Note: This article is provided here to make the information within publicly available. Should you require data for a footnote, then it was originally published as: Dalgaard, Kasper: 2011 “The
Four Keys of God. Mark 4:35-6:44 and the Midrash of the
Keys,”
in The Henoch Journal 33, Morcellian,
238-249
The Four Keys of God
Mark 4:35-6:44 and the Midrash of
the Keys
By Kasper Dalgaard – University
of Copenhagen
Abstract
The hypothesis presented in this article proposes new
insights into the structure of the Gospel of Mark 4:35-6:44 by employing the
tradition behind the Midrash of the Keys, found in the Targum Neofiti and the Fragment
Targums P and V to Genesis 30:22. The four keys of this Midrash constitute a concise
description and definition of the four central sovereign powers of God, consisting
of: the divine power over the chaotic forces of nature; to provide sustenance;
to resurrect the dead; and to cure female infertility. The content of the Midrash
is compared with four of the miracles found in Mark 4:35-6:44, being the stilling
of the storm; the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter; the healing of the woman
with the issue of blood; and the miraculous feeding of the multitudes. These
four miracles are argued as constituting an early pre-Markan collection of
narratives that function as a demonstration of the divine power at work in the
miracles of Jesus.
The comparison between the four keys
and the four miracles provide several noteworthy results. Among these are a
striking similarity in the structure of the narrative sequence of the miracles
and the Midrash and, more importantly, that there is a similar power at work in
each of the four comparable narrative sequences. These results indicate a
connection between the tradition behind the Markan miracles and that behind the
Midrash of the Keys as found in the Palestinian Targumim. The nature of such a
connection is discussed as well as the implications for the background and
interpretation of the four Markan miracles. This new interpretation of the four
miracles shows that they constitute explicit demonstrations of the divine power
at work in Jesus based on common Second Temple Judaism material. The indication
of a shared tradition behind the miracles and the Midrash may thereby provide
valuable new information as to how Jesus and God were understood and portrayed
in the first Gospel by the narrative application of the tradition’s definition of God’s central powers as the basis of the
miracles of Jesus. It may also provide new insights into the underlying
structure and purpose of the miracles in Mark 4:35-6:44.
Introduction
The main
purpose with this article is to propose a new hypothesis where the Midrash of
the Keys, as found in the Palestinian Targumim, may provide new insights into
the structure, purpose and origin of the four major miracles in Mark 4:35-6:44.
These four miracles consist of the stilling of the storm; the resurrection of
Jairus’ daughter; the healing of the woman with the issue of blood; and the miraculous
feeding of the multitudes. The hypothesis also presents a further example of
the possible benefits of examining the traditions that have survived through
their inclusion in the Palestinian Targumim and their role for interpreting yet
problematic elements of the New Testament.[1]
To present this hypothesis I will begin by introducing the Midrash and the
four keys it describes, after which I will review the four Markan miracles in
question. Finally I will compare the keys and the miracles and discuss the
results of the comparison with regard to the origin, purpose, and structure of
the miracles.
Midrash of the Keys
The
Midrash of the Keys is found in the Palestinian Targumim recensions of Targum
Neofiti 1 and the Fragment Targums of P and V to Genesis 30:22. Whether the
Midrash was once a part of the Cairo Genizah Fragments is now unknown, as it
has not been found amongst any of the surviving fragments of this last member
of the Palestinian Targumim. It is also found in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (though
in this text the Midrash is inserted at Deut. 28:12) and in several other rabbinic
writings, but I have chosen the version of Targum Neofiti based on the current
consensus that this manuscript may contain the oldest material of the group.
The textual variations in the Fragment Targums versions of the Midrash are in
any case few and of no consequence for the discussion in this article.
The
text of the Midrash according to Targum Neofiti Genesis 30:22 is as follows:[2]
(A) [There are] four keys which are given into the
hand of ’’’, the master of the whole world,
(B) and he does not hand them over to angels nor to seraphs. (C) The key of rain, and the key of
sustenance, and the key of the graves and the key of infertility. (D) And thus it is clearly stated in
the scripture where it says [of the key of rain]: “’’’ will open for you the
good treasury in the heavens.” (E) The
key of sustenance for thus it is clearly stated in the scripture where it says:
“You open your hand and feed all living, in whom there is good pleasure.” (F) The key of the graves for thus it
is clearly stated in the scripture where it says: “Behold! I will open your
graves and lead you from your graves, my people.” (G) The key of infertility for thus it is clearly stated in the
scripture where it says: “And ’’’ in his great mercy remembered Rachel, and ’’’
heard the voice of the prayer of Rachel and promised in his Memra to give her
sons.”
The Midrash begins
by briefly narrating the existence of four keys that belong to God. The nature
of these keys is then expanded upon in verse B by the statement of how God
never passes these on to any angel. There are a couple of aspects in verses A and
B that differs from the norm of the Palestinian Targumim; it details how God holds
the keys in his hand (dybdg). This is one of the
anthropomorphising aspects that elsewhere in the targumim seems to have been
systematically removed from the text.[3]
The intriguing mention of how God was “given” (Nyrysm) these keys is also a departure
from the Palestinian Targumim norm of emphasising God’s supreme and uncontested power. The difficult definitive
of “to the angle” ()k)lml) and “to the seraph” (Pr#$l), may in Galilean Aramaic be used in a general way,[4]
which seems to be the case here, whereby the meaning is that these keys are not
given to any of all the angels or all the seraphim.
In verse C the four keys are each introduced in turn and named for their
inherent power: the key of rain (r+m), the key of
sustenance (hsnrp), the key of the graves (rbq), and the key of infertility (hrq(). The four keys each represent a mandate of
power with the potential of being transferred to someone else – whereby the
recipient would be granted full access to that particular power. Examples of
such an understanding of keys is found in many instances of related literature
both in Hebrew Scripture (e.g. Isa. 22:22, where Eliakim are given the key to
the Temple) as well as in the New Testament (e.g. in Mt. 16:19, where Jesus
gives Peter the keys of the kingdom in the heavens (ta_j klei~daj th~j basilei&aj tw~n ou)ranw~n)).[5]
In verses D trough G the Midrash provides scriptural quotes for God’s use of each key: Deut. 28:12
for the key of rain; Ps. 145:16 for the key of sustenance; and Ezek. 37:12 for
the key of the graves. In
verse G the Midrash concludes with the text of Gen. 30:22 as the scriptural
evidence for the key of infertility.
K1: The key of rain
The first of
the keys mentioned in the Midrash is that of rain and it derives from Deut. 28:12.
It details God’s blessing of his faithful with the rain by which they will
become rich and never again will need to borrow from anyone. The term “the good
treasury in the heavens” ()yym#$ Nm )b+ )rcw) ty) reflects the concept of heaven functioning
as the storage place for the elements of the weather as well as God’s weaponry.
These two concepts are often presented as more or less interchangeable as can
be seen in the case of the rain that almost wiped out earth’s inhabitants in Gen. 7:10-12 and in
the storm used to destroy the enemies in Isa. 29:6. As such there are similarities
between these heavenly weapons of weather and the chaotic powers which are
described in traditional Semitic manner as different types of water (e.g. Ps.
104:6-9) and which were restrained below and above the heavens at the time of
creation by God (e.g. Gen. 1:7; 7:11).
It is emphasized twice in the Midrash that the key is the mandate of
heavenly power over the rainwater (r+m), and not to
the resulting wealth mentioned as the beneficial side effect of it in Deut.
28:12. What this key provides the keeper with, is thus the power over the
forces of nature; the rain above and the waters below, which God according to
Scripture exerted his authority over in the creation. The key of rain is
thereby the divine authority and power over the chaotic forces of nature,
especially those of the watery element.
K2: The key of sustenance
The key of
sustenance is explained by Ps. 145:16, which details how it is part of the power
of God to satiate the appetite of whom he wishes to. This is a concept often found
in Hebrew Scripture with God acting as the guarantor of the survival of all
creation (e.g. Ps. 104:10-18). The name of the key, “sustenance” (hsnrp), derives from the verb “to distribute” (Nrp), which is used
only these two times in the Palestinian Targumim. This name emphasizes how the power
of this key is to provide food for sustenance. The central aspect of this key lies
thus in the divine power to counter hunger by providing miraculous sustenance
and thereby feeding those whom the bearer of the key wishes.
K3: The key of the graves
The key of
the graves originates from Ezek. 37:12, where Ezekiel receives a vision of God resurrecting
large numbers of dead people. According to Hebrew Scripture a person’s
existence depends solely on the will of God, and therefore it is in the power
of God to bless or punish as he wishes by giving or taking life (e.g. Gen. 19:24-25).
The reasoning being that as he is the one who created life, he is also the one
who can change the fundamental premise that all living things eventually must die
and return them to life by resurrection. The key of the graves thereby contains
the power of this divine resurrection while the fact that its name indicates
its power over the “graves” and not over “death” might be in an effort to underline
that it contains the power to resurrect and not to kill.
The concept of death as a place, from which one can never return, is often
found in Hebrew Scripture (e.g. Job 7:9-10) as well as the notion that death is
a specific location with gates that keep the dead confined (e.g. Isa. 14:9). It
might therefore be the idea behind the key that it is to these gates of the
underworld this key fits, and by which God has the power to open and shut the
gates of death. Similar concepts are found throughout texts of the époque as
well as in the New Testament text, where a very similar idea can be found in Rev.
1:18, when the Son of Man says: I have the keys to death and Hades (e!xw ta\j klei~j tou~
qana/tou kai\ tou~ a|!dou). It is emphasized in the
scriptural quotation of the Midrash from Ezek. 37:12-14 that such resurrections
are the sovereign divine power by which even the uncomprehending people would
recognize their God. The power contained in this key is according to the
Midrash the divine mandate to resurrect the dead – granting the keeper of this
key power over death itself.
K4: The key of infertility
The final key
is explained by Gen. 30:22, and it is possible that in the inclusion into the
text of the Targum that this key was positioned last as the Midrash was inserted
into the Genesis narrative of Rachel’s infertility. However it could also be that
the Midrash stems from an older version, where the keys originally were listed
in this sequence, and that the parallel content of the last key to the story of
Rachel was the reason why the Midrash was inserted in Gen. 30:22. The key
contains the authority over “barrenness” or “infertility” (hrq(), which is the feminine form of impotence (rq(), a word used
only seven times in the Targum Neofiti, two of which are in this Midrash. The
meaning of the word is the barrenness or infertility of a woman, retaining some
of violent connotations from the verb “to tear out” or “to mutilate” (rq(), from which it derives. It therefore retains a certain indication of
this violent infertility and represents not only a difficulty in conceiving
children caused by age or a congenital disorder.
The key is connected to the recurring theme of the difficult conception often
found in Hebrew Scripture and of how God must intervene in order to guarantee
the continuation of the principal lineage. These divine interventions happen
for several important women such as Sarah, Rebecca and Hannah. This kind of
intervention is also evident in the New Testament where the conception of both
Jesus and John contain comparable elements of divine intervention (e.g. Luke 1:1-38).
In the case of Rachel in Gen. 30:22 this pattern is repeated as the conception only
occurs after God has granted her prayer and cures her reproductive system. As
such the key of infertility contains the sovereign power of God that enables
the one in possession of the key to cure and restore the dysfunctional female
reproductive system.
The miracles of Mark
Turning to the
miracles in Mark, it has long been established that a significant part of their
purpose in the Gospel is to demonstrate the parallels between the power and
authority of God and that used by Jesus. A review of the miracles in Mark shows
that the 37 miracles contained therein may be subdivided into three groups: one
consisting of twelve miracles performed by others than Jesus; another consists
of eighteen lesser and often repeated miracles performed by Jesus such as the frequent healings and
exorcisms. Contrary to these the remaining miracles constitutes a small group
containing seven miracles that contain narratives which have been expanded to a
larger degree than the other miracles of Jesus. They also contain several
unique examples of the power employed by Jesus in the Gospel, such as the only
nature-miracle as well as the only resurrection performed by him. One of these is
the cursing of the fig tree which is more likely to be understood as a
pronouncement or parable than an actual miracle[6]
– while two of the remaining consists of repetitions of other miracles in the
group as both the miraculous feeding of the multitudes and the stilling of the
storm are told twice in Mark (4:36-39; 6:35-44, 51; 8:1-9).
The remaining four miracles form a group of “greater miracles” and
consist of the stilling of the storm (4:35-41); the resurrection of Jairus’
daughter (5:21-24, 35-43); the healing of the woman with the issue of blood (5:24-34);
and the miraculous feeding of the multitudes (6:35-44). Each of these four miracles
allows the narrator to provide evidence of the magnitude of the power that
Jesus according to the Gospel had at his disposal. The miracles specify the power
attributed to Jesus over the forces of nature, over death and his ability to
cure the haemorrhaging woman as well as providing sustenance for the multitudes
that were in need of it. These four miracles may well constitute a collection
of narratives that are closely related; they are narrated in just over two
chapters, and they all share numerous pre-Markan linguistic features and all
exhibit a similarly detailed and expanded narrative discourse. Examples of these pre-Markan linguistic
features consist in a remarkably amount of Semitisms, with the division 4:35-6:44
containing eight out of the twenty found in the Gospel in a little over two
chapters or roughly 40% in 18% of the chapters.[7]
The passage from 4:35-6:44 has also often been employed to subdivide the Gospel,
and all four miracles are characterized by elements that make it rather plausible
that they originate in a pre-Markan tradition.[8] The narrative flow is only
interrupted by the exorcism in 5:1-20, the sending forth of the disciples and
the information concerning John’s death in 6:1-29 – inserted without any
apparent connection to the surrounding miracles, and the return of the
disciples in 6:30 is remarkably brief, being described and completed in just a
single verse. These interruptions thus seem to be material added in a
relatively random part of the text. It thus seems likely that the miracles
contained in the passage from 4:35-6:44 thereby may constitute a unified whole
in content, language and purpose that could be the surviving remains of a
pre-Markan narrative tradition.
M1: The stilling of the storm 4:35-41
The first of
the four miracles demonstrates that the storm as well as the waters obeys
Jesus’ command. The closest parallels to this miracle are to be found in the
narratives detailing God’s
battles with and subsequent victories over the forces of chaos (e.g. Job 12:15;
Ps. 89:10; 107:29), and it is likely that these references are echoing in the
background of this manifestation of Jesus’ power over the chaotic storm and sea
and also in the concept of the waters as elements of darkness and death. This line
of thought is emphasized by the verb used to describe Jesus’ command (e)peti/mhsen), which is the same as the one used to
threaten the demon in 1:25, thereby indicating that the storm and sea is to be
understood as distinct chaotic forces which would be in accordance with the
concepts of the time.[9]
The disciples’ intense fear in the situation after the miracle indicates that
they have witnessed a display of divine power, which underlines that a central
purpose of this miracle was to illustrate Jesus’ divine power and to show how
he was mandated with the full divine power; demonstrated by him wielding God’s sovereign
power over the forces of chaos in shape of the violent weather and the waters.
M2: The resurrection of Jairus’
daughter 5:21-24, 35-43
The second
of these miracles consists of the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter which is the
only resurrection miracle performed by Jesus in the Gospel. The narrative
serves, amongst other things, as a demonstration of how Jesus according to the
Gospel had mastery even over life and death. As such it illustrates that Jesus
was given the full divine mandate of power and authority over an area traditionally
regarded as unique to God. The miracle thereby functions as a narrative demonstration
of how Jesus is equipped with the full divine power over death, whereby he is able
to resurrect the dead girl.
M3: The healing of the woman with
the issue of blood 5:25-34
The miracle
in 5:25-34 concerns a woman who is suffering from an incurable bleeding. The
cause of this bleeding has been the subject of intense debate and in this case I
will merely follow the general consensus that it was caused by a bleeding from
her genital area whereby she was made
infertile.[10]
This miracle, in the context of the Gospel, constitutes evidence of Jesus’
power over illness, as do the other healing miracles in Mark, but it also demonstrates
how Jesus, as a parallel to God’s actions in Hebrew Scripture, possesses the
power to cure the female dysfunctional reproduction system.
M4: The miraculous feeding of the
multitudes 6:35-44
The passage detailing the miraculous feeding of the multitudes contains a
strong parallel to how God provides sustenance for his chosen people during
their time in the desert (e.g. Exod. 16). In Mark 6:35-44 Jesus performs the
miracle in a similarly deserted area to those who are following him, and who
could be argued constitute his people, and this parallel is probably the underlying
structure of the story in Mark. This miracle (and its parallel in 8:1-10)
demonstrates how the power behind Jesus’ actions is identical to the one that God
demonstrated in the Exodus story. The miracle thereby creates a strong parallel
between God’s and Jesus’ divine power in their comparative abilities to satiate
the hunger of multitudes in deserted areas by providing these with adequate
miraculous sustenance.
Comparing Keys and Miracles
Before
embarking on the comparison between the content of these two different texts it
is important to bear in mind that the Gospel of Mark and the Palestinian
Targumim share several important textual characteristics in various areas: they
provided theological interpretations of Scripture and were especially
concentrated on explaining subjects such as God, Messiah, and the correct
definition of who constituted God’s Chosen People. They both reconstruct and reinterpret
Scripture and they have undergone the transformation from an oral tradition to
a written text with all the special characteristics this entails. They are also
both compiled for use in close connection with Scripture, and one of their
primary purposes is to convince their audience that the specific interpretation
of Judaism they propose is the correct one.[11]
Although the Palestinian Targumim and Mark have similar purpose and Sitz im Leben, whereby it is possible to avoid the risk of comparing “apples with oranges” when comparing the content of the
keys and miracles, it is still necessary to address the issue of how the
narrative sequences to be reviewed may be related. Any direct transmission of
content from one text to another is unlikely when considering elements such as
the material in Mark 5:1-20 and 6:1-30, the apparent lack of any Christian
influences on the Targumim and also that the current consensus dates the
Palestinian Targumim roughly to the second century CE. A further note may be
required regarding the date of the Palestinian Targumim and the discussion
hereof. These writings have proven extremely difficult to date with any degree
of precision and even when disregarding the more extreme suggestions (proposals
such as a terminus ad quem before the second century BCE, by Menahem Kasher, or
in the sixteenth century CE, as suggested by Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein),[12]
there has been an intense discussion regarding this question. The two primary
candidates for the date of the Palestinian Targumim are the first century CE or
the second to third century CE. At this time there seems to be a common
consensus that Targum Neofiti had a terminus ad quem in the second century, but
that they preserve older traditions that may stem from the centuries BCE.[13]
An explanation for the similarities found in the intertextual comparison
presented in the following, may lie in the existence of a common well of
traditions such as that evidenced by the many parallels found in texts of the
époque and their reinterpretations of themes (of which the reworked figures of Enoch
and Melchizedek presents intriguing examples).
From this well both Testament and Targum in their time drew inspiration
and material for the miracles and the keys. Such a “proto-myth” may have become
a central part of the pre-Markan material used for the Gospel because of the
important subject and the relevant content for the redactor(s). This myth was with
time reworked having further material and narrative details added to it,
expanding it to its current shape. The Palestinian Targumim in turn drew on the
same original tradition preserving it in a more original version of the myth, without
the narrative transformations that the Markan material had undergone. The
version found in the Palestinian Targumim may allow a view behind the additions
in Mark and a valuable insight into how the myth behind the narrative
transformations in the Gospel might have been structured and contained.
The first observation from the comparison between the Midrash and the
miracles is that both narrative groupings are structured in four primary
narrative elements – four keys and four miracles. When the structures of the
two sequences are compared the following table is the result:
Midrash of the Keys
|
Miracles
of Mark
|
||
Key of rain
|
K1
|
The
stilling of the storm
|
M1
|
Key of sustenance
|
K2
|
The
miraculous feeding of the multitudes
|
M4
|
Key of the graves
|
K3
|
The resurrection
of Jairus’ daughter
|
M2
|
Key of infertility
|
K4
|
The healing
of the woman with the issue of blood
|
M3
|
This
presentation makes it evident how both the Midrash and the four miracles of
Mark are structured in a sequence that share several similarities. Both sequences
begin with a comparable pair; the key of rain and Jesus’ stilling of the storm.
Moreover both the third and fourth element are constituted by the comparable
pairs of the key of the graves and the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter, as
well as the key of infertility and the healing of the woman with the issue of
blood – with both stories appearing in the same order in their respective
narrative group. That the structural agreement between the two groups is only
interrupted in the second row also strengthens the possibility of a connection
between the two narrative sequences.
The key of rain and the stilling of
the storm K1-M1
Turning to
the individual comparison of the proposed pairings we find that the central
element of the first key is the mandate over the violent forces of nature, specifically
of the watery type. The first of the miracles is Jesus’ stilling of the storm which
is also the sole nature miracle in Mark. The miracle demonstrates how even the
chaotic forces of the waters and the stormy weather obeys the power of Jesus. Thereby
the miracle shows that Jesus wields a parallel power to that contained in the
key of rain. The underlying meaning of the miracle when viewed through the
interpretative lenses of the Midrash is that Jesus uses the power of God as
described in the Midrash – constituting a parallel between the two narratives
and the active power used by both God and Jesus.
The key of sustenance and the
miraculous feeding K2-M4
The second
key is to sustenance, which is the power of God to sate the hunger of his
people by providing them with heavenly food, anywhere and at any time that he
wishes to. The last of the miracles is the story of Jesus’ miraculous feeding
of the multitudes wherein he provides food for these. The miracle thereby shows
that Jesus is in possession of the power to provide sufficiently miraculous
sustenance to satiate the multitudes. The content of the key and that of the miracle
are thereby directly comparable in that the key is the power of God to provide
his chosen people with enough miraculous food to sate their hunger, while Jesus
in the miracle employs a remarkably parallel power. These two stories thereby emphasize
a strong parallel between the content of the key and the miracle.
The key of the graves and the
resurrection of Jairus’ daughter K3-M2
The key of
the graves contains the power over death, resulting in the resurrection of the
dead. In the Midrash this specific power is emphasized as being the sovereign
power of God that he alone could use, and a power which he shared with no one. The
second of the miracles is Jesus’ resurrection of the deceased daughter of
Jairus. In this miracle one of the main purposes is the demonstration of Jesus as
having the authority over life and death. Again the content of both stories are
directly comparable, as the power of God’s key is to resurrect the dead, which
is closely paralleled by the details of the miracle. These two narratives
therefore share remarkably similarities and by the reasoning of the traditions
behind the Midrash, Jesus’ power to resurrect the dead would mean that he had
access to God’s sovereign power.
The key of infertility and the
healing of the woman with issue of blood K4-M3
The final
key is to infertility, the use of which involves the power to heal a woman’s
dysfunctional reproductive system, which according to the Midrash is a power unique
to God. The corresponding miracle was Jesus’ healing of the woman with the
issue of blood, whereby he re-establishes the balance of nature and reinstates the
woman in her role as the continuator of the lineage. The two narratives thus
contain parallel central content; the Midrash informs of how it is a sovereign
power of God to heal a woman of her infertility, while the miracle shows Jesus
wielding a parallel power in the healing of the woman’s genital problems. The
miracle thereby indicates that Jesus had access to a sovereign power unique to
God, as that contained in the key to infertility.
Conclusion
To summarise
and conclude this article, the Midrash of the Keys provides the reader with a concise
description of God’s four central divine abilities. These consist of his power
over the chaotic forces of nature, his power to provide sustenance for his
starving people, his power to open the gates of death and resurrect the dead
and finally his power to cure barren women of their infertility. In all of the four
keys it is emphasised that the power they each contain is the sovereign ability
of God, a power which he shared with no one – not even the highest of angels –
whereby the use of such power would constitute evidence of a divine
intervention in history.
The group of Markan miracles in question show adequate similarities in narrative
scope, linguistic aspects and theological purpose, to make it likely that they
constitute a collection of stories of pre-Markan origin. The central power contained
in these miracles is Jesus’ control over the violent forces of nature, his
power over death, his ability to heal the bleeding and infertile woman and
finally his ability to provide sustenance for the starving people in the
wilderness.
The comparison between each individual element in the Midrash and the group
of miracles shows that they are structured in a parallel narrative sequence for
75% of the pairs and that they both begin by a pairing containing a parallel
power. For all the four comparisons it was demonstrated that they share a
remarkably similar divine power at the core of each pair of stories, as well as
a large number of similarities in their content. As shown the divine power is comparable
in the pairings of the key of rain and the stilling of the storm; is parallel in
the key of sustenance and the miraculous feeding; in the key to the graves and
the resurrection; and between the key of infertility and the healing of the bleeding
woman.
The likeliest conclusion of these similarities is in my view that as the
Midrash of the Keys and the miracles of Mark 4:35-6:44 contain comparable divine
powers in each pairing, this indicates that they originated in the same shared
tradition or proto-myth that described the defining powers of God – a tradition
which may have been widely known at an early point in time. The redactor(s) of
Mark may have used this tradition containing the four divine powers to provide
implicit evidence of how the power of Jesus was identical to the power of God,
and thereby the Gospel narrative provides further evidence of his unique
position as the chosen one of God. While this evidence has today almost
disappeared, as it has been absorbed into the Gospel narrative, the Palestinian
Targumim may contain a more original version of this proto-myth that can provide
the key to unlocking the original structure and purpose behind Mark 4-6.
The results of this comparison are thereby twofold: it is a further indication
that some of the traditions originally incorporated into the New Testament’s
framework may also exist in the Palestinian Targumim. Thereby a closer study of
these texts may provide further insight and understanding into the structure of
some of the central aspects of the New Testament and provide a further bridge
between the narrative content and theology contained in writings of the first
centuries. It also strengthens the hypothesis that the collection of four miracles
found in Mark 4.35-6.44 may originally have been a single narrative unit, which
had as its main purpose the identification of Jesus’ power as those powers
unique to God – identifying Jesus to the audience of the Gospel as the chosen
one, higher in rank than any angels and the only one to whom God would entrust the
keys to his unique divine powers.
[1] Among the other examples of
such connections between the Palestinian Targumim and the New Testament are
those proposed by M. McNamara in Targum
and Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1972) and R. Le Déaut in
“Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation,” Biblical Theology Bulletin IV (1974), pp. 243-289.
[2] Author's translation based on
the text edition published by A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana
(Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968).
For the sake of clarity I have
divided the Midrash into verses A through G.
[3] For the discussion of whether
there was an actual systematic programme to remove these anthropomorphising
aspects see H. Sysling, Tehiyyat
Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the
Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature (Texte
und Studien zum antiken Judaism, Bd. 57. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996), p. 4-10.
[4] M. Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem
(New York: T&T Clark, 2007), pp. 59-61.
[5] There are some
indications of a similar understanding of the term “key”
in various Egyptian manuscripts of the time, an example of which is found in
the Papyrus Harkness (MMA 31.9.7). In
this early first century text it is mentioned (Col. V, 20-21) regarding the
goddess Hathor that she has been assigned (hn)
several keys (ššth.w) among which are
those to the gate of the West ('Imnt).
As this gate is the boundary to the Egyptian realm of the dead, her assigned
mandate contained in the keys includes the power to open and close this gateway
to death. The concept behind this Egyptian manuscript shows many similarities
to those of the Midrash of the Keys, especially to the key of the graves. The
full text of Papyrus Harkness and a discussion of its dating can be found in M.
Smith, Papyrus Harkness (MMA 31.9.7)
(Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2005).
[6] H. van der Loos, The
Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965), pp. 688-698.
[7] V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark
(London: The Macmillan Press ltd., 1984), pp. 51-66.
[8] Taylor grouped these together
in a collection of narratives that are all based on the same firsthand source, ibid pp. 102, 274-297, 321. M. Dibelius
and R. K. Bultmann, among others, stated that this collection of miracles show clear
signs of being pre-Markan, and Dibelius described them as some of the earliest
narratives of Christianity. Die
Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck)3,
1959), p. 220, Die Geschichte der
synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Ph. Vielhauer4, 1971), p.
257. B. van Iersel gave the passage the title “Greater Signs”, as he viewed its
main concern as providing examples of greater things than in the rest of the
Gospel, Reading Mark (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1989), pp. 85-89.
[9] M. D. Hooker, The Gospel According to ST Mark (London:
A&C Black, 1997), pp. 139-141.
[10] A review of this discussion can be found ibid p. 148.
[11] Sysling, Tehiyyat
Ha-Metim, pp. 1-39. Hooker, The
Gospel, pp. 2-16.
[12] Both referred to in McNamara, Targum and Testament, p. 186.
[13] For a review of this discussion and the current
consensus see Sysling, Tehiyyat Ha-Metim,
pp. 33-35.
Comments
Post a Comment