Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross

Gundry is one of the most relentlessly independent commentators on Mark and one of the few whose work repeatedly forces the reader to reconsider interpretations that have become scholarly commonplaces. His controlling thesis—that Mark is fundamentally an apology for the scandal of the cross, emphasizing the extraordinary authority and power of the one who is nevertheless crucified—is illuminating, although I think he presses it too far as a comprehensive explanation of the Gospel. The lasting value of the commentary, however, lies less in that thesis than in Gundry’s extraordinarily close reading of the text. He challenges elaborate chiastic structures, over-symbolized narrative patterns and conventional redaction-critical conclusions with detailed argument rather than mere contrarianism. He is less consistently convincing than France and sometimes more polemical than necessary, but even when wrong he is frequently productive to read. For originality and exegetical stimulation, Gundry remains indispensable.

Among our pastoral recommendations, this one is the most massive and technical. But Gundry delivers just what he promises: a cross-centered commentary on Mark. By keeping Jesus at the center, Gundry stays on point in his explanations of the text’s meaning. He will help preachers do the same. [Full Review]

Unlike his original Matthew commentary, Gundry’s Mark commentary is more focused on the text of Mark alone. This would have to be the case given his interest in Matthew as an editor of Mark, there is no real “redaction criticism” possible for Mark. The result is an exegetical commentary which is sensitive to the text and aware of the broader theological issues at stake. What sets this commentary apart from the rest is the “notes” section for each pericope. In the main commentary section, Gundry makes scant reference to other scholars, he simply lays out the meaning of the text. After his section, he includes a section of “notes” in which he surveys the opinion of virtually every modern scholar on the topic at hand, including major German and French scholars. The type is smaller in these sections and he cites his sources only briefly, making these sections dense but rewarding. [Full Review]

[Full Review]