Kata Markon

[Mike Parsons <Mike_Parsons AT baylor.edu>]

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


I see you have written a book on this subject, so have thought about the text 
more than I have and perhaps have more invested in your interpretation than 
do I. so i'll take one more stab at this and then let it rest.
George Young wrote:

>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. 
How does one know when "an evaluative comment--outside the story" has been 
introduced.  There are several other gar clauses in this one pericope.  And 
what does it mean to be "outside the story"?


 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 (! guess i'm not the 
>only one with 'tired fingers!)

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).

well, perhaps they are astonished about the wrong things (i.e. think he is a 
phantom) and rather than being calmed by his words they continue to be 
confounded (this word is an interesting one, even translated as "madness" 
earlier in Mark 3:21) and this is the criticism implied by the narrator in v. 
52.


>Loaves have nothing to do with it.  
Oh really.  I would have thought the reference to the feeding of the 5,000 
here would have much to do with the fantastic element in Mark, as you call 
it.  If they didn't understand the import of that miracle, how are they to 
understand this one.


The rhetorical *evaluative* comment in
>v. 52 is a red-herring, lacking substance and consistency. 
I don't see it this way.

 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.


I have not read your book, but I must confess to being predisposed against 
"unreliable narrators" in biblical narrative specifically, and ancient 
literature in general.  Nor have works that propose this theory (Dawsey on 
Luke, Hedrick on Mark and John) been persuasive to me (nor to the larger 
guild I might add).  But then maybe your work is the exception.
>
>
>> >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.


Ok, a point of possible agreement!
>
>>  "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.

Well, there's not much to respond to here. You have made a pronouncement that 
Garland's (and my) interpretation as "very weak" with no explication and then 
damned it for not having "fully thought through the  . . . " (I suppose fully 
thought through in this case means not coming to the same conclusion that you 
have).

Perhaps we have reached the end of productivity on this thread (evidenced  by 
the fact that no one else is chiming in).


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