Incomprehension or resistance? : the Markan disciples and the narrative logic of Mark ‎‎4:1—8:30‎

The characterization of the Markan disciples has been and continues to be the object of ‎much scholarly reflection and speculation. For many, the Markan author’s presentation of ‎Jesus’ disciples holds a key, if not the key, to unlocking the purpose and function of the ‎gospel as a whole. Commentators differ as to whether the Markan disciples ultimately ‎serve a pedagogical or polemical function, yet they are generally agreed that the disciples ‎in Mark come off rather badly, especially when compared to their literary counterparts in ‎Matthew, Luke, and John. This narrative-critical study considers the characterization of the Markan disciples ‎within the Sea Crossing movement (Mark 4:1–8:30). While commentators have, on the ‎whole, interpreted the disciples’ negative characterization in this movement in terms of ‎lack of faith and/or incomprehension, neither of these, nor a combination of the two, fully ‎accounts for the severity of language leveled against the disciples by the narrator (6:52) ‎and Jesus (8:17–18). Taking as its starting point an argument by Jeffrey B. Gibson (1986) ‎that the harshness of Jesus’ rebuke in Mark 8:14–21 is occasioned not by the disciples’ ‎lack of faith or incomprehension but by their active resistance to his Gentile mission, this ‎investigation uncovers additional examples of the disciples’ resistance to Gentile mission, ‎offering a better account of their negative portrayal within the Sea Crossing movement ‎and helping explain many of their other failures. In short, this study argues that in Mark 4:1–8:26, the disciples are characterized as ‎resistant to Jesus’ Gentile mission and to their participation in that mission, the chief ‎consequence being that they are rendered incapable of recognizing Jesus’ vocational ‎identity as Israel’s Messiah (Thesis A). This leads to a secondary thesis, namely, that in ‎Mark 8:27–30, Peter’s recognition of Jesus’ messianic identity indicates that the disciples ‎have finally come to accept Jesus’ Gentile mission and their participation in it (Thesis B).‎ ‎“Chapter One: Introduction” offers a selective review of scholarly treatments of ‎the Markan disciples, which shows that few scholars attribute resistance, let alone ‎purposeful resistance, to the disciples. ‎“Chapter Two: The Rhetoric of Repetition” introduces the methodological tools, ‎concepts, and perspectives employed in the study. It includes a section on narrative ‎criticism, which focuses upon the story-as-discoursed and the implied author and reader, ‎and a section on Construction Grammar, a branch of cognitive linguistics founded by ‎Charles Fillmore and further developed by Paul Danove, which focuses upon semantic ‎and narrative frames and case frame analysis. ‎“Chapter Three: The Sea Crossing Movement, Mark 4:1–8:30” addresses the ‎question of Markan structure and argues that Mark 4:1–8:30 comprises a single, unified, ‎narrative movement, whose action and plot is oriented to the Sea of Galilee and whose ‎most distinctive feature is the network of sea crossings that transport Jesus and his ‎disciples back and forth between Jewish and Gentile geopolitical spaces. Following William Freedman, “Chapter Four: The Literary Motif” introduces two ‎criteria (frequency and avoidability) for determining objectively what constitutes a ‎literary motif and provides the methodological basis and starting point for the analyses ‎performed in chapters five and six. ‎“Chapter Five: The Sea Crossing Motif” establishes and then carries out a lengthy ‎narrative analysis of the Sea Crossing motif, which is oriented around Mark’s use of ‎θάλασσα (thalassa) and πλοῖον (ploion), and “Chapter Six: The Loaves Motif” does the same for The ‎Loaves motif, oriented around Mark’s use of ἄρτος (artos). Finally, “Chapter Seven: The Narrative Logic of the Disciples ‎‎(In)comprehension” draws together all narrative, linguistic, and exegetical insights of the ‎previous chapters and offers a single coherent reading of the Sea Crossing movement that ‎establishes Theses A and B.