Kata Markon

["George Young" <gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca>]

Mike Parsons wrote:

> [v. 52] 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.

The narrators aside in v. 52 is commentary on the disciples' *astonishment,*
on what moments before they thought was a phantom (i.e., Jesus).  The GAR
clause of v. 52 provides an evaluative comment - outside the story - on the
events of vv. 45ff.  However, the narrator's tone is inconsistent with that
of Jesus in v.50b. The rhetorical thrust of v. 52 is that the disciples
should NOT have been astonished at the events they witnessed.  But if this
were the case, then the person and works of Jesus loose their special
quality, indeed, if no one is astonished at what Jesus does, then how is he
different from anyone else?  It is precisely because of the fantastic
qualities of Jesus that characters believe he is God sent (see Mk. 2:9-12).
Loaves have nothing to do with it.  The rhetorical *evaluative* comment in
v. 52 is a red-herring, lacking substance and consistency.  Quentin Quesnell
(The Mind of Mark, 1969) pointed this out long ago, but lacked the critical
terminology to address it adequately.  More recently, G. Young (Subversive
Symmetry, 1999) has raised the question of an unreliable narrator in Mk,
based upon this and other ominous verses.


> >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?

There is certainly the possibility (or probability?) of  'un double
entendre' with respect to EGO EIMI.


>  "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.

I find this explanation very weak.  Garland (whom you are quoting) has not
fully thought through
the rhetoric of v. 52, nor its extended implications with respect to Jesus,
the disciples, and Mark's story world ontology and epistemology.

George W. Young, PhD
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
Queen's College Faculty of Theology
210 Prince Philip Drive
St. John's  NF
CANADA   A1B 3R6
Tel. (709) 753-0116
Fax. (709) 753-1214
email: gwyoung AT morgan.ucs.mun.ca