We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
A deeply-rooted affliction plagues our commentaries on the Gospel of Mark. The problem is this: no contemporary commentaries systematically cite traditions in Graeco-Roman literature as well as traditions in Jewish literature to explicate the text of the Gospel of Mark. There should be no misunderstanding. The interpreter must not forsake intricate analysis of Jewish traditions in order to turn to Graeco-Roman literature. Rather, interpreters should glean insights from Graeco-Roman literature as well as Jewish literature to explain features that usually are not explored in the text.
[1] One recent commentary expands the discussion beyond biblical and Jewish literature to include post-New Testament Christian literature: Gnilka, Joachim, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK II.1–2; Köln: Benzinger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–1979).Google Scholar
[2] For examples of this approach to analysis of the gospels, see Betz, Hans Dieter, ‘The Sermon on the Mount: Its Literary Genre and Function’, Journal of Religion 59 (1979), 285–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Talbert, Charles H., ‘Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5–4:14’, in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God's Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman (ed. Crenshaw, James L. and Samuel, Sandmel; New York: KTAV, 1980), pp. 129–41.Google Scholar
[3] See Saul, Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C.E. (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1942)Google Scholar; idem, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. (New York: Maurice Jacobs, 1950)Google Scholar; Moses, Hadas, Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)Google Scholar; Martin, Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).Google Scholar
[4] Cf. Lohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Markus (KeK 1.217; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), pp. 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] For analysis of the units in Mark that contain a similar three-step sequence, see Robbins, Vernon K., ‘Summons and Outline in Mark: The Three-Step Progression’, NovT 23 (1981), 97–114.Google ScholarThe analysis begins with observations in Frans Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of Markan Redaction (BETL 31; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1972), pp. 110–2.Google Scholar See the additional observations about three-step sequences in idem, ‘Lapos;Evangile de Marc (II): A propos de R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 Teil’, ETL lv (1979), 27–42 = AnLBO Ser. V Fasc 42 (1979), 57–72.Google Scholar
[6] For a survey of the data on wandering preacher-teachers in the Mediterranean world, see Liefeld, Waiter L., The Wandering Preacher as a Social Figure in the Roman Empire (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; New York: Columbia University, 1967).Google Scholar For more recent work, see Maiherbe, Abraham J., ‘Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt III, ed. Temporini, H. (Berlin: DeGruyter, 1977)Google Scholar and The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition (SBLSBS XXII; Missoula: Scholars, 1977).Google Scholar
[7] Quotations from Graeco-Roman texts in this article are taken from the most recent LCL edition.
[8] While most current analysis of the Gospels is informed by the relation of tradition to redaction, comparative analysis that investigates the Gospels at the intersection of Jewish and GraecoRoman traditions is often informed by the relation of narration to discourse, a distinction more widely accepted in the field of literary criticism.
[9] The autonomous structure of Memorabilia IV has suggested to some commentators that it was written separately from books I–III: see Xenophon IV: Memorabilia and Oeconomicus, trans. Marchant, E. C. (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. xvii–xxiii. Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Memorabilia IV is informative for analysis of sections other than Mark 1. 14–20.Google Scholar
[10] Keck, Leander E., ‘The Introduction to Mark's Gospel’, NTS 12 (1965/1966), 352–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rudolf, Pesch, ‘Anfang des Evangeliums Jesu Christi’, in Die Zeit Jesu (Festschrift Hans Schlier; Freiburg:Herder, 1970), pp. 108–44Google Scholar; Eduard, Schweizer, ‘The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark’, INT 32 (1978), 388–9.Google Scholar
[11] After the entrance of Jesus in Mark 1. 9, the author tends to use ό 'Ιησο
ο in the narration that begins a new section: see 1.14; 3. 7; 6. 4; 8. 27; 10. 47; 13. 2. Cf. Hartmann, Gerhard, Der Aujbau desMarkusevangeliums (NTAb 17, 2–3; Münster: Aschendorff, 1936), pp. 36–58.Google Scholar
[12] First observed in Robbins, Vernon K., The Christology of Mark (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969), pp. 56–77Google Scholar and subsequently adopted by Perrin, Norman, ‘Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark’, Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage (ed. Dieter Betz, H.; Claremont: New Testament Colloquium, 1971), pp. 3–5, 70 (n. 5)Google Scholar; The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 151, 167.Google Scholar More recently, the understan Mark 1. 14–15 as a transitional unit has been adopted by Schwei.zer, ibid.
[13] καì δερο is present in M 17'–82–135–426 C'b d 53–246 n s 46–370 y z 54 59 509 730 BasSel 104 Chr passim Cyr 1 165 Eus VI 9 Tht III 760 La AethCR Arab Armap Bo; see Septuaginta, , Vol. 1: Genesis, ed. John W., Wevers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 149.Google Scholar
[14] Cf. Acts 7. 2–3 where Stephen's account of Israel's history begins with God's call of Abram. Also, see Philo, Judaeus, De Migratione Abrahami 127–47, where the call of Abram is associated with following God (
πεσθαῂ θε
) on the straight path (óδός) in which He leads those who are truly wise.Google Scholar
[15] Aristophanes, The Clouds 497–517. For an excellent recent discussion of the portrait of Socrates in The Clouds, see James, Beckman, The Religious Dimension of Socrates' Thought (SRSup 7; Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1979), pp. 189–201.Google Scholar
[16] See Rengstorf, K. H., ‘μαθητής’, TDNT 4, 426–31.Google Scholar
[17] Rengstorf, ibid.
[18] See Anselm, Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen (StANT 4; München: Kösel Verlag, 1962), pp. 100–3Google Scholar; Martin, Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma (Beihefte zur ZNT 34; Berlin: Topelmann, 1968), pp. 18–20Google Scholar; Gnilka, ibid., Vol. II/I, pp. 74–5.
[19] Cf. the critique in Ernest Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in Mark (JSNTS IV; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 168–9.Google Scholar
[20] Rengstorf, ibid.
[21] The term μαphgr;ήtgr;ήσ infiltrated text A in Jeremiah 13.21 and 20.11, and text A1 in Jeremiah 26.9. The word δ ώάσκαλος occurs in the LXX in Esther 6.1. It has been added in text A in Daniel 1.3 and 2. 14.
[22] See Philo, On Abraham 52; Life of Moses i. 76, 80.Google Scholar
[23] Cf. Josephus, , Antiquities 8.352 where God instructs Elijah to call Elisha. The statement in Mark 3. 13 is not present in the synoptic parallels, Matt. 10. 1–2 and Luke 6. 12–13.Google Scholar
[24] Wuefiner, Wilhelm H., The Meaning of ‘Fishers of Men’ (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), pp. 88–107Google Scholar; cf. Smith, C. W. F., ‘Fishers of Men’, HTR 52 (1959), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Wueilner, ibid., pp. 64–75.
[26] Schweizer, Eduard, ‘Die theologisehe Leistung des Markus’, EvT 24 (1964) 337–55Google Scholar; Normann, Friedrich, Christos Didaskalos (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie XXXII; Münster: Aschendorff, 1967), pp. 1–23Google Scholar; Howe, Allan H., The Teaching Jesus Figure in the Gospel of Mark: A Redaction-Critical Study in Markan Christology (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Evanston: Northwestern University, 1978)Google Scholar; Achtemeier, Paul J. ‘“He Taught Them Many Things”: Reflections on Marcan Christology’, CBQ 42 (1980), 465–81.Google Scholar
[27] For redaction-critical analysis of these passages, see Pesch, Rudolf, ‘Berufung und Sendung, Nachfolge und Mission: Eine Studie zu Mk 1, 16–20’, ZTK 91 (1969), 1–31Google Scholar; Karl-Georg, Reploh, Markus - Lehrer der Gemeinde (SBM IX; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969), pp. 27–35Google Scholar; Best, ibid., pp. 166.
[28] See Robbins, , ‘Summons and Outline in Mark’, pp. 103–14.Google Scholar
[29] Cf. Best, ibid., p. 171; see Neusner, Jacob, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70, Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 83–6, 148, 258–9, 322–3.Google Scholar
