Mark 11:1-12:12: A Triple Intercalation?

SCOTT G. BROWN
University of Toronto at Mississauga Mississauga, ON L5L IC6 (Canada)

WITH THE emergence of redaction, composition, and narrative criticisms, scholars of the Gospel of Mark have come to view its author's characteristic ways of arranging episodes as literary devices that permit indirect commentary on the arranged incidents. One of the more familiar of these Marcan literary devices is intercalation, or the placing of one basically self-contained episode inside another. There are six generally acknowledged instances of intercalation in Mark: 3:20-35; 5:21-43; 6:7-32; 11:12-25; 14:1-11; and 14:53-72.! In this article I wish to argue that the fourth example, the intercalation of the clearing of the temple within the story of the cursing of the fig tree, is actually part of a larger, triple intercalation, running from 11:1 through 12:12. I. The Literary Function of Intercalation Intercalation is a means of conspicuously juxtaposing two episodes or pericopae. This close structural relationship calls attention to any overt similarities, contrasts, or formal parallels that these episodes share. When these interconnections are sufficiently prominent yet lack a natural or causal explanation, they can
This list is offered by Frans Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (BETL 31; rev. ed. with supplementary notes; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988) 133; Tom Shepherd, "Intercalation in Mark and the Synoptic Problem," in SBLSP 30 (1991) 687-97, here 689; and G. van Oyen, "Intercalation and Irony in the Gospel of Mark," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (3 vols.; ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992) 2. 949-74, here 949. Except when indicated, scriptural quotations of more than a few words are from the RSV
1

78

MARK 11:1-12:12 79 take on a mysterious quality for the reader, who becomes impelled to seek a rationale for this relatedness at a deeper or symbolic level of meaning. The best example of this is supplied by the parallels between the story of the raising of Jairus's daughter and the intercalated healing of the woman with a hemorrhage. The recipients of these miracles are both female and are called "daughter" (5:23,34), though the little girl with a rich family contrasts with the lone woman who spent all that she had on doctors; both females, moreover, have become permanent sources of defilement. Further, the number twelve is prominent in both stories (5:25, 42), as are the themes of faith (5:34, 36) and "being saved" (5:23, 28). Scholars have often commented on these similarities and on their own compulsions to discern some theological significance in them.2 It is now common to suppose that intercalated stories are mutually interpretative: "the two related stories illuminate and enrich each other, commenting on and clarifying the meaning, one of the other." The device stands as an "invitation to read the framed episode in light of the frame episode and vice versa."3 The cursing of the fig tree and the clearing of the temple probably offer the best example of how intercalated incidents may be mutually interpretative. On the surface, the cursing of the fig tree is an illustration of the power of faith: the disciples are amazed that Jesus' words could cause a tree to wither, and Jesus responds by claiming that faith can even move mountains. The clearing of the temple is, on the surface, a commentary on this institution's corruption: the temple should be a house of prayer for all nations, but the presence of commerce
2 See Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation ofNarrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) 132-33, 137; Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 143; Temma F. Berg, "Reading In/to Mark," Semeia 48 (1989) 187-206, here 199-200; Christopher D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative (SNTSMS 64; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 93; Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 168 and n. 58; W. Randolph Tate, Reading Mark from the Outside: Eco and Iser Leave their Marks (San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1994) 59, 123-24; and George Aichele, Jesus Framed (Biblical Limits; London/New York: Routledge, 1996) 63. 3 David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 51; Fowler, Reader, 143. See also John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 10; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1973) 42; William R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark's Gospel and its Relation to the Clearing of the Temple Tradition (JSNTSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980) 35 n. 103, 48; Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Proclamation Commentaries; 2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 23-25; Mary Ann Beavis, Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11-12 (JSNTSup 33; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 46-47; Marshall, Faith, 92, 93; Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 197; Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, "How Does the Story Mean?" in Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 23-49, here 39; John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1995) 100-102.

80 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 64, 2002 in the Court of the Gentiles has turned it into a brigand's cave. Yet, as straight forward as these two stories appear to be, they nevertheless share provocative similarities which suggest to the implied reader that something more is being related here. In both stories Jesus unexpectedly takes aggressive measures to inhibit the "natural" functioning of something, first the fig tree, then the temple. Jesus' disruption of the sacrifices by blocking the movement of vessels through the temple seems excessive, particularly since his explicit objection concerns the transactions occurring in the outer court (11:16-17).5 But the coupling of this intemperate display with the similarly excessive reaction of cursing a tree that did not bear fruit out of season suggests that the enigmatic qualities of these incidents might be resolved at some deeper level of significance.6 A clue to this deeper meaning is found in the fact that in the Hebrew Scriptures the imagery of a search
The problem is not the fact of the commerce, which was essential to the temple cultus, but its location within the temple itself which may have been a recent innovation, animals and other offerings could be purchased at the Mount of Olives and in markets elsewhere m Jerusalem See William L Lane, The Gospel According to Mark The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (NICNT, Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1974) 403-4, Craig A Evans, "Jesus' Action in the Temple 9 Cleansing or Portent of Destruction " in Jesus in Context Temple, Purity, and Restoration (ed Bruce Chilton and Craig A Evans, AGAJU 39, Leiden Brill, 1997) 395-439, esp 429-32, Bruce Chilton, "[] (John 2 15)," m ibid , 441-54, esp 446-48 That the primary issue is the place of these transactions and not the prices being charged is indicated by the fact that Jesus drives out the buyers as well The fact that he does not also dispel animals (contrast John 2 15) undermines the view that Mark's account is anti-sacnficial Rather, his account is pro-prayer, in keeping with the lesson of the withered fig tree m 11 24-25 Mark 1117 indicates that Jesus wishes to reclaim the temple as a house of prayer for all nations, hence the outer courtyard as a place of prayer available to Gentile God-fearers and proselytes 5 The sentence "and he would not allow anyone to carry a vessel through the temple" (11 16, author's trans ) might indicate that Mark's Jesus is prohibiting people from using the temple courtyard as a thoroughfare, in other words, Jesus' objection to the sacred trade in sacrifices extends to the secular traffic of ordinary goods, all of which disrupts and delimits the area m which the Gentiles are allowed to pray However, the lack of any distinction concerning types of vessels or the persons carrying them ("anyone") indicates that Jesus is also preventing the movement of sacred vessels containing sacrifices Thus, these actions effectively suspend the operation of the sacrificial cult for the period of his demonstration For further discussion see Telford, Barren Temple, 92-93 102, Werner Kelber, Mark's Story of Jesus (Philadelphia Fortress, 1979) 60, Robert M Fowler, Loaves and Fishes The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 54, Chico, CA Scholars, 1981) 217 34, Robert Gundry, Mark A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1993) 642-43 6 Many scholars view Mark's observation that "it was not the season for figs" as a hint that Jesus' curse is a symbolic gesture directed against something other than the tree See Lane, Gospel According to Mark, 400, Telford, Barren Temple, 91 84, Robert Stem, "The Cleansing of the Temple m Mark (11 15-19)," in his Gospels and Tradition Studies on Redaction Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids Baker, 1991) 121-33, here 129, Michal Wojciechowski, "Marc 11 14 et Targum Gen 3 22 Les fruits de la Loi enlevs Israel," NTS 33 (1987) 287-89, here 288, Morna D Hooker, The Gospel According to St Mark (BNTC, London A and C Black, 1991) 262, Fowler, Reader, 96-97, and Ched Myers et al, "Say to this Mountain" Mark's Story of Discipleship (ed Karen Lattea, Maryknoll, NY Orbis Books, 1996) 48 Mark's habit of using brief and puzzling
4

MARK 11:1-12:12 81 for figs is a figure for God's search for righteous Israelites, and the image of a barren or withered fig tree is occasionally used to represent national failure as a manifestation of divine judgment: What misery is mine! I am like one who gathers summer fruit at the gleaning of the vineyard; there is no cluster of grapes to eat, none of the early figs that I crave. The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains. All men lie in wait to shed blood; each hunts his brother with a net. (Mie 7:1-2 NIV) Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the LORD. When I would gather them, says the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, norfigson the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them. (Jer 8:12-13) The now usual conclusion is that the cursing of the fig tree represents God's judgment upon the temple for the corruption evident in its courtyard; the temple has not "borne fruit" and therefore deserves its coming destruction (cf. Mark 13:1-4).8 On a symbolic level, these two stories provide a rationale for the realworld destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
explanatory -clauses as a way of encouraging his reader to find a deeper meaning was noted by C. H. Bird, "Some Rxp Clauses in St. Mark's Gospel," JTS 4 (1953) 171-87 (cf. Lane, Gospel According to Mark, 401-2). His examples include Mark's reference to the age of Jairus's daughter ("for she was twelve years of age") as an explanation for why she "got up and walked" after Jesus raised her (5:42). Like Mark 11:13, that comment puzzles more than it explains, but the oddity of the remark as an explanation draws attention to the number twelve (symbolic of completeness) and to the fact that the girl was alive for as long as the woman suffered from a constant flow of blood. Thus, the puzzlement created by the clause in 5:42 may prod a reader to consider the two females and their intersecting narratives in relation to each other. An appreciation of the rhetorical potential of an odd explanation is missing in the attempt by Wendy J. Cotter ("For It Was Not the Season for Figs," CBQ 48 [1986] 62-66) to reduce the peculiarity of Mark 11:13 by suggesting that Jesus was not looking for ripe figs in the wrong season but only for something edible, namely, unripe fruit. She may be right in arguing that this clause really modifies the word "anything" in the earlier sentence: "And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it." Jesus' search becomes reasonable if we decide that Mark's explanation has been misplaced (cf. Mark 16:4). Nevertheless, misplaced explanations puzzle readers, prodding them to make sense of what was actually said; and the supposition of a misplacement requires an explanation of how and why this might have happened. So Cotter's solution is both compatible with and strengthened by the suggestion that Mark created this narrative disjunction in order to encourage his readers to perceive a symbolic dimension to Jesus' search for fruit. 7 Wojciechowski, "Les fruits de la Loi," 287. 8 See Dennis Eric Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (Pelican Gospel Commentary; Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967) 299-301; T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philoso phy of St. Mark's Gospel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1963) 121; Stein, "Temple," 130 (and the authors he cites in n. 37); Kelber, Mark's Story of Jesus, 60; James R. Edwards, "Markan Sand wiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives," NovT 31 (1989) 193-216, here 206-8.
7

82 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 64, 2002 II. Mark 11:1-12:12 as a Triple Intercalation The interpretation just given is familiar enough. Less familiar is the sug gestion that the temple and fig tree episodes also participate in two additional, overlapping intercalations.9 In accordance with the Ax-B-A2 structure of interca lations, the immediately preceding story of Jesus riding up to Jerusalem and looking around in the temple (11:1-11) may be seen to function as the A1 story of an intercalation that has the cursing of the fig tree as the central episode and the clearing of the temple as the concluding A2 story. Likewise, the clearing of the temple can be viewed as the A1 story of a third intercalation, which has the discovery of the withered fig tree as the story and the questioning of Jesus' authority by "the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" in 11:27-12:12 as the A2 story.10 In the following discussion I will attempt to demonstrate the utility of this proposal by showing that the newly designated stories A1 and A2 are related in a mutually interpretative way to their respective stories, and thereby enrich a reader's understanding of the symbolism involved in the central incidents of the cursing of the fig tree and of the clearing of the temple. Following this demon stration I will justify applying the term "intercalation" to 11:1-19 and 11:1512:12 by comparing these passages against the definition of intercalation offered by James R. Edwards. A. Mark 11:1-11 and 11:15-19 as "A" Stories Framing 11:12-14 The A1 story in 11:1-11 concludes with abrief and puzzling depiction of Jesus' initial encounter with the goings-on inside the temple: "and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve." This is a surprisingly pedestrian finale to Jesus' messianic action of riding up to Jerusalem on a colt in symbolic fulfillment of Zech 9:9. This procession,
Edwards ("Sandwiches," 207 39) and Hooker (St Mark, 261) see a double intercalation in 11 1-25 Neirynck (Duality, 244) refers to Mark 11 1-12 12 as an instance of "alternating com position " His scheme is also laid out by van Oyen, "Intercalation and Irony," 953 10 Mark 11 27-33 and 12 1-12 belong together, for the parable Jesus speaks at the start of chap 12 is a second evasive response to the question from the Jerusalem religious leaders concerning the authority he claims for his actions Initially, he says that he will not answer them because they will not say whether John's baptism is from humans or from God But the allegory that follows is spoken "to them" (12 1, 12) and does answer their inquiry, though "in riddles " In this allegory Jesus states that he is the Messiah ("beloved son", see 15 below), who was sent by God (the owner of the vineyard) to gather fruit from the tenants Thus, the encounter begun in 11 27 continues through to 12 12, when these opponents leave The fact that Mark 11 27-12 12 stands as the beginning of a sequence of controversy stories does not detract from the argument that these verses form the con clusion of a triple intercalation, for Mark's structures often overlap, as Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel, 109) and Joanna Dewey ("Mark as Interwoven Tapestry Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience," CBQ 53 [1991] 221-36) have shown
9

MARK 11:1-12:12 83 accompanied by shouts of "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming!" leads a reader to anticipate that something of significance will follow when Jesus reaches Jerusalem and enters the temple. But nothing happens. "As it is, this visit to the temple seems entirely pointless, for the idea of Jesus 'seeing the sights' like some provincial tourist is entirely at variance with the spirit of the Gospels." 11 The anticlimactic nature of 11:11b bids the reader to ask what exactly Jesus is doing in there. Why go into the temple and look around at everything? The answer is suggested in part by what Jesus does when he returns to the temple the following day. Since Jesus drives out those who buy and sell and then cites the scriptural passage "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations," the reader is enabled to perceive in retrospect that on the previous day Jesus was observing the economic transactions occurring in the outer court and would have made his demonstration then had the hour not been late. So 11:11 ties 11:1-11 with 11:15-19, in much the same way that the comment "And his disciples heard it [the curse]" in 11:14b ties together the A stories of 11:12-14 and 11:20-25 in the central intercalation. But the realization that the first encounter involved an assessment of the situation is still not enough to satisfy a reader's expectation that a messianic procession should be followed by an occurrence of some consequence. The very strangeness of 11:11 leads the reader to wonder whether there is some larger significance to this act of assessment that would make it a fitting conclusion to the procession to Jerusalem. It is the story of the cursing of the fig tree that provides the clues necessary for a coherent purpose to emerge from the sequence in 11:1-10, 11. If the fruitless tree connotes an absence of righteousness, and this unrighteousness is manifest in the intrusion of commerce into God's house, then Jesus' inspection of the leafy tree for fruit provides symbolic commentary on his inspection of the temple in 12 11:ll. As mutually interpretative incidents, the messianic procession and Jesus' approach to a leafy tree in search of fruit combine to symbolize the coming of the Messiah to Jerusalem and the temple seeking a "harvest" of righteousness from God's people. This conception of what Jesus was hoping to find when he "looked around at everything" in the temple is further elucidated by the allusions to Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 within his prophetic judgment of the temple in Mark 11:17. The larger
Nineham, St. Mark, 294. See Herman C. Waetjen, A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark's Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 182: "Scrutinizing all things in the temple on the previous day corresponds to Jesus looking for fruit to satisfy his hunger"; and Lane, Gospel According to Mark, 400: "Just as the leaves of the tree concealed the fact that there was no fruit to enjoy, so the magnificence of the Temple and its ceremony conceals the fact that Israel has not brought forth the fruit of righteousness demanded by God."
12 11

84 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 64, 2002 context of Isa 56:1-8 suggests that Jesus was anticipating the fulfillment of Isai ah's eschatological vision of the temple as a place where anyone who keeps Yahweh's covenant may freely worship (i.e., not only pure Israelites but also foreign proselytes, "eunuchs," and "the outcasts of Israel"). What he found, instead, was that the place of God's presence had become, in effect, a brigand's cavea source 13 of security for people who commit nefarious deeds. By alluding to Jeremiah's warning that Solomon's temple was no more immune to destruction than was the former sanctuary in Shiloh, Jesus warned the astonished multitude that a great and vibrant temple is no assurance of God's protection should their unrighteous deeds cause God to remove his presence from that place. We may conclude, then, that when 11:1-11, 15-19 (the outer A stories) and 11:12-14 (the inner story) are treated as mutually interpretative incidents, a broader conceptual context emerges in which to comprehend Jesus' aggressive responses to finding a barren fig tree and commerce in the temple: The Messiah has come to the temple with the expectation of finding an inclusive and universal place of worship, only to discover that this place and its cult are being used self-servingly. B. Mark 11:15-19 and 11:27-12:12 as "A" Stories Framing 11:20-25 The preceding interpretation of the significance of Jesus' actions in the A1 story of the first intercalation (11:1-11) is confirmed by the A2 story of this third intercalation (11:27-12:12), which resumes the motif of the Messiah coming to Jerusalem for the purpose of "reaping fruit." In response to the demand by Jerusa lem's religious leaders to know by what authority he is "doing these things," 14 Jesus tells a parable in which the owner of a vineyard sends his servants and, finally, his own "beloved son" to the vineyard's recalcitrant tenants "to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard." They kill the son with the expectation that they will inherit the vineyard, though the projected consequence is that the owner will destroy them and give the vineyard to others. A reader knows from 1:11 and 9:7 that Jesus is God's "beloved son" and, therefore, that God is sending his 15 Messiah to the tenants of his vineyard. That the tenants are the very opponents who are questioning Jesus' authority to interfere with their running of the temple is indicated in 12:12, where they perceive that the parable was told against them.
13 Jeremiah 7 (esp Jer 7 5-11) Jesus' remarks "to them" (Mark 11 17a) are addressed to the multitude in the outer courtyard, particularly the persons whose activities he is disrupting, the chief priests and scribes are not singled out here as they are m 12 1-12 Hence, in the context of Mark, Jesus' quotation of Jer 7 11 is a general indictment of the people using the temple 14 For the logic of connecting "these things" specifically with the commotion Jesus caused in the temple, see Gundry, Mark, 666 15 In Mark, the title "Son of God" is denotatively synonymous with Christ or Messiah (note the poetic parallelism in 1 1 and 14 61) Thus, when God calls Jesus his "beloved son," this is a messianic designation

MARK 11:1-12:12 85 In 11:27 this group was described specifically as "the chief priests and the scribes and the elders," that is, as the custodians of the temple and representatives of the Sanhdrin. What are not immediately evident are the allegorical referents for the "vineyard," the "fruit" that God expects but the religious leaders will not relinquish, and the "others" to whom the vineyard will be given. Most of these allegorical referents can be deduced from the context. Since the vineyard is something that can be taken away from the tenants and given to others, it is not a symbol for something material, such as the temple, the land of Israel, or the people of Israelunless, of course, the "others" are the Roman armies who conquered Judea and Jerusalem. But neither the Romans nor, by extension, the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) are likely in view, for whatever this vineyard represents, its loss is a consequence of Jesus' rejection, and its reestablishment a consequence of his vindication: "Have you not read this scripture: The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'?" (12:10). This statement makes it more likely that the "others" are Jesus' followers, and that the vineyard is the covenant relationship between God and Israel. The "pouring out" of Jesus' blood through the plotting of Jerusalem's leaders brings into effect a new covenant between God and those who participate in the Eucharist, a new relationship, although again characterized by "the fruit of the vine": "And he said to them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God' " (14:24-25; cf. "fruit of the vineyard" in 12:2). These identifications have additional intertextual and intratextual support. The details pertaining to the founding of the vineyard in Mark 12:1 are drawn from the extended metaphor of Isaiah 5, where the vineyard, the anticipated fruit, and the actual harvest (in this case wild grapes) have explicit referents: "For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!" (v. 7). In this original allegory, the harvest sought by God is righteousness in Israel. Thus, the vineyard, or house of Israel, is the people covenanted to God.16 The parallels with Jesus' search for figs in Mark 11:12-14 are patent. For Mark the barren fig tree and the withheld grapes are complementary symbols of unrighteousness, just as they are in Jer 8:13 ("there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree") and Mie 7:1 ("there is no cluster of grapes to eat, none of the early figs that I crave" [NIV]). As the "beloved son," Jesus is last
16 This differs only slightly from Mark's conception, where the vineyard cannot as readily be equated with the people themselves because it is transferable to others. Yet Mark comes close to equating the vineyard with the house of Israel in the element of the servants being sent to the vineyard, for these servants represent the prophets, who, of course, were not sent to the covenant relationship but to the people involved in it.

86 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 64, 2002 in a line of prophets (the "servants" in 12:2-5) seeking righteousness and justice among God's people. Like the vineyard in 12:1-9, then, the fig tree in 11:12-14, 20-21 stands for the covenant relationship.17 The cursing of the fig tree and the destruction of the tenants symbolize the removal of this covenant through the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the image of the rejected stone becoming the head of the corner points to the replacement of Israel's covenant with a new covenant open to anyone who partakes of the Messiah's covenant-ratifying blood by drinking the fruit of the vine. It is evident that the A2 story of this third intercalation (11:27-12:12) devel ops the nature of the antagonism between Jesus and the temple authorities in its corresponding A1 story (11:15-19); considered together, these final A stories pro vide both a rationale and a symbolic meaning for the destruction represented in the story of the discovery of the withered fig tree, thereby enriching the sym bolism conveyed in the other two intercalations. This third intercalation attributes the presence of commerce in the courtyard to self-interest on the part of Jerusa lem's religious leaders, who are acting as if the covenant existed for their benefit alone; hence they limit the area of the temple accessible to Gentiles and reject or kill any prophet who demands of them the righteousness ("fruit") that the cove nant was meant to produce. They think that by killing the Messiah or "heir apparent" of the house of Israel, they will be free to keep the benefits and bless ings of the covenant relationship for themselves.18 Ironically, the measures taken by these leaders to preserve their monopoly culminate in the loss of everything they sought to preserve: the covenant, the temple, the city, and their own positions as leaders and overseers of these things. C. Mark 11:1-19; 11:15-12:12; and the Defining Features of Intercalation To this point my intention has been to show (1) that 11:1-19 and 11:15-12:12 function as intercalations inasmuch as their inner and outer episodes are mutually interpretative; and (2) that when these passages are read as intercalations, the central, intercalated episodes of the cursing of the fig tree and the clearing of the temple are more fully elucidated. Having now established the utility of the sug gestion that the whole of 11:1-12:12 be comprehended as a triple intercalation,
Hence, the fig tree (like the vineyard) stands for more than the temple, see Wojciechowski, "Les fruits de la Loi," 287 "le figuier symbolise des dons de Dieu Israel, sa liaison particulire avec Dieu, sa fonction salvifique " Parallels with the targumic version of Gen 3 22 lead him to suggest that the fig tree ultimately symbolizes the Law (p 288), but that does not strike me as a more accurate statement of Mark's meaning 18 The concept of "the inheritance" in this allegory is rather puzzling It could suggest the perks of status and privilege that come from being an overseer of the covenant But it could also concern the rewards and benefits that result from keeping the covenant, cf 10 17, where a man asks Jesus what he must do "to inherit eternal life" and Jesus inquires whether he has kept the commandments ( e , the terms of the covenant) before suggesting that he also sell everything and follow him
17

MARK 11:1-12:12 87 it remains for me to show that these constructions actually exhibit the defining characteristics of intercalation as these have been designated in recent studies of this device. For this purpose I use a definition offered by James R. Edwards, who notes that each Marcan intercalation concerns a larger (usually narrative) unit of material consisting of two episodes or stories which are narrated in three para graphs or pericopes. The whole follows an A*-B-A2 schema, in which the B-episode forms an independent unit of material, whereas the flanking -episodes require one another to complete their narrative. The B-episode consists of only one story; it is not a series of stories, nor itself so long that the reader fails to link A2 with A1. Finally, A2 normally contains an allusion at its beginning which refers back to A1, e.g., repetition of a theme, proper nouns, etc. 19 According to this definition, intercalation involves two basically self-contained episodes. The outer story constitutes one episode in itself, the completion of which is delayed by the inner episode. This is certainly the case in the cursing of the fig tree, whose narrative is resumed and then completed after the narrating of the clearing of the temple. However, the two outer intercalations in the triple inter calation that I have proposed do not appear to involve only two distinct stories in this sense. This complicated structure, in fact, requires the A2 story of the initial intercalation (the clearing of the temple) to double as the A1 story of the third intercalation, with the consequence that the A stories of the outer intercalations are in three parts rather than just two. This divergence from the norm can, of course, be viewed simply as a variant necessitated by a more elaborate, inter locking structure, though the question remains whether 11:1-11; 11:15-19; and 11:27-12:12 constitute one episode divided into three pericopae. Put somewhat differently, we have to consider whether the A2 stories are necessary to complete their respective A1 stories. Strictly speaking, 11:1-11; 11:15-19; and 11:27-12:12 do not constitute one story; nevertheless, these three incidents are closely related to each other. The clearing of the temple is Jesus' response to what he witnessed in 11:11, and the encounter initiated by the chief priests, scribes, and elders when Jesus returns to the temple (11:27) is their initial reaction to Jesus' aggressive actions in the temple the preceding day (11:18): they want to know by what authority he is doing "these things." Thus, 11:1-11 is the prelude to 11:15-19, and 11:27-12:12 is the immediate aftermath. Moreover, in keeping with Edwards's description, the beginnings of the A2 stories allude to the A1 incidents through repetition. The openings of each of the A stories in the outer intercalations are verbally similar to each other, yet differ from their stories (or the openings of the A stories of
19 Edwards, "Sandwiches," 197. Cf. Tom Shepherd, "The Definition and Function of Markan Intercalation as Illustrated in a Narrative Analysis of Six Passages" (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1991) 315; idem, "Intercalation in Mark," 689. Both authors offer a number of other defining features; I am considering only the features upon which they and most other commentators agree.

88 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 64, 2002 the middle intercalation). Jerusalem is mentioned in the first and last verses of 11:1-11. Mark 11:15 begins similarly with "And they came to Jerusalem," and these specific words are recalled in 11:27 by "And they came again to Jerusalem." The two halves of the story of the cursing of the fig tree, on the other hand, do not mention Jerusalem or even the specific location of the encounter (somewhere between Bethany and Jerusalem) but are situated, rather, with reference to the sequence of days. More importantly, at the beginning of the A2 story Peter spots the fig tree and recalls the cursing of it on the preceding day. This repetition of themes at the beginnings of all the A stories in 11:1-12:12 is matched by notes of anticipation at the end of each A1 story. Once a reader understands what Jesus was doing in 11:11, that verse foreshadows the clearing of the temple. And the clearing of the temple ends with a comment anticipating the confrontation in 11:27: "And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him . . . " (11:18). The same sort of anticipatory connection exists in the central intercalation, where the disciples' discovery of the withered fig tree and Peter's "remembering" (anamnstheis, 11:20-21) were anticipated by the narrator's comment in 11:14 that the disciples heard Jesus' curse.20 These notes of anticipation are, in fact, the only elements that could be said to contribute to an impression that the intercalated stories are unfolding simultaneously, in the sense that some action, process, or attitude that began in the A1 story is still "going on" during the story.21 As it happens, of the six "classic" intercalations the cursing of the fig tree is the poorest example of this feature of intercalation, for the only element within the cursing narrative that might seem to be continuing during the clearing incident is the disciples' awareness that the tree was cursed.22 It is similarly difficult to argue for the existence of an "ellipsis" of 11:1-11 across 11:12-14, for the impres sion that Jesus' encounter with the fig tree is taking place while he is on his way to address what he saw in the temple (11:11) only emerges in retrospect of his actions in 11:15-19. The element of simultaneity is clearer in 11:15-12:12, how ever, where the intention of the chief priests and the scribes to destroy Jesus is 1 2 expressed at the end of the A narrative and acted upon at the beginning of the A
Notice the parallelism of 11 14b ( o referring to the curse) and 11 18 ( o o referring to the clearing) 21 As described by Shepherd ("Definition," 316), "something is 'left hanging' across the inner story's telling " He refers to this feature as "an ellipsis of the outer story across the inner story" ("Intercalation m Mark," 689) Though scholars commenting on this device commonly state that the two stories of an intercalation are m some measure unfolding simultaneously, the impression of simultaneity is only effectively achieved in 5 21-43 and 14 53-72 22 Were Mark concerned to suggest that the tree was withering while Jesus was clearing the temple, he would likely have had the disciples discover its withered condition immediately after this event, when Jesus and they were heading back to Bethany As the story stands, there is no suggestion of a temporal overlap of the cleanng of the temple and the withering of the tree
20

MARK 11:1-12:12 89 narrative. In this respect, 11:15-12:12 is very similar to 14:1-11, where the anointing of Jesus is set within the religious leaders' plot to destroy him (14:1-2, 10-11). Indeed, the A stories in 14:1-11 are a resumption of the plot introduced in the A 23 stories of 11:15-12:12. Like the latter intercalation, the element in 14:1-2 that continues through the narrative is this malevolent scheming, which in 14:10-11 culminates in Judas's decision to leave Jesus in order to betray him. III. Conclusions Mark 11:1-19 and 11:15-12:12 fit the general definition of intercalation quite wellat least as well as does the central, generally acknowledged instance of intercalation with which they overlap. Understanding the whole of 11:1-12:12 as a triple intercalation has hermeneutical value, for it allows a better appreciation of the symbolic interrelatedness of each of the incidents occurring therein. Mark 11:1-11 represents the enactment of Jesus' role in the allegory of 12:1-12: he is the Messiah (God's Son) come to the temple in search of righteousness, the "fruit" of the covenant between God and his people. This concept not only frames the central intercalation but is also interwoven with it, enriching the symbolism of the cursing of the barren tree and the clearing of the temple and clarifying the nature of the conflict between Jesus and Jerusalem's religious authorities. Through this triple intercalation, Mark conveys his theological conception of why God per mitted the Roman destruction of the temple and the holy city, the physical heart of the Jewish nation. Writing too early to perceive that Judaism would continue as a religion centered on the Torah, Mark considered this defeat to signify the end of a covenant that failed to bear the "fruit" of righteousness. For this he blamed mostly Jerusalem's religious aristocracy, whom he characterized as self-serving overseers (12:3-8) who would go to any length to keep the benefits of the covenant to themselves.
Compare 11:18 ("And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him") with 14:1 ("And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him"); and compare 12:12 ("And they tried to arrest him, but feared the multitude") with 14:2 (" 'Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people' " ) .
23

^,
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.