Mark

Joel Williams, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Robert W. Yarbrough, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Robert W. Yarbrough

• Publisher: B&H Academic
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781433676093
• eBook ISBN: 9781535905985
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

The Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (EGGNT) closes the gap between the Greek text and the available lexical and grammatical tools, providing all the necessary information for greater understanding of the text. The series makes interpreting any given New Testament book easier, especially for those who are hard pressed for time but want to preach or teach with accuracy and authority. Each volume begins with a brief introduction to the particular New Testament book, a basic outline, and a list of recommended commentaries. The body is devoted to paragraph-by-paragraph exegesis of the Greek text and includes homiletical helps and suggestions for further study. A comprehensive exegetical outline of the New Testament book completes each EGGNT volume.

MARK

Introduction

AUTHORSHIP

The text of Mark’s Gospel lacks any direct self-reference by the author, but this fact does not mean, of course, that the author was unknown to the first recipients of the work. In Mark 15:21, the author refers to Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Such a comment makes sense within the context of an early Christian community where people knew one another and had mutual friendships and relationships. The people who first received Mark’s Gospel likely knew who Alexander and Rufus were, and their circle of relationships also therefore would have included the author, who knew them and was aware of their circumstances. In other words, at least among the earliest recipients, the authorship of this work was not a hidden mystery or obscure lost detail. Yet the fact remains that the author did not refer to himself and therefore did not consider his identity to be a crucial issue for the understanding of his gospel message concerning Jesus. As a result, the authorship of Mark’s Gospel is more a matter of historical interest than a necessary first step in the interpretation of the book.

The practice of early Christian scribes, based on the uniform evidence of extant mss., was to provide the title εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον or the shortened form κατὰ Μάρκον at either the beginning or end of the text of Mark’s Gospel. In this way, the title identified the book as providing the one message of the gospel—the story of the good news concerning Jesus—as narrated by Mark. This same use of titles occurred with copies of the other canonical Gospels as well, those of Matthew, Luke, and John. These titles function as notable witnesses to the authorship of the Gospels, since they likely came into use not long after the writing of the Gospels themselves, within the last decades of the first century. As soon as the Gospels began to be copied and circulated among various church communities, it would have been necessary to add titles to them, to distinguish them from one another and from other works used by believers. As a result, the name “Mark” came to be associated with this Gospel early in its circulation and reception (see Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 64–84).

In addition, the witness of Christian writers from the first centuries is both early and consistent with regard to the authorship of Mark’s Gospel. The earliest and most important testimony comes from Papias, who was the bishop of Hierapolis, a city in Phrygia of Asia Minor, in the early part of the second century. Papias talked about the authorship of Mark’s Gospel in a five-volume work known as Interpretation of the Sayings of the Lord, which was likely written around AD 95–110 (see Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment,” JETS 26 [1983]: 181–91). Papias’s work as a whole did not survive from ancient times, but fragments from it were preserved by Eusebius in the early part of the fourth century in his Ecclesiastical History, including Papias’s comments on Mark (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15). According to this fragment, Papias stated (1) that Mark, although not a follower of the Lord during his earthly ministry, was a follower of Peter and served as his interpreter; (2) that Mark wrote down accurately the teaching of Peter concerning all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord; and (3) that Mark’s Gospel lacked order and a systematic arrangement to the Lord’s sayings, reflecting as it did the occasional nature of Peter’s teaching. After Papias, other Christian sources from the second and third centuries make similar claims, indicating that Mark was the author of this Gospel and that his work reflected in some way the teaching of Peter (for a helpful gathering together of early traditions concerning Mark and his Gospel in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, the anti-Marcionite prologue, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, see the work of C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter [Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994], who attempts to find a middle ground between maximalist and minimalist approaches to the evidence).

“Mark” was a common name in the Roman world at the time the NT books were being written, certainly one of the most common Lat. names in the Roman Empire. Yet the author of Mark’s Gospel was a faithful adherent of a Jewish messianic movement, and likely was himself Jewish (cf. Marcus 1:19–21; Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 29, 46). He recognized the need to explain Jewish traditions about ritual purity (7:3–5) and to translate Aram. words and phrases for the Gentiles in his audience (see the discussion at 7:34), and he apparently was in a position to do so because of his own ethnic background. Therefore, the more relevant point is that the use of the name “Mark” among Jews at the time of the NT was in fact extremely rare. By referring to “Mark” as one of the Gospel writers without any other further specification, early Christian writers assumed that this basic identification was sufficient. Their reference solely to “Mark” was apparently not confusing but rather easily understood as pointing to a well-known individual within the Christian community. John Mark, who is mentioned in Acts as working with Paul (12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37), fits that category. In addition, in light of the rarity of the name “Mark” within Jewish circles and perhaps therefore also among leaders and teachers within the early Christian missionary movement, it seems likely that the John Mark of Acts is the same Mark mentioned in the NT epistles (Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13). There are indications that point in this direction, such as the reference in Col 4:10 to Mark as a relative of Barnabas, a coworker with Paul, and the connection in 1 Pet 5:12–13 between Mark and Silvanus (or Silas), another coworker with Paul (on the name “Mark” and the identity of Mark the Gospel writer, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017], 538–42).

Mark, or as Acts 12:25 states it, John who was also called Mark, lived with his mother, named Mary, in Jerusalem during the early days of the church, and his mother’s house served as a gathering place for believers (Acts 12:12). Mark departed from Jerusalem and accompanied Paul and Barnabas as their helper on their first missionary journey (12:25; 13:5), but in the middle of the journey, Mark—for reasons not explained in Acts—left them and returned to Jerusalem (13:13). When Paul and Barnabas were making plans for their second missionary endeavor, Barnabas wanted to take Mark along once again, but Paul would have nothing of it. Mark had already deserted them once, and once was enough. The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas on this matter became so sharp that Barnabas took Mark and headed in one direction while Paul chose Silas as a new missionary partner and headed in another (15:36–40). If the John Mark of Acts is the same Mark mentioned in the NT epistles, then some reconciliation between Paul and Mark must have taken place. In Col 4:10 and Phlm 24, Paul makes reference to Mark as one of his fellow workers in Rome during his imprisonment there, and in 2 Tim 4:11 Paul commends Mark as useful for service. Peter, also apparently writing from Rome, mentions the presence of Mark with him there, referring to him as his son, perhaps implying that Mark came to faith through his ministry (1 Pet 5:13). Mark’s Gospel displays a keen sense of the potential for failure on the part of Jesus’s followers but also an awareness of God’s work through Jesus to bring about forgiveness and restoration. To some extent, tho...

Table of contents

• Acknowledgments
• Publisher’s Preface
• General Introduction to the EGGNT Series
• Abbreviations
• Mark
• Exegetical Outline
• Grammar Index
• Scripture Index