Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:28 pm
This book by Robbins sets out to do what so many others also set out to do, provide points of comparison illustrating how the story of Mark would have been read. But at the time of writing (1992), maybe, it was not yet cliche. Robbins pleads for the reader to consider Mark as something other than unique. There is not much concern evinced that there may be no unique solution to its lack of uniqueness, which is to say, that the problem isn't of finding a way to read Mark against other literature; it's finding just one way to read Mark, when many have been proposed.
Using references to the stories of Elijah and Elisha, and to Jeremiah, Robbins finds (p. 58):
In particular (p. 56):
Meanwhile, for Mark, Robbins finds (p. 58):
In particular (pp. 26-27):
And, for Xenophon, according to Robbins (p. 64):
It is characteristic to employ repetition with variation (p. 64):
Robbins says that Mark draws on both socio-rhetorical patterns (p. 65):
Robbins finds some significance in the way that second century readers viewed texts (pp. 65-66):
Accordingly, Robbins suggests that both kinds of literature should be considered as a source of 'perpetuation and adaptation of conventional forms' in Mark (Jesus the Teacher, pp. 67-68)
According to Robbins, a progression of encounters between a teacher and disciple-companions can be considered conventional in Greco-Roman literature (pp. 85-87):
After suggesting that "the role of Yahweh as a summoner and teacher" meant that "the Hebrew Bible contains only infrequent references either to teachers or to disciple-companions," although "it did contain the pattern of a prophet and his disciple-successor," Robbins writes (p. 88):
This pattern had an earlier origin in Greco-Roman literature and culture (pp. 88-89):
The calling of disciples was, according to Robbins, considered to show the "essence of that relationship" (p. 93):
Robbins quotes from Lives of the Eminent Philosophers to illustrate:
Robbins argues that the Greco-Roman accounts of teachers with disciples influenced both Mark and Josephus, with features above and beyond the biblical account, referring to the story of Elijah and Elisha (Jesus the Teacher, pp. 99-100):
Robbins argues that Mark's view of the teacher/disciple relationship is more characteristic of the Greco-Roman tradition than the rabbinic one (Jesus the Teacher, p. 101):
Robbins argues additionally (p. 102):
Thus, according to Robbins (pp. 107-108):
And so Robbins thinks that the reader is put in the position of choosing how to respond in terms of discipleship themselves, with reference to existing Greco-Roman models (pp. 110-111):
Robbins also sees similarities in the "intermediate phase" between a Greco-Roman teacher and Mark's Jesus (Jesus the Teacher, p. 127):
Robbins then sees a kind of third phase as well (Jesus the Teacher, pp. 127-128):
And a fourth phase that involves giving better public definition to the teacher's system of thought (Jesus the Teacher, p. 128):
Summarizing these comparisons (p. 128):
Robbins sees Mark's Jesus as performing those functions of Yahweh that are common to teachers in Mediterranean culture (p. 116):
Robbins concludes (p. 119):
I understand Robbins to be arguing that Mark's depiction of Jesus draws on the image of the Mediterranean teacher, which provided the reader with the way that Jesus would be naturally understood. I don't think he's attempting to argue that Mark depended on any particular narrative (such as Xenophon's); instead, Robbins remarks that there is not a great variety of literature that has survived that tells of the lives of Mediterranean teachers, so he is relying on that which does. Robbins also draws some parallels to Apollonius of Tyana as told by Philostratus, placing them both in the category of the Greco-Roman teacher. Robbins comments, for example:
I think this is an important facet of Mark, which can provide balance (as Robbins intends it to do) to attempts to situate Mark within the biblical tradition, while ignoring the Greco-Roman influences and neglecting the portrait of Jesus as teacher in Mark.
Using references to the stories of Elijah and Elisha, and to Jeremiah, Robbins finds (p. 58):
The three-step rhetorical pattern that exists in prophetic biblical narrative is as follows:
1. the word of the Lord comes to the prophet;
2. the prophet announces the word of the Lord;
3. events occur according to the words of the Lord that the prophet announces.
1. the word of the Lord comes to the prophet;
2. the prophet announces the word of the Lord;
3. events occur according to the words of the Lord that the prophet announces.
In particular (p. 56):
The principal repetitive forms in the Elijah/Elisha narrative reiterate the elements of this socio-rhetorical pattern. The first element of the form emerges in the programmatic repetitions that "the word of the Lord came upon Elijah." When the actual words of the Lord come to Elijah, they contain imperatives that command the prophet, with some variation, as follows: go and do and say. As a result of the commands, Elijah or Elisha go and do what the Lord commands.
In addition to whatever actions Elijah or Elisha are asked to perform, they are usually asked to deliver a word of the Lord to someone. As they begin, it is common for them to say, "Thus says the Lord (God' of Israel) ... " Twice a word of the Lord begins with "Hear the word of the Lord (1 Kings 22:19; 2 Kings 7:1). Frequently the statement contains 'As the Lord (the God of Israel, your God) lives ... " Twice Elijah adds "before whom I stand" (1 Kings 17:1; 18:15), and twice Elisha adds "whom I serve" (2 Kings 3:14; 5:16). The final element in the pattern is the assertion by the narrator that things occurred "according to the word of the Lord (which he spoke by Elijah [or Elisha])."
Within this socio-rhetorical pattern, the prophet of the Lord frequently makes commands to individuals on the basis of the word of the Lord to him. Most often the individuals do as the prophet commands, and always the things occur as the prophet says they will. Three times the narrator asserts that when people did what the prophet commanded them to do, the events occurred "according to the word of the Lord" (2 Kings 5:14; 7:16; 10:17).
The style of repetition in the ElijahlElisha narrative provides the legitimation for the prophets who speak words of the Lord. Events within the chronology of Israel's history create new situations for words of the Lord to be pronounced whereby prophets of the Lord are legitimated as true representatives of God's plan and will on the plane of human history.
In addition to whatever actions Elijah or Elisha are asked to perform, they are usually asked to deliver a word of the Lord to someone. As they begin, it is common for them to say, "Thus says the Lord (God' of Israel) ... " Twice a word of the Lord begins with "Hear the word of the Lord (1 Kings 22:19; 2 Kings 7:1). Frequently the statement contains 'As the Lord (the God of Israel, your God) lives ... " Twice Elijah adds "before whom I stand" (1 Kings 17:1; 18:15), and twice Elisha adds "whom I serve" (2 Kings 3:14; 5:16). The final element in the pattern is the assertion by the narrator that things occurred "according to the word of the Lord (which he spoke by Elijah [or Elisha])."
Within this socio-rhetorical pattern, the prophet of the Lord frequently makes commands to individuals on the basis of the word of the Lord to him. Most often the individuals do as the prophet commands, and always the things occur as the prophet says they will. Three times the narrator asserts that when people did what the prophet commanded them to do, the events occurred "according to the word of the Lord" (2 Kings 5:14; 7:16; 10:17).
The style of repetition in the ElijahlElisha narrative provides the legitimation for the prophets who speak words of the Lord. Events within the chronology of Israel's history create new situations for words of the Lord to be pronounced whereby prophets of the Lord are legitimated as true representatives of God's plan and will on the plane of human history.
Meanwhile, for Mark, Robbins finds (p. 58):
In Mark the three-step pattern that dominates the narrative is as fullows:
1. Jesus comes into a place accompanied by his disciples;
2. people interact both positively and negatively with the action and speech of Jesus;
3. Jesus summons his disciple-companions to transmit features of his action and thought that he has enacted before them
1. Jesus comes into a place accompanied by his disciples;
2. people interact both positively and negatively with the action and speech of Jesus;
3. Jesus summons his disciple-companions to transmit features of his action and thought that he has enacted before them
In particular (pp. 26-27):
Qualitative progression in the identity of Jesus occurs as new attributes and titles portraying qualities of Jesus' character emerge in situations that are somehow reminiscent of previous situations in the narrative. The three-step progressions unfold the attributes of Jesus in the following manner. Jesus is:
1. a prophet-teacher who follows one who was arrested (and will be killed), who authoritatively preaches the gospel of God, and who calls people to be his disciple-companions (1:14-20);
2. a miracle worker appropriately called Son of God who authoritatively names twelve disciples to be with him, to be sent out to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons (3:7-19);"
3. a rejected prophet who sends disciples out with preparation for settings in which they will be rejected (6:1-13);
4. a Messiah/Son of man who-after submitting to arrest, public humiliation, servanthood, and death-will arise an~ come again (8:27-
9:1);
5. an authoritative Son of David who enters the Jerusalem Temple and remolds expectations concerning its religious role (10:46-11:11);
6. a messianic prophet-teacher who transmits his system of thought and action to his followers and will come again as the heavenly Son of man to verify his statements (13:1-37).
This sequence of three-step progressions introduces a qualitative progression in the portrayal of Jesus. The pattern of behavior that Jesus repeats again and again reveals his social role as an itinerant teacher who transmits his system of thought and action to a group of disciple-companions. In the setting of this repetition, special attributes and titles of honor emerge to exhibit the distinctive character of his thought and action. The three-step progressions, therefore, gradually unfold a complete picture of Jesus as new dimensions of his thought and activity emerge.
1. a prophet-teacher who follows one who was arrested (and will be killed), who authoritatively preaches the gospel of God, and who calls people to be his disciple-companions (1:14-20);
2. a miracle worker appropriately called Son of God who authoritatively names twelve disciples to be with him, to be sent out to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons (3:7-19);"
3. a rejected prophet who sends disciples out with preparation for settings in which they will be rejected (6:1-13);
4. a Messiah/Son of man who-after submitting to arrest, public humiliation, servanthood, and death-will arise an~ come again (8:27-
9:1);
5. an authoritative Son of David who enters the Jerusalem Temple and remolds expectations concerning its religious role (10:46-11:11);
6. a messianic prophet-teacher who transmits his system of thought and action to his followers and will come again as the heavenly Son of man to verify his statements (13:1-37).
This sequence of three-step progressions introduces a qualitative progression in the portrayal of Jesus. The pattern of behavior that Jesus repeats again and again reveals his social role as an itinerant teacher who transmits his system of thought and action to a group of disciple-companions. In the setting of this repetition, special attributes and titles of honor emerge to exhibit the distinctive character of his thought and action. The three-step progressions, therefore, gradually unfold a complete picture of Jesus as new dimensions of his thought and activity emerge.
And, for Xenophon, according to Robbins (p. 64):
The socio-rhetorical pattern underlying the portrayal of Socrates in Xenophon's Memorabilia is stated bfthe narrator in 1.2.17: "all teachers themselves show their disciples how they themselves do what they teach, and lead them on by speech ... " This socio-rhetorical pattern contains three essential elements: (1) the teacher himself does what he teaches others to do; (2) the teacher interacts with others through speech to teach the system of thought and action he embodies; and (3) through his teaching and action the teacher transmits a religio-ethical system of thought and action to later generations through his disciple-companions.
It is characteristic to employ repetition with variation (p. 64):
We must remind ourselves, as we did above in chapter two, of the directive within Greco-Roman rhetorical literature: We shall not repeat the same thing precisely-for that, to be sure, would weary the hearer and not elaborate the idea---but with changes (Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.42.54).
The socio-rhetorical pattern of the religio-ethical teacher is manifest in phrases that are repeated with variation in Xenophon's Memorabilia. First, the narrator repeatedly introduces and concludes scenes of dialogue by referring to "such things" (...) said and done by Socrates. This leads to repeated references to Socrates 'himself' (...) and to what he himself did and said (...). By this action and speech he was useful (...), a special benefit, to others. He exerted his influence on others especially through conversation (...), exhorting (...) his companions and others toward good actions and thoughts and discouraging (...) them from bad actions and thoughts. The opportunity for these conversations often emerges "when seeing ... he said" (...) or "when learning that ... he said" (...). Frequently the conversation begins with Socrates' statement, "Tell me" (...). The result of this activity is that Socrates was able (...) to make his companions do what he directed them (poiein phis infinitive), making them better (...).
For this reason, an author repeats a phrase with variation throughout his document, elaborating the idea by saying the same thing over and over again with slight modifications.
The socio-rhetorical pattern of the religio-ethical teacher is manifest in phrases that are repeated with variation in Xenophon's Memorabilia. First, the narrator repeatedly introduces and concludes scenes of dialogue by referring to "such things" (...) said and done by Socrates. This leads to repeated references to Socrates 'himself' (...) and to what he himself did and said (...). By this action and speech he was useful (...), a special benefit, to others. He exerted his influence on others especially through conversation (...), exhorting (...) his companions and others toward good actions and thoughts and discouraging (...) them from bad actions and thoughts. The opportunity for these conversations often emerges "when seeing ... he said" (...) or "when learning that ... he said" (...). Frequently the conversation begins with Socrates' statement, "Tell me" (...). The result of this activity is that Socrates was able (...) to make his companions do what he directed them (poiein phis infinitive), making them better (...).
Robbins says that Mark draws on both socio-rhetorical patterns (p. 65):
Much as Xenophon's Memorabilia repeatedly refers to Socrates' conversations and exhortations to his disciple-companions, so the Gospel of Mark persistently reminds the reader that Jesus is accompanied by disciples whom he regularly summons to participate in the system of thought and action he manifests in their presence. Thus, while the Gospel of Mark claims a heritage that lies within prophetic biblical literature, it exhibits characteristics of the socio-rhetorical pattern present in Xenophon's Memorabilia.
Robbins finds some significance in the way that second century readers viewed texts (pp. 65-66):
Perhaps, therefore, it is not irrelevant that Christian writers during the second century referred to the gospels as apomnemoneumata. In Papias's account of the gospels (ca. 110-115 C.E.), the verb apomnemoneuo is used to describe Mark's composition of the first account of Jesus' life ...
In the middle of the century (between 150 and 160 C.E.), Justin refers to the gospels as Apomnemoneumata ton Apostolon (of the apostles). ... Justin refers thirteen times to the Christian Apomnemoneumata. ... For almost two hundred years after Justin, early Christians could still refer to the gospels as apomnemoneumata. Tatian's Oration to the Greeks (ca. 160 C.E.) appears to refer to the gospels as apomnemoneumata, and Eusebius in the fourth century (ca. 300-340 C.E.) calls them apomnemoneumata.
In the middle of the century (between 150 and 160 C.E.), Justin refers to the gospels as Apomnemoneumata ton Apostolon (of the apostles). ... Justin refers thirteen times to the Christian Apomnemoneumata. ... For almost two hundred years after Justin, early Christians could still refer to the gospels as apomnemoneumata. Tatian's Oration to the Greeks (ca. 160 C.E.) appears to refer to the gospels as apomnemoneumata, and Eusebius in the fourth century (ca. 300-340 C.E.) calls them apomnemoneumata.
Accordingly, Robbins suggests that both kinds of literature should be considered as a source of 'perpetuation and adaptation of conventional forms' in Mark (Jesus the Teacher, pp. 67-68)
Thus three pieces of evidence suggest that an analysis of the perpetuation and adaptation of conventional forms in the Gospel of Mark should include Xenophon's Memorabilia as well as prophetic biblical literature. First, repetitive forms in Mark suggest an intermingling of the socio-rhetorical pattern of the prophet of the Lord with the sociorhetorical pattern of the disciple-gathering teacher. While repetitive forms in prophetic biblical literature exhibit the pattern of the prophet of the Lord, repetitive forms in Xenophon's Memorabilia exhibit the pattern of the disciple-gathering teacher. Secondly, Papias considered the Gospel of Mark to have both form and content like an apomnemoneumata, and he described the process of composition and the final product in such terms. Thirdly, even after the Christian community began to call the accounts of Jesus gospels, Christian writers until the fourth century could refer to them as apomnemoneumata. Detailed investigation of the perpetuation and adaptation of conventional forms in the Gospel of Mark, therefore, must glean comparative data at least from prophetic biblical literature and Xenophon's Memorabilia.
According to Robbins, a progression of encounters between a teacher and disciple-companions can be considered conventional in Greco-Roman literature (pp. 85-87):
While the qualitative progression from Jesus' prophetic action and speech (Mark 1:14-15) to his confrontation of four men with a command to become his disciple-companions (Mark 1:16-20) is acceptable to any reader on the basis of the previous assertions about Jesus in the narrative, the progression is more conventional in Greco-Roman literature than in biblical literature. The progression in- Xenophon's Memorabilia 4.1.5 to 4.2.1-40 presents a good example. Like Jesus' speech in Mark 1:14-15, the direct speech of Socrates in Memorabilia 4.1.5 provides a summary of the teacher's message before his activity begins. Socrates' speech is as follows:
...
The ensuing scene features Socrates confronting Euthydemus with exhortation and enticement until he decides to become Socrates' disciplecompanion. At the end the narrator tells us:
The encounters between Socrates and Euthydemus result in Euthydemus's decision to spend as much time as possible with Socrates. In fact, "unless obliged to absent himself, he never left him." In return, Socrates began to expound things to him most plainly and clearly. The progression from the summary of Socrates' teaching to his encounters with Euthydemus emphasizes the initial moments in the relation between a teacher and a disciple-companion. The dialogue after the Introduction and Initial Phase in the Teacher/Disciple Cycle successful efforts of Socrates extends the initial confrontations into an entire phase of preliminary interaction between Socrates and a disciplecompanion. Similarly, the progression in Mark from the summary of Jesus' teaching (1:14-15) to his call of four disciples (1:16-20) to his ministry in Capernaum and the surrounding region (1:21-3:6) extends the initial moments of Jesus' ministry into an entire phase of preliminary interaction with his disciple-companions. The initial moment of confrontation between Jesus and his disciple-companions features immediate response to Jesus' summons, and the events that build on the initial moment portray the willingness of a select group to associate with Jesus on a sustained basis.
Only a fool can think it possible to distinguish between things useful and things harmful without learning;
only a fool can think that without distinguishing these he will get all he wants by means of his wealth and be able to do what is expedient;
only a simpleton can think that without the power to do what is expedient he is doing well and has made good or sufficient provision for his life;
only a simpleton can think that by his wealth alone without knowledge he will be reputed good at something, or will enjoy a good reputation without being reputed good at anything in particular (Memorabilia 4.1.5).
only a fool can think that without distinguishing these he will get all he wants by means of his wealth and be able to do what is expedient;
only a simpleton can think that without the power to do what is expedient he is doing well and has made good or sufficient provision for his life;
only a simpleton can think that by his wealth alone without knowledge he will be reputed good at something, or will enjoy a good reputation without being reputed good at anything in particular (Memorabilia 4.1.5).
...
The ensuing scene features Socrates confronting Euthydemus with exhortation and enticement until he decides to become Socrates' disciplecompanion. At the end the narrator tells us:
Euthydemus guessed that he would never be of much account unless he spent as much time as possible with Socrates. Henceforward, unless obliged to absent himself he never left him, and even began to adopt some of his practices. Socrates, for his part, seeing how it was with him, avoided worrying him, and began to expound very plainly and clearly the knowledge that he thought most needful and the practices that he held to be most excellent (4.2.40).
The encounters between Socrates and Euthydemus result in Euthydemus's decision to spend as much time as possible with Socrates. In fact, "unless obliged to absent himself, he never left him." In return, Socrates began to expound things to him most plainly and clearly. The progression from the summary of Socrates' teaching to his encounters with Euthydemus emphasizes the initial moments in the relation between a teacher and a disciple-companion. The dialogue after the Introduction and Initial Phase in the Teacher/Disciple Cycle successful efforts of Socrates extends the initial confrontations into an entire phase of preliminary interaction between Socrates and a disciplecompanion. Similarly, the progression in Mark from the summary of Jesus' teaching (1:14-15) to his call of four disciples (1:16-20) to his ministry in Capernaum and the surrounding region (1:21-3:6) extends the initial moments of Jesus' ministry into an entire phase of preliminary interaction with his disciple-companions. The initial moment of confrontation between Jesus and his disciple-companions features immediate response to Jesus' summons, and the events that build on the initial moment portray the willingness of a select group to associate with Jesus on a sustained basis.
After suggesting that "the role of Yahweh as a summoner and teacher" meant that "the Hebrew Bible contains only infrequent references either to teachers or to disciple-companions," although "it did contain the pattern of a prophet and his disciple-successor," Robbins writes (p. 88):
By the end of the first century C.E., the terminology and pattern of a teacher and his disciple-companions are well established in the writings of Flavius Josephus, tannaitic rabbinic traditions, and the gospels. The Gospel of Mark is representative of this shift in pattern and terminology, containing seventeen occurrences of the verb didaskein (to teach), twelve occurrences of the noun didaskalos (teacher), and forty-five occurrences of the noun mathetes (disciple-companion).
This pattern had an earlier origin in Greco-Roman literature and culture (pp. 88-89):
The source of the teacher/disciple pattern and of summons and response as a means of initiating a teacher/disciple relationship in Mediterranean culture is not difficult to uncover. The dynamics of summons and response accompanied the social identity of a teacher from the fifth century B.C.E. onwards in Greco-Roman literature and culture. The sophist tradition of the teacher and his disciples provides the base for development of the cultural and literary traditions. The impetus for the teacher/disciple relation is summarized in Plato's Apology 19E when Socrates describes the sophists' habit of seeking young men to join up with them:
It was a common practice of sophists to travel from city to city in order to gather disciples who would seek to embody wisdom and virtue by associating with them, receiving instruction from them, and imitating them. From the fifth century B.C.E. through the second century C.E., a wide variety of itinerant teachers was active throughout the Mediterranean world, producing a well-established cultural tradition of the traveling preacher-teacher who gathered disciples. Cynics figure prominently among these itinerant teachers, traveling from city to city with personal furnishings of a short cloak, a wallet, and a staff often gathering disciples who followed them around. Often itinerants were more representative of a form of life in the culture than of a particular philosophy, and their message was syncretistic in content, blending philosophical and rhetorical streams of tradition.
After the sophists had been active for a short time, the philosopher-teacher named Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.) began his activities in and around Athens. Socrates did not travel from city to city to gather disciplecompanions, but his teaching activity gave rise to literature that portrayed him attracting young men into his company for the purpose of leading them to understand important truths about life and the world. Socrates' summons is found in the section of the dialogues customarily designated the protrepticus. In the protrepticus, imperative mood is frequent on the lips of Socrates as he urges, and even compels, young men to respond to him.
This also seems to me to be a fine thing, if one might be able to teach people, as Gorgias of Leontini and Prodicus of Ceos and Hippias of Elis are. For each of these men, gentlemen, is able to go into anyone of the cities and persuade the young men, who can associate for nothing with whomsoever they wish among their own fellow citizens, to give up the association with those men and to associate with them and pay them money and be grateful besides.
It was a common practice of sophists to travel from city to city in order to gather disciples who would seek to embody wisdom and virtue by associating with them, receiving instruction from them, and imitating them. From the fifth century B.C.E. through the second century C.E., a wide variety of itinerant teachers was active throughout the Mediterranean world, producing a well-established cultural tradition of the traveling preacher-teacher who gathered disciples. Cynics figure prominently among these itinerant teachers, traveling from city to city with personal furnishings of a short cloak, a wallet, and a staff often gathering disciples who followed them around. Often itinerants were more representative of a form of life in the culture than of a particular philosophy, and their message was syncretistic in content, blending philosophical and rhetorical streams of tradition.
After the sophists had been active for a short time, the philosopher-teacher named Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.) began his activities in and around Athens. Socrates did not travel from city to city to gather disciplecompanions, but his teaching activity gave rise to literature that portrayed him attracting young men into his company for the purpose of leading them to understand important truths about life and the world. Socrates' summons is found in the section of the dialogues customarily designated the protrepticus. In the protrepticus, imperative mood is frequent on the lips of Socrates as he urges, and even compels, young men to respond to him.
The calling of disciples was, according to Robbins, considered to show the "essence of that relationship" (p. 93):
In The Clouds, the initial phase of the teacher/disciple relation is captured in a dramatic moment. The teacher summons a young man; the young man responds; and the venture begins whereby the young man follows the teacher into unknown areas of life and knowledge. From the fifth century B.C.E. to the third century C.E., the rehearsal of the initial moment functions as a means of characterizing the entire relationship that develops between a teacher and a student-disciple. When Diogenes Laertius (ca. 200-250 C.E.) wishes to characterize Xenophon as a loyal disciple who defended the reputation of his teacher Socrates by composing the Memorabilia, he considers the essence of that relationship to be present in Socrates' summons of Xenophon.
Robbins quotes from Lives of the Eminent Philosophers to illustrate:
Socrates met him (Xenophon) in a narrow passage, and that he stretched out his stick to bar the way, while he inquired where every kind of food was sold. Upon receiving a reply, he put another question, and where do men become good and honourable?" Xenophon was fairly puzzled; "Then follow me (hepou toinun)," said Socrates, "and learn." From that time onward he was a disciple (akroates) of Socrates (2.48).
Robbins argues that the Greco-Roman accounts of teachers with disciples influenced both Mark and Josephus, with features above and beyond the biblical account, referring to the story of Elijah and Elisha (Jesus the Teacher, pp. 99-100):
As interpreters have recognized, the Elijah/Elisha stories represent the closest parallel in the Hebrew Bible to the teacher/disciple relation in the gospels. Nevertheless, essential features of the summoning teacher tradition are absent from the Hebrew account. Elisha accompanies Elijah as a servant, not a student-disciple, and Elijah is not portrayed teaching Elisha a particular system of understanding and action. In the Hebrew account, the prophet tradition includes a servant-successor tradition that is ready to be interpreted by means of the itinerant teacher/disciple tradition in Greco-Roman culture. Even the LXX account of the story, however, does not impose teacher/disciple language upon the relation of Elijah and Elisha. The few alterations in the LXX account maintain the Israelite tradition of the prophet/servant relation as it is recounted in the Hebrew text.
In accord with Greco-Roman accounts of teachers with disciples, Josephus's first-century account of Elijah's call of Elisha presupposes that Elijah is taking the action necessary to convince Elisha to become his disciple. As Josephus condenses the story, he portrays Elisha simply leaving his oxen and his parents and following Elijah. Josephus omits the biblical statement, "Go back again; for what have I done to you?" (1 Kings 19:20), because the entire account now presupposes that the action is designed to attain the response of following as a disciple-companion. Still, in contrast to the Socratic traditions and the Gospel of Mark, Josephus's account of Elijah's call of Elisha does not contain a direct command to come to him. Josephus retains the biblical feature whereby Elijah casts the mantle over Elisha to confer the office of prophet upon him. Like Mark's gospel, however, the Josephus account contains the structure and terminology of the teacher who comes to a man who is engaged in his daily labor, and of the disciple who leaves his work and parents to follow his itinerant teacher.
In accord with Greco-Roman accounts of teachers with disciples, Josephus's first-century account of Elijah's call of Elisha presupposes that Elijah is taking the action necessary to convince Elisha to become his disciple. As Josephus condenses the story, he portrays Elisha simply leaving his oxen and his parents and following Elijah. Josephus omits the biblical statement, "Go back again; for what have I done to you?" (1 Kings 19:20), because the entire account now presupposes that the action is designed to attain the response of following as a disciple-companion. Still, in contrast to the Socratic traditions and the Gospel of Mark, Josephus's account of Elijah's call of Elisha does not contain a direct command to come to him. Josephus retains the biblical feature whereby Elijah casts the mantle over Elisha to confer the office of prophet upon him. Like Mark's gospel, however, the Josephus account contains the structure and terminology of the teacher who comes to a man who is engaged in his daily labor, and of the disciple who leaves his work and parents to follow his itinerant teacher.
Robbins argues that Mark's view of the teacher/disciple relationship is more characteristic of the Greco-Roman tradition than the rabbinic one (Jesus the Teacher, p. 101):
Analysis of the initiation of the teacher/disciple relation, however, suggests that the portrayal of the teacher/disciple relation in Mark is a distinctive adaptation of aspects from both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions. In rabbinic literature, rabbis are not depicted traveling around as Jesus does to find people who will respond to his summons to become disciple-companions. Instead, the tradition emphasizes the initiative by individual people to receive permission from a rabbi to become one of his student-disciples. The stories that characterize the beginning of a teacher/disciple relationship, therefore, receive their plot from the struggle of a young man to gain acceptance by a rabbi rather than the action and summons of a rabbi to attain a response from a person whom he wants as a disciple-companion. The stories tend to feature student-disciples who later become well-known rabbis themselves.
Robbins argues additionally (p. 102):
The rabbinic account presupposes a school tradition rather than an itinerant tradition. The student travels, but the teacher does not travel. Moreover, the account presupposes that the teacher/disciple relation is established by means of request rather than summons. The student-disciple, by means of his initiative, confronts the teacher, instead of the teacher summoning the'disciple as in Socratic literature and in Mark.
Thus, according to Robbins (pp. 107-108):
In Mark the teacher seeks, summons, and commissions people to be his disciple-companions, promising to make them into people who are' able to seek, summon, and commission people in a manner similar to himself. Jesus' activity is itinerant activity, like Apollonius's activity. But the rhetorical form of the stories that initiate the teacher/disciple relation results from an adaptation of conventional forms and patterns in circles independent from the direct influence of either rabbinic traditions or Greek philosophical traditions. The rhetorical form of these stories intermingles conventional patterns and forms from biblical and Greek heritages in a manner that requires the interpreter to investigate the early literature as intensively'as the literature contemporary with Mark's gospel.
And so Robbins thinks that the reader is put in the position of choosing how to respond in terms of discipleship themselves, with reference to existing Greco-Roman models (pp. 110-111):
The reader, however, has the opportunity to respond on the basis of a comprehensive account of the activity of Jesus. His or her relationship to Jesus may be like Socrates' discipleship to Homer, as discussed in Dio Chrysostom, Oration 55.2-4; and Pythagoras's discipleship to the Egyptians and Chaldeans, as discussed in Isocrates, Busiris 28-29 and Josephus, Against Apion 1.14. The reader sees the entire system of thought and action as it was manifested by Jesus during his adult life. Like the multitudes that follow, the reader has the opportunity to respond favorably to Jesus' thought and action. Instead of partial knowledge, however, the reader has a comprehensive account on which to base a response.
Robbins also sees similarities in the "intermediate phase" between a Greco-Roman teacher and Mark's Jesus (Jesus the Teacher, p. 127):
After the section of introductory teaching, the portrayal of the teacher progresses to a stage where the system of thought and action reaches a new level of complexity as a result of its application in the public sphere. Memorabilia 4.4.1-25 develops the complexity, first of all, by reference to Socrates' death for the cause of justice (4.4.4) and, secondly, through confrontation with the sophist Hippias in which Socrates presents his understanding of the unwritten laws ordained by the gods concerning justice (4.4.5-25). The narrator ends the section by referring to the words and actions that Socrates used to encourage justice among his companions (4.4.25). This section has a function in Memorabilia 4 similar to the function of Mark 6:1-8:26 in the Gospel of Mark. During this stage in the Gospel of Mark, the complexity of Jesus' system of thought and action is developed. First, it is developed through Jesus' rejection in Nazareth (6:1-6) and John the Baptist's death and burial (6:14-29), which set the stage for the mission of the Twelve (6: 7-13, 30) and Jesus' feeding of five thousand and then four thousand people (6:31-44; 8:1-10). Secondly, when scribes and Pharisees confront Jesus with the charge that his disciples violate hand-washing laws, Jesus presents a countercharge and displays his understanding of the laws of God that supersede the laws of men (7:1-23). In both documents, the underlying dimensions of the initial teaching are expanded in the setting of public exhibition of the action and direct confrontation with teachers who oppose the system of thought and action.
Robbins then sees a kind of third phase as well (Jesus the Teacher, pp. 127-128):
After the stage in which the teacher's system of thought and action acquires greater complexity through its application in the public sphere, the teacher attempts to teach his disciple-companions the central dimensions of his system of thought and action. In Memorabilia 4.5.1-12, Socrates reengages Euthydemus in conversation to teach him the paradox that, although pleasure would appear to be attained through incontinence, which allows a person to avoid everything of displeasure, pleasure actually is attained through self-control which, by causing a person to endure sufferings, allows a person to consider the things that matter most and are most pleasurable (4.5.9). 1Dis section has a function in Memorabilia 4 similar to the function of 8:27-10:45 in the Gospel of Mark. During this stage in Mark, Jesus teaches his disciple-companions the central, paradoxical dimensions of his system of thought and action. In contrast to the opinions of men that resist the need for suffering, the ways of God require the person who wishes to save his or her life to be willing to deny him- or herself and lose his or her life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (8:34-37). In practical terms, this means that whoever wishes to be great and first must be a servant and last of all (10:43-44). In this stage, therefore, the dimensions of the system of thought and action that appear to be contradictory or paradoxical are taught to the disciple-companions.
And a fourth phase that involves giving better public definition to the teacher's system of thought (Jesus the Teacher, p. 128):
The fourth stage of the teaching/learning phase features the teacher and his disciple-companions giving public definition to the teacher's system of thought and action. In Memorabilia 4.6.1-15, the fourth section of the teaching/learning phase, Socrates briefly analyzes and defines piety, justice, wisdom, goodness, beauty, courage, good government, and good citizenship in a manner that can be understood by people outside the circle of his disciple-companions (4.6.2-14). This section has a function in Memorabilia 4 similar to the function of 10:46-12:44 in the Gospel of Mark. During this stage in the Gospel of Mark, the entire range of teachers and leaders in Judaism (Herodians, Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes) comes to Jesus to hear his public response to issues concerning taxes, resurrection, the commandments, and messiahship (12:13-44). Jesus' responses provide public definitions that do not attempt to communicate the central, paradoxical dimensions of his own system of thought and action. Rather, they address the issues that dominate the thoughts of people in the public domain. The final section in the teaching/learning phase, therefore, presupposes the detailed dimensions of the teacher's system of thought and action and displays the issues that attract attention in the public domain.
Summarizing these comparisons (p. 128):
Both Mark and Xenophon's Memorabilia reflect a teaching/learning sequence that proceeds through four stages: (1) basic introduction to the system of thought and action; (2) added complexity of the system when it is applied in the public sphere alongside an alternative system of thought and action; (3) an attempt to teach central, paradoxical dimensions of the system to disciplecompanions; and (4) definitions of issues that are of public concern but are not the central dimensions of the teacher's system of thought and action.
Robbins sees Mark's Jesus as performing those functions of Yahweh that are common to teachers in Mediterranean culture (p. 116):
In Mark, however, the function of Yahweh as summoner is not transferred directly from Yahweh to Jesus. The Gospel of Mark presents Jesus performing a combination of activities from Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions. Jesus summons, instructs, transfers his abilities and authority, and sends people out to perform tasks as a mortal who is limited by other people's authority and by an adult career that ends in death. In contrast to Yahweh, the autonomy of Jesus is not complete. Jesus enjoys the favor of heaven, but as a mortal he faces limitations that arise from the realm of human society and action. In Mark, Jesus' mortality is portrayed through the Greco-Roman tradition of autonomous itinerant teachers who gather disciple-companions for the purpose of transmitting a system of thought and action to them. In this role, Jesus can by no means perform all the functions of Yahweh. As a matter of fact, dimensions of the autonomous Yahweh tradition itself provide the overarching framework whereby Jesus' autonomy receives its limits. As Jesus performs functions of Yahweh that are functions common to teachers in Mediterranean culture, the Yahweh tradition stands above his mortality to sanction him, empower him, and require that he accept mortal death. In other words, while Jesus, as portrayed in Mark, has authority from heaven, he is a mortal who must adopt a social role and accept the consequences of that role. In Mark, action and response surrounding an itinerant teacher who gathers disciple-companions and programmatically transmits a system of thought and action to them establish the context for Jesus' authority and limitations. The role of the itinerant teacher in Mediterranean culture provides the framework for possession of autonomous wisdom and power which is limited by mortality in the realm of human action.
Robbins concludes (p. 119):
Jesus summons, teaches, and commissions with the comportment and authority characteristic of Socrates in Greco-Roman tradition. The distinctiveness of-Mark lies in the presence of the God of Israel as one who sanctions the activity ofJesus but does not instruct Jesus in his actions during his adult career. The author of Mark shows very little reserve in the portrayal of Jesus' self-possessed authority to call and commission those whom he wishes to be with him and whom he himself wishes to send out to extend the activity in which he is engaged.
Therefore, a basic dimension of the "messianic" nature of Jesus' activity in Mark arises from the adaptation of the autonomous stature of the teacher in Greco-Roman tradition and the subsequent importation of this emphasis on autonomy into Jewish tradition where God has been the dominant autonomous figure. If interpretation of Mark emphasizes only the last half of the gospel in which Jesus submits to God's will that he die, the influence of the autonomous teacher role in the context of Hellenistic culture is ignored.
Therefore, a basic dimension of the "messianic" nature of Jesus' activity in Mark arises from the adaptation of the autonomous stature of the teacher in Greco-Roman tradition and the subsequent importation of this emphasis on autonomy into Jewish tradition where God has been the dominant autonomous figure. If interpretation of Mark emphasizes only the last half of the gospel in which Jesus submits to God's will that he die, the influence of the autonomous teacher role in the context of Hellenistic culture is ignored.
I understand Robbins to be arguing that Mark's depiction of Jesus draws on the image of the Mediterranean teacher, which provided the reader with the way that Jesus would be naturally understood. I don't think he's attempting to argue that Mark depended on any particular narrative (such as Xenophon's); instead, Robbins remarks that there is not a great variety of literature that has survived that tells of the lives of Mediterranean teachers, so he is relying on that which does. Robbins also draws some parallels to Apollonius of Tyana as told by Philostratus, placing them both in the category of the Greco-Roman teacher. Robbins comments, for example:
Philostratus's Apollonius presents an extended narrative sequence that contains the entire cycle of the teacher/disciple relationship in contrast to individual dialogues that contain segments of the cycle. Since Damis accompanies Apollonius throughout Apollonius's adult career as a philosopher-teacher, the full cycle of relationships between a teacher and a disciple-companion is manifested most vividly between these two in Philostratus's Apollonius.
I think this is an important facet of Mark, which can provide balance (as Robbins intends it to do) to attempts to situate Mark within the biblical tradition, while ignoring the Greco-Roman influences and neglecting the portrait of Jesus as teacher in Mark.