Jump to content

Gospel of Mark: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Homeric tradition hypothesis: - The hypothesis cited is actually wider.
Deleting "Homeric hypothesis" which is not cited to a reliable source, see talk page
Line 15: Line 15:
According to [[Papias of Hierapolis]], writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by "Mark, (who) having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ."<ref>Papias, quoted in Eusebius ''History of the Church'', trans. G.A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1965). 3.39.15 / pp. 103–4. Also available [http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P2185_1027485 online]</ref> Other early writers such as [[Irenaeus]] agree with this.<ref>Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies'' III.1.1. Available [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm online]</ref> "No early church tradition and no church father ascribes the Gospel to anyone other than Mark."<ref>James R. Edwards, ''The Gospel According to Mark'', (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002) p.6</ref> Some modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written).<ref name="TM1998 Mark"/> Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.<ref name="TM1998 Mark"/>
According to [[Papias of Hierapolis]], writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by "Mark, (who) having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ."<ref>Papias, quoted in Eusebius ''History of the Church'', trans. G.A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1965). 3.39.15 / pp. 103–4. Also available [http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P2185_1027485 online]</ref> Other early writers such as [[Irenaeus]] agree with this.<ref>Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies'' III.1.1. Available [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm online]</ref> "No early church tradition and no church father ascribes the Gospel to anyone other than Mark."<ref>James R. Edwards, ''The Gospel According to Mark'', (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002) p.6</ref> Some modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written).<ref name="TM1998 Mark"/> Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.<ref name="TM1998 Mark"/>


====Homeric tradition hypothesis====
[[Dennis MacDonald|Dennis R. MacDonald]] and [[Richard Carrier]] have suggested<ref>[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html Review by Richard Carrier of Dennis MacDonald's 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark']</ref> that Mark’s Gospel is a deliberate imitation of various stories in Homeric epics. According to this thesis, episodes such as that of "Legion" in {{bibleverse||Mark|5:9}} and that of the woman with an alabaster box of ointment in {{bibleverse||Mark|14:3-9}} may be based on [[Homer|Homer's]] ''[[Odyssey]]'' paralleling, respectively, the escape of Odysseus and his men hiding under [[Polyphemus]]' <ref>[http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Odyssey9.htm The Oddyssey, Book 9]</ref> sheep and [[Eurycleia]] bathing Odysseus<ref>[http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Odyssey19.htm The Oddyssey, Book 19]</ref>.


====Audience====
====Audience====

Revision as of 18:01, 14 August 2013

Part of a series on
Books of the
New Testament
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament papyri, showing 2 Cor 11:33–12:9
Gospels and Acts
Four Evangelists
Lukan Acts
Epistles and Apocalypse
Pauline epistles
Catholic epistles
Apocalypse
Authorship
Related topics
"Mar." redirects here. For the month abbreviated Mar., see March.

The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μᾶρκον, to euangelion kata Markon), commonly shortened to the Gospel of Mark or simply Mark, is the second book of the New Testament. This canonical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the three synoptic gospels. It was thought to be an epitome, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible. However, most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels[1] (c 70).[2] That Mark was used as a source for the other synoptic gospels, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, is widely held by many, although not all, New Testament scholars.[3]

The Gospel of Mark narrates the Ministry of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his death and resurrection. It focuses particularly on the last week of his life (chapters 11–16) in Jerusalem. Its swift narrative portrays Jesus as a heroic man of action,[2] an exorcist, healer and miracle worker. An important theme of Mark is the Messianic Secret.[4] Jesus silences the demoniacs he heals, tries unsuccessfully to keep his messianic identity secret, and conceals his message with parables.[4] Meanwhile, the disciples fail to understand both the implication of the miracles of Jesus[2] and the meaning of the things he predicts about his arrest, death and resurrection. Most scholars believe that the original text of the gospel ends at Mark 16:8 with the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb and that the following account of his resurrection appearances is a later addition.[5]

According to tradition and some early church writers, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.[6] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[7] Some of the stories in the gospel may have been transmitted orally before being written down.[8] Various elements within the gospel suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community.[9]

Composition and setting

The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A tradition evident in the 2nd century ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[10] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][11][12][13] However, according to the majority view, the author is an otherwise unknown figure, the author's use of varied sources telling against the traditional account.[14][15] The gospel was written in Greek, probably around AD 60-70, possibly in Syria.[7][16]

Authorship and sources

Mantegna's St. Mark.

According to Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by "Mark, (who) having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ."[17] Other early writers such as Irenaeus agree with this.[18] "No early church tradition and no church father ascribes the Gospel to anyone other than Mark."[19] Some modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written).[7] Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.[7]


Audience

Mark wrote primarily for an audience of gentile Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire: Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g. Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42), and Aramaic words and phrases are expanded upon by the author, e.g. ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36). When Mark makes use of the Old Testament he does so in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14.

Genre

Franz Overbeck considered the gospels as the only new Christian genre, whereas other books of the New Testament were modeled on traditional types of religious literature. The influential discipline called form criticism propagated this view and defined the genre as an account of the "good news" centering on life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, with the evocation of repentance and faith as primary function.[20]

However, parallels to Greco-Roman literature exist, e.g. to didactic biographies like the life of Moses by Philo of Alexandria. Furthermore, Mark is not interested in origins, education and inner development of Jesus, but narrates the history of the fulfillment of the divine promises from his perspective. In this focus Mark resembles a historical biography like Suetonius's Lives of Caesars.[21]

Often in ancient literature, historical events were related to divine power by direct interactions, as the splitting of the heavens in Mark 1:10 or the cloud in 9:7. Yet the dominant strategy of Mark is to describe humans as acting independently, but in the context of an underlying divine plan. Hence, he reflects the difference between Homer's Iliad on the one hand and Herodotus and the Deuteronomist on the other. Historiography in antiquity was not predominantly interested in facts, as in modern positivism, but in representation and explanation. For this purpose, miracles were included by Herodotus in ethnography; in Old Testament traditions, Moses, Samuel or Elijah appear as mediators between God and the people.[22]

Adela Yarbro Collins integrates these observations into the characterization of Mark as an "eschatological historical monograph", a new type of writing enrooted in traditional and contemporary literature.[23]

Source for Matthew and Luke

See also: Two-source hypothesis
The first page of Mark in Minuscule 544

Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the canonical gospels, and was available when the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written.[24] The reason that such great importance is attached to this Gospel has been the widespread belief among scholars that the Gospel of Mark and probably a collection of the sayings of Jesus called Q were the bases of the other two Synoptic Gospels,[25][26] as held in the two-source hypothesis.[27][28][29][30][31] Mark's gospel is a short, Koine Greek basis for the Synoptic Gospels. It provides the general chronology, from Jesus' baptism to the empty tomb.[31]

Differing versions

Mark is the shortest of the canonical gospels. Manuscripts, both scrolls and codices, tend to lose text at the beginning and the end, not unlike a coverless paperback in a backpack.[32] These losses are characteristically unconnected with excisions. For instance, Mark 1:1 has been found in two different forms. Most manuscripts of Mark, including the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus, have the text "son of God",[33] but three important manuscripts do not. Those three are: Codex Sinaiticus (01, א; dated 4th century), Codex Koridethi (038, Θ; 9th century), and the text called Minuscule 28 (11th century).[34] Textual support for the term "Son of God" is strong, but the phrase may not have been original.[35]

Interpolations may not be editorial, either. It is a common experience that [gloss (annotation)|[glosses]] written in the margins of manuscripts become incorporated into the text as copies are made. Any particular example is open to dispute, of course, but one may take note of Mark 7:16, "Let anyone with ears to hear, listen," which is not found in early manuscripts.

Revision and editorial error may also contribute. Most differences are trivial but Mark 1:41, where the leper approached Jesus begging to be healed, is significant. An early (Western) manuscript (Codex Bezae) reads that Jesus became angry with the leper while Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts indicate that Jesus showed compassion. This is possibly a confusion between the Aramaic words ethraham (he had pity) and ethra'em (he was enraged).[36] Since it is easier to understand why a scribe would change "rage" to "pity" than "pity" to "rage," the earlier version is probably original.[37]

Ending

Main article: Mark 16

Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[38] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[39] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[39]

The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John, but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.[40] Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author's death.[41] Those who believe that 16:8 was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax for the text to end with the conjunction gar (γάρ), as does Mark 16:8, and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end with a note of fear (ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, "for they were afraid").[42] If the 16:8 ending was intentional, it could indicate a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". This abrupt ending is also used to support the identification of this book as an example of closet drama, which characteristically ended without resolution and often with a tragic or shocking event that prevents closure.[43]

Characteristics

Minuscule 2427 – "Archaic Mark"

The Gospel of Mark differs from the other gospels in language, detail and content. Its theology is unique. The gospel's vocabulary embraces 1330 distinct words, of which 60 are proper names. Eighty words, (exclusive of proper names), are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. About one quarter of these are non-classical. In addition Mark makes use of the "historic present" as well as the "Messianic secret" to make known his Gospel message.[44]

Theology

The "Suffering Messiah" is central to Mark's portrayal of Jesus, his theology and the structure of the gospel. This knowledge is hidden and only those with spiritual insight may see. The concept of hidden knowledge may have become the basis of the Gnostic Gospels.[45] John Killinger, arguing that, in Mark, the resurrection account is hidden throughout the gospel rather than at the end, speculates that the Markan author might himself have been a Gnostic Christian.[46]

Messianic secret

Main article: Messianic secret

In 1901, William Wrede[47] challenged the then-current critical view that Mark comprised a straightforward historical account and gave the name "Messianic secret" to this gospel theme. He argued that the Messianic secret was a literary device that Mark used to resolve the tension between early Christians, who hailed Jesus as the Messiah, and the historical Jesus who, he argued, never made any such claim for himself.[48]

In Mark, more than in the other synoptics, Jesus hides his messianic identity.[49] When he exorcises demons, they recognize him, but he commands them to be silent. When he heals people, he tells them not to reveal how they were healed.[50] When he preaches, he uses parables to conceal his true message from the crowds (Mark 4:10–12). According to v. 34, Jesus "explained everything in private to his disciples". However, in sentences like Mark 6:52 also the disciples are obtuse, understanding the true significance of Jesus only after his death.[51] This "Messianic secret" is a central issue in Bible scholarship.[52]

Adoptionism

Adoptionism is the idea that Jesus was fully human, born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary.[53][54] Jesus became divine, i.e. (adopted as God's son), only later at his baptism.[55] He was chosen as the firstborn of all creation because of his sinless devotion to the will of God.[56][57]

Adoptionism probably arose among early Jewish Christians seeking to reconcile the claims that Jesus was the Son of God with the strict monotheism of Judaism, in which the concept of a trinity of divine persons in one Godhead was unacceptable. Scholar Bart D. Ehrman argues that adoptionist theology may date back almost to the time of Jesus.[58] The early Jewish-Christian Gospels make no mention of a supernatural birth. Rather, they state that Jesus was begotten at his baptism.

The theology of Adoptionism fell into disfavor as Christianity left its Jewish roots and Gentile Christianity became dominant. Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century, and was rejected by the First Council of Nicaea, which proclaimed the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identifies Jesus as eternally begotten of God. The Creed of Nicaea now holds Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. (See Virgin Birth).[59]

Scholars see adoptionist theology in the Gospel of Mark. Mark names Jesus as the son of God at the strategic points of 1:1 ("The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God") and 15:39 ("Surely this man was the Son of God!"), but the virgin birth story has not been developed. The phrase "Son of God" is not present in some early manuscripts at 1:1. Bart D. Ehrman uses this omission to support the notion that the title "Son of God" is not used of Jesus until his baptism, and that Mark reflects an adoptionist view.[60] The authenticity of the omission of "Son of God" and its theological significance has been rejected by Bruce Metzger and Ben Witherington III.[61][62] but has been affirmed by other contemporary scholars, including the Jesus Seminar[63] and Ched Meyers.[64]

By comparison, the gospels of Luke and Matthew portray Jesus as being the Son of God from the time of birth, while the Gospel of John portrays the Son as existing "in the beginning."[60]

Meaning of Jesus' death

Mark portrays Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice for sin.[65] The Temple curtain, which served as a barrier between the holy presence of God and the profane world, rips at the moment of Jesus' death, symbolizing an end to the division between humans and God.[65]

The only explicit mention of the meaning of Jesus' death in Mark occurs in 10:45 where Jesus says that the "Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (lutron) for many (anti pollōn)." According to Barnabas Lindars, this refers to Isaiah's fourth servant song, with lutron referring to the "offering for sin" (Isaiah 53:10) and anti pollōn to the Servant "bearing the sin of many" in Isaiah 52:12.[66] The Greek word anti means "in the place of", which indicates a substitutionary death.[67]

The author of this gospel also speaks of Jesus' death through the metaphors of the departing bridegroom in 2:20, and of the rejected heir in 12:6–8. He views it as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy (9:12, 12:10–11, 14:21 and 14:27).

Many scholars believe that Mark structured his gospel in order to emphasise Jesus' death. For example, Alan Culpepper sees Mark 15:1–39 as developing in three acts, each containing an event and a response.[68] The first event is Jesus' trial, followed by the soldiers' mocking response; the second event is Jesus' crucifixion, followed by the spectators mocking him; the third and final event in this sequence is Jesus' death, followed by the veil being rent and the centurion confessing, "truly this man was the Son of God." In weaving these things into a triadic structure, Mark is thereby emphasising the importance of this confession, which provides a dramatic contrast to the two scenes of mocking which precede it. D. R. Bauer suggests that "by bringing his gospel to a climax with this christological confession at the cross, Mark indicates that Jesus is first and foremost Son of God, and that Jesus is Son of God as one who suffers and dies in obedience to God."[69] Joel Marcus notes that the other Evangelists "attenuate" Mark's emphasis on Jesus' suffering and death, and sees Mark as more strongly influenced than they are by Paul's "theology of the cross".[70]

Characteristics of Mark's content

Stained glass depiction of St. Mark at St. Matthew's German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The author has his own, clear structure for his narrative: there are four sections in all. The first is 1.21-5.43; the second, 6.1-8.26; the third, 8.27-10.52 and the fourth, 11.1-16.8. Each section is a 'series of seven days': the first tells 'The First Days of Jesus' Ministry, in Galilee and the region of its Sea'; the second, 'Days of Increase in the Ministry of Jesus'; the third, 'The Days of Jesus' Journeying to the Cross and Glory' and the fourth, 'Jesus' Passion and Resurrection - The Jerusalem Days'. And like Homer's Iliad the seven days are arranged as a three-day sub-series, a hinge day, and a further, mirroring, three-day sub-series. In each of the sections, in their telling, the first three days are completing the Old Covenant and the last three days are establishing the New Covenant. The author is writing to the rules of Ancient Rhetoric and, in particular, to the Classical requirements. He has as his clear purpose the telling of Good News which counters the bad news of the Fall of Jerusalem and the Destruction of its Temple in AD70 which signal the ending of the Old Covenant. (Jesus' body is the new temple.) In addition he has a clear skeletal, repetitive, yet properly 'partially hidden' structure. Style and memory are his concern as well. 1.1 is the title verse. 1.2-20 is the three-part Prologue. And there is an Epilogue (also in three parts). The rules required one.[71]

  • Unlike both Matthew and Luke, Mark does not offer any information about the life of Jesus before his baptism and ministry, including neither a nativity nor a genealogy. He is simply stated as having come "out of Galilee;" the Gospel of John similarly refers to Jesus being of Galilean origin.
  • Jesus' baptism is understated, with John not identifying Jesus as the Son of God, nor initially declining to baptize him.
  • Son of Man is the major title used of Jesus in Mark (Mark 2:10, 2:28; 8:31; 9:9, 9:12, 9:31; 10:33, 10:45; 14:21, 14:41). Many people (for instance, Morna Hooker, Maurice Casey, etc.) have seen that this title is a very important one within Mark's Gospel, and it has important implications for Mark's Christology. Jesus raises a question that demonstrates the association in Mark between "Son of Man" (cf. Dan 7:13–14) and the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12—"How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt?" (9:12b NRSV). Yet this comparison is not explicit; Mark's Gospel creates this link between Daniel and Isaiah, and applies it to Christ. It is postulated that this is because of the persecution of Christians; thus, Mark's Gospel encourages believers to stand firm (Mark 13:13) in the face of troubles.
  • To the question "Are You the Christ?", Jesus gives the direct answer, "I am": Mark 14:62; cf. Mark 15:2, Matthew 26:63–64, 27:11, Luke 22:70, 23:3, 23:9, John 18:20, 18:33–37.
  • The character of Jesus appears as secretive and capricious, his actions as unpredictable and scandalous. In the narrative of Jesus' walk on water (Mark 6:45–56), e.g., there is a gap: Jesus only says, but is not reported to really dismiss the crowd. It appears to be an excuse to separate from the disciples. V. 48c. has often been an enigma: Jesus wants to pass by the disciples, whereas v. 48a suggests that he intends to help them – 8 hours after having seen their distress. Similarly, Mark 5:39 unsettles and contradicts vv. 23 and 35; Mark 7:24ff. contrasts with Jesus' mission directed to everyone (Mark 1:38). George W. Young notes parallels to a Greek "capricious god toying aimlessly with his subjects".[73]

Characteristics of Mark's language

The phrase "and immediately" occurs forty-two times in Mark; while in Luke, which is much longer, it is used only seven times, and in John only four times.[74] The word from Greek: νομος, which roughly translates as law, ([4]) is never used, while it appears 8 times in Matthew, 9 times in Luke, 15 times in John, 19 times in Acts, many times in Romans.

Latin loanwords are often used: speculator, sextarius, centurion, legion, quadrans, praetorium, caesar, census, flagello, modius, denarius.[75] Mark has over a dozen direct Old Testament quotations: 1:2–3, 4:12, 7:6–7, 7:10, 9:7,10:19, 11:9–10, 11:17, 12:10–11, 12:29–31, 12:36, 13:24–26, 14:27, 15:34. Mark makes frequent use of the narrative present; Luke changes about 150 of these verbs to past tense.[76] Mark frequently links sentences with Greek: και (and); Matthew and Luke replace most of these with subordinate clauses.

Other characteristics unique to Mark

Then:
  • 8:1–9 – Feeding of the four thousand;
  • 8:10 – Crossing of the lake;
  • 8:11–13 – Dispute with the Pharisees;
  • 8:14–21 – Incident of no bread and discourse about the leaven of the Pharisees.

Secret Gospel of Mark

Main article: Secret Gospel of Mark

The Secret Gospel of Mark refers to a version of the Gospel of Mark being circulated in 2nd century Alexandria, which was kept from the Christian community at large. This non-canonical gospel fragment was discovered in 1958, by biblical researcher Morton Smith at the Mar Saba monastery.[81]

In this fragment, Clement of Alexandria explains that Mark, during Peter's stay in Rome wrote an account of the life of Jesus. Mark selected those events that would be the most helpful to the Church. When Peter died a martyr, Mark left Rome and went to Alexandria. He brought both his own writings and those of Peter. It was here that Mark composed a second more spiritual Gospel and when he died, he left his composition to the Church.[82] The Carpocrates got a copy of this Gospel and they misinterpreted it, which caused problems for the early Church.

Some modern scholars maintain the Secret Gospel is a clumsy forgery, while others accept this text as being authentic.[83][84] The nature of the Secret Gospel of Mark as well as Morton Smith's role in its discovery are still being debated.[85][86][87][88]

Canonical Status

A related issue is the adoption of the Gospel of Mark as a Canonical Gospel, given that, like the hypothetical Q, it is largely reproduced in Matthew and Luke, but, unlike Q, it did not become "lost". Traditionally Mark's authority and survival has derived from its Petrine origins (see above "Authorship"). A recent suggestion is that Mark gained widespread popularity in oral performance, apart from readings from manuscript copies. Its widespread oral popularity ensured it a place in the written canon.[89]

Content

Galilean ministry

Journey to Jerusalem

Events in Jerusalem

See also

Gospel of Mark
Chapters

Notes

  1. ^ a b Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. p. 164. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
  2. ^ a b c d Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  3. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Introduction," p 1–30.
  4. ^ a b "Messianic Secret." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  5. ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Empty Tomb, Appearances & Ascension" p. 449–495.
  6. ^ Jens Schroter, Gospel of Mark, in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), p. 277–8
  7. ^ a b c d Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24–27.
  8. ^ Mark Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels, in 2007, p.68
  9. ^ Jens Schroter, Gospel of Mark, in Aune, p.278
  10. ^ Bernd Kollmann, Joseph Barnabas (Liturgical Press, 2004), page 30.
  11. ^ Kirby, Peter. "Gospel of Mark" earlychristianwritings.com Retrieved January 30, 2010.
  12. ^ Darrell L. Bock (9 October 2007). "The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities" (Document). Thomas Nelson IncTemplate:Inconsistent citations {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |isbn= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link); Black, David Allen, "Why Four Gospels?" 2001, Kregel Publications. ISBN 0-8254-2070-9. Blomberg, Craig, "Jesus and the Gospels". 2009, B&H Publishing. P 138–140. ISBN 978-0-8054-4482-7. Edwards, James. "The Gospel According to Mark". 2002 Eerdmans Publishing Co. LaVerdiere, Eugene. "The Beginning of the Gospel". 1991, The Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-2478-2. (p15)
  13. ^ Lane, William, The Gospel According to Mark. 1974. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ISBN 0-8028-2502-8.(p 10)
  14. ^ "Above all the heterogeneous source material which the evangelist has used tells against [the traditional] account... [t]he author of Mark is a collector, in so far as he demonstrably takes up written and oral material from the tradition which varies in both form and theology." Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 26–27
  15. ^ biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [1]
  16. ^ "The Gospel of Mark" Retrieved 11 November 2012.
  17. ^ Papias, quoted in Eusebius History of the Church, trans. G.A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1965). 3.39.15 / pp. 103–4. Also available online
  18. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1. Available online
  19. ^ James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002) p.6
  20. ^ Adela Yarbro Collins: Mark: a commentary. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2007, p. 19–22. ISBN 978-0-8006-6078-9.
  21. ^ Adela Yarbro Collins: Mark: a commentary, p. 21–33.
  22. ^ Adela Yarbro Collins: Mark: a commentary, p. 33–42.
  23. ^ Adela Yarbro Collins: Mark: a commentary, p. 42f.
  24. ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 2. Christian sources about Jesus.
  25. ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  26. ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1991–). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictonary. Vol. 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  27. ^ M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897), "Luke, Gospel According To"
  28. ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. Vol. 2. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  29. ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  30. ^ Marcus, Joel (2004). The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 115. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-0-567-08266-0 |978-0-567-08266-0 [[Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs]]]]. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  31. ^ a b Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Luke," p. 267–364
  32. ^ N. Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel (Abingdon, 2003) ISBN 0-687-05293-9
  33. ^ Greek grammar and article use allow an English translation of the Son of God, a son of God, or merely Son of God.
  34. ^ Novum Testamentum Graece
  35. ^ "Since the combination of B D W all in support of [Son of God] is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets." Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
  36. ^ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2: Mark, p.41" (PDF). TCG 2007: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 5th ed. Retrieved 2008-01-09.
  37. ^ Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4
  38. ^ Ehrman, Bart (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0.[page needed]
  39. ^ a b May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.
  40. ^ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2b: The various endings of Mk" (PDF). TCG 2006: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 4th ed. Retrieved 2006-07-06.
  41. ^ Price, Christopher. "The Missing Ending of the Gospel of Mark". Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism: Answering Skeptics. ChristianCADRE.org. Retrieved 2006-07-06.
  42. ^ N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (1944) pp. 86–118; also J. B. Tyson, Journal of Biblical Literature 80 (1961) pp. 261–268. A relevant commentary: P. W. van Horst, "Can a book end with γάρ? A note on Mark 16:8", in Journal of Theological Studies, new series 23 (1972) pp. 121–124.
  43. ^ Stephen H. Smith (1995). "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark's Gospel". Novum Testamentum. 37 (3). E.J. Brill, Leiden: 209–231. doi:10.1163/1568536952662709.
  44. ^ William Telford, Mark, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003 pp.75 – 78
  45. ^ William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, Volume 2 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1974 pp.300 – 303
  46. ^ John Killinger, Hidden Mark: Exploring Christianity's Heretical Gospel (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2010).
  47. ^ Wrede, Wilhelm. The Messianic Secret in the Gospels. 1901. ISBN 0-227-67717-X
  48. ^ "Wrede, William." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  49. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 287.
  50. ^ 'Again and again, both Jesus' intimate disciples and those whom he miraculously heals or cleanses or from whom he exorcises demons are charged not to reveal who he is (Mark 1:23–24, 34; 3:11–12; 8:30; 9:2–9).' Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 287.
  51. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 287–288.
  52. ^ "Messianic secret." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  53. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and fiction in The Da Vinci code: a historian reveals what we really know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p. 19
  54. ^ Charles Landon, "A text-critical study of the Epistle of Jude", Volume 135 of Journal for the study of the New Testament, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, p.43
  55. ^ Ed Hindson & Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, Harvest House Publishers, 2008 P. 16
  56. ^ Ed Hindson & Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, Harvest House Publishers, 2008 p. 17
  57. ^ They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. After saying many things, this Gospel continues: "After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, 'You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.' And again, 'Today I have begotten You.' "Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to Him, 'Who are you, Lord? And again a voice from Heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.' Then John, falling down before Him, said, 'I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!' But He forbade him saying, 'Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.'" Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7 & 13.7
  58. ^ Bart D Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 74–55
  59. ^ "Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God had chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptian Christology); or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology)." Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma [2]
  60. ^ a b Ehrman, Bart D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 74–55.
  61. ^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York : United Bible Societies, 1994). Mark 1:1.
  62. ^ Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done With Jesus? (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2006), p. 7.
  63. ^ Robert J. Miller, ed, The Complete Gospels (San Francisco: Polebridge Press, 1992), p. 13.
  64. ^ Ched Meyers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), p. 122.
  65. ^ a b c Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted, HarperCollins, 2009. ISBN 0-06-117393-2
  66. ^ Lindars, Barnabas. "Salvation Proclaimed, VII: Mark 10:45 – A Ransom for Many" Expository Times 93 [1982], 293.
  67. ^ Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 188.
  68. ^ Culpepper, R. Alan. "The Passion and Resurrection in Mark," Review & Expositor 75 [1978], 584.
  69. ^ Bauer, D. R. "Son of God" in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (eds.) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 773.
  70. ^ Marcus, Joel (2000). "Mark – Interpreter of Paul". New Testament Studies. 46 (4): 473–487. doi:10.1017/S0028688500000278.
  71. ^ The Markan Matrix... David G. Palmer, 1999
  72. ^ Metzger, Bruce M. (1994). Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testamanet (Second ed.). Freiburg, Germany: UBS. pp. 51–52. ISBN 3-438-06010-8.On Matthew 24.36: "The omission of the words ["neither the Son"] because of the doctrinal difficulty they present is more probable than their addition by assimilation to Mk 13.32."
  73. ^ George W. Young: Subversive Symmetry. Exploring the Fantastic in Mark 6:45-56. Brill, Leiden 1999, p. 160–169. ISBN 90-04-11428-9. Online preview
  74. ^ Easton's Bible Dictionary: Mark, Gospel according to
  75. ^ Bauer lexicon
  76. ^ Complete Gospels, Miller, p.11
  77. ^ Similar to a rabbinical saying from the 2nd century BC, "The Sabbath is given over to you ["the son of man"], and not you to the Sabbath." [3] Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages
  78. ^ Jesus the miracle worker: a historical & theological study by Graham H. Twelftree 1999 ISBN 0-8308-1596-1 page 79
  79. ^ The verb katharizo means both "to declare to be clean" and "to purify." The Scholars Version has: "This is how everything we eat is purified", Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament has: "purging all that is eaten." See also Strong's G2511
  80. ^ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2: Mark, p.448" (PDF). TCG 2007: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 5th ed. Retrieved 2008-01-09.
  81. ^ Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings, Vol 1, Westminster John Knox Press, 2003 pp.106 – 109
  82. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Lost scriptures: books that did not make it into the New Testament, Oxford University Press US, 2003 pp.87 – 89
  83. ^ Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2003 p. 79
  84. ^ Early Christian Writings
  85. ^ Carlson, Stephen C. (2005). The Gospel Hoax – Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark. Baylor University Press. ISBN 1-932792-48-1.
  86. ^ Jeffery, Peter (2006). The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-11760-4.
  87. ^ Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996, p. 49.
  88. ^ Bruce, "The 'Secret' Gospel of Mark," 1974.
  89. ^ J. Dewey, "The Survival of Mark's Gospel: a Good Story?" Journal of Biblical Literature, 123 (2004) pp. 495–507

References

Commentaries

General

  • Levine, Amy-Jill. "Visions of kingdoms: From Pompey to the first Jewish revolt". {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), in Coogan, Michael D., ed. (2001). The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Brown, R., et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, 1990.
  • Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition, Harper & Row, 1963.
  • Darlison, Bill,The Gospel and the Zodiac: The Secret Truth About Jesus, Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd (2007), ISBN 978-0-7156-3691-6
  • Dewey, J., The Survival of Mark's Gospel: A Good Story?, JBL 123.3 (2004) 495–507.
  • Ehrman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus, Harper Collins, 2005. p. 66–68.
  • Grant, Robert M., A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Harper and Row, 1963: Chapter 8: The Gospel Of Mark
  • Dormeyer, Detlev, Das Markusevangelium, Wiss. Buchgeselschaft Darmstadt 2005, ISBN 978-3-534-15613-9
  • Guy, Harold A, The Origin of the Gospel of Mark, Hodder & Stoughton 1954
  • Holmes, M. W., "To Be Continued... The Many Endings of Mark", Bible Review 17.4 (2001).
  • Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
  • R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek text, NICNT, Wm. Eerdmans, 2002.
  • Mack, Burton L., 1993. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian origins, HarperSanFrancisco.
  • McKnight, E. V., What is Form Criticism?, 1997.
  • Neill, Stephen and Wright, Tom, The Interpretation of The New Testament 1861–1986, Oxford University Press, 1990, 1989, 1964, ISBN 0-19-283057-0
  • Perrin, N., What is Redaction Criticism?
  • Perrin, Norman & Duling, Dennis C., The New Testament: An Introduction, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1982, 1974
  • Schnelle, Udo, 1998. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (M. Eugene Boring translator), Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
  • Telford, W. (ed.), The Interpretation of Mark, Fortress Press, 1985.
  • Tuckett, C. (ed), The Messianic Secret, Fortress Press, 1983
Wikiversity has learning resources about Biblical Studies (NT) #The Gospels: The Life and Ministry of Jesus

Online translations of the Gospel of Mark:

Related articles:

Gospel of Mark
Preceded by New Testament
Books of the Bible 		Succeeded by

Template:Link GA Template:Link GA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Mark&oldid=568537687"