Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T11:23:55.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Composition of Mark 4:1–8:26

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Norman R. Petersen
Norman R. Petersen
Affiliation:
Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mark 4:1–8:26 is a compositional unit whose external boundaries are determined by its internal structure. Because neither this structure nor the unit it defines has been observed previously I shall concentrate on them, dealing with other views of Mark's composition only when they are relevant to my argument. My purpose is to identify the compositional structure of Mark 4:1–8:26, and to point to some of the hermeneutical implications of the structure. The method to be followed is composition-critical to the extent that it is concerned both with the segmentation of the narrative into its constituent units and with their arrangement as a key to their significance in their Markan literary context. I acknowledge that most of these units originated in pre-Markan traditions, some of which may have been accessible to Mark in the form of collections, and that Mark's dependence upon such material determines the hermeneutical problem of his narrative. This problem can be expressed either as the question of the author's investment in his material or as the question of the literary significance of the once preliterary material. Because the answer to the former question is necessarily an inference from the answer to the latter, my orientation is to the latter, namely, to the question of the relevance of the compositional structure of Mark 4:1–8:26 for understanding the compositional significance of its parts.

Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 73 , Issue 1-2 , April 1980 , pp. 185 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I will consider only the compositional content that is clearly associated with the structure of 4:1–8:26. Other structure-related content could be dealt with if the structure of the rest of the Gospel were considered, but that is the subject of a larger study now in progress. Yet other content might be dealt with as well, like comparative philological insights into content and symbolic content, but neither of these is structure-related, and for this reason both are compositionally problematical.

2 In an unpublished paper, “Two Decades of Markan Research,” John Donahue proposes a typology of redaction criticism which distinguishes between editorial, compositional, and literary criticism. I think it best to regard these as separate forms of criticism rather than branches of redaction criticism. Although they are historically related, each has a different object of study. What I understand by composition criticism is explained in my paper. My understanding of literary criticism is linked to notions of plot, point of view, and closure, which I have entertained elsewhere and related to traditional forms of criticism. See Petersen, N. R., Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978)Google Scholar; idem, “‘Point of View’ in Mark's Narrative,” Semeia 12 (1978) 97–121Google Scholar; idem “When is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark's Narrative,” Interpretation 34 (1980) 151–66Google Scholar; and idem, “Literary Criticism in Biblical Studies,” in Spencer, Richard A., ed., Orientation by Disorientation: Studies in Literary Criticism and Biblical Literary Criticism, Presented in Honor of William A. Beardslee (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, in press for 1980).Google Scholar

3 For discussion and literature pertaining to such collections, see Kuhn, H.-W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971).Google Scholar

4 The classic analysis of these units and their origins is Schmidt, K. L.'s Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964 [reprint of 1919 ed.]).Google Scholar Although most of the results of Schmidt's study are presented by Bultmann, R. in his History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1963) and are therefore available in English, Bultmann does not provide the results in Schmidt's form of a running commentary on the segmentation of Mark's Gospel into its sequential units, regardless of their origins. Schmidt provides the form- and redaction-critical equivalent to an Aristotelian segmentation into “actions.” For this reason I consider Schmidt's Rahmen to be the foundational study in a composition criticism that is vastly different from editorial criticism by virtue of its orientation to segmentation and arrangement.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Riddle, D. W., “The Structural Units of the Gospel Tradition,” JBL 55 (1936) 45–58Google Scholar; Robinson, J. M., “On the Gattung of Mark (and John),” in Jesus and Man's Hope (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970)1.101Google Scholar; idem, “The Literary Composition of Mark,” in Sabbe, M., ed., L'Evangite selon Marc: Tradition et rédaction (BETL 34; Gembloux: Duculot, 1974) 11–19.Google Scholar

6 Agreement diminishes in Mark 14–16, although even there it is considerable. In order to see what agreements obtain among critics, I listed sequentially in a vertical column the minimal units in Schmidt's Rahmen and then added in parallel columns the segmentations of over a dozen commentators: Albertz, Alfaric, Grundmann, Haenchen, Lane, Lang, Lohmeyer, Loisy, Nineham, Perrin, Pesch, Schweizer, Sundwall, Taylor, Wellhausen. Yet others were consulted but not added to my chart once redundancy had become clear.

7 The lack of agreement is best seen in Pesch, R.'s extensive survey Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 48–53.Google Scholar See also Trocmé, E., The Formation of the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) 73–86Google Scholar; Potterie, I. de la, “De compositione evangelii Marci,” VD 44 (1966) 135–41Google Scholar, and most recently Lang, F. G., “Kompositionsanalyse des Markusevangeliums,” ZThK 74/1 (1977) 1–24.Google Scholar

8 The first column refers to collections identified by Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium2 I. Teil (HThKNT's Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1977) 277–81Google Scholar, and Keck, L. E., “Mark 3:7–12 and Mark's Christology,” JBL 84 (1965) 341–58.Google Scholar The second column represents collections proposed by Achtemeier, P. J., “Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae,” JBL 89 (1970) 265–91Google Scholar, and Hartmann, G., Der Aufbau des Markusevangeliums (NTAbh 17.2–3; Münster: Aschendorff, 1936) 145–46.Google Scholar See further Neirynck, F.'s lengthy expository and critical reviews of Pesch's two-volume commentary, “L'Evangile de Marc: A propos d'une nouveau commentarie,” EThL 53.1 (1977) 153–81Google Scholar (esp. 164–72 on matters related to Mark 4:1–8:26), and idem, “L'Evangile de Marc (II),” EThL 55/1 (1979) 1–42, which attends to Pesch's notion that a source for Mark's passion narrative began in 8:27, and to Pesch's segmentation into larger than minimal units. Especially relevant for the present study is Neirynck's discussion (“L'Evangile de Marc [II],” 27–42) of approaches to Markan triadism by Alfaric, Burkill, Lohmeyer, and Pesch.Google Scholar

9 Perrin, N., “Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark”, in Betz, H. D., ed., Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage: A Discussion with Norman Perrin (Claremont: NT Colloquium, 1971) 1–78Google Scholar, esp. 3–6, and idem, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1974) 143–67.Google ScholarSchweizer, E. (“The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark,” Int 32 [1978] 387–99)Google Scholar offers corrections to his earlier segmentations and indicates indebtedness to Perrin's transitional units or episodes. Unlike Perrin, however, Schweizer does not isolate such units (e.g., 8:22–26) from contiguous units but relates them all, as I shall below. On the other hand, like Perrin, Schweizer now sees the summary in 6:6b as an independent unit, which, in agreement with Schmidt, I do not. On the summaries, see esp. Schmidt's Rahmen, s.v., Sammelberichte, and also Egger, W., Frohbotschaft und Lehre. Die Sammelberichte des Wirkens Jesu im Markusevangelium (Frankfurter theologische Studien 19; Frankfurt: Knecht, 1976) for more recent discussion and literature.Google Scholar

10 Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus 17 (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 137–44.Google Scholar Most other critics regard 7:1–23 as composite but understand compositeness in redaction and form critical terms. See the extensive discussions from an editorial perspective by Quesnell, Q., The Mind of Mark (AnBib 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) 88–103, 221–29; also Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 367–84. The merit of Lohmeyer's segmentation is that it is based on the compositional distinction between successive audiences rather than on pre-Markan traditions. See further below, section two.Google Scholar

11 Geography appears also to have been a factor. See the discussion and references in Perrin, “Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark,” 3–4, and Pesch, Naherwartung, 48–53. See also n. 23, below.

12 See the survey in Pesch, Naherwartung, 48–53.

13 I.e., 3:7–12 either begins a section or ends one. See Ibid.

14 See n. 12.

15 Cf. Petersen, Literary Criticism 59–60.

16 “Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte,” in Schmidt, H., ed., Eucharistērion (Frlant, N.F. 19/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923) 2. 127–28. Schmidt's segmentation in his Rahmen differentiates between the pearls.Google Scholar

17 Wrede, W., The Messianic Secret (Greenwood: Attic, 1971 [1901]) 129–32; cf. 135–36; also p. 1.Google Scholar

18 “The ‘Wredestrasse’ becomes the ‘Hauptstrasse,’” JR 46 (1966) 296–300.Google Scholar See also Roloff, J., “Das Markusevangelium als Geschichtsdarstellung,” EvTh 29 (1969) 73–93.Google Scholar

19 This point was rightly observed by Nineham, D. E. in “The Order of Events in St. Mark's Gospel — An Examination of Dr. Dodd's Hypothesis,” in Nineham, D. E., ed., Studies in the Gospels, Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967) 223–39. Nineham called Schmidt a “pioneer” in the approach to larger sections through common subject matter, but saw his attempt as inconsistent because of his “incomplete understanding” of the order of Mark's gospel (p. 235). Almost every section in Schmidt's commentary concludes with a discussion of the subject matter in the corresponding section of the Gospel (cf. 67–68; 103–4; 171–72; 208–10; 245–46; 274–75; 300–301; 303–9). Schmidt argued that Mark recognized the common subject matter and used it to arrange his material. However, Schmidt weakened this argument by observing also that pre-Markan collections were formally and topically related, which led Bultman to disavow, however implicitly, Schmidt's approach to arrangement through common subject matter.Google Scholar

20 See Pesch, Naherwartung, 48–53.

21 See esp. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 348–50, Kuhn's survey in his Ältere Sammlungen, 11–45, and Trocmé, Formation, 8–86.

22 Kuhn, Ältere Sammlungen, esp. 214–26 on the redaction of Mark in light of the pre-Markan collections; see also the reference to Pesch's commentary in n. 8., above.

23 On triadism, see Neirynck's discussion and references in “L'Evangile de Marc (II),” 27–42; Schweizer, “The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark”; and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2. 19–20. In addition to Neirynck's observations it should be noted that Alfaric and Schweizer see hierarchical levels of triadism while Lohmeyer (who refers in passing to Alfaric), followed by Albertz, (Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments 1 [Zurich: Zollikon, 1947])Google Scholar, views triadism linearly on a single level. For Lohmeyer (Markusevangelium, 8–9), the grouping of minimal units into sequences of threes is a purely formal principle unrelated to content. This, together with the lack of explicit criteria for identifying triads, is the major deficiency of Lohmeyer's position, which nevertheless marks the second stage on the “Schmidtweg” by virtue of its focus on the sequential arrangement of minimal units. Pesch's argument about triadic ring composition (Naherwartungen, 54–70) is not developed in his commentary. Lang's related, but independently arrived at, notion differs from Pesch's (“Kompositionsanalyse des Markusevangeliums”). Schweizer's “The Portrayal … ”also takes cognizance of the work of Pesch and Lang, as well as of Perrin. Bowman, Carrington and Farar are discussed in Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (rev. Eng.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 80–86.Google Scholar

24 Marxsen, W., Mark the Evangelist (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) 54–116.Google Scholar W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 86–89 (discussion and further literature). See also Delorme, J., “Bulletin d'Ecriture Sainte: 1-Points de vue nouveaux sur l'Evangile selon saint Marc,” L'Ami du Clergé 68 (1955) 194; de la Potterie, “De compositione evangelii Marci”; and Pesch, Naherwartungen, 50–53.Google Scholar

25 I.e., the passion predictions are followed by references or allusions to the disciples' incomprehension, which are in turn followed by “discourses” of Jesus. It appears that this insight originated in Schweizer, E.'s “Die theologische Leistung des Markus,” EvTh 24 (1964) 337–55; see p. 351. See his most recent version of it in “The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark,” 388–89. The idea of triple triads has been adopted by a number of other critics, most notably de la Potterie, “De compositione evangelii Marci,” 139–40, and Perrin, “Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark,” 7–13, for both of whom triadism is a structural component in the composition of 8:27–10:52.Google Scholar

26 For a thorough analysis from the perspective of editorial criticism see Snoy, T., “La rédaction sur les eaux (Mc, VI, 45–52),” EThL 44 (1968) 205–41Google Scholar and 433–81, esp. 205–41. Snoy also includes abundant literature. Suffice it to say that he is so persuaded of a larger section having a beginning in Mark 6 that he cannot reap the compositional fruits of his impressive editorial labor. Others come closer, but for the same and other reasons also fail to see the compositional integrity of 4:1–8:26 (e.g., Meye, R. P., Jesus and the Twelve [Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1968] 61–73Google Scholar, which is the best compositional treatment I know of; Kelber, W., The Kingdom in Mark [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974] 45–65Google Scholar, on Mark 4:35–8:21, who also comes close but misses the relatedness of 4:1–34). See also the unpublished dissertation of Fowler, Robert M. (U. Chicago, 1978), “The Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark,”Google Scholar especially his “Excursus: The Boat Motif in Mark,” [SBL DS #54] 70–82. Fowler does not treat the role of sea transit in the compositional arrangement of units associated with this theme.

27 On the notion of “narrative world,” see chap. 3 of my Literary Criticism. Simply, this “world” is that which is implied by the narrator. It has spatial, i.e., geographical and cosmic, dimensions, a sense of time and a sequence of events, and sociological and cultural dimensions. The “map” of Mark's narrative world is made up of the topography he refers to. Needless to say, it is a very sketchy map, but it nevertheless provides a crude topographical setting for the events he traces across it. Later I shall speak of it in terms of referential topography in order to distinguish the map-like setting of his narrative world from the language of topography that editorial critics have studied (see esp. Snoy, “La rédaction”).

28 It is with this observation that my argument diverges from the path taken by editorial critics, although the way for the divergence was already prepared by the compositional focus on the relations between minimal units.

29 Like 6:6b and 6:30, 5:31 is part of the setting of a new episode.

30 Compare the compositional role of these units with those following the passion predictions in 8:27–10:45/52, as noted by the critics cited in n. 25, above. Here is a case where the possible isomorphic composition of 4:1–8:26 and 8:27–10:45/52 can lead to new or firmer compositional insights into both segments.

31 A propos of n. 30, compare this structure with Schweizer's in “The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark,” 388–89. That his B units and mine all deal with the incomprehension of the disciples is suggestive to say the least. I will develop this in a larger study in progress.

32 Cf. Snoy, “La rédaction,” 205–41, and Fowler, The Feeding Stories, 70–82.

33 Cf. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 340.

34 According to 4:1 and 4:36 Jesus was on the boat from the time he began his parabolic teaching to the crowd until he got out of it in 5:2. However, 4:10 tells us that in the interim he was at one point “alone” with the twelve and others. Where? Related to this problem is that Jesus tells the insiders that parables were for outsiders but then starts telling parables again in 4:26 (or 4:21?). To whom? Where? The editing is flawed.

35 “And Sidon” is textually disputed and probably secondary.

36 See n. 23, above, on Lohmeyer's triadism. While Lohmeyer divorced triadic form from content and seemed to force minimal units into triadic clusters, my argument, like Schweizer's for 8:27–10:45/52, is based on repeated content.

37 Our reflections on Mark 6:6b–29 and 7:1–23 suggest the need for further compositional rather than editorial study of minimal units of a composite nature. Editorial considerations, e.g., disclose more than one form of critical unit in several compositional units, the most conspicuous of which in our segment is 4:1–34 (see also 5:21–43, and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1 ad loc.).

38 Lohmeyer, Markusevangelium, 137.

39 Mark 7:16, “if anyone has ears to hear, let him hear,” is probably a gloss.

40 For the distinctions between prose and verse I am indebted to Jakobson, Roman, “Grammatical Parallelism and Its Russian Facet,” Language 42 (1966) 399–429.Google Scholar See esp. pp. 399–403 for discussion and references. Jakobson, however, does not relate poetic parallelism to verse, as I do. Nevertheless, see my discussion of this relationship in connection with other work by Jakobson in Literary Criticism, 33–48. On parallelismus membrorum, see further Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) 57–59.Google Scholar

41 Jakobson, “Grammatical Parallelism,” 399.

42 On synthesizing, see Iser, W., The Act of Reading (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1978) index, s.v., “synthesis,” and passim on what happens in (i.e., on the phenomenology of) reading.Google Scholar

43 This approach thus provides both formal controls for identifying common subject matter, which was lacking in Schmidt's method, and material controls for relating form to content, which was lacking in Lohmeyer's method.

44 Representation by chapter and verse can be replaced by verbal summaries depicting the formally related content of the minimal units. Unfortunately, such a representation is too unwieldly to fit on the printed page without extensive commentary in support of necessarily brief summaries. The larger work in progress referred to previously will include these features.

45 With the best MSS I accept the reading, “do you not yet (oupō) have faith?”

46 On the relationship between “faith” in 4:40 and the problem of the disciples' incomprehension, see Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 274–77, for discussion and literature.

47 Kuby, A, “Zur Konzeption des Markusevangeliums,” ZNW 49 (1958) 52–64 (esp. 55–56) appears to be the source for arguments that incomprehension appears prior to 4:1–34 (e.g., Snoy, Quesnell, Kelber, Weeden). However, Kuby's only evidence for this is 1:37, where the disciples tell Jesus that “everyone is searching for you” (Kuby, “Konzeption,” 55). Whatever may be implied in 1:37, or in the ignorance implied by Jesus' silencing of the demons, the disciples' understanding becomes an explicit issue for the first time only in 4:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 See the references in n. 47. Wrede was the first to develop the theme (Messianic Secret, esp. 87–114). Besides Kuby's essay (n. 47), the next most significant development was the observation that the theme of the disciples' incomprehension has a historically polemical function, i.e., against the Jerusalemite Christian “establishment.” To my knowledge this development was introduced by Tyson, J. B., “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark” JBL 80 (1961) 261–68Google Scholar, and most consistently argued by Weeden, T. J., Sr., in Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), who was followed by Kelber in The Kingdom in Mark. The polemical perspective has also become associated through Weeden with an alleged divine man christology, on which see, e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 277–81. I have dealt with the problem of the disciples' incomprehension from a literary perspective in Literary Criticism, 49–80, “‘Point of View’ in Mark's Narrative” and “When is the End not the End?” At this juncture I can only suggest that when the dust has settled on the discussion of the theme of the disciples' incomprehension we will probably find that it, not the “messianic secret,” is the fundamental theme in the Gospel, and that the related themes of the silencing of the demons and Mark's parable theory are best understood in relation to—and, as functions of—the theme of the disciples' incomprehension.Google Scholar

49 A number of critics have been sensitive to the role of 8:13–21 in relation to other units in 4:1–8:26, but their focus on editorial criticism and their a priori commitments to seeing a larger section beginning in Mark 6, or the unity of Mark 1:15–8:26, have prevented them from perceiving the compositional role of 8:13–21. See esp. Quesnell, The Mind of Mark, which focuses on thematic relations between 4:1–34, 7:1–23, and 8:14–21; Snoy, “La rédaction,” esp. 433–81; Meye, Jesus and the Twelve, 61–87; Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark, 25–65; and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 411–15. My comments will repeat many of their insights but differ by virtue of my compositional focus.

50 Mark 8:17 differs from 4:12, which is a quotation from Isa 6:9–10, in one verb. The verb for understanding that is related to seeing in 4:12 is a form of the verb to see, homō— mē idōsin—which is parallel to mē syniōsin, the understanding associated with hearing. In 8:17 syniēmi is accompanied by noeō. See further Snoy, “La redaction,” 467, 472–80, and Boobyer, G. H., “The Redaction of Mark IV. 1–34,” NTS 8 (1961) 63 and passim, 59–70, on the unity of Jesus' words and deeds reflected in 4:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Mark 6:14–16 appears to be the compositional focus of c1 because of 6:6b–15 provides the occasion for Herod's guess and because the question of Jesus' identity is raised in a related section in 8:27–33.

52 For discussion of other interpretations of 8:15, see Snoy, “La rédaction,” 471, n. 298; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 413; Quesnell, Mind of Mark, esp. 230–57; and Gnilka, J., Die Verstockung Israels (Munich: Kösel, 1967) 36–39.Google Scholar

53 The speaker in 5:7–9 is the unclean spirit, but “he” is not distinguished from the “he” who saw Jesus in 5:6. See furthur Pesch, Markusevangelium 1. 282–91.

54 According to 6:14 and 8:27–28, people construed Jesus as John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Presumably they drew this conclusion from what they saw and heard. However, according to 8:29, the disciples construed from what they saw and heard that Jesus was Messiah. In 8:27–10:45/52 we learn that this, too, was an inadequate conclusion. Cf. Petersen, Literary Criticism, 59–73.

55 For editorial considerations see Koch, D.-A., Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markusevangeliums (BZNW 42; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975) 62–64, 78–84.Google Scholar

56 See also Boobyer, G. H., “The Secrecy Motif in St. Mark's Gospel,” NTS 6 (1960) 225–35 for further discussion and literature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 See W. Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre, 121–42.