A Theology of Mark's Gospel

David E. Garland, Andreas J. Kostenberger

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780310523123
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

A Theology of Mark's Gospel is the fourth volume in the BTNT series. This landmark textbook, written by leading New Testament scholar David E. Garland, thoroughly explores the theology of Mark's Gospel. It both covers major Markan themes and also sets forth the distinctive contribution of Mark to the New Testament and the canon of Scripture, providing readers with an in-depth and holistic grasp of Markan theology in the larger context of the Bible. This substantive, evangelical treatment of Markan theology makes an ideal college- or seminary-level text.

Part 1

INTRODUCTORY MATTERS

Chapter 1

THE ORIENTATION OF THIS STUDY AND THE HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK FOR MARK’S THEOLOGY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aune, David E. “Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew.” Pp. 145–75 in Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in Their First-Century Settings. WUNT 2/271. Ed. Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Bauckham, Richard. “For Whom Were Gospels Written?” Pp. 9–48 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Ed. Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Idem. “The Gospel of Mark: Origins and Eyewitness.” Pp. 145–69 in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel. WUNT 2/320. Ed. Michael F. Bird and Jason Maston. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Best, Ernest. “Mark’s Readers: A Profile.” Pp. 839–58 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. BETL 100. Ed. Frans van Segbroeck et al. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Bird, Michael F. “The Markan Community, Myth or Maze? Bauckham’s The Gospel for All Christians Revisited.” JTS 57 (2006): 474–86. Idem. “Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul.” Pp. 30–61 in Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts, and Convergences. LNTS 411. Ed. Michael F. Bird and Joel Willitts. London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2011. Black, C. Clifton. “Was Mark a Roman Gospel?” ExpTim 105 (1993): 36–40. Idem. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. Breytenbach, Cilliers. “Current Research on the Gospel according to Mark: A Report on Monographs Published from 2000–2009.” Pp. 13–32 in Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Settings. WUNT 2/271. Ed. Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Bruce, F. F. “The Date and Character of Mark.” Pp. 69–89 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Ed. Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Collins, Adela Yarbro. The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Cook, John G. The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark: A Linguistic Approach. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel.” Pp. 52–65 in Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976. Damm, Alex. Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan Priority. BETL 252. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Dawsey, James. Peter’s Last Sermon: Identity and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2010. Donahue, John R. “The Quest for the Community of Mark’s Gospel.” Pp. 817–38 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. BETL 100. Ed. Frans van Segbroeck et al. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Idem. “Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark’s Gospel.” CBQ 57 (1995): 1–26. Dormeyer, Detlev and Hubert Frankemölle. “Evangelium als literarischer und als theologischer Begriff: Tendenzen und Aufgaben der Evangelienforschung im 20. Jahrhundert, mit einer Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums in seinem Verhältnis zur griechischen Biographie.” Pp. 1541–704 in ANRW Vol. II.25.2. Ed. H. Temporini. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1972. Elliott, J. K. The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark: An Edition of C. H. Turner’s “Notes on Marcan Usage” Together with Other Comparable Studies. NovTSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle. “The Date and Purpose of Mark’s Gospel.” Pp. 810–15 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2. BETL 100. Ed. Frans van Segbroeck et al. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Evans, Craig A. “How Mark Writes.” Pp. 135–48 in The Written Gospel. Ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Goodacre, Mark. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002. Harrington, Daniel J. What Are They Saying about Mark? New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2004. Head, Ivan. “Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel’s Thesis.” JRH 28 (2004): 240–59. Head, Peter M. Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority. SNTSMS 94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. John Bowden. London: SCM, 1985. Hooker, Morna D. “Mark.” Pp. 220–30 in It Is Written—Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel. BIS 65. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2003. Kealy, Sean P. A History of the Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. Volume I. Through the Nineteenth Century. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen, 2008. Idem. A History of the Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. Volume II. The Twentieth Century Book 1. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen, 2008. Idem. A History of the Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. Volume II. The Twentieth Century Book 2. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen, 2008. Kloppenborg, John S. “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark.” JBL 124 (2005): 419–50. Lane, William L. “From Historian to Theologian: Milestones in Markan Scholarship.” RevExp 75 (1978): 601–17. Martin, Ralph P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972. Peterson, Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. BIS 48. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2000. Senior, Donald P. “ ‘With Swords and Clubs . . .’—The Setting of Mark’s Community and His Critique of Abusive Power.” BTB 17 (1987): 10–20. Idem. “The Gospel of Mark in Context.” TBT 34 (1996): 215–21. Styler, G. M. “Excursus IV: The Priority of Mark.” Pp. 285–316 in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982. Telford, William R. The Interpretation of Mark. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Idem. Writing on the Gospel of Mark. Guides to Advanced Biblical Research 1. Dorset: Deo, 2009. Van Iersel, Bas M. F. “The Gospel According to Mark—Written for a Persecuted Community?” NedTT 34 (1980): 15–36. Williams, Joel F. “Is Mark’s Gospel an Apology for the Cross?” BBR 12 (2002): 97–122. Idem. “Does Mark’s Gospel Have an Outline?” JETS 49 (2006): 505–25. Winn, Adam. The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda. WUNT 2/245. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

1.1 THE ORIENTATION OF THIS STUDY

Given the history of the interpretation of Mark’s gospel, one might justifiably wonder, why write a book on Mark’s theology? Readers over the centuries generally have not esteemed the gospel for its theological profundity. Early interpreters had little interest in Mark and were attracted to the more doctrinally evocative gospels. Mark’s reputation was further diminished by Augustine, who discounted the gospel as only “an abridgment of Matthew.”1 Why bother with a digest when one could consult the original? Much later in the nineteenth century, Mark drew more attention as a window on the historical life of Jesus, but it was not viewed as having a theological message of its own.2 According to Black, in contrast to John and Paul, who are championed as the pivotal theologians in the NT, Mark “has been stereotyped as little more than an unsophisticated storyteller whose interests were more historical, or historicist, than theological.”3 The gospel was considered to be a string of isolated units that portrayed raw history.

The pendulum began to swing in the other direction when the historicity of the gospel was called into question by William Wrede. He contended that Mark devised the fiction of the secrecy theme that is so prominent in his gospel to explain the incongruity between the early Christian confession that Jesus was the Messiah and the historical non-messianic nature of his ministry.4 Wrede’s conclusions, while seriously challenged at many points, ultimately changed the perspective on Mark. Beavis summarizes in a nutshell the current appraisal of Mark: “Mark is not a transcript of apostolic memoirs but a mosaic of pre-Gospel traditions from various sources, artfully edited together into a connected narrative.”5

My approach differs to the extent that I consider that Mark faithfully organized into a narrative the historical tradition about Jesus’ ministry, which he gleaned from Peter’s preaching and from other traditions. Paul Simon, the American pop singer, said, “Facts can be turned into art if one is artful enough,” and I believe that Mark has artfully transmitted the historical facts to “present (or re-present) Jesus to his readers so that his significance for their lives becomes clear.”6 If, as I will argue below, the author Mark was a close associate of Peter and Paul, he wrote when Christians already believed in Christ’s divinity, and the gospel displays a high Christology. Benoit states, “Granted the properly divine sense which Paul gave to the title ‘Son of God,’ it is unthinkable that Mark, who had been his disciple and been influenced by him, should have understood the title differently when he uses it in his gospel.”7 Mark inherited a Christian theological tradition and did not invent it; rather, he shaped the material for his context and stamped it with his own distinctive theological watermark.

This gospel was not intended by its author to be a vessel of theological truths waiting to be quarried but a story in which Jesus is the central figure. Mark’s theology is unfurled through narrative development. He shows rather than tells. Perkins rightly recognizes that to understand Mark’s Christology, for example, one cannot focus on the use of a particular theme or title: “It depends on the unfolding impact of the story. None of the titles can express the paradoxes imaged in that story.”8 In fact, one of the features that sets this gospel apart from the others is that it is filled with enigmas, paradoxes, and unresolved questions.9 These puzzles and mysteries can cause some readers to undervalue the gospel while they strike others as a sign of the gospel’s theological depth. I would concur with the latter opinion. Boring observes:

While propositional discurs...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Preface
• Author’s Preface
• Abbreviations
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Bibliography
• Scripture Index
• Index of Extrabiblical Literature
• Subject Index
• Author Index