DENVER UNIVERSITY/THE ILIFF SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

SLEEPING THROUGH STORMS: INTERTEXTUALITY IN MARK 4.35-41

SUBMITTED TO DENVER UNIVERSITY/THE ILIFF SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY IN APPLICATION TO THE PHD PROGRAM IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

BY NICK ELDER JANUARY 6, 2012

INTERTEXUALITY IN BIBLICAL STUDIES It was in 1969 that poststructuralist Julian Kristeva first coined the term intertextuality in her article : Reserches pur une smanalyse.1 The term has garnered much attention in the literary world, and more recently, in the school of biblical interpretation. However, much to Kristevas chagrin, intertextuality has morphed itself into an ill-defined methodology both in literary and biblical circles. As Richard Hays cheekily puts it, once the idea of intertextuality was set loose in the academy, it could no longer be controlled by Kristevas intention(!); it was itself transformed intertextually and put to various uses.2 This is especially true in the guild of biblical scholarship, where a number of scholars utilize the term to practice divergent methodologies. Where one uses intertextuality as a methodology to explore the use of Psalm 2 in Luke-Acts,3 another may use the term to compare Jesus in the gospels to a modern text, such as the Conan the Barbarian films.4 Some take no offense that intertextuality has become a methodological catchall, but there are others who understand this as problematic. For example, Ellen van Wolde states, with a hint of disdain, a number of bible studies seem innovative, but, in fact, use intertextuality as a modern literary theoretical coat of veneer over the old comparative

The English translation is available as Word, Dialogue, and Novel in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art (ed. by Leon S. Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 64-91. 2 Richard B. Hays, Forward to the English Edition of Reading the Bible Intertextually, eds. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), xiii. 3 W.J.C. Weren, Psalm 2 in Luke-Acts: An Intertextual Study in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampfen: Kok, 1989), 189-203. 4 George Aichele, Canon as Intertext: Restraint or Liberation? in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampfen: Kok, 1989), 139-156.
1

2 approach.5 Van Wolde represents one end of what could be called an intertextual spectrum. On her end of this spectrum are those scholars who wish to reserve the intertextual method for a less diachronic approach to intertextual relationships, claiming that intertextuality, at its very core, is about the matrix of texts, regardless of their form and place in time. All texts, then, collide and change their meaning within the space between text and reader. The other end of the spectrum is occupied by scholars who use intertextuality to describe the linear relationship of a biblical text to another text (typically from the Hebrew Bible, LXX, or Greco-Roman writings) that precedes it in time. The evoked text is used to modify the meaning of the alluding text and vice-versa.6 The interaction between the two ends of this spectrum is typically not pleasant, those who inhabit the ends of this spectrum tend to eye one another warily, with some mixture of condescension and anxiety.7 In my estimation, this disdain and anxiety is unnecessary. To be sure, these are two distinct ways to approach the biblical text, and different interpreters, with different presuppositions and convictions, will naturally gravitate to one approach or the other. This does not mean that scholarship, by necessity, needs to draw a distinct binary between the two approaches. Scholars can occupy the same methodological playing field without having to be on different teams. One of the aims of this paper will be to demonstrate this by interpreting the pericope of Mark 4.35-41 with an eye on each end of the intertextual spectrum.

Ellen Van Wolde, Trendy Intertextuality in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampfen: Kok, 1989), 43. 6 Evoked text and alluding text are two terms helpfully utilized by Stephen P. AhearneKroll in The Psalms of Lament in Marks Passion: Jesus Davidic Suffering (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) and will be utilized throughout this paper. 7 Hays, Forward, xii.
5

3 The other aim of this paper will be to contribute to the allusionary interpretation of Mark 4.35-41, with regards to the way in which Mark is utilizing sea-storm narratives that preceded his text. In this way, I want to be honest and lay out my methodological convictions and, heeding the advice of Stefan Alkier, explicitly set forth [my] respective conception of textuality.8 I am interpreting the biblical text as an evangelical Christian who places some amount of authority on the text. Further, I have been trained in the historicalcritical methods of exegesis. For these reasons I am interested in, while sometimes skeptical of, authorial intent. It is from this framework that I will interpret the pericope of Mark 4.35-41 with reference to texts preceding Marks gospel, namely Jonah, in its Hebrew Bible and Septuagintal form and Homers Odyssey. While I interpret the text as an evangelical Christian, I also interpret it as a graduate student whose interest is piqued by a number of what many call newer methodologies. It is within this framework that I will explore the matrix of meaning that is created between the text of Mark 4.35-41 and a modern-day text, namely the Oscar award winning film, and American pop-culture icon, Titanic. I do this not only as a graduate student interested in the intertextual method, but as a Christian who wants to reclaim a sense of enjoyment of the biblical text. Because Christian biblical scholarship often encourages students to view the text as simultaneously friend and stranger9, we have lost a sense of enjoying our interpretation of the text. Far from being a pleasurable endeavor, it has become, for some, a burdensome necessity. This is quite unfortunate, because scholarship is always stronger Stefan Alkier, Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts in Reading the Bible Intertextually (ed. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 3. 9 I do not intend to pass judgment on approaching the text this way, however, I do intend to pass judgment on the often unintended results that follow approaching the text in this way.
8

4 when it is not done begrudgingly. For this reason, I want to begin the intertextual exploration of Mark 4.35-41 with the modern text, which is the film Titanic. INTERTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF TITANIC In approaching the intertextual relationship between the text of Titanic and Mark 4.35-41 it is essential to lie out my conceptions of both textuality and intertextuality as they are being used in this section. Here, my conception of textuality, or what a text is, is similar to that of George Aichele, who states, I define text as the material aspect of the signifiera text may consist of ink on a page, the vibration of a guitar string, or electronic pulses on a wire. Texts are, on this end of the intertextual spectrum, anything that signify some kind of meaning. Textuality has wide parameters in this framework, and furthermore, two texts do not have to be of the same type to have an intertextual relationship. Alkiers provides helpful insight into experiencing different types of texts intertextually: Textsenable the production of meaning in the act of reading. The generation of meaning is always codetermined-intended or not, consciously or unconsciously-through the actualization of potential relationships of the text in question to other texts.10 Thus, by merely placing these texts side-by-side the meaning of the texts will be changed for the reader in some way. To be sure, in this context any two texts can be actualized and some kind of relationship may be found between them, despite their differences. However, some texts may be more fitting to explore as intertextual referents than others based on a number of factors. Titanic is an apt intertextual referent to Mark 4.35-41 in that it is as culturally relevant as a text can be. In fact, it is perhaps one of the most culturally relevant texts of the last few decades; it was only just recently surpassed as the top grossing film of all-time.
10

Alkier, Intertextuality, 3.

5 Whats more, it claimed a record-tying 14 Academy Award nominations and won 9 Oscars. One of the most notable catch-phrases of recent times comes from a scene in the film when the protagonists, Jack Dawson (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose Bukater (played by Kate Winslett), are standing on the bow of the ship while Jack exclaims, with arms spread in an iconic Christ-figure image, Im king of the world! This is, by no means, the only depiction of Jack as a Christ-figure in the film; the entirety of the movie is wrought with Christ-figure imagery applied to Jack Dawson. A few aspects of these filmic Christ-figure imageries and their relation to Titanic ought will be explored to further the case that the film is a fitting intertextual referent.11 To begin, the filmic Christ-figure often has mysterious origins and is depicted as out of his element.12 Just as Jesus as messiah in the gospel of Mark is transcendent and out of place in this world, so Jack is out of place on the ocean liner. Jacks place aboard the vessel only comes by winning a ticket in an underground game of poker. From this point forward Jack is consistently portrayed (and contrasted) as an out-of-place third-class citizen in contrast to the predominantly first-class population aboard the ship. As Jack and Rose interact, and their attraction to one another grows, it is clear that a second Christ-figure motif is being expanded upon, namely that the filmic Christ-figure attracts a follower or followers whom he teaches and forms and saves.13 Jack teaches Rose to live outside of her culturally bourgeois lifestyle. Rose embraces Jacks customs, further divorcing herself from the culture of her family and fianc. In the end Jack has a profound For a full discussion of Jack Dawson as the Christ-figure in Titanic see Gerarf Loughlin, Within the Image: Film as Icon in Reframing Theology and Film: New Focus for an Emerging Discipline (ed. Robert K. Johnston; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). 12 Lloyd Baugh, Imagining the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1997), 205. 13 Ibid., 206.
11

6 impact on Rose, who changes her name from Rose Bukater to Rose Dawson and lives the rest of her life out as Jack had taught her before his tragic death. After teaching Rose how to live life differently, and molding her into a new person, Jack saves Rose-not only physically by sinking to the bottom of the Atlantic-but personally, emotionally, and spiritually. As Rose states at the end of the film, he saved me in everyway that a person can be saved. Not only is there a Christ figure in both Mark and Titanic, but also the narrative elements and sequence of events follow a similar pattern. First, the ship sets off during a period of calm. In Marks account Jesus just finished a rousing parable discourse before setting off to sea, in Titanic Jack just finished a rousing chase scene and the ship set off under bright blue skies. In Marks account Jesus sleeps as the tragedy comes upon the boat; in Titanic tragedy strikes shortly after Jack finishing sleeping with Rose (in the euphemistic sense.) In Marks account the disciples panic and fear for their lives; in Titanic the passengers aboard panic and either scheme ways to get off the ship or accept their fate. In Marks account resolution comes as Jesus interacts with the sea verbally; in Titanic resolution comes as Jack dies of hypothermia in the sea because he urges Rose to stay upon their flotsam that can tragically only hold the weight of one person, while he throws himself into the freezing Atlantic. To be sure, the connections between Titanic and the pericope of Mark 4.35-41 are not necessarily causal. The writer and producer, James Cameron, was surely not intending to create an extended version of these six verses in Marks gospel. However, connections between the two texts exist and the meaning of both will ultimately be changed because of these connections. At this point I will not reveal how I understand the two texts to

7 influence one another, but will reveal that interpretation after the intertextual relationship between Mark 4.35-41, Jonah, and the Odyssey is presented. CAUSALITY IN INTERTEXTUALITY In this portion of the paper, I will explore the relationship between Mark and his preceding texts, utilizing Richard Hays criteria for recognizing allusions. I will argue that both of these texts, along with many others, qualify as allusions under these criteria; Mark is intentionally alluding to these texts by means of verbal and ideological resonances within the type-scene he has set up. In this way, there is a different kind of intertextual relationship at work than was previously explored in the text of Titanic: the texts of Jonah and the Odyssey are being intentionally transvalued by Mark. Mark supposes that his audience will catch on to what is being done in these allusions, and expects that their ideas about Jesus, Jonah, and Odysseus will all be altered through these allusions. To evidence and demonstrate the use of these allusions I will be dependent on Richard Hays, who has produced a significant amount scholarship in the field of echoes and allusions. As we move to the text it is essential to lay out and briefly explain some of Hays criteria for detecting echoes and allusions that will be significant for the interpretation of this pericope in Mark. Hays first laid out these criteria (availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction), which have become the standard for discerning allusions and echoes in New Testament studies, in Echoes of Scriptures in the Letters of Paul.14 While I recognize Hays utilizes these Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (London: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-32. Hays then further expanded upon these criteria in an article entitled Who has Believed our Message: Pauls Reading of Isaiah in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israels Scripture (ed. Richard B. Hays; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 34-45.
14

8 criteria to evaluate and discern allusions and echoes in the Pauline corpus, there is no reason that these criteria are not apt for evaluating allusions elsewhere in the biblical text. For brevitys sake only Hays most relevant criteria for each respective text will be presented in the body of this paper (volume and satisfaction for Jonah and availability, volume, and satisfaction for the Odyssey). INTERTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF JONAH It will be helpful to put forth the interpretation of Mark 4.35-41 before the elements of this interpretation are unpacked throughout the rest of this paper. In this way the function of Marks intertextual relationships will be made clearer as each of the elements of the interpretation are presented. The interpretation that I will argue for is that Mark is presenting Jesus, through the stilling of the storm as a Messiah, a divine figure, and the greatest character one could encounter in a sea-storm narrative. The interpretation is based on two significant presuppositions. The first is that the Hebrew Bible is rich with imagery of the LORDs control over the sea. This has been well recognized in Hebrew Bible scholarship and is seen most prominently in texts like Psalm 44.23-24; 18.15; 104.7; 106.9; Job 26.11-12 and Isaiah 50.2. Further, the ability to control the sea had become a significant aspect attributed to messiahship as well as Greco-Roman deities.15 The second presupposition is that Mark is transvaluing previous traditions and placing them onto Jesus in his ability to control the wind and the sea. By doing so, Jesus is demonstrated not only as a Messiah, but divine as well. With these presuppositions and interpretation laid out, it is

Adela Yarbro Collins, Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water (Mark 6.45-52 pages 207-227 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (eds. Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 214-218.
15

9 now appropriate to make a case for the evoked texts in Mark 4.35-41, based on Hays criteria. VOLUME Volume speaks to how obvious an echo would be to the implied reader or hearer of the text. In some ways, it is perhaps the most important criteria in evaluating an allusion, because it speaks to not only the probability of an allusion, but the meaning of the allusion as well. Volume can be determined by two factors: first, verbal resonances and, second, by the distinctiveness, prominence or popular familiarity of the precursor text.16 A text can mirror its evoked text verbally, however this will often not be the case due to the complexities of textual traditions of both the LXX and the NT. Nevertheless, a text can certainly be allusionary if it is evoking a text that has or had a widespread reputation. For example, the phrase Ill be back only has three words of resonance with the Terminator corpus, but once it is uttered echoes of Arnold Schwarzenegger continue to roll in the mind of its hearer. Before one instance of verbal resonance between Jonah and Mark 4.35-41 is demonstrated, there is an argument from narrative order that speaks to the volume of Jonah in Mark that ought to be presented. There are six identical narrative elements that exist between the two texts. These elements have been laid out convincingly by O. Lamar Cope: a departure by boat, a violent storm at sea, a sleeping main character, badly frightened sailors, a miraculous stilling related to the main character, and finally a marveling response by the sailors.17 Given these narrative similarities and the highly
16

Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 36. O. Lamar Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (CBQMS 5 Washington, D.C.: Catholic Bible Association, 1976), 96.
17

10 memorable nature of the Jonah account; it is difficult to argue that these elements are not working in an allusionary manner. To be sure, there are a number of instances of verbal resonance between Mark 4.3541 and Jonah 1.3-16 in the LXX.18 There is one clear example of resonance that supports the interpretation offered here and also gives a picture of near-perfect resonance. In Mark 4.41, immediately before the disciples pose the question of who Jesus is, the reader gets a glimpse into their inner emotions: (and they were filled with great fear).19 A phrase that is identical (save for the subject of the verb) is used in Jonah 1.10: (the men were filled with great fear). The verbal resonance in itself makes a convincing argument for allusion. What makes the strong argument for the interpretation offered in this paper is the context of this phrase in Jonah. It comes immediately after Jonah informs the men which god he worships: (I am a servant of the Lord and I worship the Lord, God of the heavens.)20 When the fear of the disciples was narrated in Marks account, the fear of the God of Israel is the echo ringing in the hearers mind, making a strong connection to the divinity of Jesus. SATISFACTION Satisfaction asks, in essence, does the proposed echo illuminate the text in some way that it could not be illumined without the intertextual relationship? Surely, in Marks account there is some narrative satisfaction, apart from an allusion to Jonah, in Jesus rising For a full outline of narrative resonance between Mark 4.35-41 and Jonah see the included appendix. 19 All NT translations are my own, based on NA27, all LXX translations are also my own based on Rahlfs Hanhart Septuaginta. 20 In the MT it is significant that the Tetragrammaton is used:
18

11 from slumber and stilling a storm; demonstrating a remarkable ability that is akin to the divine. Being that the LORDs power and control of the waters is a recurrent and wellestablished theme in the Hebrew Bible, perhaps the account in Mark could still be interpreted this way without an explicit allusion to Jonah. However, the narrative is saturated with elements similar to Jonah and the crux of the passage gives a direct verbal cue to the text of Jonah 1.10. In this way the reading becomes more satisfying, and patently obvious, when Jonah is echoing in the background. Just as the LORD calms the storm and the sailors fear in the Jonah account, so also Jesus calms the storm and the sailors fear in Marks account. INTERTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ODYSSEY Before we observe the allusional qualities of the Odyssey that exist in this pericope it is necessary to give due credit to Dennis MacDonald, who sees the entirety of Mark as an anti-epic based on the Odyssey and portions of the Iliad.21 It is through the influence of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark that I began questioning the method of intertextuality. His intertextual arguments for the Odyssey in the entirety of the gospel of Mark, and this pericope in particular, are far more exhaustive than I could present in this paper, for a thorough intertextual interpretation of these texts, and for an interesting and persuasive reading, see his work, which will be heavily footnoted in what follows. For those unfamiliar with this portion of the epic (10.28-55) a brief summary will be beneficial before moving to the intertextual relationship itself. In 10.28-55 Odysseus and his comrades are attempting to sail to their homeland. The land becomes so close that they can see fires upon the shore. However, Odysseus sailors become jealous, thinking that the Dennis MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).
21

12 bag of winds that Odysseus received from Aeolus is treasure being kept from them. While Odysseus sleeps they open the bag of winds, which results in a fierce storm that sends them back to the floating island of Aeolus. During the storm, Odysseus is powerless to help himself or the ship. All he can do is ride out the storm, and mourn that his comrades mistake kept him from his homeland. In what follows I will demonstrate that Mark is intentionally recalling this narrative to transvalue Odysseus as a hero and a moral character, setting Jesus up in opposition to him. Hays criteria of volume and satisfaction will again be put to use, with the addition of the criteria of availability. AVAILABILITY The Odyssey was most-certainly available and likely very well known to Mark in the composition of his gospel. While it is noted that Justin Martyr is the earliest Christian to explicitly mention the Homeric epics, these epics were the very air that was breathed in the ancient near-eastern world. As MacDonald states, Greek youngsters learned their s from lists of Homeric names; one of the first sentences they wrote was Homer was not a man but a god; and among their first reading assignments was a selection of verse from The Odyssey. Among papyri that survive from the early empire are scraps of lines from The Illiad and The Odyssey copied as a writing exercise22 The massive number of surviving Homeric texts attests to this reality as well: one catalogue from Greco-Roman Egypt lists 677 Homeric manuscripts compared to 42 from Plato, 77 from Euripides, and 83 from Demosthenes.23 Without a doubt, the Homeric epics, and the Odyssey in particular, was the literature of choice among ancient Greeks. VOLUME
22 23

Ibid.,17. Dennis MacDonald, Christianizing Homer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 17.

13 The volume of the Odyssey in Mark 4.35-41 is best attested by two distinct Greek words and two oddities that are found in Marks text. These have been explained, unsatisfactorily, in a number of ways by different interpreters, ultimately they are best understood as elements of allusion to Homers text. The first Greek term is (gale), which occurs only one other time in the New Testament outside of the Lukan paralell to Mark, and occurs only a handful of times in the LXX, all in non-narrative sections. However, the word appears six times in the Odyssey. The term became a sort of sea-storm narrative catchphrase in Greek literature, found in a number of varying accounts.24 The second unique term is (calm), which does not appear elsewhere in the NT or LXX, but 5 times in the Homeric epics.25 These two terms became unique to sea-storm narratives of Greek literature due to Homeric influence in the Odyssey and would be buzzwords that trigger the ancient mind to conjure up Homers narrative. Whats more, there are two narrative oddities that turn up the Homeric volume in Mark 4.35-41. The first is in v. 36 where we find the seemingly out of place phrase (and other boats were with him), an element taken out in both Matthew and Lukes redaction. There are three plausible explanations for this phrase: Mark is attempting to add a historical reality to the narrative, there is a scribal error that omitted a negative particle and the text meant to read that there were not other boats with him, thus heightening the drama of the storm, 26 or that Mark is attempting to reflect an element found in the Odyssey. In Odysseus nautical travels 12 other boats accompany him in a

Macdonald, Homeric Epics, 59. Ibid., 60. 26 Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (AB 27; New York: DoubleDay, 2000), 332.
24 25

14 flotilla, a fact prominent in the narrative. MacDonald makes the suggestion that this is the best explanation for the seemingly out of place mention of the other boats in Mark 4.27 The second oddity is Jesus overreaction when the disciples wake him up. He directs a pejorative term ( cowards)28 towards them. Narratively, their concern seems to be perfectly legitimate-the waves are crashing into the boat so that it is being swampedsurely a cause for concern for anyone at sea. This overreaction is explained by the parallel account in the Odyssey. In the sea-storm account of the Odyssey, Odysseus fellow sailors become jealous of him and while Odysseus sleeps they open the bag of winds, effectively ruining Odysseus shot at getting to his homeland on this particular occasion. The cowardliness of the disciples in Marks account is thus being contrasted with the foolishness and greed of Odysseus comrades.29 SATISFACTION When discussing volume above, two of the Markan oddities that have long puzzled scholars were mentioned. There have been many less-than-satisfying explanations presented with regards to Jesus shortness with the disciples here, as well as the statement that there were other boats that accompanied Jesus in this account. That Mark is using these oddities to allude to the Oddyssey is their most satisfying explanation. There is no good reason to conclude the disciples were meritless in their concern. Jesus shortness can only be explained by means of allusion. In regards to the odd phrase there were other boats with him, there is no textual ground to stand on concerning a missing negative particle that would make the phrase there were not other boats with him. That the phrase MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 57-58. BDAG, 215. 29 MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 58-59.
27 28

15 represents some kind of historical reality is betrayed by the fact that both Matthew and Luke redact this saying. The most plausible explanation is that the phrase is working allusionarily. Further, understanding Mark 4.35-41 in the Odysseian light provides a sense of genre or form that has been missing in the scholarship on this pericope. That genre, it will be argued, is a sea-storm type scene. THE SEA-STORM TYPE SCENE Throughout this paper I have attempted to demonstrate the ways in which both the text of Jonah, primarily in its Septuagintal form, and the Odyssey can be seen as allusions in Mark 4.35-41 based on the criteria of echoes and allusions as laid out by Richard Hays. I have intentionally avoided favoring an allusion to one of these texts over the other, because I dont see one as having more allusional qualities than the other. It is typical in New Testament scholarship, and especially in modern commentaries, to lay out the various allusional options and then to argue for one over the other(s). Here I have only presented two of the interpreters allusional options, there could be a number of others.30 While we can never crawl into the intended audiences mind and determine what other texts, stories, and narratives are rattling about, I am convinced that both the text of Jonah and the Odyssey would likely have their respective echoes in Marks earliest setting. Mark has used verbal and narrative clues, which were previously mentioned, to conjure up sea-storm narratives in the mind of his intended audience. The sea-storm narrative is by no means a contemporary invention. To be sure, we have our fair share of modern-day sea-storm tales, some of which are literary and Apollonius Argonautica, Vergils Aeneid, Ovids Metamorphoses, Quintus Smyrnaeuss Posthomerica, Nonnuss Dionysiaca. and Lucans Pharsalia could all be allusional possibilities.
30

16 cinematic masterpieces. The ANE also had its fair share of these narratives, although perhaps we only know the masterpieces that were more likely to survive the test of textual time. Furthermore, there are only a number of these ancient sea-storm narratives that are known by the mind of the general modern population; of which Mark 4.35-41 (and parallels), Jonah, and the Odyssey are three of the most prominent. All this betrays the wellestablished fact that ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman literature was littered with seastorm tales, most of which found their prototypical form in Homer.31 Strelan has argued for a general literary form for these narratives that included: a sudden storm, fierce winds, a boundary broken between heaven and sea, waves threatening to overwhelm the boat; attempts to free the boat of cargo; a hopeless situation is made more hopeless with even the captain feeling hopeless, people crying to their gods for help, and finally, the hero is saved.32 The notion of type-scene, which was first established in Homeric scholarship and made popular in criticism of the biblical narrative by Robert Alter,33 while not utilized by Strelan, is helpful here. Based on the texts we have explored and the aspects of sea-storm forms Strelan has gleaned from a wider study in this field of ANE literature, it is possible to formulate a tentative sleeping through storms type scene: the crew sets off during a period of calm, a storm comes upon the ship, the crew fears for their lives, the main character sleeps through the storm, and finally resolution follows upon the waking of the main character.

Strelan, A Greater than Caesar, 169. Ibid., 167-168. 33 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
31 32

17 The point of setting up a type-scene is not to say that each narrative necessarily follows upon this pattern, in fact there are divergences even in the accounts explored in this paper. What the type-scene does, among other things, is set up a convention that is easy for the reader to follow. Robert Alter captures the nature of the type-scene well: the contemporary audiences of these tales, being perfectly familiar with the convention, took particular pleasure in seeing how in each instance the convention could be, through the narrators art, both faithfully followed and renewed for the specific needs of the hero under consideration.34 The author had sufficient freedom to follow or diverge from the type-scene to alter her story, heighten suspense, highlight different aspects of characterization, or even change the thrust of the narrative altogether. Mark follows his inherited type-scene quite closely. The narrative elements of Mark closely follow those of the Odyssey and nearly identically follow the narrative elements in Jonah. However, the scene in Mark ends in a new and different way, the meaning of which will be demonstrated as this paper concludes. In the Odyssey, Odysseus wakes up and is absolutely helpless in the face of the storm. He fears for his life, and even contemplates flinging himself into the sea to die there, rather than expire in the ship. He determines to ride out the storm, but does so absolutely helplessly-covering his head as he lies in the bottom of the ship. In the Jonah account, the captain of the ship awakens Jonah who realizes it is his own doing that the storm has come upon the ship. In this way Jonah has more agency than Odysseus. After a vain attempt to row to shore Jonah commands the crew to throw him overboard, with the knowledge that doing so will abate the LORDs wrath and calm the storm. The crew does as Jonah commands and the storm subsides.
34

Ibid., 58.

18 The narrative order of Titanic also follows under the elements of this typescene. The ship sets off during a period of calm, namely a crisp, clear spring day; the tragedy comes upon the ship after Jack rises from his (euphemistic) sleep; the whole ship fears and either schemes a way onto a lifeboat or accepts their fate; resolution comes as Jack tragically sinks into the freezing Atlantic, affectively saving Roses life and sealing his portrayal as a Christ-figure. However, in an intertextual interpretation, Marks pericope transvalues not only Jack as a Christ figure, but also Jonah and Odysseus as heroes at sea. Mark 4.35-41 ends in a way none of these other texts end, showing that Jesus as the divinity and as the real Christ-figure, is the only one who has power of the sea. When the disciples wake Jesus in Mark 4.35-41, the reader knows there are a host of options of how the storm may or may not cease: someone could be flung overboard, Jesus and the disciples could cover their heads and wait the storm out, Jesus could have a vision from God (or the gods) that will result in an abated storm, the boat could ride a giant wave back to land, the ship could tragically sink and all aboard would be deemed unfavored by the deity(ies), or Jesus could sacrifice himself and sink into the freezing waters while the disciples cling to a flotsam. Clearly, none of these options end the narrative, something very different happens, something that has not occurred in any of the other sea-storm narratives: Jesus gets up, speaks to the storm, resulting in a great calm. The disciples then ask one another (and implicitly the audience), Who is this that even the wind and the sea obey him? Surely it is not Odysseus, surely it is not Jonah, surely it is not Jack Dawson, surely it is not any character who has ever been encountered in a sea-storm narrative; it is

19 none other than the one announced at the outset of Marks gospel (Jesus Christ, Son of God).

APPENDIX NARRATIVE RESONANCE BETWEEN JONAH AND MARK The Rising of the Storm Jonah 1.4: , , and the Lord raised up a wind upon the sea, and great waves came upon the sea, and the boat was in danger of breaking apart. Mark 4.37: , and a great gale of wind came of wind came about and the waved crashed into the boat so that the boat was already filled. The Sailors Fear Jonah 1.5 (in regards to the storm) and the sailors were filled with fear and each cried out their god. Jonah 1.10 (after Jonah tells them who he worships) and the men were filled with great fear. Mark 4.41 (in regards to who Jesus is) and they were filled with great fear Main Character Sleeping Jonah 1.5 but Jonah lay in the haul of the ship, sleeping and snoring. Mark 4.38 and he was in the stern, sleeping on the cusion.

20

21

Approaching the Main Character Jonah 1.6 ; , and the captain came to him and said, Why are you snoring!? Get up and call upon your God! So that He may save us and we will not be destroyed. Mark 4.38 , And they woke him and said to him, Teacher, isnt it of concern to you that we are being destroyed? Stilling the Storm Jonah 1.11 ; . Jonah 1.12 , . Jonah 1.15 , . (11) And they said to him, What shall we do to you to make the see see from upon us? Because the sea was getting rougher and the waves were rising. (12) And Jonah said to them, Pick me up and throw me to the sea, and the sea will rest upon you. I know that it is because of me that these great waves are upon you. (15) So they took Jonah and threw him out into the sea, and the sea ceased from its surge. Mark 4.39 , . And he rose and rebuked the wind and he said to the sea: Shut up! Be Silent! And the wind ceased and there was a great calm.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahearne-Kroll, Stephen P. The Psalms of Lament in Marks Passion: Jesus Davidic Suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Aichele, George. Canon as Intertext: Restraint or Liberation? Pages 139-156 in Reading the Bible Intertextually, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Alkier, Stefan. Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts. Pages 3-21 in Reading the Bible Intertextually, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Liturature. edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Baugh, Lloyd. Imagining the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film, Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1997. Bergesen, Albert J. and Andrew M. Greeley. God in the Movies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2000. Brodie, Thomas L. Intertextuality and its Uses in Tracing Q and Proto-Luke. Pages 469-477 in The Scriptures in the Gospels, edited by C.M. Tuckett. LeuvenLouvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1997. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Rulers, Divine Men, and Walking on the Water (Mark 6.4552). Pages 207-227 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi, edited by Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Cope, O. Lamar. Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Catholic Biblical Association of America. Washington D.C., 1976. Delorme, Jean Intertextualities about Mark. Pages 35-42 in Pages 15-26 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel, edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Detweiler, Craig. Seeing and Believing: Film Theory as a Window in Visual Faith. Pages 29-50 in Reframing Theology and Film: New Focus for an Emerging

23

24 Discipline, edited by Robert K. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2007. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. London: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B. Forward to the English Edition of Reading the Bible Intertextually, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Kristeva, Julia. Word, Dialogue, and Novel. Pages 64-91 in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art, edited by Leon S. Roudiez. Translated by Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Loughlin, Gerarf. Within the Image: Film as Icon. Pages 287-321 in Reframing Theology and Film: New Focus for an Emerging Discipline, edited by Robert K. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. MacDonald, Dennis. Christianizing Homer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. MacDonald, Dennis. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Marcus, Joal. Mark 1-8. Anchor Bible Commentary, vol. 27. New York: DoubleDay, 2000. Moyoise, Steve. Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament. Pages 23-32 in Reading the Bible Intertextually, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Sasson, Jack M. Jonah. Anchor Bible Commentary vol. 24b. New York: DoubleDay, 1990. Strelan, Rick. A Greater than Caesar: Storm Stories in Lucan and Mark. Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche wissenschaft 91 (2000): 166-79. Van Wolde, Ellen. Trendy Intertextuality. Pages 43-49 in Pages 15-26 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel, edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Vorster, Willem S. Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschichte. Pages 15-26 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel, edited by Sipke Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989.