Introduction to Mark
Last updated: 9 June 2026
Back to book list Mark 1 commentary
Chapter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
General Introduction
Most scholars agree that the gospel of Mark is the earliest attempt to present the apostolic tradition about the life of Jesus in a written form (Lane, p. 1). The close agreement of Matthew and Luke with Mark in content, order and wording suggest that both Matthew and Luke “had before them a document virtually identical with our Gospel of Mark.” (Lane, p. 1).
Mark introduced a new literary genre to the Roman world - the gospel. His writing does not follow the conventions of a formal historical treatise or biography from the 1st century. Lane (p. 1) describes it as a “witness document”: a proclamation about Jesus and who he is.
It is a historical narrative oriented around a crisis – the death of Jesus the Messiah (Lane, p. 1).
Message
The overarching message of Mark can be seen by considering the opening verse: “The beginning of the preaching of the joyful tidings.” (Mark 1:1 paraphrase). He uses the dual confessions that Jesus is the Son of God – from Peter (Mk 8:29) and the Roman centurion (Mk 15:39) – to convey the message that the gospel is for everyone; Jews and Gentiles alike.
Cranfield (p. 15) suggests that Mark could have had an additional purpose of supplying the liturgical and catechetical needs of the church in Rome, encouraging faith in the face of martyrdom, and providing material for missionary preachers.
Authorship
The text of the gospel does not explicitly state the author. However, church tradition as early as the beginning of the 2nd century A.D. unanimously identifies the author as Mark, the associate of Peter.
Lane (pp. 10-11) has pointed out a striking degree of parallelism between the structure of Mark’s gospel and the content of Peter’s sermon recorded in Acts 10:36-41, which is reproduced and expanded in the table below:
Several passages also focus particularly on Simon Peter, such as Mark 1:36 (“Simon and those who were with him followed him…” and Mark 1:29-30 (healing of Simon’s mother-in-law). Lane (p. 11) proposes that in passages such as these, it is possible to detect Peter’s “voice” behind the Markan form of the narrative.
Given this parallelism and early church tradition, it is reasonable to conclude that the Mark of 1 Pet 5:13 was the author of the gospel. The main question remaining is whether the author Mark is the same person as John Mark from Acts 12:12, 25; 13:13; 15:37-39; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11 and Phlm 24.
The earliest explicit connection between the gospel author and John Mark is from Jerome’s commentary of Philemon (ca. 387 A.D.), where he says, “Marcum… quem puto evangelii conditorem” [“Mark… whom I think to be the author of the gospel]. Jerome’s indirect reference may be because he hadn’t explicitly found this connection in earlier authors. However, writers prior to Jerome likely took it for granted that they were the same person and assumed their readers would do likewise (Cranfield, p. 6).
Some critics have objected that the gospel contains ‘blunders’ concerning Palestinian conditions — which someone native to Jerusalem would never make. However, many of these objections remain unconvincing. The main alleged ‘blunder’ is his dating of the Passion in relation to the Passover, which is likely not a blunder at all (see commentary on Mark 14:12).
In conclusion, it seems “virtually certain” that Mark the associate of Peter, the author of the gospel, and Mark of Acts and the Pauline epistles are the same person (Cranfield, p. 6).
Date
Scholarly consensus places the writing of Mark between 65-70 A.D., and most probably between 65-67 A.D.
The date of writing is constrained by two major features. The earliest possible date must be after Peter’s death, as stated in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue and by Irenaeus. Papias may also imply that it was written after Peter’s death, given his two references to “remembering” (Cranfield, p. 8). This is also supported by internal evidence of the gospel; namely, the frequency and frankness with which Peter’s failure are recounted (e.g. Mark 8:33, 9:5, 14:28, 66-72). If Peter had not yet died at the time of writing, Mark’s account could seem malicious. If however, Mark was writing after Peter’s martyrdom, his failures would be seen as an encouragement for weak believers. It is fairly certain that Peter died in the Neronian persecution of 64-65 A.D., making 65 A.D. the earliest date for the gospel of Mark.
The latest possible date of writing arises from the use of Mark by the later Synoptic gospel writers. Mark had to be written, copied and spread throughout the churches before it could be used as a source text by Matthew and Luke. This makes a date later than 70 A.D. quite unlikely (Cranfield, p. 8).
Chapter 13, which prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, is not coloured by any awareness of the actual events of the Jewish War of 66-70 A.D. In contrast, Luke 21:20-24 seems to show an awareness of these events with a retrospective viewpoint. Hence there is strong internal evidence that Mark wrote his gospel before the later stages of the Jewish War, further narrowing the date to 65-67 A.D. (Cranfield, p. 8).
Place of Writing
Mark most probably wrote his gospel in Rome. Although the evidence is not conclusive, it is much stronger than that put forward in support of any other place (Cranfield, p. 9).
Mark’s translation of Aramaic phrases and explanation of Jewish customs may suggest that he was writing for a primarily Gentile church. Additionally, the rapid and wide spread of the gospel – in addition to its extensive use by the following gospel writers – suggests that it had the authority of an important church behind it. Chrysostom says that Mark wrote the gospel in Egypt; however, this is evidently wrong and probably arises from misunderstanding a statement in Eusebius’ History (2.16) (Cranfield, p. 9). A few modern scholars have proposed that the gospel was written in Antioch; however, Mark 12:42 explains that two mites were equal to a quadrans – a coin that was not in circulation in the east (Cranfield, p. 9). Additionally, there are a large number of other Latin loanwords and some possible Latinisms of idiom that suggest a western over an eastern origin.
The Anti-Marcionite Prologue says that Mark wrote the gospel in Italy, while Clement of Alexandria implies that he wrote it in Rome. Additionally, if one follows early church tradition that the gospel is of Petrine origin, 1 Pet 5:13 clearly states that Mark was in Rome shortly before Peter’s martyrdom. The naming of Simon’s sons (Alexander and Rufus) in Mark 15:21 may suggest that they were known to the church for which Mark was writing. It seems likely that Rufus is the same as the Rufus named by Paul in a series of greetings addressed to the church in Rome (Rom 16:13). It is possible that the prevalent sayings about persecution and martyrdom in Mark (e.g. Mk 8:34-38; 13:9-13) might be another pointer to Rome, if the gospel was written shortly after the Neronian persecution.
In conclusion, the evidence that Mark was written in Rome is strong but not conclusive; however, no viable alternatives have been raised.
Audience
The primary audience of Mark seems to have been Gentiles.
It is notable that Mark provides translations of Aramaic expressions for his readers, such as in Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34. He also explains Jewish customs in Mark 7:3-4; 15:42. This suggests that he was primarily writing for a Gentile audience, who would not have been familiar with these customs and Aramaic expressions.
Historical Background
[to be added]
Historical Reliability
There is a strong case for the historical reliability of the information that Mark presents. Some of these are listed below:
Mark made no attempt to smooth out difficult sections, but includes numerous features which would have offended or perplexed his readers. Matthew and Mark often either omit or modify these features. Examples include: Mk 5:38b (contrast with Matt 8:25 and Lk 8:24); Mk 10:17-18 (contrast Matt 29:16-17); Mk 10:35-37 (contrast Matt 20:20-22); Mk 14:33 (omitted by Luke; softened in Matt 26:37); Mk 14:17 (softened in Lk 22:60); Mk 14:37 (Luke 22:45 adds ἀπο τῆς λύπης to spare the disciples); Mk 15:34 (omitted by Luke).
Style
Mark’s writing style is unpretentious, simple and direct. Cranfield (p. 20) describes the language used as close to the everyday spoken Greek of the time.
Key characteristics of the gospel include (Cranfield, p. 20):
The use of periphrastic tenses (e.g. Mk 2:6, 18; 4:38). These are multi-verb phrases; such as combining the auxiliary verb “to be” with a participle (e.g. “he was teaching” instead of saying the simpler “he taught”).
The use of the historic present.
The use of the indefinite plural (e.g. Mk 1:22, 30, 32, 45).
The use of the aorist of ἅρχομαι as a redundant auxiliary verb (e.g. Mk 1:45; 2:23; 6:7).
The use of parataxis (placing clauses or phrases side-by-side) in preference to subordinate clauses.
The use of asyndeton (placing one sentence after antoher without any connecting particle or conjuction). Examples include Mk 3:35; 4:28; 5:39b; 14:3b, 6c, 8.
The use of Latin loanwords, which are more numerous in Mark than the other gospels. Some of these loanwards only occur in Mark in the New Testament.
The frequent use of εὐθύς [“immediately” or “straight”], which occurs 41 times in Mark, and only 18 other times throughout the remainder of the New Testament. E.g. Mk 1:3, 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30…
The use of diminutives. E.g. θυγάτριον in Mk 5:23 and 7:25; πλοιάριον in Mk 3:9; ὠτάριον in Mk 14:47.
Diffuseness (“wordiness”) in expressions, e.g. Mk 1:32; 7:33; 9:2; 14:61. This is rarely pointless redundancy, but rather the second element in the “double expressions” usually adds further precision, emphasis or dramatic effect.
There is an unmistakable Semitic influence on the Greek used. Aramaic influence is probably responsible for points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and sometimes 10 mentioned above.
Other influences of Aramaic can be seen in the insertion of a resumptive pronoun after a relative (e.g. Mk 1:7); the use of the positive for the comparative or superlative of adjectives (e.g. Mk 9:43, 45, 47); and the use of the proleptic pronoun (e.g. Mk 6:17).
Structure
Broad Structure
The gospel opens with a proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (Mk 1:1). The first half of the book then builds to a climax of Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus is the Messiah (Mk 8:29). Everything prior to this is preparatory for this confession.
In the second half of the book, Jesus directs his way to Jerusalem and the Passion. As Lane (p. 1) points out, he “clarifies what messiahship entails” (e.g. Mk 8:31). Martin Kähler describes Mark’s gospel as “a passion-narrative” with an extended introduction.” This is fitting, as almost half of Mark’s 16 chapters are set during Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and final days there. And it is in Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection that we can most clearly see the revelation of God in Christ (Lane, p. 2).
The second half of Mark climaxes with the Roman centurion in charge of the crucifixion confessing that Jesus is the Son of God (Mk 15:39). Mark uses these two confessions – one from the mouth of a representative of Israel and the other from a Gentile leader – to show that the gospel is for the entire world.
A general structure is as follows (Cranfield, p. 14):
The beginning – 1:1-13
Beginnings of the Galilean ministry – 1:14-3:6
Later stages of the Galilean ministry 3:7-6:13
Jesus goes outside Galilee – 6:14-8:26
The way to Jerusalem – 8:27-10:52
Ministry in Jerusalem – 11:1-13:37
The passion – 14:1-15:47
The resurrection – 16:1-8 (+9-20)
The four sections of the second half (beginning from Mk 8:27) are quite well recognised, but commentators differ more on how to divide the first half of the book.
Detailed Structure
[to be added]
Design Features
A thread of movement runs throughout the gospel, paving the way for the acceleration of tension and movement which characterises the Passion narrative. Lane (p. 2) notes the increasing frequency with which Jesus and his opponents speak, as seen in the following references: Mark 2:20; 3:5-6; 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33-34, 38, 45; 12:6-8; 14:1-2, 8, 10-11, 17-21, 22-25, 27, 34, 36, 37-38, 41-42, 48-49.
Even at the opening of the gospel, the arrest of John the Baptist (Mk 1:14) foreshadows the eventual arrest of Jesus, of whom he was the forerunner. Other foreshadowing includes the increasing opposition to Jesus culminating in a plot for his death (Mk 2:1-3:6), Jesus’ rejection by his home town (Mk 6:1-6a), Herod’s fears (Mk 6:14-16) and John’s execution (Mk 6:17-29).
Lane (p. 12) suggests that some incidents in the gospel are structured as apparent introductions to sermons, with conclusions calling for men “to consider some aspect of the dignity of Jesus”. Examples of this include Mark 2:1-12; 4:35-41; 7:31-37.
Mark also presents a series of increasingly clear mission-sayings, which cause the reader to reflect on why the Father has sent Jesus into the world (Mk 2:17; 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34, 45). These also introduce the reader to the offense of the cross and prepare them for the witness of the empty tomb and the angel’s words in Mark 16:6: “You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, He is not here. See the place where they laid him.”
Early Tradition
The earliest extant statement about the Gospel of Mark comes from Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who wrote Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles in approximately A.D. 140. Although this book is now lost, the church historian Eusebius quoted directly from Papias in his writing (Historia Ecclesiastica III. 39. 15):
“This also the Elder said: Mark, who became Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor been one of His followers, but afterwards, as I said, he had followed Peter, who used to compose his discourses with a view to the needs [of his hearers], but not as if he were composing a systematic account of the Lord’s sayings. So Mark did nothing blameworthy in thus writing somethings just as he remembered them; for he was careful of this one thing, to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no untrue statement therein.” (translation from Cranfield, p. 3).
It is notable that in the first sentence, Papias is quoting from an old contemporary (“the Elder”) and thus representing the view of the church in Asia at the beginning of the 2nd century or earlier. Although not certain, it is most likely “the Elder” is referring to the Elder John, as Eusebius has referred to John in another quote from Papias just prior to this.
This quote also suggests a certain lack of order in the gospel, although it is not clear whether this refers to the chronological order of events portrayed, or the systematic arrangement and comprehensiveness. However, it is clear in identifying Mark as the author, Mark as a close associate of Peter, and the accuracy of the information included. Nevertheless, Papias also confirms Mark’s initiative and independence from Peter in composing the gospel. Cranfield (p. 4) suggests that the 2nd and 3rd sentences are probably not part of the original quotation, but are a gloss explaining that the lack of order is due to Mark not being a first-hand witness but confirming the gospel’s accuracy and apostolic authority.
The meaning of the phrase ἑρμηνεθτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος is not clear: it could mean (1) that Mark was the interpreter for Peter when he was teaching, (2) that Mark translated Peter’s Aramaic into Greek, or (3) Mark made Peter’s memories more available and accessible to people by writing them down.
Papias was the first to identify Mark as the author of this gospel, and this tradition was universally accepted by all writers who came after him.
The next historical witness is the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, which is a preface attached to the gospels in many Old Latin manuscripts. Most consider this prologue is from ca. 160-180 A.D., although some scholars date it much later (Cranfield, p. 4). The beginning of the preface to Mark has been lost, but the remaining fragment supports Papias’ claim about the authorship of Mark, while adding further information that it was written in Rome after Peter’s death:
“... Mark declared, who is called ‘Stump-fingered’, because he had short fingers in comparison with the size of the rest of his body. He was Peter’s interpreter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”
Irenaeus (ca. 175-180 A.D.) supports this tradition for the authorship of the gospel by Mark in Rome after Peter’s death:
“And after the death of these [i.e. Peter and Paul] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.” (Against Heresies III. 1. 1)
The Muratorian Canon, a list of the books which the church at Rome considered to be authoritative (ca. 170-190 A.D.), has come down to us in a highly fragmented form. However, the first sentence reads, “... at some things he was present, and so he recorded them.” It is clear that this sentence refers to Mark, as it is followed by a reference to Luke as the third of the gospels. Most scholars consider it probable that start of this sentence referred to Peter’s preaching and teaching (Lane, p. 10).
All four of these witnesses can be dated prior to 200 A.D., giving a clear, unanimous and early church tradition of Mark being the author of this gospel, with the material sourced from Peter. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (both ca. 200 A.D.) provide further support. There appears to be a tendency for later authors to heighten the connection with Peter (Cranfield, p. 5). For example, Clement of Alexandria indicates that the gospel was written during Peter’s lifetime, who “neither actively hindered nor encouraged the writing (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI. 14), but “ratified the writing for reading in the churches” (ibid. II. 15). However, the early and reliable support for Mark writing after Peter’s death outweighs this later testimony.
Manuscript Transmission
The earliest known manuscript of Mark is P¹³⁷, which is dated to 150–250 AD.
[to be added]
The Priority of the Gospel of Mark
There is wide agreement among scholars that Mark was the first gospel written. The main arguments for this are as follows (Cranfield, pp. 6-7):
The “substance” of >90% of Mark’s verses is contained in Matthew, and >50% of it is contained in Luke.
Where the same matter occurs in all three Synoptic gospels, usually >50% of Mark’s actual words are found in either Matthew, Luke or both.
There is often agreement in sentence structure and collocation of words between Matthew and Luke and Mark, or between one of them and Mark. However, it is rare that Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark.
Where the langauge of Matthew and/or Luke differs from that of Mark, it often is a grammatical or stylistic improvement.
Usually all three Synoptics agree in the order in which common material is arranged. In the cases where either Matthew or Luke differs from Mark, the other usually agrees with him.
Things in Mark which could offend or perplex the reader are sometimes omitted or presented in a less provocative form in Matthew and Luke.
For example, see Mark 15:34 which is omitted by Luke; Mark 4:38b which differs in Mt 8:25 and Lk 8:24; and Mark 10:17-18 compared to Mt 19:16-17.The disciples’ pre-resurrection address of ‘Rabbi’ or ‘Teacher’ is faithfully reflected by Mark. Matthew and Luke reflect the use of the post-resurrection church, portraying Jesus being addressed by the title ‘Lord’.
Some scholars (e.g. Abbot Butler) have argued that Matthew was written first and subsequently used by Mark, but this fails to take into account:
Matthew’s style is much more succinct than Mark’s. It is understandable that Matthew would omit superfluous words and phrases from Mark in order to make room for additional material. However, it is almost unthinkable that the reverse process – omitting valuable material in order to make room for lengthy phrases – would occur if Mark was copying from Matthew.
Where Matthew’s order differs from that in Mark, it appears to be secondary. For example, see Mark 2:1-3:6 and Mk 6:6b-33 compared to the parallel passages in Matthew.
Irenaeus dates the composition of Mark as after Matthew (Against Heresies, III 1. 1) and Augustine also speaks of Mark having followed Matthew tamquam pedisequus et breviator eius (“as his footman and shortener”) (de Cons. Evang. I. 2. 4). This seems to have been the prevailing view until the 19th century.
The Divinity of Jesus in Every Chapter of Mark
Some critical scholars have argued that as the earliest gospel, Mark presents the “least divine” picture of Jesus. However, these passages in almost every chapter throughout Mark clearly show his divinity.
Mk 1:1
Mk 1:3
Mk 1:9-11
Mk 1:23-24
Mk 2:5
Mk 2:27-28
Mk 3:11
Mk 5:6-7
Mk 7:18-19
Mk 8:34-38
Mk 9:7
Mk 10:17-18
Mk 13:26-27
Mk 13:31
Mk 13:32
Mk 14:61-64
History of Scholarship
During the patristic period, the gospel of Mark was almost entirely overshadowed by the gospel of Matthew. In the late 5th century A.D., Victor of Antioch complained that there was a total absence of commentaries on Mark. To fill this gap, he compiled a commentary from previous authors who had incidentally commented on Mark in their expositions on the other three gospels (including Origen, Titus of Bostra, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria).
Even following this period, Mark was still generally seen as an abstract of Matthew (Lane, p. 3). It was also believed that Matthew was the earliest gospel; hence Mark was the least read and commented on of the gospels. Thus it was not until the emergence of modern criticism and the “synoptic problem” until the gospel of Mark was seriously studied.
Scholars of the synoptic problem believed that Mark represented the earliest form of the gospel message.
In 1956, Willi Marxsen published Der Evangelist Markus – Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums, which gave a new direction to Markan studies. Marxsen called his approach “redaction criticism” and highlighted the well-planned, particular character of the gospel, which demanded “an individual, an author-personality who pursues a definite goal with his work” (p. 18).
Cranfield (pp. 11-12) suggested that four kinds of narrative material could be distinguished in Mark’s gospel:
Vivid narratives with a wealth of detail – indicating they were likely derived from an eyewitness. Many of these passages feature Peter prominently or were only witnessed by a few people including Peter. Examples include Mk 1:16-20, 29-31, 35-38; 5:21-24, 35-43 (particularly vv. 37 and 40); 9:2-8; 14:27-31, 32-42, 54, 66-72. Note in particular that Mk 9:14-27 is told from the point of view of those who returned with Jesus, of whom Peter was one.
Narratives with a ‘rounded’ form and lack of vivid details. Cranfield suggests that these are units of oral tradition which have been ‘worn smooth’ by frequent repetition. Many sections designated in this category are pronouncement stories which have a saying of Jesus as their climax (e.g. Mk 2:18-20; 2:23-26; 3:31-35).
Narratives which appear to be based on tradition, but have been constructed by Mark himself. They lack vivid details and are rather vague (e.g. Mk 3:13-19; 6:6b-13; 6:30-33; 6:53-56).
Brief summary statements, used to describe what was happening during a certain period in general terms. These make up the majority of the framework of the gospel. Examples include Mk 1:14-15; 3:7-12; 4:33-34.
There is also a large amount of ‘sayings material’ in Mark; some of which scholars regard as Petrine in origin, and others from oral tradition (either with or without the narrative setting in which they were pronounced).
Various propositions have been made by scholars, including that there was an earlier ‘edition’ of Mark (denoted Ur-Markus) which lacked the material which both Matthew and Luke lack; but this has not gained general acceptance.
References
Cranfield, C.E.B. (1966). The Gospel According to St Mark. The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge University Press.
Kähler, M. (1964 translation of 1896 ed.). The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ.
Lane, W.L. (1974). The Gospel of Mark. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. William B. Eerdmans.