LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

later (Mark 9.42), Jesus reiterates his teaching about the protection of these ‘little ones’. It is evident, though, that the disciples have yet to absorb this message and have a different attitude to these ‘little ones’.

As some bring children (paidion) for Jesus to touch (Mark 10.13–16), the disciples ‘rebuke them’ (Mark 10.13b). Mark’s language here is revealing. The ‘rebuke’ (epitemaō) is the language of exorcism.11 The disciples see the presence of something or someone evil in a request that needs to be exorcised. They ‘rebuke them’. To whom is the disciples’ rebuke directed? Is it directed to those who bring the children to Jesus, or is it the children themselves? It seems the latter. Mark notes how Jesus reacts with indignation at the disciples’ belligerent response to the request (Mark 10.14). He instructs them to let the children come to him, ‘for to such belongs the kingdom of God’. The scene ends with Jesus wrapping the children in his arms and laying his hands upon them (Mark 10.16). The disciples need to undergo a radical metanoia if they are to receive and enter God’s kingdom (Mark 10.15).

The arrogance of the disciples or, to use an anachronistic expression, their ‘clericalism’, permits them to see the children or their carers as demonic and therefore deserving of rejection. The disciples see themselves as ‘entitled’ to treat them abusively. If this is how Jesus’ own disciples treat the ‘little ones’, what awaits the one who welcomes them with open arms? Mark prepares the auditor for this through the verbal exchange that takes place between Jesus and his adversaries. As the Gospel unfolds, the interchange directed at Jesus becomes more abusive until, finally, in the last chapters of the Gospel it reaches its expression that is more physical and sexual.12

      The verbal interchange between Jesus and his opponents

From a cultural perspective, as the verbal disagreements and attacks on Jesus unfold, some interpret this as the classic verbal sparring of challenge and riposte.13 The overall intent, according to this interpretation, is an agonistic engagement intending to gain greater honour. The Gospel’s narrative audience to this engagement ‘gossip’ about Jesus, in a positive way, and speak well of him.14 There is a cyclical pattern in the interchange with Jesus’ antagonists: his honour is challenged; his critics are finally defeated; Jesus not only regains his honour but grows (through ‘gossip’) in the estimation of the audience who witness the contest; his antagonists are humiliated; their desire to kill Jesus only ferments more deeply.15 This pattern repeats in the chapters leading up to Mark’s passion narrative.

If we were to see a verbal contestation only in terms of a use of wit and who can outsmart the other, then we would miss an important element that anticipates Mark’s passion. In the ancient world, words were intended to be affective. Words influenced deeds and people’s actions.16 Speeches by the great orators were designed to win over the crowd and move it into some action or political response.17 Words were essential to garner support. Words of praise brought honour and glory to their addressee. Words of rejection and criticism were intended to dishonour, humiliate and spread negative gossip about the human target of the invective. Barbed words were intended to hurt, to impale their victims. Words had an impact that was both noetic and physical.

      Mark’s passion narrative

      In Mark’s passion narrative (Mark 14.1—16.8), the language addressed to and about Jesus by his antagonists reveals an intent to abuse him in a way that would have physical impact. His interrogators, first the religious authorities (Mark 14.53–65) and then Rome’s political leader (Mark 15.1–20), complete their verbal examination of Jesus with physical violence. This violence is also sexually implicit and shameful. It leads to the ultimate act of Jesus’ sexual humiliation in his death. The intent of the religious interrogation is clear: the authorities, the chief priests and the Sanhedrin, seek to discredit Jesus, to define his unholy scandal and so have reason to execute him (Mark 14.55). False testimony is called upon, but even this conflicts (Mark 14.56–60). The High Priest finally interrogates Jesus: ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus’ affirmation to this, with the addition ‘you will see the Human One seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven’ (Mark 14.62), results in a charge of blasphemy that leads ultimately to his condemnation and a death sentence (Mark 14.64). Likewise, it also leads to the more explicit physical enactment of his humiliation preparatory for death. ‘And some began to spit on him and to cover his face, and to strike him, and say to him “Prophesy!” and the guards rained blows down on him’ (Mark 14.65).

Jesus’ face and head are the target of his bodily maltreatment. The ancient understanding of the human body adds further depth to the treatment that Jesus receives. Personal identity was linked to corporeality. The human body was more than a physical organ: it was a site of social identity and personhood. The body also linked the person to the wider cosmic and astral world, as borne out, for example, by Plato’s micro and macro cosmology. For Plato (427–328 BCE), the human and celestial bodies that compose the cosmos were linked.18 One influenced the other. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) had a similar regard for the human body as a social and cosmic map that mirrored the universe.19 From their limited anthropological perspectives Plato and Aristotle affirmed the symbolic and metaphoric nature of the human body in its relationship to society and the cosmos. If anything of this Greek philosophical tradition lies behind Mark’s story, then what happens to Jesus in his body has deep symbolic significance.

      We know from an earlier story in Mark’s passion narrative (Mark 14.3–9) that when the unnamed woman anoints Jesus she anoints his head. Gospel auditors would see this act as reaffirmation of Jesus’ regal and prophetic status. The abusive treatment of Jesus’ head and face in Mark 14.65 brings together the two aspects of Jesus’ head and the prophecy made from the narrative’s anointing story. This act has implications for the members of the wider social world symbolized by Jesus’ head and, more specifically, Mark’s householders who identify with him. What happens to Jesus, their prophetic head, will also happen to them, if it is not already happening. Mark’s vignette shines a spotlight on the Gospel’s audience for what is happening, and will possibly happen, from Rome’s authorities. This is echoed in the second politically related interrogation before Rome’s representative, Pilate.

Pilate’s questioning of Jesus begins with the primary charge of treason or sedition: ‘Are you King of the Judeans?’20 This accusation about Jesus’ kingship continues throughout the interrogation. Mark portrays Pilate as indifferent to the charge brought against Jesus by the religious authorities. To placate the crowd growing in its hostility, he scourges Jesus and then hands him over to be crucified (Mark 15.15). The violent actions perpetrated by Pilate’s soldiers against Jesus add to Pilate’s initiating vicious deed. They perform a mock coronation ritual that ironically underscores Jesus’ regal status. The narrative’s chiastic structure makes the soldiers’ feigned attestation of royalty central (Figure 1).

      The corporeal implications of the scene are unmistakable. Jesus is violated, maltreated, tortured, shamed and humiliated. The more demonstrable violence of this scene contrasts with the earlier humiliation from the religious authorities. The sexual innuendos of the scene are heightened. He is naked – this is the implication of B1 (Mark 15.20b) – covered only in a purple cloak. Even this is eventually ‘stripped’ from him. The violence in the way that the cloak is removed further underscores the intended mockery and humiliation of Jesus. The scene is one of sexual abuse. The

Скачать книгу