Lably
Skip to content

Gospel of Mark

Book of the New Testament

  • 24 min read
  • 4 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Ministry of Jesus and Jesus

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man and is called the Son of God, though he keeps his messianic nature secret and even his own disciples fail to understand him. This is consistent with the Christian interpretation of prophecy, which is believed to foretell the fate of the Messiah as a suffering servant.

The gospel is traditionally attributed to Mark the Evangelist, a companion of the Apostle Peter. The author is not named, and scholars debate the identity of the author. It is dated to around 70 CE and was likely written in Rome for a Gentile audience. It is classified as an ancient biography that was intended to strengthen the existing faith of its intended audience rather than to evangelize.

Most scholars believe that Mark is the earliest gospel and was used by Matthew, Luke, and John; some scholars have regarded Mark as the most reliable gospel, though this view is debated. Many scholars argue that Mark portrays Jesus as divine Lord. There is no universal agreement on the structure of Mark, but a break at Mark 8:26–31 is widely recognized. Mark 16:8, which ends with a resurrection announcement, was the original ending.

Composition

Authorship and date

An early Christian tradition recorded by Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 130 AD), an Apostolic Father who had met 'the Elder' and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist, regards the Gospel as being based on the preaching of Saint Peter, as recorded by John Mark, a companion and interpreter of Peter. The author is not named in the text, as was common for bioi of the time; biographies by Plutarch and Suetonius also did not name themselves within the text. The practice also has literary counterparts with the Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern historiography. Surviving manuscripts of the Gospel carry the superscription εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον ("The Gospel according to Mark") or its shorter equivalent κατὰ Μάρκον, without variance, unlike more disputed works such as the Epistle to the Hebrews. Some scholars such as Hengel argue that such uniformity indicates the title was attached at an early stage of the text's transmission. There remains much debate among scholars, with some denying that the gospel was written by anyone named Mark, others accepting the view that John Mark was the author. Some, such as Theissen and Moloney, argue the gospel was written by a Mark not mentioned in the Bible or connected to Peter.

The Gospel is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior. According to Rafael Rodriguez, most scholars place Mark during the buildup of the First Jewish-Roman War (65–70 AD), while a plurality date it shortly afterwards (71–75 AD). According to Helen Bond, there is a "growing consensus" that Mark was written in the early to mid-70s. The dating around 70 AD is not dependent on the naturalistic argument that Jesus could not have made an accurate prophecy; scholars like Michael Barber and Amy-Jill Levine argue the historical Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple. According to Bas van Os, whether the Gospel was composed before or after 70 AD, that it was written within the lifetime of various eyewitnesses (including members of Jesus' own family) is likely. Markus Bockmuehl finds this structure of lifetime memory in various early Christian traditions.

Recent scholarship has turned against source criticism of the Gospels; a pre-Markan passion narrative has remained the most persistent, though Bond notes the lack of agreement in scholarship regarding its nature alerts to its lack of existence. Since the 19th century, most scholars have held to Marcan priority, in which Mark was the first gospel written and used by Matthew, Luke, and John.

Nicholas Elder argues that Mark is an oral work involving both a speaker and a writer who composed the text, based on its oral characteristics and patristic testimony. While Werner Kelber, in his media contrast model, argued that the transition from oral sources to the written Gospel of Mark represented a major break in transmission, going as far as to claim that the latter tried to stifle the former, James Dunn argues that such distinctions are greatly exaggerated and that Mark largely preserved the Jesus tradition back to his lifetime. Rafael Rodriguez too is critical of Kelber's divide.

Setting

The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek for a primarily non-Jewish audience, probably in Rome—although Galilee, Antioch (the third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have also been suggested. Theologian and former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams proposed that Libya was a possible setting, as it was the location of Cyrene and there is a long-held Arabic tradition of Mark's residence there.

The consensus among modern scholars is that the Gospels are a subset of the genre of bios (ancient biography). Ancient biographies were typically written shortly after the subject's death and included substantial historical material. They aimed to provide readers with examples to emulate, to preserve and promote the subject's reputation and memory, and to convey moral and rhetorical content. The gospels were written to strengthen the faith of those who already believed, rather than as tracts for missionary conversion. Christian churches were small communities of believers, often based on households (an autocratic patriarch with his extended family, slaves, freedmen, and other clients). Aune argues that the evangelists wrote on two levels: a "historical" presentation of Jesus and a layer addressing the concerns of the author's own day; other scholars have challenged two-level readings of the fourth gospel.

Christianity began within Judaism, with a Christian "church" (ἐκκλησία, ekklesia, meaning 'assembly') that arose shortly after Jesus's death when some of his followers claimed to have witnessed him risen from the dead. Christians depended heavily on Jewish literature, supporting their convictions through the Jewish scriptures. Those convictions involved a nucleus of key concepts: the messiah, the son of God and the son of man, the suffering servant, the Day of the Lord, and the kingdom of God. These ideas were linked by apocalyptic expectation: Jews and Christians alike believed that God would punish their enemies, establish his rule, and place them at the centre of his plan. Christians read the Jewish scripture as a figure or type of Jesus so that the goal of Christian literature became an experience of the living Christ. The movement spread around the eastern Mediterranean and to Rome and further west and assumed a distinct identity, although the groups within it remained diverse.

Historicity

The idea of Marcan priority gained widespread acceptance in the 19th century. From this perspective, Mark was generally regarded as the most reliable of the four Gospels for information about the historical Jesus, owing to its early provenance. However, the view that Mark could be used to reconstruct the historical Jesus was significantly undermined in the early 20th century. Firstly, in 1901 William Wrede put forward an argument that the "Messianic Secret" motif within Mark had actually been a creation of the early church instead of a reflection of the historical Jesus. In 1919, Karl Ludwig Schmidt argued that the links between episodes in Mark were a literary invention of the author, meaning that the text could not be used as evidence in attempts to reconstruct the chronology of Jesus' mission. However, efforts to cast Mark as a literary invention have struggled to explain details such as Mark 15:21, which casts Simon's sons as children of an eyewitness who could affirm their father's testimony. The author likely knew Alexander and Rufus. By the mid-1990s, scholars broadly agreed that the gospels represented ancient biographies of Jesus rather than sui generis works or theological treatises. Nonetheless, Mark was generally seen as the most reliable of the four gospels at the end of the 20th century in its overall description of Jesus' life and ministry.

Michael Patrick Barber has challenged the prevailing view, arguing that Matthew's portrayal offers a historically plausible account of the historical Jesus. Dale Allison had already argued that the Gospel of Matthew is more accurate than Mark in several regards, but was finally convinced by Barber's work to no longer regard the "uniquely Matthean" materials as ahistorical, declaring that the historical Jesus "is not buried beneath Matthew but stares at us from its surface". Matthew Thiessen wholeheartedly agrees as well, finding no fault in Barber's work.

Sign in to keep reading

3 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Ancient history