Mark

Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist

Francis J. Moloney

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2004
• Print ISBN: 9780801047183
• eBook ISBN: 9781441237170
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

The earliest and briefest of the four Gospels has traditionally been ascribed to a disciple named Mark In some ages it been overshadowed by its lengthier neighbors in the New Testament, but its pages hold rich rewards for those who ask the right questions. Who was "Mark," and what were his purposes--historical, theological, or otherwise? How does he shape his story of Jesus, and what interpretation of the origins of Christianity does that shaping reveal? More particularly, what is his understanding of his central character, Jesus of Nazareth? And finally, what abiding value does his story hold for those who read this "good news" as a key part of the charter of the Christian church in its life today?

Seminarians, other graduate students and advanced undergraduates, pastors, and other readers seeking an introduction to the Gospel of Mark through the lens of sensitive literary, historical, and theological scholarship need look no further. In Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, Francis J. Moloney offers the fruits of top-level biblical scholarship in a broadly accessible format. Students and professors alike will appreciate and profit from his fresh and lucid presentation of the message of one of the Christian faith's earliest and most enigmatic proponents and the inventor of its most revered literary genre.

CHAPTER 1

---

The Author of Mark in History

For many centuries each of the four gospels has been known as “the Gospel according to . . . Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.” Only the Fourth Gospel identifies its author as the Beloved Disciple, one of the important characters in the story of Jesus. This disciple is anonymous insofar as he is never given a name. But John 21:24 says of him: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (see also 13:23; 18:15, 16; 19:25–27; 20:2–10; 21:7, 20–23). However, even with the Fourth Gospel, not until late in the second century was this story of Jesus associated with one of the Twelve, John, the son of Zebedee.[1] The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke never allude to the authors,[2] and like the Gospel of John, probably had the names “Matthew,” “Mark,” and “Luke” added to them late in the second century.[3]

Which Mark?

If there are no indications within the gospel itself of the identity of a figure named “Mark,” one must look to other places where such evidence might be found. Minor characters from the early days of the Christian mission with the name “Mark” are found elsewhere in the New Testament. Especially important is a disciple called “John Mark” who accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. He first appears as a son of a certain Mary in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Peter returned to the home of John Mark in Jerusalem, after he was miraculously delivered from prison during the persecution of King Herod that led to the slaying of James (12:12–17). The spread of further persecution led Barnabas and Saul (as he is called at that stage of the story) to go back to Antioch, and they took John Mark with them (12:25). However, during that first missionary journey, after preaching in Cyprus, Paul and Barnabas set sail to Perga in Pamphylia (modern southern Turkey), but John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem (13:13).

The so-called Council of Jerusalem decided that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles (15:1–29). After the council, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch (vv. 30–35) and prepared for their second missionary journey (vv. 36–41). However, Paul and Barnabas could not agree over John Mark. Paul was unwilling to associate him with the mission, as he was dissatisfied with his departure from the group during the first missionary journey (see 13:13). Thus the two original apostles to the Gentiles (Paul and Barnabas) separated:

And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed. (Acts 15:37–40)

This is not an impressive start to the career of John Mark. It is possible that nothing more is heard of that particular character from the earliest years of the Christian communities.[4] Nevertheless, the name “Mark” continues to appear in letters of Paul, or in letters that came from the period shortly after Paul that looked back to his authority:

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. (Phlm 23–24)

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, receive him), and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. (Col 4:10–11)

Do your best to come to me soon. For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me. (2 Tim 4:9–11)

There is an immediacy about these passages, with their references to people associated with the life and work of Paul. A certain homogeneity also exists across these three references to Mark, the coworker of Paul in his mission to various places in Asia Minor.[5]

However, there is a dissonance between the role of John Mark in the life of Paul as it is reported in the Acts of the Apostles, and the activities and associates of Paul, as they are found in his letters.[6] It is not obvious that the John Mark of Acts is the same Mark mentioned in the Pauline letters. It is also important to know that the name “Mark” (Latin: Marcus) was a very common name in the Roman world, something like John or William in our own time.[7] Nevertheless, these traces of a Mark in the early years of the Christian mission should be kept in mind.

Why Mark?

There is no obvious religious, traditional, political, or even ecclesiastical reason why the Mark mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, or any other Mark, for that matter, should have been associated with one of the gospels in the second century. However, the Christian church of the second century, which had begun to establish itself as a worldwide institution, and was developing its own sacred book as part of its religious identity, looked back to apostolic figures to give authority to its scriptures. Judaism, which had produced Christianity, was inspired and governed by its unique sacred scriptures, known to us as the Old Testament, much of which, according to Jewish tradition, went back to the figures of Moses, King David, and the great prophets.[8] Likewise, the early church turned readily to Matthew, John, and Luke. A gospel story gained authority through its attachment to members of the twelve apostles, as is the case with Matthew and John (see Mark 3:13–19; Matt 10:1–4; Luke 6:12–16). The association made between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles has a New Testament motivation. Paul mentions Luke as his faithful traveling companion (see Phlm 24; Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11), and at a certain stage in the text of the Acts of the Apostles, a type of travel diary emerges, written by a firsthand witness to the events who associates himself with the action. These are called “we passages” (see Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). The church fathers were quick to make the link between the Luke of the Pauline letters and Paul’s fellow-traveler in the Acts of the Apostles. Modern scholars have strengthened this association by highlighting the presence of a theme of traveling in both the gospel (see especially Luke 9:51–19:44) and Acts (see especially Acts 13–26).

No such connection can be made between any Mark and the life of Jesus within the New Testament. But we do have a supposedly firsthand witness of an association between Peter, one of the Twelve, and Mark, in 1 Peter. This letter from “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,” written to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1), signs off :

By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it. She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. (5:12–13)

The second-century church quickly accepted 1 Peter into its official list of inspired Scriptures, and regarded the Peter of 1:1 as Simon Peter from the Gospels and Acts. Tradition associated Peter with Rome, and his eventual martyrdom there. The use of the name Babylon to refer to Rome in the Book of Revelation (see, especially, Rev 18:1–24) further strengthened the impression that 1 Peter was a letter written from Rome by Peter, the “rock” of Matt 16:16–18. Precisely these beliefs led to the rapid acceptance of 1 Peter into the Christian canon. This letter, therefore, associated Mark with Peter in Rome, and Mark is described as “my son,” a term of endearment that indicated a close relationship.[9]

The earliest historian of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea (born about 260 C.E.) drew on a number of written documents that existed prior to the writing of his Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius’ History runs from the beginnings down to the victory of the Emperor Constantine over Licinius in 324. He disclaimed any originality, and his history (as well as his other works) is at times little more than a string of quotations. This practice, while not producing gripping prose, has nevertheless preserved for us many writings that would otherwise not be in existence. One such document that Eusebius quotes in his History is the work of Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis who, about 130 C.E., wrote a five-volume work titled Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.[10] Papias wrote of the relationship between Peter and Mark, and the production of the Gospel of Mark. As cited by Eusebius, he wrote as follows, in his own turn citing the authority of “the elder” (John), and then taking over the narrative to make his own remarks:[11]

This also the elder [John] used to say. When Mark became Peter’s interpreter [ἑρμηνευτής; hermēneutēs], he wrote down accurately [ἀκριβῶς; akribōs], though by no means in order [οὐ μέντοι τάξει; ou mentoi taxei] as much as he remembered of the words and deeds of the Lord; [what follows is most likely from Papias, who has cited “the elder” thus far, and now makes his own observations on the tradition linking Peter and Mark] for he had neither heard the Lord nor been in his company, but subsequently joined Peter as I said. Now Peter did not intend to give a complete exposition of the Lord’s ministry but delivered his instructions to meet the needs of the moment [or “in anecdotal form”: πρòς τὰς χρείας; pros tas chreias] but not making, as it were, a systematic arrangement [συντάξις; syntaxis] of the Lord’s oracles [λογίων; logiōn]. It follows, then, that Mark was guilty of no blunder if he wrote, simply to the best of his recollections, an incomplete account. [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15][12]

The witness of 1 Peter 5:13, and the association of Mark and Peter by Papias,[13] led to the logical step, by later authorities, of locating that association with the city of Rome (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.6), Irenaeus (ca. 130–200), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215).[14] However well or poorly Eusebius may have excerpted it from his source, the evidence of Papias merits consideration. It shows that the tradition of the Gospel of Mark having its origins in the witness of Peter, written in Rome by a person named Mark, was firmly established by the middle of the second century. This tradition may have been received by Papias, and could thus reach back into the last decade of the first century.[15] It remained unquestioned for centuries. One reason for this, apart from general acceptance of tradition concerning these questions, was perhaps because no one was particularly interested in the personality of the author of the Gospel of Mark. There was more interest in the authenticity of the Jesus tradition. As Clifton Black has shown, largely following the work of Josef Kürzinger, it is possible that Papias himself was not primarily interested in affirming Markan authorship of a Petrine gospel, but rather in witnessing to the faithful recollection and transmission of the Jesus tradition.[16] Given the widespread acceptance, by the middle of the second century, of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, a lack of interest in the details of the Markan story and the personality of its author is understandable. Because almost all the Gospel of Mark was contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it fell into disuse. As Morna Hooker remarks: “Since almost all of Mark’s material is found in either Mark or Luke, it is remarkable that the Gospel survived.”[17]

Yet, it has survived. No doubt the traditional link, made between Mark and Peter, a major figure among the apostles, is a fundamental reason for that survival, despite its being largely ignored by both the Greek and Latin patristic reflections of the third and fourth centuries,[18] and also the lack of its widespread use in the church across the Christian centuries since then. As we will see in the following chapter, the modern and contemporary fascination with the Gospel of Mark devotes little attention to the witness of Papias, and the link between the Apostle Peter and the Mark of 1 Pet 5:13. Although an increasing number of commentators are returning to the traditional links among Mark, Peter, and Rome, they are doing so on somewhat different grounds.

Still the question posed at the beginning of this section remains: Why Mark? We have already seen that there are links with the apostolic tradition that most probably led to the second-century association of the apostles Matthew and John with the two gospels connected with their names. There are also suggestive links within the New Testament that led the second-century church to claim that the Gospel of Luke was the work of the traveling companion of Paul during the account of his journeys in the Acts of the Apostles. Both books seem to come from the same author, and are directed to the same patron (see Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1). Our search to discover the link between the name “Mark” and the gospel bearing his name is more tenuous. Why did Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius make that link?

In the end, the two questions posed by this chapter run together: “Which Mark?” and “Why Mark?” cannot be separated. I suspect this is the case because behind the Gospel of Mark lies the memory of a figure, an original storyteller, whose name was indeed Mark. Who he was, what place he occupied in an early Christian community, and whether he was the John Mark of the Acts of the Apostles or the Mark of the Pauline letters is beyond the range of our knowledge. We do not have enough data at our fingertips to be able to claim clear answers to those questions. One fact remains clear: Papias, Clement, Irenaeus, and Eusebius looked to a figure with the name Mark as the author of the gospel. From there arose the further suggestions that linked him with Peter, acting as his secretary, interpreter, or translator in Rome. Whatever one might make of the link with Peter, and the association with Rome, the name Mark might be based in a fact of history. As Clifton Black expressed it:

The reason for the Second Gospel’s attribution to Mark is not in the least bit clear. The Gospel never makes such a claim. Little is explained by the argument that the Gospel was so ascribed because of the presumed author’s derivative prominence, through association with Peter and Paul: Why then did not second- and third-century Christians employ a customary expedient and simply assign the book’s composition to one of the apostles? . . . Moreover, in almost every early tradition that we know, both within and beyond the New Testament, “Mark” cuts a decidedly second- or third-rate figure. . . . Even if it proves beyond our ability to recover completely, something’s afoot in all of this.[19]

Perhaps the best explanation is that there was, in the earliest tradition (prior to 1 Peter and Papias) the memory of a person named Mark who wrote a story that proclaimed the good news that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (see Mark 1:1), and that his death and resurrection had changed the way God related to the world (see 16:1–8). In the end, the answer to the question “Why Mark?” may lie in the vague memory, based in fact, that the Gospel of Mark was the story of Jesus written by an otherwise unknown character from the early decades of the Christian story, and his name was Mark.[20] The early Christian church had little interest in the Gospel of Mark. Nor did it have any interest in the history or the personality of its original author.[21]

He would have continued to remain largely unknown and uninvestigated, had it not been for the dramatic turn of events in the nineteenth century that brought the Gospel of Mark to center stage in gospel criticism. This turn of events, generally regarded as the birth of the historical-critical approach to the Bible, will be discussed in the following chapter. Because of this change of approach to biblical texts, a radical change in the type of questions that were being asked of the gospels led to Cinderella’s transformation into a princess. Our investigation of “Mark” can now turn from our attempts to trace the identity of this shadowy figure. In the following chapter we will focus our attention more closely on the gospel attributed to him. It is this story that offers best witness to the mind, the heart, and the spirit of its author.[22]

Where and When?

Is it possible to trace the time when and the place where the Gospel of Mark first saw the light of day? Christian tradition accepted the evidence of Papias, transmitted by other church fathers (especially Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria [ca. 150–215]), that Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name, recording Peter’s incomplete exposition of the Lord’s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Part 1: Mark
• Part 2: Mark the Storyteller
• Part 3: Mark the Interpreter
• Part 4: Mark the Evangelist
• Bibliography
• Index of Modern Authors
• Index of Ancient Sources
• Notes
• Back Cover