The use of psalm 22 (21 [LXX]) in Mark’s Gospel: Intertextuality, the scripturization of history, and christology
Keywords:
Psalm 22 — Gospel of Mark — Intertextuality — ChristologyAbstract
Usually, the interpreters of Mark’s gospel understand the allusions and citations topsalm 22 in his passion narrative as proof of prophetic fulfillment. This reveals a theologicalconclusion rather than a literary one. Instead, this article poses, using a literaryapproach, that Mark uses psalm 22 for three purposes: firstly, he wants to scripturize thehistorical details of Jesus’ crucifixion account. Secondly, he uses psalm 22 to enhance theliterary motifs of abandonment, despair, contempt, and defeat present in his narrative.He invites his readers to understand the details of Jesus crucifixion in light of the sufferingsof the psalmist wherein the motifs aforementioned are represented vividly. Thirdly,as a completion of his picture of Jesus as divine, psalm 22 enables Mark to present Jesus ashuman. Jesus’ despair, divine and human abandonment, and defeat are proper of humanexperience. By describing Jesus this way, a divine-human Christology emerges.Downloads
References
B. Lindars, New Testament apologetic: The doctrinal significance of the Old Testament quotations (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1961); C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The
sub-structure of New Testament theology (London: Nisbet, 1952).
Rikk Watts, “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, ed. by
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 111.
Joel Marcus, The way of the Lord: Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of
Mark (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 1.
Rikki Watts, “The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel,” in The Psalms in the New Testament, The New
Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 41-44.
Joel Marcus proposes at least five allusions from psalm 22 in Mark 15; cf. Marcus, The way of the
Lord, 175. The three allusions mentioned above are listed in most of the scholarly commentaries
as well as in the margins of NA28. See Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Novum testamentum
Graece, ed. by Barbara Aland et al., 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2016), 171.
From here onwards the verse’s numbers correspond to BHS and LXX.
Justin Martyr, Dial. 98. Although Justin Martyr explicitly states that the author of the psalm
was David (ibid., 97), in the previous quotation is clear that he envisages Christ as the speaker
of the psalm. The use of αὐτοῦ, ἀναφέρει, the locative ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ along with the referential οἱ
ἐπισυνιστάμενοι κατ› αὐτοῦ and ἀληθῶς γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ἀντιληπτικὸς παθῶν point to Jesus
as speaker of the psalm. Otherwise, these phrases would be incomprehensible if David is the
speaker. In this context, it is better to understand these instances as examples of prosopological
exegesis which feature in other places in Justin’s writings, cf. Justin Martyr, First apol. 36.1-2;
1; Matthew W. Bates, The hermeneutics of the apostolic proclamation: The center of Paul’s method
of scriptural interpretation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 199-209; Madison N.
Pierce, Divine discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The recontextualization of spoken quotations
of Scripture, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 178 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2020). Of special importance is First apol. 38 because Justin explicitly
says that the prophetic spirit ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ Χριστοῦ λέγῃ quoting Psalm 21,17-19 (LXX).
The common order behind Justin’s proof texts suggests that prosopological exegesis was inherited
by Justin instead of created. Skarsaune has proved particularly that the prosopological exegesis
of psalm 21 (LXX) belonged to prior Christian exegetical tradition, cf. Oskar Skarsaune,
The proof from prophecy: A study in Justin Martyr’s proof-text tradition; Text-type, provenance,
theological profile, NovTSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 80. On the exegesis of psalm 21 (LXX)
by Justin, see Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s christological interpretive tradition in light of
Christian anti-Jewish polemic,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6, No. 1 (1998): 37-57.
Justin Martyr, First apol. 38.
Justin uses these twofold strategies as exegetical techniques to approach psalm 21 (LXX).
Above, we have mentioned how he used prosopological exegesis. But he also understands this
psalm to be prophetic in the lips of David, cf. Justin Martyr, First apol. 35; Justin Martyr, Dial.
, 99.
For examples of this reading, cf. “Though the psalm is not messianic in its original sense or setting,
it may be interpreted from a NT perspective as a messianic psalm par excellence… Indeed,
the psalm takes on the appearance of anticipatory prophecy” (Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50,
Word Biblical Commentary 19 [Waco, TX: Word Books, 2000], 202); Shon Hopkin, “‘My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’: Psalm 22 and the mission of Christ,” BYU Studies
Quarterly 52, No. 4 (2013): 117-151.
Theodoret of Cyrus interprets these psalms along with Justin Martyr. For Theodoret “This
psalm foretells the events of Christ the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection, the calling of the nations
and the salvation of the world” (Comm. Psa. 22.1 [FC 101:145]). All quotations from Theodoret comes from Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, trans. by Robert C.
Hill, The Fathers of the Church 101 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press,
. Similarly, Theodoret also employs prosopological exegesis to portray Christ as the real
speaker of psalm 22. For instance, he mentions “So blessed David, in the person of Christ the
Lord, says, You both formed me in the womb and in turn brought me forth from there; still
suckling and pulling on my mother’s breast, I rested my hope on your care” (Comm. Psa. 22.7
[FC 101:148], italics added). See also Augustine, On the Psalms 22.1 (NPNF1 8:58).
Diodore of Tarsus, Comm. Psa. 22.1 (WGRW 9:69). All translations from Diodore comes from
Diodore of Tarsus, Diodore of Tarsus: Commentary on Psalms 1-51, trans. by Robert C. Hill,
Writings from the Greco-Roman World 9 (Boston, MA: Brill, 2005).
Diodore of Tarsus, Comm. Psa. 22.17 (WGRW 9:72).
For a similar position, see “We cannot think of direct prophecy. The reference to a historical
situation is unmistakable” (Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A critical and exegetical
commentary on the Book of Psalms, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987], 192).
Holly J. Carey, Jesus’ cry from the Cross: Towards a first-century understanding of the intertextual
relationship between psalm 22 and the narrative of Mark’s Gospel, Library of New Testament
Studies 398 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 13-22.
This article takes Mark as the assumed author of the second Gospel.
Great attention will be given to the exegesis of psalm 22 since a lot of studies dealing with how
Mark uses psalm 22 assume concepts as the righteous sufferer or the transition from lament to
actual praise without dealing closely with the text and its meaning. For instance, notice how
a close exegesis of the text would reevaluate the transition from lament to actual praise in the
study of Steve Ahearne-Kroll, “Challenging the divine: LXX Psalm 22 in the passion narrative
of the Gospel of Mark,” in The trial and death of Jesus: Essays on the passion narrative in Mark,
ed. by Geert Van Oyen and Tom Sheperd, CBET 45 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 119-148. While
it is true that texts have meaning in context, it is implicit in the aforementioned statement
that context determines meaning. So, it is important to pay close attention to the context of
psalm 22, cf. G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and
interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). This must be done not because the
original context would be brought everywhere is quoted. Instead, it is necessary to do it because
psalm 22 could be quoted in a new context that is similar or equal to the original one. In this
sense, the new context determines if the original context is in view, cf. Thomas Hatina, In search
of a context: The function of Scripture in Mark’s narrative, Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 232 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). In this sense, I use
metalepsis as a rhetorical figure that invites the reader to go back to the original context and see
how this might impact its meaning in the target context as long as the target context invites the reader to do so. To sum up, the intertextual reading of this article is informed by Beale, Hatina,
and Hays.
Gen 2,24; Josh 8,17; Judg 2,12, cf. Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus
Briggs, The enhanced brown-driver-briggs Hebrew and English lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc, 2000), 737; T. Muraoka, A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain:
Peeters, 2009), 186-187. The verbal construction is part of a rhetorical question אלי אלי
למה עזבתני which “expresses in a powerful way the great alienation that he felt” (Allen P Ross,
A commentary on the Psalms: Volume 1 [1-41] [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional,
, 1:531). The LXX enhances the feeling of abandonment by adding πρόσχες
μοι where προσέχω + imperative mood is a desperate cry for attention from the psalmist,
cf. Muraoka, A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint, 594; Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner and Robert W Funk, A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature
(Chicago, MI: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 195.
Deut 31,8; Josh 1,5; Ps 9,11, cf. Carl Schultz, “ עזב ,” in Theological wordbook of the Old Testament,
ed. by Harris Laird et al. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 659.
The lexical meaning of עזב along with the constative perfect portray the action as a whole. The
use of this construction summarizes David’s feelings and captures in a snapshot the extended
experience of his sufferings, cf. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An introduction
to biblical Hebrew syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 480. The same verbal aspect is
captured by the LXX translators in the use of the aorist form.
Dahood takes this word not as an adjective but as a piel infinitive, cf. Mitchell J. Dahood,
Psalms. 1: 1-50, The Anchor Yale Bible 16 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 138.
However, even taking rāḥōq as piel infinitive, the function remains the enhancing of the experience
described in Psalm 22,1a.
See especially למה יהוה תעמד ברחוק (Ps 10,1). For the role of רחוק as imaginary language to
depict the dichotomy between the nearness of enemies and distance of God, see Luis Alonso
Schökel and Cecilia Carniti, Salmos I: traducción, introducciones y comentario (Salmos 1-72)
(Estella: Verbo Divino, 1992), 1:380-381.
Both constructions represent a syntactical problem. דברי שאגתי could depend on מישועתי , and
the translation provided by the LXX would be close to the sense “Far away from my deliverance
are the words of my roaring”. Notwithstanding, דברי שאגתי and מישועתי could both depend on
רחוק implying that the salvation of the psalmist is far along with his words of groaning. Implied
in the sentence would be that God is the one distant. If we fill up the sentence, the translation
would be similar to NIV “Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish?”.
See, Robert G. Bratcher and William David Reyburn, A translator’s handbook on the Book of
Psalms, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1991), 214.
Ps 3,9; 13,6; 12,6 (LXX); 20,6; 19,6 (LXX), cf. Ludwig Köhler et al., The Hebrew & Aramaic
lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 446.
Ps 3,3; 9,15; 13,6; 14,7; 18,51; 20,6; 21,2.6; 22,2.
LXX translators rendered this construction as οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου introducing a
foreign concept, namely sin, not present in HB. It is not clear why the translators of Psalms
chose to render שאגה as παράπτωμα. Maybe, the translators ignore the Hebrew word due to its
low frequency or they thought their rendering was more appropriate.
Isa 5,29; Ezek 19,7.
Ps 32,3; Job 3,24.
Leonard Coppes, “ קרא ,” in Theological wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. by Harris Laird et al.
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 810.
C. J. Labuschagne, “ קרא ,” in Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. by Ernst Jenni and
Claus Westermann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 1159
Ps 3,4; 4,1; 14,4; 17,6; 18,3; 20,9.
The phrases יומם and לילה which modify the main verb form a merism, cf. Ross, A commentary
on the Psalms, 1:531. That קרא here means a cry for help is well captured by the LXX translators
with κεκράξομαι, cf. Muraoka, A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint, 410.
ולא תענה“ 32 |οὐκ εἰσακούσῃ” (Ps 22,3).
Ps 3,4; 17,6; 20,6; 34,4.
דומיה“ 34 |ἄνοιαν”. The Hebrew word usually means silence (Ps 39,3; 62, 2). Here “indicates that his
pain is not alleviated, he gets no relief ” (Bratcher and Reyburn, A translator’s handbook on the
Book of Psalms, 214). It is not clear why the LXX translators rendered the Hebrew word in this
way.
Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72: An introduction and commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
(Nottingham: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 123.
Bratcher and Reyburn, A translator’s handbook on the Book of Psalms, 216.
Isa 14,11; Job 25, 6.
Ross, A commentary on the Psalms, 1:534.
Ps 15,3; 22,7; 31,12; 39,9; 44,14; 69,8.10-11, 20-21; 71,13; 74,22; 78,66; 79,4.12; 89,42.51;
,25; 119,22.39.
Waltke and O’Connor, An introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax, 143.
This idea is well captured by the LXX rendering the Hebrew construction as ὄνειδος ἀνθρώπου,
cf. Muraoka, A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint, 498.
Köhler et al., The Hebrew & Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament, 117.
2 Sam 6,16; Obad 2; Mal 2,9.
The LXX is once more insightful, cf. ἐξουδένημα λαοῦ. ἐξουδένημα is defined by Muraoka as “that
which is thought to be of no account and treated as such” (Muraoka, A Greek-English lexicon of
the Septuagint, 254).
Jer 20,7; Ps 2,4; 59,8; 80,6, cf. Walter Kaiser, “ לעַָג ,” in Theological wordbook of the Old Testament,
ed. by Harris Laird et al. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 481.
“To open the lips wide, open the mouth wide in a derisory gesture” (Köhler et al., The Hebrew
& Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament, 925); “In verse 7b the Hebrew is literally ‘they shoot
out the lips’… an expression of derision” (Bratcher and Reyburn, A translator’s handbook on the
Book of Psalms, 216); cf. Briggs and Briggs, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Book of
Psalms, 194.
2 Kgs 19,21; Isa 37,12; Ps 109,25; Job 16,4; Lam 2,15.
Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in The expositor’s Bible commentary, ed. by Allen P. Ross,
Frank Gaebelein and Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1991), 5:202.
The argument from David’s enemies is structured as an ABB’A’ thematic chiasm. They say “He
trusted the Lord” following the LXX reading (Ἤλπισεν ἐπὶ κύριον) instead of HB reading ( גל אל
יהוה ). Therefore, the natural consequence is that the Lord should rescue him ( יפלטהו ). The volitional
nature of the jussive along with the imperfective aspect of the verb points to the elusive
character of the divine salvation at this moment. In reverse order, they say again יצילהו because
חפץ בו . The center of the argument of David’s enemies is that the Lord should rescue and save
him, but he does not because A and A’ are taken ironically.
The linguistic connection between the verbal form of רחק and the noun form רחק tie together
verse 2 and 12. Also, אל תרחק in verse 12 and 19 forms an inclusio which highlights the topic
of nearness and distance of God as key in the second section of the psalm. The inclusio suggests
that what David wants is God’s presence to face his enemies.
the jussive meaning associated with this construction articulates David’s expression as
a wish (Ps 35,22; 38,22; 71,12); cf. Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A grammar of biblical Hebrew,
Subsidia Biblica 27 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto biblico, 2006), 347.
Rightly captured by θλῖψις in the LXX. See also, Gen 35,3; 42,21; Judg 10,14; 1 Sam 10,19;
,24; 1 Kgs 1,29. For the contrast between salvation and distress, see זה עני קרא ויהוה שמע
ומכל צרותיו הושיעו (Ps 34,7). Also, צרה encapsulates the description of the enemies in 22,13-19.
U. Bergmann, “ עזר ,” in Theological lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. by Ernst Jenni and Claus
Westermann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 872.
פרים 54 is used metaphorically only here in the HB. The point of contact between metaphor and
reality is the strength which is heightened by the addition of אבירי and .בשן
Ps 118,10-12; 109,3; 88,17; 2 Sam 22,6; 1 Kgs 5,3.
The verse follows ABB’A’.
In the LXX, the comparison is made explicit by the addition of ὡς.
Hos 5,14; Mic 5,8; Nah 2,12.
Ps 7,2; 50,22; 17,12.
Some authors think that the description of verses 15-16 relates to physical illness. Yet, it is better
to think that they relate to inner-spiritual agony, cf. Bratcher and Reyburn, A translator’s handbook
on the Book of Psalms, 219; Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 200; VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 205.
The primary meaning of the word is to cause something to flow. Metaphorically, it can refer to
the flow of the wrath of God or idolatries (Ezek 7,8; 14,9; 21,1). In this case, the personal object
signaled by the nifal root gives the sense of “to make flow the inner self ” similar to Psalm 42,5.
To say that the self is poured out is to say that the agony is so great that it consumes your inner
self. The expression כמים conceptualizes abundance, cf. Hos 5,10. Therefore, the agony that consumes
the inner self of David is acute.
The bones are a metonymy of the self, cf. Ps 6,2; 35,10; 38,3; 51,8; 102,5; Ronald Allen, “ עֶצםֶ ,” in
Theological wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. by Harris Laird et al. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press,
, 690. The fact that the bones are scattered means that the integrity of the emotions of the
psalmist is shattered. He is in deep agony and feels that his emotions cannot stand the challenge
he is up to.
Bratcher and Reyburn, A translator’s handbook on the Book of Psalms, 220.
Isa 15,6; 19,5; 27,11; Jer 12,4; 23,10; Joel 1,10.
There is a textual variant here. The majority of textual witnesses along with ancient versions
support the reading כחי . Nonetheless, there is a variant who supports “my mouth” ( .(תשפתני
Cf. Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia: Apparatus criticus (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003), 1104.
If the reading “my strength” is preferred, this word refers to vital strength. If the vital strength
is dried up, it means death is near. If the reading “my mouth is dried up” is preferred, this expression
is also a metaphor of death. The comparison of dryness with a potsherd means that the
condition is extreme emphasizing the proximity of death.
For the meaning of ולשוני מדבק מלקוחי , see Ezek 3,26.
The imperfective aspect breaks the chain of perfects in order to give vividness to the story,
cf. Waltke and O’Connor, An introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax, 502-503.
For bulls as a metaphor of strength, see my exegesis above. עדת מרעים refers to the character of
his enemies, cf. Ps 26,5; 27,2; 37,9; 64,2. כלבים metaphorically refers to insatiableness since its
usual connotation of low value is not proper to the context of psalm 22, cf. Isa 56,11.
The combination of סבב with נקף convey the same message of סבב and כתר . The use of נקף
instead of כתר might be due to stylistic variation. The repetition of סבב forms an inclusio where
the center focuses on the extreme anguish of David in light of his irreversible situation. See,
VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 206.
To count all the bones means that the physical condition is critical. Cf. Bratcher and Reyburn,
A translator’s handbook on the Book of Psalms, 221.
Both expressions mean the same “ יחלקו בגדי להם | ”. and לבוש are
interchangeable, cf. Isa 63,2. The parallelism suggests that David’s enemies divide his clothes by
casting lots on them and not as if these two actions were distinct, cf. “The Hebrew text does not
mean that two different actions were performed… The meaning is that by means of casting lots
they divided the psalmist’s clothes among themselves” (Bratcher and Reyburn, A translator’s
handbook on the Book of Psalms, 222).
Ross, A commentary on the Psalms, 1:541.
The changes made by Mark can be understood as stylistic improvements from the LXX since
originally Psalm 22,19 (21,19 [LXX]) conforms to Hebrew syntax and style. The change from
aorist to present fits Mark’s style (cf. σταυροῦσιν), the replacement of μου by αὐτοῦ is due to the
change of speaker, the transition from finite verb to participle of βάλλω improves the syntax of
the clause by connecting it with the main verb instead of giving the impression of being two
separate sentences, and the inclusion of ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ avoids the repetition of ἱμάτιον, cf. Raymond
Brown, The death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the grave; A commentary on the Passion
narratives in the four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:954.
On the meaning of scripturization, see Mark Goodacre, “Prophecy historicized or tradition
scripturalized? Reflections on the origin of the Passion narratives,” in New Testament and the
Church, ed. by John Barton and Peter Groves, Library of New Testament Studies 532 (London:
T&T Clark, 2015), 37-51; Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, imagination, and history
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 388-390.
John Dominic Crossan, Who killed Jesus? Exposing the roots of anti-semitism in the Gospel story of
the death of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996), 1-10.
Allison aptly comments that “to biblicize is not necessarily to invent” (Allison, Constructing
Jesus, 389).
Mark Goodacre, “Scripturalization in Mark’s crucifixion narrative,” in The trial and death of Jesus:
Essays on the Passion narrative in Mark, ed. by Geert Van Oyen and Tom Sheperd, CBET 45
(Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 40.
The sequence is marked by the following verbs: φέρουσιν, ἐδίδουν, ἔλαβεν, σταυροῦσιν,
διαμερίζονται and ἐσταύρωσαν. None of these expressions describe details except for the above
mentioned. On this point, Lane rightly mentions “The fact of Jesus’ crucifixion is recorded with
utmost restraint” (William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, NICNT [Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008], 564).
R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A commentary on the Greek text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 644; James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark,
PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 472.
Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, WBC 34 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 502; Alfred
Suhl, Die funktion der alttestamentlichen zitate und anspielungen im Markusevangelium
(Mohn: Gütersloh, 1965), 47-48.
Mark frequently employs Scripture with the larger context in view, cf. Carey, Jesus’ cry from the
Cross, 70-92; Marcus, The way of the Lord; Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s new Exodus in Mark (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000). However, sometimes there are novel exegesis which yield
imaginary results that might represent more the exegetical training of current biblical scholars
rather than first-century Christians, cf. Paul Foster, “Echoes without resonance: Critiquing
certain aspects of recent scholarly trends in the study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament,”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38, No. 1 (2015): 96-111. Nonetheless, in
this case, I think that the context of psalm 22 and Mark are similar. Therefore, this warrants the
possibility to read Mark’s quotation of psalm 22 within its larger context. In this sense, Metalepsis
is a modern lens valid to explore Mark’s intertextual reading of Hebrew Scriptures, cf. Richard
B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 15-104.
See the exegesis of the psalm above.
Evans, Mark 8, 355.
Mark 14,1. All biblical texts are taken from NIV.
Mark 14,10.
Mark 14,43.
Mark 14,55.
Mark 14,64.
Mark 15,1.
Mark 15,3.
Mark 15,11.
Mark 15,15.
Mark 15,24.
Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 566; Larry Hurtado, New International biblical commentary:
Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 274.
David E. Garland, The NIV application commentary: Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
, 589.
Max Botner, Jesus Christ as the Son of David in the Gospel of Mark, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 174 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 174-188.
“ἐκίνησαν κεφαλήν” Psalm 22,8 (21,9 [LXX]). “κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλὰς” Mark 15,29.
Goodacre, “Prophecy historicized or tradition scripturalized?,” 37-51.
See the exegesis above.
Mark identifies three groups that mock Jesus: οἱ παραπορευόμενοι, οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς μετὰ τῶν γραμματέων,
and οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν αὐτῷ. The mockery is described by βλασφημέω, ἐμπαίζω and ὀνειδίζω.
βλασφημέω in Mark 15,29 means to revile, cf. Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer and William
Arndt, A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd ed.
(Chicago, MI: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 178. This attitude is made explicit by two
circumstantial participles. The παραπορευόμενοι express their negative attitude towards Jesus by
the gesture of shaking the head (κινοῦντες) and by saying (λέγοντες) that if Jesus is so powerful
as to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, he should be able to save himself by coming
down from the cross. Implicit in their mockery is the idea that Jesus is not powerful because he
cannot come down from the cross. If he is not capable of doing that simple thing, how could he
be able to rebuild the temple or destroy it in the first place? Cf. France, The Gospel of Mark, 647.
ἐμπαίζω means “to make fun of someone,” cf. J. P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English
lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies,
, 1:434. It functions as a circumstantial participle modifying ἔλεγον giving a glance at
the attitude which the words in verse 31-32 were spoken. Therefore, the priests and scribes show
contempt for Jesus verbally telling him that if he was able to save others, why couldn’t he save
himself ? If he was truly the king of the Jews, why wouldn’t he come down from the cross to prove
it? The impossibility of Jesus to prove these claims reveal that he is helpless, and this becomes the
basis of mockery by his opponents at the cross. Finally, even those who were crucified with him,
those who did not have any standing, revile (ὀνειδίζω) him as well.
Psalm 22,7-9.
See the exegesis of this passage above.
Regardless of the language Jesus spoke, in Mark´s narrative, the Markan Jesus quotes Psalm 22,2.
Carey, Jesus’ cry from the Cross; R. Alan Cole, Mark: An introduction and commentary (Nottingham/
Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press/Intervarsity Press, 2008), 327-328.
There is nothing in the narrative in Mark that points to the positive section of psalm 22. In fact,
Mark alludes to or quotes psalm 22 in a way that distance itself from the positive section (from
verse 19 to 8 and finally 2). The inverse order of the citations/allusions of psalm 22 in Mark 15
actually points that the climax of the use of psalm 22 in Mark 15 is not the topic of vindication
but of abandonment. Vernon Robbins is right when he says “the context of mockery into which Markan discourse places psalm 22 reverses the sequence of scenes in the psalm and subverts
the rhetoric of confidence expressed in it” (Vernon Robbins, “The reversed con-textualization
of psalm 22 in the Markan crucifixion: A socio-rhetorical analysis,” in The four Gospels
: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. by F. Van Segbroeck, BETL 100 [Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1992], 1:1179). It is true, even we have stated it in this document, that Mark alludes to the
context of the citation in order to illuminate its own use. Yet, this is controlled by the Markan
context. As long as the Markan context is similar (thematically) to the original context of the
situation, we can infer that he has the context of the quotation in view. Otherwise, the inquiries
would yield many imaginary results not present in the text itself. For a defense of Mark 15,34 as
an abandonment lament, see Rebecca Cerio, “Jesus’ last words: A cry of dereliction or triumph?,”
The Expository Times 125, No. 7 (2014): 323-327; Morna Hooker, The Gospel according to
Saint Mark, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 374.
Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 572-573; France, The Gospel of Mark, 652-653; Evans,
Mark 8, 507.
“Jesus’ last words in Mark are passionate, expressing both the loneliness of intense suffering and a
bold and demanding challenge addressed to God” (Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A commentary,
Hermeneia [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007], 754). Also, Ben Witherington, The Gospel
of Mark: A socio-rhetorical commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 399.
Mark 14,50-52.
Mark 14,66-72.
The crowd who usually followed him (Mark 2,13) now it is against him. His disciples are nowhere
in Mark 15. The only company Jesus has are those who oppose him. The narrative from
Mark 14 onwards focuses exclusively on Jesus and his enemies without making any mention of
disciples or known ones.
The most horrific scene for someone who enjoys the presence of God as Jesus did was to be
abandoned by him. Hooker articulates this well when she writes “Jesus now experiences the
most bitter blow which can befall the religious man: the sense of having been abandoned by
God” (Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 375).
The intensity of this situation is articulated by φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. On this issue, see Cristian Cardozo
Mindiola, “‘μέγας’ en el Apocalipsis de Juan: Aproximación lexicográfica y su importancia en la
interpretación de Apocalipsis 12,” Evangelio 9, No. 1 (2016): 37-63.
Joel Marcus, ed., Mark 8-16: A new translation with introduction and commentary, The Anchor
Yale Bible 27A (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 1064. Witherington comments
“Thus Jesus’ cry is not seen as playacting, but rather as real agony articulated in scriptural terms
of a person who apparently had never been so separated from or abandoned by God previously”
(Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, 399). Campbell argues convincingly that God’s abandonment
is just the climax of the abandonment motif thoroughly present in the Gospel of Mark,
cf. William Sanger Campbell, “‘Why did you abandon me?’ Abandonment christology in
Mark´s Gospel,” in The trial and death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion narrative in Mark, ed. by
Geert Van Oyen and Tom Sheperd, CBET 45 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 99-105. See also, Matthew
Rindge, “Reconfiguring the Akedah and recasting God: Lament and divine abandonment
in Mark,” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, No. 1 (2011): 755-774.
Jeremy Treat, The crucified King: Atonement and kingdom in biblical and systematic theology
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 99.
Joshua W. Jipp, The messianic theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
, 80.
I rely on Richard Hays for the following description. On the meaning of reading backwards,
figural reading, and the bearing on this for Mark’s use of scripture, see Hays, Echoes of Scripture
in the Gospels, 1-5; Richard B. Hays, Reading backwards: Figural christology and the fourfold Gospel
witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016); Richard Hays, “Figural interpretation
of Israel’s Story,” in Reading with the grain of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020),
-88.
Immediately after his introduction of Jesus in verse 1 Mark uses a composite quotation in
verse 2, cf. Watts, Isaiah’s new Exodus in Mark.
Michael Whitenton, Hearing kyriotic sonship: A cognitive and rhetorical approach to the characterization
of Mark´s Jesus, BibInt 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2016).
Eugene Boring, “Markan christology: God − Language for Jesus,” New Testament Studies 45
(1999): 451-471; Daniel Johansson, “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark,” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 33 (2010): 101-124.
Philip Davis, “Mark´s christological paradox,” in The synoptic Gospels: A Sheffield reader, ed. by
Craig Evans and Stanley Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 163-177.
This invites Mark’s readers to understand that if Jesus felt abandoned by God in the face of
persecution, sometimes believers will have to face the same reality, cf. Rindge, “Reconfiguring
the Akedah.” Also, if we read this canonically, the Jesus who experience the worst of human
experience is the same one who can offer mercy and grace to those who struggle, cf. Heb 4,15-16.
Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 84.
I mean the whole context of Psalm 22,2 that would be until verse 5 not the entirety of the psalm.
Mark Hoffman, “Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the crucifixion of Jesus” (doctoral dissertation, Yale
University, 1996). Contra Marcus, The way of the Lord; Watts, “Mark”.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 DavarLogos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
