Editing Gospel of Mark (section)

==Composition==
[[File:Andrea Mantegna 087.jpg|thumb|left|[[Andrea Mantegna]]'s ''[[St Mark (Mantegna)|St. Mark]]'', 1448|190x190px]]
[[File:Synoptic problem two source colored.png|thumb|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.|240x240px]]

==={{Anchor|Authorship, date and genre|Authorship and genre|Authorship}}Authorship and date===
An early Christian tradition deriving from [[Papias of Hierapolis]] (c.60–c.130 AD){{sfn|Keith|2016|p=92}} regards the Gospel as being based on the preaching of Saint Peter, as recorded by [[John Mark]], a companion and interpreter of [[Saint Peter|Peter]].{{sfn|Sanders|1995|pp=63–64}}{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=156}}{{sfn|Watts Henderson|2018|p=1431}} Most scholars argue that it was written anonymously,{{sfn|Sanders|1995|pp=63–64}}{{sfn|Watts Henderson|2018|p=1431}}{{efn-la|name="authorship"}} and that the name of Mark was attached to it{{when?|date=January 2025}} to link it to an authoritative figure,{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=156}} according to [[Adela Yarbro Collins]], already early on, and not in a later stage of the early Church history.{{efn-la|[[Adela Yarbro Collins]], a Biblical scholar at [[Yale Divinity School]], notes that Paul's letter to Philemon also mentions a Mark, which may be the same as the Mark from Acts. While it may be possible that the Gospel of Mark was written by this Mark, many scholars argue against this possibility, given the contradictions between Paul and Mark's theology and literary aspects.{{sfn|Collins|2007|p=5-6}}}} [[Helen Bond]] also argues that the name goes back to the earliest period of circulation and claims that the Gospel was written by somebody named Mark.<ref>{{cite book |last= Bond |first= Helen |author-link= Helen Bond |title= The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark's Gospel |year= 2020 |publisher= Eerdmans |page= 10-11 |isbn= 978-0802874603}}</ref> [[Gerd Theissen]] also argues for homonimity.<ref name="n307">{{cite book | last=Theissen | first=Gerd | last2=Maloney | first2=Linda M. | title=The New Testament: A Literary History | publisher=Fortress Press | series=G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series | year=2011 | isbn=978-0-8006-9785-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AZdAxLt4lVUC&pg=PT109 | access-date=11 February 2025 | page=unpaginated | quote=In the case of Mark and John}}</ref> Scholarship is inconclusive on authorship, with some denying that the gospel was written by anyone named Mark while others accept the view John Mark was the author. Others argue the gospel was written by a Mark not mentioned in the Bible or connected to Peter.<ref>{{Cite book |title=T&T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament |publisher=T&T Clark |year=2020 |isbn=9780567667861 |pages=70}}</ref> It is usually dated through the [[Eschatology|eschatological]] discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the [[First Jewish–Roman War]] (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the [[Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)|destruction of the Second Temple]] in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior.{{sfn|Telford|1999|p=12}}{{sfn|Leander|2013|p=167}}{{efn|{{harvnb|Leander|2013|p=167}} refers to {{harvnb|Hengel|1985|pp=7–28}} and {{harvnb|Collins|2007|pp=11–14}} as arguing for a dating immediately before 70 AD, and to {{harvnb|Theissen|1992|pp=258–262}}, {{harvnb|Incigneri|2003|pp=116–155}}, {{harvnb|Head|2004}} and {{harvnb|Kloppenborg|2005}} as arguing for a dating immediately after 70 AD. Leander also refers to the minority position of {{harvnb|Crossley|2004}}, who proposed a much earlier {{circa|35–45}} AD dating, listing reviews that point out the problems with Crossley's argument.}} Most scholars place Mark during the buildup of the [[First Jewish-Roman War]] (65-70 CE), while a plurality date it shortly afterwards (71-75 CE).<ref>{{cite book |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |title= Jesus Darkly: Remembering Jesus with the New Testament |date= 2018 |publisher= Abingdon Press |page= 59 |isbn= 978-1501839115}}</ref> The dating around 70 AD is not dependent on the naturalistic argument that [[Jesus]] could not have made an accurate prophecy; scholars like Michael Barber and Amy-Jill Levine argue the [[Historical Jesus]] predicted the destruction of the Temple.<ref>{{cite journal |first= Matthew |last= Levering |title= The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew by Michael Patrick Barber (review) |journal= The Catholic Biblical Quarterly|volume= 22-3|year= 2024 |issue= 3 |pages= 1053–1059|doi= 10.1353/nov.2024.a934941}}</ref> Whether the Gospels were composed before or after 70 AD, according to Bas van Os, the lifetime of various eyewitnesses that includes Jesus's own family through the end of the [[First Century]] is very likely statistically.<ref>{{cite book |last= van Os |first= Bas |year= 2011 |title= Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian Origins |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 57, 83 |isbn= 978-0567269515}}</ref> [[Markus Bockmuehl]] finds this structure of lifetime memory in various early Christian traditions.<ref>{{cite book |last= Bockmuehl |first= Markus |author-link= Markus Bockmuehl |year= 2006 |title= Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study |publisher= Baker Academic |pages= 178–184 |isbn= 978-0801027611}}</ref> The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as the conflict stories which appear in Mark 2:1-3:6, [[Apocalyptic literature|apocalyptic]] discourse such as Mark 13:1–37, miracle stories, parables, a passion narrative, and collections of sayings, although not the hypothesized [[Q source]].{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=156}}{{sfn|Boring|2006|pp=13–14}} Nicholas Elder argues that Mark is an oral work involving both a speaker and a writer who composed the text, based on its oral characteristics and patristic testimony.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Elder |first=Nicholas |title=Gospel Media |publisher=Eerdmans |year=2024 |isbn=9780802879219 |pages=366-68}}</ref>  While [[Werner Kelber]] in his media contrast model argued that the transition from oral sources to the written Gospel of Mark represented a major break in transmission, going as far to claim that the latter tried to stifle the former, [[James Dunn (theologian)|James DG Dunn]] argues that such distinctions are greatly exaggerated and that Mark largely preserved the Jesus tradition back to his lifetime.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|pp=203}}<ref>James D.G. Dunn, "Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History," in ''The Messiah'', ed. James H. Charlesworth. pp. 371–372. Cf. James D.G. Dunn, ''Jesus Remembered''.</ref> Rafael Rodriguez too is critical of Kelber's divide.<ref>{{cite book |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |year= 2010 |title= Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 3–6 |isbn=  978-0567264206}}</ref>

===Setting===
The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek, for a [[gentile]] audience, and probably in [[Rome]], although [[Galilee]], [[Antioch]] (third-largest city in the [[Roman Empire]], located in northern Syria), and [[southern Syria]] have also been suggested.{{sfn|Perkins|2007|p=241}}{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=157}} Theologian and former [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] [[Rowan Williams]] proposed that Libya was a possible setting, as it was the location of Cyrene and there is a long-held Arabic tradition of Mark's residence there.<ref>{{cite book|title=Meeting God in Mark|date=2014|author-link=Rowan Williams|first=Rowan|last=Williams|page=17}}</ref>

The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of {{lang|grc-Latn|bios}}, or [[ancient biography]].{{sfn|Lincoln|2004|p=133}} Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, and also included morals and rhetoric in their works.{{sfn|Dunn|2005|p=174}} Like all the synoptic gospels, the purpose of writing was to strengthen the faith of those who already believed, as opposed to serving as a tractate for missionary conversion.{{sfn|Aune|1987|p=59}} 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. 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").{{sfn|Aune|1987|p=60}}

Christianity began within [[Judaism]], with a Christian "church" (or {{lang|grc|ἐκκλησία}}, {{lang|grc-Latn|ekklesia}}, meaning 'assembly') that arose shortly after Jesus's death when some of his followers claimed to have witnessed him risen from the dead.{{sfn|Lössl|2010|p=43}} From the outset, Christians depended heavily on [[Jewish literature]], supporting their convictions through the Jewish scriptures.{{sfn|Gamble|1995|p=23}} Those convictions involved a nucleus of key concepts: the messiah, the [[son of God]] and the [[son of man]], the [[suffering servant]], the [[Day of the Lord]], and 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.{{sfn|Collins|2000|p=6}} 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.{{sfn|Lössl|2010|p=43}}[[File:Codex Alexandrinus list of kephalaia.JPG|right|thumb|250px|List of kephalaia (chapters) in the Gospel of Mark, placed after the [[Colophon (publishing)|colophon]] of the [[Gospel of Matthew]] and before the Gospel of Mark, in the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] (AD 400–440)]]

===Synoptic problem===
[[Image:MarkEvangelist.jpg|thumb|Mark the Evangelist, 16th-century Russian icon|298x298px]]
The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set [[Gospel harmony#A parallel harmony presentation|side by side in parallel columns]]. The fact that they share so much material verbatim and yet also exhibit important differences has led to several hypotheses explaining their interdependence, a phenomenon termed the [[synoptic problem]].

Up until the 19th century, the gospel of Mark was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, and was believed to be an abridgement of [[gospel of Matthew|Matthew]]. The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from [[gospel of John|John]], and only distantly from Mark. However, in the 19th century, a theory was developed known as [[Marcan priority]], which held that Mark was the first of the four gospels written.{{sfn|Edwards|2002|p=2}} In this view, Mark was a source used by both Matthew and [[gospel of Luke|Luke]], who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.{{sfn|Koester|2000|pp=44–46}} The hypothesis of Marcan priority is 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.{{sfn|Edwards|2002|pp=1–3}}

===Historicity===

The idea of Marcan priority first gained widespread acceptance during the 19th century. From this position, it was generally assumed that Mark's provenance meant that it was the most reliable of the four gospels as a source for facts about the [[historical Jesus]]. However, the conceit that Mark could be used to reconstruct the historical Jesus suffered two severe blows in the early 20th century. Firstly, in 1901 [[William Wrede]] put forward an argument that the "[[Messianic Secret]]" motif within Mark had actually been a creation of the early church instead of a reflection of the historical Jesus. In 1919, [[Karl Ludwig Schmidt]] argued that the links between episodes in Mark were a literary invention of the author, meaning that the text could not be used as evidence in attempts to reconstruct the chronology of Jesus' mission.{{sfn|Marcus|2000|p=859}} The latter half of the 20th century saw a consensus emerge among scholars that the author of Mark had primarily intended to announce a message rather than to report history.{{sfn|Williamson|1983|p=17}} Nonetheless, Mark is generally seen as the most reliable of the four gospels in its overall description of Jesus' life and ministry.{{sfn|Powell|1998|p=37}} Michael Patrick Barber has challenged the prevailing view, arguing that "Matthew's overall portrait presents us with a historically plausible picture..." of the [[Historical Jesus]]. [[Dale Allison]] had already argued that the [[Gospel of Matthew]] is more accurate than Mark in several regards, but was finally convinced by Barber's work to no longer regard the "uniquely Matthean" materials as ahistorical, declaring that the [[Historical Jesus]] "is not buried beneath Matthew but stares at us from its surface".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barber |first=Michael Patrick |year=2023 |title=The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology and the Gospel of Matthew |contribution=Foreword |contributor-first=Dale C. Jr. |contributor-last=Allison |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=x, 238 |isbn=978-1-009-21085-0 |contributor-link=Dale Allison}}</ref> Matthew Thiessen wholeheartedly agrees as well, finding no fault in Barber's work.<ref>{{cite journal |first= Matthew |last= Thiessen |title= The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew by Michael Patrick Barber (review) |journal= The Catholic Biblical Quarterly|volume= 86-1|year= 2024 |page= 168|doi= 10.1353/cbq.2024.a918386}}</ref>{{efn|Thiessen: "Barber concludes that the Gospel of Matthew provides a historically plausible depiction of Jesus, regardless of the historical veracity of this or that precise detail. This remembered Jesus, the only Jesus we have access to [...] was a temple-pious Jew [...]it is this Jesus who makes sense of the various shapes that the early Jesus movement took"}}