The use and function of genea in the Gospel of Mark: New Light on Mk 13:30 E-Book

Steffen Jöris

• Herausgeber: Echter
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Serie: Forschung zur Bibel
• Sprache: Deutsch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Seitenzahl: 613

Beschreibung

Inmitten des apokalyptischen 13. Kapitels des Markusevangeliums findet sich die Aussage Jesu, dass "diese genea nicht vergehen wird, bis alle diese Dinge geschehen sind" (Mk 13,30). Dabei war die Bedeutung des Schlüsselbegriffs genea in der exegetischen Forschung umstritten. Diese Studie kommt nach philologischen und exegetischen Untersuchungen zu dem Schluss, dass der Autor des Evangeliums den genea-Begriff an mehreren Stellen als Terminus für bestimmte Gegner Jesu entwickelt. Damit wird dieser Terminus bewusst vom Autor an mehreren Stellen eingesetzt, um den zentralen Aspekt der "Nachfolge" innerhalb des Evangeliums zu stärken.

Leseprobe

Forschung zur BibelBand 133

Begründet von

Rudolf Schnackenburg

und Josef Schreiner

Herausgegeben von

Georg Fischer

und Thomas Söding

forschung zur bibel

Steffen Jöris

The Use and Function of geneain the Gospel of Mark:New Light on Mk 13:30

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.

© 2015 Echter Verlag GmbH, Würzburgwww.echter-verlag.deDruck und Bindung: Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg

ISBN 978-3-429-03838-0 (Print)978-3-429-04819-8 (PDF)978-3-429-06236-1 (ePub)

Preface

This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation accepted at La Trobe University in 2014. There are many people I would like to thank for their continuous support over the years; only a few of those can be mentioned here. First of all, I am grateful to my examiners, Prof. Dr. Boris Repschinski and Prof. Dr. Keith Dyer, for their reports and helpful comments.I thank my various teachers, who have inspired me over the years, especially my early teachers Bernd Braken and Dr. Peter Reinders. Particular thanks go to Dr. Anne Gardner, without her guidance, this thesis would have never been completed and I would not have found my way into academia. I am also grateful to Dr. Adrian Jones for his assistance in the final steps of my thesis. The journey of a PhD is filled with many fellow companions, to the lively round of PhD candidates at La Trobe University, I say thank you, esp. to James Stacey, Nicole Scicluna, and Carina Donaldson. Thanks also go to the round of Ancient Historians, viz. Rachel Campbell, Jon Worthen, Tom Hull, Jen Ellis, and Megan Turton. Further, I want to mention my many Australian friends, who made studying and living abroad a wonderful experience, esp. Rumi Khan, Bradley Stringer, Ruth Lawlor, Helenna Mihailou, Matthew Body, Tim Tzara, Prof. Dr. Stefan Auer, and many others. To Prof. Dr. Imad Moosa, Dr. Wayne Geerling, and Dr. Liam Lenten, I will miss our Friday evenings. But also to my German friends, esp. André and Lissy Kohlen, Norman Jütten, Anne Scheffen, Bernd and Mary Zalek, and Jo and Eve Mühlenberg, Ingo, Michaela, Jonas and Theresa Lagerbauer, Christoph Erdweg, Christina Grab, Patrick Geiser and Katharina Köllmann, Sven and Anja Schmitz, Christina Grab, as well as Rolf Hannig, thank you for your friendship. After my time in Australia, I found my way as a young lecturer to the Catholic Theological Institute at RWTH Aachen University, where my new colleagues made me feel at home. For their ongoing support, I would like to particularly thank Prof. Dr. Simone Paganini, Prof. Dr. Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher, Dr. Annett Giercke-Ungermann, and my dear friend Dr. Patrick Becker. I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Thomas Söding for accepting this work as part of the series Forschung zur Bibel and to the Bistum Aachen for financial assistance regarding printing costs. Further, I would like to thank my family for their support. To Wilhelm, Ruth, Simon, Imke, Hannah, Michel, Philip Jansen and Julia Schöbben as well as Christine Groß and Lutz Bethge, thank you. Amongst all the people, special thanks go to Julia Heidkamp, I am privileged to have found you here at Aachen. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Hans-Josef and Helga Jöris, who have always believed in me. I am proud to have such parents and it is to you that I dedicate this book.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

1.1 Scholarly views on Mark 13

1.2 The Aim of this study

1.3 Scholarly views on Mk 13:30

1.3.1 Meinertz, Lövestam, Mußner, and Philonenko on in Mk 13:30

1.3.1.1 or : Is there a terminus technicus?

1.4 The Methodology: Philology and Exegesis

1.4.1 Philology

1.4.1.1 Selected sources for the philological investigation

1.4.2 Exegesis

II. Philological investigation of the term in ancient literature

2.1 in (non-biblical) Greek literature

2.1.1 in pre-classical Greek literature (Homer and Hesiod)

2.1.2 in classical Greek literature

2.1.2.1 Reference list of in classical Greek authors

2.1.3 in post-classical Greek literature

2.1.3.1 Reference list of in post-classical Greek authors

2.1.4 Note on the meanings of in Greek literature

2.2 in the Septuagint (LXX)

Excursus: The ( of the) suffering Servant of Isa 52:13-53:12

2.2 in the Septuagint (LXX) (cont.)

2.2.1 Conclusion for in the Septuagint (LXX)

2.2.2 Note on the meanings of (and ) in the Old Testament

2.3 in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament

2.3.1 The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira (Sirach or Ecclesiasticus)

2.3.2 The Book of Tobit

2.3.3 The Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch)

2.3.4 Psalms of Solomon (18)

2.3.5 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

2.3.6 The Sibylline Oracles

2.3.7 Other Pseudepigraphical and Apocryphal works

2.3.8 Conclusion for in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament

2.4 in the Dead Sea Scrolls

2.4.1 in the Cairo Damascus Document (CD)

Excursus: in CD II, 8

2.4.2 in the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab)

2.4.3 in 1QPesher to Micah (1QpMic or 1Q14)

2.4.4 in 4Q177 (Catena A or Eschatological Commentary B)

2.4.5 Conclusion about in the Dead Sea Scrolls

2.4.6 1QRule of Benedictions (1QSb or 1Q28b)

2.4.7 4QHosea Peshera (4QpHosa and 4Q166)

2.4.8 Apocryphon of Jeremiah (C)

2.4.9 4QApocryphon of Levib (?) ar (4Q541)

2.4.10 Conclusion for in the Dead Sea Scrolls

2.4.11 Note on the meanings of in the intertestamental period

2.5 in the writings of Philo of Alexandria

2.5.1 Conclusion for in the writings of Philo of Alexandria

2.6 in the writings of Flavius Josephus

2.6.1 Conclusion for in the writings of Flavius Josephus

2.7 in the writings of the early apostolic fathers

2.7.1 Conclusion for in the writings of the early apostolic fathers

2.7.2 Note on the meanings of in Philo, Josephus, and the apostolic fathers

2.8 in the New Testament

2.8.1 Conclusion for in the New Testament

2.8.2 Note on the meanings of in the New Testament

2.9 Conclusion of the philological analysis of and implications for Mark

III. Exegesis of in the Gospel of Mark

3.1 Exegesis of in Mk 8:12

3.1.1 Establishing the pericope

3.1.2 The structure and form of Mk 8:10-13

3.1.3 The setting of Mk 8:10-13 within the Markan narrative

3.1.4 Commentary on Mk 8:10-13

3.1.4.1 The purpose and depiction of the Pharisees in Mark

3.1.4 Commentary on Mk 8:10-13 (cont.)

Excursus: The ‘sign of Jonah’

3.1.4 Commentary on Mk 8:10-13 (cont.)

3.1.5 The identity and function of within Mk 8:10-13

3.2 Exegesis of in Mk 8:38

3.2.1 Establishing the pericope

3.2.2 The structure and form of Mk 8:34-9:1

3.2.3 The setting of Mk 8:34-9:1 within the Markan narrative

3.2.4 Commentary on Mk 8:34-9:1

3.2.4.1 in Mark

3.2.4 Commentary on Mk 8:34-9:1 (cont.)

3.2.4.2 The meaning of in the LXX and the NT

3.2.4 Commentary on Mk 8:34-9:1 (cont.)

3.2.4.3 The ‘son of man ()’ figure in the Gospel of Mark and its occurrence in Mk 8:38 and 13:26

3.2.4 Commentary on Mk 8:34-9:1 (cont.)

Excursus: A possible reading of Mk 9:1 and ‘taste of death’ in light of Heb 2:5-11?

3.2.5 The identity and function of in Mk 8:34-9:1

3.3 Exegesis of in Mk 9:19

3.3.1 Establishing the pericope

3.3.2 The structure and form of Mk 9:14-29

3.3.3 The setting of Mk 9:14-29 within the Markan narrative

3.3.4 Commentary on Mk 9:14-29

3.3.4.1 The purpose and depiction of the Scribes in Mark

3.3.4 Commentary on Mk 9:14-29 (cont.)

3.3.4.2 The use of and in Mark

3.3.4 Commentary on Mk 9:14-29 (cont.)

3.3.5 The identity and function of within Mk 9:14-29

3.4 Exegesis of in Mk 13:30

3.4.1 Establishing the pericope

3.4.1.1 The Pericopae within Mark 13: Some structural, genre, and exegetical remarks

3.4.1.1.1 The structure of Mark 13

3.4.1.1.2 The setting of Mark 13 within the Markan narrative

3.4.1 Establishing the pericope (cont.)

3.4.2 The structure and form of Mk 13:28-37

3.4.3 The setting of Mk 13:28-37 within the speech (Mk 13:5b-37) in Mark 13

3.4.4 Commentary on Mk 13:28-37

3.4.4.1 The similarity between Mk 9:1 and Mk 13:30

3.4.4 Commentary on Mk 13:28-37 (cont.)

3.4.4.2 Jesus’ in Mk 13:31

3.4.4 Commentary on Mk 13:28-37 (cont.)

3.4.5 The identity and function of within Mk 13:28-37

IV. Conclusion and final remarks

Bibliography

Index of Ancient Sources

Index of Authors

I. Introduction

Mark 13 has long fascinated readers of the gospel, since it presents one of the most puzzling chapters, prophesying the doom of the Jerusalem temple, various other horrific events, and even depicting cosmic upheavals and the coming of the son of man. This imagery is bewildering to the modern reader and many studies have attempted to interpret this enigmatic chapter. By now the scholarly literature has become a swamp that is difficult to navigate. Instead of adding to this vast amount of literature, the purpose of the present study is to investigate one key aspect of Mark 13, which has largely been misunderstood hitherto. This aspect is to uncover the correct meaning of the term in Mk 13:30 and to understand its function within the Gospel of Mark, which will have larger implications for a proper understanding of Mark 13 and the gospel as a whole. Before discussing this task and the particular aims of the present study further, the scholarship on Mark 13 needs to be outlined to demonstrate where the present work fits in and to better demonstrate which gap it intends to fill within the larger body of research on Mark 13. However, it is by no means possible to engage with all the previous works on this chapter. What follows is a selected overview of some particularly influential scholarly studies which provide different approaches to the text.

1.1 Scholarly views on Mark 13

Many studies on the Gospel of Mark refer to Mark 13 because this chapter appears crucial to fundamental questions, such as the place or dating of the gospel text. An exegesis of this chapter is found in almost every general study on Mark. However, the text of Mark 13 has been interpreted in many different ways with varying outcomes. Thus, in terms of dating the gospel, scholars have used Mark 13 to argue that it was written shortly before1 or in the aftermath2 of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, which happened during the Jewish Revolt against Rome (66-73 CE). This already reflects the scholarly differences one can observe in the secondary literature on this chapter.

Most scholars agree that the prophesied doom of the temple in Mk 13:2 somehow refers to the events surrounding its destruction in 70 CE. Thus many locate the historical context within the Jewish war. Hengel has produced a notable historical study that situates Mark 13 (and the whole of Mark) somewhere in the year 69 CE by relating the textual evidence to historical events and thus situating the creation of the chapter before the destruction of the temple.3 In contrast to Hengel, Incigneri and Such opt for identifying Titus as the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Mk 13:14); Incigneri argues for a date after the destruction of the temple, more precisely “in the latter months of 71 [CE]”.4 This view that Mark 13 is related to the first Jewish-Roman War is echoed by several scholars, who interpret Mark 13 in the light of the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem that happened in 70 CE.5 Thus Evans comments that Mark’s readers were aware “that General Titus had besieged the city of Jerusalem and that therefore Jesus’ doleful prophecy of the doom of the city of Jerusalem and its famous temple were on the verge of literal fulfillment”.6 This view is subsequently adopted by Balabanski, who points out that there are heightened expectations in the Markan community “fuelled by the destruction of the temple”.7 Likewise Moore’s postcolonial investigation describes Rome as “merely God’s instrument, his scourge, which he employs to punish the indigenous Judean elites” with the destruction of the temple.8 Yet another interesting theory is Kloppenborg’s reading of Mark 13:1-2 “as a historiographic effort to provide a retrospective account of the dual fates of Jesus and the temple”.9 He assumes a post-70 CE date by demonstrating how the Roman ritual of evocatio is alluded to in the Markan text.10 Some studies have even tried to reduce the whole of Mark 13 to simply refer to the destruction of the temple and the subsequent doom of the city.11 Adams has opposed this view, analysing how the use of OT passages in Mk 13:24-25 points to the eschaton.12 Apart from these attempts to connect Mark 13 with the Jewish-Roman War, Theissen has developed another impressive attempt at placing Mark 13 into a historical context. He believes in a substantial Vorlage for Mark 13 that existed for decades before Mark edited his thirteenth chapter and identifies the ‘beginning of birth pangs’ (Mk 13:8) as related to the years 36-37 CE, while the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Mk 13:14) and the description of the impending doom of the temple (Mk 13:2) refer to the events of the years 39-40 CE. These years are associated with the ‘Caligula Crisis’, when the emperor Caligula intended to deify himself in the Jerusalem Temple by erecting a statue.13

Needless to say, there is a whole gamut of further secondary literature dealing with the question of dating the gospel by using some form of the historical-critical method. Different interpretations of Mark 13 are then regularly used to uphold different answers along the lines outlined above.14 Most of the studies that have traditionally dealt with the issue of understanding Mark 13 in the last few decades follow a redaction-critical approach. They try to discern the original author’s contributions as distinct from older traditions incorporated into the chapter. Two famous German studies that use a redaction-critical approach on Mark 13 stem from Lambrecht15 and Pesch16. The former comes to the conclusion that “der redaktionelle Gehalt von Mk 13 … sehr gross [ist]”.17 He acknowledges that there are pieces of older traditions woven into the Markan redaction, but states that Mark follows his own composition and adjusts the speech according to his desires.18 Pesch agrees Mark heavily edited a pre-Markan source, but Pesch further argues this must have been an apokalyptisches Flugblatt (apocalyptic pamphlet) the evangelist redacted. These redaction-critical studies are still quite popular amongst scholars who tackle issues surrounding this chapter. In contrast to these redaction-critical studies, however, there has been a recent attempt by Pitre to identify material in Mark 13 that goes back to the historical Jesus. He finds good grounds for three parts of the discourse (Mk 13:5-8; 9-13; 14-27) to be traced back to the historical Jesus.