The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (61 page)

¹⁰
J. A. Brooks,
Mark
, NAC 23 (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 17–19.

¹¹
But around the turn of the century, A. Schweitzer, in his monumental work
Quest of the Historical Jesus
(New York: Macmillan, 1968; repr. of 1910 ed.), showed that these scholars had not based their “lives” on the Gospels but on their own preconceived notions of Jesus as a liberal, ethical teacher. W. Wrede claimed that Mark struggled to reconcile two contrasting traditions in the early church, one that Jesus became Messiah at his resurrection and another that Jesus' earthly ministry was already messianic. Wrede believed that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah during his earthly ministry and that Mark represented this fact by what Wrede termed the “messianic secret.” About two decades later the form critics K. L. Schmidt, M. Dibelius, and R. Bultmann argued that Mark collected a number of short, independent accounts of the sayings and deeds of Jesus and invented a framework for them in order to produce a continuous account. (Form criticism is the analysis of a text according to typical and identifiable forms by which people express themselves linguistically.) From their perspective, therefore, the Markan outline, which Matthew and Luke followed, is of doubtful historical merit (Brooks,
Mark
, 19).

¹²
See D. M. Rhoads and D. M. Michie,
Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); and E. Best,
Mark: The Gospel as Story
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983).

¹³
See M. Hengel,
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels
, trans. J. Bowden (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 48–53, 77. Guelich (“Mark, Gospel of,” 514) suggested that the title “according to Mark” was most likely added several decades subsequent to the composition of Mark's Gospel.

¹⁴
R. Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), chaps. 6–7. See further below.

¹⁵
Ibid., 156–64.

¹⁶
Lane,
Gospel of Mark
, 8.

¹⁷
Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History
, new updated ed., trans. C. F. Cruse (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 104–5.

¹⁸
Brooks,
Mark
, 18.

¹⁹
W. Hendriksen,
Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark
, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 12–13.

²⁰
Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 514.

²¹
See Bauckham (
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, chap. 8, especially 197–201), who, on the basis of G. Theissen's theory of “protective anonymity,” suggests that the young man mentioned in Mark 14:51–52 is Lazarus!

²²
Apart from the absence of any solid basis for this distinction in the tradition, the mention of both Silvanus and Mark in 1 Pet 5:12–13 makes clear that “Mark” was the “John Mark” of Acts and the Pauline corpus who with Silvanus (Silas) had also been a companion of Paul. Therefore, Mark was the companion of both Peter and Paul, a member of the primitive community in Jerusalem that met in the upper room of his mother's home (Acts 12:12) where Jesus might have celebrated the Last Supper (see Mark 14:14–15; Acts 1:13–14). Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 514.

²³
Brooks,
Mark
, 27.

²⁴
C. Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, (Nashville: B&H, 1997) 124.

²⁵
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 176.

²⁶
Hendriksen,
Mark
, 12–13.

²⁷
Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 124.

²⁸
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 176; Hendriksen,
Mark
, 12–13.

²⁹
Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 514; Anti-Marcionite Prologue; Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
3.1.1 (c. 160–80).

³⁰
Though see discussion below. See Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 514; Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
6.14.5–7.

³¹
C. C. Torrey,
The Four Gospels
, 2d ed. (New York: Harper, 1947), 261–62, cited in Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 179.

³²
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 182. See their entire discussion on pp. 179–82.

³³
Brooks,
Mark
, 28.

³⁴
Ibid.

³⁵
The only relevant data in Mark may come in 13:14, when read against the historical background of the Jewish War of the years 66–73. Mark set the discourse in 13:3–37 in the context of the predicted fall of Jerusalem. Not only does the “abomination” lack a personal referent in the events of the destruction of the temple, but the summons to “flee to the hills” makes little sense after Rome completely surrounded Jerusalem with a tight military blockade in the years 67–69 that prevented all entrances and exits. See Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 514.

³⁶
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 182.

³⁷
Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
50, 205.

³⁸
Brooks,
Mark
, 27.

³⁹
Garland (
Mark
, 206) noted that a Palestinian origin of the Gospel should not be discounted since a good case can be made for it.

⁴⁰
Hendriksen,
Mark
, 13.

⁴¹
As with date and author, the lack of explicit references supporting any one locale means that the issue of place has little to do with how one reads or understands the Gospel. Consequently, time and space locators in Mark belong strictly to the narrative rather than to the historical setting of when and where the Gospel was written. See Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 515.

⁴²
Hendriksen,
Mark
, 13.

⁴³
Lane,
Gospel of Mark
, 24.

⁴⁴
Or, perhaps more likely, a few years after Mark wrote his Gospel (see the discussion under Date above). Cf. Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 177, and their entire discussion on pp. 177–79.

⁴⁵
Hendriksen,
Mark
, 13.

⁴⁶
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 183.

⁴⁷
Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 515. See L. W. Hurtado,
Mark
, NIBC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 6: “The only positive conclusion to draw is that Mark wrote for Gentile Christians located somewhere outside of Palestine.”

⁴⁸
Lane,
Gospel of Mark
, 24.

⁴⁹
See the discussion by R. H. Stein, “Is Our Reading the Bible the Same as the Original Audience's Hearing It? A Case Study in the Gospel of Mark,”
JETS
46 (2003): 66–67. Mark's readers may have experienced persecution (see especially 10:30: “with persecutions,” not found in the Synoptic parallels Matt 19:29 and Luke 18:29).

⁵⁰
This is the reasoned conclusion of Stein (ibid., 63–78, esp. 63–67), who provided a detailed assessment of all the available evidence.

⁵¹
R. Bauckham, ed.,
The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

⁵²
Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 513.

⁵³
Garland,
Mark
, 206.

⁵⁴
This emperor “increasingly hated and despised by his own people, promoted his deification (which at his death was denied by the senate). More than any emperor before him, he encouraged the use of the honorific titles ‘god,’ ‘son of god,’ ‘lord,’ ‘savior,’ and ‘benefactor.’” C. A. Evans, “Mark,” in
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 268.

⁵⁵
Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 121 (emphasis original).

⁵⁶
W. Marxsen,
Mark the Evangelist
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1969).

⁵⁷
T. J. Weeden,
Mark: Traditions in Conflict
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).

⁵⁸
S. G. F. Brandon,
Jesus and the Zealots
(Manchester: University Press, 1967).

⁵⁹
This is the subtitle of R. Gundry's commentary on Mark's Gospel:
Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). Cf. Köstenberger and O'Brien,
Salvation to the Ends of the Earth
, 74. Mark shared this concern with John (see esp. John 12:30–36). For references to the kingdom of God, see 1:15; 4:11,26,30; 9:1,47; 10:14,15,23,24,25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43; for references to Jesus as King, see 15:2,9,12,18,26,32.

⁶⁰
Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 513. See Peter's sermon in Acts 10:34–43.

⁶¹
A. J. Köstenberger and P. T. O'Brien,
Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission
, NSBT 11 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 74.

⁶²
See Gundry,
Mark
, 237; Guelich,
Mark
, 261–63.

⁶³
Hendriksen,
Mark
, 18.

⁶⁴
See D. A. Black, “Some Dissenting Notes on R. Stein's
The Synoptic Problem
and Markan ‘Errors,’”
Filologia neotestamentaria
1 (1988): 95–101.

⁶⁵
Lane,
Gospel of Mark
, 26.

⁶⁶
Ibid.

⁶⁷
Rhoads and Michie,
Mark
, 74. See their entire discussion on pp. 73–100.

⁶⁸
Guelich,
Mark
, xxv.

⁶⁹
Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 116.

⁷⁰
Ibid.

⁷¹
The broad contours of the outline below are adapted from J. F. Williams, “Does Mark's Gospel Have an Outline?”
JETS 49
(2006): 505–25.

⁷²
Some of the following material is adapted from Köstenberger and O'Brien,
Salvation to the Ends of the Earth
, 73–86.

⁷³
Garland,
Mark
, 207. By singling out Isaiah as the source, Mark informed his readers that the story “is to be understood against the backdrop of Isaian themes” (J. Marcus,
The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark
[Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992], 20).

⁷⁴
As Garland (“Mark,” 209) noted, “It was also the place one went to elude persecution and to flee iniquity, since it was beyond the control of the cities. The desert was also viewed as the mobilizing area for God's future victory over evil and the place where Elijah (Mal. 4:5) and the Messiah were thought to appear (Matt 24: 26).”

⁷⁵
Note the
inclusio
of 1:14 and 6:29, which records John's imprisonment and death at Herod's hands.

⁷⁶
D. Senior and C. Stuhlmueller,
Biblical Foundations for Mission
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983), 222.

⁷⁷
See J. F. Williams, “Mission in Mark,” in
Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach
, ed. W. J. Larkin Jr. and J. F. Williams (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998), 146: “Following a Messiah who came to die on a cross involves sacrifice, suffering and service.”

⁷⁸
W. Telford, “Introduction: The Gospel of Mark,” in
The Interpretation of Mark
, IRT 7, ed. W. Telford (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 23; F. Hahn,
Mission in the New Testament
, SBT 47 (London: SCM, 1965), 113.

⁷⁹
See Z. Kato,
Die Völkermission im Markusevangelium
, EHS 23/252 (Bern/Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 1986), 191.

⁸⁰
Ibid., 190.

⁸¹
Senior and Stuhlmueller,
Biblical Foundations for Mission
, 226.

⁸²
See W. Kelber,
The Kingdom in Mark
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 67–85; R. Pesch,
Das Markusevangelium
, HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1980) for the “way” or “journey” motif in Mark.

⁸³
J. R. Donahue,
Are You the Christ?
SBLDS 10 (Missoula: SBL, 1973), 137; D. Juel,
Messiah and Temple
, SBLDS 31 (Missoula: SBL, 1977), 212.

⁸⁴
See Telford,
Mark
, 224–25; K. Stock, “Theologie der Mission bei Markus,” in
Mission in Neuen Testament
, ed. K. Kertelge, QD 93 (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1982), 142; Donahue,
Are You the Christ?
114; Senior and Stuhlmueller,
Biblical Foundations for Mission
, 223.

⁸⁵
Lane,
Gospel of Mark
, 402.

⁸⁶
Senior and Stuhlmueller,
Biblical Foundations for Mission
, 224.

⁸⁷
Kato,
Völkermission
, 193.

⁸⁸
Evans, “Mark,” 272.

⁸⁹
Ibid.

⁹⁰
Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 117.

⁹¹
R. Martin,
Mark: Evangelist and Theologian
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), cited in Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 118 (emphasis Blomberg's).

⁹²
Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 117–18.

⁹³
Evans, “Mark,” 270.

⁹⁴
G. Goldsworthy, “Kingdom of God,” in
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 616.

⁹⁵
Evans, “Mark,” 272.

⁹⁶
Blomberg,
Jesus and the Gospels
, 118.

⁹⁷
Ibid., 119, with reference to W. Wrede,
The Messianic Secret
(London: J. Clark, 1971). For a survey of approaches to the Messianic secret, see C. Tuckett, ed.,
The Messianic Secret
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). Most plausible is the presentation of J. D. G. Dunn, “The Messianic Secret in Mark,”
TynBul
21 (1970): 92–117.