From Scandalon to
commentaries, Card inspires deeper engagement with Scripture.
Mark: The Gospel of Passion
Author: Michael Card
Publisher: IVP Books (www.ivpress.com)
Pages: 206
While browsing recently at a Thrift store, I found Scandalon (1986), one of Michael Card’s
earliest recordings. It was fascinating to go on Amazon and read customer
reviews praising this release. If you have any familiarity with Card’s music,
you know that he has a remarkable ability to convey depth in biblical truth
within the confines of a song.
It seems fitting that all of his Bible study for songs
would lead first to theological books and now an ambitious commentary series on
the four gospels. Mark: The Gospel of
Passion is the second release. Luke:
The Gospel of Amazement was released last year, and commentaries on Matthew
and John are scheduled for 2013 and 2014 respectively.
Each of these will have a separate companion recording
related to the themes of each gospel. Card has not given up his music career; writing
commentaries is just another means to fulfill his primary calling as a teacher.
As I read, immediately (a favorite term in Mark’s gospel)
I was inspired by Card’s meticulous study. His attention to detail is an example
for us all. His way of combining facts and imaginative thought makes the text
come alive, and it is what this series is all about.
Card was mentored in this approach by William Lane, and
he most likely gets more into the “how to” aspect in his touring conference
series. Here in these first two commentaries he teaches more by example and
asides. If you are familiar with the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, you
may recall the centurion’s confession, “Truly this man was the son of God”
(Mark 15:39 ESV). In his comment on the passage, Card encourages, “Stop and
take time to engage with the text at the level of your imagination. Imagine the
centurion covered in the blood of three men, a hardened warrior of the Italian
cohort far from his home. ‘Son of God’ is a title that belongs solely to the
emperor he has sworn to serve. Imagine the response of Mark’s first Roman
readers as they hear this glorious confession coming from the lips of a Roman
soldier …” (184).
When I read of the crucifixion I am continually struck by
the monumental nature of the events. I appreciate that Card makes it even more
vivid. Popular depictions of crucifixions show the crucified in loin cloths.
Card corrects this misconception when he writes, “The custom was that crucified
criminals would be stripped naked on the cross” (180). After Jesus has been
nailed to the cross, Card adds, “It is apparent that Jesus is now naked” (182).
This is the first time I have come across anyone addressing this small detail.
Card continually shows that it is important to gain the
facts through references like his own so that they can be thoughtfully engaged.
If we don’t know the context and background, our imaginations can lead us
astray.
From the start of this commentary I was eager to see how
Card would handle the ending of Mark’s gospel, and he did not disappoint. Card
speaks with authority, referencing William Lane and other sources in Appendix E
in support of Mark 16:9-20 not being part of the original ending. Some believe
that part of it was lost, but Card provides convincing logic in his commentary
on verses 1-8 that this is the original ending. This is one of many insights
that make this a keeper.
More detailed and exhaustive commentaries are designed as
references to be consulted. This is a book to read. Both kinds are valuable,
but the readability makes this a pleasure. Plus, readers easily gain the basic
background, context and meaning, which all are critical for teaching, preaching
and one’s own exegesis.
The cover, layout, graphics, and outlines are all pleasing
to the eye. The book includes the full text of the gospel broken up by short
commentary sections. The Holman Christian Standard Bible is used except where
noted.
Card’s interactions with the sacred text have made him a fine
scholar. William Lane, if he were still here, would be proud. Card might find
it even more rewarding if this series inspires readers into a deeper engagement
with the Scriptures.
5 comments:
Regarding Mark 16:9-20: No no no. Card keeps the evidence at a distance, not allowing the reader to see the important details of the case. He depends on Lane, but Lane (like many other commentators) misrepresented several pieces of pertinent evidence.
It is important to "gain the facts," as you mentioned. Unfortunately some of the facts which form the foundation for Lane's conclusions (which, in turn, form the foundation for Michael Card's conclusions) are fiction.
This is not a problem that has touched these writers only; it is widespread in commentaries and other resources (Bible-footnotes, NT Surveys, etc.).
If you ever care to elaborate, I will welcome your thoughts on the ending to Mark's gospel.
Michael Dalton,
[This is Part 1.] Just send me an e-mail (at james (dot) snapp (at) gmail (dot) com) and I will be glad to send a digital copy of a research-book and other resources I have prepared on this subject. Regarding Dr. Lane's comments specifically:
First, in his Additional Note on the Supplementary Endings to the Gospel, Dr. Lane stated that the testimony of MSS 304 and 2386 may be added to that of B and Aleph. 2386, however, is merely a damaged MS, from which a thief removed the final page of Mark in order to obtain the illustration of St. Luke on the opposite side of the page. (Dr. Lane mentions, in a footnote, the German article in which Kurt Aland explained this, but apparently Dr. Lane either did not read, or did not recollect, what Aland had written about 2386.) 304 may also be damaged; it is a medieval commentary-manuscript, in which the (essentially Byzantine) text of Matthew and Mark is interspersed with the commentary, and in which the subscription does not appear after 16:8, and in which commentary which follows 16:8 ends abruptly.
Second, although Dr. Lane mentioned, in a footnote, the distinctive blank space in Vaticanus which follows 16:8, he misrepresented its implications. It indicates that the copyist did not have access to, but was aware of, verses 9-20; had the copyist had in mind the Shorter Ending, there would have been no need to leave blank an entire column, inasmuch as the missing words would fit below the end of 16:8 in column 2 on the page. (In addition, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both almost certainly made at Caesarea, where the Shorter Ending was, it seems, unknown to its bishop Eusebius c. 325.)
[To Be Continued]
[This is Part 2.]
Third, Dr. Lane did not mention that the pages in Sinaiticus that contain Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 were not produced by the copyist who made the surrounding pages; nor did he note the irregular rates of lettering on these pages.
Fourth, Dr. Lane mentioned Armenian MSS that lack Mk. 16:9-20 but did not mention that they are medieval; nor did he mention the much earlier (440) Armenian evidence from Eznik of Golb, who utilized Mk. 16:17-18.
Fifth, Dr. Lane stated that "a number of MSS of the Ethiopic version" do not contain Mk. 16:9-20, but that is false (as Metzger explained in a detailed article in NTTS in 1980).
Sixth, Dr. Lane misrepresented the testimony of Eusebius, who affirmed that someone could resolve a perceived discrepancy between Mt. 28 and Mk. 16 about the timing of the resurrection by rejecting verses 9-20 on the grounds that the passage is not in all the manuscripts, or is not in the accurate ones, or is in some but not others, or rarely appears. But then Eusebius presses for an alternative solution in which Mk. 16:9 is punctuated and retained, and later in the same composition he mentions that some copies say that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene, and later still he attributes this to Mark without qualification. Eusebius clearly knew of MSS that stopped at 16:8, but except for the statement that some copies of Mark say that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene, all that he says about proportions of MSS, and about the accurate MSS, is explicitly within a hypothetical framework, as if he is offering someone else's thoughts on the subject. (Marinus, to whom he wrote, does not seem to have had any doubts about the authenticity of the passage.)
Seventh, when Dr. Lane states that Jerome "echoes this testimony" (i.e., Eusebius' testimony), it should be clear (but, alas, isn't) that this is indeed exactly what Jerome was doing! The part of Jerome's Epistle 120 (Ad Hedibiam) to which Dr. Lane refers consists of Jerome's loosely translated and condensed presentation of part of Eusebius' "Ad Marinum" (including three of the questions that Marinus asked Eusebius, in the same order). What we see here is Jerome's efficient use of other authors' work, not a report from Jerome about his own investigations into the contents of MSS. Jerome included Mk. 16:9-20 in the Vulgate (which, he said, he made by conforming the Old Latin texts to the contents of ancient Greek copies), and in his "Against the Pelagians" he casually uses Mk. 16:14 to show where he had seen the interpolation that is now known as the Freer Logion -- it was seen there, he states, "especially in Greek codices."
[To be Continued]
[This is Part 3.]
Eighth, Dr. Lane stated that "Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian and Cyril of Jerusalem show no awareness of the existence of these verses." He thus gave a false impression of the non-testimony of these witnesses. Clement of Alexandria, for example, does not quote from 12 /chapters/ of Mark; his non-use of 12 verses tells us nothing about the contents of his copies of Mark. Similarly, Origen and Cyprian cited Mark only sporadically. And Cyril of Jerusalem quoted a statement of Nestorius in which Nestorius quoted Mark 16:20, without questioning what Nestorius was saying, which I would say should be considered implicit recognition of the passage.
Ninth, Dr. Lane said that "a number of MSS which do contain them have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack them." (Lane's statement here is is almost word-for-word, by the way, from Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.) The 14 MSS to which he refers are related, and the notes are not independent but instead fall into three groups. In one form, the annotation states specifically that although some copies end the text at 16:8, the whole passage is in the ancient copies. While obviously any MS is going to be older than a note describing it, it is certainly not acceptable when a note that says, "The ancient copies contain the passage" is described so as to give readers the impression that the note says the exact opposite!
Tenth, Dr. Lane claimed that "in other witnesses" (that is, MSS without annotations) "the final section is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by scribes to mark off a spurious addition to a literary text." (Again, I ask you to compare this to Metzger's comments and ask yourself if you are reading, in Lane's work, the results of independent research, or the words of a parrot.) This entire claim is not true. Marginal insignia which denote the beginnings and ends of lections (and which appear in the MSS at other places, serving the same purpose there) have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by earlier scholars, and their mistakes, over the years, have been distorted and exaggerated, with the result that these markings, which initially signified that Mark 16:9-20 was the third reading in the Heothina-series, as well as the reading for Ascension-Day, have been erroneously described by virtually every commentator in the past 50 years who has mentioned them. (This includes not only Metzger and Lane, but also Evans, Stein, and many others. I deduce with exasperation that all of them have borrowed from Metzger.)
Eleventh, Dr. Lane claimed that Lectionary 961 contains the Shorter Ending, but that is incorrect. (Dr. Lane just repeated the erroneous apparatus-entry from the second edition of the UBS GNT at this point.)
Twelfth, Dr. Lane stated (in a footnote on p. 602), "MS 274 has the Shorter Ending after 16:9-20," but in 274 the Shorter Ending is in the lower margin of the page (the last line of which contains text from 16:15). Dr. Lane somehow managed to make this claim even though he must have seen, in Bruce Metzger's "Text of the New Testament" -- a book to which he refers repeatedly in his commentary -- a picture of the pertinent page of MS 274.
A dozen more objections could be made about things that Dr. Lane did *not* say.
The materials I hope to send contain additional information.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana
www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org
Post a Comment