NOTES

¹ This study’s focus on the rhetoric of characterization precludes a direct address of the possible role of the Son of Man in proposing a corrective christology for Mark: cf. T. WEEDEN, Mark. Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia 1971); and N. PERRIN, "The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology", JR 51 (1971) 173-187. The study does, however, identify particular rhetorical emphases of the characterization of the Christ that may contribute to this discussion.

² G. SCHRENK, "dialogi/zomai", TDNT II, 95-96. Various other contributions of repetition to narrative development receive attention in N.R. LEROUX, "Repetition, Progression, and Persuasion in Scripture", Neotest. 29.1 (1995) 8-10, B.M.F. VAN IERSEL, "Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark", LB 55 (1983) 45-54, P.J. RABINOWITZ, Before Reading. Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation (Ithaca 1987) 53, D. RHOADS – D. MICHIE, Mark as Story. An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia 1982) 46-47, M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN 1985) 365-440, and R.C. TANNEHILL, The Sword of His Mouth (Philadelphia 1975) 39-51.

³ P. DANOVE, "The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark’s Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples", JSNT 70 (1998) 30, presents further observations concerning this verb’s contribution to characterization in Mark.

⁴ Contextual repetition receives development in R. ALTER, The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age (New York 1989) 39, who discusses how the near conjunction of the words, "womb", "darkness", "light", and "hedge", in Job 38 evokes the scene of Job 3 where these words similarly were joined to produce a certain effect.

⁵ Narrative units used in this study are similar to those proposed by M.A. TOLBERT, Sowing the Gospel. Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis 1989) 312-313, and B.M.F. VAN IERSEL, Mark. A Reader-Response Commentary (trans. W.H. Bisscheroux) (JSNT.S 164; Sheffield 1998) 278-338.

⁶ C.J. FILLMORE, "The Need for Frame Semantics Within Linguistics", Statistical Methods in Linguistics (1976) 5-29; cf. T. VAN DIJK, "Semantic Macro-Structures and Knowledge Frames in Discourse Comprehension", Cognitive Processes in Comprehension (eds. M.A. JUST – P.A. CARPENTER) (Hillsdale, NY 1977) 3-32.

⁷ The number of repetitions required to cultivate this expectation depends in large part on the interpreter’s pre-existing familiarity with and understanding of stories in which the verb appears.

⁸ The narrative frame receives development in M. PERRY, "Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates Its Meaning", Poetics Today 1.1-2 (1970) 35-64, 311-361, and U. ECO, The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington, IN 1979) 20-21, 37. Words and phrases have only a potential to evoke semantic and narrative frames, and their actual evocation depends on a number of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. This study assumes that the frames that receive investigation would be evoked in a close reading of Mark.

⁹ The evocation of narrative frames receives consideration in ALTER, Pleasures of Reading, 112-132. Particular words and phrases that receive extended and specialized narrative development, such as reign of God (basilei/a tou= qeou=), also may evoke narrative frames.

¹⁰ The original proposal of these two audiences appears in P.J. RABINOWITZ, "Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences", Critical Inquiry 4 (1974) 121-141. Rabinowitz’s treatment of a third construct of the implied reader, the ideal narrative audience, which arises in the context of unreliable narration (127-128), is omitted; for there is significant consensus that the narrator of Mark is reliable: cf. R.C. TANNEHILL, "Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role", JR 57 (1977) 386-405; N. PETERSEN, "‘Point of View’ in Mark’s Narrative", Semeia 12 (1978) 97-121; R. FOWLER, Loaves and Fishes. The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54; Chico, CA 1981), 229; and RHOADS – MICHIE, Mark as Story, 39.

¹¹ M. BAL, "The Laughing Mice or: On Focalization", Poetics Today 2.2 (1981) 209-210, notes that "the implied author...is not a pragmatic but a semantic category...which we construct from the semantic content of the text". Bal’s use of "semantic" incorporates elements which this discussion attributes to the narrative rhetoric. Discussion of the authorial audience’s pre-existing beliefs appear in E. BEST, "Mark’s Readers: A Profile", The Four Gospels (eds. F. Van SEGBROECK et. al.) (Leuven 1992) II, 839-855; and B.M.F. VAN IERSEL, "The Reader of Mark as Operator of a System of Connotations", Semeia 48 (1989) 83-114. Their significance for interpretation is developed in W.C. BOOTH, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago 1983) 157, 177, and in ECO, Role of the Reader, 7-8.

¹² The proposed description of the authorial and narrative audiences relies solely on the content of the semantic and narrative frames evoked or cultivated by the narration and does not require recourse to particular historical presuppositions or appeals to authorial intent.

¹³ For example, the repetition of particular common verbs of motion, go (poreu/omai), enter (ei)se/rxomai), and depart (e)ce/rxomai), which cultivates no coherent group of agents of the actions, no consistent relationships among them, no overarching perspective for evaluating these actions, and no narratively specific expectations for content, is deemed rhetorically neutral.

¹⁴ According to PERRY, "Literary Dynamics", 37, "The frame serves as a guiding norm in the encounter with the text, as a negative defining principle, so that deviation from it becomes perceptible and requires motivation by another frame or principle": cf. P.H. WINSTON, Artificial Intelligence (Reading, MA 1977) 180.

¹⁵ B.M. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart 1975) 73, reviews the textual witnesses to Son of God in 1,1. Contextual linkage of Christ (1,1) to Beloved Son (1,11) within 1,1-15 also may indicate pre-existing beliefs relating these designations.

¹⁶ Further development of these assertions appears in P. DANOVE, "The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark’s Characterization of God", NT XLIII (2001) 12-30.

¹⁷ W. FOERSTER "e!cestin", TDNT II, 560-561, interprets the NT usage of this verb in terms of the demands of God’s will. Potential pre-existing beliefs about the Son of Man receive development in J.J. COLLINS, "The Son of Man in First-Century Judaisms", NTS 38 (1992) 448-466, and T.B. SLATER, "One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism", NTS 41 (1995) 183-198.

¹⁸ Christ also is related to the designations, Son of God (1,1), Son / Lord of David (12,35 / 12,37), Son of the Blessed (14,61), and King of Israel (15,32).

¹⁹ J.D. KINGSBURY, Conflict in Mark. Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis 1989) 43-45, provides further explication of these pre-existing and cultivated deficiencies in terms of Jesus’ identity and destiny.

²⁰ R.M. FOWLER, Let the Reader Understand. Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis, MN 1991), 85 notes that the apocalyptic discourse of Mark 13 is directed primarily "to Mark’s extranarrative audience". H.M. HUMPHREY, He Is Risen! A New Reading of Mark’s Gospel (New York 1992) 116-120, contributes a discussion of the function of the second person plural verb forms in Mark 13 and the manner in which these address Mark’s community. Such direct addresses of the real audience are made through its narratively immanent representative, the authorial audience.

²¹ E.K. BROADHEAD, Teaching with Authority. Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark (JSNT.S 74; Sheffield 1992) 213-215, reaches similar results through a narrative analysis of the Markan miracle stories.

²² The same vocabulary relates other designations to Son of Man: the Teacher eats (14,14) with the one handing over (paradi/dwmi) the Son of Man (14,21); Jesus is addressed as Rabbi (14,45) by the one handing him over (14,44; cf. 9,31; 10,33a.33b; 14,21.41 for the Son of Man); and Jesus as Christ and Son of the Blessed is condemned (katakri/nw) as deserving death (qa/natoj, 14,64; cf. 10,33 for Son of Man).

²³ If God is the implied agent who hands over the Son of Man in 14,21, then repetition of paradi/dwmi without a narrated agent in 9,31 and 10,33 also may assert the Son of Man’s positive relationship with God: cf. E. LAVERDIERE, The Beginning of the Gospel. Introducing the Gospel According to Mark (Collegeville, MN 1999) II, 110, who deems all passive voice occurrences of paradi/dwmi to imply divine agency.

²⁴ Negatively related to the Son of Man on one occasion are the chief priests, scribes, and elders (a)poktei/nw, 8,31), gentiles (a)poktei/nw , 10,34; cf. 10,33), that human being (paradi/dwmi, 14,21), and the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin (katakri/nw, 14,64; cf. 14,55). The only other designation for Jesus that receives repeated linkage to particular vocabulary, King of the Jews (basileu_j tw=n )Ioudai/wn), presents a parallel development through the repetition of crucify (stauro/w, 15,13.14.20.27) which identifies the King of the Jews and Jesus the Nazarene (16,6) with Jesus (15,15.24.25) and asserts the negative relationship of the King of the Jews with the agents of stauro/w, Pilate (15,13.14) and his soldiers (15,20.27). Cross (stauro/j, 15,32) links the Son of Man to the Christ and, through crucify (stauro/w), to the King of Israel.

²⁵ Among the five remaining occurrences of dei= (9,11; 13,7.10.14; 14,31), four appear after the explicit (9,11; 13,10) or contextual (13,7.14) introduction of the content; and the fifth 14,31), which presents no explicit introduction of the content but does receive narrative preparation for this content (14,29), similarly relates Jesus (and Peter) to death (sunapoqnh/|skw):

²⁶ E.J. PRYKE, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel. A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark (Cambridge 1978) 17-22, attributes to Markan redaction all such statements (8,31; 9,12.31; 10,33-34.45; 14,21a.21b.41).

²⁷ The Son of Man / the Beloved Son are related through the repetition of heavens (14,62 / 1,11) and cloud (13,26; 14,62 / 9,7) and the Son of Man / the Son are related through the repetition of father (8,38 / 13,32; cf. 14,36 for Jesus).

²⁸ Consideration of the teachings’ contrasts and their further development appear in N.F. SANTOS, "Jesus’ Paradoxical Thinking in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44", BSac 157 (2000) 15-25.

²⁹ Repeated vocabulary also contributes to evocation of the former structure: Son of Man (8,31.38; 9,31; 10,33.45 / 14,62); see (9,1 / 14,62); come (8,38; 9,1 / 14,62); power (9,1 / 14,62); chief priest[s] (8,31; 10,33 / 14,60.61.63); condemn (10,33 / 14,64); death (10,33 / 14,64); and spit on (10,34 / 14,65).

³⁰ When offered by the narrator, these explanations generally appear in ga/r (for) clauses: cf. T.E. BOOMERSHINE – G.L. BARTHOLOMEW, "The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8", JBL 100 (1981) 213-223; FOWLER, Loaves and Fishes, 157-175; and RHOADS – MICHIE, Mark as Story, 45-51. Negative evaluations explained through such clauses previously occurred in the portrayal of Jesus’ disciples (6,50.52), the Pharisees or scribes (7,3), and Herod (6,17.18.20).

³¹ These considerations indicate that an adequate statement of Mark’s christology will grant equal status to the contribution of both the contradictory content about the Son of Man’s near future experience and activity and the sophisticated content about his parousaic identity and activity and recognize that the viability of the former content depends on its continuing linkage to the latter.