Gospel of mark

Authorship
Though the author does not directly identify himself, there is still strong evidence to attribute the Gospel to John Mark. In addition to Markan composition, church fathers also state that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, which would give reason to believe that he wrote his Gospel under the guidance or assistance of the apostle. [1] Like the other Gospels, the title "According to Mark" ( ) is found in the earliest manuscripts. With only ten verses in the New Testament making mention of John Mark, it is surprising that there is still enough information to create a sufficient biographical sketch of him. Besides being the author of the second Gospel, he was the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and the son of the Mary who provided a meeting place for early Christians (Acts 12:12). Some have even speculated that John Mark was the young man at the garden of Gethsemane during the betrayal of Jesus (Mark 14:51-52). [2] What is certain is that John Mark accompanied Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:5), but departed early for Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). After the Jerusalem Council, Barnabas and Paul were planning on making their second journey. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark, but Paul opposed the idea because Mark had departed from them on the first Journey. Consequently, Barnabas took John Mark, and Paul took Silas and the two groups went their separate ways (Acts 15:36-41). After Barnabas gave his cousin a second chance, Paul was later able to call him a coworker (Philem 24; cf. Col 4:10) who was helpful to his ministry (2 Tim 4:11). It is also evident that Mark shared a special relationship with Peter. Not only does Peter call him his son (1 Pet 5:13), but they have both experienced failure and restoration.

Date of Composition
The majority of scholarship places Mark's Gospel as the first to be composed. [3] In order to properly date the Gospel it is important to consider the dating timeframe of all the Synoptics. If Luke is considered to be the latest of the Gospels, then it is important to date his Gospel first. The dating of Luke first depends on the dating of Acts which succeeds Luke (cf. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). Because the book of Acts has an abrupt ending with Paul waiting to go before Caesar, the best explanation is that Luke wrote it up to the events that had taken place. This would place the composition of Acts in the early Sixties. With this in mind, Luke could be placed in the late Fifties to early Sixties, Matthew in the mid to late Fifties, and Mark in the early to mid Fifties. These dates are debatable and have a certain degree of elasticity to them, but for the stated reasons they seem the most likely to the present author.

Location, Purpose and Audience

Unlike the date of the Gospel, there is considerable agreement (even amongst the church fathers) as to the location from which John Mark composed his Gospel. Rome is usually named as both the city from which Mark wrote his Gospel and the church to whom it was originally intended. Many scholars also conclude that Mark's presence in "Babylon" suggests that he was in Rome with Peter (1 Pet 5:13). Papias plainly states that "Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle, and that he composed this [Gospel] in Rome itself." [4] Clement of Alexandria also associates Mark with Peter in Rome. [5] Mark's usage of Latin words may also help to support the idea of Roman composition (e.g. = census 12:14; = flagellare 15:15). [6] The Rufus in 15:21 is often connected with the Rufus in Rome (Rom 16:13). Lastly, Mark also explains certain Aramaic words or phrases which the Romans would not have naturally been able to understand (e.g. 3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:34). [7] As it is set forth by the first phrase in Mark's Gospel, Mark intended to compose "the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." The reason for composing the Gospel is speculative. Mark's use of Peter while composing his Gospel has already been mentioned above. With this in mind, one of the purposes of Mark's Gospel may have actually been to present Peter's account of the life and sayings of Jesus as an instructional tool for early church practice. Another reason why Mark would have constructed his Gospel may have been to encourage the Christians in Rome who would have been under persecution instigated by Caesar Nero. http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm

Gospel of Mark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: , , 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] a position known as Markan priority.

The Gospel of Mark narrates the Ministry of Jesus from John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus to the Ascension of Jesus, and it concentrates particularly on the last week of his life (chapters 1116, the trip to Jerusalem). Its swift narrative portrays Jesus as a heroic man of action,[2] an exorcist, a healer and miracle worker. An important theme of Mark is the Messianic Secret.[3] Jesus silences the demoniacs he heals, keeps his messianic identity secret, and conceals his message with parables. [3] The disciples also fail to understand the implication of the miracles of Jesus.[2] All four canonical gospels are anonymous, but Early Christian tradition identifies this gospel's author as Mark the Evangelist, who is said to have based the work on the testimony of Saint Peter.[4] Some modern scholars consider the traditional authorship account to be essentially credible,[5] while others doubt it.[6] Even scholars who doubt Mark's authorship acknowledge that much of the material in Mark goes back a long way and represents important information about Jesus.[7] The Gospel of Mark is often considered to be the primary source of information about the ministry of Jesus.[8]

Composition and setting

The Gospel of Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a companion of Peter,[9] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][10][11][12] The gospel was written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, possibly in Syria.[7] The author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account of authorship,[13] and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown.[14]

Authorship and sources

According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that this gospel was by John Mark,[9] the companion of Saint Peter in Rome, who "had one purpose only to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it."[15] A number of modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around 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] 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 7:14; 14:12; 15:42), and Aramaic words and phrases are expanded upon by the author, e.g., (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); (Corban, Mark 7:11); (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; 2:2328; 10:48b; 12:1827; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:1314.

[edit] Source for Matthew and Luke

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.[16] The reason that such great importance is attached to this Gospel has been the widespread belief in the academic community that the Gospel of Mark and probably Q were the basis of the Synoptic Gospels,[17][18] as held in the two-source hypothesis.[19][20][21][22][23] 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.[23]

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.[24] 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",[25] but three important manuscripts do not. Those three are: Codex Sinaiticus (01, ;dated 4th century), Codex Koridethi (038, ; 9th century), and the text called Minuscule 28 (11th century).[26] Textual support for the term "Son of God" is strong, but the phrase may not have been original.[27] Interpolations may not be editorial, either. It is a common experience that glosses written in the margins of manuscripts get 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. Early (Western) manuscripts say that Jesus became angry with the leper while later (Byzantine) versions indicate that Jesus showed compassion. This is possibly a confusion between the Aramaic words ethraham (he had pity) and ethra'em (he was enraged).[28] Since it is easier to understand why a scribe would change "rage" to "pity" than "pity" to "rage," the earlier version is probably original.[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_mark

Gospel of Mark
Estimated Range of Dating: 65-80 A.D.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Place and date of composition

It is certain that the Gospel was written at Rome. St. Chrysostom indeed speaks of Egypt as the place of composition ("Hom. I. on Matt.", 3), but he probably misunderstood Eusebius, who says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the Gospel which he had written (Church History II.16). Some few modern scholars have adopted the suggestion of Richard Simon ("Hist. crit. du Texte du N.T.", 1689, 107) that the Evangelist may have published both a Roman and an Egyptian edition of the Gospel. But this view is sufficiently refuted by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers. Other opinions, such as that the Gospel was written in Asia Minor or at Syrian Antioch, are not deserving of any consideration. The date of the Gospel is uncertain. The external evidence is not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much. St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and St. Jerome signify that it was written before St. Peter's death. The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (A.D. 38-40). The "Paschal Chronicle" assigns it to A.D. 40, and the "Chronicle" of Eusebius to the third year of Claudius (A.D. 43). Possibly these early dates may be only a deduction from the tradition that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A.D. 42 (cf. Eusebius, Church History II.14; Jerome, "De Vir. Ill.", i). St. Irenus, on the other hand, seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul (meta de ten touton exodon--Against Heresies III.1). Papias, too, asserting that Mark wrote according to his recollection of Peter's discourses, has been taken to imply that Peter was dead. This, however, does not necessarily follow from the words of Papias, for Peter might have been absent from Rome. Besides, Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Church History VI.14) seems to say that Peter was alive and in Rome at the time Mark wrote, though he gave the Evangelist no help in his work. There is left, therefore, the testimony of St. Irenus against that of all the other early witnesses; and it is an interesting fact that most present-day Rationalist and Protestant scholars prefer to follow Irenus and accept the later date for Mark's Gospel, though they reject almost unanimously the saint's testimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in favour of the priority of Matthew's Gospel to Mark's. Various attempts have been made to explain the passage in Irenus so as to bring him into agreement with the other early authorities (see, e.g. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 76-78; Patrizi, "De Evang.", I, 38), but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be regarded as correct. It seems much more reasonable, however, to believe that Irenus was mistaken than that all the other authorities are in error, and hence the external evidence would show that Mark wrote before Peter's death (A.D. 64 or 67). From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already

taken place. On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts 14:26 and 15:3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm