Allyson Presswood

NTGK9432
October 23, 2012
Bests Markan Soteriology: All About Atonement
Best, Ernest. The Temptation and The Passion: The Markan Soteriology. 2nd Ed. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Biographical Data
Ernest Best (1917-2004) was a writer, professor, and clergyman in the United Kingdom.
He received a BA and an MA from Queens University in Belfast in mathematics (1938, 42), and
then a BD and PhD in divinity from the same (1942, 48). He also holds an honorary DD from
the University of Glasgow (1999). Best served as a clergyman in Northern Ireland after his
graduation (1948-63) and then took on professorial duties at the University of St. Andrews
(1963-74) and later the University of Glasgow (1974-82). Along with pastoring and teaching,
Best authored several books in the NT area of study, and is perhaps best known for his early
work in narrative criticism. His Mark: The Gospel as Story was a pioneering book in that field,
and the second edition of the book under review also utilizes what was then a very new literary
theory. In addition to these books, Best wrote commentaries on several NT books (including
Eph, 1-2 Thess, Rom, and 1 Pet) and a few other monographs on discipleship.1
Purpose and Thesis Statement
Bests goal is to determine the Markan kerugma, to discover in what light and for what
purpose Mark preached Jesus. His thesis is that the primary concern of the Markan Gospel
[is] a concern with the redemption of men from sin rather with the cosmic defeat of Satan (189).
In his first edition, Best seeks to prove this thesis by reconstructing three elements in the text of
Mark: the evangelists viewpoint (using redaction criticism), the form of early traditions which
Mark had access to (using form criticism), and the original event. In the second edition he draws
on insights from narrative criticism to bolster support for his thesis.
Content Summary
Bests Preface to the Second Edition spans 67 pages and follows the same basic twopart division as his first edition: he begins with Jesus testing and then moves to his passion,
spending significantly more time on the latter.2 He maintains a soteriological focus throughout
1

Ernest Best, University of Glasgow Story, http://www.universitystory.gla.ac.uk/

biography/ ?id=WH2236&type=P (accessed October 2, 2012).
2

Ironically, Bests book is referenced by scholars primarily because of his interpretation

of the testing/temptation of Jesus, even though in his view that event does not hold as much
significance as the passion episode. For example, R.T. France, NIGTC: The Gospel of Mark,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 84.

this section and understands the gospel as being Marks contribution for strengthening the early
Christian community. Looking through a literary lens at the temptation scene (Mk 1:12-13),
Best believes that it (in conjunction with the stronger mans victory in 3:27) shows the writing
out of Satan as a Markan character (xxiii). This clears the way for his main point, that the cross
was not a defeat of Satan (who was at that point vanquished) but an atonement for sin. He also
proposes that the passion Mark presents does not highlight victory but restoration, restoration
after failure in discipleship, and creation, the coming into existence of the new community
(lxxiv).
Chapter 1 then starts back at the beginning, so to speak, but the shift in methodology is
immediately obvious3 and thus the repetition of many basic points has a confirming rather than
tedious feel. Best analyzes the presence of the wild beasts (association with evil), the angels
(help in the contest with Satan), and Satan (the chief of the spiritual powers of evil) in the
tableau (7-10). He then notes its lack of conclusion and thus locates the outcome of the
temptation in Jesus statement about the defeat of the strong man by one stronger. Through the
rest of the gospel, Jesus obviously has mastery over any demons he encounters (15-8). Best
argues against the views of Robinson, who sees Marks story as an ongoing struggle between
Jesus and Satan which culminates eventually in Jesus victory at the resurrection, and Kallas,
who focuses on the miracles as Jesus actions against the rule of Satan in the world and Jesus
death as the place wherein he fought and finally defeated the devil (18-25). In Chapter 2 Best
addresses the reoccurrences of evil throughout the rest of the gospel and argues that most of them
are due to human failings rather than Satans work. The issue of Jesus dealing with the evil in
the heart of men (38) has much greater prominence than any sustained battle with Satan, and
temptation from within receives more weight than temptation from without.
Part I contained only two chapters, but Part II has seven; Best focuses in each on a
specific aspect of Mark in order to discover why, in Marks view, Jesus came to earth. In
Chapters 3-5, he uses questions from redaction criticism to analyze what Mark saw as Jesus
purpose. Chapter 3 contains information about the Markan seams, where pure Markan theology
can be seen in the material he composes to link together narrative sections (the assumption being
that he found most of these pericopes in fairly complete form). His main point through these
discussions is that Marks focuses (on repentance, Jesus teaching, etc.) never highlight any sort
of cosmic focus on the subjugation of evil powers (102), but rather emphasize discipleship.
Chapter 4, on the material Mark selected, rests on a shaky foundation since, as Best points out,
we do not know what material was available to him out of which he could select (103). Still,
some inference can be made from what he did incorporate, namely many miracles and much
instruction both containing a strong emphasis on redemption (103-11). In Chapter 5 Best
discusses the order in which Mark placed his material. Mark devotes the greatest amount of time
to the passion, with nearly everything else arranged with the end already in mind. To the readers
of Marks gospel, [Jesus] is the Son of God with power, so announced at the beginning and so
depicted throughout in his mighty works (133).
Chapters 6 and 7 continue Bests analysis of Mark from the viewpoint of redaction
criticism, but their scope is wider and takes into consideration more of the Markan material. Best
3

Best mentions Q six times in the first five sentences of the chapter!

entitles Chapter 6 The Witness of Jesus and Others to Himself, and includes in this discussion
the statements (which Mark includes) that Jesus and those around him made concerning the
function and activity and purpose of his work (134). Jesus himself talks about or acts out facets
of his purpose: to forgive sins, to establish a community of disciples, to call sinners, to give his
life as a ransom (not to be a suffering Isaianic servant), and to bear the sins of men. Then
Chapter 7 contains discussions of the many titles Mark uses to refer to Jesus, including Son of
Man (referring simultaneously to Jesus suffering and glory), the King of the Jews (emphasizing
Jewish guilt in the crucifixion), Son of God (a hugely important title occurring in confessions by
natural and supernatural beings and indicating identification with the sacrificial aspects of Isaacs
story), Teacher (showing one of Jesus main activities), and Shepherd (emphasizing his
leadership of the community). In Chapter 8, Best looks at what type of community Mark was
writing for; he bases this conversation around the central issue of Jesus purpose, pointing out
that if we view [Jesus ministry] as primarily the defeat of Satan, then we should expect to meet
a community living in the light of that victory; if we view this primarily as the redemption of
men from sin, then we shall expect to meet a community whose members enjoy the forgiveness
of sin and overcome its power in their own lives (178-9).
Fulfillment of Purpose
Bests fulfillment of his purpose may be regarded both positively and negatively. For the
first, the evidence he presents seems overwhelmingly to support his primary thesis that the
passion of Jesus, being the main event in Mark, was seen by that author as atonement for human
sin, not as a cosmic spiritual showdown with the devil. His careful scholarship and attention to
detail, as well as his employment of various types of literary criticism, make any argument
against his thesis a matter requiring much careful study. For example, in Chapter 5 he proceeds
slowly through the entire Markan narrative, showing how each piece of material that the author
includes contributes to the overall theme. Thus any scholar wishing to respond critically to Best
must show the same depth of study by explaining how his or her thesis can similarly give a
satisfactory explanation for each of Marks selected pericopes. In this sense his thesis stands, if
not completely validated (few theses of this sort can be!), at least greatly supported.
For the second, though his primary thesis probably stands in the Markan studies field as
at least a possibility, Bests interpretation of Jesus temptation as signaling a complete defeat of
Satan is not so highly regarded. It is upon this hypothesis that Best builds a major facet of his
case for his atonement thesis. Most scholars dismiss his theory.4 It is unfortunate that his
eccentric view of the temptation has become the primary idea of his discussed by others, since
his work gives the priority of attention and space to the meaning of the passion, and few
reviewers interact significantly with his interpretation of the passion.
Critique
Bests first and second editions mark a major shift in NT studies from redaction criticism
to narrative criticism, and his decision to include the additions in the second edition as a preface
4

Mark gives no indication of the outcome of the confrontation with Satan at this point.
Best argues [this]few exegetes have followed him (France, 84).

rather than reworking the book provides a crystallization of that turning point that is quite
interesting to see. His preface to this book and his Mark: The Gospel as Story are some of the
earliest works employing narrative criticism. His original edition is an excellent example of
redaction criticism done well (though Markan redaction criticism has some inherent
methodological flaws which no scholar can completely overcome).5 Thus the book has value
simply as example of painstaking scholarly work in two important types of NT literary criticism.
Bests argument that the temptation marks the defeat of Satan seems unconvincing, since
even if the strong man pericope in 3:27 is directly tied to the temptation (11-15), that verse
does not give a clear conclusion either! It is framed as a hypothetical statement, not as a
statement of a previously occurring (or presently occurring) fact. If Mark does view Satan as a
defeated (or at least, clearly less powerful) foe, which point Best makes much more
convincingly, then it seems more likely that this is simply Marks view of the relationship
between Jesus and Satan from the very beginning. There does not need to be a cosmic showdown, either at the cross or previously, because Satan has never had enough power to be on an
equal plane with God and require direct battle. Then Bests thesis that the cross was mainly
about atonement for human sin would still be valid. What Best points out about the Markan
passion narrative seems much more well-founded. Mark has no mention of Satan, either in
inspiring Judas (as in John 13:2) or in interacting with Jesus in any way or causing any of the
events which led to his death. Thus he provides a needed check for those who see cosmic forces
running rampantly and nearly victoriously through Marks narrative.

One reviewer says that to practice redaction criticism one must have a sizable reserve
of quiet self-confidence, for rarely is the evidence strong enough to compel assent (Balducelli,
270). This is particularly true in Mark, where no sources are extant and so determining what the
author himself has added is often simply a guessing game.

Review Articles
Balducelli, Roger. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Theological
Studies 27, no. 2 (June 1, 1966): 270-272.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).
Brown, R E. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 28, no. 3 (July 1, 1966): 338-340.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 23, 2012).
Bruce, F F. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Evangelical
Quarterly 38, no. 3 (July 1, 1966): 175-318. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).
Burkill, T A. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Journal Of Biblical
Literature 85, no. 1 (March 1, 1966): 102-103. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).
Caird, George B. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Expository
Times 77, no. 10 (July 1, 1966): 300-301.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).
Grayston, Kenneth. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." New
Blackfriars 72, no. 855 (December 1, 1991): 536-537. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 23, 2012).
Kjeseth, Peter L. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Lutheran
World 13, no. 3 (January 1, 1966): 333-318.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).
Marshall, I Howard. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Christianity
Today 10, no. 18 (June 10, 1966): 39-41.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).
Mattill, A J. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Religion In Life 35, no.
2 (March 1, 1966): 310-312. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
October 22, 2012).
Perrin, Norman. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Journal Of
Religion 46, no. 2 (April 1, 1966): 318-319.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).
Taylor, V. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Journal Of Theological
Studies 17, no. 2 (October 1, 1966): 458-460. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 23, 2012).

Vanhoye, Albert. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Biblica 47, no. 4
(January 1, 1966): 606-607. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
October 22, 2012).
Wand, J W C. Bp. "The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology." Church
Quarterly Review 167, no. 364 (July 1, 1966): 386-387. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 22, 2012).