This thesis examines the pericope Mark 2: 18-22 with special reference to the Christological implications, in the final form of Mark's text, of Jesus' reference to himself as 'Bridegroom'. The Introduction outlines the importance of this quest in the light of its recent neglect or misrepresentation. Chapter 1 defines and offers a basic analysis of the area of interest: it confirms the boundaries of the pericope, deals with textual and Synoptic issues, and undertakes a linguistic-syntactic analysis. Chapters 2 and 3 look at the context of the pericope from a literary and theological standpoint, concluding, respectively, that it occupies a position of both structural significance and theological importance. The next three chapters examine the background to the nuptial imagery used by Jesus/Mark, Chapters 4 and 5 look at the Old Testament, specifically the Prophets (4) and the Psalms (5), where the figure is seen to be used exclusively of Yahweh and so never of the Messiah, usually with a hint of disruption. Chapter 6 turns to the New Testament, that is, to literature composed prior to, contemporary with and soon after Mark.In all of these, the Bridegroom image has been transferred to Jesus, not with a suggestion that it is part of his Messianic identity but rather in contexts of the highest Christology. Against this literary, theological and historical background, Chapter 7 gives a detailed exegesis of the pericope, concluding that, as elsewhere, Mark presents his readers with a divine figure, though one who is destined to be 'taken away'. The Conclusion summarises our analysis of the pericope, puts forward some of its literary and theological implications and suggests some further areas for study. Four Appendices study the text, Synoptic issues, the vocabulary, and the lack of use of the Bridegroom image for God in Jewish literature in the centuries immediately preceding the time of Jesus, notably in the Canticle of Canticles.

The different methodological approaches applied to the study of the characterisation of Jesus and the disciples in the Gospel of Mark have contributed much to our knowledge of Jesus and his disciples. The recent interest in the oral-aural dynamics in the communication of Mark’s story has caused us to understand that Mark wrote not to be read silently and privately, but read aloud/performed publicly before a live audience, who were mostly unable to read and belonged to an oral culture (chapter 2). Thus, encompassing the strengths of previous approaches and venturing upon newer frameworks (orality, social/cultural memory, and performance criticism), we develop an eclectic approach, which we term oral-memorial-comparative hermeneutics, to address how an oral narrative, such as Mark’s Gospel, would have been composed, communicated, and comprehended in an ancient oral culture (chapter 3). More specifically, such an approach helps in our inquiry into how the characterisations of Jesus and the disciples in Mark’s narrative function rhetorically in the context of an ancient oral narration, in relation to following Jesus and belonging to his community. This approach considers how both the author and the target audience would have exploited their socio-historical context for the composition and comprehension of the characterisations of Jesus and the disciples in the Gospel of Mark. Thus, this thesis analyses Mark’s characterisations of Jesus and his disciples in the context of an ancient narration, particularly in first-century Palestine. Through the lens of orality, social memory, and performance criticism, Mark’s characterisations of Jesus and his disciples would have shown how one should follow Jesus and belong to his group. We conclude that if Mark’s target audience appreciated the association of Jesus and his disciples over against other groups (chapter 4) and if they were convinced of Mark’s ideological thrust represented by the character of Jesus over against his disciples and other characters (chapter 5), then it is more likely than not that they were moved to act upon following Jesus in faithful discipleship and belonging to his group (chapter 6). Thus, our findings support the thesis of this research that Mark’s characterisation of Jesus and his disciples (in relation to other characters and set in an ancient oral narration) dramatizes an ideological clash (between the way of domination and the way of Jesus—service and sacrifice), which would have aided in the identity formation of Mark’s community.

Slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient world and the metaphorical use of slaves and slavery was equally common. This is the case in the New Testament also where the use of slavery as a metaphor in the Pauline literature has been particularly well investigated. However, in the study of the gospels little attention has been paid to the metaphor of slavery and its role in creating a model for discipleship. This thesis will remedy this by considering both how such an investigation should be conducted and what the results would be in the Gospel of Mark. It will therefore pursue both a methodological and an exegetical course. Building on careful use of metaphor theory, not previously employed in investigating this metaphor, the thesis will utilise Conceptual Blending Theory to argue that the historical reality of slavery is vital to the understanding of the metaphor. It will therefore pay equal attention to both Roman and Jewish sources to understand the reality of slavery and the ideology at work in these representations, as well as the ways in which writers could use this to imagine slavery and apply it as a metaphor. In doing so, it will show that the physical abuse of slaves is an important element of slavery – in reality and in metaphor – which is sometimes underplayed in NT scholarship. On the basis of this investigation, the thesis will engage in close analysis of slavery texts in the Gospel of Mark, something not accomplished in this level of detail before. In reading the relevant sayings and parables in Mark, the study will show that they share a thematic unity in their narrative contexts in this gospel, along with sharing the ideological values of slave owners. They emphasise, in particular, the expected suffering of discipleship, drawing on the physical costs of being a slave. It will be argued that, by this means, the metaphor DISCIPLESHIP IS SLAVERY provided a conceptual framework for Mark’s disciple-readers to interpret their particular setting in their world, and their response to it.

This study examines the long-standing debate on the Davidssohnfrage in the Gospel according to Mark (12:35–37). In contrast to the traditionsgeschichtliche paradigm set forth by Wrede (1907), it argues that Mark's stance on Davidic sonship cannot be assessed properly by isolating the words “(Son of) David.” Rather, the totality of Mark's messiah language—what the narrative communicates about “Christ” (Χριστόϛ; Mark 1:1)—is relevant to how one assesses the issue of the Messiah's ancestry. Justification for this paradigm shift is rooted in observations about the ways in which ancient authors communicate what they mean by the term “messiah.” Careful attention to ancient discourse about “messiahs” reveals that the authors of these texts shared multiple conventions for communicating that “messiah” means “Davidic messiah,” because they shared an “encyclopedic competence” of the Jewish scriptures. This study situates Mark's language about Christ within its particular socio-linguistic framework. Mark constructs his portrait of Christ via creative use of the Jewish scriptures developed through an unfolding narrative. The first half of the narrative depicts Christ as a charismatic “Davidic” Messiah, while the second half builds on this portrait, confirming the audience's suspicion that Christ is indeed the descendent from the line of David promised within a certain strand of scriptural traditions. When the Davidssohnfrage is approached from within this narrative framework, it becomes highly implausible that the purpose of the question is to elicit a rejection of Davidic sonship. Rather, since Mark has already clearly communicated that Christ is David's son, the Davidssohnfrage pressures the audience to integrate Davidic sonship with what Ps 110 implies about the Christ. In this respect, Mark's deployment of the Davidssohnfrage is no different than Matthew's or Luke's.

In spite of the virtually unanimous patristic opinion that the evangelist Mark was the interpreter of Peter, one of the most prestigious apostolic founding figures in Christian memory, the Gospel of Mark was mostly neglected in the patristic period. Not only is the text of Mark the least well represented of the canonical Gospels in terms of the number of patristic citations, commentaries and manuscripts, the explicit comments about the evangelist Mark reveal some ambivalence about its literary or theological value. In my survey of the reception of Mark from Papias of Hierapolis until Clement of Alexandria, I will argue that the reason why the patristic writers were hesitant to embrace the Gospel of Mark was that they perceived the text to be amenable to the Christological beliefs and social praxis of rival Christian factions. The patristic tradition about Mark may have little historical basis, but it had an important ideological function in appropriating the text in the name of an apostolic authority from the margins or periphery.

Within the wider framework of contemporary debates on primitive NT Christology concerning the early Christians’ perception of the divinity of Jesus, this work investigates the influence of Hebrew Divine Warrior Traditions (HDWT) on the Markan sea-miracles (Mark 4.35-41; 6.45-52) and exorcisms (Mark 1.21-28; 5.1-20; 7.24-30; 9.14-29). In a final form, narrative approach to the Markan text, this study seeks to demonstrate that as part of his “high” Christology, Mark draws on the HDWT in such a way as to liken Jesus to God the Divine Warrior in “Old Testament” and Second Temple Jewish texts. The present work argues that in the sea-miracles and exorcisms, Mark transfers divine attributes and operations to Jesus, claiming some form of divine identity for Jesus. The findings of this study are then considered in terms of their implications for Mark’s Christology, and located in relation to the work of leading scholars on primitive Christology in general.

The ransom logion, as presented in Mark 10.45/Matthew 20.28, is the only place in the synoptic gospels outside the Eucharist where Jesus gives a beneficial interpretation of his upcoming death. This fact has generated much discussion about the authenticity and scriptural background of the ransom logion as found in Mark 10.45/Matthew 20.28. However, no one has examined the early reception of the ransom logion, nor has anyone explored the significance of that reception for the critical study of Mark 10.45/Matthew 20.28. The purpose of this study is to fill these lacunae in the literature. First, this study examines the reception of the ransom logion from the New Testament through the third century. Preceding this examination is a methodology for surveying traditions that stretch across the New Testament and into the Early Christian periods. Second, this study explores the potential significance of the reception of the ransom logion for the critical study of Mark 10.45/Matthew 20.28. The rationale for this exploration relies on the fact that there are observable patterns displayed in the reception of the ransom logion, which may reflect how the ransom logion functions in Mark 10.45/Matthew 20.28. Specifically, the study explores the significance of these patterns as they relate to the origin of the ransom logion in a Eucharistic setting, a pre-existent coming in Mark 10.45/Matthew 20.28, and the scriptural background of Mark 10.45/Matthew 20.28.

The messiahship of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark has figured prominently in modern New Testament scholarship. With the increasing awareness of the Jewish context from which the gospel traditions emerged, scholars have also paid close attention to the way Mark portrays Jesus in relation to the temple. Within these discussions, it is not uncommon to find claims that the Markan Jesus regards the Jerusalem institution as completely obsolete, some maintaining that the message of the kingdom of God in Mark is fundamentally opposed to the ancient Levitical system. Yet, there is not a single full-length monograph grappling with the question of how Mark presents Jesus as royal messiah on the one hand, and his interaction with the Jerusalem priests on the other. Such a project is now imperative, not least given the recent advancement in our understanding both of messianic expectations in the late Second Temple period and of the role of the high priesthood in Jewish polity at the turn of the Christian era. In this thesis, I argue that Jewish messianism from the mid-second century BCE to the late first-century CE anticipated the culmination of the Jerusalem priestly institution under the rule of the royal messiah. In portraying Jesus as the end-time king, Mark in turn assumes a similar expectation. However, contrary to the majority scholarly view, the earliest Gospel does not repudiate the Israelite worship as such. Rather, Mark depicts Jesus’s stance towards the priests in terms of a call to allegiance and warning of judgement. And it is in the light of its cumulative narrative context that Jesus’s criticism of the Jerusalem shrine should be read. To Mark, that is, the temple will be destroyed because the priests have rejected Israel’s end-time king, placing themselves outside the messianic kingdom. Nevertheless, Jesus will be vindicated over against his enemies as God’s messianic son. Chapter one examines important passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and chapter two focuses on texts from the Pseudepigrapha. In chapter three, I argue, against recent critics, that the Markan Jesus is indeed a royal figure. Then, chapter four looks at the relevant passages in Mark 1–10 in which the Jerusalem priests are in view. Finally, chapter five investigates the climactic clash between Jesus and the temple rulers in Mark 11–16 in comparison to my findings in the previous chapters.

This thesis describes investigations into the language of rejection used in the Gospel of Mark, employing the methodology of socio-rhetorical interpretation. After describing the history of interpretation of Jesus’ rejection in Chapter I, Chapter II examines how the internal structure of Mark shows the references that relate to the rejection theme and are repeated in sequence. Chapter III explores the conflict issues debated between Jesus and his opponents as the social and cultural texture, in which Mark was written. The three components, Authority, the Law, and Temple, are the main issues in the Gospel. Chapter IV deals with the data of intertexture, a significant influence for the Gospel. Mark borrows rejection language from the Old Testament and ancient Jewish literature as well. In Chapter V, the ideological texture analyzes Mark’s intent responding to his opponents. Mark uses rejection language to warn that those who refuse Jesus as the Son of God cannot avoid the final judgment.

The aim of this thesis is to consider the formation and reception of the historical Jesus genre through a detailed analysis of its “strong poet,” Albert Schweitzer. Though the classification of this thesis is most likely to be designated as Leben Jesu Forschung and the rise of early Christianity, it encompasses several adjacent fields of research: viz., social and literary theories, philosophies of history, biblical studies, critical memory theory, and classical history. Leben Jesu Forschung is therefore a kind of case study for the construction and reception of ideas. Part One suggests, after a sustained engagement with Schweitzer and his constructive project, that his pervading influence is most strongly felt in the underlying assumptions of his method of konsequente Eschatologie. Schweitzer’s concept of konsequente Eschatologie is the singular criterion by which all the material is judged and filtered so as to construct a singular profile of the historical Jesus. It is this desire for a “tidy” Jesus which this thesis attempts to problematize. Part Two attempts a constructive counter proposal by appropriating theories of memory to historical Jesus research and concludes by demonstrating the appropriation of this theory within the Gospel of Mark. I understand the Markan author as evoking Jesus memories and setting them within a narrative framework for the purposes of identity construction and communal direction. As such, we are presented with an “untidy” Jesus of Markan memory.