Emotion Made Right: Hellenistic Moral Progress and the (Un)Emotional Jesus in Mark

280 Pages·2021·1.728 MB·English

by  Hicks, Richard James

Richard James Hicks
Emotion Made Right
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Edited by
Matthias Konradt, Judith Lieu, Laura Nasrallah,
Jens Schröter, and Gregory E. Sterling
Volume 250
Richard James Hicks
Emotion Made Right
Hellenistic Moral Progress and
the (Un)Emotional Jesus in Mark
ISBN 978-3-11-072304-5
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-072307-6
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-072308-3
ISSN 0171-6441
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021933452
Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
Detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Contents
Abbreviations VII
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
. Soundings in a Working Definition of Emotion for a New
Testament Hermeneutic 5
.. “Positive Emotions” and other Morally Questionable
Categories 7
.. Summary 16
.. The Narrative Nature of Hellenistic Emotion (and the Trouble with
Pathē Lists) 17
. Conclusion 21
. Thesis 23
Chapter 2: A Methodological Proposal for Discussing Emotion in a First-
Century CE Milieu 25
. The Legacy of Aristotelian Emotion as Process-Event 26
. The Dangerous Pathē: Emotion in Hellenistic Thought/Early Roman
Imperial Period 32
.. Pre-emotional Growth in Hellenistic Thought 33
.. A Working Definition of “Emotion” 45
. Beyond the Moral Treatises: “Rising Emotion” in Other Prominent
Hellenistic Literature 52
.. Plutarch’s Biographies 52
.. The Progymnasmata 54
.. Pre-emotional Restraint in Chariton and Apuleius 57
. Emotional Restraint through Emulation/Imitation 83
. Conclusion 94
Chapter 3: Emotional Temptation, Disbelief, and Anti-emotional Repentance in
Mark: The “Good News” of the Kingdom as Divine-Rational
Empowerment 98
. Emotional Growth among Jesus’s Disciples 101
.. Pre-emotional Anxiety and Disbelief at Sea (Mark
4:35–41) 101
.. Disbelief in Emotion Theory 105
.. Emotional Disbelief and Anxiety among Minor Characters in
Mark 109
VI Contents
.. The Disciples’ Unresolved “Emotion” (Mark 4:35–41) 137
. Phase-Three Emotion at Bethany (Mark 14:1–11) 143
.. Anointing and Anti-Emotional Resistance 144
.. Judas’s Phase-Three Emotional Sin 155
. Conclusion 159
Chapter 4: Mark’s “(Un)Emotional” Jesus: “He Saved Others; Himself He
Cannot Save[?]” (Mark 15:31) 162
. “Emotion” on the Sabbath: Who Is Angrier, Jesus or His
Opponents? (Mark 3:1–6) 163
.. Jesus’s “Anger” 163
.. Disbelieving and Angry Religious Leaders 171
.. Summary 178
.. Additional Examples of Jesus’s Anger Restraint (Mark 1:40–45;
11:11–18) 180
.. Summary 187
. Emotional Temptation from Gethsemane to Golgotha 187
.. Jesus’s Advanced Pre-emotion in Gethsemane 189
.. Passing the Emotional Test in Gethsemane 196
. Conclusion 201
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications 205
. Implications for the More Authentic (or “Original”) Ending of Mark
(16:8) 209
. Implications for the Longer (Secondary) Ending of Mark
(16:9–20) 210
. Implications for a Markan-Priority Hermeneutic 213
Bibliography 216
Subject Index 227
Ancient Sources Index 243
Modern Authors Index 269
Abbreviations
Unlessnotedbelow,abbreviationsfollowTheSBLHandbookofStyleforBiblical
Studies and Related Disciplines, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014).
AC L’AntiquitéClassique
Ap Apeiron
Bib.hist. DiodorusSiculus,BibliothecaHistorica
BJHP BritishJournalfortheHistoryofPhilosophy
CSCD CambridgeStudiesinChristianDoctrine
ClW ClassicalWeekly
ESEC EmoryStudiesinEarlyChristianity
JBPR JournalofBiblicalandPneumatologicalResearch
JPT JournalofPentecostalTheology
JPTSup JournalofPentecostalTheologySupplementSeries
JSFSC JournalofSpiritualFormationandSoulCare
JSJSup SupplementstotheJournalfortheStudyofJudaism
Med. MarcusAurelius,Meditations(orτὰεἰςἑαυτόν)
MCL MartinClassicalLectures
NHMS NagHammadiandManichaeanStudies
OCD OxfordClassicalDictionary,3rded.
Prog. Progymnasmata
Rhet Rhetorica
SE LaScuoladiEpicuro
SCJ Stone-CampbellJournal
Tris. Ovid,Tristia
VEccl VerbumetEcclesia
Vit.phil. DiogenesLaertius,VitaePhilosophorum
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110723076-201

Chapter 1:
Introduction
Jesus’srelativelylongapproachtoJerusalemmarksaturningpointintheGospel
ofMark,asitallowstime“alongtheway”(ἐντῇὁδῷ)toclarifythecostofdis-
cipleship.¹ Alerting his audience to stern resistance awaiting his mission there,
he exhorts whomever would follow him to “deny themselves … for [his] sake
and the gospel” (8:34–35); by this selfless dedication one will “save [her
soul]” (8:35b). In terms of “the spirit of service and self-sacrifice,” R.T. France
observes that Mark casts Jesus as a model for the disciples.² Given the wide-
spread recognition of Mark’s genre as “biography,” it is unsurprising that its
hero is cast as a moral exemplar in word and deed.³ This narrative motif, the
 Theconcentrationofjourney-specificphraseologyἐντῇὁδῷ(κτλ)rhetoricallystretchesoutthe
storyasitnearsJerusalem(8:27;9:33,34;10:17,32,46,52;11:8);onthe“Stichwortὁδός”thatessentially
marks8:27asthebeginningofthattrek(ratherthan,e.g.,8:31[contraWilliamL.Lane,TheGospel
accordingtoMark,NICNT(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1974),292]),seeDieterLührmann,DasMarku-
sevangelium,HNT3(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1987),141–42.Also,theMarkanfavoriteterm“imme-
diately”(εὐθύς),whichoccurs30timespriorto8:27,appearssignificantlyfewertimesinthelatterhalf
ofMark;for8:27asthestartoftheMark’s“secondhalf,”seeC.E.B.Cranfield,TheGospelaccording
to St. Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1963), 266.On the discipleship emphasis in
8:27–10:52, see Ernest Best, “Uncomfortable Words:VII.The Camel and the Needle’s Eye (Mark
10:25),”ExpTim82(1970):84(henotestherepetitionofὁδός);idem,“DiscipleshipinMark:Mark
8.22–10:52,”SJT(1970):323–37.
 R.T.France,TheGospelofMark:ACommentaryontheGreekText,NIGTC(GrandRapids:Eerd-
mans,2002),421.
 RichardBurridge,WhatAretheGospels?:AComparisonwithGraeco-RomanBiography,2nded.
(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2004):“Themostobviouspurposeofβίοιis[encomium]”(145),and
this includes notonlyhonoring the hero/subject,but specifically “toprovide an example for
others to emulate … to become better people.This intention can become almost evangelistic
incallingthereaderstofollowthehero”(146).Burridgearguesconvincinglythatthegenreof
theNTGospelscloselyreflectstheconventionsofancientGreco-Romanβίοι;forahelpfulcon-
cisecomparison,seeidem,FourGospels,OneJesus:ASymbolicReading(GrandRapids:Eerd-
mans,1994),5–8.Notably,ancientbiographicalnarrativesandtheNTGospelsshareadidactic
agendaandinterestincharacterization,and“charactertraitsandvirtues”are“usuallydepicted
indirectlythroughwordsanddeedsratherthanbydirectanalysis”(Burridge,WhatAretheGos-
pels,139).Furthermore,“iftheGospelswerecomposedandusedinasettingoftheearlyChris-
tiancommunitiesstrugglingtointerpretthesignificanceofJesusforthemselves…thenanother
possiblelinkwithβίοιmightbemade”(77).AlthoughMarkanvirtuesareultimatelydefinedand
shapeduniquelybyJesus’swordsanddeeds,MarkwouldlikelypresupposelongstandingGreco-
Romanvirtueslikerationaljudgment,self-control,justice,andcourage(i.e.,theso-calledcar-
dinalvirtues;cf.4Macc1:2–4;Isocrates[latefourthcenturyBCE],Demon.46).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110723076-001
2 Chapter1:Introduction
emulation of Jesus’s soul-saving spirituality, must further account for a funda-
mental impediment for disciples, namely,the challenge posed to them by emo-
tions or, as morally minded Hellenists would say, latent/lurking/provoking emo-
tions or “emotions of the soul” (τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς).
Such emotions follow a fairly consistent pattern of destructive potential in
Hellenistic thought and hold implications for moral and physical characteriza-
tion, as the prolific moralist and biographer Plutarch attests (first century CE):
“[Peoples’] misfortunes are not entirely the work of ill fortune/evil genius/a
demon [δαίμων], but rather the different morals and emotional influences found
in them [ἀλλ’ ἠθικὰς καὶ παθητικὰς ζητεῖν ἐν αὐτοῖς]” (Comp. Thes. Rom. 3.1).⁴
Inthisvein,writingacenturyearlier,thebiographerCorneliusNeposillustrates
how even a “virtuous” (bonitas) hero can be undermined by emotionally
motivated opponents.⁵ The ancients conceive of emotion as a force that besets
apersonandattemptstoprovokeirrationaldecisionsandbehavior.Itsmovement
mustbeovercome bygodly reasoning, such thatpeople can ultimatelydecide to
do“what is right” ratherthanonly “what feels right.”
The Gospel of Mark shows concern for both physical and metaphysical or
moral/spiritual health vis-à-vis emotion. Like near contemporary Hellenistic and
 Unlessnoted,translationsareoriginal.Thoughmanyprimarysourcescitedinthisstudy,not
leastofmoralistsfromca.thefirstcenturyCE,technicallybelongtotheRomanimperialperiod
(ca.27BCE–476CE)ratherthantheHellenisticperiod(ca.323–31BCE),thisstudygenerallyre-
tainsthemodifier“Hellenistic.”Thisisdoneforuniformityandindeferencetotheculturethat
seesasignificantriseinthemoralists’interioremotionalfocus;seefurther,below,DavidKonstan’s
remarkson“thespiritofindividualism”intheHellenisticperiodoveragainsttheclassicalera.In
thepassagecitedhere,PlutarchcomparesthevirtueofTheseusandRomulusintermsofemotion.
Thelatentpotencyof“emotionsofthesoul”isaprimaryconcernforallofthenear-contemporary
moralistssurveyedinthisstudy,andClementofAlexandria(ca.200CE)explicitlydescribesthe
“emotionsofthesoul”(πάθητῶνψυχῶν)as“lurking[ὕπειμι]emotion”(Quisdiv.12;cf.Plutarch,
Cohib.ira454F;Chariton,Chaer.6.4.6).Onthe“intertwinedelementsofthemoralandphysical
[/medical] world” vis-à-vis susceptibility to emotion in Clement, see further L. Michael White,
“MoralPathology:Passions,Progress,andProtrepticinClementofAlexandria,”inPassionsand
Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought, ed. John T. Fitzgerald (New York: Routledge, 2008),
284–321(thephysicianGalenisdiscussedcomparably[293–95,303–4]).
 Namely,inGeneralMiltiades’sbiography,antagonists’motivesstemfrom“fear”(andlikely
envy): “Having in mind these advantages of his, the people preferred that he should suffer,
thoughinnocent,ratherthanthattheyshouldcontinuetobeinfear[timor]of[hissovereignty]”
(CorneliusNepos,Milt.8.4[J.C.Rolfe,LCL]).Neposarguesspecificallythatanoccurrenceofill
fortunealonewasnottoblameforMiltiades’sdemise(8.1;cf.7.3–5),buttheirrational“fear”
and envious emotional pursuits of the Athenians ultimatelycause the general’s downfall (cf.
Nepos,Them.8.1[invidia]).This“fear”regardingthehero’sfateisthelastwordofhisbiography
(cf.Mark16:8:[ἐφοβοῦντογάρ]).