Mark. Kim Huat Tan
Читать онлайн книгу.
Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SOTBT Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 9 vols. Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. ET. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-74.
TGST Tesi greogariana, Serie theologia
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft
Introduction
Larger works have detailed discussions on what is usually known as “Introduction.” Consequently, we will provide only a sketch of where this commentary stands in relation to such matters.
Authorship
There is no explicit mention of who the author is in the text of the Second Gospel1 but we believe him to be Mark. The case for this is based mainly on two considerations: the superscription and the external testimony.
Superscription
In ancient times the author’s name is found usually in the superscription—something that precedes the actual work, and may be treated as the equivalent to the title page in modern books. The text proper seldom identifies the author.2 All the available Greek manuscripts of this Gospel featuring a superscription unanimously name Mark as the author.3 The earliest manuscripts that have this feature come from the fourth century.4 Later manuscripts contain superscriptions in different forms, usually expanded from the simple kata Markon.5 Some scholars use this to infer that all superscriptions are artificial, leading to the thesis that this Gospel circulated anonymously at the first until a couple of centuries later.6 What remains significant, however, is that despite the varied forms, all of them consistently state that Mark is the author. Such consistency cannot be ignored.
Moreover, Mark is not the name of an apostle, or an important figure in the history of earliest Christianity. Why should a rather obscure name be passed off as the author of this important work, when there were better candidates? Indeed, the two-document hypothesis7 adds strength to this argument, as it means our Gospel was significant enough to be utilized by both Matthew and Luke. If a name has to be fabricated to identify a significant anonymous work, we would not have expected “Mark.” The name “Mark” therefore carries with it a ring of authenticity.
Furthermore, written Gospels started circulating as early as the first century. We may use John’s Gospel as an illuminating example. This work was already being copied in Egypt by AD 125,8 a mere thirty years or so after its composition, which is usually believed to be in Ephesus. Although we do not have similar evidence in the case of the Second Gospel, we may posit that it must have started circulating in the first century, since it was used by Matthew and Luke. Early circulation of Gospels necessitated some sort of labelling, so as to distinguish the one from the other.9
All the above observations mean that even if the Second Gospel was published anonymously, this anonymity would have disappeared almost from the very start, when it started circulating. In other words, even if we deem the superscriptions as secondary, we will still have to accept that they may very well have enshrined a truth. Significantly, there is only one name offered by them as the author: Mark.
Early Patristic Testimonies
The earliest and most-discussed testimony comes from Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in the early second century. His work, Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles, was written around AD 110,10 but it is now lost except for excerpts that are cited in Eusebius’s book, Ecclesiastical History, written in the fourth century. Papias testifies that Mark wrote the “oracles of the Lord,” dependent on Peter’s memories.11 Of course, this does not necessarily mean that our current Gospel is being referred to. That said, it is clear that as early as the beginning of the second century, Mark was connected with the writing of a compilation of Jesus’ teachings.
Irenaeus supports Papias’s testimony. Since Irenaeus is defending the authenticity of the four canonical Gospels as we now have them, it is important that he had a strong case, as otherwise his opponents could have easily destroyed it. He indicates clearly that Mark is the author of the Second Gospel, and that Peter is his source.12 We do not have room to cite all the relevant testimonies from other early Church Fathers. Suffice it to say that their testimonies are consistent with what has been presented.
Some scholars have dismissed the significance of the consistency of these testimonies by arguing that they were all dependent on Papias. So the many and varied witnesses are reduced to only one. The onus of proof is really on them, and they have not clinched their case. Moreover, it is more reasonable to believe this united testimony as reliable than to think it has been fabricated or confusingly mentioned by someone prominent, and from henceforth became the stuff of influential tradition.
To draw the threads of our argument together: Papias testifies that Mark wrote the “oracles of the Lord.” Patristic testimonies and the superscriptions in their varied forms speak with one voice: Mark wrote the Second Gospel. This Gospel was significant enough to be linked to Peter, and used by Matthew and Luke. That an important work is connected with an insignificant name indicates authenticity.
The Evangelist Mark
Who exactly is this Mark? The early patristic testimony identifies him as someone closely associated with Peter. As no other descriptors of his identity is given, we may surmise that the brief datum was enough for early Christians to decipher his identity. If this consideration is correct, we are led to look for a Mark in the earliest accounts of the rise of the church. The NT books are key here.
The Acts of the Apostles mentions a certain John Mark was once a travelling companion of the apostle Paul, and left him later (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37). This is probably the same person mentioned in the Pauline tradition (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24). All this testimony, if it refers to one person, puts Mark as someone associated with Paul. In 1 Peter 5:13, however, a certain Mark is expressly referred to as “son” by the writer of the letter. Early tradition does not cast any doubt that behind 1 Peter stands Peter the apostle. If all this evidence speaks of two or three well-known Marks, we should have expected some sort of differentiation: either by assigning a title, or a toponym. Since there is no such attempt, it is reasonable to think that only one person is referred to: John Mark who was once the travelling companion of Paul but who became closely associated with Peter later on.
Can we know more about John Mark? Additional information may be found in the Anti-Marcionite Prologues (c. AD 180), that is if these enshrined an authentic traditions. In the relevant Prologue, Mark is described as stumpy-fingered. This datum might interest some readers but it adds nothing significant to our interpretation of his book.
What if our identification is wrong? Nothing substantial is affected in terms of exegesis if we are only concerned with unpacking the message of the book. Of course, if it is true that the book is written by John Mark, and that Peter was his source, the implication for historical reconstruction of earliest Christianity would certainly be significant.
Date
Many scholars date the composition of Mark’s Gospel to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.13 One reason for this is that in chapter 13 Jesus is recorded as predicting the destruction of the Temple. Since Mark is fond of adding editorial comments (e.g., 7:3–4), we should expect a mention that this prophecy had been fulfilled if the book was written post-70. Furthermore, Josephus tells us that there was a great fire that destroyed the Temple. The fact that none of these is mentioned speaks for a pre-70 composition.
Is