εaὄἵuὅ’ twὁ vὁlumἷ Anchor Bible commentary is a significant recent
contribution to Mark studies.202 ἦhἷ ἷvaὀgἷliὅt’ὅ outlook is described as “apὁἵalyptiἵ
ἷὅἵhatὁlὁgy” ὁὄ “ἵὁὅmiἵ apὁἵalyptiἵ ἷὅἵhatὁlὁgy”έ203 Accordingly, salvation means
liἴἷὄatiὁὀ fὄὁm thἷ ἵὁὅmiἵ pὁwἷὄὅ that ὁppὄἷὅὅ humaὀity whἷὄἷ Jἷὅuὅ aὅ ύὁἶ’ὅ
eschatological agent emancipates the earth from demons.204 Combined demonic/human
ὁppὁὅitiὁὀ ἵulmiὀatἷὅ iὀ Jἷὅuὅ’ ἶἷath, whiἵh εaὄἵuὅ iὀtὄiguiὀgly ἶἷὅἵribes as “ἷxὁὄἵiὅtiἵ”έ205 For Marcus, the crucifixion, an apparent victory for Satan, is
paὄaἶὁxiἵally Jἷὅuὅ’ viἵtὁὄy ὁvἷὄ him (εark 15.38-39; cf. 1 Cor 2.8).206
With regard to (Q1), commenting on Mark 3.11-12, Marcus notes that human and demonic reactions to Jesus are conveyed via similar verbs insofar as suffering people fall upon ( ) Jesus, hoping to touch him and be healed, and unclean spirits fall before ( ) him whilἷ ὅhὄiἷkiὀg ὁut hiὅ “ἶiviὀἷ iἶἷὀtity”.207 From this, Marcus postulates that the evangelist operates with a conception similar to thἷ “pὄἷ-
Pauliὀἷ hymὀ” iὀ Phil ἀέ1ί-11, where earthly and otherworldly creatures bow before
Jesus, confessing hiὅ “ἷὅἵhatὁlὁgiἵal lὁὄἶὅhip”.208 Whether this might amount to
“wὁὄὅhip” Marcus does not say. In any case, where humans or demons fall down before
Jesus in Mark (e.g. 1.40; 3.11-12; 5.6; 5.22; 10.17; 15.19) there is no prima facie reason fὁὄ ὅuppὁὅiὀg a ἵὁὀὀἷἵtiὁὀ with “wὁὄὅhip” ὅiὀἵἷ, ἷxἵἷpt fὁὄ 5.6; 15.19, the term
200 Broadhead 1999: 172.
201 Broadhead 1999: 121, 129 n. 15. 202 Marcus 1999 and Marcus 2009. 203 Marcus 1999: 71 – 73.
204 Marcus 1999: 72.
205 Marcus 2009: 1068, cf. 1063. See further Chapter 4, section 4.8, pp. 194-196. 206 Marcus 1999: 73.
207 Marcus 1999: 258-259. 208 Marcus 1999: 259.
42
(to prostrate oneself, in obeisance or worship) is lacking.209 Nevertheless, the observation merits inclusion since the notion of falling before Jesus is probably the nearest thing to a suggestion of the worship of Jesus in Mark, thus demonstrating negatively that the Gospel provides no clear evidence of the cultic worship of Jesus.210
In relation to (Q4), reiterating aspects of an important earlier work, Marcus examines the composite scriptural quotation in Mark 1.2-3.211 This pericope has attracted much debate in recent years to the extent that it has become paradigmatic for discussions on hermeneutics.212 Despite the different approaches brought to bear on the text, most interpreters accept that Mark 1.2-3 is a conflation of Exod 23.20, Mal 3.1 and Isa 40.3.213 Marcus thinks that in Mark 1έἀ thἷ “tἷἵhὀiἵally iὀἵὁὄὄἷἵt” ascription of the conflated text
tὁ “Iὅaiah thἷ pὄὁphἷt” ἴἷtὄayὅ a deliberate attempt to set the story in an Isaianic
context.214 Mark places the mixed quotation after the opening formula and before the introduction of John the Baptist in such a way that it parenthetically establishes the advent
ὁf Jὁhὀ aὀἶ Jἷὅuὅ aὅ thἷ fulfilmἷὀt ὁf ἡἦ pὄὁphἷἵyέ χgaiὀ, εaὄk’ὅ ὅtὄatἷgiἵ plaἵἷmἷnt ὁf ἡἦ ἵitatiὁὀὅ liὀk Jἷὅuὅ’ “way” tὁ “thἷ way ὁf thἷ δὁὄἶ”.215
Appealing to subsequent Markan passages which involve Jἷὅuὅ’ ὅuἴὁὄἶiὀatiὁὀ tὁ God (10.18, 40; 13.32; 14.36; 15.34), Marcus maintains that in 1.2-3 there is a distinction
ἴἷtwἷἷὀ “yὁuὄ way” (Jἷὅuὅ’ way) aὀἶ “thἷ way ὁf thἷ δὁὄἶ” (ύὁἶ’ὅ way)έ Hὁwἷvἷὄ, it iὅ
only by recourse to these texts that Marcus can argue this. The logic of his own argument tends to flow in the opposite directiὁὀ ὅiὀἵἷ εaὄἵuὅ iἶἷὀtifiἷὅ thἷ “way ὁf thἷ δὁὄἶ” in Isa 40.3 as a subjective genitive, carrying over this understanding to Mark 1.2-3 in such a way aὅ tὁ imply that Jἷὅuὅ ἵὁmἷὅ (phyὅiἵally) iὀ what iὅ thἷ δὁὄἶ’ὅ phyὅiἵal, ὄathἷὄ thaὀ
209 Similarly, Gathercole 2006: 69. Bultmann (1963: 358) however, apparently accepts Mark 5.6 as evidence that men worship Jesus, but cautions (overlooking or disregarding the mock veneration of the soldiers iὀ 1ἃέ1λ) that thiὅ iὅ thἷ “ὁὀly” such instance in Mark.
210 It is diffiἵult tὁ ἶiὅtiὀguiὅh ἴἷtwἷἷὀ “ὁἴἷiὅaὀἵἷ” aὀἶ “wὁὄὅhip” ὄἷgaὄἶiὀg . In Mark 15.19 the soldiers may pay mὁἵk hὁmagἷ tὁ a “kiὀg”, ἴut givἷὀ thἷ aὅὅὁἵiatiὁὀὅ ὁf ἶiviὀity attaἵhiὀg tὁ ἤὁmaὀ “kiὀgὅ” ὅuἵh aὅ Augustus, and infamously, Caligula, (see Suetonius C. Caligula 22) their derision might also entail mὁἵk “wὁὄὅhip” i.e. the adoration of a divinity.
211 Cf. Marcus 1992.
212 Marcus 1992; Schneck 1994; Watts 1997; Hatina 2006. See Moyise (2008: 6-20) for Mark 1.2-3 as a test case for distinct hermeneutical approaches.
213 See, the critical apparatus in NA27 which detects these three texts at Mark 1.2-3. Moyise (2008: 6-20) mentions several critics who variously read the pericope; while there may be some debate as to who ultimately was responsible for the conflation (i.e. Mark or his tradition) all those cited by Moyise recognise the three OT texts as source texts.
214 Marcus 1999: 147. 215 Marcus 1999: 147.
43
ethical way.216 Clearly, the scriptural citation in Mark 1.3
(“prepaὄἷ thἷ δὁὄἶ’ὅ way”) parallels the prior statement in 1.2, where there is mention of
a messenger, (“who shall prepare your way”).217
Contextually, there is no reason to procure different referents for the genitives here (i.e.
“Jἷὅuὅ” aὀἶ thἷὀ “ύὁἶ”), rather, on a natural reading, according to the manner in which
the mélange of scriptural texts has been arranged, the in 1.3 is epexegetical, clarifying the identity of the in 1.2. Thus, understood in the Markan context where John the Baptist is the messenger who heralds the coming of Jesus (1.4-8), Mark 1.2-3 stands out as an example of the reprogramming of OT prophetic texts wherein Jesus
ἴἷἵὁmἷὅ thἷ ὄἷfἷὄἷὀt (“thἷ δὁὄἶ”) substituting Yahweh/God.218 Against Marcus, then, it seems over subtle to urge a distinction between Jesuὅ’ way aὀἶ thἷ δὁὄἶ’ὅ way iὀ 1.2-3. Rather, Mark iἶἷὀtifiἷὅ Jἷὅuὅ with Yahwἷh “thἷ δὁὄἶ”, even though in subsequent pericopes (not least Mark 1.9-11) this identification is nuanced, and further qualified.219
On (Q3), and in anticipation of Chapter 3 of this thesis, Marcus draws attention to textὅ iὀ whiἵh Jἷὅuὅ’ wὁὄἶὅ aὀἶ aἵtiὁὀὅ likἷὀ him uὀmiὅtakaἴly tὁ ύὁἶέ220 Here, the sea-miracles (4.35-41; 6.45-52) are read against the background of OT texts.221 Marcus sees that in evoking such texts the Markan narrative pὁiὀtὅ tὁ Jἷὅuὅ’ ἶiviὀity iὀὅὁfaὄ aὅ functions properly belonging to Yahweh/God are transferred to Jesus.222 In an earlier work, though stopping short of a total identification of Jesus and Yahweh, Marcus argues that in 4.35-41/6.45-ἃἀ εaὄk’ὅ Jἷὅuὅ ἵὁmἷὅ in the guise of God the DW familiar to OT traditions.223 However, in his commentary, if this association is made at all, it is much more implicit.224 In Chapter 3 ὁf thiὅ thἷὅiὅ a viἷw ὅimilaὄ tὁ that ἷὅpὁuὅἷἶ iὀ εaὄἵuὅ’
216 Marcus (1992:27, 29) refers to the background in Deutero-Iὅaiah aὅ “pὄὁtὁ-apocalyptiἵ” iὀὅὁfaὄ aὅ Yahweh marches through the wilderness as the DW to restore Israel. Marcus (1999: 148-149) states that thἷ δὁὄἶ’ὅ way iὅ “Jἷὅuὅ’ way”, whἷὄἷ “way” ἵὁὀὀὁtἷὅ thἷ phyὅiἵal path thὄὁugh thἷ ἶἷὅἷὄt ὄathἷὄ thaὀ aὀ “ἷthiἵal” way tὁ whiἵh pἷὁplἷ might adhere. For a contrasting view, see Hatina 2006.
217 Similarly, Gathercole (2006: 244, 248).
218 Similarly, Kingsbury (1983: 57-ἃκ), ὅtatἷὅ that ἵὁὀtἷxtually Jὁhὀ thἷ ἐaptiὅt iὅ thἷ ὄἷfἷὄἷὀt ὁf “my mἷὅὅἷὀgἷὄ” aὀἶ Jἷὅuὅ thἷ ὄἷfἷὄἷὀt ὁf “δὁὄἶ”έ ἐὄὁaἶhἷaἶ (1999: 49) on the basis of the citation from Isa 40.3 notes that John may be (and was in some quarters) understood as the forerunner of God.
219ἑfέ εaὄἵuὅ (1λλλμ 1ἂκ) whὁ ἵlaimὅ thἷ “ἴἷὅt way” tὁ ἶἷὅἵὄiἴἷ εaὄk 1έἀ-ἁ iὅ tὁ ὅay that “whἷὄἷ Jἷὅuὅ iὅ aἵtiὀg, thἷὄἷ ύὁἶ iὅ aἵtiὀg”έ ἦhiὅ ἵὁὀἵluὅiὁὀ iὅ tὁὁ vaguἷ aὀἶ ὄiὅkὅ ὅkatiὀg ὁvἷὄ thἷ glaὄiὀg tὄuth that εaὄk applies a medley of OT texts whose chief referent is Yahweh to the subject of his Gospel, Jesus Christ. 220 Marcus 1999:338-339, 430-435; 2009: 908-909.
221 Marcus 1999: 338-339, 430-434. 222 Marcus 1999: 432.
223 Marcus 1992: 144-145.
224Iὀ Vὁlumἷ I ὁf thἷ ἵὁmmἷὀtaὄy, iὀ thἷ “Iὀἶἷx ὁf ἥuἴjἷἵtὅ” ὀὁ ἷὀtὄy iὅ fὁuὀἶ fὁὄ “Diviὀἷ Waὄὄiὁὄ”, while in Volume II (Marcus 2009: 1156) the title does appear but with only three page references. Compare Marcus (1992: 144-145) where it is specifically acknowledged that in the Markan sea-miracles Jesus uses
44
earlier work will be thoroughly developed, with a detailed treatment of the sea-miracles and the relation of the Markan Jesus and the OT DW therein.
Though generally commended, Maὄἵuὅ’ ἵὁmmἷὀtaὄy haὅ ἴἷἷὀ ἵὄitiἵiὅἷἶ fὁὄ over- interpretation and the back-projection of much later Jewish sources.225 Thus, the
ἵὁmpaὄiὅὁὀ ἴἷtwἷἷὀ Jἷὅuὅ’ aἵtiὁὀὅ iὀ εark 4.35-41 and Jonah threatening Leviathan in
Jewish legends (Pirqe R. El. 10; Tan on Leviticus, 8) is of little value for interpreting Mark, since the rabbinical literature is centuries older.226 Again, in places it seems that the author too readily allows for rather ὅuἴtlἷ alluὅiὁὀὅ, thuὅ, iὀ εaὄk’ὅ “Legiὁὀ” story,
thἷ ἶἷmὁὀὅ’ ὄἷὃuἷὅt tὁ “ἷὀtἷὄ” thἷ pigὅ (ἃέ1ἀ) iὅ ὄἷaἶ aὅ “ὅἷxual iὀὀuἷὀἶὁ” whἷὄἷ a
connection is made with the crime of rape by invading armies.227 Similarly, Moloney
ἵὁmplaiὀὅ that a ὄἷfἷὄἷὀἵἷ tὁ thἷ ὅilἷὀἵἷ ὁf a ἴyὅtaὀἶἷὄ iὀ χἵhillἷὅ ἦatiuὅ’ Leucippe and
Clitophon (ιέἂέἀέἂ) ἶὁἷὅ littlἷ tὁ illumiὀἷ Jἷὅuὅ’ ὅilἷὀἵἷ iὀ εark 14.61.228 Consequently, while Marcus offers an original contribution reading Mark aὅ “apὁἵalyptiἵ ἷὅἵhatὁlὁgy”, the evidence produced in support of particular theses must be carefully reviewed.