Gospel of Mark: A Commentary, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2004 by Larsen, Kevin W

The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. By Francis J. Moloney. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002, xviii 398 pp., $29.95.

Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., professor of New Testament and recently appointed Dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington D.C., has completed what will be for many a useful resource for understanding Mark's Gospel. Moloney's exegetical concern is to "trace literary and theological connections across the Gospel" (p. 21). These literary and theological threads point to a reading of the Gospel that encourages its reader (whether first century or twenty-first century) to "hope in the midst of ambiguity and failure" (p. 24).

The commentary is presented in typical modern biblical commentary format. The introduction lasts for twenty-four pages. In comparison to other recent commentaries this is brief, but Moloney succinctly presents the necessary background information one needs to better understand his approach to reading Mark's Gospel. Moloney begins by offering a concise but valuable review of the previous century of Markan scholarship, and in doing this he defends his rationale for why a narrative reading of the text is most faithful to Mark's purpose in writing. While skeptical of the value of redaction criticism (p. 8), Moloney will regularly make reference to items being "Markan" or "pre-Markan." "As the commentary will show, Mark may have edited sources, but he is to be regarded as a creative author in the best sense" (p. 12, n. 44; e.g. p. 86). An example of the value of a literary/narrative approach is seen in the intertextual relationships between 14:4352, 7:1-13, and 11:15-19 (pp. 297-98). Introductory matters continue with discussions of authorship, location, and date. Concerning authorship Moloney states, "We have no cause not to refer to the book as the Gospel of Mark, and to its author as 'Mark' " (p. 12). He accepts Markan priority to the synoptic question and concludes that the Gospel was written shortly after 70 CE (p. 14), to an audience in "southern Syria" (p. 15).

Given Moloney's narrative-critical concerns, the bulk of the introduction is devoted to the issues of plot and the literary shape of the Gospel. Moloney identifies four sections to the Gospel. Mark 1:1-13 serves as a prologue. Mark 1:14-8:30 focuses on the question, "Who is Jesus?" Mark 8:31-15:47 expands the understanding of Jesus to that of a suffering and vindicated Son of Man, who is both Christ and Son of God. The final section, the epilogue, is Mark 16:1-8. This division of the Gospel is understood as the structure upon which the author tells the story of Jesus, a narrative that is also the story of human failure: the apparent failure of Jesus, the failure of the disciples, and the failure of Israel (p. 22). However, while there is much failure Jesus "has led the way into the only enduring success story: resurrection" (p. 22). "Much of this gospel's story is about Jesus' attempts to draw other people into a following of this way-a loss of self in the cross, a service and a receptivity that produces life" (p. 22).

The remarks on the text of the Gospel are written in a fairly easy-to-read narrative, rather than a phrase-by-phrase or word-by-word analysis. This approach seems most appropriate given the literary/narrative concerns of Moloney. Generally speaking, not more than a couple of pages are devoted to any single pericope or episode in the Gospel. While there is regular use of the Greek text (untransliterated), most occurrences of Greek are translated. Such thoughtfulness may expand the usefulness of the commentary to those who are not "biblical scholars." However, untranslated foreign language phrases (e.g. vaticinium ex eventu or ipsissima verba Jesu) may be discouraging to those readers unfamiliar with such phrases.

There are a few places where I would question Moloney's reading of Mark's Gospel. Most of them have to do with the rejection of the historicity of episodes or details within episodes or the theologizing of narrative detail. Examples include the temple cleansing (which is said to "strain all imagination," p. 224), the Mark 13 discourse (p. 251, n. 182), Mark 14:12 (p. 283), and flight of the naked man (pp. 299-300).

In his opening comments on Mark 2:1-12, Moloney rightly identifies a link between this episode and the prior episode of the cure of the leper (1:40-45). However, Moloney goes on to say that there are logical and chronological tensions between the two scenes. He cites two examples. "In 1:45 the narrator said that Jesus could not go about openly in the towns, but that is exactly what he does in 2:1" (p. 60). However, the text of 2:1 does not suggest that Jesus is going around openly in Capernaum. He is at home, minding his own business, and "it was heard that he was home" with the result that and a large crowd gathers. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Jesus' return was with any fanfare. It seems that the point of 1:45 and what is implied in 2:1 by the report of him being home is that Jesus did not do things to draw attention to himself. Moloney's second example of an alleged tension between chapters 1 and 2 is that 1:39 suggests an extended itinerary while 2:1 suggests "a very brief time." The validity of this argument depends upon the word "all" in 1:39 and the "several days" of 2:1.