Mark (Week 19)

Dates

Mark is almost unanimously considered to be the earliest recorded gospel. There are some dissenting theories that place Matthew first; however, it is widely accepted that Mark pre-dates Matthew, Luke, and John. Matthew and Luke, in particular, incorporate much of Mark’s material into their own writings (though each significantly expounds upon Mark’s work), and, as I’ll discuss below, the writing style of Mark is consistent with a transitional piece of literature that seems to rely heavily on oral tradition as a supplement. The vast majority of scholars date Mark to within 30 years post-crucifixion.

Authorship

Again, with Mark, there is a heavy reliance on the tradition of the early church when it comes to authorship. While there is a tendency for some to dismiss Mark based on a lack of “concrete” evidence for authorship, it is important to note that the church in this case is actually quite a reliable and unbiased resource (remember: we’re talking authorship here). Later works speak of Mark as having been an associate of Peter; in fact, references to Mark himself are few and his prominence stems almost solely from his associations. “Major” apostles (e.g. Peter, Paul, and Barnabus), on the other hand, are well-known for their acts. The only recorded “acts” of Mark, on the other hand, are his greetings. (According to church tradition, Mark is the disciple known as John Mark in the Bible – Acts 12:12, 12:25, 15:37-40, Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, 1 Pet 5:13).

Attributing authorship to Mark is historically tantamount to calling it an “anonymous” gospel; it is his sole act of historical importance. There is simply no reason for the early church to invent an author when there were 11+ ready-made authors to whom the gospel could have been ascribed.

Whether you subscribe to the primacy of Mark or Matthew, there is certainly a strong relationship between the two gospels and Luke. If we assume (and most do) that Mark came first, the use of Mark’s text in Matthew and Luke gives further credence to Mark as a legitimate source. Paul, too, cross-references the gospels. Such an interconnectedness and unity in message makes it difficult to simply dismiss any single gospel without dismissing the New Testament as a whole.

Because there is an interrelatedness easily seen when reading the gospels (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke), I will not focus as heavily here in describing Mark’s beliefs about Jesus. In short, we find that Mark does not refute the core premises as Matthew:

Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection

That being said, there are items on the above list that Mark either omits or downplays. This week, I want to focus on specific notable differences between Matthew and Mark as well as any difficulties associated with Mark, including Mark’s omissions and his seemingly different priorities. This is the approach I will continue to take over the next two weeks.

Omissions

The Book of Mark contains no birth stories and no record of the appearances following the resurrection.

Mark seems to have an utter disregard for Jesus’ place in history. He makes vague geographical and chronological references, whereas Matthew and Luke are much more astute in their attempts to document these details.

He does not document any of Jesus’ long discourses, which can be found in each of the other gospels.

He rarely speaks of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

Reasoning

I think the reason for Mark’s omissions and/or lack of detail is two-fold:

1. Mark is widely considered to be the earliest gospel and thus exists in a time when oral transmission of Jesus’ story was still very strong.

2. Mark was addressed to a specific audience.

Oral Tradition

Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) speaks of Mark’s association with Peter. What is often missed, however, is that Papias is not attempting to credit Mark via his associations; rather, he indicts the gospels, considering them to be secondary to oral tradition. Oral tradition, quite simply, was the way of the time. Some, like Papias, felt that written accounts did not provide enough flavor, or did not appropriately encompass the teachings of Jesus. Learning Jesus’ message via oral tradition, on the other hand, required that lessons apply to individual lives and situations. So, there was a sense of practicality lost in written accounts. The very fact that people of the time would debate whether to write things down is a clear indication of just how rich the oral tradition really was.

If we assume that Mark is indeed the earliest of the gospels (as is generally accepted), it’s logical to think of Mark as a transition from the oral tradition to the written word. The oral tradition was obviously serving its function as indicated by the church’s rapid early growth, so it makes sense then that as the number of first-hand sources began to dwindle, the value of written accounts would become more apparent. It is likely that many of Mark’s audience knew of Jesus. Mark was not necessarily attempting to teach the full story of Christ in his writings; rather, he was providing a written supplement to ensure that the core pieces of the story were not lost. Using such logic, it is reasonable to assume that later gospel writings should become more detailed. Matthew, Luke, and John, having written later, would have a better understanding of Mark’s limitations and would have a clearer picture of the ways in which Jesus’ teachings could be misunderstood; as such, they would have more incentive for certifying the details of Christ’s life and teachings.

The Audience

Whereas Matthew was most certainly written for the benefit of the Jews, Mark is written for the Romans. Matthew would be remiss had he not attended to details and Jewish traditions, but Mark’s audience would not be familiar with these elements. In Mark’s position, there is almost an all-or-nothing approach that must be taken: either you compile a synopsis of the Old Testament to accompany your work, or you simply teach about the life and times of Jesus.

The virgin birth, for instance, is of huge importance to the Jews (as it pertains to OT prophecy), but means little to the Gentiles. On the other hand, miracles, general life principles, and the story of the passion are paramount to understanding who Christ was, regardless of your background. I think this is something that can still be seen today. I’ve attended church regularly for years, and it is extremely rare to hear a sermon series on Jesus that ventures beyond his New Testament teachings.

Difficulties (in order of complexity, not chronologically)

Mark 16:8 - And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

As opposed to Matthew:

So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

There are a number of ways to reconcile these verses. It should be noted first that Matthew speaks of their intention, while Mark speaks of their action. Second, while the women ran in fear, it may be that Mark was attempting to convey their intention to avoid speaking on the way to the disciples. Third, perhaps they “told” without ever “speaking.” Certainly, there is nothing here to lead to the conclusion that the two are contradictory.

Mark 16:9-20

These eleven verses are omitted from some Bibles, as they are not present in the earliest manuscripts of Mark. If you own a newer Bible and it contains these verses, it likely mentions the omission somewhere in the text or the notes. I will not use these verses as support.

Mark 6:5 – Apparent Lack of Power

And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.

Taken out of context, it is very easy to view this verse and say, “Aha! Right here in the Bible, you can see that Jesus is limited.” It is important to note the surrounding verses, however, to establish the proper context for this verse. The story is set in Jesus’ home town:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household." And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief.

Mark tells us that Jesus could indeed heal the sick, and did. So, making the assumption that Jesus quite literally could not perform certain miracles doesn’t seem valid under the circumstances. He was certainly able to heal those who had faith in Him. I think it important to read this verse as an indication of Jesus’ moral objection to performing spectacular miracles. A modern example would be something like:

The governor was known for his stance against the death penalty and had pardoned all walk of criminal during his term; still, he could not pardon the vicious serial killer whose hands and feet were being bound to the table.

I think it is a much greater stretch (especially given the plethora of miracles Mark describes elsewhere) to assume that Jesus literally could not perform great miracles in certain geographical locations, when Mark supplements his statement with the justification for Jesus’ decision.

That being said…

Jesus the Man (Warning: Theory, Metaphysics, and Conjecture Contained Below)

Mark 13:32 does certainly describe limitations of Jesus with the foretelling of Jesus’ second coming:

But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Christians describe God as a Trinity. This concept is extraordinarily difficult to grasp, and I won’t make the claim that I know the perfect answer; however, I will give you my interpretation of the Trinity as it pertains to the Father and the Son (and I beg you to pardon my three-paragraph synopsis of a subject that is not fully comprehended by great Biblical scholars):

God is Jesus and yet the two are separate. Jesus, having a full understanding of God, can fully comprehend purity and divinity. As such, the decisions that Jesus makes while on Earth are right, as God is the standard of right. Still, Jesus cannot possess the qualities of the Father and still be a man. He cannot, for instance, be omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient; else, He would not be human. The New Testament makes it clear, though, that Jesus can openly communicate with God, and so He always has access to perfection. The miracles performed by Jesus, then, are performed via faith and the understanding that when God (the Son) makes claims, God (the Father) sees to it that the claims are honored.

Jesus’ humanity and separate knowledge are displayed in rather strong fashion in Matthew 26:39: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me….” This plea stems from Jesus’ ignorance. He does not possess the full knowledge of the Father, but does possess the knowledge of His impending death. It should not come as a surprise that one who is physiologically limited in knowledge capacity is also ignorant in some regards.

Lastly, I come back to a point made a few months ago: God (if He exists) cannot be of the universe and therefore cannot be constrained by universal properties such as time. So, although Jesus is separate from the Father, He is never truly separated from the Father, as the Father is not subject to time. In other words, no time passes in eternity while the two are separate, so they are both together and separate at the same “time”. This, I believe, is why God refers to Himself in the Bible as “I am.” Again, this is just me trying to wrap my head around the impossible-to-fully-comprehend concept of eternity, so take it for what it’s worth. I would imagine that other Biblical scholars could provide a different take.

Ideas and verses like those referenced above speak to a sense of honesty in the delivery of the New Testament. Judging from the Jewish tradition of the time, one would not expect a messiah like the one described in the New Testament. So far was the departure from the expected messiah-king, even those who witnessed the miracles first-hand found themselves doubting Jesus’ divinity after the crucifixion. In some ways, the difficulties contained in the New Testament can lead to doubt and questions; in the greater scope, though, it is precisely the inclusion of these difficulties that allows me to fully appreciate the integrity of the New Testament authors.