No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Making Oneself Last in the Community: Mark 9.43–7 in its Context and Co-Text
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 November 2023
Abstract
After reviewing and offering a critical evaluation of the main interpretations of the sayings in Mark 9.43–7, the paper proposes a new reading that considers them in the Jewish context and in their co-text (Mark 9.33–50). The context is the marginal condition in which physically impaired people lived in Jewish society and communities. In view of this context, it is possible to point out the consistency of Jesus’ logia on self-maiming in order to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 9.43–7) with their co-text. The disciples are urged not only not to scandalise the little ones of the community (Mark 9.42), but also to share their minority state, thus avoiding stumbling in their own discipleship because of claims of greatness and superiority.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 In favour of the existence of a pre-Markan ‘community catechism’, which the evangelist would have only slightly modified, are Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931 2) 160–1Google Scholar; Sundwall, J., Die Zusammensetzung des Markusevangeliums (Abo: Abo Akademi, 1934) 60–3Google Scholar; Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1966 2) 408–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other authors emphasise the redactional role of Mark: R. Schnackenburg, ‘Mc 9,33-50’, Synoptischen Studien (ed. P. Benoit; München: Zink, 1953) 197; Reploh, K.-G., Markus – Lehrer der Gemeinde: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Jüngerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums (SBM 9; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969) 140–56Google Scholar; Kuhn, H. W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 32–6Google Scholar; Ambrozic, A., The Hidden Kingdom: A Redactional-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark's Gospel (CBQMS 2; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1972) 172–4Google Scholar; Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium (2 Vols.; HThKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977–19802)Google Scholar II.113; Fleddermann, H., ‘The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50)’, CBQ 43 (1981) 58Google Scholar. Also Focant, C., L’Évangile selon Marc (Paris: Cerf, 2004) 368Google Scholar; Stein, R. H., Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 441Google Scholar recognise the composite nature of Mark 9.33–50.
2 So also F. W. Horn, ‘Die synoptische Einlaßsprüche’, ZNW 87 (1996) 193; W. Zager, Gottesherrschaft und Endgericht in der Verkündigung Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur markinischen Jesusüberlieferung einschließlich der Q-Parallelen (BZNW 82; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996) 222; H. Giesen, ‘Jüngerschaft und Nachfolge angesichts der zweiten Leidens- und Auferstehungsankündigung Jesu (Mk 9,33–50)’, SNTU.A 32 (2007) 106. The only redactional changes in Mark 9.43–7 are the phrase ɛἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβɛστον (v. 43), with the function of explaining Semitism γέɛννα to Mark's Gentile audience, and the expression βασιλɛία τοῦ θɛοῦ (v. 47), used as variatio for ζωή: cf. Fleddermann, ‘Discourse’, 69–70; Horn, ‘Einlaßsprüche’, 193; J. Lambrecht, ‘Scandal and Salt (Mark 9,42–50 and Q)’, Understanding what one reads: New Testament Essays (ed. V. Koperski; ANL 46; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 73.
3 Catchwords are considered the main reason for the juxtaposition of v. 42 and vv. 43–7, originally independent of one another, by Ambrozic, Kingdom, 174; Fleddermann, ‘Discourse’, 71; W. Deming, ‘Mark 9.42–10.12, Matthew 5.27–32, and B. Nid. 13b: A First-Century Discussion of Male Sexuality’, NTS 36 (1990) 131; G. Bonneau, Stratégies rédactionelles et fonctions communautaires de l’évangile de Marc (EtB.NS 44; Paris: Gabalda, 2001) 253; Lambrecht, ‘Scandal’, 76.
4 In textual linguistics, by context one means the set of extra-textual elements that affect the interpretation of a text, such as, for example, a conceptual system within a community or an environment (the Jewish one, in our case). By co-text, instead, one means the set of intra-textual elements (sentences, sections, etc.) that surround a text. Recently, this distinction has been taken up by S. R. Llewelyn and W. Robinson, ‘“If Your Hand Causes You to Stumble, Cut It Off”: Questions over the Figurative Nature of Mark 9.43–47 and Its Synoptic Parallels’, NovT 63 (2021) 428–9, who highlight its relevance to establish the meaning of Mark 9.43–7.
5 F. J. Moloney, ‘Teaching the Most Difficult Text in the Gospel of Mark: Mark 9:42–50’, Communication, Pedagogy and the Gospel of Mark (ed. E. E. Shively and G. Van Oyen; SBLRBS 83; Atlanta: SBL, 2016) 136. Of the same opinion are J. Dechow, Gottessohn und Herrschaft Gottes: Der Theozentrismus des Markusevangeliums (WMANT 86; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000) 137–8; J. R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark (PilNTC; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002) 294; Focant, Évangile, 365.
6 Thus Ambrozic, Kingdom, 175; E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTS 4; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981) 86; Bonneau, Stratégies, 292–3; Llewelyn – Robinson, ‘“Hand”’, 446, 450.
7 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 514; Edwards, Gospel, 293; M. L. Strauss, Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014) 414; D. Bock, Mark (NCBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015) 264.
8 Thus A. Descamps, ‘Du discours de Marc., ix,33-50 aux paroles de Jésus’, La formation des évangiles: Problème synoptique et Formgeschichte (ed. J. Cambier; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1957) 174; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2Vols.; EKK 2; Zürich: Benziger, 1978–1979) II.65; Pesch, Markusevangelium II.115; Zager, Gottesherrschaft, 216–21; S. Légasse, L’Évangile de Marc (LD Commentaires 5; Paris: Cerf, 1997) 582–3; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002) 381; Stein, Mark, 449; B. Bosenius, Der literarische Raum des Markusevangeliums (WMANT 140; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2014) 92.
9 This sexual interpretation is supported by Deming, ‘Mark 9.42’, 132–5; R. F. Collins, Sexual Ethics and the New Testament: Behavior and Belief (New York: Crossroad, 2000) 65–70; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 450–4.
10 Descamps, ‘Discours’, 172. Focant, Évangile, 366; J. Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27/A; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009) 696–7 dissociate themselves from the sexual interpretation, which is more promising for the sayings in the parallel text of Matt 5.29–30, in view of its co-text provided by the antithesis on adultery (Matt 5.28).
11 Plato, Res publica 5.462c-e; Aristotle, Politics 5.2.7; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae 6.86.1–2; Titus Livy, Ab Urbe condita 2.32.8–12; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 8.3.75; Rom 12.4–5; 1 Cor 12.14–26; Eph 4.25, 30.
12 Thus H. Koester, ‘Mark 9:43–48 and Quintilian 8.3.75’, HTR 71 (1978) 151–3; T. B. Cargal, ‘If your Salt Should Become Non-Salt (Mark 9:33–50): Exclusion in an Inclusive Community’, Reading Communities Reading Scripture: Essays in Honor of Daniel Patte (ed. G. A. Phillips and N. Wilkinson Duran; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002) 139–40; J. R. Donahue and D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SaPaSe 2; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002) 287; Giesen, ‘Jüngerschaft’, 107–9. That Jesus draws the metaphor from the medical sphere is proposed by C. R. Moss, Divine Bodies: Resurrecting Perfection in the New Testament and Early Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2019) 49–53.
13 I. H. Henderson, ‘Salted with Fire (Mark 9.42–50): Style, Oracles and (Socio-)Rhetorical Gospel Criticism’, JSNT 80 (2000) 44–65. For the second interpretation cf. M. Hauser, Die Herrschaft Gottes im Markusevangelium (EHS.T 647; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998) 64–5; É. Trocmé, L’évangile selon saint Marc (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2000) 252.
14 Contrary to the community interpretation are J. I. H. McDonald, ‘Mark 9:33–50. Catechetics in Mark's Gospel’, Studia Biblica 1978. II. Papers on The Gospels: Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies (ed. E. A. Livingstone; JSNTS 2; Sheffield: JSOT, 1980) 174; B. M. F. van Iersel, ‘Mark 9,43–48 in a Martyrological Perspective’, Frvctus Centesimus: Mélanges offerts à Gerard J. M. Bartelink à l'occasion de son soixante-cinquiéme anniversaire (ed. A. A. R. Bastiaensen; Steenbrvgis 1989) 335; Focant, Évangile, 366.
15 van Iersel, ‘Mark 9,43–48’, 333–41.
16 There are other Jewish texts where the maiming of limbs is intended metaphorically: cf. Philo, Spec. 3.179; b. BQ 83b–84a. The metaphorical meaning of the logia in Mark 9.43–7 is underscored by Marcus, Mark 8–16, 697; Stein, Mark, 449; Strauss, Mark, 414.
17 For a refutation of the martyrological hypothesis cf. M. Stowasser, ‘Διάκονος πάντων. Eine Untersuchung zur ekklesialen Intention von Mk 9,33–50’, BZ 46 (2002) 62–3; Stein, Mark, 448.
18 Cf. 2 Macc 7.11; 14.46; 2 Bar 50–51; b. Sanh. 91b; Tan. B. 11.9; Ber. R. 95.1. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 690, thinks that, in these sayings, Jesus takes such a perspective for granted, but this fact is not at all evident.
19 Cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word Books, 1992) 351.
20 For a review of these Mesopotamian texts cf. E. S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 317–8; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3/A; New York: Doubleday, 2007) 1842–3. For the Graeco-Roman world cf. Plato, De legibus 6.759c; Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 4.2. Other Jewish texts confirm the prohibition of entering the priesthood for maimed men: Flavius Josephus, Ant. 14.366; m. Mid. 5.4.
21 As noted by Milgrom, Leviticus, 1830.
22 N. Kiuchi, Leviticus (Downers Grove: Apollos, 2007) 398.
23 T. Hieke, Levitikus. Zweiter Teilband: 16–27 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2014) 837.
24 So too S. J. Melcher, ‘Visualizing the Perfect Cult: The Priestly Rationale for Exclusion’, Human Disability and the Service of God: Reassessing Religious Practice (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 59; S. M. Olyan, Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 31–2.
25 For a brief review on the important role played by eunuchs at the ancient courts and on the pagan cults that implied castration cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013) 644–5
26 Cf. Exod 12.6; Lev 4.13–14, 21; 16.17, 33; Num 10.7; 15.15; 19.20; Judg 21.5; 1 Kings 8.14, 22, 55, 65; 1 Chron 13.2, 4; 2 Chron 6.3, 12–13; 7.8; 20.5, 14; 29.23, 28–32; 30.2, 4, 13, 17, 23–5; Neh 8.17; Pss 22.23, 26; 35.18; 107.32; 149.1; Joel 2.16.
27 Cf. Deut 5.22; 9.10; 10.4; 18.16; Neh 8.2; 13.1.
28 Cf. Num 16.33; 17.12; 2 Chron 1.3, 5; 23.3; Ezra 10.1, 8, 12, 14; Jer 26.17.
29 Cf. Exod 32.1; Lev 8.3–4; Num 8.9; 10.17; 16.19; 17.7; Deut 4.10; 31.12, 28; Josh 18.1; 1 Kings 8.1–2; 1 Chron 13.5; 15.3; 2 Chron 5.2–3; 20.26; Esther 9.15–18; Jer 26.9
30 Cf. P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 296; E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC 4; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994) 307; J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Leicester: Apollos, 2002) 348.
31 C.f. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 2002) 179; Lundborn, Deuteronomy, 644.
32 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 296.
33 Cf. P. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 140; W. Dietrich, Samuel. Teilband 3. 1Sam 27 – 2Sam 8 (BKAT 8/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019) 459. On the same line, S. M. Olyan, ‘“Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter in the House”: On the Interpretation of Second Samuel 5:8b’, CBQ 60 (1998) 218–27, thinks that the reference to the blind and lame people involves subjects with any impairment.
34 For example, A. R. Ceresko, ‘The Identity of “the Blind and the Lame” (‘iwwer ûpissēaḥ) in 2 Samuel 5:8b’, CBQ 63 (2001) 23–30; J. Skipper, ‘Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b’, CBQ 67 (2005) 422–34, think that the prohibition concerns the house of David and not the temple. According to them, here David would refer to the history of the monarchy, between a lame (Mephibosheth, son of Saul) and a blind man (Zedekiah, the last king of Judah).
35 Despite the difficulties of the Hebrew text, this is the most obvious interpretation for the Jebusites’ words, as suggested by Flavius Josephus, Ant. 7.61. Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC 11; Dallas: Word Books, 1989) 82–3; D. T. Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019) 96.
36 We cannot offer an exhaustive discussion of the several readings proposed for 2 Sam 5.6–8. We have given little space to this text in order to not risk basing our proposal on interpretations that are hypothetical.
37 For a more complete comment on this text cf. L. H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBLMS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 43–9.
38 That the interest of the War Scroll is the purity of the camp is noted by B. Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 249.
39 Olyan, Disability, 46.
40 Cf., for example, U.C. von Wahlde, ‘Mark 9:33–50: Discipleship: The Authority That Serves’, BZ 29 (1985) 59; Stowasser, ‘Διάκονος’, 64; N. F. Santos, Slave of All: The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTS 237; London – New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003) 187; J.-P. Fabre, Le disciple selon Jésus: Le chemin vers Jérusalem dans l'évangile de Marc (Bruxelles: Lessius, 2014) 165.
41 For the childhood condition in antiquity cf. T. Wiedemann, Adults and Children in the Roman Empire (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1989); O. L. Yarbrough, ‘Parents and Children in the Jewish Family of Antiquity’, The Jewish Family in Antiquity (ed. S. J. Cohen; BJS 89; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 39–59; B. Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); S. Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives (LNTS 521; London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2015) 5–37; S. W. Flynn, Children in Ancient Israel: The Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamia in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); K. Garroway, Growing up in Ancient Israel: Children in Material Culture and Biblical Texts (SBLABS 23; Atlanta: SBL, 2018).
42 For a complete exegesis of Mark 9.38–40 cf. F. Filannino, La fine di Satana: Gli esorcismi nel vangelo di Marco (SRivBib 67; Bologna: EDB, 2020) 209–22.
43 Cf. Matt 11.6; 13.21, 57; 16.23; 24.10; 26.31, 33; Luke 7.23; John 16.1; Rom 14.13; 16.17; 1 Cor 8.13; 2 Cor 11.29; Rev 2.14.
44 For the meaning of σκανδαλίζω/σκάνδαλον cf. G. Stählin, ‘σκάνδαλον, σκανδαλίζω’, TWNT VII.339–58; A. Humbert, ‘Essai d'une théologie du scandale dans les Synoptiques’, Bib. 35 (1954) 1–28.
45 As noted by Légasse, Évangile 580; Lambrecht, ‘Scandal’, 71.
46 Thus France, Gospel, 381; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 689.
47 For this identification of the little ones cf. also Llewelyn and Robinson, ‘“Hand”’, 443.
48 So Lambrecht, ‘Scandal’, 71; Giesen, ‘Jüngerschaft’, 105; Spitaler, P., ‘Biblical Concern for the Marginalized. Mark's Stories about Welcoming the Little Ones (Mc 9,33–11,11)’, ETL 87 (2011) 104Google Scholar; Fabre, Disciple, 165.
49 Fleddermann, ‘Discourse’, 74–5.
50 A synonymic parallelism is also pointed out by Fleddermann, ‘Discourse’, 73; von Wahlde, ‘Mark 9:33–50’, 64; Strauss, Mark, 415. Latham, J. E., The Religious Symbolism of Salt (Paris: Beauchesne, 1982) 227Google Scholar, sees a Semitic form here: when two imperatives are linked by copula, the second one expresses the result or purpose of the first one.
51 For the Jewish imagery cf. Lev 2.13; Num 18.19; 2 Chron 13.5; Ezra 4.14; Jub 21.11; Philo, Ios. 210. For the Graeco-Roman world cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8.4.1156b; Cicero, Laelius de amicitia 19.67. In the New Testament, the verb συναλίζομαι expresses table communion (Acts 1.4). For this meaning of the salt in Mark 9.50 cf. Fleddermann, ‘Discourse’, 73; Latham, Symbolism, 227; M. Lattke, ‘Salz der Freundschaft in Mc 9 50c’, ZNW 75 (1984) 54–9; Strauss, Mark, 415; Doran, R., ‘“Salting with Fire” (Mark 9:49)’, NovT 62 (2020) 372Google Scholar.
52 So Gundry, Mark, 515–6; Légasse, Évangile, 586; Focant, Évangile, 368; Fabre, Disciple, 166.
53 This interpretation of Mark 9.49 is shared by Focant, Évangile, 367; Fabre, Disciple, 166–7; Adamiak, S., ‘Who and why will be “salted with fire” (Mk 9:49)?’, Biblica et Patristica Thorunensia 7 (2014) 21Google Scholar.
54 Llewelyn and Robinson, ‘“Hand”’, 451.