Part 88
(10:46-5) Blind Bartimaeus Mark finishes this long section of teaching about discipleship as it started, with a story about the healing of a blind person. As with 8:22—6, this story here almost certainly represents an acted parable: the granting of physical sight to Bartimaeus symbolizes the true 'insight' which is necessary for any disciple of Jesus. Thus the consequence of the miracle is presented in language that is almost certainly deliberately evocative: the miracle is due to Bartimaeus' 'faith' which is said to have 'saved' him, i.e. not only healed him physically but also brought a much deeper and more profound 'salvation'; and Bartimaeus then 'follows' Jesus 'on the way': this is the language of discipleship, and Mark's wording is almost certainly meant to suggest that Bartimaeus becomes a full disciple, 'following' Jesus on the way which Jesus treads, i.e. the way of the cross. It may also be significant that, before he is healed, Bartimaeus calls out to Jesus as 'Son of David' (v. 47). This is a rare term in Mark (used elsewhere only in 12:35—7, an(^ there somewhat negatively), and may be intended to be synonymous with Messiah. The latter is the term Peter uses in 8:29, and Mark may by his story indicate that this is partly correct, but does not express the fullest truth about Jesus. (See MK 8:29.) Similarly here, Bartimaeus when blind addresses Jesus as Son of David. As such he is partly correct, and certainly shows a sufficient degree of faith to enable Jesus' miracle to take place. But the fuller sight—and the deeper insight into who Jesus really is—follows as a divine gift. Only then does Bartimaeus become a full disciple, 'following' Jesus 'on the way'.
As before, the motif of the disciples' failure to understand leads on to further teaching by Jesus. Here it is on the significance of service. True greatness lies not in having a position of authority over others, but in being the slave of all, a theme that has dominated all Jesus' teaching about discipleship in this section of the gospel. And as a final clinching argument, Jesus adduces himself as an example in his role as Son of Man: the Son of Man himself came not to be served but to serve. By implication, any follower of the Son of Man can do no less.
The final half-verse (10:45/7) comprises the famous ransom saying and has given rise to intense debate. It is one of the very few verses in the synoptics where Jesus gives any kind of interpretation of his death. Its authenticity is much disputed, as is the precise meaning of virtually every word in the saying. The saying is almost certainly pre-Markan: it assumes that Jesus' death is unique, and yet Mark uses it in a context where Jesus sets himself up as an example to be imitated by others. The background is often taken to be Isa 53, with Jesus here setting himself up as the suffering servant of this Servant Song, offering his life as a sin offering for others. This is, however, unconvincing. The linguistic parallels between this verse and Isa 53 are virtually non-existent. Jesus is not here called 'servant'; nor is the language of 'ransom' the same semantically as that of 'sin offering'. The present verse does not even mention 'sin' as such. The word 'ransom' (Gk. lutron) is in fact used very widely, sometimes in relation to prices being paid, e.g. as the price paid to compensate for a crime, as the money equivalent to the sacrifice of the first-born child, as the money paid to buy back prisoners of war. Hence the idea in later Christian theology of Jesus' death as some
Ministry in Jerusalem
The Passion narrative in Mark is usually adjudged to start at ch. 14, but there is a real sense in which it can be said to start here at the start of ch. n. Jesus now arrives in the city of Jerusalem, the goal of his journey 'on the way', and for Mark, Jerusalem is supremely the place of opposition and hostility, culminating in Jesus' death. The cross thus now
9°9 MARK
virtually meaningless if translated literally, becomes simply a general cry of jubilation.
dominates the story. In Mark's account, Jesus' time in Jerusalem occupies apparently one hectic week only (giving rise to the Christian liturgical celebration of Holy Week). In fact it seems very likely that Mark has telescoped things: Jesus seems to be well known in the city (cf 14:3) and says that he has been teaching continuously in the Temple ('day after day' 14:49). John's gospel implies a much longer stay in the city and this seems historically much more plausible. The same may also be implied in some details of the story that now follows.
(11:12—26) The Temple and the Fig-Tree The two incidents which now follow, the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig-tree, constitute the most famous example of Mark's 'sandwiching' technique: the story of the incident in the temple is sandwiched between the two halves of the story of the fig-tree. By this device, Mark clearly wants the one story to interpret the other. Hence the fig tree incident provides the hermeneutical key for the temple account, at least as far as Mark is concerned. Thus for Mark, Jesus' action in the temple is probably not a cleansing (as it is traditionally described), but a 'cursing', a final and definitive act of judgement against the temple and, perhaps, Israel.
(11:1—n) The Triumphal Entry Jesus enters the city in a deliberately unusual way—on a donkey. The later evangelists clearly regard the event as an explicit messianic claim by Jesus, fulfilling the prophecy of Zech 9:9. Mark's understanding of the event is not quite so certain. Any reference to Zech 9 is at best implicit, as the verse is not cited here. Mark probably regarded the crowds' acclamation of Jesus as implying an acclamation of him as Messiah, but again it is not quite explicit: they welcome the 'one who comes in the name of the Lord', and also the coming kingdom of David, which is almost, but not quite, the same as the coming king. (Matthew and Luke make things more explicit here.) Mark probably does understand Jesus' action as implying a royal status, but as with the messianic secret generally, the true nature of Jesus' kingship has yet to be revealed: it will become far more explicit as the cross approaches (see esp. ch. 15).
The fig-tree incident has always caused problems in relation to questions of historicity. Jesus' action here seems highly arbitrary, and a pointless act of gratuitous destruction. It is even compounded by the fact that the tree has no figs and yet it is not even the season for figs (v. 13)! Given all these problems, it is very hard to trace any such incident back to Jesus' own ministry. Probably we have here a symbolic narrative, acting as some kind of acted parable, the historical roots of which are lost completely. What lies behind it may be passages in the OT which speak of God looking for figs from his fig-tree, a metaphor used to refer to Israel and her proper response to God (cf. Jer 8:13); also the image of the fig-tree in fruit is used to represent Israel in the messianic age. The fruitless tree thus represents Israel who should have welcomed her Messiah, Jesus; yet when Jesus comes to the heart of Israel, Jerusalem and the temple, he is rejected, and the tree has no fruit: the result is inevitably judgement.
The earlier details of the story are also ambiguous. The incident about finding the ass may imply a miracle, though this is again rather cryptic here. The words of the disciples
(NRSV 'the Lord needs it') are also ambiguous. The Greek word for NRSV's 'Lord' is kyrios, which can be translated as simply 'master' or 'owner'. Nowhere else does Mark clearly refer to Jesus as 'Lord' in a Christologically significant way (though see MK 7:28), so the word here may simply mean 'our master', or 'its [the ass's] owner'.
The temple incident is thus, for Mark, to be taken in the same way as a symbolic judgement on the temple and on Israel. The national dimension is then clearly highlighted in the version of the words placed on Jesus' lips: quoting Isa 56:7 he says that the temple should have been a house of prayer for all the nations. (Matthew and Luke both omit the last phrase.) Set in these terms, the action of Jesus places him on a collision course with Israel herself, and so it is not surprising that the outcome is the renewal of the plot to kill Jesus by the chief priests and scribes (v. 18, cf. 3:6).
As far as historicity is concerned, the story is clearly deeply embedded in the tradition, being present in all four gospels. Some kind of (veiled) messianic claim seems to be implied: coming into the city on an ass (rather than walking) was highly unusual, and riding on an ass was a royal prerogative. On the other hand, it is odd that the incident is never referred to in the trial narratives, where the issue is explicitly that of the possible messianic/royal status of Jesus. Further, the incident seems to have provoked no reaction at all from the Roman authorities, despite the charged atmosphere of the Passover season. It has, however, often been noted that the actions of the crowds (waving palm branches, and using words from one of the so-called Hallel psalms, Ps 118) is reminiscent of actions prescribed for the Feast of either Tabernacles (in the autumn) or Dedication (in the winter). It may therefore be that, if the incident is historical, it took place rather earlier than Mark's chronology implies. Hence Jesus may have arrived in Jerusalem much earlier than the one week prior to his death as suggested by Mark (cf. also above) and by later Christian tradition.
Exactly what lay behind this for Jesus is less certain. Some have argued that he had in mind only the renewal of the temple in the new age: his action is thus simply a prophetic sign claiming that the new age had all but arrived (Sanders 1985). This, however, does not really explain why such an action would have been offensive to the authorities (if indeed it was) and why then it led to the plot to have Jesus killed. Others have sought to argue that Jesus was attacking the exploitation and oppression of the poor which the temple system engendered. The issue is debated, but there does seem to be some evidence to suggest that the temple authorities, and the whole system, did lead in many cases to the poor being exploited, poor priests being robbed by richer ones, etc. Hence Jesus' protest may have been against the priestly aristocracy, rather than against the whole Jewish nation. In that case, the move by the authorities against Jesus might become rather more plausible: Jesus and his teaching, especially if it was engendering popular support among the
The crowds cry 'Hosanna', literally 'Save now!' Such a meaning appears to have been lost to Mark (and to later Christian liturgy) where the phrase 'Hosanna in the Highest',
MARK 910
tenant farmers suffered at the hands of absentee landlords who demanded crippling returns from the land by way of rent. The resentment and anger of the tenants in the story reflects this situation well. It is thus possible that the parable goes back to Jesus. Whether the implied identification of Jesus as the 'son' is also genuine is less easy to guage. The idea of God as Father is deeply embedded in the Jesus tradition; but how Christologically significant this is at the level of Jesus is harder to assess: so much of the Jesus tradition assumes that others also share, or can share, Jesus' relation to God as son to Father (cf. the Lord's Prayer, Lk 11:2). For Mark, however, Jesus qua Son is unique, and Jesus' sonship is seen most clearly in his suffering and death (cf. 15:39).
masses, may have been seen as a threat by the upper social classes to the status quo which enabled them to enjoy their position.
The fig tree 'incident' provides the occasion for further teaching on the importance, and power, of faith and prayer. The saying about moving mountains (v. 23) is proverbial and appears elsewhere in the tradition, as does the saying about the unlimited power of prayer (v. 24, cf Lk 11:9-10; Jn 14:13). Yet such prayer can only be effective in a context of faith, which perhaps rules out such petitionary prayer being a licence for anything. The saying in v. 25 on forgiveness is very close to Mt 6:14 (as well as the petition for forgiveness in the Lord's Prayer), and this may have led some scribes to add v. 26 in some MSS, which is virtually identical to Mt 6:15.
An appended saying in w. 10—n cites Ps 117:22—3 LXX. The text is cited elsewhere in the NT (cf. Acts 4:11; i Pet 2:7), and the image of the stone applied to Jesus (using Isa 8:14; 28:16) is also attested (Rom 9:32; i Pet 2:6-8). The presence of the saying here is almost certainly due to the early church, if not Mark himself, adding a note predicting the resurrection as well as Jesus' death: the rejected stone becomes the chief cornerstone (it is not clear if this is the main stone in the foundations or the stone at the apex of the arch).
(11:27—33) Jesus Authority Mark follows the incident in the temple with a series of controversy stories, similar to 2:1—3:6, showing Jesus debating with the various groups of Judaism, though unlike the earlier series, the issue now is mostly Jesus' teaching rather than his actions. The first story brings all the Jewish leaders on to the stage, asking about the source of his authority in doing 'these things' (v. 28; in Mark's context this probably refers to the temple incident, though it may have had a much wider reference earlier in the tradition, referring to Jesus' teaching and other activity in general). Jesus replies with a counter-question (a feature typical of many debates among Jewish teachers), throwing the issue back and asking his questioners what they thought about John the Baptist. This is somewhat surprising: in Mark's narrative John scarcely figures as a person in his own right with his own 'ministry' amongst the Jews of the time: rather, he simply comes on to the stage to point forward to Jesus (see MK 1:3—8). Similarly his fate prefigures Jesus' coming fate (see MK 9:11—13). Perhaps we have here a reflection of Jesus' own strong belief that his work was very closely tied to that of John (as probably his decision to be baptized by John also indicates). The Jews' musings indicate John's great popularity among the masses (cf. Mk 1:5). Jesus' final statement is thoroughly in line with the whole of Mark's presentation so far. Just as there are no authenticating signs (cf. 8:11—12), so too there are no verifiable claims or assertions to back Jesus up. Within a context of faith, Jesus' claims can be accepted; without such a context, such claims would be fruitless—hence Jesus' refusal to speak. (12:1-12) The Wicked Husbandmen The sense of hostile debate continues, though here Jesus takes the initiative by telling a parable, the parable of the wicked husbandmen. Clearly it illustrates the rejection by Israel of God and his messengers down the ages. As it now stands in Mark, the parable is a clear allegory. The language of the opening description of the vineyard clearly echoes the language of Isa 5:1—2 which itself is an allegory of Israel and her dealings with YHWH. The first messengers represent the prophets sent by God, all of whom suffer rejection and violence. Finally the last messenger is the Son, clearly for Mark Jesus as the Son of God, and the killing of the Son prefigures Jesus' own death. The parable thus expresses divine judgement against Israel for her rejection of God's Son. The story seems so heavily allegorized—and Christianized—that many have regarded it as a creation of the early church in toto. However, the story does fit well into the social situation of Galilee at the time of Jesus, when many
The reaction of the audience is intelligible, but also noteworthy here: whatever 4:11-12 implies, it cannot mean that parables for outsiders are totally unintelligible gibberish! The audience here 'understand' at one level all too well what, or perhaps better who, the parable is getting at. 4:11—12 must then mean that such people do not in a deeper sense 'see' or 'hear', i.e. they do not respond in faith to the challenge posed by Jesus. Instead they persist in their hardness of heart by further resolving to try and arrest him.
(12:13—17) A Question about Tax The story of mounting hostility continues with a series of incidents where Jesus deals with questions on specific topics posed by various different groups. The first concerns the payment of tax to the Roman authorities and is posed by an alliance of 'Pharisees and Herodians', a grouping recalling the earlier death plot in 3:6 and perhaps thereby indicating for Mark the (literally) mortal nature of the controversy and conflict that is taking place (cf. too 11:18). The question of the legitimacy of paying taxes to the Roman authorities was a very pressing one. The tax concerned was a poll tax imposed on all those in Judea, Samaria, and Idumea in 6 CE when these areas became a Roman province ruled by a procurator. It was deeply resented by the Jews, symbolizing as it did foreign interference in Jewish affairs. It led to active revolt in 6 CE under Judas the Galilean (cf. Acts 5:37), an event which, according to Josephus, led to the rise of the Zealot party in Judaism which was responsible for the Jewish revolt in 66-70 CE. (In fact it is unlikely that such a party existed in any organized form prior to the Jewish revolt; however, it is likely that the simmering resentment which led ultimately to the revolt remained throughout this period.)
The question is, according to Mark, clearly intended to trap Jesus. If he opposes paying the tax, the Roman authorities will arrest him; if he accepts it, he will lose popular support. The precise meaning of Jesus' answer has been much debated. As it stands, it is ambiguous. It enjoins paying Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's, but does not
911 MARK
nize the (deliberately) absurd nature of the situation posed by the question.
clarify what is Caesar's and what is God's. Certainly it does not specify whose the Roman poll tax is! The saying has sometimes been interpreted as implying a doctrine of two kingdoms—a secular and a religious realm, each with its own sphere of influence. This, however, seems unlikely, especially in a first-century Jewish context. More plausible is the interpretation that takes the second half of the saying as interpreting and radically qualifying the first half: Caesar is to be paid what is his, but this is only under the more universal presupposition and rubric that God as the all-mighty and allpowerful is owed supreme allegiance. If the claims of Caesar and God clash, then the claims of God must always have precedence. The saying thus does not give carte blanche to any claims of the state; but nor does it deny all claims of the state. Rather, it challenges the listener to work out how competing claims of state and God have to be resolved in practice under the general rubric implicit in a monotheistic faith that God in the end must be supreme.
Jesus' second reply tackles more directly the real question of the Sadducees about the very possibility of resurrection itself. The argument appeals to the words of the OT (Ex 3:6) and claims that since God says he is the God of the patriarchs, and that he is the God of the living not the dead, the patriarchs must still be alive. The claim is somewhat artificial to modern ears, but would have been far less so in a first-century context. So too the argument itself is unrelated to the specific issue of resurrection as such (it could equally well justify a belief in the immortality of the soul: though for many Jews, full existence was assumed to require a body as well as any immaterial 'soul'). Nevertheless the force of the argument is not lost completely and is not unrelated to the previous pericope, focusing as it does on God alone: if God is truly God, then as the God of the living he will not allow his care and concern for human beings to be destroyed by death.
(12:28—34) The Greatest Commandments The third question posed to Jesus is unlike the previous two in that the questioner appears not to be hostile. The person is a 'scribe', and unlike the scribes elsewhere in Mark, he is presented as friendly. This unusual picture indicates that we have a pre-Markan tradition here, a fact also suggested by the existence of what is probably an independent version of this tradition in Lk 10:25-8. (Matthew may know both versions; there are a number of [relatively small] agreements between Matthew and Luke, hence the Lukan version may have belonged to Q.) Notably, in the other two gospels, the scribe is more hostile ('testing' Jesus: cf. Mt 22:35; Lk 10:25).
(12:18—27) Resurrection The second question comes from Sadducees and concerns the issue of resurrection. The precise delineation of a 'party' of Sadducees in the first century is not entirely clear. They seem to have been primarily members of the aristocratic, priestly families, and generally conservative in their views. Thus they adhered to the written law only, refusing to countenance innovation in later traditions (as espoused by the Pharisees); in particular, according to Josephus, they did not believe in a resurrection, perhaps because it was not mentioned in the law itself. (Belief in a resurrection developed relatively late in Jewish history, appearing in the latest parts of the OT: cf Dan 12:2.) Jesus' reply in Mark clearly sides with the Pharisaic viewpoint. (Cf. MK 2:16, 18; 7:3-4-) How far the story is historical is not clear. This is the only occasion in the synoptic tradition where Jesus debates with Sadducees. It would no doubt have been useful for later Christian claims about the resurrection of Jesus to be able to appeal to Jesus' own support for at least the principle of resurrection in general. The story in its present form shows some signs of internal dislocation: Jesus' first reply (v. 25) seems to focus on the manner of resurrection life, whereas the second reply (w. 26-7, slightly awkwardly appended with an extra introduction in v. 26) focuses on the fact of the resurrection. At the very least, an earlier tradition has probably been expanded in the Christian tradition history. Since the real question is the fact of the resurrection, it may be that the reply about the manner of resurrection life in v. 25 is a
The question concerns the 'greatest' commandment in the law. Such a question was not foreign to Judaism of the period and several sought to give one command which formed the basis for the whole law and from which the rest of the law could be derived. (Cf. Hillel in b. Sabb. 313 focusing on the Golden Rule of not doing to others what you would not want done to you, or T. Iss. 5:2; T. Dan. 5:3, as here, focusing on the love commands.)
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus' reply articulates the double love command—to love God and to love one's neighbour. These are not peculiar to Jesus: both are taken from the OT law itself (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18). However, each evangelist deals with the tradition in his own way. In Mark (unlike Matthew and Luke) the love commands are preceded by the words of the Shema (Deut 6:4), the great monotheistic confession of God's uniqueness; also Mark follows Jesus' words by a response from the scribe which echoes, but also interprets, them by focusing on specific aspects of what Jesus has said. It looks then as if Mark's version intends the scribe's response to provide the hermeneutical key for the love commands. Here the words of the Shema are repeated (v. 32): clearly these words are not just seen as an introduction to the command to love God; rather, they evidently articulate for Mark a profound truth about the uniqueness of God, and this may reflect the way in which the tradition was being used in a more Hellenistic environment where polytheism was more of a live issue than in Jewish Israel. The scribe also takes up the love commands themselves, summarizing Jesus' words, but then adding that 'this is much more important than all whole
secondary expansion.
The question posed by the Sadducees is in some ways an absurd one. The issue is the institution of levirate marriage (cf. Deut 25:5-10) which was designed to ensure that a man's name would be preserved and his property inherited. It is uncertain whether such a practice was still current at this period. Jesus' first reply simply states that resurrection life is qualitatively different from present life, like angels in heaven'. (For such a difference between present life and resurrection life, cf. i Cor 15:35—50; also i Enoch 104:4; 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:10.) The answer seems to be more at home in debates (possibly among Pharisees and/or Christians) about the precise nature of resurrection life, and does not seem to recog-
MARK 912
Jesus' genealogical credentials, but his authority: Jesus qua Messiah is not subservient to David, but is David's lord. If so, the scene fits well into the present Markan story-line where the context is one of Jesus' authority being constantly challenged in a situation of mounting hostility and rejection.
burnt-offerings and sacrifices' (v. 33). The love commands are thus taken as ethical commands which far outweigh any cultic rites. Such an attitude is quite characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism of the period.
(Mark's version is thus rather different from Matthew's, where the love command is taken as the basis from which the whole of the rest of the law can be derived, cf Mt 22:40; it also differs from Luke's version, where all attention is on the command to love one's neighbour which is interpreted by the following parable of the Good Samaritan as referring to practical action to help all people, cf. Lk 10:29—37.)
(12:38—44) Warnings against Scribes Mark concludes this series of controversies with a brief tirade by Jesus against the scribes (w. 38-40). Mark either does not know, or chooses to ignore, the longer series of woes against scribes and Pharisees which appears in Mt 23 and Lk n (and which hence probably derives from Q). Here there is just a single woe, though covering at least two aspects: the scribes are accused of parading their status to curry human favour by wearing special clothes and claiming special seats in public places (w. 38—9); they are also accused of exploiting widows financially (v. 40). The first accusation is the language of polemic and no doubt reflects as much the bitter divisions between Christians and Jewish leaders in the early Christian church. The charge of financial impropriety is hard to assess. The care of widows (and orphans) in Jewish society was of paramount concern, so the charge here is a serious one. How far it was ever justified, or indeed why scribes as such should be singled out for mention, is not at all clear. (It has been suggested that perhaps some scribes acted as guardians or trustees of estates and took more than their fair share of profits.)
Such an attitude to the cult is of course not foreign to the OT (cf. Hos 6:6) and is at home in Judaism; yet the way in which this story in Mark follows closely on the story of the incident in the temple (11:15—19) suggests that the negative attitude to the cult expressed here is part of a broader polemic and negative attitude to the temple.
The authenticity of the tradition is debated. Some have argued that the Jewish parallels to Jesus' sayings here suggest that the tradition originated in Hellenistic Jewish Christian circles. However, the fact that Jesus' teaching here is not unprecedented within Judaism by no means implies that it is thereby not genuine. Certainly the general attitude of enjoining exclusive focus on God alone, coupled with care and concern for one's fellow human beings is thoroughly consistent with the rest of the Jesus tradition. Nevertheless, the radically different ways in which the double love command is interpreted in the three synoptic gospels should warn us against deducing too much too quickly about what this might imply about Jesus' attitude to the rest of the Jewish law.
Mark, however, vividly contrasts the behaviour of the scribes with that of a widow who gives a gift for the temple (w. 41—4). As noted already, women in Mark often function as role models, in contrast to men, for how true disciples should behave (cf. 1:29—31). Here the woman's gift is minute in monetary terms (it has been estimated to be about one sixtyfourth of a denarius, a day's wage for a poorly paid labourer); but it is all she has and hence its value in God's eyes is far greater than the value of anything put in by other, well-off people. Perhaps we are to see here both a negative and a positive example of the love command in practice: the scribes' behaviour indicates that their 'service' to God is sham, and they seek only to profit themselves: they love neither God nor their neighbours. The widow gives her little which is her all: she is the one who is seen truly to love God.
(12:35^7) The Messiah and David In the fourth of the minicontroversy scenes, Jesus himself takes the initiative and poses the question about whether the Messiah can be, or must be, a 'son of David'. The dialogue appears somewhat cryptic: on the surface it is a theoretical discussion about 'the Messiah' without ever identifying who the Messiah might be—though no doubt Mark sees it as referring to Jesus!
Such theoretical questioning about Jesus' own person seems alien to his ministry and more in place at the level of Mark for whom the issue of Jesus' identity is crucial (cf. 8:29). Also the messianic use of Ps no was widespread in early Christianity, but the existence of such use of Ps no in pre-Christian Judaism is difficult to establish. Thus the argument almost certainly reflects a post-Easter composition.
We should perhaps also note another possible interpretation of this story, i.e. that it is an implied critique of the social situation (and of the socially powerful who exploit the situation) which compels a poor widow to give all that she has and impoverish herself. However, the final saying of Jesus implies no such critique by referring to the compulsion the widow is under: rather it seems to refer to her act as a free act of generosity which as such is commended.
Precisely what is implied here is not clear. Jesus raises the question whether the Messiah can be the son of David, and responds by citing Ps no:i where David (the assumed author) seems to refer to someone else as his 'lord'. This someone else is taken as 'the Messiah', and the (rhetorical?) question is raised: if he is David's 'lord', how can he be David's son? It seems that 'son' and 'lord' are taken as incompatible. This might then reflect Christian attempts to defend the messiahship of Jesus in the face of objections that Jesus was not of Davidic descent. On the other hand, the notion that Jesus was a 'son of David' is attested elsewhere (albeit not strongly, cf. Mt i; Lk 3:23—8; Rom 1:3—4) an(^ is nowhere a matter of dispute. So too Mark records Jesus being addressed as 'Son of David' without any hint of critique (10:47). It ma7 therefore be that physical descent as such is not the issue: what is at stake is not
The Apocalyptic Discourse
In ch. 13 Mark records an extended block of teaching by Jesus, the so-called Markan Apocalypse, where Jesus looks to the future and predicts what is in store for his followers. Such predictions are a standard feature of much so-called 'apocalyptic' writing. For the authors of such texts, the predictions are placed on the lips of a figure in the past so that what is ostensibly a prediction of what is to come in the future is in fact for the reader often partly a reference to what has already happened. The same is probably the case here: Mark's Jesus
913 MARK
am'). As Jesus is the speaker, it is not at all clear what such people might be claiming in saying T am he!'. Are they claiming to be Jesus himself returning (perhaps from the dead)? Are their words meant to echo the divine name itself (T am') so that they are claiming to be quasi-divine beings? Are they coming in the 'name' of Jesus as Messiah and claiming to be the (true?) Messiah? Or are they coming as the Messiah's true agents or representatives? Certainty is simply impossible, except to say that the verse is extremely obscure! A similar warning appears in w. 21—3, though there it is clearly a reference to messianic claimants other than Jesus. That may be so here as well, in which case the repetition of the warning shows its importance for Mark and may indicate that the presence of such false claimants was felt as a real threat in Mark's own day. Mark may have been faced with competing messianic figures and anxious to identify the true Messiah as Jesus: hence his constant stress on the Christological question throughout his gospel.
looks forward; but for Mark and his readers, part at least of what is predicted has already happened. This serves to confirm the conviction that what is still future for Mark and his readers will indeed happen. Part of the problem of the chapter is to know exactly where the speech switches from Mark's past or present to his future.
Another stock problem of the interpretation of the chapter is to know what general message Mark is trying to convey. Jesus' predictions take the form not just of exhortations to be vigilant because the End may come at any time (cf w. 33—7), but also warnings not to get too excited and think that the End is imminent when certain events take place (this is the thrust of at least w. 5-8, 9-13, 21-3). This then creates considerable tension in interpreting the discourse as a whole. Is Mark's Jesus trying to encourage eschatological awareness and enthusiasm, or is he trying to dampen it down? The line taken in this commentary will be that the latter is the dominant motif
(it certainly occupies more space). But maybe precisely by dampening down some sorts of enthusiasm, in particular by pointing away from the likelihood of any preliminary signs to the coming of the End, and by pointing to the suddenness of the End when it comes, the exhortation to constant readiness and vigilance (w. 33—7) can be asserted.
The prediction of wars and natural disasters (w. 7-8) has been used by some to try to date the Markan apocalypse more precisely by when such events occurred. Thus it has been argued that perhaps these verses reflect the events of the years c.68—9 CE quite precisely, when there was great civil unrest in many parts of the empire as well as reports of earthquakes (Hengel 1985). However, the prediction of such events is a standard feature of apocalyptic literature (cf. Isa 13:13; i Enoch 1:6—7 (earthquakes); Isa 14:30; 2 Bar. 27:6 (famines); 2 Esd 9:34; 13:31 (wars)), so one need not necessarily see any specific events reflected. In any case the general message is clear: such events constitute only preliminary stages to the End: 'the end is still to come' (v. 7).
(13:1—4) The Occasion of the Discourse The discourse is set in the context of the temple and, at least in part, is presented as an answer to the question about the timing of the destruction of the temple. The disciples' comment about the magnificence of the temple building (v. i) is entirely apposite: the temple was a colossal building, with enormous stones, and represented a triumph in engineering and construction. Jesus here predicts that the temple will be destroyed, an event which of course happened in 70 CE. Such a prediction is deeply embedded in the tradition (cf. 14:57-8; 15:29; Jn 2:19; cf. Acts 6:14), and is almost certainly historical. For Mark, no doubt, the destruction of the temple reflected divine punishment for Israel's failure to respond.
(13:9—13) Persecution The same applies to the phenomenon of persecution. Probably we see here a reflection of the experiences of various Christians: they have experienced persecution (though the persecution referred to here clearly covers a wide range—in Jewish synagogues and before non-Jewish rulers), though how far this has affected Mark's own community directly is not so clear (cf. 8:34-8). But such persecution, like wars and natural disasters, is not to be taken as a sign of the End.
In a further, somewhat artificial, development, Jesus is now asked by the inner group of four disciples to explain what he has just said, and in particular to say when this will happen. It is unclear as it stands whether the questions in v. 4 are asking about the time of one event (i.e. the destruction of the temple), the one question being effectively repeated by the other, or whether v. 4 constitutes two genuinely separate questions, asking about two events, the destruction of the temple and the end of the present world order. It seems likely that w. 142 o refer to the destruction of the temple (see below); since this does not cover the whole discourse, it may be that the rest of the chapter, referring to the end of the present world order, is an answer to what is a different question in v. 4/7. Hence v. 4 should be taken as asking two different questions. (13:5-8) The Start of the Troubles The main thrust of these verses seems clear in general: the disciples are not to be led astray by various events into thinking that the End is about to come. The section is thus a warning against overenthusiasm: such events must take place first, but they do not indicate that the present world order is about to end.
Similarly, the gospel must be preached world-wide before the End will come (v. 10). Persecution then seems to be set in a context of missionary preaching: it is evangelization itself which has led to persecution; but such persecution will not stop, and the End will not come, until the gospel has been preached to the whole Gentile world ('all the nations'). Once again the thrust of the section is to dampen down at least some kinds of eschatological enthusiasm, namely the view that regarded persecution as a sign of the End. (13:14-20) The Desolating Sacrilege With w. 14-20 the emphasis shifts somewhat. In the two earlier sections, the stress had been on steadfastly waiting and not expecting things to happen. Now the stress is on firm action: 'When you see... then flee!' However, the action concerned makes it very clear that the event concerned cannot be the end of the world and the final judgement; for then any flight would be impossible.
Despite the clear nature of the section in general, the details are highly obscure, especially the reference in v. 6 to people coming 'in my name' saying T am he!' (literally in Greek T
The event itself is described in deliberately cryptic language, using words from the book of Daniel ('the desolating
MARK 914
behave or react to this vista of the future that is held out for them.
sacrilege' cf Dan 9:27; 12:11), and Mark himself indicates their cryptic nature by his aside let the reader understand'. The desolating sacrilege is 'set up where it ought not to be'.
(13:28—32) Various Sayings This may have been a collection of originally isolated sayings, only placed here secondarily. Jesus puts forward a mini-'parable' about a fig-tree coming into leaf as a sign of the imminent summer; this is then said to be an image of'these things' which are a sign of the imminent End. Clearly the reference cannot be to the coming of the Son of Man (w. 26-7) since this is the End itself; it may therefore be the cosmic signs ofw. 24—5 that herald the coming of the Son of Man (though they are almost part of the same event). The point may then be that these signs are so unmistakable that only when one sees them can one deduce that the End is about to come. Other alleged preliminary signs are misleading.
(Grammatically the participle here is masculine in Greek, qualifying a neuter noun: hence the 'thing' concerned is clearly personified in some way.) In Daniel the reference is to the pagan altar set up in the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus Epiphanes (i Mace 1:54-9). Presumably a similar desecration of the temple is in mind here. Although many have argued that what is reflected here is the threat of Caligula to set up his own statue in the temple in 40 CE (Theissen 1992), it is unclear why people should then 'flee' (certainly no one did). Perhaps more likely is the view that this reflects the destruction of the temple at the end of the Jewish revolt in 70 CE, when Titus' soldiers set up their standards in the temple and offered sacrifices. If so then Mark must have been written after 70 CE and this verse may be the strongest evidence for such a theory. It is sometimes argued against this view that, during the siege of Jerusalem, the city was surrounded and no one could have fled to the hills. But Mark may not have known all the details of what happened in Jerusalem itself at this time, so the lack of precise correspondence between these verses and what actually happened is no bar to the view that Mark is writing after 70 CE. If so, then these verses are part of the answer to the first of the disciples' questions in v. 4.
If that is so, the tone shifts markedly in v. 30—from warning against over-enthusiasm to encouraging eschatological awareness: the End will come within the lifetime of the present generation. Certainly then for Mark, a false enthusiasm based on potentially misleading signs does not preclude a genuine and proper expectation that the End will come— and soon.
v. 31 is yet another independent saying, stressing the abiding validity of Jesus' teaching. Clearly, if it is genuine, it is a massive claim to authority. In its present context, the saying serves to buttress the validity of the claims made by Jesus in the preceding discourse, and to give added assurance to Mark's readers of the truth of his prediction of what is for them still in the future. Yet despite any claims about Jesus' authority, the next verse (v. 32) expresses the limited nature of Jesus' knowledge about any detailed timings. In its present form, the saying is highly unusual in that Jesus refers to himself as the Son in absolute terms, a feature very rare elsewhere in the synoptics, and hence raising the suspicion that this is a Christian post-Easter creation. On the other hand, it seems very unlikely that later Christians would invent a saying in which Jesus confesses such ignorance. Perhaps a genuine saying of Jesus has been glossed by later Christians so that Jesus now refers to himself as the Son. For Mark the saying no doubt serves to assure Mark's readers about their own ignorance: if they do not know exactly when the End will come, they can be assured that neither did Jesus himself.
Certainly the action urged is decisive and quick: all must get away as soon as possible for the suffering will be intense. However, within the broader context it is again clear that this event, however painful and catastrophic, is not a sign of the arrival of the End itself.
(13:21—3) False Messiahs and Prophets The same is implied in the next section which may (cf. above) repeat the warnings of v. 7 of false Messiahs and false prophets. Such people will even produce 'signs and wonders': Josephus records various such prophetic and/or messianic claimants at this period who claimed to be able to perform various miracles. It seems then that we are still in the realms of past or present for Mark. (13:24-7) The Coming of the Son of Man With the next verse, the scene changes dramatically and quite clearly to the future. Now we have a description of the End itself, and the accompanying signs are described in such a way as to show that (a) they are completely unmistakable as presaging the End, and
(13:33^7) The Returning Master As a result Mark's Jesus issues his final call to be continually ready and vigilant. The call is in the form of a parable (w. 34—6). The parable has various synoptic parallels (cf. Lk 12:35-8, 42-6; 19:11-27), though Mark's story here seems to confuse two images: a man going on a long journey and entrusting servants with various tasks, and a man going out for an evening and expecting servants to await his return. At least two stories seem to be conflated here. The points of time mentioned in v. 35 (evening, midnight, cock-crow, morning) correspond to the four watches of the night on the Roman reckoning and this may indicate Mark's own Sitz im Leben. The message of the section is spelt out in the final verse, which in turn is explicitly said to apply not only to the four disciples of the story-world, but to 'all', i.e. all Mark's readers: 'keep awake', be ready for the End which may come at any time.
(b) they are not really preliminary at all: they are part of the End itself. The 'signs' are in fact the total break-up of the present cosmic order: sun and moon failing, and the whole universe collapsing. The description is traditional (cf. Isa 13:10; 34:4) and no doubt is intended as a mixture of'myth' and reality. The climax is the description of the coming of the Son of Man figure, coming with 'clouds' and 'great power and glory', gathering the elect from the four corners of the earth. The language is clearly inspired by the vision of Dan 7:13-14, though here the Son of Man is now coming from heaven to earth (in Daniel he goes to heaven, to the throne of the Ancient of Days); and his mission is now to collect the faithful (cf. Isa 11:11), presumably to bring them together as the new people of God.
This description, strictly, brings to an end the apocalyptic prediction of the discourse. What follows are various exhortations and comments to the listeners on how they should
This then is the final word of Jesus before the story of his passion and death.
915 MARK
the poor (v. 7). The Christological significance is obvious, though how much such sentiments might translate into a contemporary Christian social ethic is by no means so clear!
Passion Narrative
Ch. 14 is often thought to be the start of the passion narrative proper. It is sometimes held that the passion narrative as a connected whole was put together very early and that this version reflects an earlier, pre-Markan account. Mark's story may well be traditional—and certainly a number of unevennesses in the present account are probably due to separate traditions being secondarily put together. On the other hand, it is also clear that Mark's present narrative is an integral part of the broader narrative in his gospel and in many ways it forms the climax of what has gone before.
2. The woman 'anoints' Jesus' head. This is explicitly said to anticipate Jesus' burial (v. 8): this action is the start of the sequence of events that will lead to Jesus' death. What may also be in mind is the fact that Jesus' body was not later anointed: the women went to the tomb to do this on the first Easter Day, but found the tomb empty. Hence Jesus' body was never anointed after his death: the woman's action here therefore anticipates his death by the prior anointing of his body.
3. There is probably further significance for Mark in the story. As we shall see, much of the passion narrative is dominated by the idea that Jesus is a king: he will be mocked as a king, and crucified as a royal pretender. So too he has entered Jerusalem in royal fashion (see MK 11:1-10). Anointing is also an act associated with a king: Jesus then is portrayed here as the anointed royal figure who as such, goes to his death.
Mark's account is very stark and unadorned. Yet the passion of Jesus was for Christians never a matter of simply 'plain fact' about Jesus' death. Christians believed that Jesus' death was in some sense 'according to the scriptures', i.e. part of a divine plan and somehow 'fulfilling' the OT. Exactly how this 'fulfilment' took place was conceived in different ways by different writers and different parts of the OTare referred to in this context. For Mark, some of the Psalms describing a righteous sufferer are clearly very important, so Mark writes up some aspects of the account of Jesus' passion in the words of these Psalms, especially Ps 22. Perhaps surprisingly, the evangelists do not make much, if anything, of any parallels between Jesus' death and the suffering ascribed to the servant figure of Isa 53. Generally speaking, the gospels are very reticent about ascribing atoning significance to Jesus' death: the story only occasionally implies that Jesus dies 'for us' or 'for our sins'.
(14:10—12) Judas' Betrayal The account of Judas' betrayal of Jesus is told starkly and briefly here. (It is elaborated considerably in the other gospels.) No details are given and one can only speculate about possible answers to questions such as: what were Judas' motives? What exactly did he betray to the authorities? (Jesus' whereabouts? Aspects of his message?) However, the incident as a whole is scarcely likely to have been invented by later Christians.
Judas' action is described as 'betraying', or 'handing over', Jesus. The same Greek verb is used in the passion predictions (9:31; 10:33; cfI4:4I)> where it is implied that God is the subject of the action. Perhaps there is a hint here then that even in Judas' act of treachery, God's plan is actively being fulfilled.
(14:1—2) The Plot These verses set the following scene into a chronological framework in relation to the feast of Passover. The chronological details are potentially very significant (was the Last Supper a Passover meal? Did Jesus' trial take place on the feast of Passover itself?). But the exact details are tantalizingly obscure and Mark himself may have been confused.
(14:12—16) Preparations for the Passover This is the only story in Mark which serves to identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal. The account of the Supper itself makes no explicit reference to its being a Passover meal; and although some details of the meal are consistent with its being a Passover celebration (the meal is eaten at night, wine is drunk, those taking part recline, Jesus interprets some elements of the meal, a hymn is sung at the end), other essential elements of the Passover celebration are notorious by their absence in the narrative (no mention of the bitter herbs, the passover lamb, the explanation of the ritual in relation to the events of the Exodus from Egypt). There are also chronological difficulties raised by Mark's account in relation to the Sanhedrin trial: capital trials were not allowed on a feast-day, nor indeed on the eve of a feast-day, since a second session was required the following day to confirm the sentence (cf. m. Sank. 4:1). Hence, if Mark's chronology here is correct, the Jewish authorities must have acted in a highly irregular or illegal way. (See further MK 14:53-65.)
v. i dates the events two days before the feast of Passover, which was at this time the same as the first day of the (sevenday) Feast of Unleavened Bread. Since Jewish days started at sunset, and Jesus was crucified on a Friday, Mark here probably refers to the Wednesday before. The Jews plot to arrest Jesus but say they will not act during the festival for fear of disturbance (v. 2). Yet the story shows them doing precisely that! Could it be that Judas' action (in betraying whatever he did betray) led them to change their minds? Alternatively, this could be an indication that the events concerned took place in a chronology which was rather different from the one presupposed by (some) later parts of Mark's narrative, so that Jesus died before the Passover, as indeed John's gospel implies (cf Jn 19:31). See further MK 14:12—16.
(14:3—9) The Anointing at Bethany The story may originally have been independent of the passion narrative: Luke, for example, places a similar story much earlier in Jesus' ministry (Lk 7:36-50). For Mark, the story highlights at least three points:
Such difficulties have thus led many to conclude that this section in Mark is a post-Easter insertion (whether by Mark or an earlier tradition) identifying the Last Supper as a Passover meal. The secondary nature of the pericope may also be indicated by the reference to Jesus coming to the room with 'the twelve' in v. 17—even though according to w. 12—16 two of them have gone ahead to make the preparations. The chronology implied by John's gospel is, of course, different: there
i. It shows an act of true generosity by the woman, in contrast to the penny-pinching objections of the bystanders (w. 4-5). The woman uses up a huge amount of oil, at least in monetary terms (300 denarii was almost a year's wages for a labourer). Yet Jesus praises such extravagance: his own temporary presence is more important than the constant needs of
MARK 916
the cup, and also an explicit command to repeat the rite: the latter is probably not original, since it is far easier to envisage
Jesus dies as the Passover lambs are being killed, i.e. on the eve of Passover, so that Jesus' last meal cannot be the Passover meal itself. The Johannine chronology may well be theologically determined (Jesus' death coincides with that of the Passover lambs, so that Jesus is the true lamb', cf Jn 1:26); but the Markan chronology may be equally theologically determined, though via a different scheme (the Last Supper is the true Christian 'Passover'). Thus while the Johannine chronology is not necessarily accurate in absolute terms, it may be more accurate than Mark's in dating Jesus' death as prior to Passover itself (and indeed this may be hinted at in
such a command being added secondarily than deleted, though Mark may have assumed that such a command was self-evident anyway.) The word for 'body' (Gk. sdma) can mean physical body, but also 'person' or 'self. The original Aramaic would certainly have had no word corresponding to the Greek verb for 'is'. It is then unlikely that any clear ontological identification between the bread and Jesus' physical body is intended. More likely, what is in mind is that the act of sharing the common bread serves to unite the disciples with Jesus and his cause so that the eating of the bread is some kind of prophetic sign, simultaneously enacting what it signifies, which enables the disciples to be one with Jesus and his cause. For Mark, no doubt, the eating of the bread enables the presence of the risen Lord to be shared and experienced by post-Easter Christians. For Jesus himself, perhaps the act was one whereby he sought to unite his followers with himself in the coming events of the passion. Part of his subsequent desolation may then be due to their failure to stick with him and his having to face his fate in total isolation.
Mark's own account: cf. MK 14:2).
Some confusion is evident on Mark's part in the opening time reference in v. 12: the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread would not have been when the passover lambs were sacrificed, but would have started in the evening when the feast of Passover itself began.
The events described here are very similar to the events prior to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (11:1—6). At the very least, Mark has probably written up both accounts to reflect each other. Speculations about whether Jesus might have made prior arrangements are probably quite beside the point as far as Mark is concerned. For him, the story shows clearly that Jesus is fully aware, and in command, of the situation. It thus illustrates Jesus' full authority.
The saying over the cup is longer and the differences between the Markan and Pauline versions are greater. The Markan version seems to equate the cup (or its contents) with Jesus' blood ('this is my blood of the covenant'), whereas the Pauline tradition relates the cup directly to the covenant ('this cup is the new covenant in my blood'), though both clearly agree on the centrality of the covenant idea. The relative age of the two traditions is disputed, but it seems likely that Mark's tradition is in some ways more developed and less original than Paul's: the idea of drinking blood would be abhorrent in a Jewish context; it is easier to see a development from the Pauline version to the Markan, bringing the two sayings into parallel form, than vice versa; also the Markan version as it stands is all but impossible to translate into Aramaic. Hence it is likely that the original form of the saying focused on the covenant established by Jesus' 'blood', rather than on the blood itself (though in any case such an idea is firmly present in Mark as well). Fundamental therefore is the idea of the covenant established by Jesus: the surrender of his life in death (his 'blood') is the means by which a new covenant relationship is established. Further, since in Jewish tradition the covenant is integrally connected with the establishment of Israel as the people of God, the claim about the new covenant here implies the establishment of a new people of God. The final phrase in Mark ('poured out for many') is a clear indicator that Jesus' death is being seen in sacrificial terms. However, Jewish sacrifice was very varied and by no means monochrome. What is not said here is that Jesus' death is a sin offering or a means of dealing with individual sins or sinfulness (Matthew adds 'for the forgiveness of sins' here, but this is clearly secondary). Rather, Jesus' death is interpreted here as a covenant sacrifice, the means by which a new community is created by God's own initiative (see too on 10:45); by drinking the cup, the disciples share in all the benefits established by Jesus' sacrifice, i.e. they take their places as members of the new people of God, the new covenant community.
(14:17-21) Prediction of the Betrayal This may also be secondary in relation to w. 22-5 (the reference to 'while they were eating' in v. 22 seems to repeat v. i8a); the account is also rather artificial in that, in response to the prediction that one of the disciples will betray him, they ask not who the betrayer is, but only Ts it I?' In its present form, the story serves to highlight again Jesus' full foreknowledge of what is coming and also his obedience to God's will. Jesus' words in v. 20 echo the words of Ps 41:9 (cited explicitly in this context in Jn 13:18), and show the events taking place 'in accordance with' Scripture. The Son of Man saying in v. 21 again emphasizes the divinely ordained nature of the course of events to come (cf. 8:31): it is as Son of Man that Jesus is to suffer and die, and this is ordained in Scripture ('as it is written of him'). The reference is probably to Dan 7. As in v. n, Jesus is to be 'betrayed', or 'handed over', a verb implying not only human treachery but also divine intention.
(14:22-5) The Last Supper Mark's account is brief and to the point. As already noted (see on 14:12-16), there are no references to the Passover ritual; almost certainly Mark's narrative has been affected by the celebration of the Christian eucharist in his own community.
The development of the history of the tradition about the events of the Last Supper, and especially Jesus' 'words of institution' over the bread and the wine, is not totally clear and the evidence is complex. There are probably two quite independent accounts of the tradition: Mark's narrative here and Paul's citation ofhis tradition in i Cor 11:23—6. (Matthew's gospel here is probably dependent solely on Mark; Luke's may reflect a conflation of the Markan and Pauline traditions.) Probably neither Mark nor Paul consistently represents the earlier form of the tradition. The saying over the bread ('this is my body') is very brief in Mark. (The Pauline version adds 'which is for you', perhaps assimilating it to the saying over
The final verse here (v. 25) looks ahead to the eschatological future, a feature shared (in general terms) by both Mark and
917 MARK
ation of Jesus whereby he is deserted by his friends and, in the end, feels deserted by God himself (cf. 15:34).
Paul (cf. i Cor 11:26). For Mark, Jesus' 'words of institution' look to the present and/or the past. Here the reference is to the future: the special meal is an anticipation of the time of the kingdom. What is probably in mind is the messianic banquet
If, however, the story may have firm historical roots, this does not mean that every detail is historically accurate. In its present Markan form the account has some redundancies and repetitions (cf. the way in which Jesus goes away twice and comes back three times), suggesting at least some secondary developments of the story. In particular, the words of Jesus' prayer to God in v. 36 may reflect as much what Christians thought Jesus would have said on such an occasion as anything he did actually say on this particular occasion.
(cf. Isa 25:6), symbolizing the joy of the new age. This may well be the most primitive aspect of the traditions of the eucharist, connected too with the evidently special nature of the meals held by Jesus during his lifetime: the special meal is a foretaste and anticipation of what is to come in its fullness in the future.
(14:26—31) Predictions of Denial Just as Jesus has earlier predicted Judas' betrayal, so now he predicts the defection of all the disciples, especially that of Peter. The story as it stands is probably composite: the citation of Zech 13:7 in v. 27/7 and the prediction about Galilee in v. 28 seem to intrude before Peter's protestation in v. 29 which would follow much more naturally after v. 270. Hence w. 27/7-28 are probably an insertion which, in view of the similarity between v. 28 and 16:7, may be due to Mark himself.
Jesus' words echo the Lord's Prayer (the address to God as Father, 'your will be done'). Jesus' address of God as 'Abba', Father, is noteworthy. Too much has probably been made in the past of 'Abba as a child's address to its father. Nevertheless, the word is distinctive as showing close intimacy, and the fact that the Aramaic word 'Abba is preserved here suggests that this was remembered as characteristic of Jesus. However, it is not at all clear how unique this makes Jesus: Jesus himself gave others the same right/privilege (cf. the Lord's Prayer, Lk 11:2), and other Christians certainly followed suit (Cf. Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). Rather than reflecting any selfawareness by Jesus of himself as a unique Son of God, the use of 'Abba shows Jesus' close relationship with God which he shared with, and offered to, others. Here it is part of a general picture of sonship as denoting obedience and subservience: Jesus as the implied son is the one who submits to God's will, not his own. The reference to the 'cup' here is probably simply an image of intense suffering (cf. 10:38-9), not of any divine punishment (e.g. forthe sins of others): such ideas are foreign to Mark.
The story as a whole serves to highlight again Jesus' full knowledge of what is to come. Further, Jesus is shown here to be a thoroughly reliable predictor of the future: he foresees and predicts Peter's denial right down to the smallest details ('three times', 'before the cock crows twice', cf. v. 72). In turn this serves to establish the reliability of Jesus' other predictions whose outcomes are not recorded in Mark's story. Some of these are no doubt past for Mark (cf. v. 28), some are still to come (cf. 14:62). Peter's denial is in one sense the climax of the story of the deepening and radical failure of the disciples to understand Jesus. Yet v. 28 indicates that this is by no means the end of the story. (See further on the Ending of Mark.)
As well as showing Jesus' own submission to God's will, the story highlights the failure of the disciples. The Greek word here for 'keep awake' (w. 34,37,38) is the same as that used in the commands to watch in 13:34,35,37. By sleeping and failing to stay awake, the disciples are failing to obey the command of Jesus given to all his followers (cf. 13:37). Jesus' willing submission in the end to God's will thus contrasts dramatically with the human failings of his followers.
Zech 13:7 is a verse which may well have been used by Christians originally to 'explain' Jesus' death as in some way in accordance with Scripture. In its present context, however, the stress is as much on the sheep (i.e. the disciples) as on the
shepherd who is smitten (i.e. Jesus): the defection of the disciples is as much part of the divine plan as is Jesus' death itself. The text form used here is also unusual: contrary to both the Hebrew and LXX texts, the version here has T will strike' in place of the imperative 'Strike!'. Clearly God is now the one who strikes. Thus again, the events to come are shown to be not only the result of human failings and sinfulness: they are also the actions of God himself and part of the divine plan.
(14:43—52) The Arrest The story of Jesus' arrest may represent the start of an early account of Jesus' passion: from here the synoptic and Johannine accounts of the passion run closely parallel with each other, and the redundant (i.e. for Mark) reference to Judas as 'one of the twelve' in v. 43 may indicate that Mark is using an earlier tradition here. The account suggests more of a disorganized mob than an official party (cf. the reference to 'swords and clubs'). Judas' action in kissing Jesus may have been intended to identify who Jesus was (though why this should have been necessary is not clear); but in its present form it highlights Judas' treachery: an act of respect and/or affection is used as an act of betrayal. The reaction of one of the bystanders in cutting off the ear of the high priest's slave is told here very briefly. The story is elaborated in the later gospels (it is an action of Peter, the victim is named, Jesus responds to the action), but here it is left in isolation. Jesus' response focuses on the violence ofhis opponents. The words of v. 490, referring to Jesus' continued presence in the temple, conflict with Mark's general chronology, since they seem to imply that Jesus had been in Jeru-
(14:32—42) Gethsemane The account of Jesus' agony in Gethsemane is one of the most powerful and poignant stories in the whole of the gospel tradition. Its historicity has been questioned (how could the disciples have known what happened if they were all asleep at the time?). However, it is deeply embedded in the tradition (cf. the echoes of the story in Jn 12:27; 18:11; also Heb 5:7-8, as well as the parallels in Matthew and Luke); further, the picture of Jesus apparently doubting his willingness to face the future is unlikely to have been invented by later Christians. Hence it is very probable that the story has firm roots in the tradition. Perhaps Jesus believed that his mission was now a failure; perhaps too he had expected, or hoped, that his disciples would stay with him and share his lot (cf. 10:39; I4:22)» but he now found himself totally alone. For Mark, the story is part of the growing isol-
MARK 918
such testimony should then be rejected. Yet for Mark there is a constant theme of dramatic irony running through this account of the passion: what is at one level false is also at a deeper level an expression of profound truth. The 'falsity' may partly derive from the general belief that Jesus was innocent of any charge (cf. above); it may also be partly due to the fact that the falsity applies not so much to the truth of what is said as to the people making the claims. Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple is, as we have seen, deeply embedded in the tradition (see MK 13:2). Here such a prediction is expanded by a contrast between the physical temple, which will be destroyed, and a temple 'not made with hands' which will replace it 'in three days'. For Mark and his Christian readers, the reference is certainly to the spiritual temple of the church, established by Jesus in the resurrection (after 'three days'). For many, such an idea is best explained as a Christian development in the light of the resurrection. However, we now know from some Qumran texts that the Jews at Qumran had a similar interpretation of the 'temple' as the community; moreover, in some of these texts, building this new/metaphorical temple was conceived of as the task of an expected Davidic messianic figure (cf. 4QFlor). Thus Jesus could have conceived his own role as that of a messianic figure whose primary task was to establish a new community as the new people of God, a new 'temple'. With this background of thought, the transition to the next question about Jesus' messiahship, often felt to be difficult to explain, becomes more comprehensible and may thus reflect historical fact rather better than is sometimes claimed.
salem much longer than the one hectic week implied by Mark. This in turn gives some added support to the theory that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem much earlier than Mark suggests (see MK IEI-IO). Jesus' final words (v. 49/7) emphasize once again that everything takes place in accordance with Scripture and hence with God's will. The final note in v. 50 about all the disciples fleeing also confirms that everything happens as Jesus himself has predicted (cf. v. 27).
The small story about the young man running away naked has led to much speculation. Some have seen here a cryptic autobiographical note by Mark himself; however, it is unlikely that Mark was a Palestinian Jew. Possibly the story has been influenced by Amos 2:16. Attempts to see deeper significance in the linen cloth' work by the man (e.g. is this a reference to baptismal clothes 'taken off?) are probably fanciful.