Kata Markon

[Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>]

We owe a word of thanks to Ted Weeden for his detailed exposition on the 
pivotal
figure of Judas. Since I disagree with him on key points, I will try in six
sections to answer him and also to react to some colleagues writing  on the
subject in Kata Markon last March. Let me start by noting that I side with 
those
who concluded that Judas is a fictional figure whose 'kiss' must symbolize an
act or acts directly related to the passion story. Moreover, in order to be an
effective symbol the kiss must have evoked in the minds of Mark's Christian
Judean audience an event or a sequence of historical events painful to them,
worthy to be symbolized by a deadly 'kiss
I.    Thus far one major element of the narrative world of the story has not
been discussed: the epithet ascribed to Judas early in the story, ' hos kai
paredoken auton' , who handed him over (3,18) - often wrongly translated 'who
betrayed (= pro-edoken) him'.  For the verb 'paradidomi' controls the
composition of the last two of the three passion predictions. The story of the
passion - to use an irreverent metaphor - carefully follows the time - table 
in
the third prediction (10,33f.) including the mocking, spitting, flogging and
killing.  [Incidentally, it is in 10,32 that according to Clement of 
Alexandria
the 'neaniskos' of Secret Mark appeared. And the question arises why precisely
there? I believe, as shown below, that the youth is the counterpart of Judas 
in
Mark in this 'handing over' process].  The 'kiss'  of Judas marks the turning
point from Jesus' active life to his passion. From then on his life turns 
toward
his death. He is 'handed over' first 'to the high priests' etc (!) as 
predicted
in 10,33 and afterwards he is handed over to the pagan Pilate by the 'high
priests, together with the elders and scribes' (15,1). This precise order of 
(a)
first to the high priests and then (b) to the Gentiles is followed only in the
third prediction (10,33).  So the question arises why only in the third
prediction and why repeat the passion prediction three times at all, while
modifying its wording? It is, as if Mark - by three times carefully modifying
the wording - is guiding his readers from an earlier understanding of Jesus'
death to a deeper understanding, relevant to his contemporary post-70 readers.
The pre-70 first edition of 'Mark' may well have contained a single saying 
that
Jesus alone would be 'rejected' by the elders and by Caiaphas alone. For the
verb 'reject' is used in the first prediction (8,31) and only there. The
'handing over' sequence starts in the second prediction for the development of
this deeper understanding. What is this 'deeper' understanding for readers who
next to the crucifixion now are also deeply moved by the tragedy of the 
downfall
of their nation?
Mark invites his readers, as it were, to see a connection between the
crucifixion in ± 30 and the ruining of the temple in 70, but what is this
connection?
 I conclude that this 'handing over' process to the Gentiles is the cantus
firmus or the central theme of the post-70 revision of Mark that ends with the
vision by the women of the disaster that will come upon the PLACE, that is the

Maqom, Mount Zion, 40 years after the crucifixion.The Place will see the death
of thousands. The angel does not gesture to an empty slab of stone in a
monumental grave; his words refer to this vision of the terrifying future 
event
in 70:"Behold, the place - the 'Maqom', where they laid him". Fearful, they
fled! But the promise of the living Messiah remains: he is not there where 
they
buried his corpse (ptoma, 15,45), he will 'go before' to the Gentiles, where
those who belong to his living Body (soma), the ecclesia, will see him.
    Any exegesis of the Judas' episodes must fit into Mark's narrative world, 
as
Steve Black rightly noted, unless we declare the author to be absolutely
incompetent. Now without the kiss, Mark seems to imply, Jesus would NOT have
been handed over and the elaborate introduction to the Last Supper about WHO
will hand Jesus over,  underlines the fact that 'one of the twelve' is about 
to
do just that.

II. Thus far little attention has also been paid to the corporate  meaning of
some of the persons involved or of the plural form used, where one would 
expect
a singular. So in 8,38 a distinction is made between the person of Jesus and 
the
Messianic figure of the 'huios tou anthropou' of Dan 7, whose parousia was 
still
awaited in the time of Jesus. It has been rightly observed, already by T. W.
Manson, that the key term, 'huios tou anthroopou' [taken from the messianic
vision Dan 7] is a corporate figure.  According to Dan 7,14 all power will be
given to a God-sent Human One [= huios tou anthropo]; his deeds will differ 
from
the beast like cruelty of the rulers of four Gentile nations: like a lion, a
bear, a panther  and an unspeakable monster, the Syrian Hellenic empire. What 
is
more, the 'people of the Most High' will share in the coming kingdom of the
Human One according to Dan.7. It stands to reason, since Mark uses the term
'huios tou anthropou', - he verbally quotes Daniel 7 in Jesus' confession
(14,62) -, he has this corporate meaning of the 'Human One' in mind: the 
Messiah
AND his people will be handed over to the Gentiles. One may infer that in the
opening phrase "the kingdom of God is at hand" (1,15, cf Acts 1,6), this
corporate understanding of the coming kingdom already played its part also in
the pre-70 forerunner of our Gospel "he will reign forever and ever" as in
Handel's Hallelujah choir. The hope of the kingdom as in the Danielic parousia
expectation was real in the time of Jesus. So also in the pre-70 precursor of
Mark the hope of the coming kingdom was still fervent - no one at that time
foresaw the extent of the coming catastrophe. But in the wake of 70 Mark 
needed
to explain why the parousia had been delayed.
Here the symbol of the kiss comes into the story. Iscariot, "one of the 
twelve",
represents a segment of the population, in casu the high priest(s) etc.whose
wrong decisions caused the coming disaster according to Mark.

III  As to the plural form:
(a) we don't read a prediction "I" will be handed over, but the 'Human One' 
will
be handed over.  Thus Mark subtly included the unexpected downfall of God's
people in 70 in the story of the crucifixion. In the passion of Jesus the
suffering of his people is also represented (the curtain is rent, 
foreshadowing
70).
    (b)  We observed that in the post-70 triple prediction, this 'huios tou
anthropou', namely, the Messiah and his people, becomes the subject of a 
process
when the verb 'paradidomi'  is introduced in 9,31. And in 10,33f  the process 
of
'handing over' is further expanded to two phases, first to high priests 
(plural)
etc and than to the Gentiles (cf. Mt 27,18.26).
    (c) It catches the eye furthermore, that the term 'high priest(s)' is 
always
in the plural in Mark. For only Caiaphas was high priest at the time of Jesus'
death.  The same is true for the arresting term 'Gentiles'. For Caiaphas 
turned
Jesus over primarily to Pilate alone and to the cruelty of his soldiers only
indirectly by implication.
    (d) Now in the odd verse 15,1 the verb 'paradidomi' is used again. It is a
typically Markan verse (euthus - meta ton presbuteron). It is strange because 
of
the plurality of the people involved. The entire council was 'binding' just 
this
one man and they were 'handing him' over as a body to the governor.
   I am making this point of plurality and corporateness at length. For I
concluded that Mark was writing a Passover Haggadah, a story in which the 
tragic
events of the entire Judean people in the first century are subsumed in a
symbolic story, a passover haggadah, but strictly seen through the eyes of
Christian Judeans who confessed Jesus to be Israel's Messiah. In their eyes,
what happened during the days of Jeremiah, had happened in their own time and
certain compatriots were accused as having contributed to the fall of 
Jerusalem
as in the days of Jeremiah.
Thus in his post-70 revision Mark retold the story of the crucifixion, but it 
is
now told in the shadows of the tragic course of events from 30 to 70 CE that
followed the death of the Messiah. His followers would also 'drink the cup'.
    Thus Mark's story is meant to become part of the seder of Israel, just as
the Exodus experience and the exile to Babylon were already part of the
Haggadah. Mark tells his passion story anew to show what led to the downfall 
of
Jerusalem but also to open a door to the promised future - the risen Messiah
will go before.... The "sheep" would be scattered" (14,27) but it would serve
the healing of  the nations.
    In Mark's Haggadah some actors represent a larger group of people. 
Caiaphas
is a main actor, but he represents also successive high priests, those who in
the period of 30 - 70 persecuted  Jesus' disciples. The deeds of his 
successors
are seen as part of Caiaphas' initial crime.  Saul  was the first who in the
name of the high priest was "persecuting Jesus" (Acts 9,5) in the eyes of
Christian Judeans. Also the deeds of Pilate and his soldiers are magnified to
symbolize also the future course of events The soldiers killed Israel's 
Messiah
but in the act the curtain of the temple is torn in two, foreboding the
destruction of the temple by the Roman legions in 70. Thus Mark's readers, for
whom the trauma of 70 was recent history,  looked at the crucifixion in
retrospect.
    So just as Josephus in his Bellum  wrote a history of the War and its
causes, Mark wrote a Passover Haggadah to be read in the night of Pesach about
Jesus' crucifixion but  now implying a  causal connection between the Cross 
and
the temple destruction.
  .
IV. Asked who it was who handed Jesus over "to the Gentiles" (10,34),  the
answer remains unclear. In Getsemane it is Judas with his kiss (14,18.54) but
the actual 'handing over' is done by the high priests (!) and the entire 
council
as a body (15,1). Since the Judas figure appears to be fictional, the kiss
symbolizes the deeds not only of Caiaphas but also of the highest office 
holders
of the people of God that succeeded him in Jerusalem. The religious sentiment
should not be overlooked. As high priests and elders they belong to the people
of God - the kiss implies a certain intimacy - yet, their deed is a kiss of
death. Judas fictive role is controled from beginning to end by the action of
Caiaphas and his ilk sitting in the (doomed) temple (14,1f.). This link with 
the
temple is confirmed by the midrash of Judas' suicide ( in Mt 27,5-10 and in 
Acts
1,20). For in them allusions are made to the desolation of the holy city.
    Furthermore. scholars like Vermes, rightly recognized in the 'binding' of
Jesus by the entire council is arresting.  But in the context of the suffering
of the Messiah, it served to remind the reader of the story of the Aqeda (Gen
22). It tells of the 'binding' of Isaac like a sacrificial lamb by Abraham-
"your only son whom you love" - , cf Rom 8,32. Mark emphasized purposely the
'binding' of Jesus by the council (15,1) The Aqeda probably served as a 
leading
metaphor already in the pre-70 Christian Judean Haggadah, cf. 1,11; 9,7 -
"beloved son"). I called this earlier Haggadah "Mark I" as distinct from our
canonical "Mark II", written soon after 70.

V.  It is clear that the thrice repeated passion prediction serves as the 
THEME
of the narrative world of Mark II. For he wanted to subsume the plot of his
story as a kiss leading to the 'handing over' process. So he invented  the
figure of Judas, emphatically designated as "one of the twelve" in 14,
10,17,20,23. He is the pivotal actor to symbolize the role of the 'high 
priests'
etc in the death of Jesus and the people of God, the 'huios tou anthropou'. 
They
handed Jesus over to 'the Gentiles'.
    Now this 'handing over'  to death is only one element in this mysterious
'handing over' process (see my Open Tomb, 393-461). The act of the high 
priests
represents only the NEGATIVE, dark and treacherous side of this process. It
proved not to be the only side of the 'handing over-process'. The other side 
was
that the 'huios tou anthropou' would also be handed over to the Gentiles in a
POSITIVE, life-giving way through the apostolate among the Gentiles. Paul is 
the
central figure here. Though tainted by the high priest's conspiracy, giving 
him
letters to "persecute" Jesus, he narrowly escaped from Gethsema - naked! (2 
Cor
5,3 - 'naked' before the judgment seat of Christ ,vs 10- Paul's letters were
studied by Mark). Mark, as I see it, retrojected Paul as the 'neaniskos' into
the Gospel, in the Getsemane story, just as he created the Judas' kiss to
symbolize the role of the high priests. Paul is the thirteenth disciple in
Gethsemane who "also followed - sunekolouthei. Thus the 'kiss' forms the 
turning
point in the 'pass-over haggadah' of the people of God, as Mark saw it. But in
the vision of the women it is precisely this thirteenth follower, the 
NEANISKOS,
robed in a white baptismal gown [or rather the angel of that neaniskos, Paul 
had
died in 70) who tells the women to tell PETER that the risen Master goes 
before
them into the Galil of the Gentiles. The death of the Messiah and the 
following
exile in 70 would be turned to good as PAUL had indeed written in Rom 11,25.
  I need not expand further on the importance of the verb 'paradidomi' in the
Gospels and the epistles both in the sense of  Jesus 'being handed over to
death' of 'giving himself up'  and in the sense of 'handing over' the sacred
tradition. But in an artful way Mark told the contemporary history of his 
people
in one moving story of its Messiah.  Luke in the first part of his Acts  
appears
to mark the same turning from persecution to apostolate among the nations with
the 'apostolic council' after the persecution of Acts12,1.

VI. Returning to the careful buildup  in 8,31; 9,31; 10,33f  of the 
'paradosis'
theme, I am rather convinced that the Judas' kiss represents the ambiguous 
side
of Israel being the elect of God.
As is made clear in the Hebrew Bible, there will always be 'Iscariots' among 
the
elect, men of deceit (sheqer, Ps 27,12 - passim). The false kiss itself is a
midrash on 2 Sam 20.9, as Ted acknowledged. For in midrash a text is quickly
singled out when identical wording is used (namely 'kataphilo') and the action
of the source text (Joab to Amasa, "Is it well with you. my brother?")
corresponds well with the extrapolation in the midrash. It is possible that 
Mark
while studying the Ahitofel episode, used it as a contextual paradigm for the
Gethsemane episode; but the identical wording in 2 Sam 20,9 is, I think,
decisive for the act of greeting and kissing Jesus whereby he is the one who
initiated the tragic unfolding of events.

I have placed Judas' kiss in this wider context of Mark's narrative world. It
will become clear that this thesis differs widely from Weeden's. Below I will
briefly point out where in the argumentation we chose different avenues of
thought in the exegesis.

> GMARK Digest for Tuesday, March 27, 2001.
>
> 1. Judas' Kiss and Methodology
> 2. Re: Judas' Kiss and Methodology
> From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:33:54 -0600

> .   The length of this post is necessitated in order to address adequately 
> the
> critical methodological
> issues that lie at the core of Joe's disagreement with my hermeneutic of
> Mark and mine with his... I also hope I may engage other listers on the 
> issue
> of methodology ...
> You (Joe) state:
> "To sell Jesus to the Hebrews as the rightful heir to the throne of the
> house of David, Mark apparently decided to show them that events in the life
> of David prefigured those in Jesus' life."

 In the Passover Haggadah  references are made directly or indirectly  to 
Moses,
Joshua, Elijah, David etc., The Gospel is like a tapestry in which the main
motifs of Scripture are interwoven. Not just one figure should be selected, as
Joe did.

> ... (as Joe put it)  [Mark] "scoured the Old Testament for things the Lord
> did, and events in the lives of persons that he could have Jesus emulate."

The process is that of midrash - Composing a midrash is not composing a story
and then "scouring" a sacred writing to support (more or less) what he knew in
the first place. It is applying Scripture to one's  present situation.

I agree with Ted that the choice of methodology determines the exegesis. But I
have problems with his conclusion on several major points.
In his reply to Joe, he states that Mark

>  "virtually dismisses Son of David christology (12:35-37) and debunks the
> office of the Twelve (presumably representing the 12 tribes of the new 
> Israel)
> by totally discrediting its
> twelve office holders, the disciples".

This doesnot do justice to Mark's Gospel. Peter (including his remorse) has 
the
leading role in the Gospel. He confesses Jesus and in spite of his
misunderstandings (all role-players misunderstand him at times) he is the last
person named in the Gospel. Not only in the tradition, but also in Paul's
letters, he is the acknowledged leader of the ecclesia in the diaspora. And 
his
apostolate in Rome seems historically anchored in spite of the dire critique 
of
the Tübinger School (IClement).
    As I explained before (Open Tomb, 561-565), Mark not only invented Judas,
"one of the Twelve", but he also retrojected the "12" in his revision of the
proto Mark I. The names of the four list of apostles we now have, are not in
accord. I have tried to reconstruct the original list of the twelve, that were
chosen not by Jesus himself, but soon after the crucifixion, an event alluded 
in
Luke's Acts - the Risen One 'appeared to the Twelve; no Iscariot there! But 
Mark
altered this original group of  twelve, now representing God's people in such 
a
way that the fictive Judas Iscariot as well as  Greeknamed Andreas, the
'spiritual' brother of Peter, were included. Two others were subtracted. 
Mark's
readers knew the names of the original twelve, of course and would have 
noticed
at once the new one, Iscariot, the man of the lie [sheqer], "one of the 
twelve"
who would "hand over" the "huios tou anthroopou", i.e. the basic theme of the
Haggadah. The added Greek name would tell the readers that Greek converts now
were considered to be part of the people of God. Mark symbolizes the incomeing
of the Gentiles by naming Andreas Simon's 'spiritual' brother. Jesus call them
first at the 'shore of the sea' to "fish for people".

>  Many of the OT allusions in his Gospel Mark inherited from his sources, for
> example the miracle catenae, apophthegms,etc. (see Paul Achtemeier [JBL
> articles, 1970/1972, on the Markan miracle
> catenae

As I see it Mark deliberately created a second feeding of 4000 to show that
Jesus not only taught the nourishing bread of the Torah to the 5000 (the 
Judean
people) but also to the 4000 (the Gentiles), which his disciples didnot
understand (8,21).

> Jesus' feedings, and Jesus stilling of the storm, which you feature on you 
> web
> site, should be ascribed to the creators of the stories prior to Mark

As I see it, Mark I, or proto-Mark, was a pre-70 Passover Haggadah for the
celebration of Pesach, used in the ecclesia and probably also written by Mark.
He revised it radically after 70.

> ..." who are the "Hebrews?"  If you are referring to Jews of Mark's time,
> which Jews: Galilean Jews?  Judean Jews?  Diaspora Jews?  Hellenistic Jews?
> As Horsley has pointed out
> (_Galilee_ and _Archaelogy, History and Society in Galilee_), the old
> constructs for identifying Jews in the late second temple period are not
> only oversimplified but also wrong-headed.

Surely, there were various kinds of Judeans, as citizens in any country. And 
the
allegiance of Galileans to the authorities may well have differed from the
Judeans of Jerusalem. But they all had in common that in their synagogues 
(resp.
ecclesia) they read and applied the Hebrew Bible to their own circumstance. 
This
is precisely what Mark did.

>
> ...Finally with respect to (4), if Mark is writing to "Hebrews," why does he
> find it necessary to explain the practice of  "the Pharisees and all the 
> Jews"
> (I think he means "Judeans") with respect to washing hands and food before
> eating (7:3f.)?

This is a legitimate question. My answer is that in Mark's ecclesia in the
diaspora there must have been a goodly number of former pagans who were
superficially familiar with halacha.  Following my theory, the gripping story
itself could have been understood even by the children and by the Gentiles who
just joined the ecclesia. But for the deeper interpretation, a Judean 
presbyter
would have been present. Mark was surely not written for publication in a
bookshop but for the celebration of Pesach.

> ... the Markan community is situated in a rural village, where illiteracy 
> was
> probably as high as 97%?

Here the difference in hypothesis comes sharply into view. One may compare a
critical interpretation of Mark with building a tower of bricks. My basic
hypothesis is that Mark indeed was the 'interpreter' of Peter. He was with 
Peter
in Rome according to tradition. But Weeden's conclusion is: Mark 's community 
is
a more or less sectarian anti-Petrine community in Northern Galilee. Now, if 
one
removes the 'hypothesis' from under the tower, the entire tower of bricks 
falls
down. But the burden of proof is on the scholar who disbeliefs the oldest
tradition and not the other way around.
So also the hypothesis that Mark is NOT the John Mark of Acts and the 
epistles.
My tower stands or falls with the hypothesis that the author was John Mark, a
Jerusalemite. Based on the text I assume that he was a learned Judean, a 
migrant
to Rome - his language (immigrant Greek with Latinisms) betrays him.

>  ...the location of Mark's community and the identity of his genre and why 
> he
> chose that genre.

According to my hypothesis Mark wrote for the ecclesia of Rome or of 
Alexandria
(Secret Mark, and tradition : first bishop of  Alexandria). The emphasis on
Jesus' ministry in Galilee is primarily not based on the somewhat rebellious
nature Judeans in Galilee, but (a) on the fact that the Galilean villages and
towns were surrounded by Gentile towns and cities, the decapolis and (b) that
Mark's ecclesia was also located in Gentile territory. Jesus' openness toward
Gentiles and his ministry to Judean and Gentile alike, should characterize the
ministry of the Gentiles. Mark was deeply influenced by Paul's letters.

>  Vernon Robbins (_Jesus the Teacher_ ) has best identified Mark's genre as
> essentially the
> genre of the teacher-disciple gather as represented by Xenophon's
> Memorabilia_, which Mark likely imitated.

Mark's Gospel is a Passover Haggadah according to subject matter and the
midrashic method used for telling  his story differs widely from Xenophon.


cordially,   Karel Hanhart   K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl

>