Mark: A Commentary

by Adele Yarbro Collins

Hermeneia. Fortress, Minneapolis, 2007. 894 pp. $80.00 (cloth). ISBN 978-080066-078-9.

This commentary, maintaining the strict historical-critical tradition of the Hermeneia series, represents a benchmark in the discussion of the Gospel of Mark and presents to both academy and church a splendid resource for its interpretation.

In the extensive introduction (125 pages), Adela Yarbro Collins is a helpful guide for even the initiated reader through the maze of generations of research, objectively summarizing and evaluating important positions and turning points, sometimes leaving disputed questions open and sometimes making her own position clear. Mark was the first Gospel, influenced by the Hellenistic bios, but not merely a Christian version of it. Unlike many commentators, Collins has an appreciation for “the magnitude of Mark’s innovation” (p. 17). Mark is essentially an eschatological historical monograph written in the biblical style, the climax and conclusion of biblical history. Regarding Mark as adopting the model of biblical history, specifically that of the Deuteronomic Historian, allows Collins to speak repeatedly of Mark’s “synthesizing” of the clashing traditions he inherits. One might ask, however, whether “synthesis” is the best word for what Mark does. Are Mark’s conflicting christological images of Jesus as the Son of God filled with divine power and the truly human being who suffers and dies synthesized, or are they juxtaposed without being harmonized or adjusted to each other? Collins’ discussion of the Messianic Secret sees it in the light of various factors—social, cultural, and history-of-religion— rather than as a major literary device to allow this juxtaposition. The introduction’s extensive section on Markan Christology focuses on the context of first-century Jewish texts as the primary setting for understanding Mark’s theology. This is richly documented in the exegetical sections, where Collins argues that 1 Enoch’s understanding of the Son of Man provided a major category for Mark’s Christology: the eschatological judge shall come from heaven in the last days, but his identity has already been secretly revealed to the faithful community.

One of the strengths of the commentary is that both in the introduction and throughout the commentary, Collins manifests a depth of awareness and understanding of the OT and Jewish literature and its bearing on NT interpretation that is rare among NT scholars, citing the texts in the original languages (always with English translations for the linguistically challenged, in the Hermeneia style). For Collins, the internal data of the Gospel of Mark are compatible with either a Roman or Syrian (but probably not Galilean) origin, and neither side has compelling arguments, but in the exegesis she seems to lean toward an eastern origin, in both temporal and geographical proximity to the war of 66–73 C.E., probably prior to the destruction of the temple. I would have appreciated a probing investigation of just how early the presence of the Gospel of Mark (or any other gospel) can be documented in Rome. The apparent lack of awareness of the gospel form and content in literature associated with Rome (e.g., Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 Clement) seems to suggest that the gospel form came to Rome, or was accepted there, only after Mark’s time; if so, this has important consequences for the history of early Christian literature and the reception of the gospel form.

For each pericope, Collins provides her own annotated interpretation and discusses issues of text criticism and translation. This is followed, as appropriate to each pericope, by discussions that include the narrative unity of major literary segments, an outline of how the genre and history of the tradition of that unit have been understood, issues of historical context and form criticism (regularly citing Bultmann, Dibelius, and more recent analyses), and the history of interpretation followed by verse-by-verse comment that often attempts precisely to distinguish tradition from redaction. Her discussion of the parable discourse in Mark 4, for example, not only distinguishes the three layers that have become traditional in exegetical discussion (the parable that goes back to Jesus, its interpretation deriving from the church, and the redactional “Markan parable theory”), but delineates two sources that came to Mark in which these elements were already assembled. One source had the three seed parables and concluded with v. 33; the other source had the parable of the sower, its interpretation, the “secrecy theory” of vv. 11–12, and concluded with v. 34. Without merely indulging in the dreaded “parallelomania,” the verse-by-verse section is often especially rich in parallels and texts from the religious and cultural life of Judaism and the Greco-Roman world. The story of Jesus’ calming of the storm in 4:35–41, for example, can never read the same to one who has pondered the parallels Collins presents from the OT, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Testament of Solomon, Homer, Herodotus, and the magical papyri. A substantial and nuanced excursus on “Resurrection in Ancient Cultural Contexts” illuminates Mark’s own treatment in 16:1–8. Likewise, the call story in 1:16–20 is illuminated by points of contact in Jewish and Hellenistic literature, though here and elsewhere one sometimes wonders at the minimal discussion of the pericope’s setting in the history of early Christian theology. Nothing is made of the “call” vocabulary that by Mark’s time already had become a significant theological term within the church. So also, one wonders that Mark’s possible use of ship imagery and house imagery is not explored in terms of Mark’s ecclesiology. Concise histories of the interpretation of disputed points are incorporated, bringing the discussion up to date, and often concluding with arguments for Collins’s own view. For instance, the variety of interpretations of the “desolating sacrilege” of Mark 13:14, especially in recent scholarship, are discussed and evaluated as the context for Collins’s own argument that Mark was written in the late 60s C.E., and that Caligula’s attempt a generation earlier to install his own statue in the temple was still a living memory that shaped the eschatological imagery of Mark and his community.

I celebrate all of this as a substantial reassertion of the importance and validity of historical-critical study of the Bible. Collins surely has her own views of what is theologically important, along with convictions regarding imperialism and racism, political and feminist issues, social justice and world peace, but the Gospel of Mark is not made into a sounding board for these convictions. Historical study allows Mark to have his own voice for his own agenda. The demoniac’s designation as “Legion” (5:9, 15) and Jesus’ response to the question about paying taxes to the emperor (12:12–17) are discussed without imputing contemporary postcolonial anti-imperialism to the text. Mark’s portrayal of the role of Jewish leaders in Jesus’ death is presented without defensive disclaimers. The exegesis of the Markan Jesus’ commendation of the widow who gives her whole living to the temple proceeds without making this apparent support of the “temple elites” into a problem (12:41–44). The celebrated case of the Markan Jesus’ canine terminology in addressing the Syro-Phoenician woman and her incisive repartee (7:24–30) are interpreted historically, without reference to appropriation of this text in contemporary feminist hermeneutics. The notion that the woman who anointed Jesus in 14:3–9 was a prophet is ignored, and the view that the anointing was messianic is barely mentioned and rejected. The women at the tomb are discussed without Mary Magdalene becoming the first apostle. This is not to say, of course, that Mark has nothing to say to such issues, but it does represent the historical interpreter’s conviction that Mark must first be heard in his own context. This is thoroughly in line with the avowed intent of the Hermeneia series, stated in the foreword, that has remained unchanged since its initial 1971 appearance: “This series is designed to be a critical and historical commentary to the Bible [utilizing] the full range of historical tools, including textual criticism, . . . to provide the student or scholar with full critical discussion of each problem of interpretation and with the primary data upon which the discussion is based.” Whether the text’s human relevance then “becomes transparent, as is always the case in competent historical discourse,” remains a discussable point, but responsible claims to contemporary relevance can never ignore historical meaning, and it is to the task of bringing the reader within hearing distance of that meaning that this series, and this commentary, is dedicated.

Such rigorous historical study is not for the academy alone. The pastor or church teacher who wants to increase his or her competence in biblical interpretation as such (not only for the Gospel of Mark) could hardly do better than to work carefully through Mark with this commentary in hand, looking over the shoulder of a master teacher.

M. Eugene Boring, Professor Emeritus
Brite Divinity School
Texas Christian University
Fort Worth, Texas

    

back to top

Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study

by Gordon D. Fee

Hendrickson, Peabody, Mass., 2007. 707 pp. $39.95. ISBN 978-1-59856-035-0.

Gordon Fee, in this major work devoted to Paul’s understanding of the person of Jesus Christ, introduces it with the disarming comment: “I can hardly expect everyone to read a book such as this one straight through, from cover to cover.” However, it is the dutiful lot of reviewers to do just what he does not anticipate.
After several weeks reading every page, I came away from the task filled with admiration for Fee’s depth of study and wideness of acquaintance with both primary texts and secondary sources reflected in this hefty volume. As such, the book will stand on the bookshelf as an invaluable resource and point of reference whenever a central theme of NT theology is discussed. It is Fee’s magnum opus.
Yet no book, especially one of this size and scope, is without its drawbacks. It raises some misgivings in my mind alongside admiration. Let me enumerate the pros and cons.

It is a long book since it aims to embrace all the conceivable references and allusions to Paul’s teaching by combing all the letters—both the authentic and disputed epistles in the Pauline corpus. These texts are all cited in full, in both Greek and English, in a series of word studies that might be called textes expliqués. There is strength in this method of exposition. Students and others will find here a refresher course in Greek grammar and syntax, and that is not a bad thing. This makes the book demanding, especially as a few Hebrew words are left untranslated.

Yet the gain is achieved at some cost. The book is probably far too lengthy since there is much repetition and review of ground covered. Rigorous editing might have improved the book, providing a more tightly constructed treatment of the texts, and also would have picked up occasional examples of loose writing.
These are minor blemishes, however. Regarding a theme so well canvassed as that of Christology, the reader is entitled to know the author’s starting point. Fee leaves us in no doubt about that: Paul’s thinking about his Lord is best described as a “high” Christology, but that is a question-begging term. If Fee means that Paul’s understanding of Christ leads to devotion and worship (and there is a fine paragraph on this, p. 317), then he would command a wide assent. Yet the exegetical route to this conclusion trembles on the verge of an embryonic Trinitarian doctrine and is not always as plain as Fee maintains.

Fee’s favorite expression is that the evidence “presupposes” a high Christology. Again, he may be correct, but one is left wondering if it is right to glide from what is presupposed to what is. In one notable case, it raises a question about the way he believes the Jewish messianic son can be equated with the eternal Son of God (p. 537). And in the crux interpretum of Phil 2:6–11, one is left to ponder how “Christ had preexistence as the Son of God, and his sonship was that of one who was fully and equally divine with the Father” (p. 381). The issues here concern the meaning of preexistence (i.e., pre-temporal existence; a slippery term, as Douglas McCready, He Came Down from Heaven [InterVarsity, 2005], has recently shown) and the lexical and theological nuance of “grasping.” What seems to be lost in this interpretation of the hymn is the tension between v. 6 and v. 7 linked by a “but.” In other words, the second part of Fee’s sentence as quoted may be a correct reading of what Christ became after his obedience to death and exaltation. But can we confidently affirm from this text a mysterious and unknowable preexistence? Otherwise, are we to understand that “he refused to grasp” at what was logically not then his?

To say that occasionally Fee reads into the Pauline text what may be inferred or presupposed (as in the case of 1 Tim 3:16 where “there is no mention of Christ’s saving work as such—although it is obviously presupposed in lines 4 and 5,” p. 432) may be a little harsh. Yet the author of such a comprehensive and far-ranging book as this may be forgiven a lapse or two! There is also confusion in my mind concerning what he believes about Christ and creation. In some places, the preexistent one is the creator of all things (pp. 303–304, 522). Yet elsewhere (p. 332), he is the divine mediator of creation, and later he is both (pp. 504–505: “The Son is the agent of creation and redemption”).
This brings us to some more questionable issues. To say “Christ as Savior . . . is the central feature of Pauline theology” (p. 481) may indeed be true in a broad sense, though Paul’s use of the word “savior” is scant. Fee is on firmer ground when he concludes that Christ’s lordship is pivotal, as 2 Cor 4:5 makes clear. This treatment is a well-executed theme of his book.
Finally, we are left to question whether the effort to produce so memorably an understanding of Paul’s uniformly consistent and systematic Christology has been achieved at too high a cost. What is lost is the development of Paul’s thought in response to the various christological problems and debates that arose in his congregations. There is hardly a notice of this in Fee’s book, as there is a virtual bypassing of Paul’s use and adaptation of the traditions he received.
Fee’s exposition is strictly chronological. This makes for a straightforward treatment, and a handy reference work to be consulted with profit when one wants to prepare a sermon or a term paper on a given text. Yet to appreciate the dynamic flow of Paul’s thought, which sets his Lord at the center and circumference of his life, mission, and proclamation, other resources will have to be included.

At one place, Fee makes the comment: “we simply have not entered into an understanding of Paul’s understanding of his Lord if we are not drawn into his own absolute adoration and devotion.” This quotation calls to mind a story about the Scottish theologian Hugh Ross Mackintosh. At the conclusion of his lectures on the person of Jesus Christ, his male student audience broke into applause. The speaker quickly and instinctively quieted the plaudit with the summons: “[Gentlemen,] let us pray.”

Ralph P. Martin, Distinguished Scholar in Residence
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, California
and Azusa Pacific University
Asuza, california

back to top