¹ Some of the contributions on intercalation include: Ernst von Dobschütz, ‘Zur Erzählerkunst des Markus’, ZNW 27 (1928) 193–8; George Al Wright, Jr., ‘Markan Intercalations: A Study in the Plot of the Gospel’ (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1985); Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 54–6; Frans Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (rev. ed.; Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 31; Leuven: Leuven University, 1988) 133; James Edwards, ‘Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives’, NovT 31 (1989) 193–216; John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 10; Missoula: Scholars, 1973) 58–9; Rudolph Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 2.15–20; Bas van Iersel, Reading Mark (Collegeville, Mn: Liturgical, 1988) 20–6; Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1979) 128–34,161; and Geert Van Oyen, ‘Intercalation and Irony in the Gospel of Mark’, The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (Leuven: University, 1992) 949–74.Google Scholar

² See Wright, , ‘Intercalations’, 16.Google Scholar

³ I list the outer story first and the inner story second.Google Scholar

⁴ Twenty passages have been suggested as intercalations. For a list of these passages and the scholars who suggest each see Tom Shepherd, Markan Sandwich Stories: Narration, Definition, and Function (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 18; Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1993) 388–92.Google Scholar

⁵ For a discussion of Story and Discourse see Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1978) 19–27.Google Scholar

⁶ It is fairly clear that the Evangelist intercalated stories purposefully. However, authorial intention in no way denies historicity of the events narrated. For an incisive discussion of historiography and narrative see Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1985) 23–35.Google Scholar

⁷ Jesus is mentioned in the outer story as a person with whom Peter is connected, but it is Peter who is the centre of the story. Jesus is not present as an active character as Geert van Oyen rightly points out (van Oyen, ‘Intercalation’, 967–8).Google Scholar

⁸ I use the term ‘gap’ here according to the definition given by Sternberg, ‘A gap is a lack of information about the world—an event, motive, causal link, character trait, plot structure, law of probability—contrived by a temporal displacement.’ Sternberg, Poetics, 235. Cf. my discussion, Shepherd, Sandwich Stories, 80–3. R. M. Fowler states in Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 144, ‘By his use of intercalation, the narrator reveals his own awareness of the dynamic of creating and filling gaps, which is exactly what the narrator himself is doing in the act of intercalating: he is simultaneously creating and filling a gap in his own story.’ Fowler's point is somewhat different from mine. He sees the process of intercalation as a gap-making and gap-filling strategy and an invitation to read the two stories in the light of each other. Fowler's description is intriguing and useful, and yet I feel that greater precision is possible in describing intercalation's function.Google Scholar

⁹ For a discussion of the terminology οί παρ αύτοῡ see Shepherd, Sandwich Stories, 121.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Note the intriguing difference between Mark and Matthew 21.18–22 at this point in the story. Where Mark has a gap for the outcome of the tree, Matthew has none. This raises questions about Synoptic relationships. For a discussion of the implications of Markan intercalation for the Synoptic Problem see Shepherd, Sandwich Stories, 365–75.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a fuller list including other items see Shepherd, Sandwich Stories, 108–310 and 311–28.Google Scholar

¹² The synchrony between the two stories, that is, two events occurring at the same time, occurs at the stories' junction in Mark 5.34–6 where Jesus' words of peace to the woman occur at the same time as Jairus receives the message of the death of his daughter.Google Scholar

¹³ We noted above that Judas is not referred to in the inner story. His presence with Jesus at Bethany is only indicated after the fact, and that in the outer story.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Shepherd, , Sandwich Stories, 267–74.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See for example, Tolbert, Mary Ann, Sowing the Gospel (Minneapolis, Fortress, 1989)217–18;Google Scholar Frank Matera, Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies (New York, Paulist, 1986) 29; and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.424, 446.

¹⁶ See Fowler, , Reader, 144.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Thus, although G. van Oyen counters my interpretation of the time relationships in 14.53–72, the function of intercalation which I propose is not affected. See van Oyen, ‘Intercalation’,965–71. Cf. Fowler's emphasis on the primacy of Discourse over Story in Mark, Fowler, Reader, 1–5, 52–8.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See van, Oyen, ‘Intercalation’, 967–71 for his rebuttal of my position. The point at which I must strongly disagree with him is the question of a gap being created by the call for Jesus to prophesy (see van Oyen, 970–1). Van Oyen states, ‘Προϕήτευσον stands on its own as part of the mockery scene; it does not necessarily create a “gap.”’ (p. 971). However, one of the best indicators that the narrative does produce a gap at this point is the insertion of the additional words of Matthew and Luke at this point ‘Who is the one who struck you’ by the textual witnesses N, W, X, Θ, f ¹³ and various others. Does not such an insertion suggest a sense of ‘missing information’ on the part of the copyists? They sensed a ‘gap’ and filled it from Matthew and Luke. But the text of Mark fills the gap with the story of Peter's denial.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Fowler, , Reader, 143–4.Google Scholar

²⁰ This point is not commented on by Mark. He merely notes her long suffering with the haemorrhage. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that Mark's readers would be aware of how a woman's haemorrhage would exclude her from the holy in conjunction with OT purity laws.Google Scholar

²¹ If she had been married she was probably divorced since she could not have had sexual intercourse with her husband. Cf. Lev 15.25–7.Google Scholar

²² For a discussion of the linkages between Jesus and John cf. Robert Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981) 120–4; Bas van Iersel, Reading Mark (Collegeville, Mn: Liturgical, 1988) 1067–9; and Ronald Kittel, ‘John the Baptist in the Gospel according to Mark’, (Th.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1977) 102–13.Google Scholar

²³ See Juel, Donald, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula, Mt: Scholars, 1977) 51, 56–7.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Fowler, , Loaves and Fishes, 120.Google Scholar

²⁵ For a defence of the characterhood of the tree and the temple see Shepherd, Sandwich Stories, 217–19.Google Scholar

²⁶ The narrator has already prepared the reader to ‘be on Jesus' side’ and thus expect the gap to close in favour of Jesus.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Tannehill, Robert, The Sword of His Mouth (Missoula, Mt: Scholars, 1975) 180–5.Google Scholar

²⁸ The central issue concerns the infinitival construction in 5.32 which contains a feminine participle. When Jesus looked ‘to see who it was that did this’ do we have Jesus' inner knowledge, or a slight intrusion of the narrator who has already revealed to the reader who it was in 5.25–9? The case is ambiguous.Google Scholar

²⁹ Although some commentators see ambiguity in the story as to whether the child actually died, certain indicators demonstrate that the death of the child is certain according to Mark. The report of the representatives from Jairus' house is not negated even though Jesus ignores it. Furthermore, the laugh of the mourners in 5.40 does not make sense if the girl had not died.Google Scholar

³⁰ This concept points towards the disciples as the legitimate successors of the message of Jesus. Those commentators who consider the Gospel of Mark as a rejection of the disciples, sometimes fail to note the predictions which Jesus makes of the disciples' future mission and suffering beyond the end of the discourse in 16.8 (cf. 10.35–40 and 13.9–13). The intercalation in Mark 6 subtly points in the same direction.Google Scholar

³¹ Of the 14 times that άκούω occurs in Mark without an object (2.17, 3.21, 4.12 [two times], 4.15, 6.2, 6.14, 6.16, 6.29,10.41,11.14,11.18,14.11, and 15.35) 12 uses clearly have the object of hearing immediately antecedent to the use of the verb. The only exceptions to this rule are 4.12, the Isa 6.9 quotation, and the possibility of 6.14. However, it is possible to interpret 6.14 with the object of hearing being the antecedent verses 6.12–13. In the light of the typical Marcan usage this seems a logical step.Google Scholar

³² Cf. for instance, Matera, , Passion Narratives, 66–8; Jack Dean Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 77–8; Werner Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 99–101; and Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1959) 462–5.Google Scholar

³³ The proleptic nature of the action is made more explicit in the prophecy of chapter 13.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. how the discussion in 11.27–33 centres on the subject of authority. Further note the parallel between 11.12–25 and 12.1–12. In both passages there is a seeking for fruit with nothing received. In 11.13 it is not the time for figs, but in 12.2 it is the harvest season. Christ expels (έκβάλλω) the traders from the temple (11.15), the farmers cast out (έκβάλλω) the dead son (12.8), the rulers plot to destroy (έκβάλλω) Jesus (11.18), the Lord will destroy (άπόλλυμι) the farmers (12.9). There is an interesting reversal here. In chapter 11 the destructive action is man's, in chapter 12 it is the Lord who destroys the unfaithful farmers.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Timothy, Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (JSNTSup 26, Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 123, ‘It would seem that all of Mark 11 and 12 are concerned, not so much with prefiguring the temple's destruction, as to dropping clues as to why the temple would be destroyed, and even more centrally, why the Jewish leaders would be deposed.’Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Gaston, Lloyd, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (NovTSup 23; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970) 85, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Muecke, D. C., The Compass of Irony (London: Methuen & Co., 1969) 19–20.Google Scholar

³⁸ Muecke, , Compass, 92.Google Scholar

³⁹ A number of authors recognize irony as an important characteristic of Mark. The irony of the intercalation in 14.53–72 is commonly recognized. Cf. for instance Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry Alan, Word Plays: Evidence of Dramatic Irony in the Gospel of Mark (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1985) 7–8, 19–20; and Juel, Messiah, 55.Google Scholar