Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible: Mark

Craig A. Evans, James D. G. Dunn, John W. Rogerson

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781467454261
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

This extract from the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible provides Evan's introduction to and concise commentary on Mark. The  Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible presents, in nontechnical language, the best of modern scholarship on each book of the Bible, including the Apocrypha. Reader-friendly commentary complements succinct summaries of each section of the text and will be valuable to scholars, students, and general readers.
 
Rather than attempt a verse-by-verse analysis, these volumes work from larger sense units, highlighting the place of each passage within the overarching biblical story. Commentators focus on the genre of each text—parable, prophetic oracle, legal code, and so on—interpreting within the historical and literary context.
 
The volumes also address major issues within each biblical book—including the range of possible interpretations—and refer readers to the best resources for further discussions.

Mark

Craig A. Evans

INTRODUCTION

The Gospel of Mark, the shortest of the four NT Gospels, tells the story of Jesus, from baptism to empty tomb, in an impressive and compelling manner. Although neglected in the early centuries of the church, this Gospel has enjoyed a great deal of scholarly attention throughout the twentieth century. This will likely continue on in the twenty-first century.

Mark and the Other Gospels

Recently certain scholars have argued that several of the noncanonical Gospels (such as Papyrus Egerton 2, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Gospel of Thomas) are independent of or older than the NT Gospels. But the evidence that has been adduced for these claims is not persuasive. Most of these writings exhibit the traits found in second- and third-century writings that are characterized by embellishment and pious imagination. Papyrus Egerton 2 exhibits conflation of Synoptic and Johannine elements. The Gospel of Peter tells a fanciful tale of the resurrection of Jesus, complete with a talking cross. Even the Gospel of Thomas, which enjoys the lion’s share of scholarly attention, exhibits many traces of the later editing and secondary tendencies that reflect second-century, not first-century practices.

Most scholars today are rightly convinced that the Synoptic Gospels are the oldest Gospels. But which one of these three is the oldest? Augustine (d. c. AD 430) believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark is in essence an abridgment of it. Johann Jacob Griesbach in 1776 proposed that Matthew was composed first, that Luke was composed next, making use of Matthew, and that Mark was composed last, conflating and abridging both Matthew and Luke. The Griesbach hypothesis was influential for about a century, but it began losing ground to Markan priority in the years following the publication of a work by Heinrich Julius Holtzmann in 1863. Holtzmann argued that an early version of Mark (“source A”) was written first and that Matthew and Luke independently of one another made use of it and another source of sayings (“source B”). The latter source eventually came to be called “Q,” which is an abbreviation for the German word Quelle, meaning “source.”

Following the influential study of B. H. Streeter in 1924, the basic principles of Holtzmann’s explanation of the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels became the dominant view. Although in the last thirty-five years or so William Farmer and a small number of like-minded colleagues have vigorously argued for a return to the Griesbach hypothesis, the majority of Gospel scholars still hold to Markan priority.

Markan priority appears to be the most prudent position for several reasons: (1) Mark’s literary style lacks the sophistication and polish often seen in Matthew and Luke. This phenomenon is more easily explained in terms of Matthean and Lukan improvement upon Mark rather than Markan degradation of Matthean and Lukan style. (2) In the Markan Gospel Jesus and the disciples are sometimes portrayed in a manner that appears either undignified or possibly at variance with Christian beliefs. More often than not these potentially embarrassing passages are touched up or omitted altogether by Matthew and Luke. Again, it is easier to explain the phenomena in terms of Matthean and Lukan improvements upon Mark rather than the reverse. (3) The phenomena of agreements and disagreements among the Synoptic Gospels are more easily explained in reference to Markan priority. Among other things, we observe that where there is no Mark to follow (e.g., no infancy or resurrection narratives, no “Q” material) there Matthew and Luke diverge from one another. This observation is more easily explained in terms of Markan priority and Matthew’s and Luke’s independence from one another than in terms of Mark writing last and making use of Matthew and Luke. Markan priority also avoids the problem of trying to explain Luke’s inconsistent use of Matthew. (4) Another indication of Markan priority is in the observation that in some instances, due to omission of Markan details, Matthew and Luke have created difficulties. In some of these instances only by looking at Mark can the reader fill in the gaps created by Matthew and Luke, whose tendency is to abbreviate and streamline Mark’s wordier versions of most episodes. (5) The small amount of material that is unique to the Gospel of Mark also supports Markan priority. This material consists of 1:1; 2:27; 3:20–21; 4:26–29; 7:2–4, 32–37; 8:22–26; 9:29, 48–49; 13:33–37; 14:51–52. In reviewing this material one should ask which explanation seems most probable, that Mark added it or that Matthew and Luke found it in Mark and chose to omit it. The nature of the material supports the latter alternative, for it seems more likely that Matthew and Luke chose to omit the flight of the naked youth (14:51–52), the odd saying about being “salted with fire” (9:48–49), the strange miracle where Jesus effects healing in two stages (8:22–26), the even stranger miracle where Jesus puts his fingers in a man’s ears, spits, and touches his tongue (7:32–37), and the episode where Jesus is regarded as mad and his family attempts to restrain him (3:20–22). If we accept the Griesbach-Farmer hypothesis, we would then have to explain why Mark would choose to add these odd, potentially embarrassing materials, only to omit the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, the Lord’s Prayer, and numerous other teachings and parables found in the larger Gospels. (6) The final consideration that adds weight to the probability of Markan priority has to do with the results of the respective hypotheses. The true test of any hypothesis is its effectiveness. In biblical studies a theory should aid the exegetical task. The theory of Markan priority has provided just this kind of aid. Not only has Synoptic interpretation been materially advanced because of the conclusion, and now widespread assumption, of Markan priority, but the development of critical methods oriented to Gospel research, such as form and redaction criticism, which have enjoyed success, has also presupposed Markan priority. In countless studies, whether dealing with this pericope or that, or treating one of the Synoptic Gospels in its entirety, it has been recognized over and over again that Matthew and Luke make the greatest sense as interpretations of Mark; but Mark makes no sense as a conflation and interpretation of Matthew and Luke.

The evidence is compelling that Mark represents the oldest surviving account of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection. What sources the evangelist Mark made use of, if any, will in all probability remain a mystery. That he made use of some written material seems likely. That he made use of some eyewitness testimony is also probable; it cannot be ruled out. How early this Gospel was written will be considered shortly. But now we must ask what Mark is literarily.

What Is Mark?

Mark is the only Gospel to call itself a “gospel” (see 1:1, “The beginning of the gospel,” or “good news”). This word has its origins in Isaiah (see 40:9; 41:27; 52:7; 61:1), but also carried with it important connotations in the Greco-Roman world (see commentary on 1:1–8 below). The genre of Mark is for the most part biography, similar to the biography of Elijah and Elisha in the OT (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 9) or the popular biography found in the Pseudepigrapha (such as Lives of the Prophets or Joseph and Aseneth). The distinctive features of Mark’s biography are the exclusive focus on Jesus and the emphasis on the proclamation of his message. The “good news” has been realized with the appearance of Jesus. Now the story must be told and the message must be proclaimed (see Guelich 1989: xix–xxii).

Mark may be a somewhat novel form of biography (and its novelty has sometimes been exaggerated by scholars), but one must not expect of it what we moderns usually expect of biography. Mark tells us nothing about Jesus’ birth and upbringing (details which are partially supplied by Matthew and Luke). The evangelist says absolutely nothing about Jesus himself; not one word describes Jesus’ appearance or personality. Apart from his teaching and one or two details, Mark tells nothing of Jesus’ habits, likes, dislikes, or interests. The evangelist is principally concerned with Jesus’ public ministry, the impact he had on others, and his fate in Jerusalem. But this account is not in a strictly chronological, developmental order. The order is thematic. The stories and teachings are sometimes clustered around common themes. When and where these things happened or were spoken often cannot be determined. The Markan presentation is largely guided by literary and theological interests. Jesus is presented as a remarkable, even stunning figure.

When Mark Wrote and Why

Careful study of Mark 13 (see Hengel 1985: 14–28) and a few related passages suggests that the Gospel of Mark was published in the early stages of the Jewish war with Rome (AD 66–70). Mark 13 begins with Jesus’ prediction of the complete and total destruction of the Herodian temple (v. 2). The disciples ask when this will happen (v. 4), and the long discourse that follows describes various signs that will precede the coming of the “Son of Man” (v. 26). Among these signs will be the appearance of various false messiahs and false prophets (vv. 5–6, 21–22) and wars and rumors of war (vv. 7–8). But the major sign that will warn Jesus’ followers that the end is near will be the setting up of the “abomination that desolates” the temple (v. 14).

The events of the 40s to 60s correspond in many ways to these signs. But if Mark wrote after 70, as many scholars maintain, then the prediction of the abomination would be unfulfillable. Sensing this problem, some interpreters argue that the abomination was the occupation of the temple precincts by the rebels, or Titus’s entry into the sanctuary as it burned. But these proposals do not work. Jesus tells his disciples to flee from Jerusalem when they see the abomination set up. But as it happened, it was too late to flee the city when the rebels occupied the temple precincts, and certainly too late to flee when the Roman army stormed the Temple Mount and General Titus himself entered the sanctuary. Moreover, v. 18 urges believers to pray that this may not happen in winter. But the taking of Jerusalem and the horrors that resulted in fact occurred in the summer. On any fair reading of Mark 13, the actual events of AD 70 do not seem to lie behind these warnings.

It is more probable that Mark 13 reflects the very beginning of the war, possibly even a time shortly before the war began. It is a time of rumors of war, perhaps the early stages of the revolt itself. It reflects a time when various would-be prophets and deliverers proffered signs of salvation. It was a time when Christians believed that the abomination of which Jesus spoke would be set up in the temple, thus making worship there impossible. It would be a time to flee the city, for judgment and the appearance of the Son of Man would be quite near (vv. 14–27).

If the Gospel of Mark was indeed written in the middle 60s, then it was written at a time of severe Christian persecution at the hands of the megalomaniac Nero (ruled AD 54–68). This emperor, increasingly hated and despised by his own people, promoted his deification (which in death was denied by the Senate). More than any emperor before him, he encouraged the use of the honorific titles “god,” “son of god,” “lord,” “savior,” and “benefactor.” Written in the last two or three years of Nero’s life, when the Jewish rebellion was in its early stages, when persecution of Christians was severe, and when many prophets and deliverers were making themselves known, the Markan evangelist puts forward Jesus as the true Son of God, in whom the good news for the world truly has its beginning.

Mark’s opening verse makes the Gospel’s purpose clear: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). The evangelist has very carefully chosen his language, for it deliberately echoes the language of the imperial ruler cult, as seen in an inscription in honor of Caesar Augustus: “the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning for the world of the good news” (see commentary below). The evangelist Mark has challenged the imperial myth, claiming that the good news for the world began with Jesus Christ, the true Son of God (see Mark 15:39, where the Roman centurion admits upon seeing the impressive death of Jesus: “Truly this man was the Son of God”).

From this extraordinary claim at the beginning of his narrative, to the sudden and dramatic conclusion of the discovery of the empty tomb, the Markan evangelist takes pains to show that Jesus is truly God’s Son, despite rejection by the religious authorities of his time and his execution at the hands of the Roman governor. The Julian emperors, whose latest and most unfortunate manifestation at the time of the publication of Mark is the demented Nero, can provide no compelling candidates for recognition as the son of God, whose life and death are truly of benefit to humankind. To the Roman world Mark proffers Jesus and his message of the kingdom of God. By doing so he encourages the faithful to remain steadfast and enjoins the critics and opponents of the Christian faith to reconsider.

COMMENTARY

The Beginning of the “Good News” (1:1–15)

The introduction of Mark’s Gospel consists of an incipit, or title (1:1), the citation of OT Scripture (vv. 2–3), a description of the person, preaching, and ministry of John the Baptizer (vv. 4–8), an account of Jesus’ baptism, and the declaration of the heavenly voice (vv. 9–11), followed by the time of testing in the wilderness (vv. 12–13), and finally a summary of the substance of Jesus’ kingdom proclamation (vv. 14–15). As such this introduction anchors the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus to the OT and to the ministry of the popular John the Baptizer, widely regarded as a prophet and martyr. John promises the coming of a “stronger one”; the sudden appearance of Jesus fulfills this promise.

Prologue (1:1–8)

Mark’s opening words, “the beginning (archē) of the good news (euangelion) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (huiostheou),” serve more or less as the title of the work as a whole. The entire story of Jesus’ ministry, including his death by crucifixion, is “good news” for the world. As the quotation of Isaiah 40 in v. 3 shows, the good news of Jesus is clarified by the Jewish scriptures. But the language of these opening words also recalls the language of the Roman imperial cult, rooted especially in the much revered Caesar Augustus (30 BC–AD 14). The oft-cited Priene inscription (9 BC) is in this instance very significant: “Providence … has given us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humanity, sending him as a savior (sōtēr), both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and put all things in order.… Caesar, by his appearance (epiphanein), excelled our expectations and surpassed all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done … the birthday of the god (theos) Augustus was the beginning (archesthai) for the world of the good news (euangelia) that came by reason of him.” Anyone acquainted with NT Christology will immediately recognize several important parallels, for the NT writers speak of the epiphany of Jesus (2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), the Savior of the world (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 4:14).

Mark’s language (esp. the words “beginning,” “good news,” and “Son of God”) deliberately echoes the Roman doctrine of the divine emperor. (On its OT antecedents, see the commentary on 1:14–15 below.) In effect, the evangelist is saying to the Roman world: Caesar is neither the beginning of the good news for the world, nor is God’s Son; Messiah Jesus is. As such, Mark’s opening words directly challenge the Roman emperor cult (see the comments on Mark 15:39 below).

“Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet” introduces Isa 40:3, but prefaced with Mal 3:1 (and/or Exod 23:20). Isaiah’s reference to the “voice of one crying in the wilderness” provides the rationale for John’s presence and preaching in the wilderness. The Baptizer’s association with the Jordan River, his call for repentance, his promise of the coming of a mightier one, and the appeal to Isa 40:3 place John in the context of the various renewal movements active in the first century. The verse plays an important part in Qumran’s Community Rule (1QS 8:12–14; 9:19–20), a work which anticipates Israel’s renewal and restoration (see Marcus 1992: 12–47). One is also reminded of Theudas who during the administration of Fadus (AD 44–46) persuaded many to take up their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River. He claimed to be a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted, providing easy passage (Josephus Ant. 20.5.1 §§97–98). Evidently Theudas saw himself as a Joshua figure, probably as the promised prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–19). Crossing the Jordan River was but a prelude to a new conquest of the promised land and a restoration of a theocracy based on the laws of Moses. John’s presence at this river appeals to Isa 40:3 (linked to Mal 3:1), and the promise of the coming of a mighty one seems related to the hopes expressed by Qumran, Theudas, and others. The mighty one of John’s expectations will baptize people “with the Holy Spirit.”

Baptism of Jesus (1:9–11)

It is against the backdrop of John’s wilderness preaching and baptizing that Jesus makes his appearance. He is part of the crowds that have gone to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But when Jesus comes up from the water, “he sees heaven torn apart and the Spirit as a dove descendi...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface (James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson)
• Abbreviations
• Mark
• Get the complete commentary!