Back Aa

Literature and History of New Testament Times

Close

<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</SPAN></span></p> <h2>LESSON XXVIII</h2> <h3>A GRAPHIC SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF JESUS</h3> <h4>The Gospel According to Mark</h4> <p>The Gospel of Mark contains scarcely any material which is not also contained in one or both of the other two Synoptic Gospels. The loss of Mark would not diminish appreciably the number of facts that we know about Jesus. Nevertheless, the Second Gospel is of the utmost importance; for although it narrates for the most part only the same facts as are also narrated elsewhere, it narrates them in a different way. Indeed the very brevity of the Gospel adds to its special value. A picture is sometimes the more impressive by being limited in extent. Read the Gospel of Mark, not piecemeal but as a whole, and you obtain an impression of Jesus which can be obtained from no other book.</p> <h5>1. THE TRADITION</h5> <p><strong>(1) Papias on Mark.</strong>—As in the case of Matthew, so in that of Mark it is Papias of Hierapolis who provides the earliest information about the production of the Gospel. Again also the words of Papias are quoted by Eusebius (Church History, iii, 39, 15). The passage from Papias is as follows:</p> <p>"This also the presbyter said: 'Mark, on the one hand, being an interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately as many things as he remembered, yet not in order, the things which were either said or done by the Lord.' For neither did he hear the Lord nor did he follow him, but afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter, who carried on his teaching as need required but not as though he were making an ordered account of the oracles of the Lord; so that Mark committed no fault when he wrote some things as he had remembered them. For he had one care—that he should not leave out anything of the things that he had heard, or represent anything among them falsely."</p> <p><strong>(2) Antiquity of the Papian Tradition.</strong>—It will be observed that Papias is here represented as quoting from "the presbyter." Probably, however, it is only the first sentence that is quoted; the rest seems to be an explanation by Papias himself. By "presbyter,"<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</SPAN></span> or "elder," Papias means not an officer in the Church, but a man of an older generation. The tradition is therefore very ancient. Papias himself lived in the former half of the second century; a man of a still older generation would probably have acquired his information about Mark well before A. D. 100. Such information is not to be lightly rejected.</p> <p>(3) Mark an Interpreter of Peter.—According to the presbyter, Mark was an "interpreter" of Peter. If the word be taken strictly it means that Mark translated the words of Peter from one language into another—probably from Aramaic into Greek. On the whole, however, it is not probable, in view of linguistic conditions in Palestine and in the Church, that Peter would be unable to speak Greek. Perhaps, then, the sentence means that Mark was merely the mediator, in a general sense, of Peter's preaching. He presented the teaching of Peter to those who had not had the opportunity of hearing it themselves. Perhaps the meaning is that he had done so formerly by word of mouth. Perhaps, however, it is rather the Gospel itself that is referred to. By writing the Gospel Mark became an interpreter or mediator of the preaching of Peter.</p> <p>At any rate, whatever meaning be given to the word "interpreter," the general sense of the sentence—especially when taken in connection with the following explanation by Papias is fairly clear. Mark derived the information for his Gospel not from personal acquaintance with the earthly Jesus, but from association with Peter.</p> <p>(4) Mark Not Written "In Order."—The presbyter said further that although Mark wrote accurately what he heard from Peter, he did not succeed in giving "in order" an account of the things that Jesus did and said. Evidently the historical incompleteness, the lack of uninterrupted sequence, of the Gospel of Mark is here in view.</p> <p>But by what standard is the Gospel judged? It can hardly be by the standard of Matthew, for Matthew pays even less attention to temporal sequence than Mark does. The order in Luke also is by no means in all respects more strictly chronological than that in Mark. Only one standard satisfies the requirements of the presbyter's words—the standard provided by the teaching of John. John was the great leader of the Church of Asia Minor. His teaching naturally formed the standard of authority in that region. Perhaps at the time when the presbyter expressed his judgment on Mark the Gospel of John had already been written, so that one Gospel could be compared with the other; perhaps, however, it was merely the<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</SPAN></span> oral teaching of John, afterwards embodied in the Gospel, which afforded the basis of comparison. The Gospel of John alone provides something like a chronological framework of the public ministry of Jesus: John alone mentions the early Judean ministry; John alone narrates the successive visits of Jesus to the feasts in Jerusalem. If, as is possible, "the presbyter" of Papias was none other than John himself, then of course the whole matter becomes especially plain. John knew that there were important omissions in the Gospel of Mark; he probably observed, for example, that that Gospel if taken alone might readily create the impression that the ministry of Jesus lasted only one year instead of three or four. No doubt he corrected this impression in his oral teaching; certainly he corrects it in his Gospel. In commending the Gospel of Mark, John would naturally call attention to its chronological incompleteness.</p> <h5>2. THE HEADING</h5> <p>Like the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark opens not with a sentence, but with a heading. As in the former case, however, the exact reference of the heading is uncertain. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" may, in the first place, mean merely, "Here begins the gospel of Jesus Christ." "The gospel of Jesus Christ" would then be simply the story about Christ that is narrated in the book that follows.</p> <p>In the second place, the phrase may be taken as a description of the contents of the book. The whole of Jesus' life would then be described as the beginning of that proclamation of the gospel which was afterwards continued by the apostles and by the Church.</p> <p>In the third place, the phrase may be merely a heading for the section that immediately follows, for Mark 1:2-8, or for vs. 2-13. In this case the preaching of John the Baptist, with or without the baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, and the temptation, would be described as the beginning of, as preliminary to, the proclamation of the gospel, which is mentioned in vs. 14, 15.</p> <p>Perhaps the first interpretation is to be preferred as being the simplest, though it must be admitted that the phrase is a little puzzling.</p> <h5>3. MARK THE MISSIONARY GOSPEL</h5> <p>It is significant that the Gospel of Mark begins not with the birth and infancy of Jesus, but with the ministry of John the Baptist and the subsequent preaching of Jesus in Galilee. Mark<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</SPAN></span> seems to be following with great exactness the scheme of early apostolic preaching as it is laid down in Acts 10:37-43. Apparently Mark is preëminently the missionary Gospel; it contains only those things which had a place in the first preaching to unbelievers. That does not mean that the things which Mark omits are necessarily less important than the things which it contains. Mark gives a summary, not exactly of the most important things about Jesus, but rather of the things which unbelievers or recent converts could most easily understand. Hence the omission of the mystery of the birth, of the profound teaching of the early Judean ministry, of the intimate instructions to the disciples. These things are of fundamental importance. But they can best be understood only after one has first acquired a thorough grasp of the public ministry, and of the death and resurrection.</p> <p>The Second Gospel, judged by purely formal standards, cannot be called exactly a beautiful book. It lacks the rhythm of Old Testament poetry, and the grace of the Gospel of Luke. But its rough, vigorous naturalness conveys a message of compelling power.</p> <hr class="tb" /> <p><span class="smcap">In the Library.</span>—Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (edited) article on "Mark." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 21-26. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. i: Plumptre, "The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke," pp. 187-234. "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Maclear, "The Gospel according to St. Mark." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii, pp. 427-506, 601-617. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.</p> <hr class="chap" /> <div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />

1 of 2

2 of 2