The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary.

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

Moloney, professor of religious studies at Catholic University of America, has written a unique commentary on the first Gospel--unique because it is a narrative description. Moloney has taken his cue from such narrative critics as David Rhoads, Elizabeth Malbon, and Werner Kelber (for a more complete list see pp. 9-10). In simple terms, the Gospel of Mark is a story, written as a congruent, self-contained narrative meant to convey a certain message to the early church.

While Moloney does not reject source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, or textual criticism, they are subjected severely to his presentation of Mark's narrative (pp. 2-6). Such observations, if they appear at all, are normally found in the footnotes. In his commentary Moloney wishes to tell the story as the author of Mark intended it.

Moloney's programmatic analysis (p. 21) of the Gospel brings no surprises: Prologue (1:1-13); Definition of Jesus (1:14-8:30); His Suffering and Vindication (8:31-15:47); Epilogue (16:1-8). His understanding of the intent of the Gospel, however, does surprise us. The male disciples continually failed Jesus (14:50; see p. 350), and finally, in contrast to the other Gospels, even the female followers fled with fear (16:8; see pp. 350-51). Jesus himself seemed to be a failure. This story of failure addressed readers who recognized failure in their own lives. The same readers also heard the promise that Jesus would meet "them" (his followers) again in Galilee (14:28 and 16:7). That promise of a resurrection created the new beginning--the faith community (pp. 351-54). The text does not say this, but the narrative does. "The realization of Jesus' promises is not found in the text. The existence of the Markan community and its story of Jesus indicate that it is taking place among the readers of the text, in the experience of the original readers and hearers of the Gospel of Mark" (p. 353). And it is so even today.

This commentary is well written and documented. Like most of us, Moloney uses those arguments that best fit his thesis. For example, from the beginning the story must be that of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Therefore he opts for the less attested reading of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Mark 1:1 (p. 29). In order to preserve Mark's unity he accepts the authenticity of sections many of us would consider later redactions--e.g., the interpretation of the parable of the sower (pp. 91-93) or the much-maligned little apocalypse (pp. 248-51).

Those who want exegetical help in the interpretation of a specific text (i.e., the lectionary text) will discover that this commentary marches to a different drummer. At the same time I found his interpretation of the woman with the flow of blood and the raising of Jairus's daughter (5:21-43, pp. 106-11) one of the most insightful I have ever read. In any case, every reader of the New Testament should wrestle with Moloney's method: the narrative is more than the words of the text.

Graydon F. Snyder

Chicago, Illinois