THE MARKAN INCIPIT
It is widely recognized that Mark 1:1 functions as a title or incipit for the entire Gospel of Mark. Such titles were significant in ancient literature, as they often functioned as a programmatic statement for the reader, providing a lens through which the entire text should be read.2 Thus paying close attention to Markās incipit should offer the reader clues as to the function and purpose of the entire Gospel.
A number of brief preliminary exegetical comments can be made about Markās incipit: āThe beginning of the good news [gospel] of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.ā The reference to ābeginningā (Ī¬ĻĻĪ®) could be a reference to the beginning of Jesusā earthly ministry, which will be described in Mark, or it could be a reference to the entirety of Jesusā ministry as outlined in Mark, that is, what is described in this text is only the beginning of Godās work, not the entirety of it. āGospelā (Īµį½Ī±Ī³Ī³ĪµĪ»ĪÆĪæĪ½) generally refers to good news or glad tidings and is not here used in a technical sense to refer to genre, that is to say, Mark is not identifying this work as āa Gospel.ā Presumably this good news is about Jesus, who is identified as the Christ or Godās Messiah.3 Jesusā identity as the Christ is then further qualified by the title āSon of God,ā that is, Jesus is understood as Messiah in terms of divine sonship.
However, the title āSon of Godā is textually uncertain, with the phrase being absent in one significant early manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus, ×*). Despite this omission, the reading āSon of Godā is found in good and reliable early manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus, B; Codex Alexandrinus, A; Codex Bezae, D). Yet many scholars find it more likely that a scribe added the title than omitted it. It is possible, however, that the omission was accidental, as a scribe would have been looking at a list of six genitive words, with the sacred names abbreviated and listed without spaces between themāĪĪ„Ī§Ī„Ī„Ī„ĪĪ„.4 This textual issue is impossible to resolve with any certainty, but there is adequate reason to accept āSon of Godā as original to Markās incipit, and I will cautiously move forward accepting the longer reading.
Thus Markās incipit establishes Jesusā identity as Godās Messiah (and plausibly Son of God) and clearly indicates that Mark has a strong christological interest. But such a conclusion is rather generic and gives the reader little insight into how Mark might understand these titles or to what ends these titles are used in Mark. To glean more from Markās incipit, attention must be given to the possible backgrounds against which the language of the incipit could be read. Many interpreters have argued that the language of Markās incipit finds meaning against the background of Isaiahās Servant Song, in which āthe one who proclaims good newsā (Īµį½Ī±Ī³Ī³ĪµĪ»Ī¹Ī¶ĻĪ¼ĪµĪ½ĪæĻ, a participle from the same root as the noun Īµį½Ī±Ī³Ī³ĪµĪ»ĪÆĪæĪ½, āgood newsā) is prominent (e.g., Is 40:9 [2x]; 41:27 [Masoretic Text]; 52:7 [2x]; 60:6; 61:1). The āone who proclaims good newsā announces Godās victory over the enemies of Israel (Is 41:27) and the reestablishment of Godās righteous reign over Israel (Is 40:9-10; 52:7). That the incipit is followed by a citation from Isaiahās Servant Song (Is 40:3) serves to strengthen the connection between Markās incipit and āthe one who proclaims good newsā in Isaiah. Such a conclusion is also supported by the first words spoken by the Markan Jesus, who enters Galilee saying, āThe time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good newsā (Mk 1:15). Thus through the incipit Mark is intentionally identifying Jesus as the one who both proclaims and establishes the Isaianic good news.
But other interpreters have noted that the language of the Markan incipit strongly echoes the language of the Roman imperial world. Īį½Ī±Ī³Ī³ĪĪ»Ī¹ĪæĪ½ was a word regularly associated with Roman emperors. It was often used to describe their birth, political ascension, and military victories. Josephus writes that on receiving the news of Vespasianās rise to power, āevery city kept festivals for the good news [Īµį½Ī±Ī³Ī³ĪĪ»Ī¹Ī±] and offered sacrifices on his behalf.ā5 He also writes, āOn reaching Alexandria, Vespasian was greeted by the good news [Īµį½Ī±Ī³Ī³ĪĪ»Ī¹Ī±] from Rome and by embassies of congratulation from every quarter of the world, now his own.ā6 But perhaps most significant is the Priene Calendar Inscription, written in honor of the emperor Augustus:
Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god [ĪøĪµĪæįæ¦] Augustus was the beginning [į¼¦ĻĪ¾ĪµĪ½] of the good tidings [Īµį½Ī±Ī³Ī³ĪµĪ»ĪÆĻĪ½] for the world that came by reason of him.7
Here we see a striking similarity with the Markan incipit, as both refer to the ābeginning of the good tidings [gospel].ā And while in this inscription Augustus is identified as a god, he and his successors were often given the title āson of Godā (see discussion above in chapter two), a title present in the Markan incipit. If one were to remove āJesus Christā from the Markan incipit and replace it with āCaesar Augustus,ā the resulting text would be quite similar to Roman imperial inscriptions found throughout the empire. Undeniably the first century Greco-Roman reader would have recognized the presence of Roman imperial language in Markās incipit. To such a reader it would have appeared that Mark intentionally replaced Caesar with Jesus and thus attributed to Jesus the honor that was regularly reserved for the emperor alone.
The similarities that Markās incipit shares with both the language of Isaiah and the language of the Roman imperial world have led many interpreters to argue for one background over against the other.8 While such a choice might seem the only way forward, both Craig Evans and I have argued for a third possibilityānamely, that the Evangelist has intentionally brought together the language of both the Jewish and the Roman world.9 The intentional merging of such language would be perfectly suited to address a crisis created by Flavian propaganda, propaganda in which Vespasian had already merged Jewish messianic hope with Roman imperial realities. Markās merging of Isaianic language (clearly understood messianically) and the language of the Roman imperial world could easily and naturally have been understood as an intentionally mirroring of and response to Vespasianās merging of these same two realities. Thus, from the outset of Markās Gospel, he proclaims the āgood newsā of Jesus contra Vespasian, that Jesus is the true Messiah and fulfillment of Jewish Scriptures contra Vespasian, and that Jesus is true āSon of Godā contra Vespasian. Thus I propose that through an incipit tailor made to address the crisis facing the Markan community, the Evangelist sets the agenda for the entire Gospel and provides the reader with the proper lens for reading the entire narrative.
JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JESUS
After the Markan incipit, the reader is introduced to John the Baptist, a figure established as a powerful prophet of God and one who plays a preparatory role for Godās salvific work. Mark styles John after the powerful prophet Elijah, as he is dressed in a similar fashion (2 Kings 1:8). Johnās role is relatively minor in Markās Gospel. Though he does not use Jesusā name, he declares that Jesus will be even greater than himself and that Jesus will baptize people with the Holy Spirit. At the baptism of Jesus the wilderness prophet fades into the background (though he reappears in Mk 6) while God declares Jesus to be his beloved son, and Jesus is anointed with the Spirit of God. Jesus is then driven into the wilderness for forty days, where he is presumably victorious over the testing of Satan and the threat of wild beasts, and is subsequently attended to by angels.
In these opening verses of Markās narrative Jesus is presented as an impressive and powerful figure. He is greater than the powerful prophet John and will have the ability to wield the very Spirit of God. Jesusā baptism reaffirms the claim of Markās incipit that Jesus is the āSon of God.ā Markās echo of Psalm 2:7, a royal coronation psalm, presents Jesusā baptism as just such a coronation. The latter half of the divine saying, āthe Beloved; with you I am well pleased,ā echoes Isaiah 42:1, which describes Godās servant assigned to an eschatological task.10 Thus at his baptism Jesus begins his reign as Godās appointed eschatological ruler. As Godās ruler, Jesus is victorious over both spiritual and physical opposition, and he regains his strength from the aid of divine agents. It is this powerful figure who will enter Galilee and dominate the first half of Markās Gospel.
THE GALILEAN MINISTRY
In Mark 1:15 Jesus enters Galilee proclaiming the āgood newsā of the coming kingdom of God. With Jesusā recent appointment as Godās ruler, the reader might rightfully conclude that Jesus should be understood as the ruler of this kingdom, though he is ruling on behalf of God himself. The narrative that follows this proclamation of the kingdom of God is dominated by the powerful actions of Jesus, including healings, exorcisms, power over nature, and the power to multiply food. Interspersed with these powerful actions are accounts of peopleās reactions to Jesus, both positive and negative, and Jesusā teaching on the nature of the kingdom of God. Throughout this portion of the narrative there are persistent questions about Jesusā identity, with some perceiving it clearly and others failing to do so.
As I noted in the introductory chapter, most narrative assessments of Mark have tended to give narrative priority to the various responses to Jesus throughout the Galilean ministry, with the powerful deeds of Jesus often treated as mere vehicles for addressing discipleship and proper responses to Jesus. As such the miracles of Jesus often play a minor role in narrative assessments of Markās Christology. Such an approach to understanding the Jesus of Markās Galilean ministry seems tragically misguided, as Jesusā deeds of power seem to dominate the narrative space of the first eight chapters of Markās Gospel. That Mark devotes such space to Jesusā great deeds of power suggests that those deeds of power are intended to communicate important aspects of Jesusā identity. To be sure, peopleās responses to Jesusā deeds of power are important for the Markan narrative, but are they truly primary over the powerful deeds of Jesus? I propose that the powerful deeds of Jesus are primary for Markās presentation of Jesus and that the reactions to these deeds often function both to illustrate the significance of the deeds themselves and to identify the proper response to such deeds. Often the reader is pushed to make an assessment about what the deeds mean for Jesusā identity, as questions about his identity often accompany his deeds of power.
To illustrate, I offer a narrative overview of a section of Markās Galilean ministry, Mark 1:21ā3:35. This section of Markan text begins with Jesus exorcising a demon through a verbal command. This episode illustrates for the reader an important part of Jesusā identity as Godās Messiah and Sonāthat he possesses extreme power, including power over the supernatural realm that opposes God. The response of those present for the exorcism, āWhat is this? A new teachingāwith authority! He co...