Gobbets

1.a. Exorcism-magic

Decapolis - sole excursion into gentile territory

Jesus' attitude to gentiles - and Mark's

Gerasa/Gadara -location and pigs

1.b. Jewish purity laws - Pharisees a 'clean food club'?

Controversies in early community & Jesus' teaching

Sanders' view that sayings authentic and contexts not

1.c. Position before Transfiguration - fulfilled then?

Jesus and eschaton

Amen I say to you - authentic phrase?

Kingdom of God

1.d. lu,tron a'nti. pollw/n - addition to authentic saying? - atonement?

son of man

Jesus and service - suffering servant?

1.e. occasion of decision to liquidate

allegory or not?

Jesus describes himself as son?

Mark's use of parables

1.f. Temple - its importance - Josephus' report of veil

Jesus' symbolic action in the Temple

meaning of 'son of God' both to centurion and to Christians

Markan bracket of gospel

2.b (14.60-64)

In some ways this is the climax of the gospel, the great scene of the revelation of the secret, at which Mk already hinted in 9.9: they should not make him known until he had risen from the dead. Now the moment is beginning when Jesus' identity is fully revealed and understood, so can be proclaimed.

Whether the scene is historical in detail is less important than its theological and dramatic properties. The whole gospel of Mk is so permeated with his own personal style that it is alwasy difficult to discern how formed are the sources (no doubt oral rather than written) which lie behind it. In the trial scene the most obvious factors are the Markan triples (Peter's denials and the triple accusation) and a Markan sandwich, but also many other little stylistic tricks, such as the impersonal plural, double negatives in vv. 60, 61, a typically Markan doublet in v. 61. Most of all, the irony is typical of Mark, that the high priest should condemn Jesus for the true claim that he was son of God. It would also be a mistake to judge the scene and its legalities on the basis of the rabbinic rules of the second century; it is not even clear that the Sanhedrin existed already in anything like a constituted form, let alone according to the regulations of the Mishnah and Talmud.

Each of the titles used in this 'compendium of Markan Christology' (Conzelmann) deserves full treatment, for these are the claims for which Mark wishes us to understand that Jesus was condemned.

'Son of the blessed' is a version of 'son of God', suitably Judaised for reverence; it never in fact occurs as such in scripture. Its importance for Mk has already been explained in 1.f.

'Son of man' is a favourite title of Jesus, occurring 13 times on his lips and nowhere else. Its meaning for Jesus himself is still highly disputed. Vermes holds that it is a circumlocution for 'I' and no title at all, used with the general sense of 'a human being' but with particular reference to the speaker. However, Fitzmyer disputes Vermes' use of the first century Aramaic texts. Certainly for Mark the expression is a title alluding to Daniel 7.14, occurring as it does in contexts of majesty in 8.38 and 13.26 as well as here.

The important question is why Jesus' reply was a blasphemy. Reference to the second century rules is irrelevant. J. Donahue has at last suggested that the clue is to be found in movement: if the son of man is both seated and coming, this can only be on the merkabah-throne of Ezekiel 1. That any human being should claim to share this throne is a self-evidently blood-curdling blasphemy.

3. What significance does Mk see in the miracles of Jesus?

1. Revelation of the growing wonder of Jesus for which the pre-condition is faith and the result is faith. He is like the charismatic Galilean rabbis and more. An important element in Mk's narrative theology. Especially

- power to forgive sin (hint of divine) - shown to be Markan meaning by sandwich

- walking on water and control of elements as only God can do.

2. Jesus' triumph over evil.

3. Various special significances:

- Feeding of 5,000 and 4,000 = second Moses/Elisha

- Sight to blind (Bethsaida & Jericho) = symbol of understanding at last

- Withered fig-tree = withered Israel

10. 'A subtle, sophisticated literary creation.' 'A collection of inherited stories and sayings, crudely stitched together.' Which is a more accurate assessment of Mark?

1. Mk's crudity of language (details) should not blind the critic to his sophistication of plan.

2. Overall plan of irony: introduction - two halves with watershed at Caesarea Philippi - climax

3. Gradual revelation planned: increasing wonder at Jesus - final revelation at Trial.

4. Bracketing with 'son of God', and constant reminders (by non-humans only).

5. Sandwiches to explain mutually - occasional chiasmus (2.1-3.6).

6. Triples for emphasis (often one element inherited and trebled for emphasis, e.g. Gethsemane, Peter's denial, Pilate's confession.

7. Theologically: reader first identifies with disciples' enthusiasm and then accepts criticisms made of them.

8. Possibly the Messianic Secret is a muddle!