Most biblical scholars consider Mark chap. 8 to be a turning point, for after having met with rejection and misunderstanding, Jesus now proclaims the necessity of going through suffering and death before experiencing resurrection. The message for the reader is clear: no matter how much we pay attention to the tradition of his parables and deeds of power, if all this is not associated with the image of a victory through suffering, we have understood nothing of his message and the vocation of those who followed him.

Mark clearly tends to group things either by time (in one day), or by subject (disputes), or by form (parables).

1. Introduction by JBap; an initial day; controversy at Capernaum (1: 1 - 3: 6)
   • (1: 1-15) The opening of Mark presents the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. John the Baptist is the prophesied messenger who cries out in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord. This preparation consists in announcing the one who will baptize in the Holy Spirit, namely Jesus. A voice from heaven, echoing Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, speaks to him of God's beloved Son; and at his baptism, the Spirit descends. The statements that Jesus was tested by Satan (the Spirit's adversary) and that John the Baptist was arrested suggest to the reader at the outset that Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom will encounter major obstacles.

   • (1: 16-20) Jesus begins by calling four men to follow him and become "fishers" who will catch people, foreshadowing the role these men will play in the proclamation. Indeed, the reactions of these disciples will mark major milestones in the Gospel.

   • (1: 21-38) In describing what appears to be the first day of Jesus' ministry, Mark familiarizes readers with the kinds of things done to proclaim the kingdom: teaching with authority in the synagogue in Capernaum, exorcising an unclean spirit, healing Simon's mother-in-law, healing many other sick and possessed people, and finally seeking a place to pray the next morning, only to be pestered by his disciples with requests. Note that teaching, healings and exorcisms are united in the proclamation of the kingdom, for Mark is keen to emphasize that the coming of the kingdom is a complex reality with the presence of opposing forces. But there is more. In 1:34 Jesus forbids the demons to speak "because they knew him. This is the first instance of what biblical scholars call Mark's "messianic secret," whereby Jesus seems to hide his identity as Son of God until it becomes apparent after his death on the cross. The demons, even if they invoke a true title, do not grasp the mystery of his person.

   • (1: 39-45) The expansion of Jesus' activity. Jesus' ministry moves into the cities of Galilee, a geographical area that will be expanded in the following chapters. The motif of messianic secrecy is now extended to the healed leper, because publicity prevents Jesus from circulating openly, and from having a proper understanding of his person.

   • (2: 1 - 3: 6) Controversies in Capernaum. In this town on the Lake of Galilee, which became Jesus' home, Mark centers five incidents in which the scribes, Pharisees, and others object to his forgiving sins, consorting with sinners, not fasting, and doing what is not allowed on the Sabbath, as he did. This leads to a plot by the Pharisees and Herodians to destroy him. The proclamation of the kingdom of God is not only fought by demons but also by human beings.

2. Jesus chooses the Twelve and trains them as disciples by parables and mighty deeds; misunderstanding among his Nazareth relatives (3: 7 - 6: 6)
   • (3: 7-12) Mark closes the previous section and begins this section with a summary showing that Jesus' ministry was attracting people from a wider and wider area, beyond Galilee.

   • (3:13-19) In the midst of this call to great numbers, Jesus goes up the mountain and summons the Twelve, whom he wants to have with him and send out to preach. It can be observed that Luke 6:13-15 and Acts 1:13 (with Jude son of James) present a list of the Twelve that differs from that of Mark (and of Mt 10:2-4, with Thaddaeus) by one of the last four names, which is an indication that the memory of the minor members was uncertain.

   • (3: 20-35)In this sequence we encounter a narrative arrangement that scholars recognize as a characteristic of the Marcan style, an intercalation sometimes inelegantly called the "Marcan sandwich". In this type of intercalation, Mark initiates an action that requires time to complete, interrupts it with another scene that fills the time (the meat between the surrounding pieces of bread), and then resumes the initial action to close it. Here the action begins with Jesus' relatives who do not understand why he does not take the time to eat and consider him to be out of his mind, followed by the scribes from Jerusalem who consider Jesus to be possessed by Beelzebul; the first group expresses radical incomprehension and the other antagonistic disbelief. At the end of the intermission (3:31-35), Jesus' mother and brothers finally arrive in Capernaum, only to be told that they have been replaced by the new family of those who do the will of God. As for the intermediate scene with the scribes of Jerusalem, it constitutes one of the clearest statements of Mark's Jesus about Satan, whose kingdom is opposed to the kingdom of God.

   • (4: 1-34) This sequence is a collection of parables and parabolic sayings related to the kingdom of God, most of them dealing with the growth of the seed. Although Jesus' ministry is centered in Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee and the setting for these parables is a boat, it seems that the material for Jesus' parables is drawn from the villages and farms of the mountainous region of Nazareth, where he spent his youth. There is no doubt that historically Jesus formulated his teaching in parables. But their actual context is unknown, and so the only certain context is the placement of the parables in the extant Gospels - the fact that the context sometimes differs in Mark, Matthew and Luke illustrates the evangelists' creative use of the tradition for their own pedagogical purposes.

     In Mark's present narrative sequence, three parables of seeds (the sower and the seed, the seed that grows by itself, and the mustard seed) serve as a commentary on what has happened in Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom. Even though there are failures (the three types of soil where the seed does not grow), the seed has its own strength and will mature in its own time; it is like the mustard seed, with a small beginning and a large growth. People who listened to or read Mark (sequence on the explanation of the parable) were supposed to see in these parables the explanation of the failures and disappointments of their own experience of Christianity and a sign of hope that in the end there would be tremendous growth and an abundant harvest.

     The parables about the seeds are interwoven with parabolic comments and statements about the "purpose" of the parables. In particular, Mark 4:11-12, where Jesus says that the parables are given to those on the outside so that they will not see, understand or be converted, is an offensive text if one does not understand the biblical approach to divine foresight, where what actually resulted is often presented as God's purpose. Mark is actually describing what he sees as the negative result of Jesus' teaching among his own people, the majority of whom did not understand and were not converted. Like the symbolic visions given to Daniel in the OT, the parables were a "mystery" whose interpretation was given by God only to the elect (Dan 2:22, 27-28). The others do not understand, and the mystery becomes a source of destruction. Isaiah 6:9-10, which predicts the failure of the prophet to convert Judah, has been used extensively in the NT to explain the failure of Jesus' followers to convince most Jews; and Mark uses it here (4:12) as a commentary on the parables.

   • (4, 35 - 5, 43) Mark presents four miraculous actions. Note that the evangelist, like the ancient people, makes no distinction between a healing and a "nature" miracle, for God manifests his power over all creation. Just as sickness and affliction reflect the realm of evil, so does a dangerous storm. Jesus' victory over the storm is seen as the action of the strongest (3:27) which even the wind and the sea obey.

   • (5, 1-20) Jesus' struggle with demons is even more dramatic in the healing of the madman at Gerasene, where Jesus casts out a "Legion." The pattern of the miracle resembles that of the demoniac story in 1:21-28, including the recognition of Jesus' identity. However, the colorful and imaginative elements are stronger here, such as the extended description of the man's violence, the demons' need to find a place to stay, which leads to the transfer to the pigs, and the detailed portrayal of the healed man. The ending, where the healed man is sent to proclaim to the Decapolis what the Lord has done, is significant because it goes against the thrust of the "messianic secret."

   • (5, 21-43) These two miracles are another example of Marcan intercalation: Jesus sets out for the house of Jairus in 5:21-24 and arrives to raise Jairus' daughter in 5:35-43, while the intervening time is filled by the healing of the woman who is bleeding in 5:25-34. In the story of the woman, it is noticeable that power is portrayed as something possessed by Jesus that can flow out of him without him knowing where it is going. The question "Who touched my clothes?", the sarcastic response of the disciples and the woman's confession add to the drama. Yet, perhaps unintentionally, they give the impression that Jesus did not know everything. Jesus' statement, "Your faith has saved you" (5:34; 10:52) shows that Mark does not have a mechanical understanding of Jesus' miraculous power. In the story of Jairus, we hear about the trio Peter, James and John chosen to accompany Jesus. They were the first to be called among the Twelve, and the evidence of Paul and Acts suggests that they were the best known. The scene ends with another example of a Marcan secret (5:43).

   • (6, 1-6) In this sequence Jesus returns to Nazareth, his hometown, and this is an inclusion of his relationship with his "own" in Nazareth at the beginning of the scene (3:21, 31-35). His teaching in the synagogue is met with skepticism. The locals remember him as a carpenter and know his family, so his religious wisdom and powerful works have no plausible origin. Despite his teaching and miracles, Jesus' ministry did not produce faith in those who should know him, and his power, which is linked to faith, is ineffective there.

3. Sending out the Twelve; feeding 5,000; walking on water; controversy; feeding 4,000; misunderstanding (6: 7 - 8: 26)

   This section begins with the sending out of the Twelve and ends with their continued misunderstanding, a failure that will lead to the second part of the Gospel where Jesus proclaims that only through his own suffering and death can the disciples have a satisfying faith.

   • (6:7-33) In this sequence dealing with the mission of the Twelve and Herod, we again encounter Marcan intercalation; indeed, the sending of the Twelve is recounted in 6:7-13 and their return in 6:30-32, with an account of Herod's activity "intercalated" in 6:14-29 to occupy the intervening time. The mission of the disciples is an extension of Jesus' own mission, and he empowers them to carry it out. The austere conditions (no food, no money, no luggage) would clearly show that the results were not achieved by human means; and probably the Christians in Mark's community had come to expect such austerity from the missionaries. As for the fate of John the Baptist, it is a warning of what the fate of Jesus - and the fate of those sent to carry on his work - is likely to be.

   • (6:34-52) The feeding of the 5,000 and the walking on the water constitute a unity in the four gospels. We have a variation of this scene in Mk 8:1-9 where Jesus feeds 4,000 people, suggesting a very early tradition that underwent many adaptations in the preaching era. This is an interesting example of meaning on several levels. At the most direct narrative level, the multiplication represents the divine power of Jesus in serving a hungry multitude whose plight touches his heart. But there are also echoes of the OT, for example Elisha's feeding 100 people with loaves in Kings 4:42-44, and perhaps the miracle of the manna in Moses' time ("wilderness" in 6:32), just as Jesus' walking on the water may echo his dry crossing of the Red Sea. It is noted that parallels between Jesus' career and OT scenes have become a major element in understanding God's overall plan. Another level of significance is that Jesus' action in 6:41 anticipates what he will do at the Last Supper in 14:22-23 in relation to the bread that is his body, an action that was familiar to early Christians in their Eucharistic celebration. Within this symbolism or separately, the multiplication may also have been seen as an anticipation of the messianic banquet.

     In the second miracle, the walking on water (6:45-52), Mark offers a type of theophany or epiphany; indeed, Jesus' divine identity is suggested not only by the extraordinary nature of the miracle, but also by Jesus' response in 6:50: "I am." It is all the more poignant that the disciples understand neither this miracle nor the multiplication, for their hearts are hardened (6:52). After the two miracles, Mark summarizes (6:53-56) the enthusiasm of the Galilean villagers for Jesus' many healings; but readers are led to suspect that such enthusiasm is not true understanding or faith.

   • (7:1-23) A dispute over ritual purity is another illustration of misunderstanding. Despite all the miracles, what particularly bothers the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem is that some of Jesus' disciples do not observe ritual purity, a concept that 7:3-4 must explain to the readers. The dispute leads Jesus to condemn narrow interpretations such as human tradition that ignore or even contradict the thrust of God's commandment on purity of heart. Note that the basic attitude to the law in 7:8 and 15 is likely to have come from Jesus, but its application to declare all food clean (7:19) is most likely an insight developed later in the early church. The fierce struggles over kosher food in Acts and Paul would be difficult to explain if Jesus had settled the issue from the beginning.

   • (7:24-30) A striking contrast to the hostility of the Jewish authorities is provided by the faith of the Syrophoenician woman in the region of Tyre. (It is hardly coincidental that Mark places in sequence a dispute over food and the surprising faith of a Gentile woman who comes spontaneously to Jesus; these are the two great issues that divided the early Christians, i.e., the rules of purity and the place of non-Jews in the community.) Some were offended by Jesus' answer in 7:27 which puts the Jews first (the children) and refers to the Gentiles as dogs. It is often forgotten that Jesus is a first century Jew and Paul also puts the Jews first (Rom 1:16), and 1 Peter 2:10 repeats the OT thesis that Gentiles have no status as a people.

   • (7:31-37) The healing of the deaf man, including the various gestures with fingers in the ears and saliva on the tongue, and even the Aramaic word Ephphphata intends to show the intensity of Jesus' physical contact with the afflicted of life. But, according to Mark, the people's enthusiasm for Jesus' power outweighs his command to keep it secret.

   • (8:1-9) Although the meal of the 4,000 may originally have been a replica of the previous meal, it has a strong cumulative effect in Mark as another manifestation of Jesus' extraordinary power. Once again, the context is one of a multitude with nothing to eat, and the use of the verb eucharistein (8, 6) supports the Eucharistic interpretation.

   • (8:10-21) The scene of the disciples in the boat dramatizes climactically the utter improbability of Jesus being accepted or understood. After all he has done, the Pharisees who show up are still looking for a sign to test him; and the disciples in the boat are specifically described as not having understood the two multiplications.

   • (8:22-26) The healing of the blind man is a parabolic commentary on the disciples' misunderstanding. The man only regains his sight in stages, because Jesus' first action only gives him blurred vision. This is also the situation of the disciples, resulting from all that Jesus has done for them so far. It is only when Jesus acts a second time that the man sees clearly, which anticipates the next part where Jesus must suffer and be put to death to finally bring light.

Jesus signals a change of tone by clearly predicting his fate three times - the third time on his way to Jerusalem where everything he predicts will take place. From now on there are few acts of power (miracles) that do not lead to faith anyway. His activities in Jerusalem arouse the animosity of the chief priests and scribes who finally arrest him, put him on trial and have him crucified. After his death, a Roman centurion recognizes Jesus' identity as the Son of God. The third day after that, the tomb in which he was buried is found empty; and a young man (angel) in it announces that Jesus has risen and will be seen in Galilee.

1. Three passion predictions; Peter's confession; the transfiguration; Jesus' teaching (8: 27 - 10: 52)
   • (After the negative judgments of the first part ("He has lost his mind", "He is possessed by Beelzebul"), Peter's confession ("You are the Messiah") comes in the midst of more positive evaluations of Jesus in which he is compared to John the Baptist, Elijah or one of the prophets. The spokesman of the disciples, who has been with him since 1:16, goes even further in proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah, but Jesus responds to this statement with the same injunction to silence with which he modified the identification of the demons as Son of God (3:11-12). What Peter says is correct, but he forgets to include the necessary component of suffering. Jesus now begins to emphasize this component more clearly with a prediction of his own passion (8:31). Peter rejects this picture of the suffering Son of Man, and Jesus considers his misunderstanding worthy of Satan. Not only will Jesus have to suffer, but so will those who follow him (8:34-37). In 8:38, Jesus warns that those who are ashamed of him will be judged with shame when the Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. This remarkable Christological statement apparently refers to the transfiguration that immediately follows.

   • (9:2-13) The transfiguration produces a reaction that is another example of the disciples' insufficient faith. At the beginning of Part I, Jesus' identity as Son of God was proclaimed at his baptism by a voice from heaven; now, at the beginning of Part II, as Jesus' previously hidden glory is made visible to three of his disciples, the heavenly voice again identifies Jesus. The scene echoes the greatest theophany of the OT, for it takes place on a mountain, in the presence of Moses and Elijah who met God on Sinai (Horeb). The "after six days" of 9:2 seems to recall Exodus 24:16, where the cloud covers Sinai for six days and it is only the next day that God calls Moses. Peter awkwardly proposes to extend the experience by building three tabernacles, just as the Tabernacle was built after the Sinai experience (Exodus 25-27; 36-38); but in reality he is terrified and does not know what to say (Mark 9:6). The discussion on the way down the mountain is a reminder that this glory comes through passion, but this time in relation to Elijah who must come first. The implicit identification of Elijah with John the Baptist who came before Jesus and was put to death (9:13) may be the result of a reflection of the early Church, an attempt to relate the two great figures of the Gospel in the light of the OT.

   • (9:14-29) The story of a demon-possessed boy whom Jesus' disciples fail to cure while he is on the mountain is told by Mark with unusual length. The symptoms are typical of epilepsy, yet in the worldview of the Gospel, the harm done to the boy by such an illness is described as demonic possession. The question of why the disciples could not cast out the demon exasperates Jesus: This is a faithless generation (9:19); and there is also a lack of faith implicit in the father's request for help, "If you can" (9:23). The "dumb and deaf spirit" obeys Jesus' command to go away; but the reader retains a sense of mystery at the end (9:29), when he tells the disciples, "This kind can only come out through prayer."

   • (9:30-32) A journey through Galilee begins with Jesus' second prediction about the passion, which once again the disciples do not understand.

   • (9:33 - 10:31) At Capernaum and finally when he undertakes a premonitory journey to Judea, Jesus gives his disciples various instructions about the kingdom. Mark has collected here what he considers to be the last important communications before Jesus arrives in Jerusalem to die. In 9:33-35, Jesus warns the Twelve not to seek to be the greatest in the kingdom, but a servant. The inclusive character of the kingdom is illustrated in 9:36-41 by Jesus' command to welcome a child (i.e., an insignificant person) into his name and by his maxim, "Whoever is not against us is for us." The protection against scandal (i.e., causing sin: 9:42-48) that Jesus offers to the little ones who believe would be understood by Mark's readers as referring not only to his life but to theirs. The Twelve are invited to be like fire and salt (9:49-50), which purify and season before the time of judgment.

   • (10:1-12) The trip to Judea, the instruction of the crowds and a question from the Pharisees provide the context for Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce. The Pharisees, relying on Deut 24:1-4, allowed a husband to write a note to divorce his wife because of "indecency in her." But Jesus, appealing to Gen 1:27; 2:24 for the unity created by marriage, would prohibit breaking the marriage bond, so that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery. A form of this prohibition is preserved in Matthew (twice), Luke and 1 Cor 7:10-11, so it is not unlikely that historically there was a dispute in Jesus' life between him and other Jews who had different opinions on the matter. The difficulty of his position was recognized by the early Christians, and this statement was soon commented upon. For example, Mark 10:12, which extends the statement to a woman divorcing her husband, is probably an adaptation to the situation of the Gentile hearers of the Gospel, where women could divorce men.

   • (10:13-31) Jesus returns to the question of those who enter the kingdom. He rejects the view that entry into the kingdom requires the accomplishment of many things, for in fact the kingdom requires only human receptivity, of which the child is a good symbol. This interpretation brings Mark very close to Paul's notion of justification by faith. But what does it mean to "receive the kingdom"? This is the question behind the rich man's questioning in 10:17 where Jesus lovingly asks him to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. Is this part of what is necessary to inherit eternal life, or does it only apply to a special kind of discipleship that consists of walking with Jesus? Certainly not all early Christians sold their possessions, and 10:24-27 shows that Jesus demands what is impossible by human standards, but not by God's. Those who make great sacrifices for Jesus will be rewarded both in this age and in the age to come (10:29-31); but the phrase "with persecution," whether by Jesus or Mark, is an important touch of realism about their fate.

   • (10:32-34) This realism is also expressed in the third prediction of the passion, which is more detailed than the others as the predicted events draw closer. Caught up in this immediacy, James and John raise the question of the first places in the kingdom (10:35-45). Jesus' challenge to imitate him by drinking the cup and being baptized is symbolically a challenge to suffering. He reminds them that it is service that makes a person great. "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45) is an appropriate summary of the spirit of this kingdom, a spirit anticipated in Is 53:10-12.

   • (10:46-52) The journey to Jerusalem ends in the Jericho area when Jesus heals the blind Bartimaeus. This man who persists in calling on Jesus for mercy when others tell him to be silent is a symbol of all those who will come to Christ and hear "Your faith has saved you.

2. Ministry in Jerusalem: Entry; Temple actions and encounters; eschatological discourse (11: 1 - 13: 37)
   • (11:1-11) The story is part of a sequence that seems to take place over three days ("the next day" 11:12; "the morning" 11:20). Two disciples are sent from Jesus' base of operations on the Mount of Olives, and everything happens as he had said it would. He sits on the colt they bring (an implicit reference to Zech 9:9 about the coming of the king from Jerusalem); he is acclaimed with a hosanna shout of praise, a reference to Ps 118:26. Thus, Jesus is proclaimed as a king who will restore David's earthly kingdom - an honor but another misunderstanding.

   • (11:12-26) Another Marcan intercalation governs the actions of the next day and the beginning of the following day: cursing the fig tree, purifying the Temple and finding the dried fig tree. Even if it was normal not to find figs out of season, the curse is similar to the prophetic actions of the Old Testament whose very peculiarity draws attention to the message presented symbolically (Jer 19:1-2, 10-11; Ezek 12:1-7). The barren tree represents the Jewish authorities whose failures are illustrated by the intermediary action of the cleansing of the Temple, which was transformed into a den of thieves instead of a house of prayer for all peoples (Jer 7:11; Is 56:7). The miraculous element of the curse/waste becomes in 11:22-25 an opportunity for Jesus to teach the disciples a lesson about faith and the power of prayer.

   • (11:27-33) The malice of the authorities aroused by the cleansing of the Temple continues in the challenge to Jesus' authority. This is the first of several "trap" episodes in which Mark shows Jesus' superior wisdom in the face of petty opponents.

   • (12:1-12) The parable of the wicked tenants who are finally deprived of the vineyard has the same motive as the curse of the fig tree, to the great displeasure of the authorities.

   • (12:13-27) Other traps are set for Jesus in the questions of the Pharisees and Herodians about taxes for Caesar and the Sadducees about the resurrection. The effect of these questions is to show the great hostility of the authorities of all groups towards Jesus, but they may also have been instructive for the Christians in Mark's community who were confronted with similar issues: the primacy of God and the hope of the resurrection.

   • (12:28-34) Although Mark portrays Jesus' opponents with a broad brush, he makes an exception in the portrayal of a sensitive scribe who asks a question about the greatest commandment and wins Jesus' approval as not being far from the kingdom of God. The first line of Jesus' answer is fascinating, for it quotes the Jewish daily prayer, the Shema ("Listen, Israel"), from Deut 6:4. This means that decades after the beginnings of Christianity, Gentiles were still being taught to pray a Jewish prayer as part of God's basic requirement! The two commandments instilled by Jesus, combining Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18, have in common an emphasis on love that has become what Christians would like to see as the hallmark of their religion.

   • (12:35-44) In response to so many hostile questions, Jesus asks his own difficult question about the son of David. Whether or not the question arose during Jesus' lifetime, early Christians struggled with the idea that acclaiming Jesus as the Messiah meant more than simply recognizing him as the anointed king of the House of David. The denunciation of the scribes' public display (12:38-40) serves as a backdrop to the story of genuine religious behavior, the widow's offering (12:41-44).

   • (13:1-37) Up to this point, most of Jesus' activities in Jerusalem have taken place in the Temple area; it is after gazing at the magnificent Temple buildings that, sitting on the Mount of Olives, he delivers the eschatological discourse - the last discourse of his ministry that deals with the end times. The speech is a collection of ominous prophetic warnings. Many biblical scholars believe that Mark's account is colored in part by what the evangelist knows has already taken place, such as persecution in the synagogues and before governors and kings. Most readers will note above all that the discourse does not give a precise timetable: on the one hand, the followers of Jesus should not be misled by speculations and claims that the end is near; on the other hand, they should remain vigilant.

3. Anointing, Last Supper, passion, crucifixion, burial, empty tomb (14: 1 - 16: 8)
   • (14:1-25) Another Marcan inclusion is formed by Judas' betrayal and Jesus' anointing (14:1-11), since the anointing is sandwiched between the authorities' plot to arrest Jesus and Judas' going forward to deliver him to them. The fact that the anointing is for burial tells the reader that the plot will succeed. The preparations for the Passover (14:12-16) not only provide a ritual context for Jesus' action at the Last Supper, but also illustrate Jesus' ability to predict what will happen. This latter theme will continue when Jesus predicts what Judas, the disciples, and Peter will do. The Last Supper (14:17-25), recounted very briefly in Mark, provides the context for the first of these predictions; and the idea that Judas will betray Jesus provides a dramatic contrast to Jesus' self-giving in the Eucharistic blessing of the bread and wine as his body and blood.

   • (14:26-52) The Gethsemane section marks the beginning of the suffering part of Mark's passion narrative, as Jesus moves from the meal to the Mount of Olives. In this transition, the predictions of the disciples' flight and Peter's denials set a tragic tone, and in what follows, the element of failure and abandonment is stronger in Mark than in any other passion narrative. Jesus' isolation is presented in three stages: he walks away from the group of disciples, the three chosen ones, and then falls to the ground alone to plead three times with the Father to take away the cup - a cup of suffering that in 10:39 he had challenged his disciples to drink! When the Father is silent and the disciples are found asleep three times, Jesus accepts God's will and proclaims that the Son of Man must now be delivered to sinners, as he had predicted three times. The first step in a long sequence of handing Jesus over is the kiss (a dramatic touch) of Judas who delivers him to the crowd of chief priests and scribes. Not only do all the disciples flee, but a young man who was following Jesus flees naked; he symbolizes failure: those who had left everything to follow him have now left everything to get away from him.

   • (14: 53 - 15: 1) The Jewish trial: Jesus is condemned by a Sanhedrin and mocked while Peter denies him. The person who ordered the arrest hands Jesus over to the chief priests, elders and scribes who meet in the Sanhedrin to decide his fate. Going back and forth to illustrate the simultaneity, Mark recounts two contrasting scenes: in one, Jesus courageously confesses that he is the Son of God; in the other, Peter curses him and denies knowing him. Ironically, at the same time that Jesus is mocked as a false prophet, the third of his prophecies about his disciples comes true. Although the authorities do not believe that Jesus can destroy the sanctuary or that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (God), there will be a verification of both themes at his death. Marcan readers were probably anticipating the debates of their own day, for ultimately Christians saw Jesus' condemnation as what caused God to allow the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, and Jesus' identity as the Son of God became a major point of division between Christians and Jews.

   • (15:2-20a) The Roman trial: Jesus is handed over to Pilate to be crucified and mocked. The Jewish authorities hand Jesus over to Pilate. Mark draws a clear parallel between the two trials, so as to highlight the main point of each. In each, a main representative figure, the high priest and Pilate respectively, asks a key question that reflects his interests: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?" in the case of the high priest and "Are you the King of the Jews?" in the case of Pilate. There are false witnesses in the Jewish trial; and Pilate knows that Jesus was handed over out of envy. Yet at the end of each trial, Jesus is condemned, spat upon and mocked - as a prophet by the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and as King of the Jews by the Roman soldiers. Rejected by all, Jesus is handed over by Pilate to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

   • (15: 20b-47) Crucifixion, death and burial. Before the crucifixion, on the way to the place called Golgotha, Mark emphasizes the help given by Simon of Cyrene, and after Jesus' death on the cross, that given by Joseph of Arimathea - ironically, the only ones who assist him are those who, as far as we know from Mark, had no previous contact with him. The details of the crucifixion that Mark mentions are reminiscent of OT descriptions of the suffering of the righteous man, e.g., the two alcoholic drinks, with myrrh at the beginning and vinegar at the end (Prov 31:6-7; Ps 69:22); the division of clothing (Ps 22:19). Three periods of time are indicated: the third, sixth and ninth hours (9:00 a.m.; noon; 3:00 p.m.), with an increasingly tragic coloring. In the first period, three groups play a role at Jesus' cross: the passers-by, the chief priests and scribes, and the co-crucified criminals. All of them mock him, in effect reviving the issues of the Jewish trial (destruction of the sanctuary, identity as Messiah). In the second period, darkness descends on the land. In the third period, Jesus speaks from the cross for the only time. Mark begins the passion of Jesus in 14:36 with his prayer in Aramaic and Greek transcribed: "Abba, Father... remove this cup from me". Mark closes Jesus' passion in 15:34 with another prayer, quoting in Aramaic and Greek the desperate words of Ps 22:2: "Elōi, Elōi, lama sabachthani... My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Feeling abandoned and no longer having the claim to use the intimate family term "Father," Jesus is reduced to a form of address common to all human beings, "My God." No response comes until Jesus' death. However, in a stunning reversal, as he expires, God vindicates him on the basis of the issues raised in the Jewish trial: the veil that bound the Temple sanctuary is torn, robbing that place of its sanctity, and a Gentile recognizes a truth that the high priest could not accept: "Truly, this man was the Son of God."

     The women who had served Jesus in Galilee and followed him to Jerusalem are now presented as having observed Jesus' death from afar. Since they also observe the place where he is buried, they are an important link between the death and the discovery of the empty tomb that reveals the resurrection. The burial is carried out by Joseph of Arimathea, a pious member of the Sanhedrin, who probably wanted to respect the law that the body of a person hanging from a tree should not spend the night.

   • (16, 1-8) The empty tomb and the resurrection. Jesus' body was buried in haste; so early on Sunday morning, after the Sabbath rest, the women buy spices to anoint it. The dramatic rhetorical question about the moving of the stone underlines the divine intervention in the scene: the tomb is opened; a young man, almost certainly to be understood as an angel, is there, but not Jesus' body. The resounding proclamation: "He is risen... he goes before you into Galilee where you will see him", represents the triumph of the Son of Man predicted three times by Jesus (8:31; 9:31; 10:34). The reaction of the women in 16:8 is surprising. They disobey the young man's order to report to the disciples and Peter; they flee and, out of fear, say nothing to anyone. Mark's theology is consistent: even the proclamation of the resurrection does not produce faith without the hearer's personal encounter with suffering and the carrying of the cross.

4. An ending describing resurrection appearances appended by a later copyist (16: 9-20)
   • According to most biblical scholars, the original Gospel ends with 16:8, where the women say nothing to anyone because they were afraid. Since antiquity, this abrupt ending has been a problem, so much so that we find in the manuscripts of Mark's Gospel three different endings added by copyists to correct it.

   • The best attested ending is called the Appendix of Mark or the Longer Ending and is printed as part of the text of Mark in many Bibles. This ending copies elements from Luke, Acts and Matthew. It reports three appearances of the risen Jesus and an ascension. The appendix ends on the comforting note of the Lord working with the missionary disciples and confirming them with miraculous signs.

Whatever his sources, Mark was an authentic author who created an effective whole. The gospel has an overall plan from which one can distinguish two parts with a different tone: in the first part Mark highlights the misunderstanding of the disciples, and in the second part the growing hostility towards Jesus. The two trials of Jesus are carefully paralleled. Jesus' predictions about the disciples are all fulfilled in the middle of the passion narrative, and the themes addressed in the middle (the trial of the Jews) are fulfilled at the end, when Jesus dies. Some of this organization could come from sources, but much of it probably comes from Mark himself. His authorship, then, is evident in the way he organized the material, connected the stories, chose the details to report, and emphasized the themes. But how much of this is his source material, how much is Mark's? Here are some of the suggestions:

1. Proposals of Mark's sources
   1. Extant Sources External To Mark
      The Secret Gospel of Mark has been proposed as the source of Mark, and a short form of The Gospel of Peter as the source of the Marcan Passion. This theory requires a major exercise of imagination and has few adherents.

   2. Blocks Of Material Preserved In Mark
      Many biblical scholars argue that there were one or more written passion narratives prior to Mark that can be traced to Mark's passion. Unfortunately, the reconstructions are very different, and there are few verses that all would attribute to the same type of source or tradition. Those who believe that John wrote independently of Mark use the concordance between these two gospels as a clue to the pre-evangelical material of the passion, but this concordance does not provide the formulation of a consecutive narrative. In short, if there was an earlier account, we do not yet have the methodology to reconstruct it.

   3. Sources for Smaller Blocks of Material
      Each of these blocks is the subject of debate among biblical scholars. For example, one source has been proposed for the five disputes in 2:1-3:6 (forgiveness of sins, welcoming sinners, etc.), and one source (or even one oral and one written source) for the parables in 4:1-34. As for Mark's miracle stories, some have proposed the earlier existence of two cycles (4:35-6:44 and 6:45-8:26) which Mark would have put together, and into which he would have interpolated his own block of material (6:1-33 and 7:1-23).

2. The Difficulty of Finding Criteria
   Why is there so much disagreement in the detection of written sources prior to Mark? At the root of the problem are doubts about the applicability of the criteria used to determine what Mark contributed to the source or sources he used. For example, there have been very careful studies of Mark's style, vocabulary and syntax, and these are very helpful in discussions of the synoptic problem in distinguishing Mark's writing from that of Matthew and Luke. It is much more difficult to be certain how to use the information obtained from them to recognize Mark's putative sources. Was the style of such a source different from Mark's? If the style of the source was different from Mark's, did Mark copy it slavishly, thus allowing us to distinguish it from his own additions? Or, having read what was in the source, did he reformulate the content in his own style?
   1. The Signs of Joining (seams)
      Joining signs (seams) are often used to determine what is Marcan and what is premarcan. For example, in examining Mark, we may find that a certain sequence is awkward because at a particular point the transition from one section to the next is poor. If the material on either side of this "seam" is somewhat dissonant, we might judge that the awkwardness comes not from bad writing but from the fact that someone has joined two bodies of material that did not originally go together. But this is where the questions begin. Was it Mark who did the joining, or was this awkward union already in the source? Is the union really clumsy, or is the clumsiness in the eye of the reader?

   2. Different Styles
      Once again, the presence in Mark of materials of different styles is presented as a criterion for distinguishing Marcan composition from putative sources. But this criterion also has its dangers. Did Mark deliberately vary his style according to what he was describing? If Mark was not always consistent, the presence of different styles is not a definite guide to distinguish the premarcian from the Marcan. Moreover, in judging style, we must take into account the strong influence of orality on Mark. The tradition about Jesus was preached for decades; and even when it was written down, this oral influence continued. And in Mark, signs of orality are evident in his writing. This orality is evident not only in what Mark has taken up but also in the way he presents it. In a context where orality and textuality were mixed, was Mark always consistent in his treatment of his putative source(s), or did he sometimes copy and sometimes rephrase, especially when he joined material from an oral context with material from a written one?

Mark has been interpreted in many different ways, and this depends on the different methods used by biblical scholars: redaction criticism, structuralism, narrative criticism, socio-rhetorical criticism, socio-political criticism, or even assumptions about the origin of composition, e.g. liturgy. Therefore, let us focus on the particular problems that biblical scholars have found in interpreting Mark, which are often reflected in radically different interpretations.

1. Sometimes A Problem Is Detected In The Gospel As It Now Stands

   This problem comes in particular from obscure passages, such as the parables presented as a veiled message for many (4:11-2), or the symbolism of the young man who runs away naked (14:51-52); and the abrupt ending where the women do not pass on the news that Jesus has risen (16:8). Yet these difficult passages are not insurmountable or too numerous.

   Beyond these, there are particular problems that have been highlighted in different approaches to the Gospel. In 1901, the German scholar W. Wrede proposed his theory of messianic secrecy, in which Jesus asks others not to reveal that he is the Messiah, as an important factor in Mark; at the same time, historically, this image would be implausible, according to Wrede, and would have been invented (not necessarily by Mark) in order to facilitate the integration of ancient, non-messianic traditions into a proclamation of Jesus as Messiah. However, there are objections to this thesis. Although Mark is clearly a theological work, it is possible to postulate that Christology goes back to the earliest levels and even to Jesus himself. Mark's secrecy may have its roots in Jesus' historical rejection of certain messianic aspirations of his time and in the fact that he had no developed theological language to express his identity. In any case, for various reasons, most biblical scholars no longer consider the messianic secret to be the key issue in the interpretation of Mark.

   Because of his reputation as a literary critic, F. Kermode's narrative criticism of Mark has received much attention. Writing in defiance of much biblical criticism, he emphasizes Mark's obscurity, so that, despite moments of radiance, the Gospel remains fundamentally a mystery like the parables, arbitrarily excluding readers from the kingdom. Unfortunately, Kermode has isolated Mark's writing from his ultimate Christian theology. The motifs of disobedience, failure, misunderstanding, and darkness are prominent in Mark; but Jesus' death on the cross, which is the darkest moment in the Gospel, is not the end. God's power breaks through, and an outsider like the Roman centurion is not excluded but understood. Whatever the perplexity of the women at the tomb, the readers are not left in uncertainty: Christ is risen and can be seen.

2. More Problems Of Interpretation Are Based On Presuppositions About What Preceded Mark
   1. First, while a large majority of scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were inspired by Mark and Q, the sources for Mark and John are much more hypothetical. Reconstructing the theology of these sources that no longer exist today is doubly hypothetical. Second, to evaluate Marcan or Johannine theology on the basis of corrective changes to these no longer extant sources is triply hypothetical.

   2. Second, commentators also use the putative changes to construct the history of the Marcan community and/or Mark's intention to correct other groups of Christians. Among the gospels, only John (6:61-66; 12:42) specifically criticizes groups of believers in Jesus whose faith he deems insufficient; it is therefore legitimate to consider that John was written, at least in part, to correct other Christians. There is no such open criticism in Mark, and interpreting Mark in the same way goes far beyond the text. Here are some examples:
      1. If Mark knew of the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Peter, and/or some of the known Gnostic apocrypha, correcting or rejecting them, Mark could be seen as supporting a more stable and credible Christology as compared to extravagant, imaginative, exotic (and even erotic) visions of Christ that are more original. For example, in theory, Mark would have omitted from The Gospel of Peter the statement that Jesus felt no pain on the cross, or would have omitted from The Secret Gospel of Mark the scene in which Jesus eats and spends the night with a virtually naked young man whom he raised from the dead. It is also possible that Mark, with his references to the Twelve and his description of women not talking about the resurrection, is supporting a masculine, authoritarian Christianity in contrast to a charismatic Christianity in which women play a greater role. Unfortunately, the evidence is so thin that this approach is rejected by most scholars.

      2. If Mark drew on a pre-Gospel collection of miracles, he may have rejected the approach to Jesus as theios anēr ("divine man") in such a source. But there are the problems of determining
         • if there was really in circulation an ideology of theios anēr,
         • whether the cycles of miracles of Elijah and Elisha in the OT did not offer a better analogy to the miracles of the Gospel than the proposed acts of the Hellenistic miracle workers,
         • whether the corrective approach to the miracle worker is not a reflection of modern skepticism about any image of Jesus as a miracle worker.
         If one accepts the possibility of miracles (healings, reviving the dead, feeding of the crowd, etc.), then a source in which Jesus performed them would endow him with supernatural powers. Mark gives no indication of skepticism about the reality of Jesus' powerful actions. Yet the Gospel can be seen as criticizing two conceptions of miracles.
         • Explicitly, the Jesus of Mark refuses to perform miracles to show or prove his powers,
         • and implicitly, the image of the man who does mighty works is combined with that of an authoritative teacher and a suffering man.

         Thus, if Mark would have used a source that saw Jesus as nothing more than a triumphant miracle worker or a man who made a vain display of his miraculous powers, he would have corrected that source. As for the disciples, Mark's description of their failure was intended to function as a pastoral example to the recipients who had also experienced failure, rather than as a polemic against a false position.

      3. If Mark drew on a collection of parables that predates the Gospel, perhaps in that source Jesus was merely a sophist-like wandering teacher who challenged the ordinary mores of the time. Mark would then have imposed a Christology on the source by combining it with elements presenting Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. Again, unfortunately, the non-Christological stages of Christianity before Mark are purely hypothetical and run counter to much evidence.
      Although many reputable NT scholars construct their analyses of Marcan thought in terms of corrections of putative sources, the uncertainty of source reconstruction makes their analyses highly questionable. And this so-called source could simply be a general Christian trend that Mark seeks to correct.

3. Reading The Gospel For Its Surface Impression

   Let us undertake a surface reading, ignoring the presuppositions of scholars, and we will see how the Christological titles of Jesus (Son of Man, Messiah, Son of God) harmoniously color each other.

   Fulfilling the prophecies of Isaiah and introduced by John the Baptist, a new divine action to deliver the people of God has begun. A heavenly voice, echoing Ps 2, tells the readers from the beginning that Jesus is the only Son of God. In order to bring God's kingdom or dominion into this world, he has the power to teach and to do deeds beyond all expectation. Yet he is tested and thwarted by Satan or the demons who are already in control - foreshadowing the outcome of the story in the passion. Jesus' healings, calming the storm, feeding the hungry and forgiving sins are all manifestations of victory over evil, yet the demons resist this invasion of their territory by the kingdom of God. Another opposition is manifested by those who reject Jesus' teaching and challenge his power, a rejection expressed in particular by the Pharisees and scribes. Finally, opposition is expressed by the fact that those who open themselves up to Jesus and want to follow him do not understand him. They have their own conception of kingship: it must be marked by immediate triumphal success and domination over others in the manner of the kings of this world. Jesus tries to show his followers that God's values are different: those who have no power are more open to God's rule than those who are powerful, and there is nothing more effective than suffering to make people recognize a need for God. Yet, in the middle of the Gospel, it is clear that Jesus does not succeed, and he begins to proclaim that he himself will have to suffer and die. His disciples still do not understand, and they all run away when he is arrested. He is abandoned in his passion as he is unjustly condemned by the high priest of his people and the Roman governor and mocked by all. Even God does not seem to hear him; and yet, at the very moment when he has reached the depths of suffering in death, God vindicates him by showing that what Jesus said is true. He has risen from the dead with the indication that his disciples will see him in Galilee. Where they first came to follow him, they will follow him again, but after they have begun to learn the lesson of suffering.

   By the time Mark writes, Jesus has been preached as the Christ for several decades. To appreciate Mark's contribution, let us ask ourselves what we would know about Jesus if we had only Paul's letters. We would have a wonderful theology of what God has done in Christ, but Jesus would be almost faceless. Mark has the honor of painting that "face" and making it an integral part of the gospel.

1. The data

   The title "The Gospel According to Mark" was attached to this writing in the late 2nd century. In the middle of the 2nd century, Justin (Trypho 106.3) refers to the "memoirs of Peter" as containing a passage found only in Mk 3:16-17. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15- 16) reports an early 2nd century tradition concerning Mark and Matthew that Papias (ca. 125) received from "the elder."

   "Mark, having become the interpreter/ translator of Peter, wrote down accurately, however, not in order, all that he recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard nor followed the Lord; but later (as I said) he followed Peter, who used to adapt his instructions to the needs [of the moment or of the audience], but not with a view of making an orderly account of the Lord's sayings [logia]. Accordingly Mark did no wrong in thus writing down some things as he recalled them, for he made it his aim to omit nothing he had heard and to state nothing therein falsely."

   Such things did Papias recount of Mark; but about Matthew he said these things:

   "Now Matthew arranged in order the sayings [logia] in the Hebrew [= Aramaic?] language, and each one interpreted/ translated as he was able."

2. Analysis of these data
   1. What we know about John Mark

      Let us first note that the name Mark (Greek Markos, from the Latin Marcus) was not uncommon, which helps to complicate the NT references to an individual so named. Acts provides information about a man whom it calls three times "John whose surname was Mark" but only once (15:39) simply "Mark," and whom it associates with Peter, Paul and Barnabas. In Phlm 24, a letter of unquestionable authenticity sent between 55 and 63, Paul mentions a Mark as a fellow worker who was with him where he is writing from (presumably from Ephesus during "the third missionary journey"). Col 4:10, which assumes the same situation as Phlm and may be dependent on him, develops the image of this Mark; he is Barnabas' cousin. 1 Pet 5:13, written from Rome, identifies Mark as the "son" of Peter who is with him there. In 2 Tim 4:11, when Paul is dying in prison (in Rome?), he asks that Mark be brought to him, "because his service is useful to me." It is possible to combine all this into a composite picture of a John called Mark: he was known to Peter in Jerusalem; he was then a companion of Paul, but quarreled with him in the period 46-50; after a few years, this Mark reconciled with the apostle and became a companion again, finally coming to Rome in the 60s where he was useful to both Paul and Peter before their martyrdom.

   2. The value of the Papias tradition

      It is very likely that the tradition of Papias referred to this Mark (John) as the one who wrote what was said and done by the Lord. How plausible is this tradition? On the one hand, if Papias got it from the "elder," we would be dealing with a tradition fashioned in the few decades after the writing. If someone invented a tradition about the author, why attribute the Gospel to such a minor Christian figure? On the other hand, the internal evidence of the Gospel provides little to support the image of Papias and much to challenge it. The fact that in Mark Peter is the most important of the Twelve and almost their representative does not necessarily mean that Peter was the source of the Gospel, for Peter was in fact an important figure in the early church.

      1. A Jew from Jerusalem?

         That the author of this Greek gospel is John Mark, a Jerusalem Jew (presumably speaking Aramaic) who became a Christian early on, is difficult to reconcile with the fact that his gospel does not appear to be a translation of the Aramaic, that it seems to depend on traditions (and perhaps already-formed sources) received in Greek, and that it seems confused as to Palestinian geography. Could the author then be an unknown man named Mark, who was later amalgamated with John Mark?

      2. The interpreter of Peter?

         Did the relationship of (John) Mark to Peter in Acts and 1 Peter give rise to the Papias tradition that the evangelist Mark was inspired by Peter? Papias uses the word "interpreter," but this word could simply mean that he was reformulating Peter's preaching. Papias indicates that Mark was not an eyewitness, that he depended on preaching, and that he imposed his own order on what he wrote - all of which could be consistent with the internal Gospel evidence for the evangelist. Yet the close and immediate relationship posited by Papias between the evangelist and Peter (an eyewitness) is difficult; for some accounts of Jesus' words and deeds in Mark seem secondary to the accounts in Q or the other gospels. So doesn't being Peter's interpreter simply mean that Mark is taking up the Jerusalem apostolic tradition of which Peter is the archetypal figure? Papias could therefore report in a dramatized and simplified way that in his writing about Jesus, Mark reorganized and reformulated content derived from a standard type of preaching considered apostolic. This would explain why Mark's Gospel was so acceptable within a decade that Matthew and Luke reused it in different regions, and it would also explain why John, who writes a different Gospel, nonetheless has similarities with Mark.

The internal indications do not tell us whether we are dealing with the perspective of the author or the recipients or both. This difficulty is the reason why the neutral word "involved" has been used.

At the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria cites Rome as the place where Mark wrote the Gospel, a thesis supported by many scholars. In fact, several internal factors support the Rome hypothesis. The presence in Mark of Greek words borrowed from Latin and expressions reflecting Latin grammar may suggest a place where Latin was spoken. For example:

• legiōn ("legion") in 5: 9.15;
• dēnarion ("denarius) in 6: 37; 12: 15; 14: 5;
• kentyriōn ("centurion") in 15: 39;
• hodon poiein ("to make one's way") in 2: 23, un latinisme pour iter facere ("to make one's way", i.e. to walk);
• to hikanon poiēsai ("to make enough") in 15: 15 un latinisme pour satisfacere ("to satisfy").

To this one might add that the description of the woman as Greek and Syrophoenician in Mark 7:26 represents Western (and therefore probably Roman) linguistic usage. Similarly, the coin kodrantēs (Latin: quadrans) of 12:42 circulated only in the West, not in the East. There are also parallels with Paul's letter to the Romans, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself", which is similar to Mk 7:19: "he declared that all food is clean". And the context of the Christian community in Rome can be enlightening: this community suffered a major Roman persecution around year 64 under Nero, creating among Christians an atmosphere of jealousy (1 Clement 5, 2-7), betrayal, and treachery toward one another (Tacitus, Annals 15, 44); this is a framework that could explain the dark atmosphere of the Gospel according to Mark, the emphasis on the disciples' inability to understand and their flight at the arrest of Jesus, and the necessity of suffering to know the resurrection.

Nevertheless, some biblical scholars have proposed other recipients of Mark:

• Antioch, assuming the dubious hypothesis that Matthew and Luke would also have written their gospel in that city, and therefore would have learned about Mark there.
• Tyre and Sidon in southern Syria, because of their mention in Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31.
• Galilee, because of the contrast in the Gospel between Galilee and Jerusalem, which would express a Christian Galilean polemic against the failed Christian perspective of Jerusalem and explain Mark's interest in Galilee. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is implausible in view of the fact that in Mark the Aramaic terms have to be translated as if the receiving audience did not know that language (3:17; 7:34; 10:46; 15:22,34), which would hardly be true in Galilee, as well as the fact that the basic Jewish purification practices have to be explained (7:3-4) as if the Galilean Jews did not know their religion.

So let's focus on what we can tell about the recipients from a careful reading of Mark, wherever they lived. In short, the audience envisioned by the Gospel was composed, in whole or in part, of people who spoke Greek and did not know Aramaic. Either the author or the audience, or both, lived in a region where Latin was used and had influenced the Greek vocabulary. For the most part, the recipients were not Jewish, since the author had to explain Jewish purification customs to them. Yet he could assume that they would be familiar with religious terms from Judaism (Satan, Beelzebub, Gehenna, Rabbi, Hosanna and Amen), so they were probably Christians who had been converted by evangelists with direct or indirect knowledge of the Jewish-Christian tradition. It is highly likely that they had already heard of Jesus before Mark's Gospel was read to them. Theologically, the recipients had an overheated expectation of an imminent parousia (hence Mark 13), probably activated by the persecution they had undergone, during which a considerable number of them had apostatized.

Among those biblical scholars who give credence to the Papias tradition, Mark would have written just before or after Peter's death and thus in the mid- to late 60s. Internally, this dating is supposed to be supported by Mark's failure to show any knowledge of the details of the first Jewish revolt against Rome in 66-70, and to mention the fall of Jerusalem, whereas Matthew and Luke give us a more explicit picture. But other biblical scholars postulate a date after 70, because they consider it normal that Mark did not mention the fall of Jerusalem, such an event being of no importance outside Palestine. But how could Christians with Jewish roots have ignored the symbolism of these events after they had occurred?

What data do we have? On the one hand, if Mark was used independently by Matthew and Luke and they were written in the 80s or early 90s, as most scholars believe, a date later than 75 seems unlikely. On the other hand, given the state of development of the Greek Jesus tradition in Mark, it must be assumed that several decades have passed since Jesus' time. Therefore, scholars widely agree that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70.

1. The hypothesis adopted in this introduction is that Mark was the first Gospel, and Matthew and Luke used Mark. But what happens if we adopt the different assumption of Augustine, or Griesbach's assumption that Mark was inspired by Matthew and Luke? Here is a list of theological consequences.
   • Mark would then have omitted the Lord's Prayer and the four beatitudes on which Matthew and Luke agree
   • Mk 10:17-18 ("Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone") would have complicated Mt 19:16-17 ("Why do you ask me about the good? One is the one who is good") by gratuitously introducing an objection to the attribution to Jesus of a title that belongs only to God at a time when the title "God" attributed to Jesus was becoming more common
   • Mk 6:5 ("And he could do no miracles there") would deliberately contradict Mt 13:38 ("And there he did not do many miracles") about Jesus' action in Nazareth
   • Mark would have deliberately omitted the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, even the details on which they both agree, including the conception of Jesus by Mary through the Holy Spirit.
   • On the other hand, Mark would have consciously added two elements about Mary that are missing in Matthew and Luke, namely that Jesus' own family thought he was "out of his mind" (3:19b-21) and that he received no honor from his own parents (6:4)
   • Mark would have deliberately omitted both Matthew 16:16-19, which makes Peter the rock on which the Church was built, and Luke 22:31-34, which sees Peter strengthening his brothers after his own failure
   • Mark deliberately omitted Jesus' promise to his disciples in Mt 19:28 and Lk 22:29-30 that they would sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel
   • Mk 4:38 ("Don't you care that we are perishing?") paints a harsher picture of the disciples' attitude towards Jesus than that of Mt 8:25 ("Lord, help! We are perishing")

   In short, making Mark dependent on Matthew has many theological consequences.

2. While limiting themselves to the study of Mark's gospel itself, some biblical scholars interpret this gospel as an attack on the apostles, to the point that after their failure in the passion, they are never redeemed. But is such a negative interpretation justified? Is their constant misunderstanding not simply a human blunder of which all could be guilty? Does Jesus really abandon them, even though he knows they will fail? Do not 14:28 ("when I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee") and 16:7 ("He is going before you into Galilee") give the assurance that Jesus will return them to the role he envisioned when he sent them in 6:7-13?

3. If we had only Mark, without Matthew, we would miss the colorful infancy narrative of Herod and the magi, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the establishment of the church on Peter, and some of the more imaginative elements of the passion (e.g., Judas' suicide). If we had only Mark, without Luke, we would miss the sensitive portrayal of Mary in the infancy narrative, the story of the shepherds, some of the most beautiful parables (the Good Samaritan, the prodigal son), and some of the most tender scenes of the passion (the healing of the servant's ear, the women of Jerusalem on the way to the cross, the "good thief"). This recognition of impoverishment has sometimes led to a low evaluation of Mark as a poor cousin of the other synoptic gospels. As a corrective, an interesting exercise is to read Mark, excluding any knowledge of Jesus from the other gospels, and to reflect on the richness of the portrait of Jesus that it offers.

4. In Mark's passion narrative, the chief priests, scribes and elders plot against Jesus, meet as a Sanhedrin to gather evidence to put him to death, condemn him as deserving of death, spit on him, beat and mock him, accuse him before Pilate, incite the crowd to demand his death, and mock him again as he hangs on the cross. Some scholars see this as an image created to promote anti-Judaism. This assessment must be qualified. Clearly, the passion narrative has dramatized the events, but in terms of the underlying reality, it is quite likely that the Jewish authorities in the Temple and the Sanhedrin were seriously involved in Jesus' death and handed him over to the Romans who executed him. This probability is supported by Paul's statement within twenty years of Jesus' death that Jews were involved in Jesus' death (1 Thess 2:14-16), by the testimony of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus that Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross "on the accusation of the leading men among us" (Jewish Antiquities 18. 3. 3; #64), and by parallel evidence confirming action against other Jews in Jerusalem in the 60s, who were either handed over to the Roman procurator by Jewish leaders after being beaten (Jesus, son of Ananias) or, in the absence of the Roman prefect, executed directly by the high priest who had convened a Sanhedrin (James, brother of Jesus).

   In the Christian picture of what was done to Jesus, there was initially nothing anti-Jewish in the description of the role of the Jewish authorities in his death; indeed, Jesus and his disciples on the one hand and the authorities of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin on the other were all Jews. The description of the Jews opposed to Jesus as plotting evil is no different from the OT description of the wicked plotting against the innocent. For example, in Wisdom 2:17-21, the wicked argue that if the righteous man is the son of God, God will defend him, and they decide to insult him and put him to death. The insults and the work of Jesus took on the hues of the plaintive hymn of Ps 22 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53. Were all the Jewish authorities opposed to Jesus actually evil? No, no more than six hundred years earlier, all those who disagreed with Jeremiah's policy for Judah were evil. Yet the OT narrative portrays them as such, simplifying their motives and dramatizing their actions. Indeed, some of the most sensitive words of Jesus' passion are found in Jeremiah 26.

   Nevertheless, the story of Jesus' passion ended up being "heard" in an anti-Jewish way. The conversion of Gentiles to follow Jesus was an important factor. The early Christian communities sometimes encountered hostility from local synagogue leaders, and they saw a parallel between this hostility and the treatment of Jesus by the authorities of his day. But later, with the conversion of the Gentiles, the issue changed: it was no longer a conflict between Jews, but a conflict between Jews and non-Jews, and from then on the Jews as a group were seen as enemies of the Christians, and thus were responsible for the death of Jesus. Thus, the case of Jesus became different from that of Jeremiah, the righteous man persecuted by the authorities. The case became emotionally dissimilar because those who thought Jesus was right eventually became another religion. Jews and Christians could not say, in this case, that one of their own, whom God raised up, was made to suffer by our leaders. Instead, the Christians told the Jews that your leaders did this to our savior, while for the Jews (in past centuries) it was our leaders who did this to their (false) prophet. Fortunately, attitudes on both sides are changing, but it is still very difficult to overcome the "our", "your" and "their" viewpoints.