The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (56 page)

A minority of scholars have alleged that Mark created the story of Jesus for the church.
²
A majority believe that Mark pioneered the literary genre of “Gospel.”
³
His opening reference to his account as “the gospel” most likely set the stage for the use of that term as a literary designation for the four distinctive literary works we now call “Gospels” and contributed to the use of “Gospel” in a literary sense in the early church (e.g., Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
3.1.2).
⁴

In terms of its relationship to the other canonical Gospels, the most widely accepted view today is that Mark was written first (Markan priority).
⁵
Relevant factors include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the agreements in order and wording; (2) the less sophisticated Greek used by Mark; (3) his less developed theology; (4) the brevity of the Gospel; and (5) the awkwardness of its style. Most likely, Matthew and Luke used Mark
as a primary source to compose their Gospels as well as other written and oral sources (two- or four-document hypothesis). While the exact nature of the literary interdependence between the Synoptic Gospels remains uncertain, this is nonetheless the working hypothesis adopted by most scholars.
⁶

The Gospel of Mark is a fast-paced portrayal of the life of Jesus Christ, most likely patterned after the blueprint of Petrine preaching.
⁷
Peter's sermon in Acts 10:34–43 provides us with a brief summary of the basic structure of the four canonical Gospels.
⁸
It tells us a story, the “Gospel,” about Jesus (1:1; see 1:14–15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:19).
⁹
The emphasis lies on the person of Christ rather than his discourses or parables. In particular, he focused on Jesus' performance of a variety of miraculous feats, showing himself to be the Son of God. At the same time, Mark most keenly of any of the Synoptic Gospels accentuates the lack of understanding of Jesus' true identity by his first followers.

Its presumed status as an abridgment of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke due to its lack of uniqueness made Mark's Gospel the least popular of the four Gospels throughout most of Christian history.
¹⁰
However, in the nineteenth century the proposal of Markan priority as a solution to the Synoptic Problem, and the claim that Mark was the most historical of the Gospels, in conjunction with the quests for the historical Jesus, led to a revival of interest in this Gospel. The large number of works written over the past 40 years is evidence of the rise in prominence of Mark's Gospel.
¹¹
In recent years literary studies of Mark's narrative have rehabilitated Mark as a skillful writer and evangelist.
¹²

HISTORY

Author

Like the other Gospels, Mark is formally anonymous, since the author of this Gospel did not explicitly identify himself. But, as is the case of Matthew and the other Gospels, the title that ascribes the Gospel to Mark is clearly very early if not original.
¹³
If Mark was the first to write his Gospel (Markan priority) and affixed the title to the Gospel himself, the other evangelists would have likely followed suit. Even if not, the titles would have become necessary as soon as the Gospels were gathered and began to circulate in a single collection.

As R. Bauckham has shown, Mark's Gospel, by way of a literary device called the “
inclusio
of eyewitness testimony” (the practice of naming the major eyewitness underlying an account first and last in the document) purports to be based on the witness of the apostle Peter (see the references to Peter in 1:16 and 16:7), which is also supported by early patristic evidence.
¹⁴
Another feature, the “plural-to-singular device,” which singles out one individual from a group in order to tell an account from his perspective, makes Peter's the dominant perspective in the narrative, reproducing his eyewitness recollection in first-person terms.
¹⁵

External Evidence
Ancient tradition has consistently attributed this Gospel to Mark, who was believed to have been closely associated with the apostle Peter. The earliest and most important attestation of Markan authorship is that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia in Asia Minor (c. 60–130), whose five-volume work
Expositions of the Lord's Sayings
was cited by Eusebius in the early fourth century (
Eccl. Hist.
3.39). Papias claimed to have learned of Mark's authorship from an individual he referred to as “the Elder” or “the Presbyter,” thus preserving a tradition that dates at least as far back as the early second century.
¹⁶
Papias also claimed that Mark was not an eyewitness but derived his material from Peter, affirming the Gospel's apostolic connection. He did not view the Gospel as having been written in a chronological fashion but rather as following the occasional nature of Peter's preaching. He stated,

And John the Presbyter also said this, Mark being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy but not however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter,
who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord's discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts.
¹⁷

Later testimony from the middle and late second century appears to rely on this tradition. Although Marcion (first half of the second century) rejected Mark's Gospel (as he did Matthew and John), this rejection was not related to Markan authorship, and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue affirms Markan authorship. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) made reference to the “Memoirs of Peter” that contained the following words found only in Mark's Gospel: “named Boanerges, which means ‘sons of Thunder’” (
Dialogue with Trypho
106). Tatian used Mark's Gospel in compiling his
Diatessaron
, a synopsis of all four Gospels (c. 150–160). Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–200) stated that Mark, Peter's disciple and interpreter, wrote this Gospel subsequent to Peter's death (
Against Heresies
3.1.1). Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215; cited by Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
6.14), Tertullian (c. 160–225), and Origen (c. 185–254) all believed that Mark wrote this Gospel and that Peter was his source.
¹⁸
Tradition may vary with respect to certain details, such as Peter's exact role in connection with the composition of the Gospel and the date of authorship, but all agree that Mark wrote this Gospel and that Peter's preaching in Rome played a central role.
¹⁹

Portrait of Mark
Who was Mark? While the name was common in Roman circles (Marcus), the association of Mark with Peter by both Papias and church tradition suggests that this Mark is most likely the John Mark referenced by Luke (Acts 12:12,25 ; 13:13; 15:37–39), Peter (1 Pet 5:13), and Paul (Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11).
²⁰
He may be the young man referred to at the end of the Gospel who fled from the scene of Jesus' arrest, leaving his linen garment behind (Mark 14:51–52), but this is less than certain.
²¹
His mother was a prominent member of the early Jerusalem church (Acts 12:12). It was this same Mark who accompanied his uncle Barnabas and Paul on the first missionary journey (Acts 12:25). The book of Acts records that his failure to complete this journey resulted in a breach between Barnabas and Paul over Mark, which was later mended (Acts 13:13; 15:37–40; see Phlm 24; Col 4:10). In 2 Tim 4:11, Paul wrote of his desire to have Mark join him in Rome, showing that God can restore to effective Christian ministry those who have previously failed.

Although some scholars have attempted to distinguish between the evangelist Mark, a companion of Peter (1 Pet 5:13), and John Mark, the associate of Paul in Acts and the Pauline corpus, these efforts have been largely unsuccessful.
²²
Late tradition asserts that Mark was at one time bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–c. 236) described him as “stump-fi ngered” (
Refutation of All Heresies
7.30; see also the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark). The
Paschal Chronicle
(seventh century) claimed that he died a martyr's death. However, the validity of these three traditions is impossible to determine.
²³

Modern Doubts
Recent scholarship has frequently sought to discredit the traditional notion of Markan authorship. There are several arguments behind this denial: (1) the occurrence of Latinisms, which are taken to reflect non-Jewish authorship; (2) the general lack of Jewish coloring; (3) the explanation of Hebrew terms and customs; and (4) the allegedly confused topography of Mark 7:31, which records Jesus traveling to Galilee and the Decapolis, southeast of Tyre, by means of Sidon to the north. Additional reasons are: (1) the alleged lack of contact with Pauline theology which indicates that Mark could not have been Paul's travel companion; (2) the negative way in which the author described the disciples, especially Peter; and (3) the complex history of tradition demonstrated by form, source, and redaction criticism, which rules out any single primary witness to the life and ministry of Christ.

In response to these objections it should be noted that Mark intended his Gospel for a Gentile audience and hence accommodated his presentation to this audience in his writing while also using Semitisms that reflected his Jewish origin. With regard to the circuitous itinerary of 7:31, this would have been natural for an itinerant preacher. Pauline theology is reflected in Mark's emphasis on the cross, and the negative view of the disciples may have been Peter's way of counteracting the early church's tendency to exalt these first followers of Jesus.
²⁴
With regard to the last objection, the use of Peter as a primary source does not necessarily rule out other sources, whether written or oral. In addition to the fact that nothing suggests that Mark had no other sources, the identification of the origins and growth of traditions is not as assured as many critics assert.
²⁵

Moreover, as Carson and Moo pointed out, the modern approach to the Gospels as a product of a long and complex process of tradition history need not necessarily conflict with the emphasis on the direct relationship between Mark and Peter that has endured from Papias through the centuries, a connection that is further confirmed in the Gospel
itself. Of the four evangelists Mark most scrupulously recorded Peter's sins and weaknesses while omitting positive commendations the apostle received elsewhere (such as Matt 16:17). In some instances where Matthew did not mention Peter by name, Mark did (5:37; 11:21; 16:7).
²⁶
Moreover, since Mark was a relatively obscure figure with a mixed record of ministry, it is unlikely that he would have been chosen as a candidate for authorship by anyone desiring to attribute the Gospel to an authoritative witness.
²⁷

Other factors that may support Markan authorship include the following: (1) the vividness and the rapidity of movement and detail with which this Gospel is written, which may suggest an eyewitness account (in association with Peter); (2) the harsh and negative picture of the disciples that is most plausibly explained on the assumption of an apostolic connection; (3) Peter's prominence in the Gospel; (4) references to Peter that may derive from Peter himself (such as the references to Peter's “remembering” in 11:21; 14:72); (5) the overall pattern followed by the Gospel that appears to reflect Peter's preaching elsewhere (Acts 10:36–41); and (6) evidence of a close relationship between Peter and Mark as indicated by Peter's reference to Mark as “my son” in 1 Pet 5:13.
²⁸

Date

The date of Mark's Gospel continues to be the subject of considerable debate. The earliest tradition, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Irenaeus (
Against Heresies
3.1.1; c. 130–200) date this Gospel after Peter's death (assumed to be c. 65–66) and hence during Nero's rule.
²⁹
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), on the other hand, suggests a date during Peter's time in Rome, which he claimed was some time between the years 45 and 65.
³⁰

On the basis of historical and other considerations, some have proposed a date as early as the 40s. Thus it has been alleged, for example, that the “abomination that causes desolation” in 13:14 refers to the Emperor Caligula's effort in AD 40 to put up his image in the Jerusalem temple.
³¹
A date in the 50s and no later than 60 has also found proponents on the basis of Peter's being in Rome in the 50s and of an acceptance of Markan priority and a date for Luke no later than 62. Carson and Moo proposed a date in the late 50s or the 60s.
³²

If, as tradition suggests, Peter had significant input in Mark's Gospel, then a very early date is unlikely because Peter probably did not arrive in Rome much before 62. This may be supported by the fact that Peter is not mentioned in Paul's Prison Epistles.
³³
For this
reason some believe that Mark's Gospel was written some time in the mid- to late 60s after Peter's death.

According to tradition, Peter died a martyr's death in Rome during the persecution of Christians by Nero (64–66), so his martyrdom is usually dated to 65 or 66.
³⁴
With reference to Mark 13, which is taken to reflect the time of the Jewish revolt between 66 and 70, Guelich and others suggest 66–67 as the most likely date.
³⁵
A late date in the 70s has also been proposed by some who see Mark 13 as reflecting the actual sacking of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.

However, Mark 13 is best taken as prophetic rather than contemporary to the time of writing, and a late date on the basis of Mark 13 should therefore be judged as unnecessary and unlikely.
³⁶
If Mark was the first to write his Gospel and if Luke used Mark in writing his Gospel, and since the book of Acts was likely written in the early 60s and Luke before that, then all these factors would place the most probable date for the writing of Mark's Gospel in the second half of the 50s.