The current debate: Galilee versus Jerusalem in Mark's story of Jesus

2.


INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is twofold: First, to give a review of the past and present debate in regard to the (political) opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in the Gospel of Mark. Second, to identify the research gaps in this debate which then will be used as a starting point for an analysis of Galilee and Jerusalem as political settings in Mark's story of Jesus.
To review the past and present scholarship in regard to the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark's story of Jesus, the following scheme is selectedl: First, the studies that used a historical-critical approach to analyze the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in the Gospels are discussed (section 2.2), then studies that used a literary-critical approach to analyze this opposition in Mark's story of Jesus (section 2.3), and finally, ideological-critical studies are taken into consideration (2.4)2.
In section 2.2 it will be indicated that historical-critical studies of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem were motivated by a historical concern in regard to the composition of Mark's gospel. They yielded the result that a theological, eschatological and geographical opposition, historically and socially speaking, may have existed between the centers of Galilee and Jerusalem in the time of Mark's writing of the Gospel. These scholars' work served as a stimulus for the literary-critical studies of space in Mark's gospel (section 2.3). By taking more seriously Mark. as literary text, these scholars indicated that the central spatial designation in Mark is that of the way of Jesus, a way that can be depicted as a way of suffering. Finally, in section 2.4 it will be indicated that the ideological-critical studies of Belo, Myers and Waetjen, although not explicitly concentrating on space in Mark's story of Jesus, translated Jesus' way, as well as the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark into social terms: Jesus' way was a way of suffering, because of a political opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in the Gospel.
In section 2.5 the current debate (described in sections 2.2 to 2.4) will be evaluated. From this evaluation (in section 2.5), research gaps will be identified. The research gaps identified will then serve as the point of departure for a study of Galilee and Jerusalem as (political) settings (focal space/symbols; see section 3.4 for the meaning of this term) in Mark's story of Jesus. WMarxsen opposition is implicitly stressed and taken into consideration. To put it in Marxsen own words: 'Galilee is obviously the evangelist's own creation. Mark does not intend to say: Jesus worked in Galilee, but rather: Where Jesus worked, there is Galilee' (Marxsen 1959:93). By stressing the importance of Galilee, against the 'unimportance' of Jerusalem, the opposition between Galilee versus Jerusalem, as was the case with Lohmeyer and Lightfoot, therefore is actually still of great importance for Marxsen The major reason why the Gospel was written was the hope of the parousia. Kelber, however, differs from Marxsen in the sense by situating the Gospel in the aftermath of the Jewish war and the destruction of the temple. He argues furthermore that the Gospel was written as a polemical work of the north (Galilee) aimed at the ruined tradition of the south (Jerusalem) formed on Peter and the Twelve. According to his reconstruction, the religious leaders in Jerusalem, after Jesus' resurrection, betrayed Jesus' original vision. Self-styled Christian prophets of Jerusalem fell into an eschatological heresy that the parousia will occur in Jerusalem, and the family and the failed disciples of the Markan Jesus joined the Jerusalem authorities in opposing him .. A conflict between Galilean Christianity and Jerusalem Christianity therefore exists in the Gospel.
For Mark, the place of the parousia and the kingdom is not Jerusalem but Galilee.
The time of the occurrence of the parousia is not in Jesus' generation, but Mark's own time. Mark's writing therefore, tries to explain the extinction of the Jerusalem church and the abolition of Jewish legalism to vindicate the Gentile mission and emphasize the way of the cross. Although Kelber admits that Galilee has more than mere geographic meaning for Mark, with rather strong theological and symbolic overtones, he is of the opinion that, historically speaking, the emphasis on Galilee in Mark must also be understood from the fact that Jesus' actual ministry was aimed at the poor and oppres-Galilee versus Jerusalem: "i theological conflict sed in the despised northern province of Israel (see also Kealy 1982:216; Matera 1987 a: 12-14 for a more detailed summary of Kelber's position in this regard).
In a certain sense, therefore, Kelber's understanding of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem clearly stands in line with the work of Lohmeyer, Lightfoot and Marxsen. It can, however, also be said that, to a certain extent, Kelber challenges these earlier scholars' emphasis of Mark 14:28 and 16:7 and s~resses the importance of Mark 1: 14-15 and Mark 13 (Kelber 1974:3-15, 110). According to Kelber (1974:143), Mark 13 must be understood as Mark's detachment from Jerusalem, and Mark 1: [14][15] (the program of the Gospel) as Mark's attachment to Galilee. It must cilso be noted that Kelber (1974: 129) moves the study of geographical settings in the Gospel in several new directions in that he sees the Galilee -Jerusalem polarity as only one of the important aspects of the spatial framework of the Gospel. Jesus' voyages on the sea, as well as his journeys on the way, are also important to him.

Summary
The historical-critical investigations into the opposition of Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark, as discussed in sections 2.2.1.1 to 2.2.1.4, yielded the result that a theological, eschatological and geographical opposition, historically and socially speaking, may have existed between the centers of Galilee and Jerusalem in the time of Mark's composition of his Gospel. According to Lohmeyer, the main reason for this opposition was a difference in the two centers' understanding of the cult and eschatology, thus a theological opposition: Galilee is the place gospel, the new 'kommende Gotteshaus', and Jerusalem that of the cult, the place of the traditional 'Gottestadt'. Lightfoot agrees with Lohmeyer in the sense that he also formulates this opposition in terms of eschatology. Because Galilee will be the sphere of divine revelation (the seat of the gospel), Jerusalem must be seen as the center of human rejection, the center of relentless hostility and sin3. In this sense the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem therefore also can be seen as geographical, implicitly derived from the theological opposition in the Gospel. According to Marxsen, at the time of the composition of the Gospel, the eschatological exprctations in Galilee were so strong that Mark, by ways of his redactional activity, made Galilee the 'home' (present and future) of Jesus. For him, the opposition between these two centers is therefore both theological and geographical. For Kelber this opposition also was one of different understandings of eschatology, although he lays his emphasis in his study of the Gospel on the differences between the theological leaders of both centers in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple.
It is, however, clear that historical concerns about the composition of Mark seem to have motivated the approaches of Lohmeyer, Lightfoot, Marxsen and Kelber. From these historical concerns, theological conclusions were drawn. In a sense, theology thus becomes eschatology, in that eschatology is taken as the key for understanding the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in the Gospel. From historical presuppositions theological conclusions thus emerged.
Regarding the above historical method that was used, it can be asked if the mode how exegetes relate internal evidence (the text itself) to external evidence (historicai occurrences, sociological reconstructions) is legitimate and if it can be helpful to understand the political dynamics of the text properly. My opinion is that it is and can be.
However, two important methodological questions will have to be answered first in regard to the way in which the above historical-critical scholars relate internal evidence to external evidence in their respective studies of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in the Gospel of Mark. The first question is a question of form. Should Mark's gospel be studied as a historical document, or should it rather be considered as a historical narrative and therefore studied as such? If it is seen as a narrated historical record, the second question concerns the historical world and historical occurrences that are referred to in the narrative of Mark. Will a socio-historical analysis of the historical world of the text be legitimate, or should an interpretation be considered which employs (a) well-defined social-scientific model(s)4? In section 2.5 it will be contested that these two questions indeed show the research gaps that exist in the works of Lohmeyer, Lightfoot, Marxsen and Kelber. Not only did they not take the literary form of the Gospel of Mark serious1y, but their analysis of the first-century Mediterranean world of Galilee and Jerusalem lacks that of a well-defined social-scientific analysis. With such an analysis it may be possible to indicate if the identified opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark has to be understood only as a historical, geographical or theological opposition, or also as an ideological, or even a political opposition.  is aimed at the reader, the first and the last sequences (the desert and the tomb) must be seen in unison and the second and fourth sequences (Galilee and Jerusalem) as in opposition to each other. Galilee and Jerusalem and the desert and the tomb are therefore concentrically organized in relation to the middle, and most importantly topographical sequence in the Gospel, the way.

B M F van /ersel
The opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem is expressed in the Gospel by the opposition between inter alia center versus periphery, rural areas versus urban areas, abundant fruit versus no fruit, many synagogues against one temple, beginning versus end, healing against no healing, and Jesus' authority against no authority. The unison between the desert and the grave on its tum is expressed by the eschatological messengers in Mark 1:7-10 and 16:6 and Jesus' statements concerning the way in Mark 1:1-2 and 16:7 (see also Van Iersel1982a:126; 1982b:369-370).
According to Van Iersel (1983:45-52) this structure of space in the Gospel can be summarized, in relation to the work of Jesus, as follows: Central in the Gospel of Mark is the way on which Jesus must go. The sequences of the desert and the tomb describe this way as a way in which death and life play an important role. This way from life to death and to life again will be a way of conflict, which is expressed by the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem. Jesus' way is therefore a way of suffering.
Van Iersel's' contribution is thus in a sense a complement on the work of Lohmeyer up to Kelber. For Van Iersel the most important topographical space in Mark is the way, and not Galilee and Jerusalem as in the contributions of Lohmeyer, Lightfoot, Marxsen and Kelber. The opposition of Galilee versus Jerusalem functions for Van Iersel only as an extension of 'the way' of Jesus in the Gospel, and not as the most important topographical aspect of the text.

D Rhoads and D Michie
The work of Rhoads & Michie, Mark as story: An introduction to the narrative of a gospel (1982), was the first publication on Mark that took the narrative aspect of the Gospel of Mark as a whole seriously. By using Seymour Chatman's insights on the structure of a narrative (see Chatman 1978:9:.43), Rhoads & Michie note that every narrative can be viewed from two vantage points: The story, that is what the narrative is about (consisting of the events, time, characters and settings in the narrative), and the discourse, that is how the story is told (Rhoads & Michie 1982:35-62; see also Chatman 1978: . In connection with . the how of the story, namely it's rhetoric, the single most rhetorical device is that of the omniscient narrator, a narrator who knows the thoughts and feelings of all the characters in the story and which is not bound by time and space. This narrator furthermore represents an ideological point of view6, that is a system of values, by which he interprets the story for the reader. In Mark the point of view of the narrator is aligned with that of Jesus (Rhoads & Michie 1982:35-42).
When Rhoads & Michie turns to the what of Mark's Gospel, they maintain that the different settings in the Gospel (e g the sea, mountain, river, desert) are responsible for the overall movement and development of the plot of the Gospel. However, the central setting in the story, which is also a product of the narrator's point of view, is the move-

N R Petersen
Petersen was one of the first scholars who applied literary criticism to Mark's gospel (see Petersen 1978:49-80). As a literary critic, Petersen sees the text as a whole, a world which, once created by the implied author, takes on an existence of its own. Although Petersen's interest in reading Mark was not directed towards an analysis of space in the Gospel, the results of his study concerning the relation between Mark 13 and Mark 16:7-8 has some importance for the understanding of the narrator's application of the focal spaces Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark (Petersen 1978a: 112-118; 1980a: 151-166).
According to Petersen's analysis of Mark the 'storyteller's principal plot device is one of prediction and fulfillment' (Petersen 1980a:155). By this he means that all the predictions in the Gospel are also fulfllled in the Gospel itself. This, however, seems not to be the case for the prediction in Mark 16:7. In trying to unravel this peculiarity in Mark, Petersen (1980a: 157 -162) takes two points of departure: First, it is impossible for this prediction not to be fulfilled in the text because it would assault the narrator's own credibility. Second, a solution for this problem may possibly lie in an ironic reading of the text that distinguishes between, on the one hand, the narrative world and narrative text of the narrator, and, on the other hand, between story time and plotted time in the Gospel (Petersen 1978b: 49-80; 1980a:155-1617). Taking these distinctions in consideration, Petersen (1980a:158-160) comes to the conclusion that Mark 13 must be seen as the fulfillment of the prediction in Mark 16:7-8.
The importance of Petersen's understanding of these texts for our study of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem as settings in Mark is the following: Jerusalem is not only 'conquered' by Galilee in the Gospel itself, but also in the 'open end' of the Gospel (see Petersen 1980a:157).
In a sense, therefore, the results of Van Iersel and Rhoads & Michie concerning the relation between Galilee (as the 'domain' of the successful Jesus) and Jerusalem (as the 'domain' of the opposition to and killing of Jesus) is complemented by the results of N R Petersen Petersen. Because, for Petersen (1980a:161-162), the setting of Mark 13 is that of Galilee, the end of Mark is not its end, but in fact its beginning. As the Gospel started in Galilee, so it ends in Galilee. But it also begins in Galilee again. For Petersen, therefore, there is not only an explicit opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in the Gospel itself, but also in the open-end of the Gospel. Because the Gospel starts and ends in Galilee, the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem is made much more explicit. (For a m('re detailed summary of Petersen' point of view, see also VanEck 1984: 47-52;1988:154-156;Vorster 1987bVorster :203-2248Dewey 1989:32-44.) 2.3.5 E S Malbon Malbon's work on the meaning and structure of space in Mark can, without contradiction, be called the most extensive of any scholar up to date (see Malbon 1979Malbon , 1982Malbon , 1984Malbon , 1986aMalbon , 1986b. Her work on space in Mark can be calied a structural analysis of the spatial/mythical relations in Mark based on the hermeneutical theory of Claude Levi-Strauss, which she adapted slightly (see Malbon 1986a:2-8). What Malbon is most interested in is an exposition of the mythical structure of Mark as mediated through the spatial relations in the narrative. Malbon, therefore, is trying to uncover the 'deep structure' of Mark as it is manifested in the various spatial relations in the Gospel. This she does by considering all Markan spatial locations in their system of relationships and to consider the significance of this system in terms of an 'underlying, nonmanifest, mythological system' (Mal bon 1986a:2). Although Mark is not myth, it does contain a mythical structure (Malbon 1986a:3).
Following Levi-Strauss, Malbon notes that myth operates to mediate irreconcilable oppositions by successively replacing them with oppositions that permit mediation.
The basic opposition in any text is that of the syntagmatic and paradigmatic aspects of the text. The syntagmatic constraint constitutes the sequential ordering of the text, and the paradigmatic aspect constitutes the relational patterning of the text9. Applied to space in the Gospel, the syntagmatic aspect of the text is the chronological ordering of the different settings to which the narrator refers, and the paradigmatic aspect is the different relationships that exist between the settings which occur in the chronological narrating activity of the text' s narrator.
In applying the above mentioned model, Malbon divides the spatial order of Mark Intertwined with the story of Jesus are two other story lines in the Gospel, that of the religious authorities, and that of the disciples. The story of the religious authorities is that they act as those 'without authority' (Kingsbury 1989:87). On the other hand, the story of the disciples is that of followers of Jesus who are at once loyal to him yet uncomprehending.

J D Kingsbury
The goal of Kingsbury's book is to trace and interpret the conflict between this three story lines. The shortcoming of Kingsbury's reading of Mark, however, is that he never tries to relate this identified conflict in Mark to the first-century Mediterranean social setting of the Gospel. This is also, in my opinion, the 'first research gap in his narratological reading of Mark. The second shortfall of his work is that he nowhere spells out the narratological theory/model that he is using, and therefore his results cannot be verified in terms of such a model12. The third and last research gap of his reading of Mark (although it is not his intention as such) is the fact that he nowhere attends to the possible meaning that the different spatial relations in the Gospel may have on an understanding of his identified conflict in the Gospel. These research gaps will be attended to in section 2.5.

7 Summary
The historical-critical investigations into the opposition of Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark as discussed in section 2.2 yielded the result that a theological, eschatological and geographical opposition, historically and socially speaking, may have existed between the centers Galilee and Jerusalem in the time of Mark's composition of his Gospel. As has been noted in sections 1.1 and 2.3.1, the insights of Lohmeyer, Lightfoot, Marxsen and Kelber, in regard to the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark, served as stimuli for the literary-critical studies of the structure of space in the Gospel of Mark as described in sections 2.3.2 to 2.4.613. By using the insights of Lohmeyer, Lightfoot, Marxsen and Kelber as a starting point, and by taking the literary structure of the text seriously, new results were brought to the fore. According to Van Iersel (1982a, 1982b, 1983, Galilee and Jerusalem indeed are opposed in Mark, but this opposition is not the only one that can be deduced from the text: In Mark there are two main oppositions, the desert versus the tomb and Galilee versus Jerusalem (in terms of inter alia periphery versus center and rural versus urban areas). These two binary oppositions, however, serve to highlight the main spatial reference of the Gospel, namely 'the way' of Jesus. This way is a way from the desert to the tomb (in which life and death play an important role), and from Galilee to Jerusalem (a way of conflict between Jesus' activity in Galilee and the Jerusalem religious leaders' evaluation thereof). Understood as such, Jesus' way is a 'way of suffering'. For Rhoads & Michie this is also the case, in that they see the activity of Jesus as a conflict between 'ruling for God' and the religious leaders that 'rule for themselves' (cf especially Mk 8:33; 12:1-12).
Also Malbon sees Jesus' activity as resolving this opposition by 'not arriving, but being on the way' (Malbon 1986a:168). According to Malbon (1986a:40), three spatial suborders can be indicated in Mark's gospel: The geopolitical, the topographical and the architectural. The geopolitical suborder consists inter alia of the opposition between familiar/Jewish homeland and strange/foreign lands; the topographical suborder relates inter alia to the way of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem; and the architectural suborder inter alia relates to the opposition between house and temple. By being on the way, Jesus resolves all these spatial oppositions in the Gospel, but by doing it, his way becomes a way of suffering. This also is the conclusion of Petersen: The Gospel not only starts in Galilee, but also ends in Galilee (Petersen 1980a:l51-166). Jesus' way is a way from Galilee, through suffering in Jerusalem and back to Galilee. As Jesus suffered by being killed for his 'way' in the Gospel, so will the disciples suffer in the future by walking on the same 'way' (cf Mk 13:9-13)14.
For these scholars, therefore, the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem is not the most important spatial issue in Mark, but rather the way/activity of Jesus' suffering. Understood as such, the opposition. between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark serves to highlight 'the way' of suffering of Jesus (as a way from Galilee to Jerusalem). The 'way' can therefore be seen as the central aspect of Mark's spatial structure.
A definite shift in the understanding of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark can therefore be indicated in terms of the results of, on the one hand, the historical-critical scholars discussed in sections 2.2.1.1 to 2.2.1.4, and, on the other hand, the literary-critical scholars discussed in sections 2.3.2 to 2.3.6. Where the historical-critical scholars understand and try to explain the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in terms of historical, : · .:ological and eschatological differences in the early church, this opposition is seen by the above mentioned literary critics as a result of Jesus' way of suffering from Galilee to Jerusalem. Because Jesus' activity in Galilee is questioned by the religious leaders in Jerusalem, conflict arises, and therefore Jesus' proclamation of the arrived kingdom of God becomes a way of suffering.
In sections 1.1 and 2.3.1 it was indicated that a literary-critical approach has the advantage that the text is taken more seriously as literary whole (cf e g Petersen 1978:49-80; Rhoads & Michie 1982:35-65; Van Iersel 1982a:119; Kingsbury 1989:3-5). From the above discussion it became clear that, in regard to the study of space in the Gospel of Mark, this approach enabled the mentioned literary-critical scholars to build on the insights and results that were yielded by the historical-critical approach: Central in Mark's spatial structure is the way of Jesus, a way of suff~ng which starts in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem. However, as will be indicated in section 2.5, literary-criticism, by concentrating on the text only, has a shortcoming: It does not take the first-century Mediterranean world in which Mark as text evolved into consideration.
To such studies of the Gospel of Mark we now turn our attention in section 2.4. In this section, it will be indicated that Belo (1981), Myers (1988) and Waetjen (1989) analyze Mark's story of Jesus in terms of their respective understandings of the socio-Summary economic background of first-century Mediterranean society (as a stratified agrarian society). This enables them to understand Jesus' way as a way of suffering, that is, as a result of the fact that the narrator of Mark depicts the opposition Galilee and Jerusalem as a political one. However, although Belo, Myers and Waetjen's respective points of departure in reading the Gospel differs, they all conclude that the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark can be seen as a political opposition. We now tum to a discussion of their respective works.

F Belo
Belo's (1981:xi) materialistic reading of the Gospel of Mark 'is the fruit of passion and naivete', with the purpose 'to make possible a confrontation between a political practice that aims to be revolutionary, and a Christian practice that no longer aims at being reli- 'mode of production' amounts to two important aspects in society: The relationships of production between producers and non-producers, and the forces of production. Seen from these two aspects, Belo concludes that the mode of production is the base (i e dominant) of any particular society.
Because Belo sees the economic instance as the dominant institution in any society, he turns in the second part of his book to the mode of production in biblical Palestine to expose the socio-economic setting of the biblical writings in order to show the relevance of such concepts as mode of production and class struggle (Belo (1981:37-86).
In this regard, Belo is of the opinion that in ancient Palestine, the law defined the symbolic universe and symbolic order that regulated the relationships between persons in the social formations of table, house and sanctuary: 'The Law constitutes ... the symbolic order that regulates the relations between the bodies of the agents of the social formation, which is the Law's symbolic field' (Belo 1981 :37). In connection to the law as symbolic order, Belo (in following Von Rad 1965, Gottwald 1979, Brueggemann 1983) discerns within the Old Testament legislative texts two opposing systems: The Yahwist system based on gift (the debt-system) and concerned with equality and tribal self-rule which was favored by the common people of the land. On the other hand there was a system favored by the ruling classes which was based on the concepts of pollution versus purity which was priestly, oppressing, centralizing and bureaucratic in its focus on the exercise of sacral and royal power (see also Fuesse1 1983:135).
According to Belo (1981 :56-58), the priestly case laid emphasis on the pollution system to attain a privileged position in society. They further consolidated their position by using the debt system, which was preferred by the lower classes, in terms of tithes to the temple to get even more political and economic power. According to Belo (1981: 38), beginning at a certain period in the subasiatic monarchy, these two systems were related to each other by a dialectic which is that of class struggle. This dialectical relationship between these two systems also gave the temple its political and economical centrality. It was because of this situation that the rebellious group, called the Zealots, arose as one of the manifestations of the political instances of biblical Palestine. It is then from this identified symbolic order, class struggle and emphasis on the temple that Belo (1981:99-240) sets out to read Mark, and especially the activity of Jesus. In reading Mark, Belo (1981:98-232) divides the text into seven sections. In the first section (Mk 1 : 1-15) we find a circuit of voices ( i e that of God [heaven], Jesus and John) which program the text to follow in terms of a topographical code: The itinerary of Jesus from Galilee to Judea (temptation) and back to Galilee anticipates Jesus' later itinerary in the Gospel, that is from Galilee to Jerusalem (Judea) to temptation and death and back to Galilee. Jesus' descent from Galilee here also anticipates his later ascent to Jerusalem. In the first fifteen verses we thus find a programmatic loop with it's own opening and closure, and therefore, also the determination and boundaries of Jesus' activity.
The second section is comprised of Mark 1 : 16-3:6. This section is characterized by a narrative of three types of practice on Jesus' part, namely new teaching, expulsion of demons and healing. This practice gives rise to the strategy of the crowd to seek out Jesus wherever he is, and also Jesus' strategy to avoid the crowd as much as possible. In this section (especially Mk 2:1-3:6), Jesus also sets out to subvert the Jewish symbolic social world in terms of their understanding of the pollution-and debt systems. Jesus' interpretation of these two systems is 'to save a life', while that of the Pharisees is 'to take a life' (cf Mk 3:1-5). These two antithetical strategies also define the goals of Jesus and the Pharisees later in the Gospel, as will be seen in Mark 8:31-13:36, the sixth section in Mark that Belo identifies which revolves around Jesus' cleansing ('replacing') of the temple. The references to the Son of Man in section three, which deal with the sabbath and sinners, as well as the metaphor of the bridegroom, also refer to the eschatological kingdom of God that Jesus represents.
The main object of section three (Mk 3:7-4:34) is Jesus' use of parables to set off the disciples from the crowd. In this section, it is clear that Jesus' dominant strategic concern is to teach his disciples the correct reading of his practice (cf Mk 4:35-5:1; 7: 1-24; 8: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. This practice of Jesus is threefold: First, it is a practice of power in relation to the bodies of those that have been afflicted with uncleanness. Second, it is a practice of teaching (that is to read Jesus' practice of power correctly), and finally, it is a practice of subverting the Jewish symbolic field and symbolic order in terms of his own understanding of the systems of pollution and debt. This threefoldness of Jesus' activity enables Jesus' practice to relate to three sites of the body of his followers: First, the hands that touch, second, the eyes that read and ears that hear, and finally, the feet that move about.
The fourth section (Mk 4:35-8:30), called the sequence of the boat, can be divided into two sub-sequences, that of the twelve (Mk 4:35-6: 13) and that of the loaves (Mk 6: 14-8:30)21. The sequence of the twelve tells of the completion of Jesus' mission in Galilee and the part played by the disciples in this mission. The goal of the sequence of the loaves is twofold: First, in feeding the crowds, Jesus widens the horizon of his practice to embrace also that which lies beyond the borders of Israel, the pagans. Second, Jesus' constant efforts to separate the disciples from the crowd must be seen as an effort from his side to lead the disciples to read his practice as messianic, and the crowd to read it as zealotic. However, Peter's response in Mark 8:29 shows that the disciples see Jesus, despite all his efforts to show them otherwise, as a leader of the zealot type22.
Because of this, the fifth section (Mk 8:31-13:36), according to Belo (1981: 155-204), is structured around Jesus' destruction of the temple and the recognition/failurein-recognition of the disciples relating to the true messiahship of Jesus. Jesus' destruction of the temple can be seen as a final consequence of his practice of subverting the Jewish symbolic field (of which the temple is the main center), but also because of the rejection of his messiahship by the chief priests, scribes and elders. A further consequence of Jesus' cleansing of the temple is that it announces a shift from the mission of Jesus to Israel to a mission to the pagans. Finally, the destiny of the temple was also at stake in connection to the opposition between the strategy of Jesus and that of the Zealots. Where the Zealots focused on liberating the temple and Israel from the Roman occupiers, Jesus' strategy was to abandon the temple and to opt for a new exodus to the pagans. The teaching of Jesus by using the scheme of 'the road', and his call 'to be followed after' can also be seen as relating to this exodus. This opens up the possibility for the new ecclesia without the presence of Jesus.
The oppositions child/adult, servant/master, first/last and rich/poor define the boundaries of this new community. Furthermore, the opposition between Jesus and the temple shows that in this new community, the economy of the temple-treasury23 will be replaced by Jesus, a gift which should be for the benefit of all. The life in the new community will be that of the question between 'losing one's life' (if the community falls back into the symbolic system of the religious leaders) and 'gaining one's life' (by living according to the new rules of Jesus). This, however, will only come accompanied by inevitable persecutions on the part of the classes that have authority, namely the scribes, chief priests and elders.
In the penultimate section of Mark (Mk 14: 1-14: 72), the two opposing strategies of Jesus and his adversaries become even more distinct. Jesus is extending his mission to the pagans while his adversaries are trying to kill him because of the new mission.
Here the way Judas acted is an example of how one should not live in Jesus' new community, and the way Peter acted (by repenting) is an example of how one should live in the new community of Jesus.
In the last section (Mk 15:1-16:8), it becomes clear that Jesus' scathing attack on the temple inevitably led to his trial and death. Because the temple was the seat of economic power of the ruling elite in Judea, and Jesus attacked their economic power by abolishing the temple, they had no other choice than to kill Jesus. For Belo the trial of Jesus therefore centers on two rival ideologies: The prevailing ideology of the ruling elite that grows out of the temple's mode of production, and 1esus' ideological commitment to replace the temple, which arises out of his practice of the hands, ears and eyes, and feet.
In part four of his book Belo (1981:241-297), translates his above mentioned conclusion, namely that Jesus ministry to the poor in his time was a ministry of the hands, feet and eyes, into a materialistic ecclesiology, that is in terms of the 'struggle' of today's poor and believers. Jesus' ministry of the hands, which transforms bodies, consists of a practice that is operative on the economicallevel24. The Pharisees' objection that healing is a work forbidden on the sabbath, the narratives of the loaves where Jesus replaces buying with giving, the rich man that must go and sell everything and give to the poor and the temple-economy that is replaced by Jesus with a ecclesial economy correlates to this practice of the hands. Materialistic ecclesiology at the economic level therefore consists in the extension to the whole world as a table where all the poor are fed and fllled. To love the poor person as yourself amounts to seeing to it that he or she is fllled as you are. This practice of economic love is called charity.
The practice of the feet is the movement of Jesus from place to place, the geographical extension of Jesus' practice to all, especially the outsiders and the poor.
This leads to a new family, not based on blood or master-servant relations, but on equality. One becomes part of this new ecclesia by way of conversion, that is a break with society as understood by the religious leaders (i e, in terms of the law) and the codes that regulate it. This puts this practice of Jesus in the sphere of the political.
Jesus' opposition to the hierarchy of classes in early Palestine, his subversion of the social (temple) structure as political instance, his mission to the pagans and his founding of a new community in Mark, correlates with this. This new community of Jesus without any classes is called a community of hope. Finally, the practice of the eyes is HTS Supplementum 7 (1995) to see what is right and wrong in any system of classes, and also to dismantle the ideology that governs any such society. It is therefore messianic practice on the ideological level and is to be called a practice of obedience in faith.
This strategy of Jesus' messianic practice, therefore, has all the markings of a radically communist strategy (Belo 1981 :261). It is however, a non-revolutionary strategy (Belo 1981 : 261), in that it does not aim to eliminate class systems in current societies, but rather aims for a communist ecclesiality: A _gathering of a circle of poor people without any rich people, servants without any masters, that is, sons of man without any relations of domination or kinship. This was also the new community Jesus created among the pagans.
To summarize: Belo'.s aim is to read Mark with the help of Karl Marx. According to Belo, Jesus was committed to subvert Palestine's economic system. So were the Zealots, but they aimed at restoring the pre-Roman subasiatic economy, while Jesus wanted to institute communism. The chief obstacle to Jesus' communist program was temple-centered Palestine. Its pollution-code governing food, sacrifice and sex supported the interests of the dominant class. Deuteronomy and the prophets had tried adding to it some concern over what human beings owed each other. Their failure convinced Jesus that the whole temple-system had to be abandoned in favor of an ecclesia among the pagans.
Jesus begins his subversion of Palestine's economic system by healing, teaching and expelling demons. By this, he subverts the scribes and Pharisees' understanding of According to Myers ( 1988: 112-115), each prologue introduces the essential characters and plot compilations of each book. Each takes place on the way, discusses the relationship between Jesus and John-as-Elij3h, and articulates a call to discipleship. In each book, this is followed by a campaign of direct action which consists of a series of conflict stories which dramatize Jesus' challenge to the Jewish symbolic order as it determined the everyday social life of the peasants. Both campaigns also involve confrontative actions in terms of healings and exorcisms. These two campaign narratives are complemented by two sections that function mainly to legitimate the alternative social practice that Jesus is adv~cating. This in turn is respectively followed by an extended sermon of Jesus, which Myers (1988:113) calls 'a moment of literary reflection•33. This is followed by two passion narratives, that of John in Book I and Jesus in Book II. The general structural symmetry in Mark is finally completed by two respective symbolic epilogues, a call to both the disciples and the reader to 'reread' the narrative. Let us look into these different narratives in more detail.
BOOK I Prologue/Call to discipleship ( Mark is thus creating a spatial tension between two opposite symbolic spaces: The temple and its representatives, and the periphery with its representatives, namely the oppressed and marginalized in the society. Or, stated differently in Myers' own words: '[T]he main geopolitical opposition in Mark is between the social periphery (positive) and the center (negative), which is of course itself a reversal of the dominant code'. Finally, during his baptism Jesus is declared as 'an outlaw' so to speak; he will be the one that will challenge the oppressive structures of law and order around him (Myers 1988: 130). Here at the end of the second direct campaign in Jerusalem, Jesus again withdraws, this time to teach his disciples how to discern and endure the end to come. The rebels were on the way to Jerusalem, and they were recruiting people in their plight (Mk 13:6-8).
Jesus, however, is counter-recruiting. Why not aid and became part of the rebel cause? Because it was mere rebellion, the recycling of oppressive power in new hands. To journey deeper into history, to experiment with a political practice that will break the reign of domination in the world, the disciples must be prepared to suffer, that is, to 'take up the cross': They must practice nonviolent resistance (Myers 1988:343). However, this would definitely mean political persecution (Mk 13:9-13). . The first section is comprised of four aspects: The leaders who seek to arrest Jesus, the leaders who recruit Judas as an informer, Jesus predicts that one will betray him, and Jesus predicts that all will desert him. In the second epilogue, the women become the 'lifeline' of the discipleship narrative (Myers 1988:396). It is they who hear the message from the young man that they must go and tell Peter and the other disciples that he will be found in Galilee (Myers 1988:399). According to Myers this <does not refer either to a parousia or resurrection appearance, but to a future point of n·eference in terms of a past one: Galilee, where the disciples were first called, sent o.n their mission and taught by Jesus. 'In other words, the disciple/reader is being t.old that the narrative, which appeared to have ended, is beginning again. The story iLs circular' (Myers 1988:399).
In addition to this main plot, M ye!rs ( 1988: 120-121) is of the opinion that in Mark we can also abstract three 'subplots': Jesus' attempt to create a new community (the object/target being his disciples), Jesus:;' ministry of healing, exorcism and proclamation of liberation (the object/target being thae poor and oppressed, i e the crowds) and Jesus' confrontation with the dominant socio-symbolic order (the object/target being the Pharisees, Herodians and ruling Jerusalem clergy).
Furthermore, in reading Myers's commentary on Mark it becomes clear that Myers is of the opinion that the Gospel's ptrofound and pervasive awareness of persecution should be attributed to three sources: Rome's persecution of its war in Palestine, the Jewish ruling classes' collaborationistt politics 36 and the Jewish rebels' attempts to recruit rural peasants to take up arms in the revolt against Rome37. Mark's community, Myers hypothesizes, was undcer severe pressure to take sides in this situation, and their option for non-alignment brought them under attack from all three powers. Though non-aligned, Mark's commuflity was hardly non-involved: 'The narrative strongly suggests that Mark's community is in fact practicing some communal model (1 0:28) and experiencing social oppression because of it' (Myers 1988:442). This model was a revolutionary one in which Gentiles, women, and children were accorded positions of authority, respect and honor38.
In this new communal order, Ma .. k teaches his community to accept the cross as Jesus did, and therefore the Gospel is ffirmly anchored in a living community's practice and experience of discipleship. The weight of their problems, however, threatened at times to crush the community, and therefore Mark repeatedly confronts his readers with failure in commitment to discipleship. In this situation, Mark shows us that Jesus himself is ever 'on the way' before them tto guide and inspire their following and living in this new community (see also  of which a brief summary will now be given44.

HTS Supplementum 7 (1995)
Beginning the construction of the way (Mk 1:1-11) The Gospel of Mark tells the story of the construction of 'the way' (Waetjen 1989:63).
It features the extraordinary career of Jesus, the Jew, 'from Nazareth of Galilee' whose unparalleled activity establishes once and for all a new road to life. In this regard, Waetjen (1989:67-'"'4) argues that Jesus' baptism by John (Mk 1 :9-11) can be seen as a  Rejection in Nazareth and the rising need to prepare the disciples for their own ministry in the future (Mk 6: 1- 56) In this section of the narrative, Jesus travels to his hometown (Mk 6:1-6). Jesus' present activities however are so discontinuous with the past in which the townsfolk of his hometown have imprisoned him, that they are uncertain that this is the same person who grew up among them, and therefore he is rejected. Jesus then sends out the recently appointed twelve in order to enter into his commission (Mk 6:7-13). When If therefore, Peter's confession is to be retained, it had to be filled with a new content, and therefore Jesus predicts for the first time that it is necessary that the New Human Being had to suffer and be killed by the Jewish elite, that is, the elder, the chief priests and the scribes (W aetjen 1989: 145). They will reject hini and hand him over to the Romans for execution precisely because the rule of God which he is establishing will eventually abolish the moral order they attribute to divine origin and which is safeguarded with the power of capital punishment (Waetjen 1989: 145-146). To summarize: According to Waetjen, the Gospel of Mark tells the story of Jesus' construction of the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. After his baptism, Jesus, as the New Human Being, establishes God's new rule by his healings, teaching and exorcisms. This reordering of society brings him in conflict with the guardians of society. Jesus, however, founds a new Israel, and goes on to undermine the Jewish elite's understanding of society in terms of pollution, oppression and dispossession. When Jesus enters Jerusalem, he closes down the temple, the institution that had functioned as the control center of the tributary mode of production which appropriated the agricultural surplus of the peasants and redistributed it among the temple functionaries, therefore, the pinnacle of oppression and exploitation in Palestine. Finally, Jesus is killed as a political revolutionary. However, through the narrative's open end, Mark's addressees are summoned once more to follow him along the way that leads from existential death to resurrection, that which empowers one to work, like Jesus, for a reordering of power.

Summary
The historical-critical investigations into the opposition of Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark, as discussed in sections 2.2.1.1 to 2.2.1.4, yielded the result that a theological, eschatological and geographical opposition, historically and socially speaking, may have existed between the centers of Galilee and Jerusalem in the time of Mark's composition of his Gospel. In general, therefore, these studies were motivated by a historical concern in connection with the composition of Mark's gospel.
In section 2.3, it was argued that the insights of Lohmeyer, Lightfoot, Marxsen and Kelber, concerning the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark, served as stimuli for the literary-theoretical study of the structure of space in the Gospel of Mark. The main contributions of these scholars (see 2.3.2 to 2.3.6), are twofold: Fi~t, the text of Mark as a literary unit is taken more seriously. Second, as result of taking the text more seriously, these scholars brought a new and important aspect of the structure of space in Mark to the fore: The central aspect of Mark's spatial structure is that of 'the way' of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. Understood as such, the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark serves to highlight that 'the way' of Jesus (from Galilee to Jerusalem) can be seen as the central aspect of Mark's spatial structure. This way of Jesus is a way of suffering, a way of conflict between Jesus' activities in Galilee (ruling for God), and the Jerusalem religious leaders' evaluation thereof (ruling for oneself/themselves).
From our above discussion of the works of Belo (section 2.4.2), Myers (section 2.4.3) and Waetjen (section 2.4.4), it can be concluded that 'the way' of Jesus, as identified by the different literary-critics discussed in sections 2.3.2 to 2.3.6, is a way of suffering because of a political opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in the Summary Gospel. According to Belo, Jesus was committed to subvert Palestine's economic system. Mark 1:1-15 programs Jesus' way in which this will take place: First in Galilee, then in Jerusalem and, after Jesus' death, again in Galilee. The chief obstacle to Jesus' program was temple-centered Palestine. Its pollution-code governing food, sacrifice and sex, supported the interests of the dominant class. Deuteronomy and the prophets had tried adding to it some concern over what human beings owed to each other. Their failure convinced Jesus that the whole temple-system had to be abandoned in favor of an ecclesia among the pagans.
Jesus begins his subversion of Palestine's economic system by healing, teaching and expelling demons. By this, he subverts the scribes' and Pharisees' understanding of the pollution system. When Jesus feeds the multitudes with only five loaves, he acts out his messianic message: Give all you have to fill the hungry, and there will be plenty for all. Eventually, it seems that Peter understands who Jesus is, by proclaiming him as the Messiah. However, because it is clear to Jesus that Peter still did not understand what he wanted to do, Jesus goes on to destruct the temple. Because of this subverting ministry, but especially because Jesus destructed the temple, he drew the authorities' hatred, and was killed. Jesus' attack on the temple therefore inevitably lead to his death. Understood as such, the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem is a political one. This is more or less the same conclusion that Myers arrives at in his political reading of Mark's gospel. According to Myers (1988: 188), 'throughout the Gospel Mark is far more interested in articulating geo-social 'space' in terms of narrative symbolics than actual place names'. Using Mal bon's term geopolitical space (see Mal bon 1986a: 40), Myers argues that in Mark 1: 1-20 it is indicated that Jesus' mission will take place in two opposite symbolic spaces: The temple and its representatives (Jerusalem) and the periphery and its representatives (the oppressed and marginalized in Galilee). Jesus' ministry was a 'war of myths' against the ruling elite. By exorcising demons, teaching and healings, Jesus, on Galilean soil, binds the strong man (ruling elite). In Mark 6:14-29 it becomes clear that John's political execution will also be Jesus' destiny, as well as those of his disciples. In Mark 11 : 15-19 Jesus' direct action against the economic and political exploitation of his day reaches its climax: Jesus shuts down the temple, the centerpiece in Mark's unrelenting criticism of the political economy of the temple. During the double trial narrative, it becomes clear that Mark's narrative means to portray Jesus as convicted on charges of sedition by a Roman politico-legal process. Both parties in the colonial condominium, the Sanhedrin and the Romans, perceived Jesus as a supremely subversive, political and dangerous threat. He had to be eliminated, and they cooperated to do so. Understood as such, the opposition in Mark between Galilee and Jerusalem is a political one.
According to Waetjen, the Gospel of Mark tells the story of Jesus construction of the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. After his baptism, Jesus, as the New Human Being, establishes God's new rule by his healings, teaching and exorcisms. This reordering of society brings him in conflict with the guardians of society. Jesus, however, founds a new Israel, and goes on to undermine the Jewish elite's understanding of society in terms of pollution, oppression and dispossession. When Jesus enters Jerusalem, he closes down the temple, the institution that had functioned as the control center of the tributary mode of production that appropriated the agricultural surplus of the peasants and redistributed it among the temple functionaries, therefore, the pinnacle of oppression and exploitation in Palestine. Finally, Jesus is killed as a political revolutionary. However, through the narrative's open-end, Mark's addressees are summoned once more to follow him along the way that leads from existential death to resurrection, that which empowers one to work, like Jesus, for a reordering of power.
Before we turn to section 2.5, three positive remarks in regard to Belo, Myers and Waetjen' s respective readings of Mark have to be made: First, it is also clear that Belo, Myers and Waetjen give attention both to the text and the social setting thereof. The possible advantage of this association will be discussed in section 3.3.2. Second, because they take the social setting of the Gospel seriously, they are able to translate Jesus' way in Mark into social terms. His way was a way of suffering because of the political opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark (as it is portrayed by the narrator). Davies (1983:64) articulates this aspect of Belo's reading of Mark (and therefore that of Myers and Waetjen also) as follows: [Their] most positive achievement is likely to be [their] sure understanding of the socio-economic, political and religious environment of early Christianity, since such an understanding is basic to a (materialistic or otherwise) reading of Mark's gospel. Third, ideological-critical readings like that of Belo and Waetjen make the interpreter aware of the pragmatical dimension of interpretation, as well as the fact that the object/target of communication has to be taken more seriously. This means that, in the Jesus-story, as reported respectively by the different gospel narratives, the object/target 48

HTS Supplementum 7 (1995)
Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services, 2015 Summary of Jesus' acts and sayings in the embedded micronarratives, as well as in the macronarrative, but also the object of the narrator's communication, have to be highlighted more in our interpretation of the gospels. It sometimes happens that scholars who practice ideological criticism, in concerning themselves with the ideologies within the literary text itself, tend to create a self-reflection of exploited and manipulated readers, so that they can liberate themselves. When this is the case, the manipulated audiences in the text itself, that is Jesus' audience, do not get their rightful attention (see Van Aarde 1991 b: 17). While this is sometimes the case in Myers' analysis of Mark's story of Jesus, it cannot be said of the works of Belo and Waetjen.

EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT DEBATE AND THE IDENTIFICA-
TION OF RESEARCH GAPS In evaluating the current debate concerning the possible political meaning of Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark, it became clear that the three above mentioned schools of thought (historical-critical, literary-critical and ideological-critical) each operate with different sets of presuppositions that are worked out by reading Mark using different exegetical tools. The first question, therefore, that must be asked, is a methodological one.
In section 2. 2. 2, it was contended that the exponents of the historical-critical school's interpretation of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem were motivated by a study of historical concerns relating to the composition of Mark's gospel. The main emphasis of their works was therefore to try to answer the question as to why the Gospel was written. We further saw that from these historical presuppositions theological conclusions emerged. The general conclusion was that the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem is best explained by a difference in an eschatological outlook.
In my opinion, the works (and consequent results) of these scholars were hampered by two methodological shortcomings: In the first place, their historical-critical analysis is overplayed and controlled by their theological understanding of the Gospel, that is, without a grounding in the socio-economical, cultural, political and religious realities of first-century Mediterranean society. Because of this, it was possible to draw theological conclusions from a historical-critical study of Mark. In section 3.3.2, it will be contended that the use of a social-scientific model to study the historical situation (and other aspects) in Palestine at the time of Jesus and Mark can overcome this obstacle.
Second, because of their historical interest ('why' the Gospel was written), the 'how' of the Gospel was neglected. By the 'how' of the Gospel is meant, for example, the intention of the narrator, the function of the narrative, the ideological perspective and the interest from which the narrative is narrated and the function of space, time and characters in Mark's story of Jesus. In short, therefore, these scholars did not take the form of the Gospel (as a narrative) seriously. In section 3.4.3, it will be indiicated that this research gap can be overcome by a well-defined narratological model which not only takes the narrative techniques of Mark seriously, but also inter alia, makes provision for a method in which all spatial relations in any narrative can be studied responsibly. It is also because of this shortfall that the different exponents of the historical-critical school were not able to see that in Mark the meaning of all its spatial relations is more than just an opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem. We must mention, however, to be fair to Kelber (see again section 2. 2.1.4), that he noted that other spatial relations in Mark were also important to understand the full iimplication and meaning of space in the Gospel of Mark.
Turning to the exponents of the literary-critical school's analysis of space in Mark, it was indicated in section 2.3.1 that they made two important contributions concerning the study of space in the Gospel: They took the text of Mark as literary unity seriously, and because of this they soon realized that there was more to the spatial relations in Mark than just the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem. For them, 'the way' of Jesus was the most important spatial relation in the Gospel.
These contributions, however, also have their shortfalls. Van Iersel, foT example, explicitly employs the insights of structuralism in his analysis of space in Mark (see Van Iersel 1983:48-50). This argument can also be leveled against the wo!Tk of Malbon. Malbon's work, apart from the fact that it is a 'structural exegesis as a way of learning about Mark and about narrative space' (Mal bon 1986a: 1 ), also uses the hermeneutical theory of Levi-Strauss. The problem, however, with the works of VanIersel and Malbon is that, in employing structuralism to study space in Mark, the Gospel as an narrative act of communication does not receive its rightful attention. Structuralism, in its strict sense, tries to identify structures in texts. The effect of these structures, or the question of why the narrator is using this particular structure, however falls into the background. Where structuralism only asks the 'how'-question, the 'why' -question also becomes important when one takes the narrative techniques of the Gospels seriously (see Van Eck 1990:151-153; 1991b:1010-1013). Malbo11 and Van Iersel's textual analysis therefore can be complemented by a narratological analysis of the Gospel. In such an analysis, the effect the narrator wants to create with the different identifiable structures in Mark will come to the fore. Another point of critique against Malbon is that she works with a he!"leneutical model (that of Levi-Strauss) that is not literary in its essence, which is drawn into the text to explain the different spatial relations in the text. In section 3.4.3 it will be argued that a narrative itself produces a hermeneutical key to investigate the ideological perspective and interest of the narrator on the topographical level of the narrative.
A narrative can (provisionally) be defined as follows: An author, by employing an implied author (narrator), communicates his ideological perspective and interest (pointof-view)47 on a particular story (which consists of time, space, character and events) in terms of a text to a reader (see Van Eck 1990:151;1991b: 1011. Or, in Genette's (1980:30-32) terms: A narrative is a story (histoire) that is told in the form of a text (recit) to a reader. The story becomes text by way of the narration of the narrator, that is his/her particular ideological perspective (interpretation) of the story48 (see also section 3.3.5.2 for a more extensive discussion on the meaning of these terms). To escape the web of structuralism in studying the ideological perspective (and interest) of the narrator on the topographical level of Mark's narrative, not only a well-defined narratological model is needed, but also a narratological model that paves the way for the possibility to study the different spatial relations in the Gospel (inter alia the possible political implications of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem) comprehensively. Such a model will also make it possible to control and verify its results.
The narrative models of Petersen, Rhoads & Michie and Kingsbury, howe·".!r, lack one more important aspect, that of an analysis of the social circumstances of the addressees of the Gospel as well as the social location of the Markan community itself. Rhoads & Michie (1982:3), for example, state the following: Once the unity of the story (that is its literary unity -EvE) is expe- The research gaps that exist in the works of the historical-critical and literarycritical schools as described in sections 2.2 and 2.3, can thus be summarized as follows: The historical-critics did not take the literary unity of Mark (or its narrative techniques) seriously , and in their historical (re)construction of the ecclesia of Mark, did not make use of a well-defined social-scientific model for constructing the social world of Mark's addressees. The literary-critical school, however, did take the literary approach. However, in each case their respective narratological models lack the possibility to study space comprehensively. Further, they also neglected the social situation in which Mark was created, in that they saw Mark only as a mirror in which the reader can find him/herself, and not also as a window which enables us to discover something of the historical situation in which the text was produced. In section 3.3.2, it will be argued that this possibly can be oyercome if a narratological reading of Mark is complemented by that of a social-scientific reading of the text.
The first methodological starting point of this study, when the above mentioned research gaps are taken into consideration, can therefore be provisionally stated as follows: To read Mark as an act of communication, in relation to Galilee and Jerusalem as political settings in the Gospel, a narrative model must be used which not only takes the narrative techniques, the communication and the ideological perspective and interest of a narrative discourse seriously, but also the spatial relationships in the text. Because the intended/assumed addressees of the Gospel (i e their beliefs, symbolic and social universe, geographical context) are also important to understand the act of communication a Gospel wants to create, such a narratological reading of Mark has to be complemented by a social-scientific reading of the text. In chapter 3, a possible relationship in which these two kind of readings can be implemented, will be discussed49.
Reading the Gospels by way of an association of a narratological and a sociological analysis, however, is not a new approach. The three ideological-critical readings In section 2.4.5, the positive results of these three readings, by combining literary and sociological analysis, were indicated: First, attention is given to both the text and its social setting. Second, because the social setting of the Gospel is taken seriously, Jesus' activities in the Gospel can be understood also in social terms. And third, such readings make the interpreter aware of the pragmatical dimension of interpretation, as well as the fact that the object/target of communication has to be taken more seriously. The results of these three ideological-critical readings of Mark therefore can serve as a starting point for an own ideological-critical reading of space in the Gospel. These ideological readings, however, have one important shortcoming.
In section 2.4.2, it was indicated that Belo's main methodological starting point in using the models of Althusser and Balibar, is that the economic instance Again, the 'totally political and economic' interpretation seems in many places hardly adequate. Myers finds 'nothing supernatural' in the two feeding episodes, for example. 'The only miracle' ... is the triumph of the economics of sharing within a community of consumption over against economics of autonomous consumption in the anonymous marketplace. (Byrne 1990:245) Waetjen, on the other hand, is more balanced in his approach in reading Mark. By using macrosociology, as advocated by Lenski (1966) and Lenski & Lenski (1982), he is able to analyze Mark in terms of the socio-economic, political and religious realities of the intended/assumed addressees of the Gospel. Thus, by choosing macrosociology as one of his points of departure, it enables him to avoid reading the text from an ethnocentristic or anachronistic perspective (see again section 1.2 for the meaning of these terms). However, in regard to the works of Be1o and Myers, the following questions can be asked: Is it the case that the political and economical institutions were so important in first-century Mediterranean society as they try to indicate? Were there also other institutions in first-century Mediterranean society other than politics and economics?
And if this is the case, was one more dominant than the others? (advanced) agrarian society, and that of the institutions of economics and politics, will be discerned (section 7.3). And finally, the question will be asked whether the above mentioned ideological-critical readings took it seriously that a shift in relationship between these three institutions can be indicated when Mark is studied, not representing a simple agrarian society, but an advanced agrarian ·society. In an attempt to realize these four goals, the insights of the above discussed ideological-critical readings will be used where applicable.
To summarize: The above review of the current debate of Galilee versus Jerusalem in Mark's story of Jesus has identified/revealed the following research gaps: Historical-critical studies of this opposition neither took the narrative techniques/ literary unity nor the social background of the Gospel seriously. The literary-critics did take the literary unity of the Gospel seriously, but their respective literary models lack the ability to study space, as well as the ideological perspective and interest of the narrator comprehensively. Furthermore, they also neglected the social situation in which Mark was created, in that they saw Mark only as a mirror in which the reader can find him/herself, and not also as a window which enables us to discover something of the historical situation of the Gospel. It was maintained that these research gaps can possibly be addressed by reading the text in terms of an association of a narratological and social-scientific analysis. The narratological analysis to be used will enable us to take the narrative techniques of the text seriously and study space in a comprehensive manner, as well as to analyze the ideological perspective (and interest) of the narrator. By associating this narratological analysis with a social-scientific one, the social background of the text will also come into play. This association, as well as the development of a narratological model that will both enable a study of space and ideological perspective, will, methodologically speaking, be addressed in chapter 3.
The second research gap was discerned when the three above mentioned ideological-critical readings were discussed, namely that of anachronism/ethnocentrism and reductionism. To ftll this research gap, a social-scientific model that will hopefully enable us to avoid these fallacies, will be developed in chapter 4. After these two following methodological chapters, the text will first be read in terms of emics (chapter 5) and then in terms of etics56 (chapter 6 (Elliott 1991a:4). Social scientific analysis wants to move beyond the collection of independent historical and social facts. and investigates the interrelation of ideas and communal behavior, belief systems and cultural systems and ideologies as a whole, and the relation of such cultural systems to natural and social environment, economic organization, social structures and political power. Understood as such, the social scientific study of biblical texts has two salient elements: First, it uses the social sciences to construct theories and models for collecting and analyzing data which illuminate salient features of ancient Mediterranean and early Christian society and culture. Second, it tries to elucidate the structure, content, strategy and intended rhetorical effect of the text within its social context. The text is analyzed as a vehicle of communication whose genre, structure, content, theme and aim are shaped by the cultural and social dynamics of the social system and the specific historical setting in which it is produced and to which it constitutes a specific response (Elliott 1989:5-6). The dynamics of the fact that all ideas, concepts and knowledge are socially determined are therefore taken into consideration much more and in a more social scientific manner in the social scientific study of biblical texts as had been the case in the historical critical approach Van Aarde 1992b:437).
This distinction between a socio-historical and social scientific analysis of biblical texts will be addressed in full in section 3.3.1. gives a broad outline of what Jesus will do in Galilee, and also twice repeats the word dry-yc')..wv that occurs in the title of the Gospel. The second 'hinge' tells the reader that the women who were watching the crucifixion from a distance, followed and served Jesus in Galilee, and at the same time, introduces the women who will play a leading part in the final part of the Gospel. According to Via (1975:12), the plot/structure of Mark can be seen as a grid in which each narrative is given a horizontal or syntagmatic line of its own, and these syntagmatic lines are intersected by vertical or paradigmatic lines according to divisions proposed by the syntagmatic level of the text. The paradigmatic line of Mark is therefore 'the hidden or underlying configuration of the text that can offer some explanation for the more or less visible or obvious patterns in the text' (Via 1975:75). Using this approach, he argues that Mark came to be written because the kerugmatic proclamation, and faith in, the death and resurrection of Jesus reverberated in the mind of Mark and activated the comic genre whose nucleus is also death and resurrection. One recurring pattern which is found again and again in Mark is one which produces the four following steps: An act of initiative, persistence through conflict, death and HTS Supplementum 7 (1995) resurrection (Via 1975:117). This pattern, according to Via (1975:158), can be detected in both the story lines of Jesus and the disciples in Mark's gospel. In terms of Jesus' relationship to his disciples, this underlying/paradigmatic structure surfaces on the syntagmatic level of the text as follows: Jesus calls and chooses his disciples, they fail to recognize who he is, then they misconceive his nature, finally they abandon him and Jesus therefore irrevocably repudiates the disciples. However, in terms of the underlying paradigmatic structure of death and resurrection in the text, the 'death' of the disciples will lead to their 'resurrection'.
Although the disciples are therefore repudiated on the syntagmatic level of the text, from the paradigmatic level it is clear that their situation is not hopeless (Via 1975:158-161; see also  (Oakman 199la:35). Redistribution involved the politically or religiously induced extraction of a percentage of local production (i e from the peasants), the storebousing of that product, and its eventual redistribution for some political end or another. The redistribution-system of the temple thus was exploitative in terms of those for whom the produce was intended, namely the widows and the poor.
24 In this regard, Belo's reading of Mark is, to my opinion, reductionistic (see again section 1.3 for the definition of this term). In sections 4.2.6 and 6.4.4 it will be indicated that Jesus' activity of the bands also relates to Jesus' activity of healing, that is, to restore ill persons back to the position of being part of society and the household.
25 Myers (1988:4) argues that, in historical criticism, hermeneutics bas the task of creating a critical distance between text and interpreter. However, 'the problem here is that critical distance was understood as detachment, the goal being an allegedly 'objective' assessment of the text' (Myers 1988:4; emphasis in the original). According to Myers (1988:5), this hermeneutical theology has been challenged by liberation theology. The axiom that praxis must predicate theological reflection, when applied to biblical interpretation, brought us to critical awareness of the dominant ideologies and social structures that shape the world in which we live. From this interaction we emerge with a fresh interpretation of the Bible.
Myers thus refuses to abide by the 'typical' distinction between 'religious' and 'political' 26 In section 2.3 .5, it was indicated that Mal bon (1986a:2-3) argues that Mark contains a mythic structure, because of the fact that the three spatial suborders she identifies in the Gospel, subvert the expectations of the reader and therefore reflect the parabolic nature of Mark. The term 'myth structure' thus refers to 'an underlying spatial structure of binary oppositions' that, in terms of the paradigmatic structure of the text, replaces the syntagmatic (surface) structure of the text. Myers (1988:16), on the other band, understands the term myth to refer to 'a kind of meaningful symbolic discourse within a given cultural and political system'. Myers thus understands myth in terms of the sociology of knowledge's understanding of the concepts of the symbolic and social universe. According to Petersen (1985: x), the concept symbolic universe has to do with the overarching cognitive systems (i e ideology, mythology and cosmology), the systems of knowledge, belief and value that define certain groups' identities and motivate their actions. Understood as such, myth can be seen as the social counterpart of mythology (symbolic universe). Myers' 'war of myths' thus would relate

HTS Supplementum 7 (1995)
Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services, 2015 to Jesus' understanding of the symbolic universe (of which God is part) against that of, on the one band, the Pharisees, and, on the other band, the scribes, SadduCees, chief priests and elders (temple hierarchy).
27 Yoder (1972:13-23) argues that, although it may be the case that a reading of the New Testament might well yield broad ethical or political principles, such as economic justice or human dignity, it should not, however, be looked to for practical instructions on how to achieve these objectives in our modem social systems. Any direct appropriation is naive, which means that it is up to the modem social ethicist to translate the abstractions of the New 30 The process of ordering a socio-cultural system is called 'purity', in contrast to 'pollution', which stands for the violation of the classification system, its lines and boundaries (Douglas 1966: [13][14]. The study of purity is therefore the study of symbolic systems (Douglas 1966:34). Douglas (1966: [18][19][20][21][22] understands the concept of purity as having two meanings: One the one hand, groups normally have a general system of purity by which their society is classified and structured. On the other hand, however, one may also speak of the specific purity rules and norms of a given group . Ancient Jews, for example, had specific purity rules which classifies foods as clean or unclean, which ranked objects according to degrees of uncleanness, and which identified persons as fit or unfit to enter the temple in Jerusalem. By these specific rules people and objects were thus declared sacred/profane, clean/unclean or pure/polluted . According to Douglas (1966:34-35), the term purity is best understood in terms of its binary opposite, namely 'dirt'. When something is out of place or when it violates the classification system in which it is set, it is called 'dirt' (Douglas 1966:35). For a more comprehensive discussion of Douglas' understanding of the symbolic universe of early Palestine in terms of these concepts, see section 4.2. 7.