What do you think?
Rate this book
The New International Commentary on the New Testament
The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes
This widely praised commentary by William Lane shows Mark to be a theologian whose primary aim was to strengthen the people of God in a time of fiery persecution by Nero. Using redaction criticism as a hermeneutical approach for understanding the text and the intention of the evangelist, Lane considers the Gospel of Mark as a total literary work and describes Mark's creative role in shaping the Gospel tradition and in exercising a conscious theological purpose.
Both indicating how the text was heard by Mark's contemporaries and studying Mark within the frame of reference of modern Gospel research, Lane's thoroughgoing work is at once useful to scholars and intelligible to nonspecialists.
Both indicating how the text was heard by Mark's contemporaries and studying Mark within the frame of reference of modern Gospel research, Lane's thoroughgoing work is at once useful to scholars and intelligible to nonspecialists.
668 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1974
57 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 1, 2024
AN EXCELLENT EVANGELICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL
At the time this book was first published in 1974, author William Lane was Professor of Religious Studies at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green. He wrote in the Preface, “My research and writing of the commentary has been controlled by several goals. (1) … I have sought for a new and primary faithfulness to the biblical text… It was imperative that [Mark’s] voice not be drowned out by a concern for the harmonization of Mark’s record with the other Synoptic Gospels… (2)… I have sought to indicate how the text was heard by Mark’s contemporaries… (3) It has been important to place the study of Mark within the frame of reference offered by contemporary Gospel research.” (Pg. xi-xii)
He clarifies, “That redaction criticism is a valid hermeneutical approach to understanding the text of Mark and the intention of the evangelist has been assumed in the commentary.” (Pg. 7) Later, he says, “It is commonly recognized that for Chs. 14-15 Mark had access to a primitive source, whether oral or written, embodying authentic historical remembrance, which he took over virtually intact. He chose only to supplement it with parallel or complementary tradition and to orchestrate it for the development of certain themes.” (Pg. 485)
He explains, “The Gospel of Mark is generally dated within the decade A.D. 60-70. According to the early tradition preserved in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel and in Irenaeus, Mark wrote subsequent to the death of Peter, who was martyred in Rome during this period. Another early strand of tradition, found in Clement of Alexandria, asserts that Mark produced his Gospel while Peter was yet alive… It has been argued that … Irenaeus did not mean to imply Peter’s death but only his departure from the place where Mark was… [but this] is disallowed by the earliest witness that has been preserved, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160 A.D.). It clearly dates the origin of Mark after the death of Peter… The period in view would seem to be the second half of the seventh decade.” (Pg. 17)
He points out, “[Jesus’] use of ‘Amen’ to introduce and endorse his own words is without analogy in the whole of Jewish literature and in the remainder of the NT. According to idiomatic Jewish usage ‘Amen’ was regularly used to affirm, approve, or appropriate the words of another person… Jesus’ practice of prefacing his words with an ‘Amen’ … introduced a completely new manner of speaking. ‘Amen’ denotes that his words are reliable and true because he is totally committed to do and speak the will of God. As such, the Amen-formulation is not only a highly significant characteristic of Jesus’ speech, but a Christological affirmation; Jesus is the true witness of God.” (Pg. 144)
Of Jesus’ healing of the little girl in 4:38-42 and saying, “The child is not dead, but is sleeping,” he comments: “His statement is ambiguous, and could allow the interpretation that the girl was in a state of very deep unconsciousness that is to be distinguished from death itself. Jesus demonstrated his jerky to the girl at a highly critical moment when he healed her. It is certain, however, that this is not Luke’s understanding of what took place because us speaks of resurrection [Lk 8:55]…
"The retention of Aramaic formulae in Marcan healing contexts… has led to the conjecture that… the early Christians commonly believed in the efficacy of esoteric utterances… There is no support for this proposal… The evangelist retains Aramaic with translation in other contexts related to healing [3:17; 7:11; 10:46; 14:36]… Their presence in the narrative reflects a faithfulness to the tradition that Jesus had actually spoken these words on specific occasions.” (Pg. 196-198)
He observes of 8:23-25, “It is difficult to be certain why Jesus led the blind man out of the town. It was not his usual procedure to isolate himself from a congregation of people when healing or exorcising unclean spirits… The application of spittle to the eyes and the laying on of hands in healing have significant parallels in Jewish practice…
"The report of the healing, however, contains three elements which are without parallel in the evangelical tradition: (1) Jesus’ question if his action has been effective (‘Do you see anything?’); (2) the explicit reference to only partial healing (‘I can actually see people, but they look to me like trees—only they’re walking!’); (3) the laying on of hands a second time, resulting in complete restoration of sight… These features distinguish this incident of healing from all of the others and suggest that the man’s sight was restored only gradually and with difficulty. It is impossible to recover the larger context of the situation which would shed light on many questions prompted by these unique features.” (Pg. 284-285)
Of the seeming conflict between Jn 13:1 and Mk 14:12 about whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal, he argues, “There are indications that the Fourth Evangelist also regarded the meal which Jesus shared with his disciples as a Passover. The feast takes place within Jerusalem even though the city was thronged with pilgrims… The supper is held in the evening and lasts into the night… The meal was ceremonial in character and the participants reclined at table… In this light it seems that that concern of the priests expressed in John 18:28, that they should not become defiled and so prohibited from eating ‘the pesach,’ has reference not to … the paschal lamb… but to the … paschal sacrifices … which were offered throughout the festival week… If this understanding informed the tradition John has transmitted, this apparent contradiction with the evidence of Mark is removed.” (Pg. 498)
He states, “The preservation of Abba (‘my Father’) indicates that Jesus prayed to God in the everyday language of the family. When Jesus addressed God in this way he did something new, for in the literature of early Palestinian Judaism there is no evidence of Abba being used as a personal address to God. To the Jewish mind the use of this familiar household term would have been considered disrespectful in prayer, and therefore inconceivable. Yet Jesus did not hesitate to speak to God ‘as a child to its father…’” (Pg. 517-518)
He notes about the ending, “that verse [16:]8 marks the ending to the Gospel in its present form is scarcely debated. The contention that this is the original and intended ending, however, continues to be resisted… A common feeling is that a Gospel would be terminated by a narrative reporting a resurrection appearance with a confession of faith by believers or by an expression of joy among those who have seen the risen Lord.” (Pg. 591)
This is a fine conservative commentary on this Gospel.
At the time this book was first published in 1974, author William Lane was Professor of Religious Studies at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green. He wrote in the Preface, “My research and writing of the commentary has been controlled by several goals. (1) … I have sought for a new and primary faithfulness to the biblical text… It was imperative that [Mark’s] voice not be drowned out by a concern for the harmonization of Mark’s record with the other Synoptic Gospels… (2)… I have sought to indicate how the text was heard by Mark’s contemporaries… (3) It has been important to place the study of Mark within the frame of reference offered by contemporary Gospel research.” (Pg. xi-xii)
He clarifies, “That redaction criticism is a valid hermeneutical approach to understanding the text of Mark and the intention of the evangelist has been assumed in the commentary.” (Pg. 7) Later, he says, “It is commonly recognized that for Chs. 14-15 Mark had access to a primitive source, whether oral or written, embodying authentic historical remembrance, which he took over virtually intact. He chose only to supplement it with parallel or complementary tradition and to orchestrate it for the development of certain themes.” (Pg. 485)
He explains, “The Gospel of Mark is generally dated within the decade A.D. 60-70. According to the early tradition preserved in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel and in Irenaeus, Mark wrote subsequent to the death of Peter, who was martyred in Rome during this period. Another early strand of tradition, found in Clement of Alexandria, asserts that Mark produced his Gospel while Peter was yet alive… It has been argued that … Irenaeus did not mean to imply Peter’s death but only his departure from the place where Mark was… [but this] is disallowed by the earliest witness that has been preserved, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160 A.D.). It clearly dates the origin of Mark after the death of Peter… The period in view would seem to be the second half of the seventh decade.” (Pg. 17)
He points out, “[Jesus’] use of ‘Amen’ to introduce and endorse his own words is without analogy in the whole of Jewish literature and in the remainder of the NT. According to idiomatic Jewish usage ‘Amen’ was regularly used to affirm, approve, or appropriate the words of another person… Jesus’ practice of prefacing his words with an ‘Amen’ … introduced a completely new manner of speaking. ‘Amen’ denotes that his words are reliable and true because he is totally committed to do and speak the will of God. As such, the Amen-formulation is not only a highly significant characteristic of Jesus’ speech, but a Christological affirmation; Jesus is the true witness of God.” (Pg. 144)
Of Jesus’ healing of the little girl in 4:38-42 and saying, “The child is not dead, but is sleeping,” he comments: “His statement is ambiguous, and could allow the interpretation that the girl was in a state of very deep unconsciousness that is to be distinguished from death itself. Jesus demonstrated his jerky to the girl at a highly critical moment when he healed her. It is certain, however, that this is not Luke’s understanding of what took place because us speaks of resurrection [Lk 8:55]…
"The retention of Aramaic formulae in Marcan healing contexts… has led to the conjecture that… the early Christians commonly believed in the efficacy of esoteric utterances… There is no support for this proposal… The evangelist retains Aramaic with translation in other contexts related to healing [3:17; 7:11; 10:46; 14:36]… Their presence in the narrative reflects a faithfulness to the tradition that Jesus had actually spoken these words on specific occasions.” (Pg. 196-198)
He observes of 8:23-25, “It is difficult to be certain why Jesus led the blind man out of the town. It was not his usual procedure to isolate himself from a congregation of people when healing or exorcising unclean spirits… The application of spittle to the eyes and the laying on of hands in healing have significant parallels in Jewish practice…
"The report of the healing, however, contains three elements which are without parallel in the evangelical tradition: (1) Jesus’ question if his action has been effective (‘Do you see anything?’); (2) the explicit reference to only partial healing (‘I can actually see people, but they look to me like trees—only they’re walking!’); (3) the laying on of hands a second time, resulting in complete restoration of sight… These features distinguish this incident of healing from all of the others and suggest that the man’s sight was restored only gradually and with difficulty. It is impossible to recover the larger context of the situation which would shed light on many questions prompted by these unique features.” (Pg. 284-285)
Of the seeming conflict between Jn 13:1 and Mk 14:12 about whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal, he argues, “There are indications that the Fourth Evangelist also regarded the meal which Jesus shared with his disciples as a Passover. The feast takes place within Jerusalem even though the city was thronged with pilgrims… The supper is held in the evening and lasts into the night… The meal was ceremonial in character and the participants reclined at table… In this light it seems that that concern of the priests expressed in John 18:28, that they should not become defiled and so prohibited from eating ‘the pesach,’ has reference not to … the paschal lamb… but to the … paschal sacrifices … which were offered throughout the festival week… If this understanding informed the tradition John has transmitted, this apparent contradiction with the evidence of Mark is removed.” (Pg. 498)
He states, “The preservation of Abba (‘my Father’) indicates that Jesus prayed to God in the everyday language of the family. When Jesus addressed God in this way he did something new, for in the literature of early Palestinian Judaism there is no evidence of Abba being used as a personal address to God. To the Jewish mind the use of this familiar household term would have been considered disrespectful in prayer, and therefore inconceivable. Yet Jesus did not hesitate to speak to God ‘as a child to its father…’” (Pg. 517-518)
He notes about the ending, “that verse [16:]8 marks the ending to the Gospel in its present form is scarcely debated. The contention that this is the original and intended ending, however, continues to be resisted… A common feeling is that a Gospel would be terminated by a narrative reporting a resurrection appearance with a confession of faith by believers or by an expression of joy among those who have seen the risen Lord.” (Pg. 591)
This is a fine conservative commentary on this Gospel.
Read
October 1, 2025“It must be considered highly ironical that having branded Jesus a blasphemer because he failed to correspond to their nationalistic messianic ideal, the council now wanted him condemned by the pagan tribunal on the plausible allegation that he made claims of a distinctly political character.”, p. 550-1
April 28, 2019
Lane's exposition of the text is excellent. When reading other commentaries it is evident that he is a primary influence. As is the nature of this series, it lacks application.
July 16, 2022
Great commentary!
February 27, 2025
Comprehensive modern evangelical commentary on Mark. While I consulted a couple other modern commentaries, Lane was the most accessible yet thorough. Recommended for sermon preparation.
November 6, 2012
A nice commentary, and a good tool for word study
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews