In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Expositio Evangelii secundum Marcum. The First Commentary on Mark: An Annotated Translation
  • Glenn W. Olsen
Expositio Evangelii secundum Marcum. The First Commentary on Mark: An Annotated Translation. Translated and edited by Michael Cahill. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Pp. xiv + 154. $35.00.

In 1997 Michael Cahill’s critical edition of the first formal commentary on Mark by a single author appeared in the Corpus Christianorum series (CCSL 82). This is his translation of the same work, which long traveled under St. Jerome’s name, but which Cahill attributes to an early seventh-century abbot. Because of its misattribution, the Expositio has considerable influence in the middle ages and, though labeled a pseudepigraphon of Jerome in the Renaissance, it continued to be drawn on in the Counter-Reformation. Its monastic author uses Scripture to foster the practice of virtue and especially engages in spiritual exegesis of the “mystical” sense. He is particularly interested in the church as the body of [End Page 475] Christ, as the kingdom of God, as the successor to the Jews, and as Petrine and Roman. His view of the history of salvation lays special weight on the place of the gentiles as successors to the Jews and communicators of the Gospel to “our wild and untamed people” (p. 64).

Cahill provided an extensive introduction to this commentary in his Latin edition. He limits his Introduction to the present book to matters critical to an intellegent reading of his translation. The provenance of the commentary remains unresolved, and indeed Cahill follows Michael Gorman’s call for a reconsideration of Bernard Bischoff’s very influential theories about “Irish symptoms.” The Prologue of the commentary comments on prior neglect of Mark. Because earlier commentary on the other Gospels also carried much of the material in Mark, our commentator says that he will devote particular attention to those parts specific to Mark. He later makes such interesting observations as that Mark ordered his story not chronologically but according to “the order of the mysteries” (p. 38). Our commentator is aware of the continuing existence of the Jews and, though making many negative comments about them, insists on their final salvation. Cahill thinks his “high Christology” is related to the continuing threat of Arianism.

Cahill’s presentation of the translated text is very intelligent. Though following his critical edition in dropping interpolations, he retains as an Appendix the homily already found in the early ninth-century manuscript, Angers 275. He identifies the Markan commentary’s extensive use of the biblical texts in direct quotation paraphrase, and allusion by the use of bold face and italics. The notes comment on sources and the anonymous author’s technique. The colloquial translation is easily accessible and clear, and has many fine turns of expression. There is an Index of Biblical Texts and of annotations. Cahill does not waste words: occasionally I wished that he had been a bit more fulsome. Thus though he makes sensible comments about our commentary within the presuppositions of ancient spiritual exegesis, perhaps use of scholars such as Henri de Lubac would have given more precision to such notes as pp. 77 n. 29, 91 n. 11, and 95 n. 1. Similarly, the issues between Augustine and Pelagius are not very well described, p. 84 n. 9. But all in all, this is a well-crafted, useful volume.

Glenn W. Olsen
The University of Utah
...

Share