Bible Overview is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in Bible study. Each month we feature a book of the Bible (in order) by Bible scholar and lecturer, Mary Jane Chaignot.

This month we continue our exploration of the New Testament with the gospel of Mark. Most scholars now agree that even though Matthew is placed first in the New Testament, Mark was the earlier gospel. And in fact, both Matthew and Luke had access to his material and tweaked it to fit their own messages. If you want to read some of the history previous to this selection, you can find the earlier books in our archives.

The Bible Time-Line in Teaching the Bible is another quick reference for locating individuals or specific books. We encourage readers to share their Bible Study success stories on this site. Email us at overview@biblewise.com to be included on next month's site.

Mark

The gospel of Mark is a masterpiece – at least in the eyes of modern biblical scholars. But that was not always the case. For the better part of 1800 years, Mark was virtually ignored, bracketed as it was by the two more popular gospels of Matthew and Luke. As a matter of fact, some scholars think the only reason Mark made it into the canon was because of his purported association with Peter. An ancient document written by Eusebius in the fourth century quotes Papias (ca 130 CE) who claimed that “Mark was Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord.” Clearly that gave his gospel some stature even though Mark never claimed to have been a follower of Jesus nor did he ever hear him speak. For ages, then, this gospel was thought to be little more than Peter’s memoirs, written after Matthew and Luke and heavily dependent upon them. Since it was so much shorter than the other two, scholars thought that Mark was nothing but an abbreviated version of them. And, frankly, if you read the accounts side by side, most people will think that Matthew and Luke have simply said it better. So, relegated to being a poor copy of what others had already written, Mark was pretty much ignored.

All that opinion changed in the 1830’s after two scholars began to seriously argue for the idea that Mark, indeed, was the original and that Matthew and Luke both copied from him! Their arguments were compelling and after centuries of virtual neglect, Mark suddenly became the focus of scholarly attention. This new view came at a time when scholars were particularly interested in the historical question: what really happened back then, what did Jesus really say? So, they reasoned that if Mark were first, surely this book would be the most reliable in giving the most accurate information about Jesus himself. It would be the clearest, unedited biography of Jesus that was available. But after intensive investigation by some of the finest Biblical scholars, they were forced to conclude that the historical Jesus was very elusive, indeed. No one could say with certainty whether the recorded events happened exactly as Mark told them or if the author had edited them.

Since then scholarship has pursued various methodologies of biblical investigation, and throughout it all Mark has remained at the forefront. That has become increasingly true in recent years as scholars have studied the gospels through the lens of literary criticism. They all agree that Mark is an amazing story. It has a booming beginning, a middle, and that unfinished, abrupt ending. It has a plot filled with twists and turns, unexpected surprises, disappointments, conflicts, healings, good guys and bad guys. And it has a point, a message. It is not just a compelling story; it is a document of faith. It tells us something about God and about the way of salvation.

But the book tells us about ourselves too, about what disciples are like. That’s why the ending is so intriguing. If the book really does end at 16:8, it means that the women fled from the tomb, saying nothing because they were afraid. Many people find that unacceptable. Thus it is that over the years other endings have cropped up. They wrap things up rather nicely, but very few scholars would argue that Mark wrote them. (We might want immediately to counter with the argument that the women must have been silent for only a little while. After all, here we are two thousand years later and we know the story, so someone had to tell it. But that misses the point.)

As readers, how does it feel to hear that nothing came of the women’s visit to the tomb? That the story really does end abruptly and unfinished? That lack of closure prevents us from moving on comfortably. In a sense, we are left speechless -- and deeply disappointed. But with whom? With the characters? Do we find ourselves thinking about how they should have done things differently? Maybe we’re thinking about how we would have done it differently. Might we try to distance ourselves from them?

Suddenly, we find ourselves thinking about this on a whole new level. The big question is not what Peter or the disciples did, but what we are doing. It’s that growing awareness that this gospel wasn’t “about them;” it was written “for us.” It never was meant to be a dispassionate story about Jesus; it is also a story from him. So, we are faced with the deepening realization that we, too, need to make a crucial leap of faith. Are we ready to obey, to accept Jesus’ invitation to “follow” -- wherever he leads? Maybe this is the “beginning of the good news” (1:1) because it is the beginning of discipleship -- ours, not theirs. If Mark ended his gospel like this on purpose, he was a very sophisticated author.

Yet despite scholars’ intense scrutiny, they have yet to arrive at a consensus on just who this author was. Based on that document from Eusebius, many have argued that the writer of Mark's gospel was the John Mark written about in Acts 12:12ff, who was a cousin of Barnabas, and who prayed for Peter when he was imprisoned by Herod (Acts 9:12-17). This could very easily be true. But Mark was a very common name in antiquity and there could have been many people named "Mark" in the early church. And just because the gospel is called "Mark" doesn't mean someone named "Mark" wrote it. On the other hand, no one can say for certainty that it wasn’t this individual. We do know that the author was well educated and well versed in Jewish scripture and rituals. But we also know that he saw Jesus as superceding this way of life; hence Jesus did not obey the traditions – he didn’t fast, declared all foods clean, and ate with gentiles and unclean people.

Most scholars think the book was written in Rome sometime between 64 and 75 CE. The lower number is the year Peter was martyred. The higher number is based on the premise that Mark was written first. It was probably intended for a Gentile audience, in all probability, Roman Christians. But the bottom line is that we really can’t answer these points with confidence, and unless new materials are discovered, we may never know them with absolute certainty. And so it goes.

Scholars have multiple ways of organizing this gospel. We will use three divisions: The Galilean Ministry – 1:1-8:30; The Jerusalem Journey and Ministry – 8:31-13:37; Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection – 14:1-16:8 (9-20).

This is how scholars believe the gospel ends – abrupt, unfinished, and completely unexpected. Throughout this gospel, those who followed Jesus and should have been able to understand his message proved to be the most disappointing characters. They all abandoned him at the end. The unsettling ending compels us to examine our own willingness to follow and to determine what kind of disciples we have been and will be.

Shorter ending:
“ They reported all these instructions briefly to Peter’s companions. Afterwards, Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.
(Definitely not written by Mark, but successfully contradicts the women’s silence.)

Longer ending:
16:9-20 – Resurrection appearances of Jesus
16:9-11 – Appearance to Mary Magdalene
Similar to John 20:11-18
16:12-13 – Appearance to two disciples walking
Similar to Luke 24:13-55 (Walk to Emmaus)
16:14-18 – Appearance to the Eleven remaining disciples
Similar to “Great Commission” of Matthew 28:19
16:19-20 – Jesus’ Ascension
Similar to Acts 1:1

These verses were also not written by Mark. They are dissimilar in style and vocabulary and are missing in the earliest manuscripts. In some manuscripts they follow the short ending. Yet they were part of the tradition as early as 140 CE. The church fathers made reference to them. No one knows who wrote them, but clearly they were intended to “round off” the gospel.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. “Mark.” Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press,      1975.

Edwards, James. “The Gospel According to Mark.” The Pillar New Testament      Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans, 2002.

Gaebelein, Frank. “Mark.” Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:      Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

Hooker, Morna. “The Gospel According to Mark.” Black’s New Testament      Commentary. London: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Witherington, Ben, III. The Gospel of Mark, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand      Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans, 2001.