The invitation to prepare a full-length commentary on the Gospel of Mark came from Dr. Ned B. Stonehouse in the fall of 1961. At that time I had not yet completed my doctoral studies and I felt very inadequate to the task. I was encouraged to accept this responsibility only by the prospect of working closely with Dr. Stonehouse, who had been my mentor. He felt certain that in preparing his volume on Matthew he would encounter many of the problems which surface in a detailed study of Mark, and that we could meet periodically for an exchange of thoughts concerning the commentary. But before our first scheduled meeting it pleased the Lord to call his servant to himself. Since then, more than ten years have elapsed, during which I and the commentary have gradually matured together.
My conviction from the beginning has been that the kind of commentary which is needed is one which will reflect the wealth of contemporary scholarship and insight found in journal articles and monographs. Frequently aspects of the Marcan text that have been explored in depth have been lost for practical purposes with the binding and shelving of the volumes in which they were published. I have tried to review this vast reservoir of critical opinion and to make the best material accessible to the man who is not a specialist. My indebtedness to those who have labored in Gospel research, Roman law, Rabbinics and Marcan studies is evident on every page. Without the assistance offered by a multitude of men and women who became my teachers through their articles the present commentary could not have been prepared.
My research and writing of the commentary has been controlled by several goals. (1) In the interpretation of the Gospel I have sought for a new and primary faithfulness to the biblical text. My desire was to allow Mark to speak as a distinctive witness to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. It was imperative that his voice not be drowned out by a concern for the harmonization of Mark’s record with the other Synoptic Gospels. In the commentary there is a narrow concentration upon Mark’s distinctive point of view, and only rarely is attention drawn to the Matthean or Lucan witness. This critical decision reflects the conviction that Mark is the oldest written Gospel. Since there was a formative period in which it was the only Gospel in circulation, it is imperative that the work as a whole and its several sections be seen in Marcan perspective. This approach has made possible a contribution to the interpretation of certain aspects of the mission and message of Jesus as well as an advance upon the historical and theological interpretation of Mark. (2) In attempting to reconstruct the life situation which called forth the Gospel and to fill in the gaps which make it intelligible, I have sought to indicate how the text was heard by Mark’s contemporaries. Two impressions emerge: the material of the Gospel frequently presupposes the supportive activity of a charismatic teacher; and Mark’s pastoral concern for his readers in Rome seems to account for the particular emphases and arrangement of the Gospel. (3) It has been important to place the study of Mark within the frame of reference offered by contemporary Gospel research. I have especially used the notes to interact with this research, as well as to advance the material support for a given position. I regard the notes to the commentary as an essential component in the total presentation of Mark’s distinctive witness.
Only gradually did I come to understand that my primary task as a commentator was to listen to the text, and to the discussion it has prompted over the course of centuries, as a child who needed to be made wise. The responsibility to discern truth from error has been onerous at times. When a critical or theological decision has been demanded by the text before I was prepared to commit myself, I have adopted the practice of the Puritan commentators in laying the material before the Lord and asking for his guidance. This has made the preparation of the commentary a spiritual as well as an intellectual pilgrimage through the text of the Gospel. In learning to be sensitive to all that the evangelist was pleased to share with me I have been immeasurably enriched by the discipline of responsible listening.
It is a pleasant task to acknowledge the many persons who have encouraged me in the course of my research and writing. I am deeply grateful to Dr. Stonehouse for the confidence he expressed in me when he extended the invitation to contribute the volume on Mark to the New International Commentary. In my work I have sought to reflect the high standards of scholarship which he exemplified. I have appreciated the encouragement of his successor as General Editor, Dr. F. F. Bruce, who has been a model of patience in waiting for me to complete my work. My colleagues Glenn W. Barker and J. Ramsey Michaels read a first draft of the initial chapters and helped me to perceive the nature of my task. I have relied upon them for counsel and criticism at numerous points. Dr. Burton L. Goddard, to whom this volume is respectfully dedicated, has continually called to my attention items in the growing bibliography on Mark and has graciously secured for the library the volumes necessary to my research. The teaching of a course on Mark the past six years has allowed me to test my proposals with able students, whose questions and responses have served to sharpen my understanding of the text. The Senate and Administration of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary granted me a sabbatical year 1969–70 which permitted me to draft the major portion of the manuscript, while a faculty grant from the American Association of Theological Schools made possible travel to Lund, Sweden, where I was able to expose myself to Scandinavian Gospel research and was free to write without interruption. Thanks are due to my typists, Mrs. Lucilla Haynes, Mrs. Margaret Anderson and Mrs. Sylvia Lloyd, for the care with which they have prepared the manuscript. Many friends have expressed keen interest in the progress of the work whom I remember with thanksgiving. Special gratitude must be expressed to my wife, Lillian, and to our four children, Bill, Kristine, Mark and David, to whom this volume belongs in a real sense, for they have sacrificed much to assure its completion. Without their love, support and understanding the work would have been severely retarded. Finally, it is necessary to acknowledge the sustaining strength granted by the Lord, whose faithfulness to his servant is reflected in any excellence this volume may display. The commentary is sent forth with the prayer that it may strengthen the Church and call many others to a knowledge of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.
WILLIAM L. LANE