Ms. Hooker is a highly educated, highly devoted, and highly respected expert in the realm of New Testament studies. Her understanding of the original Greek, which underpins this commentary on Mark, is unquestionable. As I read through this commentary, I found that there was a tidbit on nearly every page that was valuable and that challenged the depth of my understanding.
For all of that I am thankful.
However, Hooker's redactionistic approach to the text is an approach that carried too much in the way of preconceptions. Her treatment of anything miraculous or even quasi-supernatural was one of dismissal or hedging. This commentary hinges upon understanding the intent of the original author of Mark, applying that intent to each and every word written, and, in the end, coming away with nothing more the dim-witted scawlings of a partisan bent on advancing the cause of the Kingdom of God at the expense of integrity. Her repetitive use of the word "clearly" is employed in order to escape the necessity of evidence. As such, Hooker's assertions regarding the reasons Mark was written and the source material for the book of Mark demand far more proof and far less opinion.
In the end, the negatives of this commentary far outweigh the positives and, thus, the valuable and challenging tidbits herein are lost in a deluge of material that must be forgotten as quickly as it is read.
Steer clear of this commentary, this TYPE (redaction) of commentary, and this author. Instead, check out Gundry's commentary on Mark, "A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross."