International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

The Gospel begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the announcement of the Resurrection, if the last 12 verses be not included. These add post-resurrection appearances, the Commission, the Ascension, and a brief summary of apostolic activity. Thus its limits correspond closely with those indicated by Peter in Act 10:37-43. Nothing is said of the early Judean ministry. The Galilean ministry and Passion Week with the transition from the one to the other (in Acts 10) practically make up the Gospel.

Matter peculiar to Mark is found in Mar 4:26-29 (the seed growing secretly); Mar 3:21 (his kindred's fear); Mar 7:32-37 (the deaf and dumb man); Mar 8:22-26 (the blind man); Mar 13:33-37 (the householder and the exhortation to watch); Mar 14:51 (the young man who escaped). But, in addition to this, there are many vivid word-touches with which the common material is lighted up, and in not a few of the common incidents Mark's account is very much fuller; e.g. 6:14-29 (death of John the Baptist); Mk 7:1-23 (on eating with unwashen hands); 9:14-29 (the demoniac boy); Mar 12:28-34 (the questioning scribe). There is enough of this material to show clearly that the author could not have been wholly dependent on the other evangelists. Hawkins reckons the whole amount of peculiar material at about fifty verses (Hor. Syn., 11).

In striking contrast to Matthew who, in parallel passages, calls attention to the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, Mark only once quotes the Old Testament and that he puts in the very forefront of his Gospel. The Isa part of his composite quotation appears in all 4 Gospels; the Malachi part in Mark only, though there is a reflection of it in Joh 3:28. This fact alone might convey an erroneous impression of the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Testament. Though Mark himself makes only this one twofold reference, yet he represents Jesus as doing so frequency. The difference in this respect between him and Matthew is not great. He has 19 formal quotations as compared with 40 in Matthew, 17 in Luke and 12 in John. Three of the 19 are not found elsewhere. The total for the New Testament is 160, so that Mark has a fair proportion. When Old Testament references and loose citations are considered the result is much the same. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek give Matthew 100, Mark 58, Luke 86, John 21, Acts 107. Thus. the Old Testament lies back of Mark also as the authoritative word of God. Swete (Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 393) points out that in those quotations which are common to the synoptists the Septuagint is usually followed; in others, the Hebrew more frequently. (A good illustration is seen in Mar 7:7 where the Septuagint is followed in the phrase, “in vain do they worship me” - a fair para-phrase of the Hebrew; but “teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” is a more correct representation of the Hebrew than the Septuagint gives.) Three quotations are peculiar to Mark, namely, Mar 9:48; Mar 10:19; Mar 12:32.

Judged by the space occupied, Mark is a Gospel of deeds. Jesus is a worker. His life is one of strenuous activity. He hastens from one task to another with energy and decision. The word εὐθύς, euthús, i.e. “straightway,” is used 42 times as against Matthew's 7 and Luke's 1. In 14 of these, as compared with 2 in Matthew and none in Luke, the word is used of the personal activity of Jesus. It is not strange therefore that the uneventful early years should be passed over (compare Joh 2:11). Nor is it strange that miracles should be more numerous than parables. According to Westcott's classification (Introduction to Study of the Gospel, 480-86), Mark has 19 miracles and only 4 parables, whereas the corresponding figures for Matthew are 21 to 15 and for Luke 20 to 19. Of the miracles 2 are peculiar to Mark, of the parables only 1. The evangelist clearly records the deeds rather than the words of Jesus. These facts furnish another point of contact with Peter's speeches in Acts - the beneficent character of the deeds in Act 10:38, and their evidential significance in Act 2:22 (compare Mar 1:27; Mar 2:10, etc.).

The following are the miracles recorded by Mark: the unclean spirit (Mar 1:21-28), the paralytic (Mar 2:1-12), the withered hand (Mar 3:1-5), the storm stilled (Mar 4:35-41), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-17), Jairus' daughter (Mar 5:22 ff), the woman with the issue (Mar 5:25-34), feeding the 5,000 (Mar 6:35-44), feeding the 4,000 (Mar 8:1-10), walking on the water (Mar 6:48 ff); the Syrophoenician's daughter (Mar 7:24-30), the deaf mute (Mar 7:31-37), the blind man (Mar 8:22-26), the demoniac boy (Mar 9:14 ff), blind Bartimeus (Mar 10:46-52), the fig tree withered (Mar 11:20 ff), the resurrection (Mar 16:1 ff). For an interesting classification of these see Westcott's Introduction to Study of the Gospels, 391. Only the last three belong to Judea.

Though what has been said is true, yet Mark is by no means silent about Jesus as a teacher. John the Baptist is a preacher (Mar 1:4, Mar 1:7), and Jesus also is introduced as a preacher, taking up and enlarging the message of John. Very frequent mention is made of him as teaching (e.g. Mar 1:21; Mar 2:13; Mar 6:6, etc.); indeed the words διδαχή, didachḗ, and διδάσκω, didáskō, occur more frequently in Mark than in any other Gospel. Striking references are made to His originality, methods, popularity and peerlessness as a teacher (Mar 1:22; Mar 4:1 f, 33; 11:27 through 12:37; especially Mar 12:34). A miracle is definitely declared to be for the purpose of instruction (Mar 2:10), and the implication is frequent that His miracles were not only the dictates of His compassion, but also purposed self-revelations (Mar 5:19 f; Mar 11:21-23). Not only is He Himself a teacher, but He is concerned to prepare others to be teachers (Mar 3:13 f; Mar 4:10 f). Mark is just as explicit as Matthew in calling attention to the fact that at a certain stage He began teaching the multitude in parables, and expounding the parables to His disciples (Mar 4:2-11 f). He mentions, however, only four of them - the Sower (Mk 4:1-20), the Seed Growing Secretly (Mar 4:26-29), the Mustard Seed (Mar 4:30-32) and the Husband-men (Mar 12:1-12). The number of somewhat lengthy discourses and the total amount of teaching is considerably greater than is sometimes recognized. Mark 4 and 13 approach most nearly to the length of the discourses in Matthew and correspond to Mt 13 and 24 respectively. But in Mk 7:1-23; 9:33-50; 10:5-31, Mar 10:39-45 and 12:1-44 we have quite extensive sayings. If Jesus is a worker, He is even more a teacher. His works prepare for His words rather than His words for His works. The teachings grew naturally out of the occasion and the circumstances. He did and taught. Because He did what He did He could teach with effectiveness. Both works and words reveal Himself.

There is a multitude of graphic details: Mark mentions actions and gestures of Jesus (Mar 7:33; Mar 9:36; Mar 10:16) and His looks of inquiry (Mar 5:32), in prayer (Mar 6:41; Mar 7:34), of approval (Mar 3:34), love (Mar 10:21), warning (to Judas especially Mar 10:23), anger (Mar 3:5), and in judgment (Mar 11:11). Jesus hungers (Mar 11:12), seeks rest in seclusion (Mar 6:31) and sleeps on the boat cushion (Mar 4:38); He pities the multitude (Mar 6:34), wonders at men's unbelief (Mar 6:6), sighs over their sorrow and blindness (Mar 6:34; Mar 8:12), grieves at their hardening (Mar 3:5), and rebukes in sadness the wrong thought of His mother and brothers, and in indignation the mistaken zeal and selfish ambitions of His disciples (Mar 8:33; Mar 10:14). Mark represents His miracles of healing usually as instantaneous (Mar 1:31; Mar 2:11 f; Mar 3:5), sometimes as gradual or difficult (Mar 1:26; Mar 7:32-35; Mar 9:26-28), and once as flatly impossible “because of their unbelief” (Mar 6:6). With many vivid touches we are told of the behavior of the people and the impression made on them by what Jesus said or did. They bring their sick along the streets and convert the market-place into a hospital (Mar 1:32), throng and jostle Him by the seaside (Mar 3:10), and express their astonishment at His note of authority (Mar 1:22) and power (Mar 2:12). Disciples are awed by His command over the sea (Mar 4:41), and disciples and others are surprised and alarmed at the strange look of dread as He walks ahead alone, going up to Jerusalem and the cross (Mar 10:32). Many other picturesque details are given, as in Mar 1:13 (He was with the wild beasts); Mar 2:4 (digging through the roof); Mar 4:38 (lying asleep on the cushion); Mar 5:4 (the description of the Gerasene demoniac); Mar 6:39 (the companies, dressed in many colors and looking like flower beds on the green mountain-side). Other details peculiar to Mark are: names (Mar 1:29; Mar 3:6; Mar 13:3; Mar 15:21), numbers (Mar 5:13; Mar 6:7), time (Mar 1:35; Mar 2:1; Mar 11:19; Mar 16:2), and place (Mar 2:13; Mar 3:8; Mar 7:31; Mar 12:41; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:68 and Mar 15:39). These strongly suggest the observation of an eyewitness as the final authority, and the geographical references suggest that even the writer understood the general features of the country, especially of Jerusalem and its neighborhood. (For complete lists see Lindsay, Mark's Gospel, 26 ff.)

Of the 53 select readings noted by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek (Intro), only a few are of special interest or importance. The following are to be accepted: ἐν τῷ Ἠσαία τῷ προφήτῃ, (Mar 1:2) ἁμαρτήματος, (Mar 3:29); πλήρης, (indeclinable, Mar 4:28); ὁ τεκτων, (Mar 6:3; Jesus is here called “the carpenter”); αὐτοῦ, (Mar 6:22, Herod's daughter probably had two names, Salome and Herodias); πυγμῆ, (Mar 7:23, “with the fist,” i.e. “thoroughly,” not πυκνά, “oft”). Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek are to be followed in rejecting πιστεῦσαι, (leaving the graphic Εί δύνῃ, (Mar 9:23)); καὶ νηστείᾳ, (Mar 9:29); πᾶσα...ἀλισθήσεται (Mar 9:49); τοῦς ...χρήμασι (Mar 10:24); but not in rejecting υίοῦ θεοῦ (Mar 1:1). They are probably wrong in retaining οὔς ὠνόμασαν (Mar 3:14; it was probably added from Luk 6:31); and in rejecting καί κλινῶν and accepting ῥαντίσωνται instead of βαπτίσωνται (Mar 7:4; ignorance of the extreme scrupulosity of the Jews led to these scribal changes; compare Luk 11:38, where ἐβαπτίσθη is not disputed). So one may doubt ἠπόρει (Mar 6:20), and suspect it of being an Alexandrian correction for ἐποίει which was more difficult and yet is finely appropriate.

The most important textual problem is that of Mar 16:9-20. Burgon and Miller and Salmon believe it to be genuine. Miller supposes that up to that point Mark had been giving practically Peter's words, that for some reason those then failed him and that Mar 16:9-20 are drawn from his own stores. The majority of scholars regard them as non-Markan; they think Mar 16:8 is not the intended conclusion; that if Mark ever wrote a conclusion, it has been lost, and that Mar 16:9-20, embodying traditions of the Apostolic Age, were supplied later. Conybeare has found in an Armenian manuscript a note referring these verses to the presbyter Ariston, whom he identifies with that Aristion, a disciple of John, of whom Papias speaks. Many therefore would regard them as authentic, and some accept them as clothed with John's authority. They are certainly very early, perhaps as early as 100 AD, and have the support of Codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Bezae, Xi, Gamma, Delta, Zeta all late uncials, all cursives, most versions and Fathers, and were known to the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, who, however, do not accept them.

Of his 1, 330 words, 60 are proper names. Of the rest 79 are peculiar to Mark, so far as the New Testament is concerned; 203 are found elsewhere only in the Synoptics, 15 only in John's Gospel, 23 only in Paul (including Hebrews), 2 in the Catholic Epistles (1 in James, 1 in 2 Peter), 5 in the Apocalypse (Revelation) (see Swete, Commentary on Mark). Rather more than a fourth of the 79 are non-classical as compared with one-seventh for Luke and a little more than one-seventh for Mr. Hawkins also gives a list of 33 unusual words or expressions. The most interesting of the single words are σχιζομένους, schizoménous, ἤφιεν, ḗphien, κωμοπόλεις, kōmopóleis, ἐκεφαλιωσαν, ekephalíōsan, προαύλιον, proaúlion, and ὄτι, hóti, in the sense of “why” (Mar 2:16; Mar 9:11, Mar 9:28); of the expressions, the distributives in Mar 6:7, Mar 6:39 f and Mar 14:19, the Hebraistic εἰ δοθήσεται, and ὄταν with the indicative. Of ordinary constructions the following are found with marked frequency: καί (reducing his use of δέ to half of Matthew's or Luke's), historic present (accounting for the very frequent use of λέγει instead of εἶπεν), the periphrastic imperfect, the article with infinitives or sentences, participles, and prepositions.

There are indications that the writer in earlier life was accustomed to think in Aramaic. Occasionally that fact shows itself in the retention of Aramaic words which are proportionately rather more numerous than in Matthew and twice as numerous as in Luke or John. The most interesting of these are ταλειθά κούμ, taleithá koúm, ἐφφαθά, ephphathá, and Βοανηργές, Boanērgés, each uttered at a time of intense feeling.

For certain words he has great fondness: εὐύς 42 times; ἀκάθαρτος 11 times; βλέπω, and its compounds very frequently; so ἐπερωτᾶν, ὑπάγιεν, ἐξουσία, εὐαγγέλιον, προσκαλεῖσθαι, ἐπιτιμᾶν compounds of πορεύεσθαι, ουνζητειν, and such graphic words as ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, ἐναγκαλίζεσθαι, and φιμοῦσθαι. The following he uses in an unusual sense: ἐνεῖχεν, πυγμῇ, ἀπεχει, ἐπιβαλών.

The same exact and vivid representation of the facts of actual experience accounts for the anacolutha and other broken constructions, e.g. Mar 4:31 f; Mar 5:23; Mar 6:8 f; Mar 11:32. Some are due to the insertion of explanatory clauses, as in Mar 7:3-5; some to the introduction of a quotation as in Mar 7:11 f. These phenomena represent the same type of mind as we have already seen (II., 6. above).

The style is very simple. The common connective is καί, kaí. The stately periods of the classics are wholly absent. The narrative is commonly terse and concise. At times, however, a multitude of details are crowded in, resulting in unusual fullness of expression. This gives rise to numerous duplicate expressions as in Mar 1:32; Mar 2:25; Mar 5:19 and the like, which become a marked feature of the style. The descriptions are wonderfully vivid. This is helped out by the remarkably frequent use of the historic present, of which there are 151 examples, as contrasted with 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke, apart from its use in parables. Mark never uses it in parables, whereas Matthew has 15 cases, and Luke has 5. John has 162, a slightly smaller proportion than Mark on the whole, but rather larger in narrative parts. But Mark's swift passing from one tense to another adds a variety and vividness to the narrative not found in John.

Some have thought it was written in Latin. The only real support for that view is the subscription in a few manuscripts (e.g. 160, 161, ἐγράφη Ῥωμαΐστί ἐν Ῥώμῃ, egráphē Rhōmaistí en Rhṓmē) and in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac. It is a mistaken deduction from the belief that it was written in Rome or due to the supposition that “interpreter of Peter” meant that Mark translated Peter's discourses into Latin

Papias - Asia Minor, circa 125 AD - (quoted by Eus., HE, III, 39): “And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter (ἐρμηνεύτης, hermēneútēs) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account (σύνταξιν, súntaxin) of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them.”

Irenaeus - Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD - (Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eus., HE, V, 8): “After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out (“exierunt,” in Rufinus' translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure (ἔξοδον, “exitum” in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter (ἑρμηνεύτης, hermēneútēs) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter.”

Origen - Alexandria and the East, c 240 AD - (“Comm. on Mt” quoted in Eus., HE, VI, 25): “The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter (ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, hōs Pétros huphēgḗsato autṓ), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son.”

Eusebius - Caesarea, circa 325 AD - (Dem. Evang., III, 5): “Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant (γνώριμος καὶ φοιτητής, gnṓrimes kaí phoitētḗs) made memoirs of (or recorded, ἀπομνημονεῦσαι, apomnēmoeúsai) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus.” “Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter.”

Epiphanius - Cyprus, circa 350 AD - (Haer., 41): “But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower (ἁκόλουθος, akólouthos) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians.”

That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin's reference to the surname “Boanerges” supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned (Mar 3:17).

A second point is equally clear - that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter's. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes “Marcus, my son” (1Pe 5:13 the King James Version) in this connection. “Disciple” is self-explanatory. “Follower” is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. “Interpreter” is less clear. One view equates it with “translator,” because Mark translated either Peter's Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter's Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view - that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon) - is that it means “interpreter” simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (HDB, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).

The Muratorian Fragment is not clear. Its broken sentence has been differently understood. Zahn completes it thus: “(ali) quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit,” and understands it to mean that “at some incidents (in the life of Jesus), however, he was present and so put them down.” Chase (HDB) and others regard “quibus tamen” as a literal translation of the Greek οἶς δὲ, hoís dé, and believe the meaning to be that Mark, who had probably just been spoken of as not continuously with Peter, “was present at some of this discourses and so recorded them.” Chase feels that the phrase following respecting Luke: “Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne,” compels the belief that Mark like Luke had not seen the Lord. But Paul, not Mark, may be there in mind, and further, this interpretation rather belittles Mark's association with Peter.

The patristic testimony may be regarded as summarized in the title of the work in our earliest manuscripts, namely, κατὰ Μάρκον, katá Márkon. This phrase must refer to the author, not his source of information, for then it would necessarily have been κατὰ Πέτρον, katá Pétron. This is important as throwing light on the judgment of antiquity as to the authorship of the first Gospel, which the manuscripts all entitle κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, katá Matthaíon.

(1) The many vivid details referred to above (III, 6) must have come from an eyewitness. The frequent use of λέγει, légei, in Mark and Matthew where Luke uses εἶπεν, eípen, works in the same direction.

(2) Certain awkward expressions in lists of names can best be explained as Mark's turning of Peter's original, e.g. Mar 1:29, where Peter may have said, “We went home, James and John accompanying us.” So in Mar 1:36 (contrasted with Luke's impersonal description, Luk 4:42 f); Mar 3:16; Mar 13:3.

(3) Two passages (Mar 9:6 and Mar 11:21) describe Peter's own thought; others mention incidents which Peter would be most likely to mention: e.g. Mar 14:37 and Mar 14:66-72 (especially imperfect ἠρνεῖτα, ērneíto); Mar 16:7; Mar 7:12-23 in view of Act 10:15).

(4) In Mar 3:7 the order of names suits Peter's Galilean standpoint rather than that of Mark in Jerusalem - Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Perea, Tyre, Sidon. The very artlessness of these hints is the best kind of proof that we are in touch with one who saw with his own eyes and speaks out of his own consciousness.

(5) Generally Mark, like Matthew, writes from the standpoint of the Twelve more frequently than Luke; and Mark, more frequently than Matthew, from the standpoint of the three most honored by Jesus. Compare Mar 5:37 with Mat 9:23, where Matthew makes no reference to the three; the unusual order of the names in Luke's corresponding passage (Luk 8:51) suggests that James was his ultimate source. The language of Mar 9:14 is clearly from one of the three, Luke's may be, but Matthew's is not. The contrast in this respect between the common synoptic material and Lk 9:51 through 18:14 lends weight to this consideration.

(6) The scope of the Gospel which corresponds to that outlined in Peter's address to Cornelius (Act 10:37-41).

It may seem to militate against all this that the three striking incidents in Peter's career narrated in Mat 14:28-33 (walking on the water), Mat 17:24-27 (tribute money), and Mat 16:16-19 (the church and the keys), should be omitted in Mark. But this is just a touch of that fine courtesy and modesty which companionship with Jesus bred. We see John in his Gospel hiding himself in a similar way. These men are more likely to mention the things that reflect discredit on themselves. It is only in Matthew's list of the Twelve that he himself is called “the publican.” So “Peter never appears in a separate role in Mark except to receive a rebuke” (Bacon).

There may be something in Zahn's point that the description of John as brother of James is an unconscious betrayal of the fact that the author's own name was John. There are two other passages, however, which are clearer and which reinforce each other. The story of the youth in Mar 14:51 seems to be of a different complexion from other Gospel incidents. But if Mark himself was the youth, its presence is explained and vindicated. In that case it is likely that the Supper was celebrated in his own home and that the upper room is the same as that in Acts 12. This is favored by the fuller description of it in Mark, especially the word “ready” - a most natural touch, the echo of the housewife's exclamation of satisfaction when everything was ready for the guests. It is made almost a certainty when we compare Mar 14:17 with the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Mat 26:20 reads: “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples”; Luk 22:14 : “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him”; while Mark has: “And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve.” The last represents exactly the standpoint of one in the home who sees Jesus and the Twelve approaching. (And how admirably the terms “the twelve disciples,” “the apostles” and “the twelve” suit Matthew, Luke, and Mark respectively.) Such phenomena, undesigned (save by the inspiring Spirit), are just those that would not have been invented later, and become the strongest attestation of the reliability of the tradition and this historicity of the narrative. Modern views opposed to this are touched upon in what follows.

In forming a judgment much depends upon one's conception of the teaching method of Jesus and the apostles. Teaching and preaching are not synonymous terms. Matthew sums up the early ministry in Galilee under “teaching, preaching and healing,” and gives us the substance of that teaching as it impressed itself upon him. Mark reports less of it, but speaks of it more frequently than either Matthew or Luke. Jesus evidently gave teaching a very large place, and a large proportion of the time thus spent was devoted to the special instruction of the inner circle of disciples. The range of that instruction was not wide. It was intensive rather than extensive. He held Himself to the vital topic of the kingdom of God. He must have gone over it again and again. He would not hesitate to repeat instructions which even chosen men found it so difficult to understand. Teaching by repetition was common then as it is now in the East. The word “catechize” (κατηχέω, kạtēchéō) implies that, and that word is used by Paul of Jewish (Rom 2:18) and by Luke of Christian teaching (Luk 1:4). See CATECHIST.

The novelty in His teaching was not in method so much as in content, authority and accompanying miraculous power (Mar 1:27). Certainly He was far removed from vain repetition. His supreme concern was for the spirit. Just as certainly He was not concerned about a mere reputation for originality or for wealth and variety of resources. He was concerned about teaching them the truth so effectively that they would be prepared by intellectual clearness, as well as spiritual sympathy, to make it known to others. And God by His Providence, so kind to all but so often thwarted by human self-will was free to work His perfect work for Him and make all things work together for the furtherance of His purpose. Thus incidents occur, situations arise and persons of all types appear on the scene, calling forth fresh instruction, furnishing illustration and securing the presentation of truth in fullness with proper balance and emphasis and in right perspective.

The apostles' conception of their task is indicated in some measure by Peter when he insisted that an indispensable qualification in a successor to Judas was that he must have been with them from the beginning to the end of Christ's ministry, and so be conversant with His words and deeds. From the day of Pentecost onward they gave themselves preeminently to teaching. The thousands converted on that day continued in the teaching of the apostles. When the trouble broke out between Hebrews and Hellenists, the Seven were appointed because the apostles could not leave the word of God to serve tables. The urgency of this business may have been one reason why they stayed in Jerusalem when persecution scattered so many of the church (Act 8:2). They were thus in close touch for years, not only through the struggle between Hebrews and Hellenists, but until the admission of the GentileCornelius and his friends by Peter had been solemnly ratified by the church in Jerusalem and possibly until the Council had declared against the contention that circumcision was necessary for salvation. During these years they had every opportunity for mutual conference, and the vital importance of the questions that arose would compel them to avail themselves of such opportunities. Their martyr-like devotion to Jesus would make them quick to challenge anything that might seem a misrepresentation of His teaching. The Acts account of their discussions at great crises proves that conclusively. To their success in training others and the accuracy of the body of catechetical instruction Luke pays fine tribute when he speaks of the “certainty” or undoubted truth of it (Luk 1:4). Thus Jesus' post-resurrection expositions, the experience of the years and the guidance of the Spirit are the source and explanation of the apostolic presentation of the gospel.

Of that company Peter was the recognized leader, and did more than any other to determine the mold into which at least the post-resurrection teachings were cast. Luke tells us of many attempts to record them. He himself in his brief reports of Peter's addresses sketches their broad outlines. Mark, at the request of Roman Christians and with Peter's approval, undertook to give an adequate account. Two special facts influenced the result - one, the character of the people for whom he wrote; the other, the existence (as we may assume) of Matthew's Q. It would be natural for him to supplement rather than duplicate that apostolic summary. Moreover, since Q presented mainly the ethical or law side of Christianity the supplement would naturally present the gospel side of it - and so become its complement - while at the same time this presentation and the needs of the people for whom he specially writes make it necessary to add something from the body of catechetical material, oral or written, not included in Q, as his frequent καὶ ἔλεγεν, kaí élegen, seems to imply (Buckley, 152 ff). So Mk's is “the beginning of the Gospel.” He introduces Jesus in the act of symbolically devoting Himself to that death for our sins and rising again, which constitutes the gospel and then entering upon His ministry by calling upon the people to “repent and believe in the gospel.” The book is written from the standpoint of the resurrection, and gives the story of the passion and of the ministry in a perspective thus determined. About the same time it may be, Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, combines this gospel side of the teaching with his own Q side of it, adding from the common stock or abridging as his purpose might suggest or space might demand. Later Luke does a similar service for Greek Christians (compare Harnack, The Twofold Gospel in the New Testament).

The only serious question about the integrity of the book concerns the last twelve verses, for a discussion of which see under III above. Some have suggested that Mar 1:1-13 is akin to Mar 16:9-20, and may have been added by the same hand. But while vocabulary and connection are main arguments against the genuineness of the latter, in both these respects Mar 1:1-13 is bound up with the main body of the book. Nor is there sufficient reason for denying Mark 13 as a true report of what Jesus said. Wendling's theory of three strata assignable to three different writers - historian, poet, and theologian - is quite overdrawn. Barring the closing verses, there is nothing which can possibly demand anything more than an earlier and a later edition by Mark himself, and the strongest point in favor of that is Luke's omission of Mk 6:45 through 8:26. But Hawkins gives other reasons for that.

Ancient testimony is sharply divided. The Paschal Chronicle puts it in 40 AD, and many manuscripts, both uncial and cursive (Harnack, Chronologie, 70, 124) 10 or 12 years after the Ascension. These Swete sets aside as due to the mistaken tradition that Peter began work in Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius (42 AD). Similarly he would set aside the opinion of Chrysostom (which has some manuscripts subscriptions to support it) that it was written in Alexandria, as an error growing out of the statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 16) that Mark went to Egypt and preached there the Gospel he composed. This he does in deference to the strong body of evidence that it was written in Rome about the time of Peter's death. Still there remains a discrepancy between Irenaeus, as commonly understood, and the other Fathers. For, so understood, Irenaeus places it after the death of Peter, whereas Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen and Clement of Alexandria clearly place it within Peter's lifetime. But it does not seem necessary so to understand Irenaeus. It may be that it was composed while Peter was living, but only published after his death. Christopherson (1570 AD) had suggested that and supported it by the conjectural emendation of ἔκδοσιν, ékdosin, “surrendering,” “imprisonment” for ἔξοδον, éxodon, in Irenaeus. Grabe, Mill and others thought Irenaeus referred, not to Peter's death, but to his departure from Rome on further missionary tours. But if we take exodon in that sense, it is better to understand by it departure from Palestine or Syria, rather than from Rome. Irenaeus' statement that the apostles were now fully furnished for the work of evangelization (Adv. Haer., iii. 1) certainly seems to imply that they were now ready to leave Palestine; and his next statement is that Matthew and Mark wrote their respective Gospels. And Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 24) states explicitly that Matthew committed his Gospel to writing “when he was about” to leave Palestine “to go to other peoples.” The same may very possibly be true of Mark. If the fact be that Romans in Caesarea or Antioch made the request of Mark, we can easily understand how, by the time of Irenaeus, the whole incident might be transferred to Rome.

If this view be adopted, the date would probably not be before the council at Jerusalem and the events of Gal 2:11 ff. It is true the New Testament hints are that the apostles had left Jerusalem before that, but that they had gone beyond Syria is not likely. At any rate, at the time of the clash at Antioch they had not become so clear on the question touching Jews and Gentiles in the church as to be “fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization.” But may it not be that Paul's strong statement of the seriousness of their error actually did settle those questions in the minds of the leaders? If so, and if with new vision and ardor, they turn to the work of world-wide evangelism, that would be a natural and worthy occasion for the composition of the Gospel. The place may be Caesarea or Antioch, and the date not earlier than 50 AD. This is the simplest synthesis of the ancient testimony. Modern opinion as to date has ranged more widely than the ancient. Baur and Strauss were compelled by their tendency and mythical theories to place it in the 2nd century. Recent criticism tends strongly to a date in the sixties of the 1st century, and more commonly the later sixties. This is based partly on hints in the Gospel itself, partly on its relation to Matthew and Luke. The hints usually adduced are Mar 2:26 and Mar 2:13. The former, representing the temple as still standing, has force only if the relative clause be Mark's explanatory addition. Mark 13 has more force because, if Jerusalem had already fallen, we might expect some recognition of the fact.

Two other slight hints may be mentioned. The omission by the synoptists of the raising of Lazarus, and of the name of Mary in connection with the anointing of Jesus argues an early date when mention of them might have been unpleasant for the family. When the Fourth Gospel was published, they may have been no longer alive. The description of John as the brother of James (Mar 5:37) may also take us back to an early date when James was the more honored of the two brothers - though the unusual order of the names may be due, as Zahn thinks, to the author's instinctively distinguishing that John from himself.

The eagerness to date Matthew not earlier than 70 is due to the same feeling. But the problem here is complicated by the word “immediately” (Mat 24:29). Some regard that as proof positive that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Others (e.g. Allen and Plummer) feel that it absolutely forbids a date much later than 70 AD, and consider 75 AD as a limit. But is it not possible that by by εὐθέως, euthéōs (not παραχρῆμα, parachrḗma), Christ, speaking as a prophet, may have meant no more than that the next great event comparable with the epochal overthrow of Judaism would be His own return and that the Divine purpose marches straight on from the one to the other? The New Testament nowhere says that the second advent would take place within that generation. See below under “Eschatology.” There is therefore no sufficient reason in the Olivet discourse for dating Luke or Matthew later than 60 AD, and if Mark is earlier, it goes back into the fifties.

Older rationalists, like Paulus, not denying Mark's authorship, regarded the miraculous elements as misconceptions of actual events. Strauss, regarding these as mythical, was compelled to postulate a 2nd-century date. When, however, the date was pushed back to the neighborhood of 70 AD, the historicity was felt to be largely established. But recently theory of “pragmatic values” has been developed; Bacon thus states it: “The key to all genuinely scientific appreciation of Biblical narrative ... is the recognition of motive. The motive ... is never strictly historical but always etiological and frequently apologetic....The evangelic tradition consists of so and so many anecdotes, told and retold for the purpose of explaining or defending beliefs and practices of the contemporary church” (Modern Commentary, Beginnings of Gospel Story, 9). Bacon works out the method with the result that Mark is charged again and again with historical and other blunders. This view, like Baur's tendency-theory, has elements of truth. One is that the vocabulary of a later day may be a sort of necessary translation of the original expression. But translation is neither invention nor perversion. The other is that each author has his purpose, but that simply determines his selection and arrangement of material; it neither creates nor misrepresents it if the author be honest and well informed. The word “selection” is advisedly chosen. The evangelists did not lack material. Each of the Twelve had personal knowledge beyond the content of Q or of Mark. These represent the central orb - the one the ethical, the other the evangelic side of it - but there were rays of exceeding brightness radiating from it in all directions. Luke's introduction and John's explicit declaration attest that fact. And neither John nor Luke throws the slightest suspicion on the reliability of the material they did not use. There is no sufficient reason for charging them with misstating the facts to make a point. Bacon seems to trust any other ancient writers or even his own imagination rather than the evangelists. The test becomes altogether too subjective. Yet since Christianity is a historical revelation, perversion of history may become perversion of most vital religious teaching. In the last analysis, the critic undertakes to decide just what Jesus could or could not have done or said. The utter uncertainty of the result is seen by a comparison of Schmiedel and Bacon. The former is sure that the cry “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” is one of the very few genuine sayings of Jesus; Bacon is equally sure that Jesus could not have uttered it. Bacon also charges Mark with “immoral crudity” because in Mar 10:45 he reports Jesus as saying that He came “to give his life a ransom for (ἀντί, antí) many.” Thus, on two most vital matters he charges the evangelists with error because they run counter to his own religious opinions.

Mark's purpose was to write down the Gospel as Peter had presented it to Romans, so say the Fathers, at least, and internal evidence supports them. In any additions made by himself he had the same persons in mind. That the Gospel was for Gentiles can be seen (a) from the translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mar 3:17 (Boanerges), Mar 5:41 (Talitha cumi), Mar 7:11 (Corban), Mar 10:46 (Bartimaeus), Mar 14:36 (Abba), Mar 15:22 (Golgotha); (b) in the explanation of Jewish customs in Mar 14:12 and Mar 15:42; (c) from the fact that the Law is not mentioned and the Old Testament is only once quoted in Mark's own narrative; (d) the Gentile sections, especially in Mark 6 through 8.

That it was for Romans is seen in (a) the explanation of a Greek term by a Latin in Mar 12:42; (b) the preponderance of works of power, the emphasis on authority (Mar 2:10), patience and heroic endurance (Mar 10:17 ff); (c) Mar 10:12 which forbids a practice that was not Jewish but Roman. Those who believe it was written at Rome find further hints in the mention of Rufus (Mar 15:21; compare Rom 16:13) and the resemblance between 7:1-23 and Rom 14. The Roman centurion's remark (15:39) is the Q.E.D. of the author, and bears the same relation to Mark's purpose as Joh 20:31 to John's.

But one cannot escape the feeling that we have in this Gospel the antitype of the Servant of Yahweh. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, 365) tells us that there are two great figures around which Isaiah's thoughts gather - the King and the Servant. The former rises “to the unsurpassable height of 'God with us,' 'mighty God,' teaching that in Him God shall be wholly present with His people.” The Servant is the other. The former is depicted in Mt, who also identifies Him with the Servant (Mat 12:18 f); the latter by Mk who identifies Him with the Messianic King (Mar 11:10; Mar 14:62). Davidson summarizes the description of the Servant: “(1) He is God's chosen; (2) He has a mission to establish judgment on the earth.... The word is His instrument and the Lord is in the Word, or rather He Himself is the impersonation of it; (3) His endowment is the Spirit and an invincible faith; (4) There is in Him a marvelous combination of greatness and lowliness; (5) There are inevitable sufferings - bearing the penalty of others' sins; (6) He thus redeems Israel and brings light to the Gentiles. (7) Israel's repentance and restoration precede that broader blessing.” It is not strange that this Servant-conception - this remarkable blend of strength and submission, achieving victory through apparent defeat - should appeal to Peter. He was himself an ardent, whole-souled man who knew both defeat and victory. Moreover, he himself had hired servants (Mar 1:20), and now for years had been a servant of Christ (compare Act 4:29). That it did appeal to him and became familiar to the early Christians can be seen from Act 3:13 and Act 4:30. In his First Epistle he has 17 references to Isaiah, 9 of which belong to the second part. Temperamentally Mark seems to have been like Peter. And his experience in a wealthy home where servants were kept (Act 12:13), and as himself hupērétēs of apostles in Christian service, fitted him both to appreciate and record the character and doings of the perfect servant - the Servant of Yahweh. For Roman Christians that heroic figure would have a peculiar fascination.

The plan of the Gospel seems to have been influenced by this conception. Christ's kingship was apprehended by the Twelve at a comparatively early date. It was not until after the resurrection, when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures, that they saw Him as the Suffering Servant of Isa 53:1-12. That gave Peter his gospel as we have already seen, and at the same time the general lines of its presentation. We see it sketched for Romans in Acts 10. That sketch is filled in for us by Mark. So we have the following analysis:

Title: Mar 1:1

This Servant-conception may also be the real explanation of some of the striking features of this Gospel, e.g. the absence of a genealogy and any record of His early life; the frequent use of the word “straightway”; the predominance of deeds; the Son's not knowing the day (Mar 13:32); and the abrupt ending at Mar 16:8 (see III).

The main one, naturally, is the Person of Christ. The thesis is that He is Messiah, Son of God, Author (Source) of the gospel. The first half of the book closes with the disciples' confession of His Messiahship; the second, with the supreme demonstration that He is Son of God. Introductory to each is the Father's declaration of Him as His Beloved Son (Mar 1:11; Mar 9:7). That the sonship is unique is indicated in Mar 12:6 and Mar 13:32. At the same time He is the Son of Man - true man (Mar 4:38; Mar 8:5; Mar 14:34); ideal man as absolutely obedient to God (Mar 10:40; Mar 14:36), and Head of humanity (Mar 2:10, Mar 2:28), their rightful Messiah or King (Mar 1:1; Mar 14:62) - yet Servant of all (Mar 10:44 f); David's Son and David's Lord (Mar 12:37). The unique Sonship is the final explanation of all else, His power, His knowledge of both present (Mar 2:5, Mar 2:8; Mar 8:17) and future (Mar 8:31; Mar 10:39; Mar 14:27; 13), superiority to all men, whether friends (Mar 1:7; Mar 9:3 ff) or foes (Mar 12:34), and to superhuman beings, whether good (Mar 13:32) or evil (Mar 1:13, Mar 1:12; Mar 3:27).

The Father speaks in Mar 1:11; Mar 9:7; is spoken of in Mar 13:32; and spoken to in Mar 14:36. The usual distinction between His fatherhood in relation to Christ and in relation to us is seen in Mar 11:25; Mar 12:6 and Mar 13:32. The Spirit is mentioned in Mar 1:8, Mar 1:10, Mar 1:12; Mar 3:29 and Mar 13:11. The last passage especially implies His personality.

As to salvation, the Son is God's final messenger (Mar 12:6); He gives His life a ransom instead of many (Mar 10:45); His blood shed is thus the blood of the covenant (Mar 14:24); that involves for Him death in the fullest sense, including rupture of fellowship with God (Mar 15:34). From the outset He knew what was before Him - only so can His baptism be explained (Mar 1:5, Mar 1:11; compare Mar 2:20); but the horror of it was upon Him, especially from the transfiguration onward (Mar 10:32; Mar 14:33-36); that was the Divine provision for salvation: He gave His life (Mar 10:45). The human condition is repentance and faith (Mar 1:15; Mar 2:5; Mar 5:34, Mar 5:36; Mar 6:5; Mar 9:23; Mar 16:16), though He bestows lesser blessings apart from personal faith (Mar 1:23-26; 5:1-20; Mar 6:35-43). The power of faith, within the will of God, is limitless (Mar 11:25); faith leads to doing the will of God, and only such as do His will are Christ's true kindred (Mar 3:35). Salvation is possible for Gentile as well as Jew (Mar 7:24-30).

The eschatology of this Gospel is found chiefly in Mk 8:34 through 9:1 and Mar 9:13. In Mar 9:1 we have a prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem which is here given as a type and proof of His final coming for judgment and reward which He has had in mind in the preceding verses. Mark 13 is a development of this - the destruction of Jerusalem being meant in 13:5-23 and Mar 13:28-31, the final coming in Mar 13:24-27 and Mar 13:32. The distinction is clearly marked by the pronouns (ταῦτα, taúta, and ἐκείνης, ekeínēs, in Mar 13:30 and Mar 13:32 (compare Mat 24:34, Mat 24:36). In each passage (Mar 9:1; Mar 13:30) the fall of Jerusalem is definitely fixed as toward the close of that generation; the time of the latter is known only to the Father (Mar 13:32). Between Christ's earthly life and the Second Coming He is seated at the right hand of God (Mar 12:36; Mar 16:19). The resurrection which He predicted for Himself (Mar 8:31; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:34) and which actually took place (Mark 16), He affirms for others also (Mar 12:24-27).

Schweizer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research; Emmet, Eschatological Question in the Gospels, 1911; Hogg, Christ's Message of the Kingdom, 1911; Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, 1890; Davidson, Old Testament Theology.

Taken from: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia by James Orr, M.A., D.D., General Editor