The production of the Gospel of Mark : An essay on intertextuality

For m ore than a century the emphasis has been on the growth and not on the making of the G ospel of Mark. This essay focuses on the la tte r. Firstly, a tten tio n is paid to the current views on the origins of the material in o rder to illustrate the implications of the traditional focus. Secondly, the production o f the Gospel o f Mark is discussed from the perspective o f a totally different perception of the phenom ena of text and textual re la­ tionships. 1. IN TRO D U CTIO N M odern inform ed readers know the G ospel o f M ark from critical G reek editions with text-critical and other notes in the margins. These notes inform them not only about the history of the transmission of the final text, but also about allusions and quotations in the text. In addition, it is commonly m aintained that the G ospel was originally written in Greek, and that the final text represents a ra ther lengthy history of growth. For m ore than a century attem pts have been made to explain the origin of the gospel material and to interpret the space between the related events and the final inscripturation of the contents of the Gospel. For that reason the emphasis has been on the growth and not on the making of the G ospel. Very few scholars have • This article is a reworked version of a paper originally read al the annual meeting of the Sodety for G eneral Literary Studies in March 1992 held al Broedcrstroom. [Professor Willem Vorster suddenly died on January 10,1993 (editor)]. ISSN 0259 9422 /fTS ^ / 3 (1993) 385


IN T R O D U C T IO N
M odern inform ed re ad ers know the G ospel o f M ark from critical G reek editions with text-critical and other notes in the margins.T hese notes inform them not only about the history o f the transm ission o f the final text, bu t also about allusions and quotations in the text.In addition, it is comm only m aintained th at the G ospel was originally w ritten in G reek, and that the final text represents a ra th e r lengthy history of growth.F or m ore than a century attem pts have been m ade to explain the origin of the gospel m aterial and to interpret the space betw een the related events and the final inscripturation of the contents o f the G ospel.F or that reason the em phasis has been on the grow th and not on the m aking of the G ospel.Very few scholars have First o f all th ere is the so-called O ld T estam en t.H ow ever it may be, there seem s to be little evidence th a t M ark invented the m a te rial in his G ospel.A fu rth er problem with the traditional approach to the G ospel o f M ark is that the final text is not sufficiently distinguished from its history of grow th.This is due to the text concept which underlies the approach.As we have seen it is not the text as such that is studied, namely a new edition of a text, but a text which should be d i vided into segm ents of redaction and tradition.
ISSN 0259 9422 -HTS 49/3 (1993) In the next section an attem p t will be m ade to take the fact seriously th a t M ark probably did not invent the m aterial, but th at he nevertheless m ade up his own story of Jesus for his own purposes and in his own circumstances.This will be done from the perspective of the production of the text and not from its growth.T he m ain thing, however, is th at we have a text, w ritten in G reek with different allusions to and quotations from precursor texts.This last observation underscores the fact that M ark as a re a d e r/h e a re r of texts reacted to different intertextual codes, and thus created a new text which refers to different texts and codes intertextually.

T H E
T hese include parables, m iracle stories, controversy stories, bibliographies, stories of cult heros, speeches ab ou t the future, stories o f suffering and resu rrectio n stories.
In addition M ark apparently knew them es, words, phrases and stories from the O ld T estam en t.H e m ust have had acq u ain tan ce with the E lisha cycle and with oth er perform ers of miracles.H e m ust also have known the econom ic, political and other cultural codes of his time.However, we still do not know exactly how he w ent about creating his story of Jesus -that is, how he m ade his G ospel.T he next question is w hether we can say m ore ab o u t the actual process o f the m aking of the G ospel by using a concept of the phenom enon text which is different from the concept we know (the traditional approach we have dealt with above), and by asking different questions concerning the making of texts.My hypothesis is that a concept of text different from the one we are used to in New T estam en t scholarship, and a rethinking of the process of production, can help us understand the G ospel of M ark and its relatio n to p recu rso r and o th e r texts.This w ould, how ever, imply a total rethinking of the traditional approach.
T he idea that any text is a netw ork or mosaic of different texts referring to o th er texts is challenging.T he concept 'intertextuality' has not been sufficiently explored by New T e sta m e n t scho lars (see how ever D ra ism a 1989; P hillips 1991; V o rste r 1992).
than a century the em phasis has been on the grow th and not on the m aking o f the G ospel of M ark.T his essay focuses o n the la tte r.Firstly, a tte n tio n is paid to the current views on the origins of the m aterial in o rd e r to illustrate the im plications o f the trad itio n al focus.Secondly, the production o f the G ospel o f M ark is discussed from th e perspective o f a totally different p ercep tio n o f the p h en o m en a of text and textual re la tionships.

•
This article is a reworked version of a paper originally read al the annual meeting of the Sodety for G eneral Literary Studies in March 1992 held al B roedcrstroom .[Professor Willem Vorster suddenly died on January 10,1993 (editor)].ISSN 0259 9422 -/fTS ^/ 3 (1993) taken the production of the w ritten G ospel seriously.C ertain d a ta beliefs and as sum ptions concerning the G ospel have becom e so dom inant th at very little progress has been m ade in the history of interpretation of the G ospel (see e g Peabody 1987: 3fO.In this essay I will discuss the im portance of the unsolved p roblem o f the p ro duction o f the G ospel of M ark.To achieve my goal, I will first pay attention to cur rent views on the origin of the m aterial.TTie idea is to illustrate the im plications of the traditional focus on the origins of the Gospel.In the next p art of the essay I will turn to the production o f the G ospel from the perspective o f intertextuality.In this section I will focus on the im plications o f a totally different percep tio n of the p h e nom ena of text and textual relationships.2. M A R K A N D ITS PR E D E C E S S O R S It is no longer possible to determ in e with any certainty w ho M ark, as we norm ally call the au th o r o f the G ospel of M ark, really was.N eith er is it absolutely certain how he w ent about writing his G ospel and w here he got his m aterial from.A period of three or four decades must have passed after the death of Jesus before M ark d e cided to write his story.W hat happened during that period lies in the dark.It is norm ally argued that the followers of Jesus transm itted his w ords and deeds by telling and retellin g things he did and said.In view of the folkloric n atu re of m any of the stories o f and about Jesus, the aphoristic character of many of his say ings, the many parab les he ap parently told his followers, and the role of oral com m unication in that period, it is probable that M ark was inform ed about the story of Jesus by way of tradition.It is also p robable th at his au dience w ould have known th ese trad itio n s and others, such as the in stitution of the L o rd 's Supper, and con troversy stories.It is therefore possible to argue that M ark based his w ritten story of Jesu s on tra d itio n a l m a te rial w hich he received and d ecid e d to pu t into w ritten form . T his is also the way in which the origin o f the m aterial was explained in the early church.T he earliest w itness to the authorship o f M ark is the quotation from Papias of H ierapolis (c 140 C E ) in the history of Eusebius {Hist Eccl III 39:15), ac cording to which the G ospel was based on memory of the things P eter had told M ark (see also Breytenbach 1992).W hat o th e r sources did M ark use?O ne o f the in terestin g things ab o u t early C hristian literatu re is th a t although th ere was only one Jesus, we have many G os pels.T he G ospels o f M atthew , M ark and Luke -the so-called Synoptic G ospelsare closely related and have much m aterial in com m on.Som e form of dependence is th erefo re presum ed (see Sanders & Davies 1989).T he d om inant assum ption is ÍVSyofsler that M atthew and Luke m ade use o f M ark in com pihng their G ospels, and th at they also had a hypothetical collection o f sayings o f Jesu s norm ally called Q (th a t is, 'Q u e lle ' = 'so u rc e '), at th e ir d isposal w hen they w ro te th e ir G o sp els.O n the grounds of this hypothesis it is m uch easier to explain the origin of the G ospels of M atthew and Luke than it is to explain th at of M ark.The question th erefo re arises w hether M ark also had other, perhaps w ritten, sources in addition to the 'traditional m aterial' referred to above when he w rote his G ospel.

F
rom the perspective of the m aking o f the G ospel, d ifferen t view points have been advanced in accordance with views on th e role attrib u te d to th e p erson who was finally responsible for composing the G ospel.M ark has been regarded as a col lector, a com poser, a red acto r (e d ito r) and an a u th o r (see V o rster 1980).T hese percep tio n s a re based on d ata assum ptions.U nderlying assum ptions co ncerning authorship, the phenom enon text, text types, the history of early C hristianity, the o ri gin of early C hristian literatu re and o th er aspects of the G ospel a re responsible for the current state of affairs.Let us briefly discuss this view point since 1 have treated the problem elsew here in m ore detail (see V orster 1980).In the 1920's the idea th at M ark was w ritten by an au th o r was replaced by the cu rren t view that he was nothing m ore than a collector of traditions.The G ospels w ere reg ard ed as Kleinliteratur, th e p ro d u cts of th e tran sm issio n o f tra d itio n by illiterate, unknow n persons -a collective com m unity (see Schmidt 1923 & G iittgem anns 1970).M ark's task was to collect these traditions and to put them into a n ar rative fram ew ork.H is co ntribution was lim ited to the collection of m aterial which he knitted into a loose com position o f episodes concerning the deeds and works of Jesus.M ark was regarded as a stringer of pearls (see Schm idt 1923:127f) or a col lector o f traditions (D ibelius 1971:3).This should be understood against the back ground of the em phasis on the interest in w hat lies behind the text and not w hat is in the text.T he situation changed in the late 1950's with the rise of the so-called redactioncritical approach to the G ospels (see Marxsen 1959 & Peabody 1987).The m aterial in the G ospel was increasingly regarded as edited tradition -an idea which goes far back, but one th a t had only recently developed.A lthough the G ospel as a w hole cam e into focus, the interest was in the redaction of tradition.This resulted in d e tailed investigations concerning tradition and redaction in the G ospels.In the case of M ark it was extrem ely difficult to d eterm in e exactly w hat could be regarded as tra d itio n an d w hat could not, becau se of th e absence o f copies of th e p resum ed sources.O n the basis of style, reg u lar occu rren ce of c e rtain w ords and phrases, views that w ere peculiar to the specific G ospel, so-called seam s o r breaks in the text and o th er features, scholars reached a certain degree o f consensus ab o u t redaction and tradition in the G ospel of Mark.M ark's (theological) em phasis was d eterm ined by in terp retin g his redaction of tradition.A t least a certain am ount of creativity -how ever lim ited -was ascribed to the re d a c to r. M ark 's own c o n trib u tio n to th e story of Jesu s cam e into focus, despite th e fact th a t he was soon described as a conservative red acto r (see Pesch 1976).T he em phasis which W rede (1969) had put on M ark's creativity in 1906 was newly appreciated.In circles w here M ark was regarded as a com poser, he received m ore credit for what he had achieved, and attention was given to the G ospel message as a whole.It was, however, only in the late 1970's that scholars started paying serious atten tio n to M ark's G o sp el'as a narrative, and to M ark as an au th o r or a u th o r/n a rra to r and to the G ospel as an autonom ous text.T he renew ed in terest in M ark as au th o r and his G ospel as a n arrative opened new possibilities in the in terp retatio n of different aspects of the G ospel.It was dis covered that the story had been told from a certain narrative point of view, why tim e and space play an im portant role in the G ospel, and th at characters, including Jesus, w ere presented in conjunction with the story line -in short, th a t n arrative analysis f)Osed new challenges to interpreters of the G ospel (see V orster 1980; H ahn 1985 & 388 HTS 49/3 (1993) fVSVoriter M oore 1989).P erhap s th e m ost im p o rtan t single co ntribution o f this ap p ro ach is the fact that interpreters w ere forced to take the G ospel as a com plete text serious ly.It also im plied that the transm itted text -and not its history o r the origin o f p a ru o f it -was placed in th e c en tre o f interest.T his does n o t imply th a t th e text was in te rp re te d a-historically as is so easily incorrectly assum ed by critics w ho regard n arrativ e analysis o f th e G o sp el as an extension of redaction criticism (see Zwick 1989).This short survey clearly indicates th at the em phasis th at was pu t on the growth of the G ospel also d eterm in ed th e role of the p erson w ho was responsible for the final text.O ne can safely say th at th ere has b een little reflection on the role of the p erso n w ho p ro d u ced the G o sp el, except for the d escriptions I have m en tio n ed , nam ely collector, com poser, red acto r and au th o r.How o n e should p ictu re M ark editing tradition in w ritten or oral form by changing a word h ere and there, adding a sentence or two, rearranging the o rd er of m aterial, p utting th e traditional m aterial into a narrative fram e and joining sep arate units o r episodes -as red actio n critics m ake us believe -is difficult to im agine.T h ere is much m ore to the production of a text th a n tra d itio n a l views w ould allow.A s long as the G o sp els a re p erceiv ed m ainly from the perspective of th e ir grow th, the process o f p roduction is blurred.W hat is needed is serious reflection on the production of texts from the perspective o f w hat h a p p e n s w hen o th e r texts, w h e th e r o ra l o r w ritten , a re in clu d ed in or absorbed by a new text.T he traditional approach is anti-individualistic because the driving force behind the G ospels is the anonymous community.In addition to the assum ption that the message (m eaning) o f the G ospels can be studied from the perspective of their origin, and th at the authors w ere redactors and n ot a u th o rs in th e p ro p e r sense o f the w ord, th e id ea o f influence also plays an im portant role.T he assum ption is clearly th at M ark was influenced by his sources.O ne should be very careful with this type o f argum ent.If M ark is simply regarded as an exponent of the com m unity within which he stood, it may be thought th at his task was to put into words what the comm unity thought.From the insights of Socio logy of Knowledge we are aw are that all knowledge is context-bound.But th at does not imply that there is no place for creativity.O n the contrary, even oral storytellers tell th e 'sam e' story d ifferently in d ifferen t contexts and u n d er d ifferen t circum stances, although their knowledge is bound to their contexts.
Two re c e n t a tte m p ts at explaining th e m aking of th e G o sp e l a re , how ever, w orth m entioning.Mack (1988:322-323)  m aintains th at M ark's G ospel was '...not a pious transm ission of rev ered trad itio n .It was com posed at a desk in a sch o lar's study lined with texts and open to discourse with o ther intellectuals.In M ark's study w ere chains o f m iracle stories, collections of pro n o u n cem en t stories...'.Mack as sum es th at M ark had d ifferen t H ellen istic Jew ish texts, th e S crip tu res and o th e r C hristian texts in his study.O ne need not agree with Mack, but he has at least given som e thought to w hat m ight have been possible in the production o f a text in the first century.B otha (1989:76-77), on the other hand, m aintains th at the M editerran ean world o f the first century was predo m in an tly oral.M ark cam e from an oral com m unity 390 HTS 49/3 (1993) WSVorster and his G ospel should be seen as oral literature.M ark told his story of Jesus orally and at som e stage dictated it to som ebody who w rote down his w ords.It still bears the signs of oral literature.Again, M ark is taken seriously as the p roducer of a text and not simply as a conduit through which a stream of traditio n flowed, or a (p as sive) exponent of a comm unity out of which his text arose (see also V orster 1980).

T
here is no reason to doubt that the w ritten G ospel o f M ark echoes many diffe rent precursor texts and intertextual relationships.In this regard the use o f the O ld T estam ent in M ark's G ospel is helpful. 1 have elsew here argued th a t M ark's use of the O ld T estam en t is totally differen t from th at o f M atthew o r M ark w ho use the O ld T estam ent within a prom ise-fulfilm ent schem e (seeV orster 1981).Allusions to and q u o tatio n s from the O ld T estam en t are usually ab so rb ed into M ark's story in such a m anner that, except for a few cases w here he specifically m entions the origin of the quotation, the allusions and quotations form p art of the story stuff.They are so em bedded into the story that, if it w ere not for the references in the m argins and a know ledge of th e O ld T estam en t, the re a d e r would not have noticed th at M ark uses an allusion or a q uotation (see Mk 15:24).This is best seen in M ark's story of the passion of Jesus.It has often been noticed th at psalm s of lam entation such as Psalms 22, 38 and 69 concerning the suffering of the just, a re knitted into th e passion narrative in such a m anner that one can say that the passion narrative of M ark is n arrated in the lang uage of the O ld T estam en t.T h e point is, how ever, th at the allusions and 'q u o ta tions' form such an integral part of the passion narrative that it is im possible for the naive read er to realize that the text is enriched by its intertextual relationships con cerning the suffering of the Just.O ne of the significant things about the use of the O ld T estam ent in M ark is that he had no respect for the original context o f the quotations and allusions to O ld Tes-ISSN 0259 9422 -UTS 49/3 (1993) lam en t w ritings in his text.T he story o f Jo h n the B aptist at the very beginning of th e G ospel proves th e point.In the first place the very first q u o tatio n (M k 1:2-3) does not com e from Isaiah the prophet, as M ark asserts.It is a com posite reference to Exodus 23:20, M alachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 which he connects to Isaiah th e p ro phet.T he qu o tatio n is tak en out o f context and w orked into his story o f Jo h n and Jesus in order to show the relationship betw een the two.T h e beginning of the G os pel does not prove the fulfilm ent of the O ld T estam ent, it characterises Jo h n as the predecessor of Jesus.Only at a later stage does the re ad e r realize the resem blance betw een the apocalyptic John and the apocalyptic Jesus.O ne o f the inferences one should m ake from the use of the O ld T estam en t in the G ospel o f M ark is th at the au th o r created a new story with the aid of intertextual codes th at helped him to com m unicate his own point of view.T he O ld T esta m ent quotations and references form ed p art o f the new story th a t M ark created in o rd er to convince his readers of his point o f view concerning Jesus and the im plica tions of Jesus' life, works and words for the prevailing situation.Som ebody may argue th at the O ld T estam en t is a special case and that it does not say much.However, let us argue the use of traditional m ateria! in the G ospel of M ark from the perspective of intertextuality.It is an illusion to think th at M ark was a conservative red acto r.In fact, M ark not only reshaped his story of Jesus by retelling the story for the sake o f a particular situation, he also told it from his own perspective.W hether he transm itted tradition 'conservatively' or 'creatively' is of little significance.Even eyewitnesses shape their messages for their own purposes.V ansina (1985:5) correctly observes: ...[M Jediation of perception by mem ory and em otional state shapes an account.M em ory typically selects certain features from the successive p ercep tio n s and in te rp re ts them according to ex p ectatio n , previous know ledge o r the logic o f 'w hat m ust have h a p p e n e d ', and fills the gaps in perception.This is all the m ore true o f the Jesus tradition which has been shaped by eyew itnes ses as well as those who retold the tradition for their own purposes and in their own circum stances.T h at is already clear from the different versions o f the sam e stories o f and ab o u t Jesus in the canonical gospels.F irst o f all we do not have any (u n b iased ) eyew itness re p o rts; fu rth erm o re , th e retellin g o f the Jesus tra d itio n was done in different circum stances for different purposes.This is, for instance, confir med by the 'sam e' version of the 'sam e' parable in different contexts in the different gospels.R etellin g o f th e 'sam e' event or w ord o f a specific person involves c re a tivity.392 HTS 49/3 (1993) WSVofSler W hat is ap p aren t regarding the use o f the O ld T estam ent in M ark seem s to be even m ore applicable to the trad itio n incorporated in the G ospel o f M ark.L et us take individual units such as controversy stories betw een Jesus and his opponents in the G ospel of M ark as an example.From a form -critical perspective m ost o f these stories presuppose a sociologi cal situ atio n of conflict in early C hristianity.In addition, som e o f the stories are transm itted in M ark's G ospel in a mixed form -that is, a story which relates conflict betw een Jesus and opponents within the fram ew ork o f a m iracle story.T hese sto ries seem to have been created around a saying of Jesus and reflect situations in e a r ly C hristianity which the o th er evangelists used in th eir own stories about Jesus.In retold form , these stories w ere used not only for different purposes but also for dif ferent messages, depending on new situations.R etelling involves creativity, w hether in oral o r in w ritten form .It is imposible to tell the 'sam e' story twice.Each telling has its own context and its own message.T he tru th o f this state m e n t is confirm ed by th e retellin g o f th e stories of the O ld T estam en t w ithin th e O ld T estam en t, as well as in la te r Jew ish lite ra tu re .E ach tim e a story or event is retold, it is done for a specific purpose and from a specific point of view.In other words, each account involves creativity.Tlie sam e applies to oral transm ission of history.Even if M ark's version of narrative units is based on au thoritative transm ission of tradition, or on w ritten accounts of certain chunks of m aterial in his G ospel, he m ade up his own story by putting the narrative units into the o rd e r he w anted and into the fram ew ork he developed.It is im portant and significant to see th a t M ark knitted the Jesus tradition into a new narrative web of his own.E ven if he had based his version o f Jesu s' speech on the M ount o f O lives in M ark 13, for instance, on an existing Jewish flyleaf, as is often assum ed, this n arra ted speech of Jesus, which is a network of quotations and allusions to the O ld T e sta m ent, has its own M arcan message and function (see V orster 1987).As it stands, it refers back to precursor texts and to intertextual codes o f apocalyptic disruption and disaster, b ut it also takes up the apocalyptic them e o f the im m inent com ing o f the Son o f M an, w hich is a M arcan c re a tio n (see Mack 1987).T he sam e ap p lies to o th er m aterial in the G ospel of Mark which can probably be connected to pre-M arcan collections or pre-M arcan w ritten or oral compositions.In addition to the many studies on the texts behind and in the G ospel of M ark, two recen t a tte m p ts have b een m ade at describing the G ospel as the rew riting of O ld T estam en t stories.A lthough I am not convinced ab o u t the total outcom e of eith er (see R oth 1988; M iller & M iller 1990) they have both indicated how im por tant it is to regard M ark's G ospel as a creation o f a new text.T he M illers correctly ISSN 0259 9422 -/ n S « / ? (1993) observe that New T estam en t w riters created w hat they call new midrashim on older texts.They argue th a t M ark did not simply in terp re t the O ld T estam en t m idrashically.M ark created a new midrash -th at is, new scripture in typical Jewish fashion.This is an o th er way of seeing the im portance of creativity in M ark's G ospel.It also supports my argum ent.W e have already noticed th at M ark did not h esitate to use the O ld T estam en t o u t o f context, an d th a t it is p ro b ab le th a t he did th e sam e w ith the tra d itio n he received.T his simply un d ersco res o ur n o tio n th at he retold trad itio n for his own purposes.By doing this M ark created a new text from o th e r texts, traces of which can be seen in his text.T he relatio n sh ip b etw een the final text o f th e G ospel of M ark and p recursor and o th er texts is an in tertextual relationship.T h ere is no causal relationship b e t ween this new text and the texts out of which M ark m ade his text.M ark q u oted o t h er texts, and his story alludes to o th er texts and absorbed o th er texts.This is how his story becom es m eaningful and different from o th er stories with the sam e them e when the read er interprets M ark's texts in the light of o th er texts known to h im /h er.T h ere is a total difference betw een an attem pt w here the G ospel of M ark is u n d ersto od from the perspective of its production, and an attem p t w here it is u n d e r stood from the perspective of its growth.T he first approach seriously considers that any allusion o r qu otatio n from a n o th er text form s an integral p art o f the new text, even when it seem s to be out of context.The latter regards the final text, which has relationships with precursor texts, as the result o f a causal process.W orks cited B otha, P J J 1989.D ie dissipels in die M arkusevangelie.D D-proefskrif, Universiteit van Pretoria.B randenburger, E 1984.M arkus 13 und die Apokaliptik.G ottingen; V andenhoeck.B reytenbach, C 1992.M N H M O N E Y E IN : D as 'sich-erinnern in d e r urchristlichen Ú b e rlieíeru n g : D ie B eth an ien e p iso d e (M k 14;3-9/Jn 12:1-8) als B eispiel, in Denaux, A (ed), John and the synoptics, 548-557.Leuven: Peeters.C rossan, J D 1988.The cross that spoke: The origins o f the passion narrative.San Francisco: H arp er & Row.D ibelius, M 1971.Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums.6.Aufl.T ubingen: Mohr.D raism a, S (ed) 1989.Intertextuality in biblical writings: Essays in honour o f Bas van lersel.K am pen: Kok.394 HTS 49/3 (1993)