INTRODUCTION to The Gospel According to Mark

NEW TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

by

WILLIAM HENDRIKSEN

Exposition

of the

Gospel According to Mark

BAKERBOOKS

A DIVISION OF BAKER BOOK HOUSE CO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49516

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 54–924

ISBN: 0–8010-4114–7

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010-2606–7

All rights in this book are reserved. No part may be reproduced in any manner without permission in writing from the copyright holder, except brief quotations used in connection with reviews in a magazine or newspaper.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The letters in book abbreviations are followed by periods. Those in periodical abbreviations omit the periods and are in italics. Thus one can see at a glance whether the abbreviation refers to a book or to a periodical.

A. Book Abbreviations

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

Gram.N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

Gram.N.T. (Bl.-Debr.) F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren

I.S.B.E. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

L.N.T. (Th.) Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

L.N.T. (A. and G.) W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan

N.A.S. New American Standard Bible (New Testament)

N.N. Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by D. Eberhard Nestle, revised by Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland

N.E.B. New English Bible

N.I.V. The New International Version

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

S.BK. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch

S.H.E.R.K. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Th.D.N.T. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich)

W.D.B. Westminster Dictionary of the Bible

W.H.A.B. Westminister Historical Atlas to the Bible

B. Periodical Abbrevations

BTr Bible Translator

Exp The Expositor

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JR Journal of Religion

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

TT Theologisch tijdschrift

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

Please Note

In order to differentiate between the second person singular (see Mark 10:37: “… one at your right”) and the second person plural (next verse: “You do not know”), the letters in “you sing.” are not spaced; those in “you pl.” are spaced.

INTRODUCTION

to

The Gospel According to Mark

I. WHO WROTE THIS GOSPEL?

According to the superscription and unanimous tradition the name of the author or composer was Mark. On the reasonable assumption that whenever this name is mentioned in the New Testament the same man is indicated, he is called Mark in Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; II Tim. 4:11; I Peter 5:13. To be exact, that was his name in the Greek-speaking Roman world; spelled Markos in Greek, Marcus in Latin. Of course, since he was a Jew (Col. 4:10, 11), Mark was his surname, his “other” name. His original or Jewish name was John (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37).

The New Testament does not give us a complete biography or personal history of this man. Tradition with respect to him, though valuable, is not in agreement on all points. It fails to give us a definite and undivided answer to such questions as the following: When Mark wrote his Gospel was the influence of Peter upon him decisive and controlling, so that Mark was merely the apostle’s secretary—“Peter speaking, Mark writing”—; or (far more reasonable!) was it moderate, Mark being the real author but having Peter as his chief but by no means only source? Did Mark complete his book while Peter was still alive or not until after his death? Was Mark the “man bearing a pitcher of water” (Mark 14:13)? Was he one of the seventy missionaries (Luke 10:1)? Was he literally “stump-fingered” or does this description apply only to his Gospel, which lacks an introduction and a conclusion similar to what is found in the other Gospels? Was Mark the Founder of the Alexandrian church? Did he die a natural death or did he suffer martyrdom?

The events in the life of Mark of which we are sure or which are at least invested with a considerable degree of probability are as follows:

By no means certain but nevertheless probable is the identification of Mark with “the young man” whose interesting story is told by the evangelist himself (14:51, 52). It was the night before the crucifixion. Jesus and his disciples were leaving the Upper Room. Was this room part of the very house owned by Mark’s mother Mary, the home where Mark also lived? If so, it is understandable that “the young man,” having supposedly already fallen asleep—it may have been 11 P.M.; see N.T.C. on Matt. 26:31—, awakens. Had he previously fully surrendered his heart to the Savior? However that may be, an inner compulsion to accompany Jesus overpowers him. Snatching and throwing around his body a linen cloth he rushes out in order to follow the Master. He is seized by temple police. He escapes however, while his would-be captors hold in their hand the linen cloth. Cf. Gen. 39:12. If this reconstruction is not too bold it would imply that even as a young man Mark, like his mother, was one of Christ’s “followers,” though he was not one of The Twelve, and may not even have had any personal conversations with Jesus. In agreement with many we ascribe to the incident reported in Mark 14:51, 52 the date early April, a.d. 30. For more detail see on 14:51, 52.

Jesus, soon to depart from earth to heaven, did not leave his disciples leaderless. In a very real sense Peter was appointed to be the leader. See N.T.C. on Matt. 16:18. On Pentecost of the very year of Christ’s departure God used Peter’s stirring message to bring no less than three thousand “sheep” into the fold (Acts 2:41). Is it not probable that also upon John Mark the preaching of Peter exerted a mighty influence? See I Peter 5:13.

Between the years 30 and 44 there is a wide gap. What happened to Mark is not reported in Scripture. The next reported incident that may well have been of significance to John Mark is related in Acts 12:12–17. The date is probably a.d. 44. Peter, miraculously delivered from prison, makes straight for the house of “Mary the mother of John whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.” This Mary—to be distinguished from Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and Mary the mother of James and Joses—was a woman of means. Her house had a porch or vestibule, and also an upper room large enough to accommodate a rather numerous assembly. She had at least one maid, Rhoda. Not only was Mary rich, she was also generous, wholeheartedly devoted to Christ’s cause, and therefore willing to make available her facilities whenever these were needed by the Christian community. It was of such a mother that John Mark was a son. But are we certain that Mark was in Jerusalem at this time? Not entirely, yet this seems probable, for it is definitely reported that shortly afterward Paul and Barnabas take with them from Jerusalem (to Antioch) “John whose surname was Mark” (Acts 12:25). On the assumption then that Mark was in Jerusalem at the time covered by Acts 12:12–17, Peter’s wonderful deliverance from prison must have made a deep impression on the younger man. Since it is definitely stated that “many” were gathered at his “widowed” mother’s home, it is safe to assume that Mark was acquainted with several of the early witnesses of the events centering in Jesus. As already indicated earlier, to what extent he was acquainted with Jesus himself is not known, and early “tradition” is not of much help with respect to this point. —After a.d. 44 there is no unified solid evidence for several years of any close connection between Mark and Peter. Toward the end of Peter’s life the evidence reappears. For a little while, therefore, we shall leave Mark, to return to him later.

As for influential Peter, of him too no biography is given. Nevertheless several events of his life are recorded in the Gospels and the book of Acts. Those related in Acts 1–5 occurred in Jerusalem, probably in close succession, perhaps between the years 30 and 32 (inclusive). In or about the year 37 Paul, converted three years earlier, visits Peter in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18). About this time Peter and John are by the apostles sent to Samaria, where they strengthen Christ’s followers and rebuke Simon the sorcerer. They return to Jerusalem (Acts 8:14–25). This tour is followed shortly by Peter’s visits to Lydda and Joppa (Acts 9:32–43). The very important mission of Peter to Caesarea, an experience that opened his eyes with respect to the wideness of God’s mercy, is reported in Acts 10. Returned to Jerusalem, Peter defends the manner in which he had conducted himself in Caesarea, his “visiting with the uncircumcised and eating with them” (Acts 11:1–18). The reign of Emperor Claudius (a.d. 41–54) is not introduced until Acts 11:28. It may well be, therefore, that Peter’s visit to Caesarea and return to Jerusalem did not extend beyond the year 41. The next recorded event in the life of Peter, namely, his imprisonment and marvelous liberation, already referred to in the preceding, also has attached to it what looks like a note of time. If that inference is correct, this incident which, as we have seen, may well have been meaningful also for Mark, must have occurred just previous to the death, in the year 44, of King Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:23). There is one more reference to Peter in the book of Acts (15:7–11). This passage summarizes Peter’s address delivered at the Synod of Jerusalem, generally agreed to have met about the year 50. From Jerusalem Peter must have traveled to Syrian Antioch just before the beginning of Paul’s second missionary journey, dated 50/51–53/54.¹ It was at this place and time that Peter was “corrected” by Paul (Gal. 2:11–21). Did Peter remain for a while in Asia Minor, or did he perhaps return to this general region later on? However that may have been, his interest in the churches of Asia Minor is evident from I Peter 1:1.

In the book of Acts Peter is never again mentioned; that is, never after chapter 15. In fact, by and large that is true for the rest of the New Testament. The statements that some Corinthians were playing off Cephas (=Peter) against Paul (I Cor. 1:12, 22), that Cephas was in the habit of taking his wife along with him on his mission tours (I Cor 9:5), and that Jesus soon after his resurrection had made an appearance to that apostle (I Cor. 15:5), do not in any way cancel the fact that the New Testament offers no hint as to the whereabouts of the apostle from about the year 50/51 until close to the end of his life, presumably a.d. 64. The Lord himself had predicted the manner in which Peter was going to seal his confession with his martyrdom (John 21:18, 19; see N.T.C. on that passage; cf. II Peter 1:14; I Clement V; Tertullian, Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting XV; Origen, Against Celsus II.xlv; and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III.i).

Accordingly, the theory that Peter reigned as pope in Rome for twenty-five years, from 42 to 67, lacks scriptural support. In fact, if that tradition upheld by the church of Rome were true, Peter would have been at the very acme of his reign in or about the year 58, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. Yet in his lengthy list of greetings addressed to individual believers in Rome (Rom. 16:3–15) Paul never mentions Peter at all.

Now with respect to the presence of Peter in Rome there is no justification for going into either of two extremes. On the one hand, such ideas as Peter’s twenty-five year Roman episcopacy and the discovery and identification of that apostle’s tomb should be abandoned. On the other hand, so should also the claim that Peter was never in Rome at all. As to the latter, the conclusion to which some have arrived, namely, that according to Rom. 15:20—hence before the year 58—Peter can never have been in Rome, because Paul writes, “making it my ambition not to preach the gospel where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation,” is certainly fallacious. The church in Rome had been established long ago, as this very epistle clearly indicates. It probably derived its origin from the return to their homes, with glowing reports, of the “visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes” who had listened to Peter’s Pentecost sermon delivered in Jerusalem (Acts 2:10b, 14ff.). As to the meaning of Rom. 15:20, it was in Spain, which Paul intended to visit by way of Rome, that the gospel had not yet been preached (see Rom. 15:24). So Peter, to whom Jesus, in building his church, had assigned a very significant role (Matt. 16:18), may very well have made an early visit to Rome, especially with a view to the Jewish Christians there. As we have already noticed, there are various gaps in the story of Peter as recorded in the New Testament. We are not told where he was during the years 33 through 36; 42 and 43; 45 through 49; or 52 through 62. That he was not in Rome during the years of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (probably 60 through 62) is clear from Col. 4:11 (cf. Philem. 23, 24), for certainly Paul could not have written Col. 4:llb had Peter been in Rome at that time. But this still makes allowance for many years, from 33 on, during which Peter may have been strengthening the church in Rome by his presence, prayers, preaching, and pilotage. This brings us finally to a time close to the end of Peter’s life and of Paul’s life, when evidence for the intimate relation between a. Peter and Mark and b. Paul and Mark is furnished once again. About this a little later.

After the year 44, to which we last referred in connection with Mark, we find him in the company not of Peter but of Barnabas and Paul. It will be recalled that these two men, who had been sent on a relief mission to Jerusalem, had taken Mark with them to Syrian Antioch. When, prompted by the Holy Spirit, the church commissioned Barnabas and Paul to begin what was subsequently called Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:1–3), these men took Mark with them as their “attendant” (13:5). It is clear that Mark’s position with respect to the other two was one of subordination. He was a helper. Exactly what was included in this role is not stated. Various possible tasks naturally occur to the mind; such as, serving as a kind of business manager and therefore arranging the details pertaining to the plan of the journey, making provision for food and lodging, sending messages, and perhaps above all, serving as a catechist, that is, taking up where the other two left off: telling the story of Christ’s sojourn on earth and its triumphant ending, driving home once more the central lesson of Christ’s life and teaching, asking and answering questions, etc. If Mark had already written his Gospel, he may all the more have been considered the right man in the right place for the performance of the task of a teacher or catechist.

For other reasons too Mark seemed to be the logical person to serve as helper. Was he not the son of ever hospitable Mary? Is it not natural to assume that Barnabas and Paul, on their charitable errand in Jerusalem (Acts 11:29, 30; cf. 12:25), had lodged at her house and had therefore communed with both mother and son? Besides, was not Barnabas an older cousin of Mark (Col. 4:10)? Is it not possible that Mark and his parents (at a time when perhaps the father was also still living?) had moved from Cyprus to Jerusalem, as was true with respect to Barnabas (Acts 4:36, 37)? Besides, was not John Mark bilingual, and were not also his superiors bilingual or even in a sense multilingual?

Via Seleucia, the seaport of the city of Antioch on the Orontes (Acts 3:14), the three missionaries crossed over to Cyprus. Having preached the Word of God in the Synagogues of Salamis, the men went through the entire island until they came to Paphos on the southwestern shore. From here, having smitten with blindness the false prophet or magos Bar-Jesus, who opposed them and unsuccessfully tried to keep the proconsul Sergius Paulus from accepting the gospel, they headed for Asia Minor. Then something unexpected happened: when they came to Perga in Pamphilia Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13; cf. 15:36–41)! The date may have been the year 47. Just why it was that Mark deserted the others is not explained. Was it because he was displeased with the fact that his cousin Barnabas had lost the leadership to Paul? Contrast “Barnabas and Saul” (11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 7), with “Saul who is also called Paul” (13:9), “Paul” (13:16), and “Paul and Barnabas” (13:43, 46, 50, etc.). Was it homesickness? Anxiety for his mother’s safety? Misgivings about the offer of salvation to Jew and Gentile alike and on the same basis? All of these answers have been suggested. Or was it perhaps the difficulty of the task that lay ahead in this strange land, the rigors of this mountainous region, its terrors and dangers? Cf. II Cor. 11:26. To the present author it would seem that if any answer is at all possible, the last one is the most reasonable. According to Acts 15:38 Paul looked upon Mark as a deserter, one whose heart inexcusably quailed because of “the work” which confronted him. And does not Acts 15:40 imply that if any “sides” were taken in this dispute, the church chose the side of Paul? The inspired account, at any event, does not leave the impression that Mark was wholly without fault when he left Paul and Barnabas in the lurch and headed for home.

When, sometime later, after the completion of the first missionary journey and of the Jerusalem Conference, Barnabas wanted to take along Mark on the second journey, Paul adamantly refused to agree. So “Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away to Cyprus” (Acts 15:39b). After Acts 15:39 Luke never again mentions Mark, nor even “our beloved Barnabas” (15:25).

This means, then, that as far as the book of Acts—and, in fact, the New Testament as a whole—is concerned, with respect to two lengthy periods covering respectively the years 31 through 43 and 52 through 59 no definite information is given or even implied about Mark. We simply do not know where he was or what he was doing. The incidents that have been briefly described pertain entirely to the years 30, 44–47 50/51. And the only references so far are Mark 14:51, 52 (probably); Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37–39.

Does extra-canonical “tradition” furnish any reliable information about Barnabas and Mark after they had landed on the island of Cyprus? Not really, for The Acts of Barnabas, ascribed to Mark (!), a writing of much later date, is spurious. According to it, after Barnabas suffers martyrdom in Cyprus, Mark plants the banner of Christ in Alexandria. Sources in the same category state that he became the first bishop of the Alexandrian church—a rather common tradition—and retained this position until the eighth year of Nero’s reign. Since Nero ruled from 54 to 68, the eighth year would be 61. On the other hand, the renowned Alexandrian fathers Clement and Origen say nothing at all about any activity or even presence of Mark in Alexandria.

Returning now to Scripture, the only truly reliable source, all it clearly implies with respect to Barnabas—i.e., implies in addition to what can be learned from the reports covering earlier years (see Acts chapters 4, 9, 11–15; and Gal. 2)—is that when, perhaps about the year 57, Paul wrote I Cor. 9:6, Mark’s older cousin was obviously still alive. To be sure, the name “Barnabas” is also found in Col. 4:10, but only to indicate his relation to Mark: the two were cousins.

About the very time mentioned above, namely, “the eighth year of Nero’s reign,” or perhaps a year later, Paul is writing the epistles known as Colossians and Philemon. One of the men who are with him is Mark, who has fully re-established himself in Paul’s confidence. The apostle, during this first Roman imprisonment commenting on those who were “of the circumcision,” that is, those who were Jews, writes: “Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner … Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, … and Jesus who is called Justus … are the only co-workers for the kingdom of God who have been a comfort to me” (Col. 4:10, 11; cf. Philem. 24; see N.T.C. on these passages). Mark, once rejected (in a sense) by Paul, has become a comfort to him, a valuable, highly esteemed, and warmly loved co-worker!

When Paul is released from his imprisonment and is traveling to various congregations of his farflung spiritual domain (see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 39, 40), Peter is in Rome. He is writing the letter that came to be known as “the first epistle of Peter,” having addressed it to “the elect who are sojourners in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1:1). In the closing salutation he is saying to them all: “The church [literally she] that is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you, and so does Mark my son” (5:13). The date is perhaps about the year 63. It cannot have been later than 64, since it was probably in the latter part of that year that Peter became the victim of Nero’s wrath. Does not this very term “my son” indicate that Peter’s fatherly instruction and supervision was of long standing? Is it not distinctly possible that even before Peter wrote this there had been frequent contacts between him and John Mark? Is it not true that Peter was exactly the one who knew by experience that there was hope for those who had in one way or another succumbed to the temptation of failing to remain completely loyal to Christ and his cause? It would appear, then, that sovereign grace, making use of “the kindly tutelage of Barnabas” (F. F. Bruce), the stern discipline of Paul, and the potent influence of Peter, had triumphed in the life of Mark.

It has become clear therefore that for several years—probably 61 to 63 or 64—Mark is carrying on his ministry in the world’s capital. After Peter’s martyrdom Mark seems to have become Paul’s assistant once more. At Paul’s request and in co-operation with Timothy he is making a tour of the churches in Asia Minor. He is still there when, possibly in the year 66, Paul, shortly before his death, is writing the final letter that has come down to us from him. In it he exhorts Timothy, who at that time was probably in Ephesus (see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, p. 43), as follows: “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for (the) ministry” (II Tim. 4:11b). Over against Demas, who was the man who stayed away (II Tim. 4:10a) stands Mark, the man who came back!

Who, then, was Mark? Not a great leader but rather a follower, not a master-builder but a helper, not flawless but one who fought against and overcame his weakness, not a stay-at-home but a great traveler, not preeminently a man of quiet contemplation but a man of action, one who delighted to picture Christ in action for the salvation of sinners to the glory of God.

Though it is true that Mark wrote the shortest Gospel, one that never became as popular as did the other three, and was never quoted as frequently as they were, we must be careful not to sell it short. In the early church it became a custom to associate the four Gospels with the four faces—man, lion, calf, eagle—of the cherubim described in Ezek. 1:6, 10; cf. Rev. 4:7. The “man” symbol was frequently (not always) associated with Matthew, the “calf” with Luke, the “eagle” with John. As to Mark, the authorities could not agree. While none failed to discover also in this Gospel a true picture of the Christ, some on reading it were reminded of the swiftly flying eagle, some of the powerful lion, some of the lowly man, and some of the sacrificial calf.² In a sense, all were right!

Evidence in support of the assertion that it was indeed Mark who wrote the shortest Gospel is the following:

Writing at the beginning of the fourth century a.d. Eusebius, op. cit., II.xiv.6–xv.2, states: “Close upon him [i.e., upon Simon the sorcerer] in the same reign of Claudius [a.d. 41–54], the Providence of the universe in its all-goodness and love toward men guided to Rome, as against a great corrupter of life [i.e., as against this Simon the sorcerer who had fled to Rome where a statue was erected in his honor] the great and mighty Peter, who because of his virtue was the leader of all the other apostles. And he, like a noble general of God, clad in divine armor, brought the costly merchandise of the light from the east to those in the west, preaching the gospel of the light itself, the word that saves souls, the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven.

“Thus, then, when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon [the sorcerer] was extinguished and immediately perished, as did also the fellow himself.

“And so great a light of religion shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation [kerygma], but with all kinds of entreaties urged Mark, whose gospel is extant, seeing that he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a record of the teaching transmitted to them orally; nor did they cease until they had prevailed upon the man; and so they became responsible for the Scripture that is called The Gospel according to Mark. And they say that the apostle, knowing by the revelation of the Spirit to him what had been done, rejoiced because of their zeal, and ratified the Scripture for study in the churches. Clement quotes the story in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis and the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias by name, confirms him. He also says that Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle, and that he composed this in Rome itself. And they say that he [Peter] indicates this, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon, in the words [I Peter 5:13], ‘The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark.’ ”

Living a little earlier Origen (fl. 210–250) is quoted by Eusebius, op. cit., VI.xxv.5, as follows: “Secondly, the [Gospel] according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter’s instructions, whom also Peter in the general epistle acknowledges as his son, saying … [then follows I Peter 5:13].”

From Origen we can go back still farther, to his teacher, Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200). From the latter’s Hypotyposeis Eusebius VI.xiv.6, 7 quotes these words: “The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, those present, being many, urged Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he had spoken, to write down what he had said. He did this and distributed the Gospel among those who had asked him [for it]. When Peter learned about it, he neither strongly forbade it nor promoted it.”

Tertullian (fi. 193–216), in his treatise Against Marcion IV.5, states: “The Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.”

Earlier by a few years, but still for a long time a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria and of Tertullian, was Irenaeus. In his work Against Heresies III.i.1 (quoted in part by Eusebius, op. cit., V.viii.3) he writes: “… Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. After their departure [death? moving from one place on earth to another?] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”

The Muratorian Fragment, an incomplete list of New Testament books, written in poor Latin and deriving its name from cardinal L. A. Muratori (1672–1750) who discovered it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, may be assigned to the period 180–200. It is of importance for the history of the New Testament canon. Though regrettably it is merely a “fragment,” hence incomplete, and in its survey of New Textament books has lost whatever was in the original with respect to Matthew, it definitely implies the existence and recognition of four Gospels. With respect to the second of these (Mark), the line-fragment that remains and now marks the beginning of the list reads: “… at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed it.” In view of all the other testimonies (Eusebius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, etc.) it would certainly be rash to maintain that the author of this list of books was not here referring to the Gospel according to Mark.

About the middle of the second century a.d. Justin Martyr writes, Dialogue with Trypho CVI: “And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and when this as well as the fact that he changed the names of two other brothers to Boanerges, meaning sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact, etc.” This clearly shows that Justin had read Mark’s Gospel, for that is the only place where the term Boanerges occurs, and where the surnaming of Simon and of James and John is mentioned in immediate succession (Mark 3:16, 17).

Probably as early as a.d. 125 the four Gospels were assembled into a collection for use in the churches and were given titles. “According to Mark” was the title of the shortest of the four.

Papias, a disciple of “the presbyter John”—in all probability the apostle John—seems to have been born between a.d. 50 and 60, and to have died shortly after the middle of the second century. In making inquiries concerning Christ’s sojourn on earth he was far more interested in “the living voice,” that is, in the oral testimony of those of the earliest witnesses who were still alive, than in written accounts (see Eusebius, op. cit., III.xxxix.1–4). Based, then, on what Papias claims to have learned from John, Eusebius a little further (III.xxxix.15) quotes Papias as saying: “When Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord nor had he followed him, but later, as I said, be followed Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs [of his hearers], but not composing, as it were, an orderly account of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark made no mistake [or: did no wrong] in thus writing down certain things as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave careful attention, namely, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to falsify nothing.”

There is therefore no justification whatever for denying the verdict of tradition, namely, that it was John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, who wrote the shortest of the four widely recognized Gospels. The evidence spans several centuries, from Eusebius all the way back to Papias. It comes from every region. From Asia, Africa, and Europe; that is, from the East (Papias of Hierapolis, Eusebius of Caesarea); the South (Clement of Alexandria, Tertulian of Carthage); and the West (Justin Martyr and the author of the Muratorian Fragment of Rome). Sometimes two regions are represented by one witness: the East and the West (Irenaeus of Asia Minor, Rome, and Lyons); the South and the East (Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea). Orthodox and heterodox, ancient Greek texts and early versions add their weight to the same conclusion.

Though it is certainly true that there are points with respect to which tradition varies—for example, the exact role of Peter in connection with the composition of Mark’s Gospel, and the time when that Gospel was written (on which see section II)—all witnesses agree that the preaching of Peter at Rome figured significantly in the production of this work. It is reasonable to believe that Mark consulted many sources, probably both oral and written, but it remains true that according to a tradition which we have no reason to reject he was “Peter’s interpreter.” Moreover, the contents of the book confirm this conclusion. Peter’s sins and weaknesses are recorded faithfully, but the praise which he received elsewhere (for example in Matt. 16:17) is omitted from Mark. Again, at times Mark mentions Peter by name (5:37; 11:21; 16:7) when Matthew does not. Mark’s Gospel, moreover, is characterized by a certain vividness, rapidity of movement, and attention to detail, which characteristics are easily associated with active, vivacious, enthusiastic Peter. See, for example, 1:16–31; 35–38; 5:1–20; 9:14–29; 14:27–42, 54, 66–72. In 1:36 the disciples are referred to as “Simon and those who were with him.”

If we had nothing more than Mark’s Gospel, it would be impossible to arrive at the conclusion that it was written as a result (at least to a considerable extent) of

Peter’s

preaching. On the other hand, on the basis of the testimony of tradition telling us that this was indeed how it came to be written, it is possible, as has been shown, to find in the Gospel itself corroborating evidence in support of this conclusion.

II. WHEN AND WHERE WAS IT WRITTEN?

Let us consider first the “Where?” and then the “When?”

What has just been said with respect to the relation of Mark’s Gospel to Peter holds also with reference to its connection with Rome. Here too this Gospel, though nowhere definitely indicating and proving its place of origin, confirms the statements of Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, etc., that it was written in Rome and for the Romans.

That it was composed for a non-Jewish public would seem to follow from the fact that such Semitic terms and expressions as boanerges (3:17), talitha cumi (5:41), corban (7:11), ephphatha 7:34), and Abba (14:36) are by Mark translated into Greek. Moreover, the author explains Jewish customs (7:3, 4; 14:12; 15:42). And as to this Gospel’s origin in Rome note that at times Mark renders Greek into Latin. He mentions that the two lepta (“copper corns”) which the poor widow cast into the offering box amounted to one Roman quadrans (“penny,” 12:42), and that the aulē (“palace”) into which the soldiers led Jesus was the praetorium (the governor’s official residence, 15:16).

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).

To all this should be added the fact that the manner in which Mark pictures the Christ, namely, as an active, energetic, swiftly moving, warring, conquering King, a Victor over the destructive forces of nature, over disease, demons, and even death, would be of interest especially to Romans, people who, in their lust for and exercise of power, had conquered the world. To them Mark pictures a King who excels any earthly conqueror. His kingdom is far more extensive, his armor far more effective, and his rule far more enduring than anything originating here below. His victories, moreover, are far more honorable, for he causes the conquered to share in the glory of the conquest. Mark’s King is the Savior-King. He is the Victor who does not gloat over the suffering of the conquered but suffers in their place and with a view to their everlasting welfare (10:45).

More difficult to answer is the question, When was this Gospel written? It is probably safe to state that it must have been composed within the period beginning fifteen years before and ending fifteen years after the middle of the first century a.d. Before the year 35 Mark may well have been too young to undertake such a task. After the year 65 Peter was probably no longer alive and could therefore not have ratified this book “for study in the churches.”³

Beginning with the latter half of the period in question—hence, 50–65—, it has already been shown that Peter and Mark were together in Rome about the year 63. That would therefore seem to be an ideal date for the composition of Mark’s Gospel. Nevertheless, the date is not without difficulty. As has been shown in N.T.C. on The Gospel according to Matthew—see the section on The Synoptic Problem—Mark was probably written before Matthew, and Matthew before Luke. Luke’s Gospel, in turn, was followed by Acts. The question may well be asked whether, on the basis of this chronology, some of this literary activity is not thus pushed too far forward, perhaps into the terrible period of the Jewish War against the Romans, accompanied by bitter strife between the various Jewish factions. Neither Luke nor Acts indicates that anything of the kind was actually occurring when these books were written.

The late fifties have been suggested. Our historical summary of important events in the lives of Peter and of Mark has shown that from the side of Scripture there is no objection to supposing that sometime between the years 52 and 59 Peter and Mark were together in Rome (exception, as has also been indicated, the year 58, when Peter was clearly not in that city).

Of late, however, the attention is being riveted upon the possibility that in our attempt to fix the date of Mark’s Gospel we must look away from 50–65 and settle on 35–50, even better 40–50. Considerations that would seem to favor this view are the following:

First, according to the statement of Eusebius, quoted above, it was during the reign of Claudius (a.d. 41–54) that “the Providence of the universe guided to Rome … the great and mighty Peter” whose “follower” Mark, at the request of “the hearers of Peter” composed a record of Peter’s teaching, this record being The Gospel according to Mark.

Secondly, the subscriptions of many of the later uncials (manuscripts with large and separate letters) and cursives (running-hand manuscripts) inform us that the Gospel according to Mark was written in the tenth or twelfth year after Christ’s ascension, hence sometime between the years 39 and 42.

Thirdly, the small papyrus scrap found in cave #7 near Qumran, and deciphered by the Spanish priest Father O’Callighan as being part of Mark 6:52, 53, belonged to material to which upon discovery the date approximately a.d. 50 had been ascribed. This scrap would therefore seem to point back to a considerably earlier (than 50) date for the actual composition of that Gospel. Therefore a date somewhere in the beginning of the reign of Emperior Claudius might not be far from the truth. Besides, it has been shown that Peter and Mark may well have spent some time together in Rome at that time.

The discovery and identification of the papyrus scrap containing the keystone Marcan passage has created great interest among New Testament scholars. The comments range all the way from “nothing has changed” to “the mathematical probabilities that Dr. O’Callighan is right are astronomical.” I would especially recommend the reading of the excellent articles by William White, Jr., “O’Callighan’s Identifications: Confirmation and Its Consequences” WTJ, 35 (Fall 1972), pp. 15–20, and “Notes on the Papyrus Fragments from Cave 7 at Qumran” WTJ, 35 (Winter 1973), pp. 221–226.

Conclusion: When was Mark 1:1–16:8 written? Answer: sometime between a.d. 40 and 65, with the balance of evidence now favoring the earlier part of this period. It is too early to speak more definitely. Rushing to conclusions is never wise (Isa. 28:16b). As to Mark 16:9–20 see on that section.

The objection may be raised: “But if thus early, then Mark was still somewhat immature spiritually when he wrote, for the act of deserting his partners Paul and Barnabas occurred some years later. Does not this situation lower our estimate of the value of Mark’s book?”

However, if we apply this criticism to The Gospel according to Mark we should apply it all around. Are we ready to reject David’s early psalms because when he wrote them his sin with respect to Bathsheba and his subsequent repentance were still many years away? Shall we look askance upon Peter’s powerful and very effective Pentecost sermon because a good twenty years later the man who had preached it “stood condemned” at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–21)? Must we discard an epistle written by a brother of the Lord, because its author had to confess, “In many respects we all stumble” (James 3:2)? And shall we throw out of the window the book of Revelation because when John received these visions he was still making mistakes in his personal behavior (Rev. 19:10; 22:8)? Certainly not! What applies to all books of the Bible holds also for Mark: we do not ascribe perfection to the men who wrote them, but we do ascribe plenary inspiration to the products which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they produced.

a.d.

III. WHY WAS IT WRITTEN

As has been shown—see Chapter I above—according to tradition this Gospel was composed to satisfy the urgent request of the people of Rome for a written summary of Peter’s preaching in that city. However, this cannot mean that the information found in this book must be withheld from everybody living outside of the city limits of the capital. As is clear from 1:37; 10:45; 12:9; 13:10; and even 16:15 (whatever be its authenticity), this Gospel was intended to reach the entire Greek speaking world: its message was, is, and is going to be meaningful for everybody.

A closely related question is: In writing it did Mark intend merely to supply information or also to bring about transformation? Was it his purpose, as some maintain, merely to record a narrative, or in so doing to furnish an incentive for living to the glory of God? To phrase it differently, How did he view Jesus? Merely as a very interesting personage, the story of whose mighty deeds must be related because it is fascinating and satisfies people’s curiosity? Or did he primarily regard Jesus to be the mighty and conquering Savior King, to whom all men should turn in humble faith? Surely the latter! It must ever be borne in mind that Mark was “Peter’s interpreter.” Now whenever Peter preached he urged repentance. His predication amounted to, at least reached a climax of, exhortation (Acts 2:36–40; 10:43), in order that through repentance and faith men might be saved, to God’s glory (Acts 11:18). Now if that was true with respect to Peter, it must also have been true with respect to Mark. Mark’s Gospel, accordingly, does have a definitely doctrinal and thoroughly practical aim. It is a narrative, to be sure, but a narrative with a most noble purpose (Mark 10:45; 12:28–34; 16:16).

Now a person’s willingness to surrender himself to Jesus depends upon how he views him; in other words, faith always implies doctrine. Even narrative is not without its doctrinal implications. The Christology implied throughout in Mark’s Gospel is that, to begin with, Jesus is thoroughly human. He eats (2:16) and drinks (15:36). He becomes hungry (11:12). He touches people (1:41) and is touched by them (5:27). He becomes grieved (3:5) and indignant (10:14). He falls asleep from fatigue and is awakened (4:38, 39). He asks that a boat be provided for him, so that he may not be crushed (3:9). He (for a while) plies a trade; he has a mother, brothers and sisters (6:3). Viewed as a man, his knowledge is limited (13:32), so that he turns around to see who has touched him (5:30), and walks up to a fig tree to see whether it has edible fruit (11:13). He has a human body (15:43) and a human spirit (2:8). He even dies (15:37)!

However, this same Jesus of Mark’s Gospel is also thoroughly divine. The “Son of man” (2:10, 28; etc.) is also “Son of God” (1:1; 3:11; etc.). The One whom Mark describes reigns supreme in the realm of disease, demons, and death. As such he heals diseases of every variety, casts out demons (1:32–34), cures the blind, the deaf, etc. (8:22–26; 10:46–52), cleanses the leper (1:40–45), and even raises the dead (5:21–24, 35–43). He exercises power over the domain of nature in general; for he stills winds and waves (4:35–41), walks on water (6:48), causes a fig tree to wither (11:13, 14, 20), and multiplies a few rolls so that they suffice to satisfy the hunger of thousands (6:30–44; 8:1–10). His knowledge of the future is so detailed and comprehensive that he predicts what will happen to Jerusalem, to the world, to his disciples (chapter 13), and to himself (8:31; 9:9, 21; 10:32–34; 14:17–21). He knows what is in men’s hearts (2:8; 12:15), and knows their circumstances (12:44). His authority is so outstanding that he pronounces pardon in a manner befitting God and no one else (2:1–12, especially verses 5 and 6). The climax of his majesty is revealed in this that when he is put to death he rises again (16:6)!

As to whether Mark pictures this Jesus as the object of faith, this question, too, must be answered with a vigorous affirmative, really already implied in the foregoing. “Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” is immediately introduced as the Lord whose coming, in accordance with prophecy, demands a herald or way-preparer (1:1–3). He is the One to whom the angels minister (1:13). His blood is a ransom for many (10:45; cf. 14:24). He baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1:8), is Lord even of the sabbath (2:28), appoints his own ambassadors (3:13–19), has a right to be accepted in faith even by those of “his own country” (implied in 6:6), has authority to bid men follow and receive him (8:34; 9:37), is the very One whom David called “Lord” (implied in 12:37), and is coming again in the glory of his Father (8:38), in clouds with power and great glory, when he will send forth the angels to gather his elect (13:26, 27).

According to this evangelist the two natures, human and divine (to use later terminology), are in perfect harmony. This is a fact which, in studying certain passages, one can hardly fail to detect (4:38, 39; 6:34, 41–43; 8:1–10; 14:32–41; etc.).

Mark’s aim is that men everywhere may accept this Jesus Christ, “Son of man” and “Son of God,” this conquering King—see Chapter II above—, as their Savior and Lord.

IV. WHAT ARE ITS CHARACTERISTICS?

The three most obvious ones are compactness, vividness, and orderliness. By compactness is meant that this Gospel is much shorter than any of the others. In the Bible lying before me Luke covers approximately 40 pages, Matthew 37, John 29, and Mark only 23. Luke has about 1147 verses, Matthew 1068. Mark (1:1–16:8) has only 661. Mark contains only one parable not found elsewhere, that of The Seed Growing in Secret (4:26–29). In addition it shares three parables with Matthew and Luke: The Sower (Mark 4:3–9, 18–23), The Mustard Seed (4:30–32), and The Wicked Tenants (12:1–9). Compare this with Matthew’s ten parables that are peculiar to that Gospel, six that it shares with Luke, and three along with Mark and Luke; hence, nineteen parables in all. Luke has eighteen parables all its own. This number added to the nine already implied makes no less than twenty-seven parables for Luke.⁴ Since some of the parables are rather lengthy this means that, other things being equal, Mark by omitting so many of them would be considerably shorter than the other Gospels.

What is just as important in this connection is that of the six great discourses found in Matthew only one—the sixth, on The Last Things (Matt. 24 and 25; cf. Mark 13)—is found also in Mark, and even then in shorter form. Of the other discourses only remnants, frequently scattered, are reported in Mark. See, however, also Mark 4.

All this means that Mark’s brevity relates especially to the words of Jesus. Nevertheless, the number of verses in Mark that contain such words (some verses have only one or two of them) is not small: 278. They occur especially in chapters 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12. Luke has 588 verses containing dominical words, Matthew 640. Accordingly, while such words are found in approximately 60% of Matthew’s 1068 verses, and in about 51% of Luke’s 1147, they occur in only about 42% of Mark’s 661. Mark is definitely the action Gospel. It is understandable that because of the omission of so much sayings material there was room even in this short Gospel for a series of miracle stories almost as long as in the much larger Matthew. Each of Mark’s first eleven chapters contains at least one miracle account (1:21–28, 29–31, 32–54, 39, 40–45; 2:1–11; 3:1–6; 4:35–41; 5:1–20, 21–43; 6:30–44, 45–52, 53–56; 7:24–30, 31–37; 8:1–10, 22–26; 9:14–29; 10:46–52; and 11:12–14, 20, 21). Those recorded in 7:31–37; 8:22–26 are peculiar to Mark. Moreover in several cases Mark’s coverage is more detailed and graphic than is that of the other Synoptics.

This leads to the second characteristic of this Gospel, namely, its vividness. Mark’s style⁵ sparkles. Was he not the interpreter of vivacious, highly emotional, colorful Simon Peter?

Having therefore studied the Gospel according to Matthew, one cannot afford to skip Mark, thinking, “This book contains hardly anything that has not already been said by the publican turned author.” To be sure, of wholly new material—material not paralleled at all either in Matthew or in Luke—there is very little. Only 31 Marcan verses are generally mentioned in this connection (1:1; 2:27; 3:20, 21; 4:26–29; 7:3, 4; 7:32–37; 8:22–26; 9:29; 9:48, 49; 13:33–37; 14:51, 52). On the other hand, it is also true that in ever so many passages or paragraphs Mark presents lively little touches that are not found elsewhere. These touches (in addition to the ones already included in the immediately preceding list: 1:1, etc.) enliven the account. The following are examples:

In the wilderness where he was tempted Jesus was “among the wild beasts” (1:13). John the Baptist’s preaching was not exclusively negative: he did not merely tell his audience to repent. He added “and believe the gospel” (1:15). When the fishermen James and John in order to follow Jesus left their father in the boat, they did not overburden him: they left him “with the hired men” (1:20). In healing Simon’s mother-in-law Jesus not merely touched her; tenderly he “took her by the hand” (1:31). That evening at sundown “the whole town was gathered at the door” of Peter’s house (1:33). “Very early the next morning Jesus … went to a lonely place, and there he prayed.” It was here that Peter and his companions found him, telling him that everybody was looking for him (1:35–57).

The house where Jesus was proclaiming the message was filled to overflowing; in fact, “not even near the doorway” was there any room left (2:2).

At another occasion when Christ’s enemies on a sabbath and in the synagogue were watching him with critical eyes to see whether on this day he would heal a man with a withered hand, Jesus “looked around at them with anger, being deeply disturbed by the hardness of their hearts” (3:5).

It was “evening” when the disciples took Jesus with them in the boat “just as he was” (4:35, 36). Soon he was “in the stern asleep on the cushion” (4:38). To the sea he said, “Hush! Be still!” (4:39). He asked his disciples, “Even now do you not have faith?” (4:40).

The story of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac is told with far more detail in Mark than in either Matthew or Luke. Mark devotes twenty verses to it (5:1–20); Luke fourteen (8:26–39); Matthew seven (8:28–34). For example, Mark relates that no one could keep this man in chains or subdue him. He adds, “And always, night and day, among the tombs and on the hillsides he was screaming and cutting himself with stones.” All three Synoptics report that when Jesus gave the demons leave they came out of the man and went into the pigs, which thus possessed rushed down the cliff and into the sea. Mark adds that there were “about two thousand” pigs that drowned. What is true with respect to the cure of the demoniac holds also in the case of the woman who touched Christ’s garment: the full story is told not in Matthew (three verses, 9:20–22), nor in Luke (six verses, 8:43–48), but in Mark (ten verses, 5:25–34). Notice particularly what Mark says—but “Dr.” Luke does not say—about physicians! (cf. Mark 5:25 with Luke 8:43). Other details reported exclusively by Mark are found in 5:29b, 30. But though Mark was “Peter’s interpreter” it is not Mark but Luke who brings Peter into the story (8:45).

In his home town Jesus “could not do any mighty work” (6:5). Herodias “had it in for [nursed a grudge against]” John the Baptist, and “wanted to kill him. But she could not, for Herod feared John …’ (6:19, 20). The apostles report to Jesus, who bids them, “Come away by yourselves to a quiet place and rest a while” (6:30, 31). In connection with the feeding of the five thousand the people sat down “by hundreds and by fifties” (6:40; cf. Luke 9:14). Jesus, having remained behind after he had told the disciples to go by boat to the opposite side, “saw them straining at the oars” (6:48; cf. Matt. 14:24).

“Jesus entered into a home and did not want anyone to know about it” (7:24). The Syrophoenician woman did not take her grievously afflicted daughter with her when she begged Jesus to take pity on her and to heal her child. Mark makes this clear by saying that the woman “went home and found the child lying in bed, the demon having gone out of her” (7:30).

When the Pharisees argued with Jesus and asked him to show them a sign from heaven, he “sighed deeply in his spirit” (8:12). The disciples “had only one bread-cake with them in the boat” (8:14; cf. Matt. 16:5).

The three disciples (Peter, James, and John) “discussed among themselves what this ‘rising from the dead’ could mean” (9:10, with reflection on Jesus’ saying recorded in verse 9b). These same disciples, having descended from the mountain (of transfiguration), notice a great multitude surrounding the other nine disciples, “and scribes arguing with them” (9:14). Upon seeing Jesus, the crowd “is greatly amazed” (9:15). Mark presents a detailed description of the symptoms of epilepsy and of the manner in which the boy who was afflicted with it was healed (9:18–27). This evangelist also records the father’s famous saying, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (9:24). At this particular time Jesus did not want his journeying through out-of-the-way places in Galilee to be publicized (9:30). Jesus asked the disciples what they were arguing about on the way. Answer: silence (9:33, 34; cf. Matt. 18:1; Luke 9:46, 47a). Jesus took the little child “in his arms” (9:36). To the reason recorded by Luke (9:49, 50), showing why an exorcist outside of Christ’s company should nevertheless not be forbidden to continue doing what he was doing, Mark adds another (9:41; contrast Matt. 10:42).

The rich young ruler ran up to Jesus and knelt before him (10:17). “And Jesus looking upon him loved him” (10:21). When the young man was told what he should do “his countenance fell” (10:22; cf. Matt. 19:22; Luke 18:23). Jesus then “looked around” at his disciples, and when they were amazed repeated and clarified his saying about the difficulty which rich people experience in their attempt to enter the kingdom of God (10:23a, 24). The Master assures those who are willing to sacrifice their all for him that, among other things, they will receive “fields,” though all these things “along with persecutions” (10:30). On the way to Jerusalem “Jesus was going ahead of them, and they were amazed” (10:32; cf. Luke 9:51b). It was not just the mother of James and John who made a selfish request (see Matt. 20:20), but so did these two disciples themselves (Mark 10:35). The name of the Jericho blind man who was healed was Bartimaeus. Moreover, not merely was he blind, he was “a blind beggar” (10:46). Mark 10:49, 50 presents vivid details regarding the manner in which Bartimaeus was encouraged and responded to this encouragement.

The disciples found “a colt hitched to a door outside near the street” (11:4). In connection with Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem the crowds shouted, “Blessed is the kingdom …” (11:10; cf. Matt. 21:9; Luke 19:38). Anent the temple cleansing Mark reports: “And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple” (11:16).

“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (12:29). The scribe wholeheartedly endorses Christ’s summary of the law, for which approval the Lord commends him (12:32–34).

“Teacher look, what marvelous stones and what marvelous buildings!” (13:1; cf. Matt. 24:1; Luke 21:5). “Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately …” (13:3, evidently an item Mark received from Peter). “And brother shall deliver brother to death, the father his child …” (13:12; more vivid than Matt. 24:10; Luke 21:16). “The desolating sacrilege” shall be “standing where he ought not” (13:14).

In connection with a., the anointing at Bethany, Mark relates: “she broke the perfume bottle” (14:3); b. Christ’s trial before the Sanhedrin: “their testimonies did not agree” (14:56); and c. Peter’s denial: “And immediately, for the second time a rooster crowed,…” (14:72; cf. Matt. 26:74b, 75; Luke 22:60).

Barabbas, the insurrectionist, was also “a murderer” (15:7). The people asked Pilate to release a prisoner (15:8). Pilate asked, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” (15:12; cf. Matt. 27:22). Simon of Cyrene was “the father of Alexander and Rufus” (15:21; cf. Rom. 16:13). It was on “Preparation-day, the day before the sabbath” that Joseph of Arimathea “boldly” went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus (15:42, 43; cf. Matt. 27:57, 58; Luke 23:50–52; John 19:38). What Pilate did before he granted the request is related in Mark 15:44.

It was on Saturday, after sunset, that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought liquid aromatics with a view to anointing Christ’s body (16:1; cf. Matt. 28:1). “And they were saying among themselves, ‘Who shall roll the stone from the door of the tomb for us?’ ”(16:3). It was “a very heavy” stone (16:4). “They entered the tomb and saw a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side” (16:5). He said to the women, “Don’t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene” (16:6). Go, tell his disciples “and Peter” (16:7, another reminder of the close connection between Mark and Peter; cf. Matt. 28:7). “They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid” (16:8).

Finally, it would seem that in addition to compactness and vividness Mark’s Gospel excels in chronological orderliness. From Mark 1:1–6:13 Mark and Luke run parallel to a considerable extent, so that when 3 (sometimes 4) is added to the number that indicates the chapter where Mark’s narrative occurs, locating the corresponding story in the largest Gospel is easy. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 12–14. It should be borne in mind however that Luke 7 contains no Marcan parallel (neither is Mark 7 duplicated in Luke).

Now the fact that Luke places Christ’s rejection at Nazareth at the forefront of his report on the Galilean Ministry, even though the very story of that rejection (see Luke 4:23) presupposes that when it occurred Jesus had already been doing considerable work in Galilee, proves that this Gospel writer was not very interested in chronological order. Matthew (13:53–58) and Mark (6:1–6) do not relate this incident until they have almost reached the middle of their respective books. Similarly, in the middle section of Luke’s Gospel various time references are so indefinite (see 11:1, 14, 29; 12:1, 13; 13:10, 18; 9:51 but see also 13:22; 17:11) that from this too it is clear that although Luke’s account is certainly “orderly” (1:3) the arrangement of the material is chronological only in a very general sense. Finally, when Luke describes the pointing out of the betrayer (22:21–23) after the institution of the Lord’s Supper (22:14–20; contrast Matt. 26:20–29; Mark 14:17–25; cf. John 13:30), it is clear that he does not arrange his material in a precise before-and-after order. And why should he? Luke had excellent reasons for telling his story exactly as he did. His thematically arranged narrative is just as inspired as is Mark’s far more chronological story.

As to Matthew, it is very clear that he did not try to arrange Christ’s early miracles (chapters 8 and 9; see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 27, 28) in the order of their occurrence. The cursing of the fig tree and the pointing out of the lesson that was to be drawn from this incident took place partly on Monday of the Passion Week, partly on Tuesday. Mark draws attention to this chronological fact (11:11, 12, 19, 20); Matthew does not. He wishes to tell the entire story all at once, in one connected and uninterrupted account (21:18–22). He was, of course, perfectly justified in doing so. But here again the conclusion is justified that if one is looking for chronological orderliness he should turn to Mark’s Gospel rather than to Matthew or to Luke.

What is especially significant in this connection is the fact that in general when Matthew departs from Mark’s order, Luke is still with him; and when Luke departs from it, Matthew remains with Mark. For proof see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 39–41.

Beginning with the story of the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29), followed immediately by that of the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and extending all the way to the end of both Gospels, a definite pattern of relationship between Mark and Matthew is evident. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 29, 30. A somewhat similar relationship exists between Mark and Luke, beginning with the account of Jesus welcoming the little children (Mark 10:13–16) and running from that point on to the close of these two books. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 15, 16.

This does not mean, however, that every Marcan section has its parallel in Matthew or in Luke or in both. Of 62 sections into which Mark 6:14–16:8 can be divided, with separate heading for each, 5 have no real parallel in Matthew (the Marcan sections being 7:31–37; 8:22–26; 9:38–41; 12:41–44; 14:51, 52). Of the 42 sections into which Mark 10:13–16:8 can be divided, 8 (Mark 10:35–45; 11:12–14; 11:20–25; 11:28–34—on this last one see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 808, footnote 763—; 13:32–36; 14:3–9; 14:51, 52; 15:16–20) have no clear parallel in Luke. This still means that by far the most sections of Mark’s Gospel, from 10:13 on, are paralleled both in Matthew and in Luke, the three accounts running side by side.

It is not claimed that the probably basic Marcan sections are by Mark always arranged in strictly chronological fashion. Here and there the Marcan connectives are indefinite as to time (10:13, 17; 12:1; 14:10). Besides, Mark has no nativity account. Also, it does not cover any Early Judean or any Later Judean Ministry. It was definitely not Mark’s purpose to present any “Biography” or “Life” of Christ. Nor did he try to summarize Christ’s discourses, referring to each of them in the order in which it was delivered.⁶ All that is meant is that in emphasis on chronological arrangement Mark, rather than Matthew or Luke, has furnished us with a guide. Note the many definite time and place indications (10:32, 46; 11:1, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 27; 13:1, 3; 14:1, 3, 12, 17, 22, 26, 32, 43; 15:1, 22, 33, 42; 16:1, 2; these in addition to the ones found in the first nine chapters).

In conclusion, if one is looking for a Gospel chracterized by compactness, vividness, and chronological orderliness, he will find it especially in the Gospel according to Mark!

V. HOW IS IT ORGANIZED?

The Gospel according to Mark contains no birth-of-Jesus narrative. However, its very first chapter gives expression to the came-from-heaven truth (see verse 38b). Not only was Jesus born, he came. There is no sound reason to believe that the thirty-eighth verse of Mark 1 has any other basic meaning than the thirty-eighth verse of John 6. Jesus came from heaven with a purpose. What that purpose was is plainly stated in Mark, namely, “to preach” (1:38), “to call sinners (to repentance)” (2:17), “to give his life a ransom for many” (10:45). With this may be compared “to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10); “sinners to save” (I Tim. 1:15). Paul says, “He became poor in order that through his poverty you might become rich” (II Cor. 8:9).

“The Father sent his Son into the world” with a task to perform, namely, to be “the Savior of the world” (I John 4:14). A good theme (see John 17:4b) for the story told in any or all of the Gospels is therefore:

The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do

The broad divisions would be the same for the three Synoptics, namely, this work (or this task):

I. Begun

II. Continued

III. Accomplished

Or, in slightly different phraseology:

I. Its Beginning or Inauguration

II. Its Progress or Continuation

III. Its Climax or Consummation

For the subdivisions of Mark, under each of these main headings, see Table of Contents and the Outlines at the opening of the chapters.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

¹ For the evidence in support of these several dates see the author’s Bible Survey, pp. 62–64, 70, 71; also N.T.C. on Gal. 2:1.

² See H. B. Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, London, 1913, pp. xxxvi–xxxviii.

³ It is true that according to a rather common interpretation of the words of Irenaeus quoted above (p. 11) Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter’s death. However, aside from the fact that Irenaeus confirms the well-nigh unanimous tradition according to which this Gospel was written in Rome by “Peter’s interpreter,” the words of this witness are too controversial to shed much light on the date of the book. Many questions arise: Is Irenaeus summarizing when he states that “Peter and Paul went westward”? How is it possible that they “founded” the church in Rome, or is this witness using the word “founding” in a sense other than the usual? Just what does he mean by “after their departure”?

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

⁴ However, parables can be counted differently. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 22–24.

⁵

As to the vocabulary and style of the original note the following:

a. The words used in Mark’s Gospel are listed in H. B. Swete, op. cit., pp. 409–424. Those preceded by an asterisk are not used elsewhere in the New Testament. There are approximately 80 of these, not counting proper names.

b. As to style, in general it can be stated that Mark’s is not only the most diffuse but also the most vivid; Matthew’s is more succinct and polished; Luke’s is the most versatile of the three.

c. The graphic character of Mark’s manner of writing appears from the following: his description of Christ’s looks on various occasions (3:5, 34; 10:23; 11:11); the latter’s acts and gestures (8:33; 9:35, 36; 10:16, 32); emotions and feelings (3:5; 6:34; 7:34; 8:12, 33; 10:14, 21; 11:12); and the persons near him (1:29, 36; 3:6, 22; 11:11, 21; 13:3; 14:65; 15:21; 16:7). Sometimes Mark mentions the number of the persons, animals, etc. present, where the other Gospels either omit any reference to it or express it in a different manner (5:13; 6:7, 40; 14:30). Place and time indications abound in this Gospel (1:16, 19, 21, 32, 35; 2:1, 13, 14; 3:1, 7, 13, 20; 4:1, 10, 35; 5:1, 20; 7:31; 12:41; 13:3; 14:68; 16:5, to give but a few examples).

d. Frequent change of tenses is another characteristic that adds to the vividness of Mark’s style. Mark also frequently uses a tense that differs from the one found in Matthew and/or Luke. Examples: ἐγγίζουσιν (they approach, Mark 11:1) versus ἤγγισεν (he approached, Luke 19:29); in the same verse ἀποστέλλει (he sends) versus ἀπέστειλεν (he sent). So also φέρουσιν (they bring, Mark 11:7) versus ἤγαγον (they brought, Luke 19:35); in the same verse ἐπιβάλλουσιν (they throw on) versus ἐπιρίψαντες (a synonym: having thrown on). In general it may be said that in many instances where Mark uses the present tense Matthew and Luke use the aorist or the imperfect. See J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 143–153.

e. Another striking difference between Mark, on the one hand, and Matthew and Luke, on the other, is the latter two’s preference for the particle δέ over against Mark’s strong leaning toward the use of καί. Thus, in the paragraph from which examples showing difference in tense were just cited (Mark 11:1–8 compared with Luke 19:29–35) Luke uses καί five times to introduce a clause or phase, Mark a dozen times. In these same seven verses Luke uses δέ three times (also once in verse 36 and once in verse 37); Mark only once (also once in verse 8). On this point see also Mark 16:9–20.

f. In connection with Mark’s generous use of καί it should also be mentioned that it is characteristic of Matthew and Luke that they frequently substitute a participle for Mark’s finite verb with καί. In such cases the two favor subordination, where Mark co-ordinates.—On Semitic influence in Mark see Gram.N.T., pp. 106, 118, 119; also Gram.N.T. (Bl.-Debr.), par. 321, 353. And see on 13:19, 20.

g. A characteristic that adds to Mark’s sparkling mode of expression is the frequent use of the adverb εὐθύς: at once, immediately (about forty times: 1:10, 12, 18, etc.). In line with this is also his use of direct (instead of indirect) discourse: “Hush. Be still!” (4:39); “Unclean spirit, come out of the man!” (5:8); “What is your name?” (5:9); “Send us into the swine so that we may enter them” (5:12).

h. In view of all that has been mentioned it is not strange that Mark’s style is emphatically vernacular. Here is a common man speaking to common, mostly uneducated, people. He uses a style that attracts their attention, language that is both his and theirs. It is not surprising therefore that he makes frequent use of diminutives; such as θυγάτριον (5:23; 7:25); κοράσιον (5:41, 42; 6:22, 28); κυνάριον (7:27, 28); loves the popular double negative (1:44; 5:3; 16:8); is not afraid to employ a pleonastic phrase (τότε ἐν ἐκειίνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, 2:20); and is fond of compound verbs (1:16, 36; 2:4; 5:5; 8:12; 9:12, 15, 36; 10:16; 12:17; 14:40; 16:4, etc.).

⁶ Therefore, even though the quotation from Papias (via Eusebius; see above, p. 12) is not entirely clear, it can be given an interpretation that is in harmony with the facts.

⁷ The relative priority of Mark’s Gospel as compared with Matthew and Luke has been discussed in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 36–42. In the same work see also the section on the three Synoptic Gospels viewed under the symbolism of three rivers, pp. 25–32.

↑ Back to top