Mark in Hermeneia
This commentary provides structure to the Gospel of Mark. Overall, this is a fantastic and thought-provoking commentary that outpaces its peers because of its willingness to ask difficult yet relevant questions and provide a comprehensive view into the cultural context to which it was written. This is a must-read for the serious student of Mark's Gospel and gives invaluable insight into themes that affect all the Synoptics.
PROS:
-Collins does a masterful job of incorporating relevant biblical and extra-biblical manuscripts into her observations. Her willingness to create thought-provoking conversations in place of dogmatic conclusions is what sets her apart from other quality commentaries on Mark. Her observations are of the highest quality and, for the most part, are presented without an observable bias.
-An especially noteworthy addition to the body of work done on Mark is Collins' technical contribution, which consistently reveals unifying elements in a book that is too often presented as a somewhat hastily assembled "proto-Gospel". If it accomplishes nothing else, Collins' work unarguably exposes the deliberate construction of this Gospel that allows it to stand on equal footing with its synoptic companions.
- With very few exceptions, Collins' 800-page magnum opus provides the most comprehensive commentary on the Gospel of Mark and not a page is wasted. The writing is clear, concise, and communicates complex ideas with ease. Given its considerably technical bent and breadth of historical references, it is quite possibly the most accessible commentary of its kind.
CONS:
- Collins avoids many of the numerological concerns presented by the Gospel of Mark (e.g. - 40 days in the desert (1:13), 12 years of sickness (5:25) and the 12 year-old (5:42), 5-loaves-2-fish and 12 baskets full (6:38-43), 3 days and 7 loaves and 7 baskets full (8:1-8), 6 days later (9:2), etc.). For a pre-enlightenment and hyper-numerologically sensitive culture, these numbers would likely have held great significance and lent themselves to further legitimizing the messianic ministry of Jesus. At the very least they deserve a more serious consideration in the context of the first and second-century church.
- I also found myself disappointed by the seemingly purposeful deemphasizing of the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel. These books undoubtedly play a central role in shaping the context of this Gospel and, at least with Isaiah, is the only explicit reference that Jesus was quoted as having used. Collins often lumps Isaiah-related observations alongside obscure Greco-Roman manuscripts without assigning contextual value or influential merit to either.
- Finally, as is the case with many "scholarly" works on the Bible, it is rife with anachronism. Around the time when the earliest versions of Mark's Gospel first circulated, there would have been established norms throughout large portions of the Christian community. One might further suggest that the early Christian community prided itself on having norms that were incompatible with those that were widely accepted by the Greco-Roman world. And so at times it is frustrating when Collins delivers observations that appear derived from an attitude (and political construct within the church) that likely didn't develop until centuries later. While I heartily applaud her substantive analysis, which she uses to legitimize her work as opposed to the hostile irreverence that many of her contemporaries use as a substitute for thoughtful and balanced scholarship, a number of her conclusions seem forced through positions that are untenable. Readers will find that many of her observations on the Markan Jesus are absent any historical significance and often portray him as a mythical character concocted to appease the superstitious desires of the Hellenized and Greco-Roman proselytes. On the one hand, and in fairness to Collins, the Christian church made many compromises to keep their pews full over the last 20+ centuries. On the other hand, seeing Mark's gospel as "steeped in compromise" may play heavily to anachronism (mentioned earlier) since the popular epistles of Paul and early church doctrine both paint a picture of the church that, at least initially, held many uncompromising views.
Comments
Post a Comment