Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T19:28:15.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presenting Jesus through Direct Speech: Vergegenwärtigung in the Gospel according to Mark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2026

Cilliers Breytenbach Open the ORCID record for Cilliers Breytenbach [Opens in a new window]
Cilliers Breytenbach*
Affiliation:
Department of Old and New Testament, Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Seminar für Neues Testament, Theologische Fakultät, Humboldt-Unversität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
*
Email: breytenc@hu-berlin.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars of the New Testament are, first and foremost, textual and literary scholars – philologists of religious texts charged with the hermeneutical task of interpreting documents from a distant ancient world.2 At its core, our task is to engage these texts in full length, in their entirety, attending to all of their philological and literary complexity. Careful study of the compositional and stylistic features of the Greek text of Mark’s Gospel as narrative opens up new questions in our field of study. In this presentation, I shall attend more specifically to the use of direct speech by the main character, Jesus, addressed to his disciples.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , October 2025 , pp. 403 - 421
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press.

But whenever you introduce past events as if they are happening and present,

you no longer make the discourse a narrative, but a vivid occurrence.Footnote 1

— Ps. Longinus

1. Introduction

Scholars of the New Testament are, first and foremost, textual and literary scholars – philologists of religious texts charged with the hermeneutical task of interpreting documents from a distant ancient world.Footnote 2 At its core, our task is to engage these texts in full length, in their entirety, attending to all of their philological and literary complexity. Careful study of the compositional and stylistic features of the Greek text of Mark’s Gospel as narrative opens up new questions in our field of study. In this presentation, I shall attend more specifically to the use of direct speech by the main character, Jesus, addressed to his disciples.

1.1 The Gospel according to Mark as Narrative

Very early in the history of our discipline, in 1796, Johann Gottfried Herder classified the Gospel according to Mark as a narrative (‘eine Erzählung’).Footnote 3 But Herder went further by pointing out that in contrast to Matthew and Luke, Mark speaks rather than writes; it is a vivid performance (‘lebendiger Vortrag’).Footnote 4 Herder wrote that Mark’s narrative was meant to be read aloud.Footnote 5

To understand Mark’s Gospel as narrative was a new concept. Since Christian antiquity, the Gospels were seen as accounts of the life of Jesus. For more than a century, preoccupied with solving the Synoptic problem, research on the Gospels ignored Herder’s fundamental insight that the Gospel according to Mark is a narrative. After the establishment of Markan priority in 1835,Footnote 6 many scholars zoomed in on the Gospel as the primary source for reconstructing the life of Jesus of Nazareth.Footnote 7

In 1901 though, through razor-sharp historical critical analysis, William Wrede illustrated that the Gospel according to Mark cannot be the history of Jesus of Nazareth.Footnote 8 For Wrede, Mark’s Gospel is ‘… die Auffassung eines späteren Erzählers vom Leben Jesu.’Footnote 9 He reintroduced Mark’s Gospel as narrative and highlighted Mark’s contribution to the history of early Christian doctrine (Dogmengeschichte).Footnote 10 Unlike Herder, he did not really comment on the style of the narrative and the role of the narrator.

1.2 A Narrative Richly Textured with Direct Speech

Early stylistic analyses of the Gospel according to Mark were often burdened either by the pursuit of an illusory pre-Markan Gospel or by Mark’s style in comparison with that of the two other Synoptic Gospels.Footnote 11 However, in his „Untersuchungen zum Markus-Stil“Footnote 12 in 1937, Max Zerwick shifted the focus to the text of Mark. He made a seminal contribution to the style of the narrative, emphasising inter alia Mark’s preference for the use of direct speech. Mark even used direct speech when he presents the unspoken thoughts of some characters. Specifically, the Markan Jesus uses direct speech very often.Footnote 13

Zerwick also examined the use of verbal aspect in the narrative sections of the Gospel. He observed that Mark typically narrates his pericopes using the aorist and imperfect tenses,Footnote 14 with the progression of action seldom conveyed in the present tense.Footnote 15 Frequently, however, the onset of a new action is introduced by the historical present.Footnote 16 Similarly, Mark often interrupts a past-tense narrative with the historical present of λέγειν (to say) to introduce direct speech.

Unfortunately, Zerwick did not examine the rhetorical or narrative function of the historical present λέγει (he says)Footnote 17 in the introductory phrases to direct speech;Footnote 18 also not in relation to the Gospel’s audience – whether readers or hearers.Footnote 19 This paper seeks to address that gap.

1.3 Edited, Narrated and Performed Traditions in Markan Research

Almost a lifetime ago, in 1956, the relation between Mark and his audience came back into focus with Willi Marxsen’s ‘Der Evangelist Markus’.Footnote 20 It is well known that Marxsen first applied redaction criticism to the text of Mark, having the whole text in view. He also inquired into the social context of the community in which the Gospel aroseFootnote 21 and introduced the notion of re-presentation, ‘Vergegenwärtigung’, into Markan Studies. I shall return to this notion in the final section of the paper (5.2).

The developments of the past seventy years in Markan Studies are well known, and there is no need in laying out the path the elderly among us have followed and the younger have read about.Footnote 22

After Norman Perrin rediscovered Wrede’s approach – emphasising the Markan text as a unified composition,Footnote 23 a generation of scholars has increasingly focused on analysing the Gospel of Mark as a narrative – examining elements such as the narrator, the implied or model author, point of view, characterisation and related literary features.Footnote 24 These efforts extended beyond plot analysis and the study of narrative characters or spatial and temporal structures;Footnote 25 the Gospel was also explored through the lens of reception aesthetics.Footnote 26 Within the framework of intertextuality, scholars have asked how and why quotations from, and allusions to, the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms were woven into the fabric of the Gospel.Footnote 27

One early and particularly influential narratological study that shaped part of my argument in this paper needs special mentioning: Robert Tannehill’s work, which drew attention to dialogue and dramatic scenes, emphasising the narrative function of the disciples and their positive or negative evaluation by the reader.Footnote 28

Since the late 1990s, developments in our understanding of episodic memory, the influence of performance theory, field research in oral culturesFootnote 29 and the observation that the Greek text of the Gospel preserves residual features of orality have contributed to the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark may be understood as an encoded performance.Footnote 30

2. Episodes, Oral Performance, Direct Speech and Verbal Aspect

Allow me to briefly explore four key concepts: episodic narrative, oral performance, direct speech and the role of verbal aspect – e.g. the historical present where it introduces direct speech.

2.1 An Episodic Narrative and Oral Performance

The Gospel of Mark is a narrativeFootnote 31 and should be read as such.Footnote 32 Drawing on Aristotle’s Poetica, I have called it a specific type of narrative, an ‘episodic narrative’.Footnote 33 Many of its episodes are in the form of (expanded) chreiai, their core being dialogue in direct speech or direct speech by the main character.Footnote 34

Mark’s episodic structure likely reflects the community’s collective memory, which preserved and transmitted its recollections in self-contained episodes anchored in specific times and places.Footnote 35 Besides the episodic structure, the Gospel still retains further traces of mnemonic techniques, essential for oral performance. Among the frequently discussed vestiges of orality in Mark, one should also include the extensive use of direct speech.Footnote 36

However, reading Mark’s literary text – and this is what we have before us – differs fundamentally from listening to fleeting oral performances preceding the text. The primary medium of oral storytelling, as performed, is the evanescent voice of the author-narrator, enhanced by gesture, facial expression, tone, pitch and changes in tempo. The performer and the audience share time and space, performances are recurrent and each performance is a new, unique event.Footnote 37 As the fleeting voice moves on, listeners must rely on memory to recall both content and delivery. By contrast, once an author opts for the medium of writing – or dictates to a scribe – the narrative becomes fixed: the same text can be read and re-read by the author or by others, to familiar or unfamiliar audiences across varying contexts and periods.Footnote 38

The oral features of Mark’s Greek text have led many scholars to conclude that the Evangelist belonged to a community in which storytellers performed episodes about Jesus’ life and teachings that held communal significance.Footnote 39 Such performances were situated in specific contexts as interpretative frames where both performer and auditors contributed to the event. It is widely assumed that one member of the community eventually committed some of these performances to writing, preserving episodes that were well known within the group – and in which the author likely participated as a performer.Footnote 40

2.2 Direct Speech

In this address, however, I am not concerned with the pre-literary stages of the Gospel of Mark – how it came into being or what may have preceded it.Footnote 41 Presupposing the oral phase, I take up Herder’s early insight that Mark speaks rather than writes, and focus on direct speech as one of the fundamental features of Mark’s written episodes. Within the narrative, Jesus’ direct speech is almost invariably introduced by a transitional phrase, using a form of ‘to say’ (λέγειν).

As elements of ‘additive discourse’, these ‘speech frames’, ‘quotation frames’ or inquit-formulas demarcate the boundaries between narration and direct speech. They function as the oral equivalents of modern quotation marks, guiding the reader-performer in signalling to the audience that the words which follow belong to a character within the story.Footnote 42 The historical present λέγει (he says) frequently functions as such a framing device for the words spoken by the Markan Jesus, embedding his direct speech into the narrative.

2.3 The Historical Present in Narrating, Reading and Listening

Building on the work of Zerwick, recent scholarship has examined the interplay between past tenses and the historical present in Mark’s narrative.Footnote 43 While time and space do not permit a detailed discussion here, it may be noted that the narrator typically establishes the setting of past events by using the imperfect and recounts the principal sequence of action in the aorist.Footnote 44 At times, however, the historical present is employed to introduce a new episode, or to modify the scene by introducing or repositioning characters.Footnote 45

While scholars of Mark’s Gospel have often observed and even quantified these instances, studies regarding the historical present tended to overlook λέγει (he says) in favour of examining other verbs used in the historical present.Footnote 46 Consequently, neither the narrative function of the present λέγει in these introductory formulas nor the rhetorical role of the ensuing direct speech has received sustained attention.Footnote 47 Moreover, the question of to whom the direct speech is addressed has been largely neglected. It is therefore essential to consider the narrative dynamics of address.

2.4 Prospect

Against this backdrop, I pose the following question in the next section (three) of my paper. What was likely to occur when extended sections of direct speech were to be read aloud to an audience – especially with regard to the narrator’s use of the historical present λέγει (he says) to introduce the words of the narrated Jesus?Footnote 48 Our analysis will also attend to the question of whom the Markan Jesus addresses in his direct speech.

Within this direct speech, a range of different speech acts can be observed. This brings us to the leading question of section four: when introduced by a form of ‘to say’ (λέγειν) and instructing his disciples, the narrated Jesus frequently uses present-stem imperatives within direct speech. Why is this the case? And what might have been the effect of these commands on those who heard the Gospel being read aloud? The fifth and final section applies the gained insights to selected examples and draws some conclusions.

3. Giving the Markan Jesus a Voice: Performing His Words

3.1 The Consequent Use of λέγειν (to Say) to Introduce Jesus’ Direct Speech

In order to contextualise the use of λέγειν (to say), it is essential to compare its function in introducing direct speech with that of other verbs of speaking.Footnote 49 Notably, apart from βοᾶν (to shout or cry out loudly) and ἐπερωτᾶν (to ask),Footnote 50 Jesus’ direct speech is primarily introduced by a form of λέγειν (to say): λέγει in the present,Footnote 51 or the aorist εἶπεν.Footnote 52 Less frequently, ἔλεγεν or λέγων is added to a few other verbs introducing his direct speech.Footnote 53

Whereas Jesus’ utterances are introduced with the neutral verb ‘to say’, the direct speech of other characters is frequently framed by more descriptive or evaluative verbs, such as ‘to be indignant’, ‘to ask’, ‘to deny’, ‘to blaspheme’, ‘to consider’, ‘to urge’, or ‘to be amazed’ or ‘astonished’.Footnote 54 The narrator’s consistent preference for introducing Jesus’ words with ‘to say’ (λέγειν), even when he is asking or answering a question, is striking.Footnote 55 The narrator deliberately avoids any framing that might evaluate Jesus’ speech in advance.

In doing so, the narrator clearly distinguishes the narrative voice from that of the main character, Jesus. Subjecting both himself and his audience to the uncommented content of Jesus’ speech, the Markan Jesus’ utterances are left to stand on their own. By employing these neutral speech frames and refraining from almost any comment,Footnote 56 the narrator allows the utterances to have their own impact.

3.2 The Use of the Historical Present λέγει (He Says) to Introduce Jesus’ Words

Let us now turn to a closer examination of the introductory form, ‘he says’ (λέγει), which features so prominently in Mark’s Gospel.Footnote 57 As already said, for over a century, scholars have consistently observed the Evangelist’s frequent use of the historical present.Footnote 58 Despite considerable research on this narrative feature, Mark’s use of λέγει has typically been set aside, dismissed as either insignificant, haphazard, stereotypical or indistinguishable from εἶπεν (he said).Footnote 59 Yet, such assessments overlook the fact that Mark’s employment of the present tense of λέγειν (to say) conforms to his broader narrative use of the historical present, which regularly serves to introduce or shift scenes or to highlight a critical moment in the storyline.Footnote 60

Moreover, Mark’s preference aligns with classical Greek usage, where speech frames often appear in the historical present.Footnote 61 However, in comparison with the LXX, Matthew and Luke and some comparable Greek literature contemporary to the Gospel, the phrase καὶ λέγει (and he says) to introduce direct speech, occurs with higher frequency in Mark.Footnote 62

Is the narrator’s repeated use of ‘he says’ (λέγει) truly as insignificant or arbitrary as has often been claimed? Some episodes begin in the historical present with λέγει following shortly thereafter.Footnote 63 However, in many cases, the narrator changes from past-tense narration – whether in the aorist or imperfect – to the historical present λέγει to introduce Jesus’ direct speech.Footnote 64 This shift is both deliberate and rhetorically marked. Sometimes the narrator introduces Jesus’ words with the historical present precisely because his subsequent utterance in direct speech is the crucial event in the narrative, e.g. in the episode about the calling of Levi (2.13–14).

Printed Koine Greek biblical text showing two numbered verses in a typeset layout.
Parallel text in German and English from a religious passage.

‘Passing by he saw Levi, the (son) of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he says to him (λέγει αὐτῷ – 2.14), “Follow me.”’ This is extraordinary; Jesus is calling a tax-collector. The shift to the historical present ‘he says’ deliberately highlights Jesus’ words. It differs from the speech frame introducing the calling of the fishermen in the first episode of the Gospel (1.16–20). In that case, consistent with the main narrative line, both the act of seeing and of speaking are narrated in the aorist. Walking along the Sea of Galilee, the narrator reports, Jesus ‘saw (εἶδεν) Simon and Andrew’, and then, ‘he said (εἶπεν) to them: “Behind me, and I will make you fishers of men”’ (1.16–17).Footnote 65

The shift to the historical present of λέγειν to transit from the narrative to the direct speech highlights the utterance in the subsequent direct speech as the turning point in the line of action. Notably, it is predominantly Jesus’ words that are introduced in this way.Footnote 66 In the episode on paying taxes to Caesar, the dramatic twist is signalled by introducing Jesus’ crucial question as the decisive utterance in the argument (12.16). The Pharisees and the Herodians brought (ἤνεγκαν) the denarius, ‘and he says’ (λέγει), ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’

3.3 The Use of λέγει (He Says) to Introduce Jesus’ Teaching to His Disciples Only

The choice between εἶπεν (he said), ἔλεγεν (he was saying) and λέγει (he says) as an introduction to direct speech implies different situational contexts. The chosen situational context directs the reader and audience how to interpret the direct speech of the narrated Jesus.Footnote 67 In the aorist and imperfect, the narrator relates the action retrospectively; with the historical present, he vividly aligns the action with the moment of narration. Within the speech that the Markan Jesus delivers from the boat to the crowd on the shore (4.2–32), the narrator inserted a scene, set in the boat (4.10–20) and structured as a dialogue between Jesus, those with him and the Twelve.Footnote 68 The following took place in the boat, where they were alone (4.10–13):

Printed Koine Greek New Testament passage, verses 10 to 13, single column with verse numbers in the margin.
Printed two column bilingual scripture excerpt with verse numbers 10 dash 13 and quoted speech about parables and understanding.

The narrator initially sets the scene using the imperfect, describing what transpired when Jesus and the disciples were alone. The disciples ‘were asking’ him (ἠρώτων – 4.10) about the parables, and Jesus ‘was saying to them’ (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς – 4.11). At first, the narrator recounts the dialogue in the past tense as part of the unfolding story. However, following Jesus’ remark concerning the status of the inner circle in verses 11b–12,Footnote 69 the narrator shifts the perspective by reintroducing Jesus’ words – still addressed to the same group – using a historical present in 4.13: ‘and he says to them’ (καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς). This narrative shift lifts Jesus out of the retrospective boat scene and brings him into the present moment of the audience, creating the impression that Jesus is now with them, speaking directly to them too.

This pattern is repeated in other ‘didactic scenes’ in the narrative.Footnote 70 We first turn to 9.33–7, where the shift to the present marks the transition from events told in the previous episode to the moral instruction taking place in the houseFootnote 71 and directed specifically at his disciples.Footnote 72 After returning to the house in Capernaum, Jesus ‘was asking’ the disciples (ἠρώτα) what they had been discussing on the way, but they ‘remained silent’ (ἐσιώπων), for they had been quarrelling about who is the greatest among them. Having sat down, he ‘called’ (ἐφώνησεν) the Twelve. The moral instruction that follows refers back to this incident on the road, but the narrator introduces Jesus’ words to the disciples using the historical present ‘and he says to them’ (καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς – 9.35). Again, Jesus steps out of the retrospective narrative into the current (live) presentation to the audience as if he speaks to them: ‘If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.’ This directive, given within the private setting of the house, addresses the disciples’ conduct within their group. The speech frame ‘and he says’ creates the impression that the audience hears what Jesus is saying directly to the disciples.

In such instances,Footnote 73 the transitional phrase ‘he says’ (λέγει), followed by the dative, serves as a speech frame to introduce Jesus’ instruction to his disciples in a situational context where he is alone with them.Footnote 74 1) The narrator starts the episode about eating with unwashed hands (7.1–2, 5). After the Pharisees observe that Jesus’ disciples eat (ἐσθίουσιν) with unwashed, ‘common’ hands,Footnote 75 they ask him (ἐπερωτῶσιν) about it (7.2). Jesus’ reply is introduced with the aorist: ‘And he said (εἶπεν) to them’ (7.6), followed by additional instruction to the Pharisees and the crowd introduced by the imperfect (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς in 7.9, 14) to indicate that Jesus was continuing his speech. However, later in the house, away from the crowd, his disciples were asking (ἐπηρώτων – 7.17) about this teaching. Here, the narrator again changes to the historical present to introduce Jesus’ answer to the disciples in the specific situational context of the house: ‘And he says to them (καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς)’ (7.18). 2) The same narrative rhythm is visible in the account of the Pharisees’ question about divorce (10.2–12). The narrator relates the initial interaction that took place in the past, depicting the background in the imperfect: the Pharisees were asking (ἐπηρώτων), Jesus answered and said (ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν), and the Pharisees responded (εἶπαν). Jesus spoke (εἶπεν) to them in return (10.5), criticising them and presenting his teaching on the dissolubility of the union between man and wife. But – when the disciples were later inquiring (ἐπηρώτων) about the matter at home in private (10.10), the narrator reverts to the historical present to introduce the direct speech: ‘And he says (λέγει) to them’ (10.11). Once more the narrator marks a shift to moral instruction to the inner circle contextualised in the house and opens it up to the audience. Jesus speaks now, also to the listeners of the performance. 3) This structural pattern reappears in the rich man narrative (10.17–31). After the man’s question is introduced with an imperfect (ἐπηρώτα), every turn in the dialogue is framed with the aorist – 4.13; 7.18; 7.18; 9.35 (δώδεκα); 10.11, 27 (λέγει αὐτοῖς), 10.23 (λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς), 10.27 (λέγει) – then the man ‘went away’ (ἀπῆλθεν) ‘and Jesus looked around and says (λέγει) to them’ (10.23), followed by further sayings to the disciples introduced with λέγει (10.24, 27). In reading the text to an audience, the narrator does not introduce Jesus’ private teaching to his disciples retrospectively as a past event – which would have been the case if εἶπεν (he said) was used. The historical present makes it seem as if Jesus speaks now, underlining the urgency of his words to the inner circle in a context where they are alone with him. By means of the speech frame ‘and he says’, Jesus’ words to the disciples are transferred into the presence of the reader’s audience. Jesus speaks in the voice of the reader-performer at the very moment the text is read out loud.Footnote 76

3.4 Summary

In sum, the narrative technique concerning Mark’s use of λέγει (he says) appears consistent:Footnote 77 when Jesus engages in an episode in dialogue, his words are usually introduced with the aorist εἶπεν (he said), aligning with the main narrative flow, retrospectively telling about his words in the past. When the narrator alternates from a past-tense narrative – whether aorist or imperfect – to the historical present λέγει, ‘he says’, in the same episode to introduce Jesus’ direct speech, the shift to the historical present has a striking effect: it brings the speech into the immediate moment, adding dramatic vividness and narrative tension, marking it as the decisive event in the narrative.Footnote 78

However, there is a second, related but more specific use. After a public dispute narrated in a preceding episode, Jesus turns to instruct his disciples privately in the subsequent episode. In these cases, the narrator introduces the direct speech to them with the historical present ‘and he says to them’. Through the historical present λέγει, the narrator creates immediacy and highlights the didactic moment within the intimate situational context. He introduces past events as if they are happening at the present.Footnote 79 By letting Jesus speak at that very moment of reading or performing, the narrator enables the performer to present the speech to the disciples as speech to his audience, to let them be part of the situation. It is highly significant that these scenes are located in the house, in the boat and on the way, which are the typical scenes where the Markan Jesus teaches his disciples.

These two patterns offer a subtle but meaningful distinction in how Mark’s text allows the reader or performer to shape the relationship between narrative action and embedded speech. Before we pursue the relationship between the performer and the audience further, aspects of the direct speech itself merit further analysis.

4. Alternating Aspect of the Imperative in Commands in Direct Speech Introduced by λέγει (He Says)

In the vast majority of cases in Mark’s Gospel, the speaker of the direct speech is the narrated Jesus.Footnote 80 His direct speech includes many different speech acts. To mention a few: telling of stories like parables, arguing with opponents, predicting the future or promising his return, and giving exhortation. In this section, the focus will be only on one type of speech act, namely commands in the imperative mood.Footnote 81 The significant difference in the aspect of the imperatives illustrates the relation between the reader-performer and the audience well. After a brief observation on verbal aspect in the Greek imperative (4.1), we will concentrate specifically on the use of present-stem imperatives in the direct speech introduced by ‘he says’ (λέγει – 4.2).

4.1 The Aspect of the Imperative

It is widely acknowledged that, as mode of command, the imperative does not convey tense but aspect.Footnote 82 A detailed analysis of the imperatives in direct speech of the Markan Jesus’ reveals two key characteristics.Footnote 83 First, in comparison to other characters, he overwhelmingly uses imperatives formed from the present-stem.Footnote 84 Second, following the division of 4.33–4, these present-stem imperatives occur primarily in Jesus’ instructions to the crowd, including his disciples, and to his disciples, when he is alone with them.Footnote 85

Imperatives must be interpreted within the speech frame established by the verb introducing the direct speech. However, the aspect of the imperative itself is also important. From the perspective of the narrated Jesus as speaker, the aorist- and present-stem imperatives differ in denoting the stage of the action that is required from the addressee: ‘… present-stem forms (with imperfective aspect) present the action to be carried out as a process, i.e. as ongoing or repeated; aorist-stem forms (with perfective aspect) present an action as a single complete whole’.Footnote 86

4.2 Introduced by λέγει (He Says), the Markan Jesus’ Commands His Disciples Only

We skip commands to the disciples and to the crowds, including the disciples that are introduced in the past tense (ἔλεγεν or εἶπεν), and focus on instructions, which are introduced by the historical present (λέγει), and are addressed to the disciples only.Footnote 87

4.2.1 ‘He Says’ (λέγει) Continues the Narration in the Historical Present

Sometimes the narrator begins an episode using the historical present and continues with direct speech. As part of the direct speech introduced by the historical present ‘he says’ (λέγει), the commands are also spoken at the moment of performance.Footnote 88 The use of present imperatives in such a context underscores the expectation of the Markan Jesus of ongoing, habitual action on the part of the disciples. For example, the commands in 11.20–5, given to the disciples after Peter expresses surprise that the fig tree cursed earlier that morning has already withered,Footnote 89 are not merely a narrative about instructions directed at the disciples in the past. Rather, introduced by ‘he says’, they are presented as imperatives in the present. Through this narrative device, the Markan Jesus addresses not only the disciples, but also the reader and hearer. As part of his reaction, the Markan Jesus formulates his commands using the present-stem imperative (11.22–5): ‘And answering, Jesus says (λέγει) to them, “Have faith in God!” (ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ).’ This present-stem imperative in 11.22 expresses a call to sustained trust. Similarly, when instructing them on prayer, Jesus commands: ‘Everything that you pray and ask for – believe (πιστεύετε – 11.24) that you have received it.’ And again: ‘Whenever you stand praying, forgive (ἀφίετε – 11.25), if you have anything against anyone.’ The Markan Jesus’ commands in the present imperative urge the disciples and the addressees to maintain unwavering trust in God’s power and to continue forgiving those against whom they harbour a grievance.

4.2.2 Commands to the Disciples Introduced by ‘He Says’ (λέγει)Footnote 90

By letting Jesus give commands in the present-stem imperative during such speeches to the disciples,Footnote 91 to the crowd and disciples (4.3, 24; 12.38) or in general (1.15), the narrator indicates that Jesus expects them to carry out these actions in an ongoing manner. The disciples – and by implication, the wider audience – are to keep listening to him, continue believing, constantly follow him, always beware and remain awake at all times.

Let us recall those instances in which Jesus’ private instruction to his disciples is introduced by ‘and he says to them’ (καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς).Footnote 92 The boat, the house or the road to Jerusalem are intimate spaces for special communication. The narrator’s choice to introduce Jesus’ direct speech in this setting with the historical present lends immediacy to the scenes and underscores the didactic moment, as though Jesus were speaking in the present. As in the case of the commands, the narrator brings Jesus’ reproach (4.13), questions (7.18a; 10.23–24) and moral teaching (7.18b; 10.11–12, 27, 42–5) to the disciples into the immediate narrative moment. In this way, he enables the performer to include the current audience in the circle of those taught by Jesus.

5. Narrating and Speaking: Presenting and Re-presenting Jesus

The use of the historical present in the speech frames and the alternation between aspects of the imperative offer further linguistic support for Herder’s hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was meant to be read aloud.Footnote 93 In this sense, it continues the oral tradition. It is easy to imagine that in the pre-literary phase, the community gathered in a house, and Jesus’ words were re-performed to them in that situational context. Yet, we should take care: it remains an impossible task to find our way back from the written text to the oral history lying behind the text.Footnote 94 The written Gospels are what we have to study; we should concentrate on what can be known.Footnote 95

5.1 Jesus as the Only Authoritative Teacher

In the Gospel according to Mark, the narrator attributed abundant portions in direct speech – and the commands they entail – to Jesus as the main character in the narrative. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus teaches, proclaims and speaks.Footnote 96 With the exception of Mark 13.14 (‘let the reader understand’), the narrator himself does not issue direct commands to the audience. Instead, introduced by speech frames, commands and other speech acts are embedded in the narrative as part of the Markan Jesus’ direct speech.Footnote 97 In this narrative world, he is the teacher, with an authority exceeding that of the scribes (1.21, 27).Footnote 98 Mark created a text in which the narrator subjects himself and his audience fully to the words of the Jesus-figure he introduces.Footnote 99

5.2 The Status of Jesus, Whose Words are Re-presented

Through narrating Jesus’ words in direct speech and introducing them with the speech frame ‘and he says’, the narrator allows the reader/performer of the Gospel according to Mark to re-present Jesus in the present act of reading/performing. In employing the term re-presents, we return to Willi Marxsen’s concept,Footnote 100 albeit with a modified understanding of its implications. In connection with ‘gospel’ (εὐαγγέλιον), Marxsen used the word ‘re-present’ in its dual sense: On the one hand, the Gospel is the form in which Jesus is made present; on the other hand, the proclaimed Gospel is Jesus’ representative. ‘Zum Evangelium gehört das Motiv der Repräsentation dazu, denn die Verkündigung des Evangeliums bewirkt die Vergegenwärtigung seines Inhalts.’Footnote 101

Engaged in the kerygma theology of his time and presupposing Pauline theology, Marxsen claimed that the risen Lord is the author and the content of the Gospel.Footnote 102 In contrast to the enthusiasm of Marxsen and others, who claimed that the risen and exalted Lord is speaking through the Gospel as kerygma, Hans Conzelmann and Ernst Haenchen rightfully noted that in Mark’s narrative the bridegroom is absent between his resurrection and return as Son of Man. They argued that between Easter and the Parousia, the congregation is separated from the exalted Lord. Theodor Weeden even overstated ‘Jesus is absent’, and John Dominic Crossan called Mark’s Gospel ‘a message about Jesus’ absence’.Footnote 103

This is not the time and place to construct a Christological conception which could have moulded Mark’s story, but I agree that the presence of the risen Lord does not shape the story world.Footnote 104 The text does not present ‘den Irdischen und den Erhöhten in eins.’Footnote 105 The resurrected Lord never speaks in or through the narrative. The narrator rather creates communicative contexts in the past.

Prior to the narration of his suffering and resurrection, the narrator introduces Jesus as a literary figure embedded in the mundane time and space of a story world from the recent past, and allows him to address his audience directly through speech. Through his narrative, the narrator retrospectively presents Jesus as the covert and unrecognised Son of God in Galilee until his crucifixion in Jerusalem. Even when Jesus talks about the future, the situational context is in the past. In Mark 13, he places Jesus and his four closest followers on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple before the passion begins. Anchored in this specific situational context, he lets the character Jesus predict the events to come.Footnote 106 Even though Jesus’ resurrection is told within the narrative time (16.6), he is no longer present as he had been before – and not yet present as he said he will be when he comes again.Footnote 107

At the time of narration, however, when the text is read/performed Jesus’ past actions and words are presented to an ever-changing audience. The Gospel according to Mark mediates his Jesus through the narrative. In this way, during the time of his absence, the Gospel stands in his place, urging the audience to hold onto his words to the disciples and to be watchful. In this essay, the focus has been on the re-presentation of Jesus through his words in direct speech, introduced by λέγει (he says). This function of the direct speech introduced by the historical present forms part of Mark’s ‘narrative strategy’Footnote 108 to bridge the temporary absence of the unrecognised Son of God, who is expected to return soon.Footnote 109

5.3 Conclusion: ‘He Says’ (λέγει) to the Disciples and the Audience

The function of direct speech within the narrative becomes especially clear in passages of moral exhortation as discussed in §3.3.Footnote 110 When the narrator introduces Jesus’ teaching to his disciples in the privacy of the house, the boat or on the road with the historical present – ‘and he says’ – he creates the impression that Jesus is speaking now. When the reader or performer utters Jesus’ words after this introductory phrase, it is as if Jesus is addressing the extradiegetic audience directly. In this context, the instructions and imperatives the Markan Jesus issues are thus heard not merely as past directives, but as present commands – particularly those in the present imperative, which require the disciples’ and the audience’s ongoing or continuous action.

One of the roles the narrator envisaged for the reader-performer of the text is to introduce Jesus’ direct speech. By following the narrator’s speech frames, the performer lends his/her voice to Jesus, uttering his direct speech and thereby re-presenting him in the very act of performing the text. With ‘and he says’ introducing direct speech to the disciples, Jesus appears to step out of the retrospective narrative and into the present moment, addressing the audience as disciples and inviting them to identify with the disciples in the text. Each time the Gospel of Mark is read aloud, the Markan Jesus commands through the voice of the performer the audience present: ‘Change your minds and trust the Gospel!’ (1.15), ‘Listen!’ (4.3, 24), ‘Follow me!’ (8.34; 10.21), ‘Constantly have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another’ (9.50), ‘Trust God constantly!’ (11.22), ‘Always forgive’ (11.25), ‘Be watchful all the time!’ (13.37).Footnote 111

One final example: following the dialogue between Jesus and the sons of Zebedee, James and John – who requested to share in Jesus’ future glory – and the indignant reaction of the remaining ten disciples, the narrator introduces Jesus’ response with a compound frame: ‘And he called them together and says to them’ (καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς – 10.42). Rather than recounting what was said to the disciples in retrospect, the narrator creates a distinct situational context. He anchors Jesus’ performance in a situation where he addresses the disciples alone. Like the teaching in the boat, in the house or previously on the road, the introduction with the historical present, ‘and Jesus called them together and says to them’ shifts Jesus’ words into the narrative present. The introductory phrase in the historical present (Jesus says to them) makes his subsequent words resonate with the audience in the very moment of reading. In this way, the narrator opened up the opportunity for reader-performers to re-perform this moment of communication and to re-enact the special teaching situation. The reader-performer and the audience are drawn into the scene as Jesus calls the Twelve together and addresses them (10:42–5):Footnote 112

Printed Greek scripture excerpt with verse numbers 42 to 45 about leadership and service.
Two-column bilingual (German/English) Bible quote, vv.43 to 45: reject oppressive power, be a servant. Ends: Son of Man serves, gives life as ransom.

Competing interests

The author declares none.

References

1 Ps.-Longinus, Subl. 1.25: Ὅταν γε μὴν τὰ παρεληλυθότα τοῖς χρόνοις εἰσάγῃς ὡς γινόμενα καὶ παρόντα, οὐ διήγησιν ἔτι τὸν λόγον ἀλλ’ ἐναγώνιον πρᾶγμα ποιήσεις (Text: D.A. Russell, ‘Longinus’. On the sublime, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). The essay below is the unabridged version of the presidential address at the 79th annual meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Regensburg, 6 August 2025. The preparatory research for this paper was done during a fellowship at the Einstein Center Chronoi in Berlin in summer 2024. I thank the executive board and the organising team of Chronoi for their hospitality.

2 See Cilliers Breytenbach, ‘The Task and Future of New Testament Studies’, HvTSt 79 (2023) (https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v79i2.9319).

3 J[ohann] G[ottfried] Herder, Vom Erlöser der Menschen. Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1796) 208.

4 ‘Kein Evangelium hat so wenig Schriftstellerisches und so viel lebendigen Laut eines Erzählenden wie dieses. …es ist der popularste Ton eines palästinischen Erzählers’, Herder, Erlöser, 207.

5 ‘Sein Evangelium ist zum lauten Vortrage eingerichtet … Kurz, das Evangelium Markus ist ein kirchliches Evangelium aus lebendiger Erzählung zur öffentlichen Vorlesung in der Gemeinde geschrieben er schließet und kürzt die Rede für Herz und Ohr’, Herder, Erlöser, 209.

6 See Carolus Lachmann, ‘De ordine narrationum in evangelis synopticis’, TSK 8 (1835) 570–90. Against newer efforts to turn the clock back, see Christopher M. Tuckett, ‘Matthean Posteriority: Did Matthew Use Luke?’, NovT 67 (2025) 289–309.

7 See Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesus-Forschung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913) 155–71, 219–44, 341–81; Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863) 468–96; modified in idem., Das Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck3,1892) 383–5.

8 William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901) 331–2, 71, 79–80, 129, 131. As a non-historical, dogmatic notion, the Messianic Secret moves and determines Mark’s narrative.

9 Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, 2 (italics, CB).

10 See Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, 129–45.

11 See John Hawkins, Horae Synopticae. Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19092).

12 Max Zerwick, Untersuchungen zum Markus-Stil (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1937).

13 Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 53, 55 5.28; 9.10. In some passages, the use of direct speech is not even essential (1.37; 4.39; 5.8; 8.19–20; 9.25; 10.49; 13.:1; 16.3), in others Luke and Matthew blurred it (Mark 4.39; 5.8; 9.25; 13.1), Luke changed it (Mark 1.44; 5.12, 23; 8.23; 10.49; 11.33; 13.1) or left it out (Mark 5.9; 6.31; 9.16, 33).

14 See Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 24, 53–4.

15 Zerwick notes 14:20b–27.

16 See Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 53. Often with verbs such as ἔρχεσθαι (to arrive).

17 See Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 53. When referring to occurrences of the Greek finite verb in Mark, present forms are in bold, imperfects in italics, the aorist remain unmarked.

18 We ‘… define “speech” in terms of its narratological status, as referring to every occasion in a narrative where a narrator (normally, but not exclusively, via a verb of speaking) indicates that a character speaks (or writes) any kind of discourse to another character in that narrative (the addressee)’. Mathieu de Bakker and Irene J. F. de Jong, ‘Introduction: Narratological Theory on Speech’, idem. (eds.), Speech in Ancient Greek Literature (Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol.5; Mnemosyne Sup; Leiden: Brill, 2022) 1–30, at 2.

19 Zerwick’s primary concern lay in countering the use of stylistic features as criteria in source criticism (Literarkritik), specifically in attempts to identify a pre-Markan text underlying the present Gospel.

20 Willi Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums (FRLANT 67; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956).

21 See Marxsen, Evangelist Markus, 9‒13.

22 For an overview, see Cilliers Breytenbach, Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach Markus: Eine methodenkritische Studie (ATANT 71; Zürich: TVZ, 1984) 18–47.

23 See Breytenbach, Nachfolge, 47–9.

24 See Breytenbach, Nachfolge, 54–65, for an overview on the initial important work of Robert Tannehill, Norman R. Petersen, Willem, S. Vorster and Hans-Josef Klauck. For the rich yield of narrative research on Mark, see David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie, Mark as Story. An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (3rd edn; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012).

25 On time see Norman R. Petersen, ‘Story Time and Plotted Time in Mark’s Narrative’, in idem., Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) 49–80; Brenda D. Schildgen, Crisis and Continuity. Time in the Gospel of Mark (JSNT Sup 159; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998). On space, see Bärbel Bosenius, Der literarische Raum des Markusevangeliums (WMANT 140; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2014).

26 Trail blazers were Bas M. F. van Iersel, Marcus (Belichting van het Bijbelboek; Katholieke Bijbelstichting: ‘s-Hertogenbosch, 1986); idem., Mark. A Reader-Response Commentary (JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998) and Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).

27 See Willem S. Vorster, ‘Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschichte’, Sipke Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (Kampen: Kok, 1989) 15–26. Later literature in Martin Meiser, ‘Die Funktion der Septuaginta-Zitate im Markusevangelium’, Die Septuaginta – Text, Wirkung, Rezeption (ed. Wolfgang Kraus et al.; WUNT 325; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 517–43, esp. 520–2.

28 Robert C. Tannehill, ‘The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role’, JR 57 (1977) 386–405, esp. 392–5. However, in considering ‘the author’s shaping of the disciples’ role as indirect communication with the reader’, Tannehill (‘Disciples’, 405) does not attend to the role of direct speech to the disciples.

29 Notably Annekie Joubert, The Power of Performance: Linking Past and Present in Hananwa and Lobedu Oral Literature (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004), who adopted a socio-linguistic approach to folklore studies. Methodological caveats in the application of folklore methodologies to literary texts from antiquity, see Annekie Joubert, ‘Defining and Working in an Oral Culture: Between Oral and Written Transmission; The Problems of Textualizing Performance Events’, (paper presented at the SNTS Conference in Halle, Germany in August 2005).

30 For an overview of this research by Joanna Dewey, Antoinette Clark Wire, Whitney Shiner, David Rhoads, and others, see Pieter J. J. Botha, ‘The Gospel of Mark, Orality Studies and Performance Criticism: Opening Windows on Jesus Traditions’, Religion & Theology 25 (2018) 350–93; Martin Meiser, ‘Biblical Performance Criticism und das Markusevangelium’, STUDIA UBB THEOL. CATH. LAT. LXVII (2022) 32–64. See also Cilliers Breytenbach, The Gospel according to Mark as Episodic Narrative (NovTSup 182; Leiden: Brill, 2021) 468–497.

31 See Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method (Ithacha: Cornell University Press, 1980) 27: ‘I propose, without insisting on the obvious reasons for my choice of terms, to use the word story for the signified or narrative content (…), to use the word narrative for the signifier, statement, discourse or narrative text itself, and to use the word narrating for the producing narrative action and, by extension, the whole of the real or fictional situation in which that action takes place.’

32 The classification according to its predominant mode of presentation (narration) does not classify it in terms of a typology of genres. Modes of presentation / communication (narration, argumentation, description, exhortation, listing) are trans-historical invariant procedures and have to be distinguished from historical genres (see Klaus W. Hempfer, ‘Gattung’, Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, Band I (ed. K. Weimar; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997) 651–5, 653). However, it sets limits for its space in the tableau of bygone genres postulated for ancient narratives. See the history of research in Detlev Dormeyer, Das Markusevangelium (Darmstadt: WB, 2005) 86–135, 166–185; Helen Bond, The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020) 15–47. For a critical review of instructive and less clarifying efforts to compare Mark’s Gospel as episodic narrative to modern constructs based on selected traits of very diverse biographies, see Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 41–65, esp. 47–53, 56–9.

33 See Cilliers Breytenbach, ‘Das Markusevangelium als episodische Erzählung’, Der Erzähler des Evangeliums: Methodische Neuansätze in der Markusforschung (ed. Ferdinand Hahn; SBS 118/119; Stuttgart: KBW, 1985) 137–97 (Eng. transl. in idem., Episodic Narrative, 11–40). While the text is clearly segmented into individual episodes – sometimes arranged in thematic cycles – it nevertheless reveals recurring macro-themes and is shaped by an overarching narrative structure that contributes to a coherent plot.

34 See Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 475–90. For a research report on chreiai and their use in Mark, see Marion Moeser, The Anecdote in Mark, the Classical World and the Rabbis: A Study of Brief Stories in the Demonax, the Mishnah, and Mark 8:27-10:45 (JSNTSup 227; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2002) 150–7; Lorenzo Scornienchi, Der umstrittene Jesus und seine Apologie – Die Streitgespräche im Markusevangelium (NTAO/StUNT 110; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016) 20–64.

35 Due to limitations of space, I can only refer to the debate on how the communal memory within which the Gospel had its origins should or should not be conceptualised. See Jens Schröter, ‘Der “erinnerte Jesus”: Erinnerung als geschichtshermeneutisches Paradigma der Jesusforschung’, Jesus Handbuch (ed. Jens Schröter and Christine Jacobi; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017) 112–24; Sandra Huebenthal, Reading Mark’s Gospel as a Text from Collective Memory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020) 523–46; Thomas R. Hatina, ‘Social Memory Theory and the Enigmatic Mediated Past in Historical Jesus Research’, NovT 66 (2024) 141–66; Stephen Hultgren, Mighty in Word and Deed: Book 1. Social Memory, Christology, and the Construction of a Gospel Narrative (BZNW 270/1; Berlin, De Gruyter, 2025) 89–92, 138–75.

36 For broad evidence that the marking of the boundaries between the narrative and the embedded direct speech is a residual of oral presentation, see Mathieu de Bakker and Irene J. F. de Jong, ‘Epilogue: Speech in Ancient Greek Narrative’, idem., Speech, 743–5, 745.

37 See the empirical evidence in Joubert, Power of Performance.

38 See Paul Ricoeur, ‘The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation’, From Text to Action. Essays in Hermeneutics, II (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2007) 75–88. On reading in emerging Christianity, see Peter Müller, ‘Verstehst du auch, was du liest?’ Lesen und Verstehen im Neuen Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994) 15–60; Jan Heilmann, Lesen in Antike und frühem Christentum: Kulturgeschichtliche, philologische sowie kognitionswissenschaftliche Perspektiven und deren Bedeutung für die neutestamentliche Exegese (TANZ 66; Tübingen: Narr, 2021).

39 See Hatina, ‘Social Memory’; Huebenthal, Reading Mark; Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 142–76, 468–97.

40 On performing the literary text, see Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International) 2003. See also Kelly Iverson (ed.), From Text to Performance: Narrative and Performance Criticisms in Dialogue and Debate (Eugene: Cascade, 2014); idem., Performing Early Christian Literature: Audience Experience and Interpretation of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021).

41 On this see the essays in Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 66–176, 377–497; idem., ‘Where Mark did not follow the LXX Versions: Pre-Markan Tradition in Mark 1,2; 4,12; 9,48; 13,24-25, 15,34’, The Gospels and their Receptions. Festschrift Joseph Verheyden (ed. Henk Jan de Jonge et al.; BETHL CCCXXX; Leuven: Peeters, 2022) 97–117.

42 See de Bakker and de Jong, ‘Introduction’, 19.

43 See Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect (Studies in Biblical Greek 10; New York: Peter Lang 2000); idem, ‘The Function(s) of the Imperfect Tense in Mark’s Gospel’, The Language of the New Testament: Context, History and Development (ed. Stanley E. Porter and A. Pitts; Linguistic Biblical Studies 6; Leiden: Brill, 2013) 347–64; Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 182–4. For an overview of the more recent discussion on the historical present in the New Testament, see Ralph Enos, ‘The Use of the Historical Present in the Gospel According to St. Mark’, Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest 3 (1981) 281–9; Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 226–39; Decker, Temporal Deixis, 101–4; Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative (Studies in Biblical Greek 13; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2007) 57–65.

44 There are different layers of narration in the Markan text; see Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative,179–219. As noted by Decker (Temporal Deixis, 142; idem, ‘Function[s]’) and Evert van Emde Boas et al. (ed.) in the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019 [= CGCG §33.28]), the aorist serves as the primary narrative tense, advancing the storyline by reporting completed past events. The imperfect, by contrast, typically sets the scene and provides the backdrop against which the main events unfold (CGCG §33.49). To this one can add the imperfect’s summarising and explanatory functions (e.g. 5.8; see Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 207).

45 See Randall J. Buth, ‘Mark’s Use of the Historical Present’, Notes 65 (1977) 7–13; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 231–3; Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989) 189–98; Decker, Temporal Deixis, 103–4. On Markan episodes starting in the historical present, see notes 60, 76, 77.

46 See note 59. Pace John C. Doudna (The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (JBL MS XII; Philadelphia: SBL, 1961)) 42; Buth, ‘Use’, 7; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 232–4; Enos, ‘Use’, 289, 291; Decker, Temporal Deixis, 103–4. But see Kelly Iverson, ‘The Present Tense of Performance: Immediacy and Transformative Power in Luke’s Passion’, idem. (ed.) From Text to Performance, 131–57.

47 This also applies to indirect speech, where the narrator seldom opts for εἰπεῖν as an introductory verb. In order to describe the content of what has been uttered, he rather diversifies the verb, blending the verbal aspect of the chosen verb into the immediate context: 3.9 [εἶπεν], 12 [ἐπετίμα]; 4.39 [ἐπετίμησεν]; 5.43 [διεστείλατο and εἶπεν]; 6.8 [παρήγγειλεν], 9, 39 [ἐπέταξεν]; 7.36 [διεστείλατο]; 8.6 [παραγγέλλει], 7 [εἶπεν], 27 [ἐπηρώτα … λέγων], 30 [ἐπετίμησεν]; 9.9 [διεστείλατο]; 14.39 [προσηύξατο … εἰπών), of other characters (in 5.10 [παρεκάλει], 16 [διηγήσαντο], 17 [ἤρξαντο παρακαλεῖν], 18 [παρεκάλει]; 6.56 [παρεκάλουν]; 7.32 [παρακαλοῦσιν]; 8,22 [παρακαλοῦσιν]; 14.11 [ἐπηγγείλαντο], 14, 69 [ἤρξατο πάλιν λέγειν]; 15,43 [ᾐτήσατο], 44 [ἐπηρώτησεν]) and of the disciples (in 4,10 [ἠρώτων]; 7:17 [ἐπηρώτων]; 10.10 [ἐπηρώτων]). See also Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 25–32.

48 Since the very beginning of the debate on Mark and orality, the role of direct speech has been neglected; e.g. Johanna Dewey, ‘The Gospel of Mark as an Oral-Aural Event: Implications for Interpretation’, The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (ed. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight; JSNTSup 109; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1994) 145–63; Rhoads et al., Mark as Story, 39–61.

49 Ἔφη only in 10.29; 12.24 (Jesus); 9.12, 38; 10.20; 14.24 (others). On ἔλεγεν/-ον, see note 53.

50 Mark 15.34 βοᾶν. When the narrator introduces a question posed by the narrated Jesus, he uses the imperfect form ἐπηρώτα (he was asking) five times (5.9; 8.5 [ἠρώτα], 23, 27, 29; 9.33), and the aorist ἐπηρώτησεν (he asked) twice (9.16, 21), but never the present form ἐπερωτᾷ (he asks). The imperfect indicates that the action perceived as ongoing, the answer pending.

51 As far as Jesus’ direct speech is concerned, when it is introduced by λέγει αὐτοῖς, the addressees could be either 18 times the disciples (1.38, 4.13, 35, 39; 6.31, 38, 50; 7.18; 9.35; 10.11, 24, 42; 11.2, 22; 14.13, 27, 34, 41) or six times Jesus’ ‘opponents’ (2.8 [scribes], 17 [scribes of the Pharisees], 25 [Pharisees], 3.4 [Pharisees]; 11.33 [high priests, scribes and elders]; 12.16 [Pharisees and Herodians]). See also 13.2, 5: The three disciples were asking (ἐπηρώτα) Jesus and he began to say to them (ἤρξατο λέγειν αὐτοῖς). In the singular, λέγει αὐτῷ occurs 13 times (1.41 and 44 [leper]; 2.5, and 10 [paralytic], 14 [Levi]; 3.3 and 5 (man with withered hand]; 5.19 (Gerasene demoniac), 36 [Jairus], 41 [Jairus’ daughter]; 7.34 [deaf and dumb man]; 14.30 and 37 [Peter]).

52 In direct speech, introduced with εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, the disciples (1.17; 3.9; 4.40; 6.37; 8.34; 9.29, 36, 39; 10.14, 36, 38, 39; 14.16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 43) or ‘opponents’ (2.19; 7.6; 10.3, 5, 49; 11.29; 12.15, 17; 14.48) are meant 18 times; the opponents (high priests, scribes and elders) once with ἤρξατο αὐτοῖς …παραβολαῖς λαλεῖν· (12.1). Εἶπεν αὐτῇ·occurs thrice (5.34 [woman who touched Jesus’ garment]; 7.29 [Syrophoenician woman]; 11.14 [fig tree]), and εἶπεν αὐτῷ seven times (9.23 [father of the boy with the unclean spirit]; 10.18 and 21 [the rich man], 52 [Bartimaeus]; 12.32 and 34 [scribe]; 13.2 [disciple]). A clear example of the use of the aorist εἶπεν (he said) to introduce Jesus’ words appears in the account of the blessing of the children (10.13–16).

53 See Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 33. For ἐδίδασκεν see 1.21–2; 2.13; 4.1–2; 9.31; 10.1; 11.17; for ἤρξατο διδάσκειν see 4.1; 6.2, 34; 8.31; for added ἔλεγεν see 4.2; 9.31; 11.17 – in 12.35 ἔλεγεν διδάσκων. For added λέγων: κηρύσσειν (1.14), ἐπιτιμᾶν (1.25; 9.25), διαστέλλομαι (8.15), ἐπερωτᾶν (1.25; 9.25). See also 8.26. Mark’s use of ἔλεγεν/-ον in embedded narrative, see Fowler, Reader, 114–16; Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 210–13.

54 E.g. ἀγανακτεῖν (to be indignant – some present in Bethany in 14.4), αἰτεῖν (to ask – followed by λέγουσα, Herodias’ daughter 6.25), ἀρνέομαι (to deny – Peter in 14.68), βλασφημεῖν (to blaspheme, to speak abusively – followed by λέγοντες, those passing the cross in 15.29), διαλογίζομαι (to consider, ponder – some scribes in 2.6; high priest, scribes and elders followed by λέγοντες in 11.31), ἐκπλήσσεσθαι (to be amazed or astonished – followed by λέγοντες in 6.2 and 10.26), κράζειν (to cry out loud – daemons in 3.11), ὀμνύναι (to take an oath – Herod in 6.23 and Peter in 14.71), παρακαλεῖν (to urge strongly – leper in 1.40; followed by λέγων in 1.40 and 5.23 [Jairus] and by λέγοντες in 5.12 [daemon]; before indirect speech in 5.10, 17, 18; 5.56; 7.32; 8.22), φωνεῖν (to call – followed by λέγοντες in 10.49), ψευδομαρτυρεῖν (to bear false witness – followed by λέγοντες in 14.57).

55 On ἐπερωτᾶν, see note 50. When introducing Jesus’ answers, the aorist participle ἀποκριθείς (he was answering) precedes λέγει (he says – 3.33; 9.19; 10.24; 11.22; 15.2), εἶπεν (he said – 6.37; 10.3, 51; 11.14; 14.48), and ἔλεγεν (he was saying – 12.35). The present form of ἀποκρίνομαι (to answer) does not appear; instead, the aorist ἀπεκρίνατο is used in 14.16 to indicate that Jesus did not answer the high priest.

56 Direct commentary on Jesus’ utterances is rare (7.19). On the authority of Jesus’ words in Mark, see Cilliers Breytenbach, ‘Mark’s Tense Future’, Early Christianity 12 (2021) 297–321, esp. 311–13, 319–20.

57 The instances for the historical present λέγει (he says) almost equal that of the aorist εἶπεν (he said). Both λέγει and εἶπεν outnumber the imperfect ἔλεγεν (he was saying).

58 See Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 143–8, 151; Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins; The Schweich Lecture 1920 (London: Oxford University Press, 1921) 21; Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 49–74. For an overview of the later discussion on the historical present in the New Testament and non λέγει occurrences in Mark, see Buth, ‘Use’, 7–13; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 189–198; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 226–39; Enos, ‘Use’, 281–9; Decker, Temporal Deixis, 101–4. Some suggested that the historical present introduces not only new scenes but also characters anew. See Thackeray, Septuagint, 21; Zerwick, Markus-Stil, 49–57, 63–4. Buth, ‘Use’; Enos, ‘Use’, 287–92; Decker, Temporal Deixis, 101–4. In general, see CGCG, §§ 33.54.

59 For Buth (‘Use’, 7) the use of λέγειν is ‘so common … and so apparently haphazard’ that he does not attempt a description, for Marius Reiser (Sprache und literarische Formen des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2197; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001) 59) ‘usuell’, for Fanning (Verbal Aspect, 231–2) a ‘stereotyped idiom without any sense of vividness or a discourse function’. Doudna (Greek, 42) and Enos (‘Use’, 289, 291) find the use of λέγει not significant. For Zerwick (Markus-Stil, 64–7), it was difficult to distinguish between Mark’s use of λέγει and εἶπεν.

60 We consolidate the list of Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 232–3. New episode or change in scene: 1.12, 21; 2.3, 15; 3.13 (bis), 20 (bis), 31; 4.1; 5.22–3; 35; 6.7, 30; 7.1, 32; 8.22 (ter); 9.2 (bis); 10.1 (bis), 35, 46; 11.1, 7, 15, 27 (bis); 12.13, 18; 14.17, 32, 33, 37, 41, 43, 66; 16.2. Significant moments: 2.4; 4.37; 5.15, 37, 38, 40 (bis); 6.48; 11.4; 14.13, 51; 15.16–27; 16.4. For λέγειν, we add significant moments 1.30; 2.14, 17, 25; 3.3–4; 4.38b; 6.37, 50; 7.28; 8.29; 10.23; 12.16, and new episodes 4.35; 8.1; 13.1; 14.27. See also notes 63–4.

61 See in de Bakker and de Jong, Speech, 232 (Thucydides, 3.102.3, 3.109.2, 3.110.1; 5.10.5), 440 (Sophocles, Aj. 288; Ant. 1227; El. 299; Phil. 368, 371; Oed. col. 1639; Trach. 920), 457 and 460 (Euripides, El. 779, 783, 790); 549 (Plato, Prot. 86D).

62 See e.g. LXX Exod 20.20; 32.2, 27; Josh 5.15; Tob 1.16. The historical present in Mark is not a Semitism; see Elliot C. Maloney, ‘The Historical Present in the Gospel of Mark’, To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (ed. Maurya P. Hogan and Paul J. Kobelski; New York: Crossroad, 1989) 67–78. Matthew and Luke altered Mark’s historical present often into the aorist εἶπεν; see Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 144–8. For examples where Matthew and Luke changes the indirect speech of the Markan Jesus into direct speech, see Michael-Beth Dinkler, ‘The Gospels’, de Bakker and de Jonge, Speech, 609–31, 611–12. John uses λέγει to introduce direct speech. Lucian tells in the 1st person about Demonax in the past tenses and introduces his chreiai in direct speech overwhelmingly with ἔφη, never with λέγει. When Lucian gives Alexander the word, ἔφη introduces the quotation (e.g. 33–5). The episodes are brief and merely listed, hardly integrated into a developing plot. Several episodes of the Vita Aesopi comprise of dialogues. They are mostly short exchanges between the characters and part of the ongoing action. The narrator introduces the direct speech by many different words, but mostly by λέγει. Ps.-Herodotus uses λέγει to introduce verse into almost each location covered by his historical narrative, but without integrating them in the plot development; see Vita Homeri, 126, 172 (ὃ δὲ ὡς ἤκουσεν [sc. Homer], ἐσυμφόρηνέ τε καὶ λέγει τὰ ἔπεα τάδε·), 211, 233 (ὁ δὲ Ὅμηρος πολλὰ ἐπαινέσας αὐτοὺς ἐσέβη, καὶ ἐπεὶ ἕζετο λέγει τὰ ἔπεα τάδε·), 416 (ὁ δ’ ἀκούσας λέγει τάδε τὰ ἔπεα·), 524. See λέγει after an aorist and historical present in Longus, Daphn. 4.36.1: Ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Διονυσοφάνης μεῖζον τοῦ Μεγακλέους καὶ ἀναπηδήσας εἰσάγει Χλόην πάνυ καλῶς κεκοσμημένην καὶ λέγει·“τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον ἐξέθηκας …”. As quotation frame, Chariton frequently uses εἶπεν, occasionally ἔλεγεν, but see the historical present after an aorist (2.2.6, 3.10.8 and 6.7.6) or at the start of a new section (2.4.2). See also Plutarch, Gen. Socr. 586F–587A.

63 Introducing Jesus’ direct speech, the narrator used λέγει after a finite verb in the present tense in the following instances (underlined when preceded by λέγει or λέγουσιν). Normally Jesus is the speaker (1.38; 2.5, 10; 3.4, 5, 33, 34; 5.36, 39, 41; 6.38; 11.2, 22, 33; 14.13, 14 [Jesus as the teacher] 32, 37, 41, 45, 67 [slave girl]).

64 Introducing Jesus’ direct speech when telling the story in the past tenses, the narrator used λέγει in the following instances (italics when preceded by a finite verb in the imperfect): 1.41, 44; 2.8, 14, 17, 25; 3.3; 4.13; [5.7, 9 both not Jesus], 19; 6.31, 50; 7.18, 28, 34; 8.12, 17, [29 Petrus], 33; 9.5 [Petrus], 19, 35; 10.11, 23, 24, 27, 42; 11.21 [Petrus]; 12.16; 14.27, 30, 34, [61, 63 both high priest]; 15.2; 16.6 [young man]). When determined by a verb in the aorist or imperfect, we exclude the participle λέγων (in 1.7, 15, 24, 25; 8.15, 26, 27; 9.25; 12.6, 26; 14.44, 60, 68; 15.4, 9, 36). Because we focus on Jesus’ direct speech, occurrences of the plural ‘they say’ (λέγουσιν) as introduction to direct speech are not analysed (1.30, 37; 2.18; 3.32; 4.38; 6.37–8; 8.19–20, 27; 9.11; 11.33; 12.14, 18, 35; 14.12). When determined by a verb in the aorist or imperfect, we also exclude the participle λέγοντες (in 3.11; 5.12; 6.2; 7.37; 8.28; 9.11; 10.26; 11.31; 12.18; 13.6; 14.57; 15.29). On ἔφη and ἔλεγεν, see notes 48, 52.

65 Foreshadowing section 4 below, please note the aspect of the imperative: The present-stem imperative itself (ἀκολούθει) conveys a summons to sustained, ongoing discipleship. Levi’s immediate response – he rose and followed – indicates obedience to a command intended to initiate a lasting commitment. The present-stem imperative ‘Follow me!’ (ἀκολούθει μοι) in 2.14 indicates that Jesus expects ongoing discipleship. See the difference between Vita Aesopi G 13.5–6 (‘Αἴσωπε, ῥίψας τὴν δίκελλαν ἀκολούθει·καλεῖ σε ὁ δεσπότης.’) and 34.3–4 (‘Αἴσωπε, ἆρον ὠμόλινον καὶ ἀκολούθησόν μοι, ὅπως ἀπὸ τῶν κήπων λάχανα εἰς ἕψησιν πριώμεθα.’).

66 See e.g. 2.14, 17, 25; 3.3–4; 8.1, 11; 9.19, 35; 10.24, 27; 11.22; 14.27; 15.2.

67 This is a defined interpretative context, see Joubert, Power, 78–80.

68 On the boat-scene, see Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 128–131.

69 We pass over this notorious crux interpretum that would demand more time than we can afford here.

70 See Philip Sellew, ‘Composition of Didactic Scenes in Mark’s Gospel’, JBL 108 (1989) 613–34.

71 On the house in Capernaum as teaching place in the Markan narrative, see Bosenius, Raum, esp. 443–51.

72 This observation also applies to the use of the present λέγει in 9.19. The presence of three imperfect forms (9.24, 28) can be explained contextually (see Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 209, 212–13).

73 See also 8.14–21. 4. On 10.41–5 see §5.3 below.

74 See 4.13; 7.18; 7.18; 9.35 [δώδεκα]; 10.11, 27 (λέγει αὐτοῖς), 10.23 (λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς), 10.27 (λέγει).

75 On the interpretation of κοιναὶ χεῖρες, see Christina Eschner, Essen im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. Diskurse zur sozialen Bedeutung von Tischgemeinschaft, Speiseverboten und Reinheitsvorschriften (AJEC 108; Leiden: Brill, 2019) 85–102, 592–3.

76 In the Greek fragments of Gos. Thom. the secret sayings the living Jesus spoke (εἶπεν) are also introduced by ‘Jesus says.’ See λέγει Ἰη(σοῦ)ς in POxy 1 4, 11, 30, 36, 41; 654 9, 27, 38; 655 ii 11. In the few introductions of Jesus’ speech in Sayings Source Q that can be reconstructed hypothetically, past tense introductions prevail. Only Matthew’s version occasionally has λέγει (MtQ 11.20, 22; 9:.37) where Luke prefers εἶπεν (LkQ 9.58, 59, 60). In other cases, both versions have εἶπεν (MtQ 7.10//LkQ 7.9; MtQ 11.4//LkQ 7.22; MtQ 11.25//LkQ 10.21; MtQ 11.25//LkQ 11.17) or ἤρξατο λέγειν (LkQ 7.24//MtQ 11.7; LkQ 11.29 [MtQ 12.39 εἶπεν]). Sometimes Luke has ἔλεγεν (LkQ 6.20 [MtQ 5.2 ἐδίδασκεν … λέγων]; LkQ 10.2 [MtQ 9.39 λέγει]; LkQ 12.54 [MtQ 16.2 εἶπεν]).

77 See note 60 and §3.3 above on instances where the narrator starts an episode with λἐγει.

78 In Mark, a new episode with new location often starts with a historical present (see Enos, ‘Use’, 287–92). See note 63. This also occurs with καὶ λέγει (see 4.35; 8.1; 13.1; 14.27). The first utterance in a dialogue in 13.1–2 is introduced by ‘he says’ (λέγει), while subsequent response shifts to ‘he said’ (εἶπεν); in 14.27, 29: καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς … ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἔφη αὐτῷ. For cases where the narrator starts the episode in the historical present and continues with λέγει, see note 64.

79 See the motto above from Ps.-Longinus, Subl., 1.25.

80 For commands in the imperative present by other ‘divine’ characters, see Breytenbach, ‘Imperative Aspect’, 397.

81 For morphological reasons, we do not treat the hortatory or prohibitive subjunctive and imperative after ἵνα as substitution for μή with the aorist imperative.

82 Aspect concerns not the action itself but the speaker’s perspective on how the action is to be carried out. In other words, the lexical meaning of the verb pending, aspect reflects how the speaker chooses to represent the action. See CGCG §§33.64–5; 34.21; 38.30. We follow the CGCG. It holds that ‘the difference between present and aorist imperatives is purely one of aspect’ (CGCG, §34.21), and that a speaker chooses between the alternatives. For a different view, see Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek 15; New York: Peter Lang, 2008). See also Breytenbach, ‘Imperative Aspect’, 390–3.

83 For a detailed treatment of Mark’s use of the imperative, see Breytenbach, ‘Imperative Aspect’.

84 Instances in which characters other than Jesus issue general commands using the present-stem imperative are exceedingly rare. Such positive commands in the present express that God (9.7) or Moses (7.10) or the Torah (12.29) instructs the addressees to do something constantly. There are only few other cases (9.24 [father of the boy]; 10.49 [indefinite]; 15.18 [soldiers]) in which a character other than Jesus uses the present-stem-imperative. See Breytenbach, ‘Imperative Aspect’, 397–8; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 333.

85 See 1.15; 4.3, 9, 23–24; 8.15, 34; 9.50; 11.22, 25; 12.38; 13.3, 7, 11, 19, 21, 23, 29, 35, 37.

86 CGCG, §38.30. ‘The choice for one form or the other depends on the speaker’s subjective choices in presenting an action as complete or incomplete, given various possible connotations of these two aspects (…)’ CGCG, §33.65.

87 For the second person singular see 1.41, 43; 2.10–11; 3.5, 34; 7.34; for the plural, see 6.37; 14.32, 34. For an analysis of the exemplary use of verbal aspect in the narrative, the paralytic (2.1–12) or about Jesus and the three disciples in the garden of Gethsemane (14.32–41); see Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 194–5; idem., ‘Imperative Aspect’, 402, 406–7.

88 For analogies in Greek literature, see Rutger J. Allan, ‘Narrative Immersion. Some Linguistic and Narratological Aspects’, Experience, Narrative, and Criticism in Ancient Greece: Under the Spell of Stories (ed. Jonas Grethlein et al., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) 15–35.

89 Remembering the cursing of the fig tree, ‘Peter says (λέγει) to him, “My teacher (Rabbi), look, the fig tree that you cursed has withered!”’ The introduction to Jesus’ response likewise remains in the historical present, enhancing the immediacy of the scene and conveying Jesus’ words as though spoken in the present moment.

90 When the narrator shifts from past tense narration to the historical present – employing ‘and he says to them’ as a speech frame – the narrative situation closely resembles that discussed in the previous section. A comparable structure appears in 5.36 and 6.50.

91 Mark 6.10, 38, 50 (bis); 8.15 (bis); 9.19, 39, 50 (bis); 10.14; 11.2 (bis), 3, 24 (?), 25; 13.5, 7, 18, 21, 23, 29, 33 (bis), 35; 14.13, 34, 38 (bis); 42. In 4.3, 24, and 12.38, the disciples are included.

92 See §3.3.

93 ‘An important device to frame speeches and to steer our interpretation of them, is attributive discourse, the (often short) introductions and cappings of speeches. Originally a device necessary to separate narrator-text from character-text in the oral performance of the epics, narrators saw the potential of these inquit-formulas.’ De Bakker and de Jonge, ‘Epilogue’, 745.

94 See Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 142–76.

95 To cite Wrede (Messiasgeheimnis, VI): ‘Wir können die Evangelien nicht anders machen; wir müssen sie nehmen, wie sie sind.’

96 In episodes that portray interactions between Jesus and other characters, his direct speech is typically introduced using the aorist (εἶπεν), and occasionally the imperfect – especially when the outcome remains open-ended (ἐπηρώτα) or the speech is ongoing (ἔλεγεν).

97 In 2.10, after the statement where the narrator addresses the audience directly and without a speech frame: ‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’, the narrator immediately returns to narrative mode, introducing Jesus’ subsequent command with the reporting clause ‘he says to the paralytic’. This is a form of metalepsis. See Jonas Grethlein, Ancient Greek Texts and Modern Narrative Theory: Towards a Critical Dialogue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023) 75–9.

98 In the 2nd c., Justin Martyr introduced Jesus’ words not with Mark, Matthew, Luke or John says, but with ‘Christ said’ (εἶπεν/ἔφη); see 1 Apol. 15; Dial. 17 and 105.

99 The very high incidence of direct speech, the way in which Jesus’ utterances are embedded in the narrative and their rhetorical function must be kept in mind when placing Mark’s narrative in the context of comparable episodical narratives from the ancient world.

100 See §1.3. Due to the various controversies surrounding Marxsen’s book, his notion of ‘Vergegenwärtigung’ was largely neglected; see Hans Conzelmann, ‘Geschichte und Eschaton nach Markus 13’ (1959), idem., Theologie als Schriftauslegung (BEvT 65; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1974) 62–73; Breytenbach, Nachfolge, 75–80; Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, ‘Die Markusinterpretation Willi Marxsens und ihre Konsequenzen für die Christologie’, idem., Das Markusevangelium als Erzählung (WUNT 408; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018) 191–212.

101 Marxsen, Evangelist, 86 (Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) 124: ‘The motif of representation belongs to the gospel, for the proclamation of the gospel renders its content contemporaneous.’)

102 ‘For Mark the gospel is that present entity which represents the Lord.’ Marxsen, Evangelist Markus, 85. His Pauline interpretation (Evangelist Markus, 78) of the Markan concept of gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) had a bearing on Marxsen’s understanding the entire gospel. See Cilliers Breytenbach, ‘Mark’s use of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον’, Paul, Christian Textuality, and the Hermeneutics of Late Antiquity: Essays in Honor of Margaret M. Mitchell (ed. David Moessner et al.; NovTSup. 190; Leiden: Brill, 2023) 155–176.

103 See the overview in David S. du Toit, Der abwesende Herr. Strategien im Markusevangelium zur Bewältigung der Abwesenheit des Auferstanden (WMANT 111; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006) 1–4.

104 See du Toit, Herr; Breytenbach, ‘Episodische Erzählung’, 309–10.

105 Marxsen, Evangelist, 99.

106 Jesus’ farewell discourse (13.5b–37) is addressed to Peter, Andrew, James and John, and is introduced by the speech frame in the aorist: ἤρξατο λέγειν. On the imperatives in 13. 5, 7, 9, 11, 21, 23, 29, 33,35, see the analysis by Breytenbach, ‘Imperative Aspect’, 404–6. Throughout this discourse, the Markan Jesus persistently warns his disciples, employing the present-stem imperative. Towards the conclusion of the speech, Jesus broadens the scope of his warnings beyond the four disciples to include all: ‘What I say to you, I say to all: “Be watchful!”’ (ὃ δὲ ὑμῖν λέγω, πᾶσιν λέγω, γρηγορεῖτε, 13.37). This final remark makes clear that the repeated use of the present-stem imperative throughout the discourse is intended not only for Peter, James and John, but also for the extradiegetic audience. All are exhorted to remain vigilant, to exercise continual care and to stay alert until the return of the Son of Man. What Jesus says to the disciples, he says to all – even to those who hear the Gospel read aloud: ‘Watch out!’ See Breytenbach, Episodic Narrative, 274–91.

107 On this see Breytenbach, ‘Future’, 309–13.

108 On this, see du Toit, Herr, passim.

109 The hermeneutical implications of this technique deserve separate treatment, which should include the re-presentation of Jesus through the narration of the actions of the Jesus figure in the past tenses.

110 7.18; 9.35; 10.11, 23.

111 If we move beyond commands, Jesus’ teaching to the disciples includes many other topics; e.g. reprimanding that that they do not understand (4.13; 7.18a; 8.17, 21), explaining that not the intake of food but evil actions make man ‘common’ (7.18b–23), calling them to modesty (9.35), warning that divorce leads to adultery (10.11–12), teaching that it is hard for the rich to enter God’s kingdom (10.23–7), teaching them not to rule but to serve over each other (10.42-5).

112 I thank Bärbel Bosenius, Timo Christian, David du Toit, Annekie Joubert, Kristin Schlegel, Johan Thom, Anamika Wehen and Christiane Zimmermann for important comments on previous drafts of this essay.