Gospel of Mark / The Gospel According to Mark / The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2003 by Stein, Robert H

The Gospel of Mark. By John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2002, 488 pp., $39.95; The Gospel according to Mark. By James R. Edwards. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002, xxiv 552 pp., $40.00; The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. By R. T. France. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002, xxxvii 719 pp., $55.00.

When I was a seminary student in the late 1950s, two major commentaries on Mark were available in English for students and pastors. One was the magisterial work by Vincent Taylor (The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1952) and the other was by C. E. B. Cranfield (The Gospel according to Saint Mark, CGTC, 1959). The three decades that followed produced few new commentaries on Mark, despite the great interest in Markan studies resulting from the redaction-critical investigation of the Gospel. There were several shorter commentaries on Mark by C. F. D. Moule (The Gospel according to Mark, CBC, 1965); D. E. Nineham (The Gospel of St. Mark, Pelican Gospel Commentaries, 1969); E. Schweizer (The Good News according to Mark, 1971-a translation from the German); H. Anderson (The Gospel of Mark, New Century Bible, 1970); S. E. Johnson (A Commentary on the Gospel according to St Mark, HNTC, 1977); W. J. Harrington (Mark, New Testament Message, 1979); L. W. Hurtado (Mark, NIBC, 1983); L. Williamson (Mark, 1983); P. Achtemeier (Mark, Proclamation Commentaries, 1986); etc. However, apart from W. L. Lane's fine commentary (The Gospel according to Mark, NICNT, 1974) and C. S. Mann's failed attempt to base a Markan commentary on the Griesbach Hypothesis (Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 1983), no major commentaries appeared. In contrast, numerous major commentaries appeared in German during this time (J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1963; R. Pesch, Das Markusevanglium, 2 vols., HTKNT, 1976-77; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 vols., EKKNT, 1978-79; W. Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1979; J. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Regensburger Neues Testament, 1981; D. Luhrmann, Das Markuseuangelium, HNT, 1987; etc.), but these were not accessible to most pastors and seminary students.

In the last decade and a half we have been favored, almost overwhelmed, with various commentaries of all sizes on Mark. Some of the smaller and more moderately sized commentaries include those of D. H. Juel (Mark, ACNT, 1990); M. D. Hooker (The Gospel according to Saint Mark, BNTC, 1991); J. Brooks (Mark, NAC, 1991); P. Perkins ("Mark," in NIB, 1995); J. Painter (Mark's Gospel: Worlds in Conflict, New Testament Readings, 1997); B. M. F. van Iersal (Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, 1998); B. Witherington III (The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2001), to give but a sampling. In addition there also appeared three very large commentaries on Mark. R. H. Gundry's Mark:A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (1993) consists of over 1,100 pages, many in small type. The commentary contains a wealth of information on Mark that any well-informed student of Mark must read, but unfortunately the organization of the commentary is far from being "reader-friendly." The two-volume Word Biblical Commentary begun by R. A. Guelich (Mark 1:1-8:26, 1989, 496 pp.) was completed after his death by C. A. Evans (Mark 8:27-16:20, 2001, 687 pp.). Careful readers of the two volumes will observe a difference in emphasis in the two volumes. Guelich's concern for Traditionsgeschichte is evident in the first volume as he seeks to trace the history of the Jesus tradition from its inception to its inscripturation in Mark. Evans brings with him a religionsgeschichtlich interest in the study of Mark and supplies the reader with a vast knowledge of background and parallel materials found in the intertestamental, Qumranian, Graeco-Roman, and Masoretic literature. A third major commentary not fully completed is that of J. Marcus. Only the first volume (Mark 1-8, AB, 2000, 589 pp.) has appeared. The size of the first volume indicates that this, too, will be over 1,000 pages in length. Guelich-Evans will probably serve as the major commentary on Mark in the English-speaking world for some time, although when completed the Marcus commentary may challenge it for priority. As to the smaller commentaries, pride of place, in my opinion, goes to the one by Hooker. This is a commentary on Mark that covers the major issues of each passages, is written succinctly and well, represents a moderate point of view, and provides an excellent introductory overview of the basic issues involved in the study of Mark.

This past year the three commentaries listed at the beginning of the review appeared. The Donahue and Harrington commentary, in the Catholic series Sacra Pagina, is "inclusive in its methods and perspectives and shaped by the context of the Catholic tradition" (p. xi). It refers to itself as an "intratextual" and "intertextual" commentary. The former term is defined as a commentary focused on "reading Mark as Mark," i.e. it focuses on the final form of the Gospel and its vocabulary, literary forms, and plot rather than on such things as the historical Jesus or on the hypothetical sources and literary history of the pre-Markan tradition. "Intertextual" is defined as a "reading of Mark . . . by Mark," i.e. it focuses on links between the text of Mark and other texts, especially the OT, the Markan community, and the church today. Donahue was primarily responsible for writing the commentary on 1:1-8:21 and 14:1-13 and Harrington for the rest, although both worked together in writing the Introduction.