I.

Introduction

Gospel According to Mark, second book of the New Testament.

II.

Authorship

The earliest evidence pertinent to the authorship of Mark comes from the 3rd-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who quotes an earlier writer named Papias. Papias himself quotes a statement concerning Mark's Gospel by a still earlier figure whom he calls the “presbyter” (elder): “And the presbyter used to say this: ‘Mark, being Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately, but not in order, that which he remembered of what was said and done by the Lord.’!” It is virtually certain that, in Papias's opinion, this Mark was the John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, mentioned in Acts (see, for instance, Acts 15:37-39), in several letters of Paul (see Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24), and in 1 Peter 5:13. Critical research has been able neither to prove nor to disprove this opinion, but there are reasons to doubt it.

Early Christians tended to link the gospels with one of the 12 apostles. If the text was firmly attributed by early tradition to a man named Mark, Papias's presbyter probably did the best he could with this tradition by identifying this Mark with John Mark in order to link him to the apostle Peter. Hence, many scholars believe that the Gospel was written by an otherwise unknown early Christian named Mark who drew on a large number of traditions in order to compose a tightly organized and compelling narrative.

III.

Date and Place of Composition

In chapter 13, Mark refers to the destruction of Jerusalem either as an event that may shortly happen or as one that has recently happened. Consequently, although scholars do not know whether to date the Gospel shortly before or shortly after ad70, it is virtually certain that it is not far removed from that date.

A tradition as early as the 2nd-century Greek theologian Clement of Alexandria gives Rome as the place of composition, but that view is probably dependent on the assumption that the author wrote down things said by Peter. Clues in the Gospel itself have suggested to numerous scholars that it may have been written in Galilee or Syria.

IV.

Contents

The Gospel tells the story of the adult Jesus from the time of his baptism by John the Baptist to his crucifixion and the angel's report of his resurrection. The opening scenes, set in Judea, portray the activity of John the Baptist, Jesus' baptism, and his temptation by Satan in the wilderness. The scene then shifts (1:14) to Galilee, and for the bulk of the Gospel the reader is taken to various locales in the north, notably in the vicinity of the Lake of Galilee, where Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God and heals the sick. Jesus then travels south (10:1) to the region of Judea, and from Mark 11:11 through the end of the Gospel the scenes are set in and around Jerusalem, where Jesus is arrested, crucified, and buried. When some women from among his followers go to the tomb to care for the body, they discover that the tomb is empty. An angel commands them to tell the disciples, but they speak to no one because they are afraid.

Thus, the Gospel begins and ends in Judea, but a large segment of the intervening activity is located in Galilee. The importance of Galilee is further indicated by a twice-spoken prophecy that after his resurrection Jesus will go to Galilee, and that Galilee will be the locale in which the disciples will see him (14:28, 16:7).

V.

Literary Structure

It is reasonable to assume that the earliest church would have had, as an oral tradition, a rudimentary account of Jesus' Passion, presented as a sequence of developments in Judea, notably in Jerusalem. The church would also have had collections of Jesus' teachings (for example, the parables now in Mark 4) and stories of his deeds, tied—at least in some cases— to locales in Galilee (for example, the miracle stories now in Mark 4, 5, and 6). Mark's most obvious literary achievement lies in his having drawn together many of these Galilean sayings and stories to form an extended introduction to the Jerusalem tradition of Jesus' Passion. Furthermore, the narrative has remarkable dramatic vitality. A note of tension is struck at the very beginning by the brief picture of Jesus' conflict with the cosmic force of evil, Satan, and by the prophetic shadow that the arrest of John the Baptist casts over the inauguration of Jesus' preaching. The tension mounts (see, for instance, 2:6-7; 3:2, 6, 22), until it culminates in open confrontation over Jesus' audacious activity in the Temple (11:18) and his verbal attacks on the Jewish authorities (12:1-12, 38-40). The confrontation then leads to a plan for disposing of Jesus (14:1-2) and finally to his arrest, trial, and crucifixion. In the Passion narrative Jesus' antagonists are human beings, but even here one senses dramatic notes of cosmic conflict in the reference to worldwide darkness at the crucifixion and in the corresponding reference to the rising sun on Easter morning.

Thus, Mark may have drawn his major clues for organizing and presenting the Galilean traditions from the tense, dramatic structure inherent in the Jerusalem tradition of Jesus' Passion. That is to say, he may have threaded the theme of dramatic conflict back through the Galilean materials, consequently presenting the vignettes of Jesus' deeds and teachings as points of confrontation anticipating the climactic events in Jerusalem. The resulting drama is fundamentally apocalyptic, in that it presents Jesus' story as a dualistic cosmic struggle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. It is inaugurated when Jesus, as God's son, invades the territory of Satan, in order to free human beings from Satan's grasp (3:27). The ultimate outcome of the struggle is assured with the resurrection of Jesus, the event after which his true identity, initially kept secret (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30; 9:9), can be clearly revealed (9:9).

VI.

The Conclusion of the Gospel

There are two textual traditions for the ending of the gospel. The majority of Greek manuscripts have the “long ending,” closing with 16:20, but a smaller number extend only through 16:8. The dominant scholarly opinion is that the shorter version is the earlier one—that Mark came to his intended closure with 16:8, and that a 2nd-century scribe, finding that an abrupt and unsatisfying ending, drew on the Gospel of Luke in order to compose what seemed to him a more satisfying conclusion.