The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (57 page)

Provenance

It is difficult to determine where Mark was when he wrote his Gospel. Various possibilities have been suggested, such as Galilee, the Decapolis, Tyre, Sidon, Syria, the East, and Rome. Traditionally, the provenance of Mark's Gospel was identified as the “regions of Italy” by the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) in his
Institutions
and
Hypotyposes
located it in Rome during Peter's ministry (Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
2.15; 6.14.6).
³⁷
John Chrysostom (
Hom. Matt.
1.3; c. 347–407) even set Mark's Gospel in Egypt, a notion that probably originated with the (insufficiently attested) tradition that Mark once served as bishop of Alexandria.
³⁸
For the most part, tradition associates Mark's Gospel with Peter and consequently with Rome.
³⁹

Although internal evidence is scanty, what little there is points to an origin in Rome. Mark used a considerable number of Latinisms. For instance, the two copper coins
(lepta)
that the poor widow cast into the offering box are explained as amounting to one Roman
quadrans
(also called “penny,”
padram
; 12:42), and the palace
(aulē)
into which the soldiers led Jesus is called the
praetorium
(the governor's official residence; 15:16).
⁴⁰
Guelich noted
that readers in the East would not have needed any clarification of the underlying Greek expressions but that such would have been necessary for a Western audience in Rome. But he also pointed out that this argument from language “is hardly conclusive, since many of the Latinisms do reflect semi-technical expressions common to military and trade and would be found in any area, such as the East, occupied by Roman forces.”
⁴¹
Nevertheless, this does not disqualify Rome as the most likely place of origin, even though Latin was spoken in areas outside of Rome as well.

Another possible piece of evidence pointing to a Roman provenance is the reference to Rufus in 15:21. As Hendriksen said, “Mark is also the only Gospel that informs us (15:21) that Simon of Cyrene was ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus,’ who were evidently well-known in Rome (see Rom 16:13).”
⁴²
Mark also reckoned time in accordance with the Roman method, referring to the four watches of the night rather than the traditional three in Jewish reckoning (6:48; 13:35).
⁴³
Moreover, references to suffering and persecution in Mark's Gospel may reflect the persecution of believers in Rome. Other NT evidence includes 1 Pet 5:13, which places Mark together with Peter in “Babylon” (i.e. Rome) in the early 60s roughly at the same time Mark likely wrote his Gospel.
⁴⁴
For these and other reasons an origin in Rome is most likely.

Destination

The universal character of this Gospel has been noted by many, and this makes it difficult to pinpoint a specific audience for Mark's Gospel. But a non-Jewish destination is supported by the fact that several Aramaic terms and expressions are translated into Greek:
boanerges
(“Sons of Thunder”; 3:17),
talitha cumi
(“Little girl, I say to you, get up!”; 5:41)
, Corban
(“a gift committed to the temple”; 7:11)
, Ephphatha
(“Be opened!”; 7:34),
Bartimaios
(“son of Timaeus”; 10:46),
Abba
(“Father”; 14:36),
Golgotha
(“Skull Place”; 15:22), and
Elōi, Elōi, lemá sabachtháni?
(“My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?”; 15:34).

In addition, Jewish laws and customs are often explained, such as the washing of hands (7:3–5), the custom to sacrifice the Passover lamb on this first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (14 :12), and the “day of preparation” being the day before the Sabbath (15:42).
⁴⁵
Moreover, Mark displayed an interest in the cessation of ritual elements in the Mosaic law, especially food laws (see 7:19).
⁴⁶
While this most probably provides evidence
of their non-Jewish ethnic background, it may only reflect that the original readers were unfamiliar with certain forms of Judaism, and hence Guelich suggested that claiming more goes beyond the evidence.
⁴⁷

As mentioned above, in support of a Roman destination are the frequent Latinisms, the reference to Rufus, and the use of the Roman method of reckoning time, all of which may point not only to the Gospel's origin in Rome but to a Roman destination as well. The mention of Roman coins
(lepta;
12:42) and other Latin loan words, such as “Legion”
(legiōn;
5:9 KJV), “executioner”
(spekoulator;
6:27), “flogged”
(phragelloō;
15:15), “praetorium”
(praitōrion;
15:16), and “centurion”
(kentyriōn;
15:39), combine to lend Mark's Gospel a distinct Roman flavor that renders a Roman provenance and/or destination plausible.

Another possible piece of evidence in this regard is that this Gospel reaches its climax in the confession of Jesus' deity by a
Roman centurion
(15:39). Hence many believe that it is no coincidence that a Roman utters the climactic confession of Jesus as the Son of God in this Gospel. Most likely Mark carefully crafted his narrative so as to culminate his presentation of Jesus as the Son of God in the Roman centurion's confession. Consequently, “Roman Christianity found in the Gospel an account peculiarly appropriate to its life and problems.”
⁴⁸

To sum up, this internal evidence suggests that Mark's first readers were most likely Greek-speaking individuals who did not know Aramaic or Hebrew and were for the most part unfamiliar with certain Jewish customs. At the same time, they seem to have possessed at least a basic knowledge of the OT and a familiarity with early Christian traditions about Jesus.
⁴⁹
Together with the fact that early external evidence also points to a Roman audience, it may be concluded that Mark's intended audience was most likely comprised of Gentile Christians, most likely situated in Rome.
⁵⁰
Beyond this, the Gospel is addressed to “all Christians” who care to read it.
⁵¹

Purpose

Numerous attempts have been made to identify the purpose of Mark's Gospel. The context of theological struggles and the negative social and political circumstances of the early church have often been marshaled as evidence for a particular purpose.
⁵²
For instance, Garland said that if Mark wrote in 65–70, the context of this Gospel is one of
persecution and crisis (see esp. Mark 13). If Jerusalem was either on the verge of being sacked by a Roman legion or this event had recently happened, Mark may have written his Gospel (1) in order to fortify the faith of those in danger of being overwhelmed by fear; (2) to account for the present circumstances of believers; (3) to admonish, encourage, and prevent believers from being deluded by end-time speculation; (4) to equip Christ's followers to engage in worldwide missionary outreach; and/or (5) to strengthen their faith in Jesus their Lord.
⁵³

Others note that the overall context of Mark's writing was probably one of severe persecution of Christians during Nero's reign (54–68). In fact, Mark's language challenges the imperial myth by claiming that the good news for the world is tied up with Jesus Christ, the true Son of God.
⁵⁴
Blomberg, who stated that a Roman origin is likely and comports well with the internal evidence of the Gospel, wrote:

The negative portrait of the disciples prior to the formation of the church, along with Mark's emphasis on the way of the cross as the precursor to glory, suggests a concern
to reassure a struggling community that it too could eventually cope and that victory comes only through suffering.
Given the Jewish Christians' expulsion from Rome in A.D. 49, growing tensions within the community and with the government after their return in the mid-50's, and the Neronic persecution from A.D. 64–68,
Roman Christians would have formed an audience much in need of such comfort and encouragement.
In other words Mark's concerns may have been first of all
pastoral
in nature.
⁵⁵

Other scholars have identified Mark's purpose as one of the following: (1) eschatological: to prepare Christians for Jesus' imminent return;
⁵⁶
(2) Christological: a polemic against a divine man
(theios anēr)
myth;
⁵⁷
(3) apologetic: an attempt to mask the political implications of Jesus' life and death.
⁵⁸
However, the rather general nature of the Gospel does not permit specific historical or theological reconstructions of this nature.

As with the other Gospel writers, the primary problem confronting Mark is to account for Jesus' crucifixion. Why should anyone believe in a miracle-working messianic pretender who ended up being crucified as a common criminal? In response to this objection, Mark wrote “an apology [or apologetic] for the cross,” contending that it is precisely as the
Crucified that Jesus proved himself to be the messianic King and the Son of God.
⁵⁹
Not only was the Messiah's death predicted in OT Scripture, it was also repeatedly predicted by Jesus himself (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34), and it was required as “a ransom for many” (10:45), that is, as a substitutionary, atoning sacrifice for sin.

SIDEBAR 5.1: TEXTUAL ISSUES IN MARK'S GOSPEL

Mark's Gospel has two important textual problems related to its beginning and its end. In 1:1, “Son of God”
(huios theou)
is omitted in a few important earlier manuscripts, which may be due to an oversight in copying. However, the phrase is found in the majority of both early and significant manuscripts. While scribes had a tendency to expand titles and quasi-titles of books, the textual evidence in favor of this reading is nonetheless extremely strong.
¹

With regard to the ending of Mark, four different endings are found in the extant manuscripts. The shorter ending, which does not have the final 12 verses after Mark 16:8, is supported by the two oldest Greek manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, an Old Latin codex, and other Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Neither Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) nor Origen (c. 185-254) appears to have known of the existence of a longer ending.
²

The traditional ending of Mark (16:9-20), with which many readers are familiar and which includes some of Jesus' resurrection appearances, his commissioning of the disciples, and his ascension, comes to us through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus. It is present in the great majority of witnesses, including Codex Alexandrinus.
³
The other two longer endings include a version that inserts a verse between v. 8 and v. 9, and an expanded form of the traditional ending.
⁴

The conflicting nature of the external evidence supporting the longer ending seems to suggest that none of the longer endings is likely original with Mark. Internal evidence strongly supports this conclusion. The longer endings contain non-Markan vocabulary and expressions, in some cases display a different style, and do not flow smoothly from v. 8. There are also dubious references to drinking poison and snake handling (16:18), which places the longer endings in the more likely category of second- or third-century apocryphal legendary material than the time of Jesus and the apostles.

For these and other reasons the external evidence and internal considerations point to the likelihood that the longer ending of 16:9-20 was not written by Mark. Mark's Gospel ends rather suddenly at 16:8. Metzger suggests three possibilities for this abrupt ending: (1) Mark intended to close his Gospel at this point; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) it accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription (or the original ending was lost for some other reason). Of these, some judge the last to be the most likely option, though there seems to be no compelling reason not to accept Mark 16:8 as the original ending intended by Mark.
⁵

__________________________

¹
B. M. Metzger, ed.,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
, 2d ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 2002), 62.

²
Both Eusebius and Jerome attested that this passage was absent “from all Greek copies of Mark known to them” (Metzger,
Textual Commentary
, 103).

³
Ibid.

⁴
Ibid. It has a short section after verse 14 (found in only one Greek manuscript, Codex Washingtonianus); contains several non-Markan words and expressions; has extremely limited external evidence; and bears an apocryphal flavor. Most probably it is the insertion “of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14” (ibid., 104).

⁵
See Metzger,
Textual Commentary
, 104–6, for a fuller discussion; Carson and Moo
(Introduction to the New Testamen
t
, 189–90) noted that the most popular option is that Mark stopped at v. 8; but cf R. H. Stein (“The Ending of Mark,”
BB
R
18 [2008]: 79–98), who contended that the present text is incomplete and who pointed to other major commentaries supporting this conclusion. For a recent survey of positions, see D. A. Black, ed.,
Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views
(Nashville: B&H, 2008).

An additional avenue for ascertaining Mark's likely purpose is the opening statement of his Gospel, which indicates that the major thrust of Mark's narrative is the demonstration that Jesus is the Son of God (1:1).
⁶⁰
In the ensuing Gospel, persons as diverse as God (who refers to Jesus as his “beloved Son” at Jesus' baptism and the transfiguration; 1:11; 9:7); demons (1:25; 3:11–12; 5:7); Jesus himself (12:6; 14:61); and a Roman centurion (15:39) concur that Jesus is the Son of God.
⁶¹
In support of this claim, Mark's Roman audience was treated to a dazzling display of Jesus' miracle-working power that attests to his authority over the realms of nature, sickness, and death, and even the supernatural (4:35–5:43).
⁶²