JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
290
Editor Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Ropbert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus' Disciples in the Gospel of Mark
Paul L. Danove
t&t dark N E W
Y O R K
•
L O N D O N
Copyright © 2005 by Paul Danove All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International. T & T Clark International, Madison Square Park, 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010 T & T Clark International, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint. Cover design: Corey Kent Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Danove, Paul L. The rhetoric of the characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples in the Gospel of Mark / Paul L. Danove. p. cm. — (Journal for the study of the New Testament. Supplement series ; 290) Includes bibliographical references and index. EISBN 9780567028105 1. Bible N.T. Mark—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BS2585.52D365 2005 226.3'066—dc22 2004027592
05 06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To my friend and mentor, Rev. John Boyle, S.J, who taught me how to read the New Testament
Contents Preface Abbreviations
ix xi
Chapter 1 THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS
1
1. Situating the Method 2. Repetition in Mark 3. The Semantic Rhetoric of Repetition 4. The Narrative Rhetoric of Repetition 5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs 6. The Narrative Rhetoric of Characterization 7. The Narrative Function of Characterization 8. Applications of the Studies of Characterization 9. The Presentation of the Study
1 3 6 12 21 21 24 25 27
Chapter 2 THE RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF GOD
1. The Argument Roles Predicated of God 2. Preexisting Beliefs about God 3. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated References 4. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated Contexts 5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God 6. The Narrative Rhetoric of God's Characterization 7. The Narrative Function of God's Characterization
28
28 33 35 42 48 49 54
Chapter 3 THE RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS
1. Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus 2. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated References 3. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated Contexts and Structures 4. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus vu
56
56 59 75 82
viii
The Rhetoric of Characterization
5. The Narrative Rhetoric of Jesus' Characterization 6. The Narrative Function of Jesus' Characterization
83 88
Chapter 4 THE RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS' DISCIPLES
1. Preexisting Beliefs about the Disciples 2. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples: Repeated References 3. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples: Repeated Contexts and Structures 4. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about the Disciples 5. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Disciples' Characterization 6. The Narrative Function of the Disciples' Characterization: Part 1
90
90 91 104 120 120 125
Chapter 5 RECAPITULATION: THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB
1. The Characterization of the Women 2. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs 3. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Women's Characterization 4. The Narrative Function of the Women's Characterization 5. The Narrative Function of Disciples' Characterization: Part 2
127
127 13 5 136 139 140
Chapter 6 APPLICATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
1. Application: The Rhetorical Exigency of the Narration 2. Implications for Proposals of the Historical Exigency of the Composition 3. Application: Mark's Theological Beliefs 4. Implications for Rigor and Specificity in Statements of Theological Beliefs 5. Conclusion
143
143 159 164 165 167
Appendixes A. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God B. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus C. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus' Disciples
168 168 169 171
Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors
174 184 189
PREFACE
This study develops a method for analyzing the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization and applies this method in studies of the characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples in the Gospel of Mark. The studies of characterization distinguish beliefs that are assumed for the audiencefrombeliefs that the narration cultivates for the audience, identifies the rhetorical relationships and organization of cultivated beliefs, and clarifies the contribution of each character's portrayal to the overall narrative development of Mark. The study then considers the contribution of the characterization of the women at the tomb to the portrayal of Jesus' disciples and other narrative developments. A concluding inquiry investigates the possible applications of the studies of characterization for determining the rhetorical exigency of the narration and for formulating statements of Mark's proposed theology. Chapter 1 introduces the method of analysis employed in the following studies. This discussion situates the proposed method within contemporary approaches to the study of Mark, introduces presuppositions, defines concepts, develops procedures for analyzing and describing the semantic rhetoric of repetition, and from these draws out the presuppositions, concepts, and procedures for analyzing and describing the narrative rhetoric of repetition. These considerations permit a representation of the rhetorical organization of beliefs about characters and an investigation of the contribution of characterization to other narrative developments within Mark. The discussion then considers the manner in which the studies of characterization may be placed in the service of articulating the rhetorical exigency and theology proposed by the narration. The chapter concludes by indicating how the following studies apply the proposed method. The studies of the characterization of God (ch. 2), Jesus (ch. 3), and Jesus' disciples (ch. 4) follow the same general format. The discussions first identify the beliefs about God, Jesus, and his disciples that the narration assumes for its audience. The studies then examine the beliefs developed about each character by the semantic and narrative rhetoric and note the relationships among and organization of these cultivated beliefs. Discussions of the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization then clarify the contributions of characterization to other narrative developments. ix
x
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Chapter 5 examines the contribution of the characterization of the women at the tomb to the portrayal of Jesus' disciples. This study follows the same pattern as the previous studies of characterization but considers only those elements of the women's portrayal that clarify their relationship with the disciples. Chapter 6 develops two possible applications of the studies of characterization. The first concerns the formulation of a statement of the rhetorical exigency of the narration, that is, the situation or problem that the semantic and narrative rhetoric seems to be designed to address and rectify. The second concerns the formulation of statements of the theological beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples that are developed by the semantic and narrative rhetoric. Brief discussions clarify implications of both inquiries for Markan scholarship. The presentation concludes with an appendix that identifies the relationships and organization of the cultivated beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples; a bibliography; and an index of referenced authors. This preface would not be complete without recognizing those who have contributed to the project. I wish to thank Sr. Andrea Likovich, O.S.F., and Dr. Geoffrey Cowling for their assistance in proofing the text, Professor Stanley E. Porter for very helpful recommendations concerning the organization and presentation of its content, and the members of the Catholic Biblical Association Task Force entitled "The Gospel of Mark in the 21st Century," for their helpful comments on an earlier version of chapter 3 and for six years of very interesting conversations about the Gospel of Mark. I also wish to thank Villanova University for the 2002 Summer Research Fellowship, which permitted uninterrupted work on this manuscript. I wish to thank the following publishers for their permission to develop in this book the content of my previously published articles: The Pontifical Biblical Institute for the use of "The Characterization and Narrative Function of the Women at the Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)," Bib 77.3 (1996): 375-97, and "The Rhetoric of Characterization of Jesus as Son of Man and Christ in Mark," Bib 84.1 (2003): 16-34; Brill Academic Publishers for the use of "The Narrative Function of Mark's Characterization of God," NovT 43.1 (2001): 12-30; and Sheffield Academic Press for the use of "The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark's Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples," JSNT70 (1998): 21-28.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB AnBib BDF
Bib BibRes BIS BSac CBQ CGNTC CS CSL CSLI EKKNT ExpTim FES Greg HNT HTR Int IRT ISFCJ JAAR JETS JBL JR JSNT JSNTSup LB
Anchor Bible Analecta Biblica Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961) Biblica Biblical Research Biblical Interpretation Series Bibliotheca Sacra Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Greek New Testament Commentary Chicago Studies Current Studies in Linguistics Center for the Study of Language and Information Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Expository Times Finnish Exegetical Society (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft) Gregorianum Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Interpretation Issues in Religion and Theology International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism Journal of the American A cademy of Religion Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Religion Journalfor the Study of the New Testament Journalfor the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Linguistica Biblica XI
xii Neot NovT NTS PMLA SBL SBLDS SNTG SPCK SPIB SPS TDNT TDOT USQR WBC ZNW ZTK
The Rhetoric of Characterization Neotestamentica Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Publications of the Modern Language Association of America Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series Studies in New Testament Greek Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici Sacra Pagina Series Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-) G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (trans. John T. Willis; 12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-). Union Seminary Quarterly Review Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschriftfur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschriftfur Theologie und Kirche
Chapter 1 THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS
This chapter develops a method for analyzing and describing the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization in the Gospel of Mark. The presentation begins by situating the proposed method within contemporary approaches to the study of Mark. The discussion of the method introduces presuppositions, defines concepts, and develops procedures for analyzing and describing the semantic rhetoric of repetition. It then develops from these the presuppositions, concepts, and procedures for analyzing and describing the narrative rhetoric of repetition. Possible contributions of characterization to the overall narrative development of Mark also receive consideration. The discussion then clarifies the manner in which the studies of characterization may be placed in the service of articulating the rhetorical exigency and theology proposed by the narration. The presentation concludes by indicating how the following studies apply the proposed method.
1. Situating the Method Contemporary scholarship employs a variety of methods in the study of Mark, and these methods may be distinguished according to the primary focus of their inquiry.1 Methods having a primary focus on the historical development of the text inquire into the sources, forms, and redaction of traditions, the theological or ideological concerns and sociological situations of communities that transmitted traditions, and authorial intentionality. Those having a primary focus on what is in the text inquire into the ways the text structures meaning and guides interpretation and the ways the reader interprets and formulates the meaning of the text. Those having a primary focus on the contemporary use of the text inquire into the ways the text may contribute to theological reflection or the critique of contemporary practice. The method of analysis developed in this chapter places its primary focus on the text of Mark and investigates the manner in which the text guides its own 1. This discussion develops elements of the presentation on methods in Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 110-14; and in John R. Donahue, "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel," CBQ 57 (1995): 1-26, here 3-4.
1
2
77*2 Rhetoric of Characterization
interpretation.2 In this approach, the method is concerned not primarily with the historical author(s) and readers of Mark or the possible applications of the text by contemporary readers but with the analysis and description of the author and reader implied by the text.3 In particular, the method is concerned with analyzing and describing the ways in which the narration of Mark cultivates specific meanings for the words and constructs used in characterization, places characterization in the service of other narrative developments, and attempts to elicit particular responses from the implied reader.4 The method's study of the ways in which the narration cultivates specific meanings for words uses linguistic presuppositions, concepts, and procedures of analysis and description.5 The study of the contribution of constructs and characterization itself to the narrative development uses a system of narrative analysis developed from the same linguistic presuppositions, concepts, and procedures. The resulting method complements a primarily synchronic study of how the narration cultivates the meaning of words and constructs with a primarily diachronic study of how the unfolding of the narration establishes the possibility for interpretative responses. These considerations indicate that the method is at its foundation a rhetorical method; for it is directed to examining the ways in which the narration attempts to develop opportunities for the implied reader to entertain and ultimately incorporate linguistically and narratively developed meaning and to respond to situations and events.6 Thus, the method's concepts and procedures permit a 2. Discussions of what is implied by textually guided interpretation appear in Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, "Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?" in Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 23-49; and in Gabriel Fackre, "Narrative Theology: An Overview," Int 37 (1983): 340-52. 3. The implied author and the implied reader receive introduction in Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978), 151; and Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 74-75; cf. Stephen D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 180. The concept of the implied reader receives further clarification below. 4. The method's analysis and description of the ways in which the narration attempts to elicit responses have significant parallels to that of reader-response criticism: see W. Randolph Tate, Reading Mark from the Outside: Eco and her Leave Their Marks (San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1994). Examples of the application of reader-response methods to the study of the Gospel of Mark include Bas M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (trans. W. H. Bisscheroux; JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); and John Paul Heii, The Gospel ofMark as a Modelfor Action: A Reader-Response Commentary (New York: Paulist, 1992). 5. An introduction to the linguistic system that undergirds the method appears in Charles J. Fillmore and Paul Kay, Construction Grammar (Stanford: CSLI, 1999). The original proposal of the system of narrative analysis developed from this system of linguistic analysis appears in Paul Danove, The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study (BIS 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993). The following presentation constitutes a further development of this proposal. 6. Agusti Borrell observes that the Gospels "are works with a marked and clear purpose of influ-
The Method ofAnalysis
3
description of both linguistic or, more properly, semantic and narrative rhetoric.7 The method provides procedures for the articulation of the narration's rhetorical exigency, which is constituted by the problem[s] or deficiencies that the semantic and narrative rhetoric identify and address. Here the rhetoric's cultivation of alternative meanings for particular words and constructs and of responses to narrated events identifies the original or preexisting meanings and the implied author's presupposed responses as deficient. The resulting deficiencies taken together then identify the exigency that the semantic and narrative rhetoric seem designed to address.
2. Repetition in Mark The goal of the proposed method is to describe the manner in which the repetition of words and constructs contributes to characterization and other narrative developments. The following discussion of repeated words and constructs briefly illustrates the nature of the repetition that the subsequent development of the method attempts to address. a. The Repetition of Words and Phrases The method of analysis recognizes that repetition is able to develop specialized meanings or connotations for particular words and phrases.8 For example, the first two occurrences of way (0805) in Mark appear in a quotation of scripture (1:2-3; cf. Mai 3:1; Exod 23:20; Isa 40:3) that presents the specific point of encing their readers (or listeners) in a practical way, right down to effecting their whole way of life" (The Good News ofPeter's Denial: A Narrative and Rhetorical Reading ofMark 14:54,66-72 [trans. Sean Conlon; ISFCJ 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 174). Cf. Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953), 15; M. H. Abrams, Doing Things with Texts: Essays in Criticism and Critical Theory (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 9-11; Mary Ann Tolbert, "How the Gospel of Mark Builds Character," Int 47 (1993): 347-57; and Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader Response and the Gospel ofMark (Minneapolis. Fortress, 1991), 23. 7. These concepts and procedures reflect those of the grounding system of linguistic analysis and so diverge in various ways from methods that employ historical approaches to the rhetorical analysis of narratives: see W. T. Shiner, Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS 145; Atlanta. Scholars Press, 1995); and Vernon K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-RhetoricalInterpretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992). 8. Overviews of the various functions and contributions of repetition in narratives appear in N. R. Leroux, "Repetition, Progression, and Persuasion in Scripture," Neot 29 (1995): 1-25, here 8-10; Bas van Iersel, "Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark," LB 55 (1983): 45-54; Peter J. Rabinowitz, Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics ofInterpretation (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987), 53; David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 46-47; Meir Steinberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 365-440; and Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 39-51.
4
The Rhetoric of Characterization
information that the way is the Lord's (God's/Jesus').9 Subsequent occurrences of 686s then establish that the word (seed) is sown along the way (4:4, 15), that the way affords little security (a staff but no bread or bag, etc.), is potentially dangerous, but also is a way of authority (6:7-8), and that the potential dangers of the way may be remedied by the intervention of Jesus (8:3). The same passages also relate Jesus and God (1:2-3), Jesus and David (2:23-25; cf. 1 Sam 21:2-7), and Jesus and the twelve who undertake the task of proclaiming (icnpuaaci)) formerly ascribed to Jesus (1:14—15) and receive their authority from Jesus (6:7) on the way. The narration also asserts a positive evaluation for the way, insofar as it is of God and Jesus, and for those who are productive along it (4:8, 20). These initial occurrences establish a uniquely Markan connotation of 686s characterized by narratively specific information, relationships, evaluations, and expectations that distinguish it not only from general Koine usage but from its specialized usages developed in the Septuagint.10 The resulting connotation then becomes the basis for its further specialized developments in Mark 8:27-10:52. The narration also cultivates a specialized Markan connotation for seek (CT1T6G)).11 Its first appearance in Simon's statement to Jesus, "Everyone is seeking you" (1:37), offers no indication that the verb has any distinctive meaning beyond its typical Koine usage.12 The next seven occurrences, however, develop narratively specific information about, relationships among, negative evaluations for, and expectations about those who seek: those doing the will of God supersede Jesus' mother, brothers, and sisters who seek him (3:32-35); no sign will be given to the Pharisees/this generation who seek a sign (8:11-12); the chief priests and scribes seek how to destroy Jesus (11:18); the chief priests, scribes, and elders seek to arrest Jesus (12:12; cf. 11:27); the chief priests and scribes seek to arrest and kill Jesus (14:1); Judas seeks how he may hand over Jesus (14:11); and the chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin seek testimony against Jesus to kill him (14:55). The final occurrence in the young man's statement to the women, "You seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified" (16:6), places the women into a narratively developed class of characters opposed to Jesus and contributes to the women's concluding negative evaluation in 16:8.13 9. This and subsequent citations are taken from Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.; Stuttgart. Biblia-Druck, 1993) and from A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart. Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935). The translations are my own. The discussions of 0869 develop the presentation in Paul Danove, "The Characterization and Narrative Function of the Women at the Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)," Bib 77 (1996): 375-97, here 375-76. 10. Specialized connotations of "way" also may be found from book to book in the Hebrew Bible: see K. Koch, "derekh," TDOT3.2S2-92. 11. This discussion develops the presentation on £r|Te
The Method of Analysis
5
b. The Repetition of Constructs Describing the role of verbal repetition is straightforward in that the focus of inquiry, words (or phrases), is readily apparent in the text. Describing the role of nonverbal repetition, in contrast, is complicated by the fact that the focus of inquiry, constructs abstracted from the narration, requires an initial explanation of their proposed content. The following discussion isolates four illustrative examples of abstracted constructs and their repetition and offers a brief description of their content. A "semantic role" construct would be abstracted from the various semantic arguments realized by a particular designation. This construct, for example, would permit a recognition that the repetition of predominantly agent (the doer of an action) references to Jesus in Mark 1-13 changes to repetition of predominantly non-agent references in Mark 14-15.14 Such a construct is presumed in the identification of Mark 14-15 as a passion narrative with respect to Jesus.15 A "contextual" construct would be abstracted from a continuous segment of the narration (in the following studies, at most fifteen verses) and would permit a recognition that words that previously appeared in close proximity subsequently are being repeated in close proximity. This construct would permit the recognition that the vocabulary. Son of Man (8:31; 9:31; 10:33), kill (aTroKTetvco, 8:31; 9:31a, 31b; 10:34), after three days (|±eira Tpets r||iepas, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), and rise (dviaT<x|±ai5 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), that initially was linked in 8:31-32a is being repeated in 9:30-32 and 10:32-34. Such a construct is presumed in the designation of these passages as passion (/resurrection) predictions.16 A "structural" construct would be abstracted from a continuous segment of the narration (in the following studies, at most twelve verses) and would permit a
Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (ed E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969), 157-80; and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975), 122-28, and on the literary considerations of Thomas E. Boomershine and Gilbert L. Bartholomew, "The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8," JBL 100 (1981): 213-23, and on the grammatical considerations of Paul Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon (JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 73-77. 14. This discussion presents only ad hoc explanations of semantic roles and reserves their more technical definition to ch. 2, sec 1. 15. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1963), 107—11; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (CGNTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 14; Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959), 12-15; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Richmond: John Knox, 1970), 226, 284, 384-85; and Robert A. Guelich, Mark I 8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), xxxvi-xxxvii. 16. Contextual repetition receives development in Robert Alter, The Pleasures ofReading in an Ideological Age (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), 39, who discusses how the near conjunction of the words, "womb," "darkness," "light," and "hedge" in Job 38 evokes the scene of Job 3, where these words similarly were joined to produce a certain effect.
6
The Rhetoric of Characterization
recognition that particular contexts that previously appeared in a given sequence subsequently are being repeated in the same sequence. Such a construct would permit a recognition that the sequence of a passion/resurrection prediction (8:31-32a; 9:30-32; 10:32-34), controversy (8:32b-33; 9:33-34; 10:35-41), and teaching (8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; 10:42-45) that initially appeared in 8:31-9:1 is being repeated in the same sequence in 9:30-41 and 10:32-45. Such a construct is presumed in the linked studies of these passages.17 A "character" construct would be abstracted from all of the vocabulary and narrated content about a designation and would incorporate information about the semantic role, contextual, and structural constructs that reference this designation. This construct would permit a recognition that a character previously introduced under a given designation subsequently is reappearing.18 Such a construct is presumed in all studies of characterization. c. Clarifications concerning the Role of Repetition These examples illustrate possible types of repetition in Mark. The following discussions indicate that development of the presuppositions and concepts that explain the role of repetition and permit its analysis and description requires recourse to both linguistic and narrative concepts.
3. The Semantic Rhetoric of Repetition The proposed method ultimately grounds the contribution of both verbal and nonverbal repetition in linguistic concepts. These concepts, however, are directly applicable only to words and phrases. Thus, this discussion focuses on the illustrative examples of verbal repetition and develops the linguistic concepts that explain the contribution of the semantic rhetoric of verbal repetition to interpretation. These concepts permit an initial description of the implied reader and the distinction of two rhetorical strategies of verbal repetition. The discussion concludes with clarifications concerning the nature and function of the semantic rhetoric of repetition. a. The Semantic Frame as Precondition for Semantic Meaning The contribution of the semantic rhetoric of repetition in cultivating specialized connotations for words is explained in terms of the evocation and modification of semantic frames. According to this linguistic concept, hearers or readers are able to interpret a communication because their encounter with a word or phrase 17. See, e.g., Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 171-72; and John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SPS 2; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 265-66,289^90, 313-14. 18. Thomas Docherty observes, "The name is a locus around which characterization actually takes place" {Reading (Absent) Character: Towards a Theory of Characterization in Fiction [Oxford: Clarendon, 1983], 74).
The Method ofAnalysis
7
evokes for them particular semantic frames associated with that word or phrase. The semantic frames that are evoked make available to the interpreters (1) points of information about the words accommodated by the frame, (2) relationships among these words and references to other frames containing them, (3) perspectives for evaluating the syntactic and semantic function of words, and (4) expectations concerning the content of communication.19 As such, semantic frames constitute the precondition for interpreted semantic meaning.20 The following discussions identify those elements of semantic frames that receive reference in subsequent studies. The initial occurrences of 686s (way) in 1:2-3 evoke for the interpreter (hereafter, reader) preexisting semantic frames associated both with the word's general Koine usage and with its "theological" usage in the Septuagint and early Christian proclamation.21 The semantic frames associated with the general connotation make available information about what can constitute a way, relationships between way and other words, perspectives for evaluating the syntactic and semantic function of words that may modify way, and expectations for the use of the word to designate a "physical" path. Semantic frames associated with the word's theological usage also make available information about what constitutes such a way, relationships between such a way and possible modifiers, perspectives for evaluating the syntactic and semantic function of words in its immediate context, and the expectations for its use to describe a "spiritual" journey. The semantic frames evoked by C^i"^ (seek) make available comparable information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations and permit the interpretation of qualitatively more detailed semantic developments. This qualitative 19. Charles J. Fillmore, "The Need for Frame Semantics within Linguistics," Statistical Methods in Linguistics (1976): 5-29; cf. Tuen van Dijk, "Semantic Macro-Structures and Knowledge Frames in Discourse Comprehension," in Cognitive Processes in Comprehension (ed Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A. Carpenter; Hillsdale, N.Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977), 3-32. An overview of the concept of "semantic frame" appears in Charles J. Fillmore, "Frames and the Semantics of Understanding," Quaderni di Semantica 6 (1985): 222-53. 20. Thus, the following discussions assume that the reader of Mark has sufficient preexisting familiarity with Koine Greek to permit the evocation of the noted semantic frames. The discussion also assumes but does not postulate on the intellective processes that permit the abstraction of words from sounds or written marks. 21. The conflation of Exod 23:20, Mai 3:1, and Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:2-3 is deemed traditional: Willi Marxsen, Mark the Flvangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (trans. J. Boyce et al; New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 37; Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 2 n. 2; Robert A. Guelich, "'The Beginning of the Gospel' Mark 1:1-15," BibRes 27 (1982): 5-15,here8n. 35; and Christopher Bryan, A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Settings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 138. A similar conclusion based on rhetorical considerations appears below. Ched Myers considers the contribution of examples of such intertextuality in Mark {Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus [Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988], 97-99). The following study develops specifically narrative arguments to clarify how the narration assumes for the reader a preexisting familiarity with the content of this quotation.
8
The Rhetoric of Characterization
distinction is explained in terms of a further aspect of the semantic frame, the case frame, which specifies the syntactic and semantic requirements for the correct grammatical usage of the word.22 Although the noun "way" does not require completion of its meaning by another word for its correct grammatical usage, the verb "seek" always requires completion by two syntactic complements that specify its two semantic arguments, agent (the one seeking) and either goal (what is sought) or event (what is done).23 The necessary realization of both an agent and a goal or event for every occurrence of C^Teo ensures that particular relationships always receive specification; whereas the optional specification of either a goal, locative, or benefactive adjunct for 686s establishes the potential only for more limited clarification.24 b. The Semantic Frame as Frameworkfor Realized Semantic Meaning Although semantic frames are the linguistic precondition for interpretation, semantic meaning arises only in the interpretation of a particular communication. That is, words evoke their associated semantic frames; and the content of the communication realizes the particular information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations that permit the interpretation of the word in that context. Thus, semantic meaning always is linked to specific content, and the description of semantic meaning requires recourse to two conceptual constructs, one that pro22. The original proposal of the case frame appears in Charles J. Fillmore, "The Case for Case," in Universal* in Linguistic Theory (ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms; New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968), 1-88, here 28, and has received development in various Case Grammatical systems. See Wallace L. Chafe, Meaning and the Structure of Language (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 144-60; Walter A. Cook, "A Case Grammar Matrix," Language and Linguistics Working Papers No. 6, Georgetown University Press (1972): 15-47. Simon S. M. Wong has applied such a Case Grammar in the study of the verbs of the Pauline corpus {A Classification of Semantic Case-Relations in the Pauline Epistles [New York: Peter Lang, 1997]). The proposed method's linguistic analysis also has affinities with the discussion of thematic relations in generative grammars (Ray S. Jackendoff, Semantic Structures [CSL 18; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990], 155-66), in the application of Case Grammar within tagmemics (John T. Platt, Grammatical Form and Grammatical Meaning: A Tagmemic View ofFillmore's Deep Structure Case Concepts [Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1971], 9-27), and in the representation of event schemas in cognitive linguistics (Rene Dirven and Marjolyn Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics [Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1998], 79-83). 23. The term "argument" has its origins in the field of logic: see Randy Allen Harris, The Linguistics Wars (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 115-17; James D. McCawley, Grammar and Meaning (New York: Academic Press, 1976), 136-39; and Frederick J. Newmeyer, Linguistic Theory in America: The First Quarter-century of Transformational Generative Grammar (Hew York: Academic Press, 1980), 148-50. The syntactic analog of argument is the "complement": see Fillmore and Kay, Construction Grammar, 4:12. 24. An equally detailed specification of'\vay" or any noun that does not require completion by a semantic argument could arise if the same noun phrase lexically realizes a nonrequired adjunct in each occurrence. Since the narration presents no examples of such a development with any frequently repeated words that do not require arguments, verbs and other words that require arguments receive primary attention in the following studies.
The Method ofAnalysis
9
vides the linguistic precondition for interpretation (the semantic frame) and one that accommodates the interpreted meaning derived from a particular communication. Since the latter conceptual construct is constituted by a limited number of realized potentialities of the former, the method of analysis employs the term "semantic frame" to designate both. Thus, the semantic frames associated with a word are deemed to anticipate the semantic meaning of a word in any context and to accommodate the actualized semantic meaning in a particular context, here Mark. These considerations permit a reexamination of the manner in which the narration of Mark cultivates specific connotations for words. The initial occurrence of 0869 (1:2) evokes semantic frames that make available the potentiality for either a general or a theological interpretation of this way. The context realizes both potentialities but grants primacy to the theological connotation by introducing the quotation containing 080s as scripture ("it has been written" [yeypcrnTai] and "in Isaiah the prophet" [ev ™ 'Haaig TO) iTpo<|>^Tr|]). The context identifies the noun Jesus (1:1) as the antecedent of the pronoun your (aou); and the semantic frame clarifies that this pronoun lexically realizes the way's benefactive argument (the way of whom). The scriptural quotation also has the potential to evoke the interpretation of the word in Mai 3:1, where God was the antecedent of the possessive pronoun my (JJLOIJ). This relates the nouns Jesus and God and extends the positive evaluation of this way in Mai 3:1 to Jesus' way. The next occurrence of "way" (1:3) again evokes preinterpreted scripture (Isa 40:3) that again identifies the Lord or God as the benefactive and evaluates this way positively. The Markan context, however, recommends Jesus as the antecedent of the Lord, so that Jesus again is related to God. Repetition of 086s with both Jesus and God as benefactive also cultivates an expectation for the continued theological use of the word, for the continued benefaction of this way by both Jesus and God, and for the way's continued positive evaluation. All subsequent occurrences of "way" then evoke these points of information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations and develop them in specific ways. The original occurrence of "seek" (£r|T6a)) in 1:37 evokes semantic frames that make available information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations; and the context realizes "all" (iravres) as the agent and "you" (ae), whose antecedent is Jesus, as referent of the goal. Since the context offers no explicit indication that seeking Jesus is an inappropriate action, this action initially receives positive interpretation. Repetition of Cr]Te(i) then relates the semantic agents to each other and to either a goal or an event in specific ways. In all occurrences of linked agent and event arguments, the agents seek to do something that places themselves in opposition to Jesus: the chief priest and scribes seek how they may destroy (11:18) and kill (14:1) Jesus; the chief priests, scribes, and elders (cf. 11:27) seek to arrest Jesus (12:12); and Judas seeks how he may hand over Jesus (14:11). In the five remaining occurrences of linked agent and goal arguments, the goals are Jesus (3:32; 16:6), a sign (from heaven) (8:11, 12), and
10
The Rhetoric of Characterization
testimony against Jesus (14:55). In the first four of these occurrences, the agents are placed in opposition to Jesus and/or God: Jesus' mother, brothers, and sisters who seek him (3:32) are superseded by those doing God's will (3:34); the Pharisees who seek a sign from heaven, that is, God (cf. 1:11), receive none (8:11,12); and the chief priest and whole Sanhedrin seek testimony against Jesus so that they may put him to death (14:55). So consistent is this negative development with respect to the agent in both uses of Cr\Teu that the verb's final occurrence in 16:6 places the women into a narratively crafted class of agents opposed to Jesus and negatively evaluates them even though the clause in which they appear provides no explicit guidance that demands the verb's negative interpretation. These considerations indicate the manner in which verbal repetition, especially of words that require semantic arguments for their correct grammatical usage, may take on a rhetorical function in the narration.25 Each occurrence of a word evokes semantic frames and realizes particular information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations, or, for ease of reference, narratively specific content. Each subsequent occurrence then evokes the same semantic frames with their narratively realized content and presents the opportunity for further development along the same lines. Since all verbs require one, two, or three arguments and all prepositions and adjectives and some nouns require at least one argument, the cultivation of such qualitatively more detailed semantic meaning may attend much of the vocabulary in Mark.26 c. The Implied Reader The inquiries into the role of repetition in realizing and reinforcing narratively specific content for semantic frames pointed out that some words evoke semantic frames that make available preinterpreted content. The following studies indicate that the evocation of such preinterpreted content is quite pervasive in Mark. The distinction between the preinterpreted or preexisting content of semantic frames and their narratively cultivated content permits a distinction of two constructs of the implied reader: the authorial audience and the narrative audience.27 The 25. The following study introduces alternative means of cultivating the content of semantic frames within the context of particular discussions. 26. Lucien Tesniere, Elements de Syntaxe Structurale (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959), 106-10. 27. The proposal of the these two audiences appears in Peter J. Rabinowitz, "Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences," Critical Inquiry 4 (1974): 121-41, here 126-33. Rabinowitz's treatment of a third aspect of the implied reader, the ideal narrative audience, which arises in the context of unreliable narration (pp. 127-28), is omitted; for there is significant scholarly consensus that the narrator of Mark is reliable: see Robert C. Tannehill, "Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role," JR 57 (1977): 386-405, here 390-91; Norman Petersen, '"Point of View' in Mark's Narrative," Semeia 12 (1978): 97-121, here 105-11; Robert Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 229; and Rhoads and Michie, Mark as Story, 39. The distinction of the authorial and narrative audiences within the method of analysis diverges in specific ways from Rabinowitz's original proposal. This distinction receives further investigation in the discussion of the narrative rhetoric.
The Method ofAnalysis
11
authorial audience is that construct of the implied reader for which the preexisting content of semantic frames is evoked; and the narrative audience is that construct of the implied reader for which the narratively realized content of semantic frames is evoked. That is, the narration cultivates a construct of the implied reader (the narrative audience) that is distinct from the construct of the implied reader (the authorial audience) assumed at the beginning of the narration. d. Rhetorical Strategies Verbal repetition may take on a rhetorical function by realizing and then redundantly reinforcing particular information, relationships, and perspectives, and expectations along specific lines. Every repeated word in a narrative, however, does not receive such concerted development. For example, none of the most frequently repeated verbs of motion, come (epxo|j.at), go (TTOpeuo|±ai), enter (elaepxo|iai), and depart (e£epxo|iai), consistently realizes the same agents, the same relationships to other words, or the same expectations for content.28 Thus, repetition may but need not serve a rhetorical function; and determining whether or not repetition functions rhetorically requires an examination of all occurrences of a word or phrase. Repetition takes on a rhetorical function by realizing and redundantly reinforcing particular potentialities of semantic frames. For example, the semantic frames initially evoked by 68og make available both the potentialities that permit its interpretation in 1:2—3 and preinterpreted content that recognizes God as the antecedent of the benefactive. The narration further develops these potentialities by twice realizing Jesus as antecedent of the benefactive. Again, the semantic frames evoked by {r^Teo) provide the potential for the agents to be related to the goal in various ways; and the narration explicitly realizes and redundantly reinforces only relationships of opposition. Verbal repetition that functions rhetorically by realizing and reinforcing potentialities along specific lines is deemed a sophisticating rhetorical strategy. For semantic frames without preinterpreted content, such repetition first realizes particular Markan content and then redundantly reinforces this content along specific lines.29 For semantic frames with preinterpreted content, such repetition augments preexisting content with coherent Markan content and then redundantly reinforces this content. In contrast, rhetorically neutral repetition simply realizes Markan content without discernible development along specific lines. Thus, the study of the semantic rhetoric recognizes two categories of rhetorical strategies, neutral and sophisticating. In terms of the implied reader, neutral repe28. Although the narration presents no examples of specific developments that extend to all agents of these verbs, the subsequent studies do identify such developments with respect to particular agents of "go" (epxo^ai) and "go forth" ((rrrepxo|±ai). 29. The only semantic frames that the narration identifies as truly devoid of any preinterpreted content are those created through the process of defining unfamiliar words. Even here, however, these semantic frames are related to those evoked by the words used to define their connotation and so are related to semantic frames with preinterpreted content.
12
The Rhetoric of Characterization
tition evokes the preexisting content of the semantic frames that is associated with the authorial audience; and sophisticating repetition realizes (and subsequently evokes) the cultivated content of the semantic frames that is associated with the narrative audience. e. Clarifications Concerning the Semantic Rhetoric of Verbal Repetition These considerations permit a series of clarifications concerning the nature and function of the semantic rhetoric of verbal repetition. First, the method uses "semantic frame" to designate both the meaningful context that makes available the potentialities for interpretation and the conceptual framework that accommodates the content of the narratively realized potentialities. This dual usage recognizes that the precondition for interpretable content and the resulting interpreted content is specifically semantic and cultivated by the semantic rhetoric. Second, the narration realizes an overwhelming majority of the content of semantic frames either without repetition (in the case of hapax legomena) or through neutral repetition. This realized content undergirds the meaningful context for all rhetorical developments within the narration. Third, the resulting realized reservoir of meaningful semantic content and its relationship to particular designations, such as "Jesus," "Son of Man," or "disciples," that lexically realize the semantic arguments of words does not constitute characterization itself. Rather, it is the narrative rhetoric that places semantic content in the service of characterization, for example, by identifying the noun "Jesus" with a specific character, by relating this character to other characters, by interpreting semantic opposition in terms of positive or negative evaluation of characters, and by developing expec* tations concerning characters.30 Fourth, although the following studies introduce and employ other manifestations of the semantic rhetoric to investigate particular developments, their primary focus is the contribution of verbal repetition. This focus reflects the fact that, except for the note to the reader in 13:14, the narration provides little guidance concerning other avenues of semantic development, such as phrasing, intonation, and even gestures. Of the panoply of potential manifestations of the semantic rhetoric available to the original readers and interpreters, only those discernible in the text remain; and, of these, repetition constitutes the least contentious, most pervasive, and most directly accessible.
4. The Narrative Rhetoric of Repetition The previous discussion clarified the manner in which the repeated evocation of semantic frames and realization of their potentialities along specific lines permits the interpretation of semantically meaningful content for words (and phrases). This discussion, in contrast, inquires into the manner in which the repetition of 30. Meaningful content also may be related to designations through pronouns and verbal endings for which a designation is the antecedent.
The Method of Analysis
13
constructs that incorporate some or all of the realized content of semantic frames as well as specifically narrative content contributes to the interpretation of narratively meaningful content for constructs. The discussion develops from linguistic concepts the narrative concepts that explain the contribution of the repetition of constructs to interpretation. These concepts permit a properly narrative description of the implied reader and of rhetorical strategies. A concluding discussion then clarifies the nature and function of the narrative rhetoric of repetition. a. The Narrative Frame as Precondition for Narrative Meaning The contribution of the narrative rhetoric of repetition in cultivating specialized meaning for constructs is explained in terms of the evocation and modification of narrative frames.31 The narrative frame is "narrative" in that its realized content is associated with properly narrative, not semantic, content. The narrative frame is a "frame" in that it accommodates narrative information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations in a manner that parallels the way the semantic frame accommodates semantic content. As such, narrative frames are meaningful contexts that permit the interpretation of constructs abstracted from the narration and so constitute the precondition for their interpreted narrative meaning.32 The following discussions identify only those elements of narrative frames that prove most useful in the following studies. The semantic frames evoked by vocabulary permit an interpretation that particular noun phrases lexically realize specific argument roles. Repetition of specific argument roles then evokes semantic role narrative frames that make available information about the manner in which argument roles contribute to narrative development, relationships among argument roles, and references to other narrative frames that utilize distinctions among them. Semantic role narrative frames also make available perspectives for evaluating the function of semantic roles in
31. The narrative frame receives development in Menakhem Perry, "Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates Its Meaning," Poetics Today 1, nos. 1-2 (1970): 35-64, 311-61, here 36; Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), 20-21, 37; and Alter, Pleasures of Reading, 122, and has affinities with "theme" as used in Gerald Prince, Narrative as Theme: Studies in French Fiction (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), 5, and as defined in Russell Brown, "Theme," in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms (ed. Irena R. Makaryk; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 643. Although the evocation of the noted narrative frames depends on a number of extrinsic and intrinsic factors, the following studies assume that a close reading of Mark would establish adequate grounds for evoking the narrative frames that receive attention. 32. Thus, the following discussions assume that the reader of Mark has sufficient preexisting familiarity with narratives to permit the evocation of the noted narrative frames. The narration of Mark explicitly references only antecedent scriptural narratives; and these references are assumed to provide direct access to preinterpreted content of narrative frames. Again, this discussion assumes but does not postulate on the intellective processes that permit the abstraction of constructs from verbal or written narration.
14
The Rhetoric of Characterization
narratives, and, after a sufficient number of evocations, expectations for the continued realization of specific semantic roles for particular noun phrases.33 Contextual narrative frames are evoked when vocabulary that previously appeared in close proximity again appears in close proximity. In general, this vocabulary is memorable because it contributes significantly to the interpretation of both its present and its previous passages and includes words that undergo sophisticating verbal repetition. Contextual narrative frames make available information about what constitutes a context and relationships among contexts, between a given context and its constituent semantic frames, and to other narrative frames that incorporate contextual considerations or the same vocabulary. Contextual narrative frames also make available perspectives for evaluating the function of contexts and their constituent vocabulary and, after their first evocation (i.e., after the second occurrence of linked vocabulary), expectations concerning the content of any future occurrences of a context. Structural narrative frames are evoked when two or more contexts that previously appeared in sequence again appear in sequence. Structural narrative frames make available information about what constitutes a structure and relationships among structures, between a structure and its constituent contexts and semantic frames, and to other narrative frames that use structural and contextual considerations. They also make available perspectives for evaluating the function of structures and, after their initial evocation (i.e., after two occurrences of sequentially linked contexts), expectations concerning the content of any future occurrence of this structure. Within the following studies, noun phrases (or pronouns for which these noun phrases are antecedents) that lexically realize the semantic argument roles of agent or experiencer (the animate being that is the locus of a mental or psychological state, event, or activity) are deemed to evoke character narrative frames. Noun phases that lexically realize these arguments are classified as designations; and once designations evoke character narrative frames, they continue to do so even when they lexically realize other semantic argument roles. Character narrative frames make available information about what constitutes a character, relationships between characters and other characters and references to other narrative frames that utilize or incorporate information about characters, perspectives for evaluating the function of characters, and, once the character receives sufficient development, expectations concerning their future portrayal. b. The Narrative Frame as Frameworkfor Realized Narrative Meaning Although narrative frames are the precondition for the interpretation of narratives, narrative meaning arises only in the interpretation of particular narrative communications. That is, constructs such as semantic roles, contexts, structures, and characters evoke narrative frames; and the content of the narration realizes 33. Since noun phrases may lexically realize up to fifteen distinct semantic roles in Mark, the number of occurrences required to cultivate a pattern of development may be quite large for noun phrases that realize many different argument roles.
The Method ofAnalysis
15
particular information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations that permit the interpretation of these constructs in a specific context. Thus, narrative meaning, like semantic meaning, always is linked to particular content. The method of analysis employs the term "narrative frame" to designate both the meaningful context that establishes the precondition for interpreting narrative constructs and the framework that accommodates the interpreted meaning of these constructs within a particular narrative communication.34 These considerations permit an examination of the manner in which the narration of Mark cultivates specific narrative meaning for the illustrative constructs. The lexical realization of the benefactive (subjective genitive) or content (objective genitive) semantic argument in 1:1 by the noun "Jesus" evokes semantic role (and character) narrative frames that interpret "Jesus" as a designation for a character for two reasons. Although "Jesus" lexically realizes neither an agent nor an experiencer semantic argument, the subsequent study of the narrative rhetoric of this verse indicates that the implied reader has preexisting beliefs that "Jesus," "Christ," and "Son of God" are designations of the character Jesus. Thus, the initial occurrence of these designations evokes semantic role (and character) narrative frames that include preinterpreted content. After further evocations of semantic role narrative frames associated with these and other designations for Jesus in 1:2-13, those in 1:14-14:26 most frequently realize agent semantic arguments. Beginning in 14:27, however, semantic patient arguments (what is acted on by another) almost consistently supersede agent arguments in frequency, marking a transition in the manner of Jesus' portrayal. The conjunction of Son of Man (ulos TOO dvGpoiTTOu), kill (crrroKTeivG)), after three days (|i€Ta Tpeis r\\iepas), and rise (dviaTa|im) in 9:30-32 recalls their previous conjunction in 8:31-32a and evokes contextual (and semantic role and character) narrative frames. The previous conjunction of this vocabulary is memorable because it marks a distinctive transition in the narrative development and associated the designation Son of Man with novel content. The contextual narrative frames that are evoked make available information about the extent of these contexts, relate 8:31-32a to 9:30-32 and their constituent vocabulary and provide references to other narrative frames that utilize this content. They also assert perspectives for evaluating the function of these contexts and ground the cultivation of an expectation that any subsequent conjunction of this vocabulary, as in 10:32-34, will concern the future experience and activity of the Son of Man. The realized relationships also ground the narrative audience's recognition that the three predictions present a progression in specificity concerning the Son of Man's future experience and activity. 34. Gerald Graff observes, "What we recollect of what we have read is not the particular details so much as the schematic sense of the whole which we project in order to make sense of the details" ("Literature as Assertions," in American Critics at Work: Examinations of Contemporary Literary Theories [ed. Victor A. Kramer; Troy, N.Y.: Whitson Publishing, 1984], 81-110, here 98). The method of analysis would explain both the precondition for interpreting this schematic sense and the resulting interpreted meaning in terms of narrative frames.
16
The Rhetoric of Characterization
The sequence of a prediction, controversy, and teaching in 9:30-41 recalls their previous sequential occurrence in 8:31-9:1 and evokes structural narrative frames that make available information about the extent of these structures and relate 8:31-9:1 to 9:30-41 and their constituent contexts and vocabulary and provide references to other narrative frames that utilize their content. They also assert perspectives for evaluating the function of these structures and their constituent contexts and cultivate an expectation that any subsequent prediction (as in 10:32-34) will be followed by a controversy and teaching (as in 10:35-^5). These realized relationships also ground the narrative audience's interpretation of the controversies as reactions or responses to the predictions and of the teachings as reactions or responses to the controversies. The designations Jesus, Christ, and Son of God in 1:1 evoke character (and semantic role) narrative frames. The subsequent narration of these and other designations repeatedly evokes the character narrative frames associated with Jesus and relates to them all of the realized and interpreted narrative content concerning these designation from the discussions of semantic role, contextual, and structural narrative frames. These character narrative frames permit a properly narrative interpretation of the content of the semantic frames for which a designation for Jesus lexically realizes a semantic argument. Thus, character narrative frames ground the narrative audience's interpretation of cultivated oppositions between semantic arguments, as between the agent and goal of "seek," as oppositions between various characters and Jesus. Such interpretations account for the narrative audience's negative evaluation of characters and actions that are opposed to Jesus and his actions and positive evaluation of characters that are aligned with Jesus and his actions. The realized relationships also ground the narrative audience's expectations for the continued characterization of Jesus in particular ways under particular designations. These considerations indicate the manner in which the repetition of constructs may take on a rhetorical function. Each occurrence of a construct evokes narrative frames and realizes for them particular content; and each subsequent occurrence of a construct evokes the same narrative frames with their realized content and presents the opportunity for further development along specific lines. c. The Implied Reader Revisited The investigation of the narrative rhetoric permits a further specification of the authorial audience and the narrative audience that recognizes the contribution of the preexisting and narratively realized content of narrative frames. For convenience of reference, the totality of the interpreted realized content of semantic and narrative frames receives the generic designation "beliefs."35 In this light, the authorial audience is the construct of the implied reader for which the narration 35. Here "beliefs" designates the totality of the content of semantic and narrative frames evoked for authorial audience or cultivated for narrative audience and not merely the content of religious faith.
The Method of Analysis
17
evokes preexisting beliefs; and the narrative audience is the construct of the implied reader for which the narration evokes cultivated beliefs.36 That is, the authorial audience is characterized by the preexisting beliefs evoked by the narration; and the narrative audience is characterized by the beliefs cultivated by the narration.37 d. Rhetorical Strategies Revisited The discussion of the semantic rhetoric distinguished neutral and sophisticating rhetorical strategies according to whether (sophisticating) or not (neutral) the repetition of words realizes and reinforces content for semantic frames along narratively specific lines. This discussion investigates three rhetorical strategies apparent in the repetition of narrative frames. As with the repetition of vocabulary, the repetition of constructs that does not realize and reinforce content for narrative frames along specific lines is deemed a neutral rhetorical strategy.38 The neutral repetition of constructs contributes in only very limited ways to characterization and other narrative developments and so receives little attention in the following studies. In general, the repetition of constructs realizes content along specific lines in two distinct ways. Most frequently their repetition constitutes a sophisticating rhetorical strategy. With respect to narrative frames that include no preinterpreted content, repetition is deemed sophisticating if it initially realizes specific content that conforms to preexisting beliefs as determined by other avenues of study and thereafter redundantly reinforces this content with coherent or similar realized content. With respect to narrative frames that include preinterpreted content, repetition is deemed sophisticating if it initially realizes and then reinforces content that coheres with preinterpreted content. Less frequently, the repetition of constructs constitutes a deconstructive 36. Rabinowitz, "Truth in Fiction," 126-27. Discussions of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs appear in Ernest Best, "Mark's Readers: A Profile," in The Four Gospels (ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:839-55; and Bas van Iersel, "The Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of Connotations," Semeia 48 (1989): 83-114, here 83. Their significance for the interpretive process receives respective attention in Booth, Rhetoric of Fiction, 157, 177, and in Eco, Role of the Reader, 7-8. 37. Distinguishing the authorial and narrative audiences according to the content of semantic and narrative frames evoked and cultivated by the narration permits descriptions of both audiences that are derived solely from the perspective of the narration and so do not require recourse to particular historical presuppositions or appeals to authorial intent. Still, as subsequent discussions indicate, the study of the preexisting and narratively cultivated beliefs may provide the basis for tentative proposals concerning the original real author and the original real audience. 38. The neutral repetition of semantic role and character narrative frames is readily apparent because they are evoked by specific vocabulary and designations within the narration. In contrast, the neutral repetition of contexts and structures is all but indiscernible because their previous occurrences are evoked only if they are memorable, and what makes them memorable in large part is that their vocabulary is cultivated content along specific lines. In neutral repetition, however, further development along the same lines is excluded.
18
The Rhetoric of Characterization
rhetorical strategy. For narrative frames that do not include preinterpreted content, repetition is deemed deconstructive if it initially realizes and then reinforces content that diverges from or contradicts preexisting beliefs. For narrative frames that include preinterpreted content, repetition is deemed deconstructive if it initially realizes and then reinforces realized content that diverges from or contradicts preinterpreted content. Although the following studies indicate that repeated contexts and structures occur at most three times, the vast number of evocations of semantic role and character narrative frames permits a further manifestation of deconstructive repetition: repetition that realizes and reinforces content that diverges from previously realized content. Such repetition is readily apparent when previously cultivated expectations of the narrative audience, such as continued portrayal of a character predominantly under specific argument roles, are frustrated by subsequent developments. Repetition also may cultivate for the narrative audience expectations for continued repetition and realization of content and then frustrate these expectations not by repeatedly introducing contradictory content but by the cessation of the expected repetition itself.39 In such cases, the absence of expected repetition is deemed a deconstructive rhetorical strategy. Finally, the narrative rhetoric may place the "sophisticated" content of semantic frames in the service of either the sophisticating or deconstructive repetition of narrative frames.40 Distinguishing sophisticating from deconstructive rhetorical strategies is straightforward when the content realized for narrative frames is consonant with the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs (sophisticating repetition) or diverges from or contradicts the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs or the narrative audience's previously cultivated beliefs (deconstructive repetition). On occasion, however, repetition realizes content for narrative frames prior to clarifying preexisting beliefs about particular characters, topics, actions, or events. In such cases, the study relies on the inherent characteristics of narrative frames to distinguish between these strategies. Narrative frames, as conceptual constructs, present a certain inertia or resistance to modification; and this resistance is relatively greater when realizing content that diverges from or contradicts preexisting or previously cultivated beliefs than when realizing coherent content.41 With sophisticating repetition, the autho39. The impact of the cultivation of expectations and their subsequent frustration on the narrative audience receives consideration in Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 37-39,288; and in Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority ofInterpretive Communities (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), 158-59, 345. 40. The deconstructive repetition of words and the semantic frames they evoke could arise only if the semantic rhetoric attempted to change, for example, which semantic arguments were required for the correct grammatical use of words. My analysis of the semantic frames of all major classes of words that require semantic arguments elsewhere (Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis) indicates no instance in Mark of such repetition. 41. Perry comments, "The frame serves as a guiding norm in the encounter with the text, as a
The Method ofAnalysis
19
rial audience's familiarity with preinterpreted content permits the straightforward introduction of new coherent content without previous narrative preparation or explanatory warrants. In contrast, the greater resistance to contradictory content generally requires extended narrative preparation to establish a convivial context for its initial introduction and warrants to ensure its viability. For example, Jesus' initial invitation to individuals to become his disciples (1:16-18; cf. 1:19-20; 2:13-15) is introduced with only minimal preparation in a single verse (1:16); and the context presents no warrants explaining Jesus' authority to make such an invitation or the propriety of the individuals' response of following (dKoXouOea)) or going behind (aTTepx
20
The Rhetoric of Characterization
audience. Since such repetition realizes only the minimal content that permits the evocation of preexisting beliefs, the study of neutral repetition can provide at most a very general statement of the authorial audience's beliefs. In contrast, the method of analysis can provide a specific statement of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs, which are grounded in the realized content of semantic and narrative frames. Such content then becomes the basis for projecting preexisting content by comparison (in instances of sophisticating repetition) or contrast (in instances of deconstructive repetition). Thus, statements of the beliefs of the authorial audience will be quite general except when the cultivation of the narrative audience's beliefs provides a basis for comparison or contrast. The following studies also indicate that the authorial audience has a preexisting familiarity with all of the repeated designations for God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples. Thus, their designations always evoke character and semantic role narrative frames, even in their first occurrence. The meaningful and coherent portrait of these characters then is grounded in the realized content of all of the narrative frames evoked by designations. The remaining clarifications concern analytical shortcuts that permit a standard approach to the study of repetition and reduce redundancies in the presentation. As previously indicated, the method is competent to determine that the initial occurrences of words evoke semantic frames and that the initial occurrences of designations evoke semantic role and character narrative frames that include preinterpreted content. Repeated contexts and structures, in contrast, are memorable in large part because they include words undergoing sophisticating repetition. This indicates that these constructs are novel to Mark and so evoke narrative frames only in their second occurrence. The studies of the repetition of both words and constructs, however, consistently require a consideration of their first occurrence. Thus, in order to arrive at a standard procedure for presentation, the following studies analyze the initial occurrences of contextual and structural constructs as if they realize particular content in the narrative frames that are evoked by their second occurrence. A second shortcut removes redundancies in the studies of verbal repetition. Technically, the studies of repeated vocabulary and designations should proceed in two stages, an examination first of the semantic rhetoric and semantic meaning and then of the narrative rhetoric and narrative meaning. Such a procedure, however, would introduce many redundancies. Thus, the studies of repeated words and designations incorporate into the discussions of the semantic rhetoric of verbal repetition properly narrative considerations. These studies, however, consistently follow the pattern of introducing semantic observations prior to developing their narrative implications. A third shortcut reduces redundancies in the discussion of the organization and integration of cultivated beliefs about characters into coherent portraits of these characters. Technically, the interpreted portraits of the characters God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples are grounded in the realized content of the narrative frames evoked by three (disciples) or more (God and Jesus) designations. Thus, the
The Method of Analysis
21
meaningful contexts that constitute the precondition for interpreting their portraits and the frameworks that accommodate all of the realized content should receive separate discussion. This, however, would introduce redundancies and an added level of complexity into the following studies. The procedures for developing statements about the portrayal of characters reduce redundancies by treating all realized content about the characters God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples as if it were incorporated into or directly related to the character narrative frames evoked by the designations God, Jesus, and disciples.
5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs The studies of verbal repetition clarify the manner in which the semantic rhetoric realizes specific content for semantic frames and relates these semantic frames to others in their linguistic context. The studies of the repetition of constructs then clarify the manner in which the narrative rhetoric realizes specific content for narrative frames and relates the realized content of semantic frames to other semantic frames in their narrative context. They also clarify how the narrative rhetoric progressively relates or incorporates the realized semantic and narrative content of a context into the narrative frames evoked by repeated contexts, structures, and ultimately characters. These studies reveal that the vast majority of repeated words participate in incorporations at least into repeated contexts and that only a tiny minority are related directly to character narrative frames without some intermediate incorporation. Thus, the studies of the narrative rhetoric of repetition permit the formulation of a graphic outline of the progressive relationships and incorporations of cultivated content from particular words through contextual and narrative constructs to character constructs.
6. The Narrative Rhetoric of Characterization The previous discussions considered the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and how the repeated evocation and realization of content for semantic and narrative frames contributes to the interpretation of a meaningful portrait of a particular character. This discussion, in contrast, examines the manner in which the realized content of semantic and narrative frames associated with one character either may be evoked and applied to the portrayal of another character or may ground the interpretation of narrative meaning that does not contribute directly to characterization. This presentation considers one example of the "application" of the portrayal of one character to another and two examples of the concurrent realization of content concerning characters and other narrative developments. a. Recapitulation Recapitulation designates the repeated evocation of the narrative frames associated with one character in the portrayal of another. For example, the narrative
22
The Rhetoric of Characterization
frames associated with John the Baptist, who was in the desert (ev TT) eprj|i(p, 1:4; cf. 1:3) and proclaimed (KTipuaaw, 1:4, 7) may be evoked for the narrative audience when Jesus soon afterward is portrayed as in the desert (1:13) and proclaiming (1:14). This would ground a recognition of parallels between Jesus and John the Baptist and encourage the subsequent evocation of narrative frames associated with John the Baptist whenever further parallels are introduced: for example, the fact that John is handed over (TTapa8i8a)|ii, 1:14) and has his body placed in a tomb (TL0T]|IL ev ^vT]|iei(i), 6:29) may be evoked by the subsequent notices that Jesus was handed over (3:19) and placed in a tomb (15:46).42 The narrative rhetoric of recapitulation becomes significant when the portrayal of particular characters resumes in whole or in major aspects the portrayal of previously established characters. Recapitulation results in either complete or partial (i.e., limited to particular aspects of the portrayal) identification of two characters (or groups of characters) that transcends the relationships usually accommodated by character narrative frames. Once such an identification is established, developments concerning either character may realize content for the narrative frames associated with both characters. The following analysis investigates several examples of partial recapitulation and one example of more complete recapitulation in characterization. b. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Semantic Arguments Previous discussions of semantic role narrative frames indicate that the repeated realization of particular semantic arguments in reference to a character cultivates an expectation for continued portrayal primarily according to the same semantic arguments and that subsequent characterization primarily according to different semantic arguments becomes noticeable when this expectation is frustrated. Changes in the frequency of semantic arguments associated with a character also may become noticeable. Relatively more frequent reference to a particular character within a segment of the narration places that character in the foreground, and relatively less frequent reference places that character in the background. The foregrounding of characters over an extended segment of the narration then may cultivate an expectation for their continued foregrounding, and deviation from this pattern not only may frustrate this expectation and become noticeable but may open novel avenues for narrative development. For example, once introduced, the character Jesus consistently appears in the foreground of the narration and serves as an interpretive guide to positively evaluated deeds and speech until the story of the death of John the Baptist (6:17-29). At this point the previously established relationship between Jesus and John and the absence of any direct 42. Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling point out that aspects of the characterization of John the Baptist also receive recapitulation in the characterization of the disciples, who will proclaim (13:10) and be handed over (13:9, 11, 12) {The New Testament, An Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History [2nd ed; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982], 110,239).
The Method ofAnalysis
23
reference to Jesus not only frustrates the expectation for Jesus' continued foregrounding but, through the aspects of identification between John and Jesus, invites a recognition that John serves as the guide to positively evaluated thinking and action in this story. This cultivates a series of very ominous expectations concerning future narrative developments involving Jesus. The narrative rhetoric of the sequence, relative frequency, and distribution of the arguments of words associated with particular characters becomes apparent when the narration cultivates for the narrative audience expectations for ongoing narrative development in specific ways and then frustrates these expectations. The vast majority of these expectations are fulfilled, and their fulfillment plays a vital role by providing a generally reliable pattern of narrative development that permits the cultivation of a coherent context for interpretation.43 In the context of the general fulfillment of expectations, however, a limited number of expectations ultimately are frustrated. These frustrations are noticeable, place the content of the frustrated expectations in the foreground, and open the possibility for distinctive contributions to the narrative development. c. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Rhetorical Strategies The narrative rhetoric of the sequence, frequency, and distribution of rhetorical strategies consistently gives primacy to neutral repetition. The narration does not begin with a primer indicating how it is to be interpreted. Rather, it begins by telling a story whose interpretation relies on or presumes a preexisting familiarity with narratives and how they are to be interpreted and a vast repertoire of semantic and narrative frames that may be drawn upon in interpretation. These preexisting frames and their preinterpreted content provide the initial reliable context for peculiarly Markan developments that take place subsequently.44 Similarly, the subsequent narration must rely on the continued evocation of the preinterpreted content of all but contextual and structural narrative frames to maintain this reliable context for interpretation and the cultivation of specific Markan meaning. Thus, neutral strategies must appear prior to novel Markan 43. Fowler discusses seven ways in which the narration asserts its own reliability: (1) direct narratorial comments to the reader, (2) linking statements, (3) parenthetical constructions including yap clauses, (4) inside narratorial views, (5) unanswered questions, (6) reliable characters, and (7) backdrops and introductions {Loaves and Fishes, 157-75). To these may be added two- (and three-)step progressions, through which given topics first receive statement and then receive immediate clarification. Frans Neirynck examines such progressions {Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1972], 88—112): negative/positive, temporal/ temporal, spatial/spatial, general/specific, foreign word/Greek translation, noun/appositive, double questions, and series of three. In each case, the narration first highlights and then cultivates specific patterns of narrative development and then subsequently employs these according to cultivated expectations for their use and content. 44. James S. Hanson gives an overview of the manner in which Mark 1:1-15 establishes the initial reliability of the narrator and of the content of the narration {The Endangered Promises: Conflict in Mark [SBLDS 171; Atlanta: SBL, 2000], 105-21).
24
The Rhetoric of Characterization
developments, continue with great frequency, and be distributed throughout the entire narration. Although neutral repetition must predominate, the sequence, frequency, and distribution of sophisticating and deconstructive repetition may vary within the narration as a whole or with respect to the cultivation of content for specific narrative frames. Thus, a given segment of the narration may evince sophisticating repetition concerning one character and deconstructive repetition concerning another. This appears in Mark 14 and 15, where the portrayal of various groups of religious leaders continues predominantly through agent arguments, while the portrayal of Jesus changes to rely more heavily on patient arguments. This change simultaneously alters the nature of the relationship between Jesus and these religious leaders and frustrates the expectation, cultivated in the earlier chapters, that in conflicts between Jesus and various groups of religious leaders, Jesus emerges victorious. This development contributes to the ominous tone of Jesus' passion, cultivates very negative evaluations of particular actions and events, and establishes an extended and unique "negative" context for cultivating significant elements of the beliefs of the narrative audience.
7. The Narrative Function of Characterization To this point the discussion of the method has considered the ways in which the semantic and narrative rhetoric contribute to the cultivation of the content of semantic and narrative frames and, in so doing, cultivate the beliefs of the narrative audience. The discussion also has indicated that a word that evokes and cultivates the content of the semantic and narrative frames associated with particular characters simultaneously may evoke and cultivate the content of narrative frames not specifically associated with characters. The resulting link between the narrative frames associated with particular characters and those associated with other narrative developments presents the opportunity to inquire into the contribution of the process of characterization itself to the overall narrative development.45 Clarification of the narrative function of characterization requires an investigation of all or, at least for practical purposes, a very large number of the frames evoked in the portrayal of a particular character. This makes an exemplary investigation of the narrative function of characterization difficult at this point in the presentation. However, the previously considered limited aspects of identification between Jesus and John the Baptist provide at least an indication of the narrative function of John's characterization. Here, the story of John's death realizes for the narrative frames associated with John particular content that may accrue 45. Borrell's discussion of the rhetorical function of the narration of Peter's denial presents significant parallels to the following investigation of the narrative function of characterization {Peter's Denial 173-206).
The Method of Analysis
25
to Jesus through their limited identification. This story's attention to the circumstances leading up to John's beheading, its vilification of those responsible, and its continued very positive evaluation of John invites and may elicit from the narrative audience an affective response to the content of the narration.46 Should such a response occur, the subsequent evocation of the narrative frames associated with John in the characterization of Jesus have the potential to insinuate this affective response into the characterization of Jesus even prior to the explicit narration of the events of Jesus' death. For example, the notice that the crowd that shields Jesus from arrest (12:12) also listens to him with delight (nKouev CIUTOO f)8ea)s, 12:37) may introduce a very ominous tone into an otherwise positively presented narrative context based on the recollection that Herod, who originally protected John and similarly listened to him with delight (6:20), ultimately orders his execution. Finally, the inclusion of affective responses in the beliefs of the narrative audience complements the previously described intellective responses associated with the interpretation of the realized content of semantic and narrative frames. Together these responses directly contribute to establishing the narrative audience's positive or negative relationship to particular characters, actions, concepts, and events.
8. Applications of the Studies of Characterization The proposed method of analysis, with only minor modifications, has the potential to contribute to two other areas of Markan scholarship: developing statements of the rhetorical exigency of the narration and of the theology proposed by the narration. Since these contributions require only minimal analysis beyond that which appears in the studies of characterization, they are treated as applications of the content of the studies of characterization. This discussion clarifies the nature of the rhetorical exigency and the additions to the proposed method to develop these contributions. The rhetorical exigency of the narration designates the situation or problem that the narrative rhetoric seems to be designed to address. The narrative rhetoric "asserts" for the narration a rhetorical exigency by evoking and highlighting particular preexisting beliefs and then cultivating alternative beliefs through sophisticating or deconstructive rhetorical strategies. The resulting divergence between the preexisting and cultivated beliefs problematizes the authorial audience's 46. Wolfgang Iser points out that the text provides only a "network of response-inviting structures," which, though necessary for a textually grounded interpretation, are not absolutely enforceable {The Act of Reading. A Theory of Aesthetic Response [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978], 34). Carl Friedrich Graumann describes the readerly experience as one of being directed toward a particular standpoint that can accommodate textually grounded response-inviting structures (Grundlagen einer Phdnomenologie und Psychologie der Perspektivitat [Berlin: de Gruyter, I960], 14).
26
The Rhetoric of Characterization
highlighted preexisting beliefs from the perspective of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs.47 The narrative rhetoric problematizes preexisting beliefs by cultivating beliefs that either cohere with (sophisticating repetition) or contradict (deconstructive repetition) particular preexisting beliefs and by coordinating rhetorical strategies in a manner that invites the narrative audience to experience and affectively respond to particular situations and events. As a result, the corresponding elements of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs and experience are portrayed as either deficient (sophisticating repetition) or erroneous (deconstructive repetition) from the perspective of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. Studies of repetition provide access to a general statement of corresponding deficient or erroneous preexisting beliefs; and studies of the narrative function of characterization contribute to this general statement by clarifying deficient and erroneous beliefs concerning broader narrative developments, the experience attributed to the authorial audience, and the preexisting beliefs associated with this experience. Thus, clarification of the rhetorical exigency requires that the proposed method be augmented to include a distinction between deficient and erroneous preexisting beliefs. The narrative rhetoric generally does not clarify preexisting relationships among the beliefs that are problematized. However, in the process of cultivating beliefs and relating them in specific ways, the narrative rhetoric imposes relationships (as clarified in the discussion of the rhetorical organization of cultivated beliefs) on the corresponding problematized preexisting beliefs. These related problematized beliefs constitute for the narrative audience the exigency which the narrative rhetoric seems designed to address and remedy. The resulting exigency is properly a rhetorical exigency insofar as it is the narrative rhetoric that evokes, relates, and problematizes particular preexisting beliefs concerning God, Jesus, Jesus' disciples, and their relationship. The development of a statement of Mark's theological beliefs will follow the same general format as the development of a statement of the rhetorical exigency, except that the focus is on the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. The only augmentation of the proposed method again concerns a distinction between sophisticating and deconstructive rhetorical strategies; but in this case the distinction is interpreted in terms of emphasis. That is, the straightforward introduction of coherent content through sophisticating repetition implies a lesser emphasis than does the cultivation of contradictory content that requires prior narrative preparation and contextual warrants. In addition, the content of the investigation will include not only cultivated beliefs but preexisting beliefs evoked by neutral repetition and so not problematized by the narrative rhetoric. 47. The narrative rhetoric also may cultivate for the narrative audience expectations that subsequently are frustrated; but such frustrations of cultivated expectations tend to serve other narrative interests and do not directly impact preexisting beliefs.
The Method ofAnalysis
27
9. The Presentation of the Study This presentation introduced presuppositions, concepts, and procedures for analyzing and describing the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition, considered possible applications of the content of characterization to other narrative developments, and indicated the method's approach to formulating a statement of the rhetorical exigency and theology of the narration. Although all elements of the method find application within the following studies, only particular elements are brought to bear in any given discussion. The studies of the characterization of God (chapter 2), Jesus (chapter 3), and Jesus' disciples (chapter 4) follow the same general format: a summary of general elements of the preexisting beliefs introduced by neutral repetition; an examination of beliefs cultivated through sophisticating repetition of vocabulary and through sophisticating and/or deconstructive repetition of contexts and structures; an outline of the rhetorical organization of cultivated beliefs; clarifications concerning the narrative rhetoric of characterization; and an examination of the narrative function of characterization and its contribution to cultivated beliefs. The study of recapitulation in the characterization of the women at the tomb (chapter 5) further develops the nature of the recapitulation, clarifies the semantic and narrative rhetoric of their characterization, and investigates the narrative function of their characterization and its contribution to cultivated beliefs about the disciples. All elements of the studies of characterization contribute to the concluding discussion of its applications and implications (Chapter 6) in formulating a statement of the rhetorical exigency from the problematized beliefs as related and incorporated by the semantic and narrative rhetoric and in proposing procedures for developing statements of Mark's theology (of God), christology (of Jesus), and mathetology (of Jesus' disciples).
Chapter 2 T H E RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF G O D
This study investigates the semantic and narrative rhetoric of the characterization of God and the contribution of God's characterization to other narrative developments.1 The relative paucity of references to God permits a determination of the argument roles realized by every reference to God in Mark. The preinterpreted content of semantic and narrative frames initially evoked in God's characterization then receives formulation into a general statement of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about God. An examination of the semantic and narrative rhetoric identifies the beliefs cultivated for the narrative audience through verbal and contextual repetition. The relationships among cultivated beliefs and their incorporation into the character narrative frames associated with God then receive graphic representation. A concluding analysis of the narrative rhetoric of the sequence, relative frequency, and distribution of references to God then clarifies the narrative function of God's characterization and its contribution to other narrative developments.
1. The Argument Roles Predicated of God The narration employs various means of referencing God. Some references are associated with lexically realized words, while others are associated with required arguments that are left unstated. Explicit references to God include the designation "God" (6 0e6s), other designations, pronouns for which a designation for God is the antecedent, and the syntactic endings of verbs and participles that narrate God's actions or attributes.2 Except in the case of Geos, determining 1. This investigation develops the study of the characterization of God introduced in Paul Danove, "The Narrative Function of Mark's Characterization of God," NovT 43 (2001): 12-30, and later augmented in Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel ofMark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon (JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 120-39. 2. John R. Donahue presents a careful analysis of titles and other vocabulary that contributes to Mark's portrayal of God ("A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark," JBL 101 [1982]: 563-94, here 565-68). Cf. M. Eugene Boring, who views the narration of Mark as "thoroughly theocentric and permeated with God-language" ("Markan Christology: God Language for Jesus?," NTS 45 [1999]: 451-71, here 451-52).
28
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
29
whether God is being referenced requires examination of the linguistic and narrative contexts, comparison to Mark's overall theological development, or reliance on the preinterpreted content of scriptural quotations or allusions. Except for two verbs discussed below, implicit references to God are associated with grammatically required arguments of words that are omitted in particular linguistic contexts. In Mark such omissions are limited to the agent argument of passive voice forms of transitive verbs, non-agent arguments whose referents may be retrieved from the previous narrative context, and non-agent arguments whose referents are provided directly by the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs.3 Implicit references satisfy three criteria: (1) a word requires completion by an argument for its correct grammatical usage, and that argument does not receive statement in the text; (2) omission of the argument has a specific grammatical justification; and (3) except in the case of direct appeals to preexisting beliefs, collateral information, as specified in the discussion of explicit reference, indicates that this argument has God as the most probable referent. These criteria identify implicit references to God in association with the sky being rent (axiCw) in 1:10, messengers (ayyeXog) in 1:13, and holy Spirit (iTi>ei)|ia dyiov) in 1:8. Rend (axiCw), which requires two arguments, an agent (who rends), and a patient (what is rent), appears without its agent; and both messenger (ayyeXos) and holy Spirit (TTveO|±a dyiov), which require a benefactive argument (the messenger and holy Spirit of whom), appear without their benefactive (criterion #1). Koine grammar, like English grammar, permits omission of the agent argument of all passive voice verb forms (being rent), of arguments whose referents have received previous contextual clarification (my messenger; see 1:2), and of arguments whose referents are unique and known by the audience (the "holy" Spirit is of God) (criterion #2).4 The first creation story (Gen 1:1-2:3) provides collateral information that God, who established the firmament, is the appropriate agent of the sky's rending; and the reference to scripture in Mark 1:2 (cf. Mai 3:1) identifies God as the benefactive of the noted messenger and of all subsequent messengers unless otherwise specified (criterion #3). Use of these criteria for identifying implicit reference brings symmetry to the 3. Donahue discusses the narration's frequent use of passive voice forms of transitive verbs in reference to God's activity ("Neglected Factor," 566). See Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples (trans. Joseph Smith; 2nd ed; Rome: Scripti Pontificii Biblici, 1985), 76. The proposed examples constitute instances of the 'theological" or "divine" passive: see Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation ofJesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), 10-13. The omission of required arguments whose referents can be retrieved from the preceding narrative context receives consideration in Charles J. Fillmore, '"U'-Semantics, Second Round," Quaderni di Semantica 7 (1986): 49-58; John R. Ross, "Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion," Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970): 264-65; and Ivan Sag and Jorge Hankamer, 'Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing," Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984): 325-45. 4. The [holy] Spirit of God (rTveOjia GeoC [ayiov]) is a common theme of scripture: Gen 1:2; 41:38; Num 23:7; 24:2; \ Sam 10:10; 19:9, 20, 23; 2 Chr 24:20; Ezek 11:24; Dan [4:8], [9], [18]; 5:11, 14; and its introduction without explanations or warrants in the context of other assertions concerning God's benefaction (1:1,2) indicates a direct appeal to preexisting beliefs.
30
The Rhetoric of Characterization
following discussion; for all but one explicit reference to God in Mark are associated with required arguments of words.5 The only exceptions to use of the first criterion with implicit references occurs with it is necessary (Set) and it is permitted (e£ecmv), whose technical theological usage in Mark is deemed to imply God's agency even though the verbs themselves do not require agent arguments.6 The following analysis identifies 219 explicit and grammatically required implicit references to God in Mark 1:1-16:8 and groups these references according to eight argument roles: agent (the instigator of an action or the ultimate cause of a change in another entity); experiencer (the animate being that is the locus of a mental or psychological state, event, or activity); instrument (the means by which an action is performed or something happens); source (the literal or figurative entity from which something moves); goal (the literal or figurative entity toward which something moves); benefactive (the ultimate entity for which an action is performed or for which, literally or figuratively, something happens or exists); patient (the entity undergoing a process or affected by an action or located in a place); or content (the content of a mental or psychological state, event, or activity).7 Since God's agency proves to have the greatest significance in subsequent discussions, the argument role agent receives more detailed investigation. Mark portrays God as agent on seventy-five occasions. The explicit agency of God appears in association with thirty-five occurrences of verbs: go on a journey (dTro87i(ieo), 12:1), destroy (OTTOXXUIJLI, 12:9), send (aTToaTeXXo), 1:2; 9:37; 12:2, 4, 5, 6), forgive (dc|>iT)p.i, 2:7; 11:25), give (8i8a)|±i, 11:28; 12:9), abandon (eyKaToAeLTTO), 15:34), lease (<EK8L8O|JUII, 12:1), choose (€KXeyo|iai, 13:20), come (epxo|iai, 12:9), shorten (KoXopow, 13:20a, 20b), create (KTLCW, 13:19), take (Xaiipdvo), 12:2), say (Xeyo), 12:6, 26a, 26b, 36), build (OLKO8O^60), 12:1), dig (opijaaa), 12:1), [not] remove (irapa^epo), 14:36), strike (Trcnrdaaa), 14:27), place around (TTepiTi9r||±i, 12:1), do (Troieo), 5:19; 10:6; 12:9), join (auCeuya), 10:9), place (TL6T]|JLL, 12:36), and plant (^UTEIJCD, 12:1).8 5. A given word in Koine (and English) may require zero, one, two, or three arguments for its correct grammatical usage and simultaneously may license the presence of various nonrequired adjuncts: see John I. Saeed, Semantics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 147-49. Although the noted considerations preclude the inclusion of potential implicit references to God associated with nonrequired adjuncts, they do establish a grammatically justified corpus of data against which such potential references may be compared for coherence of content. The lone example of explicit reference to God associated with a nonrequired verbal adjunct appears with "beg" (6pKi£a), 5:7). 6. According to W. Grundmann, "8el, 8lov <ECTTL," TDNT 2:21-25, all occurrences of Set in Mark make appeal to the will of God W. Foerster suggests that although the common usage l^eoriv may relate to either the Law or God, its New Testament usage must be interpreted in terms of the demands of the will of God ("e^eaTLv," TDNT 2:560-61). 7. These working definitions summarize the more detailed discussions that appear in Charles J. Fillmore and Paul Kay, Construction Grammar (Stanford: CSLI, 1999), 4:21-22; Saeed, Semantics, 140-41; and T. Givon, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction (2 vols.; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984,1990), 1:126-27. 8. The statement of God's agency does not incorporate actions attributed to the holy Spirit (1:8,
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
31
Although limiting implicit reference to arguments whose omission is grammatically justified removes more contentious assertions of God's agency, identification of implicit agency remains somewhat ambiguous with the passive use of some transitive verbs.9 For example, the noted criteria permit a determination that God is the most appropriate referent of the omitted agent of axi£o> in 1:10. However, assigning agency to God in the rending of the curtain in 15:38 requires recourse to less direct collateral information, including Mark's general theological development, God's overarching agency in the events surrounding Jesus' death, and literary considerations concerning the function of inclusions.10 The following twenty-eight occurrences of verbs that include God as the most appropriate referent of the agent argument identify the lack of an explicitly narrated argument with a preceding asterisk (*) : take (alpoj, *4:25); take up (diTaipa), *2:20), forgive (a(()ir||±i, *3:28; *4:12), baptize (paTTTiCco, *10:38a, *38b, *39a, *39b), write (ypd<J>G) [always perfect passive indicative], *1:2; *7:6; *9:12, *13; •11:17; *14:21, *27), give (SiScopx, *4:11, *25; *6:2; *8:12; *13:11), prepare (€Toi|idCo), *10:40), measure (ixeTpew, *4:24), fulfill (uXripoG), *1:15; *14:49; [[*15:28]]), add (TTPO
avep6o>, *4:22). In two cases, the narration explicitly provides more appropriate candidates for agent or instrument: the young man (16:5) for roll away (dTroKuXiw, *16:4), and faith ( m a n s , 5:34; 10:52) or the one losing one's life (8:35) for save (aw£w, *10:26; *13:13, *20). The use of the preposition 8id (through) in 14:21 to designate the indirect agent through whom the Son of Man is handed over (Trapa8i8(i)M.i) may imply God as direct agent: see Augustine Stock {The Method and Message of Mark [Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989], 356-57), who notes that both the coordinated phrase, as it has been written (icaGus yeypaiTTai, 14:21a), and the contextual parallels to Isa 53:6, 12 emphasize God's direct agency. However, the previous narration also has identified numerous human agents who may be implied here. Passive forms of rise or raise (eyeipw, 6:14, 16; 12:26; 14:28; 16:6) are deemed to function intransitively based on the Markan precedent of the deponent usage of passive forms in the present (eyeipr|Tai in parallel withraOeuSr),4:27) and aorist (rvyepen, 2:12, in parallel with eyeipe, 2:9, 11): see BDF, p. 78; Maximilian Zerwick, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci (SPIB 107; 3rd ed; Rome:
32
The Rhetoric of Characterization
* 14:31) and be permitted (e£eaTiv, *2:24, *26; *3:4; *6:18; *10:2; *12:14), as indicated above, also are taken to imply the agency of God. God is portrayed as the referent of the experiencer of be merciful (eXeeo), 5:19), be pleased (euSoKeo), 1:11), want (OeXo), 14:36), and know (ol8a, 13:32). God is the referent of an instrument only with beg (opKiCo), 5:7). On thirteen occasions God references the source from whom (1) this people is distant (artexu [duo], 7:6), (2) come to be (yivo|±ai [napd]) the Sabbath (*2:27), powers through Jesus' hands (*6:2), and the rejected stone becoming the head stone (12:10), and (3) one receives (Xappdvo), *10:30; 11:24; 12:40). God also is the source of [everlasting] life (Cwrj [alaiyios], *9:43, *45; * 10:30), one's reward (jnaGog, *9:41), faith (maTig, 11:22), and an inheritance (KXTIPOVOJIICI, *12:7).12 God as referent of the goal appears twenty times. God is the goal of give back (dTro8i,8o)|iL, 12:17b), give thanks (eix a P L(JT ^ a) ? *&:6; * 14:23), pray (TTpoaeuXO|iai, *1:35; *6:46; *11:24, *25; *12:40; *13:18; *14:32, *35, *38, *39), worship (aepojiat, 7:7), honor (TL|ida), 7:6), and sing a hymn (i|iveo), * 14:26). Three nouns also imply God as goal: offering (Gixiia, * 12:33), whole burnt offering (6XoKat>TG)|ia, *12:33), and prayer (TTpoaeuxi, *9:29; *11:17). Of the eighty references to God as benefactive, only one occurs as the subject of a verb: God as Lord of the Vineyard has (ex^, 12:6a) a beloved Son. Elsewhere the references appear in noun phrases that describe either what God has or what is for God: angel[s]/messenger[s] (dyyeXog, 1:2, *13; 8:38; * 12:25; *13:27, *32); holy one (dyios, 1:24); [not] impossible thing (aSvvarov, 10:27); reign (paaiXeia, 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14, 15, 23, 24, 25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43); right [hand] (8<E£id, 12:36; 14:62); glory (86£a, 8:38); power (8iW|±is, 12:24; * 14:62); possible thing (Suvcrrov [napd] 10:27; * 14:35 or [dative] 14:36); commandment (evro\r\, 7:8, 9; *10:19; *12:28, [*29], [*31a], *31b); gospel (euoryyeXiov, *1:1 [retrospectively], 14, *15; *8:35; *10:29; *13:10; Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1966), 92, 113, 119, 125; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 215; and Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1963), 308-9. A similar deponent usage is assumed for transform (p.eTap.op4>6(o, *9:2), which exhibits only passive forms in the New Testament; but see Jack Dean Kingsbury (The Chhstology of Mark's Gospel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 99), who deems this verb to denote divine activity. Among the rejected candidates, only eyeipw has a potential to impact aspects of (but not the outcome of) the following investigation. 12. Faith (TTLQTLS) evokes a series of semantic frames associated with slightly different connotations for the word; and each semantic frame requires a single argument whose role depends on the connotation. Thus, in the phrase, TTUJTIV GeoO (11:22), God may reference the goal (belief in God), topic (belief concerning God), or source (belief from God). Such ambiguity, which permits the simultaneous evocation of multiple semantic frames, contributes depth and texture to characterization. The studies of the rhetoric of characterization, however, categorize such references according to a single argument role in order to ensure a one-to-one correspondence between arguments and references. The noted selection of source follows Nigel Turner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), 211; cf. Zerwick, Analysis Philologica,
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
33
*14:9); will (6eAr)|ia, 3:35); heir (K\r)pov6|ios, *12:7); word(X6yog, 7:13); way (686s, 1:2 [retrospectively], 3; 12:14); house (OIKOS, 2:26; 11:17); name (6vojia, 11:9); [holy] Spirit (TTve€|±a [dyiov], [*1:8], *10, *12; [*3:29]; [*12:36]; *[13:11]); prophet (TTPO(|>TITTIS, •1:2; *6:4, *15a, *15b; *8:28; *11:32); things (Td, 8:33; 12:17); path (T P LPOS, 1:3); son (vl6s, 1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6b; *13:32; 14:61; 15:39); and voice (((xoyrj, *1:11; *9:7).13 On twenty-four occasions God is referent of the patient argument associated with (1) the direct objects of transitive verbs, (2) the objects of predication either with or without be (dpi), or (3) the patient of benefaction. Two transitive verbs, receive (8exo|iai, 9:37b) and glorify (8o£d£o), 2:12), reference God as patient. God is the patient of predication with good (dyaGog, 10:18), he (airros, 12:32b), I (eyw, 12:26a), one (els, 12:29c, 32a), in the heavens (£v rols oupavois, 11:25), one Lord (tcupios elg, 12:29b), and highest ({R|HQTOS, 5:7). God is the patient of benefaction with Abraham ('Appad|±, 12:26b), the living (£o)VTes, 12:27b), you [pi.] (V\L&V, 12:29a), Jacob ('IaKtSp, 12:26d), Isaac ('IaadK, 12:26c), my (jiotj, 15:34a, 34b), [not] the dead (v€Kpoi, 12:27a), and you (aou, 12:30). God is also the patient of benefaction as Lord (Kupiog) of the Vineyard (d|iTTeXoJv, 12:9) and as Father (Trarrjp) of you [pi.] (i)|±a>v, 11:25), of him/the Son of Man (airroO, 8:38), and of the Son/Jesus (* 13:32), and as Abba Father (appa 6 TTaTrjp) of Jesus (*14:36).14 God twice references the content of experience with love (dyctTTda), 12:30, 33).
2, Preexisting Beliefs about God The narrative contexts of the 219 explicit or grammatically justified implicit references to God indicate no use of deconstructive rhetorical strategies to contradict the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning God.15 Although 13. The gospel (euayyeXiov) originally is attributed to Jesus Christ (1:1) as benefactive and then to God (1:14) as benefactive. Since the remaining occurrences appear without a statement of the benefactive, both Jesus Christ and God are evoked as its referents; and, retrospectively, this dual reference is extended to the occurrence in 1:1. Although the required argument of euayyeXiov in 1:14 is categorized as benefactive (subjective genitive), categorization as source (objective genitive; cf. BDF, p. 163) or topic (the gospel is about God and/or God's activity) also is possible. Categorization of the required arguments of dyyeXos andiryeOp-a as source also is possible. 14. Elsewhere, lord (icupios) in reference to God (1:3; 5:19; 11:9; 12:11, 29, 30, 36; 13:20) is deemed to function as a proper noun that does not require a benefactive. The noted references to Abba Father (14:36) and God (15:34a, 34b), which are patients of benefaction within their immediate contexts, also serve as vocative adjuncts (directly addressed entities) with respect to their following clauses. The definition of "abba" as "father" is an example of a sophisticating rhetorical strategy that does not involve repetition: see Robert Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stones in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1981), 160-61, for various contributions of definitions to the narrative development of Mark. 15. As the following analysis indicates, however, deconstructive strategies are apparent in the broader narrative developments associated with other narrative frames evoked by these words.
34
The Rhetoric of Characterization
sophisticating repetition cultivates beliefs about God by highlighting and reinforcing various preexisting beliefs or introducing into them new coherent content, such augmentation is reserved to the subsequent occurrences of repeated words. Thus, the content evoked by the first occurrence of words referencing God may be ascribed to the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning God.16 These preexisting beliefs indicate that the authorial audience has a selfidentification as a believer of the gospel, a familiarity with much of the content of Mark concerning God, and a recognition of God's unique relationship with Jesus. The authorial audience's self-identification as a believer is indicated by the straightforward opening assertions that God has a Son, Jesus, and that God prepares for Jesus' coming by sending a messenger (l:l-3). 1 7 The evocation of semantic and narrative frames associated with God in the opening verses asserts a reliability for the content of the entire narration that is completely dependent on the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about and relationship with God and Jesus. Without these, the assertion of reliable narration is either meaningless (in the case of no preexistent beliefs about God and Jesus) or undermined (in the case of hostile preexistent beliefs about them). Since the narration gives no indication of attempting either to define who God and Jesus are or to deconstruct preexisting beliefs about them, the narration assumes a believing authorial audience. The authorial audience's preexisting familiarity with much of the narrative content of Mark associated with God's characterization includes a knowledge of the content and implications of particular allusions to the Septuagint and a very positive esteem not only for God but also for Jesus and John the Baptist. Again, for the introductory narration (1:1-11) to be meaningful, the authorial audience must have prior beliefs that God's agency determines what is written in Isaiah, that God is the referent of "I," John is the referent of the "messenger," and Jesus is the referent of "you" (1:2), that John's clothing portrays him as Elijah (1:6; cf. 2 Kgs 1:8), the precursor of the great and terrible day of the Lord (Mai 3:23), and that Jesus is referent of the more powerful one (1:7).18 The straightforward presentation of the positive relationship of Jesus with God (1:1, 11) and of John with Jesus (1:2-9) and God (1:2-3; cf. 6:18) indicates that the authorial audience has a very positive preexisting esteem for God, Jesus, and John the Baptist. The authorial audience's preexisting recognition of God's unique relationship 16. Chaim Perelman observes that the process of interpretation must begin with what is accepted by the interpreter (The Realm of Rhetoric [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982], 21). 17. Whether or not uloO Geou (of God) is accepted as part of the original text, the straightforward narration of 1:11 indicates that Jesus in fact is recognized as the Son of God. 18. The citations in Mark 1:2-3 also assume a preexisting familiarity with who Isaiah is, why Isaiah is authoritative, and what is written in the Book of Isaiah (and Malachi); and the use of baptize (J3aTTTL£(o ) in 1:8 assumes a prior familiarity with the theological use of this word that permits it to summarize both John's and Jesus' activity and a recognition that being baptized with the holy Spirit has greater significance than being baptized with water (1:8).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
35
with Jesus is apparent throughout the narration. The most frequently asserted elements of this unique relationship are Jesus' status as God's son and God's agency with respect to Jesus. Jesus' status as God's son receives independent attestation under a series of designations: Son of God (t/109 OeoO, 1:1); Beloved Son (ulds dyaTTTiTos, 1:11); Son of the Most High God (1/109 TOI) 06OO TOO ixKaTou, 5:7); and the Son (6 vi6g9 13:32). Although God's agency impacts every aspect of Jesus' presentation, God's agency in Jesus' death receives the greatest frequency of independent reference: God takes up (dm-cupo), 2:20) the groom, does not remove (TTapacjxEpa), 14:36) the cup from Jesus, strikes ), 14:27) the shepherd, and abandons (eyKaraXeiTrG), 15:34) Jesus.
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated References This discussion examines the manner in which the thirty-five repeated words and phrases with God as the referent of particular arguments contributes to the cultivation of the content of particular semantic frames, the narrative frames associated with God, and other narrative frames evoked in the process of characterization. The narration consistently holds God and God's actions in high esteem. Thus, repetition of words with God as the referent of a particular argument not only highlights and reinforces particular positive actions and attributes of God but directly relates God positively or negatively to other characters referenced by the same argument of the same words and imposes a positive or negative evaluation of those characters' actions and attributes. Repetition with God as the referent of one argument also indirectly relates to God characters that reference other arguments) of the same word and directly relates to each other the characters referenced by the other arguments). For example, the verb "pray" (jrpocreijxoiiai) requires two arguments, an agent and a goal. The fact that God consistently is the referent of the goal in Mark establishes the possibility of directly relating the agents of this action to each other and of indirectly relating the agents to God as goal. Repetition with God as the referent of one argument also may relate God mediately to other characters through a third character that is both directly and indirectly related to God. For example, the repetition of send (dtTroaTeXXa)) directly relates Jesus and God as agents of this action. God as agent also sends Jesus as patient, which engenders an indirect relationship between God and Jesus. Since Jesus both sends others and is sent by God, those sent by Jesus have a mediated (through Jesus) relationship with God. The following study distinguishes three categories of relationships with God: direct, through repetition of the same argument of the same word; indirect, through repetition of the same word with God as referent of one argument and other characters as referents of another argument; and mediate, through repetition of a word that both directly and indirectly relates God to a second character and indirectly relates the second character to a third character. The study also
36
The Rhetoric of Characterization
addresses instances in which repetition of words with God and another character as referents of the same arguments engenders aspects of identification between God and the other character with respect to specific actions or attributes. Such identification is especially apparent in the cultivation of mediated relationships that predicate the same actions or attributes of God and another character and place both in parallel relationships. The study gives more detailed attention to repetition that directly relates God to other characters. a. Repetition ofAgent References Of the twelve repeated verbs with God as the referent of the agent, five occur only with God and so stress God's unique agency: be necessary (Set, *8:31; *9:11; *13:7, *10, *14; *14:31); be permitted (e£e(mi/, *2:24, *26; *3:4; *6:18; *10:2; *12:14); shorten (KoXopoo, 13:20a, 20b); fulfill (TTXTIPOG), *1:15; *14:49; [* 15:28]); and rend (axiCai, *14:49; [*15:28]); and repetition of (JXL£G) directly relates the heavens (oupavos, *l:10) and the temple's veil (KaTaTT6Taa|ia TOO vaou, * 15:38). God's implicit agency with 8el and e^eonv adds a further possible contribution of repetition, for both verbs require a single argument that designates a complete event. Repetition of 8et relates the following events as manifestations of God's agency: that the Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise (*8:31); that Elijah (/John the Baptist, cf. 1:2-3) come first (*9:11); that wars and reports of wars occur at the beginning of birth pains (*13:8); that the gospel be proclaimed first to all the nations (* 13:10); that the detestable object of desolation not stand in a particular place (*13:14); and, perhaps, that Peter die with Jesus (14:31). The first four occurrences stress God's overarching agency in necessitating particular events throughout history; and repetition of "first" (Trporrov, *9:11; * 13:10) asserts that this agency follows a specific pattern. The only repetition of specific content concerns Jesus' being killed as Son of Man (8:31) and dying (14:31). Repetition of e^eonv relates what may not be done on the Sabbath (*2:24), what may not be eaten (*2:26; cf. Lev 24:5-9), what may be done, good or evil on the Sabbath (*3:4), whom a man may not have as a wife (*6:18; cf. Lev 18:16), whether a man may divorce his wife (*10:2; cf. Deut 24:1, 3), and whether or not one may give the census tax to Caesar (*12:14). What is or is not permitted in each case either directly or indirectly references what has been written under God's agency in the scriptures and so what God commands of God's people. Repetition grants special emphasis to God's agency in regulating what human beings may or may not do on the Sabbath (*2:24; 3:4) and in marriage
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
37
(*6:18; 10:2). Only John the Baptist (6:18) and, redundantly, Jesus/the Son of Man (2:24, 26; 3:4; 10:2; 12:14) are cast as authentic interpreters of what God commands; whereas the Pharisees (2:24; 10:2) and the Pharisees with/and the Herodians (3:6/12:14) are portrayed as false interpreters. This directly positively relates Jesus and John, indirectly positively relates them to God, directly negatively relates them to the Pharisees and the Pharisees and Herodians, and indirectly negatively relates the latter characters to God. Seven repeated verbs appear with both God and other characters as referent of the agent: send (aTroaTeXXo)), forgive (d^Lt^i), baptize (PaTrTi£o)), write (ypd(j>a)), give (8i8o)|ii), say (Xeyco), and do (noieo)). Among these, send (aTrooreXXoi)), which requires an agent, a patient, and a goal, occurs sixteen times and has as agent God (1:2; 9:37; 12:2,4, 5,6), Jesus (3:14; 5:10; 6:7; 8:26; 11:1, 3; 14:13; cf. 13:27 for the Son of Man) and farmers (12:3) or "they" (12:13), who are identified contextually with the chief priests, scribes, and elders (12:12; cf. 11:27).19 The eight occurrences with Jesus as agent redundantly reinforce his direct positive alignment with God, which verges on identification when Jesus sends the twelve who accomplish acts previously attributed to Jesus whom God sends (9:37; 12:6). God's sending of John the Baptist (/Elijah, 1:2 [Mai 3:1]), Jesus (9:37; cf. 12:6 for Beloved Son), and slaves (12:2, 4, 5) directly positively relates these characters to each other and indirectly positively relates them to God. Repetition also indirectly positively relates the twelve (3:14; 6:7) and particular disciples (11:1; 14:13) to Jesus and mediately (through Jesus) relates them positively to God. In contrast, the chief priests, scribes, and elders are portrayed in direct opposition to God; for the farmers send [back] (12:3) empty-handed the slave sent to retrieve what is due to God; and "they" send some Pharisees and Herodians (cf. 3:6 for the plot by these characters to destroy Jesus) to trap Jesus, who is directly and indirectly positively aligned with God. The occurrence of aTroaTeXXa) in 12:13 also indirectly aligns the Pharisees and Herodians with the chief priests, scribes, and elders and establishes their negative relationship with God. Forgive (d<|>iri[ii) occurs eight times with the agents God (2:7; *3:28; *4:12; 11:25b), Jesus or the Son of Man (*2:5, *9, 10), and those who have something against another (11:25a). The parallel action of God and Jesus or the Son of Man in 2:1—12 strengthens Jesus' direct positive alignment with God. A direct positive relationship with God for those having something against another, however, remains contingent on their forgiveness of the other. This cultivates a mediated positive relationship with God for the other who is forgiven. Baptize (paimCo)) occurs eleven times and has as agent God (* 10:38a, *38b, *39a, *39b), John the Baptist (1:4, 5, 8a, 9; 6:14, 24), and Jesus (1:8b). Repeti19. A second use of OLTTOGT€ XX
38
The Rhetoric of
Characterization
tion of this verb is distinct in that the contexts of its occurrence realize for its agents different relationships: John's baptizing is related to water; Jesus' to the holy Spirit; and God's to suffering, death, and resurrection. Repetition emphasizes John's direct positive relationship with God; and the notice that Jesus baptizes indicates his positive relationship with God and asserts that he is more powerful than John insofar as Jesus' baptizing with [the] holy Spirit supersedes John's baptizing with water (1:7-8). As characters baptized by God (* 10:38a, *38b, *39a, *39b), Jesus, James, and John are directly positively aligned with each other and indirectly positively aligned with God. Those whom Jesus baptizes with the holy Spirit also are mediately positively aligned with God. Write (ypdc))(i)) occurs nine times and has the agents God (*1:2; *7:6; *9:12, *13; *11:17; *14:21, *27) and Moses (10:5; 12:1,9).20 With respect to God, what is written is that God will send John the Baptist/Elijah to prepare Jesus'/God's way (1:2); that this people, contextually identified as the Pharisees and some of the scribes (cf. 7:1), honor God [only] with their lips (7:6); that "they" did to John the Baptist/Elijah whatever they wished (9:13); that Jesus as Son of Man suffer much and be despised (9:12); that God's house will be called a house of prayer for all people (11:17); that Jesus as Son of Man will go [to his death] (14:21); and that God will strike Jesus as shepherd (14:27). Repetition directly positively relates Jesus, John the Baptist, and God's house (the temple), indirectly positively relates them to God, directly negatively relates them to the Pharisees and some scribes, and directly negatively relates the latter to God. Repetition also links John's sending and what was done to him; Jesus' suffering, being despised, and going [to his death] as Son of Man and being struck as shepherd; and God's house being called a house of prayer for all people. God's direct relationship with the other agent of writing, Moses, however, is primarily negative. Moses' command concerning divorce has as its cause (npog) not God but human hardness of heart (10:5) and contradicts G o d ' s intent (10:6-9); and Moses' instruction about marriage to a dead brother's wife in order to raise up children for that brother (12:19) proves to be superfluous in light of the resurrection (12:24-27). Give (8L8O)|±I) occurs thirty-five times with the agents God (*4:11, *25; *6:2; *8:12; 11:28; 12:9; *13:11), Jesus (6:7, 4 1 ; 8:6; 10:45 [for the Son of Man]; 13:34 [for Lord of the Household]; 14:22, 23; cf. 10:37, 40 for what Jesus cannot give), David (2:26), Jesus' disciples (6:37a, 37b), Pharisees and Herodians (3:6; 12:14a, 14b), Herod (6:22, 23, 25), a soldier (6:28a), Herodias's daughter (6:28b), false christs and prophets (13:22), chief priests (14:11), betrayer (14:44), and other characters (5:43; 8:37; 10:21; 14:5; 15:23). God gives the mystery of the reign of God to those around Jesus with the twelve (*4:11), [more] to those 20. God is deemed the agent based on the fact that (1) the authority of what is written ultimately depends on God and God's agency and (2) an ascription of agency to Isaiah is explicitly avoided in the verb's first occurrence (1:2). God's agency consistently is communicated through the verb's perfect passive indicative (yeypcnTTai < ypdcjxo).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
39
[already] having (*4:25), wisdom to Jesus (*6:2), no sign to this generation (*8:12), authority to Jesus (11:28), the vineyard to others (12:9), and what to say to Peter, Andrew, James, and John when they are handed over (*13:11). Repetition redundantly reinforces Jesus' direct positive relationship with God and directly positively aligns Jesus, David, and God (2:26). Repetition of give authority (egouaiav 8i8o)|ii) also identifies Jesus with God; for, just as God gives authority to Jesus (11:28), who accomplishes positively evaluated deeds, Jesus gives authority to the twelve (6:7; cf. 13:34 for the Lord of the Household) who accomplish the same deeds (6:6b-13, 30-32). This asserts for the twelve a mediated positive relationship with God. The remaining occurrences, however, portray characters in direct opposition to God. Jesus' disciples are negatively evaluated; for Jesus' order to give something to eat (6:37a), itself a positively evaluated action, is negatively received (6:37b), and the disciples' implicit rejection, although redeemed somewhat by their later compliance (which does not employ 818(411), is reiterated in similar circumstances in 8:4. The Pharisees and Herodians first give a plot to destroy Jesus (3:6) and then give to Caesar what is Caesar's but, by implication, not to God what is God's (12:14). Herod twice promises to give to Herodias's daughter whatever she asks (6:22, 23), and she asks him to give the head of the positively evaluated John the Baptist (6:25). A soldier gives John's head to the daughter (6:28a), who in turn gives it to Herodias (6:28b). False christs and prophets will give signs to mislead God's chosen ones (13:22; cf. 13:20). The chief priests promise to give Judas silver to hand over Jesus (14:11); and Judas, the one handing over Jesus, gives a sign to identify Jesus at his arrest (14:44). The four occurrences of say (Xeyo)) with God as agent directly positively relate the content of what is said, that the farmers will respect God's [beloved] Son (12:6), that God is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (12:26a, 26b; cf. Exod 3:6, 15, 16), and that God as Lord orders Jesus as David's Lord to sit at God'srighthand until God places Jesus' enemies under his feet (12:36; cf.Ps 110:1). The first of the three occurrences of do/make (TTOieo) with God as agent parallels what God does (5:19) with what Jesus does (5:20) and stresses Jesus' direct positive alignment with God. The second and third, in contrast, describe actions reserved to God: making human beings male and female (10:6; cf. Gen 1:27; 5:2); and coming, destroying the farmers, and giving the vineyard to others (12:9). These occurrences indirectly negatively relate to God the chief priests, scribes, and elders, the contextual referent of the farmers (12:12; cf. 11:27) who reject (d-no8oKi|idC(i), 12:10; cf. 8:31) the stone, Jesus. Among the actions predicated of God, God's agency in the death of Jesus receives the most frequent assertion through the greatest number of verbs: the Lord of the Vineyard sends (aTToaTeXXu), 12:6) his beloved Son, whom the farmers kill (diTOKTeiva), 12:8); God baptizes (paTTTi^G), *10:38a, *39a) Jesus, which is contextually interpreted in terms of the Son of Man's being handed over, condemned, killed (dnTOKTeLvo)), andrising(cf. 10:33-34); and God's agency neces-
40
The Rhetoric of Characterization
sitates (8ei, *8:31) that the Son of Man suffer much, be rejected, be killed (CITTOKand rise. Nonrepeated verbs indicating God's agency contribute to this theme: God takes up (dTraipo), *2:20) the groom, strikes (TrcrrdaaG), 14:27; cf. Zech 13:7) the shepherd, does not remove (TTapa<|)€pa), 14:36) the cup from Jesus, and abandons ((EyraTaXeiiTG), 15:34) Jesus.21
T€LV(D),
b. Repetition of Non-Agent References Of the twenty-three repeated words with God as the referent of a non-agent argument, fifteen clarify God's unique attributes. Only God is the source of life (Ccori) and what comes to be [from] (yivo|±ai [uapd]). Life (9:43, 45; 10:30) requires no other arguments and so does not cultivate relationships for God. Come to be, however, directly positively relates its patient arguments, the Sabbath (*2:27), powers (8uvd|ieis) through the hands of Jesus (*6:2), and the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone (12:10-11), and indirectly positively relates these to God. God alone is the goal of prayer (Trpoaeuxii, 9:29; 11:17), which requires no other arguments, and of give thanks (euxapiaTeo)) and pray (TTpoaeiJxo|iai). Repetition of give thanks (8:6; 14:23) and pray (1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God, whereas all other agents of "pray" are indirectly negatively related to God: the twelve (11:24, 25), Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:18), and Peter, James, and John (14:38), who are ordered to pray but do not do so; and the scribes whose manner of praying receives Jesus' negative critique (12:38-40). God alone is referent of the benefactive of five words that require no other arguments: messenger (dyyeXos, 1:2, *13; *8:38; *12:25; *13:27, *32); commandment (evToXrj, 7:8, 9; *10:19; *12:28, [*29], [*31a], *31b); [holy] Spirit (irvev[ia [dyiov], [*1:8], *10, *12; *3:29; *12:36; *13:11); prophet (TTpo^rJTTis, *1:2; *6:4, *15a, *15b; *8:28; * 11:32); and Beloved Son(ulds dyaTTrjTos, 1:11; 9:7; 12:6). These patients of God's benefaction are directly positively related to each other and indirectly positively related to God. Although three other repeated words, house (OIKOS), son (ulos), and reign (PaaiXeta), appear with God and other characters as benefactive, they are not deemed to cultivate direct relationships with God. God's house (OLKOS), the temple, differs from other houses in that it is attended by a chief priest (2:26) and is to be a house of prayer for all nations (11:17; cf. Isa 56:7). God's relationship with Jesus, which receives significant subsequent study, differs from other parental relationships in that only Jesus is God's beloved Son (vibs dya-rrnTos, 1:11; 9:7; 12:6), God's Son (i/iog OeoO, 1:1; 3:11; 5:7; *13:32; 15:39) and Son of the Blessed (ulos evXoyr\Toi), 14:61), and only Jesus is benefactive of God as Abba Father (appa 6 TraTrjp, 14:36) and through "my" (Ge6s JJLOU, 15:34a, 34b). God's benefaction of reign (PamXeia) is the most frequently asserted explicit 21. The previously noted dubious usage of hand over (Trapa8i8co(jLi) in 14:21 would contribute to this development, if, indeed, the implied direct agent is God
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
41
relationship attributed to God in Mark (1:15; 4:11, 26,30; 9:1,47; 10:14, 15, 23, 24, 25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43); and God's reign is unique in that entering [into] it (eiaepxo|iai els, 9:47; 10:15, 23, 24, 25) is contextually interpreted as entering [into] life (els Tfjv £orf|v euiepxoiiai, 9:43, 45) and inheriting everlasting life (Corr^ alciviov KXr)povo|i6a), 10:17). Repetition of God as referent of the patient arguments of one (els, 12:29, 32) and father (iTaTrjp, 8:38; 11:25; * 13:32; [* 14:36]) is not deemed to cultivate direct relationships with other characters because God as one is unique and God as Father is distinct from other fathers in being in the heavens (11:25) and having as benefactive anyone who does God's will (3:35). Father, however, does directly positively relate to each other the benefactives, the Son of Man (8:38), "you" or Peter and other disciples who forgive (11:25; cf. 11:20-21), Jesus as the Son (*13:32), and Jesus (*14:36). The remaining eight non-agent arguments appear with both God and other characters as referent. Repetition of the source argument role is limited to take/receive (Xa|ipdvG)): God is the source of a hundredfold property and family (10:30), whatever is prayed for or asked in faith (11:24), and greater (negative) judgment (12:40); the sower is the source of the word (4:16); and farmers are not the source of some of the fruit of the vineyard (12:2-3). These occurrences directly positively align the sower or Jesus, who sows the word in this pericope, with God and directly negatively relate the farmers or chief priests, scribes, and elders with God. Repetition also indirectly positively relates to God everyone who leaves possessions and family for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (10:30) and those who pray or ask with faith (11:24) and, through Jesus, positively relates to God those who receive the word with joy (4:16). In contrast, a direct negative relationship with God accrues to the scribes, who devour houses of widows and pray in pretense (12:40). Of the five words with both God and other characters as benefactive, four appear only with God and Jesus as benefactive: right [hand] (8e£id, 12:36; 14:62 and 10:37, 40; *15:27); power or force (8wa|iis, 12:24; *14:62 and *5:30; *13:26); gospel (eucryyeXiov, *1:1, 14, *15; *8:35; *10:29; *13:10; *14:9) and way (686s, 1:2, 3; 12:14).22 Repetition of these words directly positively aligns Jesus with God.23 Repetition of SUVCITOV asserts that for God all things are possible (10:27; 14:36), as is the passing of Jesus' hour, if God so wants it (* 14:35, 36). That all things also are possible for the one who believes (9:23) directly 22. The two occurrences of the things (ra, 8:33; 12:17) with God as benefactive are not deemed to constitute repetition, because the word has two distinct connotations, the content of perception and the object of giving, respectively. 23. The benefactive complement of 8e£id in 16:5 is unclear and so is omitted from the discussion. The word 8uvaj±ig also has the connotations of "powerful deed" (6:2, 5; 9:39), which is not used with God as benefactive, and "powerful entity" (6:14), which does not require a benefactive. Finally, the referent of the benefactive argument of this word in 9:1 is unclear and is omitted
42
The Rhetoric of Characterization
positively aligns the one who believes with God. That it may be possible for false christs and prophets to mislead God's chosen ones (13:22; cf. 13:20) places the false christs and prophets in direct opposition to God. Repetition of cfxiwrj in the sense of "voice" with God (*1:11; *9:7) and its use with John the Baptist (1:3) positively aligns John with God.24 Repetition with God as referent of a patient argument and use with other characters is reserved to two occurrences of the pronoun "my" (|iou, 15:34a, 34b). That Jesus is the referent of the pronoun on both occasions highlights the unique relationship of Jesus (as benefactive) with God. Elsewhere |JLOIJ with Jesus as the referent directly positively aligns to God as patient the mother, brothers, and sisters of Jesus defined as those doing the will of God (3:33a, 33b, 34a, 34b, 35); Jesus' name (9:37, 39; 13:6, 13), Jesus' right [hand] (10:40), Jesus' words (13:31), Jesus' body (14:8, 22), the room of the passover meal (14:14), Jesus' disciples (14:14), Jesus' blood (14:24), and Jesus' self (tyvxA, 15:34).25 Repetition of God as referent of the content argument with love (dyaTrda), 12:30, 33) and its parallel repetition with neighbor as content directly positively aligns neighbor with God.26 The remaining occurrence of dyaudco aligns the man who has kept the (God's) commandments with God (10:21).27
4. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated Contexts This study examines the contribution of two repeated contexts, 1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37 and 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13, to the characterization of God. a. Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 Repetition of son (ulog, 1:1, 11; 12:6a, 6b; *13:32), lord(Kupios, 1:3; 12:9, 11; 13:35), come (epxopm, 1:7, 9, 11; 12:9; 13:35; 36), and time (raipos, 1:15; 12:2; 13:33) links 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 and encourages the evocation of the former contextfs] by the latter. Vocabulary in two of the three linked contexts also contributes to the evocation of former contexts: send (diToaTeXXo)) with God as agent (1:2; 12:2, 4, 5, 6), Beloved Son (ulos dyaTrrjTOs, 1:11; 12:6a), and the only occurrences of cast out (ckpaXXa), 1:12; 12:8) with Jesus as patient in 1:1-15 and 12:1-12; heaven (oupavos, 1:10, 11; 13:32) and angel 24. The word §u>vx\ also appears with the connotation "cry" (1:26; 5:7; 15:34, 37). 25. Other occurrences of \LOV in reference to Jesus designate goal (8:33, 34) or content (7:14) and so are omitted from this discussion. 26. The direct positive alignment of neighbor with God and the contextual linkage of the two statements (12:30, 33) indicate that an indirect positive alignment with God for the one loving God is contingent on a simultaneous love of and indirect positive alignment with neighbor. 27. The man's subsequent action of not responding to Jesus' call to follow him, however, overturns the man's initial positive alignment with God, indicating that the mere observance of God's commandments constitutes a necessary, but not sufficient, basis for positive alignment with God.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
43
(dyyeXosr, 1:2, * 13; * 13:32) in 1:1-15 and 13:32-37; and slave (8oO\os, 12:2,4; 13:34), the related words, go away on a journey (aTTo8r)|iea), 12:1) and away on a journey ((ITTOSTUIOS, 13:34), and give (8I8G)|JLI, 12:9; 13:34) in 12:1-12 and 13:32-37. This repeated context develops the relationship between God and Jesus and links their actions. Son (i/ios, 1:1, 11; 12:6a, 6b; * 13:32) asserts Jesus' indirect positive relationship with God as benefactive. Lord (Kupios) initially (1:3) references both God (cf. Mai 3:1) and Jesus and subsequently God as Lord of the Vineyard/Lord (12:9/11) and Jesus as Lord of the Household (13:35). Come (epxoixai), which links Jesus' initial (1:7, 9, 14) and end-time (13:35, 36) coming and God's end-time coming (12:9), asserts Jesus' identification with God. Repetition links the time (Kaipos) which God has fulfilled (1:15), when the Lord of the Vineyard sends slaves and the Beloved Son to receive some of the fruit of the vineyard (12:2), and when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:33). Repetition within 1:1-15 grants primary emphasis to God's unique benefaction of the [holy] Spirit (Trve€|ia [ayiov]) by which Jesus will baptize (1:8) and which descends onto Jesus (1:10) and casts him out into the desert (1:12) and God's benefaction of the gospel (evayyeXiov) which is of Jesus (1:1) and God (1:14) and the content of Jesus' proclamation (1:15).28 Secondary emphasis falls on God's unique benefaction of messengers (ayyeXos,) who prepare Jesus' way (1:2) and serve him (1:13) and God's benefaction of the way (1:2, 3) which is also of Jesus and of Jesus as [Beloved] Son (ulos [dya/rrriTos], 1:1, [11]). The inclusion of the other vocabulary between the first (1:1) and last (1:15) occurrence of gospel highlights its significance and stresses Jesus' concluding command to believe in the gospel (1:15). The greatest concentration of references to God's agency appears in 12:1-12, which asserts God's actions in establishing God's vineyard, leasing it, and going on a journey (12:1). The straightforward narration of 12:1 indicates that this statement evokes preexisting beliefs; and eight vocabulary parallels, including five hapax legomena, recommend Isaiah's story of the vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7) as the source of these preexisting beliefs: vineyard (d|±TreXo)v, cf. Isa 5:1a, lb, 3, 4, 5,6,7); plant (cjnrreiia), cf. Isa 5:2); [place] a hedge [around] (<^pay\iov [TrepiTL6T||±I], cf. Isa [5:2], 5); dig a trough (imoXTiviov/TrpoXr)i>iov opuaao), cf. Isa 5:2); and build a tower (yrvpyov OLKO8O|J€(O, cf. Isa 5:2).29 These parallels interpret the vineyard as the house of Israel/people of Judah (cf. Isa 5:7), which are 28. Within contexts that present numerous repeated words with God as the referent of an argument, primary emphasis is ascribed to the most frequently repeated vocabulary; and secondary emphasis is ascribed to less frequently repeated vocabulary. When all repeated words occur the same number of times, the study introduces no distinction in emphasis. 29. Evocation of Isa 5:1-7 by the remainder of 12:1-12 also is encouraged by the repetition of vineyard (12:2,8,9) and occurrences of beloved (aya-nnTos, 12:6; cf. Isa 5:1 < aya-nd^, cf. Isa 5: la, lb, 7) and the phrase, "what will he [the Lord of the Vineyard]/I [the Lord of Hosts] do" (TL TTOLrjaeiVuoiTiaw, 12:9; cf. Isa 5:4).
44
The Rhetoric of Characterization
God's ("my," cf. Isa 5:3, 4, 5, 6; the Lord Sabaoth's, cf. Isa 5:7); and both the narrated and evoked preinterpreted content and the context locate God's initial narrated actions prior to the sending of God's slaves. Thus, the contextual linkage of 1:1-15 and 12:1-12 relates God's agency in writing the scriptures (1:2) and fulfilling the time (1:15) to God's agency in establishing and leasing the vineyard and going away on a journey. In 12:2-8, repetition grants primary emphasis to God's agency in sending (dTToaTeAAo)) slaves (12:2, 4, 5) and finally God's Beloved Son (12:6). The linkage of 1:1-15 and 12:1-12 cultivates a series of relationships that interpret the content of 12:2-8. First, the sending of God's slaves (12:2, 4, 5) and then Jesus/the Beloved Son as patient (12:6) identify the messenger (dyyeXos) whom God sent (1:2), John the Baptist/Elijah, as (the last) one of these slaves (SoOAos, 12:2, 4). Second, the sending of God's messenger to prepare Jesus' way (1:2) interprets the sending of the slaves of God/the Lord of the Vineyard as a preparation for the sending of the Beloved Son. Third, according to 12:2, God's purpose in sending slaves and then God's Beloved Son is to take/receive (Xappdyco) some of the fruit of the vineyard. This interprets the fruit with which the farmers are to respond (12:2) as the confessing of sins (1:5), being baptized (paTTTi£a)) first by John with water and then by Jesus with the holy Spirit (1:8), and repenting and believing in the gospel (1:15). Fourth, the farmers' actual response, beating (12:3, 5), hitting on the head and dishonoring (12:4), and killing (aTTOKTeiwi), 12:5a, 5b) God's slaves is linked to the handing over (Trapa8i8a)|ju, 1:14) of God's messenger, John the Baptist. Fifth, repetition of cast out (eKfMXXa)) contrasts the [holy] Spirit's positively evaluated action of casting out Jesus into the desert (1:12) immediately after he is baptized with the fanner's negatively evaluated action of casting Jesus out of the vineyard (12:8) immediately after they kill him.30 Sixth, this linkage clarifies that the time (mipos, 12:2) of God's sending slaves and then the Beloved Son ends with the Beloved Son being killed (12:7-8). God's final actions (12:9), their interpretation (12:10-11), and the response of the chief priests, scribes, and elders to Jesus' parable (12:12; cf. 11:27) round out the story of the vineyard. What God will do (Troteo)) after the killing of the Beloved Son by the farmers is come (epxo|iai), destroy (aTroXXuiii) the farmers, and give (8i8a)|ii) the vineyard to others (12:9). Repetition of come (epxo(iai) links Jesus' initial coming (1:7, 9, 14) and the coming of God as the Lord of the Vineyard (12:9). The context also interprets God's end-time actions as a response to the farmers' action of killing Jesus, identifies the ones building (olKo8o|iea), 12:10) with the farmers who kill the Beloved Son (12:7-9), contrasts them with God, who built the tower of the vineyard (12:1), and identifies the stone with Jesus, the Beloved Son. "Reject" (ctiTo8oKi|idCoi), 12:10) recalls its occurrence in 8:31, interprets the stone/Beloved Son as the Son of Man and, again, the builders/farmers as the chief priests, scribes, and elders. Verses 10b30. The noted linkage implies but does not develop the relationship between Satan's action of testing Jesus (1:13) and the fanners' action of killing him (12:8).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
45
11 then confirm God's agency in making the rejected stone/Jesus/the Beloved Son/the Son of Man the head of the corner.31 The concluding notice that those present were seeking to arrest Jesus because they knew that he spoke the parable of the vineyard to them (12:12) confirms the direct and indirect negative relationship with God of the chief priests, scribes, and elders who have been Jesus' dialogue partners since 11:27 and whom the story identifies with the farmers who kill the Beloved Son. Within 13:32-37, vocabulary previously associated with God/the Lord of the Vineyard (12:1—12) is associated with Jesus/the Lord of the Household. Now Jesus is the man away on a journey (dvGpamos aTr68r||±os, 13:34; cf. di>0panTos . . . dTre8rj|ir)a<Ev, 12:1, for God) who gives (818(411,13:34; cf. 12:9), has slaves (80OX09, 13:34; cf. 12:2, 4), and comes (epxoiiai, 13:35, 36; cf. 12:9). The resulting extensive identification of Jesus/the Lord of the Household with God/the Lord of the Vineyard, however, is not absolute; for only God/the Father knows (ol8a, 13:32) about that day and hour. This directly positively relates Jesus as Son with God's messengers and with Jesus' slaves, who do not know when the time is (13:33) and when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:35). The fact that this story is addressed to Peter, James, John, and Andrew (cf. 13:3—5) and that the triple command to the slaves to remain alert (ypriyopeo), 13:34,35,37) is subsequently repeated to Peter, James, and John (14:34,37,38), who are identified as disciples (14:32), interprets the slaves of the Lord of the Household as Jesus' disciples.32 This encourages the identification of God's vineyard (dirrreXwv, 12:1, 8, 9) and Jesus' household (olida, 13:34, 35) and of God's messenger (dyyeXos, l:2)/slaves (SoOXos, 12:2, 4) and Jesus' slaves (SoOXos, 13:34), the disciples. This context interprets the time (mipos, 13:33) of the coming of the Lord of the Household as the day or hour that only God as experiencer knows (ot8a, 13:32); and the greater narrative context identifies the day or hour as the time of the coming of the parousaic Son of Man (13:26). Linkage of 12:1-12 and 13:32-37 relates the eschatological coming of God/the Lord of the Vineyard (12:9) and of Jesus/the Lord of the Household (13:35, 36), identifies within the 31. Subsequently, the repeated coordination of stone (XiGos, 13:1, 2a, 2b) and building (oLKo8op.ii, 13:1, 2 < oi Ko8o|ii(i>, 12:10) interprets this stone as the head of the comer of the temple (lepov, 13:1). Linked developments concerning build (oiKoSotiew, 14:58; 15:29) and a different designation of the temple (vaos, 14:58; 15:29) interpret the stone/Jesus/the Beloved Son/the Son of Man as the head of the corner of a new temple not made with [human] hands (14:58), which Jesus will build in three days (81a Tpiwv ^Lepwv, 14:58; kv Tpialv ripipais, 15:29), the period of time thrice associated with Jesus' rising (8:31; 9:31; 10:34). The fact that Jesus is the referent of the agent who destroys the temple made with [human] hands (xeipoTTotr)TOs) and who builds the new temple not made with [human] hands (axe LPOTTOLTJTOS, 14:58) would support the interpretation that Jesus is the agent of his rising (avioTa\iaiy The fact that his becoming the head of the corner of this new temple is from God (12:11), however, clarifies that God is the ultimate source or agent of these actions. 32. The special address to Simon Peter in 14:37 also may identify him with the doorman who receives special address in 13:34.
46
The Rhetoric of Characterization
story of the vineyard a temporal lacuna between the killing of the Beloved Son (12:8) and the coming of Lord of the Vineyard (12:9), and fills this lacuna with the interval during which Jesus' slaves or disciples are to remain alert in expectation of the coming of Jesus/the Lord of the Household. Thus, the occurrences of mipos designate and relate the time prior to God's sending of a messenger/ slaves, the time of God's sending of a messenger, slaves, and the Beloved Son and ending with Jesus/the Beloved Son being killed, and the time of the eschatological coming of Jesus/the Lord of the Household and God/the Lord of the Vineyard; and 13:32-37 asserts a further interval between the killing of God's Beloved Son and the coming of the Lord of the Household, during which Jesus' disciples/the Lord of the Household's slaves are to remain alert. b. Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 Gospel (€i>cryye\iov, 1:1,14, 15; 8:35; 13:10), come (epxoum, 1:7,9,14; 8:38; 9:1; 13:6), and reign (pctaiAcia, 1:15; 9:1; 13:8a, 8b) link 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 and ensure that the latter context[s] evoke the former. Evocation of 1:1-15 by 8:31-9:1 further is encouraged by repetition of Satan (Haravag, 1:13; 8:33) and messenger (dyyeXos, 1:2,13; 8:38). Beginning (dpxri, 1:1; 13:8), proclaim (KrjpiKjao), 1:4, 14; 13:10) and [holy] Spirit (Trvev\ia [dyiov], 1:8, 10, 12; 13:11) encourage the evocation of 1:1-15 by 13:3-13; and it is necessary (Set, 8:31; 13:7, 10), save (oi!)(o), 8:35a, 35b; 13:13), because of me (eveKev €|iou, 8:35; 13:9), give (8180411, 8:37; 13:11), and death (edvcrros, 9:1; 13:12) encourage the evocation of 8:31-9:1 by 13:3-13. This repeated context develops the nature of God's actions and attributes, the relationship between God and Jesus, and, secondarily, the disciples' relationship with God. Contextual repetition links the gospel (eiayyeAiov) of Jesus (1:1) and God (1:14), the content of Jesus' proclamation (1:14), and that in which Jesus commands his hearers to believe (1:15) to Jesus' statement that anyone who destroys (OLTTOXXU^L) one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel will save it (8:35).33 Such action indirectly positively relates the disciples and others to both Jesus and the gospel of Jesus/God. Jesus then tells Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:3) that it is necessary (8et) that the gospel first be proclaimed to all nations (13:10). The divine necessity of this action indirectly positively relates those so doing to God. Come (epxojiai) links Jesus' initial coming (1:7, 9, 14) and his end-time coming as Son of Man (8:38) and contrasts both with the coming of those who would mislead disciples (13:6). The narration of 8:31-9:1 also coordinates the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of his Father (8:38) with 33. The verb dTroXXuux has two distinct connotations: "destroy," "kill," or "ruin," which requires an agent and a patient, and "lose," which requires a benefactive and a patient. Even the latter usage, however, implies the complicity of the benefactive referent in the loss: see Albrecht Oepke, "CITTOXAUIJU, ciTKoAeia, 'ATTOXXWV," TDNTX:394-96, here 394-95. Its double coordination with save (a(p£w, 8:35a, 35b), which requires an agent argument, recommends the former connotation in this context.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
47
the reign of God having come in power (9:1). Hand over (TTapa8i8
48
The Rhetoric of Characterization 5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God
The previous study identified 219 references to God, which divide into two groups: 35 repeated words that account for 153 total references; and 62 words that occur only once. The semantic rhetoric of repetition cultivates content for the semantic frames evoked by the 35 repeated words and relates each repeated word to the other vocabulary in the contexts of its occurrences. The narrative rhetoric then relates and incorporates the cultivated semantic content and cultivates further beliefs about God in three stages. First, 19 of the 35 repeated words are incorporated into one of the five passages that undergo contextual repetition (1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 12:1-12; 13:3-13; and 13:32-37). The remaining sixteen repeated words are related contextually to one or more of these nineteen words outside of these passages, so that all beliefs cultivated by verbal repetition are directly (nineteen words) or indirectly (sixteen words) incorporated into these passages. Next, cultivated beliefs associated with these passages are related by their incorporation into one or both of the repeated contexts, 1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37; or 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13. Finally, the cultivated beliefs associated with both repeated contexts are related through their common first constituent, 1:1-15. Appendix A re-presents the organization and incorporation of cultivated content into narrative frames associated with God through 1:1-15. This representation lists repeated words according to the highest stage of the linkage of their cultivated content. Thus, repeated words that appear in only one passage are listed under their passage (ten total); words that appear in two or three of the passages involved in contextual repetition appear under the appropriate repeated context (six total); and words that appear in both repeated contexts are listed under the five linked passages (three total). Cultivated content organized directly through 1:1-15 is indicated by double vertical lines (||), and the contribution of the constituents of the repeated contexts is indicated by a single vertical line (|). Relationships among repeated contexts are noted by a plus sign (+). For economy of presentation, 1:1-15 appears between the two repeated contexts (1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37 and 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13). The contexts under discussion and vocabulary repeated in two or three contexts are enclosed in brackets []. The remaining sixteen repeated words are contextually linked to at least one of the words that appear in a repeated context: dyaTrda), 12:30, 33 (to PaaiXeia, 12:34); dcf>iTi|jLi, *3:28 (toTTV€i)|ia, 3:29), *4:12 (to paaiXeia and 8I8GJ|±I, 4:11); 8ef id, 12:36 (to Xeyw, 12:36), 14:62 (to vi6$9 14:61); 8wap.is, 12:24 (to dyyeXos, 12:25, and to Xeyco, 12:26a, 26b), 14:62 (to vi6s, 14:61); dvvarov, 10:27 (to paaiXeia, 10:23, 24, 25, and to euayyeXiov, 10:29); els, 12:29c, 32a (to paaiXeia, 12:34); ei/ToXrj , 7:8, 9 (to ypdcfxo, 7:6), *10:19 (to paaiXeia, 10:23, 24, 25, and to euayyeXiov, 10:29); efeaTiv, *2:24, *26 (to yivo|ica, 2:27), *6:18(toupo<|>fJTr)s, 6:15a, 15b), *10:2(toTroi€0), 10:6), *12:14(too86s, 12:14); euxaptaT^o), * 14:23 (to PaaiXeia, 14:25); C^A [aiaiyios], *9:43, *45 (to paaiXeia, 9:47), * 10:30 (to paaiXeia, 10:23, 24, 25, and to evayyeXwv,
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
49
10:29); KoXopoco, 13:20a, 20b (to 8eX, 13:14); Xaiipdwa, *10:30 (to pagiXeta, 10:23, 24, 25, and to eiayyeXiov, 10:29); |±ou, 15:34a, 34b (to axiCw, 15:38, and to vi6s, 15:39); OIKOS, 2:26 (to yivo|iai, 2:27), 11:17 (to ypd^a), 11:17); *13:18 (to 8et, 13:14); and TrpoaeuxTl, *11:17 (to ypd<|>
6. The Narrative Rhetoric of God's Characterization Although references to God appear throughout the narration, their distribution is not uniform. The following discussion establishes the order, relative frequency, and distribution of references to God by argument role within six major narrative units of Mark and then investigates their contribution to the narrative development. The discussion considers first the contribution of all references and then narrows the focus to agent references. a. The Order, Frequency, and Distribution of Arguments This discussion investigates the argument roles realized in reference to God within six narrative units of the Gospel: 1:1-15; 1:16-8:26; 8:27-10:52; 11:1-13:37; 14:1-15:41 (passion narrative); and 15:42-16:8.36 The data for this discussion appear in table 1: 35. Of the sixty-four nonrepeated words with God as referent, nineteen appear in one of the repeated contexts: euSoKew (1:11), Tpi|3os (1:3) in 1:1—15; 86£a (8:38), Ta (8:33) in 8:31-9:1; d|iTTeXwv (12:9), diroSriMew (12:1), diT6XXuu.i, (12:9), €K8i8ouai (12:1), epxoum (12:9), exw (12:6a), KXripovo^Ca (12:7), KXr|pov6|±os (12:7), Xajipdva) (12:2), oiKoSojiew (12:1), opuaaw (12:l);TrepiTi0Tuu (12:l),<|>iJTeu (7:6) to ypdcjxo (7:6); dTToSLSojii (12:17) andTa (12:17) to 686s (12:14); auTOs (12:32b), Guata (12:33), y\\L&v (12:29), Kiipios els (12:29), 6XoKauT(Dp.a (12:33), and oov (12:30) to jSaaiXeta (12:34); 8exon.ai (9:37b) and ^.KT06S (9:41) to drroaTeXXw (9:37); eyKciTaXeiTTd) (15:34) to oxiC^ (15:38) and d o g (15:39); eKXeyojiat (13:20) and KTICW (13:19) to 8et (13:14); kv TOLS oupavots (11:25) andTTums (11:22) to iraT^p (11:25); eTOLM-dCw (10:40) to |3cnTTi£u> (10:38a, 38b, 39a, 39b); eXeet) (5:19) to TTOtew (5:19); GeXw (14:36) andTrapa^epw (14:36) to a^^a 6 TTaTtip (14:36); ovo^-ci (11:9) to paaLXeia (11:10); 6PKL£W (5:7) and uijiiaTos (5:7) to ulos 9eoO (5:7); TraTdaaw (14:27) to paaiXeta (14:25); ovCevyu (10:9) to TTOICW (10:6); TLGTI^L (12:36) to Xeyw (12:36); and u^vew (14:26) to paatXeia (14:25). Of the remaining four nonrepeated words, dyios (1:24) is mediately related to irveuu-a dyiov (1:8); 8o^dCai (2:12) is from the same stem as 86£a (8:38); 0eXTm.a (3:35) is from the same stem as GeXw (14:36); and "take up" (d-nrnpo), 2:20) concerns God's agency in Jesus' death and is related thematically to central developments in 8:31-9:1 and 12:1-12. 36. A detailed justification for the noted narrative units appears in Paul Danove, The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study (BIS 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 132-66. These divisions are similar to those proposed in Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Richmond: John Knox, 1970), 226,284,384-85.
50
The Rhetoric of
Characterization
Table 1. Distribution ofReferences Agent (75) Experiencer (4) Instrument (1) Source (13) Goal (20) Benefactive (80) Patient (24) Content (2) Total (219)
1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8 8 4 33 17 0 13 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 5 0 6 8 0 1 5 0 22 1 8 16 15 18 3 16 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 87 1 44 21 26 40
Table 1 indicates that 11:1-13:37 contains more references to God than any other narrative unit. However, since the proposed units differ in length, these data require further resolution to provide a uniform basis for comparison. Table 2 accomplishes this by (1) establishing the total number of words for each unit and then calculating the percentage of words for each unit in comparison to the total word count for 1:1-16:8, (2) employing the data of table 1 to calculate the percentage of references for each unit in comparison to all references in 1:1-16:8, and (3) dividing the percentage of references in each unit by the percentage of words in each unit. In this third part of table 2, a number greater than 1.00 indicates a greater than average frequency of references for a unit; and a number less than 1.00 indicates a frequency less than that of the Gospel as a whole: Table 2. Comparisons of the Frequency ofAll References 1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8 1,765 249 Words (11,090) 4,888 237 1,993 1,958 15.92% 17.66% 2.14% 2.25% 44.08% 17.97% % of words 1 87 44 26 21 40 Total ref. (219) % of references 9.59% 20.09% 18.26% 39.73% 11.87% 0.46% 1.02 2.25 0.75 0.21 % ref./% words 4.26 0.46
Table 2 indicates that the narrative unit containing the greatest relative frequency of references to God is 1:1-15, which, as noted above, is the primary vehicle for relating all cultivated beliefs about God. This brief passage (only 2.25% of the words of the Gospel) presents twenty-one references that establish eighteen distinct points of information about God: 1. God has the gospel (eucryyeXiov; cf. 1:14 retrospectively) which is Jesus' (1:1). 2. God has a son (ulog), Jesus (1:1). 3. God is agent of what is written (ypd^o)) in the Book of Isaiah concerning God's sending of a messenger to prepare the way for Jesus [God] (1:2; cf. Mai 3:1).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
51
4. God has a prophet (Trpo(f>r)Tris) through whom God spoke [about Jesus] (1:2). 5. God initiates the action of the Gospel by sending (aTToaTeXXoj) God's messenger before Jesus [God] (1:2; cf. Mai 3:1). 6. God has a messenger (dyyeXos) who will prepare Jesus' [God's] way (1:2; cf. Mai 3:1). 7. God has the way (686s; cf. Mai 3:1), which is Jesus' (1:2). 8. God has the way (686s; cf. Isa 40:3), which is Jesus' (1:3). 9. The paths (Tpipos; cf. Isa 40:3) for God are for Jesus (1:3). 10. God has the holy Spirit (jruev\ia ayiov) with which Jesus will baptize (1:8). 11. God undoes God's setting of the firmament (cf. Gen 1:6) by rending (axtCto) the sky at Jesus' baptism (1:10). 12. God has the Spirit (jTvev[ia) that descends onto Jesus (1:10). 13. God has a voice (§uvr\) that addresses Jesus (1:11). 14. God has the Beloved Son (note the repetition of ulos; cf. 1:1), Jesus (1:11). 15. God is pleased with (euSoKew) Jesus (1:11). 16. God has the Spirit (-nvevyia) that drives Jesus into the desert (1:12). 17. God has messengers (ayyeXos) who serve Jesus (1:13). 18. God has the gospel (eixryyeXiov; cf. 1:1), which Jesus proclaims (1:14). 19. God fulfills (TrXrjpoo)) the time, which is part of Jesus' proclamation (1:15). 20. God has the reign (PaaiXeia), which is part of Jesus' proclamation (1:15). 21. God has the gospel (euayyeXiov), which is part of Jesus' proclamation (1:15). These twenty-one references, which initiate God's characterization, simultaneously assert information about Jesus and stress Jesus' positive and intimate relationship with God, which approaches identification with God at certain points. The narration of 1:1-15 reiterates that Jesus is God's Son and that God and Jesus have the gospel and grants one of only four Markan insights into God's own experience (delight in Jesus). It also ascribes to Jesus as benefactive what belongs to God, indicates that God's Spirit directs Jesus' actions and that God's messengers prepare for and serve Jesus, and establishes Jesus as the agent who proclaims and makes present what belongs to God. The direct or indirect insinuation of Jesus into every aspect of God's characterization in 1:1-15 engenders an indelible bond between God and Jesus that precludes any understanding of either character without immediate reference to the other. Beginning in 1:16-8:26, reference to God in all argument roles diminishes precipitously. The density of references then builds from this low, more than doubling in 8:27-10:52 and reaching a crescendo in 11:1-13:7. With the onset of Jesus' passion in 14:1-15:41, the density of references to God again decreases sharply, reaching a nadir in 15:42-16:8. This pattern of references plays a significant role in the narrative development
52
The Rhetoric of Characterization
of Mark. The density of references to God in 1:1-15 places the character God in the foreground and cultivates for the narrative audience an expectation of continued frequent reference to and involvement by God. The same references introduce and establish Jesus' intimate relationship with God. The precipitous drop in references to God in 1:16-8:26 places the character God into the background precisely as the character Jesus takes center stage. With the foregrounding of Jesus, the narratively cultivated expectation for references to and involvement by God join with the recognition of Jesus' intimate relationship with God to invite the narrative audience to find the fulfillment of expectations concerning God in the character Jesus. In this way, the narrative rhetoric encourages a profound identification of Jesus with God that extends beyond the aspects of identification within the assertions of 1:1-15. This identification invites a response to and relationship with the character Jesus that parallels and even coincides with the narrative audience's response to and relationship with the character God. Once the narration of 1:16-8:26 establishes Jesus as the primary vehicle of God's presence and involvement, references to God increase until 11:1-13:37, after which God again recedes from view. The narrative rhetoric of the characterization of God in 1:1-15 is quite complex. The opening verses evoke the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning the intimate relationship between Jesus and God and sophisticate beliefs about both by repeatedly relating the content of their associated narrative frames. This repetition simultaneously introduces and reinforces an expectation for continued and frequent references to God, which subsequently is subverted by the almost complete cessation of references to God beginning in 1:16.37 Thus, the frustration of the narrative audience's cultivated expectation for repeated references to God constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical strategy, and the frustration itself cultivates an expectation that, in the absence of God and God's agency, the presence and activity of Jesus will be foregrounded. The cessation of frequent reference to God simultaneously evokes and sophisticates preexisting beliefs concerning the remoteness of God that receive explicit statement in the subsequent straightforward notice that the Lord of the Vineyard is distant (dTro8r)|ieG), 12:1). b. The Order, Frequency, and Distribution of Agent Arguments The analysis of references to God indicated that agent references play a determinative role in relating other characters to God and establishing criteria for evaluating their actions. Table 3 relates the order, relative frequency, and distribution of references to God as agent. 37. Andrew T. Lincoln considers several Markan examples of the cultivation of expectations and their subsequent frustration within Jesus' passion ("The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7, 8," JBL 108 [1989]: 283-300).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
53
Table 3. Comparisons of the Frequency of Agent References
1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8 Agent (75) 4 17 13 33 8 0 % of agent 5.33% 22.67% 17.33% 44.00% 10.67% 0 0.51 0.96 2.49 0.67 0 % agent/% words 2.37 Table 3 indicates that the relative frequency of agent references parallels that of all references, except that now 11:1-13:37 has the greatest density and 1:1-15 is second.38 The density of agent references drops steeply from 1:1-15 to 1:16-8:26, builds in 8:27-10:52, marks its greatest increase in 11:1-13:37, which presents almost half of all agent references, then drops precipitously in 14:1-15:41, and falls to zero in 15:42-16:8. Although 1:1-15 includes three verbs with God as agent that set the stage for subsequent repetition, the first realized repetition with God as agent appears in 1:16-8:26. In this passage, the threefold notice that God forgives (OX|>LTI|JU, 2:7; *3:28; *4:12) directly positively aligns Jesus (2:5,9; cf. 2:10 for the Son of Man) with God; and the fourfold repetition of give (8L8O)|II, *4:11, *25; *6:2; *8:12) directly positively relates Jesus (6:7, 41; 8:6; 10:37, 40; 14:22, 23; cf. 10:45 for the Son of Man; 13:34 for Lord of the Household) to God. In 8:27-10:52, repetition of baptize (ponTTi£
54
The Rhetoric of Characterization
hension of the remoteness of God from Jesus. Second, the sharp decrease in all references to God and, in particular, references to God as agent, frustrates the narrative audience's cultivated expectation for continuing increase in agent references to God and reintroduces an apprehension of God's remoteness last observed in 1:16-8:26. Third, a parallel decrease in references to Jesus as agent frustrates both the expectation, developed since 1:16, for continuing references to Jesus as agent and the previously cultivated expectation that, in the absence of God's agency, the agency of Jesus asserts itself. The narrative rhetoric of the order, frequency, and distribution of agent references in the characterization of God also exhibits great complexity. First, the cessation of repetition aligning Jesus with God in 14:1-15:41 constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical strategy insofar as the narration has cultivated an expectation for such repeated alignment. This in no way challenges the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs, which recognize Jesus' apparent abandonment by God at his death. Second, the frustration of the expectation for the increasing foregrounding of God in the overall narration again constitutes a deconstructive strategy with respect to the narrative development but not with respect to the narrative frames associated with God; for both preexisting and cultivated beliefs recognize the possibility of God's remoteness. The apprehension of God's remoteness from both Jesus and the narrative audience, however, sophisticates the narratively cultivated relationship between Jesus and this audience. Third, the decrease in references to Jesus as agent constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical strategy with respect to the narrative development but not with respect to the narrative frames associated with Jesus; for the authorial audience already recognizes that Jesus is portrayed primarily through patient arguments in his passion.
7. The Narrative Function of God's Characterization Clarification of the narrative rhetoric of the characterization of God permits an inquiry into its narrative function. Whereas the apprehension of God's remoteness in 1:16-8:26 encourages and confirms for the narrative audience a profound identification of Jesus with God, the apprehension of God's remoteness from both Jesus and the narrative audience in 14:1-15:39 encourages a more profound identification of the narrative audience with Jesus.39 This deepened identification aligns the narrative audience with Jesus in the only three explicit references to God's agency in 14:1-15:41: God will strike (TraTctaaa), 14:27; cf. Zech 13:7) 39. Through the apprehension of the remoteness of God, the narrative rhetoric "performs" for the narrative audience the experience of God's remoteness attributed to the character Jesus. Thus, Robert M. Fowler can assert, "Reading Mark is much less a matter of being informed of certain facts and ideas and more a matter of being given the opportunity to live through certain experiences" ("The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark," Semeia 48 [1989]: 115-34, here 131). The newly deepened identification of the narrative audience with Jesus in 14:1-15:41 presents to the reader a series of opportunities to experience elements of Jesus' passion.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God
55
the shepherd, Jesus; God does not want to take away (Trapa<|)ep
40. Raymond E. Brown, after a careful review of pertinent scholarship, concludes: "I find no persuasive argument against attributing to the Jesus of Mark/Matt[hew] the literal sentiment of feeling forsaken expressed in the psalm quote [Ps 22:1]" (The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels [2 vols.; Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1994], 2:1044-51). See also DavidH. C. Read, "The Cry of Dereliction," ExpTim 68 (1956-57): 260-62. The reader is invited to experience this same feeling of abandonment. 41. Even if, in contrast to the position explained above, T|yep0Ti in 16:6 is taken as an implicit reference to God's agency, the resulting response by God of raising Jesus does not negate the narratively indicated response of Jesus or the invitation to the reader to respond similarly.
Chapter 3 T H E RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS
This study investigates the semantic and narrative rhetoric of the characterization of Jesus and the contribution of Jesus' characterization to other narrative developments.1 The large number of references to Jesus precludes their exhaustive examination, and the characterization of Jesus under various designations and the distinctive relationships among the narrative frames associated with these designations complicate the study of both preexisting and cultivated beliefs. To address these complications, the study begins with an extended investigation of the preexisting beliefs about Jesus evoked by both vocabulary and designations. An examination of the semantic and narrative rhetoric then identifies the beliefs cultivated for the narrative audience through verbal, contextual, and structural repetition. This permits a graphic outline of the relationships among cultivated beliefs and their incorporation into character narrative frames. An analysis of narrative rhetoric of the characterization then clarifies the narrative function of Jesus' characterization and its contribution to the narrative development.
1. Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus As in the characterization of God, there is no indication that deconstructive repetition cultivates beliefs directly about Jesus. Deconstructive repetition is apparent in the cultivation of beliefs associated with particular designations applied to Jesus, but such repetition never impacts their first occurrence. Thus, the content evoked by the initial occurrences of repeated vocabulary and designations may be ascribed to the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs or may be assumed to cohere with these beliefs. Since a comprehensive investigation of vocabulary is not practicable, the investigation is limited to the first occurrence of the most frequently repeated words and phrases. The more circumscribed distribution of repeated designations, however, permits an examination of their first occurrence and of subsequent occurrences that appear in the context of straightforward narration. 1. This discussion develops topics introduced in Paul Danove, "The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus as the Son of Man and Christ in Mark," Bib 84 (2003): 16-34.
56
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
57
a. Preexisting Beliefs Evoked by Vocabulary Investigation of the initial occurrences of vocabulary proceeds according to the argument roles referenced by Jesus and grants more detailed consideration to agent references. Preexisting beliefs recognize Jesus' agency in sending (aTTocFTeXXG), 3:14) the twelve or apostles, forgiving (d^tTuu, *2:5; cf. 2:7; Ps 102:3; Isa 43:25 for God) sins, not permitting (d^iT^ii, 1:34) demons to speak, teaching (8i8daKCD, 1:21), giving (8i8a)|ii, 13:34 [as Lord of the Household]), rising (eyeipo), 14:28), casting out (eKpdXXa), 1:34) demons, rebuking (<ETTITI|id(o, 1:25) an unclean spirit, giving thanks (€i>xapiaTeo), 8:6), healing (GepaTTeua), 1:34), cleansing (Ka0api£(i), 1:40, 41) a leper, proclaiming (KTipuaaco, 1:14), doing (Troiew, 5:20) an exorcism, and praying (Trpocreiix0!^1* 1:35).2 These actions assert Jesus' direct positive relationship with God (dtTToaTeXXu), d(()tri|iL [forgive]) and Jesus' indirect positive relationships with God as goal , Trpoo€vxo[Lai), with his disciples as goal (8L8G)|II) and patient ), and with various individuals as experiencer (8i8daKco, KTipvaao)), goal (KaGapiCo)), benefactive (d())ir||jLi [forgive]), and patient (Gepa-nreiia), TTOiea)). Jesus also is indirectly negatively aligned with the patients, demons (d<|>ir||±i [permit], eKpdXXo), and an unclean spirit (em-ri^do)). Among non-agent references, Jesus as experiencer wants (GeXw, 1:40-41) to cleanse a leper. Jesus as source is the one from whom one receives (Xafipdvco, 4:16) the word. Jesus, the Son of Man, as benefactive has (ex^ ? 2:10) authority to forgive sins on earth, a right hand (8e£id, 10:37), power (8wa|ii$, *5:30), and the way (686g, 1:2). Jesus as goal is the one whom disciples follow (aKoXouGeo), 1:18) and go behind (omaoi), 1:17). Jesus, the Beloved Son, as patient is killed (dTT0KT6LV(ji), 12:7; cf. 12:8). This vocabulary asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with God as benefactive (68og), indirect positive relationships with his disciples as agent (dKoXouGew) and patient (oTTiao)) and with various individuals as goal (Xaiipdvw) and content (GeXw), and indirect negative relationship with the farmers of the vineyard (d b. Preexisting Beliefs Evoked by Designations The authorial audience has preexisting beliefs concerning ten repeated designations for Jesus. The initial coordination of Christ (Xpicrros) and Son of God (ulos GeoO, 1:1) indicates preexisting beliefs that recognize Jesus' indirect positive relationship with God as benefactive.3 The straightforward application to 2. The verb dcj)Lrj^i with the connotation "forgive" requires an agent, a patient, and a benefactive (which may be omitted); whereas &<}>LT^I with the connotation "permit" requires an agent, a patient, and an event (which may be omitted). Although E. J. Pryke (Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978], 151-76) ascribes a majority of the initial occurrences of a-rroaTeXXw, dcj>LT]|iL [permit], 8i8daKoj, eKpdXXw, Gepaueija), Krjpuaau, and TTOLCW to Markan redaction, in all such cases the subsequent narration introduces traditional occurrences of these verbs with Jesus as the agent. 3. A review of the textual witnesses to Son of God appears in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual
58
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Jesus of the scripture quotation concerning God's activity in 1:3 (cf. Isa 40:3) presumes a preexisting familiarity with the use of Lord (Kupios) for both Jesus and God and asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with God. Beloved Son (vibs dyaTTtiTos, 1:11) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God as benefactive. Jesus [the] Nazarene ('IT](JOOS Na£apr)vos, 1:24) has an indirect negative relationship with an unclean spirit which Jesus rebukes (emniida)) and casts out (eKpdXXo)) of a man (1:25). Son of Man (vibs TOU diyOpamou, 2:10) is directly positively related to God in forgiving (d^iT^i) sins on earth.4 Subsequent straightforward narration asserts the Son of Man's present direct positive alignment with God in exercising divine prerogatives in regulating Sabbath practice (2:28) and the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity in coming (epxojiai, 8:38; cf. 13:26; 14:62). Teacher (SiSdaraAos, 4:38) initially indirectly positively relates Jesus to his disciples, on whose behalf he exercises divine prerogatives by rebuking ((ETUTijidot), 4:39) the wind. Rabbi (pappt, 9:5) indirectly positively relates Jesus to Peter, James, and John as benefactive. Son of David (ulos Aaui8,10:47) and King of the Jews (paaiAeus TG)V 'IouScaov, 15:2) indirectly positively relate Jesus to David and God's people as benefactive. Of the twelve designations that appear only once, six require preexisting beliefs to ensure their intelligibility. Holy One of God (dyios TOO 0eoO, 1:24), Son of the Most High God (vibs TOO GeoO TOO IX|HOTOU, 5:7), and shepherd (TroL|irjy, 14:27) assume beliefs that recognize these as appropriate designations for Jesus and imply Jesus' indirect positive relationship with God as benefactive or agent. Son of Mary (vibs T % Mapias, 6:3) assumes beliefs about Mary and Jesus' indirect positive relationship with her as benefactive. The Son (6 vids, 13:32), without the required benefactive argument, implies beliefs concerning its appropriateness for conveying Jesus' unique relationship to God as benefactive and asserts that Jesus as the Son does not know (ol8a) about that day or hour. Lord of the Household (Kupios T % oiKtas, 13:35) presumes beliefs that this designation applies to Jesus and asserts an indirect positive relationship with the household as benefactive. If "I am" (eyoi ei|ii, 14:62) functions as a designation, it presumes familiarity with its scriptural use to designate God and warrants for its appropriation by Jesus and asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with God. The use of Rabbouni (pappowi, 10:51) without definition assumes a preexisting familiarity with this designation. Lord of the Sabbath (Kupios TOO aaPu, 2:28), Son of the Blessed (vibs TOU evXoyqrov, 14:61), King of Israel TaparjX, 15:32), and Heir (KXr|poi/6p,og, 12:7) present special difficulties concerning preexistent beliefs because their coordination with other desCommentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart. Biblia-Druck, 1975), 73. The contextual linkage of XpiQTOs (1) to Beloved Son (uios ay(mr\x^, 1:11) in 1:1-15 also may indicate a preexisting relationship between these designations. 4. Potential implications of this designation receive extended consideration in John J. Collins, "The Son of Man in First-Century Judaisms," NTS 38 (1992): 448-66; see also Thomas B. Slater, "One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism," NTS 41 (1995): 183-98.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization ofJesus
59
ignations renders them self-explanatory: Lord of the Sabbath with Son of Man; Son of the Blessed and King of Israel with Christ; and Heir with Beloved Son.5 The first seventeen designations indicate extensive preexisting beliefs concerning Jesus' direct (Lord, Son of Man) and indirect (Christ, Son of God, Beloved Son, the Holy One of God, the Son, shepherd) positive relationship with God and an indirect positive relationship with his disciples (Christ, Teacher, Rabbi, Lord of the Household), Mary (Son of Mary), various individuals (Son of Man), and God's people (King of the Jews). Son of Man also stresses Jesus' parousaic identity and activity. The five dubious designations assume similar relationships. The investigation also reveals that designations asserting Jesus' identity frequently are related in their initial occurrence to specific actions, either the exercise of divine prerogatives (Son of Man, Teacher) or authoritative actions in behalf of human beings (Lord, Jesus the Nazarene, Son of Man, Teacher).6 c. Summary ofPreexisting Beliefs about Jesus This investigation indicates for the authorial audience extensive and interrelated preexisting beliefs concerning Jesus and his actions, attributes, and designations. Preexisting beliefs assert Jesus' direct positive relationship with God and indirect positive relationships with God, those seeking his aid, and the disciples. Indirect negative relationships with various demonic forces hold a position of prominence through multiple independent attestation. Preexisting beliefs also directly relate particular designations to Jesus' exercise of divine prerogatives as Son of Man (dc|)LT||±i) and his actions as Teacher for disciples (e
2. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated References The number of repeated words and phrases that cultivate beliefs about Jesus is quite large and does not admit to an investigation that is simultaneously exhaustive and economical. In light of this, the following discussion limits its focus to repeated words that occur at least five times and to less frequently occurring words that receive emphasis either through incorporation into repeated contexts and structures or in association with Jesus' designations. The discussion examines first the forty-seven repeated agent and non-agent references to Jesus and his designations identified by these criteria and then two repeated designations that receive specialized development. 5. Lord of the Sabbath (2:28) occurs after the evocation of preexisting beliefs concerning both Lord and Sabbath and in the context of developing the Son of Man's exercise of divine prerogatives on the Sabbath. Son of the Blessed (14:61) appears after extensive use of designations employing "son" and in the context of the authorial audience's possible familiarity with the use of circumlocutions when referring to God. King of Israel (15:32) appears after developments concerning King of the Jews. Pryke ascribes these three titles to Markan redaction (Redactional Style, 12, 22-23). 6. These actions are deemed "authoritative" based on subsequent discussion of the narrative developments relating e£ovoia (authority) to Troiia) (do) and to the various actions it references.
60
The Rhetoric of Characterization
a. Repetition ofAgent References: What Jesus Does Of the forty-seven repeated words, twenty-one reference Jesus and/or his designations as agent. Two verbs, dvioraiiai andeyetpa), with the connotation "rise" exhibit distinct distributions: Son of Man is agent of dviorapm, whereas Jesus or Jesus the Nazarene is agent of eyeipoj; and statements about the Son of Man's rising (dviaTaiiai) appear after notices that he will be killed (aTTOKTeivo), 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), whereas statements about the rising (eyeipoi)) of other characters appear after notices that they died or are deemed to have died (aTToOvrjaKG), 5:35; 9:26; 12:20, 21).7 Repetition of dvlaTaum (8:31; 9:9, 10, 31; 10:34) directly positively relates to the Son of Man Jairus's daughter (5:42), the boy with an unclean spirit (9:26), and those who have died (12:23, 25); and repetition of eyetpo) directly positively relates to Jesus (14:28) and Jesus the Nazarene (16:6) Jairus's daughter (5:41), John the Baptist (6:14, 16), and the dead (12:26). Dismiss (aTToAua), 6:36, 45; 8:3, 9) indirectly positively relates the crowd to Jesus; and its repetition establishes that Jesus does not dismiss the crowd that has nothing to eat (6:36; 8:2) until they have been satisfied (6:42; 8:8) by the bread [and fish] that Jesus breaks ([6:41]; 8:6).8 Send (dmxjTeXXG), 3:14; 5:10; 6:7; 8:26; 11:1, 3; 14:13; cf. 13:27 for the Son of Man) asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with God, his indirect positive relationship with the twelve (3:14; 6:7) and particular disciples (11:1; 14:13), his direct negative relationship with the chief priests, scribes, and elders (12:3, 13), and his indirect negative relationship with the Pharisees and Herodians (12:13). Forgive (dcjuruii, 2:5,9; cf. 2:10 for the Son of Man) asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with God (2:7; 11:25) and those who forgive another (11:25) and indirect positive relationship with a paralytic (2:5, 9, 10) and those forgiven by another (11:25). Repetition of this verb cultivates the only beliefs concerning the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives. Permit (d<|>iTi|±i, 1:34; 5:19, 37; 11:16) directly negatively relates to Jesus the disciples whose rebuking (<ETTiTi|ida)) is countermanded by Jesus with an order to permit (10:14). In 7:27 d(|)iT]|±i originally places the Syrophoenician woman in opposition to Jesus; but this relationship is overturned when Jesus subsequently grants her request (7:29). This verb also highlights Jesus' present exercise of divine prerogatives in regulating temple practice (11:16). Teach (StSdaKO), 1:21,22; 2:13; 4:1,2; 6:2, 34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:14, 35; 14:49) directly positively relates the apostles (6:30) to Jesus and indirectly positively relates the crowd (2:13; 4:1, 2; 6:34; 10:1), disciples (6:2; 8:31; 9:31), and those in a synagogue (1:21, 22) to Jesus. Directly negatively related to Jesus 7. The synonymous connotation of the verbs is indicated by particular characters (Jairus's daughter, the dead) referencing the agent of both within the same contexts and by the use of "from [the] dead"(eK vetcpwy) with both aviora\iai (9:9,10; 12:25) and € ye: tpw (6:14; cf. 12:26). 8. The verb dTroAuo) has three connotations, and each is associated with distinct semantic requirements: agent, patient, and goal (which may be omitted) for "dismiss"; agent and patient for "divorce"; and agent, patient, and benefactive (which may be omitted) for "release." Only the four occurrences with the first connotation receive examination here.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization ofJesus
61
are the scribes (1:22); and indirectly negatively related to Jesus are his townsfolk (6:2), the chief priests and scribes (11:17-18), some Pharisees and Herodians (12:14), and Judas and the crowd from the chief priests, scribes, and elders (14:49).9 Repetition relates the content of Jesus' teaching, the Son of Man being killed (dTTOKTeLvw) andrising(dvLcrraum, 8:31 [cf. 8:27]; 9:31), the way of the Lord(Tf|v bbbv rov GeoO, 12:14), and the actions of the Christ and Son of David (12:35) and indirectly positiyely aligns them with Jesus. Give (8L8G)|JU) directly positively aligns Jesus (6:7, 41; 8:6; 14:22, 23; cf. 10:37, 40 for what Jesus cannot give), the Son of Man (10:45), and the Lord of the Household (13:34) with God(*4:ll, *25; *6:2; *8:12; 11:28; 12:9; *13:11). This alignment verges on identification when Jesus sends the twelve (3:14; 6:7) and gives them authority (etovoia, 6:7; cf. 13:34 for Lord of the Household; and 11:28 for God who gives authority to Jesus) to accomplish acts previously attributed to Jesus (6:12, 30).10 This verb also directly positively relates David and Jesus (2:26), ambiguously relates Jesus' disciples to Jesus (6:37a, 37b), and directly negatively relates to Jesus the Pharisees and Herodians (3:6; 12:14a, 14b), Herod (6:22, 23, 25), a soldier (6:28a), Herodias's daughter (6:28b), false christs and prophets (13:22), chief priests (14:11), and the betrayer (14:44). Cast out (eKpdXXo)) demons directly positively relates to Jesus (1:34,39; 3:22; 7:26) the twelve or apostles (3:15), the twelve (6:13; cf. 6:30 for apostles) and the one casting out demons in Jesus' name (9:38) and indirectly negatively relates demons (1:34, 39; 3:32) to Jesus. Repetition of 6KpdXXa) identifies the twelve/ apostles with Jesus and relates the designations Jesus the Nazarene and Holy One of God. Rebuke (eTTLTL|ida)) directly negatively relates Peter (8:32), the disciples (10:13), and disciples and the crowd (10:48) to Jesus as agent (1:25; 3:12; 4:39; 8:30, 33; 9:25); for in each case Jesus explicitly contradicts their actions (8:33; 10:14; 10:49). Repetition indirectly negatively relates to Jesus unclean spirits (1:25; 3:11-12; cf. 9:25 for a mute and deaf spirit), the wind (4:39), the disciples (8:30), and Peter (8:33); directly aligns these experiences with each other; and links the designations Holy One of God (1:24-25), Son of God (3:11-12), Teacher (4:38-39; 9:17-25), Christ (8:29-30), and Son of Man (8:31-33). Will come (epxoiicu, 8:38; 13:26; 14:62) directly positively relates Jesus as parousaic Son of Man to God as Lord of the Vineyard (12:9) and directly negatively relates to them the many who will come in Jesus' name and mislead (13:6). Bless (euXoyew, 6:41; 8:7; 14:22) indirectly positively relates to Jesus the bread (6:41) and fish (6:41; 8:7), which those in the crowd eat, and the bread, which Jesus interprets as his body (acojia, 14:22). 9. The narration also repeatedly relates Jesus' teaching to particular locales: the synagogue (1:21; 6:2); along the sea (2:13; 4:1 [cf. 4:2]); in the Temple (12:35; 14:49; cf. 11:17). 10. The notices that the Son of Man sends the angels (13:27) and has authority to forgive sins (2:10) and that the Lord of the Household gives authority to his slaves (13:34) link these designations to particular repeated actions and extend Jesus' identification with God to these designations.
62
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Give thanks (euxapiaTeo), 8:6; 14:23) indirectly positively relates Jesus as agent to God as goal and Jesus as agent to the patients, the bread which he blesses (euXoyeo), 8:7) and the cup whose contents he interprets as his blood (14:23). Heal (Qepa-nevb)) directly positively relates the twelve (6:13) to Jesus (1:34; 3:2, 10; 6:5) and indirectly positively relates to Jesus (and the twelve) all those having illnesses or being possessed by demons (1:34), the man with the withered hand (3:2), many people (3:10), and the few who are healed in Jesus' hometown (6:5). In 6:3-5 this action is associated with the Son of Mary. Healing (GepaTr€i/(o), casting out (<EK(3(XXAG)) demons, and not permitting (a^>ir\[ii) demons to speak receive direct coordination in 1:34. Proclaim (KTipuaaa), 1:14,38,39) directly positively aligns Jesus as agent with John the Baptist (1:7), the former demoniac (5:20), and anyone who proclaims the gospel (14:9); and its repetition with the twelve/apostles (3:14; 6:12) as agent asserts their identification with Jesus.11 The former leper (1:45) and those from the Decapolis (7:36), whose proclaiming violates Jesus' orders to the contrary (1:44; 7:36a, 36b), however, are directly negatively related to Jesus. Repetition relates the content of proclaiming, the coming of the stronger one or Jesus (1:7), the gospel of God (1:14), the word (1:45), and the gospel (13:10; 14:9), and cultivates for the narrative audience a recognition that the gospel includes explicit assertions about Jesus.12 Break ([KaTa]KXdo, [6:41]; S:6, 19; 14:22) indirectly positively relates to Jesus the bread (6:41; 8:6,19) which the crowds eat and which Jesus interprets as his body (aa)|ia, 14:22). Take/receive (Xa|i(3dva), 6:41; 8:6; 9:36; 14:22a, 23; 15:23) directly positively relates to Jesus those who receive a hundredfold (10:30); those who believe that they will receive what they ask for in prayer (11:24); God/the Lord of the Vineyard, who would receive some of the fruit of the vineyard (12:2); the brother who receives a dead brother's wife (12:19, 20, 21); and the disciples who receive the bread interpreted as Jesus' body (14:22b). It also indirectly positively relates to Jesus the bread [and fish] that Jesus blesses (euAoyeo), [6:41]; 14:22a) or for which he gives thanks (euxapiaTeco, 8:6), a child (9:36), and the cup that he gives (8I8G)|±I, 14:23) to his disciples. Directly negatively related to Jesus are disciples who forget to take bread (8:14), the farmers who take and beat the slave of the Lord of the Vineyard (12:3) and kill his Beloved Son/Jesus (12:8), the scribes who receive greater judgment (12:40), and the attendants who receive him with blows (14:65). Indirectly negatively related to Jesus are the wine that Jesus refuses to receive and those giving it (15:23). 11. A third occurrence of KT)pvoob) (*13:10) has the potential to strengthen the identification of Peter, James, John, and Andrew (cf. 13:3) with Jesus should they be among those who fulfill the necessity (Set) of proclaiming the gospel. 12. In 1:45, Ktipuaao) is coordinated with 8iacj)r|n.iC(o, both of which require a content argument realized by word (Xoyos). Here, TroXXd constitutes an adverb indicating the extent of the proclamation, "at length."
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
63
Pray (rrpoaetixoiiai, 1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39) indirectly positively aligns Jesus as agent with God and directly negatively relates to Jesus both Peter, James, and John, who disobey Jesus' command to stay awake and pray (14:38) but instead sleep (14:40), and the scribes whose praying is negatively evaluated (12-.38-40).13 Summon (TrpoafcaXeoiiai, 3:13, 23; 6:7; 7:14; 8:1, 34; 10:42; 12:43) indirectly positively relates Jesus to his disciples (8:1; 12:43), the twelve (3:13; 6:7; 10:42), the crowd (3:23; 7:14), and the crowd with his disciples (8:34). This verb introduces significant sayings by Jesus (3:23; 7:14; 8:1,34; 10:42; 12:43) and his actions of making (TTOKEO), 3:14) and sending (diroaTeXXo), 6:7; cf. 3:14) the twelve. The nature of Jesus' direct relationship with Pilate, who also summons (15:44), however, remains ambiguous. Save (auiCcD, 3:4; 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; 8:35a, 35b; 10:26, 52; 13:13, 20; 15:30; 15:31a, 31b) raises grammatical problems because it requires either an agent or an instrument as its subject in the active voice, and both may be omitted in the passive. The only explicitly referenced agents are Jesus (15:30, 31a, 31b); anyone who does good on the Sabbath (3:4), which includes Jesus, who saves life and does good on this Sabbath (3:5); the one whose attempt to save (8:35a) one's life (^vxA) ultimately destroys ((XTTOXXUIII) it; and the one who will save (8:35a) one's life by destroying it for the sake of Jesus and the gospel.14 Twice faith ( m a n s , 5:34; 10:52) is specified as instrument; and, in both cases, the action is linked to Jesus, who either recognizes power going forth from himself (5:30) or asks what the blind man wants him to do (TTOKEO), 10:51). The remaining six occurrences are in the passive voice (5:23, 28; 6:56; 10:26; 13:13, 20). In 5:23 saving is related to Jesus' action of placing hands (cf. 5:41 for Jesus' command to the daughter to rise); and saving through touching (cnrroiiai) Jesus' garment (l^dTLoy) in 5:28 is explained in terms of power coming forth from Jesus (5:30). In 6:56 touching (aiTTopm) and garment (i|±d.Tiov) again imply Jesus' agency. In 10:26, the context specifies both the verb's agent, God (10:27), and its instrument, keeping the commandments, selling possessions and giving to the poor, and following Jesus (10:19-21).15 In 13:13 the implied instrument is persevering 13. Although TTpoaf i>xo|iai el sewhere raises the potential for the direct positive alignment with Jesus of the twelve (11:24,25; cf. 11:11) and Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:18; cf. 13:3) should they comply with Jesus' instruction on prayer and his command to pray, they do not do so. 14. In 3:4, the governing verb "permit" (e'£ea-riv) allows the subject of the following verb phrase to remain unstated and assigns to this permissibly omitted subject a generic connotation of "anyone": see Fillmore and Kay, Construction Grammar, 7:15. 15. Bas M. F. van lersel observes that Jesus' response in 10:27 does not directly answer the question of 10:26 but, instead, changes the focus from the grammatical agent of the passive voice form of a(o£(o in 10:26 to God as the benefactive (possessor) and/or source (origin) of all possible (good) things, including saving (10:27) (Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary [trans. W. H. Bisscheroux; JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 328-29). Jesus' response does, however, indirectly answer the question by relating to God, for whom (napd) all things are possible, the one believing, for whom (dative without preposition) all things are possible (9:23), which underlines that the one believing is the benefactive (but not the source) of all things.
64
The Rhetoric of Characterization
to the end; and in 13:20 the contextually implied agent is God, who shortens the days. The latter three occurrences, however, also may imply faith (cf. 5:34; 10:52) as instrument. Repetition directly positively aligns the agents God (10:26; 13:13, 20), Jesus (3:4; 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; 10:52; 15:30, 31a, 31b), the one who does good on the Sabbath (3:4), and the one who destroys one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35b), directly negatively relates these agents to the one who destroys one's life not for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35a), and relates the designations Son of Man (8:35-38) and Christ and King of the Jews (15:31-32).16 Do/make (uoieo)) directly positively relates to Jesus (1:17; 3:8,14, [16]; 5:20; 6:5; 7:37a, 37b; 10:51; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; 15:14) as agent those who make straight the Lord's way (1:3); the disciples who make a path (2:23, 24); David, who did good things for his companions (2:25); those who do good on the Sabbath (3:4); those who do God's will (3:35); the apostles (6:30); one who does a powerful deed in Jesus' name (9:39); God, who makes humans male and female (10:6); two disciples who do as Jesus commands (11:3, 5); the Lord of the Vineyard/God (12:9); those who do good for the poor (14:7); and the woman who does the anointing of Jesus (14:8, 9).17 Jesus is identified with God when the former demoniac announces what the Lord did by proclaiming what Jesus did (5:19-20) and, as previously noted, when the apostles/twelve do what Jesus has done (6:30). Directly negatively related to Jesus are unclean spirits (3:12); Herod, who made a feast during which he ordered the beheading of John the Baptist (6:21); the Pharisees and some of the scribes (cf. 7:1), who do not permit one to do for one's parents (7:12) and do many such things (7:13); Peter, James, and John, who would make booths (9:5); those who did what they wanted to Elijah/John the Baptist (9:13); the man with many possessions, who apparently (cf. 10:22) does not do what is required to inherit everlasting life (10:17); those who have made the temple a den of thieves (11:17); the chief priests with the elders and scribes, who make a plot against Jesus (15:1); those who make a rebellion (15:7); and Pilate, who ultimately (cf. 15:15) does for the crowd what they want concerning Jesus (15:8, 12; 15). Jesus' doing good on the Sabbath (3:2-5) contrasts him with the Pharisees and Herodians, who plot to destroy Jesus on the Sabbath (3:6); and James and John's request that Jesus do what he cannot do 16. Although God is the implied semantic agent of aw£w on only three occasions (10:26; 13:13, 20), the narration consistently assigns to God ultimate (theological) agency in saving. The faith that saves is from God (mans Geou, 11:22; cf. the notes to o6Cu> in ch. 2 sec. 1) with God as source; and every occurrence of the noun faith (nia-ris) is related to characters not as agents but as benefactives through either a genitive-case possessive pronoun (2:5; 5:34; 10:52) or the subject of have (TTLCTTIV exw, 4:40; 11:22). Jesus, the most frequent agent of saving, has received the authority to do what he does from God (11:28-31), and Jesus gives the twelve authority to do likewise (6:7). Human agents, who do good on the Sabbath (3:4) and destroy life for the sake of [Jesus and] the gospel (8:35), are presented as doing what Jesus does by the authority given to him by God (11:28-33). 17. See also 10:35, 36 for what Jesus cannot do; 3:4, where Jesus is the contextually indicated agent; and 3:35, where the one doing God's will is later associated with Jesus in 14:36.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization ofJesus
65
(10:35, 36; cf. 10:40) places them in opposition to Jesus.18 Do/make also relates Son of God (3:11), Son of the Most High God (5:7), Jesus the Nazarene and Son of David (10:47-48), and King of the Jews (15:9-12). Do/make in 3:8 relates Jesus' actions to this point in the narration: teach (8i8daKG>, 1:22); rebuke (emTi|ida), 1:27; cf. 3:12); heal (GepaTreiKD, 1:34; cf. 3:10); cast out (eKpdXXo), 1:34); not permit (d<})iri|ii, 1:34); proclaim (icnpuaad), 1:38); cleanse (Ka0api£a), 1:41); forgive (dir||jLi, 2:5-10); call (mAeo, 1:17); and save (CTWCCD, 3:4). Jesus does what David did (2:25), makes the twelve (3:14, 16; cf. 1:17 for making Peter and Andrew fishers of human beings), does what God does for the demoniac (5:20), and does no powerful deed in his hometown (6:5), by implication, because of the people's unbelief (6:6). The fact that Jesus makes (3:14,16) the twelve who, as apostles, subsequently do (6:30) many of the same actions (teach, heal, cast out, proclaim), identifies them with Jesus. Again in 7:37a, do/make reprises all that Jesus has done, with an emphasis on making (7:37b) the deaf hear and the dumb speak. This emphasis on healing reappears in 10:51, which notes that what Jesus does is to let Bartimaeus see. The fourfold repetition of Troieo) in Jesus' interaction with the chief priests, scribes, and elders who ask the source of his authority (11:28a, 28b, 29, 33) then evokes this cultivated specialized connotation that has come to designate the totality of Jesus' saving actions. The double question in 11:28, "By which authority do you do (TTOL€0)) these things or who gave you this authority in order that you do (TTotea)) these things?" constitutes an inquiry into the authority that grounds all of Jesus' actions.19 The contextually implied answer, that Jesus' authority, like John's baptism, is from heaven, that is, from God, asserts that God is the source of Jesus' authority and the agent who gives this authority to Jesus. The only limitation to Jesus' present exercise of this authority on earth (cf. em T % yfjs, 2:10) is that Jesus as the Son of Mary is not able to do a powerful deed in the context of unbelief (6:5-6; cf. 10:35-40 for the limitation of Jesus' future ability to do/give in his glory). Since what Jesus does is done by (ev, 11:28, 29, 33, i.e., as instrument) the authority from God, characters opposing Jesus' actions or agency place themselves in negative relationship with God. Thus, the final occurrence of Troiew in Pilate's question, "For what evil did [Jesus] do?" 18. The narration establishes God as the appropriate agent of doing what James and John request through the use of "prepared" (lyroiiJuiaTai, *10:40). 19. Interpreting Trotew in 11:28 as referring to the entirety of Jesus' activity receives the support of Richard J. Dillon, '"As One Having Authority' (Mark 1:22): The Controversial Distinction of Jesus' Teaching," CBQ 37 (1995): 92-113, here 100; and Jack Dean Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 79; see also D. Luhrmann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987), 198; and J. Gnilka, Das Evangelitan nach Markus (EKKNT 2.1-2; 2 vols.; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 197879), 2:138. In contrast, R. H. Gundry takes the occurrence in 11:28 as referring only to Jesus' actions in the Temple {Mark: A Commentary on His Apologyfor the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 657-66). J. R. Edwards presents a detailed discussion of the use of e^ovoia in Mark and its implications for the discussion of Markan christology ("The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark," JETS 37 [1994]: 217-33).
66
The Rhetoric of Characterization
(15:14), places the crowd who calls for Jesus' crucifixion (15:13-14) and the chief priests who stirred up this crowd (15:11) in opposition to God.20 b. Repetition ofNon-Agent References: The Attributes of Jesus The discussion of the remaining twenty-six repeated words groups vocabulary according to the argument roles referenced by Jesus or his designations and, for reasons that become apparent, grants more detailed consideration to Jesus as experiencer. Three repeated verbs, want (OeXw, 1:40, 41; 3:13; 6:48; 7:24; 9:30; 14:12, 36), know (ol8a, 12:15; cf. 13:32 for the Son), and be moved with compassion (oir\ayxviCo[Lai, 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22), cultivate beliefs about Jesus as experiencer. The first two verbs present occasions of contrast between God and Jesus: Jesus wants (9<EA(I)) God as Abba Father to take away the cup from him, whereas God wants otherwise (14:36); and Jesus as Son does not know (ol8a) about the day or hour, whereas God as Father does (13:32). Jesus' not knowing about the day or hour coheres with a broader development concerning limits to his agency and attributes: sitting at his right and left in his glory is not Jesus' to give (8L8O)|±I, 10:40); and Jesus as Son of Man has authority to forgive (d4>iT]|ii) sins "on the earth" (2:10). The contextual interpretation of the cup that Jesus will drink (10:38-39) in terms of the Son of Man being handed over, being condemned to death, being killed, and rising (10:33-34) and serving and giving his life (10:45) indicates that God as Abba Father in 14:36 wants Jesus to fulfill the divine necessity (Set, 8:31) governing the Son of Man. In acting to fulfill this divine necessity, Jesus becomes a paradigm for those doing the will of the Father (cf. 3:35) even when they want to do otherwise; and his resulting action redounds to the benefit of the many for whom he gives his life as a ransom (10:45). The straightforward narration of these occurrences indicates that the authorial audience already recognizes these areas of contrast between what Jesus and God know and want.21 In five of the seven remaining occurrences of 0eXo), what Jesus wants is realized and benefits others: cleansing for the leper (1:40, 41); being made the twelve/apostles for particular disciples (3:13; cf. 3:15-16); private teaching for disciples that the Son of Man is going to be handed over, killed, and rise (9:30; cf. 9:31-32); and the meal for disciples in which Jesus gives his body and blood (14:12; cf. 14:13-25). In the two remaining occurrences, what Jesus wants is not realized; but what Jesus actually does benefits others. Jesus, who wants to pass by the disciples (6:48), instead encourages them not to be afraid and goes into the boat with them (6:50-51).22 Here Jesus' calming (KOTrd£o), 6:51) of the wind 20. Repetition of listen with delight (r)8ea)s OLKOIKO) directly aligns Herod and the crowd; for, just as Herod listens to John the Baptist with delight (6:20) before ordering his execution (6:27), the crowd listens to Jesus with delight (12:37) before calling for his crucifixion (15:13; cf. 15:11). 21. This conclusion receives the support of Pryke, Redactional Style, 171 -72. 22. Joel Marcus {Mark 18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 421-26) and John Paul Heil {Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
67
recalls his previous exercise of divine prerogatives for disciples in rebuking (eTTLTL|id(i), 4:39) the wind, which became calm (KOTrdCw, 4:39).23 In 7:24, Jesus, who wants no one to know where he is, instead is found by a Syrophoenician woman who ultimately secures from him the expulsion (eKpdXXo), 7:26-30) of a demon from her daughter. This story clarifies the temporal succession in Jesus' mission, first (upojTov, 7:27; cf. 3:27; 4:28; 9:11, 12; 13:10) to the children (Jews) and then to the dogs (Gentiles).24 This indicates that the last occurrence of GeXo) in Jesus' statement "Not what I want but what you [want]" (14:36) may cultivate for the narrative audience a recognition that the two previous frustrations of what Jesus wants constitute further examples of divergence between what God and Jesus want and that these divergences likewise are resolved by Jesus choosing to do God's will over his own. Thus, although all that Jesus does is done by the authority given him by God and so is in accord with God's will, what Jesus wants may (generally) or may not (on at least one and perhaps three occasions) accord with God's will. These observations clarify that experiencer argument roles are unique in that they do not impose positive or negative evaluations in a straightforward fashion. Instead, only the content, that is experienced—in this case, what is wanted— directly receives positive or negative evaluation; and the evaluation of the experiencer depends on how the character as agent acts in response to this content. Here Jesus receives positive evaluation in all occurrences by accepting the positively evaluated content of what God wants and by acting on it for the benefit of others. Most other characters are portrayed as wanting something that is negatively evaluated and, by implication, against the will of God and then acting to realize this negative content: Herodias wants (6:19) and acts (6:24) to kill John the Baptist; Herodias's daughter wants and requests the head of John the Baptist (6:25; cf. 6:22); Herod does not want to deny the request of Herodias's daughter (6:26) Gospel Functions of Malt 14:22-23, Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-2l [AnBib 82; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 69-71) consider further implications of Jesus wanting to pass by the disciples. The context, however, does not clarify whether pass by (nape pxo urn, 6:48) evokes preexisting beliefs concerning the use of this verb in stories of God's self-revelation (cf. Gen 32:31 LXX; Exod 33:17-34:8; 1 Kgs 19:11—13; Dan 12:1 LXX) and so the direct positive relationship between Jesus and God which this verb asserts. 23. Evocation of 4:35-41 by 6:45-52 also is encouraged by repetition of when it was late (oijjias yevo^evris, 4:35; 6:47), to the other side (els TO TTepav, 4:35; 6:45), crowd (oxXos, 4:36; 6:45), boat (TTXOLOV, 4:36, 37a, 37b; 6:47, 51), wind (dv€|ios, 4:37, 39a, 39b, 41; 6:48, 51), and sea (GdXacKJci, 4:39,41; 6:47,48,49). 24. Repetition of satisfy (xopTd£w, 6:42; 7:27), bread (ap-ros, 6:41a, 41b, [44]; 7:27), and eat (ecrOu), 6:36, 37a, 37b, 42,44; 7:28) also may evoke for the narrative audience 6:33-44, and so prepare for the following extension of Jesus' ministry in the feeding of the four thousand (8:1-10), where satisfy (8:4, 8), bread (8:4, 5, 6), and eat (8:1, 2, 8) reappear. P, Pokorn? ("From a Puppy to a Child: Some Problems of Contemporary Biblical Exegesis Demonstrated from Mark 7.24-30/Matt 15:21-8," NTS 41 [1995]: 321-37, here 324) and David Rhoads ("Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark: A Narrative-Critical Study," JAAR 62 [1994]: 343-75, here 357) discuss the severity of the designation "dog" (Kwdpiou, 7:27) and its implications for exegesis.
68
The Rhetoric of Characterization
and so orders John's execution (6:27); they did what they wanted with Elijah/ John the Baptist (9:13); James and John want and request to sit at Jesus' right and left hand in his glory (10:36; cf. 10:35); the scribes want to walk around in stoles and greetings in the market places and act accordingly (12:38); and the crowd does not want Jesus released (15:9) and calls for his crucifixion (15:13). Of these, only James and John do not obtain what they want but, instead, will do what God wants: drink Jesus' cup (10:38a, 39b). Thus, James and John are directly positively related to Jesus as characters who do or will do what God wants even when they want otherwise. Positively evaluated content of GeXw appears with Bartimaeus, who wants to see (10:51), and "you," who may want to give to the poor (14:7). Bartimaeus's reception of sight by faith as instrument (10:52) indicates that what he wants coheres with what Jesus (and God) want. A positive alignment for those wanting to give to the poor, however, is contingent on their doing so (10:21).25 The only other occurrence of know (ol8a) asserts that Jesus knows the hypocrisy of some of the Pharisees and Herodians (12:15) and responds to them accordingly (12:15-18). This assertion coheres with the broader development concerning Jesus' capacity to recognize (eTuyivcocrKu), 2:8; 5:30) internal dispositions. Jesus as experiencer is moved with compassion (airXayxv^ojiai) for a leper (1:41), the crowd (6:34; 8:2), and the boy with the unclean spirit and his father (9:22) and responds with the positively evaluated actions of cleansing the leper (1:41), teaching (8i8daK0), 6:34) the crowd and blessing (evXoyeoi) the bread (6:41) and fish (8:7), breaking ([KaTa]KAda), [6:41]; 8:6), and giving (8i8a)|ii, 6:41; 8:6) bread to the disciples for the crowd to eat (6:42; 8:8), and rebuking (eTTiTi|±da)) and commanding the unclean spirit to come out of the boy (9:25). Spit on (6|ITTTU(O, 10:34; 14:65; 15:19) indirectly negatively relates to Jesus/the Son of Man as goal the agents, the Gentiles (10:34); the chief priest and whole Sanhedrin (cf. 14:54), who condemn (KcrraKpiva)) as worthy of death (Odvcrros, 14:65); and the soldiers (15:19) who crucified (aTaupoo), cf. 15:24) him. Repetition directly relates these agents to each other. Eleven repeated words cultivate beliefs about Jesus as benefactive. Of these, four are reserved to God/Jesus: right [hand] (8e£id, 12:36; 14:62/10:37, 40; 15:27); power or force (8uva^is, 12:24; *14:62/*5:30; * 13:26); and gospel (euayyeEXioy, 1:1, 14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9) and way (686s, 1:2, 3; 12:14), for which their benefaction always is linked. Repetition of these words identifies Jesus with God. 25. The remaining occurrences of 06 Xw appear in statements employing indefinite pronouns and refer to characters who may receive what they want if they do what is required: anyone (ris) wanting to follow behind Jesus may do so by denying oneself, taking up one's cross, and following Jesus (8:34); whoever (bs av) wants to save one's life may do so by destroying it (8:35); anyone (TIS) wanting to be first may be so by being last of all and servant of all (9:35); whoever (6s dv) wants to become great among the twelve may do so by becoming the servant of the others (10:43) and slave of all (10:44).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
69
Authority (ejouata, 1:22, 27; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; cf. 2:10 for the Son of Man) directly positively relates the twelve (3:15; 6:7) to Jesus and his slaves to Jesus as Lord of the Household (13:34). The fact that God gives authority to Jesus (11:28) and Jesus gives authority to the twelve (6:7) identifies the twelve with Jesus. Death (Qavaros) directly positively relates to Jesus whose life or self is sad unto death (14:34)/the Son of Man who is condemned (KcrraKpivG)) to death (10:33; 14:64), those who will not taste death until they see the reign of God having come in power (9:1), and the brother handed over by brother to death (13:12) because of Jesus (cf. 13:9) or his name (cf. 13:13). Death also directly negatively relates to Jesus the one who is to be put to death for speaking evil of father or mother (7:10) and indirectly negatively relates to Jesus the chief priests, scribes, and elders/the chief priest and the whole Sanhedrin, who condemn the Son of Man to/as worthy of death (10:33/14:64) and the brother who hands over brother to death (13:12). God (6 Geos, 15:34a, 34b) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God who abandons him. Jesus' benefaction of disciples (\iaQr\rai9 2:15, 16, 18, 23; 3:7, 9; 4:34; 5:31; 6:1, 35, 41, 45; 7:2, 5, 17; 8:1,4, 6,10, 27a, 27b, 33, 34; 9:14,18, 28, 31; 10:10, 13,23,24,46; 11:1, 14; 12:43; 13:1; 14:12, 13, 14, 16,32; 16:7) is the most frequently asserted relationship for Jesus in Mark; and the nature of their indirect relationship with Jesus receives consideration in chapter 4. Mother, brothers [and sisters] (JITITTIP, d8eX<|>oi [mi d8eXc|>ai], 3:31, 32, 33, 34, 35) are indirectly negatively related to Jesus when defined biologically and indirectly positively related to Jesus when defined as those doing God's will (3:35). Name (6vo|ia, 6:14; 9:37, 38, 39, 41; 13:6, 13) directly positively relates to Jesus Simon, who receives the name Peter from Jesus (3:16); James and John, who receive the name Boanerges from Jesus (3:17); Jairus (5:22), whose daughter is healed by Jesus (cf. 5:41-42); and God as the Lord (11:9) and indirectly positively relates to Jesus those who act in Jesus' name by receiving a child (9:37), casting (eKpdXXw) out demons (9:38), doing a powerful deed (9:39), giving a drink of water (9:40), and those who are hated because of Jesus' name (13:13). Name relates Jesus directly negatively to Legion (5:9a, 9b) and indirectly negatively to the many who will come in his name and mislead (13:6). Life/self (4JDXI1) directly positively relates to Jesus, whose life/self is sad unto death (14:34)/the Son of Man, who gives his life as a ransom for many (10:45), the one who destroys one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35b), and the one who loves God with one's whole life (12:30), and directly negatively relates Jesus to the one who destroys one's life not for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35a) and the one who gains the whole world but forfeits one's life (8:36). Nine repeated words cultivate beliefs about Jesus as referent of the patient argument. Of these, die (orrroOvrjaKa)) directly positively aligns Jesus (15:44b; cf.
70
The Rhetoric of Characterization
15:44a for Gi/^aKO)), Jairus's daughter (5:35, 39), the son with a mute spirit (9:26), and a series of brothers (12:19,20,21) and their wife (12:22). All of these subsequently are portrayed as rising: Jesus as Teacher (cf. 5:35) commands Jairus's daughter to rise (eyeipG), 5:41), and she rose (dviaTaum, 5:42); Jesus as Teacher (cf. 9:17) raises (eyeipa), 9:27) the son with the mute spirit, and he rose (dvL
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
71
the chief priests, scribes, and elders (10:33)/the chief priest and the whole Sanhedrin (14:64) who condemn him to/as worthy of death (Gdvaros). Hand over (Trapa8[8o)|iL) directly positively aligns with Jesus (3:19; 14:18, 42, 44; 15:1, 10, 15) and the Son of Man (9:31; 10:33; 14:21, 41) the patients Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:9, 11) and the brother handed over by a brother (13:12) because of Jesus' name (cf. 13:13) and indirectly negatively relates them to Judas (3:19; 14:21, 41), the chief priests and scribes (10:33), those handing over brothers or sisters because of Jesus' name, the Sanhedrin (15:1), the chief priests (15:10), and Pilate (15:15). The tradition of the elders (TrapdSoxiis TGJV TTpecxpuTepajv, 7:13; cf. 7:5) as handed over by the Pharisees and some scribes (7:1, 5) is negatively evaluated and directly negatively related to Jesus. Jesus' teaching in 7:6-13 also clarifies that conducting oneself according to this tradition results in disregarding the word of God (7:13) by not keeping God's commandment concerning parents (7:10; cf. Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). The study of KTjpijaaw also indicated that the word (Xoyos, 1:45) is related to the gospel of God (TO eixryyeXiov TOO GeoO, 1:14) and establishes that the gospel of God includes specific assertions about Jesus. The occurrence of Xoyos in 7:13 then identifies the word of God with the gospel of God and Jesus and cultivates for the narrative audience a recognition that not only the gospel and word but Jesus himself serves as a guiding norm for Jesus' disciples (cf. 7:2,5) in the same way that the tradition of the elders serves as a guiding norm for the Pharisees and scribes. This extends the partial identification of Jesus with the content of the gospel of God to include Jesus as part of the content of the word of God. [Beloved] Son (ulos [aycrrrriTOs], 1:1, [11]; 3:11; 5:7; [9:7]; [12:6a], 6b; 13:32; 14:61; 15:39) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God. That God is benefactive of Jesus as [Beloved] Son (1:11; 9:7; 12:6) and Jesus is benefactive of God (15:34a, 34b; cf. 14:36 for Abba Father and 13:32 for Father) asserts a unique reciprocal relationship of benefaction between Jesus and God. Crucify (aTctupoG)) directly positively relates the patients Jesus (15:15, 24, 25)/the King of the Jews (15:13, 14, 20) and two thieves (15:27) and indirectly negatively relates to Jesus/the King of the Jews the agents, Pilate (15:13, 14, 15) and soldiers (15:20, 24, 25). Will see (opdca) has the potential to relate the experiences Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:26) and Jesus' disciples (16:7) indirectly positively to the Son of Man and Jesus the Nazarene and the experiencers the chief priest and the entire Sanhedrin (14:62) indirectly negatively to Jesus as Son of Man. Be necessary (8ei) directly positively relates the event arguments that the Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise (8:31); that Elijah/John the Baptist come first (9:11); that wars and reports of wars occur at the beginning of birth pangs (13:7); that the gospel be proclaimed first to all the nations (13:10); that the detestable object of desolation not stand in a particular place (13:14); and, perhaps, that Peter suffer with Jesus (14:31). Repetition indirectly positively aligns these events with God as agent.
72
The Rhetoric of Characterization
c. Repetition of Designations: Who Jesus Is Among the designations applied to Jesus, only Son of Man and King of the Jews receive repeated linkage to particular vocabulary.26 Of the fourteen occurrences of Son of Man (vibs TOU dvOpojTTOu, 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21a, 21b, 41, 62), the first two evoke preexisting beliefs about the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives in forgiving (CI(|HTII±I) sins on earth (2:10) and regulating Sabbath practice (2:28).27 Both of these directly positively align the Son of Man with God. This vocabulary, however, subsequently is not repeated in relation to the Son of Man. The remaining occurrences of Son of Man repeatedly are related to vocabulary that cultivates beliefs in two distinct areas. The first area concerns the Son of Man's being handed over (Trapa8i8
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
73
of Man to God.30 In contrast, repetition cultivates for the Son of Man indirect negative relationships with particular human beings (aTTOKTeiva), 9:31a, 31b) and the chief priests and scribes (TrapaSiSwfu, 10:33; aTroKTeiva), 10:33; KQTaKpLva), 10:33). 3 1
A parallel development appears in the repeated linkage of King of the Jews to crucify ((JTaupoo), 15:13, 14, 20, 27; cf. 15:15, 24, 25 for Jesus; 16:6 for Jesus the Nazarene). Repetition identifies Jesus [the Nazarene] as King of the Jews through oTavpob), for which both serve as the referent of the patient argument. Repetition also reinforces Jesus' preexisting indirect positive relationship with God's people and indirect negative relationship as King of the Jews with the agents of (jTaupoa), Pilate (15:13,14) and his soldiers (15:20,27). The same vocabulary relates other designations to Son of Man and/or King of the Jews. Jesus is addressed as Rabbi (14:45) by the one handing him over (Trapa8i8GHii, 14:44; cf. 9:31; 10:33a, 33b; 14:21, 41 for the Son of Man). The Christ, Son of the Blessed, the one employing the divine appellation (14:61-62) is condemned (KaTOKptyo) as deserving death (Gdvaros, 14:64; cf. 10:33 for Son of Man). The Christ and King of Israel is on a cross (orraupos, 15:32; cf. QTaupoo), 15:13, 14, 20, 27 for King of the Jews); and Jesus the Nazarene rises (eyeipo), 16:6).32 The second area of development, which concerns the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity, arises through repetition of will come (epxo|im). The Son of Man will come in the Father's glory (86£a) with the holy messengers (ayyeAoi, 8:38; cf. Dan 7:13-14), in clouds (v€<|>eXTi) with great power (8i3va[iis) and glory (13:26; cf. Dan 7:13-14) and send (dtroaTeXXa)) messen(8:27-30; cf. 1:1) and the extensive repetition of the same vocabulary in similarly structured passages indicate that the linkage of "Son of Man" to "hand over," "be killed," and "rise" is not native to the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs: see Pryke, who attributes to Markan redaction all such statements (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33-34, 45; 14:21a, 21b, 41) {Redactional Style, 17-22). In contrast, this linkage is central to the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. 30. If God is the implied agent of the handing over of the Son of Man in 14:21, then repetition of Trapa8i8o>iu without a narrated agent in 9:31 and 10:33 also may assert an indirect positive relationship for the Son of Man with God: see Eugene LaVerdiere, who deems all passive voice occurrences of Trapa8i8(jjp L to imply divine agency {The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark. II. [Collegeville,Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999], 110). 31. The chief priests, scribes, and elders (dnroKTeivu, 8:31), the gentiles (OLTTOKTCLVW, 10:34), that human being (Trapa8i'8
74
The Rhetoric of Characterization
gers to gather the elect (13:27), and with the clouds of heaven (oupavog, 14:62; cf. Ps 109:1; Dan 7:13). This vocabulary contextually links Christ (14:61-62), Son of the Blessed (14:61-62), the divine appellation (14:61-62), and Lord of the Household (13:35) to Son of Man. Jesus as the parousaic Son of Man is directly positively related to God or the Lord of the Vineyard, who similarly will come (epxo|iai, 12:9; cf. 8:38; 13:26; 14:62 for the Son of Man) and indirectly positively related to God as benefactive, insofar as the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of power (14:62; cf. Ps 110:1) and come in the glory of his Father (TTCITTJP, 8:38). Among the other designations, the Beloved Son twice is linked to the voice (<)>(*) W)) from the heavens (oupav6s)/a cloud (ve<\>e\r\, 1:11/9:7) and through the latter words to the Son of Man (14:62/13:26; 14:62). Father (Trcrrrjp, 8:38; 13:32; cf. 14:36 for Jesus) links the parousaic Son of Man (8:38) and Son (13:32) who receives indirect positive alignment with God (13:32). Both areas of development assert the Son of Man's direct and indirect positive alignment with God; and the first area indirectly positively aligns the King of the Jews and God's people. Contextual links extend these positive alignments to most of the other repeated designations. The cultivation of indirect negative relationships, however, predominates for both Son of Man (some human beings and the chief priests and scribes redundantly and other characters on one occasion) and King of the Jews (Pilate and his soldiers redundantly). A majority of the other designations receive indirect negative alignment with the same characters, especially the betrayer, religious authorities, and demonic forces.33 Linkage of Christ to the first area of development appears explicitly only in its final occurrence (14:61; cf. 14:62-64). Repetition of designations cultivates two distinct areas of the narrative audience's beliefs concerning Jesus' identity: Jesus' near future suffering, being handed over, being killed, and rising (Son of Man, King of the Jews, Christ, Son of God, Jesus the Nazarene, Teacher, Rabbi, Son of the Blessed, the divine appellation, King of Israel); and Jesus' parousaic identity and activity (Son of Man, Christ, Son of the Blessed, the divine appellation, the Son). Son of Man is the primary vehicle for relating these two areas of development to each other and to the other designations. Jesus' direct positive present (Beloved Son, the Son) and parousaic (Son of Man) relationship with God also receives repeated asser33. Characters are indirectly negatively related to Jesus under other designations: an unclean spirit to Jesus the Nazarene and the Holy One of God (1:24-25); the Pharisees to Lord of the Sabbath (2:24-28); unclean spirits (3:11) and Legion (5:7-9) to Son of God (3:11); Jesus' townsfolk to Son of Mary (6:1-3); the farmers or the chief priests, scribes, and elders (12:12; cf. 11:27) to Beloved Son (12:6-7); the winds and sea (4:39), disciples (4:40), the man having many possessions (10:17-22), the Pharisees and Herodians (12:13-14), the Sadducees (12:18-19), and the betrayer (14:14-18) to Teacher; the betrayer to Rabbi (14:44-45); and the chief priest and Sanhedrin to Son of the Blessed and the one employing the divine appellation (14:61-62). Repetition of reject (onToSoKiixdCw) with the chief priests, scribes, and elders as the explicit (8:31) or textually indicated (12:10; cf. 11:27) agents links Son of Man and stone (cf. Ps 117:22-23) or Beloved Son as patients and strengthens the indirect negative relationship with these religious authorities.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
75
tion.34 Most cultivated relationships for designations with characters, however, are indirect and negative and contrast Jesus with the betrayer (Son of Man, Teacher, Rabbi), demonic forces (Jesus the Nazarene, Holy One of God), and especially religious authorities: Pharisees (Son of Man, Lord of the Sabbath), Pharisees and Herodians (Teacher), Sadducees (Teacher), chief priests and Sanhedrin (Christ, King of Israel, Son of the Blessed, divine appellation), chief priests (Son of Man, King of the Jews), scribes (Son of Man), chief priests and scribes (Son of Man), and chief priests, scribes, and elders (Son of Man, Beloved Son).
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated Contexts and Structures This discussion investigates the beliefs about Jesus cultivated by two repeated contexts and two repeated structures and then reviews the contribution to Jesus' characterization of the two repeated contexts identified in the study of God's characterization. a. Contextual Repetition of1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 Repetition of Simon (Ei|±G)v, 1:16a, 16b; 3:16), Andrew ('AvSpeas, 1:16; 3:18), the brother [of] (6 d8eXcj)6s, 1:16; 3:17), do/make (noiid), 1:17; 3:14, [16]), James (TctKofios, 1:19; 3:17a, 17b), the [son] of Zebedee (6 TOO Z€(te8aiou, 1:19; 3:17), John ('Iwdwris, 1:19; 3:17), and go forth (aTrepxoum, 1:20; 3:13) encourages the evocation of 1:16-20 by 3:13-19.35 Evocation of 3:13-19 by 6:6b-13, 30-32 is encouraged by repetition of summon (TTpocrKaXeo), 3:13; 6:7), go forth (arTepxoum, 3:13; 6:32), do/make (uoiea), 3:14, [16]; 6:30), twelve (8oj8eKa, 3:14, [16]; 6:7), apostles (cnTooroXoi, 3:14; 6:30), send (ciTToaTeXXa), [3:14]; 6:7), proclaim (KTipwao, 3:14; 6:12), authority (e^ouaia, 3:15; 6:7), and cast out demons (8ai|i6via eKpdXXo), 3:15; 6:13). Although only TToiea) (1:17; 3:14,16; 6:30) and dTrepxo|iai (1:20; 3:13; 6:32) appear in all three contexts, the density of parallels of vocabulary between 3:13-19 and the other two passages facilitates the evocation of 1:16-20 by 3:13-19 and, through their linkage, the evocation of both 1:16-20 and 3:13-19 by 6:6b-13, 3O-32.36 34. Ernest Best asserts that the cultivated christology of the narrative audience emphasizes the actions and not the identity of Jesus {Mark: The Gospel as Story [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983], 80-81). This analysis indicates that, although the activity of Jesus is the focus, the identity of Jesus also receives development. 35. The narration of 2:13-14 also evokes 1:16-20 based on the repetition of vocabulary that links the calls of Levi (2:13-14), Simon and Andrew (1:16-18), and James and John (1:19-20): go along (Trapdyw, 1:16; 2:14); along the sea (irapd TT\V GdXaaaav, 1:16; 2:13); see (opdw, 1:16, 19; 2:14); follow (aKoXouGew, 1:18; 2:14a, 14b); and the [son] of (6 TOU, 1:19; 2:14). The fact that 1:16-20 has a two-part constituent structure, 1:16-18/19-20 (see van lersel, Mark, 127-29) does not detract from its inclusion in the discussion of contextual repetition; for only the vocabulary and not the structure of 1:16-20 is repeated in 3:13-19 and 6:6b-13, 30-32. 36. Evocation of both 1:16-20 and 3:13-19 by 6:6b-l3, 30-32 also is encouraged by the fact that 3:13-19 begins by introducing "go forth" and "do" from 1:16-20, then presents vocabulary that
76
The Rhetoric of Characterization
This repeated context emphasizes the agency of Jesus and his disciples and presents a development from Jesus calling individuals to follow him (1:16-20), to Jesus making a special group of followers whom he designates as the twelve or apostles (3:13-19), to Jesus sending the twelve or apostles to undertake actions previously attributed to Jesus (6:6b-13, 30-32). This repeated context contributes to Jesus' portrayal in three ways. First, it presents five verbs that directly positively relate and identify the disciples/Jesus as agents: cast out (eKpdXXco, 3:15; 6:13/1:34, 39; 3:22; 7:26); teach (8i8daK0); 6:30/1:21,22; 2:13; 4:1, 2; 6:2, 34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:14, 35; 14:49); heal (e<EpaTrei>0D, 6:13/1:34; 3:2, 10; 6:5); proclaim (KT|piKja(o, 3:14; 6:12/1:14, 38, 39); and do or make (uoieo), 6:30/1:17; 3:8, 14, 16; 5:20; 6:5; 7:37a, 37b; 10:51; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; 15:14). Second, it relates a majority of Jesus' repeated actions and plays a pivotal role in cultivating the specialized connotation of do/make (Troiew) to designate all of Jesus' saving actions. The narrative rhetoric, however, accomplishes this in a novel way. Cast out demons, heal, and proclaim are contextually linked only in 6:6b-13, 30-32, in which the twelve (and not Jesus) are the agents; and it is the twelve as apostles who designate these actions by do/make (6:30). Repetition of TroLea) with both Jesus (1:17; 3:14, 16) and the twelve or apostles (6:30) within this repeated context then relates this development to Jesus, so that the portrayal of the twelve becomes the vehicle for developments in the portrayal of Jesus. This strengthens the identification of the twelve with Jesus. Third, this repeated context also relates these actions to particular attributes of Jesus. Jesus wants (GeXcj, 3:13) and acts positively in response, and Jesus is handed over (irapa8i8a)|iL, 3:19). The disciples are directly positively related to Jesus in having authority (e£ouaiav ex^, 3:15; 6:7); and the reservation of this attribute to the disciples within this repeated context again makes the disciples the vehicle for linking disparate elements of Jesus' characterization. The straightforward narration of 1:16-20 and the straightforward introduction of new content in the latter passages indicate that repetition of this context constitutes a sophisticating rhetorical strategy. b. Contextual Repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 The contextual repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 links a series of actions and attributes whose development is reserved almost exclusively to these passages. Bread (apTos, 6:37, 38, 41a, 41b, [44]; 8:4, 5, 6; 14:22), give (818(411, 6:37a, 37b, 41; 8:6; 14:22, 23), eat (eaGio), 6:36, 37a, 37b, 42, 44; 8:1, 2, 8; 14:22), bless (euXoyeco, 6:41; 8:7; 14:22), break ([KctTa]KXd(D, [6:41]; 8:6; undergoes repetition in 6:6b-l 3,30-32 prior to repeating the remaining words and phrases that evoke 1:16-20. Thus, 3:13-19 brackets all of the vocabulary, except "summon," that is repeated in 6:6b-l 3, 30-32 within repeated vocabulary from 1:16-20. Such bracketing reinforces the resulting contextual linkage among all of the noted words and phrases. Repetition of vocabulary from 3:13-19 within 6:6b-13, 30-32 then evokes the entire former context; and the near occurrence of "do" and "go forth" in 6:30-32 concludes the third context by emphasizing the only specific vocabulary that appears in all three contexts.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
77
14:22), and take (Xappdvo), 6:41; 8:6; 14:22a, 22b, 23) link 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 and ensure that the latter passage[s] evoke the former. Evocation of 6:33-44 by 8:1-10 further is encouraged by repetition of dismiss (aTToXvo), 6:36; 8:3, 9), fish (ixBfe, 6:41a, 41b, 43; cf. 8:7 for ixOuSioi/), fragment (KXda^a, 6:43; 8:8), disciple (p.a6r)Trjs, 6:35, 41; 8:1, 4, 6, 10), distribute (TrapaTL0r||iL, 6:41; 8:6, 7), how many breads do you have (Troaous dpTovs €X€T€/exeTe ap-rous, 6:38; 8:5), be moved with compassion (aTrXayx^CoM^a, 6:34; 8:2), and satisfy (xopTd£
78
The Rhetoric of Characterization
tition of Son of Man (8:31; 9:31; 10:33), kill (cm-OKTeli/o), 8:31; 9:31a, 31b; 10:34), after three days ([iera Tpeig rjjiepas, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), andrise(dviaTa|icu, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) ensures that the former predictions are evoked by the latter. The first prediction (8:31-32a) relates this content to teach (8i8daKG), 8:31), the divine necessity (del, 8:31), and suffer (rrdaxw, 8:31) and indirectly negatively relates the elders, chief priests, and scribes to the Son of Man. The second (9:30-32) repeats teach (SiSdaKG), 9:31), relates hand over (Trapa8i8opeo|iai, 9:32) to the previous vocabulary, and evaluates negatively and relates the human beings who kill the Son of Man (9:31) to the Son of Man's previously noted opponents. The third (10:32-34) repeats hand over (10:33a, 33b) and fear (c|)op€O|iai, 10:32), introduces condemn (KaTdKpiva), 10:33), death (GdvaTos, 10:33; cf. 14:64), ridicule (e|rrraiCa), 10:34), spit on (eiiTTTua), 10:34; cf. 14:65), and whip (\iaoriy6o), 10:34); and relates these to the previous vocabulary. It also evaluates negatively the chief priests and scribes who hand over and condemn the Son of Man to death (10:33) and the gentiles who ridicule, spit on, whip, and kill him and relates them to the Son of Man's previous opponents. The first and third teachings begin with Jesus summoning (TrpoaKaAeo|iai) the crowd with Jesus' disciples (8:34) and the twelve (10:42) and conclude with statements that relate the parousaic identity and activity of the Son of Man who comes (epxopm) in his Father's glory (8:38) to the near future experience and activity of the Son of Man who serves and gives his life (4>uxily 8i8(0|JLi)asa ransom (10:45). The first and second teachings assert the Son of Man's indirect positive relationship with God who is his father (Tronrrjp, 8:38) and Jesus' indirect positive relationship with God who sends him (diroaTeXXa), 9:37). The third controversy and teaching clarify what Jesus may or may not do (iroieio, 10:35, 36) by contrasting what Jesus cannot give (8I8G)|±I), to sit at his right or left in his glory (10:40; cf 10:37), and what the Son of Man does give, his life as a ransom for many (10:45). Since the noted repeated content concerning the Son of Man constitutes the most concerted development with respect to any designation of Jesus, clarification of its repetition as either sophisticating or deconstructive is essential for distinguishing the beliefs of the authorial and narrative audiences. Previous studies indicate that the authorial audience already recognizes God's agency in Jesus' death (ch. 2 sec. 2), that Jesus was killed and rose (ch. 3 sec. la), and that Jesus is the parousaic Son of Man who will come (ch. 3 sec. lb). Thus, repetition of the predictions constitutes a sophisticating rhetorical strategy that augments preexisting beliefs about God's agency in Jesus' death and Jesus' agency in rising with coherent content; and repetition of both the teachings and the structures sophisticates preexisting beliefs about Jesus' death and resurrection and his parousaic identity and activity. The same repetition, however, is deemed a deconstructive rhetorical strategy with respect to the Son of Man for two reasons. First, preexisting beliefs already recognize the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives in forgiving
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
79
sins on earth (2:10) and regulating the Sabbath (2:28) and his parousaic identity in coming (ch. 3 sec. lb). Although the former contexts present challenges to Jesus by some scribes (2:6) and Pharisees (2:24), Jesus' statements and actions silence all opposition; and the parousaic Son of Man is presented as glorious and without rival. These preexisting beliefs do not cohere with necessary suffering and death in 8:31 and its further specification in the following predictions.38 Second, introduction of the first prediction by "it is necessary" (Set, 8:31) imposes a very positive evaluation on and asserts an irreproachable authority for the event it delineates; and the placement of Set prior to the actual statement of the Son of Man's suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising encourages acceptance of this content in a way that forestalls potential objection. Since the narration generally introduces some aspect of the event argument (that...) prior to 8et, the divergent Markan style of 8:31 suggests that the authorial audience is resistant to this content.39 Since the repeated teachings and structures as a whole relate the contradictory content about the Son of Man's near future experience and activity to preexisting beliefs about his parousaic identity and activity, their repetition is deemed a deconstructive rhetorical strategy. Thus, the repetition of the predictions, teachings, and structure simultaneously sophisticates preexisting beliefs about Jesus with coherent content and introduces contradictory content about the Son of Man. d. Structural Repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 The second repeated structure has only two constituents: an application of the designation Christ to one or more characters (8:27-30; 13:21-23; 14:60-61); and teachings by Jesus about the Son of Man (8:31-9:1; 13:24-27; 14:62-65).40 The first constituents repeat "say" (Xeyo)) with a content argument containing the designation Christ (XpicjTos, 8:29; 13:21; 14:61).41 The second constituents 38. This conclusion receives the support of Pryke, who attributes the entirety of 8:31-32a to Markan composition {Redactional Style, 163). 39. Among the five remaining occurrences of 8et (9:11; 13:7, 10, 14; 14:31), four appear after the explicit (9:11; 13:10) or contextual (13:7, 14) introduction of the event argument; and the fifth (14:31), which presents no explicit introduction of the event but does receive narrative preparation for this content (14:29), similarly relates Jesus (and Peter) to death (auvaiToGvriaKd)): TOV DLOV TOO avGpwTrou . . . (8:31) 8el 'HXiav 8et eXOetv Trparrov; (9:11) [-rroXe^ous Km OLKO&S . . ] 8et yeveaOai (13:7) e l s TTavTa ra eQvr) . . . Set Kr\pvxQT]vai (13:10) [TO p86Xi>Yiia . . . ea-rriKOTa] Set (13:14) 8er\ \ie auva.TTO0avetv . . . (14:31) 40. Mary Anne Beavis proposes a detailed repeated structure in 8.27-33 and 14:53, 55-65 (Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4:11 12 [JSNTSup 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989], 116-18). These parallels, however, do not rely on repeated vocabulary and so do not constitute examples of structural repetition as defined in ch. 1 sec. 2b. 41. Repetition of Christ within the content argument in these examples satisfies the requirement for significance with occurrences of Xeyw as noted in ch. 2 sec. 3a.
80
The Rhetoric of Characterization
repeat see (opdd), 9:1; 13:26; 14:62), Son of Man (ulog TOO dvepamou, 8:31, 38; 13:26; 14:62), come (epxoum, 8:38; 13:26; 14:62), and power (Suvauxs, 9:1; 13:26; cf. 13:25 for "powers," 8uvd|iei9; 14:62). Evocation of 8:27-9:1 by 13:19-27 further is encouraged by the repetition of glory (86fct, 8:38; 13:26) and messenger (ayyeXos, 8:38; 13:27). Cloud (ve$eXr\9 13:26; 14:62) and heaven/ sky (oupavog, 13:25, 27; 14:62) encourage the evocation of 13:24-27 by 14:62-65; and death (OdvaTog, 9:1; 14:64) the evocation of 8:31-9:1 by 14:62-65. The structure's first occurrence links Peter's statement that Jesus is the Christ (8:29) to Jesus' teachings about the Son of Man's necessary near future suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising (8:31) and his parousaic identity and activity in coming (8:38). The second links the false identification of another as the Christ (13:21) and particular actions by false christs and false prophets (13:22) to Jesus' teaching about the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity (13:26-27). The third links Jesus as Christ and Son of the Blessed (14:61) to Jesus' teachings about the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity (14:62) and his condemnation as deserving death (14:64). This structure's threefold linkage of Christ to teachings about the Son of Man is deemed a sophisticating rhetorical strategy with respect to the characterization of Jesus. Since the content concerning the Son of Man coheres with preexisting beliefs about Jesus and the authorial audience already recognizes that Jesus is the Christ, linkage of the Christ and Son of Man serves only to sophisticate preexisting beliefs about Jesus. In contrast, cultivated beliefs concerning the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising (8:31-9:1) do not cohere with the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning the Son of Man. The only prior occurrence of Christ in 1:1 also appears in the context of twenty-one asserted actions and attributes (ch. 2 sec. 6a) that do not cohere with necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising. Linkage of 8:27-30 to 8:31-9:1 relates equally discordant content to the narrative frames evoked by Christ, and the structure's repetition then augments these discordant developments. Thus, repetition of this structure constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical strategy with respect to the characterization of the Christ.42 Deconstructive repetition of this structure also relates Christ to similar developments concerning other designations for Jesus through the Son of Man and assures that the cultivated content of the narrative frames associated with Jesus' major designations coheres with the new and contradictory content concerning the Son of Man. e. Review: Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 This repeated context (ch. 2 sec. 4a) emphasizes Jesus' indirect positive relationship to God as God's Son (i/ios, 1:1, 11; 12:6a, 6b; *13:32), identifies Jesus as 42. The structural repetition 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 contributes to this development by coordinating the two designations in their concluding verses: Son of Man in 8:38 and 10:45; and Christ in 9:41. The incorporation of 8:31-9:1 as the second constituent of 8:27-9:1 then links the content cultivated by repetition of the first structure to the second structure.
The Rhetoric ofthe Characterization of Jesus
81
Lord [ofthe Household] (Kupios, 1:3; [13:35]) with God as Lord [ofthe Vineyard] (1:3; [12:9], 11), and relates Jesus' initial (1:7, 9, 14) and, as Son of Man, end-time (13:35; 36) coming (epxo|iai) to God's end-time coming (12:9). Contextual repetition stresses that Jesus is God's [Beloved] Son (i/ios [dyaTrr|T6s], 1:1, [11]; [12:6a], 6b; 13:32), clarifies that God sent (dTroaTeXXco) God's slaves (12:2, 4, 5), messenger (1:2), and Beloved Son (12:6a) and identifies Jesus' household (OIKLCL, 13:34, 35) with God's vineyard (d|±TTeX, 14:58; 15:29; cf. 12:1 for God who builds and 12:10 for the chief priests, scribes, and elders who reject Jesus/this stone/the Son of Man). The third contrasts Jesus/the Son and God's messengers who do not know (ol8a, 13:32) about the day or hour with God who does and directly positively aligns Jesus' slaves, the disciples, who do not know when Jesus/the Lord ofthe Household is coming (13:35), to Jesus and God's messengers. f. Review: Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 This repeated context (ch. 2 sec. 4b) asserts that the gospel (evayyeXiov) of Jesus (1:1) and God (1:14) is proclaimed (KX)PVO<JU) by Jesus (1:14,15) and must be proclaimed by his disciples (13:10) and that the disciple who destroys one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel saves it (8:35). It directly positively relates Jesus as Son of Man (8:31), John the Baptist (1:14), and Jesus' disciples (13:9,11,12) who are handed over (Trapa8i8
82
The Rhetoric of Characterization
reign having come in power in terms of acting to destroy one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35) and being handed over for the sake of Jesus (13:9). That is, seeing God's reign having come in power is precisely seeing oneself and others having destroyed life, having died, or having been handed over for the sake of Jesus and the gospel.
4. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus Cultivated beliefs about Jesus are related to each other and incorporated into the narrative frame associated with Jesus either directly through the contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32 and 6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26 or by the narrative frames associated with the Son of Man and then through these narrative frames into those associated with Jesus. The organization and incorporation of cultivated beliefs into the narrative frames associated with the Son of Man occurs in two ways. First, the repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 directly organizes cultivated content about the Son of Man mid, through 8:31-9:1, incorporates content about the Christ cultivated in the structural repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 and content about the Son of Man and other designations cultivated in the contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31—9:1; and 13:3-13. Second, cultivated beliefs emphasizing the passion elements of Jesus' portrayal under other designations are organized and incorporated into the narrative frames associated with these designations and then related thematically and through vocabulary to parallel developments concerning the Son of Man. Here the contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 relates and organizes cultivated beliefs within the narrative frames associated with Christ, Son of God, Beloved Son, Son, and Lord of the Household; whereas cultivated beliefs associated with other designations are linked individually to the Son of Man. The extensive cultivated beliefs about Jesus and multiple avenues for relating them complicate the graphic re-presentation of their rhetorical organization and incorporation. Appendix B indicates the organization and incorporation of cultivated content directly into the narrative frames associated with Jesus and the Son of Man or through 8:31-9:1 by double vertical lines (||) and the contribution of constituents of repeated contexts and structures by a single vertical line (|). When the organization of cultivated beliefs occurs exclusively or in part through other characters, primarily Jesus' disciples and secondarily God, vocabulary pertaining to these characters is marked with an asterisk (*). Minor designations are enclosed in parentheses () and appear to the left of their associated vocabulary; and a word appearing twice under the same context indicates its use with two different semantic roles. For the sake of economy, vocabulary occurring only in 8:31-9:1 is noted only under the first constituents of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 even though this vocabulary contributes to multiple repeated contexts and structures. Repeated listings of the same vocabulary in separate occurrences of 8:31-9:1 indicates distinct instances of contextual repetition of the same
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
83
vocabulary. Finally, only vocabulary pertaining to Jesus' actions and attributes are noted; relationships among repeated contexts are noted by a plus sign (+); contexts and structures containing all or part of 8:27-9:1 appear consecutively under an initial heading of 8:31-9:1; and passages and contextually repeated words are enclosed in brackets []. Of the four repeated words not appearing in repeated contexts and structures, forgive (d<()ir)|ii, 2:5, 9, 10) and pray (Trpocxeijxo|±ai, 1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39) are incorporated under do/make (Troieo)), which designates all of Jesus' saving actions. Die (diToGvrjaKG), 15:44a, 44b) is linked thematically to kill (diro); and, as explained in chapter 4, mother, brothers [and sisters] (inyrrip, H [KGI! a8eXc|>ai], 3:33a, 33b, 34a, 34b, 35) are linked to Jesus' characterization through that of the disciples.
5. The Narrative Rhetoric of Jesus'Characterization Repetition of vocabulary, designations, contexts, and structures that cultivates content for the narrative frames associated with Jesus and his designations also contributes to other narrative developments. The following discussions investigate such contributions by the characterizations of Jesus, the Son of Man, and the Christ. a. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus The narrative rhetoric of Jesus' characterization makes distinctive contributions to the reliability of the narration, to the cultivation of beliefs about the Son of Man and Christ, and to the characterization of the disciples. First, the cultivation of beliefs about Jesus consistently relies on sophisticating repetition, which appears in every chapter of the narration. The following table (p. 84), which, for the sake of economy, presents only a selection of repeated agent references to Jesus, notes by chapter with an asterisk the second and following occurrences of the same word with Jesus as agent. The characterization of Jesus exclusively through sophisticating repetition ensures the narration's continuing reliability for the authorial audience, whose core beliefs about Jesus never are challenged, and cultivates for the narrative audience an expectation for continued sophistication of beliefs about Jesus. Second, repetition of structures that constitutes a sophisticating rhetorical strategy in cultivating beliefs about Jesus simultaneously constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical strategy in cultivating beliefs about Son of Man and Christ.43 The fact that these repeated structures continue to evoke the preinterpreted content of the narrative frames associated with Jesus assures the ongoing reliability of the narration for the authorial audience even as the narrative rhetoric cultivates for the narrative audience divergent beliefs about the Son of Man and Christ. 43. Deconstructive repetition also redundantly relates "King of the Jews" to "be crucified" and to the "passion" elements associated with the Son of Man.
84 agent \ chapter
The Rhetoric of Characterization 1 2
3
4
5
6
*
*
7
8
9
aviara\iai
11
12
13
14
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
d(J)LT]|IL
*
dct>LTl|lL
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
8L8O)|IL
* *
*
*
*
*
eyeipco *
*
€TTLTL|lda)
*
*
*
OepaTreuco KTjpijaaa)
15 16
*
dTToaTeXXa)
eKpdXXco 8i8daK(o
10
* *
TT p o GC1J Y 0IJL Ot L
*
(j (1)^(1)
*
* *
Third, just as the characterization of God contributes significantly to the portrayal of Jesus by introducing numerous instances of Jesus' direct and indirect positive alignment with God and by ascribing to Jesus actions and attributes previously predicated of God, the characterization of Jesus contributes to the portrayal of the disciples by introducing instances of the disciples' direct and indirect alignment with Jesus and by ascribing to the disciples actions and attributes previously attributed to Jesus. The parallel, however, is not complete; for, whereas the characterization of God consistently positively aligns Jesus with God, the characterization of Jesus both positively and negatively aligns the disciples with Jesus. The previous study's limited examples of the disciples' alignment with Jesus reveal a sequential pattern of development that receives further consideration in chapter 4. The following table (p. 85) gives a first indication of this pattern by presenting vocabulary repeated in the characterization of Jesus that also appears in the portrayal of the disciples and by classifying this vocabulary according to the resulting direct positive or negative alignment of the disciples with Jesus. This table clarifies that the disciples' earlier portrayal directly positively aligns them with Jesus, while their subsequent portrayal introduces numerous instances of their direct negative relationship with Jesus. Even the contribution of their latter positive alignments is mitigated by the nature of the events: what two disciples do (TTOKEG), 11:3, 5) in untying and bringing the colt is incommensurate with what the twelve formerly did (6:30) in preaching, casting out demons, teaching, and healing; and the positive alignment of Peter, James, John, and Andrew with Jesus through hand over (TTapa8i8u)|±i, 13:9, 11) is reserved to future realization. This cultivates for the narrative audience a recognition of the increasingly divergent portrayals of Jesus and the disciples.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus Vocabulary
Positive
Troieu) Ktipiiaao)
disciples (2:23,24) twelve/apostles (3:14) twelve (3:15) twelve/apostles (3:15) twelve (6:12) twelve (6:13) twelve (6:13) apostles (6:30) apostles (6:30) disciples (6:37a)
KTipuaaw EKpdXXa) Oepatreiia) TTOLeO)
8i8daKco 8L8OJ|IL
TTOL60) tTTLTLpLdd)
dc|)iT]|iL (permit) eTTLTL^ldaJ
Trapa8L8oj[iL
Negative
disciples [6:37b] Peter (8:32) Peter, James, John (9:5) disciples (10:13) disciples (10:14) disciples et al. (10:48)
8L8O)|IL eTTLTL|lda)
TTOLCO)
85
two disciples (11:3, 5) Peter, James, John, Andrew (13:9,11) Peter, James, John (14:38)
b. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Son of Man Deconstructive repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 cultivates beliefs about the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being handed over, being killed, and rising. The direct predication of this content with the Son of Man as subject of the verbs in 8:31 contradicts not only the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs that emphasize the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives and his parousaic identity and activity but also the narrative audience's sophisticated beliefs about the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives in forgiving sins. Introduction of this content by 8et (8:31) forestalls its outright rejection through a warrant asserting divine necessity, and the narrative rhetoric then attempts to ensure its viability for the narrative audience in five ways. First, the structural linkage of 8:31 and 8:38 identifies the Son of Man who suffers, is rejected, is killed, and rises with the Son of Man who comes in the glory of his Father and relates the contradictory content to preexisting content in such a way that rejection of the former requires rejection of the latter. Second, the initial occurrence of the structure indicates that rejecting the contradictory content aligns one with Satan and constitutes erroneous thinking (c|>povea)) that places one in opposition to Jesus (8:33). Third, the initial teaching asserts the potential for one who accepts this content to become beneficiary of the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity (8:38) and to see the reign of God having come in power (9:1). Fourth, the initial teaching also combines appeals to the disciple's self-interest in statements employing want (GeXo) with warnings about the con-
86
The Rhetoric of Characterization
sequences of rejecting this content: one wanting to be Jesus' disciple (8:34) and to save one's life (8:35) must accept this contradictory content; and one rejecting this content will lose one's life (8:35), and the Son of Man will be ashamed of that one when he comes (8:38). Fifth, subsequent teachings continue to combine appeals (GeXco, 9:35; 10:35, 36) with warnings (9:39; 10:43) and to clarify potential benefits for one accepting this content (9:41; 10:45). c. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Christ Deconstructive repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 links content concerning the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising to the Christ. The previous structure asserts this contradictory content directly with the Son of Man as the subject of particular verbs, whereas this structure relates this content to the Christ only indirectly through its structural linkage with Son of Man. The narrative frames associated with Christ by nature are resistant to the introduction of such contradictory content, and the more oblique means of its cultivation indicates that the narrative frames associated with Christ offer greater resistance to its introduction than do those associated with Son of Man. This greater resistance in turn implies that Christ holds a position of greater prominence within the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about Jesus.44 Structural linkage of these designations, however, insinuates the directly cultivated discordant content about the Son of Man into the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs about the Christ in a manner that avoids any overt assault on the authorial audience's beliefs about the Christ, thereby forestalling its outright rejection.45 The next occurrence of the structure (13:19-27) continues this covert approach by evoking not only 8:27-9:1 but the entirety of the content concerning the Son of Man cultivated in the repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45. Here the fact that 8:31-9:1 is the second constituent of 8:27-9:1 relates the two structures in their initial occurrences and encourages the evocation of 9:30-41 and 10:32-35 whenever 8:31-9:1 is evoked.46 Within 13:19-27, the warning that signs and wonders assumed to identify the Christ and true prophets actually identify false christs and false prophets (13:21-22) joins with Jesus' direct command, "don't believe" (13:21), to imply that the authorial audience is characterized by
44. This greater prominence is confirmed by the narration of 1:1, which establishes the initial reliability of the narration. As the first designation applied to Jesus, Christ bears the greatest burden in asserting this reliability; and its function in 1:1 locates Christ at the center of the matrix of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about Jesus. 45. The following investigations indicate that the cultivation of the narrative audience's beliefs through insinuation also appears in various aspects of the portrayal of the disciples. 46. Repetition of vocabulary also contributes to the evocation of the first structure. Son of Man (8:31, 38; 9:31; 10:33, 45/13:26); see (9:1/13:26); come (8:38; 9:1/13:26); power (9:1/13:26; cf. 13:25); glory (8:38/13:26); send (9:37/13:27); and angel (8:38/13:27).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus
87
just such erroneous beliefs.47 This cultivates for the narrative audience a recognition of the contrast between the signs and wonders of false christs and false prophets and the glory and deeds of the parousaic Son of Man and of the implications of the Son of Man's actions for the ultimate disposition of the elect (13:27). The third occurrence of the structure (14:60-65) reinforces earlier developments and continues to relate the content of the first repeated structure to Christ.48 This context also introduces the only direct predication of discordant content about the Christ through "I am" (ey6 ei|±i, 14:62), whose omitted predicate nominative is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (cf. 14:61). Thus, it is Jesus as Christ, Son of the Blessed, the one employing the divine appellation (14:61-62), and Son of Man (14:62) whom the chief priest and all of the chief priests, scribes, and elders (cf. 14:53) condemn (KcrraKplvG)) as worthy of death (OdyaTos, 14:64; cf. 10:33) and on whom some spit (e|nrnjo, 14:65; cf. 10:34). The latter phrases also evoke the third prediction (10:32-34) and verify its content. The narration of 14:60-65 links the Son of Man's near future (now present) experience and activity and his parousaic identity and activity and completes the contribution of content about the Son of Man to the cultivation of beliefs about the Christ. It also cultivates for the narrative audience a recognition that erroneous thinking about Jesus, the Son of Man and the Christ, is the precondition for Jesus' condemnation as deserving death and leads to one's direct alignment with the chief priest and the whole Sanhedrin as well as (he chief priests, scribes, and elders in the moment of their most harshly negative evaluation. Deconstructive repetition of this structure brings the cultivated content of the narrative frames associated with Christ into accord with those of the Son of Man and identifies elements of the authorial audience's beliefs about the Christ as erroneous. Deconstructive repetition also cultivates a recognition that only rejection of these erroneous beliefs ensures positive alignment with the parousaic Son of Man, who will come and send messengers to gather the elect, and negative alignment with those who condemn Jesus as worthy of death. Insinuation of the divergent content about the Son of Man into the narrative frames associated with the Christ arises solely through structural linkage of the two designations until 14:62; and even here Christ is only elliptically implied and not stated. This 47. Robert M. Fowler observes, "The entire apocalyptic discourse is directed not so much to Jesus' intranarrative audience (Peter, James, John, and Andrew; 13:3) as to Mark's extranarrative audience" (Let the Reader Understand: Reader Response and the Gospel of Mark [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 85). Hugh M. Humphrey contributes a discussion of the function of the second person plural verb forms in Mark 13 and the manner in which these address Mark's community (He Is Risen! A New Reading of Mark's Gospel [New York: Paulist, 1992], 116-20). Such direct addresses of the real audience are made through its narratively immanent representative, the authorial audience. 48. Again repetition of vocabulary contributes to the evocation of thefirststructure: Son of Man (8.31, 38; 9:31; 10:33, 45/14:62); see (9:1/14:62); come (8:38; 9:1/14:62); power (9:1/14:62); chief priest[s] (8:31; 10:33/14:60, 61, 63); condemn (10:33/14:64); death (10:33/14:64); and spit on (10:34/14:65).
88
The Rhetoric of Characterization
ensures the continuing reliability of the narration for the authorial audience, whose core beliefs about Jesus are not overtly challenged, and satisfies the narrative audience's expectation for continuing sophistication of beliefs about Jesus.49 Thus, the narrative audience's newly cultivated and frequently divergent beliefs concerning the Son of Man and Christ, as potentially troubling as they may be for the authorial (and real) audience, find an overarching perspective for coherence in the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about Jesus and the cultivated content of the narrative frames associated with Jesus.
6. The Narrative Function of Jesus 'Characterization The pervasive evocation of preexisting positive content concerning Jesus, the cultivation of beliefs about Jesus exclusively through sophisticating positive repetition that spans the narration, and the fact that Jesus is the most frequently referenced character in Mark indicate that the characterization of Jesus constitutes the primary vehicle for asserting and maintaining the reliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience. Exclusive reliance on sophisticating repetition ensures that the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs about Jesus cohere with those of the authorial (and real) audience and encourages their acceptance. Although cultivated beliefs about Jesus cohere with those of the authorial audience, they grant greater prominence to God's agency in Jesus' death. This helps to maintain the viability of the discordant cultivated beliefs concerning the Son of Man's suffering, being killed, and rising and the linkage of this content to the Christ. The characterization of Jesus positively aligns the disciples with Jesus prior to introducing instances of their negative alignment with Jesus. This encourages both the authorial (and real) audience and the narrative audience to identify with Jesus' disciples prior to the introduction of negative content that encourages the narrative audience to distance itself from the disciples. Deconstructive repetition of the first structure cultivates beliefs that highlight, relate, and place under divine necessity the Son of Man's near future suffering, being killed, and rising and his parousaic identity and activity. The same repetition develops a series of contrasts that negatively evaluate those who are ashamed of Jesus and his words, including those about the Son of Man. The structural interpretation of the predictions' content in terms of the Son of Man serving and giving his life as a ransom places primary focus on the narrative audience's newly cultivated beliefs about the Son of Man's near future experience and activity and reserves positive evaluation to those who accept these 49. The cultivation of divergent content through repetition of the first structure that is completed (10:45) three chapters prior to repetition of the second structure (13:19-27) and the density of positive sophisticating repetition concerning Jesus' agency in Mark 11 and 12 also may reassert for the authorial audience any aspects of the narration's reliability undermined in the repetition of the first structure.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization ofJesus
89
newly cultivated beliefs. In so doing, the characterization of the Son of Man encourages the rejection of the authorial (and real) audience's erroneous beliefs about the Son of Man and acceptance of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs, which alone offer the prospect of being among the many for whom the Son of Man gives his life. Deconstructive repetition of the second structure insinuates the discordant content about the Son of Man into the narrative frames associated with Christ, clarifies the deficiency of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning the Christ and about the signs and wonders that are assumed to identify him, and directly aligns anyone not characterized by the narrative audience's newly cultivated beliefs about the Son of Man and Christ with those who condemn Jesus as deserving death. These newly cultivated beliefs alone assure one's appropriate identification of the Christ by the glory and deeds of the parousaic Son of Man and one's direct negative alignment with those who condemn Jesus to death. Thus, the characterization of the Christ encourages rejection of the authorial audience's erroneous beliefs about both the Son of Man and the Christ and acceptance of the narrative audience's newly cultivated beliefs which alone ensure that one is positively aligned with the parousaic Son of Man, who, coming in/with the clouds (13:26/14:62), will send angels to gather the elect (13:27) and will sit at the right hand of power (14:62).
Chapter 4 T H E RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS' DISCIPLES
This study investigates the semantic and narrative rhetoric of the characterization of Jesus' disciples and the contribution of the disciples' characterization to other narrative developments.1 The disciples are the most frequently referenced characters after Jesus; and, as in the previous study, an exhaustive investigation of these references is not practicable. Further complicating the study are the evocation of preexisting beliefs that recognize both positive and negative elements of the disciples' portrayal and the cultivation of beliefs about the disciples through both sophisticating and deconstructive repetition. To address these complications, the study begins by clarifying those preexisting beliefs about the disciples that receive development in the cultivation of the narrative audience's beliefs. An examination of the semantic and narrative rhetoric then identifies the beliefs cultivated for the narrative audience through verbal, contextual, and structural repetition. This permits an outline of the rhetorical organization of cultivated beliefs. An analysis of the narrative rhetoric of the disciples' characterizations then clarifies its function within the narrative development.
1. Preexisting Beliefs about the Disciples The authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about the disciples appear in the straightforward introduction of Simon, Andrew, James, and John and their immediate response to Jesus' call to leave (dc|)Lr|(ii, 1:18, 20) work and family and follow (ctKoXouOea), 1:18) and go behind (omaa), 1:20) Jesus. Also straightforward is Jesus' designation of particular disciples (|ia0r)Tat) as the twelve (8(jL>8€Ka) or apostles (diTooToXoi) who are to preach (Krjpuaatt)) and have authority (efjouaia) to cast out (eKpdXXo)) demons (3:14-15), the special name given to Simon (3:16), and the twelve's sending (dTTocrreAA(o) to proclaim and cast out demons (6:7-13).2 The narration indicates preexisting beliefs that the 1. This study develops topics introduced in Paul Danove, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Mark's Construction of Discipleship," in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essaysfrom the 1998 Florence Conference (ed Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 289-306. 2. This study assumes that information about the twelve and apostles may be applied to the disciples at least with respect to the general elements of discipleship: see Ernest Best, "Role of the Disciples in Mark," NTS 23 (1977): 377-401, here 380-81, who points out that, although Mark distinguishes to a limited extent between the disciples and the twelve, narratively the two groups are used similarly. Further justification for this approach to the twelve and apostles appears below.
90
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
91
disciples saw (opdco) the risen Jesus (14:28) and proclaimed the gospel (13:10). Preexisting negative beliefs about the disciples are evoked in the notices that Judas Iscariot handed over (irapa8t&op.i, 3:19) Jesus and that the disciples left (d4>LT)|i.L) Jesus and fled at his arrest (14:50). The introduction of content without attempts to explain or justify the positive implications for the disciples, especially in Mark 1-3, indicates that the authorial audience holds the disciples in high esteem and is familiar with much of the narrative content about them.
2. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples: Repeated References Since the number of repeated words and phrases that cultivate beliefs about Jesus' disciples is large, this discussion limits its focus to repeated words that occur at least five times and to less frequently occurring words that receive emphasis through incorporation into repeated contexts and structures. The discussion of the thirty-two repeated agent and non-agent references identified by these criteria sequentially investigates repeated vocabulary that cultivates consistently positive, consistently negative, initially positive and subsequently negative, and potentially positive but never realized beliefs about the disciples. Agent references, which are most common (fifteen of thirty-two), receive first consideration under each category; and vocabulary investigated in the discussion of the characterization of Jesus (ch. 3 sec. 2) receives only summary statement. The discussion concludes by examining three repeated designations for Jesus' disciples. a. Cultivated Positive Beliefs about the Disciples Ten repeated words cultivate consistently positive beliefs about the disciples' actions (four) and attributes (six). Go forth (dTTepxoiim) directly positively relates the disciples (1:20; 3:13; 6:32) to Jesus (1:35; 6:32, 46; 7:24; 8:13) and the Syrophoenician woman, who goes forth (7:30) at Jesus' command (cf. 8:29), and indirectly positively relates the disciples to Jesus in the two occurrences in which Jesus is the referent of the goal (1:20; 3:13).3 Directly negatively related to the disciples are those who go forth to Gehenna (9:34); Judas, who goes forth (14:10) to the chief priests; and anyone who would go forth (6:36) instead of eating (cf. 6:42,44) the bread from Jesus.
3. The verb oiTrepxoM.ai has three distinct connotations: (1) "go forth," which requires an agent and a goal introduced by "into" (els, 1:35; 6:32, 36, 46; 7:24, 30; 8:13; 9:34), "behind" (OTTLCHD, 1:20), or "to" (-rrpos, 3:13; 14:10); (2) "leave," which requires an agent and an adjective describing the state of the subject (10:22); and (3), "go away," which requires an agent and a source introduced by "from" (d™, 1:42; 5:17) or permissibly omitted (5:20, 24; 6:27, 37; 11:4; 12:12; 14:12; 14:39. Disciples are agents only with the first usage.
92
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Proclaim (KTWVOOU) directly positively aligns the twelve or apostles (3:14; 6:12) as agents with Jesus (1:14, 38, 39), John the Baptist (1:7), the former demoniac (5:20), and anyone who proclaims the gospel (13:10; 14:9).4 Distribute (TrapaTi6r)|±i, 6:41; 8:6, 7) indirectly positively relates the disciples to the patients, the [bread and] fish that Jesus blesses ([6:41]; 8:7) and the bread for which Jesus gives thanks (8:6), and to the goal, the crowd (cf. 6:34; 8:1,2). Drink (TTIVCO) directly positively relates James and John (10:38a, 39b) and the twelve (14:23) only to Jesus (10:38b, 39a; 14:25) and indirectly positively relates them to cup (TTOTTIPIOI;, 10:38a, 38b, 39a, 39b; 14:23), which is interpreted in terms of the Son of Man's being handed over, condemned to death, spat on, killed, killed and rising (cf. 10:33-34), and giving his life (cf. 10:45) and as Jesus' blood, which is of the covenant and shed for many (cf. 14:24). This verb links the disciples to the "passion" elements of Jesus' portrayal. Give (8IS(I)^JLI) indirectly positively relates the disciples as goal only to Jesus and God as agents. God gives (4:11) the mystery of God's reign to those around Jesus with the twelve and will give (13:11) to Peter, James, John, and Andrew what they will say. Jesus/the Lord of the Household gives (6:7/13:34) authority (e^ouaia) to the twelve/his slaves. Jesus gives to his disciples the bread which he blesses (6:41) and for which he gives thanks (8:6). Jesus gives to the twelve the bread which he blesses and interprets as his body (14:22) and the cup, which he interprets in terms of his blood (14:23). This action is not realized with respect to disciples only in 10:37, in which James and John ask that Jesus give to them to sit at his right and left in his glory, and in 10:40, in which Jesus states that this is not his to give. Here neither the giving or sitting at Jesus' right and left receives negative evaluation; for God prepares and gives these positions (cf. 10:40). Instead, it is the fact that James and John want (OeXw, 10:35, 36) and act to secure these positions for themselves that receives negative evaluation. Authority (e^ovaia) directly positively relates the twelve/the slaves of the Lord of the Household as benefactive (3:15; 6:7/13:34) to Jesus (1:22, 27; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; cf. 2:10 for the Son of Man).5 Send (ctTToaTeXXo)) directly positively relates the patients, the twelve or apostles (3:14; 6:7; cf. 6:30) and two disciples (11:1; 14:13), to Jesus (9:37)/the Beloved Son (12:6) and the slaves of the Lord of the Vineyard (12:2,4; cf. 12:5), who may be taken to include John the Baptist/Elijah (1:2; cf. 1:4/Mal 3:1). The twelve are the only named characters whose sending is tied through a purpose clause to particular actions and attributes: proclaiming (Kriptiaaca, 3:14) and having authority (e^ovoia) to cast out (etcpaXXw) demons (3:15). These subse4. When not used intransitively (1:38, 39; 3:14; 7:36), the content of Kripucraw is the gospel (1:14; 13:10; 14:9), repentance (6:12), the baptism of John (1:4, 8) and Jesus (1:8), or l<what Jesus did for him" (5:20). 5. The discussion concerning who has given authority to Jesus (11:28, 33) introduces a contrast between what is from heaven (e£ ovpavov) and what is from human beings (e£ ctyOpcu-nw). This contrast is part of a broader development that receives consideration below.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
93
quently are realized when Jesus sends them and gives (SiScoui) them authority (6:7) and they proclaim (6:12), cast out demons, heal (6:13), and teach (6:30 [as apostles]).6 Hand over (TTapa8i8u)|±i) directly positively aligns the patients Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:9, 11) with Jesus/the Son of Man (3:19; 14:18, 42, 44; 15:1, 10, 15/9:31; 10:33; 14:21, 41) and the brother handed over by a brother (13:12) because of Jesus' name (cf. 13:13). Indirectly negatively related to them are the agents Judas (3:19; 14:21,41), the chief priests and scribes (10:33), those handing over brothers or sisters because of Jesus' name (13:12), the Sanhedrin (15:1), the chief priests (15:10), and Pilate (15:15).7 Summon (TrpoaKaXeo|±ai) directly positively relates the patients Jesus' disciples (8:1; 12:43), the twelve (3:13; 6:7; 10:42), the crowd (3:23; 7:14), and the crowd with his disciples (8:34), and indirectly positively relates them to Jesus as agent. This verb introduces significant actions by Jesus for the twelve whom he makes (uoieo), 3:14) and sends (diroaTeXXa), 6:7; cf. 3:14). Satisfy (xopTd£a)) directly positively relates the patients the disciples and crowd (6:42; 8:8), the crowd (8:4), and the children/Jews (7:27) and indirectly relates Jesus' disciples to the bread [and fish] which Jesus blesses ([6:41]; 8:7) and for which he gives thanks (8:6 ). As previously noted (ch. 3 sec. 2), the disciples who proclaim (Krjpwaa)), have authority (e£owia), and are sent (dTTOQTeXXo)) also are identified with Jesus. b. Cultivated Negative Beliefs about the Disciples Six repeated references associated with five verbs cultivate consistently negative beliefs about the disciples either by sophisticating preexisting negative beliefs or by developing a negative interpretation of preexisting neutral or ambiguous beliefs about them. Discuss (8iaXoyt£(HJLai) negatively evaluates and directly relates the disciples and twelve to the scribes and to the chief priests, scribes, and elders. The disciples (cf. 8:10), who discuss (8:16,17) that they have no bread, are depicted as not understanding Jesus' statements and having a hardened heart (cf. 8:17). The disciples, who discuss (9:33) who is greatest, are corrected in Jesus' teaching to the twelve about being last and servant of all (cf. 9:35). The scribes, who discuss
6. God's sending of Jesus/the Beloved Son (9:37/12:6) who sends the twelve or apostles/disciples (3:14; 6:7/11:1; 14:13) identifies God as the ultimate agent (through Jesus) of the sending of the twelve/apostles/disciples. That God also sent a messenger to prepare Jesus' way (1:2) interprets the sending of the twelve/apostles/disciples as a preparation for the advent of Jesus. 7. Elsewhere TTapciSiSwiii is intransitive (4:29) or has nonhuman (7:13) or unspecified (13:12) referents. Since the handing over of John the Baptist and Jesus is intimately tied to their deaths (John 1:14; cf. 6:14-29; and Jesus as Son of Man, 9:31; 10:33), the disciples who will be handed over (13:9, 11) because of Jesus (13.9; cf. 8.35) possibly to their deaths (13:12) again receive direct alignment with John and Jesus and share in their positive evaluation.
94
The Rhetoric of Characterization
(2:6, 8a, 8b) in their hearts that Jesus is blaspheming, are countered by Jesus' statements and action (2:8-12); and the chief priests, scribes, and elders, who discuss (11:31) the origin of John's baptism, are revealed as lacking faith and fearing the crowd (11:31-32), which esteems Jesus (11:18). Rebuke (emTiiidw) directly negatively relates to Jesus (1:25; 3:12; 4:39; 8:30, 33; 9:25) the agents Peter (8:32), the disciples (10:13), and disciples and the crowd (10:48); for in each case Jesus explicitly contradicts their actions (8:33; 10:14; 10:49). Rebuke (emTiiida)) negatively evaluates and directly relates to each other the experiencers unclean spiritfs] (1:25; [3:12]), the wind (4:39), the disciples and Peter (8:30), Peter (8:33), and an unspeaking and deaf spirit (9:25) and indirectly negatively relates them to Jesus as agent. In each case, their negative evaluation as experiencer depends on how they act with respect to the content of experience (ch. 3 sec. 2b). The negative evaluation of the disciples and Peter (8:30) results from Peter's action of stating that Jesus is the Christ (cf. 8:29); and that of Peter (8:33) from his action of rebuking Jesus. That of the unclean spirit[s] (1:25; [3:12]) results from their action of crying out Jesus' identity (cf. 1:23-25; [3:11-12]); that of the wind (4:39) for causing the boat to fill up; and that of the unspeaking and deaf spirit (9:25) from seizing (cf. 9:18, 22) and casting a boy into the fire in order to destroy him (cf. 9:22). Not know (ot8a, 4:13; 9:6; 10:38; 13:33, 35; 14:40, 68, 71) consistently realizes negative evaluations for disciples as experiencers and directly negatively relates them to God's messengers and Son (13:32). Those around Jesus with the twelve do not know (4:13) Jesus' parable and ask Jesus about his parables (cf. 4:10) despite the fact that God has given to them the mystery of God's reign (cf. 4:11). Peter does not know (9:6) what he might respond and makes a negatively evaluated statement (cf. 9:5) because of fear (cf. 9:6). James and John do not know (10:38) what they are asking but request it anyway (cf. 10:37). Jesus asserts the potential for the positive evaluation of Peter, James, John, and Andrew as slaves of the Lord of the Vineyard who do not know when the time is/when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:33/35) if they act by remaining alert (ypTjyopeo), 13:34, 35, 37). However, the narration realizes only a negative evaluation for Peter, James, and John, who subsequently do not remain alert (14:34, 37, 38) and do not know (14:40) what they might respond. Peter claims not to know (14:68) the content of the statement that he was with Jesus and acts by denying its content; and Peter claims not to know (14:71) Jesus and responds by cursing and swearing.8 Understand {<jvvir\\ii) also consistently negatively evaluates the disciples as experiencers. The straightforward notice that those around Jesus with the twelve 8. The lone example of oi8a without "not" presents a similar development. Despite the fact that the twelve know (10:42) that those seeming to rule the gentiles lord over them and that their great ones exercise authority over them, James and John ask to sit at the right and left of Jesus (cf. 10:37); and the ten in response become angry with James and John (cf. 10:41).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
95
asked Jesus about his parables (4:10) indicates preexisting beliefs that Jesus' disciples did not always understand his teachings. Those who do not understand (4:12; cf. Isa 6:9-10) then are negatively evaluated as outsiders for whom everything is in parables.9 The context (cf. 4:10-12) identifies Jesus' parables as the content that those around Jesus with the twelve do not understand (4:13) and indicates that they do not respond properly to reception of the mystery of the reign of God by turning. The disciples who see Jesus walking on the sea shout out (cf. 6:49) from fear (cf. 6:50), which the narratorial statement of 6:52 interprets as their response to not understanding about the bread and having a hardened heart.10 The disciples then act on their failure to understand (8:17, 21) by discussing (8iaXoyiCo|iai, 8:16) that they have no bread, which again indicates that their heart is hardened (8:17; cf. 6:52). n This interprets the disciples' negatively evaluated action as their continuing failure to turn in response to being given the mystery of the reign of God. Fear (<j>opeo|iai) consistently imposes a negative evaluation on disciples as experiences.12 In 4:41 the disciples' fear reflects their lack of faith (cf. 4:40) and results in their improper response of questioning Jesus' concern (cf. 4:38) and identity (cf. 4:41). The disciples who fear (6:50) shout out (cf. 6:49) and are depicted as lacking understanding (ovvir\\ii) and having a hardened heart (cf. 9. E. J. Pryke attributes all but one occurrence of <JVVIX)[LI to authorial composition (Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978], 137). Developments concerning not understanding (auvtruii) and not knowing (ol8a) are contextually linked in 4:10—13. 10. Suzanne Watts Henderson interprets the source of the disciples' negative evaluation as their failure to understand Jesus' identity and to act on the pattern of Jesus ('"Concerning the Loaves': Comprehending Incomprehension in Mark 6:45-52," JSNT 83 [2001]: 3-25, here 23): see also Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, 'The Jesus of Mark and the Sea of Galilee," JBL 103 (1984): 363-77, here 374. 11. Developments concerning auvLT^i are linked to 8iaAoyi£oum in 8:16-17. The disciple's lack of understanding and not knowing (ol8a), which were linked in 4:10-13, receives collateral development in the straightforward introduction of preexisting beliefs that Jesus questioned the disciples about their failure to understand (voew) his teaching (7:18; 8:17) and that Peter claims not to know (emaTaum, 14:68) what the slave is saying. Subsequently voew is coordinated first with lacking understanding (aovveros, 7:18) and then with [not] understanding (auvin.ni, 8:17); and the related word, not know (ayvoew, 9:32), has as its content Jesus' statement about the Son of Man being handed over, killed, and rising. 12. The authorial audience recognizes that fear (6opeo|iai) may indicate either a positive or a negative response in general Koine usage and may impose a very positive evaluation on those who respond to divine activity with "holy awe": see Horst Balz, "(j>opew, <j>o(Seo|jLai, 4>6|Sos, 8eos," TDNT 9:189-219, here 189-97. The straightforward narration of cj>opeou.ai in 6:50 with the disciples as experiencers indicates that the authorial audience's preexisting positive evaluation of the disciples accommodates the fact that the disciples at times reacted with fear to Jesus' deeds. In isolation from the subsequent development concerning <j>o|3<EOiiai and precluding the very negative narratorial comments in 6:52, a range of possible preexisting interpretations ranging from holy awe to negative fear is possible in 6:50. The authorial audience's primarily positive preexisting evaluation of the disciples, despite knowledge of their occasional fear, however, could be expected to grant the most positive interpretation of fear possible in this instance.
96
The Rhetoric of Characterization
6:52).13 This constitutes the first example of verbal repetition that cultivates negative beliefs about the disciples.14 In 9:32 the disciples' fear prevents them from inquiring further; and in 10:32 the fear of those following Jesus contradicts Jesus' earlier command to the disciples (cf. 6:50) who follow him (1:18). Repetition of ^opeofim directly relates Jesus' disciples to other negatively evaluated characters. The Gerasenes who fear (5:15) ask Jesus to go from their region, indicating that they do not want to be with Jesus, a central theme of 3:13-6:6a.15 The fear of the woman with the flow of blood (5:33) initially prevents her from responding to Jesus. In 5:36 Jesus commands Jairus not to fear, for this would prevent Jairus's continued association with (troubling of) Jesus (cf. 5:35). Herod's fear (6:20) of John the Baptist is contextually linked to his actions of having John beheaded (6:16) and imprisoned for speaking God's word (6:17-18; cf. Lev 18:16). Various religious authorities who fear Jesus (11:18) or the crowd (11:32; 12:12) that esteems Jesus (cf. 11:18) and John (cf. 11:32) seek how to destroy (cf. 11:18) and arrest Jesus (cf. 12.12).16 The women's fear (16:8) precludes their action of passing on the young man's message and results in their negative evaluation.17 The only occurrence of fearful (eKc^opos < <|>opeo|iai, 9:6) explains why Peter does not speak coherently. Repetition of cf>opeopm contributes to the vilification of the disciples by relating them to characters who respond to fear with overt actions against Jesus and John the Baptist without ascribing to the disciples comparable overt actions against Jesus.18 c. Cultivated Positive to Increasingly Negative Beliefs about the Disciples Four verbs that require agent arguments initially cultivate positive beliefs about the disciples and subsequently cultivate negative beliefs about them. These verbs 13. Developments concerning of3eoimi in 4:41. 15. The significance of "being with Jesus" receives consideration in Klemens Stock, Die Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhdltnis zwischen Jesus und der Zwolf nach Markus (AnBib 70; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975), 7-70. 16. Developments centered on <}>opeo|iai and 8iaAoyiCo|iai are related in 11:31—32. 17. Gerald O'Collins ("The Fearful Silence of Three Women (Mark, 16:8c)," Greg 69 [1988]: 489-503) and Robert H. Lightfoot (The Gospel Message of St. Mark [Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1950], 88-91) assert that the occurrence of cj>o|3eo|jiai in 16:8 indicates a positive reaction to the divine and would limit this positive connotation to this one occurrence. The introduction of such a singular connotation in the last verse of the narrative, however, is untenable. Since ^opeopm has a consistently negative connotation in its earlier occurrences, the frames evoked by this occurrence impose evaluations highly resistant to a positive interpretation. 18. See Mary Ann Tolbert, "How the Gospel of Mark Builds Character," Int 47 (1993): 354.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
97
exhibit two patterns of development. Leave (a<\>ir\[Li\ cast out (eKpaXXw), and do/make (noiea)) initially realize positive evaluations that subsequently are undermined; and ambiguities in the meaning of follow (aKoXouGea)), which initially cultivates positive evaluations of disciples, later permit the verb to impose positive and negative evaluations simultaneously. Leave (dcj>Crm,L) initially evokes preexisting positive beliefs about Simon and Andrew, who leave their nets and follow Jesus (1:18), and James and John, who leave their father in the boat and go forth behind Jesus (1:20).19 In 4:36, the disciples who leave at Jesus' command also receive positive evaluation. In 10:28, Peter's assertion that he and the disciples (cf. 10:13) have left everything and followed Jesus is verified by the previous occurrences of dc|>tr||XL (1:18, 20; 4:36) and by the notices that Peter and other disciples follow Jesus (1:18; 2:14a, 14b; 6:1). This results in their positive evaluation. In 10:29, however, Jesus reformulates Peter's statement by generalizing the agent from "we" in reference to particular disciples to the indefinite "anyone" and by specifying that leaving everything constitutes leaving house, family, and possessions for the sake of Jesus and the gospel. This new formulation establishes the potential for the future positive evaluation of any character who fulfills the noted requirements without realizing this potential with respect to Peter and disciples. The occurrence in 14:50 then realizes a negative evaluation for those who leave Jesus and flee at his arrest. Since the only characters present are Jesus; those with Judas who came to arrest Jesus (cf. 14:43); Peter, James, and John (cf. 14:33, 41-43); and Jesus' other disciples (cf. 14:32), those who leave Jesus and flee are disciples who receive negative evaluation. Repetition of OK|)LT][IL heightens the contrast between the final action of the disciples as a group, leaving Jesus and fleeing (14:50), and their initial actions, leaving nets and following Jesus (1:18) and leaving father and going behind Jesus (1:20). Cast out (eK(3dXXo)) initially directly positively aligns the twelve or apostles (3:15) and the twelve (6:13) as agents with Jesus (1:34,39; 3:22; 7:26) and someone casting out demons in Jesus' name (9:38) and indirectly negatively relates them to the demons that are cast out. The disciples' subsequent failure to cast out (9:18, 28) the unclean spirit from a boy then directly negatively relates them to Jesus, who accomplishes this action (cf. 9:25). This undermines the twelve's previous identification with Jesus through this verb (ch. 3 sec. 2a). Do/make (irotea)) initially positively evaluates the disciples who, as agent, make a way (2:23, 24) and are defended by Jesus (cf. 2:25-28). In 6:30 this verb reprises all of the positively evaluated actions of the twelve as apostles when sent (6:6b-13). This occurrence also plays an integral role in developing the specialized connotation of noieo) to designate all of Jesus' saving actions (ch. 3 sec. 2a). In 9:5, however, Peter's suggestion to make tents for Jesus, Elijah, and Moses is 19. In this usage, leave (a<|>ir|u.i) requires an agent, a patient, and a location that may be left unspecified. Two other connotations of acj>ir|p.i, forgive and permit, which require different semantic roles of their arguments, were clarified in ch. 3 sec. la.
98
The Rhetoric of Characterization
rejected, ascribed to his not knowing what to respond and to the fact that he, James, and John are afraid (eK^oPos). This results in his and their negative evaluation. Although the final two occurrences (11:3, 5) positively evaluate two disciples who do as Jesus commands, their action of untying a colt is in stark contrast to the saving actions of the twelve or apostles on mission. This undermines the twelve's previous identification with Jesus through this verb (ch. 3 sec. 2a). Follow (otKoXouOeo)) requires an agent and a goal and has the basic meaning "proceed behind [the goal]," and a specialized meaning "be[come] a disciple [of Jesus]."20 Both connotations appear in 8:34 in Jesus' statement "If one wants to follow behind me, let one deny oneself and take up one's cross and follow me," where the former occurrence denotes "be[come] a disciple" and the latter "go behind." The basic meaning also is indicated when Jesus orders two of his disciples to follow someone other than himself (14:13). The initial straightforward narration of Jesus' calls of Peter and Andrew (1:18) and Levi (2:14a, 14b) can have their full impact only if the authorial audience already recognizes the verb's specialized (discipleship) connotation; but, even in these contexts, the basic connotation also is enacted. These initial occurrences positively evaluate those who follow Jesus under both connotations and cultivate an expectation that the basic and specialized meanings will be linked unless contextual considerations (as noted above) indicate otherwise. In five of the nine occurrences of aKoXouOeco with disciples as agent and Jesus as goal, both the basic and the specialized meanings result in a positive evaluation of disciples: Simon and Andrew (1:18); Levi (2:14a, 14b); Jesus' disciples (6:1); and Peter and the disciples (10:28).21 To these can be added the potential positive evaluation of any disciple, who, wanting to follow Jesus, denies oneself, takes up one's cross, and follows him (8:34a, 34b). Repetition of aKoXovQeo) directly relates these disciples to many tax collectors and sinners (2:15), a great multitude (3:7), a great crowd (5:24), Bartimaeus (10:52), and Mary Magdalene, Mary of James the Lesser and mother of Joses, and Salome (15:41), who also receive positive evaluation. In 10:32, the [ones] following (oi (XKoXouGouvTes) Jesus, including the twelve, fear (op€O|iai) and so are negatively evaluated. This directly relates the twelve to the negatively evaluated man with many possession whom Jesus invites to follow (10:21) but who, instead, goes away sad (cf. 10:22). The remaining three occurrences highlight both the basic and the specialized connotations of ctKoXouOea) and result in simultaneous positive (basic) and negative (specialized) evaluations of disciples. In 9:38, John and the remainder of the twelve (cf. 9:35) prevent someone from casting out (eKpdXXa)) demons by Jesus' name because he did not follow "us" (the twelve and Jesus). The reference to 20. Gerhard Kittel, "ckoAoueea)," TDNT 1:210-15. 21. Developments concerning dKoAou6e(o and a$ir\\i.i (leave) are linked only in contexts of the earlier positive evaluation of disciples (1:18; 10:28).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
99
casting out demons highlights the specialized connotation of dtKoXoi;0ea) and evaluates John and the twelve negatively because Jesus is the only appropriate referent of the goal with the specialized connotation. However, Jesus' next statement, "For whoever is not against us is for us" (9:40), positively evaluates the referents of the pronoun, us (Jesus and the twelve), and encourages an interpretation of (XKoXouGtoi) in 9:38 according to its primary connotation. In 11:9, the notice that those following shouted and the coordination of those preceding and those following emphasizes a spatial relationship and encourages interpretation according to the verb's primary meaning. However, contextual linkage with prior actions specifically attributed to disciples (11:2-7) or appropriate for disciples (spreading cloaks and cutting off leafy branches) encourages interpretation according to the specialized meaning. In this light, coordination of those preceding with those following directly aligns the disciples with those violating the proper relationship with Jesus, who is supposed to precede (Trpodyco, cf. 10:32).22 Finally, the qualification of Peter's following in 14:54 as occurring from a distance (aub [taKpoBev) suggests the primary, spatial connotation. However, the implications of this phrase for specifying the quality of Peter's discipleship in light of his prior flight at Jesus' arrest (14:50), his subsequent threefold denial of Jesus and his discipleship (14:68-72; cf. 14:30), and his concluding weeping (14:72) emphasize the specialized connotation. d. Cultivated Potential but Unrealized Positive Beliefs about the Disciples Jesus commands (usually with imperative verbs) or predicts (with future indicative verbs) five repeated actions and seven repeated attributes that have the potential to evaluate the disciple positively, but this positive potential never is realized within the narration. Destroy (dTTo\Xu|ji) asserts but does not realize the potential for the positive evaluation of the disciple who as agent destroys one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35b) and gives a cup of water in his name and so does not destroy one's reward (9:41). Such action would directly positively relate the disciples to Jesus, who can destroy unclean spirits (1:24), and to God as the Lord of the Vineyard, who will destroy the farmers of the vineyard (12:9) and directly negatively relate the disciple to the one who would destroy the new wine by placing it into old wineskins (2:22), the Pharisees and Herodians/the chief priests and scribes who would destroy Jesus (3:6/11:18), the storm that could destroy the disciples (4:38), the one who would save one's life but ultimately destroys it (8:35a), and the unclean spirit that attempts to destroy a boy (9:22). Remain alert (ypriyopeo)) would positively evaluate the disciple who remains alert (13:34, 35, 37) and contrasts this action with sleeping (KaGetjSw, 13:36).23 22. A negative evaluation of those shouting in 11:9 also results in the negative evaluation of the content of their shout, "Hosanna . . ." (ll:9b-10), and may contribute to an explanation of Jesus' immediate departure from the temple in 11:11. 23. The straightforward introduction of ypriyopew in 13:34 indicates preexisting beliefs that
100
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Jesus' commands to Peter, James, and John to remain alert (14:34, 38) prior to his arrest again assert this positive potential; but their failure to do so (13:37) realizes their negative evaluation. The three notices that Peter (14:37b) and Peter, James, and John (14:37a, 40) instead sleep recalls the former contrast (13:35-36) between these verbs and negatively evaluates James, John, and, especially Peter. Give (8I8OJ(IL) asserts the potential for the positive evaluation of Jairus, his wife, and Peter, James, and John (cf. 5:37, 40) if they give Jairus's daughter something to eat (5:43) and of Jesus' disciples if they give the great crowd something to eat (6:37a). The disciples' immediate response of incomprehension (6:37b) and their failure to give, however, results in their negative evaluation.24 Speak (XaXew) would positive evaluate the disciple who believes what one speaks will happen (11:23), who does not worry about what one will speak (13:1 la) for it will not be the disciple speaking but the holy Spirit (13:11c), and who will speak about what the woman who anointed Jesus did wherever the gospel is proclaimed (14:9). Such action would directly positively relate the disciple to Jesus who speaks [the word] ([2:2], 7; [4:33], 34; 5:35; 6:50; [8:32]; 12:1; 14:43), those from Jairus (5:36), and the deaf mute (7:35) and others (7:37) and directly negatively relate the disciple to demons (1:34). This action is realized only for Peter, who says (14:31) that, if necessary (8et), he would die with Jesus and not deny him. This contradicts both preexisting and subsequently realized (cf. 14:68, 70, 71) beliefs and so is negatively evaluated. Pray (Trpoaei>xo|jm) would positively evaluate the disciple who believes that one will receive that for which one prays (11:24) and who remains alert (ypriyopeoj) and prays (14:38). This action would relate the disciple directly positively with Jesus (1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39), indirectly positively with God, and directly negatively with the scribes who pray at length for show (12:40). That Jesus finds Peter, James, and John sleeping (14:40) indicates that they did not comply with Jesus' command to remain alert and, by implication, to pray and so realizes only their negative evaluation.25 Will see (6pd(o) indirectly positively relates Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:26)/Jesus' disciples (16:7) to the parousaic Son of Man/Jesus the Nazarene and directly negatively relates them to the chief priest and the entire Sanhedrin (14:62). Death (Qdvarog) would positively evaluate the disciple who will not taste death (9:1) until one sees the reign of God having come in power and the one who is handed over by brother to death (13:12) because of Jesus (cf. 13:9) or his name (cf. 13:13). This disciple would receive direct positive alignment with Jesus imposed this requirement on his disciples: see Pryke, Redactional Style, 171-72, who attributes only the occurrences of ypriyopew in 13:35 and 14:34,37 to Markan redaction. 24. The disciples' subsequent distribution of the bread given them by Jesus somewhat redeems this negative evaluation; but the use of a different verb withholds the complete reversal of their negative evaluation. 25. The threefold repetition irpooevxo^ai in 14:32-42 and its coordination with ypriyopew in 14:38 also link the negative developments concerning praying and remaining alert.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
101
Jesus whose life or self is sad unto death (14:34) and the Son of Man who is condemned (KaTaKptva)) to/as worthy of death (10:33/14:64) and a direct negative relationship with the one who is to be put to death for speaking evil of father or mother (7:10). Life/self (4juxi) would positively evaluate the disciple who destroys one's life (8:35b) for the sake of Jesus and the gospel and who loves God with one's whole life/self (12:30). This disciple would receive direct positive alignment with Jesus whose self is sad unto death (14:34) and the Son of Man who gives his life as a ransom for many (10:45) and direct negative relationship with the one who destroys one's life not for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35a) and who gains the whole world but forfeits one's life (8:36). Baptize (paiTTL£a)) would positively evaluate the disciple who is baptized (10:38b, 39b) with the baptism with which Jesus is baptized and would directly positively relate the disciple to the patients the people of Judea and Jerusalem (1:5, 8) and Jesus (1:9; 10:38a, 39a). Servant (SiaKovos) would positively evaluate the disciple who becomes servant and directly positively relate the disciple to all for whom one is servant (9:35) and to each other (10:43). Slave (8oOXos) would positively evaluate the disciple who is slave of all (10:44) and of Jesus as Lord of the Household (13:34) and assert the following relationships for the disciple: direct positive to the slaves of the Lord of the Vineyard (12:2, 4); indirect positive to all, Jesus as Lord of the Household, and God as Lord of the Vineyard; direct negative to chief priest's slave (14:47); and indirect negative to the chief priest. First (TrpwTOs) would identify the disciple with the last who will be first (9:35/10:3 lb) and relate the disciple directly negatively to those who presently are first (10:31a) but will be last and indirectly positively to those for whom one is servant (10:44). Be necessary (8ei) would positively evaluate and directly positively relate the disciple who proclaims (KT}piiaaa>) the gospel to all nations (13:10) and dies with Jesus (14:31) to the Son of Man who suffers, is rejected, is killed, and rises (8:31) and to Elijah/John the Baptist who came first (9:11). e. Cultivated Beliefs Associated with the Designations for Disciples Jesus constitutes two groups of characters in indirect positive relationship with him. The larger group, referenced by the designation n.a0TiTai (disciples), is constituted through Jesus' invitation to go behind (Seme OTTLCKD, 1:17) or follow (otKoXouOeco, 2:14) him and through their response of leaving (d((>iTi|ii) their work (1:18, 20) and family (1:20) and following (otKoXovOeo, 1:18; 2:14) or going forth behind (aix4px°\iai omaa), 1:20) Jesus.26 This group is distin26. These two contexts present further vocabulary parallels: Jesus passes by (Trapdyw, 1:16; 2:14) along the sea (rrapa rx\v OdXaaaav, 1:16; 2:13) and sees (opdw, 1:16,19; 2:14) those whom he will invite to be disciples prior to their invitation.
102
The Rhetoric of Characterization
guished by the fact that, whereas Jesus speaks to all others in parables, he explains all things to those designated by |ia9r)Tcu (4:34). Jesus also makes (TTOL60), 3:14, 16) a smaller group, referenced by the designation [ol] 8(o8eKa (the twelve) of named members so that they might be with him and he might send (diToaTeXXa)) them to proclaim (KTIPIKKTOI), 3:14) and to have authority (e£ouaia) to cast out (eKpdXXo, 3:15) demons. Jesus also designates this smaller group as duoaToXoL (apostles), which highlights what those so designated do when sent (cf. 6:30). Those designated as Sonera and aTToa-roXoi are distinguished from those designated as |ia9r)Tai by particular actions (proclaiming, casting out, healing, and teaching) and attributes (having authority and being sent). The smaller group, however, is composed of members of the larger group (Simon, Andrew, James, and John, 3:16-18; cf. 1:16, 19); those designated by SciSem retain their designation by [LaQr\rai (cf. 8:27-29; 10:23-28 with respect to Peter); and Jesus teaches those designated by both d&beKa (10:32) and |±a9r|Tai (4:34). Nor are the distinctions in actions and attributes absolute: Jesus sends (diToaTeXXa)) both |iaGT}Tai (11:1; 14:13) and 8c58eKa or drrroaToXoi (3:14; 6:7); and the promise of Jesus' invitation to Simon and Andrew to follow, that he will make them fishers of human beings (1:17), is fulfilled only when Jesus sends them under the designations 8u8eKa and aTToaToXoi (6:7; cf. 3:14). This overlap among the designations has permitted the use of the generic reference to disciples in contexts that explicitly reference only 8o58eKa and CLTTOGTOXOI. Prior observations concerning the twelve and apostles generally were reserved to contexts in which SciSem and aTrocrToXoi appear; whereas observations concerning disciples included both explicit references to \mQr\Tai and general references that have \iaOr\rai as a remote antecedent.27 The following discussion, in contrast, distinguishes observations about designations from comments about the groups they reference by rendering the designations in Greek and noting that particular evaluations or beliefs are "associated with" designations. This distinction clarifies the discussion of contexts in which a designation and the group it references are evaluated differently. For example, the young man's command to the women in 16:7 associates with |ia0r|Tai a positive evaluation insofar as this designation is the antecedent of those whom Jesus precedes (Tipodycj), those who will see Jesus, and those to whom Jesus spoke. The women's flight and implied failure to deliver the young man's message, however, precludes the referenced characters' action and results in the negative evaluation of the characters, not the designation itself. The noun |ia0rjTai requires a benefactive argument (disciples "of"); and Jesus is referent of the benefactive on forty-two occasions. Since most of these occurrences have received previous comment, evaluations associated with this 27. The only previous references to the twelve without the designation 8w8eKa concerned 10:35-45, in which the linkage of James and John (10:35), members of the twelve (cf. 3:14-17), with the ten (ol 8eKa, 10:41) and the reservation of an articular number elsewhere to the twelve were deemed adequate to identify them (avrovg) in 10:42 with the twelve.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
103
designation receive summary tabulation, with positive evaluations on the left and negative evaluations on the right. Occurrences with the same evaluation appear consecutively; and occurrences with opposing evaluation begin a new row. When |ia9T]Ta.L realizes an argument of vocabulary that received previous study, this vocabulary appears in parentheses after the citation; and when |±a0T]Tca is the antecedent of a reference to an argument of such vocabulary, that vocabulary appears in double parentheses: Positive Evaluation
Negative Evaluation
2:15 ((dKoXoueeco)), 16,18d, 23; 3:7,9; 4:34 5:31 6:1 6:35 6:41
7:2,5 7:17((daweTos)) 8:1 8:4 8:6,10,27a, 27b, 33,34; 9:14 9:18 ((eKpdXXo) 31 ((<|>oP€OM.ai)) 10:10 10:13 (eTTiTi|ida>) 10:23 10:24,46 ((cTr 11:1 (dTToaTeXXa)), 14; 12:43; 13:1; 14:12,13 (dTToaTeXXd)), 1 4 , 1 6 , 3 2 ; 16:7
The initial positive evaluations appear in contexts of straightforward narration, indicating that the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs associate a positive evaluation with |±a8r|Tai. Cultivated negative evaluations, in contrast, are associated almost exclusively with the noted repeated vocabulary and so are deemed to arise through sophisticating negative repetition. The preponderance of positive evaluations, especially in the concluding occurrences, contextualizes negative beliefs associated with this designation within an overarching positive context that coheres with the authorial audience's predominantly positive beliefs associated with |ia0r]TaL. The initial occurrences of both 8
104
The Rhetoric of Characterization
(6:30) sophisticates its positive evaluation, 8o)8eKa undergoes more complex development. All occurrences of 8(o8eKa have received previous consideration, and their summary appears below:
TOXOL
Positive Evaluation
Negative Evaluation
3:14, 16 ((d-TroaTeXXo), KT]pijaa(ji), 4:10 6:7 ((dTToareXXa), e^ovoiav 8i8))
9:35 ((SiaXoyCCoum)); 10:32 11:11 14:lO((TTapa8L8ojjiL)) 14:17 14:20 ((Trapa8i8ajfiL)), 43
Positive evaluations associated with ScoSeKa ultimately are superseded by negative evaluations. Since the authorial audience already recognizes that Judas, one of the twelve, handed over Jesus, repetition of this designation is deemed a sophisticating negative rhetorical strategy. In contrast to |ia0r)Tai, 8(o8€Ka does not undergo concluding rehabilitative positive repetition, and the narrative audience associates with this designation predominantly negative beliefs that do not cohere with those of the authorial audience.
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples: Repeated Contexts and Structures This investigation examines the beliefs about the disciples that are cultivated by seven repeated contexts and one repeated structure.29 When these have received previous investigation, the discussion clarifies only their contributions to the characterization of the disciples. a. Contextual Repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and6:6b-13, 30-32 The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13,30-32 (ch. 3 sec. 3a) contributes in four ways to the disciples' characterization. First, its vocabulary of this notice indicates that the authorial audience already recognize this negative association for 29. The contribution of the remaining repeated context identified in the characterization of God, 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 (ch. 2 sec. 4b), is subsumed under the discussion of the contextual repetition of 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; and 13:3-13; and all salient contributions of the structural repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 (ch. 3 sec. 3d) are present in the discussion of the first constituent of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
105
positively evaluates the disciples, directly and indirectly positively aligns them with Jesus, and links the five words that identify them with Jesus: cast out (eKpdXX, 6:30).31 Thus, this repeated context presents a progression from what Jesus will do (1:17) to what Jesus did do (3:14,16) and finally to what the twelve or apostles did in response (6:30). Third, intercalation of the events of the death of John the Baptist (6:14-29) in 6:6b-13, 30-32 contributes to the disciples' portrayal.32 This context predicates 30. Francis J. Moloney interprets the apostles' statement in 6:30 to indicate that they no longer are acting as Jesus' disciples or recognize their dependence on Jesus, who gave them their authority (3:15; 6:7) ("Mark 6:6b~30: Mission, the Baptist, and Failure," CBQ 63 [2001]: 647-63, here 660-61). This interpretation, however, fails to recognize that Jesus, whose authority is given by God (11:28), similarly asserts that the actions done by that authority are his own (1:40-42; 10:51). 31. The sole occurrence of teach (SIMCTKCO) directly positively aligns the apostles (6:30) with Jesus (1:21, 22; 2:13; 4:1, 2; 6:2, 6, 34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:14, 35; 14:49) and directly negatively relates them to this people (7:7; cf. Isa 29:13 LXX), identified as the Pharisees and some of the scribes (cf. 7:1), whose instruction (8i8aaKaXia, 7:7), in contrast to Jesus' teaching (8i8axn, 1:22, 27; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38), is of human (dvOpw-rruv, 7:7; cf. 8:33), not divine, origin and who disregard the word of God (7.13). This contributes to the development of a series of contrasts previously noted in the discussion whether John's baptism is from heaven/from human beings (11:30-32). 32. John R. Donahue defines the intercalation as a literary technique "whereby Mark breaks the flow of a narrative by inserting a new pericope after the beginning of an initial story" {Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark [SBLDS 10; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
106
The Rhetoric of Characterization
three actions of John, baptizing (paTTTi£a), 6:14), rising (e/yeipo), 6:16), and saying (Xeyco, 6:18), and identifies saying the words of God as the proximate cause of his death. The prior contextual notice that the twelve proclaimed (KTipwaoj) that their listeners repent (jieTayoeo), 6:12) evokes John's introduction as one proclaiming (Kr)puaaa)) a baptism (pdTma|±a) of repentance (|ieTdvoia, 1:4). The linkage of this vocabulary (6:12) with baptize (6:14) together with the semantic relationship between proclaiming and saying God's words (6:18) relates baptizing, death, and proclaiming, directly positively aligns the twelve with John, and cultivates an expectation that the twelve's proclaiming, like John's saying God's words, will lead to death.33 Jesus' subsequent linkage of proclaiming (Krjpijaaa), 13:10) and speaking (XaXew, 13:11a, lib) with being handed over(Trapa8L8o)|iL, 13:11,12)andputtodeath(0avaToa), 13:12) strengthens this expectation. The notice that, after his beheading, John's disciples placed [his body] in a tomb (TL0T]|IL . . . ev |ivr||iei(i), 6:29), also may join with the cultivated recognition of the direct positive alignment of Jesus and John and the preexisting mid previously emphasized beliefs that both John (1:14) and Jesus (3:19) are handed over (Trapa8i8(i)|ju) to cultivate an expectation that Jesus' disciples, like John's, will be the agents of his burial. This expectation's subsequent frustration, when an apparent stranger, Joseph of Arimathea, does this action for Jesus, then cultivates a very negative evaluation of Jesus' disciples. Fourth, this repeated context clarifies semantic relationships among words and links the disciples' portrayal to vocabulary that takes on special significance in other contexts. In 1:16-20 it relates going and going forth behind (OTTLCFG), 1:17 and 1:20) and following (otKoXouGea), 1:18) Jesus and indicates that the proper response to Jesus' invitation is to leave (ct(J>ir)|jLi) work or possessions and follow (dKoXou0€G)) Jesus (1:18) or leave father and livelihood and go forth behind Jesus (1:20). In both 3:13-19 and 6:6b-13, 30-32 Jesus summons (TTpoaKoAeo|iai, 3:13; 6:7) disciples; and 3:13-19 clarifies the implications for disciples of what Jesus wants (GeXo, 3:13). This repeated context links the narrative audience's sophisticated positive beliefs about the disciples, augments the disciples' identification with Jesus, and strengthens the disciples' direct positive alignment with John the Baptist. It also insinuates expectations that the disciples' proclamation will lead to their death and that they will place Jesus in a tomb after his death and clarifies relationships among vocabulary that subsequently can evoke the most positive cultivated beliefs about the disciples. This linked context ensures that the narrative audi1973], 58-59). Here the story of the death of John the Baptist (6:14-29) interrupts the story of the twelve's mission in 6:6b-13, 30-32. 33. Since John, in the only statement summarizing his activity, identifies both his ministry and that of the one coming after him (Jesus) as "baptizing" (1:8), this contextually linked vocabulary interprets the twelve's ministry as "baptizing." The subsequent repetition of Jesus' statements to James and John about the baptism (whose contextual connotation is "be handed over" or "be killed") with which both he and they will be baptized (10:38-39; cf. 10:32-33) then links the twelve and being baptized.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization ofJesus' Disciples
107
ence's cultivated positive beliefs, like the preexisting beliefs of the authorial audience, recognize and accommodate negative elements of the disciples' characterization. These considerations indicate that repetition of this context constitutes a positive sophisticating rhetorical strategy. b. Contextual Repetition of8:32b-33; 9:33-34; and 10:35-41 Although the controversies (8:32b~33; 9:33-34; 10:35-41) do not include repeated vocabulary, and so do not constitute a repeated context as originally defined (ch. 1 sec. 2b), they receive investigation as a repeated context based on three factors. First, their situation after the linked predictions (8:31-32a; 9:30-32; 10:32-34) and before the linked teachings (8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; 10:42-45) and the development of their content in the teachings encourage their evocation when the former prediction[s] and teaching[s] are evoked by the latter. Second, their linkage is encouraged by the continuity of characters, Jesus and one or more of his disciples: Peter (8:32b-33); and the twelve (9:35; 10:35-41; cf. 10:35-40 for James and John and 10:41 for the ten). Third, their linkage and evocation are encouraged by their starkly negative portrayal of the disciple[s]. In order to avoid redundancies, this discussion focuses on 8:32b-33 and reserves most comments about 9:33-34 and 10:35-41 to later discussions. Peter's rebuke (emTi^do)) of Jesus in the first controversy (8:32b-33) evokes both preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs about Jesus that compel rejection of its implications, the direct alignment of Jesus with unclean spirits (1:25; 3:12) and the wind (4:39). This rejection joins with Jesus' rebuke (eTriTijido), 8:33) of Peter to impose a very negative evaluation on Peter. Jesus' rebuke has three elements: "Go behind me," with Jesus as the goal of behind (OTTICTU)), which evokes Peter's (Simon's) original invitation to discipleship (cf. 1:16-20) and interprets this command (8:33) as an invitation to discipleship; Peter's identification with Satan (Lcrrava); and an explanatory OTL (because) clause that identifies Peter's error as thinking (^poveo)) not the things of God but the things of human beings.34 These three elements appear in reverse logical order in that Peter's erroneous thinking identifies him with Satan; and this erroneous thinking and identification necessitate the renewed invitation to discipleship.35 This reverse order withholds and, in so doing, emphasizes the ultimate cause of the controversy, Peter's erroneous thinking (<))povea)). Repetition of the controversies then links Peter's rebuke of Jesus (8:32b), the disciples' discussion of who is greatest (9:34), and James and John's request (10:35-40) and the ten's reaction to this 34. The contrast between the things of God/the things of human beings (8:33) contributes to the development of contrasts previously noted in the discussions of from heaven/from human beings (11:30-32) and of the teaching of Jesus/the instruction of the Pharisees and some scribes being of divine origin/human origin (7:7-13). 35. A further logical inversion appears in the young man's statement to the women at the tomb in 16:6: he rose (nyepOr)); he is not here; and see the place where they put him. Here, "see the place" establishes the fact that Jesus is not here; and Jesus' absence receives explanation in the statement concerning his rising. This inversion similarly places emphasis on the final element.
108
The Rhetoric of Characterization
request (10:41). This identifies the cause of the latter controversies as similar erroneous thinking by the twelve, directly aligns them with Peter and Satan, highlights their need for a [re]new[ed] invitation to discipleship, and imposes a negative evaluation on them. Thus, the controversies continue the emphasis on the negative evaluation of the disciples as experiencers identified in the investigation of vocabulary (€TTiTi|jLda), ol8a, <JVVIX}[LI). The invitation to discipleship implied by "Go behind me" questions the viability of Peter's original call and so contradicts the previous narrative development, which offers no indication that an invitation to discipleship ever requires reiteration or renewal and which uses the presumption of the continuing vitality of discipleship to ensure the impact of Jesus' frequently very critical statements to his disciples.36 Jesus' reference to Peter as Satan also does not cohere with his prior designation of Simon as Peter (3:16) and the previous reservation of alternative designations for disciples to contexts of their very positive evaluation (3:16-17). Finally, cultivation of new negative beliefs about Peter relies largely on vocabulary (think, ^povea); the things of God, TOL TOO Oeoi); the things of human beings, Ta TOW dvGpGJTroi/) that receives no previous or subsequent repetition. This localizes to each controversy the potential of these newly cultivated contradictory beliefs to undermine the narration's reliability. These considerations support a conclusion that repetition of the controversies constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical strategy. c. Contextual Repetition of 8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; and 10:42-45 The repeated teachings (8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; 10:42-45) respond to the previous controversies involving Peter and the twelve. Repetition of want (OeXw, 8:34, 35; 9:35; 10:43, 44) and whoever (os [yap/8'e] dv, 8:35a, 35b, 38; 9:37a, 37b, 41; 10:43, 44) ensure that the former teaching [s] are evoked by the latter. Evocation of 8:34-9:1 by 9:35-41 further is encouraged by repetition of "if anyone wants" (ei TIS GeXei, 8:34; 9:35), follow (aKoXouOeo), 8:34a, 34b; 9:38), destroy (ctTToXXD|IL, 8:35a, 35b; 9:41), amen I say to you that (d|ir|i/ X€ycj v[ilv OTL, 9:1, 41), and power (dwa[iig9 9:1, 39) and by the previous evocation of the first predication and controversy. Be first (etjil TTparros1, 9:35/10:44), of all (rravruv, 9:35a, 35b; 10:44), and be servant (eljil SI&KOVOS, 9:35; 10:43; cf. serve, SiaKOveo), in 10:45a, 45b) encourage evocation of 9:35-41 by 10:42-45. 37 Evocation of 8:34-9:1 by 10:42-45 is encouraged by summon (TrpoaKaXeojiai, 8:34; 10:42), 36. The interpretation of "Go behind me" (8:33) as constituting a second or renewed invitation to discipleship may join with the vocabulary of 8:27-33 and the contexts it evokes to support an interpretation of the young man's statement in 16:7 (cf. 14:28) as indicating the need for yet another invitation to discipleship for Jesus' disciples (see ch. 5 sec. Id). 37. The fact that the connotations of servant (Siaxovos, 9:35; 10:43) and slave (SoOAos, 10:44) partially overlap contributes to the linkage of the second and third teachings: see Ernest Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 125-26; and Stock, Boten aus dent Mit-Ihm Sein, 140.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
109
Son of Man (6 1/169 TOO avepooTTov, 8:38; 10:45), come (epxoiiai, 8:38; 10:45; cf. 9:1 for the reign of God), give . . . life (8i8a)|ii . . . ^v\f]S/Av9 8:37/10:45), and life (&vxA> 8:35a, 35b, 36, 37; 10:45). Although the teachings generally employ the indefinite phrases whoever (os . . . av) and anyone (TIS), they are addressed either to a larger group that includes the disciples (8:34-9:1) or specifically to the twelve (9:35-41; 10:42-45) and so have direct application to the disciples. The first teaching introduces five subsequently repeated words: want (GeXw), follow (dKoXouGew), save (aw£G))9 destroy (dTr6\Xu|ii), and life (fyvxA)* Of these, GeXco requires a subject experiencer; aKoXouOeo), aai£a), and aTr6XXu|±i require a subject agent; andi|;vxi requires a benefactive. Repetition of these words highlights what the disciples may want, do, and have and places primary focus on GeXu), which initiates Jesus' teaching and includes the other words within its content argument: "if anyone wants to follow..." (8:34); and "whoever wants to save one's life" (8:35).38 Evocation of 8:34-9:1 by both 9:35-41 and 10:42-45 and introduction of the latter teachings by GeXco prior to other repeated words that reference the disciples continue to highlight their wanting, doing, and having with the focus on wanting and maintain the emphasis on the disciples as experiences in earlier vocabulary and in the controversies (cf. c^poveo), think).39 Contextual repetition of the teachings contributes to the disciples' characterization in four ways. First, identification of the disciples as appropriate referents of the indefinite pronouns in Jesus' teaching has the potential to directly positively align the disciples with Jesus through the repetition of want (GeXw) and save (a(pCw); and the statement "Whoever wants to save one's life will destroy it" (8:35) relates the disciples and Jesus as characters whose want of negatively evaluated content will be frustrated within the narration (ch. 3 sec. 2b.). Second, the teachings address the disciples' negatively evaluated thinking and action in the controversies in a way that clarifies both the source of their negative evaluation and the requirements for their rehabilitation. In the first teaching, Jesus' statement "If anyone wants to follow behind m e . . . " implicitly recognizes and grants his validation to the disciples' desire to follow him prior to [re]defining the content argument "to follow me," that is, "be my disciple" (see ch. 4 sec. 2d), as denying oneself, taking up one's cross and following him (8:34). Here Jesus' initial validation encourages the disciples (and narrative audience) to have a stake in this redefined and positively evaluated content. Thus, even as the first 38. Life (MJuxri) evokes the point of information that this word also may connote "self: see Eduard Schweizer, 'tyuxn," TDNT 9:637-56, here 637-38,643. Thus, destroy life (tyvxw cnToXXuui, 8:35b; cf. 8:35a) may cultivate a link between this concept and denying self in 8:34. 39. The repeated emphasis on disciples as the experiencers, first of thinking (cj>pove(i)) and now wanting (0£\w), stresses the appropriateness of their designation by u.a0r|Tai, which is derived from |xay0dv(i) (learn), which requires a subject experiencer. This emphasis later receives confirmation in the fourfold repetition of love (dyairdw, 12:30, 31, 33a, 33b) in Jesus' teaching about the first and greatest commandmentfs] (12:28-34), which impose on those present, including Peter and the disciples (cf. 11:20-22), the requirement to love both God (12:30,33a) and neighbor (12:31,33b).
110
The Rhetoric of Characterization
controversy (8:32b-33) negatively evaluates Peter's thinking and action, the first teaching cultivates beliefs concerning what is required for his (and similarly errant disciples') positive evaluation. Jesus then implicitly recognizes and validates the disciples' want to save their lives before [re]defining this positively as destroying (aTroXXujii) their lives for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35).40 In the second teaching, Jesus responds to the twelve's argument about who is greatest (9:33-34) by validating their want to be first (TTP&TOS) before [re]defining this positively as being last and servant (SICIKOVOS) of all (9:35).41 Again in 10:42-45, Jesus responds to the request of James and John, who want to sit at Jesus' right and left (10:35-40), and to the ten, whose umbrage indicates their similar desire (10:41), by validating their desire to be great (10:43a) and first (10:44a) before [re]defining these positively as being servant (10:43b) and slave (8oO\os) of all (10:44b).42 In each case, the negative portrayal of the disciples in the controversies is followed by specification in the teachings of the positively evaluated content of wanting whose enactment is required to reverse their negative portrayal. Third, the redefined content of wanting receives further clarification through comparisons or contrasts concerning the required thinking and acting of disciples.43 In 8:34-9:1, denying oneself, taking up one's cross, and following Jesus (8:34) and destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35) are contrasted with being ashamed of (eTraiaxwo|±ai) Jesus and his words (8:38). In 9:35-41, being last and servant of all (9:35) is compared positively to receiving a child in Jesus' name (9:37), contrasted with preventing others from casting out demons in Jesus' name (9:38-39), and compared positively to giving a drink of water in [Jesus'] name because someone is Christ's (9:41).44 In 10:42-45, 40. Here repetition of "gospel" recalls its occurrence in 1:15 and clarifies that destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel is possible only for the one who believes (maTeuw) in the gospel: see David Rhoads, "Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judgment," in Gospel Interpretation: Narrative Critical & Social Scientific Approaches (ed. Jack Dean Kingsbury; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 89; and Christopher Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 41. The relationship between 9:33-34 and 9:35-41 receives further investigation in Harry Fleddermann, "The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50)," CBQ 43 (1981): 57-75, here 61; and in Frans Neirynck, 'The Tradition of the Sayings of Jesus: Mark 9,33-50," in The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition (ed. Pierre Benoit and Roland E. Murphy; trans. Theodore L. Westow; Concilium 20; New York: Paulist, 1967), 62-74, here 65. 42. Jesus' statements in 10:35-40 also indicate that the appropriate identification of disciples with Jesus is as agent of drink (TTLVW) and patient of hand over (TrapaSiSwui, 10:33) and not as the patient of sit (Ka6i£o), 10:37) and, in light of the previous discussion (ch. 4 sec. 2c), the goal of fol43. Narry F. Santos details various developments concerning the redefined content ("Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; 10:43-44," BSac 157 [2000]: 15-25). 44. This discussion views the disciple as the referent of the subject (goal) of 8exoum (receive): see Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1963), 405-6; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKKNT 2.1-2; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, 1979), 2:57; and Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg:
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
111
being servant (10:43) and becoming slave of all (10:44) are contrasted with lording over and exercising authority over others (10:42) and compared positively to the Son of Man's action of serving (SictKoveo), 10:45; cf. SLOKOVOS in 9:35 and 10:43 for the twelve). The resulting portrait of discipleship clarifies the requirements for the positive evaluation of disciples as agent (deny oneself, take up one's cross, follow Jesus, destroy one's life, not prevent other's actions in Jesus' name, give a drink, not lord over others, not exercise authority over others, serve others), experiencer (not act as one who is ashamed of Jesus and his words), goal (receive a child), and patient (be last of all, be servant [of all], be slave of all). Jesus' statements also develop who or what the disciple is as patient in terms of what the disciple does as agent: being last of all and servant of all (patient) becomes not preventing (agent) and giving a drink (agent); and being servant and becoming slave of all (patient) becomes serving (agent). This cultivates a further parallel with Jesus in that designations asserting his identity (as patient) receive their development primarily through verbs that indicate his agency (ch. 3 sec. 2c). Fourth, the teachings conclude by clarifying potential benefits for disciples who fulfill the redefined and further developed requirements of discipleship: some will not taste death (Gdvaros) until they see (opdo)) the reign of God having come in power (9:1); one who gives a drink will not destroy (drroXXuiii) one's reward (9:41); and one who becomes servant and slave of all by implication is among those for whom the Son of Man gives his life (10:45). Contextual repetition identifies the one who will not destroy (OTTOXXUIJII) one's reward (9:41) as the one who destroys (onToXXuin) one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35) and relates the Son of Man who serves (SiaKOveo), 10:45) to the disciple who is servant (SICIKOVOS, 9:35; 10:43). Life (^i^Oi) links the Son of Man who gives his life (10:45) to the one who destroys one's life (8:35). The final verse of the first and third teachings also indirectly positively aligns with the Son of Man the disciple who follows Jesus' teaching. This indirect positive alignment first occurs in a context (8:38-9:1) that emphasizes the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity and later occurs in a context (10:45) that emphasizes the Son of Man's near future suffering and death. Repetition of the teachings is deemed a positive sophisticating rhetorical strategy. The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 previously introduced "difficult" elements of discipleship, leaving one's livelihood and family (1:16-20) and being sent with minimal provisions (6:6b-13). In the same repeated context, repetition of do/make (noted)) directly positively aligned disciples and the twelve with Jesus precisely in those activities that may be assoHerder, 1984), 105. Interpretation of the disciples as the referent of the object (patient) by Eduard Schweizer (The Good News According to Mark [trans. Donald H. Madvig; Richmond: John Knox, 1970], 192- 93) and by Hugh Anderson (IJie Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 234-35) fails to recognize that all other redefinitions of content within the repeated contexts consistently identify the disciple as the referent of the subject argument.
112
The Rhetoric of Characterization
ciated with being a servant (SidKovog) and the Son of Man's serving. The straightforward narration of much of the content of Mark 13 indicates that the authorial audience already recognizes that the disciples will be handed over (Trapa8L8o)|iL, 13:9, 11) for the sake of Jesus (eveicev e|±oO, 13:9; cf. 8:35) and possibly be killed (GavaToo), 13:12), and that these same disciples will be designated slaves (SoOAos, 13:34; cf. 10:44). Thus, the repeated teachings augment both preexisting and previously sophisticated positive beliefs about the disciples with coherent content concerning their potential for future positively evaluated actions and attributes.45 d. Structural Repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 Deconstructive repetition of the predictions (ch. 3 sec. 3a) cultivates beliefs about the Son of Man's near future suffering, being killed, and rising that diverge significantly from preexisting beliefs that emphasize the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives and parousaic identity and activity. Deconstructive repetition of the controversies then cultivates very negative beliefs concerning the disciples' erroneous thinking about Jesus as Son of Man and Christ and about themselves as disciples that contradict generally positive preexisting beliefs about the disciples. Sophisticating repetition of the teachings then evokes and relates positive elements of preexisting and cultivated beliefs about the disciples and, by positively [rejdefining the content of what they want, cultivates a model of the thinking and acting required for the potential positive evaluation and rehabilitation of errant disciples. The teachings, however, provide little explicit development of the positive relationship with Jesus (and God) that must characterize disciples who attempt to fulfill these requirements. The teachings' reservation of potential benefits for the future paints the disciples' present as a time of struggle and hardship; and linkage of repeated occasions of the disciples' actual erroneous thinking and negatively evaluated acting (controversies) to the required thinking and acting that raises only the potential for disciples' future success and positive evaluation (teachings) might suggest that the prospects for realizing these benefits, in fact, are quite grim. This, however, is not the whole story of the disciples or discipleship in Mark. Previous studies indicate that the structural repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 links and tempers negative (controversies) with potential positive (teachings) elements of the disciples' portrayal and parallels the exacting requirements of discipleship (teachings) to the near future experience and activity of the Son of Man (predictions and teachings). The following discussion identifies two further ways in which this repeated structure strengthens the potential for the disciples' positive thinking and acting and alignment with Jesus 45. This conclusion receives the support of Pryke, Redactional Style, 163-66, who classifies the majority of the significant vocabulary in 8:34-9:1 and 9:35-41 as traditional and observes that scholars are rather evenly divided concerning the traditional or redactional nature of the significant vocabulary in 10:42-45.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
113
and God: by evoking the disciples' former fulfillment of the exacting requirements of discipleship and their resulting very positive evaluation and relationship with Jesus and God and by clarifying the requirements for their positive relationship with the parousaic Son of Man. The vocabulary of the controversies and teachings evokes the very positive beliefs about the disciples cultivated in 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32. The first controversy (8:32b-33) introduces Peter (8:32b; cf. 3:16; and 1:16 for Simon) and behind (OTTICFG), 8:33; cf. 1:17, 20) in the phrase behind me (omao) JJOU), which last appeared in Simon's (Peter's) call in 1:17. The first teaching presents Jesus summoning (rrpoaKaX€O|iai, 8:34; cf. 3:13; 6:7) and continues the emphasis on the invitation to discipleship through 6TTLCF and aKoXouGeo) encourage the evocation of 1:16-20; and TrpoamXeoiica incorporates the evocation of 3:13-19 and 6:6b-13, 30-32. Evocation of the first controversy and teaching by the subsequent controversies and teachings links them to 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32; and this linkage is encouraged by repetition of the twelve (ol Severn, 9:35; cf. 3:14, 16; 6:7) and John (9:38; cf. 1:19; 3:17) in 9:33-41 and James and John (10:35, 41; cf. 1:19; 3:17), of Zebedee (10:35; cf. 1:19; 3:17), and summon (10:42; cf. 3:13; 6:7) in 10:35-44. Evocation of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 by the controversies and teachings contributes to the disciples' portrayal in two ways. First, its evocation by the controversies relates the most positive cultivated beliefs about the disciples to the most negative cultivated beliefs about them; and its evocation by the teachings relates the exacting requirements for the disciples' potential positive evaluation to the twelve's most positive realized evaluation while on mission (6:6b-13, 30-32). In particular, evocation of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 by 8:32b-9:l links Jesus' invitations to Simon/Peter and relates Jesus' teaching to deny oneself (aTTapv€O|iai, 8:34) and to take up (cilpo), 8:34) one's cross to the disciples' previously accomplished leaving (Cr||XL, 1:18, 20) of livelihood and family and taking up (aip(D, 6:8) of scant provisions for mission. The content of Jesus' rebuke of Peter in 8:33 demonstrates that, even if a disciple's erroneous thinking and negatively evaluated acting identifies one with Satan, Jesus neither rejects nor denies the disciple but admonishes, teaches, and invites to discipleship. The vocabulary of Jesus' response insinuates into his harshest rebuke of a disciple within the narration (8:33) a source of consolation and hope for all disciples characterized by similar erroneous thinking and improper acting. Second, the vocabulary in the controversies and teachings that evoke 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13,30-32 asserts the disciples' direct positive alignment with Jesus and clarifies its implications for disciples. The prior discussion (ch. 3 sec. 2b) indicates that Jesus and those positively aligned with him have what they want (OeXa)) realized when it conforms to God's will and benefits others. The
114
The Rhetoric of Characterization
teachings present three examples of what the disciple may want and have realized: to follow (8:34) Jesus, which they previously accomplished (1:18; cf. 6:1); and to be first, defined as being last and servant of all (9:35), and to become great (10:43) and be first (10:44), defined as being servant (10:43) and slave of all (10:44), which are linked to the twelve's success when sent (6:6b-13, 30-32). These confirm the potential for direct positive alignment with Jesus, whose want of particular disciples in 3:13 is realized. Even the negatively evaluated content of the disciples' wanting, to save one's life (8:35) and to sit at Jesus' right and left in his glory (10:35, 37), relates them to Jesus as the only characters whose wanting is frustrated and asserts the potential for their direct positive alignment with Jesus, should they choose to act according to what God wants. Thus, the disciple who actually destroys his or her life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35) will save it; and the disciple who is baptized with Jesus' baptism and drinks Jesus' cup (10:38-39) will be positively aligned with the Son of Man, who serves and gives his life as a ransom for many (10:45).46 Finally, the fact that Jesus is sent (9:37) and that the twelve are sent (3:14; 6:7) by Jesus identifies and directly positively aligns the disciples with Jesus and, through Jesus, mediately positively aligns them with God. This, the only explicitly asserted relationship for the disciple with God within the teachings, stresses the disciples' action especially when sent. The repeated structure as a whole contributes to the disciples' portrayal in two further ways. First, it links the necessary (8el, 8:31) near ftiture experience and activity of Jesus as Son of Man to the required thinking and acting of disciples and, in so doing, cultivates a series of parallels and reciprocities between what the Son of Man does and what the disciple is required to do. The Son of Man gives his life (tyvxA) as a ransom for many (10:45); and the disciple is to destroy his or her life (tyvxA) for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35). The Son of Man serves (diaKOveo), 10:45); and the disciple who wants to become great is to be a servant (SICIKOVOS, 10:43). The closest parallel appears in Jesus' statement that James and John will drink the same cup that Jesus drinks and will be baptized with the same baptism with which Jesus is baptized (10:38-39). Although this statement does not explicitly reference the Son of Man, its inclusion between Jesus' prediction (10:33-34) and teaching (10:45) about the Son of Man inter46. The grammar of these passages merits attention. The negatively evaluated wanting in 8:35 is expressed through the subjunctive of want and an infinitive for its content, to save life; and the negatively evaluated content of what James and John want in 10:35 and 36 is expressed through subjunctive clauses and anaphorically in 10:37 through an imperative. In each case, the content of negatively evaluated wanting appears in a mood that conveys only possibilities. The redefined statement in each case is presented in the indicative: whoever will destroy (8:35); and are you able (10:38), we are able (10:39), and you will drink . . . be baptized (10:39). The contrast between the negatively evaluated possibilities that cannot be realized and the positively evaluated redefined content is most apparent in grammatically unparallel and so awkwardly coordinated clauses in 8:35, "Whoever may wish to save one's life will destroy it, but whoever will destroy one's life for my sake and the gospel's will save it."
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
115
prets Jesus' cup and baptism in terms of the Son of Man's passion, death, and resurrection. Thus, this repeated structure cultivates the content of the required thinking and acting of disciples explicitly in relation to the narrative audience's cultivated (and divergent) beliefs about the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being killed, and rising. This is in stark contrast to the cultivation of positive beliefs about the disciples in 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 which relied almost exclusively on preexisting positive beliefs about the disciples and Jesus and that never associated the disciples with the Son of Man (ch. 3 sec. 2c). These considerations also interpret the rejection of the new contradictory content about the Son of Man in the first controversy as an implicit rejection of the required thinking and acting that it demands. Second, this repeated structure links the Son of Man's necessary near future suffering, being killed, and rising (8:31) and serving and giving his life (10:45) both to the parousaic Son of Man's coming in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (8:38) and to the disciple's required thinking and acting as delineated in the teachings.47 Thus, it is the Son of Man's near future experience and activity that mediates the relationship between the disciple's required thinking and acting and the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity. The disciple and the parousaic Son of Man appear in direct parallel only as experiencer subjects of be ashamed (eTraiaxi>vo|±ai): the parousaic Son of Man will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of Jesus and his words (8:38), which include Jesus' teachings about the gospel (8:35), the exacting requirements of discipleship (8:34-37), and the Son of Man's necessary near future suffering, being killed, and rising (8:31). This specifies that only proper thinking about Jesus as Son of Man and fulfilling the exacting requirements of discipleship positively relate the disciple to the parousaic Son of Man. Thus, it is the disciple's thinking and acting that determine who the parousaic Son of Man will be (identity) and what he will do (activity) for the disciple. Thus, the disciple's relationship with Jesus as parousaic Son of Man who comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (8:38) is determined by thinking and acting on the pattern of the Son of Man who suffers, is killed, and rises (8:31). Repetition of this structure is deemed a positive sophisticating rhetorical strategy with respect to the disciples' portrayal. Although deconstructive repetition of the controversies introduces and reinforces new negative information about the disciples, the structural linkage of the controversies with the teachings provides a broader context for reinterpreting these very negative developments. Evocation of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13,30-32 by both the controversies and teachings balances the present negative portrayal of the disciples (controversies) with their earlier positive portrayal and links the exacting requirements for the disciples' potential positive evaluation (teachings) with the most positive examples of their 47. Structural repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 (ch. 3 sec. 3d) then strengthens the link between the Son of Man's near future experience and activity and his parousaic identity and activity.
116
The Rhetoric of Characterization
former realized success. This linkage cultivates new avenues for the disciple's direct positive alignment with Jesus as Son of Man and mediated positive alignment with God and recasts occasions of erroneous thinking and improper acting into opportunities for rehabilitation. Thus, this repeated structure cultivates for the narrative audience both very negative and potentially very positive beliefs about the disciples' thinking and acting. Since the authorial audience already recognizes, but does not emphasize, that disciples at times did not understand Jesus' teachings and did not act properly, and since the previous narration has cultivated an expectation that Jesus will respond to disciples who do not understand with corrective teachings, the structural repetition of 8:31—9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:42-45 sophisticates both preexisting and narratively cultivated beliefs with frequently difficult but, through reinterpretation in the teachings, generally coherent content. e. Contextual Repetition of 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; and 13:3-13 This repeated context, which incorporates salient content from the study of the contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 (ch. 2 sec. 4b), relates cultivated beliefs about actions and attributes that establish the potential for the disciples' future positive evaluation and relationship with God and Jesus. Come (epxopm, 8:38; 9:1; 10:30; 13:6), save (acpCd), 8:35a, 35b; 10:26; 13:13), for my sake(<EV€K€v ejioO, 8:35; 10:29; 13:9), father (TTaTrjp, 8:38; 10:29; 13:12), and gospel (evayyeXiov, 8:35; 10:29; 13:10) encourage evocation of the former contexts] by the latter. Amen I say to you (d|±f)v Xeyoj u|itv, 9:1; 10:29), follow (ctKoXouGeG), 8:34a, 34b; 10:28), and word (Xoyos, 8:38; 10:22, 24) further encourage the evocation of 8:34-9:1 by 10:26-30. Brother (d8eXc|)6s, 10:29, 30; 13:12a, 12b) and child (T€KVOV, 10:29,30; 13:12a, 12b) encourage the evocation of 10:26-30 by 13:3-13; and give (8I8GJ|JU, 8:37; 13:11) and death (GdvaTos, 9:1; 13:12; cf. 0avaToco, 13:12) encourage the evocation of 8:31-9:1 by 13:3-13. For the sake of me [Jesus] (evexev 6|io0, 8:35; 10:29; 13:9) links destroying (drroXXuiiL) one's life (8:35); leaving (dc|)ir)|ju) house, brothers, sisters, mother, father, children, and fields (10:29); and being handed over (Trapa8i8G)|ii) to Sanhedrins and synagogues, being beaten, and standing before governors and kings (13:9). Although linked, these actions and attributes are distinguished by the fact that destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus is attached to no time referent; leaving is specified for now in this time (mipos, 10:30); and being handed over, being beaten, and standing are reserved to the future (13:9). These actions and attributes also receive development through linkage to other vocabulary. The first context (8:34-9:1) relates destroying one's life to denying oneself, taking up one's cross, and following (dKoXouOea)) Jesus (8:34) and to not being ashamed of Jesus and his words (8:38) and highlights the link between Jesus' words (Xoyos, 8:38) and the gospel (euayyeXiov, 8:35). The second context, 10:26-30, evokes and develops the previous linkage of leaving (dc|>ir)|ju)
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of JesusJ Disciples
117
and following (dKoXou06O), 10:28; cf. 1:18) and makes all of the noted actions and attributes for the sake of the Jesus and gospel (eveicev ejioO m l [eveicev] TOO euayyeXioi;, 8:35; [10:29]). The third context, 13:3-13, repeats hand over (13:9, 11, 12) which directly positively relates the brother handed over by brother to death (Odvcrros) and the child (TCKVOV) handed over by its father (TraTfjp, 13:12), links these to being led (13:11) and speaking (XaXeo, 13:11a, lib), being turned against and killed by children (13:12), being hated by all because of Jesus' name (13:13), and persevering to the end (13:13), and relates these to the previous actions and attributes. The third occurrence of ZveKev €[iou without the expected coordinated reference to the gospel asserts that the purpose (els, 13:9) of disciples' being handed over, being beaten, standing, and other actions and attributes for the sake of Jesus (and the gospel) is witness. The expected reference to gospel then appears in Jesus' statement that it is necessary (8et) that the gospel first be proclaimed (KT]piia<7a)) to all nations (13:10). The delay in introducing a reference to the gospel links the actions and attributes for the purpose of witness to proclaiming the gospel and places them under divine necessity. This indicates that disciples characterized by these actions and attributes will be indirectly positively related to God. First (TTP&TOS) emphasizes God's agency in determining the sequence of history (see ch. 2 sec. 3a) and identifies the disciples who proclaim as the instruments through whom God accomplishes God's governance in the beginning of the birth pains (13:8). This strengthens the potential for disciples' future indirect positive alignment with God. This repeated context also specifies the implications of the noted actions and attributes. The one destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel will save it Ol^x 1 ^ • • •
118
The Rhetoric of Characterization
(KTipiiaaco) with disciples as agent to the twelve when on mission (3:14; 6:12) and the notice that the twelve when sent remained in houses (olida, 6:10; cf. 10:30) interpret the hundredfold as what is received when on mission. Thus, disciples previously sent by Jesus (6:7) remain on mission in the future. Second, these actions and attributes further specify the thinking and acting required of disciples (ch. 4 sec. 3c) and strengthen the link between these requirements/the necessary near future experience and activity of Jesus as Son of Man: being handed over (TTapa8[8a)|iL, 13:9, 12/9:31; 10:33a, 33b), death (GdvaTos, 13:12/ 10:33; 14:64), and being put to death (GavaToo), 13:12/14:55). Third, receiving a hundredfold with persecutions (10:30) and being hated by all because of Jesus' name (13:13) become indications whether the disciple is saving his or her life (8:35).49 Fourth, since God necessitates both the Son of Man's near future experience and activity and the disciples' future actions and attributes, especially proclaiming, these actions and attributes become defining realities or constitutive of who the Son of Man/the disciple is.50 The disciples' necessary positively evaluated actions and attributes establish a series of potential positive and negative familial relationships for disciples. The disciple is indirectly negatively related to the biological father (TTcrrrjp), brother (d8eX<J)6s), and children (TEKVOV) whom they leave for the sake of Jesus and for the sake of the gospel (10:29) and indirectly positively related to the hundredfold brothers and children they will receive (10:30). Positively evaluated and identified with the disciple are the brother (13:12b) and children (13:12a) who are handed over to death and the parents (13:12) whom children turn against and kill. Negatively evaluated and contrasted with the disciples are those whom they leave: brother (13:12a) and father (13:12) who hand them over; and the children (13:12b) who turn against and kill parents. Finally, the Father (ucmp) of Jesus as Son of Man (8:38) is contrasted with the negatively evaluated human fathers (10:29; 13:12); and the disciple's mediated positive relationship with God as Father through the Son of Man accounts for the fact that the disciple does not receive a hundredfold fathers (10:30) along with the rest of the restored family. f. Review: Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 This repeated context (ch. 2 sec. 4a) identifies the slaves (8oOXog, 13:34) of the Lord of the Household/Jesus' disciples with the messenger (dyyeXos, 1:2) of God/the slaves (8oOAog, 12:2, 4) of the Lord of the Vineyard and links Jesus' command that his disciples remain alert (ypriyopeo), 13:34, 35, 37; cf. 14:34, 37, 38) to God's demand that the farmers render some of the fruit of the vineyard to 49. Although the narrative rhetoric develops no didactic function for the Son of Man's experience of suffering and the disciple's experience of persecution, it does develop for these experiences an epistemic function: just as Jesus' experience of suffering as Son of Man confirms his fulfillment of God's necessity governing the Son of Man, the disciples' experience of persecution when on mission confirms their fulfillment of God's necessity governing their proclamation. 50. Thus, these actions and attributes may have ontological implications for the disciple.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
119
God. Thus, Jesus' disciples are to fulfill the expectations formerly placed on both the farmers, who were to render the fruit of the vineyard, and the slaves, who were sent to secure it. This establishes the potential for the very positive evaluation of disciples who remain alert and fulfill their tasks, asserts the precedent of the abject failure of the farmers to fulfill their mandate, and so establishes the potential for the direct alignment of disciples who do not remain alert and fulfill their tasks but, instead, sleep (KaGeuSw, 13:36) with the farmers who kill ((XTTOK:TeXva), 12:7, 8) Jesus as Beloved Son. The third constituent (13:32-37) also establishes the potential for directly positively relating Jesus' disciples as the slaves of the Lord of the Household who do not know (ol8a) when the time is (13:33) and when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:35) to God's messengers and Jesus as the Son who do not know about the day or hour (13:32), again, provided that the disciples remain alert and fulfill their tasks. g. Review: Contextual Repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 This repeated context (ch. 3 sec. 3b) sophisticates positive beliefs about disciples who as agent distribute (TrapaTi9r||ii, 6:41; 8:6, 7) the bread and (with others) eat (eaOto), 6:42, 44; 8:8; 14:22) the bread [and fish] which Jesus takes, blesses, and breaks and for which Jesus gives thanks. Positively evaluated also are disciples who as benefactive have bread (6:38; 8:5), from whom as source Jesus receives (Xa|ipdvoj, 6:41; 8:6) bread, to whom as goal Jesus gives (8i8a)|j.i, 6:41; 8:6; 14:22) this bread after his noted actions, and who, with others as patient, are satisfied (xopT(i£a), 6:42; 8:8) by this bread. The first passage (6:33-44) negatively evaluates disciples who as agent do not give (8i8o)^i, 6:37b) bread to the hungry after Jesus' command to do so (6:37a). The last passage (14:22-26) interprets the bread which Jesus takes, blesses, breaks, and gives as Jesus' body (14:22) and the cup for which Jesus gives thanks (14:23) in terms of his blood of the covenant (14:24). Positively evaluated are the disciples' coordinated actions of eating this bread (14:22) and drinking (Triya)) this cup (14:23) and their receiving (Xap.pdva>) as goal this bread (14:22). The fact that Jesus' blood is shed for many (inrep TTOXXWV, 14:24) identifies the disciples with the many whom the Son of Man serves and for whom (dim TroXXtov) he gives his life as a ransom (10:45). h. Review: Contextual Repetition of8:31-32b; 9:30-32; and 10:32-34 The repeated predictions (ch. 3 sec. 3c) twice present Jesus teaching (8i8daK0), 8:31; 9:31) the disciples (cf. 8:27; 9:31) about the Son of Man's necessary near future experience and activity and twice attribute fear (<|>opeo|iai, 9:32; 10:32) to the disciples (cf. 9:31) or a larger group that includes disciples (cf. 10:23, 24). The contextual linkage of these verbs in 9:31-32 clarifies that the content of the disciples' fear is the content of Jesus' teaching: that the Son of Man is to be handed over to human beings, be killed, and after three days rise. The disciples' response of discussing who is greatest (9:33-34) asserts their negative evaluation and indirect negative relationship with the Son of Man.
120
The Rhetoric of Characterization 4. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about the Disciples
Cultivated beliefs about the disciples are organized and incorporated into the narrative frames associated with them through three repeated contexts, (a) 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32; (b) 6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26; and (c) 1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37, and through 8:31-9:1, which includes the first occurrence of 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; 13:3-13. Appendix C re-presents the organization and incorporation of cultivated content directly into the narrative frames associated with the disciples and through 8:31-9:1 by double vertical lines (||) and the contribution of constituents of repeated contexts and structures by a single vertical line (|). The organization of cultivated beliefs through words appearing in the characterization of Jesus is indicated with an asterisk (*). For the sake of economy, vocabulary occurring in 8:31-9:1 is noted only under the first prediction (8:31-32a), controversy (8:32b33), and teaching (8:34-9:1). When disciples reference two different argument roles of the same word in a given context, the word appears twice. Finally, only words pertaining to the disciples' actions and attributes are noted; relationships among repeated contexts are noted by a plus sign (+); contexts and structures containing 8:31-9:1 appear consecutively under an initial heading of 8:31-9:1; and both passages and contextually repeated words are enclosed in brackets, []. Appendix C clarifies the organization and incorporation of beliefs cultivated by all but two of the previously investigated repeated words (ch. 4 sec. 2). These are contextually linked elsewhere to repeated vocabulary: pray (TTpoaet>xopm) to remain alert (yptiyopeo)) in 14:32-42; and understand {pvvir\\ii) to fear (c|x)p€O|jLai) in 6:45-52. 5. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Disciples' Characterization The portrayal of the disciples presents the most complex interplay of rhetorical strategies with respect to characterization in Mark. Sophistication of both positive and negative elements of their portrayal, at times in the same contexts and structures, and the introduction of new negative elements into their portrayal challenge the reliability of the narration at points. This discussion investigates three contributions of the disciples' characterization to broader narrative developments. The first concerns the role of Peter's portrayal in linking the two contexts of the structure 8:27-9:1. The second investigates the ordering, frequency, and distribution of neutral, sophisticating, and deconstructive strategies in the characterization of the disciples. The third then considers the manner in which the narrative rhetoric maintains the reliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience. a. The Structural Linkage of 8:27-30 and 8:31-9:1 The characterization of Peter plays an integral role in linking the two constituent contexts, 8:27-30 and 8:31-9:1, of the structure 8:27-9:1 (ch. 3 sec. 3d). The for-
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
121
mer context begins with Jesus' question about who human beings say that he is (8:27) and the disciples' responses (8:28). Jesus then asks, "But, who do you say that I am?" (8:29a), to which Peter responds, "You are the Christ" (8:29b). Although Peter's answer conforms to both preexisting (1:1) and cultivated (1:1-15) beliefs about Jesus, Jesus rebukes (emTi|±du)) the disciples and Peter, ordering them to speak to no one about him (8:30). This negatively evaluates the disciples and especially Peter by directly aligning them with unclean spirits (1:25; 3:12; cf. 9:25) and the wind (4:39). The latter context begins with Jesus' statement about the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising in 8:31. This abrupt transition frustrates the narrative audience's cultivated expectation that the disciples' negative evaluation in 8:30 will find its justification either within the preceding narrative context (8:27-29) or in an immediately following explanation.51 This frustration leaves the resolution or closure of 8:27-30 pending until such a justification is forthcoming. Peter's response with a rebuke (emTiiida), 8:32) of Jesus imposes a very negative evaluation on Peter that recalls his previous negative evaluation in 8:30 and continues the suspension of the closure of 8:27-30. Jesus' rebuke (eTTiTijidd), 8:33) of Peter, which intensifies Peter's negative evaluation, receives explanation through the o n clause that identifies Peter's erroneous thinking as the cause of his negative evaluation. Repetition of emTL|ida) with Jesus as agent in 8:30 and 8:33 and the focus on Peter in both contexts link Jesus' two rebukes and so resolve the narrative development of 8:27-30 by identifying erroneous thinking as the cause of the negative evaluation of the disciples and Peter in 8:30 and by specifying the nature of this erroneous thinking: Son of Man, with its newly cultivated content (8:31), more accurately answers Jesus' questions about his identity (8:27, 29) than do preexisting and cultivated beliefs about the Christ. It also specifies the consequence of such erroneous thinking: a failure of discipleship that aligns one with Satan (8:33b) and necessitates a second or renewed invitation to go behind Jesus (8:33a).52 That is, erroneous thinking about Jesus as Christ and Son of Man results in a faulty understanding of who one is as a disciple and the implications of one's discipleship. Thus, the suspension of closure until 8:33 links the content of 8:27-30 and 31-33; and the portrayal of Peter is the primary vehicle for linking 8:27-30 to 8:31-33 and, through the latter, to 8:31-9:1.
51. When offered by the narrator, these explanations generally appear in y dp (for) clauses. Negative evaluations explained through such clauses previously occurred in the portrayal of Jesus' disciples (6:50, 52), the Pharisees or scribes (7:3), and Herod (6:17,18, 20). 52. Peter's rebuke of Jesus and its implied attempt to directly align Jesus with unclean spirits verges on the former assertion that Jesus has an unclean spirit (3:30). There Jesus interpreted the identification of the holy Spirit as an unclean spirit as blasphemy against the holy Spirit that does not have forgiveness forever but makes one guilty of an everlasting sinful deed (3:29). Here Jesus' response of a [re]new[ed] invitation to discipleship indicates that similar assertions directly about Jesus do not constitute blasphemy and so may have forgiveness.
122
The Rhetoric of Characterization
b. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Rhetorical Strategies The previous discussions indicate that the characterization of the disciples begins in 1:16 with neutral strategies that evoke preexisting positive beliefs. Sophistication of these positive beliefs begins in 1:20 with the repetition of leave (d<|>ir)|±i; cf. 1:18) and the realization of Jesus' invitation to go behind (OTTLCFG), cf. 1:17) him. The sophistication of negative beliefs about the disciples first appears in 6:50 with the repetition of fear (c|>opeo|iai; cf. 4:41) and in 6:52 with the repetition of [not] understand (cruvir)|ii; cf. 4:12).53 The deconstructive repetition of new negative beliefs about the disciples, however, does not appear until the second controversy, 9:33-34 (cf. 8:32b-33). Thus, the sequence of the introduction of the rhetorical strategies with respect to the disciples is neutral, sophisticating (positive), sophisticating (negative), and deconstructive (negative). The previous discussion also indicates that neutral strategies evoking positive preexisting beliefs about the disciples are the most frequent in the narration. The statement of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs catalogued in a single paragraph a wider range of beliefs about the disciples than any of the later, more lengthy investigations. To these could be added the initial evocation of every preexisting positive point of information about the disciples that subsequently receives development.54 Second in frequency is sophisticating repetition that cultivates positive beliefs about the disciples. The discussion of repeated references catalogued ten repeated words (aTrepxo|iai, KTipuaaa), TrapaTi0r)|ii, TTLVO), 8(8o)|±i (goal), e£oix7ta, arroaTeXAG), TTapa8i8co|JLi, TrpoaKaXeo|±ai, xopTa£oi)) and one repeated designation (diTooToXoi) that realize consistently positive cultivated beliefs, and four repeated verbs (aKoXouOea), dcj>ir||ii, eKpdXXo), TToieo)), one repeated designation (|ia0r|Tai) ? and two repeated contexts (1:16-20; 53. Sophistication of negative beliefs about the disciples starting in 6:50 is attended by a change in the content of the explanatory ydp clauses that reference the disciples: see Pryke, Redactional Style, 126, who attributes all eight of these clauses (more than with any other character or group of characters) to Markan redaction. The first two introduce neutral information about Simon and Andrew (1:16) and the disciples (6:48). Beginning in 6:50, however, these clauses relate only negative information about the disciples: the disciples were frightened (6:50), didn't understand about the breads (6:52), have hardened hearts (6:52); Peter didn't know what to respond (9:6a); Peter, James, and John were terrified (9:6b); the disciples were discussing who is greatest (9:34); and the eyes of Peter, James, and John were heavy (14:40). 54. Neutral strategies are apparent in every example of straightforward narration that evokes preexisting beliefs about the disciples that do not undergo repetition or are repeated without attending specialized developments. This is especially apparent in the frequent occurrence of plural verbs and participles that reference Jesus and disciples jointly. The reservation of such joint references with Jesus to the disciples is especially common with verbs of motion: dyw (1:38; 14:42); dvapaivw (10:32, 33); 8iaTTepd(o (6:53); 8iepxop.ca (4:35); eyyi£o|jLai (1:21); eKTropeuol±ai (10:46 [with the crowd]; 11:19); e?epxo|xat (1:29; 6:54; 8:27 [singular verb but plural subject]; 9:30; 11:11, 12; 14:26); epxoM.cn (1:29; 5:1, 38; 6:53; 8:22; 9:14, 33; 10:46; 11:15, 27a; 14:32; Kon-apatvd) (9:9); TrapaTropeuo|jLai (9:30; 11:20); and irn-dyw (6:33). Joint references also appear with be seated (dvd»ceiu,ai, 14:18), be able (8uvaum, 3:20), eat (eaGtw, 3:20; 14:18a, 22), see (opdw, 9:14; 11:20), and moor (TrpoaopiiiCopm, 6:53).
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
123
3:13-19; 6:6b~13, 30-32 and 6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26) that cultivate primarily positive beliefs. These discussions also identified repetition that sophisticates the potential for the disciples' positive evaluation through twelve repeated words (aTroXXujii, •ypTyyopea), 8i8a)|ii, TTpoaeux0!^1? opda), Gdvorros, ^UX^IJ paTrTI£GJ, SIOLKOVOS, 8oi)Xos, TrpwTog, 8et), three repeated contexts (8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; 10:42-45 and 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; 13:3-13 and 1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37), and one repeated structure (8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; 10:32-45).55 Third in frequency is sophisticating repetition that cultivates negative beliefs about the disciples. This occurs consistently with five verbs (8iaXoyiCo|iaL, eTTLTtpido) for both agent and experiencer, ol8a, avvir\[ii9 c^opeo^ai), in the final occurrences of three verbs (yp^yopea), 8i8a)|ii, TTpoaei>xo|iai), in a minority of occurrences of four other verbs (aKoXouGeco, d(|>LT)|ju, eKpdXXa), Trotea)), and in a majority (SojSeKa) or minority (|ia0TiTai) of the occurrences of two designations. To these could be added seek (C^eu; see ch. 1 sec. 3b), and vocabulary associated with not knowing, or lacking understanding (see ch. 4 sec. 2b). Deconstructive repetition that cultivates new negative beliefs about the disciples appears only in the contextual repetition of 8:32b-33; 9:33-34; and 10:35-41 and so is lowest in frequency. Thus, the frequency of strategies in decreasing order is neutral (mostly positive), sophisticating (positive), sophisticating (negative), and deconstructive (very negative). Neutral strategies also are the most consistently introduced in the characterization of the disciples. Inclusion of the noted but undeveloped examples of neutral strategies would establish their occurrence in each of the first fourteen chapters of the narration. Second in consistency of distribution is sophisticating repetition that cultivates positive beliefs about the disciples: Mark 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (plus the noted but undeveloped examples) for vocabulary and Mark 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 for contexts and structures. Sophisticating repetition that cultivates negative beliefs about the disciples has the third most consistent distribution: Mark 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 (plus the noted but undeveloped examples) for vocabulary. Deconstructive repetition is limited to Mark 8, 9, 10 for contexts. This indicates parallels in the sequence, frequency, and distribution of rhetorical strategies in the characterization of the disciples: neutral (+) > sophisticating (+) > sophisticating (-) > deconstructive (-) c. Maintaining the Reliability of the Narration As the representative of the real audience, the authorial audience is the final arbiter of the reliability of the narration; and initial evocation of preexisting positive beliefs about the disciples (1:16-20) assures the reliability of the narration 55. To these could be added the further positive linkage of Jesus, John, and the disciples through repetition of wilderness (epr^os, of John, 1:3-4; of Jesus, 1:12,13, 35, 45; and of Jesus and the disciples, 6:31, 32, 35), and the positive linkage of Jesus/the disciples through repetition of by themselves (KCIT' i8(.au, for Jesus and the disciples, 4:34; 9:28; for Jesus and the apostles, 6:31, 32; for Jesus and Peter, James, and John, 9:2; and for Jesus, Peter, James, and Andrew, 13:3).
124
The Rhetoric of Characterization
and of the portrayal of the disciples for the authorial audience. The initial cultivation of positive beliefs about the disciples (ctKoXouGea), a4>ir)|.u, OTTLCTOI)) in 1:20-3:12 maintains the narration's reliability for the authorial audience and asserts the reliability of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs which cohere with those of the authorial audience. The initial indication of negative elements of the disciples' portrayal appears in the evocation of preexisting beliefs that recognize that Judas handed over (iTapa8i8Gj|±i) Jesus (3:19) in the second occurrence (3:13-19) of the repeated context that cultivates the most positive beliefs about the disciples. Although 3:20-6:6a introduces further negative elements through the negative interpretation of the disciples' fear (<|)opeo[iai) and the evocation of preexisting beliefs that recognize that the disciples do not always understand (ovv'n\\Li) Jesus' teaching, these are not repeated (6:50-52) until after the completion of the sophistication of very positive beliefs identifying the twelve with Jesus in 6:6b-13,30-32 (diroaTeXXa), eKpdXXw, e^ouata, Kripuaaa), TTOL60)). This continues to ensure for the authorial audience the reliability of the narration and of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. The initial cultivation of negative beliefs in 6:33-8:26 builds on the preexisting negative beliefs (ovviT||IL) or the negative interpretation of preexisting ambiguous information, primarily in an indirect manner (c()oP€O|iai). Neither approach directly contradicts preexisting beliefs; and interlacing the cultivation of negative beliefs about the disciples with continuing appeals to preexisting positive beliefs about them maintains the reliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience. From this point onward, however, the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs, which include these sophisticated negative elements, begin to diverge ever more significantly from the authorial (and real) audience's overwhelmingly positive preexisting beliefs about the disciples. Beginning in 8:27, the reliability of the narration comes under direct assault. First, 8:27-30 concludes with a negative evaluation of the disciples that does not receive immediate explanation. Then the first controversy (8:32b-33) introduces new negative content that contradicts preexisting beliefs about the disciples. The authorial audience might be expected to reject this contradictory content, and such rejection would fatally undermine for the authorial (and real) audience the reliability of both the narration and the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. The narrative rhetoric, however, forestalls such rejection by evoking within the same context very positive preexisting and cultivated beliefs about the disciples (cf. 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32) that focus on Jesus' invitation to discipleship (cf. 1:16-20). The following teaching (8:34-9:1) then immediately reinterprets the negative content of 8:32b-33 into an opportunity for successful rehabilitation, introduces new opportunities for the potential positive evaluation of disciples, and evokes preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs concerning the disciples' success when sent. The following controversies (9:33-34; 10:35-41) again assault the reliability of the narration and of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. However, the continuing evocation of positive beliefs and the lack of parallels of vocabulary that would strengthen and link the nega-
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples
125
tive content of the controversies join with the reinterpretation of this content and the sophistication of the potential for positive beliefs in the teachings (9:35-41; 10:42-45) to maintain the reliability of the narration and of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. The almost exclusive evocation of preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs about the disciples and the rehabilitation of the designation iiaOrjTat in Mark 11-13 then reasserts the beleaguered reliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience. Since it is only the continuing reliability of 8:31-10:45 that permits the cultivation of the narrative audience's harshly negative beliefs about the disciples, these negative beliefs are deemed a parasitic development whose viability depends on the continuing vitality of preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs about them.
6. The Narrative Function of the Disciples' Characterization: Part 1 This discussion examines the narrative function of the disciples' characterization from their introduction in 1:16 to their final appearance in 14:50 as a group and in 14:72 in the case of Peter and reserves the investigation of their characterization through recapitulation for the next chapter. The initial evocation and cultivation of positive beliefs about the disciples in 1:16-3:13 not only ensure the narration's initial reliability for the authorial (and real) audience but encourage this audience, as a believer of the gospel (ch. 2 sec. 2), to identify with the disciples. Sophistication of positive beliefs about the disciples also encourages the narrative audience, whose initial beliefs cohere with those of the authorial (and real) audience, to identify with the disciples. Ongoing appeals to preexisting and previously cultivated positive beliefs in the context of the sophistication of negative beliefs about the disciples ensure the continuing reliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience and encourage the narrative audience's continued identification with the disciples even as sophistication of negative beliefs encourage the narrative audience to evaluate elements of the disciples' thinking and action negatively. Although deconstructive repetition introduces contradictory negative content about the disciples that severely challenges the reliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience, ongoing appeals to positive preexisting beliefs ultimately ensure its continuing but beleaguered reliability. Cultivation of positive beliefs in these contexts and the reinterpretation of the disciples' negative thinking and actions into opportunities for rehabilitation maintain the narrative audience's identification with the disciples even as the new negative content encourages this audience to assume a very negative and critical stance toward the disciples' erroneous thinking and improper actions. By 10:45 the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs about the disciples have come to diverge significantly from those of the authorial (and real) audience. The narrative audience's beliefs include all of the preexisting, primarily positive beliefs of the authorial audience evoked to this point in the narration (ch. 4 sec. 1) and recognize the direct and indirect positive alignment of the disciples with Jesus, John the Baptist, and God and five instances of the disciples' identification
126
The Rhetoric of Characterization
with Jesus, especially in the context of their mission. Linkage of the exacting and necessary thinking and acting of disciples to the necessary near future experience and activity of Jesus as Son of Man constitutes the most frequently asserted, highly developed, and carefully nuanced cultivated relationship of the disciples with Jesus under any of Jesus' designations. This relationship, founded in assertions about the Son of Man (predictions) and the disciples (controversies) that contradict the authorial (and real) audience's preexisting beliefs, therefore, constitutes a novel Markan development that establishes for the narrative audience the disciple's potential for future direct positive alignment with Jesus and indirect positive alignment with God that ultimately saves the disciple's life. However, the narrative audience's sophisticated and qualitatively and quantitatively more negative beliefs about the disciples also recognize that the disciples continue to lack understanding of Jesus, his teachings, and his actions, to be afraid, and to think erroneously and act improperly. The narrative audience's recognition of the disciples' continuing actual failures in the latter controversies, despite Jesus' corrective teaching, also cultivates a realization that the potential for the disciples' future positively evaluated thinking and acting need not be realized. Evocation of primarily positive beliefs about the disciples and the rehabilitation of the designation |±a0T]Tai in Mark 11 and 12 and continuing assertion of the disciples' potential future success in Mark 13 cultivate for the narrative audience an expectation of a positive outcome for the disciples. However, the concluding narrated actions attributed to Peter, James, and John (not remaining alert, not praying), the disciples (leaving Jesus and fleeing) and, finally, Peter (following at a distance, denying Jesus, and weeping) also cultivate an expectation that the disciples will not realize the potential for their future positive evaluation. As a result, the narrative audience is characterized by conflicting expectations; and cultivated positive and negative elements of the disciples' characterization simultaneously encourage the narrative audience to identify with and distance itself from the disciples.56 The characterization of the disciples cultivates the narrative audience's beliefs about the necessary thinking and acting of disciples, and the narrative rhetoric proposes these as alternatives to the authorial (and real) audience's beliefs. The real audience may be expected to resist entertaining these alternatives. However, should the real audience recognize its similar erroneous thinking, improper acting, and need of instruction and rehabilitation or desire assurance that Jesus continues his invitation to be a disciple even in contexts of abject failure, then the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs and continuing self-identification as a disciple and with Jesus' disciples, despite their failures, would assert the viability of the cultivated alternative beliefs and encourage the real audience to appropriate them. 56. Cultivation of both positive and negative elements of the disciples' portrayal accounts in part for the observation by Robert C. Tannehill that the narration simultaneously draws the implied reader to identify with the disciples and to judge them negatively ("The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology," Semeia 16 [1979]: 57-95, here 69-70).
Chapter 5 RECAPITULATION: THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB
This study investigates the manner in which the characterization of the women at the tomb (15:40-41,47; 16:1—8) recapitulates and contributes to the portrayal of Jesus' disciples.1 Since recapitulation proceeds through the evocation of previously cultivated beliefs, the study does not inquire into preexisting beliefs about the women. The discussion first examines the manner in which the vocabulary of the women's portrayal evokes and develops significant elements of the disciples' portrayal and directly aligns the women with the disciples, from their earlier very positive evaluation to their concluding very negative evaluation. Clarification of this progression requires that vocabulary be considered in the order of its appearance and not by argument role. Since contextual and structural repetition do not contribute to the women's portrayal, the discussion of the rhetorical organization of cultivated beliefs about the women considers only the incorporation of realized content about the women into the narrative frames associated with the disciples. An analysis of the narrative rhetoric of the women's portrayal then clarifies the narrative function of the characterization of both the women and Jesus' disciples.
1. The Characterization of the Women The discussion investigates the previously cultivated beliefs evoked by vocabulary in the women's portrayal and resolves their characterization into five components (15:40-41, 47; 16:1-4, 5-7, and 8) based on distinctive locales. The investigation incorporates vocabulary not related to the disciples that makes salient contributions to the women's portrayal. a. At the Crucifixion (15:40-41) The characterization of the women begins in 15:40 with the notice that "there were women observing from a distance." Woman (yuvrj) relates these women to the woman with a flow of blood (5:25,33), who receives healing because she has faith (5:34); to the Syrophoenician woman (7:25, 26), who receives Jesus' commendation for her statement (7:29) and expulsion of the demon from her daughter (7:30); and to the woman whose action of anointing Jesus (14:3) will be 1. This study develops the content of Paul Danove, "The Characterization and Narrative Function of the Women at the Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)," Bib 77 (1996): 375-97.
127
128
The Rhetoric of Characterization
remembered wherever the gospel is proclaimed (14:9).2 Since the former women received positive evaluation, yuvfj positively evaluates Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome. From a distance (duo |±a.Kp60ev) appeared twice previously with a verb of seeing (opdoj), and in both occurrences the experiencer received positive evaluation. The man possessed by Legion, on seeing Jesus from a distance (5:6), responds positively by running to Jesus (cf. 5:6); and Jesus, on seeing a fig tree in leaf from a distance (11:13), responds positively by coming to it (cf. 11:13). Since both previous characters seeing from a distance are positive evaluated, d TTO lidKpoGev strengthens the women's positively evaluation. Observe (Geoapeo)) previously occurred with the experiencers unclean spirits, which observed Jesus (3:11) and responded by falling down and shouting his identity and which received Jesus' rebuke (cf. 3:12), and those who observed the former demoniac and responded by asking Jesus to leave their territory (5:17). Both received negative evaluation. In contrast, Jesus, who observed first a commotion (5:38) and then the crowd putting money into the treasury (12:41), received positive evaluation for his responding actions of entering (cf. 5:39) and then summoning disciples for instruction (cf. 12:43). Since the context (15:40-41) presents no response by the women, their evaluation remains ambiguous. Future occurrences of this verb, however, will evoke the women's otherwise positive evaluation in this context. Although no characters previously were identified as Mary Magdalene, Mary [wife] of James the lesser and the mother of Joses, and Salome, former straightforward appeals to preexisting beliefs about named characters that do not present explicit negative information about them (as with Herod and Herodias) consistently occur in contexts of positive evaluation (1:16, 19; 3:17, 18). Thus, the women's names and relationships probably evoke a positive evaluation of them. The vocabulary of 15:41 consistently imposes positive evaluations of the women and directly aligns the women with positive elements of the disciples' portrayal. Galilee (raXiXaict, 1:9,14,28,39; 3:7; 6:21; 9:30; 14:28), when not in the phrase Sea of Galilee, recalls that a multitude from Galilee followed Jesus (3:7) and that, after he is raised, Jesus will go before his disciples to Galilee (14:28).3 Follow (dKoXouOeco) with Jesus as goal and in contexts that do not explicitly introduce negative information about the agent imposes a positive evaluation on the agent (ch. 4 sec. 2c). This directly positively aligns the women 2. The noun yvvi\ has a second usage with the connotation wife (6:17, 18; 10:2, 7, 11; 12:19a, 19b, 20,22,23), which requires a benefactive argument. 3. The remaining six occurrences of Galilee indicate that (1) Jesus comes from Nazareth of Galilee (1:9); (2) Jesus proclaims the gospel of God in Galilee (1:14); (3) Jesus' fame spreads throughout Galilee (1:28); (4) Jesus preaches and drives out demons in synagogues throughout Galilee (1:39); (5) Herod gave a banquet for the leading men of Galilee (6:21); and (6) Jesus journeyed through Galilee (9:30).
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb
129
with the positive portrayal of the disciples.4 Serve (SiaKOveo) directly positively aligns the women with God's messengers (1:13), Simon's mother-in-law (1:31), and Son of Man (10:45b), and the disciple who would be first (9:35) or great (10:43) by being a servant (SidKovos).5 Into Jerusalem (els TepoaoXujia) most recently has occurred in contexts of the positive evaluation of Jesus' disciples (11:1,15, 27; cf. 10:32, 33 for earlier negative evaluations). b. At the Burial of Jesus (15:47) The women next appear at the end of the story of Jesus' burial (15:42-47). Although Salome is absent, the designations Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses relate these women to Salome and positively evaluate the women based on their earlier presentation. Observe (Gewpeo, 15:40), which again presents no responding action, evokes its previous occurrence in the context of the women's positive evaluation. Place in a tomb (TL0T)|IL ev ^VT^eiG), 14:46; cf. 6:29) positively evaluates the agent Joseph of Arimathea and negatively evaluates Jesus' disciples based on the frustration of the narrative audience's cultivated expectation that Jesus' disciples would perform this action for Jesus (ch. 4 sec. 3a). Although the women do not participate in Joseph's activity, their observation of his action establishes their tenuous positive association with him and their contrast with Jesus' disciples. Any positive evaluation of the women implied by these relationships, however, remains contingent on their continuing alignment with Joseph and contrast with the disciples. c. To the Tomb (16:1-4) In 16:1 "when the Sabbath passed" relates this to the previous scene on the day before the Sabbath (15:42). Previously Sabbath (adppctTOv, 1:21; 2:23, 24, 27a, 27b, 28; 3:2,4; 6:2) has cultivated an expectation for conflict on this day between Jesus and his opponents: an unclean spirit (1:23); Pharisees (2:24); Pharisees and Herodians (3:6); and the people of his native place (6:1-2). The women's names again strengthen the coordination of this and the previous scene and recall their previous positive evaluation. Buy (dyopdCo)) enhances the women's alignment with Joseph (15:46) but otherwise imposes a negative evaluation: Jesus rejected the content of the disciples' question about buying bread (6:36, 37); and those buying in the temple (11:15) were negatively evaluated. Thus, dyopd£a> imposes an ambiguous evaluation on the women. Anoint (dAei((>G)), which recalls that the 4. The contextual linkage of FaXtAaia and (XKoXouGew also may cultivate a recognition that the women and the many others may be among those from Galilee who heard about the things that Jesus was doing and came to him (3:7-8). 5. The lone passive-voice occurrence of SiaKovew in "the Son of Man did not come to be served" (10:45a) imposes a negative evaluation of those serving the Son of Man. This singular negative evaluation, however, receives no further development and is immediately countered by further intensification of the positive evaluation of the agent who serves (10:45b).
130
The Rhetoric of Characterization
twelve anointed many sick people with oil and cured them (6:13), strengthens the women's alignment with the positive elements of the disciples' portrayal. Jesus' previous statement that another has anointed ([iupi£G), 14:8) his body for burial (14:8), however, uses a different verb and so raises the possibility for the narrative audience that the women's proposed activity may prove superfluous if not inappropriate. Thus, this verb also evaluates the women ambiguously. In 16:2, in the morning (TTPCOI) recalls that this is the time of Jesus' rising to pray (1:35), Jesus' action of cursing the fig tree (11:20), the Lord of the Household's possible coming (13:35), and the chief priests, scribes, and elders' plots against Jesus (15:1). In the first three occurrences, the one who acts in the morning is Jesus/the Lord of the Household, who receives positive evaluation, whereas the agents in the final occurrence receive negative valuation. This establishes the potential for the women's positive or negative evaluation, should they subsequently receive alignment with Jesus or the religious authorities. On the first [day] of the week/Sabbath (crdppaTov; cf. 16:1) again raises an expectation for conflict between Jesus and his opponents. Tomb (pvr\\ieiov) then recalls the women's tenuous positive alignment with Joseph in 15:46. In 16:3, roll back (aTTOKuXico) recalls Joseph's positively evaluated action of rolling on (TTPCXTKUXLO), 15:46) the stone and the women's tenuous alignment with Joseph. In 16:4, look up (dvapXeiTG)) evokes a previously cultivated expectation for significant actions by Jesus: feeding the crowd (6:41); opening the deaf man's ears (7:34); and healing the blind man (8:24-25).6 With Jesus as agent, the action benefits others (6:41; 7:34); and with another character as agent, the action benefits that character (8:24). Thus, dvapXeiTG) evokes an expectation for an action that will benefit the women. Observe (Oewpew; cf. 15:40,47) evokes the previous contexts of the women's positive evaluation and positively evaluates the women, who respond by coming to the tomb. The absence of the agent of roll back (aTTOKuXLO)) in 'the stone has been rolled back" raises the possibility that the women's recently evoked relationship with Joseph, who originally rolled the stone onto the entrance, may be superseded by a relationship with another character who has completed this action. That the women have come to anoint Jesus (16:1) and someone else has preceded them to the tomb recalls the possibility raised by dXeLcjxi) that this action may prove superfluous if not inappropriate and asserts the potential for the negative evaluation of the women and their actions. Finally, since every explanatory yap clause not directly in reference to Jesus after 11:18b has imposed a negative evaluation, the notice "for it was very large" (r)v ydp |±eyas a<|)68pa) introduces negative overtones into 16:4.7 6. Look up (dvapXeTTd)) requires an agent and a goal, which may be omitted. The verb also has a second usage with the connotation [re]gain sight (10:51, 52), which requires only a patient argument. 7. The explanatory yap clause is a primary means of asserting reliable narration in Mark: see Thomas E. Boomershine and Gilbert L. Bartholomew, "The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8," JBL
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb
131
d. At the Tomb (16:5-7) In 16:5, the women's entrance into the tomb (ju/nji€iov) recalls their relationship with Joseph and reasserts their earlier positive evaluation. Young man recalls the young man (14:51-52) who followed along with Jesus, was wrapped (TrepipdXXo)) in a linen cloth, and fled (<\>evyu>) as did the disciples at Jesus' arrest (14:50). Follow along with (avv + aKoXouGeo)) directly positively aligned the former young man with Peter, James, and John (5:37) in their positive evaluation and, through aKoXovOeu), relates him to the disciples (1:18; 2:14, 15; 3:7; 5:24; 6:1; 8:34; 10:21, 28, 52; 11:9; 14:54) and the women (15:41). Wrapped (TT€pipdXX(o) in a garment identifies this and the former young man whose fleeing (14:52) aligned him with Jesus' disciples precisely at the moment of their most negative evaluation (14:50). Thus, the young man's evaluation in 14:51-52 was ambiguous; and his newly established relationship with the women extends this ambiguous evaluation to them. Sitting on the right (mOr^im ev TOLS 8e£ioig) recalls that Jesus as Lord is the one sitting at God's right (KdOrjiiox 6K 8e£tcov) until God places his enemies beneath his feet (12:36; cf. Ps 109:1) and that Jesus as the parousaic Son of Man will be seated at the right (eic 8e.£icov KaGr)|±ai) of power and coming with the clouds of heaven (14:62; cf. Ps 109:1; Dan 7:13). This phrase positively aligns the young 100 (1981): 214; Robert Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1981), 157-75; and David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative ofa Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 45-51. The authorial audience has a preexisting familiarity with such clauses in the Septuagint (see Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible [JSOTSup 70; Sheffield: Almond, 1989], 30-31, for their basis in the Hebrew Bible). These clauses consistently impose a positive evaluation on Jesus but either a consistently negative (religious authorities) or a progressively more negative (disciples and Herod) evaluation on all other characters. Once a character or group of characters receives negative evaluation in these clauses, every subsequent explanatory yap clause referencing the same character or group imposes a negative evaluation; and the repetition of this pattern cultivates for the narrative audience an expectation of its occurrence: I negative valuation positive or neutral valuation 1. disciples (10): disciples: 6:48 / 6:50,52; 9:34; 10:45 Peter: / 9:6a Peter, Andrew (James, John): 1:16 / / 9:6b; 14:40 Peter, James, John: 2. authorities (7): chief priests, scribes: / 11:18a; 14:2 chief priests, scribes, elders: / 11:32; 12:12 chief priests, the Sanhedrin: / 14:56 Pharisees, scribes: / 7:3 chiefpriests: / 15:10 3. Herod (4): 6:14 / 6:17,18,20 4. Jesus(6): 1:22; 3:10; 5:8;9:31; 11:13; 12:12 / Characters receiving one narratorial comment are people in a synagogue in Capernaum (1:22), those at Levi's house (2:15), those with Jesus (3:21), the woman with the flow of blood (5:28), Jairus's daughter (5:42), the man with many possessions (10:22), and the crowd (11:18b).
132
The Rhetoric of Characterization
man with Jesus as Lord and Son of Man as the only characters to sit successfully at/on the right.8 Although robe (aToXrj) recalls Jesus' warning about the negatively evaluated Pharisees who go around in robes (12:38), a corresponding negative evaluation does not accrue to the young man whose robe is white and whose action is different. White (XeuKrj) recalls Jesus' clothes during his transfiguration (9:3) and further strengthens the young man's alignment with Jesus and positive evaluation. The first half of 16:6 presents vocabulary that imposes a negative evaluation on the women. Amaze (<EKGa|iPeo|±ai) recalls that in 9:15 the crowd who saw Jesus after his transfiguration were amazed and responded by running to him. There Jesus' reference to the crowd as a faithless generation negatively evaluates them and their actions. In 14:33 Jesus, who began to be amazed and distressed in Gethsemane, responded by ordering his disciples to remain alert (cf. 14:34) and by praying (cf. 14:35), which received positive evaluation. Here the women receive negative evaluation for three reasons. First, the young man, who is directly positively aligned with Jesus, commands, "Don't be amazed," indicating that the women's amazement is inappropriate. Second, as previously noted (ch. 1 sec. 3b), seek (£r)T60)), after its initial occurrence (1:37), consistently has imposed a negative evaluation on its agent. Third, the women's response of fleeing (^euyco, 16:8), as the following discussion indicates, is negatively evaluated. The remainder of 16:6 places recent developments in the background by foregrounding Jesus' ministry (Na£apTiv6s, 1:24; 10:47), Peter's denial of Jesus (NaCapT^vos, 14:67), and Jesus' crucifixion (aTaupoo), 15:13,14,15, 20,24, 25, 27). This prepares a context in which the young man's statement that Jesus rose (eyeLpG)) can have its optimal impact.9 Place (TOTTO?), when not joined with deserted (epruiog, 1:35,45; 6:31, 32, 35), refers to a location where the disciples are not welcomed (6:11) or where there are earthquakes before the end (13:8) or to Golgotha (15:22), each of which received negative evaluation. Placed (TL0T]|IL) recalls the women's tentatively positive evaluation through their tenuous association with Joseph (15:47). Although 16: l-4a supported this alignment, the women's increasingly ambiguous evaluation since 16:4b has tended to undermine their alignment with the positively evaluated Joseph. In 16:7 the young man commands the women to go (irrrdyG)). Previous reservation of this command to Jesus (1:44; 2:11; 5:19; 6:38; 7:29; 8:33; 10:21, 52; 11:2; 14:13) strengthens the young man's positive evaluation. Since only the former leper (1:45) and rich man (10:22) did not do exactly as Jesus commanded, 8. In contrast, James and John, whose request to sit at Jesus' right (<EK 8e£iwv . . . KCI0L£(I)) and left in his glory uses a different verb (10:30), are negatively evaluated and placed in opposition to the young man. 9. See the discussions of rise (eyeipo)), crucify (aTaupow), and Jesus the Nazarene in ch. 3 sec. 2.
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb
133
repetition of the occasions of compliance has cultivated an expectation that the women will go and do as commanded. This introduces the potential for the women's positive evaluation, should they do so. Previous occurrences of the command "say" (el-uov, 11:3; 13:4; 14:14), which also resulted in compliance, strengthen the expectation that the women will do as ordered, and again asserts the potential for their positive evaluation, if they do so. Reference to the disciples and Peter, who last appeared in 14:50 as a group and in 14:72 in the case of Peter, then evokes both the authorial audience's preexisting expectation and the narrative audience's cultivated expectation (see ch. 4 sec. 6) for their rehabilitation. Reintroduction of disciples in the context of their redundantly reinforced relationship with the women also focuses the narrative audience's attention on the women as the characters whose message may prompt the disciples' rehabilitation. This cultivates an expectation that the women will carry out the command to tell the disciples the following message and imposes a very positive evaluation of the women that is contingent on their fulfillment of the command. "He goes before you to Galilee" recalls Jesus' statement to the disciples before his arrest (14:28), imposes a positive evaluation on the young man who repeats Jesus' words, increases the expectation that the women will convey the message, and heightens the stakes for their ultimate evaluation based on whether they obey the command. "You will see" (6i|iea6e) previously has had as the content of seeing only the Son of Man, either coming on clouds (13:26) or seated at the right of power and coming with clouds (14:62). This strengthens the expectation of rehabilitation for the disciples and Peter and the contingently positive evaluation of the women. Finally, "as he said to you" recalls the disciples and Peter, the original referents of "you," and prods the narrative audience's recollection (lest the association with 14:28 be missed!) that Jesus stated this earlier. The reliability of the statement again strengthens the young man's positive evaluation, the expectation of the rehabilitation of the disciples and Peter, and the women's positive evaluation, which remains contingent on their enacting the content of the command. e. From the Tomb (16:8) The women's flight (c^cuyo)) in response to the young man's statement recalls that the ones tending pigs fled at the drowning of their herds (5:14), that the proper time for flight is when the temple is desecrated (13:14), that the disciples fled at Jesus' arrest (14:50), and that the young man fled when those arresting Jesus tried to seize him (14:52). Thus, the women's flight (and silence) is inappropriate and results in their negative evaluation. Here fyevya directly aligns the women with the disciples, whose flight also received negative evaluation, and contrasts them with the young man, whose original ambiguous evaluation (14:51-52) has become very positive in 16:5-7. The women's flight from the tomb (u.vr||jLetov) heightens the contrast between the women's negatively evalu-
134
The Rhetoric of Characterization
ated flight and the positively evaluated actions of the young man and Joseph at the tomb and strengthens the women's negative evaluation. Have (ex**)), with a required benefactive subject and patient object, occurs nine times with characters as referent of the patient.10 Of these, Jesus as shepherd (6:34) and Beloved Son (12:6) received positive evaluation; and Beelzebul (3:22), unclean spirits (3:30; 7:25), Legion (5:15), Herodias as wife (6:18), and an unspeaking spirit (9:17) receive negative evaluation. The women's actions of fleeing and not saying Jesus' statement contrasts them with Jesus and results in their negative evaluation. Trembling (Tp6|±O9) aligns the women with the woman who initially received negative evaluation for her fear and trembling (cf. Tpe|ia), 5:33). Amazement increases the women's negative evaluation; for the link between and amaze (<££L<7TTI|JLI), cultivated in 5:42, strengthens the women's alignment with the disciples, whose amazement (cf. 6:51) received negative evaluation in the explanatory ydp clause in 6:52. u "For trembling astonishment was holding them" aligns the women with Jesus' disciples, Herod, and various groups of religious authorities whose negative evaluation was cultivated through explanatory ydp clauses and evokes the narrative audience's cultivated expectation that the women's evaluation will be negative in any subsequent explanatory ydp clause that references them.12 "Say nothing to anyone" (ouSevl ou8ev Xeyw) frustrates the expectation for rehabilitation of the disciples and Peter and negatively evaluates the women who fail to fulfill the command to pass on the message. This negative evaluation is strengthened by the previous contexts (1:40-45/7:31-37) that link a healing of a leper/a deaf and dumb man (1:40-42/7:32-36), Jesus' command not to say anything to anyone (1:44/7:36), and those so commanded disobeying Jesus' order and, instead, proclaiming (KTipijaaa), l:45/7:36).13 Whereas the failure of the 10. The five remaining occurrences of e X
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb
135
leper and the blind man to obey Jesus' command to say nothing resulted in their negative evaluation, the women's failure to obey the young man's command to say results in their negative evaluation. This makes the women the brunt of irony insofar as this command to say fails after two previous commands not to say were unable to achieve silence.14 The women's failure to say (16:8) after the notice that Jesus rose (16:6) also recalls that in 9:9 Jesus ordered Peter, James, and John not to narrate to anyone (|iTi8evl . . . 8iTyyeo|icu) the event of the transfiguration until the Son of Man rises.15 The women's failure to say the young man's message frustrates the expectation for Peter, James, and John to narrate the events of the transfiguration, extends the apprehension of irony to the disciples and Peter, and contributes to their concluding negative evaluation.16 Fear (<{>opeo|iai), to which the women respond by going out, fleeing, and not saying anything to anyone also negatively evaluates them and strengthens their alignment with the negatively evaluated disciples, whose fear is attributed to a lack of faith (4:41; cf. 4:40) and a failure to understand (9:32). The explanatory yap clause, "for they were afraid," then confirms the women's direct alignment with other negatively portrayed characters, especially Jesus' disciples. Thus, every word and phrase in 16:8 aligns the women with the negative elements of the disciples' portrayal; and their silence frustrates the preexisting and previously cultivated expectation for the disciples' rehabilitation, makes the women and disciples the brunt of negative irony, and results in a very negative concluding evaluation of both the women and the disciples.
2. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs The narrative rhetoric organizes and incorporates the cultivated beliefs about the women directly into the narrative frames associated with them. Approximately one third (10 of 34) of these words and phrases also evoke, develop, and relate previously cultivated beliefs about Jesus' disciples and identify the women with them. Thus, the content about the disciples cultivated in the portrayal of the women is incorporated into the narrative frames associated with the disciples through the narrative frames associated with the women. This incorporation is noted in Appendix C.
14. The narrator states clearly that an implication of the former leper's disobedience is to hamper Jesus' open movement (1:45). 15. The immediately preceding identification of Jesus and the Son of Man (16:7) as the only referents of the content arguments of oijieaGe encourages this recollection. 16. Dan O. Via, "Irony as Hope in Mark's Gospel: A Reply to Werner Kelber," Semeia 48 (1988): 21-27, here 22.
136
The Rhetoric of Characterization 3. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Women's Characterization
This discussion develops the basis for identifying the women's characterization as recapitulation and examines the manner in which this recapitulation contributes to the disciples' portrayal. a. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Women The characterization of the women is deemed a recapitulation of the portrayal of Jesus' disciples based on both the density and the sequence of vocabulary that directly aligns the women with the disciples. Of the thirty-four words and phrases that contribute significantly to the portrayal of the women, sixteen align the women with the disciples. More central to recapitulation, however, is vocabulary that requires arguments for which both the disciples and the women are referents. Of the nineteen words that have the women as referent of a required argument, seven have the disciples as referent of the same argument (ctKoXouGeo), dyopd£(i), dXetcj)G), eiTTOv, c^eiiya), eKcrraais,
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb
137
tive moment of their portrayal. This progression receives sequential clarification in the following table, which lists words and phrases in the order of occurrence, classifies the evaluations they impose on the women, and notes with an asterisk (*) vocabulary that aligns the women with the disciples: Positive 15:40 yiiyr], duo |i.aKp66ey
Ambiguous
Negative
Gewpew
women's names 15:41 ev TTJ raXiXaig els 'Iepoa6Xu|±a 15:47 women's names
16:1
women's names *dyopd£a), *dXeic|>(i)
16:2 16:4
di
r\v ydp |±€yas a<|)68pa 16:5
16:6 16:7 16:8 *€txev yap Tpojios, ! ouSevl ouSev Xeyw *<|>opeo|jLai *e<j)OpoOvTO y d p
b. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Disciples Although the direct characterization of Jesus' disciples ends in 14:72, recapitulation identifies the women with the disciples; and this identification contributes to the disciples' portrayal in four ways. First, the concluding notice (16:8) that the women flee (c^euyo)) and are afraid (4>oPeo|jLai) recalls the last narrated action of disciples as a group, fleeing from Jesus (14:50). This directly aligns the women with the negatively evaluated experiencers of fear, most frequently the disciples (ch. 4 sec. 2b), and through repetition of ^eiiyw, strengthens the disciples' harshly negative evaluation in 14:50. Linkage of fyevyu and 4>opeo|±ai in 16:8
138
The Rhetoric of Characterization
then augments this negative evaluation by proposing fear as the cause of the disciples' leaving (dtcJ)Lr||jLt) and fleeing. Second, frustrations of expectations strengthen the disciples' concluding negative evaluation. The notice that Joseph of Arimathaea placed Jesus in a tomb (TL0T]|IL . . . ev (ivri|i€L(i), 15:46) frustrates the cultivated expectation (cf. 6:29) that Jesus' disciples would do this action. The prior contextual notice that the women followed (aKoXouGeo), 15:41) Jesus also evokes the disciples' earlier positive evaluation and so heightens the contrast between their concluding negative and earlier positive evaluation. Again, the women's failure to go (uTrdyco) mid say (etTTov) the message precludes the disciples' expected rehabilitation, realizes the expectation for conflict between Jesus and his opponents on the Sabbath (adpparov), aligns the women with these opponents, and through their identification with the disciples, aligns the disciples with the same negatively evaluated opponents of Jesus. Third, the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs, which include both an expectation for the disciples' rehabilitation and a recognition that this rehabilitation need not be realized (ch. 4 sec. 6), demand that it accept the implication of the women's failure to say the message to anyone: that the disciples and Peter did not go to Galilee and see the risen Jesus and so did not realize their potential for rehabilitation.18 In contrast, the authorial audience, whose beliefs recognize that these disciples did see the risen Jesus (ch. 4 sec. 1), must reject this new negative content. The resulting unreliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience becomes definitive when the cessation of the narration in 16:8 precludes further developments that might reassert its reliability. As noted previously (ch. 4 sec. 5c), the cultivated negative beliefs about the disciples constitute a parasitic development whose viability depends on the continuing vitality of the preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs about them. With the notice that the women did not say the message and the implication that the disciples did not see the risen Jesus, however, the parasite kills the host! Fourth, the women's characterization evokes the expectation for the disciples' rehabilitation, introduces the last explicit reference to the disciples and Peter (16:7), and proposes fear as the cause of the disciples' leaving and flight in 14:50. Evocation of the expectation for rehabilitation highlights the content of the repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45, whose repetition cultivated this expectation. The assertion that the disciples and Peter will see (opdw) Jesus then recalls the emphasis on the disciples as experiencers in the controversies (ch. 4 sec. 3b) and teachings (ch. 4 sec. 3c) of this structure. Evocation of 14:50 by 16:8 then recalls that the disciples left (dc|>iT]|±i) Jesus and fled in contrast to their original leaving of nets (1:18) and father (1:20) and following of Jesus and places primary focus on this structure's first controversy (8:32b-33), 18. The cultivation of beliefs associated with say to no one (|±r)8ei/i Xeyw) centers exclusively on other characters, and the implication of these beliefs for the disciples is not realized until 16:8.
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb
139
which similarly evokes 1:16-20.19 This progression of specificity, from the repeated structure, to its controversies and teachings, to the first controversy, interprets the disciples' concluding negative evaluation in 16:8 as constituting a failure of discipleship that requires a renewal of discipleship. It also interprets the seeing of Jesus, promised in 14:28 and reiterated in 16:7, as the occasion for Jesus to renew his invitation to discipleship (ch. 4 sec. 3b) and to send the disciples and Peter with authority to cast out demons and to proclaim (ch. 4 sec. 3a) and for the disciples to secure their rehabilitation by undertaking the redefined requirements of discipleship while on mission (ch. 4 sec. 3c). The women's silence and flight, however, preclude the opportunity for the disciples and Peter to do so. Although the authorial audience must reject these implications, the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs demand that it accept that the disciples and Peter did not fulfill the exacting requirements of discipleship or become proclaimers of the gospel, including the message of Jesus' resurrection. Every aspect of the women's characterization ultimately augments the cultivated negative portrayal of the disciples and especially their very negative evaluation in 14:50. Thus, the recapitulation of the disciples' portrayal in the characterization of the women is deemed a sophisticating negative rhetorical strategy from the perspective of the narrative audience but a deconstructive rhetorical strategy from the perspective of the authorial (and real) audience.
4. The Narrative Function of the Women*sCharacterization The women's introduction as followers (aKoXouGeo)) of Jesus (15:41) recalls the long absent disciples (since 14:50 as a group and 14:72 for Peter) and aligns them with the disciples' earlier positive portrayal. The women's increasingly negative and concluding harshly negative evaluation also recalls the progression of the disciples' portrayal. The density of vocabulary evoking the disciples in 15:40-41,47 and 16:1-8 raises to prominence both the authorial audience's preexisting expectation and the narrative audience's cultivated expectation for the disciples' rehabilitation and cultivates an expectation that the women's action will be the catalyst for the disciples' rehabilitation. The finality of the notice that the women fled and said nothing to anyone (16:8), however, realizes for the narrative audience the possibility that the disciples and Peter did not see the risen Jesus and did not receive rehabilitation.20 Thus, the women's characterization 19. Evocation of the first controversy also is encouraged by the linkage of the command, go (uTrdYw), and the reference to Peter in 16:7, which occur together previously only in 8:32b-33. 20. J. Lee Magness deems that the implied impasse at 16:8 is not final because '*the presence of the discourse about the women... overcomes the absence of their words and the absence of any narration about their report by speaking their words for them in the readers mind" (Sense and Absence: Structure and the Suspension in the Ending of the Gospel ofMark [Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars
140
The Rhetoric of Characterization
functions to augment and then confirm the concluding very negative evaluation of Jesus' disciples.
5. The Narrative Function of Disciples' Characterization: Part 2 As noted previously (ch. 4 sec. 6), the narrative rhetoric of the disciples' characterization to 14:72 cultivates for the narrative audience beliefs about the disciples, including the thinking and acting that are required for their rehabilitation, that diverge significantly from those of the authorial (and real) audience. The narrative rhetoric also proposes the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs as an alternative to those of the authorial (and real) audience, should the latter audience find itself characterized by erroneous thinking or improper acting on the pattern of the Markan disciples. Just such a situation arises at 16:8. The women's flight and silence imply that the disciples and Peter did not receive the young man's message and did not see the risen Jesus, and the cessation of the narration precludes the disciples' rehabilitation. The authorial (and real) audience must reject this contradictory content. This rejection effectively destroys the reliability of the narration and the authorial (and real) audience's ability to interpret the end of Mark's story. The resulting crisis of interpretation permits the authorial (and real) audience to experience its own lack of understanding in the context of the evocation of the disciples' actions of leaving Jesus and fleeing at Jesus' arrest and of Peter's identification with Satan and erroneous thinking in the first controversy. At this point, the authorial (and real) audience's preexisting identification with the disciples (ch. 4 sec. 1) and recognition that Jesus' disciples at times did not understand and were negatively evaluated (ch. 4 sec. 2b) encourage the real audience to recognize its identification with Jesus' disciples precisely in the contexts of their most negatively evaluated erroneous thinking and improper acting.21 Evocation of the first controversy also identifies the authorial (and real) audience's rejection of the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being killed, and rising as the cause of its concluding negative evaluation (ch. 3 sec. 5c). Evocation of both contexts and the first controversy's link to the two repeated structures also ultimately assert the authorial audience's direct alignment with those who condemn the Christ and Son of Man as worthy of death (ch. 4 sec. 3d). The narrative audience's sophisticated negative beliefs about the disciples and Press, 1986], 115). Cf. Norman Petersen, "When Is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark's Narrative," Int 34 (1980): 151-66. However, Magness does not consider the cultivated expectation that commands involving speaking are not fulfilled and the narrative audience's recognition of the potential for the disciples' ultimate failure (ch. 4 sec. 6). 21. Unlike the previously discussed performance of the remoteness of God for the narrative audience (ch. 2 sec. 6a), the performance of the experience of being unable to understand involves the authorial (and real) audience.
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb
141
the women, in contrast, require its acceptance of the implications of 16:8 and so ensure its basis for interpretation. This audience's cultivated identification with the disciples, sophisticated positive beliefs about them, and expectation for their rehabilitation, however, provide a strong impetus to secure the disciples' rehabilitation through alternative means. The narrative audience recognizes that the implications of the women's failure to deliver the young man's message could be circumvented if another appropriate bearer of the message could be found. The women, however, are the only characters to receive the message from the young man; and no characters besides the disciples themselves have received sufficient alignment with the women to serve as an appropriate surrogate for them. Alternatively, the repeated evocation of the absent disciples through recapitulation raises the possibility of the disciples' vicarious rehabilitation through another character who could see the risen Jesus and undertake the disciples' mission. However, the only character directly aligned with the disciples in being sent and proclaiming, John the Baptist, no longer is present.22 Thus, the narration ends with the narrative audience recognizing what is necessary to reverse the disciples' concluding negative evaluation but unable to identify an appropriate surrogate for either the women or the disciples and, since it is not a character within the narration, unable to perform these actions itself. The narration concludes with the authorial (and real) audience mired in very negative self-evaluation and the narrative audience recognizing what is required to rehabilitate the negatively portrayed disciples and their newly aligned associate, the authorial (and real) audience, but impotent to act. The real audience's new identification with the negatively portrayed disciples highlights its own erroneous thinking, improper acting, and need for rehabilitation; and the characterization of the disciples warns that the real audience's rehabilitation, like that of the disciples, is possible but not guaranteed. The undelivered message, "He is going before you in(to) Galilee: there you will see him as he said to you" (16:7), indicates that the time for the renewal of Jesus' invitation to follow him, to be sent, and to undertake the thinking and action required for rehabilitation has 22. Although the discussion of ch. 4 sec. 2a identified several minor, nonrecurrent characters that received direct alignment with the disciples on one or two occasions, their scanty development precludes their recognition as appropriate candidates for proclamation. Herman C. Waetjen (A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989], 216-18,242-43) argues for an identification of the young man as an ideal disciple of Jesus (p. 243), especially in the context of 16:5-7. Although "follow along with" (auvaKoXouGew, 14:51) relates the young man directly to Peter, James, and John (5:37) and indirectly to the disciples through follow (aKoXouOew), his most direct relationship with the disciples is established through flee (^euyw, 14:52; cf. 14:50), which imposes a negative evaluation. The remaining vocabulary of 14:51-52 and 16:5-7 aligns the young man most closely not with the disciples but with Jesus himself: linen cloth (14:51;cf. 15:46); sitting at the right (16:5; cf. 12:36; 14:62); white (16:5; cf. 9:3); go (16:7; cf. 1:44; 2:11; 5:19; 6:38; 7:29; 8:33; 10:21,52; 11:2; 14:13); say (16:7; cf. 11:3; 14:14); and the quotation (16:7; cf. 14:28). In particular the white robe and sitting at the right assert a heavenly origin for the young man and preclude his consideration as a disciple in 16:5-7.
142
The Rhetoric of Characterization
arrived. The disciples have not received the message; but the narrative audience, and so the real audience, has. The disciples do not act on the message, and the narrative audience is constrained from doing so; but the real audience is not. The narrative rhetoric indicates that responding positively to Jesus' invitation to discipleship and the mission to proclaim the gospel demands proper thinking and acting that only the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs can ensure. The narrative rhetoric encourages the real audience to appropriate these beliefs and as the means of securing its own rehabilitation. As such, the narration as a whole constitutes a proclamation that invites the real audience's response of proper thinking and acting. That is, the Gospel is gospel.
Chapter 6 APPLICATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
The previous studies investigated the manner in which the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition contributed to characterization and the narrative rhetoric of characterization contributed to broader narrative developments. This study, in contrast, clarifies the manner in which the proposed method, with only minor modifications, may contribute to two other areas of Markan studies. Since these contributions require only minimal analysis beyond that which appears in the studies of characterization, they are cast as applications of the content of the previous studies. The first application is directed to formulating a statement of the rhetorical exigency of the narration, the situation or problem that the narrative rhetoric seems to be designed to address and remedy. The investigation of the rhetorical exigency, which is constituted by the preexisting beliefs that are problematized in the process of cultivating the narrative audience's beliefs, considers the beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples that are attributed to the authorial audience and problematized by the narrative rhetoric. The discussion briefly develops the implications of this investigation for proposals concerning the historical exigency of the composition of Mark. The second application is directed to formulating a statement of the theological beliefs that the narrative rhetoric seems designed to explicate and propose. The investigation of Mark's theological beliefs considers the beliefs about God (theology), Jesus (christology), and Jesus' disciples (mathetology) that are cultivated for the narrative audience. The discussion briefly develops the implications for rigor and specificity in proposals concerning Mark's theology, christology, and mathetology. Since a comprehensive development of either application is beyond the scope of the present inquiry, the discussions of applications only outline the methodological approaches for the investigations and develop conclusions about only the most easily demonstrable elements of the rhetorical exigency and Mark's theological beliefs. The discussions of implications clarify the constraints and possibilities for using the results of the investigations of applications and draw specific conclusions concerning only the most easily demonstrable topics.
1. Application: The Rhetorical Exigency of the Narration This discussion describes the methodological approach for deriving a statement of the rhetorical exigency of Mark from the studies of characterization, identifies the most emphasized elements of the problematized beliefs concerning God, 143
144
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Jesus, and Jesus' disciples, and develops from these a partial statement of rhetorical exigency of the narration. a. The Methodological Approach This methodological approach for deriving a statement of the rhetorical exigency requires a five-stage analysis of the content of the studies of the characterization and a concluding synthesis. The first stage identifies the content realized by the semantic rhetoric of repetition. Such repetition sophisticates the preexisting and preinterpreted content of particular semantic frames evoked by words or designations with narratively specific content. The statements of realized content at this stage would be identical to the discussions of cultivated beliefs in the studies of the semantic rhetoric of repetition. This content constitutes the semantic data for all developments concerning the rhetorical exigency. The second stage identifies beliefs problematized by the narrative rhetoric of repetition. Such repetition sophisticates or deconstructs preexisting or previously interpreted content of constructs with narratively specific content.1 This discussion resolves problematized beliefs into two categories. Preexisting beliefs that are problematized by sophisticating rhetorical strategies and so cohere with their cultivated counterparts are cast as deficient from the perspective of the narrative audience, whereas preexisting beliefs that are problematized by deconstructive rhetorical strategies and so contradict their cultivated counterparts are cast as erroneous from the perspective of the narrative audience. The statements of problematized beliefs at this stage parallel those from the previous studies with the addition of notices that the authorial audience's beliefs are either deficient or erroneous with respect to specific content. The third stage relates problematized beliefs according to the outlines of the rhetorical organization and incorporation that appear in the Appendix. The fourth stage identifies beliefs problematized by the narrative rhetoric of characterization. This discussion produces statements of problematized beliefs similar to those from the studies of the narrative rhetoric of characterization with the addition of notices that the authorial audience's beliefs are either deficient or erroneous with respect to specific content. Although there is no way to retrieve the preexisting experience of the authorial audience, this audience's familiarity with much of the narrative content would have established the potential for numerous affective responses. Thus, all problematized experiences are deemed deficient. The results of this investigation receive incorporation into the discussion of the third stage as indicated by contextual, vocabulary, or thematic links. The fifth stage relates to each other the problematized beliefs about specific characters. The principle of organization at this stage is primarily contextual 1. Although such repetition also may assert and sophisticate expectations that subsequently are frustrated (deconstructed), these and similar developments concern only the narrative audience and so are excluded from this discussion of problematized beliefs.
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
145
linkages in characterizations. Where these are not available, previously noted links derived from the semantic rhetoric (vocabulary and relationships between designations) as well as thematic developments are employed. Recourse to these secondary links is minimized by the previous notations of instances in which elements of the portrayal of particular characters are related and organized in the portrayal of other characters. The resulting integrative statement explicates the rhetorical exigency of the narration. b. Development of a Partial Statement of the Rhetorical Exigency Since development of a comprehensive statement of the rhetoric exigency is not practicable, the following investigation develops a statement of only the most emphasized elements of the rhetorical exigency. The investigation assumes the content of the investigation of the semantic data and identifies consecutively the most emphasized problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples. The discussions of the narrative rhetoric identify as emphasized problematized beliefs associated vocabulary that is repeated within individual contexts or structures and within two or three constituents of the same repeated context or structure. When several words are repeated in a given context or structure, primary emphasis is ascribed to problematized beliefs associated with the most frequently repeated word(s) and secondary emphasis to problematized beliefs associated with less frequently repeated words. In repeated contexts and structures, primary emphasis is ascribed to problematized beliefs associated with vocabulary occurring in all three constituents, and secondary emphasis is ascribed to problematized beliefs associated with vocabulary occurring in two of the three constituents. The discussion investigates separately each avenue of direct incorporation of beliefs into the narrative frames associated with characters as outlined in the Appendix and then relates these to each other. The discussion then identifies beliefs problematized by the narrative rhetoric of characterization. The investigation concludes by integrating the results of these discussions into a statement of the most emphasized elements of the rhetorical exigency. c. Problematized Beliefs Concerning God All problematized beliefs concerning God ultimately are related to each other and incorporated in the narrative frames associated with God through 1:1-15, which links the two repeated contexts identified in the previous study. This discussion identifies the problematized preexisting beliefs that receive emphasis in each context and repeated contexts. Since the characterization of God is unique in that a large minority of problematized beliefs do not appear in these contexts but are related only contextually to vocabulary within them, such contextually related beliefs receive brief summary as subsidiarily emphasized beliefs. The discussion then identifies the beliefs and experiences problematized by the narrative rhetoric of characterization and notes their relationship to previous developments. Since this investigation is concerned only with the authorial audience's
146
The Rhetoric of Characterization
problematized preexisting beliefs and all such beliefs are cast as deficient, the discussion reduces redundancy by replacing "the authorial audience's preexisting deficient beliefs" with "beliefs." The context, 1:1-15, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning God's unique benefaction of the [holy] Spirit (TrveO|ia [dyiov]) by which Jesus will baptize (1:8) and which descends onto Jesus (1:10) and casts him out into the desert (1:12) and God's benefaction of the gospel (euayyeXiov, 1:1, 14, 15), which is also of Jesus. Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God's unique benefaction of messengers (dyyeXog) who prepare Jesus' way (1:2) and serve him (1:13) and of the [Beloved] Son (ulos [dyaTTrjTog], 1:1, [11]) and God's benefaction of the way (686g, 1:2, 3), which also is of Jesus. Inclusion of the other vocabulary between the first (1:1) and last (1:15) occurrence of euayyeXiov highlights its significance, stresses Jesus' concluding command to believe in the gospel (1:15), and implies that the deficient beliefs in this context limit one's ability to fulfill this command. Links to vocabulary in other contexts grants a subsidiary emphasis first to beliefs concerning God's unique benefaction of commandments (evroXii) and then to beliefs concerning God as unique agent of permit (e£eaTiv), as agent who forgives (CXC^LTUJLL), as unique source of [everlasting] life (£(i)ii [aldiyios]), as source of receive (Xa|ipdva)), and as benefactive of right hand (8e£id), power (8wa|iis), and possible things (Svvarov).2 This relates believing in the gospel to observing God's commandments, doing/not doing what is/is not permitted, being forgiven, receiving everlasting life and a hundredfold with persecutions, and being a beneficiary of God's right hand and power and all possible things. Although 8:31-9:1 imposes no direct emphases, subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as unique source of [everlasting] life (£a)rj [alcovios]), as source of receive (Xa|ipdva)), as unique benefactive of commandments (evTOXTI), and as benefactive of possible things (8uvaTov). This relates seeing God's reign having come and destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel to observing God's commandments, receiving everlasting life and a hundredfold with persecutions, and being a beneficiary of all possible things. The context, 13:3-13, emphasizes beliefs concerning God's unique agency in necessitating (del) that wars and reports of wars happen (13:7) and that the gospel first be proclaimed to all nations (13:10). The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 grants primary emphasis to beliefs concerning the gospel (eiayyeXiov) which is of [Jesus and] God ([1:1], 14), which is to be believed in (1:15), for the sake of which one is required to destroy one's life (8:35) and which God necessitates that the disciples proclaim (13:10). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as unique agent who necessitates (Set) that the Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise (8:31), that wars and reports of wars happen (13:7), and that the gospel 2. This and following statements of subsidiarily emphasized deficient preexisting beliefs about God are based on the discussion of ch. 2 sec. 5.
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
147
first be proclaimed to all nations (13:10). Secondary emphasis also falls on beliefs concerning God as unique benefactive of the reign (PaoaXeia), which has drawn near (1:15) and will have come in glory before some have tasted death (9:1), and of the [holy] Spirit (TTveOjia [ayiov]), by which Jesus will baptize (1:8), which descends onto Jesus (1:10), casts him out into the desert (1:12), and speaks through the disciples (13:11). Subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as unique agent who shortens (KoXopoco) the days, as unique source of [everlasting] life (C^A [alcovios]), as source of receive (Xap,pdy(i)), as unique goal of pray (TTpoo£Vxo[Lai\ as unique benefactive of commandments (evTo\f|), and as benefactive of possible things (bvvarov) and power (Suva^is). Contextual repetition stresses the limits placed on fulfilling Jesus' command to believe in the gospel by those characterized by deficient beliefs concerning the relationship between the Son of Man's necessary suffering, rejection, death, and resurrection and the disciples' necessary proclamation of the gospel, between the Son of Man giving his life as a ransom for many and rising and the disciple destroying his or her life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel and saving it. Also emphasized is that failure to believe in the gospel precludes seeing God's reign having come in power, having God's holy Spirit speak through the disciple, and so being one whom Jesus baptizes with God's holy Spirit. Subsidiary emphases highlight that believing in and proclaiming the gospel are linked to observing God's commandments, praying, receiving everlasting life, a hundredfold, and persecutions, being forgiven, becoming a beneficiary of God's power and all possible things and God's shortening of the days. The context, 12:1-12, emphasizes beliefs concerning God as agent who sends (aTToaTeXXco) slaves (12:2, 4, 5) and the Beloved Son (12:6) to receive some of the produce of the vineyard. Subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as unique agent of permit (efjea-riv) and as benefactive of right hand (Se^id) and power (Suva^ug). This identifies the produce that God sends to receive as doing/not doing what God does/does not permit and to being a beneficiary of God's right hand and power. The context, 13:32-37, emphasizes beliefs concerning God as experiencer who alone knows (ol8a) about that day and hour (13:32) and God's contrast with the disciple who does not know when the Lord of the Household is coming (* 13:35). Subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as benefactive of right hand (8e£id) and power (8uva|±ig). This relates God's knowing to God's right hand and power. The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning God's benefaction of the [Beloved] Son (vlos), who has the gospel (1:1), pleases God ([1:11]), is sent by God ([12:6a], 6b), and does not know about that day or hour (13:32). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God's agency in sending (dTroaTeXXo)) John the Baptist/ Elijah (1:2), God's slaves (12:2,4, 5), and God's Beloved Son (12:6). Subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs first concerning God as the benefactive of right hand (8e£id) and power (8uva|iis) and then concerning God as unique agent of
148
The Rhetoric of Characterization
permit (e^eanv). This relates God's benefaction of God's Beloved Son and God's sending him and others to being a beneficiary of God's right hand and power and to doing/not doing what is/is not permitted. The linkage of 1:15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13 and 1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37 through 1:1-15 emphasizes specific deficient beliefs, coordinates the primarily and secondarily emphasized deficient beliefs within repeated contexts, and asserts the overarching perspective for relating all deficient beliefs about God. Only new emphases introduced by the linkage of the repeated contexts receive detailed examination. Linkage of the two repeated contexts emphasizes beliefs concerning God's unique benefaction of messengers (dyyeXos) who prepare Jesus' way (1:2), serve Jesus (1:13), come with the parousaic Son of Man (8:38), and do not know about that day or hour (13:32). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as agent who will give (8i8(o|±i) the vineyard to others (12:9) and what disciples will say when they are handed over (13:11) and on God as patient who is Father (TTOTTIP) of Jesus as Son (13:32) and Son of Man (8:38). Linkage of the two repeated contexts strengthens the subsidiary emphasis on beliefs concerning God as agent who forgives (dc|)iT)|ii) and as benefactive of power (8wa|±ts) and coordinates the previously noted subsidiary emphases. Coordination of all of these beliefs through 1:1-15 maintains the focus on deficient beliefs that prevent believing in and proclaiming the gospel and indicates that failure to do so subverts one's positive relationship with God's messengers who serve Jesus/the parousaic Son of Man, one's identification with those to whom God gives the vineyard, and one's mediated positive relationship with God as Father through Jesus as Son and Son of Man. Such failure also precludes the forgiveness of sins and one's status as a beneficiary of God's power. The narrative rhetoric and function of God's characterization emphasize beliefs concerning the intimate relationship between God and Jesus as God's [Beloved] Son and Jesus' identification with God, which invites a response to and a relationship with Jesus that parallels that with God. These deficient beliefs cohere with those related in 1:1-15. Also emphasized are beliefs concerning the profound relationship between the authorial audience and Jesus, especially in the experience of the remoteness of God, and concerning God's agency in Jesus' death and in the story of both Jesus and the authorial audience. These beliefs have thematic parallels to developments in 8:31-9:1. 3 These beliefs prevent the authorial audience from recognizing that positive alignment with God guarantees no clarity concerning the nature of God's agency but demands fidelity to God even in the apprehension of abandonment and the threat of imminent death. 3. Beliefs concerning God's agency in Jesus' death in large part are not associated with repeated vocabulary: God takes up (aTTatpw) the groom (2:20); God necessitates (8el) that the Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise; God sends (diToaTeXXco); and God does not remove (TTapax^epo)) the cup from Jesus (14:35), strikes (-nardoou) the shepherd (14:27), and abandons (eyKaTaXeiTra)) Jesus (15:34).
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
149
d. Problematized Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus Problematized beliefs concerning Jesus are related to each other and incorporated in the narrative frames associated with Jesus through three repeated contexts and the narrative frames associated with the Son of Man, especially those related in 8:31-9:1. The discussion considers consecutively the problematized beliefs that receive emphasis in each avenue of incorporation. Since almost all problematized beliefs appear in repeated contexts and structures, there is no separate discussion of subsidiary emphases. When problematized beliefs about Jesus are related in part through the characterization of other characters, especially the disciples, references to these characters are marked with an asterisk (*). For economy of presentation, the discussion omits considerations of minor designations. Whereas cultivated beliefs about Jesus arise exclusively through sophisticating repetition that casts the corresponding preexisting beliefs about Jesus as deficient, cultivated beliefs associated with the Son of Man and Christ arise through sophisticating or deconstructive rhetorical strategies that cast their preexisting counterparts as either deficient or erroneous. Thus, the discussion assumes that problematized beliefs identified in the investigation of the repeated contexts are deficient but distinguishes deficient from erroneous beliefs in the investigations of the Son of Man and Christ. The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 is the first avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus. The first context, 1:16-20, presents no emphases; and the second, 3:13-19, emphasizes beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who makes (-noteo), 3:14, 16) the twelve. This context also links the characterizations of Jesus and his disciples by presenting the twelve as agents of saving actions previously attributed to Jesus: casting out (*€KpdXXo)) demons and proclaiming (*Kr|pi>(j(j(i)). The third context, 6:6b-13, 30-32, emphasizes beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who teaches (8i8daKO), 6:6b, *30); and inclusion of the other beliefs between the occurrences of this verb indicates that the authorial audience lacks an adequate recognition that Jesus' teaching mandates these actions of disciples. This context also links the characterizations of Jesus and the disciples by relating Jesus' actions of going forth (dTrepxo|±cu), sending (aTToaTeXXo)), teaching (8i8daKG)), giving (8i8a)|ii), and summoning (TrpoaKaXeoum) and the disciples' actions of teaching (*8i8daK(o), casting out (*<EKpdXXco), healing (*0epaTT€i>oi)), and proclaiming (*Kr|pi>aao)) and by cultivating the specialized usage of do/make to designate all of Jesus' actions through the notice concerning all that the apostles did (TTOieo, *6:30). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship of all of the saving actions of Jesus and the disciples and the resulting identification of the disciples with Jesus when they do these actions. Repetition of this context imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who does/makes (uoieo) Simon and Andrew fishers of human beings (1:17), particular disciples the twelve (3:14, 16), and, through the twelve, various saving actions (*6:30). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who sends (dTTOoreXXd), 3:14; 6:7) the twelve and summons (upoaKaXeo|±ai) disciples (3:13) and the twelve (6:7) and,
150
The Rhetoric of Characterization
through the twelve, as agent who casts out (eKpaXXco, *3:15; *6:13) demons and proclaims (KTipuaao), *3:14; *6:12) and as benefactive of authority (e£ouaia, *3:15;*6:7). The contextual repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 is the second avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus. The first context, 6:33-44, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who gives (8L8O)IIL, *6:37a, *37b, 41) and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of the disciples (|ia0r|Tai, 6:35, 41). The second context, 8:1-10, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of the disciples (|ia0TiTaL, 8:1, 4, 6, 10) and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who does not dismiss (diToXiiG)) those who are hungry (8:3) until they are satisfied (8:9). The third context, 14:22-26, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as goal who takes/receives (Xa|ipdva)) the bread (14:22) and cup (14:23). Repetition of this context imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who gives (8L8O)^L, *6:37a, *37b, 41; 8:6; 14:22,23), blesses (euXoyeco, 6:41; 8:7; 14:22), breaks ([KaTa]KXdo), [6:41]; 8:6; 14:22), and receives (Xaiipdvo), 6:41; 8:6; 14:22) the bread interpreted as his body (cf. 14:22). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who does not dismiss (diroXua), 6:36; 8:3) the hungry until they are satisfied by this bread (8:9; cf. 6:45) and who gives thanks (euxapiaTea), 8:6; 14:23) for this bread, as experiencer who is moved with compassion (aTTXayxvi£o|±ai, 6:34; 8:2), and as benefactive of disciples ([±a0r)Tai, 6:35,41; 8:1,4,6, 10). The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:10-12; and 13:32-37 is the third avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus. The first context, 1:1-15, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who comes (epxojiai, 1:7, 9, 14) and as benefactive of the gospel (euayyeXiov, 1:1, 14,15) and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus, God's Son, as benefactive of the way (686s, 1:2, 3) and as patient who is God's [Beloved] Son (i/ios [dyotTTrjTos], 1:1, [11]). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship between Jesus' coming and his proclaiming of the gospel; and the inclusion of all other beliefs between the initial (1:1) and final (1:15) occurrence of gospel stresses that these deficient beliefs hinder believing in the gospel. The second, 12:1-12, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus, God's [Beloved] Son, as patient who is sent (*dTTOc7TeXX(o, *12:2, *4, *5, 6; cf. *12:3) and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as patient who is God's [Beloved] Son (iA6g [dyarrTiTos], [12:6a], 6b). The third context, 13:32-37, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus, the Lord of the Household, as agent who comes (epxo|iai, 13:35, 36) and Jesus, the Son, as experiencer of not knowing (13:32, *35). This repeated context imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as patient who is God's [Beloved] Son (ulos [dyaTTTiTos], [1:11]; [12:6a], 6b; 13:32) and Jesus/the Lord of the Household as agent who comes (<Epxo|±oa, 1:7, 9, 14; * 12:9/13:35, 36). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship between Jesus' initial com-
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
151
ing as God's Beloved Son (1:7, 9, 14) and his eschatological coming as Lord of the Household (13:35, 36) and between the eschatological coming of Jesus as the Lord of the Household (13:35, 36) and the coming of God as the Lord of the Vineyard (*12:9). Secondary emphasis fall on beliefs concerning Jesus/the Lord of the Household as benefactive of slaves (8ouXog, *12:2, *4/13:34) and as patient who is distant (dTroSruieo), *12:l/dTTo8r]|±os, 13:34). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the identification of Jesus as Lord of the Household with God as Lord of the Vineyard. The fourth avenue for relating problematized beliefs concerning Jesus especially as Son of Man, 8:31-9:1, links developments in one repeated context and two repeated structures. In the repeated context 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13, the first context, 1:1-15, received previous consideration. The second context, 8:31-9:1, imposes primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of disciples (naOrjTai, 8:33, 34). The third context, 13:3-13, imposes, through the disciples, primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as patient of hand over (TTapaSiSo^ii, * 13:9, * 11, * 12) and secondary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus whose action God necessitates (Set, *13:7, *10). Repetition of this context imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus/the parousaic Son of Man as agent who comes (epxopm, 1:7, 9, 14/8:38; *13:6) and Jesus as benefactive of the gospel (eixryyeXiov, 1:1, 14, 15; 8:35; 13:10). Receiving secondary emphasis are deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who proclaims 1:14; *13:10) the gospel and as patient who is handed over (Trapa*1:14; *13:9, *11, *12) and erroneous beliefs concerning what God necessitates (861, 8:31; *13:7, *10)forthe Son of Man. In the repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45, the first structure, 8:31-9:1, received previous consideration. The second structure, 9:30-41, imposes primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of his name (6vo|±ct, 9:37, 38, 39, 41). Secondary emphasis falls on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of the way (686s, 9:33, 34) and on erroneous beliefs concerning the Son of Man as patient who will be killed (OLTTOKT6LV0), 9:31a, 31b). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship of the Son of Man being killed, Jesus having the way, and doing deeds in Jesus' name. The third structure, 10:32-45, imposes primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who cannot give (8L8O)|IL, 10:37, 40; cf. 10:45 for erroneous beliefs concerning the Son of Man who can give) and as patient who is baptized (panTiCd), 10:38a, *38b, 39a, *39b). Secondary emphasis falls on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who cannot do/make (Troiea), 10:35, 36) and as benefactive of right hand (8e£id, 10:37, 40) and on erroneous beliefs concerning the Son of Man as patient who is handed over (Trapa8i8co|ii, 10:33a, 33b). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship of Jesus being baptized [by God], the Son of Man being handed over, Jesus not being able to give to sit at his right and left in his glory,
152
The Rhetoric of Characterization
and the Son of Man giving his life as a ransom for many. Structural repetition imposes primary emphasis on erroneous beliefs concerning the near future experience and activity of the Son of Man as agent of rise (dviaTaficu, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) and as patient of kill (aTTOKTeivo), 8:31; 9:31a, 31b; 10:34). Secondary emphasis falls on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent of teach (8i8daKa), 8:31; 9:31) and summon (TrpoaKaXeopm, 8:34; 10:42) and as benefactive of disciples (u.a0r)Tai, 8:33, 34; 9:31) and on erroneous beliefs concerning the Son of Man as patient of hand over (Trctpa8i8G)|ii, 9:31; 10:33). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the fact that the content of Jesus' teaching incorporates not only his saving actions but his actions and attributes as Son of Man. In the repeated structure 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65, the first structure, 8:27-9:1, imposes primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of disciples (u-aGnTat, 8:27a, 27b, 33, 34) and secondary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent of rebuke (<ETriTi|id(i), 8:30, *32, 33). The second and third structures, 13:21-27 and 14:60-65, in contrast, impose no emphases. Repetition of this structure imposes primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as patient who is the Christ (8:29; * 13:21; 14:61) and on the parousaic Son of Man as agent of come (epxojiai, 8:38; 13:26; 14:62), as benefactive of power (Siiva^is, *9:1; 13:26; 14:62), and as content of see (opdo), *9:1; 13:26; 14:62) and secondary emphasis on erroneous beliefs concerning the near future experience and activity of the Son of Man as benefactive of death (Odvaros, *9:1; 14:64). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship between the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity and his near future experience and activity and between the Son of Man and the Christ. It also highlights the inadequate recognition of the relationship of the disciple not accepting these linked beliefs, Jesus rebuking disciples, and the parousaic Son of Man not exercising power on behalf of disciples. The study of the narrative function of Jesus' characterization emphasizes erroneous beliefs that do not link Jesus' near future experience and activity and parousaic activity and identity as Son of Man and do not recognize that all of the beliefs concerning Son of Man are linked to the Christ. Also erroneous are beliefs that do not recognize God's agency in the Son of Man's suffering, being killed, and rising, do not identify the Christ by the glory and deeds of the parousaic Son of Man, and do not acknowledge that those who reject Jesus' teaching about the Son of Man are aligned with those who condemn Jesus to death and contrasted with the elect whom the parousaic Son of Man will send angels to gather. These problematized beliefs cohere with those related by 8:31-9:1. e. Problematized Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus' Disciples Problematized beliefs concerning Jesus' disciples are related to each other and incorporated in the narrative frames associated with the disciples through three repeated contexts, developments related by 8:31-9:1, and the narrative frames associated with the women at the tomb. The discussion considers consecutively
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
153
the problematized beliefs that receive emphasis in each of the avenues of incorporation. Problematized beliefs about the disciples related in part through the characterization of other characters, especially Jesus, are marked with an asterisk (*). Since cultivated beliefs about the disciples may result in differing evaluations, the discussion distinguishes whether problematized beliefs concern the positive (realized or potential), ambiguous, or negative evaluation of the disciples and, for ease of reference, labels these positive, ambiguous, or negative beliefs. The discussion assumes that problematized beliefs identified in the investigation of the first three repeated contexts are deficient but distinguishes deficient from erroneous beliefs in the investigations of the developments related by 8:31-9:1. Finally, all contributions from the narrative frames associated with the women at the tomb appear in the discussion of the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization. The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 is the first avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus' disciples. The first context, 1:16-20, emphasizes positive beliefs concerning disciples as agents who leave (d()nT)|±i, 1:18, 20) and as patients who are behind (oiTiao), 1:17, 20) Jesus. The second context, 3:13-19, emphasizes positive beliefs concerning the disciples as patients who are made (rroiea), 3:14, 16) the twelve. The third context, 6:6b-13, 30-32, emphasizes the positive beliefs concerning the twelve as agents of teach (8i8d(7KG), *6:6, 30). As previously noted, this context cultivates the relationship of all of the saving actions of Jesus and the disciples and identifies disciples with Jesus. Contextual repetition imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who go forth (dTTepxo|iai, 1:20; 3:13; 6:32 [with Jesus]) and do/make (noieo), *1:17; *3:14, *16; 6:30). Secondary emphasis falls on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who cast out (<EK> pdXXo), 3:15; 6:13) demons, go (8eirre, 1:17, 6:31), and proclaim (KTjpuaao), 3:14; 6:12); as benefactives who have authority (eifoixria, 3:15; 6:7); and as patients who are sent (dmxjTeXXG), 3:14; 6:7) and summoned (TTpoamXeoiiai, 3:13; 6:7) and who are apostles (duoaToXot, 3:14; 6:30) and the twelve (8(i8eKa, 3:14,16; 6:7). The contextual repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 is the second avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus' disciples. The first context, 6:33-44, emphasizes negative beliefs concerning the disciples as agents of [not] give (8L8(I)^L, 6:37a, 37b) and positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who eat (eaBio), 6:42, 44) and ambiguous beliefs concerning the disciples as patients who are disciples (|iaGT]Tiis, 6:35, 41). The second context, 8:1-10, imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents of distribute (TrapaTi9r||iL, 8:6a, 6b, 7) and on ambiguous beliefs about them as patients who are disciples (8:1,4,10) and secondary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as patients of satisfy (xopTd£o), *8:4, 8). The third context, 14:22-26, imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who drink (TTLVO), 14:23, *25a, *25b) and secondary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as goals to whom Jesus gives
154
The Rhetoric of Characterization
(8L8O)|IL, 14:22, 23). Contextual repetition imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who eat (eaOtw, 6:42, 44; 8:8; 14:22) the bread that Jesus blesses (cf. 6:41) and interprets as his body (cf. 14:22) and as goals to whom Jesus gives (8I8G)|±I, 6:41; 8:6; 14:22; cf. 14:23 for the cup) this bread. Secondary emphasis falls on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who distribute (TrapaTi0r]|±i, 6:41; 8:6a, 6b, [7]) this bread [or fish]5 as the sources from whom Jesus receives (Xajipdvoi), 6:41; 8:6) bread, as benefactives who have bread (dp-rov ex^, 6:38; 8:5), and as patients who are satisfied (XopTdCw, 6:42; 8:8; cf. 8:4) and on ambiguous beliefs concerning them as patients who are disciples ([ia0T]Tai, 6:35,41; 8:1,6,10). The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 is the third avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus' disciples. Although the first and second contexts do not explicitly reference the disciples, they introduce vocabulary that subsequently is significant for their portrayal. The first context, 1:1-15, imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs associated with the action of proclaiming (KTipijaaoj, *1:4, *7, *14) and secondary emphasis on positive beliefs about being baptized (paTrri£a), *1:5, *9). The second context, 12:1-12, imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning being sent (diToaTeXXa), * 12:2, *4, *5, *6) and secondary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning those who are slaves (8oOXos, *12:2, *4). The third context, 13:32-37, imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciple as agent who remains alert (ypT^yopea), 13:34, 35, 37) and as experiencer who does not know (ol8a, 13:33, 35; cf. * 13:32) but responds by remaining alert. Contextual repetition imposes secondary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as goals who are given (8L8O)|IL, *12:9; 13:34) and as patients who are sent (ctTToaTeXXo), *1:2; * 12:2, *4, *5, *6) and are slaves (8oi)Xos, * 12:2, *4; 13:34). The fourth avenue for relating problematized beliefs about the disciples is through 8:31-9:1, which links developments in two repeated contexts and one repeated structure. For economy of presentation, the structural repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 receives investigation first. The repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 links predictions, controversies, and teachings. In 8:31-9:1, the prediction, 8:31-32a, presents no emphases. The controversy, 8:32b-33, emphasizes erroneous beliefs about Peter's negative evaluation as agent (8:32b, *33) and experiencer (*8:32b, 33) of rebuke (eTUTi|id(A)). The teaching, 8:34-9:1, imposes primary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as benefactives of life Q\ivxr\> 8:35a, 35b, 36, 37). Secondary emphasis falls on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as agent who follows (dKoXouOeo), 8:34a, 34b) Jesus, destroys (aTToXXtijiL, 8:35b; cf. 8:35a for a negative evaluation) life, and saves (aaiCa), 8:35a, 35b) life, and as experiencer who wants (BeXo), 8:34, 35) and responds appropriately, and on deficient negative beliefs about the disciple as experiencer who is ashamed of (eTTaiaxwo|±ai, 8:38a; cf. *8:38b for the Son of Man) Jesus and his words and responds inappropriately. The linkage of the prediction, con-
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
155
troversy, and teaching emphasizes ambiguous beliefs concerning the disciples as patients (|ia0T]Tai, 8:33, 34). In 9:30-41, the prediction, 9:30-32, and controversy, 9:33-34, impose no emphases with respect to the disciples. The teaching, 9:35-41, imposes primary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as goal who receives (8exo|Jat, 9:37a, 37b, 37c, 37d) Jesus, and ultimately, God, and secondary emphasis on deficient negative beliefs about disciples as agents who prevent (KO)XII(I), 9:38, 39) action by Jesus' name. The linkage of the prediction, controversy, and teaching introduces no new emphases. In 10:32-45, the prediction, 10:32-34, emphasizes through the characterization of the Son of Man deficient positive beliefs concerning being handed over (*Trapa8i8a)|±i, * 10:33a, *33b) as patient. The controversy, 10:35-41, imposes primary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as agent who drinks (mva), 10:38a, *38b, *39a, 39b) Jesus' cup and as patient who is baptized (PaTTTLCw, * 10:38a, 38b, *39a, 39b) with his baptism. Secondary emphasis falls on erroneous beliefs concerning the negative evaluation of the disciple as experiencer who wants (OeXo), 10:35, 36) and responds improperly and as goal to whom Jesus cannot give (SI8G)|JLI, 10:37, 40). The teaching, 10:42-45, emphasizes deficient positive beliefs concerning disciple as experiencer who wants (0eXd), 10:43, 44) and responds properly by becoming servant (8idKovos, 10:43; cf. * 10:45 for SiaKoveco with the Son of Man as agent). The third structure as a whole imposes primary emphasis on deficient [negative and] positive beliefs concerning the disciples as experiencer who wants (GeXo), [10:35], [36], 43, 44) and responds [inappropriately and secondary emphasis on deficient negative beliefs concerning disciple as experiencer who does [or does not] know (ol8a, [10:38], 42) and responds inappropriately. Repetition of this structure imposes new emphases on both the constituent contexts and the repeated structure as a whole. The repeated predictions emphasize deficient negative beliefs concerning the disciples as experiencers who are taught (8i8daic
156
The Rhetoric of Characterization
structure as a whole imposes primary emphasis on deficient [negative or] positive beliefs concerning the disciples as experiencers who want and respond [inappropriately (9eXoj, 8:34, [35]; *9:30; [10:35], [36], 43, 44) and secondary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who follow (axoXouOeo), 8:34a, 34b; *9:38; 10:32) Jesus and as patients who are disciples (|ia6T)Tai, 8:33; 9:31) and the twelve (SwSeica, 9:35; 10:32). The first two constituents of repeated context 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 received previous investigation. The third context, 13:3-13, imposes primary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents of speak (XaXeo), 13:11a, lib, lie), as patients of handover (Trapa8i8G)|ii, 13:9, 11, 12), and as characters whose actions are necessitated (Set, *13:7, 10) by God. Contextual repetition imposes secondary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who proclaim Ocnpuaao), *1:4, *7, *14; 13:10) and speak (XaXea), *8:32; 13:11a, lib, lie), as benefactives of death (OdvaTos, 9:1; 13:12), as patients who are handed over (TrapaSiScojiL, *1:14; 13:9, 11, 12), and as those whose proclaiming God necessitates (Set, *8:31; *13:7,10). The first and third constituents of the repeated context 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; and 13:3-13 received previous investigation. The second context, 10:26-30, emphasizes deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who leave (dc|)iT)|ii, 10:29, 30) and as benefactives of mother, brothers, and sisters (urJTrip, ct8eX(|)oi m l dSeX^at, 10:29, 30). Contextual repetition imposes primary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who save (aci£a), 8:35a, 35b; * 10:26; *13:13) and secondary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who follow (dxoXouGeG), 8:34a, 34b; 10:28) Jesus and as benefactives of death (Odvaros, 9:1; 13:12). The narrative function of the disciples' characterization to 14:72 emphasizes erroneous beliefs that do not recognize that God necessitated the Son of Man's suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising and that failure to accept this results in improper thinking and acting, which preclude the direct positive alignment with the parousaic Son of Man and indirect positive alignment with God that save the disciple's life. Also erroneous are beliefs that do not recognize that accepting the negative cultivated content about Jesus' disciples and assuming a very negative and critical stance toward their improper thinking and acting need not jeopardize one's self-identification as a disciple or one's identification with Jesus' disciples. Rather, such acceptance permits a recognition of one's own erroneous thinking and acting and clarifies the requirements for the rehabilitation of errant disciples. Also erroneous are beliefs that do not recognize that continuing failure to understand Jesus, his teachings, and his actions, to fear, and to think and act improperly indicate that the potential for future rehabilitation need not be realized. Most damning are erroneous preexisting beliefs that fail to recognize that one's own negatively evaluated actions and attributes directly align one with Jesus' disciples in the most negative elements of their portrayal. All of these erroneous beliefs are related to the content of 8:31-9:1.
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
157
The narrative function of the disciples' characterization through recapitulation emphasizes erroneous beliefs concerning the extent of the authorial audience's improper thinking and acting, its need for a renewal of discipleship and rehabilitation according to the thinking and acting required of errant disciples, and its potential for ultimate negative evaluation and failure. Erroneous beliefs also prevent a recognition that refusing to accept Jesus' teaching about the Son of Man's necessary experience and activity and the disciples' required thinking and acting prevents one from seeing the risen Jesus and understanding Mark's story of Jesus. This results in identification with Jesus' disciples in their most negatively evaluated improper thinking and acting and alignment with those who condemn Jesus as Christ and Son of Man as worthy of death. These beliefs also are related to the content of 8:31-9:1 f. The Rhetorical Exigency This partial statement of the rhetorical exigency is formulated from the emphasized problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples. The discussion first clarifies the procedure for relating these problematized beliefs and for formulating the statement of rhetorical exigency. The statement summarizes but does not reproduce all of the content of the previous discussions of problematized beliefs. Two contexts, 1:1-15 and 8:31-9:1, play a determinative role in relating all of the noted problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples. Of these, 1:1-15 links all deficient beliefs concerning God to significant elements of deficient beliefs about Jesus and to various elements of deficient beliefs about the disciples. In contrast, 8:31-9:1 links all deficient and erroneous beliefs about Jesus as Son of Man (and Christ) and particular deficient beliefs about Jesus to each other and to particular deficient beliefs about God and deficient and erroneous beliefs about Jesus' disciples. Deficient beliefs concerning Jesus and his disciples also are linked in 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32 and 6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26. The beliefs problematized in the first repeated context are evoked and related to those in 8:31-9:1; and the beliefs problematized in the second repeated context cohere with those problematized in both 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32 and 8:31-9:1. Thus, 1:1-15 and 8:31-9:1 relate the noted emphasized problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples; and these problematized beliefs ultimately are related by the contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13. The authorial audience is characterized by an unwavering identification with Jesus' disciples; and the narrative audience is characterized by cultivated beliefs that alone provide a basis for interpreting all of the content of the narration. The narrative audience interprets the authorial audience's unwavering and, from its own perspective, frequently uncritical identification with Jesus' disciples and acceptance of the disciples' actions and attributes (whether positively or negatively evaluated) and beliefs (whether adequate, deficient, or erroneous) to indi-
158
The Rhetoric of Characterization
cate that the authorial audience is characterized by the same actions, attributes, and beliefs. As a result, the formulation of the rhetorical exigency is cast as a statement of problematized beliefs that characterize the authorial audience as disciple; and the exigency that the narrative rhetoric was designed to address is cast as a crisis of discipleship. The crisis of discipleship has its origin in the disciple's inadequate understanding of God's actions and attributes, the nature and extent of Jesus' positive relationship and identification with God, and the implications of these actions and attributes and this relationship for the disciple (1:1-15). Especially deficient is the disciple's recognition that God and Jesus have (and are the source and content of) the gospel (euayyeXiov) and that God has the holy Spirit (TTveO|±a dyiov), messengers (dyyeXos), and Jesus as God's Beloved Son (vlbg dyaTrr|TOS). These deficient beliefs are preventing the disciple from responding to Jesus' command to believe in the gospel and from accomplishing the related actions of observing God's commandments, doing/not doing what is/is not permitted, being forgiven, receiving everlasting life and a hundredfold with persecutions, and being a beneficiary of God's right hand, power, and possible things. The crisis of discipleship also has it origin in the disciple's failure to recognize that God necessitated that Jesus as Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise, that this failure has placed the disciple in opposition to Jesus and God, and that this opposition requires rehabilitative thinking and acting to restore the desired relationship with God and Jesus (8:31-9:1). Especially emphasized are the disciple's continuing resistance to accepting the Son of Man's necessary suffering, rejection, death, and resurrection and the disciple's resulting identification with Satan, which requires a renewal of discipleship through a willingness to destroy one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel as a means of being reconciled with the parousaic Son of Man. The disciple also does not recognize that previous identification with Jesus in being sent (dTTooreXXa)), casting out (eKpdXXa)), proclaiming (Kripuaaa)), having authority (efjoixna), and doing (noiea)) Jesus' saving actions (1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32) does not guarantee its present positive relationship with Jesus. It does, however, establish the potential for successful rehabilitation. The disciple also does not recognize that continuing as a beneficiary of the bread Jesus blesses and the cup of the covenant which he gives (6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26) is contingent on having this bread and distributing it to others and receiving this cup interpreted according to the passion elements of Jesus' portrayal. The crisis of discipleship overall concerns the failure to recognize adequately that belief in the gospel (euayyeXiov) of Jesus and God, which Jesus commands, demands that the disciple be willing to destroy his or her life in order to accomplish its proclamation to all nations (1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13). God necessitates (Set) this proclamation (13:10) just as God necessitated the suffering rejection, death, and resurrection by Jesus as Son of Man (8:31). Whereas Jesus
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
159
as Son of Man accomplished this mandate, the disciple is not doing so. God's reign (paaiXeta), which has drawn near, will have come in power for those who fulfill Jesus' command to believe and so proclaim the gospel before tasting death; but God's reign has not come in power for the disciple. God's holy Spirit (jTV€v\ia dyiov), by which Jesus baptizes, which has descended onto Jesus and cast him out into the desert, and which should speak the gospel through the disciple, is not doing so because the disciple is not willing to destroy his/her life and be handed over (7Tapa,8i8(ji)|ii). This disciple does not recognize that only the one who accomplishes what God necessitates receives everlasting life (£o)f| atoJvios) and truly obeys God's commandments (evToXii) and becomes the beneficiary of all possible things (Svvarov) and God's exercise of power (8uvapxs). This disciple does not recognize that rejection of the necessities concerning the Son of Man and failure to act on the pattern of the Son of Man are what precludes these from happening for the disciple. The narrative rhetoric and function of characterization indicate that the disciple has deficient and erroneous beliefs that God will intervene decisively for the disciple who is suffering or facing death for faithful proclamation of the gospel and apparently is waiting for God to do so. However, its faulty understanding of the gospel prevents a recognition that God does not act as the disciple wants (0e Xw) any more than God acted as God's Son wanted. Instead, God saves the one who destroy one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel on the pattern of God's saving action for the Son of Man, who was killed but rose. Thus, this disciple does not recognize that unwillingness to destroy one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel results in one's identification not with Jesus and God but with those who condemned Jesus as Son of Man as worthy of death and so precludes God's saving action for the disciple through the parousaic Son of Man.
2. Implications for Proposals of the Historical Exigency of the Composition Although this partial statement of the rhetorical exigency coheres in many ways with various more detailed and sophisticated proposals concerning the historical exigency of the composition of Mark, its utility for contributing to properly historical proposals is limited by the nature of the narrative communication and the process of authorial composition it presupposes.4 This discussion clarifies the nature of these constraints and, in so doing, identifies methodological problems with more direct applications of the content of Mark for proposals of the historical exigency. The discussion then considers a series of historical implications that satisfy these constraints. 4. A number of these proposals receive review and critique in Ernest Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983), 93-99.
160
The Rhetoric of Characterization
a. The Constraints concerning Implications The formulation of historical statements from the studies of characterization requires a change of focus from the authorial audience, the narratively proposed construct of the original real audience, to the original real audience itself. The previous studies give every indication that the Gospel of Mark as gospel constitutes a narrative communication that invites a response of faith from the real audience.5 The use of the common language of its day, the presumption of particular beliefs that may be evoked by minimal verbal cues, and the definition of particular words and explanation of specific concepts and practices indicate that the real author (whether a person or group) of Mark attempted to ensure the intelligibility of the narration by developing a model of the original real audience and then crafting the narrative rhetoric to address this audience. The repetition of vocabulary, contexts, and structures that relate particular beliefs and the coordination of rhetorical strategies that facilitate the experience of narrated situations and events also seem designed to guide the original real audience's interpretation of the narrative content in a way that permits this audience to experience the narration as an invitation to respond according to the cultivated beliefs of the narrative audience. Despite the apparent transparency of these observations, the nature of the narrative communication places severe constraints on the potential for the direct application of any narrative study to historical questions because the beliefs attributed to the authorial audience, whether simply evoked or problematized, necessarily will differ from those of the original real audience. First, even if the real author was a consistently successful rhetor, the narrative rhetoric can evoke only selected elements of the preexisting beliefs. As a result, the abstractable construct of the beliefs attributed to the authorial audience can constitute no more than a partial representation of the actual beliefs and experience of the original real audience. Second, since cultivation of the narrative audience's beliefs is best served by presenting the problematized elements of the authorial audience's beliefs in ways that clarify their proposed difficulties, those selected beliefs that are attributed to the original real audience and subsequently are problematized may be assumed to constitute caricatures of its actual beliefs to some degree.6 Third, the narrative rhetoric encourages specific interpretations of the proposed problematized beliefs by relating them in ways that need not parallel their preexisting relationships, so that the resulting beliefs of the authorial audience constitute to at least some degree an ideologically biased representation of the original 5. This discussion assumes the model of narrative communication originally proposed by Seymour Chatman {Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film [Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978], 28, 149-51), developed by Paul Danove (The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study [BIS 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 56-75), and refined by Bastiaan M. F. van Iersel (Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary [trans. W. H. Bisscheroux; JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 16-21). 6. Howard Ong, "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction," PMLA 90-91 (1975): 9-21; see also David A. Juel, Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 128-31.
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
161
audience's beliefs at specific points. Thus, even if the narration was successful in addressing and inviting its original real audience to a response of faith, the abstractable portrait of this audience, the authorial audience, can provide sure access only to a potentially biased caricature of selected elements of the original real audience's beliefs, presented in a way that was able to forestall the rejection of its content.7 A fourth consideration has implications for the use of the narrative content for proposals concerning the real author(s) of the composition. Although the previous studies of the beliefs cultivated for the narrative audience would seem to provide direct access to the beliefs that may be attributed to the real author, the limitations on applicability still apply. There is no way to guarantee that these cultivated beliefs actually characterized the real author and every reason to assume that this narrative communication, like all communication, projects an idealized portrait of the author (the implied author) and that the communication itself is directed as much to its real author as to its original real audience. Finally, the method's limited capacity to describe narrative developments that do not involve repetition excludes contributions to particular literary considerations that have been placed in the service of historical proposals. For example, the lack of significant verbal, contextual, or structural repetition in contexts in which Jesus silences demons and other characters prevents the direct contribution of the previous studies to considerations of a possible Messianic Secret motif or its implications for clarifying the historical exigency of the narration.8 b. Implications for the Historical Exigency Despite these limitations, the studies of characterization permit contributions to four proposals concerning the historical exigency of the composition of Mark.9 The first proposal concerns suggestions that the narration was written to address a real audience either experiencing or in danger of experiencing persecu7. Frank J. Matera observes that the narration has the potential to bring even an unsympathetic interpreter to entertain its proposed viewpoint (New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 261 n. 6). Thus, the narrative communication may have been successful even if the original real audience were unsympathetic to the implied portrait of itself. 8. The original proposal of the Messianic Secret in 1901 appears in William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (trans. J. C. G. Greig; Cambridge: James Clark, 1971), 11-149, 209-86. Eduard Schweizer ("Zur Messiasgeheimnis bei Markus," ZNW 56 [1965]: 1-8), William Robinson Jr. ("The Quest for Wrede's Secret Messiah," Int 27 [1973]: 10-30), and Heikki Raisanen (Das "Messiasgeheimnis" im Markusevangelium [FES 28; Helsinki: Lansi-Suomi, 1976]) present further developments on this theme: cf. The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; IRT 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 9. Surveys of the history of proposals concerning the real audience appear in Dwight N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (BIS 48; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), 1-21; and John R. Donahue, "The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 817-38.
162
The Rhetoric of Characterization
tion. Such proposals generally emphasize the two references to persecution (8io)y|i6s, 4:17; 10:30) and interpret Jesus' predictions about the Son of Man's near future experience and activity and his subsequent teachings as having direct implications for disciples.10 Further recommending a situation of actual persecution is the distinction Jesus introduces between insiders and outsiders and the Messianic Secret motif.11 The studies, however, found no special emphasis on persecution in that the word exhibits no concerted linkage to other vocabulary or repetition in contexts or structures that receive specialized development. The studies did note, however, that the contextual repetition of 8:35; 10:26-30; and 13:9-13 (ch. 4 sec. 3e) interprets persecution in terms of the required thinking and action of the disciple who leaves (dcjuruii) everything and follows (dKoAouOeG)) Jesus, who proclaims (Kipijaaa)) the gospel to all nations, who saves one's life (i|wxf|v |±i) it for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (eiayyeXiov) by being handed over (TTapa8i8o)|±i) and being put to death (GavaToa) < GdvaTos) on the pattern of Jesus as Son of Man, and who receives everlasting life (£cof) alwviov) in the coming age. Thus, the narrative rhetoric interprets persecution in terms of the required actions and attributes of the disciple, especially when sent to proclaim, and not in terms of particular "acute" situations.n The second proposal concerns suggestions that the narration is designed to correct a christological problem associated with the original real audience's improper identification of Jesus as a Hellenistic divine man, that is, a human being endowed with divine power that is manifested primarily in working miracles.13 Such proposals interpret the emphasis on miracle stories in the earlier portrayal of Jesus as Son of God (prior to Mark 8:31) as a device that clarifies the real audience's erroneous beliefs and the emphasis on the near future experience and activity of Jesus as Son of Man beginning in Mark 8:31 and similar "passion" elements elsewhere in Jesus' portrayal as the corrective to this error.14 The 10. Joel Marcus provides an excellent survey of this topic {Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 28-33). Juel would interpret the persecutions as only potential or even as a theme to jolt a complacent community (Master of Surprise, 162). 11. Francis Watson, "The Social Function of Mark's Secrecy Theme," JSNT 24 (1985): 49-69. 12. See David Rhoads, "Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judgment," in Gospel Interpretation: Narrative Critical & Social Scientific Approaches (ed. Jack Dean Kingsbury; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 88-89. 13. Discussions of this concept appear in Helmut H. Koester, "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels," HTR 61 (1968): 203-47, here 230-36; and Johannes Schreiber, "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums," ZTK 58 (1961): 154-83. A survey of the development of this concept and its application to Markan studies appears in Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 25-^0. 14. Theodore J. Weeden, Mark—Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 54-64; Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 51-57, and idem, "The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology," JR 51 (1971): 173-87, here 178-81; Leander E. Keck, "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology," JBL 84 (1965): 341-58, here 354-58; Paul J. Achtemeier, "Gospel Miracle Tradition and Divine Man," Int 36 (1972): 174-97. Ralph P. Martin, in con-
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
163
previous studies, however, discovered only positive evaluations of Jesus' actions in the miracle stories and would support negative critiques of such proposals.15 The third proposal concerns suggestions that the christological problem, whatever its nature, was being introduced into the original real audience by outside sources and that the narration is a response to this external threat.16 The narrative rhetoric, however, locates the authorial audience's christological error in its preexisting beliefs that do not recognize that God necessitates the Son of Man's suffering, rejection, death, and resurrection and that the Christ is to be identified by the deeds of the parousaic Son of Man. Thus, the previous studies indicate the christological problem facing the original real audience is its traditional christology.17 The fourth proposal concerns attempts to isolate a particular application of the narration by the original real audience. Some see the narration as designed primarily for use in missionary preaching.18 A primary use in the instruction of new converts, perhaps in the catecumenate, also is suggested.19 Others propose a primarily liturgical use as a lectionary.20 The previous studies, however, indicate trast, identifies the problem as the real audience's too heavy emphasis on its union with the heavenly Christ, which Mark similarly counterbalances with an emphasis on the near future experience and activity of the Son of Man (Mark: Evangelist and Theologian [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972], 156-62). 15. Negative critiques of these proposals generally are based on the ambiguity of the term "divine man," the apparent positive evaluation of Jesus' miracles, and Mark's overall theology: see Carl H. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology (SBLDS 40; Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1977); Howard C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 297-99; Kingsbury, Christology, 33-44; W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 160; and M. Eugene Boring, "Markan Christology: God Language for Jesus?" NTS 45 (1999): 457. 16. Norman Perrin, "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions in Mark," USQR 23 (1968): 357-65, here 357. Werner H. Kelber ("Mark 14:32-42: Passion Christology and Discipleship Failure," ZNW 63 [1972]: 166-87, here 186-87) would associate this external threat explicitly with the Jerusalem church and cites in support J. B. Tyson, "The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark," JBL 80 (1961), 261-68, here 265-67, and S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Early Christianity (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967), 275-79. 17. Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 1. 18. Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1023; Johannes Weiss, Das dlteste Evangelium: Ein Beitragzum Verstdndnis des Markus-EvangelHums und der dltesten evangelischen IJberlieferung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 22-42; cf. Martin Dibelius, "The Structure and Literary Character of the Gospels," #77? 20(1927): 151-70, here 162. 19. Philip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), 70. 20. Philip Carrington, 7%e Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952); M. D. Goulder, The Evangelist's Calendar (London: SPCK, 1978), 241-306. Benoit Herman Marguerite Ghislain Marie Standaert (L'Evangile selon Marc: Composition et genre litteraire [Brugge: Sint-Adriesabdij, 1978], 496-619) considers the possible baptismal (pp. 498-540) or paschal (pp. 541-616) use of Mark.
164
The Rhetoric of Characterization
that the narrative rhetoric assumes for the authorial audience extensive preexisting beliefs as well as considerable prior success when on mission. These suggest that the narration was designed primarily to address established members of the original real audience, whether inside or outside the context of the liturgy.21
3. Application: Mark's Theological Beliefs Since the contours of the most emphasized elements of a partial statement of Mark's theological beliefs already are available by contrast in the partial statement of the rhetorical exigency of the narration, this discussion considers only the methodological approach required to develop a rigorous and comprehensive statement of Mark's theology (of God), christology (of Jesus), and mathetology (of the disciple). This methodological approach follows the same five-stage analysis of the content of the studies of the characterization as the investigation of the rhetorical exigency of the narration with the following modifications. The first stage again identifies the semantic data. This discussion, however, explicates with respect to each character all realized semantic content of semantic frames, whether cultivated by sophisticating repetition or realized by neutral repetition. As a result, the reservoir of semantic data for future discussion will be expanded vastly. The second stage identifies the beliefs cultivated and evoked without modification by the narrative rhetoric of the repetition. This discussion includes beliefs evoked by neutral repetition because all beliefs not explicitly problematized by the narrative rhetoric are deemed to cohere with cultivated beliefs. The distinction between sophisticating and deconstructive repetition is interpreted exclusively in terms of emphasis, with the straightforward introduction of content through sophisticating repetition imposing a lesser emphasis and the cultivation of content with prior narrative development and contextual warrants through deconstructive repetition imposing greater emphasis. Also emphasized are beliefs and affective responses cultivated through the frustration of narratively cultivated expectations. The third stage relates cultivated beliefs according to the outlines of the rhetorical organization and incorporation that appear in the Appendix. Beliefs evoked by neutral repetition then are associated with cultivated beliefs through contextual and thematic considerations. In distinction to the study of the rhetorical exigency, this stage of the development receives greatest emphasis; for traditional discussions of biblical theology tend to focus on the beliefs associated with specific characters. 21. Mary Anne Beavis, Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4:11 12 (JSNTSup 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 66; W. T. Shiner, Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS 145; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 185 n. 26; and Marcus, Mark 1-8,28.
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
165
The fourth stage identifies beliefs cultivated by the narrative rhetoric of characterization. This discussion produces statements of cultivated beliefs similar to those from the studies of the narrative rhetoric of characterization and attributes emphases as explained above. These are incorporated at appropriate points in the discussion of the third stage. The fifth stage relates the cultivated and realized beliefs about specific characters to each other, again primarily through contextual linkages in their characterizations. Where these are not available, previously noted links derived from the semantic rhetoric (vocabulary and relationships between designations) as well as thematic developments are employed. Again, statements of relationships are incorporated at appropriate points in the discussion of the third stage.
4. Implications for Rigor and Specificity in Statements of Theological Beliefs The development of a single, integrated, and coherent method for analyzing the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization has significant implications for articulatingrigorousand specific statements of Mark's theology, christology, and mathetology. First, the method provides procedures for establishing a grammatically justified corpus of semantic data whose interpretation provides a basis for determining the propriety of incorporating less securely established data into the analysis. For example, the original analysis of references to God excluded the occurrence of hand over (Trapa8i8(it)|ju) in 14:21 as a probable reference to God's agency based on a lack of supporting contextual indicators. The studies of the characterization of God and Jesus, however, revealed an overarching theme of God's agency in the events surrounding Jesus' death and would support incorporation of this reference into discussions of God's agency and of Jesus' indirect positive relationship with God. Second, the method provides access to a large quantity of grammatically justified semantic data about the characters that may be placed in the service of theological interpretation. For example, although the characterization of God is much more attenuated than that of Jesus or his disciples, the previous study identified 219 references to God and thirty-five actions and attributes of God that receive specialized development. The capacity of the proposed method to clarify the manner in which all of the referenced beliefs are related to these thirty-five actions and attributes and the manner in which these beliefs are organized into a unified framework for interpretation establishes the possibility for developing a very detailed and nuanced statement of Mark's theology. Third, the data of the previous studies recommend the articulation of Markan mathetology as a distinct project in parallel with Markan theology and christology. Contemporary scholarship is correct in viewing Jesus as the model or para-
166
The Rhetoric of Characterization
digm for discipleship in Mark.22 The narrative rhetoric develops the positively evaluated actions and attributes that identify the disciple with Jesus, especially when on mission, through the same vocabulary that is applied to Jesus, establishes Jesus as the exemplar for doing what God wants even when one wants otherwise, and patterns the thinking and acting required to rehabilitate the errant disciple on the necessary experience and activity of the Son of Man. The previous studies indicate, however, that Mark's theological beliefs about the disciple are not completely derivative of Mark's christology through a straightforward process of "subtracting" particular actions and attributes that are reserved to Jesus (and God), "projecting" actions and attributes that are patterned on those of Jesus, and "negating" actions and attributes of Jesus to arrive at negatively evaluated actions and attributes of the disciple. Instead, Mark's theological beliefs about the disciple incorporate elements whose relationship to theological beliefs about Jesus remains obscure. For example, cultivated beliefs recognize that the disciple on occasion fears or does not know and responds inappropriately or thinks erroneously and acts improperly and that no disciple completely avoids such failures and the consequent need for rehabilitative thinking and acting. Thus, a constitutive element of Mark's mathetology is failure and the need for rehabilitation. However, although the thinking and acting required to rehabilitate the errant disciple are patterned on the Son of Man, neither the disciple's failure nor the disciple's rehabilitative thinking and acting are derivative of Jesus' portrayal in a straightforward manner. In fact, the Son of Man and disciples are directly positively related only in being handed over (Trapa8L8oj|iL, 9:31; 10:33a, 33b; 14:21, 41/13:9, 11, 12) and death (GdvaTOS, 10:33; 14:64/9:1; 13:12). The rehabilitative actions and attributes that precede this concluding positive alignment, however, are devoid of vocabulary parallels. Nor is the process of derivation exclusively from Jesus/the Son of Man to the disciple; for the only remaining exact vocabulary parallel appears in Jesus' statement that the parousaic Son of Man will be ashamed of the disciple who is ashamed of Jesus and his words (8:38). Here it is the disciple, not Jesus, who determines the nature of the relationship! A further example concerns the fact that the disciple's fear is interpreted in terms of lacking faith (4:40-41); but the narration offers no direct development of the faith of Jesus and, instead, reserves such developments to other, usually nonrecurrent, characters and their interaction with Jesus. Thus, although every aspect of the disciple's presentation ultimately is related to Jesus, the nature of this relationship is not always transparent 22. See, e.g., John R. Donahue, "Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark," Int 32 (1978): 369-86, here 377-78; P. Davis, "Christology, Discipleship, and Self-Understanding in the Gospel of Mark," in Self-Definition and Self-Discovery in Early Christianity: A Case of Shifting Horizons: Essays in Appreciation of Ben F. Meyerfrom His Former Students (ed. D. Hawkin and T. Robinson; Lewiston: Mellen, 1990), 101-19; and Larry W. Hurtado, "Following Jesus in the Gospel of Mark—and Beyond," in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 9-29, here 25-27.
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion
167
and not always unidirectional from Jesus to the disciple; and a separate formulation of Mark's mathetology would ensure that the more problematic elements of the relationship between Mark's theology of Jesus and Mark's theology of the disciple are not merely glossed.
5. Conclusion The previous studies proposed a rigorous method for analyzing and describing the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization. Application of this method produced detailed studies of the characterizations of God, Jesus, Jesus' disciples, and the women at the tomb. The studies of characterization provided a detailed consideration of the vocabulary, contexts, and structures in which these characters appear, an outline of the organization of beliefs about these characters, and clarifications concerning the manner in which portrayal of these characters contributes to other narrative developments. The distinctions between realized, sophisticated, and deconstructed content also clarified the beliefs asserted for the authorial audience and proposed for the narrative audience. These beliefs became the basis for a partial statement of the rhetorical exigency of the narration and its implications for discussion of the historical exigency of the composition of Mark. They also constituted the basis for a proposal for rigorous and specific statements of Markan theology, christology, and mathetology from an extensive corpus of methodologically justified data. As such, the studies of characterization not only contributed to the study of characterization in Mark but have significant applications and implications for other areas of Markan scholarship.
APPENDIXES
The graphic representations of the organization and incorporation of cultivated beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples follow the guidelines that appear in chap. 2 sec. 5, chap. 3 sec. 4, and chap. 5 sec. 4. For purposes of clarification in Appendix C, the presentation includes notations on the semantic arguments at appropriate points: (a) for agent; (e) for experiencer; (s) for source; and (g) for goal. A. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God The Narrative Frame Associated with God 13:32-37 [dyyeXos
[12:1-12
+
1:1-15 dyyeXos
+
8:31-9:1 dyyeXos]
+
13:3-13]
8:31-9:1
+
13:3-13]
[TTaTTjp
[12:1-12
[vibs dyaTT.
+
13:32-37 dfToaTeXXa)] vibs dyaTT.] [paaiXeta [TTvet)|ia
[12:1-12]
[1:1-15]
Xeyco TTOieO)
686s TrXrjpoa)
168
euayyeXiov paatXeta]
eijayyeXiov]
[8et
86L]
B. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus Narrative Frames Associated with Jesus [1:16-20
3:13-19
[710160)
7TO160)
6:6b-32] direpx.] ?*™l€w]
[npoaKaX.
I
[3:13-19] 6eX(D TTapa8i8.
[6:33-44
8:1-10
II
ii
[aTToareX.
[*KT\pVOOU>
Narr. Fr. Ass. with Son of Man
|| || || ||
II
it
II
*<EKpdXXu)]
||
||
[8:31-9:1
*KT]pi)aaa)] TrpoQKCtX.] i
|| || ||
[SiSdcnco)
1 [6:6b-32]
II ||
II
*0epaTTeij(jt)
||
8L8O)JXL]
+
10:32-45] dytara.]
9:30-41
II
8(80)^.1
14:22-26]
II
8:31-9:1
II
TTpOCTKaX.]
II II
||
II jl
rrapaStS.]
[TTapaStS.
1
[8:31-9:1] 8
el
I
1
[10:32-45]
[9:30-41] dTToareXXa) BeXa)
8L8U)H.I
OVO\LCL
eiKiyyeX.
TTOL60)
eiXoyeoa]
[Xa|ipd.
Xct|ipdva)
Xajipdva)]
KaraKp.
[dTToXvo)
[8:27-9:1
13:21-27 €pxo|iat opdo)
[8:1-10]
[14:22-26]
+
14:60-65] opdo)]
I
\LOV
[8:27-9:1]
[13:21-27]
€TTLTL|ld0)
aTroaTeXXo)
[14:60-65] KdTClKp.
[1:1-15
8:31-9:1
13:3-13]
[euayyeX. [*TTapa8[.
euayyeX.
eiiayyeX.] *Trapa8[.]
[8eX
*8ei]
[1:1-15]
II II
I
[13:3-13] ovofia
I
6865 1/169 dya.
II
II (Other Designations)
[1:1-15 [vlbs dy.
+
II
12:1-12 1/169 dy. [*8oOXo9 1 [12:1-12] dTTOSOKlfl.
II+
13:32-37]
ep
S]Ll
80DX09] 1
1 [13:32-37] 8L8O)|IL
e^ouai. 8(8 ol8a
!
(J. t. Nazarene) (Teacher) (King of t. J.)
e y e L poo orav pooo
(King of Israel) uravpos (Rabbi)
TrapaSiSa)
(Son oft. Bl.)
edvaTos
(Son of God) (Son of Mary)
C. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus' Disciples Narrative Frames Associated with Jesus' Disciples [1:16-20 [drrepx-
+
[*Troiea)
3:13-19 dTiepx.
6:6b-32] drrepx.]
*TTOl€(i)
TTOLCO)]
[aTroaxeX. [dTroaroX. [
diTocrreX.] drroaroX.] €KpdXXd)] 8a)8eKa]
[KT\pVGGd)
|| II || || || jj || II
KT)pVGG(ti]
||
[irpoaKaX. [e^ouaia
TTpOCTKCtX.]
||
efowia) Sevre]
[8e£rre |
1
[3:13-19]
[1:16-20] aKoXoi)0.
TTapa8t8.
OTTlGb)
\
[6:6b-32] 8t8da. (a) 8t8da. (e) 0€8paTrS(o
[6:33-44 [818. (g) [ea0ia> [dp. exw [Xa[ip.(s)
+
|| || || II || ||
II
8:1-10 (g)
8L8.
ea0L(D
[p.a0T]TT]9
dp. ex^] Xafi|3. (s)] P-a©!]^?1]
[irapaTL.
TTapaTL0.]
II II
|| ||
[8:31-9:1
+
9:30-41
+
10:32-45]
[8:31-32a [8i8d(7Kw
+
9:30-32
+
10:32-34]
II
II
8i8daKO)] [c))oPeofiaL [*7rapa8t.
1
<j>opeo|iai] *7rapa8L]
i
[8:31-32b]
II
1
[9:30-32]
[10:32-34]
lianas
8^8€Ka
\\
II I! || || IIII
II
j| ||
II !! ||
II|| 14:22-26] 8i8.(g)] ecrSiw]
Narr. Fr. Ass. w. Women
8:31-9:1
II
II
[8:32b-33 i [8:32b-33]
em-ri^i. (a)
||
eTTLTi^i. (e)
||
c|>poi/ea)
||
0771 GO)
||
iiaeTiTfjg
II
|| ||
+
II
[8:34-9:1 [BeXa)
9:33-34 | 1 [9:33-34] SiaXoytC.
+
10:35-41] j
[10:35-41] T7LVO)
ol 8a parrTiCo) +
9:35-41 0eXa)
+
10:42-45] 0eX(o]
t
Ir
dTTOXXi)|lL]
[SidKOvos
[6:33-44]
[8:1-10]
[14:22-26]
TTpoaKaX.
Xap-P. (g)
[TTptOTOS
TTIVO)
8L8CD. (a)
[TTpoaKaX.
[1:1-15
TTparros] *8L8O)JIL]
TTpoaKaX.]
I
12:1-12
13:32-37]
[8:34-9:1]
[*8oDXos
SOCIXOS]
OavaTOS
[9:35-41]
I
[10:42-45]
SoDXos OTTiaG)
[1:1-15]
[13:32-37]
II
[8:34-9:1
10:26-30
yprjyopeo) [aKoXou0.
ol8a
13:3-13]
[Qavaros
I
[10:26-30]
[8:34-9:1] as above
[13:3-13]
d(()LT]|lL
Xa|ipdva)
XaXea)
TrapaSiS. 8eX [8:27-9:1 [6pda>
[8:27-9:1]
+
13:19-27 opdo)
14:60-65]
[13:19-27]
[14:60-65]
*6pdd)]
f i
5'
173 Appendixes
o
\r-
o
" CT — "
2 ^ §
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, M. H. Doing Things with Texts: Essays in Criticism and Critical Theory. New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. Achtemeier, Paul J. "Gospel Miracle Tradition and Divine Man." Int 36 (1972): 174-97. . Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Aland, Barbara, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1993. Aland, Kurt. "Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums." inNeotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour ofMatthew Black, edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox, 12-30. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969. Alter, Robert. The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible JSOTSup 70. Sheffield: Almond, 1989. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Beavis, Mary Anne. Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4:11-12. JSNTSup 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Best, Ernest. 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 The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, edited by F. Van Segbroeck et al., 2:839-55. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. -. "Role of the Disciples in Mark." NTS 23 (1977): 377-401. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited and translated by Robert Funk, with supplementary notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Boomershine, Thomas E., and Gilbert L. Bartholomew. "The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8." JBL 100 (1981): 213-23. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Boring, M. Eugene. "Markan Christology: God Language for Jesus?" NTS 45 (1999): 451-71. 174
Bibliography
175
Borrell, Agusti. The Good News of Peter's Denial: A Narrative and Rhetorical Reading of Mark 14:54, 66-72. Translated by Sean Conlon. ISFCJ 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et ai. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Early Christianity. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967. Broadhead, Edwin K. "Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." JSNTA1 (1992): 21-34. . Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 74. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels. 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Brown, Russell. "Theme." In Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms, edited by IrenaR. Makaryk. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Bryan, Christopher. A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its Literary and Cultural Settings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Carrington, Philip. The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952. . The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940. Chafe, Wallace L. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978. Chronis, Harry L. "The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-39." JBL 101 (1982): 97-114. Collins, John J. "The Son of Man in First-Century Judaisms." NTS 38 (1992): 448-66. Cook, Walter A. "A Case Grammar Matrix." Language and Linguistics Working Papers No. 6, Georgetown University Press (1972): 15-47. Cranfleld, C. E. B. The Gospel according to St Mark: An Introduction and Commentary. CGNTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Danove, Paul. "The Characterization and Narrative Function of the Women at the Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)." Bib 11 (1996): 375-97. . The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study. BIS 3. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993. . Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon. JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
176
The Rhetoric of Characterization
. "The Narrative Function of Mark's Characterization of God." NovT 43 (2001): 12-30. . "The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark's Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples." JSNT70 (1998): 21-38. . "The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus as Son of Man and Christ in Mark." Bib 84 (2003): 16-34. . "A Rhetorical Analysis of Mark's Construction of Discipleship." In Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essays from the 1998 Florence Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, 289-306. JSNTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Davis, P. "Christology, Discipleship, and Self-Understanding in the Gospel of Mark." In Self-Definition and Self Discovery in Early Christianity: A Case of Shifting Horizons: Essays in Appreciation of Ben F. Meyer from His Former Students, edited by D. Hawkin and T. Robinson, 101-19. Lewiston: Mellen, 1990). Dewey, Joanna. "The Gospel of Mark." In Searching the Scriptures: Volume 2, A Feminist Commentary, edited by Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, 470-509. New York: Crossroad, 1993. Dibelius, Martin. "The Structure and Literary Character of the Gospels." HTR 20 (1927): 151-70. Dillon, Richard J. "'As One Having Authority' (Mark 1:22): The Controversial Distinction of Jesus' Teaching." CBQ 37 (1995): 92-113. Dirven, Rene, and Marjolyn Verspoor. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1998. Docherty, Thomas. Reading (Absent) Character: Towards a Theory of Characterization in Fiction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. Donahue, John R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 10. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973. . "Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark." Int 32 (1978): 36986. . "A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark." JBL 101 (1982): 56394. . "The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel." In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, edited by F. van Segbroeck et al., 817-38. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. . "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel." CBQ 57 (1995): 1-26. Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. SPS 2. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002. Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979. Edwards, J. R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." JETS 37 (1994): 217-33.
Bibliography
177
Fackre, Gabriel. "Narrative Theology: An Overview." Int 37 (1983): 340-52. Fillmore, Charles J. "The Case for Case." In Universal in Linguistic Theory, edited by Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1-88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968). . "Frames and the Semantics of Understanding." Quaderni di Semantica 6(1985): 222-53. . "The Need for Frame Semantics within Linguistics." Statistical Methods in Linguistics 1 (1976): 5-29. . "'U'-Semantics, Second Round." Quaderni di Semantica 7 (1986): 4958. Fillmore, Charles J., and Paul Kay. Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI, 1999. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980. Fleddermann, Harry. "The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50)." CBQ 43 (1981): 57-75. Fowler, Robert M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader Response and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. . Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 54. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. . "The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark." Semeia 48 (1989): 115-34. Giblin, Charles H. "The Beginning of the Ongoing Gospel (MK 1,2-16,8)." In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, edited by Frans van Segbroeck et al., 975-86. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Givon, T. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. 2 volumes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984, 1990. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKKNT 2.1-2. 2 volumes. Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978,1979. Goulder, M. D. The Evangelist's Calendar. London: SPCK, 1978. Graff, Gerald. "Literature as Assertions." In American Critics at Work: Examinations of Contemporary Literary Theories, edited by Victor A. Kramer, 81-110. Troy, N.Y.: Whitson Publishing, 1984. Graumann, Carl Friedrich. Grundlagen einer Phdnomenologie und Psychologie der Perspektivitdt. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960. Grundmann, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959. Guelich, Robert A. "'The Beginning of the Gospel' Mark 1:1-15." BibRes 27 (1982): 5-15. . Mark 1-8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
178
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Hanson, James S. The Endangered Promises: Conflict in Mark. SBLDS 171. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Harris, Randy Allen. The Linguistics Wars. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Heil, John Paul. The Gospel of Mark as a Model for Action: A Reader-Response Commentary. New York: Paulist, 1992. . Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt 14:22-23, Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-21. AnBib 82. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Henderson, Suzanne Watts. "'Concerning the Loaves': Comprehending Incomprehension in Mark 6:45-52." JSNT&3 (2001): 3-25. Holladay, Carl H. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977. Humphrey, Hugh M. He Is Risen! A New Reading of Mark's Gospel. New York: Paulist, 1992. Hurtado, Larry W. "Following Jesus in the Gospel of Mark—and Beyond." In Patterns ofDiscipleship in the New Testament, edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 9-29. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. . The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Jackendoff, Ray S. Semantic Structures. CSL 18. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990. Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971. Juel, Donald. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Keck, Leander E. "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology." JBL 84 (1965): 34158. Kee, Howard C. Miracle in the Early Christian World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Kelber, Werner H. "Mark 14:32-42: Passion Christology and Discipleship Failure." ZNW 63 (1972): 166-87. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. The Christology of Mark's Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. . Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76. Koester, Helmut H. "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels." HTR 61 (1968): 203-47.
Bibliography
179
LaVerdiere, Eugene. The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark. II. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999. Leroux, N. R. "Repetition, Progression, and Persuasion in Scripture." Neot 29 (1995): 1-25. Lightfoot, Robert H. The Gospel Message of St. Mark. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950. Lincoln, Andrew T. "The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7, 8." JBL 108 (1989): 283-300. Luhrmann, D. Das Markusevangelium. HNT 3. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987. Magness, J. Lee. Sense and Absence: Structure and the Suspension in the Ending of the Gospel of Mark. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. "The Jesus of Mark and the Sea of Galilee." JBL 103 (1984): 363-77. . "Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?" In Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, edited by Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000. . The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Marshall, Christopher. Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Marxsen, Willi. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel. Translated by J. Boyce et al. New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1969. Matera, Frank J. New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. . "The Prologue as the Interpretive Key to Mark's Gospel." JSNT 34 (1988): 3-20. Martin, Ralph P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972. McCawley, James D. Grammar and Meaning. New York: Academic Press, 1976. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975. Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. . "Mark 6:6b-30: Mission, the Baptist, and Failure." CBQ 63 (2001): 647-63. Moore Stephen D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988. Neirynck, Frans. Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1972.
180
The Rhetoric of Characterization
. "The Tradition of the Sayings of Jesus: Mark 9,33-50." In The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition, edited by Pierre Benoit and Roland E. Murphy, 62-74. Translated by Theodore L. Westow. Concilium 20. New York: Paulist, 1967. Newmeyer, Frederick J. Linguistic Theory in America: The First QuarterCentury of Transformational Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1980. O'Collins, Gerald. "The Fearful Silence of Three Women (Mark, 16:8c)." Greg 69 (1988): 489-503. Ong, Howard. "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction." PMLA 90-91 (1975): 9-21. Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982. Perrin, Norman. "The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology." JR 51 (1971): 173-87. . "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions in Mark." USQR 23 (1968): 357-65. -. What Is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Perrin, Norman, and Dennis C. Duling. The New Testament, An Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. Perry, Menakhem. "Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates Its Meaning." Poetics Today 1.1-2 (1970): 35-64, 311-61. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. Freiburg: Herder, 1984. Petersen, Norman. "'Point of View' in Mark's Narrative." Semeia 12 (1978): 97-121. . "When Is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark's Narrative." Int 34 (1980): 151-66. Peterson, Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. BIS 48. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000. Platt, John T. Grammatical Form and Grammatical Meaning: A Tagmemic View ofFillmore's Deep Structure Case Concepts. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1971. Pokorny, P. "From a Puppy to a Child: Some Problems of Contemporary Biblical Exegesis Demonstrated from Mark 7.24-30/Matt 15:21-8." NTS 41 (1995): 321-37. Prince, Gerald. Narrative as Theme: Studies in French Fiction. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991. Pryke, E. J. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Rabinowitz, Peter J. Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Bibliography
181
. "Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences." Critical Inquiry 4 (1974): 121-41. Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935. Raisanen, Heikki. Das "Messiasgeheimnis" im Markusevangelium. FES 28. Helsinki: Lansi-Suomi, 1976. Read, David H. C. "The Cry of Dereliction." ExpTim 68 (1956-57): 260-62. Rhoads, David. "Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark: A NarrativeCritical Study." JAAR 62 (1994): 343-75. . "Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judgment." In Gospel Interpretation: Narrative Critical & Social Scientific Approaches, edited by Jack Dean Kingsbury, 83-94. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997. Rhoads, David, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992. Robinson, William, Jr. "The Quest for Wrede's Secret Messiah." Int 27 (1973): 10-30. Ross, John R. "Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] Pfhrase] Deletion." Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970): 264-65. Saeed, John I. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Sag, Ivan, and Jorge Hankamer. "Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing." Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984): 325-45. Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44." BSac 157 (2000): 15-25. Schneiders, Sandra M. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. San Francisco: Harper, 1991. Schreiber, Johannes. "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums." ZTK 58 (1961): 154-83. . Theologie des Vertrauens. Hamburg: Furche-Verlag H. Rennebach, K. G., 1967. Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Richmond: John Knox, 1970. . "Zur Messiasgeheimnis bei Markus." ZNW 56 (1965): 1-8. Shiner, W. T. Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric. SBLDS 145. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Slater, Thomas B. "One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism." NTS 41 (1995): 183-98. Standaert, Benoit Herman Marguerite Ghislain Marie. L 'Evangile selon Marc: Composition et genre litteraire. Brugge: Sint-Adriesabdij, 1978. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stock, Augustine. The Method and Message ofMark. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989.
182
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Stock, Klemens. Die Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhdltnis zwischen Jesus und der Zwolfnach Markus. AnBib 70. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975. Tannehill, Robert C. "Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role." JR 57 (1977): 386-405. . "The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology." Semeia 16 (1979): 57-95. -. The Sword of His Mouth, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Tate, W. Randolph. Reading Mark from the Outside: Eco and her Leave Their Marks. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1994. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1963. Telford, W. R. The Theology of the Gospel ofMark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Tesniere, Lucien. Elements de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959. Tolbert, Mary Ann. "How the Gospel of Mark Builds Character." Int 47 (1993): 347-57. . Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Tuckett, Christopher, ed. 77**? Messianic Secret. IRT 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Turner, Nigel. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Volume 3, Syntax. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963. Tyson, J. B. "The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark." JBL 80 (1961): 261-68. van Dijk, Tuen. "Semantic Macro-Structures and Knowledge Frames in Discourse Comprehension." In Cognitive Processes in Comprehension, edited by Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A. Carpenter, 3-32. Hillsdale, N.Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. van Iersel, Bastiaan M. F. "Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark." LB 55 (1983): 45-54. . Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux. JSNTSup 164. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. -. "The Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of Connotation." Semeia 48 (1989): 83-114. Via, Dan O. "Irony as Hope in Mark's Gospel: A Reply to Werner Kelber." Semeia 48 (1988): 21-27. Waetjen, Herman C. A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Watson, Francis. "The Social Function of Mark's Secrecy Theme." JSNT 24 (1985): 49-69. Weeden, Theodore J. Mark—Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. . "The Markan Mystery and Mark's Messiah for Faith." CS 34 (1995): 17-31. Weiss, Johannes. Das dlteste Evangelium: Ein Beitrag zum Verstdndnis des Markus-Evangeliums und der dltesten evangelischen Uberlieferung. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903.
Bibliography
183
Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Winston, Patrick. Artificial Intelligence. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977. Wong, Simon S. M. A Classification of Semantic Case-Relations in the Pauline Epistles. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret Translated by J. C. G. Greig. Cambridge: James Clark, 1971. Zerwick, Maximilian. Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci. 3rd ed. SPIB 107. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1966. . Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. 2nd ed. Rome: Scripti Pontificii Biblici, 1985.
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1:1-2:3 29 1:2 29n.4 51 1:6 39 1:27 67n. 22 32:31 29n.4 41:38
2 Kings 1:8
34
2 Chronicles 24:20
29n. 4
Psalms 21:2 22:1 109:1 110:1 117:22-23
55 55n. 40 74,131 39,74 74n. 33
Exodus 3:6 3:15 3:16 20:12 23:20 33:17-34:8
39 39 39 71 3, 7n. 21 67n. 22
Leviticus 18:16 24:5-9
36 36
Numbers 23:7 24:2
29n.4 29n.4
5:5 5:6 5:7
Deuteronomy 5:16 24:1 24:3
71 36 36
40:3
1 Samuel 10:10 19:9 19:20 19:23 21:2-7
29n.4 29n.4 29n.4 29n.4 4
1 Kings 19:11-13
67n. 22
Isaiah 5:1 5:1a 5:1b 5:1-7 5:2 5:3 5:4
53:6 53:12 56:7
43n. 29 43,43n. 29 43,43n. 29 43,43n. 29 43 43,44 43,43n. 29, 44 43 43,44 43,43n. 29, 44 7n. 21,8,51, 58 31n. 11 31n. 11 40
Ezekiel 11:24
29n.4
Daniel 4:8 4:9 4:18
29n. 4 29n.4 29n.4
184
5:11 5:14 7:13 7:13-14 12:1 Malachi 3:1 3:23
29n.4 29n.4 74,131 73 67n. 22
3,7n. 21,8, 29,43,50-51 34
NEW TESTAMENT Mark 123 1 91 1-3 5 1-13 16,29n. 4, 1:1 33n. 13,34, 86n. 44 34 1:1-3 34 1:1-11 21n. 44, 1:1-15 42-53, 58n. 3, 80-82, 104n. 29, 116,118-20, 123,145-48, 150-51,154, 156-58,168, 170,172-73 30 1:1-16:8 29, 29n. 4, 1:2 34,55 3,7,7n. 21, 1:2-3 34,34n. 18 34 1:2-9 1:2-13 15 55 1:2-13:37
185
Index of References 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:14-14:26 1:15 1:16 1:16-18 1:16-20
1:16-3:13 1:16-8:26 1:17 1:19-20 1:20 1:20-3:12 1:22 1:37 1:40-42 1:40-45 1:44 1:45 2 2:2 2:3 2:10 2:13-14 2:13-15 2:15 2:28
20, 33n. 14, 58 20 31n. 9 34 20,34 29, 30n. 8, 34n. 18 29, 3 In. 8 10,34,34n. 17 31n. 8 20, 29, 3In. 9 20,33n. 13 15 HOn. 40 19,52,54, 122,125, 131n. 7 19,75n. 35 75-76, 75-76n. 35, 76n. 36, 82, 104-7,111, 113,115, 120,122-24, 139,149, 153,157-58, 169,171 125 49,50,51, 52,53,54 113 19,75n. 35 122 124 131n. 7 96n.14 134 134 134 62n.12 123 44 31n. 9 72n. 27 75n. 35 19 103 72n. 27
3 3:4 3:8 3:10 3:13-19
3:13-6:6a 3:14 3:16 3:19 3:2O-6:6a 3:29 3:32 3:34 3:35 4:10 4:10-13 4:35-41 4:36 4:41 5:4 5:8 5:19 5:28 5:31 5:36 5:42 6 6:1 6:2 6:6b-13
6:6b-32 6:7 6:14 6:14-29
123 63nl4,64n. 17 65 131n. 7 75-76, 75-76n. 36, 82,104-7, 111,113, 115,120, 123-24,149, 153,157-58, 169,171 96 104 104 20 124 31n. 8 9,10 10 64n. 17 104 95nn.9,11 67n. 23 97 96n. 14 31n. 9 131n. 7 33n. 14 63 103 96 134 123 103 31n. 9 39, 75-76, 75-76n. 36, 82,104-6, 106n. 32, 107,111, 113,115, 120,123-24, 149,153, 157-58 169,171 104 131n. 7 106n. 32
6:17 6:17-29 6:18 6:20 6:29 6:30 6:30-32
6:32 6:33-44
6:33-8:26 6:35 6:37b 6:41 6:45 6:45-52 6:48 6:50 6:50-52 6:52 6:56 7 7:2 7:3 7:5 7:6-13 7:17 7:24 7:31-37 7:32-36 7:36 7:37a 8 8:1
131n. 7 20 34,13 In. 7 23,13 In. 7 20 97,105n. 30 39, 75-76, 75-76n. 36, 82,104-6, 106n. 32, 107,111, 113,115, 120,123-24, 149,153, 157-58 105 67n. 24, 76-77, 82, 119-20,123, 150,153, 157-58,169, 171-72 124 103 39 103 103 67n. 23,120 131n. 7 95n. 12, 122n. 53, 131n. 7 96n. 13 95,95n. 12, 122,13 In. 7, 134 63 123 103 131n. 7 103 71 103 67 134 134 134 65 123 103
186 Mark (cow/.) 8:1-10
8:4 8:6 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:16-17 8:27 8:27a 8:27b 8:27-30 8:27-33 8:27-9:1
8:27-10:52 8:30 8:31 8:31-32 8:31-32a
8:31-32b 8:31-33 8:31-9:1
8:31-10:45 8:32b-33
The Rhetoric of Characterization 76-77, 82, 119-20,123, 150,153, 157-58,169, 171-72 103 103 103 9,10 9,10 95n. 11 124 103 103 19, 79-80, 120-21,124 79n. 40, 108n. 36 79-80, 80n. 42, 82-83, 86,104n. 29, 115n. 47, 120,152, 169-70,172 4,49-51,53 121 5,19, 31n. 9, 79,85,121, 162 5 6,15, 19, 72n. 28, 77, 79n. 38,107, 120,154, 171 119 121 6,16,42, 46-48, 77-80, 80n. 42, 81-83, 85-86,104n. 29,112-16, 120-21,123, 138,146, 148-49, 15154,156-58, 168-71, 173 125 6, 77,107-8, 120,123-24,
8:32b-9:l 8:33 8:34 8:34-9:1
8:35 8:38 9 9:1 9:2 9:5 9:6a 9:6b 9:7 9:9 9:14 9:15 9:18 9:28 9:30-32 9:30-41
9:31 9:31-32 9:32 9:33-34
9:34 9:35 9:35-41
139n. 19, 154, 171 113 103,113,121 98,103, 109n. 38,113 6, 77,104n. 29,107-12, 112n. 45, 116-18,120, 123-24,154, 156,171-72 114n. 46,162 80n. 42 123 41n. 23 32n. 11 97 131n. 7 131n. 7 72n. 28 135 103 132 103 103 5-6,15,19, 77,107,119, 155,171 6,16,77-79, 80n. 42, 82, 85-86,104n. 29,112-16, 123, 138, 151, 154-55, 169, 171 5, 73n. 30, 103, 131n. 7 119 96 6, 77,107-8, HOn. 41, 122-24,155, 171 131n. 7 104 6,77, 107-10, HOn. 41, 111, 112n. 45,123, 125,
9:38 9:41 10 10:10 10:13 10:23 10:24 10:26 10:26-30
10:27 10:28 10:29 10:32 10:32-34 10:32-35 10:32-45
10:33 10:35 10:35-40 10:35-41 10:35-44 10:35^5 10:36 10:37 10:42 10:42-45
10:45 10:46 10:51
155,171-72 98,99 80n.42 123 103 103 103 103 63,63n. 15 104n. 29, 116-18,120, 123,156, 162,172 63n. 15 97 97 96,98,104 5-6,15-16, 19,77,107, 119,155,171 86 6, 77-79, 80n. 42, 82, 85-86,104n. 29,112-16, 123,138, 151,154-55, 169,171 5, 73n. 30 64n. 17, 114n. 46 11On. 42 6, 77, 107-8, 123-24, 155, 171 113 16, 102n. 27 64n. 17, 114n. 46 114n. 46 102n. 27 6,77, 107-12, 112n. 45, 116,123, 125,155, 171-72 80n.42,125, 131n. 7 103 65
Index of References 11 11-13 11:1 11:1-13:7 11:1-13:37 11:9 11:11 11:13 11:14 11:18 11:18a 11:22 11:27 11:28 11:31-32 11:32 12 12:1 12:1-12
12:2-8 12:10-12 12:10b-ll 12:11 12:12 12:29 12:30 12:36 12:37 12:43 13 13:1 13:3-13
13:9
87n.49,123, 126 125 103 51,52,53, 53n. 38 49,50 33n. 14,99, 99n. 22 99n. 22,104 131n. 7 103 9 13 In. 7 32n. 12 9 65,65n. 19 96n. 16 131n. 7 87n. 49, 123, 126 43 42-43,43n. 29,44-46, 48, 80-82, 118-20,123, 147-48,150, 154,168, 170,172 44 150 44 33n. 14 9,23, 131n. 7 33n. 14 33n. 14 3In. 8,33n. 14 23 103 123,126 103 42,46—48, 81-82, 104n. 29,116-18, 120,123, 146, 148, 151,156, 168,170, 172-73 20n.42
13:9-13 13:10 13:11 13:12 13:13 13:14 13:19-27 13:20 13:21-23 13:21-27
13:24-27 13:32-37
13:34 13:35 14 14-15 14:1 14:1-15:39 14:1-15:41 14:2 14:10 14:11 14:12 14:13 14:14 14:16 14:17 14:20 14:21 14:22-26
14:27 14:28 14:32
162 20n. 42 20n. 42, 31n. 8 20n.42 63 12 80,86,172 33n. 14, 64 79 79-80, 82, 86,104n. 29, 115n. 47, 152,169, 170 79,80 42-46,48, 80-82, 118-20,123, 146-48, 150, 154, 168, 170,172 39,45n. 32, 99n.23 lOOn. 23 22,123 5 9 54 49,50-51, 53-54, 54n. 39,55 131n. 7 104 9 103 103 103 103 104 104 31n. 9, 73n. 30,165 76-77,82, 119-20,123, 150,153, 157-58, 169, 171-72 15 133,139 103
187 14:32-42 14:33 14:34 14:36 14:37 14:38 14:40 14:43 14:50 14:51-52 14:53 14:54 14:55 14:55-65 14:56 14:60-61 14:60-65
14:62 14:62-65 14:72 15 15:10 15:34 15:34a 15:34b 15:40 15:40-41 15:41 15:42^7 15:42-16:8 15:46 15:47 16:1 16:1-4 16:l-4a 16:1-8 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:4b
lOOn. 25,120 132 lOOn. 23 33n. 14,55, 64n. 17,66 45n. 32, lOOn. 23 lOOn. 25 131n. 7 104 97,125,133, 137-39 131,141n. 22 79n.4O 99 10 79n.4O 131n. 7 79 79-80, 82, 86-87,104n. 29,115n. 47, 152,169-70, 172 87 79,80 125,133, 137,140,156 22 131n. 7 55 33n. 14 33n. 14 127,137 127-29,136, 139 128,137 129 49,50-51,53 20,130 127,129, 136-37,139 129,137 127,129-30, 136 132,136 127,139 130,137 130 130,137 132
188
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Mark {cont.) 41n. 23,131, 16:5 137 131 16:5-6 127,133, 16:5-7 136,141n. 22
16:5b-7 16:6 16:7
136 9, 10, 55n. 41,107n. 35, 132,137 103,108n. 36,132,137,
16:8
139,139n. 19 4,127,133, 135-38, 138n. 18, 139,139n. 20,140-41
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abrams, M. H., 3n. 6 Achtemeier, P. J., 162n. 14,163n. 17 Aland, B., 4n. 9 Aland, K.,4n. 13 Alter, R.,5n. 16,13n. 31 Anderson, R, 11 In. 44 Auerbach,E.,3n. 6 Balz,H.,95n. 12 Bar-Efrat,S., 131n. 7 Bartholomew, G. L., 5n. 13 Bauer, W.,32n. 11 Beavis, M. A., 79n. 40,164n. 21 Best, E, 17n. 36, 75n. 34, 90n. 2,108n. 37, 159n. 4 Boomershine, T. E., 5n. 13,130n. 7 Booth, W.C.,2n. 3,17n. 36 Boring, M. E., 28n. 2,163n. 15 Borrell,A.,2n. 6,24n. 45 Brandon, S. G. F., 163n. 16 Broadhead, E. K., 72n. 26 Brown, R,13n. 31 Brown, R. E., 55n. 40 Bryan, C, 7n. 21 Carrington, P., 163nn. 19, 20 Chafe, W. L., 8n. 22 Chatman, S.,2n. 3,160n. 5 Chronis,H. L.,31n. 10 Collins, J. J., 58n. 4 Cook, W. A., 8n. 22 Cranfield,C. E. B., Danove, P., 2n. 5,4nn. 9,11; 5n. 13, 18n. 40, 28n. l,49n. 36, 56n. l,90n. 1,127n. 1, 134n. 10,160n. 5 Davis, P., 166n. 22 Dewey,J.,72n. 28 Dibelius,M., 163n. 18 Dillon, R J., 65n. 19
Dirven, R, 8n. 22 Docherty, T.,6n. 18 Donahue, J. R, In. 1,6n. 17,28n. 2,29n. 3, 105n. 32,161n. 9, 166n. 22 Duling,D. C.,22n. 42 Eco,U, 13n. 31 Edwards, J.R.,65n. 19 Fackre,G.,2n. 2 Fillmore, C. J., 2n. 5, 7n. 19, 8nn. 22,23; 29n. 3, 30n. 7, 63n. 14 Fish,S., 18n. 39 Fleddermann, H., 11 On. 41 Foerster,W.,30n. 6 Fowler, R M, 3n. 6, lOn. 27,23n. 43,33n. 14, 54n. 39, 72n. 27, 87n. 47,13 In. 7 Giblin,C. H, 134n. 11 Giv6n,T.,30n. 7 Gnilka,J.,65n. 19,11 On. 44 Goulder,M.D, 163n. 20 Graff, G.,15n. 34 Graumann, C. F., 25n. 46 Greeven, H., 4n. 12 Grundmann, W., 5n. 15, 30n. 6 Guelich, R A., 5n. 15, 7n. 21 Gundry, R. H., 65n. 19,163n. 18 Hankamer, J., 29n. 3 Hanson,! S.,23n. 44 Harrington, D. J., 6n. 17 Harris, R. A , 8n. 23 Heil,J. P.,2n.4,66n.22 Henderson, S. W., 95n. 10 Holladay,C. H., 163n. 15 Humphrey, H. M, 87n. 47 Hurtado, L. W., 166n. 22 Iser,W., 18n. 39,25n.46
189
190
The Rhetoric of Characterization
Jackendoff, R. S.,8n. 22 Jeremias, J., 29n. 3 Juel,D., 31n. 10,160n. 6,162n. 10 Kay, P., 2n. 5, 8n. 23, 30n. 7, 63n. 14 Keck, L. E., 162n. 14 Kee,H. C , 163n. 15 Kelber,W.H., 163n. 16 Kingsbury, J. D., 32n. 11,65n. 19,162n. 13, 163n. 15 Kittel, G , 98n. 20 Koester, H. H., 162n. 13 LaVerdiere, E., 73n. 30 Leroux,N. R.,3n. 8 Lightfoot,R.H.,96n. 17 Lincoln, A. T.,52n. 37 Liihrmann, J., 65n. 19 Magness, J. L., 139-^On. 20 Malbon,E. S.,2n. 2,95n. 10 Marcus, J., 66n. 22, 72n. 26,162n. 10,164n. 20 Marshall, C , 11 On. 40 Martin, R. P., 162n. 14 Marxsen, W., 7n. 21 Matera,F. J.,31n. 10,161n. 7 McCawley,J. D.,8n. 23 Metzger, B. M., 5n. 13, 57n. 3 Michie,D., 3n. 8, lOn. 27,131n. 7 Moloney, F. J., 6n. 17, 105n. 30 Moore, S. D., 2n. 3 Myers, C , 7n. 21 Neirynck, F., 23n. 43,11 On. 41 Newmeyer, F. J., 8n. 23 O'Collins,G.,96n. 17 Oepke,A.,46n. 33 Ong,H., 160n. 6 Perelman,C.,34n. 16 Perrin,N., 22n. 42,162n. 14,163n. 16 Perry, M., 13n. 31, 18n. 41 Pesch,R., 11 On. 44 Petersen,N., lOn. 27,140n. 20 Peterson, D. N., 161n. 9 Platt, J. T., 8n. 22 Pokornyv, P., 67n. 24 Prince, G., 13n. 31 Pryke, E. J., 57n. 2, 59n. 5,66n. 21, 73n. 29, 95n. 9, lOOn. 23,112n. 45,134n. 13
Rabinowitz, P. J., 3n. 8, lOn. 27,17n. 36 Rahlfs,A.,4n. 9 Rais8nen,H., 161n. 8 Read, D. H. C , 55n. 40 Rhoads, D., 3n. 8, lOn. 27, 67n. 24, 72n. 28, 110n.40,131n. 7,162n. 12 Robbins, V. K., 3n. 7 Robinson, W., 161n. 8 Ross,J. R.,29n. 3 Saeed, J. I., 30nn. 5, 7 Sag, I., 29n. 3 Santos, N.F., HOn. 43 Schneiders, S. M., In. 1 Schreiber, J., 72n. 28,162n. 13 Schweizer, E., 5n. 15,49n. 36, 72n. 28,109n. 38, llln.44,161n. 8 Shiner, W.T.,3n. 7,164n. 21 Slater, T. B.,58n. 4 Standaert, B. H. M. G. M., 163n. 20 Sternberg,M.,3n. 8 Stock,A.,31n. 11 Stock, K., 96n. 15, 108n. 37 Tannehill, R.C., 3n. 8, lOn. 27,126n. 56 Tate, W. R., 2n. 4 Taylor, V., 5n. 15, 32n. 11,1 lOn. 44 Telford,W. R , 163n. 15 Tesniere,L., lOn. 26 Tolbert, M. A., 3n. 6, 3In. 10, 77n. 37,96nn. 14, 18 Tuckett,C, 161n. 8 Turner, N.,32n. 12 Tyson, J.B., 163n. 16 vanDijk,T.,7n. 19 van Iersel, B. M. F., 2n. 4, 3n. 8, 17n. 36, 63n. 15,77n. 37,160n. 5 Verspoor, M., 8n. 22 Via,D. O., 135n. 16 Waetjen,H. C.,141n. 22 Watson, F.,162n. 11 Weeden,T. J., 162n. 14 Weiss,!, 163n. 18 Wink, W., 7n. 21 Winston, P., 19n. 41 Wong, S. S. M., 8n. 22 Wrede,W., 161n. 8 Zerwick, M., 29n. 3, 31n. 11, 32n. 12
