Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Walking on Water

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Parsons <Mike_Parsons AT baylor.edu>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Walking on Water
  • Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:30:56 -0500


Reply to: RE: [gmark] Re: Walking on Water



George Young wrote:


>Mark's portrayal of the disciples (i.e., 'the twelve') is less than
>glamorous, as most (though, I guess not all) scholars agree. I agree.
I don't know
>'Garland'.
David Garland (Professor of NT at Truett Seminary, Baylor University) is the
author of the NIV Application Commentary I mentioned in the earlier note.
>

>This passage does not end with v. 52, unless, of course, (a) you want to
>leave the disciples and Jesus in the boat in the middle of the lake (the
>same boat, I hasten to add, that is mentioned with the article in v. 54), or
>(b) you follow the redacted outline by Paul Achtemeier, who judges Mark's
>redaction of pre-Markan sources in this episode as "grotesque."
Actually, I was just going by the paragraphing of the Nestle-Aland text and
the NRSV. You are right that the voyage continues to Gennesaret, but a
number of commentators treat 6:45-52 and 6:53-56 as separate pericopae
(Gundry, Taylor, Hurtado, Lane, though Garland does not). i do not agree
with Achtemeier's assessment.
>
>>That 'he wishes to pass them by' (i.e. wanted to reveal his divine identity
>to them) may have been partially >thwarted by the disciples's response (they
>thought he was a ghost [phantasma]).
>
>It sounds as though you are confusing the Markan narrator's aside with the
>opinion/thoughts of Jesus. I do not mean to confuse the two. I don't
>believe we have access to Jesus' thoughts/opinions. What we have here is
>the Markan narrator acting as an omniscient narrator, who knows what Jesus
>meant/desired to do. So the Markan Jesus (acc. to the narrator, and what
>else do we have) 'meant to pass them by.'
>The narrator's comment is thoroughly rhetorical,
>and, if you think about it, doesn't make any logical sense at all. Yes, it
>is rhetorical (as is most of Mark), but rhetoric implies an attempt to
>persuade. And what is it that the narrator is trying to convince his reader
>of in this instance? Again, I think theophany (or if you like christophany)
>is the answer.

Still
>more, in tone, Jesus' response to the disciples seems very positive, almost
>ironic or farcical, given that fact that he waits so long to come to their
>'rescue' (recall that he was watching them 'being tortured' at the oars),
>and given his desire is to leave them in the boat. Furthermore, as you
>indicate, the disciples only "thought" he was a ghost, their only
>perceptible response was that of screams.
>

>
>As the text states, Jesus "identity" as far as the disciples are concerned
>is open-ended. EGO EIMI is usually translated "I am here" or "Here I am."
Yes, and in many cases, this translation "masks" the use of the absolute "EGO
EIMI." What would the ancient audience have heard when the lector read EGO
EIMI, "I am here" or "I AM". I suggest the strong possibility of an echo here
to the divine name (it occurs again in 13:6 where Jesus warns against false
prophets who "will come in my name saying "I am!"), and again in Mark 14:62
when Jesus says to the High Priest, "I am! And you will the Son of Man . . .
"). Are these ordinary instances of ego eimi? Perhaps. But I think it
worthwhile to ask whether or not they may be "theologically loaded" in ways
no less powerful than the occurrences in the Gospel of John (or do you take
those all to be ordinary instances as well)? The only other occurrence of
eimi (in first person singular) is in Mark 1:7 on the lips of John the
Baptist and it is not an ego eimi construction.


>However, it is noteworthy that in this chapter (ch. 6), Jesus is attributed
>with no less than eight 'identities' (e.g., John the B., the prophet, the
>carpenter, a 'son,' a 'brother,' Elijah, and so forth). Further, the
>proper name "Jesus" drops out of use in 6:30 and does not appear again until
>8:27 - almost three chapters later!
>
>
>>I find the parallels to the use of parechomai in OT theophanies quite
>frankly irrestible in this passage,
>
>I tried to look up "irrestible" in my dictionary, but no luck. Do you mean
>"irresistible?" yes, sorry. chalk it up to tired fingers!

However, if I recall correctly, there is at best only one
>or two instances of water-walking in the Hebrew Bible. There are the
>passages in Job 9:8, 38:16, and Ps. 77:20, and the "pass by" passage in Ex.
>It seems to me that some of the better parallels will come from the
>Hellenistic water-walking sources, and that the more plausible readings will
>be ones informed by narrative theory (vs. OT word-matching, or redaction
>criticism). You miss my point. The parechomai refers to theophany scenes,
>not walking on water. In addition to the two I cited previously (God
>passing by Moses in Exod 33:19-34:7 and God passing by Elijah in 1 Kings
>19:11-12--parechomai is used in both instances) and the Job 9:8 passage you
>mention (which combines walking of water AND passing by), the Greek OT also
>uses parechomai to refer to an epiphany in Gen 32:31-33 (where the face of
>God "passed by" Jacob), Dan 12:1 (which refers to the glory of God passing
>by), and Amos 7:8; 8:2

I suggest this because there are a number of important issues
>that come into play when discussing that tiny 'pass by' phrase: Whether it
>is "tiny" or not is debatable; in light of these OT parallels, I suggest
>that it would loom rather large to Mark's audience.
>the level of story and at the level of the discourse - but also issues that
>tapper into Greco-Roman views of the divine, including the notion of ATH,
>i.e., the depiction of the arbitrary blindness, delusion, or disaster, which
>capricious gods often brought upon human subjects who, for good or ill, are
>brought into some special affinity with the deity.

I don't disagree here.
>
>>and conclude that even though the disciples misunderstand, the audience,
>with all these clues, is led to read >this scene as a theophany (in what
>meier sternberg calls a "reader-elevating strategy," where the audience
>>knows or understands something certain characters do not.)
>
>Does the "audience" understand the "he desired to pass them by" (v. 48c) or
>the narrator's aside in v. 52?

Both. The echo of theophany, missed by the disciples, is clear to Mark's
audience. The reference to the disciples' misunderstanding about the loaves
is connected to the calming of the sea. I quote Garland again (264)
"Jesus displays his divine power further when he gets into the boat. His
mere presence causes the wind to cease howling and enables the disciples to
continue their journey. It does not calm their apprehension, however. Marks
offers a surprising explanation for the disciples' terror and amazement:
'For they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened"
(6:52). The two incidents are somehow connected. What is it that they do
not understand about the loaves? What does it have to do with walking on the
water? Minear is on target when he comments that the disciples are 'blind to
the presence of God and his care for men . . . to the full glory of the
revelation of God 'in the face of Christ.'" And of course this theme of the
disciples' hardness of heart is repeated and explained further by Jesus'
comments in the "one loaf" story of Mark 8:14-21.
>


Mikeal C. Parsons
Department of Religion
Baylor University
Waco, TX 76798
Voice: 254-710-4591
FAX: 254-710-3740





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page