The Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark is one of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament. Scholarship generally holds it to be the first of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) to be written.
If it is the oldest of the gospels, then why is it second in order in my Bible?
Augustine of Hippo wrote: “Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, …are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done…” [1]
Was Augustine alone in thinking that the Gospel of Mark was written after Matthew’s Gospel?
No – and actually, Augustine, a man of the 4th century, was largely relying on the witness of Christian writers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. One source was Papias, a chronicler of his day in the early-mid 2nd century; St. Irenaeus wrote that Papias was “a hearer of John [the gospel writer] and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times.” [2]
The Christian historian Eusebius records that Papias wrote the following:
"Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew language [3], and everyone translated them as well he could….This, too, the elder [John] used to say. Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter used to adopt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it." [4]
Eusebius also records an important tradition from Clement of Alexandria (d. 213)
“In the same volumes Clement has found room for a tradition of the primitive authorities of the Church regarding the order of the gospels. It is this. He used to say that the earliest gospels were those containing the genealogies [Matthew, Luke], while Mark's originated as follows: When, at Rome, Peter had openly preached the word and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, the large audience urged Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write it all down. This he did, making his gospel available to all who wanted it. When Peter heard about this, he made no objection and gave no special encouragement. Last of all, aware that the physical facts had been recorded in the gospels, encouraged by his pupils and irresistibly moved by the Spirit, John wrote a spiritual gospel.” [5]
It seems that some of the ancient testimony indicates that Mark wrote his Gospel while St. Peter was still alive – that means sometime before St. Peter’s death (ca. 64) – pretty early, right?
Yes several indicate an early date for the Markan authorship, but several others, including St. Irenaeus write that Peter had already died in the persecutions of Emperor Nero.
OK, but which is older? The Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew. [6]
The similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so numerous and so close, not just in the order of the material presented but also in the exact wording of long stretches of text, that it is not sufficient to explain these similarities on the basis of common oral tradition alone. Rather, some type of literary dependence must be assumed as well. That is, someone copied from someone else's previously written text; several of the evangelists must have used one or more of the earlier Gospels as sources for their own compositions. The situation is complicated because some of the material is common to all three, while other material is found in only two out of these three Gospels. Moreover, the common material is not always presented in the same order in the various Gospels. So, the question remains, who wrote first, and who copied from whom?
Without going into the whole explanation, here’s the short answer: For most of Christian history, people thought that Matthew was the first and oldest Gospel, and that Mark was a later, shorter version of the same basic message. From the mid-19th century until today, however, most scholars are convinced that Mark is the first and oldest Gospel and that Matthew and Luke are later expansions of Mark. Why?
- Mark's Gospel contains several grammatical, literary, historical, and geographical difficulties (minor errors) that are not found in Matthew and/or Luke. If Matthew was first, it is harder to understand how Mark could have introduced these errors; but if Mark was first, it is easy to see how Matthew and/or Luke wanted to and were able to correct Mark's minor mistakes.
- Mark's Gospel contains several episodes that are obscure (4:26-29; 14:51-52) or make Jesus look crazy (3:19-21), magical (7:32-37), or weak (8:22-26). If Matthew was first, it is harder to explain why Mark added these strange episodes; but if Mark was first, it is easy to understand why both Matthew and Luke omitted them.
- Mark's basic chronological/geographical structure is the same as in the other two Synoptics; but the material found in both Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark) is in very different orders in these two Gospels. If Matthew was first and Mark second, it is hard to understand why Luke would have kept the same order for all the material found in both Matthew and Mark, but substantially rearranged all the other material found in Matthew but not in Mark. If Mark was first, however, then it is easy to explain how Matthew and Luke inserted the extra material they have in common into Mark's overall outline, although in significantly different ways.
It seems that most current scholars are convinced that Mark was the first written Gospel and that his gospel was known to Matthew and Luke – who used Mark and other sources for their gospels. Are there any parts of Mark that are unique to his gospel alone?
Here are the parts found only in Mark:
- Introductory Verse (1:1)
- Jesus' Family Tries to Restrain Him (3:19b-21)
- The Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (4:26-29)
- Jesus Heals a Deaf Man in the Decapolis (7:31-37)
- Jesus Gives Sight to the Blind Man of Bethsaida (8:22-26)
- A Young Man Runs Away Naked after Jesus' Arrest (14:51-52)
- The Commissioning of the Eleven (16:14-18)
When do scholars think that the Gospel of Mark was written?
It is generally agreed that Mark wrote his gospel during the decade A.D. 60-70 and that it was probably written for the Church in Rome. According to St. Irenaeus, Mark wrote his gospel “after the death of Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies, 3.1.2). Since the two apostles are generally believed to have suffered martyrdom soon after the great fires in Rome in 64 A.D. Depending on how one views Mark chapter 13 (“the little Apocalypse”) one can conclude the gospel does not seem to know (or at least be concerned with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. Hence, the late 60’s A.D. seems to be a good sense of when the gospel was written. Others see Mark has knowing about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and opt for a date in the early 70s. In any case, most scholars place the date of authorship some 15 years before Matthew and Luke’s efforts and 20 or more years before John’s gospel.
Why did Mark write this gospel?
There are two ways to answer this question. In a way that is trans-historical we can say that Mark wrote the gospel to tell us the good news about Jesus and his message. If there is one passage which succinctly describes that message it would be: “Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: ‘This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.’” (Mark 1:14-15)
Another way to answer the question is in order to give comfort to the Christian community of Rome in the late 60s AD of Rome. Mark’s narrative is shadowed by images of the cross, opposition from powerful leaders, divisions among Jesus’ followers, and betrayals – all themes that would have been especially meaningful to a community which had already suffered greatly for Christ during the persecutions of the Emperor Nero and expected to continue to suffer. Both the Roman historian Tacitus and the Christian Clement of Rome indicate that betrayals and apostasy were byproducts of the persecutions. Of course Christians were persecuted in areas other than Rome, e.g. Syria, Palestine, etc. Further indications of a Roman origin stem from the Latinized vocabulary employed in Mark (and in neither Matthew nor Luke) as well as a passage in First Peter: "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.” (1 Peter 5:13). [7]
By the way…Who is Mark? Was he an Apostle? Does he appear in other New Testament writing?
Mark was not an Apostle. Although the book is technically anonymous (the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts seems to have been an addition), it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36- 39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tim 4:11; Philippians 1:24) and with Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Papias described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers.
As early as Papias in the early 2nd century, the text was attributed to Mark, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea:
“This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.” [8]
Irenaeus concurred with this tradition, as did Origen of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the 2nd century, reported an ancient tradition that Mark was urged by those who had heard Peter's speeches in Rome to write what the apostle had said.
For whom did Mark write this Gospel?
The general theory is that Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire. Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42). Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36). [9]
Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes use of the Old Testament in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance, Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27. Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18–20); Mark 7:27; and Mark 8:27–30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems.
“Hellenistic” covers a lot of area – what points to a Roman audience?
One of the interesting elements of Mark’s Gospel which points to a Roman audience is the presence of Latinisms. The fact that there are Latinisms in a work written in Greek and full of Semitisms also constitutes internal, indirect evidence for intended readership. (Latinisms are Latin words that are transliterated into Greek.) Examples of Latinisms in the Gospel of Mark are as follows:
- Mark 4:27: modios = Lat. modius (a measure)
- Mark 5:9, 15: legi�n = Lat. legio (legion)
- Mark 6:27: spekoulator = Lat. speculator (guard)
- Mark 6:37: d�nari�n = Lat. denarius (a Roman coin)
- Mark 7:4: xest�s = Lat. sextarius (container)
- Mark 12:14: k�nsos = Lat. census (tribute money)
- Mark 15:15: phragellan = Lat. fragellare (to whip)
- Mark 15:39, 44-45: kenturi�n = Lat. centurio (centurion) (Both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrach�s, the equivalent term in Greek.
In addition, on two occasions Mark provides his readers with Latin translations of Greek words:
- Mark 12:42: lepta duo, which is said to be the equivalent of a kordrant�s = Lat. quadrans (the smallest Roman coin)
- Mark 15:16: aul�s, which is said to be the prait�rion = Lat. praetorium
Finally, there are also a few examples of Latin idioms translated into Greek in the Gospel of Mark:
- Mark 2:23 hodon poiein = Lat. iter facere (to make one's way)
- Mark 3:6 sumboulion edidoun = Lat. consilium dederunt (to give counsel)
- Mark 3:17; 7:11, 34; 12:42; 15:16, 42 ho estin = Lat. hoc est (that is)
- Mark 15:15: hikanon poiein = satis facere (to satisfy)
- Mark 15:19 tithentes ta gonata = Lat. genua ponentes (bending the knees)
What do the Latinisms, the Latin translations of Greek words and the Latin idioms in Greek in the Gospel of Mark suggest about its intended readership? That the intended readers were Latin speakers, even though they could read or at least understand Greek. This gives credence to a Roman audience.
That is the “who, what, when and where” of Mark’s Gospel. Are there any interesting things we should know about this gospel that are particularly Markan?
For centuries many scholars dismissed Mark as a “poor man’s version of Matthew.” For a long time what was overlooked was that Mark tells the story of Jesus, not through abstract statements or propositions, but through a dynamic, fast-paced story. The story has an urgency to it: Jesus moves rapidly from place to place – few wasted words or actions. It creates a narrative that is convicted the mission of Jesus is compelling and one must respond with an immediacy
Mark was said to be lacking a deep Christology. Yet a central point of Mark’s gospel occurs in 8:29 – “Who do you say that I am?” Mark is said to “paint” a Christology in his narrative. Here are some of the titles that Mark uses for Jesus:
- Son of God (Beloved Son) - [Mark 1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 9:7, 12:6, cf. 13:32, 14:61, 14:62, 15:39]
- Messiah [10] (and Son of David/King of the Jews) - [Mark 8:29, 8:31, 14:61, 15:32, 10:47-48, 12:35]
- Son of Man - [Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34, 9:9, 9:12]
Yet Mark proclamation is shown in action – the healings, the parables, miracles, encounters with demons, conflicts with opponents, and above all the death and Resurrection. God’s liberating power has broken into our history.
Mark is also concerned with what it means to be a disciple – to follow Jesus. [11] Jesus commissions the disciples early on in the gospel and they are present at almost every scene. Yet the disciples are continually shown as having a hard time understanding Jesus. As the drama of the gospel unfolds, the disciples have an even harder time understanding. Eventually they all fail Jesus and abandon him. However, the gospel ends on a note of reconciliation .
Why present the disciples in such a poor light. It has been suggested that this model of discipleship was one which would give hope to the Christian community of Rome under persecution, having seen so many of their fellow Christians deny or apostasize from the Way of Christ. All the while the model of Christ as a suffering servant served to embolden the community in the face of persecution.
I have heard that Mark’s writing seems to suggest a “Messianic secret.” Is this true? This idea is suggested in Mark 8:30 ff, when Jesus forbade the apostles to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. Where this is direct – Messiah and the idea of the secret in the same sentence, there are other Markan texts which suggest this is a repeating theme in Mark’s gospel.
- When an unclean spirit identified Jesus as the “Holy One of God,” Jesus (Mk 1:25) tells it to be silent.
- In Mark 1:34, Jesus does not allow the demons to speak “because they knew him.”
- When demons call Jesus “the Son of God,” Jesus (Mk 3:12) orders them not to make it known.
- Likewise, in several instances Jesus instructs those whom he has healed not to tell anyone about it: the man with leprosy (1:44), those who witnessed the restoration of Jairus’ daughter (5:34), and the man whose hearing and speech were restored (7:36)
- There is an aura of secrecy in his private instruction of the disciples about parables (4:10, 34), ritual purity 97:17), exorcism (9:28), his Passion and other issues (9:31-50) and the last things (13:3)
- He tells Peter, James and John not mention what they observed at the Transfiguration “until the Son of Man has risen from the dead” (9:9)
The text itself never offers an explanation and so people suggest possible enlightenments. One approach is to say that Jesus feared some segments of the people would use the revelation as the basis for an armed revolt against Roman rule. Another is that this is a narrative means of Mark to delay the fuller revelation of what it means to be Messiah in the light of many assumptions of first century Jewish belief about the identity of the Messiah.
Ultimately the “secret” aspect really comes from the passage Mk 4:11: “to you has been given to mystērion of the kingdom of God.” Many early translations rendered mystērion as “secret, but mystērion is a term with apocalyptic overtones connoting the disclosure by God of a truth hidden until a certain decisive point in the divine plane.
Are there certain literary features that are unique to Mark?
Mark writes in what is called a “paratactic style”, that is, stringing together (lit. "placing next to") short, loosely connected episodes, like pearls on a string. An amazing 410 of the 678 verses in the original Greek version of Mark's Gospel begin with the word "And" (Gk. kai)!
This paratactic style lends itself to Mark's emphasis on action, as seen in the frequent use of the Greek word euthys ("immediately, right away, at once, as soon as"), used an astounding 42 times, especially near the beginning of the Gospel (1:10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 42, 43; 2:8, 12; 3:6; 4:5, 15, 16, 17, 29; 5:2, 29, 30, 42; 6:25, 27, 45, 50, 54; 7:25; 8:10; 9:15, 20, 24; 10:52; 11:2, 3; 14:43, 45, 72; 15:1).
Mark sometimes places similar stories together for thematic continuity, even if the events related might not have occurred one right after the other. Examples:
- Five controversy stories involving various opponents are in one block (2:1—3:6)
- Several parables and related explanations are in one chapter (4:1-34)
- Three "passion predictions" are near the middle of the Gospel (8:31—10:45)
- Many of Jesus' eschatological teachings are in one chapter (13:1-37)
Mark also periodically encapsulates or summarizes the action, in contrast to telling individual stories:
- 1:14-15 - Jesus' initial preaching about the Kingdom/Reign of God
- 1:32-34 - Jesus heals many different people one evening
- 1:39 - Jesus goes throughout Galilee preaching and exorcizing
- 3:7-12 - Great crowds acknowledge Jesus' power
- 6:6b - Jesus goes throughout the villages of Galilee teaching
- 6:12-13 - Jesus' disciples go out preaching, exorcizing, and healing
- 6:53-56 - Mark summarizes Jesus' healing activity
Is there a “dark side” to Mark’s narrative?
Clearly the theme of the Cross is central to Mark’s gospel – in fact serves as the center piece of his narrative. Besides the theme of the Cross, there is also a continued presence of the idea of opposition to Jesus by powerful leaders, division among Jesus’ followers, persecution, and betrayals
|
|
|
