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 commentary itself begins each major section of Mark (1:2-13; 1:14-8:21; 8:22-10:52; and 11:1-16:8) with an introductory essay, and each major subsection also has an introductory essay (1:21-39; 1:40-3:6; 3:13-35; 4:1-34; etc.). Each individual pericope then begins with an introductory essay followed by a verse-by-verse commentary. These are preceded by Textual Notes whenever significant variations appear in the Greek manuscript tradition. France argues that the introductory paragraphs are the most important part of the commentary and that the verse-by-verse comments should be read primarily in light of the introductory material. (Contrast the reverse understanding in the Donahue-Harrington volume!) The commentary ends with an Appended Note on the ending of Mark and Indices of Modern Authors, Greek Words and Phrases (not found in most commentaries but compare V. Taylor's The Gospel according to St. Mark), and Biblical and Other Ancient Sources.

The France commentary is an excellent addition to the NIGTC series. It is written by a superb scholar who is a master of the material. It may very well be the most useful commentary for the exegesis of the Gospel of Mark in Greek since that of Taylor. I do have some issues with the philosophy of the commentary. For one, if the goal of the commentary is to comment on the present text of Mark, how does information from the "Third Quest" contribute to this? The pursuit of the meaning of the present text of Mark is quite different from the investigation of its content or subject matter with respect to a quest of the historical Jesus. Also, to give priority of importance to the introductory essays beginning each section rather than to the commentary on the verses raises some serious issues. It is, of course, true that interpretation involves understanding the parts (the verses) in light of the whole (the sections), but it also involves understanding the whole (the sections) in light of its parts (the verses). In my own experience I have more often encountered people who bring a preunderstanding of the whole to the individual texts (the verses) and force the texts to conform to their preconceived understanding of the whole, than the reverse. I also question the value of various speculations as to what Jesus, or a character in the story, or even Mark was thinking on various occasions. Such mental acts are simply not accessible to present-day interpreters.

As with Edwards's commentary we shall look briefly at what France says about the ending of Mark and the Little Apocalypse found in Mark 13. Concerning the former France boldly takes a minority position that 16:8 is not the original ending of Mark. The concluding words of 16:8 to him "appear . . . to undermine not only [Mark's] own message but also the received tradition of the church within which he was writing" (p. 683). Having found modern literary explanations anachronistic, he concludes that "the natural response to v. 8 is surely to assume that this apologetically damaging anti-climax cannot [his italics] be the end" (pp. 683-84). In light of the expectation Mark created in 14:27 and 16:7, he must have ended with an account of Jesus' meeting the disciples in Galilee. It is encouraging to see someone of the stature of France arguing against the predominant view that Mark 16:8 was the intended ending of the Gospel. (Cf. R. H. Gundry's Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 1009-12, for a similar view.)