Gospel of Mark

Books of the
New Testament
Gospels
Matthew · Mark · Luke · John
Acts
Acts of the Apostles
Epistles
Romans
1 Corinthians · 2 Corinthians
Galatians · Ephesians
Philippians · Colossians
1 Thessalonians · 2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy · 2 Timothy
Titus · Philemon
Hebrews · James
1 Peter · 2 Peter
1 John · 2 John · 3 John
Jude
Apocalypse
Revelation
New Testament manuscripts

The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μᾶρκον, 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 11–16, 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]

Contents

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 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42), and Aramaic words and phrases are expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (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; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14.

Source for Matthew and Luke

See also: Two-source hypothesis

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, א; dated 4th century), Codex Koridethi (038, Θ; 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]

Ending

Main article: Mark 16

Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[30] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[31] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[31]

Therefore, the Gospel of Mark may have originally ended abruptly at Mark 16:8. This has become problematic for scholars, as it is unlikely that a Christian author would have intentionally ended his gospel in such a fashion. The most common explanation is that the ending was lost. This is not uncommon with ancient scrolls due to their wearing patterns. The gospel may have been unfinished, due to death or some form of persecution. Finally Mark could have been a two volume work in the tradition of Luke-Acts, the second volume being lost or unfinished.[24][32][33] [34]

Irenaeus, c. 180, quoted from the long ending, specifically as part of Mark's gospel.[35] The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.[36] Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author's death.[37] Those who believe that 16:8 was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax for the text to end with the conjunction gar (γάρ), as does Mark 16:8, and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end with a note of fear (ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, "for they were afraid").[38] If the 16:8 ending was intentional, it could indicate a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". This abrupt ending is also used to support the identification of this book as an example of closet drama, which characteristically ended without resolution and often with a tragic or shocking event that prevents closure.[39]

Characteristics

The Gospel of Mark differs from the other gospels in language, detail and content. Its theology is unique. The gospel's vocabulary embraces 1330 distinct words, of which 60 are proper names. Eighty words, (exclusive of proper names), are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. About one-fourth of these are non-classical. In addition Mark makes use of the "historic present" as well as the "Messianic secret" to make known his Gospel message.[40]

Theology

Christians consider the Gospel of Mark to be divinely inspired and will see the gospel's theology as consistent with that of the rest of the Bible. Each sees Mark as contributing a valuable voice to a wider Christian theology, though Christians sometimes disagree about the nature of this theology. However, Mark's contribution to a New Testament theology can be identified as unique in and of itself.

Mark is seen as a historian/theologian and declares that his account is "The Gospel of Jesus Christ". The "Suffering Messiah" is central to Mark's portrayal of Jesus, his theology and the structure of the gospel. This knowledge is hidden and only those with spiritual insight may see. The concept of hidden knowledge may have become the basis of the Gnostic Gospels.[41] John Killinger, arguing that, in Mark, the resurrection account is hidden throughout the gospel rather than at the end, speculates that the Markan author might himself have been a Gnostic Christian.[42]

Messianic secret

Main article: Messianic secret

In Mark, more than in the other synoptics, Jesus hides his messianic identity.[43] When he exorcises demons, they recognize him, but he commands them to be silent. When he heals people, he tells them not to reveal how they were healed.[44] When he preaches, he uses parables to conceal his true message. The disciples are obtuse, understanding the true significance of Jesus only after his death.[45] This "Messianic secret" is a central issue in Bible scholarship.[46]

In 1901, William Wrede challenged the current critical view that Mark comprised a straightforward historical account and gave the name "Messianic secret" to this gospel theme. He argued that the Messianic secret was a literary device that Mark used to resolve the tension between early Christians, who hailed Jesus as the Messiah, and the historical Jesus who, he argued, never made any such claim for himself.[47] The Messianic secret remains a topic of debate.[46]

Adoptionism

Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God. The majority Christian view is that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary.

However, there is a minority Christian belief called Adoptionism. Adoptionists believe that Jesus was fully human, born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary.[48][49] Jesus only became divine, i.e. (adopted as God's son), later at his baptism.[50] He was chosen as the firstborn of all creation because of his sinless devotion to the will of God.[51][52]

Adoptionism probably arose among early Jewish Christians seeking to reconcile the claims that Jesus was the Son of God with the strict monotheism of Judaism, in which the concept of a trinity of divine persons in one Godhead was unacceptable. Scholar Bart D. Ehrman argues that adoptionist theology may date back almost to the time of Jesus.[53] The early Jewish-Christian Gospels make no mention of a supernatural birth. Rather, they state that Jesus was begotten at his baptism.

The theology of Adoptionism fell into disfavor as Christianity left its Jewish roots and Gentile Christianity became dominant. Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century, and was rejected by the First Council of Nicaea, which proclaimed the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identifies Jesus as eternally begotten of God. The Creed of Nicaea now holds Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. (See Virgin Birth).[54]

Adoptionism may go back as far as Matthew and the Apostles.[53] According to the Church Fathers,[55] the first gospel was written by the Apostle Matthew, and his account was called the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Gospel of the Apostles.[56][57] [58] [59][60] This, the first written account of the life of Jesus was adoptionist in nature. The Gospel of the Hebrews has no mention of the Virgin Birth and when Jesus is baptized it states, "Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, ‘You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, ‘Today I have begotten You.’ Immediately a great light shone around the place".[61][62][63]

Scholars also see Adoptionist theology in the Gospel of Mark. Mark has Jesus as the Son of God, occurring at the strategic points of 1:1 ("The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God") and 15:39 ("Surely this man was the Son of God!"), but the Virgin Birth of Jesus has not been developed.The phrase "Son of God" is not present in some early manuscripts at 1:1. Bart D. Ehrman uses this omission to support the notion that the title "Son of God" is not used of Jesus until his baptism, and that Mark reflects an adoptionist view.[64] However, the authenticity of the omission of "Son of God" and its theological significance has been rejected by Bruce Metzger and Ben Witherington III.[65][66]

By the time the Gospels of Luke and Matthew were written, Jesus is portrayed as being the Son of God from the time of birth, and finally the Gospel of John portrays the Son as existing "in the beginning".[64]

Meaning of Jesus' death

Mark portrays Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice for sin.[67] The Temple curtain, which served as a barrier between the holy presence of God and the profane world, rips at the moment of Jesus' death, symbolizing an end to the division between humans and God.[67]

The only explicit mention of the meaning of Jesus' death in Mark occurs in 10:45 where Jesus says that the "Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (lutron) for many (anti pollōn)." According to Barnabas Lindars, this refers to Isaiah's fourth servant song, with lutron referring to the "offering for sin" (Isaiah 53:10) and anti pollōn to the Servant "bearing the sin of many" in Isaiah 52:12.[68] The Greek word anti means "in the place of", which indicates a substitutionary death.[69]

The author of this gospel also speaks of Jesus' death through the metaphors of the departing bridegroom in 2:20, and of the rejected heir in 12:6–8. He views it as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy (9:12, 12:10–11, 14:21 and 14:27).

Many scholars believe that Mark structured his gospel in order to emphasise Jesus' death. For example, Alan Culpepper sees Mark 15:1–39 as developing in three acts, each containing an event and a response.[70] The first event is Jesus' trial, followed by the soldiers' mocking response; the second event is Jesus' crucifixion, followed by the spectators mocking him; the third and final event in this sequence is Jesus' death, followed by the veil being rent and the centurion confessing, "truly this man was the Son of God." In weaving these things into a triadic structure, Mark is thereby emphasising the importance of this confession, which provides a dramatic contrast to the two scenes of mocking which precede it. D. R. Bauer suggests that "by bringing his gospel to a climax with this christological confession at the cross, Mark indicates that Jesus is first and foremost Son of God, and that Jesus is Son of God as one who suffers and dies in obedience to God."[71] Joel Marcus notes that the other Evangelists "attenuate" Mark's emphasis on Jesus' suffering and death, and sees Mark as more strongly influenced than they are by Paul's "theology of the cross".[72]

Characteristics of Mark's content

The narrative can be divided into three sections: the Galilean ministry, including the surrounding regions of Phoenicia, Decapolis, and Cæsarea Philippi (1–9); the Journey to Jerusalem (10); and the Events in Jerusalem (11–16).

Characteristics of Mark's language

The phrase "and immediately" occurs forty-two times in Mark; while in Luke, which is much longer, it is used only seven times, and in John only four times.[75] The word from Greek: νομος, which roughly translates as law, ([7]) is never used, while it appears 8 times in Matthew, 9 times in Luke, 15 times in John, 19 times in Acts, many times in Romans.

Latin loanwords are often used: speculator, sextarius, centurion, legion, quadrans, praetorium, caesar, census, flagello, modius, denarius.[76] Mark has over a dozen direct Old Testament quotations: 1:2–3, 4:12, 7:6–7, 7:10, 9:7,10:19, 11:9–10, 11:17, 12:10–11, 12:29–31, 12:36, 13:24–26, 14:27, 15:34. Mark makes frequent use of the narrative present; Luke changes about 150 of these verbs to past tense.[77] Mark frequently links sentences with Greek: και (and); Matthew and Luke replace most of these with subordinate clauses.

Other characteristics unique to Mark

Then:
  • 8:1–9 – Feeding of the four thousand;
  • 8:10 – Crossing of the lake;
  • 8:11–13 – Dispute with the Pharisees;
  • 8:14–21 – Incident of no bread and discourse about the leaven of the Pharisees.

Secret Gospel of Mark

Main article: Secret Gospel of Mark

The Secret Gospel of Mark refers to a version of the Gospel of Mark being circulated in 2nd century Alexandria, which was kept from the Christian community at large. This non-canonical gospel fragment was discovered in 1958, by biblical researcher Morton Smith at the Mar Saba monastery.[82]

In this fragment, Clement of Alexandria explains that Mark, during Peter's stay in Rome wrote an account of the life of Jesus. Mark selected those events that would be the most helpful to the Church. When Peter died a martyr, Mark left Rome and went to Alexandria. He brought both his own writings and those of Peter. It was here that Mark composed a second more spiritual Gospel and when he died, he left his composition to the Church.[83] The Carpocrates got a copy of this Gospel and they misinterpreted it, which caused problems for the early Church.

Some modern scholars maintain the Secret Gospel is a clumsy forgery, while others accept this text as being authentic.[84] [85] The nature of the Secret Gospel of Mark as well as Morton Smith's role in its discovery are still being debated.[86][87][88][89]

Canonical Status

A related issue is the adoption of the Gospel of Mark as a Canonical Gospel, given that, like the hypothetical Q, it is largely reproduced in Matthew and Luke, but, unlike Q, it did not become "lost". Traditionally Mark's authority and survival has derived from its Petrine origins (see above "Authorship"). A recent suggestion is that Mark gained widespread popularity in oral performance, apart from readings from manuscript copies. Its widespread oral popularity ensured it a place in the written canon.[90]

Content

Galilean ministry

Journey to Jerusalem

Events in Jerusalem

See also

Gospel of Mark

Notes

  1. ^ a b Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 164. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. 
  2. ^ a b c d Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  3. ^ a b "Messianic Secret." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  4. ^ "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 02 Nov. 2010 .
  5. ^ Notably Martin Hengel, cited in Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 26.
  6. ^ "[T]he author of Mark is probably unknown..." "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 02 Nov. 2010 [1].
  7. ^ a b c d Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24-27.
  8. ^ "The Gospel According to Mark." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
  9. ^ a b Bernd Kollmann, Joseph Barnabas (Liturgical Press, 2004), page 30.
  10. ^ Kirby, Peter. "Gospel of Mark" earlychristianwritings.com Retrieved January 30, 2010.
  11. ^ Darrell L. Bock (9 October 2007). The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities. Thomas Nelson Inc. ISBN 9780785289067. http://books.google.com/?id=UU7L33O0sIEC&pg=PT159&dq=who+do+scholars+think+wrote+the+gospels#v=onepage&q=who%20do%20scholars%20think%20wrote%20the%20gospels&f=false. Retrieved 16 October 2010 ; Black, David Allen, “Why Four Gospels?” 2001, Kregel Publications. ISBN 0-8254-2070-9. Blomberg, Craig, “Jesus and the Gospels”. 2009, B&H Publishing. P 138-140. ISBN 978-0-8054-4482-7. Edwards, James. “The Gospel According to Mark”. 2002 Eerdmans Publishing Co. LaVerdiere, Eugene. “The Beginning of the Gospel”. 1991, The Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-2478-2. (p15)
  12. ^ Lane, William, “The Gospel According to mark”. 1974. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ISBN 0-8028-2502-8.(p 10)
  13. ^ "Above all the heterogeneous source material which the evangelist has worked over tells against [the traditional] account... [t]he author of Mark is a collector, in so far as he demonstrably takes up written and oral material from the tradition which varies in both form and theology." Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 26-27
  14. ^ biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [2]
  15. ^ Papias, quoted in Eusebius History of the Church, trans. G.A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1965). 3.39.15 / pp. 103–4. Also available online
  16. ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 2. Christian sources about Jesus.
  17. ^ Peter, Kirby (2001-2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html. Retrieved 2008-01-15. 
  18. ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1991–). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictonary. 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0385193629. 
  19. ^ M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897), "Luke, Gospel According To"
  20. ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. 2. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. 955–6. ISBN 0385469934. 
  21. ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0965504727. 
  22. ^ Marcus, Joel (2004). The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 115. ISBN 978-0567082660. http://books.google.com/?id=yCV6I6KoJGkC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22mark+12+9%22+%22jewish+war%22. 
  23. ^ a b Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Luke," p. 267-364
  24. ^ a b N. Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel (Abingdon, 2003) ISBN 0-687-05293-9
  25. ^ Greek grammar and article use allow an English translation of the Son of God, a son of God, or merely Son of God.
  26. ^ Novum Testamentum Graece
  27. ^ "Since the combination of B D W all in support of [Son of God] is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets." Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
  28. ^ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2: Mark, p.41" (PDF). TCG 2007: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 5th ed.. http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf. Retrieved 2008-01-09. 
  29. ^ Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4
  30. ^ Ehrman, Bart (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. 
  31. ^ a b May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.
  32. ^ Scholars agree that Luke based his work on Mark and the first 16 Chapters of Acts have a distinct Markan flavor to them, raising several interesting possibilities see William Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, Cambridge University Press, 1999 pp. 182 – 183
  33. ^ 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",Greek grammar and article use allow an English translation of the Son of God, a son of God, or merely Son of God. but three important manuscripts do not. Those three are: Codex Sinaiticus (01, א; dated 4th century), Codex Koridethi (038, Θ; 9th century), and the text called Minuscule 28(11th century).Novum Testamentum Graece
  34. ^ David Arthur DeSilva, An introduction to the New Testament: contexts, methods & ministry formation, InterVarsity Press, 2004 pp. 224 – 227
  35. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.5–6, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says: 'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right and of God.'" c.f. Mark 16:19
  36. ^ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2b: The various endings of Mk" (PDF). TCG 2006: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 4th ed.. http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf. Retrieved 2006-07-06. 
  37. ^ Price, Christopher. "The Missing Ending of the Gospel of Mark". Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism: Answering Skeptics. ChristianCADRE.org. http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/Mark_Ending.html. Retrieved 2006-07-06. 
  38. ^ N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (1944) pp. 86–118; also J. B. Tyson, Journal of Biblical Literature 80 (1961) pp. 261–268. A relevant commentary: P. W. van Horst, "Can a book end with γάρ? A note on Mark 16:8", in Journal of Theological Studies, new series 23 (1972) pp. 121–124.
  39. ^ Stephen H. Smith (1995). "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark's Gospel". Novum Testamentum (E.J. Brill, Leiden) 37 (3): 209–231. doi:10.1163/1568536952662709. 
  40. ^ William Telford, Mark, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003 pp.75 – 78
  41. ^ William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, Volume 2 of The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1974 pp.300 – 303
  42. ^ John Killinger, Hidden Mark: Exploring Christianity's Heretical Gospel (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2010).
  43. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 287.
  44. ^ 'Again and again, both Jesus' intimate disciples and those whom he miraculously heals or cleanses or from whom he exorcises demons are charged not to reveal who he is (Mark 1:23–24, 34; 3:11–12; 8:30; 9:2–9).' Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 287.
  45. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 287-288.
  46. ^ a b "Messianic secret." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  47. ^ "Wrede, William." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  48. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and fiction in The Da Vinci code: a historian reveals what we really know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p. 19
  49. ^ Charles Landon, "A text-critical study of the Epistle of Jude", Volume 135 of Journal for the study of the New Testament, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, p.43
  50. ^ Ed Hindson & Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, Harvest House Publishers, 2008 P. 16
  51. ^ Ed Hindson & Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, Harvest House Publishers, 2008 p. 17
  52. ^ They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. After saying many things, this Gospel continues: “After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, ‘You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, ‘Today I have begotten You.’ “Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to Him, ‘Who are you, Lord? And again a voice from Heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ Then John, falling down before Him, said, ‘I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But He forbade him saying, ‘Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.’” Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7 & 13.7
  53. ^ a b Bart D Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. p.74-55
  54. ^ "Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God had chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptian Christology); or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology)." Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma [3]
  55. ^ Origen explains, "The very first account to be written was by Matthew, once a tax collector, but later an apostle of Jesus Christ. Matthew published it for the converts from Judaism and composed it in Hebrew letters." Eusebius Church History, 6:25 Eusebius adds insight by explaining that the apostles "were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. Matthew, who had first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, committed the gospel to writing in his native language. Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent." Eusebius Church History, 3:24
  56. ^ Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, 2006, pp. 122, 125–129
  57. ^ Eusebius Church History 3:39 .
  58. ^ Irenaeus gives us further insight into the date and circumstances of this gospel by explaining, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1
  59. ^ Matthew, the tax collector and later an Apostle, composed his gospel near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians. It was then translated into Greek but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was preserved at the Library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. The Nazarenes transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work. "Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3">Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3 [4]
  60. ^ Matthew's gospel was called the Gospel of the Hebrews or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles, and was written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script. It was used by the Nazarene communities. Jerome, Against Pelagius 3:2 [5]
  61. ^ Epiphanius, Panarion 30:13
  62. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2009, pp. 1–376
  63. ^ Pierson Parker A Basis for the Gospel According to the Hebrews Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Dec., 1940), pp. 471.
  64. ^ a b Ehrman, Bart D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. p.74-55.
  65. ^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York : United Bible Societies, 1994). Mark 1:1.
  66. ^ Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done With Jesus? (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2006), p. 7.
  67. ^ a b c Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted, HarperCollins, 2009. ISBN 0061173932
  68. ^ Lindars, Barnabas. "Salvation Proclaimed, VII: Mark 10:45 – A Ransom for Many" Expository Times 93 [1982], 293.
  69. ^ Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 188.
  70. ^ Culpepper, R. Alan. "The Passion and Resurrection in Mark," Review & Expositor 75 [1978], 584.
  71. ^ Bauer, D. R. "Son of God" in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (eds.) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 773.
  72. ^ Marcus, Joel (2000). "Mark – Interpreter of Paul". New Testament Studies 46 (4): 473–487. doi:10.1017/S0028688500000278. 
  73. ^ Wrede, Wilhelm. The Messianic Secret in the Gospels. 1901. ISBN 0-227-67717-X
  74. ^ Metzger, Bruce M. (1994). Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testamanet (Second ed.). Freiburg, Germany: UBS. pp. 51–52. ISBN 3-438-06010-8. On Matthew 24.36: "The omission of the words ["neither the Son"] because of the doctrinal difficulty they present is more probable than their addition by assimilation to Mk 13.32."
  75. ^ Easton's Bible Dictionary: Mark, Gospel according to
  76. ^ Bauer lexicon
  77. ^ Complete Gospels, Miller, p.11
  78. ^ Similar to a rabbinical saying from the 2nd century BC, "The Sabbath is given over to you ["the son of man"], and not you to the Sabbath." [6] Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages
  79. ^ Jesus the miracle worker: a historical & theological study by Graham H. Twelftree 1999 ISBN 0830815961 page 79
  80. ^ The verb katharizo means both "to declare to be clean" and "to purify." The Scholars Version has: "This is how everything we eat is purified", Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament has: "purging all that is eaten." See also Strong's G2511
  81. ^ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2: Mark, p.448" (PDF). TCG 2007: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 5th ed.. http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf. Retrieved 2008-01-09. 
  82. ^ Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings, Vol 1, Westminster John Knox Press, 2003 pp.106 – 109
  83. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Lost scriptures: books that did not make it into the New Testament, Oxford University Press US, 2003 pp.87 – 89
  84. ^ Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2003 p. 79
  85. ^ Early Christian Writings
  86. ^ Carlson, Stephen C. (2005). The Gospel Hoax – Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark. Baylor University Press. ISBN 1932792481. 
  87. ^ Jeffery, Peter (2006). The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300117604. 
  88. ^ Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996, p. 49.
  89. ^ Bruce, "The 'Secret' Gospel of Mark," 1974.
  90. ^ J. Dewey, "The Survival of Mark's Gospel: a Good Story?" Journal of Biblical Literature, 123 (2004) pp. 495–507

References

Gospel of Mark online

Commentaries

General

External links

Online translations of the Gospel of Mark:

Related articles:

Gospel of Mark
Preceded by
Gospel of
Matthew		 New Testament
Books of the Bible		 Succeeded by
Gospel of
Luke
Principal divisions
Orthodox
Subdivisions
Development
Manuscripts
See also
  • Category
  • Portal
  • WikiProject
  • Book