The mutilation of Mark's Gospel.

The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel. By N. Clayton Croy. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003. 230 pages. Paper. $20.00.

Despite the fact that this is a study of a technical textual question, Croy writes in a most interesting fashion. His prose is an easy read even when he makes technical points. There is sly humor throughout. For example, he begins his book with a story from his childhood about a mutilated comic book. His titles and subtitles are invariably catchy. Croy is an Assistant Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. Despite the complexity of the issues, Croy's project is quite simple. In 16:8 the Gospel of Mark ends with the famous (or infamous) [gamma][alpha][rho], the last sentence translated "for they were afraid." Should or did Mark end at this point? Has the ending been lost? Furthermore, the first verse of the Gospel has no grammatical attachment to the following verses. Has the beginning of Mark been lost?

Until the middle of the twentieth century the scholarly consensus was that Mark could not have ended with a postpositive particle (gar) or with such a shocking ending as "for they were afraid." But after the middle of the century opinion shifted so radically that now most scholars believe that the Gospel ended with its mystifying abruptness. The intent of Croy's study is to question the legitimacy of the present consensus. Whether he intended it or not, I found his description of the new analysis the most interesting part of the book. Explanations for the apocopated ending are ingenious. Croy describes most of them but finally suggests three categories: (1) Mark was an incompetent writer; (2) as a postmodernist he wrote to let readers construct their own ending; and (3) the writing of the original manuscript was unexpectedly interrupted (p. 106).

The problem with the beginning of Mark is less well known. Grammatically speaking, the first verse is impossible as the lead sentence. Most translations take it as a title. So Croy argues that the beginning of Mark was also lost, and the lead sentence is a later "marker" (pp. 124-32). His conviction that the ending of Mark was indeed lost, as well as the beginning, nearly requires the Gospel to have been written on a codex. If written on a papyrus, two accidents would be necessary. If written on a codex, a lost outside sheet would account for both mutilations (pp. 137-63).

Croy is well aware of the difficulties in his argument. For most readers timing will be a primary puzzle. It would be necessary for the mutilation to occur with the autograph copy, or possibly the first circulated copy. How could the author or copyist not have known that? Why was the lost sheet not replaced immediately? Later copyists tried to end Mark in a more useful way, but, if Croy's "codex thesis" is correct, what preceded verse 1:2? Unlike the ending, there is no evidence for another beginning. Croy argues that v. 1 was a marker inserted by later copyist(s). His argument is aided by the fact that there are so many textual variations for v. 1: so what we have can hardly be the autograph copy. But such title markers are rare and, for the most part, later than the writing of Mark.

Croy's work is good reading, though not totally convincing. Even if the reader has only a minimal interest in textual matters, this book will inspire a reconsideration of the theology and purpose of the Gospel of Mark. The possibility of a mutilated beginning and ending does make a difference.

Graydon F. Snyder

Chicago, Illinois