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.
179
THE VULNERABLE AUTHORITY AUTHOR
OF THE
saved by God. That is the only guarantee that should and could
make them decide to follow Jesus. Therefore, according to Mark,
the Christological dimension is an indispensably intrinsic part of the
paradoxes. What Jan Lambrecht writes regarding 9,35-37, is true for
all paradoxes: “Clearly, this is an interpersonal, horizontal task. It
is, however, motivated vertically. By serving our neighbor we serve
Christ and God Himself!†And so we could conclude: He who
wants to be great in the eyes of God, must be the slave of all.
This article is entitled “The vulnerable authority of the author of
Mark â€. It has been said many times before: the narrator of the
Gospel according to Mark has an Olympic perspective on the events
and characters of his story. He is the one who knows everything and
who chooses to tell what he likes in the way he wishes to tell it. He
is the master of his story. The consequence of this statement is
enormous, since through this perspective the narrator can influence
the reading process in order to orientate the thoughts and the actions
of the reader. There is nothing special or surprising about this
position. The reason for this is that the kind of “proclaiming†or
“ missionary †literature that the gospels represent demands an author
who manifests some authority in order to be convincing. The power
and the authority he has as an omniscient writer becomes apparent
when the reader discovers the rhetoric of the narrator. This “dis-
covery †by the reader of the rhetoric strategies and their manifold
techniques does not make the authority of the author weaker, as if
the exposure of his artistry would undermine the value of his work.
On the contrary, one could compare the attentive reading of a text to
the fascination of someone who is viewing a piece of art. A better
understanding of the techniques and the nuances used by the artist
does not lead to a demystification of the masterpiece. It rather leads
to a deeper appreciation and admiration of what they want to
express. Better insight into the creation and the formation of a text
or piece of art can help one to see the values, the ideas, the
perspective or the message that the author or artist wants to bring
forward. The reader — to leave the comparison with other art behind
us and to limit ourselves to the text of the gospels — who has a
better insight into the techniques used by the author, will be better
prepared to accept (or to refuse) the evidence brought forward by
the narrator. Rhetoric artistry helps to construct the authority of the
narrator. But, the narrator also has a message he wants to transmit.
And there Mark finds himself in the same paradoxical situation as