Francesco Filannino. The Theological Programme of Mark

The opening verses of Mark’s gospel present a reader with a thicket of interrelated exegetical difficulties. These problems are both internal to the pericope (e.g., how does the composite quotation in 1:2–3 function within its context?) and external (how does Mark’s introductory section prepare the reader for what follows?). In this monograph, Filannino addresses both matters. He undertakes a close reading of Mark 1:1–15 as a basis for addressing his stated concern: how these verses establish the theological program for Mark’s Gospel more broadly.Chapter 1 clears the ground of preliminary questions concerning the limits and internal organization of Mark’s opening pericope. Filannino argues that 1:1–15 functions as Mark’s introduction primarily against those who locate its ending at v. 13. Regarding their organization, he breaks these fifteen verses into two distinct sections with a significant subdivision within the second. Mark 1:1 function as an incipit, a phrase that functions as a title for the whole of Mark’s gospel. As such, it serves as a distinct unit in this introductory pericope. Within 1:2–15, then, verses 2–8 form a subunit dealing with John the Baptist while verses 9–15 introduce Jesus.Chapters 2–4 then examine the text within each of these three divisions in order. His discussion of 1:1 (Chapter 2) treats each term or phrase individually. Here I can only offer a sampling of his conclusions regarding two contentious issues. First, εὐαγγέλιον derives its sense both from its OT context in Isaiah and from its contemporary political environment. Thus, Mark’s auditors would not only have heard reverberations of salvation as promised in Isaiah but also echoes of the good news that come with the announcement of the birth of an emperor. Second, he concludes that the phrase υἱοῦ Θεοῦ belongs to the earliest recoverable text, points toward the close relationship between Jesus and God, and functions as the key to Mark’s understanding of Jesus.In his examination of 1:2–8 (Chapter 3), the author argues that the composite Old Testament quotations of 1:2–3 form the “hermeneutical horizon framing the mission of John the Baptist” (p. 72). In other words, as his divisions indicate, he associates Mark’s use of these texts with what follows rather than with the preceding incipit. As such, they set the stage for John’s appearance in v. 4 but also introduce key themes in the Gospel that follows. Regarding Mark 1:4–8, the entirety of John’s mission consists of pointing to the stronger one who will come after him. In this sense, John serves a christological function by focusing attention away from himself and toward Jesus.According to chapter 4, the three episodes of 1:9–15 anticipate features of Jesus’s mission to follow. The theophany upon Jesus’s baptism (vv. 9–11) signals that the time of salvation promised by the prophets has arrived. The wilderness temptation (vv. 12–13) looks forward to the coming defeat of Satan. The transitional verses of Mark 1:14–15, with their emphasis on the fulfillment of time and nearness of kingdom of God, provide the interpretive keys for understanding Jesus’s ministry that follows.Within this lengthy analysis of Mark’s introduction (175 pages), Filannino addresses the relationship of these verses to the rest of Mark’s gospel here and there as the issue arises. He finally addresses this task directly in a nine-page final chapter where he organizes his conclusions around four themes: Christology, eschatology, soteriology, and discipleship. In a monograph devoted to identifying themes in Mark’s introduction that hold central place in the following narrative, the brevity of this final chapter seems strange. But it succeeds in pulling together the results of his extended exegesis in a concise manner.On the whole, Filannino succeeds in his stated task. Most scholars will find themselves mostly pleased, but at times perplexed, with his exegetical decisions. That result likely stems more from the difficult nature of the exegetical problems that must be addressed rather than from the author’s own interpretive work. But his conclusions are clearly argued with an awareness of the vast amount of scholarship already done on these fifteen verses. Readers will welcome his use not just of scholarship in English, German, and French, but also in Italian and Spanish. Rare is the New Testament scholar who can pull off research in that many languages.My one major exegetical concern lies in how Filannino downplays the linkage of 1:1 with the composite quotations in 1:2–3. Mark transitions from 1:1 to 1:2–3 by stating καθῶς γέγραπται (“just as it is written”), a formula normally used to introduce a scriptural quotation that functions to explain what precedes it. Filannino wants to emphasize the function of 1:2–3 for what follows. But in doing so, he seems to posit an either/or scenario whereby 1:2–3 must be linked either with what precedes or what follows it. I see this as a false dichotomy. The question is not whether Mark links 1:2–3 more closely with what precedes or what follows but how Mark relates the quotation to both.Filannino has given us a monograph that Markan scholars must consult. It will helpfully be read alongside Rikki Watts’s Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (WUNT 2.88; Mohr Siebeck 1997) for fuller treatment on Mark’s use of Isaiah. A reader would also do well to consult Joel Marcus’s The Way of the Lord (Westminster/John Knox, 1992) for a separate close reading of Mark 1:2–3 in context

Art · Exegesis · Gospel · Literature · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Computer Science · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Philosophy · Theology and Canon Law Studies