Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:54:22.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Religious Authorities in the Gospel of Mark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Jack Dean Kingsbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the story-world of Mark, the religious authorities — the scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, chief priests, elders, and Sadducees — form a united front opposed to Jesus61 and therefore constitute, literary-critically, a single, or collective, character. If Jesus is the protagonist, they are the antagonists, and both Jesus and they exhibit a ‘root character trait’, that is, a character trait from which all other traits spring. Thus, Jesus, as the Messiah Son of God, is characterized as ‘uniquely related’ to God. As such, he is endowed with divine authority and ‘thinks the things of God’, which is to say that he views reality from a divine perspective. In contrast, the religious authorities are characterized as being ‘without authority’, which is to say that they ‘think the things of men’ and view reality from a purely human perspective. Consequently, the conflict between Jesus and the authorities in Mark's story is an extended clash over ‘authority’. Instead of receiving Jesus as God's Messiah and Son, they oppose him throughout his ministry.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 42 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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 Two studies of the authorities that, at the writing of this article, were not yet available are those of E. S. Malbon (‘The Jewish Leaders in the Gospel of Mark: A Literary Study of Marcan Characterization’, JBL 108 [1989] 259–81)Google Scholarand Saldarini, A. J. (‘The Social Class of the Pharisees in Mark’, The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee [ed. Neusner, J. et al. : Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 69–77).Google ScholarOther studies that concentrate not on the religious authorities as such but on some or all of the controversies in Mark are, e.g., Thissen, W., Erzählung der Befreiung: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mk 2,1–3,6 (FB; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1976);Google ScholarHultgren, A. J., Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979);Google ScholarDewey, J., Markan Public Debate (SBLDS 48; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980);Google ScholarMundla, J.-G. Mudiso Mbâ, Jesus und die Führer Israels (NTAbh 17; Münster: Aschendorff, 1984).Google Scholar

2 Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (NovTSup 51; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978).Google Scholar

3 ‘Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium’, ZNW 78 (1987) 169–85.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Cook, , Jewish Leaders, 10 (also p. 4).Google Scholar

5 Cf. Lührmann, , ‘Pharisäer und Schriftgelehrten’, 177.Google Scholar

6 Cf., e.g., Rhoads, D. and Michie, D., Mark as Story, 73–9.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Mark, 14. 43, 48–9.Google Scholar

8 Within the story world of Mark, the ‘Herodians’ appear to be thought of as agents of Herod Antipas (cf. 3. 6 and 12. 13 with 8. 15), who stands out as a character in his own right (6. 14–29). Nonetheless, because Mark associates the Herodians so closely with the Pharisees, they function in effect within the circle of the ‘religious authorities’.Google Scholar

9 On this understanding of narrative plot, see already Aristotle, Poetics, 7.1–7.Google Scholar

10 With regard to the view that Mark 1. 1–15 constitutes the ‘beginning’ of Mark's Gospel, cf. Guelich, R. A., ‘“The Beginning of the Gospel”: Mark 1:1–15’, Biblical Research, 27 (1982) 5–15.Google Scholar

11 On ‘preaching’, cf. 1. 14–15, 38, 39. On ‘calling disciples’, cf. 1. 16–20; 2. 14; 3. 13–19. On ‘teaching’, cf. 1. 21–22; 2. 13; 4. 1–2; 6. 2, 6b, 34; [also 10. 1; 11. 17–18; 12. 35; 14. 49]. On ‘healing’, cf. 1. 34; 3. 10; 6. 53–56. On ‘exorcising demons’, cf. 1. 27, 34, 39; [3. 11–12].Google Scholar

12 Cf. Mark, 11.18; 14. 1; 15. 31; also 10. 33.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Mark, 14. 53, 55; 15.1; also 8. 31; 11. 27; 14. 43.Google Scholar

14 Cf. Mark, 14. 53, [55]; 15.1; also 11. 27; 14. 43; 8. 31.Google Scholar

15 Whereas I construe the ‘religious authorities’ as a single character, Rhoads and Michie (Mark as Story, 117) regard, wrongly I believe, all authorities, Jews and gentiles, as constituting the single character of ‘authorities’. As I see it, Pilate, the Roman soldiers, the centurion, and Herod Antipas have discrete roles to play and do not present themselves as a collective character. On the ‘Herodians’, cf. above, n. 8.Google Scholar

16 In this connection, note, e.g., the comment by Cranfield, C. E. B. (The Gospel according to St Mark [CGTC; Cambridge: University Press, 1959] 374): ‘The intention of the Sadducees is to ridicule the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection accepted by Jesus.’CrossRefGoogle ScholarVirtually the same comment is also made by Taylor, V. (The Gospel according to St. Mark) [London: Macmillan, 1952] 482.Google ScholarBy contrast, Nineham, D. E. (The Gospel of St Mark [PGC; New York: Seabury, 1968] 318) correctly sees how little Mark is concerned to tell the reader about the Sadducees:‘… all we are told about them [the Sadducees] is the bare minimum necessary for the intelligent appreciation of the [this] incident’. Nineham's remark is in full agreement with our contention that Mark would have the reader posit fundamental solidarity and not divisions among the various groups of religious authorities.Google Scholar

17 Cf. Lührmann, , ‘Pharisäer und Schriftgelehrte’, 180–1.Google Scholar

18 Cf. ibid., 172, 181.

19 Cf. ibid., 181.

20 Cf. ibid., 181–5.

21 Further, it is likewise the scribes whom Jesus assails while teaching the crowd because they seek privilege and the acclaim of others and devour the houses of widows (12. 38–40).Google Scholar

22 So also Broer, I., Die Urgemeinde und das Grab Jesu (NTAbh 31; München: Kosel, 1972) 178.Google Scholar

23 Taylor, (St. Mark, 484) speaks for numerous scholars when he identifies Mark 12. 28–34 not as a ‘controversy’, but as a Schulgespräch (‘scholastic dialogue’). The problem with this form-critical determination, however, is that it characterizes the relationship between the scribe and Jesus as that of ‘student and teacher’. The upshot is that the scribe effectively ceases to be one of the religious authorities, and the irony that one from among the authorities should attest that Jesus possesses a knowledge of the will of God superior to that of the authorities is lost.Google Scholar

24 It should be noted, however, that even the friendly scribe, who Jesus says is ‘not far’ from the kingdom, is still described as ‘outside’ and not ‘inside’ the kingdom (12. 34).Google Scholar

25 So, e.g., Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (tr. , F. H. and Cave, C. H.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 96;Google ScholarTaylor, , St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952) 600;Google ScholarCranfield, , St. Mark, 462;Google ScholarSenior, D., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984) 133;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., ‘The Burial of Jesus’, CBQ 50 (1988) 238–9.Google ScholarWith reservation: Dormeyer, D., Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell (NTAbh 11; Münster: Aschendorff, 1974) 216;Google ScholarPesch, R., Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977)2.512–13.Google Scholar

26 So Schreiber, J., Die Markuspassion (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1969) 59;Google ScholarKelber, W. H., ‘Conclusion: From Passion Narrative to Gospel’, The Passion in Mark (ed. Kelber, W. H.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 175.Google Scholar

27 Cf. further 14. 53, 55;Google Scholar1. Both Pesch, (Markusevangelium, 2. 513)Google Scholarand Schneider, G. (Die Passion Jesu nach der drei älteren Evangelien [Biblische Handbibliothek 11; München: Kösel, 1973] 139) try to avoid the harsh conclusion that Joseph, were he a member of the Sanhedrin, would have been one of those responsible for Jesus' condemnation to death: Pesch adopts the convenient position that Joseph is not to be thought of as present at Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin, and Schneider appeals to Luke 23. 51 to prove that Joseph did not concur in the Sanhedrin's sentence against Jesus. Mark's stress on ‘all the council’ and ‘all’ the counsellors as participating in Jesus' trial and condemnation, however, precludes these easy solutions.Google Scholar

28 Schreiber, (Markuspassion, 59), for example, argues that Joseph, who acts in accord with Jewish piety in asking Pilate for the body of Jesus, earlier acted in violation of the principles of this same piety in voting to have Jesus condemned to death. In other words, Schreiber's position seems to be that so zealous was Joseph for his religion that his very zealotry led him to join the other Sanhedrists in condemning Jesus to death.Google Scholar

29 One advocate of this position, for example, is Kelber (‘From Passion Narrative to Gospel’, 175).Google Scholar

30 After a lengthy discussion, Broer (Urgemeinde und Grab Jesu, 175–83) leaves the question open whether Joseph was, or was not, a member of the Sanhedrin, but only in principle. In reality, Broer (ibid., 157) opines that it is ‘altogether questionable’ (durchaus fraglich) that Mark intends for the term ‘counsellor’ to depict Joseph as a Sanhedrist.

31 Cf., e.g., Schrenk, W., Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1974) 255;Google ScholarGnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2; Zürich and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger Verlag and Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 2. 332–3;Google ScholarLührmann, D., Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987) 267;Google Scholaralso Nineham, , St Mark, 434;Google ScholarMatera, F., Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist Press, 1986) 49.Google Scholar

32 Cf. Rhoads, and Michie, , Mark as Story, 132–3.Google Scholar

33 The same, incidentally, is true of Jairus, a ‘leader of a synagogue’ (5. 22). Within Mark's story, Jairus' place is with that distinct group of minor characters whose role it is to exhibit ‘faith’ in Jesus.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Mark, 1. 11; 9. 7; 12. 6; 14. 36.Google Scholar

35 On ‘divine point of view’ in Mark, cf. Kingsbury, J. D., The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 47–50.Google ScholarFor a broad discussion of point of view in Mark, cf. Petersen, N., ‘“Point of view” in Mark's Narrative’, Semeia 12 (1978) 97–121.Google Scholar

36 On this last point, cf. esp. 14. 24 and Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 166 (also 120);Google ScholarGnilka, , Evangelium nach Markus, 2. 245–6.Google Scholar

37 Mark, 2. 25; 11.17; 12.10–11, 24, 26, 27; also 12. 35–37.Google Scholar

38 Mark, 3. 29–30; 14. 63–64; 15. 31.Google Scholar

39 Mark, 7. 6; 12.15.Google Scholar

40 Mark, 1.13; 8.11; 10. 2; 12.15.Google Scholar

41 Mark, 11.18,32; 12.12.Google Scholar

42 Mark, 3. 6; 11.18; 12.12; 14.1; 15.1.Google Scholar

43 Mark, 12. 12; 14. 61–64a.Google Scholar

44 Mark, 14.1,10–11, 43.Google Scholar

45 Mark, 14. 55–59; 15. 3.Google Scholar

46 Cf. Mark, 1. 7–8; 12. 1–12.Google Scholar

47 On the relationship to one another of the designations ‘the Messiah’, ‘the Son of the Blessed’, and ‘the Son of man’ in Mark 14. 61–62.Google Scholarcf. Kingsbury, (Christology of Mark's Gospel, 118–24); on the high priest's charge of ‘blasphemy’ in 14. 63–64, cf. Gnilka (Evangelium nach Markus, 2. 283).Google Scholar

48 Cf., e.g., Mark, 4.38; 9.17, 38; 10.17, 20, 35; 12.14, 19, 32; 13.1; also 9. 5; 10. 51; 11.21; 14.45.Google Scholar

49 Cf. also Rhoads, and Michie, , Mark as Story, 86. In her fine study of 2. 1–3. 6.Google ScholarDewey, (Markan Public Debate, 116) likewise calls attention to the trend in this section toward a heightening of conflict, but sees it as developing along different lines.Google Scholar

50 In the expression ‘the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod’ (8. 15), Mark does not explain how he intends the term ‘leaven’ to be understood. In parallel passages, Matthew refers to ‘the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ and defines leaven as ‘teaching’(Matt 16. 6, 12); Luke, in turn, refers to ‘the leaven of the Pharisees’ and defines leaven as ‘hypocrisy’ (Luke 12. 1). While commentators advance numerous conjectures on the meaning of ‘leaven’ in Mark 8. 15.Google ScholarSchweizer, (Evangelium nach Markus, 86) speaks for most in taking it, in line with rabbinic thought, to connote in some sense the workings of the ‘evil inclination’ (cf., e.g., Taylor, St. Mark, 365: ‘evil disposition’; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 413: ‘[political] way of thinking’;Google ScholarGnilka, , Evangelium nach Markus, 1. 310–11: ‘[negative] influence’;Google ScholarGrundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus [THKNT 2; 7. Auflage; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1977] 209: ‘corrupting power’).Google Scholar

51 Cf. Kingsbury, , Christology of Mark's Gospel, 108–14.Google Scholar

52 Cf., e.g., Pesch, R., Naherwartungen (KBANT; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 103.Google Scholar

53 On the interpretation of this parable within the story-world of Mark, cf. Kingsbury, , Christology of Mark's Gospel, 114–21.Google Scholar

54 Cf. Mark, 12.12; 11.18; 3. 6.Google Scholar

55 On the high priest's question and Jesus' answer, cf. Kingsbury, , Christology of Mark's Gospel, 118–21.Google Scholar

56 Cf. Gnilka, , Evangelium nach Markus, 2. 283.Google Scholar

57 On this particular point, cf. 6. 34; 11.18; 12.12, 37; also 1. 21–22, 28, 37, 45; 2.12; 3. 7–8, 20, 32–35; 4.1–2; 5. 21; 6. 53–56; 10.1.Google Scholar

58 Cf. also Rhoads, and Michie, , Mark as Story, 88–9.Google Scholar

59 Cf. Mark, 12. 9c; 14. 28; 16. 7; 13. 5–37.Google Scholar

60 On the interpretation of 14. 62b and Mark's use in his passage of ‘the Son of man’, cf. Kingsbury, , Christology of Mark's Gospel, 121–4.Google Scholar

61 The exception to this ‘rule’ is, of course, the ‘friendly scribe’ (12. 28–34), who, as we observed above, is an ‘ironic character’.Google Scholar

62 Again, the ‘friendly scribe’ is the exception.Google Scholar

63 Cf. Mark, 12. 9; 13.10; 14. 9, 28; 16. 7.Google Scholar