The Jewish Annotated New Testament (204 page)

1.16
–8.21: First major section: Bringing about the kingdom of God.

1.16
–20: Call of the first disciples
(Mt 4.18–22; Lk 5.1–11; Jn 1.35–42).

17
:
Fish for people,
fishing is used both positively and negatively in biblical texts (Jer 16.16; Am 4.2), and in the Cairo Damascus Document there is reference to the net of Belial (CD 4.15–16), but some rabbinic texts are more similar to Mark’s image of fish as new disciples (
Avot de R. Natan A
40).

19
:
James son of Zebedee
is not the same as James the brother of Jesus, associated with those early followers of Jesus who continued to observe the Torah. In Greek and Roman philosophical circles and in rabbinic Judaism students are described as seeking out teachers rather than being suddenly called by them (as indeed is the case in John 1.35–40; cf.
b. Eruv
. 30a;
b. Ketub
. 66b). However, a precedent for Jesus’ method here can be seen in Elijah’s call of Elisha (1 Kings 19.19–21). Both Jesus and Elijah take the active role in calling; the disciples and Elisha both respond immediately, leaving their parents in order to follow.

1.21
–45: A series of healings without opposition.
Diseased people in the ancient world were often thought to be possessed by demonic forces (
b. Ketub
. 61b). In Mark the healings enact the eschatological promises of Isa 35.5–6 and establish Jesus’ power over Satan’s minions at the end of time, evidence that the kingdom of God has drawn near. The unclean spirits were sometimes understood to have been descended from fallen angels (
1 En
. 15.8,34;
Jub
. 7.21; 10.1; 11QPs
^a
19.15; 1QM 13.5). In
1 En
. 9–10 the giants of Gen 6 were called “mamzerin,” illegitimate mixed offspring of heavenly beings and human women, and evil spirits derived from these could be considered “bastard spirits.” Although there has been a tendency in the modern period to distinguish Jesus’ healings from those of contemporary Jews and others, this is a theological not a historical judgment. The miracles in the Gospels contain the same procedures, healing formulae (e.g., “be muzzled,” “rebuked” v. 25, often retaining the original Aramaic, e.g., 7.34 “ephphatha”), and demonological lore as the magic of the ancient world.

1:21
–28: Exorcising and teaching with authority
(Mt 7.28–29; Lk 4.31–37).

21
:
In the first century, synagogues were probably just coming into existence as local Jewish town meetings or civic associations, in some cases providing lodging as well, but they were also beginning to be centers of study and worship. Because Mark states here that people were gathered in the
synagogue
specifically on the
sabbath,
Mark assumes some worship function (see also 6.2).

22
:
Jesus’ teaching consists in marshalling the kingdom of God against the kingdom of Satan, and in this he proves he has more authority than the
scribes
.

23
–24:
Unclean spirit
, one from the demonic realm, perhaps seen as the encroachment of death into the person’s life.
Holy One of God
, applied to Elisha (2 Kings 4.9); as counter to the
unclean spirit
, such a prophet would restore the correct boundary between the demonic realm of death and the world of life created by God.

25
:
Rebuked,
a common word in Jewish exorcisms (Gk “epitimaō,” Heb “ga’ar”). See Zech 3.2; Ps 6.9; 68.31; 78.6; 80.16; see also 1QM 14.9–11 where the Heb is used of God defeating foes in battle or overcoming Satan.
Be silent,
lit., “be muzzled,” also refers to the control of unclean spirits.

27
:
Authority
(Gk “exousia,” meaning the freedom to express one’s powers; in LXX for Heb “memshalah,” “rule, dominion,” e.g., Ps 136.8, referring to the “rule” of the sun over the day), shown partly in commanding
unclean spirits
and partly in teaching on his own, not referring to other teachers.

1.29
–34: Summary statement of many healings
(Mt 8.14–17; Lk 4.38–41). Summaries of people thronging to Jesus suggest that the growth of the kingdom at the end of time should be ironically contrasted with Jesus’ commands to silence (2.1–2; 3.7–8; 6.53–56).
Simon’s
[Peter’s]
mother-in-law
, there is no other mention of her in the NT, so it is not clear whether she is living in Simon’s house because she is a widow, because Simon’s wife has died and she is the female relative who can keep house for him, or for some other reason.

1.35
–39: Jesus gives a hint as to his mission
(Mt 4.23–25; Lk 4.42–44). The disciples will continually misunderstand his exact identity and mission, and indeed Jesus is often indirect. Mark’s audience, however, would know the stories well and were told in 1.1 what Jesus’ significance was.
Deserted place
…
he prayed
, Jesus regularly prayed alone (e.g., 1.1; 14.35; cf. Mt 4.1–11).

1.40
–45: Healing one suffering from a skin disease
(Mt 8.2–4; Lk 5.12–16). The English term
leprosy
(see translators’ note
a
) refers to Hansen’s disease, a serious, disfiguring, contagious illness, but Heb “tsara’at” (Gk “lepros,” “scaly, rough,” from which Eng “leprosy” is derived) is more likely psoriasis, eczema, or fungus infections (see Lev 13–14 for laws regarding skin disease and the required actions to regain purity after it is healed), minor skin diseases which were at that time considered a serious impurity of the skin. By
touching
the unclean man, Jesus does not reject the purity laws; rather, as the text clearly implies, he restores the man to a clean state, leaving the purity codes intact: four times Mark emphasizes that Jesus makes the man
clean
of his disease, not that he critiques the law in any way. The cleansing of this leper does not abrogate the purity laws any more than does the cleansing of Naaman in 2 Kings 5.10. Indeed, Jesus commands the man to present the
offering
prescribed by law.

2.1
–3.6: Collection of controversy stories.
Although Jesus’ first “day” of miracles was greeted positively, here he meets opposition in five conflicts with authorities. The theme is a new understanding of the law: those who have in some way seemed to violate Jewish law are brought into a larger vision of the law. In each case there is ambiguity: does Jesus oppose “Jewish law” or merely some interpretations of Jewish law, much as rabbis often disagreed with each other?

2.1
–12: Faith and the forgiveness of sin
(Mt 9.1–8; Lk 5.17–26). This dramatic scene of healing and forgiveness has been of central importance to Christian audiences for centuries, despite the improbable premise of Jesus teaching in a crowded room while bits of the roof are falling down from above. There is a limit to realism in accounts that are told primarily to serve as moral examples, which affects the interpretation of other illustrative stories as well (6.33; 12.43–44).

5
:
There is no mention of the repentance of sinners here (contrast 1.4,15; 6.12);
faith
(in Jesus’ healing power) is the defining marker of the community (1.15n.).
Forgiven
, Christian tradition has seen in this story an opposition between a Judaism with restricted forgiveness and a Christian community that offers forgiveness before it is requested. Neither of these is accurate. Judaism, like other religions, has a variety of understandings of the route back to acceptance for sinners and the forgiveness of sins. The earliest texts of the followers of Jesus, in addition to the offer of forgiveness, also affirm exclusion, segregation from sinners, shunning, cursing of sinners, and even the death of sinners (Mt 18.17; Acts 5.1–11; 1 Cor 5.1–5,9–11; 2 Cor 6.14–7.1).

6
–7:
In a largely illiterate society,
scribes
played the role of interpreters of the law. They are portrayed, as here and in what immediately follows, in negative terms as rule-bound and unable to grasp the significance of Jesus’ ministry. Since it is God who forgives, the statement is
blasphemy
from their point of view, but followers of Jesus claimed the power of forgiveness for their movement (cf. Mt 16.19; 18.18; Jn 20.22–23). In an earlier Jewish text, “Prayer of Nabonidus,” a Jewish exorcist is said to have pardoned the sins of the Babylonian king Nabonidus and thus cured him.

10
:
The title for Jesus used most often in Mark is
Son of Man
or “son of humanity” (“ho huios tou anthrōpou”). Although this title was originally simply an evocative way to say “human being” (Ezek 2.1), it underwent a significant transformation, as reflected in Dan 7.13, referring to the angel of judgment (probably Michael) as “one like a son of man” (KJV), that is, one who looked like a human being. When this image was taken up in apocalyptic Jewish texts, “Son of Man” became a term for God’s heavenly judge at the end of time. Jesus may have spoken of the Son of Man as a figure other than himself, the coming judge, but in Mark this figure is identified with Jesus. A similar development occurs in
1 En
. 37–71, when the future Son of Man is identified with Enoch. A similar notion of the Son of Man as God’s judge at the end of time is also found in the Sayings Source Q and in John, but Mark introduced an important nuance (which was then retained by Matthew and Luke): the Son of Man also suffers and is killed. The suffering servant (Isa 52.13–53.12) and the suffering righteous person (Wis 2–5) already existed in Jewish thought, but Mark connected them to the messiah and Son of Man, and thus transformed the latter into an evocative image of the human Jesus. This new meaning is central to the three Passion predictions (8.27–33n.).

2.13
–17: Jesus associates with tax collectors and sinners
(Mt 9.9–13; Lk 5.27–32).
Sinners,
2.5n.

2.18
–22: Fasting
(Mt 9.14–17; Lk 5.33–39). The followers of Jesus and John the Baptist never fully merged (Mt 11.18–19). The modern Mandaeans, a small group most of whom live on the border of Iran and Iraq, trace their origins to John the Baptist.
Fasting
was not a general practice for Jews except at Yom Kippur, during mourning (including mourning the destruction of the Temple, Zech 7.3, a practice that the same prophet rescinds in 8.19), and as a preparation for urgent supplications to God (Joel 1.14; Esth 4.16; Ezra 8.21). Some Jews took up a discipline of fasting, such as the Pharisees and John the Baptist, as did some followers of Jesus (Mt 6.16–18;
Did
. 8.1), but here and in Lk 7.33–34 fasting while the
bridegroom
, the eschatological Son of Man, is present, is evidently not affirmed.

2.23
–28: Plucking grain on the Sabbath
(Mt 12.1–8; Lk 6.1–5). This typical controversy story involves a legal challenge, presented as petty and mean-spirited, and a pithy rejoinder that transcends the legal challenge to address the underlying human need (v. 27). Before that response, however, the text includes a scriptural and legal argument: if David could supersede law to meet human needs, so could Jesus and his disciples (vv. 25–26; cf. 7.6–13; 10.3–8; 12.26–27). However, Mark does not accurately follow the biblical text, 1 Sam 21.1–6, making the question—
Have you never read?
—perhaps accidentally ironic.
David
acts alone in 1 Samuel, does not act from hunger, and does not enter the
house of God
to eat
the bread of Presence
. Further, the priest is Ahimelech, not
Abiathar
. Pharisees would also not likely be out in the fields on the Sabbath to observe behavior, so the story, like other conflict stories in the Gospels, is likely created to define the identities of Jesus’ followers and their opponents.