Authorship and Provenance

The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, 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:

And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.^[1]

From the time of Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the 2nd century, to the mid 20th century, scholars have generally thought this gospel was first written at Rome, but Syria is also a viable candidate. The Rome-Peter theory has been questioned in recent decades. It is argued that the Latinisms in the Greek of Mark —once seen as an indication of Roman provenance—could have stemmed from many places throughout the Western Roman empire. Furthermore, Papias' comment does not make it clear that the Mark of whom he spoke is the author of the canonical gospel which bears that name. Neither does the comment in 1 Peter 5:13 "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son" for Mark was a very common name in the first century. Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean topography, supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area, unlike the historical Peter. Finally, some scholars dispute the connection of the gospel with persecution, identified with persecution at Rome, because persecution was widespread, albeit sporadic beyond the borders of the city of Rome.

As Morna D. Hooker, the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity in The University of Cambridge, stated in her commentary on Mark (p. 8): "All we can say with certainty, therefore, is that the gospel was composed somewhere in the Roman Empire—a conclusion that scarcely narrows the field at all!"

A Mar Saba letter ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, copied into a book at the Mar Saba monastery and published by Morton Smith in 1973, contains references to a previously unknown Secret Gospel of Mark and provides additional details about Mark's Roman origin. While most Clement scholars agree that the letter sounds authentic, a number of scholars remain unconvinced that an early, "Secret" Mark existed before the canonical gospel, and have asserted that the "Mar Saba letter" is a modern-day forgery.

Date

The text of the Gospel itself furnishes us with no clear information as to the time that it was written. It is generally agreed among scholars to be the first gospel written. Comments attributed to Jesus in Mark 13:1-2 (the "little Apocalypse", see below) have been seen as a reference to the destruction of the Temple. This would mean that either Mark recorded Jesus prophesying that the temple would be destroyed, or that the work was written after it happened in AD 70. Most scholars contrast these comments with the more specific ones in Luke and Matthew, and would be hesitant to assign a date later than AD 70-73, the latter being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked. Nevertheless, a great majority of moderate and conservative scholars assign Mark a date between AD 60 and 70, although there are vocal minority groups which argue for earlier or later dates.

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 6:52-53; thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to AD 68. Almost all other papyrologists, however, consider this identification of the fragmentary text, and its supposition that early Christians lived at Qumran, to be dubious.

Audience

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. 7:1-4; 14:12; 15:42). Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author: e.g. ταλιθα κουμ ("talitha cum", 5:41); κορβαν ("Corban", 7:11); αββα ("abba", 14:36). The Hellenism exhibited is not confined to language. The description in this Gospel of how the Sanhedrin plotted to execute Jesus has been used to promote and condone anti-Semitism. The demonization of Pharisees at first seems to direct this gospel at a Gentile audience; perhaps one only partly of Jewish extraction, as at Alexandria. (See Jews in the New Testament for further discussion.)

Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark in common with the other synoptic gospels makes detailed 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 temper the anti-Semitism in Mark note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18-20); 7:27; and 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 author of Mark also employed certain Latinised vocabulary not found in any of the other gospels: e.g. σπεκουλατορα ("soldier of the guard", 6:27, NRSV), ξεστων (Greek corruption of sextarius ("pots", 7:4), κοδραντης ("penny", 12:42, NRSV), κεντυριων ("centurion", 15:39, 15:44-45). It has been suggested that these usages show that Mark was written in Rome.

Markan priority among the Synoptic gospels

The first three or synoptic gospels are closely related. For example, out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with both Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone, and at most 51 peculiar to itself, according to one reckoning. The commonality goes beyond the same selection of what stories about Jesus to tell but extends to the use of many of the same words in how they are told. The synoptic problem is an investigation into whether and how the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke used each other or common sources.

Most researchers into the synoptic problem have concluded that Mark was written first and used by Matthew and Luke ("Markan priority"). Markan priority was first proposed by G. Ch. Storr, in 1786 but it did not come to dominate critical scholarship until the mid-19th century. The major alternative to Markan priority is the Griesbach hypothesis, which holds that Mark was written third as an abbreviating combination of Matthew and Luke. The traditional view that Matthew was written first in Hebrew (or Aramaic), and the Greek Mark was based on it, and a few of the advocates of traditional suggest that the Greek Matthean was translated with the use of an already written Mark and/or Luke, bringing the text into better agreement, to give the familiar Greek Matthew.

Of the two solutions to the synoptic problem that are based on Markan priority, the Two-Source hypothesis (2SH) posits that the gospels of Matthew and Luke also draw extensively from a now-lost "sayings" collection—called Q after German Quelle, "source". Most supporters of the 2SH do not think there is a literary connection between Mark and Q, but a couple of active scholars have argued that Mark had some knowledge of Q.

Mark and Midrash

The Gospel of Mark appears to be Midrash, or sermonic commentary, of the Tanakh. Mark contains over 150 citations or allusions to the Tanakh, with the bulk of the Gospel episodes being derived from Kings 1 & 2 stories about Elijah and Elisha. See Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark Errors of geography and culture suggest the author was not a local, but may have written in Rome.

Mark's disputed relation with the Q Gospel

Many mainstream textual critics agree that Matthew as we now have it and Luke depend upon Mark and the theorized lost "sayings" gospel called Q. Associated with the subject of "Markan priority" discussed below, is the question raised whether Mark depends on the Q gospel at all. Several possible relationships are offered: Mark supplementing the sayings source, Q as a supplement to Mark, even "a critical debate by Mark with the Christology of the sayings source" [1].

The existence of Q was suggested originally to account for the "double tradition" material, that material which is present in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark. Some scholars, like Burton Mack (1993 pp 177-9), discuss "a myriad of interesting points at which the so-called overlaps between Mark and Q show Mark's use of Q material for his own narrative designs." [2]. On the other hand Udo Schnelle (1998 p 195) finds that "a direct literary connection between Mark and Q must be regarded as improbable" and looks to connections through the oral tradition [3].a

Characteristics

Unlike both Matthew and Luke, Mark does not offer any information about the life of Jesus before he begins his ministry: there is no nativity in Mark, as in Matthew (1:18-2:12) and Luke (2:1-20), nothing about John the Baptist's birth (as in Luke 1), no massacre of the infants (Matthew 2:16), and no childhood tales (Luke 2:41-52). Neither is there a genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 or, differently, Luke 3:23-38). The detailed narrative concentrates on the miracle stories, omitted by the later synoptics, show us otherwise (compare e.g. Mark 1:19 and Luke 4:38a; Mark 5:21-43 and Matthew 9:18-26).

Other characteristics unique to Mark

The "little Apocalypse" of Mark 13

Exegesis is often made to show correspondences with the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of AD 66–70. Jesus' remarks in 13:1–2, seen as a reference to the destruction of the Temple, would place the work after AD 70. The passage predicts that the Temple would be torn down completely—"Not one stone will be left upon another." Indeed, the Temple was completely destroyed by the forces of the Roman general Titus (Josephus, Jewish War VI). (The Western Wall, which still stands, was not a part of the Temple proper, but rather part of a larger structure on which the Temple and other buildings stood.) This fulfilled prophecy would place the passage before the destruction of Jerusalem, for readers who affirm the reality of prophecies; others speculate that this an example of a vaticinium ex eventu (NL, loosely "prophecy after the event"; cf. Book of Daniel). Jesus seems to be also talking about the End of the world:

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs. (verse 8)

Losses and early editing

Mark is the shortest gospel. Manuscripts, both scrolls and codices, tend to lose text at the beginning and the end, not unlike a coverless paperback in a backpack. These losses are characteristically unconnected with excisions. For instance, Mark 1:1 has been found in two different forms. Most manuscripts of Mark, included the highly regarded 4th century manuscript of Mark, Codex Vaticanus, has the text "son of God," but three important manuscripts do not. Those three are: Codex Sinaiticus 01 (4th century), Codex Koridethi 037 (9th century), and the text called Minuscule 28 (11th century). A further manuscript, P45 is 3rd century, but its opening portion has not survived. (At the same time there is a translation issue that affects the intent: the article "the" is not present in Greek MSS; it was instead added to English translations for flow and compatibility with Church doctrine. "A Son of God" would also be a correct translation, as would the omission the article entirely.)

An axiom adopted by some readers, though not by professionals generally, is: "A shorter version generally means an earlier form." Judicious editing of unwanted material, however, may also produce a shorter document. The discovery of sections that have been deleted in the familiar, canonical Mark, quoted in a letter of Clement of Alexandria, is discussed in the entry for Secret Gospel of Mark.

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.

Ending

There was some dispute among textual critics in the 19th century as to whether 16:9-20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, were actually part of the original Gospel, or if they were added later. The oldest extant manuscripts do not contain these verses and the style differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting that they were a later addition. A few manuscripts even include a different ending after verse 8. By the 5th century, at least 4 different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.)

The third-century theologian Origen 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, but this is an argument of silence. Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8, which ends the Gospel at the empty tomb without further explanation, was intentional or the accidental loss of the complete ending or even the author's death.[4] Some of those who believe that the 16:8 ending was intentional suggest a connection to the theme of the "Messianic secret".