[Library of New Testament Studies Volume 290] Paul Danove - Rhetoric of Characterization of God, Jesus, And Jesus' Disciples in the Gospel of Mark (Library of New Testament Studies) (2005, T&T Clark Int'l)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
290
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli,
Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn,
Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Ropbert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole,
Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God, Jesus,
and Jesus' Disciples in the Gospel of Mark
Paul L. Danove
t&t dark
N E W Y O R K • L O N D O N
Copyright © 2005 by Paul Danove
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopy-
ing, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark
International.
T & T Clark International, Madison Square Park, 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY
10010
T & T Clark International, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.
Cover design: Corey Kent
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Danove, Paul L.
The rhetoric of the characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples in the Gospel
of Mark / Paul L. Danove.
p. cm. — (Journal for the study of the New Testament. Supplement series ; 290)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
EISBN 9780567028105
1. Bible N.T. Mark—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series.
BS2585.52D365 2005
226.3'066—dc22
2004027592
05 06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To my friend and mentor,
Rev. John Boyle, S.J,
who taught me how to read the New Testament
Contents
Preface ix
Abbreviations xi
Chapter 1
THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS 1
1. Situating the Method 1
2. Repetition in Mark 3
3. The Semantic Rhetoric of Repetition 6
4. The Narrative Rhetoric of Repetition 12
5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs 21
6. The Narrative Rhetoric of Characterization 21
7. The Narrative Function of Characterization 24
8. Applications of the Studies of Characterization 25
9. The Presentation of the Study 27
Chapter 2
THE RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF GOD 28
1. The Argument Roles Predicated of God 28
2. Preexisting Beliefs about God 33
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated References 35
4. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated Contexts 42
5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God 48
6. The Narrative Rhetoric of God's Characterization 49
7. The Narrative Function of God's Characterization 54
Chapter 3
THE RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS 56
1. Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus 56
2. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated References 59
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated Contexts
and Structures 75
4. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus 82
vu
viii The Rhetoric of Characterization
5. The Narrative Rhetoric of Jesus' Characterization 83

6. The Narrative Function of Jesus' Characterization 88
Chapter 4
THE RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS' DISCIPLES 90
1. Preexisting Beliefs about the Disciples 90
2. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples: Repeated References 91
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples: Repeated Contexts
and Structures 104
4. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs
about the Disciples 120
5. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Disciples' Characterization 120
6. The Narrative Function of the Disciples' Characterization:
Part 1 125
Chapter 5
RECAPITULATION: THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB 127
1. The Characterization of the Women 127
2. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs 13 5
3. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Women's Characterization 136
4. The Narrative Function of the Women's Characterization 139
5. The Narrative Function of Disciples' Characterization: Part 2 140
Chapter 6
APPLICATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION 143
1. Application: The Rhetorical Exigency of the Narration 143
2. Implications for Proposals of the Historical Exigency
of the Composition 159
3. Application: Mark's Theological Beliefs 164
4. Implications for Rigor and Specificity in Statements
of Theological Beliefs 165
5. Conclusion 167
Appendixes 168
A. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God 168
B. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus 169
C. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus' Disciples 171
Bibliography 174
Index of References 184
Index of Authors 189
PREFACE
This study develops a method for analyzing the semantic and narrative rhetoric
of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization and
applies this method in studies of the characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus'
disciples in the Gospel of Mark. The studies of characterization distinguish
beliefs that are assumed for the audiencefrombeliefs that the narration cultivates
for the audience, identifies the rhetorical relationships and organization of culti-
vated beliefs, and clarifies the contribution of each character's portrayal to the
overall narrative development of Mark. The study then considers the contribution
of the characterization of the women at the tomb to the portrayal of Jesus' disci-
ples and other narrative developments. A concluding inquiry investigates the
possible applications of the studies of characterization for determining the
rhetorical exigency of the narration and for formulating statements of Mark's
proposed theology.
Chapter 1 introduces the method of analysis employed in the following stud-
ies. This discussion situates the proposed method within contemporary
approaches to the study of Mark, introduces presuppositions, defines concepts,
develops procedures for analyzing and describing the semantic rhetoric of repeti-
tion, and from these draws out the presuppositions, concepts, and procedures for
analyzing and describing the narrative rhetoric of repetition. These considera-
tions permit a representation of the rhetorical organization of beliefs about char-
acters and an investigation of the contribution of characterization to other
narrative developments within Mark. The discussion then considers the manner
in which the studies of characterization may be placed in the service of articulat-
ing the rhetorical exigency and theology proposed by the narration. The chapter
concludes by indicating how the following studies apply the proposed method.
The studies of the characterization of God (ch. 2), Jesus (ch. 3), and Jesus' dis-
ciples (ch. 4) follow the same general format. The discussions first identify the
beliefs about God, Jesus, and his disciples that the narration assumes for its audi-
ence. The studies then examine the beliefs developed about each character by the
semantic and narrative rhetoric and note the relationships among and organiza-
tion of these cultivated beliefs. Discussions of the narrative rhetoric and function
of characterization then clarify the contributions of characterization to other nar-
rative developments.
ix
x The Rhetoric of Characterization
Chapter 5 examines the contribution of the characterization of the women at

the tomb to the portrayal of Jesus' disciples. This study follows the same pattern
as the previous studies of characterization but considers only those elements of
the women's portrayal that clarify their relationship with the disciples.
Chapter 6 develops two possible applications of the studies of characteriza-
tion. The first concerns the formulation of a statement of the rhetorical exigency
of the narration, that is, the situation or problem that the semantic and narrative
rhetoric seems to be designed to address and rectify. The second concerns the
formulation of statements of the theological beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus'
disciples that are developed by the semantic and narrative rhetoric. Brief discus-
sions clarify implications of both inquiries for Markan scholarship.
The presentation concludes with an appendix that identifies the relationships
and organization of the cultivated beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples;
a bibliography; and an index of referenced authors.
This preface would not be complete without recognizing those who have con-
tributed to the project. I wish to thank Sr. Andrea Likovich, O.S.F., and Dr.
Geoffrey Cowling for their assistance in proofing the text, Professor Stanley E.
Porter for very helpful recommendations concerning the organization and pres-
entation of its content, and the members of the Catholic Biblical Association
Task Force entitled "The Gospel of Mark in the 21st Century," for their helpful
comments on an earlier version of chapter 3 and for six years of very interesting
conversations about the Gospel of Mark. I also wish to thank Villanova Univer-
sity for the 2002 Summer Research Fellowship, which permitted uninterrupted
work on this manuscript.
I wish to thank the following publishers for their permission to develop in this
book the content of my previously published articles: The Pontifical Biblical
Institute for the use of "The Characterization and Narrative Function of the
Women at the Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)," Bib 77.3 (1996): 375-97, and
"The Rhetoric of Characterization of Jesus as Son of Man and Christ in Mark,"
Bib 84.1 (2003): 16-34; Brill Academic Publishers for the use of "The Narrative
Function of Mark's Characterization of God," NovT 43.1 (2001): 12-30; and
Sheffield Academic Press for the use of "The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark's
Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples," JSNT70 (1998): 21-28.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
AnBib Analecta Biblica
BDF Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A
Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1961)
Bib Biblica
BibRes Biblical Research
BIS Biblical Interpretation Series
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CGNTC Cambridge Greek New Testament Commentary
CS Chicago Studies
CSL Current Studies in Linguistics
CSLI Center for the Study of Language and Information
EKKNT Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
ExpTim Expository Times
FES Finnish Exegetical Society (Schriften der Finnischen
Exegetischen Gesellschaft)
Greg Gregorianum
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
Int Interpretation
IRT Issues in Religion and Theology
ISFCJ International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism
JAAR Journal of the American A cademy of Religion
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JR Journal of Religion
JSNT Journalfor the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journalfor the Study of the New Testament, Supplement
Series
LB Linguistica Biblica
XI
xii The Rhetoric of Characterization
Neot Neotestamentica
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association of America
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
SNTG Studies in New Testament Greek
SPCK Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge
SPIB Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici
SPS Sacra Pagina Series
TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dic-
tionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley;
10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-)
TDOT G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theolog-
ical Dictionary of the Old Testament (trans. John T. Willis; 12
vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-).
USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
ZNW Zeitschriftfur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschriftfur Theologie und Kirche
Chapter 1
THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS
This chapter develops a method for analyzing and describing the semantic and
narrative rhetoric of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and function of charac-
terization in the Gospel of Mark. The presentation begins by situating the pro-
posed method within contemporary approaches to the study of Mark. The
discussion of the method introduces presuppositions, defines concepts, and
develops procedures for analyzing and describing the semantic rhetoric of repeti-
tion. It then develops from these the presuppositions, concepts, and procedures
for analyzing and describing the narrative rhetoric of repetition. Possible contri-
butions of characterization to the overall narrative development of Mark also
receive consideration. The discussion then clarifies the manner in which the
studies of characterization may be placed in the service of articulating the rhetor-
ical exigency and theology proposed by the narration. The presentation con-
cludes by indicating how the following studies apply the proposed method.
1. Situating the Method

Contemporary scholarship employs a variety of methods in the study of Mark,
and these methods may be distinguished according to the primary focus of their
inquiry.1 Methods having a primary focus on the historical development of the
text inquire into the sources, forms, and redaction of traditions, the theological or
ideological concerns and sociological situations of communities that transmitted
traditions, and authorial intentionality. Those having a primary focus on what is
in the text inquire into the ways the text structures meaning and guides interpreta-
tion and the ways the reader interprets and formulates the meaning of the text.
Those having a primary focus on the contemporary use of the text inquire into the
ways the text may contribute to theological reflection or the critique of contem-
porary practice.
The method of analysis developed in this chapter places its primary focus on
the text of Mark and investigates the manner in which the text guides its own
1. This discussion develops elements of the presentation on methods in Sandra M. Schneiders,

The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: Harper,
1991), 110-14; and in John R. Donahue, "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel,"
CBQ 57 (1995): 1-26, here 3-4.
1
2 77*2 Rhetoric of Characterization
interpretation.2 In this approach, the method is concerned not primarily with the
historical author(s) and readers of Mark or the possible applications of the text by
contemporary readers but with the analysis and description of the author and
reader implied by the text.3 In particular, the method is concerned with analyzing
and describing the ways in which the narration of Mark cultivates specific mean-
ings for the words and constructs used in characterization, places characteriza-
tion in the service of other narrative developments, and attempts to elicit
particular responses from the implied reader.4
The method's study of the ways in which the narration cultivates specific
meanings for words uses linguistic presuppositions, concepts, and procedures of
analysis and description.5 The study of the contribution of constructs and charac-
terization itself to the narrative development uses a system of narrative analysis
developed from the same linguistic presuppositions, concepts, and procedures.
The resulting method complements a primarily synchronic study of how the nar-
ration cultivates the meaning of words and constructs with a primarily diachronic
study of how the unfolding of the narration establishes the possibility for inter-
pretative responses.
These considerations indicate that the method is at its foundation a rhetorical
method; for it is directed to examining the ways in which the narration attempts
to develop opportunities for the implied reader to entertain and ultimately incor-
porate linguistically and narratively developed meaning and to respond to situa-
tions and events.6 Thus, the method's concepts and procedures permit a
2. Discussions of what is implied by textually guided interpretation appear in Elizabeth

Struthers Malbon, "Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?" in Mark and Method: New
Approaches in Biblical Studies (ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992), 23-49; and in Gabriel Fackre, "Narrative Theology: An Overview," Int 37 (1983):
340-52.
3. The implied author and the implied reader receive introduction in Seymour Chatman, Story
and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1978), 151; and Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1983), 74-75; cf. Stephen D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical
Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 180. The concept of the implied reader
receives further clarification below.
4. The method's analysis and description of the ways in which the narration attempts to elicit
responses have significant parallels to that of reader-response criticism: see W. Randolph Tate, Read-
ing Mark from the Outside: Eco and her Leave Their Marks (San Francisco: International Scholars
Publications, 1994). Examples of the application of reader-response methods to the study of the
Gospel of Mark include Bas M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (trans. W. H.
Bisscheroux; JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); and John Paul Heii, The
Gospel ofMark as a Modelfor Action: A Reader-Response Commentary (New York: Paulist, 1992).
5. An introduction to the linguistic system that undergirds the method appears in Charles J. Fill-
more and Paul Kay, Construction Grammar (Stanford: CSLI, 1999). The original proposal of the sys-
tem of narrative analysis developed from this system of linguistic analysis appears in Paul Danove,
The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study (BIS 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993). The following
presentation constitutes a further development of this proposal.
6. Agusti Borrell observes that the Gospels "are works with a marked and clear purpose of influ-
The Method ofAnalysis 3
description of both linguistic or, more properly, semantic and narrative rhetoric.7
The method provides procedures for the articulation of the narration's rhetori-
cal exigency, which is constituted by the problem[s] or deficiencies that the
semantic and narrative rhetoric identify and address. Here the rhetoric's cultiva-
tion of alternative meanings for particular words and constructs and of responses
to narrated events identifies the original or preexisting meanings and the implied
author's presupposed responses as deficient. The resulting deficiencies taken
together then identify the exigency that the semantic and narrative rhetoric seem
designed to address.
2. Repetition in Mark
The goal of the proposed method is to describe the manner in which the repeti-
tion of words and constructs contributes to characterization and other narrative
developments. The following discussion of repeated words and constructs briefly
illustrates the nature of the repetition that the subsequent development of the
method attempts to address.
a. The Repetition of Words and Phrases

The method of analysis recognizes that repetition is able to develop specialized
meanings or connotations for particular words and phrases.8 For example, the
first two occurrences of way (0805) in Mark appear in a quotation of scripture
(1:2-3; cf. Mai 3:1; Exod 23:20; Isa 40:3) that presents the specific point of
encing their readers (or listeners) in a practical way, right down to effecting their whole way of life"
(The Good News ofPeter's Denial: A Narrative and Rhetorical Reading ofMark 14:54,66-72 [trans.
Sean Conlon; ISFCJ 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 174). Cf. Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Rep-
resentation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1953), 15; M. H. Abrams, Doing Things with Texts: Essays in Criticism and Critical
Theory (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 9-11; Mary Ann Tolbert, "How the Gospel of Mark
Builds Character," Int 47 (1993): 347-57; and Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader
Response and the Gospel ofMark (Minneapolis. Fortress, 1991), 23.
7. These concepts and procedures reflect those of the grounding system of linguistic analysis
and so diverge in various ways from methods that employ historical approaches to the rhetorical
analysis of narratives: see W. T. Shiner, Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS 145;
Atlanta. Scholars Press, 1995); and Vernon K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-RhetoricalInter-
pretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992).
8. Overviews of the various functions and contributions of repetition in narratives appear in
N. R. Leroux, "Repetition, Progression, and Persuasion in Scripture," Neot 29 (1995): 1-25, here
8-10; Bas van Iersel, "Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark," LB 55 (1983): 45-54; Peter J.
Rabinowitz, Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics ofInterpretation (Ithaca, N. Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1987), 53; David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduc-
tion to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 46-47; Meir Steinberg, The Poetics
of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press, 1985), 365-440; and Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975), 39-51.
4 The Rhetoric of Characterization
information that the way is the Lord's (God's/Jesus').9 Subsequent occurrences

of 686s then establish that the word (seed) is sown along the way (4:4, 15), that
the way affords little security (a staff but no bread or bag, etc.), is potentially
dangerous, but also is a way of authority (6:7-8), and that the potential dangers
of the way may be remedied by the intervention of Jesus (8:3). The same passages
also relate Jesus and God (1:2-3), Jesus and David (2:23-25; cf. 1 Sam 21:2-7),
and Jesus and the twelve who undertake the task of proclaiming (icnpuaaci)) for-
merly ascribed to Jesus (1:14—15) and receive their authority from Jesus (6:7) on
the way. The narration also asserts a positive evaluation for the way, insofar as it
is of God and Jesus, and for those who are productive along it (4:8, 20). These
initial occurrences establish a uniquely Markan connotation of 686s character-
ized by narratively specific information, relationships, evaluations, and expecta-
tions that distinguish it not only from general Koine usage but from its
specialized usages developed in the Septuagint.10 The resulting connotation then
becomes the basis for its further specialized developments in Mark 8:27-10:52.
The narration also cultivates a specialized Markan connotation for seek
(CT1T6G)).11 Its first appearance in Simon's statement to Jesus, "Everyone is seek-
ing you" (1:37), offers no indication that the verb has any distinctive meaning
beyond its typical Koine usage.12 The next seven occurrences, however, develop
narratively specific information about, relationships among, negative evaluations
for, and expectations about those who seek: those doing the will of God super-
sede Jesus' mother, brothers, and sisters who seek him (3:32-35); no sign will be
given to the Pharisees/this generation who seek a sign (8:11-12); the chief priests
and scribes seek how to destroy Jesus (11:18); the chief priests, scribes, and
elders seek to arrest Jesus (12:12; cf. 11:27); the chief priests and scribes seek to
arrest and kill Jesus (14:1); Judas seeks how he may hand over Jesus (14:11); and
the chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin seek testimony against Jesus to kill him
(14:55). The final occurrence in the young man's statement to the women, "You
seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified" (16:6), places the women into a narra-
tively developed class of characters opposed to Jesus and contributes to the
women's concluding negative evaluation in 16:8.13
9. This and subsequent citations are taken from Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testa-
ment (4th rev. ed.; Stuttgart. Biblia-Druck, 1993) and from A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart.
Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935). The translations are my own. The discussions of 0869 develop the
presentation in Paul Danove, "The Characterization and Narrative Function of the Women at the
Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)," Bib 77 (1996): 375-97, here 375-76.
10. Specialized connotations of "way" also may be found from book to book in the Hebrew
Bible: see K. Koch, "derekh," TDOT3.2S2-92.
11. This discussion develops the presentation on £r|Te<i) in Paul Danove, "The Narrative
Rhetoric of Mark's Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples," JSNT 70 (1998): 21-38, here
21-22.
12. Heinrich Greeven, "CriTew, C,r)Tr\ois, €KCr\Teu, e:m£riTe_(i)," TDNT2:892-96, here 892-93.
13. This investigation assumes that Mark ends at 16:8 based on the textual considerations of
Kurt Aland, "Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums," in Neotestamentica et Semitica:
The Method of Analysis 5
b. The Repetition of Constructs

Describing the role of verbal repetition is straightforward in that the focus of
inquiry, words (or phrases), is readily apparent in the text. Describing the role of
nonverbal repetition, in contrast, is complicated by the fact that the focus of
inquiry, constructs abstracted from the narration, requires an initial explanation
of their proposed content. The following discussion isolates four illustrative
examples of abstracted constructs and their repetition and offers a brief descrip-
tion of their content.
A "semantic role" construct would be abstracted from the various semantic
arguments realized by a particular designation. This construct, for example,
would permit a recognition that the repetition of predominantly agent (the doer
of an action) references to Jesus in Mark 1-13 changes to repetition of predomi-
nantly non-agent references in Mark 14-15.14 Such a construct is presumed in
the identification of Mark 14-15 as a passion narrative with respect to Jesus.15
A "contextual" construct would be abstracted from a continuous segment of
the narration (in the following studies, at most fifteen verses) and would permit a
recognition that words that previously appeared in close proximity subsequently
are being repeated in close proximity. This construct would permit the recogni-
tion that the vocabulary. Son of Man (8:31; 9:31; 10:33), kill (aTroKTetvco, 8:31;
9:31a, 31b; 10:34), after three days (|±eira Tpets r||iepas, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34),
and rise (dviaT<x|±ai5 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), that initially was linked in 8:31-32a is
being repeated in 9:30-32 and 10:32-34. Such a construct is presumed in the
designation of these passages as passion (/resurrection) predictions.16
A "structural" construct would be abstracted from a continuous segment of the
narration (in the following studies, at most twelve verses) and would permit a
Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (ed E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1969), 157-80; and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
(Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975), 122-28, and on the literary considerations of Thomas E. Boomer-
shine and Gilbert L. Bartholomew, "The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8," JBL 100 (1981):
213-23, and on the grammatical considerations of Paul Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the
Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon (JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 73-77.
14. This discussion presents only ad hoc explanations of semantic roles and reserves their more
technical definition to ch. 2, sec 1.
15. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1963), 107—11;
C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (CGNTC;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 14; Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach
Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959), 12-15; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News
According to Mark (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Richmond: John Knox, 1970), 226, 284, 384-85; and
Robert A. Guelich, Mark I 8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), xxxvi-xxxvii.
16. Contextual repetition receives development in Robert Alter, The Pleasures ofReading in an
Ideological Age (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), 39, who discusses how the near conjunction
of the words, "womb," "darkness," "light," and "hedge" in Job 38 evokes the scene of Job 3, where
these words similarly were joined to produce a certain effect.
recognition that particular contexts that previously appeared in a given sequence

subsequently are being repeated in the same sequence. Such a construct would
permit a recognition that the sequence of a passion/resurrection prediction
(8:31-32a; 9:30-32; 10:32-34), controversy (8:32b-33; 9:33-34; 10:35-41),
and teaching (8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; 10:42-45) that initially appeared in 8:31-9:1 is
being repeated in the same sequence in 9:30-41 and 10:32-45. Such a construct
is presumed in the linked studies of these passages.17
A "character" construct would be abstracted from all of the vocabulary and
narrated content about a designation and would incorporate information about
the semantic role, contextual, and structural constructs that reference this desig-
nation. This construct would permit a recognition that a character previously
introduced under a given designation subsequently is reappearing.18 Such a con-
struct is presumed in all studies of characterization.
c. Clarifications concerning the Role of Repetition

These examples illustrate possible types of repetition in Mark. The following dis-
cussions indicate that development of the presuppositions and concepts that
explain the role of repetition and permit its analysis and description requires
recourse to both linguistic and narrative concepts.
3. The Semantic Rhetoric of Repetition

The proposed method ultimately grounds the contribution of both verbal and
nonverbal repetition in linguistic concepts. These concepts, however, are directly
applicable only to words and phrases. Thus, this discussion focuses on the illus-
trative examples of verbal repetition and develops the linguistic concepts that
explain the contribution of the semantic rhetoric of verbal repetition to interpre-
tation. These concepts permit an initial description of the implied reader and the
distinction of two rhetorical strategies of verbal repetition. The discussion con-
cludes with clarifications concerning the nature and function of the semantic
rhetoric of repetition.
a. The Semantic Frame as Precondition for Semantic Meaning

The contribution of the semantic rhetoric of repetition in cultivating specialized
connotations for words is explained in terms of the evocation and modification of
semantic frames. According to this linguistic concept, hearers or readers are able
to interpret a communication because their encounter with a word or phrase
17. See, e.g., Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hen-
drickson, 2002), 171-72; and John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SPS
2; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 265-66,289^90, 313-14.
18. Thomas Docherty observes, "The name is a locus around which characterization actually
takes place" {Reading (Absent) Character: Towards a Theory of Characterization in Fiction
[Oxford: Clarendon, 1983], 74).
evokes for them particular semantic frames associated with that word or phrase.
The semantic frames that are evoked make available to the interpreters (1) points
of information about the words accommodated by the frame, (2) relationships
among these words and references to other frames containing them, (3) perspec-
tives for evaluating the syntactic and semantic function of words, and (4) expec-
tations concerning the content of communication.19 As such, semantic frames
constitute the precondition for interpreted semantic meaning.20 The following
discussions identify those elements of semantic frames that receive reference in
subsequent studies.
The initial occurrences of 686s (way) in 1:2-3 evoke for the interpreter (here-
after, reader) preexisting semantic frames associated both with the word's gen-
eral Koine usage and with its "theological" usage in the Septuagint and early
Christian proclamation.21 The semantic frames associated with the general con-
notation make available information about what can constitute a way, relation-
ships between way and other words, perspectives for evaluating the syntactic and
semantic function of words that may modify way, and expectations for the use of
the word to designate a "physical" path. Semantic frames associated with the
word's theological usage also make available information about what constitutes
such a way, relationships between such a way and possible modifiers, perspec-
tives for evaluating the syntactic and semantic function of words in its immediate
context, and the expectations for its use to describe a "spiritual" journey.
The semantic frames evoked by Cî"^ (seek) make available comparable
information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations and permit the inter-
pretation of qualitatively more detailed semantic developments. This qualitative
19. Charles J. Fillmore, "The Need for Frame Semantics within Linguistics," Statistical Meth-
ods in Linguistics (1976): 5-29; cf. Tuen van Dijk, "Semantic Macro-Structures and Knowledge
Frames in Discourse Comprehension," in Cognitive Processes in Comprehension (ed Marcel Adam
Just and Patricia A. Carpenter; Hillsdale, N.Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977), 3-32. An
overview of the concept of "semantic frame" appears in Charles J. Fillmore, "Frames and the Seman-
tics of Understanding," Quaderni di Semantica 6 (1985): 222-53.
20. Thus, the following discussions assume that the reader of Mark has sufficient preexisting
familiarity with Koine Greek to permit the evocation of the noted semantic frames. The discussion
also assumes but does not postulate on the intellective processes that permit the abstraction of words
from sounds or written marks.
21. The conflation of Exod 23:20, Mai 3:1, and Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:2-3 is deemed traditional:
Willi Marxsen, Mark the Flvangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (trans. J. Boyce
et al; New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 37; Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradi-
tion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 2 n. 2; Robert A. Guelich, "'The Beginning of
the Gospel' Mark 1:1-15," BibRes 27 (1982): 5-15,here8n. 35; and Christopher Bryan, A Preface
to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Settings (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1993), 138. A similar conclusion based on rhetorical considerations appears below. Ched
Myers considers the contribution of examples of such intertextuality in Mark {Binding the Strong
Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus [Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988], 97-99).
The following study develops specifically narrative arguments to clarify how the narration assumes
for the reader a preexisting familiarity with the content of this quotation.
distinction is explained in terms of a further aspect of the semantic frame, the

case frame, which specifies the syntactic and semantic requirements for the cor-
rect grammatical usage of the word.22 Although the noun "way" does not require
completion of its meaning by another word for its correct grammatical usage, the
verb "seek" always requires completion by two syntactic complements that spec-
ify its two semantic arguments, agent (the one seeking) and either goal (what is
sought) or event (what is done).23 The necessary realization of both an agent and
a goal or event for every occurrence of C^Teo ensures that particular relation-
ships always receive specification; whereas the optional specification of either a
goal, locative, or benefactive adjunct for 686s establishes the potential only for
more limited clarification.24
b. The Semantic Frame as Frameworkfor Realized Semantic Meaning

Although semantic frames are the linguistic precondition for interpretation,
semantic meaning arises only in the interpretation of a particular communication.
That is, words evoke their associated semantic frames; and the content of the
communication realizes the particular information, relationships, perspectives,
and expectations that permit the interpretation of the word in that context. Thus,
semantic meaning always is linked to specific content, and the description of
semantic meaning requires recourse to two conceptual constructs, one that pro-
22. The original proposal of the case frame appears in Charles J. Fillmore, "The Case for Case,"
in Universal* in Linguistic Theory (ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms; New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, & Winston, 1968), 1-88, here 28, and has received development in various Case Grammatical
systems. See Wallace L. Chafe, Meaning and the Structure of Language (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1970), 144-60; Walter A. Cook, "A Case Grammar Matrix," Language and Linguis-
tics Working Papers No. 6, Georgetown University Press (1972): 15-47. Simon S. M. Wong has
applied such a Case Grammar in the study of the verbs of the Pauline corpus {A Classification of
Semantic Case-Relations in the Pauline Epistles [New York: Peter Lang, 1997]). The proposed
method's linguistic analysis also has affinities with the discussion of thematic relations in generative
grammars (Ray S. Jackendoff, Semantic Structures [CSL 18; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990],
155-66), in the application of Case Grammar within tagmemics (John T. Platt, Grammatical Form
and Grammatical Meaning: A Tagmemic View ofFillmore's Deep Structure Case Concepts [Amster-
dam: North-Holland, 1971], 9-27), and in the representation of event schemas in cognitive linguistics
(Rene Dirven and Marjolyn Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics [Amster-
dam: J. Benjamins, 1998], 79-83).
23. The term "argument" has its origins in the field of logic: see Randy Allen Harris, The Lin-
guistics Wars (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 115-17; James D. McCawley, Grammar
and Meaning (New York: Academic Press, 1976), 136-39; and Frederick J. Newmeyer, Linguistic
Theory in America: The First Quarter-century of Transformational Generative Grammar (Hew
York: Academic Press, 1980), 148-50. The syntactic analog of argument is the "complement": see
Fillmore and Kay, Construction Grammar, 4:12.
24. An equally detailed specification of'\vay" or any noun that does not require completion by a
semantic argument could arise if the same noun phrase lexically realizes a nonrequired adjunct in
each occurrence. Since the narration presents no examples of such a development with any frequently
repeated words that do not require arguments, verbs and other words that require arguments receive
primary attention in the following studies.
vides the linguistic precondition for interpretation (the semantic frame) and one
that accommodates the interpreted meaning derived from a particular communi-
cation. Since the latter conceptual construct is constituted by a limited number of
realized potentialities of the former, the method of analysis employs the term
"semantic frame" to designate both. Thus, the semantic frames associated with a
word are deemed to anticipate the semantic meaning of a word in any context and
to accommodate the actualized semantic meaning in a particular context, here
Mark.
These considerations permit a reexamination of the manner in which the narra-
tion of Mark cultivates specific connotations for words. The initial occurrence of
0869 (1:2) evokes semantic frames that make available the potentiality for either
a general or a theological interpretation of this way. The context realizes both
potentialities but grants primacy to the theological connotation by introducing
the quotation containing 080s as scripture ("it has been written" [yeypcrnTai]
and "in Isaiah the prophet" [ev ™ 'Haaig TO) iTpo<|>^Tr|]). The context identifies
the noun Jesus (1:1) as the antecedent of the pronoun your (aou); and the seman-
tic frame clarifies that this pronoun lexically realizes the way's benefactive argu-
ment (the way of whom). The scriptural quotation also has the potential to evoke
the interpretation of the word in Mai 3:1, where God was the antecedent of the
possessive pronoun my (JJLOIJ). This relates the nouns Jesus and God and extends
the positive evaluation of this way in Mai 3:1 to Jesus' way. The next occurrence
of "way" (1:3) again evokes preinterpreted scripture (Isa 40:3) that again identi-
fies the Lord or God as the benefactive and evaluates this way positively. The
Markan context, however, recommends Jesus as the antecedent of the Lord, so
that Jesus again is related to God. Repetition of 086s with both Jesus and God as
benefactive also cultivates an expectation for the continued theological use of the
word, for the continued benefaction of this way by both Jesus and God, and for
the way's continued positive evaluation. All subsequent occurrences of "way"
then evoke these points of information, relationships, perspectives, and expecta-
tions and develop them in specific ways.
The original occurrence of "seek" (£r|T6a)) in 1:37 evokes semantic frames
that make available information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations;
and the context realizes "all" (iravres) as the agent and "you" (ae), whose
antecedent is Jesus, as referent of the goal. Since the context offers no explicit
indication that seeking Jesus is an inappropriate action, this action initially
receives positive interpretation. Repetition of Cr]Te(i) then relates the semantic
agents to each other and to either a goal or an event in specific ways. In all occur-
rences of linked agent and event arguments, the agents seek to do something that
places themselves in opposition to Jesus: the chief priest and scribes seek how
they may destroy (11:18) and kill (14:1) Jesus; the chief priests, scribes, and
elders (cf. 11:27) seek to arrest Jesus (12:12); and Judas seeks how he may hand
over Jesus (14:11). In the five remaining occurrences of linked agent and goal
arguments, the goals are Jesus (3:32; 16:6), a sign (from heaven) (8:11, 12), and
testimony against Jesus (14:55). In the first four of these occurrences, the agents
are placed in opposition to Jesus and/or God: Jesus' mother, brothers, and sisters
who seek him (3:32) are superseded by those doing God's will (3:34); the Phar-
isees who seek a sign from heaven, that is, God (cf. 1:11), receive none (8:11,12);
and the chief priest and whole Sanhedrin seek testimony against Jesus so that they
may put him to death (14:55). So consistent is this negative development with
respect to the agent in both uses of Cr\Teu that the verb's final occurrence in 16:6
places the women into a narratively crafted class of agents opposed to Jesus and
negatively evaluates them even though the clause in which they appear provides
no explicit guidance that demands the verb's negative interpretation.
These considerations indicate the manner in which verbal repetition, espe-
cially of words that require semantic arguments for their correct grammatical
usage, may take on a rhetorical function in the narration.25 Each occurrence of a
word evokes semantic frames and realizes particular information, relationships,
perspectives, and expectations, or, for ease of reference, narratively specific con-
tent. Each subsequent occurrence then evokes the same semantic frames with
their narratively realized content and presents the opportunity for further devel-
opment along the same lines. Since all verbs require one, two, or three arguments
and all prepositions and adjectives and some nouns require at least one argument,
the cultivation of such qualitatively more detailed semantic meaning may attend
much of the vocabulary in Mark.26
c. The Implied Reader

The inquiries into the role of repetition in realizing and reinforcing narratively
specific content for semantic frames pointed out that some words evoke semantic
frames that make available preinterpreted content. The following studies indicate
that the evocation of such preinterpreted content is quite pervasive in Mark. The
distinction between the preinterpreted or preexisting content of semantic frames
and their narratively cultivated content permits a distinction of two constructs of
the implied reader: the authorial audience and the narrative audience.27 The
25. The following study introduces alternative means of cultivating the content of semantic
frames within the context of particular discussions.
26. Lucien Tesniere, Elements de Syntaxe Structurale (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959), 106-10.
27. The proposal of the these two audiences appears in Peter J. Rabinowitz, "Truth in Fiction: A
Reexamination of Audiences," Critical Inquiry 4 (1974): 121-41, here 126-33. Rabinowitz's treat-
ment of a third aspect of the implied reader, the ideal narrative audience, which arises in the context
of unreliable narration (pp. 127-28), is omitted; for there is significant scholarly consensus that the
narrator of Mark is reliable: see Robert C. Tannehill, "Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative
Role," JR 57 (1977): 386-405, here 390-91; Norman Petersen, '"Point of View' in Mark's Narra-
tive," Semeia 12 (1978): 97-121, here 105-11; Robert Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of
the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 229; and
Rhoads and Michie, Mark as Story, 39. The distinction of the authorial and narrative audiences
within the method of analysis diverges in specific ways from Rabinowitz's original proposal. This
distinction receives further investigation in the discussion of the narrative rhetoric.
authorial audience is that construct of the implied reader for which the preexist-
ing content of semantic frames is evoked; and the narrative audience is that con-
struct of the implied reader for which the narratively realized content of semantic
frames is evoked. That is, the narration cultivates a construct of the implied
reader (the narrative audience) that is distinct from the construct of the implied
reader (the authorial audience) assumed at the beginning of the narration.
d. Rhetorical Strategies
Verbal repetition may take on a rhetorical function by realizing and then redun-
dantly reinforcing particular information, relationships, and perspectives, and
expectations along specific lines. Every repeated word in a narrative, however,
does not receive such concerted development. For example, none of the most fre-
quently repeated verbs of motion, come (epxo|j.at), go (TTOpeuo|±ai), enter (ela-
epxo|iai), and depart (e£epxo|iai), consistently realizes the same agents, the
same relationships to other words, or the same expectations for content.28 Thus,
repetition may but need not serve a rhetorical function; and determining whether
or not repetition functions rhetorically requires an examination of all occurrences
of a word or phrase.
Repetition takes on a rhetorical function by realizing and redundantly reinforc-
ing particular potentialities of semantic frames. For example, the semantic
frames initially evoked by 68og make available both the potentialities that permit
its interpretation in 1:2—3 and preinterpreted content that recognizes God as the
antecedent of the benefactive. The narration further develops these potentialities
by twice realizing Jesus as antecedent of the benefactive. Again, the semantic
frames evoked by {r^Teo) provide the potential for the agents to be related to the
goal in various ways; and the narration explicitly realizes and redundantly rein-
forces only relationships of opposition.
Verbal repetition that functions rhetorically by realizing and reinforcing
potentialities along specific lines is deemed a sophisticating rhetorical strategy.
For semantic frames without preinterpreted content, such repetition first realizes
particular Markan content and then redundantly reinforces this content along
specific lines.29 For semantic frames with preinterpreted content, such repetition
augments preexisting content with coherent Markan content and then redun-
dantly reinforces this content. In contrast, rhetorically neutral repetition simply
realizes Markan content without discernible development along specific lines.
Thus, the study of the semantic rhetoric recognizes two categories of rhetorical
strategies, neutral and sophisticating. In terms of the implied reader, neutral repe-
28. Although the narration presents no examples of specific developments that extend to all
agents of these verbs, the subsequent studies do identify such developments with respect to particular
agents of "go" (epxoâi) and "go forth" ((rrrepxo|±ai).
29. The only semantic frames that the narration identifies as truly devoid of any preinterpreted
content are those created through the process of defining unfamiliar words. Even here, however,
these semantic frames are related to those evoked by the words used to define their connotation and
so are related to semantic frames with preinterpreted content.
tition evokes the preexisting content of the semantic frames that is associated
with the authorial audience; and sophisticating repetition realizes (and subse-
quently evokes) the cultivated content of the semantic frames that is associated
with the narrative audience.
e. Clarifications Concerning the Semantic Rhetoric of Verbal Repetition

These considerations permit a series of clarifications concerning the nature and
function of the semantic rhetoric of verbal repetition. First, the method uses
"semantic frame" to designate both the meaningful context that makes available
the potentialities for interpretation and the conceptual framework that accommo-
dates the content of the narratively realized potentialities. This dual usage recog-
nizes that the precondition for interpretable content and the resulting interpreted
content is specifically semantic and cultivated by the semantic rhetoric. Second,
the narration realizes an overwhelming majority of the content of semantic
frames either without repetition (in the case of hapax legomena) or through neu-
tral repetition. This realized content undergirds the meaningful context for all
rhetorical developments within the narration. Third, the resulting realized reser-
voir of meaningful semantic content and its relationship to particular designa-
tions, such as "Jesus," "Son of Man," or "disciples," that lexically realize the
semantic arguments of words does not constitute characterization itself. Rather,
it is the narrative rhetoric that places semantic content in the service of character-
ization, for example, by identifying the noun "Jesus" with a specific character, by
relating this character to other characters, by interpreting semantic opposition in
terms of positive or negative evaluation of characters, and by developing expec*
tations concerning characters.30 Fourth, although the following studies introduce
and employ other manifestations of the semantic rhetoric to investigate particular
developments, their primary focus is the contribution of verbal repetition. This
focus reflects the fact that, except for the note to the reader in 13:14, the narration
provides little guidance concerning other avenues of semantic development, such
as phrasing, intonation, and even gestures. Of the panoply of potential manifesta-
tions of the semantic rhetoric available to the original readers and interpreters,
only those discernible in the text remain; and, of these, repetition constitutes the
least contentious, most pervasive, and most directly accessible.
4. The Narrative Rhetoric of Repetition

The previous discussion clarified the manner in which the repeated evocation of
semantic frames and realization of their potentialities along specific lines permits
the interpretation of semantically meaningful content for words (and phrases).
This discussion, in contrast, inquires into the manner in which the repetition of
30. Meaningful content also may be related to designations through pronouns and verbal end-
ings for which a designation is the antecedent.
constructs that incorporate some or all of the realized content of semantic frames
as well as specifically narrative content contributes to the interpretation of narra-
tively meaningful content for constructs. The discussion develops from linguistic
concepts the narrative concepts that explain the contribution of the repetition of
constructs to interpretation. These concepts permit a properly narrative descrip-
tion of the implied reader and of rhetorical strategies. A concluding discussion
then clarifies the nature and function of the narrative rhetoric of repetition.
a. The Narrative Frame as Precondition for Narrative Meaning

The contribution of the narrative rhetoric of repetition in cultivating specialized
meaning for constructs is explained in terms of the evocation and modification of
narrative frames.31 The narrative frame is "narrative" in that its realized content
is associated with properly narrative, not semantic, content. The narrative frame
is a "frame" in that it accommodates narrative information, relationships, per-
spectives, and expectations in a manner that parallels the way the semantic frame
accommodates semantic content. As such, narrative frames are meaningful con-
texts that permit the interpretation of constructs abstracted from the narration and
so constitute the precondition for their interpreted narrative meaning.32 The fol-
lowing discussions identify only those elements of narrative frames that prove
most useful in the following studies.
The semantic frames evoked by vocabulary permit an interpretation that partic-
ular noun phrases lexically realize specific argument roles. Repetition of specific
argument roles then evokes semantic role narrative frames that make available
information about the manner in which argument roles contribute to narrative
development, relationships among argument roles, and references to other narra-
tive frames that utilize distinctions among them. Semantic role narrative frames
also make available perspectives for evaluating the function of semantic roles in
31. The narrative frame receives development in Menakhem Perry, "Literary Dynamics: How
the Order of a Text Creates Its Meaning," Poetics Today 1, nos. 1-2 (1970): 35-64, 311-61, here 36;
Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1979), 20-21, 37; and Alter, Pleasures of Reading, 122, and has affinities with
"theme" as used in Gerald Prince, Narrative as Theme: Studies in French Fiction (Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press, 1991), 5, and as defined in Russell Brown, "Theme," in Encyclopedia of Con-
temporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms (ed. Irena R. Makaryk; Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1993), 643. Although the evocation of the noted narrative frames
depends on a number of extrinsic and intrinsic factors, the following studies assume that a close read-
ing of Mark would establish adequate grounds for evoking the narrative frames that receive attention.
32. Thus, the following discussions assume that the reader of Mark has sufficient preexisting
familiarity with narratives to permit the evocation of the noted narrative frames. The narration of
Mark explicitly references only antecedent scriptural narratives; and these references are assumed to
provide direct access to preinterpreted content of narrative frames. Again, this discussion assumes but
does not postulate on the intellective processes that permit the abstraction of constructs from verbal
or written narration.
narratives, and, after a sufficient number of evocations, expectations for the con-
tinued realization of specific semantic roles for particular noun phrases.33
Contextual narrative frames are evoked when vocabulary that previously
appeared in close proximity again appears in close proximity. In general, this
vocabulary is memorable because it contributes significantly to the interpretation
of both its present and its previous passages and includes words that undergo
sophisticating verbal repetition. Contextual narrative frames make available
information about what constitutes a context and relationships among contexts,
between a given context and its constituent semantic frames, and to other narra-
tive frames that incorporate contextual considerations or the same vocabulary.
Contextual narrative frames also make available perspectives for evaluating the
function of contexts and their constituent vocabulary and, after their first evoca-
tion (i.e., after the second occurrence of linked vocabulary), expectations con-
cerning the content of any future occurrences of a context.
Structural narrative frames are evoked when two or more contexts that previ-
ously appeared in sequence again appear in sequence. Structural narrative frames
make available information about what constitutes a structure and relationships
among structures, between a structure and its constituent contexts and semantic
frames, and to other narrative frames that use structural and contextual consider-
ations. They also make available perspectives for evaluating the function of
structures and, after their initial evocation (i.e., after two occurrences of sequen-
tially linked contexts), expectations concerning the content of any future occur-
rence of this structure.
Within the following studies, noun phrases (or pronouns for which these noun
phrases are antecedents) that lexically realize the semantic argument roles of
agent or experiencer (the animate being that is the locus of a mental or psycho-
logical state, event, or activity) are deemed to evoke character narrative frames.
Noun phases that lexically realize these arguments are classified as designations;
and once designations evoke character narrative frames, they continue to do so
even when they lexically realize other semantic argument roles. Character narra-
tive frames make available information about what constitutes a character, rela-
tionships between characters and other characters and references to other
narrative frames that utilize or incorporate information about characters, per-
spectives for evaluating the function of characters, and, once the character
receives sufficient development, expectations concerning their future portrayal.
b. The Narrative Frame as Frameworkfor Realized Narrative Meaning

Although narrative frames are the precondition for the interpretation of narra-
tives, narrative meaning arises only in the interpretation of particular narrative
communications. That is, constructs such as semantic roles, contexts, structures,
and characters evoke narrative frames; and the content of the narration realizes
33. Since noun phrases may lexically realize up to fifteen distinct semantic roles in Mark, the
number of occurrences required to cultivate a pattern of development may be quite large for noun
phrases that realize many different argument roles.
particular information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations that permit

the interpretation of these constructs in a specific context. Thus, narrative mean-
ing, like semantic meaning, always is linked to particular content. The method of
analysis employs the term "narrative frame" to designate both the meaningful
context that establishes the precondition for interpreting narrative constructs and
the framework that accommodates the interpreted meaning of these constructs
within a particular narrative communication.34
These considerations permit an examination of the manner in which the narra-
tion of Mark cultivates specific narrative meaning for the illustrative constructs.
The lexical realization of the benefactive (subjective genitive) or content (objec-
tive genitive) semantic argument in 1:1 by the noun "Jesus" evokes semantic role
(and character) narrative frames that interpret "Jesus" as a designation for a char-
acter for two reasons. Although "Jesus" lexically realizes neither an agent nor an
experiencer semantic argument, the subsequent study of the narrative rhetoric of
this verse indicates that the implied reader has preexisting beliefs that "Jesus,"
"Christ," and "Son of God" are designations of the character Jesus. Thus, the ini-
tial occurrence of these designations evokes semantic role (and character) narra-
tive frames that include preinterpreted content. After further evocations of
semantic role narrative frames associated with these and other designations for
Jesus in 1:2-13, those in 1:14-14:26 most frequently realize agent semantic
arguments. Beginning in 14:27, however, semantic patient arguments (what is
acted on by another) almost consistently supersede agent arguments in fre-
quency, marking a transition in the manner of Jesus' portrayal.
The conjunction of Son of Man (ulos TOO dvGpoiTTOu), kill (crrroKTeivG)), after
three days (|i€Ta Tpeis r\\iepas), and rise (dviaTa|im) in 9:30-32 recalls their
previous conjunction in 8:31-32a and evokes contextual (and semantic role and
character) narrative frames. The previous conjunction of this vocabulary is mem-
orable because it marks a distinctive transition in the narrative development and
associated the designation Son of Man with novel content. The contextual narra-
tive frames that are evoked make available information about the extent of these
contexts, relate 8:31-32a to 9:30-32 and their constituent vocabulary and pro-
vide references to other narrative frames that utilize this content. They also assert
perspectives for evaluating the function of these contexts and ground the cultiva-
tion of an expectation that any subsequent conjunction of this vocabulary, as in
10:32-34, will concern the future experience and activity of the Son of Man. The
realized relationships also ground the narrative audience's recognition that the
three predictions present a progression in specificity concerning the Son of
Man's future experience and activity.
34. Gerald Graff observes, "What we recollect of what we have read is not the particular details
so much as the schematic sense of the whole which we project in order to make sense of the details"
("Literature as Assertions," in American Critics at Work: Examinations of Contemporary Literary
Theories [ed. Victor A. Kramer; Troy, N.Y.: Whitson Publishing, 1984], 81-110, here 98). The
method of analysis would explain both the precondition for interpreting this schematic sense and the
resulting interpreted meaning in terms of narrative frames.
The sequence of a prediction, controversy, and teaching in 9:30-41 recalls

their previous sequential occurrence in 8:31-9:1 and evokes structural narrative
frames that make available information about the extent of these structures and
relate 8:31-9:1 to 9:30-41 and their constituent contexts and vocabulary and pro-
vide references to other narrative frames that utilize their content. They also
assert perspectives for evaluating the function of these structures and their con-
stituent contexts and cultivate an expectation that any subsequent prediction (as
in 10:32-34) will be followed by a controversy and teaching (as in 10:35-^5).
These realized relationships also ground the narrative audience's interpretation
of the controversies as reactions or responses to the predictions and of the teach-
ings as reactions or responses to the controversies.
The designations Jesus, Christ, and Son of God in 1:1 evoke character (and
semantic role) narrative frames. The subsequent narration of these and other des-
ignations repeatedly evokes the character narrative frames associated with Jesus
and relates to them all of the realized and interpreted narrative content concern-
ing these designation from the discussions of semantic role, contextual, and
structural narrative frames. These character narrative frames permit a properly
narrative interpretation of the content of the semantic frames for which a desig-
nation for Jesus lexically realizes a semantic argument. Thus, character narrative
frames ground the narrative audience's interpretation of cultivated oppositions
between semantic arguments, as between the agent and goal of "seek," as opposi-
tions between various characters and Jesus. Such interpretations account for the
narrative audience's negative evaluation of characters and actions that are
opposed to Jesus and his actions and positive evaluation of characters that are
aligned with Jesus and his actions. The realized relationships also ground the nar-
rative audience's expectations for the continued characterization of Jesus in par-
ticular ways under particular designations.
These considerations indicate the manner in which the repetition of constructs
may take on a rhetorical function. Each occurrence of a construct evokes narra-
tive frames and realizes for them particular content; and each subsequent occur-
rence of a construct evokes the same narrative frames with their realized content
and presents the opportunity for further development along specific lines.
c. The Implied Reader Revisited

The investigation of the narrative rhetoric permits a further specification of the
authorial audience and the narrative audience that recognizes the contribution of
the preexisting and narratively realized content of narrative frames. For conve-
nience of reference, the totality of the interpreted realized content of semantic
and narrative frames receives the generic designation "beliefs."35 In this light, the
authorial audience is the construct of the implied reader for which the narration
35. Here "beliefs" designates the totality of the content of semantic and narrative frames evoked
for authorial audience or cultivated for narrative audience and not merely the content of religious
faith.
evokes preexisting beliefs; and the narrative audience is the construct of the
implied reader for which the narration evokes cultivated beliefs.36 That is, the
authorial audience is characterized by the preexisting beliefs evoked by the nar-
ration; and the narrative audience is characterized by the beliefs cultivated by the
narration.37
d. Rhetorical Strategies Revisited

The discussion of the semantic rhetoric distinguished neutral and sophisticating
rhetorical strategies according to whether (sophisticating) or not (neutral) the
repetition of words realizes and reinforces content for semantic frames along nar-
ratively specific lines. This discussion investigates three rhetorical strategies
apparent in the repetition of narrative frames.
As with the repetition of vocabulary, the repetition of constructs that does not
realize and reinforce content for narrative frames along specific lines is deemed a
neutral rhetorical strategy.38 The neutral repetition of constructs contributes in
only very limited ways to characterization and other narrative developments and
so receives little attention in the following studies.
In general, the repetition of constructs realizes content along specific lines in
two distinct ways. Most frequently their repetition constitutes a sophisticating
rhetorical strategy. With respect to narrative frames that include no preinter-
preted content, repetition is deemed sophisticating if it initially realizes specific
content that conforms to preexisting beliefs as determined by other avenues of
study and thereafter redundantly reinforces this content with coherent or similar
realized content. With respect to narrative frames that include preinterpreted con-
tent, repetition is deemed sophisticating if it initially realizes and then reinforces
content that coheres with preinterpreted content.
Less frequently, the repetition of constructs constitutes a deconstructive
36. Rabinowitz, "Truth in Fiction," 126-27. Discussions of the authorial audience's preexisting
beliefs appear in Ernest Best, "Mark's Readers: A Profile," in The Four Gospels (ed. F. Van Seg-
broeck et al.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:839-55; and Bas van Iersel, "The Reader of
Mark as Operator of a System of Connotations," Semeia 48 (1989): 83-114, here 83. Their signifi-
cance for the interpretive process receives respective attention in Booth, Rhetoric of Fiction, 157,
177, and in Eco, Role of the Reader, 7-8.
37. Distinguishing the authorial and narrative audiences according to the content of semantic
and narrative frames evoked and cultivated by the narration permits descriptions of both audiences
that are derived solely from the perspective of the narration and so do not require recourse to particu-
lar historical presuppositions or appeals to authorial intent. Still, as subsequent discussions indicate,
the study of the preexisting and narratively cultivated beliefs may provide the basis for tentative pro-
posals concerning the original real author and the original real audience.
38. The neutral repetition of semantic role and character narrative frames is readily apparent
because they are evoked by specific vocabulary and designations within the narration. In contrast, the
neutral repetition of contexts and structures is all but indiscernible because their previous occurrences
are evoked only if they are memorable, and what makes them memorable in large part is that their
vocabulary is cultivated content along specific lines. In neutral repetition, however, further develop-
ment along the same lines is excluded.
rhetorical strategy. For narrative frames that do not include preinterpreted con-
tent, repetition is deemed deconstructive if it initially realizes and then reinforces
content that diverges from or contradicts preexisting beliefs. For narrative frames
that include preinterpreted content, repetition is deemed deconstructive if it ini-
tially realizes and then reinforces realized content that diverges from or contra-
dicts preinterpreted content. Although the following studies indicate that
repeated contexts and structures occur at most three times, the vast number of
evocations of semantic role and character narrative frames permits a further man-
ifestation of deconstructive repetition: repetition that realizes and reinforces con-
tent that diverges from previously realized content. Such repetition is readily
apparent when previously cultivated expectations of the narrative audience, such
as continued portrayal of a character predominantly under specific argument
roles, are frustrated by subsequent developments. Repetition also may cultivate
for the narrative audience expectations for continued repetition and realization of
content and then frustrate these expectations not by repeatedly introducing con-
tradictory content but by the cessation of the expected repetition itself.39 In such
cases, the absence of expected repetition is deemed a deconstructive rhetorical
strategy. Finally, the narrative rhetoric may place the "sophisticated" content of
semantic frames in the service of either the sophisticating or deconstructive repe-
tition of narrative frames.40
Distinguishing sophisticating from deconstructive rhetorical strategies is
straightforward when the content realized for narrative frames is consonant with
the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs (sophisticating repetition) or diverges
from or contradicts the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs or the narrative
audience's previously cultivated beliefs (deconstructive repetition). On occasion,
however, repetition realizes content for narrative frames prior to clarifying pre-
existing beliefs about particular characters, topics, actions, or events. In such
cases, the study relies on the inherent characteristics of narrative frames to distin-
guish between these strategies.
Narrative frames, as conceptual constructs, present a certain inertia or resis-
tance to modification; and this resistance is relatively greater when realizing con-
tent that diverges from or contradicts preexisting or previously cultivated beliefs
than when realizing coherent content.41 With sophisticating repetition, the autho-
39. The impact of the cultivation of expectations and their subsequent frustration on the narra-
tive audience receives consideration in Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communica-
tion in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974),
37-39,288; and in Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority ofInterpretive Commu-
nities (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), 158-59, 345.
40. The deconstructive repetition of words and the semantic frames they evoke could arise only
if the semantic rhetoric attempted to change, for example, which semantic arguments were required
for the correct grammatical use of words. My analysis of the semantic frames of all major classes of
words that require semantic arguments elsewhere (Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis) indicates no
instance in Mark of such repetition.
41. Perry comments, "The frame serves as a guiding norm in the encounter with the text, as a
rial audience's familiarity with preinterpreted content permits the straightfor-

ward introduction of new coherent content without previous narrative prepara-
tion or explanatory warrants. In contrast, the greater resistance to contradictory
content generally requires extended narrative preparation to establish a convivial
context for its initial introduction and warrants to ensure its viability. For exam-
ple, Jesus' initial invitation to individuals to become his disciples (1:16-18; cf.
1:19-20; 2:13-15) is introduced with only minimal preparation in a single verse
(1:16); and the context presents no warrants explaining Jesus' authority to make
such an invitation or the propriety of the individuals' response of following
(dKoXouOea)) or going behind (aTTepx<Hiai omaa)) Jesus. In contrast, the initial
statement concerning the Son of Man's future experience and activity (8:31-32a;
cf. 9:30-32; 10:32-34) appears after the introduction of problems concerning the
implications of another designation for Jesus, Christ (8:27-30); and the context
provides a warrant for the discordant content about the Son of Man through an
appeal to divine necessity (Set, 8:31). In general, repeated vocabulary asserting
contradictory content also subsequently appears in the same sequence and with
the same relationships as its original appearance to ensure that the original con-
text of its occurrence is evoked and to constrain alternative interpretations that
might mollify the original content. Deconstructive repetition also may be intro-
duced "covertly" by cultivating content for particular narrative frames and subse-
quently redundantly relating these narrative frames to others for which the
cultivated content is contradictory. Examples of this are quite complex and so are
reserved to the following studies.
These considerations indicate that the method of analysis distinguishes three
categories of rhetorical strategies with respect to constructs and the narrative
frames they evoke: repetition that does not realize content along specific lines
(neutral), repetition that realizes and reinforces content that coheres with pre-
existing or previously cultivated content (sophisticating), and repetition that real-
izes and reinforces content that diverges from or contradicts either preexisting or
previously cultivated beliefs (deconstructive).
e. Clarifications concerning the Narrative Rhetoric of Repetition

These considerations permit clarifications about the nature and function of the
semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and about analytical shortcuts that
simplify their discussion.
Neutral repetition, which evokes the preexisting content of semantic and nar-
rative frames, provides direct access to the preexisting beliefs of the authorial
negative defining principle, so that deviation from it becomes perceptible and requires motivation by
another frame or principle ("Literary Dynamics," 37); cf. Patrick Henry Winston, Artificial Intelli-
gence (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1977), 180. Preexisting and previously culti-
vated narrative frames constitute "negative defining principles" that exert an influence resistant to the
introduction of new content. The impact of the introduction of contradictory content on the reliability
of the narration receives consideration at various points in the following studies.
audience. Since such repetition realizes only the minimal content that permits the
evocation of preexisting beliefs, the study of neutral repetition can provide at
most a very general statement of the authorial audience's beliefs. In contrast, the
method of analysis can provide a specific statement of the narrative audience's
cultivated beliefs, which are grounded in the realized content of semantic and
narrative frames. Such content then becomes the basis for projecting preexisting
content by comparison (in instances of sophisticating repetition) or contrast (in
instances of deconstructive repetition). Thus, statements of the beliefs of the
authorial audience will be quite general except when the cultivation of the narra-
tive audience's beliefs provides a basis for comparison or contrast.
The following studies also indicate that the authorial audience has a preexist-
ing familiarity with all of the repeated designations for God, Jesus, and Jesus'
disciples. Thus, their designations always evoke character and semantic role nar-
rative frames, even in their first occurrence. The meaningful and coherent por-
trait of these characters then is grounded in the realized content of all of the
narrative frames evoked by designations.
The remaining clarifications concern analytical shortcuts that permit a stan-
dard approach to the study of repetition and reduce redundancies in the presenta-
tion. As previously indicated, the method is competent to determine that the
initial occurrences of words evoke semantic frames and that the initial occur-
rences of designations evoke semantic role and character narrative frames that
include preinterpreted content. Repeated contexts and structures, in contrast, are
memorable in large part because they include words undergoing sophisticating
repetition. This indicates that these constructs are novel to Mark and so evoke
narrative frames only in their second occurrence. The studies of the repetition of
both words and constructs, however, consistently require a consideration of their
first occurrence. Thus, in order to arrive at a standard procedure for presentation,
the following studies analyze the initial occurrences of contextual and structural
constructs as if they realize particular content in the narrative frames that are
evoked by their second occurrence.
A second shortcut removes redundancies in the studies of verbal repetition.
Technically, the studies of repeated vocabulary and designations should proceed
in two stages, an examination first of the semantic rhetoric and semantic meaning
and then of the narrative rhetoric and narrative meaning. Such a procedure, how-
ever, would introduce many redundancies. Thus, the studies of repeated words
and designations incorporate into the discussions of the semantic rhetoric of ver-
bal repetition properly narrative considerations. These studies, however, consis-
tently follow the pattern of introducing semantic observations prior to
developing their narrative implications.
A third shortcut reduces redundancies in the discussion of the organization and
integration of cultivated beliefs about characters into coherent portraits of these
characters. Technically, the interpreted portraits of the characters God, Jesus, and
Jesus' disciples are grounded in the realized content of the narrative frames
evoked by three (disciples) or more (God and Jesus) designations. Thus, the
meaningful contexts that constitute the precondition for interpreting their por-
traits and the frameworks that accommodate all of the realized content should
receive separate discussion. This, however, would introduce redundancies and an
added level of complexity into the following studies. The procedures for devel-
oping statements about the portrayal of characters reduce redundancies by treat-
ing all realized content about the characters God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples as if
it were incorporated into or directly related to the character narrative frames
evoked by the designations God, Jesus, and disciples.

The studies of verbal repetition clarify the manner in which the semantic rhetoric
realizes specific content for semantic frames and relates these semantic frames to
others in their linguistic context. The studies of the repetition of constructs then
clarify the manner in which the narrative rhetoric realizes specific content for
narrative frames and relates the realized content of semantic frames to other
semantic frames in their narrative context. They also clarify how the narrative
rhetoric progressively relates or incorporates the realized semantic and narrative
content of a context into the narrative frames evoked by repeated contexts, struc-
tures, and ultimately characters. These studies reveal that the vast majority of
repeated words participate in incorporations at least into repeated contexts and
that only a tiny minority are related directly to character narrative frames without
some intermediate incorporation. Thus, the studies of the narrative rhetoric of
repetition permit the formulation of a graphic outline of the progressive relation-
ships and incorporations of cultivated content from particular words through
contextual and narrative constructs to character constructs.
6. The Narrative Rhetoric of Characterization

The previous discussions considered the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repe-
tition and how the repeated evocation and realization of content for semantic and
narrative frames contributes to the interpretation of a meaningful portrait of a
particular character. This discussion, in contrast, examines the manner in which
the realized content of semantic and narrative frames associated with one charac-
ter either may be evoked and applied to the portrayal of another character or may
ground the interpretation of narrative meaning that does not contribute directly to
characterization. This presentation considers one example of the "application" of
the portrayal of one character to another and two examples of the concurrent real-
ization of content concerning characters and other narrative developments.
a. Recapitulation
Recapitulation designates the repeated evocation of the narrative frames associ-
ated with one character in the portrayal of another. For example, the narrative
frames associated with John the Baptist, who was in the desert (ev TT) eprj|i(p,
1:4; cf. 1:3) and proclaimed (KTipuaaw, 1:4, 7) may be evoked for the narrative
audience when Jesus soon afterward is portrayed as in the desert (1:13) and pro-
claiming (1:14). This would ground a recognition of parallels between Jesus and
John the Baptist and encourage the subsequent evocation of narrative frames
associated with John the Baptist whenever further parallels are introduced: for
example, the fact that John is handed over (TTapa8i8a)|ii, 1:14) and has his body
placed in a tomb (TL0T]|IL ev ^vT]|iei(i), 6:29) may be evoked by the subsequent
notices that Jesus was handed over (3:19) and placed in a tomb (15:46).42
The narrative rhetoric of recapitulation becomes significant when the portrayal
of particular characters resumes in whole or in major aspects the portrayal of pre-
viously established characters. Recapitulation results in either complete or partial
(i.e., limited to particular aspects of the portrayal) identification of two characters
(or groups of characters) that transcends the relationships usually accommodated
by character narrative frames. Once such an identification is established, devel-
opments concerning either character may realize content for the narrative frames
associated with both characters. The following analysis investigates several
examples of partial recapitulation and one example of more complete recapitula-
tion in characterization.
b. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Semantic Arguments

Previous discussions of semantic role narrative frames indicate that the repeated
realization of particular semantic arguments in reference to a character cultivates
an expectation for continued portrayal primarily according to the same semantic
arguments and that subsequent characterization primarily according to different
semantic arguments becomes noticeable when this expectation is frustrated.
Changes in the frequency of semantic arguments associated with a character also
may become noticeable. Relatively more frequent reference to a particular char-
acter within a segment of the narration places that character in the foreground,
and relatively less frequent reference places that character in the background.
The foregrounding of characters over an extended segment of the narration then
may cultivate an expectation for their continued foregrounding, and deviation
from this pattern not only may frustrate this expectation and become noticeable
but may open novel avenues for narrative development. For example, once intro-
duced, the character Jesus consistently appears in the foreground of the narration
and serves as an interpretive guide to positively evaluated deeds and speech until
the story of the death of John the Baptist (6:17-29). At this point the previously
established relationship between Jesus and John and the absence of any direct
42. Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling point out that aspects of the characterization of John
the Baptist also receive recapitulation in the characterization of the disciples, who will proclaim
(13:10) and be handed over (13:9, 11, 12) {The New Testament, An Introduction: Proclamation and
Parenesis, Myth and History [2nd ed; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982], 110,239).
reference to Jesus not only frustrates the expectation for Jesus' continued fore-
grounding but, through the aspects of identification between John and Jesus,
invites a recognition that John serves as the guide to positively evaluated think-
ing and action in this story. This cultivates a series of very ominous expectations
concerning future narrative developments involving Jesus.
The narrative rhetoric of the sequence, relative frequency, and distribution of
the arguments of words associated with particular characters becomes apparent
when the narration cultivates for the narrative audience expectations for ongoing
narrative development in specific ways and then frustrates these expectations.
The vast majority of these expectations are fulfilled, and their fulfillment plays a
vital role by providing a generally reliable pattern of narrative development that
permits the cultivation of a coherent context for interpretation.43 In the context of
the general fulfillment of expectations, however, a limited number of expecta-
tions ultimately are frustrated. These frustrations are noticeable, place the con-
tent of the frustrated expectations in the foreground, and open the possibility for
distinctive contributions to the narrative development.
c. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Rhetorical Strategies

The narrative rhetoric of the sequence, frequency, and distribution of rhetorical
strategies consistently gives primacy to neutral repetition. The narration does not
begin with a primer indicating how it is to be interpreted. Rather, it begins by
telling a story whose interpretation relies on or presumes a preexisting familiarity
with narratives and how they are to be interpreted and a vast repertoire of seman-
tic and narrative frames that may be drawn upon in interpretation. These pre-
existing frames and their preinterpreted content provide the initial reliable
context for peculiarly Markan developments that take place subsequently.44 Sim-
ilarly, the subsequent narration must rely on the continued evocation of the pre-
interpreted content of all but contextual and structural narrative frames to
maintain this reliable context for interpretation and the cultivation of specific
Markan meaning. Thus, neutral strategies must appear prior to novel Markan
43. Fowler discusses seven ways in which the narration asserts its own reliability: (1) direct nar-
ratorial comments to the reader, (2) linking statements, (3) parenthetical constructions including yap
clauses, (4) inside narratorial views, (5) unanswered questions, (6) reliable characters, and (7) back-
drops and introductions {Loaves and Fishes, 157-75). To these may be added two- (and three-)step
progressions, through which given topics first receive statement and then receive immediate clarifica-
tion. Frans Neirynck examines such progressions {Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the
Markan Redaction [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1972], 88—112): negative/positive, temporal/
temporal, spatial/spatial, general/specific, foreign word/Greek translation, noun/appositive, double
questions, and series of three. In each case, the narration first highlights and then cultivates specific
patterns of narrative development and then subsequently employs these according to cultivated
expectations for their use and content.
44. James S. Hanson gives an overview of the manner in which Mark 1:1-15 establishes the ini-
tial reliability of the narrator and of the content of the narration {The Endangered Promises: Conflict
in Mark [SBLDS 171; Atlanta: SBL, 2000], 105-21).
developments, continue with great frequency, and be distributed throughout the

entire narration.
Although neutral repetition must predominate, the sequence, frequency, and
distribution of sophisticating and deconstructive repetition may vary within the
narration as a whole or with respect to the cultivation of content for specific nar-
rative frames. Thus, a given segment of the narration may evince sophisticating
repetition concerning one character and deconstructive repetition concerning
another. This appears in Mark 14 and 15, where the portrayal of various groups
of religious leaders continues predominantly through agent arguments, while the
portrayal of Jesus changes to rely more heavily on patient arguments. This
change simultaneously alters the nature of the relationship between Jesus and
these religious leaders and frustrates the expectation, cultivated in the earlier
chapters, that in conflicts between Jesus and various groups of religious leaders,
Jesus emerges victorious. This development contributes to the ominous tone of
Jesus' passion, cultivates very negative evaluations of particular actions and
events, and establishes an extended and unique "negative" context for cultivating
significant elements of the beliefs of the narrative audience.
7. The Narrative Function of Characterization

To this point the discussion of the method has considered the ways in which the
semantic and narrative rhetoric contribute to the cultivation of the content of
semantic and narrative frames and, in so doing, cultivate the beliefs of the narra-
tive audience. The discussion also has indicated that a word that evokes and cul-
tivates the content of the semantic and narrative frames associated with particular
characters simultaneously may evoke and cultivate the content of narrative
frames not specifically associated with characters. The resulting link between the
narrative frames associated with particular characters and those associated with
other narrative developments presents the opportunity to inquire into the contri-
bution of the process of characterization itself to the overall narrative develop-
ment.45
Clarification of the narrative function of characterization requires an investi-
gation of all or, at least for practical purposes, a very large number of the frames
evoked in the portrayal of a particular character. This makes an exemplary inves-
tigation of the narrative function of characterization difficult at this point in the
presentation. However, the previously considered limited aspects of identifica-
tion between Jesus and John the Baptist provide at least an indication of the nar-
rative function of John's characterization. Here, the story of John's death realizes
for the narrative frames associated with John particular content that may accrue
45. Borrell's discussion of the rhetorical function of the narration of Peter's denial presents sig-
nificant parallels to the following investigation of the narrative function of characterization {Peter's
Denial 173-206).
to Jesus through their limited identification. This story's attention to the circum-
stances leading up to John's beheading, its vilification of those responsible, and
its continued very positive evaluation of John invites and may elicit from the nar-
rative audience an affective response to the content of the narration.46 Should
such a response occur, the subsequent evocation of the narrative frames associ-
ated with John in the characterization of Jesus have the potential to insinuate this
affective response into the characterization of Jesus even prior to the explicit nar-
ration of the events of Jesus' death. For example, the notice that the crowd that
shields Jesus from arrest (12:12) also listens to him with delight (nKouev CIUTOO
f)8ea)s, 12:37) may introduce a very ominous tone into an otherwise positively
presented narrative context based on the recollection that Herod, who originally
protected John and similarly listened to him with delight (6:20), ultimately orders
his execution.
Finally, the inclusion of affective responses in the beliefs of the narrative audi-
ence complements the previously described intellective responses associated
with the interpretation of the realized content of semantic and narrative frames.
Together these responses directly contribute to establishing the narrative audi-
ence's positive or negative relationship to particular characters, actions, con-
cepts, and events.
8. Applications of the Studies of Characterization

The proposed method of analysis, with only minor modifications, has the poten-
tial to contribute to two other areas of Markan scholarship: developing state-
ments of the rhetorical exigency of the narration and of the theology proposed by
the narration. Since these contributions require only minimal analysis beyond
that which appears in the studies of characterization, they are treated as applica-
tions of the content of the studies of characterization. This discussion clarifies the
nature of the rhetorical exigency and the additions to the proposed method to
develop these contributions.
The rhetorical exigency of the narration designates the situation or problem
that the narrative rhetoric seems to be designed to address. The narrative rhetoric
"asserts" for the narration a rhetorical exigency by evoking and highlighting par-
ticular preexisting beliefs and then cultivating alternative beliefs through sophis-
ticating or deconstructive rhetorical strategies. The resulting divergence between
the preexisting and cultivated beliefs problematizes the authorial audience's
46. Wolfgang Iser points out that the text provides only a "network of response-inviting struc-
tures," which, though necessary for a textually grounded interpretation, are not absolutely enforce-
able {The Act of Reading. A Theory of Aesthetic Response [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1978], 34). Carl Friedrich Graumann describes the readerly experience as one of being directed
toward a particular standpoint that can accommodate textually grounded response-inviting structures
(Grundlagen einer Phdnomenologie und Psychologie der Perspektivitat [Berlin: de Gruyter, I960],
14).
highlighted preexisting beliefs from the perspective of the narrative audience's

cultivated beliefs.47
The narrative rhetoric problematizes preexisting beliefs by cultivating beliefs
that either cohere with (sophisticating repetition) or contradict (deconstructive
repetition) particular preexisting beliefs and by coordinating rhetorical strategies
in a manner that invites the narrative audience to experience and affectively
respond to particular situations and events. As a result, the corresponding ele-
ments of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs and experience are por-
trayed as either deficient (sophisticating repetition) or erroneous (deconstructive
repetition) from the perspective of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs.
Studies of repetition provide access to a general statement of corresponding defi-
cient or erroneous preexisting beliefs; and studies of the narrative function of
characterization contribute to this general statement by clarifying deficient and
erroneous beliefs concerning broader narrative developments, the experience
attributed to the authorial audience, and the preexisting beliefs associated with
this experience. Thus, clarification of the rhetorical exigency requires that the
proposed method be augmented to include a distinction between deficient and
erroneous preexisting beliefs.
The narrative rhetoric generally does not clarify preexisting relationships
among the beliefs that are problematized. However, in the process of cultivating
beliefs and relating them in specific ways, the narrative rhetoric imposes rela-
tionships (as clarified in the discussion of the rhetorical organization of culti-
vated beliefs) on the corresponding problematized preexisting beliefs. These
related problematized beliefs constitute for the narrative audience the exigency
which the narrative rhetoric seems designed to address and remedy. The resulting
exigency is properly a rhetorical exigency insofar as it is the narrative rhetoric
that evokes, relates, and problematizes particular preexisting beliefs concerning
God, Jesus, Jesus' disciples, and their relationship.
The development of a statement of Mark's theological beliefs will follow the
same general format as the development of a statement of the rhetorical exi-
gency, except that the focus is on the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. The
only augmentation of the proposed method again concerns a distinction between
sophisticating and deconstructive rhetorical strategies; but in this case the dis-
tinction is interpreted in terms of emphasis. That is, the straightforward introduc-
tion of coherent content through sophisticating repetition implies a lesser
emphasis than does the cultivation of contradictory content that requires prior
narrative preparation and contextual warrants. In addition, the content of the
investigation will include not only cultivated beliefs but preexisting beliefs
evoked by neutral repetition and so not problematized by the narrative rhetoric.
47. The narrative rhetoric also may cultivate for the narrative audience expectations that subse-
quently are frustrated; but such frustrations of cultivated expectations tend to serve other narrative
interests and do not directly impact preexisting beliefs.
9. The Presentation of the Study

This presentation introduced presuppositions, concepts, and procedures for ana-
lyzing and describing the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition, consid-
ered possible applications of the content of characterization to other narrative
developments, and indicated the method's approach to formulating a statement
of the rhetorical exigency and theology of the narration. Although all elements of
the method find application within the following studies, only particular ele-
ments are brought to bear in any given discussion. The studies of the characteri-
zation of God (chapter 2), Jesus (chapter 3), and Jesus' disciples (chapter 4)
follow the same general format: a summary of general elements of the preexist-
ing beliefs introduced by neutral repetition; an examination of beliefs cultivated
through sophisticating repetition of vocabulary and through sophisticating and/or
deconstructive repetition of contexts and structures; an outline of the rhetorical
organization of cultivated beliefs; clarifications concerning the narrative rhetoric
of characterization; and an examination of the narrative function of characteriza-
tion and its contribution to cultivated beliefs. The study of recapitulation in the
characterization of the women at the tomb (chapter 5) further develops the nature
of the recapitulation, clarifies the semantic and narrative rhetoric of their charac-
terization, and investigates the narrative function of their characterization and its
contribution to cultivated beliefs about the disciples. All elements of the studies
of characterization contribute to the concluding discussion of its applications and
implications (Chapter 6) in formulating a statement of the rhetorical exigency
from the problematized beliefs as related and incorporated by the semantic and
narrative rhetoric and in proposing procedures for developing statements of
Mark's theology (of God), christology (of Jesus), and mathetology (of Jesus' dis-
ciples).
Chapter 2
T H E RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF G O D
This study investigates the semantic and narrative rhetoric of the characterization
of God and the contribution of God's characterization to other narrative develop-
ments.1 The relative paucity of references to God permits a determination of the
argument roles realized by every reference to God in Mark. The preinterpreted
content of semantic and narrative frames initially evoked in God's characteriza-
tion then receives formulation into a general statement of the authorial audi-
ence's preexisting beliefs about God. An examination of the semantic and
narrative rhetoric identifies the beliefs cultivated for the narrative audience
through verbal and contextual repetition. The relationships among cultivated
beliefs and their incorporation into the character narrative frames associated with
God then receive graphic representation. A concluding analysis of the narrative
rhetoric of the sequence, relative frequency, and distribution of references to God
then clarifies the narrative function of God's characterization and its contribution
to other narrative developments.
1. The Argument Roles Predicated of God
The narration employs various means of referencing God. Some references are
associated with lexically realized words, while others are associated with
required arguments that are left unstated. Explicit references to God include the
designation "God" (6 0e6s), other designations, pronouns for which a designa-
tion for God is the antecedent, and the syntactic endings of verbs and participles
that narrate God's actions or attributes.2 Except in the case of Geos, determining
1. This investigation develops the study of the characterization of God introduced in Paul
Danove, "The Narrative Function of Mark's Characterization of God," NovT 43 (2001): 12-30, and
later augmented in Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel ofMark: Applications of a Case
Frame Analysis and Lexicon (JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001),
120-39.
2. John R. Donahue presents a careful analysis of titles and other vocabulary that contributes to
Mark's portrayal of God ("A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark," JBL 101 [1982]: 563-94,
here 565-68). Cf. M. Eugene Boring, who views the narration of Mark as "thoroughly theocentric
and permeated with God-language" ("Markan Christology: God Language for Jesus?," NTS 45
[1999]: 451-71, here 451-52).
28
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God 29
whether God is being referenced requires examination of the linguistic and narra-
tive contexts, comparison to Mark's overall theological development, or reliance
on the preinterpreted content of scriptural quotations or allusions.
Except for two verbs discussed below, implicit references to God are associ-
ated with grammatically required arguments of words that are omitted in particu-
lar linguistic contexts. In Mark such omissions are limited to the agent argument
of passive voice forms of transitive verbs, non-agent arguments whose referents
may be retrieved from the previous narrative context, and non-agent arguments
whose referents are provided directly by the authorial audience's preexisting
beliefs.3 Implicit references satisfy three criteria: (1) a word requires completion
by an argument for its correct grammatical usage, and that argument does not
receive statement in the text; (2) omission of the argument has a specific gram-
matical justification; and (3) except in the case of direct appeals to preexisting
beliefs, collateral information, as specified in the discussion of explicit reference,
indicates that this argument has God as the most probable referent.
These criteria identify implicit references to God in association with the sky
being rent (axiCw) in 1:10, messengers (ayyeXog) in 1:13, and holy Spirit
(iTi>ei)|ia dyiov) in 1:8. Rend (axiCw), which requires two arguments, an agent
(who rends), and a patient (what is rent), appears without its agent; and both mes-
senger (ayyeXos) and holy Spirit (TTveO|±a dyiov), which require a benefactive
argument (the messenger and holy Spirit of whom), appear without their bene-
factive (criterion #1). Koine grammar, like English grammar, permits omission
of the agent argument of all passive voice verb forms (being rent), of arguments
whose referents have received previous contextual clarification (my messenger;
see 1:2), and of arguments whose referents are unique and known by the audi-
ence (the "holy" Spirit is of God) (criterion #2).4 The first creation story (Gen
1:1-2:3) provides collateral information that God, who established the firma-
ment, is the appropriate agent of the sky's rending; and the reference to scripture
in Mark 1:2 (cf. Mai 3:1) identifies God as the benefactive of the noted messen-
ger and of all subsequent messengers unless otherwise specified (criterion #3).
Use of these criteria for identifying implicit reference brings symmetry to the
3. Donahue discusses the narration's frequent use of passive voice forms of transitive verbs in
reference to God's activity ("Neglected Factor," 566). See Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek:
Illustrated by Examples (trans. Joseph Smith; 2nd ed; Rome: Scripti Pontificii Biblici, 1985), 76.
The proposed examples constitute instances of the 'theological" or "divine" passive: see Joachim
Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation ofJesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1971), 10-13. The omission of required arguments whose referents can be retrieved from the preced-
ing narrative context receives consideration in Charles J. Fillmore, '"U'-Semantics, Second Round,"
Quaderni di Semantica 7 (1986): 49-58; John R. Ross, "Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase]
Deletion," Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970): 264-65; and Ivan Sag and Jorge Hankamer, 'Toward a The-
ory of Anaphoric Processing," Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984): 325-45.
4. The [holy] Spirit of God (rTveOjia GeoC [ayiov]) is a common theme of scripture: Gen 1:2;
41:38; Num 23:7; 24:2; \ Sam 10:10; 19:9, 20, 23; 2 Chr 24:20; Ezek 11:24; Dan [4:8], [9], [18];
5:11, 14; and its introduction without explanations or warrants in the context of other assertions con-
cerning God's benefaction (1:1,2) indicates a direct appeal to preexisting beliefs.
following discussion; for all but one explicit reference to God in Mark are associ-
ated with required arguments of words.5 The only exceptions to use of the first
criterion with implicit references occurs with it is necessary (Set) and it is per-
mitted (e£ecmv), whose technical theological usage in Mark is deemed to imply
God's agency even though the verbs themselves do not require agent arguments.6
The following analysis identifies 219 explicit and grammatically required
implicit references to God in Mark 1:1-16:8 and groups these references accord-
ing to eight argument roles: agent (the instigator of an action or the ultimate
cause of a change in another entity); experiencer (the animate being that is the
locus of a mental or psychological state, event, or activity); instrument (the
means by which an action is performed or something happens); source (the literal
or figurative entity from which something moves); goal (the literal or figurative
entity toward which something moves); benefactive (the ultimate entity for
which an action is performed or for which, literally or figuratively, something
happens or exists); patient (the entity undergoing a process or affected by an
action or located in a place); or content (the content of a mental or psychological
state, event, or activity).7 Since God's agency proves to have the greatest signifi-
cance in subsequent discussions, the argument role agent receives more detailed
investigation.
Mark portrays God as agent on seventy-five occasions. The explicit agency of
God appears in association with thirty-five occurrences of verbs: go on a journey
(dTro87i(ieo), 12:1), destroy (OTTOXXUIJLI, 12:9), send (aTToaTeXXo), 1:2; 9:37; 12:2,
4, 5, 6), forgive (dc|>iT)p.i, 2:7; 11:25), give (8i8a)|±i, 11:28; 12:9), abandon
(eyKaToAeLTTO), 15:34), lease (<EK8L8O|JUII, 12:1), choose (€KXeyo|iai, 13:20),
come (epxo|iai, 12:9), shorten (KoXopow, 13:20a, 20b), create (KTLCW, 13:19),
take (Xaiipdvo), 12:2), say (Xeyo), 12:6, 26a, 26b, 36), build (OLKO8O^60), 12:1),
dig (opijaaa), 12:1), [not] remove (irapaêpo), 14:36), strike (Trcnrdaaa), 14:27),
place around (TTepiTi9r||±i, 12:1), do (Troieo), 5:19; 10:6; 12:9), join (auCeuya),
10:9), place (TL6T]|JLL, 12:36), and plant (ÛTEIJCD, 12:1).8
5. A given word in Koine (and English) may require zero, one, two, or three arguments for its
correct grammatical usage and simultaneously may license the presence of various nonrequired
adjuncts: see John I. Saeed, Semantics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 147-49. Although the noted con-
siderations preclude the inclusion of potential implicit references to God associated with nonrequired
adjuncts, they do establish a grammatically justified corpus of data against which such potential ref-
erences may be compared for coherence of content. The lone example of explicit reference to God
associated with a nonrequired verbal adjunct appears with "beg" (6pKi£a), 5:7).
6. According to W. Grundmann, "8el, 8lov <ECTTL," TDNT 2:21-25, all occurrences of Set in
Mark make appeal to the will of God W. Foerster suggests that although the common usage lêoriv
may relate to either the Law or God, its New Testament usage must be interpreted in terms of the
demands of the will of God ("eêaTLv," TDNT 2:560-61).
7. These working definitions summarize the more detailed discussions that appear in Charles J.
Fillmore and Paul Kay, Construction Grammar (Stanford: CSLI, 1999), 4:21-22; Saeed, Semantics,
140-41; and T. Givon, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction (2 vols.; Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 1984,1990), 1:126-27.
8. The statement of God's agency does not incorporate actions attributed to the holy Spirit (1:8,
Although limiting implicit reference to arguments whose omission is gram-

matically justified removes more contentious assertions of God's agency, identi-
fication of implicit agency remains somewhat ambiguous with the passive use of
some transitive verbs.9 For example, the noted criteria permit a determination
that God is the most appropriate referent of the omitted agent of axi£o> in 1:10.
However, assigning agency to God in the rending of the curtain in 15:38 requires
recourse to less direct collateral information, including Mark's general theologi-
cal development, God's overarching agency in the events surrounding Jesus'
death, and literary considerations concerning the function of inclusions.10 The
following twenty-eight occurrences of verbs that include God as the most appro-
priate referent of the agent argument identify the lack of an explicitly narrated
argument with a preceding asterisk (*) : take (alpoj, *4:25); take up (diTaipa),
*2:20), forgive (a(()ir||±i, *3:28; *4:12), baptize (paTTTiCco, *10:38a, *38b, *39a,
*39b), write (ypd<J>G) [always perfect passive indicative], *1:2; *7:6; *9:12, *13;
•11:17; *14:21, *27), give (SiScopx, *4:11, *25; *6:2; *8:12; *13:11), prepare
(€Toi|idCo), *10:40), measure (ixeTpew, *4:24), fulfill (uXripoG), *1:15; *14:49;
[[*15:28]]), add (TTPO<TTL8T||JLI, *4:24), complete (awTeXeu, *13:4), and rend
(CJXL£G), *l:10; * 1 5 : 3 8 ) . U Be necessary (Set, *8:31; *9:11; *13:7, *10, *14;
10, 12; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11), which receives separate characterization in Mark. Instead, references to
the [holy] Spirit appear in the discussion of God as benefactive.
9. Mark is not averse to specifying direct agency through the use of a prepositional phrase with
I)TTO (1:5, 9 with ponrTi£o|jm [be baptized], 1:13 with Treipd£oiiai [be tested], 2:3 withaLpojiai [be
taken], 5:4 with biao-ndo\i.ai [be torn apart], and 8:31 with aTro8oKtiJLd£o|±ai [be rejected]) and indi-
rect agency througjh the use of a prepositional phrase with 8id (through) (6:2 with yCi/opm [happen]
and 14:21 with Trapa8i8<4JLi [hand over]). However, the agency of God never receives such explicit
clarification.
10. See, e.g., the discussions in Donald Juel, A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted (Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1994), 34, 100-102; Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in
Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 281; Frank Matera, "The Prologue as
the Interpretive Key to Mark's Gospel," JSNT 34 (1988): 3-20, here 14-15; and Harry L. Chronis,
"The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-39," JBL 101 (1982): 97-114, here 109.
11. The discussion excludes several candidates for implicit reference to God's agency associ-
ated with passive verb forms. In some cases the allusion to God's possible agency is deemed too
vague: take (ai'pw, *11:23); season (dXi£o), *9:49); throw (pdXXw, *11:23); scatter (8iaaKopm£w,
* 14:27); and make known (<}>avep6o>, *4:22). In two cases, the narration explicitly provides more
appropriate candidates for agent or instrument: the young man (16:5) for roll away (dTroKuXiw,
*16:4), and faith ( m a n s , 5:34; 10:52) or the one losing one's life (8:35) for save (aw£w, *10:26;
*13:13, *20). The use of the preposition 8id (through) in 14:21 to designate the indirect agent
through whom the Son of Man is handed over (Trapa8i8(i)M.i) may imply God as direct agent: see
Augustine Stock {The Method and Message of Mark [Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989],
356-57), who notes that both the coordinated phrase, as it has been written (icaGus yeypaiTTai,
14:21a), and the contextual parallels to Isa 53:6, 12 emphasize God's direct agency. However, the
previous narration also has identified numerous human agents who may be implied here. Passive
forms of rise or raise (eyeipw, 6:14, 16; 12:26; 14:28; 16:6) are deemed to function intransitively
based on the Markan precedent of the deponent usage of passive forms in the present (eyeipr|Tai in
parallel withraOeuSr),4:27) and aorist (rvyepen, 2:12, in parallel with eyeipe, 2:9, 11): see BDF,
p. 78; Maximilian Zerwick, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci (SPIB 107; 3rd ed; Rome:
* 14:31) and be permitted (e£eaTiv, *2:24, *26; *3:4; *6:18; *10:2; *12:14), as
indicated above, also are taken to imply the agency of God.
God is portrayed as the referent of the experiencer of be merciful (eXeeo),
5:19), be pleased (euSoKeo), 1:11), want (OeXo), 14:36), and know (ol8a, 13:32).
God is the referent of an instrument only with beg (opKiCo), 5:7).
On thirteen occasions God references the source from whom (1) this people is
distant (artexu [duo], 7:6), (2) come to be (yivo|±ai [napd]) the Sabbath
(*2:27), powers through Jesus' hands (*6:2), and the rejected stone becoming the
head stone (12:10), and (3) one receives (Xappdvo), *10:30; 11:24; 12:40). God
also is the source of [everlasting] life (Cwrj [alaiyios], *9:43, *45; * 10:30), one's
reward (jnaGog, *9:41), faith (maTig, 11:22), and an inheritance (KXTIPOVOJIICI,
*12:7).12
God as referent of the goal appears twenty times. God is the goal of give back
(dTro8i,8o)|iL, 12:17b), give thanks (eix a P L(JT ^ a) ? *&:6; * 14:23), pray (TTpoaeu-
XO|iai, *1:35; *6:46; *11:24, *25; *12:40; *13:18; *14:32, *35, *38, *39), wor-
ship (aepojiat, 7:7), honor (TL|ida), 7:6), and sing a hymn (i|iveo), * 14:26).
Three nouns also imply God as goal: offering (Gixiia, * 12:33), whole burnt
offering (6XoKat>TG)|ia, *12:33), and prayer (TTpoaeuxi, *9:29; *11:17).
Of the eighty references to God as benefactive, only one occurs as the subject
of a verb: God as Lord of the Vineyard has (ex^, 12:6a) a beloved Son. Else-
where the references appear in noun phrases that describe either what God has or
what is for God: angel[s]/messenger[s] (dyyeXog, 1:2, *13; 8:38; * 12:25;
*13:27, *32); holy one (dyios, 1:24); [not] impossible thing (aSvvarov, 10:27);
reign (paaiXeia, 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14, 15, 23, 24, 25; 12:34; 14:25;
15:43); right [hand] (8<E£id, 12:36; 14:62); glory (86£a, 8:38); power (8iW|±is,
12:24; * 14:62); possible thing (Suvcrrov [napd] 10:27; * 14:35 or [dative]
14:36); commandment (evro\r\, 7:8, 9; *10:19; *12:28, [*29], [*31a], *31b);
gospel (euoryyeXiov, *1:1 [retrospectively], 14, *15; *8:35; *10:29; *13:10;
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1966), 92, 113, 119, 125; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979), 215; and Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan,
1963), 308-9. A similar deponent usage is assumed for transform (p.eTap.op4>6(o, *9:2), which
exhibits only passive forms in the New Testament; but see Jack Dean Kingsbury (The Chhstology of
Mark's Gospel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 99), who deems this verb to denote divine activity.
Among the rejected candidates, only eyeipw has a potential to impact aspects of (but not the outcome
of) the following investigation.
12. Faith (TTLQTLS) evokes a series of semantic frames associated with slightly different connota-
tions for the word; and each semantic frame requires a single argument whose role depends on the
connotation. Thus, in the phrase, TTUJTIV GeoO (11:22), God may reference the goal (belief in God),
topic (belief concerning God), or source (belief from God). Such ambiguity, which permits the simul-
taneous evocation of multiple semantic frames, contributes depth and texture to characterization. The
studies of the rhetoric of characterization, however, categorize such references according to a single
argument role in order to ensure a one-to-one correspondence between arguments and references.
The noted selection of source follows Nigel Turner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, vol. 3,
Syntax (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), 211; cf. Zerwick, Analysis Philologica,
*14:9); will (6eAr)|ia, 3:35); heir (K\r)pov6|ios, *12:7); word(X6yog, 7:13); way
(686s, 1:2 [retrospectively], 3; 12:14); house (OIKOS, 2:26; 11:17); name (6vojia,
11:9); [holy] Spirit (TTve€|±a [dyiov], [*1:8], *10, *12; [*3:29]; [*12:36];
*[13:11]); prophet (TTPO(|>TITTIS, •1:2; *6:4, *15a, *15b; *8:28; *11:32); things
(Td, 8:33; 12:17); path (T P LPOS, 1:3); son (vl6s, 1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6b;
*13:32; 14:61; 15:39); and voice (((xoyrj, *1:11; *9:7).13
On twenty-four occasions God is referent of the patient argument associated
with (1) the direct objects of transitive verbs, (2) the objects of predication either
with or without be (dpi), or (3) the patient of benefaction. Two transitive verbs,
receive (8exo|iai, 9:37b) and glorify (8o£d£o), 2:12), reference God as patient.
God is the patient of predication with good (dyaGog, 10:18), he (airros, 12:32b),
I (eyw, 12:26a), one (els, 12:29c, 32a), in the heavens (£v rols oupavois,
11:25), one Lord (tcupios elg, 12:29b), and highest ({R|HQTOS, 5:7). God is the
patient of benefaction with Abraham ('Appad|±, 12:26b), the living (£o)VTes,
12:27b), you [pi.] (V\L&V, 12:29a), Jacob ('IaKtSp, 12:26d), Isaac ('IaadK,
12:26c), my (jiotj, 15:34a, 34b), [not] the dead (v€Kpoi, 12:27a), and you (aou,
12:30). God is also the patient of benefaction as Lord (Kupiog) of the Vineyard
(d|iTTeXoJv, 12:9) and as Father (Trarrjp) of you [pi.] (i)|±a>v, 11:25), of him/the
Son of Man (airroO, 8:38), and of the Son/Jesus (* 13:32), and as Abba Father
(appa 6 TTaTrjp) of Jesus (*14:36).14
God twice references the content of experience with love (dyctTTda), 12:30,
33).
2, Preexisting Beliefs about God

The narrative contexts of the 219 explicit or grammatically justified implicit ref-
erences to God indicate no use of deconstructive rhetorical strategies to contra-
dict the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning God.15 Although
13. The gospel (euayyeXiov) originally is attributed to Jesus Christ (1:1) as benefactive and
then to God (1:14) as benefactive. Since the remaining occurrences appear without a statement of the
benefactive, both Jesus Christ and God are evoked as its referents; and, retrospectively, this dual ref-
erence is extended to the occurrence in 1:1. Although the required argument of euayyeXiov in 1:14 is
categorized as benefactive (subjective genitive), categorization as source (objective genitive; cf.
BDF, p. 163) or topic (the gospel is about God and/or God's activity) also is possible. Categorization
of the required arguments of dyyeXos andiryeOp-a as source also is possible.
14. Elsewhere, lord (icupios) in reference to God (1:3; 5:19; 11:9; 12:11, 29, 30, 36; 13:20) is
deemed to function as a proper noun that does not require a benefactive. The noted references to
Abba Father (14:36) and God (15:34a, 34b), which are patients of benefaction within their immediate
contexts, also serve as vocative adjuncts (directly addressed entities) with respect to their following
clauses. The definition of "abba" as "father" is an example of a sophisticating rhetorical strategy that
does not involve repetition: see Robert Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding
Stones in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1981), 160-61, for various
contributions of definitions to the narrative development of Mark.
15. As the following analysis indicates, however, deconstructive strategies are apparent in the
broader narrative developments associated with other narrative frames evoked by these words.
sophisticating repetition cultivates beliefs about God by highlighting and rein-

forcing various preexisting beliefs or introducing into them new coherent con-
tent, such augmentation is reserved to the subsequent occurrences of repeated
words. Thus, the content evoked by the first occurrence of words referencing
God may be ascribed to the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning
God.16 These preexisting beliefs indicate that the authorial audience has a self-
identification as a believer of the gospel, a familiarity with much of the content
of Mark concerning God, and a recognition of God's unique relationship with
Jesus.
The authorial audience's self-identification as a believer is indicated by the
straightforward opening assertions that God has a Son, Jesus, and that God pre-
pares for Jesus' coming by sending a messenger (l:l-3). 1 7 The evocation of
semantic and narrative frames associated with God in the opening verses asserts
a reliability for the content of the entire narration that is completely dependent on
the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about and relationship with God and
Jesus. Without these, the assertion of reliable narration is either meaningless (in
the case of no preexistent beliefs about God and Jesus) or undermined (in the
case of hostile preexistent beliefs about them). Since the narration gives no indi-
cation of attempting either to define who God and Jesus are or to deconstruct pre-
existing beliefs about them, the narration assumes a believing authorial audience.
The authorial audience's preexisting familiarity with much of the narrative
content of Mark associated with God's characterization includes a knowledge of
the content and implications of particular allusions to the Septuagint and a very
positive esteem not only for God but also for Jesus and John the Baptist. Again,
for the introductory narration (1:1-11) to be meaningful, the authorial audience
must have prior beliefs that God's agency determines what is written in Isaiah,
that God is the referent of "I," John is the referent of the "messenger," and Jesus
is the referent of "you" (1:2), that John's clothing portrays him as Elijah (1:6; cf.
2 Kgs 1:8), the precursor of the great and terrible day of the Lord (Mai 3:23), and
that Jesus is referent of the more powerful one (1:7).18 The straightforward pres-
entation of the positive relationship of Jesus with God (1:1, 11) and of John with
Jesus (1:2-9) and God (1:2-3; cf. 6:18) indicates that the authorial audience has a
very positive preexisting esteem for God, Jesus, and John the Baptist.
The authorial audience's preexisting recognition of God's unique relationship
16. Chaim Perelman observes that the process of interpretation must begin with what is accepted
by the interpreter (The Realm of Rhetoric [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982],
21).
17. Whether or not uloO Geou (of God) is accepted as part of the original text, the straightfor-
ward narration of 1:11 indicates that Jesus in fact is recognized as the Son of God.
18. The citations in Mark 1:2-3 also assume a preexisting familiarity with who Isaiah is, why
Isaiah is authoritative, and what is written in the Book of Isaiah (and Malachi); and the use of baptize
(J3aTTTL£(o ) in 1:8 assumes a prior familiarity with the theological use of this word that permits it to
summarize both John's and Jesus' activity and a recognition that being baptized with the holy Spirit
has greater significance than being baptized with water (1:8).
with Jesus is apparent throughout the narration. The most frequently asserted ele-
ments of this unique relationship are Jesus' status as God's son and God's
agency with respect to Jesus. Jesus' status as God's son receives independent
attestation under a series of designations: Son of God (t/109 OeoO, 1:1); Beloved
Son (ulds dyaTTTiTos, 1:11); Son of the Most High God (1/109 TOI) 06OO TOO
ixKaTou, 5:7); and the Son (6 vi6g9 13:32). Although God's agency impacts
every aspect of Jesus' presentation, God's agency in Jesus' death receives the
greatest frequency of independent reference: God takes up (dm-cupo), 2:20) the
groom, does not remove (TTapacjxEpa), 14:36) the cup from Jesus, strikes
), 14:27) the shepherd, and abandons (eyKaraXeiTrG), 15:34) Jesus.
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated References
This discussion examines the manner in which the thirty-five repeated words and
phrases with God as the referent of particular arguments contributes to the culti-
vation of the content of particular semantic frames, the narrative frames associ-
ated with God, and other narrative frames evoked in the process of
characterization. The narration consistently holds God and God's actions in high
esteem. Thus, repetition of words with God as the referent of a particular argu-
ment not only highlights and reinforces particular positive actions and attributes
of God but directly relates God positively or negatively to other characters refer-
enced by the same argument of the same words and imposes a positive or nega-
tive evaluation of those characters' actions and attributes.
Repetition with God as the referent of one argument also indirectly relates to
God characters that reference other arguments) of the same word and directly
relates to each other the characters referenced by the other arguments). For
example, the verb "pray" (jrpocreijxoiiai) requires two arguments, an agent and a
goal. The fact that God consistently is the referent of the goal in Mark establishes
the possibility of directly relating the agents of this action to each other and of
indirectly relating the agents to God as goal.
Repetition with God as the referent of one argument also may relate God
mediately to other characters through a third character that is both directly and
indirectly related to God. For example, the repetition of send (dtTroaTeXXa))
directly relates Jesus and God as agents of this action. God as agent also sends
Jesus as patient, which engenders an indirect relationship between God and
Jesus. Since Jesus both sends others and is sent by God, those sent by Jesus have
a mediated (through Jesus) relationship with God.
The following study distinguishes three categories of relationships with God:
direct, through repetition of the same argument of the same word; indirect,
through repetition of the same word with God as referent of one argument and
other characters as referents of another argument; and mediate, through repeti-
tion of a word that both directly and indirectly relates God to a second character
and indirectly relates the second character to a third character. The study also
addresses instances in which repetition of words with God and another character
as referents of the same arguments engenders aspects of identification between
God and the other character with respect to specific actions or attributes. Such
identification is especially apparent in the cultivation of mediated relationships
that predicate the same actions or attributes of God and another character and
place both in parallel relationships. The study gives more detailed attention to
repetition that directly relates God to other characters.
a. Repetition ofAgent References

Of the twelve repeated verbs with God as the referent of the agent, five occur
only with God and so stress God's unique agency: be necessary (Set, *8:31;
*9:11; *13:7, *10, *14; *14:31); be permitted (e£e(mi/, *2:24, *26; *3:4; *6:18;
*10:2; *12:14); shorten (KoXopoo, 13:20a, 20b); fulfill (TTXTIPOG), *1:15; *14:49;
[* 15:28]); and rend (axiC<o, * 1:10; * 15:38). Although these verbs do not directly
relate other characters to God, the repetition of KoXopoo) with "the days" (al
f||iepai, 13:20a, 20b) as patient in both occurrences raises to prominence the pre-
existing belief that God's agency controls the duration of particular events. The
repetition of TTXTIPOG) directly relates the time (raipos, *1:15) of the drawing
near of God's reign to the scriptures (ypa4>ai, *14:49; [*15:28]); and repetition
of (JXL£G) directly relates the heavens (oupavos, *l:10) and the temple's veil
(KaTaTT6Taa|ia TOO vaou, * 15:38).
God's implicit agency with 8el and eêonv adds a further possible contribu-
tion of repetition, for both verbs require a single argument that designates a com-
plete event. Repetition of 8et relates the following events as manifestations of
God's agency: that the Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise (*8:31);
that Elijah (/John the Baptist, cf. 1:2-3) come first (*9:11); that wars and reports
of wars occur at the beginning of birth pains (*13:8); that the gospel be pro-
claimed first to all the nations (* 13:10); that the detestable object of desolation
not stand in a particular place (*13:14); and, perhaps, that Peter die with Jesus
(14:31). The first four occurrences stress God's overarching agency in necessitat-
ing particular events throughout history; and repetition of "first" (Trporrov, *9:11;
* 13:10) asserts that this agency follows a specific pattern. The only repetition of
specific content concerns Jesus' being killed as Son of Man (8:31) and dying
(14:31).
Repetition of eêonv relates what may not be done on the Sabbath (*2:24),
what may not be eaten (*2:26; cf. Lev 24:5-9), what may be done, good or evil
on the Sabbath (*3:4), whom a man may not have as a wife (*6:18; cf. Lev
18:16), whether a man may divorce his wife (*10:2; cf. Deut 24:1, 3), and
whether or not one may give the census tax to Caesar (*12:14). What is or is not
permitted in each case either directly or indirectly references what has been writ-
ten under God's agency in the scriptures and so what God commands of God's
people. Repetition grants special emphasis to God's agency in regulating what
human beings may or may not do on the Sabbath (*2:24; 3:4) and in marriage
(*6:18; 10:2). Only John the Baptist (6:18) and, redundantly, Jesus/the Son of
Man (2:24, 26; 3:4; 10:2; 12:14) are cast as authentic interpreters of what God
commands; whereas the Pharisees (2:24; 10:2) and the Pharisees with/and the
Herodians (3:6/12:14) are portrayed as false interpreters. This directly positively
relates Jesus and John, indirectly positively relates them to God, directly nega-
tively relates them to the Pharisees and the Pharisees and Herodians, and indi-
rectly negatively relates the latter characters to God.
Seven repeated verbs appear with both God and other characters as referent of
the agent: send (aTroaTeXXo)), forgive (d^Ltî), baptize (PaTrTi£o)), write
(ypd(j>a)), give (8i8o)|ii), say (Xeyco), and do (noieo)). Among these, send
(aTrooreXXoi)), which requires an agent, a patient, and a goal, occurs sixteen times
and has as agent God (1:2; 9:37; 12:2,4, 5,6), Jesus (3:14; 5:10; 6:7; 8:26; 11:1,
3; 14:13; cf. 13:27 for the Son of Man) and farmers (12:3) or "they" (12:13), who
are identified contextually with the chief priests, scribes, and elders (12:12; cf.
11:27).19 The eight occurrences with Jesus as agent redundantly reinforce his
direct positive alignment with God, which verges on identification when Jesus
sends the twelve who accomplish acts previously attributed to Jesus whom God
sends (9:37; 12:6). God's sending of John the Baptist (/Elijah, 1:2 [Mai 3:1]),
Jesus (9:37; cf. 12:6 for Beloved Son), and slaves (12:2, 4, 5) directly positively
relates these characters to each other and indirectly positively relates them to
God. Repetition also indirectly positively relates the twelve (3:14; 6:7) and par-
ticular disciples (11:1; 14:13) to Jesus and mediately (through Jesus) relates them
positively to God. In contrast, the chief priests, scribes, and elders are portrayed
in direct opposition to God; for the farmers send [back] (12:3) empty-handed the
slave sent to retrieve what is due to God; and "they" send some Pharisees and
Herodians (cf. 3:6 for the plot by these characters to destroy Jesus) to trap Jesus,
who is directly and indirectly positively aligned with God. The occurrence of
aTroaTeXXa) in 12:13 also indirectly aligns the Pharisees and Herodians with the
chief priests, scribes, and elders and establishes their negative relationship with
God.
Forgive (d<|>iri[ii) occurs eight times with the agents God (2:7; *3:28; *4:12;
11:25b), Jesus or the Son of Man (*2:5, *9, 10), and those who have something
against another (11:25a). The parallel action of God and Jesus or the Son of Man
in 2:1—12 strengthens Jesus' direct positive alignment with God. A direct posi-
tive relationship with God for those having something against another, however,
remains contingent on their forgiveness of the other. This cultivates a mediated
positive relationship with God for the other who is forgiven.
Baptize (paimCo)) occurs eleven times and has as agent God (* 10:38a, *38b,
*39a, *39b), John the Baptist (1:4, 5, 8a, 9; 6:14, 24), and Jesus (1:8b). Repeti-
19. A second use of OLTTOGT€ XX<O that requires two arguments, an agent and a patient, and has the
connotation "send for" (3.31; 4:29; 6:17, 27) does not appear with God as agent and so is excluded
from this discussion.
tion of this verb is distinct in that the contexts of its occurrence realize for its
agents different relationships: John's baptizing is related to water; Jesus' to the
holy Spirit; and God's to suffering, death, and resurrection. Repetition empha-
sizes John's direct positive relationship with God; and the notice that Jesus bap-
tizes indicates his positive relationship with God and asserts that he is more
powerful than John insofar as Jesus' baptizing with [the] holy Spirit supersedes
John's baptizing with water (1:7-8). As characters baptized by God (* 10:38a,
*38b, *39a, *39b), Jesus, James, and John are directly positively aligned with
each other and indirectly positively aligned with God. Those whom Jesus bap-
tizes with the holy Spirit also are mediately positively aligned with God.
Write (ypdc))(i)) occurs nine times and has the agents God (*1:2; *7:6; *9:12,
*13; *11:17; *14:21, *27) and Moses (10:5; 12:1,9).20 With respect to God, what
is written is that God will send John the Baptist/Elijah to prepare Jesus'/God's
way (1:2); that this people, contextually identified as the Pharisees and some of
the scribes (cf. 7:1), honor God [only] with their lips (7:6); that "they" did to
John the Baptist/Elijah whatever they wished (9:13); that Jesus as Son of Man
suffer much and be despised (9:12); that God's house will be called a house of
prayer for all people (11:17); that Jesus as Son of Man will go [to his death]
(14:21); and that God will strike Jesus as shepherd (14:27). Repetition directly
positively relates Jesus, John the Baptist, and God's house (the temple), indi-
rectly positively relates them to God, directly negatively relates them to the Phar-
isees and some scribes, and directly negatively relates the latter to God.
Repetition also links John's sending and what was done to him; Jesus' suffering,
being despised, and going [to his death] as Son of Man and being struck as shep-
herd; and God's house being called a house of prayer for all people. God's direct
relationship with the other agent of writing, Moses, however, is primarily nega-
tive. Moses' command concerning divorce has as its cause (npog) not God but
human hardness of heart (10:5) and contradicts G o d ' s intent (10:6-9); and
Moses' instruction about marriage to a dead brother's wife in order to raise up
children for that brother (12:19) proves to be superfluous in light of the resurrec-
tion (12:24-27).
Give (8L8O)|±I) occurs thirty-five times with the agents God (*4:11, *25; *6:2;
*8:12; 11:28; 12:9; *13:11), Jesus (6:7, 4 1 ; 8:6; 10:45 [for the Son of Man];
13:34 [for Lord of the Household]; 14:22, 23; cf. 10:37, 40 for what Jesus cannot
give), David (2:26), Jesus' disciples (6:37a, 37b), Pharisees and Herodians (3:6;
12:14a, 14b), Herod (6:22, 23, 25), a soldier (6:28a), Herodias's daughter
(6:28b), false christs and prophets (13:22), chief priests (14:11), betrayer (14:44),
and other characters (5:43; 8:37; 10:21; 14:5; 15:23). God gives the mystery of
the reign of God to those around Jesus with the twelve (*4:11), [more] to those
20. God is deemed the agent based on the fact that (1) the authority of what is written ultimately
depends on God and God's agency and (2) an ascription of agency to Isaiah is explicitly avoided in
the verb's first occurrence (1:2). God's agency consistently is communicated through the verb's per-
fect passive indicative (yeypcnTTai < ypdcjxo).
[already] having (*4:25), wisdom to Jesus (*6:2), no sign to this generation

(*8:12), authority to Jesus (11:28), the vineyard to others (12:9), and what to say
to Peter, Andrew, James, and John when they are handed over (*13:11). Repeti-
tion redundantly reinforces Jesus' direct positive relationship with God and
directly positively aligns Jesus, David, and God (2:26). Repetition of give
authority (egouaiav 8i8o)|ii) also identifies Jesus with God; for, just as God
gives authority to Jesus (11:28), who accomplishes positively evaluated deeds,
Jesus gives authority to the twelve (6:7; cf. 13:34 for the Lord of the Household)
who accomplish the same deeds (6:6b-13, 30-32). This asserts for the twelve a
mediated positive relationship with God. The remaining occurrences, however,
portray characters in direct opposition to God. Jesus' disciples are negatively
evaluated; for Jesus' order to give something to eat (6:37a), itself a positively
evaluated action, is negatively received (6:37b), and the disciples' implicit rejec-
tion, although redeemed somewhat by their later compliance (which does not
employ 818(411), is reiterated in similar circumstances in 8:4. The Pharisees and
Herodians first give a plot to destroy Jesus (3:6) and then give to Caesar what is
Caesar's but, by implication, not to God what is God's (12:14). Herod twice
promises to give to Herodias's daughter whatever she asks (6:22, 23), and she
asks him to give the head of the positively evaluated John the Baptist (6:25). A
soldier gives John's head to the daughter (6:28a), who in turn gives it to Herodias
(6:28b). False christs and prophets will give signs to mislead God's chosen ones
(13:22; cf. 13:20). The chief priests promise to give Judas silver to hand over
Jesus (14:11); and Judas, the one handing over Jesus, gives a sign to identify
Jesus at his arrest (14:44).
The four occurrences of say (Xeyo)) with God as agent directly positively
relate the content of what is said, that the farmers will respect God's [beloved]
Son (12:6), that God is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of
Jacob (12:26a, 26b; cf. Exod 3:6, 15, 16), and that God as Lord orders Jesus as
David's Lord to sit at God'srighthand until God places Jesus' enemies under his
feet (12:36; cf.Ps 110:1).
The first of the three occurrences of do/make (TTOieo) with God as agent paral-
lels what God does (5:19) with what Jesus does (5:20) and stresses Jesus' direct
positive alignment with God. The second and third, in contrast, describe actions
reserved to God: making human beings male and female (10:6; cf. Gen 1:27;
5:2); and coming, destroying the farmers, and giving the vineyard to others
(12:9). These occurrences indirectly negatively relate to God the chief priests,
scribes, and elders, the contextual referent of the farmers (12:12; cf. 11:27) who
reject (d-no8oKi|idC(i), 12:10; cf. 8:31) the stone, Jesus.
Among the actions predicated of God, God's agency in the death of Jesus
receives the most frequent assertion through the greatest number of verbs: the
Lord of the Vineyard sends (aTToaTeXXu), 12:6) his beloved Son, whom the farm-
ers kill (diTOKTeiva), 12:8); God baptizes (paTTTi^G), *10:38a, *39a) Jesus, which
is contextually interpreted in terms of the Son of Man's being handed over, con-
demned, killed (dnTOKTeLvo)), andrising(cf. 10:33-34); and God's agency neces-
sitates (8ei, *8:31) that the Son of Man suffer much, be rejected, be killed (CITTOK-
T€LV(D), and rise. Nonrepeated verbs indicating God's agency contribute to this
theme: God takes up (dTraipo), *2:20) the groom, strikes (TrcrrdaaG), 14:27; cf.
Zech 13:7) the shepherd, does not remove (TTapa<|)€pa), 14:36) the cup from
Jesus, and abandons ((EyraTaXeiiTG), 15:34) Jesus.21
b. Repetition of Non-Agent References

Of the twenty-three repeated words with God as the referent of a non-agent argu-
ment, fifteen clarify God's unique attributes. Only God is the source of life (Ccori)
and what comes to be [from] (yivo|±ai [uapd]). Life (9:43, 45; 10:30) requires
no other arguments and so does not cultivate relationships for God. Come to be,
however, directly positively relates its patient arguments, the Sabbath (*2:27),
powers (8uvd|ieis) through the hands of Jesus (*6:2), and the stone rejected by
the builders becoming the cornerstone (12:10-11), and indirectly positively
relates these to God. God alone is the goal of prayer (Trpoaeuxii, 9:29; 11:17),
which requires no other arguments, and of give thanks (euxapiaTeo)) and pray
(TTpoaeiJxo|iai). Repetition of give thanks (8:6; 14:23) and pray (1:35; 6:46;
14:32, 35, 39) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God, whereas all other agents
of "pray" are indirectly negatively related to God: the twelve (11:24, 25), Peter,
James, John, and Andrew (13:18), and Peter, James, and John (14:38), who are
ordered to pray but do not do so; and the scribes whose manner of praying
receives Jesus' negative critique (12:38-40).
God alone is referent of the benefactive of five words that require no other
arguments: messenger (dyyeXos, 1:2, *13; *8:38; *12:25; *13:27, *32); com-
mandment (evToXrj, 7:8, 9; *10:19; *12:28, [*29], [*31a], *31b); [holy] Spirit
(irvev[ia [dyiov], [*1:8], *10, *12; *3:29; *12:36; *13:11); prophet (TTpo^rJTTis,
*1:2; *6:4, *15a, *15b; *8:28; * 11:32); and Beloved Son(ulds dyaTTrjTos, 1:11;
9:7; 12:6). These patients of God's benefaction are directly positively related to
each other and indirectly positively related to God.
Although three other repeated words, house (OIKOS), son (ulos), and reign
(PaaiXeta), appear with God and other characters as benefactive, they are not
deemed to cultivate direct relationships with God. God's house (OLKOS), the
temple, differs from other houses in that it is attended by a chief priest (2:26) and
is to be a house of prayer for all nations (11:17; cf. Isa 56:7). God's relationship
with Jesus, which receives significant subsequent study, differs from other
parental relationships in that only Jesus is God's beloved Son (vibs dya-rrnTos,
1:11; 9:7; 12:6), God's Son (i/iog OeoO, 1:1; 3:11; 5:7; *13:32; 15:39) and Son of
the Blessed (ulos evXoyr\Toi), 14:61), and only Jesus is benefactive of God as
Abba Father (appa 6 TraTrjp, 14:36) and through "my" (Ge6s JJLOU, 15:34a, 34b).
God's benefaction of reign (PamXeia) is the most frequently asserted explicit
21. The previously noted dubious usage of hand over (Trapa8i8co(jLi) in 14:21 would contribute
to this development, if, indeed, the implied direct agent is God
relationship attributed to God in Mark (1:15; 4:11, 26,30; 9:1,47; 10:14, 15, 23,
24, 25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43); and God's reign is unique in that entering [into] it
(eiaepxo|iai els, 9:47; 10:15, 23, 24, 25) is contextually interpreted as entering
[into] life (els Tfjv £orf|v euiepxoiiai, 9:43, 45) and inheriting everlasting life
(Corr^ alciviov KXr)povo|i6a), 10:17).
Repetition of God as referent of the patient arguments of one (els, 12:29, 32)
and father (iTaTrjp, 8:38; 11:25; * 13:32; [* 14:36]) is not deemed to cultivate
direct relationships with other characters because God as one is unique and God
as Father is distinct from other fathers in being in the heavens (11:25) and having
as benefactive anyone who does God's will (3:35). Father, however, does
directly positively relate to each other the benefactives, the Son of Man (8:38),
"you" or Peter and other disciples who forgive (11:25; cf. 11:20-21), Jesus as the
Son (*13:32), and Jesus (*14:36).
The remaining eight non-agent arguments appear with both God and other
characters as referent. Repetition of the source argument role is limited to
take/receive (Xa|ipdvG)): God is the source of a hundredfold property and family
(10:30), whatever is prayed for or asked in faith (11:24), and greater (negative)
judgment (12:40); the sower is the source of the word (4:16); and farmers are not
the source of some of the fruit of the vineyard (12:2-3). These occurrences
directly positively align the sower or Jesus, who sows the word in this pericope,
with God and directly negatively relate the farmers or chief priests, scribes, and
elders with God. Repetition also indirectly positively relates to God everyone
who leaves possessions and family for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (10:30)
and those who pray or ask with faith (11:24) and, through Jesus, positively
relates to God those who receive the word with joy (4:16). In contrast, a direct
negative relationship with God accrues to the scribes, who devour houses of
widows and pray in pretense (12:40).
Of the five words with both God and other characters as benefactive, four
appear only with God and Jesus as benefactive: right [hand] (8e£id, 12:36; 14:62
and 10:37, 40; *15:27); power or force (8wa|iis, 12:24; *14:62 and *5:30;
*13:26); gospel (eucryyeXiov, *1:1, 14, *15; *8:35; *10:29; *13:10; *14:9) and
way (686s, 1:2, 3; 12:14).22 Repetition of these words directly positively aligns
Jesus with God.23 Repetition of SUVCITOV asserts that for God all things are possi-
ble (10:27; 14:36), as is the passing of Jesus' hour, if God so wants it (* 14:35,
36). That all things also are possible for the one who believes (9:23) directly
22. The two occurrences of the things (ra, 8:33; 12:17) with God as benefactive are not deemed
to constitute repetition, because the word has two distinct connotations, the content of perception and
the object of giving, respectively.
23. The benefactive complement of 8e£id in 16:5 is unclear and so is omitted from the discus-
sion. The word 8uvaj±ig also has the connotations of "powerful deed" (6:2, 5; 9:39), which is not
used with God as benefactive, and "powerful entity" (6:14), which does not require a benefactive.
Finally, the referent of the benefactive argument of this word in 9:1 is unclear and is omitted
positively aligns the one who believes with God. That it may be possible for false
christs and prophets to mislead God's chosen ones (13:22; cf. 13:20) places the
false christs and prophets in direct opposition to God. Repetition of cfxiwrj in the
sense of "voice" with God (*1:11; *9:7) and its use with John the Baptist (1:3)
positively aligns John with God.24
Repetition with God as referent of a patient argument and use with other char-
acters is reserved to two occurrences of the pronoun "my" (|iou, 15:34a, 34b).
That Jesus is the referent of the pronoun on both occasions highlights the unique
relationship of Jesus (as benefactive) with God. Elsewhere |JLOIJ with Jesus as the
referent directly positively aligns to God as patient the mother, brothers, and sis-
ters of Jesus defined as those doing the will of God (3:33a, 33b, 34a, 34b, 35);
Jesus' name (9:37, 39; 13:6, 13), Jesus' right [hand] (10:40), Jesus' words
(13:31), Jesus' body (14:8, 22), the room of the passover meal (14:14), Jesus'
disciples (14:14), Jesus' blood (14:24), and Jesus' self (tyvxA, 15:34).25
Repetition of God as referent of the content argument with love (dyaTrda),
12:30, 33) and its parallel repetition with neighbor as content directly positively
aligns neighbor with God.26 The remaining occurrence of dyaudco aligns the
man who has kept the (God's) commandments with God (10:21).27
4. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated Contexts
This study examines the contribution of two repeated contexts, 1:1-15; 12:1-12;
13:32-37 and 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13, to the characterization of God.
a. Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37

Repetition of son (ulog, 1:1, 11; 12:6a, 6b; *13:32), lord(Kupios, 1:3; 12:9, 11;
13:35), come (epxopm, 1:7, 9, 11; 12:9; 13:35; 36), and time (raipos, 1:15;
12:2; 13:33) links 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 and encourages the evocation
of the former contextfs] by the latter. Vocabulary in two of the three linked con-
texts also contributes to the evocation of former contexts: send (diToaTeXXo))
with God as agent (1:2; 12:2, 4, 5, 6), Beloved Son (ulos dyaTrrjTOs, 1:11;
12:6a), and the only occurrences of cast out (ckpaXXa), 1:12; 12:8) with Jesus as
patient in 1:1-15 and 12:1-12; heaven (oupavos, 1:10, 11; 13:32) and angel
24. The word §u>vx\ also appears with the connotation "cry" (1:26; 5:7; 15:34, 37).
25. Other occurrences of \LOV in reference to Jesus designate goal (8:33, 34) or content (7:14)
and so are omitted from this discussion.
26. The direct positive alignment of neighbor with God and the contextual linkage of the two
statements (12:30, 33) indicate that an indirect positive alignment with God for the one loving God is
contingent on a simultaneous love of and indirect positive alignment with neighbor.
27. The man's subsequent action of not responding to Jesus' call to follow him, however, over-
turns the man's initial positive alignment with God, indicating that the mere observance of God's
commandments constitutes a necessary, but not sufficient, basis for positive alignment with God.
(dyyeXosr, 1:2, * 13; * 13:32) in 1:1-15 and 13:32-37; and slave (8oO\os, 12:2,4;
13:34), the related words, go away on a journey (aTTo8r)|iea), 12:1) and away on a
journey ((ITTOSTUIOS, 13:34), and give (8I8G)|JLI, 12:9; 13:34) in 12:1-12 and
13:32-37.
This repeated context develops the relationship between God and Jesus and
links their actions. Son (i/ios, 1:1, 11; 12:6a, 6b; * 13:32) asserts Jesus' indirect
positive relationship with God as benefactive. Lord (Kupios) initially (1:3) refer-
ences both God (cf. Mai 3:1) and Jesus and subsequently God as Lord of the
Vineyard/Lord (12:9/11) and Jesus as Lord of the Household (13:35). Come
(epxoixai), which links Jesus' initial (1:7, 9, 14) and end-time (13:35, 36) com-
ing and God's end-time coming (12:9), asserts Jesus' identification with God.
Repetition links the time (Kaipos) which God has fulfilled (1:15), when the Lord
of the Vineyard sends slaves and the Beloved Son to receive some of the fruit of
the vineyard (12:2), and when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:33).
Repetition within 1:1-15 grants primary emphasis to God's unique benefac-
tion of the [holy] Spirit (Trve€|ia [ayiov]) by which Jesus will baptize (1:8) and
which descends onto Jesus (1:10) and casts him out into the desert (1:12) and
God's benefaction of the gospel (evayyeXiov) which is of Jesus (1:1) and God
(1:14) and the content of Jesus' proclamation (1:15).28 Secondary emphasis falls
on God's unique benefaction of messengers (ayyeXos,) who prepare Jesus' way
(1:2) and serve him (1:13) and God's benefaction of the way (1:2, 3) which is
also of Jesus and of Jesus as [Beloved] Son (ulos [dya/rrriTos], 1:1, [11]). The
inclusion of the other vocabulary between the first (1:1) and last (1:15) occur-
rence of gospel highlights its significance and stresses Jesus' concluding com-
mand to believe in the gospel (1:15).
The greatest concentration of references to God's agency appears in 12:1-12,
which asserts God's actions in establishing God's vineyard, leasing it, and going
on a journey (12:1). The straightforward narration of 12:1 indicates that this
statement evokes preexisting beliefs; and eight vocabulary parallels, including
five hapax legomena, recommend Isaiah's story of the vineyard (see Isa 5:1-7)
as the source of these preexisting beliefs: vineyard (d|±TreXo)v, cf. Isa 5:1a, lb, 3,
4, 5,6,7); plant (cjnrreiia), cf. Isa 5:2); [place] a hedge [around] (<^pay\iov [Trepi-
TL6T||±I], cf. Isa [5:2], 5); dig a trough (imoXTiviov/TrpoXr)i>iov opuaao), cf. Isa
5:2); and build a tower (yrvpyov OLKO8O|J€(O, cf. Isa 5:2).29 These parallels inter-
pret the vineyard as the house of Israel/people of Judah (cf. Isa 5:7), which are
28. Within contexts that present numerous repeated words with God as the referent of an argu-
ment, primary emphasis is ascribed to the most frequently repeated vocabulary; and secondary
emphasis is ascribed to less frequently repeated vocabulary. When all repeated words occur the same
number of times, the study introduces no distinction in emphasis.
29. Evocation of Isa 5:1-7 by the remainder of 12:1-12 also is encouraged by the repetition of
vineyard (12:2,8,9) and occurrences of beloved (aya-nnTos, 12:6; cf. Isa 5:1 < aya-nd^, cf. Isa 5: la,
lb, 7) and the phrase, "what will he [the Lord of the Vineyard]/I [the Lord of Hosts] do" (TL TTOLrj-
aeiVuoiTiaw, 12:9; cf. Isa 5:4).
God's ("my," cf. Isa 5:3, 4, 5, 6; the Lord Sabaoth's, cf. Isa 5:7); and both the
narrated and evoked preinterpreted content and the context locate God's initial
narrated actions prior to the sending of God's slaves. Thus, the contextual link-
age of 1:1-15 and 12:1-12 relates God's agency in writing the scriptures (1:2)
and fulfilling the time (1:15) to God's agency in establishing and leasing the
vineyard and going away on a journey.
In 12:2-8, repetition grants primary emphasis to God's agency in sending
(dTToaTeAAo)) slaves (12:2, 4, 5) and finally God's Beloved Son (12:6). The link-
age of 1:1-15 and 12:1-12 cultivates a series of relationships that interpret the
content of 12:2-8. First, the sending of God's slaves (12:2, 4, 5) and then
Jesus/the Beloved Son as patient (12:6) identify the messenger (dyyeXos) whom
God sent (1:2), John the Baptist/Elijah, as (the last) one of these slaves (SoOAos,
12:2, 4). Second, the sending of God's messenger to prepare Jesus' way (1:2)
interprets the sending of the slaves of God/the Lord of the Vineyard as a prepara-
tion for the sending of the Beloved Son. Third, according to 12:2, God's purpose
in sending slaves and then God's Beloved Son is to take/receive (Xappdyco)
some of the fruit of the vineyard. This interprets the fruit with which the farmers
are to respond (12:2) as the confessing of sins (1:5), being baptized (paTTTi£a))
first by John with water and then by Jesus with the holy Spirit (1:8), and repent-
ing and believing in the gospel (1:15). Fourth, the farmers' actual response, beat-
ing (12:3, 5), hitting on the head and dishonoring (12:4), and killing (aTTOKTeiwi),
12:5a, 5b) God's slaves is linked to the handing over (Trapa8i8a)|ju, 1:14) of
God's messenger, John the Baptist. Fifth, repetition of cast out (eKfMXXa)) con-
trasts the [holy] Spirit's positively evaluated action of casting out Jesus into the
desert (1:12) immediately after he is baptized with the fanner's negatively evalu-
ated action of casting Jesus out of the vineyard (12:8) immediately after they kill
him.30 Sixth, this linkage clarifies that the time (mipos, 12:2) of God's sending
slaves and then the Beloved Son ends with the Beloved Son being killed (12:7-8).
God's final actions (12:9), their interpretation (12:10-11), and the response of
the chief priests, scribes, and elders to Jesus' parable (12:12; cf. 11:27) round out
the story of the vineyard. What God will do (Troteo)) after the killing of the
Beloved Son by the farmers is come (epxo|iai), destroy (aTroXXuiii) the farmers,
and give (8i8a)|ii) the vineyard to others (12:9). Repetition of come (epxo(iai)
links Jesus' initial coming (1:7, 9, 14) and the coming of God as the Lord of the
Vineyard (12:9). The context also interprets God's end-time actions as a
response to the farmers' action of killing Jesus, identifies the ones building
(olKo8o|iea), 12:10) with the farmers who kill the Beloved Son (12:7-9), con-
trasts them with God, who built the tower of the vineyard (12:1), and identifies
the stone with Jesus, the Beloved Son. "Reject" (ctiTo8oKi|idCoi), 12:10) recalls its
occurrence in 8:31, interprets the stone/Beloved Son as the Son of Man and,
again, the builders/farmers as the chief priests, scribes, and elders. Verses 10b-
30. The noted linkage implies but does not develop the relationship between Satan's action of
testing Jesus (1:13) and the fanners' action of killing him (12:8).
11 then confirm God's agency in making the rejected stone/Jesus/the Beloved

Son/the Son of Man the head of the corner.31 The concluding notice that those
present were seeking to arrest Jesus because they knew that he spoke the parable
of the vineyard to them (12:12) confirms the direct and indirect negative relation-
ship with God of the chief priests, scribes, and elders who have been Jesus' dia-
logue partners since 11:27 and whom the story identifies with the farmers who
kill the Beloved Son.
Within 13:32-37, vocabulary previously associated with God/the Lord of the
Vineyard (12:1—12) is associated with Jesus/the Lord of the Household. Now
Jesus is the man away on a journey (dvGpamos aTr68r||±os, 13:34; cf. di>0panTos
. . . dTre8rj|ir)a<Ev, 12:1, for God) who gives (818(411,13:34; cf. 12:9), has slaves
(80OX09, 13:34; cf. 12:2, 4), and comes (epxoiiai, 13:35, 36; cf. 12:9). The
resulting extensive identification of Jesus/the Lord of the Household with
God/the Lord of the Vineyard, however, is not absolute; for only God/the Father
knows (ol8a, 13:32) about that day and hour. This directly positively relates
Jesus as Son with God's messengers and with Jesus' slaves, who do not know
when the time is (13:33) and when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:35).
The fact that this story is addressed to Peter, James, John, and Andrew (cf.
13:3—5) and that the triple command to the slaves to remain alert (ypriyopeo),
13:34,35,37) is subsequently repeated to Peter, James, and John (14:34,37,38),
who are identified as disciples (14:32), interprets the slaves of the Lord of the
Household as Jesus' disciples.32 This encourages the identification of God's
vineyard (dirrreXwv, 12:1, 8, 9) and Jesus' household (olida, 13:34, 35) and of
God's messenger (dyyeXos, l:2)/slaves (SoOXos, 12:2, 4) and Jesus' slaves
(SoOXos, 13:34), the disciples.
This context interprets the time (mipos, 13:33) of the coming of the Lord of
the Household as the day or hour that only God as experiencer knows (ot8a,
13:32); and the greater narrative context identifies the day or hour as the time of
the coming of the parousaic Son of Man (13:26). Linkage of 12:1-12 and
13:32-37 relates the eschatological coming of God/the Lord of the Vineyard
(12:9) and of Jesus/the Lord of the Household (13:35, 36), identifies within the
31. Subsequently, the repeated coordination of stone (XiGos, 13:1, 2a, 2b) and building
(oLKo8op.ii, 13:1, 2 < oi Ko8o|ii(i>, 12:10) interprets this stone as the head of the comer of the temple
(lepov, 13:1). Linked developments concerning build (oiKoSotiew, 14:58; 15:29) and a different des-
ignation of the temple (vaos, 14:58; 15:29) interpret the stone/Jesus/the Beloved Son/the Son of Man
as the head of the corner of a new temple not made with [human] hands (14:58), which Jesus will
build in three days (81a Tpiwv ^Lepwv, 14:58; kv Tpialv ripipais, 15:29), the period of time thrice
associated with Jesus' rising (8:31; 9:31; 10:34). The fact that Jesus is the referent of the agent who
destroys the temple made with [human] hands (xeipoTTotr)TOs) and who builds the new temple not
made with [human] hands (axe LPOTTOLTJTOS, 14:58) would support the interpretation that Jesus is the
agent of his rising (avioTa\iaiy The fact that his becoming the head of the corner of this new temple
is from God (12:11), however, clarifies that God is the ultimate source or agent of these actions.
32. The special address to Simon Peter in 14:37 also may identify him with the doorman who
receives special address in 13:34.
story of the vineyard a temporal lacuna between the killing of the Beloved Son
(12:8) and the coming of Lord of the Vineyard (12:9), and fills this lacuna with
the interval during which Jesus' slaves or disciples are to remain alert in expecta-
tion of the coming of Jesus/the Lord of the Household. Thus, the occurrences of
mipos designate and relate the time prior to God's sending of a messenger/
slaves, the time of God's sending of a messenger, slaves, and the Beloved Son
and ending with Jesus/the Beloved Son being killed, and the time of the eschato-
logical coming of Jesus/the Lord of the Household and God/the Lord of the Vine-
yard; and 13:32-37 asserts a further interval between the killing of God's
Beloved Son and the coming of the Lord of the Household, during which Jesus'
disciples/the Lord of the Household's slaves are to remain alert.
b. Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13

Gospel (€i>cryye\iov, 1:1,14, 15; 8:35; 13:10), come (epxoum, 1:7,9,14; 8:38;
9:1; 13:6), and reign (pctaiAcia, 1:15; 9:1; 13:8a, 8b) link 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and
13:3-13 and ensure that the latter context[s] evoke the former. Evocation of
1:1-15 by 8:31-9:1 further is encouraged by repetition of Satan (Haravag, 1:13;
8:33) and messenger (dyyeXos, 1:2,13; 8:38). Beginning (dpxri, 1:1; 13:8), pro-
claim (KrjpiKjao), 1:4, 14; 13:10) and [holy] Spirit (Trvev\ia [dyiov], 1:8, 10, 12;
13:11) encourage the evocation of 1:1-15 by 13:3-13; and it is necessary (Set,
8:31; 13:7, 10), save (oi!)(o), 8:35a, 35b; 13:13), because of me (eveKev €|iou,
8:35; 13:9), give (8180411, 8:37; 13:11), and death (edvcrros, 9:1; 13:12) encour-
age the evocation of 8:31-9:1 by 13:3-13.
This repeated context develops the nature of God's actions and attributes, the
relationship between God and Jesus, and, secondarily, the disciples' relationship
with God. Contextual repetition links the gospel (eiayyeAiov) of Jesus (1:1) and
God (1:14), the content of Jesus' proclamation (1:14), and that in which Jesus
commands his hearers to believe (1:15) to Jesus' statement that anyone who
destroys (OLTTOXXU^L) one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel will save it
(8:35).33 Such action indirectly positively relates the disciples and others to both
Jesus and the gospel of Jesus/God. Jesus then tells Peter, James, John, and
Andrew (13:3) that it is necessary (8et) that the gospel first be proclaimed to all
nations (13:10). The divine necessity of this action indirectly positively relates
those so doing to God. Come (epxojiai) links Jesus' initial coming (1:7, 9, 14)
and his end-time coming as Son of Man (8:38) and contrasts both with the com-
ing of those who would mislead disciples (13:6). The narration of 8:31-9:1 also
coordinates the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of his Father (8:38) with
33. The verb dTroXXuux has two distinct connotations: "destroy," "kill," or "ruin," which
requires an agent and a patient, and "lose," which requires a benefactive and a patient. Even the latter
usage, however, implies the complicity of the benefactive referent in the loss: see Albrecht Oepke,
"CITTOXAUIJU, ciTKoAeia, 'ATTOXXWV," TDNTX:394-96, here 394-95. Its double coordination with save
(a(p£w, 8:35a, 35b), which requires an agent argument, recommends the former connotation in this
context.
the reign of God having come in power (9:1). Hand over (TTapa8i8<o|ii) directly
positively relates the patients, John the Baptist (1:14) and disciples who will be
beaten and stand before governors and kings for the sake of Jesus (13:9), be led
away (13:11), and be handed over to death by parents, siblings, and children
(13:12). Repetition of reign (fiaoiXeia) clarifies that God's reign, which already
has drawn near (1:15), will have come in power by the end-time coming of the
Son of Man (8:38-9:1) and contrasts God's reign with the human reigns (13:8),
which rise up against each other.
Repeated vocabulary that links two of the three passages contributes to these
developments. In 1:1—15 and 8:31-9:1, repetition of Satan (SLaravas) identifies
Peter with Satan (8:33) and links Peter's rebuke of Jesus (8:32) to Satan's testing
of Jesus (1:13). Repetition of messenger (dyyeXos) clarifies that those who ini-
tially prepare Jesus' way (1:2) and serve Jesus (1:13) will be in his company
when he comes as Son of Man (8:38).
In 1:1-15 and 13:3-13, proclaim (Kripuaaco) directly positively relates John
the Baptist (1:4), Jesus (1:14), and disciples (13:10).34 Since God is indirectly
positively related to the holy Spirit as benefactive, the [holy] Spirit (jivev\ia
[a/yiov]), as the instrument of Jesus' baptizing (1:8) and agent who comes down
onto Jesus (1:10), casts him out into the desert (1:12), and does the disciples'
speaking (13:11), directly positively relates Jesus and the disciples, indirectly
positively relates them to the holy Spirit, and, through the holy Spirit, relates
them to God. Beginning (apxi) links the beginning of the gospel (1:1) which
God's actions initiate (1:2-3) to the beginning of birth pains (13:8) whose events
God necessitates (8et, 13:7).
In 8:31-9:1 and 13:3-13, it is necessary (Set) links the Son of Man's suffer-
ing, being rejected, being killed, and rising (8:31) to wars and reports of wars
happening (13:7) and disciples proclaiming the gospel (13:10) and places these
events under God's ultimate agency. Save (o&Cu) contrasts attempting to save
one's life which ends in its destruction (8:35a) with destroying one's life for the
sake of Jesus and the gospel which saves it (8:35b) and identifies the latter with
persevering to the end (13:13). Because of me (eveKev e|ioO) identifies Jesus
(and, in 8:35, the gospel) as the benefactive for whom the disciple destroys one's
life (8:35) and is handed over, is beaten, and stands for/as witness (13:9). Give
(8L8W|±I) contrasts the inadequacy of the human agent, who is unable to give any-
thing in exchange for one's life (8:37), and the adequacy of God as agent, who
gives what the disciple is to say and, by implication, the holy Spirit (13:11).
Finally, death (Qavaros) relates those seeing the reign of God having come in
power (9:1) to those handed over to death and put to death (OavaToo), 13:12)
because of Jesus (cf. 13:9) and hated by all because of Jesus' name(13:13).
34. This repeated context emphasizes a special relationship between John/Jesus, who proclaim
repentance (iieTavoia, l:4)/repent (jieTavoea), 1:15) and between Jesus/the disciples who proclaim
the gospel (euoryyeXLOv, 1:14/13:10). A separate notice that disciples proclaim that their hearers
repent (\ieTavoeu, 6:12) then brings the portrayals of John, Jesus, and disciples into parallel.
5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God
The previous study identified 219 references to God, which divide into two
groups: 35 repeated words that account for 153 total references; and 62 words that
occur only once. The semantic rhetoric of repetition cultivates content for the
semantic frames evoked by the 35 repeated words and relates each repeated word
to the other vocabulary in the contexts of its occurrences. The narrative rhetoric
then relates and incorporates the cultivated semantic content and cultivates further
beliefs about God in three stages. First, 19 of the 35 repeated words are incorpo-
rated into one of the five passages that undergo contextual repetition (1:1-15;
8:31-9:1; 12:1-12; 13:3-13; and 13:32-37). The remaining sixteen repeated
words are related contextually to one or more of these nineteen words outside of
these passages, so that all beliefs cultivated by verbal repetition are directly (nine-
teen words) or indirectly (sixteen words) incorporated into these passages. Next,
cultivated beliefs associated with these passages are related by their incorporation
into one or both of the repeated contexts, 1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37; or 1:1-15;
8:31-9:1; 13:3-13. Finally, the cultivated beliefs associated with both repeated
contexts are related through their common first constituent, 1:1-15.
Appendix A re-presents the organization and incorporation of cultivated con-
tent into narrative frames associated with God through 1:1-15. This representa-
tion lists repeated words according to the highest stage of the linkage of their
cultivated content. Thus, repeated words that appear in only one passage are
listed under their passage (ten total); words that appear in two or three of the pas-
sages involved in contextual repetition appear under the appropriate repeated
context (six total); and words that appear in both repeated contexts are listed
under the five linked passages (three total). Cultivated content organized directly
through 1:1-15 is indicated by double vertical lines (||), and the contribution of
the constituents of the repeated contexts is indicated by a single vertical line (|).
Relationships among repeated contexts are noted by a plus sign (+). For economy
of presentation, 1:1-15 appears between the two repeated contexts (1:1-15;
12:1-12; 13:32-37 and 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13). The contexts under discus-
sion and vocabulary repeated in two or three contexts are enclosed in brackets [].
The remaining sixteen repeated words are contextually linked to at least one of
the words that appear in a repeated context: dyaTrda), 12:30, 33 (to PaaiXeia,
12:34); dcf>iTi|jLi, *3:28 (toTTV€i)|ia, 3:29), *4:12 (to paaiXeia and 8I8GJ|±I, 4:11);
8ef id, 12:36 (to Xeyw, 12:36), 14:62 (to vi6$9 14:61); 8wap.is, 12:24 (to
dyyeXos, 12:25, and to Xeyco, 12:26a, 26b), 14:62 (to vi6s, 14:61); dvvarov,
10:27 (to paaiXeia, 10:23, 24, 25, and to euayyeXiov, 10:29); els, 12:29c, 32a
(to paaiXeia, 12:34); ei/ToXrj , 7:8, 9 (to ypdcfxo, 7:6), *10:19 (to paaiXeia,
10:23, 24, 25, and to euayyeXiov, 10:29); efeaTiv, *2:24, *26 (to yivo|ica,
2:27), *6:18(toupo<|>fJTr)s, 6:15a, 15b), *10:2(toTroi€0), 10:6), *12:14(too86s,
12:14); euxaptaTô), * 14:23 (to PaaiXeia, 14:25); CÂ [aiaiyios], *9:43, *45
(to paaiXeia, 9:47), * 10:30 (to paaiXeia, 10:23, 24, 25, and to evayyeXwv,
10:29); KoXopoco, 13:20a, 20b (to 8eX, 13:14); Xaiipdwa, *10:30 (to pagiXeta,
10:23, 24, 25, and to eiayyeXiov, 10:29); |±ou, 15:34a, 34b (to axiCw, 15:38,
and to vi6s, 15:39); OIKOS, 2:26 (to yivo|iai, 2:27), 11:17 (to ypdâ), 11:17);
*13:18 (to 8et, 13:14); and TrpoaeuxTl, *11:17 (to ypd<|><o,
6. The Narrative Rhetoric of God's Characterization
Although references to God appear throughout the narration, their distribution is

not uniform. The following discussion establishes the order, relative frequency,
and distribution of references to God by argument role within six major narrative
units of Mark and then investigates their contribution to the narrative develop-
ment. The discussion considers first the contribution of all references and then
narrows the focus to agent references.
a. The Order, Frequency, and Distribution of Arguments

This discussion investigates the argument roles realized in reference to God
within six narrative units of the Gospel: 1:1-15; 1:16-8:26; 8:27-10:52;
11:1-13:37; 14:1-15:41 (passion narrative); and 15:42-16:8.36 The data for this
discussion appear in table 1:
35. Of the sixty-four nonrepeated words with God as referent, nineteen appear in one of the
repeated contexts: euSoKew (1:11), Tpi|3os (1:3) in 1:1—15; 86£a (8:38), Ta (8:33) in 8:31-9:1;
d|iTTeXwv (12:9), diroSriMew (12:1), diT6XXuu.i, (12:9), €K8i8ouai (12:1), epxoum (12:9), exw
(12:6a), KXripovo^Ca (12:7), KXr|pov6|±os (12:7), Xajipdva) (12:2), oiKoSojiew (12:1), opuaaw
(12:l);TrepiTi0Tuu (12:l),<|>iJTeu<D (12:1)in 12:l-12;ouvTeX€oi (13:4)in 13:3-13; andoi8a (13:32)
in 13:32-37. Of the remaining forty-five words, forty are contextually linked to repeated words that
appear in these contexts: 'Appad^ (12:26b), ey<o (12:26a), Cuvres (12:27b), 'Icuoup (12:26d),
'load* (12:26c), and vejcpoi (12:27a) to Xeyw (12:26a, 26b); dyaOos (10:18) andabvvarov (10:27)
to pamXetot (10:23, 24, 25) and to euayyeXiov (10:29); aipw (4:25), u.eTpea) (4:24), and Trpoa-
TLerniL (4:24) to SiSwux (4:25); duexw (7:6), Xoyog (7:13), aepoum (7:7), and Tiu.dd> (7:6) to
ypdcjxo (7:6); dTToSLSojii (12:17) andTa (12:17) to 686s (12:14); auTOs (12:32b), Guata (12:33),
y\\L&v (12:29), Kiipios els (12:29), 6XoKauT(Dp.a (12:33), and oov (12:30) to jSaaiXeta (12:34);
8exon.ai (9:37b) and ^.KT06S (9:41) to drroaTeXXw (9:37); eyKciTaXeiTTd) (15:34) to oxiC^ (15:38)
and d o g (15:39); eKXeyojiat (13:20) and KTICW (13:19) to 8et (13:14); kv TOLS oupavots (11:25)
andTTums (11:22) to iraT^p (11:25); eTOLM-dCw (10:40) to |3cnTTi£u> (10:38a, 38b, 39a, 39b); eXeet)
(5:19) to TTOtew (5:19); GeXw (14:36) andTrapaêpw (14:36) to a^â 6 TTaTtip (14:36); ovo^-ci (11:9)
to paaLXeia (11:10); 6PKL£W (5:7) and uijiiaTos (5:7) to ulos 9eoO (5:7); TraTdaaw (14:27) to
paaiXeta (14:25); ovCevyu (10:9) to TTOICW (10:6); TLGTI^L (12:36) to Xeyw (12:36); and u^vew
(14:26) to paatXeia (14:25). Of the remaining four nonrepeated words, dyios (1:24) is mediately
related to irveuu-a dyiov (1:8); 8o^dCai (2:12) is from the same stem as 86£a (8:38); 0eXTm.a (3:35)
is from the same stem as GeXw (14:36); and "take up" (d-nrnpo), 2:20) concerns God's agency in
Jesus' death and is related thematically to central developments in 8:31-9:1 and 12:1-12.
36. A detailed justification for the noted narrative units appears in Paul Danove, The End of
Mark's Story: A Methodological Study (BIS 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 132-66. These divisions are
similar to those proposed in Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (trans. Donald H.
Madvig; Richmond: John Knox, 1970), 226,284,384-85.
Table 1. Distribution ofReferences

1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8
Agent (75) 4 17 13 33 8 0
Experiencer (4) 1 1 0 1 1 0
Instrument (1) 0 1 0 0 0 0
Source (13) 0 3 5 5 0 0
Goal (20) 0 5 1 8 6 0
Benefactive (80) 16 15 18 22 8 1
Patient (24) 0 2 3 16 3 0
Content (2) 0 0 0 2 0 0
Total (219) 21 44 40 87 26 1
Table 1 indicates that 11:1-13:37 contains more references to God than any
other narrative unit. However, since the proposed units differ in length, these
data require further resolution to provide a uniform basis for comparison. Table 2
accomplishes this by (1) establishing the total number of words for each unit and
then calculating the percentage of words for each unit in comparison to the total
word count for 1:1-16:8, (2) employing the data of table 1 to calculate the per-
centage of references for each unit in comparison to all references in 1:1-16:8,
and (3) dividing the percentage of references in each unit by the percentage of
words in each unit. In this third part of table 2, a number greater than 1.00 indi-
cates a greater than average frequency of references for a unit; and a number less
than 1.00 indicates a frequency less than that of the Gospel as a whole:
Table 2. Comparisons of the Frequency ofAll References
1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8

Words (11,090) 249 4,888 1,993 1,958 1,765 237
% of words 2.25% 44.08% 17.97% 17.66% 15.92% 2.14%
Total ref. (219) 21 44 40 87 26 1
% of references 9.59% 20.09% 18.26% 39.73% 11.87% 0.46%
% ref./% words 4.26 0.46 1.02 2.25 0.75 0.21
Table 2 indicates that the narrative unit containing the greatest relative fre-
quency of references to God is 1:1-15, which, as noted above, is the primary
vehicle for relating all cultivated beliefs about God. This brief passage (only
2.25% of the words of the Gospel) presents twenty-one references that establish
eighteen distinct points of information about God:
1. God has the gospel (eucryyeXiov; cf. 1:14 retrospectively) which is Jesus'
(1:1).
2. God has a son (ulog), Jesus (1:1).
3. God is agent of what is written (ypdô)) in the Book of Isaiah concerning
God's sending of a messenger to prepare the way for Jesus [God] (1:2; cf.
Mai 3:1).
4. God has a prophet (Trpo(f>r)Tris) through whom God spoke [about Jesus]
(1:2).
5. God initiates the action of the Gospel by sending (aTToaTeXXoj) God's
messenger before Jesus [God] (1:2; cf. Mai 3:1).
6. God has a messenger (dyyeXos) who will prepare Jesus' [God's] way
(1:2; cf. Mai 3:1).
7. God has the way (686s; cf. Mai 3:1), which is Jesus' (1:2).
8. God has the way (686s; cf. Isa 40:3), which is Jesus' (1:3).
9. The paths (Tpipos; cf. Isa 40:3) for God are for Jesus (1:3).
10. God has the holy Spirit (jruev\ia ayiov) with which Jesus will baptize
(1:8).
11. God undoes God's setting of the firmament (cf. Gen 1:6) by rending
(axtCto) the sky at Jesus' baptism (1:10).
12. God has the Spirit (jTvev[ia) that descends onto Jesus (1:10).
13. God has a voice (§uvr\) that addresses Jesus (1:11).
14. God has the Beloved Son (note the repetition of ulos; cf. 1:1), Jesus
(1:11).
15. God is pleased with (euSoKew) Jesus (1:11).
16. God has the Spirit (-nvevyia) that drives Jesus into the desert (1:12).
17. God has messengers (ayyeXos) who serve Jesus (1:13).
18. God has the gospel (eixryyeXiov; cf. 1:1), which Jesus proclaims (1:14).
19. God fulfills (TrXrjpoo)) the time, which is part of Jesus' proclamation
(1:15).
20. God has the reign (PaaiXeia), which is part of Jesus' proclamation (1:15).
21. God has the gospel (euayyeXiov), which is part of Jesus' proclamation
(1:15).
These twenty-one references, which initiate God's characterization, simultane-

ously assert information about Jesus and stress Jesus' positive and intimate rela-
tionship with God, which approaches identification with God at certain points.
The narration of 1:1-15 reiterates that Jesus is God's Son and that God and Jesus
have the gospel and grants one of only four Markan insights into God's own
experience (delight in Jesus). It also ascribes to Jesus as benefactive what
belongs to God, indicates that God's Spirit directs Jesus' actions and that God's
messengers prepare for and serve Jesus, and establishes Jesus as the agent who
proclaims and makes present what belongs to God. The direct or indirect insinu-
ation of Jesus into every aspect of God's characterization in 1:1-15 engenders an
indelible bond between God and Jesus that precludes any understanding of either
character without immediate reference to the other. Beginning in 1:16-8:26, ref-
erence to God in all argument roles diminishes precipitously. The density of ref-
erences then builds from this low, more than doubling in 8:27-10:52 and
reaching a crescendo in 11:1-13:7. With the onset of Jesus' passion in
14:1-15:41, the density of references to God again decreases sharply, reaching a
nadir in 15:42-16:8.
This pattern of references plays a significant role in the narrative development
of Mark. The density of references to God in 1:1-15 places the character God in
the foreground and cultivates for the narrative audience an expectation of contin-
ued frequent reference to and involvement by God. The same references intro-
duce and establish Jesus' intimate relationship with God. The precipitous drop in
references to God in 1:16-8:26 places the character God into the background
precisely as the character Jesus takes center stage. With the foregrounding of
Jesus, the narratively cultivated expectation for references to and involvement by
God join with the recognition of Jesus' intimate relationship with God to invite
the narrative audience to find the fulfillment of expectations concerning God in
the character Jesus. In this way, the narrative rhetoric encourages a profound
identification of Jesus with God that extends beyond the aspects of identification
within the assertions of 1:1-15. This identification invites a response to and rela-
tionship with the character Jesus that parallels and even coincides with the narra-
tive audience's response to and relationship with the character God. Once the
narration of 1:16-8:26 establishes Jesus as the primary vehicle of God's presence
and involvement, references to God increase until 11:1-13:37, after which God
again recedes from view.
The narrative rhetoric of the characterization of God in 1:1-15 is quite com-
plex. The opening verses evoke the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs con-
cerning the intimate relationship between Jesus and God and sophisticate beliefs
about both by repeatedly relating the content of their associated narrative frames.
This repetition simultaneously introduces and reinforces an expectation for con-
tinued and frequent references to God, which subsequently is subverted by the
almost complete cessation of references to God beginning in 1:16.37 Thus, the
frustration of the narrative audience's cultivated expectation for repeated refer-
ences to God constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical strategy, and the frustration
itself cultivates an expectation that, in the absence of God and God's agency, the
presence and activity of Jesus will be foregrounded. The cessation of frequent
reference to God simultaneously evokes and sophisticates preexisting beliefs
concerning the remoteness of God that receive explicit statement in the subse-
quent straightforward notice that the Lord of the Vineyard is distant (dTro8r)|ieG),
12:1).
b. The Order, Frequency, and Distribution of Agent Arguments

The analysis of references to God indicated that agent references play a determi-
native role in relating other characters to God and establishing criteria for evalu-
ating their actions. Table 3 relates the order, relative frequency, and distribution
of references to God as agent.
37. Andrew T. Lincoln considers several Markan examples of the cultivation of expectations
and their subsequent frustration within Jesus' passion ("The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7, 8,"
JBL 108 [1989]: 283-300).
Table 3. Comparisons of the Frequency of Agent References
1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8

Agent (75) 4 17 13 33 8 0
% of agent 5.33% 22.67% 17.33% 44.00% 10.67% 0
% agent/% words 2.37 0.51 0.96 2.49 0.67 0
Table 3 indicates that the relative frequency of agent references parallels that
of all references, except that now 11:1-13:37 has the greatest density and 1:1-15
is second.38 The density of agent references drops steeply from 1:1-15 to
1:16-8:26, builds in 8:27-10:52, marks its greatest increase in 11:1-13:37,
which presents almost half of all agent references, then drops precipitously in
14:1-15:41, and falls to zero in 15:42-16:8.
Although 1:1-15 includes three verbs with God as agent that set the stage for
subsequent repetition, the first realized repetition with God as agent appears in
1:16-8:26. In this passage, the threefold notice that God forgives (OX|>LTI|JU, 2:7;
*3:28; *4:12) directly positively aligns Jesus (2:5,9; cf. 2:10 for the Son of Man)
with God; and the fourfold repetition of give (8L8O)|II, *4:11, *25; *6:2; *8:12)
directly positively relates Jesus (6:7, 41; 8:6; 10:37, 40; 14:22, 23; cf. 10:45 for
the Son of Man; 13:34 for Lord of the Household) to God. In 8:27-10:52, repeti-
tion of baptize (ponTTi£<o, * 10:38a, *38b, *39a, *39b) directly positively aligns
Jesus (1:8b) and John the Baptist (1:4, 5, 8a, 9; 6:14,24) with God; and repetition
of send (diroaTeXXo), 9:37; cf. 1:2) and do/make (TTOL€0), 10:6; cf. 5:19) directly
positively aligns Jesus (diroaTeXXa), 3:14; 5:20; 6:7; 8:26; 11:1, 3; 14:13; cf.
13:27 for the Son of Man; and TTOKEG), 1:17; 3:8, 14, 16; 5:20; 6:5; 7:37a, 37b;
10:51; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; 15:14) with God. Repetition aligning or opposing
characters to God is most apparent in 11:1-13:7, which reintroduces forgive
(11:25), send (12:2,4, 5,6), give (11:28; 12:9; *13:11) and do/make (12:9). Only
Jesus receives direct positive alignment with God with all of these verbs. Signifi-
cantly, 14:1—15:41 presents no repetition that aligns other characters with God;
and 15:42-16:8 predicates no action of God.
Repetition that cultivates direct positive relationships for God begins in
1:16-8:26 with two verbs that reinforce the preexisting and narratively cultivated
relationship positively aligning Jesus with God. Intensification of this alignment
continues with the three repeated verbs in 8:27-10:52 and reaches a peak with
four verbs in 11:1-13:37. This progression cultivates an expectation for continu-
ing intensification of the alignment of Jesus with God. The narration of
14:1-15:41, however, frustrates three previously cultivated expectations. First,
the cessation of repetition aligning Jesus with God frustrates the reader's expec-
tation for continuing intensification of this relationship and introduces an appre-
38. Explicit agent references, which provide the most straightforward access to the activity of
God, show an even greater density (74.29%, or 26 of 35) in 11:1-13:37.
hension of the remoteness of God from Jesus. Second, the sharp decrease in all
references to God and, in particular, references to God as agent, frustrates the
narrative audience's cultivated expectation for continuing increase in agent refer-
ences to God and reintroduces an apprehension of God's remoteness last
observed in 1:16-8:26. Third, a parallel decrease in references to Jesus as agent
frustrates both the expectation, developed since 1:16, for continuing references
to Jesus as agent and the previously cultivated expectation that, in the absence of
God's agency, the agency of Jesus asserts itself.
The narrative rhetoric of the order, frequency, and distribution of agent refer-
ences in the characterization of God also exhibits great complexity. First, the ces-
sation of repetition aligning Jesus with God in 14:1-15:41 constitutes a
deconstructive rhetorical strategy insofar as the narration has cultivated an
expectation for such repeated alignment. This in no way challenges the authorial
audience's preexisting beliefs, which recognize Jesus' apparent abandonment by
God at his death. Second, the frustration of the expectation for the increasing
foregrounding of God in the overall narration again constitutes a deconstructive
strategy with respect to the narrative development but not with respect to the nar-
rative frames associated with God; for both preexisting and cultivated beliefs
recognize the possibility of God's remoteness. The apprehension of God's
remoteness from both Jesus and the narrative audience, however, sophisticates
the narratively cultivated relationship between Jesus and this audience. Third, the
decrease in references to Jesus as agent constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical
strategy with respect to the narrative development but not with respect to the nar-
rative frames associated with Jesus; for the authorial audience already recognizes
that Jesus is portrayed primarily through patient arguments in his passion.
7. The Narrative Function of God's Characterization
Clarification of the narrative rhetoric of the characterization of God permits an

inquiry into its narrative function. Whereas the apprehension of God's remote-
ness in 1:16-8:26 encourages and confirms for the narrative audience a profound
identification of Jesus with God, the apprehension of God's remoteness from
both Jesus and the narrative audience in 14:1-15:39 encourages a more profound
identification of the narrative audience with Jesus.39 This deepened identification
aligns the narrative audience with Jesus in the only three explicit references to
God's agency in 14:1-15:41: God will strike (TraTctaaa), 14:27; cf. Zech 13:7)
39. Through the apprehension of the remoteness of God, the narrative rhetoric "performs" for
the narrative audience the experience of God's remoteness attributed to the character Jesus. Thus,
Robert M. Fowler can assert, "Reading Mark is much less a matter of being informed of certain facts
and ideas and more a matter of being given the opportunity to live through certain experiences" ("The
Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark," Semeia 48 [1989]: 115-34, here 131).
The newly deepened identification of the narrative audience with Jesus in 14:1-15:41 presents to the
reader a series of opportunities to experience elements of Jesus' passion.
the shepherd, Jesus; God does not want to take away (Trapa<|)ep<D, 14:36) this cup
from Jesus; and God abandons (eyKaTaXeiTTO), 15:34; cf. Ps 21:2) Jesus. The
first action reiterates that God is the ultimate agent of Jesus' death. The second
indicates that God will not intervene to rescue Jesus from that death. The third
asserts that, at the moment of Jesus' complete submission to God's will (cf.
14:36) and of Jesus' greatest need, God remains remote and does not intervene
on Jesus' behalf. That is, in 14:1-15:41, when Jesus for thefirsttime is portrayed
primarily as patient or "victim" of others' actions, God's sole actions confirm
Jesus' role as victim and offer no explicit consolation to Jesus.
The frustration of expectations for the frequent agency of God or, in its
absence, of Jesus and the content of the three explicit references to God's agency
in 14:1—15:41 simultaneously encourage the narrative audience to reconsider the
nature of God's overarching agency in the narration as established in 1:2 and
confirmed either directly by God or indirectly through Jesus throughout
1:2-13:37. Here the narrative audience's newly deepened identification with
Jesus and the unresolved nature of God's agency join to place this audience with
Jesus precisely as he asks his concluding question to God, "Why have you aban-
doned me?" (15:34).40 The narration indicates no direct or immediate response
from God and provides no clarification of the nature of God's agency. Instead, it
narrates the events of the death of Jesus, who remains faithful to the will of his
remote and silent father. Identification with Jesus in these events invites the nar-
rative audience to recognize that positive alignment with God guarantees no clar-
ity concerning the nature of God's agency but demands fidelity to God even in
the apprehension of abandonment and the threat of imminent death. The narra-
tively indicated response to Jesus' and the narrative audience's final question to
God comes not from God but from Jesus and, on the pattern of Jesus, from the
narrative audience and, ultimately, the real reader.41
40. Raymond E. Brown, after a careful review of pertinent scholarship, concludes: "I find no
persuasive argument against attributing to the Jesus of Mark/Matt[hew] the literal sentiment of feel-
ing forsaken expressed in the psalm quote [Ps 22:1]" (The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane
to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels [2 vols.; Anchor Bible
Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1994], 2:1044-51). See also DavidH. C. Read, "The Cry
of Dereliction," ExpTim 68 (1956-57): 260-62. The reader is invited to experience this same feeling
of abandonment.
41. Even if, in contrast to the position explained above, T|yep0Ti in 16:6 is taken as an implicit
reference to God's agency, the resulting response by God of raising Jesus does not negate the narra-
tively indicated response of Jesus or the invitation to the reader to respond similarly.
Chapter 3
T H E RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS
of Jesus and the contribution of Jesus' characterization to other narrative devel-
opments.1 The large number of references to Jesus precludes their exhaustive
examination, and the characterization of Jesus under various designations and the
distinctive relationships among the narrative frames associated with these desig-
nations complicate the study of both preexisting and cultivated beliefs. To
address these complications, the study begins with an extended investigation of
the preexisting beliefs about Jesus evoked by both vocabulary and designations.
An examination of the semantic and narrative rhetoric then identifies the beliefs
cultivated for the narrative audience through verbal, contextual, and structural
repetition. This permits a graphic outline of the relationships among cultivated
beliefs and their incorporation into character narrative frames. An analysis of
narrative rhetoric of the characterization then clarifies the narrative function of
Jesus' characterization and its contribution to the narrative development.
1. Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus
As in the characterization of God, there is no indication that deconstructive repe-

tition cultivates beliefs directly about Jesus. Deconstructive repetition is apparent
in the cultivation of beliefs associated with particular designations applied to
Jesus, but such repetition never impacts their first occurrence. Thus, the content
evoked by the initial occurrences of repeated vocabulary and designations may
be ascribed to the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs or may be assumed to
cohere with these beliefs. Since a comprehensive investigation of vocabulary is
not practicable, the investigation is limited to the first occurrence of the most fre-
quently repeated words and phrases. The more circumscribed distribution of
repeated designations, however, permits an examination of their first occurrence
and of subsequent occurrences that appear in the context of straightforward
narration.
1. This discussion develops topics introduced in Paul Danove, "The Rhetoric of the Characteri-
zation of Jesus as the Son of Man and Christ in Mark," Bib 84 (2003): 16-34.
56
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus 57
a. Preexisting Beliefs Evoked by Vocabulary

Investigation of the initial occurrences of vocabulary proceeds according to the
argument roles referenced by Jesus and grants more detailed consideration to
agent references. Preexisting beliefs recognize Jesus' agency in sending
(aTTocFTeXXG), 3:14) the twelve or apostles, forgiving (d^tTuu, *2:5; cf. 2:7; Ps
102:3; Isa 43:25 for God) sins, not permitting (dîTîi, 1:34) demons to speak,
teaching (8i8daKCD, 1:21), giving (8i8a)|ii, 13:34 [as Lord of the Household]),
rising (eyeipo), 14:28), casting out (eKpdXXa), 1:34) demons, rebuking (<ETTITI-
|id(o, 1:25) an unclean spirit, giving thanks (€i>xapiaTeo), 8:6), healing (Gepa-
TTeua), 1:34), cleansing (Ka0api£(i), 1:40, 41) a leper, proclaiming (KTipuaaco,
1:14), doing (Troiew, 5:20) an exorcism, and praying (Trpocreiix0!^1* 1:35).2
These actions assert Jesus' direct positive relationship with God (dtTToaTeXXu),
d(()tri|iL [forgive]) and Jesus' indirect positive relationships with God as goal
, Trpoo€vxo[Lai), with his disciples as goal (8L8G)|II) and patient
), and with various individuals as experiencer (8i8daKco, KTipvaao)),
goal (KaGapiCo)), benefactive (d())ir||jLi [forgive]), and patient (Gepa-nreiia),
TTOiea)). Jesus also is indirectly negatively aligned with the patients, demons
(d<|>ir||±i [permit], eKpdXXo), and an unclean spirit (em-ri^do)).
Among non-agent references, Jesus as experiencer wants (GeXw, 1:40-41) to
cleanse a leper. Jesus as source is the one from whom one receives (Xafipdvco,
4:16) the word. Jesus, the Son of Man, as benefactive has (ex^ ? 2:10) authority to
forgive sins on earth, a right hand (8e£id, 10:37), power (8wa|ii$, *5:30), and
the way (686g, 1:2). Jesus as goal is the one whom disciples follow (aKoXouGeo),
1:18) and go behind (omaoi), 1:17). Jesus, the Beloved Son, as patient is killed
(dTT0KT6LV(ji), 12:7; cf. 12:8). This vocabulary asserts Jesus' direct positive rela-
tionship with God as benefactive (68og), indirect positive relationships with his
disciples as agent (dKoXouGew) and patient (oTTiao)) and with various individuals
as goal (Xaiipdvw) and content (GeXw), and indirect negative relationship with
the farmers of the vineyard (d
b. Preexisting Beliefs Evoked by Designations

The authorial audience has preexisting beliefs concerning ten repeated designa-
tions for Jesus. The initial coordination of Christ (Xpicrros) and Son of God
(ulos GeoO, 1:1) indicates preexisting beliefs that recognize Jesus' indirect posi-
tive relationship with God as benefactive.3 The straightforward application to
2. The verb dcj)Lrjî with the connotation "forgive" requires an agent, a patient, and a benefac-
tive (which may be omitted); whereas &<}>LTÎ with the connotation "permit" requires an agent, a
patient, and an event (which may be omitted). Although E. J. Pryke (Redactional Style in the Marcan
Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1978], 151-76) ascribes a majority of the initial occurrences of a-rroaTeXXw,
dcj>LT]|iL [permit], 8i8daKoj, eKpdXXw, Gepaueija), Krjpuaau, and TTOLCW to Markan redaction, in all
such cases the subsequent narration introduces traditional occurrences of these verbs with Jesus as the
agent.
3. A review of the textual witnesses to Son of God appears in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual
Jesus of the scripture quotation concerning God's activity in 1:3 (cf. Isa 40:3)
presumes a preexisting familiarity with the use of Lord (Kupios) for both Jesus
and God and asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with God. Beloved Son
(vibs dyaTTtiTos, 1:11) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God as benefactive.
Jesus [the] Nazarene ('IT](JOOS Na£apr)vos, 1:24) has an indirect negative rela-
tionship with an unclean spirit which Jesus rebukes (emniida)) and casts out
(eKpdXXo)) of a man (1:25). Son of Man (vibs TOU diyOpamou, 2:10) is directly
positively related to God in forgiving (dîTî) sins on earth.4 Subsequent
straightforward narration asserts the Son of Man's present direct positive align-
ment with God in exercising divine prerogatives in regulating Sabbath practice
(2:28) and the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity in coming (epxojiai,
8:38; cf. 13:26; 14:62). Teacher (SiSdaraAos, 4:38) initially indirectly posi-
tively relates Jesus to his disciples, on whose behalf he exercises divine preroga-
tives by rebuking ((ETUTijidot), 4:39) the wind. Rabbi (pappt, 9:5) indirectly
positively relates Jesus to Peter, James, and John as benefactive. Son of David
(ulos Aaui8,10:47) and King of the Jews (paaiAeus TG)V 'IouScaov, 15:2) indi-
rectly positively relate Jesus to David and God's people as benefactive.
Of the twelve designations that appear only once, six require preexisting
beliefs to ensure their intelligibility. Holy One of God (dyios TOO 0eoO, 1:24),
Son of the Most High God (vibs TOO GeoO TOO IX|HOTOU, 5:7), and shepherd
(TroL|irjy, 14:27) assume beliefs that recognize these as appropriate designations
for Jesus and imply Jesus' indirect positive relationship with God as benefactive
or agent. Son of Mary (vibs T % Mapias, 6:3) assumes beliefs about Mary and
Jesus' indirect positive relationship with her as benefactive. The Son (6 vids,
13:32), without the required benefactive argument, implies beliefs concerning its
appropriateness for conveying Jesus' unique relationship to God as benefactive
and asserts that Jesus as the Son does not know (ol8a) about that day or hour.
Lord of the Household (Kupios T % oiKtas, 13:35) presumes beliefs that this
designation applies to Jesus and asserts an indirect positive relationship with the
household as benefactive. If "I am" (eyoi ei|ii, 14:62) functions as a designation,
it presumes familiarity with its scriptural use to designate God and warrants for
its appropriation by Jesus and asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with
God. The use of Rabbouni (pappowi, 10:51) without definition assumes a pre-
existing familiarity with this designation. Lord of the Sabbath (Kupios TOO aaP-
u, 2:28), Son of the Blessed (vibs TOU evXoyqrov, 14:61), King of Israel
TaparjX, 15:32), and Heir (KXr|poi/6p,og, 12:7) present special diffi-
culties concerning preexistent beliefs because their coordination with other des-
Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart. Biblia-Druck, 1975), 73. The contextual link-
age of XpiQTOs (1) to Beloved Son (uios ay(mr\x^, 1:11) in 1:1-15 also may indicate a preexisting
relationship between these designations.
4. Potential implications of this designation receive extended consideration in John J. Collins,
"The Son of Man in First-Century Judaisms," NTS 38 (1992): 448-66; see also Thomas B. Slater,
"One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism," NTS 41 (1995): 183-98.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization ofJesus 59
ignations renders them self-explanatory: Lord of the Sabbath with Son of Man;
Son of the Blessed and King of Israel with Christ; and Heir with Beloved Son.5
The first seventeen designations indicate extensive preexisting beliefs con-
cerning Jesus' direct (Lord, Son of Man) and indirect (Christ, Son of God,
Beloved Son, the Holy One of God, the Son, shepherd) positive relationship with
God and an indirect positive relationship with his disciples (Christ, Teacher,
Rabbi, Lord of the Household), Mary (Son of Mary), various individuals (Son of
Man), and God's people (King of the Jews). Son of Man also stresses Jesus'
parousaic identity and activity. The five dubious designations assume similar
relationships. The investigation also reveals that designations asserting Jesus'
identity frequently are related in their initial occurrence to specific actions, either
the exercise of divine prerogatives (Son of Man, Teacher) or authoritative actions
in behalf of human beings (Lord, Jesus the Nazarene, Son of Man, Teacher).6
c. Summary ofPreexisting Beliefs about Jesus
This investigation indicates for the authorial audience extensive and interrelated
preexisting beliefs concerning Jesus and his actions, attributes, and designations.
Preexisting beliefs assert Jesus' direct positive relationship with God and indirect
positive relationships with God, those seeking his aid, and the disciples. Indirect
negative relationships with various demonic forces hold a position of promi-
nence through multiple independent attestation. Preexisting beliefs also directly
relate particular designations to Jesus' exercise of divine prerogatives as Son of
Man (dc|)LT||±i) and his actions as Teacher for disciples (e
2. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated References
The number of repeated words and phrases that cultivate beliefs about Jesus is
quite large and does not admit to an investigation that is simultaneously exhaus-
tive and economical. In light of this, the following discussion limits its focus to
repeated words that occur at least five times and to less frequently occurring
words that receive emphasis either through incorporation into repeated contexts
and structures or in association with Jesus' designations. The discussion exam-
ines first the forty-seven repeated agent and non-agent references to Jesus and his
designations identified by these criteria and then two repeated designations that
receive specialized development.
5. Lord of the Sabbath (2:28) occurs after the evocation of preexisting beliefs concerning both
Lord and Sabbath and in the context of developing the Son of Man's exercise of divine prerogatives
on the Sabbath. Son of the Blessed (14:61) appears after extensive use of designations employing
"son" and in the context of the authorial audience's possible familiarity with the use of circumlocu-
tions when referring to God. King of Israel (15:32) appears after developments concerning King of
the Jews. Pryke ascribes these three titles to Markan redaction (Redactional Style, 12, 22-23).
6. These actions are deemed "authoritative" based on subsequent discussion of the narrative
developments relating e£ovoia (authority) to Troiia) (do) and to the various actions it references.
a. Repetition ofAgent References: What Jesus Does

Of the forty-seven repeated words, twenty-one reference Jesus and/or his desig-
nations as agent. Two verbs, dvioraiiai andeyetpa), with the connotation "rise"
exhibit distinct distributions: Son of Man is agent of dviorapm, whereas Jesus
or Jesus the Nazarene is agent of eyeipoj; and statements about the Son of Man's
rising (dviaTaiiai) appear after notices that he will be killed (aTTOKTeivo), 8:31;
9:31; 10:34), whereas statements about the rising (eyeipoi)) of other characters
appear after notices that they died or are deemed to have died (aTToOvrjaKG), 5:35;
9:26; 12:20, 21).7 Repetition of dvlaTaum (8:31; 9:9, 10, 31; 10:34) directly
positively relates to the Son of Man Jairus's daughter (5:42), the boy with an
unclean spirit (9:26), and those who have died (12:23, 25); and repetition of
eyetpo) directly positively relates to Jesus (14:28) and Jesus the Nazarene (16:6)
Jairus's daughter (5:41), John the Baptist (6:14, 16), and the dead (12:26).
Dismiss (aTToAua), 6:36, 45; 8:3, 9) indirectly positively relates the crowd to
Jesus; and its repetition establishes that Jesus does not dismiss the crowd that has
nothing to eat (6:36; 8:2) until they have been satisfied (6:42; 8:8) by the bread
[and fish] that Jesus breaks ([6:41]; 8:6).8
Send (dmxjTeXXG), 3:14; 5:10; 6:7; 8:26; 11:1, 3; 14:13; cf. 13:27 for the Son
of Man) asserts Jesus' direct positive relationship with God, his indirect positive
relationship with the twelve (3:14; 6:7) and particular disciples (11:1; 14:13), his
direct negative relationship with the chief priests, scribes, and elders (12:3, 13),
and his indirect negative relationship with the Pharisees and Herodians (12:13).
Forgive (dcjuruii, 2:5,9; cf. 2:10 for the Son of Man) asserts Jesus' direct pos-
itive relationship with God (2:7; 11:25) and those who forgive another (11:25)
and indirect positive relationship with a paralytic (2:5, 9, 10) and those forgiven
by another (11:25). Repetition of this verb cultivates the only beliefs concerning
the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives.
Permit (d<|>iTi|±i, 1:34; 5:19, 37; 11:16) directly negatively relates to Jesus the
disciples whose rebuking (<ETTiTi|ida)) is countermanded by Jesus with an order
to permit (10:14). In 7:27 d(|)iT]|±i originally places the Syrophoenician woman in
opposition to Jesus; but this relationship is overturned when Jesus subsequently
grants her request (7:29). This verb also highlights Jesus' present exercise of
divine prerogatives in regulating temple practice (11:16).
Teach (StSdaKO), 1:21,22; 2:13; 4:1,2; 6:2, 34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:14,
35; 14:49) directly positively relates the apostles (6:30) to Jesus and indirectly
positively relates the crowd (2:13; 4:1, 2; 6:34; 10:1), disciples (6:2; 8:31; 9:31),
and those in a synagogue (1:21, 22) to Jesus. Directly negatively related to Jesus
7. The synonymous connotation of the verbs is indicated by particular characters (Jairus's

daughter, the dead) referencing the agent of both within the same contexts and by the use of "from
[the] dead"(eK vetcpwy) with both aviora\iai (9:9,10; 12:25) and € ye: tpw (6:14; cf. 12:26).
8. The verb dTroAuo) has three connotations, and each is associated with distinct semantic
requirements: agent, patient, and goal (which may be omitted) for "dismiss"; agent and patient for
"divorce"; and agent, patient, and benefactive (which may be omitted) for "release." Only the four
occurrences with the first connotation receive examination here.
are the scribes (1:22); and indirectly negatively related to Jesus are his townsfolk
(6:2), the chief priests and scribes (11:17-18), some Pharisees and Herodians
(12:14), and Judas and the crowd from the chief priests, scribes, and elders
(14:49).9 Repetition relates the content of Jesus' teaching, the Son of Man being
killed (dTTOKTeLvw) andrising(dvLcrraum, 8:31 [cf. 8:27]; 9:31), the way of the
Lord(Tf|v bbbv rov GeoO, 12:14), and the actions of the Christ and Son of David
(12:35) and indirectly positiyely aligns them with Jesus.
Give (8L8G)|JU) directly positively aligns Jesus (6:7, 41; 8:6; 14:22, 23; cf.
10:37, 40 for what Jesus cannot give), the Son of Man (10:45), and the Lord of
the Household (13:34) with God(*4:ll, *25; *6:2; *8:12; 11:28; 12:9; *13:11).
This alignment verges on identification when Jesus sends the twelve (3:14; 6:7)
and gives them authority (etovoia, 6:7; cf. 13:34 for Lord of the Household; and
11:28 for God who gives authority to Jesus) to accomplish acts previously attrib-
uted to Jesus (6:12, 30).10 This verb also directly positively relates David and
Jesus (2:26), ambiguously relates Jesus' disciples to Jesus (6:37a, 37b), and
directly negatively relates to Jesus the Pharisees and Herodians (3:6; 12:14a,
14b), Herod (6:22, 23, 25), a soldier (6:28a), Herodias's daughter (6:28b), false
christs and prophets (13:22), chief priests (14:11), and the betrayer (14:44).
Cast out (eKpdXXo)) demons directly positively relates to Jesus (1:34,39; 3:22;
7:26) the twelve or apostles (3:15), the twelve (6:13; cf. 6:30 for apostles) and the
one casting out demons in Jesus' name (9:38) and indirectly negatively relates
demons (1:34, 39; 3:32) to Jesus. Repetition of 6KpdXXa) identifies the twelve/
apostles with Jesus and relates the designations Jesus the Nazarene and Holy One
of God.
Rebuke (eTTLTL|ida)) directly negatively relates Peter (8:32), the disciples
(10:13), and disciples and the crowd (10:48) to Jesus as agent (1:25; 3:12; 4:39;
8:30, 33; 9:25); for in each case Jesus explicitly contradicts their actions (8:33;
10:14; 10:49). Repetition indirectly negatively relates to Jesus unclean spirits
(1:25; 3:11-12; cf. 9:25 for a mute and deaf spirit), the wind (4:39), the disciples
(8:30), and Peter (8:33); directly aligns these experiences with each other; and
links the designations Holy One of God (1:24-25), Son of God (3:11-12),
Teacher (4:38-39; 9:17-25), Christ (8:29-30), and Son of Man (8:31-33).
Will come (epxoiicu, 8:38; 13:26; 14:62) directly positively relates Jesus as
parousaic Son of Man to God as Lord of the Vineyard (12:9) and directly nega-
tively relates to them the many who will come in Jesus' name and mislead (13:6).
Bless (euXoyew, 6:41; 8:7; 14:22) indirectly positively relates to Jesus the
bread (6:41) and fish (6:41; 8:7), which those in the crowd eat, and the bread,
which Jesus interprets as his body (acojia, 14:22).
9. The narration also repeatedly relates Jesus' teaching to particular locales: the synagogue
(1:21; 6:2); along the sea (2:13; 4:1 [cf. 4:2]); in the Temple (12:35; 14:49; cf. 11:17).
10. The notices that the Son of Man sends the angels (13:27) and has authority to forgive sins
(2:10) and that the Lord of the Household gives authority to his slaves (13:34) link these designations
to particular repeated actions and extend Jesus' identification with God to these designations.
Give thanks (euxapiaTeo), 8:6; 14:23) indirectly positively relates Jesus as

agent to God as goal and Jesus as agent to the patients, the bread which he blesses
(euXoyeo), 8:7) and the cup whose contents he interprets as his blood (14:23).
Heal (Qepa-nevb)) directly positively relates the twelve (6:13) to Jesus (1:34;
3:2, 10; 6:5) and indirectly positively relates to Jesus (and the twelve) all those
having illnesses or being possessed by demons (1:34), the man with the withered
hand (3:2), many people (3:10), and the few who are healed in Jesus' hometown
(6:5). In 6:3-5 this action is associated with the Son of Mary. Healing (Gepa-
Tr€i/(o), casting out (<EK(3(XXAG)) demons, and not permitting (a^>ir\[ii) demons to
speak receive direct coordination in 1:34.
Proclaim (KTipuaaa), 1:14,38,39) directly positively aligns Jesus as agent with
John the Baptist (1:7), the former demoniac (5:20), and anyone who proclaims
the gospel (14:9); and its repetition with the twelve/apostles (3:14; 6:12) as agent
asserts their identification with Jesus.11 The former leper (1:45) and those from
the Decapolis (7:36), whose proclaiming violates Jesus' orders to the contrary
(1:44; 7:36a, 36b), however, are directly negatively related to Jesus. Repetition
relates the content of proclaiming, the coming of the stronger one or Jesus (1:7),
the gospel of God (1:14), the word (1:45), and the gospel (13:10; 14:9), and culti-
vates for the narrative audience a recognition that the gospel includes explicit
assertions about Jesus.12
Break ([KaTa]KXdo, [6:41]; S:6, 19; 14:22) indirectly positively relates to
Jesus the bread (6:41; 8:6,19) which the crowds eat and which Jesus interprets as
his body (aa)|ia, 14:22).
Take/receive (Xa|i(3dva), 6:41; 8:6; 9:36; 14:22a, 23; 15:23) directly positively
relates to Jesus those who receive a hundredfold (10:30); those who believe that
they will receive what they ask for in prayer (11:24); God/the Lord of the Vine-
yard, who would receive some of the fruit of the vineyard (12:2); the brother who
receives a dead brother's wife (12:19, 20, 21); and the disciples who receive the
bread interpreted as Jesus' body (14:22b). It also indirectly positively relates to
Jesus the bread [and fish] that Jesus blesses (euAoyeo), [6:41]; 14:22a) or for
which he gives thanks (euxapiaTeco, 8:6), a child (9:36), and the cup that he
gives (8I8G)|±I, 14:23) to his disciples. Directly negatively related to Jesus are
disciples who forget to take bread (8:14), the farmers who take and beat the slave
of the Lord of the Vineyard (12:3) and kill his Beloved Son/Jesus (12:8), the
scribes who receive greater judgment (12:40), and the attendants who receive
him with blows (14:65). Indirectly negatively related to Jesus are the wine that
Jesus refuses to receive and those giving it (15:23).
11. A third occurrence of KT)pvoob) (*13:10) has the potential to strengthen the identification of
Peter, James, John, and Andrew (cf. 13:3) with Jesus should they be among those who fulfill the
necessity (Set) of proclaiming the gospel.
12. In 1:45, Ktipuaao) is coordinated with 8iacj)r|n.iC(o, both of which require a content argument
realized by word (Xoyos). Here, TroXXd constitutes an adverb indicating the extent of the proclama-
tion, "at length."
Pray (rrpoaetixoiiai, 1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39) indirectly positively aligns
Jesus as agent with God and directly negatively relates to Jesus both Peter,
James, and John, who disobey Jesus' command to stay awake and pray (14:38)
but instead sleep (14:40), and the scribes whose praying is negatively evaluated
(12-.38-40).13
Summon (TrpoafcaXeoiiai, 3:13, 23; 6:7; 7:14; 8:1, 34; 10:42; 12:43) indi-
rectly positively relates Jesus to his disciples (8:1; 12:43), the twelve (3:13; 6:7;
10:42), the crowd (3:23; 7:14), and the crowd with his disciples (8:34). This verb
introduces significant sayings by Jesus (3:23; 7:14; 8:1,34; 10:42; 12:43) and his
actions of making (TTOKEO), 3:14) and sending (diroaTeXXo), 6:7; cf. 3:14) the
twelve. The nature of Jesus' direct relationship with Pilate, who also summons
(15:44), however, remains ambiguous.
Save (auiCcD, 3:4; 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; 8:35a, 35b; 10:26, 52; 13:13, 20; 15:30;
15:31a, 31b) raises grammatical problems because it requires either an agent or
an instrument as its subject in the active voice, and both may be omitted in the
passive. The only explicitly referenced agents are Jesus (15:30, 31a, 31b); any-
one who does good on the Sabbath (3:4), which includes Jesus, who saves life
and does good on this Sabbath (3:5); the one whose attempt to save (8:35a) one's
life (^vxA) ultimately destroys ((XTTOXXUIII) it; and the one who will save (8:35a)
one's life by destroying it for the sake of Jesus and the gospel.14 Twice faith
( m a n s , 5:34; 10:52) is specified as instrument; and, in both cases, the action is
linked to Jesus, who either recognizes power going forth from himself (5:30) or
asks what the blind man wants him to do (TTOKEO), 10:51). The remaining six
occurrences are in the passive voice (5:23, 28; 6:56; 10:26; 13:13, 20). In 5:23
saving is related to Jesus' action of placing hands (cf. 5:41 for Jesus' command
to the daughter to rise); and saving through touching (cnrroiiai) Jesus' garment
(l^dTLoy) in 5:28 is explained in terms of power coming forth from Jesus (5:30).
In 6:56 touching (aiTTopm) and garment (i|±d.Tiov) again imply Jesus' agency.
In 10:26, the context specifies both the verb's agent, God (10:27), and its instru-
ment, keeping the commandments, selling possessions and giving to the poor,
and following Jesus (10:19-21).15 In 13:13 the implied instrument is persevering
13. Although TTpoaf i>xo|iai el sewhere raises the potential for the direct positive alignment with
Jesus of the twelve (11:24,25; cf. 11:11) and Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:18; cf. 13:3) should
they comply with Jesus' instruction on prayer and his command to pray, they do not do so.
14. In 3:4, the governing verb "permit" (e'£ea-riv) allows the subject of the following verb
phrase to remain unstated and assigns to this permissibly omitted subject a generic connotation of
"anyone": see Fillmore and Kay, Construction Grammar, 7:15.
15. Bas M. F. van lersel observes that Jesus' response in 10:27 does not directly answer the
question of 10:26 but, instead, changes the focus from the grammatical agent of the passive voice
form of a(o£(o in 10:26 to God as the benefactive (possessor) and/or source (origin) of all possible
(good) things, including saving (10:27) (Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary [trans. W. H. Biss-
cheroux; JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 328-29). Jesus' response does,
however, indirectly answer the question by relating to God, for whom (napd) all things are possible,
the one believing, for whom (dative without preposition) all things are possible (9:23), which under-
lines that the one believing is the benefactive (but not the source) of all things.
to the end; and in 13:20 the contextually implied agent is God, who shortens the
days. The latter three occurrences, however, also may imply faith (cf. 5:34;
10:52) as instrument. Repetition directly positively aligns the agents God (10:26;
13:13, 20), Jesus (3:4; 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; 10:52; 15:30, 31a, 31b), the one who
does good on the Sabbath (3:4), and the one who destroys one's life for the sake
of Jesus and the gospel (8:35b), directly negatively relates these agents to the one
who destroys one's life not for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35a), and
relates the designations Son of Man (8:35-38) and Christ and King of the Jews
(15:31-32).16
Do/make (uoieo)) directly positively relates to Jesus (1:17; 3:8,14, [16]; 5:20;
6:5; 7:37a, 37b; 10:51; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; 15:14) as agent those who make
straight the Lord's way (1:3); the disciples who make a path (2:23, 24); David,
who did good things for his companions (2:25); those who do good on the Sab-
bath (3:4); those who do God's will (3:35); the apostles (6:30); one who does a
powerful deed in Jesus' name (9:39); God, who makes humans male and female
(10:6); two disciples who do as Jesus commands (11:3, 5); the Lord of the Vine-
yard/God (12:9); those who do good for the poor (14:7); and the woman who
does the anointing of Jesus (14:8, 9).17 Jesus is identified with God when the for-
mer demoniac announces what the Lord did by proclaiming what Jesus did
(5:19-20) and, as previously noted, when the apostles/twelve do what Jesus has
done (6:30). Directly negatively related to Jesus are unclean spirits (3:12);
Herod, who made a feast during which he ordered the beheading of John the
Baptist (6:21); the Pharisees and some of the scribes (cf. 7:1), who do not permit
one to do for one's parents (7:12) and do many such things (7:13); Peter, James,
and John, who would make booths (9:5); those who did what they wanted to Eli-
jah/John the Baptist (9:13); the man with many possessions, who apparently (cf.
10:22) does not do what is required to inherit everlasting life (10:17); those who
have made the temple a den of thieves (11:17); the chief priests with the elders
and scribes, who make a plot against Jesus (15:1); those who make a rebellion
(15:7); and Pilate, who ultimately (cf. 15:15) does for the crowd what they want
concerning Jesus (15:8, 12; 15). Jesus' doing good on the Sabbath (3:2-5) con-
trasts him with the Pharisees and Herodians, who plot to destroy Jesus on the
Sabbath (3:6); and James and John's request that Jesus do what he cannot do
16. Although God is the implied semantic agent of aw£w on only three occasions (10:26; 13:13,
20), the narration consistently assigns to God ultimate (theological) agency in saving. The faith that
saves is from God (mans Geou, 11:22; cf. the notes to o6Cu> in ch. 2 sec. 1) with God as source; and
every occurrence of the noun faith (nia-ris) is related to characters not as agents but as benefactives
through either a genitive-case possessive pronoun (2:5; 5:34; 10:52) or the subject of have (TTLCTTIV
exw, 4:40; 11:22). Jesus, the most frequent agent of saving, has received the authority to do what he
does from God (11:28-31), and Jesus gives the twelve authority to do likewise (6:7). Human agents,
who do good on the Sabbath (3:4) and destroy life for the sake of [Jesus and] the gospel (8:35), are
presented as doing what Jesus does by the authority given to him by God (11:28-33).
17. See also 10:35, 36 for what Jesus cannot do; 3:4, where Jesus is the contextually indicated
agent; and 3:35, where the one doing God's will is later associated with Jesus in 14:36.
(10:35, 36; cf. 10:40) places them in opposition to Jesus.18 Do/make also relates
Son of God (3:11), Son of the Most High God (5:7), Jesus the Nazarene and Son
of David (10:47-48), and King of the Jews (15:9-12).
Do/make in 3:8 relates Jesus' actions to this point in the narration: teach
(8i8daKG>, 1:22); rebuke (emTi|ida), 1:27; cf. 3:12); heal (GepaTreiKD, 1:34; cf.
3:10); cast out (eKpdXXo), 1:34); not permit (d<})iri|ii, 1:34); proclaim (icnpuaad),
1:38); cleanse (Ka0api£a), 1:41); forgive (d<t>ir||jLi, 2:5-10); call (mAeo, 1:17);
and save (CTWCCD, 3:4). Jesus does what David did (2:25), makes the twelve (3:14,
16; cf. 1:17 for making Peter and Andrew fishers of human beings), does what
God does for the demoniac (5:20), and does no powerful deed in his hometown
(6:5), by implication, because of the people's unbelief (6:6). The fact that Jesus
makes (3:14,16) the twelve who, as apostles, subsequently do (6:30) many of the
same actions (teach, heal, cast out, proclaim), identifies them with Jesus. Again
in 7:37a, do/make reprises all that Jesus has done, with an emphasis on making
(7:37b) the deaf hear and the dumb speak. This emphasis on healing reappears in
10:51, which notes that what Jesus does is to let Bartimaeus see.
The fourfold repetition of Troieo) in Jesus' interaction with the chief priests,
scribes, and elders who ask the source of his authority (11:28a, 28b, 29, 33) then
evokes this cultivated specialized connotation that has come to designate the
totality of Jesus' saving actions. The double question in 11:28, "By which
authority do you do (TTOL€0)) these things or who gave you this authority in order
that you do (TTotea)) these things?" constitutes an inquiry into the authority that
grounds all of Jesus' actions.19 The contextually implied answer, that Jesus'
authority, like John's baptism, is from heaven, that is, from God, asserts that God
is the source of Jesus' authority and the agent who gives this authority to Jesus.
The only limitation to Jesus' present exercise of this authority on earth (cf. em
T % yfjs, 2:10) is that Jesus as the Son of Mary is not able to do a powerful deed
in the context of unbelief (6:5-6; cf. 10:35-40 for the limitation of Jesus' future
ability to do/give in his glory). Since what Jesus does is done by (ev, 11:28, 29,
33, i.e., as instrument) the authority from God, characters opposing Jesus'
actions or agency place themselves in negative relationship with God. Thus, the
final occurrence of Troiew in Pilate's question, "For what evil did [Jesus] do?"
18. The narration establishes God as the appropriate agent of doing what James and John request
through the use of "prepared" (lyroiiJuiaTai, *10:40).
19. Interpreting Trotew in 11:28 as referring to the entirety of Jesus' activity receives the support
of Richard J. Dillon, '"As One Having Authority' (Mark 1:22): The Controversial Distinction of
Jesus' Teaching," CBQ 37 (1995): 92-113, here 100; and Jack Dean Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark:
Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 79; see also D. Luhrmann, Das Markus-
evangelium (HNT 3; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987), 198; and J. Gnilka, Das Evangelitan nach
Markus (EKKNT 2.1-2; 2 vols.; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-
79), 2:138. In contrast, R. H. Gundry takes the occurrence in 11:28 as referring only to Jesus' actions
in the Temple {Mark: A Commentary on His Apologyfor the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993],
657-66). J. R. Edwards presents a detailed discussion of the use of eôvoia in Mark and its implica-
tions for the discussion of Markan christology ("The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark," JETS
37 [1994]: 217-33).
(15:14), places the crowd who calls for Jesus' crucifixion (15:13-14) and the
chief priests who stirred up this crowd (15:11) in opposition to God.20
b. Repetition ofNon-Agent References: The Attributes of Jesus

The discussion of the remaining twenty-six repeated words groups vocabulary
according to the argument roles referenced by Jesus or his designations and, for
reasons that become apparent, grants more detailed consideration to Jesus as
experiencer.
Three repeated verbs, want (OeXw, 1:40, 41; 3:13; 6:48; 7:24; 9:30; 14:12, 36),
know (ol8a, 12:15; cf. 13:32 for the Son), and be moved with compassion
(oir\ayxviCo[Lai, 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22), cultivate beliefs about Jesus as experi-
encer. The first two verbs present occasions of contrast between God and Jesus:
Jesus wants (9<EA(I)) God as Abba Father to take away the cup from him, whereas
God wants otherwise (14:36); and Jesus as Son does not know (ol8a) about the
day or hour, whereas God as Father does (13:32). Jesus' not knowing about the
day or hour coheres with a broader development concerning limits to his agency
and attributes: sitting at his right and left in his glory is not Jesus' to give
(8L8O)|±I, 10:40); and Jesus as Son of Man has authority to forgive (d4>iT]|ii) sins
"on the earth" (2:10). The contextual interpretation of the cup that Jesus will
drink (10:38-39) in terms of the Son of Man being handed over, being con-
demned to death, being killed, and rising (10:33-34) and serving and giving his
life (10:45) indicates that God as Abba Father in 14:36 wants Jesus to fulfill the
divine necessity (Set, 8:31) governing the Son of Man. In acting to fulfill this
divine necessity, Jesus becomes a paradigm for those doing the will of the Father
(cf. 3:35) even when they want to do otherwise; and his resulting action redounds
to the benefit of the many for whom he gives his life as a ransom (10:45). The
straightforward narration of these occurrences indicates that the authorial audi-
ence already recognizes these areas of contrast between what Jesus and God
know and want.21
In five of the seven remaining occurrences of 0eXo), what Jesus wants is real-
ized and benefits others: cleansing for the leper (1:40, 41); being made the
twelve/apostles for particular disciples (3:13; cf. 3:15-16); private teaching for
disciples that the Son of Man is going to be handed over, killed, and rise (9:30;
cf. 9:31-32); and the meal for disciples in which Jesus gives his body and blood
(14:12; cf. 14:13-25). In the two remaining occurrences, what Jesus wants is not
realized; but what Jesus actually does benefits others. Jesus, who wants to pass
by the disciples (6:48), instead encourages them not to be afraid and goes into the
boat with them (6:50-51).22 Here Jesus' calming (KOTrd£o), 6:51) of the wind
20. Repetition of listen with delight (r)8ea)s OLKOIKO) directly aligns Herod and the crowd; for,
just as Herod listens to John the Baptist with delight (6:20) before ordering his execution (6:27), the
crowd listens to Jesus with delight (12:37) before calling for his crucifixion (15:13; cf. 15:11).
21. This conclusion receives the support of Pryke, Redactional Style, 171 -72.
22. Joel Marcus {Mark 18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 27;
New York: Doubleday, 2000], 421-26) and John Paul Heil {Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and
recalls his previous exercise of divine prerogatives for disciples in rebuking

(eTTLTL|id(i), 4:39) the wind, which became calm (KOTrdCw, 4:39).23 In 7:24, Jesus,
who wants no one to know where he is, instead is found by a Syrophoenician
woman who ultimately secures from him the expulsion (eKpdXXo), 7:26-30) of a
demon from her daughter. This story clarifies the temporal succession in Jesus'
mission, first (upojTov, 7:27; cf. 3:27; 4:28; 9:11, 12; 13:10) to the children
(Jews) and then to the dogs (Gentiles).24 This indicates that the last occurrence of
GeXo) in Jesus' statement "Not what I want but what you [want]" (14:36) may cul-
tivate for the narrative audience a recognition that the two previous frustrations
of what Jesus wants constitute further examples of divergence between what God
and Jesus want and that these divergences likewise are resolved by Jesus choos-
ing to do God's will over his own. Thus, although all that Jesus does is done by
the authority given him by God and so is in accord with God's will, what Jesus
wants may (generally) or may not (on at least one and perhaps three occasions)
accord with God's will.
These observations clarify that experiencer argument roles are unique in that
they do not impose positive or negative evaluations in a straightforward fashion.
Instead, only the content, that is experienced—in this case, what is wanted—
directly receives positive or negative evaluation; and the evaluation of the experi-
encer depends on how the character as agent acts in response to this content. Here
Jesus receives positive evaluation in all occurrences by accepting the positively
evaluated content of what God wants and by acting on it for the benefit of others.
Most other characters are portrayed as wanting something that is negatively
evaluated and, by implication, against the will of God and then acting to realize
this negative content: Herodias wants (6:19) and acts (6:24) to kill John the Bap-
tist; Herodias's daughter wants and requests the head of John the Baptist (6:25;
cf. 6:22); Herod does not want to deny the request of Herodias's daughter (6:26)
Gospel Functions of Malt 14:22-23, Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-2l [AnBib 82; Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1981], 69-71) consider further implications of Jesus wanting to pass by the disciples.
The context, however, does not clarify whether pass by (nape pxo urn, 6:48) evokes preexisting
beliefs concerning the use of this verb in stories of God's self-revelation (cf. Gen 32:31 LXX; Exod
33:17-34:8; 1 Kgs 19:11—13; Dan 12:1 LXX) and so the direct positive relationship between Jesus
and God which this verb asserts.
23. Evocation of 4:35-41 by 6:45-52 also is encouraged by repetition of when it was late
(oijjias yevoêvris, 4:35; 6:47), to the other side (els TO TTepav, 4:35; 6:45), crowd (oxXos, 4:36;
6:45), boat (TTXOLOV, 4:36, 37a, 37b; 6:47, 51), wind (dv€|ios, 4:37, 39a, 39b, 41; 6:48, 51), and sea
(GdXacKJci, 4:39,41; 6:47,48,49).
24. Repetition of satisfy (xopTd£w, 6:42; 7:27), bread (ap-ros, 6:41a, 41b, [44]; 7:27), and eat
(ecrOu), 6:36, 37a, 37b, 42,44; 7:28) also may evoke for the narrative audience 6:33-44, and so pre-
pare for the following extension of Jesus' ministry in the feeding of the four thousand (8:1-10),
where satisfy (8:4, 8), bread (8:4, 5, 6), and eat (8:1, 2, 8) reappear. P, Pokorn? ("From a Puppy to a
Child: Some Problems of Contemporary Biblical Exegesis Demonstrated from Mark 7.24-30/Matt
15:21-8," NTS 41 [1995]: 321-37, here 324) and David Rhoads ("Jesus and the Syrophoenician
Woman in Mark: A Narrative-Critical Study," JAAR 62 [1994]: 343-75, here 357) discuss the sever-
ity of the designation "dog" (Kwdpiou, 7:27) and its implications for exegesis.
and so orders John's execution (6:27); they did what they wanted with Elijah/
John the Baptist (9:13); James and John want and request to sit at Jesus' right and
left hand in his glory (10:36; cf. 10:35); the scribes want to walk around in stoles
and greetings in the market places and act accordingly (12:38); and the crowd
does not want Jesus released (15:9) and calls for his crucifixion (15:13). Of these,
only James and John do not obtain what they want but, instead, will do what God
wants: drink Jesus' cup (10:38a, 39b). Thus, James and John are directly posi-
tively related to Jesus as characters who do or will do what God wants even when
they want otherwise.
Positively evaluated content of GeXw appears with Bartimaeus, who wants to
see (10:51), and "you," who may want to give to the poor (14:7). Bartimaeus's
reception of sight by faith as instrument (10:52) indicates that what he wants
coheres with what Jesus (and God) want. A positive alignment for those wanting
to give to the poor, however, is contingent on their doing so (10:21).25
The only other occurrence of know (ol8a) asserts that Jesus knows the hypoc-
risy of some of the Pharisees and Herodians (12:15) and responds to them
accordingly (12:15-18). This assertion coheres with the broader development
concerning Jesus' capacity to recognize (eTuyivcocrKu), 2:8; 5:30) internal dispo-
sitions.
Jesus as experiencer is moved with compassion (airXayxvôjiai) for a leper
(1:41), the crowd (6:34; 8:2), and the boy with the unclean spirit and his father
(9:22) and responds with the positively evaluated actions of cleansing the leper
(1:41), teaching (8i8daK0), 6:34) the crowd and blessing (evXoyeoi) the bread
(6:41) and fish (8:7), breaking ([KaTa]KAda), [6:41]; 8:6), and giving (8i8a)|ii,
6:41; 8:6) bread to the disciples for the crowd to eat (6:42; 8:8), and rebuking
(eTTiTi|±da)) and commanding the unclean spirit to come out of the boy (9:25).
Spit on (6|ITTTU(O, 10:34; 14:65; 15:19) indirectly negatively relates to
Jesus/the Son of Man as goal the agents, the Gentiles (10:34); the chief priest and
whole Sanhedrin (cf. 14:54), who condemn (KcrraKpiva)) as worthy of death
(Odvcrros, 14:65); and the soldiers (15:19) who crucified (aTaupoo), cf. 15:24)
him. Repetition directly relates these agents to each other.
Eleven repeated words cultivate beliefs about Jesus as benefactive. Of these,
four are reserved to God/Jesus: right [hand] (8e£id, 12:36; 14:62/10:37, 40;
15:27); power or force (8uvaîs, 12:24; *14:62/*5:30; * 13:26); and gospel
(euayyeEXioy, 1:1, 14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9) and way (686s, 1:2, 3;
12:14), for which their benefaction always is linked. Repetition of these words
identifies Jesus with God.
25. The remaining occurrences of 06 Xw appear in statements employing indefinite pronouns and
refer to characters who may receive what they want if they do what is required: anyone (ris) wanting
to follow behind Jesus may do so by denying oneself, taking up one's cross, and following Jesus
(8:34); whoever (bs av) wants to save one's life may do so by destroying it (8:35); anyone (TIS)
wanting to be first may be so by being last of all and servant of all (9:35); whoever (6s dv) wants to
become great among the twelve may do so by becoming the servant of the others (10:43) and slave of
all (10:44).
Authority (ejouata, 1:22, 27; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; cf. 2:10 for the Son of
Man) directly positively relates the twelve (3:15; 6:7) to Jesus and his slaves to
Jesus as Lord of the Household (13:34). The fact that God gives authority to
Jesus (11:28) and Jesus gives authority to the twelve (6:7) identifies the twelve
with Jesus.
Death (Qavaros) directly positively relates to Jesus whose life or self is sad
unto death (14:34)/the Son of Man who is condemned (KcrraKpivG)) to death
(10:33; 14:64), those who will not taste death until they see the reign of God hav-
ing come in power (9:1), and the brother handed over by brother to death (13:12)
because of Jesus (cf. 13:9) or his name (cf. 13:13). Death also directly negatively
relates to Jesus the one who is to be put to death for speaking evil of father or
mother (7:10) and indirectly negatively relates to Jesus the chief priests, scribes,
and elders/the chief priest and the whole Sanhedrin, who condemn the Son of
Man to/as worthy of death (10:33/14:64) and the brother who hands over brother
to death (13:12).
God (6 Geos, 15:34a, 34b) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God who aban-
dons him.
Jesus' benefaction of disciples (\iaQr\rai9 2:15, 16, 18, 23; 3:7, 9; 4:34; 5:31;
6:1, 35, 41, 45; 7:2, 5, 17; 8:1,4, 6,10, 27a, 27b, 33, 34; 9:14,18, 28, 31; 10:10,
13,23,24,46; 11:1, 14; 12:43; 13:1; 14:12, 13, 14, 16,32; 16:7) is the most fre-
quently asserted relationship for Jesus in Mark; and the nature of their indirect
relationship with Jesus receives consideration in chapter 4.
Mother, brothers [and sisters] (JITITTIP, d8eX<|>oi [mi d8eXc|>ai], 3:31, 32, 33,
34, 35) are indirectly negatively related to Jesus when defined biologically and
indirectly positively related to Jesus when defined as those doing God's will
(3:35).
Name (6vo|ia, 6:14; 9:37, 38, 39, 41; 13:6, 13) directly positively relates to
Jesus Simon, who receives the name Peter from Jesus (3:16); James and John,
who receive the name Boanerges from Jesus (3:17); Jairus (5:22), whose daugh-
ter is healed by Jesus (cf. 5:41-42); and God as the Lord (11:9) and indirectly
positively relates to Jesus those who act in Jesus' name by receiving a child
(9:37), casting (eKpdXXw) out demons (9:38), doing a powerful deed (9:39), giv-
ing a drink of water (9:40), and those who are hated because of Jesus' name
(13:13). Name relates Jesus directly negatively to Legion (5:9a, 9b) and indi-
rectly negatively to the many who will come in his name and mislead (13:6).
Life/self (4JDXI1) directly positively relates to Jesus, whose life/self is sad unto
death (14:34)/the Son of Man, who gives his life as a ransom for many (10:45), the
one who destroys one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35b), and the
one who loves God with one's whole life (12:30), and directly negatively relates
Jesus to the one who destroys one's life not for the sake of Jesus and the gospel
(8:35a) and the one who gains the whole world but forfeits one's life (8:36).
Nine repeated words cultivate beliefs about Jesus as referent of the patient
argument. Of these, die (orrroOvrjaKa)) directly positively aligns Jesus (15:44b; cf.
15:44a for Gi/âKO)), Jairus's daughter (5:35, 39), the son with a mute spirit
(9:26), and a series of brothers (12:19,20,21) and their wife (12:22). All of these
subsequently are portrayed as rising: Jesus as Teacher (cf. 5:35) commands
Jairus's daughter to rise (eyeipG), 5:41), and she rose (dviaTaum, 5:42); Jesus
as Teacher (cf. 9:17) raises (eyeipa), 9:27) the son with the mute spirit, and he
rose (dvL<iTa|iai, 9:27); Jesus as Teacher (cf. 12:19) explains that the brothers,
their wife, and the dead will rise (dyi(rra|iai, 12:25; cf. 12:23; eyeipa), 12:26);
Jesus teaches (cf. 8:31; 9:31) that the Son of Man will rise (diXaTajiai, 8:31;
9:9, 10, 31; 10:34); and Jesus the Nazarene rose (eyeipo), 16:6; cf. 14:28 for
Jesus). Repetition of both eyeipo) and dyiaTafica strengthens the direct positive
alignment of the noted characters with Jesus and relates these developments to
Jesus as Teacher.
Reject (aTro8oKL|idCa)) indirectly negatively relates to Jesus as Son of Man/the
stone and [Beloved] Son the chief priests, scribes, and elders (8:31).
The initial identification of kill (dTTOKTeivo), 3:4) as doing evil (KaKouoieo))
and its contrast with doing good (dyaGov TTOiea)) and saving life (i\)vxr\v <TG)£G))
impose a negative evaluation on and directly align as agent the chief priests,
scribes, and elders (8:31; 12:5a, 5b, 7, 8), chief priests and scribes (10:34; 14:1),
Herodias (6:19), and the human beings (9:31a, 31b) and gentiles (10:34) who kill
the Son of Man. Kill also directly positively aligns those who are killed, John the
Baptist (6:19) and the slaves of God/the Lord of the Vineyard (12:5a, 5b), with
Jesus (14:l)/the Son of Man (8:31; 9:31a, 31b; 10:33-34)/the Beloved Son
(12:6-8)/Jesus as heir (12:7) and indirectly negatively relates them to the verb's
agents.
Send (dTToaTeXXo)) directly positively relates the patients, God's messenger/
John the Baptist (1:2), the twelve (3:14; 6:7), the sickle for the harvest (4:29), the
former blind man (8:26), Jesus (9:37)/the Beloved Son (12:4, 5), two of Jesus'
disciples (11:1; 14:13), God's slaves (12:2, 4), and God's messengers (13:27).
God's sending of John the Baptist (1:2), the sickle (4:29), Jesus (9:37)/the
Beloved Son (12:6), and God's slaves (12:2, 4, 5) highlights their direct positive
relationship with each other and their indirect positive relationship with God. The
fact that God sends Jesus/the Beloved Son and Jesus sends the twelve (3:14; 6:7;
cf. 6:30) and two disciples (11:1; 14:13) also identifies the disciples with Jesus as
patient. Directly negatively related to Jesus are John the Baptist's executioner
(6:27) and the Pharisees and Herodians sent to trap Jesus (12:13); and indirectly
negatively related to Jesus are Herod, who sends John's executioner (6:27); the
farmers who send God's slave [back] empty-handed (12:3); and the chief priests,
scribes, and elders, who send Pharisees and Herodians to trap him (12:13).
Baptize ((3aTTTi£a)) directly positively relates the patients, all [of the residents]
of the region of Judea (1:5), Jesus (1:9; 10:38a, 39a), and James and John
(10:38b, 39b). The fact that Jesus is baptized by both John (1:5) and God
(10:38a, 39a) indirectly positively aligns Jesus with them.
Condemn (KcrraKpivG)) indirectly negatively relates Jesus as Son of Man to
the chief priests, scribes, and elders (10:33)/the chief priest and the whole San-
hedrin (14:64) who condemn him to/as worthy of death (Gdvaros).
Hand over (Trapa8[8o)|iL) directly positively aligns with Jesus (3:19; 14:18,
42, 44; 15:1, 10, 15) and the Son of Man (9:31; 10:33; 14:21, 41) the patients
Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:9, 11) and the brother handed over by a
brother (13:12) because of Jesus' name (cf. 13:13) and indirectly negatively
relates them to Judas (3:19; 14:21, 41), the chief priests and scribes (10:33),
those handing over brothers or sisters because of Jesus' name, the Sanhedrin
(15:1), the chief priests (15:10), and Pilate (15:15). The tradition of the elders
(TrapdSoxiis TGJV TTpecxpuTepajv, 7:13; cf. 7:5) as handed over by the Pharisees
and some scribes (7:1, 5) is negatively evaluated and directly negatively related
to Jesus. Jesus' teaching in 7:6-13 also clarifies that conducting oneself accord-
ing to this tradition results in disregarding the word of God (7:13) by not keeping
God's commandment concerning parents (7:10; cf. Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). The
study of KTjpijaaw also indicated that the word (Xoyos, 1:45) is related to the
gospel of God (TO eixryyeXiov TOO GeoO, 1:14) and establishes that the gospel
of God includes specific assertions about Jesus. The occurrence of Xoyos in 7:13
then identifies the word of God with the gospel of God and Jesus and cultivates
for the narrative audience a recognition that not only the gospel and word but
Jesus himself serves as a guiding norm for Jesus' disciples (cf. 7:2,5) in the same
way that the tradition of the elders serves as a guiding norm for the Pharisees and
scribes. This extends the partial identification of Jesus with the content of the
gospel of God to include Jesus as part of the content of the word of God.
[Beloved] Son (ulos [aycrrrriTOs], 1:1, [11]; 3:11; 5:7; [9:7]; [12:6a], 6b;
13:32; 14:61; 15:39) indirectly positively relates Jesus to God. That God is bene-
factive of Jesus as [Beloved] Son (1:11; 9:7; 12:6) and Jesus is benefactive of
God (15:34a, 34b; cf. 14:36 for Abba Father and 13:32 for Father) asserts a
unique reciprocal relationship of benefaction between Jesus and God.
Crucify (aTctupoG)) directly positively relates the patients Jesus (15:15, 24,
25)/the King of the Jews (15:13, 14, 20) and two thieves (15:27) and indirectly
negatively relates to Jesus/the King of the Jews the agents, Pilate (15:13, 14, 15)
and soldiers (15:20, 24, 25).
Will see (opdca) has the potential to relate the experiences Peter, James, John,
and Andrew (13:26) and Jesus' disciples (16:7) indirectly positively to the Son of
Man and Jesus the Nazarene and the experiencers the chief priest and the entire
Sanhedrin (14:62) indirectly negatively to Jesus as Son of Man.
Be necessary (8ei) directly positively relates the event arguments that the Son
of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise (8:31); that Elijah/John the Baptist
come first (9:11); that wars and reports of wars occur at the beginning of birth
pangs (13:7); that the gospel be proclaimed first to all the nations (13:10); that
the detestable object of desolation not stand in a particular place (13:14); and,
perhaps, that Peter suffer with Jesus (14:31). Repetition indirectly positively
aligns these events with God as agent.
c. Repetition of Designations: Who Jesus Is

Among the designations applied to Jesus, only Son of Man and King of the Jews
receive repeated linkage to particular vocabulary.26
Of the fourteen occurrences of Son of Man (vibs TOU dvOpojTTOu, 2:10, 28;
8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21a, 21b, 41, 62), the first two evoke
preexisting beliefs about the Son of Man's present exercise of divine preroga-
tives in forgiving (CI(|HTII±I) sins on earth (2:10) and regulating Sabbath practice
(2:28).27 Both of these directly positively align the Son of Man with God. This
vocabulary, however, subsequently is not repeated in relation to the Son of Man.
The remaining occurrences of Son of Man repeatedly are related to vocabulary
that cultivates beliefs in two distinct areas. The first area concerns the Son of
Man's being handed over (Trapa8i8<ou.i, 9:31; 10:33a, 33b; 14:21, 41; cf. 3:19;
14:10, 11, 18; 14:42, 44; 15:1, 10, 15 for Jesus), suffering (jrdaxw, 8:31; 9:12),
being killed (dTTOKTeCvo), 8:31; 9:31a, 31b; 10:34; cf. 14:1 for Jesus) or giving
his life (8L8O)|IL TTJV ^VXA^9 10:45), being condemned (KoraKpiva)) to/as worthy
of death (Qavaros, 10:33/14:64), and rising (dvicrraiiai, 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34),
all of which are governed by divine necessity (8et, 8:31; cf. 9:12/14:21 for
TTCjg/KaGws yeypaTTTai, "how/as is it written").28 Repetition identifies Jesus as
the Son of Man in that both reference the patient arguments of TTapa8i8o)|±i and
9
As noted previously, 8et also indirectly positively relates the Son
26. Restricting the scope of this investigation to repeated vocabulary associated with the Son of
Man and King of the Jews removes the possibility for the direct investigation of beliefs cultivated in
relation to the particular aspects of Jesus' portrayal. These include Jesus' relationship with David
(apparent in various scripture passages), aspects of Jesus' priestly presentation (Edwin K. Broadhead,
"Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark," JSNT
47 [1992]: 21-34), and full development of the comparison/contrast between Jesus and Moses (Joel
Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark
[Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992], 81-93).
27. Robert M. Fowler proposes that both 2:10 and 2:28 constitute parenthetical statements by
the narrator and not by the character, Jesus ("The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel
of Mark," Semeia 48 [1989]: 115-34, here 121-24). Whether or not they are, all repeated content
concerning the Son of Man is introduced in statements unambiguously attributable to Jesus.
28. The preceding narration and especially the immediate context interpret this necessary suffer-
ing (TTctaxw) not in terms of disease, infirmity, demonic possession, or natural disasters but in terms
of the resistance or oppression experienced in proclaiming the gospel and acting on it: see David
Rhoads, "Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judgment," in Gospel
Interpretation: Narrative Critical & Social Scientific Approaches (ed. Jack Dean Kingsbury; Harris-
burg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 83-94, here 88-89; and Joanna Dewey, "The Gospel of
Mark," in Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2, A Feminist Commentary (ed. Elisabeth Schiissler
Fiorenza; New York: Crossroad, 1993), 470-509. Johannes Schreiber (Theologie des Vertrauens
[Hamburg: Furche-Verlag H. Rennebach, K. G., 1967], 120, 230) and Eduard Schweitzer {Good
News, 182) view the statement in 9:7, "Listen to him," as providing divine confirmation of the con-
tent of Jesus' prediction in 8:31-32a.
29. The authorial audience already recognizes that Jesus is the Son of Man (2:10) and that Jesus
was handed over (3:19) and killed (14:1; cf. 12:5-7). However, the narrative preparation for the intro-
duction of the first statement relating the necessity of the Son of Man's suffering, being killed, and
rising through Peter's assertion of the appropriate—though seemingly rejected—designation Christ
of Man to God.30 In contrast, repetition cultivates for the Son of Man indirect
negative relationships with particular human beings (aTTOKTeiva), 9:31a, 31b)
and the chief priests and scribes (TrapaSiSwfu, 10:33; aTroKTeiva), 10:33;
KQTaKpLva), 10:33). 3 1
A parallel development appears in the repeated linkage of King of the Jews to
crucify ((JTaupoo), 15:13, 14, 20, 27; cf. 15:15, 24, 25 for Jesus; 16:6 for Jesus
the Nazarene). Repetition identifies Jesus [the Nazarene] as King of the Jews
through oTavpob), for which both serve as the referent of the patient argument.
Repetition also reinforces Jesus' preexisting indirect positive relationship with
God's people and indirect negative relationship as King of the Jews with the
agents of (jTaupoa), Pilate (15:13,14) and his soldiers (15:20,27).
The same vocabulary relates other designations to Son of Man and/or King of
the Jews. Jesus is addressed as Rabbi (14:45) by the one handing him over
(Trapa8i8GHii, 14:44; cf. 9:31; 10:33a, 33b; 14:21, 41 for the Son of Man). The
Christ, Son of the Blessed, the one employing the divine appellation (14:61-62)
is condemned (KaTOKptyo) as deserving death (Gdvaros, 14:64; cf. 10:33 for
Son of Man). The Christ and King of Israel is on a cross (orraupos, 15:32; cf.
QTaupoo), 15:13, 14, 20, 27 for King of the Jews); and Jesus the Nazarene rises
(eyeipo), 16:6).32
The second area of development, which concerns the Son of Man's parousaic
identity and activity, arises through repetition of will come (epxo|im). The Son
of Man will come in the Father's glory (86£a) with the holy messengers
(ayyeAoi, 8:38; cf. Dan 7:13-14), in clouds (v€<|>eXTi) with great power
(8i3va[iis) and glory (13:26; cf. Dan 7:13-14) and send (dtroaTeXXa)) messen-
(8:27-30; cf. 1:1) and the extensive repetition of the same vocabulary in similarly structured passages
indicate that the linkage of "Son of Man" to "hand over," "be killed," and "rise" is not native to the
authorial audience's preexisting beliefs: see Pryke, who attributes to Markan redaction all such state-
ments (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33-34, 45; 14:21a, 21b, 41) {Redactional Style, 17-22). In contrast, this
linkage is central to the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs.
30. If God is the implied agent of the handing over of the Son of Man in 14:21, then repetition of
Trapa8i8o>iu without a narrated agent in 9:31 and 10:33 also may assert an indirect positive relation-
ship for the Son of Man with God: see Eugene LaVerdiere, who deems all passive voice occurrences
of Trapa8i8(jjp L to imply divine agency {The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel
According to Mark. II. [Collegeville,Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999], 110).
31. The chief priests, scribes, and elders (dnroKTeivu, 8:31), the gentiles (OLTTOKTCLVW, 10:34),
that human being (Trapa8i'8<on.i, 14:21), and the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin (KcrraKpivG),
14:64; cf. 14:55) are indirectly negatively related to the Son of Man on one occasion.
32. Most of the other designations receive contextual linkage to Son of Man and King of the
Jews through vocabulary that coheres with the passion and resurrection aspects of their portrayal.
Thus, Jesus responds to Peter's statement that he is the Christ (8:29) with his teaching about the
necessity of the Son of Man's suffering, being killed, andrising(8:31). The Son of God is recognized
in the manner of his death (15:39; cf. 15:37). The Teacher eats (eaOtw, 14:14) with the one handing
over (Trapa8L8aHu) the Son of Man (14:21). The people of the region of the Gerasenes urge the Son
of the Most High God (5:7) to depart from their territory (5:17). Jesus' townsfolk take offense at
(oKQv8a\iCo[i.ai, 6:3) the Son of Mary.
gers to gather the elect (13:27), and with the clouds of heaven (oupavog, 14:62;
cf. Ps 109:1; Dan 7:13). This vocabulary contextually links Christ (14:61-62),
Son of the Blessed (14:61-62), the divine appellation (14:61-62), and Lord of
the Household (13:35) to Son of Man.
Jesus as the parousaic Son of Man is directly positively related to God or the
Lord of the Vineyard, who similarly will come (epxo|iai, 12:9; cf. 8:38; 13:26;
14:62 for the Son of Man) and indirectly positively related to God as benefactive,
insofar as the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of power (14:62; cf. Ps 110:1)
and come in the glory of his Father (TTCITTJP, 8:38). Among the other designa-
tions, the Beloved Son twice is linked to the voice (<)>(*) W)) from the heavens
(oupav6s)/a cloud (ve<\>e\r\, 1:11/9:7) and through the latter words to the Son of
Man (14:62/13:26; 14:62). Father (Trcrrrjp, 8:38; 13:32; cf. 14:36 for Jesus) links
the parousaic Son of Man (8:38) and Son (13:32) who receives indirect positive
alignment with God (13:32).
Both areas of development assert the Son of Man's direct and indirect positive
alignment with God; and the first area indirectly positively aligns the King of the
Jews and God's people. Contextual links extend these positive alignments to
most of the other repeated designations. The cultivation of indirect negative rela-
tionships, however, predominates for both Son of Man (some human beings and
the chief priests and scribes redundantly and other characters on one occasion)
and King of the Jews (Pilate and his soldiers redundantly). A majority of the
other designations receive indirect negative alignment with the same characters,
especially the betrayer, religious authorities, and demonic forces.33 Linkage of
Christ to the first area of development appears explicitly only in its final occur-
rence (14:61; cf. 14:62-64).
Repetition of designations cultivates two distinct areas of the narrative audi-
ence's beliefs concerning Jesus' identity: Jesus' near future suffering, being
handed over, being killed, and rising (Son of Man, King of the Jews, Christ, Son
of God, Jesus the Nazarene, Teacher, Rabbi, Son of the Blessed, the divine
appellation, King of Israel); and Jesus' parousaic identity and activity (Son of
Man, Christ, Son of the Blessed, the divine appellation, the Son). Son of Man is
the primary vehicle for relating these two areas of development to each other and
to the other designations. Jesus' direct positive present (Beloved Son, the Son)
and parousaic (Son of Man) relationship with God also receives repeated asser-
33. Characters are indirectly negatively related to Jesus under other designations: an unclean
spirit to Jesus the Nazarene and the Holy One of God (1:24-25); the Pharisees to Lord of the Sabbath
(2:24-28); unclean spirits (3:11) and Legion (5:7-9) to Son of God (3:11); Jesus' townsfolk to Son of
Mary (6:1-3); the farmers or the chief priests, scribes, and elders (12:12; cf. 11:27) to Beloved Son
(12:6-7); the winds and sea (4:39), disciples (4:40), the man having many possessions (10:17-22),
the Pharisees and Herodians (12:13-14), the Sadducees (12:18-19), and the betrayer (14:14-18) to
Teacher; the betrayer to Rabbi (14:44-45); and the chief priest and Sanhedrin to Son of the Blessed
and the one employing the divine appellation (14:61-62). Repetition of reject (onToSoKiixdCw) with
the chief priests, scribes, and elders as the explicit (8:31) or textually indicated (12:10; cf. 11:27)
agents links Son of Man and stone (cf. Ps 117:22-23) or Beloved Son as patients and strengthens the
indirect negative relationship with these religious authorities.
tion.34 Most cultivated relationships for designations with characters, however,

are indirect and negative and contrast Jesus with the betrayer (Son of Man,
Teacher, Rabbi), demonic forces (Jesus the Nazarene, Holy One of God), and
especially religious authorities: Pharisees (Son of Man, Lord of the Sabbath),
Pharisees and Herodians (Teacher), Sadducees (Teacher), chief priests and San-
hedrin (Christ, King of Israel, Son of the Blessed, divine appellation), chief priests
(Son of Man, King of the Jews), scribes (Son of Man), chief priests and scribes
(Son of Man), and chief priests, scribes, and elders (Son of Man, Beloved Son).
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about Jesus: Repeated Contexts and Structures
This discussion investigates the beliefs about Jesus cultivated by two repeated
contexts and two repeated structures and then reviews the contribution to Jesus'
characterization of the two repeated contexts identified in the study of God's
characterization.
a. Contextual Repetition of1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32

Repetition of Simon (Ei|±G)v, 1:16a, 16b; 3:16), Andrew ('AvSpeas, 1:16; 3:18),
the brother [of] (6 d8eXcj)6s, 1:16; 3:17), do/make (noiid), 1:17; 3:14, [16]),
James (TctKofios, 1:19; 3:17a, 17b), the [son] of Zebedee (6 TOO Z€(te8aiou,
1:19; 3:17), John ('Iwdwris, 1:19; 3:17), and go forth (aTrepxoum, 1:20; 3:13)
encourages the evocation of 1:16-20 by 3:13-19.35 Evocation of 3:13-19 by
6:6b-13, 30-32 is encouraged by repetition of summon (TTpocrKaXeo), 3:13; 6:7),
go forth (arTepxoum, 3:13; 6:32), do/make (uoiea), 3:14, [16]; 6:30), twelve
(8oj8eKa, 3:14, [16]; 6:7), apostles (cnTooroXoi, 3:14; 6:30), send (ciTToaTeXXa),
[3:14]; 6:7), proclaim (KTipwao, 3:14; 6:12), authority (eôuaia, 3:15; 6:7), and
cast out demons (8ai|i6via eKpdXXo), 3:15; 6:13). Although only TToiea) (1:17;
3:14,16; 6:30) and dTrepxo|iai (1:20; 3:13; 6:32) appear in all three contexts, the
density of parallels of vocabulary between 3:13-19 and the other two passages
facilitates the evocation of 1:16-20 by 3:13-19 and, through their linkage, the
evocation of both 1:16-20 and 3:13-19 by 6:6b-13, 3O-32.36
34. Ernest Best asserts that the cultivated christology of the narrative audience emphasizes the
actions and not the identity of Jesus {Mark: The Gospel as Story [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983],
80-81). This analysis indicates that, although the activity of Jesus is the focus, the identity of Jesus
also receives development.
35. The narration of 2:13-14 also evokes 1:16-20 based on the repetition of vocabulary that
links the calls of Levi (2:13-14), Simon and Andrew (1:16-18), and James and John (1:19-20): go
along (Trapdyw, 1:16; 2:14); along the sea (irapd TT\V GdXaaaav, 1:16; 2:13); see (opdw, 1:16, 19;
2:14); follow (aKoXouGew, 1:18; 2:14a, 14b); and the [son] of (6 TOU, 1:19; 2:14). The fact that
1:16-20 has a two-part constituent structure, 1:16-18/19-20 (see van lersel, Mark, 127-29) does not
detract from its inclusion in the discussion of contextual repetition; for only the vocabulary and not
the structure of 1:16-20 is repeated in 3:13-19 and 6:6b-13, 30-32.
36. Evocation of both 1:16-20 and 3:13-19 by 6:6b-l3, 30-32 also is encouraged by the fact
that 3:13-19 begins by introducing "go forth" and "do" from 1:16-20, then presents vocabulary that
This repeated context emphasizes the agency of Jesus and his disciples and
presents a development from Jesus calling individuals to follow him (1:16-20),
to Jesus making a special group of followers whom he designates as the twelve or
apostles (3:13-19), to Jesus sending the twelve or apostles to undertake actions
previously attributed to Jesus (6:6b-13, 30-32). This repeated context con-
tributes to Jesus' portrayal in three ways. First, it presents five verbs that directly
positively relate and identify the disciples/Jesus as agents: cast out (eKpdXXco,
3:15; 6:13/1:34, 39; 3:22; 7:26); teach (8i8daK0); 6:30/1:21,22; 2:13; 4:1, 2; 6:2,
34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:14, 35; 14:49); heal (e<EpaTrei>0D, 6:13/1:34; 3:2,
10; 6:5); proclaim (KT|piKja(o, 3:14; 6:12/1:14, 38, 39); and do or make (uoieo),
6:30/1:17; 3:8, 14, 16; 5:20; 6:5; 7:37a, 37b; 10:51; 11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; 15:14).
Second, it relates a majority of Jesus' repeated actions and plays a pivotal role in
cultivating the specialized connotation of do/make (Troiew) to designate all of
Jesus' saving actions. The narrative rhetoric, however, accomplishes this in a
novel way. Cast out demons, heal, and proclaim are contextually linked only in
6:6b-13, 30-32, in which the twelve (and not Jesus) are the agents; and it is the
twelve as apostles who designate these actions by do/make (6:30). Repetition of
TroLea) with both Jesus (1:17; 3:14, 16) and the twelve or apostles (6:30) within
this repeated context then relates this development to Jesus, so that the portrayal
of the twelve becomes the vehicle for developments in the portrayal of Jesus.
This strengthens the identification of the twelve with Jesus. Third, this repeated
context also relates these actions to particular attributes of Jesus. Jesus wants
(GeXcj, 3:13) and acts positively in response, and Jesus is handed over (irapa8i-
8a)|iL, 3:19). The disciples are directly positively related to Jesus in having
authority (e£ouaiav ex^, 3:15; 6:7); and the reservation of this attribute to the
disciples within this repeated context again makes the disciples the vehicle for
linking disparate elements of Jesus' characterization. The straightforward narra-
tion of 1:16-20 and the straightforward introduction of new content in the latter
passages indicate that repetition of this context constitutes a sophisticating
rhetorical strategy.
b. Contextual Repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26

The contextual repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 links a series of
actions and attributes whose development is reserved almost exclusively to these
passages. Bread (apTos, 6:37, 38, 41a, 41b, [44]; 8:4, 5, 6; 14:22), give (818(411,
6:37a, 37b, 41; 8:6; 14:22, 23), eat (eaGio), 6:36, 37a, 37b, 42, 44; 8:1, 2, 8;
14:22), bless (euXoyeco, 6:41; 8:7; 14:22), break ([KctTa]KXd(D, [6:41]; 8:6;
undergoes repetition in 6:6b-l 3,30-32 prior to repeating the remaining words and phrases that evoke
1:16-20. Thus, 3:13-19 brackets all of the vocabulary, except "summon," that is repeated in 6:6b-l 3,
30-32 within repeated vocabulary from 1:16-20. Such bracketing reinforces the resulting contextual
linkage among all of the noted words and phrases. Repetition of vocabulary from 3:13-19 within
6:6b-13, 30-32 then evokes the entire former context; and the near occurrence of "do" and "go forth"
in 6:30-32 concludes the third context by emphasizing the only specific vocabulary that appears in all
three contexts.
14:22), and take (Xappdvo), 6:41; 8:6; 14:22a, 22b, 23) link 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and
14:22-26 and ensure that the latter passage[s] evoke the former. Evocation of
6:33-44 by 8:1-10 further is encouraged by repetition of dismiss (aTToXvo), 6:36;
8:3, 9), fish (ixBfe, 6:41a, 41b, 43; cf. 8:7 for ixOuSioi/), fragment (KXdaâ,
6:43; 8:8), disciple (p.a6r)Trjs, 6:35, 41; 8:1, 4, 6, 10), distribute (TrapaTL0r||iL,
6:41; 8:6, 7), how many breads do you have (Troaous dpTovs €X€T€/exeTe
ap-rous, 6:38; 8:5), be moved with compassion (aTrXayx^CoMâ, 6:34; 8:2),
and satisfy (xopTd£<o, 6:42; 8:4, 8). Evocation of 8:1-10 by 14:22-26 is encour-
aged by repetition of give thanks (euxapiaTeo), 8:6; 14:23).
This repeated context links the "eucharistic" actions of Jesus, who takes bread,
gives thanks and blesses, breaks bread, and gives it to disciples; of the disciples,
who distribute the bread; and of the crowd that eats the bread to satisfaction.
These passages interpret the bread in reference to the body of Jesus (14:22),
reserve all eucharistic actions except distributing and eating to Jesus, and estab-
lish the potential for the disciples' direct positive relationship with Jesus only if
they give (6:37) this bread to others in imitation of Jesus (6:41; 8:6; 14:22). Rep-
etition of aixoXvu) asserts that Jesus does not dismiss the crowd with nothing to
eat (6:36; 8:3) until after they are satisfied by this bread (8:9; cf. 6:45). The con-
cluding reference to Jesus' blood of the covenant that is shed for many (imep
i)|i(i)v) links these eucharistic actions to the "passion" elements of Jesus' por-
trayal, especially to the Son of Man's actions of serving (Siaicovea)) and giving
his life (iliux^v 8L8O)|IL) as a ransom for many (dim TTOXX&V, 10:45). The
straightforward narration of Jesus' actions in 6:33-44 and the consonant devel-
opments within the latter passages indicates that repetition of this context consti-
tutes a sophisticating rhetorical strategy.
c. Structural Repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45

This repeated structure (ch. 1 sec. 2b) links predictions (8:31-32a; 9:30-32;
10:32-34), controversies (8:32b-33; 9:33-34; 10:35-41), and teachings
(8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; 10:42-45). Since only the predictions focus on the charac-
terization of Jesus, this discussion gives detailed consideration to the predictions,
identifies salient contributions concerning Jesus from the controversies and
teachings, and reserves analysis of the remaining content to the study of the dis-
ciples' characterization. The discussion examines the manner in which this
repeated structure relates various designations and vocabulary and determines
whether this repetition constitutes a sophisticating or deconstructive rhetorical
strategy with respect to the characterizations of Jesus and the Son of Man.37
The repeated predictions assert and augment cultivated beliefs about the Son
of Man's near future experience and activity. The predictions are addressed to
similar audiences (Jesus' disciples, 8:31; 9:31; and the twelve, 10:32); and repe-
37. The proposed resolution of constituents has similarities to those proposed by Mary Ann Tol-
bert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1989), 312-13, and used by van Iersel, Mark, 278-338.
tition of Son of Man (8:31; 9:31; 10:33), kill (cm-OKTeli/o), 8:31; 9:31a, 31b;
10:34), after three days ([iera Tpeig rjjiepas, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), andrise(dvia-
Ta|icu, 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) ensures that the former predictions are evoked by the
latter. The first prediction (8:31-32a) relates this content to teach (8i8daKG),
8:31), the divine necessity (del, 8:31), and suffer (rrdaxw, 8:31) and indirectly
negatively relates the elders, chief priests, and scribes to the Son of Man. The
second (9:30-32) repeats teach (SiSdaKG), 9:31), relates hand over (Trapa8i8<i)|ii,
9:31) and fear (<t>opeo|iai, 9:32) to the previous vocabulary, and evaluates nega-
tively and relates the human beings who kill the Son of Man (9:31) to the Son of
Man's previously noted opponents. The third (10:32-34) repeats hand over
(10:33a, 33b) and fear (c|)op€O|iai, 10:32), introduces condemn (KaTdKpiva),
10:33), death (GdvaTos, 10:33; cf. 14:64), ridicule (e|rrraiCa), 10:34), spit on
(eiiTTTua), 10:34; cf. 14:65), and whip (\iaoriy6o), 10:34); and relates these to the
previous vocabulary. It also evaluates negatively the chief priests and scribes
who hand over and condemn the Son of Man to death (10:33) and the gentiles
who ridicule, spit on, whip, and kill him and relates them to the Son of Man's
previous opponents.
The first and third teachings begin with Jesus summoning (TrpoaKaAeo|iai)
the crowd with Jesus' disciples (8:34) and the twelve (10:42) and conclude with
statements that relate the parousaic identity and activity of the Son of Man who
comes (epxopm) in his Father's glory (8:38) to the near future experience and
activity of the Son of Man who serves and gives his life (4>uxily 8i8(0|JLi)asa ran-
som (10:45). The first and second teachings assert the Son of Man's indirect pos-
itive relationship with God who is his father (Tronrrjp, 8:38) and Jesus' indirect
positive relationship with God who sends him (diroaTeXXa), 9:37). The third con-
troversy and teaching clarify what Jesus may or may not do (iroieio, 10:35, 36)
by contrasting what Jesus cannot give (8I8G)|±I), to sit at his right or left in his
glory (10:40; cf 10:37), and what the Son of Man does give, his life as a ransom
for many (10:45).
Since the noted repeated content concerning the Son of Man constitutes the
most concerted development with respect to any designation of Jesus, clarifica-
tion of its repetition as either sophisticating or deconstructive is essential for dis-
tinguishing the beliefs of the authorial and narrative audiences. Previous studies
indicate that the authorial audience already recognizes God's agency in Jesus'
death (ch. 2 sec. 2), that Jesus was killed and rose (ch. 3 sec. la), and that Jesus is
the parousaic Son of Man who will come (ch. 3 sec. lb). Thus, repetition of the
predictions constitutes a sophisticating rhetorical strategy that augments preex-
isting beliefs about God's agency in Jesus' death and Jesus' agency in rising with
coherent content; and repetition of both the teachings and the structures sophisti-
cates preexisting beliefs about Jesus' death and resurrection and his parousaic
identity and activity.
The same repetition, however, is deemed a deconstructive rhetorical strategy
with respect to the Son of Man for two reasons. First, preexisting beliefs already
recognize the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives in forgiving
sins on earth (2:10) and regulating the Sabbath (2:28) and his parousaic identity
in coming (ch. 3 sec. lb). Although the former contexts present challenges to
Jesus by some scribes (2:6) and Pharisees (2:24), Jesus' statements and actions
silence all opposition; and the parousaic Son of Man is presented as glorious and
without rival. These preexisting beliefs do not cohere with necessary suffering
and death in 8:31 and its further specification in the following predictions.38 Sec-
ond, introduction of the first prediction by "it is necessary" (Set, 8:31) imposes a
very positive evaluation on and asserts an irreproachable authority for the event
it delineates; and the placement of Set prior to the actual statement of the Son of
Man's suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising encourages acceptance
of this content in a way that forestalls potential objection. Since the narration
generally introduces some aspect of the event argument (that...) prior to 8et, the
divergent Markan style of 8:31 suggests that the authorial audience is resistant to
this content.39 Since the repeated teachings and structures as a whole relate the
contradictory content about the Son of Man's near future experience and activity
to preexisting beliefs about his parousaic identity and activity, their repetition is
deemed a deconstructive rhetorical strategy. Thus, the repetition of the predic-
tions, teachings, and structure simultaneously sophisticates preexisting beliefs
about Jesus with coherent content and introduces contradictory content about the
Son of Man.
d. Structural Repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65

The second repeated structure has only two constituents: an application of the
designation Christ to one or more characters (8:27-30; 13:21-23; 14:60-61); and
teachings by Jesus about the Son of Man (8:31-9:1; 13:24-27; 14:62-65).40 The
first constituents repeat "say" (Xeyo)) with a content argument containing the
designation Christ (XpicjTos, 8:29; 13:21; 14:61).41 The second constituents
38. This conclusion receives the support of Pryke, who attributes the entirety of 8:31-32a to
Markan composition {Redactional Style, 163).
39. Among the five remaining occurrences of 8et (9:11; 13:7, 10, 14; 14:31), four appear after
the explicit (9:11; 13:10) or contextual (13:7, 14) introduction of the event argument; and the fifth
(14:31), which presents no explicit introduction of the event but does receive narrative preparation
for this content (14:29), similarly relates Jesus (and Peter) to death (auvaiToGvriaKd)):
8el TOV DLOV TOO avGpwTrou . . . (8:31)
'HXiav 8et eXOetv Trparrov; (9:11)
[-rroXeôus Km OLKO&S . . ] 8et yeveaOai (13:7)
e l s TTavTa ra eQvr) . . . Set Kr\pvxQT]vai (13:10)
[TO p86Xi>Yiia . . . ea-rriKOTa] Set (13:14)
8er\ \ie auva.TTO0avetv . . . (14:31)
40. Mary Anne Beavis proposes a detailed repeated structure in 8.27-33 and 14:53, 55-65
(Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4:11 12 [JSNTSup 33; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1989], 116-18). These parallels, however, do not rely on repeated vocabu-
lary and so do not constitute examples of structural repetition as defined in ch. 1 sec. 2b.
41. Repetition of Christ within the content argument in these examples satisfies the requirement
for significance with occurrences of Xeyw as noted in ch. 2 sec. 3a.
repeat see (opdd), 9:1; 13:26; 14:62), Son of Man (ulog TOO dvepamou, 8:31, 38;
13:26; 14:62), come (epxoum, 8:38; 13:26; 14:62), and power (Suvauxs, 9:1;
13:26; cf. 13:25 for "powers," 8uvd|iei9; 14:62). Evocation of 8:27-9:1 by
13:19-27 further is encouraged by the repetition of glory (86fct, 8:38; 13:26) and
messenger (ayyeXos, 8:38; 13:27). Cloud (ve$eXr\9 13:26; 14:62) and heaven/
sky (oupavog, 13:25, 27; 14:62) encourage the evocation of 13:24-27 by
14:62-65; and death (OdvaTog, 9:1; 14:64) the evocation of 8:31-9:1 by
14:62-65.
The structure's first occurrence links Peter's statement that Jesus is the Christ
(8:29) to Jesus' teachings about the Son of Man's necessary near future suffer-
ing, being rejected, being killed, and rising (8:31) and his parousaic identity and
activity in coming (8:38). The second links the false identification of another as
the Christ (13:21) and particular actions by false christs and false prophets
(13:22) to Jesus' teaching about the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity
(13:26-27). The third links Jesus as Christ and Son of the Blessed (14:61) to
Jesus' teachings about the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity (14:62)
and his condemnation as deserving death (14:64).
This structure's threefold linkage of Christ to teachings about the Son of Man is
deemed a sophisticating rhetorical strategy with respect to the characterization of
Jesus. Since the content concerning the Son of Man coheres with preexisting
beliefs about Jesus and the authorial audience already recognizes that Jesus is the
Christ, linkage of the Christ and Son of Man serves only to sophisticate preexist-
ing beliefs about Jesus. In contrast, cultivated beliefs concerning the Son of Man's
necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising (8:31-9:1) do not
cohere with the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning the Son of
Man. The only prior occurrence of Christ in 1:1 also appears in the context of
twenty-one asserted actions and attributes (ch. 2 sec. 6a) that do not cohere with
necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising. Linkage of 8:27-30 to
8:31-9:1 relates equally discordant content to the narrative frames evoked by
Christ, and the structure's repetition then augments these discordant develop-
ments. Thus, repetition of this structure constitutes a deconstructive rhetorical
strategy with respect to the characterization of the Christ.42 Deconstructive repeti-
tion of this structure also relates Christ to similar developments concerning other
designations for Jesus through the Son of Man and assures that the cultivated con-
tent of the narrative frames associated with Jesus' major designations coheres
with the new and contradictory content concerning the Son of Man.
e. Review: Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37

This repeated context (ch. 2 sec. 4a) emphasizes Jesus' indirect positive relation-
ship to God as God's Son (i/ios, 1:1, 11; 12:6a, 6b; *13:32), identifies Jesus as
42. The structural repetition 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 contributes to this development
by coordinating the two designations in their concluding verses: Son of Man in 8:38 and 10:45; and
Christ in 9:41. The incorporation of 8:31-9:1 as the second constituent of 8:27-9:1 then links the
content cultivated by repetition of the first structure to the second structure.
The Rhetoric ofthe Characterization of Jesus 81
Lord [ofthe Household] (Kupios, 1:3; [13:35]) with God as Lord [ofthe Vine-
yard] (1:3; [12:9], 11), and relates Jesus' initial (1:7, 9, 14) and, as Son of Man,
end-time (13:35; 36) coming (epxo|iai) to God's end-time coming (12:9). Con-
textual repetition stresses that Jesus is God's [Beloved] Son (i/ios [dyaTrr|T6s],
1:1, [11]; [12:6a], 6b; 13:32), clarifies that God sent (dTroaTeXXco) God's slaves
(12:2, 4, 5), messenger (1:2), and Beloved Son (12:6a) and identifies Jesus'
household (OIKLCL, 13:34, 35) with God's vineyard (d|±TTeX<iv, 12:1, 8, 9) or peo-
ple (cf. Isa 5:7) and Jesus' slaves (S0OX09,13:34) with God's slaves (12:2,4) and
messenger (dyyeXos, 1:2). This repeated context relates God who went on a
journey (diroSriêa), 12:1) and remains distant until God's end-time coming and
Jesus who is on a journey (dTT68r)|ios, 13:34) and remains distant until his end-
time coming and contrasts the holy Spirit's initial casting out (eKâXXd)) of Jesus
(1:12) with the concluding casting out of Jesus by the chief priests, scribes, and
elders (12:8). The first context contributes that God (1:14) and Jesus (1:1) are
benefactive ofthe gospel (euayyeXiov) that Jesus proclaims (Kripuaao), 1:14).
The second asserts that Jesus/the Beloved Son [/the Son of Man] is the stone
(XLOOS, 12:10) that becomes the head ofthe corner ofthe new temple that Jesus
will build (oLKo8oui<i>, 14:58; 15:29; cf. 12:1 for God who builds and 12:10 for
the chief priests, scribes, and elders who reject Jesus/this stone/the Son of Man).
The third contrasts Jesus/the Son and God's messengers who do not know (ol8a,
13:32) about the day or hour with God who does and directly positively aligns
Jesus' slaves, the disciples, who do not know when Jesus/the Lord ofthe House-
hold is coming (13:35), to Jesus and God's messengers.
f. Review: Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13

This repeated context (ch. 2 sec. 4b) asserts that the gospel (evayyeXiov) of
Jesus (1:1) and God (1:14) is proclaimed (KX)PVO<JU) by Jesus (1:14,15) and must
be proclaimed by his disciples (13:10) and that the disciple who destroys one's
life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel saves it (8:35). It directly positively
relates Jesus as Son of Man (8:31), John the Baptist (1:14), and Jesus' disciples
(13:9,11,12) who are handed over (Trapa8i8<i)[jLL); links Jesus' initial (1:7,9,14)
and, as Son of Man, end-time (8:38) coming (Epxoum) to the coming of God's
reign (9:1); and contrasts these with the coming (13:6) of those who would mis-
lead. It also highlights the contrast between God's reign (paaiXeia), which is
proclaimed by Jesus (1:15) and comes in power (9:1), and human reigns (13:8a,
8b), which rise against each other. This repeated context relates the Son of Man's
necessary (8et) suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising (8:31) to the
disciples' necessary proclaiming ofthe gospel to all the nations (13:10), identi-
fies Peter with Satan (8:33) and Peter's rebuke of Jesus with Satan's testing of
Jesus, and clarifies that the messengers (dyyeXos) who initially prepare Jesus'
way (1:2) and serve Jesus (1:13) will be in his company when he comes as Son of
Man (8:38). It links those who ultimately taste death (BdvaTOs, 9:1) to those
handed over to death and put to death (OavaToo), 13:12) or hated (13:13) because
of Jesus (cf. 13:9) and his name (cf. 13:13). These considerations interpret God's
reign having come in power in terms of acting to destroy one's life for the sake of
Jesus and the gospel (8:35) and being handed over for the sake of Jesus (13:9).
That is, seeing God's reign having come in power is precisely seeing oneself and
others having destroyed life, having died, or having been handed over for the
sake of Jesus and the gospel.
4. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus

Cultivated beliefs about Jesus are related to each other and incorporated into the
narrative frame associated with Jesus either directly through the contextual repeti-
tion of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32 and 6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26 or by
the narrative frames associated with the Son of Man and then through these narra-
tive frames into those associated with Jesus. The organization and incorporation
of cultivated beliefs into the narrative frames associated with the Son of Man
occurs in two ways. First, the repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45
directly organizes cultivated content about the Son of Man mid, through 8:31-9:1,
incorporates content about the Christ cultivated in the structural repetition of
8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 and content about the Son of Man and other
designations cultivated in the contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31—9:1; and
13:3-13. Second, cultivated beliefs emphasizing the passion elements of Jesus'
portrayal under other designations are organized and incorporated into the narra-
tive frames associated with these designations and then related thematically and
through vocabulary to parallel developments concerning the Son of Man. Here the
contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 relates and organizes cul-
tivated beliefs within the narrative frames associated with Christ, Son of God,
Beloved Son, Son, and Lord of the Household; whereas cultivated beliefs associ-
ated with other designations are linked individually to the Son of Man.
The extensive cultivated beliefs about Jesus and multiple avenues for relating
them complicate the graphic re-presentation of their rhetorical organization and
incorporation. Appendix B indicates the organization and incorporation of culti-
vated content directly into the narrative frames associated with Jesus and the Son
of Man or through 8:31-9:1 by double vertical lines (||) and the contribution of
constituents of repeated contexts and structures by a single vertical line (|). When
the organization of cultivated beliefs occurs exclusively or in part through other
characters, primarily Jesus' disciples and secondarily God, vocabulary pertaining
to these characters is marked with an asterisk (*). Minor designations are
enclosed in parentheses () and appear to the left of their associated vocabulary;
and a word appearing twice under the same context indicates its use with two dif-
ferent semantic roles. For the sake of economy, vocabulary occurring only in
8:31-9:1 is noted only under the first constituents of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and
10:32-45 even though this vocabulary contributes to multiple repeated contexts
and structures. Repeated listings of the same vocabulary in separate occurrences
of 8:31-9:1 indicates distinct instances of contextual repetition of the same
vocabulary. Finally, only vocabulary pertaining to Jesus' actions and attributes

are noted; relationships among repeated contexts are noted by a plus sign (+);
contexts and structures containing all or part of 8:27-9:1 appear consecutively
under an initial heading of 8:31-9:1; and passages and contextually repeated
words are enclosed in brackets [].
Of the four repeated words not appearing in repeated contexts and structures,
forgive (d<()ir)|ii, 2:5, 9, 10) and pray (Trpocxeijxo|±ai, 1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39)
are incorporated under do/make (Troieo)), which designates all of Jesus' saving
actions. Die (diToGvrjaKG), 15:44a, 44b) is linked thematically to kill (diro-
); and, as explained in chapter 4, mother, brothers [and sisters] (inyrrip,
H [KGI! a8eXc|>ai], 3:33a, 33b, 34a, 34b, 35) are linked to Jesus' character-
ization through that of the disciples.
5. The Narrative Rhetoric of Jesus'Characterization

Repetition of vocabulary, designations, contexts, and structures that cultivates
content for the narrative frames associated with Jesus and his designations also
contributes to other narrative developments. The following discussions investi-
gate such contributions by the characterizations of Jesus, the Son of Man, and the
Christ.
a. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus

The narrative rhetoric of Jesus' characterization makes distinctive contributions
to the reliability of the narration, to the cultivation of beliefs about the Son of
Man and Christ, and to the characterization of the disciples. First, the cultivation
of beliefs about Jesus consistently relies on sophisticating repetition, which
appears in every chapter of the narration. The following table (p. 84), which, for
the sake of economy, presents only a selection of repeated agent references to
Jesus, notes by chapter with an asterisk the second and following occurrences of
the same word with Jesus as agent.
The characterization of Jesus exclusively through sophisticating repetition
ensures the narration's continuing reliability for the authorial audience, whose
core beliefs about Jesus never are challenged, and cultivates for the narrative
audience an expectation for continued sophistication of beliefs about Jesus.
Second, repetition of structures that constitutes a sophisticating rhetorical
strategy in cultivating beliefs about Jesus simultaneously constitutes a decon-
structive rhetorical strategy in cultivating beliefs about Son of Man and Christ.43
The fact that these repeated structures continue to evoke the preinterpreted con-
tent of the narrative frames associated with Jesus assures the ongoing reliability
of the narration for the authorial audience even as the narrative rhetoric cultivates
for the narrative audience divergent beliefs about the Son of Man and Christ.
43. Deconstructive repetition also redundantly relates "King of the Jews" to "be crucified" and
to the "passion" elements associated with the Son of Man.
agent \ chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
aviara\iai *
* * * * * *
dTToaTeXXa)
*
d(J)LT]|IL
*
dct>LTl|lL
* *
eKpdXXco
* * * * * * * * * *
8i8daK(o
8L8O)|IL * * * *
*
eyeipco
€TTLTL|lda) * * *
* *
OepaTreuco
*
KTjpijaaa)
TT p o GC1J Y 0IJL Ot L * *
(j (1)^(1)
* * *
Third, just as the characterization of God contributes significantly to the por-

trayal of Jesus by introducing numerous instances of Jesus' direct and indirect
positive alignment with God and by ascribing to Jesus actions and attributes pre-
viously predicated of God, the characterization of Jesus contributes to the por-
trayal of the disciples by introducing instances of the disciples' direct and
indirect alignment with Jesus and by ascribing to the disciples actions and attri-
butes previously attributed to Jesus. The parallel, however, is not complete; for,
whereas the characterization of God consistently positively aligns Jesus with
God, the characterization of Jesus both positively and negatively aligns the disci-
ples with Jesus. The previous study's limited examples of the disciples' align-
ment with Jesus reveal a sequential pattern of development that receives further
consideration in chapter 4. The following table (p. 85) gives a first indication of
this pattern by presenting vocabulary repeated in the characterization of Jesus
that also appears in the portrayal of the disciples and by classifying this vocabu-
lary according to the resulting direct positive or negative alignment of the disci-
ples with Jesus.
This table clarifies that the disciples' earlier portrayal directly positively aligns
them with Jesus, while their subsequent portrayal introduces numerous instances
of their direct negative relationship with Jesus. Even the contribution of their lat-
ter positive alignments is mitigated by the nature of the events: what two disci-
ples do (TTOKEG), 11:3, 5) in untying and bringing the colt is incommensurate with
what the twelve formerly did (6:30) in preaching, casting out demons, teaching,
and healing; and the positive alignment of Peter, James, John, and Andrew with
Jesus through hand over (TTapa8i8u)|±i, 13:9, 11) is reserved to future realization.
This cultivates for the narrative audience a recognition of the increasingly diver-
gent portrayals of Jesus and the disciples.
Vocabulary Positive Negative
Troieu) disciples (2:23,24)

Ktipiiaao) twelve/apostles (3:14)
twelve (3:15)
twelve/apostles (3:15)
KTipuaaw twelve (6:12)
EKpdXXa) twelve (6:13)
Oepatreiia) twelve (6:13)
TTOLeO) apostles (6:30)
8i8daKco apostles (6:30)
8L8OJ|IL disciples (6:37a)
8L8O)|IL disciples [6:37b]
eTTLTL|lda) Peter (8:32)
TTOL60) Peter, James, John (9:5)
tTTLTLpLdd) disciples (10:13)
dc|)iT]|iL (permit) disciples (10:14)
eTTLTL^ldaJ disciples et al. (10:48)
TTOLCO) two disciples (11:3, 5)
Trapa8L8oj[iL Peter, James, John, Andrew (13:9,11)
Peter, James, John (14:38)
b. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Son of Man

Deconstructive repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 cultivates beliefs
about the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being handed over, being killed, and
rising. The direct predication of this content with the Son of Man as subject of
the verbs in 8:31 contradicts not only the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs
that emphasize the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives and his
parousaic identity and activity but also the narrative audience's sophisticated
beliefs about the Son of Man's present exercise of divine prerogatives in forgiv-
ing sins. Introduction of this content by 8et (8:31) forestalls its outright rejection
through a warrant asserting divine necessity, and the narrative rhetoric then
attempts to ensure its viability for the narrative audience in five ways. First, the
structural linkage of 8:31 and 8:38 identifies the Son of Man who suffers, is
rejected, is killed, and rises with the Son of Man who comes in the glory of his
Father and relates the contradictory content to preexisting content in such a way
that rejection of the former requires rejection of the latter. Second, the initial
occurrence of the structure indicates that rejecting the contradictory content
aligns one with Satan and constitutes erroneous thinking (c|>povea)) that places
one in opposition to Jesus (8:33). Third, the initial teaching asserts the potential
for one who accepts this content to become beneficiary of the Son of Man's
parousaic identity and activity (8:38) and to see the reign of God having come in
power (9:1). Fourth, the initial teaching also combines appeals to the disciple's
self-interest in statements employing want (GeXo) with warnings about the con-
sequences of rejecting this content: one wanting to be Jesus' disciple (8:34) and
to save one's life (8:35) must accept this contradictory content; and one rejecting
this content will lose one's life (8:35), and the Son of Man will be ashamed of
that one when he comes (8:38). Fifth, subsequent teachings continue to combine
appeals (GeXco, 9:35; 10:35, 36) with warnings (9:39; 10:43) and to clarify poten-
tial benefits for one accepting this content (9:41; 10:45).
c. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Christ

Deconstructive repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 links content
concerning the Son of Man's necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed,
and rising to the Christ. The previous structure asserts this contradictory content
directly with the Son of Man as the subject of particular verbs, whereas this
structure relates this content to the Christ only indirectly through its structural
linkage with Son of Man. The narrative frames associated with Christ by nature
are resistant to the introduction of such contradictory content, and the more
oblique means of its cultivation indicates that the narrative frames associated
with Christ offer greater resistance to its introduction than do those associated
with Son of Man. This greater resistance in turn implies that Christ holds a posi-
tion of greater prominence within the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs
about Jesus.44 Structural linkage of these designations, however, insinuates the
directly cultivated discordant content about the Son of Man into the narrative
audience's cultivated beliefs about the Christ in a manner that avoids any overt
assault on the authorial audience's beliefs about the Christ, thereby forestalling
its outright rejection.45
The next occurrence of the structure (13:19-27) continues this covert approach
by evoking not only 8:27-9:1 but the entirety of the content concerning the Son
of Man cultivated in the repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45. Here the
fact that 8:31-9:1 is the second constituent of 8:27-9:1 relates the two structures
in their initial occurrences and encourages the evocation of 9:30-41 and
10:32-35 whenever 8:31-9:1 is evoked.46 Within 13:19-27, the warning that
signs and wonders assumed to identify the Christ and true prophets actually iden-
tify false christs and false prophets (13:21-22) joins with Jesus' direct command,
"don't believe" (13:21), to imply that the authorial audience is characterized by
44. This greater prominence is confirmed by the narration of 1:1, which establishes the initial
reliability of the narration. As the first designation applied to Jesus, Christ bears the greatest burden
in asserting this reliability; and its function in 1:1 locates Christ at the center of the matrix of the
authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about Jesus.
45. The following investigations indicate that the cultivation of the narrative audience's beliefs
through insinuation also appears in various aspects of the portrayal of the disciples.
46. Repetition of vocabulary also contributes to the evocation of the first structure. Son of Man
(8:31, 38; 9:31; 10:33, 45/13:26); see (9:1/13:26); come (8:38; 9:1/13:26); power (9:1/13:26; cf.
13:25); glory (8:38/13:26); send (9:37/13:27); and angel (8:38/13:27).
just such erroneous beliefs.47 This cultivates for the narrative audience a recogni-
tion of the contrast between the signs and wonders of false christs and false
prophets and the glory and deeds of the parousaic Son of Man and of the implica-
tions of the Son of Man's actions for the ultimate disposition of the elect (13:27).
The third occurrence of the structure (14:60-65) reinforces earlier develop-
ments and continues to relate the content of the first repeated structure to
Christ.48 This context also introduces the only direct predication of discordant
content about the Christ through "I am" (ey6 ei|±i, 14:62), whose omitted predi-
cate nominative is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (cf. 14:61). Thus, it is
Jesus as Christ, Son of the Blessed, the one employing the divine appellation
(14:61-62), and Son of Man (14:62) whom the chief priest and all of the chief
priests, scribes, and elders (cf. 14:53) condemn (KcrraKplvG)) as worthy of death
(OdyaTos, 14:64; cf. 10:33) and on whom some spit (e|nrnjo, 14:65; cf. 10:34).
The latter phrases also evoke the third prediction (10:32-34) and verify its con-
tent. The narration of 14:60-65 links the Son of Man's near future (now present)
experience and activity and his parousaic identity and activity and completes the
contribution of content about the Son of Man to the cultivation of beliefs about
the Christ. It also cultivates for the narrative audience a recognition that erro-
neous thinking about Jesus, the Son of Man and the Christ, is the precondition for
Jesus' condemnation as deserving death and leads to one's direct alignment with
the chief priest and the whole Sanhedrin as well as (he chief priests, scribes, and
elders in the moment of their most harshly negative evaluation.
Deconstructive repetition of this structure brings the cultivated content of the
narrative frames associated with Christ into accord with those of the Son of Man
and identifies elements of the authorial audience's beliefs about the Christ as
erroneous. Deconstructive repetition also cultivates a recognition that only rejec-
tion of these erroneous beliefs ensures positive alignment with the parousaic Son
of Man, who will come and send messengers to gather the elect, and negative
alignment with those who condemn Jesus as worthy of death. Insinuation of the
divergent content about the Son of Man into the narrative frames associated with
the Christ arises solely through structural linkage of the two designations until
14:62; and even here Christ is only elliptically implied and not stated. This
47. Robert M. Fowler observes, "The entire apocalyptic discourse is directed not so much to
Jesus' intranarrative audience (Peter, James, John, and Andrew; 13:3) as to Mark's extranarrative
audience" (Let the Reader Understand: Reader Response and the Gospel of Mark [Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991], 85). Hugh M. Humphrey contributes a discussion of the function of the second per-
son plural verb forms in Mark 13 and the manner in which these address Mark's community (He Is
Risen! A New Reading of Mark's Gospel [New York: Paulist, 1992], 116-20). Such direct addresses
of the real audience are made through its narratively immanent representative, the authorial audience.
48. Again repetition of vocabulary contributes to the evocation of thefirststructure: Son of Man
(8.31, 38; 9:31; 10:33, 45/14:62); see (9:1/14:62); come (8:38; 9:1/14:62); power (9:1/14:62); chief
priest[s] (8:31; 10:33/14:60, 61, 63); condemn (10:33/14:64); death (10:33/14:64); and spit on
(10:34/14:65).
ensures the continuing reliability of the narration for the authorial audience,
whose core beliefs about Jesus are not overtly challenged, and satisfies the narra-
tive audience's expectation for continuing sophistication of beliefs about Jesus.49
Thus, the narrative audience's newly cultivated and frequently divergent beliefs
concerning the Son of Man and Christ, as potentially troubling as they may be for
the authorial (and real) audience, find an overarching perspective for coherence
in the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about Jesus and the cultivated con-
tent of the narrative frames associated with Jesus.
6. The Narrative Function of Jesus 'Characterization
The pervasive evocation of preexisting positive content concerning Jesus, the

cultivation of beliefs about Jesus exclusively through sophisticating positive rep-
etition that spans the narration, and the fact that Jesus is the most frequently ref-
erenced character in Mark indicate that the characterization of Jesus constitutes
the primary vehicle for asserting and maintaining the reliability of the narration
for the authorial (and real) audience. Exclusive reliance on sophisticating repeti-
tion ensures that the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs about Jesus cohere
with those of the authorial (and real) audience and encourages their acceptance.
Although cultivated beliefs about Jesus cohere with those of the authorial audi-
ence, they grant greater prominence to God's agency in Jesus' death. This helps
to maintain the viability of the discordant cultivated beliefs concerning the Son
of Man's suffering, being killed, and rising and the linkage of this content to the
Christ. The characterization of Jesus positively aligns the disciples with Jesus
prior to introducing instances of their negative alignment with Jesus. This
encourages both the authorial (and real) audience and the narrative audience to
identify with Jesus' disciples prior to the introduction of negative content that
encourages the narrative audience to distance itself from the disciples.
Deconstructive repetition of the first structure cultivates beliefs that highlight,
relate, and place under divine necessity the Son of Man's near future suffering,
being killed, and rising and his parousaic identity and activity. The same repeti-
tion develops a series of contrasts that negatively evaluate those who are
ashamed of Jesus and his words, including those about the Son of Man. The
structural interpretation of the predictions' content in terms of the Son of Man
serving and giving his life as a ransom places primary focus on the narrative
audience's newly cultivated beliefs about the Son of Man's near future experi-
ence and activity and reserves positive evaluation to those who accept these
49. The cultivation of divergent content through repetition of the first structure that is completed
(10:45) three chapters prior to repetition of the second structure (13:19-27) and the density of posi-
tive sophisticating repetition concerning Jesus' agency in Mark 11 and 12 also may reassert for the
authorial audience any aspects of the narration's reliability undermined in the repetition of the first
structure.
newly cultivated beliefs. In so doing, the characterization of the Son of Man

encourages the rejection of the authorial (and real) audience's erroneous beliefs
about the Son of Man and acceptance of the narrative audience's cultivated
beliefs, which alone offer the prospect of being among the many for whom the
Son of Man gives his life.
Deconstructive repetition of the second structure insinuates the discordant
content about the Son of Man into the narrative frames associated with Christ,
clarifies the deficiency of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs concerning
the Christ and about the signs and wonders that are assumed to identify him, and
directly aligns anyone not characterized by the narrative audience's newly culti-
vated beliefs about the Son of Man and Christ with those who condemn Jesus as
deserving death. These newly cultivated beliefs alone assure one's appropriate
identification of the Christ by the glory and deeds of the parousaic Son of Man
and one's direct negative alignment with those who condemn Jesus to death.
Thus, the characterization of the Christ encourages rejection of the authorial
audience's erroneous beliefs about both the Son of Man and the Christ and
acceptance of the narrative audience's newly cultivated beliefs which alone
ensure that one is positively aligned with the parousaic Son of Man, who, coming
in/with the clouds (13:26/14:62), will send angels to gather the elect (13:27) and
will sit at the right hand of power (14:62).
Chapter 4
T H E RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS' DISCIPLES
of Jesus' disciples and the contribution of the disciples' characterization to other
narrative developments.1 The disciples are the most frequently referenced char-
acters after Jesus; and, as in the previous study, an exhaustive investigation of
these references is not practicable. Further complicating the study are the evoca-
tion of preexisting beliefs that recognize both positive and negative elements of
the disciples' portrayal and the cultivation of beliefs about the disciples through
both sophisticating and deconstructive repetition. To address these complica-
tions, the study begins by clarifying those preexisting beliefs about the disciples
that receive development in the cultivation of the narrative audience's beliefs. An
examination of the semantic and narrative rhetoric then identifies the beliefs cul-
tivated for the narrative audience through verbal, contextual, and structural repe-
tition. This permits an outline of the rhetorical organization of cultivated beliefs.
An analysis of the narrative rhetoric of the disciples' characterizations then clari-
fies its function within the narrative development.
1. Preexisting Beliefs about the Disciples

The authorial audience's preexisting beliefs about the disciples appear in the
straightforward introduction of Simon, Andrew, James, and John and their
immediate response to Jesus' call to leave (dc|)Lr|(ii, 1:18, 20) work and family
and follow (ctKoXouOea), 1:18) and go behind (omaa), 1:20) Jesus. Also straight-
forward is Jesus' designation of particular disciples (|ia0r)Tat) as the twelve
(8(jL>8€Ka) or apostles (diTooToXoi) who are to preach (Krjpuaatt)) and have
authority (efjouaia) to cast out (eKpdXXo)) demons (3:14-15), the special name
given to Simon (3:16), and the twelve's sending (dTTocrreAA(o) to proclaim and
cast out demons (6:7-13).2 The narration indicates preexisting beliefs that the
1. This study develops topics introduced in Paul Danove, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Mark's
Construction of Discipleship," in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essaysfrom the 1998 Florence
Conference (ed Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Acade-
mic Press, 2002), 289-306.
2. This study assumes that information about the twelve and apostles may be applied to the dis-
ciples at least with respect to the general elements of discipleship: see Ernest Best, "Role of the Dis-
ciples in Mark," NTS 23 (1977): 377-401, here 380-81, who points out that, although Mark
distinguishes to a limited extent between the disciples and the twelve, narratively the two groups are
used similarly. Further justification for this approach to the twelve and apostles appears below.
90
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus' Disciples 91
disciples saw (opdco) the risen Jesus (14:28) and proclaimed the gospel (13:10).
Preexisting negative beliefs about the disciples are evoked in the notices that
Judas Iscariot handed over (irapa8t&op.i, 3:19) Jesus and that the disciples left
(d4>LT)|i.L) Jesus and fled at his arrest (14:50). The introduction of content without
attempts to explain or justify the positive implications for the disciples, espe-
cially in Mark 1-3, indicates that the authorial audience holds the disciples in
high esteem and is familiar with much of the narrative content about them.
2. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples:

Repeated References
Since the number of repeated words and phrases that cultivate beliefs about
Jesus' disciples is large, this discussion limits its focus to repeated words that
occur at least five times and to less frequently occurring words that receive
emphasis through incorporation into repeated contexts and structures. The dis-
cussion of the thirty-two repeated agent and non-agent references identified by
these criteria sequentially investigates repeated vocabulary that cultivates consis-
tently positive, consistently negative, initially positive and subsequently nega-
tive, and potentially positive but never realized beliefs about the disciples. Agent
references, which are most common (fifteen of thirty-two), receive first consider-
ation under each category; and vocabulary investigated in the discussion of
the characterization of Jesus (ch. 3 sec. 2) receives only summary statement. The
discussion concludes by examining three repeated designations for Jesus'
disciples.
a. Cultivated Positive Beliefs about the Disciples

Ten repeated words cultivate consistently positive beliefs about the disciples'
actions (four) and attributes (six).
Go forth (dTTepxoiim) directly positively relates the disciples (1:20; 3:13;
6:32) to Jesus (1:35; 6:32, 46; 7:24; 8:13) and the Syrophoenician woman, who
goes forth (7:30) at Jesus' command (cf. 8:29), and indirectly positively relates
the disciples to Jesus in the two occurrences in which Jesus is the referent of the
goal (1:20; 3:13).3 Directly negatively related to the disciples are those who go
forth to Gehenna (9:34); Judas, who goes forth (14:10) to the chief priests; and
anyone who would go forth (6:36) instead of eating (cf. 6:42,44) the bread from
Jesus.
3. The verb oiTrepxoM.ai has three distinct connotations: (1) "go forth," which requires an agent
and a goal introduced by "into" (els, 1:35; 6:32, 36, 46; 7:24, 30; 8:13; 9:34), "behind" (OTTLCHD,
1:20), or "to" (-rrpos, 3:13; 14:10); (2) "leave," which requires an agent and an adjective describing
the state of the subject (10:22); and (3), "go away," which requires an agent and a source introduced
by "from" (d™, 1:42; 5:17) or permissibly omitted (5:20, 24; 6:27, 37; 11:4; 12:12; 14:12; 14:39.
Disciples are agents only with the first usage.
Proclaim (KTWVOOU) directly positively aligns the twelve or apostles (3:14;

6:12) as agents with Jesus (1:14, 38, 39), John the Baptist (1:7), the former
demoniac (5:20), and anyone who proclaims the gospel (13:10; 14:9).4
Distribute (TrapaTi6r)|±i, 6:41; 8:6, 7) indirectly positively relates the disciples
to the patients, the [bread and] fish that Jesus blesses ([6:41]; 8:7) and the bread
for which Jesus gives thanks (8:6), and to the goal, the crowd (cf. 6:34; 8:1,2).
Drink (TTIVCO) directly positively relates James and John (10:38a, 39b) and the
twelve (14:23) only to Jesus (10:38b, 39a; 14:25) and indirectly positively relates
them to cup (TTOTTIPIOI;, 10:38a, 38b, 39a, 39b; 14:23), which is interpreted in
terms of the Son of Man's being handed over, condemned to death, spat on,
killed, killed and rising (cf. 10:33-34), and giving his life (cf. 10:45) and as
Jesus' blood, which is of the covenant and shed for many (cf. 14:24). This verb
links the disciples to the "passion" elements of Jesus' portrayal.
Give (8IS(I)^JLI) indirectly positively relates the disciples as goal only to Jesus
and God as agents. God gives (4:11) the mystery of God's reign to those around
Jesus with the twelve and will give (13:11) to Peter, James, John, and Andrew
what they will say. Jesus/the Lord of the Household gives (6:7/13:34) authority
(eôuaia) to the twelve/his slaves. Jesus gives to his disciples the bread which he
blesses (6:41) and for which he gives thanks (8:6). Jesus gives to the twelve the
bread which he blesses and interprets as his body (14:22) and the cup, which he
interprets in terms of his blood (14:23). This action is not realized with respect to
disciples only in 10:37, in which James and John ask that Jesus give to them to sit
at his right and left in his glory, and in 10:40, in which Jesus states that this is not
his to give. Here neither the giving or sitting at Jesus' right and left receives neg-
ative evaluation; for God prepares and gives these positions (cf. 10:40). Instead,
it is the fact that James and John want (OeXw, 10:35, 36) and act to secure these
positions for themselves that receives negative evaluation.
Authority (eôvaia) directly positively relates the twelve/the slaves of the
Lord of the Household as benefactive (3:15; 6:7/13:34) to Jesus (1:22, 27;
11:28a, 28b, 29, 33; cf. 2:10 for the Son of Man).5
Send (ctTToaTeXXo)) directly positively relates the patients, the twelve or apos-
tles (3:14; 6:7; cf. 6:30) and two disciples (11:1; 14:13), to Jesus (9:37)/the
Beloved Son (12:6) and the slaves of the Lord of the Vineyard (12:2,4; cf. 12:5),
who may be taken to include John the Baptist/Elijah (1:2; cf. 1:4/Mal 3:1). The
twelve are the only named characters whose sending is tied through a purpose
clause to particular actions and attributes: proclaiming (Kriptiaaca, 3:14) and hav-
ing authority (eôvoia) to cast out (etcpaXXw) demons (3:15). These subse-
4. When not used intransitively (1:38, 39; 3:14; 7:36), the content of Kripucraw is the gospel
(1:14; 13:10; 14:9), repentance (6:12), the baptism of John (1:4, 8) and Jesus (1:8), or l<what Jesus did
for him" (5:20).
5. The discussion concerning who has given authority to Jesus (11:28, 33) introduces a contrast
between what is from heaven (e£ ovpavov) and what is from human beings (e£ ctyOpcu-nw). This
contrast is part of a broader development that receives consideration below.
quently are realized when Jesus sends them and gives (SiScoui) them authority
(6:7) and they proclaim (6:12), cast out demons, heal (6:13), and teach (6:30 [as
apostles]).6
Hand over (TTapa8i8u)|±i) directly positively aligns the patients Peter, James,
John, and Andrew (13:9, 11) with Jesus/the Son of Man (3:19; 14:18, 42, 44;
15:1, 10, 15/9:31; 10:33; 14:21, 41) and the brother handed over by a brother
(13:12) because of Jesus' name (cf. 13:13). Indirectly negatively related to them
are the agents Judas (3:19; 14:21,41), the chief priests and scribes (10:33), those
handing over brothers or sisters because of Jesus' name (13:12), the Sanhedrin
(15:1), the chief priests (15:10), and Pilate (15:15).7
Summon (TrpoaKaXeo|±ai) directly positively relates the patients Jesus' disci-
ples (8:1; 12:43), the twelve (3:13; 6:7; 10:42), the crowd (3:23; 7:14), and the
crowd with his disciples (8:34), and indirectly positively relates them to Jesus as
agent. This verb introduces significant actions by Jesus for the twelve whom he
makes (uoieo), 3:14) and sends (diroaTeXXa), 6:7; cf. 3:14).
Satisfy (xopTd£a)) directly positively relates the patients the disciples and
crowd (6:42; 8:8), the crowd (8:4), and the children/Jews (7:27) and indirectly
relates Jesus' disciples to the bread [and fish] which Jesus blesses ([6:41]; 8:7)
and for which he gives thanks (8:6 ).
As previously noted (ch. 3 sec. 2), the disciples who proclaim (Krjpwaa)),
have authority (e£owia), and are sent (dTTOQTeXXo)) also are identified with
Jesus.
b. Cultivated Negative Beliefs about the Disciples

Six repeated references associated with five verbs cultivate consistently negative
beliefs about the disciples either by sophisticating preexisting negative beliefs or
by developing a negative interpretation of preexisting neutral or ambiguous
beliefs about them.
Discuss (8iaXoyt£(HJLai) negatively evaluates and directly relates the disciples
and twelve to the scribes and to the chief priests, scribes, and elders. The disci-
ples (cf. 8:10), who discuss (8:16,17) that they have no bread, are depicted as not
understanding Jesus' statements and having a hardened heart (cf. 8:17). The dis-
ciples, who discuss (9:33) who is greatest, are corrected in Jesus' teaching to the
twelve about being last and servant of all (cf. 9:35). The scribes, who discuss
6. God's sending of Jesus/the Beloved Son (9:37/12:6) who sends the twelve or apostles/disci-
ples (3:14; 6:7/11:1; 14:13) identifies God as the ultimate agent (through Jesus) of the sending of the
twelve/apostles/disciples. That God also sent a messenger to prepare Jesus' way (1:2) interprets the
sending of the twelve/apostles/disciples as a preparation for the advent of Jesus.
7. Elsewhere TTapciSiSwiii is intransitive (4:29) or has nonhuman (7:13) or unspecified (13:12)
referents. Since the handing over of John the Baptist and Jesus is intimately tied to their deaths (John
1:14; cf. 6:14-29; and Jesus as Son of Man, 9:31; 10:33), the disciples who will be handed over (13:9,
11) because of Jesus (13.9; cf. 8.35) possibly to their deaths (13:12) again receive direct alignment
with John and Jesus and share in their positive evaluation.
(2:6, 8a, 8b) in their hearts that Jesus is blaspheming, are countered by Jesus'
statements and action (2:8-12); and the chief priests, scribes, and elders, who
discuss (11:31) the origin of John's baptism, are revealed as lacking faith and
fearing the crowd (11:31-32), which esteems Jesus (11:18).
Rebuke (emTiiidw) directly negatively relates to Jesus (1:25; 3:12; 4:39; 8:30,
33; 9:25) the agents Peter (8:32), the disciples (10:13), and disciples and the
crowd (10:48); for in each case Jesus explicitly contradicts their actions (8:33;
10:14; 10:49).
Rebuke (emTiiida)) negatively evaluates and directly relates to each other the
experiencers unclean spiritfs] (1:25; [3:12]), the wind (4:39), the disciples and
Peter (8:30), Peter (8:33), and an unspeaking and deaf spirit (9:25) and indirectly
negatively relates them to Jesus as agent. In each case, their negative evaluation
as experiencer depends on how they act with respect to the content of experience
(ch. 3 sec. 2b). The negative evaluation of the disciples and Peter (8:30) results
from Peter's action of stating that Jesus is the Christ (cf. 8:29); and that of Peter
(8:33) from his action of rebuking Jesus. That of the unclean spirit[s] (1:25;
[3:12]) results from their action of crying out Jesus' identity (cf. 1:23-25;
[3:11-12]); that of the wind (4:39) for causing the boat to fill up; and that of the
unspeaking and deaf spirit (9:25) from seizing (cf. 9:18, 22) and casting a boy
into the fire in order to destroy him (cf. 9:22).
Not know (ot8a, 4:13; 9:6; 10:38; 13:33, 35; 14:40, 68, 71) consistently real-
izes negative evaluations for disciples as experiencers and directly negatively
relates them to God's messengers and Son (13:32). Those around Jesus with the
twelve do not know (4:13) Jesus' parable and ask Jesus about his parables (cf.
4:10) despite the fact that God has given to them the mystery of God's reign (cf.
4:11). Peter does not know (9:6) what he might respond and makes a negatively
evaluated statement (cf. 9:5) because of fear (cf. 9:6). James and John do not
know (10:38) what they are asking but request it anyway (cf. 10:37). Jesus
asserts the potential for the positive evaluation of Peter, James, John, and
Andrew as slaves of the Lord of the Vineyard who do not know when the time
is/when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:33/35) if they act by remaining
alert (ypTjyopeo), 13:34, 35, 37). However, the narration realizes only a negative
evaluation for Peter, James, and John, who subsequently do not remain alert
(14:34, 37, 38) and do not know (14:40) what they might respond. Peter claims
not to know (14:68) the content of the statement that he was with Jesus and acts
by denying its content; and Peter claims not to know (14:71) Jesus and responds
by cursing and swearing.8
Understand {<jvvir\\ii) also consistently negatively evaluates the disciples as
experiencers. The straightforward notice that those around Jesus with the twelve
8. The lone example of oi8a without "not" presents a similar development. Despite the fact that
the twelve know (10:42) that those seeming to rule the gentiles lord over them and that their great
ones exercise authority over them, James and John ask to sit at the right and left of Jesus (cf. 10:37);
and the ten in response become angry with James and John (cf. 10:41).
asked Jesus about his parables (4:10) indicates preexisting beliefs that Jesus' dis-
ciples did not always understand his teachings. Those who do not understand
(4:12; cf. Isa 6:9-10) then are negatively evaluated as outsiders for whom every-
thing is in parables.9 The context (cf. 4:10-12) identifies Jesus' parables as the
content that those around Jesus with the twelve do not understand (4:13) and
indicates that they do not respond properly to reception of the mystery of the
reign of God by turning. The disciples who see Jesus walking on the sea shout
out (cf. 6:49) from fear (cf. 6:50), which the narratorial statement of 6:52 inter-
prets as their response to not understanding about the bread and having a hard-
ened heart.10 The disciples then act on their failure to understand (8:17, 21) by
discussing (8iaXoyiCo|iai, 8:16) that they have no bread, which again indicates
that their heart is hardened (8:17; cf. 6:52). n This interprets the disciples' nega-
tively evaluated action as their continuing failure to turn in response to being
given the mystery of the reign of God.
Fear (<j>opeo|iai) consistently imposes a negative evaluation on disciples as
experiences.12 In 4:41 the disciples' fear reflects their lack of faith (cf. 4:40) and
results in their improper response of questioning Jesus' concern (cf. 4:38) and
identity (cf. 4:41). The disciples who fear (6:50) shout out (cf. 6:49) and are
depicted as lacking understanding (ovvir\\ii) and having a hardened heart (cf.
9. E. J. Pryke attributes all but one occurrence of <JVVIX)[LI to authorial composition (Redactional
Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978], 137). Developments concerning not understanding
(auvtruii) and not knowing (ol8a) are contextually linked in 4:10—13.
10. Suzanne Watts Henderson interprets the source of the disciples' negative evaluation as their
failure to understand Jesus' identity and to act on the pattern of Jesus ('"Concerning the Loaves':
Comprehending Incomprehension in Mark 6:45-52," JSNT 83 [2001]: 3-25, here 23): see also Eliza-
beth Struthers Malbon, 'The Jesus of Mark and the Sea of Galilee," JBL 103 (1984): 363-77, here
374.
11. Developments concerning auvLTî are linked to 8iaAoyi£oum in 8:16-17. The disciple's
lack of understanding and not knowing (ol8a), which were linked in 4:10-13, receives collateral
development in the straightforward introduction of preexisting beliefs that Jesus questioned the disci-
ples about their failure to understand (voew) his teaching (7:18; 8:17) and that Peter claims not to
know (emaTaum, 14:68) what the slave is saying. Subsequently voew is coordinated first with lack-
ing understanding (aovveros, 7:18) and then with [not] understanding (auvin.ni, 8:17); and the
related word, not know (ayvoew, 9:32), has as its content Jesus' statement about the Son of Man
being handed over, killed, and rising.
12. The authorial audience recognizes that fear (6opeo|iai) may indicate either a positive or a
negative response in general Koine usage and may impose a very positive evaluation on those who
respond to divine activity with "holy awe": see Horst Balz, "(j>opew, <j>o(Seo|jLai, 4>6|Sos, 8eos," TDNT
9:189-219, here 189-97. The straightforward narration of cj>opeou.ai in 6:50 with the disciples as
experiencers indicates that the authorial audience's preexisting positive evaluation of the disciples
accommodates the fact that the disciples at times reacted with fear to Jesus' deeds. In isolation from
the subsequent development concerning <j>o|3<EOiiai and precluding the very negative narratorial com-
ments in 6:52, a range of possible preexisting interpretations ranging from holy awe to negative fear
is possible in 6:50. The authorial audience's primarily positive preexisting evaluation of the disciples,
despite knowledge of their occasional fear, however, could be expected to grant the most positive
interpretation of fear possible in this instance.
6:52).13 This constitutes the first example of verbal repetition that cultivates neg-
ative beliefs about the disciples.14 In 9:32 the disciples' fear prevents them from
inquiring further; and in 10:32 the fear of those following Jesus contradicts
Jesus' earlier command to the disciples (cf. 6:50) who follow him (1:18).
Repetition of ôpeofim directly relates Jesus' disciples to other negatively
evaluated characters. The Gerasenes who fear (5:15) ask Jesus to go from their
region, indicating that they do not want to be with Jesus, a central theme of
3:13-6:6a.15 The fear of the woman with the flow of blood (5:33) initially pre-
vents her from responding to Jesus. In 5:36 Jesus commands Jairus not to fear,
for this would prevent Jairus's continued association with (troubling of) Jesus
(cf. 5:35). Herod's fear (6:20) of John the Baptist is contextually linked to his
actions of having John beheaded (6:16) and imprisoned for speaking God's word
(6:17-18; cf. Lev 18:16). Various religious authorities who fear Jesus (11:18) or
the crowd (11:32; 12:12) that esteems Jesus (cf. 11:18) and John (cf. 11:32) seek
how to destroy (cf. 11:18) and arrest Jesus (cf. 12.12).16 The women's fear (16:8)
precludes their action of passing on the young man's message and results in their
negative evaluation.17 The only occurrence of fearful (eKcôpos < <|>opeo|iai,
9:6) explains why Peter does not speak coherently. Repetition of cf>opeopm con-
tributes to the vilification of the disciples by relating them to characters who
respond to fear with overt actions against Jesus and John the Baptist without
ascribing to the disciples comparable overt actions against Jesus.18
c. Cultivated Positive to Increasingly Negative Beliefs about the Disciples

Four verbs that require agent arguments initially cultivate positive beliefs about
the disciples and subsequently cultivate negative beliefs about them. These verbs
13. Developments concerning <f)opeo|±ai and ovvir\\ii are related in 6:50-52.

14. Mary Ann Tolbert locates the beginning of the cultivation of negative beliefs about the disci-
ples in Simon's pursuit of Jesus (KaTaSioka), 1:36) and the notice about Judas the betrayer (3:19)
(Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989],
195-98). Attributing a negative connotation to KcrraSidko) is dubious, for this word receives no fur-
ther direct narrative development. As noted in ch. 1 sec. 2a., repetition of seek (£r)Tea)), at least in
hindsight, may assert a negative evaluation of the verb's agents in 1.37. Since the authorial audience
already recognizes that Judas handed over Jesus (3:19), the initial occurrence of vocabulary that sub-
sequently cultivates new negative beliefs about the disciples is cj>of3eoimi in 4:41.
15. The significance of "being with Jesus" receives consideration in Klemens Stock, Die Boten
aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhdltnis zwischen Jesus und der Zwolf nach Markus (AnBib 70;
Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975), 7-70.
16. Developments centered on <}>opeo|iai and 8iaAoyiCo|iai are related in 11:31—32.
17. Gerald O'Collins ("The Fearful Silence of Three Women (Mark, 16:8c)," Greg 69 [1988]:
489-503) and Robert H. Lightfoot (The Gospel Message of St. Mark [Oxford. Oxford University
Press, 1950], 88-91) assert that the occurrence of cj>o|3eo|jiai in 16:8 indicates a positive reaction to
the divine and would limit this positive connotation to this one occurrence. The introduction of such a
singular connotation in the last verse of the narrative, however, is untenable. Since ôpeopm has a
consistently negative connotation in its earlier occurrences, the frames evoked by this occurrence
impose evaluations highly resistant to a positive interpretation.
18. See Mary Ann Tolbert, "How the Gospel of Mark Builds Character," Int 47 (1993): 354.
exhibit two patterns of development. Leave (a<\>ir\[Li\ cast out (eKpaXXw), and
do/make (noiea)) initially realize positive evaluations that subsequently are
undermined; and ambiguities in the meaning of follow (aKoXouGea)), which ini-
tially cultivates positive evaluations of disciples, later permit the verb to impose
positive and negative evaluations simultaneously.
Leave (dcj>Crm,L) initially evokes preexisting positive beliefs about Simon and
Andrew, who leave their nets and follow Jesus (1:18), and James and John, who
leave their father in the boat and go forth behind Jesus (1:20).19 In 4:36, the disci-
ples who leave at Jesus' command also receive positive evaluation. In 10:28,
Peter's assertion that he and the disciples (cf. 10:13) have left everything and fol-
lowed Jesus is verified by the previous occurrences of dc|>tr||XL (1:18, 20; 4:36)
and by the notices that Peter and other disciples follow Jesus (1:18; 2:14a, 14b;
6:1). This results in their positive evaluation. In 10:29, however, Jesus reformu-
lates Peter's statement by generalizing the agent from "we" in reference to par-
ticular disciples to the indefinite "anyone" and by specifying that leaving
everything constitutes leaving house, family, and possessions for the sake of
Jesus and the gospel. This new formulation establishes the potential for the future
positive evaluation of any character who fulfills the noted requirements without
realizing this potential with respect to Peter and disciples. The occurrence in
14:50 then realizes a negative evaluation for those who leave Jesus and flee at his
arrest. Since the only characters present are Jesus; those with Judas who came to
arrest Jesus (cf. 14:43); Peter, James, and John (cf. 14:33, 41-43); and Jesus'
other disciples (cf. 14:32), those who leave Jesus and flee are disciples who
receive negative evaluation. Repetition of OK|)LT][IL heightens the contrast between
the final action of the disciples as a group, leaving Jesus and fleeing (14:50), and
their initial actions, leaving nets and following Jesus (1:18) and leaving father
and going behind Jesus (1:20).
Cast out (eK(3dXXo)) initially directly positively aligns the twelve or apostles
(3:15) and the twelve (6:13) as agents with Jesus (1:34,39; 3:22; 7:26) and some-
one casting out demons in Jesus' name (9:38) and indirectly negatively relates
them to the demons that are cast out. The disciples' subsequent failure to cast out
(9:18, 28) the unclean spirit from a boy then directly negatively relates them to
Jesus, who accomplishes this action (cf. 9:25). This undermines the twelve's pre-
vious identification with Jesus through this verb (ch. 3 sec. 2a).
Do/make (irotea)) initially positively evaluates the disciples who, as agent,
make a way (2:23, 24) and are defended by Jesus (cf. 2:25-28). In 6:30 this verb
reprises all of the positively evaluated actions of the twelve as apostles when sent
(6:6b-13). This occurrence also plays an integral role in developing the special-
ized connotation of noieo) to designate all of Jesus' saving actions (ch. 3 sec. 2a).
In 9:5, however, Peter's suggestion to make tents for Jesus, Elijah, and Moses is
19. In this usage, leave (a<|>ir|u.i) requires an agent, a patient, and a location that may be left
unspecified. Two other connotations of acj>ir|p.i, forgive and permit, which require different semantic
roles of their arguments, were clarified in ch. 3 sec. la.
rejected, ascribed to his not knowing what to respond and to the fact that he,
James, and John are afraid (eKôPos). This results in his and their negative eval-
uation. Although the final two occurrences (11:3, 5) positively evaluate two
disciples who do as Jesus commands, their action of untying a colt is in
stark contrast to the saving actions of the twelve or apostles on mission. This
undermines the twelve's previous identification with Jesus through this verb
(ch. 3 sec. 2a).
Follow (otKoXouOeo)) requires an agent and a goal and has the basic meaning
"proceed behind [the goal]," and a specialized meaning "be[come] a disciple [of
Jesus]."20 Both connotations appear in 8:34 in Jesus' statement "If one wants to
follow behind me, let one deny oneself and take up one's cross and follow me,"
where the former occurrence denotes "be[come] a disciple" and the latter "go
behind." The basic meaning also is indicated when Jesus orders two of his disci-
ples to follow someone other than himself (14:13). The initial straightforward
narration of Jesus' calls of Peter and Andrew (1:18) and Levi (2:14a, 14b) can
have their full impact only if the authorial audience already recognizes the verb's
specialized (discipleship) connotation; but, even in these contexts, the basic con-
notation also is enacted. These initial occurrences positively evaluate those who
follow Jesus under both connotations and cultivate an expectation that the basic
and specialized meanings will be linked unless contextual considerations (as
noted above) indicate otherwise.
In five of the nine occurrences of aKoXouOeco with disciples as agent and Jesus
as goal, both the basic and the specialized meanings result in a positive evalua-
tion of disciples: Simon and Andrew (1:18); Levi (2:14a, 14b); Jesus' disciples
(6:1); and Peter and the disciples (10:28).21 To these can be added the potential
positive evaluation of any disciple, who, wanting to follow Jesus, denies oneself,
takes up one's cross, and follows him (8:34a, 34b). Repetition of aKoXovQeo)
directly relates these disciples to many tax collectors and sinners (2:15), a great
multitude (3:7), a great crowd (5:24), Bartimaeus (10:52), and Mary Magdalene,
Mary of James the Lesser and mother of Joses, and Salome (15:41), who also
receive positive evaluation.
In 10:32, the [ones] following (oi (XKoXouGouvTes) Jesus, including the
twelve, fear (<t>op€O|iai) and so are negatively evaluated. This directly relates the
twelve to the negatively evaluated man with many possession whom Jesus
invites to follow (10:21) but who, instead, goes away sad (cf. 10:22).
The remaining three occurrences highlight both the basic and the specialized
connotations of ctKoXouOea) and result in simultaneous positive (basic) and nega-
tive (specialized) evaluations of disciples. In 9:38, John and the remainder of the
twelve (cf. 9:35) prevent someone from casting out (eKpdXXa)) demons by Jesus'
name because he did not follow "us" (the twelve and Jesus). The reference to
20. Gerhard Kittel, "ckoAoueea)," TDNT 1:210-15.

21. Developments concerning dKoAou6e(o and a$ir\\i.i (leave) are linked only in contexts of the
earlier positive evaluation of disciples (1:18; 10:28).
casting out demons highlights the specialized connotation of dtKoXoi;0ea) and

evaluates John and the twelve negatively because Jesus is the only appropriate
referent of the goal with the specialized connotation. However, Jesus' next state-
ment, "For whoever is not against us is for us" (9:40), positively evaluates the
referents of the pronoun, us (Jesus and the twelve), and encourages an interpreta-
tion of (XKoXouGtoi) in 9:38 according to its primary connotation. In 11:9, the
notice that those following shouted and the coordination of those preceding and
those following emphasizes a spatial relationship and encourages interpretation
according to the verb's primary meaning. However, contextual linkage with prior
actions specifically attributed to disciples (11:2-7) or appropriate for disciples
(spreading cloaks and cutting off leafy branches) encourages interpretation
according to the specialized meaning. In this light, coordination of those preced-
ing with those following directly aligns the disciples with those violating the
proper relationship with Jesus, who is supposed to precede (Trpodyco, cf.
10:32).22 Finally, the qualification of Peter's following in 14:54 as occurring
from a distance (aub [taKpoBev) suggests the primary, spatial connotation. How-
ever, the implications of this phrase for specifying the quality of Peter's disciple-
ship in light of his prior flight at Jesus' arrest (14:50), his subsequent threefold
denial of Jesus and his discipleship (14:68-72; cf. 14:30), and his concluding
weeping (14:72) emphasize the specialized connotation.
d. Cultivated Potential but Unrealized Positive Beliefs about the Disciples

Jesus commands (usually with imperative verbs) or predicts (with future
indicative verbs) five repeated actions and seven repeated attributes that have the
potential to evaluate the disciple positively, but this positive potential never is
realized within the narration.
Destroy (dTTo\Xu|ji) asserts but does not realize the potential for the positive
evaluation of the disciple who as agent destroys one's life for the sake of Jesus
and the gospel (8:35b) and gives a cup of water in his name and so does not
destroy one's reward (9:41). Such action would directly positively relate the dis-
ciples to Jesus, who can destroy unclean spirits (1:24), and to God as the Lord of
the Vineyard, who will destroy the farmers of the vineyard (12:9) and directly
negatively relate the disciple to the one who would destroy the new wine by plac-
ing it into old wineskins (2:22), the Pharisees and Herodians/the chief priests and
scribes who would destroy Jesus (3:6/11:18), the storm that could destroy the
disciples (4:38), the one who would save one's life but ultimately destroys it
(8:35a), and the unclean spirit that attempts to destroy a boy (9:22).
Remain alert (ypriyopeo)) would positively evaluate the disciple who remains
alert (13:34, 35, 37) and contrasts this action with sleeping (KaGetjSw, 13:36).23
22. A negative evaluation of those shouting in 11:9 also results in the negative evaluation of the
content of their shout, "Hosanna . . ." (ll:9b-10), and may contribute to an explanation of Jesus'
immediate departure from the temple in 11:11.
23. The straightforward introduction of ypriyopew in 13:34 indicates preexisting beliefs that
Jesus' commands to Peter, James, and John to remain alert (14:34, 38) prior to
his arrest again assert this positive potential; but their failure to do so (13:37)
realizes their negative evaluation. The three notices that Peter (14:37b) and Peter,
James, and John (14:37a, 40) instead sleep recalls the former contrast (13:35-36)
between these verbs and negatively evaluates James, John, and, especially Peter.
Give (8I8OJ(IL) asserts the potential for the positive evaluation of Jairus, his
wife, and Peter, James, and John (cf. 5:37, 40) if they give Jairus's daughter
something to eat (5:43) and of Jesus' disciples if they give the great crowd some-
thing to eat (6:37a). The disciples' immediate response of incomprehension
(6:37b) and their failure to give, however, results in their negative evaluation.24
Speak (XaXew) would positive evaluate the disciple who believes what one
speaks will happen (11:23), who does not worry about what one will speak
(13:1 la) for it will not be the disciple speaking but the holy Spirit (13:11c), and
who will speak about what the woman who anointed Jesus did wherever the
gospel is proclaimed (14:9). Such action would directly positively relate the dis-
ciple to Jesus who speaks [the word] ([2:2], 7; [4:33], 34; 5:35; 6:50; [8:32];
12:1; 14:43), those from Jairus (5:36), and the deaf mute (7:35) and others (7:37)
and directly negatively relate the disciple to demons (1:34). This action is real-
ized only for Peter, who says (14:31) that, if necessary (8et), he would die with
Jesus and not deny him. This contradicts both preexisting and subsequently real-
ized (cf. 14:68, 70, 71) beliefs and so is negatively evaluated.
Pray (Trpoaei>xo|jm) would positively evaluate the disciple who believes that
one will receive that for which one prays (11:24) and who remains alert
(ypriyopeoj) and prays (14:38). This action would relate the disciple directly pos-
itively with Jesus (1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39), indirectly positively with God, and
directly negatively with the scribes who pray at length for show (12:40). That
Jesus finds Peter, James, and John sleeping (14:40) indicates that they did not
comply with Jesus' command to remain alert and, by implication, to pray and so
realizes only their negative evaluation.25
Will see (6pd(o) indirectly positively relates Peter, James, John, and Andrew
(13:26)/Jesus' disciples (16:7) to the parousaic Son of Man/Jesus the Nazarene
and directly negatively relates them to the chief priest and the entire Sanhedrin
(14:62).
Death (Qdvarog) would positively evaluate the disciple who will not taste
death (9:1) until one sees the reign of God having come in power and the one
who is handed over by brother to death (13:12) because of Jesus (cf. 13:9) or his
name (cf. 13:13). This disciple would receive direct positive alignment with
Jesus imposed this requirement on his disciples: see Pryke, Redactional Style, 171-72, who attributes
only the occurrences of ypriyopew in 13:35 and 14:34,37 to Markan redaction.
24. The disciples' subsequent distribution of the bread given them by Jesus somewhat redeems
this negative evaluation; but the use of a different verb withholds the complete reversal of their nega-
tive evaluation.
25. The threefold repetition irpooevxoâi in 14:32-42 and its coordination with ypriyopew in
14:38 also link the negative developments concerning praying and remaining alert.
Jesus whose life or self is sad unto death (14:34) and the Son of Man who is con-
demned (KaTaKptva)) to/as worthy of death (10:33/14:64) and a direct negative
relationship with the one who is to be put to death for speaking evil of father or
mother (7:10).
Life/self (4juxi) would positively evaluate the disciple who destroys one's life
(8:35b) for the sake of Jesus and the gospel and who loves God with one's whole
life/self (12:30). This disciple would receive direct positive alignment with Jesus
whose self is sad unto death (14:34) and the Son of Man who gives his life as a
ransom for many (10:45) and direct negative relationship with the one who
destroys one's life not for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35a) and who gains
the whole world but forfeits one's life (8:36).
Baptize (paiTTL£a)) would positively evaluate the disciple who is baptized
(10:38b, 39b) with the baptism with which Jesus is baptized and would directly
positively relate the disciple to the patients the people of Judea and Jerusalem
(1:5, 8) and Jesus (1:9; 10:38a, 39a).
Servant (SiaKovos) would positively evaluate the disciple who becomes ser-
vant and directly positively relate the disciple to all for whom one is servant
(9:35) and to each other (10:43).
Slave (8oOXos) would positively evaluate the disciple who is slave of all
(10:44) and of Jesus as Lord of the Household (13:34) and assert the following
relationships for the disciple: direct positive to the slaves of the Lord of the Vine-
yard (12:2, 4); indirect positive to all, Jesus as Lord of the Household, and God
as Lord of the Vineyard; direct negative to chief priest's slave (14:47); and indi-
rect negative to the chief priest.
First (TrpwTOs) would identify the disciple with the last who will be first
(9:35/10:3 lb) and relate the disciple directly negatively to those who presently
are first (10:31a) but will be last and indirectly positively to those for whom one
is servant (10:44).
Be necessary (8ei) would positively evaluate and directly positively relate the
disciple who proclaims (KT}piiaaa>) the gospel to all nations (13:10) and dies with
Jesus (14:31) to the Son of Man who suffers, is rejected, is killed, and rises (8:31)
and to Elijah/John the Baptist who came first (9:11).
e. Cultivated Beliefs Associated with the Designations for Disciples

Jesus constitutes two groups of characters in indirect positive relationship with
him. The larger group, referenced by the designation n.a0TiTai (disciples), is
constituted through Jesus' invitation to go behind (Seme OTTLCKD, 1:17) or follow
(otKoXouOeco, 2:14) him and through their response of leaving (d((>iTi|ii) their
work (1:18, 20) and family (1:20) and following (otKoXovOeo, 1:18; 2:14) or
going forth behind (aix4px°\iai omaa), 1:20) Jesus.26 This group is distin-
26. These two contexts present further vocabulary parallels: Jesus passes by (Trapdyw, 1:16;
2:14) along the sea (rrapa rx\v OdXaaaav, 1:16; 2:13) and sees (opdw, 1:16,19; 2:14) those whom he
will invite to be disciples prior to their invitation.
guished by the fact that, whereas Jesus speaks to all others in parables, he
explains all things to those designated by |ia9r)Tcu (4:34). Jesus also makes
(TTOL60), 3:14, 16) a smaller group, referenced by the designation [ol] 8(o8eKa
(the twelve) of named members so that they might be with him and he might send
(diToaTeXXa)) them to proclaim (KTIPIKKTOI), 3:14) and to have authority (e£ouaia)
to cast out (eKpdXXo, 3:15) demons. Jesus also designates this smaller group as
duoaToXoL (apostles), which highlights what those so designated do when sent
(cf. 6:30). Those designated as Sonera and aTToa-roXoi are distinguished from
those designated as |ia9r)Tai by particular actions (proclaiming, casting out,
healing, and teaching) and attributes (having authority and being sent). The
smaller group, however, is composed of members of the larger group (Simon,
Andrew, James, and John, 3:16-18; cf. 1:16, 19); those designated by SciSem
retain their designation by [LaQr\rai (cf. 8:27-29; 10:23-28 with respect to
Peter); and Jesus teaches those designated by both d&beKa (10:32) and |±a9r|Tai
(4:34). Nor are the distinctions in actions and attributes absolute: Jesus sends
(diToaTeXXa)) both |iaGT}Tai (11:1; 14:13) and 8c58eKa or drrroaToXoi (3:14;
6:7); and the promise of Jesus' invitation to Simon and Andrew to follow, that he
will make them fishers of human beings (1:17), is fulfilled only when Jesus sends
them under the designations 8u8eKa and aTToaToXoi (6:7; cf. 3:14). This overlap
among the designations has permitted the use of the generic reference to disci-
ples in contexts that explicitly reference only 8o58eKa and CLTTOGTOXOI.
Prior observations concerning the twelve and apostles generally were reserved
to contexts in which SciSem and aTrocrToXoi appear; whereas observations con-
cerning disciples included both explicit references to \mQr\Tai and general refer-
ences that have \iaOr\rai as a remote antecedent.27 The following discussion, in
contrast, distinguishes observations about designations from comments about the
groups they reference by rendering the designations in Greek and noting that par-
ticular evaluations or beliefs are "associated with" designations. This distinction
clarifies the discussion of contexts in which a designation and the group it refer-
ences are evaluated differently. For example, the young man's command to the
women in 16:7 associates with |ia0r|Tai a positive evaluation insofar as this des-
ignation is the antecedent of those whom Jesus precedes (Tipodycj), those who
will see Jesus, and those to whom Jesus spoke. The women's flight and implied
failure to deliver the young man's message, however, precludes the referenced
characters' action and results in the negative evaluation of the characters, not the
designation itself.
The noun |ia0rjTai requires a benefactive argument (disciples "of"); and
Jesus is referent of the benefactive on forty-two occasions. Since most of these
occurrences have received previous comment, evaluations associated with this
27. The only previous references to the twelve without the designation 8w8eKa concerned
10:35-45, in which the linkage of James and John (10:35), members of the twelve (cf. 3:14-17), with
the ten (ol 8eKa, 10:41) and the reservation of an articular number elsewhere to the twelve were
deemed adequate to identify them (avrovg) in 10:42 with the twelve.
designation receive summary tabulation, with positive evaluations on the left and
negative evaluations on the right. Occurrences with the same evaluation appear
consecutively; and occurrences with opposing evaluation begin a new row.
When |ia9T]Ta.L realizes an argument of vocabulary that received previous study,
this vocabulary appears in parentheses after the citation; and when |±a0T]Tca is
the antecedent of a reference to an argument of such vocabulary, that vocabulary
appears in double parentheses:
Positive Evaluation Negative Evaluation

2:15 ((dKoXoueeco)), 16,18d, 23; 3:7,9; 4:34
5:31
6:1
6:35
6:41
7:2,5
7:17((daweTos))
8:1
8:4
8:6,10,27a, 27b, 33,34; 9:14
9:18 ((eKpdXXo)
31 ((<|>oP€OM.ai))
10:10
10:13 (eTTiTi|ida>)
10:23
10:24,46 ((cTr
11:1 (dTToaTeXXa)), 14; 12:43; 13:1;
14:12,13 (dTToaTeXXd)), 1 4 , 1 6 , 3 2 ; 16:7
The initial positive evaluations appear in contexts of straightforward narration,

indicating that the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs associate a positive
evaluation with |±a8r|Tai. Cultivated negative evaluations, in contrast, are asso-
ciated almost exclusively with the noted repeated vocabulary and so are deemed
to arise through sophisticating negative repetition. The preponderance of positive
evaluations, especially in the concluding occurrences, contextualizes negative
beliefs associated with this designation within an overarching positive context
that coheres with the authorial audience's predominantly positive beliefs associ-
ated with |ia0r]TaL.
The initial occurrences of both 8<i8eKa and (XTToaToXoi (3:14) also evoke pri-
marily positive preexisting beliefs.28 Although the other occurrence of
28. The statements about Jesus' making the twelve (3:14,16) bracket and thereby stress the pos-
itively evaluated actions of casting out (eKpdXXw) and proclaiming (Kripvaaw) and attributes of hav-
ing authority (e£ouata) and being sent (aTroaTeXXw). The same context later notes that one of those
designated by 8<o8era, Judas, handed over (rrapaS 18(001, 3:19) Jesus. The straightforward narration
TOXOL (6:30) sophisticates its positive evaluation, 8o)8eKa undergoes more com-
plex development. All occurrences of 8(o8eKa have received previous considera-
tion, and their summary appears below:
Positive Evaluation Negative Evaluation

3:14, 16 ((d-TroaTeXXo), KT]pijaa(ji),
4:10
6:7 ((dTToareXXa), eôvoiav 8i8<i)|ii,
ua), 8i8daK(i>))
9:35 ((SiaXoyCCoum)); 10:32
11:11
14:lO((TTapa8L8ojjiL))
14:17
14:20 ((Trapa8i8ajfiL)), 43
Positive evaluations associated with ScoSeKa ultimately are superseded by neg-

ative evaluations. Since the authorial audience already recognizes that Judas, one
of the twelve, handed over Jesus, repetition of this designation is deemed a
sophisticating negative rhetorical strategy. In contrast to |ia0r)Tai, 8(o8€Ka does
not undergo concluding rehabilitative positive repetition, and the narrative audi-
ence associates with this designation predominantly negative beliefs that do not
cohere with those of the authorial audience.
3. Cultivation of Beliefs about the Disciples:

Repeated Contexts and Structures
This investigation examines the beliefs about the disciples that are cultivated by
seven repeated contexts and one repeated structure.29 When these have received
previous investigation, the discussion clarifies only their contributions to the
characterization of the disciples.
a. Contextual Repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and6:6b-13, 30-32

The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13,30-32 (ch. 3 sec. 3a)
contributes in four ways to the disciples' characterization. First, its vocabulary
of this notice indicates that the authorial audience already recognize this negative association for
29. The contribution of the remaining repeated context identified in the characterization of God,
1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 (ch. 2 sec. 4b), is subsumed under the discussion of the contextual
repetition of 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; and 13:3-13; and all salient contributions of the structural repeti-
tion of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 (ch. 3 sec. 3d) are present in the discussion of the first con-
stituent of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45.
positively evaluates the disciples, directly and indirectly positively aligns them
with Jesus, and links the five words that identify them with Jesus: cast out (eK-
pdXX<o), proclaim (KTjpiiaaci)), do/make (TTOKEU)), authority (efjouata), and be sent
(aiTooTeXXaj). Since this repeated context links the greatest density of cultivated
positive beliefs about the disciples and initiates their characterization (1:16-20),
it plays a determinative role in cultivating the narrative audience's positive
beliefs about the disciples. Inclusion of the notice that Judas handed over
(Trapa8i8(ou,i, 3:19) Jesus also ensures that the narrative audience's sophisti-
cated positive beliefs cohere with the authorial audience's preexisting positive
beliefs in recognizing and accommodating particular negative elements of the
disciples' characterization.
Second, this repeated context sophisticates the disciples' identification with
Jesus through the progression of referents of the arguments of do/make (Troieo),
1:17; 3:14, 16; 6:30) and go forth (aTrepxopm,.l:20; 3:13; 6:32). In 1:16^20,
Jesus as agent will make Simon and Andrew as patient fishers of humans; and
James and John as agent go forth behind Jesus. In 3:13-19 Jesus as agent makes
the twelve as patient; and those summoned go forth as agent to Jesus. In 6:30-32,
however, it is the apostles (twelve) as agent who do so many things; and Jesus
and the apostles together as agent who go forth. The transition from patient to
agent of Troiea) identifies the apostles (twelve) with Jesus as agent; and this iden-
tification strengthens the relationship between the many such things that they did
(6:30) and the totality of what Jesus does as agent.30 Coordination of Jesus and
the twelve as agent of dTCpxoât in 6:32 again emphasizes the apostles' agency
by granting them an equal semantic status with Jesus and grants greater signifi-
cance to the unique notices of their healing (GepaTreuo, 6:13) and teaching
(8i8daK<jL>, 6:30).31 Thus, this repeated context presents a progression from what
Jesus will do (1:17) to what Jesus did do (3:14,16) and finally to what the twelve
or apostles did in response (6:30).
Third, intercalation of the events of the death of John the Baptist (6:14-29) in
6:6b-13, 30-32 contributes to the disciples' portrayal.32 This context predicates
30. Francis J. Moloney interprets the apostles' statement in 6:30 to indicate that they no longer
are acting as Jesus' disciples or recognize their dependence on Jesus, who gave them their authority
(3:15; 6:7) ("Mark 6:6b~30: Mission, the Baptist, and Failure," CBQ 63 [2001]: 647-63, here
660-61). This interpretation, however, fails to recognize that Jesus, whose authority is given by God
(11:28), similarly asserts that the actions done by that authority are his own (1:40-42; 10:51).
31. The sole occurrence of teach (SIMCTKCO) directly positively aligns the apostles (6:30) with
Jesus (1:21, 22; 2:13; 4:1, 2; 6:2, 6, 34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:14, 35; 14:49) and directly nega-
tively relates them to this people (7:7; cf. Isa 29:13 LXX), identified as the Pharisees and some of the
scribes (cf. 7:1), whose instruction (8i8aaKaXia, 7:7), in contrast to Jesus' teaching (8i8axn, 1:22,
27; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38), is of human (dvOpw-rruv, 7:7; cf. 8:33), not divine, origin and who disregard
the word of God (7.13). This contributes to the development of a series of contrasts previously noted
in the discussion whether John's baptism is from heaven/from human beings (11:30-32).
32. John R. Donahue defines the intercalation as a literary technique "whereby Mark breaks the
flow of a narrative by inserting a new pericope after the beginning of an initial story" {Are You the
Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark [SBLDS 10; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,
three actions of John, baptizing (paTTTi£a), 6:14), rising (e/yeipo), 6:16), and say-
ing (Xeyco, 6:18), and identifies saying the words of God as the proximate cause
of his death. The prior contextual notice that the twelve proclaimed (KTipwaoj)
that their listeners repent (jieTayoeo), 6:12) evokes John's introduction as one
proclaiming (Kr)puaaa)) a baptism (pdTma|±a) of repentance (|ieTdvoia, 1:4).
The linkage of this vocabulary (6:12) with baptize (6:14) together with the
semantic relationship between proclaiming and saying God's words (6:18)
relates baptizing, death, and proclaiming, directly positively aligns the twelve
with John, and cultivates an expectation that the twelve's proclaiming, like John's
saying God's words, will lead to death.33 Jesus' subsequent linkage of proclaim-
ing (Krjpijaaa), 13:10) and speaking (XaXew, 13:11a, lib) with being handed
over(Trapa8L8o)|iL, 13:11,12)andputtodeath(0avaToa), 13:12) strengthens this
expectation. The notice that, after his beheading, John's disciples placed [his
body] in a tomb (TL0T]|IL . . . ev |ivr||iei(i), 6:29), also may join with the culti-
vated recognition of the direct positive alignment of Jesus and John and the pre-
existing mid previously emphasized beliefs that both John (1:14) and Jesus (3:19)
are handed over (Trapa8i8(i)|ju) to cultivate an expectation that Jesus' disciples,
like John's, will be the agents of his burial. This expectation's subsequent frus-
tration, when an apparent stranger, Joseph of Arimathea, does this action for
Jesus, then cultivates a very negative evaluation of Jesus' disciples.
Fourth, this repeated context clarifies semantic relationships among words and
links the disciples' portrayal to vocabulary that takes on special significance in
other contexts. In 1:16-20 it relates going and going forth behind (OTTLCFG), 1:17
and 1:20) and following (otKoXouGea), 1:18) Jesus and indicates that the proper
response to Jesus' invitation is to leave (ct(J>ir)|jLi) work or possessions and follow
(dKoXou0€G)) Jesus (1:18) or leave father and livelihood and go forth behind
Jesus (1:20). In both 3:13-19 and 6:6b-13, 30-32 Jesus summons (TTpoaKoAeo-
|iai, 3:13; 6:7) disciples; and 3:13-19 clarifies the implications for disciples of
what Jesus wants (GeXo, 3:13).
This repeated context links the narrative audience's sophisticated positive
beliefs about the disciples, augments the disciples' identification with Jesus, and
strengthens the disciples' direct positive alignment with John the Baptist. It also
insinuates expectations that the disciples' proclamation will lead to their death
and that they will place Jesus in a tomb after his death and clarifies relationships
among vocabulary that subsequently can evoke the most positive cultivated
beliefs about the disciples. This linked context ensures that the narrative audi-
1973], 58-59). Here the story of the death of John the Baptist (6:14-29) interrupts the story of the
twelve's mission in 6:6b-13, 30-32.
33. Since John, in the only statement summarizing his activity, identifies both his ministry and
that of the one coming after him (Jesus) as "baptizing" (1:8), this contextually linked vocabulary
interprets the twelve's ministry as "baptizing." The subsequent repetition of Jesus' statements to
James and John about the baptism (whose contextual connotation is "be handed over" or "be killed")
with which both he and they will be baptized (10:38-39; cf. 10:32-33) then links the twelve and
being baptized.
The Rhetoric of the Characterization ofJesus' Disciples 107
ence's cultivated positive beliefs, like the preexisting beliefs of the authorial
audience, recognize and accommodate negative elements of the disciples' char-
acterization. These considerations indicate that repetition of this context consti-
tutes a positive sophisticating rhetorical strategy.
b. Contextual Repetition of8:32b-33; 9:33-34; and 10:35-41

Although the controversies (8:32b~33; 9:33-34; 10:35-41) do not include
repeated vocabulary, and so do not constitute a repeated context as originally
defined (ch. 1 sec. 2b), they receive investigation as a repeated context based on
three factors. First, their situation after the linked predictions (8:31-32a;
9:30-32; 10:32-34) and before the linked teachings (8:34-9:1; 9:35-41;
10:42-45) and the development of their content in the teachings encourage their
evocation when the former prediction[s] and teaching[s] are evoked by the latter.
Second, their linkage is encouraged by the continuity of characters, Jesus and
one or more of his disciples: Peter (8:32b-33); and the twelve (9:35; 10:35-41;
cf. 10:35-40 for James and John and 10:41 for the ten). Third, their linkage and
evocation are encouraged by their starkly negative portrayal of the disciple[s]. In
order to avoid redundancies, this discussion focuses on 8:32b-33 and reserves
most comments about 9:33-34 and 10:35-41 to later discussions.
Peter's rebuke (emTi^do)) of Jesus in the first controversy (8:32b-33) evokes
both preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs about Jesus that compel rejection
of its implications, the direct alignment of Jesus with unclean spirits (1:25; 3:12)
and the wind (4:39). This rejection joins with Jesus' rebuke (eTriTijido), 8:33) of
Peter to impose a very negative evaluation on Peter. Jesus' rebuke has three ele-
ments: "Go behind me," with Jesus as the goal of behind (OTTICTU)), which evokes
Peter's (Simon's) original invitation to discipleship (cf. 1:16-20) and interprets
this command (8:33) as an invitation to discipleship; Peter's identification with
Satan (Lcrrava); and an explanatory OTL (because) clause that identifies Peter's
error as thinking (^poveo)) not the things of God but the things of human
beings.34 These three elements appear in reverse logical order in that Peter's
erroneous thinking identifies him with Satan; and this erroneous thinking and
identification necessitate the renewed invitation to discipleship.35 This reverse
order withholds and, in so doing, emphasizes the ultimate cause of the contro-
versy, Peter's erroneous thinking (<))povea)). Repetition of the controversies then
links Peter's rebuke of Jesus (8:32b), the disciples' discussion of who is greatest
(9:34), and James and John's request (10:35-40) and the ten's reaction to this
34. The contrast between the things of God/the things of human beings (8:33) contributes to the
development of contrasts previously noted in the discussions of from heaven/from human beings
(11:30-32) and of the teaching of Jesus/the instruction of the Pharisees and some scribes being of
divine origin/human origin (7:7-13).
35. A further logical inversion appears in the young man's statement to the women at the tomb
in 16:6: he rose (nyepOr)); he is not here; and see the place where they put him. Here, "see the place"
establishes the fact that Jesus is not here; and Jesus' absence receives explanation in the statement
concerning his rising. This inversion similarly places emphasis on the final element.
request (10:41). This identifies the cause of the latter controversies as similar
erroneous thinking by the twelve, directly aligns them with Peter and Satan,
highlights their need for a [re]new[ed] invitation to discipleship, and imposes a
negative evaluation on them. Thus, the controversies continue the emphasis on
the negative evaluation of the disciples as experiencers identified in the investi-
gation of vocabulary (€TTiTi|jLda), ol8a, <JVVIX}[LI).
The invitation to discipleship implied by "Go behind me" questions the viabil-
ity of Peter's original call and so contradicts the previous narrative development,
which offers no indication that an invitation to discipleship ever requires reitera-
tion or renewal and which uses the presumption of the continuing vitality of dis-
cipleship to ensure the impact of Jesus' frequently very critical statements to his
disciples.36 Jesus' reference to Peter as Satan also does not cohere with his prior
designation of Simon as Peter (3:16) and the previous reservation of alternative
designations for disciples to contexts of their very positive evaluation (3:16-17).
Finally, cultivation of new negative beliefs about Peter relies largely on vocabu-
lary (think, ^povea); the things of God, TOL TOO Oeoi); the things of human beings,
Ta TOW dvGpGJTroi/) that receives no previous or subsequent repetition. This
localizes to each controversy the potential of these newly cultivated contradic-
tory beliefs to undermine the narration's reliability. These considerations support
a conclusion that repetition of the controversies constitutes a deconstructive
rhetorical strategy.
c. Contextual Repetition of 8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; and 10:42-45

The repeated teachings (8:34-9:1; 9:35-41; 10:42-45) respond to the previous
controversies involving Peter and the twelve. Repetition of want (OeXw, 8:34, 35;
9:35; 10:43, 44) and whoever (os [yap/8'e] dv, 8:35a, 35b, 38; 9:37a, 37b, 41;
10:43, 44) ensure that the former teaching [s] are evoked by the latter. Evocation
of 8:34-9:1 by 9:35-41 further is encouraged by repetition of "if anyone wants"
(ei TIS GeXei, 8:34; 9:35), follow (aKoXouOeo), 8:34a, 34b; 9:38), destroy (ctTToX-
XD|IL, 8:35a, 35b; 9:41), amen I say to you that (d|ir|i/ X€ycj v[ilv OTL, 9:1, 41),
and power (dwa[iig9 9:1, 39) and by the previous evocation of the first predica-
tion and controversy. Be first (etjil TTparros1, 9:35/10:44), of all (rravruv, 9:35a,
35b; 10:44), and be servant (eljil SI&KOVOS, 9:35; 10:43; cf. serve, SiaKOveo), in
10:45a, 45b) encourage evocation of 9:35-41 by 10:42-45. 37 Evocation of
8:34-9:1 by 10:42-45 is encouraged by summon (TrpoaKaXeojiai, 8:34; 10:42),
36. The interpretation of "Go behind me" (8:33) as constituting a second or renewed invitation
to discipleship may join with the vocabulary of 8:27-33 and the contexts it evokes to support an inter-
pretation of the young man's statement in 16:7 (cf. 14:28) as indicating the need for yet another invi-
tation to discipleship for Jesus' disciples (see ch. 5 sec. Id).
37. The fact that the connotations of servant (Siaxovos, 9:35; 10:43) and slave (SoOAos, 10:44)
partially overlap contributes to the linkage of the second and third teachings: see Ernest Best, Follow-
ing Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 125-26;
and Stock, Boten aus dent Mit-Ihm Sein, 140.
Son of Man (6 1/169 TOO avepooTTov, 8:38; 10:45), come (epxoiiai, 8:38; 10:45;
cf. 9:1 for the reign of God), give . . . life (8i8a)|ii . . . ^v\f]S/Av9 8:37/10:45),
and life (&vxA> 8:35a, 35b, 36, 37; 10:45).
Although the teachings generally employ the indefinite phrases whoever (os
. . . av) and anyone (TIS), they are addressed either to a larger group that
includes the disciples (8:34-9:1) or specifically to the twelve (9:35-41;
10:42-45) and so have direct application to the disciples. The first teaching intro-
duces five subsequently repeated words: want (GeXw), follow (dKoXouGew), save
(aw£G))9 destroy (dTr6\Xu|ii), and life (fyvxA)* Of these, GeXco requires a subject
experiencer; aKoXouOeo), aai£a), and aTr6XXu|±i require a subject agent; andi|;vxi
requires a benefactive. Repetition of these words highlights what the disciples
may want, do, and have and places primary focus on GeXu), which initiates Jesus'
teaching and includes the other words within its content argument: "if anyone
wants to follow..." (8:34); and "whoever wants to save one's life" (8:35).38 Evo-
cation of 8:34-9:1 by both 9:35-41 and 10:42-45 and introduction of the latter
teachings by GeXco prior to other repeated words that reference the disciples con-
tinue to highlight their wanting, doing, and having with the focus on wanting and
maintain the emphasis on the disciples as experiences in earlier vocabulary and
in the controversies (cf. c^poveo), think).39
Contextual repetition of the teachings contributes to the disciples' characteri-
zation in four ways. First, identification of the disciples as appropriate referents
of the indefinite pronouns in Jesus' teaching has the potential to directly posi-
tively align the disciples with Jesus through the repetition of want (GeXw) and
save (a(pCw); and the statement "Whoever wants to save one's life will destroy it"
(8:35) relates the disciples and Jesus as characters whose want of negatively
evaluated content will be frustrated within the narration (ch. 3 sec. 2b.).
Second, the teachings address the disciples' negatively evaluated thinking and
action in the controversies in a way that clarifies both the source of their negative
evaluation and the requirements for their rehabilitation. In the first teaching,
Jesus' statement "If anyone wants to follow behind m e . . . " implicitly recognizes
and grants his validation to the disciples' desire to follow him prior to [re]defin-
ing the content argument "to follow me," that is, "be my disciple" (see ch. 4 sec.
2d), as denying oneself, taking up one's cross and following him (8:34). Here
Jesus' initial validation encourages the disciples (and narrative audience) to have
a stake in this redefined and positively evaluated content. Thus, even as the first
38. Life (MJuxri) evokes the point of information that this word also may connote "self: see
Eduard Schweizer, 'tyuxn," TDNT 9:637-56, here 637-38,643. Thus, destroy life (tyvxw cnToXXuui,
8:35b; cf. 8:35a) may cultivate a link between this concept and denying self in 8:34.
39. The repeated emphasis on disciples as the experiencers, first of thinking (cj>pove(i)) and now
wanting (0£\w), stresses the appropriateness of their designation by u.a0r|Tai, which is derived from
|xay0dv(i) (learn), which requires a subject experiencer. This emphasis later receives confirmation in
the fourfold repetition of love (dyairdw, 12:30, 31, 33a, 33b) in Jesus' teaching about the first and
greatest commandmentfs] (12:28-34), which impose on those present, including Peter and the disci-
ples (cf. 11:20-22), the requirement to love both God (12:30,33a) and neighbor (12:31,33b).
controversy (8:32b-33) negatively evaluates Peter's thinking and action, the first
teaching cultivates beliefs concerning what is required for his (and similarly
errant disciples') positive evaluation. Jesus then implicitly recognizes and vali-
dates the disciples' want to save their lives before [re]defining this positively as
destroying (aTroXXujii) their lives for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35).40 In
the second teaching, Jesus responds to the twelve's argument about who is great-
est (9:33-34) by validating their want to be first (TTP&TOS) before [re]defining
this positively as being last and servant (SICIKOVOS) of all (9:35).41 Again in
10:42-45, Jesus responds to the request of James and John, who want to sit at
Jesus' right and left (10:35-40), and to the ten, whose umbrage indicates their
similar desire (10:41), by validating their desire to be great (10:43a) and first
(10:44a) before [re]defining these positively as being servant (10:43b) and slave
(8oO\os) of all (10:44b).42 In each case, the negative portrayal of the disciples in
the controversies is followed by specification in the teachings of the positively
evaluated content of wanting whose enactment is required to reverse their nega-
tive portrayal.
Third, the redefined content of wanting receives further clarification through
comparisons or contrasts concerning the required thinking and acting of disci-
ples.43 In 8:34-9:1, denying oneself, taking up one's cross, and following Jesus
(8:34) and destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35) are
contrasted with being ashamed of (eTraiaxwo|±ai) Jesus and his words (8:38).
In 9:35-41, being last and servant of all (9:35) is compared positively to receiv-
ing a child in Jesus' name (9:37), contrasted with preventing others from casting
out demons in Jesus' name (9:38-39), and compared positively to giving a drink
of water in [Jesus'] name because someone is Christ's (9:41).44 In 10:42-45,
40. Here repetition of "gospel" recalls its occurrence in 1:15 and clarifies that destroying one's
life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel is possible only for the one who believes (maTeuw) in the
gospel: see David Rhoads, "Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judg-
ment," in Gospel Interpretation: Narrative Critical & Social Scientific Approaches (ed. Jack Dean
Kingsbury; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 89; and Christopher Marshall, Faith
as a Theme in Mark's Narrative (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
41. The relationship between 9:33-34 and 9:35-41 receives further investigation in Harry Fled-
dermann, "The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50)," CBQ 43 (1981): 57-75, here 61; and in
Frans Neirynck, 'The Tradition of the Sayings of Jesus: Mark 9,33-50," in The Dynamism of Biblical
Tradition (ed. Pierre Benoit and Roland E. Murphy; trans. Theodore L. Westow; Concilium 20; New
York: Paulist, 1967), 62-74, here 65.
42. Jesus' statements in 10:35-40 also indicate that the appropriate identification of disciples
with Jesus is as agent of drink (TTLVW) and patient of hand over (TrapaSiSwui, 10:33) and not as the
patient of sit (Ka6i£o), 10:37) and, in light of the previous discussion (ch. 4 sec. 2c), the goal of fol-
43. Narry F. Santos details various developments concerning the redefined content ("Jesus'
Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; 10:43-44," BSac 157 [2000]: 15-25).
44. This discussion views the disciple as the referent of the subject (goal) of 8exoum (receive):
see Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1963), 405-6; Joachim
Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKKNT 2.1-2; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, 1979), 2:57; and Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg:
being servant (10:43) and becoming slave of all (10:44) are contrasted with lord-
ing over and exercising authority over others (10:42) and compared positively to
the Son of Man's action of serving (SictKoveo), 10:45; cf. SLOKOVOS in 9:35 and
10:43 for the twelve). The resulting portrait of discipleship clarifies the require-
ments for the positive evaluation of disciples as agent (deny oneself, take up
one's cross, follow Jesus, destroy one's life, not prevent other's actions in Jesus'
name, give a drink, not lord over others, not exercise authority over others, serve
others), experiencer (not act as one who is ashamed of Jesus and his words), goal
(receive a child), and patient (be last of all, be servant [of all], be slave of all).
Jesus' statements also develop who or what the disciple is as patient in terms of
what the disciple does as agent: being last of all and servant of all (patient)
becomes not preventing (agent) and giving a drink (agent); and being servant and
becoming slave of all (patient) becomes serving (agent). This cultivates a further
parallel with Jesus in that designations asserting his identity (as patient) receive
their development primarily through verbs that indicate his agency (ch. 3
sec. 2c).
Fourth, the teachings conclude by clarifying potential benefits for disciples
who fulfill the redefined and further developed requirements of discipleship:
some will not taste death (Gdvaros) until they see (opdo)) the reign of God hav-
ing come in power (9:1); one who gives a drink will not destroy (drroXXuiii)
one's reward (9:41); and one who becomes servant and slave of all by implica-
tion is among those for whom the Son of Man gives his life (10:45). Contextual
repetition identifies the one who will not destroy (OTTOXXUIJII) one's reward (9:41)
as the one who destroys (onToXXuin) one's life for the sake of Jesus and the
gospel (8:35) and relates the Son of Man who serves (SiaKOveo), 10:45) to the
disciple who is servant (SICIKOVOS, 9:35; 10:43). Life (îÔi) links the Son of
Man who gives his life (10:45) to the one who destroys one's life (8:35). The
final verse of the first and third teachings also indirectly positively aligns with
the Son of Man the disciple who follows Jesus' teaching. This indirect positive
alignment first occurs in a context (8:38-9:1) that emphasizes the Son of Man's
parousaic identity and activity and later occurs in a context (10:45) that empha-
sizes the Son of Man's near future suffering and death.
Repetition of the teachings is deemed a positive sophisticating rhetorical strat-
egy. The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 previ-
ously introduced "difficult" elements of discipleship, leaving one's livelihood
and family (1:16-20) and being sent with minimal provisions (6:6b-13). In the
same repeated context, repetition of do/make (noted)) directly positively aligned
disciples and the twelve with Jesus precisely in those activities that may be asso-
Herder, 1984), 105. Interpretation of the disciples as the referent of the object (patient) by Eduard
Schweizer (The Good News According to Mark [trans. Donald H. Madvig; Richmond: John Knox,
1970], 192- 93) and by Hugh Anderson (IJie Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976],
234-35) fails to recognize that all other redefinitions of content within the repeated contexts consis-
tently identify the disciple as the referent of the subject argument.
ciated with being a servant (SidKovog) and the Son of Man's serving. The
straightforward narration of much of the content of Mark 13 indicates that the
authorial audience already recognizes that the disciples will be handed over
(Trapa8L8o)|iL, 13:9, 11) for the sake of Jesus (eveicev e|±oO, 13:9; cf. 8:35) and
possibly be killed (GavaToo), 13:12), and that these same disciples will be desig-
nated slaves (SoOAos, 13:34; cf. 10:44). Thus, the repeated teachings augment
both preexisting and previously sophisticated positive beliefs about the disciples
with coherent content concerning their potential for future positively evaluated
actions and attributes.45
d. Structural Repetition of 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45

Deconstructive repetition of the predictions (ch. 3 sec. 3a) cultivates beliefs
about the Son of Man's near future suffering, being killed, and rising that diverge
significantly from preexisting beliefs that emphasize the Son of Man's present
exercise of divine prerogatives and parousaic identity and activity. Deconstruc-
tive repetition of the controversies then cultivates very negative beliefs concern-
ing the disciples' erroneous thinking about Jesus as Son of Man and Christ and
about themselves as disciples that contradict generally positive preexisting
beliefs about the disciples. Sophisticating repetition of the teachings then evokes
and relates positive elements of preexisting and cultivated beliefs about the disci-
ples and, by positively [rejdefining the content of what they want, cultivates a
model of the thinking and acting required for the potential positive evaluation
and rehabilitation of errant disciples.
The teachings, however, provide little explicit development of the positive
relationship with Jesus (and God) that must characterize disciples who attempt to
fulfill these requirements. The teachings' reservation of potential benefits for the
future paints the disciples' present as a time of struggle and hardship; and linkage
of repeated occasions of the disciples' actual erroneous thinking and negatively
evaluated acting (controversies) to the required thinking and acting that raises
only the potential for disciples' future success and positive evaluation (teach-
ings) might suggest that the prospects for realizing these benefits, in fact, are
quite grim. This, however, is not the whole story of the disciples or discipleship
in Mark. Previous studies indicate that the structural repetition of 8:31-9:1;
9:30-41; and 10:32-45 links and tempers negative (controversies) with potential
positive (teachings) elements of the disciples' portrayal and parallels the exact-
ing requirements of discipleship (teachings) to the near future experience and
activity of the Son of Man (predictions and teachings). The following discussion
identifies two further ways in which this repeated structure strengthens the
potential for the disciples' positive thinking and acting and alignment with Jesus
45. This conclusion receives the support of Pryke, Redactional Style, 163-66, who classifies the
majority of the significant vocabulary in 8:34-9:1 and 9:35-41 as traditional and observes that schol-
ars are rather evenly divided concerning the traditional or redactional nature of the significant vocab-
ulary in 10:42-45.
and God: by evoking the disciples' former fulfillment of the exacting require-
ments of discipleship and their resulting very positive evaluation and relationship
with Jesus and God and by clarifying the requirements for their positive relation-
ship with the parousaic Son of Man.
The vocabulary of the controversies and teachings evokes the very positive
beliefs about the disciples cultivated in 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32.
The first controversy (8:32b-33) introduces Peter (8:32b; cf. 3:16; and 1:16 for
Simon) and behind (OTTICFG), 8:33; cf. 1:17, 20) in the phrase behind me (omao)
JJOU), which last appeared in Simon's (Peter's) call in 1:17. The first teaching
presents Jesus summoning (rrpoaKaX€O|iai, 8:34; cf. 3:13; 6:7) and continues
the emphasis on the invitation to discipleship through 6TTLCF<A) |JLOU in 8:34 and
repetition of follow (ckoXouGek), 8:34a, 34b; cf. 1:18). Structurally linked refer-
ences to Peter (Simon) and repetition of omao) |ioi> and aKoXouGeo) encourage
the evocation of 1:16-20; and TrpoamXeoiica incorporates the evocation of
3:13-19 and 6:6b-13, 30-32. Evocation of the first controversy and teaching by
the subsequent controversies and teachings links them to 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and
6:6b-13, 30-32; and this linkage is encouraged by repetition of the twelve (ol
Severn, 9:35; cf. 3:14, 16; 6:7) and John (9:38; cf. 1:19; 3:17) in 9:33-41 and
James and John (10:35, 41; cf. 1:19; 3:17), of Zebedee (10:35; cf. 1:19; 3:17),
and summon (10:42; cf. 3:13; 6:7) in 10:35-44.
Evocation of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 by the controversies and
teachings contributes to the disciples' portrayal in two ways. First, its evocation
by the controversies relates the most positive cultivated beliefs about the disci-
ples to the most negative cultivated beliefs about them; and its evocation by the
teachings relates the exacting requirements for the disciples' potential positive
evaluation to the twelve's most positive realized evaluation while on mission
(6:6b-13, 30-32). In particular, evocation of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13,
30-32 by 8:32b-9:l links Jesus' invitations to Simon/Peter and relates Jesus'
teaching to deny oneself (aTTapv€O|iai, 8:34) and to take up (cilpo), 8:34) one's
cross to the disciples' previously accomplished leaving (<ic|>Cr||XL, 1:18, 20) of
livelihood and family and taking up (aip(D, 6:8) of scant provisions for mission.
The content of Jesus' rebuke of Peter in 8:33 demonstrates that, even if a disci-
ple's erroneous thinking and negatively evaluated acting identifies one with
Satan, Jesus neither rejects nor denies the disciple but admonishes, teaches, and
invites to discipleship. The vocabulary of Jesus' response insinuates into his
harshest rebuke of a disciple within the narration (8:33) a source of consolation
and hope for all disciples characterized by similar erroneous thinking and
improper acting.
Second, the vocabulary in the controversies and teachings that evoke 1:16-20;
3:13-19; and 6:6b-13,30-32 asserts the disciples' direct positive alignment with
Jesus and clarifies its implications for disciples. The prior discussion (ch. 3 sec.
2b) indicates that Jesus and those positively aligned with him have what they
want (OeXa)) realized when it conforms to God's will and benefits others. The
teachings present three examples of what the disciple may want and have real-
ized: to follow (8:34) Jesus, which they previously accomplished (1:18; cf. 6:1);
and to be first, defined as being last and servant of all (9:35), and to become great
(10:43) and be first (10:44), defined as being servant (10:43) and slave of all
(10:44), which are linked to the twelve's success when sent (6:6b-13, 30-32).
These confirm the potential for direct positive alignment with Jesus, whose want
of particular disciples in 3:13 is realized. Even the negatively evaluated content
of the disciples' wanting, to save one's life (8:35) and to sit at Jesus' right and
left in his glory (10:35, 37), relates them to Jesus as the only characters whose
wanting is frustrated and asserts the potential for their direct positive alignment
with Jesus, should they choose to act according to what God wants. Thus, the dis-
ciple who actually destroys his or her life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel
(8:35) will save it; and the disciple who is baptized with Jesus' baptism and
drinks Jesus' cup (10:38-39) will be positively aligned with the Son of Man, who
serves and gives his life as a ransom for many (10:45).46 Finally, the fact that
Jesus is sent (9:37) and that the twelve are sent (3:14; 6:7) by Jesus identifies and
directly positively aligns the disciples with Jesus and, through Jesus, mediately
positively aligns them with God. This, the only explicitly asserted relationship
for the disciple with God within the teachings, stresses the disciples' action espe-
cially when sent.
The repeated structure as a whole contributes to the disciples' portrayal in two
further ways. First, it links the necessary (8el, 8:31) near ftiture experience and
activity of Jesus as Son of Man to the required thinking and acting of disciples
and, in so doing, cultivates a series of parallels and reciprocities between what
the Son of Man does and what the disciple is required to do. The Son of Man
gives his life (tyvxA) as a ransom for many (10:45); and the disciple is to destroy
his or her life (tyvxA) for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:35). The Son of Man
serves (diaKOveo), 10:45); and the disciple who wants to become great is to be a
servant (SICIKOVOS, 10:43). The closest parallel appears in Jesus' statement that
James and John will drink the same cup that Jesus drinks and will be baptized
with the same baptism with which Jesus is baptized (10:38-39). Although this
statement does not explicitly reference the Son of Man, its inclusion between
Jesus' prediction (10:33-34) and teaching (10:45) about the Son of Man inter-
46. The grammar of these passages merits attention. The negatively evaluated wanting in 8:35 is
expressed through the subjunctive of want and an infinitive for its content, to save life; and the nega-
tively evaluated content of what James and John want in 10:35 and 36 is expressed through subjunc-
tive clauses and anaphorically in 10:37 through an imperative. In each case, the content of negatively
evaluated wanting appears in a mood that conveys only possibilities. The redefined statement in each
case is presented in the indicative: whoever will destroy (8:35); and are you able (10:38), we are able
(10:39), and you will drink . . . be baptized (10:39). The contrast between the negatively evaluated
possibilities that cannot be realized and the positively evaluated redefined content is most apparent in
grammatically unparallel and so awkwardly coordinated clauses in 8:35, "Whoever may wish to save
one's life will destroy it, but whoever will destroy one's life for my sake and the gospel's will save
it."
prets Jesus' cup and baptism in terms of the Son of Man's passion, death, and
resurrection. Thus, this repeated structure cultivates the content of the required
thinking and acting of disciples explicitly in relation to the narrative audience's
cultivated (and divergent) beliefs about the Son of Man's necessary suffering,
being killed, and rising. This is in stark contrast to the cultivation of positive
beliefs about the disciples in 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 which relied
almost exclusively on preexisting positive beliefs about the disciples and Jesus
and that never associated the disciples with the Son of Man (ch. 3 sec. 2c). These
considerations also interpret the rejection of the new contradictory content about
the Son of Man in the first controversy as an implicit rejection of the required
thinking and acting that it demands.
Second, this repeated structure links the Son of Man's necessary near future
suffering, being killed, and rising (8:31) and serving and giving his life (10:45)
both to the parousaic Son of Man's coming in the glory of his Father with the
holy angels (8:38) and to the disciple's required thinking and acting as delineated
in the teachings.47 Thus, it is the Son of Man's near future experience and activ-
ity that mediates the relationship between the disciple's required thinking and
acting and the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity. The disciple and the
parousaic Son of Man appear in direct parallel only as experiencer subjects of be
ashamed (eTraiaxi>vo|±ai): the parousaic Son of Man will be ashamed of those
who are ashamed of Jesus and his words (8:38), which include Jesus' teachings
about the gospel (8:35), the exacting requirements of discipleship (8:34-37), and
the Son of Man's necessary near future suffering, being killed, and rising (8:31).
This specifies that only proper thinking about Jesus as Son of Man and fulfilling
the exacting requirements of discipleship positively relate the disciple to the
parousaic Son of Man. Thus, it is the disciple's thinking and acting that deter-
mine who the parousaic Son of Man will be (identity) and what he will do (activ-
ity) for the disciple. Thus, the disciple's relationship with Jesus as parousaic Son
of Man who comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (8:38) is deter-
mined by thinking and acting on the pattern of the Son of Man who suffers, is
killed, and rises (8:31).
Repetition of this structure is deemed a positive sophisticating rhetorical strat-
egy with respect to the disciples' portrayal. Although deconstructive repetition of
the controversies introduces and reinforces new negative information about the
disciples, the structural linkage of the controversies with the teachings provides a
broader context for reinterpreting these very negative developments. Evocation
of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13,30-32 by both the controversies and teachings
balances the present negative portrayal of the disciples (controversies) with their
earlier positive portrayal and links the exacting requirements for the disciples'
potential positive evaluation (teachings) with the most positive examples of their
47. Structural repetition of 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65 (ch. 3 sec. 3d) then strengthens
the link between the Son of Man's near future experience and activity and his parousaic identity and
activity.
former realized success. This linkage cultivates new avenues for the disciple's
direct positive alignment with Jesus as Son of Man and mediated positive align-
ment with God and recasts occasions of erroneous thinking and improper acting
into opportunities for rehabilitation. Thus, this repeated structure cultivates for
the narrative audience both very negative and potentially very positive beliefs
about the disciples' thinking and acting. Since the authorial audience already rec-
ognizes, but does not emphasize, that disciples at times did not understand Jesus'
teachings and did not act properly, and since the previous narration has cultivated
an expectation that Jesus will respond to disciples who do not understand with
corrective teachings, the structural repetition of 8:31—9:1; 9:30-41; and
10:42-45 sophisticates both preexisting and narratively cultivated beliefs with
frequently difficult but, through reinterpretation in the teachings, generally
coherent content.
e. Contextual Repetition of 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; and 13:3-13

This repeated context, which incorporates salient content from the study of the
contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 (ch. 2 sec. 4b), relates
cultivated beliefs about actions and attributes that establish the potential for the
disciples' future positive evaluation and relationship with God and Jesus. Come
(epxopm, 8:38; 9:1; 10:30; 13:6), save (acpCd), 8:35a, 35b; 10:26; 13:13), for my
sake(<EV€K€v ejioO, 8:35; 10:29; 13:9), father (TTaTrjp, 8:38; 10:29; 13:12), and
gospel (evayyeXiov, 8:35; 10:29; 13:10) encourage evocation of the former con-
texts] by the latter. Amen I say to you (d|±f)v Xeyoj u|itv, 9:1; 10:29), follow
(ctKoXouGeG), 8:34a, 34b; 10:28), and word (Xoyos, 8:38; 10:22, 24) further
encourage the evocation of 8:34-9:1 by 10:26-30. Brother (d8eXc|)6s, 10:29, 30;
13:12a, 12b) and child (T€KVOV, 10:29,30; 13:12a, 12b) encourage the evocation
of 10:26-30 by 13:3-13; and give (8I8GJ|JU, 8:37; 13:11) and death (GdvaTos,
9:1; 13:12; cf. 0avaToco, 13:12) encourage the evocation of 8:31-9:1 by 13:3-13.
For the sake of me [Jesus] (evexev 6|io0, 8:35; 10:29; 13:9) links destroying
(drroXXuiiL) one's life (8:35); leaving (dc|)ir)|ju) house, brothers, sisters, mother,
father, children, and fields (10:29); and being handed over (Trapa8i8G)|ii) to San-
hedrins and synagogues, being beaten, and standing before governors and kings
(13:9). Although linked, these actions and attributes are distinguished by the fact
that destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus is attached to no time referent;
leaving is specified for now in this time (mipos, 10:30); and being handed over,
being beaten, and standing are reserved to the future (13:9).
These actions and attributes also receive development through linkage to other
vocabulary. The first context (8:34-9:1) relates destroying one's life to denying
oneself, taking up one's cross, and following (dKoXouOea)) Jesus (8:34) and to
not being ashamed of Jesus and his words (8:38) and highlights the link between
Jesus' words (Xoyos, 8:38) and the gospel (euayyeXiov, 8:35). The second con-
text, 10:26-30, evokes and develops the previous linkage of leaving (dc|>ir)|ju)
The Rhetoric of the Characterization of JesusJ Disciples 117
and following (dKoXou06O), 10:28; cf. 1:18) and makes all of the noted actions
and attributes for the sake of the Jesus and gospel (eveicev ejioO m l [eveicev]
TOO euayyeXioi;, 8:35; [10:29]). The third context, 13:3-13, repeats hand over
(13:9, 11, 12) which directly positively relates the brother handed over by
brother to death (Odvcrros) and the child (TCKVOV) handed over by its father
(TraTfjp, 13:12), links these to being led (13:11) and speaking (XaXeo, 13:11a,
lib), being turned against and killed by children (13:12), being hated by all
because of Jesus' name (13:13), and persevering to the end (13:13), and relates
these to the previous actions and attributes.
The third occurrence of ZveKev €[iou without the expected coordinated refer-
ence to the gospel asserts that the purpose (els, 13:9) of disciples' being handed
over, being beaten, standing, and other actions and attributes for the sake of Jesus
(and the gospel) is witness. The expected reference to gospel then appears in
Jesus' statement that it is necessary (8et) that the gospel first be proclaimed
(KT]piia<7a)) to all nations (13:10). The delay in introducing a reference to the
gospel links the actions and attributes for the purpose of witness to proclaiming
the gospel and places them under divine necessity. This indicates that disciples
characterized by these actions and attributes will be indirectly positively related
to God. First (TTP&TOS) emphasizes God's agency in determining the sequence of
history (see ch. 2 sec. 3a) and identifies the disciples who proclaim as the instru-
ments through whom God accomplishes God's governance in the beginning of
the birth pains (13:8). This strengthens the potential for disciples' future indirect
positive alignment with God.
This repeated context also specifies the implications of the noted actions and
attributes. The one destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel will
save it Ol^x 1 ^ • • • <?^C^, 8:35b). The one leaving possessions and family for the
sake of Jesus and for the sake of the gospel (10:29) will receive a hundredfold
with persecutions in this time and in the coming age everlasting life (10:30).
What disciples will speak (XaXew) when being led and handed over will be given
(818(411) to them (by God) so that it will not be disciples but the holy Spirit
speaking (13:11); and those persevering to the end will be saved (aciCo), 13:13).
The contextual linkage of these implications interprets saving one's life as
receiving a hundredfold with persecutions now, being given what to say by God
and having the holy Spirit speak through disciples in the future, and ultimately
receiving everlasting life.48 These actions and attributes establish the potential
for disciples' direct positive alignment with the holy Spirit and indirect positive
alignment with God.
These considerations clarify four further contributions by this repeated context
to the disciples' characterization. First, the previous reservation of proclaim
48. This extends the former association of crw£(o with physical healing during the ministry of
Jesus (3:4; 5:23, 28, 34; 6:56; cf. 10:52; 15:30,31a, 31b) to include the noted actions and attributes.
(KTipiiaaco) with disciples as agent to the twelve when on mission (3:14; 6:12)
and the notice that the twelve when sent remained in houses (olida, 6:10; cf.
10:30) interpret the hundredfold as what is received when on mission. Thus,
disciples previously sent by Jesus (6:7) remain on mission in the future. Second,
these actions and attributes further specify the thinking and acting required of
disciples (ch. 4 sec. 3c) and strengthen the link between these requirements/the
necessary near future experience and activity of Jesus as Son of Man: being
handed over (TTapa8[8a)|iL, 13:9, 12/9:31; 10:33a, 33b), death (GdvaTos, 13:12/
10:33; 14:64), and being put to death (GavaToo), 13:12/14:55). Third, receiving a
hundredfold with persecutions (10:30) and being hated by all because of Jesus'
name (13:13) become indications whether the disciple is saving his or her life
(8:35).49 Fourth, since God necessitates both the Son of Man's near future expe-
rience and activity and the disciples' future actions and attributes, especially pro-
claiming, these actions and attributes become defining realities or constitutive of
who the Son of Man/the disciple is.50
The disciples' necessary positively evaluated actions and attributes establish a
series of potential positive and negative familial relationships for disciples. The
disciple is indirectly negatively related to the biological father (TTcrrrjp), brother
(d8eX<J)6s), and children (TEKVOV) whom they leave for the sake of Jesus and for
the sake of the gospel (10:29) and indirectly positively related to the hundredfold
brothers and children they will receive (10:30). Positively evaluated and identi-
fied with the disciple are the brother (13:12b) and children (13:12a) who are
handed over to death and the parents (13:12) whom children turn against and kill.
Negatively evaluated and contrasted with the disciples are those whom they
leave: brother (13:12a) and father (13:12) who hand them over; and the children
(13:12b) who turn against and kill parents. Finally, the Father (ucmp) of Jesus
as Son of Man (8:38) is contrasted with the negatively evaluated human fathers
(10:29; 13:12); and the disciple's mediated positive relationship with God as
Father through the Son of Man accounts for the fact that the disciple does not
receive a hundredfold fathers (10:30) along with the rest of the restored family.
f. Review: Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37

This repeated context (ch. 2 sec. 4a) identifies the slaves (8oOXog, 13:34) of the
Lord of the Household/Jesus' disciples with the messenger (dyyeXos, 1:2) of
God/the slaves (8oOAog, 12:2, 4) of the Lord of the Vineyard and links Jesus'
command that his disciples remain alert (ypriyopeo), 13:34, 35, 37; cf. 14:34, 37,
38) to God's demand that the farmers render some of the fruit of the vineyard to
49. Although the narrative rhetoric develops no didactic function for the Son of Man's experi-
ence of suffering and the disciple's experience of persecution, it does develop for these experiences
an epistemic function: just as Jesus' experience of suffering as Son of Man confirms his fulfillment of
God's necessity governing the Son of Man, the disciples' experience of persecution when on mission
confirms their fulfillment of God's necessity governing their proclamation.
50. Thus, these actions and attributes may have ontological implications for the disciple.
God. Thus, Jesus' disciples are to fulfill the expectations formerly placed on both
the farmers, who were to render the fruit of the vineyard, and the slaves, who
were sent to secure it. This establishes the potential for the very positive evalua-
tion of disciples who remain alert and fulfill their tasks, asserts the precedent of
the abject failure of the farmers to fulfill their mandate, and so establishes the
potential for the direct alignment of disciples who do not remain alert and fulfill
their tasks but, instead, sleep (KaGeuSw, 13:36) with the farmers who kill ((XTTOK:-
TeXva), 12:7, 8) Jesus as Beloved Son. The third constituent (13:32-37) also
establishes the potential for directly positively relating Jesus' disciples as the
slaves of the Lord of the Household who do not know (ol8a) when the time is
(13:33) and when the Lord of the Household is coming (13:35) to God's messen-
gers and Jesus as the Son who do not know about the day or hour (13:32), again,
provided that the disciples remain alert and fulfill their tasks.
g. Review: Contextual Repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26

This repeated context (ch. 3 sec. 3b) sophisticates positive beliefs about disciples
who as agent distribute (TrapaTi9r||ii, 6:41; 8:6, 7) the bread and (with others)
eat (eaOto), 6:42, 44; 8:8; 14:22) the bread [and fish] which Jesus takes, blesses,
and breaks and for which Jesus gives thanks. Positively evaluated also are disci-
ples who as benefactive have bread (6:38; 8:5), from whom as source Jesus
receives (Xa|ipdvoj, 6:41; 8:6) bread, to whom as goal Jesus gives (8i8a)|j.i, 6:41;
8:6; 14:22) this bread after his noted actions, and who, with others as patient, are
satisfied (xopT(i£a), 6:42; 8:8) by this bread. The first passage (6:33-44) nega-
tively evaluates disciples who as agent do not give (8i8o)î, 6:37b) bread to the
hungry after Jesus' command to do so (6:37a). The last passage (14:22-26) inter-
prets the bread which Jesus takes, blesses, breaks, and gives as Jesus' body
(14:22) and the cup for which Jesus gives thanks (14:23) in terms of his blood of
the covenant (14:24). Positively evaluated are the disciples' coordinated actions
of eating this bread (14:22) and drinking (Triya)) this cup (14:23) and their receiv-
ing (Xap.pdva>) as goal this bread (14:22). The fact that Jesus' blood is shed for
many (inrep TTOXXWV, 14:24) identifies the disciples with the many whom the Son
of Man serves and for whom (dim TroXXtov) he gives his life as a ransom
(10:45).
h. Review: Contextual Repetition of8:31-32b; 9:30-32; and 10:32-34

The repeated predictions (ch. 3 sec. 3c) twice present Jesus teaching (8i8daK0),
8:31; 9:31) the disciples (cf. 8:27; 9:31) about the Son of Man's necessary near
future experience and activity and twice attribute fear (<|>opeo|iai, 9:32; 10:32) to
the disciples (cf. 9:31) or a larger group that includes disciples (cf. 10:23, 24).
The contextual linkage of these verbs in 9:31-32 clarifies that the content of the
disciples' fear is the content of Jesus' teaching: that the Son of Man is to be
handed over to human beings, be killed, and after three days rise. The disciples'
response of discussing who is greatest (9:33-34) asserts their negative evaluation
and indirect negative relationship with the Son of Man.

about the Disciples
Cultivated beliefs about the disciples are organized and incorporated into the nar-
rative frames associated with them through three repeated contexts, (a) 1:16-20;
3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32; (b) 6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26; and (c) 1:1-15;
12:1-12; 13:32-37, and through 8:31-9:1, which includes the first occurrence of
8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; 13:3-13.
Appendix C re-presents the organization and incorporation of cultivated con-
tent directly into the narrative frames associated with the disciples and through
8:31-9:1 by double vertical lines (||) and the contribution of constituents of
repeated contexts and structures by a single vertical line (|). The organization of
cultivated beliefs through words appearing in the characterization of Jesus is
indicated with an asterisk (*). For the sake of economy, vocabulary occurring in
8:31-9:1 is noted only under the first prediction (8:31-32a), controversy (8:32b-
33), and teaching (8:34-9:1). When disciples reference two different argument
roles of the same word in a given context, the word appears twice. Finally, only
words pertaining to the disciples' actions and attributes are noted; relationships
among repeated contexts are noted by a plus sign (+); contexts and structures
containing 8:31-9:1 appear consecutively under an initial heading of 8:31-9:1;
and both passages and contextually repeated words are enclosed in brackets, [].
Appendix C clarifies the organization and incorporation of beliefs cultivated
by all but two of the previously investigated repeated words (ch. 4 sec. 2). These
are contextually linked elsewhere to repeated vocabulary: pray (TTpoaet>xopm)
to remain alert (yptiyopeo)) in 14:32-42; and understand {pvvir\\ii) to fear
(c|x)p€O|jLai) in 6:45-52.
5. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Disciples' Characterization

The portrayal of the disciples presents the most complex interplay of rhetorical
strategies with respect to characterization in Mark. Sophistication of both posi-
tive and negative elements of their portrayal, at times in the same contexts and
structures, and the introduction of new negative elements into their portrayal
challenge the reliability of the narration at points. This discussion investigates
three contributions of the disciples' characterization to broader narrative devel-
opments. The first concerns the role of Peter's portrayal in linking the two con-
texts of the structure 8:27-9:1. The second investigates the ordering, frequency,
and distribution of neutral, sophisticating, and deconstructive strategies in the
characterization of the disciples. The third then considers the manner in which
the narrative rhetoric maintains the reliability of the narration for the authorial
(and real) audience.
a. The Structural Linkage of 8:27-30 and 8:31-9:1

The characterization of Peter plays an integral role in linking the two constituent
contexts, 8:27-30 and 8:31-9:1, of the structure 8:27-9:1 (ch. 3 sec. 3d). The for-
mer context begins with Jesus' question about who human beings say that he is
(8:27) and the disciples' responses (8:28). Jesus then asks, "But, who do you say
that I am?" (8:29a), to which Peter responds, "You are the Christ" (8:29b).
Although Peter's answer conforms to both preexisting (1:1) and cultivated
(1:1-15) beliefs about Jesus, Jesus rebukes (emTi|±du)) the disciples and Peter,
ordering them to speak to no one about him (8:30). This negatively evaluates the
disciples and especially Peter by directly aligning them with unclean spirits
(1:25; 3:12; cf. 9:25) and the wind (4:39).
The latter context begins with Jesus' statement about the Son of Man's neces-
sary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising in 8:31. This abrupt transi-
tion frustrates the narrative audience's cultivated expectation that the disciples'
negative evaluation in 8:30 will find its justification either within the preceding
narrative context (8:27-29) or in an immediately following explanation.51 This
frustration leaves the resolution or closure of 8:27-30 pending until such a justi-
fication is forthcoming. Peter's response with a rebuke (emTiiida), 8:32) of Jesus
imposes a very negative evaluation on Peter that recalls his previous negative
evaluation in 8:30 and continues the suspension of the closure of 8:27-30. Jesus'
rebuke (eTTiTijidd), 8:33) of Peter, which intensifies Peter's negative evaluation,
receives explanation through the o n clause that identifies Peter's erroneous
thinking as the cause of his negative evaluation. Repetition of emTL|ida) with
Jesus as agent in 8:30 and 8:33 and the focus on Peter in both contexts link Jesus'
two rebukes and so resolve the narrative development of 8:27-30 by identifying
erroneous thinking as the cause of the negative evaluation of the disciples and
Peter in 8:30 and by specifying the nature of this erroneous thinking: Son of
Man, with its newly cultivated content (8:31), more accurately answers Jesus'
questions about his identity (8:27, 29) than do preexisting and cultivated beliefs
about the Christ. It also specifies the consequence of such erroneous thinking: a
failure of discipleship that aligns one with Satan (8:33b) and necessitates a sec-
ond or renewed invitation to go behind Jesus (8:33a).52 That is, erroneous think-
ing about Jesus as Christ and Son of Man results in a faulty understanding of who
one is as a disciple and the implications of one's discipleship. Thus, the suspen-
sion of closure until 8:33 links the content of 8:27-30 and 31-33; and the por-
trayal of Peter is the primary vehicle for linking 8:27-30 to 8:31-33 and, through
the latter, to 8:31-9:1.
51. When offered by the narrator, these explanations generally appear in y dp (for) clauses. Neg-
ative evaluations explained through such clauses previously occurred in the portrayal of Jesus' disci-
ples (6:50, 52), the Pharisees or scribes (7:3), and Herod (6:17,18, 20).
52. Peter's rebuke of Jesus and its implied attempt to directly align Jesus with unclean spirits
verges on the former assertion that Jesus has an unclean spirit (3:30). There Jesus interpreted the
identification of the holy Spirit as an unclean spirit as blasphemy against the holy Spirit that does not
have forgiveness forever but makes one guilty of an everlasting sinful deed (3:29). Here Jesus'
response of a [re]new[ed] invitation to discipleship indicates that similar assertions directly about
Jesus do not constitute blasphemy and so may have forgiveness.
b. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Rhetorical Strategies

The previous discussions indicate that the characterization of the disciples begins
in 1:16 with neutral strategies that evoke preexisting positive beliefs. Sophistica-
tion of these positive beliefs begins in 1:20 with the repetition of leave (d<|>ir)|±i;
cf. 1:18) and the realization of Jesus' invitation to go behind (OTTLCFG), cf. 1:17)
him. The sophistication of negative beliefs about the disciples first appears in
6:50 with the repetition of fear (c|>opeo|iai; cf. 4:41) and in 6:52 with the repeti-
tion of [not] understand (cruvir)|ii; cf. 4:12).53 The deconstructive repetition of
new negative beliefs about the disciples, however, does not appear until the sec-
ond controversy, 9:33-34 (cf. 8:32b-33). Thus, the sequence of the introduction
of the rhetorical strategies with respect to the disciples is neutral, sophisticating
(positive), sophisticating (negative), and deconstructive (negative).
The previous discussion also indicates that neutral strategies evoking positive
preexisting beliefs about the disciples are the most frequent in the narration. The
statement of the authorial audience's preexisting beliefs catalogued in a single
paragraph a wider range of beliefs about the disciples than any of the later, more
lengthy investigations. To these could be added the initial evocation of every pre-
existing positive point of information about the disciples that subsequently
receives development.54 Second in frequency is sophisticating repetition that cul-
tivates positive beliefs about the disciples. The discussion of repeated references
catalogued ten repeated words (aTrepxo|iai, KTipuaaa), TrapaTi0r)|ii, TTLVO), 8(8-
o)|±i (goal), e£oix7ta, arroaTeXAG), TTapa8i8co|JLi, TrpoaKaXeo|±ai, xopTa£oi)) and
one repeated designation (diTooToXoi) that realize consistently positive culti-
vated beliefs, and four repeated verbs (aKoXouOea), dcj>ir||ii, eKpdXXo), TToieo)),
one repeated designation (|ia0r|Tai) ? and two repeated contexts (1:16-20;
53. Sophistication of negative beliefs about the disciples starting in 6:50 is attended by a change
in the content of the explanatory ydp clauses that reference the disciples: see Pryke, Redactional
Style, 126, who attributes all eight of these clauses (more than with any other character or group of
characters) to Markan redaction. The first two introduce neutral information about Simon and
Andrew (1:16) and the disciples (6:48). Beginning in 6:50, however, these clauses relate only nega-
tive information about the disciples: the disciples were frightened (6:50), didn't understand about the
breads (6:52), have hardened hearts (6:52); Peter didn't know what to respond (9:6a); Peter, James,
and John were terrified (9:6b); the disciples were discussing who is greatest (9:34); and the eyes of
Peter, James, and John were heavy (14:40).
54. Neutral strategies are apparent in every example of straightforward narration that evokes
preexisting beliefs about the disciples that do not undergo repetition or are repeated without attending
specialized developments. This is especially apparent in the frequent occurrence of plural verbs and
participles that reference Jesus and disciples jointly. The reservation of such joint references with
Jesus to the disciples is especially common with verbs of motion: dyw (1:38; 14:42); dvapaivw
(10:32, 33); 8iaTTepd(o (6:53); 8iepxop.ca (4:35); eyyi£<o (11:1); eiaTropei>o|jLai (1:21); eKTropeuo-
l±ai (10:46 [with the crowd]; 11:19); e?epxo|xat (1:29; 6:54; 8:27 [singular verb but plural subject];
9:30; 11:11, 12; 14:26); epxoM.cn (1:29; 5:1, 38; 6:53; 8:22; 9:14, 33; 10:46; 11:15, 27a; 14:32;
Kon-apatvd) (9:9); TrapaTropeuo|jLai (9:30; 11:20); and irn-dyw (6:33). Joint references also appear
with be seated (dvd»ceiu,ai, 14:18), be able (8uvaum, 3:20), eat (eaGtw, 3:20; 14:18a, 22), see
(opdw, 9:14; 11:20), and moor (TrpoaopiiiCopm, 6:53).
3:13-19; 6:6b~13, 30-32 and 6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26) that cultivate primarily
positive beliefs. These discussions also identified repetition that sophisticates the
potential for the disciples' positive evaluation through twelve repeated words
(aTroXXujii, •ypTyyopea), 8i8a)|ii, TTpoaeux0!^1? opda), Gdvorros, ÛXÎJ paTr-
TI£GJ, SIOLKOVOS, 8oi)Xos, TrpwTog, 8et), three repeated contexts (8:34-9:1;
9:35-41; 10:42-45 and 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30; 13:3-13 and 1:1-15; 12:1-12;
13:32-37), and one repeated structure (8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; 10:32-45).55 Third in
frequency is sophisticating repetition that cultivates negative beliefs about the
disciples. This occurs consistently with five verbs (8iaXoyiCo|iaL, eTTLTtpido) for
both agent and experiencer, ol8a, avvir\[ii9 côpeoâi), in the final occurrences
of three verbs (yp^yopea), 8i8a)|ii, TTpoaei>xo|iai), in a minority of occurrences
of four other verbs (aKoXouGeco, d(|>LT)|ju, eKpdXXa), Trotea)), and in a majority
(SojSeKa) or minority (|ia0TiTai) of the occurrences of two designations. To
these could be added seek (Cêu; see ch. 1 sec. 3b), and vocabulary associated
with not knowing, or lacking understanding (see ch. 4 sec. 2b). Deconstructive
repetition that cultivates new negative beliefs about the disciples appears only in
the contextual repetition of 8:32b-33; 9:33-34; and 10:35-41 and so is lowest in
frequency. Thus, the frequency of strategies in decreasing order is neutral
(mostly positive), sophisticating (positive), sophisticating (negative), and decon-
structive (very negative).
Neutral strategies also are the most consistently introduced in the characteriza-
tion of the disciples. Inclusion of the noted but undeveloped examples of neutral
strategies would establish their occurrence in each of the first fourteen chapters
of the narration. Second in consistency of distribution is sophisticating repetition
that cultivates positive beliefs about the disciples: Mark 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14 (plus the noted but undeveloped examples) for vocabulary and Mark 3, 6,
8, 9, 10, 13, 14 for contexts and structures. Sophisticating repetition that culti-
vates negative beliefs about the disciples has the third most consistent distribu-
tion: Mark 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 (plus the noted but undeveloped examples) for
vocabulary. Deconstructive repetition is limited to Mark 8, 9, 10 for contexts.
This indicates parallels in the sequence, frequency, and distribution of rhetorical
strategies in the characterization of the disciples:
neutral (+) > sophisticating (+) > sophisticating (-) > deconstructive (-)
c. Maintaining the Reliability of the Narration

As the representative of the real audience, the authorial audience is the final
arbiter of the reliability of the narration; and initial evocation of preexisting posi-
tive beliefs about the disciples (1:16-20) assures the reliability of the narration
55. To these could be added the further positive linkage of Jesus, John, and the disciples through
repetition of wilderness (eprôs, of John, 1:3-4; of Jesus, 1:12,13, 35, 45; and of Jesus and the dis-
ciples, 6:31, 32, 35), and the positive linkage of Jesus/the disciples through repetition of by them-
selves (KCIT' i8(.au, for Jesus and the disciples, 4:34; 9:28; for Jesus and the apostles, 6:31, 32; for
Jesus and Peter, James, and John, 9:2; and for Jesus, Peter, James, and Andrew, 13:3).
and of the portrayal of the disciples for the authorial audience. The initial cultiva-
tion of positive beliefs about the disciples (ctKoXouGea), a4>ir)|.u, OTTLCTOI)) in
1:20-3:12 maintains the narration's reliability for the authorial audience and
asserts the reliability of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs which cohere
with those of the authorial audience. The initial indication of negative elements
of the disciples' portrayal appears in the evocation of preexisting beliefs that rec-
ognize that Judas handed over (iTapa8i8Gj|±i) Jesus (3:19) in the second occur-
rence (3:13-19) of the repeated context that cultivates the most positive beliefs
about the disciples. Although 3:20-6:6a introduces further negative elements
through the negative interpretation of the disciples' fear (<|)opeo[iai) and the evo-
cation of preexisting beliefs that recognize that the disciples do not always
understand (ovv'n\\Li) Jesus' teaching, these are not repeated (6:50-52) until
after the completion of the sophistication of very positive beliefs identifying the
twelve with Jesus in 6:6b-13,30-32 (diroaTeXXa), eKpdXXw, eôuata, Kripuaaa),
TTOL60)). This continues to ensure for the authorial audience the reliability of the
narration and of the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs. The initial cultivation
of negative beliefs in 6:33-8:26 builds on the preexisting negative beliefs (ovvi-
T||IL) or the negative interpretation of preexisting ambiguous information, pri-
marily in an indirect manner (c()oP€O|iai). Neither approach directly contradicts
preexisting beliefs; and interlacing the cultivation of negative beliefs about the
disciples with continuing appeals to preexisting positive beliefs about them
maintains the reliability of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience.
From this point onward, however, the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs,
which include these sophisticated negative elements, begin to diverge ever more
significantly from the authorial (and real) audience's overwhelmingly positive
preexisting beliefs about the disciples.
Beginning in 8:27, the reliability of the narration comes under direct assault.
First, 8:27-30 concludes with a negative evaluation of the disciples that does not
receive immediate explanation. Then the first controversy (8:32b-33) introduces
new negative content that contradicts preexisting beliefs about the disciples. The
authorial audience might be expected to reject this contradictory content, and
such rejection would fatally undermine for the authorial (and real) audience the
reliability of both the narration and the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs.
The narrative rhetoric, however, forestalls such rejection by evoking within the
same context very positive preexisting and cultivated beliefs about the disciples
(cf. 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32) that focus on Jesus' invitation to disciple-
ship (cf. 1:16-20). The following teaching (8:34-9:1) then immediately reinter-
prets the negative content of 8:32b-33 into an opportunity for successful
rehabilitation, introduces new opportunities for the potential positive evaluation
of disciples, and evokes preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs concerning
the disciples' success when sent. The following controversies (9:33-34;
10:35-41) again assault the reliability of the narration and of the narrative audi-
ence's cultivated beliefs. However, the continuing evocation of positive beliefs
and the lack of parallels of vocabulary that would strengthen and link the nega-
tive content of the controversies join with the reinterpretation of this content and
the sophistication of the potential for positive beliefs in the teachings (9:35-41;
10:42-45) to maintain the reliability of the narration and of the narrative audi-
ence's cultivated beliefs. The almost exclusive evocation of preexisting and cul-
tivated positive beliefs about the disciples and the rehabilitation of the
designation iiaOrjTat in Mark 11-13 then reasserts the beleaguered reliability of
the narration for the authorial (and real) audience. Since it is only the continuing
reliability of 8:31-10:45 that permits the cultivation of the narrative audience's
harshly negative beliefs about the disciples, these negative beliefs are deemed a
parasitic development whose viability depends on the continuing vitality of pre-
existing and cultivated positive beliefs about them.
6. The Narrative Function of the Disciples' Characterization: Part 1

This discussion examines the narrative function of the disciples' characterization
from their introduction in 1:16 to their final appearance in 14:50 as a group and
in 14:72 in the case of Peter and reserves the investigation of their characteriza-
tion through recapitulation for the next chapter. The initial evocation and cultiva-
tion of positive beliefs about the disciples in 1:16-3:13 not only ensure the
narration's initial reliability for the authorial (and real) audience but encourage
this audience, as a believer of the gospel (ch. 2 sec. 2), to identify with the disci-
ples. Sophistication of positive beliefs about the disciples also encourages the
narrative audience, whose initial beliefs cohere with those of the authorial (and
real) audience, to identify with the disciples. Ongoing appeals to preexisting and
previously cultivated positive beliefs in the context of the sophistication of nega-
tive beliefs about the disciples ensure the continuing reliability of the narration
for the authorial (and real) audience and encourage the narrative audience's con-
tinued identification with the disciples even as sophistication of negative beliefs
encourage the narrative audience to evaluate elements of the disciples' thinking
and action negatively. Although deconstructive repetition introduces contradic-
tory negative content about the disciples that severely challenges the reliability
of the narration for the authorial (and real) audience, ongoing appeals to positive
preexisting beliefs ultimately ensure its continuing but beleaguered reliability.
Cultivation of positive beliefs in these contexts and the reinterpretation of the
disciples' negative thinking and actions into opportunities for rehabilitation
maintain the narrative audience's identification with the disciples even as the
new negative content encourages this audience to assume a very negative and
critical stance toward the disciples' erroneous thinking and improper actions.
By 10:45 the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs about the disciples have
come to diverge significantly from those of the authorial (and real) audience. The
narrative audience's beliefs include all of the preexisting, primarily positive
beliefs of the authorial audience evoked to this point in the narration (ch. 4 sec. 1)
and recognize the direct and indirect positive alignment of the disciples with
Jesus, John the Baptist, and God and five instances of the disciples' identification
with Jesus, especially in the context of their mission. Linkage of the exacting and
necessary thinking and acting of disciples to the necessary near future experience
and activity of Jesus as Son of Man constitutes the most frequently asserted,
highly developed, and carefully nuanced cultivated relationship of the disciples
with Jesus under any of Jesus' designations. This relationship, founded in asser-
tions about the Son of Man (predictions) and the disciples (controversies) that
contradict the authorial (and real) audience's preexisting beliefs, therefore, con-
stitutes a novel Markan development that establishes for the narrative audience
the disciple's potential for future direct positive alignment with Jesus and indi-
rect positive alignment with God that ultimately saves the disciple's life. How-
ever, the narrative audience's sophisticated and qualitatively and quantitatively
more negative beliefs about the disciples also recognize that the disciples con-
tinue to lack understanding of Jesus, his teachings, and his actions, to be afraid,
and to think erroneously and act improperly. The narrative audience's recogni-
tion of the disciples' continuing actual failures in the latter controversies, despite
Jesus' corrective teaching, also cultivates a realization that the potential for the
disciples' future positively evaluated thinking and acting need not be realized.
Evocation of primarily positive beliefs about the disciples and the rehabilita-
tion of the designation |±a0T]Tai in Mark 11 and 12 and continuing assertion of
the disciples' potential future success in Mark 13 cultivate for the narrative audi-
ence an expectation of a positive outcome for the disciples. However, the con-
cluding narrated actions attributed to Peter, James, and John (not remaining alert,
not praying), the disciples (leaving Jesus and fleeing) and, finally, Peter (follow-
ing at a distance, denying Jesus, and weeping) also cultivate an expectation that
the disciples will not realize the potential for their future positive evaluation. As
a result, the narrative audience is characterized by conflicting expectations; and
cultivated positive and negative elements of the disciples' characterization
simultaneously encourage the narrative audience to identify with and distance
itself from the disciples.56
The characterization of the disciples cultivates the narrative audience's beliefs
about the necessary thinking and acting of disciples, and the narrative rhetoric
proposes these as alternatives to the authorial (and real) audience's beliefs. The
real audience may be expected to resist entertaining these alternatives. However,
should the real audience recognize its similar erroneous thinking, improper acting,
and need of instruction and rehabilitation or desire assurance that Jesus continues
his invitation to be a disciple even in contexts of abject failure, then the narrative
audience's cultivated beliefs and continuing self-identification as a disciple and
with Jesus' disciples, despite their failures, would assert the viability of the culti-
vated alternative beliefs and encourage the real audience to appropriate them.
56. Cultivation of both positive and negative elements of the disciples' portrayal accounts in
part for the observation by Robert C. Tannehill that the narration simultaneously draws the implied
reader to identify with the disciples and to judge them negatively ("The Gospel of Mark as Narrative
Christology," Semeia 16 [1979]: 57-95, here 69-70).
Chapter 5
RECAPITULATION: THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB
This study investigates the manner in which the characterization of the women at
the tomb (15:40-41,47; 16:1—8) recapitulates and contributes to the portrayal of
Jesus' disciples.1 Since recapitulation proceeds through the evocation of previ-
ously cultivated beliefs, the study does not inquire into preexisting beliefs about
the women. The discussion first examines the manner in which the vocabulary of
the women's portrayal evokes and develops significant elements of the disciples'
portrayal and directly aligns the women with the disciples, from their earlier very
positive evaluation to their concluding very negative evaluation. Clarification of
this progression requires that vocabulary be considered in the order of its appear-
ance and not by argument role. Since contextual and structural repetition do not
contribute to the women's portrayal, the discussion of the rhetorical organization
of cultivated beliefs about the women considers only the incorporation of
realized content about the women into the narrative frames associated with the
disciples. An analysis of the narrative rhetoric of the women's portrayal then
clarifies the narrative function of the characterization of both the women and
Jesus' disciples.
1. The Characterization of the Women

The discussion investigates the previously cultivated beliefs evoked by vocabu-
lary in the women's portrayal and resolves their characterization into five com-
ponents (15:40-41, 47; 16:1-4, 5-7, and 8) based on distinctive locales. The
investigation incorporates vocabulary not related to the disciples that makes
salient contributions to the women's portrayal.
a. At the Crucifixion (15:40-41)

The characterization of the women begins in 15:40 with the notice that "there
were women observing from a distance." Woman (yuvrj) relates these women to
the woman with a flow of blood (5:25,33), who receives healing because she has
faith (5:34); to the Syrophoenician woman (7:25, 26), who receives Jesus' com-
mendation for her statement (7:29) and expulsion of the demon from her daugh-
ter (7:30); and to the woman whose action of anointing Jesus (14:3) will be
1. This study develops the content of Paul Danove, "The Characterization and Narrative Func-
tion of the Women at the Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)," Bib 77 (1996): 375-97.
127
remembered wherever the gospel is proclaimed (14:9).2 Since the former women
received positive evaluation, yuvfj positively evaluates Mary Magdalene, Mary,
and Salome.
From a distance (duo |±a.Kp60ev) appeared twice previously with a verb of
seeing (opdoj), and in both occurrences the experiencer received positive evalua-
tion. The man possessed by Legion, on seeing Jesus from a distance (5:6),
responds positively by running to Jesus (cf. 5:6); and Jesus, on seeing a fig tree in
leaf from a distance (11:13), responds positively by coming to it (cf. 11:13).
Since both previous characters seeing from a distance are positive evaluated, d TTO
lidKpoGev strengthens the women's positively evaluation.
Observe (Geoapeo)) previously occurred with the experiencers unclean spirits,
which observed Jesus (3:11) and responded by falling down and shouting his
identity and which received Jesus' rebuke (cf. 3:12), and those who observed the
former demoniac and responded by asking Jesus to leave their territory (5:17).
Both received negative evaluation. In contrast, Jesus, who observed first a com-
motion (5:38) and then the crowd putting money into the treasury (12:41),
received positive evaluation for his responding actions of entering (cf. 5:39) and
then summoning disciples for instruction (cf. 12:43). Since the context
(15:40-41) presents no response by the women, their evaluation remains
ambiguous. Future occurrences of this verb, however, will evoke the women's
otherwise positive evaluation in this context.
Although no characters previously were identified as Mary Magdalene, Mary
[wife] of James the lesser and the mother of Joses, and Salome, former straight-
forward appeals to preexisting beliefs about named characters that do not present
explicit negative information about them (as with Herod and Herodias) consis-
tently occur in contexts of positive evaluation (1:16, 19; 3:17, 18). Thus, the
women's names and relationships probably evoke a positive evaluation of them.
The vocabulary of 15:41 consistently imposes positive evaluations of the
women and directly aligns the women with positive elements of the disciples'
portrayal. Galilee (raXiXaict, 1:9,14,28,39; 3:7; 6:21; 9:30; 14:28), when not in
the phrase Sea of Galilee, recalls that a multitude from Galilee followed Jesus
(3:7) and that, after he is raised, Jesus will go before his disciples to Galilee
(14:28).3 Follow (dKoXouOeco) with Jesus as goal and in contexts that do not
explicitly introduce negative information about the agent imposes a positive
evaluation on the agent (ch. 4 sec. 2c). This directly positively aligns the women
2. The noun yvvi\ has a second usage with the connotation wife (6:17, 18; 10:2, 7, 11; 12:19a,
19b, 20,22,23), which requires a benefactive argument.
3. The remaining six occurrences of Galilee indicate that (1) Jesus comes from Nazareth of
Galilee (1:9); (2) Jesus proclaims the gospel of God in Galilee (1:14); (3) Jesus' fame spreads
throughout Galilee (1:28); (4) Jesus preaches and drives out demons in synagogues throughout
Galilee (1:39); (5) Herod gave a banquet for the leading men of Galilee (6:21); and (6) Jesus jour-
neyed through Galilee (9:30).
Recapitulation: The Women at the Tomb 129
with the positive portrayal of the disciples.4 Serve (SiaKOveo) directly positively
aligns the women with God's messengers (1:13), Simon's mother-in-law (1:31),
and Son of Man (10:45b), and the disciple who would be first (9:35) or great
(10:43) by being a servant (SidKovos).5 Into Jerusalem (els TepoaoXujia) most
recently has occurred in contexts of the positive evaluation of Jesus' disciples
(11:1,15, 27; cf. 10:32, 33 for earlier negative evaluations).
b. At the Burial of Jesus (15:47)

The women next appear at the end of the story of Jesus' burial (15:42-47).
Although Salome is absent, the designations Mary Magdalene and Mary the
[mother] of Joses relate these women to Salome and positively evaluate the
women based on their earlier presentation. Observe (Gewpeo, 15:40), which
again presents no responding action, evokes its previous occurrence in the con-
text of the women's positive evaluation. Place in a tomb (TL0T)|IL ev ^VTêiG),
14:46; cf. 6:29) positively evaluates the agent Joseph of Arimathea and nega-
tively evaluates Jesus' disciples based on the frustration of the narrative audi-
ence's cultivated expectation that Jesus' disciples would perform this action for
Jesus (ch. 4 sec. 3a). Although the women do not participate in Joseph's activity,
their observation of his action establishes their tenuous positive association with
him and their contrast with Jesus' disciples. Any positive evaluation of the
women implied by these relationships, however, remains contingent on their
continuing alignment with Joseph and contrast with the disciples.
c. To the Tomb (16:1-4)

In 16:1 "when the Sabbath passed" relates this to the previous scene on the day
before the Sabbath (15:42). Previously Sabbath (adppctTOv, 1:21; 2:23, 24, 27a,
27b, 28; 3:2,4; 6:2) has cultivated an expectation for conflict on this day between
Jesus and his opponents: an unclean spirit (1:23); Pharisees (2:24); Pharisees and
Herodians (3:6); and the people of his native place (6:1-2). The women's names
again strengthen the coordination of this and the previous scene and recall their
previous positive evaluation. Buy (dyopdCo)) enhances the women's alignment
with Joseph (15:46) but otherwise imposes a negative evaluation: Jesus rejected
the content of the disciples' question about buying bread (6:36, 37); and those
buying in the temple (11:15) were negatively evaluated. Thus, dyopd£a> imposes
an ambiguous evaluation on the women. Anoint (dAei((>G)), which recalls that the
4. The contextual linkage of FaXtAaia and (XKoXouGew also may cultivate a recognition that the
women and the many others may be among those from Galilee who heard about the things that Jesus
was doing and came to him (3:7-8).
5. The lone passive-voice occurrence of SiaKovew in "the Son of Man did not come to be
served" (10:45a) imposes a negative evaluation of those serving the Son of Man. This singular nega-
tive evaluation, however, receives no further development and is immediately countered by further
intensification of the positive evaluation of the agent who serves (10:45b).
twelve anointed many sick people with oil and cured them (6:13), strengthens the
women's alignment with the positive elements of the disciples' portrayal. Jesus'
previous statement that another has anointed ([iupi£G), 14:8) his body for burial
(14:8), however, uses a different verb and so raises the possibility for the narra-
tive audience that the women's proposed activity may prove superfluous if not
inappropriate. Thus, this verb also evaluates the women ambiguously.
In 16:2, in the morning (TTPCOI) recalls that this is the time of Jesus' rising to
pray (1:35), Jesus' action of cursing the fig tree (11:20), the Lord of the House-
hold's possible coming (13:35), and the chief priests, scribes, and elders' plots
against Jesus (15:1). In the first three occurrences, the one who acts in the morn-
ing is Jesus/the Lord of the Household, who receives positive evaluation,
whereas the agents in the final occurrence receive negative valuation. This estab-
lishes the potential for the women's positive or negative evaluation, should they
subsequently receive alignment with Jesus or the religious authorities. On the
first [day] of the week/Sabbath (crdppaTov; cf. 16:1) again raises an expectation
for conflict between Jesus and his opponents. Tomb (pvr\\ieiov) then recalls the
women's tenuous positive alignment with Joseph in 15:46.
In 16:3, roll back (aTTOKuXico) recalls Joseph's positively evaluated action of
rolling on (TTPCXTKUXLO), 15:46) the stone and the women's tenuous alignment
with Joseph.
In 16:4, look up (dvapXeiTG)) evokes a previously cultivated expectation for
significant actions by Jesus: feeding the crowd (6:41); opening the deaf man's
ears (7:34); and healing the blind man (8:24-25).6 With Jesus as agent, the action
benefits others (6:41; 7:34); and with another character as agent, the action bene-
fits that character (8:24). Thus, dvapXeiTG) evokes an expectation for an action
that will benefit the women. Observe (Oewpew; cf. 15:40,47) evokes the previous
contexts of the women's positive evaluation and positively evaluates the women,
who respond by coming to the tomb. The absence of the agent of roll back
(aTTOKuXLO)) in 'the stone has been rolled back" raises the possibility that the
women's recently evoked relationship with Joseph, who originally rolled the
stone onto the entrance, may be superseded by a relationship with another char-
acter who has completed this action. That the women have come to anoint Jesus
(16:1) and someone else has preceded them to the tomb recalls the possibility
raised by dXeLcjxi) that this action may prove superfluous if not inappropriate and
asserts the potential for the negative evaluation of the women and their actions.
Finally, since every explanatory yap clause not directly in reference to Jesus
after 11:18b has imposed a negative evaluation, the notice "for it was very large"
(r)v ydp |±eyas a<|)68pa) introduces negative overtones into 16:4.7
6. Look up (dvapXeTTd)) requires an agent and a goal, which may be omitted. The verb also has
a second usage with the connotation [re]gain sight (10:51, 52), which requires only a patient argu-
ment.
7. The explanatory yap clause is a primary means of asserting reliable narration in Mark: see
Thomas E. Boomershine and Gilbert L. Bartholomew, "The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8," JBL
d. At the Tomb (16:5-7)

In 16:5, the women's entrance into the tomb (ju/nji€iov) recalls their relation-
ship with Joseph and reasserts their earlier positive evaluation. Young man
recalls the young man (14:51-52) who followed along with
Jesus, was wrapped (TrepipdXXo)) in a linen cloth, and fled
(<\>evyu>) as did the disciples at Jesus' arrest (14:50). Follow along with (avv +
aKoXouGeo)) directly positively aligned the former young man with Peter, James,
and John (5:37) in their positive evaluation and, through aKoXovOeu), relates him
to the disciples (1:18; 2:14, 15; 3:7; 5:24; 6:1; 8:34; 10:21, 28, 52; 11:9; 14:54)
and the women (15:41). Wrapped (TT€pipdXX(o) in a garment identifies this and
the former young man whose fleeing (14:52) aligned him with Jesus' disciples
precisely at the moment of their most negative evaluation (14:50). Thus, the
young man's evaluation in 14:51-52 was ambiguous; and his newly established
relationship with the women extends this ambiguous evaluation to them. Sitting
on the right (mOrîm ev TOLS 8e£ioig) recalls that Jesus as Lord is the one sit-
ting at God's right (KdOrjiiox 6K 8e£tcov) until God places his enemies beneath
his feet (12:36; cf. Ps 109:1) and that Jesus as the parousaic Son of Man will be
seated at the right (eic 8e.£icov KaGr)|±ai) of power and coming with the clouds of
heaven (14:62; cf. Ps 109:1; Dan 7:13). This phrase positively aligns the young
100 (1981): 214; Robert Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the
Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1981), 157-75; and David Rhoads and
Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative ofa Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1982), 45-51. The authorial audience has a preexisting familiarity with such clauses in the Septuagint
(see Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible [JSOTSup 70; Sheffield: Almond, 1989], 30-31,
for their basis in the Hebrew Bible). These clauses consistently impose a positive evaluation on Jesus
but either a consistently negative (religious authorities) or a progressively more negative (disciples
and Herod) evaluation on all other characters. Once a character or group of characters receives nega-
tive evaluation in these clauses, every subsequent explanatory yap clause referencing the same char-
acter or group imposes a negative evaluation; and the repetition of this pattern cultivates for the
narrative audience an expectation of its occurrence:
positive or neutral valuation I negative valuation
1. disciples (10): disciples: 6:48 / 6:50,52; 9:34; 10:45
Peter: / 9:6a
Peter, Andrew (James, John): 1:16 /
Peter, James, John: / 9:6b; 14:40
2. authorities (7): chief priests, scribes: / 11:18a; 14:2
chief priests, scribes, elders: / 11:32; 12:12
chief priests, the Sanhedrin: / 14:56
Pharisees, scribes: / 7:3
chiefpriests: / 15:10
3. Herod (4): 6:14 / 6:17,18,20
4. Jesus(6): 1:22; 3:10; 5:8;9:31; 11:13; 12:12 /
Characters receiving one narratorial comment are people in a synagogue in Capernaum (1:22),
those at Levi's house (2:15), those with Jesus (3:21), the woman with the flow of blood (5:28),
Jairus's daughter (5:42), the man with many possessions (10:22), and the crowd (11:18b).
man with Jesus as Lord and Son of Man as the only characters to sit successfully
at/on the right.8 Although robe (aToXrj) recalls Jesus' warning about the nega-
tively evaluated Pharisees who go around in robes (12:38), a corresponding neg-
ative evaluation does not accrue to the young man whose robe is white and
whose action is different. White (XeuKrj) recalls Jesus' clothes during his trans-
figuration (9:3) and further strengthens the young man's alignment with Jesus
and positive evaluation.
The first half of 16:6 presents vocabulary that imposes a negative evaluation
on the women. Amaze (<EKGa|iPeo|±ai) recalls that in 9:15 the crowd who saw
Jesus after his transfiguration were amazed and responded by running to him.
There Jesus' reference to the crowd as a faithless generation negatively evalu-
ates them and their actions. In 14:33 Jesus, who began to be amazed and dis-
tressed in Gethsemane, responded by ordering his disciples to remain alert (cf.
14:34) and by praying (cf. 14:35), which received positive evaluation. Here the
women receive negative evaluation for three reasons. First, the young man, who
is directly positively aligned with Jesus, commands, "Don't be amazed," indi-
cating that the women's amazement is inappropriate. Second, as previously
noted (ch. 1 sec. 3b), seek (£r)T60)), after its initial occurrence (1:37), consis-
tently has imposed a negative evaluation on its agent. Third, the women's
response of fleeing (êuyco, 16:8), as the following discussion indicates, is neg-
atively evaluated.
The remainder of 16:6 places recent developments in the background by fore-
grounding Jesus' ministry (Na£apTiv6s, 1:24; 10:47), Peter's denial of Jesus
(NaCapT^vos, 14:67), and Jesus' crucifixion (aTaupoo), 15:13,14,15, 20,24, 25,
27). This prepares a context in which the young man's statement that Jesus rose
(eyeLpG)) can have its optimal impact.9 Place (TOTTO?), when not joined with
deserted (epruiog, 1:35,45; 6:31, 32, 35), refers to a location where the disciples
are not welcomed (6:11) or where there are earthquakes before the end (13:8) or
to Golgotha (15:22), each of which received negative evaluation. Placed
(TL0T]|IL) recalls the women's tentatively positive evaluation through their tenu-
ous association with Joseph (15:47). Although 16: l-4a supported this alignment,
the women's increasingly ambiguous evaluation since 16:4b has tended to under-
mine their alignment with the positively evaluated Joseph.
In 16:7 the young man commands the women to go (irrrdyG)). Previous reser-
vation of this command to Jesus (1:44; 2:11; 5:19; 6:38; 7:29; 8:33; 10:21, 52;
11:2; 14:13) strengthens the young man's positive evaluation. Since only the for-
mer leper (1:45) and rich man (10:22) did not do exactly as Jesus commanded,
8. In contrast, James and John, whose request to sit at Jesus' right (<EK 8e£iwv . . . KCI0L£(I)) and
left in his glory uses a different verb (10:30), are negatively evaluated and placed in opposition to the
young man.
9. See the discussions of rise (eyeipo)), crucify (aTaupow), and Jesus the Nazarene in ch. 3
sec. 2.
repetition of the occasions of compliance has cultivated an expectation that the

women will go and do as commanded. This introduces the potential for the
women's positive evaluation, should they do so. Previous occurrences of the
command "say" (el-uov, 11:3; 13:4; 14:14), which also resulted in compliance,
strengthen the expectation that the women will do as ordered, and again asserts
the potential for their positive evaluation, if they do so.
Reference to the disciples and Peter, who last appeared in 14:50 as a group and
in 14:72 in the case of Peter, then evokes both the authorial audience's preexist-
ing expectation and the narrative audience's cultivated expectation (see ch. 4 sec.
6) for their rehabilitation. Reintroduction of disciples in the context of their
redundantly reinforced relationship with the women also focuses the narrative
audience's attention on the women as the characters whose message may prompt
the disciples' rehabilitation. This cultivates an expectation that the women will
carry out the command to tell the disciples the following message and imposes a
very positive evaluation of the women that is contingent on their fulfillment of
the command. "He goes before you to Galilee" recalls Jesus' statement to the dis-
ciples before his arrest (14:28), imposes a positive evaluation on the young man
who repeats Jesus' words, increases the expectation that the women will convey
the message, and heightens the stakes for their ultimate evaluation based on
whether they obey the command. "You will see" (6i|iea6e) previously has had as
the content of seeing only the Son of Man, either coming on clouds (13:26) or
seated at the right of power and coming with clouds (14:62). This strengthens the
expectation of rehabilitation for the disciples and Peter and the contingently pos-
itive evaluation of the women. Finally, "as he said to you" recalls the disciples
and Peter, the original referents of "you," and prods the narrative audience's rec-
ollection (lest the association with 14:28 be missed!) that Jesus stated this earlier.
The reliability of the statement again strengthens the young man's positive eval-
uation, the expectation of the rehabilitation of the disciples and Peter, and the
women's positive evaluation, which remains contingent on their enacting the
content of the command.
e. From the Tomb (16:8)

The women's flight (c^cuyo)) in response to the young man's statement recalls
that the ones tending pigs fled at the drowning of their herds (5:14), that the
proper time for flight is when the temple is desecrated (13:14), that the disciples
fled at Jesus' arrest (14:50), and that the young man fled when those arresting
Jesus tried to seize him (14:52). Thus, the women's flight (and silence) is inap-
propriate and results in their negative evaluation. Here fyevya directly aligns the
women with the disciples, whose flight also received negative evaluation, and
contrasts them with the young man, whose original ambiguous evaluation
(14:51-52) has become very positive in 16:5-7. The women's flight from the
tomb (u.vr||jLetov) heightens the contrast between the women's negatively evalu-
ated flight and the positively evaluated actions of the young man and Joseph at
the tomb and strengthens the women's negative evaluation.
Have (ex**)), with a required benefactive subject and patient object, occurs nine
times with characters as referent of the patient.10 Of these, Jesus as shepherd
(6:34) and Beloved Son (12:6) received positive evaluation; and Beelzebul
(3:22), unclean spirits (3:30; 7:25), Legion (5:15), Herodias as wife (6:18), and
an unspeaking spirit (9:17) receive negative evaluation. The women's actions of
fleeing and not saying Jesus' statement contrasts them with Jesus and results in
their negative evaluation.
Trembling (Tp6|±O9) aligns the women with the woman who initially received
negative evaluation for her fear and trembling (cf. Tpe|ia), 5:33). Amazement
increases the women's negative evaluation; for the link between
and amaze (<££L<7TTI|JLI), cultivated in 5:42, strengthens the women's
alignment with the disciples, whose amazement (cf. 6:51) received negative
evaluation in the explanatory ydp clause in 6:52. u "For trembling astonishment
was holding them" aligns the women with Jesus' disciples, Herod, and various
groups of religious authorities whose negative evaluation was cultivated through
explanatory ydp clauses and evokes the narrative audience's cultivated expecta-
tion that the women's evaluation will be negative in any subsequent explanatory
ydp clause that references them.12
"Say nothing to anyone" (ouSevl ou8ev Xeyw) frustrates the expectation for
rehabilitation of the disciples and Peter and negatively evaluates the women who
fail to fulfill the command to pass on the message. This negative evaluation is
strengthened by the previous contexts (1:40-45/7:31-37) that link a healing of a
leper/a deaf and dumb man (1:40-42/7:32-36), Jesus' command not to say any-
thing to anyone (1:44/7:36), and those so commanded disobeying Jesus' order
and, instead, proclaiming (KTipijaaa), l:45/7:36).13 Whereas the failure of the
10. The five remaining occurrences of e X<D with character objects appear with usages of the verb
that require three arguments: agent, patient, comitative (2:19; 14:7a, 7b); experiencer, topic, com-
ment (11:32); and agent, patient, state (12:23). See Paul Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the
Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon (JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 35-39, for an explanation of the novel argument roles.
Differences in usage (and connotation) preclude a recognition of relationships between these occur-
rences and those considered above.
11. C. H. Giblin links amazement and fear to a lack of faith ("The Beginning of the Ongoing
Gospel [MK 1,2-16,8]," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift From Neirynck [ed. Frans Van Seg-
broeck et al.; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992], 975-86, here 982 n. 2).
12. As indicated above, once characters receive negative evaluation through an explanatory yap
clause, all subsequent explanatory yap clauses with respect to these characters impose negative eval-
uations.
13. E. J. Pryke attributes the occurrences of this word in the indicated texts to authorial composi-
tion (Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study ofSyntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redac-
tion in Mark [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978], 37).
leper and the blind man to obey Jesus' command to say nothing resulted in their
negative evaluation, the women's failure to obey the young man's command to
say results in their negative evaluation. This makes the women the brunt of irony
insofar as this command to say fails after two previous commands not to say
were unable to achieve silence.14 The women's failure to say (16:8) after the
notice that Jesus rose (16:6) also recalls that in 9:9 Jesus ordered Peter, James,
and John not to narrate to anyone (|iTi8evl . . . 8iTyyeo|icu) the event of the trans-
figuration until the Son of Man rises.15 The women's failure to say the young
man's message frustrates the expectation for Peter, James, and John to narrate
the events of the transfiguration, extends the apprehension of irony to the disci-
ples and Peter, and contributes to their concluding negative evaluation.16
Fear (<{>opeo|iai), to which the women respond by going out, fleeing, and not
saying anything to anyone also negatively evaluates them and strengthens their
alignment with the negatively evaluated disciples, whose fear is attributed to a
lack of faith (4:41; cf. 4:40) and a failure to understand (9:32). The explanatory
yap clause, "for they were afraid," then confirms the women's direct alignment
with other negatively portrayed characters, especially Jesus' disciples. Thus,
every word and phrase in 16:8 aligns the women with the negative elements of
the disciples' portrayal; and their silence frustrates the preexisting and previously
cultivated expectation for the disciples' rehabilitation, makes the women and dis-
ciples the brunt of negative irony, and results in a very negative concluding eval-
uation of both the women and the disciples.
The narrative rhetoric organizes and incorporates the cultivated beliefs about the
women directly into the narrative frames associated with them. Approximately
one third (10 of 34) of these words and phrases also evoke, develop, and relate
previously cultivated beliefs about Jesus' disciples and identify the women with
them. Thus, the content about the disciples cultivated in the portrayal of the
women is incorporated into the narrative frames associated with the disciples
through the narrative frames associated with the women. This incorporation is
noted in Appendix C.
14. The narrator states clearly that an implication of the former leper's disobedience is to ham-
per Jesus' open movement (1:45).
15. The immediately preceding identification of Jesus and the Son of Man (16:7) as the only ref-
erents of the content arguments of oijieaGe encourages this recollection.
16. Dan O. Via, "Irony as Hope in Mark's Gospel: A Reply to Werner Kelber," Semeia 48
(1988): 21-27, here 22.
3. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Women's Characterization
This discussion develops the basis for identifying the women's characterization
as recapitulation and examines the manner in which this recapitulation con-
tributes to the disciples' portrayal.
a. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Women
The characterization of the women is deemed a recapitulation of the portrayal of
Jesus' disciples based on both the density and the sequence of vocabulary that
directly aligns the women with the disciples. Of the thirty-four words and
phrases that contribute significantly to the portrayal of the women, sixteen align
the women with the disciples. More central to recapitulation, however, is vocab-
ulary that requires arguments for which both the disciples and the women are ref-
erents. Of the nineteen words that have the women as referent of a required
argument, seven have the disciples as referent of the same argument (ctKoXouGeo),
dyopd£(i), dXetcj)G), eiTTOv, cêiiya), eKcrraais, <tx)peo|iai).17 To these may be
added two of the three required event arguments of ydp in explanatory clauses
that have the women as subjects. Thus, nine of the nineteen of the grammatically
required references to the women evoke the disciples' portrayal and directly
align the women with them.
The progression of the women's presentation also parallels that of the disci-
ples. The vocabulary in 15:40-41 directly aligns the women with the [potential
and] realized positive portrayal of the disciples (dKoXouGeo), [SiaKoveoj]). The
women then are tenuously aligned with the positively evaluated Joseph of Ari-
mathea (Becopeo), TL9T)|±I, 15:47). The vocabulary in 16:l-4a initially strengthens
the women's alignment with Joseph (|±vr]|ietov), aligns them with both positive
(dXeCcjxi)) and negative (dyopd£d)) elements of the disciples' portrayal, and indi-
cates that their intended anointing (dXeicfxi)) may prove inappropriate. In 16:5 the
women are aligned with the young man (awaKoXouGea), 14:51) whose original
evaluation was ambiguous (cêuya), 14:51). Although 16:5b-7 contrasts the
young man with negative aspects of the disciples' portrayal, the women do not
share in his rehabilitation but, instead, are twice negatively evaluated in being
amazed (eK0a|ip6O|±ai). The vocabulary in 16:8 then confirms the women's
alignment with the negatively evaluated disciples (c()euyG), eKaTaais,
§O$IO[LCLI). Thus, the women's evaluation is overwhelmingly positive in
15:40-41, increasingly ambiguous in 15:47 and 16:1-4, predominantly negative
in 16:5-7, and, aided by the frustration of expectations cultivated in 16:5b-7,
consistently negative in 16:8. This progression parallels that of the disciples' por-
trayal; and the fact that the final action of the women, like that of the disciples, is
to flee (c))6ijyo)) confirms their identification with the disciples in the most nega-
17. A seventh word, serve (SictKOvew, cf. Sidxovos, 9:35; 10:43 for the disciples), also con-
tributes to the alignment of the women with the disciples.
tive moment of their portrayal. This progression receives sequential clarification

in the following table, which lists words and phrases in the order of occurrence,
classifies the evaluations they impose on the women, and notes with an asterisk
(*) vocabulary that aligns the women with the disciples:
Positive Ambiguous Negative

15:40 yiiyr], duo |i.aKp66ey
Gewpew
women's names
15:41 ev TTJ raXiXaig
els 'Iepoa6Xu|±a
15:47 women's names
16:1 women's names

*dyopd£a), *dXeic|>(i)
16:2
16:4 di
r\v ydp |±€yas a<|)68pa

16:5
16:6
16:7
16:8
*€txev yap
Tpojios, !
ouSevl ouSev Xeyw
*<|>opeo|jLai
*e<j)OpoOvTO y d p
b. The Narrative Rhetoric of the Characterization of the Disciples

Although the direct characterization of Jesus' disciples ends in 14:72, recapitula-
tion identifies the women with the disciples; and this identification contributes to
the disciples' portrayal in four ways. First, the concluding notice (16:8) that the
women flee (cêuyo)) and are afraid (4>oPeo|jLai) recalls the last narrated action of
disciples as a group, fleeing from Jesus (14:50). This directly aligns the women
with the negatively evaluated experiencers of fear, most frequently the disciples
(ch. 4 sec. 2b), and through repetition of êiiyw, strengthens the disciples'
harshly negative evaluation in 14:50. Linkage of fyevyu and 4>opeo|±ai in 16:8
then augments this negative evaluation by proposing fear as the cause of the
disciples' leaving (dtcJ)Lr||jLt) and fleeing.
Second, frustrations of expectations strengthen the disciples' concluding nega-
tive evaluation. The notice that Joseph of Arimathaea placed Jesus in a tomb
(TL0T]|IL . . . ev (ivri|i€L(i), 15:46) frustrates the cultivated expectation (cf. 6:29)
that Jesus' disciples would do this action. The prior contextual notice that the
women followed (aKoXouGeo), 15:41) Jesus also evokes the disciples' earlier pos-
itive evaluation and so heightens the contrast between their concluding negative
and earlier positive evaluation. Again, the women's failure to go (uTrdyco) mid
say (etTTov) the message precludes the disciples' expected rehabilitation, realizes
the expectation for conflict between Jesus and his opponents on the Sabbath
(adpparov), aligns the women with these opponents, and through their identifi-
cation with the disciples, aligns the disciples with the same negatively evaluated
opponents of Jesus.
Third, the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs, which include both an
expectation for the disciples' rehabilitation and a recognition that this rehabilita-
tion need not be realized (ch. 4 sec. 6), demand that it accept the implication of
the women's failure to say the message to anyone: that the disciples and Peter did
not go to Galilee and see the risen Jesus and so did not realize their potential for
rehabilitation.18 In contrast, the authorial audience, whose beliefs recognize that
these disciples did see the risen Jesus (ch. 4 sec. 1), must reject this new negative
content. The resulting unreliability of the narration for the authorial (and real)
audience becomes definitive when the cessation of the narration in 16:8 pre-
cludes further developments that might reassert its reliability. As noted previ-
ously (ch. 4 sec. 5c), the cultivated negative beliefs about the disciples constitute
a parasitic development whose viability depends on the continuing vitality of the
preexisting and cultivated positive beliefs about them. With the notice that the
women did not say the message and the implication that the disciples did not see
the risen Jesus, however, the parasite kills the host!
Fourth, the women's characterization evokes the expectation for the disciples'
rehabilitation, introduces the last explicit reference to the disciples and Peter
(16:7), and proposes fear as the cause of the disciples' leaving and flight in
14:50. Evocation of the expectation for rehabilitation highlights the content of
the repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45, whose repetition culti-
vated this expectation. The assertion that the disciples and Peter will see (opdw)
Jesus then recalls the emphasis on the disciples as experiencers in the contro-
versies (ch. 4 sec. 3b) and teachings (ch. 4 sec. 3c) of this structure. Evocation of
14:50 by 16:8 then recalls that the disciples left (dc|>iT]|±i) Jesus and fled in con-
trast to their original leaving of nets (1:18) and father (1:20) and following of
Jesus and places primary focus on this structure's first controversy (8:32b-33),
18. The cultivation of beliefs associated with say to no one (|±r)8ei/i Xeyw) centers exclusively
on other characters, and the implication of these beliefs for the disciples is not realized until 16:8.
which similarly evokes 1:16-20.19 This progression of specificity, from the

repeated structure, to its controversies and teachings, to the first controversy,
interprets the disciples' concluding negative evaluation in 16:8 as constituting a
failure of discipleship that requires a renewal of discipleship. It also interprets the
seeing of Jesus, promised in 14:28 and reiterated in 16:7, as the occasion for
Jesus to renew his invitation to discipleship (ch. 4 sec. 3b) and to send the disci-
ples and Peter with authority to cast out demons and to proclaim (ch. 4 sec. 3a)
and for the disciples to secure their rehabilitation by undertaking the redefined
requirements of discipleship while on mission (ch. 4 sec. 3c). The women's
silence and flight, however, preclude the opportunity for the disciples and Peter
to do so. Although the authorial audience must reject these implications, the nar-
rative audience's cultivated beliefs demand that it accept that the disciples and
Peter did not fulfill the exacting requirements of discipleship or become pro-
claimers of the gospel, including the message of Jesus' resurrection.
Every aspect of the women's characterization ultimately augments the culti-
vated negative portrayal of the disciples and especially their very negative evalu-
ation in 14:50. Thus, the recapitulation of the disciples' portrayal in the
characterization of the women is deemed a sophisticating negative rhetorical
strategy from the perspective of the narrative audience but a deconstructive
rhetorical strategy from the perspective of the authorial (and real) audience.
4. The Narrative Function of the Women*sCharacterization
The women's introduction as followers (aKoXouGeo)) of Jesus (15:41) recalls the

long absent disciples (since 14:50 as a group and 14:72 for Peter) and aligns them
with the disciples' earlier positive portrayal. The women's increasingly negative
and concluding harshly negative evaluation also recalls the progression of the
disciples' portrayal. The density of vocabulary evoking the disciples in
15:40-41,47 and 16:1-8 raises to prominence both the authorial audience's pre-
existing expectation and the narrative audience's cultivated expectation for the
disciples' rehabilitation and cultivates an expectation that the women's action
will be the catalyst for the disciples' rehabilitation. The finality of the notice that
the women fled and said nothing to anyone (16:8), however, realizes for the nar-
rative audience the possibility that the disciples and Peter did not see the risen
Jesus and did not receive rehabilitation.20 Thus, the women's characterization
19. Evocation of the first controversy also is encouraged by the linkage of the command, go
(uTrdYw), and the reference to Peter in 16:7, which occur together previously only in 8:32b-33.
20. J. Lee Magness deems that the implied impasse at 16:8 is not final because '*the presence of
the discourse about the women... overcomes the absence of their words and the absence of any nar-
ration about their report by speaking their words for them in the readers mind" (Sense and Absence:
Structure and the Suspension in the Ending of the Gospel ofMark [Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars
functions to augment and then confirm the concluding very negative evaluation
of Jesus' disciples.
5. The Narrative Function of Disciples' Characterization: Part 2
As noted previously (ch. 4 sec. 6), the narrative rhetoric of the disciples' charac-
terization to 14:72 cultivates for the narrative audience beliefs about the disci-
ples, including the thinking and acting that are required for their rehabilitation,
that diverge significantly from those of the authorial (and real) audience. The
narrative rhetoric also proposes the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs as an
alternative to those of the authorial (and real) audience, should the latter audience
find itself characterized by erroneous thinking or improper acting on the pattern
of the Markan disciples.
Just such a situation arises at 16:8. The women's flight and silence imply that
the disciples and Peter did not receive the young man's message and did not see
the risen Jesus, and the cessation of the narration precludes the disciples' rehabil-
itation. The authorial (and real) audience must reject this contradictory content.
This rejection effectively destroys the reliability of the narration and the author-
ial (and real) audience's ability to interpret the end of Mark's story. The resulting
crisis of interpretation permits the authorial (and real) audience to experience its
own lack of understanding in the context of the evocation of the disciples'
actions of leaving Jesus and fleeing at Jesus' arrest and of Peter's identification
with Satan and erroneous thinking in the first controversy. At this point, the
authorial (and real) audience's preexisting identification with the disciples (ch. 4
sec. 1) and recognition that Jesus' disciples at times did not understand and were
negatively evaluated (ch. 4 sec. 2b) encourage the real audience to recognize its
identification with Jesus' disciples precisely in the contexts of their most nega-
tively evaluated erroneous thinking and improper acting.21 Evocation of the first
controversy also identifies the authorial (and real) audience's rejection of the Son
of Man's necessary suffering, being killed, and rising as the cause of its conclud-
ing negative evaluation (ch. 3 sec. 5c). Evocation of both contexts and the first
controversy's link to the two repeated structures also ultimately assert the autho-
rial audience's direct alignment with those who condemn the Christ and Son of
Man as worthy of death (ch. 4 sec. 3d).
The narrative audience's sophisticated negative beliefs about the disciples and
Press, 1986], 115). Cf. Norman Petersen, "When Is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the
Ending of Mark's Narrative," Int 34 (1980): 151-66. However, Magness does not consider the culti-
vated expectation that commands involving speaking are not fulfilled and the narrative audience's
recognition of the potential for the disciples' ultimate failure (ch. 4 sec. 6).
21. Unlike the previously discussed performance of the remoteness of God for the narrative
audience (ch. 2 sec. 6a), the performance of the experience of being unable to understand involves the
authorial (and real) audience.
the women, in contrast, require its acceptance of the implications of 16:8 and so
ensure its basis for interpretation. This audience's cultivated identification with
the disciples, sophisticated positive beliefs about them, and expectation for their
rehabilitation, however, provide a strong impetus to secure the disciples' rehabil-
itation through alternative means. The narrative audience recognizes that the
implications of the women's failure to deliver the young man's message could be
circumvented if another appropriate bearer of the message could be found. The
women, however, are the only characters to receive the message from the young
man; and no characters besides the disciples themselves have received sufficient
alignment with the women to serve as an appropriate surrogate for them. Alterna-
tively, the repeated evocation of the absent disciples through recapitulation raises
the possibility of the disciples' vicarious rehabilitation through another character
who could see the risen Jesus and undertake the disciples' mission. However, the
only character directly aligned with the disciples in being sent and proclaiming,
John the Baptist, no longer is present.22 Thus, the narration ends with the narra-
tive audience recognizing what is necessary to reverse the disciples' concluding
negative evaluation but unable to identify an appropriate surrogate for either the
women or the disciples and, since it is not a character within the narration, unable
to perform these actions itself.
The narration concludes with the authorial (and real) audience mired in very
negative self-evaluation and the narrative audience recognizing what is required
to rehabilitate the negatively portrayed disciples and their newly aligned associ-
ate, the authorial (and real) audience, but impotent to act. The real audience's
new identification with the negatively portrayed disciples highlights its own
erroneous thinking, improper acting, and need for rehabilitation; and the charac-
terization of the disciples warns that the real audience's rehabilitation, like that of
the disciples, is possible but not guaranteed. The undelivered message, "He is
going before you in(to) Galilee: there you will see him as he said to you" (16:7),
indicates that the time for the renewal of Jesus' invitation to follow him, to be
sent, and to undertake the thinking and action required for rehabilitation has
22. Although the discussion of ch. 4 sec. 2a identified several minor, nonrecurrent characters
that received direct alignment with the disciples on one or two occasions, their scanty development
precludes their recognition as appropriate candidates for proclamation. Herman C. Waetjen (A
Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989],
216-18,242-43) argues for an identification of the young man as an ideal disciple of Jesus (p. 243),
especially in the context of 16:5-7. Although "follow along with" (auvaKoXouGew, 14:51) relates the
young man directly to Peter, James, and John (5:37) and indirectly to the disciples through follow
(aKoXouOew), his most direct relationship with the disciples is established through flee (êuyw,
14:52; cf. 14:50), which imposes a negative evaluation. The remaining vocabulary of 14:51-52 and
16:5-7 aligns the young man most closely not with the disciples but with Jesus himself: linen cloth
(14:51;cf. 15:46); sitting at the right (16:5; cf. 12:36; 14:62); white (16:5; cf. 9:3); go (16:7; cf. 1:44;
2:11; 5:19; 6:38; 7:29; 8:33; 10:21,52; 11:2; 14:13); say (16:7; cf. 11:3; 14:14); and the quotation
(16:7; cf. 14:28). In particular the white robe and sitting at the right assert a heavenly origin for the
young man and preclude his consideration as a disciple in 16:5-7.
arrived. The disciples have not received the message; but the narrative audience,
and so the real audience, has. The disciples do not act on the message, and the
narrative audience is constrained from doing so; but the real audience is not. The
narrative rhetoric indicates that responding positively to Jesus' invitation to dis-
cipleship and the mission to proclaim the gospel demands proper thinking and
acting that only the narrative audience's cultivated beliefs can ensure. The narra-
tive rhetoric encourages the real audience to appropriate these beliefs and as the
means of securing its own rehabilitation. As such, the narration as a whole con-
stitutes a proclamation that invites the real audience's response of proper think-
ing and acting. That is, the Gospel is gospel.
Chapter 6
APPLICATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
The previous studies investigated the manner in which the semantic and narrative
rhetoric of repetition contributed to characterization and the narrative rhetoric of
characterization contributed to broader narrative developments. This study, in
contrast, clarifies the manner in which the proposed method, with only minor
modifications, may contribute to two other areas of Markan studies. Since these
contributions require only minimal analysis beyond that which appears in the
studies of characterization, they are cast as applications of the content of the pre-
vious studies. The first application is directed to formulating a statement of the
rhetorical exigency of the narration, the situation or problem that the narrative
rhetoric seems to be designed to address and remedy. The investigation of the
rhetorical exigency, which is constituted by the preexisting beliefs that are prob-
lematized in the process of cultivating the narrative audience's beliefs, considers
the beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples that are attributed to the author-
ial audience and problematized by the narrative rhetoric. The discussion briefly
develops the implications of this investigation for proposals concerning the his-
torical exigency of the composition of Mark. The second application is directed
to formulating a statement of the theological beliefs that the narrative rhetoric
seems designed to explicate and propose. The investigation of Mark's theologi-
cal beliefs considers the beliefs about God (theology), Jesus (christology), and
Jesus' disciples (mathetology) that are cultivated for the narrative audience. The
discussion briefly develops the implications for rigor and specificity in proposals
concerning Mark's theology, christology, and mathetology. Since a comprehen-
sive development of either application is beyond the scope of the present inquiry,
the discussions of applications only outline the methodological approaches for
the investigations and develop conclusions about only the most easily demon-
strable elements of the rhetorical exigency and Mark's theological beliefs. The
discussions of implications clarify the constraints and possibilities for using the
results of the investigations of applications and draw specific conclusions con-
cerning only the most easily demonstrable topics.
1. Application: The Rhetorical Exigency of the Narration
This discussion describes the methodological approach for deriving a statement

of the rhetorical exigency of Mark from the studies of characterization, identifies
the most emphasized elements of the problematized beliefs concerning God,
143
Jesus, and Jesus' disciples, and develops from these a partial statement of rhetor-
ical exigency of the narration.
a. The Methodological Approach

This methodological approach for deriving a statement of the rhetorical exigency
requires a five-stage analysis of the content of the studies of the characterization
and a concluding synthesis.
The first stage identifies the content realized by the semantic rhetoric of repeti-
tion. Such repetition sophisticates the preexisting and preinterpreted content of
particular semantic frames evoked by words or designations with narratively spe-
cific content. The statements of realized content at this stage would be identical
to the discussions of cultivated beliefs in the studies of the semantic rhetoric of
repetition. This content constitutes the semantic data for all developments con-
cerning the rhetorical exigency.
The second stage identifies beliefs problematized by the narrative rhetoric of
repetition. Such repetition sophisticates or deconstructs preexisting or previously
interpreted content of constructs with narratively specific content.1 This discus-
sion resolves problematized beliefs into two categories. Preexisting beliefs that
are problematized by sophisticating rhetorical strategies and so cohere with their
cultivated counterparts are cast as deficient from the perspective of the narrative
audience, whereas preexisting beliefs that are problematized by deconstructive
rhetorical strategies and so contradict their cultivated counterparts are cast as
erroneous from the perspective of the narrative audience. The statements of prob-
lematized beliefs at this stage parallel those from the previous studies with the
addition of notices that the authorial audience's beliefs are either deficient or
erroneous with respect to specific content.
The third stage relates problematized beliefs according to the outlines of the
rhetorical organization and incorporation that appear in the Appendix.
The fourth stage identifies beliefs problematized by the narrative rhetoric of
characterization. This discussion produces statements of problematized beliefs
similar to those from the studies of the narrative rhetoric of characterization with
the addition of notices that the authorial audience's beliefs are either deficient or
erroneous with respect to specific content. Although there is no way to retrieve
the preexisting experience of the authorial audience, this audience's familiarity
with much of the narrative content would have established the potential for
numerous affective responses. Thus, all problematized experiences are deemed
deficient. The results of this investigation receive incorporation into the discus-
sion of the third stage as indicated by contextual, vocabulary, or thematic links.
The fifth stage relates to each other the problematized beliefs about specific
characters. The principle of organization at this stage is primarily contextual
1. Although such repetition also may assert and sophisticate expectations that subsequently are
frustrated (deconstructed), these and similar developments concern only the narrative audience and
so are excluded from this discussion of problematized beliefs.
Applications, Implications, and Conclusion 145
linkages in characterizations. Where these are not available, previously noted

links derived from the semantic rhetoric (vocabulary and relationships between
designations) as well as thematic developments are employed. Recourse to these
secondary links is minimized by the previous notations of instances in which ele-
ments of the portrayal of particular characters are related and organized in the
portrayal of other characters. The resulting integrative statement explicates the
rhetorical exigency of the narration.
b. Development of a Partial Statement of the Rhetorical Exigency

Since development of a comprehensive statement of the rhetoric exigency is not
practicable, the following investigation develops a statement of only the most
emphasized elements of the rhetorical exigency. The investigation assumes the
content of the investigation of the semantic data and identifies consecutively the
most emphasized problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disci-
ples. The discussions of the narrative rhetoric identify as emphasized problema-
tized beliefs associated vocabulary that is repeated within individual contexts or
structures and within two or three constituents of the same repeated context or
structure. When several words are repeated in a given context or structure, pri-
mary emphasis is ascribed to problematized beliefs associated with the most fre-
quently repeated word(s) and secondary emphasis to problematized beliefs
associated with less frequently repeated words. In repeated contexts and struc-
tures, primary emphasis is ascribed to problematized beliefs associated with
vocabulary occurring in all three constituents, and secondary emphasis is
ascribed to problematized beliefs associated with vocabulary occurring in two of
the three constituents. The discussion investigates separately each avenue of
direct incorporation of beliefs into the narrative frames associated with charac-
ters as outlined in the Appendix and then relates these to each other. The discus-
sion then identifies beliefs problematized by the narrative rhetoric of
characterization. The investigation concludes by integrating the results of these
discussions into a statement of the most emphasized elements of the rhetorical
exigency.
c. Problematized Beliefs Concerning God

All problematized beliefs concerning God ultimately are related to each other
and incorporated in the narrative frames associated with God through 1:1-15,
which links the two repeated contexts identified in the previous study. This dis-
cussion identifies the problematized preexisting beliefs that receive emphasis in
each context and repeated contexts. Since the characterization of God is unique
in that a large minority of problematized beliefs do not appear in these contexts
but are related only contextually to vocabulary within them, such contextually
related beliefs receive brief summary as subsidiarily emphasized beliefs. The dis-
cussion then identifies the beliefs and experiences problematized by the narrative
rhetoric of characterization and notes their relationship to previous develop-
ments. Since this investigation is concerned only with the authorial audience's
problematized preexisting beliefs and all such beliefs are cast as deficient, the
discussion reduces redundancy by replacing "the authorial audience's preexist-
ing deficient beliefs" with "beliefs."
The context, 1:1-15, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning God's
unique benefaction of the [holy] Spirit (TrveO|ia [dyiov]) by which Jesus will
baptize (1:8) and which descends onto Jesus (1:10) and casts him out into the
desert (1:12) and God's benefaction of the gospel (euayyeXiov, 1:1, 14, 15),
which is also of Jesus. Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God's
unique benefaction of messengers (dyyeXog) who prepare Jesus' way (1:2) and
serve him (1:13) and of the [Beloved] Son (ulos [dyaTTrjTog], 1:1, [11]) and
God's benefaction of the way (686g, 1:2, 3), which also is of Jesus. Inclusion of
the other vocabulary between the first (1:1) and last (1:15) occurrence of
euayyeXiov highlights its significance, stresses Jesus' concluding command to
believe in the gospel (1:15), and implies that the deficient beliefs in this context
limit one's ability to fulfill this command. Links to vocabulary in other contexts
grants a subsidiary emphasis first to beliefs concerning God's unique benefaction
of commandments (evroXii) and then to beliefs concerning God as unique agent
of permit (e£eaTiv), as agent who forgives (CXC^LTUJLL), as unique source of [ever-
lasting] life (£(i)ii [aldiyios]), as source of receive (Xa|ipdva)), and as benefactive
of right hand (8e£id), power (8wa|iis), and possible things (Svvarov).2 This
relates believing in the gospel to observing God's commandments, doing/not
doing what is/is not permitted, being forgiven, receiving everlasting life and a
hundredfold with persecutions, and being a beneficiary of God's right hand and
power and all possible things.
Although 8:31-9:1 imposes no direct emphases, subsidiary emphasis falls on
beliefs concerning God as unique source of [everlasting] life (£a)rj [alcovios]), as
source of receive (Xa|ipdva)), as unique benefactive of commandments (ev-
TOXTI), and as benefactive of possible things (8uvaTov). This relates seeing
God's reign having come and destroying one's life for the sake of Jesus and the
gospel to observing God's commandments, receiving everlasting life and a hun-
dredfold with persecutions, and being a beneficiary of all possible things.
The context, 13:3-13, emphasizes beliefs concerning God's unique agency in
necessitating (del) that wars and reports of wars happen (13:7) and that the
gospel first be proclaimed to all nations (13:10).
The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13 grants primary
emphasis to beliefs concerning the gospel (eiayyeXiov) which is of [Jesus and]
God ([1:1], 14), which is to be believed in (1:15), for the sake of which one is
required to destroy one's life (8:35) and which God necessitates that the disciples
proclaim (13:10). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as unique
agent who necessitates (Set) that the Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed,
and rise (8:31), that wars and reports of wars happen (13:7), and that the gospel
2. This and following statements of subsidiarily emphasized deficient preexisting beliefs about
God are based on the discussion of ch. 2 sec. 5.
first be proclaimed to all nations (13:10). Secondary emphasis also falls on

beliefs concerning God as unique benefactive of the reign (PaoaXeia), which has
drawn near (1:15) and will have come in glory before some have tasted death
(9:1), and of the [holy] Spirit (TTveOjia [ayiov]), by which Jesus will baptize
(1:8), which descends onto Jesus (1:10), casts him out into the desert (1:12), and
speaks through the disciples (13:11). Subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs con-
cerning God as unique agent who shortens (KoXopoco) the days, as unique source
of [everlasting] life (CÂ [alcovios]), as source of receive (Xap,pdy(i)), as unique
goal of pray (TTpoo£Vxo[Lai\ as unique benefactive of commandments (evTo\f|),
and as benefactive of possible things (bvvarov) and power (Suvaîs). Contex-
tual repetition stresses the limits placed on fulfilling Jesus' command to believe
in the gospel by those characterized by deficient beliefs concerning the relation-
ship between the Son of Man's necessary suffering, rejection, death, and resur-
rection and the disciples' necessary proclamation of the gospel, between the Son
of Man giving his life as a ransom for many and rising and the disciple destroy-
ing his or her life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel and saving it. Also empha-
sized is that failure to believe in the gospel precludes seeing God's reign having
come in power, having God's holy Spirit speak through the disciple, and so being
one whom Jesus baptizes with God's holy Spirit. Subsidiary emphases highlight
that believing in and proclaiming the gospel are linked to observing God's com-
mandments, praying, receiving everlasting life, a hundredfold, and persecutions,
being forgiven, becoming a beneficiary of God's power and all possible things
and God's shortening of the days.
The context, 12:1-12, emphasizes beliefs concerning God as agent who sends
(aTToaTeXXco) slaves (12:2, 4, 5) and the Beloved Son (12:6) to receive some of
the produce of the vineyard. Subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God
as unique agent of permit (efjea-riv) and as benefactive of right hand (Seîd) and
power (Suvaûg). This identifies the produce that God sends to receive as
doing/not doing what God does/does not permit and to being a beneficiary of
God's right hand and power.
The context, 13:32-37, emphasizes beliefs concerning God as experiencer
who alone knows (ol8a) about that day and hour (13:32) and God's contrast with
the disciple who does not know when the Lord of the Household is coming
(* 13:35). Subsidiary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning God as benefactive of
right hand (8e£id) and power (8uva|±ig). This relates God's knowing to God's
right hand and power.
The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 imposes primary
emphasis on beliefs concerning God's benefaction of the [Beloved] Son (vlos),
who has the gospel (1:1), pleases God ([1:11]), is sent by God ([12:6a], 6b), and
does not know about that day or hour (13:32). Secondary emphasis falls on
beliefs concerning God's agency in sending (dTroaTeXXo)) John the Baptist/
Elijah (1:2), God's slaves (12:2,4, 5), and God's Beloved Son (12:6). Subsidiary
emphasis falls on beliefs first concerning God as the benefactive of right hand
(8e£id) and power (8uva|iis) and then concerning God as unique agent of
permit (eêanv). This relates God's benefaction of God's Beloved Son and
God's sending him and others to being a beneficiary of God's right hand and
power and to doing/not doing what is/is not permitted.
The linkage of 1:15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13 and 1:1-15; 12:1-12; 13:32-37
through 1:1-15 emphasizes specific deficient beliefs, coordinates the primarily
and secondarily emphasized deficient beliefs within repeated contexts, and
asserts the overarching perspective for relating all deficient beliefs about God.
Only new emphases introduced by the linkage of the repeated contexts receive
detailed examination.
Linkage of the two repeated contexts emphasizes beliefs concerning God's
unique benefaction of messengers (dyyeXos) who prepare Jesus' way (1:2),
serve Jesus (1:13), come with the parousaic Son of Man (8:38), and do not know
about that day or hour (13:32). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning
God as agent who will give (8i8(o|±i) the vineyard to others (12:9) and what dis-
ciples will say when they are handed over (13:11) and on God as patient who is
Father (TTOTTIP) of Jesus as Son (13:32) and Son of Man (8:38). Linkage of the
two repeated contexts strengthens the subsidiary emphasis on beliefs concerning
God as agent who forgives (dc|)iT)|ii) and as benefactive of power (8wa|±ts) and
coordinates the previously noted subsidiary emphases. Coordination of all of
these beliefs through 1:1-15 maintains the focus on deficient beliefs that prevent
believing in and proclaiming the gospel and indicates that failure to do so sub-
verts one's positive relationship with God's messengers who serve Jesus/the
parousaic Son of Man, one's identification with those to whom God gives the
vineyard, and one's mediated positive relationship with God as Father through
Jesus as Son and Son of Man. Such failure also precludes the forgiveness of sins
and one's status as a beneficiary of God's power.
The narrative rhetoric and function of God's characterization emphasize
beliefs concerning the intimate relationship between God and Jesus as God's
[Beloved] Son and Jesus' identification with God, which invites a response to
and a relationship with Jesus that parallels that with God. These deficient beliefs
cohere with those related in 1:1-15. Also emphasized are beliefs concerning the
profound relationship between the authorial audience and Jesus, especially in the
experience of the remoteness of God, and concerning God's agency in Jesus'
death and in the story of both Jesus and the authorial audience. These beliefs
have thematic parallels to developments in 8:31-9:1. 3 These beliefs prevent the
authorial audience from recognizing that positive alignment with God guarantees
no clarity concerning the nature of God's agency but demands fidelity to God
even in the apprehension of abandonment and the threat of imminent death.
3. Beliefs concerning God's agency in Jesus' death in large part are not associated with repeated
vocabulary: God takes up (aTTatpw) the groom (2:20); God necessitates (8el) that the Son of Man suf-
fer, be rejected, be killed, and rise; God sends (diToaTeXXco); and God does not remove (TTapaxêpo))
the cup from Jesus (14:35), strikes (-nardoou) the shepherd (14:27), and abandons (eyKaTaXeiTra))
Jesus (15:34).
d. Problematized Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus

Problematized beliefs concerning Jesus are related to each other and incorpo-
rated in the narrative frames associated with Jesus through three repeated con-
texts and the narrative frames associated with the Son of Man, especially those
related in 8:31-9:1. The discussion considers consecutively the problematized
beliefs that receive emphasis in each avenue of incorporation. Since almost all
problematized beliefs appear in repeated contexts and structures, there is no sep-
arate discussion of subsidiary emphases. When problematized beliefs about
Jesus are related in part through the characterization of other characters, espe-
cially the disciples, references to these characters are marked with an asterisk (*).
For economy of presentation, the discussion omits considerations of minor des-
ignations. Whereas cultivated beliefs about Jesus arise exclusively through
sophisticating repetition that casts the corresponding preexisting beliefs about
Jesus as deficient, cultivated beliefs associated with the Son of Man and Christ
arise through sophisticating or deconstructive rhetorical strategies that cast their
preexisting counterparts as either deficient or erroneous. Thus, the discussion
assumes that problematized beliefs identified in the investigation of the repeated
contexts are deficient but distinguishes deficient from erroneous beliefs in the
investigations of the Son of Man and Christ.
The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 is the first
avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus. The first context, 1:16-20, pre-
sents no emphases; and the second, 3:13-19, emphasizes beliefs concerning
Jesus as agent who makes (-noteo), 3:14, 16) the twelve. This context also links
the characterizations of Jesus and his disciples by presenting the twelve as agents
of saving actions previously attributed to Jesus: casting out (*€KpdXXo)) demons
and proclaiming (*Kr|pi>(j(j(i)). The third context, 6:6b-13, 30-32, emphasizes
beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who teaches (8i8daKO), 6:6b, *30); and inclu-
sion of the other beliefs between the occurrences of this verb indicates that the
authorial audience lacks an adequate recognition that Jesus' teaching mandates
these actions of disciples. This context also links the characterizations of Jesus
and the disciples by relating Jesus' actions of going forth (dTrepxo|±cu), sending
(aTToaTeXXo)), teaching (8i8daKG)), giving (8i8a)|ii), and summoning (Trpoa-
KaXeoum) and the disciples' actions of teaching (*8i8daK(o), casting out (*<EK-
pdXXco), healing (*0epaTT€i>oi)), and proclaiming (*Kr|pi>aao)) and by cultivating
the specialized usage of do/make to designate all of Jesus' actions through the
notice concerning all that the apostles did (TTOieo, *6:30). This highlights the
inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship of all of the saving actions of
Jesus and the disciples and the resulting identification of the disciples with Jesus
when they do these actions. Repetition of this context imposes primary emphasis
on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who does/makes (uoieo) Simon and
Andrew fishers of human beings (1:17), particular disciples the twelve (3:14,
16), and, through the twelve, various saving actions (*6:30). Secondary emphasis
falls on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who sends (dTTOoreXXd), 3:14; 6:7) the
twelve and summons (upoaKaXeo|±ai) disciples (3:13) and the twelve (6:7) and,
through the twelve, as agent who casts out (eKpaXXco, *3:15; *6:13) demons and
proclaims (KTipuaao), *3:14; *6:12) and as benefactive of authority (e£ouaia,
*3:15;*6:7).
The contextual repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 is the second
avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus. The first context, 6:33-44,
imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who gives
(8L8O)IIL, *6:37a, *37b, 41) and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus
as benefactive of the disciples (|ia0r|Tai, 6:35, 41). The second context, 8:1-10,
imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of the dis-
ciples (|ia0TiTaL, 8:1, 4, 6, 10) and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning
Jesus as agent who does not dismiss (diToXiiG)) those who are hungry (8:3) until
they are satisfied (8:9). The third context, 14:22-26, imposes primary emphasis
on beliefs concerning Jesus as goal who takes/receives (Xa|ipdva)) the bread
(14:22) and cup (14:23). Repetition of this context imposes primary emphasis on
beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who gives (8L8O)^L, *6:37a, *37b, 41; 8:6;
14:22,23), blesses (euXoyeco, 6:41; 8:7; 14:22), breaks ([KaTa]KXdo), [6:41]; 8:6;
14:22), and receives (Xaiipdvo), 6:41; 8:6; 14:22) the bread interpreted as his
body (cf. 14:22). Secondary emphasis falls on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent
who does not dismiss (diroXua), 6:36; 8:3) the hungry until they are satisfied by
this bread (8:9; cf. 6:45) and who gives thanks (euxapiaTea), 8:6; 14:23) for this
bread, as experiencer who is moved with compassion (aTTXayxvi£o|±ai, 6:34;
8:2), and as benefactive of disciples ([±a0r)Tai, 6:35,41; 8:1,4,6, 10).
The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:10-12; and 13:32-37 is the third
avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus. The first context, 1:1-15,
imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who comes
(epxojiai, 1:7, 9, 14) and as benefactive of the gospel (euayyeXiov, 1:1, 14,15)
and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus, God's Son, as benefactive
of the way (686s, 1:2, 3) and as patient who is God's [Beloved] Son (i/ios
[dyotTTrjTos], 1:1, [11]). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the
relationship between Jesus' coming and his proclaiming of the gospel; and the
inclusion of all other beliefs between the initial (1:1) and final (1:15) occurrence
of gospel stresses that these deficient beliefs hinder believing in the gospel. The
second, 12:1-12, imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus, God's
[Beloved] Son, as patient who is sent (*dTTOc7TeXX(o, *12:2, *4, *5, 6; cf. *12:3)
and secondary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as patient who is God's
[Beloved] Son (iA6g [dyarrTiTos], [12:6a], 6b). The third context, 13:32-37,
imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus, the Lord of the House-
hold, as agent who comes (epxo|iai, 13:35, 36) and Jesus, the Son, as experi-
encer of not knowing (13:32, *35). This repeated context imposes primary
emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus as patient who is God's [Beloved] Son
(ulos [dyaTTTiTos], [1:11]; [12:6a], 6b; 13:32) and Jesus/the Lord of the House-
hold as agent who comes (<Epxo|±oa, 1:7, 9, 14; * 12:9/13:35, 36). This highlights
the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the relationship between Jesus' initial com-
ing as God's Beloved Son (1:7, 9, 14) and his eschatological coming as Lord of
the Household (13:35, 36) and between the eschatological coming of Jesus as the
Lord of the Household (13:35, 36) and the coming of God as the Lord of the
Vineyard (*12:9). Secondary emphasis fall on beliefs concerning Jesus/the Lord
of the Household as benefactive of slaves (8ouXog, *12:2, *4/13:34) and as
patient who is distant (dTroSruieo), *12:l/dTTo8r]|±os, 13:34). This highlights the
inadequacy of beliefs concerning the identification of Jesus as Lord of the
Household with God as Lord of the Vineyard.
The fourth avenue for relating problematized beliefs concerning Jesus espe-
cially as Son of Man, 8:31-9:1, links developments in one repeated context and
two repeated structures.
In the repeated context 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13, the first context,
1:1-15, received previous consideration. The second context, 8:31-9:1, imposes
primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of disci-
ples (naOrjTai, 8:33, 34). The third context, 13:3-13, imposes, through the disci-
ples, primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as patient of hand
over (TTapaSiSoîi, * 13:9, * 11, * 12) and secondary emphasis on deficient beliefs
concerning Jesus whose action God necessitates (Set, *13:7, *10). Repetition of
this context imposes primary emphasis on beliefs concerning Jesus/the parousaic
Son of Man as agent who comes (epxopm, 1:7, 9, 14/8:38; *13:6) and Jesus as
benefactive of the gospel (eixryyeXiov, 1:1, 14, 15; 8:35; 13:10). Receiving sec-
ondary emphasis are deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who proclaims
1:14; *13:10) the gospel and as patient who is handed over (Trapa-
*1:14; *13:9, *11, *12) and erroneous beliefs concerning what God
necessitates (861, 8:31; *13:7, *10)forthe Son of Man.
In the repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45, the first structure,
8:31-9:1, received previous consideration. The second structure, 9:30-41,
imposes primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive
of his name (6vo|±ct, 9:37, 38, 39, 41). Secondary emphasis falls on deficient
beliefs concerning Jesus as benefactive of the way (686s, 9:33, 34) and on erro-
neous beliefs concerning the Son of Man as patient who will be killed (OLTTO-
KT6LV0), 9:31a, 31b). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the
relationship of the Son of Man being killed, Jesus having the way, and doing
deeds in Jesus' name. The third structure, 10:32-45, imposes primary emphasis
on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who cannot give (8L8O)|IL, 10:37,
40; cf. 10:45 for erroneous beliefs concerning the Son of Man who can give) and
as patient who is baptized (panTiCd), 10:38a, *38b, 39a, *39b). Secondary
emphasis falls on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent who cannot
do/make (Troiea), 10:35, 36) and as benefactive of right hand (8e£id, 10:37, 40)
and on erroneous beliefs concerning the Son of Man as patient who is handed
over (Trapa8i8co|ii, 10:33a, 33b). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs con-
cerning the relationship of Jesus being baptized [by God], the Son of Man being
handed over, Jesus not being able to give to sit at his right and left in his glory,
and the Son of Man giving his life as a ransom for many. Structural repetition
imposes primary emphasis on erroneous beliefs concerning the near future expe-
rience and activity of the Son of Man as agent of rise (dviaTaficu, 8:31; 9:31;
10:34) and as patient of kill (aTTOKTeivo), 8:31; 9:31a, 31b; 10:34). Secondary
emphasis falls on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent of teach (8i8daKa),
8:31; 9:31) and summon (TrpoaKaXeopm, 8:34; 10:42) and as benefactive of dis-
ciples (u.a0r)Tai, 8:33, 34; 9:31) and on erroneous beliefs concerning the Son of
Man as patient of hand over (Trctpa8i8G)|ii, 9:31; 10:33). This highlights the inad-
equacy of beliefs concerning the fact that the content of Jesus' teaching incorpo-
rates not only his saving actions but his actions and attributes as Son of Man.
In the repeated structure 8:27-9:1; 13:21-27; and 14:60-65, the first structure,
8:27-9:1, imposes primary emphasis on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as
benefactive of disciples (u-aGnTat, 8:27a, 27b, 33, 34) and secondary emphasis
on deficient beliefs concerning Jesus as agent of rebuke (<ETriTi|id(i), 8:30, *32,
33). The second and third structures, 13:21-27 and 14:60-65, in contrast, impose
no emphases. Repetition of this structure imposes primary emphasis on deficient
beliefs concerning Jesus as patient who is the Christ (8:29; * 13:21; 14:61) and on
the parousaic Son of Man as agent of come (epxojiai, 8:38; 13:26; 14:62), as
benefactive of power (Siivaîs, *9:1; 13:26; 14:62), and as content of see (opdo),
*9:1; 13:26; 14:62) and secondary emphasis on erroneous beliefs concerning the
near future experience and activity of the Son of Man as benefactive of death
(Odvaros, *9:1; 14:64). This highlights the inadequacy of beliefs concerning the
relationship between the Son of Man's parousaic identity and activity and his
near future experience and activity and between the Son of Man and the Christ. It
also highlights the inadequate recognition of the relationship of the disciple not
accepting these linked beliefs, Jesus rebuking disciples, and the parousaic Son of
Man not exercising power on behalf of disciples.
The study of the narrative function of Jesus' characterization emphasizes erro-
neous beliefs that do not link Jesus' near future experience and activity and
parousaic activity and identity as Son of Man and do not recognize that all of the
beliefs concerning Son of Man are linked to the Christ. Also erroneous are
beliefs that do not recognize God's agency in the Son of Man's suffering, being
killed, and rising, do not identify the Christ by the glory and deeds of the parou-
saic Son of Man, and do not acknowledge that those who reject Jesus' teaching
about the Son of Man are aligned with those who condemn Jesus to death and
contrasted with the elect whom the parousaic Son of Man will send angels to
gather. These problematized beliefs cohere with those related by 8:31-9:1.
e. Problematized Preexisting Beliefs about Jesus' Disciples

Problematized beliefs concerning Jesus' disciples are related to each other and
incorporated in the narrative frames associated with the disciples through three
repeated contexts, developments related by 8:31-9:1, and the narrative frames
associated with the women at the tomb. The discussion considers consecutively
the problematized beliefs that receive emphasis in each of the avenues of incorpo-
ration. Problematized beliefs about the disciples related in part through the char-
acterization of other characters, especially Jesus, are marked with an asterisk (*).
Since cultivated beliefs about the disciples may result in differing evaluations, the
discussion distinguishes whether problematized beliefs concern the positive (real-
ized or potential), ambiguous, or negative evaluation of the disciples and, for ease
of reference, labels these positive, ambiguous, or negative beliefs. The discussion
assumes that problematized beliefs identified in the investigation of the first three
repeated contexts are deficient but distinguishes deficient from erroneous beliefs
in the investigations of the developments related by 8:31-9:1. Finally, all contri-
butions from the narrative frames associated with the women at the tomb appear
in the discussion of the narrative rhetoric and function of characterization.
The contextual repetition of 1:16-20; 3:13-19; and 6:6b-13, 30-32 is the first
avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus' disciples. The first context,
1:16-20, emphasizes positive beliefs concerning disciples as agents who leave
(d()nT)|±i, 1:18, 20) and as patients who are behind (oiTiao), 1:17, 20) Jesus. The
second context, 3:13-19, emphasizes positive beliefs concerning the disciples as
patients who are made (rroiea), 3:14, 16) the twelve. The third context, 6:6b-13,
30-32, emphasizes the positive beliefs concerning the twelve as agents of teach
(8i8d(7KG), *6:6, 30). As previously noted, this context cultivates the relationship
of all of the saving actions of Jesus and the disciples and identifies disciples with
Jesus. Contextual repetition imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs con-
cerning the disciples as agents who go forth (dTTepxo|iai, 1:20; 3:13; 6:32 [with
Jesus]) and do/make (noieo), *1:17; *3:14, *16; 6:30). Secondary emphasis falls
on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who cast out (<EK>
pdXXo), 3:15; 6:13) demons, go (8eirre, 1:17, 6:31), and proclaim (KTjpuaao),
3:14; 6:12); as benefactives who have authority (eifoixria, 3:15; 6:7); and as
patients who are sent (dmxjTeXXG), 3:14; 6:7) and summoned (TTpoamXeoiiai,
3:13; 6:7) and who are apostles (duoaToXot, 3:14; 6:30) and the twelve
(8(i8eKa, 3:14,16; 6:7).
The contextual repetition of 6:33-44; 8:1-10; and 14:22-26 is the second
avenue for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus' disciples. The first context,
6:33-44, emphasizes negative beliefs concerning the disciples as agents of [not]
give (8L8(I)^L, 6:37a, 37b) and positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents
who eat (eaBio), 6:42, 44) and ambiguous beliefs concerning the disciples as
patients who are disciples (|iaGT]Tiis, 6:35, 41). The second context, 8:1-10,
imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents
of distribute (TrapaTi9r||iL, 8:6a, 6b, 7) and on ambiguous beliefs about them as
patients who are disciples (8:1,4,10) and secondary emphasis on positive beliefs
concerning the disciples as patients of satisfy (xopTd£o), *8:4, 8). The third con-
text, 14:22-26, imposes primary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the
disciples as agents who drink (TTLVO), 14:23, *25a, *25b) and secondary emphasis
on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as goals to whom Jesus gives
(8L8O)|IL, 14:22, 23). Contextual repetition imposes primary emphasis on positive

beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who eat (eaOtw, 6:42, 44; 8:8; 14:22)
the bread that Jesus blesses (cf. 6:41) and interprets as his body (cf. 14:22) and as
goals to whom Jesus gives (8I8G)|±I, 6:41; 8:6; 14:22; cf. 14:23 for the cup) this
bread. Secondary emphasis falls on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as
agents who distribute (TrapaTi0r]|±i, 6:41; 8:6a, 6b, [7]) this bread [or fish]5 as
the sources from whom Jesus receives (Xajipdvoi), 6:41; 8:6) bread, as benefac-
tives who have bread (dp-rov ex^, 6:38; 8:5), and as patients who are satisfied
(XopTdCw, 6:42; 8:8; cf. 8:4) and on ambiguous beliefs concerning them as
patients who are disciples ([ia0T]Tai, 6:35,41; 8:1,6,10).
The contextual repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37 is the third avenue
for relating deficient beliefs about Jesus' disciples. Although the first and second
contexts do not explicitly reference the disciples, they introduce vocabulary that
subsequently is significant for their portrayal. The first context, 1:1-15, imposes
primary emphasis on positive beliefs associated with the action of proclaiming
(KTipijaaoj, *1:4, *7, *14) and secondary emphasis on positive beliefs about
being baptized (paTrri£a), *1:5, *9). The second context, 12:1-12, imposes pri-
mary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning being sent (diToaTeXXa), * 12:2, *4,
*5, *6) and secondary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning those who are
slaves (8oOXos, *12:2, *4). The third context, 13:32-37, imposes primary
emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciple as agent who remains alert
(ypT^yopea), 13:34, 35, 37) and as experiencer who does not know (ol8a, 13:33,
35; cf. * 13:32) but responds by remaining alert. Contextual repetition imposes
secondary emphasis on positive beliefs concerning the disciples as goals who are
given (8L8O)|IL, *12:9; 13:34) and as patients who are sent (ctTToaTeXXo), *1:2;
* 12:2, *4, *5, *6) and are slaves (8oi)Xos, * 12:2, *4; 13:34).
The fourth avenue for relating problematized beliefs about the disciples is
through 8:31-9:1, which links developments in two repeated contexts and one
repeated structure. For economy of presentation, the structural repetition of
8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 receives investigation first.
The repeated structure 8:31-9:1; 9:30-41; and 10:32-45 links predictions,
controversies, and teachings. In 8:31-9:1, the prediction, 8:31-32a, presents no
emphases. The controversy, 8:32b-33, emphasizes erroneous beliefs about
Peter's negative evaluation as agent (8:32b, *33) and experiencer (*8:32b, 33) of
rebuke (eTUTi|id(A)). The teaching, 8:34-9:1, imposes primary emphasis on defi-
cient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as benefactives of life Q\ivxr\> 8:35a,
35b, 36, 37). Secondary emphasis falls on deficient positive beliefs concerning
the disciple as agent who follows (dKoXouOeo), 8:34a, 34b) Jesus, destroys
(aTToXXtijiL, 8:35b; cf. 8:35a for a negative evaluation) life, and saves (aaiCa),
8:35a, 35b) life, and as experiencer who wants (BeXo), 8:34, 35) and responds
appropriately, and on deficient negative beliefs about the disciple as experiencer
who is ashamed of (eTTaiaxwo|±ai, 8:38a; cf. *8:38b for the Son of Man) Jesus
and his words and responds inappropriately. The linkage of the prediction, con-
troversy, and teaching emphasizes ambiguous beliefs concerning the disciples as

patients (|ia0T]Tai, 8:33, 34).
In 9:30-41, the prediction, 9:30-32, and controversy, 9:33-34, impose no
emphases with respect to the disciples. The teaching, 9:35-41, imposes primary
emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as goal who
receives (8exo|Jat, 9:37a, 37b, 37c, 37d) Jesus, and ultimately, God, and sec-
ondary emphasis on deficient negative beliefs about disciples as agents who pre-
vent (KO)XII(I), 9:38, 39) action by Jesus' name. The linkage of the prediction,
controversy, and teaching introduces no new emphases.
In 10:32-45, the prediction, 10:32-34, emphasizes through the characteriza-
tion of the Son of Man deficient positive beliefs concerning being handed over
(*Trapa8i8a)|±i, * 10:33a, *33b) as patient. The controversy, 10:35-41, imposes
primary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as agent
who drinks (mva), 10:38a, *38b, *39a, 39b) Jesus' cup and as patient who is bap-
tized (PaTTTLCw, * 10:38a, 38b, *39a, 39b) with his baptism. Secondary emphasis
falls on erroneous beliefs concerning the negative evaluation of the disciple as
experiencer who wants (OeXo), 10:35, 36) and responds improperly and as goal to
whom Jesus cannot give (SI8G)|JLI, 10:37, 40). The teaching, 10:42-45, empha-
sizes deficient positive beliefs concerning disciple as experiencer who wants
(0eXd), 10:43, 44) and responds properly by becoming servant (8idKovos, 10:43;
cf. * 10:45 for SiaKoveco with the Son of Man as agent). The third structure as a
whole imposes primary emphasis on deficient [negative and] positive beliefs
concerning the disciples as experiencer who wants (GeXo), [10:35], [36], 43, 44)
and responds [inappropriately and secondary emphasis on deficient negative
beliefs concerning disciple as experiencer who does [or does not] know (ol8a,
[10:38], 42) and responds inappropriately.
Repetition of this structure imposes new emphases on both the constituent
contexts and the repeated structure as a whole. The repeated predictions empha-
size deficient negative beliefs concerning the disciples as experiencers who are
taught (8i8daic<o, 8:31; 9:31) and fear (ôpeopm, 9:32; 10:32) and respond inap-
propriately, and, through the characterization of the Son of Man, the positive
evaluation of the disciples as patients who are handed over (TTapa8i8<i)|ju, *9:31;
* 10:33a, *33b). The repeated controversies impose no new emphases. The
repeated teachings impose primary emphasis on deficient [negative or] positive
beliefs concerning the disciple as experiencer who wants and responds [inappro-
priately (GeXo), 8:34, [35]; 9:35; 10:43,44) and deficient positive beliefs concern-
ing the disciple as benefactive of life (tyvxA, 8:35a, 35b, 36, 37; * 10:45).
Secondary emphasis falls on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciple as
agent who follows ((XKoXouGea), 8:34a, 34b; *9:38) Jesus, destroys ((XTT6XXU|JLI)
life (8:35b; cf. 8:35a for their negative evaluation) but not reward (9:41), and
gives (818(41.1, 8:37; * 10:45) life and as patient who is servant (8idKovo$, 9:35;
10:43; cf. SiaKovew, * 10:45 for the Son of Man who serves), summoned
(TrpoaKaXeojioi, 8:34; 10:42), and first (TTPCOTOS, 9:35; 10:44). Repetition of the
structure as a whole imposes primary emphasis on deficient [negative or] posi-

tive beliefs concerning the disciples as experiencers who want and respond
[inappropriately (9eXoj, 8:34, [35]; *9:30; [10:35], [36], 43, 44) and secondary
emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who fol-
low (axoXouOeo), 8:34a, 34b; *9:38; 10:32) Jesus and as patients who are disci-
ples (|ia6T)Tai, 8:33; 9:31) and the twelve (SwSeica, 9:35; 10:32).
The first two constituents of repeated context 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13
received previous investigation. The third context, 13:3-13, imposes primary
emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents of speak
(XaXeo), 13:11a, lib, lie), as patients of handover (Trapa8i8G)|ii, 13:9, 11, 12),
and as characters whose actions are necessitated (Set, *13:7, 10) by God. Con-
textual repetition imposes secondary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs con-
cerning the disciples as agents who proclaim Ocnpuaao), *1:4, *7, *14; 13:10)
and speak (XaXea), *8:32; 13:11a, lib, lie), as benefactives of death (OdvaTos,
9:1; 13:12), as patients who are handed over (TrapaSiScojiL, *1:14; 13:9, 11, 12),
and as those whose proclaiming God necessitates (Set, *8:31; *13:7,10).
The first and third constituents of the repeated context 8:34-9:1; 10:26-30;
and 13:3-13 received previous investigation. The second context, 10:26-30,
emphasizes deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who
leave (dc|)iT)|ii, 10:29, 30) and as benefactives of mother, brothers, and sisters
(urJTrip, ct8eX(|)oi m l dSeXât, 10:29, 30). Contextual repetition imposes pri-
mary emphasis on deficient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents
who save (aci£a), 8:35a, 35b; * 10:26; *13:13) and secondary emphasis on defi-
cient positive beliefs concerning the disciples as agents who follow (dxoXouGeG),
8:34a, 34b; 10:28) Jesus and as benefactives of death (Odvaros, 9:1; 13:12).
The narrative function of the disciples' characterization to 14:72 emphasizes
erroneous beliefs that do not recognize that God necessitated the Son of Man's
suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising and that failure to accept this
results in improper thinking and acting, which preclude the direct positive align-
ment with the parousaic Son of Man and indirect positive alignment with God
that save the disciple's life. Also erroneous are beliefs that do not recognize that
accepting the negative cultivated content about Jesus' disciples and assuming a
very negative and critical stance toward their improper thinking and acting need
not jeopardize one's self-identification as a disciple or one's identification with
Jesus' disciples. Rather, such acceptance permits a recognition of one's own
erroneous thinking and acting and clarifies the requirements for the rehabilitation
of errant disciples. Also erroneous are beliefs that do not recognize that continu-
ing failure to understand Jesus, his teachings, and his actions, to fear, and to think
and act improperly indicate that the potential for future rehabilitation need not be
realized. Most damning are erroneous preexisting beliefs that fail to recognize
that one's own negatively evaluated actions and attributes directly align one with
Jesus' disciples in the most negative elements of their portrayal. All of these
erroneous beliefs are related to the content of 8:31-9:1.
The narrative function of the disciples' characterization through recapitulation

emphasizes erroneous beliefs concerning the extent of the authorial audience's
improper thinking and acting, its need for a renewal of discipleship and rehabili-
tation according to the thinking and acting required of errant disciples, and its
potential for ultimate negative evaluation and failure. Erroneous beliefs also pre-
vent a recognition that refusing to accept Jesus' teaching about the Son of Man's
necessary experience and activity and the disciples' required thinking and acting
prevents one from seeing the risen Jesus and understanding Mark's story of
Jesus. This results in identification with Jesus' disciples in their most negatively
evaluated improper thinking and acting and alignment with those who condemn
Jesus as Christ and Son of Man as worthy of death. These beliefs also are related
to the content of 8:31-9:1
f. The Rhetorical Exigency

This partial statement of the rhetorical exigency is formulated from the empha-
sized problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples. The dis-
cussion first clarifies the procedure for relating these problematized beliefs and
for formulating the statement of rhetorical exigency. The statement summarizes
but does not reproduce all of the content of the previous discussions of problema-
tized beliefs.
Two contexts, 1:1-15 and 8:31-9:1, play a determinative role in relating all of
the noted problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples. Of
these, 1:1-15 links all deficient beliefs concerning God to significant elements of
deficient beliefs about Jesus and to various elements of deficient beliefs about
the disciples. In contrast, 8:31-9:1 links all deficient and erroneous beliefs about
Jesus as Son of Man (and Christ) and particular deficient beliefs about Jesus to
each other and to particular deficient beliefs about God and deficient and erro-
neous beliefs about Jesus' disciples. Deficient beliefs concerning Jesus and his
disciples also are linked in 1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32 and 6:33-44;
8:1-10; 14:22-26. The beliefs problematized in the first repeated context are
evoked and related to those in 8:31-9:1; and the beliefs problematized in the sec-
ond repeated context cohere with those problematized in both 1:16-20; 3:13-19;
6:6b-13, 30-32 and 8:31-9:1. Thus, 1:1-15 and 8:31-9:1 relate the noted
emphasized problematized beliefs concerning God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples;
and these problematized beliefs ultimately are related by the contextual repeti-
tion of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13.
The authorial audience is characterized by an unwavering identification with
Jesus' disciples; and the narrative audience is characterized by cultivated beliefs
that alone provide a basis for interpreting all of the content of the narration. The
narrative audience interprets the authorial audience's unwavering and, from its
own perspective, frequently uncritical identification with Jesus' disciples and
acceptance of the disciples' actions and attributes (whether positively or nega-
tively evaluated) and beliefs (whether adequate, deficient, or erroneous) to indi-
cate that the authorial audience is characterized by the same actions, attributes,
and beliefs. As a result, the formulation of the rhetorical exigency is cast as a
statement of problematized beliefs that characterize the authorial audience as dis-
ciple; and the exigency that the narrative rhetoric was designed to address is cast
as a crisis of discipleship.
The crisis of discipleship has its origin in the disciple's inadequate understand-
ing of God's actions and attributes, the nature and extent of Jesus' positive rela-
tionship and identification with God, and the implications of these actions and
attributes and this relationship for the disciple (1:1-15). Especially deficient is
the disciple's recognition that God and Jesus have (and are the source and con-
tent of) the gospel (euayyeXiov) and that God has the holy Spirit (TTveO|±a
dyiov), messengers (dyyeXos), and Jesus as God's Beloved Son (vlbg dyaTrr|-
TOS). These deficient beliefs are preventing the disciple from responding to
Jesus' command to believe in the gospel and from accomplishing the related
actions of observing God's commandments, doing/not doing what is/is not per-
mitted, being forgiven, receiving everlasting life and a hundredfold with persecu-
tions, and being a beneficiary of God's right hand, power, and possible things.
The crisis of discipleship also has it origin in the disciple's failure to recognize
that God necessitated that Jesus as Son of Man suffer, be rejected, be killed, and
rise, that this failure has placed the disciple in opposition to Jesus and God, and
that this opposition requires rehabilitative thinking and acting to restore the
desired relationship with God and Jesus (8:31-9:1). Especially emphasized are
the disciple's continuing resistance to accepting the Son of Man's necessary suf-
fering, rejection, death, and resurrection and the disciple's resulting identifica-
tion with Satan, which requires a renewal of discipleship through a willingness to
destroy one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel as a means of being recon-
ciled with the parousaic Son of Man. The disciple also does not recognize that
previous identification with Jesus in being sent (dTTooreXXa)), casting out (eK-
pdXXa)), proclaiming (Kripuaaa)), having authority (efjoixna), and doing (noiea))
Jesus' saving actions (1:16-20; 3:13-19; 6:6b-13, 30-32) does not guarantee its
present positive relationship with Jesus. It does, however, establish the potential
for successful rehabilitation. The disciple also does not recognize that continuing
as a beneficiary of the bread Jesus blesses and the cup of the covenant which he
gives (6:33-44; 8:1-10; 14:22-26) is contingent on having this bread and distrib-
uting it to others and receiving this cup interpreted according to the passion ele-
ments of Jesus' portrayal.
The crisis of discipleship overall concerns the failure to recognize adequately
that belief in the gospel (euayyeXiov) of Jesus and God, which Jesus commands,
demands that the disciple be willing to destroy his or her life in order to accom-
plish its proclamation to all nations (1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; 13:3-13). God necessi-
tates (Set) this proclamation (13:10) just as God necessitated the suffering
rejection, death, and resurrection by Jesus as Son of Man (8:31). Whereas Jesus
as Son of Man accomplished this mandate, the disciple is not doing so. God's
reign (paaiXeta), which has drawn near, will have come in power for those who
fulfill Jesus' command to believe and so proclaim the gospel before tasting
death; but God's reign has not come in power for the disciple. God's holy Spirit
(jTV€v\ia dyiov), by which Jesus baptizes, which has descended onto Jesus and
cast him out into the desert, and which should speak the gospel through the disci-
ple, is not doing so because the disciple is not willing to destroy his/her life and
be handed over (7Tapa,8i8(ji)|ii). This disciple does not recognize that only the one
who accomplishes what God necessitates receives everlasting life (£o)f| atoJvios)
and truly obeys God's commandments (evToXii) and becomes the beneficiary of
all possible things (Svvarov) and God's exercise of power (8uvapxs). This dis-
ciple does not recognize that rejection of the necessities concerning the Son of
Man and failure to act on the pattern of the Son of Man are what precludes these
from happening for the disciple.
The narrative rhetoric and function of characterization indicate that the disci-
ple has deficient and erroneous beliefs that God will intervene decisively for the
disciple who is suffering or facing death for faithful proclamation of the gospel
and apparently is waiting for God to do so. However, its faulty understanding of
the gospel prevents a recognition that God does not act as the disciple wants
(0e Xw) any more than God acted as God's Son wanted. Instead, God saves the
one who destroy one's life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel on the pattern of
God's saving action for the Son of Man, who was killed but rose. Thus, this dis-
ciple does not recognize that unwillingness to destroy one's life for the sake of
Jesus and the gospel results in one's identification not with Jesus and God but
with those who condemned Jesus as Son of Man as worthy of death and so pre-
cludes God's saving action for the disciple through the parousaic Son of Man.
2. Implications for Proposals of the Historical Exigency

of the Composition
Although this partial statement of the rhetorical exigency coheres in many ways
with various more detailed and sophisticated proposals concerning the historical
exigency of the composition of Mark, its utility for contributing to properly his-
torical proposals is limited by the nature of the narrative communication and the
process of authorial composition it presupposes.4 This discussion clarifies the
nature of these constraints and, in so doing, identifies methodological problems
with more direct applications of the content of Mark for proposals of the histori-
cal exigency. The discussion then considers a series of historical implications
that satisfy these constraints.
4. A number of these proposals receive review and critique in Ernest Best, Mark: The Gospel as
Story (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983), 93-99.
a. The Constraints concerning Implications

The formulation of historical statements from the studies of characterization
requires a change of focus from the authorial audience, the narratively proposed
construct of the original real audience, to the original real audience itself. The
previous studies give every indication that the Gospel of Mark as gospel consti-
tutes a narrative communication that invites a response of faith from the real
audience.5 The use of the common language of its day, the presumption of partic-
ular beliefs that may be evoked by minimal verbal cues, and the definition of par-
ticular words and explanation of specific concepts and practices indicate that the
real author (whether a person or group) of Mark attempted to ensure the intelligi-
bility of the narration by developing a model of the original real audience and
then crafting the narrative rhetoric to address this audience. The repetition of
vocabulary, contexts, and structures that relate particular beliefs and the coordi-
nation of rhetorical strategies that facilitate the experience of narrated situations
and events also seem designed to guide the original real audience's interpretation
of the narrative content in a way that permits this audience to experience the nar-
ration as an invitation to respond according to the cultivated beliefs of the narra-
tive audience.
Despite the apparent transparency of these observations, the nature of the nar-
rative communication places severe constraints on the potential for the direct
application of any narrative study to historical questions because the beliefs
attributed to the authorial audience, whether simply evoked or problematized,
necessarily will differ from those of the original real audience. First, even if the
real author was a consistently successful rhetor, the narrative rhetoric can evoke
only selected elements of the preexisting beliefs. As a result, the abstractable
construct of the beliefs attributed to the authorial audience can constitute no
more than a partial representation of the actual beliefs and experience of the orig-
inal real audience. Second, since cultivation of the narrative audience's beliefs is
best served by presenting the problematized elements of the authorial audience's
beliefs in ways that clarify their proposed difficulties, those selected beliefs that
are attributed to the original real audience and subsequently are problematized
may be assumed to constitute caricatures of its actual beliefs to some degree.6
Third, the narrative rhetoric encourages specific interpretations of the proposed
problematized beliefs by relating them in ways that need not parallel their preex-
isting relationships, so that the resulting beliefs of the authorial audience consti-
tute to at least some degree an ideologically biased representation of the original
5. This discussion assumes the model of narrative communication originally proposed by Sey-
mour Chatman {Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film [Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1978], 28, 149-51), developed by Paul Danove (The End of Mark's Story: A
Methodological Study [BIS 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 56-75), and refined by Bastiaan M. F. van
Iersel (Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary [trans. W. H. Bisscheroux; JSNTSup 164; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 16-21).
6. Howard Ong, "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction," PMLA 90-91 (1975): 9-21; see
also David A. Juel, Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 128-31.
audience's beliefs at specific points. Thus, even if the narration was successful in
addressing and inviting its original real audience to a response of faith, the
abstractable portrait of this audience, the authorial audience, can provide sure
access only to a potentially biased caricature of selected elements of the original
real audience's beliefs, presented in a way that was able to forestall the rejection
of its content.7
A fourth consideration has implications for the use of the narrative content for
proposals concerning the real author(s) of the composition. Although the previ-
ous studies of the beliefs cultivated for the narrative audience would seem to pro-
vide direct access to the beliefs that may be attributed to the real author, the
limitations on applicability still apply. There is no way to guarantee that these
cultivated beliefs actually characterized the real author and every reason to
assume that this narrative communication, like all communication, projects an
idealized portrait of the author (the implied author) and that the communication
itself is directed as much to its real author as to its original real audience.
Finally, the method's limited capacity to describe narrative developments that
do not involve repetition excludes contributions to particular literary considera-
tions that have been placed in the service of historical proposals. For example,
the lack of significant verbal, contextual, or structural repetition in contexts in
which Jesus silences demons and other characters prevents the direct contribu-
tion of the previous studies to considerations of a possible Messianic Secret
motif or its implications for clarifying the historical exigency of the narration.8
b. Implications for the Historical Exigency

Despite these limitations, the studies of characterization permit contributions to
four proposals concerning the historical exigency of the composition of Mark.9
The first proposal concerns suggestions that the narration was written to
address a real audience either experiencing or in danger of experiencing persecu-
7. Frank J. Matera observes that the narration has the potential to bring even an unsympathetic
interpreter to entertain its proposed viewpoint (New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and
Paul [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 261 n. 6). Thus, the narrative communication may
have been successful even if the original real audience were unsympathetic to the implied portrait of
itself.
8. The original proposal of the Messianic Secret in 1901 appears in William Wrede, The Mes-
sianic Secret (trans. J. C. G. Greig; Cambridge: James Clark, 1971), 11-149, 209-86. Eduard
Schweizer ("Zur Messiasgeheimnis bei Markus," ZNW 56 [1965]: 1-8), William Robinson Jr. ("The
Quest for Wrede's Secret Messiah," Int 27 [1973]: 10-30), and Heikki Raisanen (Das "Messias-
geheimnis" im Markusevangelium [FES 28; Helsinki: Lansi-Suomi, 1976]) present further develop-
ments on this theme: cf. The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; IRT 1; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983).
9. Surveys of the history of proposals concerning the real audience appear in Dwight N. Peter-
son, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (BIS 48; Leiden: E. J. Brill,
2000), 1-21; and John R. Donahue, "The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel," in The Four
Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1992), 817-38.
tion. Such proposals generally emphasize the two references to persecution

(8io)y|i6s, 4:17; 10:30) and interpret Jesus' predictions about the Son of Man's
near future experience and activity and his subsequent teachings as having direct
implications for disciples.10 Further recommending a situation of actual persecu-
tion is the distinction Jesus introduces between insiders and outsiders and the
Messianic Secret motif.11 The studies, however, found no special emphasis on
persecution in that the word exhibits no concerted linkage to other vocabulary or
repetition in contexts or structures that receive specialized development. The
studies did note, however, that the contextual repetition of 8:35; 10:26-30; and
13:9-13 (ch. 4 sec. 3e) interprets persecution in terms of the required thinking
and action of the disciple who leaves (dcjuruii) everything and follows
(dKoAouOeG)) Jesus, who proclaims (Kipijaaa)) the gospel to all nations, who
saves one's life (i|wxf|v <?<££<*)) by destroying (dTr6\Xi>|±i) it for the sake of Jesus
and the gospel (eiayyeXiov) by being handed over (TTapa8i8o)|±i) and being put
to death (GavaToa) < GdvaTos) on the pattern of Jesus as Son of Man, and who
receives everlasting life (£cof) alwviov) in the coming age. Thus, the narrative
rhetoric interprets persecution in terms of the required actions and attributes of
the disciple, especially when sent to proclaim, and not in terms of particular
"acute" situations.n
The second proposal concerns suggestions that the narration is designed to
correct a christological problem associated with the original real audience's
improper identification of Jesus as a Hellenistic divine man, that is, a human
being endowed with divine power that is manifested primarily in working mira-
cles.13 Such proposals interpret the emphasis on miracle stories in the earlier por-
trayal of Jesus as Son of God (prior to Mark 8:31) as a device that clarifies the
real audience's erroneous beliefs and the emphasis on the near future experience
and activity of Jesus as Son of Man beginning in Mark 8:31 and similar "pas-
sion" elements elsewhere in Jesus' portrayal as the corrective to this error.14 The
10. Joel Marcus provides an excellent survey of this topic {Mark 1-8: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary [AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 28-33). Juel would interpret
the persecutions as only potential or even as a theme to jolt a complacent community (Master of Sur-
prise, 162).
11. Francis Watson, "The Social Function of Mark's Secrecy Theme," JSNT 24 (1985): 49-69.
12. See David Rhoads, "Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judg-
ment," in Gospel Interpretation: Narrative Critical & Social Scientific Approaches (ed. Jack Dean
Kingsbury; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 88-89.
13. Discussions of this concept appear in Helmut H. Koester, "One Jesus and Four Primitive
Gospels," HTR 61 (1968): 203-47, here 230-36; and Johannes Schreiber, "Die Christologie des
Markusevangeliums," ZTK 58 (1961): 154-83. A survey of the development of this concept and its
application to Markan studies appears in Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark's Gospel
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 25-^0.
14. Theodore J. Weeden, Mark—Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 54-64;
Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 51-57, and idem, "The
Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology," JR 51 (1971): 173-87, here 178-81; Leander E.
Keck, "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology," JBL 84 (1965): 341-58, here 354-58; Paul J. Achte-
meier, "Gospel Miracle Tradition and Divine Man," Int 36 (1972): 174-97. Ralph P. Martin, in con-
previous studies, however, discovered only positive evaluations of Jesus' actions

in the miracle stories and would support negative critiques of such proposals.15
The third proposal concerns suggestions that the christological problem, what-
ever its nature, was being introduced into the original real audience by outside
sources and that the narration is a response to this external threat.16 The narrative
rhetoric, however, locates the authorial audience's christological error in its pre-
existing beliefs that do not recognize that God necessitates the Son of Man's suf-
fering, rejection, death, and resurrection and that the Christ is to be identified by
the deeds of the parousaic Son of Man. Thus, the previous studies indicate the
christological problem facing the original real audience is its traditional chris-
tology.17
The fourth proposal concerns attempts to isolate a particular application of the
narration by the original real audience. Some see the narration as designed pri-
marily for use in missionary preaching.18 A primary use in the instruction of new
converts, perhaps in the catecumenate, also is suggested.19 Others propose a pri-
marily liturgical use as a lectionary.20 The previous studies, however, indicate
trast, identifies the problem as the real audience's too heavy emphasis on its union with the heavenly
Christ, which Mark similarly counterbalances with an emphasis on the near future experience and
activity of the Son of Man (Mark: Evangelist and Theologian [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972],
156-62).
15. Negative critiques of these proposals generally are based on the ambiguity of the term
"divine man," the apparent positive evaluation of Jesus' miracles, and Mark's overall theology: see
Carl H. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New
Testament Christology (SBLDS 40; Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1977); Howard C. Kee, Mira-
cle in the Early Christian World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 297-99; Kingsbury,
Christology, 33-44; W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), 160; and M. Eugene Boring, "Markan Christology: God Language for
Jesus?" NTS 45 (1999): 457.
16. Norman Perrin, "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions in Mark," USQR 23 (1968):
357-65, here 357. Werner H. Kelber ("Mark 14:32-42: Passion Christology and Discipleship Fail-
ure," ZNW 63 [1972]: 166-87, here 186-87) would associate this external threat explicitly with the
Jerusalem church and cites in support J. B. Tyson, "The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark," JBL 80
(1961), 261-68, here 265-67, and S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political
Factor in Early Christianity (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967), 275-79.
17. Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 1.
18. Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), 1023; Johannes Weiss, Das dlteste Evangelium: Ein Beitragzum Verstdndnis des
Markus-EvangelHums und der dltesten evangelischen IJberlieferung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1903), 22-42; cf. Martin Dibelius, "The Structure and Literary Character of the Gospels,"
#77? 20(1927): 151-70, here 162.
19. Philip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1940), 70.
20. Philip Carrington, 7%e Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan
Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952); M. D. Goulder, The Evangelist's Calendar
(London: SPCK, 1978), 241-306. Benoit Herman Marguerite Ghislain Marie Standaert (L'Evangile
selon Marc: Composition et genre litteraire [Brugge: Sint-Adriesabdij, 1978], 496-619) considers
the possible baptismal (pp. 498-540) or paschal (pp. 541-616) use of Mark.
that the narrative rhetoric assumes for the authorial audience extensive preexist-
ing beliefs as well as considerable prior success when on mission. These suggest
that the narration was designed primarily to address established members of the
original real audience, whether inside or outside the context of the liturgy.21
3. Application: Mark's Theological Beliefs
Since the contours of the most emphasized elements of a partial statement of

Mark's theological beliefs already are available by contrast in the partial state-
ment of the rhetorical exigency of the narration, this discussion considers only
the methodological approach required to develop a rigorous and comprehensive
statement of Mark's theology (of God), christology (of Jesus), and mathetology
(of the disciple). This methodological approach follows the same five-stage
analysis of the content of the studies of the characterization as the investigation
of the rhetorical exigency of the narration with the following modifications.
The first stage again identifies the semantic data. This discussion, however,
explicates with respect to each character all realized semantic content of seman-
tic frames, whether cultivated by sophisticating repetition or realized by neutral
repetition. As a result, the reservoir of semantic data for future discussion will be
expanded vastly.
The second stage identifies the beliefs cultivated and evoked without modifi-
cation by the narrative rhetoric of the repetition. This discussion includes beliefs
evoked by neutral repetition because all beliefs not explicitly problematized by
the narrative rhetoric are deemed to cohere with cultivated beliefs. The distinc-
tion between sophisticating and deconstructive repetition is interpreted exclu-
sively in terms of emphasis, with the straightforward introduction of content
through sophisticating repetition imposing a lesser emphasis and the cultivation
of content with prior narrative development and contextual warrants through
deconstructive repetition imposing greater emphasis. Also emphasized are
beliefs and affective responses cultivated through the frustration of narratively
cultivated expectations.
The third stage relates cultivated beliefs according to the outlines of the rhetor-
ical organization and incorporation that appear in the Appendix. Beliefs evoked
by neutral repetition then are associated with cultivated beliefs through contex-
tual and thematic considerations. In distinction to the study of the rhetorical exi-
gency, this stage of the development receives greatest emphasis; for traditional
discussions of biblical theology tend to focus on the beliefs associated with spe-
cific characters.
21. Mary Anne Beavis, Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4:11 12
(JSNTSup 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 66; W. T. Shiner, Follow Me! Disciples in
Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS 145; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 185 n. 26; and Marcus, Mark 1-8,28.
The fourth stage identifies beliefs cultivated by the narrative rhetoric of char-
acterization. This discussion produces statements of cultivated beliefs similar to
those from the studies of the narrative rhetoric of characterization and attributes
emphases as explained above. These are incorporated at appropriate points in the
discussion of the third stage.
The fifth stage relates the cultivated and realized beliefs about specific charac-
ters to each other, again primarily through contextual linkages in their character-
izations. Where these are not available, previously noted links derived from the
semantic rhetoric (vocabulary and relationships between designations) as well as
thematic developments are employed. Again, statements of relationships are
incorporated at appropriate points in the discussion of the third stage.
4. Implications for Rigor and Specificity

in Statements of Theological Beliefs
The development of a single, integrated, and coherent method for analyzing the
semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and func-
tion of characterization has significant implications for articulatingrigorousand
specific statements of Mark's theology, christology, and mathetology.
First, the method provides procedures for establishing a grammatically justi-
fied corpus of semantic data whose interpretation provides a basis for determin-
ing the propriety of incorporating less securely established data into the analysis.
For example, the original analysis of references to God excluded the occurrence
of hand over (Trapa8i8(it)|ju) in 14:21 as a probable reference to God's agency
based on a lack of supporting contextual indicators. The studies of the character-
ization of God and Jesus, however, revealed an overarching theme of God's
agency in the events surrounding Jesus' death and would support incorporation
of this reference into discussions of God's agency and of Jesus' indirect positive
relationship with God.
Second, the method provides access to a large quantity of grammatically justi-
fied semantic data about the characters that may be placed in the service of theo-
logical interpretation. For example, although the characterization of God is much
more attenuated than that of Jesus or his disciples, the previous study identified
219 references to God and thirty-five actions and attributes of God that receive
specialized development. The capacity of the proposed method to clarify the
manner in which all of the referenced beliefs are related to these thirty-five
actions and attributes and the manner in which these beliefs are organized into a
unified framework for interpretation establishes the possibility for developing a
very detailed and nuanced statement of Mark's theology.
Third, the data of the previous studies recommend the articulation of Markan
mathetology as a distinct project in parallel with Markan theology and christol-
ogy. Contemporary scholarship is correct in viewing Jesus as the model or para-
digm for discipleship in Mark.22 The narrative rhetoric develops the positively
evaluated actions and attributes that identify the disciple with Jesus, especially
when on mission, through the same vocabulary that is applied to Jesus, estab-
lishes Jesus as the exemplar for doing what God wants even when one wants oth-
erwise, and patterns the thinking and acting required to rehabilitate the errant
disciple on the necessary experience and activity of the Son of Man. The previ-
ous studies indicate, however, that Mark's theological beliefs about the disciple
are not completely derivative of Mark's christology through a straightforward
process of "subtracting" particular actions and attributes that are reserved to
Jesus (and God), "projecting" actions and attributes that are patterned on those of
Jesus, and "negating" actions and attributes of Jesus to arrive at negatively evalu-
ated actions and attributes of the disciple.
Instead, Mark's theological beliefs about the disciple incorporate elements
whose relationship to theological beliefs about Jesus remains obscure. For exam-
ple, cultivated beliefs recognize that the disciple on occasion fears or does not
know and responds inappropriately or thinks erroneously and acts improperly
and that no disciple completely avoids such failures and the consequent need for
rehabilitative thinking and acting. Thus, a constitutive element of Mark's math-
etology is failure and the need for rehabilitation. However, although the thinking
and acting required to rehabilitate the errant disciple are patterned on the Son of
Man, neither the disciple's failure nor the disciple's rehabilitative thinking and
acting are derivative of Jesus' portrayal in a straightforward manner. In fact, the
Son of Man and disciples are directly positively related only in being handed
over (Trapa8L8oj|iL, 9:31; 10:33a, 33b; 14:21, 41/13:9, 11, 12) and death (Gdva-
TOS, 10:33; 14:64/9:1; 13:12). The rehabilitative actions and attributes that pre-
cede this concluding positive alignment, however, are devoid of vocabulary
parallels. Nor is the process of derivation exclusively from Jesus/the Son of Man
to the disciple; for the only remaining exact vocabulary parallel appears in Jesus'
statement that the parousaic Son of Man will be ashamed of the disciple who is
ashamed of Jesus and his words (8:38). Here it is the disciple, not Jesus, who
determines the nature of the relationship! A further example concerns the fact
that the disciple's fear is interpreted in terms of lacking faith (4:40-41); but the
narration offers no direct development of the faith of Jesus and, instead, reserves
such developments to other, usually nonrecurrent, characters and their interac-
tion with Jesus. Thus, although every aspect of the disciple's presentation ulti-
mately is related to Jesus, the nature of this relationship is not always transparent
22. See, e.g., John R. Donahue, "Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark," Int 32
(1978): 369-86, here 377-78; P. Davis, "Christology, Discipleship, and Self-Understanding in the
Gospel of Mark," in Self-Definition and Self-Discovery in Early Christianity: A Case of Shifting
Horizons: Essays in Appreciation of Ben F. Meyerfrom His Former Students (ed. D. Hawkin and T.
Robinson; Lewiston: Mellen, 1990), 101-19; and Larry W. Hurtado, "Following Jesus in the Gospel
of Mark—and Beyond," in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longe-
necker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 9-29, here 25-27.
and not always unidirectional from Jesus to the disciple; and a separate formula-
tion of Mark's mathetology would ensure that the more problematic elements of
the relationship between Mark's theology of Jesus and Mark's theology of the
disciple are not merely glossed.
5. Conclusion
The previous studies proposed a rigorous method for analyzing and describing
the semantic and narrative rhetoric of repetition and the narrative rhetoric and
function of characterization. Application of this method produced detailed stud-
ies of the characterizations of God, Jesus, Jesus' disciples, and the women at the
tomb. The studies of characterization provided a detailed consideration of the
vocabulary, contexts, and structures in which these characters appear, an outline
of the organization of beliefs about these characters, and clarifications concern-
ing the manner in which portrayal of these characters contributes to other narra-
tive developments. The distinctions between realized, sophisticated, and
deconstructed content also clarified the beliefs asserted for the authorial audience
and proposed for the narrative audience. These beliefs became the basis for a par-
tial statement of the rhetorical exigency of the narration and its implications for
discussion of the historical exigency of the composition of Mark. They also con-
stituted the basis for a proposal for rigorous and specific statements of Markan
theology, christology, and mathetology from an extensive corpus of methodolog-
ically justified data. As such, the studies of characterization not only contributed
to the study of characterization in Mark but have significant applications and
implications for other areas of Markan scholarship.
APPENDIXES
The graphic representations of the organization and incorporation of cultivated

beliefs about God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples follow the guidelines that appear in
chap. 2 sec. 5, chap. 3 sec. 4, and chap. 5 sec. 4. For purposes of clarification in
Appendix C, the presentation includes notations on the semantic arguments at
appropriate points: (a) for agent; (e) for experiencer; (s) for source; and (g) for
goal.
A. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God
The Narrative Frame Associated with God
[12:1-12 13:32-37 + 1:1-15 + 8:31-9:1 + 13:3-13]

[dyyeXos dyyeXos dyyeXos]
[TTaTTjp
[12:1-12 + 13:32-37 8:31-9:1 + 13:3-13]
dfToaTeXXa)]
[vibs dyaTT. vibs dyaTT.]
euayyeXiov eijayyeXiov]
[paaiXeta paatXeta]
[TTvet)|ia
[8et 86L]
[12:1-12] [1:1-15]
Xeyco
TTOieO) 686s
TrXrjpoa)
168
B. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus
Narrative Frames Associated with Jesus
[1:16-20 3:13-19 6:6b-32] || Narr. Fr. Ass. with Son of Man

direpx.] || II II
[710160) 7TO160) ?*™l€w] || || 8:31-9:1
ii it
[aTToareX. II II
*<EKpdXXu)] || || [8:31-9:1 + 9:30-41 10:32-45]
dytara.]
[*KT\pVOOU> *KT]pi)aaa)] ||
[npoaKaX. TrpoQKCtX.] || || [SiSdcnco)
i II
I 1 II
[3:13-19] TTpOCTKaX.]
[6:6b-32] ||
I
6eX(D II [TTapaStS. rrapaStS.]
TTapa8i8. 8(80)^.1 II II 1 1 I
*0epaTTeij(jt) || || [8:31-9:1] [9:30-41] [10:32-45]
II dTToareXXa)
8 BeXa) 8L8U)H.I
II el
[6:33-44 8:1-10 14:22-26] OVO\LCL
8L8O)JXL] jl eiKiyyeX. TTOL60)
eiXoyeoa]
[Xa|ipd. Xct|ipdva) Xajipdva)]

[dTToXvo) KaraKp.
[8:27-9:1 13:21-27 + 14:60-65]

€pxo|iat
opdo) opdo)]
[8:1-10] [14:22-26]
\LOV
[8:27-9:1] [13:21-27] [14:60-65]

€TTLTL|ld0) aTroaTeXXo)
KdTClKp.
[1:1-15 8:31-9:1 13:3-13]
[euayyeX. euayyeX. eiiayyeX.]

[*TTapa8[. *Trapa8[.]
[8eX *8ei]
I !
[1:1-15] [13:3-13]
ovofia
II
I
6865
II 1/169 dya.
II
II
(Other Designations)
[1:1-15 +
II
12:1-12
II+ 13:32-37]
(J. t. Nazarene) e y e L poo
ep
[vlbs dy. 1/169 dy. S]Ll (Teacher)
(King of t. J.) orav pooo
[*8oOXo9 80DX09] (King of Israel) uravpos
1 1 (Rabbi) TrapaSiSa)
1
[12:1-12]
[13:32-37] (Son oft. Bl.) edvaTos
dTTOSOKlfl.
8L8O)|IL
eôuai. 8(8 (Son of God)
ol8a (Son of Mary)
C. The Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about Jesus' Disciples
Narrative Frames Associated with Jesus' Disciples
[1:16-20 + 3:13-19 6:6b-32] || || 8:31-9:1 Narr. Fr. Ass. w. Women

[drrepx- dTiepx. drrepx.] || II II
[*Troiea) *TTOl€(i) TTOLCO)] || || [8:31-9:1 + 9:30-41 + 10:32-45]
[aTroaxeX. diTocrreX.] || II II II II
[dTroaroX. drroaroX.] || || [8:31-32a + 9:30-32 + 10:32-34]
[<kpdXX(o €KpdXXd)] || jj [8i8d(7Kw 8i8daKO)]
[8a)8e Ka 8a)8eKa] || II [c))oPeofiaL <j>opeo|iai]
[KT\pVGGd) KT)pVGG(ti] || II [*7rapa8t. *7rapa8L]
II 1 i 1
t
[irpoaKaX. TTpOCTKCtX.] ||
Ir
[eôuaia efowia) || || [8:31-32b] [9:30-32] [10:32-34]
[8e£rre Sevre] \\
| 1
\ II I! II
[1:16-20] [3:13-19] [6:6b-32] || lianas 8^8€Ka

aKoXoi)0. TTapa8t8. 8t8da. (a) || IIII II
OTTlGb) 8t8da. (e) j| || [8:32b-33 + 9:33-34 + 10:35-41]
II i | j
1
0€8paTrS(o !! || [8:32b-33] [10:35-41]
[9:33-34]
II|| em-riî. (a) SiaXoytC. T7LVO)
II || eTTLTiî. (e)
[6:33-44 + 8:1-10 14:22-26] || c|>poi/ea) ol 8a
[818. (g) 8L8. (g) 8i8.(g)] || 0771 GO)
[ea0ia> ea0L(D ecrSiw] || iiaeTiTfjg parrTiCo)
[dp. exw dp. ex^] II II
[Xa[ip.(s) Xafi|3. (s)] || [8:34-9:1 + 9:35-41 + 10:42-45]
[p.a0T]TT]9 P-a©!]^?1] || [BeXa) 0eXa) 0eX(o]
[irapaTL. TTapaTL0.]
dTTOXXi)|lL]
[SidKOvos
[6:33-44] [8:1-10] [14:22-26] [TTptOTOS TTparros]
TTpoaKaX. Xap-P. (g) *8L8O)JIL]
8L8CD. (a) TTIVO)
[TTpoaKaX. TTpoaKaX.]
I I
[1:1-15 12:1-12 13:32-37] [8:34-9:1] [9:35-41] [10:42-45]
[*8oDXos SOCIXOS] OavaTOS

SoDXos
OTTiaG)
II
[1:1-15] [13:32-37] [8:34-9:1 10:26-30
yprjyopeo)
ol8a
[aKoXou0.
[Qavaros
13:3-13] f
I
[8:34-9:1]
as above
[10:26-30]
d(()LT]|lL
[13:3-13]
i
Xa|ipdva) XaXea) 5'
TrapaSiS.
8eX
[8:27-9:1 + 13:19-27 14:60-65]

[6pda> opdo) *6pdd)]
[8:27-9:1] [13:19-27] [14:60-65]

o
\r-
o
" CT — "
173
Appendixes
2 ^ § |
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, M. H. Doing Things with Texts: Essays in Criticism and Critical Theory.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.
Achtemeier, Paul J. "Gospel Miracle Tradition and Divine Man." Int 36 (1972):
174-97.
. Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
Aland, Barbara, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart:
Biblia-Druck, 1993.
Aland, Kurt. "Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums." inNeotesta-
mentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour ofMatthew Black, edited by E. Earle
Ellis and Max Wilcox, 12-30. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969.
Alter, Robert. The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1989.
Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature.
Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1953.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible JSOTSup 70. Sheffield: Almond,
1989.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Beavis, Mary Anne. Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark
4:11-12. JSNTSup 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.
Best, Ernest. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 4.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
. Mark: The Gospel as Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.
. "Mark's Readers: A Profile." In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift
Frans Neirynck, edited by F. Van Segbroeck et al., 2:839-55. Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1992.
-. "Role of the Disciples in Mark." NTS 23 (1977): 377-401.
Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited and translated by Robert Funk,
with supplementary notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Boomershine, Thomas E., and Gilbert L. Bartholomew. "The Narrative Tech-
nique of Mark 16:8." JBL 100 (1981): 213-23.
Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1983.
Boring, M. Eugene. "Markan Christology: God Language for Jesus?" NTS 45
(1999): 451-71.
174
Bibliography 175
Borrell, Agusti. The Good News of Peter's Denial: A Narrative and Rhetorical
Reading of Mark 14:54, 66-72. Translated by Sean Conlon. ISFCJ 7.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.
Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of
the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et ai. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1978.
Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Early
Christianity. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967.
Broadhead, Edwin K. "Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Por-
trait of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." JSNTA1 (1992): 21-34.
. Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of
Mark. JSNTSup 74. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.
Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave:
A Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels. 2 volumes.
New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Brown, Russell. "Theme." In Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory:
Approaches, Scholars, Terms, edited by IrenaR. Makaryk. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press, 1993.
Bryan, Christopher. A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its Literary and
Cultural Settings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Carrington, Philip. The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of
the Marcan Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.
. The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1940.
Chafe, Wallace L. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1970.
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and
Film. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978.
Chronis, Harry L. "The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-39."
JBL 101 (1982): 97-114.
Collins, John J. "The Son of Man in First-Century Judaisms." NTS 38 (1992):
448-66.
Cook, Walter A. "A Case Grammar Matrix." Language and Linguistics Working
Papers No. 6, Georgetown University Press (1972): 15-47.
Cranfleld, C. E. B. The Gospel according to St Mark: An Introduction and Com-
mentary. CGNTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Danove, Paul. "The Characterization and Narrative Function of the Women at
the Tomb (Mark 15,40-41.47; 16,1-8)." Bib 11 (1996): 375-97.
. The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study. BIS 3. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1993.
. Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case
Frame Analysis and Lexicon. JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001.
. "The Narrative Function of Mark's Characterization of God." NovT 43

(2001): 12-30.
. "The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark's Ambiguous Characterization of the
Disciples." JSNT70 (1998): 21-38.
. "The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus as Son of Man and Christ
in Mark." Bib 84 (2003): 16-34.
. "A Rhetorical Analysis of Mark's Construction of Discipleship." In
Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essays from the 1998 Florence Confer-
ence, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, 289-306. JSNTSup
195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Davis, P. "Christology, Discipleship, and Self-Understanding in the Gospel of
Mark." In Self-Definition and Self Discovery in Early Christianity: A Case
of Shifting Horizons: Essays in Appreciation of Ben F. Meyer from His For-
mer Students, edited by D. Hawkin and T. Robinson, 101-19. Lewiston:
Mellen, 1990).
Dewey, Joanna. "The Gospel of Mark." In Searching the Scriptures: Volume 2,
A Feminist Commentary, edited by Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, 470-509.
New York: Crossroad, 1993.
Dibelius, Martin. "The Structure and Literary Character of the Gospels." HTR 20
(1927): 151-70.
Dillon, Richard J. "'As One Having Authority' (Mark 1:22): The Controversial
Distinction of Jesus' Teaching." CBQ 37 (1995): 92-113.
Dirven, Rene, and Marjolyn Verspoor. Cognitive Exploration of Language and
Linguistics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1998.
Docherty, Thomas. Reading (Absent) Character: Towards a Theory of Charac-
terization in Fiction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.
Donahue, John R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of
Mark. SBLDS 10. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973.
. "Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark." Int 32 (1978): 369-
86.
. "A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark." JBL 101 (1982): 563-
94.
. "The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel." In The Four Gospels
1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, edited by F. van Segbroeck et al., 817-38.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
. "Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel." CBQ 57
(1995): 1-26.
Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. SPS 2. Col-
legeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002.
Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979.
Edwards, J. R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." JETS 37 (1994):
217-33.
Bibliography 177
Fackre, Gabriel. "Narrative Theology: An Overview." Int 37 (1983): 340-52.

Fillmore, Charles J. "The Case for Case." In Universal in Linguistic Theory,
edited by Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1-88. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, & Winston, 1968).
. "Frames and the Semantics of Understanding." Quaderni di Semantica
6(1985): 222-53.
. "The Need for Frame Semantics within Linguistics." Statistical Meth-
ods in Linguistics 1 (1976): 5-29.
. "'U'-Semantics, Second Round." Quaderni di Semantica 7 (1986): 49-
58.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Paul Kay. Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI,
1999.
Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Com-
munities. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Fleddermann, Harry. "The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50)." CBQ 43
(1981): 57-75.
Fowler, Robert M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader Response and the Gospel
of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
. Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of
Mark. SBLDS 54. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981.
. "The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark."
Semeia 48 (1989): 115-34.
Giblin, Charles H. "The Beginning of the Ongoing Gospel (MK 1,2-16,8)." In
The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, edited by Frans van
Segbroeck et al., 975-86. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Givon, T. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. 2 volumes. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins, 1984, 1990.
Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKKNT 2.1-2. 2 volumes.
Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978,1979.
Goulder, M. D. The Evangelist's Calendar. London: SPCK, 1978.
Graff, Gerald. "Literature as Assertions." In American Critics at Work: Exami-
nations of Contemporary Literary Theories, edited by Victor A. Kramer,
81-110. Troy, N.Y.: Whitson Publishing, 1984.
Graumann, Carl Friedrich. Grundlagen einer Phdnomenologie und Psychologie
der Perspektivitdt. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960.
Grundmann, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Berlin: Evangelische Ver-
lagsanstalt, 1959.
Guelich, Robert A. "'The Beginning of the Gospel' Mark 1:1-15." BibRes 27
(1982): 5-15.
. Mark 1-8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.
Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Hanson, James S. The Endangered Promises: Conflict in Mark. SBLDS 171.

Atlanta: SBL, 2000.
Harris, Randy Allen. The Linguistics Wars. New York: Oxford University Press,
1993.
Heil, John Paul. The Gospel of Mark as a Model for Action: A Reader-Response
Commentary. New York: Paulist, 1992.
. Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt
14:22-23, Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-21. AnBib 82. Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1981.
Henderson, Suzanne Watts. "'Concerning the Loaves': Comprehending Incom-
prehension in Mark 6:45-52." JSNT&3 (2001): 3-25.
Holladay, Carl H. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of
This Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40. Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars, 1977.
Humphrey, Hugh M. He Is Risen! A New Reading of Mark's Gospel. New York:
Paulist, 1992.
Hurtado, Larry W. "Following Jesus in the Gospel of Mark—and Beyond." In
Patterns ofDiscipleship in the New Testament, edited by Richard N. Longe-
necker, 9-29. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from
Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.
Jackendoff, Ray S. Semantic Structures. CSL 18. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1990.
Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971.
Juel, Donald. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1994.
Keck, Leander E. "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology." JBL 84 (1965): 341-
58.
Kee, Howard C. Miracle in the Early Christian World. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1983.
Kelber, Werner H. "Mark 14:32-42: Passion Christology and Discipleship Fail-
ure." ZNW 63 (1972): 166-87.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. The Christology of Mark's Gospel. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983.
. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1989.
Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 volumes. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.
Koester, Helmut H. "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels." HTR 61 (1968):
203-47.
Bibliography 179
LaVerdiere, Eugene. The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel

According to Mark. II. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999.
Leroux, N. R. "Repetition, Progression, and Persuasion in Scripture." Neot 29
(1995): 1-25.
Lightfoot, Robert H. The Gospel Message of St. Mark. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1950.
Lincoln, Andrew T. "The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7, 8." JBL 108
(1989): 283-300.
Luhrmann, D. Das Markusevangelium. HNT 3. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987.
Magness, J. Lee. Sense and Absence: Structure and the Suspension in the Ending
of the Gospel of Mark. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. "The Jesus of Mark and the Sea of Galilee." JBL
103 (1984): 363-77.
. "Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?" In Mark and
Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, edited by Janice Capel Ander-
son and Stephen D. Moore. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in
the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
Marshall, Christopher. Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1989.
Marxsen, Willi. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the
Gospel. Translated by J. Boyce et al. New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1969.
Matera, Frank J. New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
. "The Prologue as the Interpretive Key to Mark's Gospel." JSNT 34
(1988): 3-20.
Martin, Ralph P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1972.
McCawley, James D. Grammar and Meaning. New York: Academic Press,
1976.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975.
Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hen-
drickson, 2002.
. "Mark 6:6b-30: Mission, the Baptist, and Failure." CBQ 63 (2001):
647-63.
Moore Stephen D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Chal-
lenge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of
Jesus. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988.
Neirynck, Frans. Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan
Redaction. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1972.
. "The Tradition of the Sayings of Jesus: Mark 9,33-50." In The

Dynamism of Biblical Tradition, edited by Pierre Benoit and Roland E. Mur-
phy, 62-74. Translated by Theodore L. Westow. Concilium 20. New York:
Paulist, 1967.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. Linguistic Theory in America: The First Quarter-
Century of Transformational Generative Grammar. New York: Academic
Press, 1980.
O'Collins, Gerald. "The Fearful Silence of Three Women (Mark, 16:8c)." Greg
69 (1988): 489-503.
Ong, Howard. "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction." PMLA 90-91
(1975): 9-21.
Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1982.
Perrin, Norman. "The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology." JR 51
(1971): 173-87.
. "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions in Mark." USQR 23
(1968): 357-65.
-. What Is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.
Perrin, Norman, and Dennis C. Duling. The New Testament, An Introduction:
Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History. 2nd ed. New York: Har-
court Brace Jovanovich, 1982.
Perry, Menakhem. "Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates Its
Meaning." Poetics Today 1.1-2 (1970): 35-64, 311-61.
Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. Freiburg: Herder, 1984.
Petersen, Norman. "'Point of View' in Mark's Narrative." Semeia 12 (1978):
97-121.
. "When Is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of
Mark's Narrative." Int 34 (1980): 151-66.
Peterson, Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current
Debate. BIS 48. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.
Platt, John T. Grammatical Form and Grammatical Meaning: A Tagmemic View
ofFillmore's Deep Structure Case Concepts. Amsterdam: North-Holland,
1971.
Pokorny, P. "From a Puppy to a Child: Some Problems of Contemporary Biblical
Exegesis Demonstrated from Mark 7.24-30/Matt 15:21-8." NTS 41 (1995):
321-37.
Prince, Gerald. Narrative as Theme: Studies in French Fiction. Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press, 1991.
Pryke, E. J. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and
Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
Rabinowitz, Peter J. Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of
Interpretation. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Bibliography 181
. "Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences." Critical Inquiry 4

(1974): 121-41.
Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935.
Raisanen, Heikki. Das "Messiasgeheimnis" im Markusevangelium. FES 28.
Helsinki: Lansi-Suomi, 1976.
Read, David H. C. "The Cry of Dereliction." ExpTim 68 (1956-57): 260-62.
Rhoads, David. "Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark: A Narrative-
Critical Study." JAAR 62 (1994): 343-75.
. "Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judg-
ment." In Gospel Interpretation: Narrative Critical & Social Scientific
Approaches, edited by Jack Dean Kingsbury, 83-94. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity
Press International, 1997.
Rhoads, David, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Nar-
rative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of
Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992.
Robinson, William, Jr. "The Quest for Wrede's Secret Messiah." Int 27 (1973):
10-30.
Ross, John R. "Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] Pfhrase] Deletion." Linguistic
Inquiry 1 (1970): 264-65.
Saeed, John I. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Sag, Ivan, and Jorge Hankamer. "Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing."
Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984): 325-45.
Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and
10:43-44." BSac 157 (2000): 15-25.
Schneiders, Sandra M. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as
Sacred Scripture. San Francisco: Harper, 1991.
Schreiber, Johannes. "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums." ZTK 58
(1961): 154-83.
. Theologie des Vertrauens. Hamburg: Furche-Verlag H. Rennebach, K.
G., 1967.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. Translated by Donald
H. Madvig. Richmond: John Knox, 1970.
. "Zur Messiasgeheimnis bei Markus." ZNW 56 (1965): 1-8.
Shiner, W. T. Follow Me! Disciples in Markan Rhetoric. SBLDS 145. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1995.
Slater, Thomas B. "One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism." NTS
41 (1995): 183-98.
Standaert, Benoit Herman Marguerite Ghislain Marie. L 'Evangile selon Marc:
Composition et genre litteraire. Brugge: Sint-Adriesabdij, 1978.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and
the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.
Stock, Augustine. The Method and Message ofMark. Wilmington, Del.: Michael
Glazier, 1989.
Stock, Klemens. Die Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhdltnis zwischen
Jesus und der Zwolfnach Markus. AnBib 70. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975.
Tannehill, Robert C. "Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role." JR
57 (1977): 386-405.
. "The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology." Semeia 16 (1979):
57-95.
-. The Sword of His Mouth, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
Tate, W. Randolph. Reading Mark from the Outside: Eco and her Leave Their
Marks. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1994.
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1963.
Telford, W. R. The Theology of the Gospel ofMark. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
Tesniere, Lucien. Elements de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959.
Tolbert, Mary Ann. "How the Gospel of Mark Builds Character." Int 47 (1993):
347-57.
. Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Tuckett, Christopher, ed. 77**? Messianic Secret. IRT 1. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1983.
Turner, Nigel. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Volume 3, Syntax.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.
Tyson, J. B. "The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark." JBL 80 (1961): 261-68.
van Dijk, Tuen. "Semantic Macro-Structures and Knowledge Frames in Dis-
course Comprehension." In Cognitive Processes in Comprehension, edited
by Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A. Carpenter, 3-32. Hillsdale, N.Y.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
van Iersel, Bastiaan M. F. "Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark." LB 55
(1983): 45-54.
. Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bissche-
roux. JSNTSup 164. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
-. "The Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of Connotation." Semeia
48 (1989): 83-114.
Via, Dan O. "Irony as Hope in Mark's Gospel: A Reply to Werner Kelber."
Semeia 48 (1988): 21-27.
Waetjen, Herman C. A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of
Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Watson, Francis. "The Social Function of Mark's Secrecy Theme." JSNT 24
(1985): 49-69.
Weeden, Theodore J. Mark—Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
. "The Markan Mystery and Mark's Messiah for Faith." CS 34 (1995):
17-31.
Weiss, Johannes. Das dlteste Evangelium: Ein Beitrag zum Verstdndnis des
Markus-Evangeliums und der dltesten evangelischen Uberlieferung. Gottin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903.
Bibliography 183
Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968.
Winston, Patrick. Artificial Intelligence. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
Wong, Simon S. M. A Classification of Semantic Case-Relations in the Pauline
Epistles. New York: Peter Lang, 1997.
Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret Translated by J. C. G. Greig. Cambridge:
James Clark, 1971.
Zerwick, Maximilian. Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci. 3rd ed.
SPIB 107. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1966.
. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith.
2nd ed. Rome: Scripti Pontificii Biblici, 1985.
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT 2 Kings 5:11 29n.4

Genesis 1:8 34 5:14 29n.4
1:1-2:3 29 7:13 74,131
1:2 29n.4 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 73
1:6 51 24:20 29n. 4 12:1 67n. 22
1:27 39
32:31 67n. 22 Psalms Malachi
41:38 29n.4 21:2 55 3:1 3,7n. 21,8,
22:1 55n. 40 29,43,50-51
Exodus 109:1 74,131 3:23 34
3:6 39 110:1 39,74
3:15 39 117:22-23 74n. 33
3:16 39 NEW TESTAMENT
20:12 71 Isaiah Mark
23:20 3, 7n. 21 5:1 43n. 29 1 123
33:17-34:8 67n. 22 5:1a 43,43n. 29 1-3 91
5:1b 43,43n. 29 1-13 5
Leviticus 5:1-7 43,43n. 29 1:1 16,29n. 4,
18:16 36 5:2 43 33n. 13,34,
24:5-9 36 5:3 43,44 86n. 44
5:4 43,43n. 29, 1:1-3 34
Numbers 44 1:1-11 34
23:7 29n.4 5:5 43 1:1-15 21n. 44,
24:2 29n.4 5:6 43,44 42-53, 58n.
5:7 43,43n. 29, 3, 80-82,
Deuteronomy 44 104n. 29,
5:16 71 40:3 7n. 21,8,51, 116,118-20,
24:1 36 58 123,145-48,
24:3 36 53:6 31n. 11 150-51,154,
53:12 31n. 11 156-58,168,
1 Samuel 56:7 40 170,172-73
10:10 29n.4 1:1-16:8 30
19:9 29n.4 Ezekiel 1:2 29, 29n. 4,
19:20 29n.4 11:24 29n.4 34,55
19:23 29n.4 1:2-3 3,7,7n. 21,
21:2-7 4 Daniel 34,34n. 18
4:8 29n. 4 1:2-9 34
1 Kings 4:9 29n.4 1:2-13 15
19:11-13 67n. 22 4:18 29n.4 1:2-13:37 55
184
1:3 20, 33n. 14, 3 123 6:17 131n. 7

58 3:4 63nl4,64n. 6:17-29 20
1:4 20 17 6:18 34,13 In. 7
1:5 31n. 9 3:8 65 6:20 23,13 In. 7
1:6 34 3:10 131n. 7 6:29 20
1:7 20,34 3:13-19 75-76, 6:30 97,105n. 30
1:8 29, 30n. 8, 75-76n. 36, 6:30-32 39, 75-76,
34n. 18 82,104-7, 75-76n. 36,
1:10 29, 3 In. 8 111,113, 82,104-6,
1:11 10,34,34n. 115,120, 106n. 32,
17 123-24,149, 107,111,
1:12 31n. 8 153,157-58, 113,115,
1:13 20, 29, 3In. 9 169,171 120,123-24,
1:14 20,33n. 13 3:13-6:6a 96 149,153,
1:14-14:26 15 3:14 104 157-58
1:15 HOn. 40 3:16 104 6:32 105
1:16 19,52,54, 3:19 20 6:33-44 67n. 24,
122,125, 3:2O-6:6a 124 76-77, 82,
131n. 7 3:29 31n. 8 119-20,123,
1:16-18 19,75n. 35 3:32 9,10 150,153,
1:16-20 75-76, 3:34 10 157-58,169,
75-76n. 35, 3:35 64n. 17 171-72
76n. 36, 82, 4:10 104 6:33-8:26 124
104-7,111, 4:10-13 95nn.9,11 6:35 103
113,115, 4:35-41 67n. 23 6:37b 39
120,122-24, 4:36 97 6:41 103
139,149, 4:41 96n. 14 6:45 103
153,157-58, 5:4 31n. 9 6:45-52 67n. 23,120
169,171 5:8 131n. 7 6:48 131n. 7
1:16-3:13 125 5:19 33n. 14 6:50 95n. 12,
1:16-8:26 49,50,51, 5:28 63 122n. 53,
52,53,54 5:31 103 131n. 7
1:17 113 5:36 96 6:50-52 96n. 13
1:19-20 19,75n. 35 5:42 134 6:52 95,95n. 12,
1:20 122 6 123 122,13 In. 7,
1:20-3:12 124 6:1 103 134
1:22 131n. 7 6:2 31n. 9 6:56 63
1:37 96n.14 6:6b-13 39, 75-76, 7 123
1:40-42 134 75-76n. 36, 7:2 103
1:40-45 134 82,104-6, 7:3 131n. 7
1:44 134 106n. 32, 7:5 103
1:45 62n.12 107,111, 7:6-13 71
2 123 113,115, 7:17 103
2:2 44 120,123-24, 7:24 67
2:3 31n. 9 149,153, 7:31-37 134
2:10 72n. 27 157-58 7:32-36 134
2:13-14 75n. 35 6:6b-32 169,171 7:36 134
2:13-15 19 6:7 104 7:37a 65
2:15 103 6:14 131n. 7 8 123
2:28 72n. 27 6:14-29 106n. 32 8:1 103
Mark (cow/.) 139n. 19, 155,171-72

8:1-10 76-77, 82, 154, 171 9:38 98,99
119-20,123, 8:32b-9:l 113 9:41 80n.42
150,153, 8:33 103,113,121 10 123
157-58,169, 8:34 98,103, 10:10 103
171-72 109n. 38,113 10:13 103
8:4 103 8:34-9:1 6, 77,104n. 10:23 103
8:6 103 29,107-12, 10:24 103
8:10 103 112n. 45, 10:26 63,63n. 15
8:11 9,10 116-18,120, 10:26-30 104n. 29,
8:12 9,10 123-24,154, 116-18,120,
8:16-17 95n. 11 156,171-72 123,156,
8:27 124 8:35 114n. 46,162 162,172
8:27a 103 8:38 80n. 42 10:27 63n. 15
8:27b 103 9 123 10:28 97
8:27-30 19, 79-80, 9:1 41n. 23 10:29 97
120-21,124 9:2 32n. 11 10:32 96,98,104
8:27-33 79n. 40, 9:5 97 10:32-34 5-6,15-16,
108n. 36 9:6a 131n. 7 19,77,107,
8:27-9:1 79-80, 80n. 9:6b 131n. 7 119,155,171
42, 82-83, 9:7 72n. 28 10:32-35 86
86,104n. 29, 9:9 135 10:32-45 6, 77-79,
115n. 47, 9:14 103 80n. 42, 82,
120,152, 9:15 132 85-86,104n.
169-70,172 9:18 103 29,112-16,
8:27-10:52 4,49-51,53 9:28 103 123,138,
8:30 121 9:30-32 5-6,15,19, 151,154-55,
8:31 5,19, 31n. 9, 77,107,119, 169,171
79,85,121, 155,171 10:33 5, 73n. 30
162 9:30-41 6,16,77-79, 10:35 64n. 17,
8:31-32 5 80n. 42, 82, 114n. 46
8:31-32a 6,15, 19, 85-86,104n. 10:35-40 11On. 42
72n. 28, 77, 29,112-16, 10:35-41 6, 77, 107-8,
79n. 38,107, 123, 138, 123-24, 155,
120,154, 171 151, 154-55, 171
8:31-32b 119 169, 171 10:35-44 113
8:31-33 121 9:31 5, 73n. 30, 10:35^5 16, 102n. 27
8:31-9:1 6,16,42, 103, 131n. 7 10:36 64n. 17,
46-48, 9:31-32 119 114n. 46
77-80, 80n. 9:32 96 10:37 114n. 46
42, 81-83, 9:33-34 6, 77,107-8, 10:42 102n. 27
85-86,104n. HOn. 41, 10:42-45 6,77,
29,112-16, 122-24,155, 107-12,
120-21,123, 171 112n. 45,
138,146, 9:34 131n. 7 116,123,
148-49, 151- 9:35 104 125,155,
54,156-58, 9:35-41 6,77, 171-72
168-71, 173 107-10, 10:45 80n.42,125,
8:31-10:45 125 HOn. 41, 131n. 7
8:32b-33 6, 77,107-8, 111, 112n. 10:46 103
120,123-24, 45,123, 125, 10:51 65
11 87n.49,123, 13:9-13 162 14:32-42 lOOn. 25,120

126 13:10 20n. 42 14:33 132
11-13 125 13:11 20n. 42, 31n. 14:34 lOOn. 23
11:1 103 8 14:36 33n. 14,55,
11:1-13:7 51,52,53, 13:12 20n.42 64n. 17,66
53n. 38 13:13 63 14:37 45n. 32,
11:1-13:37 49,50 13:14 12 lOOn. 23
11:9 33n. 14,99, 13:19-27 80,86,172 14:38 lOOn. 25
99n. 22 13:20 33n. 14, 64 14:40 131n. 7
11:11 99n. 22,104 13:21-23 79 14:43 104
11:13 131n. 7 13:21-27 79-80, 82, 14:50 97,125,133,
11:14 103 86,104n. 29, 137-39
11:18 9 115n. 47, 14:51-52 131,141n. 22
11:18a 13 In. 7 152,169, 14:53 79n.4O
11:22 32n. 12 170 14:54 99
11:27 9 13:24-27 79,80 14:55 10
11:28 65,65n. 19 13:32-37 42-46,48, 14:55-65 79n.4O
11:31-32 96n. 16 80-82, 14:56 131n. 7
11:32 131n. 7 118-20,123, 14:60-61 79
12 87n. 49, 123, 146-48, 150, 14:60-65 79-80, 82,
126 154, 168, 86-87,104n.
12:1 43 170,172 29,115n. 47,
12:1-12 42-43,43n. 13:34 39,45n. 32, 152,169-70,
29,44-46, 99n.23 172
48, 80-82, 13:35 lOOn. 23 14:62 87
118-20,123, 14 22,123 14:62-65 79,80
147-48,150, 14-15 5 14:72 125,133,
154,168, 14:1 9 137,140,156
170,172 14:1-15:39 54 15 22
12:2-8 44 14:1-15:41 49,50-51, 15:10 131n. 7
12:10-12 150 53-54, 54n. 15:34 55
12:10b-ll 44 39,55 15:34a 33n. 14
12:11 33n. 14 14:2 131n. 7 15:34b 33n. 14
12:12 9,23, 131n. 7 14:10 104 15:40 127,137
12:29 33n. 14 14:11 9 15:40-41 127-29,136,
12:30 33n. 14 14:12 103 139
12:36 3In. 8,33n. 14:13 103 15:41 128,137
14 14:14 103 15:42^7 129
12:37 23 14:16 103 15:42-16:8 49,50-51,53
12:43 103 14:17 104 15:46 20,130
13 123,126 14:20 104 15:47 127,129,
13:1 103 14:21 31n. 9, 73n. 136-37,139
13:3-13 42,46—48, 30,165 16:1 129,137
81-82, 104n. 14:22-26 76-77,82, 16:1-4 127,129-30,
29,116-18, 119-20,123, 136
120,123, 150,153, 16:l-4a 132,136
146, 148, 157-58, 169, 16:1-8 127,139
151,156, 171-72 16:2 130,137
168,170, 14:27 15 16:3 130
172-73 14:28 133,139 16:4 130,137
13:9 20n.42 14:32 103 16:4b 132
Mark {cont.) 16:5b-7 136 139,139n. 19

16:5 41n. 23,131, 16:6 9, 10, 55n. 16:8 4,127,133,
137 41,107n. 35, 135-38,
16:5-6 131 132,137 138n. 18,
16:5-7 127,133, 16:7 103,108n. 139,139n.
136,141n. 22 36,132,137, 20,140-41
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abrams, M. H., 3n. 6 Dirven, R, 8n. 22

Achtemeier, P. J., 162n. 14,163n. 17 Docherty, T.,6n. 18
Aland, B., 4n. 9 Donahue, J. R, In. 1,6n. 17,28n. 2,29n. 3,
Aland, K.,4n. 13 105n. 32,161n. 9, 166n. 22
Alter, R.,5n. 16,13n. 31 Duling,D. C.,22n. 42
Anderson, R, 11 In. 44
Auerbach,E.,3n. 6 Eco,U, 13n. 31
Edwards, J.R.,65n. 19
Balz,H.,95n. 12
Bar-Efrat,S., 131n. 7 Fackre,G.,2n. 2
Bartholomew, G. L., 5n. 13 Fillmore, C. J., 2n. 5, 7n. 19, 8nn. 22,23; 29n. 3,
Bauer, W.,32n. 11 30n. 7, 63n. 14
Beavis, M. A., 79n. 40,164n. 21 Fish,S., 18n. 39
Best, E, 17n. 36, 75n. 34, 90n. 2,108n. 37, Fleddermann, H., 11 On. 41
159n. 4 Foerster,W.,30n. 6
Boomershine, T. E., 5n. 13,130n. 7 Fowler, R M, 3n. 6, lOn. 27,23n. 43,33n. 14,
Booth, W.C.,2n. 3,17n. 36 54n. 39, 72n. 27, 87n. 47,13 In. 7
Boring, M. E., 28n. 2,163n. 15
Borrell,A.,2n. 6,24n. 45 Giblin,C. H, 134n. 11
Brandon, S. G. F., 163n. 16 Giv6n,T.,30n. 7
Broadhead, E. K., 72n. 26 Gnilka,J.,65n. 19,11 On. 44
Brown, R,13n. 31 Goulder,M.D, 163n. 20
Brown, R. E., 55n. 40 Graff, G.,15n. 34
Bryan, C, 7n. 21 Graumann, C. F., 25n. 46
Greeven, H., 4n. 12
Carrington, P., 163nn. 19, 20 Grundmann, W., 5n. 15, 30n. 6
Chafe, W. L., 8n. 22 Guelich, R A., 5n. 15, 7n. 21
Chatman, S.,2n. 3,160n. 5 Gundry, R. H., 65n. 19,163n. 18
Chronis,H. L.,31n. 10
Collins, J. J., 58n. 4 Hankamer, J., 29n. 3
Cook, W. A., 8n. 22 Hanson,! S.,23n. 44
Cranfield,C. E. B., Harrington, D. J., 6n. 17
Harris, R. A , 8n. 23
Danove, P., 2n. 5,4nn. 9,11; 5n. 13, 18n. 40, Heil,J. P.,2n.4,66n.22
28n. l,49n. 36, 56n. l,90n. 1,127n. 1, Henderson, S. W., 95n. 10
134n. 10,160n. 5 Holladay,C. H., 163n. 15
Davis, P., 166n. 22 Humphrey, H. M, 87n. 47
Dewey,J.,72n. 28 Hurtado, L. W., 166n. 22
Dibelius,M., 163n. 18
Dillon, R J., 65n. 19 Iser,W., 18n. 39,25n.46
189
Jackendoff, R. S.,8n. 22 Rabinowitz, P. J., 3n. 8, lOn. 27,17n. 36

Jeremias, J., 29n. 3 Rahlfs,A.,4n. 9
Juel,D., 31n. 10,160n. 6,162n. 10 Rais8nen,H., 161n. 8
Read, D. H. C , 55n. 40
Kay, P., 2n. 5, 8n. 23, 30n. 7, 63n. 14 Rhoads, D., 3n. 8, lOn. 27, 67n. 24, 72n. 28,
Keck, L. E., 162n. 14 110n.40,131n. 7,162n. 12
Kee,H. C , 163n. 15 Robbins, V. K., 3n. 7
Kelber,W.H., 163n. 16 Robinson, W., 161n. 8
Kingsbury, J. D., 32n. 11,65n. 19,162n. 13, Ross,J. R.,29n. 3
163n. 15
Kittel, G , 98n. 20 Saeed, J. I., 30nn. 5, 7
Koester, H. H., 162n. 13 Sag, I., 29n. 3
Santos, N.F., HOn. 43
LaVerdiere, E., 73n. 30 Schneiders, S. M., In. 1
Leroux,N. R.,3n. 8 Schreiber, J., 72n. 28,162n. 13
Lightfoot,R.H.,96n. 17 Schweizer, E., 5n. 15,49n. 36, 72n. 28,109n. 38,
Lincoln, A. T.,52n. 37 llln.44,161n. 8
Liihrmann, J., 65n. 19 Shiner, W.T.,3n. 7,164n. 21
Slater, T. B.,58n. 4
Magness, J. L., 139-Ôn. 20 Standaert, B. H. M. G. M., 163n. 20
Malbon,E. S.,2n. 2,95n. 10 Sternberg,M.,3n. 8
Marcus, J., 66n. 22, 72n. 26,162n. 10,164n. 20 Stock,A.,31n. 11
Marshall, C , 11 On. 40 Stock, K., 96n. 15, 108n. 37
Martin, R. P., 162n. 14
Marxsen, W., 7n. 21 Tannehill, R.C., 3n. 8, lOn. 27,126n. 56
Matera,F. J.,31n. 10,161n. 7 Tate, W. R., 2n. 4
McCawley,J. D.,8n. 23 Taylor, V., 5n. 15, 32n. 11,1 lOn. 44
Metzger, B. M., 5n. 13, 57n. 3 Telford,W. R , 163n. 15
Michie,D., 3n. 8, lOn. 27,131n. 7 Tesniere,L., lOn. 26
Moloney, F. J., 6n. 17, 105n. 30 Tolbert, M. A., 3n. 6, 3In. 10, 77n. 37,96nn. 14,
Moore, S. D., 2n. 3 18
Myers, C , 7n. 21 Tuckett,C, 161n. 8
Turner, N.,32n. 12
Neirynck, F., 23n. 43,11 On. 41 Tyson, J.B., 163n. 16
Newmeyer, F. J., 8n. 23
vanDijk,T.,7n. 19
O'Collins,G.,96n. 17 van Iersel, B. M. F., 2n. 4, 3n. 8, 17n. 36, 63n.
Oepke,A.,46n. 33 15,77n. 37,160n. 5
Ong,H., 160n. 6 Verspoor, M., 8n. 22
Via,D. O., 135n. 16
Perelman,C.,34n. 16
Perrin,N., 22n. 42,162n. 14,163n. 16 Waetjen,H. C.,141n. 22
Perry, M., 13n. 31, 18n. 41 Watson, F.,162n. 11
Pesch,R., 11 On. 44 Weeden,T. J., 162n. 14
Petersen,N., lOn. 27,140n. 20 Weiss,!, 163n. 18
Peterson, D. N., 161n. 9 Wink, W., 7n. 21
Platt, J. T., 8n. 22 Winston, P., 19n. 41
Pokornyv, P., 67n. 24 Wong, S. S. M., 8n. 22
Prince, G., 13n. 31 Wrede,W., 161n. 8
Pryke, E. J., 57n. 2, 59n. 5,66n. 21, 73n. 29,
95n. 9, lOOn. 23,112n. 45,134n. 13 Zerwick, M., 29n. 3, 31n. 11, 32n. 12

[Library of New Testament Studies Volume 290] Paul Danove - Rhetoric of Characterization of God, Jesus, And Jesus&#39; Disciples in the Gospel of Mark (Library of New Testament Studies) (2005, T&amp;T Clark Int&#39;l)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Library of New Testament Studies Volume 290] Paul Danove - Rhetoric of Characterization of God, Jesus, And Jesus&#39; Disciples in the Gospel of Mark (Library of New Testament Studies) (2005, T&amp;T Clark Int&#39;l)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.

Cover design: Corey Kent

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

5. The Narrative Rhetoric of Jesus' Characterization 83

Chapter 5 examines the contribution of the characterization of the women at

THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS

1. Situating the Method

1. This discussion develops elements of the presentation on methods in Sandra M. Schneiders,

2. Discussions of what is implied by textually guided interpretation appear in Elizabeth

a. The Repetition of Words and Phrases

information that the way is the Lord's (God's/Jesus').9 Subsequent occurrences

b. The Repetition of Constructs

recognition that particular contexts that previously appeared in a given sequence

c. Clarifications concerning the Role of Repetition

3. The Semantic Rhetoric of Repetition

a. The Semantic Frame as Precondition for Semantic Meaning

distinction is explained in terms of a further aspect of the semantic frame, the

b. The Semantic Frame as Frameworkfor Realized Semantic Meaning

c. The Implied Reader

e. Clarifications Concerning the Semantic Rhetoric of Verbal Repetition

4. The Narrative Rhetoric of Repetition

a. The Narrative Frame as Precondition for Narrative Meaning

b. The Narrative Frame as Frameworkfor Realized Narrative Meaning

particular information, relationships, perspectives, and expectations that permit

The sequence of a prediction, controversy, and teaching in 9:30-41 recalls

c. The Implied Reader Revisited

d. Rhetorical Strategies Revisited

rial audience's familiarity with preinterpreted content permits the straightfor-

e. Clarifications concerning the Narrative Rhetoric of Repetition

5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs

6. The Narrative Rhetoric of Characterization

b. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Semantic Arguments

c. The Sequence, Frequency, and Distribution of Rhetorical Strategies

developments, continue with great frequency, and be distributed throughout the

7. The Narrative Function of Characterization

8. Applications of the Studies of Characterization

highlighted preexisting beliefs from the perspective of the narrative audience's

9. The Presentation of the Study

T H E RHETORIC OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF G O D

1. The Argument Roles Predicated of God

Although limiting implicit reference to arguments whose omission is gram-

2, Preexisting Beliefs about God

sophisticating repetition cultivates beliefs about God by highlighting and rein-

3. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated References

a. Repetition ofAgent References

[already] having (*4:25), wisdom to Jesus (*6:2), no sign to this generation

b. Repetition of Non-Agent References

4. Cultivation of Beliefs about God: Repeated Contexts

a. Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 12:1-12; and 13:32-37

11 then confirm God's agency in making the rejected stone/Jesus/the Beloved

b. Contextual Repetition of 1:1-15; 8:31-9:1; and 13:3-13

5. The Rhetorical Organization of Cultivated Beliefs about God

6. The Narrative Rhetoric of God's Characterization

Although references to God appear throughout the narration, their distribution is

a. The Order, Frequency, and Distribution of Arguments

Table 1. Distribution ofReferences

Table 2. Comparisons of the Frequency ofAll References

1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8

These twenty-one references, which initiate God's characterization, simultane-

b. The Order, Frequency, and Distribution of Agent Arguments

Table 3. Comparisons of the Frequency of Agent References

1:1-15 1:16-8:26 8:27-10:52 11:1-13:37 14:1-15:41 15:42-16:8

7. The Narrative Function of God's Characterization

[Library of New Testament Studies Volume 290] Paul Danove - Rhetoric of Characterization of God, Jesus, And Jesus' Disciples in the Gospel of Mark (Library of New Testament Studies) (2005, T&T Clark Int'l)

[Library of New Testament Studies Volume 290] Paul Danove - Rhetoric of Characterization of God, Jesus, And Jesus' Disciples in the Gospel of Mark (Library of New Testament Studies) (2005, T&T Clark Int'l)

[already] having (4:25), wisdom to Jesus (6:2), no sign to this generation