χἶἷla Yaὄἴὄὁ ἑὁlliὀὅ’ ἵὁmmἷὀtaὄy ὁὀ εaὄk in the Hermeneia series is a major
recent contribution to Mark studies.279 ἦhἷ gὁὅpἷl iὅ ἶἷὅἵὄiἴἷἶ aὅ aὀ “ἷὅἵhatὁlὁgiἵal
hiὅtὁὄiἵal mὁὀὁgὄaph” ὅiὀἵἷ it iὅ hἷlἶ that thἷ ἷvaὀgἷliὅt tὄaὀὅfὁὄmἷἶ thἷ mὁἶἷl ὁf ἴiἴliἵal
history infusing it with an eschatological and apocalyptic perspective but simultaneously adapting it to Hellenistic historiographical and biographical traditions.280 Collins proposes that the Gospel was written around the time of the Jewish War in order to
“ὄἷaὅὅἷὄt” aὀἶ “ὄἷἶἷfiὀἷ” thἷ mἷὅὅiahὅhip ὁf Jἷὅuὅ ὁvἷὄ agaiὀὅt mἷὅὅiaὀiἵ pὄἷtἷὀἶἷὄὅ aὀἶ
to interpret de facto or expected persecution as integral to discipleship in imitation of Christ.281
ἦhὄὁughὁut ἑὁlliὀὅ’ wὁὄk thἷ εaὄkaὀ Jἷὅuὅ iὅ uὀἶἷὄὅtὁὁἶ agaiὀὅt thἷ ἴaἵkgὄὁuὀἶ
of OT traditions, particularly Elijah-Elisha stories.282 The Qumran materials illumine our understanding of thἷ εaὄkaὀ Jἷὅuὅ’ ὄὁlἷ aὅ a sort of eschatological prophet.283 Thus, in
thἷ pὄὁlὁguἷ thἷ ἵitatiὁὀ fὄὁm Iὅa ἂίέἁ iὅ “aὀalὁgὁuὅ” tὁ itὅ uὅἷ iὀ 1QS 8.12-16 (cf. 1QS
4.16-23);284 the first exorcism in 1.21-28 is compared and contrasted with Qumranite exorcistic practice;285 the appointing of the Twelve in 3.13-19 is read in the light of a passage from the Temple Scroll (11QT 57.2-15),286 and comment on 13.1-2 occasions recourse to 11QTa [11Q19] 29.6-10.287 ἑὁὀὅiὅtἷὀt with ἑὁlliὀὅ’ viἷw ὁf thἷ ύὁὅpἷl’ὅ genre, the commentary also discusses analogies from the Greco-Roman cultural and literary milieu.
While in Gospel studies one might expect to find points of contact with wider non-Jewish culture, for some commentators, older scholarship is now thought to have exaggerated the influence of Hellenistic materials on the gospel authors.288 Elsewhere,
279 Collins 2007.
280 Collins 2007: 18, 1.
281 Collins 2007: 101 – 102. Cf. Marcus 1999: 33-ἁιέ Dἷὅpitἷ gἷὀἷὄal ὅimilaὄitiἷὅ, ἑὁlliὀὅ’ reading of the Markan Sitz im Leben differs from that of Marcus, for example, whἷὄἷaὅ thἷ lattἷὄ thiὀkὅ ὁf thἷ “appalliὀg desolatiὁὀ” aὅ ὄἷfἷὄὄiὀg tὁ Elἷaὐaὄ’ὅ ὁἵἵupatiὁὀ ὁf thἷ ἦἷmplἷ, ἑὁlliὀὅ (ἀίίιμ ἄ1ί) ἷxpliἵitly ὄἷjἷἵtὅ thiὅ view, thinking it more likely to refer to the placing of the statue of a pagan deity in the Temple.
282 See especially, Collins 2007: 48-50. 283 Collins 2007: 44 – 48.
284 Collins 2007: 137 – 138. 285 Collins 2007: 167. 286 Collins 2007: 215 - 216. 287 Collins 2007: 601.
288 See Wright (1997: 14 – 15) for a critique of this in Rudolf Bultmann. Hurtado (2003: 13-25) has a similar critique of Wilhelm Bousset.
53
Collins has been criticised for suggesting that non-Jewish ideas about divine heroes and
ἶiviὀiὐἷἶ humaὀὅ wἷὄἷ aἶaptἷἶ “uὀὄἷflἷἵtivἷly” ἴy ἷaὄly Jἷwiὅh ἑhὄiὅtiaὀὅ – that is, she
has been charged with overplaying the influence of Hellenistic thought on early Christianity.289 Again, in this commentary, the relevance of certain alleged Greco-Roman parallels is in doubt. For instance, it is unclear what is achieved by the comparison of Mark 9.16-1λ with aὀ iὀἵiἶἷὀt iὀ whiἵh χὅἵlἷpiuὅ’ ὅἷὄvaὀtὅ ὄἷmὁvἷ a wὁmaὀ’ὅ hἷaἶ iὀ order to extract a tapeworm from her, only to find themselves incapable of reattaching the head.290 Though some general comparisons may be more helpful, this thesis contends that the predominant influence on Markan Christology was OT/Jewish traditions rather than Greco-Roman myth.291
In relation to (Q1) above, commenting on Mark 15.39, Collins assesses the argument of H.L. Chronis who detected a subtly cultic force in the description of the centurion as .292 Chronis read this as an idiomatic expression for entἷὄiὀg thἷ ἦἷmplἷ aὀἶ ὅtaὀἶiὀg “iὀ thἷ pὄἷὅἷὀἵἷ” ὁὄ “beforἷ thἷ faἵἷ” of God. However, he conceded that where there is a cultic connotation the LXX favours . Collins adds that has cultic force only in 1 Kgdms 26.20, where David begs Saul not to let hiὅ ἴlὁὁἶ fall tὁ thἷ gὄὁuὀἶ “away fὄὁm thἷ pὄἷὅἷὀἵἷ ὁf thἷ δὁὄἶ” (
)έ293 Thus, Collins rejects the possibility that the words
have any cultic significance in Mark 15.39 since the common usage in the LXX is from narrative contexts describing battles. Therefore, if the phrase is in any way figurative here, it signifies the initial role of the centurion as one who is inimical to Jesus,
289 Hurtado 2003: 93 n. 34.
290 Collins 2007: 437, with references to Aelian De natura animalium 9.33. Similarly, Collins strains to make a link between the literary framework of Mark and the structure of Aristotelian tragedy describing thἷ “mὁἶἷ” (thὁugh ὀὁt thἷ gἷὀὄἷ) ὁf εaὄk aὅ “tὄagiἵ”, hὁwἷvἷὄ, thἷ ὄulἷὅ ὄἷgaὄἶiὀg tὄagἷἶy ἷὅtaἴliὅhἷἶ iὀ the Poetics itὅἷlf (XI), wὁulἶ ὅἷἷm tὁ militatἷ agaiὀὅt ὅuἵh a ἵὁὀὀἷἵtiὁὀ ὅiὀἵἷ, “thἷ ἵhaὀgἷ fὄὁm pὄὁὅpἷὄity to adversity should not be represented as happening to a virtuous character; for this raises disgust rather thaὀ tἷὄὄὁὄ ὁὄ ἵὁmpaὅὅiὁὀ” (εὁxὁὀ 1λἁἂμ ἀἃ)έ εὁὄἷὁvἷὄ, ἑὁlliὀὅ (ἀίίιμ λ1-λἁν ἄιἃ) aἶmitὅ that Jἷὅuὅ’ aὀguiὅh iὀ thἷ fiὀal ὅἵἷὀἷ ἵὁὀtὄaὅtὅ with what wἷ wὁulἶ ἷxpἷἵt fὄὁm ύὄἷἷk ὁὄ ἤὁmaὀὅ hἷὄὁἷὅ, ἵitiὀg Platὁ’ὅ Phaedo whἷὄἷ “ἶἷath iὅ thἷ ὅὁul’ὅ gὄἷat fὄiἷὀἶ”έ
291 E.g. Collins (2007: 800) suggests that some readers may have taken Mark 16.8 as epiphanic on account of ideas in Greek literature where fear is a common reaction to the divine epiphany, particularly since the appearance of an angel is analogous to the Greek divine epiphany. This observation opens up a new pὁὅὅiἴility, ὀamἷly, that “fἷaὄ” may be a motif linked with the manifestation of God in Mark. Not only Greek religion, but OT texts (e.g. Exod 3.5; Prov 1.7, 9.10; Ps 112.1) might be instructive background material.
292 Collins (2007: 765) cites Chronis 1982: 110. 293 Collins 2007: 765.
54
ὅtaὀἶiὀg “ὁvἷὄ agaiὀὅt” him.294 Here, then, there is no indication that Jesus was the object of cultic worship in Mark.
With regard to (Q3), Collins provides some support for the hypothesis that attributes associated with Yahweh/God are switched to Jesus in Mark. For example, the
“ὅtὄὁὀgἷὄ ὁὀἷ” (1.7) epithet is said to evoke connotations of God the DW.295 However, Collins qualifies this stating that in the Markan context the term may connote the Davidic
εἷὅὅiah aὅ ύὁἶ’ὅ ἷὅἵhatὁlὁgiἵal agἷὀt – a ὄὁlἷ whiἵh ὁὀ ἑὁlliὀὅ’ viἷw εaὄk’ὅ Jἷὅuὅ ἶiἶ
not carry out in his lifetime, but might be thought to fulfil in his return as Son of Man.296
χgaiὀ, thἷ ἴiὀἶiὀg ὁf ἥataὀ iὀ thἷ “ὅtὄὁὀg maὀ” pἷὄiἵὁpe is said to be “aὀalὁgὁuὅ” tὁ ύὁἶ’ὅ ἴiὀἶiὀg ὁf δἷviathaὀ iὀ Jὁἴέ297 In anticipation of Chapter 3 of this thesis, it is
ὀὁtἷwὁὄthy that ἑὁlliὀὅ’ ἷxἷgἷὅiὅ of the Markan sea-miracles (4.35-41/6.45-52) picks up
on parallels from OT texts (e.g. Ps 105.9 in relation to 4.39; Job 9.8 in relation to 6.48) which form part of the Combat Myth.298 With regard to the stilling of the storm, Collins
ὅuggἷὅtὅ that thἷ εaὄkaὀ Jἷὅuὅ iὅ ἶἷpiἵtἷἶ lἷὅὅ aὅ a maὀ ἶἷpἷὀἶἷὀt ὁὀ ύὁἶ’ὅ ὅalvifiἵ pὁwἷὄ aὀἶ mὁὄἷ aὅ a “ἶiviὀἷ ἴἷiὀg”έ299 That is not to say that Collinὅ thiὀkὅ that εaὄk’ὅ Jesus (much less the historical Jesus) is to be understood in creedal terms, i.e. as a second divine being.300ἤathἷὄ, iὀ εaὄk’ὅ ἴaptiὅmal ὅἵἷὀἷ Jἷὅuὅ iὅ iὀὅtitutἷἶ aὅ aὀ “agἷὀt ὁf ύὁἶ” where the endowment of the Spirit has prophetic and messianic implications.301