BOOK REVIEWS 157

have been written by the John Mark of Acts, and the Mark referred to in Philemon 24. She also gives due
weight to the evidence linking Mark to Rome, while discounting the often repeated view that Mark did
not know Palestine, which she regards as a slightly more probable setting for the gospel. As for the date of
Mark, she takes the view (common enough, in all conscience, but worth questioning for all that) that no
vaticinia can be ante eventum, but argues nevertheless for 66–70, which is conventional enough. As for the
genre of the gospel, she considers various options: gospel, biography, and history, before concluding that
Mark is an ‘eschatological historical monograph’, which she accompanies with some decidedly interesting
reflections on the relationship between what Mark is trying to do and the origins of historiographical
writing in Israel. There is a long section on Marcan Christology (for which Collins prefers the title
‘interpretation of Jesus’), which she views as complex, multi-faceted, and somewhat ambiguous: Jesus is a
prophet, Messiah, Teacher, but also (and very importantly) one who dies. This combination means that
Mark’s Jesus does not fit comfortably into any pre-existent categories (some or all of the above, you might
say; but none of them quite works); and Mark does not fully explain Jesus’ death, or, at any rate, does not
offer just one explanation. The great merit of this work is Adela Yarbro Collins’ easy passage through the
Jewish world of the centuries either side of the birth of Christ, and her command of the evidence in LXX
and Qumran. On the structure of the gospel, she makes a useful point by simply noting the extraordinary
range of structures that have been suggested, which may suggest that the evangelist is about something
that is beyond our ability to grasp. As one must today, she offers an account of the reception-history of
Mark, though it feels a bit more like a nod in the direction of what goes on these days than arising from
any conviction on the author’s part that it helps our understanding, especially given that the commentary
is explicitly aimed at helping the reader understand the gospel in its earliest context. And there is an
interesting, and highly technical, account of the manuscript tradition. Turning from the Introduction to
the Commentary itself, the reviewer’s task becomes a good deal harder, although Yarbro Collins shows
her accustomed immense erudition, lightly worn. Perhaps the most helpful aspect of it will turn out to be
the parallel anecdotes from ancient sources (Greek, Roman and Palestinian) which she effortlessly brings
forth from her treasury to illuminate Marcan pericopae. There is a very complete textual criticism, which
is enormously helpful when one is looking for just that sort of thing; and, all the time, a notable emphasis
on the form-critics and what they said about various Marcan pericopae. So the book is to be commended
for the wealth of learning, generously and graciously distributed. What I suppose I miss in this text is any
reason at all why one should read the gospel of Mark in the first place; but that is a charge that may be laid
at more than one New Testament scholar’s door. For learning that is at the same time available to
interested readers, this commentary cannot be faulted.

Campion Hall, Oxford Nicholas King

The Gospel of Matthew (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). By R. T. France.
Pp. 64, 1169. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2007, $60.00.

The dust cover to this volume reminds us that the underlying purpose of the series of which this
commentary form part (a series begun in the late 1940s) is the provide earnest students of the New
Testament with an exposition that is thorough and abreast of modern scholarship and at the same time
loyal to the Scriptures as the infallible word of God. The series has become recognized by pastors,
students, and scholars alike as a critical yet orthodox commentary marked by solid biblical scholarship
within the evangelical Protestant tradition.
This is truly a massive commentary, with its 1200 plus pages, and thirty-six pages of the bibliography of
the works cited in the volume. For a review of works such as this, as indeed for recensions of other works,
many will turn first to the introduction. These may well be surprised by the opening words of this section
in France’s introduction to this work. He writs: ‘I have noticed that reviews of biblical commentaries
often focus on the introduction rather than undertaking the more demanding task of reading and
responding to the commentary itself. Potential reviewers of this commentary who hope to use this
convenient shortcut will, I fear, be disappointed. If as a result this book receives only very short or
superficial reviews, so be it’. He goes on to remind us that sixteen years ago he published a wide-ranging
study of issues relating to the Gospel of Matthew under the title Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (1989
[!!]; reprinted 2007). It covers most of the areas traditionally found in the introduction to a commentary,
though at greater length than most commentary series would allow. He hopes, therefore, that a reader
who wishes to find a fuller expression of his views set out in terms of general introduction rather than in
the exegesis of specific passages will be willing to consult the earlier volume. In his twenty-two page
introduction, as throughout the commentary, he gives generous treatment of current scholarly opinion,
followed by his own assessments.
158 BOOK REVIEWS

With regard to the structure of the Gospel he notes the five book structure but prefers the view that
Matthew follows Mark, with the Galilean mission followed by that in Judea and Jerusalem, including a
section on Galilee and Jerusalem. In his treatment of ‘Fulfilment – the ‘Formula-Quotations’’, his expressed
view is that the formula-quotations are not themselves part of Matthew’s tradition, but his own editorial
gloss on the story of Jesus, testimony to Matthew’s pervasive midrashic agenda. With regard to author he
first notes that it has too hastily been assumed that the gospels circulated for a generation or more without
attribution and that the names of proposed authors were rather arbitrarily attached to them some time in
the second century. While, of course authorship cannot be proved, he believes that the contents and the
tone of the gospel seems to him to make someone like the apostle Matthew as likely a candidate as any.
With regard to provenance and setting he accepts somewhere in Syria or Palestine, but is less convinced by
the confident assertions of some that its specific location was Antioch. The incompatible elements within
the gospel are best explained not by incompetent editing, but rather from an origin within a Jewish-
Christian community both faithful to its scriptural heritage and open to the demands of Jesus’
proclamation, therefore beyond the bounds of the Jewish people. After an examination of a late date, he
favours the possibility that the gospel was written in the sixties, while the temple was still standing. He
presents his own view of the ‘Synoptic Problem’, proposing that the Synoptic Gospels may be better seen as
at least partially parallel developments of the common tradition, rather than placed in a simple line of
‘dependence’. He prefers to speak of a ‘Q tradition’ rather than a Q written source. Hypothetical debates
about ‘the Q community’ or ‘recensions of Q’ leave him cold. He has generous treatment of each of the
Infancy Narrative episodes, but with more attention to reconcile Matthew with Luke than most
contemporary exegetes would engage in. Matthew most probably got the Magi narrative (with its positive
view of magi) from his tradition, and it is likely that there was a historical basis for it. The parallel found by
some in the famous visit by eastern magi to Rome to pay homage to Nero (in AD 66) French does not
regard as very close, and in any event later hen what he regards as the most likely date for Matthew’s gospel.
On 16:18 he notes that Jesus chose the name Petros (Cephas) for Simon wit a view to its literal meaning. He
is the Rock. ‘So on this rock Jesus will build his church, and it will be forever secure’. He remarks that
attempts have been made to evade the obvious force of this bold image. One escaper route, beloved
especially by those who wish to refute the claims of the Roman Catholic Church based on the primacy of
Peter as the first pope, is to assert that the foundation rock is not Peter himself, but the faith in Jesus which
Peter has just declared. And there are others of the same nature. For French all such apologetic rewritings
of the passage are in any case beside the point, since there is nothing in this passage about any successors to
Peter. It is Simon himself, in his historical role, who is the foundation rock. Any link between the personal
role of Peter and the subsequent papacy is a matter for later ecclesiology, not of exegesis of this passage. He
understands porneia of 5:32 and 19:9 as ‘sexual unfaithfulness’ as valid ground for divorce (in Matthew’s
text, unlike the complete prohibition of divorce in Mark and Luke). He has a good consideration of the
charism of celibacy on 19:12. In a footnote to 27:51 on the tearing of the (outer?) Temple curtain he notes
that Josephus says that this curtain in Herod’s Temple was fifty-five cubits high (about twenty-five meters,
the height of a seven-storey house) and that it hung in front of gold-plated wooden doors of the same
height. His comment on the final verse (28:20; ‘teaching . . . to keep all that I have commanded’) is that the
basis of living as the people of God will henceforth be the new ‘commandments’ given by Jesus, with a note
to the effect that the vocabulary here recalls 5:19, where the true disciple is one who ‘teaches’ others to live
according to the ‘commandments’ of the law. He believes that this conclusion to the gospel strongly
supports his interpretation of 5:17–20 as placing the emphasis on Jesus’ interpretation of the law rather
than on the continuing validity of the OT law as regulations to be implemented by the Christian church.
There is an index of modern authors, and index of subjects and an index of biblical and other ancient
references.
The sheer size of the book is due to the author’s detailed treatment of almost every topic, with the latest
relevant studies on the matter. This makes the work invaluable for serious students, researchers and even the
general reader. While his personal position on a number of points will not be accepted by a number of users,
this does not take from its value for the in-depth discussion of the various questions raised by this gospel.

Milltown Institute, Dublin Martin McNamara

Matthew: Poet, Historian, Dialectician (Studies in Biblical Literature 103). By Marshell Carl Bradley.
Pp. 22, 178. New York, Peter Lang, 2007, $67.95.

The publisher Peter Lang, with principle centre now at New York, cites centres at eight other places in the
USA and Europe. An end page tells us that the series carrying the present publication invites manuscripts
from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies are