2024.08.05 | James M. Neumann. The Gospel of the Son of God: Psalm 2 and Mark’s Narrative Christology. LNTS 688. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2024. 

Review by Kendall A. Davis, University of Edinburgh.

In this published version of his dissertation completed at Princeton Theological Seminary under the supervision of Dale Allison, James Neumann argues not only that the title “son of God” is a central part of the Christology of Mark’s Gospel, but that Psalm 2 is as well. As Neumann writes, “I contend that Mark portrays Jesus’s earthly life from baptism to crucifixion as the actualization of Psalm 2…. To say so is not merely to say that Psalm 2 is the primary background behind Mark’s Son of God, but rather that, for Mark, to call Jesus the ‘Son of God’ is to locate the entire progression of the psalm unfolding in the person and work of Jesus” (p. 20; emphasis original). Neumann’s study is therefore particularly interested in the intertextual and narrative dynamics of Mark’s Gospel and its presentation of Jesus.

After an introduction that establishes the relevant history of research and methodology, chapter 2 focuses on Psalm 2 itself and its history of interpretation. Neumann argues that “the second psalm looks to God’s enthronement of his anointed king, his ‘son,’ as the hinge on which the fate of Israel and the world depends” (p. 27). In particular, he notes that this is the only biblical text to pair the Hebrew words for “messiah,” “king,” and “son.” This linkage is not lost on other interpreters of the psalm that Neumann surveys, including, among others, Psalm of Solomon 17, 4 Ezra, writings found at Qumran, and rabbinic literature. He concludes that “the interpretation of Psalm 2 in early Jewish literature is everywhere messianic and eschatological” (p. 35). For this study, one of the main implications of this is that, for Neumann, “son of God” is to be understand in reference to a coming Davidic heir. Neumann accordingly identifies “son of God” as a “messianic” title. He also goes on to survey the use of Psalm 2 in the rest of the New Testament and in patristic literature. Neumann finds a general tendency to identify different parts of the psalm with the various events of Jesus passion.

Chapter 3 thus moves on to an analysis of Mark’s Gospel itself. Neumann begins with the references to Jesus as son of God in the beginning of the Gospel, including the textually disputed Mark 1:1 as well as the voice from heaven in Mark 1:11. With regard to this latter passage Neumann argues forcefully for allusions to both Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1. He argues that these allusions invite the reader to understand that “son of God” is defined by Israel’s scriptures, particularly Psalm 2 (p. 60). 

The analysis continues in chapter 4 where Neumann examines Jesus’ conflict with demons who call Jesus “son of God” in Mark 3:11; 5:7. He also argues based on evidence from various Second Temple writings that the demon who calls Jesus the holy one of God (1:24) means essentially the same thing as “son of God” (pp. 87–90). Neumann ultimately concludes that Jesus’ exorcisms portray him plundering the kingdom of Satan (Mark 3:22–27), which is consistent with Psalm 2, which portrays God’s son as doing battle against the enemies who plot against him.

Chapter 5 examines the account of the transfiguration where the voice from heaven again testifies that Jesus is God’s son (Mark 9:7). Neumann argues that Mark’s version of the transfiguration engages with the enthronement language of both Exodus 24 and Daniel 7 in order to portray this scene as a vision of Jesus’ future enthronement as the messianic son of God (p. 126). 

Chapter 6 focuses on the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:1–12) and argues that this parable also engages with Psalm 2. For example, he argues that the υἱὸς ἀγαπητός of 12:6 refers not to Isaac (Gen 22), but to the Davidic son of God from Psalm 2 and that the quotation from Psalm 118 regarding the stone rejected by the builders is also to be understood in a Davidic light. Neumann goes on to argue that this parable serves as a mise en abyme, that is, a story-within-a-story that encapsulates that main point of the larger story, not unlike the role that Neumann argues for Psalm 2. 

Finally, in chapter 7 Neumann discusses the crucifixion of Jesus in Mark. The first part of this chapter argues that Jesus is crucified specifically as the Davidic messianic king. Those who plot against Jesus are thus placed in the role of the rulers who plot against the Lord’s messiah in Psalm 2:2. Neumann examines the trial before the Jewish council where Jesus is asked if he is the messiah son of God (Mark 14:61), the trial before Pilate where Jesus is asked if he is the king of the Jews (15:2), and the mocking of the crucifixion itself where Jesus is mocked as king (15:16–20). The second part of the chapter focuses on the statement from the centurion that Jesus is son of God (15:39). Neumann deftly walks through the many issues related to the interpretation of this passage and concludes that the centurion’s statement should be read against Roman imperial language yet still ultimately coheres with Mark’s own presentation of Jesus as Davidic king: “Jesus is in reality what Rome claimed Caesar to be: the rightful ruler of the world on whom all its hopes and salvation rest…. In the most ironic moment of the Gospel so far, the centurion effectively bows the knee to the crucified Jewish Messiah” (p. 169). 

In a rather brief conclusion, Neumann summarizes his study and argues that Mark, not unlike John, portrays Jesus’ cross as an ironic moment of glory where Jesus is coronated as king.

One strength of Neumann’s approach is his emphasis on history of interpretation. He is sensitive to the way that ancient readers read scriptural texts and frequently supports his own intertextual readings by appealing to examples of ancient readers making the same kinds of associations, for example, between Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 (pp. 146–48). At times, however, this felt somewhat tedious and unnecessary. If it is clear enough that Mark’s Gospel makes a particular interpretive move, does it matter for the argument that several other texts make a similar move? Of course, at other times this was quite helpful, such as when he established the plausibility of certain disputed readings or revealed that a certain reading can only be found among post-enlightenment interpreters.

As a work focused on intertextual dynamics, Neumann’s study is intriguing for focusing on a broader kind of intertextual relationship than many other such studies; that is, he argues for an intertextual relationship between the whole narrative of Mark and all of Psalm 2, as opposed to arguing merely for allusions in individual passages. While I was persuaded that Mark’s Gospel interacts with Psalm 2 in certain key places, for example, the baptism of Jesus, it was not always clear to me why this ought to entail seeing Psalm 2 as a kind of narrative blueprint of the entire Gospel. It also was not clear to me how seeing Psalm 2 as a blueprint for Mark’s Christology makes a difference for how we read the Gospel. The major takeaway, as far as I can tell, is that Mark’s Christology is thoroughly Davidic. This is far from an undisputed point, but I am not sure this is the clearest or most persuasive way to make that case.

Nevertheless, Neumann’s study is a capable and particularly well-written analysis of the narrative and intertextual Christology of Mark’s Gospel. His focus on a particularly significant title for Mark’s Gospel and the way that Second Temple Jews engaged with scripture are strong points of his analysis. 

Kendall A. Davis
University of Edinburgh
K.A.Davis-3 [at] sms.ed.ac.uk