INTRODUCTION TO MARK'S GOSPEL

THE GOSPEL OF MARK

The Gospels are unique writings. Each author presents a unique perspective of Christ. Yet all are built on three basic building blocks: (1) Kerygma: the apostolic preaching of the deeds of Jesus. (2) Didache: the apostolic teaching of the words of Jesus. (3) Passion narratives.[1]

Mark is the shortest of the Gospels, “being less than two-thirds the length of the Gospel of Luke.”[2] It is not the most popular Gospel of the New Testament. However, in the last 100 years it has been given the most attention of any Gospel by scholars. It has resulted in putting to rest the idea that this is an abridgment of the other gospels, but rather is an independent completed work. Mark is part of what is known as the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The word synoptic means alike or see together, for they cover the same basic ground, how be it, from a different perspective. Most scholars hold to some form of literary interdependence as an answer to exact agreement of certain portions of the Synoptic Gospels. Debate centers on various forms of interdependence. The introduction to Luke seems to be against a strict independence (Luke 1:1-4). Most of scholarship now holds that Mark was the primary source for Matthew and Luke. However, this is not a universally held position. There are four main reasons for this:

• First, in the case of Matthew, why would he need or want to use someone else’s account, since he was an eyewitness and likely recorder of the ministry of Christ. This cheapens the Biblical account of the promise made to the apostles that the Holy Spirit would “bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26).”[3] Matthew is the only synoptic writer that was a primary eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.
• Second, it “is the product of liberal scholarship’s denial of God’s involvement in the authorship of Scriptures.”[4]
• If the date of the gospel is in the middle to late 60’s, to be a primary source for Matthew and Luke would almost force a date after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is highly unlikely.
• Third, it denies and neglects the testimony of the Church Fathers. These men were the closest to the Apostles, some even being students of the Apostles, yet, no hint of Mark being the first written Gospel.

Authorship

Like the other gospels, the Gospel of Mark does not state the name of the author. Beyond question the majority see this as the work of Mark, the companion of Paul, Barnabas and Peter. Internal evidence is slight.  However, it is material from Peter that Mark used as his major source. It may well be that he places himself in the Gospel, being the young man in Mark 14:51, 52. We know it was the house of the mother of Mark that was a meeting house for believers (Acts 12). If so, he was well acquainted with the Apostles and the early followers of Jesus. Some feel he makes a autobiographical reference to himself in Mark 14:51-52. There are indications that he came from a well to do family. He was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 1:4), and accompanied him and Paul on part of the first missionary journey. He was associated with Paul (2 Tim. 4:11) and Peter (1 Peter 5:13).

The external evidence comes from church history. “Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord” claims Eusebius.^[5] These are the words of Papias (ca. A.D. 110). France calls this connection one of the “most persistent features of early Christian tradition.”[6] Behind this statement is the fact that Mark’s gospel is backed by an eyewitness (Peter) account and was accurately recorded. Early traditions are universal in their attributing authorship to Mark. These traditions are not only early, but they are widespread.[7] Grassmick reminds us that, “Though not explicitly stated, most interpreters assume that the Mark mentioned by the church fathers is the same as ‘John (Hebrew name), also called Mark’ (Latin name) referred to 10 times in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 24; 13:5, 13; 15:37, 39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phile. 24; 1 Peter 5:13).”[8] Peter refers to him as his “son” was with him in “Babylon” (i.e. Rome)—1 Peter 5:13. Moreover, Mark reveals details and events about Peter that are only told in his Gospel (Mark 1:36; 11:21; 13:3; 16:7).

Another consideration is that it unlikely that the church would attribute the authorship to a secondary person like Mark over an apostle, unless he was the actual writer. There is no real reason to question this tradition. As Cranfield notes, “The unanimous tradition of the early Church that the author of the gospel was Mark, the associate, is not open to serious doubt.”[9] Modern scholarship has a propensity to look at tradition early church writings with great suspicions.  However, there is no reason to doubt that John Mark, companion of both Peter and Paul, wrote this gospel. It should be noted, as in the case of all the synoptic gospels, the authorship was not unknown to the original audience.

Date

It is not possible to date the synoptic gospels, including Mark, with precision. The debated area is whether Mark wrote the Gospel before or after Peter’s death. The early tradition is divided. The testimony of Papias and Irenaeus places the writing after Peter’s death, on the other hand, Clement of Alexandria and Origen placed it during Peter’s lifetime. If this is so, it would have been when Peter was in Rome, since tradition says the Gospel was written from Rome. The general acceptable date for Peter’s martyrdom was around 67-68 A.D. Although there is no clear evidence as to when Peter came to Rome, however all the evidence we have points to his being there in the 60’s. This evidence is threefold:

• First, Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome (i.e. Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 is surely a reference to Rome) which dates around 63 AD.[10]
• Second, 2 Peter is dated toward the end of his life, somewhere between 65 to 68 AD.
• Third, we know that Mark was in Rome at the same time. 1 Peter 5:13 indicates Mark was with Peter in Rome. We also have the statement of Papias that Mark was the interpreter of Peter.[11]  While it is plausible that both were in Rome before the 60’s there is no hard evidence before the 60’s.[12] This would mean that Mark wrote this sometime from 63 to 70 A.D,[13] since there is no indication that the Temple had been destroyed.
• All the evidence we have concerning Mark indicates that he was only in Rome during the 60’s. We know that Mark was in Rome as early at 61 AD with Paul during the first imprisonment (cf. Col. 4:10).  This association is well attested in the writings in the Church Fathers. Although modern scholars seem to neglect and downplay the early writings.

Some have suggested earlier dates based on the idea of a Roman trip in Acts 12, placing the date in the early to mid 40’s.[14] This is based on the fact that Peter went “into another place” (Acts 12:17), and it is speculated that place was Rome. It also presumes that Mark went with him or joined him in Rome. If this were true, then Mark would clearly be the first gospel written. However, two things are against this view: First, it is speculation. There is no indication or proof of Peter or Mark in Rome that early.  Second, it goes against all early tradition and writings of the church.

To suggest that it was written after 70 AD, as some do, is to go against the tone of the Gospel itself. Most that hold to a late date see Mark 13 as historical, not prophetic. They deny or downgrade the doctrine of inspiration, and hold that the text integrity is to be questioned.

There is no reason to deny the historical view of the time as 63 to 70 A.D. Cranfield is more precise: “We may date the gospel between 65-70, and probably, since chapter xiii is not colored by any awareness of the actual events of the Jewish War of 66-70 (contrast Lk. xxi. 20-4), we should date it before the later stages of the war—so within the narrower period 65-70.”[15] If this is a solid date, then to hold the priority of Mark one must hold that Mathew and Luke must be have been written between the writing of Mark and the destruction of Jerusalem. It would have to also show that there was enough time for Mark to be distributed wide enough to be able to be used by the other Gospel writers.

Historical Situation

If our date of authorship is correct, it gives us a clue to the situation of the Christians in Rome. History tells us that the great fire of Rome was the summer of 64 AD. Tactius opens this period of history with the words “Disaster followed.”[16] It was a disaster not only for the Roman citizens, but also the Christian church. Christians became the scapegoats for the fire. The blame on Christians was a fabrication of Nero himself.[17] This set off the first great persecution against Christians. He arrested Christians. He executed them by various means, including wrapping them up in animal skins and turning the dogs on them to be torn to pieces by dogs, crucifixion, and other ruthless punishment. This persecution was mainly local and short-lived, but “they introduced the Church to martyrdom.”[18] Lane says this is reflected in the writing of Mark. “When Mark was read in Christian gatherings there were notes peculiarly appropriate to the Roman situation.”[19] He points to such references to Jesus was faced the wild beasts (1:13), would have been filled with special significance to the readers who would stand face to face in the presence of wild beasts. The reminder of Judas as the betrayer (3:19) knew that experience as they also were betrayed by friends to the government.[20] This time of Roman history is reflected in the work of Mark.

Origin

The earliest tradition almost uniformly agrees that Mark was written in Rome. Tradition tells us that John Mark wrote down the memories of Peter about the life and work of Jesus, but not in chronological order. The arguments for Rome as the place of writing consist of the following points:

• The number of Latin terms used instead of the Greek equivalents (6:27; 7:4; 12:14; 15:15, 16, 39), indicate a Gentile audience.
• The Jewish customs had to be explained (7:2-4; 12:42; 14:12).
• Translates Aramaic words and sentences when introduced (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34).
• Use of Latin technical terms are preferred, i.e. centurion, legion, flagellare, quadroons.
• Only Mark identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 5:9; Romans 16:13). Rufus was living in Rome.
• Reckons time by the Roman method (6:48; 13:35).
• It is consistent with the historical likelihood that Peter was in Rome at the end of his life, along with evidence that Mark was in Rome about the same time (cf. 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Peter 5:13).
• The early church Fathers are unanimous that Mark wrote from Rome for Gentile Christians.

Other suggestions have been made, including Egypt and Syria. However, as Cranfield concludes: “The arguments in favor of Rome are not conclusive, but they are much stronger than those put forward in support of any other place.”[21] Guelich observes: “It appears that the rejection of Rome stems more from the rejection of the Papias’s tradition associating Mark with Peter than from any hard evidence.”[22]

Mark’s priority

It is common today for scholars to say that Mark was the first gospel written, and the others synoptic gospels copied Mark to some extent. This view has come about in the last 100 years. Markan priority is based on the fact that Mark contains 90% of what is in Matthew, and 40% of what is in Luke. Mark’s order is found in the two other gospels. Matthew and Luke rarely disagree with Mark when they all deal with the same subject. However, at the same time, there are places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark. Luke omits a large part of Mark (cf. Mark 6:45-8:26). This view is based on the assumption that Mark was written first, which is questionable. Mark, traditionally is held was written in the late 60’s. To hold this view one must either push the date of Mark forward or push back the date of Matthew and Luke from their traditional dates. Most holding this view push Matthew and Luke as being written after the fall of Jerusalem. This I believe is unlikely.

I tend to hold to a Matthew priority (although not well accepted in the academic world). This is based largely on five factors:

• First, I am not convinced that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. It is possible Mark used Matthew, if not Luke as well. I do not deny there may have been some type of interdependence among the writers, which is noted by Luke (1:1-4).
• Second, the subject matter of Matthew seems to be more primitive than the other gospels. This is indicated by its strong Jewish nature. This primitive nature points to an early date of Matthew.
• Third, and more importantly, is the date of Mark. Tradition and most scholars are certain that Mark used Peter as a primary source and written from Rome. However, tradition is divided as to him writing before or after Peter’s death. Either way, it points to a date in the mid to late 60’s, when Peter was in Rome. That date seems to be fairly well fixed. Indications are that both Matthew and Luke were written earlier. I see the date of Matthew as early 50’s, maybe in the 40’s. While Luke’s Gospel seems to date to the early 60’s at the latest, and must have been before Acts which dates around 62-63 A.D. It is clear from the opening of Acts, that Luke was the first of Luke’s two volume work and already written. If our dating of the Gospel’s are correct, it would be impossible for them to copy Mark.
• Fourth, there was an oral tradition that was widely known at the time. This tradition may be evident by the sayings of Jesus that is not found in the gospels (cf. Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 7:10).
• Fifth, is the work of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the gospels, a neglected aspect by much of critical scholarship. The Holy Spirit was able to bring to mind to each of the Gospel writers the same details (2 Peter 1:21). While one cannot be dogmatic on the order and priority of the gospels, in reality it matters little on the correct interpretation and understanding of Mark.

Observations

Mark is the gospel of action and centers on the deeds of Christ. It begins with the ministry of John, omitting the nativity and genealogy. It centers upon Jesus as servant, therefore, birth and ancestry are not needed, since service and performance is of primary concern. While the mention of the fact of Jesus teaching is repeatedly stated (1:21, 39; 2:2, 12; 6:2, 6:34; 6:2, 34; 10:1; 12:35), little of the actual teaching discourses are recorded by Mark. He is more concerned with activity and action.

A key word is the action word “immediately” (euthus), moving swiftly from one event to another, and is used 41 times. This is the action gospel and events move rapidly. He presents Jesus as the working servant, note the teaching rabbi. “What he wrought authenticates what He taught” observes Baxter.[23] When one considers a servant, one focuses primarily on his work and acts of service. The gospel gives the miracles prominent place as they are actions by our Lord. The actions are described with vividness and detail, making the event living and personal. Mark is quite the storyteller. “His episodes often leave the impression of being given by an eyewitness” observes Hiebert.[24] No doubt this impression is from Mark seeing through the eyes of Peter. There is a certain feeling of interaction. One reads of the emotion and reactions of the event, not simply the recording of the facts of the events. One sees and feels the gazes, touches, sorrows, warmness, and sensations involved with these events. It is the most personable and vivid of the gospels.

In light of Christ being a servant, it has been suggested that the book is divided as in Mark 10:45—“For even the son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” In this verse we see the purpose of Jesus as service. Mark emphasizes in the first half of the book, the Son of Man serving and ministering to the people (Luke 1:1-10:52). The second half deals with the Son of Man giving His life as a ransom (Luke 11:1-15:47).[25]

Mark was writen to aid oral transmission of the Gospel. Oral transmission is more than just memorizing the text. Oral transmission is reading the text in the assemblies as well. In a day when only 10-20 percent of the population was literate, oral transmission was a norm for transmitting news, education, the gospel, storytelling, etc. Mark is designed in short snapshots to aid that process. Mark has been called the storyteller of the gospel authors. As a storyteller he plays the role of narrator. France notes that: “The features which make Mark’s book so easy to read are to a large extent those which are characteristic of ‘oral history.’ ”[26]

Mark designs his narrative around Jesus and three major groups of people. Throughout Mark these groups are depicted a number of times:

• Scribes and Pharisees.
• The Crowd.
• The Disciples.

His purpose is not directly stated in the gospel. Many point to Mark 10:45, saying Mark’s purpose was that of servanthood. However, there are three factors that must be considered:

• First, Mark does not quote any support of Christ as the Servant from the Old Testament (cf. Isaiah 42:1-4). Certainly, Mark does not make the connection as Matthew does (cf. Mark 3:1-12; Matthew 12:10-21).
• Second, there is little emphasis on Christ as the Servant. Nowhere is the word servant applied as a title for Christ. He is called Lord; Son of Man; Christ; Teacher; Rabbi; Son of Man; Prophet; The Holy One, etc. But none that would be used of a servant.
• Third, Mark 10:45 seem to be limited in scope, being applied only to that particular section. Mark seems to use the first verse as the theme of presenting Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). If so, the emphasis is on His deity and humanity. He wants to present a personal Jesus, not just give a historical or biographical account. He presents his readers with the feel of the real Jesus, who is the Messiah, the Son of God. To do this he recorded compact and vivid pictures of Jesus. He presents snapshots of the active life of Jesus. This feature is distinguishable from the other synoptic gospels. In Mark, actions speak louder than words. This is seen by the brevity to the words of Jesus in this gospel. The words of Jesus are found 278 times in Mark, whereas in Luke there are 588, and Matthew 640 times.[27]

A key element in Mark is suffering in the life of Jesus (1:12-13; 3:21-22, 30-35; 8:34-38; 10:30, 33-34; 13:8, 11-13). Remember suffering was a relevant aspect of living in Rome in the sixties. This element spoke directly to the readers of this gospel. One third of the Gospel deals with the passion of Jesus. Mark writes a theological and pastoral gospel, which aims at edification. He deals with the Son of God in suffering. He makes Jesus’ example one to follow (10:45)—enduring suffering; displaying faithfulness, and obedience in spite of suffering. Discipleship and its nature, which involve suffering, are a key element and purpose. It is a vital condition of humanity exemplified by Jesus. The readers “needed to understand the nature of discipleship—what it means to follow Jesus—in light of who Jesus is and what He had done and would keep doing for them” notes Grassmick.[28] The purpose of Mark is pastoral. It was (1) to strengthen Christians and to provide them with a basis for faithfulness to Jesus at a time when Christian identity posed the threat of arrest and humiliating death (1 Peter 4:12-5:14). (2) To show that Christians can suffer no form of humiliation or indignity that has not been endured already by Jesus their Lord.[29] Its purpose seems to be to support the faithful in Rome to remain steadfast, and to support them in the face of the threat of martyrdom.

Brief Outline

I.                   Introduction of the Son of God (1:1-13)

A.    Title (1:1)

B.     The Introducer of the Son: John the Baptist (1:2-8)

C.     The Inauguration of the Son: Baptism (1:9-11)

D.    The Inspection of the Son: Temptation (1:12-13)

II.                Ministry of the Son of God (1:14-13:37)

A.    Events in Galilee (1:14-4:34)

B.     Events outside of Galilee (4:35-9:50)

C.     Events in Jerusalem (10:1-13:37)

III.             Sacrifice of the Son of God (14:1-15:47)

A.    Plotting against the Son (14:1-11)

B.     Passover (14:12-25)

C.     Prayer and Arrest in the Garden (14:26-52)

D.    Prosecution of Jesus (14:53-15:20a)

E.     Pain of Crucifixion (15:20b-41)

F.      Plot for Burial (15:42-47)

IV.             Resurrection of the Son of God (16:1-20).

---

[1]  Lane, William, LECTURE NOTES, www.byfor.org, 1998.

[2]  Hiebert, D. Edmond, THE GOSPEL OF MARK, (Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC, 1994) 12.

[3]  Gary W Derickson, “Matthean Priority/Authorship and Evangelicalism’s Boundary” TMSJ 12, 87.

[4]  Ibid, 96.

^[5]  Eusebius, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, 3.39.15-16.

[6]  France, R.T., NIGTC: THE GOSPEL OF MARK, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2002). 7.

[7]  Stein, Robert, BECNT: MARK, (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2008), 2-4.

[8]  Grassmick, John D., “Mark,” THE BIBLE KNOWLEDGE COMMENTARY, (Victor, Wheaton, 1993), 95.

[9]  Cranfield, C.E.B., CGTC: ST MARK, (Cambridge, New York, 1954), 5.

[10]  Schreiner, Thomas R., NAC: 1, 2 PETER, JUDE, (Broadman & Holman, Nashville, 2013),  37.

[11]  Meyer, M.W., “Mark, John”, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, Revised, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979) 3:260.

[12]  Grassmick, BKC: MARK, 99, argues the possible and dates the book around 57-59, but does so on the premise of the priority of Mark, and gives no hard evidence for Mark and Peter being in Rome in the 50’s.

[13]  Constable, Thomas L., NOTES ON MARK, (www.soniclight.com. 1913), 2.

[14]  Wenham, John, REDATING MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1992), 139.

[15]  Cranfield, CGTC: MARK, 8.

[16]  Lane, William L., NICNT: MARK, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1974), 14.

[17]  Tactius, Annuals, XV.44.

[18]  Lane, NICNT: Mark, 14-15.

[19]  Ibid, 15.

[20]  Ibid, 15.

[21]  Cranfield, CGTC: MARK, 9.

[22]  Guelich, Robert A., WBC:  MARK 1-8:26, (Word, Dallas TX, 1989), xxx.

[23]  Baxter, J. Sidow, Mark: EXPLORE THE BOOK, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1960), 5:189.

[24]  Hiebert, MARK, 13.

[25]  Barbieri, Louis, MGC: MARK, (Moody, Chicago, 1995), 23.

[26]  France, NIGTC: MARK, 16.

[27]  Hendricksen, William, NTC: THE GOSPEL OF MARK, (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1975). 19

[28]  Grassmick, BKC: MARK, 101.

[29]  Lane, LECTURE NOTES, www.byfor.org.