Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Messiah prophesied by Isaiah has come, 15 April 2009
Mark Chapters 1 - 8, translation and commentary by Joel Marcus
My edition is paperback, Doubleday/Anchor Bible, 2005/2007.
This is an excellent book.
First come about 80 pages of Introduction, dealing with the author, `Mark', his intended readership (the Marcan - US `Markan' - Community), date (and place) of composition, inter-gospel relationships, Mark and Paul, Mark's Christology and his apocalyptic eschatology, and especially the influence on Mark and his community of the Jewish revolt of AD 66-73 against Rome.
Secondly come 50 pages of bibliography (about 1,000 books/articles).
Then, thirdly, comes the heart of the book: the Translation, Notes and Comments, pericope by periscope, of /on 1.1 to 8.21, occupying about 380 pages. Usefully, the Note on each phrase or verse almost always includes the full original Greek text - but in an unobtrusive transliterated script, not in Greek characters.
Fourthly, 14 pages of Appendices, which are all-too-brief `excursuses' on The Scribes and the Pharisees, The Messianic Secret Motif, and The Son of Man.
Finally, a brief Glossary, and then indexes of modern authors, subjects, and biblical, extra-biblical-Jewish (Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinical, etc.) and other ancient sources, Christian and non-Christian.
What particularly appeals to me is the power of Joel Marcus's rooting of the Marcan Jesus in the Jewish background. The key source is of course the Old Testament, but the intertestamental and rabbinic literatures are shown to contribute to authenticating almost every sentence of Mark's picture of Jesus. Marcus strongly links many Marcan texts to Genesis (especially ch.1) and Exodus (passim - the Crossing, the Mosaic role, the manna, the `temptation'). Exodus, like Gen 1, prefigures Christians: a new creation, new people of God through baptism and the manna/Marcan-bread-multiplications/Eucharist connection). Everywhere, Mark's Jesus echoes/fulfils Psalms, Isaiah (massively: proto-, deutero- and trito-), Daniel and 1 Enoch. Usefully, Marcus frequently quotes the exact words of the LXX (the pre-Christian Jewish translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek, used both by diaspora Jews and by the first Christian communities and the NT writers), words that Mark in his turn uses when describing a parallel feature of the person and activity of Jesus.
Of course, all modern exegetes make such relevant connections and emphases, reading back the New Testament story into the Old Testament and reading forward the Old Testament into the New, but Marcus does it splendidly.
Marcus highlights the constant Marcan portrayal, already in Mark's chapter 1, of Jesus' mission as a conflict with Satan, constantly broadened to include two parties: Jesus, the Spirit, God acting in Jesus, good angels and righteous human beings, ranged against Satan with his demonic associates and human agents.
Marcus concludes that Mark was written between 69 and 75 AD, certainly in the context of the Jewish revolt against the Romans (66-73 AD) and the confidently prophesied or actually completed destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Its addressees would be a Christian community (in the region of Syria?) actually already enduring the sufferings of internal divisions and external persecutions resulting from this war, which broke out because of the apocalyptic dreams of `the false Messiahs and false prophets' (Mark 13) who looked for a conquering Davidic military messiah.
This leads me to suggest that Marcus's book could profitably have included an excursus discussing `the kingdom (Greek `basileia') of God'. Marcus translates the four occurrences of `basileia tou theou' in chapters 1-8 (in 1.15, 4.11, 4.26, 4.30) as `the dominion of God', which other translations render as the familiar `the kingdom of God'. Marcus's index is informative: he lists 33 references under the entry `Dominion of God', but the entry `Kingdom of God' says simply: "See `Dominion of God' "! I do not yet know how Marcus translates these words in his forthcoming book on chapters 9-16, where the expression occurs a further 10 times.
Marcus's first treatment of the Kingdom/Dominion of God is in his note on 1.15 (p. 172): "This is the first Markan reference to `he basileia tou theou', a phrase that the King James translators rendered as `the kingdom of God' but that most modern scholars have recognized as the fact [`fact' italicized by Marcus] that he rules or the power [`power' in italics again] by which he manifests his sovereignty, hence the translation `dominion of God'. This is the basic nuance of the Hebrew and Aramaic expression `dominion of heaven' ... which is reflected by the NT phrase ..."
Marcus's verdict here should itself be nuanced. Many other `nuances' need to be taken into account. Other NT texts speak of "entering the kingdom of God, reclining in the kingdom of God"; "the kingdom of God is like ... "; "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you" (Matt 21.43); the disciples in Acts 1.6 say to the risen Jesus: "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" (NRSV). And so on. The New Revised Standard Version(1989) still translates 159 of the 161 occurrences of `basilea' in the whole NT as `kingdom'. The only 2 exceptions are Luke 19.12,15, where the ruler goes `to get royal power (basileia)'.
I end with a suggestion for yet another excursus, except that the subject here is really too vast for an excursus. Libraries are written on it. This would deal with Mark's treatment of Jesus' divinity. Marcus has an index entry which is headed: "Divinity/quasi-divinity of Jesus", with 14 references, also cross-referenced from the index entry " [high] Christology (with three references, then) `see also Divinity/quasi-divinity of Jesus' ". Commenting on Mk 2.6-10a, Marcus writes: "Our passage thus evidences a characteristic Markan ambiguity about whether Jesus himself is acting or whether God is acting through him; in Mark's view both perspectives contain aspects of the truth ... (p. 224)".
Not even this large volume on Mark 1-8 can deal exhaustively with every aspect of Mark's thought. But I never failed to find a thorough examination and convincing evaluation of any question that I brought to my reading of this admirable commentary.
|
|
|
|