which individual trees grow, and to survey the lay of the land. Besides providing a sense of the whole, from which to interpret the parts, the bird’s-eye view enables one to get a feel for proportion—where the emphases lie, what weight is attributed to certain themes. As the narrative journey progresses, one can more easily determine where a turning point or parting of the ways occurs. The importance of this practice cannot be overrated—as the display and discussion in map 5 will show.
In addition to leading the reader in comparing and contrasting categories within the text itself (thereby allowing the Evangelist to speak on his own terms and in his own way—the main objective), I provide opportunities for readers to compare and contrast the Gospel with external sources—both canonical and extrabiblical. Examples of the former are of three kinds: (a) the Old Testament of the Jewish Scriptures acknowledged by Protestant Christians since the Reformation, (b) the Old Testament of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions, containing Deuterocanonical writings integrated within Christian Bibles since earliest times, and (c) the New Testament. “Extrabiblical sources,” refers to writings of two kinds: (1) those which at least some Jews (and some Christians?) had at some point regarded as authoritative (such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) and (2) Greco-Roman texts (such as those inscriptions that attribute cures to the god, Asclepios). This is an attempt to provide for modern readers a sense of the literary environment that shaped the religious world of Jesus, Mark, and the earliest Christians.
So far as the remainder of the NT is concerned, I have studiously avoided harmonizing Mark with other authors. However, in the case of the two remaining Synoptic Gospels (and, in a few instances, John), some accounts of the same event or teaching are similar enough that the maps will do double and even triple duty in providing a framework on the basis of which one can subsequently study the others on their own. (John is different enough in both form and content that he requires separate attention.) Consequently, I have provided chapter and verse notations in parentheses under the relevant map titles.
As before, I begin with those calling attention to themes in Daniel that have made such a profound impact upon the Synoptic Gospel tradition (and upon Revelation, for that matter): politics (both human and divine) and the Son of Man—the latter being Jesus’ exclusive self-designation and the former finding expression in “the Kingdom of God”: the central subject of his preaching and teaching.
Once again, I have used the NRSV, except in those passages referring to the son of man figure in Daniel 7 (where I resort to the RSV). I did so principally because this translation has preserved the expression “son of man” rather than converting it to the generic “human” or “mortal.” Although not a title per se, the term retains a certain formal quality, which NT writers exploit when they appropriate it. Such usage is obscured by the NRSV’s otherwise welcome efforts to avoid gender specific translation. Because this tool is meant to engage students (and teachers!) with primary texts before they resort to secondary resources, I have minimized references to the latter in footnotes. Secondary works supporting direct study of primary materials are cited internally and listed in the bibliography.
Perhaps a final word is in order about the “order” of events in Mark’s gospel, given that both teachers and students will encounter various literary patterns throughout the following maps. The subject is an ancient one, in our case going back to the earliest external evidence about the gospel. Whatever one may think about the accuracy of this account, the tradition is remarkably frank about the history of the gospel’s reception in the ancient church. Although writing in mid-fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea cites the comments of Bp. Papias of Hierapolis who, at the time (ca. 140 CE) would have been in his mid-80s. (See the full text in the appendix.) This means that his life had spanned the end of the first century and the beginning of the second.
Papias claims to repeat the comments of a certain “Elder,” who himself had heard the apostle John. Apparently responding to criticism that Mark had not written his account “in order” (in chronological sequence), the bishop defends the Evangelist along two main lines: (1) Mark himself had not been a follower of Jesus—therefore, a witness neither to his deeds nor words. However, (2) he had followed Peter, who had been “there when it happened and ought to know.” (Would anyone care to fault him?) And this original had not given Jesus’ teachings in order (chronological sequence) but as demanded by the needs of the situation/or the requirements of form [“khreia” can be rendered in either way]. Mark’s assignment had been to write down everything that he had remembered of Jesus’ sayings.
This account of ancient Christian apologetic serves to remind modern teachers, students, and the general reader that there are various kinds of order, depending on what the user intends to achieve. Thus, chronological order is the province of historians, scientists, and police who want to establish a sequence of events—as they had happened. Rhetorical order arranges arguments and information to persuade and inspire. Pedagogy and study require presentation and mastery of a subject according to a certain orderliness—which may differ among teachers and learners, depending on personality and content. (However, getting oneself dressed demands a certain order of steps: socks (always) before shoes, etc.) Literary order may have several, simultaneous goals: providing a theological/christological point of view (“According to Mark”), conveying information, persuading, inspiring, and giving pleasure.
1. Politics. Human and Divine in Daniel
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Totals | |
| Kingdom | 3 | 10 | 3 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 62 | ||
| King | 17 | 43 | 29 | 15 | 17 | 26 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 23 | 184 | |
| Reign (vb.) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
| Authority | 3 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 22 | |||||||
| Power(ful) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | ||||||
| Ruler | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8 | |||||||
| Throne | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | |||||||||
| 21 | 56 | 41 | 39 | 28 | 35 | 23 | 32 |
1. Because Daniel supplies so many of the key themes and terms in the Synoptic Gospels (and in Revelation, for that matter), I display the data and provide the following observations and questions. Although textual variants in some cases affect the numbers, they do not contradict the overwhelming preponderance of the figures above.
2. The best way to reduce (if not completely avoid) subjectivity about determining the dominant theme of any literary work is to apply the criterion of frequency. Which terms and synonyms occur in most instances, at certain concentrations, and at critical junctures? This display indicates how much political terminology (both separately and collectively) covers the text.
3. As a working definition, regard politics to be an understanding of power and as a strategy for distributing it in human community. In the Bible, there are only two alternatives: human politics and divine politics. The latter is summarized especially by a multiple refrain at 4:17, 25, and 32: “The Most High rules human kingdoms and gives them to whom he will” and, according to v. 17b, “sets over it the lowliest of human beings.” According to the LXX of 4:28(31), Daniel tells King Nabouchodonosor, “The kingdom of Babylon has been taken away from you and is being given to another, a contemned [or “despised”] person in your house. Lo, I establish him over your kingdom, and he will receive your authority and your glory and your luxury so that you may recognize that the God of heaven has authority in the kingdom of humans and he will give it to whomever he desires. Now, by sunrise, another king will rejoice in your house and will take your glory and your power and your authority” (NETS).
4. The numbers represent Greek terms as they occur in the
