It is generally recognized that Mark represents the earliest attempt to reduce the apostolic tradition to a written form. Synoptic criticism has in the last century and a half produced detailed evidence that Matthew and Luke had before them a document virtually identical with our Gospel of Mark. The remarkable agreements of both Matthew and Luke with Mark in regard to content, order and wording found a convincing explanation on the hypothesis of Marcan priority.1
If Mark is indeed the first Gospel, it merits the most careful consideration. Its author introduced to the Roman world a type of popular literature previously unknown. The form of the Gospel appears to have been shaped by the mission proclamation of the early Christian community. Here for the first time the words and deeds of Jesus were remembered and proclaimed in a written form. It is therefore appropriate to label Mark a witness document that found its creative impulse in the early apostolic preaching of salvation through Jesus Christ. It is intended to be neither a formal historical treatise nor a biography of Jesus, but proclamation. The evangelist’s intention is grasped when the opening line of the Gospel is paraphrased, “The beginning of the preaching of the joyful tidings.” What follows is an historical narrative oriented around a crisis—the death of Jesus the Messiah. There are valid reasons for believing that the Gospel was written for people who themselves confronted a crisis not dissimilar to the one faced by Jesus.
Throughout his entire Gospel Mark bears witness to the word of revelation that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (Ch. 1:1). The initial verse of the Gospel dictates the structure of the account which follows. Mark’s witness in the first half of the document reaches a point of climax with the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus is the Messiah (Ch. 8:29). All that has preceded has prepared for this moment of recognition. All that follows, as Jesus directs his way to Jerusalem and the Passion, clarifies what messiahship entails. The climax to the second half of the Gospel is provided in the confession of the centurion in charge of the crucifixion that Jesus is the Son of God (Ch. 15:39). Through the vehicle of these two confessions, one uttered by a representative of Israel and the other by a spokesman for the Gentile world, Mark bears witness to the faith which undergirds his document.
Mark’s Gospel has been described as “a passion-narrative with an extended introduction.”2 The reason that almost half of Mark’s sixteen chapters describe the final period of Jesus’ ministry is that it is in his suffering, death and resurrection that the revelation of God in Christ is most clearly seen. Throughout the Gospel Mark has prepared for the acceleration of tension and movement which characterizes the Passion-narrative.3 The task and destiny of the Son is sharply presented in a series of mission-sayings which reflect on the purpose for which Jesus was sent into the world by the Father (cf. Chs. 2:17; 8:31; 9:31; 10:33f., 45). These statements involve Mark’s readers in the offense of the cross, and prepare them to be left before the witness of the empty tomb as interpreted by the word of an angel:
“You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, He is not here. See the place where they laid him” (Ch. 16:6).
Mark records this tradition in order to call men to faith. It is this characteristic of the Gospel which sets it off as a witness-document.
Mark’s work was widely circulated and became the model for two other evangelists, Matthew and Luke, who not only appropriated much of the Marcan material but adopted the structure of his Gospel as well. Thus the first Gospel became a literary influence, stimulating a new form of popular literature, the “Gospel” or book of witness.
The sections of the introduction which follow attempt to place the Gospel in the larger context of contemporary discussion. They are necessarily brief and introductory in character, rather than exhaustive. Nevertheless, the issues posed have bearing on the interpretation to the text and are foundational to the exposition presented in the commentary.
1. A New Direction for Marcan Studies
Prior to the emergence of modern criticism the Gospel of Mark was almost totally neglected. In the patristic period it was so thoroughly overshadowed by the Gospel of Matthew that in the late fifth century Victor of Antioch complained of the total absence of commentaries on Mark. To supply what was lacking Victor made a compilation from earlier exegetical writings of Origen, Titus of Bostra, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, who had commented incidentally on Mark in their expositions of Matthew, Luke and John.4 The rarity of ancient commentaries on the Gospel is due to the commonly received opinion that Mark was only an abstract of Matthew. This persuasion was scarcely challenged until the nineteenth century, when the conviction that Mark provided the key for solving the Synoptic problem introduced the period of modern criticism.
The early emphasis upon literary and source criticism of the Gospels was followed by the dominance of form criticism under the influence of men like K. L. Schmidt, Martin Dibelius and R. Bultmann.5 Paradoxically, it was the interruption in literary publications during the second World War that opened the way for fresh questions and a re-thinking of Synoptic studies. Among the new names whose appearance signaled a shift in emphasis in the approach to the Gospels were G. Bornkamm (Matthew), H. Conzelmann (Luke) and W. Marxsen (Mark).6
With the publication in 1956 of Willi Marxsen’s Der Evangelist Markus—Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums, a new direction was given to Marcan studies.7 Marxsen’s concern was the evangelist Mark who first created the distinctive literary form designated “the Gospel.” His basic presupposition was that the well-planned, particular character of the Gospel of Mark—in contrast to the anonymous character of individual passages derived from the oral tradition—demands “an individual, an author-personality who pursues a definite goal with his work” (p. 18). He reasoned that the individual impetus exerted in fashioning the oldest Gospel could be estimated from the fact that, unlike Matthew and Luke, who possessed Mark’s structured account, the first evangelist had at his disposal only a passion narrative, certain collections of material and anonymous individual units of tradition. By transmitting this tradition according to a planned editing, Mark succeeded in structuring, and even restructuring, the tradition in terms of a personal formation. In Gospel research, Marxsen contended, primary consideration must be given to this formation, i.e. to the tradition as laid down within the totality of the Gospel. While form criticism had been oriented toward individual fragments of the tradition, what was distinctive of Marxsen’s approach was its orientation toward the total work, in the conviction that the evangelist-redactor who edited the tradition was himself a creative person (pp. 21f.).
Marxsen labelled his approach “redaction criticism.” To the extent that form-critical analysis was assumed to determine the limits of the redactor’s work, redaction criticism is the child of form criticism. But it was clear that the child was engaged in open revolt against the parent. Form criticism, with its interest in small units of tradition within the text, traced their development back to earlier stages in the tradition in order to account for their form in terms of the presumed life situation in which they arose. The decisive question concerned the life situation out of which a given unit of tradition emerged. The redactors or editors of the Gospels were considered essentially “collectors” of developed traditions who contributed almost nothing to the formation and shaping of the material. In opposition to this critical reconstruction, the proponents of redaction criticism consider the evangelist-redactors to be the crucial figures in the formation of the Synoptic Gospels. In the construction of the framework of the Gospel and in the use of techniques of style, they were guided by a conscious theological purpose. Marxsen urged that it was necessary for NT research to move beyond the formation of individual units of tradition to the form and shaping of the canonical Gospels themselves. In pursuance of this quest, he defined as the essential question the determination of the life situation out of which a particular Gospel emerged.
In order to grasp Mark’s achievement Marxsen investigated the framework of the Gospel, broadly conceived. By framework Marxsen meant the “seams,” interpretive comments, summaries, modifications of material, the selection of material, the omission of material, the arrangement, the introductions and conclusions to sections, i.e. all “textual transformations, to the extent we can recognize them” (p. 22). On the basis of an examination of this framework Marxsen insisted that it was necessary to distinguish three different levels of life situation within the Gospel: the first level is found in the non-recurring situation of Jesus’ activity; the second is provided by the situation of the church in which units of tradition circulate; the third level relates to the situation of the primitive community in which the Gospel originated. This third level is the particular concern of redaction criticism, on the assumption that “a literary work or fragment of tradition is a primary source for the historical situation out of which it arose, and is only a secondary source for the historical details concerning which it gives information” (p. 24).8 Marxsen, therefore, inquires into the situation of the community in which the Gospel came into being—its point of view, its time, and even its composition. This sociological concern, however, is narrowly related to the specific interest and basic conceptions of the evangelist himself. Marxsen believes that each community developed a distinct “form” from its own problems and for its own ends (p. 25). In spite of the fact that the three Synoptic Gospels contain extensively similar subject matter, their individual “form” is distinct. This is already suggested by the statements with which each of the Gospels begins. While Mark created the “gospel-form,” Matthew intended to produce a chronicle while Luke’s purpose was to write a life of Jesus (pp. 25, 207–213).
In the pursuit of his research Marxsen used both the analytical and the constructive approach. He pointed to the circular character in which the work of redaction criticism participates. From (1) the form of the Gospel one can make (2) conclusions about the author and the situation in his community, which in turn provides (3) insight into the form of the Gospel. His method was to approach Mark from two vantage-points. First, he sought to go back beyond Mark and to separate the tradition from the final redaction in order to construct a reasonable explanation for the manner in which the Gospel is composed. Then, second, he brings to the investigation Matthew and Luke, emphasizing their altered conception in an attempt to achieve a clear understanding of that which is typically Marcan. Matthean and Lucan developments which go beyond Mark are important for the conclusions which may be drawn from them for Mark’s distinctive point of view.9
Without considering the conclusions to which Marxsen was led by his critical methodology,10 it is important to appreciate the positive contributions that his approach has made to the study of the Gospels and of Mark. (1) In contrast to the emphases of form criticism which viewed the evangelists primarily as editors of pre-formed units of tradition, redaction criticism emphasizes their creative role in shaping the tradition and in exercising a conscious theological purpose in writing the Gospels. (2) While form criticism focused upon the formation of the oral tradition, redaction criticism focuses upon the completed written Gospels. Since oral tradition exists in the shadowy pre-history of the Gospels and is therefore ultimately irretrievable, the concentration upon the written form of the Gospel in redaction criticism affords the possibility of a somewhat greater objectivity with respect to the text. (3) Because redaction criticism takes seriously the unity of the Gospels, it provides guidelines for detecting the theological intention behind the selection and arrangement of the material by the evangelists. (4) As a discipline it serves to caution the interpreter of the danger latent in the harmonization of two similar accounts and in the exegesis of small independent units without consideration of the Gospel as a total work. (5) The recognition of the distinct theological perspective of each evangelist has encouraged a greater concern to reconstruct the life situation which called forth the Gospels.
Marxsen’s own redaction-critical study of Mark is flawed by a number of questionable assumptions that he shares with form criticism. He incorrectly assumed (1) that units of Synoptic tradition are basically anonymous in origin (p. 19); (2) that the Gospels are not primary sources for the historical details they report (p. 24); and (3) that proclamation, rather than history per se, is the locus of divine self-disclosure. These deficiencies reflect a defective view of the relationship of history to revelation. God appears to act not in space-time history, but only in Church proclamation. This de-historicizing hermeneutic obscures both the OT witness to God’s mighty acts in history and the central truth of God’s Incarnation in human life and affairs. The result is a new gnosticizing of the Christian faith.
There is no necessary reason why redaction criticism should lead to the de-historicizing of the NT Gospel. Marxsen’s conclusions in this regard are due not to the method he uses but to his faulty presupposition that a literary work is a primary source for the historical situation out of which it arose, and is only a secondary source for the historical details concerning which it gives information. Historical questions are inherent in the content of early Church proclamation, while the existence of the four Gospels testifies to the Church’s interest in the earthly life of Jesus. The assertion that Mark made historical events subservient to his theological purpose demands the affirmation that there were historical events. The theological import of these events is dependent upon the activity of God. While the theological significance of the historical facts must not be denied, it must also be maintained that their theological meaning is dependent upon their historical occurrence. Ultimately it is the creative life of Jesus Christ, not the evangelists or the Church, that originates, controls and gives essential unity to the documents through which witness is borne to his achievement as the Messiah, the Son of God.
Nevertheless, Marxsen’s critical studies were programmatic for all future Marcan research. While his own conclusions have been sifted and his critical methodology refined by subsequent studies, his achievement remains a permanent contribution to the study of the Gospel of Mark. That redaction criticism is a valid hermeneutical approach to understanding the text of Mark and the intention of the evangelist has been assumed in the commentary.
2. The Tradition Concerning the Gospel
The central question in inquiring about the tradition concerning the origin of Mark is whether the witness of the Gospel is essentially apostolic. An unbroken tradition affirms that the evangelist was intimately associated with the apostle Peter and that the contents of this Gospel depend significantly upon the message he proclaimed. The nature of the second century tradition may be exhibited in summary fashion before examining the Gospel record for supportive evidence that the tradition is credible.
The earliest statement concerning the Gospel of Mark is that of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who wrote a book now lost, Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles (ca. A.D. 140), but known to us through quotations made by Eusebius. At one point he cited the testimony of an elder, who was evidently an older contemporary:
And the Elder said this also: “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord, but not however in order.” For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him, but afterwards, as I said, Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them. For he took forethought for one thing, not to omit any of the things that he had heard nor to state any of them falsely.11
The testimony that the author of the Gospel was intimately associated with the ministry of the apostle Peter is presented not as Papias’s opinion but as the word of an earlier authority. It is therefore probable that Papias has preserved a tradition that can be traced at least as far as the beginnings of the second century. The passage as a whole appears to be intended to explain the character and authority of Mark’s Gospel. It affirms that it is based upon proclamation and catechesis, and that its authority is apostolic since Peter was both an apostle and an eyewitness to the events of which he spoke. While the content of Mark’s Gospel is viewed as derived substantially from Peter, there is a recognition of the initiative and independence of Mark as an evangelist, who did what Peter failed to do when he prepared a composition consisting of the sayings and deeds of the Lord.12 By placing in the foreground the statement that Mark wrote “accurately,” and by concluding with an attestation to the trustworthiness of the Gospel, Papias displays a high regard for Mark’s achievement.
An independent witness appears to be provided by the Anti-Marcionite Prologue attached to the Gospels in many Old Latin MSS (ca. 160–180 A.D.).13 Although the preface to Mark is fragmentary, it provides the new information that Mark wrote his Gospel in Italy after the death of Peter:
… Mark declared, who is called “stump-fingered”, because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.
This tradition provides the earliest testimony in support of the Roman origin of Mark, and takes its place as a significant witness from the period between Papias and Irenaeus.
The testimony of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 175) is recorded in a section in which he speaks of all the Gospels.14 After stating that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and establishing the church, he adds:
And after the death of these Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.
Irenaeus thus adds his voice to the tradition that the specific background for the publication of the Gospel was the apostolic preaching of Peter, and affirms with the Anti-Marcionite Prologue that Mark undertook to transmit the proclamation in writing only after the apostle’s death.
The Muratorian Canon, which contains a list of the books recognized as authoritive by the Church of Rome in the period A.D. 170–190, is a badly mutilated fragment. The initial sentence is a broken phrase which clearly refers to Mark since it is followed by a reference to Luke as the third of the Gospels. The sentence reads:
“… at some things he was present, and so he recorded them.”
A reasonable conjecture is that the preceding clause had made reference to Peter’s preaching and teaching.15
These four citations, together with the superscription to the Gospel which has bearing on the question of authorship, may be regarded as representative of the received tradition in the second century. The witnesses may be associated with church centers in Asia (Papias), Rome (Anti-Marcionite Prologue, the Muratorian Canon) and Lyon (Irenaeus).16 To these voices Tertullian (North Africa) and Clement (Alexandria) add their concurrence ca. A.D. 200.17 The self-witness of the Gospel of Mark must be examined to determine the degree of confidence which may be placed in the early Church tradition.
The repeated statements that the background for Mark’s Gospel was provided by Peter’s preaching are supported by the striking fact that the outline of the Gospel is already suggested in the sermon summarized in Acts 10:36–41. The degree of parallelism may be exhibited in a table:
Mark |
Acts 10:36–41 |
|
Ch. 1:1 |
“The beginning of the joyful tidings concerning Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. |
“You know the word which he [God] sent to Israel, preaching joyful tidings of peace by the Messiah Jesus (he is Lord of all) |
Ch. 1:2 |
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet … ‘Prepare the way of the Lord.’ |
|
|
Ch. 1:14 |
“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the joyful tidings of God … |
which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee |
|
Cf. Ch. 1:4–8 |
after the baptism which John preached: |
|
|
Ch. 1:10 |
“And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove …” |
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power; |
|
dominated by narratives describing healing and exorcism, demonstrating the power of God at work in Jesus’ ministry. |
how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. |
|
|
Cf. Chs. 11–14 |
where Mark presents the Jerusalem ministry and activity of Jesus. |
And we are witnesses of all that he did … in Jerusalem. |
|
Cf. Ch. 15:1–39, |
which focuses on the crucifixion of Jesus. |
They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; |
|
Cf. Ch. 16:1–8, |
with its witness: “He is not here. He is risen, as he said.” |
but God raised him up on the third day.” |
While Peter’s preaching has been epitomized for inclusion in the Acts, it is clear that its structural development and emphases are accurately reflected in the Marcan outline.
The content of Mark’s Gospel is as kerygmatic as the outline, and provides added support to the tradition linking the written account with the apostolic preaching. Behind the Marcan form of the narrative it is sometimes possible to detect Peter’s voice. Two illustrations of this occur early in the Gospel, in narratives which are told from Peter’s perspective. In a natural way the accounts can be recast into the first person of experiential preaching:
Ch. 1:29 f. |
“And he immediately left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay sick with a fever and in due course they spoke to him concerning her.” |
The Account Recast: “We immediately left the synagogue and entered into our house, and James and John also accompanied us within. Now my wife’s mother was lying sick with a fever, and in due course we spoke to him concerning her.” |
|
Ch. 1:35–37 |
“And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed. And Simon and those who were with him followed him, and they found him and said to him, ‘Every one is searching for you.’ ” |
The Account Recast: “And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed. And we followed him and we found him and said to him, ‘Every one is searching for you.’ ” |
In other instances an incident is structured so that it displays an apparent sermonic introduction, and a conclusion appealing for men to consider some aspect of the dignity of Jesus (e.g. Chs. 2:1–12; 4:35–41; 7:31–37). The self-witness of the Gospel tends to validate the witness of the tradition and challenges the common critical presupposition that Mark was heir to an anonymous tradition, except for certain complexes and the Passion narrative.18 If this were the case, then indeed a creative redactor would be needed to give the stamp of individuality to a faceless tradition. The personal stamp already impressed on the tradition by the apostles and first generation of teachers, however, must not be obscured. The Gospel tradition originated not with anonymous congregations but with eyewitnesses to the activity of Jesus from the time of his baptism to the moment of his ascension (cf. Acts 1:22; 2:32; 1 Cor. 15:5). Mark was not the inheritor of a completely faceless tradition, but one which already bore the impress of Peter’s experience.
The tradition handed down by Papias, however, also stressed Mark’s initiative and independence from Peter in the composition of the Gospel. Although Mark is a witness document prompted by the apostolic preaching and intended to serve the proclamation, the evangelist was ultimately responsible for the selection, arrangement and structuring of the tradition. The framework of the Gospel and its theological development demonstrate that Mark was a historian and theologian in his own right. The Church leaders responsible for attaching the superscription “according to Mark” to the Gospel early in the second century rightly displayed an awareness of the individuality which has been impressed upon the corporate witness of the church to Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.
3. The Life Situation That Occasioned the Gospel
The clear tradition of the Church both in the west and the east toward the end of the second century and the beginning of the third is that Mark prepared his Gospel primarily for the Christians in Rome and Italy.19 If it appeared in the second half of the decade A.D. 60–70 it was called forth by a crisis confronting the Christian community. An appreciation of the life situation will indicate how the Christians in Rome could be informed by the tract read in their meetings.
The emperor at this time was Nero. After five years of responsible rule (A.D. 54–59) he had shown himself recklessly despotic in his relations with the aristocracy of Rome. By heavy taxation on the estates of childless couples, false accusations followed by confiscation of wealth, invitations to suicide at public banquets, he had reduced the Senate to abject servility and made of life a reign of terror for men of wealth. Relatively little attention, however, had been given by imperial authorities to the gatherings of Christians for worship. Their assemblies undoubtedly appeared indistinguishable from the vast number of religious societies and guilds found throughout Rome. Christians were occasionally accused of heinous offences by segments of the population. Especially were they accused of the hatred of men,20 a charge based on the reluctance of Christians to participate in pagan guild feasts and other social affairs where idolatrous practices and immorality were common. No evidence exists, however, that the authorities regarded these charges seriously, or that there had been police investigation of the Christian gatherings.
The situation was radically altered by the disastrous fire that swept Rome in the summer of A.D. 64. The fire began among the cluttered shops near the Circus Maximus, but fanned by a strong wind it quickly spread to other wards of the city. After raging unchecked for more than a week it was brought under control, only to break out a second time from the estates of Tigellinus, head of the Praetorian guard. Of the fourteen wards of the city, only four were spared. Three wards were reduced to ash and rubble; in seven others many of the oldest buildings and monuments were destroyed or seriously damaged.
After the initial shock, popular resentment was fanned by widespread rumors that the fire had been officially ordered. Suetonius charges that Nero “set fire to the city so openly that several former consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and firebrands.”21 Tacitus is more cautious. He states tersely, “Disaster followed. Whether it was accidental or caused by the emperor’s criminal act is uncertain—both versions have supporters.” He reports that “no one dared fight the flames; attempts to do so were prevented by menacing gangs. Torches, too, were openly thrown in, by men crying that they acted under orders,” but adds, “perhaps they had received orders; or they may just have wanted to plunder unhampered.”22 Nero did his utmost to aid the homeless and the injured, levying a tax for relief and lowering the price of grain to provide food for the impoverished. In a program of urban renewal he cleared the slums, widened the streets, provided new parks, and insisted that all new construction consist of fireproof material such as brick or stone. When none of these measures succeeded in allaying suspicion and resentment a scapegoat had to be found. Blame for the fire was placed squarely upon the Christians. Tacitus, writing a generation removed from these events, expressed himself with strong feeling:
Neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire had been instigated. To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated23 scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called) … First, Nero had self-acknowledged Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned—not so much for incendiarism as for their anti-social tendencies. Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals’ skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight. Nero provided his Gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the Circus, at which he mingled in the crowd—or stood in a chariot, dressed as a charioteer. Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man’s brutality rather than to the national interest.24
Such erratic behavior by the central government meant that life became precarious for the Christians in Rome and Italy. While mass arrests and capital punishment upon admission to membership in a Christian group were presumably short-lived and localized excesses, they introduced the Church to martyrdom. The self-awareness of the Christian community in this critical situation is reflected in I Peter, with its message of trial by fire addressed to the Asian churches. In 1 Peter 5:13 “Babylon” is a cryptogram for Rome, the city where the new Israel now found itself exiled and captive.
On this understanding, Mark’s task was the projection of Christian faith in a context of suffering and martyrdom. If Christians were to be strengthened and the gospel effectively proclaimed it would be necessary to exhibit the similarity of situation faced by Jesus and the Christians of Rome. The Gospel of Mark is a pastoral response to this critical demand.
When Roman believers received the Gospel of Mark they found that it spoke to the situation of the Christian community in Nero’s Rome. Reduced to a catacomb existence, they read of the Lord who was driven deep into the wilderness (Ch. 1:12 f.). The detail, recorded only by Mark, that in the wilderness Jesus was with the wild beasts (Ch. 1:13) was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts. In Mark’s Gospel they found that nothing they could suffer from Nero was alien to the experience of Jesus. Like them, he had been misrepresented to the people and falsely labelled (Ch. 3:21 f., 30). And if they knew the experience of betrayal from within the circle of intimate friends it was sobering to recollect that one of the Twelve had been “Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him” (Ch. 3:19).
When Mark was read in Christian gatherings there were notes peculiarly appropriate to the Roman situation. Jesus had spoken openly of the persecution that could be expected in the Christian life. In the interpretation of a parable he had referred to “those who have no root in themselves, but endure for awhile; then, when affliction or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away” (Ch. 4:17). He had foreseen that there would be others who had heard the word, “but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things” would prevent the gospel from becoming effective in their lives (Ch. 4:19). Mark recorded the fulfilment of these sober sayings in the experience of Jesus when a man of great wealth turned from him when he learned of the cost of discipleship (Ch. 10:17–22), and later Jesus’ own disciples fled from him (Ch. 14:41–52, 66–72). In a critical situation unfaithfulness and denial always threaten the life of the community from within. While Jesus promised his followers “houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands,” Mark noted that he had added the qualification, “with persecutions” (Ch. 10:30). He had warned of the day when those who followed him would be handed over to councils to be beaten because of their association with him. Jesus had not withheld the cruel truth that brother would betray to death brother, and the father his child, and children their parents, and that his followers would be hated by all men because they represented him. Precisely in this situation they would bear their witness for him (Ch. 13:1–13). In crucial statements on discipleship brought together by Mark, Jesus had made it clear that what he demanded was a radical abandonment of life in response to a call to martyrdom (Ch. 8:34–38). He had spoken of cross-bearing, which Tacitus affirms was a literal reality for Mark’s readers in Rome. It had been the literal experience of Jesus as well, preceded by trial before a Roman magistrate, scourging with the bone-tipped flagellum, and the cruel mockery of the Roman guard (Ch. 15:15–20). It was the threat of such treatment that could move a man to deny Jesus, displaying shame for his association with the Lord. In the pages of the Gospel he learned that he could save his life through denial only to experience rejection by Jesus when he returned at the last day as the sovereign Judge of all men (Ch. 8:38). This kind of language was charged with relevance for men and women upon whom was heaped derision and humiliation because they bore the name of Jesus.
Mark’s Gospel left no doubt concerning the sovereign authority of Jesus. In response to the call to discipleship men had left family, home and profession (Chs. 1:17, 20; 2:14; 10:28). The issue of Caesar’s authority had been raised pointedly when Jesus was questioned concerning the payment of taxes to Rome. His response, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Ch. 12:17) imposed significant limits to the authority and the dignity of the emperor. There could be no acclamation that Caesar is Lord from one who rendered to God “the things that are God’s.” When Jesus finally stood before Caesar’s representative at a Roman tribunal Pilate marvelled at his dignity. He delivered him to be scourged and crucified to satisfy the demand of the crowd, but when his centurion saw how Jesus died he exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (Ch. 15:39). This acknowledgment of Jesus’ dignity by a Roman was validated by Jesus’ resurrection on the third day (Ch. 16:6–7).
Jesus’ vindication by resurrection provided the Christians in Rome with the pledge of their own vindication. In the command to share these joyful tidings with the disciples (Ch. 16:7) they found the encouragement to continue their mission activity, in spite of imperial opposition. The explicit reference to Peter meant that the way was open for restoration for one who had denied his Lord (cf. Ch. 14:66–72). Here was a basis for forgiveness for those who had denied they were Christians when brought before the tribunals of Rome. The situation of the Christians in Rome was too intensely critical for them not to read the Gospel in this way.
The Gospel of Mark is generally dated within the decade A.D. 60–70. According to the early tradition preserved in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel and in Irenaeus, Mark wrote subsequent to the death of Peter, who was martyred in Rome during this period.25 Another early strand of tradition, found in Clement of Alexandria, asserts that Mark produced his Gospel while Peter was yet alive.26 Various attempts have been made to show that both of these lines of tradition are correct. It has been argued that Mark began his Gospel during Peter’s lifetime but completed it after his death,27 or that Irenaeus did not mean to imply Peter’s death but only his departure from the place where Mark was.28 While the first proposal is possible, the second is disallowed by the earliest witness that has been preserved, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160 A.D.). It clearly dates the origin of Mark after the death of Peter (post excessionem). The period in view would seem to be the second half of the seventh decade.
This conclusion finds support in the internal evidence provided by the Gospel itself. The production of the Gospel of Mark must have an effective cause. The emphasis placed by the evangelist upon suffering and persecution suggests that it was the Neronian persecution following the great fire of Rome (A.D. 64) that called forth the Gospel.29 What was required by the situation was a substantial tract which would sustain Christians who were exposed to suffering and death for Jesus and the gospel (see on Ch. 8:36; 10:29; 13:9, 13). In response to this need Mark brought together a witness document designed to preserve the apostolic tradition and to strengthen the Church in this critical situation.
The question of the date of the Gospel has been reopened by the claim that fragments of Mark have been found which can be dated paleographically to A.D. 50.30 The papyrologist José O’Callaghan has identified 7Q5 as a fragment of Ch. 6:52–53; 7Q6, 1 as Ch. 4:28; 7Q7 as Ch. 12:17 and 7Q15 as possibly Ch. 6:48. The claim to have identified Marcan fragments which can be dated more or less to the first half of the first century is based on a study of infra-red and normal photographs of fragments of papyrus from Cave 7 at Qumran. If substantiated, O’Callaghan’s discovery calls into question the traditional date of the Gospel and raises important questions concerning the origin and character of Mark.
The fragments of Cave 7 at Qumran consist of 19 tiny scraps of papyrus, some containing nothing more than a part of a letter.31 Unlike the other caves at Qumran, all the fragments consist of papyrus and are inscribed in Greek. The fact that only Greek fragments have been found in the cave suggests that it did not serve as a cache for the Essene community at Qumran. One proposal is that it was used as a hiding place by an early Christian community in the territory of Jericho.32 The first editors of the fragments identified 7Q1 as Exodus 28:4–7, to which C. H. Roberts assigned a date of 100 B.C. paleographically. 7Q2, consisting of five fragmentary lines, could be identified as the Epistle of Jeremiah 43–44. The remaining fragments were unidentified, but they were dated paleographically 50 B.C.-A.D. 50. For 7Q5, which O’Callaghan identified as Mk. 6:52–53, the upper limit is accepted, i.e., a date approximately at the middle of the first century.33 The state of this fragment, and the methodology employed by O’Callaghan, deserve careful consideration.
The fragment contained 20 letters, in five lines of Greek text, but the first editors were able to decipher only 17. They offered the following transcriptions, placing a dot under any letter which to them seemed uncertain:
O’Callaghan, after detailed study of the photographs, proposed that the transcription could read as follows:
He then estimated the number of letters the MS can have to a line from the only two fragments of papyrus previously identified. For 7Q1 lines 10–13 were not intact, but the eleven lines that were fully preserved averaged 20 letters per line. The four full lines of text in 7Q2 averaged 21 letters. Working with this model O’Callaghan recognized in 7Q5 the stichometry of Mk. 6:52–53.34 The same procedure is followed in identifying 7Q6, 1 as Ch. 4:28 and 7Q7 as Ch. 12:17, only in each of these instances only four letters are completely certain in three lines of text.35 The basis for O’Callaghan’s suggestion that 7Q15 may contain Ch. 6:48 is five letters in two lines of text.36
On the basis of the photographs of the fragments, Father O’Callaghan’s thesis seems very tenuous. The size of the fragments, and the number of letters which are visible, do not allow a certain identification.37 The fragments are not necessarily biblical in character. The fact that the two which have been identified with certainty are from Exodus and the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah may provide presumptive evidence that the remaining fragments belonged to biblical or post-biblical Jewish texts. But this is not to say that they represent NT texts.38 Even should the identifications proposed by O’Callaghan prove precise, the question would inevitably have been raised whether these fragments put us in touch with Mark or with a pre-Marcan source. The scraps are too small to assert that they stem from the Gospel itself. Moreover, although paleography is a highly developed science, according to Gerald Brown, a leading papyrologist at Harvard University, the dating of a MS by paleography is precise within 25 years. This means that even if O’Callaghan is correct in his general estimate of the date and content of the fragments, the dating of Mark’s Gospel within the decade 60–70 is by no means disproven. In short, a substantial basis for revising our estimate of the date of Mark has not been offered.
The Gospel which bears Mark’s name is actually anonymous, but an unbroken tradition puts forth as its author John Mark, who would have been in Rome with Peter at the time of the crisis under Nero (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). He was a Jewish Christian whose mother Mary owned a home in Jerusalem where the nucleus of the original Christian community met; it was to this house that Peter came after his miraculous release from prison (Acts 12:12). When Barnabas and Saul of Tarsus returned to Antioch after a visit to Jerusalem on a mission of famine relief they added to their party “John, whose other name was Mark” (Acts 12:25). Since Barnabas was the cousin of Mark (Col. 4:10), it is probable that he persuaded the apostle to take along the younger man. Mark travelled to Cyprus with Barnabas and Paul on a preaching mission to the diaspora synagogues (Acts 13:4), but when they turned to go inland to Asia, Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Paul evidently regarded his action as irresponsible, for he refused to take him along on a projected second journey. A bitter quarrel over this issue disrupted the relationship between the veteran missionaries. Barnabas and Mark returned to Cyprus to strengthen the young churches while Paul and Silas gave oversight to the churches in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:36–41).
Though details are lacking, Paul was later reconciled with Mark, who was with the apostle during an imprisonment in Rome, and served as the apostle’s delegate on an important mission to Asia Minor (Philemon 24; Col. 4:10). Some years later, when Paul was again in prison and sentence had been passed upon him he instructed Timothy in Ephesus to bring Mark to Rome, since he would be useful to him (2 Tim. 4:11). When I Peter was written Mark was in Rome laboring with Peter, who regarded him affectionately as his son (1 Peter 5:13).
To this brief sketch two notes may be added. In Acts 13:5 Luke designates Mark by a term which can usually be rendered “servant,” “helper,” or “assistant.”39 The RSV states simply, “And they [Barnabas and Paul] had John [Mark] to assist them.” It is not at all certain, however, that this is an accurate indication of the office he filled. In first and second century Greek texts Luke’s term frequently designates a man who handles documents and delivers their content to men (cf. Lk. 4:20).40 Two other instances of the term in Luke-Acts, however, suggest that more than the services of a temple clerk are implied in the office. (1) In Acts 26:16 Paul states that the risen Lord appointed him a servant and a witness to the truth. The same term appears as a self-designation in 1 Cor. 4:1, where it is associated with the ministry of the word of God. (2) In Luke 1:1–2 the evangelist links the servants of the word with those who were the eyewitnesses and guarantors of apostolic tradition. He states:
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word …”
Here the term servants is qualified by the sphere in which their service was rendered, the ministry of the word of God, and an intimate relationship is established between the tradition delivered by the primary witnesses to the events and the narrative accounts which had begun to be compiled. One narrative which may reasonably be said to have been before Luke when he undertook his own work was the Gospel of Mark. Presumably the third evangelist intended to include Mark among the “servants of the word” who reduced the tradition to a written form. But on any reading of these verses, the term descriptive of Mark in Acts 13:5 is associated in Luke-Acts with the ministry of the gospel. This recognition sheds light on Mark’s function with Peter in Rome, where the close relationship between the eyewitness and the minister of the word acknowledged in Lk. 1:2 was exemplified in the ministry of the apostle and his younger companion.
Finally, it is possible to sketch an intellectual portrait of Mark the evangelist from the form and content of the Gospel. It is evident that he was a charismatically endowed teacher and evangelist. His use of the wilderness motif in the prologue and throughout the Gospel displays a significant grasp of OT revelation and its relevance for the Church (see e.g. Chs. 1:1–13, 35–39; 6:30–34).41 The employment of the allusive qualities of rare vocabulary (e.g. Chs. 7:32; 8:3) and of parenthetical clauses introduced by the conjunction “for” to evoke the biblical background which informs an event (e.g. Chs. 1:16; 11:13)42 exhibits an agile mind. The recognition that events which transpire on the historical plane ultimately possess cosmic significance in regard to the battle between God and Satan (e.g. Chs. 1:4–13; 3:7–12; 4:35–41; 8:34–38; 11:27–33) indicates an ability to perceive the character of reality.43 At the same time Mark’s profound pastoral concern for the Christians of Rome is evident in his willingness to underscore the significance of a particular incident for his readers (e.g. Chs. 2:10, 28; 7:19) as much as in his selection of material which would address itself pointedly to their needs (e.g. Ch. 13:9–13, 32–37). A careful reading of the Gospel will serve to introduce the author as a theologian of the first rank who never forgot that his primary intention was the strengthening of the people of God in a time of fiery ordeal.
Early Church tradition associates the composition of the Gospel with Rome or Italy.44 Although the content of Mark’s Gospel does not prove Roman origin, it is highly consistent with it. Among the words of Jesus which Mark alone records was the statement, “Everyone will be salted by fire” (Ch. 9:49). Jesus’ enigmatic statement had found fulfilment in the trial and persecution of Roman Christians under Nero. It has already been urged that their needs provided the major incentive for the preparation of the Gospel.
In language, Mark shows a distinct preference for Latin technical terms, particularly terms connected with the army (e.g. legion, Ch. 5:9; praetorium, Ch. 15:16; centurion, Ch. 15:39), the courts (e.g. speculator, Ch. 6:27; flagellare, Ch. 15:15) and commerce (e.g. denarius, Ch. 12:15; quadrans, Ch. 12:42). Although such terms were in use throughout the empire, it is particularly significant that twice common Greek expressions in the Gospel are explained by Latin ones (Ch. 12:42, “two copper coins [lepta], which make a quadrans”; Ch. 15:16, “the palace, that is the praetorium”). The first of these examples is particularly instructive, for the quadrans was not in circulation in the east.45 The presence of latinisms and of technical terminology confined to the west is harmonious with the tradition that Mark was written in Rome.
In agreement with the Roman method of reckoning time Mark speaks of four watches of the night, rather than of the three which were traditional in Jewish reckoning (Chs. 6:48; 13:35). It is even possible that Mark has structured his Passion narrative in accordance with the four Roman night watches, since Jesus enters Jerusalem to share the Passover with his disciples in the evening (Ch. 14:17); the hour of betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane is very probably midnight (Ch. 14:41); the denial of Peter occurs in connection with cock-crow (Ch. 14:72); and the time when Jesus is brought to Pilate is early morning (Ch. 15:1).46 If it was Mark’s intention to structure his narrative in this fashion, it was in Rome that the significance of this would be especially appreciated.
It is apparent, moreover, that Mark prepared his Gospel for Gentile Christians who were familiar with the OT in the Greek VS, and who needed an explanation of Palestinian customs and practices (e.g. Chs. 7:3; 14:12; 15:42). The evangelist regularly translates for his readers the Aramaic words and phrases preserved in the tradition (e.g. Chs. 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 9:43; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34), including the simple Abba which Paul had used when writing to the Church at Rome (Rom. 8:15).
Finally, it is noteworthy that the Gospel of Mark reaches its climax in the confession of Jesus’ deity by a Roman centurion (Ch. 15:39). Roman Christianity found in the Gospel an account peculiarly appropriate to its life and problems.47
7. Some Considerations on Style and Literary Method
A clear conception of Mark’s intention in the Gospel sheds light on the distinctive character of his style. Mark’s task was to project Christian faith in a climate of uncertainty where martyrdom had been a reality. He selected and arranged the tradition to present the Christ who continues to speak and act meaningfully in the context of crisis. What was demanded by the situation was not a past word, descriptive of what Jesus had said and done, but a word from the present through which the living Lord could be heard and known. The account Mark drew up is characterized by simplicity and straightforwardness. His language and style are less elaborate and more popular than that adopted by Matthew or Luke. Mark’s sentences are simply constructed and commonly are strung together by the conjunction “and” (parataxis). Frequent use of the word “immediately” lends a sense of vividness and excitement to the action. Within a narrative the evangelist shows a preference for direct speech. He is especially fond of using the present tense to relay past happenings. Mark employs this “historical present” over 150 times when other writers would have used the simple past tense.
Mark’s literary style has frequently been described as “barbarous” or “unrefined.” It is better to understand it as supporting a conscious literary or even theological intention. Simple sentence construction, parataxis, direct speech and the historical present serve to make Jesus the contemporary of those who hear or read the account. Through the Gospel, Jesus continues to manifest his presence and his authority among his people.
The vividness of Mark’s narrative style calls for comment. While the evangelist is capable of summary report (e.g. Chs. 1:14 f.; 3:7–12), more usually the Marcan narrative is vivid and concrete. Several incidents are narrated at greater length and in fuller detail than the parallel accounts in the other synoptic Gospels (e.g. Chs. 2:1–12; 5:1–20). The graphic details that are found in Mark alone may reflect eyewitness report. But it is ultimately Mark who was responsible for preserving such details as the presence of the wild beasts in the wilderness (Ch. 1:13), the nicknaming of James and John (Ch. 3:17), the use of the fisherman’s pillow in the stern of the boat (Ch. 4:38), or the name of a blind man who received his sight (Ch. 10:46). This concern for detail is reflected in Mark’s frequent reference to the emotional response of the participants in the drama of salvation. He notes not only the stunned reaction of the people (e.g. Chs. 1:27 f; 2:12) or the fear and amazement of the disciples (e.g. Chs. 9:5 f.; 10:24, 32), but the indignation, stern anger, godly sorrow or exasperation experienced by Jesus as well (e.g. Chs. 1:41, 43; 3:5; 7:34). The resultant account is marked by color and movement. But the important consideration is that Mark’s literary style succeeds in putting his listeners on the scene where they may visualize and feel what the evangelist has described.
Mark did not hesitate to address his readers even more directly. At several points in the Gospel he has used the literary device of a parenthetical statement to underscore the significance of a particular action or pronouncement. This seems clearly to be the case in the account of the healing of a paralytic (Ch. 2:1–12) where the crucial issue of the authority to forgive sins is introduced: “Know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the earth” (Ch. 2:10a). The public use of “Son of Man” as a self-designation so early in Jesus’ ministry, in the presence of blatant unbelief, is in conflict with Mark’s witness to the reserve with which Jesus spoke of himself. The evangelist clearly understands that it is in the context of faith (cf. Ch. 8:29–31), especially after Easter (Ch. 9:9), that men are appointed to receive the revelation that Jesus is the Son of Man. It is necessary, therefore, to understand the statement of Ch. 2:10a as a parenthetical remark addressed by Mark to the Christian readers of the Gospel. These words explain the significance of the event for them. Jesus’ command for the paralytic to pick up his mat and walk was not ultimately to satisfy the demand of the antagonistic scribes but to assure the people of God that the Lord has authority to exercise forgiveness on earth (see on Ch. 2:10; cf. Ch. 2:28). In a controversy with Jerusalem scribes over ritual defilement Mark’s audience required the explanatory note that “the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat before washing their hands” (Ch. 7:3 f.). But the theological point of the preserved tradition is expressed in a parenthetical statement again directed by Mark to the Christian: “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Ch. 7:19; cf. Acts 10:5–10). When Mark does not himself speak directly to his readers (cf. Ch. 13:14), he terminates a long discourse in such a way that Jesus addresses them: “And what I say to you, I say to all, watch!” (Ch. 13:37). The account of the stilling of the storm (Ch. 4:35–41) is terminated abruptly by a rhetorical question: “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?” (Ch. 4:41). The reader is invited to provide the appropriate answer: he is the Messiah, the Son of God (cf. Ch. 1:1). The use of such literary devices as the parenthetical statement or the rhetorical question was designed to keep men from a spectator-relationship to what Jesus said or did. They are called by the evangelist to stand where Jesus stood, and where he stands.
Mark’s concern to involve men in the crisis of decision prompted by Jesus’ presence is reflected in the care with which he has structured the material of the Gospel. His literary method may be illustrated by reference to three other devices. (1) By juxtaposing two contrasting accounts Mark sharpens the issues at stake. E.g.:
|
Ch. 3:20–35 |
|
|
1. The scene is the sea, then a mountain. |
1. The scene is set in a house. |
|
2. People gather from several regions, and Jesus chooses twelve. |
2. Jesus’ family comes from their home and scribes come from Jerusalem. |
|
3. Demons acknowledge Jesus’ divine sonship. |
3. It is alleged that Jesus is the agent of Beelzebul. |
|
4. Jesus frees the possessed. |
4. Jesus is said to be possessed. |
The contrast achieved forces the recognition that a decision has to be made. Either Jesus is the divine Son who liberates the possessed or he is the agent of Satan. (2) Ch. 3:20–35 may illustrate a different device, the intercalation of one account within another. Ch. 3:20–21 reports that Jesus’ family left their village to seize him and bring him home. Their arrival at a house where Jesus was teaching is reported in Ch. 3:31–35. By inserting the account of the scribes from Jerusalem between the two parts of the report concerning Jesus’ family Mark suggests a significant parallel between those who say that Jesus is deranged (verse 21) and those who ascribe his extraordinary powers to possession (verse 30). At other times this literary device is used to indicate a lapse of time or to sharpen a contrast (see on Chs. 5:21–43; 6:7–30; 11:12–21; 14:1–11). (3) The development of two independent cycles of tradition in parallel fashion is evident in Mark’s arrangement of Ch. 6:35–8:30. The focus upon the two feedings of the multitude (Chs. 6:35–44, 52; 8:1–10, 19 f.) and the repeated use of the word “bread” (cf. Chs. 6:52; 7:2, 28; 8:14) serve to underscore the crucial importance of this tradition for perceiving the identity of Jesus. Significantly, each of the two parallel cycles concludes with a note of confession: “He has done all things well” (Ch. 7:37), and “You are the Messiah” (Ch. 8:29). By balanced arrangement Mark encourages the reader to take his place within the confessing Church as one who has recognized the truth.
These examples are sufficient to demonstrate Mark’s use of style and literary method to involve his audience in the witness he has given to Jesus Christ. The consummate skill with which he has prepared his Gospel is exhibited throughout the commentary.
8. Analysis of the Gospel According to Mark
I. PROLOGUE TO THE GOSPEL, Ch. 1:1–13
1. The Herald in the Wilderness, Ch. 1:1–8
2. The Lord in the Wilderness, Ch. 1:9–11
3. Temptation in the Wilderness, Ch. 1:12–13
II. THE INITIAL PHASE OF THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, Ch. 1:14–3:6
1. Entrance into Galilee, Ch. 1:14–15
2. The Call to Become Fishers of Men, Ch. 1:16–20
3. A New Teaching—with Authority, Ch. 1:21–28
4. The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law, Ch. 1:29–31
5. The Sick Healed at Evening, Ch. 1:32–34
6. The Decision to Leave Capernaum, Ch. 1:35–39
7. The Cleansing of a Leper, Ch. 1:40–45
8. Conflict in Galilee, Ch. 2:1–3:6
(a) The authority to forgive sins, Ch. 2:1–12
(b) The call of a tax farmer, Ch. 2:13–14
(c) Messiah eats with sinners, Ch. 2:15–17
(d) The new situation, Ch. 2:18–22
(e) Sabbath infringement and the Lord of the Sabbath, Ch. 2:23–28
(f) The decision that Jesus must be destroyed, Ch. 3:1–6
III. LATER PHASES OF THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE, Ch. 3:7–6:13
1. Withdrawal to the Sea, Ch. 3:7–12
2. The Choice of the Twelve, Ch. 3:13–19a
3. The Character of Jesus’ Family, Ch. 3:19b–35
(a) The charge that Jesus is deranged, Ch. 3:19b–21
(b) The charge that Jesus is possessed, Ch. 3:22–30
(c) Jesus’ true family, Ch. 3:31–35
4. Parables concerning the Kingdom of God, Ch. 4:1–34
(a) The parable of the Sower, Ch. 4:1–9
(b) The fulfilment of the purpose of God, Ch. 4:10–12
(c) The interpretation of the parable of the Sower, Ch. 4:13–20
(d) Exhortation to true hearing, Ch. 4:21–25
(e) The parable of the Growth of the Seed, Ch. 4:26–29
(f) The parable of the Mustard Seed, Ch. 4:30–32
(g) Parabolic utterance and private interpretation, Ch. 4:33–34
5. The Vanquishing of Powers Hostile to God, Ch. 4:35–5:43
(a) The subduing of the sea, Ch. 4:35–41
(b) The Gerasene demoniac: the subduing of the demonic, Ch. 5:1–20
(c) The plea of Jairus, Ch. 5:21–24
(d) The woman with the hemorrhage, Ch. 5:25–34
(e) The raising of Jairus’ daughter: the subduing of death, Ch. 5:35–43
6. Rejection at Nazareth, Ch. 6:1–6a
7. The Mission of the Twelve in Galilee, Ch. 6:6b–13
IV. WITHDRAWAL BEYOND GALILEE, Ch. 6:14–8:30
1. Popular Estimates of the Identity of Jesus, Ch. 6:14–16
2. The Imprisonment and Death of John, Ch. 6:17–29
3. The Provision of Rest in the Wilderness, Ch. 6:30–34
4. The Provision of Bread in the Wilderness, Ch. 6:35–44
5. The Lord of the Sea, Ch. 6:45–52
6. Healing in the Region of Gennesaret, Ch. 6:53–56
7. Defilement According to the Tradition, Ch. 7:1–8
8. The Conflict between Commandment and Tradition, Ch. 7:9–13
9. True Defilement, Ch. 7:14–23
10. The Faith of a Gentile, Ch. 7:24–30
11. Healing in the Decapolis, Ch. 7:31–37
12. The Provision of Bread in the Decapolis, Ch. 8:1–10
13. The Request for a Sign, Ch. 8:11–13
14. The Failure to Understand, Ch. 8:14–21
15. The Opening of Blind Eyes, Ch. 8:22–26
16. The Recognition of the Messiah, Ch. 8:27–30
V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM, Ch. 8:31–10:52
1. The Sufferings of the Messiah: the first Major Prophecy of the Passion, Ch. 8:31–33
2. The Requirements for Following Jesus, Chs. 8:34–9:1
3. The Transfiguration: the Glory of the Son of Man, Ch. 9:2–8
4. The Coming of Elijah, Ch. 9:9–13
5. The Healing of a Possessed Boy, Ch. 9:14–29
6. The Second Major Prophecy of the Passion, Ch. 9:30–32
7. True Greatness, Ch. 9:33–37
8. Exorcism through Jesus’ Name, Ch. 9:38–42
9. The Demanding Requirements of Discipleship, Ch. 9:43–50
10. The Question of Divorce, Ch. 10:1–12
11. The Blessing of the Children, Ch. 10:13–16
12. Riches and the Kingdom of God, Ch. 10:17–27
13. The Rewards of Discipleship, Ch. 10:28–31
14. The Third Major Prophecy of the Passion, Ch. 10:32–34
15. Rank, Precedence and Service, Ch. 10:35–45
16. The Faith of Blind Bartimaeus, Ch. 10:46–52
VI. MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM, Ch. 11:1–13:37
1. The Entry into Jerusalem, Ch. 11:1–11
2. The Unproductive Fig Tree, Ch. 11:12–14
3. The Expulsion of the Merchants from the Temple Precincts, Ch. 11:15–19
4. The Withered Fig Tree, Faith and Prayer, Ch. 11:20–25
5. The Authority of Jesus, Ch. 11:27–33
6. The Parable of the Defiant Tenants, Ch. 12:1–12
7. The Question Concerning Tribute, Ch. 12:13–17
8. The Question Concerning the Resurrection, Ch. 12:18–27
9. The Question Concerning the Great Commandment, Ch. 12:28–34
10. The Question Concerning David’s Son, Ch. 12:35–37
11. The Warning Concerning the Scribes, Ch. 12:38–40
12. The Widow Who Gave Everything, Ch. 12:41–44
13. The Olivet Discourse, Ch. 13:1–37
(a) Jesus’ prophecy of impending destruction, Ch. 13:1–4
(b) Warning against deception, Ch. 13:5–8
(c) A call to steadfastness under persecution, Ch. 13:9–13
(d) The appalling sacrilege and the necessity for flight, Ch. 13:14–23
(e) The triumph of the Son of Man, Ch. 13:24–27
(f) The lesson of the fig tree, Ch. 13:28–31
(g) The call to vigilance, Ch. 13:32–37
VII. THE PASSION NARRATIVE, Ch. 14:1–15:47
1. The Plot to Seize Jesus, Ch. 14:1–2
2. The Anointing in Bethany, Ch. 14:3–9
3. The Betrayal by Judas, Ch. 14:10–11
4. The Preparation of the Meal, Ch. 14:12–16
5. The Announcement of the Betrayal, Ch. 14:17–21
6. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper, Ch. 14:22–26
7. The Prophecy of Failure and Denial, Ch. 14:27–31
9. The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus, Ch. 14:43–52
10. The Proceedings of the Sanhedrin, Ch. 14:53–65
11. Peter’s Denial of Jesus, Ch. 14:66–72
12. The Trial of Jesus before Pilate’s Tribunal, Ch. 15:1–15
13. The Mocking of Jesus, Ch. 15:16–20
14. The Crucifixion of Jesus, Ch. 15:21–32
15. The Death of Jesus, Ch. 15:33–41
1. Editions and Commentaries
Aland, K., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis (Stuttgart, 1964).
Allen, W. C., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (London, 1915).
Bartlet, J. V., St. Mark. Century Bible (Edinburgh, 1922).
Bede, In Marci Evangelium Expositio (in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, XCII, columns 131–302).
Bengel, J. A., Gnomon Novi Testamenti (Tübingen, 1742). Eng. Tr. Vol. I (Edinburgh, 1877).
Berkelbach von der Sprenkel, S. F. H. J., Het evangelie van Markus (Amsterdam, 1937).
Black, M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1966).
Blunt, A. W. F., The Gospel according to Saint Mark, Clarendon Bible (Oxford, 1929).
Bowman, J., The Gospel of Mark. The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggada (Leiden, 1965).
Branscomb, B. H., The Gospel of Mark (London, 1937).
Calvin, J., Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids, 1949).
Carrington, P., According to Mark. A Running Commentary on the Oldest Gospel (Cambridge, 1960).
Cole, A., The Gospel According to Mark. Tyndale Bible Commentary (London, 1960).
Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark.2 Cambridge Greek Testament (Cambridge, 1963).
Dehn, G., Jesus Christus der Gottessohn. Das Evangelium des Marcus3 (Berlin, 1932).
Dillersberger, J., Das Evangelium des hl. Markus theologisch und heilsgeschichtlich erklärt. 5 vols (Salzburg, 1937–38).
Gould, E. P., The Gospel according to Saint Mark.7 International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh, 1932).
Grant, F. C, The Gospel according to St. Mark. Interpreter’s Bible Vol. VII, pp. 627–917 (New York, 1951).
Grob, R., Einführung in das Markus-Evangelium (Zürich, 1965).
Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, 1959).
Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu. Erklärung des Markusevangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin, 1966).
Hauck, F., Das Evangelium des Markus. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1931).
Hermann, I., Das Markusevangelium 2 vols (Düsseldorf, 1965, 1967).
Hunter, A. M., The Gospel according to Saint Mark,8 Torch Bible Commentary (London, 1967).
Jeremias, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus3 (Chemnitz, 1928).
Johnson, S. E., The Gospel according to St. Mark. Harper’s NT Commentary (New York, 1960).
Jones, A., The Gospel according to St. Mark. Text and Commentary (London, 1963).
Keulers, J., De Evangelien volgens Marcus en Lucas. De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament (Roermond, 1951).
Klostermann, E., Das Markusevangelium4 Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen, 1950).
Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon Saint Marc.8 Études Bibliques (Paris, 1947).
Legg, S. C. E., Novum Testamentum graecum secundum textum Westcotto-Hortianum. Evangelium secundum Marcum (Oxford, 1935).
Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus.16 Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen, 1963).
Loisy, A., Les évangiles synoptiques, 2 vols (Ceffonds, Paris, 1907).
———, L’évangile selon Marc (Paris, 1912).
Lowrie, W., Jesus according to St. Mark (London, 1929).
Mitton, C. L., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1957).
Moule, C. F. D., The Gospel according to Mark (Cambridge, 1965).
Nestle, E., Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico25 (Stuttgart, 1963).
Nineham, D. E., Saint Mark. Pelican Gospel Commentary (Baltimore, 1963).
Osty, E., Évangile selon saint Marc (Paris, 1949).
Pirot, L. & Leconte, T., Évangile selon saint Marc.2 La Sainte Bible (Paris, 1950).
Rawlinson, A. E. J., The Gospel according to St. Mark.7 Westminster Commentary (London, 1949).
Schlatter, A., Die Evangelien nach Markus und Lukas (Stuttgart, 1947).
———, Markus, der Evangelist für die Griechen (Stuttgart, 1935).
Schmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus4 (Regensburg, 1958).
Schnackenburg, R., Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols (Düsseldorf, 1966).
Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus.9 Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Göttingen, 1960).
Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus. Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Göttingen, 1967).
Staab, K., Das Evangelium nach Markus und Lukas. Echter-Bibel (Würzburg, 1956).
Strack, H. L. & Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. I and II (München, 1922, 1924).
Swete, H. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark.3 Macmillan NT Commentaries (London, 1927).
Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark. Macmillan NT Commentaries (London, 1952).
Turner, C. H., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1928).
Urichio, F. M., & Stana, G. M., Vangelo secondo San Marco. La Sacra Biblia (Torino, 1966).
Victor of Antioch, in P. Possinus, Catena Graecorum Patrum in Evangelium secundum Marcum (Rome, 1673).
Weiss, J., Das älteste Evangelium (Göttingen, 1903).
———, Das Markusevangelium in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments Vol. I, 3 (Göttingen, 1917).
Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Marci2 (Berlin, 1909).
Barker, G. W., Lane, W. L., Michaels, J. R., The New Testament Speaks (New York, 1969).
Barrett, C. K., Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (London, 1967).
Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, tr. W. F. Arndt & F. W. Gingrich (Chicago, 1957).
Bauernfeind, O., Die Worte der Dämonen im Markusevangelium (Stuttgart, 1927).
Beasley-Murray, G. R., A Commentary on Mark Thirteen (London, 1957).
Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion. The Marcan Soteriology (Cambridge, 1965).
Bieneck, J., Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung der Synoptiker (Zürich, 1952).
Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts3 (Oxford, 1967).
Blass, F. & Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, tr. and ed. by R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961).
Blinzler, J., The Trial of Jesus2 (New York, 1959).
Boobyer, G. H., St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story (Edinburgh, 1942).
Bornkamm, G., Jesus of Nazareth (New York, 1960).
Bratcher, R. G. & Nida, E. A., A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (Leiden, 1961).
Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963).
Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation. An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark’s Gospel (Ithaca, N.Y., 1963).
Carrington, P., The Primitive Christian Calendar. A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge, 1952).
Colon, J. B., “Marc” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement V (Paris, 1954), columns 835–862.
Coppens, J. & Dequeker, L., Le Fils de l’Homme et les Saints du Très-Haut en Daniel VII, dans les Apocryphes et dans le Nouveau Testament (Louvain, 1961).
Cullmann. O., The Christology of the New Testament2 (Philadelphia, 1959).
———, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (New York, 1958).
Dalman, G., Orte und Wege Jesu3 (Leipzig, 1924).
Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956).
Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East4 (Grand Rapids, 1965).
Denis, A. M., Christus de verlosser en het leven der Christenen. Theologische schets van het Marcus-evangelie (Antwerpen, 1963).
Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel2 (London, 1934).
Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom2 (London, 1961).
Doeve, J. W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen, 1953).
Doudna, J. C., The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia, 1961).
Dupont-Sommer, A., The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland, 1962).
Ebeling, H. J., Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten (Berlin, 1939).
Eitrem, S., Some Notes on the Demonology in the New Testament (Oslo, 1950).
Farrer, A., A Study in St. Mark (London, 1951).
———, St. Matthew and St. Mark (London, 1954).
Fuller, R. H., Interpreting the Miracles (London, 1963).
Funk, R. W., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology (New York, 1966).
Geslin, G., La prédication de Saint Pierre à Rome, laquelle est l’évangile de saint Marc (Sees, 1959).
Grässer, E., Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte (Berlin, 1960).
Guthrie, D., New Testament Introduction I. The Gospels and Acts (Chicago, 1965).
Guy, H. A., The Origin of the Gospel of Mark (New York, 1954).
Hartmann, L., Prophecy Interpreted. The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par (Lund, 1966).
Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967).
Jaubert, A., La date de la cène: calendrier biblique et liturgie chrétienne (Paris, 1957). Eng. Tr. The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island, N.Y., 1965).
Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus2 (Oxford, 1955).
———, The Parables of Jesus6 (New York, 1963).
Jonsson, J., Humour and Irony in the New Testament Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash (Reykjavik, 1965).
Kittel, G. & Friedrich, G., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 9 vols (Stuttgart, 1933–1973), Eng. Tr. by G. W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. I–VIII (Grand Rapids, 1964–1972).
Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, I. St. Mark, ed. H. Chadwick (Cambridge, 1953).
Kopp, C., Die heiligen Stätten der Evangelien (Regensburg, 1959).
Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, 1966).
Ladd, G. E., Jesus and the Kingdom (New York, 1964).
Lambrechts, J., Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (Rome, 1967).
Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950).
Lindsey, R. L., A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem, 1969).
Lohmeyer, E., Galiläa und Jerusalem (Göttingen, 1936).
Lohse, E., Mark’s Witness to Jesus Christ (London, 1960).
Loos, H. van der, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, 1965).
Lövestam, E., Son and Saviour (Lund, 1961).
Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums2 (Göttingen, 1959).
Mauser, U. W., Christ in the Wilderness. The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and its Basis in the Biblical Tradition (London, 1963).
McGinley, L. J., Form Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives (Woodstock, Md., 1944).
Meye, R. P., Jesus and the Twelve. Discipleship and Revelation in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, 1968).
Metzger, B. M., Index to Periodical Literature on Christ and the Gospels (Leiden, 1962).
———, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964).
Moore, A. L., The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden, 1966).
Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek2 (Cambridge, 1960).
Newman, R. G., Tradition and Interpretation in Mark (Ann Arbor, 1966).
Parker, P., The Gospel before Mark (Chicago, 1953).
Pesch, R., Naherwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (Düsseldorf, 1968).
Peter, J. F., Finding the Historical Jesus. A Statement of the Principles Involved (New York, 1966).
Potterie, I. de la, Exegeses Synopticorum, “Sectio Panum” in Evangelio Marci (6, 6–8, 35) (Rome, 1965–1966).
Richardson, A., The Miracle-stories of the Gospels6 (London, 1959).
Ridderbos, H. N., The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1962).
Riesenfeld, H., Jésus transfiguré. L’arrière-plan du récit évangelique de la transfiguration de Nôtre Seigneur (Lund, 1947).
Rigaux, B., Témoignage de l’évangile de Marc (Bruges, 1965).
Robertson, A. T., Studies in Mark’s Gospel (Nashville, 1958).
Robinson, J. M., The Problem of History in Mark (London, 1957).
Ruckstuhl, E., Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus (New York, 1965).
Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Literarische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Berlin, 1919).
Schreiber, J., Der Kreuzigungsbericht des Markusevangeliums. Ein traditions geschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk. 15, 20b–41 (Dissertation Bonn, 1959).
Schürer, E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,4 3 vols (Leipzig, 1909).
Sherwin-White, A. W., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963).
Smith, M., Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (Philadelphia, 1951).
Stauffer, E., Jesus and His Story (New York, 1960).
———, New Testament Theology5 (New York, 1955).
Stonehouse, N. B., Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, 1963).
———, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia, 1944).
Suhl, A., Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markus-evangelium (Gütersloh, 1965).
Sundwall, J., Die Zusammensetzung des Markus-Evangeliums (Åbo, 1934).
Tagawa, K., Miracles et évangile. La pensée personnelle de l’évangéliste Marc (Paris, 1966).
Tillesse, G. Minette de, Le secret messianique dans l’évangile de Marc (Paris, 1968).
Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia, 1965).
Trilling, W., Christusgeheimnis-Glaubensgeheimnis. Eine Einführung in das Markus-Evangelium (Leipzig, 1957).
Trocmé, E., La formation de l’évangile selon Marc (Paris, 1963).
Wenger, L., Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953).
Wink, W., John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge, 1968).
Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961).
Wrede, W., Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums3 (Göttingen, 1963).