Book Reviews

Book Review: Elizabeth Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark

Shively, Elizabeth E. Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22- 30. BNZW 189. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. 295 p.  $140.00 Link.

Elizabeth Shively is a lecturer in New Testament at University of St Andrews.  Her book Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark is a light revision of her 2009 Ph.D. Emory University dissertation written under the guidance of Luke Timothy Johnson.

The basic thesis of the study is that Mark 3:22-30 functions as a programmatic statement for the Gospel of Mark. Three short parables and logion are placed together in order to construct the symbolic world which shapes the Gospel of Mark on both a literary and theological level. Shively understands parables of the Kingdom / House Divided and the Strong Man as apocalyptic discourse which is used to answer the question of the source of Jesus’ authority to cast out demons, but also to interpret Jesus for a new community of believers who are suffering.  For Shively, Mark 3:22-30 is “cluster of apocalyptic topoi” that Mark expands to “reveal a word of cosmic conflict manifest in Jesus’ ministry” (p. 5).

ShivelyShively points out that most scholars who work on parables do not work with these three short sayings, despite the fact that Mark specifically calls them parables in 3:23. The reason for this is that most monographs on parables have defined the genre in a way which rules out these sayings.  By taking this pericope as a programmatic statement for the gospel of Mark, Shively hopes to read Mark as a coherent, unified narrative within its own symbolic world.  That world is “Jewish apocalyptic thought” as expressed in parabolic forms. By constructing this paragraph has he has, Mark is “describing Jesus’ ministry as ‘more than a rescue operation,’” Jesus is beginning the “reconstructive work of the Kingdom of God” (p. 82).

While the Gospel of Mark is obviously not apocalyptic in terms of genre, Mark is an “apocalyptic thinker.” Following Luke Timothy Johnson’s definition of symbolic worlds, she points out that symbols are “social structures in which people live” (p. 29). Clusters of symbols help people to understand the world and communicate that understanding to others who share these symbols. Like most modern scholars who work on symbols and metaphors, she stands on the foundation of Lakoff and Johnson Metaphors We Live By, applying their insights to the apocalyptic worldview of first century Judaism. Figurative language appears in this pericope to “stage a cosmic drama” (p.81).

Shively explains that apocalyptic symbols have two dimensions. There is a vertical dimension to this literate in which cosmic forces are involved in earth. This may take the form of angels and demons active in the world, for example. The horizontal dimension is a movement toward an imminent eschatological salvation. The righteous are undergoing persecution and look forward to God breaking into history to liberate them from their oppressors. This description of apocalyptic thinking is clear from texts that are considered apocalyptic by genre; Shively argues in this book that Mark reflects that thinking in his Gospel and uses it to shape his theological interpretation of Jesus’ ministry.

By way of method, Shively reads Mark 3:22-30 both “inner-textually” and intertextually.  By inner-textually she means the “story world of Mark.”  This means that she will pay attention to the Gospel of Mark as a whole, examining the rhetoric, plot, and characters of the book in order to trace the author’s interests.  The second chapter of this book places this pericope in the overall context of the gospel by examining how it functions rhetorically at the beginning of the Gospel, and her fifth chapter  examines the larger context of the Gospel, primarily the Gerasene Demoniac (5:1-20) and the apocalyptic speech (13:5-37).

By intertextual, she intends to read the Gospel of Mark in the light of textual traditions outside of the Gospel. Following on Richard Hays, she proposes to hear echoes of the Hebrew Bible in Mark 3:22-30. She acknowledges that intertextual elements do not only exist in quotes of allusions, but also in the form of metaphors and symbols in Jewish apocalyptic thought (p. 36). She says that “we cannot understand Mark’s intertextuality simply by looking at discrete OT citations and allusions” because Mark is “weaving citations, allusions and themes” in order to “awaken the reader’s memory” (261).  (I made this point in my own dissertation on Jesus’s use of eschatological banquet traditions from the Hebrew Bible.) Since Mark wrote as an “apocalyptic thinker” he does not have to consciously cite a text from the Hebrew Bible.  He may use a well-known metaphor from apocalyptic literature without having a specific text in mind.  On the other hand, he may have a cluster of texts in mind rather than a single context.

I find this to be very helpful and interesting, but in practice there is not much which can be described as intertextual with respect to the Hebrew Bible in Mark 3:22-30.  She does comment on the potential allusion to Isaiah 49:24-26 in Mark 3:27.  Several commentaries have noticed this allusion, although there are only a few words shared by both texts.  In LXX Isa 49:24 the strong one is a “giant” (γίγαντος), and he is captured (αἰχμαλωτεύω), not bound (δέω) and plundered (διαρπάζω) as in Mark 3:27.  The word λαμβάνω is repeated in Isa 49:24-26 several times but does not appear in Mark 3:27. At best, this is an “echo” of Isa 49:24-26 and might be better described as an allusion to the tradition that the Lord is the ultimate Strong One who rescues his people from their enemies.

The key word in Mark 3:27 for Shively is ἰσχυρός.  In Isa 49:26 it is the Lord who is the “strong one” who will end the exile for Judah by destroying the strong nations.  In Mark 3:27, Jesus is stronger than the “strong man” (Satan) and is presently binding him in order to inaugurate the Kingdom. Mark “recontextualizes Israel’s captivity and rescue using apocalyptic topoi” (p. 74).

A second stage of the intertextual method in this book is a comparison to other Jewish apocalyptic literature.  This is the subject of chapter 3. She begins by offering a brief orientation to seven apocalyptic texts she has chosen to compare to Mark 3: 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The War Scroll (1QM), Melchizedek (11QMelch), and Testament of Solomon.  Shively then uses Daniel as a “template” for apocalyptic thinking and develops three themes from the book: persecution of the righteous, the activity of heavenly beings, and God’s protection through a future judgment. These three themes are key elements of apocalyptic thinking in Daniel and Shively demonstrates that they are found in each of the apocalyptic books chosen for comparison. This section is well-documented and the she makes the case that apocalyptic thinking from Daniel onward does in fact include these three areas.

I like how this chapter is designed, but I wonder if the results would differ if she had chosen another set of examples from Jewish apocalyptic literature. For example, she does not use her template on 4 Ezra or 2 Baruch, two books written after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps only two decades after Mark was written. It is likely that the three elements of her template are present there, although the “coming judgment” may look different than Mark’s Kingdom of God. I am thinking specifically about 4 Ezra 9:22 where the “rescue” at the time of judgment concerns only a very tiny remnant which survives the final judgment. By broadening the database, perhaps the template would look different.

When she applies her observations to Mark 3:22-30, Shively finds that there is a “shared symbolic world” (p. 147-52).  In Jesus’ ministry there is a persecution (by the human scribes or the demons), and Jesus is actively opposing these demonic forces by casting them out. Finally, he announces that the strong man has been bound and that those who oppose him will be judged guilty in the coming judgment (Mark 3:28-29).

Shively applies the findings of the study to Mark’s Gospel. Chapter 5 examines two examples of “power” in Mark’s apocalyptic thinking in the context of a story and a speech. The story Shively selects is Mark 5:1-20, the Gerasene Demon.  In this exorcism story, Mark “engages in apocalyptic discourse directly reminiscent of Mark 3:22-30” (p. 183). An evil spirit is oppressing a human and Jesus appears to judge that demon. The result of this demonstration of the power of God is that the man proclaims what God has done throughout the Gentile region.  Later in the book Shively suggests that the response of the man “becomes Mark’s Great commission” (p.250). The Olivet Discourse (Mark 13:5-37) concludes with a parable of a householder, reminiscent of the Strong Man parable in Mark 3:27. Shively states that the Mark’s apocalyptic discourse is “persuasive rhetoric” which seeks to persuade the followers of Jesus that righteous suffering is God’s will, they ought to act self-sacrificially (like Jesus) in anticipation of a final judgment on the world (p. 218).  God’s power is acting through Jesus to overcome the strong man already, but Mark’s audience is told to look forward to the decisive return of the Son of Man.

The nature of the power which overcomes the strong man is developed in chapter 6.  Shively examines Mark 8:27-10:45 as a unit, beginning with the confession of Peter and ending with the “ransom for many” logion. In this section Jesus subverts expectations by describing the “things of God” as his coming suffering. Jesus demonstrates the power of God which overcomes the strongman by suffering. Those who suffer manifest the power of God, even in death.  This is the point of the empty tomb account (Mark 16:1-8).  Through the resurrection Jesus asserts his power over the strong man.

Conclusion. Elizabeth Shively has made a significant contribution to the study of Mark’s gospel by suggesting Mark 3:22-30 as a programmatic statement which reflects Mark’s apocalyptic thinking. While not an apocalyptic writer, Mark reflects the sort of thinking which was common in the first century in order to communicate his interpretation of the life and ministry of Jesus as the “stronger man” who overcomes the power of Satan and enables his followers to understand their own struggle against the powers of darkness as they look forward to the return of the Son of Man to render final judgment.

Thanks to de Gruyter for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Book Review: Douglas S. Huffman, The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek

Huffman, Douglas S. The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2012, xvi + 112 pp., $16.99, paperback.  (Link to Kregel)

Douglas Huffman introduces his book as a “ready reference” for those who have finished their first year of Greek. This includes second year Greek students, but also pastors and teachers who are in need of a quick reference for reading the Greek New Testament.

Handy Guide to New Testament GreekThe book is divided into three parts. The first part (about half the book) summarizes the grammar of the Greek New Testament. This includes the sorts of things covered in a first year Greek class. He includes noun and verb charts, but also useful charts for on other elements of grammar. The section concludes with a chart of the principle parts for the most common irregular verbs. While most Greek students are required to memorize these unusual forms, the chart is a helpful reminder since principle parts are among the first things forgotten by first year Greek students!

In the second part of the Handy Guide Huffman summarizes syntactical categories, typically covered in a second year Greek Course. He treats nouns by listing various nuances of the cases, listing them, providing a brief definition, and a single biblical example. For students wading through Dan Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, these single page summaries are very helpful. While Huffman does not use exact lists from Wallace or any other New Testament Grammar, he does include the major categories and the terminology is close enough that students should be able to use the Handy Guide to quickly find the most likely syntactical description before turning to the more complete, advanced grammars. I would love to see a guide book like this include page numbers to Wallace, BDF, or other intermediate grammars. However, this probably would move the book beyond the “handy guide” status. This section has brief summaries of conditional sentences and a nice section on identifying participles. Huffman has a “participle identification chart”(page 80), although it seems a bit complicated to me. (To be honest, I do not think I have seen anyone come up with a flowchart that makes identifying participles any easier.)

The third part of the Handy Guide is perhaps the most useful to my students, although the section is a mere 23 pages. Huffman offers a simple overview of how to do sentence diagrams, including technical, phrase, semantic, and “arcing” diagrams. He steps through the basics of phrasing in two pages, then provides some examples from the Greek New Testament. His method looks a lot like what Mounce does in his Graded Reader, but I found his brief presentation quite helpful.  I would have liked more in this section, but what Huffman does provide a good introduction / reminder for students.

There is nothing new in this little book, but anyone who have done some Greek work will find it a “handy guide” indeed. The book is convenient and logically arranged. I appreciate both the high quality paper and binding of the book. Since it is the sort of book which will be consulted frequently, the higher quality will not wear out as fast. For example, I have been through three copies of Trenchard’s New Testament Vocabulary now, and my original Old Testament Hebrew vocab lists (published in the 80s) has completely disintegrated. Huffman’s Handy Guide is both useful and built to last.

My first thought when receiving this book was to compare it to William Mounce’s Biblical Greek, A Compact Guide (Zondervan, 2011), which I reviewed when it was released in 2011. Students who used Mounce in their first year may be more attracted to the Compact Guide, and it has a bit more material that Huffman’s Handy Guide, including a short lexicon and more principle parts.

Huffman’s Handy Guide to New Testament Greek delivers exactly what it promises, a handy summary of the things a first year Greek student ought to have learned, but may need a little refreshing.

Thanks to Kregel for providing a copy of this book to review.

Colin Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (PNTC)

Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans. PNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012., xlii + 627 pp., HB; $52.00.  Link to Eerdmans

Colin G. Kruse is senior lecturer at Melbourne School of Theology and author of several other fine commentaries, including the Letters of John in the Pillar series and two short commentaries on 2 Corinthians and John in the Tyndale New Testament series. He wrote a monograph on Paul in 1997 (Paul, the Law, and Justification, Hendrickson, now reprinted by Wipf & Stock, 2006). Kruse is not a representative of the New Perspective (which would not be expected in a series edited by D. A. Carson), but he does not march lock-step with the traditional view of Paul either. This provides something of a fresh perspective on Romans. This fairly readable commentary is focused on the text of Romans without being overly distracted by the current scholarly debate on the relationship between Paul and Judaism.Kruse, RomansThis commentary replaces the 1988 Leon Morris volume in the Pillar series. While it might seem strange to replace a commentary after only 25 years, much has happened in the study of Paul since Morris’s work was completed. While E. P. Sanders wrote his Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1979, there is nothing in Morris’s commentary that interacts with Sanders or his view on Judaism. In fact, Morris had a single paragraph in his introduction on the topic of Romans and Judaism, and he cites only J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle. Morris’s Romans commentary is still valuable, but it reads like a commentary produced in the seventies and does not address some of the questions more recent scholars have put to the book of Romans.

Since Morris’s commentary appeared, scholars associated with the New Perspective on Paul have developed many of Sanders’ ideas well beyond Paul and Palestinian Judaism.  Commentaries from James Dunn and N. T. Wright have brought the insights of the New Perspective to bear on the letter to the Romans. In contrast, others such as Schreiner and Moo have contributed major commentaries from a more traditional perspective. In addition, Robert Jewett’s excellent commentary on Romans appeared in the Hermenia series in 2006, providing yet another excellent and detailed study of Romans. It is, therefore, understandable that the Pillar Series would offer a new commentary on this important Pauline letter.

The Introduction. The thirty-three-page introduction covers the standard issues expected in a Romans commentary, and Kruse does not stray far from a traditional view of when the book was written. He understands the book’s primary purpose to be Paul’s attempt to minister via a letter to Christians in Rome for whom he had an apostolic responsibility. The Christians addressed are a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, like Paul’s churches in Galatia and Corinth. Paul wants to “exercise ministry by letter” as a forerunner to his planned ministry in person (10). The secondary purpose is to prepare for a planned mission to Spain.

The longest section of the introduction (14-22) is devoted to the New Perspective on Paul and how that perspective has understood the Book of Romans. He primarily interacts with Wright and Dunn since they have adapted and extended Sanders’ initial insights, and both have written major commentaries on Romans. Kruse does not engage in strawman tactics by using early statements that have been revised and clarified. Rather he cites the most recent work by Dunn and Wright (Justification, 2009). Kruse makes several conclusions on the New Perspective, which guide his commentary.

First, he finds that the New Perspective has correctly pointed out Covenantal Nomism in some Second Temple Period literature, but legalism does appear in some texts (especially 4 Ezra). This seems to be the conclusion of many Pauline scholars who have read Sanders and attempted to work with the literature of the Second Temple Period. In many ways, the New Perspective is a helpful correction, but Sanders’ description of Second Temple Period Judaism is not the only form known from the sources (see the essays in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Baker, 2004).

Second, for Kruse, by the time Paul wrote Romans, the phrase “works of the law” referred to the “whole law,” not simply the “boundary markers” of circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws (176). After evaluating Wright and Dunn, Kruse concludes that when Paul says “no one is justified by works of the Law” (Romans 3:20), he means keeping the whole law, not simply the boundary markers. What I find missing here is any discussion of the phrase “works of the Law” in the Qumran literature, especially 4QMMT. Since he has a substantial excursus on the phrase “works of the law” (173-6), I would have expected some interaction with Qumran, especially since Wright emphasizes 4QMMT frequently. I think that this is implied by Kruse’s comment that the earlier use of the phrase primarily meant “boundary markers,” but the text is not referred to in the introduction or commentary.

Third, Paul was critical of ethnocentricism and exclusivism as well as the legalistic tendencies of Second Temple Period Judaism. While Sanders is famous for saying that Judaism was not a legalistic religion in the Second Temple Period, Kruse understands that at least some Jews were, in fact, legalistic. It is this legalism that Paul argues against in Romans.

Fourth, justification by faith “was articulated as part of his defense of the incorporation of Gentile believers into the people of God without having to submit to circumcision or take upon themselves the yoke of the Law” (21). This does not mean that Paul created “justification by faith” so that he could do Gentile ministry. Kruse cites Machen, “Paul was not devoted to the doctrine of justification by faith because of the gentile mission, he was devoted to gentile mission because of the doctrine of justification by faith” (20).

Fifth, Paul’s law-free gospel did not imply a denigration of the law. Rather, Paul argues that the Law functions as a great privilege for Israel, which ultimately increases sin and awareness of sin (29). Believers are free from the Law, but they are not free to live sinful lives. While they live under grace, the Law can have a “educative role for believers,” a guidance for godly living (29).

Last, with respect to the controversial topic of justification, Kruse states that his understanding of Paul is that justification is “God’s declaration in favor of the believer” (22). Justification is forensic, referring to “God’s decision as a judge to justify sinners (27). This sounds very much like the traditional view of Paul, although Kruse does admit that justification is not itself the whole gospel message. Wright frequently quips that his critics use the word justification to mean “total salvation,” Kruse seems to agree with this critique.

The Commentary. The commentary proper moves through Romans pericope by pericope. Each section begins with a brief introduction, and text of the NIV 2011 is provided. The body of the section then moves verse by verse, commenting on the English text of Romans (in italics). All references to Greek are transliterated and, for the most part, appear in the footnotes of the commentary. In addition, Kruse often interacts with subtle exegetical points in the notes, which may not interest the general reader. This makes the body of the commentary more readable and useful for a pastor or teacher preparing to preach a text in Romans.

Kruse interacts with a broad range of scholarship, including both classic commentaries as well major recent contributions. He makes frequent references to Cranfield (ICC, 1975, 1979), but also to Dunn (WBC 1988), Fitzmyer (AB, 1993), Byrne (1996, Sacra Pagina), Moo (NICNT, 1996), Wright (NIB, 2002), and Jewett (2006, Hermenia). I especially appreciate Kruse’s style of listing several options (usually with Roman numerals) and clearly identifying his view. This respectful weighing of options makes it easy to wade through what might be an otherwise daunting array of opinions.

Like most of the commentaries in the Pillar series, Kruse deals with details that go beyond the text in a series of excursus or “additional notes.” These are sometimes aspects of the New Perspective, such as “Justification” or “Works of the Law.” A few of these sections deal with troubling exegetical problems, such as “All Israel will be Saved” (448-9) or the “Identity of the ‘I’ in 7:7-25.” Kruse often develops an element of Pauline theology, such as “Natural Theology” or “Eternal Life in the Pauline Corpus.” These sections are usually brief and could be skipped, but they connect to larger issues of Pauline theology. These brief notes form a sort of mini-dictionary of Pauline Theology.  I would have appreciated seeing a list of them in the index sorted by topic, but they appear in the table of contents.

Conclusion. Kruse has contributed an important commentary on what most consider Paul’s most important book. While it is not as lengthy or detailed as some, it is an excellent commentary for teaching and preaching the book of Romans. Kruse is a careful scholar who has written a commentary that will serve the church for years to come.

 

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke

Colin Kruse, The Letter to the Romans

Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians

Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians

Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus

Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (No longer available from the publisher)

Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (PNTC; Second Edition)

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for providing a copy of this book for review

Book Review Week

Next week is Spring Break my school, so all of the students are wandering off to warmer climates somewhere to the south.  My church starts a three-week missions conference, so my Sunday Evening Bible Study is on hiatus for a few weeks.  What is more, my dissertation is turned in and all I am waiting for is a defense date to be set.  All this means that it will be quiet and calm in my office for the week, giving me a chance to drink large quantities of strong, black coffee and catch up on the rather large stack of books I had intended to review on Reading Acts.

Some of these have been there since November (ETS/SBL purchases), I am ashamed to say.  So now, like Burgess Meredith, I can say, “time enough at last” and work my way through this stack.

Please notice the new “tab” below the title bar for Book Reviews.  I have culled older book reviews from the archives of Reading Acts and put them together on that page as an index.  I have also included software reviews and commentary on using technology for biblical studies.

What My Office Might Look Like