Abstract
This article begins with William Wrede's (1901) suggestion that the writer of the Gospel of Mark added the scene of Jesus predicting his crucifixion and the text indicating that even when Jesus predicts his death his disciples remain unaware of that prediction. I agree with Wrede. Moreover, I argue that several passages describing the disciples’ ignorance throughout Mark's Gospel are the creation of the Marcan gospel writer in order to make sense of the disciples’ ignorance when Jesus predicts his death. The prime example is that when Jesus performed the second miracle of the loaves and fishes, they had totally forgotten the first miracle of the loaves and fishes. To conclude the article, I argue that the disciples’ lack of comprehension described in Mark can be understood as fictional. That is, the description of the disciples in Mark differs from how the disciples actually acted historically. Unlike what is described in Mark, I argue that at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, the disciples neither ran away from Jesus nor lost faith in Jesus, but they had unwavering trust in him.
Once and again we read that the disciples do not comprehend, do not understand it, although they have been told in the plainest, most explicit terms. Therefore Wrede again concludes that the situation is unreal in the extreme. This whole alleged self-revelation of Jesus, he holds, is but a fiction of the Evangelist. In the unfolding of the actual drama it remains inoperative, produces no effect; it makes no history, and consequently must itself be unhistorical [Vos: 75–76].
As we can see in this passage, Vos summarized Wrede's insistence that “In the unfolding of the actual drama it remains inoperative, produces no effect; it makes no history, and consequently must itself be unhistorical.” Based on that criticism, it seems probable that the scene of Jesus predicting his crucifixion is the creation of the Marcan gospel writer. That is, Jesus, in fact, did not predict his crucifixion. If this is the case, then the scene in which the disciples do not understand Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion also becomes a fiction. Moreover, Wrede insists that Jesus’ prediction of his crucifixion and the portrayal of the disciples’ lack of comprehension were both created by Mark as part of the “messianic secret” (Wrede: 131). While explicating the reason behind this phenomenon, he argues that Jesus was accepted as messiah only after the resurrection and not during his life. I think Wrede's argument is convincing and for that reason I begin this article with Wrede's point that in Mark Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion is a creation of the gospel writer, and so is the portrayal of the disciples’ lack of comprehension of Jesus’ prediction.
Despite this agreement, however, I am taking a different route to develop my argument and conclusion. Wrede insists that the Marcan gospel writer's creation of Jesus’ prediction and the scenes showing the disciples’ lack of comprehension are related to Jesus’ messianic identity; however, I don't think these scenes were created by the Gospel writer because of “the messianic secret.” I argue differently, as follows. That is, Jesus didn't predict his crucifixion but was described in the Gospel of Mark by the early Christians as doing so in order to express Jesus’ foretelling insight, as Bond asserts (Bond: 134–51). Bond also agrees with Brown about Jesus’ ambiguity in regard to his destiny (Brown: 1468–91). Bond agrees with Brown that because of the dreadful fate of other prophets in the past, Jesus had an ambiguous sense of his possible destiny. However, Jesus’ actual arrest and death on the cross must have been unexpected both by Jesus and his disciples. There is an obvious difference between foreseeing the possibility of one's destiny in light of past prophets’ fate and clearly proclaiming one's crucifixion in detail. Also, if what Bond and Brown pointed out is true, that Jesus knew his destiny only broadly and roughly, then it becomes clear that Jesus did not predict his crucifixion as the Marcan gospel writer claims.
Thinking from this perspective, it is logical to see that when the crucifixion happened, it was unexpected by both Jesus and the disciples. However, when it comes to scenes portraying the disciples’ lack of comprehension there is more to consider. This is written as a literary device and does not portray historical fact. Thus, I will examine in what follows the portrayal of the disciples’ lack of comprehension in several other scenes as a literary device and will argue that the device is used repeatedly in Mark to prepare for the disciples’ lack of comprehension when Jesus predicts his death. In other words, the disciples’ failure does not reflect the historical truth but, on the contrary, is added to make sense of their words and actions at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and death. In order to explain that the disciples couldn't understand Jesus’ message when Jesus was predicting his death, the gospel writer added passages that indicate their lack of comprehension at other times, as in Mark 4:40; 6:51–52; 8:4, 14–21; 8:33; 9:2–10; and 14:68–72. Showing the disciples’ incomprehension several times during Jesus’ ministry acts like a preview, by which the gospel writer guides the readers to, finally, come to understand and accept the disciples’ incomprehension shown when Jesus predicts his death. This leads us to infer a different picture of the disciples at the time of the crucifixion. Let us now look at what might be the real portrayal of the disciples.
Literature Review
Since Wrede noted the “unrealness” of Mark 9:9–10, many different opinions (Schweitzer; Taylor 1948; Cullmann; Dibelius; Burkill; Watson; Weeden; Kelber; Kee; Tannehill; Kingsbury; Tolbert; Dunn 1970; Tuckett) have have attempted to explain how to make sense of that “unrealness.” R. T. France said the most dominant prospect so far is that the disciples, just as the people who followed Jesus, misunderstood Jesus, believing him to be the political messiah. However, I think this argument, although influential, is less satisfactory because it assumes that the differences of understanding between Jesus and his disciples were evident and this gap had not been filled while Jesus was carrying out his ministry. Would the disciples also misunderstand Jesus, by thinking of him as a political messiah? Was it that difficult for Jesus to convince his disciples that he was not a political messiah? Was it that difficult to understand Jesus’ repetitive prophecy predicting his death (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34)? I think it is less persuasive and most likely impossible that the disciples who “left everything (Mark 10:28) to follow Jesus,” couldn't understand Jesus’ repeated prediction of his death, especially when the writer of the Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as someone who “had authority, not as the teachers of the law” (Mark 10:22). Moreover, as Mark 6:7 (“Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two”) shows, when Jesus sent his disciples out, he showed that he had great trust in his disciples. For this reason, I believe the suggestion that Jesus couldn't convince his disciples that he wasn't a political messiah and that he couldn't resolve the gap between his own understanding and his disciples’ understanding is less than satisfactory when looking at it from the perspective of the entire scripture narrative. In the remainder of this article will demonstrate why this portrayal of ignorance must have been added.
Added Scenes of Disciples with Lack of Comprehension
In Mark, the disciples are described with an unbelievable lack of comprehension when it comes to understanding Jesus’ miracles and teachings. The prime example is portrayed in Jesus's second miracle of the loaves and fishes, Let's look at Mark 8:14–21:
The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. “Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.” They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up? “Twelve,” they replied. “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”
Jesus asks his disciples about their understanding of his miracle of the loaves and fishes: “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” and “Do you still not understand?” How is this scene possible? Is it possible that the disciples who recently experienced Jesus’ miracle of the loaves and fishes can respond in this ignorant way? It is impossible to make sense of the disciples’ lack of comprehension after all they learned and witnessed, including the first miracle of the loaves and fishes. Because the disciples’ response is surprisingly unrealistic, I believe it to be one addition to the the Gospel by the writer of Mark. A similar pattern is found in the transfiguration narrative (Mark 9:2–10):
After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.
After the disciples saw Jesus’ transfiguration, they still couldn't understand Jesus’ prediction of his death, which was stated in “the plainest, most explicit terms” (Vos: 75). Mark (9:9–10) tells us that “As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what ‘rising from the dead’ meant.”
France points out that Jesus’ transfiguration happened in front of the disciples to show that Jesus is beyond being a human teacher, but is something much more (France: 326–59). The Second Epistle of Peter (1:16–18) describes Jesus’ status after the transfiguration as one of “honor and glory” (Marcus 2000: 1108–18). Is it possible to believe that the disciples were not able to accept Jesus’ teaching when they had already experienced such a remarkable event? How is it possible to think that disciples who left everything in order to follow Jesus (Mark 1:16–20; 3:13–19) could not understand what their teacher was saying? The disciples’ lack of comprehension appears in a similar pattern in the second miracle of the loaves and fishes (Mark 8:14–21). It comes, surprisingly, right after they experience Jesus’ miracles. For this reason, I suggest that the disciples’ incomprehension at the time of the second miracle of the loaves and fishes (Mark 8:14–21) and at Jesus’ transfiguration was invented by the gospel writer to make it more convincing for them not to understand when Jesus predicts his death. The gospel writer is deliberately creating a larger picture of the disciples’ ignorance.
Other evidential scenes which support the disciples’ lack of comprehension are found in Mark's Gospel:
He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quite! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm. He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” [Mark 4:39–41].
When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them. But when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.” Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened [Mark 6:47–52].
Additional stories must have been added for the same purpose:
“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” “You don't know what you are asking,” Jesus said, “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” [Mark 10:33–45].
Again, when James and John, the sons of Zebedee, ask Jesus, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory,” the rest of the disciples react in a way that shows they all have different understandings of what Jesus is telling them. Wrede's point is still valid in this situation. Jesus’ disclosure of his future death is powerless because it “produces no effect; it makes no history, and consequently must itself be unhistorical” (Vos: 75). The gospel writer creates this portrayal of the disciples’ ignorance, in the same way he uses other teachings of Jesus, such as Mark 9:35. (Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”) Furthermore, the scene where Peter denies Jesus could also be a creation of the writer of Mark because this scene can be understood in a vein similar to when the writer sets up the characteristic of the disciples’ lack of apprehension. The final message is that the disciples’ couldn't understand when Jesus predicts his death, not even when Jesus is actually put to death.
But he denied it. “I don't know or understand what you're talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway. When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, “I don't know this man you're talking about.” Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept [Mark 14: 68–72].
Several scholars have argued over the historicity of the scene of Peter denying Jesus. One of the most supportive arguments against the historicity of the scene of Peter denying Jesus is that there is no reason to add a scene that undermines the status of Peter, who became such an important leader to Christians. However, one of the arguments to support its inclusion is that Peter later repents. Adding the scene of Peter's denial is then seen as less problematic. Peter's denial can give courage and hope to readers when they face tests of their faith and experience failure (Brown: 587–626). I agree with this last point because ultimately Peter recovered his position of honor. Furthermore, the disciples come to take the honorable responsibility of spreading the gospel after Jesus is resurrected. For this reason, Peter's denial and repentance cannot be seen as absolutely negative.
Another reason why we could think that the passage of Peter's denial was created is to show that Jesus is the only person who can be described with the highest dignity. There was no reason for early Christians to describe the disciples in a negative way. When it comes to the disciples’ relationship with Jesus, it seems that there is no reason for the disciples to be portrayed negatively unless there was an ulterior motive. We can identify such a motive because, at the end, Jesus is ultimately the main character of the Gospels. Jesus is therefore depicted as the most honorable figure, and the disciples are depicted with comparatively low status. With this understanding in mind, it is plausible that writer of the gospel of Mark intended to create or transform elements of the Gospel that describe the disciples’ ignorance in order to emphasize the most important story in the Gospel, Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
Why did the writer add the scene of disciples’ lack of comprehension on Jesus predicting his death?
In this article I have examined the scenes of the disciples’ lack of comprehension and have argued that there are points that are difficult to follow. I have also argued that the disciples’ lack of comprehension when Jesus predicts his death is a writer's creation and the reason behind these pervasive examples at Mark 8:14–21;9:2–10;4: 39–41;6:47–52; 10:33–45;14:68–72 is that they were included with the intention to, ultimately and convincingly, confirm the disciples’ lack of comprehension in regard to Jesus predicting his death.
Then, the remaining question is, why did the writer do this? I am suggesting one possibility: I believe the writer of Mark thought that describing the disciples’ with a lack of comprehension could be one of the best ways to most smoothly make sense of the situation of Jesus’ crucifixion. And that is because it makes better sense to say Jesus’ disciples were lacking comprehension than to think they couldn't and didn't do anything to prevent Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus was alone in enduring the crucifixion, and none of the disciples were able to take any action to prevent it. In the situation of the crucifixion, the disciples were distanced from Jesus not only physically but also psychologically. I believe this is one possible reason why, as part of the background of the crucifixion, the disciples could be portrayed, by means of a literary device, as “not knowing” and “incapable.” If the disciples were not able to do anything as followers of Jesus, especially at the most critical moment in the crucifixion, it is possible for the gospel writer's portrayal of the disciples as those who run away to be understood as a literary expression not based on historical fact. Then the writer could describe the disciples’ lack of comprehension as a literary device, and the phrases “didn't understand” and “incompetent” become part of the background of the crucifixion that is not historically true.
I think it is possible that the writer decided to use the metaphor of “running away” instead of showing the true inability of the historical disciples to help Jesus in any way. Another possible reason why the writer of Mark created a scene that contradicts the actual history is that, within the literary dimension of the gospel writer, the disciples were held responsible for letting Jesus suffer and die. The crucifixion itself is an undeniably horrifying event, although the gospel writer looks at it in the broader light of the glory of the resurrection. In fact, to depict the disciples as people who couldn't understand Jesus teaching and who eventually ran away is dishonorable in the context of the gospel, especially when it is not historically true. If the gospel writer decided to use these descriptions regardless, I maintain that a reasonable argument to support the decision could be made that the writer intended to hold the disciples partially responsible for Jesus’ suffering and death.
For this reason, because the gospel writer felt it was reasonable to hold the disciples’ responsible for their failure to protect Jesus and to use a literary rather than a historical rationale, it is possible that the writer of Mark chose to describe the disciples as “lacking comprehension” and as “incompetent.” That is, the writer of Mark deliberately created and exaggerated the “disciples’ lack of comprehension.”
To offer another explanation, there is a possibility that the disciples didn't run away at the crucifixion as the gospel describes in Mk 14: 50 (“Then everyone deserted him and fled”). The disciples trusted and were loyal to Jesus, but were unable to prevent Jesus being held and crucified. Just as ordinary people couldn't help, the disciples were truly helpless when Jesus was arrested.
Furthermore, because Jesus’ disciples were not armed and Jesus’ teaching was also strongly opposed to using physical power (“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?”—Mark 14: 48), the disciples were in a situation where they had no way to resist. Most importantly, it is highly probable that the disciples were not lacking comprehension as the gospel writer wrote. It is logical to assume that the disciples were, in fact, holding faithfully to their unvarying trust in Jesus even when Jesus was arrested. It is a more satisfactory explanation to understand Jesus’ disciples as retaining their firm trust in Jesus, because they not only became disciples by leaving behind their former lives (Mark 10:28), but also experienced Jesus’ authoritative teachings (Mark 1: 22) and a number of miracles (Mark 4: 35–41;5: 21–43;6: 30–44). For this reason, it is possible to understand the narratives that suggested the disciples couldn't understand Jesus prediction of his death as, in fact, a fiction, as is the narrative in which the disciples left Jesus while he suffered the crucifixion.
Then, what must have been the historically accurate picture? As I observed at the beginning of this article, Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion must have been created by the gospel writer to manifest Jesus’ authority and his power to foresee the future. It is reasonable to see Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion as incidents that were not expected by Jesus or his disciples. The gospel writer created the picture of Jesus predicting his crucifixion. Jesus’ disciples did not misunderstand Jesus as political messiah. The disciples must have had unwavering trust but could not prevent Jesus from being arrested and crucified. The disciples were neither armed nor prepared to resist, and thus were unable to prevent Jesus being arrested, any more than could any ordinary person. The Marcan gospel writer revised this picture of the disciples not being able to prevent Jesus from being arrested and crucified, changing it instead to disciples who failed to understand what was happening. Then, in order to support this portrayal of the disciples’ lack of comprehension in regard to Jesus’ prediction of his crucifixion and their inability to prevent it, the Marcan author added several more passages to demonstrate throughout the Gospel the disciples’ lack of comprehension.
In this vein, the passages in Mark concerning the disciples must have been formed in something like the following sequence. The gospel writer created the picture of Jesus predicting his crucifixion in order to manifest Jesus’ authority and his power to foresee the future. Then the writer added the scene of the disciples’ lack of comprehension of Jesus’ prediction of his crucifixion. As Wrede pointed out, Jesus’ prediction of his crucifixion served no function, and thus could=not help being ahistorical. If so, it follows that the disciples’ lack of comprehension about Jesus’ prediction is also ahistorical. For this reason, it is reasonable to conclude that the gospel writer added the scenes of Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion and disciples’ lack of comprehension of it. The disciples were described as lacking comprehension because they were not able to prevent Jesus being arrested and crucified. This must have been one of the strong reasons why the author thought the disciples had to be described as lacking comprehension. In order to support the portrayal of the disciples as ignorant and unable to understand and being unable to prevent the crucifixion, the other scenes of the disciples lacking comprehension must also have been added throughout the Gospel of Mark.
Conclusion
Because the idea that the disciples were unable to understand Jesus’ prediction of his death is, as Wrede puts it, “unreal in the extreme” (Vos: 75), it requires some explanation. I believe the portrayal of Jesus’ prediction of the crucifixion itself and the disciples as lacking comprehension in regard to Jesus’ prediction of his death, can be a point at which there is a crack in the gospel narrative, and at the same time, a clue—a clue that allows us to infer the intention of the gospel writer. Thus, I have inferred the following: the gospel writer created a scene of Jesus’ predicting his death and of the disciples’ response that lacks comprehension of what Jesus is saying. To convincingly portray this scene, the writer added the passages portraying the disciples’ lack of comprehension in Mk 4:40; 6:51–52; 8:4, 14–21; 8:33; 9:2–10; 14:68–72. Moreover, I believe the disciples who could not prevent Jesus being arrested, were intentionally described by Mark's gospel writer as “running away” when Jesus was arrested. I argue that the reality could be quite different; Jesus may not have predicted his crucifixion. That prediction may well have been created and added in order to manifest Jesus’ power to foresee the future. Unlike the account in the Gospel, the disciples did not mistake Jesus as a political messiah, nor were they ignorant, but they held to an unwavering trust in Jesus. Jesus’ arrest took place unexpectedly and the disciples were simply unable to prevent his arrest, nor could they resist the soldiers because, as ordinary people, they were not armed. This was portrayed by the Marcan gospel writer as “The disciples were not able to prevent Jesus’ crucifixion because of their lack of comprehension.” The author strengthened that image with other examples portraying the disciples’ lack of apprehension in other sections of Mark. I have challenged that portrayal of the disciples for the reasons set down in this essay. Based on my in-depth study of this Gospel, I infer that, even at the moment of his crucifixion, the disciples of Jesus understood his teachings and held to their strong faith in him.