Oral History and the Beginning and End 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.

Journal of Gospels and Acts Research, 2022

The oral dimension of the gospel became a key explanation for the Synoptic problem in nineteenth-century Gospel interpretation (Westcott). The burgeoning, critical hunt for the ipsissima verba of Jesus drove two subsequent modulations: the retroversion of the written Greek sources to a postulated Aramaic original (for at least some of Jesus' sayings) (Dalman); the formcritical excisions of authorial embellishments on gospel traditions, which were content with reliance on the Greek language of the written Gospels (including Thomas and other apocryphal texts) for their reconstructions (Bultmann; Robinson). The assumption of substantial continuity and unity between the oral and written Gospels was challenged in the second half of the twentieth century (Kelber). A reaction against the resultant polarisation of oral and written has swung attention to the oral/aural dimensions of the written Gospels (Dewey; Horsley). A bifurcation of research has developed, one accenting the performantial elements in the delivery of the Gospels, a second returning to the poiesis of the text, particularly emphasising what is called 'soundmapping' (Lee-Scott; Nässelqvist). This paper seeks to provide an overview of the changes in the understanding and development of orality in relation to Gospel research and then to apply some insights from socio-anthropological linguistics to Mark's Gospel to explore three elements crucial to its oral/aural dimensions. Firstly, what poetic and rhetorical structures are found in the text that invite an audiential response so as to produce a speech event-here reference is made to the mega-euphonic opening of Mark 1:1, the onomatopoeic extension of Mark 5:38, the assonantial associations of Mark 8:11 and the iambic abuse of Mark 7:27; secondly, what might these constructed speech events imply about the personnel involved in the delivery of Mark's Gospel demanded in Mark 13:14; and thirdly, what settings or spatial contexts can be inferred from such elements, building on the expansive territory of Mark 4. It will be argued that there is yet considerable mileage to be gained from studies in the oral dimensions of the Gospels.

Writing with Scripture: Scripturalized Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, 2022

Nathanael Vette proposes that the Gospel of Mark, like other narrative works in the Second Temple period, uses the Jewish scriptures as a model to compose episodes and tell a new story. Vette compares Mark's use of scripture with roughly contemporary works like Pseudo-Philo, the Genesis Apocryphon, 1 Maccabees, Judith, and the Testament of Abraham; diverse texts which, combined, support the existence of shared compositional techniques. This volume identifies five scripturalized narratives in the Gospel: Jesus' forty-day sojourn in the wilderness and call of the disciples; the feeding of the multitudes; the execution of John the Baptist; and the Crucifixion of Jesus. This fresh understanding of how the Jewish scriptures were used to compose new narratives across diverse genres in the Second Temple period holds important lessons for how scholars read the Gospel of Mark. Instead of treating scriptural allusions and echoes as keys which unlock the hidden meaning of the Gospel, Vette argues that Mark often uses the Jewish scriptures simply for their ability to tell a story.

The American Journal of Theology

In the spring of 1910o I published a little work called The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, forming one of the series called "Modern Religious Problems" edited by Dr. A. W. Vernon. In a work of 131 small pages much must be assumed rather than proved, and I am very grateful for the opportunity afforded me by the editors of the American Journal of Theology to explain more at length and in detail the view of the Gospel according to Mark which I sketched in my little book. I am inclined to believe in the traditional authorship of this gospel, and that a chief source of the information possessed by the author consisted of what he had heard from Simon Peter. Now-a-days such an opinion calls for some detailed defense. At the present moment there is going on in Germany a prolonged controversy about the general historicity of the New Testament under the title "Hat Jesus gelebt ?" ("Did Jesus ever live?"). The leading skeptics are Professor Jensen, the Assyriologist, and Professor Arthur Drews; the defenders are "liberals" such as Professors Jiilicher and Weinel. I do not propose to follow this controversy here, but I mention it to show that an investigation of the historicity of the Gospel according to Mark is not out of place.' ' See on this controversy the article by Professor Case in the last number of this Journal, pp. 20-42. i6g 'Ata0ois, or something similar. In any case, "the parts of Dalmanutha" do not belong to real geography. s "Banereem filii tonitrui, quod conrupte Boanerges usus optinuit" (Lagarde, O S, 669). 6 According to Eusebius (O S, 282:83), this is ; Macye&dhn, a then known locality in the neighborhood of Gerasa. That it does not quite fit the context only shows that Matthew's emendation was not based on authentic tradition. 7 So the Greek minuscule numbered 28 (sic) and the Sinai Palimpsest (Syr. S). This piece of Greek evidence is fatal to Wellhausen's conjecture that N'1. in Syr. S does not mean "the hill" (Wellhausen's Marcus, ed. 2, p. 6i).

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

Διοασκαλια, 1999

Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect, 2011

Religious Educator, 2007

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

2018

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.

Journal of Theological Studies, 2021

This volume develops the argument that the manuscript-asartifact was of paramount importance for earliest Christians and for the development of their public identity. After a brief introduction that lays out the foundational assumptions of the argument, the book proceeds in three sections. The first is entitled 'The Gospel as Manuscript', and consists of two chapters. Chapter One begins by challenging the notion that ancient reading was exclusively aloud. Using the work of William Johnson as a launching point, Keith aims to demonstrate that 'Early Christianity … had an extreme text-centeredness of its own' (p. 26). Against this backdrop he introduces two of Jan Assmann's concepts that will reappear throughout the book: zerdehnte Situation ('extended situation') and entourage matériel ('accompanying material'). Applied to Keith's argument, the former concept raises the question, what does a manuscript contribute to the transmission process that orality does not? The latter concept recognizes that material objects-even those that might be considered mundane-are capable of reflecting group identity. Chapter Two, entitled 'Sociologies of the Book', is one of the longest and most substantive chapters in the book. Here Keith's argument begins to develop in earnest. Responding to the recent work of Eva Mroczek (2016) and Matthew Larsen (2017, 2018)-and particularly their shared emphasis on notions of Jewish and Christian literature 'before the book'-Keith stakes out his own ground, emphasizing both the role of bound book as material artifact and its influence in shaping identity. Having established his own understanding of the book-as-artifact, Keith proceeds to his second section, 'The Gospel as Gospels', which consists of three chapters. Chapter Three is devoted to examining the textualization of Mark's Gospel, with specific focus on the question of why Mark created a shift in the transmission of the gospel material from oral to written, especially since this shift does not appear to have been inevitable. Backing off from the assertion in a previous essay in which he claimed that Mark moved to textuality with the intent of creating a zerdehnte Situation, Keith is more circumspect here, acknowledging that we cannot know what Mark intended, even if his move toward textuality inevitably resulted in numerous zerdehnten Situationen. Chapters Four and Five deal

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.