THE ILIFF SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

SOME WENT DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPSTHEY SAW THE WORKS OF THE LORD: INTERTEXTUALITY IN MARKS SEA NARRATIVES

SUBMITTED TO DRS. GREG ROBBINS AND PAM EISENBAUM IN COMPLETION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BS3995: THESIS

BY NICK ELDER MAY 21, 2012

ii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..1 CHAPTER 1: THE INTERTEXTUAL METHOD.4 Roots in (Post)Structuralism My Approach 4 7

CHAPTER 2: TRADITIONS AND TEXTS FUNCTIONING AS INTERTEXTS.11 Greco-Roman Accounts of the Sea The Hebrew Bible and the Sea Genesis 1.1-2.4 Psalm 107.23-32 (LXX 106.23-32) Jonah 1.1-17 Conclusion to HB and the Sea 13 16 17 18 21 25

CHAPTER 3: ALLUSIONS IN MARK 4.35-41..28 Jonah 1.1-17 The Odyssey 10.28-55 Conclusion 28 32 36

CHAPTER 4: INTERTEXTS IN MARK 4.35-4138 The Odyssey 5.291-390 Aeneid I 1.30-142 Conclusion 40 41 43

CHAPTER 5: ALLUSION IN MARK 6.45-52.44 Exodus 14 44

CHAPTER 6: INTERTEXT IN MARK 6.45-51...48

iii Greco-Roman Political/Military Leaders 48

CONCLUSION..51 APPENDIX A: THE DEITYS INTERACTION WITH THE SEA IN THE HEBREW BIBLE53 APPENDIX B: NARRATIVE RESONANCES BETWEEN MARK AND JONAH...55 APPENDIX C: GRECO-ROMAN PRIMARY SOURCES......57 The Odyssey 5.291-390 The Odyssey 10.1-55 Vergil Aeneid A 1.81-142 57 59 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY..62

INTRODUCTION In 1969 poststructuralist Julia Kristeva first coined the term intertextuality in her article : Reserches pur une smanalyse.1 The term has garnered much attention in the literary world, and more recently, in the school of biblical interpretation. However, much to Kristevas chagrin, intertextuality has morphed itself into an ill-defined methodology both in literary and biblical circles. As Richard Hays cheekily puts it, once the idea of intertextuality was set loose in the academy, it could no longer be controlled by Kristevas intention(!); it was itself transformed intertextually and put to various uses.2 This is certainly true in the guild of biblical scholarship, where a number of scholars utilize the term to practice divergent methodologies. Where one uses intertextuality as a methodology to explore the use of Psalm 2 in Luke-Acts,3 another may use the term to compare Jesus in the gospels to a modern text, such as the Conan the Barbarian films.4 Some take no offense that intertextuality has become a methodological catchall, but there are others who understand this as problematic. For example, Ellen van Wolde states, with a hint of disdain, a number of bible studies seem innovative, but, in fact, use intertextuality as a modern literary theoretical coat of veneer over the old comparative approach.5 Van Wolde represents one end of what could be called an intertextual spectrum.

The English translation is available as Word, Dialogue, and Novel in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art (ed. by Leon S. Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 64-91. 2 Richard B. Hays, Forward to the English Edition of Reading the Bible Intertextually, eds. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), xiii. 3 W.J.C. Weren, Psalm 2 in Luke-Acts: An Intertextual Study in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampfen: Kok, 1989), 189-203. 4 George Aichele, Canon as Intertext: Restraint or Liberation? in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampfen: Kok, 1989), 139-156. 5 Ellen Van Wolde, Trendy Intertextuality in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampfen: Kok, 1989), 43. 1

2 On her end of this spectrum are those scholars who wish to reserve the intertextual method for a less diachronic approach to intertextual relationships, claiming that intertextuality, at its very core, is about the matrix of texts, regardless of their form and place in time. All texts, then, collide and change their meaning within the space between text and reader. The other end of the spectrum is occupied by scholars who use intertextuality to describe the linear relationship of a biblical text to another text (typically from the HB, LXX, or Greco-Roman writings) that precedes it in time. The evoked text is used to modify the meaning of the alluding text and vice-versa.6 The interaction between the two ends of this spectrum is typically not pleasant: those who inhabit the ends of this spectrum tend to eye one another warily, with some mixture of condescension and anxiety.7 In my estimation, this condescension and anxiety is unnecessary. To be sure, these are two distinct ways to approach the biblical text. Different interpreters, with different presuppositions and convictions, will naturally gravitate to one approach or the other. This does not mean that scholarship, by necessity, needs to draw a distinct binary between the two approaches. Scholars can occupy the same methodological playing field without having to be on different teams. In this thesis I will demonstrate this by freely utilizing both a diachronic and synchronic intertextual methodology in interpreting the sea-narratives in Mark 4.35-41 and Mark 6.45-52. Using these intertextual methodologies will illumine each pericope in ways that are not possible using only one of the two approaches. The diachronic approach that is most often utilized in biblical studies limits itself to choosing a singular allusion; this fails to allow the Evoked text and alluding text are two terms helpfully utilized by Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll in The Psalms of Lament in Marks Passion: Jesus Davidic Suffering (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 7 Hays, Forward, xii.
6

3 multivalent textual history to speak in its own right. When this is done, interpretive options are ultimately limited. It is not uncommon for modern commentaries, especially on the NT, to identify the interpreters allusive options and argue for one over the other(s). In some cases, especially those where an evoked text is directly quoted, this approach is necessary, though not a difficult task. In most cases of allusion, however, in light of the intertextual method, it is most beneficial to allow a number of evoked intertexts to illuminate the interpretation of the alluding text. This is where a synchronic approach, though still grounded in the more historical project of exegesis, becomes a necessary addition.

CHAPTER 1: THE INTERTEXTUAL METHOD

Because intertextuality is both an abused and polarizing term it is necessary, first, to present a brief history of its origin and use and, second, to offer an explicit conception of how I am using the methodology here. Without this history and conception I would be guilty of the imprecise use of the intertextual method and utilizing different aspects of textuality under false pretenses. By briefly overviewing the intertextual method I hope to root some of my presuppositions and uses of this methodology within a certain framework.

Roots in (Post)Structuralism Intertextuality was birthed in the late 1960s out of a burgeoning poststructural milieu. To comprehend its use in literary circles and subsequently in biblical scholarship it is necessary to understand the formation of the methodology in Kristevas poststructuralist perspective, which was ultimately a rejection of pre-structuralist and structuralist inclinations. Literary theory, in the period before structuralism, relegated meaning to the writer of a text. The author [was] the guarantor of the meaning of his or her work, the subject [was] sovereign over his or her utterances.8 Structuralism would harshly reject this notion, relegating meaning to the closed structure of the text. The text, then, could be understood in isolation from its author. Placing an emphasis on the authors separation from his or her text resulted in isolation from all other cultural, historical, and political events, as well as other texts. The historical and cultural

Stefan Alkier, Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts, in Reading the Bible Intertextually (ed. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 6. 4

5 relationships of the text under analysis consistently failed to find consideration.9 This was problematic for poststructuralist Kristeva, who would, in turn, not only broaden the definition of text, but also the various phenomena, or intertexts, that lay behind the their production and reception. For Kristeva, texts could not be fixed structures, but were products of an entire environment of other texts that lay behind them: Any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. The notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity and poetic language is read as at least double.10 In this way texts cannot merely be limited to the words written or printed on the page, but consist of an entire prehistory of experienced texts.11 This is true in both the production and experience of texts. The production of a text reflects this prehistory in its finished product, while the experience of the text enters into and reacts in the matrix of all other texts that have been experienced. For example, both my reading of Kristeva and my typing of this thesis enter into the matrix that is a nearly endless multitude of texts, but particularly those which reflect projects similar to Kristevas, along with my most recently experienced texts: the gospel of Mark, Barthes Image, Music, Text, the cough drop I just ate, (and the cold that currently inflicts me!), the television show I recently watched, the Greek testament of Abraham, the song playing in my

Alkier, Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts, in Hays, Alkier, and Huizenga, Reading the Bible Intertextually, 4. 10 Kristeva, Word, Dialogue, and Novel, in Roudiez, Desire in Language, 66. 11 Texts have nearly limitless perimeters in this framework. The term in this poststructuralist, intertextual understanding might nearly be equated with experience, because it is the individuals experiences that will ultimately create meaning. Elsewhere, Kristeva uses the phrase sign-system, revealing her true poststructuralist colors. (Julia Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language [trans. Margaret Waller; New York: Columbia University Press, 1984], 59.) Despite its wide connotations, I will primarily use the term text to speak of written literature; this is because many who came after Kristeva continued to use it in this way and because ancient literary texts will be the primary sign-systems explored in this thesis.

6 headphones, etc. All of these interact in a matrix that creates meaning out of Kristevas text and results in the production of my thesis. On the other hand, my intended reader is creating meaning as he or she experiences my text. There are any number of texts completely out of my control that are likely aiding in my readers creation of meaning of this thesis: their location (physical, social, or otherwise), any number of books or articles they may have recently read, the device they are reading my thesis on, etc. All of these factors, or intertexts, being completely out of my control as an author, interact with my finished product of a thesis to establish some kind of meaning. Since Kristeva, poststructuralists have taken up the intertextual method in various and further nuanced modes, all similar to the brief sketch I have presented above. But what all those following in her footsteps have in common is their abandonment of the authors control over the text because, it is the reader who makes a text interfere with other texts12 and not the author. There is a denial of the authors causality, even in an attempted allusion. This is problematic most pertinently for diachronic approaches that seek to interpret allusions in the biblical text. However, the diachronic approach has its own issues when utilized in its own right. The detection and interpretation of allusions in the NT has a storied history in the traditional historical-critical approach to exegesis and continues to be an essential methodology for scholars and laypeople alike. Nonetheless, this approach, being focused primarily on the authors causality, has not left room for non-causal texts to speak, even within the historicalcritical hermeneutic. Thus, both the synchronic and diachronic approaches, when left to their own accord, do not present a cogent method for approach a larger variety of intertextual relationships. For these reasons, I will offer an alternative mode of approaching intertextual

12

Van Wolde, Trendy Intertextuality, 47.

7 relationships when interpreting the biblical text. This approach attempts to stay within the realm of what Kristeva and the poststructuralists meant by the term intertextuality, while, at the same time, giving the biblical authors, and in this case Mark, more agency (though not total agency) in their attempts to evoke texts.

My Approach As was mentioned at the outset of this thesis, there is a divide in scholarship between those who are practicing intertextuality through a diachronic approach and those practicing it through a synchronic approach. This is the result of competing claims and ideologies on either side. On the synchronic side, the claim is that those taking a diachronic approach do not appreciate and utilize intertextuality properly and are really just doing source criticism under a different moniker, as evidenced by the Van Wolde quotation. On the diachronic side, there is a claim that stripping the author of his or her intended meaning neuters the text of its sacrality and any hope of participating in effective exegesis. None of these claims are entirely unmerited and, as a Protestant Christian who is interested in (though sometimes skeptical of) authorial intent, I hope to exegete Marks text with an eye on those allusions that he intended. At the same time, Kristeva and the poststructuralists claims hold theoretical weight for me. These two methods are most often taken to be mutually exclusive; this does not need to be the case and so I hope to interpret the text intertextuallyin a way that has value on both ends of the intertextual spectrum. I use the intertextual method as a play between author, text, and reader. Without the author there is no production of the material signifier of the text.13 To be certain, the author can

Some utilize this intertextual approach alone; it has been called a production-oriented approach. See Alkier, Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts, in Hays, Alkier, and Huizenga, Reading the Bible Intertextually, 10.

13

8 never have complete control over his text once it is penned. As Phyllis Trible states, texts do reveal authorsyet authorial intention constitutes a part, not the whole, of meaning.14 In this way, the authors production of the text serves as a guide to the reader of the text. The author may formulate words into sentences in a certain manner that will likely signify a meaning close to what was intended. The author produces a text, and without this material text there is no product to experience and make meaning out of. The text serves as a necessary intermediary between the author and the reader, but in many cases, will lose this intermediary role (especially when the author is unknown or anonymous) and will be the nexus for meaning making in its own right. Finally, without the reader, there is no meaning making whatsoever. The reader, in this approach, certainly has the most agency in creating meaning out of the text, though is guided in this process by both the author and the text itself. In this way the author may attempt to provide explicit intertextual referents to her intended reader, but there is no guarantee that these intertextual referents will be recognized. Further, in attempting (or not attempting) to provide an intertextual referent the author loses control of her text and the reader may recall another, or any number of other, intertextual referents. Typically these referents, though not intended by the author, will have some kind of resonance with the authors text, whether that be an ideological resonance or verbal resonance. In this way, Robbins is correct when he states, intertextual study challenges the limited range of language usage New Testament interpreters traditionally bring into the conversation with the text in the foreground.15 As we will see, Mark may have intended to intentionally provide Homers

Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994), 96-97. 15 Vernon K. Robbins, Sea Voyages and Beyond: Emerging Strategies in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Emory Studies in Early Christianity; Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2010), 259.

14

9 Odyssey as an allusion, but Vergils Aeneid may have been the primarily intertextual referent evoked for a hearer of Marks gospel who was more familiar with the Latin epic. As I proceed I will argue for both allusions and intertexts in Marks gospel. In using the term allusion I am focusing on the authors agency. In my conception of textuality, an allusion is an attempt by Mark to recall another text that precedes his in time. This attempt may be made through ideological or verbal resonances. In detecting allusions I will be heavily reliant on the influential work of Richard Hays in this field.16 In using the term intertext I am focusing on what texts Marks text may unintentionally summon in the mind of his reader. As interpreters of the text most of the intended audiences intertexts are completely unavailable to us. However, there are writings contemporaneous with and preceding Mark that, though not intentionally alluded to, likely would have been recalled as an intertext in the mind of the first or second-century hearer of the gospel. We have access to a number of these texts that are concerned with the sea, sea storms, and walking upon the sea. Focusing on contemporaneous intertexts in order to eschew meaning as it may have been created for the intended audience is not a popular approach. Even scholars who have wider perimeters of textuality tend to stick to the causal approach when exploring 1st century intertexts. Dennis MacDonald states, the critic obviously must exercise more discipline, for without criteria one risks establishing connections between two texts where none may exist.17 Even MacDonald, who argues for wider parameters of textuality and wider influence of Greco-Roman texts on the NT, wants to restrain 1st century textual relationships to a level of causality. The approach I take I will be primarily dependent on Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (London: Yale University Press, 1989). While I recognize that Hays is concerned with the Pauline corpus here (and in the majority of his scholarly output) his criteria for detecting allusion is equally applicable to the gospels. 17 Dennis MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 172.
16

10 in this thesis regards the importance of texts potential to aid in meaning making for the original audience, even if these texts are not intentionally alluded to. Contra MacDonald, connections between two texts can exist even if the intertextual relationship is not causal. Finally, my method of intertextuality is dependent on Gerard Genettes notion of hypertextuality and transvaluation. For Genette (like Kristeva, though using different terminology), all texts are hypertexts18 of other hypotexts. These hypertexts are inevitably a commentary on the text that they evoke.19 Whenever an intertextual relationship is realized the two texts are immediately put into conversation with each other in the mind of the reader/hearer. After this textual conversation takes place, each text will come away valued differently. How the hypertext values (or devalues) the hypotext will vary in each of these conversations. Central to this understanding is that intertextuality is not merely citationism. Rather, when texts are put into conversation with each other meaning is made instantaneously. A hearer of Marks gospel would not have to seek out the sources that are intertexts but would immediately recognize one of any number of sea narratives and make meaning based on the play between the two (or three, or four) texts. The approach I take in this thesis will argue that these textual conversations, as they occur between Mark and his intertexts, will demonstrate what Genette calls transvaluation, which is most essentially concerned with devaluation and (counter)valuation.20 We will see that in each of Marks sea narratives other intertextual protagonists are either devalued or transvalued by Jesus messianic and divine abilities

Hyper is from the Greek meaning above. Hypertext is roughly synonymous with alluding text. Hypo is from the Greek meaning below. Hypotext is roughly synonymous with evoked text. 19 Gerard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (trans. Channa Newman and Calude Coubinsky; Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 8. 20 Genette, Pamplimpsests, 367.

18

CHAPTER 2: TRADITIONS AND TEXTS FUNCTIONING AS INTERTEXTS

One of the issues that has plagued not only the diachronic approach to intertextual relationships in biblical scholarship, but also the determination of a given biblical writers or audiences Sitz im Leben, is establishing whether that writer or audience is situated in a Jewish or Greco-Roman thought world. In Pauline scholarship, until the publication of Krister Stendahls seminal article Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,21 it was common to interpret Paul as counter-Judaic. It was thought that Paul was influenced solely by his Pharisaism and situated in a Jewish (or for some, a Christian) thought world. Since the publication of Stendahls article, however, there has been a shift to understand Paul, for some scholars, as counter-imperial.22 Pauls counter-Judaic gospel has been replaced by his counter-imperial gospel. Rather than focusing on his Judaism, many scholars now focus on his Roman citizenship. The same phenomenon occurs in gospel studies, where scholars understand Matthew to be more Jewish and Mark to be more Roman. However, in an intertextual understanding of the production of texts, this either/or dichotomy cannot stand. The question of whether Mark is primarily informed by Greco-Roman traditions and literature or Jewish traditions and literature is moot in both poststructuralist frameworks and in

Krister Stendahl, Paul and the Introspective conscience of the West, in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (ed. Krister Stendahl; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 78-96. 22 See Dieter Georgi, Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991); John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom (New York: HarperSanFransisco, 2004); Bruno Blumenfeld, The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy, and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework (JSNT Supplement Series; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Richard A. Horsely, ed., Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (New York: Trinity Press International, 2004); Richard A. Horsely, ed., Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997); Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994). 11

21

12 historical approaches to exegesis. There can be no doubt that Judaism influenced Mark. The Jesus movement itself was a Judaic movement. That Mark often directly quotes Jewish scripture attests to the Jewish nature of his gospel.23 This, however, does not preclude a Greco-Roman framework. Both Mark and his audience lived in a Hellenized world, and likely writing from Rome,24 were in constant contact with Greco-Roman traditions and literature. Furthermore, that Mark composed his text in Greek indicates that the interpreter must give notice to his GrecoRoman context.25 Both Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions would have provided the allusions and intertexts that would affect the production and reception of Marks gospel. It would be ill advised to sacrifice either Greco-Roman for Jewish intertexts, or vice versa. As Vernon Robbins states: The interpreter must not forsake intricate analysis of Jewish traditions in order to turn to Greco-Roman literature. Rather, interpreters should glean insights from Greco-Roman literature as well as Jewish literature to explain features that usually are not explored in the text.26 Thus, texts and ideologies concerning the sea will be explored in both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts. While a number of texts and presuppositions concerning the sea are irrecoverable in both of these thought worlds, it is possible, based on a number of texts, to identify common

Cf. Mark 1.2-3; 7.6-7; 7.10; 10.8; 10.19; 11.18; 12.10-11; 12.29-34; 12.36; 13.24-25; 14.27; 14.62 24 While I have no intention of presenting an argument for Marks location of writing, Adela Yarbro Collins in Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) has presented a convincing argument for Rome as the most likely location of composition. Even if one accepts a more eastern provenance of the gospel there can be no doubt that Mark and his audience would have been in constant contact with the Roman Hellenized world. 25 Adela Yarbro Collins, Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water (Mark 6.45-52), in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (ed. Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 212. 26 Vernon K. Robbins, New Boundaries in Old Territory: Form and Social Rhetoric in Mark (ed. David B. Gowler; Emory Studies in Early Christianity 3; New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1994), 137.

23

13 tropes prominent in both of these settings. In the Jewish framework the common trope was that the deity had ultimate control over the sea; this idea found its original precedent in the national praise literature, namely the Psalms. In the Greco-Roman world the trope was that the sea is inherently dangerous and should be deeply revered. To understand Marks intended allusions to these traditions along with his unintended intertexts, it is necessary to demonstrate the prominence of these tropes in the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman writings.

Greco-Roman Accounts of the Sea Sea tales are not unfamiliar to the modern individual who most likely has read a number of ancient and modern sea narratives, as well as experienced a plethora of films concerned with the sea: a majority of these deal with disaster upon the open ocean. As much as the modern world is concerned with sea narratives, the genre was far more popular in the Greco-Roman world, providing an exciting and dangerous setting for narrative accounts. As Pamela Thimmes states, this world was a world that celebrated and feared the sea, a world in which the sea could be both miracle and disaster.27 She is correct in this regard, nearly all the accounts of the sea in Greco-Roman texts from the 3rd century BCE to the 3rd century CE conclude with either the sailors tragically dying at sea, being miraculously rescued by a certain deity, or, in rarer cases, having divine-like power over the water. A brief overview of the extant texts from this period will demonstrate these common tropes well.

Pamela Lee Thimmes, Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type Scene: A Convention and Invention (San Fransisco: Mellen Research University, 1992), 3.

27

14 Far and away the most common notion in antiquity was that the sea was a place of extreme danger. It was an ever vibrant source for describing danger and its abatement.28 It is quite rare to find an account where those traveling on the sea experience a peaceful journey. This is due to the prevalent belief in antiquity that the sea is to be left alone, an understanding founded by Hesiod.29 Travel on the sea was unnecessary for most individuals in antiquity. The Stoic moralizers characterize those who did travel on the sea, usually for business endeavors, as plagued by avarice.30 Because the sea was to be avoided, it was all too common in literature to portray the sea as destructive and life taking. Homer in the Odyssey, describing the rising of a storm at sea, demonstrates this: for straightway came the shrieking West Wind blowing with a furious tempest, and the blast of the wind snapped both the fore-stays of the mast, so that the mast fell backward and all its tackling was strewn in the bilge. On the stern of the ship the mast struck the head of the pilot and crushed all the bones of his skull together, and like a diver he fell from the deck and his proud spirit left his bones.31 The picture is overly violent, not only demonstrating that sailing upon the sea often results in a bone-crushing death, but also that hubris in facing the sea is ill advised. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the sailors death generally brought sea-storm accounts to a close.32 While death of the sailors generally ended sea narratives, and especially sea-storm narratives, this was not always the case. There are a few accounts in which the sailors, but most Douglas W. Geyer, Fear, Anomaly, and Uncertainty in the Gospel of Mark (Lanham, MA: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2002), 101. 29 M.P.O. Morford, The Poet Lucan: Studies in the Rhetorical Epic (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 20. 30 Morford, The Poet Lucan, 29. This fact may be the very reason that Mark informs his readers that Jesus was merely traveling to the other side ( ). In this way Jesus and his disciples are not seen as sailors seeking a luxurious lifestyle (which would be quite opposed to the evidence of the early Jesus movement), but are merely traveling out of necessity. 31 Ody. 12.409-411 (A.T. Murray, LCL). 32 Morford, The Poet Lucan, 21.
28

15 usually only the protagonist, escape by the skin of their teeth. Odysseus barely escapes a number of times in Homers accounts.33 These escapes are, however, never on his own accord. Rather, a deity steps in to rescue him and send him back to land. The same is true of Caesar in Lucans Pharsalia 5.663-677: in Caesars hubris he attempts to cross the sea and finds himself in a great storm that sinks his boat. Only by a miraculous wave is he saved and brought back to shore. Thus, even for the greatest heroes and protagonists, daring travel on the sea results in near-death experiences. The final, and most rare, interaction with the sea depicts the hero as able to tread upon the water. This is a characteristic typically reserved for the gods. Homer tells of Poseidons ability to drive upon the waters in the Illiad: and with gold he clad himself about his body, and grasped the well-wrought whip of gold, and stepped upon his car, and set out to drive over the waves. Then gamboled the sea-beasts beneath him on every side from out the deeps, for well they knew their lord, and in gladness the sea parted before him; right swiftly sped they on, and the axle of bronze was not wetted beneath; and unto the ships of the Achaeans did the prancing steeds bear their lord.34 Vergil has a near identical picture of Neptune in Aeneid 5.1081-1085. It is not necessarily surprising that these two sea gods would be able to drive their chariots upon the waters. What is more surprising, and found in only a small minority of cases, is the gods granting others the ability to do the same. This is the case of Euphemus, who in a tradition dating to the 3rd or 4th century BCE was granted the ability to walk on the sea as dry land ( ).35 The same is also true of Heracles, who, according to Julian, walked

See especially Ody. 5.291-390 and 12.399-450. Ill. 13.25-30. (A.T. Murray, LCL) 35 Collins, Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water, in Bormann, Del Tredici, and Standhartinger, Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition, 215.
34

33

16 on the sea as though it were dry land.36 Both of these men, while not gods, fall comfortably into the tradition. Though not completely divine, these rare individuals often possess qualities akin to the deities.37 In highlighting these narratives I hope to have demonstrated, though not exhaustively, one probable intertextual backdrop for the gospel of Mark in its first-century setting. Though I mentioned the tradition, it is important to note that this tradition is the exception, not the norm. It is far more common for sea-narratives to end with either the sailors being crushed, swallowed by the sea, or making it out alive by the skin of their teeth (and only through divine intervention). The tradition does have intertextual, though probably not allusive, connections to the other intertextual backdrop working in Marks sea narratives, namely YHVHs control of the sea in the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible and the Sea The Hebrew Bible is wrought with sea imagery. The word ( water) occurs an astounding 585 times in the Masoretic text, while ( sea) occurs another 398 times. ( sea) occurs in the highest number of verses in the Psalms and is followed close behind by its use in Genesis. Here the deity is portrayed as having control over the waters, intertextually reflecting the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish. This control was one of the chief aspects of praise attributed to YHVH in a number of different Hebrew Bible traditions, but its precedent was set in

Oration 7.219D (Wright, LCL) There is a vibrant conversation concerning the tradition and Markan Christology. See Berry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (WUNT 40; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991).
37

36

17 the early praise literature.38 The trope is also seen most prominently in the Psalms, because they are inherently concerned with attributing praise to the LORD and his various attributes. In this section I will demonstrate, through an exegesis of Genesis 1.1-2.4, YHVHs control over the waters in the creation account. Following this will be an exploration of the sea-language used in Psalm 107.23-32. I will conclude this section by examining the narrative text of Jonah 1.1-17, which finds its setting on the sea and demonstrates the trope of YHVHs control of the waters in narrative form.

Genesis 1.1-2.4 This pericope is the first of the two creation accounts in Genesis, and has recently been understood to be in a causal intertextual relationship with the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish.39 In this creation myth the earth and everything in it is created by the god Marduks defeat of Tiamat in a cosmic battle. As Marduk tears Tiamat into pieces the parts of her body become the other Babylonian gods and the elements of the earth. It is most significant that Tiamat in the creation myth represents the oceanic waters. Thus, creation in this account comes out of the violent separation of the waters. The same phenomenon, though not through a violent battle, occurs in Genesis, which is an intertextual polemic transvaluing the Enuma Elish. The waters and the sea figure prominently in Gen 1.1-2.4 with occurring ten times in the pericope and another six times. This is not surprising given that the account reflects the Babylonian myth in which the sea is prominent. The

See Appendix A: The Deitys interaction with the sea in the Hebrew Bible for an exhaustive overview of this trope throughout the entire HB tradition. 39 Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Lousiville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992); E.A. Speiser Genesis (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1964)

38

18 focus here will be on Gen 1.1-1.10, where God ( in this case) creates the sky, the sea, and land by separating the primordial mass of water. In the second verse of the pericope the reader is informed that the deity hovers over the face of the waters ( 04.) For the priestly writer the earth, in its pre- stage, is made up only of water. For sky to be created, God must rupture the waters, which happens in verse six: ( and God said let there be an expanse between the waters, separating the waters from the waters.) Thus, all that exists is a gigantic mass of primordial water, which must be separated even to make air. The that God creates is the support that separates the waters above from the waters below. Thus, Gods ability to separate the waters results in the creation of sky and oceans. Like the sky, earth is created out of the severance of the waters. In v. 9 God must (gather together) the waters so that land can be formed. It is only through this gathering that sea and dry land are created: ( and God said, let the waters be gathered from under the heavens into one place and let dry land be seen; it was so.) God, having ultimate control over the waters, gathers them through his jussive words and creates the dry land. Throughout the rest of the first creation account God creates all that exists by means of spoken word. This creation through spoken word in Gen 1.1-2.4 is contrasted with the violent separation of the waters found in the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish. It was not uncommon in ANE religious traditions for the deity (or deities) to have ultimate control over water. In contrasting his account with Enuma Elish, the priestly author portrays the creation of the world as a peaceful demonstration of Gods control over the waters. In this portrayal, a

40

All HB translations are my own based on BHS 4.

19 tradition is demonstrated, that continues throughout the HB, in which the deity is portrayed as having ultimate control and power over the waters.

Psalm 107.23-32 (LXX 106.23-32) Psalm 107 is a Psalm of thanksgiving41 containing a preamble and six stanzas, the first four give praise to the LORD for his saving works while the last two tell of the LORDs response to wicked individuals. The preamble serves as a brief outline demonstrating the direction the Psalm will take. It contains a general call to praise in v. 1, a specific call for redeemed individuals to praise in v.2, and a poetic outline of the redemption of four groups of people in v. 3. Most translations identify these groups with the four cardinal directions (east, west, north, and south). However, there is a significant textual and translation issue in the way the last direction, south, is typically rendered. There can be no doubt the translation he gathered in from the lands: from the east, from the west, from the north is an accurate representation of the Hebrew in the Masoretic text. These three cardinal directions are clear: ( east), ( west), and ( north). However, the fourth direction, which most translations42 render south is not the typical Hebrew lexeme for the directional south, 34,but rather is simply ,the word for sea. Commentators often chalk the omission of the yod and nun to a scribal mistake, claiming the scribe likely overlooked these letters because the previous word, ( from the north), ends similarly (in vav-nun).44 This solution is helpful in avoiding the Psalmists redundancy of mentioning directional west twice, as Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: 101-150 (New York: DoubleDay, 1970), 80; John Jarick, The Four Corners of Psalm 107, CBQ 59 (April 1997): 270. 42 Cf. TNIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, KJV 43 BDB: 44 rtur Weiser, The Psalms (OTL; PhiladelphiaL The Westminster Press, 1962) 683-685; HansJoachim Kraus, Psalms 60-150 (CC; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989) 323-325.
41

20 ( sea) was often a circumlocution for ( cardinal west).45 However, merely altering the word to south has no basis in the textual tradition. The apparatus of the BHS-4 states the text ought to read ,but gives no textual basis for this suggestion.46 On the contrary, Jarick has convincingly argued that we should allow the text to speak in its own right and that rendering as sea not only translates the text honestly, but is also crucial to the interpretation of the entire Psalm.47 Based on the prominence of the sea in the tradition of the Hebrew Bible at large, as well as the prominence of the sea in the fourth stanza in this particular Psalm, Jarick is correct to claim that this is not a scribal error, but a reflection of Israelite religious tradition. Specifically, the fourth stanza of Psalm 107 (verses 23-32) represents this tradition. The unexpected use of in place of in v.3 points to the significance of this stanza in particular. In what follows I will demonstrate that, much like Genesis 1.1-2.4, Psalm 107.23-32 exhibits the prominent tradition of the LORDs control over the waters in the Israelite praise tradition. This stanza is broken into three sections: the storm (vv. 23-28), the call for help and the LORDs response (vv. 28-29), and a call to thankfulness (vv.30-32). The first section vividly portrays the setting on the sea, using four nautical terms: ( the sea), ( in boats), ( in the waters), ( in the deep). The reference to sea and waters would surely produce echoes not only of the creation account of Genesis, but of numerous other texts (both Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern) contemporaneous with Psalm 107 that demonstrate the LORDs control over the sea. In the next section of the stanza these echoes are confirmed as the LORD raises the

The translation, taking as a circumlocution for west, would then be, from the east, from the west, from the north, from the west. This is certainly redundant and likely does not reflect the Psalmists intention. 46 BHS-4, 1190. 47 Jarick, The Four Corners.

45

21 wind of the storm through the medium of speech ( .)The stanza continues in vv. 26-27 with a detailed description of the sailors struggle with the storm and their incapability to escape the tempest by their own accord. When they can think of no other option they cry out to the only one who is able to still the waters, namely the one who raised them: YHVH. In v. 29, the LORD causes the storm to cease and the waves to be still. This action leads both the distressed sailors to spontaneous praise and the Psalmist to command similar praise from the reader. The Psalmist expects those who have been saved from the storm (both the literal and metaphorical storm) and those who know of the LORDs control of the sea to praise him for these abilities. As Jose Mejia states, it is not a question here of a trivial rescue from a storm. The seafarers are saved from the powers of chaos, and of course the only saving power which is up to the task is that of God.48 YHVH is praised not only because he saved individuals from the dangers of sea-travel, but also because he continually demonstrates his power over the primeval waters. This stanza has, yet again, demonstrated the LORDs control over the waters: YHVH is the one who creates storms and causes them to cease. This is a significant characteristic of the Deity in Psalm 107 in particular. While the overarching theme of the Psalm is the LORDs salvation to those who are distressed, this stanza holds central significance for the Psalmist, not only as the longest of the four, but because the Psalmist indicated in v. 3, somewhat unexpectedly, that the LORD redeemed and gathered individuals from the sea. While this is by no means an exhaustive portrait of YHVHs control over the sea in Israels praise literature,49 it represents a trope seen throughout the tradition. This trope, and this Psalm in particular, are further revealed and provide a significant intertextual background in narrative sections of both Mark and Jonah.
48 49

Jose Mejia, Some Observations on Psalm 107, BTB 5 (February 1975): 64. For a more exhaustive overview of this trope see Appendix B on pg. 55.

22 Jonah 1.1-17 Jonah, and especially the opening narrative sequence, is ripe for intertextual comparison with the previously explored Psalm 107. Indeed, Jonah in its entirety provides a surplus of potential intertextual relationships, both diachronic and synchronic. Catherine Muldoon has produced an entire monograph exploring the intertextual relationship between Jonah and the other HB prophets.50 In what follows, however, I will only briefly explore the intertextual relationship between Jonah, Psalm 107, Genesis 1, and the tradition of YHVHs control over the sea in Israelite religion. In investigating this intertextual relationship I purport that the first chapter of Jonah reflects, intertextually, the sequence of Psalm 107 and demonstrates, in narrative form, the prominent tradition of the Deitys power over the waters in the HB. Dating of Jonah varies widely between scholars, but a number of commentators have suggested a late, Hellenistic date for the storys composition.51 This is based on the following criterion: Tobits mention of Jonah in the 3rd century BCE,52 linguistic influence from later Hebrew and Aramaic,53 dependence on other Hebrew literature and especially Hebrew prophets,54 and a developed prophetic theology characteristic of later literature.55 This late date demonstrates that YHVHs power over the sea, which began early in Israels history, as demonstrated by the early praise literature, continued into the post-exilic period and beyond. For the tradition to remain prominent for hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years, it must have been a principal characteristic attributed to YHVH throughout the long tradition of Israelite Catherine L. Muldoon, In Defense of Divine Justice: An Intertextual Approach to the Book of Jonah (CBQMS 47; Washington DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2010). 51 Citation for Jonahs late date. 52 Jack M. Sasson, Jonah (AB; New York: DoubleDay, 1990), 21. 53 Sasson, Jonah, 22. Sasson seven of these including nouns and verbs often used in much later literature ( ) , ,and a frequent confusion between and . 54 Sasson, Jonah, 23. 55 Sasson, Jonah, 24.
50

23 religion and HB composition. Thus far, we have seen the tradition in the creation myth, the praise literature, and will now see it in the narrative/prophetic literature. Just as in Psalm 107.23-32, the account of Jonah 1 begins with a group of merchants traveling on the sea. In the narrative of Jonah 1.1-3, Jonah is fleeing the call of the LORD, contrary to the typical habit of the prophets in call narratives.56 The hearer, familiar with both sea-storm narratives and the trope that YHVH has the ability to raise the waters, knows that this will not likely end well for either Jonah or the sailors. The hearers suspicions are immediately confirmed in v. 4, in dramatic fashion. In an intensive Hebrew construction, YHVH hurls a great wind upon the ship. Hebrew word order typically follows the verb-subject-object pattern. However, in v. 4 the subject, YHVH, is moved to the beginning of the sentence with the verb and object following: ( and YHVH hurled a mighty wind upon the sea). This construction effectively demonstrates YHVHs agency in creating sea-storms. Just as in Psalm 107, and here even more intensively so, YHVH is the one who causes the storm to rise, signaling control over the waters. As the narrative unfolds this control will be further revealed as an ability that belongs to YHVH alone. In v. 5, each sailor cries out to his own god ( .)This phrase does not so much reveal the religious diversity of sailors aboard the ship, but serves to demonstrate that no other god of any individual or nation has control over the sea. Verse 5 moves along hurriedly: the narrator does not provide the opportunity for any god to answer the constituent individuals aboard the ship because it is assumed that no god will have any power over the storm. Immediately after it is reported that each individual cried out to their respective god, the narrator quickly presses

56

Cf. Ex 3.10; Judg 6:14; Isa 6.8-13; Jer 1.4-5; Ezek 2.3-8

24 forward, using a correlative vav in the MT and a correlative in the LXX, reporting that the sailors began to throw the cargo overboard in hopes of saving themselves. However, based on Psalm 107 and the precedent set throughout the HB, the hearer knows that these actions will be to no avail: only YHVH is able to settle the storm and save the ship from certain destruction. After casting lots and determining the storm is a result of Jonahs actions, the sailors learn just where the storm came from. Jonah reports that he is a Hebrew ( 75) and that he serves YHVH, the one who made the sea. This is all the sailors need to know: the report strikes them with great fear. The author uses a verbal lexeme combined with a nominal object with an adjectival modifier to intensively demonstrate the sailors fear: . The intensity of their fear again reflects knowledge that only YHVH will be able to settle the sea; if they are unable to appease YHVH in some way the entire crew is surely doomed. In the following sequence, the sailors exhaust all of their options, just as in Psalm 107.27. When they have no other choice, they take Jonahs advice and, offering a prayer to YHVH, fling Jonah into the sea. To no surprise, as soon as they complete this action the sea is calmed. What is most revealing about the conclusion of this pericope is the sailors praise of YHVH. Initially each sailor had cried out to his own god in hopes that one of their gods might be able to calm the storm. As the pericope closes the sailors actions have changed dramatically because of YHVHs ability to settle the waters: they pray to YHVH (v. 14), fear YHVH even more (v. 16), offer a sacrifice (v. 16), and make vows (v.16). As was the case of Genesis 1 and Psalm 107, YHVHs

Interestingly the LXX renders as . Aus has suggested that this is a misreading of where the was as a rendering ( servant) and the was understood to be a shortened version of the tetragrammaton. (Roger David Aus, The Stilling of the Storm: Studies in Early Palestinian Judaic Traditions [New York: Global Publications, 2000], 5.) However, it is more likely that the LXX translators render this phrase servant of the Lord to further demonstrate both the fear of the YHVH instilled in the sailors and YHVH as the only deity who is able to control the waters and still the storm.

57

25 ability to control the sea, in this case in a sea-storm narrative, is the impetus to attribute him praise. It is strong motivation to turn from other gods to the Hebrew god, the only one with the ability to control the waters.

Conclusion to HB and the Sea What I have attempted to demonstrate in the preceding section is that the Divinitys control of the sea has a storied tradition in Israelite religion, the Hebrew Bible, and Judaism into the post-exilic period (and beyond, as we shall see with the gospel of Mark.) This precedent was set quite early in the praise literature. It was further demonstrated in the exilic narrative of Genesis 1.1-2.4, which was an intertextual response to the Canaanite creation myth Enuma Elish. This characteristic continued into the various traditions in Hebrew Bible literature all the way into the post-exilic period and beyond. Jonah 1.1-17 provides narrative evidence of YHVHs control over the waters into the later periods of HB composition. This attribute was a significant reason that YHVH was to be praised over against the gods of other nations and individuals, as the Jonah account demonstrated well. Control of the sea was a prerequisite of divinity in Israelite and Jewish tradition. As we will see, this is a prerequisite that Jesus meets in both Mark 4.35-41 and 6.45-52.

Summary Before moving to the text of Mark it will be helpful to summarize the direction I have taken to this point and briefly reiterate the intertextual methodology that I will be using as I approach an exegesis of these two pericopes in Marks gospel. I began by describing the intertextual method and its use in biblical studies. Here, there are two primary ways the

26 methodology has been used: diachronically and synchronically. There is a divide in scholarship and adherents to the two methodologies typically approach the text differently, both claiming the others methodology is improper. I then moved on to describe intertextualitys use in poststructuralist circles, as Kristeva coined the term. For the poststructuralists, intertextuality is about both the production and experience of a text, and, ultimately, the author completely loses control over her text once it is pennedcausality is left to the wind. This becomes problematic for any type of exegesis that attempts to identify and demonstrate meaning made from allusions and echoes. Sticking to a strict poststructuralist use of the intertextual method is unproductive in this regard. Instead, I proposed a methodology that takes the poststructuralist critique of prestructuralist approaches seriously, while still allowing the author to attempt to make some kind of meaning by means of quotation, allusion, or echo. I understand intertextual relationships to be a play between author, text, and readerwith an emphasis towards the latter. An author may intend to evoke a certain text or certain texts, but there is no guarantee a reader will detect any given allusion: any number of other unintended texts may be evoked for the reader. Within this framework something can be said both about Marks intended allusion in his sea narratives, but also about his unintended intertexts. An exploration of both is necessary in order to appreciate the meaning that may have been created for Marks intended hearer. In this way, we can explore both allusions and intertexts58 that may have altered the meaning of Marks pericopes for the intended hearer.59 Ultimately, the allusions and intertexts that are at work in

As a reminder, I use allusion to refer to those texts Mark intended as referents and I use intertext for those texts Mark likely did not intend as referents. 59 I use intended hearer rather than intended reader when I speak of Marks narrative. I do this for two reasons. First, is that the majority of individuals in antiquity did not have the ability to read as in the modern Western world and likely did not experience the text as a reader. Second, I

58

27 these pericopes demonstrate Jesus as a divine figure, both in regards to Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions. In approaching Marks text I will explore allusions and intertexts separately and then propose how each alters the meaning created for Marks intended audience in a similar manner.

have been convinced by the burgeoning field of performance criticism, which has begun to exert strong influence in Markan studies. Scholars practicing performance criticism are indebted to their narrative critic predecessors, but take narrative criticism one step further, positing that Mark was most likely performed in its original setting. For scholars practicing performance criticism with regards to the gospel of Mark see Thomas E. Boomershine, Audience Address and Purpose in the Performance of Mark, in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), Robert M. Fowler, In the Boat with Jesus: Imagining Ourselves in Mark's Story, in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) and Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (New York: Trinity Press International, 2003).

CHAPTER 3: ALLUSION IN MARK 4.35-41

In this portion of the thesis I will explore the relationship between Mark 4.35-41 and his intended allusions, namely Jonah and the Odyssey 10.28-55, utilizing Richard Hayss criteria of availability, volume, and satisfaction. I will argue that Mark is intentionally alluding to these texts by means of verbal and ideological resonances. In this pericope Mark is intentionally transvaluing both the texts of Jonah and the Odyssey. In doing so Mark supposes that his audience will catch on to what is being done in these allusions and expects that their ideas about Jesus, Jonah, and Odysseus will all be altered through their use. In regards to the HB Jesus will be demonstrated as divine. In regards to the Odyssey he will be presented as the superlative moral hero.

Allusion to Jonah 1.1-17 Availability Availability asks, was the proposed source available to [the author] and/or his original readers?60 It is intuitive that a source would need to be available for a writer to utilize it as an evoked text. This is certainly the case for the text of Jonah, which was, without a doubt, an authoritative text well before Marks gospel was composed. While Jonah is not explicitly named in Marks gospel, Jonah is explicitly named in both Matthew and Luke, written only a few

Richard B. Hays, Who has Believed Our Message: Pauls Reading of Isaiah, in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israels Scripture (ed. Richard B. Hays; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 34. 28

60

29 decades later.61 Furthermore, it has been noted that Jonah was used frequently as an antitype of Jesus in the early Christian tradition.62 While Jonah was often used as an anti-type of Jesus, there is evidence of the opposite kind of interpretation in the first few centuries CE as well. Roger David Aus states, one strand of Judaic interpretation on Jonah appears to have been messianic and thus capable of association with the Messiah Jesus.63 Thus, two ends of a spectrum are represented in early Judaic interpretation of Jonah: one that views Jonah positively and another that does not. For a spectrum of interpretive possibilities to exist, a text would necessarily have been widely used. Mark uses this commonly available text and likely represents more strongly the view that does not interpret Jonah messianically.

Volume Volume speaks to how obvious an echo would be to the implied reader or hearer of the text. In some ways, it is perhaps the most important criterion in evaluating an allusion, because it speaks not only to the probability of an allusion, but the meaning of the allusion as well. Volume can be determined by two factors: first, verbal resonances and, second, by the distinctiveness, prominence or popular familiarity of the precursor text.64 A text can mirror its evoked text verbally; however, this will often not be the case due to the complexities of textual traditions of both the LXX and the NT. Nevertheless, a text can certainly be allusive if it is evoking a text that has or had a widespread reputation. For example, the phrase Ill be back only has three words

Cf. Matt 12.39; 16.4; 16.17; Luke 11.29-32 Collins, Mark, 260. 63 Roger David Aus, The Stilling of the Storm: Studies in Early Palestinian Judaic Traditions, (New York: Global Publications, 2000), 3. 64 Hays, Who has Believed Our Message in Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 36.
62

61

30 of resonance with the Terminator corpus, but once it is uttered echoes of Arnold Schwarzenegger continue to roll in the mind of its hearer. Before one instance of verbal resonance between Jonah and Mark 4.35-41 is demonstrated, there is an argument from narrative order that speaks to the volume of Jonah in Mark that ought to be presented. There are six identical narrative elements that exist between the two texts. These elements have been laid out convincingly by O. Lamar Cope: a departure by boat, a violent storm at sea, a sleeping main character, badly frightened sailors, a miraculous stilling related to the main character, and finally, a marveling response by the sailors.65 Given these narrative similarities and the highly memorable nature of the Jonah account it is difficult to argue that these elements are not working in an allusive manner. To be sure, there are a number of instances of verbal and narrative resonances between Mark 4.35-41 and Jonah 1.3-16 in the LXX.66 There is one clear example of resonance that supports the interpretation offered here and also gives a picture of near-perfect resonance. In Mark 4.41, immediately before the disciples pose the question of who Jesus is, the reader gets a glimpse into their inner emotions: (and they were filled with great fear).67 A phrase that is identical (save for the subject of the verb) is used in Jonah 1.10: (the men were filled with great fear). The verbal resonance in itself makes a convincing argument for allusion. What makes the strong argument for the interpretation offered in this thesis is the context of this phrase in Jonah. It comes immediately after Jonah informs the men which god he worships: O. Lamar Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (CBQMS 5 Washington, D.C.: Catholic Bible Association, 1976), 96. 66 For a full outline of narrative resonance between Mark 4.35-41 and Jonah see Appendix B: Verbal Resonances Between Mark and Jonah. 67 All NT translations are my own, based on NA27, all LXX translations are also my own based on Rahlfs Hanhart Septuaginta.
65

31 (I am a servant of the Lord and I worship the Lord, God of the heavens.)68 It was noted in the presentation of Jonah as an intertextual backdrop to Mark that this phrase in the MT served to intensively demonstrate the sailors knowledge that only YHVH could calm the sea and that they would certainly be hopeless is they could not abate YHVHs wrath. Just as the sailors in Jonahs narrative feared because of their knowledge of the LORDs power over the sea, so also Jesuss disciples fear because they know that only YHVH has power over the sea. When the fear of the disciples was narrated in Marks account, the fear of the God of Israel, the only one who has power over the waters, is the echo ringing in the hearers mind. Knowing that only YHVH has the power to control the sea, but having experienced Jesus stilling the storm, the disciples pose the legitimate question: ; (who is this one that both the wind and the sea obey him?) The answer, implicitly, is that this one must be akin to YHVH.

Satisfaction Satisfaction asks, in essence, if the proposed allusion illuminates the text in some way that it could not be illumined without the intertextual relationship. Surely, in Marks account there is some narrative satisfaction, apart from an allusion to Jonah, in Jesus rising from slumber and stilling a storm, demonstrating a remarkable ability that is analogous to the Divine. Being that the LORDs power and control over the waters is a recurrent and well-established theme in the Hebrew Bible, perhaps the account in Mark could still be interpreted this way without an explicit allusion to Jonah. However, the narrative is saturated with elements echoing Jonah and the crux of the passage gives a direct verbal cue to the text of Jonah 1.10. In this way the reading In the MT it is significant that the Tetragrammaton is used:
68

32 becomes more satisfying and patently obvious when Jonah is working as an allusion in the background. The satisfaction is further demonstrated in the fact that something new is added to the narrative, as Aus states: Jesus does not pray in the boat to his heavenly Father for Him to show that He is Lord of all the elements. Instead, he himself exercises the divine prerogative of commanding wind and waves to cease. This portrays him as the Son of God, for only God possesses this power.69 Just as the LORD calms the storm and the sailors fear in the Jonah account, so also Jesus calms the storm and the sailors fear in Marks account because they get a glimpse of Jesus divinity. An interpretive problem is also solved when the allusion to the HB is recognized. Interpreters have often questioned why Mark calls this body of water a sea (, v. 39), when in all reality it is actually a relatively small lake (), a fact Luke corrects in his redaction. Surely Mark knows that the grandeur of the Sea of Galilee (approximately 12 miles long) is negligible in comparison to other bodies of water he would have been familiar with; say perhaps, the Mediterranean Sea. However, for Mark, Jesus stilling of the storm would not have been nearly as dramatic, nor would it have connected well with the Jonah tradition or the HB tradition generally if the event did not take place on the sea. As Collins states, [the storm] is assimilated to the awesome storms at sea that figure in the historical writings.70 Mark calls Lake Gennesaret a sea primarily to establish a stronger allusive referent, thus heightening the pericopes drama. This allusive referent solves a vexing historical and interpretive problem, lending credence to the proposal that Mark is alluding to the HB tradition.

69 70

Aus, The Stilling of the Storm, 76. Collins, Mark, 259.

33 Allusion to the Odyssey 10.28-55 Before I observe the allusive elements of the Odyssey present in this pericope it is necessary to give due credit to Dennis MacDonald, who sees the gospel of Mark in its entirety as an anti-epic based on the Odyssey and portions of the Iliad.71 It is through the influence of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark that I began questioning the method of intertextuality. His intertextual arguments for the Odyssey in the entirety of the gospel of Mark, and this pericope in particular, are far more exhaustive than I could present in this section. For a thorough intertextual interpretation of these texts, and for an interesting and persuasive reading, see his work, which will be heavily footnoted in what follows. For those unfamiliar with this portion of the epic (10.28-55) a brief summary will be beneficial before moving to the intertextual relationship itself. I have also included the text in Appendix C for easy reference. In 10.28-55 Odysseus and his comrades are attempting to sail to their homeland. The land becomes so close that they can see fires upon the shore. However, Odysseus sailors become jealous, thinking that the bag of winds that he received from Aeolus is treasure being kept from them. While Odysseus sleeps they open the bag of winds, which results in a fierce storm that sends them back to the floating island of Aeolus. During the storm, Odysseus is powerless to help himself or the ship. All he can do is ride out the storm, and mourn that his comrades mistake kept him from his homeland. In what follows I will demonstrate that Mark is intentionally recalling this narrative to transvalue Odysseus as a hero and a moral character, setting Jesus up in opposition to him. Hays criteria of availability, volume, and satisfaction will again be put to use.

Dennis MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

71

34 Availability The Odyssey was certainly available and likely well known to Mark in the composition of his gospel. While it is noted that Justin Martyr is the earliest Christian to explicitly mention the Homeric epics, these epics were the very air that was breathed in the ancient near-eastern world. As MacDonald states, Greek youngsters learned their s from lists of Homeric names; one of the first sentences they wrote was Homer was not a man but a god; and among their first reading assignments was a selection of verse from The Odyssey. Among papyri that survive from the early empire are scraps of lines from The Illiad and The Odyssey copied as a writing exercise72 The massive number of surviving Homeric manuscripts attests to this reality as well: one catalogue from Greco-Roman Egypt lists 677 Homeric manuscripts compared to 42 from Plato, 77 from Euripides, and 83 from Demosthenes.73 Without a doubt, the Homeric epics, and the Odyssey in particular, was the literature of choice among ancient Greeks and Romans. In fact, Lee Martin Macdonald notes that the Odyssey likely held authority in a way similar to various HB texts authority in the last few centuries BCE: the closest parallel to sacred writings outside of the biblical literature is probably Homers Iliad and Odyssey.74 This being the case, it makes the Odyssey a likely intertextual target of transvaluation.

Volume The volume of the Odyssey in Mark 4.35-41 is best attested by two distinct Greek words and two oddities that are found in Marks pericope. These have been explained, unsatisfactorily, in a number of ways by different interpreters, ultimately they are best understood as elements of MacDonald, The Homeric Epics, 17. Dennis MacDonald, Christianizing Homer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 17. 74 Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 25.
72 Dennis 73

35 allusion to Homers text. The first Greek term is (gale), which occurs only one other time in the New Testament outside of the Lukan parallel to Mark, and occurs only a handful of times in the LXX, all in non-narrative sections. However, the word appears six times in the Odyssey. The term became a sort of sea-storm narrative catchphrase in Greek literature, found in a number of varying accounts.75 The second unique term is (calm), which does not appear elsewhere in the NT or LXX, but 5 times in the Homeric epics.76 These two terms became unique to sea-storm narratives of Greek literature due to Homeric influence in the Odyssey and would be buzzwords that trigger the ancient mind to conjure up Homers epics. Whats more, there are two narrative oddities that turn up the Homeric volume in Mark 4.35-41. The first is in v. 36 where we find the seemingly out of place phrase (and other boats were with him), an element taken out in both Matthew and Lukes redaction. There are three plausible explanations for this phrase: Mark is attempting to add a historical reality to the narrative, there is a scribal error that omitted a negative particle and the text meant to read that there were not other boats with him, thus heightening the drama of the storm, 77 or that Mark is attempting to reflect an element found in the Odyssey. In Odysseus nautical travels 12 other boats accompany him in a flotilla, a fact prominent in the narrative. MacDonald makes the suggestion that this is the best explanation for the seemingly out of place mention of the other boats in Mark 4.78 The second oddity is Jesus overreaction when the disciples wake him up. He directs a pejorative term ( cowards)79 towards them. Narratively, their concern seems to be
75 76

MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 59. MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 60. 77 Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (AB; New York: DoubleDay, 2000), 332. 78 MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 57-58. 79 BDAG, 215.

36 perfectly legitimate: the waves are crashing into the boat so that it is being swamped, surely a cause for concern for anyone at sea. This overreaction is explained by the parallel account in the Odyssey. In the sea-storm account of the Odyssey, Odysseus fellow sailors become jealous of him and while Odysseus sleeps they open the bag of winds, effectively ruining Odysseus attempt at getting to his homeland on this particular occasion. The cowardliness of the disciples in Marks account is thus being contrasted with the foolishness and greed of Odysseus comrades.80

Satisfaction When discussing volume above, two of the Markan oddities that have long puzzled scholars were mentioned. There have been many less-than-satisfying explanations presented with regards to Jesus shortness with the disciples here, as well as the statement that there were other boats that accompanied Jesus in this account. That Mark is using these oddities to allude to the Odyssey is their most satisfying explanation. There is no good reason to conclude the disciples were meritless in their concern. Jesus shortness can only be explained by means of allusion. In regards to the odd phrase there were other boats with him, there is no textual ground to stand on concerning a missing negative particle that would make the phrase there were not other boats with him. That the phrase represents some kind of historical reality is betrayed by the fact that both Matthew and Luke redact this saying. The most plausible explanation is that the phrase is functioning as an allusion.

80

MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 58-59.

37 Conclusion In this section I have attempted to demonstrate the ways in which both the text of Jonah, primarily in its Septuagintal form, and the Odyssey can be seen as allusions in Mark 4.35-41 based on the criteria of echoes and allusions laid out by Richard Hays. I have intentionally avoided favoring an allusion to one of these texts over the other, because I dont see one as having more allusive qualities than the other. It is typical in New Testament scholarship, and especially in modern commentaries, to lay out the various allusive options and then to argue for one over the other(s). Here I have only presented two of the interpreters options. While we can never crawl into the intended audiences mind and determine what texts, stories, and narratives are rattling about, Mark has used verbal and narrative clues in an attempt to conjure up these seastorm narratives in the mind of his intended audience. A hearer of Marks gospel familiar with the HB tradition of YHVHs control over the waters would likely pick up on Marks verbal and ideological references to this tradition and the Jonah narrative in particular. The meaning implied by these allusions is that Jesus, in his ability to control the sea-storm through spoken words, is presented as analogous to YHVH. Those familiar with the Odyssey would recognize that Jesus is a far greater character that Odysseus, who, upon waking to a storm, can only ride out the storm and hope he miraculously makes it out alive. It is likely that the majority of Marks original hearers were familiar with both traditions and the allusive qualities to each tradition are at play in Mark 4.35-41. It is equally as likely that there were members of Marks original audience who had intertexts at play that Mark does not intentionally allude to, this is especially true given the prominence of sea-storm narratives in the Greco-Roman world.

CHAPTER 4: INTERTEXTS IN MARK 4.35-41

The sea-storm narrative is by no means a contemporary invention. To be sure, we have our fair share of modern-day sea-storm tales, some of which are literary and cinematic masterpieces. The ANE also had its fair share of these narratives, although perhaps we only know the masterpieces that were more likely to survive the test of textual time. Furthermore, there are only a number of these ancient sea-storm narratives that are known by the mind of the general modern population; of which Mark 4.35-41 (and parallels), Jonah, and the Odyssey are three of the most prominent. All this betrays the well-established fact that ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman literature was littered with sea-storm tales, most of which found their prototypical form in Homer.81 Rick Strelan has argued for a general literary form for these narratives that included: a sudden storm, fierce winds, a boundary broken between heaven and sea, waves threatening to overwhelm the boat; attempts to free the boat of cargo; a hopeless situation is made more hopeless with even the captain feeling hopeless, people crying to their gods for help, and finally, the hero is saved.82 The notion of type-scene, which was first established in Homeric scholarship and made popular in criticism of the biblical narrative by Robert Alter,83 while not utilized by Strelan, is helpful here. Based on the texts we have explored and the aspects of sea-storms gleaned from a wider study in this field of ANE literature, it is possible to postulate the existence of a sea-storm type-scene that was popular in ANE, and more specifically, Greco-Roman literature. The point of suggesting the use of a type-scene is not to say that each narrative necessarily follows upon

81 82

Rick Strelan, A Greater than Caesar: Storm Stories in Lucan and Mark, ZNW 91 (2000): 169. Strelan, A Greater than Caesar, 167-168. 83 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). 38

39 the exact same pattern; in fact, there are divergences between the accounts explored in this thesis. What the type-scene does, among other things, is set up a convention that is easy for the reader to follow. Robert Alter captures the nature of the type-scene well: the contemporary audiences of these tales, being perfectly familiar with the convention, took particular pleasure in seeing how in each instance the convention could be, through the narrators art, both faithfully followed and renewed for the specific needs of the hero under consideration.84 The author had sufficient freedom to follow or diverge from the type-scene to alter his story, heighten suspense, highlight different aspects of characterization, or even change the thrust of the narrative altogether. The sea-storm type scene was especially popular in the first few centuries BCE and into the first few centuries CE. There are a number of sea-storm texts that would have been available to a first or second century hearer of Marks gospel that are still extant. There are likely more narratives, both oral and textual, that we no longer have access to nearly two thousand years later that would have fit comfortably within this type-scene. As was previously mentioned, the common conclusion to these texts was either the death of the sailor(s) or their survival by the skin of their teeth. In what follows I will present two texts that would have been likely intertexts for Marks original hearer. These texts dont have nearly as strong verbal or narrative resonances as Jonah 1.1-17 or the Odyssey 10.28-55 and, in this way, are not in a causal relationship with Mark. However, they do possess ideological resonances with Mark 4.35-41 and it would be plausible for one of these texts to be evoked for an individual in Marks original audience. In this evocation Jesus would be understood as a character unlike any other experienced in the seastorm type scene.

84

Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 58.

40 The Odyssey 5.291-390 While I have already argued that Mark intended to allude to one passage in the Odyssey based on verbal resonances, narrative similarities, and oddities in Marks text, it is possible that the original audience picked up on one of the two other sea-storms in the epic.85 There are a number of elements in the narrative of 5.291-390 that may have triggered it has an intertext to Marks pericope. To begin, just as in the Markan account, Odysseus sets out during a period of calm. In fact, he sails for seventeen days in fair weather, without any sign of danger (cf. 5.278). Just as quickly as the squall comes upon the boat in Mark, so the winds and waves are cast upon Odysseus vessel by Poseidon. As the storm rises, Odysseus fears for his life just as the disciples had feared their destruction. Speaking to himself Odysseus uses the same derogatory term Jesus directs to the disciples: , (Oh what a coward I am! What, at last, shall happen to me?)86 The use of / in both accounts does not signify a causal relationship, but certainly could have been picked up on by a hearer of Marks gospel or by a reader/hearer of the Odyssey. Whichever intertext was recognized in the other would likely have lead to Odysseus character being belittled, while Jesus would have been commended as a superior moral character and even as comparable to Poseidon, who has control over the wind and the waves in the Odyssey. This meaning would be further implanted due to the way the 5.291-390 ends: after Odysseus is flung overboard, spitting up salt water, he miraculously returns to his raft, at which point Ino has mercy on him and sends the vessel back to the shore. Thus, it is only through

85 86

The other two occur in 5.291-390; 12.399-450; Ody. 5.299; cf. Mark 4.40

41 divine intervention that Odysseus is saved from the storm. The same, however, may be said of the disciples in Mark 4.

Aeneid I 1.30-142 One of the benefits of utilizing the intertextual method in a non-causal manner is the ability to compare texts that are not necessarily of the same stock. Many are practicing this with modern texts, utilizing intertextuality through a synchronic approach: in this framework, texts are the material aspect of the signifiera text may consist of ink on a page, the vibration of a guitar string, or electronic pulses on a wire.87 In this way it is possible to compare different text types. While some interpreters utilize this definition of text to compare an ancient writing with a modern text (film, song, etc.), the benefit for the approach here is that it becomes possible to compare texts from two different languages in antiquity, whereas texts written in different languages would not typically be interpreted intertextually within a diachronic approach. Vergils Aeneid is not popularly explored as an intertextual referent to Mark 4.35-41 because it is written in Latin. However, it would take some impressive historical gymnastics to provide a convincing argument that no one hearing Marks gospel in the first century knew Latin. Aeneid, written approximately seventy-five years before Mark and in the popular genre of epic literature88, would likely have been a text mulling in mind of Marks intended audience, and thus provides a fitting intertextual referent.

Alkier, Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts, in Hays, Alkier, and Huizenga, Reading the Bible Intertextually, 3. 88 Aeneid is itself in a strong intertextual with the Odyssey. In many ways Aeneid mimics the Odyssey and transvalues the text. Anytime a reference is picked up from the Odyssey in Mark it is possible that Aeneid functioned as an intertext in some way.

87

42 The performance of the Aeneid does not move far along before a sea-storm is encountered. After only thirty lines the hearer learns that Juno intends to send a storm upon Aeneas and his crew. Juno, however, is unable to produce the storm herself and must request Aeolus, the god of the winds, to blow winds upon the sea. Aeolus grants this request and, by means of speech (haec ubi dicta), pours the winds upon the sea, causing all the men to be threatened by death (praesentemque viris intentant omnia mortem). Just as the disciples were threatened with destruction in v. 38 of Marks account (), so also the sailors are threatened with death (mortem) in the Vergils account. While the disciples are saved in Marks account, the same is not true of all the sailors in Aeneid: three ships are thrown against hidden rocks while another three are dashed against a sandbank (1.107-112). Only after the furious storm has done significant damage to the flotilla and Aeneas has shown his lack of courage, intertextually demonstrating his cowardice akin to the disciples (1.93102), does Neptune step in to abate the storm. Just as the storm was raised through speech, and as the storm was abated through speech in Mark 4.39 ( ), the storm is settled in 1.141-145 by Neptunes speech: sic ait et dicto citius tumida aequora placat collectasque fugat nubes solemque reducit (He spoke, and swiftlier than his word subdued the swelling of the floods; dispersed afar the assembled clouds, and brought back light to heaven.)89 Yet again, in an intertextual relationship with Vergils account, Jesus is presented as superior to the hero and analogous to the divine. In Aeneid, Aeneas is helpless, just as Odysseus was, to save himself or his crew. It is only through the divine intervention of Neptune that he is saved. Jesus, unlike Aeneas, is able to save both himself and his crew through his speech. Just as

89

Aen. 1.141-145 (Williams)

43 Jesus ability to control the sea through words reflects his divinity with reference to the HB tradition, so also this divinity is reflected in a quite different tradition the Latin epic.

Conclusion What I have attempted to demonstrate in this section is that Mark 4.35-41 has connections with a number of traditions that are not typically recognized. To my knowledge, no other interpreter has attempted to demonstrate an intertextual relationship between Mark and the texts previously explored. This is likely because the causal and diachronic intertextual resonances are not patently obvious. However, when many of these sea-storm texts are surveyed the ideological resonances between the texts become clear. While Mark was not intending to provide intentional allusions to these texts, and perhaps did not even know them, they function as fitting intertexts, and likely would be recalled by hearers of Marks gospel in the first century. For those scholars interested in the original meaning of Marks text to a first-century hearer, these Greco-Roman sea-storms, though not functioning as intentional allusions, ought to be recognized as intertexts because they would have provided a locus of meaning for the firstcentury hearer.

CHAPTER 5: ALLUSION IN MARK 6.45-52

Exodus 14 I began the exploration of Marks text with the twofold task of identifying and interpreting causal allusions to both Jonah 1.1-17 and the Odyssey 10.28-55 in Mark 4.35-41. This was primarily a diachronic approach to intertextual relationship and demonstrated that Mark was intending to transvalue the characters of Jonah and Odysseus while simultaneously presenting Jesus as a divine figure. I utilized Richard Hayss criteria of availability, volume, and satisfaction. In what follows I will offer another allusive interpretation of Jesus and his disciples at sea in Mark 6.45-52 using these same criteria to demonstrate that Mark is intentionally alluding to Exodus 14 in its Septuagintal form; this will, once again, be a primarily diachronic approach to the text. I will demonstrate that the pericope functions as a theophany, similar to those in the HB. In alluding to Exodus 14 I will argue that Mark is once again utilizing an allusion to present the divinity of Jesus upon the sea.

Availability The narrative in Exodus 14 served as a cornerstone for both Israelite and Judean religion. It tells of YHVHs faithfulness and deliverance of his people in crossing through the sea. William Stegner calls the narrative in Exodus 14 the central event in the life of the Jewish people.90 There can be no doubt that the Exodus tradition was well known to any Judean in the

William Richard Stegner, Jesus Walking on the Water: Mark 6.45-52, in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner; JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 216. 44

90

45 first-century, and most likely to non-Judeans as well. In fact, anytime the sea was mentioned in a first-century narrative it is plausible to think, in a synchronic interpretation, that the Exodus account, being a central aspect of the Israelite narrative, may have been called to mind. While this narrative may have been recalled based on the prominence of the story alone, the volume of Exodus 14 is evidenced by a number of verbal resonances and parallels to the LXX text.

Volume In Exodus 14 the prominence of the sea is demonstrated early. The LORD commands Moses in 14.2 to camp between Migdol and the sea ( ). The sea is again emphasized at the end of v. 2 as YHVH reiterates where the children of Israel are to encamp: near the sea ( ). The setting of the narrative could not be clearer. Whats more the term is used another 13 times in the chapter.91 In combination with chapter 1492 the use of / in these texts makes up 72% of all the uses in Exodus.93 Without a doubt the sea is prominent in this narrative. The setting upon the sea alone does not necessarily make a convincing argument for intentional allusion; rather, it creates the groundwork the argument can be built on. Beyond the obvious ideological resonance of divine rescue at sea, there are two verbal resonances that demonstrate the volume of Marks intentional allusion to Exodus 14 in this pericope. The first, and less significant theophonically, is the use of the second person imperative (take courage) in Exodus 14.13 and Mark 6.50. The verb is used only five others time in the New

Cf. Exod 14.9, 16 (x2), 21 (x3), 22, 23, 26, 27 (x2), 28, 29, 30 Chapter 14 is the song of Moses, a Psalmic account praising YHVH for his actions in this narrative. 93 Twenty-six of the thirty-six occurrences.
92

91

46 Testament outside the parallel passage in Matthew, and never again as a plural imperative. Moses uses the exact same form of the verb, encouraging the children of Israel to take courage because of the works YHVH is about to accomplish on the sea. That the word is rare in the NT and reflects an identical verbal form in a nearly identical setting attests that it is alluding to Exodus 14. The use of the revelatory phrase (I am) in both accounts further stregthens the case for allusion while simultaneously presenting both accounts as theophanies. The phrase occurs in both Exodus 14.4 and 14.18 in direct speech from the LORD, indicating that all the Egyptians will know that YHVH is the Lord ( ). This is the consequence of YHVHs action on the sea: while Israel already knows, or should already know, that YHVH is the LORD, YHVHs actions of dividing, and subsequently collapsing, the sea will demonstrate this to all the Egyptians. only occurs once in Mark 6.45-52, but its prominence at the climax of the narrative makes it particularly significant. As the hydro peripatetic Jesus intends to pass the disciples by they think him to be a ghost (), they scream,94 and become terrified (). Based on Jesus previous encounter with the sea just two chapters earlier in Mark, the hearer is led to believe something spectacular is about to occur as Jesus approaches the disciples boat. As Mark shifts from narrating Jesus action to reporting Jesus speech, the text moves from a string of aorist tense verbs95 to the present tense when Jesus calms the disciples: Be courageous; I am; do not fear (, .) By reporting Jesus speech in Because there is no object related to the aorist verb here, it is best to translate the passage they screamed rather than they cried out. 95 , , , , ,
94

47 the present tense Mark has moved from the less marked aorist to the more marked present, presenting Jesus words as a dramatic climax to the pericope. The drama and theophany are further heightened by the lack of a predicate nominative appended to . It is rare for the to-be verb to stand on its own in Greek without a predicate. This, no doubt, reflects that Jesus is presenting himself as divine, reflecting Gods revelation in the HB: ( I am who I am). As Fowler states, the Greek here is in fact often a potent formula of divine selfrevelation.96 Jesus commands his disciples not to fear simply because He is. His command makes little sense and provides no stimulus to courage without the theophonic referent to the HB/LXX of divine self-revelation. Of course, Jesus revealing his divinity, by means of intertextual allusion, provides a strong impetus for the disciples to cast off their fear and put on their courage. As Jesus gets in the boat the storm ceases, as is fitting with the HB tradition of the divinitys control over the sea; it is only natural that after the hearer learns of Jesus divinity that the storm would calm. In recounting another sea-narrative Mark has again intentionally provided an allusion to a prominent Israelite and Judean tradition: the exodus. As was the common trope, once again in the exodus tradition YHVHs power over the sea was demonstrated. Mark takes the opportunity, once more, to use an allusion in a sea-narrative to present Jesus as divine in regards to this HB tradition.

Robert M. Fowler, In the Boat with Jesus: Imagining Ourselves in Mark's Story, in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 251.

96

CHAPTER 6: INTERTEXT IN MARK 6.45-52

Greco-Roman Political/Military Leaders Above I argued that Mark intentionally alludes to Exodus 14 in his account of Jesus walking on the water. Both the verbal and ideological resonances between the two accounts are strong and would have caused Jewish hearers to catch on to the allusion. Because Mark alludes to Exodus 14 does not, however, mean that this is the only intertext that may have been involved in meaning making for the first century hearer. It is possible that an individual who was not familiar with the exodus tradition had another text in mind as Mark 6.45-52 was narrated. It is also plausible for more than one text to exert influence on meaning and interpretation within an intertextual framework. In this way it is conceivable that Exodus 14 may have been the primary text recalled for a hearer, but other texts were evoked as well and affected the meaning made for the 1st century hearer. Of those texts available to us in the 21st century I will explore the accounts of Greco-Roman gods and divine men walking on water. Portions of both the Iliad and Aeneid have been explored as representative of various intertextual relationships throughout this thesis. While sketching a Greco-Roman literary background I evoked Aeneid 5.1081-1085 and Iliad 13.25-30 as representative of the Greek/Roman deities ability to tread upon the sea in their chariots. Hermes and Mercury reflect a similar ability in Greek and Roman mythology with their ability to run upon the water with magical winged shoes. If Greco-Roman mythology was an intertext at play it is likely that these deities were transvalued by Jesus ability to walk on the water. Where Poseidon and Neptune

48

49 utilize their chariots to glide over the sea, Jesus uses only his divine power. Where Hermes and Neptune need magical footwear, Jesus needs only his divine-man feet.97 The other plausible intertext is various political leaders water crossings; these were performed either by the technological feat (floating bridge) or mysterious responses on the part of nature to the powerful leader (the sea recognizes Alexander and makes it possible for him to cross).98 These texts nearly always are related to military victories on the part of the leaders. Herodotus tells of Xerxes rebuking the water and his army subsequently passing through: He commanded them while they whipped to utter words outlandish and presumptuous, Bitter water, our master thus punishes you, because you did him wrong though he had done you none. Xerxes the king will pass over you, whether you want it or not; in accordance with justice no one offers you sacrifice, for you are a turbid and briny riverhe viewed his army crossing under the lash. Seven days and seven nights it was in crossing, with no pause.99 Evidence from the early 2nd century CE demonstrates that Xerxes feat had been mythicized further and was well known during the period of Roman rule in the east.100 This account, alongside others similar,101 demonstrate that the ability to walk on the water was an ability possessed not only by deities, but also by political leaders in their military pursuits. This intertext would present Jesus in starkly political and Messianic terms. Adela Yarbro Collins summarizes the effect these texts would have had on Marks Roman audience: This tradition would make the presentation of Jesus as the messiah (the king of Israel or all creation) intelligible to a Hellenized or Romanized audience. The

MacDonald, The Homeric Epics, 153. Geyer, Fear, Anomaly, and Uncertainty, 242. 99 History 7.35; 7.56 (Godley, LCL) 100 Collins, Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water (Mark 6.45-52), in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (ed. Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 219. 101 Cf. especially Xenophon Anabasis 1.4.17-18 for an account of Cyrus II.
98

97

50 philosophical discussions about true kingship would prepare such an audience for the attribution of kingship to someone without literal political power.102 While Collins conclusions are ultimately concerned with the pre-Markan literary form of this pericope as a missionizing text, they are apt for an intertextual approach as well. For those individuals (Jewish or otherwise) evoking these political texts, the Markan pericope would have provided strong Messianic overtones. Jesus walks upon the sea, as a political leader without literal power, first, to aid his disciples struggling in the boat, and, second, to go on and heal the sick in the following pericope. In this way, while Jesus would be understood as a political messiah, he is a political messiah who crosses the sea to aid and to heal, not to wage war on foreign nations.

Collins, Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water, in Bormann, Del Tredici, and Standhartinger, 225.

102

CONCLUSION

In this thesis I have aimed to accomplish the following: 1.) Present a cogent method for experiencing biblical texts intertextually. This method is concerned with both the historical project of exegesis and the poststructuralists use of the term. 2.) Present a literary background to Marks sea narratives by overviewing the use of sea narratives in both the HB and Greco-Roman writings. 3.) Demonstrate intended allusions to Jonah 1.1-17 and the Odyssey 10.28-55 in Mark 4.3541. 4.) Demonstrate unintended intertexts to the Odyssey 5.291-390 and Aeneid I 1.30-142 in Mark 4.35-41. 5.) Demonstrate an intended allusion to Exodus 14 in Mark 6.45-52. 6.) Demonstrate unintended intertexts to narratives in which a political or military leader crosses over the sea in Mark 6.45-52. Different readers of this thesis will likely come away with new meaning made in regards to any one of these six aims. Those more interested in poststructuralist literary theory likely will relate to that discussion and this thesis will enter into their web of intertexts that are concerned with theories of experiencing texts; those interested in biblical interpretation will likely relate to the discussion of the gospel of Mark and this thesis will enter into that web of intertexts; those individuals interested in theology, end especially Christology and Trinitarian theology, will likely relate this thesis to their understanding of Jesus divinity. While I have attempted to accomplish various objectives in writing this thesis, the most central was to present the sea as a

51

52 fitting intertextual setting for Mark to demonstrate Jesus as divine and as a Messianic figure. I may well have provided new or altered meaning for you as a reader in regards to this central objective. However, I recognize my limited role as author in an intertextual framework: the rest is left up to the text and you, as the reader.

APPENDIX A: THE DEITYS INTERACTION WITH THE SEA IN THE HEBREW BIBLE103 Makes Ps. 95.5 makes the sea Ps. 148.4-6 creates and establishes the waters above the heavens Uses the Sea as a Foundation Ps. 24.2 founds the earth upon the seas and establishes it upon the rivers Ps. 104.3 builds upper chambers on the waters Ps. 136.6 spreads out the earth on the waters Draws a Circle Upon Job 26.10 draws a circle upon the water at the boundary between light and darkness Prov. 8.27 draws a circle upon the water Establishes, Set Bars and Doors Ps. 104.9 establishes a border not to be passed Ps. 148.6 establishes a border for the waters above the heavens Job 38.8-11 shuts up the sea with doors Prov 8.29 assigns the sea its borders Cleaves Ps. 124.15 cleaves open spring and brook Prov 3.20 cleaves open while the clouds drop dew Gathers/Gathers in clouds Ps. 33.7 gathers the waters in the sea as a dam Job 26.8 binds the waters in the clouds Job 38.9 makes clouds the garment and darkness the swaddling cloth when the sea comes from the womb Prov 8.28 makes the clouds firm Summons and Pours Out Am. 5.8 summons the waters of the sea and pours them out over the earth Am 4.6 summons the waters and pours them out over the earth Rebukes Ps. 104.7 waters flee at the Lords rebuke Job 26.2 scolds the water so that the pillars of heaven tremble Is. 51 stirs the sea so that its waters roar Jer. 31.35 stirs the sea so that its waters roar Ps. 74.13 stirs the sea Job 26.12 stirs the sea Based on Carola Kloos, Yhwhs Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986), 75-79. 53
103

54

Stills Ps. 65.8 stills the roaring of the seas and their waves Ps. 89.10 stills the waves of the sea Sir. 43.23 stills the deep Dries Up Is. 44.27 says to the deep: be dry; I will dry up your rivers Ps. 74.15 dries up ever flowing rivers Rules, Is Mightier Than, Treads Upon Ps. 89.10 rules over the surging sea Ps 93.3-4 is mightier than rivers, mighty waters, and the breakers of the sea Job 9.8 treads upon the heights of the sea Fights Sea Monsters Ps. 74.13-14 shatters the heads of the Tanninim on the waters; crushes the heads of Leviathan, giving him as food to the beasts of the desert Ps. 89.11 crushes Rahab; scatters the enemies Job 9.13 is angry with the helpers of Rahab, who are crouching Job 26.12-13 smites Rahab and pierces the fleeing serpent, clearing the heavens

APPENDIX B: NARRATIVE RESONANCE BETWEEN JONAH AND MARK The Rising of the Storm Jonah 1.4: , , and the Lord raised up a wind upon the sea, and great waves came upon the sea, and the boat was in danger of breaking apart. Mark 4.37: , and a great gale of wind came of wind came about and the waved crashed into the boat so that the boat was already filled. The Sailors Fear Jonah 1.5 (in regards to the storm) and the sailors were filled with fear and each cried out their god. Jonah 1.10 (after Jonah tells them who he worships) and the men were filled with great fear. Mark 4.41 (in regards to who Jesus is) and they were filled with great fear Main Character Sleeping Jonah 1.5 but Jonah lay in the haul of the ship, sleeping and snoring. Mark 4.38 and he was in the stern, sleeping on the cushion. Approaching the Main Character

55

56 Jonah 1.6 ; , and the captain came to him and said, Why are you snoring!? Get up and call upon your God! So that He may save us and we will not be destroyed. Mark 4.38 , And they woke him and said to him, Teacher, isnt it of concern to you that we are being destroyed? Stilling the Storm Jonah 1.11 ; . Jonah 1.12 , . Jonah 1.15 , . (11) And they said to him, What shall we do to you to make the see see from upon us? Because the sea was getting rougher and the waves were rising. (12) And Jonah said to them, Pick me up and throw me to the sea, and the sea will rest upon you. I know that it is because of me that these great waves are upon you. (15) So they took Jonah and threw him out into the sea, and the sea ceased from its surge. Mark 4.39 , . And he rose and rebuked the wind and he said to the sea: Shut up! Be Silent! And the wind ceased and there was a great calm.

APPENDIX C: GRECO-ROMAN PRIMARY SOURCES Odyssey 5.291-390104 Now the fourth day came and all his work was done. And on the fifth the beautiful Calypso sent him on his way from the island after she had bathed him and clothed him in fragrant raiment. [265] On the raft the goddess put a skin of dark wine, and another, a great one, of water, and provisions, too, in a wallet. Therein she put abundance of dainties to satisfy his heart, and she sent forth a gentle wind and warm. Gladly then did goodly Odysseus spread his sail to the breeze; [270] and he sat and guided his raft skilfully with the steering-oar, nor did sleep fall upon his eyelids, as he watched the Pleiads, and latesetting Bootes, and the Bear, which men also call the Wain, which ever circles where it is and watches Orion, [275] and alone has no part in the baths of Ocean. For this star Calypso, the beautiful goddess, had bidden him to keep on the left hand as he sailed over the sea. For seventeen days then he sailed over the sea, and on the eighteenth appeared the shadowy mountains [280] of the land of the Phaeacians, where it lay nearest to him; and it shewed like unto a shield in the misty deep. But the glorious Earth-shaker, as he came back from the Ethiopians,1 beheld him from afar, from the mountains of the Solymi: for Odysseus was seen of him sailing over the sea; and he waxed the more wroth in spirit, [285] and shook his head, and thus he spoke to his own heart: Out on it! Surely the gods have changed their purpose regarding Odysseus, while I was among the Ethiopians. And lo, he is near to the land of the Phaeacians, where it is his fate to escape from the great bonds of the woe which has come upon him. [290] Aye, but even yet, methinks, I shall drive him to surfeit of evil. So saying, he gathered the clouds, and seizing his trident in his hands troubled the sea, and roused all blasts of all manner of winds, and hid with clouds land and sea alike; and night rushed down from heaven. [295] Together the East Wind and the South Wind dashed, and the fierce-blowing West Wind and the North Wind, born in the bright heaven, rolling before him a mighty wave. Then were the knees of Odysseus loosened and his heart melted, and deeply moved he spoke to his own mighty spirit: Ah me, wretched that I am! What is to befall me at the last? [300] I fear me that verily all that the goddess said was true, when she declared that on the sea, before ever I came to my native land, I should fill up my measure of woes; and lo, all this now is being brought to pass. In such wise does Zeus overcast the broad heaven with clouds, and has stirred up the sea, and the blasts [305] of all manner of winds sweep upon me; now is my utter destruction sure. Thrice blessed those Danaans, aye, four times blessed, who of old perished in the wide land of Troy, doing the pleasure of the sons of Atreus. Even so would that I had died and met my fate on that day when the throngs [310] of the Trojans hurled upon me bronze-tipped spears, fighting around the body of the dead son of Peleus. Then should I have got funeral rites, and the Achaeans would have spread my fame, but now by a miserable death was it appointed me to be cut off. Even as thus he spoke the great wave smote him from on high, rushing upon him with terrible might, and around it whirled his raft. [315] Far from the raft he fell, and let fall the steering-oar from his hand; but his mast was broken in the midst by the fierce blast of tumultuous winds that came upon it, and far in the sea sail and yardarm fell. As for him,
104

Ody 5.291-390 (Murray, LCL) 57

58 long time did the wave hold him in the depths, nor could he [320] rise at once from beneath the onrush of the mighty wave, for the garments which beautiful Calypso had given him weighed him down. At length, however, he came up, and spat forth from his mouth the bitter brine which flowed in streams from his head. Yet even so he did not forget his raft, in evil case though he was, [325] but sprang after it amid the waves, and laid hold of it, and sat down in the midst of it, seeking to escape the doom of death; and a great wave ever bore him this way and that along its course. As when in autumn the North Wind bears the thistle-tufts over the plain, and close they cling to one another, [330] so did the winds bear the raft this way and that over the sea. Now the South Wind would fling it to the North Wind to be driven on, and now again the East Wind would yield it to the West Wind to drive. But the daughter of Cadmus, Ino of the fair ankles, saw him, even Leucothea, who of old was a mortal of human speech, [335] but now in the deeps of the sea has won a share of honor from the gods. She was touched with pity for Odysseus, as he wandered and was in sore travail, and she rose up from the deep like a sea-mew on the wing, and sat on the stoutly-bound raft, and spoke, saying: Unhappy man, how is it that Poseidon, the earth-shaker, [340] has conceived such furious wrath against thee, that he is sowing for thee the seeds of many evils? Yet verily he shall not utterly destroy thee for all his rage. Nay, do thou thus; and methinks thou dost not lack understanding. Strip off these garments, and leave thy raft to be driven by the winds, but do thou swim with thy hands and so strive to reach [345] the land of the Phaeacians, where it is thy fate to escape. Come, take this veil, and stretch it beneath thy breast. It is immortal; there is no fear that thou shalt suffer aught or perish. But when with thy hands thou hast laid hold of the land, loose it from thee, and cast it into the wine-dark sea [350] far from the land, and thyself turn away. So saying, the goddess gave him the veil, and herself plunged again into the surging deep, like a sea-mew; and the dark wave hid her. Then the much-enduring, goodly Odysseus pondered, [355] and deeply moved he spoke to his own mighty spirit: Woe is me! Let it not be that some one of the immortals is again weaving a snare for me, that she bids me leave my raft. Nay, but verily I will not yet obey, for afar off mine eyes beheld the land, where she said I was to escape. [360] But this will I do, and meseems that this is best: as long as the timbers hold firm in their fastenings, so long will I remain here and endure to suffer affliction; but when the wave shall have shattered the raft to pieces, I will swim, seeing that there is naught better to devise. [365] While he pondered thus in mind and heart, Poseidon, the earth-shaker, made to rise up a great wave, dread and grievous, arching over from above, and drove it upon him. And as when a strong wind tosses a heap of straw that is dry, and some it scatters here, some there, [370] even so the wave scattered the long timbers of the raft. But Odysseus bestrode one plank, as though he were riding a horse, and stripped off the garments which beautiful Calypso had given him. Then straightway he stretched the veil beneath his breast, and flung himself headlong into the sea with hands outstretched, [375] ready to swim. And the lord, the earth-shaker, saw him, and he shook his head, and thus he spoke to his own heart: So now, after thou hast suffered many ills, go wandering over the deep, till thou comest among the folk fostered of Zeus. Yet even so, methinks, thou shalt not make any mock at thy suffering. [380] So saying, he lashed his fair-maned horses, and came to Aegae, where is his glorious palace. But Athena, daughter of Zeus, took other counsel. She stayed the paths of the other winds, and bade them all cease and be lulled to rest; [385] but she roused the swift North Wind, and broke the waves before

59 him, to the end that Zeus-born Odysseus might come among the Phaeacians, lovers of the oar, escaping from death and the fates. Then for two nights and two days he was driven about over the swollen waves, and full often his heart forboded destruction. [390] Odyssey 10.1-55105 [1] Then to the Aeolian isle we came, where dwelt Aeolus, son of Hippotas, dear to the immortal gods, in a floating island, and all around it is a wall of unbreakable bronze, and the cliff runs up sheer. [5] Twelve children of his, too, there are in the halls, six daughters and six sturdy sons, and he gave his daughters to his sons to wife. These, then, feast continually by their dear father and good mother, and before them lies boundless good cheer. [10] And the house, filled with the savour of feasting, resounds all about even in the outer court by day, and by night again they sleep beside their chaste wives on blankets and on corded bedsteads. To their city, then, and fair palace did we come, and for a full month he made me welcome and questioned me about each thing, [15] about Ilios, and the ships of the Argives, and the return of the Achaeans. And I told him all the tale in due order. But when I, on my part, asked him that I might depart and bade him send me on my way, he, too, denied me nothing, but furthered my sending. He gave me a wallet, made of the hide of an ox nine years old, which he flayed, [20] and therein he bound the paths of the blustering winds; for the son of Cronos had made him keeper of the winds, both to still and to rouse whatever one he will. And in my hollow ship he bound it fast with a bright cord of silver, that not a breath might escape, were it never so slight. [25] But for my furtherance he sent forth the breath of the West Wind to blow, that it might bear on their way both ships and men. Yet this he was not to bring to pass, for we were lost through our own folly. For nine days we sailed, night and day alike, and now on the tenth our native land came in sight, [30] and lo, we were so near that we saw men tending the beacon fires. Then upon me came sweet sleep in my weariness, for I had ever kept in hand the sheet of the ship, and had yielded it to none other of my comrades, that we might the sooner come to our native land. But my comrades meanwhile began to speak one to another, [35] and said that I was bringing home for myself gold and silver as gifts from Aeolus, the great-hearted son of Hippotas. And thus would one speak, with a glance at his neighbor: Out on it, how beloved and honored this man is by all men, to whose city and land soever he comes! [40] Much goodly treasure is he carrying with him from the land of Troy from out the spoil, while we, who have accomplished the same journey as he, are returning, bearing with us empty hands. And now Aeolus has given him these gifts, granting them freely of his love. Nay, come, let us quickly see what is here, [45] what store of gold and silver is in the wallet. So they spoke, and the evil counsel of my comrades prevailed. They loosed the wallet, and all the winds leapt forth, and swiftly the storm-wind seized them and bore them weeping out to sea away from their native land; but as for me, [50] I awoke, and pondered in my goodly heart whether I should fling myself from the ship and perish in the sea, or endure in silence and still remain among the living. However, I endured and abode, and covering my head lay down in the ship. But the ships were borne by an evil blast of wind [55] back to the Aeolian isle; and my comrades groaned.
105

Ody. 10.1-55 (Murray, LCL)

60

Vergil Aeneid A 1.81-142 Replying thus, he smote with spear reversed the hollow mountain's wall; then rush the winds through that wide breach in long, embattled line, and sweep tumultuous from land to land: with brooding pinions o'er the waters spread, east wind and south, and boisterous Afric gale upturn the sea; vast billows shoreward roll; the shout of mariners, the creak of cordage, follow the shock; low-hanging clouds conceal from Trojan eyes all sight of heaven and day; night o'er the ocean broods; from sky to sky the thunders roll, the ceaseless lightnings glare; and all things mean swift death for mortal man. Straightway Aeneas, shuddering with amaze, groaned loud, upraised both holy hands to Heaven, and thus did plead: O thrice and four times blest, ye whom your sires and whom the walls of Troy looked on in your last hour! O bravest son Greece ever bore, Tydides! O that I had fallen on Ilian fields, and given this life struck down by thy strong hand! where by the spear of great Achilles, fiery Hector fell, and huge Sarpedon; where the Simois in furious flood engulfed and whirled away so many helms and shields and heroes slain! While thus he cried to Heaven, a shrieking blast smote full upon the sail. Up surged the waves to strike the very stars; in fragments flew the shattered oars; the helpless vessel veered and gave her broadside to the roaring flood, where watery mountains rose and burst and fell. Now high in air she hangs, then yawning gulfs lay bare the shoals and sands o'er which she drives. Three ships a whirling south wind snatched and flung on hidden rocks,altars of sacrifice Italians call them, which lie far from shore a vast ridge in the sea; three ships beside an east wind, blowing landward from the deep, drove on the shallows,pitiable sight, and girdled them in walls of drifting sand. That ship, which, with his friend Orontes, bore the Lycian mariners, a great, plunging wave

61 struck straight astern, before Aeneas' eyes. Forward the steersman rolled and o'er the side fell headlong, while three times the circling flood spun the light bark through swift engulfing seas. Look, how the lonely swimmers breast the wave! And on the waste of waters wide are seen weapons of war, spars, planks, and treasures rare, once Ilium's boast, all mingled with the storm. Now o'er Achates and Ilioneus, now o'er the ship of Abas or Aletes, bursts the tempestuous shock; their loosened seams yawn wide and yield the angry wave its will. Meanwhile how all his smitten ocean moaned, and how the tempest's turbulent assault had vexed the stillness of his deepest cave, great Neptune knew; and with indignant mien uplifted o'er the sea his sovereign brow. He saw the Teucrian navy scattered far along the waters; and Aeneas' men o'erwhelmed in mingling shock of wave and sky. Saturnian Juno's vengeful stratagem her brother's royal glance failed not to see; and loud to eastward and to westward calling, he voiced this word: What pride of birth or power is yours, ye winds, that, reckless of my will, audacious thus, ye ride through earth and heaven, and stir these mountain waves? Such rebels I nay, first I calm this tumult! But yourselves by heavier chastisement shall expiate hereafter your bold trespass. Haste away and bear your king this word! Not unto him dominion o'er the seas and trident dread, but unto me, Fate gives. Let him possess wild mountain crags, thy favored haunt and home, O Eurus! In his barbarous mansion there, let Aeolus look proud, and play the king in yon close-bounded prison-house of storms! He spoke, and swiftlier than his word subdued the swelling of the floods; dispersed afar th' assembled clouds, and brought back light to heaven

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahearne-Kroll, Stephen P. The Psalms of Lament in Mark's Passion: Jesus' Davidic Suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Aichele, George. Canon as Intertext: Restraint or Liberation. Pages 139156 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. . Jesus Framed. New York: Routledge, 1996. Alkier, Stefan. Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts. Pages 321 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Aus, Roger David. "Caught n the Act," Walking on the Sea, and The Release of Barabbas Revisted. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. . The Stilling of the Storm: Studies in Early Palestinian Judaic Traditions. New York: Global Publications, 2000. Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. Bauer, W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Blackburn, Berry. Theios Aner and and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 40. Tbingen: MohrSiebeck, 1991. Boomershine, Thomas E. Audience Address and Purpose in the Performance of Mark. Pages 115142 in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Bormann, Lukas, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger, eds. Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Brodie, Thomas L. Intertextuality and its Uses in Tracing Q and Proto-Luke. Pages 469477 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. LeuvenLouvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1997. Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000. Carras, G.P. A Pentateuchal Echo in Jesus' Prayer on the Cross: Intertextuality Between Numbers 15,22-31 and Luke 23,34a. Pages 606616 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1997. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. . Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water (Mark 6.45-52). Pages 207 227 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi. Edited by Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Collins, Adela Yarbro, ed. Ancient and Modern Perspective on the Bible and Culture:

62

63 Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz. Homage Series 22. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Cope, O. Lamar. Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms III: 101-150. Anchor Bible. New York: DoubleDay, 1970. Delorme, Jean. Intertextualities about Mark. Pages 1526 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Draisma, Sipke, ed. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Evans, Craig A. and W. Richard Stegner, eds. The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Fowler, Robert M. In the Boat with Jesus: Imagining Ourselves in Mark's Story. Pages 233256 in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Genette, Gerard. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Translated by Channa Newman and Calude Coubinsky. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Geyer, Douglas W. Fear, Anomaly, and Uncertainty in the Gospel of Mark. Lanham, MA: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2002. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. London: Yale University Press, 1989. . Forward to the English Edition. Pages xixv in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. . Who has Believed Our Message: Paul's Reading of Isaiah. Pages 3445 in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture. Edited by Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005. Hays, Richard B., ed. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005. Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by A.D. Godley. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann, 1922. . The Histories. Translated by A.D. Godley. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann, 1922. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by A.T. Murray. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. Iverson, Kelly R. and Christopher W. Skinner, eds. Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Jarick, John. The Four Corners of Psalm 107. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (April 1997): 270287. Julian. Oration. Translated by Wilmer Cave Wright. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949. Kloos, Carola. Yhwh's Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986.

64 Kotansky, Roy D. Jesus and Heracles in Cadiz: Death, Myth, and Monsters at the 'Straits of Gibraltar' [Mark 4:35-5:43]. Pages 160229 in Ancient and Modern Perspective on the Bible and Culture: Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Homage Series 22. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 60-150. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Augsburd Fortress Press, 1989. Kristeva, Julia. Word, Dialogue, and Novel. Pages 6491 in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art. Edited by Leon S. Roudiez. Translated by Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. . Revolution in Poetic Language. Translated by Margaret Waller. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984. MacDonald, Dennis. Christianizing Homer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. . The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. . Review of Vernon K. Robbins, Sea Voyages and Beyond: Emerging Strategies in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Review of Biblical Literature (March 2012): No pages. Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. Characters in Mark's Story: Changing Perspectives on the Narrative Process. Pages 4569 in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. . Hearing Mark: A Listener's Guide. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8. Anchor Bible 27. New York: DoubleDay, 2000. McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Mejia, Jose. Some Observations on Psalm 107. Biblical Theology Bulletin 5 (February 1975): 5666. Moloney, Francis J. Writing a Narrative Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Pages 95114 in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Moore, Stephen D. Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write. London: Yale University Press, 1992. Morford, M.P.O. The Poet Lucan: Studies in the Rhetorical Epic. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967. Moyoise, Steve. Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament. Pages 2332 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. . Jesus and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grad Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Muldoon, Catherine L. In Defense of Divine Justice: An Intertextual Approach to the Book of Jonah. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 47. Washington DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2010. O'Brien, Kelli S. The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative. New York: T&T

65 Clark, 2010. Orosz, Magdolna. Literary Reading(s) of the Bible: Aspects of a Semiotic Conception of Intertextuality and Intertextual Analysis of Texts. Pages 191204 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Powell, Mark Allan. Narrative Criticism: The Emergence of a Prominent Reading Strategy. Pages 1944 in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Rhoads, David. Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Robbins, Vernon K. New Boundaries in Old Territory: Form and Social Rhetoric in Mark. Edited by David B. Gowler. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 3. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1994. . Sea Voyages and Beyond: Emerging Strategies in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. Dorset, UK: Deo Publishing, 2010. Roudiez, Leon S., ed. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art. Translated by Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Sasson, Jack M. Jonah. Anchor Bible 24b. New York: DoubleDay, 1990. Shiner, Whitney. Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark. New York: Trinity Press International, 2003. Skinner, Christopher W. Telling the Story: The Appearance and Impact of 'Mark as Story'. Pages 118 in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Speiser, E.A. Genesis. Anchor Bible 1. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964. Stegner, William Richard. Jesus' Walking on the Water: Mark 6.45-52. Pages 212234 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Strelan, Rick. A Greater than Caesar: Storm Stories in Lucan and Mark. Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche 91 (2000): 166179. Thimmes, Pamela Lee. Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type Scene: A Convention and Invention. San Fransisco: Mellen Research University, 1992. Tolbert, Mary Ann. Forward to Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type Scene: A Convention and Invention, by Pamela Lee Thimmes. San Fransisco: Mellen Research University, 1992. Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994. Tuckett, C.M., ed. The Scriptures in the Gospels. Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1997. Van Wolde, Ellen. Trendy Intertextuality. Pages 4349 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Vergil. Aeneid. Translated by Theodore C. Williams. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,

66 1910. Vorster, Willem S. Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschichte. Pages 1526 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.