BIBLE STUDY -- NEW TESTAMENT GOSPELS

GOSPEL OF MARK – PART 1

Second book of the New Testament, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68.

AUTHOR, DATE, PROVENANCE

Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias {c. 60–130}, author of several expositions of Yeshua’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” {possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain}. At one-point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by Adonai.” {This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15.} One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark -- almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 {see also 1 Peter 5:13} -- was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment {according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words} that Mark {or Peter?} adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any {implied} charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times believers appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels. Other statements from believer writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document {date uncertain} known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death {in the mid-60s}, and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely. Papias says nothing specific about when the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars, date Mark shortly after AD 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. {According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about AD 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.} This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about AD 62, Mark can be no later than AD 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark {the working assumption of most scholars} is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century {see above} asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter’s death, no earlier than AD 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution {AD 64} had begun. {According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in AD 66.} Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal. With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark {no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12} took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies {e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mark 8:10} and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies {present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist}. Furthermore, in other respects {e.g., 14:54, 66} the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-Law {1:30-31}. In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a sceptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it may be true. As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias -- namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel {such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4}, while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.

DISTINCTIVES

A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the New Testament. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Yeshua’ activity than on his discourses {in contrast to Matthew and Luke}, shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief {Luke is nearly twice as long}, one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency. Other characteristics however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Yeshua who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title {1:1}, Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Yeshua as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over ⅓ of the book {including the so-called Passion narrative} is devoted to Yeshua’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Yeshua {2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32}. In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Yeshua’ resurrection. But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Yeshua, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Yeshua Moshiach {1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14}, his chief emphasis is on Adonai’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Yeshua as “the Son of YHVH” {a phrase omitted in some manuscripts however}, a position that is recognized both by the demons {3:11; 5:7} and by YHVH Himself {9:7}. What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Yeshua’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of YHVH!”

STRUCTURE

The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Moshiach’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Yeshua’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Yeshua is the Moshiach, and now for the first time Yeshua reveals that as the Moshiach He must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly {9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25}. In the end they desert their master {14:50}. Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 {Yeshua’ enemies plot His death}; 6:6 {faithlessness in Nazareth}; and 8:21 {lack of understanding in the disciples}. Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men {8:22-26; 10:46-52} seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly Marks out the final section of the Gospel.

OCCASION, PURPOSE, THEOLOGY

A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Yeshua and viewed Him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on the Moshiach as a heavenly figure {cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians}. Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Yeshua’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid. Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of AD 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 {Yeshua’ apocalyptic discourse} for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution. Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark for example, is the only Gospel that records that Yeshua, after being driven to the wilderness, found Himself in the company of wild animals {1:13}. This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data.

First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome.

Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details.

Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Believers facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards {4:17-19}.

Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Adonai’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow.

Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering believers cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize -- surely Yeshua is the Son of YHVH {15:39}.

CONTENT

The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:

INTRODUCTION {1:1-13}

Part A: Popularity and Opposition {1:14–8:21}

A -- Yeshua’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity {1:14–3:6}

B -- The people’s response {3:7–6:6a}

C -- The disciples’ misunderstanding {6:6b–8:21}

Part B: Darkness and Death {8:22–15:47}

D -- The Moshiach’s mission and the disciples’ blindness {8:22–10:52}

E -- Final ministry {11:1–13:37}

F -- The Passion narrative {14:1–15:47}

CONCLUSION {16:1-8}

Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan {Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline}, the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.