Mark's authorship, dating, and historical context in early Christianity

Exegesis

Gospel of Mark: Background

The Gospel of Mark is an "anonymous" text named only "in order to distinguish it from the other gospels," ("The Gospel of Mark" n.d.). However, Mark's identity is believed to be linked to Peter. Textual and historical evidence may suggest that Mark was a "disciple and interpreter" for Peter, and that the Gospel of Mark is in fact the teachings of Peter written by Mark (Kirby 2006 "The Gospel of Mark"). Indeed, sources from the first century testify that Mark was a follower of Peter and that he had "written what Peter had preached," (MacRory 1910). According to Irenaeus, "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter," (in Against Heresies III.1 and III.10.6, cited by MacRory 1910). Regardless of its somewhat nebulous authorship, the Gospel according to Mark would become the root text that influenced both Matthew and Luke, who, according to Donahue & Harrington (2002), "revised and expanded" Mark's story (p. 1).

Kirby (2006 "The Gospel of Mark") also points out that the author of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been "suffering through tribulations and his traditions betray resentment of Roman power, he wants to distance himself from the Jews who are at the cause of the revolt. At the same time he wants to present Christianity as something that is politically innocuous to the Roman authorities."

Donahue & Harrington (2002) agree that Mark was indeed writing in response to "a Christian community that was suffering persecution (most likely at Rome around 70 C.E.) in the hope that his text (his story of Jesus) would become their 'text' too," (p. 1). The appeal to appease the Roman authorities is underscored by a distinct anti-Semitic sentiment in the Gospel of Mark, as the author exhibits "a tendency to exonerate Pilate and blame the Jews," (Kirby 2006, "The Gospel of Mark"). Because of internal textual references to the first Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple around 70 C.E., "the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE," (Kirby 2006).

Moreover, "it is certain that the Gospel was written at Rome," (MacRory 1910). Peter had been speaking publicly in Rome, and Mark interpreted and penned the text. The Gospel of Mark is considered as the "second gospel" which has been traditionally endowed with "Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter," (MacRory 1910).

Gospel of Matthew: Background

The Gospel of Matthew is almost universally and incontrovertibly believed to be "dependent upon the Gospel of Mark," (Kirby 2006 "Gospel of Matthew"). The Gospel of Matthew shares structural features in common with the Gospel of Mark (Harrington 1991). Matthew was most likely not a first-hand witness to Christ, and the author relied on Mark's word for formulate his vision of the life of Christ. However, Matthew may have been from Antioch (Kirby 2006, "Gospel of Matthew"). The only existing text of the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and intended for what Harrington (1991) calls a "Jewish Christian" audience. Although no Hebrew copy exists, some sources claim that Matthew originally wrote the text in Hebrew and later translated it (Jacquier 1911).

Jewish "rhetoric" and Jewish "themes" are used throughout the text to persuade readers (Harrington 1991). Like the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew reveals budding anti-Semitism due to the increasing tensions between Jewish sympathizers with early Christianity and traditional Jews around the time of the Zealots and the revolt leading up to the destruction of the first temple in 70 C.E. Yet Harrington (1991) finds that Matthew enhanced Mark's existing Gospel so that it would root Jesus and the teachings of Jesus more solidly in the Old Testament. Therefore, both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark can be viewed as evangelical attempts to convert the Roman and the Roman-Jewish community. The Gospel of Matthew is dated to around 100 C.E. (Harrington 1991).

The Gospel of Luke: Background

The Gospel of Luke seems to share more in common with Pauline texts, especially Acts, than it does with the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (Kirby 2006 "Gospel of Luke"). Luke writes with keen admiration of Paul (Johnson 1991). Yet Luke did have access to, and was influenced by, Mark's Gospel and undertook a retelling of the story of Jesus (Kirby 2006 "Gospel of Luke"). The Gospel of Luke is noted for its "stylistic fluency...rhetorical conventions" and "dense scriptural allusions," (Johnson 1991). More than either Mark or Matthew, Luke seems to have become aware of Christianity as a budding religious power and uses the text to synthesize the story of Jesus with the story of the beginning of the Church (Johnson 1991).

Like Matthew, Luke most likely hailed from Antioch but unlike Mark or Matthew, Luke was not a Jew but a Greek by birth (Aherne 1910). Luke was uncircumcised, but he did have extensive knowledge of Jewish teachings that he gained from his proximity to Paul (Aherne 1910). What makes the Gospel of Luke even more outstanding it that it appears to have been written for a Christian Gentile audience, one that had already accepted Christ. As Johnson (1991), the Gospel of Luke was "written to confirm teachings already held," (p. 3). The Gospel of Luke is not written with an evangelical tone. Also unlike Matthew and especially Mark, Luke was also not writing in response to social upheaval such as the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish Revolt or unrest in Rome.

The Gospel of Luke is outstanding for its deft narration and storytelling. Any political message that may have been naturally infused into the Gospels of Mark and Matthew has been transmuted. The Gospel of Luke represents Christianity coming into its own as a self-confident, self-contained religion. Stories about Jesus are in the Gospel of Luke becoming akin to cultural folklore (Johnson 1991).

Matthew 8

The story of Jesus healing the leper appears in the Gospel of Matthew. Told in nearly the same tone as Mark, Jesus blesses and heals the man and then tells him, "But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them," (Matthew 8:4). Although a more terse version of the story, the underlying message is the same. Jesus wanted the High Priests to take the credit for the healing so that they would not view Jesus as a threat. Jesus was aware that he was a subversive power. Matthew does omit the part about Jesus needing to go into hiding. This suggests that the author had less of a need to emphasize the theme of persecution than Mark did. Mark makes sure this story is told from the perspective of the oppressed.

Matthew also recounts the tale of Jesus forgiving the paralyzed man, calling into question his divine authority. As with the story of the leper, Mark's version is far more dramatic than is Matthew's. In Mark's version, the aides had to cut a hole in the ceiling to deliver the man upon a stretcher. Matthew simply says that some men brought over a paralyzed man on a mat. Similarly, Matthew only has the crowd yelling once and not over and over, "This fellow is blaspheming!" (Matthew 9:3). It is almost as if the author expects that the audience will already be familiar with the story told by Mark. Moreover, Jesus appears more confident in Matthew's version. Jesus tells the angry crowd, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?" And then asserts his "authority" as the Son of Man (Matthew 8:4; 6). It becomes clear that Christianity itself was being increasingly viewed as mainstream by the time Matthew delivered his Gospel.

Luke 5

If Matthew's Gospel is filled with a more confident tone than was Mark's, then Luke's is even more so. The confidence with which Luke tells the stories of Jesus's healing does not preclude the author from using a deft narrative style. Luke resurrects the anecdote about Jesus retreating after he healed the man with leprosy. Only in Luke, the author does not imply that Jesus did this to hide from the authorities. Instead, Jesus simply "withdrew to lonely places and prayed," (Luke 5:16).

When Jesus forgives and heals the paralyzed man, Luke tells the story quite differently from Mark and Matthew. In Luke's version it is not just a crowd of Jewish onlookers who are perturbed by Jesus's proclamation of forgiveness. Now, the angry mob includes "The Pharisees and the teachers of the law," who "began thinking to themselves, 'Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?," (Luke 5:21). The difference between the Mark and Matthew accounts and the Luke accounts is politically momentous. Here, Luke is purposely interjecting the Jewish authorities as being directly antagonistic towards Christ. Any lingering anti-Semitism present in the Gospel of Matthew has come to fruition in the Gospel of Luke.

Conclusion

Mark, Matthew, and Luke convey the life and teachings of Jesus in their respective gospels. However similar the stories may seem on the surface, close textual readings reveal striking differences in the authors' accounts. These differences may be traced to the historical, social, and political contexts in which the Gospels were written. Biblical exegesis clarifies the canonization of the Christian gospel and traces the evolution of Christianity from a divergent Jewish sect into a full-fledged, self-assured religious authority.