Footnotes
Footnotes
1. For this view of Mark 1:1, along with nine others, see C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel
According to Saint Mark, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), pp.
34-35.
2. Or "The Gospel According to Mark”—the manuscript tradition makes it hard to be sure whether the longer or shorter form is the original. NA26 prints the shorter, but Hengel argues for the longer ("The Titles of the Gospels and the Gospel of Mark,” in Studies in the Gospel of Mark [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], pp. 66-67).
3. Ibid., pp. 64-84.
4.The quotation is taken from the translation by Kirsopp Lake in Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926).
5. In identifying Mark as Peter’s hermeneutes Papias may mean that he was Peter’s "translator” (from Aramaic into Greek) (see H. E. W. Turner, "The Tradition of Mark’s Dependence upon Peter,” ExpTim 71 [1959-60]: 260-63) or, more probably, his "interpreter,” one who repeated and transmitted Peter’s preaching (Zahn 2:442-44).
6.This may mean that Mark, in the judgment of the presbyter, lacked chronological order (Martin Hengel, "Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems in the Gospel of Mark,” in Studies in the Gospel of Mark, p. 48) or, more probably, that it lacked rhetorical/artistic order (Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, WBC [Waco, Tex.: Word,
1989], p. xxvii).
7 Justin Martyr mentions the "reminiscences of Peter” in conjunction with a quotation from Mark’s gospel (Dial. 106).
8.E.g. Kummel, p. 95; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-80), 1:4-7.
9. A few scholars think that an unknown Mark wrote the gospel (see, e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:9-11).
10.Jerome is the first explicitly to identify the Mark of the second gospel with the John Mark mentioned in the New Testament.
11. See Zahn 2:427.
12.E.g. A. B. Bruce, "The Synoptic Gospels,” in EGT 1:441-42. Early tradition also identified the home of Mark and his mother as the location of the last supper.
13.Kummel calls the identification "a strange and wholly improbable conjecture” (p. 95), but he gives no better explanation for the inclusion of these verses in Mark’s gospel.
14.E.g. ibid., pp. 96-97.
15.Note Martin Hengel’s judgment: "I do not know any other work in Greek which has so many Aramaic or Hebrew words and formulae in so narrow a space as does the second gospel” ("Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems,” p. 46).
16.E.g. Kummel, pp. 95-97; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, EKKNT, 2 vols. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978; ZQrich: Benziger, 1979), 1:32-33.
17.Thus, for instance, Guelich concludes that Papias is right in identifying Mark as the author but wrong in thinking that the gospel is based on the preaching of Peter (Mark 1-8:26, pp. xxvi-xxix).
18. Martin 1:204-5.
19. Ibid., 1:204.
20. C. H. Dodd, "The Framework of the Gospel Narrative,” ExpTim 43 (1932): 396-400.
21.See esp. Mark’s explanation of the widow’s two copper coins as equaling a
κοδράντης (kodrantes, G3119), a Roman coin (Mark 12:42), and of the "courtyard” (αυλή, [aule, G885]) as being a πραίτώρίον (praitorion, G4550), another distinctively Roman/Latin name (15:16). Readers in the eastern part of the Roman Empire would almost certainly have known these Greek terms. For a complete list of Mark’s Latinisms, see Kummel, pp. 97-98.
22. Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
23. H.E. 2.16.1: "Mark is said to have been the first man to set out for Egypt and preach there the gospel which he had himself written down.” See, e.g., Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966), p. 32; Martin 1:215.
24. J. Vernon Bartlet, St. Mark (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.), pp. 5-6.
25.E.g. Kummel, p. 98. Bo Reicke suggests Caesarea, its Palestinian location fitting his theory of gospel origins, and its Roman flavor (it was the Roman admininistrative center) explaining the large number of Latinisms (The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], pp. 165-66).
26.Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969).
27.C. C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, 2d ed. (New York: Harper, 1947), pp. 261-62. Moreover, Torrey’s theory assumes an early Aramaic gospel of Mark. A similar proposal has recently been defended by GQnther Zuntz ("Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?” in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche, und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, ed. Herbert Cancik, WUNT 33 [TQbingen: Mohr, 1984], pp. 47-71).
28.Jose O’Callaghan, "Papiros neotestamentarios en la cuere 7 de Qumran,” Bib 53 (1972): 91-100. See William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 18-21, for a summary and discussion.
29.See, e.g., Pierre Benoit, "Note sur les fragments grecs de la Grotte 7 de Qumran,” RevBib 79 (1972): 321-24; Lane, Mark, pp. 19-21.
30.J. W. Wenham, "Did Peter Go to Rome in A.D. 42?” TynB 23 (1972): 97-102.
31. Wenham is representative of those who think that Peter may have come to Rome after his miraculous release from prison, recorded in Acts 12 ("Did Peter Go to Rome?” pp. 97-99). Yet Peter is back in Palestine by the time of the Jerusalem Council in A.D. 48 or 49 (Acts 15), and it is difficult to think that Paul and Barnabas would have taken on the first missionary journey one who had worked closely with Peter in Rome for some years. For a discussion of Peter’s movements, see Oscar
Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), pp. 38-39.
32.Peter was probably in Corinth before A.D. 55, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 1:12; 2:22), and in Rome in about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6). The absence of any reference to Peter in Romans suggests that Peter was not in Rome in 57.
33. See esp. Adolf Harnack, The Date of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: Putnam’s, 1911). Reicke’s argument is similar, although he thinks Mark was written at about the same time as Luke (Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 177-80). C. S.
Mann thinks that Mark composed a first draft of his gospel in A.D. 55 (Mark, AB [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986], pp. 72-83).
34. The anti-Marcionite prologue (late second century?), Ireneus (A.D. 185; see Adv. Haer. 3.1.2), and perhaps Papias’s citation of the presbyter (note the tense: "Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter”).
35.For this case, see esp. Cranfield, Mark, p. 8; Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1976), p. 26; Martin 1:213. Martin Hengel cites other arguments in support of a late date: (1) the clarity of Mark’s writing; (2) Mark’s lateness in comparison with Q; (3) the assumption in Mark of the existence of a worldwide mission (see Mark 13:10; 14:9); and (4) the prophecy of the martyrdom of James and John ("The Gospel of Mark: Time of Origin and Situation,” in Studies in the Gospel of Mark, pp. 12-28).
36.Hengel, "Time of Origin,” pp. 2-28; Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1989), pp. 6-8; Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, pp. xxi-xxxii.
37.See Kummel, p. 68; Pesch, Markusevangelium 1:14; Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus 1:34.
38.See esp. Bo Reicke, "Synoptic Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. David E. Aune, SuppNovT 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 121-33; John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), pp. 13-30.
39.Clement of Alexandria says: "When Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome and announced the gospel by the Spirit, those present, of whom there were many, besought Mark, since for a long time he had followed him and remembered what had been said, to record his words. Mark did this, and communicated the gospel to those who made request of him. When Peter knew of it, he neither actively prevented nor encouraged the undertaking” (recorded by Eusebius in H.E. 6.14.6-7; the translation is from Taylor, Mark, pp. 5-6.) Tertullian may also witness to this tradition (see Against Marcion 4.5.3). It has even been argued that the key early traditions can be reconciled by understanding the word εξοδος (exodos, G2016) in Ireneus (e.g. "after the ‘exodos’ of these [Peter and Paul]”) to refer not to their death but to their departure from Rome (so T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Matthew Black [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962], pp. 34-40). Others reconcile the conflicting traditions by assuming that Mark began his gospel during Peter’s lifetime but published it after his death (Zahn 2:433-34; Guthrie is favorable to the suggestion [p. 86]).
40.Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist.
41.See, e.g., Robert H. Stein, "A Short Note on Mark XIV.28 and XVI.7,” NTS 20 (1974): 445-52.
42.Theodore Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).
43.See Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983).
44.See, e.g., David Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula, Mont.: SP, 1972).
45.S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967).
46.For studies of Jesus’ trials that generally vindicate the historicity of the gospel accounts, see David R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Leiden: Brill, 1971). Josef Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, 2d ed. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1955).
47.Ralph Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), esp. pp. 156-62.
48.For the textual problem, see the section Text below.
49.See Guthrie, pp. 57-58; Cranfield, Mark, pp. 14-15; Moule, p. 122.
50.Kummel lists a number of suggestions (pp. 84-85).
51.See, e.g., Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, n.d.), pp. 178-217.
52.See esp. Eta Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte, FRLANT 102 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); a convenient summary of the discussion in English is found in John R. Donahue, "Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative,” in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16, ed. Werner H. Kelber (Philadelpia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 8-16.
53.The eye of a scribe may have passed from ου (ou) at the end of Χρίστου (Christou, lit. "of Christ”) to the same letters at the end of Θεου (theou, lit. "of God”), omitting what is between, thereby effectively dropping out υίου Θεου (huiou theou, "of the Son of God”).
54.William R. Farmer has recently argued that Mark composed vv. 9-20 before writing his gospel and then added it at the end of this gospel as he finished (The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, SNTSMS 25 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974]).
55.The secondary character of the longer ending has been argued in the monograph by Joseph Hug, La finale de l’evangile de Marc, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1978).
56.E.g. Zahn 2:479-80.
57.C. F. D. Moule speculates that the loss of the "bottom sheet” could have resulted in both the ending and the beginning of the gospel being lost, and that Mark 1:1, as 16:9-20, is a later attempt to fill in the resulting gaps (pp. 131-32n.).
58.See, e.g., Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, reprint ed., with The Witness of Luke to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 86-118; Kummel, pp. 100-01; Lane, Mark, pp. 590-92; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:40-47.
59.For a history of interpretation of Mark’s gospel, see Sean Kealy, Mark’s Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation from the Beginning Until 1979 (New York: Paulist, 1982). Martin, Mark, pp. 29-50.
60.William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (London: J. Clarke, 1971); the German original was published in 1901.
61.See David E. Aune, "The Problem of the Messianic Secret,” NovT 11 (1969): 1-31. 62.See, e.g., Hengel, "Literary, Historical, and Theological Problems,” pp. 41-45.
63.E.g. Kingsbury, Christology.
64.E.g. Ernest Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSupp 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981).
65.E.g. E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark, SNTSMS 33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
66.C. Clifton Black, The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate, JSNTSupp 27 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989).
67.Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977). 68.See, e.g., Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986). B. L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1989).
69.Hengel’s essays have been collected in Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
70. Philip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).
71.On the issue of Jewish lectionaries and the Gospels, see Leon Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964).
72.Austin Farrer, A Study in St. Mark (Westminster: Dacre, 1951).
73.Dodd, "Framework of the Gospel Narrative.” Dodd’s scheme was criticized by D. E. Nineham (Studies in the Gospels [Oxford: Blackwell, 1955], pp. 223-39) but has been accepted by others (e.g. Lane, Mark, pp. 10-12).
74Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, p. xlii.