
classical literature. However, the characterization seems to me to be contrary to the
nature of the prayer, which is clear from the address. Incidentally, it is more in
accord with the nature of the story and the current mode of praying that Jesus says
the prayer aloud, so that the disciples, if they had not been asleep, would have been
able to hear it.
42. The same holds for Gal. 4.6. The parallels in Mt. 26.39 and Lk. 22.42 have
the vocative rcdiep, like Jn 12.27.
43. For the nominative with the article as an alternative for the vocative see
F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R.W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd
edn, 1962), §147, pp. 81-82. The vocative 7cdxep occurs in Matthew four times, in
Luke eleven times, and in John eight times; the alternative 6 naiT\p does not occur
in the Gospels except in Mt. 11.26 par. Lk. 10.2 (rcdxep), and in the three places
connected to one another through abba: Mk 14.36; Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6.
44. See Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pp. 210-11.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 435
death that it will not be answered. It is exactly the word 'cup' that
reminds them that Jesus has spoken to James and John about 'the cup
that I drink' in 10.38, while 'this cup' moreover refers back to v. 24,
where Jesus handed round the cup of wine as a reference to his shed
blood. Even though all things are possible for God, the shedding of
Jesus' blood has meanwhile become inevitable. Thus, the reader's wa-
vering between the expectation that God will have to answer Jesus'
prayer, and the thought that this is totally impossible, is of equally short
duration as Jesus' own faltering. The closing words are easily taken by
readers today as a reference to God's will that Jesus must suffer, but
they rather refer to the trust that God demands of every martyr, and
therefore also of Jesus, even though it results in death.
14.37-38. After his emotional turmoil Jesus is confronted with the

immobility of the three disciples he had wanted to be near him. Their
behaviour is exactly the opposite of the constant vigilance that Jesus
had required from them in 13.33-37 and in the second instance also
from the others: they are sleeping. That also means that they have not
listened with the reader to Jesus' prayer.45 When Jesus lectures them
about this, the reader hears Jesus for the first time call a character by his
name. Only very exceptionally does Jesus employ a term of address in
Mark (xeicva, 'children', in 10.24; a(3pa, 'father', in 14.36), and thus
far he has never called anyone by his first name. If that happens for the
first time—and all the more because it does not happen in the book
again, and Jesus calls Peter by another, older name than the one he had
given him in 3.16—then it is clear that this must be a moment of great
emotional significance.46 What Peter has said to Jesus on the way to the
45. A case of dramatic irony. See Fowler, Reader, pp. 215 and 218-19.
46. See also Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, p. 216. To her observation that this is
the first and only time that Jesus addresses Peter as 'Simon' since he was nick-
named 'Rock' in 3.16, it must be added, however, that in Mark Jesus never
addresses him as 'Peter' either, and that on the whole Jesus seldom uses a term of
address (xeicvov in 2.5; 0\)Ydxr|p in 5.34; xaîGa, Kopdaiov in 5.41; Zaxavd in
8.33; TO akakov Kai Kax|)dv n\ev\xa in 9.25; teicva in 10.24) and never a char-
acter's proper name. Jesus himself, on the other hand, is regularly called by a name
or title. He is usually addressed as 5i5doKaA,e (4.38; 9.17, 38; 10.17, 20, 35; 12.14,
19, 32; 13.1) or pappi or pappomd (9.5; 10.51; 11.21; 14.45), and called five times
by another title, but only three times by his proper name (1.24; 5.7; 10.47). The
only other time that Jesus uses a name when talking to Peter is when he addresses
garden contrasts sharply with his being asleep. He would follow Jesus
to his death (v. 31), but is not even able to stay awake and stand by
Jesus in his hour of agony. Jesus' warning to the three to keep awake
and pray that they may not be put to the test does not really seem to fit
this dramatic moment, but for the reader who has just heard Jesus tell
Peter that he is about to deny Jesus, the warning has a very specific
meaning. The final sentence about the spirit and the flesh cannot be
taken to mean that people faced with a choice—like the eleven—are
free to do as they like. It is rather a mitigating circumstance after people
have failed already.
14.39-40. The second time that the narrator has Jesus go away and
pray, he has no new words for Jesus' prayer. The narrator does not say
that Jesus prays a third time, but that follows from v. 41. Although in
the present episode Jesus is the only speaking character, and the silence
of the others is expressly mentioned, the audience's attention is gradu-
ally being directed to Jesus' three companions rather than to Jesus him-
self. The contrast between Jesus and the other characters is evident.
Whereas Jesus has managed to overcome his panic and is now able to
accept and face his destiny, the three repeatedly fall into the same error.
If Jesus has adduced mitigating circumstances the first time, this time it
is the narrator who, in words very similar to those found in 9.6, indi-
rectly asks the reader not to be too hard on them, despite their obvious
failure.
14.41-42. Jesus speaks to them a third time. We may note in passing

that by having Jesus pray three times, as well as having him find the
three asleep and speak to them three times, the narrator contrasts the
behaviour of Jesus with that of the disciples. In addition, he links the
incidents of this episode with other events that have a threefold struc-
ture: in the preceding part the three passion predictions,47 and in the
next Peter's threefold denial and the three phases in which Jesus' death
on the cross are told in an hourly timetable.48 What Jesus says to the
three the third and last time is not so much an excuse for their
behaviour as an ironic comment on it. Is Jesus aware of the traitor's
him as Satan in 8.33. All this gives extra weight to the fact that he addresses him as
'Simon' in 14.37.
47. 8.31; 9,31; 10.32-34.
48. 14.66-72; 15.24-37.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 437
impending arrival because he has such detailed foreknowledge of what

awaits him49 that he even knows the exact hour? Or, more trivial, has
he seen or heard something that has escaped his three sleeping compan-
ions, or has he perhaps received a signal from the disciples who nearer
to the entrance are awaiting the course of events? Whatever the case,
the way in which Jesus now speaks makes it clear that he is in control
of the situation. Instead of awaiting developments there, he tells the
three to join him and meet the arresting party. Perhaps Jesus' determi-
nation shows even more than his words that he has overcome the crisis
and is in command of himself again.
14.43-46. When Judas arrives with a gang of armed men, the narrator
first identifies them, for the information of the audience, as a group sent
by the Temple authorities. There is nothing surprising about this
because there have been plans to destroy Jesus since 3.6. If Judas had
left the group on arrival near the entrance to the orchard, as I supposed
earlier, he knew where Jesus could be apprehended. That the reader is
informed beforehand of the prearranged signal is useful but makes the
story less ambiguous and exciting than it would otherwise be. On the
other hand, the information calls the reader's attention to the signal
itself. In the context Judas' kiss is the epitome of dramatic irony, for in
the Jewish and Graeco-Roman, as well as in our Western world, a kiss
is a sign of affection, greeting or respect. The narrator does not say why
Judas chose this signal. Perhaps he thinks that in this way Judas' com-
plicity in the death of Jesus may remain hidden. As the story stands, the
eleven other disciples are unaware of what Judas wants to communicate
through the kiss. It is not even clear whether the eleven witness the
greeting and understand from the arrest that Judas is the traitor. It is as
if the narrator has forgotten their presence or assumes that the darkness
prevents them from seeing anything but Jesus' arrest.
14.47. Just when the reader has begun to wonder about the disciples, a
most remarkable incident occurs. It is not only the gang that is armed.
Someone else—vaguely described as one of the bystanders—appears to
carry a sword as well. He draws it and strikes the servant of the high
priest, cutting off his ear. The reader has the impression that fortunately
for the victim the blow is less successful than intended. About the iden-
tity of the assailant the reader is left in the dark. On the face of it, it
49. 10.33-34; 11.2-6; 14.8, 13-16, 18-21, 27-31.

seems obvious that it must be one of the disciples,50 for after the arrest
there is no reason for the members of the arresting party to draw their
swords. The presence of others at this point in the story must also be
excluded because the reader cannot but see the treason as the successful
attempt of the Temple authorities to have the arrest take place quietly
without causing a stir (14.1). If it is one of the disciples, then that
would also explain why Mark mentions the incident: it underlines yet
again their failure to understand Jesus.51
One of the most difficult questions for the reader to answer is how
Jesus or the narrator view the abortive attack. Jesus reacts to his arrest
in v. 48 as if the incident had not taken place or as if he had been un-
aware of it. It is also unclear what the narrator thinks of it. Since he
refers to the victim as the servant of the high priest, the most we can
say is that he does not place the assailant on the side of the Temple
authorities. The reader who knows Mark at all perceives in this per-
sonage a certain duality, which, in one form or another, is also visible
in several other minor characters. By his persistent shouting Bartimaeus
angers the bystanders but he manages to make Jesus pay attention to
him and cure him (10.46-52). The woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany
is the object of snide remarks by those present, whereas Jesus praises
her highly (14.3-9). The young man in the next episode also unites
something positive with something negative. He shows himself more
loyal than the disciples, but finally he too runs away in terror (14.51-
52). Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross, not because he wants to but
because he is compelled to do so (15.21). The sword-wielder has the
sympathy of the reader because in contrast to the disciples, he does not
desert Jesus. On account of this he does not belong to the 'all' of vv.
27-31, and therefore neither to the twelve who were in the garden with
Jesus. Recalling Jesus' angry response to Peter's opposition in 8.33,
however, the reader cannot but assume that the sword blow, which has
perhaps the approval of the narrator, does not have the approval of
Jesus. That would be an interesting instance of a different appreciation
50. Thus A. Suhl, 'Die Funktion des Schwertstreichs bei der Gefangennahme
Jesu', in FGN, I, p. 301. For two different opinions, see Legasse, Le proces, II, pp.
33-35, who thinks that the assailant is a member of the arresting team, and Brown,
The Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 265-67, who identifies him as an outsider
belonging to neither of the two groups.
51. Thus rightly (if it is one of the disciples) Suhl, 'Die Funktion des Schwert-
streichs', pp. 301-306.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 439
by Jesus and the narrator. This seems the best reading yet.52 The inde-
terminacy remains, however, and every reader will either have to
choose his or her own interpretation, or leave the matter open.53 For the
reader who visualizes the ear falling to the ground, the incident has a
certain undeniable humour.54
Here the narrator writes for the first time about the high priest in
office in the singular. Thus this episode points forward to the next, in
which at a meeting of the 'chief priests', the elders, and the scribes 'the
high priest' plays the leading part (vv. 53-72).
14.48-49. The reader expects Jesus to react to what has just happened.
Actually he responds neither to the violent action nor—and that is
much more remarkable—to Judas' kiss. In the dark Jesus may have
been unaware of the first incident but not of the second.55 Jesus' reac-
tion concerns only one aspect of his arrest, namely, that the arresting
squad is armed. He points out with irony that he has never used vio-
lence against anyone or hidden himself away like someone trying to
escape arrest. On the contrary, day after day he was in the Temple dis-
cussing with his adversaries. Thus he subtly gives them to understand
that his arrest apparently cannot stand up to the light of day.
The anacoluthon or elliptical phrase by which the narrator has Jesus
refer to the Scriptures is, of course, not meant for the men who arrest
him. Like the quotation in 14.27, it is meant rather for the disciples and,
in particular, the reader. However, the reader does not see how the fact
52. It deserves mention that the assailant does not occur in Williams, Other Fol-
lowers.
53. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 266-67) observes that elsewhere in
Mark the verb 7capiairi(ii is always used for others than the disciples: 14.69, 70;
15.35, 39. This is hardly an argument, in my opinion, because the disciples are not
present on those four occasions. The other Gospels have, without exception, not
retained the indeterminacy of this detail. Mt. 26.51-54 identifies the assailant as one
of the disciples and has Jesus disapprove of his act. In Lk. 22.48-52 the sword blow
is a reaction by the disciples when Judas wants to kiss Jesus and Jesus refuses the
kiss. Jesus intervenes, however, and puts the ear back. Jn 18.1 has Jesus condemn
the act, and names the assailant Peter and the victim Malchus.
54. Thus also Legasse, Le proces, II, p. 35.
55. Of the other Gospels Matthew and Luke have Jesus react quite explicitly
(Mt. 26.59 and Lk. 22.47-48). In Luke, owing to a question of Jesus and the reac-
tion of the disciples, Judas does not actually kiss Jesus. In John there is no question
of a kiss.
that the arresting party is armed—which makes Jesus say that they treat
him as a 'bandit'—may be connected with the fulfilment of the Scrip-
tures, and so becomes confused. Perhaps the same confusion led copy-
ists—who were, of course, readers of the text before they could copy
it—to add to 15.27, where Jesus is said to be crucified between two
'bandits' (kr\o%&<;)9 an explicatory note in the form of a quotation from
Isa. 53.12 which they had found in Luke at a different point of the story
(Lk. 22.37). At any rate, that quotation would tie in well with Jesus'
likening his arrest to that of a bandit56 who cannot be approached un-
armed.
The phrase 'let the Scriptures be fulfilled' does not occur anywhere
else in the book. This is not surprising because the fulfilment of the
Scriptures is definitely not a prominent theme in Mark.57 Much more
characteristic of Mark is the expression 'as it is written' (KCCGOX;, ncbq,
or ca<; yeypanxai),5* which corresponds with 'according to the Scrip-
tures' (Kara xaq ypacjxiq) in the ancient formula of 1 Cor. 15.3-4. In
Mark, references and allusions to the Old Testament are not used to
demonstrate the fulfilment of the promise or even the credibility of a
specific event or of what the Jesus movement stands for. Their function
is far more modest and limited. They give the story an Old Testament
colouring, and thereby visualize the continuity between the story of
Jesus and the stories and prophecies of the Old Testament. Thus, they
continually remind the reader of the necessity to understand the story in
the light of its Old Testament context.
14.50-52. It is a peculiar, and perhaps even ironical, coincidence that

the disciples desert Jesus and flee almost before he has finished the sen-
tence. Had Jesus, referring to what is written, not predicted that they
would all be scattered (14.27)? It looks for a moment as if they had
waited for the mention of the Scriptures as the signal to take flight. The
reader realizes that these are the men whom Jesus had appointed to
continue his work, but what the reader does not realize on first reading
is that the disciples, including three of the four intimates, now leave the
56. It deserves attention that LXX Isa. 53.12 speaks not of 'bandits' but of 'the
lawless' (o'i avouxn), whereas the MT has pofim, which in fact means 'criminals,
rogues, bandits'.
57. Matthew is to make it one of the principal characteristics of his Gospel.
58. 1.2; 7.6; 9.12, 13; 14.21.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 441
stage and the story for good. The incident in the Garden of Olives—
where in an agony of fear Jesus prays three times and eventually
becomes his own self again, the disciples fall asleep three times and
eventually forsake Jesus—is the last time that Jesus and his disciples
are united in a common destiny,59 albeit in a contrary and therefore
highly ironic and tragic way.
Although it says explicitly that all of them take flight, there appears
to be one exception. It is clearly not one of the disciples, but just like
Bartimaeus, the woman who anointed Jesus at Bethany, and possibly
the man who defended Jesus with his sword, someone from outside that
circle.60 This is underlined by the fact that he has nothing on but a linen
cloth thrown around his naked body, which gives the impression that he
has jumped up from his sleeping mat and has come running along.
Because he wants to go with Jesus (Gi)vaKota)D9eG), the same verb as
in 5.37), who is being taken away, they try to seize him. After the brave
but humorously ineffectual sword blow, this incident at the end of the
episode also makes a comical impression on present-day readers.
Although the action of the young man is described by the same verb as
the exit of the twelve (ê-uyco, 'to flee'), there is something playful in
the way he manages to give his pursuers the slip.61 The reader, who
imagines that the accomplices of the Temple authorities already feel
slighted by the ironic remarks of Jesus, is amused to see them standing
there holding only a linen cloth in their hands while the boy makes his
escape.62 All the more so because someone reading the story for the
second time catches here a glimpse of the white robe that the narrator,
at the end of the book, puts on another young man, who announces that
Jesus has risen.63 The smile is appropriate also because to the reader's
59. Thus Kelber, T h e Hour of the Son of Man', p. 54.

60. That the flight of the young man should be seen as an image of the flight of
all the disciples, as Collins (Beginning, p. 108) thinks, seems to me, after v. 50,
highly improbable. Also Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, pp. 181, 258 and 276) does
not make a clear distinction between the flight of all the disciples and that of the
young man.
61. See about this my article 'His Master's Voice' and the literature there cited.
62. According to Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 217) the repetition of 'flee' and
'naked' in v. 52 underlines the disciples' loss of the last remnants of respectability.
Would the sight of the men with the cloth in their hands make a comical impression
only on modern readers?
63. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 294-304) discusses a number of
symbolic interpretations of this character, but rejects them all as speculative and
relief here is again someone who has done better than the twelve, albeit
only by staying with Jesus a bit longer and by fleeing only at the
moment he is practically caught. Readers of ancient Rome may have
recognized in this young man the Christians who were afraid, or had
been afraid, of being arrested by the authorities.64
Interrogation (14.53-72)
53
They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders,
and the scribes were assembled. 54Peter had followed him at a distance,
right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the
guards, warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the
whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to
death; but they found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against
him, and their testimony did not agree. 57 Some stood up and gave false
testimony against him, saying, 58 'We heard him say, "I will destroy this
Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another,
not made with hands." ' 59 But even on this point their testimony did not
agree. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus,
'Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?' 61 But he
was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you
the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' 62Jesus said, 'I am; and "you
will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power", and
"coming with the clouds of heaven".' 63 Then the high priest tore his
clothes and said, 'Why do we still need witnesses? ^You have heard his
blasphemy! What is your decision?' All of them condemned him as
deserving death. 65 Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to
strike him, saying to him, 'Prophesy!' The guards also took him over
and beat him.
66
While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the
high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared
at him and said, 'You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.'
68
But he denied it, saying, 'I do not know or understand what you are
talking about.' And he went out into the forecourt. [Then the cock
crowed.] 69 And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began to say to the
bystanders, 'This man is one of them.' 70 But again he denied it. Then
after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, 'Certainly you are
one of them; for you are a Galilaean.' 71 But he began to curse, and he
improbable. He also rules out that this young man is connected with the one in
16.5, on the grounds that the latter is an angel. He does, however, stress the irony of
the situation: the young man has literally left everything, not to follow Jesus, how-
ever, but to escape arrest.
64. See also Legasse, Le proces, II, p. 40.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 443
swore an oath, 'I do not know this man you are talking about.' 72 At that
moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered
that Jesus had said to him, 'Before the cock crows twice, you will deny
me three times.' And he broke down and wept.
Like 14.32-52, the present episode consists of two parts, with the dif-
ference that they are not arranged sequentially but concentrically.65 The
central part relates the interrogation of Jesus by the high council, the
framing part Peter's denial. Similarly, the passage shows clear unity of
place, here the official residence of the high priest, which the reader—if
only for want of specific data—supposes to be part of the Temple
buildings. The part concerning Peter takes place in the same building
downstairs (KOTCO, V. 66), at first in the courtyard (ax>Xr\, vv. 54, 66),
later at the entrance in the forecourt or the porch (rcpocruîov, v. 68).
On the basis of these locational references the reader imagines that the
events around Jesus take place in a room on the first floor. The passage
shows greater unity of time than the preceding episode. There the two
events took place one after the other. Here the reader has the
impression that the two events happen at the same time. This is not said
in so many words but is based on the fact that after the interrogation
some of the most important elements given in v. 54 are resumed in vv.
66-67.
As to content, each part is the counterpart of the other. In the central
part, Jesus is completely frank about his identity, and with this confes-
sion gives his opponents the argument they need to condemn him to
death and execute him. In the second part, Peter denies that he has
anything to do with Jesus, and even says that he does not know him,
and so escapes possible prosecution. The episode mirrors two important
previous passages: Jesus endures at the trial what his followers will
have to face later, according to his prediction in 13.9-13;66 Peter's
denial is exactly the kind of behaviour denounced by Jesus in 8.34-38.
14.53-54. From the olive orchard Jesus is taken to the high priest. The
title 'high priest' occurs for the second time, first in the singular, as in
14.47, and then in the plural. It is impossible to tell how much the
65. The question of Brown (The Death of the Messiah, I, p. 427) about whether
this is a case of intercalation or of two simultaneous actions does not seem of much
interest to the reader. In either case the reader connects them with one another.
66. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, pp. 276-77.
Roman audience knew about the high priest and the body assembled
here. Present-day readers know that at the time of the story the high
priest's office was held by one person for a restricted period, and that
the former high priests formed a sort of aristocracy with considerable
power and influence, which were partly due to their membership of the
Sanhedrin.67 This knowledge helps readers understand both the first
sentence and the division of roles during the interrogation. Readers
cannot help noticing that the name of the high priest is not mentioned.
At this point in the narrative they also realize that numerous names
occur in the book but that, with the exception of Herod and Pilate, not
one of Jesus' adversaries—high priests, scribes, elders, Pharisees, Sad-
ducees, and Herodians—is referred to by name. Perhaps an indication
that the plot line relating to Jesus' adversaries is less important than
that relating to the disciples and Peter.
The two changes in location in v. 53 are followed by a third in v. 54,
which is necessary in order to have Peter at the same place as Jesus.
Immediately after Jesus' arrest, Peter has obviously decided to follow
him to the high priest's residence, albeit at a safe distance.68 The story
does not explain Peter's decision, but the reader recalls his response to
Jesus' announcement that they would all desert him: 'Even though all
become deserters, I will not' (14.27-29). Although Peter is braver than
the others, it is somewhat ironical that he keeps at a distance, and in-
creasingly so throughout this episode.69 The reader remembers Jesus'
prediction of Peter's denial, and therefore does not doubt that he will
not live up to his promise. For the moment Peter can hide himself
among the high priest's attendants, who are warming themselves at the
fire. In the chill of the night the fire provides warmth, companionship,
and light,70 and as yet there is nothing ominous or dangerous in the sit-
uation.
67. See Schurer and Vermes, History, II, pp. 199-236.

68. That the term jj.aKp66ev would allude to LXX Ps. 37.12, as Heil thinks
(Mark, p. 311), I cannot agree. In the psalm there is only estrangement, here the fol-
lowing is as yet dominant.
69. Thus Legasse, Le proces, II, p. 51.
70. Waetjen (A Reordering of Power, p. 219) points out that it is not the usual
word for fire (7t\)p) that is used but the word <()c5g, which primarily means 'light'. In
this he sees a metaphorical reference to Jesus, an interpretation which, in my opin-
ion, asks too much of the text. If Waetjen is right, the reference would be extremely
ironic because Jesus' behaviour does not have the effect of a shining example on
Peter.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 445
14.55-59. For the first time the word 'meeting' appears. The Greek TO
cruveSpiov is sometimes translated as 'sanhedrin', but unless the trans-
lator wants to emphasize the Jewish colour of the story, this is an un-
warranted translation. It is quite simply the meeting or council that
assembled in v. 53. After 14.1 it is not new that those present are plot-
ting Jesus' death and are also—as yet clearly in vain—looking for evi-
dence on which they may sentence Jesus to death. The scene reminds
the reader of the scribes who at Capernaum had already accused Jesus
of blaspheming God (2.7). The narrator, who is clearly on the side of
Jesus, is quick to dismiss the evidence given by successive witnesses as
lies (i|/£i)5onapn)peco), but the council seems not to be concerned with
the question of truth. Its sole aim is to obtain material evidence to jus-
tify Jesus' death. Things threaten to go wrong when the witnesses con-
tradict each other. That is also the case with the testimony quoted
verbatim in the next verse. Several witnesses have heard Jesus say that
he himself—for the accent lies on T (eycb)—would destroy the Temple
(vaoq), and in three days build a new Temple, and that one not made
by human hands. The reader is in the dark about what saying of Jesus
the witnesses may be referring to. They obviously have one and the
same saying in mind, but it remains unexplained when and where they
heard him utter it. If the saying occurs in the forgoing part of the
story—which it need not do—it can be only 13.2. In that case the wit-
nesses would have overheard, intentionally or unintentionally, the brief
exchange between Jesus and one of the disciples recounted there. That
would show only too well how untruthful their testimony is, for al-
though Jesus did predict the complete destruction of the Temple com-
plex (ai neyaAm oiKo5o|iai), he did not in any way suggest that he
himself would be responsible for it. Neither was there any question of
the erection of a new Temple.
What the current readers of Mark know today, the audience in Rome
of shortly after 70 CE knew in their time, namely, that the once splendid
Temple had meanwhile been destroyed and was in ruins. We know in
addition that a soldier of Titus's army had set fire to the Temple in 70
CE, as Flavius Josephus reports in The Wars of the Jews.11 To the pre-
sent day a bas-relief on the arch of Titus in Rome shows how the spoils
of the Temple had been carried through Rome in Titus's triumphal pro-
cession of 71 CE. Roman Jews and Christians had been able to watch

that event with their own eyes, and therefore knew that it was not Jesus
who had destroyed the Temple.
It is even more difficult to establish the meaning of the second part of
the testimony.72 Here it is even less clear to what saying of Jesus in the
story the witnesses may be referring. Their explanation can have sev-
eral meanings.73 Following their line of thought the reader may recall
Jesus' words in 12.10-11 and think of a new sanctuary, such as the one
that would be erected by God at the end of time.74 In which case Jesus
would be accused of arrogating to himself what is due only to God.
Yet, despite the difference between 'in' and 'after' three days, the three
days rather remind the reader of Jesus' resurrection after three days and
the community which then came into being. In the writings of the Stoa
and Qumran, as well as in other places of the New Testament, such as 1
Cor. 3.16-17, 2 Cor. 6.16, and Eph. 2.21,75 the word 'Temple' is used
as a metaphor for a community. In that case the testimony would be the
height of irony, because through a false statement the witnesses would
make Jesus say something that the reader knows to be true, and the nar-
rator would thus have them lie the truth.76
The members of the council can only conclude that the testimonies
do not tally. As a matter of fact, the narrator does not have them draw
that conclusion but informs the audience of the lack of agreement him-
self. That this can never furnish a legal basis for a later death sentence
72. Fowler (Reader, pp. 160-61) rightly stresses the very enigmatic character of
this element.
73. See Brown, The Death of the Messiah, I, pp. 440-44.
74. See Exod. 15.17; Jub. 1.13; 1 En. 90.28-29; and 2 Esdr. 10.54.
75. See Donahue, Are You the Christ?, pp. 132-35; Juel, Messiah and Temple,
pp. 117-209. For references to older documents see Brown, The Death of the Mes-
siah, I, pp. 440-41. The situation is further complicated, however, by uncertainty
about the question of whether the Roman readers knew anything beyond small, un-
pretentious household communities, of which the reader is reminded by places like
1.19, 36; 2.1; 3.20, 31-35; 9.33; 11.11; 14.3. These communities are really not
comparable to the imposing sanctuary in Jerusalem. For the contrast 'made with
hands' and 'not made with hands' (%eiporcoir|TO<; and d%£ipO7toir|TO<;) I could per-
haps refer to the latent opposition in the metaphor of 12.10-11: the builders rejected
the stone but the Lord turned it into the cornerstone. That this would already con-
tain an implicit reference to the building of the community of Jesus' followers, as
Heil (Mark, p. 313) thinks, goes too far in my opinion.
76. See also Heil, Mark, pp. 312-13. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, I,
p. 441, is very close to this view, but halts just before the threshold.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 447
confirms—although that is really unnecessary—the reader in the view

that Jesus is innocent.
14.60-6la. Sensing there is no way out of this impasse as long as the

meeting remains passive, the high priest who chairs the meeting takes
the initiative. He first tries to get a reaction from Jesus to the charges
the witnesses have brought against him, perhaps hoping that Jesus will
contradict himself or make some incriminating statement that may end
the deadlock and advance the cause of the prosecution:77 but Jesus
returns the question with silence. This response is in decided contrast to
what readers have learned to expect from Jesus. At first they are sur-
prised, but soon they recognize Jesus as the just man who is silent
before his prosecutors.78 They also realize that Jesus behaves in con-
formity with his advice to his followers on how they must act when
they are hauled before judges for his sake (13.11): wait until the Holy
Spirit tells you what to say.
14.61b-62. After this first unsuccessful attempt, the high priest tries a
different approach. He asks Jesus a direct question. The emphasis lies
on the personal pronoun with which the question begins (cru), and
which adds an ironic and even sarcastic flavour to it.79 After all, the
reader knows enough of the Temple authorities to assume that the high
priest cannot take Jesus for the Messiah, and, of course, even less for
the Son of the Blessed. The intended meaning that fits best into this
representation is therefore: are you the man who is said to be the Mes-
siah or the Son of the Blessed One? and do you yourself find that too?
Did Jesus or anyone else give the high priest cause to ask this question?
Jesus himself has never said unequivocally that he is the Messiah,
although the reader may have understood his words in 12.35-37 as a
suggestion in that direction. So far in the story only Peter has clearly
stated that Jesus is the Messiah (8.29), and it is possible that Judas,
despite Jesus' stern prohibition (8.30), has passed this on to the Temple
authorities at his secret meeting with them. Assuming that this is so,
77. That the high priest's first question would give him something of an 'appar-
ently sympathetic judge,' as Humphrey thinks (He is Risen!, p. 134), conflicts with
v. 55.
78. Isa. 53.7; LXX Ps. 37.12-14; 39.9. Cf. Heil, Mark, p. 314.
79. For this specific emphasis see Blass, Debrunner and Funk, Greek Grammar,
§277, pp. 145 and 277.
could the reader make a similar assumption concerning the second part
of the high priest's question, namely, that Jesus would be the Son of
the Blessed One? What the three were told by the voice from heaven on
the mountain (9.7), they kept, according to the narrator, to themselves
(9.10), and therefore cannot have reached outsiders like the Temple
authorities. It is possible, however, that the narrator assumes, or even
takes it for granted, that they became truly suspicious when they heard
Jesus tell the story of the vineyard (12.1-11). If they understood that the
parable was aimed at them (12.12), they must also have concluded that
the one figuring in it as the son of the owner could be no one but Jesus
himself. Nonetheless, this by no means implies that they recognized
'the Blessed One' in the owner of the vineyard. This term is obviously
used by the narrator as a substitute for the ineffable name of God, and
therefore comparable to 'donai ('the lord') and haSSem ('the name').
Only, so far as is now known, 'the Blessed One' was not so used in the
Jewish world of the time, so it would seem to have been coined by the
author or one of his sources.80 Even though it is an imitation, it has the
intended effect. It reinforces the Jewish tone of the episode, while read-
ers automatically recognize the phrase 'Son of the Blessed One' as a
synonym for 'Son of God'. They know from the introductory part of
the book that, if Jesus answers the question truthfully, his reply can
only be an unconditional 'yes'. They know on the other hand only too
well that the high priest employs the question as a trap.
In contrast to the shilly-shallying that precedes it, Jesus' reply is
resolute and to the point. The eyco ei|ii is a perfect mirror image of the
oi) el of the question.81 To this clear and firm confession of his identity
Jesus adds a solemn announcement.82 In it he predicts that one day
80. Thus Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 78-79.

81. Thus also Blass, Debrunner and Funk, Greek Grammar, §441, p. 227. Juel
(Messiah and Temple) prefers the reading of a few MSS with o\) euta<; oxi ('you say
that I am'), which is also found in Mt. 26.64 (a\) elrcaq) and Lk. 22.70 (\)jieiq Xe-
ycxe oxi eyco eiui), because this would heighten the irony. The argument seems to
me no more acceptable than the reading itself.
82. Fowler (Reader, pp. 118-19) takes v. 14.62b, that is, everything that comes
after eyco ei|ii, as a comment by the narrator. He gives six reasons in support of his
view: (1) comments by the narrator are also introduced with Kat and 5e in other
places; (2) the high priest's response in vv. 63 and 64 makes good sense as a
response to Jesus' eyco eijuv statement; (3) Son of Man sayings are often part of the
narrator's commentary; (4) the second person plural used in 62b is better suited to
addressing the authorial audience than to addressing the high priest; (5) verse 62b is
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 449
there will be a complete reversal of roles. The Son of Man who is now
on trial and about to being sentenced to death by the high council will
come with the clouds and sit in the judge's chair at the right hand of
'the Power'.83 The designation 'the Power' is also not a term used
by Jews as a substitute for the name of Yhwh. It is impossible to tell
whether the Roman readers were aware of this. Jesus' use of the word
is noteworthy for yet another reason. There is not a single saying by
Jesus in which he employs the name Yhwh, but in Mark the narrator
a Scripture quotation, and Scripture quotations in Mark operate primarily at the dis-
course level; (6) the narrator is not concerned whether he or Jesus gets credit for the
statement of 62b. These arguments, whether taken separately or together, do not
carry enough weight to be really convincing, in my opinion. Some of them refer to
other places in Mark, where I find the argumentation equally unconvincing. My
objection to no. 4, the most specific argument, is that the hearing takes place before
the council, and that the high priest and the whole council are looking for testimony
against Jesus (v. 55). Argument 6 can also be used in a directly opposite way. The
statement is meant both for the readers and for the story characters present at the
trial. For the readers, the statement carries more weight when it is spoken by Jesus
than when it is spoken about him by the narrator. Finally, addressed to those pre-
sent it has the function of a condemnation. Fowler's view must be seen in the con-
text of his interpretation of the Son of Man sayings. On p. 130 n. 4, he criticizes
J.D. Kingsbury because he 'fails to take seriously that there is no evidence of
uptake of this title by other characters in the story'. In view of Peter's reaction to
the saying of 8.31, I wonder if Fowler's statement does not require some quali-
fication.
83. N. Perrin, T h e High Priest's Question and Jesus' Answer (Mark 14:61-
62)', in Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark, pp. 80-95 (92-94), thinks that these
words are meaningless to the members of the high council. He sees this verse as an
aside to the reader, but understands Jesus' taking a place at the right hand of God as
the enthronement of Jesus on the throne of the cross and the beginning of the resur-
rection. It remains totally unclear, however, how the reader is then to imagine 'at
the right hand of God'. Elsewhere in the book the coming of the Son of Man and
the sitting at God's right hand never occur together. The text speaks either of the
former (13.26) or of the latter (12.37); also 8.38 does not explain the relationship
between them. In 14.62 the sequence is: sitting at God's right hand (in heaven?)
and then coming with the clouds. The arguments that Perrin gives in support of his
representation raise several questions. The view that the crucifixion and the resur-
rection occur together in one text unit in Mark conflicts with the sharp caesuras
15.42 and 16.1. Jesus' kingship is also not acceptable as an argument. In 15.1-32
the characters and the narrator do not use the word 'king' unless in an ironical
sense, and there is nothing in the text that would make readers see the cross as a
throne.
puts none of the current substitutes on the lips of Jesus. Consequently

in Mark, in contrast to Matthew, Jesus never speaks of the kingdom of
heaven but always of the kingdom of God,84 just as he uses the word
'God' without scruple in other places of the book.85 The substitute term
is all the more remarkable because on the two previous occasions that
he has spoken of the Son of Man (8.38 and 13.32), Jesus has referred to
God as his or the Father (namely, of the Son of Man). It would seem,
therefore, that Jesus' use of the title 'the Power' is the counterpart of
the term 'the Blessed One', used by the high priest in the preceding
verse. Although the title 'the Power' is also an artificial term, it may
equally enhance the Jewish colour of the passage.
Jesus' reply contains three important and meaningful designations,
which summarize who he is, without saying all that can be said about
him. The reader remembers that the first two stood in the title of the
book (1.1), and that Jesus has regularly applied the third, 'Son of Man',
to himself.86 The three terms are complementary but do not fully reveal
the secret of Jesus' identity. 'Messiah' and 'Son of the Blessed One'
express the continuity of what God had begun with David, to whom he
had made the promise that he would never desert his son and that he
would always be a father to him.87 That this is not all that can be said
about Jesus' identity the reader remembers from 12.35-37, where the
Messiah, besides being David's son, appears to be superior to David
and to sit at the right hand of God. The sitting at God's right hand con-
nects Jesus' statement before the council with the passage just men-
tioned. Jesus' reply to the high priest is about what is still to come and
evokes the figure of Dan. 7.13-14, 27. Daniel's 'son of man' is a weak,
defenceless human who is in danger of being crushed, but who is res-
cued by God and then invested with a royal power and dignity far
greater than David's. It is this vision of the future that Jesus depicts at
one of his most vulnerable moments. It is now easy for the Temple
authorities to silence him, but they are unable to prevent the Son of
84. 1.15; 4.11, 26-30; 9.47; 10.14-15, 23-25; 14.25.

85. 1.14; 2.26; 3.35; 7.8-9, 13; 8.33; 9.1; 10.6, 9, 18, 27; 11.22; 12.17, 24-27,
29-32; 13.19
86. Donahue (Are You the Christ?, pp. 139-87) argues that Son of Man is the
most important christological title in Mark. That seems to conflict with the fact that
the voice of heaven calls Jesus 'my beloved Son' (1.11; 9.7) and that the centurion
says of Jesus that he was God's Son (15.39).
87. 2 Sam. 7; Ps. 2; Mk 1.11; 9.7.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 451
Man Jesus from returning as victorious judge, before whom they will
be summoned like everyone else.88
14.63-64. The high priest has obviously achieved his aim. The narrator
presents him tearing his clothes in indignation. The literal meaning is
that he tears his undergarments (xoxx; %ixc5vac;), a hyperbolic equivalent
of the term which refers exclusively to a man's outer garments (xa
ijidxia 89 ). The tearing of clothes is a sign of mourning or grief, and
relates here to the statement of the high priest in the next sentence. His
words are a repetition of the accusation made against Jesus by some of
the scribes at their very first meeting with Jesus (2.7). The word 'blas-
pheme' (PA,ao(|)r||Lieco) does not occur even once in the Septuagint ver-
sion of the Torah. In Mark it has a wider meaning than in Jewish
jurisprudence,90 as is clear from 2.7 and 3.28-29.91 Later Jewish texts
show that blasphemy is regarded as a capital offence only when the
divine name is actually pronounced.92 That this did not yet hold good in
Jesus' time,93 seems to me to be unprovable and, in view of Lev. 24.10-
23, unlikely as well. To readers familiar with it, this legal rule may, in
retrospect, present the reason why the narrator has Jesus use the term
'the Power' in v. 62, where they had expected 'God'. In that case there
is no question of Jesus blaspheming God's name. The high priest's in-
dignant reaction is therefore unjustified,94 as is the conclusion the meet-
ing draws from it. This conclusion differs somewhat in wording from
88. Juel (Messiah and Temple, pp. 94-95) thinks that Jesus' sitting at the right
hand of God refers to the resurrection. The fact that KcxGruievoq indicates a state
and not an event makes that interpretation quite improbable.
89. Thus rightly Gundry, Mark, p. 887, who refers to Gen. 37.29, 34; Lev. 10.6;
13.45; Josh. 7.6; Judg. 11.35, and other places. That the gesture would always con-
cern the ineffable name Yhwh itself, and not substitute names like 'adonai, ha$$em,
'God' C'lohim, 'eldhd*), as Grundy asserts elsewhere (Mark, p. 915-16), seems to
me to be as unfounded as his proposition that Jesus actually pronounces the name
Yhwh here (p. 916).
90. Thus also Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 95-106.
91. The broader meaning is confirmed by 15.29.
92. Thus Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, pp. 420-21.
93. Thus Beyer, 'PA-ao^rmeco', p. 621, with a reference to G. Dalman.
94. Fowler (Reader, p. 119) calls his response an ironical misjudgment of Jesus,
because by condemning to death the 'Christ, the Son of the Blessed', the high priest
himself is guilty of blasphemy. This representation, however, would require an
interpretation of Jesus' saying and in particular of the phrase 'Son of God' which,
in my opinion, is not obvious in the case of Mark.
the terms used in Jesus' last prediction. There we find that Jesus will be
sentenced to death (KaTaKpivovaiv awov Gavdxcp, 10.33), here that
Jesus is found guilty of an action or statement punishable by death
(KaiEKpivav a\)xov evo%ov elvai Oavdxoi)),95 a not insignificant
nuance for those who are wont to read the interrogation as a formal
trial. The reader knows that Jesus is unjustly accused of blasphemy
because his statement before the council has been anticipated and con-
firmed in advance by the voice from heaven (1.11; 9.7). However, the
accusation of the high priest and the council that Jesus is guilty of
blasphemy appears undeserved even from their point of view. In this
way the narrator underlines that Jesus is innocent of the crime of which
he is accused.
14.65. Apart from the arrest, the clashes between Jesus and the Temple
authorities have so far been of a verbal nature only. Recalling the third
passion prediction, however, the reader knows that physical humiliation
and torture await Jesus: that he will be mocked, spat upon, and flogged
(10.34). Even so, it is shocking to read that the mocking and spitting
are not done by members of the arresting party, guards, or henchmen—
people from whom such conduct could be expected—but by the digni-
taries of Jerusalem. Their behaviour turns at least some of the judges
into torturers, making them lose what credibility they have in the eyes
of the reader. The mockery fits in with the popular image of Jesus,
namely, that he would be a prophet like one of the ancient prophets
(6.15; 8.28), who see what others cannot see (Deut. 18.22; Ezek.
33.33). At first the reader does not quite know what specific motive the
narrator attributes to the Temple authorities for their action. Their
motives for prosecuting Jesus are clear enough from his accounts of
their frequent disputes and collisions with Jesus. They find fault with
his actions and teaching, criticizing him in particular for forgiving sins
(2.6-7), for eating with lawbreakers (2.15-16), for not observing the
regulations on fasting (2.18-22), the sabbath (2.23-3.6), and ritual
cleanliness (7.1-23), and finally for daring to interfere with the trading
in the Temple (11.28). They also resent his general attitude, and accuse
him of deviating from religious traditions and conventions (7.5), of
having made a pact with the devil (3.22), and of refusing to give them a
sign from heaven to legitimize himself (8.11). The essential point in all
this is Jesus' right to act as he does. It seems that the issue of Jesus'
95. Thus also Sommer, Passionsgeschichte, pp. 148-49.

15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 453
authority is also at stake in the present scene, where the Temple author-
ities challenge the blindfolded Jesus to prophesy or prove that he is a
prophet. The narrator leaves it to the reader to fill in the missing point
of the mockery, which is, of course, that Jesus is meant to tell the strik-
er's name without being able to see him. Although the narrator says
nothing about whether or not Jesus reacts to the challenge, the reader
has reason to think that Jesus keeps silent. The reason is that the narra-
tor twice mentions Jesus' silence explicitly in the two chapters about
the end of Jesus' life,96 and that even where the narrator does not men-
tion it, the reader has the impression that Jesus endures every humilia-
tion and pain inflicted on him in silence.97 If this interpretation is cor-
rect, then the assembled Temple authorities denounce Jesus as a false
prophet, who acts without a mandate from God and keeps the people
from observing the Torah, the way of life revealed by God to his peo-
ple. According to Deut. 13.1-698 and 18.9-22 such a false prophet must
be executed. To the reader, the scene is doubly ironical. First, there is
the ironic intention in the words of the Temple authorities, who chal-
lenge Jesus to play the prophet, while the readers and narrator know
that what they think of as a play or make-believe is in fact testimony to
the truth. Secondly, there is dramatic irony in the scene itself, for the
readers know that Jesus has announced everything that happens in the
passion story.99 For the readers, therefore, these predictions suffice to
establish Jesus as a prophet. That applies in particular to the mockery
staged by the Temple authorities, which Jesus has expressly announced
in 10.33.100
14.66-71. The scene shifts from Jesus to Peter, who is warming himself
in front of the fire downstairs. Jesus' announcement to Peter and Peter's
reaction to it (vv. 30-31) are still fresh in the reader's memory. As a
result the story of Peter's threefold denial has a certain duality. If, in the
previous scene, Jesus did not react to the challenge to prophesy, here
Jesus' predictions about Peter's denial prove to be correct down to the
last detail. This confirms the reader in the view that Jesus is a true
96. 14.60-61a and 15.5.

97. 15.17-19,22-23,29-30,31-32.
98. And perhaps also Deut. 13.7-12.
99. Thus also Tannehill, 'Narrative Christology', pp. 79-91; Tolbert, Sowing the
Gospel pp. 278-79; Heil, Mark, p. 317.
100. See the Greek EUTCTUG) in 10.34 and here in v. 65.
prophet, because, according to Deut. 18.22, the test of a true prophet is

the verification of his prediction. Another effect is that the reader sees
Peter as someone who has been forewarned and therefore has every
reason to be on his guard.
The fire appears to be a mixed blessing, for owing to the fact that it
produces light as well as euphoric heat, a maid of the high priest, who
is just passing by, sees Peter standing by the fire and thinks she recog-
nizes him. Does the narrator assume that she had met him before or that
she had been present at the arrest? Peter denies the charge but deliber-
ately avoids mentioning Jesus in any way.101 There is no question yet of
his really denying Jesus.
After this Peter withdraws to the porch, where the girl repeats her
accusation and Peter repeats his denial. The third time is the reverse of
the first: the bystanders, taking over the role of the girl, do not refer to
Jesus but to the group of which Peter is a member, whereas Peter not
only rejects what they say of him, but also denies in the strongest
possible terms that he knows Jesus, referring to him ironically as 'this
man you are talking about'. The narrator proceeds rather awkwardly
here: the quoted words make no sense because the bystanders have not
spoken of Jesus at all. As to content, v. 71 would fit in better with the
intervention of the girl in v. 69. On the other hand, this way of speaking
agrees with the profound breach in Peter's relationship with Jesus
expressed here. That Peter resorts to cursing and swearing to add
weight to his denial shows the extent to which he distances himself
from Jesus. His statement that he does not know the man they are talk-
ing about is a case in which verbal and dramatic irony reinforce each
other.102
Coming to the end of v. 68 the reader is faced with the problem that
some of the oldest manuscripts make no mention of a first crowing. The
application of internal criteria also leads to contradictory conclusions
101. Heil (Mark, p. 319) perceives in Peter's answer an ironic reference to the
fact that Peter does not understand Jesus. This seems to me to be an exaggeration.
The answer is about the understanding of what the servant says, and since ercta-
xaum is a hapax legomenon in Mark it does not easily evoke other places like 4.11-
12; 8.21, or 8.33. On the same page Heil mentions further instances of irony in vv.
69-70. These, too, are exaggerated, as are a number of other cases in his book. For
all his alertness to this figure of speech, the author does not notice the irony in
v. 71, where Peter says that he does not know 'this man you are talking about'.
102. See n. 99. The verb ol5a evokes, among other places, 1.24 and 34, which
deal exactly with the recognition of Jesus' true identity.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 455
since the different elements can be weighed in various ways.103 The

view that the words are a later addition in some manuscripts, however,
is perhaps more plausible than the view that copyists omitted them
from others. If these words are authentic and the reader is right in
assuming that Peter has heard the cock's crow, they heighten the drama
of the situation as there is still time for Peter to retrace his steps. The
problem with this interpretation, however, is that the narrator does not
say that Peter has heard the crock crow. If we assume this to mean that
Peter has not heard it, the phrase is an ironic sign to the reader that
Peter will continue to deny his master, as Jesus has predicted.104
Peter's answer stands in sharp contrast to a number of sayings in the
central piece of the episode. The witnesses testify that they have heard
a statement of Jesus. Peter declares that he knows nothing of Jesus, that
he does not even know of his existence. In both cases the reader knows
better. Peter's declaration also contrasts with Jesus' statement before
the high council. Jesus' words are a public affirmation of his identity
and function, those of Peter are a public renunciation and rejection of
Jesus.
Peter's denial of Jesus also means that the last disciple has proved
himself unable to follow Jesus to the end of the way. This inability is
more than a misunderstanding of Jesus and his mission. The way that
leads to the ultimate failure of the disciples receives extended treatment
in the book. Signs of their incomprehension, fear and lack of trust in
Jesus are already clearly visible in the chapter dealing with the three
crossings and the two mass meals (4.25-8.21). At the heart of the book,
in one of its most crucial scenes, Jesus angrily attacks Peter for refusing
to accept his passion (8.31-33). In the overture to the final phase, Jesus
warns Peter and his companions against being misled (13.5), telling
them as many as three times to be on their guard (13.33-37). Next,
Jesus predicts that all the disciples will fall away and that none other
than Peter will deny him three times (14.27-30). Then follows the scene
in the garden where three times over the disciples fail to support Jesus
in his death agony. There Jesus warns Peter again, and now for the last
103. See Gundry, Mark, p. 889, and Sommer, Passionsgeschichte, pp. 133-34.
104. Fowler {Reader, p. 215) prefers the short reading but adds: T h e missing
first cock's crow cannot not be in the story, but it is obviously missing from the
narrator's discourse.' I rather think that, if the long text is original, the first crowing
is meant for the readers rather than Peter, and therefore forms part of the discourse.
time, to keep awake and pray (14.33-42). The disciples' failure culmi-
nates in the scene of Peter's triple denial, the blackest page in the book
so far. By denying that he even knows Jesus, Peter commits the offence
for which he may expect the Son of Man to be ashamed of him when he
comes in the glory of his Father (8.38).105 'I do not know this man you
are talking about' are Peter's last words in the book. Readers who have
themselves failed, either by betraying fellow Christians in Rome or by
testifying in court that they have nothing to do with Jesus and do not
belong to the Jesus movement, may, like later readers who have failed
in other ways, find in Peter an important figure with whom they can
identify.
14.72. Even if Peter is not quoted again in the remainder of the book,
the non-verbal expression of his sorrow and regret is nevertheless of the
greatest importance exactly for those readers. His failure is not the end
of the story,106 for by virtue of his remorse the way of Jesus is open
to him again.107 The first and the last man on the list of apostles in 3.16-
19 remind readers who have acted wrongly that they have a choice of
two alternatives. While Peter, after his denial of Jesus, 'broke down and
wept', the book gives no indication that Judas repented of his betray-
al.108 How exactly the disturbing words of Jesus about the traitor in
14.21 should be interpreted is therefore left to the reader.
105. Thus K. Dewey, 'Peter's Curse and Cursed Peter (Mark 14:53-54, 66-72)',
in Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark, pp. 96-114 (109).
106. The view of Dewey ('Peter's Curse', p. 108) that after the denial 'the story
abruptly ends with no report of any further outcome or any subsequent movements
of Peter', does not—if I have understood her correctly—take account of the last
part of v. 72 (perhaps because she attributes it to the tradition? See pp. 102-105).
107. The observations made by Fowler (Reader, pp. 122-23) about emotions in
Mark deserve special attention. I would like to add that there is a tendency to move
too rashly from the text to theology. Precisely as a narrative the Gospel demands
that due attention should be given to the emotions invoked in it. If anywhere in
Mark it is in the passion story that the name of Peter, which means 'rock', is an
ironical name, as Fowler rightly observes on pp. 181-82.
108. That is different in Mt. 27.3-10, which it is possible to read as a conversion
of Judas, and in Acts 1.15-20, which one can rather see as a (self-)punishment of
Judas.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 457
Condemnation (15.1-15)
1
As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the
elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him
away, and handed him over to Pilate. 2 Pilate asked him, 'Are you the
king of the Jews?' He answered him, 'You say so.' 3 Then the chief
priests accused him of many things. 4Pilate asked him again, 'Have you
no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.' 5 But Jesus
made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.
6
Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for
whom they asked. 7 Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the
rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8 So the crowd
came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom.
9
Then he answered them, 'Do you want me to release for you the king of
the Jews?' 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief
priests had handed him over. u B u t the chief priests stirred up the crowd
to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12Pilate spoke to them
again, 'Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the king
of the Jews?' 13They shouted back, 'Crucify him!' 14Pilate asked them,
'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify
him!' 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for
them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.
The reader recognizes concentric structuring at two levels.109 The two

parts of the episode, represented above as separate paragraphs, show a
similar structure, as appears from Figure 34.
•— introduction 1 6-8
dialogue 2-5a 9-14
1— conclusion 5b 15
Figure 34
Figure 35 shows that the first of the two dialogues is in its turn concen-
trically structured.
•—firstexchange between Pilate and Jesus 2

intervention by the high priests 3
I— second exchange between Pilate and Jesus 4-5
Figure 35
109. Legasse, Le proces, I, p. 76.

Not in spite of110 but because of this structure, the passage shows a defi-
nite unity.
15.1-2. Possibly because decisions taken during the night have no legal
validity, the council does not take a decision until early in the morning.
Neither the content nor the status of the decision is stated, but all those
involved are mentioned, albeit that the high priests are clearly indicated
as the ones chiefly responsible. The antagonist of the next scene is
mentioned only by name, Pilate. The readers are evidently supposed to
know that Pilate is the representative of the Roman emperor. It is also
noteworthy that the readers do not learn where he resides until the
beginning of the next episode. Here it says only that the Temple author-
ities handcuff Jesus and hand him over (7capa5i5copii) to Pilate. The
catchword 'hand over' or 'deliver' still runs like a red thread through
the story.111 As in 8.31, 9.1 and 10.33-34 the text does not mention God
but Jesus' opponents as the subject of the action, the Temple authorities
at the beginning of the episode and Pilate at the end.
The interrogation of Jesus by Pilate shows remarkable similarities to
and differences from that by the high priest.112 It begins with the same
words, 'You are' (c\) ei), and continues likewise with a kind of title.113
110. Pace Legasse, Le proces, I, p. 76.

111. Legasse (Le proces, I, p. 78 n. 3) denies that the verb has a specific theo-
logical meaning here.
112. Humphrey (He is Risen!, p. 136) perceives a concentric structure in 15.2-
39 around the title 'king of the Jews':
Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews (vv. 2-5)
the crowd rejects Jesus as the king of the Jews (vv. 6-15)
Jesus is mocked by Roman soldiers as king of the Jews (vv. 16-20)
Jesus is crucified as king of the Jews (vv. 21-27)
Jesus mocked by Temple authorities and others as king of Israel (vv. 29-32)
the death of Jesus < rejection of Jews (vv. 33-38)
the Roman centurion: Jesus is truly God's son (v. 39)
A fundamental objection to this structuring is the description of the second last ele-
ment as 'rejection of Jews', with the explanation in brackets 'Temple veil is torn in
two'. The main problem is not that there is no mention of, or allusion to, the theme
of kingship but that the interpretation itself is highly disputable and, in my opinion,
incorrect and even dangerous. In 15.38 the rending of the Temple curtain sym-
bolizes the end of the Temple establishment and could, at the most, be seen as a
rejection of the Temple authorities but certainly not as a rejection of 'the Jews'.
113. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, I, p. 733) points out that the personal
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 459
The title used by Pilate, however, in contrast to that used by the high
priest, does not directly link up with anything said in the previous part
of the book. Be that as it may, there are several indirect connections, for
'king of the Jews' seems to imply the titles 'Messiah' and 'Son of God'
from the question in 14.61, especially when the reader calls to mind
2 Samuel 7, and Psalms 2 and 110. The reader gets the impression that
Pilate tries to verify the charges against Jesus that the Temple authori-
ties have presented to him as the findings of their own investigation.
Pilate's question concerns Jesus' identity and, as such, challenges the
readers to seek an answer for themselves,114 as has been the case with
similar questions earlier in the book (8.27; 14.61).
The first-century Roman readers will no doubt have realized how
dangerous the accusation was. They were only too well aware that,
even in the provinces, the Roman emperors did not like popular figures
who projected themselves as kings. They knew also that in the eyes of
the occupiers such claims were tantamount to sedition and high treason.
As regards the title 'king of the Jews' (6 paoiA-eix; xcav 'Ioi)5aicov), one
might ask if 'Judaeans' would not be a better translation than 'Jews'. In
contradiction to this is the fact that Jesus' activities are associated
exactly with Galilee, as has become clear again in the previous scene
(14.70). Besides, in the only other place where 'Ioi)5aioi is used as a
substantive, it definitely means 'Jews' (7.3).
It is unclear what Pilate expects Jesus to answer. It is even difficult to
say to what extent he is serious. The question sounds rather sarcastic. If
the reader were asked whether Jesus is, or considers himself, the king
of the Jews, he or she would give a firm negative answer. This is borne
out by Jesus' reply. He intimates that the terms in which the question is
put are the questioner's and indirectly those of the ones who accuse
him of kingly pretensions. With this Jesus has given an answer that
sounds more negative than an outright denial.
15.3-5. The narrator does not say what Jesus is accused of by the high
priests—the scribes will not be mentioned for some time and after 15.1
the elders have left the stage for good. Evidently he finds Jesus' silent
reaction to the accusations of his opponents more important than the
pronoun does not necessarily have the accent. This is confirmed in places like 1.11,
24; 3.11; 8.29. Nevertheless, the unmistakable irony of the question is brought out
best when it is spoken with the accent on the pronoun.
114. Thus, rightly, Humphrey, He is Risen!, p. 136.
accusations themselves. Just as in 14.60-61 Jesus' silence is accentu-

ated by Pilate's explicit question and his amazement at his silence.115
The repeated mention and underlining of this silence evokes the image
of the servant of Yhwh in Isa. 53.7, who does not open his mouth, like
a lamb that is led to the slaughter. That Jesus does not speak again until
he complains that God has forsaken him fits that image.
15.6-7. Whatever may have caused it, Pilate's amazement seems to be

positive. The readers gather as much from what they see in the first in-
stance as an attempt on Pilate's part to save Jesus. To make this attempt
understandable the narrator interrupts the story to inform the reader of
the custom of granting amnesty to a prisoner at the passover.116 This
is an unusual form of amnesty because the prisoner to be released is
selected by the people.117 Although Barabbas is not an uncommon
name, it is remarkable that a counterpart of Jesus has an Aramaic name
that means 'son of the father', but since Barabbas, unlike Bartimaeus
(Bapxi|iaio<;) in 10.46, receives no translation or explanation, its dou-
ble meaning will escape most readers. The narrator describes him as a
political prisoner, who is a member of a subversive group of terrorists
imprisoned by the Roman authorities for murder.118
15.8-10. The story continues with an unexpected incident. During the

interrogation of Jesus the crowd makes a sudden reappearance to
demand for the customary favour of having a prisoner released to them.
Thanks to the explanatory note in vv. 6-7 it is clear who they have in
mind. In the course of the story the reader has come to associate 'the
115. That the clause about Pilate's amazement, introduced by oSoxe, would be
parenthetical and belong to the explicit commentary of the narrator, as Fowler
(Reader, p. 103, n. 34) thinks, goes too far in my opinion.
116. Since v. 6 would be one of the clearest instances of a parenthetical com-
ment by the narrator introduced by 5e, it is surprising that Fowler (Reader, pp. 116-
17) does not mention it.
117. Scholarly opinion is divided on the historicity of this custom. Cf. Pesch,
Markusevangelium, II, p. 462; Gnilka, Markus, II, pp. 303-305; Sommer, Passions-
geschichte, pp. 175-76.
118. Fowler (Reader, p. 110) observes that 15.7 is very intriguing because the
reader does not know anything of a rebellion, and the verse gives the impression
that parts of Mark' s narrative have been submerged or suppressed. Is it not equally
possible to say that author and readers apparently shared some knowledge about a
certain Jewish insurrection?
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 461
crowd' (6 oxkoc) not only with the large number of people who happen
to be present wherever Jesus is active,119 but also with those who re-
spond positively to Jesus and his message.120 Only once does the term
indicate a crowd that is hostile to Jesus, namely in the passage about
Jesus' arrest, where it—without the definite article—refers to the mob
armed with swords and clubs. Moreover, after Jesus' arrival in the capi-
tal the narrator has emphasized several times that the Temple authori-
ties fear Jesus' popularity with 'the crowd' (6 6%koc) or 'the people' (6
Xaoc,, 14.2), even to the extent that they decide to delay their action
against him.121 On account of this presentation of the crowd it is natural
to suppose that, if the vv. 6-7 about Barabbas had not forewarned them,
readers would definitely have expected the crowd to stand up for Jesus
and demand his release. That expectation they attribute in any case to
Pilate, who, perceiving the real motive of the Temple authorities
(v. 10122), seeks to direct the petition to Jesus.
15.11-13. The change in the attitude of the crowd, which so far has
only shown sympathy for Jesus, is astonishing. They turn hostile to him
from one moment to the next, asking for the release of Barabbas and
the crucifixion of Jesus. The narrator uses an intensive form of the verb
for the manipulation of the crowd (ceico), but otherwise tells the story
laconically and with unconcealed irony. Actually his account is so brief
that the readers have to fill in much for themselves. They realize that it
is possible to read the Barabbas incident in two ways, which are dia-
metrically opposed. This is the result of the fact that, after the explana-
tion of vv. 6-7, the story continues in v. 8 with an initiative from the
crowd. According to the reading mentioned above, which presents itself
to the readers before they have read v. 11, Pilate sees the amnesty regu-
lation as a means by which he may save Jesus. After v. 11, which
shows the high priests stirring up the crowd to demand the release of
Barabbas, a second possibility presents itself. Now it is not Pilate but
the high priests who, sensing that they have failed to impress Pilate
with their charges against Jesus, make cunning use of the regulation to
have Jesus condemned. This representation would be in line with what
119. 2.2-4; 3.9, 20; 4.1; 5.21-31; 6.33-44; 7.14-17, 33; 8.1-9; 9.14-27; 10.1, 46.
120. 2.13; 3.20, 32; 4.1; 8.1-6, 34; 10.1; 11.18; 12.37.
121. 11.18; 12.12; 14.1-2.
122. This verse is a clear example of an explanatory yap clause that is so typical
of Mark.
the narrator has said in 14.1, namely, that the Temple authorities decide
to avoid riots among the people by making use of a ruse (56A,o<;). The
ruse was intended to lead to Jesus' arrest, but in the second instance
also to his execution. In that case the Temple authorities would have
circumvented the problem of Jesus' popularity by exploiting the even
greater popularity of a national hero, who was perhaps waiting for his
execution because he had taken part in an insurrection against the
Roman occupation. The two readings are not mutually exclusive, how-
ever.
Pilate's question of v. 12 has been transmitted in the manuscripts in
versions which it is difficult to choose from, but which do not really
make much difference.123 All versions, however, have preserved the
combination of the term 'king of the Jews' in the question with the term
'crucify' in the answer. Pilate's use of the title 'king of the Jews' is a
typical example of verbal irony, while for the reader the whole situation
itself is pervaded with dramatic irony.
15.14-15. The laconic tone also characterizes the end of the episode.
The narrator has Pilate underline—and once again by means of a ques-
tion—that he does not know what harm Jesus has done. Nevertheless
the people, who have meanwhile turned into a furious mob, add force
to their demand by shouting all the louder. To the reader's astonish-
ment Pilate lets them have their way, although there is no question of
the crowd threatening to rise in revolt, and the rebels in prison with
Barabbas are a clear sign of how easy it is for the Romans to crush
public disorder.
Does the reader have the impression that the author presents Pilate as
being innocent of this judicial murder with a view to the Roman readers
of the book?124 The portrait of Pilate is not without ambivalence in
Mark. At first the reader is inclined to take a poor view of his conduct,
certainly at the end of the episode. After all, the narrator has Pilate
observe that the charges levelled against Jesus are at least unclear and
unsubstantiated, and the contrast between a dangerous terrorist and
Jesus would have led Romans to the conclusion that Pilate should have
released the second prisoner instead of the first. Pilate is portrayed as a
123. The variants are: 'what should I do' as against 'what do you wish me to
do', and 'the king of the Jews' as against 'the man you call the king of the Jews'.
124. Thus, e.g., Schenke, Markusevangelium, p. 169.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 463
magistrate who is not convinced of the guilt of the accused, but never-
theless allows him to be executed because the public demands his
death. On the other hand, before handing Jesus over to the Temple au-
thorities he takes pains to show through his thrice repeated question
that he is favourably disposed towards him.125 All in all, I find it dif-
ficult to see the story's presentation of Pilate as an attempt to clear him
of being guilty of Jesus' condemnation, and to attribute this entirely to
the Temple authorities.
The condemnation of Jesus leads to the release of Barabbas, who is
under arrest for murder. The place that comes free as it were by the
release of Barabbas is filled by Jesus, who is delivered by Pilate to be
flogged and crucified. Earlier in the book Jesus has eaten with law-
breakers and declared that he has come to call them rather than the
righteous (2.17), here he is even in person exchangeable for a murderer.
In this way the scene with Barabbas contributes to the reader's under-
standing of the Son of Man, who gives his life as a ransom for many
(10.45).126
The exchangeability is, of course, ironical. The irony is mainly the
effect of an interplay of semantic equivalences (=) and oppositions (*),
the most important of which can be listed as in Figure 36.
Jesus Barabbas
a popular prisoner = a popular prisoner

without political ambitions & with political ambitions
accused = accused
by religious authorities & by civil authorities
has brought someone back to life t- has killed someone
not found guilty •*• found guilty
put to death * released
Figure 36
125. Referring to a suggestion by J.T. Tucker, Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel,

p. 273 n. 2) places Pilate's questions and three attempts to release Jesus against the
three denials by Peter. The reader will not easily make this connection because
series of three occur frequently in Mark. See Rhoads and Michie, Mark as Story,
pp. 54-55.
126. Legasse (Le proces, I, p. 82) queries this but complicates the matter by
employing the term 'la Redemption' with a capital letter as if it already were a sort
of theological category for Mark.
The two episodes of 14.55-15.15 raise a number of questions that

partly concern the interpretation of the facts as they are presented in
the narrative. I cannot, and need not, discuss these questions at length,
because the text of Mark really gives no ground for this, but a few
remarks are necessary. They concern matters like the judicial proce-
dure, the question of the responsibility for the condemnation and exe-
cution of Jesus, and the presence of possible anti-Jewish tendencies in
the story.
With regard to the judicial procedure it should be noted straight away
that the narrator makes no attempt to cast his account in the form of a
trial conducted in accordance with the legal standards current at the
time. Still, if we compare the deliberations and the interrogation before
the high council with the proceedings that take place before Pilate, the
former come nearer to a trial if only because witnesses are heard and
found wanting. The circumstance that the conclusion is reached only in
the early morning, could also be associated with a necessary condition
for a legal procedure, but there is no question of a real verdict. The lan-
guage of v. 64 does not suggest the formal verdict of a duly constituted
court. The end of the episode seems to be no more than an agreement
on the formulation of the charge that will be brought against Jesus
when the case is submitted to the governor.
The account of the proceedings before Pilate looks even less like the
report of a legal process. Apart from the charges against Jesus there is
no hearing of witnesses and no sentence. This does not mean, of course,
that there was no formal trial. It only means that this is not something
about which the narrator wants to inform his readers. His aim in these
two episodes is rather to depict Jesus' attitude towards those who have
been plotting his death and are now more than ever determined to put
their plans into effect. Further, as a counterpart to Jesus' attitude Peter's
conduct is more important to the narrator and his Roman readers than
that of the Temple authorities, the crowd and Pilate.
In the discussions between Jews and Christians the question of who
is responsible for Jesus' death—the Jews or the Romans—is a promi-
nent issue. However, this question is not a theme or a subject of discus-
sion in Mark, and therefore we cannot derive from it an argument for
or against either view. The central issue in the passion narrative, and
particularly in the two interrogation scenes, is not the guilt of the oppo-
nents or judges but the innocence of Jesus. More or less the same
assertion can be made concerning the supposed presence of anti-Jewish
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 465
tendencies in Mark. The story does not speak in terms of the opposition
between Jews and non-Jews. The Greek Ioi)5aio<; occurs twice outside
the passion story, first in 1.5, where it refers to the Judaean countryside,
and next in 7.3, where the narrator explains a custom of pious Jews. In
the passion narrative the word occurs only in the phrase 'king of the
Jews'. Although Pilate uses the title ironically, it is at least an indica-
tion that Jesus and the Jews should not, and cannot, be placed over
against each other.
Neither is there any evidence in Mark for the view that the Temple
authorities represent the Jewish people. Jesus and the twelve are them-
selves Jews. The narrator does not say this in so many words, for he
regards it as a generally known fact. Brown rightly points out that the
treatment accorded to Jesus is similar to the punishment inflicted on
Jeremiah for his announcement that the Temple would be destroyed,
yet that no one has ever thought of blaming 'the Jews' for throwing him
into prison.127 That the book represents Jesus as a dissident does not
change that. We now know that the Jews who established the Qumran
community—very probably the Essenes—were much fiercer in their
opposition to the official religious leaders and the priests in charge of
the Temple than Jesus. Furthermore, it is clear from the Old Testament
that these men and Jesus are not alone in this. They are preceded by
some of the great prophets who, when the occasion demanded it, criti-
cized the Temple establisment of their own day with equal harshness.
All this does not alter the fact that the narrator takes sides in the dis-
cussions between Roman Christians of Jewish and non-Jewish back-
ground,128 but the fact that the book takes the part of the latter does not
mean that it is against 'the Jews'. It is necessary to stress this point in
order to prevent the resurfacing of the age-old, undeserved accusation
that 'the Jews' killed Jesus. Even the notion that the founder of the
Christian community was killed by Jews is an anachronistic and dan-
gerous allegation that cannot be based on Mark.
King on a Cross (15.16-32)

16
Then the soldiers led him into the courtyard of the palace (that is, the
governor's headquarters); and they called together the whole cohort.
17
And they clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting some thorns
127. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, I, p. 396.

128. See pp. 243-56.
into a crown, they put it on him. 18And they began saluting him, 'Hail,
King of the Jews!' 19They struck his head with a reed, spat upon him,
and knelt down in homage to him. 20After mocking him, they stripped
him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led
him out to crucify him. 21They compelled a passer-by, who was coming
in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the
father of Alexander and Rufus. 22 Then they brought Jesus to the place
called Golgotha, which means the place of a skull.
23
And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it.
24
And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting
lots to decide what each should take. 25 It was nine o'clock in the morn-
ing when they crucified him. 26 The inscription of the charge against him
read, The King of the Jews'. 27And with him they crucified two bandits,
one on his right and one on his left.
29
Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying,
'Aha! You who would destroy the Temple and build it in three days,
3O
save yourself, and come down from the cross!' 31 In the same way the
chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among
themselves and saying, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32Let
the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that
we may see and believe.' Those who were crucified with him also
taunted him.
The central part about the crucifixion of Jesus is surrounded by two sets
of interrelated elements of which the inner, shorter elements refer to
three outsiders who become involved in the events around Jesus, and
the outer, longer elements to the ridicule made of Jesus by the Roman
guard and the Temple authorities. This concentric structure is outlined
in Figure 37.129
1—Jesusridiculedas king of the Jews 16-20

1— Simon carries Jesus' cross 21
Jesus crucified as king of the Jews 22-26
1— two bandits crucified with Jesus 27
—Jesus ridiculed as king of Israel 29-32
Figure 37
129. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, pp. 279-82) suggests an entirely different
arrangement, which takes 15.16-39 as a unit. It rests on similarities and contrasts
that are far from obvious, and is therefore less manifest to the reader. The contrast
between the soldiers mocking Jesus as king (vv. 16-20) and the centurion recogniz-
ing a divine son (v. 39) is very illuminating. Some of the similarities and contrasts
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 467
The central part in particular is written concisely and matter-of-factly.

It is as if the narrator is reluctant to describe the scene at length. He
simply records the barest essentials, which underline the finality of the
event. The restraint shown by the narrator seems to invite a restrained
response on the part of the reader.
15.16-20. The two mockery scenes at the beginning and end of the epi-
sode repeat Jesus' maltreatment by members of the Jewish high council
and his beating at the hands of the high priest's servants. Here Jesus is
mocked by the soldiers,130 not as a failed prophet, as in the previous
episode, but as a pseudo-king.131 The scene takes place inside the
building (ai)Xr\), which the narrator explains for the information of the
Roman audience with the Latin word praetorium. This locational refer-
ence confirms the impression of the reader that the interrogation of
Jesus by Pilate took place outside his residence. The reader assumes
that a barracks for the guards is part of the praetorium, or at least stands
near to it. The narrator describes the mockery of the soldiers so graphi-
cally that the reader can easily picture the scene. He mentions a number
of visual details such as the purple cloth that replaces the royal robe, the
crown of thorns, and the sceptre of reed with which they strike Jesus
on the head. Their 'Hail, King of the Jews', will have sounded to the
seem rather far-fetched, however, such as the contrast between the soldiers com-
pelling Simon to carry the cross for Jesus (vv. 21-22) and the bystanders hoping to
see Jesus assisted by Elijah (vv. 35-36), and especially the similarity between the
dividing of Jesus' clothes (v. 24b) and the tearing of the Temple curtain (v. 38),
which requires an extensive and complicated explanation (pp. 280-82).
130. The term GTteipa normally stands for a Roman cohort, a group of 600 men.
If the word is meant in the technical sense, it is probably used as a hyperbole be-
cause the incident takes place indoors.
131. The mockery of a convict treated as a pseudo-king was not unknown to the
ancient world. Loisy, L'evangile de Marc (Paris: Nourry, 1912), p. 454, has already
drawn attention to the figure of a certain Karabas, who, as Philo (Flacc. 6.36-39)
reports, was treated as a mock king and subsequently killed. V.K. Robbins, Jesus
the Teacher, pp. 190-91, and The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the
Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-rhetorical Analysis', in FGN, II, pp. 1161-83, con-
nects Ps. 22 and Mk 15 with the Persian ritual performed at the Sacian Feast, to
which Dio Chrysostom (± 40-112 CE) refers in his fourth Oratio. Four typical ele-
ments of this feast are: (1) a prisoner who has been condemned to death is selected;
(2) takes the place of the king; (3) is then undressed, flogged, and hanged; (4) while
he is crying and protesting. The elements of Ps. 22 stand in reverse order in Mk 15.
See also Brown, The Death of the Messiah, I, p. 876.
Roman readers as a parody of the 'Ave Caesar', the official salutation

to the emperor.132 For the readers, the scene is doubly ironical. They
realize that the soldiers who mean their treatment of Jesus as king to be
ironical unintentionally tell the truth about Jesus.
15.21. The average Roman is familiar with the picture of a condemned

man carrying the transverse beam of his own cross to the place of exe-
cution. In the story the soldiers compel a man who happens to be pass-
ing to carry the cross for Jesus. As to why this particular man, or any-
one else for that matter, is compelled to do so, and whether he carries
the crossbar all the way or only part of the way, are questions that
remain unanswered. This lack of information is curiously at odds with
the detailed information about the name of the passer-by. What makes
that name particularly noteworthy is that the narrator does not identify
Simon by the name of his father133 but by the names of two sons, which
in the case of a man is most unusual.134 Since Alexander and Rufus do
not figure in the book, it is evident that they constitute an extratextual
point of reference for the intended readers. Naturally it is impossible to
prove that this is the Rufus to whom Paul had sent his regards in terms
that show him to be well known in Rome (Rom. 16.13). That Simon is
coming in from the country explains his presence in the streets of Jeru-
salem but is really superfluous, unless it is meant to make clear that he
was not part of the crowd that pressed Pilate to crucify Jesus.
The incident has a metaphorical function as well. Despite the differ-
ences between the role of Simon of Cyrene and Jesus' injunction in
8.34, a reader may see in him a visual representation of the Christian
who takes up his or her own cross after Jesus. Here begins a curious
play of substitutions, which is continued after the narrator has finished
the story of the crucifixion (v. 27). Simon of Cyrene belongs to the row
of characters who, like Bartimaeus (10.46-52), the poor widow (12.41-
44), the woman who anoints Jesus for his burial (14.3-9), and the boy
who follows Jesus after the twelve have fled (14.51-52), appear for a
moment on the stage to do the right thing, and then once more assume
the cloak of anonymity.
132. Thus Brown, The Death of the Messiah, I, p. 868, and Legasse, Le proces,
I, p. 93, who refers to J. Blinzler.
133. As in 3.17, 18 and 10.35, 46.
134. A different usage obtains in the case of women because they do not partic-
ipate in public life. See 15.47 and 16.1.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 469
15.22-26. The place where the soldiers take Jesus is also mentioned by
name. Like Pilate, Barabbas, the praetorium and Simon of Cyrene, the
name Golgotha gives the story specificity and directness. The transla-
tion of the name offers an explanation with a double meaning. The
word 'skull' probably refers to the shape of the elevation, but has a
lugubrious connotation as well if the spot is the regular site of execu-
tion. The narrator relates the actual crucifixion in an impersonal,
detached way, without paying any attention to the gruesome aspects of
this cruel punishment. In this the story differs considerably from what
classical authors like Cicero have written—albeit with apparent reluc-
tance and restraint—about crucifixions.135 The reader hears nothing
about the procedure of the crucifixion. The story does not say, for in-
stance, whether Jesus was nailed or tied to the cross, and whether his
body was fixed to one or two beams. The account does contain a num-
ber of details, however, but, apart from a reference to the place of exe-
cution, they do not so much concern the crucifixion itself as two ele-
ments that connect the event to the larger context, and two or three
other indications that link the event with the Old Testament.
To the first two belongs the time reference, of which the contempo-
rary reader should know that 'the third hour' in the Greek text is equal
to our nine o'clock in the morning. The time reference forms part of the
time track begun in 15.1 and continued in vv. 33, 34 and 42. The sec-
ond element is the inscription on the cross. It is the written expression
of the theme that has run like a red thread through the Roman episodes
of the narrative since Pilate asked Jesus if he was the king of the Jews
(v. 2), and the soldiers crowned him and did obeisance to him in a
mock ceremony (vv. 17-19). The inscription contains the same double
irony as the salute of the soldiers but is more effective as it is a written
and public document. In this way the cross becomes the throne of a
king without a country, without subjects, and without power. A king
riding on a donkey is unusual enough (11.1-10), but is nothing com-
pared to a king who has, as yet, no other throne than a cross.
The two other details depict circumstances of the crucifixion in words
that are taken from the two psalms used in several other places in the
passion story, namely, LXX Psalm 21 and LXX Psalm 68. Perhaps the
reader would not recognize the offering of the myrrhed wine as a ref-
erence to Ps. 68.21 if there was not a second and clearer allusion to
it in v. 36. The custom of offering an alcoholic drink to a condemned
135. See O'Collins, 'Crucifixion', pp. 1207-210.

criminal before tying or nailing him to the cross was meant to relieve
his sufferings. The text does not say who was responsible for this con-
siderate act, but it could be Pilate, who plays such an ambivalent part in
the story. If the reference to the psalm places the offer of the cup in the
larger context of the Scriptures, the offer goes against the intention of
Jesus, who refuses it. Although the word 'cup' is not mentioned, the
refusal of the wine reminds the reader of Jesus' request that the cup of
suffering and death (10.38) may pass him by (14.36a-c), a request that
is immediately followed by Jesus expressing his willingness to accept it
(14.36d). Jesus' refusal is evidence of the firmness of purpose that has
characterized him since 8.31-33.
The second detail is described in words almost literally taken from
LXX Ps. 21.18. Without this reference the narrated incident is relatively
unimportant, and the eleven words devoted to the casting of lots for
Jesus' clothes in the Greek text are out of all proportion to the two
words recording the crucifixion itself. Nevertheless, they serve a very
important function for the readers. By telling this insignificant incident
in these words the narrator suggests what the reader of the Old Testa-
ment should have known all along, namely, that these things would
happen to Jesus. The prophets and the just since time immemorial have
suffered persecution, and in a number of psalms, like the two men-
tioned above, we can still hear the voices that express their experiences
and keep their memory alive.
75.27. Almost by way of a postscript the narrator mentions an unex-

pected cicumstance. Alongside Jesus two bandits are crucified on the
same spot, one on his right and one on his left. The scene sets the
reader thinking because it evokes earlier scenes in the book that reveal
surprising similarities and contrasts with it. The first that comes to mind
is the scene on the high mountain where Peter, James, and John wit-
nessed Jesus' superterrestrial glory and saw Elijah and Moses talking to
him (9.2-8). Remembering the scene the reader recognizes the two trios
as each other's counterparts and imagines Elijah and Moses standing at
the right and left hand of Jesus. The memory of that scene brings out
the humiliating character of Jesus' crucifixion between two bandits.
The places at the right and left hand of Jesus also remind the reader of
the places James and John had requested for themselves, although they
were thinking of places of honour in Jesus' glory (10.37). In response,
Jesus had asked them in symbolic terms if they would be able to share
his fate and remain faithful to death (10.38-40). Now that this moment
has arrived for Jesus, the two bandits crucified with him assume the
roles of substitutes. The reverse is also true of Jesus himself, for the
third man who might have been crucified here, Barabbas, has been
released by Pilate in Jesus' stead (v. 15).
The reader who is familiar with Isaiah knows that the substitutions
evoked by this scene can also be understood as an echo of the end of
the song of the servant of Yhwh in Isa. 52.13-53.12 according to the
LXX version: 'For their sake his life was delivered to death and he was
numbered among the transgressors; he bore the crimes of many and
because of their crimes he was delivered'.
15.29-30. Executions were a regular occurrence in Rome and were nor-

mally carried out along a public road. A notorious example is the mas-
sive execution of the 6000 slaves who were crucified along the Via
Appia after the revolt of Spartacus in 71 BCE. The Roman Christians
still had vivid memories of the execution of fellow Christians who had
been crucified and set alight like torches in the Neronian persecution.136
The 'place of the skull' is also situated alongside a road. Anonymous
passers-by are the first to blaspheme against Jesus. The Greek verb
Pâa^Tiiieco, which means 'to deride someone' or speak irreverently
about God, can here be understood in both ways. The words of the
passers-by, however, do not make the reader think of an explicit or
even implicit blasphemy.137 It is remarkable, though, that the passers-
by, and not the high priests, should go back to the charges brought for-
ward by the witnesses before the high council (14.58). That they deride
Jesus with wagging heads reminds the reader of the complaint of the
righteous sufferer in LXX Ps. 21.7, and places the suffering Jesus once
more in the context of the Old Testament. The scorn of the passers-by
lies especially in their 'save yourself, and come down from the cross!'
The sneer sounds very ironical to the reader who recalls Jesus' saying
of 8.35, with which the passers-by cannot be familiar: 'Whoever wants
136. Tacitus, Annals 15.44.4.

137. Fowler (Reader, pp. 158-59) refers to the ambiguity of the term and sug-
gests that the reader is invited to discern that both senses of the word are appropri-
ate here. Legasse (Le proces, I, p. 106) thinks that the word should here be taken in
its specific sense. To insult the Son of God would be to blaspheme God. This pre-
sumes, however, an equivalence of Son of God with God that is not present in
Mark.
to save his life will lose it'.138 Thus, both the passers-by who make this
paradoxical remark, and the readers of the story who hear it, know that
the statement is true, but understand it quite differently.
15.31-32. The same is true of the insult uttered by the high priests and
scribes,139 of whom the reader has not heard since the interrogation of
Jesus by Pilate. Their words of abuse are similar to the last taunt of the
passers-by, but while they addressed Jesus, the priests and scribes
amuse themselves at his expense. Unlike the passers-by, they do not
refer back to the statements of the witnesses about the Temple but to
Jesus' declaration (14.61-62) and their own translation of it, as they
probably presented it to Pilate (15.2), but with the difference that they
call Jesus 'king of Israel' instead of 'king of the Jews'. Their final
taunt, which contains the words 'seeing' and 'believing', is a para-
phrase of Wis. 2.17-20, where the godless, using the catchwords 'see'
and 'know' (i8co|xev and yvcajxev), are depicted as discussing among
themselves the oppression of the virtuous. This motif calls up the whole
thematics of the persecution of the just (Wis. 2.10-3.12; 5.1-23). Their
promise that they will believe if Jesus comes down from the cross is
also reminiscent of the question of the Pharisees for a sign from heaven
(8.11). The reader knows from Jesus' answer that no sign will be given,
and therefore cannot take their promise seriously. No wonder that their
verbal irony changes to outright sarcasm.
The last sentence shows that Jesus' 'royal household', the men cruci-
fied with him, also mock him. Thus, even on the cross, Jesus is
hemmed in by enemies, like the sufferer in vv. 13-14 of LXX Psalm 21,
and—if Jesus is nailed to the cross—especially in v. 16: 'Many dogs
have surrounded me; the band of the wicked has beset me; they pierced
my hands and feet'
Jesus Breathes his Last (15.33-39)

33
When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in
the afternoon. 34 At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi,
138. Th.J. Weeden, The Cross as Power in Weakness', in Kelber (ed.), The
Passion in Mark, pp. 115-34 (118-19), thinks that 15.30 is directed against the pro-
ponents of a Qexoq dvf|p christology. That raises the question, however, of whether
in that case it would not have been more obvious to put the taunt on the lips of the
Temple authorities than on those of the neutral passers-by.
139. Thus Fowler,/tester, p. 161.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 473
Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have
you forsaken me?' 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said,
'Listen, he is calling for Elijah.' 36And someone ran, filled a sponge with
sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, 'Wait, let
us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.' 37Then Jesus emitted
a deep sigh* and breathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the Temple was
torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 Now when the centurion, who stood
facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, 'Truly this
man was God's Son!'
* NRSV, 'gave a loud cry'.
This moving account of Jesus' death begins with an utterance of Jesus

and ends with a saying of the highest Roman officer present. While the
first meets only with misunderstanding within the story, the second is
not followed by any response from a character, but asks for a reaction
from the reader. Jesus' death is preceded by a deep sigh, which has an
unexpected effect. Although the elements greatly differ in size, the
reader recognizes the concentric structure that is represented in Figure
38.140
— Jesus' despairing question 33-36

1— Jesus heaves a deep sigh 37a
Jesus dies 37b
1— the curtain of the Temple is torn 38
— the confession of the centurion 39
Figure 38
15.33-34. Three hours have passed since the crucifixion. At the end of
these three hours, when the sun is at its highest point, a mysterious
darkness covers the whole land or perhaps even the whole earth.141 The
reader immediately thinks of Jesus' words about the darkening of the
v 140. Legasse (Proces;p. 109) recognizes the following structure in the episode:
a: v. 33; b: vv. 34-36; c: v. 37; a' v. 38; b ' v. 39. As there are too few clear equiva-
lences and oppositions between the a- and b-elements, and the structure itself devi-
ates too much from what the reader can expect in Mark, I cannot agree with it.
141. Legasse (Le proces, pp. 113-15) argues extensively for a limited interpreta-
tion. Both readings remain possible and do not exclude each other. With Brown
(The Death of the Messiah, II, p. 1036) I favour the second reading, which I think is
more in accordance with the universalism of the total story. Humphrey (He is
Risen!, pp. 141-44) seems rather to think of a metaphorical darkness, but this
conflicts with the time reference, which undoubtedly points to an event in nature.
sun in 13.24, but the other events mentioned there do not follow. The
reader who is familiar with Amos is also reminded of the darkness pre-
dicted for the day of judgment,142 when parents will mourn as on the
day they lose their only son (Amos 8.9-10). The darkness lasts for three
hours until three in the afternoon. The narrator is absolutely silent on
what happens during those three hours. The reader understands that
Jesus remains on the cross, but wonders what has become of the people
at the foot of the cross and how they reacted to the darkness. The
passers-by will have continued on their way, the soldiers have probably
stayed to keep watch, but it is unclear what the high priests and scribes
have done. When the three hours are over the light returns and the
scene becomes visible again.
The first thing that happens is not visible but can only be heard:
Jesus' cry of dereliction on the cross: 'My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?'143 It appears that for Jesus the three hours of darkness
have been hours of spiritual darkness as well. The words uttered by
Jesus are a quotation derived from the opening line of LXX Psalm 21, 144
but rendered into his own tongue, Aramaic, a language that neither the
average Roman reader nor today's reader understands. That reminds the
reader of the scene in Gethsemane, where Jesus equally resorted to his
mother tongue when he addressed God as 'Abba' (14.36).145 Jesus' final
142. It is a characteristic feature of the final day: Isa. 5.30; Ezek. 32.7-8; Joel
2.2; Amos 5.18-20; Zeph. 1.15; in 1 En. 94.9 that day is called 'the day of darkness
and the day of the great judgment'.
143. According to Humphrey (He is Risen!, pp. 142-43), Jesus' last words ex-
press confidence in God in accordance with the closing verses of Ps. 22. Therefore,
the words of Wis. 5.1 would be personified in Jesus. However, Wis. 5—which
speaks of the righteous man being rehabilitated—does not apply until after he has
been killed, while the words quoted from the psalm cannot be so interpreted with-
out making them mean the opposite.
144. For a discussion of the much-argued view that the whole Psalm should be
taken into account and that then Jesus' cry would not express despair but hope, see
Brown, The Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 1043-58. Brown himself comes to the
opposite conclusion. His argumentation is strongly criticized by T. Thatcher,
'(Re)Mark(s) on the Cross', BiblntA (1996), pp. 346-61, who shares Brown's con-
clusion but on wholly different grounds. He sees the citations from Ps. 21 in the
passion account as 'hypograms' and the way in which they have been included in
the story as a reinforcement of the aspects of despair.
145. Thus Brown, The Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 1046-47. He interprets the
transition from ap(3a to eXcoi as evidence of the crisis Jesus is going through. That
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 475
call to God is translated into Greek so that in any case the reader under-
stands what Jesus has said in Aramaic; whether the characters in the
story understand the Aramaic words is another question.146 The de-
spairing cry is a variant form of the cry of distress uttered by the disci-
ples in their agony in 4.38. The crisis that Jesus then characterized as a
crisis of trust, Jesus is now going through himself.147 Just as the cry of
the disciples in the boat had sounded in situations of persecution be-
fore, so also the words spoken by Jesus on the cross have a long previ-
ous history. Like LXX Psalm 21, pleas for help—sometimes uttered in
vain—are a regular feature of the penitential psalms.148 Although Jesus
is not the first to call in desperation on God, there is an essential differ-
ence between Jesus and his predecessors, for only of the man perse-
cuted and martyred here did God say that he is his dear Son and that he
supports him (1.11; 9.7149). The least the reader expects is that the voice
from heaven will make itself heard to Jesus a third time, if only to tell
him that God has not forsaken him. However, at this most crucial mo-
ment, heaven remains silent.150
15.35-36. There is a reaction, however, from a number of people who,

in spite of the long period of darkness, are still present at the foot of the
cross. They have heard Jesus' cry but have not understood, or have
been unwilling to understand, that his words are from the beginning of
would sooner have been the case if v. 34 had not been an implicit quotation from
Ps. 22.2.
146. Fowler (Reader, pp. 108-109) thinks that they misunderstand them. A dif-
ferent interpretation is given below.
147. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 287) takes the sting out of the crisis of trust
by referring to 11.22-24, where Jesus says that whatever is asked for in faithful
prayer will be given. However, Jesus does not ask for anything, and neither do the
disciples in 4.38.
148. See for example LXX Pss. 30.23; 68.4; 101.2; 116.1.
149. In Wis. 2.16 the persecutors say that the righteous man boasts that God is
his father, and in 2.18-19 that is precisely the presumption they want to test by tor-
turing him.
150. Legasse (Le proces, pp. 118-19) emphasizes that in Ps. 22, as in most peni-
tential Psalms, the phase of persecution and despair is followed by one of deliver-
ance and gratitude and that the latter would be implied here. It deserves mention,
however, that not one word from the second phase is put on Jesus' lips. Brown (The
Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 1044-51) also sees only desperation here, albeit in the
form of a prayer.
LXX Psalm 21. 151 Perhaps these bystanders are foreign soldiers who
neither understand Aramaic nor know the Psalms, but since they would
not know Elijah either, those who react are probably the high priests
and scribes, who ridiculed Jesus in vv. 29-32. They know the Psalms
and Aramaic as well. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to suppose that
they have deliberately misunderstood Jesus' words, taking Eloi for
Elijah, in order to laugh at his expense. According to their cynical
presentation, Jesus had called on Elijah since he was unable to come
down from the cross by himself.152 The reader's attention is then called
to a bystander who hurries away, fills a sponge with vinegar, and gives
it to Jesus to drink. It is obviously meant to quench his thirst as well as
postpone his death so as to give Elijah time to rescue him. The quench-
ing of Jesus' thirst with vinegar reminds the reader of LXX Ps. 68.21,
and so strengthens the web of allusions that link these episodes with a
number of other penitential psalms. The incident carries an ironical
qualification as well, because through their behaviour the enemies of
Jesus associate themselves unwittingly with those of whom the same
Psalm says in v. 28: 'Let them be blotted out of the book of the living,
and let them not be written among the righteous'.
15.37-39. The reader is not surprised that a miraculous event or inter-

vention fails to occur. What follows instead is Jesus' death, which is
told in one bald sentence. For the second and last time Jesus gives out a
sound but this time without uttering a word. Since most translations
speak of a loud cry or a terrible shout, the reader will probably think of
an inarticulate sound, but the Greek <|>covf|, like the verb c|)coveco, is used
for all sorts of sounds besides those produced by the voice. The sound
that comes nearest to the primary meaning of 'breathe out' (eKrcveco),
151. See Fowler, Reader, pp. 108-109, 161-62, who pays attention to the differ-
ence between the readers and the characters here, without mentioning the possibil-
ity that the soldiers and the high priests understand Jesus differently. Cf. his
'Reader-Response Criticism: Figuring Mark's Reader', in Anderson and Moore
(eds.), Mark and Method, pp. 50-83 (64), where he speaks of a mistake on the part
of those standing at the foot of the cross.
152. According to a late Jewish belief Elijah would help people in distress.
J. Jeremias, 'HX(e)ia<;\ TWNT, II, pp. 930-43 (933), sees in Mai. 3.23 the earliest
indication of this belief. See also Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV, pp. 769-
79. Lachs {Rabbinic Commentary, p. 435) refers to the Targum on 2 Kgs 13.14 and
b. Sank. 68b in addition to 2 Kgs 2.12.
the verb that the narrator has chosen to express Jesus' breathing his last,
is an extremely deep sigh.
The term normally used for dying in the LXX, the New Testament,
and Mark is the Greek drco6vf|CKCQ.153 Later the aorist drceGavev will
also be normally used for the death of Jesus (15.44). It is even found in
the phrase Xpioxoq drceOavev ('Christ died'), which was probably
derived from the old credal formula of 1 Cor. 15.3-5. The Roman
readers of Mark had so often come across the phrase in Paul's Letter to
the Romans154 that they must have regarded it as a standard combi-
nation. The use here of another and quite unusual term attracts special
attention. The verb 8K7Cveco means 'to breathe out', 'to expire or
breathe one's last'. It does not occur in the LXX, and outside the New
Testament is sometimes used as a euphemism for dying. It is difficult to
see why Mark should have substituted this rare euphemism for
drceGavev, which had long since become current. Actually, the verb
form EÊKVEVGEV, used in 15.37 and repeated in 15.39, evokes the
word nvex>\xa, which is related to it in sound and meaning (wind,
breath, spirit).155 A second key is the opposition between 'out' (e£) and
'in' (eic;), which takes the reader back to the beginning of the story,
where the Spirit—descending from heaven like a dove—entered Jesus
(1.10). Here, in 15.37, the opposite happens: at the moment of his death
Jesus breathes out, with great and audible force, both the breath of life
and the Spirit that has been active in him since the beginning of his
ministry.156
Once the reader has made this connection, another connection sug-
gests itself. At the moment of his death, Jesus emits a sigh with such
force that his spirit—which operates like a blast of wind—rends the
curtain of the Temple in two. This interpretation establishes the con-
nection between the action of Jesus expressed by eênvevcev in vv. 37
and 39, and the tearing of the Temple curtain in v. 38, which otherwise
remains obscure and mysterious.157 The image of the torn curtain calls
153. Mk 5.35, 39; 9.26; 12.19-22.

154. Rom. 5.6-11; 6.8-11; 14.9, 15.
155. See also Jn 3.8.
156. See, pace Legasse, Le proces, pp. 121-22, B. van Iersel, 'He will Baptize
You with Holy Spirit (Mark 1,8): The Time Perspective of Pa7cxiaei', in T. Baarda
et al. (eds.), Text and Testimony (Festschrift A.F.J. Klijn; Kampen: Kok, 1988), pp.
132-41.
157. Fowler (Reader, pp. 202-204) also underlines the connection between the
up two earlier episodes. The first episode that comes to mind is that
about the fig tree, which Jesus condemned to lasting infertility (11.14)
and which the next day was found to be 'withered to the roots' (11.20).
The latter phrase is the translation of e^r|pa|Li|X8vr|v EK pi^cov. The verb
is similar in sound to eâipeco, which means, among other things, 'to
tear apart', and thus evokes the image of a tree which, apart from being
withered, is split in two from bottom to top. The equivalence between
the tearing of the Temple curtain from top to bottom and the withering
of the tree from the roots upwards is that they both symbolize the end
of the Temple establishment.158
The second episode stands at the beginning of the book, where John
made an announcement that until now has not been fulfilled, namely,
that the one who would come after him would 'baptize in Holy Spirit'
(1.8). It is a cryptic announcement,159 but a reader who remembers
the forgoing part of the story will recognize that it is fulfilled in 15.37-
38. The first thing to remember is that John spoke those words to 'all'
the inhabitants of Judaea and Jerusalem (1.5), including the Temple
authorities, who, although they had submitted to John's baptism, had
not repented (11.29-33). Meanwhile they have become the instigators
of the plot against Jesus and are now standing at the foot of the cross
witnessing his death. In addition, the reader should realize that both
in the Old Testament and the New Testament 7cve\)|a,a—but then rather
in the sense of 'wind'—is sometimes mentioned as an instrument of
death cry of Jesus and the curtain of the Temple being torn in two, without, how-
ever, pointing out the wordplay in eênvevcev.
158. This equivalence is, in my opinion, much more obvious than that between
1.10 and 15.38, which is now widely accepted, as appears from Robbins, 'Psalm
22', p. 1180, and the literature cited there. True, the two passages are connected by
the verb a%i£o|nai, but in 1.10 the heavens are torn open to let first the Spirit and
then the voice of 1.11 through, without the vault of heaven being destroyed or dam-
aged. That is totally different in 15.38. The Temple curtain is torn in two from top
to bottom, with the result that it is as irreparably damaged as the fig tree of 11.20,
which from the roots, that is, from bottom to top, is torn apart and no longer capa-
ble of producing fruit for anyone. The equivalence between the tearing of the Tem-
ple curtain and the dividing of Jesus' clothes (15.24b), as proposed by Tolbert
(Sowing the Gospel, pp. 279-80), also seems to me to be far-fetched and to conflict
with the casting of lots for Jesus' clothes (15.24c), which suggests that the clothes
(not without reason in the plural, xd ijidtia) are divided rather than torn into pieces.
159. It cannot be understood from Acts 2.1-4, not only because the first readers
of Mark had no access to it, but also because 1.8 is about the inhabitants of Judaea
and Jerusalem, who cannot be identified with the disciples of Acts 2.
15. Losing his Life (14.1-15.39) 479
judgment and punishment.160 The suggestion of EÊKVEVGEV in vv. 37

and 39, then, is that the dying Jesus expels the spirit of God with such
force that it tears the curtain of the Temple, and symbolically destroys
the Temple establisment and, as the baptist had announced in 1.8,
punishes its leaders by immersing them in Holy Spirit.161
This dramatic incident would obviously have made a special impres-
sion on the Roman readers if the torn Temple curtain had formed part
of the spoils they had seen in the triumphal procession of 71 CE. Al-
though its size would have made that difficult, that possibility cannot be
excluded. Flavius Josephus names the Temple curtain as being among
the Temple treasures delivered to the Romans, and even mentions the
delivery of repair materials.162 He refers to it again when naming the
places where the sacred treasures were stored after the triumphal pro-
cession.163 Most of these went to the new Temple of Peace, but 'the
Law' and 'the purple veils of the sanctuary' were deposited in the im-
perial palace. However, precisely where he enumerates the Temple
treasures that were being carried in the triumphal procession, Josephus
makes no mention of the Temple curtain.164 Any suggestion, therefore,
that the spectators of the procession or visitors to the imperial palace
should have been able to see the Temple curtain—whether or not torn
in half—with their own eyes is pure speculation.
After the tearing of the Temple curtain, the narrator focuses attention
on the commander of the Roman cohort, whom he refers to by the word
K£VTi)picov, a transliteration of the Latin word but supplied with a
Greek ending. Standing opposite Jesus, the centurion 'saw' how Jesus
breathed his last. The Greek e!5ov indicates a visual experience, but
how is the reader to imagine this? The deep sigh is a sound, which can
be heard rather than seen. Perhaps because Jesus breathed not just his
last but also the Holy Spirit? But how could that have been visible? The
only remaining possibility seems to be that the centurion saw the veil of
160. E.g. Isa. 11.44; 27.8; Job 4.9; Wis. 11.20. In 2 Thess. 2.8 stands exactly the
metaphor that is behind the reference in 1.8. Writing about the 'lawless one', who
reveals himself at the end of time, Paul says that the Lord (Jesus) will destroy him
'with the breath of his mouth' (TCG KVEX>{ICLT\ TCU axoumoq amov).
161. That immersion or baptism can be used metaphorically we have already
seen in 10.38.
162. Josephus, War 6.389-90. I refer the reader who observes that Josephus
speaks of the Temple curtain in the plural to n. 166.
163. Josephus, War 7.158-62.
164. Josephus, War 7.148-51.
the Temple being torn in two.165 That possibility has been called into
question on the basis of extratextual data. Seen from the site where tra-
dition locates Golgotha, the Temple was on the other side of the city
and the Temple veil hung on the far side of the building. Apart from the
obvious answer that in a story everything is possible so long as it con-
ceivable, it is unlikely that the first Roman readers were hampered in
their imagination by any intimate knowledge of the site of Golgotha in
relation to the Temple complex. The same applies to the average reader
today.166
The centurion did not only keep his eyes open; he realized the mirac-
ulous nature of the destruction of the Temple curtain and bore witness
to it. Or is his statement just as ironical as the conduct of his subor-
dinates who—in his presence or on his command?167—mocked Jesus as
a pseudo-king?168 It seems to me that this is not the most obvious way
to read the text. The opening word of his declaration dA,r|0(5<; ('truly')
suggests exactly the opposite. That does not mean, however, that the
reader recognizes the centurion's statement as a full confession of faith.
In that case the centurion should have spoken of 'the' Son of God, and
have used 'is' instead of 'was', like the demons in 3.11. However, the
latter, in particular, is not possible as long as Jesus has not risen. The
reader is reminded of this aspect by the words that Paul had written in
Rom. 1.3-4 about God's Son, 'who was descended from David accord-
ing to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power accord-
ing to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead'.
The fact that the officer in charge of the execution of the death sen-
tence is the first to recognize in Jesus what has remained hidden from
all other human characters in the story is another instance of dramatic
irony. That a centurion of the Roman army, a Gentile, should come so
near the truth of Jesus' identity establishes for the Roman readers a link
with the congregation of Rome.
165. Thus also Brown, The Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 1144-45.
166. The question of whether the inner or outer curtain was torn also belongs to
this kind of extratextual knowledge, and is in so far irrelevant that the reader who
knows that there were two curtains naturally thinks of the curtain that is visible
from the outside.
167. For 15.16 says that they called together the whole cohort.
168. This possibility is suggested by Fowler (Reader, pp. 206-208), who
attributes at least a certain ambiguity to the centurion's utterance.
Epilogue
AT THE TOMB
Chapter 16
WAY WITHOUT END (15.40-16.8)
An epilogue is a passage added to the end of a book. That does not

mean, however, that it can be disregarded. On the contrary. In the
Epilogue, as in the Prologue, Jesus is not the agent but the object of the
action of others. It is others that speak about him and others again that
should speak about him but keep silent.
In this chapter I read 15.40-41—which serves as a hinge piece in the

overall division of the book—in conjunction with 15.42-47 as one
episode because the notice is narratively connected with what follows
at the microlevel of the text.1
It is unusual to look upon 15.40-16.8 as a unit having its own place
and function in the book. Still, after 15.39 a transition takes place,
which is marked by a change in place and time, as well as in thematics.
The most surprising change, however, is that a number of characters
come on the scene who have so far played no part in the story. It is
significant that these new characters, a group of women and a man
called Joseph of Arimathaea, are introduced more elaborately than other
minor characters, like Bartimaeus (10.46) and Simon of Cyrene (15.21).
As for the change in time, all the events told here happen after Jesus'
death. After the introduction of the women, the narrative part begins
in the evening before the sabbath begins (15.42), continues the next
evening after the sabbath is over, and ends on the morning after the
sabbath (16.1-2). There is a change in place as well, for in 15.40 the
scene shifts from the cross to a spot situated away from it, where the
women are standing, looking on 'from a distance' (drco juaicpoOev).
They are not too far away from Golgotha to see what is happening
1. On the relation between the different levels of the text and the segmenting
function of a textual element at the various levels see my article 'Concentric Struc-
tures in Mark 1:14-3:35 (4:1)', pp. 78-84.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 483
there, but it remains unclear whether they are near enough to hear the
centurion's confession. When the story characters commence action,
everything takes place around Jesus' tomb. The reader is left in the dark
regarding the locality of the tomb in relation to Golgotha, but it would
seem to be at some distance away from it and similarly outside the city.
The theme is also different. If Part III narrates the last confrontation
between Jesus and the Temple authorities and—after the apocalyptic
discourse in ch. 13—Jesus' arrest and execution, then the Epilogue nar-
rates the resurrection of the executed Jesus.
The organization of the Epilogue is relatively simple. After the intro-
ductory note about the women in 15.40-41 it consists of two episodes
that are each other's counterparts. In the first episode Jesus' dead body
is buried by a man while two of the women are looking on. In the sec-
ond, the three women hear at the tomb, from a male story character,
that Jesus is not in the tomb because he has been raised. It appears that
the final sentence in 16.8 is clearly related to 16.5-6a where the women
arrive at the tomb and come upon someone who tells them that they
need not be afraid. The final sentence also stands over against 15.40-41.
The women who in 16.8 flee in terror from the tomb are in 15.40
watching (Oecopeco) the scene at Golgotha—passively, it seems, because
there is no mention of any feelings on their part. This leads to a con-
centric structure, which is further reinforced by the fact that two of the
three women mentioned earlier are watching the burial (again Gecopeco),
and that the three women go and buy spices after sunset, when the sab-
bath is over. The concentric structure is represented in Figure 39.
the women are looking on from a distance 15.40-41

— before the sabbath Joseph buries Jesus' body 15.42-46
I — two of the three women are looking on 15.47
(unfilled time)
' — after the sabbath the three women buy spices 16.1
— at the tomb the women hear that Jesus has risen 16.2-7
the women flee in terror from the tomb 16.8
Figure 39
This structure is unique in view of its empty centre. It is not an arbi-

trary emptiness, however, but one that is explicitly marked. First, by the
three passion summaries, each of which contain the prediction of the
resurrection 'after three days' (8.31; 9.31; 10.34). Secondly, in the clus-
ter itself, by the words of the messenger who says that Jesus has already
been raised (16.6), and, less explicitly, by the empty time between
15.47 and 16.1. The day about which the narrator says nothing is a
sabbath, the only day after 11.1 that is narratively empty. Is it empty
because Jesus, God, or both observed the sabbath, or because God
raised Jesus from the dead on that particular sabbath? There are no sig-
nals telling the reader how to fill in the gap. However, the memory of
Jesus' rhetorical question in 3.4, 'Is it lawful to do good or to do harm
on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?' suggests that God used the sab-
bath to raise Jesus from the dead. However that may be, as the story is
at a standstill at this crucial point, the central position easily qualifies as
the narrative gap par excellence.
The narrator could easily have filled the gap. He did not, after all,
hesitate to represent Jesus as conversing with Elijah and Moses on the
mountain (9.2-4), and Jesus, dressed in dazzling white clothes and hav-
ing a dialogue with these two heavenly figures, would not have been
out of place here. Due to the narrator's silence, however, we do not
have a visual image of the resurrection nor a way of knowing whether
there is a link between the removal of the stone and Jesus leaving the
tomb. Therefore, the reader has to be content with the predictions of
Jesus himself and the retrospective announcement of the messenger.
As the starting point and finish of the reading trajectory, the Prologue
and Epilogue contribute to the meaning of the three Parts in between
and to the interpretation of the entire text. They are marked as the
beginning and end of the book in several ways. The title 'beginning of
the good news' (1.1) refers to the whole book but applies especially to
the introductory episodes at the beginning of the book, the Prologue. It
is about a herald (1.2-7) and the installation and equipment of the one
who comes after him (1.9-13). In this respect the Epilogue is less un-
ambiguous because, in addition to signs marking the end of the story
about Jesus, it also contains a signal that the way of Jesus continues in
spite of the end of the story. The terminal character of the Epilogue is
largely determined by the place where it is set, the grave, which turns
from a final resting-place into a place of transition in this part of the
text. The final stage of the narrative is also underlined by the character-
ization of the story characters. The description of the women points
back to the period of Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Jerusalem (15.41),
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 485
while the representation of Joseph of Arimathaea as 'waiting expec-

tantly for the kingdom of God' (15.43) not only establishes a link with
the definitive establishment of God's kingdom in the last days but also
carries with it the connotation that, at least as far as Joseph is con-
cerned, the proclamation of Jesus has been successful.
In a number of ways the Prologue and Epilogue are each other's
counterparts. Set in the wilderness and a cemetery respectively, they are
the only parts taking place outside the inhabited world. They are also
the only parts in which a messenger appears: John, dressed in the char-
acteristic clothing of the prophet (1.6), in the Prologue; the nameless
young man, wearing the white robe of the bringer of good news (16.5),
in the Epilogue. Each of them points to the one who is coming after
them (1.7 and 16.7). However, the interrelationship between Prologue
and Epilogue is particularly clear from the fact that 'the good news
about Jesus' (1.1), which is both the title and the subject of the book, is
actually announced in the words of the messenger (16.6): Jesus, who
was crucified, has been raised. The entire book is directed towards this
announcement.
The Burial (15.40-47)

40
There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were
Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of
Joses, and Salome. 41 These used to follow him and ministered to him*
when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had
come up with him to Jerusalem.
42
When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that
is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathaea, a respected mem-
ber of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the
kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
44
Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the
centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.
45
When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the
body to Joseph. 46Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb
that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the
door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw
where the body was laid.
* NRSV, 'provided for him'.
The episode of Jesus' burial is concentrically embedded in a framework

of two short, interrelated notes. They are about two groups of mainly
the same women, who show the same passive behaviour: they are look-
ing on (Gecopeco in vv. 40 and 47). The episode between the two notes
is about one character, a man, who moves into action and whose efforts
are successful.
15.40-41. It appears, in retrospect, that, besides the soldiers and the

Temple authorities, a large number of women are present at the cross.
Their presence is a complete surprise to the reader.2 Until now women
have not played much part in the book, which may be partly due to the
social position of women at the time. Given that position it is hardly
accidental that, apart from the woman who had spent all her money on
doctors and was perhaps reduced to beggary as a result of it (5.26), all
the women healed by Jesus are cured at home (1.29-31; 5.21-43; 7.24-
30). In the world of the story that is clearly the place where women
belong, and when they leave the house and go to the Temple, for
example, it is because they have to do something there (12.41). Simi-
larly, the woman who anoints Jesus does so in a house, although it is
probably not her own house (14.3-9). As Jesus is regularly en route and
mainly active out of doors, it is really not surprising that readers should
have heard so little about female followers of Jesus. Here it appears,
however, that this representation is not correct and that Jesus does have
women followers.3 Three of these women4 are mentioned by name.5
2. Fowler (Reader, p. I l l ) thinks that the abrupt introduction of the women

may be the effect of 'careless storytelling'. This view is disputable, for it is possible
to give a good reason for this. By withholding the information about the women
until after Jesus' death, the narrator gives the reader the impression that there was
no one to support Jesus when he died.
3. See L. Schottroff, 'Maria Magdalena und die Frauen am Grabe Jesu', EvT
42 (1982), pp. 3-25 (3-13); W. Munro, 'Women Disciples in Mark?', CBQ 44
(1982), pp. 225-41 (230-37); E.S. Malbon, 'Fallible Followers: Women and Men in
the Gospel of Mark', Semeia 28 (1983), pp. 29-48 (40-44).
4. The Greek may be read in two ways. Besides the NRSV reading given
above, another reading is possible: 'Mary Magdalene, Mary (the wife or daughter)
of James the younger and the (nameless) mother of Joses, and Salome,' which
implies that four women would be mentioned. The second reading is preferred by,
for example, Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, pp. 505-507; Schottroff, 'Maria
Magdalena', pp. 8-10; Brown, The Death of the Messiah, H, pp. 1016, 1152-54 and
1116-11. Two proponents of the first reading are Gundry (Mark, pp. 976-79), who
refutes the arguments for the number of four, and Legasse (Le proces, p. 134 n.
184). It seems to me that the unbiased reader thinks automatically of three women,
if only because the second reading would involve some complicated reasoning.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 487
Besides, the women are said not only to have followed Jesus while he
was in Galilee, but also to have ministered to him there. Whether this is
true only of the three or of the whole group remains unclear. The Greek
word for 'minister to someone' is 8iaK0veca. The same verb is used in
1.31 with reference to the action of Peter's mother-in-law. Would that
imply that she, too, belonged to the large group of anonymous follow-
ers of Jesus? Actually, the verb 5iaKoveco receives a clear surplus value
in the book, especially because Jesus uses it to characterize his own
attitude to life (10.41-45).6 Therefore, the women are not camp follow-
ers but kindred spirits and supporters of Jesus.7 That those who fol-
lowed him were more numerous than the group of twelve was already
clear from 2.15, and was illustrated later by the fact that Levi, who had
responded to Jesus' call (2.14), appeared not to belong to the twelve
(3.16-19).
One of the women is referred to as the mother of James and Joses.
The reader has met the two brothers in 6.3, where they are named as
two of the four brothers of Jesus, and Jesus himself is called the son of
Mary. That makes the reader think of the possibility that the Mary
named in 15.40 may be Jesus' mother.8 That would, in its turn, imply
That the names of the two brothers James and Joses have already occurred earlier in
the book (6.3) is the deciding factor for this representation.
5. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 293) remarks that naming three of them
might cast a shadow on these women because naming often has negative associa-
tions in Mark. That seems to me to be at least an exaggeration. The names of John
(1.4-9), the first four disciples (1.16-20), Levi (2.14), the twelve (3.13-19), Jairus
(5.22), Bartimaeus (10.46-52), Simon of Cyrene (15.21), and Joseph of Arimathaea
(15.43-46) have in themselves no negative association.
6. Thus rightly Schottroff, 'Maria Magdalena', pp. 10-12.
7. The detailed analysis of the characterization and the narrative function of
the women within their narrative frames in P.L. Danove, The Characterization and
Narrative Function of the Women at the Tomb (Mk 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)', Bib 11
(1996), pp. 375-97, does not necessitate my changing or qualifying my view.
8. Thus also Waetjen, A Reordering of Power, p. 238, Marshall, Faith, p. 178,
and Gundry, Mark, p. 977. Pesch (Markusevangelium, I, p. 324) argues against the
identification on the grounds that the two passages stem from different traditions.
This may be a valid argument when it relates to historical persons but not when it
relates to characters in a story. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, II, p. 1154 n. 34)
gives as counter-arguments that this designation of Mary does not appear elsewhere
and that, in any case, the authors of Matthew and Luke did not detect her under this
reference. The first objection says only that it is an unusual way of referring to
Mary the mother of Jesus, which exactly for that reason attracts special attention;
that she must have joined the group of Jesus' followers after 3.31-35, a
supposition that is not confirmed by the story. If the Mary of 6.3 and
the Mary of 15.40 are one and the same, then the question arises why
the narrator does not identify her as the mother of Jesus. That is un-
clear, and raises doubts about the correctness of this interpretation.9 Be
that as it may, the women present at the cross are in any case more nu-
merous than the three women here mentioned by name.
The female followers of Jesus are introduced in two ways. In the first
place retrospectively, because it is not until the last page of the book
that the narrator tells us that these women have been there all along.
From this the reader infers that they must have followed Jesus wherever
he went, except for the occasions when he explicitly withdrew with the
twelve or some of them to speak to them in private. The narrator men-
tions specifically that they have come up with Jesus to Jerusalem. Natu-
rally the reader thinks of the journey that begins in 8.27. Then the
women must have heard Jesus predicting his death10 and been prepared
for what happened to him in Jerusalem.
In the present scene the women do nothing and say nothing. They
just stand there, silent and at a distance.11 The reader sees them as
the second is not a real objection because these authors deviated from Mark in other
places as well, and sometimes also because they did not understand him or under-
stood him differently. M. Barnouin, 'Marie, mere de Jacques et de Jose', NTS 42
(1996), pp. 472-74, presumes that as a rule the narrator makes it unambiguously
clear of which character he is speaking. If he had wished to present the Mary of
15.40 as the same as the mother of Jesus referred to in 6.3, he would have called
her 'the mother of Jesus' or 'his mother Mary', but not 'the mother of James and
Joses'. Although Barnouin speaks in this context about 3.21, 31, he does not con-
sider the possibility that 3.34 might have been a reason for the narrator to use other
terms when writing about Jesus' mother after that.
9. In R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative
Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press; New York: Paulist Press, 1978), p. 70 n. 131, it is suggested that the naming
of Jesus' mother might be problematic after the centurion's confession that Jesus
was God's son. Gundry {Mark, p. 977) thinks that this is the most likely reason for
the different designation of Mary here. In my opinion this motive would assume
that 'Son of God' already has a clearly christological meaning, which however is
not the case in Mark.
10. 8.27-33 and 9.31; 10.33-34 is directed only to the twelve.
11. The Greek drco uaKp60ev refers, as arule, to physical distance in Mark (5.6;
8.3; 11.13; 14.54). The connotation of fear, cowardice, and beginning disloyalty,
caused by 14.54, need not be present in 15.40 at all. According to the representation
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 489
counterparts not only of the twelve and the three intimates in particu-
lar,12 but also of the centurion, the passers-by, and the high priests. Like
the centurion, the women are favourably disposed towards Jesus even if
they do not express any evaluation of him.13 On account of their silence
they are set over against the sneering, triumphant opponents of Jesus.
Are they also presented as opposed to the twelve? That is sometimes
denied.14 Like the twelve and the large group of male disciples, they are
characterized as followers of Jesus, and since they are said to have
come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, it is clear that they were
among Jesus' companions on the journey that began in 8.27 and ended
in Jerusalem. Like the disciples, the women consist of an inner circle of
three and a larger circle. What is important at this point of the story,
of the reader, the physical distance of the women is rather connected with the fact
that, from the departure to the place of the execution, a number of soldiers form the
smallest circle around the crucified, while the passers-by and high priests form the
second. That the women stay at a certain distance from the men actively involved
in the crucifixion, who, without exception, have mocked Jesus, does not surprise
the reader. See for a different view Brown (The Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 1157-
58), who is very critical of a positive appreciation of the women's presence. For the
risks run by relations and friends of a crucified see Schottroff, 'Maria Magdalena',
pp. 5-6.
12. Thus rightly Heil, Mark, p. 338.
13. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, II, pp. 1157-58) is of the opinion that the
women are presented as opposed to the centurion. The fact that they remain stand-
ing at a distance would be particular evidence for this opposition. That would not
be a sign of bravery, especially when it is read after 14.54, and would stand in con-
trast with the centurion's nearness. What Brown overlooks, however, is that and
^laKpoBev (40) and el; evavtiaq (39) belong to different linguistic paradigms, and
are therefore not recognized as contrary terms by the reader. In LXX Ps. 37.12 the
two do not stand beside one another as contrary but precisely as equivalent terms.
Moreover, the centurion and the women are not part of the same paradigmatic com-
bination, that of the disciples or followers, for example.
14. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, p. 1158) thinks that it would be inconsis-
tent for Mark to portray the family of Jesus and the twelve as inadequate and the
women as positive. It is precisely the reverse, however, when the women belong to
the category of other followers, like Bartimaeus, the woman who anoints Jesus,
Simon of Cyrene, and Joseph of Arimathaea. That LXX Ps. 37.12 does not apply
unless the women play an unfavourable role is no argument, of course. Tolbert
(Sowing the Gospel, pp. 291-93) and Legasse (Le proces, II, p. 134) are right when
they say that following Jesus and ministering to him must both be interpreted posi-
tively and be connected with the different passages about the following of Jesus,
such as 8.34-38; 10.32-33, 38-39; 13.9-13.
however, is the remarkable contrast between Jesus' male and female

followers: while every one of the disciples has deserted Jesus, the
women have remained with him. Until now they have kept completely
silent. Their time to speak is still to come.
15.42-46. In contrast to the absence of Jesus' disciples stands the action

of an outsider, Joseph of Arimathaea. He is the last in a series of figures
who, beginning with Bartimaeus, come onto the stage to play their part
and then disappear again. Like Simon of Cyrene, Mary of Magdala, and
Jesus of Nazareth, he is identified by his place of origin, which in his
case is less necessary than in the case of Simon of Cyrene, for example,
because the book does not know any other Joseph.15 He is a member of
the council, and therefore, in contrast to the simple farmer Simon, a
man of high standing. As the readers know only the council that met in
14.53-15.1, they cannot but assume that Joseph, being a member of
that body, had taken part in the decision-making which led to Jesus'
execution. The text says in 14.64 and 15.1 that 'all of them' and 'the
whole council' decided that Jesus deserved death and was to be handed
over to Pilate, which suggests that the council's decision was unani-
mous. The readers are therefore inclined to consider Joseph as an ac-
cessary to Jesus' death,16 in which case Joseph of Arimathaea would be
yet another example of someone who had failed and afterwards re-
pented. He would then have made amends for his failure as best he
could by taking care of Jesus' burial. Actually, Joseph is not the first
character whose behaviour deviates from that of the group he belongs
to. In 12.28-34 Jesus said to the scribe who had answered wisely, that
he was not far from the kingdom of God. Here, something similar is
said about Joseph, albeit by the narrator. The two men belong to the
category of Jesus' opponents but nevertheless appear to be on the right
road. This somewhat relativizes the strongly sterotyped presentation of
the opponents in the book.
Although the councillor does not belong to the group of Jesus' fol-
lowers, he takes the initiative in giving Jesus an honourable burial.17
The scene summons to mind the burial of John the baptist. The almost
identical wording in 6.29 and 15.46 (e9r|Kav amo(v) ev |nvr||Lietcp, 'laid
15. Only scholars know that Joses is a variant of Joseph.

16. Thus also Brown, The Death of the Messiah, II, p. 1214.
17. Humphrey (He is Risen!, p. 146) understands the burial also as an expres-
sion of confidence by Joseph, as a follower of Jesus, that death will be overcome.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 491
it in a tomb') reinforces the relation between the two scenes. That the
disciples of John, when they heard of their master's death, came and
buried him stresses the absence of the disciples of Jesus as well as the
extent of their failure. While it is in the interest of the Roman occupiers
to leave the corpses hanging on the cross as long as possible, it is
a Jewish prescription that the crucified be taken down and buried on
the day of death.18 Joseph went to Pilate on the day of preparation,
the translation of the Greek rcapaGKeufi, which probably refers to the
preparation of the sabbath meal on Friday. By way of explanation the
narrator offers the word rcpocdppaxov, translated above as 'the day
before the sabbath'. It is a most unusual word, which so far as is known
does not occur in the profane literature, and in the Old Testament only
in Jdt. 8.6 and LXX Ps. 92.1. Combinations with rcpo, however, are so
common in Greek that Roman readers should have no difficulty under-
standing it. The mention of 'the day before the sabbath' implies that the
day after the sabbath is the third day.
After 15.5 Pilate is again said to be amazed, which shows in any case
that this time things are different from what he is accustomed to. Since
Roman readers knew how long it sometimes took a crucified person to
die, they were perhaps less surprised by his amazement than readers
today who realize that almost a full day has passed since the crucifixion
at nine o'clock.
All actions taking place immediately after Jesus' body has been
handed over to Joseph are summarize4 in one short sentence. Every
single action is attributed to the councillor, but it is hard to imagine that
he could have done all that by himself. Taking the dead Jesus from the
cross would have been hardly possible without help and, in view of the
women's question in 16.3, the same is probably true of rolling away the
heavy stone. The social position of the councillor surely means that he
had servants to help him. The tomb in which he laid Jesus also testifies
to his wealth, hewn as it is out of the rock—no doubt outside the
city19—and supposedly consisting of several horizontal niches and with
18. See Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, pp. 436-37. Legasse (Proces, pp. 157-
58) rightly points out that the mention of preparation day as a motive for the swift
action of Joseph was not really necessary because the burial must always take place
on the same day. The Greek ercei, however, can also be a time indication and then
be translated as 'after' or 'while'.
19. See Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, pp. 436-37.
the entrance closed by a round stone that can be rolled away at the next
burial.
15.47. The episode concludes with the mention of two of the three
women watching where Jesus is buried. This time Mary is named as the
mother of one of the two sons mentioned in 15.40. If she is indeed the
mother of Jesus, then her presence at the burial is significant in view of
the previous history. The verb 'to look on' (Geoapeco), found also in
15.40 and 16.4, connects the last two episodes of the book. Its signifi-
cance should not be exaggerated, however, for it refers not to the highly
important presence of the young man in the white robe whom the
women see (eiSov) in the tomb in v. 5, but to the stone, which they find
already rolled back in v. 4.20 In addition, the seeing of Jesus in Galilee
announced in 16.7 is expressed by another verb, namely, 6\|/0|iai,
which in Mark is used only for very special observations of which the
Son of Man Jesus is the object.21
The reader who does not know the final episode, but remembers
Jesus' prediction that he would rise after three days, expects the two
women who know where Jesus is buried to play a part in that event,
perhaps as witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
After Three Days (16.1-8)

^ h e n the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
2
And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen,
they went to the tomb. 3They had been saying to one another, 'Who will
roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?' 4When they
looked up, they saw that the stone had already been rolled back, for it
was very large. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man,
dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6
But he said to them, 'Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of
Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look,
there is the place they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that
he is going ahead of you in* Galilee; there you will see him, just as he
20. Gundry (Mark, p. 976) observes that the verb Becopeco is used in Mark only
with reference to actors who are not involved in the action concerned.
21. 9.4; 13.26; 14.62; 16.7.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 493
told you.' 8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and panicf
had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
*NRSV, 'to'.
t NRSV, 'amazement'. 22
16.1-2. From sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday, the second of the

three days, there is no movement and activity at all. Jesus' body rests in
the tomb, and the survivors are—the reader presumes—keeping the
sabbath. While everybody is resting, the narrator lets the story rest as
well. Readers unfamiliar with the Jewish belief that the spirit does not
leave the body completely until after three days, are aware that with the
third day drawing near the story is building up to a dramatic climax.
Both readers and disciples have heard Jesus say that three days after
being killed he will rise again (8.31; 9.31; 10.34), and also that after his
resurrection he will again go ahead of the disciples in Galilee (14.28).
When the story continues after the sabbath—that is, after sunset—the
tension increases.23 It increases even further when the reader learns
what the three women are going to do. They are the women mentioned
in 15.40, but it is noteworthy that the second Mary is now identified as
the mother of James. That the women buy aromatic oils to go and
22. The translation 'amazement' (eKcxacxq) is far too euphoric, in my opinion.

See the combination pp\)xr|6|x6g evSov, x\X[i6q, EKOTCLGIC, <ru%vr| ('in the house
there followed a bellowing, a tearing of hair, and frequent outbursts of frenzy'),
cited in Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 198. The inclusion of 16.8 in the
series of places where, according to Fowler (Reader, p. 122 n. 70), amazement is
elicited in the story is therefore not correct. The difference is significant because if
the book ends in terror and panic, terror and panic are also the emotions with which
the reader responds to the ending of the story.
23. The considerable suspense created in this episode has been studied in par-
ticular by Magness, Sense and Absence. On pp. 15-85 he deals with the theory of
what he calls 'the suspended ending' and compares the episode with similar phe-
nomena in ancient texts and the Bible. On pp. 91-102 he treats the episode itself as
belonging to the genre of miracle stories. Against this background he interprets the
reaction of the women as adequate. That 16.1-8 is a miracle story is hardly defen-
sible, however. It is, moreover, at odds with the synecdoche-like functions Magness
attributes to the episode on pp. 114-17, to the effect that the empty tomb stands for
the resurrection, the announcement of the resurrection for the account of the resur-
rection, and fear, flight and silence for faith, following and proclamation. Fear,
flight and silence, however, are so obviously the opposites of the latter three that it
is impossible to interpret them as synecdoches.
anoint Jesus seems highly inappropriate for two reasons. The first rea-
son is that they act as if they still have to attend to a dead man,24 while
they should know that Jesus will rise on the third day. Of the second
reason the women are probably ignorant, but the reader vividly remem-
bers the generous gesture of the anonymous woman who, as Jesus him-
self said, had anointed his body beforehand for burial (14.3-9). Thus,
their visit to the tomb is an example of dramatic irony: they intend to
anoint a dead body which has already been anointed, and which, if Je-
sus' words have come true, is no longer dead.
The three women seem to be unaware that a completely new situa-
tion has arisen. This newness is brought home to the reader by the accu-
mulation of time indications in v. 2. The sabbath seems to be over in
more ways than one. For the original readers in Rome it was important
that not only the sabbath between Jesus' death and resurrection but also
the sabbath as a day of celebration and remembrance was over. In the
two opening sentences it is replaced literally, so to speak, by the first
day of the week. The rising of the sun in v. 2 makes today's readers—
as it probably did the Greek (xov i\kiov f](iepa) and Roman readers
(dies solis) in their time—think of the Sunday as the day on which
Jesus rose from the dead.
In the light of Jesus' repeated predictions the reader expects that after
the episode of the burial the story will conclude with the announcement
of the resurrection followed by a few words about Jesus preceding the
disciples in Galilee, so the obvious misperception of the women lends a
particular tension to the reading of the final part of the book.
16.3-4. On the way to the tomb the three women keep worrying about
who will roll the stone away for them from the grave's entrance. The
reader wonders if it is really impossible for them to remove the stone
themselves. Or is their question meant to remind the audience that the
men who could have helped them are conspicuous by their absence?25
24. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 294) thinks that the intention to anoint Jesus
is ambiguous. It could also suggest to the reader that the women are going to anoint
a risen Messiah-King. That is highly improbable, however. The verb dXei(|)co is
sometimes used to describe the anointing of priests (Exod. 40.15; Num. 3.3), but
usually refers to the perfuming of the body for cosmetic purposes. The verb used
for the anointment of a king is xpico, which occurs 61 times in the LXX and from
which also the title Xpxoxoq is derived.
25. This is suggested by Fowler, Reader, p. 245.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 495
The observation about the unusual size of the stone, which is clearly
added by the narrator as an explanatory note, comes at the very end
after the stone is gone. As it stands, the note comes a bit late to explain
the question of the women. I will have to return to this later. Is it possi-
ble that the two women who observed the burial in 15.46-47 see, per-
haps, how much manpower was needed to roll the stone into its place?
To this the reader receives no reply. However, the questions of the
reader and the question of the women are overtaken by the facts. In ret-
rospect it appears that the women had been worrying unnecessarily
about the size of the stone because it had already been rolled back. The
reader realizes that this is the first and, as will appear shortly, the only
time that the women say anything. If the reader experienced their pres-
ence on Golgotha as good and beneficial, their superfluous question
about the stone is now further evidence of their inadequate behaviour.
That the narrator does not comment on the size of the stone until after
it has been rolled away makes the reader wonder why he mentions it in
the first place. Does he expect the reader to imply that it was removed
by several persons who were stronger than the three women, or by
someone of extraordinary strength? Or perhaps by some people who
took away Jesus' body? If that is what happened, what was their
motive? Or was the stone perhaps removed by Jesus himself? In this
way the belated information about the stone increases the tension that
had somewhat lessened when the tomb appeared to be open.
76.5. On entering the burial chamber with the women the readers are
not disappointed in their hopes. Just as Peter, James, and John saw
Jesus in dazzling white clothes on the mountain in 9.2-3, so the three
women see a young man sitting on the right wearing a white robe.26
The 'sitting' posture seems to indicate that he has either completed
something or is waiting for something, and the reader thinks almost
26. Readers who think that he is an angel usually read Mark in the light of what
they remember from their reading of Matthew and Luke. See for the view that he is
an angel Williams, Other Followers, p. 195 n. 1, and the authors mentioned there.
Taylor (Mark, p. 606) cites Gos. Pet 9; 2 Mace. 3.26, 33; Josephus, Ant. 5.276-78
as evidence that in Mark, too, the messenger is an angel, but the details present in
these places from which it is clear that they are about heavenly figures are absent
from Mark. The same is true of Dan. 8.15-16; 9.12; 10.5, cited by Collins
(Beginning, p. 135 n. 52), who also understands the young man at the tomb to be an
angelic being.
immediately that the mysterious youth, who supposedly is endowed

with superhuman strength, must have rolled away the heavy stone. His
sitting 'on the right' is a good omen, but does not reveal his identity. Is
he perhaps Jesus come back to life, who has been waiting for the
women in order to reveal himself to them? Against this, however, is
that the whiteness of his clothes is far less dazzling than the white gar-
ments of the transfigured Jesus in 9.3. But if the young man is not
Jesus, who is he? Is there possibly a connection between him and the
young man who was the last one to follow Jesus in Gethsemane and
who made a fool of the arresting party when they tried to seize him? In
any event, the women are alarmed by his presence because they do not
expect to find a living person inside the tomb.
16.6-7. When the young man begins to speak, he refers to Jesus in the
third person. He does not use the term 'Son of Man', which Jesus has
so often used of himself in the story, but the term 'Jesus of Nazareth',
which occurs three times in the book.27 The young man is not Jesus,
then, but a messenger entrusted with a heavenly mission, as the reader
understands from the colour of his clothes.28 His announcement agrees
exactly with what the reader expects on the basis of Jesus' own predic-
tions (8.31; 9.31; 10.34): Jesus has been raised. It is noteworthy that the
verb used by the young man is different from that used by Jesus himself
as against dvioxruii).29 To this he adds two more things.
27. 1.24; 10.47; 14.67.

28. A message from heaven does not imply that the messenger is a heavenly
figure. The best example in Mark is the figure of Jesus himself. Waetjen (A Re-
ordering of Power, p. 242 n. 234) refers for the messenger's white robe to the gar-
ment in which the Pharaoh dresses Joseph in LXX Gen. 41.42. That is not white,
however.
29. The representation comes closer to that of 2 Mace. 7 than to that of Dan.
12.1-3, which speaks of a collective resurrection. Collins (Beginning, pp. 144-48)
sees Jesus' resurrection as a transformation and translation to heaven rather than as
a revival of Jesus. Thus, the seeing of Jesus would take the form of an appearance
of a more heavenly type, like the apocalyptic visions of heavenly beings. She refers
in this context to an earlier contribution, 'Narrative, History, and Gospel', Semeia
43 (1988), pp. 145-53, in which she characterizes Mark as an apocalyptic historical
monograph (see also Beginning, pp. 1-38). Her descriptions of Mark, for example,
'the good news that God has acted and is acting to fulfill the promises of scripture
and to inaugurate the new age' ('Narrative', p. 148), refer to an eschatological
content rather than to an apocalyptic form (which we do find in 9.2-3). For this rea-
son, I think that the term 'apocalyptic' is not a correct characterization of the genre
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 497
Pointing at the empty niche he characterizes the tomb as 'the place

where they laid him', robbing it of any meaning and relevance it might
still have. He then instructs the women to tell the disciples and Peter
that Jesus will be going ahead of them in Galilee, and that they will see
him there.30 The going ahead echoes 'the way' again, the theme that is
briefly indicated at the beginning of the story in 1.2-3 and subsequently
governs the central part of the book.
Jesus had already announced in 14.28 that he would go ahead of the
disciples in Galilee, but he had not spoken about them seeing him there.
The reader understands the two verbs 'go ahead' and 'see' to be con-
nected. Many readers and nearly all translators read the first part of the
message differently from the way it is translated above, namely, as 'he
is going ahead of you to or into Galilee' (jcpodyco ei<; xf^v TaXiXaiav).
They presume that eiq has the same meaning as in classical Greek but,
precisely in the period that Mark was written, the preposition ev (in)
began to fall into disuse while the preposition eiq (which originally
meant 'to' and 'into') was already being used for 'in' as well as 'to'.
The difference in meaning between 'to' and 'in' leads to entirely differ-
ent readings of this saying.31 'Go ahead to Galilee' necessarily implies
a once-only event, which ends with the arrival of the risen Jesus in
Galilee. The future 'seeing' of Jesus announced by the messenger
would then also refer to a single incident that is meant to take place
after the disciples have joined Jesus in Galilee. That could be either an
of Mark, and that 16.6 does not stand within an apocalyptic context. As for the rep-
resentation of the resurrection, it is better, I think, to speak of a blank in the story,
which the reader—if he or she feels the need for it—can fill in different ways. In
my opinion, the combination of the vv. 5, 6 and 7 evokes the image of a man who,
after the stone has been removed (by whom? by himself?), leaves the tomb to pro-
ceed to Galilee rather than the image of a translation to heaven. Similarly, some
passages from the other Gospels, such as Lk. 24.13-35; Jn 20.14-18; 21.19b-22,
presume the representation of an earthly pedestrian rather than of a heavenly being.
30. Fowler (Reader, pp. 246-47) points out that the text leaves open the ques-
tion of whether Peter is singled out for favourable or for unfavourable treatment,
and that it contains no indication that Judas is not included among the disciples. He
discusses Peter's many negative aspects at length and compares him in this respect
with Judas. He overlooks, however, that 14.72 makes mention of what the reader is
rightly inclined to understand as a conversion. That gives Fowler's considerations a
very speculative character.
31. I have argued this view in B. van Iersel, " T o Galilee" or "in Galilee" in
Mark 14,28 and 16,7?', ETL 58 (1982), pp. 365-70.
apparition of the resurrected Jesus to the eleven or the manifestation of

Jesus as the glorious Son of Man in their presence, as it is announced in
13.26 and 14.62, and perhaps in 9.1. Both cases concern a face-to-face
encounter of the disciples with Jesus. 'Go ahead in Galilee', on the
other hand, suggests a permanent situation, a stable relationship, like in
10.32 where Jesus is depicted as walking ahead of his disciples who
follow him. In that representation Jesus is seen as an inspiring guide
leading the way. This role of Jesus need not be confined to leading the
eleven, who in Galilee resume the journey recounted in the first part of
the book, and who may as yet understand what was incomprehensible
to them then, and speak about it freely and openly (9.9-10).32 The pos-
sibility of following Jesus is equally open to whoever wants to go the
way of Jesus in his or her own homeland.33 Then, too, seeing Jesus
means understanding Jesus and having one's eyes on him as on a fasci-
nating guide who leads the way. In so far as the metaphor evokes a
material representation it is the image of someone seeing Jesus from the
back rather than looking him in the face.
Which option is preferable? Both readings are grammatically possi-
ble. The author uses eiq as well as EV for 'in Galilee'. In 15.41 he says
that the women ministered to Jesus when he was ev xrj TaXiXaiq ('in
Galilee') but in 1.39 that Jesus r\X8ev Kt|pt>aocov eiq xaq a-uvaycoydq
a\)xcov eiq 6XK\V xi\v TaXiAmav, which all translations render as 'he
went proclaiming in their synagogues in all Galilee'. In choosing
between the two it is important to know whether the intended readers—
assuming they were Christians—knew about apparitions of Jesus and
whether they had heard that they had taken place in Galilee. That they
knew about appearances is highly probable.34 In 1 Cor. 15.3-5 Paul
32. Fowler (Reader, p. 248) is right when he says that the story does not answer
the question of whether the disciples will actually follow Jesus, and that the words
of the young man therefore present a challenge to the reader.
33. In addition, Fowler (Reader, pp. 248-49) takes Galilee as a metaphor, al-
though it is unclear to what it refers. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 298) sees
Galilee—in accordance with the function that she attributes to the parable of the
sower as the paradigm of the narrative of Mark—as the time of sowing. It seems to
me to be asking too much of the reader to interpret a spatial category as a temporal
one. Galilee reminds Waetjen (A Reordering of Power, pp. 245-46) primarily of the
neglected population in the province.
34. Marshall (Faith, p. 28) thinks that both the author and his readers knew of
appearances of Jesus, and derives from this that 6\|/ea0e in 16.7 also relates to ap-
pearances of the risen Jesus. The first is certainly probable, but one cannot infer the
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 499
quotes a doubtless very early and probably generally known confession

of faith, originating from Jerusalem or Damascus, which ends with the
words: 'and that he appeared to Cephas and the Twelve'. There is abso-
lutely no reason to think, however, that the tradition located this appear-
ance or those mentioned in 1 Cor. 15.6-8 in Galilee. If anywhere the
tradition probably thought of them as having taken place in Jerusalem.
For this reason it is not self-evident that at the mention of 'seeing Jesus
in Galilee' the Roman readers thought automatically of appearances of
Jesus. The choice for the one reading or the other is a difficult one to
make and largely depends on one's view of the book as a whole, so that
in either case the argument suffers from circularity. I will return to this
point after I have discussed v. 8 and when I come to consider again the
young man and his message.
The message the women are ordered to report to the disciples and
Peter concerns the restoration of the relationship between them and
Jesus. This does not surprise the reader who has followed the failure of
the disciples and of Peter in particular, because Jesus had already an-
nounced in 14.28 that he would go before them again after the resurrec-
tion. What does come as a surprise, however, is that Peter is the only
one mentioned by name. Is it simply because he heads the list of apos-
tles and functions regularly as their spokesman? It is possible to read
the separate mention of Peter in this way, but for the reader who real-
izes that Peter had distinguished and distanced himself from the other
disciples exactly in the context of Jesus' prediction that he would go
before them in Galilee (14.28), it seems that the following interpreta-
tion is much more probable. The separate mention of Peter, which
immediately summons to mind his denial and repentance recounted in
14.66-72, would communicate to readers concerned about their conduct
in the Roman persecution or a comparable situation that they need not
despair. Consequently, a surprising and joyful message is added to the
expected good news of Jesus' resurrection: human failure is never a
reason for Jesus—and for God, who sent him—to break off contact.
God and Jesus remain true, even if humans do not. This is clearly evi-
denced by Jesus' unfaltering loyalty to the disciples. He frequently
rebukes them for their incredulity, fear and lack of understanding but
never says or does anything that endangers the bond between him and
his followers. The words of v. 7 formally confirm and testify to Jesus'
second from the first, the more so since 6\|/OVTCXI in 13.26 and 6\|/ea0e in 14.62 are
about an entirely different way of seeing.
lasting commitment to them. In that sense the messenger's announce-

ment marks a turning point and offers a new perspective after the som-
breness of the passion.
16.8. The reader's joy and relief is short-lived, however, for the pan-
icky reaction of the women admits of no other conclusion than that the
story does not have the happy ending promised by v. 7. In the end the
women fail no less than the twelve, for they too take flight.35 The narra-
tor declares most emphatically that the women said nothing to any-
one,36 and then concludes with the explanation: 'for (yap) they were
afraid'. In that final sentence, which would be a strange ending of any
book but is entirely characteristic of our author,37 the reader recognizes
the fingerprint with which the author of Mark brings his text to an end.
On the face of it, the ending turns everything upside down. It is not just
an ordinary open ending but one that threatens to blow up the book,
leaving the reader as bewildered as the women.38 After this ending it is
35. Thus also Malbon, 'Fallible Followers', pp. 44-45, and Heil, Mark, pp. 346-
47. The opinion borrowed from Catchpole that terror and silence are a common fea-
ture of epiphany stories meets with two difficulties. First, the story is not an
epiphany story because neither God nor a risen Jesus manifests himself in this
episode. Secondly, the manifestations in Mark are followed by terror but not by
silence. See 4.41; 6.49; 9.5. Collins {Beginning, p. 136) understands the terror of
the women as a reaction to the numinous. There are two points to be made here.
First, this interpretation is only correct if the young man is an angel. Secondly, the
terror of the numinous is expressed in v. 5 rather than in v. 8, where the fright of
the women explains theirflightand silence.
36. Malbon ('Fallible Followers', p. 45) draws a connection between oi)8evi
oi)8ev elrcav ('they said nothing to anyone') and the injunction uiiSevi ur|§ev einr\q
('say nothing to anyone') in 1.44, and points out that what in both cases ought not
to have been said became known nevertheless. For the readers this is a tour de
force, for it is difficult to accept that 16.8 reminds them, just like the learned com-
mentator, of 1.44.
37. The number of ydp clauses, which express an attitude or feeling in the nar-
rative parts of the text, arefivein Matthew, 24 in Mark, and eight in Luke.
38. Fowler (Reader, pp. 122-23) notes that amazement and fear are the two
emotions most frequently invoked in Mark (19 and 12 times respectively) and
therefore also the emotions that the narrator hopes to elicit in the reader. He does
not draw attention to the fact that they occur together in the last sentence of the
Gospel.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 501
difficult for readers to close the book with an easy mind and resume
their normal lives. 39
The ending presents the reader with a number of questions that are
concerned with, among other things, the relationship between the nar-
rated world of the story and the real world outside the story to which
the reader must return after closing the book. One such question is: if
the women really did not say anything to anyone, how then did the
narrator or author know what happened at the tomb? What is at issue
here is the narrator's reliability or, in other words, his credibility in the
eyes of the readers. So far readers have taken the narrator at his word,
even when he related events he could not have witnessed, or revealed
the motives and feelings of his characters. It is possible that, even now,
they do not ask themselves how the narrator came to know these things.
For readers who do, however, the problem caused by the abrupt ending
resolves itself when they realize that the narrator himself has created it;
he could easily have omitted the last two sentences and let the book end
at 16.7. As a result the question becomes all the more intriguing why
the story ends like this.
But that is not all. What is even more at stake than the reliability of
the narrator is the reliability of the messenger in vv. 5-7 and of the one
who sent him. 40 The white robe stamps the young man as a bringer of
good news and as a messenger from heaven but, as is clear from his
reference to the promise made by Jesus in 14.28, he is also the messen-
ger of the risen Jesus, speaking explicitly in his name. As the story has
continually shown Jesus' predictions to come true, readers have every
reason to take the messenger at his word. They realize that the credibil-
ity of his announcement is not affected by the failure of the women to
transmit the message to the disciples and Peter. More important, they
39. The view of Magness (Sense and Absence, p. 100) and Heil (Mark, p. 349)
that the silence of the women need not be absolute seems to me to be in flat contra-
diction with v. 8c; besides, it arbitrarily removes the explosive character of the
ending, and thus neutralizes what Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, p. 296) calls 'the
rhetorical power of the epilogue'. See also Juel, A Master of Surprise, p. 116.
40. See Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, pp. 297-98, and my essay 'His Master's
Voice', which discusses this aspect in detail. Juel (A Master of Surprise, p. 115)
ends the enumeration of elements in Mark that justify a positive expectation of the
reader with, 'There is someone to tell the story, itself an indication that it did not
end with the fearful women'. Thus he halts on the threshold of identifying the
evangelist as bringer of the good news about or from Jesus with the young man of
16.5-6.
realize that by quoting the words of the messenger that the women fail
to pass on in the world of the story, the author/narrator actually conveys
the message to the readers outside the story. In this way he reserves for
himself, to the exclusion of all others, the part played by the messenger.
Consequently, the readers suspect that hiding behind the young man
and speaking with his voice is the author/narrator himself.41 For the
readers, the author/narrator has thus become the messenger of the good
news about Jesus. Not, of course, in an autobiographical sense, as if he
actually addressed the women at the tomb, but in a literary sense: in the
guise of the young man in white, the narrator makes himself known as
the messenger of the good news.42 Still, the reader is surprised by this
41. For a position that is comparable to the one proposed here but goes much
further see Malbon, 'Fallible Followers', p. 45: The narrator assumes that the
hearer/reader assumes that the women did tell the disciples about the resurrection,
because later someone told the narrator who now tells the hearer/reader!'
42. Davidsen (The Narrative Jesus, p. 178 n. 16) objects to my interpretation of
the ending, as put forward earlier in Reading Mark, pp. 207-209. He is of the opin-
ion that not the actantial identifications (messenger = Mark; the women = the read-
ers) but the temporal identification should determine the direction of the interpreta-
tion. If I understand him correctly, his objection rests on a misunderstanding. To
start with, my point was, and still is, not an identification but an equivalence, and
then not the equivalence between the women and the readers but that between the
disciples and the readers. Expressed in a formula:
[[young man : disciples]:: [narrator: readers]]

Next, the contradictory opposition is important as well: due to the failure of the
women the message of the young man does not reach the disciples, but in telling
the story the author/ narrator nevertheless delivers it to his readers. In a formula:
[[messenger --> women -//-> disciples] >-< [narrator --> story --> readers]]
That the author/ narrator communicates the message through a story whose subject
is the non-communication of the message is the height of dramatic irony. As regards
time, there is temporal identification between the disciples and the readers: after the
resurrection and before the 'seeing' of Jesus. Finally, Davidsen thinks that my pro-
posed identification of the voice of the narrator with that of the young man of 16.5
would require I5o\) einov vuiv instead of Ka9cb<; eljcev tiuiv in 16.7d. He thereby
makes the readers' reaction of surprise ('the bringer of the message is addressing
us!') refer back to an earlier explicit statement by the messenger/ narrator which is
lacking in Mark. That other version, however, would not contain the reference to
the saying of Jesus himself, with the result that the voice of the young man would
not be recognizable as 'his master's voice', as is now the case with KOLQQX; elnev
\)uiv, which refers to 14.28.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 503
unexpected reappearance of the narrator, who, apart from giving addi-

tional information now and then, had withdrawn behind the story after
speaking the opening lines of the book (1.1-3).
Once the reader has identified the voice of the young man as that of
the narrator, who at the empty tomb rounds off 'the beginning of the
good news of Jesus' (1.1), the question arises if his voice and figure are
also perceptible in characters figuring in previous episodes of the book.
Taking as my starting point the description of the young man in 16.5,1
observe that, apart from a number of references to the clothes of Je-
sus,43 the book seldom describes what characters wear. A character
whose clothing is explicitly mentioned appears on the first page of the
book, John, the precursor and messenger, who is dressed in the clothes
that in 2 Kgs 1.8 identify the prophet Elijah (1.6). On the last page the
reader finds, as John's counterpart, the young man at the tomb in his
white robe (16.5). The first messenger designates Jesus prospectively,
the last one does so both retrospectively and prospectively: he has
already risen and they will see him in Galilee.
Apart from these there are only two other places in the story where
reference is made to a male character's clothing. The reader still re-
members the young man in the orchard of Gethsemane, who ran away
naked leaving the linen cloth he had wrapped around himself in the
hands of his pursuers (14.51-52). Interpreters have offered some inter-
esting suggestions about his identity.44 Some see in him the author of
Mark, who shows himself in passing, in the same way that Alfred
Hitchcock does in his films.45 Others think that he represents a deserter
who has fled in fear of being seized in a situation of persecution.46
There have also been several attempts to connect him with the young
man at the tomb.47 The two youths are, after all, indicated by the term
43. Jesus' clothes are touched by those seeking healing in 5.27 and 6.56, and
become dazzling white in 9.3; they are replaced with a purple cloak in 15.17 and
put on him again in 15.20, to befinallydivided in 15.24.
44. See H. Fledderman, The Flight of a Naked Young Man (Mark 14:51-52)%
CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 412-18.
45. W.L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Intro-
duction, Exposition and Notes (NICNT, 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 527.
46. F. Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 55-64; Fledderman, The
Flight of a Naked Young Man', pp. 417-18.
47. One of the most fascinating interpretations is the one offered by Standaert
(L'Evangile selon Marc, pp. 496-626), who recognizes in the first young man the
veaviaKoq (young man), a term that occurs nowhere else in Mark. In

view of what I have said above, a new connection presents itself. Per-
haps the two story characters are identical, without 14.51-52 becoming
an autobiographical note about the narrator/author of the book. The
scene in the garden narrated in 14.51-52 would then be a literary self-
portrait in which the narrator portrays himself as one of the many who
have failed by running away at the moment of crisis. That the young
man who has run away naked at Gethsemane reappears at the tomb
dressed in a white robe to become the messenger of the resurrection
shows that his failure has been forgiven.
Once the reader has recognized the narrator in these two young men,
he or she is tempted to look at another place where the clothing of a
male character is mentioned, namely, the passage about the demoniac
who is freed from the power of Legion (5.1-20). It is in itself remark-
able that he plays a part in an episode in which the wilderness and the
tomb occur together. These are also the places where the beginning and
end of the book are set and in which, respectively, John, who is Elijah
returned to earth, and the messenger of the resurrection appear (1.3-13
and 15.42-16.8). Like the first and final episodes of the book, 5.1-20
is located in the wilderness outside the inhabited world where a man
with an unclean spirit must, of necessity, live among the graves (5.2-3).
After he is freed from what turns out to be a legion of demons, the
people who have come to watch see him sitting there quietly, dressed
and sane (5.15). The reader imagines that a man who sits in the wilder-
ness is likely to sit on a stone, like the messenger of 16.5. It is most
intriguing that, in spite of his request, the former demoniac is not
allowed to stay with Jesus but receives the express order, 'Go home to
your friends, and tell (drcdYyeiAov) them what the Lord has done for
you' (5.18-19). In this way he becomes a man with a message. With
this last detail everything seems to click into place. The young man of
14.51-52 and 16.5-7 is installed in 5.1-20 as the messenger whom the
women and the reader meet at the tomb in 16.5. The three passages
reveal indirectly and metaphorically the role of the narrator and thus
present a kind of portrait of the implied author of the book.
catechumen who on Easter Eve descends naked into the baptismal water, and in the
second the newly baptized Christian who has received the white baptismal robe.
This interpretation is linked with the supposition that Mark was written to be read
to the catechumens during the Easter Eve celebration. Since the latter is purely
speculative, this interesting possibility must also remain hypothetical.
16. Way without End (15.40-16.8) 505
Perhaps this is also the best moment to return to the question about
the meaning of 'he is going ahead of you to/into or in Galilee' in v. 7.
Does this promise refer to a future reunion between the disciples and
Jesus as a once-only event (to/into Galilee), or to a sort of restoration of
the former situation, in which Jesus will continue to act as a guide for
his followers (in Galilee)? To this we must add the question of the
meaning of 'seeing'. Is it a form of seeing that relates to appearances of
Jesus, to the parousia of the Son of Man, or perhaps to the understand-
ing of Jesus that the disciples had failed to attain before?
I prefer the reading 'going ahead in Galilee' for two reasons. The
simplest reason is that the phrase echoes the representation of 10.32
where Jesus is going ahead of the disciples in their presence.48 This is a
very different situation from that presumed by the first reading, accord-
ing to which Jesus is already on his way to Galilee, where the disciples,
travelling on their own, will meet him later. The second reason is that a
single meeting of Jesus with the disciples would exclude all readers, the
first Roman readers included, and that, by implication, the announce-
ment would not contain a message from the author/narrator for the
readers of the book.
This also has direct implications for the meaning of 'seeing'. The
story can hardly refer to the 'seeing' of Jesus at the parousia, because
by the time the book appeared Peter, who is mentioned by name among
those who will see Jesus, had already died, while the parousia had not
taken place. In addition, the seeing associated with an appearance of
Jesus hardly qualifies as a serious option because it would, just like the
going ahead 'to Galilee', have little relevance to the readers. Moreover,
in that case the closing sentences of the book about the complete silence
of the women would become intolerably absurd,49 inasmuch as the
48. The question arises whether my interpretation of eiq TakiXaiav in 16.7 as

'in Galilee' does not falter on the fact that eiq 'Iepoao^vjia in 10.32 can only mean
'to Jerusalem'. However, the difference between the two places is that in the nar-
rated situation of 16.7 Jesus and the disciples are not represented as being in each
other's company, whereas in 10.32 and the other places wherercpodycois used, they
are (10.32; 11.9). In the narrated situation of 14.28, too, they are in each other's
company, but there relations between them are strained and it is precisely the
restoration of a good relationship between himself and the disciples that is Jesus'
concern.
49. At least if one believes, as I do, that the reader can assign a set of consistent
meanings to the book. A Derridean deconstructionist, however, would regard the
silence of the women as the signal par excellence that the meaning of the story is
'beginning of the good news' (1.1-16.6) would at the same time mean
its end because of an untimely breakdown of the line of messengers.
For these reasons I read 'in Galilee' and understand vv. 6-7 as a
message from the author/narrator to his readers: now that Jesus has
risen and the place of his grave no longer matters, he will go ahead
wherever it is that people are willing to follow him.
Those who prefer the reading 'into/to Galilee', however, are in good
company. One of the first readers, the author of Matthew, has, after all,
chosen to read the text that way.50
The connections thus made are fascinating but cannot be attributed to
(the intentions of) the author.51 Ultimately, even the most competent
and privileged reader can do no more than point out to other readers
whatever connections he or she thinks may help open the text to new
readings. By so doing he or she establishes room for perspectives that
are overlooked, and contributes to the continuing dialogue between
those involved in assigning meaning to the text. Of course, an exegete
or literary critic cannot hide what they find fascinating in the text, but
they can never present it as a binding reading model for other readers.
Finally, I return for a moment to the women. In the last few lines of
the book they fail just like Jesus' male followers, albeit less grossly
than the twelve. Certainly if my assumption is correct that even the
messenger of the good news admits his guilt through 14.51-52, we can-
not but conclude that every follower of Jesus fails in the story but also
that any failure may be followed by repentance and repentance by for-
giveness. The failure of the women, then, is part of their human condi-
tion and, therefore, less surprising than if they had not failed.
endlessly deferred and that the signifiers of the book do not refer to an ultimate
signified but only to other and ever new signifiers. In that case a reader can do no
more than share the emotions of terror and panic felt by the women in the story (cf.
Fowler, Reader, pp. 122-23). On the other hand, the coherent whole of meanings
that I or any other reader attribute to the book can never claim to be a definitive but
only a provisional signified, which can, in fact, only be discussed in terms of new
signifiers.
50. See Mt. 28.7-20. By doing so Matthew changes the whole ending of his
book as well: he has the women transmit the message to the disciples and mentions
an appearance of Jesus in Galilee.
51. That is perhaps possible from a different frame of reference. See Danove,
The End, pp. 220-21.
AN ADDED EPILOGUE
The conclusion of my commentary will be much shorter than the intro-

duction. I need only explain why I ask the reader to stop reading after
16.8 and not to read the part that follows in almost all the translations.
Apart from this, I should indicate what the narrator of the story about
Jesus expects of the reader.
With this episode (16.1-8) the reader has read the last page of Mark. In
that sense the story is finished. There is nothing more to come—at
least, if the reader is not tempted to read the additions that are found,
with or without brackets and relativizing footnotes, in most editions of
the text. The most current addition is about one page long and usually
numbered 16.9-20. Two things are certain, however. First, almost no
expert considers this page as the original ending of Mark. It is absent
from the best and earliest manuscripts and is clearly a compilation of
the resurrection stories from the other three Gospels. Secondly, most
churches, if not all, acknowledge this page as 'canonical', that is, as
belonging to Holy Scriptures. If they had not done so, not one iota or
tittle would have been lost, for the stories about the different appear-
ances are told elsewhere in their sacred Scriptures. In recognizing 16.9-
20 as part of the canon, the churches have radically changed the charac-
ter of Mark as it is found in the most reliable copies. Therefore I advise
my readers to stop reading at 16.8.! If anyone wants to know what the
Scriptures have to tell us about the appearances of Jesus after the resur-
rection, they had better consult the three other evangelists. At least the
Gospels according to Matthew and Luke can be read both as a sequel to
Mark and as two of the oldest interpretations of it.
The alternative to disregarding 6.9-20, however, is not to close the
book and give one's thoughts to something else, for that would be to
disregard the signal contained in its open ending. A more appropriate
response is to think about the unanswered and disturbing questions
1. See also Juel, A Master of Surprise, pp. 107-21.

raised by Mark's narrative and read it again. A reader who chooses this
alternative stays within the bounds of the text. The other alternative is
to leave the confines of the text. It falls in with the view proposed here,
namely, that the author/narrator tells the readers by way of his story
what the women did not tell the disciples and Peter. Whoever looks
back on the story in this way can understand the message of 16.7, 'he is
going ahead of you in Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told
you', as being addressed to themselves. In other words, they are called
upon to respond to the message and join the long row of people who,
beginning with the twelve and a number of other followers on the side-
lines,2 have followed Jesus on his way. It is a colourful group of men
and women. Most of them failed once or regularly, such as the twelve
who deserted or even delivered Jesus, and the women who went to
Jesus' grave on the first day of the week. They may feel comforted and
encouraged because they know from personal experience or from their
reading of Mark that no failure is unforgivable and a new start possible.
To all of them, the figure of Jesus according to Mark presents a chal-
lenge to live their lives in accordance with God's will and join Jesus'
new family (3.6). By so doing they continue the story about Jesus' life,
death and resurrection.
2. See about this after Williams, Other Followers, now also Malbon, The
Major Importance of the Minor Characters in Mark'.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This list does not claim to be exhaustive, but is confined to publications I have
consulted and to my own preliminary studies. For a more complete bibliography I
refer to F. Neirynck et al, The Gospel of Mark: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-
1990 (BETL, 102; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), and to the additions in
R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), and P. Lamarche, Evangile de Marc (Ebib NS 33; Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1996).
Achtemeier, P.J., Mark (Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).

—'"And he Followed him": Miracles and Discipleship in Mark 10:46-52', Semeia 11
(1978), pp. 115-46.
—'Miracles and the Historical Jesus: A Study of Mark 9:14-29', CBQ 37 (1975), pp. 471-
91.
Agnew, F., 'Vocatio primorum discipulorum in traditione synoptica', VD 46 (1968), pp.
129-47.
Aland, K., Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2nd edn, 1975).
Almeida, Y., L'operativite semantique des recits-paraboles. Semiotique narrative et
textuelle: Hermeneutique du discours religieux (Bibliotheque des Cahiers de
l'lnstitut Linguistique de Louvain, 13; Paris: Cerf; Leuven: Peeters, 1978).
Anderson, J.C., 'Feminist Criticism: The Dancing Daughter', in Anderson and Moore
(eds.), Mark and Method, pp. 115-33.
Anderson, J.C., and S.D. Moore (eds.), Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical
Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Bailey, K.A., 'The Fall of Jerusalem and Mark's Account of the Cross', ExpTim 102
(1991), pp. 102-105.
Bar-Efrat, S., 'Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure and Biblical Narrative', VT
30 (1980), pp. 154-73.
Barnouin, M., 'Marie, mere de Jacques et de Jose', NTS 42 (1996), pp. 472-74.
Barton, S.C., 'Mark as Narrative: The Story of the Anointing Woman', ExpTim 102
(1991), pp. 230-34.
—Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (SNTSMS, 80; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1994).
Bauckham, R., 'Salome the Sister of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark', NovT 33
(1991), pp. 245-75.
—'The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier', CBQ 56
(1994), pp. 686-700.
Baudoz, J.F., Les miettes de la table: Etude synoptique et socio-religieuse de Mt 15,21-28
et de Me 7,24-30 (Ebib NS 27; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1995).
Bauer, W., 'Jtvcpav', WNT, col. 954.

—'Xpeia', W7V7, col. 1749.
— K(b\o<;\ WNT, col 1450.
Beasley-Murray, G.R., The Vision on the Mount: The Eschatological Discourse of Mark
13', ExAuditu 6 (1990), pp. 39-52.
—Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1993).
Beavis, M.A., 'The Trial Before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53-65): Reader Response and
Greco-Roman Readers', CBQ 49 (1987), pp. 581-96.
—Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11-12 (JSNTSup, 33;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).
Belo, F., Lecture materialiste de I'evangile de Marc: Recit—pratique—ideologic (Paris:
Cerf, 1974); ETA Materialist Reading of the Gospel of Mark (trans. MJ. O'Connell;
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1981).
Berg, T.F., 'Reading in/to Mark', Semeia 48 (1989), pp. 187-206.
Berger, K., Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im
Alien Testament, I (WMANT, 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972).
Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (SNTSMS, 2;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965).
—Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup, 4; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1981).
—Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983).
—'Mark's Readers: a Profile', in FGN, II, pp. 839-58.
Betlyon, J.W., 'Coinage', ABDy I, pp. 1076-89.
Betz, H.D., 'The Early Christian Miracle Stories: Observations on Form Critical Prob-
lems', Semeia 11 (1978), pp. 69-82.
Beyer, H.W., '(ftaachneco', TWNT, I, pp. 620-23.
Bietenhard, H., 'ovouu', TWNT, V, pp. 242-83.
Bishop, J., 'Parabole and Parrhesia in Mark', Int 40.1 (1986), pp. 39-52.
Black, C.C., 'An Oration at Olivet: Some Rhetorical Dimensions of Mark 13', in D.F.
Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artistry (JSNTSup, 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp.
66-92.
Black, D.A., 'The Text of Mark 6,20', NTS 34 (1988), pp. 141-45.
—Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1994).
Blass, F., A. Debrunner and R.W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn,
1962).
Blomberg, C.L., 'Interpreting the Parables of Jesus', CBQ 53 (1991), pp. 50-78.
Boismard, M.-E., 'Etude sur Me 1,32-34', in FGN, II, pp. 987-95.
Boobyer, G.H., 'Mark 11.10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic', HTR
47 (1954), pp. 115-20.
Boomershine, T.E., 'Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission', JBL 100 (1981), pp. 225-
39.
Boomershine, T.E., and G.L. Bartholomew, 'The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8', JBL
100 (1981), pp. 213-23.
Booth, R.P., Jesus and the Law of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7
(JSNTSup, 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986).
Bibliography 511
Boring, M.E., 'Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel', Semeia 52 (1990), pp. 43-
81.
Botha, P.J.J., 'O\)K eonv (&5e...: Mark's Stories of Jesus' Tomb and History', Neot 23
(1989), pp. 195-218.
Boucher, M., The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study (CBQMS, 6; Washington:
Catholic Biblical Association, 1976).
Bowersock, G.W., Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
Bowman, J.W., The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah
(Studia Postbiblica, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965).
Brandenburger, E., Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik (FRLANT, 134; Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
Brandon, S.G.F., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of
the Jewish Overthrow of A. D. 70 on Christianity (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1951; London: SPCK, 1978).
—The Date of the Markan Gospel', NTS 7 (1961), pp. 126-41.
—Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967).
Braun, H., Qumran und das Neue Testament, II (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966).
Breck, J., The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond (New
York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994).
Breech, E., 'Kingdom of God and the Parables of Jesus', Semeia 12 (1978), pp. 15-40.
Brett, L.F.X., 'Suggestions for an Analysis of Mark's Arrangement', in C.S. Mann (ed.),
Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27; Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 174-90.
Breytenbach, C , Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach Markus: Eine methodenkritische
Studie (ATANT, 71; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984).
—'The Gospel of Mark as Episodical Narrative: Reflections on the "Composition" of the
Second Gospel', Scriptura special issue 4 (1989), pp. 1-26.
—'Vormarkinische Logientradition', in FGN, II, pp. 725-49.
Broadhead, E.K., Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of
Mark (JSNTSup, 74; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
—Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function in Mark 14-16 (JSNTSup, 97;
Brown, R.E., The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary
on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL; 2 vols.; New York: Double-
day, 1993).
Brown, R.E. et al. (eds.), Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by
Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; New York:
Paulist Press, 1978).
Bryan, C , A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Settings
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Buchanan, G.W., 'Symbolic Money-changers in the Temple?', NTS 37 (1991), pp. 280-90.
Buchsel, H.M.F., 'yeved', TWNT, I, p. 660-61.
Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell; New York:
Harper & Row, 1963).
Burridge, R.A., What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
(SNTSMS, 70; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Calloud, J., Toward a Structural Analysis of the Gospel of Mark', Semeia 16 (1979), pp.
133-65.
Camery-Hoggatt, J., Irony in Mark's Gospel: Text and Subtext (SNTSMS, 72; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Cancik, H. (ed.), Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische
Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (WUNT, 33; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,
1984).
Cantrell, R.A., 'The Cursed Fig Tree', Bible Today 29 (1991), pp. 105-108.
Carrington, Ph., The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study of the Making of the Marcan
Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).
—According to Mark: A Running Commentary on the Oldest Gospel (Cambridge:
Casey, P.M., 'Culture and Historicity: The Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2.23-28)', NTS 34
(1988), pp. 1-23.
Chapman, D.W., The Orphan Gospel: Mark's Perspective on Jesus (Biblical Seminar, 16;
Charles, R.H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English
(repr., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).
Chatman, S., Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1978).
Chronis, H.L., 'The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-37', JBL 101 (1982),
pp. 97-114.
Clark, D.J., 'Criteria for Identifying Chiasm', LB 35 (1975), pp. 65-72.
Collins, A.Y., 'Narrative, History, and Gospel', Semeia 43 (1988), pp. 145-53.
—The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1992).
— T h e Eschatological Discourse of Mark 13', in FGN, II, pp. 1125-40.
— T h e Apocalyptic Rhetoric', BibRes 41 (1996), pp. 5-36.
Collins, J.J., 'Essenes', ABD, II, pp. 621-24.
Cook, J.G., 'In Defence of Ambiguity: Is There a Hidden Demon in Mark 1.29-31?', NTS
43 (1997), pp. 184-208.
Cotter, W.J., '"For It Was Not the Season for Figs"', CBQ 48 (1986), pp. 62-66.
Cranfield, C.E.B., The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959).
Crossan, J. D., 'A Form for Absence: The Markan Creation of Gospel', Semeia 12 (1978),
pp. 41-56.
—The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
Cunningham, P.J., Mark: The Good News Preached to the Romans (New York: Paulist
Press, 1995).
Cuvillier, E., Le concept de IIAPABOAH dans le Second Evangile (Ebib NS, 19; Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1993).
Dahm, C , Israel im Markusevangelium (Europaische Hochschulschriften Reihe, 23;
Theologie, 420; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991).
Dalman, G., Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, VI (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1939).
Danove, P.L., The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study (BIS, 3; Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1993).
Bibliography 513
—'The Characterization and Narrative Function of the Women at the Tomb (Mk 15,40-
41.47; 16,1-8)', Bib 11 (1996), pp. 375-97.
Dautzenberg, G., 'Elia im Markusevangelium', in FGN, II, pp. 1077-94.
Davidsen, O., The Narrative Jesus: A Semiotic Reading of Mark's Gospel (Aarhus: Aarhus
University Press, 1993).
Day, J., 'Dragon and Sea, God's Conflict with', ABD, II, pp. 228-32.
Deissmann, A., Licht vom Osten (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 4th edn, 1923).
Delorme, J., 'Intertextualities about Mark', in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical
Writings (Festschrift Bas van Iersel; Kampen: Kok, 1989), pp. 35-42.
—Au risque de la parole: Lire les evangiles (Paris: Du Seuil, 1991).
—'Parole, evangile et memoire (Marc 14,3-9)', in Marguerat and Zumstein (eds.), La
memoire et le temps, pp. 113-25.
—'Dualite, dissection, critique et signification', in FGN, II, pp. 1095-104.
—'Evangile et recit: La narration evangelique en Marc', NTS 43 (1997), pp. 367-84.
Derrett, J.D.M., "Hcav yap ataeiq (Mk i 16): Jesus's Fishermen and the Parable of the
Net', NovT 22 (1980), pp. 108-37.
—'Christ and the Power of Choice (Mark 3, 1-6)', Bib 65 (1984), pp. 153-74.
—The Making of Mark: The Scriptural Bases of the Earliest Gospel (2 vols.; Shipston on
Stour: Drinkwater, 1985).
—'No Stone upon Another: Leprosy and the Temple', JSNT 30 (1987), pp. 3-20.
Dewey, J., Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and The-
ology in Mark 2:1-3:6 (SBLDS, 48; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980).
Dewey, K., 'Peter's Curse and Cursed Peter (Mark 14:53-54, 66-72)', in W.H. Kelber
(ed.), The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1976), pp. 96-114.
Dieterle, C, 'Le jeu entre l'espace et le temps en Marc 4,1-34', in Marguerat and Zumstein
(eds.), La memoire et le temps, pp. 127-40.
Di Marco, A., 'Der Chiasmus in der Bibel', LB 36 (1975), pp. 21-97; 37 (1976), pp. 49-68;
39 (1976), pp. 37-85; 44 (1979), pp. 3-70.
Donahue, J.R., Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS,
10; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973).
—'A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark', JBL 101 (1982), pp. 563-94.
—The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Milwaukee: Marquette
—'The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel', in FGN, II, pp. 817-38.
—'Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel', CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 1-26.
Dormeyer, D., 'Die Kompositionsmetapher "Evangelium Jesu Christi, des Sohnes Gottes"
(Mk 1.1): Ihre theologische und literarische Aufgabe in der Jesus-Biographie des
Markus', NTS 33 (1987), pp. 452-68.
—'Die Familie Jesu und der Sohn der Maria im Markusevangelium (3,20f. 31-35; 6,3)', in
H. Frankemolle and K. Kertelge (eds.), Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus (Festschrift
J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), pp. 109-36.
—'Dialogue with the Text (Mk 33:20f. 31-35): Interactional Bible Interpretation',
Scriptura 33 (1990), pp. 55-64.
Dorrie, H., 'Die Solar-Theologie in der kaiserzeitlichen Antike', in I.H. Frohness and U.W.
Knorr (eds.), Kirchengeschichte als Missionsgeschichte (Munich: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag, 1974), pp. 283-92.
Dowd, S.E., Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22-25 in the Context
ofMarkan Theology (SBLDS, 105; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
Downing, G., 'Common Strands in Pagan, Jewish and Christian Eschatologies in the First
Century', TZ51 (1995), pp. 196-211.
Duff, P.B., 'The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King:
Mark's Account of Jesus' Entry into Jerusalem', JBL 111 (1992), pp. 55-71.
Dupont, J., 'L'aveugle de Jericho recouvre la vue et suit Jesus (Marc 10,46-52)', RAT 8
(1984), pp. 165-81; ET 'Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52)', TD 33 (1986), pp. 223-
28.
Earle, E.E., 'The Date and Provenance of Mark's Gospel', in FGN, II, pp. 801-15.
Eck, E.A. van, and A.G. Van Aarde, 'A Narratological Analysis of Mark 12:1-12: The Plot
of the Gospel of Mark in a Nutshell', HTS 45 (1989), pp. 778-800.
Edwards, J.R., 'Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Nar-
rative', NovT 31 (1989), pp. 193-216.
Elliger, K., Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi
(ATD, 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 7th edn, 1975).
Evans, C.A , 'Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?', CBQ 51
(1989), pp. 237-70.
Fay, G., 'Introduction to Incomprehension: The Literary Structure of Mark 4:1-34', CBQ
51 (1989), pp. 65-81.
Feldmeier, R., Die Krisis des Gottessohnes: Die Gethsemaneerzdhlung als Schlussel der
Markuspassion (WUNT, 2.21; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987).
Finkel, A., The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth: A Study of their Background, their
Halachic and Midrashic Teachings, the Similarities and Differences (AGSJU, 4;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974).
Fish, S., Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980).
Fitzpatrick, M., 'From Ritual Observance to Ethics: The Argument of Mark 7.1-23',
BibRes 35 (1987), pp 23-27.
Fledderman, H., The Flight of a Naked Young Man (Mark 14:51-52)', CBQ 41 (1979),
pp. 412-18.
Focant, C, 'La fonction narrative des doublets dans la section des pains', in FGN, II, pp.
1039-63.
Fowler, R.M., Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of
Mark (SBLDS, 54; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).
—'Who Is "the Reader" in Reader-Response Criticism?', Semeia 31 (1985), pp. 5-26.
—'The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark', Semeia 48 (1989),
pp. 115-35.
—Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark
—'Reader-Response Criticism: Figuring Mark's Reader', in Anderson and Moore (eds.),
Mark and Method, pp. 50-83.
Freyne, S., Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investi-
gations (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
Funk, R.W., 'The Form of the New Testament Healing Miracle Story', Semeia 12 (1978),
pp. 57-96.
Geddert, T.J., Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (JSNTSup, 26; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1989).
Bibliography 515
Giblin, C.H., The Beginning of the Ongoing Gospel (Mk 1,2-16,8)', in FGN, II, pp. 975-
85.
Gibson, J.B., The Rebuke of the Disciples in Mark 8.14-21', JSNT21 (1986), pp. 31-47.
—'Mark 8.12a: Why Does Jesus "Sigh Deeply"?', BT 38 (1987), pp. 122-25.
—'Jesus' Refusal to Produce a "Sign" (Mk 8.11-13)', JSNT 38 (1990), pp. 37-66.
Giesen, H., 'Damonenaustreibungen—Erweis der Nahe der Herrschaft Gottes: Zu Mk
1,21-28', TGegw 32 (1989), pp. 24-37.
Glancy, J.A., 'Unveiling Masculinity: The Construction of Gender in Mark 6:17-29',
Bifc//if2(1994),pp.34-50.
Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKKNT, 2.1-2; 2 vols.; Zurich: Benziger;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-79).
—Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Freiburg: Herder, 1994).
Goppelt, L., 'rcoxfipiov', TWNT, VI, pp. 148-60.
Goudoever, J. van, Biblical Calendars (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2nd edn, 1961).
Goulder, M. D., Those outside (MK 4:10-12)', NovT 33 (1991), pp. 289-302.
—'A Pauline in a Jacobine Church', in FGN, II, pp. 859-75.
Graham, S.L., 'Silent Voices: Women in the Gospel of Mark', Semeia 54 (1991-92), pp.
145-58.
Green, B., 'Jesus' Teaching on Divorce in the Gospel of Mark', JSNT 38 (1990), pp. 67-
75.
Greimas, A.J., and J. Courtes, Semiotique: Dictionnaire raisonne de la theorie du langage
(Paris: Hachette, 1979).
Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT, 2; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2nd edn, 1962).
—'5\)vaum', TWNT, II, pp. 286-318.
Guelich, R.A., Mark 1-8:26 (WBC, 34A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989).
Gundry, R.H., Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993).
Haacker, K., 'Kaisertribut und Gottesdienst—Eine Auslegung von Mk 12,13-17', TBe 17
(1986), pp. 85-92.
Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erkldrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonis-
chen Parallelen (Sammlung Topelmann, 2.6; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966).
Hahn, F. (ed.), Der Erzdhler des Evangeliums: Methodische Neuansdtze in der
Markusforschung (SBS, 118-19; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985).
Hamerton-Kelly, R.G., The Gospel and the Sacred: Poetics of Violence in Mark (Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
Hanhart, K., 'Son, Your Sins Are Forgiven, Mk 2,5', in FGN, II, pp. 999-1016.
Hartman, L., Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and
of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par. (trans. N. Tomkinson and J. Gray;
ConBNT, 1; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1966).
—'Das Markusevangelium, "fur die lectio solemnis im Gottesdienst abgefafit?'", in
H. Lichtenberger (ed.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion. III. Fru'hes Christentum
(Festschrift Martin Hengel; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996), pp. 147-71.
Head, P.M., 'A Text-critical Study of Mark 1.1 "The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ"', NTS 37 (1991), pp. 621-29.
Heil, J.P., 'Mark 14,1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader-Response', Bib 71 (1990), pp.
305-32.
—The Progressive Narrative Pattern of Mark 14,53-16,8', Bib 73 (1992), pp. 331-58.
—'Reader-Response and the Narrative Context of the Parables about Growing Seed in
Mark 4:1-34', CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 271-86.
—The Gospel of Mark as a Model for Action: A Reader-Response Commentary (New
York: Paulist Press, 1992).
Henderson, H., 'Gnomic Quatrains in the Synoptics: An Experiment in Genre Definition',
NTS 37 (1991), pp. 481-98.
Hengel, M., Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jiidischen Freiheitsbewegung in derZeit von
Herodes I bis 70 n. Chr. (AGSJU, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2nd edn, 1976).
—'Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums', in Cancik (ed.), Markus-
Philologie, pp. 1-45.
Hooker, M.D., Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-
Isaiah in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1959).
—The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term 'Son of Man' and its
Use in St Mark's Gospel (London: SPCK, 1967).
—The Gospel According to Saint Mark (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991).
Horbury, W., and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament
(Festschrift G.M. Styler; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
Hubner, H., Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition: Studien zur These einer pro-
gressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition
(Witten: Luther, 1973).
Humphrey, H.M., He Is Risen! A New Reading of Mark's Gospel (New York: Paulist
Press, 1992).
Hunzinger, C.H., 'aivam', TWNT, VIII, pp. 286-90.
Hurtado, L.W., Mark (NIBC, 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2nd edn, 1993).
Iersel, B.M.F. van, 'Der Sohn' in den synoptischen Jesusworten: Christusbezeichnung der
Gemeinde oder Selbstbezeichnung Jesu? (NovTSup, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2nd edn,
1964).
—'Fils de David et Fils de Dieu', in E. Massaux (ed.), La venue du Messie (RechBib, 6;
Paris: Desclee De Brouwer, 1962), pp. 113-32.
—'Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition', NovT 8
(1964), pp. 167-94.
—'La vocation de Levi (Me, II, 13-17, Mt., IX, 9-13, Lc, V, 27-32): Traditions et
redactions', in I. de la Potterie (ed.), De Jesus aux evangiles (Gembloux: Duculot;
Paris: Lethielleux, 1967), pp. 212-32.
—'The Gospel According to St. Mark: Written for a Persecuted Community?', NTT 34
(1980), pp. 15-36.
—"To Galilee" or "in Galilee" in Mark 14,28 and 16,7?', ETL 58 (1982), pp. 365-70.
—'De betekenis van Marcus vanuit zijn topografische structuur', TijdTheol 22 (1982), pp.
117-38; repr. in Markus Kommentar (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1993), pp. 272-300.
—'Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark', LB 53 (1983), pp. 45-54.
—'Les recits-paraboles et la fonction du secret pour les destinataires de Marc', SemBib 45
(1987), pp. 23-35; also in J. Delorme (ed.), Parole,figure,parabole (Lyon: Presses
Universitaires de Lyon, 1987), pp. 189-206.
—'Het geheim in Marcus nader bezien: De parabelverhalen en de functie van het geheim
voor de lezer', TijdTheol 21 (1987), pp. 335-55.
—'He will Baptize You with Holy Spirit (Mark 1,8): The Time Perspective of paTmaei',
in T. Baarda etal (eds.), Text and Testimony (Festschrift A.F.J. Klijn; Kampen: Kok,
1988), pp. 132-41.
Bibliography 517
—Marcus: Belichting van het Bijbelboek (Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting; Brugge:

Tabor, 1986); ET Reading Mark (trans. W.H. Bisscheroux; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark;
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989); Ital. trans. Legere Marco (trans. A. Torti;
Torino: Paoline, 1989); Ger. trans. Markus Kommentar (trans. A. Suhl; Diisseldorf:
Patmos, 1993).
—The Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of Connotations', Semeia 48 (1989), pp.
83-114.
—'Mark 9,43-48 in a Martyrological Perspective', in A.A.R. Bastiaensen et al. (eds.),
Fructus Centesimus (Festschrift G.J.M. Bartelink; Instrumenta Patristica, 19; Steen-
brugge: Sint-Pietersabdij; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989), pp. 333-41.
—'Jezus' dood een heilsgebeuren?', in J.P. Heering (ed.), Jezus' visie op zichzelf: In
discussie met de Jonge's Christologie (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1991), pp. 100-113.
—'De thuishaven van Marcus', TijdTheol 32 (1992), pp. 125-42.
—'KAI H0EAEN 11APEA0EIN AYTOYE: Another look at Mk 6,48d\ in FGN, II, pp.
1065-76.
—'Concentric Structures in Mark 2,1-3,6 and 3,7-4,1: A Case Study', in C. Focant (ed.),
The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (BETL, 110;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), pp. 521-30.
—'"His Master's Voice": De impliciete verteller in Marcus', TijdTheol 34 (1994), pp. 115-
28.
—'Concentric Structures in Mark 1:14-3:35 (4:1): With Some Observations on Method',
Biblnt 3 (1995), pp. 75-98.
—'The Sun, Moon, and Stars of Mark 13:24-25 in a Greco-Roman Reading', Bib 1 (1996),
pp. 84-92.
—'Failed Followers in Mark: Mark 13:12 as a Key for the Identification of the Intended
Readers', CBQ 58 (1996), pp. 244-63.
—'Bartimeo e i frequentatori del tempio di Gericho', in D. Mieth (ed.), Cammino e visione
(Festschrift Rosino Gibellini; Brescia: Editrice Queriniana, 1996), pp. 149-62.
Iersel, B.M.F. van, and A.J.M. Linmans, 'The Storm on the Lake: Mk IV 35-41 and Mt
VIII 18-27 in the light of Form Criticism, "Redaktionsgeschichte" and Structural
Analysis', in T. Baarda (ed.), Miscellanea Neotestamentica, II (NovTSup, 48;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), pp. 17-48.
Iersel, B.M.F. van, and J. Nuchelmans, 'De zoon van Timeus en de zoon van David:
Marcus 10, 46-52 gelezen door een grieks-romeinse bril', TijdTheol 35 (1995), pp.
107-24.
Iser, W., The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to
Beckett (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974).
Jackson, H.M., 'The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle from the Cross', NTS 33
(1987), pp. 16-37.
Jeremias, J., Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn,
1958).
—m(e)ia<;\ TWNT, II, p. 930-43.
Johnson, E.S., 'Is Mark 15.39 the Key to Mark's Christology?', JSNT 31 (1987), pp. 3-22.
Johnson, W.A., 'The Jews in Saint Mark's Gospel', RellntL 6 (1989), pp. 182-92.
Jones, D.L., 'Christianity and the Roman Cult', in ANRW, 2.23.2.
Juel, D.H., Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS, 31;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977).
—A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).

Kato, Z., Die Volkermission im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung (Europaische Hochschulschriften, 23.252; Bern: Peter Lang, 1986).
Kee, H.C., Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (NTL; London: SCM
Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977).
Keegan, T.J., 'Biblical Criticism and the Challenge of Postmodernism', Biblnt 3 (1995),
pp. 1-14.
Kelber, W.H., The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1974).
—'Mark and Oral Tradition', Semeia 16 (1980), pp. 7-55.
Kelber, W.H. (ed.), The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16 (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976).
—The Hour of the Son of Man and the Temptation of the Disciples (Mark 14:32-42)' in
Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark, pp. 41-60.
Kennedy, D., 'Roman Army', ABD, V, pp. 789-98.
Kermode, F., The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1979).
Kertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung (SANT, 23; Munich: Kosel, 1970).
Kiley, M., '"Lord, Save my Life" (Ps 116:4) as Generative Text for Jesus' Gethsemane
Prayer (Mark 14:36a)', CBQ 48 (1986), pp. 655-59.
Kingsbury, J.D., Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1981).
—The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).
Kio, S.H., 'A Prayer Framework in Mark 11', BT 37 (1986), pp. 323-28.
Kirschlager, W., 'Bartimaus: Paradigma einer Wundererzahlung (Mk 10,46-52 par.)', in
FGN, II, pp. 1105-23.
Klamer, W., 'Het verhaal van een exorcisme: Marcus 7,24-31', TijdTheol 30 (1990), pp.
117-45.
Klassen, W., 'Judas Iscariot', ABD, III, pp. 1091-92.
Koep, L., 'Antikes Kaisertum und Christusbekenntnis im Widerspruch' (1961), in R. Klein
(ed.), Das fruhe Christentum im romischen Staat (Wege der Forschung, 267;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971).
Kollmann, B., 'Jesu Schweigegebote an die Damonen', ZAW82 (1991), pp. 267-73.
Kortner, U.G.H., 'Markus der Mitarbeiter des Petrus', ZAW71 (1980), pp. 160-73.
Kruijf, Th.C, de, De brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen (Boxtel: Katholieke Bij-
belstichting, 1986).
Kiirzinger, J., 'Die Aussage des Papias von Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des
Markusevangeliums',#Z21 (1977), pp. 1245-64.
Kuthirakkattel, S., The Beginning of Jesus' Ministry According to Mark's Gospel (1,14-
3,6): A Redaction Critical Study (AnBib, 123; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute
Press, 1990).
Lachs, S.T., A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987).
Lagrange, M.J., Evangile selon Saint Marc (Ebib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 4th edn, 1947).
Lahurd, C.S., 'Reader Response to Ritual Elements in Mark 5:1-20', BTB 20 (1990), pp.
154-60.
Bibliography 519
—'Response to Mark McVann: Exactly what's Ritual about Hearing/Reading Mark's

Gospel?', Semeia 67 (1995), pp. 199-208.
Lamarche, P., Evangile de Marc (Ebib NS 33; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1996).
Lambrecht, J., Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Struk-
turuntersuchung (AnBib, 28; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1967).
—Marcus interpretator: Stijl en boodschap in Me. 3,20-4,34 (Paris: Desclee De Brouwer,
1969).
—The Relatives of Jesus in Mark', NovT 16 (1974), pp. 241-58.
Lampe, P., Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Unter-
suchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (WUNT, 2.18; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 2nd edn,
1988).
Lane, W.L., The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition and Notes (NICNT, 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
Lang, F.G., 'Kompositionsanalyse des Markusevangeliums', ZTK 74 (1977), pp. 1-24.
Latte, K., Romische Religionsgeschichte (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 5.4;
Munich: Beck, 1976).
Lee-Pollard, D.A., 'Powerlessness as Power: A Key Emphasis in the Gospel of Mark',
Way 32 (1992), pp. 23-32.
Legasse, S., Le proces de Jesus. II. La Passion dans les quatre evangiles (LD Com-
mentaires, 3; Paris: Cerf, 1995).
Lewis, T.J., 'Beelzebul', ABD, I, pp. 638-40.
Lincoln, A.T., The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7,8', JBL 108 (1989), pp. 283-300.
Lohfink, G., Die Himmelfahrt Jesu (SANT, 26; Munich: Kosel, 1971).
Lohr, C.H., 'Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew', CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 403-35.
Loisy, A., L'evangile de Marc (Paris: Nourry, 1912).
Lucking, S., Mimesis der Verachteten: Eine Studie zur Erzdhlweise von Mk 14,1-11 (SBS,
152; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993).
Luderitz, G., 'Rhetorik, Poetik, Kompositionstechnik im Markusevangelium', in Cancik
(ed.), Markus-Philologie, pp. 165-203.
Liihrmann, D., 'Markus 14.55-64: Christologie und Zerstorung des Tempels im Markus-
evangelium', NTS 27 (1980-81), pp. 457-74.
—Das Markusevangelium (HNT, 3; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987).
Lund, N.W., Chiasmus in the New Testament (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1942).
Maartens, P.J., 'Interpretation and Meaning in a Conflict Parable: A Study of Semiotic
Relations in Mark 2,18-22', LB 67 (1992), pp. 61-82.
Mack, B.L., A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988).
Magness, J.L., Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark's
Gospel (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).
Malbon, E.S., 'Mythic Structure and Meaning in Mark: Elements of a Levi-Straussian
Analysis', Semeia 16 (1979), pp, 97-132.
—'Galilee and Jerusalem: History and Literature in Marcan Interpretation', CBQ 44
(1982), pp. 242-55.
—'Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark', Semeia 28 (1983), pp. 29-
48.
—The Jesus of Mark and the Sea of Galilea', JBL 103 (1984), pp. 363-77.
—Tfi oiKia aircov: Mark 2:15 in Context', NTS 31 (1985), pp. 282-92.
—Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark (Biblical Seminar, 13; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1991).
—'The Major Importance of the Minor Characters in Mark', in E.S. Malbon and E.V.
McKnight (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (JSNTSup, 96;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 58-86.
Malina, B.J., The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels (London: Routledge, 1996).
Manek, J., 'Fishers of Men', NovTl (1957-58), pp. 138-41.
Manicardi, E., // cammino di Gesu nel Vangelo di Marco: Schema narrativo e tema
cristologico (AnBib, 96; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1981).
Mann, C.S., Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986).
Manson, T.W., The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1957).
Marcus, J., 'Mark 9,11-13: "As It Has Been Written'", ZNW 80 (1989), pp. 42-63.
—'Mark 14:61: "Are You the Messiah—Son-of-God?"', NovT 31 (1989), pp. 125-41.
—'The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark', JBL 111 (1992), pp. 441-62.
—The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of
Mark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993).
Marguerat, D., and J. Zumstein (eds.), La memoire et le temps (Festschrift P. Bonnard;
Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991).
Marrou, H.I., Histoire de Veducation dans Vantiquite (Paris: Du Seuil, 6th edn, 1965); ET
A History of Education in Antiquity (London: Sheed & Ward, 1956).
Marshall, CD., Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative (SNTSMS, 64; Cambridge:
Martin, R.P., Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1972).
Martitz, P.W. von, 'mo<;', TWNT, VIII, p. 336.
Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums
(FRLANT, 67; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1959); ET Mark the
Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (trans. J. Boyce et al.\
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969).
Masson, C , UEvangile de Marc et VEglise de Rome (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle,
1968).
Matera, F.J., The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15 (SBLDS, 66;
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982).
—What Are They Saying about Mark? (New York: Paulist Press, 1987).
—The Prologue as the Interpretative Key to Mark's Gospel', JSNT 34 (1988), pp. 3-20.
—'The Incomprehension of the Disciples and Peter's Confession (Mark 6,14-8,30)', Bib
70 (1989), pp. 153-72.
Maunder, C.J., 'A Sitz im Leben for Mark 14:9', ExpTim 99 (1987), pp. 78-80.
May, D.M., 'Leaving and Receiving: A Social-Scientific Exegesis of Mark 10:29-31', PRS
17 (1990), pp. 141-54.
—'Mark 2.1: The Home of Jesus or Levi?', NTS 39 (1993), pp. 147-49.
McVann, M., 'Reading Mark Ritually: Honor-Shame and the Ritual of Baptism', Semeia
67 (1995), pp. 179-89.
Meagher, J.C., Clumsy Construction in Mark's Gospel: A Critique of Form- and Redak-
tionsgeschichte (Toronto Studies in Theology, 3; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,
1979).
Mearns, C.L., 'Parables, Secrecy and Eschatology in Mark's Gospel', SJT 44 (1991), pp.
423-42.
Bibliography 521
Meier, J.P., 'The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective', CBQ 54 (1992),
pp. 1-28.
Mell, U., Die 'anderen' Winzer: Eine exegetische Studie zur Vollmacht Jesu Christi nach
Markus 11,27-12,34 (WUNT, 77; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994).
Mellon, J.C., Mark as Recovery Story: Alcoholism and the Rhetoric of Gospel Mystery
(Urbana-Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995).
Merklein, H., 'Die Heilung des Besessenen von Gerasa (Mk 5,1-20): Ein Fallbeispiel fur
die Tiefenpsychologische Deutung E. Drewermanns und die historisch-kritische
Exegese', in FGN, II, pp. 1017-37.
Metzger, B.M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United
Bible Societies, 1971).
Michaelis, W.D., 'teuicoq', TWNT, IV, pp. 247-56.
Michel, O., 'KWOV', TWNT, III, pp. 1100-103.
— n&koq\ TWNT, VI, pp. 559-61 cf. p. 363.
Milavec, A., 'The Identity of "The Son" and "The Others": Mark's Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen Reconsidered', BTB 20 (1990), pp. 30-37.
Miller, D., and P. Miller, The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Tes-
tament Literature (SBEC, 21; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).
Miller, M.S., and J.L. Miller, Encyclopedia of Bible Life (London: A. & C. Black, 1952).
Miller, R.D., 'Judas 6-9', ABD, III, p. 1090.
Minette de Tillesse, G., 'Structure theologique de Marc', in FGN, II, pp. 905-33.
Monshouwer, D., Markus en de Torah: Een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen het evangelie
en de synagogale lezingen in de eerste eeuw (Kampen: Kok, 1987).
Moore, S.D., Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989).
—Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1992).
Morgenthaler, R., Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zurich: Gotthelf, 2nd
edn, 1973).
Motyer, S., 'The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost?', NTS 33 (1987), pp. 155-57.
Moule, C.F.D., An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1960).
Moulton, J.H., and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder
& Stoughton, 1957).
Mttller, M., The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOTSup, 206;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Munro, W., 'Women Disciples in Mark?', CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 225-41.
Myers, C, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Mary-
knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2nd edn, 1990).
Neirynck, F., Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (BETL,
31; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2nd edn, 1988).
—'KAI EAETON en Me 6,14', ETL 65 (1989), pp. 110-18.
Neirynck, F., and F. Van Segbroek, New Testament Vocabulary: A Companion Volume to
the Concordance (BETL, 65; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984).
Nestle, E., and K. Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel-
gesellschaft, 26th edn, 1979).
Neufeld, V.H., The Earliest Christian Confessions (NTTS, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963).
Neusner, J., 'Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah's Explanation', NTS 35

(1990), pp. 287-90.
Nilsson, M.P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion (Handbuch der Altertumswissen-
schaft, 5.2.2; Munich: Beck, 4th edn, 1988).
O'Collins, G.G., 'The Fearful Silence of the Three Women (Mark 16,8c)', Greg 69 (1988),
pp. 489-503.
—'Crucifixion', ABD, I, pp. 1207-210.
Ohler, M., 'Die Verklarung (Mk 9:1-8): Die Ankunft der Gottesherrschaft auf der Erde',
M?v7 38(1996),pp. 197-217.
Osiek, C, 'The Family in Early Christianity', CBQ 58 (1996), pp. 1-24.
Painter, J., Mark's Gospel (New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1997).
Parunak, H. van Dyke, 'Transitional Techniques in the Bible', JBL 102 (1983), pp. 525-48.
Perrin, N., 'The High Priest's Question and Jesus' Answer (Mark 14:61-62)', in Kelber
(ed.), The Passion in Mark, pp. 80-95.
Pesch, R., Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (KBANT; Dusseldorf:
Patmos, 1968).
—'Berufung und Sendung, Nachfolge und Mission: Eine Studie zu Mk 1,16-20', ZKT91
(1969), pp. 9-18.
—Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77).
Pesch, R. (ed.), Das Markus-Evangelium (Wege der Forschung, 411; Darmstadt: Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979).
Petersen, N.R., '"Point of View" in Mark's Narrative', Semeia 12 (1978), pp. 97-122.
—'"Literarkritik": The New Literary Criticism and the Gospel According to Mark', in
FGN, II, pp. 935-48.
Pohier, J., Dieu Fractures (Paris: Du Seuil, 1985).
Quesnell, Q., The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark
6,52 (AnBib, 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1969).
Radcliffe, T., "The Coming of the Son of Man": Mark's Gospel and the Subversion of the
Apocalyptic Imagination', in B. Davies (ed.), Language, Meaning and God
(Festschrift Herbert McCabe; London: Chapman, 1987), pp. 167-89.
Raisanen, H., Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium (FEG, 26; Helsinki: Finnish
Exegetical Society, 1973).
—Das 'Messiasgeheimnis' im Markusevangelium: Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch (FEG,
28; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1976).
Reiser, M., Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der Hellenistischen Volks-
literatur (WUNT, 2.11; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1984).
Rengstorf, K.H., 'anocxoloc;, TWNT, I, pp. 414-46.
—'5c65£Ka', TWNT, II, pp. 321-22.
a', TWNT, II, pp. 623-31.
v, TWNT, VII, pp. 199-261.
Rhoads, D., 'Zealots', ABD, VI, VI, pp. 1043-54.
Rhoads, D., and D. Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
Robbins, V.K., Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1984).
—'The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-
rhetorical Analysis', in FGN, II, pp. 1161-83.
Bibliography 523
—New Boundaries in Old Territory: Form and Social Rhetoric in Mark (Emory Studies in
Early Christianty, 3; New York: Peter Lang, 1994).
—The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse (London: Routledge, 1996).
Rodgers, P., 'Mark 15:28', EvQ 61 (1989), pp. 81-84.
Rolland, P., 'Marc, lecteur de Pierre et de Paul', in FGN, II, pp. 775-78.
Ross, J.M., 'Another Look at Mk 8:26', NovT 29 (1987), pp. 97-99.
Roth, W.M., Hebrew Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark (Oak Park: Meyer-Stone, 1988).
Sariola, H., Markus und das Gesetz: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung (Annales
Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 56;
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990).
Saunderson, B., 'Gethsemane: The Missing Witness', Bib 70 (1989), pp. 224-33.
Schenk, W., 'Sekundare Jesuanisierungen von primaren Paulus-Aussagen bei Markus', in
FGN, II, pp. 877-904.
Schenke, L., Das Markusevangelium (Urban-Taschenbucher, 405; Stuttgart: W. Kohlham-
mer, 1988).
Schenker, A., 'Gleichnis eines gescheiterten Vergleichs? Mk 12,1-9 par', OBO 103 (1991),
pp. 263-71.
Schlosser, J., Le regne de Dieu dans les dits de Jesus, I (Ebib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1980).
—'La parole de Jesus sur la fin du temple', NTS 36 (1990), pp. 398-414.
Schottroff, L., 'Maria Magdalena und die Frauen am Grabe Jesu', EvT 42 (1982), pp. 3-25.
Schiirer, E., and G. Vermes, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3
vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87).
Schiirmann, H., Gottes Reich—Jesu Geschick: Jesus ureigener Tod im Licht seiner
Basileia-Verkundigung (Freiburg: Herder, 1983).
Schiissler Fiorenza, E., In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of
Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983).
Schwarz, G., 'Kai evQix; eicdtecev amovq (Markus 1,20a)', BN 48 (1989), pp. 19-20.
Schweizer, E., 'Markus, Begleiter des Petrus?', in FGN, II, pp. 751-73.
Scott, M.P., 'Chiastic Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of Mark's Gospel', BTB 15
(1985), pp. 17-26.
Seeley, D., Deconstructing the New Testament (BIS, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994).
Sellew, P., 'Composition of Didactic Scenes in Mark's Gospel', JBL 108 (1989), pp. 613-
34.
—'Oral and Written Sources in Mark 4.1-34', NTS 36 (1990), pp. 234-67.
Shiner, W.T., Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS, 145; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1995).
Skeat, T.C., 'A Note on 7c-oyM.fi in Mark 7:3', JTS 41 (1990), pp. 525-27.
Smit, J.A., 'Mark 7:8-9 in Counter-Determining Context', Neot 25 (1991), pp. 17-28.
Smith, C.W.F., 'Fishers of Men: Footnotes on a Gospel Figure', HTR 52 (1959), pp. 187-
203.
Smith, S.H., 'The Literary Structure of Mark 11:1-12:40', NovT3\ (1989), pp. 104-24.
—'Mark 3,1-6: Form, Redaction and Community Function', Bib 75 (1994), pp. 153-74.
—'Bethsaida via Gennesaret: The Enigma of the Sea-Crossing in Mark 6,45-53', Bib 11
(1996), pp. 349-74.
Sommer, U., Die Passionsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums: Uberlegungen zur Bedeu-
tung der Geschichte fur den Glauben (WUNT, 2.58; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1993).
Sordi, M., The Christians and the Roman Empire (London: Routledge, 1994).
Standaert, B.H.M.G.M., L'Evangile selon Marc: Composition et genre litteraire

(Zevenkerken-Brugge: St Andriesabdij, 1978).
Steinhauser, M.G., 'The Form of the Bartimaeus Narrative (Mark 10.46-52)', NTS 32
(1986), pp. 583-95.
Stenger, W., '"Die Grundlegung des Evangeliums von Jesus Christus": Zur komposi-
tionellen Strukturdes Markusevangeliums', LB 61 (1988), pp. 7-56.
Stock, A., Call to Discipleship: A Literary Study of Mark's Gospel (Good News Studies, 1;
Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982).
—The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989).
Strack, H.L., and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und
Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922-56).
Strijdom, J.M., and A.G. Van Aarde, 'Markus 16:1-8 in die Konteks van 'n Konstruksie
van die Markaanse Gemeente', HTS 46 (1990), pp. 153-89.
Suh, J.S., Discipleship and Community: Mark's Gospel in Sociological Perspective (Nexus
MS, 1; Claremont: School of Theology, 1991).
Suhl, A., Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markus-
evangelium (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965).
—'Die Funktion des Schwertstreichs bei der Gefangennahme Jesu', in FGN, I, pp. 296-
323.
Swartley, W.M., Israel's Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels: Story Shaping
Story (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Tannehill, R.C., 'The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology', Semeia 16 (1979), pp. 57-
95.
Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1957).
Telford, W.R., The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-critical Analysis of
the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark's Gospel and its Relation to the
Cleansing of the Temple Tradition (JSNTSup, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn,
1995).
—Mark (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
Telford, W.R. (ed.), The Interpretation of Mark (IRT, 7; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1985).
Thackeray, H.St.J., Josephus with an English Translation (7 vols.; LCL; London: Heine-
mann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957).
Thatcher, T., '(Re)Mark(s) on the Cross', Biblnt 4 (1996), pp. 346-61.
Theissen, G., The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic
Tradition (translation of Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien by L.M.
Maloney, with emendations by the author; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).
Thompson, M.R., The Role of Disbelief in Mark: A New Approach to the Second Gospel
(New York: Paulist Press, 1989).
Tolbert, M.A., Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective
Trummer, P., Die blutende Frau: Wunderheilung im Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder,
1991).
Tuckett, CM., 'Mark's Concerns in the Parables Chapter (Mark 4,1-34)', Bib 69 (1988),
pp. 1-26.
Tuckett, CM. (ed.), The Messianic Secret (IRT, 1; Philadelphia; Fortress Press; London:
SPCK, 1983)
Bibliography 525
Ulansey, D., 'The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic Inclusion JBL 110 (1991), pp. 123-
25.
Verheijden, J., 'Persecution and Eschatology (Mk 13,9-13)', in FGN, II, pp. 1141-59.
Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973).
—Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1983).
Via, D.O., Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament: A Structuralist Approach to
Hermeneutic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).
—The Ethics of Mark's Gospel: In the Middle of Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
Viviano, B.T., 'The High Priest's Servant's Ear: Mark 14:47', RB 96 (1989), pp. 71-80.
—'Rabbouni and Mark 9:5', RB 97 (1990), pp. 207-18.
Waetjen, H.C., A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel (Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).
Wagner, G., 'Le langage image de la venue du regne de Dieu: Etude de Marc 4,1-34', ETR
64 (1989), pp. 1-11.
Weeden, Th.J., Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).
—The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark 15:20b-41)', in Kelber (ed.), The Passion in
Afar*, pp. 115-34.
Weinreich, O., Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der
Griechen und Romer (RVV, 8.1; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1909).
Weinrich, H., Tempus, besprochene und erza'hlte Welt (Sprache und Literatur, 16;
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 3rd edn, 1977).
Welch, J.W. (ed.), Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg, 1981).
Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Romer, I (EKKNT, 6.1; Zurich: Benziger Verlag;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978).
Wilder, A.N., Jesus' Parables and the War of Myths: Essays on Imagination in the
Scripture (ed. J. Breech; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
Wilken, R.L., The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1984).
Williams, J.F., Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark's
Gospel (JSNTSup, 102; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
Wink, J., John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (SNTSMS, 7; Cambridge: Cambridge
Wire, A.C., 'The Structure of the Gospel Miracle Stories and their Tellers', Semeia 11
(1978), pp. 83-114.
Wlosok, A., 'Die Rechtsgrundlagen der Christenverfolgungen der ersten zwei Jahr-
hunderte' (1959), in R. Klein (ed.), Das fruhe Christentum im romischen Staat
(Wege der Forschung, 267; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971).
Wojciechowski, M., 'The Touching of the Leper (Mark 1,40-45) as a Historical and
Symbolic Act of Jesus', BZ 33 (1989), pp. 114-19.
Wrede, W., Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 3rd edn, 1963); The Messianic Secret (trans. J.C.G. Grieg; Cambridge:
James Clarke, 1971).
Wuellner, W.H., The Meaning of 'Fishers of Men' (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1967).
Wiilfing von Martiks, P., 'moq', TWNT, VIII, pp. 335-40.
Wynne, G.R., 'Mending their Nets', Expositor 7.8 (1909), pp. 282-85.
Zuntz, G., 'Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?', in Cancik (ed.), Markus-
Philologie,vp. 47-71.
Zwick, R., Montage im Markusevangelium: Studien zur narrativen Organisation der
dltesten Jesuserzahlung. (SBB, 18; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989).
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 41.45 319 23.20 93
1-2 319 49.11 352 24 294
1.1 317 50.26 293 24.8 426
1.27 59,317,318 24.10-11 294
2.24 59,317,318 Exodus 24.16 296
3.14-17 360 3.2 296 24.18 296
5.2 59 3.6 376,394 29 159
5.5 293 4.17 261 29.12 426
5.11 293 7.3 261 30.11-16 289
5.14 293 7.7-12 261 31.13 159
5.17 293 7.9 L X X 261 32.17 43
5.20 293 9.18 402 34.21 158
5.23 293 10.19 37 35.2 159
5.24 295 11-13 415 35.3 158
6.1-4 375 12.15 264 40.15 494
7.1 262 13-15 161
9.4-5 426 13.3-7 264 Leviticus
9.6 426 14.27 161 1-7 247
9.29 293 15.17 446 2.11 264
12 319 16.23-30 159 2.13 315
12.7-9 360 16.23 158,159 4.7 426
19.14 360 16.25 159 4.18 426
22.1-8 415 18.17-26 229 4.25 426
22.2 58, 101 18.25-26 164 4.30 426
24 319 18.25 229 4.34 426
25.7 293 20.7-7 247 7.26-27 245
26.12 180 20.12-16 59, 325 8.15 426
29 319 20.12 59 9.9 426
37.22 426 21 289 10.6 451
37.29 451 21.17 59, 247 11 239, 245
37.34 451 21.24 313 12.7 205
38 373, 374, 22.26-27 342 13 143
386 23.1 43 13.45 451
41.42 L X X 496 23.19 245 14 143
14.3-20 245 7.19 261 Judges

15 239, 243 8 102 1.6-7 313
15.25 205 11.3 261 9.8-13 357
17.4 426 12.24 426 11.35 451
17.11 426 12.16 426
17.13 426 12.21-25 245 1 Samuel
17.14 426 12.23 426 2.24 43
19.3 159 13.1-6 453 2.34 261
19.18 59, 379 13.2-3 403 9.2 324
19.26 245 13.7-12 453 11.2 313
19.30 159 14.21 245 15.22 43,380
20.9 59, 247 15.23 426 15.28 324
20.25-26 239 16.3-4 264 17.43 250
23 159 18.9-22 453 21 158
23.3 159 18.20 361 24.15 250
23.38 159 18.22 452, 454 25.15 324
24.5-9 159 19.10 426 29.6 324
24.10-23 451 19.21 313 29.9 324
24.17-21 313 21.7 426 29.10 324
26.2 159 23.10-15 243
23.24-25 158 2 Samuel
Numbers 24.1-4 317 2.4 352
3.3 494 25.5-10 373 7 101,382
5.1-14 243 25.6 373 450, 459
11.13 256 25.31 426 7.1-13 158
15.32-36 158 26.8 261 8.8 37
15.38-39 235 28.49 256 9.8 250
18.19 315 29.2 261 12 221
23-24 360 29.21 256 13.30 43
27.17 59, 225 34.5 295 15.24-36 158
29.7 54 34.7 293 16.9 250
34.3 37 34.11 261 19.12 158
34.6 37 20.23-26 158
34.11 37 Joshua 22.45 43
34.12 37 3.16 37 23.23 43
35.33 426 5 96
7.6 451 1 Kings
Deuteronomy 9.6 256 2.1-14 65
3.1-2 261 9.9 256 2.28 43
4.32 402 12.3 37 3.1 37
4.34 261 12.7 37 3.16-28 229
4.35 59, 380 13.27 37 7-2 Kgs 13 62
5.6-21 247 18.19 37 7.23-44 37
5.14 159 19.46 37 8.41 256
5.16-20 59, 325 22.5 59, 379 10.7 43
5.16 59 22.5 L X X 59 11.30 357
6.4-5 59 24.29 293 13.18 296
6.4 379 > 16.31 221
17 386 13.20-21 65,298 21.7 LXX 471

17.2-6 65 16.3 314 21^3-14 LXX 472
17.17-24 65, 210,298 16.15 426 21.16 LXX 472
18 38 21.2 314 21.18 LXX 470
18.7-19.18 65 21.6 314 22 300,467,
18.11-13 221 21.16 426 474,475
18.21 65 24.4 426 22.2 59,475
18.32-38 38 22.8 62
19.1-18 102 1 Chronicles 22.19 59
19.2-9 221 11.19 426 22.21 250
19.2 300 18.8 38 23 228
19.6-7 82 22.8 426 26 284
19.7-8 65 28.3 426 30.23 LXX 475
19.19-21 63, 65, 128 31 284
19.20 132,133 2 Chronicles 34-37 284
19.21 133 2.16 37 37.12 LXX 447,489
21 65, 367 4.2-15 38 39.9 LXX 447
21.24 250 9.6 43 40-42 284
22.11 357 13.5 315 40.7-9 380
22.17 225 18.16 225 40.9 LXX 422,423
19.11 324 40.9-11 LXX 423
2 Kings 28.3 314 42.6 59
1.1-17 296 33.6 314 42.12 59
1.6-7 65 43.5 59
1.6 503 Nehemiah 44.24-27 195
1.8 58, 65, 66, 9.10 261 48.6 395
97, 503 10.32 158 50.8-13 380
2 96,98 13.15-22 158 51.18 380
2.1-18 295 59.6 195
2.6-18 65 Esther 68 284
2.11 94 5.3 222 68 LXX 469
2.12 476 68.4 LXX 475
2.13 62 Job 68.21 469
4.8-37 65 2.4 289,290 68.21 LXX 476
4.18-37 210, 298 4.9 479 69 300
4.42-44 65, 227, 229 10.13 329 69.31-32 380
5 96 37.2 43 70 284
5.1-14 65 42.2 329 77.22 105
5.10 296 42.5 43 77.43 LXX 261
6.19 130 78.3 LXX 426
6.32-33 65, 296 Psalms 78.10 LXX 426
7.3-16 62 1 382 78.65 195
9.18 296 2 382, 383, 79.12 62
9.30-37 65, 367 450,459 85 284
9.36 250 2.7 58, 101,103 88.14 62
10.3 324 4.12 191 89 382
10.8 296 21 284 92.1 LXX 491
13.14 476 21LXX 469,474-76 101.2 LXX 475
103.12 59 6.10 59 61 107

105.38 LXX 426 7 262 61.1 89
108 284 7.11-17 261 62.4 58
109 LXX 382, 383 7.11-12 261 66.7 395
110 459 8.18 357 66.24 59, 315
110.1 59 11.44 479
111.7 43 13.8 395 Jeremiah
114-118 428 13.10 59,261,405 1.10 359
116.1 LXX 475 19.2 396 2 100
117 284 20.1-6 357 4.16 256
117.1-4 LXX 324 21.3 395 4.19 43
117.22 368 24.6-7 360 5.21 59, 265
118 388 26.17 395 6.24 43, 395
118.22-23 59 27.8 98,479 7.6 426
118.22 368 29.1 240 7.11 59
118.25-26 59 29.5 240 7.20-28 247
118.25 354 29.8 240 7.20-23 380
119.105 188 29.13 239,240 7.31-33 314
132.15 LXX 256 30.27-28 98 8.13 357
134.9 261 34.4 59, 357,405 8.19 256
135.1 324 37.3 395 8.21 395
148.1 59 40 89, 94, 107, 10.22 43
395 13.21 395
Proverbs 40.3 59,81,95, 15.2 98
1.16 426 201 15.3 250
6.17 426 40.9-11 89, 395 15.6-17 98
13.2 324 41.15-16 98 16.2 357
13.22 324 42.1 58, 101 16.16 130
14.14 324 45.21 59, 380 17.15-16 410
14.19 324 47.15 98 17.21-22 158
14.22 324 49.1 256 18.16 62
18.22 324 49.26 425 18.17 98
21.3 380 50 284 19.1-15 314
27.18 357 52 107 22.22 98
52.7 43,89 22.23 395
Ecclesiastes 52.13-53.12 300, 308, 23.8 252
14.21 161 471 23.10 360
53 284 24.1-10 357
Isaiah 53.1 43 25.22 252
1.2 58 53.7 447,460 29.4 252
1.10-20 247, 380 53.12 440 29.14 43
3.5-6 396 53.12 LXX 440 29.17 357
5.1-7 364 55.8-9 286 30.6 395
5.1 368 56.4 159 30.23 43
5.7 364, 368 56.6 159 32.35 314
5.24 98 56.7 59, 357, 360 33.2 426
5.30 474 57.6 426 33.18 43
6.9-10 59,182,265 58.13 158 34.3 252
39.20-21 LXX 261 32.7-8 474 Joel

44.5 43 33.1-9 426 2.2-3 315
49.14 43 33.11 283 2.2 402,474
49.24 395 33.33 452 2.10 261
50.43 395 34.5 225 3.3-4 261
51.2 98 34.23 225 3.4 252
43.24 315 3.9-21 190
Lamentations 44.24 159 3.13 190
1.12 61,62 47^8 37 3.19 426
1.14 61 47.9-10 130
1.21 61 47.10 131 Amos
2.1 61 1-2 360
2.15 61,62 Daniel 4.2 130
2.19 61 2 401 5.18-20 474
2.22 61 3 401 5.21-25 380
3.5 61,62 4.9 191 5.21-24 247
3.22-26 61 4.18 191 8.9-10 474
3.30 61 6.23 105
3.53 61 7 284,406 Obadiah
4.13 426 7.9 294 1.1 43
4.18-19 61 7.13-14 59,291,406,
4.18 61 450 Jonah
7.13 59 1.6 195
Ezekiel 7.27 450
1-2 100 8.15-16 495 Micah
1.1-2.7 100 9 401 6.6-8 247, 380
1.1 58 9.12 495 7.2 396
1.4 100 9.27 400 7.6 396
3.16-21 426 10.5 495
11.23 389 11 401 Nahum
12.2 59 11.31 59,400 3.12 357
12.21-25 410 12 401
16.38 426 12.1-3 496 Habakkuk
16.56 43 12.1 402 1.14-15 130
17.23 191 12.2-3 375 3.2 43
18.23 283 12.2 323, 373
18.32 283 12.11 59,400 Zephaniah
20.12-24 159 14 401 1.15 474
21.6-7 262 1.17 426
21.22 92 Hosea
22.3-27 426 1.2-9 357 Zechariah
22.8 159 3.1-5 357 9.2 LXX 252
22.26 159 4.13-14 380 9.9 353
23.38 159 6.6 247, 380 9.11-15 426
23.40 256 8.13 380 9.15 425
24.17 357 9.10 357 13.4 58,97
29.4 130 13.13 395 13.7 59,429
31.6 191
Malachi 2.10-3.12 472 43.19 315
1.6-14 380 2.10-24 284 43.24 43
2.14-16 319 2.10-20 63,300 44.16 295
3 97, 395 2.12-20 308 48.4-5 298
3.1-19 299 2.14 92 48.10 299
3.1 59, 93, 94, 2.16-20 284 48.13-14 298
296 2.16 475
3.2 94 2.17-20 472 Baruch
3.23 59, 395 2.18-19 475 2.11 261
4.5-6 94 2.18 423
4.5 299 3.4 323 1 Maccabees
4.6 94 5 474 1.37 426
5.1-23 472 2.8 92
2 Esdras 5.1-13 63 7.17 426
3.7 37 5.1 474
4.11 324 5.15 323 2 Maccabees
5.9 396 10.10 106 1.8 426
6.24 396 10.16 261 3.26 495
10.54 446 11.20 479 6-7 289
15.3 323 6 314
Tobit
6.18-7.42 40
6 374 Ecclesiasticus 6.18-30 245
8.7 318 4.1 59 7 245,314,
10.13 43 23.7 327 375, 398,
13.13 256 26.1 324 496
26.3 324 7.4 313
Judith 27.15 43 7.9 289, 323,
2.28 252 29.14 324 375
8.6 385,491 34.21-26 380 7.10 313
11.19 225 35.1-5 380 7.14 289, 323,
12.7 237 38.1-15 147 375
38.24-39.11 213 7.36 323
Wisdom of Solomon 41.14 327
1.9 43 42.1 43
N E W TESTAMENT
Matthew 8.11 107 12.28 107
1.11 181 10.5 197 12.35 324
3.11-12 315 10.7 107 12.41 196
3.12 98 10.28 425 13.30 330
4.3 35 10.37 291 13.33 107
5.3 107 10.38 291 13.36-42 131
5.6 107 11.11 107 13.47-50 131
5.10 107 11.12 107 14.1 219
5.27-30 314 11.19 152 14.21 229
5.33 107 11.21-22 252 15.21 252
5.45 324 11.26 434 15.38 229
15.39 259 11.3-13 504 L 14-^.34 156

16.18 165 1 .3 59, 81, 94, 1.14-4.1 113-16,119
17.24 290 95,317,353, 1.14-45 116,119
18.6 312 362 L. 14-20 129
21.2-7 353 11.4-15 380 1.14-15 65, 83, 84,
21.5 93 11.4-13 92 89, 90, 104,
21.31-32 152 1L.4-9 82,487 116,129,
21.34 330 11.4-5 95 137, 141,
21.41 330 11.4 81,93,102, 154, 156,
21.42 93 105, 146, 162, 188,
22.10 324 183,363 192, 234,
25.21 324 11.5 82, 96, 146, 352
25.23 324 162, 299, 1.14 74, 76, 77,
25.31-46 131 359, 399, 89, 105,106,
25.40 308 465,478 113,129,
25.45 308 L.6 58, 65, 66, 167, 180,
26.8 416 82, 97,485 219, 285,
26.39 434 1.7-8 97, 285 321,330,
26.51-54 439 1.7 171,485 397,450
26.59 439 1.8 361,362, 1.15 105, 106,
26.64 448 478,479 120, 129,
27.3-10 456 L.9-15 133 170, 174,
28.7-20 506 1.9-13 99,484 180, 183,
28.10 35 L.9 65, 76, 99, 215,217,
105, 169, 292, 321,
Mark 212 329, 354,
.1-16.6 506 L.10-11 261 359,410,
1.1-15 82,88 1.10 58,99,101, 450
1.1-3 503 103, 213, 1.16-8.21 84,110,176
1.1 22, 75, 88, 361,477, 1.16-4.1 112,127,
89,105,110, 478 346
276, 341, 1.11 25, 58, 88, 1.16-20 38, 62, 63,
383,410, 91,95,101, 65,114,116,
450,484, 276, 277, 117,120,
503 296, 297, 125, 127,
1.2-13 84,91 324, 341, 134, 141,
1.2-10 91 365,424, 151,191,
1.2-8 88 434,450, 201,208,
1.2-7 484 452,459, 215, 288,
1.2-6 395 475 307, 325,
1.2-3 22, 82, 239, 1.12-13 101,171 329,331,
240, 300, 1.12 81, 99,103 342, 389,
497 1.13 65, 81, 82, 417,420,
1.2 58, 59, 66, 170, 171, 487
71,92,93, 286, 324 1.16-18 72, 132
95, 97, 182, 1.14-10.52 76 1.16 22, 37, 38,
296, 362, 1.14-8.21 76,80 72,76,113,
430,440 1.14-6.13 84 128, 129,
131, 134, 1.27-28 136, 160, 164,219,

165,400 186, 200 224,414,
1.17-18 286 1.27 115,191, 433
1.17 72, 97, 128, 199, 213, 1.36-37 225
130, 131, 214, 226, 1.36 446
400 323,424 1.37 213
1.18 72, 128, 132, 1.28 43, 76, 97, 1.38-39 114,168,
152, 227, 114,139, 217
343 144, 219, 1.38-39 114,168,
1.19-20 72 234,415 217
1.19 72, 128,132, 1.29-45 61 1.38 114,174,
166, 340, 1.29-34 145 188
446 1.29-31 116,117, 1.39 113,134,
1.20 72, 97, 128, 137, 139, 137,172,
133, 137, 208, 253, 180, 212,
151, 166, 417,418, 219, 234,
227, 286, 486 249, 260,
343 1.29 113,152, 324,498
1.21-28 116,117, 162, 164, 1.40-52 65
134,212 166, 306- 1.40-45 142
1.21-27 172, 204 308, 389, 1.40-44 253
1.21-22 162 420 1.40-43 142
1.21 113,114, 1.30 60 1.40 160
133, 134, 1.31 116,117, 1.41-42 146
147, 160, 160, 208, 1.41 61, 143, 148
180, 188 217, 226, 217, 234,
1.22 115,120, 234,251, 251,253,
133, 143, 253,487 325, 356
191,213, 1.32-34 116,117, 1.42 116,226
234, 282 137, 139, 1.43 143, 144,
1.23-7.37 62 162, 168, 208,433
1.23-2.12 120 234, 260 1.44 144, 201,
1.23-34 214 1.32-33 234 280, 283,
1.23-28 133 1.32 160, 186, 298, 343,
1.23-27 304, 324 213,226, 500
1.23-26 135, 198 234, 249, 1.45 97,116,143
1.23-24 249 414 144, 160,
1.23 113,198, 1.33 146 164, 184,
204, 304 1.34 140, 144, 200, 213,
1.24 90, 163, 259, 146, 163, 218,219,
323, 341, 172, 260, 225, 226,
435,454, 283, 298, 234, 258,
459,496 324, 341, 305
1.25-26 146 383,454 2.1-3.6 116,119,
1.25 195,251, 1.35-39 116,117, 120, 156
283, 298, 140 2.1-12 115,117,
356 1.35 114, 141, 145, 226,
143,146, 243
2.1-2 145, 168, 2.12 160, 186, 2.25-26 158,425

186,213, 196, 200, 2.25 169
290 213,214, 2.26 236, 361,
2.1 113,134, 226 450
143, 152, 2.13-17 117,151 2.27-28 159
164,218, 2.13-14 151 2.28 118,201,
306, 308, 2.13 113,114, 284
446 134, 168, 2.37 337
2.2-12 260 174, 180, 2.39 61,62
2.2-4 151,234, 225,231, 3.1-6 61, 115, 117,
461 234,461 134, 139,
2.2-3 168, 191 2.14-15 133,134 160, 204,
2.2 168, 180, 2.14 38,63,115, 206, 253,
184, 188, 128, 152, 260
225, 234, 166, 167, 3.1-5 280
305 191,204, 3.1-4 306
2.3-12 253, 280 286, 288, 3.1-2 160
2.3-5 196 325, 329, 3.1 113, 134,
2.3-4 146 340, 342, 204
2.3 252 343,487 3.2-6 237
2.4 160 2.15-16 452 3.2 114, 118,
2.5 116,146, 2.15 114,115, 162, 186,
147,251, 151-53, 164, 262
303, 327, 327,487 3.3-15 164
435 2.16-17 153 3.3-5 160
2.6-9 115 2.16 115,152, 3.4 169, 285,
2.6-7 147, 262, 153, 155, 484
452 169,262 3.5-37 74
2.6 153, 169, 2.17 154, 188, 3.5 161,217,
186 331,337, 226,251,
2.7 116,118, 463 253, 265,
285, 323, 2.18-22 54,117,154, 266, 325,
324,361, 236,452 356, 433
445,451 2.18 115,155, 3.6 25, 34, 74,
2.8-9 148 169, 223, 115,118,
2.8 148, 206, 262, 323 124, 162,
306, 323 2.19 155 167, 172,
2.9 251,323 2.20 118,155, 212,223,
2.10 115,116, 285,400 266, 285,
118,148, 2.21-22 119,156 317,347,
149, 159, 2.23-3.6 54, 452 355, 358,
183,251, 2.23-28 61, 117,157, 370,415,
284,406 236 430, 437,
2.11-12 150 2.23-24 114,237 508
2.11 217,251, 2.23 34,114 3.7-8.21 74
343, 356 2.24 115,262, 3.7-4.1 116, 118,
2.12-13 186 323 119
3.7-19 113
536 Mark: AReader-Response Commentary
3.7-12 118,162, 3.13 114,164, 236, 260,
175, 219, 167, 231, 262, 299,
234 342 332, 355,
3.7-11 168 3.14-15 215,368 452
3.7-10 213, 225, 3.14 202, 215, 3.23-30 115, 116,
231,260 224 213
3.7-9 162 3.14.20 391 3.23-27 183
3.7-8 97, 137,152, 3.15 115,202, 3.23-26 170
186, 234, 217 3.23 111,170
258,316, 3.16-19 115,120, 3.24-27 406
415 389,456, 3.24-25 183,391
3.7 76,113,114, 487 3.25 173
119,134, 3.16 130, 165, 3.26 399
399 281,416, 3.27"' 171
3.8-12 114 435 3.28-30 172, 260
3.8 77,119,143, 3.17-18 166 3.28-29 451
252, 260, 3.17 90, 137, 138, 3.28 173, 378
316 166, 184, 3.29 172-74
3.9-12 70 209, 340, 3.30 173
3.9-10 305 400,420, 3.31-55 446
3.9 111,112, 424,468 3.31-41 173
114,120, 3.18 51,90,340, 3.31-35 72,118, 119
151, 162, 416,468 396, 397,
163, 175, 3.19 61,62,90, 488
194, 204, 105, 164, 3.31-32 181
304,461 167, 170, 3.31 115,170,
3.10-12 137, 160, 266, 285, 173,488
163, 234 306, 308, 3.32-4.2 168
3.10 205, 217, 397,418, 3.32-35 115,120
234, 235 419,421, 3.32 114, 174,
3.11-12 167, 172, 423 181,213,
283 3.20-30 118,168 214,461
3.11 136, 140, 3.20-21 72, 181 3.33-34 118,174
249, 260, 3.20 113,151, 3.33 71,323
276, 324, 152, 168, 3.34-35 119,181
341,410, 224, 234, 3.34 99,488
459,480 243,446, 3.35 118,174,
3.12 195, 298 461 361,450
3.13-4.41 61 3.21-35 212 4 111,113,
3.13-20 219 3.21 119, 143, 118,191
3.13-19 115,118, 169, 171, 4.1-20 78
119,125, 173,423, 4.1-2 112,188
134, 164, 488 4.1 70,111-13,
215,487 3.22-30 72, 236, 259, 118-20,143,
3.13-15 202 284, 324 151, 163,
3.13-14 153 3.22-27 338 164, 168,
3.22 76, 77, 120, 175, 194,
169, 172, 204,213,
225, 234, 245, 333, 188, 189,
305, 389, 369,424 192,321,
415,461 4.14-33 60 380
4.2-34 75,112,114, 4.14-20 176-78,183, 4.27-28 189
176 188, 192, 4.28 179
4.2-8 292 292 4.29 190
4.2 111,176-78, 4.14-15 84 4.30-32 177, 190,
304 4.14 184 292
4.3-32 74,111,112 4.15-20 111,143, 4.30 111,170,
4.3-9 178,188 185,424 176, 178,
4.3-8 108, 369, 4.15 184, 185, 184, 192,
424 286, 338 321,323,
4.3 111,143, 4.16-17 165 380
180, 297 4.16 184,185 4.31-32 178
4.4 179, 191 4.17 54, 166,185, 4.31 190
4.5-6 179 187, 330, 4.32 59, 66, 190
4.5 165 331,429 4.33-34 111,123,
4.7 179 4.18 184 176-78^ 191,
4.8 180 4.19 185,187 412
4.9 111,143, 4.20 184, 185, 4.33 177, 184,
177, 180, 187 231
187, 188, 4.21-5.43 186 4.34 125, 177,
297 4.21-4.24 176 215, 243,
4.10-25 219, 282 4.21-25 111,187 264,319
4.10-20 125 4.21-22 177 4.35-8.21 112-14,120,
4.10-13 111,122, 4.21 111,177, 123, 124,
177, 178, 178, 184, 126, 193,
181 188 346
4.10 111,176, 4.22-25 111,192 4.35-8.20 186
181,215, 4.22-23 178,188 4.35-8.2 112
224,319 4.22 177,188 4.35-5.1 193, 202,
4.11-25 191 4.23-24 111 279
4.11-13 176 4.23 143,177, 4.35-41 120-23, 125,
4.11-12 122, 183, 187, 188, 171
454 297 4.35-36 111,112
4.11 111,181, 4.24-25 177, 178, 4.35 112,120,
183, 191, 189 126, 163,
214,215, 4.24 143, 177, 194, 226,
321,450 187, 297 341,414
4.12-25 191 4.25-8.21 455 4.36 164, 194
4.12-13 183, 190 4.25 215 4.37-38 194, 232
4.12 59, 66, 143, 4.26-32 108, 177, 4.37 121,200
177, 182-84, 189 4.38-41 282, 433
240, 264, 4.26-30 450 4.38 194, 207,
265 4.26-29 177, 178, 435,475
4.13 68,111,113, 189, 292 4.39 123, 195,
177, 183, 4.26 111,170, 233,251,
184, 243, 176, 184, 356
4.40 113,120, 5.14-17 124, 200, 5.30-32 208, 234
122, 196, 234 5.30 214, 234,
232, 243, 5.14 196, 197 251,306,
265, 303, 5.15 226, 504 323
323, 333 5.17 122, 201 5.31 198, 204,
4.41 66, 196, 213, 5.18-21 279 206, 215,
220, 232, 5.18-20 121, 124, 243, 323
245, 265, 202 5.33-34 206
282, 323, 5.18-19 201, 504 5.33 163
383,424, 5.18 164, 202 5.34-43 70
500 5.19 343, 353 5.34 186, 234,
5.1-6.34 126 5.20 202, 226, 303, 329,
5.1-6.6 126 415 343,435
5.1-6.4 123 5.21-9.29 113 5.35-43 72,124
5.1-21 38 5.21-6.29 113 5.35 122, 207,
5.1-20 39,54,81, 5.21-43 65, 124,125, 304, 323,
112,124, 203,211, 432,477
125, 171, 226, 358, 5.36 186, 207,
186,251, 418,486 251, 329
252, 340, 5.21-34 260 5.37 166, 207,
504 5.21-31 461 294, 307,
5.1-13 324 5.21-24 72, 124 389,441
5.1 113,196 5.21 121,151, 5.38-40 208
5.2-20 197 164, 204, 5.38-39 298
5.2-5 82 214, 225, 5.38 152, 164
5.2-3 504 416 5.39 306, 323,
5.2 80, 198 5.22-34 121 477
5.3-5 198 5.22-24 70, 204 5.40-43 219
5.3 80 5.22 339,487 5.40-42 208
5.5-12 304 5.23 34, 160, 328, 5.41-42 328
5.5 80 329 5.41 184, 217,
5.6-8 198 5.24-37 231 251,253,
5.6-7 249 5.24 151, 152 304, 340,
5.6 204,488 5.25-43 253 356,400,
5.7 136, 276, 5.25-34 54, 72, 124 424,435
341,361, 5.25-28 205 5.42 222, 226,
410,435 5.25 205 304, 400
5.8 198,251 5.26 486 5.43 124, 201,
5.9-10 199 5.27-28 160 209, 280,
5.9 122, 204, 5.27 143, 163, 283, 298
323, 339 186, 235, 6 69
5.10 201 503 6.1-6 124, 125,
5.11-14 209 5.28-30 217 173, 212,
5.11-12 200 5.28 328, 329 214
5.12 201 5.29-34 122 6.1 134, 212,
5.13 200, 360 5.29-32 205 215
5.14-20 160 5.29 205, 226, 6.2-3 212,219
234
6.2 114,143, 6.15-16 220 225, 236,
323 6.15 65 250, 266,
6.3-4 122 6.16 143, 220 425
6.3 143,416, 6.17-29 38, 65,105, 6.35-38 282
419,424, 167, 264, 6.35-37 255
487,488 285 6.35-36 226
6.4-6 143, 214, 6.17-28 398 6.35 414
303 6.17-20 221 6.36 333
6.5 214, 253, 6.17 221,281, 6.37-38 226
497 374 6.37 227, 333,
6.6-13 61 6.18 221,317 371
6.6 304,497 6.19-21 326 6.38 228,257
6.7-34 124-26 6.20 143, 221, 6.39-41 228
6.7-31 230 383 6.39 229
6.7-30 310 6.21-43 254 6.41-44 426
6.7-13 72,119, 6.21-25 221 6.41-42 425
123-25, 134, 6.21 76 6.41 226, 253
202, 215, 6.24 323 6.43 228
219,311, 6.26-28 222 6.45-53 230
368 6.29 81,155,223, 6.45-52 120, 122,
6.7-11 38 490 123, 125
6.7 128,215, 6.30-8.21 54 6.45-51 164
217, 224, 6.30-34 124,125, 6.45-46 230
229,302, 224 6.45 126,231,
304, 352, 6.30-31 72, 224 259, 279
420,497 6.30 123,125, 6.46 164,433
6.8-11 216 164,173, 6.47-48 232
6.8 216 215,218 6.47 121, 226,
6.9-20 507 6.31-35 164 414
6.9-11 216 6.31-32 231 6.48-51 232
6.10 216,312 6.31 126,168, 6.48 121,414
6.11 312,331 224, 304, 6.49 243, 333,
6.12-13 125, 216, 305 500
400 6.32-35 231 6.50-51 113,232,
6.12 202 6.32-34 225, 279 433
6.13 173, 202, 6.32 121, 164, 6.50 394
215, 302, 231,279 6.51 123,251
304, 305 6.33-44 260,461 6.52 120, 122,
6.14-10.52 84 6.33 204, 234, 123, 126,
6.14-29 72, 124,125, 415 233, 243,
218,365 6.34-44 255 245, 247,
6.14-16 276 6.34 59,66,151, 333, 369
6.14-15 169,282, 228, 255, 6.53-7.37 126
361 265,325 6.53-57 124
6.14 143,219, 6.35-56 61 6.53-56 125
220,317, 6.35-44 65, 120, 122, 6.53 121,231,
374 123, 125, 233, 279
540 Mark: AReader-Response Commentary
6.54-56 233, 234, 7.12 241 255,279
260, 305, 7.13 241,247, 281
415 361,450 7.32-37 121
6.55-56 249 7.14-23 242 7.32 160, 252
6.55 143 7.14-17 461 253
6.56 328, 329, 7.14-15 242 7.33-35 253
503 7.14 143,151, 7.33-34 304
7 258 297 7.33 254,461
7.1-8.13 61 7.15 243, 244 7.34 184, 340
7.1-31 126 7.16 143, 297 356,400
7.1-23 39, 54, 122, 7.17-23 282 424
124-26, 237, 7.17-18 243 7.35-37 254
452 7.17 111,152, 7.36-37 160
7.1-13 235, 259 164,168, 7.36 126, 201
7.1-9 461 243, 319 280,283
7.1-5 262 7.18-23 244 298
7.1-2 237 7.18-19 244 7.37 208
7.1 76, 77, 236, 7.18 113,122, 8 69, 120
260, 299 245, 333 8.1-9 120, 123
7.2-5 237 7.19 54,122, 245, 125,250
7.2 56,184,332, 335,378 255, 266
424 7.20 244, 245 340,425
7.3-5 56 7.21-22 38, 247 8.1-8 65
7.3-4 400 7.23 281 8.1-6 461
7.3 34,76,141, 7.24-37 125 8.1 151,255
237, 238, 7.24-31 121,124 415
248,459, 7.24-30 236, 248, 8.2-3 255
465 252, 340, 8.2 265
7.5 169, 238, 418,486 8.3 78,488
323,452 7.24 113,126, 8.4-9 122
7.6-13 169, 238 164, 248, 8.4-5 256
7.6-8 239 252, 279, 8.4 164
7.6-7 430 281 8.5 264
7.6 58,238,240, 7.25-30 324 8.6-9 426
244, 317, 7.25-26 249 8.6-7 257
440 7.25 143, 160, 8.8-9 258
7.7-8 363 163 8.8 263
7.8-9 450 7.26 254 8.9-10 231
7.8 238, 240, 7.27-29 249 8.10-21 123, 125
361 7.27 54 8.10-13 259
7.9-13 241 7.28 341 8.10-11 259
7.9 238, 361 7.29-30 251 8.10 121,126
7.10 58, 59, 66, 7.29 305, 343, 164,231
247 356 278, 279
7.11 184, 261, 7.31-37 252, 280, 8.11-13 403
340,400, 281,305 8.11 262, 279
424 7.31 37-39,113, 302,452
7.12-13 241 129, 252, 472
8.12-13 262 276, 283, 8.33-34 271
8.12 149, 262, 298, 343 8.33 247, 286,
303, 323 8.27-10.45 74, 80, 84 297, 305,
8.13-22 164,279 8.27-38 270 361,407,
8.13-21 120 8.27-33 277,281, 435,436,
8.13 231,279 488 450,454
8.14-21 120, 122, 8.27-30 273, 274 8.34-9.13 273
262, 277, 8.27-28 282,300 8.34-9.1 274, 277,
280 8.27 78,79,81, 286
8.14 263, 333 105, 276, 8.34-39 273
8.15-21 282 281,316, 8.34-38 40, 54, 275,
8.15 264 323, 332, 330, 399,
8.16-18 265 333,459, 443,489
8.16 265, 267 488 8.34-37 287, 297,
8.17-21 113,120, 8.28 65, 169, 276, 326
122, 333, 361 8.34-35 307,334
369 8.29-9.29 273 8.34 97, 287, 288,
8.17-20 120, 123, 8.29-30 282 291, 292,
303 8.29 90, 276, 307, 307, 339,
8.17-18 143 323, 341, 461,468
8.17 266, 267, 383,459 8.35-38 307
323 8.30 298 8.35 217, 286,
8.18-21 69, 245 8.31-33 274,455, 290, 292,
8.18 59, 122,264, 470 329, 337,
265, 267, 8.31-32 283, 297, 471
297 429 8.36 61,62,286,
8.19-20 266 8.31 80, 90, 123, 292, 323,
8.21-26 79 272, 273, 426
8.21 120, 215, 276, 283, 8.37 289, 292,
266, 267, 284, 290, 323
454 297-99, 306, 8.38-9.1 299
8.22-10.52 272, 278 307,311, 8.38 41, 290, 292,
8.22-26 70, 80, 84, 332, 333, 295, 303,
113,123, 337, 347, 330, 333,
270, 273, 362, 369, 335, 337,
274, 278 376, 397, 398,406,
8.22-24 280 400,407, 409,410,
8.22 121, 160, 408,415, 449,450,
163, 231, 430,436, 456
252, 276, 449,458, 8.48 66
278, 279, 484,493, 9.1 108, 170,
341 496 188,275,
8.23-26 343 8.32-33 273, 285, 291-93, 306,
8.23 276, 289 358 321,380,
8.25-26 280 8.32 184, 274, 400,409,
8.25 276 306, 307, 427,450,
8.26 201, 208, 332, 333, 458
389,430 9.2-29 271
9.2-13 65, 273, 275, 9.14-29 273, 275, 276, 283,
277,310 301, 339 284, 287,
9.2-8 272-74, 276, 9.14-27 61,231,273, 311,333,
293, 335, 287,461 337, 347,
470 9.14-16 302 369, 376,
9.2-4 400,484 9.14-15 274 397,400,
9.2-3 294,495, 9.14 271,302, 407,408,
496 311 415,422,
9.2 78, 164, 166, 9.15 302 436,484,
271,282, 9.16-27 274 488,493,
292-94, 307, 9.16 323 496
310, 389 9.17-29 324 9.32 274, 333,
9.3 288,496, 9.17-22 386 389,430
503 9.17-18 160, 302 9.33-10.16 273
9.4 65, 295,492 9.17 207, 341, 9.33-51 73
9.5-6 296, 358 435 9.33-50 273
9.5 295, 307, 9.18 310, 324 9.33-42 321
311,341, 9.19 302-304, 9.33-37 39, 273-75,
389,435, 330,337 418
500 9.20-24 303 9.33-35 332
9.6 274, 295, 9.23 272, 302, 9.33-34 306,315
333,400 304 9.33 78,81,152,
9.7 71,143,272, 9.24 303 164, 323,
275, 276, 9.25-27 304 446
296, 308, 9.25 311,337, 9.34 78, 274, 321
324, 341, 356,435 9.35 224, 307,
365,410, 9.26 302,304, 336
434,448, 477 9.36-37 307,312
450,452, 9.27 304 9.36 321
475 9.28-29 39, 273, 274, 9.37-42 307
9.8 297 304 9.37 309,310,
9.9-13 273, 274, 9.28 78, 81, 152, 337
297 164,271, 9.38-50 274, 308,
9.9-10 298,498 282,319 309
9.9 78, 292, 294, 9.29 304 9.38-41 273
337,374 9.30-10.31 273 9.38-40 217,403
9.10 74, 274, 285, 9.30-50 270 9.38-39 310
302, 306, 9.30-37 305 9.38 166, 207,
374,448 9.30-32 274 309,321,
9.11-13 65, 395 9.30-31 281,327 341,435
9.11 59, 66, 298, 9.30 76, 78, 282, 9.39 309,310,
299 305,316, 321,337
9.12-13 299 332, 339 9.40 310,311
9.12 283, 300, 9.31-50 270 9.41 90, 275,
337,423, 9.31-32 306 309-11
440 9.31 61,62,80, 9.42-50 273
9.13 275,440 90, 105,123, 9.42-48 40, 330,423
272, 273, 429
9.42-47 40 10.10-12 39, 273, 274, 10.25 321,327,

9.42 275, 309, 319 380
310,312, 10.10 81, 152,164, 10.26-27 328
314,321, 271,282, 10.26 327, 407
360 321 10.27 272,361,
9.43-49 54 10.11 320 434, 450
9.43-48 275,313, 10.13-16 273, 274, 10.28-30 151,329,
407 320, 322, 399
9.43-47 334, 398, 418 10.28 311,389,
399 10.13-15 275 417
9.43 309,310, 10.13 321,333 10.29-30 137, 396,
323 10.14-15 321, 380, 397
9.45 309,310, 450 10.29 217,337
323 10.14 298, 321, 10.30 54,61,323,
9.47 170, 309, 337, 380, 400
310,321, 433 10.31 273,331,
323, 380, 10.15 321, 323, 336
450 327, 380 10.32-52 273
9.48 59,309,312, 10.16-17 265 10.32-45 270,331
315 10.16 321 10.32-40 274
9.49-50 315 10.17-31 273-75, 322 10.32-37 332
9.49 309,310, 10.17-30 38, 323,407 10.32-34 80, 123, 273,
315 10.17-22 186, 273, 283, 284,
9.50 309,310 380 287, 307,
10.1-31 271 10.17 78,207,271, 332, 333,
10.1-12 273,315 321-23, 327, 376,407,
10.1-9 273, 274, 341,435 436
287 10.18 323, 325, 10.32-33 489
10.1 78,151,271, 337, 361, 10.32 77-79, 152,
306,316, 450 224, 274,
332, 339, 10.19-20 59 332, 333,
399,461 10.19 58, 324 339, 343,
10.2-12 275 10.20-21 325 430, 433,
10.2 271,311, 10.20 207, 341, 498, 505
316,318 435 10.33-34 90, 272, 276,
10.3-4 317 10.21 327-30, 337, 311,333,
10.3 167, 169, 417,433 337, 348,
323 10.22 325-27, 400, 397,400,
10.5-9 317 433 415,437,
10.5-8 272 10.23-25 170,450 458, 488
10.5 169 10.23-24 380 10.33 34, 77, 105,
10.6-8 59,66 10.23 273, 321, 333, 347,
10.6 58,317,450 327, 380 352, 397,
10.7-8 318 10.24-25 327 422,430,
10.7 317 10.24 321, 328, 453
10.8 317,318 380,433, 10.34 369, 397,
10.9 318-20,361, 435 408, 452,
450
453,484, 10.51-52 343 11.12 414

493,496 10.51 435 11.13-14 356
10.35-45 39, 275, 322 10.52 78, 79, 277, 11.13 330, 400,
10.35-40 273,331 282, 303 414,488
10.35-37 150, 332 11.1-16.8 76 11.14 400, 478
10.35 137, 166, 11.1-15.47 84 11.15-21 388
207,251, 11.1-15.41 77 11.15-19 69
307,311, 11.1-15.39 84,110 11.15-18 72
335, 340, 11.1-13.37 391 11.15-16 357
341,420, 11.1-12.44 346,351 11.15 77,325
435,468 11.1-16 352 11.17-18 59,66
10.36 337 11.1-15 80 11.17 42,59,317,
10.37 311,470 11.1-11 346, 347, 357,381,
10.38-40 471 351,352, 430
10.38-39 489 392 11.18 151,346,
10.38 131,274, 11.1-10 469 357,361,
333,435 11.1-6 420 369, 372,
10.39-40 334 11.1 76-78, 339, 430,461
10.39 400 352, 359, 11.19-21 358
10.40 337 360,484 11.19 42, 45, 414
10.41-45 273, 274, 11.2-6 422,437 11.20-25 72,73
487 11.2-3 400,420 11.20-21 69
10.41-44 335 11.2 408 11.20 400, 478
10.41 166 11.4-6 400 11.21 389,435
10.45 188, 266, 11.6 365 11.22-25 359
276, 333, 11.7-8 353 11.22-24 475
336-38, 342, 11.7-7 108 11.22 303, 360,
418,425, 11.8-10 107 361,450
463 11.9-10 59, 66, 354 11.23 304, 360
10.46-13.37 74 11.9 76, 152, 162, 11.24 434
10.46-52 70, 79, 80, 188, 353, 11.25 375
84,231,270, 505 11.26 375
273, 274, 11.10 159, 188, 11.27-33 346, 347,
338,417, 321 359, 361
438,468, 11.11-27 416 11.27-28 361
487 11.11-26 347 11.27 58, 77, 346,
10.46-51 123 11.11-20 75 368,381,
10.46-48 107, 276 11.11-18 369 385
10.46 81,90,204, 11.11-12 414 11.28 169, 364,
282, 339, 11.11 77, 224, 226, 452
460,461, 354,357, 11.29-33 478
468,482 385,414, 11.29-30 362
10.47-48 159 446 11.29 169
10.47 90, 160, 341, 11.12-26 392 11.31-32 362
435,496 11.12-25 355 11.31 98
10.48-50 342 11.12-21 409 11.32 34, 365, 372
10.48 342 11.12-14 69, 72, 414 400,415
10.50-52 277 11.12-13 356 11.33 169,363
11.35 383 12.24-27 169, 374, 13.1-23 391

12.1-13 347 450 13.1-4 387
12.1-12 54, 66, 363, 12.25 298, 374, 13.1-2 46, 346, 387
388,410 375 13.1 207, 347,
12.1-11 347,424, 12.26 58, 59, 374, 358, 361,
448 430 435
12.1-9 65,68 12.28-40 347, 386 13.2 42,46,47,
12.1-2 78 12.28-34 377,490 445
12.1 111,364, 12.28 58, 298, 302, 13.3-14 389
368 347, 377, 13.3-4 346
12.2-5 365 379 13.3 112,164,
12.2 365 12.29-32 450 166, 175,
12.6 365 12.29-31 378 392,428
12.7-8 366 12.29-30 59,66 13.4-4 346
12.7 424 12.30 38 13.4 260,311,
12.8 430 12.31 58,59 393,411
12.9 352, 367 12.32-33 59, 66, 379 13.5-37 75, 346, 390
12.10-11 59, 66, 368, 12.32 207,435 13.5-23 392
369,446 12.33 317 13.5-13 399
12.10 58,169,317, 12.34 170, 298, 13.5-8 393
430 321, 380, 13.5-6 44,391,403
12.11 352,353 384 13.5 392, 393,
12.12 111,191, 12.35-37 42,159, 381, 412,455
347, 367-69, 450 13.6 45, 392, 394,
372,448, 12.35 38,71,90, 403
461 347, 381 13.7-20 404
12.13-17 51,370 12.36-37 382 13.7-10 392
12.13 347, 370, 12.36 58, 59, 66, 13.7-8 42,391,394
385 317,353 13.7 42,43,45,
12.14-27 347 12.37 151,372, 393, 399,
12.14-15 370 383,449, 408,411,
12.14 169, 207, 461 412
435 12.38-40 347, 383, 13.8 42,408,412
12.15-16 371 384 13.9-13 40,288,391,
12.15 169,371 12.38 384 395,443,
12.17 169, 372, 12.40 384 489
450 12.41-44 344, 346, 13.9-12 54
12.18-27 372,374 347,385, 13.9-11 39-41
12.18 127, 219, 417,418, 13.9-10 131,396
298, 347, 468 13.9 105, 393,
373 12.41-42 385 396, 398,
12.19-22 477 12.42 34,184,340, 408,412
12.19 58, 169, 207, 400, 424 13.10-11 217, 396,
317, 373, 12.43-44 385 398
435 12.44 381 13.10 188,398
12.20-27 384 13 38,40,42, 13.11-13 392
12.20-23 373 44,47,110- 13.11 40,45, 105,
12,483 172, 393,
546 Mark: A Reader~Response Commentary
396,412, 406,408, 438,445,

433, 447 409,427, 462
13.12-13 41,396,408 449,492, 14.2 415,461
13.12 24, 39, 52, 498,499 14.3-9 72, 344, 348
105,331, 13.27 131,290, 349,414,
396 391,404, 438, 486,
13.13 39,41,393, 406-408 494
396,403, 13.28-29 391,408, 14.3 90, 152, 164
407, 408, 409 177, 204,
412 13.28 45,111,393, 348,414,
13.14-20 392, 399, 411,412 416,446
404 13.29 45,393,411 14.4-5 416
13.14-17 43 13.30-33 408 14.5-6 54
13.14 45, 46, 59, 13.30-32 391,409 14.5 371
94,111,149, 13.30 412 14.6-8 417
392, 393, 13.31 61,397,409 14.6-7 461
399-402, 13.32 47,290,361, 14.8 437
408,412 402,408, 14.9 131,217,
13.15 393 410,421, 381,400,
13.16 393 450 408,418
13.18 47, 393,402, 13.33-37 39,391,411, 14.10-46 167
406,412 433,435, 14.10-11 72, 348-50,
13.19 402,450 455 414,418
13.20 61,62,353, 13.33-36 411 14.10 105, 224,
405 13.33 393,412, 419,421
13.21-23 391,403 433 14.11 105,421
13.21-22 44,47, 48, 13.34-37 408 14.12-16 164, 349,
392 13.34-36 411 350,419
13.21 45, 90, 393, 13.34 411 14.12 75, 265, 284
408,412 13.35-36 411,412 419,420
13.22 260,261, 13.35 352, 393, 14.13-16 422,437
400, 406 412,433 14.13-15 400, 408,
13.23 392, 393, 13.36 433 420
412 13.37 75, 111,392, 14.13 76, 152, 162
13.24-37 392 393,411, 344
13.24-36 406 412,416 14.14 152, 207,
13.24-32 299 14 47 224
13.24-27 404 14.1-16.8 74, 349 14.15 311,321
13.24-26 66, 261 14.1-16.7 400 14.16-17 187
13.24-25 59, 404, 405, 14.1-15.47 348 14.16 76, 400,420
409 14.1-15.39 346 14.17-31 429
13.24 48,408,474 14.1-15.13 53 14.17-25 421
13.25 315 14.1-11 413 14.17-21 350, 427
13.26-37 108 14.1-9 350 14.17-18 421
13.26-27 406 14.1-2 72, 348, 349, 14.17 224, 226,
13.26 59, 188, 292, 414,461 349, 400
391,404, 14.1 75,265,412, 14.18-26 349
420,430, 14.18-25 349
14.18-21 349,429, 14.32-42 350 14.54 152, 162,
437 14.32 349,431, 349, 350,
14.18-20 408 432 443,444,
14.18 105,421, 14.33-42 456 488,489
423 14.33-34 432 14.55-15.15 464
14.19-20 422 14.33 166 14.55-65 72, 348, 350
14.20 224,430 14.34 59,66 14.55-64 348
14.21 105, 283, 14.35-36 433 14.55-59 445
421,422, 14.36 283,361, 14.55 449
430,440, 434,435, 14.57-59 388
456 470,474 14.58 471
14.22-25 38, 264, 350, 14.37-38 435 14.60-61 447,453,
427,429 14.37 165,436 460
14.22-24 423 14.38 288 14.61-62 108, 150,
14.22 184,266 14.39-40 436 447,472
14.23 425, 429 14.41-42 436 14.61 90,459
14.24 184,266, 14.41 61,62,105, 14.62 59,66, 188,
338,435 433,434, 333,406,
14.25 170,408, 436 408, 448,
427,450 14.42 105,421, 449,451,
14.26-32 348 434 492,498,
14.26-31 350,428, 14.43-52 350 499
429 14.43-47 348 14.63-64 451
14.26 164,349, 14.43-46 437 14.63 448
428 14.43 224, 377, 14.64 118, 148,
14.27-31 290, 349, 419,428, 332,448,
408,437, 432 490
438 14.44-45 400 14.65 34,61,62,
14.27-30 408,455 14.44 105,421 332, 348,
14.27-29 429,444 14.45 435 452,453
14.27-28 429 14.47 437,443 14.66-72 72, 348-50,
14.27 58, 59, 66, 14.48-52 348 400,430,
317,400, 14.48-49 439 436,499
429,439, 14.48 377,438 14.66-71 453
440 14.49 381 14.66-67 443
14.28 36, 76, 90, 14.50-52 440 14.66 443
400,429, 14.50 287,400, 14.67 90,341,496
497,499, 429 14.68 454
501,502, 14.51-52 344,438, 14.69-70 454
505 468, 503, 14.69 439,454
14.29-31 430 504, 506 14.70 341,459
14.30-31 453 14.53-15.1 349,490 14.71-72 288
14.30 288, 400, 14.53-72 430,439, 14.71 454
428, 433 442 14.72 456,497
14.31-42 412 14.53-54 72,349,443 15 300,467
14.31 288,428, 14.53 348-50,444, 15.1-32 449
431,436 445 15.1-15 457
14.32-52 431,443 14.54-72 290 15.1-2 458
15.1 75, 105, 332, 15.21-22 467 15.39 25, 84, 277,
348-50,457, 15.21 33, 90, 204, 350,381,
459,469, 287, 288, 439,450,
490 330, 344, 458,466,
15.2-39 458 381,438, 473, 477,
15.2-20 348 466,468, 482
15.2-15 108 482,487 15.40-16.8 82,482
15.2-5 350,457, 15.22-26 466,469 15.40-16.1 350
458 15.22-23 453 15.40-47 485
15.2 457,469, 15.22 184,340, 15.40-41 83, 84, 104,
472 349 117,174,
15.3-5 459 15.24-37 436 418,482,
15.3 457 15.24-32 348 483,486
15.4-5 457 15.24 59,66,467, 15.40 61,62,138,
15.5 453,457, 478, 503 174,482,
491 15.25-32 108 486-88,492,
15.6-15 72, 350,458 15.25 75,434 493
15.6-14 416 15.27 440,466, 15.41 76,484,498
15.6-8 457 468,470 15.42-16.8 84, 504
15.6-7 460,461 15.28 476 15.42-47 348,482
15.6 75,460 15.29-32 61,349,350, 15.42-46 349,483,
15.7 90,460 458,466, 490
15.8-10 460 476 15.42 75,80, 184,
15.8 461 15.29-30 453,471 226,449,
15.9-14 457 15.29 62, 388 469,482
15.10 461 15.30 472 15.43-46 344,487
15.11-13 461 15.31-32 261,453, 15.43 90, 170, 321
15.11 90,260,461 472 380,381,
15.12 462 15.32 90 485
15.14-15 462 15.33-39 472 15.44 477
15.15-19 332 15.33-38 350,458 15.46-47 495
15.15 34, 105, 287, 15.33-37 348 15.46 80,381,490
457,471 15.33-36 473 15.47 90,138,468
15.16-32 465 15.33-34 473 483,484,
15.16-20 72, 108, 349, 15.33 75,434,469, 486,492
350,458, 473 15.64 464
466,467 15.34-36 473 16.1-8 65,492,493
15.16 34,184,480 15.34 59,66, 184, 507
15.17-19 453,469 340,434, 16.1-2 80,482,493
15.17 61,62,503 469,475 16.1 75,90,138,
15.19 34 15.35-36 65,467,475 449,468,
15.20-27 349, 350 15.35 439 483,484
15.20-22 348 15.36' 469 16.2-7 483
15.20-21 287 15.37-38 478 16.2 75,80,81,
15.20 349, 503 15.37 473,477 494
15.21-32 72 15.38 100, 359, 16.3-4 494
15.21-27 458 458,473, 16.3 80,491
478 16.4 250,492
16.5-7 82, 501,504 10.13-14 252 ) 98,478
16.5-6 483, 501 10.40 35 :>.l-4 478
16.5 80, 294,442, 11.2 107 :>.35 288
485,495, 11.20 107 :>.39 256
500, 502- 11.42 196 iUO 288
504 12.4 425 4.37 330
16.6-7 496, 506 12.28 107 5.1-6 330
16.6 71, 90, 376, 12.31 107 (3.1-6 257
484,485, 13.2 147 7.30-44 96
497 13.20 107 I5.13 44
16.7 36, 69, 76, 13.29 107 i$.31 85
82, 290,400, 14.14 375 I$.34-9.1 85
430,485, 14.26 291 <).31 85
492,498- 14.27 291 <).42-48 85
501,505, 15.1 152 110.11 100
508 16.1 107 1 0.33-34 85
16.8 22, 75, 80, 16.19-31 250 110.35-45 85
84,110,341, 16.21 250 112.1-2 334
483,493, 16.27 35 113.1 219
499-501, 19.44 330 116.14 197
507 20.19 370 118.25 155
16.9-20 507 21.20 46 119.1-7 98, 155
16.14-16 105 21.24 330 119.7-7 97
22.19 427 :>2.4 84
Luke 22.37 440 :>2.21 256
1.20 330 22.42 434 :14.14 85
2.14 354 22.47-48 439 :11 121
3.19 219 22.48-52 439
3.22 100 22.70 448 IRomans
4.3 35 23.24 370 1.1-4 89,101,202,
5.4-5 132 23.50 324 341
5.30 153 24.13-35 497 L.I 105
6.15 51 1.3-4 107,480
6.16 167 John 1.4 374
6.17 252 3.8 477 1.7 202
6.20 107 9.2 147 1.8 50
6.45 324 12.4-6 414,417 1.16-17 54
7.28 107 12.6 227 1.16 54
7.34 152 12.27 434 L25 406
7.36-50 417 20.14-18 497 ;2.9 54
7.36 35 21.1-3 327 :UO 54
8.3 327 21.19-22 497 :2.16 105
8.10 181 ;3.10-18 93
8.13 330 Acts ;3.24-25 338
9.2 107 1.2-3 85 U4 202, 374
9.7 219 1.3 51 5.1 202
9.52 197 1.13 167 I5.6-11 154, 338,
10.2 434 1.15-20 456 477
5.6 312 15.8 312 5.13 324

5.8 312 15.16 105 6.16 446
5.11 202 15.18 312 6.32 256
5.21 202 15.19 105 9.31 105
6.4 312, 374 15.20 312 10.14 105
6.7 312 15.29 312 11.7 105
6.8-11 477 15.30 202 11.32 197
6.8 312 16 50 13.4 288
6.9 312, 374 16.4 50, 397
6.11 202 16.5 312 Galatians
6.16-23 338 16.10 312 1.7 105
6.23 202 16.13 33,330,468 2.7 165
7.4 374 16.14-15 50, 397 2.8 165
7.6 157 16.17-18 394 2.9 165
7.25 202 16.18 202 4.4 107
8.9 312 16.20 202 4.6 434
8.10 312 16.24 202 5.21 106
8.11 202, 374
8.14-24 338 1 Corinthians Ephesians
8.15 434 1.12 165 2.13 256
8.17 312 3.6-17 359 2.17 256
8.32 415 3.16-17 446 2.21 446
8.39 202 3.22 165
9-11 368 5.6-8 264, 265 Philippians
9.1 312 6.9-10 106 121 105
9.33 93 8.1-13 53
9.43-48 313 9.5 165 Colossians
10.4 312 9.12 105 1.5-6 60
10.6 312 10.1-13 96 2.16 54
10.7 312,374 10.23-11.1 53
10.9 202, 374 11.24-25 427 1 Thessalonians
10.17 312 12.3 288, 314, 1.5 105
12.5 312 398 2.8 105
13.13 397 15.1-5 90 2.9 105
13.14 202 15.3-5 89,477,498 2.19 407
14.1-15.13 161 15.3-4 440 3.2 105
14.2 53 15.5 165 3.13 407
14.4-15.6 246 15.6-8 499 4.15 407
14.5-6 54 15.23 407 5.23 407
14.9 312,477 15.42 190
14.14 202, 243 15.44 190 2 Thessalonians
14.15 312,477 15.50 106 1.7-8 315
14.17 106 16.34 324 1.8 105
14.20-21 53, 246 2.1 407
14.20 53, 246 2 Corinthians 2.8 407,479
14.21 53 2.12 105 2.14 105
15.1-2 246 3.12-25 315
15.6 202 4.3 105
/ Timothy Jude Pss. Sol.
1.8-11 154 14 375 17 107
17.23 382
2 Timothy Revelation 18 107
2.8 105 6.11 295
7.4-17 295 Sib. Or.
Titus 11.5-12 295 3.538 395
3.5 98 11.5-6 295 3.653 395
3.660 395
Hebrews Pseudepigrapha 5.361 395
1.5-14 93 I En. 591-93 237
10.27 315 12 A 375
15.1-12 375 T. Benj.
James 39.4-8 375 9.1 106
3.18 190 68.1 181 10.6 376
5.7 407 90.28-29 446 10.7 376
5.8 407 94.9 474 10.8 376
5.15-16 147 100.1-2 396 10.9 376
1 Peter 4 Ezra T. Dan.

2.6-10 93 13.29-31 395 5.3 379
4.17 105
Jub. T. Iss.
2 Peter 1.13 446 5.2 379
1.16 407 23.19 396
3.3-4 410 T. Reub.
3.4 407 3 Mace. 4.1 318
5.13 434
Uohn
2.28 407
OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES
Qumran Mishnah War

UQT Ber. 2.19-20 40
57.17-19 320 2.2 378 2.266-70 40, 291
2.5 378 2.284-92 40
1QH 2.407-19 40
3.26 130 Midrash 2.433-40 394
GenR. 2.433 44
IQH 42.4 395 2.457-98 291
5.7-8 130 2.457-68 40
Josephus 2.477-98 40
Talmuds Ant. 2.521 44
b. Sanh. 5.276-78 495 2.559-65 40
68b 476 18.376-79 40 2.585-631 44
97a 395 20.1-9 40 2.652-54 44
3.9-28 40 7.148-50 388 Homer

4.84-127 44 7.158-62 354, 388, Odyssey
4.508 45 479 15.26 319
4.510 45 7.407-19 291 4.208 319
4.575 45 7.437-44 40
5 46 Justinus
5.309 45 Christian Authors Apologia
6 46 Gos. Pet. 1.26 44
6.220-67 445 9 495
6.249-53 47 Suetonius
6.252 401 Classical Claudius
6.283-85 45 Diogenes Laertius 25.4 49
6.316 401 6.13 216
6.389-90 479 Tacitus
7.41-62 40, 291 Ep. Arist. Annals
7.122-62 49 305 237 15.44 24,41,291
7.122 388 15.44.4 288,471
7.148-51 479 15.44.4-9 41
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Achtmeier, PJ. 136 Camery-Hoggatt, J. 163,171,172,195,

Agnew, F. 131 199, 201, 208, 213, 222, 228, 249,
Aland, K. 58 264, 333
Almeida, Y. 16, 179, 369, 424,425 Cancik,H. 31,39
Anderson, J.C. 17,29,221,223 Carrington, Ph. 59
Charles, R.H. 182,375
Bar-Efrat, S. 70 Chatman,S. 17-19,21
Barnouin, M. 488 Clark, D.J. 70
Barton, S.C. 129, 181, 212, 326, 330, Collins, A.Y. 42,44,45,47,136, 283,
331 284,388,441,495,496,500
Bauckham, R. 213 Collins, JJ. 247
Baudoz,J.F. 248 Cook,J.G. 137
Bauer, W. 338,352,353 Court6s, J. 21
Beasley-Murray, G.R. 46,48 Cuvillier, E. 176,177, 245
Berg,T.F. 140,190,358
Berger,K. 317,319 Dalman,G. 132,178,451
Best,E. 16,131,171 Danove, P.L. 17-19, 23, 88, 89,487, 506
Betlyon,J.W. 227,371 Davidsen,O. 17,136,195,210,365,
Beyer, H.W. 172,451 502
Bietenhard, H. 199 Day,J. 172
Billerbeck, P. 147,155, 161, 250, 256, Debrunner,A. 434,447,448
314,319,340,395,404,476 Deissmann, A. 91
Blass,F. 434,447,448 Delorme,J. 92,101,143
Blinzler,J. 468 Derrett, J.D.M. 61, 62, 131, 161, 256,
Boobyer,G.H. 149 314
Booth, R.P. 237 Dewey, J. 70
Bowersock, G.W. 40 Dewey, K. 456
Brandon, S.G.F. 31,46,51 Donahue, J.R. 46, 394, 403,446,450
Braun, H. 93 Dorrie, H. 405
Breck,J. 70-72,113,349,392
Breg,T.F. 29 Eco,U. 18
Brett, L.F.X. 73, 113,392 Elliger, K. 430
Breytenbach, C. 46,243
Brown, R.E. 433,439,441,443,446, Finkel,A 238
458,465,467,468, 473-75,480, Fish,S. 19,27
486-90 Fledderman, H. 503
Biichsel, H.M.F. 262 Focant, C. 73, 227
Fowler, R.M. 16, 18, 21, 22, 27, 32,70, Kato,Z. 239
71, 120, 148-50, 158, 159, 166, Kee,H.C. 36
167, 183, 184, 206, 245, 256, 290, Keegan,TJ. 29,32
300, 312, 323, 326, 332, 356, 369, Kelber, W.H. 46, 389, 402, 434, 441,
398, 429, 435, 446, 448, 449, 451, 449, 456, 472
455, 456,460, 471-72, 475-77, Kennedy, D. 200
480,486, 493, 494, 497,498, 500, Kermode,F. 503
506 Kertelge,K. 138
Funk, R.W. 434,447,448 Kingsbury, J.D. 90,449
Klassen,W. 167
Giblin,C.H. 88 Klein, R. 91
Glancy,J.A. 221 Koep,L. 91
Gnilka, J. 43,46,131, 132, 194, 319, Kuthirakkattel, S. 160
368, 460
Goppelt, L. 334 Lachs,S.T. 237,238,250,264,316,
Goudoever, J. van 60, 61 326, 366, 378, 379, 395,451, 476,
Greimas, AJ. 21 491
Grundmann, W. 46,260 Lagrange, MJ. 48
Guelich, R.A. 46, 149, 152, 154, 197, Lahurd,C.S. 53
229,238 Lambrecht,! 118
Gundry,R.H. 172,314,315,324,325, Lampe,P. 33,50,53
352, 354, 356, 359, 376, 393,451, Lane,W.L. 503
455, 487, 488, 492 Lang,F.G. 73-75
Latte, K. 405
Haenchen,E. 74,131 Legasse, S. 421,438,439,442,444,
Hartman,L. 42,59,61 457,458, 463, 468, 471, 473,475,
Heil, J.P. 444,446,447,453,454, 489, 477, 486,489
500, 501 Lewis, T.J. 170
Hengel, M. 39,41,42,44,46-48, 166, Linmans, A.J.M. 195
238,394 Lohfink,G. 295
Hooker, M.D. 46,47 Lohr,C.H. 70
Hubner,H. 243,246,318 Loisy, A. 467
Humphrey, H.M. 17, 61, 63, 113, 272- Lucking, S. 416,418
75, 349, 447, 458, 459, 473, 474, Liihrmann, D. 46, 135, 137, 138, 179,
490 180,194,195,216,221
Hunzinger, C.H. 190 Lund,N.W. 70,73
Iersel, B.M.F. van 17, 21, 24,40,128, Mack,B.L. 418

138,156,172,181,195,228,232, Magness, J.L. 82,493, 501
250, 340, 405, 477, 497 Malbon, E.S. 129, 152, 231, 344, 486,
Iser,W. 18 500, 502, 508
Malina,BJ. 52,291,330
Jeremias,J. 209,476 Maloney, L.M. 37
Jones, D.L. 406 Manek,J. 131
Juel,D.H. 17,21,22,27,39,40,55, Mann,C.S. 31
170, 190, 237, 238, 448, 451, 501, Manson,T.W. 183,185
507 Marco, A. Di 73
Marcus, J. 36
Index of Authors 555
Marrou,H.I. 70,397 Rengstorf, K.H. 165,257,261,308

Marshall, CD. 98, 129, 148, 204, 208, Rhoads, D. 16, 70, 91, 165, 166, 323,
303, 487, 498 344,463
Martitz, P.W. von 91 Robbins, V.K. 134,467
Marxsen, W. 36 Roth,W. 61,62,98,210
Masson,C. 32
McKnight, E.V. 344 Sariola, H. 239, 243, 245, 246, 318
McVann,M. 53 Schenke, L. 40,43, 46, 462
Meagher, J.C. 93, 104, 163 Schlosser,J. 106
Meier, J.P. 213 Schmithals, W. 46
Metzger,B.M. 152 Schottroff, L. 486, 487, 489
Michaelis, W.D. 294 Schurer,E. 134, 135, 153, 155, 158,
Michel, O. 151,353 159, 161, 166, 237, 373, 375, 378,
Michie, D. 16, 70, 91, 165, 323, 344, 444
463 Schiirmann, H. 107
Miller, J.L. 371 Schussler Fiorenza, E. 418
Miller, M.S. 371 Schweitzer, E. 138
Miller, R.D. 167 Scott, M.P. 71
Milligan,G. 197,493 Seeley,D. 32
Monshouwer, D. 59 Shiner, W.T. 128
Moore, S.D. 17, 29, 32, 221 Smith, C.W.F. 130
Morgenthaler, R. 38 Smith, S.H. 161,231
Moule,C.E.D. 99 Sommer, U. 414,452, 460
Moulton,J.H. 197,493 Sordi, M. 41
Muller,M. 55 Standaert, B. 52
Munro, W. 486 Standaert, B.H.M.G.M. 16, 503
Myers, C. 16,46,211 Steiner, G. 27
Neirynck, F. 69 Stenger, W. 73, 113, 118, 271, 272, 391
Nestle, E. 58, 62, 74, 228, 233, 292 Stock, A. 52, 129
Neufeld, V.H. 288 Strack, H.L. 147, 155, 161, 250, 256,
Nilsson,M.P. 405 314,319,340,395,404,476
Nuchelmans, J. 340 Suhl,A. 59,92,182,318,438
Swartley, W.M. 59, 61-64, 360
O'Collins, G.G. 288,469
Ohler,M. 294 Tannehill, R.C. 100, 284, 296, 453
Osiek,C. 137 Taylor, V. 31,46,495
Telford, W.R. 360
Painter, J. 99, 102,105 Thatcher, T. 474
Perrin, N. 449 Theissen,G. 36,39
Pesch, R. 46, 51, 128, 130, 131, 133, Thompson, M.R. 208,214
135, 164, 205, 207, 284, 286, 376, Tillesse, G.M. de 46
396,460,487 Tolbert, M.A. 17, 73, 113, 149, 165,
Pohier,J. 293 171, 186, 266, 267, 272, 275, 297,
335, 340, 352, 402,434,435, 441,
Quesnell,Q. 256 443,453, 463,466,475,478, 487,
494, 498, 501
Radcliffe, T. 24,51,52 Tucker, J.T. 463
Reiser, M. 362
Vermes, G. 134,135, 147,153,155, Wilckens, U. 49

158, 159, 161,166, 237, 373, 375, Williams, J.F. 344, 377, 380, 386,439,
378,434,444 495,508
Via, D.O. 342 Wlosok, A. 41
Wuellner, W.H. 130-32
Waetjen, H.C. 433,444,487,496,498 Wynne, G.R. 132
Weeden, Th.J. 472
Weinreich,O. 138 Zeitlin, S. 237
Weinrich,H. 367,392 Zuntz, G. 31
Welch, J.W. 70,71
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
60 Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays
61 John Christopher Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine
Community
62 Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study
63 James S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the
Governing of their Land, 100BC-AD 70
64 Henry Wansborough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition
65 Douglas A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26
66 Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and
Authority in Earliest Christianity
67 F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and
Relations
68 Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet
Motif in Matthaean Redaction
69 Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel
70 J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in
Revelation 20
11 Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus
72 Steven M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts
73 Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to
the Hebrews
14 Edwin K. Broadhead, Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in
the Gospel of Mark
75 John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in
Corinth
76 Robert W. Wall & Eugene E. Lemcio, The New Testament as Canon: A
Reader in Canonical Criticism
11 Roman Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity
78 L. Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians
79 Blaine Charette, The Theme of Recompense in Matthew's Gospel
80 Stanley E. Porter & D.A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and
Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research
81 In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians
82 Barry W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4
83 Craig A. Evans & James A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel
84 Martinus C. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New
Testament Christology in Honour ofMarinus de Jonge
85 William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as
the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1
86 B.H. McLean (ed.), Origins of Method: Towards a New Understanding of
Judaism and Christianity—Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd
87 Michael J. Wilkins & T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the
Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin
88 Mark Coleridge, The Birth of the Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology
in Luke 1-2
89 Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Back-
ground of John's Prologue
90 Stanley E. Porter & Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the New
Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference
91 Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew's Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over
Again
92 Eric Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew
93 Jan Fekkes III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation:
Visionary Antecedents and their Development
94 Charles A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel
95 Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The
Interplay of Form and Meaning
96 Richard E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at
Colossae
97 Edwin K. Broadhead, Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function
in Mark 14-16
98 Carol J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in
1 Thessalonians 2.14-16
99 Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God
100 Thomas E. Schmidt & M. Silva (eds.), To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New
Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H Gundry
101 Jeffrey A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline
Letter Closings
102 Joel F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major
Figures in Mark's Gospel
103 Warren Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20
104 Craig A. Evans & W. Richard Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scrip-
tures of Israel
105 W.P. Stephens (ed.), The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Essays in
Honour of James Atkinson
106 Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts
107 Elizabeth Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth
Evangelist
108 L. Ann Jervis & Peter Richardson (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on
Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for R.N. Longenecker
109 Elizabeth Struthers Malbon & Edgar V. McKnight (eds.), The New Literary
Criticism and the New Testament
110 Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its
Fulfillment in Lukan Christology
111 Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters
112 Jeffrey B. Gibson, The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity
113 Stanley E. Porter & D.A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other
Topics in Biblical Greek
114 Lauri Thuren, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian
Paraenesis
115 Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation
116 Christopher M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays
117 Kenneth G.C. Newport, The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23
118 Troy W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response
to a Cynic Critique
119 David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel
120 Stanley E. Porter & David Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament
Study
121 Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an
Ancient Christian Letter
122 A.D.A. Moses, Matthew's Transfiguration Story in Jewish-Christian
Controversy
123 David Lertis Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and
Interpretation
124 David Mark Ball, 7 Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background
and Theological Implications
125 Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses
according to John
126 B. Hudson Mclean, The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and
Pauline Soteriology
127 R. Barry Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul's Interpreters and the
Rhetoric of Criticism
128 Timothy Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark
129 Carl Judson Davis, The Names and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes,
New Testament Christology
130 Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's
Imprisonments
131 Stanley E. Porter & Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and The-
ology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference
132 J. Nelson Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John's Apocalypse
133 Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New
Paradigm
134 Larry J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the
New Testament World
135 Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle ofJude
136 Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric
in the Debate over Lierary Integrity
137 Roman Garrison, The Graeco-Roman Contexts of Early Christian Literature
138 Kent D. Clarke, Textual Optimism: The United Bible Societies' Greek New
Testament and its Evaluation of Evidence Letter-Ratings
139 Yong-Eui Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel
140 Tom Yoder Neufeld, Put on the Armour of God: The Divine Warrior from
Isaiah to Ephesians
141 Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradi-
tion in the Structural Pattern of Luke—Acts
142 Scott Cunningham, 'Through Many Tribulations': The Theology of Perse-
cution in Luke-Acts
143 Raymond Pickett, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death
of Jesus
144 S. John Roth, The Blind, the Lame and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-
Acts
145 Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John
146 Stanley E. Porter & T.H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture:
Essays from the 1995 London Conference
147 Kim Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus According to L
148 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation
of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals
149 J. Dorcas Gordon, Sister or Wife?: 1 Corinthians 7 and Cultural Anthropology
150 J. Daryl Charles, Virtue Amidst Vice: The Function of the Catalog of Virtues
in 2 Peter 1.5-7
151 Derek Tovey, Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel
152 Evert-Jan Vledder, Conflict in the Miracle Stories
153 Christopher Rowland & Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (eds.), Understanding,
Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton
154 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Function of Scripture in
Early Jewish and Christian Tradition
155 Kyoung-Jin Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology
158 Jey. J. Kanagaraj, 'Mysticism' in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its
Background
159 Brenda Deen Schildgen, Crisis and Continuity: Time in the Gospel of Mark
160 Johan Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology
161 Helen C. Orchard, Courting Betrayal: Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John
162 Jeffrey T. Tucker, Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the
Gospel of Luke
163 John A. Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization
164 Bas M.F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary

Mark Commentary

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mark Commentary

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Sheffield Academic Press

Bas M.F. van Iersel

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available

PART I: ACTION IN GALILEE

PART II: THE WAY

PART III: PASSION IN JERUSALEM

EPILOGUE: AT THE TOMB

WAY WITHOUT END (15.40-16.8) 482

An Added Epilogue 507

1. Het Nieuwe Testament Vertaald en Toegelicht (ed. W. Grossouw, B. van

but time-consuming, task, and a period of illness. In the autumn of 1992

FGN F. Van Segbroeck et al (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992

SBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity

READING AND READERS

Commentaryy Research and Reading

The Diachronic Approach of Biblical Exegesis

between narrator and listeners, such a commentator stands almost au-

The Synchronic Approach to Biblical Exegesis

1. See the following works on Mark, usually with methodological introduc-

real implied implied real

The flesh-and-blood or real author involves and affects the flesh-and-

real implied implied real

3. Fowler, Reader, p. 34 n. 31.

real implied implied

(auditive and) mental representation of the text

Story and Discourse

8. See B. van Iersel, * "His Master's Voice": De impliciete verteller in Mar-

meaning of the events'.12 Holding fast to Juel's distinction between two

Intended and Later Readers

15. Danove, The End, pp. 169-202.

indirectly through another language. It is no exaggeration to say that

First Reading and Subsequent Readings

Role of the Commentator

Besides these, a commentary is needed that has a prospective rather

reading possibilities. It is, of course, impossible to consider and assess

21. I refrain from an attempt at a 'postmodern', 'deconstructive' approach. Al-

AUTHOR AND READERS, PLACE AND TIME

According to current beliefs, questions about the author, and where

The Author and his Time

The Provenance of Mark

1. V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1957),

True, apart from Eusebius, no other external evidence is available, so it

Latin Words and Expressions

6. P. Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhun-

as caesar, modius, speculator, denarius, sextarius, census, fragellare,

Two Latinisms Not Previously Adduced as Evidence

materials in Matthew and Luke. Against the thirty-seven cases in Mark,

Arguments in Favour of Other Locations

The case in favour of Galilee has been argued by W. Marxsen in the

9. W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des

the socio-ecological milieu of Mark, the origin of certain traditions

Synoptic Tradition (translation of Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evan-

20. Hengel ('Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums', pp. 35-

Before or After 70 CE?

That Mark's audience was directly involved in these wars26 is alto-

26. Thus, for example, Schenke, Markusevangelium, p. 36.

Pseudo-prophets and Messianic Pretenders

30. Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation', p. 32.

hide themselves in one of the Temple buildings, with false promises

38. Josephus, War 6.283-85.