Authorship
Fra Angelico's Head of
St. Mark.
The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as
Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to
Mark, a cousin of
Barnabas.
[8], who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was
John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by
Eusebius of Caesarea:
This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the
Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.
[9] Irenaeus concurred with this tradition,
[10] as did
Origen of Alexandria,
[11] Tertullian,
[12] and others.
Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the 2nd century, reported an ancient tradition that Mark was urged by those who had heard Peter's speeches in
Rome to write what the apostle had said.
[11] Following this tradition, scholars have generally thought that this gospel was written at Rome. Among recent alternate suggestions are
Syria,
Alexandria, or more broadly any area within the
Roman Empire. In any case, many scholars do not accept the Papias citation as a reliable representation of the Gospel's history, pointing out that there is no distinctive
Petrine tradition in Mark.
[13]
It has been argued that there is an impending sense of
persecution in the Gospel, and that this could indicate it being written to sustain the faith of a community under such a threat. As the main Christian persecution at that time was in Rome under
Nero, this has been used to place the writing of the Gospel in Rome.
[14] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Latinized vocabulary
[15] employed in Mark (and in neither Matthew nor Luke) shows that the Gospel was written in Rome. Also cited in support is a passage in
First Peter: "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.";
[16] Babylon being interpreted as a derogatory or code name for Rome, as the famous ancient city of
Babylon ceased to exist in 275 BC.
However, the Rome-Peter theory has been questioned in recent decades. Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning
Galilean geography and customs
[17][18][19], supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area and its customs, unlike the historical Peter.
[20] Furthermore, certain scholars dispute the connection of the gospel with
persecution, identified with Nero's persecution in Rome, asserting that persecution was widespread, albeit sporadic beyond the borders of the city of Rome.
[21]
It is generally agreed among contemporary scholars that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the canonical gospels to be written, whereas the traditional view, popular amongst the
Church fathers and especially
Augustine of Hippo, holds that Mark was composed second, after the
Gospel of Matthew (see
Augustinian hypothesis). This assertion of
Markan Priority is closely associated with the
Two-Source Hypothesis,
Q hypothesis, and the
Farrer hypothesis (see below).
[edit] Date
See also: Synoptic problem There are differing opinions as to how late Mark could have been written. Most scholars agree with the
Two-source hypothesis that proposes that Mark was one of the sources for the other
Synoptic Gospels,
Matthew and
Luke; according to this viewpoint the latest possible date for Mark depends on the dating of Matthew and Luke. A
papyrus find among the
Dead Sea Scrolls, dating before 68, has been identified as a fragment of the Gospel, but this is not widely accepted. A wide range of recent
critical scholars believe that Mark was written at the earliest after the
fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the
Second Temple in 70.
[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
[edit] Pre-70 (Before the destruction of the Second Temple)
See also: 7Q5 Two papyrologists, Fr.
Jose O'Callaghan and
Carsten Peter Thiede, have proposed that lettering on a postage-stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a cave at
Qumran,
7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark (
Mark 6:52–53); thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to 68. Computer analysis has shown that, assuming their disputed reading of the letters to be correct, only Mark matches these twenty letters and five lines among all known Greek manuscripts.
[7] Some papyrologists question this identification of the fragmentary text,
[29] based on the assumption that all early papyrus Gospel manuscripts were printed as
codices.
[7], and the assumption that a copy in a
scroll format would not have been made for the
Qumran librarians. While no other known Greek work matches its wording, no extant copy of Mark contains the phrase "to land" found in 6:52–53.
John Robinson in 'Redating the New Testament' proposes an even earlier date. He accepts Marcan Priority and dates Luke/Acts no later than 62. Therefore, if Mark was written before Luke/Acts, Robinson dates Mark to the mid fifties.[
citation needed]
[edit] Post-70 (After the destruction of the Second Temple)
Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based upon the belief that Jesus could not have supernaturally prophesied future events, but the text of Mark must reflect events that had already occurred. Thus, the dating of Mark divides those who consider supernatural prophesy by Jesus as impossible from those who view it as possible that Mark could have been written before the events described took place.
Mark 13:14-23, known as the "
Little Apocalypse", is a key passage for dating the text. Using the method of
Higher Criticism to analyze the Biblical text and to discover the historical framework in which it was written, correspondences have been seen by scholars between this passage and the calamities of the First
Jewish Revolt of 66–70.
[30] The passage predicts that
Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general
Titus in the year 70.
[31] Scholars have also pointed out that the last verse of the
Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mark 12:9 alludes to the slaughter and exile of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans after 70
[32] (according to historians, the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem only after the
Bar Kokhba revolt[33]). Others see the reference in
Mark 14:58-59 to the
false accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days as another reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70.
[34]
[edit] Post-135 (After the Bar Kokhba Revolt)
A small group of scholars, including the German radical critical scholar Hermann Detering,
[35] see a 2nd century date for Mark.
[36][37][38] These scholars make the case that the "
Little Apocalypse"
Mark 13:14-23 refers to the events of the
Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-135, and which they see as a much better fit to events described in this text than the First
Jewish Revolt of 70. The parallels that they see are as follows: The
Emperor Hadrian in the year 130 started to rebuild the city of
Jerusalem as a pagan
Roman colony named
Aelia Capitolina. The
Abomination of Desolation (
Mark 13:14) according to this hypothesis alludes to the statue of
Jupiter Capitolinus that the
Emperor Hadrian attempted to install in a temple to
Jupiter on the
Temple Mount. The leader of the revolt,
Simon Bar Kokhba claimed to be the anointed
Jewish Messiah (cf.
Mark 13:21-25). The Romans suppressed the revolt with as many as twelve legions, and pursued a scorched earth policy. According to the second century Roman historian
Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.
[39] See also
Ten Martyrs[40].
[edit] Audience
Beginning of a
Latin Gospel of Mark,
Book of Durrow (7th century).
The general theory is that Mark is a
Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of 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).
Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (
talitha koum,
Mark 5:41); κορβαν (
Corban,
Mark 7:11); αββα (
abba,
Mark 14:36).
Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes use of the Old Testament 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. Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages such as
1:44;
5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf.
Genesis 14:18–20);
Mark 7:27; and
Mark 8:27–30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its
Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems.
The gospel of Mark contains many literary genres. Paul's letters were already surfacing around 40–60, and the Gospel of Mark came at a time when Christian faith was rising. Professor Dennis R MacDonald writes:
Whether as a response to the Jewish War (66–70) or to the deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. Its dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.
[41]