Introducing the Gospel

The reader may well ponder the striking paradox of the above title. Mark’s gospel carries, in the popular imagination and much pastoral use, the reputation of being the most un­complicated and straightforward report of Jesus’ earthly ministry, and it is often recommended as raising few, if any, theological problems.^[1]See the present writer’s popular guide to Mark, Where the Action Is (Glendale, Calif.: G/L Publications, 1977). Its readers are not faced with marvelous accounts of angelic appearances at Jesus’ nativity, and there is no hint of a virgin birth. Instead, Jesus bursts on to the scene as a fully grown man (1:9), ready to commence his active ministry (1:14, 15). Nor are there resurrection accounts involving angelic messengers and appearances of the risen Lord. “The young man . . . dressed in a white robe” (16:5) may be a heavenly visitant, but this is not expressly said; and more likely he is a human figure who knows what Jesus had earlier promised about a rendezvous in Galilee (16:7). The narrative dramatically breaks off at 16:8. Between these termi­nal points of Jesus’ Galilean preaching and the promise of his appearance in Galilee (14:28) the fast-flowing account focuses on Jesus as a powerful wonderworker, exorcist and teacher who moves inexorably to his destiny in Jerusalem where, after the confession by Peter, “You are the Messiah” (8:29), he anticipates his rejection, suffering and death to be followed by a subsequent vindication. All this dramatic, high-tension nar­rative carries the readers with it and leaves them of ten breath­ less with Jesus’ forceful decisions, quick actions, realistic re­sponses to threatening situations, and the eventual climax in Jerusalem where the denouement of the drama is played out. “Come away by yourselves to a lonely place, and rest a while” (6:31) is Jesus’ invitation to the twelve, where Mark explains what is obvious to the reader: “Many were coming and going, and they had no leisure . . .” (6:31, a verse which only Mark records). The present-day reader may well feel caught up with the rapid pace of Jesus’ activity and experience the disciples’ exhaustion.

In the light of the above, the raising of the specter of “theology” seems unwarranted. Is not this “life of Jesus” clear and simple on its own? Why bring in “theological” issues? At this precise point we confront recent Markan studies at their cutting edge.

The New Look on Mark’s Gospel

What we have sketched is the understanding of this evangelical record according to the so-called “Markan hypothesis.” Introduced at a time when there was need to defend the essential historicity of this gospel, the liberal portrait of Jesus as that of a Galilean peasant-teacher served as model and inspiration for numberless “Lives of Jesus” in the second half of the nineteenth century. At the turn of that century, the Markan hypothesis – which rested also on the assumption of the priority of this gospel in the Synoptic tradition – suf­fered a crushing blow from several early twentieth century movements. Chief among these were (1) the rise of form criticism which not only attempted to classify the sections of the gospels into literary forms but stressed how the long process of story-telling, use in catechesis and preaching, and transmission from one Christian congregation to another pro­duced the gospel record in response to community needs; and (2) the work of K.L. Schmidt^[2]Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin Trowitzsch und Sohn, 1919). who subjected these pericopes to scrutiny, and thought he could demonstrate that the connecting seams of historical notice and geographical location were editorially (and so artificially) contrived. Both of these tendencies leveled serious criticism against the simplistic conclusion that viewed Mark as an unsophisticated narrator who faithfully recorded Peter’s preaching, as the patristic evidence thought of the process.^[3]The “simple” connection between Peter and Mark is expressed by Je­rome’s phrase, Petro narrante, illo scribente. The present writer has considered this and other pieces of patristic evidence ostensibly uniting Peter with the author of the second gospel in his volume, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rp1ds,. Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 52-65, 80-83. In the main this essay concentrates on bibliography that has appeared since 1973; for earlier references the author’s title may be consulted.

The final blow to the Markan hypothesis came with W. Wrede.^[4]Wilham Wrede, The Messianic Secret (Cambridge and London: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1971). He maintained that the centerpiece of Mark’s gospel was the messianic secret motif by which Jesus enjoined silence on certain people and the demons who confessed him. Wrede argued that this “command to secrecy” was unhistorical; in fact, it was a dogmatic device by which the evangelist read back the claims regarding Jesus in the apostolic church into the time of the ministry.

One more recent phase of Markan studies has made it virtually impossible to view Mark through the spectacles of the old Leben Jesu school. Redaction criticism seeks to put back together the disparate fragments into which form criti­cism has sundered the gospel narrative. But this procedure is not in any way a reversion to the past. The redaction critics whose work has centered on all three synoptic gospels want to see what the gospels have to contribute by way of the theological interest of their authors. Granted those authors may have used traditions collected in different ways, the issue now is: how does the evangelist stamp the pericopes with his own theological and pastoral imprint, whether by selective emphasis or by editorial adaption? The net result is that the gospels appear in an ever clearer light as theological docu­ments. They reveal their deep purpose by their creation at the hands of the evangelists who were above all else theological educators and teachers who made use of current traditions of Jesus’ ministry and yet so angled the story as to correct the inadequacy of what the tradition contained or to make its relevance to their contemporary churchly scene more appar­ent.^[5]Heinz-Dieter Knigge, “The Meaning of Mark,” Interpretation 22 ( 1968): 53

Mark in the hands of the redaction critics leaps into prominence as a highly individualized person in the early church, a teacher who took a motley collection of pericopes to do with Jesus’ life and career as a “charismatic” rabbi,^[6]For this designation, see G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew. A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1973). refashioned and editorialized what lay in front of him, and broke new ground in (1) publishing these episodes as a con­nected sequence; (2) appending a title in 1:1 under the rubric of ‘gospel” – a term hitherto restricted to public, oral proclamation; (3) assembling a collection of “conflict stories” (2:1-3:6; 12:1-37) to show the nature of the opposition Jesus encountered; (4) editing a block of miracle stories in chs. 4:35- 8:21 to play down the role of Jesus as a hellenistic wonder­ worker; and especially in ( 5) prefacing the already existing Passion story – or at least the pre-Markan traditions that later became the connected story of the passion – in chs. 14, 15 with the lengthy introduction that indicated the course of events by which the death of Jesus was precipitated. In a now famous remark of W. Marxsen, Mark has composed his gospel backwards.^[7]Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1969), p. 149. Already in 1:14; 2:20 and 3:6 he has pointed forward to the grim, fateful outcome of how the ministry will climax. John the Baptist has been “handed over” to his fate; a similar fate awaits the Son of man (9:31; 10:33; 14:10, 11, 18, 21, 41, 42, 44; 15:1, 10, 15). The days when the bridegroom will be snatched away ( cf. Isa. 53:8) will surely come. The Jewish authorities are already in league to destroy him.

This “new look” on Mark’s gospel has been warmly and generally applauded. It has already produced one full-scale commentary in English^[8]Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (Greenwood, S.C.: The Attic Press, 1976). and an even larger work in German.^[9]Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, Teil 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976). There would be general scholarly agreement that henceforth Mark must be read as a theological book addressing a set of serious problems that conceivably had arisen in his church. Much less consensus is evident when we come to press the enquiry about the nature of the catalyst that provoked this gospel’s publication and try to pinpoint the precise details of the way this evangelist has gone about his theological and pastoral task. Indeed, the situation may be stated more sharply. There is a bewildering diversity of opinion as to the theological needs this gospel was designed to meet. Let us pass the main possibilities under review and scrutinize their validity. Then, we may suggest a personal view.

Current Options In Markan Studies
Apologetic Interest

Under this head we may place those interpretations of Mark’s gospel which see it as concerned to defend his church from insinuation and attack. Basic to any reply that seeks to investigate the historical circumstances in which Mark found himself is the a priori presupposition that the gospel reflects a specific type of church order and life. Howard Clark Kee, who has most recently addressed this question, states his assumptions clearly: “What sort of person in what sort of primitive Christian group would have been motivated to pro­duce this sort of writing?”^[10]Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977 ), p. 76.

Kee’s full-scale analysis reveals the portrait of a sociological group made up of simple believers in a rural district of Syria whose life was that of itinerant charismatics charged with a mission to collect a body of faithful Jewish Christians in anticipation of the final day of judgment. They had endured persecution at the hands of Jews and Romans alike during the earlier years of the Jewish war of A.D. 66-70. Mark wrote this gospel to encourage them until the end came. He did so by offering a philosophy of history enunciated by the Jewish apocalyptists to the effect that the end is predetermined, Scrip­ture has foretold it, and the elect are summoned to patient endurance. The sociology of the second gospel is believed to yield this picture in which Mark’s apologetic is a counsel of hope that. calls the faithful (as in Daniel and at Qumran) to hang on in watchfulness and prayer until their self-denying life-style is rewarded by the imminent parousia of the Son of man.

Eschatology and ethics are closely related in this socio­-historical analysis. Kee is building on the work of earlier scholars who also tried to set Mark within the framework of history. The traditional view (supported by A.E.J. Rawlinson, Vincent Taylor, William L. Lane^[11]A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1925); V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959); W. L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974).) placed this gospel in the time of Nero’s outburst against the church in Rome in A.D. 65 and saw it as offering a tract for the consolation of martyrs. Verses such as 8:34ff. (“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross [a Roman method of execution, suffered by Peter in A.D. 65 according to tradition] and follow me”) and 10:30 ( which adds, as an editorial comment, “with persecutions”; cf. 4:17) have been generally be­lieved to reflect a time of persecution by the Roman state.

Notable attempts have been made to relocate the setting of this persecution. W. Marxsen centered his interest in the Galilean ethos of this gospel and turned the evangelist into an apocalyptic preacher who wrote this work as a Flugblatt – a notice to flee – urging the church to forsake Jerusalem in the years between A.D. 67 and 69 and resettle at Pella in Transjordan where, according to the promise of 14:28, 16:7, the Lord would appear in a final parousia.^[12]The allusion to the parousia in these verses has been challenged, co­gently in my view, by R. H. Stein, “A Short Note on Mark xiv.28 and xvi.7,” New Testament Studies 20 (1973-74 ): 445-452. The epitome of Mark’s work is: “Briefly put the gospel declares: I am coming soon.”^[13]W. Marxsen, p. 134. The obvious incongruity of forcing Mark’s sixteen chapters into the narrow mold of an apocalyptic flysheet is a fatal weakness of this theory, as has of ten been remarked.^[14]Most recently by Roger Mohrlang, “Redaction Criticism and the Gospel of Mark: an Evaluation of the Work of Willi Marxsen,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 6.1 (1976): 18-33.

No less vulnerable to the charge of forcing Mark’s material into too tight a straitjacket is the reconstruction associ­ated with S.G.F. Brandon.^[15]S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: The University Press, 1967), ch. 5. He wanted to place Mark at the other end of the historical continuum of A.D. 66-72 when, at the conclusion of the Jewish war and the fall of the Jewish capital, Christians in Rome had to re-establish the tarnished reputation spoiled by their links with parent, rebellious Judaism. Brandon appealed to what he viewed as anti-Jewish polemic in Mark. When added to his pro-Roman sympathies (seen in the confession of the centurion in 15:9), this Ten­denz explains why Mark’s gospel could be seen as the effort of an apologist to make the life of Christians in Rome toler­able in the years after the Flavian triumph in A.D. 71. But this ingenious reconstruction, which involves an elaborate device of Mark’s redaction to neutralize the Zealot tendencies of the historical Jesus, collapses under its own weight of supposition and speculation. All the evidence that can reason­ ably be adduced points in the other direction and fails to endorse Brandon’s portrait of Jesus as a Zealot sympathizer.

Kee’s proposal, though more exegetically established, fails to prove cogent as well.^[16]I may refer here to the “Review and Response” paper, offered by David Rhoads to the Markan Seminar at the Society of Biblical Literature convention in San Francisco, December 1977. The difficulty arises in reading off a socio-historical analysis from literary texts; in seeking to tie the gospel’s audience to the characters who appear in its story and to reconstruct a churchly community from fragmentary data; and in ignoring some obvious clues, e.g., what hypo­thetical community in Syria would need the explanation of Jewish customs (7:3, 4, 11); require a translation of Aramaic terms (5:41; 7:34; 14:36) or the Hebrew Bible (15:34); or be familiar with the string of Latinisms that have   always been seen as a feature of Markan style?

Other essays in Markan apologetical interest fare no better. Werner H. Kelber, following R.H. Lightfoot, E. Lohmeyer and W. Marxsen,^[17]R.H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (New York: Harper Bros., 1934 ); E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967 ); W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist. capitalizes on the Galilean locale as a central Markan theme, but he relates this interest to the promise of the arrival of the Kingdom of God (enunciated in 1:14, 15) in Galilee where the new order is to be set up.^[18]Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p. 23. The demonic kingdom with which it is in conflict is a foil for Markan polemic directed against apocalyptic prophets who agitated the scene in the period of A.D. 66-72. Mark 13:5-13, 21-23 offer the data that are pressed into service,^[19]Ibid., pp. 113ff., 138-145. just as John R. Donahue has attempted to read the Markan Passion story as a Christian apologetic which opposes a false prophecy (associated with the Zealots who flourished in the closing stages of the Jewish rebellion ) with a presentation of a royal person whose trial and sufferings “speak directly to the needs of a community . . . shaken by the horrors of the Roman­ Jewish War and wary of ‘the power of Rome.”^[20]John R. Donahue, “Temple, Trial, and Royal Christology,” in The Passion in Mark, ed. Werner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), p. 78. In sum, re­constructions that depend on an individualized interpretation of the partial data of the gospel (though Kee’s attempt to include several aspects of the gospel’s teaching is noteworthy) and make inferences about what may have occurred in shadowy historical periods are bound to be unsatisfactory in the long run.

Pastoral Motives

The role of Mark as a moral theologian offering practical counsels to the church of his time has been attractively set out by Etienne Trocme in a book written with typical Gallic verve and grace. He sees the evangelist as

an audacious Christian whose strong convictions about the life of the Church of his day prompted him to confront tradition and those who transmitted it with a statement of the real ecclesiological intentions of Jesus. His book is an appeal to history against the institution which had, in his view, deviated from the true tradition whose custodian it was.^[21]Etienne Trocme, The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark (Phila­delphia: Wesbninster Press, 1975), p. 85.

Mark undertook this responsibility in several ways. He selected material that was germane to his purpose; he added tales about John and Jesus; and he set the whole in a frame “designed to bring out its ecclesiological significance.”^[22]Ibid., p. 85. The result is a treatise, supposedly called a gospel, really intended “to meet the needs of the Church of his (Mark’s) day.”^[23]Ibid., p. 6 What Trocme’s subsequent discussion uncovers is a set of antipathies which Mark adhered to and a catalogue of causes he defended. The climate in which Mark lived is that of a church that needed guidance along several lines. Specifically the opposition of Pharisees (3:6; 7:1-13; 8:11-13, 15; 10:2-9; 12:13-17) and Sadducees (12:18-27; 14:60-65; 15:31, 32) to Jesus in his lifetime is taken to reflect the hatred in which these groups were held by Mark’s church; the place of the earthly family of Jesus (3:21, 31-35) betokens Mark’s cam­paigning against their descendants, especially James the Lord’s brother who claimed authority as the titular head of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 21:18-26); the obtuseness of the disciples, notably Simon Peter, is an indication of the low opinion in which they and Jewish Palestinian   Christianity were held; and above all the attitude of these same men in their drawing back from following Jesus to the place of humili­ation and death (8:31-33: 10:35-45;   14:50,   66-72) is mirrored in Christian groups in Mark’s time whose triumphalist version of the faith was at odds with Mark’s commitment to a life of service and sacrifice. Though Trocme doesn’t make the con­nection, it is easy to see a delineation in these Christians “who gloss over [the] painful aspect of his ministry”^[24]Ibid., p. 136 the opponents of Paul in both 2 Corinthians 10-13 and Philippians 3.

The attitude which may be classified as anti-James as well as pro-Paul and his Gentile mission is picked up in the positive evidence drawn from the causes defended by Mark. The evangelist is the champion of a Gentile gospel offered to the common folk of Palestine and reflecting an “open Church” policy. The antithesis of this missionary outreach is James’ attempt at rapprochement with Judiasm and his claim to be Jesus’ successor by natural kinship. Also opposed by Mark are the advocacy of the Davidic messianism (10:46-52; 11:10; 12:35-37); the apocalyptic Son of man ideology; the venera­tion of the Temple^[25]See on 14:58 (prophecy of the destruction of the Temple), Donald Juel, Messiah and Temple, SBL Dissertation Series 31 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 208. and especially the passive, pietist hope of a mass Jewish conversion. On every count Mark downplays these notions and summons his church to earnest missionary endeavor, even to the spelling out of missionary praxis – the call (1:16-20; 2: 14); the renouncing of family ties and posses­sions (10:21, 28-31); the problems with missionaries’ families especially children “on the field” (10:13-16); and the “re­wards to be expected (10:28-31).^[26]Trocme, pp. 203-205. Trocme suggestively argues that the body of teaching is Mark’s editorial use of the moral teaching of Jesus transmitted to his readers who stood in need of encouragement as preachers of the word (4:3- 20; note the frequent occurrence of the term “word”); who are warned against impatience (4:26-29; only in Mark); who will learn much from the account of the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20);^[27]The pericope in Mark 5:1-20 has been subjected to critical analysis by R. Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” Ecumenical Review 23 (1971): 349-376, with a view to showing how the transmitting and editing of the story, originally a miracle-tale led to a justification for the Christian mission. who are exhorted by the teaching in 6:7-13, 30, and cautioned not to yield to an exclusivist spirit (9:38-41); and who are warned in advance not to expect an easy passage (13:9-13). In particular, Peter’s actions (we may add) serve as a warning against trying to detain Jesus from moving on as a missionary (1:36-39); in seeking to dissuade Jesus from his appointment to be Israel’s suffering Messiah (8:32, 33) and maybe to indicate a quick method of entering his glory (9:5, 6) either as a nationalist leader like Moses and Elijah or making a heavenly exit in glory to rule the world without the experience of the cross (cf. 10:37) ; and in denying the Lord in Jerusalem, only to fail yet once more in refusing to go to Galilee where the risen Christ awaited to commission him (14:28; 16:7).

The faults and failings of Peter are mercilessly exposed in this gospel. Trocme and Theodore J. Weeden^[28]Theodore J. Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). make much of this severely critical attitude on the part of the evangelist. The latter builds an entire theory of christological dispute out of the materials which represent the obtuseness (6:52; 8:17) and perversity of the disciples as typifying men who were utterly opposed to a theology of the cross in Mark’s church. Peter and his fellow disciples become, in Weeden’s hands, spokesmen of a theology of glory which centers in Jesus as “divine man” – a term used of the powerfully impressive religious teacher, healer, hero in antiquity. The propriety of the title “divine man,” first introduced into New Testament studies by L. Bieler^[29]L. Bieler, “Theios Aner.” Das Bild des “gottlichen Menschen” im Spatantik und Frohchristentum (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch Gesellschaft ed. 1976). and developed extensively by D. Georgi,^[30]D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964). to describe a variant type of Christian and apostolic lifestyle such as we encounter in Paul’s enemies of 2 Corinthians 10- 13, has been challenged;^[31]See 0. Betz, “The Concept of the So-Called ‘Divine Man’ in Mark’s Christology,” Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature ed. D.E., Aune (Leidn: E.J.. Brill, 1972 ), pp. 229-40; C.H. Holladay, “Theios Aner in Hellenestic Judaism, SBL Dissertation Series 40 (Missoula, Montana: Scholar Press, 1977). Ludger Schenke, Die Wundereziihlungen des Markus­ evngeiums (Stuttgart: 1974) has argued against Georgi’s thesis of a relation­ship with 2 Corinthians 10-13, though he admits some parallels (pp. 386ff.). Schenke wants to see the genesis of Mark’s gospel in a crisis between a “divine man” christology espoused by the community and the disillusion caused by the delay of the parousia after A.D. 70, the decline in pneumatic experiences (9:18, 28f.) and the onset of persecution (pp. 388f. ). This accounts for Mark’s emphasis on the cross of the “divine man” idea is contradicted by later events. ” Most recently my research student James R. Edwards has subjected the divine man theory to searching scrutiny: The Son of God. Its Antecedents in Judaism: and Hellenism and its Use in the Earliest Gospel (unpublished doc­toral dissertation, 1978). but it can hardly be doubted that running through Mark’s gospel is a rival form of messianic expectation (seen in 8:32, 33; 9:2, 3; 10:37; 10:46-52; 15:29- 32) to which our evangelist was implacably opposed. Whether he identifies these erroneous notions with the disciples’ total outlook and whether it is permissible to extrapolate from the Markan silhouette of the disciples a set of charismatic leaders who claimed to follow Jesus’ example as miracle-worker is much more in doubt. And when Weeden dismisses the disci­ples’ attitudes and actions as unhistorical since they are “a polemical device created by the evangelist to disgrace and debunk the disciples,”^[32]Weeden, p. 147. his conclusion is by no means demon­strable. To have established Mark’s theological interest in contrasting two rival “messianic ministries” – one of power, the other entailing suffering – is one thing; but to write off the contrast as the artificial creation of Mark who wanted thereby to deal pastorally with an alien christology in his com­munity is a theoretical judgment. However, this contrast puts us on to a more promising track.

Christological Disputes

J.H. Ropes’s seminal dictum has been a fertilizing agent in recent discussion. He wrote “The important question is not of [Mark’s] form, but of its purpose; and that is theological.”^[33]J.H. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1904), p. 1; cf. p. 12 where he writes: “the Gospel of Mark is the discussion of a theological problem in the form of a dramatic historical sketch.” To put a sharper point on the issue we may say that the pur­pose of this gospel is clear when Mark’s record is understood as a christology in narrative form. And its thrust is to state and defend a christological position over against current rival views. To be sure, we may know these views which Mark judged to be deviant from his perspective only by inference, and there is a considerable variety in what has been proposed. The main possibilities are: the correcting of false notions of a Davidic Messiah; the strenuous opposition to a characterization of Jesus as “divine man;” and the asserting of Jesus’ full participation in humanity  to counter a docetic devaluing of his earthly life and total acceptance of suffering and death.^[34]I have discussed these ideas and their proponents in the book, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, pp. 145-162. Still more recently Mark’s purpose has been attributed to his commitment to Jesus’ authority as dynamic action over against the handing-on of static traditions, and his consequent em­phasis on the practical, costly aspects of cross-bearing disciple­ship against those Christians who took only a balcony, de­tached attitude and boasted of their miraculous powers (13:5 21-22).^[35]H. Anderson, pp. 55f.

Conclusion

To discover some common elements in the welter of recent proposals is not a profitable exercise. But the following items may be set down as more or less accepted canons for most modern interpreters of Mark; and (more importantly) their validity can be justified on exegetical grounds.

1. Mark’s chosen designation of his work as “gospel” (1:1) gives an initial clue, quickly picked up in 1:14, 15, and re­peated throughout the book at those places where his editorial hand is rightly suspected (8:35; 10:29; 13:9; 10; 14:9). “Gos­pel” which until Mark’s use of it for a written document had been applied to the oral preaching of the good news (as in Rom. 1:16; 2 Cor. 8:18; 1:12-18) is for the first time used to describe a published treatise. Mark’s book is not simply a collection of sayings of Jesus or a cycle of events drawn from his life but a sequential narrative. That narrative covers the range of what the early preachers understood as the kerygma, i.e., the sequence of events from the ministry of the Baptist to the vindication of the risen Lord, which were re­garded as the fulfillment of the age-old purpose of God to introduce the era of salvation. That ground plan can be read in Acts 10:36-43 but the terminal points are seen also in Acts 1:22; 13:24-31.^[36]See G.N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cam­bridge: The University Press, 1974), ch. I.

This feature gives to Mark’s gospel its striking significance as we recognize in Mark the first attested writer who took the initiative in combining already existing traditions of Jesus and offering them in connected narrative-form to the public under the rubric of “gospel.”

2. Up to Mark’s time some disconnected materials about Jesus’ ministry were already in circulation. We can identify with a fair degree of confidence a sayings source (Q) and a body of Old Testament “testimonies” on which the first preachers and catechists drew (Lk. 1:1-4) . The existence of units of a Passion tradition in pre-Markan form is likely, since the evidence of 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, 15:3ff. requires some ordered account of the events in Jesus’ final days and this sequence was well-known a decade before Mark’s gospel ap­peared. An independent account of John’s death comprising a sort of “passion of John” in Mark 6:14-29 is a possibility based on linguistic and stylistic grounds.

More recent scholars have introduced us to certain literary tools by which it becomes possible to separate pre-Markan tradition from the gospel record and so to see how Mark has edited, adapted and used already existing sources to serve his purpose. The principle tradition and redaction has been fruitfully applied to the miracle story collection mentioned earlier and to the Passion narrative in Mark.^[37]The latest exercise of analyzing the miracle traditions is that by D. A. Koch, Die Bedeutung der Wundererziihlungen fur die Christologie des Mark­ usevangeliums (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975). This exercise can be overdone since the controls are less secure in Mark than in the later gospels.^[38]C.J.A. Hickling, “A Problem of Method in Gospel Research” Religious Studies 10 (1974 ): 339-346. There we can observe how Matthew and Luke have treated Mark and what changes have been made. But with delicate handling the instruments of re­daction criticism have yielded some important results, notably that Mark has edited stories which present Jesus as a wonder-working figure, eliminated elements offensive to him and placed emphasis on the importance of faith in Jesus’ healing, exorcistic and sign-bearing activity (2:5; 4:40; 5:25-34; 9:14- 29; 11:12-14, 20-25). The negative side of this call for faith is Jesus’ apparent inability to work messianic wonders in the presence of unbelief (6:1-6; 15:29-32) and his refusal to give demonstrable signs to validate his authority (8:11-13; here we may contrast how the teaching on signs has been modified in Q, Luke and Matthew).

The governing idea in Mark is to present Jesus as both hidden Son of God and a lowly figure, the sufferer who felt the pangs of temptation (9:19) and trial (14:32-42). Indeed Mark omits the details of   his initial temptation (1:13) only to stress how Jesus faced satanic, institutional and human pres­sures all through his life. The earthliness of Jesus is a foil to offset his true stature since it is the unbelieving folk in Naz­areth who see no more than a simple carpenter (6:3, 6), and the Markan reader is permitted to pierce the incognito and glimpse the divine presence (9:2-8).

3. The picture of the unique Son of God (Mark’s favorite title found mainly in theophanic, transcendental contexts and which punctuates the record from 1:1 to 15:39) is framed by both Jesus’ claim to authority as Son of man (his own self-ap­pellation but involving the twelve, at least up to 14:50; this ex­plains Peter’s remonstrance in 8:32 and the wording of 10:33, 42-45) and his chosen destiny as a suffering Messiah whose humiliation and obedience to death are a prelude to glory. The title Messiah is placed on the lips of other people in Mark and “sees Jesus from an external perspective which needs to be corrected. Jesus was not the national messianic king.”^[39]Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 24f. The merit of this understanding of Jesus’ titles is that it can make sense of how “Son of man” – a cipher for an exalted human figure in Daniel 7:13-18, 25-37 – could be used (a) to personify both an individual and a group (Dan. 7:13, 22); (b) to convey the note of authority given by God (Dan. 7:27); (c) to indicate how the suffering of the Jewish martyrs, the saints of the Most High, issues in their vindication and exalta­tion (Dan. 7:22); and (d) to explain how Jesus could see his destiny in such a way that blends his authority (2:10) with his necessary suffering and martyrdom (10:45) leading to an ultimate vindication (14:62; Ps. 110: 1) and so believe that destiny to be “according to the scriptures” (9:12; 14:49).^[40]See C.F.D. Moule’s discussion of “Son of man” in his The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: The University Press, 1977), especially pp. 20H. Contrast N. Perrin, “The Christology of Mark,” L’evangile selon Marc. Tradi­tion et Redaction (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1974), pp. 471-485.

Mark’s Jesus is a paradoxical figure. Beset by weakness and wearing the lowly guise of an earthly man, he looks forward to a final triumph as heavenly Son of man, and the reader is given a foreglimpse of what he will be at his parousia (9:2-8). But his title to lordship is a ministry of service and concern for people who were unlikely to appreciate him and who stood at the lower end of the social spectrum (a demoniac, a blind beggar, a mother in semi-pagan coastal regions, a woman at Bethany). Yet surprisingly these people perceive the “secret of the kingdom” (4: 11) and put the religious lead­ers, the Jewish hierarchy, and even the disciples to shame (contrast 4:34 with 8:17-21, 10:13, 14).

That ministry – which was to bring in God’s Kingdom (1:14, 15; as in Dan. 7) – could only be achieved by his readiness to represent Israel’s Son of man in humiliation and death as the Father’s only Son (1:11; 9:7; 12:6). Hence the solemn toll of the Passion predictions (8:31; 9:31, 32; 10:33, 34). If the twelve will not accompany him, he must go alone. There in the hour of his rejection and denial, he is a strangely passive and silent figure. He speaks only three times from the moment of his arrest (contrast the other gospels, especially John and the apocryphal Passion gospels). But his words are important for Mark’s church. Beyond death he sees his place in God’s victorious rule (14:62). The Roman prefect has no quarrel with him (15:2, 5). His agony is endured alone in an experience of bitter isolation, reflecting the archetypal suf­ferer of Psalm 22 (15:34).^[41]J. Reumann, “Psalm 22 at the Cross: Lament and Thanksgiving for Jesus Christ,” Interpretation 28 (1974): 39-58. But the fruits are seen almost im­mediately (15:38, 39), and the promise of a   reunion with the disciples is given (16:7). It is this two-beat rhythm of rejection – and – triumph that sounds through the gospel of Mark. And what was true of the church’s Lord remains as the model for the martyr and missionary church in every age (8:34; 10:43, 44).