controversial distinction in jesus teaching

7/31/2019 Controversial Distinction in Jesus Teaching

1/23

"As One Having Authority"(Mark 1:22):

The Controversial Distinction

of Jesus' Teaching

RICHARD J. DILLONFordham 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 (hs

exousian echn), and not as the scribes [taught]" (1:22). This is one of the

schematic generalizations which form critics since K. L. Schmidt have recog

nized 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 Christolo-

gie (NTAbh 25; Mnster: Aschendorff, 1992) 54-55. He says, for example (p. 34), that unlike the


2/23

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 (didach

kainkat*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 unmistak

able. "A new teaching" resumes "not as the scribes," who thus represent the

oldway ofteaching. "Having authority" is obviously given proofpositive in

"he even commands." Indeed, the interplay suggests that "a new teaching

with authority" may have been added at 27 by the same editorial hand that

composed the banner sentence of 22.4

The evangelist thus would have used

the popular acclaim of the teacher's "authority" as the keynote of his story

ofJesus, framing its inaugural exorcism with a resonant people's chorus that

raises his teaching to apparent advantage over his wondrous action.5

Die Wundererzahlungen des Markusevangeliums(Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974) 96,

Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 90-913

The clear reprise of 22 in 27 assures us that the colon in 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'Sparaphrase) The alternate punctuation was an attempt to mollify the hardintrusion 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 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 144

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 this

7", 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 Mk1,21-28,"Evangehenforschung Ausgewhlte Aufsatze deutscher

Exegeten (ed J Bauer, Graz/Vienna Styna, 1968) 241-76, here 254 In agreement are

Scholtissek,Vollmacht,

91-92, Schenke,Wundererzahlungen,

98, Karl Kertelge,Die WunderJesu 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 27 cover the spectrum, however Guillemette ("Un enseignement nouveau,

plein d'autorit," NovT22 [1980] 222-47, here 233, 242) insists that Mark contributed the

question as well as the answer Others advocate the integral derivation of 27 from the mis

sionary tradition Markdrewon, so Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian

Tradition (Edinburgh & Clark, Philadelphia Fortress, 1983) 163-64, J Gmlka, Das

Evangelium nach Markus(2 vols , EKKNT 2, Zurich Benziger, Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener

Verlag, 1978-79) 1 775

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


3/23

94 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 57, 1995

Quite as surprising as the accentuation ofJesus' "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 theSabbath (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 schol

arly 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 ofJesus' bitterly contested ministry which it inaugurates.

de l'vangliste Marc (Etudes d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 62, Pans Presses univer

sitaires de France, 1966) 876 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

heretofore7 See A J Saldarmi, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society, a Socio

logical Approach (Collegeville, MN Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier, 1988) 241-76 The prob

lem here is the extrabibhcal evidence, including that of Josephus and numerous Palestinian

ossuary inscriptions, which do not identify great "teachers" (mrm) as "scribes" (sprm) in theway the two had come to be identified in the golden age of the sprm, from ca 398 e E to

Ben Sira ca 180 e E (M Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism Studies in Their Encounter in

Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period [2vols , Philadelphia Fortress, 1974] 1 79)8

So D Luhrmann, "Die Phariser 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 func

tionary 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 JewishPeople in the Age of Jesus Christ [175 C -A D 135] A NewEnglish Version [3 vols , rev and

d G Vermes t l Edi b h & Cl k 1979] 2 329 28 iti J h JW I 24 3


4/23


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 betweenredaction 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 evan

gelists' 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 Baptistthrough the call ofthefirstdisciples (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 ofJesus, 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 accommo

dation is assisted by suppression of the exorcism which confirmed the accla

mation 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 particular1

' 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 1-813 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 23-

28 " The relocation of the popular acclaim of Jesus' teaching was clearly done "very effectively


5/23


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 scribesand 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 wordwas 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,

14On 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, Freiheitvom Gesetz und

Radikalisierung des Gesetzes Ein Beitragzur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthaus (SBS 98,

Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980) 59-6315

G Bornkamm, Jesusof 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) 193-9816

In answer to doubts among his Gentile constituents that theycould 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 ofJews 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 Theologyof Luke-Acts(Philadelphia Westminster, 1975) 111, R Mad-

dox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts(Edinburgh & Clark, 1982) 184, J C Beker, Heirs ofPaul

Paul's legacy in the New Testamentand in the Church Today(Minneapolis Fortress, 1991)

62-6317

So Theissen, Miracle Stories, 166 It is possible, too, that Theissen has overstated this


6/23


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 man

ages 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 preciselyarticulated 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 interchange

ably (4:36; 9:1; cf. 10:19; Acts 8:19). The distinction between them, as wehave 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 sense.... To apply this conception would be to misunder


7/23


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 happeningis 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 combattedand extirpated"; second, "the human person is fully restored to itself. And so

the exorcism becomes a symbol for the new reality ofGod'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."24

20Use ofexousia in the Greek Bible to express "God's absolute freedom ofaction" (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

21This 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

L Budesheim, "Jesus and the Disciples in Conflict with Judaism," ZNW 62 [1971] 190-209,

here 193) As a hallmarkof 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 rightto act and speakfor the eschatological reign of God22

Kertelge, WunderJesu, 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, 123-2423Scholtissek, Vollmacht, 86

24Ramer Kamphng "Jesus von NazaretLehrer und Exorzist," BZ ns 30 (1986) 237-48


8/23


It is no constriction ofhis 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 ofless 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 Sanhdrin, 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 theyadd the issue of source, or mission, to that ofthe nature ofthe alien "authority"

being exercised. The paired questions have generated dubious traditio-

historical 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,

"DmonenaustreibungenErweis der Nhe 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 9,1-

41," 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 inreference to Jesus' activity (1:22,27; 2:10; 11:28 [twice],29,33) and three of them to his commis

sioning 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 Sanhdrin; 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, "Phariser," 172, 174; idem, Markusevangelium, 50; Weiss,"Eine neue Lehre, "341-42. On the composition of the Sanhdrin and the scribes' role therein,

see Schrer, History, 2. 210-14, 330-35.


9/23


each otheras questions of personal legitimacy and of authentic missionin

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 ofJesus' pronouncement of sins forgiven

(2:6-10) and of his practice of exorcisms (3:22-30). The fact that the debate

with the Sanhdrin 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 bap

tism ("from heaven [= God] or from humans," 30), the exchange ends in the

adversaries' tactical dilemma, without any conclusive answer to their query(w 31-33). Things are clear enough, ofcourse: the counterquestion expresses

the Son of Man M Young-Heon Lee (Jesusund diejudische Autoritt Eine exegetische Unter

suchung 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 mission28 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 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, Conflictin Mark,

79 Likewise Lee, Jesusund die judische Autoritt, 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


10/23


the challengers'predicament about Jesus himself.30

"The ultimate cause of the

dilemma is the opponents' unbelief, which theyacknowledge in their discus

sion amongst themselves. The point of the whole account is that the enemies

unwittinglyexhibit their trapped position."31

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 33. The adjoining parable of the wicked vinegrowers, Mark12:1-

12, is editoriallyannexed to the authoritydebate by the retention of the same

interlocutors (12:1, autois) and the absence of any change of scene. Together

the two pericopes make an integral statement.32

The answer to the Sanhedrists'

question, which could not be delivered to them directly,33

is given obliquely

in the parable's action involving the conclusive mission (apesteilen autoneschaton) of the "beloved son" (12:6), whom the vinegrowers put to death.The interpretive attachment of Ps 118:22-23 to the parable supplies dipara

kyriou (12:11) to establish the exouranou (11:30) of Jesus' daunting "either/

or," and the final verse (12:12) leaves no doubt that the personnel of theparable 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 ofauthoritybrings the Marcan controversies to a kind ofclosure.34

The Sanhdrin groups, which will hand Jesus over to death (8:31), will nowhold 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

ofthe Baptist and that Mark (or an early Christian predecessor) transformed it into an exchangewith the Synagogue, so Gnilka, Markus, 2 137, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, "155-60, Gam S Shae,

"The Question on the Authority of Jesus," NovT16 (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 Autoritt, 148, 15032 Lee, Jesus und die judische Autoritt, 36, 65-70,158-60, Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre, " 162,

Giesen, "Damonenaustreibungen," 33-34, Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark, 79-80, Scholtissek, Voll

macht, 183-85, 207-9 Note the rounding effect of the verbs erchontai (11 27) and aplthon

(12 12)

33 Under the economy of Mark's "messianic secret," Jesus' direct disclosure ofhis identityhad to be withheld until the beginning ofhis via crucis, at Mark 14 62 See Haenchen, Weg Jesu,

394 95 W i "Ei L h " 161 G Mi tt d Till L t i i d


11/23


as he was in his "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness ofsins" (1:4,7-8).35

The two held mandates "from heaven" which an unbelieving officialdomcould not recognize. Challenges to Jesus' mission and legitimacy which culminate in the challenge to his authority had begun at Capharnaum (2:6-7) andhad featured the scribes at the front of enemy ranks (2:16; 3:22; 7:1). Just toshow that those earlier scribes were acting in continuity with the members ofthe Sanhdrin 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 whohad come down from Jerusalem" (3:22; 7:1).36 The movement of Mark'snarrative toward the goal of the passion has thus been crucially assisted bythe sustained theme and personnel of the controversies. Indeed, the contro

versies and the passion mutually interpret each other through their narrativecoordination by the first literary evangelist.37

So then, both the key issue of Jesus' conflict with the religious hierarchyand the persons involved in the conflict, the leading representatives of thehierarchy, 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 beforewe learned the positions in the conflict. Questions remain, however, concerning the nuance ofexousia 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 empowermentof the exorcist, and in this inquiry it will undoubtedly help to look into thefeatured 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 modelby 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, "Phariser," 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 under

stood 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 showingthat the opposition to Jesus was ignited precisely by his claim to authority" (with reference to

2 1 3 6 11 27 12 12)


12/23


of the scribes.39 Our own examination ofthe authority debate in sequence with

the parable of the vinegrowers suggests that Mark saw a fundamental diver

gence ofsource between the teaching of Jesus ("from heaven") and that of

the scribes ("You abandon the commandment of God and hold fast to merehuman tradition," 7:8). The difference was that one came ex ouranou, the

other ex anthrpn (cf. 8I33).40 As we saw, the "ew teaching with authority"

celebrated at 1:27 is empowered by the advancing reign of God, whose eschato

logical 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

ofhis teaching is not something he shares with them or anybody. The paragon,

therefore, is emphatically not explained by the clich "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 under

standing 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 ofexousia, we soon come to the beginning of the series of contro

versies in Galilee (Mark 2:1-3:6) and the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-

12), 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

39For example, Taylor, Mark, 173; Schweizer, Good News, 51; Haenchen, Weg Jesu,

86-87. Deeper implications are urged by Kertelge, Wunder Jesu, 57-58; E. Ksemann, 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 antago

nists teach merely human precepts and traditions (ex anthrpou, 7:7-8).42

A quick appraisal of the situation can be made with Hultgren, Jesus and His Adver

saries, 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

Sndenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelhmten [Mk 2,1-12 parr]," BZ ns 25

[1981] 223-48) that the bestowal of forgiveness in 5b is not extrinsic to the original healing


13/23


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 eschato

logical Deliverer's mandate.45 The healing of the paralytic, like the exorcismof 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, Voll

macht, 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, "Sndenverge

bung," 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, Wundererzhlungen, 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. Tdt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 125-33; K. Kertelge, "Die Vollmacht des Menschensohnes zur

Sndenvergebung (Mk 2,10)," Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker (ed. P. Hoff

mann 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: Fr 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


14/23


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 crossthrough 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 bestowaloutside 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 16:5-

9; 17:11), the atoning Israelite presumably heard the sacrificing priest pro

nounce 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 distinctionbetween 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," 207-8.48 Klauck, "Sndenvergebung," 241; Weiss, "Eine neue Lehre," 135-36, 137. Cf. the pro

nouncement 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 Godto

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,

"Sndenvergebung," 241).49 Klauck, "Sndenvergebung," 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 eschato

logical figure (messiah, prophet, or high priest), even when the final age is foreseen as one

bringing the end or destruction of sin (Klauck, "Sndenvergebung," 237-41). The eschatologicalpreaching of John the Baptist remained one announcing the imminent reign of God, although

J h ' f th t l i it l "f th f i f i " (M k 1 4 t ) b ht th


15/23


pivotal point is reached," Tdt 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 pleadingfor 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 house

hold (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 christo-

logical 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 be

tween the two parts of the episode of Jesus' dissident relatives (Mark 3:20-

21,31-35) 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 theconstituents of the Sanhdrin 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" (11:27-

12:12),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 de

mons")55 matches the pair of questions posed in 11:28 ("by what authority?"

51Todt, 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) 1-1152 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 Signifi

cance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives," NovT 31 (1989) 193-216 (perhaps one or two too


16/23


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 evi

dence 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 refu

tation 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 faith

ful 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 pronouncingthe 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 jdische Autoritt, 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 mslof 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 msl of the strong man in


17/23


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 specifi

cations of the phrase in 1:22, "not as the scribes [taught]."60

The two characterizations of the scribes' religionits bathing require

ments told us by the narrator (7:3-4), and the praxis ofkorban 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 ofkorban (w 9-13), grafted onto

59 Correctly seen by Lee, Jesus und die judische Autoritt, 205-9, cf Luhrmann, Markus

evangelium, 12960 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 didach of Jesus andthat of the scribesan 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


18/23


the exchange on ritual cleansing,64

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 Mark7:15, Jesus' astonishing maxim on the source of all impurity,

presumably the original kernel of the chapter,65

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

64The 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 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 (vv5,15), just as vv3-4 were added to help Gentile audiences

understand, and vv 1-2 to augment the exposition of the conflict. The new exposition brings tothe 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 Mk7,1-13," ETL 53 (1977)

24-82, here 66-70. Implausible, in anycase, is the view that the passage on the korban was part

ofthe original answer to the objection about washing practices (pace H. Hbner, "Mark vii. 1-23

und das 'jdisch-hellenistische' Gesetzesverstndnis," 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 ofMark 7:19b ("thus

he declared all foods clean") and the reiteration ofthe specific point ofreference 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


19/23


defilement, not its possibility,68 there is no doubting that Mark himself (7:18-

23), and other early Christian interpreters too (cf. Rom 14:14-20), under

stood 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," hewrote 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 version68 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 Weiss69 See Kasemann, "Problem of the Historical Jesus," 39 "[Jesus] is removing the dis

tinction between the tmenos, 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 ofman which lets impurity

loose upon the world Finally, by this saying, Jesus destroys the basis of classical demon

ology 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


20/23


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 stric

tures 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 Ofcourse, Paul considered this a risky "authority" in the hands ofhis 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 ofthe Marcan "scribes" against Jesus'exorcisms on the onehand (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 relation

ship between Paul and Mark in the usage ofexousia.) 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 pagangods 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. Bcher, Dmonenfurcht und Dmonenabwehr: 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

Bcher, Dmonenfurcht, 117-20, 139-43; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 380; cf. . 68above. 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


21/23


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 rela

tionship 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 1:21-28exists 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 offreedom 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

ordernot 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.75 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 alla "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


22/23


would have been that he was rightfully tearing it down. Small wonder that

in assessing Jesus' exorcisms they preferred the conundrum of Satan's king

dom at war with itself (Mark 3:23-26).

The scribes made their first appearance in the controversy series ofMark 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 con

cerned 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.Toproclaim the Marcan "authority" texts, one needs to keep the contrary

model of "the scribes" in view. This is because they, like other lateral per

sonages of the gospel story, play a role that is representational rather than

informational. They tell us little about the scholars of the bet hammidrs 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" exercisecustody 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 illsmaterialism,

hedonism, violent crime, AIDS, drug addictionas 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 lookinward, 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


23/23

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom 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 thecopyright 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 ATLAScollection 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

controversial distinction in jesus teaching

Documents