Module Ten

The Gospel of Mark

10.1 Introduction

Fig. 10.1: Emmanuel Tzanes, Icon of St. Mark the Evangelist, 1657. Scanned from A Guide to the Benaki Museum, by Angelos Delivorrias.

Throughout the history of Christianity, Mark has been recognized as one of the four canonical Gospels, but for most of that time it lay in the shadows of Matthew. It has only been in the last century or so that Mark has been viewed as Matthew’s source instead its abridgment. Today it is widely believed that Mark is the oldest written account of Jesus' ministry that we possess. As such, it is one of the most important sources for historical Jesus research. Historians have used Mark to validate numerous reconstructions of Jesus, which have not always agreed with one another, such as an eschatological prophet, a subversive wisdom teacher, a wandering cynic, and a nonviolent revolutionary.

Mark is the shortest Gospel. Unlike the other Synoptic Gospels, it does not include an infancy narrative of Jesus or a resurrection account. The story begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the discovery of an empty tomb by three women who are told by a figure dressed in white that Jesus has risen from the dead. The women flee the scene, afraid (16:8).

Fig. 10.2: First-century Jewish tomb, Emmaus Nicoplis, 30km west of Jerusalem.

Fig. 10.3: Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. According to Christian tradition, this church (initially constructed in the 4th century) was built on the site of the tomb where Jesus was buried. If correct, this site may have looked something like the one on the left.

The first half of Mark is fast paced, moving from one vignette to another, holding the interest of its readers. The story slows down significantly after Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah (8:29). In contrast to the first half of the Gospel, which covers approximately a year of Jesus’ ministry, the second half covers approximately a week. With so much emphasis placed on the last week, some have called Mark a Passion Gospel with an extended introduction. By “passion” scholars refer to the suffering and death of Jesus.

Throughout the story, Jesus is portrayed as a misunderstood, secretive, and suffering messianic figure who announces the kingdom of God and attempts to enact it through the gathering of disciples, healings, exorcisms, legal and prophetic teaching, confrontations with the religious establishment, and predictions of restoration and resurrection. 

Info Box 10.1: Longer Endings of Mark
While most bibles conclude Mark at 16:8 with the words, “and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid,” they also contain verses that extend Mark’s ending to 16:20. Mark 16:9-20, however, are almost always placed in parentheses with an accompanying explanation that they are not found in the most reliable manuscripts. Ancient manuscripts that contain all of Mark actually testify to four different endings: (1) at 16:8; (2) at 16:20, which is often called the “Long Ending”; (3) at 16:8 with an accompanying extension, often called the “Short Ending” (“And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation”); and (4) at 16:20 along with the “Short Ending.” What is most interesting is that portions of Mark 16:9-20 appear to abbreviate and/or summarize accounts found in the other three Gospels and Acts, which suggests that some later scribes tried to harmonize Mark’s ending with other canonical writings.

10.2 Sources

In comparison to the other Gospels, the sources for Mark are much more difficult to determine. The overall composition conveys organization, consistency, and deliberate planning, which strongly indicates that it is the work of a single author. For example, predictions by Jesus in the earlier portions of the story are fulfilled later in the passion account. Themes also remain consistent throughout, such as secrecy and concealment of Jesus’ true identity. The uniformity of Mark adds to the difficulty of determining the sources that were used. They may have been written and/or oral. There is no way to be entirely certain. Even so, scholars offer a few theories of possible source material that was used by the author of Mark.

10.2.1 Written External Material

Fig. 10.4: Mar Saba Monastery overlooks the Kidron Valley on the eastern side of the Old City of Jerusalem.

The most controversial proposal is that the author of Mark used external written sources in the composition of his Gospel. One of these sources is a document called the Secret Gospel of Mark. It is alleged by a handful of scholars that this document was an early edition of Mark. The document was discovered by Morton Smith at the Greek Orthodox monastery of Mar Saba near Jerusalem. While reading through ancient manuscripts, Smith came across a copy of a letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 CE), which included the Secret Gospel of Mark.

Fig. 10.5: A page from the Secret Gospel of Mark. Photo by Kallistos Dourvas.

Another controversial source that a few scholars have proposed as a source is a shorter form of the Gospel of Peter, particularly for Mark’s composition of the passion narrative. Advocates, like John Dominic Crossan, have argued that portions of the passion account contain the earliest Jewish retellings of Jesus’ final week. The vast majority of scholars, however, argue that the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the canonical Gospels. 

These proposals are intriguing and have captured considerable media attention, but among New Testament scholars they have a small following. 

Info Box 10.2: On the Secret Gospel of Mark
Clement of Alexandria allegedly wrote against a Gnostic group’s pseudo-version of Mark, saying that he only recognized two versions. The first version was a public edition of the Gospel, which the evangelist Mark composed under Peter’s influence. This version was presumably the canonical Mark. The second version was a secret gospel written by the same Mark, which was a spiritual gospel written for elite devotees. According to Clement’s letter, when the evangelist died he left the secret gospel in the care of the Church of Alexandria, where it continued to be carefully guarded, only to be accessed by those initiated into the great mysteries. The publication of this secret Gospel caused a sensation both in academic and public spheres. Some scholars argued that the Secret Gospel of Mark was a forgery, even accusing Morton Smith directly. A few scholars still maintain that the work is legitimate. Morton Smith maintained the document’s authenticity until his dying day. 

10.2.2 Internal Material Preserved in Mark

Another means of determining possible sources used in the composition of Mark is by analyzing the style of writing. Changes in style may indicate a reliance on sources, but it is very difficult to be certain what those sources would have looked like. 

Some scholars have turned to the study of orality and social memory in order to find underlying layers of Mark that may have at one time functioned as sources. This approach draws on the social-scientific study of how stories are transmitted in non-literary cultures. We know that stories about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted orally long before they were written down in the Gospels. Many of Mark’s vignettes in the first half of the Gospel may well have circulated independently in early Christian preaching. A few scholars, like Joanna Dewey, have even argued that Mark’s Gospel has all of the characteristics of being a theatrical performance before it was written in the way that we today have it.

Fig. 10.6: Roman theatre at Bosra, Syria, 2nd century CE. Although this theatre post-dates Mark, its appearance would not have differed from a 1st century theatre wherein Mark may have been performed.

Although this approach has yielded insights into the function of Mark’s material before it was embedded in the Gospel, it has produced minimal results with respect to the identification of actual sources. The main reason for this, as Walter Ong argues, is that the function of memory in oral cultures is oriented toward contemporary relevance. Events committed to memory tended to be synthesized into memorable patterns of speech so they could be easily recalled. The events remembered may well have a high degree of historicity, but they are not ultimately preserved for their own sake in an exact manner. If Mark is following this process, his sources, if any, are overshadowed by his focus on relevance. In other words, like other ancient writers, Mark’s concern for meaning would have overshadowed any concerns for reconstruction.

In contrast to Matthew and Luke, whose sources are identifiable, Mark’s sources at this point are much more tenuous. Sources from the early preaching of the church were certainly used, but their reconstruction and verification is difficult.

10.3 Authorship

Fig. 10.7: Winged Lion, St. Mark’s Square, Venice. The symbol of a lion for Mark the evangelist is believed to have derived from Rev 4:7, which mentions the creatures around the throne of God (similar to that of Ezekiel). The lion may symbolize might or power and the wings may symbolize spirituality.

Mark’s Gospel is anonymous, meaning that the author did not identify himself in the body of the writing. If the writing were aimed at the evangelist’s local congregation, instead of broad circulation, there would have been no need to include the author’s name. His identity would have been assumed.  

How then should we understand the title attributed to this work, “The Gospel According to Mark”? The origin of the title is debated. While a few scholars argue that it was part of the original writing, most opt for its later inclusion. It would have been a permanent fixture in the document by the end of the first century, probably when the Gospels started circulating together.

10.3.1 External Data

Fig. 10.8: Triple arch gate of Domitian, built in the latter part of the first century CE, Hieropolis (today’s Pamukkale), Turkey.

Associating this Gospel with a person named Mark appears to be much older, probably going back to the time of the writing itself. So, who was Mark? The earliest traditions identify Mark as an associate or follower of Peter. The clearest reference comes from Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis (c. 120 CE). Although Papias’ writings have not survived, quotations from them have been preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, written in the fourth century. According to Eusebius, Papias writes, 

This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.

Scholars have been baffled by Mark’s connection to Peter because the Gospel does not paint a flattering picture of him, despite his leading position among the disciples. This is especially noticeable when the same accounts are compared in Matthew and Luke. In fairness, however, none of the disciples are portrayed any better in Mark (see chapter 9). 

There are several references to individuals named Mark in the New Testament. In the book of Acts a certain John Mark, who is also simply called Mark, is associated with Peter, Paul and Barnabas (12:12, 25; 15:37, 39). In Philemon 24, Paul refers to a person named Mark in a list of “fellow workers.” In Col 4:10, a certain Mark is the cousin of Barnabas. In 2 Tim 4:11, Paul asks for Mark to be brought to him because of his useful service to his ministry. Finally, in 1 Pet 5:13, Mark is identified as Peter’s son, which may well be a metaphorical reference.

Fig. 10.9: Lorenzo Veneziano, “Preaching of the Apostle Peter,” c. 1370. Staatliche Museen, Berlin.

All of these references could be combined into a composite picture of an individual named John, surnamed Mark. He was known to Peter in Jerusalem, and then became the companion of Paul with whom he had a falling-out. After they reconciled, Mark served both Paul and Peter in Rome, before their respective martyrdoms. 

This composite, however, is difficult to verify. The New Testament texts might be referring to different individuals. We have no way of knowing. Mark was not an uncommon name in the Roman Empire during the first century. All the more it is difficult to associate any one of the references with the Mark to whom Papias was referring. 

10.3.2 Internal Data

Fig. 10.10: First-century Galilee, with Tyre, Sidon, and Gerasa in red font. Click on the image to expand.

From the Gospel itself, we can discern a few things about Mark the evangelist. He was a Jewish Christian who understood Aramaic, but wrote in Greek, which was probably his dominant language. He assumed that the scriptures of Israel were the Word of God (7:8). He was probably a leader of a community that had a basic understanding of Christianity. He was also probably not a native of the northern regions of Palestine, given some of the irregularities in his geographical descriptions of this region. For example, in 5:1 and 5:13, the distance between Gerasa and the Sea of Galilee is assumed to be much closer than it is. Likewise, the journey from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee via Sidon in 7:31 appears geographically awkward. Sidon is north of Tyre and the Sea of Galilee is south east of Tyre. 

Theologically, the evangelist shares several ideas found in Paul’s writings, such as the centrality of the cross, the faithfulness of Jesus to his mission, the importance of devoted discipleship, and the evangelization of the Gentiles.

10.4 Date of Writing

Fig. 10.11: Francesco Hayez, “Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple,” 1867. Galleria d’Arte Moderna, Venice.

Although there are sporadic attempts to date Mark in the 40s CE, the vast majority of modern scholars argue for a date just before or just after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. The crux of the debate is the prophetic material concerning the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13. Two passages are prominent in dating process. 

The first text is 13:1-2 where Jesus says to his disciples concerning the Temple, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” The second text is the warning of the “abomination of desolation” (referring to Roman presence) entering the sacred grounds of the Temple in 13:14. 

Scholars are divided whether these predictions and warnings constitute actual predictions or recollections of the recent past in the form of predictions (so-called “post-eventu prophecy”), which were not uncommon in the ancient world. Post-eventu prophecies insured the credibility of the prophet and his supporters. 

Those who advocate a post-70 dating often regard the events of Mark 13—such as wars, rumors of wars, false prophets, the abomination, famine, persecution, and fleeing to the mountains—as being too accurate in the life of Israel and the early Church to be regarded as pre-70 predictions. The events must have already happened when the evangelist wrote his Gospel.

Fig. 10.12: Ruins from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.

Others who advocate a pre-70 dating point out that the situation during the war would not have even required special prophetic powers. The warning of the “abomination of desolation” well fits the occupation of the Temple by the Zealots under the leadership of Eleazar in 67-68 and the events described throughout Mark 13 are thought to be too general for a post-eventu composition. It is also pointed out that the huge fire that caused the Temple to collapse, recorded in Jewish and Roman histories (Josephus War 6.250-87; Dio Cassius, History 66.6), is surprisingly missed if Mark wrote after the fact. Moreover, some have argued that since there were other Jewish public protestors and prophets who criticized the establishment throughout Israel’s history and even in the first century, like Jesus ben Ananias (Josephus War 6.300-6), it is not improbable that Jesus himself would have engaged in similar prophetic criticism. 

Info Box 10.3: Antiochus IV and the Abomination of Desolation in 1 Maccabees 
The warning in Mark 13:14 is reminiscent of an event that occurred less than 200 years earlier. The writer of I Maccabees recalls how the forces of Antiochus IV decimated the Temple in Jerusalem. He writes “So all the army assembled and went up to Mount Zion. There they saw the sanctuary desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned. In the courts they saw bushes sprung up as in a thicket, or as on one of the mountains. They saw also the chambers of the priests in ruins. Then they tore their clothes and mourned with great lamentation; they sprinkled themselves with ashes and fell face down on the ground. And when the signal was given with the trumpets, they cried out to Heaven (4:37-30, NRSV)”

Although it is difficult to know whether Mark was written before 70 CE or after, we can say that Mark was written in close proximity to the Temple’s destruction during a time of social unrest and eschatological fervor.

10.5 Place of Writing

Identifying the location of an ancient writing is an important step in its interpretation. Determining the social context helps us to better understand important terminology, such as “son of God,” and the conflicts that generated many of the New Testament writings. 

Much of what we can determine about the location comes from the Gospel itself. Mark’s audience consisted mostly of recently converted Christians who were expecting the return of Jesus. They appear to have consisted of Greek speakers, who knew some Latin, but did not know Aramaic. We can surmise that at least part of the audience was not Jewish based on the author’s explanation of Jewish purification rituals and some Jewish religious terms such as “Satan,” “Beelzebul,” “Gehenna,” “Hosanna,” and “amen.” 

So, where would have this audience resided? Over the years, Mark’s location has been narrowed down to either Rome or the Province of Syria.

10.5.1 Rome

Fig. 10.13: Roman Forum.

Scholars have traditionally insisted that Rome was the place where Mark was composed and preached to a Jewish and Gentile Christian audience. This was the dominant view in the early Church. One of the earliest references comes from Clement of Alexandria, who may have been influenced by Papias’ attestation that Mark was a follower of Peter (see Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories 2.15; 6.14.6). Since Peter was widely believed to have been a bishop of Rome, and later martyred there, Mark was likewise connected with that city. Historians today, however, are skeptical about Peter ever visiting Rome since this tradition about him developed over a century after his death, when the primacy of the Roman church was being forged.

Fig. 10.14: Bust of Nero, Uffizi Museum, Florence.

Contemporary scholars who still regard Rome as the location of Mark point to several identifying features in the Gospel. (1) Mark contains several Latin words and expressions which would have been common in Rome, such as “legion” (5:9), “centurion” (15:39), quadran, which was a reference to a coin (12:42), and praetorium, which was the location where Jesus was tried by Pilate (15:16). (2) The implied suffering of Mark’s audience has been linked to the persecution of Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero. (3) The mention of a certain Rufus in Mark 15:21 along with Jesus’ cleansing of all foods in Mark 7:19 corresponds respectively to a reference to Rufus in Rom 16:13 and to Paul’s statement “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” in Rom 14:14. (4) Finally, since the author needs to translate Aramaic expressions (3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:34), the audience would not have been residents of Palestine. 

10.5.2 Syria

Several recent studies have pointed to a location much closer to Palestine, particularly the Roman province of Syria in the eastern part of the Empire. It is argued in light of Mark 13, which anticipates the destruction of the Temple, that the evangelist’s audience had recently experienced (or were in the process of experiencing) the effects of the Jewish war with Rome. Like many of the contemporaries, the audience may have been part of a large refugee movement that eventually settled in the Province of Syria. The preoccupation with the Temple’s destruction along with the implied anxiety about Jesus’ return points to a location where such issues were prevalent.

Fig. 10.15: Roman Provinces of Palestine in the first century. Click on the image to enlarge.

Mark’s Latin terms and expression (e.g. 12:42; 15:16), which have often been used as evidence for Rome, are no longer being limited to the western part of the Empire. Moreover, the references to persecution are more often being interpreted in light of the events connected with the revolt by Palestinian Jews against the Romans, rather than Roman persecutions of Christians. Exhortation to persevere before governors and kings (13:10) and warning of persecution and hatred of those who identify with Christ (13:12-13) can just as well be explained in the eastern part of the Empire, even Palestine. 

When a broader survey of early Christian persecution is taken, the offending party is usually not Rome, but Jewish authorities, mobs, and client kings. For example, Josephus records that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed by a Jewish mob (Ant. 20.200). Likewise, Luke records that Agrippa I was responsible for the execution of James the son of Zebedee and the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:1-5). Mark 13 seems to reflect a similar situation, which would explain the warning in 13:9 of being tried and beaten in synagogues. Although there are no extant texts that record the persecution of Christians during the war, Josephus’ description of the mock trials held in Jerusalem by the Zealots between 68-70 CE (War 4.335-44; cf. 13:9) and references to the persecution of Christians by the Jewish leadership during the Bar Kokhba war in 132-35 CE suggest that Mark’s community experienced similar treatment. From a narrative perspective, the primary target of the political and religious hostility in Mark’s story is not the Romans, but the Jewish establishment.

10.6 Purpose

Identifying the purpose of any writing is another important step in the interpretation process. This is increasingly more important as the writing is further removed from the interpreter’s context. Since the New Testament writings were written in another language, culture, worldview, time, and addressed vastly different issues than ours, attention to the writing’s purpose is vital. The problem with many of the New Testament writings (Mark included) is that no explicit statement about the purpose is stated. What we have is one side of the original conversation—much like a one-way telephone conversation or only text messages from the sender. One of the many tasks in which biblical scholars engage is to reconstruct the original conversation by closely examining potential hints in the text. It is like detective work from a literary vantage point.

Fig. 10.16: Il Pordenone, “St. Mark,” 1535. Museo Bella Arti, Budapest.

Traditionally, the purpose of Mark was understood to be general and practical—and extended to all the Gospels. Since Jesus’ disciples and other eyewitnesses either were dying or being killed, the evangelist composed his Gospel in order to preserve the early traditions about Jesus. The evangelist feared, supposedly, that the earliest testimonies about Jesus would perish along with the earliest followers. This view is rarely considered today because it does not address the specific issues and struggles with which Mark’s audience was wrestling. It also wrongly assumes that traditions were accurately preserved in written forms like archives. The process of transmission, which was largely oral, was far more complex. In addition, it assumes that Mark is simply a collection of traditions about Jesus. We know today that it was much more than that. The evangelist reworked the traditions and contemporized them, as did his fellow evangelists, for the benefit of his community. 

In recent years a number of options have been proposed for the purpose of Mark. A few of these continue to receive attention. (1) Some Markan scholars have seized on select passages that contain predictions of Jesus’ return and judgment (such as 8:34-9:1; 14:62; and especially chapter 13), arguing that the Jewish War led to an eschatological crises. Since Jesus had not returned and delivered his followers from the tragedies brought on by the war, Mark’s community experienced anxiety, abandonment, and a deterioration of faith. Mark’s Gospel is written to address these issues by assuring the audience that Jesus will return, even if the time is unknown. During the time of suffering, Mark stresses that faithful discipleship is the priority.

(2) Other scholars have argued that the overall aim of Mark was to confront opposition or confusion about Jesus’ messianic identity. It is difficult to know if Mark or his community was being confronted by Jewish opponents who denied Jesus’ messianic status or by rival Christian groups who believed that Jesus was messiah, but had a radically different understanding from that of Mark. Certainly, one of the pending problems for Christians in the first century was a crucified messiah. For Jews, the expectation of a messiah was tied to nationalism, vindication, and even supremacy. Messiah was to be king of an independent Israel, not crucified as a criminal by Israel’s oppressors. In light of this reconstruction, Mark was written as an apology (or defense) of Jesus as the crucified messiah. The evangelist attempts to demonstrate Jesus’ identity through his great deeds, character, prophetic abilities, teachings, and resurrection.

Fig. 10.17: Mosaic of Jesus the Pantacrator, 1261, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul.

Other factors may have also precipitated writing a defense of Jesus as a crucified messiah. There may have been a considerable amount of shame associated with a belief in a messiah that was crucified by the Romans, which hindered evangelistic efforts. Mark’s Christians may have also needed to respond to allegations that Jesus never publicly claimed to be messiah. In his apologetic response, Mark demonstrates that Jesus revealed his identity only to those who were close to him, in secret.

Fig. 10.18: Yohanes, Portrait of Mark, 1253. Freer Art Gallery, Washington, D.C.

(3) A few scholars have argued that Mark was written to encourage proper discipleship. It was meant to be a pastoral Gospel for a community of Christians struggling with faith in the context of social conflict. Mark intentionally presented Jesus’ disciples as representatives of his own community. As we have seen in chapter 9, when Mark’s portrayal of the disciples is compared with those of Matthew and Luke, they clearly appear to be struggling with their understanding of Jesus’ identity, mission, and teaching, lacking in sophistication and faith. Like the disciples, members of Mark’s community were lacking understanding and faith, perhaps even contemplating apostasy. Mark’s Gospel addressed this problem by essentially encouraging his congregants that faith crises are part of the pilgrimage of the disciple. As a pastoral question, Mark rhetorically asks, If Jesus’ disciples experienced struggles, while being close to him, how much more will disciples who are further removed from him experience similar (or even worse) crises of faith?

Whatever reconstruction one advocates, it needs to derive from, and be supported by, the writing itself in the broadest way possible. It is too easy and sometimes tempting to turn sacred texts into personal or denominational manifestos. The purposes of New Testament writings as sacred religious texts extend beyond the historical circumstances within which they were composed. They endure in the community of faith, spanning cultures and generations. Inquiry into the historical purpose, however, provides a safeguard when application and relevance takes on a self-serving guise.

10.7 Themes

Themes can provide rewarding entries into narratives by allowing for purposeful readings. Reading a story each time from the perspective of a different theme provides for a different vantage point and can lead to new discoveries. Each reading can bring to light previously hidden parts of the story. When reading Mark (and all the Gospels), students are encouraged to read it in its entirety each time from the perspective of the following themes. 

10.7.1 The Centrality of the Cross

Fig. 10.19: Pietro Perugino, “Deposition from the Cross,” c. 1507. Academia Gallery, Florence.

There is broad consensus that most of Mark’s Gospel concentrates on Jesus’ rejection, suffering, and death. This should come as no surprise since the last week of Jesus’ life, often called the Passion Account, dominates the entire Gospel. After Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah in 8:29, the story slows down dramatically. The focus on the passion of Jesus has prompted some scholars to echo Martin Kähler’s now well-known description that Mark is essentially “a passion narrative with an extended introduction.” Mark’s focus is especially noticeable when compared with the other Synoptics. Unlike the other Gospels, Mark moves through the events leading up to the passion more abruptly, almost as if he wants to get the preliminary vignettes out of the way. One of the ways in which Mark achieves the rapid succession of events is by introducing the vignettes with the term “immediately.” In comparison, Matthew does not begin to introduce the plot to kill Jesus until chapter 12; and Luke waits until chapter 19. 

Anyone who has spent time reading the New Testament will notice that the theme of the cross is not unique to Mark. It dominates early Christian thought, taking on multiple meanings. Mark’s understanding of the cross is also nuanced. It is not the same as Paul’s, for instance. While Paul was also interested in proclaiming the significance of Jesus’ death, his focus was often on its meaning for the Gentiles. Mark shares much of Paul’s perspective theologically, but does so in the context of Jesus’ ministry through his teachings, dialogues, parables, and miracles.

Fig. 10.20: Meister des Rabbula-Evangeliums, 586.Illumination from the Syriac Rabbula Gospels. Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Florence. This may well be the earliest artistic depictions of the crucifixion on an illuminated manuscript.

In Mark, Jesus does not merely come to heal the sick, win a couple of debates with the Pharisees, or tell a few cryptic stories to the masses. Mark tells his audience in one of the most revealing passages that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (10:45). We are not told exactly how this worked, why Jesus had to do it, or why God wanted it done. The idea of paying a ransom implies liberation from bondage. Mark may be saying that Jesus’ obedience, which culminated in his death, resulted in a new lease on life for “the many,” presumably those who follow him. Mark’s intention, though, may be broader, implying that his death enacted a covenant (14:24) that established peace between God and humanity. Either way, the cross serves as the primary symbol of a life lived in self-denial, service, and ultimately sacrifice. 

Info Box 10.4: A Ransom for Many
Mark 10:45 is probably the most enigmatic and most debated passage in the Gospel. In addition to disputes about the saying’s origin—whether it came from Jesus, Paul, Palestinian-Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity, or whether it was independent of the evangelist or written by him—it has been understood in two primary ways. Some scholars have argued that the motif of the suffering servant in Isa 52:13-53:12 (particularly 53:12, which describes the Servant interceding for transgressors) is the key to understanding the idea of a ransom. Jesus dies so that Israel would be freed from divine punishment. Others do not think that the Servant Songs in Isaiah play a role because the parallels are very slim. There is nothing in Mark’s context about a redemptive or atoning death. Instead, it is argued that since the Greek term for “ransom” (lutron) was never used of a sin offering, but of deliverance such as the exodus from Egypt, Jesus is talking about a freeing from the bondage of devils and this world into the kingdom of God. Jesus’ whole ministry is a service of self-sacrifice. Since he is the obedient one, he is the pattern. Those who follow in the service will be great in the kingdom of God, which was covenanted to Jesus by the Father. The idea of greatness is contrary to popular ideals. Since the authority of the son of man is not recognized, he suffers, but one day will be glorified much like we see the son of man glorified and served by the world in Daniel 7.

Fig. 10.21: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, c. 1516. Royal Palace of Madrid. 

Jesus’ death does not seem to be viewed as a substitution for others. It is rather presented as a pattern for his followers. The pattern is the entirety of Jesus’ life of obedience, culminating in its highest expression, death. True discipleship emulates this pattern. For example, in 8:31, Jesus summons the crowd and challenges them, “if anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” This would have been an astounding request. The disciples could not comprehend it. Denying oneself, serving others, and embracing a cruel and shameful death was the mark of greatness (e.g. 10:33). 

Mark tells his audience on several occasions that the life of service results in vindication, which is resurrection from the dead. For example, in 9:31 Jesus says, “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he has been killed, he will rise three days later.” Again in 10:34, Jesus says that after his suffering and execution at the hands of the Gentiles (presumably the Romans), he will be raised three days later. Against a Jewish backdrop, Jesus’ resurrection would have been understood as the beginning of the resurrection of Israel.

10.7.2 The Kingdom of God

The focus of Jesus’ message in Mark’s Gospel is the kingdom of God. On this there is unanimity. The meaning of this message, however, for Jesus, Mark, and even for today continues to be debated. Greek and Hebrew word studies of “kingdom” in early Jewish and Christian literature have revealed abstract nuances of usage which often include the sovereign rule of God over all the nations, the manifestation of the strength of God, or the domain of God in an eschatological sense. Contrary to popular opinion, “kingdom of God” did not refer to heaven.

Jesus initiates the kingdom, but it does not appear to be fully realized during his ministry. One of the difficulties in understanding the kingdom is that it conveys both a future and present manifestation. On the one hand, Jesus announces that the time is fulfilled (1:15) and begins to demonstrate its present through acts of restoration, like exorcisms and the healing of the sick. Yet, on the other hand, it is implied that the kingdom will not fully come until Jesus returns; at which time, he will judge the wicked and vindicate those who have trusted in God’s reign (Mark 13:25-36), especially those who have suffered because of it. As for when this return will happen, Mark does not say. He is content to encourage his reader to live right on the edge, where the kingdom has arrived already, but not yet in its fullness (Mark 13:5-8; 21-22; 28-30). Furthermore, at the end of the story, when Jesus is on the cross, his cry “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” certainly does not convey that the kingdom of God has come. If anything, it implies despair.

Info Box 10.5: The “Nearness” of the Kingdom
Jesus’s proclamation in Mark 1:15 (“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news”) is central to understanding his mission. The Greek word for “come near” (ēngiken) can either mean “has arrived” or “is soon to arrive.” Some scholars also believe that the ambiguity was cleverly intended. The meaning of the word “come near” impacts how we understand the eschatological activities in ministry of Jesus, such as the gathering of twelve disciples, exorcisms, healings, and the transfiguration. If the kingdom has “come near,” then such activities have a foreshadowing role. If the kingdom has “arrived,” then these activities are its results.

So what does Mark mean by the arrival of the kingdom, even if it is not fully realized? The kingdom of God conveys both political and spiritual nuances. Politically, the kingdom of God should be viewed as a confrontation with the kingdom of Caesar. On one level of the story, Mark tells his audience that the good news of the kingdom is not to be found in the peace and prosperity of Rome, initiated by Caesar, the “son of a God.” Instead, true peace and vindication is achieved in the coming of the kingdom of God, initiated by Jesus, the true Son of God (cf. 1:1; 15:39). It is in the new community of disciples, not the empire, where God resides.

On another level of the story Mark tells his audience that God’s kingdom has finally come to confront the kingdom of Satan. Jesus’ healings and exorcisms throughout the story convey that the spiritual battle has begun. God, through Jesus, has come to win back his people and territory. The impact of this confrontation is realized when it is viewed against early Jewish eschatological expectations, which associated healings and exorcisms with the final battle of the age when God would come and establish his rule.

Fig. 10.22: Mosaic of Jesus casting out demons into the Gerasene pigs (Mark 5). 6th century. Basilica of San ’Apollinare, Ravenna. 

Both of the these nuances are brought together in the establishment of a renewed (eschatological) people of God rooted in the coming of Jesus who expresses the freshly operative strength of God and exemplifies the ideal devotee. The kingdom of God is not identified as a political or earthly institution that comes to overthrow the Roman and Jewish establishments. It comes to confront all earthly powers as a dynamic and mysterious coming of God in and through Jesus who is the expression of divine will and power. 

The kingdom is not experienced in an individualistic or existential sense, but in a communal, even familial, setting consisting of those who, despite their bouts of misunderstanding and fear, have given up all things to follow Jesus. Entrance into the community of the kingdom is open to all who do the will of God (3:35), accept the word of God (4:20), trust in Jesus (10:14-15) and sacrifice everything (10:21-25, 28). Jesus’ choice of twelve disciples, who make up the core of the community, may even be symbolic of a renewed Israel, which includes Gentiles, such as the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30) and the centurion who oversees the crucifixion (15:39). The new community is the “renewed people of God” or the “eschatological people of God” who are the expression of the encroachment of the kingdom insofar as they are constituted around Jesus. 

The founding of a new community provides an important unifying perspective for reading Mark because it identifies Jesus’ mission. He does not arrive on the scene simply to confront the religious establishment or to reveal his own authority. His coming is not self-serving, nor is his mission simply to condemn his opponents. Instead his aim is one of service, from his baptism to his death, for the benefit of all who would follow (10:45). 

10.7.3 Conflict

The encroachment of the kingdom of God upon the world initiates the conflicts that propel the plot. Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom, his signs of the kingdom and his establishment of the communality of the kingdom provoke an inevitable antagonism on the part of the Jewish religious leaders who are convinced that Jesus is neither the messiah nor the one through whom the coming of God is manifested. All who reject Jesus’ ministry are not only on the “outside,” but they represent the opponents of the kingdom of God because their allegiances are to competing kingdoms.

Fig. 10.23: Relief of the Ara Pacis Augustae with Procession. Replica of 1st century original. Uffizi, Florence.The procession is led by Emperor Augustus (middle) as the pontifex maximus (“greatest pontiff”), the supreme priest of Rome.

The clash between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar (or Rome) is more subtle and implied. Mark’s first verse identifies Jesus as both Christ and Son of God. His coming is the “beginning of the gospel.” As we have seen above, this kind of language would have subverted the widespread propaganda that the investiture of the emperor (especially Augustus), who was likewise called “son of a god,” was the beginning of the gospel (or good news). At the end of the story, Jesus is executed for sedition, and mocked as the king of the Jews, but shockingly identified by a Roman centurion, of all people, as the Son of God, which subverts the kingdom of Caesar.

Underlying the clash between Jesus and the religious authorities (also implying the Roman Empire) is the metaphysical struggle between God’s kingdom and Satan’s kingdom. As the former confronts the latter, beginning with the temptation account, the reader knows that despite apparent setbacks and tragedies, such as Jesus’ arrest and execution and the apostasy of the disciples, victory is assured. Since Satan cannot cast out Satan, those who have been exorcised actually represent the overpowering of Satan’s kingdom. In the language of analogy, Jesus claims that the “strong man” has been bound and his house has been plundered. Though victory is assured, the battle is not complete; for the initial actions of Jesus provide the basis and pattern for the ongoing conflict in which the disciples have been given authority to engage. The disciples are commissioned to follow Jesus in the ongoing process of the advancement of the kingdom (6:7-13; cf. 13:9-13).

Fig. 10.24: The Mount of Olives was the setting for Jesus’ conflict with the disciples in Mark 14.

Conflict permeates Mark even further. We find conflict between Jesus and his family who want to rescue him because they believe he has gone mad (e.g. 3:20-21, 31-35). Throughout the story there is conflict between Jesus and his disciples who constantly fail to understand his mission and teachings (e.g. 4:40; 8:14-21; 14:26-31). Finally, there is even conflict between Jesus and God, as seen for example in one of the most emotional passages in the New Testament where Jesus cries out his final words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (15:34; see also 14:35-36). 

10.7.4 Secrecy and Mystery

One of the most discussed themes in Mark is the secrecy and mystery associated with Jesus’ teachings and identity. Some of Jesus’ teachings contain cryptic parables, formulated as though they were only intended for the “insiders” or the enlightened among the crowds. On one occasion Jesus even tells his disciples that they alone were given “the secret of the kingdom of God” (4:11). By contrast, those on the “outside” are given parables, implying cryptic teachings that are difficult to decipher. The entire passage is noteworthy:

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about
the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that
        ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive,
        and may indeed listen, but not understand;
        so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’” 
And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? (4:10-13).

At other times, Jesus tells those whom he heals not to divulge any information about their healing (e.g. 1:43-44; 5:43; 7:36; and 8:26). While all the Synoptics contain these kinds of requests, Mark makes them emphatic. The following parallel provides a good example of Mark’s tendencies.

Fig. 10.25: Click on the box to enlarge.

The most common expression of secrecy, however, is associated with Jesus’ messianic identity. While the reader knows that Jesus is the messiah and Son of God (e.g. 1:1), the characters in the story are unaware, lack understanding, silenced, or not given the information. For example, when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ (even though his understanding is skewed), Jesus tells him not to tell anyone (8:30). When Jesus casts out demons, they acknowledge his identity as the Son of God, but he commands them to keep silent (e.g. 3:11-12). When Jesus is asked by Pontius Pilate, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (which is Roman terminology for messiah), his answer is vague, responding, “You say so” or “You say that.” Some scholars argue that since Pilate does not react in a stern manner, he understood Jesus’ answer as a negation. This reading parallels Luke’s version where Pilate issues the verdict “I find no crime in this man” (23:4). Others argue that Jesus’ answer is an affirmation, much like the exchange in the Gospel of John (18:33ff.) where Pilate’s question is followed by the dialogue about the “kingdom not of this world.” Another alternative is that to Pilate the answer means “no,” but to Jesus it means “yes”.  Pilate only understands one kind of messiah, namely one who is a political threat.

Fig. 10.26: Duccio, “Christ before Pilate,” 1311. Museo dell’ Opera del Duomo, Florence.

When Jesus is interrogated by the Jewish religious authorities, and asked, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” it appears as though Jesus finally acknowledges his identity. Jesus responds, “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power” (14:62). Scholars have pointed out, however, that not all of our best manuscripts agree on Jesus’ answer. Some of our manuscripts do not read “I am,” but instead read “You say so” or “You say that”, which can imply “not I, but you say that.” This is exactly how Matthew (26:64) records it. In Luke (22:66-67) Jesus responds, “If I tell you, you will not believe.” Whatever the reading, it is interesting to note that Jesus’ answer once again contains the title “Son of Man,” and not “Christ.” This pattern may suggest that Jesus disliked being called “Messiah,” perhaps due to the title’s strong political nuance. 

Jesus’ reticence to use the title “messiah” (and even “Son of God”), technically termed the “messianic secret,” has generated considerable discussion. Scholars are perplexed why Jesus would have wanted to conceal his identity. Why is Mark’s portrayal of Jesus so different in this way than John’s, for example, where Jesus does not shy away from his identity? Proposals vary and are often dependent on how the conflicts in the evangelists’ communities are reconstructed.

Fig. 10.27: Mosaic of Jesus healing the paralytic, from Mark 2, c. 6th century. Basilica of San ’Apollinare, Ravenna.

A few scholars speculate that Mark used ambiguity and secrecy to respond to assertions that Jesus never performed miracles. By couching the miraculous activity within the confines of secrecy, Mark could construct a variety of stories about Jesus and avoid criticism. The miracles were unknown because they were intentionally concealed by Jesus and his followers until the writing of Mark’s Gospel. This theory has not received much traction by the majority of scholars.

Others have proposed that the evangelist used the secrecy motif to explain why Jesus was not recognized as the Messiah in the public sphere. According to this view, Mark’s community may have faced opposition from Jewish contemporaries of Jesus who said that they never heard him claim that he was the Messiah. Mark’s response: Jesus did, but in private. While this explanation is more widespread, many scholars do not think that the evangelist would have faced opponents that had historical objections.

The majority of scholars hold that the evangelist used the secrecy theme theologically to explain that Jesus’ messianic identity was unique. It was not to be associated with the popular messianic movements that were characterized by military revolt. Rather, the proper understanding of Jesus’ messianic identity can only be seen in light of the cross, namely his service and obedience. Peter’s confession serves as a touchstone here. Though Peter correctly confessed Jesus to be the Messiah (Mark 8:29–30), he did not fully understand the type of Messiah Jesus was. Peter was, after all, expecting a conquering messiah who would liberate Israel from the yoke of the Roman occupation. So, when Jesus predicted his suffering and death, it did not correspond with the popular expectation. Jesus’ understanding of Messiah, according to Mark, was one who represents faithfulness, compassion, and love—a pattern for Israel to follow. It is possible that Mark may have been responding to the widespread Jewish criticism that Messiah would have been crowned in Jerusalem, and not crucified outside its gates.

10.7.5 Confusion about Jesus’ Identity 

The theme of confusion about Jesus’ messianic identity is closely connected with the theme of secrecy. In the first half of the Gospel, none of the characters, apart from the demons, understand Jesus’ identity and mission. The examples are abundant. The religious leaders deny Jesus’ authority to forgive sins and convict him of blasphemy (2:6-7). They don't understand why his disciples do not fast (2:18). They do not understand why his disciples break the Sabbath (2:24) and the traditions of the elders (7:5). They are convinced that he is possessed by an unclean spirit (3:22). Jesus’ family tries to rescue him and take him home because they think he has gone mad (3:21). The fellow townspeople only see him as a carpenter (6:1-6). The crowd thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets (6:14-15). Herod Antipas believes that Jesus is John the Baptist come back to life (6:16). The disciples marvel at the stilling of the storm and are confused (4:41). Finally, they continue to be confused after the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 (8:14-21).

Fig. 10.28: One of the oldest images of Peter, 4th century, Catacombs of St. Thecla, Rome

At the mid way point of the Gospel, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah (8:29). A breakthrough seems imminent. The primary disciple has finally understood. But the illumination quickly gives way to more confusion. Peter fails to grasp the meaning and significance of Jesus’ messianic identity, interpreting it politically like his contemporaries. Soon after the confession, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John on top of a mountain where he is transfigures and identified by the voice from heaven as God’s son. When Jesus explains that he must suffer and die and rise on the third day, the disciples again misunderstand and remain blind to Jesus' true mission. 

As the Gospel reaches its climax in the passion of Jesus, the confusion escalates. Judas betrays Jesus (14:10-11). The disciples flee (14:50). Peter denies Jesus (14:66f). He is mocked as a false messiah by the religious leaders (14:65), the Roman soldiers (15:16f.), the passers-by (15:29f.), the chief priests, the scribes (15:31f.), and even the criminals (15:32).

When Jesus dies, a Roman Centurion breaks through all of the confusion and ironically declares him to truly be the Son of God (15:39). This declaration, which directs us to the opening line, is the climax of the Gospel.

Info Box 10.6: Confusion Feeds Irony
Confusion feeds to irony throughout the Gospel, but emphatically so in the passion account. The outrageous message of the earliest Christians is well captured in Paul’s acknowledgement that the proclamation of a crucified Messiah is a “stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles” in 1 Cor 1:23. The same sentiment is found interwoven throughout the passion accounts of the Gospels. The disciples cannot make sense of Jesus’ predictions that he will suffer and die. When Jesus is arrested, their hopes are dashed and they flee. Like their contemporaries, they hoped for a Messiah who would alleviate suffering, not succumb to it. A suffering Messiah was simply not part of their eschatological repertoire. The irony was too big to grasp. Some have argued that even Jesus himself fell victim to dismay when he uttered the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). Mark’s use of the Aramaic “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” appears to be intentional so as to create one last misunderstanding in a whole slew of misunderstandings. Once again, Mark creates irony. Those who should have known not only that Jesus is the messiah didn’t even pick up on the text that he was citing in their own language. They think that Jesus is calling on Elijah, which Matthew makes even more explicit, but like John the Baptist who is the Elijah figure in the narrative, Jesus suffers the same fate. It has often been said that the misunderstanding even extends to Jesus himself, who as Israel’s king, becomes the speaker of the psalm and feels the rejection of the one who sent him. The audience simply does not understand. 

The surprising aspect of this theme is the constant confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the disciples who are most acquainted with Jesus and are privy to inside information. The disciples do not fair well in Mark, stumbling along in confusion and misunderstanding. They are a disappointment to Jesus from the moment they leave their nets to follow him. Yet, up until Jesus’ arrest, they remain by his side. 

Mark’s unflattering portrayal of the disciples still baffles scholars. In addition to the explanations discussed above Section 10.6 (“Purpose”), one of the most common theological theories is that the evangelist wanted to present Paul’s understanding of election and justification (which is initiated by God alone) in narrative form. Since the disciples lack faith and understanding, there is nothing on their part that could hold them to follow Jesus. Their commitment to Jesus is attributed to Jesus’ call (1:16-20; 2:13-14; 3:13) and empowerment for mission (3:14-15; 6:7-13). Jesus calls and keeps them in spite of their obtuseness, and in spite of his knowledge that they will in the end betray, deny, and abandon him. Mark’s point seems to be that discipleship is a relationship initiated by the call of Christ, and maintained by his own faithfulness, not by anything the disciples did.

10.7.6 Jesus the Man

Fig. 10.29: Anonymous, Christ with the crown of thorns, 15 c. National Museum of Warsaw. This German depiction captures the emotional state of Jesus during his suffering.

It is often said that Mark paints a portrait of Jesus that contains human frailties and limitations. While all of the Gospels describe Jesus as a man, in contrast to Gnostic descriptions where he only appears as a man, Mark does not shy away from attributing human weaknesses and shortcomings to him. For example, Jesus is described as a man prone to hunger (11:12) and susceptible to fatigue (6:31). He does not know when “this generation” will come to an end (13:32). He exhibits a full range of human emotions including pity (1:41), anger (3:5), compassion (6:34), resentment (10:14), love (10:21), and anguish (14:34). He struggles at times to understand the will of God (14:36). And his final words on the cross have often been understood as a cry of dereliction (15:34).

Mark’s tendency to portray Jesus with limitations is especially noticeable when parallel Gospel accounts are compared. For example, When Jesus travels back to his hometown (Mark 6:1-6; Matt 13:54-58), Matthew’s assessment differs from that of Mark.

Fig. 10.30: Click on the box to enlarge.

Alongside these normal human experiences, Jesus is presented occasionally as one who transcends human abilities. For example, he is described as having knowledge of the future (e.g. 10:32-34; 13:2, 24-27; 14:18-20, 27-30) and knowledge of other peoples’ inner thoughts (2:8 and 12:15). He is transfigured before the disciples (9:3). He performs miracles that even surpass contemporary wonder workers (e.g. 6:47-50). Finally, he has an unusually close relationship with God (e.g. 1:11; 9:7). 

Info Box 10.7: A Man Adopted by God? 
Unlike in the other Gospels, Jesus’ divinity is not explicitly conveyed in Mark. Jesus appears on the scene as a man who followed in the ministry of the Baptist. Mark’s baptism scene (1:9-11), however, may imply that Mark understood Jesus as being more than human, possibly divine. When Jesus is baptized for the forgiveness of sins, a voice from heaven calls Jesus “my son.” Is this adoption? If so, then in the Roman context, Jesus is understood as inheriting all of the authorities and powers of God, in much the same way that Octavian inherited the Empire from Julius Caesar. This portrayal of divinity is different in both Matthew and Luke, where Jesus is born divine through the impregnation of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. It also differs from John, who portrays Jesus as pre-existing before creation as the Logos with the Father. When we talk about Jesus as being divine in the Gospels, we need to consider in what sense he is divine within the Greco-Roman context, which was more varied than in ours.

Try the Quiz

Bibliography

Beavis, M. A. Mark. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

Collins, A. Y. Mark. Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Dewey, J. “The Gospel of Mark as an Oral-Aural Event: Implications for Interpretation.” In The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Ed. E. McKnight and E. S. Malbon. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994. Pages 145-63.

Evans, C. A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Guelich, R.  Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, R. H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Hare, D. R. A. Mark. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. 

Hatina, T. R. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative. JSNTSup 232. SSEJC 8. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Horsley, R. A. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox, 2001.

Kelber, W. H. The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997.

–––––. Mark’s Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

–––––. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

Marcus, J. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

–––––. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Westminster/John Knox; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992.

Moloney, Francis J. Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Nineham, D. E. St. Mark.  Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Ong, W. J. Orality and Literacy. London: Routledge, 2002.

Rhoads, D., and D. Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982

Thompson, M. R. The Role of Disbelief in Mark. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

Witherington III, B. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.