Abstract
This revised version of Bernardo Cho's dissertation, completed at the University of Edinburgh, offers a careful and critical reading of Mark's Gospel alongside of other Second Temple period works. Cho's book takes up the complicated question of the relationship between king and high priest in the Second Temple period and how this relationship might be evidenced in the Gospel of Mark as Mark depicts Jesus himself in kingly ways.
Cho suggests that Mark's depiction of Jesus as a kingly figure does not place him at odds with sacrificial or priestly systems. Rather, Cho argues that any perception of supersessionism in Mark is misplaced. Although the Jerusalem priesthood may not have rightly recognized Jesus's messiahship, Cho contends that Mark preserves a concern for an on-going relationship between kingship and priesthood, if not necessarily in a diarchic manner, at least in a complementary one. In developing this argument throughout the book, Cho makes use of a method that he describes as “an eclectic method that uses literary criticism as a subset of historical criticism” (p. 16). In the final two chapters of the book, Cho relies especially on an intertextual approach to the text in order to build his case that Mark is using texts from the Psalms to present Jesus as a royal messianic figure who is ultimately condemned due to the failure of the established priest-hood to recognize Jesus's rightful identity.
In chapters 1 and 2, Cho situates his topic within the larger scope of the late Second Temple Period. Examining both various texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls (including 4Q252, 4Q174, 4Q285, and 1QM, among others) and various texts from the pseudepigrapha (but most thoroughly Psalm of Solomon 17), Cho traces ancient conceptions of the relationship between king and priest in an idealized future time period. In these chapters, Cho suggests that the texts he surveys support the view that kingship and priesthood were viewed complementarily.
Following the background provided in the first two chapters, Cho turns in chapter 3 to make a case for Mark's presentation of Jesus as a royal messianic figure. Although Cho admits that Mark turns this category somewhat upside down (especially insofar as Jesus appears as a fundamentally nonviolent messiah), he nonetheless suggests that messiahship is “essentially a kingly category in Mark” (p. 78). Through Mark's quotations or allusions to several royal Psalms, Cho argues that Mark's connection between Jesus and the title “Son of David” points to a Markan Christology that supports Jesus's divine sonship.
The apex of Cho's full argument appears in chapters 4 and 5 as he examines how Mark depicts the relationship between Jesus as the royal messiah (an identity suggested in chapter 3) and the Jerusalem priesthood, first in Mark 1—10 (chapter 4) and then in Mark 11—16 (chapter 5). Although this relationship is fundamentally different in the latter part of Mark where tensions between Jesus and the Jerusalem priesthood come to a head, Cho's argument in both of these final chapters is remarkably similar. In short, Cho argues that Jesus's clashing with Temple leadership is not to be understood as a renunciation of the Temple cult per se. Rather, Cho suggests that this antagonism serves as a sign of God's coming judgment on the priestly establishment because of its failure to recognize Jesus's royal messianic identity. For Cho, Jesus's disruptive action in the Temple is essentially a judgment against the high priests who have failed to acknowledge Jesus's rightful identity, not an indictment of the whole of the cultic system.
Throughout the volume, Cho draws on several Second Temple texts, but he does not clarify precisely why these particular texts were chosen or how they may or may not be related to Mark. For example, in discussing the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Mark 12:1–12, Cho introduces a reasonable parallel to the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5. However, Cho then points to the interpretation of the Song in 4Q500 in order to illustrate the linkage between the Song and the temple. Cho qualifies the inclusion of 4Q500 saying, “This is not to claim that Mark is dependent on 4Q500, but simply to note the currency of such an interpretation in roughly the same period” (p. 171). However, the reader may be left wondering just how the presence of such an interpretation illuminates an understanding of Mark's text. While it would not be necessary (and would likely be impossible) to prove a genetic relationship between Mark and several of the texts Cho chooses, it remains unclear as to why these specific texts were chosen or what they contribute to an understanding of Mark itself.
The technical nature of this volume means that it will generally not be accessible to lay or undergraduate audiences. The book is perhaps most geared toward upper-level graduate students or New Testament scholars who would be able to follow Cho in his original language use of both Second Temple texts and the Gospel of Mark. Nonetheless, despite the potentially more limited audience for the book, its insights would undoubtedly be of interest to several audiences if adept readers could translate these insights into less technical terms.