Geert Van Oyen, «The Vulnerable Authority of the Author of the Gospel of Mark. Re-Reading the Paradoxes», Vol. 91 (2010) 161-186
The article proceeds in three steps. The paradoxes in Mark 8,35; 9,35; 10,43-44 tell in their own way that the mystery of the passion and resurrection of Jesus is to be experienced by the followers of Jesus in daily life. They are not only anticipations but also actualizations of that mystery. These paradoxes cannot be understood without the Christological foundation that God has saved Jesus from the dead. The use of paradoxes is in agreement with Mark’s theology and Christology which as a whole is presented as a paradoxical story.
The Vulnerable Authority of the Author
of the Gospel of Mark. Re-Reading the Paradoxes
This article will proceed in three steps. After a presentation of the
paradoxes in Mark 8,35; 9,35b and 10,43-44 within their context, I
will emphasize how they serve as key texts for understanding the
characterization of Jesus and I will argue that the literary device of
paradox expresses in an unsurpassed way the vulnerability of the
narrator who — in order to convince his readers of the truth of his
message — has no other “proof†than the example of Jesus’ life
leading to his tragic death. In this sense, the use of the literary
device “paradox†is in harmony with the message of the evangelist:
his only authority lies in the fate of the powerless man Jesus.
Finally, by pointing out their “utopian†character, the critical ethical
function of the paradoxes for both contemporary and actual readers
will be explained.
I do not want to make a long digression into the theoretical
background of the literary phenomenon of “paradox†and its
application in the gospel of Mark. Since Robert M. Fowler wrote his
chapters on “the rhetoric of indirection†and “moves of greater
uncertainty †in Let the Reader Understand (1991) 1, the place and the
literary function of paradox within the whole set of indirect
communication devices is well known to Markan scholars. Paradox
is where, “[o]f all Mark’s indirect moves, incongruity is at its
sharpest †2.
R.M. FOWLER, Let the Reader Understand. Reader-Response Criticism
1
and the Gospel of Mark (Augsburg 1991) 155-227; on paradox, see 184-194.
The rhetorical strategies of indirection are irony, metaphor, paradox, ambiguity
and opacity. These phenomena are not always easy to distinguish, because they
all have in common the use of language which is not to be taken at face value.
See also N.F. SANTOS, Slave of All. The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood
in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSS 237 ; Sheffield 2003) 1-16. On the place of
paradox among other literary devices, see F. MERCIER-LECA, L’ironie
(Ancrages ; Paris 2003) 51-53.
FOWLER, Let the Reader Understand, 185.
2
FOLLOW US