Studies in Mark's Gospel

Front matter

aBKflfffffm

II! i

Copyright N?.

Preface

The chapters of this book first appeared as articles in various publications. Credit is given in each instance and thanks are hereby returned to the several publishers for permission to republish them in book form. The chapters have all been carefully revised and, in some instances, changed to suit the present purpose. They cover many aspects of the Gospel without attempting full and formal exposition. It is hoped that by this method a wider circle of readers may be reached than would be willing to follow detailed comment. This Gospel has the charm of two personalities who contributed to its contents, Peter and John Mark. Both were vivacious and versatile and have preserved the portrait of Jesus with the freshness of the morning. Modern criticism of the Gospels finds in Mark's book the foundation (along with the Logia of Jesus) of the other three. It is impossible to overestimate the critical and historical worth of the Second Gospel which is really the First in order of time. Professor J. Rendel Harris in a recent article comments on the eternal " Youth of Jesus" as one of the charms that the Master has for mystics. In this Gospel Jesus fascinates us with the vigor of young manhood and the glory of the Godhead. The present volume turns the picture round so that it may be seen from this angle and from that. But the eye of Jesus holds us enthralled all the while with his pity and his power.

A. T. Robertson

LODISVILLE, KY.

VU

Table Of Contents

Chapter Page

I. The Making of John Mark i

II. The Date of Mark's Gospel 9

Chapter I

THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK 1 "Taking with them John whose surname was Mark." Acts 12:25.

John Mark, the author of the Second Gospel, has absolutely nothing to say about himself in his Gospel, unless there is a veiled reference in 14:51/., where we have the elusive figure of "a certain young man" who had followed Jesus to Gethsemane and who fled, leaving his loose nightrobe, when the officers arrested the Master. This may be John Mark, the son of Mary, in whose house the disciples met at a later time (Acts 12:12). If so, it was at his mother's house that Jesus partook of the last Passover meal. But Papias says that Mark was not a personal follower of Jesus.

1. Glimpses of Mark. — However, we do get a good many glimpses of John Mark in the Acts and in Paul's Epistles. By means of these we can form some idea of the young man who performed such a great work in the writing of the Gospel that lies at the basis of both Matthew and Luke, according to the almost unanimous opinion of modern scholars. " There is no critical position more generally recognized than that St. Mark forms the groundwork of St. Matthew and St. Luke." 2 For every reason, therefore, modern Christians are interested in Mark. It is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss the sources of Mark's information, though Papias

1 The Sunday School Times, May 4, 19 18.

2 Nolloth, The Rise of the Christian Religion, 191 7, p. 12.

is almost certainly correct in his statement, on the authority of the Elder (the Presbyter John, probably the same as the Apostle John), that Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Simon Peter and wrote down Peter's discourses about our Lord. Luke tells us (1:1-4) that he made use of both oral and written sources (first-hand sources, eye-witnesses — avroiTTai — and accurate). There is no reason to think that Mark confined himself to what Peter said, when he had access to other disciples also w T ho flocked to his mother's house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). But in this chapter we are the rather concerned with Mark himself and some of the things that went into the making of this useful servant of Christ.

2. Not a Man of the Highest Gifts. — There are undoubted advantages in being a man of supreme genius like Paul or John the Evangelist. But these men are few and the great majority must take a lower place. All the evidence goes to

. show that Mark was a young man of good, but not unusual, native gifts. Most of the work of the world is done by men of just this type. The love of work is after all a form of genius, better than mere brilliance of intellect. At first Mark did not seem to have this application to hard tasks. He did not quickly find himself and he seemed fickle.

3. On Making Mistakes. — He was the kind of man to be the victim of moods and of whims, and so to make mistakes. Now mistakes are not a desirable asset in any man's character, though no one of us is wholly free from them. It is human to err and we stumble in spite of all that we can do. Least of all is the habit of making mistakes to be cultivated. Some mistakes are more or less venial, but others are fatal. At Shepherds ville, Ky., December, 191 7, the conductor of a local train that was taking the siding failed to send back the flagman, though his train was behind time. The engineer on the Louisville and Nashville "Cannonball" for New Orleans failed to stop as the signal called for him to do and took the chance of going by. He ran his train into the local

THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK 3

and killed forty-eight helpless men, women, and children in a minute of time. Some mistakes can be overcome. Some of us learn by our mistakes and make them stepping-stones to God. John. Mark had a great experience that affected his whole career.

4. Mark's Good Start. — His youthful environment was good, for at his mother's home he met constantly the leading spirits of early Christianity. Here were to be seen frequently the twelve apostles, James the brother of Jesus, Barnabas the cousin of Mark, Mary the mother of Jesus, and the other women, Philip the deacon-evangelist, and many others whose names we do not know. It is a great education for young people to live in a home where the great and good of earth meet. Mark's mother was clearly a woman of parts, and left her impress upon her boy, who was to bring her undying fame. At first Mark was the son of Mary, but by and by Mary was known as the mother of John Mark. This was as she would have wished it to be, as any mother wishes it to be who finds her jewels in her children.

Mark was fortunate also in the love and friendship of Barnabas, who was always on the lookout for young men whom he could help. Paul was one of those whom Barnabas befriended at Jerusalem when all the disciples looked askance at this new sheep in the flock which had so lately ravened as a wolf. They fancied that they could still see the wolf's ears beneath the sheep's clothing (Acts 9:26/.). So Barnabas took along John Mark to Antioch when he and Saul returned thither from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25). Mark may not have taken the enterprise very seriously. At any rate the Holy Spirit called upon Barnabas and Saul to go upon the first great campaign to win the Gentiles to Christ (Acts 13:1-3). The Greek church at Antioch rose to the occasion and gave their blessing to the movement.

It was for this hour that Saul had longed and looked, since Christ set him apart to go "far hence to the Gentiles," though he had by no means been idle during the intervening years. But even so the company went out with Barnabas still the leader, as he had brought Saul from Tarsus to Antioch (Acts 11:25). But John Mark seems to have been taken along in some sort of subordinate position that is not made clear by the reference in Acts 13 15 : " And they had also John as their attendant" {virrfpir-qv) . The word means "under-rower" on a ship, down below the ranks of upperrowers. It was sometimes employed for the synagogue minister or attendant, as in Luke 4:20. It is not necessary tc know precisely what Mark was expected to do. He may have been advance agent to arrange about the hotels, meeting places, means of travel, etc. He may have done the baptizing and helped talk to the inquirers (the catechumens). Clearly his work was subordinate to that of Barnabas and Saul. But many another young man has had his opportunity by beginning in a humble way. Men prove themselves worthy of bigger things by doing well the smaller task in hand. 5. Mark's Failure in a Crisis. — It seems clear that Mark had no idea of the real greatness of Paul at this juncture. To his thinking, Barnabas was the greater man, and he may have resented the sudden leadership of Paul at Paphos. It was now "Paul and his company" (Acts 13:13) that set sail from Paphos and that came to Perga in Pamphylia. It was at Perga that matters came to a crisis with Mark. He may have been a bit irritated at his subordinate place, and all the more now that Paul had displaced Barnabas as the head of the party. It seems clear that something happened at Perga that Luke has not recorded. Ramsay thinks that Paul had an attack of malaria at this coast town. Mark may also have been the victim of the mosquito. Depression seized Mark, who may not have cared to face the perils of rivers and perils of robbers that lay ahead of the party on the high tablelands of Pisidia and Lycaonia (the southern part of the province of Galatia). Paul seemed bent on pushing on in this campaign, and Barnabas stood by him. Mark had apparently had no specific call from the Holy

THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK

Spirit for this enterprise, and so felt less responsibility in the matter, though he had joined hands with the company.

At any rate, at Perga, "John departed from them and returned to Jerusalem" (Acts 13:13). In this incidental way Luke notes the defection of Mark. He did not go to Antioch, where it would be embarrassing to make explanations, but to his home in Jerusalem. Probably Mark felt that the reasons for his course were excellent and fully justified his conduct. It is not difficult to find reasons in plenty for not doing a hard and disagreeable task. Paul and Barnabas faced the dangers ahead and pressed on, and, "passing through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia" (Acts 13 114), and made this journey one of the epochal events in history, for it led to the evangelization of the Graeco-Roman world and the liberation of Christianity, after a struggle, from the fetters that the Judaizers tried to impose upon it (Acts 11: 1-18; 15:1-35). One of the tests of a man's fiber is to know when a crisis has come. Mark took his defection rather lightly, but Paul took it much to heart.

6. Paul's Indignation at Mark's Conduct. — The explosion came about in a rather incidental way after the return of Paul and Barnabas and after their victory over the Judaizers at the Jerusalem conference. The Judaizers were alarmed at the rapid spread of Christianity among the Gentiles as a result of this tour and challenged the validity of the work of Paul and Barnabas, demanding that these Gentile Christians become Jews (Acts 15:1/.). Thus one of the greatest issues in the history of Christianity was sprung. To yield was to make Christianity a sect of current Pharisaic Judaism. It was the real spiritual Israel, and Paul and Barnabas were not going to allow such a calamity to befall the Gentile churches as these Pharisaic Christians from Jerusalem planned. Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:1-10) stood by Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4-29) so that Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch in triumph (Acts 15:30-35). Nothing is said of Mark, but it is quite possible that he at this juncture was indifferent to Paul's contention. Indeed, later Peter came to Antioch and followed Paul and Barnabas in practicing social equality with the Greek Christians, and then drew back (Gal. 2:11/.), because some Judaizers from Jerusalem threatened more trouble to Peter (cf. Acts 11:1-18), claiming that James was against the present attitude of Peter on this phase of the question. Peter's defection induced "even Barnabas" to desert Paul in this " dissimulation" (hypocrisy).

It is possible that Mark's coolness towards Paul may have caused Barnabas to weaken for the moment and to leave Paul in the lurch. At any rate Paul rebuked Peter and Barnabas and won them back to his side. The time came when Paul proposed to Barnabas that they "return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare" (Acts 15:36). Barnabas was more than willing, but suggested that they take along with them John Mark. Instantly the long smoldering indignation of Paul burst forth. "But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work ? ' (Acts 1 5 :3 8) . Paul's word for c ' withdrew ' ' (awoa-TavTa) is literally "apostatized." And, then, he did not stick to the work. He flickered in a crisis. Paul had no intention of taking Mark back again over the same ground. The mosquitoes were still at Perga. Luke uses the imperfect tense (jjitov) of Paul's stubborn resistance to the plan of Barnabas. We are not told more of the conversation, but Luke adds that "there arose a sharp contention" (7rapo£vcrfios); the word is our "paroxysm". Probably sharp things were said, so sharp that "they parted asunder one from the other." Paul cared too much for the work to risk a young man who would not stand true when the pinch came. He wished no deserters and no "slackers" with him.

7. Mark's Second Chance with Barnabas. — Barnabas practiced the Gospel of the second chance, and was determined

THE MAKING OF JOHN MARK 7

that his cousin, John Mark, should have another opportunity to show what he could do. One is bound to admit that sympathy goes with Barnabas in this position, however much judgment may be with Paul. Barnabas took Mark with him to Cyprus, his old home and possibly the original home of Mark's family. Paul went his way with Silas back to the scene of the first tour in Lycaonia and Pisidia. Paul and Barnabas agreed to disagree. Luke follows the fortunes of Paul, so that we know nothing more of Barnabas and Mark. We may be sure that Barnabas would demand that Mark be true this time. It is possible that this sharp rebuff by Paul did much to awaken Mark to a proper realization of his responsibility. Once more we may note how fortunate Mark was in having a friend like Barnabas, with the patience and the love to help him through his time of probation. Some of the early writers say that Mark went on to Egypt finally and did a great work there, but of this we know nothing definite. We do know how wise and gentle was Barnabas, the son of consolation.

8. Making Good with Simon Peter. — Peter himself bears witness to this fact in his first Epistle (i Pet. 5:13) when he speaks of "Mark my son" as with him "in Babylon" (probably Rome). The early writers testify that Mark was with Peter in Rome, that he was Peter's interpreter or dragoman, translating his Aramaic discourses into the current Greek. It is the common tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel with the discourses of Peter as the main source. Some say that he wrote at Peter's dictation, others with his approval, others after his death. But the testimony is unanimous, and internal evidence confirms it, that Mark faithfully preserved the substance of Peter's discourses about the Lord Jesus. Thus under Peter's tutelage he rendered a service of supreme worth for all the ages. He kept the life-like touches of Peter's speeches and lets us see Jesus with Peter's keen eyes.

9. A Comfort to Paul, — It is good to know that Paul recognized that Mark had made good and could now be depended on to do his work. It is not incredible that Paul may have read Mark's Gospel while in Rome during his first imprisonment. We know that Mark was here with Paul part of the time and that Paul was pleased with him. "Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom ye have received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him)" (Col. 4:10). In the loneliness of the last imprisonment in Rome Paul begs Timothy, who is now in Asia, to come and "take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is useful to me for ministering" (2 Tim. 4:11). Paul revised his judgment about Mark after he had noticed the change in his conduct. Probably Paul refers here to his experience with Mark in Rome (Col. 4:10). Paul was only too glad to give praise instead of blame.

Mark is a comfort to many a young man who has made a serious blunder in life. Take heart and wake up to the stern realities of duty. The war times brought us all up with a jerk. The main things of life called for our energy, and we learned to hold ourselves to the main tasks. Most of us make slips. Most of us are not greatly gifted. But all of us can make our lives count for God by sticking steadily to the w r ork to which we are called and to which we have put our hands. It is doubtless true that Mark's mistake at Perga and the sharp contention at Antioch served to rouse him to genuine exertion. Strenuous application took the place of indifference, and the result was victory.

Chapter II The Date Of Mark's Gospel 1

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us." Luke 1:1.

i. Effect of the Two-Document Hypothesis, — Already the interest of the world of New Testament scholarship has been centered upon the Second Gospel as one of the Two Documents (Q and Mark) used by Matthew and Luke for the major part of their Gospels. Critics are not quite unanimous on this solution of the Synoptic Problem, for Zahn still insists that the Aramaic Matthew precedes Mark 2 as his interpretation of what Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria say. But the majority of modern scholars agree with Sanday, who says pointedly: "We assume what is commonly known as the ' Two-Document Hypothesis.'" 3 In either case, whether one follows Sanday (as I do) on this point or Zahn, the date of Mark is still a matter of debate and of importance.

The general effect of the "Two-Document Hypothesis" has been to push Mark back to a comparatively early date. If we admit the use of Mark by Luke, this seems necessary. Even Bartlet admits this, though he does not concur with the view that Q was so used: "That our Mark was used in the two other Synoptic Gospels I firmly believe, and so far agree with the current documentary hypothesis. On the other hand, I cannot see that the common use of a second

1 The Expositor (London), April, 19 18.

2 Introduction to the New Testament, transl., 1909, vol. ii, pp. 394 ff. s Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 191 1, p. 2.

IO STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL

document, whether by Matthew and Luke alone, or by Mark also, is probable." 1

2. The Date of Luke's Gospel. — The argument is therefore part of a chain, the links of which hang together. Harnack admits that the reasonable explanation for the close of Acts is that events had at that time proceeded no further. "We are accordingly left with the result: that the concluding verses of the Acts of the Apostles, taken in conjunction with the absence of any reference in the book to the result of the trial of St. Paul and to his martyrdom, make it in the highest degree probable that the work was written at a time when St. Paul's trial in Rome had not yet come to an end." 2 After a survey of the argument of Wellhausen that the destruction of Jerusalem had taken place before Luke 21:20-24 was written, Harnack says: " Hence it is proved that it is altogether wrong to say that the eschatological passages force us to the conclusion that the Third Gospel was written after the year 70 a. d." Since Luke wrote his Gospel before the Acts, as he himself says (Acts 1:1), the first question is the date of Paul's release from his first Roman imprisonment. It is not certain that Nero passed on the case or that it came to trial. But, whether Paul was dismissed without trial or set free after trial, it could not be later than a. d. 63. Ramsay places it " towards the end of a. d. 61." 3 In any case we may allow some three years (two in Rome and the year of the voyage) for the completion of the Gospel of Luke in Caesarea where Paul (with Luke) spent two years (Acts 24:27). This was about 56-58 A. d. It is not necessary to date the Gospel of Luke so long before and to place its composition in Caesarea, though this is the natural thing to do, for, while in Palestine, Luke had the time and the opportunity to procure the data used by him (Luke 1:1-4). Luke may have completed his Gospel in

1 The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel , p. 315 in Oxford Studies.

2 Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, transl., 1911, p. 99.

3 St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 357.

THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL II

Rome. This is the conclusion of Harnack: "It now seems to be established beyond question that both books of this great historical writer were written while St. Paul was still alive." x

It is clear that if this line of argument is correct, Mark's Gospel must come not later than 60 a. d. and probably earlier. Wellhausen 2 admits that it is not later than the sixth decade a. d. Harnack 3 concurs. It is here assumed, of course, that Luke wrote both Gospel and Acts. Harnack 4 agrees with the judgment of Zahn: "Hobart 5 has proved for every one who can at all appreciate proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practiced in the scientific language of Greek medicine — in short, a Greek physician." 6

3. The Date of Q. — If we seek the earliest probable date and not the latest, we are at once confronted with Q (the other main source of Matthew and Luke), which was apparently earlier than Mark. Indeed, there are not wanting those who find in Mark traces of the use of Q. The whole question of the limits of Q is involved, but it cannot be discussed here. It is enough to say that we are not justified in confining Q solely to what is preserved in Matthew and Luke. 7 We may admit that Mark shows some use of Q. " We hold, therefore, that Mark knew and used Q, but only to a limited extent." 8 If so, then Mark is later than Q. But Moffatt opposes the idea that Mark knew Q. 9

1 Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 124.

2 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 87.

3 Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 18.

4 Luke the Physician, transl., 1907, p. 14.

6 The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882, pp. 305^.

7 Cf. "The Original Extent of Q" by Streeter, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 184-208.

8 Streeter, "St. Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q," p. 178, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem.

9 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 191 1, p. 221; Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien, pp. 73/., makes Q dependent on Mark.

But what is the date of Q? Streeter says: "The interval of time between the original writing of Q and its use by Matthew and Luke was probably very considerable." * "The Gospel of Mark forms the transition" 2 from Q to Matthew and Luke. Streeter thinks that Q "was probably written twenty years before Mark." 3 Ramsay 4 holds that Q was written during the ministry of Jesus, since it stops short of the events of Passion Week. Salmon 6 holds the same view. Streeter 6 holds that the expectation of the nearness of the Parousia explains the absence of the Passion Week in Q and suggests twelve years after the death of Christ as a probable date for Q. Nolloth 7 has argued that the common use of shorthand during this period renders it quite possible that Q contained shorthand reports of the Sayings of Jesus. If we place Q at 42 a. d. and Luke's Gospel at 58 a. d., we seem to have the limits for Mark's Gospel. Allen indeed proposes 50 A. d. as the date for our Gospel of Mark. 8 It is interesting to note how the most recent and reliable synoptic criticism thus points to an early date for Mark's Gospel.

4. Matthew's Use of Mark. — If Matthew's Greek Gospel made use of Mark, as is now generally admitted, though some voices insist that Mark made use of the Aramaic Matthew, the argument for the early date of Mark is made still stronger. In spite of Zahn's contention that Mark used the Aramaic Matthew, 9 M. Jones concludes that " the use of St. Mark by the authors of the First and Third Gospels as one

1 Oxford Studies, p. 205.

3 "Literary Evolution of the Gospels," Oxford Studies, p. 219.

4 The Expositor, May, 1907.

5 The Human Element in the Gospels, 1907, p. 274.

6 Oxford Studies, p. 215.

7 The Rise of the Christian Religion, 191 7, p. 23. Nolioth (p. 20) places Mark's Gospel " about a. d. 50."

8 Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, p. 213.

9 Introduction to the New Testament, transl., vol. ii, pp. 601/.

THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL 13

of their main sources seems proved beyond dispute." * It is not necessary to show that Luke made use of Matthew to prove the early date of Mark's Gospel.

5. The "Aramaic" Mark. — Allen proposes a still earlier date for Mark's Gospel in an Aramaic form: " A very suitable date would be about the year a. d. 44, when St. Peter, who had been prominent as a leader of the Church at Jerusalem, was obliged to leave the city. 2 But the whole question of the Aramaic original of our Greek Mark is quite uncertain. In fact, I am inclined to agree with the judgment of Swete 3 that a translator would hardly give both the transliteration and the translation of the Aramaic. Allen seeks to overcome this point by suggesting that Mark himself wrote the Aramaic while with Peter in Jerusalem about 44 a. d., and made the translation while with Paul and Barnabas at Antioch about 50 A. D. I do not care to discuss here the position of Blass, Marshall, and Wellhausen that the original Mark was in Aramaic. The point that is pertinent is that the date of the Greek Mark seems to be as early as

6. Possible Editions by Mark. — It is true that some of the early Christian writers suggest Rome as the place where the Gospel of Mark was written. Papias, however, has nothing as to the place of writing. Harnack examines with care all these traditions, and concludes: " Tradition asserts no veto against the hypothesis that St. Luke, when he met St. Mark in the company of St. Paul the prisoner was permitted by him to peruse a written record of the Gospel history which was essentially identical with the Gospel of St. Mark which was given to the Church at a later time." 4 Harnack suggests, therefore, that Mark made a " final revision" of his work in Rome. There is nothing incongruous in the idea

1 The New Testament in the Twentieth Century, 19 14.

2 Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, p. 13.

3 Commentary, p. xxxvii.

4 Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 133.

that Mark revised his Gospel once or twice. Holdsworth, 1 indeed, suggests that Mark wrote one edition of his Gospel at Caesarea, a shorthand report of Peter's sermon (Acts 10: 34jf.)> another later in Egypt, and another in Rome. It is not necessary to pass finally on these suggestions. They all go to show how criticism has cautiously felt its way in the study of the Gospel sources. Allen 2 is willing to concede a third edition of Mark's Gospel in Rome. Swete wished to reserve the question of editorial revision for further study, 3 though he was convinced of the unity of the work and of the Marcan authorship. Mark was with Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) and later in Rome (Babylon, 1 Pet. 5:13), and possibly at other times. If his Gospel, as Papias said, rests primarily on the preaching of Peter, there is ample room for it in the early period. There is nothing to support the tradition in Irenaeus that Mark wrote after Peter's death.