The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text.

The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. By R. T. France. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. xxxvii and 719 pages. Cloth. $55.00.

France, retired principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, has prepared this important contribution to the series titled The International Greek New Testament Commentary. As intended by the series designers, this is indeed a commentary on the Greek text of Mark. Although the text has not been printed, the exegetical comments assume that the reader has a working knowledge of Greek and has the text at hand.

In recent years there has been a tendency to read Mark as story (often with thanks to David Rhoads of Lutheran School of Theology, pp. 9-11, 15-20). France understands the story as a drama in three acts: the first in Galilee (1:14-8:21); the second on the way to Jerusalem (8:22-10:52); and the third in Jerusalem itself (11:1-16:8; pp. 13-14). Because Mark is a story the reader cannot actually discover a single purpose for the writing. A first-century writer simply would have told "a personal story about the prophet from Nazareth, and explain what it meant to be his follower, and inspire others to play their proper part in the movement he founded" (p. 23). The Greek of Mark reflects that oral nature of the storytelling (p. 16).

Because Mark is a story, France does not press hard for any particular reading. He discusses various positions and cautiously suggests his preference. To be sure, the series itself has a conservative bent, but France does not always opt for what might be considered conservative or traditional. For example, eschewing the documentary nature of the Synoptic Gospels in favor of oral transmission, France proposes a process of "cross fertilization" rather than the too-simple two-document hypothesis (pp. 42-45). On the other hand, France is unabashedly historical in his perspective. He considers 1:14-15 the key to the Gospel: the sovereignty of God is made present (not future) with the ministry of Jesus. That is, Mark has a realized eschatology (pp. 91-93). I find it fascinating that France never mentions his countryman C. H. Dodd (The Parables of the Kingdom), who could be considered the champion of "realized eschatology." Apparently the ahistorical Platonism of Dodd has no place in a historicizing reading. In another example, the so-called messianic secret is not a later editorial intrusion designed to explain why the pre-passion Jesus was not known as a divine being. France argues that Jesus perceived himself as the Messiah but protected his identity until the disclosure in 14:61-62 (p. 331).

This commentary is a useful resource for a serious study of the Gospel of Mark. Most readers will not likely be upset by the historical approach, even the historicity of Jesus.

Graydon F. Snyder

Chicago, Illinois