Gospel of Mark

"Mar." redirects here. For the month abbreviated Mar., see March.

The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]

Mark tells of the ministry of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his death and burial and the discovery of the empty tomb – there is no genealogy or birth narrative, nor, in the original ending at chapter 16, any post-resurrection appearances. It portrays Jesus as a heroic man of action, an exorcist, healer and miracle worker. Jesus is also the Son of God, but he keeps his identity secret, concealing it in parables so that even the disciples fail to understand. All this is in keeping with prophecy, which foretold the fate of the messiah as Suffering Servant.[4] The gospel ends, in its original version, with the discovery of the empty tomb, a promise to meet again in Galilee, and an unheeded instruction to spread the good news of the resurrection.[5]

Composition and setting

Mantegna's St. Mark

Composition

The two-source hypothesis: Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[6] A persistent tradition began in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.AD 125) ascribing it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but according to the Louisiana State University scholar, Burkett, "most critical scholars do not accept Papias' claim."[7] It is notable, however, that Burkett does not attempt to substantiate this sweeping generalisation and other notable scholars, such as Durham University research fellow John Drane, do not necessarily agree. For example, Drane writes:

Many stories are told with such vivid details that it is natural to regard them as first-hand accounts of the events they describe; stories like the call of Peter (Mark 1:14-20), or of Jesus’ first Sabbath in Capernaum when Peter’s mother-in-low was healed (Mark 1:29-34). In addition, some of the references to the disciples, and to Peter in particular, are highly unfavourable. The disciples are consistently portrayed as ignorant and obtuse, repeatedly failing to understand what Jesus was trying to teach them (Mark 4;35-41; 5:25-34; 6:37-38; 8:14-21, 31-33; 9:2-6, 32; 10:35- 45). In Mark the disciples are not at all the kind of people the later Church liked to think they were, and it is unlikely that they would have been depicted in such an unfavourable light had Mark not had good information, perhaps coming from Peter himself, to support such an impression...it may well be that the tradition connecting Mark with this gospel is not altogether untrustworthy. John Mark (see Acts 12:12 and 15:37-40) was a very insignificant person and hardly someone who would be credited with writing a gospel unless there was good reason to believe that he did in fact do so.[8]

The book was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution,[9] but it may have been written or redacted after that period. The author used a variety of sources derived from accounts predating the gospel's composition, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[10]

Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians: Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms),Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternative places of authorship.[11] The author may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions.[12] His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[13]

The synoptic problem and the historicity of Mark

Mark the Evangelist, 16th-century Russian icon

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. Their close relationship is termed the synoptic problem, and has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence. The oldest hypothesis, based on Church tradition, is that Matthew was written first, then Luke, and that Mark was a summary based on both Matthew and Luke. The most widely accepted hypothesis today, however, is that Mark was the first gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material. The strongest argument for this is the fact that Matthew and Luke only agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events when they also agree with Mark. It was once thought that this area of agreement represented the historical course of events, but early in the 20th century William Wrede argued that Mark's sequence is in fact an artificial and theological construct bearing little relationship to the actual ministry of Jesus.[14]

Setting

Christianity began within Judaism, with a Christian "church" (from a Greek word meaning "assembly") that arose either within Jesus' own lifetime or shortly after his death, when some of his followers claimed to have witnessed him risen from the dead.[15] From the outset, Christians depended heavily on Jewish literature, supporting their convictions through the Jewish scriptures.[16] Those convictions involved a nucleus of key concepts: the messiah, the son of God and the son of man, the Day of the Lord, the kingdom of God. Uniting these ideas was the common thread of apocalyptic expectation: Both Jews and Christians believed that the end of history was at hand, that God would very soon come to punish their enemies and establish his own rule, and that they were at the centre of his plans. Christians read the Jewish scripture as a figure or type of Jesus Christ, so that the goal of Christian literature became an experience of the living Christ.[17] The new movement spread around the eastern Mediterranean and to Rome and further west, and assumed a distinct identity, although the groups within it remained extremely diverse.[15]

They were written for an audience already Christian – their purpose was to strengthen the faith of those who already believed, not to convert unbelievers.[18] Christian "churches" were small communities of believers, often based on households (an autocratic patriarch plus extended family, slaves, freedmen, and other clients), and the evangelists often wrote on two levels, one the "historical" presentation of the story of Jesus, the other dealing with the concerns of the author's own day.[19] Thus the proclamation of Jesus in Mark 1:14 and the following verses, for example, mixes the terms Jesus would have used as a 1st-century Jew ("kingdom of God") and those of the early church ("believe", "gospel").[19] More fundamentally, some scholars believe Mark's reason for writing was to counter believers who saw Jesus in a Greek way, as wonder-worker (the Greek term is "divine man"); Mark saw the suffering of the messiah as essential, so that the "Son of God" title (the Hellenistic "divine man") had to be corrected and amplified with the "Son of Man" title, which conveyed Christ's suffering.[20] Other scholars think Mark might have been writing as a Galilean Christian against those Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who saw the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–73 CE) as the beginning of the "end times": for Mark, the Second Coming would be in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and not until the generation following the revolt.[20]

Place in the Christian Church

Mark was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, as a somewhat inferior abridgement of what was regarded as the most important gospel, Matthew. The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark. It was only in the 19th century that Mark came to be seen as the earliest of the four gospels, and as a source used by both Matthew and Luke. The hypothesis of Markan priority (that Mark was written first) continues to be held by the majority of scholars today, and there is a new recognition of the author as an artist and theologian using a range of literary devices to convey his conception of Jesus as the authoritative yet suffering Son of God.[21]

Structure and content

Detailed content of Mark
1. Galilean ministry
John the Baptist (1:1–8)
Baptism of Jesus (1:9–11)
Temptation of Jesus (1:12–13)
Good News (1:15)
First disciples (1:16–20)
Capernaum's synagogue (1:21–28)
Peter's mother-in-law (1:29–31)
Exorcising at sunset (1:32–34)
A leper (1:35–45)
A paralytic (2:1–2:12)
Calling of Matthew (2:13–17)
Fasting and wineskins (2:18–22)
Lord of the Sabbath (2:23–28)
Man with withered hand (3:1–6)
Withdrawing to the sea (3:7–3:12)
Commissioning the Twelve (3:13–19)
Blind mute (3:20–26)
Strong man (3:27)
Eternal sin (3:28–30)
Jesus' true relatives (3:31–35)
Parable of the Sower (4:1–9,13-20)
Purpose of parables (4:10–12,33-34)
Lamp under a bushel (4:21–23)
Mote and Beam (4:24–25)
Growing seed and Mustard seed (4:26–32)
Calming the storm (4:35–41)
Demon named Legion (5:1–20)
Daughter of Jairus (5:21–43)
Hometown rejection (6:1–6)
Instructions for the Twelve (6:7–13)
Beheading of John (6:14–29)
Feeding the 5000 (6:30–44)
Walking on water (6:45–52)
Fringe of his cloak heals (6:53–56)
Discourse on Defilement (7:1–23)
Canaanite woman's daughter (7:24–30)
Deaf mute (7:31–37)
Feeding the 4000 (8:1–9)
No sign will be given (8:10–21)
Healing with spit (8:22–26)
Peter's confession (8:27–30)
Jesus predicts his death (8:31–33, 9:30–32, 10:32–34)
Instructions for followers (8:34–9:1)
Transfiguration (9:2–13)
Possessed boy (9:14–29)
Teaching in Capernaum (9:33–50)
2. Journey to Jerusalem
Entering Judea and Transjordan (10:1)
On divorce (10:2–12)
Little children (10:13–16)
Rich young man (10:17–31)
Son of man came to serve (10:35–45)
Blind Bartimaeus (10:46–52)
3. Events in Jerusalem
Entering Jerusalem (11:1–11)
Cursing the fig tree (11:12–14,20-24)
Temple incident (11:15–19)
Prayer for forgiveness (11:25–26)
Authority questioned (11:27–33)
Wicked husbandman (12:1–12)
Render unto Caesar... (12:13–17)
Resurrection of the Dead (12:18–27)
Great Commandment (12:28–34)
Is the Messiah the son of David? (12:35–40)
Widow's mite (12:41–44)
Olivet discourse (13)
Plot to kill Jesus (14:1–2)
Anointing (14:3–9)
Bargain of Judas (14:10–11)
Last Supper (14:12–26)
Denial of Peter (14:27–31,66-72)
Agony in the Garden (14:32–42)
Kiss of Judas (14:43–45)
Arrest (14:46–52)
Before the High Priest (14:53–65)
Pilate's court (15:1–15)
Soldiers mock Jesus (15:16–20)
Simon of Cyrene (15:21)
Crucifixion (15:22–41)
Entombment (15:42–47)
Empty tomb (16:1–8)
The Longer Ending (16:9–20)
Resurrection appearances (16:9–13)
Great Commission (16:14–18)
Ascension (16:19)
Dispersion of the Apostles (16:20)
Page from Mark in a Latin bible dated 1486 (Bodleian Library)

Structure

There is no agreement on the structure of Mark.[22] There is, however, a widely recognised break at Mark 8:26–31: before 8:26 there are numerous miracle stories, the action is in Galilee, and Jesus preaches to the crowds, while after 8:31 there are hardly any miracles, the action shifts from Galilee to gentile areas or hostile Judea, and Jesus teaches the disciples.[23] Peter's confession at Mark 8:27–30 that Jesus is the messiah thus forms the watershed to the whole gospel.[24] A further generally recognised turning point comes at the end of chapter 10, when Jesus and his followers arrive in Jerusalem and the foreseen confrontation with the Temple authorities begins, leading R.T. France to characterise Mark as a three-act drama.[25] James Edwards in his 2002 commentary points out that the gospel can be seen as a series of questions asking first who Jesus is (the answer being that he is the messiah), then what form his mission takes (a mission of suffering culminating in the crucifixion and resurrection, events only to be understood when the questions are answered), while another scholar, C. Myers, has made what Edwards calls a "compelling case" for recognising the incidents of Jesus' baptism, transfiguration and crucifixion, at the beginning, middle and end of the gospel, as three key moments, each with common elements, and each portrayed in an apocalyptic light.[26] Stephen H. Smith has made the point that the structure of Mark is similar to the structure of a Greek tragedy[27]

Content

The ending of the gospel of Mark

For more details on this topic, see Mark 16.

The earliest complete manuscripts of Mark – Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and, with gaps, Alexandrinus – date from the 4th century.[28] These end at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing in fear from the empty tomb: the majority of recent scholars believe this to be the original ending,[29] and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome.[28] Two attempts were made to provide a more satisfactory conclusion.[30] A minority of later manuscripts have what is called the "shorter ending", an addition to Mark 16:8 telling how the women told "those around Peter" all that the angel had commanded and how the message of eternal life (or "proclamation of eternal salvation") was then sent out by Jesus himself.[30] This addition differs from the rest of Mark both in style and in its understanding of Jesus.[30] The overwhelming majority of manuscripts have the "longer ending", Mark 16:9–20, with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension.[28] This ending was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.[30]

Modern scholars have proposed many explanations for the abrupt original ending, though none with universal acceptance. The abrupt original ending could indicate a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". Whatever the case, it is clear that Mark's Jesus looks forward to a post-death meeting in Galilee, and it is likely that at that meeting, like the final meeting in Galilee that Matthew depicts, Mark's Jesus would command the disciples to take his message to the nations.[29]

Theology

First page of the Gospel of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God", by Sargis Pitsak (14th century)
Minuscule 2427 – "Archaic Mark"

Mark's gospel theology

The author introduces his work as "gospel", meaning "good news", a literal translation of the Greek "evangelion"[31] – he uses the word more often than any other writer in the New Testament besides Paul.[32] Paul uses it to mean "the good news (of the saving significance of the death and resurrection) of Christ"; Mark extends it to the career of Christ as well as his death and resurrection.[31] Like the other gospels, Mark was written to confirm the identity of Jesus as eschatological deliverer – the purpose of terms such as "messiah" and "son of God".[33] As in all the gospels, the messianic identity of Jesus is supported by a number of themes, including: (1) the depiction of his disciples as obtuse, fearful and uncomprehending; (2) the refutation of the charge made by Jesus' enemies that he was a magician; (3) secrecy surrounding his true identity (this last is missing from John).[33]

1. The failure of the disciples

In Mark the disciples, and especially the Twelve, move from lack of perception of Jesus to rejection of the "way of suffering" to flight and denial – even the women who received the first proclamation of his resurrection can be seen as failures for not reporting the good news. There is much discussion of this theme among scholars. Some argue that the author of Mark was using the disciples to correct "erroneous" views in his own community concerning the reality of the suffering messiah, others that it is an attack on the Jerusalem branch of the church for resisting the extension of the gospel to the gentiles, or a mirror of the convert's usual experience of the initial enthusiasm followed by growing awareness of the necessity for suffering. It certainly reflects the strong theme in Mark of Jesus as the "suffering just one" portrayed in so many of the books of the Jewish scriptures, from Jeremiah to Job and the Psalms, but especially in the "Suffering Servant" passages Isaiah. It also reflects the Jewish scripture theme of God's love being met by infidelity and failure, only to be renewed by God. And in the real-world context in which the gospel was written, the persecutions of the Christians of Rome under Nero, the failure of the disciples and Jesus' denial by Peter himself would have been powerful symbols of faith, hope and reconciliation.[34]

2. The charge of magic

Mark contains twenty accounts of miracles and healings, accounting for almost a third of the gospel and half the first ten chapters, more, proportionally, than in any other gospel.[35] In the gospels as a whole Jesus' miracles, prophecies, etc., are presented as evidence of God's rule, but Mark's descriptions of Jesus' healings are a partial exception to this, as his methods, using spittle to heal blindness (Mark 8:22–26) and magic formulae ("Talitha cumi," 5:41, "Ephphatha," 7:34), were those of a magician.[36][37] This is the charge the Jewish religious leaders bring against Jesus: they say he is performing exorcisms with the aid of an evil spirit (Mark 3:22) and calling up the spirit of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14).[36] "There was ... no period in the history of the [Roman] empire in which the magician was not considered an enemy of society," subject to penalties ranging from exile to death, says Classical scholar Ramsay MacMullen.[38] All the gospels defend Jesus against the charge, which, if true, it would contradict their ultimate claims for him.[39] The point of the Beelzebub incident in Mark (Mark 3:20–30) is to set forth Jesus' claims to be an instrument of God, not Satan.[39]

3. The messianic secret
Main article: Messianic secret

In 1901, William Wrede identified the "Messianic secret" – Jesus' secrecy about his identity as the messiah – as one of Mark's central themes. Wrede argued that the elements of the secret – Jesus' silencing of the demons, the obtuseness of the disciples regarding his identity, and the concealment of the truth inside parables, were fictions, and arose from the tension between the Church's post-resurrection messianic belief and the historical reality of Jesus. There remains continuing debate over how far the "secret" originated with Mark and how far he got it from tradition, and how far, if at all, it represents the self-understanding and practices of the historical Jesus.[40]

Christology: Mark's understanding of Jesus

Christology means a doctrine or understanding concerning the person or nature of Christ.[41] In the New Testament writings it is frequently conveyed through the titles applied to Jesus. Most scholars agree that "Son of God" is the most important of these titles in Mark.[42] It appears on the lips of God himself at the baptism and the transfiguration, and is Jesus' own self-designation (Mark 13:32).[42] These and other instances provide reliable evidence of how the evangelist perceived Jesus, but it is not clear just what the title meant to Mark and his 1st century audience.[42] Where it appears in the Hebrew scriptures it meant Israel as God's people, or the king at his coronation, or angels, as well as the suffering righteous man.[43] In Hellenistic culture the same phrase meant a "divine man", a supernatural being.[42] There is little evidence that "son of God" was a title for the messiah in 1st century Judaism, and the attributes which Mark describes in Jesus are much more those of the Hellenistic miracle-working "divine man" than of the Jewish Davidic messiah.[42]

Mark does not explicitly state what he means by "Son of God", nor when the sonship was conferred.[44] The New Testament as a whole presents four different understandings:

  1. Jesus became God's son at his resurrection, God "begetting" Jesus to a new life by raising him from the dead – this was the earliest understanding, preserved in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1:3–4, and in Acts 13:33;
  2. Jesus became God's son at his baptism, the coming of the Holy Spirit marking him as messiah, while "Son of God" refers to the relationship then established for him God – this is the understanding implied in Mark 1:9–11;
  3. Matthew and Luke present Jesus as "Son of God" from the moment of conception and birth, with God taking the place of a human father;
  4. John, the last of the gospels, presents the idea that the Christ was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus – an idea also found in Paul.[45]

Mark also calls Jesus "christos" (Christ), translating the Hebrew "messiah," (anointed person).[46] In the Old Testament the term messiah ("anointed one") described prophets, priests and kings; by the time of Jesus, with the kingdom long vanished, it had come to mean an eschatological king (a king who would come at the end of time), one who would be entirely human though far greater than all God's previous messengers to Israel, endowed with miraculous powers, free from sin, ruling in justice and glory (as described in, for example, the Psalms of Solomon, a Jewish work from this period).[47] The most important occurrences are in the context of Jesus' death and suffering, suggesting that, for Mark, Jesus can only be fully understood in that context.[46]

A third important title, "Son of Man", has its roots in Ezekiel, the Book of Enoch, (a popular Jewish apocalyptic work of the period), and especially in Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is assigned royal roles of dominion, kingship and glory.[48][49] Mark 14:62 combines more scriptural allusions: before he comes on clouds (Daniel 7:13) the Son of Man will be seated on the right hand of God (psalm 110:1), pointing to the equivalence of the three titles, Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, the common element being the reference to kingly power.[50]

Eschatology and salvation: The meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and return

Eschatology means the study of the end-times, and the Jews expected the messiah to be an eschatological figure, a deliverer who would appear at the end of the age to usher in an earthly kingdom.[51] The earliest Jewish Christian community saw Jesus as a messiah in this Jewish sense, a human figure appointed by God as his earthly regent; but they also believed in Jesus' resurrection and exultation to heaven, and for this reason they also viewed him as God's agent (the "son of God") who would return in glory ushering in the Kingdom of God.[52]

The term "Son of God" likewise had a specific Jewish meaning, or range of meanings,[53] one of the most significant being the earthly king adopted by God as his son at his enthronement, legitimising his rule over Israel.[54] In Hellenistic culture, in contrast, the phrase meant a "divine man", covering legendary heroes like Hercules, god-kings like the Egyptian pharaohs, or famous philosophers like Plato.[55] When the gospels call Jesus "Son of God" the intention is to place him in the class of Hellenistic and Greek divine men, the 'sons of God" who were endowed with supernatural power to perform healings, exorcisms and other wonderful deeds.[54] Mark's "Son of David" is Hellenistic, his Jesus predicting that his mission involves suffering, death and resurrection, and, by implication, not military glory and conquest.[56] This reflects a move away from the Jewish-Christian apocalyptic tradition and towards the Hellenistic message preached by Paul, for whom Christ's death and resurrection, rather than the establishment of the apocalyptic Jewish kingdom, is the meaning of salvation, the "gospel".[52]

Comparison with other writings

"Entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment" – Mark's description of the discovery of the empty tomb (from the Pericopes of Henry II)

Mark and the New Testament

All four gospels tell a story in which Jesus' death and resurrection are the crucial redemptive events.[57] There are, however, important differences between the four: Unlike John, Mark never calls Jesus "God", or claims that Jesus existed prior to his earthly life; unlike Matthew and Luke, he never mentions a virgin mother or divine father, and apparently believes that Jesus had a normal human parentage and birth; unlike Matthew and Luke, he makes no attempt to trace Jesus' ancestry back to King David or Adam.[58]

Christians of Mark's time expected Jesus to return as Messiah in their own lifetime – Mark, like the other gospels, attributes the promise to Jesus himself (Mark 9:1 and 13:30), and it is reflected in the letters of Paul, in the epistle of James, in Hebrews, and in Revelation. When return failed, the early Christians revised their understanding. Some acknowledged that the Second Coming had been delayed, but still expected it; others redefined the focus of the promise, the Gospel of John, for example, speaking of "eternal life" as something available in the present; while still others concluded that Jesus would not return at all (2 Peter argues against those who held this view).[59]

Sayings unique to Mark

Then:
  • 8:1–9 – Feeding of the four thousand;
  • 8:10 – Crossing of the lake;
  • 8:11–13 – Dispute with the Pharisees;
  • 8:14–21 – Incident of no bread and discourse about the leaven of the Pharisees.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Similar to a rabbinical saying from the 2nd century BC, "The Sabbath is given over to you ["the son of man"], and not you to the Sabbath." Misunderstood Passages
  2. ↑ The verb katharizo means both "to declare to be clean" and "to purify." The Scholars Version has: "This is how everything we eat is purified", Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament has: "purging all that is eaten."
  3. ↑ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2: Mark, p.448" (PDF). TCG 2007: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 5th ed. Retrieved 2008-01-09.

Citations

  1. ↑ Perkins 2009, p. 57.
  2. ↑ Brown 1997, p. 164.
  3. ↑ Burkett 2002, p. 156.
  4. ↑ Boring 2006, pp. 252-253.
  5. 1 2 Boring 2006, pp. 1–3.
  6. ↑ E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.
  7. ↑ Burkett 2002, pp. 155–6.
  8. ↑ Drane, 187-188.
  9. ↑ Perkins 1998, p. 241.
  10. ↑ Boring 2006, pp. 13-14.
  11. ↑ Burkett 2002, p. 157.
  12. ↑ Donahue 2005, pp. 15–6.
  13. ↑ Donahue 2005, p. 15.
  14. ↑ Koester 2000, pp. 44–6.
  15. 1 2 Lössl 2010, p. 43.
  16. ↑ Gamble 1995, p. 23.
  17. ↑ Collins 2000, p. 6.
  18. ↑ Aune 1987, p. 59.
  19. 1 2 Aune 1987, p. 60.
  20. 1 2 Aune 1987, p. 61.
  21. ↑ Edwards 2002, pp. 1–3.
  22. ↑ Twelftree 1999, p. 68.
  23. ↑ Cole 1989, p. 86.
  24. ↑ Cole 1989, pp. 86–7.
  25. ↑ France 2002, p. 11.
  26. ↑ Edwards 2002, pp. 38–9.
  27. ↑ Smith 1995, pp. 209–31.
  28. 1 2 3 Schröter 2010, p. 279.
  29. 1 2 Edwards 2002, p. 500.
  30. 1 2 3 4 Horsely 2007, p. 91.
  31. 1 2 Aune 1987, p. 17.
  32. ↑ Morris 1990, p. 95.
  33. 1 2 Aune 1987, p. 55.
  34. ↑ Donahue 2005, pp. 33–4.
  35. ↑ Twelftree 1999, p. 57.
  36. 1 2 Kee 1993, p. 483.
  37. ↑ Powell 1998, p. 57.
  38. ↑ Welch 2006, p. 362.
  39. 1 2 Aune 1987, p. 56.
  40. ↑ Cross & Livingstone 2005, p. 1083.
  41. ↑ Telford 1999, p. 3.
  42. 1 2 3 4 5 Telford 1999, pp. 38–9.
  43. ↑ Donahue 2005, p. 25.
  44. ↑ Ehrman 1993, p. 74.
  45. ↑ Burkett 2002, pp. 68–9.
  46. 1 2 Donahue 2005, pp. 25–6.
  47. ↑ Edwards 2002, p. 250.
  48. ↑ Witherington 2001, p. 51.
  49. ↑ Donahue 2005, pp. 26–7.
  50. ↑ Witherington 2001, p. 52.
  51. ↑ Burkett 2002, p. 69.
  52. 1 2 Telford 1999, p. 155.
  53. ↑ Dunn 2003, pp. 709–10.
  54. 1 2 Strecker 2000, pp. 81–2.
  55. ↑ Dunn 2003, p. 69.
  56. ↑ Telford 1999, p. 52.
  57. ↑ Hurtado 2005, p. 587.
  58. ↑ Burkett 2002, p. 158.
  59. ↑ Burkett 2002, pp. 69–70.
  60. ↑ Twelftree 1999, p. 79.

Sources

Further reading

External links

Wikiversity has learning materials about Biblical Studies (NT) #The Gospels: The Life and Ministry of Jesus
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Gospel of Mark
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Gospel of Mark.
Online translations of the Gospel of Mark
Related articles
Gospel of Mark
Preceded by
Gospel of
Matthew		 New Testament
Books of the Bible 		Succeeded by
Gospel of
Luke
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.