Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

Steve Black wrote August 09, 2001:

> >Ted wrote
> >Over a year ago I argued on Kata Markan that Mark created Judas and
Judas'
> >betrayal as a part of a programmatic vendetta against the Twelve.   More
> >recently I have argued the same in posts on XTalk and am now working on
an
> >essay that will provide more detail evidence for this.   Briefly here,
early
> >on in his Gospel, Mark identifies Judas as the betrayer (3:19).   One of
the
> >strong points in Mark's vendetta against the Twelve is to emphasize that
> >Jesus was betrayed from within the cohort of the Twelve.  That is why it
was
> >important for Mark to indicate that, wherever Judas, Jesus' betrayer, is
> >referred to in the context of the passion narrative, he be identified as
> >"one of the Twelve."  On the three different occasions where Judas is
> >mentioned or alluded to in the passion narrative he thus is clearly and
> >specifically identified as "one of the Twelve."    It is the case when
Mark
> >has Judas go to the religious authorities to join the conspiracy against
> >Jesus (14:10).  It is the case when Jesus speaks of his betrayer at the
Last
> >Supper (14:20).   It is the case when Mark dramatizes Judas' arrival with
> >the arresting party in Gethsemane (14:43), where Judas' betrayal is
> >consummated.   Thus, the reference to  hEIS  TWN DWDEKA in Mk. 14:20, in
my
> >judgment, is part of Mark's vendetta against the Twelve.   The Nestle
> >reading of 14:20 is the authentic and original Markan text.
> >
>
> Steve replies
> I agree!
> It is exactly this that causes me to doubt that Mark intended  Judas
> to represent Judea.
> I see him being linked entirely to the twelve. If Mark DID intend for
> his readers to "see"  Judea in Judas, that would weaken his polemic
> against the twelve. His polemic against the religious leadership in
> the south doesn't need Judas!  I believe if Judas is seen as
> representing Judea, it would weaken the distinction that I believe
> Mark construes between the various "enemies" of Jesus.

My response [TJW]:

I will address the question of Judas' name linked to Judea in full in a
future essay.   But for now the Twelve in Mark represent, in my view,
surrogates for Mark's opponents in his community who are attacking and
undermining Mark's christology and view on discipleship with their own
triumphalist christology and discipleshp.   Mark's opponents claim the
authority of the Twelve as support for their position against Mark.   Mark
does not have the authoritative clout to challenge his opponents' position
on his own terms.   Thus he uses Jesus as his authority to out-trump the
authority of the Twelve.    To do so, unlike Paul, he cannot write a letter.
etc, to defend his position by citing that his gospel is a special
revelation from Jesus Christ (see Gal 1:12).    So Mark chooses to do the
next best thing.   He creates a drama, which has the appearance of being a
":bio" of Jesus.    In the drama he has Jesus represent his position and
Peter and the rest of the Twelve represent the position of Mark's opponents.
Mark casts the disciples as out of sync with Jesus from the beginning of
their relationship with Jesus and finally in the end betraying, denying and
abandoning Jesus.   The Twelve, as authorioties for Mark's opponents, are by
the final curtain totally discredited.    They exit the stage as apostates.

Mark's Gospel drama is composed like a parable.   Mark sets up one
particular view of Jesus at the outset, that of a triumphal miracle worker.
In so doing he presents the power christology of  his opponents, a
christology which has no place for a suffering-servant Christ.   That power
tour-de-force of the Jesus in the first half of the drama leads the Markan
Peter, as surrogate authority for Mark's opponents, to confess Jesus as the
Christ, a power-oriented Christ.   It is at that point that Mark introduces
a parabolic jolt.   He has Jesus silence the Petrine confession (8:30) and
then proceeds to have Jesus for the first time introduce a radically
different orientation to christology.   Through the passion predictions,
beginning immediately after Jesus silences the Petrine christology, Jesus
becomes the advocate of suffering-servant christology and discipleship
(8:34ff., etc.).    The Twelve, often represented by Peter, James and John,
as narrative surrogates for Marl's opponents, resist and finally reject
Jesus' christology and discipleship.    But the Markan Jesus continues to
champion and model the suffering-servant christology, as Mark has
constructed the drama.   In the end of the drama Mark has Jesus epitomizes
suffering-servant christology in the crucifixion.    Jesus then is
vindicated, as the innocent sufferer wrongfully persecuted and put to death
(a la Nicklesburg), following his death at the cross (1) by the Roman
centurion who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God (as a result of dying a
suffering servant's death) and (2) by his future exaltation and enthronement
in the end-time event (13:24-27), at which time Jesus will be vindicated
before the Judean religious establishment that put him to death (14:62) and
his apostate disciples (14:28).   A good part of the above summary statement
can be found in my _Mark--Traditions in Conflict_.

Judas' name then is invented and tied by Mark to Judea and the Judean
religious establishment---which  opposed Jesus and put him to death--- in
order to show that the Twelve were in effect directly linked with the Judean
establishment in opposition to Jesus.    Mark himself is a Galilean, living
with his community in the village region of Caesarea Philippi just after the
fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.   Mark is adamantly
pro-Galilean and anti-Judean.   In his own time he views the position of the
Jerusalem Church, represented historically by Peter (the Twelve) and James,
to be antithetical to and a betrayal of Jesus' Galilean roots and Jesus'
opposition to the Judean establishment and its hegemonic oppression of
Galileans.   Mark names Jesus' betrayer "Judas Iscariot" in order to link
Judas, via Iscariot (*sicarii*), to the Zealot party that took over the
Temple in 67-68 CE and wage the armed resistance against Rome.    As has
often been noted scholars who have interpreted "Iscariot" as a reference to
Judas being a Zealot have had a problem in defending that position.   For
Zealots as an revolutionary group were unknown and apparently non-existent
during the time of Jesus.   Zealots only came into prominence around the
time of the Roman-Jewish War, particularly in 67-68 with their take over of
the Temple.   Thus those who have argued for Judas, as a historical figure,
being linked to the Zealots create an anachronistic problem for themselves.
But that problem is removed if one understands that Mark has created Judas
as a dramatic persona and linked Judas with the Zealots as Mark knew of them
in his time.   Of course for Mark to create Jesus' betrayer as a Judas who
was a Zealot is in itself anachronistic.   But dramas create their own world
and figures in the drama do not have to conform to realities in the real
world.   Certainly Mark's portrayal of the disciples, and particularly
Peter, does not cohere to the reality of the relationship those real persons
had with the historical Jesus.   A future essay will provide supportive
evidence for this argument and other arguments only summarily suggested
here.

Ted Weeden