FAULKNER UNIVERSITY Montgomery, Alabama AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK SUBMITTED TO PROF. FLOYD O. PARKER JR. IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF: BI 5320 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT BY SCOTT SHIFFERD JR. DECEMBER 8, 2015 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 CONTENT .......................................................................................................................................1 AUTHORSHIP ................................................................................................................................3 AUDIENCE .....................................................................................................................................5 DATE ...............................................................................................................................................6 THE ENDING OF MARK ..............................................................................................................7 MARKAN PRIORITY ....................................................................................................................8 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................12 ii AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK Mark is the only Gospel that identifies itself as “the Gospel.” The Gospel presents memorable accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth presenting him as the Son of Man. The consensus of biblical scholarship is that Mark was the first Gospel, so that Mark is foundational to a minimal historical approach. While recognizing the concise nature of the Gospel of Mark, academics leave Mark open to the resurrection when women disciples found Jesus’s tomb empty. This introduction to the Gospel of Mark presents facts for the Gospel of Mark from critical scholars. The methodological approach of this introduction is to provide the position of critical scholarship for comparison to the early church perception of the Gospel of Mark. This study is to follow the critical position to the brink that Jesus is the Son of Man. Content Craig Evans described the Gospel of Mark as telling “the story of Jesus, from baptism to the empty tomb, in an impressive and compelling manner.”1 In Mark, Jesus came in route to the cross. The Son of God announced the kingdom from the beginning of his ministry. Jesus is powerful performing miraculous signs and calling his disciples for his mission. For this, the crowds followed the Son of Man. In the HarperCollins Bible Commentary, John R. Donahue introduced the Gospel of Mark as the only Gospel that identifies itself as “Gospel.” Donahue defined the word “gospel” in 1 Craig A. Evans, “Mark,” ECB, eds. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 1064. 1 2 secular Greek to mean “good news” of a specific event. Mark’s Gospel is an exaltation of the life, ministry, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.2 In Eerdman’s Commentary of the Bible, Evans agreed and observed that the word “gospel” has its biblical origins in Isaiah (40:9; 41:27; 52:7; 61:1).3 The apostle Paul’s early use of “gospel” indicates a message focused upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:1–11).4 The genre of Mark varies among critical scholarship. Donahue identified the Gospel of Mark as a new genre “kerygmatic narrative,” which is a presentation story about and from Jesus.5 Evans reported that the organization of Mark is not strictly chronological, but the Gospel centers upon themes of theological interests.6 Tuckett depicted the Gospels as their own genre of “Gospel.” Tuckett presented Justin Martyr’s repeated identification of the Gospels as “memoirs of the apostles” like Xenophon’s memoir as a biography of Socrates (1 Apol. 66.3; 67.3). In the early twentieth century, the Bultmannian school argued against comparing the Gospels to such ancient works.7 R. A. Cole perceived that Mark identified his work as a “gospel” rather than a “biography.”8 Christopher M. Tuckett, “Introduction to the Gospels,” ECB eds. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 989. 2 3 Evans, “Mark,” 1065. 4 Tuckett, “Introduction to the Gospels,” 989. 5 John R. Donahue, “Mark,” HBC, ed. James Luther Mays (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000) 6 Evans, “Mark,” 1065. 7 Tuckett, “Introduction to the Gospels,” 900–01. 901. R. A. Cole, “Gospel of Mark,” NBD2 eds. J. D. Douglas et al. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1982) 740. 8 3 Authorship In the second century, early Christian writers accepted the Gospel of Mark among the four Gospels and that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. Justin Martyr cited “the memoirs of the apostles” as the source for Jesus giving Simon the name “Peter,” which is only found in Mark 3:16 (Dial. 106.3). Irenaeus recorded that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark after Peter and Paul died in Rome. Irenaeus identified Mark as the disciple and interpreter of Peter (Haer. 3.1.1). Eusebius recorded that Peter proclaimed the Gospel of light and the Kingdom of Heaven. Eusebius noted that Papias identified that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark and that Peter mentioned Mark in his first epistle (Hist. Eccl. 2.14–15). According to Papias, Mark was careful to leave nothing out and make no false statements (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14–15). According to Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius reported that the first Christians who heard Peter preach in Rome were not satisfied in hearing him once. They exhorted Mark, Peter’s follower, to write Peter’s teachings, so Mark wrote the Gospel along with Peter’s ratification for reading among the churches (Hist. Eccl. 6.14.6). Origen’s list of Scriptures includes the Gospel of Mark identifying John Mark as the writer of the second Gospel who Peter mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13 (Hist. Eccl. 6.25.5). Tertullian also affirmed that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and published Peter’s teachings in a Gospel (Marc. 4.5). In the New Bible Dictionary, R. A. Cole concluded that John Mark recorded Peter’s preaching, “It may thus be no empty tradition that this is the written record of the preaching of Peter.” While the early church knew that John Mark wrote the Gospel, Paul J. Achtemeier reported in the Anchor Bible Dictionary that critical scholarship knows little about the origin of the Gospel of Mark including the author and the date. Achtemeier perceived that the Gospel is 4 anonymous regarding the traditional attribution of Mark’s name to the Gospel, because there is no hint of authorship from its content.9 Achtemeier perceived that many scholars conjecture about how the author was the John Mark who was a companion of Paul (Acts 13:5; 15:37), a companion of Peter (1 Pet 5:13), and the son of a woman of whom the church met in her house (Acts 12:12). These scholars perceived that Mark was the one who deserted Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). Paul’s later references to Mark indicated that they reconciled (Col 4:10). Some scholars find a self-reference of the author in the account of the youth who fled naked from the garden on the night of Jesus’s arrest (Mark 14:51–52). Despite that early Christians knew that John Mark was the same author of the Gospel, Achtemeier found that accepting John Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark is “gratuitous.”10 However, Joel Marcus noted in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible that the most reasonable author of the Gospel of Mark is John Mark.11 Marcus perceived an apologetic bias for the early Christian writers in the second century who identified John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, as the writer of Mark.12 In the HarperCollins Bible Commentary, John R. Donahue perceived that the Gospel of Mark was anonymous, and yet he recorded that Papias identified John Mark, the companion of Peter, as the author of the Gospel of Mark. Furthermore, Donahue recognized that many scholars identify the author as John Mark mentioned in Acts and among Pauline epistles (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37–39; Col 4:10; Phile 24; 2 Tim 4:1). However, Donahue 9 Paul J. Achtemeier “Gospel of Mark,” ABD 4:542. 10 Achtemeier, “Gospel of Mark,” 4:542. 11 Joel Marcus, “Gospel of Mark,” EDB, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.) 859. 12 Marcus, “Gospel of Mark,” 859. 5 rejected this position for being apologetic and for the numerous occurrences of the name “Mark” in the Roman Empire.13 Donahue did recognize the eyewitness quality in Mark’s Gospel indicated by the use of the historical present.14 Audience What significance is the audience of the Gospel of Mark? Achtemeier perceived that the audience and purpose of the Gospel of Mark revealed more about the author.15 Achtemeier noted that the author explains Jewish tradition (Mark 7:2–4).16 The author of Mark translated Aramaic words into Greek (Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:34). Donahue perceived the translation of Aramaic phrases as an indication that the Gospel was composed outside of Palestine (Mark 7:1–23; 11:15–19). While recognizing Semitic influence, Donahue concluded that the writer of Mark wrote to an audience of Jewish-Christians in Rome.17 The Gospel of Mark also contains Latinisms that imply the audience understood Roman culture (Mark 5:9; 6:37; 7:4; 12:14, 42; 15:15–16, 19, 39). The Aramaic translations to Greek and Latinisms indicate that the author’s audience include those who were not familiar with Aramaic and Jewish traditions, but were familiar with Roman culture.18 13 Donahue, “Mark,” 901. 14 Ibid., 902. 15 Achtemeier, “Gospel of Mark,” 4:543. 16 Ibid., 543. 17 Donahue, “Mark,” 901–02. 18 Achtemeier, “Gospel of Mark,” 543. 6 Date Many critical scholars perceive that the author of the Gospel of Mark wrote during or soon after the Neronian persecution in AD 64. R. A. Cole dated Mark to between the death of Peter and the fall of Jerusalem.19 Donahue dated the Gospel of Mark to after the martyrdom of Peter in AD 64. The apocalyptic literature of Mark 13 depicted Jesus predicting the Jewish wars in AD 66–70, which is a significant factor for dating Mark later.20 Marcus also reported that some scholars perceived the persecution in Mark 13 as indicating the Neronian persecution in AD 64. Other scholars perceived that the period of Mark is the Palestinian Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66–73.21 Craig Evans dated Mark to AD 66–70 because Mark appears to include the early stages of the Jewish war with Rome. Evans reported that some critical scholars have argued that Mark wrote after AD 70. Evans recognized that Jesus predicted the complete destruction of the last Temple preceding the coming of the Son of Man. Evans also thought that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and that he must have warned his disciples to flee from Jerusalem when they saw the “abomination that desolates.” One affirmation that Jesus made this prediction includes that Jesus instructed his disciples to pray that this great tribulation did not occur in winter, and yet the Romans took Jerusalem in the summer.22 19 Cole, “Gospel of Mark,” 738. 20 Donahue, “Mark,” 901. 21 Marcus, “Gospel of Mark,” 860. 22 Craig A. Evans, “Mark,” 1065. 7 The Ending of Mark Donahue recorded that the fourth-century texts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus along with the fifthcentury Alexandrinus attest to the text of Mark. There is a significant textual variant for the Gospel of Mark, because Sinaiticus and Vaticanus lack Mark 16:9–20. Donahue described Mark 16:9–20 as the canonical and traditional ending.23 The long ending of Mark has external textual support. Alands reported that 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts include the traditional ending of Mark 16:9–20.24 Furthermore, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in reference to Psalm 110:1 in the late second century (Haer. 3.10.5). Scholars rely upon internal evidence as indication that the Gospel of Mark concluded at 16:8. Travis B. Williams reported that scholars reject Mark 16:9–20 because of its style. However, Williams described that conclusions upon statistics exceed the evidence. Williams argued that a case cannot form upon vocabulary because such can change according to subject matter. Williams revealed that the style of the Gospel of Mark changes from the first half to the second without questioning the authorship.25 Boomershine and Bartholomew reported that the narrative technique of ancient literature required that the author completely finish a narrative leaving nothing to the imagination. By comparing Mark to the other Gospels, they observed that the short-ending of Mark was accidental. The author of Mark includes comments as brief notes to explain events to the audience, and yet ending the Gospel of Mark at 16:8 is the opposite of what the author did 23 Donahue, “Mark,” 903. 24 Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 287. 25 Travis B. Williams, “Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark,” BBR 20 (2010): 398. 8 through the Gospel of Mark.26 However, Boomershire and Bartholomew rejected this point, because they perceived that other sections of Mark including Mark 6:52, 11:18, and 12:12 left the reader without a full conclusion.27 John Christopher Thomas concluded that scholars should prefer the short ending of Mark 16:8. However, Thomas recognized William R. Farmer’s position that Mark 16:9–20 is genuine because this pericope may consist of older source material, which explains the difference in style.28 However, others like Donahue perceived that redactionists extended Mark to include a resurrection appearance.29 Despite the ending, Mark does conclude with an empty tomb and an angelic proclamation of Christ’s resurrection. Furthermore, the significance of Mark to critical scholarship is that, “Mark represents the oldest surviving account of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection.”30 Marcus observed that the defense of the short-ending of Mark does not exclude experiences of the resurrection appearances (Mark 14:28; 16:7).31 Markan Priority Heinrich Julius Holtzmann proposed the Markan priority and argued that Mark was the first of the Synoptic Gospels. Holtzmann also proposed an early version of Mark. Scholars came to know this source as “Quelle,” meaning “source.” Today, the majority of scholars accept the Markan priority. They believe that Matthew and Luke most likely improved upon the Gospel of Thomas E. Boomershire and Gilbert L. Bartholomew, “The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8,” JBL 100 (1981): 214. 26 27 Boomershire and Bartholomew, “The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8,” 217. 28 John Christopher Thomas, “A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark,” JETS 26 (1983): 418. 29 Donahue, “Mark,” 903. 30 Evans, “Mark,” 1065 31 Marcus, “Gospel of Mark,” 860. 9 Mark, because these Gospels demonstrate a sophistication and polished writing style. Scholars prefer Markan priority, because they perceive that Matthew and Luke most often agree when both agree with Mark, and scholars find that Matthew and Luke diverge from where these accounts do not agree with Mark. However, Matthew and Luke often lack details that Mark entails. 32 For the commonality between Matthew and Luke not in Mark, scholars support the “Two Source Theory” that includes another source — Q. However, some explain that Luke borrowed from Matthew so that Q is not necessary.33 Gordon D. Fee argued that Markan priority is the most obvious, and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark independently.34 However, Fee noted that choosing Markan priority does not solve the Synoptic Problem, because this does not resolve the relationship between Matthew and Mark. Scholars reconcile this difficulty by either proposing a common source for Matthew and Luke called Q or consider that Matthew had access to Luke’s Gospel. Fee finds that Q material must exist, because Matthew and Luke share identical material concerning John the Baptist. However, Fee was assuming that John the Baptist did not preach in Greek.35 R. A. Cole understood that the Gospels stand or fall together according to the historicity of their material.36 Evans recognized that Mark’s source material may have included other written material and eyewitness accounts.37 Achtemeier reported that critical scholars deducted 32 Ibid., 859. 33 Tuckett, “Introduction to the Gospels,” 995. 34 Gordon D. Fee, “A Textual-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem,” NovT 22 (1980): 15. 35 Fee, “A Textual-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem,” 23. 36 Cole, “Gospel of Mark,” 738. 37 Evans, “Mark,” 1065. 10 from the material composition of Mark that the author included material from oral circulation and written material into the Gospel.38 Craig Evans noted other reasons that Mark’s Gospel was first, because Mark does not include the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, more parables, or numerous other teachings that Matthew’s Gospel includes. Therefore, Evans concluded, “Mark makes no sense as a conflation and interpretation of Matthew and Luke.”39 However, whether Mark’s Gospel was first or not, why does Mark not include what the other Gospels include? Could the author of the first Gospel more likely include more detail as initially the only gospel? Tuckett noted that, “It is, however, theoretically equally possible that Mark came last and deliberately chose material that was in one of the other two Gospels, mostly choosing material in both.”40 Tuckett saw, “No obvious reason” for Mark to write a longer account than Matthew or Luke.41 Why does Luke follow Mark’s chronology rather than Matthew’s? Does Luke’s identical account with Matthew of Jesus’s mockery suggest Luke’s use of Matthew (Matt 26:68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64)?42 Conclusion Early Christian writings identify John Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark and a follower of the apostle Peter. However, scholarship debates that John Mark wrote the Gospel. Critical scholarship does recognize that the evangelist of Mark wrote explaining Jewish traditions to those living within the Roman culture. While divided over external evidence, scholarship prefers 38 Achtemeier, “Gospel of Mark,” 4:542. 39 Evans, “Mark,” 1065. 40 Tuckett, “Introduction to the Gospels,” 993. 41 Ibid., 994. 42 Ibid., 995 11 the short-ending of the Gospel of Mark because of internal evidence. The claims that Mark was the first Gospel are not certain. Despite the extensive research of critical scholarship, traditional positions concerning the Gospel of Mark still stand. BIBLIOGRAPHY Achtemeier, Paul J. “Gospel of Mark.” Vol. 3 of Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:541–57. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Boomershire, Thomas E., and Gilbert L. Bartholomew. “The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8.” JBL 100 (1981): 213–23. Cole, R. A. “Gospel of Mark.” Pages 737–41 in New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas, F. F. Bruce, J. I. Packer, N. Hillyer, D. Guthrie, A. R. Millard, and D. J. Wiseman. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1982. Donahue, John R. “Mark.” Pages 901–03 in HarperCollins Bible Commentary. Edited by James Luther Mays. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000. Eusebius. 1926. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Evans, Craig A. “Mark.” Pages 1064–1103 in Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Fee, Gordon D. “A Textual-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem.” NovT 22 (1980): 12–28. Marcus, Joel. “Gospel of Mark.” Pages 859–61 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885. Repr. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2009. Thomas, John Christopher. “A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark.” JETS 26 (1983): 407–19 1983. Tuckett, Christopher M. “Introduction to the Gospels.” Pages 989–99 Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 12 13 Williams, Travis B. “Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark.” BBR 20 (2010): 397–418.