Jesus, Disciple of the Kingdom. Osvaldo D. Vena

14–20, as she applies this concept to historical-Jesus research. I also tend to view discourse as ideological construction.

9. I borrow this expression from Terrence W. Tilley, because it corresponds somehow to Gutierrez’s understanding of “praxis.” Tilley says that practice is a term of art where the key is the learning aspect of the practice: “One learns how to engage in a practice; only then can one know what the practice is and what participation in the practice produces—including among the products of practice those dispositions we call ‘beliefs’ and formulate in sentences. . . . The practices are primary; the doctrines are derivative.” Tilley, Disciples’ Jesus, 13, 14.

10. “The various theologies present in them [the texts of the NT], accordingly, fail to be interpreted, in part at least, as the symbolical provinces of meaning erected by the authors of the various texts, or by the traditions before them, to legitimate the early gatherings of Christians, not yet even bearing that name. In the light of the model, New Testament theologies become sacred canopies for those fragile social worlds seeking to find a place for themselves and their faith, in the teeth of opposition from without and dissention and ennui within.” Esler, First Christians, 11.

11. This made-up expression is borrowed from a conversation with my colleague, Ken Vaux.

12. William R. Herzog II has alerted us of the problematic nature of the word “ministry” when applied to Jesus. He writes: “The use of ministry to describe Jesus’ activities implies that the model for understanding Jesus is Christian ministry. While this model might be useful in a number of theological or ecclesiastical contexts, it assumes too much and is anachronistic when applied to the historical Jesus.” Prophet and Teacher, 1. Nevertheless, for our purpose in this work, the word ministry is still relevant because Mark is writing for a Christian community involved in ministry. The historical Jesus is not the object of our study, but rather Mark’s Christological construction of Jesus as the disciple of the kingdom.

13. For this idea, see Robbins, Tapestry, 1–17.

14. Here it is important to remember what Robbins says about the nature of texts, namely, that they are “performances of language, and language is part of the inner fabric of society, culture, ideology, and religion.” Robbins, Tapestry, 1. Therefore, Mark’s use of language cannot be separated from the society and culture that produced it. Both aspects will be considered as we delve deeply into the inner workings of Mark’s text.

15. Esler, First Christians, 13.

16. I use “orthodox” in a broad sense. What I mean is any view of the Bible or of the Christian tradition that claims to be the “right one,” and therefore, the only valid interpretation. Even though, for the most part, I have in mind conservative approaches to biblical scholarship, the term can also be used to describe any view that takes on the mantle of normativity.

17. It needs to be said, from the outset, that in emphasizing “orthopraxis” over “orthodoxy,” I will be proposing an alternative view to the traditional one of Jesus as Lord and Savior.

18. Schüssler Fiorenza, But She Said, 72–73.

19. James H. Cone has said that “without the historical Jesus—and by that he means the human Jesus—theology is left with a docetic Christ who is said to be human, but is actually nothing but an idea-principle in a theological system.” Cone, God of the Oppressed, 118.

20. Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation, 59

21. I already anticipated this, ever so intuitively, in a previous publication in which I say: “In the gospel of Mark Jesus is the one who embodies authentic discipleship.” And also, “The gospel of Mark is then more about discipleship than it is about Christology, it is more about who is a true disciple than it is about who is the real Messiah.” But at that point, I had not yet made the connection between discipleship and Christology that I am making in this book. At the time, I still thought of Christology in exalted terms, not in practical, praxiological ones, as I do now. Vena, “Rhetorical and Theological Center of Mark’s Gospel,” 343–45.

22. In a first trial run of this idea in front of a Latin American audience, the comment was made that if it was already difficult for a believer to measure up to the disciples of Jesus, how much more difficult would it be, now that Jesus is made into the model of discipleship, to live up to these standards. I recognize that this is a problem, especially if one sees the difference between Jesus and the disciples as ontological. I will contend, though, that the difference is not ontological but relational. In this work, I will propose a different view of Jesus’ relationship to both God and humans.

23. Schüssler Fiorenza criticizes the criterion of plausibility that judges materials on the basis of whether or not they can be made to fit into the culture and times of Jesus. This criterion tends to ignore the fact that that which is considered plausible, or common sense, depends on an hegemonic understanding of how the world works, and that this understanding is derived from a certain type of scholarship marked by the presupposition that women were not active participants in the Jesus movement. Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation, 51–55. Applying the same criticism to the criterion of plausibility, I would like to suggest that Jesus as disciple of the kingdom is not only plausible, since he started his career as a disciple of John the Baptist, but also possible, especially when one considers that the Markan community may represent a theological stand that is in some ways pre-Orthodox. Those who deny the possibility of a Christology where Jesus is presented as a model of discipleship, and that perhaps this was the main or prevalent way of understanding Jesus given the rhetorical shape and the theological flavor of the gospel, will have to prove that such possibility did not exist at the time of Mark.

24. I am very interested in the subject at hand. This means that my investigation is “interested.” I come to the text with a pre-understanding. I do not consider this to be a hindrance or a drawback to the exegetical endeavor, but rather a healthy motivation. In the words of Daniel Patte, “Coming to the text with a vested interest, and thus a question or an expectation, does not in itself engender a misreading. In sum, preunderstandings motivate our readings, including our critical readings.” Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation, 56.

25. I owe this insight to my colleague, David Hogue.

26. Here it is important to notice how social location affects theology. What for me became irrelevant, for other people was crucial to their religious experience. For example, the slaves knew that their situation of oppression and exploitation was going to be changed the day they died, when they arrived to the other shore of the Jordan; so they sang: “Sooner-a-will be done with the trouble of this world, going home to live with God.” Because of their predicament, they were not interested