The Distinctive Testimonies of the Four Gospels
Frank Judd2007, Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewish War (c. AD 66-73). This dating is due, in part, to the Savior's reference to the destruction of Herod's Temple (see Mark 13:2) that occurred in AD 70. For scholars who do not accept the possibility of prophecy, Mark's Gospel could not have been written before that event. But as Joel Marcus has concluded, "In favor of a pre-70 dating is the probability that Jesus actually prophesied the Temple's destruction, as did other Jewish prophets down through the centuries;. .. a prophecy of its end, therefore, would not require a post-70 date." 11 Some early Christian traditions claim that Mark wrote his Gospel around the time of the death of Peter, which occurred in Rome in AD 64 or 65. 12 Mark is often identified with "John, whose surname was Mark," the missionary companion of Paul during the Apostle's first mission (Acts 12:25). According to the book of Acts, John Mark left that mission early to return to Jerusalem (see Acts 13:13). The cause for John Mark's early departure is unknown, but it later caused a temporary rift between Barnabas and Paul when, in preparation for their second mission, Barnabas wanted to bring along John Mark but Paul refused (see Acts 15:37-38). Whatever the reason, later tradition claims that Mark continued faithful in the gospel. Papias preserved the following information concerning Mark's later relationship with Peter: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that [Peter] remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For [Mark] had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord's sayings." 13 If this tradition is accurate, Mark did not actually witness the events he included in his Gospel but rather wrote down the things he heard Peter teach about the Savior's ministry. The importance, therefore, of Mark's Gospel is that it may record the memories of the leader of the fledgling post-resurrection Church. Internal evidence strongly suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written for a Gentile, or non-Jewish, audience. For example, Mark interprets Aramaic phrases for his readers, such as "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41) and "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34). Mark also explains Jewish customs and ideas. 14 If Mark's audience were Jewish and spoke Aramaic, there would be no need for such explanations. Significantly, Matthew, who was indeed writing to a Jewish audience, omits Mark's explanations of these Jewish concepts in his Gospel. 15 The Distinctive Testimonies of the Four Gospels
Related papers
Oral and Written Aspects of the Emergence of the Gospel of Mark as Scripture
Oral Tradition, 2010
Jewish and Christian, and especially Protestant Christian, emphasis upon the sacred book and its authority have combined with scholarly interests and techniques, as well as the broader developments in the modern West. .. to fix in our minds today a rather narrow concept of scripture, a concept even more sharply culture-bound than that of "book" itself.-William Graham (1987) Mark's Gospel. .. was composed at a desk in a scholar's study lined with texts.. .. In Mark's study were chains of miracle stories, collections of pronouncement stories in various states of elaboration, some form of Q, memos on parables and proof texts, the scriptures, including the prophets, written materials from the Christ cult, and other literature representative of Hellenistic Judaism.-Burton Mack (1988) It was not necessary that the Gospel performer know how to read. The performer could learn the Gospel from hearing oral performance.. .. It is quite possible, and indeed even likely, that many Gospel performers were themselves illiterate.. .. It was certainly possible for an oral performer to develop a narrative with this level of structural complexity.. .. In Mark the number of interconnections between parts of the narrative are quite extraordinary.-Whitney Shiner (2003) The procedures and concepts of Christian biblical studies are often teleological. The results of the historical process are assumed in study of its early stages. Until recently critical study of the books of the New Testament focused on establishing the scriptural text and its meaning in the context of historical origins. Ironically that was before the texts became distinctively authoritative for communities that used them and were recognized as Scripture by Oral Tradition, 25/1 (2010): 93-114 established ecclesial authorities. Such teleological concepts and procedures obscure what turn out to be genuine historical problems once we take a closer look. How the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Mark, came to be included in the Scriptures of established Christianity offers a striking example. On the earlier Christian theological assumption that Christianity as the religion of the Gospel made a dramatic break with Judaism as the religion of the Law, one of the principal questions was how the Christian church came to include the Jewish Scriptures in its Bible. We now see much more clearly the continuity of what became Christianity with Israel. The Gospels, especially Matthew and Mark, portray Jesus as engaged in a renewal of Israel. The Gospel of Matthew is now generally seen as addressed to communities of Israel, not "Gentiles" (Saldarini 1994). And while Mark was formerly taken as addressed to a "Gentile" community in Rome, it is increasingly taken as addressed to communities in Syria that understand themselves as the renewal of Israel (Horsley 2001). Far more problematic than the inclusion of the Jewish Scripture (in Greek) is inclusion of the Gospels in the Christian Bible. The ecclesial authorities who defined the New Testament canon in the fourth and fifth centuries were men of high culture. The Gospels, however, especially the Gospel of Mark, did not meet the standards of high culture in the Hellenistic and Roman cultural world. Once the Gospels became known to cultural elite, opponents of the Christians such as Celsus, in the late second century, mocked them for their lack of literary distinction and their composers as ignorant people who lacked "even a primary education" (Contra Celsum 1.62). Fifty years later, the "church father" Origen proudly admitted that the apostles possessed "no power of speaking or of giving an ordered narrative by the standards of Greek dialectical or rhetorical arts" (Contra Celsum 1.62). Luke had asserted, somewhat presumptuously perhaps, that he and his predecessors as "evangelists" had, in the standard Hellenistic-Roman ideology of historiography, set down an "orderly account" of events in the Gospels. Origen, who knew better, had to agree with Celsus that the evangelists were, as the Jerusalem "rulers, elders, and scribes" in the second volume of Luke's "orderly account" said about Peter and John, "illiterate and ignorant" (agrammatoi kai idiotai, Acts 4:13). Nor would the Gospels, again especially Mark, have measured up as Scripture on the model of previous Jewish scriptural texts. The Gospels stand in strong continuity with Israelite-Jewish cultural tradition; indeed they portray Jesus and his followers as its fulfillment. Yet they do not resemble any of the kinds of texts included in the Jewish Scriptures or other Jewish scribal compositions, whether books of Torah (Deuteronomy), books of history (Judges; 1-2 Kings), collections of prophecies (Isaiah, Amos), collections of instructional wisdom (Proverbs 1-9; Sirach), or apocalypses (Daniel). Rather the Gospels tell the story of a popular leader they compare to Moses and Elijah who focused on the concerns of villagers in opposition to the political and cultural elite and who was gruesomely executed by the Roman governor. Consideration of the oral and written aspects of scripture may be one of the keys to addressing the question of how the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Mark, became included in the Bible by the ecclesial authorities of established Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries. Only contemporary with or after the Gospel's official recognition as part of Scripture do we find Christian intellectuals producing commentaries that are more than spiritualizing allegories or moralistic homilies on Gospel passages. Research in a number of interrelated (but often separate) areas is coalescing to suggest that the Gospel of Mark developed in a largely oral communication 94 RICHARD A. HORSLEY
Re-examination of Some Salient Issues on the Authorship and Recipient of Mark's Gospel
African Journal of Kingdom Education , 2023
Although previous scholars have discussed and come to widely accepted conclusions about the background to the gospel of Mark in terms of authorship, purpose, characteristics, structure, date, settings, and recipients of Mark's gospel, its genre as well as Sources of Mark's Gospel; which is a fact that this paper does not dispute. Yet, the essence of this paper is to reexamine some salient issues regarding the background of the gospel of Mark in terms of the author and recipient. John Mark is widely regarded as the author of the fourth gospel, but not so for the reason stated here in this paper. Although the recipient of the book is attributed to Galilee, Syria, the Decapolis and Rome; this research supports a Rome possibility because of the universality of the place and the influence of Paul on John Mark. This is the gap that we are filling here.
Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark's Gospel
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 2013
Oral History and the Beginning and End of Mark's Gospel
Evangelical Quarterly, 2019
The textual status of Mark’s Gospel, specifically the fact that the beginning and end of this gospel were lost at a very early stage, sheds light on the period of time when the stories concerning Jesus’s ministry, death, and resurrection were being transmitted orally. It is proposed that during this time the oral history of Jesus came to include an overarching ‘gospel’ structure, and that Mark’s Gospel is essentially a snapshot of this oral history, marginally altered as Mark personally retold the account of Jesus within the bounds permitted by those exercising control over the oral history. Support for these interrelated proposals comes from the fact that Mark’s Gospel sustained damage and was not immediately repaired: it was not seen as replacing the oral history of the eyewitnesses. However, later (when the eyewitnesses were dying out) Mark’s Gospel was rescued, copied, and circulated, but only in its already damaged form.
Historical Character of the Gospel of Mark
2018
This paper seeks to explore the historical character of the Gospel of Mark. It attempts to review and discuss such important aspects of the Gospel that fall within the framework of critical-historical study of an ancient document. Major areas explored and critiqued in the paper are, for instance, the genre, historical accuracy, mythical elements, compatibility with contemporary literary trends, possibility of concurrent sources, dominant religious discourse, and the intended primary audience
Why does the Gospel of Mark Begin as it Does?
2003
Mark’s Gospel does not follow the rules of Hellenistic “lives”, which usually began by praising the ancestry and education of the main character. This is due to the fact that the data available to Mark were inappropriate for that purpose. Nonetheless, the beginning of Mark’s Gospel has the same purpose as the beginnings of other contemporary biographies: to show the ascribed honour of his character. According to Mark, Jesus’ honour does not come from his human family; it is due to his being God’s Son. Through a ritual process, centred upon a liminal stage of revelation and testing, the evangelist shows Jesus’ true identity as a holy man, capable of brokering God’s patronage on his people.
Book Review: The Gospel according to Mark; The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text
Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 2003
THE GOSPEL OF MARK, WHICH FOR CENTURIES lived in the shadow of the other gospels, has become the center of intense investigation. Scholars have written such a plethora of books and articles that it is nearly impossible to keep pace with their literary output. Nevertheless, the student of Mark will welcome the recent arrival of two new commentaries. While neither book provides an exhaustive survey of scholarly research, both are suitable additions to any pastor's library. The first, by Edwards, is in a series whose stated goal is to produce commentaries designed to "loosen the Bible from its pages." As D. A. Carson writes in his introduction, authors in the series "interact with the most important informed contemporary debate, but avoid getting mired in undue technical detail" (p. x). Edwards succeeds admirably in achieving this goal. His commentary is thoroughly informed by recent scholarship, as the footnotes clearly document, but his reading of Mark's gospel is focused on the exposition of its message against the backdrop of first-century Palestine.
THE STRUCTURE OF MARK’S GOSPEL: CURRENT PROPOSALS
Currents in Biblical Research, 2004
For many decades now Markan scholarship has struggled to uncover the structure of Mark's gospel. With the advent of literary/narrative criticism the struggle has intensified to understand how the gospel unfolds in order to tell its story of Jesus. This article surveys recent and current proposals that have been advanced for Mark's gospel. Some scholars have judged that there is no structure; others have found a highly complex web of interrelated sections. While many proposals use a mixture of principles to derive the alleged structure, an attempt has been made to classify the proposals based upon the primary principle used. These categories include: topography/ geography; theological themes; Sitz im Leben of the recipients; literary factors.
Mark's σπεκουλάτωρ and the Origin of His Gospel [Full text]
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 2023
In Mark, Herod Antipas orders John the Baptist's execution by a σπεκουλάτωρ. Thus, Mark becomes the first witness to the use of the word σπεκουλάτωρ in Greek. The Latin word speculator was used in the first century mainly in respect of the praetorian speculatores soldiers who acted as the emperor's personal guard in Rome and who were involved in the events of the civil war in the years 68-70 CE. Mark's use of the word σπεκουλάτωρ (along with other factors) points to the city of Rome as the gospel's origin, since the vast majority of attestations of the word speculator occur in the city of Rome, where these soldiers mainly carried out their duties.
‘The Early Text of Mark’ in The Early Text of the New Testament (eds. Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger; Oxford: OUP, 2012), 108-120.
The Early Text of the New Testament (eds. Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger; Oxford: OUP, 2012), 108-120. , 2012
The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary
Peter Lang, 2014
This commentary demonstrates that the Gospel of Mark is a result of a consistent, strictly sequential, hypertextual reworking of the contents of three of Paul’s letters: Galatians, First Corinthians and Philippians. Consequently, it shows that the Marcan Jesus narratively embodies the features of God’s Son who was revealed in the person, teaching, and course of life of Paul the Apostle. The analysis of the topographic and historical details of the Marcan Gospel reveals that they were mainly borrowed from the Septuagint and from the writings of Flavius Josephus. Other literary motifs were taken from various Jewish and Greek writings, including the works of Homer, Herodotus, and Plato. The Gospel of Mark should therefore be regarded as a strictly theological-ethopoeic work, rather than a biographic one.
Mk 1:1-3. A Later Addition to Mark's Gospel?
In contrast to scholars who claim that “whatever was before Mk 1:4, it was not Mark 1:1–3,” it is argued in this research that such an opinion is not supported by the textual and linguistic evidence. Moreover, recently published Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 5073, the earliest textual witness to the beginning of Mark’s Gospel, preserves Mk 1:1–2.
The Gospel of Mark, with introduction, notes, and original text featuring the new Scholars Version translation: The Scholars Bible
HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 1996
The Scholars Version' (SV) is a new translation of the Bible-starting out with a translation of all the known gospels-with its major goal to find fresh language that will make biblical narratives come to life for the modem reader (or the reading public, according to.the preface). More specifically, the SV tries to translate the text in a style similar to-that of the original language, while also incorporating the best scholarly insights about the content of the text. Aimed at the modem reading public, the introduction is written in a popular style. Mark's gospel is introduced as a 'war-time gospel', written "between 66-70 CEo A further point of departure of the SV is that the material Mark used in his gospel was probably already circulating in longer units before the story was first written down. These longer units probably included testimonies from scripture (e g Mk 1 :2-3), controversy stories (e g Mk 2:1-3:6), anecdotes (e g Mk 3:20-35), parables (e g Mk 4:2-32), miracles (e g Mk 6:47-52), one-liners (e g Mk 3:28-29), discourse (Mk 13:3-37), a passion narrative (e g Mk 14:2-15:47), other narrative sequences like Mark 1:21-39, and insertions and.framing devices (e g Mk 6:7-13/14-29/30-34). The writer Mark is thus seen as not just a preserver of tradition, but also as a shaper and even originator of some traditions. Mark is therefore a story, that should be appreciated like Ii work of art. 554
A Theological synthesis of the Gospel according to Mark
For centuries, the Church paid little attention to the Gospel of Mark because it was considered as merely an abbreviated version of Matthew, with little value of its own. Some other biases against Mark included: Mark is an indirect witness, and therefore, less important than Matthew and John; It has little material of its own; It is the shortest of the gospels; does not show any theological development (Luke deepens in mercy, Matthew in the expected Messiah, John in Christology). These views changed radically in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when Mark came to be viewed as the first Gospel written and so of significant historical value. Mark was now considered the oldest of the Gospels with few interpretations of the editor and would subsequently turn into a historical source closer to the facts. In recent years, scholars have come to appreciate Mark’s Gospel as a unique literary work with its own narrative structure, theological themes, and Christological purpose. The Gospel reveals a fascinating and unique portrait of Jesus, an important contribution to the Church’s understanding of Jesus the Messiah and the Son of God. In what follows we shall attempt a summary of the basic historical, literary and theological questions around the Gospel according to Mark.
The Gospel According to Mark
This is the third chapter of my contextual introduction to the New Testament, From Crisis to Christ (Nashville, TN: 2014), 51-74. It was published on the Bible and Interpretation site, May 2015 as an example of my new approach to biblical studies, which I call "second criticality." That essay is also posted on the Bible and Interpretation site.
Mark, Peter’s Son, and the Reception of 1 Peter
Geert Van Oyen (ed.), Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-First Century (BETL 301; Leuven: Peeters, 2019) 431-441.
The closing of 1 Peter—verse 5:13—contains the greeting ‘she who is at Babylon, who also is chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son (καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου)’, with nothing more said of the Mark character. There is, however, a long-standing interpretative tradition – found both in antiquity and in modern scholarship – of identifying the Mark briefly mentioned in 1 Peter with the author of the gospel according to Mark, a fact which poses several reception-historical problems.This contribution deals with two interrelated questions. How did the mention of Peter's Mark in 1Pt 5,13 affect the reception or authority of the gospel of Mark? And, conversely, how did the Mark connection affect the reception of 1 Peter in early and late-antique Christianity?
Related topics
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.