The Gospel according to Mark (The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC))

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.

I'm a pastor taking my congregation through the book of Mark. This has been an almost in-dispensable commentary. This is the second PNTC I have bought (I also have Carson's commentary on John's Gospel). It has also been the second quality commentary I bought from PNTC if that says anything.Edwards writes many excursuses and articles that naturally flow, at least in my mind. When I think, "Man, I ought to explain this term, 'Son of God,' or 'Pharisee,' or whatever..." Edwards is right there with me, and if he doesn't list the excursus right there in that chapter and verse that I'm thinking, he at least alludes to a later excursus, as in, "See Chapter 9:2" (example) for excursus on this term." These are great.Like a good Pastor, I don't rely solely on Edwards commentary, but it is a great enrichment to the sermon series through the book of Mark. It is also just a great studying tool for College-level classes, I'm sure.UPDATE: I dropped this review from 5 stars to 3 stars as to what I found to be very problematic. I went on and studied other reviews of this commentary and found similar occurrences throughout this commentary. Edwards seems to obviously skip verses in his commentary due to perhaps personal lacks of trust or faith in the text. To give you my example, in Edward's commentary concerning Mark 5:27-29, Edwards makes NO reference to verse 28 and in fact, in complete ignorance (or opposition) to verse 28, Edwards starts his commentary, "Mark does not explain what was in the woman's mind as she attempted to touch Jesus." This seems to be in direct opposition to what Mark states is in Mark 5:28.A few more 3-star reviews on this site might give you some other examples to where Edwards makes a few liberal observances that were entirely unnecessary, but apparently personally desired.

Beware of all commentaries.While this commentary is very good in certain areas, particularly in fleshing out some of the Greek, Edwards does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and occasionally objects to what the inspired author has written in favor of tradition. Which is strange, because traditionally the church regarded Scripture as inerrant.Another reviewer has already pointed out Edwards' dismissal of Peter being identified as the ear chopper in the Gospel of John as being "later tradition" simply because Mark doesn't include that detail. I will add yet another comment, also on Mark 14, that is indicative of Edwards' approach to Scripture throughout. He says of Jesus in the Garden at Gethsemane, "Certain early witnesses attempt to mitigate the catastrophe at hand by reporting that an angel comforted him in prayer (Luke 22:43). But Mark -- and the majority tradition -- is silent about angelic aid." I cannot understand how it is Edwards feels comfortable rejecting both John and Luke's accounts on account of the silence of Mark and/or the "majority tradition," but here are two examples of him doing exactly that.The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series has had a bumpy ride. They've got Edwards here rejecting Scripture as inerrant and had to pull two books that were plagiarized by Peter O'Brien.

Very good

This commentary has a nice balance between popular use for study or preaching, and academic depth. It does not cover much you will not find in other commentaries on Mark, and it may be a little conservative for some. However,it will repay careful study and thought many times over

The Pillar series was recomended to me as a commentary for when preparing my sermons.The book is well written, easy to follow and totally comprehensive. I would thorougjhly recomend the series.

O conteúdo não apresenta os principais resultados recentes da ciência bíblica atual. É útil para quem é iniciante ou leigo.

I am half way through it and enjoying it immensely... I haven't read other commentaries on Mark but I can tell that this one is beautifully constructed. I will recommend this book for someone who is looking for an exegesis on Mark Gospel which is simple and to the point. Full score to Amazon as well for delivery. Keep it up!