mk 11- a triple intercalation

7/31/2019 Mk 11- A Triple Intercalation

1/13

Mark 11:1-12:12:A Triple Intercalation?

SCOTT G. BROWNUniversity of Toronto at Mississauga

Mississauga, ON L5L IC6 (Canada)

WITH THE emergence of redaction, composition, and narrative criticisms,

scholars ofthe Gospel of Mark have come to view its author's characteristic ways

of arranging episodes as literary devices that permit indirect commentary on the

arranged incidents. One of the more familiar of these Marcan literary devices is

intercalation, or the placing ofone basically self-contained episode inside another.

There are six generally acknowledged instances of intercalation in Mark: 3:20-35;

5:21-43; 6:7-32; 11:12-25; 14:1-11; and 14:53-72.! In this article I wish to argue

that the fourth example, the intercalation of the clearing of the temple within the

story of the cursing of the fig tree, is actually part of a larger, triple intercalation,

running from 11:1 through 12:12.

I. The Literary Function of Intercalation

Intercalation is a means of conspicuously juxtaposing two episodes or peri-

copae. This close structural relationship calls attention to any overt similarities,

contrasts, or formal parallels that these episodes share. When these interconnec

tions are sufficiently prominent yet lack a natural or causal explanation, they can

1 This list is offered by Frans Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study ofthe

M k R d i (BETL 31 d ith l t t L L U i it P


2/13

MARK 11:1-12:12 79

take on a mysterious quality for the reader, who becomes impelled to seek a ratio

nale for this relatedness at a deeper or symbolic level of meaning. The best example

of this is supplied by the parallels between the story of the raising of Jairus's

daughter and the intercalated healing of the woman with a hemorrhage. The recipi

ents of these miracles are both female and are called "daughter" (5:23,34), though

the little girl with a rich family contrasts with the lone woman who spent all that

she had on doctors; both females, moreover, have become permanent sources of

defilement. Further, the number twelve is prominent in both stories (5:25, 42), as

are the themes of faith (5:34, 36) and "being saved" (5:23, 28). Scholars have

often commented on these similarities and on their own compulsions to discern

some theological significance in them.2 It is now common to suppose that inter

calated stories are mutually interpretative: "the two related stories illuminate andenrich each other, commenting on and clarifying the meaning, one of the other."

The device stands as an "invitation to read the framed episode in light of the frame

episode and vice versa."3

The cursing of the fig tree and the clearing of the temple probably offer the

best example of how intercalated incidents may be mutually interpretative. On the

surface, the cursing of the fig tree is an illustration of the power of faith: the

disciples are amazed that Jesus' words could cause a tree to wither, and Jesusresponds by claiming that faith can even move mountains. The clearing of the

temple is, on the surface, a commentary on this institution's corruption: the

temple should be a house of prayer for all nations, but the presence of commerce

2 See Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) 132-33, 137; Robert M. Fowler, Let the ReaderUnderstand:

Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 143; Temma F

Berg, "Reading In/to Mark," Semeia 48 (1989) 187-206, here 199-200; Christopher D. Marshall

Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative (SNTSMS 64; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989

93; Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's Worldin Literary-Historical Perspective (Minne

apolis: Fortress, 1989) 168 and n. 58; W. Randolph Tate,Reading Mark from the Outside: Eco and

Iser Leave their Marks (San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1994) 59, 123-24; and

George Aichele, Jesus Framed (Biblical Limits; London/New York: Routledge, 1996) 63.3 David Rhoads and Donald Michie,Mark as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 51; Fowler

Reader, 143. See also John R. Donahue,Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mar

(SBLDS 10; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1973) 42; William R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the

Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark's

Gospel and its Relation to the Clearing of the Temple Tradition (JSNTSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press1980) 35 n. 103, 48; Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Proclamation Commentaries; 2d ed.; Philadelphia

F t 1986) 23 25 M A B i M k' A di Th Lit d S i l S tti f M k


3/13

80 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 64, 2002

in the Court of the Gentiles has turned it into a brigand's cave.4

Yet, as straight

forward as these two stories appear to be, they nevertheless share provocative

similarities which suggest to the implied reader that something more is being

related here. In both stories Jesus unexpectedly takes aggressive measures to

inhibit the "natural" functioning of something, first the fig tree, then the temple.Jesus' disruption of the sacrifices by blocking the movement of vessels through

the temple seems excessive, particularly since his explicit objection concerns the

transactions occurring in the outer court (11:16-17).5

But the coupling of this

intemperate displaywith the similarlyexcessive reaction of cursing a tree that did

not bear fruit out of season suggests that the enigmatic qualities of these incidents

might be resolved at some deeper level of significance.6

A clue to this deeper

meaning is found in the fact that in the Hebrew Scriptures the imagery of a search

4The problem is not the fact of the commerce, which was essential to the temple cultus, but

its location within the temple itself which may have been a recent innovation, animals and other

offerings could be purchased at the Mount of Olives and in markets elsewhere m Jerusalem See

William L Lane, The GospelAccordingto Mark The English Textwith Introduction, Exposition and

Notes (NICNT, Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1974) 403-4, Craig A Evans, "Jesus ' Action in the Temple

Cleansing orPortent ofDestruction9" in Jesus in Context Temple, Purity, andRestoration (ed Bruce

Chilton and Craig A Evans, AGAJU 39, Leiden Brill, 1997) 395-439, esp 429-32, Bruce Chilton,

"[] (John 2 15)," m ibid , 441-54, esp 446-48 That the primary issue is

theplace ofthese transactions and not the prices being charged is indicated by the fact that Jesus drivesout the buyers as well The fact that he does not also dispel animals (contrast John 2 15) undermines

the view that Mark's account is anti-sacnficial Rather, his account is pro-prayer, in keeping with the

lesson ofthe withered fig tree m 11 24-25 Mark 1117 indicates that Jesus wishes to reclaim the temple

as a house of prayer for all nations, hence the outer courtyard as a place of prayer available to Gentile

God-fearers and proselytes5

The sentence "and he would not allow anyone to carry a vessel through the temple" (11 16,

author's trans ) might indicate that Mark's Jesus is prohibiting people from using the temple courtyard

as a thoroughfare, in other words, Jesus' objection to the sacred trade in sacrifices extends to the

secular traffic of ordinary goods, all of which disrupts and delimits the area m which the Gentiles are

allowed to pray However, the lack of any distinction concerning types of vessels or the personscarrying them ("anyone") indicates that Jesus is also preventing the movement of sacred vessels

containing sacrifices Thus, these actions effectively suspend the operation of the sacrificial cult for

the period of his demonstration For further discussion see Telford, Barren Temple, 92-93 102,

Werner Kelber, Mark's Story ofJesus (Philadelphia Fortress, 1979) 60, Robert M Fowler, Loaves

and Fishes The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54, Chico, CA

Scholars, 1981) 217 34, Robert Gundry, Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross

(Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1993) 642-436

Many scholars view Mark's observation that "it was not the season for figs" as a hint that

Jesus' curse is a symbolic gesture directed against something other than the tree See Lane, Gospel

According to Mark, 400, Telford, Barren Temple, 91 84, Robert Stem, "The Cleansing of the

Temple m Mark (11 15-19)," in his Gospels and Tradition Studies on Redaction Criticism of the


4/13

MARK 11:1-12:12 81

forfigs is a figure for God's search for righteous Israelites,7

and the image of

barren or withered fig tree is occasionally used to represent national failure as

manifestation of divine judgment:

What misery is mine! I am like one who gathers summer fruit at the gleaning of thvineyard; there is no cluster of grapes to eat, none ofthe earlyfigs that I crave. Thgodlyhave been swept from the land; not one upright man remains. All men lie in

wait to shed blood; each hunts his brother with a net. (Mie 7:1-2 NIV)

Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at alashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen

when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the LORD. When I would gathethem, says the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, norfigson the fig tree; evethe leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them. (Je

8:12-13)

The now usual conclusion is that the cursing of the fig tree represents God'

judgment upon the temple for the corruption evident in its courtyard; the templ

has not "borne fruit" and therefore deserves its coming destruction (cf. Mark

13:1-4).8

On a symbolic level, these two stories provide a rationale for the real

world destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

explanatory -clauses as a way of encouraging his reader to find a deeper meaning was noted bC. H. Bird, "Some Rxp Clauses in St. Mark's Gospel," JTS4 (1953) 171-87 (cf. Lane, Gospe

According to Mark, 401-2). His examples include Mark's reference to the age of Jairus's daughte

("for she was twelve years of age") as an explanation for why she "got up and walked" after Jesu

raised her (5:42). Like Mark 11:13, that comment puzzles more than it explains, but the oddity of th

remark as an explanation draws attention to the numbertwelve (symbolic of completeness) and to th

fact that the girl was alive for as long as the woman suffered from a constant flow of blood. Thus

the puzzlement created by the clause in 5:42 may prod a reader to consider the two females an

their intersecting narratives in relation to each other. An appreciation of the rhetorical potential of an

odd explanation is missing in the attempt by Wendy J. Cotter ("For It Was Not the Season for Figs,

CBQ 48 [1986] 62-66) to reduce the peculiarity of Mark 11:13 by suggesting that Jesus was no

looking for ripe figs in the wrong season but only for something edible, namely, unripe fruit. She ma

be right in arguing that this clause really modifies the word "anything" in the earlier sentence

"And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it." Jesus

search becomes reasonable if we decide that Mark's explanation has been misplaced (cf. Mark 16:4)

Nevertheless, misplaced explanations puzzle readers, prodding them to make sense of what wa

actually said; and the supposition of a misplacement requires an explanation of how and why thi

might have happened. So Cotter's solution is both compatible with and strengthened by the suggestio

that Mark created this narrative disjunction in order to encourage his readers to perceive a symboli

dimension to Jesus' search for fruit.7

Wojciechowski, "Les fruits de la Loi," 287.8

S D i E i Ni h Th G l f St M k (P li G l C t B lti


5/13


II. Mark 11:1-12:12 as a Triple Intercalation

The interpretation just given is familiar enough. Less familiar is the sug

gestion that the temple and fig tree episodes also participate in two additional,

overlapping intercalations.9 In accordance with the Ax-B-A2 structure of interca

lations, the immediately preceding story of Jesus riding up to Jerusalem and

looking around in the temple (11:1-11) may be seen to function as the A1

story of

an intercalation that has the cursing of the fig tree as the central episode and

the clearing ofthe temple as the concluding A2

story. Likewise, the clearing of the

temple can be viewed as the A1

story of a third intercalation, which has the

discovery of the withered fig tree as the story and the questioning of Jesus'

authorityby "the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" in 11:27-12:12 as

the A2 story.10

In the following discussion I will attempt to demonstrate the utility of this

proposal by showing that the newly designated stories A1

and A2

are related in a

mutually interpretative way to their respective stories, and thereby enrich a

reader's understanding of the symbolism involved in the central incidents of the

cursing of the fig tree and of the clearing of the temple. Following this demon

stration I will justify applying the term "intercalation" to 11:1-19 and 11:15-

12:12 by comparing these passages against the definition of intercalation offered

by James R. Edwards.

A. Mark 11:1-11 and 11:15-19 as "A" Stories Framing11:12-14

TheA1

story in 11:1-11 concludes with abrief and puzzling depiction of Jesus'

initial encounter with the goings-on inside the temple: "and when he had looked

around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the

twelve." This is a surprisingly pedestrian finale to Jesus' messianic action of riding

up to Jerusalem on a colt in symbolic fulfillment of Zech 9:9. This procession,

9Edwards ("Sandwiches," 207 39) and Hooker(StMark, 261) see a double intercalation

in 11 1-25 Neirynck (Duality, 244) refers to Mark 11 1-12 12 as an instance of "alternating com

position " His scheme is also laid out by van Oyen, "Intercalation and Irony," 9531 0

Mark 11 27-33 and 12 1-12 belong together, for the parable Jesus speaks at the start of chap

12 is a second evasive response to the question from the Jerusalem religious leaders concerning the

authority he claims for his actions Initially, he says that he will not answer them because they will

not say whether John's baptism is from humans or from God But the allegory that follows is spoken

"to them" (12 1, 12) and does answer their inquiry, though "in riddles " In this allegory Jesus statesthat he is the Messiah ("beloved son", see 15 below), who was sent by God (the owner of the

vineyard) to gather fruit from the tenants Thus the encounter begun in 11 27 continues through to


6/13

MARK 11:1-12:12 83

accompanied by shouts of "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!

Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming!" leads a reader to

anticipate that something of significance will follow when Jesus reaches Jerusalem

and enters the temple. But nothing happens. "As it is, this visit to the temple seemsentirely pointless, for the idea of Jesus 'seeing the sights' like some provincial

tourist is entirely at variance with the spirit of the Gospels."11

The anticlimactic

nature of 11:11b bids the reader to ask what exactly Jesus is doing in there. Wh

go into the temple and look around at everything?

The answer is suggested in part by what Jesus does when he returns to the

temple the following day. Since Jesus drives out those who buy and sell and then

cites the scriptural passage "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all

the nations," the reader is enabled to perceive in retrospect that on the previousday Jesus was observing the economic transactions occurring in the outer court

and would have made his demonstration then had the hour not been late. So 11:11

ties 11:1-11 with 11:15-19, in much the same way that the comment "And his

disciples heard it [the curse]" in 11:14b ties togetherthe A stories of 11:12-14 and

11:20-25 in the central intercalation. But the realization that the first encounter

involved an assessment of the situation is still not enough to satisfy a reader's

expectation that a messianic procession should be followed by an occurrence of

some consequence. The very strangeness of 11:11 leads the reader to wonderwhether there is some larger significance to this act of assessment that would

make it a fitting conclusion to the procession to Jerusalem.

It is the story ofthe cursing ofthe fig tree that provides the clues necessary

for a coherent purpose to emerge from the sequence in 11:1-10, 11. Ifthe fruitless

tree connotes an absence of righteousness, and this unrighteousness is manifest

in the intrusion of commerce into God's house, then Jesus' inspection ofthe leafy

tree for fruit provides symbolic commentary on his inspection of the temple in

11:ll.12 As mutually interpretative incidents, the messianic procession and Jesus'

approach to a leafy tree in search of fruit combine to symbolize the coming of the

Messiah to Jerusalem and the temple seeking a "harvest" of righteousness from

God's people.

This conception of what Jesus was hoping to find when he "looked around

at everything" in the temple is further elucidated by the allusions to Isa 56:7 and

Jer 7:11 within his prophetic judgment of the temple in Mark 11:17. The larger

11Nineham, St. Mark, 294.


7/13


context of Isa 56:1-8 suggests that Jesus was anticipating the fulfillment of Isai

ah's eschatological vision of the temple as a place where anyone who keeps Yah-

weh's covenant may freely worship (i.e., not only pure Israelites but also foreign

proselytes, "eunuchs," and "the outcasts ofIsrael"). What he found, instead, was

that the place ofGod's presence had become, in effect, a brigand's cavea source

of security for people who commit nefarious deeds.13

By alluding to Jeremiah's

warning that Solomon's temple was no more immune to destruction than was the

former sanctuary in Shiloh, Jesus warned the astonished multitude that a great and

vibrant temple is no assurance ofGod's protection should their unrighteous deeds

cause God to remove his presence from that place.

We may conclude, then, that when 11:1-11, 15-19 (the outer A stories) and

11:12-14 (the inner story) are treated as mutually interpretative incidents, abroader conceptual context emerges in which to comprehend Jesus' aggressive

responses to finding a barren fig tree and commerce in the temple: The Messiah

has come to the temple with the expectation of finding an inclusive and universal

place of worship, only to discover that this place and its cult are being used

self-servingly.

B. Mark 11:15-19 and 11:27-12:12 as "A" Stories Framing11:20-25

The preceding interpretation of the significance of Jesus' actions in the A1

story of the first intercalation (11:1-11) is confirmed by the A2

story of this third

intercalation (11:27-12:12), which resumes the motif of the Messiah coming to

Jerusalem forthe purpose of "reaping fruit." In response to the demand by Jerusa

lem's religious leaders to know by what authority he is "doing these things,"14

Jesus tells a parable in which the owner of a vineyard sends his servants and,

finally, his own "beloved son" to the vineyard's recalcitrant tenants "to get from

them some of the fruit of the vineyard." They kill the son with the expectation

that they will inherit the vineyard, though the projected consequence is that the

ownerwill destroy them and give the vineyard to others. A reader knows from 1:11

and 9:7 that Jesus is God's "beloved son" and, therefore, that God is sending his

Messiah to the tenants of his vineyard.15

That the tenants are the veryopponents

who are questioning Jesus' authority to interfere with their running ofthe temple

is indicated in 12:12, where they perceive that the parable was told against them.

1 3Jeremiah 7 (esp Jer 7 5-11) Jesus' remarks "to them" (Mark 11 17a) are addressed to the

multitude in the outer courtyard, particularly the persons whose activities he is disrupting, the chiefpriests and scribes are not singled out here as they are m 12 1-12 Hence, in the context of Mark, Jesus'

t ti f J 7 11 i l i di t t f th l i th t l


8/13

MARK 11:1-12:12 85

In 11:27 this group was described specifically as "the chief priests and the scribes

and the elders," that is, as the custodians of the temple and representatives of the

Sanhdrin. What are not immediately evident are the allegorical referents for the

"vineyard," the "fruit" that God expects but the religious leaders will not relinquish, and the "others" to whom the vineyard will be given.

Most of these allegorical referents can be deduced from the context. Since

the vineyard is something that can be taken away from the tenants and given to

others, it is not a symbol for something material, such as the temple, the land of

Israel, or the people of Israelunless, of course, the "others" are the Roman

armies who conquered Judea and Jerusalem. But neither the Romans nor, by

extension, the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) are likely in view, for whatever this

vineyard represents, its loss is a consequence of Jesus' rejection, and its reestablishment a consequence of his vindication: "Have you not read this scripture: The

very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'?"

(12:10). This statement makes it more likely that the "others" are Jesus' followers

and that the vineyard is the covenant relationship between God and Israel. The

"pouring out" of Jesus' blood through the plotting of Jerusalem's leaders brings

into effect a new covenant between God and those who participate in the Eucharist

a new relationship, although again characterized by "the fruit of the vine": "And

he said to them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for manyTruly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day

when I drink it new in the kingdom of God' " (14:24-25; cf. "fruit of the vineyard"

in 12:2).

These identifications have additional intertextual and intratextual support

The details pertaining to the founding of the vineyard in Mark 12:1 are drawn from

the extended metaphor of Isaiah 5, where the vineyard, the anticipated fruit, and

the actual harvest (in this case wild grapes) have explicit referents: "For the

vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are hispleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteous

ness, but behold, a cry!" (v. 7). In this original allegory, the harvest sought by God

is righteousness in Israel. Thus, the vineyard, or house of Israel, is the people

covenanted to God.16 The parallels with Jesus' search for figs in Mark 11:12-14

are patent. For Mark the barren fig tree and the withheld grapes are complementary

symbols of unrighteousness, just as they are in Jer 8:13 ("there are no grapes on

the vine, nor figs on the fig tree") and Mie 7:1 ("there is no cluster of grapes to

eat, none of the early figs that I crave" [NIV]). As the "beloved son," Jesus is last


9/13


in a line ofprophets (the "servants" in 12:2-5) seeking righteousness and justice

among God's people. Like the vineyard in 12:1-9, then, the fig tree in 11:12-14,

20-21 stands for the covenant relationship.17

The cursing of the fig tree and the

destruction of the tenants symbolize the removal of this covenant through thedestruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the image of the rejected stone

becoming the head ofthe cornerpoints to the replacement of Israel's covenant with

a new covenant open to anyone who partakes ofthe Messiah's covenant-ratifying

blood by drinking the fruit of the vine.

It is evident that the A2

story of this third intercalation (11:27-12:12) devel

ops the nature of the antagonism between Jesus and the temple authorities in its

corresponding A1

story (11:15-19); considered together, these final A stories pro

vide both a rationale and a symbolic meaning for the destruction represented inthe story of the discovery of the withered fig tree, thereby enriching the sym

bolism conveyed in the other two intercalations. This third intercalation attributes

the presence of commerce in the courtyard to self-interest on the part of Jerusa

lem's religious leaders, who are acting as if the covenant existed for their benefit

alone; hence they limit the area of the temple accessible to Gentiles and reject or

kill any prophet who demands of them the righteousness ("fruit") that the cove

nant was meant to produce. They think that by killing the Messiah or "heir

apparent" of the house of Israel, theywill be free to keep the benefits and blessings ofthe covenant relationship for themselves.

18Ironically, the measures taken

by these leaders to preserve their monopoly culminate in the loss of everything

theysought to preserve: the covenant, the temple, the city, and their own positions

as leaders and overseers of these things.

C. Mark 11:1-19; 11:15-12:12; and the DefiningFeatures ofIntercalation

To this point myintention has been to show (1) that 11:1-19 and 11:15-12:12

function as intercalations inasmuch as their inner and outer episodes are mutuallyinterpretative; and (2) that when these passages are read as intercalations, the

central, intercalated episodes of the cursing of the fig tree and the clearing of the

temple are more fully elucidated. Having now established the utility of the sug

gestion that the whole of 11:1-12:12 be comprehended as a triple intercalation,

1 7Hence, the fig tree (like the vineyard) stands formore than the temple, see Wojciechowski,

"Les fruits de la Loi," 287 "le figuier symbolise des dons de Dieu Israel, sa liaison particulire avec

Dieu, sa fonction salvifique " Parallels with the targumic version of Gen 3 22 lead him to suggest

that the fig tree ultimately symbolizes the Law (p 288), but that does not strike me as a more accurate


10/13

MARK 11:1-12:12 87

it remains for me to show that these constructions actually exhibit the defining

characteristics of intercalation as these have been designated in recent studies of

this device. For this purpose I use a definition offered by James R. Edwards, who

notes that each Marcan intercalation concerns a larger (usually narrative) unit ofmaterial consisting of two episodes or stories which are narrated in three para

graphs or pericopes. The whole follows an A*-B-A2schema, in which the B-episode

forms an independent unit of material, whereas the flanking -episodes require

one another to complete their narrative. The B-episode consists of only one story;

it is not a series of stories, nor itself so long that the reader fails to link A2

with

A1. Finally, A

2normally contains an allusion at its beginning which refers back to

A1, e.g., repetition of a theme, proper nouns, etc.

19

According to this definition, intercalation involves two basicallyself-containedepisodes. The outer story constitutes one episode in itself, the completion of which

is delayed by the inner episode. This is certainly the case in the cursing of the fig

tree, whose narrative is resumed and then completed after the narrating of the

clearing of the temple. However, the two outer intercalations in the triple inter

calation that I have proposed do not appear to involve only two distinct stories in

this sense. This complicated structure, in fact, requires the A2

story of the initial

intercalation (the clearing of the temple) to double as the A1

story of the third

intercalation, with the consequence that the A stories of the outer intercalations

are in three parts rather than just two. This divergence from the norm can, of

course, be viewed simply as a variant necessitated by a more elaborate, inter

locking structure, though the question remains whether 11:1-11; 11:15-19; and

11:27-12:12 constitute one episode divided into three pericopae. Put somewhat

differently, we have to consider whether the A2

stories are necessary to complete

their respective A1

stories.

Strictly speaking, 11:1-11; 11:15-19; and 11:27-12:12 do not constitute one

story; nevertheless, these three incidents are closely related to each other. The

clearing of the temple is Jesus' response to what he witnessed in 11:11, and the

encounterinitiated by the chief priests, scribes, and elders when Jesus returns to

the temple (11:27) is their initial reaction to Jesus' aggressive actions in the

temple the preceding day (11:18): they want to know by what authority he is

doing "these things." Thus, 11:1-11 is the prelude to 11:15-19, and 11:27-12:12

is the immediate aftermath. Moreover, in keeping with Edwards's description, the

beginnings of the A2

stories allude to the A1

incidents through repetition. The

openings of each of the A stories in the outer intercalations are verbally similar

to each other yet differ from their stories (or the openings of the A stories of


11/13


the middle intercalation). Jerusalem is mentioned in the first and last verses of

11:1-11. Mark 11:15 begins similarly with "And they came to Jerusalem," and

these specific words are recalled in 11:27 by "And they came again to Jerusalem."

The two halves of the story of the cursing of the fig tree, on the other hand, donot mention Jerusalem or even the specific location of the encounter (somewhere

between Bethany and Jerusalem) but are situated, rather, with reference to the

sequence of days. More importantly, at the beginning of the A2

story Peter spots

the fig tree and recalls the cursing of it on the preceding day.

This repetition of themes at the beginnings of all the A stories in 11:1-12:12

is matched by notes of anticipation at the end of each A1

story. Once a reader

understands what Jesus was doing in 11:11, that verse foreshadows the clearing

of the temple. And the clearing of the temple ends with a comment anticipatingthe confrontation in 11:27: "And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and

sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him . . . " (11:18). The same sort of

anticipatory connection exists in the central intercalation, where the disciples'

discovery of the withered fig tree and Peter's "remembering" (anamnstheis,

11:20-21) were anticipated by the narrator's comment in 11:14 that the disciples

heard Jesus' curse.20

These notes of anticipation are, in fact, the only elements

that could be said to contribute to an impression that the intercalated stories are

unfolding simultaneously, in the sense that some action, process, or attitude thatbegan in the A

1story is still "going on" during the story.

21

As it happens, of the six "classic" intercalations the cursing of the fig tree

is the poorest example ofthis feature ofintercalation, forthe onlyelement within

the cursing narrative that might seem to be continuing during the clearing incident

is the disciples' awareness that the tree was cursed.22

It is similarly difficult to

argue forthe existence ofan "ellipsis" of11:1-11 across 11:12-14, forthe impres

sion that Jesus' encounter with the fig tree is taking place while he is on his way

to address what he saw in the temple (11:11) only emerges in retrospect of hisactions in 11:15-19. The element ofsimultaneityis clearerin 11:15-12:12, how

ever, where the intention ofthe chief priests and the scribes to destroy Jesus is

expressed at the end ofthe A1

narrative and acted upon at the beginning ofthe A2

2 0Notice the parallelism of 11 14b ( o referring to the curse)

and 11 18 ( o o referring to the clearing)2 1

As described by Shepherd ("Definition," 316), "something is 'left hanging' across the inner

story's telling " He refers to this feature as "an ellipsis of the outer story across the inner story"

("Intercalation m Mark," 689) Though scholars commenting on this device commonly state that the


12/13

MARK 11:1-12:12 89

narrative. In this respect, 11:15-12:12 is verysimilarto 14:1-11, where the anointing

of Jesus is set within the religious leaders' plot to destroy him (14:1-2, 10-11).

Indeed, the A stories in 14:1-11 are a resumption of the plot introduced in the A

stories of 11:15-12:12.

23

Like the latterintercalation, the element in 14:1-2 thatcontinues through the narrative is this malevolent scheming, which in 14:10-11

culminates in Judas's decision to leave Jesus in order to betray him.

III. Conclusions

Mark11:1-19 and 11:15-12:12 fit the general definition ofintercalation quite

wellat least as well as does the central, generally acknowledged instance of

intercalation with which they overlap. Understanding the whole of 11:1-12:12 asa triple intercalation has hermeneutical value, for it allows a better appreciation

of the symbolic interrelatedness of each of the incidents occurring therein. Mark

11:1-11 represents the enactment of Jesus' role in the allegory of 12:1-12: he is

the Messiah (God's Son) come to the temple in search of righteousness, the "fruit"

of the covenant between God and his people. This concept not only frames the

central intercalation but is also interwoven with it, enriching the symbolism ofthe

cursing of the barren tree and the clearing ofthe temple and clarifying the nature

of the conflict between Jesus and Jerusalem's religious authorities. Through thistriple intercalation, Mark conveys his theological conception of why God per

mitted the Roman destruction of the temple and the holy city, the physical heart

of the Jewish nation. Writing too early to perceive that Judaism would continue

as a religion centered on the Torah, Mark considered this defeat to signify the end

of a covenant that failed to bear the "fruit" of righteousness. For this he blamed

mostly Jerusalem's religious aristocracy, whom he characterized as self-serving

overseers (12:3-8) who would go to any length to keep the benefits ofthe covenant

to themselves.

2 3Compare 11:18 ("And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy

him") with 14:1 ("And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth,

and kill him"); and compare 12:12 ("And they tried to arrest him, but feared the multitude") with 14:2

(" 'Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people' " ) .


13/13

^,

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined byU.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution ofthis journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holderforan entire issue ofa journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author ofthe article maymaintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article orspecificworkforanyuse not covered bythe fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws orcovered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,orcontact ATLA to request contact information forthe copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed bythe American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from LillyEndowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the propertyofthe AmericanTheological Library Association.

mk 11- a triple intercalation

Documents