Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:29:49.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of the Disciples in Mark*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Ernest Best
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While traditional Christian thought has honoured the disciples, they have since Wrede been increasingly regarded as bearing the brunt of Mark's animus. This paper is a new examination of the role they play in Mark's thought. It is not inappropriate to present it at a meeting of the Society in the U.S.A., where so much original and fascinating work on the place of Mark as author has been advanced in recent years. It may be that Mark did not conceive of the disciples as playing any particular role. In the tradition their lives were too closely intertwined with that of Jesus for Mark to have been able to omit them from his account. Given their necessary presence he might have regarded them purely as background, an ineradicable part of the scenery but of no importance in themselves and having no essential function in what he wrote. We will not dispute this now, but all that is argued later about the disciples indicates that they were not mere scenery; Mark gave them a definite role in his book. But what role? This is a legitimate question and needs to be asked once we abandon the view that Mark is writing pure biography.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , July 1977 , pp. 377 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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 This view has been put forward most thoroughly and consistently by Weeden, T. J. in ‘The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel’, Z.N.W. LIX (1968), 145–58Google Scholar, and Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971).Google Scholar Cf. Tyson, J. B., ‘The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark’, J.B.L LXXX (1961), 261–8Google Scholar; Schreiber, J., ‘Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums’, Z.T.K. LVIII (1961), 154–83Google Scholar; Kelber, W. H., The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia, 1974).Google Scholar

1 So Weeder, , op. cit.Google Scholar; Schreiber, , art. cit.Google Scholar

1 ‘Mark's Use of the Twelve.’ The view that the Twelve are redactional in Mark may not have been proposed first by Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 345Google Scholar, but because of his advocacy it is now widely accepted. On the place of the Twelve in Mark see also Schmahl, G., ‘Die Berufung der Zwölf im Markusevangelium’, T.T.Z. LXXXI (1972), 203–13Google Scholar and Die Zwölf im Markusevangelium (Trier, 1974)Google Scholar; Kertelge, K., ‘Die Funktion der “Zwölf” im Markusevangelium’, T.T.Z. LXXVIII (1969), 193–206Google Scholar; Freyne, S., The Twelve: Disciples and Apostles (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Stock, K., Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein (Analecta Biblica 70; Rome, 1975).Google Scholar

2 As does Turner, C. H., ‘The Twelve and the Disciples’, J.T.S. XXVIII (1927), 22–30.Google Scholar

1 Here they are called ‘Apostles’; by this Mark seems to identify them with the Twelve as a group.

2 I hope shortly to publish a paper treating more fully the role of Peter in Mark's gospel.

1 For a discussion of the role of the disciples in the Transfiguration see my paper ‘The Markan Redaction of the Transfiguration’ delivered at the Oxford Congress on Biblical Studies (1973), and due to appear in Studia Evangelica.

2 So Merkel, H., ‘Peter's Curse’, in The Trial of Jesus (ed. Bammel, E.; London, 1970)Google Scholar, pp. 66 ff.

3 See Best, , ‘The Camel and the Needle's Eye (Mark x. 25)’, Exp.T. LXXXXII (1970–1971), 83–9Google Scholar, and the references given there.

4 I take xiv. 28 and xvi. 7 to refer to the resurrection and not to the parousia; cf. Best, , The Temptation and the Passion (SNTS Monograph Series 2; Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar, pp. 173 ff.; Stein, R. H., ‘A Short Note on Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7’, N.T.S. XX (1973/1974), 445–52Google Scholar; Stemberger, G., ‘Galilee – Land of Salvation?’, an appendix in W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif., and London, 1974), pp. 409–38.Google Scholar

5 See Linnemann, E., Studien zur Passiansgeschichte (FRLANT, 102; Göttingen, 1970), p. 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fuller, R. H., The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (London, 1972), p. 53Google Scholar; Evans, C. F., Resurrection in the New Testament (London, 1970)Google Scholar, pp. 78 f.; Weeden, T. J., op. cit. pp. 45–51, 111–17Google Scholar; Schenke, L., Auferstehungsverkündigung and leeres Grab (Stuttgart, 2nd edn 1969)Google Scholar, pp. 45 ff.

1 Cf. Legasse, S., ‘Approche de l'Épisode préévangélique du Fils de Zébédée (Marc x. 35–40 p. par.)’, N.T.S. XX (1973/1974), 161–77.Google Scholar

2 Ibid.

3 Weeden, , Mark: Traditions in ConflictGoogle Scholar, holds the view that Mark attacks both the historical disciples and through them a contemporary group in his own community, or threatening his own community; he sees continuity between these two groups because they hold similar views (pp. 50 f., 69, 148); cf. Kelber, , op. cit. pp. 22, 64Google Scholar, 69, 82, 136, 114–16, 136, who includes the family ofJesus with the disciples as the core of opposition centred in Jerusalem. On the possible clash between Mark and the family of Jesus see Crossan, J. D., ‘Mark and the Relatives of Jesus’, N.T. XV (1973), 81–113Google Scholar; Lambrecht, J., ‘The relatives of Jesus in Mark’, N.T. XVI (1974), 241–58Google Scholar; Best, E., ‘Mark iii. 20, 21, 31–5’, N.T.S. XXII (1975/1976), 309–19.Google Scholar

4 Some references are in parentheses or have a question mark either because doubt exists whether they belong to the tradition or redaction or because as we have the material it is impossible to determine which group (disciples, the Twelve, etc.) was involved, but Mark's editing or context suggests a group; in most of these cases the context does determine clearly the group which Mark envisaged as present. In the case of the Twelve at least one of xiv. 10, 20, 43 is traditional and the others are formed from it; and in the case of Peter's denial, while some of the references may be redactional they derive ultimately from those of the tradition.

1 Cf. the Platonic Dialogues.

1 As ix. 9, II.

1 Cf. the Lukan Travel Narrative, which is Luke's construction.

2 Used of Pilate, in xv. 5, 44Google Scholar and of Jesus, in vi. 6.Google Scholar

3 Used of Jesus, in xiv. 3Google Scholar and of the women in Xvi. 5, 6.

1 Verse 17 of ch. vii is hard to classify but probably represents a failure on the part of the disciples to understand the cleansing powers of the new religion.

2 Indeed it can be said that Mark's hardest words (vi. 52; viii. 15–21) refer to the failure of the disciples to realize the might of Jesus and not to the necessity of his or their suffering.

3 Cf. the cases of Peter and John; see above.

1 See below for further discussion.

2 Most recently by Weeder, , op. cit. pp. 29–32Google Scholar, 35–8, 39 f.

1 Mark, viii. 30Google Scholar has parallels in Matthew, xvi. 20Google Scholar and Luke, ix. 21.Google ScholarMark, ix. 9Google Scholar has a parallel in Matt, . xvii.9Google Scholar; the passage disappears in Luke.

2 Mark, xiv. 50Google Scholar has a par. in Matt, . xxvi. 56Google Scholar but none in Luke. Mark, ix. 18Google Scholar has par. in Matt, . xvii. 16Google Scholar; Luke, . ix. 40.Google Scholar Judas remains as betrayer in Matthew and Luke, Peter still denies Jesus, the Gethsemane account still appears.

3 Mark, ii. 18Google Scholar has par. in Matt, . ix. 14Google Scholar; Luke, v. 33.Google ScholarMark, ii.Google Scholar 23 f. has par. in Matt, . xii.Google Scholar i f.; Luke, vi.Google Scholar 1 f. Mark, vii. 2, 5Google Scholar has par. in Matt, . xv. 2Google Scholar but no par. in Luke. Mark, vi. 41Google Scholar has par. in Matt, . xiv. 19Google Scholar; Luke, ix. 16Google Scholar. Mark, viii. 6Google Scholar has a par. in Matt, . xv. 36Google Scholar but no par. in Luke. Mark, x. 13Google Scholar has par. in Matt, . xix. 13Google Scholar; Luke, xviii. 15.Google Scholar

4 Mark, vi. 41Google Scholar has par. in Matt, . xiv. 19Google Scholar; Luke, ix. 16.Google ScholarMark, viii. 6Google Scholar has a par. in Matt, . xv. 36Google Scholar but the passage disappears in Luke. Mark, x. 13Google Scholar has par. in Matt, . xix. 13Google Scholar and Luke, xviii. 15.Google Scholar

5 Mark, xi.Google Scholar I has par. in Matt, . xxi. 1Google Scholar; Luke, xix. 29.Google ScholarMark, xiv. 13, 14Google Scholar, 16 has no par. in Matt. or Luke.

6 On the ‘crowd’ cf. Citron, B., ‘The Multitude in the Synoptic Gospels’, S.J.T. VII (1954), 408Google Scholar 18; Mosley, A. W., ‘Jesus’ Audiences in the Gospels of St Mark and St Luke', N.T.S. X (1963–1964), 139–49Google Scholar; E. Trocmé, ‘Pour un Jésus public: Les évangélistes Marc et Jean aux prises avec l'intimisme de la tradition’ in ΟΙκΟνομια (Festschrift für O. Cullmann; Hamburg-Bergstedt, 1957), pp. 42–50Google Scholar; Tagawa, K., Miracles et Évangile (Paris, 1966), pp. 57–63Google Scholar; Minear, P. S., ‘Audience Criticism and Markan Ecclesiology’ in Neues Testament und Geschichte (Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag; Zürich und Tübingen, 1972), pp. 79–89Google Scholar; Freyne, , op. cit. pp. 115–17.Google Scholar

7 Except x. 1. Matthew and Luke regularly use the plural as well as the singular.

1 Some of the indefinite plurals represent passives but some seem to be more general; cf. Turner, C. H., J.T.S. XXV (1923–1924), 377–86Google Scholar; Doudna, J. C., The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (JBL Mono-graph Series xa; Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 5–8, 66–70.Google Scholar The genuine passives appear to be ii. 3(?); vii. 32; viii. 22; x. 13; xii. 13 (if not governed by xii. 12); xv. 27 (though possibly it is governed by xv. 16). Probably xiü. 9–11, 26 and xiv. 2 are also to be classed here.

2 The unusual plural ‘crowds’ may indicate tradition.

3 δ λαóς is used.

4 Turner, art. cit., takes these as passives, but I doubt this. There is always a vague crowd some-where in the neighbourhood of Jesus except where he is presented as alone with the disciples.

5 There are also a few places where Mark uses πάντες: vi. 41, 42 (c); i. 37 (i); xiii. 13 (f); v. 40 (i); ii. 12; v. 20 (h).

1 That the disciples are taught in private implies that there are things which the crowd cannot be expected to understand.

2 At times they are shaken off by Jesus, , vi. 46Google Scholar; iv. 36.

3 The father of the epileptic boy does not cry ‘I believe’, as he would if he were a member of the community, but ‘I believe, help my unbelief’ (ix. 24).

4 Hawkin, D. J., ‘The Incomprehension of the Disciples in the Marcan Redaction’, J.B.L. XCI (1972), 491–500Google Scholar, working from iv. 11 f., takes the crowd to be representative of Israel in Mark's time. This seems unnecessarily restrictive.

1 At vii. 6 it appears in an OT quotation; at xi. 32 it is not the true reading; it appears in general narrative at xiv. 2 on the lips of the Jewish leaders in respect of their own people.

2 Freyne, , op. cit. p. 115.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Kelber, , op. cit. pp. 114–16.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Weeden, , op. cit.Google Scholar pp. 73 if. Trocmé, , op. cit. pp. 120, 209Google Scholar, believes that it is James, the brother of Jesus, and a group associated with him who are attacked.

5 Ch. ix, vv. 38 f. has been seen as a defence of Paul and an attack on the Jewish leadership of the Church; cf. Weiss, J., Das Äteste Evangelium (Göttingen, 1903), p. 258.Google Scholar John and Paul, however, would be strange opponents. Mark in his editing of the incident makes it apply not just to ‘leaders’ (i.e. the Twelve) but to the community (‘disciples’); it is not then for him an attack on contemporary leaders.

6 Trocmé, , op. cit.Google Scholar pp. 121 if., using viii. 27–ix. 8, sees an attack in Mark on those who defend a christological orthodoxy and spend their time in vain contemplation.

7 The attack is not on sexual immorality as such, which is what we would expect if the opponents were proto-gnostics, antinomians or ‘enthusiasts’. Instead what we have is a church rule or a statement of church practice in relation to divorce.

1 Weeder, , Z.N.W. LIX (1968)Google Scholar, 149 f., omits some of these; in this way he is able to obtain a consistent picture.

2 On the role and opposition of these groups see Trocmé, op. cit. pp. 92 if.Google Scholar

3 These passages could be directed against Judaizing Christians (cf. Trocmé, , op. cit. pp. 113–15Google Scholar); if so Mark views them as outside the Church.

4 The attempt to discover the relative sections of tradition and redaction in xiv. 27–72 is fraught with great difficulty and no clear agreement has emerged: cf. Linnemann, , op. cit.Google Scholar, Schneider, G., Die Passion Jesu nach den drei älteren Evangelien (München, 1972)Google Scholar; Schenke, L., Studien zur Passionsgeschichte des Markus (Würzburg, 1971)Google Scholar; Schenk, W., Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gütersloh, 1974)Google Scholar; Donahue, J. R., Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBL Dissertation Series 10, Missoula, 1973).Google Scholar We assume that the denial of Peter and the flight of the disciples was not created by Mark but belonged to the tradition, though Mark has drawn more attention to them and offered some kind of theological evaluation of them.

5 Schenke, , op. cit. pp. 433–5.Google Scholar

1 Mark may well have created the threefold scheme of Jesus' departure, prayer and return to find the disciples sleeping.

2 xiv. 38b may even serve as an excuse for the disciples – they are only human.

3 Daube, D., ‘The Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels’, N.T.S. XIX (1972/1973), 1–15.Google Scholar

4 Ibid.

5 Cf. Weeder, , op. cit.Google Scholar pp. 12 ff.; Marrou, H. I., The History of Education in Antiquity (ET London, 1956), pp. 160–70, 277–81Google Scholar; Walsh, P. G., Livy: His Historical Means and Methods (Cambridge, 1961)Google Scholar, pp. 20 ff., 82 ff.

6 Thus for an example of the love of luxury which he deplores Livy uses an enemy of the Romans, Hannibal (cf. Walsh, , op. cit.Google Scholar pp. 77 f.); Livy is not actually attacking the character of Hannibal but using him because his readers will automatically class him as bad, as one from whom a moral lesson of what to avoid can be drawn.

1 Cf. Smith, J. Z., ‘Good News is No News! Aretalogy and Gospel’, in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty; ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden, 1975), part r, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar

2 Ibid. p. 27. We may note other similarities with the disciples in Mark: Damis' amazement (1.19), his failure to understand (1.23 f.; vI1.37), his stupidity (II.22), his fear (VI.25, vII.31); in VII.26 he is reprimanded by Apollonios.

3 Cf. Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 319–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

1 See Best, The Temptation and the Passion (SNTS Monograph Series 2; Cambridge, 1965), pp. 76–8Google Scholar; Achtemeier, P. J., ‘The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Catenae’, J.B.L. CXI (1972), 198–221Google Scholar, argues that Mark de-emphasizes the existing Eucharistic elements in the Feeding Stories in order to present a less ‘divine man’ view of Jesus.

2 See ‘Mark's Use of the Twelve’ (p. 380 n. 1 above). Trocmé, pp. 197 f., also speaks of the missionary work of the disciples in this connection, though he assumes that the feeding miracles represent eucharists.

3 Cf. Pesch, R., Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk. 13 (Düsseldorf, 1868), p. 202Google Scholar; Lambrecht, J., Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse (Analecta Biblica 28; Rome, 1967), p. 248Google Scholar; Weiser, A., Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien (München, 1971), p. 144.Google Scholar

1 Often what the crowd is taught is left unspecified, e.g. ii. 13.

2 It must be allowed that the references to the hostility of the crowd probably arise from the tradition and not from Mark.

3 Minear, , art. cit.Google Scholar, believes that the crowd represents the church. It is unnecessary to examine his arguments in detail; we need only look at two passages (iii. 32; iv. 10) on which he lays considerable weight. In iii. 32 the crowd is in the house with Jesus; at iii. 34 he points to them and says, ‘Here are my mother and brothers!’, thus apparently identifying the crowd with the Christian community. But in iii. 32 the use of is redactional and iii. 35, and not iii. 34, is the operative conclusion for Mark, whatever may have been the earlier conclusion in the tradition; iii. 35 is put conditionally and states the nature of discipleship; its purpose is not to identify who are Christians but to say how Christians should live. In iv. 10 Minear takes of οı πεπı αύτóν;to be the crowd mentioned in iv. 1 and the Twelve to be the disciples; but the disciples are not limited to the Twelve for Mark and because of the change of audience implied between iv. 1 and iv. 10 it is easier to identify the total group of iv. 10 with the disciples of iv. 34, a Markan verse. Thus the crowd are οı éξω

4 Verses 35–7 of ch. ix might appear to indicate a power struggle between the members of the Twelve, i.e. the ministry. But we note that by writing vv. 33, 34 Mark has widened the audience so that it is the disciples as a whole, i.e. he has the church and not just its leaders in mind. Observation of groups shows that there is no need to restrict feelings of self-importance and jealousy to appointed leaders.

1 Delorme, J., ‘L'Évangile selon Marc’ in Le Ministère et les Ministères selon le Nouveau Testament (ed. Delorme: Paris, 1973), pp. 155–81Google Scholar, says that Mark has no real interest in setting out a ‘ministry’, though some of the duties of officials, e.g. preaching, teaching, healing, exorcism, are mentioned.

2 Fuller instruction is not always given; the disciples are rebuked about their blindness in respect of the feeding miracles (viii. 14–21) but the meaning of the two miracles is not clearly supplied; cf. Nützel, W., Die Verkl¨;rungserzählung im Markusevangelium (Würzburg, 1973), p. 200.Google Scholar It may be that Mark thought that in this case the meaning was sufficiently apparent and did not need driving home, unlike that of the cross.

1 Cf. Trocmé, , op. cit.Google Scholar pp. 162 f.

2 Even if it is held that Mark believed that the women did not tell the disciples (xvi. 8) then this would provide the disciples with an adequate excuse for failure and Mark would be inconsistent in attacking them.

1 Since this lecture was prepared I have read Räisänen, H., Das ‘Messiasgeheimnis’ im Markusevangelium (Helsinki, 1976)Google Scholar, and am happy to see that from an entirely different approach he has come to a somewhat similar view (see pp. 119 ff.) to that propounded above.