Theology Today - Vol 51, No. 2 - July 1994 - BOOK REVIEW - Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse

321 - Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse

Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse
By George R. Beasley-Murray
Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1993. 518 pp. $29.95.

It is rare to find in a single volume the fruit of a scholar's lifelong labor on one New Testament text and its interpretation. Such fruit can be found in George R. Beasley-Murray's Jesus and the Last Days. In this book, Basley-Murray, the former Principal of Spurgeon's College, London and the long-time Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, continues his research on Mark 13, research that began nearly forty years ago with the publication of his Jesus and the Future (1954) and A Commentary on Mark 13 (1957). The current work stands as a re-presentation and updating of those landmark studies.

The bulk of Beasley-Murray's current study is, as the subtitle suggests, a history of the interpretation of Mark 13. The first four chapters, which are taken unchanged from Jesus and the Future, trace the development of and reactions to the so-called "little apocalypse" theory until 1950. This theory, originating with T. Colani in 1864, argued that a short apocalypse by an unknown author was mistakenly attributed to Jesus and inserted into the gospel traditions. Beasley-Murray's exhaustive tracking of this theory and its repercussions have held up rather well over the years, accurately showing the apologetic concerns that gave the theory much of its impetus.

In his long fifth chapter (188 pages!), Beasley-Murray brings his history of research on Mark 13 up to date. This chapter is a testimony to the author's thoroughness and his keen grasp of complex arguments. Perhaps the most important part of this chapter is Beasley-Murray's treatment of the many significant monographs that have appeared since the publication of his initial work. Without a doubt, Beasley-Murray has done scholars (and other interested readers) an inestimable service in summarizing and analyzing such a vast, and often forbidding, sea of work.

It is in chapter six that we get a clear statement of Beasley-Murray's own views on Mark 13, though hints at these views are given throughout. Also, given the gap in time between this and his other work, it should come as no surprise that Beasley-Murray has changed his mind on a number of issues. He, of course, is not alone in such changes of mind-witness the modifications in the views of R. Pesch, some of which, as

322 - Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse

Beasley-Murray chronicles, are quite radical. The most noticeable changes in Beasley-Murray's conclusions stem from his recognition of the composite nature of Mark 13. This makes it possible for him to admit Mark's role in the composition of the discourse ("the whole discourse bears the imprint of his [Mark's] style"), though he sees Mark as one who redacts his sources in a conservative way. Beasley-Murray then suggests that the Great War of 66-70 CE, sometime before the fall of Jerusalem, provides the general backdrop for the discourse. In light of this terrible conflict, the discourse was written (1) to "inspire faith, endurance, and hope in face of the impending sufferings of the church and of the Jewish nation" and (2) to warn Christians against those holding false and extravagant views regarding the near expectation of the end. These conclusions, while hardly startling and generally quite cautious, are backed by Beasley Murray's meticulous exegesis, which can easily be accessed in his fresh commentary on Mark 13 (chapter seven).

Of course, the debate will go on over this hotly contested text. As Beasley-Murray notes, there is still controversy as to whether Mark 13 can be called an apocalypse and as to how far one can go in applying to it the adjective "apocalyptic." On this score, Beasley-Murray's arguments are not totally persuasive. He is quite reluctant to apply to Mark 13 the term "apocalyptic" and, at a number of points, offers up C. C. Torrey's work (a work that denies any connection whatsoever between Mark 13 and apocalyptic writings) as a counter-balance to those who would call Mark 13 an apocalypse or relate it closely to apocalyptic literature. While authoritative in its day, Torrey's work is now quite dated. Using more current definitions of apocalypse as a genre, such as that of J. J. Collins and the Apocalypse Group of the Society of Biblical Literature Genres Project, it seems clear that Mark 13 is very close in terms of form and content to that genre.

This, however, is to take nothing away from a work that will be a constant reference point for all who work on Mark 13. In this stylish and learned book, Beasley-Murray has made a significant and lasting contribution to scholarship.

David M. Freedholm
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, NJ