The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel

This is a fascinating, well-argued, well-researched book. I had no idea just how vociferous a debate the issue of Mark's completeness has been. Croy goes out of his way to categorize the arguments of the majority completist viewpoint, establish the manner in which this idea gained ground in the last few decades, and then present his own counter-argument to the conclusions at hand. He makes a very strong case for his hypothesis that both the beginning and end of Mark's Gospel were lost long ago, within a couple of decades of the book's completion. His first step is to examine verse 16:8 in great detail and to show just how problematic it really is. This concluding verse of Mark's Gospel basically undoes everything the book had done up to that point. The narrative clearly points to a resurrection appearance to justify Jesus as the Christ, yet the book ends with the women at the tomb, after being told by a divine messenger to tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus had risen, running away from the empty tomb in fear. In other words, this Gospel of the Good News ends on the most unlikeliest of notes; the author characterizes it as "fright, flight, mouth shut tight." Promises made earlier in the book are not fulfilled, the complete reliability of Jesus' promise to rise again is not fulfilled in the eyes of the reader, and the disciples, who fled or - in the case of Peter - denied knowing their Lord, are not rehabilitated at all. How do you explain such an ending that flies in the face of Christian tradition? Many, many different ways, it turns out, depending on which scholar you ask and when you ask him/her.

I can't say enough about the excellent organization of this book. Croy takes you step by step through the history of the debate. His discussion of the shift to the new consensus in the waning decades of the twentieth century is especially cogent. Basically, the recent shift in scholarly opinion is a product of the "New Criticism." Croy examines all the new tools and ideas brought to bear on the subject at hand: literary criticism techniques now being applied to Biblical writings, grammatical and stylistic approaches to the text, polemical interpretations of Mark, reader-oriented interpretations of the text, etc. He then explains why he believes Mark's Gospel is incomplete, explaining each of his points clearly and effectively. Not only does Croy believe the ending of Mark was lost, he also believes its beginning was lost as well. Finally, he explains just how such a mutilation might have occurred. It is his belief that Mark's Gospel existed in codex rather than scroll form (presenting compelling evidence that the use of codices does in fact go back to Mark's time). The most vulnerable parts of a codex were the beginning and ending pages because they were on the outside; the loss of the outermost leaf would account for the loss of both the beginning and ending of Mark's Gospel.

Croy is not necessarily trying to convince others that his theory is correct; he is more interested in seeing the mutilation theory regain a prominent spot in the debate, hoping to overcome the notion that this issue is settled - clearly, it is not. The mutilation theory has an eloquent defender in N. Clayton Croy. He frames both sides of the debate in a clear and concise manner, addressing every nuance of the arguments for and against the structural integrity of Mark's Gospel before laying out his own theory. Anyone curious about this subject, be you laymen or Biblical scholar, can gain deep insight into the matter by reading this meticulously researched yet very accessible monograph.


Warming Up a Cold Case   August 26, 2003
 10 out of 10 found this review helpful

Don't let the opening anecdote about comic books fool you: this is a well-researched, academically polished book. The title is the thesis: pushing against current momentum among New Testament scholars, Dr. Croy defends the theory (having been inspired by C.F.D. Moule) that originally there was more to the Gospel of Mark than 1:1-16:8. The Gospel of Mark, he says, was written as a codex (= hand-made book), the first and last pages of which were lost and never found.

Croy reviews a spectrum of views, answers objections, and offers some evidence which augments his theory, but admits that the case is not conclusive. That's okay; he's not out to prove the idea as much as he is out to demonstrate its plausibility. Along the way he offers some reasons why the idea that Mark intentionally ended at 16:8 is not really a very good idea: Is Mark a lousy writer? No. Has he adopted a modernistic, Kafka-esque style by leaving the Gospel open-ended? Not likely. So has Mark's composition been damaged? More likely.

Some readers may wish that Dr. Croy had spent a little more time investigating the question, "Did Mark 1:1 and 16:9-20 come from the same person?" (He regards 16:9-20 as a second-century scribal accretion.) Also, he states that the mutilation-theory is simpler than the theory that Mark died before finishing his account, but he does not say *why* it is simpler.

The book is well-arranged, with footnotes following each chapter. Without the footnotes, appendices (App. B is a bit oversimplified), and bibliography the book would only be about 135, rather than 230, pages long. It is remarkably typo-free. It might have been improved if an index had been added and less space had been devoted to profiles of recent rival theories (in ch. 5). In other news: Croy's grasp of the external evidence is not perfect but it is better than that of many others who have written about the ending of Mark.

Though "The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel" did not convince me of its Big Idea, I am glad I read it. Dr. Croy has effectively challenged those who claim that Mark ended his account intentionally at 16:8. Many commentators and seminary professors have been saying that the abrupt ending is intentional. (Because the book is really a tragedy?? Because "Galilee" was a non-literal motif?? O come. [Croy mentions on p. 104 R. Stein's brilliant disintegration of the latter theory.]) Now they should be saying, "Hmm. This story's not over."

P.S. I liked the cover, too.