Review in: The Expository
Times 2012 124: 88
Review door: Paul FosterGevonden op: http://ext.sagepub.com/content/124/2/88.full.pdf+html
Paideia Commentary on Mark
Mary Ann
Beavis, Mark – Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011. $27.99. pp. xvii + 302. ISBN:
978-0-8010-3437-4).
Mary Ann
Beavis has established herself as a leading scholar on Mark’s gospel. It is,
therefore, with some expectation that one looks forward to her commentary on
the gospel. Expectations are not disappointed. Beavis is fully aware of the
aims of the Paideia series and writes consciously and elegantly with those
expectations in mind. The commentary is shaped by pedagogical concerns, and a desire
to focus upon the text in its ‘current form’ (p.28). The approach taken is
multi-faceted with the exegesis informed by insights from ‘source, form, redaction,
reader/audience response, rhetorical, social scientific, feminist’ criticism.
In the introduction the standard questions are addressed, with the gospel seen
to be written by a certain Mark (although not necessarily the John Mark known
elsewhere in the NT), Rome is seen as the most likely place for composition –
although Galilee or nearby southern Syria are seen as viable alternatives, and
the content of the gospel ‘points to a date near the Roman defeat of Jerusalem’
(p. 12). Other topics treated in the introduction relate to genre, literary
features, major themes, and the structure of the gospel.
The major
exegetical sections of the commentary are divided into ‘introductory matters’,
‘tracing the narrative flow’, and ‘theological issues’. Mark 1.1-13 is treated
as the prologue, Mark 1.14-15 as a transitional summary statement. In some ways
this attempts to break the scholarly impasse of whether vv. 14-15 belong to the
prologue or to the body of the gospel. Thereafter, Beavis structures the gospel
into five acts, each followed by a teaching interlude, and concluded with the
epilogue of the women at the tomb. There is no attempt to treat any of the
‘endings’ of Mark which follow on from Mark 16.8. Given that the commentary states
that it is treating the ‘current form’ of the text, maybe this should have been
glossed to explain that statement presumably means the earliest recoverable
form of the text, or the text form as printed in major critical editions of the
Greek NT. The exegesis is sure-footed throughout, and the additional use of
text boxes, diagrams, and pictures, adds much to this commentary as a
pedagogical tool. That comment is not meant to imply that this commentary has
nothing of value for the seasoned scholar. There is much here that is worthwhile,
and deserving of reflection and study.
Beavis has
produced an incisive and instructive commentary. It will be highly prized by
students, and regularly consulted by scholars. This is a welcome addition to
the impressive Paideia series.
PAUL FOSTER
School of Divinity, University of
Edinburgh
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten