So strong is the early Christian testimony that Mark was the author of this gospel that we need do little more than mention this attestation. Papias, Irenaeus, probably the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome all refer to Mark’s authorship of the gospel. Moreover, all of them connect Mark with Peter in the production of the gospel. Some modern criticism has challenged both of these traditional assumptions. It has been suggested that Papias’ evidence is unreliable and that the whole external evidence can be discounted because the other evidence was derived from him.1 Another line of criticism has been on the grounds that the tradition confused John Mark with the writer of the gospel. We will consider this latter criticism first.
b. The identification of Mark
Is the Mark of the gospel the Mark of Acts? The main objections which have been raised against this identification are the non-Palestinian background of Mark’s gospel, which is said to be out of keeping with a one-time resident of Jerusalem, and the absence of any specific identification in the tradition until the time of Jerome. But it has already been pointed out that the seeming indications of a non-Palestinian background may stem from our lack of data and from the difference between Galilee and Jerusalem. If so the argument is less weighty. The argument from tradition, however, is based on silence. It appears to have been assumed that Mark was John Mark.2
2 Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (1901). An English translation, The Messianic Secret, was published in 1963.
3 J. D. G. Dunn has provided a critique of Wrede’s view in ‘The Messianic Secret in Mark’, TynB 21 (1970), pp. 92–117.Cf, also R. P. Martin, Mark, pp. 91 ff. G.M. de Tilesse, Le secret messianique dans l’évangile de Marc (1968), pp 321 ff., concludes that the reason for the silences is that the Messianic claim linked with the passion could be undfirstood only after the event. Cf. also D. E. Aune, ‘The Problem of the Messianic Secret’, Nov. test. 11 (1969), pp. 1–31.
1 E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (1978), attempts to resolve this tension.
2 Many scholars have rejected this view on the grounds that Marcus was a very common name. Cf. F.
C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel (1943), pp. 52 ff., who suggests that the evangelist was some otherwise unknown Roman Christian named Mark. But were the Roman Christians likely to attribute a gospel
‘John Mark’ is mentioned three times in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; Acts 15:37) and ‘Mark’ several times (Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phm. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13). In the Colossian reference he is identified as the cousin of Barnabas, which clearly equates him with the John Mark of Acts. It is very probable that his mother was a person of some substance since, according to Acts 12, her house was regarded as a rendezvous for many members of the primitive church (Cf. 12:12). Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on part of the first missionary journey, although he drew against him Paul’s anger when he forsook the party before the work was done. In spite of the fact that dissension arose between Paul and Barnabas over him, a reconciliation must have been effected later, since he was with Paul when the epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written (Col. 4:10; Phm. 24).1 At a still later date, he was found in company with the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 5:13) and this
association with both Peter and Paul is a most significant feature about him. Only those who are influenced by the Tübingen antithesis between Peter and Paul will consider a close association with both apostles to be improbable. It may justifiably be claimed that all we know of Mark from the New Testament would predispose us to consider him to be a likely candidate as author of the gospel. At any rate there is nothing from the internal evidence which renders this impossible.
c. The connection with Peter
In the development of the two-document theory the fact that Peter was believed to be behind the gospel of Mark was a crucial factor in commending the hypothesis. If the Gospel of Mark was to be the source of the other synoptics it had to be seen to be authentic and Peter’s connection with it was invaluable in this respect.1 Since the rise of form criticism and
redaction criticism, there has been less inclination to grant any connection between Peter and the author of the gospel. If the gospel consists of units of tradition created by the community, it would be impossible to maintain any Petrine connection. It is for this reason that most scholars do not now give any weight to the external evidence.
to an unknown Mark if they had any knowledge at all that a man named John Mark had been
associated with both Peter and Paul? D. E. Nineham, Mark, pp. 39–40, disputes the identifying of the Mark of tradition with John Mark. Cf. also E. Schweizer, Mark, p. 25, who discounts Papias’ evidence.
On the whole authorship question, Cf. M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (1985), who supports many of the traditional views.
1 Some earlier German scholars maintained that Mark was a Pauline gospel, and from this position it was inferred that Pauline theology had influenced Marcan historicity (e.g. Volkmar, Holtzmann, Harnack). But this was strongly challenged byM. Werner, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Mk‐
Ev (1923). Both he and R.M. Grant, Earliest Gospel, pp. 188–206, went to the other extreme and maintained an antithesis between Marcan and Pauline theology. But if Mark truly represents primitive tradition some alignment with Pauline thought is to be expected, in so far as Paul himself received the basic elements of primitive tradition as 1 Cor.15:3 ff. shows. M. E. Boismard in Synopse des Quatre Évangiles, 11 (1972), has appealed to Pauline inHuences on Mark, but K. Romaniuk, ‘Le Probléme des Paulinismes dans l’Évangile de Marc’, NTS 23 (1977), pp. 266–274, considers that the evidence produced is insufficient to establish such a theory.
1 In his History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis (1980), H.‐H. Stoldt devotes a whole chapter to the question of Petrine origin for this gospel. He regards it as no longer tenable.
But Papias’ evidence cannot so easily be ignored. His statement, preserved by Eusebius,2 is as follows: ‘Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter (ἑρμηνεύτες) of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order (οὐ μέντοι ταξει), the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers]
but not as if making a narrative of the Lord’s sayings (κυριακον λόγιον); consequently, Mark, writing some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing—not to omit anything of the things he had heard or to falsify anything in them’. From this we may deduce the following data: 1. Papias clearly regarded Peter’s preaching as the main source of Mark’s witness. 2. The relation between Mark and Peter must be determined by the meaning of the word ἑρμηνεύτες. Whereas this could mean either translator or interpreter, most scholars agree that the former must be the meaning in this context.3 3. It is difficult to be sure in what sense Papias meant that Mark did not write in order (οὐ μέντοι ταξει), but this is generally thought to refer to chronological order.4 4. It seems clear that the statement is something of an apology for Mark,5 which may not have been so highly rated because it was not thought to have come from an apostolic source.1
Most scholars take it for granted that Papias is referring to the writing of Mark’s gospel.
But it has been suggested that he may be referring to Q, regarded as a collection of Peter’s catechetical instructions.2 But this is not the most natural understanding of Papias’ words, and in any case seems to be ruled out by the way in which those words were understood by the subsequent patristic writers.
There is a modern tension between those who dismiss the Papias evidence completely because of the interposition of the community traditions between the events and the records,
2 HE, iii.39.15 (Eng. tr. cited from D. Theron, Evidence of Tradition, p. 67).
3 Cf. H. E. W. Turner, ET 71 (1960), pp. 260–263.
4 H. B. Swete, Mark, pp. lx‐lxi, thought that Papias was comparing Mark to the kind of order
belonging to artificial treatises. F. H. Colson, JTS 14 (1913), pp. 62 ff., thought the order in mind was that of the rhetorical schools, but it is not at all clear that Papias was using the word in a technical sense. T. Zahn, INT (1909), II, p. 439, thought that Mark’s lack of order was due to Peter’s greater interest in adapting his preaching to his hearers rather than in chronology.
5 B. H. Streeter, Four Gospels, pp. 19–20, regarded this statement as an apology for Mark in comparison with John.
1 R. P. Martin, Mark, pp. 80–83, has an extended note on Papias’ statement and comes to the conclusion that Papias’ words are not free from Tendenz. They are intended to supply Mark’s gospel with a source of apostolic authority. Martin makes an interesting comparison between Papias’ words and the prologue in Luke and points out several common expressions. He goes on to suggest that the appeal to Peter’s part in the gospel is aimed to show that it can stand alongside Luke’s gospel.
For a detailed discussion of Papias’ statement, cf. H. A. Rigg, Nov. Test. 1 (1956), pp. 161–183. Cf.
also R. H. Gundry’s discussion in his Matthew, pp. 609–622.
2 Cf. J. N. Sanders, The Foundation of the Christian Faith (1950), p. 53. Cf. also the posthumous essay (ed. C. F. D. Moule, A. M. G. Stephenson), NTS 2 (1956), pp. 114–118.
which excludes the influence of eyewitnesses,3 and those who, although they would not wish to maintain that all the material came from Peter, would want to attach some importance to the early Christian tradition. This is surely a case where it can be said that the tradition has not been disproved even if it has been challenged.
VI. DATE
This gospel is the only one of the synoptics whose date can be discussed without reference to the synoptic problem; at least, if the current hypothesis of the priority of Mark be accepted. If on the other hand the traditional view that Mark is an abstract from Matthew had proved correct, the date of Mark would clearly have depended on the decision regarding Matthew’s date. It is advisable, in any case, to deal first with all available evidence, irrespective of Mark’s connection with the other gospels. The external evidence will be considered first.
a. External evidence
It has already been noted that the early tradition is conflicting, one tradition maintaining that Mark wrote subsequent to the death of Peter and another holding that it was in Peter’s lifetime that Mark’s gospel was produced (reported by Irenaeus 1 and Clement of Alexandria
2 respectively). Since both of these traditions were early and were almost contemporaneous, there must have been uncertainty about the origin of Mark, unless one of the witnesses cited can be otherwise understood. An attempt has been made, in fact, to argue that Irenaeus does not conflict with Clement, since he was not giving chronological information regarding the origin of Mark but simply stating the continuity of Mark’s writing with Peter’s preaching.3 Although this is a possible interpretation of Irenaeus’ words, it is not the most obvious, and the majority of scholars agree that Irenaeus meant to imply that Mark wrote after Peter’s death. But if this is Irenaeus’ meaning it is still necessary to decide between his statement and that of Clement. Most scholars prefer Irenaeus to Clement, but it should be observed that
3 D. E. Nineham, JTS, n.s. 9 (1958), pp. 20 ff. U. H. J. Körtner, ‘Markus der Mitarbeiter des Petrus’, ZNTW 71 (1980), pp. 160–173, dispenses with Papias’ witness on the grounds that it is a later
development from the knowledge that Mark was Paul’s assistant. Similarly E. Schweizer, Mark, p. 25, regards Papias’ statement as not free from suspicion. K. Niederwimmer, ZNTW 58 (1967), pp. 172–
188, considers Papias’ words to be an apologetic fiction. But why should Papias have wanted to create such a fiction? And did none of the subsequent patristic writers fail to detect the fiction?
1 Adv. Haer. iii.1.2. Cited by Eusebius in Greek, HE, v.8.2–4: ‘And after the death of these (Peter and Paul) Mark the disciple and interpreter (ἑρμηνεὐτες) of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter.’
2 According to Eusebius, HE, vi.14.6 f.: ‘When Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome… those who were present… besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and
remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this, he gave the gospel to those who asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended’ (Theron’s translation, Evidence of Tradition, p. 45). Just prior to this Clement is reported to have said that the primitive elders regarded the first gospels as those which included genealogies (HE, vi.14.5). W. R. Farmer appeals to this evidence in support of his view that Matthew preceded Mark (The Synoptic Problem, p. 226). But see J. A. T. Robinson’s comment on this, Redating, p. 107.
3 So Dom. J. Chapman, JTS 6 (1905), p. 563; A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911), pp. 130 f.; W. C. Allen, The Gospel according to St. Mark (1915), p. 2.
Irenaeus had just previously stated that Matthew was produced while Peter and Paul were still preaching, i.e. before Mark. In this case current criticism accepts one line of evidence from Irenaeus and rejects the other. It is at least a possibility that such an assessment of the evidence may be wrong.
It has been questioned whether Irenaeus’ words refer in fact to Peter’s death. He uses the word exodus, which could mean departure. This is supported by a comment in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark,1 which states that Mark wrote post excessionem of Peter, which could mean either death or departure. The tradition would then imply that Mark wrote after Peter’s departure from Rome and the question would then arise regarding the date of such an event. There is some evidence to suggest that Peter may have visited Rome in the time of Claudius. This is deduced from some remarks of Justin 2 that Simon Magus was in Rome at that time. This fact, together with the legend of Simon’s meeting with Peter in Rome, attested by Hippolytus,3 is thought to be sufficient to suggest that Peter may have made a visit in A.D. 42.4
If this tradition is correct it would be possible to suppose that Irenaeus was referring to Mark writing after Peter’s departure from Rome during the time of Claudius. In this case an earlier date for Mark’s gospel than is usually assigned to it would be possible.5 Another suggestion is that Mark commenced his gospel before Peter’s death and finished it afterwards.6
b. Internal evidence
The key item in the internal evidence is the reference in Mark 13:14 to the ‘abomination that causes desolation’, which was to be set up where it ought not to be. This has been regarded as a reference to the Jerusalem temple. But does the allusion refer to the siege and fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70? It is generally assumed that this is the meaning and that consequently Mark must have written in the period immediately before the fall of the city, at least near enough to it to be able to forecast the defiling of the temple with certainty. This interpretation rules out completely the possibility that the words were a prophetic utterance of Jesus.
We may raise serious doubts about the theory that Mark’s record consists of prophecy shaped by events, on the grounds that Mark’s words imply a flight of Christians to the hills of Judea, whereas tradition has it that they fled to Pella, a low-lying city east of Jordan.1
1 Cf. W. F Howard, ‘The Anti‐Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels’, ET 47 (1935–6), pp. 534–538.
2 Apol. 1.26, 56.
3 Refut. 6.15.
4 G. Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century (1913), pp. 47–56. Both Robinson, Redating, p.113, and J. W. Wenham, ‘Did Peter go to Rome in A.D. 42?’, TynB 23 (1972), pp. 94–102, support this suggestion of an early visit.
5 T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (1962), pp. 38–40, argued from the evidence of the anti‐Marcionite Prologue that it would be possible to satisfy all the data by supposing an earlier visit and departure of Peter from Rome before his final martyrdom there.
6 Cf. H. A. Rigg, Nov. Test. 1 (1956), p. 180 n.1.
1 Cf. Bo Reicke, ‘Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem’, in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Allen P. Wikgren (ed. D. E. Aune, 1972), p. 125. S.
Some have supposed that the primary reference is to Caligula’s attempt to place his own statue in the temple in A.D. 40, an attempt that failed because of the intervening assassination of the emperor.2 One theory has been proposed to place Mark’s production just after that event.3 But this view has not gained support.
An important consideration is whether or not Jesus could have predicted the approaching disaster. If it be admitted that Jesus himself predicted the event, Mark 13:14 would cease to be a crux of the chronological problem. The phrase used to describe the event is of such vagueness, and in any case is a straight borrowing from Daniel, that it is even more
reasonable to assume that it belongs to a time well before the actual happenings. Who would deny to Jesus the power to foresee that the seething political situation would come some day to a head,4 with the result that some act of desecration in the temple would take place? The further possibility that the words might be interpreted of the coming Antichrist 5 would make their elevance to the date problem obscure.
Another feature of the internal evidence is the reference to persecution in this gospel, and the interest of the author in Gentile freedom.6 But neither of these helps much in determining the date, since they are both too general to tie down to any specific period. For instance, when reference is made in Mark 13:8 to earthquakes and famines as being the ‘beginning’ of
sufferings, there is no reason to suppose that this must refer to the beginning of the siege.
Moreover, Mark 13:10, which asserts that the gospel must be preached to all nations, can hardly be cited as evidence of a date A.D. 60–70,1 any more than of an earlier date, since the Gentile mission was implicit in our Lord’s plans for his church.
In spite of the confidence of the majority of scholars that Mark must be dated A.D. 65–70, it is by no means impossible to maintain an earlier date. In fact Harnack 2 maintained a date before A.D. 60 and Allen 3 a date before A.D. 50. Harnack’s arguments were based on an early date for Acts (i.e. A.D. 63) which involved a slightly earlier date for Luke, and in his view a still earlier date for Mark. Allen’s theory was influenced by his contention that the original Sowers, ‘The circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight’, TZ 26 (1970), pp. 305–320, opposes Brandon’s criticism of the Pella tradition (Fall of Jerusalem, pp. 168–178).
2 S. G. F. Brandon (‘The date of the Markan Gospel’, NTS 7 (1961), p. 133) takes the view that Mk.
13:14–22 forms a pericope containing a tradition of the temple’s coming desecration which is intelligible against the background of Caligula’s action, but he does not regard this as furnishing any
13:14–22 forms a pericope containing a tradition of the temple’s coming desecration which is intelligible against the background of Caligula’s action, but he does not regard this as furnishing any