Mark - Introduction

Mark is the shortest of the four gospels. In fact it is almost exactly half the length of Matthew and Luke, possibly suggesting that scrolls had standard lengths, and also make it the cheapest! The general consensus is that Mark is the earliest of the gospels, though there are some who say Matthew and Luke came first. The most likely date is around 60 AD, with 64 AD being a popular date. It is important to understand that this does not mean that this was first date of the recording of the events covered in Mark. Originally the gospel events were transmitted orally, and there may have been earlier written sources of gospel events. There is the hypothetical source, called Q, which is supposed to be a record of the sayings of Jesus, and it is suggested that Matthew Mark and Luke drew from this source.

The gospel itself does not actually say who it was written by, the early church unanimously attributed it to John Mark of Acts (Acts 12:12,25; 15:37). Papias attributes the gospel to Mark, and says that Mark was an associate of Peter, from whom he got a lot of his information. The content of the gospel is consistent with such a hypothesis. The style of Greek is fairly common Greek, unlike Luke which is of a much higher standard. It was probably written in Rome with Gentile Christians being the primary audience.

While almost all the incidents in Mark are recorded in Matthew and/or Luke, Mark’s accounts are sometime fuller than those found in Matthew. When reading the gospels it is important to realise that they were not intended to be strict chronological accounts, but were written with a purpose. So while the material follows a rough chronological order, it was not the overriding guiding principle.  Mark is focused very much on action, with only four parables of Jesus being mentioned. Mark emphasises the cross, as do all the gospels, discipleship and the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Mark sees the truth of this being demonstrated by the actions of Jesus. It is clear from Mark that Jesus is a teacher, but apart from chapter 13, Mark does focus much more on the doings of Jesus.

There is one key textual issue with Mark, namely the ending. Does the gospel end at 16:8, or is 16:9-20 authentic? Before looking briefly at the evidence, it is important to note that nothing in 16:9-20 contradicts anything else in the Bible, and, indeed, is entirely consistent with other parts of the New Testament. This helps put the “problem” in context, it is not a major theological issue!

Anyway, to the evidence. This is taken from J D Grassmick’s commentary on Mark in the Walvoord & Zuck New Testament commentary.

• The two earliest manuscripts from the fourth century do not include 9-20, though there is a space there, so quite possibly the scribe knew of a longer ending, but did not have access to it.
• Most other manuscripts (fifth century onwards) contain the longer ending.
• Early patristic writers (such as Justin Martyr, Tatian and Irenaeus) support the inclusion of the longer ending.
• Eusebius and Jerome say that the longer ending was missing from the manuscripts they had.
• An Armenian manuscript of the 10th century attributed the longer ending to Ariston, a disciple of the apostle John.
• The ending at verse 8 is rather abrupt, so it is easy to see why some would want to make it more “complete”.
• The transition from verse 8 to 9 is rather abrupt.
• The Greek style is rather different in 9-20 than in the rest of the gospel.

There are various suggestions as to what happened, but no firm conclusions can be reached. As mentioned earlier, no key theological issues are at stake, so we will assume that 9-20 are an intended part of the gospel.