The Gospel of Mark

The New International Commentary on the New Testament

by William L. Lane

While based on a thorough study of the Greek text, the commentary introductions and expositions contain a minimum of Greek references. The NICNT authors evaluate significant textual problems and take into account the most important exegetical literature. More technical aspects--such as grammatical, textual, and historical problems--are dealt with in footnotes, special notes, and appendixes.

Genres: Reference, Theology, Biblical Studies, Christianity, Nonfiction, Religion, Christian

652 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1974

Reviews

[John Brackbill]

Here is the ranking of the single volumes I found helpful to read each week in preparation for an expositional series through Mark:
1. Struass (ZECNT); Edwards (Pillar); Hiebert
2. Lane (NICNT); Cole (Tyndale)
3. MacArthur; Hendrickson

Non-standalone volumes included
Wessel (EBC); Garland in ZIBBC (helpful with background); Later in the series I picked up Bock in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary and found his brief comments helpful.

France and Keller I did not find consistently helpful and stopped utilizing them.

[Bill Forgeard]

An outstanding technical/academic commentary on Mark. Comprehensive & authoritative. Very helpful treatment of Old Testament background and textual issues. Generally conservative but willing to entertain discussion of critical issues, occasionally endorses an unexpected position. A little time consuming week by week if preaching through Mark in less than 15 sermons but worth the investment.

[Jim Zacharias]

Great read. The commentary of the Gospel of Mark puts the story in historical context. I felt I gained a much deeper understanding of why the events happend in the way they did.

[Marvin Nelson]

Wonderful commentary. Detailed, interesting, readable and great for sermon prep.

[Dillon Turner]

Read in Greek

[Stan Rea]

This is one of the two commentatries I used for my recent study of Mark. This one is highly rated in several surveys. I enjoyed it quite a bit, especially the author's emphasis on what Mark, the author's, original intentions were and what the original readers would have thought. My only criticism is that the commentary is based on the American Standard Version of the Bible, a translation that may have been popular in 1974 but hasn't been seriously used for quite awhile.

[Rylan S.]

Frequently helpful and thought-provoking. Conservative and orthodox--he takes the Bible seriously. Occasionally, he relies too much on historical sources other than the bible or introduces an interpretation that's probably a little too novel for its own good, but he never goes anywhere off-the-wall. He's not too bad a writer either. Definitely some quotable material.

[Arthur George]

A very good if somewhat dated commentary from a faith-based perspective (as most commentaries are). It is a solid scholarly analysis from that perspective, which one must be sure to understand, but when it comes to questions about whether a reported event really happened or whether Jesus really said x, y, or z, Lane is quite uncritical and credulous, unlike more contemporary scholars outside the evangelical/fundamentalist community when it comes to these historical questions. I read Lane very slowly in bite-sized pieces while I was translating all of Mark from the Greek, consulting it on the verses that had I translated that day right afterwards. (Together with it, I likewise consulted "The Acts of Jesus" and "The Five Gospels" as they pertain to Mark, by the Jesus Seminar at the Westar Institute, which gave a good balance to Lane.) Unfortunately, this commentary is not strong on the linguistic questions and the exegetical questions that arise from the language (some commentaries are better in this respect). Finally, there is no real treatment of the alternative endings of Mark. Despite its problems, I still found this to be a valuable tool and can recommend it.

[Rev Reads]

I found Lane's commentary on the Gospel of Mark to be wonderfully informative without delving into pointless details. The NICNT always delivers high quality commentaries and Lane's commentary on Mark is no exception. His insights were helpful in my preparation for preaching on Mark verse-by-verse in my church. If I had to buy one commentary on Mark, it would be James Edwards, and Lane's commentary would be my second choice. I always felt encouraged and empowered to preach the Word following my study as it was complimented by the wisdom of Lane and Edwards. If one studies the Bible individually, only Lane and Edwards are needed to compliment the personal study. This should be on every pastor's bookshelf.

[Emery]

Who was your favorite character? besides Jesus (obviously). I think it is Peter because he is so enthusiastic that he will never deny or he'll never do anything bad towards Jesus.

What surprised you? I was surprised by what Judas did to Jesus. I did not know the whole story behind it

Would you change the ending? I would not change the ending because I don't think you should change anything in the Bible, don't add or take away.

[Sean Meade]

This commentary is a really great combination of scholarship and piety. Lane interacts with all of the significant literature up until the time of publication and I especially appreciated his notes on the Greek text and suggested translations. Beyond that, he makes many comments on the nature of faith and discipleship that are welcome and too often absent from commentaries. Highly recommended.

[Cecília]

(This wasn't the version I read)
Mark is the shortest gospel, but that doesn’t make me any less mystified at some of its contents, though rereading these episodes does help bring clarity in some cases. The most striking part in it is the Hebrew words for Christ’s lamentation on the cross: Eli, Eli, lema sabactaní?

[Jeff Ragan]

This commentary is wonderfully clear and insightful, and artistically expressed. William Lane showed himself to be a gifted and faithful expositor, and I am thankful for his contribution to my spiritual growth & understanding!

[Stephanie]

This is the commentary all the other commentaries quote. It is excellent and super helpful. However, parts are becoming dated now and newer commentaries would avoid such masculine language all the time. Still an excellent resource overall.
4.5⭐️

[Nick Roark]

Helpful

[Brian Parks]

Excellent commentary on Mark. Highly recommended. Clear and incisive in it's writing style. Conservative in approach.

[Michael]

Top shelf.

[Lucas Freitas]

Read up to Mark 8 (Nov/20)

[Kushal Hamal]

If you read the verse in matthew then this one is basically the same as well!

[Colette Tesoro]

Mark 10:25 bc some ppl really need that reminder🙄

[David]

Accepts the CT over the TR, but shows that he does so out of respect for the text as the Word of God. Many KJVO advocates would be wise to see that not all their opponents do so out of unbelief. Major theme is confrontation between Jesus, the Son of God, and a fallen world under Satan's grasp. Adopts partial preterist interpretation of Olivet Discourse, writing the point was to contrast the destruction of Jerusalem and the Paraousia. Greek not required, with nearly all the technical and critical discussion in the footnotes.

[Matt Maples]

I found this be a strong, somewhat technical commentary of Mark. This commentary has enough details to help you really get a strong grasp of the arguments and text of Mark. The commentary is written from an Evangelical perspective, and if you need a strong technical commentary this is a good one to start with.

[Douglas Wilson]

Outstanding.

[Aman8989]

wan't reading but cannot

[Terry Parker]

Honestly just read the gospel, not much of the commentary.

[Peter Krol]

Terrific commentary. One of my favs, I've read it at least twice now, perhaps thrice.

[Justindean]

Excellent commentary!

[Murungi Igweta]

Excellent

[Rick Dobrowolski]

Probably one of the top 3 commentaries on the book of Mark in existence today. Excellent work.