Customer Reviews

The Gospel according to Mark: The English Text With Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Dr. Lane's commentary on Mark strikes an excellent balance between historical, theological, and practical issues. He also covers textual variants in the manuscript tradition. I found his brief appendix on the issue of Mark 16:9-20 to be very informative.

Lane also does well with sticking to the gospel of Mark while not diverting his attention to parallel passages in Matthew and Luke. He makes a compelling case for the dating and place of authorship of this gospel. His attention to the "difficult" areas of Mark is probably the highlight of this commentary. His concise and forceful arguments are not overly wordy while still being clearly expressed.

William Lane, professor of Biblical Studies as Seattle Pacific University, has written a highly readable yet very scholarly commentary on Mark's gospel for the New International Commentary on the New Testament Series. Lane does an excellent job analyzing the structure and themes within Mark, explaning parables from different angles (as well as understanding one parable through the other parables), and commenting on other aspects of ancient Roman and Jewish life.

This reader also appreciates the conservative approach to Lane's commentary. With so many authors attempting scholarly acrobatics to learn about the "Markan community" or practice source criticism, it is refreshing to read a scholarly commentary that holds a traditional view--Mark from the book of Acts wrote this Gospel based almost exclusively on the teachings of Peter. While many reviewers herald this "new and exciting" method of interpreting Mark, there is actually little "new" about it--the traditional conservative view of Mark that the church has always held is the view proposed by Lane.

Although an excellent work, this author does have one criticism concerning the ending of Mark. While Lane is with the majority of scholars in looking down their noses at Mark 16:9ff, Lane dismisses these verses as "unoriginal" without much of a discussion. Without even reprinting the text, he criticizes those who hold to the originality of these verses as unscholarly and speculative. A fuller argument for his premature ending, a more detailed explanation of the function of this abrupt "literary device" and a short commentary on Mark 16:9ff would have been greatly appreciated by this reader, especially in the light that Lane seemingl treats the ridiculous Freer Logion as sacred writing.

In all, this book is a great, mentally provocative treatment of Mark's Gospel that simply fell apart at the end. Highly recommended!

Scholarship has moved on since this commentary was published. However, do not rush to newer, fancier looking commentaries--quite yet. William Lane has much to teach in this commentary and it is still worth the effort to carefully work through his reflections on Mark's gospel. I have used this commentary regularly in the years that I have been preparing sermons on the gospel of Mark and it has been a trusted and trustworthy companion. This is one of those books that the pastor could purchase and use with benefit to the congregation. I only wish it could be updated a bit.

This book actually did more than just interpret passages for me. I actually learned how to look at Scripture properly. I also learned a lot about Jesus, even though I thought I knew a lot about Him already, and the Kingdom. Most commentaries do not cause you to think and chew on passages, but this one did. These commentaries are so far above most of the others in insight and exegesis. Great insight into why Jesus cursed the fig tree. Well done.

An excellent commentary, as other reviewers write.
Lane presents his arguments in ways that the grounds for his argument are always clear. A reader would benefit from the book even if he totally disagrees with his conclusions.

I find the book well written, and etailed.

It provides an excellent topic by topic exposition of the Gospel, and the wording is understandable for lay people, as well as being of sufficient depth for those in the ministry.

I, like others in my position, frequently lead group studies of Mark using the inductive bible study method. The gospel of Mark is both rich in content and extremely thoughtful in the arrangement of stories and use of particular language. This commentary does an above average job of treating seriously (1) the content of Jesus words and actions AND (2) the role of Mark at a theological redactor, who was divinely inspired to choose, collate and write the text in such a way as to get his full message across as God intended.

I found it to be a very thorough exegesis of the text and helpful in seeing the organic structure native to Mark. Worth having and working through.

I find it truly amazing that there is still so much lively discussion about a Gospel of the New Testament which has been a cornerstone of Christian faith for almost 2000 years; however, the more I study New Testament exegesis, the less I'm surprised. The thing that makes the dialogue over The Gospel of Mark special is not Romans' deep theological arguments. Martin Luther, for example, in his 55 volumes of works translated into English barely mentions the Gospel, while doing an entire commentary on the Gospel of John.

The primary interest lies in the fact that less than 200 years ago, the basic opinions on dating Mark changed from its being considered a copy of Matthew to being an earlier source of both Matthew and Luke. This lively discussion was enriched even further by exegesis in the last 50 years, with the founding of `redactive' analysis by Marxson in Germany.

I've surveyed five different exegeses of Mark and have found much common ground, but also many differences, lying primarily in the translations and in the extent to which they address the history of commentary on Mark. Even though some of the volumes deal much more deeply with previous scholarship than others, all limit themselves to work done in the 20th century, and even to work done in the last 50 years. One thing I must say that although there are important differences, all of these volumes represent sound work at the deepest levels of scholarship. Some are more suitable for pastoral use than others, but none are `lightweights'.

The six volumes I surveyed follow:

`The Gospel According to Mark', William L. Lane, 1974, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., `The New International Commentary on the New Testament' Series.

`Mark 1-8:26', Robert A. Guelich, 1989, Nelson Reference & Electronic, `Word Bible Commentary' Series based on the author's own translation.

`Mark 8:27-16:20', Craig A. Evans, 2001, Nelson Reference & Electronic, `Word Bible Commentary' Series based on the author's own translation.

`The Gospel of Mark', Pheme Perkins, 1995, in Volume VIII of The New Interpreter's Bible with side by side NIV and NSRV translations.

`The Gospel of Mark', R. T. France, 2002, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., The New International Greek Testament Commentary Series.

`The Gospel According to Mark', James R. Edwards, 2002, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., `The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series'.

After having read commentary volumes from most of these series on both The Epistle to the Romans and The Epistle of James, I find a lot of consistency across volumes in the same series, so if you become comfortable with the way that `The New Interpreter's Bible ` approaches things, then you are probably on solid ground if you continue with that source, especially if you invested some big bucks in the complete 12 volume set (or there is a set available in your library's reference section, as it has appeared in every library I have visited).

`The New International Commentary on the New Testament' may be the weakest of the five series, as all it's volumes use the `American Standard Version' translation of 1901, considered to be a very literal rendering of the Greek text. While I like this over the NRSV's `politically correct' translations here and there, I suspect the newer NIV may be more up to date on the latest scholarship, especially, as I said, there has been so much done over the last 50 years. William Lane's volume in particular is nicely done, especially since it relegates a lot of the details to footnotes, so you can skip a lot of the lexical stuff.

The two volumes from the `Word Bible Commentary' series by Guelich and Evans should be your first choice if you are especially interested in the literature from the last 50 years, as their bibliographies are superb. While they are also quite deep, they nicely separate the material one wants for pastoral work from the linguistic analyses. It also represents by far the largest and most detailed work of the five. Professor Evans took over work on the second volume after Professor Guelich's death, and much of the material is based on notes from Guelich. I also like these authors' outline, as it simply deals with all the individual pericopes, and does not incorporate any speculative hypotheses about what author John Mark had in mind as he wrote.

`The Gospel of Mark' by Pheme Perkins in Volume VIII of The New Interpreter's Bible may be my least favorite; however, it may be the best option for pastoral users. It raises the fewest questions and presents two of the very best modern translations (NIV and NSRV) side by side. It also offers excellent reflections on the theological use of the paragraphs.

`The Gospel of Mark', R. T. France in `The New International Greek Testament Commentary Series' is also near the bottom of my list, as the volume offers no translation of the text on which it is commenting. While this is actually a plus for many readers, it also makes a point of not offering a lot of commentary on other interpreters' writings, even though it does have a lot to say on other writers' opinions on the structure of `Mark'.

`The Gospel According to Mark' by James R. Edwards in `The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series' is a step down from the quality of Douglas Moo's commentary on James in the same series. And, unlike Moo, Edwards offers no translation. He also seems to have the most speculations about the intentions of author Mark in pointing out irony and structural details. Edwards and France may be the two most enjoyable to read; however I suggest you buffer your reading of these authors with copies of Guelich and Evans at your elbow.

Guelich and Evans together is my favorite for serious study. France and Edwards may be the best modern introductions, if you don't mind having a copy of the Gospel open to follow their commentary.

Good commentary, there is much you will learn from Lane's work. If you're studying Mark, this is a great book for you.