 |
INTRODUCTION
TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK The term "Introduction" is a technical term used in textual studies for that aspect of study in which one is introduced to detailed and scholarly information regarding the text. In the Introduction one considers such matters as authorship, date of writing, recipients of the text, literary style, textual foundation, language, structure, message, theology, style, sources, and critical problems that may be encountered in the text. ORDER OF
WRITING |
MARK AND THE
CHURCH
Mark was early accepted by the church with enthusiasm. Mark's gospel was
apparently known by the author of the 2nd century Apocryphal Gospel of Peter.
Several 2nd century writers know of Mark's Gospel: Hermas (The
Shepherd of Hermas, c. A.D. 140), Tatian (c. A.D. 170), Irenaeus
(c. A.D. 180), and Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) either quoted from,
or referred to Mark.
It was the opinion of the early church that Mark wrote (translated -Papias) Peter's preached gospel message into the literary Gospel we know as Mark, somewhere in Rome for Latin readers. This view, although not absolute, is indicated by Papias (recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History) and The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark ("after the departure of Peter himself he {Mark} wrote down this same Gospel in the regions of Italy")
The earliest witnesses to Mark, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, and the Muratorian Canon, associate this gospel with John Mark, the disciple of Peter.
Although early highly regarded by the church, it soon fell behind the popularity of Matthew's Gospel. No commentary on Mark is known until the 5th century commentary by Victorinus of Antioch.
AUTHORSHIP
AND DATE
We have already cited references to the fact that the general view is
that the Gospel of Mark was early held to have been written by John Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of the Apostle Peter. The Gospel is actually
anonymous.
No serious suggestion to the contrary of Markan authorship has been put forward.
We should remember, however, that the Gospel itself nowhere claims to have been written by Mark. The canonicity of the gospel is more significant than knowing for certainty who the author was. It's importance and "authority" do not lie in that the Gospel was Peter's gospel recorded by John Mark, but in that it was accepted into the Christian canon and widely accepted.
Most scholars today will settle for a date somewhere between A.D. 60 and A.D. 70. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (noted British NT scholar of the 1950-1970 period, an Oxford Don and Bishop in the Church of England) held that Mark could have been written as early as A.D. 45, and certainly before A.D. 60!
For various reasons we will hold that Mark is best dated between A.D. 60 and A.D. 65, and possibly even as late as just before A.D. 70.
THE UNIQUE
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARK
Often, purpose and unique style of a text are dictated by the
recipients of the text; their language, culture, needs, etc.
For many reasons it is considered that Mark's recipients were Romans living in Italy. They needed to know who this Jesus was and why they should believe in him as the Son of God since it was they who had crucified him.
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), endorsed by Clement of Alexandria, claimed that Mark was in Rome when the Gospel was published. Papias (through Eusebius) maintained that Mark was Peter's interpreter, and it is held by early church tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome. Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, 1 pet 5:13 locate Mark and Peter in Rome if as we believe Babylon is a reference to Rome.
Mark explains Jewish customs, which would not be necessary if his recipients were Jewish: Aramaic expressions are interpreted or translated (Abba, Mk 14:36), Jewish customs (ablutions, etc., Mk 7:3,4) are explained.
The presence of Latinism such as praetorium (15:16) centurio (15:39, 44), and several others, indicate a Latin speaking audience.
Mark's lack of concern for geographic and historical exactness and precision indicate an audience not familiar with the finer details of Palestinian geography.
Mark's gospel is a story of dynamic action with the first two chapters moving from one powerful miracle to another. There is no birth and infancy narrative in Mark. The Markan narrative moves simply from Galilee to Jerusalem.
His literary style is characterized by parataxis, the coupling of a list of narratives or activities by "and" (kai), and his use of the historic present (which seemingly Matthew and Luke smoothed out). This grammatical style leads to a dynamic and vivid narrative style.
THEMES AND
EMPHASES
Son of God.
Several themes and emphases can be seen in Mark's Gospel, but perhaps the primary theme is that Jesus is the Son of God.
It has been suggested by some scholars that Mk 1:1 serves as a title to the Gospel of Mark. "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God." Although the textual basis of the expression Son of God has been questioned, the best is to take it as read. This is a gospel about Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is the Son of God. Three times in Mark, Jesus is referred to as "the Son of God" (Mk 1:11, 3:11, 15:39). After his crucifixion a Roman soldier says "truly this man was a son of God" (Mk 15:39). At his baptism and the transfiguration Jesus is acknowledged by God as "Thou art my beloved Son..." (1:11) and "this is my beloved Son..." (9:7).
For Romans this would have meaning only if Jesus is a powerful Son of God. Hence, the gospel begins with a series of powerful miracles. In Romans 1:4 Paul states that Jesus was "declared Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead."
Son of Man
Fourteen times in Mark, Jesus calls himself the Son of Man.
In the four Gospels the term Son of Man is found 82 times (14 times in Mark: 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38: 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21, 41, 62 ), usually on the lips of Jesus, himself. It seems that this was Jesus' preferred term of self description. He did not deny that he was the Christ, but preferred to call himself by the less politically heated term, Son of Man.
Slowly through his ministry Jesus reinterpreted his Messianic ministry (Messiah =Christ) away from the political messiah many desired in favor of a "suffering Son of man" who would die, be raised, and reign as God's king. It is apparent that for both the disciples and the Jews the term Christ was a loaded political term. Jesus does not wish to be identified as a political Christ (Messiah) so does not refer to himself as the Christ. He does not deny that he is the Christ, but through a slow process teaches his disciples that he is not a political Messiah who comes in triumph and victory to set them free from Roman domination, but a suffering servant Son of Man who leads to triumph and God's kingdom through suffering service and death.
There has been over the past century considerable debate over the background and meaning of the term Son of Man. There are those who believe it derives from the Aramaic expression meaning merely man, and others that see a connection with Dan 7, indicating an eschatological one who comes from heaven to judge the enemy and save the people of God. It is in this latter sense that we will interpret the term in Mark and the Synoptic Gospels.
The So-called Messianic Secret
This term was popularized by Wilhelm Wrede (1901). Wrede believed that Jesus did not know that he was the Messiah, or did not proclaim that he was the Messiah (Wrede's statement was that "Jesus actually did not give himself out as messiah"). Wrede concluded that expressions relating to Jesus' Messiahship should be traced to either Mark or the disciples after the death of Jesus. The view was that after Jesus' crucifixion the disciples had to "invent" something to explain their faith and Jesus suffering death. They "invented" the resurrection and statements of Jesus which indicated that he knew he was the Messiah. The early disciples read these concepts into the life and ministry of Jesus, after his death. Therefore, passages that seemingly indicated that Jesus wanted to keep his Messiahship secret were not original to Jesus, but were the invention of later disciples like Mark.
Passages used in reference to this Messianic secret could be 1:25, 34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 6:31; 7:24; 8:27, 30; 9:9, 30, et al.
We do not subscribe to this view of the Messianic secret. There were valid reasons for Jesus not wanting his Messiahship publicized. Jesus did not want to be viewed as a political messiah, or one concerned more with physical healings. His kingdom was not of this world, (Jn 18:36) but a spiritual kingdom. He needed time to teach his disciples and correct their faulty Jewish view of the Messiah. Furthermore, Jesus wanted faith to be grounded in conviction, not sensationalism.
THEOLOGICAL
EMPHASIS
The theological emphasis of Mark is that Jesus Christ is the divine and
powerful Son of God, crucified at the hand of the Jews, but raised by the power
of God. He was the inaugurator of the kingdom of God on earth, and reigns
supremely over God's kingdom on earth.
Mark certainly lays emphasis on the passion (passion is derived from the
Greek term for suffering) of Jesus. Fully half of the Gospel (beginning
with 8:31) is dedicated to Jesus' preparation for his suffering, death,
and resurrection. He instructs his disciples that he must go to
Jerusalem to suffer and die. This is the means of achieving the kingdom of
God.
Mark's Gospel calls for Romans first, and then all people, to believe in this powerful Jesus as the Son of God, to repent, and to live their lives in and for Jesus.
Mark will argue that the crucifixion of Jesus was not the responsibility of the Romans, but of the unfaithful Jewish leaders (e.g. Mk 8:31, Mk 13).
Important for Mark is to explain that Jesus was not political threat to Rome, that he was a spiritual Messiah, and that his kingdom is a spiritual kingdom.
Mark demonstrates the power of Jesus over Satan, demons, the physical world, physical diseases, and spiritual problems.
If Marks' Gospel is written around A.D. 60 - 65 near or in Rome, then the persecution of the Christians under Nero must have been on his mind. Jesus suffered persecution and martyrdom for the kingdom. So too should Christians be willing to suffer likewise for the kingdom.
THE
STRUCTURE OF MARK
Scholars have not been able to come up with any consensus or clear cut analyses
of structure in Mark. Ancient tradition was that it was
"disorderly" in that it did not appear to follow any historical order.
Possibly the best approach to Mark is to see it as a simple narrative focusing on the ministry of Jesus, leading from the beginning of his ministry in Galilee (1:14) to his suffering, death, burial, and resurrection in Jerusalem.
It is easy to detect that the passion (suffering, death, and burial of Jesus) takes a prominent place in this narrative. We have already noted that approximately one half of the Gospel is devoted to this.
The seemingly simple chronological nature of this narrative has led some to refer to this as the Markan Hypothesis that the "chronology" is not historically but theologically developed.
It has been proposed by some (Willi Marxsen and others) that Mark's Gospel (as well as the other gospels) is best seen as a passion narrative with an extended introduction. Marxsen proposed that the gospel was written "backwards" from the passion narrative, meaning that the passion is the dominant theme around which the Gospel narrative is structured.
C. H. Dodd, noted British NT scholar of recent decades proposed, with some validity, that Peter's sermon to Cornelius in Acts 10:34-43 provided an outline for Mark as he wrote "the gospel of Peter" (. Dodd is famous for his work, Apostolic Preaching, in which he sought to identify the gospel message preached by the apostles.
It is not a far leap connecting Marxsen's concept of a passion narrative with extended introduction and Dodd's thesis that mark built his Gospel around Peter's preaching. There can be little doubt that Peter's and the Apostolic Preaching focused on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
The least we can conclude is that Mark in writing for a Roman audience wanted them to know that membership in the kingdom of God was opened through the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus, that as the powerful Son of God he had voluntarily laid down his life in suffering service for the kingdom. The best way to do this was to dynamically follow Jesus through an powerful ministry that led him into open opposition with the Jews and his eventual suffering, death, and resurrection.
This Gospel is not built around an historically or chronologically determined narrative, although some chronology is implicit, but around theological needs and concerns.
CRITICAL
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK
By critical problems we mean problems that some scholars have raised in
the scholarly study of Mark. Such "problems" are primarily the
concern of scholars.
The significant problems encountered in Mark relate to the beginning and end of the Gospel.
The
Beginning of the Gospel
It is possible to see Mk 1:1 as a title to the Gospel, in
which Mark explains that this is "the beginning (a history) of the gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." There are some manuscripts
that do not include this expression the Son of God, giving rise to the
view that this may not be original to Mark, but the addition of Christians at a
later date. The manuscript evidence is not conclusive, but leans in favor
of including this expression, or some variation to it.
Furthermore, Mark seemingly attributes a reference to Malachi to Isaiah
(1:2). How is this to be explained?
The Ending
of the Gospel
By the ending of the gospel we mean the closing paragraph from Mk
16:9-20. Manuscript evidence again is inconclusive, with several endings
suggested, ranging from closing the Gospel at Mk 16:8, to shorter endings in
addition to the longer ending. Scholarship is somewhat divided on this
with the majority of scholars omitting the longer ending. Conservative
Christians have been reluctant to accept the view that the longer ending is not
original, but often their arguments are made along theological or
ecclesiological lines than textual critical lines. The manuscript
evidence and textual critical arguments are extensive, but also inconclusive!
Some object the omission of the longer ending because it eliminates the baptismal
clause. This should not be a major problem since there are enough baptism
texts in the New Testament to substantiate any argument on baptism. We conclude, however, that nothing in the longer ending goes contrary to Apostolic
teaching, and everything is in keeping with Apostolic emphases.
Furthermore, the longer ending is in agreement with the ending of Peter's sermon
in Acts 10:34-43. This may have meaning to the discussion only if Acts
10:34-43 is the outline along which Mark wrote his gospel.
Other
Possible Problems
Possible critical concerns may also relate to the order of the writing
of the Gospels (was Mark written first, or did he use Matthew; what were his
sources, etc.) the Messianic Secret alluded to
above, the origins of the Son of Man terminology, and Mark's geological and
historical lack of precision.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reference books for the study of Mark's Gospel are included in two
categories; Advanced, and General. Advanced
would be for advanced students such as Bible majors and preacher/ministers.
General would have in mind Bible class teachers and serious students of
the text.
Advanced
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, The Word
Biblical Commentary
Craig Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, The Word Biblical
Commentary
C. S. Mann, Mark, The Anchor Bible
Lamar Williamson, Mark, Interpretation
William L. Lane, Mark, The New International
Commentary on the New Testament
Hugh Anderson, Mark, New Century Bible Commentary,
1976
R. T. France, Mark, Bible Commentary Series
William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,
1974
Ralph Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian,1973
C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 1959
A. Farrer, A Study in St. Mark, 1951
D. E. Nineham, St. Mark, 1963
V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1953
General
R. Alan Cole, Mark, Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries
Hugh Anderson, Mark, New Century Bible Commentary
William L. Lane, Mark, The New International
Commentary on the New Testament
Alan Black, Mark, The College Press, 1997