"As One Having Authority" (Mark 1:22): The Controversial Distinction of Jesus' Teaching RICHARD J. DILLON Fordham University Bronx, NY 10458
OUR SUBJECT is one of those abstract terms which was as close to hand for a writer of Greek as it was unwonted in the speech of a Semite.1 Our focal point is the intriguing sentence which Mark uses as something of a banner heading for his entire account of the public ministry. No sooner has he set the opening scene in the synagogue of Capharnaum (Mark 1:21) than he records the enthusiasm of the Sabbath worshipers in arresting terms: "They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority (hös exousian echón), and not as the scribes [taught]" (1:22). This is one of the schematic generalizations which form critics since K. L. Schmidt have recognized as the editorial adhesive that molds anecdotal traditions together into a continuous gospel story.2 It preempts the worshipers' acclaim upon
1
For the diverse expressions of sovereignty and empowerment in the late protocanonical and deuterocanonical OT books which are rendered by exousia in the LXX (sixty-eight times, without any thematic consistency, except in Daniel), see Klaus Scholtissek, Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie (NTAbh 25; Münster: Aschendorff, 1992) 54-55. He says, for example (p. 34), that unlike the verbal expressions of God's rule and dominion, the abstract derivatives, such as malkût, memïàlâ, and Aramaic saltan, are "infrequent and late." Scholtissek's data and evaluation can be checked in W. Foerster, "exestin, exousia" TDNT 2. 560-75; I. Broer, "exousia," Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (éd. H. Balz and G. Schneider; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-93) 2. 9-12. 2 K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964 [first published, Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919]) 33-34, 50. See also Ludger Schenke,
92
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 93 witnessing the exorcism which now becomes Jesus' first act of ministry: "What is this?" they exclaim; "a new teaching with authority (didachë kainëkat*exousian):3 he even commands the unclean spirits and they obey him" (1:27). The literary nexus between the two verses, 1:22 and 1:27, is unmistakable. "A new teaching" resumes "not as the scribes," who thus represent the old way of teaching. "Having authority" is obviously given proof positive in "he even commands." Indeed, the interplay suggests that "a new teaching with authority" may have been added at ν 27 by the same editorial hand that 4 composed the banner sentence of ν 22. The evangelist thus would have used the popular acclaim of the teacher's "authority" as the keynote of his story of Jesus, framing its inaugural exorcism with a resonant people's chorus that 5 raises his teaching to apparent advantage over his wondrous action. Die Wundererzahlungen des Markusevangeliums (Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974) 96, Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 90-91 3 The clear reprise of ν 22 in ν 27 assures us that the colon in ν 27 belongs after "with authority" rather than before it as m the RSV This punctuation has now been adopted by the NRSV, that popular English version is thus brought into harmony with the NAB (ana apparently also with the NEB'S paraphrase) The alternate punctuation was an attempt to mollify the hard intrusion of the "teaching" motif into the typical choral conclusion of a miracle story, just as Luke 4 36 ("What is this word7") and the alternate Western reading of ν 27 ("What is this new teaching?") were See D A Koch, Die Bedeutung der Wundererzahlungen fur die Christologie des Markusevangehums (BZNW 42, Berlin de Gruyter, 1975) 44-45 with η 14 4 In that case, the anecdotal exorcism which preexisted the gospel could well have con cluded with "Who is this7", as in Mark 4 41, rather than with "What is this7", and the continu ation would have been "He even commands," as in 4 41 So Rudolf Pesch, "'Eine neue Lehre aus Macht' Eine Studie zu Mk 1,21-28," Evangehenforschung Ausgewählte Aufsatze deutscher Exegeten (ed J Β Bauer, Graz/Vienna Styna, 1968) 241-76, here 254 In agreement are Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 91-92, Schenke, Wundererzahlungen, 98, Karl Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium Eine redaktionsgeschichthche Untersuchung (SANT 23, Munich Kosel, 1970) 51, Josef Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Markus (RNT, Regensburg Pustet, 1981) 62, 64 Views on ν 27 cover the spectrum, however Ρ Guillemette ("Un enseignement nouveau, plein d'autorité," NovT 22 [1980] 222-47, here 233, 242) insists that Mark contributed the question as well as the answer Others advocate the integral derivation of ν 27 from the mis sionary tradition Mark drew on, so Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh Τ & Τ Clark, Philadelphia Fortress, 1983) 163-64, J Gmlka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vols , EKKNT 2, Zurich Benziger, Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-79) 1 77 5 Schenke (Wundererzahlungen, 103-6, 397-98) considers this subordination of miracle to teaching the principal objective of Mark's editing m 1 21-28 So too Ernst, Markusevan gelium, 62, 64, Koch, Bedeutung der Wundererzahlungen, 52-55, Guillemette, "Un enseigne ment nouveau," 243, 247, Wolfgang Weiss, "Eine neue lœhre in Vollmacht" Die Streit- und Schulgesprache des Markus-Evangeliums (BZNW 52, Berlin de Gruyter, 1988) 125 Maintaining equal moment for the teaching and healing aspects of the episode are Kertelge, Wunder Jesu, 56-57, Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 122-23, K Tagawa, Miracles et Evangile IM pensée personnelle
94 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 Quite as surprising as the accentuation of Jesus' "teaching" via a stock exorcism story is the unceremonious introduction of the scribes (v 22) as contrary models.6 This is all the more puzzling because these antagonists do not come forward in the exorcism itself to object to its performance on the Sabbath (1:21) as they will object to the pronouncement of forgiveness amidst the paralytic's healing in 2:7 (cf. 3:2). Moreover, "the scribes," without qualification, seems to presume that Mark's audience was well acquainted with this group as a unified teachers' guild, whereas this seems not to have been the case at all in Jesus' day.7 Mark's expression either must presume the de facto status of "the scribes" in the hellenistic society of the evangelist,8 or, less plausibly, must represent the evangelist's stylized evocation of the scholarly scribes of the golden age.9 In any case, we wonder why they are brought forward straightaway, without the kind of introduction elsewhere accorded Jewish institutions (Mark 7:3-4; 14:12), to introduce a scene in which they take no part at all. We shall undertake an analysis of Mark 1:22 as a keynote sentence for the entire account of Jesus' bitterly contested ministry which it inaugurates. de l'évangéliste Marc (Etudes d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 62, Pans Presses universitaires de France, 1966) 87 6 On the schematic structure and standard motifs in 1 23-28, see Kertelge, Wunder Jesu, 51-55, Schenke, Wundererzahlungen, 99-103, Guillemette, "Un enseignement nouveau," 234-37, and most extensively, Pesch, " 'Eine neue Lehre'," 255-66 But cf Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 87, 95-106, who calls into question Pesch's schema, and with it the supposition that there is such a thing as a hard-and-fast Gattung of exorcism story He calls for a more exacting study of the exorcism topoi, both m the Synoptics and m related literature (all later), than has been done heretofore 7 See A J Saldarmi, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society, a Sociological Approach (Collegeville, MN Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier, 1988) 241-76 The problem here is the extrabibhcal evidence, including that of Josephus and numerous Palestinian ossuary inscriptions, which do not identify great "teachers" (môrîm) as "scribes" (sôpërîm) in the way the two had come to be identified in the golden age of the sôpërîm, from ca 398 Β e E to Ben Sira ca 180 Β e E (M Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period [2 vols , Philadelphia Fortress, 1974] 1 79) 8 So D Luhrmann, "Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium," ZNW1% (1987) 169-85, here 184 In fact, it is mostly in late inscriptions at Rome that the title grammateus, sometimes as a Greek loanword in Latin, is found designating a specific functionary of the synagogue (see also D Luhrmann, Das Markusevangelium [HNT 3, Tubingen Mohr (Siebeck), 1987] 50-51) To the extent that the gospel references to "scribes" m Galilee may rest on firm historical foundation, it is possible that they were "village clerks or (perhaps) elementary school teachers rather than experts m the law" (E Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [175 Β C -A D 135] A New English Version [3 vols , rev and ed G Vermes et al, Edinburgh Τ & Τ Clark, 1979] 2 329 η 28, citing Josephus, JW I 24 3 §479, Ant 16 7 3 §203) 9 So M Karrer, "Der lehrende Jesus Neutestamenthche Erwägungen," ZNW&3 (1992) 1-20, here 11-16
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 95 We employ the method of redaction criticism, but we do so with an attempt to balance the perspectives of text evolution and narrative integrity which have tended to go asunder in the literature. For instance, though the first of these approaches might content itself with declaring a fault line between redaction and tradition to explain the tensions between 1:22 and the adjacent exorcism,10 the newer narrative criticism could as easily hasten past such issues concerning specific pericopes as it pursues the overall story line the author is building.11 Accordingly, our first step, in keeping with the older redaction-historical method, is to verify the strains we are positing between 1:22 and its context by observing the treatment given it by Mark's successors, Matthew and Luke. We shall keep a healthy respect, however, for the evangelists' charism of true, sequential narration (rather than merely collating and editing) as the vue d'ensemble which redaction analyses should serve.12 I. Mark 1:22 and the Synoptic Parallels Synoptic parallels can usually reassure us that we are not chasing a problem that does not exist. And in fact, both of Mark's Synoptic partners clearly show that they felt the same perplexity over the setting of Mark 1:22 as we do. Matthew, who has followed Mark from the ministry of the Baptist through the call of thefirstdisciples (Matt 3:1-4:22 = Mark 1:1-20), seizes the occasion of public acclaim for Jesus' authoritative teaching to insert the great Sermon on the Mount, mostly non-Marcan sayings of Jesus, into the Marcan sequence. His dialogue with his predecessor is displayed in his use of Mark 1:22 as the editorial conclusion to the Sermon at Matt 7:28-29. This accommodation is assisted by suppression of the exorcism which confirmed the acclamation in Mark.13 Now the celebration of Jesus' teaching "with authority" looks back upon its actual word content in Matthew 5-7 rather than getting 10 Of the works cited in nn 4 and 5 above, this would apply to those of Schenke, Koch, and Guillemette in particular 1 ' For example, we may cite the recent work of J D Kingsbury bearing on our topic and terrain "The Religious Authorities in the Gospel of Mark," NTS 36 (1990) 42-65, idem, Conflict in Mark Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis Fortress, 1989) 12 Exemplary of more recent redaction-critical studies which take this perspective more seriously is Scholtissek, Vollmacht, esp 1-8 13 I am not quite sure, therefore, why U Luz (Matthew A Commentary 1 [Minneapolis Augsburg, 1989] 223-24) finds that "there are hardly cogent reasons for the omission of Mark 1 2328 " The relocation of the popular acclaim of Jesus' teaching was clearly done "very effectively and with intrinsic justification" (E Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu Eine Erklärung des MarkusEvangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen [Berlin Topelmann, 1966] 87), having moved the acclamation out of the setting in the synagogue, Matthew could hardly have gone on to record the Marcan exorcism which had originally evoked it without directly disputing his source
96 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 merely inferential support from a miracle. In this new setting, it bears pointed reference to the central section of Matthew's Sermon called the antitheses (Matt 5:20-48), which record the teacher's frontal assault on the casuistry of the men of learning: "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20).14 Celebration of Jesus' exousia at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount thus implies the imperative of submission to his demand of radical obedience, and "not as their scribes" highlights his rejection of a client-centered legal casuistry as arbiter of morality.15 Luke, for his part, leaves the acclamation of Jesus' authority in its Marcan sequence, but he eliminates both the characterization of the teaching as new and the motto, "not as the scribes" (Luke 4:32,36). Luke is, after all, the historian arguing that in God's plan there is continuity between Israel and the church of the Gentiles, so he has scant interest in words distancing Jesus from the scholarly custodians of Israel's tradition. 16 This, no doubt, accounts for the suppression of "not as the scribes" and the adjective "new," but other terms of the acclamation are adjusted as well. "They were astonished at his teaching because his word was with authority" (Luke 4:32) anticipates the altered form of the chorus after the exorcism: "What is this word, for with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits and they obey him" (Luke 4:36). It is possible that this merger of the teaching word and the exorcizing word was an editorial resolution of the tension between the two in Mark's version.17 Yet Luke does not sacrifice all distinction between them, 14
On the function of Matt 5 20 as a "hinge," which makes 5 21-48 an unfolding of the program enunciated in 5 17-19, see Luz, Matthew, 1 270, Ingo Broer, Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthaus (SBS 98, Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980) 59-63 15 G Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (New York Harper & Row, 1960) 103-6 See also the fine pages on the antitheses in J Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (New York Herder, 1970) 193-98 16 In answer to doubts among his Gentile constituents that they could be rightful heirs to a salvation destined for Israel when most of Israel's people have repudiated it, Luke argues throughout the Gospel and Acts that the church composed of Jews and Gentiles represents the intended destination of God's way with his chosen people See E Franklin, Christ the Lord A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia Westminster, 1975) 111, R Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh Τ & Τ Clark, 1982) 184, J C Beker, Heirs of Paul Paul's legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today (Minneapolis Fortress, 1991) 62-63 17 So Theissen, Miracle Stories, 166 It is possible, too, that Theissen has overstated this tension (pp 163-64), as Ulrich Busse contends (Die Wunder des Propheten Jesu Die Rezeption, Komposition und Interpretation der Wundertradition im Evangelium des Lukas [FB 24, Stutt gart Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977] 78-79), inasmuch as the exorcism served Mark as the "token of authority" ( Vollmachtszeichen) for Jesus' teaching
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 97 since he does not set the synagogue scene for the exorcism until after the summary statement of the Teacher's sensational impact (4:33). He thus manages to relate what the crowd acclaims to what he has already told us about Jesus' teaching in all Galilee (4:14-15) and in Nazareth (4:22). There is, accordingly, at least a narrative gradation between the authoritative teaching which all must obey and the exorcist's command banishing the demons. This means that Luke's new combination, "authority and power" (4:36), does not amount to erasing the difference between "right" {exousia) and "ability" (dynamis) out of a hellenistic predilection for the latter.18 Luke, like Mark before him, argues that Jesus' instruction and his miracles both flowed from the same Spirit endowment. He is more fastidious than Mark, however, in seeing to an orderly articulation of the two forms of ministry. Our survey of the later Synoptic texts has shown at least that neither evangelist was content to leave Mark 1:22 in its original connection to the exorcism in the synagogue. They lead us back to Mark for a closer appraisal of the features of his proclamation of authority which do not seem to work so well. What about "not as the scribes," which Luke dropped and Matthew salvaged by pegging it to the offensive against religious casuistry in the Sermon on the Mount? And what about our concept, exousia, which Matthew defined in terms of the Sermon's "new obedience" and Luke more precisely articulated in stages of word and action? II. "As One Having Authority" It is about the relationship of those two words, exousia and dynamis, that we inquire first. Their meanings are not the same, even though their boundaries are often indistinct and Luke appears to use them interchangeably (4:36; 9:1; cf. 10:19; Acts 8:19). The distinction between them, as we have already indicated, is the distinction between right and ability, between the warrant to do something and the intrinsic capacity to do it.19 Exousia is, in fact, formed from the feminine participle of the verb exestin, "it is free (or) open," "it is permitted"; and so it means the legitimacy with which one acts 18
So, rightly, Busse, Wunder des Propheten Jesu, 68-69, contrary to C. F. Evans, Saint Luke (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990) 278. 19 Foerster, "exestin, exousia," 563; Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 50. Kertelge (Wunder Jesu, 57) rightly says that "exousia is not an expression of supernatural power and knowledge, according to the word's hellenistic s e n s e . . . . To apply this conception would be to misunderstand Mark's interpretive purpose in 1:27 completely"; similarly R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; HTKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1976-80) 1. 127-28 n. 50. Cf. Broer ("exousia," 10), who holds that the differences here "are fluid because . . . authority presupposes power/ability" (he refers to Acts 8:19) and can, thus, include the latter.
98 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 or decides, the absence of legal constraints or external hindrances to one's initiative (Latin auctoritas). The Greek term thus denotes the right to act and the accorded possibility of action; it connotes entitlement, permission, com mission. Indeed, exousia draws surprisingly close to freedom (see 1 Cor 8:9) and can mean, in the full spectrum of human relations, the freedom to act or decide.20 The precise nuances of freedom and legitimacy should not be allowed to blend into an undifferentiated dynamis in our discussion of Jesus' exousia. Since his teaching and his miracles unfold under his keynote proclamation of the imminent reign of God (Mark 1:14-15),21 every word and action partakes of the announcement that God is, right now, inaugurating the ultimate restoration of all creation to divine rule. This eschatological happening is what the new in "a new teaching" refers to (cf. 2:18-22!). Jesus, as herald and instrument of God's reign, exerted the "authority" of God in the proper sense of God's right to rule the universe.22 Accordingly, the popular acclaim of "a new teaching with authority" (1:27) unwittingly concurs with the demon's (or demons') recognition of "the Holy One of God" (1:24); and so a coherent argument is forged after all between the inaugural exorcism and the acclamations which frame it. 23 The exorcism's "declarative effect" lies in its intrinsic relationship to the two purposes it served: first, "evil is combatted and extirpated"; second, "the human person is fully restored to itself. And so the exorcism becomes a symbol for the new reality of God's reign, which thereby enlarges its sphere. Jesus sees himself as representative of this advancing realm, and as such he proceeds decisively to confront the Evil One." 2 4 20 Use of exousia in the Greek Bible to express "God's absolute freedom of action" (Schol tissek, Vollmacht, 36-37,48) can be seen at Jdt 8 15, Dan 7 34-35 (Theodotion), as an expression of unbridled human freedom of action it can be seen at Sir 25 25 (MS B), 2 Mace 7 16, Eccl 8 8, cf 2 Esdr 19 37 21 This is the reason why Pesch ("'Eine neue Lehre'," 271-72) recommends against inter preting exousia exclusively in terms of the pneumatic power of the wonder-worker (pace Τ L Budesheim, "Jesus and the Disciples in Conflict with Judaism," ZNW 62 [1971] 190-209, here 193) As a hallmark of Jesus' teaching, exousia is "a more comprehensive characteristic of his activity, causing offense to others" (Pesch refers to Mark 2 1-12, 11 28-33), and therefore posing the "stand-or-fall" question of his right to act and speak for the eschatological reign of God 22 Kertelge, Wunder Jesu, 57-58, cf Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "151 On the eschatological weight of "new," also Gnilka, Markus, 1 82, Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1 124, and " 'Eine neue Lehre'," 275, Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 123-24 23 Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 86 24 Ramer Kamphng, "Jesus von Nazaret—Lehrer und Exorzist," BZ ns 30 (1986) 237-48, here 247, similarly Kertelge, Wunder Jesu, 201 Koch (Bedeutung der Wundererzahlungen, 173-76) is of a different opinion, maintaining that Mark never makes explicit the connection between Jesus' miracles and the eschatological message of the reign of God The expression basileia tou theou is, however, a refrain of the sayings of Jesus (thirteen of fourteen times in Mark), which Mark has drawn from his tradition in much smaller quantity than Matthew or
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 99 It is no constriction of his disciples' mission, therefore, when Jesus bestows on them the one very specific, but obviously also emblematic, "authority" of casting out demons (Mark 3:15; 6:7).25 Nor is it of less than global significance for his own ministry when, in that ministry'sfirstrecorded action, the divisive issue of his "legitimacy" (exousia) is raised in the context of the sensation caused by his exorcizing. The nuances of "mission" and "legitimacy" in exousia will come to the fore again when the term is conclusively expatiated upon in the first debate of the Jerusalem series, Mark 11:27-33. There "the scribes" appear true to life as constituents of the Sanhédrin, alongside the chief priests and elders,26 to demand of Jesus by what "authority" (right) he is doing these things, continuing with a second question adjoining the first: "Who has given you this authority?" (11:28). With the second question they add the issue of source, or mission, to that of the nature of the alien "authority" being exercised. The paired questions have generated dubious traditiohistorical hypotheses,27 but as they stand, they appropriately complement Luke. He could, therefore, give this eschatological interpretation of his miracle stories only by resorting to expressive juxtaposition and sequence with the basileia sayings (as in 1:14-15 and 1:21-28). He was apparently unacquainted with the Q saying in which Jesus had himself given the interpretation of his exorcism as part of the inbreaking basileia (Luke 11:20 || Matt 12:28), but that very interpretation gains narrative expression in a text like Mark 1:21-28 (so H. Giesen, "Dämonenaustreibungen—Erweis der Nähe der Herrschaft Gottes: Zu Mk 1,21-28," Theologie der Gegenwart 32 [1989] 24-37, here 24, 36). Also affirming the narrative "translation" of Luke 11:20 in Mark's opener, and giving the latter the function of a narrative "metaphor," is Ulrich Busse, "Metaphorik in neutestamentlichen Wundergeschichten? Mk 1,21-28; Joh 9,141," Metaphorik und Mythos im Neuen Testament (QD 126; ed. K. Kertelge; Freiburg: Herder, 1990) 110-34, here esp. 123. Cf. Guillemette, "Un enseignement nouveau," 247: "parable or illustration"; Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 136: "zeichenhaft-real." 25 Supporting a more than incidental connection between Jesus' exorcisms and his "authority" is Mark's deployment of the word exousia. It has ten occurrences in his book, seven of them in reference to Jesus' activity (1:22,27; 2:10; 11:28 [twice],29,33) and three of them to his commissioning of his disciples (3:15; 6:7; 13:34). Four of the ten texts have first-level reference to the "authority" of expelling demons (1:22,27; 3:15; 6:7), which Jesus is authorized both to exercise and to bestow. 26 Mark's scribes have their foundation in earlier tradition and in historical fact where we meet them as constituents of the Sanhédrin; that means basically the passion story (14:1,43,53), and perhaps also some of the episodes of conflict which lead up to it (12:35,38). Mark's use of the scribes as Jesus' leading professional adversaries, and this already in Galilee, represents his own expansion upon that tradition, as "the scribes who had come from Jerusalem" (3:22 and 7:1) strongly suggests; see Luhrmann, "Pharisäer," 172, 174; idem, Markusevangelium, 50; Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "341-42. On the composition of the Sanhédrin and the scribes' role therein, see Schürer, History, 2. 210-14, 330-35. 27 Quite typical of this is A. J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979) 68-75. The second question, stressing the authority's source, is held to be original in Mark's tradition, while the first question is said to represent early (pre-Marcan) theologizing because it is predicated upon believers' recognition of the authority possessed by Jesus himself as the exousia of
100 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 each other—as questions of personal legitimacy and of authentic mission—in summarizing the religious establishment's suit against Jesus, just as Mark has held it before us from the opening shot of Jesus' public life (1:22). Indeed, the question of legitimacy was raised early on by hostile scribes, when they questioned the legitimacy of Jesus' pronouncement of sins forgiven (2:6-10) and of his practice of exorcisms (3:22-30). The fact that the debate with the Sanhédrin on authority summarizes these earlier encounters can be seen in the unusual way in which the hierarchs' challenge is dealt with. First, Jesus is questioned as to the nature and source of his authority for doing "these things" (11:27-28,29,33), which sounds suggestively unspecific. The scene of the encounter is set in the temple (11:27), but it is clear that Mark does not highlight the connection between the cleansing of the temple and the question of authority which Luke favors (Luke 19:45-20:8; cf. John 2:14-22).28 Having inserted other material (11:19-25) and a new return to Jerusalem (11:27) between the two episodes, Mark seems to make room for "these things" to refer to the entire ministry of deed and word which is now coming to its climax, rather than any single moment thereof.29 Next, when Jesus meets the challenge with his confounding counterquestion about John's baptism ("from heaven [= God] or from humans," ν 30), the exchange ends in the adversaries' tactical dilemma, without any conclusive answer to their query ( w 31-33). Things are clear enough, of course: the counterquestion expresses the Son of Man M Young-Heon Lee (Jesus und die judische Autorität Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mk 11,27-12,12 [FB 56, Wurzburg Echter, 1986] 116-18, 120-21) correctly argues the complementarity of the questions, the first seeking Jesus' identity and the second challenging his mission 28 An original (pre-Marcan) connection of the debate on authority to the cleansing of the temple has been suggested by many scholars, e g , Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaires, 71-72, Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2 208-9, Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 158-59, Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark (London Macmillan, 1963) 468-69, Eduard Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (Atlanta John Knox, 1970) 236-37, and others cited by Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 90 η 14 As far as Mark's own intent goes, it is possible to overestimate the lingering effect of the temple cleansing by making it the only deed the authorities wish to challenge (rightly, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "161) 29 So, rightly, Gnilka, Markus, 2 138, Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 198, Ernst, Markus, 336, Schweizer, Good News, 237, Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 215-18, Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark, 79 Likewise Lee, Jesus und die judische Autorität, 113-14, 181 (but cf pp 59, 87, where the temple action is declared the first line of reference) A fairly exact parallel is the unspecific tauta in 6 2 (see also Matt 11 25), which demonstrates that tauta need not have a specific referent here, either (rightly, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, " 144-45) Nor does the fact that Mark locates the exchange in the temple require that tauta have the temple cleansing as its referent, given the intervening changes of scene and the present tense of poieis If one assumes the challengers still have the temple cleansing in mind, some expedient such as "the new state of affairs created by the temple cleansing" has to be used to explain poieis (so, e g , Haenchen, Weg Jesu, 393)
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 101 30
the challengers'predicament about Jesus himself. "The ultimate cause of the dilemma is the opponents' unbelief, which they acknowledge in their discus sion amongst themselves. The point of the whole account is that the enemies 31 unwittingly exhibit their trapped position." But is Mark's reader left with out the answer because the challengers were incapable of grasping it? The answer is no, and the reason is that the argument begun at 11:27 does not end at ν 33. The adjoining parable of the wicked vinegrowers, Mark 12:112, is editorially annexed to the authority debate by the retention of the same interlocutors (12:1, autois) and the absence of any change of scene. Together 32 the two pericopes make an integral statement. The answer to the Sanhedrists' 33 question, which could not be delivered to them directly, is given obliquely in the parable's action involving the conclusive mission (apesteilen auton eschaton) of the "beloved son" (12:6), whom the vinegrowers put to death. The interpretive attachment of Ps 118:22-23 to the parable supplies di para kyriou (12:11) to establish the ex ouranou (11:30) of Jesus' daunting "either/ or," and the final verse (12:12) leaves no doubt that the personnel of the parable and those of the confrontation in the temple (11:27) were one and the same, and that everybody knew it. In its partnership with the parable of the vinegrowers, therefore, the discussion of authority brings the Marcan controversies to a kind of closure.34 The Sanhédrin groups, which will hand Jesus over to death (8:31), will now hold no further discussions with him. In fact, the momentum leading from the finished debates toward his passion (12:12) sheds light on Jesus' use of John's baptism as precedent for the hierarchy's unbelief (11:30). The Baptist was, after all, Jesus' precursor in death at the leaders' hands (1:14; 9:13), just 30
Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "153-54 The appeal to John's baptism as precedent accounts for the suggestion by some scholars that this debate was originally an exchange with disciples of the Baptist and that Mark (or an early Christian predecessor) transformed it into an exchange with the Synagogue, so Gnilka, Markus, 2 137, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "155-60, Gam S Shae, "The Question on the Authority of Jesus," NovT 16 (1974) 1-29, here esp 18, cf R Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev ed , New York Harper & Row, 1968) 20, Ernst, Markus, 335-36 (as one possibility) 31 Gnilka, Markus, 2 138 Similarly Lee, Jesus und die judische Autorität, 148, 150 32 Lee, Jesus und die judische Autorität, 36, 65-70,158-60, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, " 162, Giesen, "Damonenaustreibungen," 33-34, Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark, 79-80, Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 183-85, 207-9 Note the rounding effect of the verbs erchontai (11 27) and apëlthon (12 12) 33 Under the economy of Mark's "messianic secret," Jesus' direct disclosure of his identity had to be withheld until the beginning of his via crucis, at Mark 14 62 See Haenchen, Weg Jesu, 394-95, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 161, G Minette de Tillesse, Le secret messianique dans VEvangile de Marc (LD 47, Pans Cerf, 1968) 152-53, 336-37 34 "Within the Jerusalem sequence there is no further place for the situation of controversy Rather, the dominant position of Jesus is brought to expression" in the question-andanswer discussions of 12 13-27 and 12 28-34 (Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre,'* 161-62)
102 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 as he was in his "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (1:4,7-8).35 The two held mandates "from heaven" which an unbelieving officialdom could not recognize. Challenges to Jesus' mission and legitimacy which culminate in the challenge to his authority had begun at Capharnaum (2:6-7) and had featured the scribes at the front of enemy ranks (2:16; 3:22; 7:1). Just to show that those earlier scribes were acting in continuity with the members of the Sanhédrin who become prime movers of the crucifixion (8:31; 10:33; 11:18; 14:1,43,53; 15:1,31), Mark twice specified that they were "scribes who had come down from Jerusalem" (3:22; 7:1).36 The movement of Mark's narrative toward the goal of the passion has thus been crucially assisted by the sustained theme and personnel of the controversies. Indeed, the controversies and the passion mutually interpret each other through their narrative coordination by the first literary evangelist.37 So then, both the key issue of Jesus' conflict with the religious hierarchy and the persons involved in the conflict, the leading representatives of the hierarchy, were introduced to us in Mark's opener, in the interactive statements 1:22 and 1:27.38 "Authority," as hallmark of the controversial mission, and "the scribes," as the mission's antagonists, were set before us even before we learned the positions in the conflict. Questions remain, however, concerning the nuance of exousia in those opening statements, where, as we saw above, exousia seems to be closer to dynamis than to legitimacy or freedom. We have still to inquire into the word's special affinity to the empowerment of the exorcist, and in this inquiry it will undoubtedly help to look into the featured role of "the scribes" as antitypes of the teaching Jesus. III. "Not as the Scribes [Taught]" Many commentators have been content to explain this contrary model by pointing out the essential and programmatic difference between Jesus' Spirit-endowed charism (Mark 1:10) and the hereditary, derivative scholarship 35 Gnilka (Markus, 2. 141) observes that "the overarching reference of this pericope is strengthened by the parallelism between the Baptist and Jesus, which runs through the whole gospel." Similarly Ernst, Markus, 338; Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 211. 36 Luhrmann, "Pharisäer," 172; Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 80, 172, 342. This is also standard in the commentaries. 37 Scholtissek ( Vollmacht, 18) has this to say: "The passion of Jesus can be rightly understood only when it is viewed as the consequence of his authoritative mission and message and linked backwards to his historical activity. Mark puts great weight on the argument showing that the opposition to Jesus was ignited precisely by his claim to authority" (with reference to 2:1-3,6; 11:27-12,12). 38 Kingsbury ("Religious Authorities," 50-53) offers narrative-critical evaluation of 1:22 as the key to Mark's "entire presentation of Jesus' conflict with the authorities"; on authority as the issue underlying every controversy, see his pp. 46-47, 52-53; also Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark, 66-67, 86; Guillemette, "Un enseignement nouveau," 239-40.
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 103 of the scribes.39 Our own examination of the authority debate in sequence with the parable of the vinegrowers suggests that Mark saw a fundamental divergence of source between the teaching of Jesus ("from heaven") and that of the scribes ("You abandon the commandment of God and hold fast to mere human tradition," 7:8). The difference was that one came ex ouranou, the other ex anthröpön (cf. 8I33).40 As we saw, the "«ew teaching with authority" celebrated at 1:27 is empowered by the advancing reign of God, whose eschatological moment is now fulfilled (1:15). By contrast, the scribes are spokesmen of the old and the bygone (2:21-22). In the evangelist's sense of the word, they possess not a lesser exousia but no exousia at all.41 This node of the comparison between Jesus and his principal opponents should be kept in mind: the tertium comparationis is teaching, not authority. Both he and they are teachers, but only he teaches with authority; the hallmark of his teaching is not something he shares with them or anybody. The paragon, therefore, is emphatically not explained by the cliché "charism versus learning" but by a feature of Jesus' activity which the scholars do not possess and cannot abide. Recalling that Mark 1:22 rehearses their confrontations with him in subsequent passages, let us see if those passages add something to our understanding of the exousia that is both unique and fatally divisive. A. Mark 2:1-12 As we follow forward in the gospel both the scribes and the neuralgic experience of exousia, we soon come to the beginning of the series of controversies in Galilee (Mark 2:1-3:6) and the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:112), where healing story and "debate" seem to be a secondary combination effected by the addition of a middle paragraph, w 6-10.42 The enlargement 39 For example, Taylor, Mark, 173; Schweizer, Good News, 51; Haenchen, Weg Jesu, 86-87. Deeper implications are urged by Kertelge, Wunder Jesu, 57-58; E. Käsemann, Jesus Means Freedom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 57. 40 Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 153-54; Busse, "Metaphorik," 117. 41 Scholtissek (Vollmacht, 124-25) rightly notes that exousia is a distinguishing mark of Jesus' ministry alone; its source is the advancing reign of God (ex ouranou), whereas the antagonists teach merely human precepts and traditions (ex anthröpou, 7:7-8). 42 A quick appraisal of the situation can be made with Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 106-9; an exhaustive traditio-historical analysis of this pericope and its series context is given by Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 137-66. The latter agrees with H.-J. Klauck ("Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten [Mk 2,1-12 parr]," BZ ns 25 [1981] 223-48) that the bestowal of forgiveness in ν 5b is not extrinsic to the original healing story, as it is frequently judged (so, insistently, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 129-33). Klauck's exposition of critical methodology applied to the pericope (pp. 225-32) is helpful, since authors often leave us guessing their criteria. Good on the programmatic force of Mark 1:22 in respect to the controversies of Mark 2:1-3:6 is J. Kiilunen, Die Vollmacht in Widerstreit: Untersuchungen
104 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 of the pericope is often credited to the same auspices as is the hypothetical booklet of controversies with which it was amalgamated prior to Mark's writing.43 In any case, the declaration of the "authority" of "the Son of Man to forgive sins on earth" (2:10) is taken by most scholars as a pre-Marcan logion, not based on Jewish apocalyptic models, to be sure, but possibly reflecting the association between the heavenly "human being" and divine "authority" already made in Dan 7:13-14 (LXX).44 A developing Christology based on the Easter experience would account for the adaptation of the mission of the eschatological Son of Man to the activities of Jesus on earth, and the uniquely divine function of forgiving sins (2:7), which the man from Nazareth claimed to mediate (2:5), could then be seen as part of the eschatological Deliverer's mandate.45 The healing of the paralytic, like the exorcism of 1:23-28, vouches for the unprecedented "authority" which is claimed in the accompanying pronouncement.46 But let us look at the opposition, which we said pursues the exercises of this earth-shaking "authority" throughout Mark's story. He is already revealing that the scribes who secretly demur at the lame man's absolution zum Werdegang von Mk 2,1-3,6 (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Dissertationes Humaniores, 40; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985) 24, cited by Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 5. 43 The discussion of the question whether this pre-Marcan written compilation included 3:1-5, as most think (so Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 151-74, endorsing the suggestion of Albertz, Schmidt, Bultmann, and many others), or embraced only the dialogue tryptich 2:13-28 to which the healings were attached by Mark on either end (so Klauck, "Sündenvergebung," 245; Gnilka, Markus, 1.131-32; Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 138-47), only succeeds in showing how elusive pre-Marcan literary sources are. Others (like Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 20-31, 134-35, and Koch, Wundererzählungen, 33-34) remind us that the hypothesis of a pre-Marcan collection has by no means conquered everyone's skepticism. 44 Influential in this respect are H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 125-33; K. Kertelge, "Die Vollmacht des Menschensohnes zur Sündenvergebung (Mk 2,10)," Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker (ed. P. Hoffmann et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 205-12, esp. p. 210 (there is no direct recourse here to Daniel 7), 211 (the logion's formulation coincides with the controversy compilation); J. Gnilka, "Das Elend vor dem Menschensohn (Mk 2,1-12)," Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vogt le (ed. R. Pesch et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 196-209, esp. p. 205 (v 10 is an originally independent logion which prompted the composition of vv 6-10). 45 Scholtissek (Vollmacht, 169-70) nevertheless insists that the integrity of the pre-Easter happening is not hereby sacrificed to an overpowering Easter vision. Rather, a pronouncement of forgiveness by the earthly Jesus (Mark 2:5) which already grounded Jesus' claim to "authority" could now be seen in its full significance as an exertion of the mandate of the Son of Man. "The characterization of Jesus' exousia as the exousia of the Son of Man qualifies it as eschatological authority" (p. 170); similarly, Kertelge, "Vollmacht," 210-11. 46 Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 141-42.
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 105 will be the agents of Jesus'finalcondemnation.47 Their charge, "he blasphemes" (2:7), is the very one they will use to secure his death sentence (14:64), so it is a detail which works here much as the references to "scribes who had come down from Jerusalem" will work in 3:22 and 7:1, pacing the way of the cross through the "stations" of the controversies. But where precisely does Jesus' pronouncement of forgiveness collide with the scholars' religion? Not, as is often assumed, in his appropriation of a divine prerogative, for the fact that the bestowal is Gods is nowhere denied; it is obliquely confirmed in the expression with passive voice "your sins are forgiven" (aphientai, a "divine passive").48 No, the point of conflict needs more careful definition. What was certainly at variance with an "official" Jewish theology in Jesus' declaration of God's forgiveness was the assertion of this bestowal outside of the sacrificial cultus (Leviticus 4-5, etc.). There, amidst the ritual of expiation through the shedding of an animal's blood upon the altar (Lev 16:59; 17:11), the atoning Israelite presumably heard the sacrificing priest pronounce the sentence "Your sins are forgiven" (see Lev 4:26,31,35; 5:10, etc.).49 The complete assurance and present actuality of Jesus' pronouncement,50 which shockingly breaches the carefully construed boundary between the sacred (cultic) and profane spheres of activity, fully accounts for the offense taken by the scribes as learned custodians of the sacred. The crucial distinction between good and bad people, so energetically fortified by every organized religion, is effectively erased by a single daring word, aphientai. "Here the 47
Gnilka, "Elend," 207-8. Klauck, "Sündenvergebung," 241; Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 135-36, 137. Cf. the pronouncement by the prophet Nathan to King David in 2 Sam 12:13. The present tense of Jesus' word aphientai expresses the absolute certainty with which he declared forgiveness by God to be a present happening. In this direct insight into God's intent, and in the absence of any cultic framework or reference to the day of judgment, we can see a qualified application of the "criterion of dissimilarity" to the word of 2:5c, hence, a good chance of its authenticity (Klauck, "Sündenvergebung," 241). 49 Klauck, "Sündenvergebung," 237. The actual priestly pronouncement is not recorded, to be sure, but it can be inferred from the provisions of the Levitical code. The ordinary cultic framework of the forgiveness of sins is confirmed by the texts in the prophetic books and the Psalter in which it is clothed in cultic imagery (e.g., Isa 6:7; Zech 3:4; Pss 51; 65:2-5); see also Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, " 137. 50 Gnilka, "Elend," 202. Jewish sources do not attribute forgiveness of sins to any eschatological figure (messiah, prophet, or high priest), even when the final age is foreseen as one bringing the end or destruction of sin (Klauck, "Sündenvergebung," 237-41). The eschatological preaching of John the Baptist remained one announcing the imminent reign of God, although John's use of the water-cleansing ritual "for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4, etc.) brought the closer experience of God's coming salvation from which Jesus' startling pronouncement would be a somewhat shorter step. 48
106 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 pivotal point is reached," Tödt says, "where the right both of the 'gospel' and of Jesus' authority stands to be acknowledged. The one who is standing at this pivotal point the community speaks of as the Son of Man."51 We are reminded of the "authority" recognized by the centurion pleading for his ailing servant: not only the power to heal but also the freedom to vault the high ramparts of orthodox religion and heal someone in a pagan household (Luke 7:8 || Matt 8:9).52 Here and at Mark 2:10, therefore, we are savoring the nuances of legitimacy and freedom which were already in the christological use of exousia in the gospel tradition prior to Mark. B. Mark 3:22-30 Following the antagonistic scribes and the exorcizing activity of Jesus farther on in Mark's story, we come to the fundamental challenge laid to Jesus the exorcist by "scribes who had come down from Jerusalem" in Mark 3:22-30. This is the familiar Beelzebul debate, in which telltale signs of Marcan editing are seen in the "sandwich" arrangement of the debate between the two parts of the episode of Jesus' dissident relatives (Mark 3:2021,31-35) which bracket it.53 Once again, moreover, Mark brands the scribes as prime movers of Jesus' passion and death by noting their provenance "from Jerusalem," which assures us that they are quite the same people as the constituents of the Sanhédrin who will inaugurate the final offensive with their challenge to Jesus' "authority" (Mark 11:27-28). M. Y.-H. Lee has shown, in fact, that there is much in common between the sequence of the exchange over Beelzebul and the debate in the temple about "authority" (11:2712:12),54 of which we spoke above. First, the two accusations of 3:22 ("he is possessed by Beelzebul" and "he casts out demons by the ruler of the demons")55 matches the pair of questions posed in 11:28 ("by what authority?" 51 Todt, Son of Man, 130, quoting (in part) H von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authonty and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (Stanford Stanford University, 1969) 1-11 52 The barrier between Jews and Gentiles is accentuated in the Lucan version (probably the one closer to Q), where the soldier and Jesus never meet Matthew typically suppresses the additional detail (For a different view, see J A Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I-IX [AB 28, Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1981] 648-49 ) 53 Compare the editorial combinations in Mark 5 21-43, 6 6b-31, 11 12-25, 14 53-72, and see F Neirynck, Duality in Mark Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (BETL 31 Leuven Leuven University, 1972) 133, J R Edwards, "Markan Sandwiches The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives," NovT 31 (1989) 193-216 (perhaps one or two too many, I think), Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 156 54 Lee, Jesus und die judische Autorität, 199-204 55 Only the second charge fits the exorcist, of course (as in the Q version, Luke 11 15 || Matt 12 24), the first charge, "he is possessed by Beelzebul," was likely added by the evangelist
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 107 and "who has given you this authority?"). The dual issue of Jesus' personal legitimacy and his mission is joined in both passages (see section II above) so we can be certain that his "authority" is at stake in both, even if the word does not occur in the passage under discussion.56 A second and even larger symmetry exists in the structure of the answer Jesus gives to the challenge, consisting in both places of a counterchallenge (3:23; 11:29-30) and an answer "in parables" appropriate to unbelieving outsiders (3:24-27; 12:1-11). A reinforcing judgment of the opponents'disposition concludes both arguments (3:28-30; 12:12). Both the "parable" theory (that this is an enigmatic talk for outsiders) and the evidence of combined traditions assure us of Mark's intensive editing to produce this parallelism.57 At the center of the response concerning Beelzebul, just as in the challenge to "authority" later on, there is an adjustment from negative refutation (3:23-26) to positive assertion:58 Jesus is, in fact, the invader of Satan's house who can plunder it because he has immobilized the owner (3:27). The refutation ad absurdum of the scribes' accusation has led to the positive proof of Jesus' legitimacy as exorcist; and so the acclamation of the synagogue's faithful in Mark 1:27 has been vindicated in direct contention with the enemy who was so unceremoniously introduced back there (1:22). Just as the latter took offense at Jesus' confounding the sacred and secular spheres in pronouncing the paralytic's sins forgiven (2:6-7), so they have now ascribed his exorcizing to Satan's realm because they insist it cannot be of God's. The rigidity of their dualism has, in fact, discredited their logic and doomed them to the enmity of the Holy Spirit (3:28-30). Much the same mentality, and further insight into its "professional" rationale, can be found in the one further encounter with the visiting scholars "from Jerusalem." C. Mark 7:1-23 "Scribes who came from Jerusalem" joined the Pharisees in charging Jesus' disciples with neglect of ritual cleansing, according to the protracted discussion in Mark 7:1-23. Here our line of continuity seems to be thinner, to coordinate the scribes' attack more closely with the relatives' ("he is beside himself," 3:20); so, rightly, Gnilka, Markus, 1. 145. 56 Lee, Jesus und die jüdische Autorität, 201; Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 75. 57 See the particulars in Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 163-72. Weiss, however, does not develop the relationship with 11:27-12:12. The core of the Beelzebul tradition is the dual mäsäl of 3:24-25, with vv 22 and 26 forming an editorial framework for this reductio ad absurdum which also coordinates it with the adjoining, originally independent mäsäl of the strong man in ν 27. Vv 28-29 add an independent logion revealing the high stakes of the adversaries'challenge, and ν 30 is Mark's gloss sealing its connection with the debate. Cf. Luhrmann, Markusevan gelium, 74 and Gnilka, Markus, 1. 145-46, who favors a pre-Marcan integrity of these items. 58 Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "171.
108 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 for neither the practice of exorcism nor the keyword exousia is explicit in the text. Nevertheless, because the contest is between the binding force of the teachers' traditions and the will of God as proclaimed by Jesus (7:8), the passage has clear pertinence to the gospel's sustained and heated conflict over Jesus' "authority."59 Here too, even more than in the debates about forgiveness and exorcism, we learn about our theme by learning some specifications of the phrase in 1:22, "not as the scribes [taught]." 60 The two characterizations of the scribes' religion—its bathing requirements told us by the narrator (7:3-4), and the praxis of korban depicted by Jesus (7:9-13)—illustrate the rigidly segregated spheres of the sacred and the common over which the cultic laws and their learned interpreters stood guard. According to the oral tradition's jurisprudence of ritual purity (cf. Leviticus 11-15, etc.) and its often "reified projection of the holy,"61 the barrier between the expanded sanctuary of Jewish society and the human swarm of the marketplace {agora, 7:4) could be crossed only with meticulous washings to remove the secular contagion.62 The policy governing korban permitted the removal of property from the secular sphere as a vowed "gift" (7:11), which resulted in the cancellation of any human claim to it, even that of parents whose interests were protected by universally binding commandments of God.63 The discussion of korban ( w 9-13), grafted onto 59
Correctly seen by Lee, Jesus und die judische Autorität, 205-9, cf Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 129 60 Scholtissek ( Vollmacht, 125) points out that only in this passage, with its quotation of Isa 29 13 (LXX), does Mark allow anyone other than Jesus to become the subject of the verb didaskein, and that he does this for the purpose of instituting a specific comparison between the didaskahai of mere "human precepts" taught by the opponents and the "precept of God" which they abandon (Mark 7 7-8) Accordingly, we encounter at length in this passage what was left unspecified in Mark 1 22, namely, a comparison of content between the didachë of Jesus and that of the scribes—an expatiation in concretis on "not as the scribes [taught] " 61 Gnilka, Markus, 1 280 Irredeemably unclean creatures such as corpses, swine, crawling animals, and anything pertaining to an idol were "contagious carriers of the power of death" (W Paschen, Rein und Unrein Untersuchung zur biblischen Wortgeschichte [SANT 24, Munich Kosel, 1970] 183) 62 See J Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Leiden Brill, 1971) 3 288 "The primary mark of Pharisaic commitment was the observance of the laws of ritual purity outside the Temple Eating one's secular, that is, unconsecrated, food in a state of ritual purity as if one were a Temple priest in the cult was one of the two significations of party membership " 63 "Jesus' reproach is directed not so much at individual cases of abuse of the vow of korban but rather at the scribes who had created this institution and, in the given case, excused the son from doing anything further for his father or mother" (Gnilka, Markus, 1 283-84) The antithetical structure of ν 8 ("command of God" versus "human tradition") and of ν 9 ("com mand of God" versus "your tradition") is matched by that of vv 10-11 {Moysës gar eipen versus hymeis de legete), and finally by the resumé in ν 13a ("the word of God" versus "your tradition")
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 109 64
the exchange on ritual cleansing, provides a concrete and compelling example of human traditions which purport to safeguard the separation of God's sphere from Satan's but actually violate the will of God by confounding it with man-made boundaries. It is Mark 7:15, Jesus' astonishing maxim on the source of all impurity, 65 presumably the original kernel of the chapter, which helps us to understand the essential connection Mark saw between the scribes' attack on Jesus' exor cisms (3:22) and their objection to his disciples' unwashed hands (7:5). The universal principle, "there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile," must have proved too subversive of the Mosaic Law to Matthew, for he narrowed it to the case at hand—"not what comes into the mouth" (Matt 15:11)—and thus to gainsaying the scrupulous oral tradition rather than the ritual law itself (cf. Mark 7:19b).66 The startling universality of Mark's version appears to overturn the very notion of ritual impurity; conse quently, like the Sabbath maxim of Mark 2:27, it encourages exuberant conclusions about its revolutionary departure from Jewish tradition and its credentials of "dissimilarity" for being Jesus' very own word (ipsissima vox).61 But even if the statement calls into question only the source of ritual 64
The literary criticism of Mark 7 is complex and unsettled. Hultgren (Jesus and His Adversaries, 116-18) favors a traditional conflict story in w 2,5-8 to which Mark added the generalizing explanation in vv 3-4 and the heterogeneous materials of vv 9-23 (see also p. 141 n. 76, where he cites Bultmann, Taylor, Schweizer, and other authorities; cf. also Gnilka, Markus, 1. 276-77). According to the analysis by Weiss ("Eine neue Lehre, "72-81), the redactional ν 8 furnishes a transition from the prophet's reproach ( w 6-7) to the concrete case of korban, which looks like a polemical tradition with its own framework, w 9 and 13a. The two scriptural reproaches have been added to a primitive exchange with the Pharisees (see n. 62 above) on ritual washing for meals (vv 5,15), just as vv 3-4 were added to help Gentile audiences understand, and vv 1-2 to augment the exposition of the conflict. The new exposition brings to the scene "the scribes hailing from Jerusalem," Mark's harbingers of his story's ending. This tradition process seems more plausible to us, as it does to Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 125-26; cf. J. Lambrecht, "Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7,1-13," ETL 53 (1977) 24-82, here 66-70. Implausible, in any case, is the view that the passage on the korban was part of the original answer to the objection about washing practices (pace H. Hübner, "Mark vii. 1-23 und das 'jüdisch-hellenistische' Gesetzesverständnis," NTS 22 [1975-76] 319-45, here 322-23). 65 So Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre,"66-73; also Luhrmann, Markusevangelium, 125-26, and Lambrecht, "Jesus and the Law," 66-70. 66 Compare also Matt 15:17 against Mark 7:18-19; note the omission of Mark 7:19b ("thus he declared all foods clean") and the reiteration of the specific point of reference in Matt 15:20. See C. E. Carlston, "The Things that Defile (Mark vii. 14 [sic]) and the Law in Matthew and Mark," NTS 15 (1968-69) 75-96, esp. pp. 75-91 on Matthew's changes. 67 Best known is the judgment of Ernst Käsemann, "The Problem of the Historical Jesus," in his Essays on New Testament Themes (SBT 41; Chicago: Allenson, 1964) 15-47, here 39-40: "Jesus felt himself in a position to override, with an unparalleled and sovereign freedom, the words of the Torah and the authority of Moses. This sovereign freedom not merely shakes the
110 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 defilement, not its possibility,68 there is no doubting that Mark himself (7:1823), and other early Christian interpreters too (cf. Rom 14:14-20), understood it to deny extrinsic sources of impurity in principle. So Mark 7:19b, "thus he declared all foods clean," is coherently omitted by Matthew. It seems safe to say, at very least, that Mark 7:15 in its present context disowns the picture of a bedeviled universe in favor of the integrity and benignity of God's creation.69 Thereby, it effectively denies the cosmological premise of the jurisprudence cited in Mark 7:3-4. We are arriving at a fuller sense of what Mark meant when he added "not as the scribes" to his keynote. It is interesting to observe that Paul inherited this carelessness of the old boundary between the sacred and the secular, saying that it was a matter of conviction acquired "in the Lord." "There is nothing unclean of itself," he wrote in the midst of an exhortation to reconcile factional differences on the matter in Rome (Rom 14:14). "In the Lord" may, or may not, be a citation of the pertinent Jesus tradition, but Mark 7:15-19 and Rom 14:14,20 surely stand in the same slender strand of early Christian tradition.70 Writing on the clash of scrupulous and uninhibited consciences at Corinth, Paul actually termed the freedom of the latter in respect to religious taboos an "authority" {exousia, 1 Cor 8:9), inasmuch as faith in the one God and one Lord fully licensed the enjoyment of all things, even meats marketed from pagan sacrifices, without fear of any contagion from an alien realm (see 1 Cor 10:25-26). very foundations of Judaism and causes his death, but, further, it cuts the ground from under the feet of the ancient world-view with its antithesis of sacred and profane and its demonology " The view that Mark 7 15 revokes the ritual laws of the Torah is widespread, and this is usually cited as proof positive that the saying is an ipsissimum ver bum Iesu (so Bultmann, History, 105, 147, Taylor, Mark, 342, Haenchen, Weg Jesu, 265-66, Gnilka, Markus, 1 284, 287-88, Hubner, "Mark vu 1-23," 339), although Carlston ("Things that Defile," 94-95) uses the same exegesis to deny the authenticity of the Marcan version 68 So Paschen, Rein und Unrein, 185-86, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "69-71 As Weiss admits, however, the saying soon gave rise to interpretations denying the existence in principle of ntually unclean foods (Mark 7 19) and other things external to people (cf Rom 15 14-20) This NT hermeneutic of Jesus' maxim clouds its original intent, according to Weiss 69 See Kasemann, "Problem of the Historical Jesus," 39 "[Jesus] is removing the distinction between the témenos, the realm of the sacred, and the secular, and it is for this reason that he is able to consort with sinners For Jesus, it is the heart of man which lets impurity loose upon the world Finally, by this saying, Jesus destroys the basis of classical demonology which rests on the conception that man is threatened by the powers of the universe and thus at bottom fails to recognize the threat which is offered to the universe by man himself" 70 Paschen (Rein und Unrein, 171) favors Paul's conscious appeal to the Jesus tradition in Rom 14 14 The dissensus on this issue, however, among commentators on Romans is attested by U Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer 3 (EKKNT 6/3, Zurich Benziger, Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 91 Gnilka (Markus, 1 287-88) ventures the suggestion that it was the early church's drift into legalism and legalistic structures which held down the influence of Mark 7 15 m its radically generalizing acceptation
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 111 If indeed all the world belongs to one Creator and one Lord, nothing lies outside their domain; so in principle at least, there is no need of ritual strictures on the use of created things, or of obsessive scrubbing of bodies and objects to remove the taint of a world supposedly ruled by Satan.71 Of course, Paul considered this a risky "authority" in the hands of his free spirits in the church of Corinth,72 whom he warned, lest it give scandal to weaker consciences (1 Cor 8:9; cf. 10:27-29). He was obviously contending with a split amongst his own converts over the shocking freedom from long-standing taboos wherein his teaching found basic harmony with Jesus'. The strength of the taboos can be measured by the firm associations in Jewish tradition betweenritualdefilement, Gentile society, and the realm of demons and death.73 The protests of the Marcan "scribes" against Jesus'exorcisms on the one hand (Mark 3:22) and his disciples' neglect of the practices of ritual purity on the other (7:5) are thus closely related. Paul's designation of freedom in matters of ritual purity as an exousia suggests that the "authority" over evil spirits bestowed on the church (Mark 3:15; 6:7) and the "freedom" from a universe cloven into warring spheres, "clean," and "unclean," are but two faces of the same coin. (One can say this without inferring a direct relationship between Paul and Mark in the usage of exousia.) The "authority" exercised and bequeathed by Jesus comports, besides the legitimacy of his mission for the advancing reign of God, the sovereign freedom to cross the high barriers which religion builds between the temple and the marketplace. Indeed, the exousia texts and their settings demonstrate that the boundaries between the sacred and the profane spheres which Jesus and Paul freely crossed were the very ones which the scribes were scrupulously guarding. As sentinels of a fortified theocracy over which the rules of the inner sanctum prevailed, they 71
In 1 Cor 10:19-22 Paul makes explicit the association between food offerings to pagan gods and demon partnership, as counterpart to the sacramental incorporation into Christ's body. For the Jewish view that pagan worship was in fact addressed to demons, see Deut 32:17; Ps 106:36-37; Bar 4:7; 1 Enoch 19:1; 99:7; Jub. 1:11; 22:17 (cf. cAbod. Zar. 2.3); Origen, Contra Celsum 3.29, and other passages cited in O. Böcher, Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (BWANT 90; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970) 141. 72 A stimulating and plausible Corinthian "life situation" for the issue of meats from pagan temples and their offense to tender consciences is proposed by Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 121-43. 73 Böcher, Dämonenfurcht, 117-20, 139-43; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 380; cf. η. 68 above. Scrupulous observance of the ritual laws assisted the segregation of Jews from engulfing Gentile cultures in the diaspora (see Dan 1:8; 4 Mace 7:6). For the association of pagan worship with worship of "the dead," see Jub. 22:17; Ps 106:28; and specifically regarding meat from the sacrifices cAbod. Zar. 2.3 (J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation [New Haven: Yale University, 1988] 663). On the OT origins of ritual impurity as the expression of ancient society's contention with the power of death, see Paschen, Rein und Unrein, 64, 183.
112 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995 were the adjudicators of sacred times, purified space, acceptable persons. That is why they protested Jesus' freedom from these distinctions, and why his exorcisms signified their disenfranchisement. Although such "scribes" are more an evangelist's construct than a window on the profession in Jesus' day,74 they serve the "gospel" function of impersonating the human tradition (7:8) which stands in a mutually exclusive and deadly antagonistic relationship to the "authority" demonstrated to be "from heaven" (11:30 with 12:11; cf. 8:33).75 IV. Proclaiming Jesus' "Authority" This essay began with the curious relationship which in Mark 1:21-28 exists between the first episode of Jesus' public life and the "authority" acclamations which frame it. In the course of our study we found that the combination of the recognition of exousia, the exorcism narrative, and the antitypology of absent "scribes" is not quite as haphazard as it first appeared —to us, as to the later Synoptics. The "authority" of the one who speaks and acts for God's imminent reign has not only the aspects of personal legitimacy and mission "from heaven," but also the connotation of freedom from all sovereignties other than God's. The sum of these dimensions assured us that "the scribes" were brought forward at Mark 1:22 as teachers without "authority," not as "authorities" of lesser degree. In contrast to Jesus' "new teaching," theirs belonged to the old order—not mainly because it was tradition-bound but because it pertained to a still divided universe and was dedicated to fortifying God's corner ofthat world against Satan's vast empire. From his vantage point in the hellenistic diaspora, Mark saw "the scribes" as scholarly custodians of the Mosaic Law who surrounded observant Jewry with a mighty barrier of restrictive traditions and segregating practices. They were gatekeepers of the theocratic fortress, builders and menders of the high fence that surrounded it. For them, the only alternative to the verdict that Jesus was operating outside their fence 74
See nn. 7 and 26 above. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept Kingsbury's literary analysis ("Religious Authorities," 44-47, 50, 63; Conflict in Mark, 14, 65) to the effect that distinguishing features among the different opposition groups have been marginalized in Mark so as to make them all a "united front" and, in narrative terms, a "single character." "The scribes" basically challenge Jesus' "authority" as teacher, while for the questions about praxis Mark favors the Pharisees. Moreover, the prominence of the scribes in both stages of Mark's story, while the Pharisees are confined to Galilee (except in 12:13), shows the author's interest in building the particular long-range argument with them which 3:22 and 7:1 sustain. Preferable on this is Luhrmann, "Pharisäer," 183-84; cf. Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre,"254-55, 342-43. 75
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY 113 would have been that he was rightfully tearing it down. Small wonder that in assessing Jesus' exorcisms they preferred the conundrum of Satan's kingdom at war with itself (Mark 3:23-26). The scribes made their first appearance in the controversy series of Mark 2:1-3:6. Here they had boundaries of sacred times and acceptable persons to protect, as is shown in their challenge sotto voce to the forgiveness of the paralytic, their complaint about the Master's unsavory retinue (2:16), and their objections (made via the connection of scribes and Pharisees at 2:16) to his disciples' fasting and Sabbath practices. The incompatibility of their religion with his was brought out forcefully in the challenges to his exorcizing (3:22-30) and to his followers' neglect of ritual bathing (7:1-23), both concerned with transgressions of sacred space, and both launched by scribes whose provenance "from Jerusalem" previews the fateful outcome of their enmity. Finally, all the scholars' challenges were summed up in their gambit on his "authority" to do "these things" (11:28), a gambit whose answer had to remain concealed from them while it was divulged to his faithful in parable form (see 4:11,34). Obviously, the one who distanced himself so far from the custodians of sacred tradition by vaulting the barriers of doctrine, ritual, and taboo must be the one to whom "all authority in heaven and on earth" has been given (Matt 28:18). Before him, no realm alien to the one God's can give theological quarantines or ritual prophylactics any sense. To proclaim the Marcan "authority" texts, one needs to keep the contrary model of "the scribes" in view. This is because they, like other lateral personages of the gospel story, play a role that is representational rather than informational. They tell us little about the scholars of the bet hammidräs in Jesus' day, but they show us a great deal of the nervous antagonism of religious people toward the wide world of the everyday and the all-too-human. True believers struggle to protect themselves against a secular marketplace which somehow, in defiance of the credal formula heis theos, heis kyrios, has been deeded to Satan. Moreover, vigilant sentinels like Mark's "scribes" exercise custody over a shrunken sacred space in every organized religion there is. These are the people who have despaired of the bedeviled world outside the ecclesiastical reservation. They interpret all the world's ills—materialism, hedonism, violent crime, AIDS, drug addiction—as so many articles in Satan's deed of ownership. They forget that "one God and one Lord" means that Satan does not own anything, and that even the child abuser and the drug merchant are on the World-Sovereign's agenda: "Teach all nations" (Matt 28:19). Their solution to the inevitable warfare between church and world is to look inward, lift the drawbridge, lower the blinds, revel in the company and rituals of the insiders, and wait for the intolerably patient Judge of us all to prove them right. Who would dare say that people like this are a peculiar feature of Judaism, or that with the Christian church's alienation from the synagogue it left "scribal" hermeneutics behind forever?
^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.
