Most scholars date Mark to closely after AD 70.[6] They reject the traditional ascription toMark the Evangelist, the companion of theApostle Peter, which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure, and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[7] It was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, as an inferior abridgement of what was regarded as the most important gospel,Matthew.[8] The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily fromJohn, and only distantly from Mark.[9] It was only in the 19th century that Mark came to be seen as the earliest of the four gospels, and as a source used by both Matthew andLuke.[9] The hypothesis ofMarcan priority (that Mark was written first) continues to be held by the majority of scholars today, and there is a new recognition of the author as an artist and theologian using a range of literary devices to convey his conception of Jesus as the authoritative yet suffering Son of God.[9]
Andrea Mantegna'sSt. Mark, 1448Thetwo-source hypothesis: Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called theQ source when composing their own gospels.
An early Christian tradition deriving fromPapias of Hierapolis (c.60–c.130 AD)[10] regards the Gospel as being based on the preaching of Saint Peter, as recorded byJohn Mark, who is mentioned in theFirst Epistle of Peter as a companion and interpreter ofPeter.[11][7][12][13] Most scholars argue that it was written anonymously,[11][12][b] and that the name of Mark was attached to it[when?] to link it to an authoritative figure,[7] according toAdela Yarbro Collins, already early on, and not in a later stage of the early Church history.[c]Helen Bond also argues that the name goes back to the earliest period of circulation and claims that the Gospel was written by somebody named Mark.[15]Gerd Theissen also argues for homonimity.[16] It is usually dated through theeschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to theFirst Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to thedestruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior.[17][18][d] Most scholars place Mark during the buildup of theFirst Jewish-Roman War (65-70 CE), while a plurality date it shortly afterwards (71-75 CE).[19] The dating around 70 AD is not dependent on the naturalistic argument thatJesus could not have made an accurate prophecy; scholars like Michael Barber and Amy-Jill Levine argue theHistorical Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple.[20] Whether the Gospels were composed before or after 70 AD, according to Bas van Os, the lifetime of various eyewitnesses that includes Jesus's own family through the end of theFirst Century is very likely statistically.[21]Markus Bockmuehl finds this structure of lifetime memory in various early Christian traditions.[22] The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as the conflict stories which appear in Mark 2:1-3:6,apocalyptic discourse such as Mark 13:1–37, miracle stories, parables, a passion narrative, and collections of sayings, although not the hypothesizedQ source.[7][23] WhileWerner Kelber in his media contrast model argued that the transition from oral sources to the written Gospel of Mark represented a major break in transmission, going as far to claim that the latter tried to stifle the former,James DG Dunn argues that such distinctions are greatly exaggerated and that Mark largely preserved the Jesus tradition back to his lifetime.[24][25] Rafael Rodriguez too is critical of Kelber's divide.[26]
The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek, for agentile audience, and probably inRome, althoughGalilee,Antioch (third-largest city in theRoman Empire, located in northern Syria), andsouthern Syria have also been suggested.[27][28] Theologian and formerArchbishop of CanterburyRowan Williams proposed that Libya was a possible setting, as it was the location of Cyrene and there is a long-held Arabic tradition of Mark's residence there.[29]
The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre ofbios, orancient biography.[30] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, and also included morals and rhetoric in their works.[31] Like all the synoptic gospels, the purpose of writing was to strengthen the faith of those who already believed, as opposed to serving as a tractate for missionary conversion.[32] Christian churches were small communities of believers, often based on households (an autocratic patriarch plus extended family, slaves, freedmen, and other clients), and the evangelists often wrote on two levels: one the "historical" presentation of the story of Jesus, the other dealing with the concerns of the author's own day. Thus the proclamation of Jesus in Mark 1:14 and the following verses, for example, mixes the terms Jesus would have used as a 1st-century Jew ("kingdom of God") and those of the early church ("believe", "gospel").[33]
Christianity began withinJudaism, with a Christian "church" (orἐκκλησία,ekklesia, meaning 'assembly') that arose shortly after Jesus's death when some of his followers claimed to have witnessed him risen from the dead.[34] From the outset, Christians depended heavily onJewish literature, supporting their convictions through the Jewish scriptures.[35] Those convictions involved a nucleus of key concepts: the messiah, theson of God and theson of man, thesuffering servant, theDay of the Lord, and thekingdom of God. Uniting these ideas was the common thread of apocalyptic expectation: Both Jews and Christians believed that the end of history was at hand, that God would very soon come to punish their enemies and establish his own rule, and that they were at the centre of his plans. Christians read the Jewish scripture as a figure or type of Jesus Christ, so that the goal of Christian literature became an experience of the living Christ.[36] The new movement spread around the eastern Mediterranean and to Rome and further west, and assumed a distinct identity, although the groups within it remained extremely diverse.[34]
The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be setside by side in parallel columns. The fact that they share so much material verbatim and yet also exhibit important differences has led to several hypotheses explaining their interdependence, a phenomenon termed thesynoptic problem.
Up until the 19th century, the gospel of Mark was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, and was believed to be an abridgement ofMatthew. The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily fromJohn, and only distantly from Mark. However, in the 19th century, a theory was developed known asMarcan priority, which held that Mark was the first of the four gospels written.[8] In this view, Mark was a source used by both Matthew andLuke, who agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.[37] The hypothesis of Marcan priority is held by the majority of scholars today, and there is a new recognition of the author as an artist and theologian using a range of literary devices to convey his conception of Jesus as the authoritative yet suffering Son of God.[9]
The idea of Marcan priority first gained widespread acceptance during the 19th century. From this position, it was generally assumed that Mark's provenance meant that it was the most reliable of the four gospels as a source for facts about thehistorical Jesus. However, the conceit that Mark could be used to reconstruct the historical Jesus suffered two severe blows in the early 20th century. Firstly, in 1901William Wrede put forward an argument that the "Messianic Secret" motif within Mark had actually been a creation of the early church instead of a reflection of the historical Jesus. In 1919,Karl Ludwig Schmidt argued that the links between episodes in Mark were a literary invention of the author, meaning that the text could not be used as evidence in attempts to reconstruct the chronology of Jesus' mission.[38] The latter half of the 20th century saw a consensus emerge among scholars that the author of Mark had primarily intended to announce a message rather than to report history.[39] Nonetheless, Mark is generally seen as the most reliable of the four gospels in its overall description of Jesus' life and ministry.[40] Michael Patrick Barber has challenged the prevailing view, arguing that "Matthew's overall portrait presents us with a historically plausible picture..." of theHistorical Jesus.Dale Allison had already argued that theGospel of Matthew is more accurate than Mark in several regards, but was finally convinced by Barber's work to no longer regard the "uniquely Matthean" materials as ahistorical, declaring that theHistorical Jesus "is not buried beneath Matthew but stares at us from its surface".[41] Matthew Thiessen wholeheartedly agrees as well, finding no fault in Barber's work.[42][e]
There is currently no agreement on the structure of Mark.[43] There is, however, a widely recognised break at Mark 8:26–31: before 8:26 there are numerous miracle stories, the action is in Galilee, and Jesus preaches to the crowds, while after 8:31 there are hardly any miracles, the action shifts from Galilee to gentile areas or hostile Judea, and Jesus teaches the disciples.[44] Peter's confession at Mark 8:27–30 that Jesus is the messiah thus forms the watershed to the whole gospel.[45] A further generally recognised turning point comes at the end of chapter 10, when Jesus and his followers arrive in Jerusalem and the foreseen confrontation with the Temple authorities begins, leadingR.T. France to characterise Mark as a three-act drama.[46] A four-act drama acknowledges a further turning point at 6.1, with divisions at 1.21, 6.1, 8.27 and 11.1. This scheme identifies Four Series of Seven Days, where the Series are arranged as a classic chiasm, ABB'A' and the Days in each Series are arranged as in Homer'sIliad ABB'-X-ABB'.[47] James Edwards in his 2002 commentary points out that the gospel can be seen as a series of questions asking first who Jesus is (the answer being that he is the messiah), then what form his mission takes (a mission of suffering culminating in the crucifixion and resurrection, events only to be understood when the questions are answered), while another scholar, C. Myers, has made what Edwards calls a "compelling case" for recognising the incidents of Jesus' baptism,transfiguration and crucifixion, at the beginning, middle and end of the gospel, as three key moments, each with common elements, and each portrayed in an apocalyptic light.[48] Stephen H. Smith has made the point that the structure of Mark is similar to the structure of aGreek tragedy.[49]
Jesus is first announced as the Messiah and then later as the Son of God; he is baptised by John and a heavenly voice announces him as the Son of God; he is tested in the wilderness bySatan; John is arrested, and Jesus begins to preach the good news of thekingdom of God.
Jesus gathers his disciples; he begins teaching, driving out demons, healing the sick, cleansing lepers, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, and giving sight to the blind; he delivers a long discourse inparables to the crowd, intended for the disciples, but they fail to understand; he performs mighty works, calming the storm and walking on water, but while God and demons recognise him, neither the crowds nor the disciples grasp his identity. He also has several run-ins with Jewish lawkeepers, especially in chapters 2–3.
Jesus asks the disciples who people say he is, and then, "but you, who do you say I am?" Peter answers that he is the Christ, and Jesus commands him to silence; Jesus explains that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem and be killed, but will rise again;Moses andElijah appear with Jesus and God tells the disciples, "This is my son," but they remain uncomprehending.
Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where he is hailed as one who "comes in the name of the Lord" and will inaugurate the "kingdom of David"; he drives those who buy and sell animals from the Temple and debates with the Jewish authorities; on theMount of Olives he announces the coming destruction of the Temple, the persecution of his followers, and the coming of theSon of Man in power and glory.
A woman perfumes Jesus' head with oil, and Jesus explains that this is a sign of his coming death; Jesus celebratesPassover with the disciples, declares the bread and wine to be his body and blood, and goes with them toGethsemane to pray; thereJudas betrays him to the Jewish authorities. Interrogated by the high priest, Jesus says that he is the Christ, the Son of God, and will return as Son of Man at God's right hand. The Jewish leaders turn him over toPilate, who has him crucified as one who claims to be "king of the Jews"; Jesus, abandoned by the disciples, is buried in a rock tomb by a sympathetic member of the Jewish council.
The women who have followed Jesus come to the tomb on Sunday morning; they find it empty, and are told by a young man in a white robe to go and tell the others that Jesus has risen and has gone before them to Galilee; "but they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid".[50]
The earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Mark, codicesVaticanus (which contains a large blank space in the column after 16:8) andSinaiticus, end at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing in fear from the empty tomb. The majority of recent scholars believe this to be the original ending,[51] and that this is supported by statements from the early Church FathersEusebius andJerome.[52] The "shorter ending", found in a small number of manuscripts, tells how the women told "those around Peter" all that the angel had commanded and how the message of eternal life (or "proclamation of eternal salvation") was then sent out by Jesus himself; it differs from the rest of Mark both in style and in its understanding of Jesus and is almost universally considered a spurious addition; the overwhelming majority of manuscripts have the "longer ending", with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension.[52] In deference to its importance within the manuscript tradition, the New Testament critical editors enclose the longer ending in brackets.[53]
First page of the Gospel of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God", bySargis Pitsak (14th century)Minuscule 2427 – "Archaic Mark"
The author introduces his work as "gospel", meaning "good news", a literal translation of the Greek "evangelion"[54] – he uses the word more often than any other writer in the New Testament exceptPaul.[55] Paul uses it to mean "the good news (of the saving significance of the death and resurrection) of Christ"; Mark extends it to the career of Christ as well as his death and resurrection.[54] Like the other gospels, Mark was written to confirm the identity of Jesus aseschatological deliverer – the purpose of terms such as "messiah" and "son of God". As in all the gospels, the messianic identity of Jesus is supported by a number of themes, including: (1) the depiction of his disciples as obtuse, fearful and uncomprehending; (2) the refutation of the charge made by Jesus' enemies that he was a magician; (3) secrecy surrounding his true identity (this last is missing from John).[56]
In Mark, the disciples, especially the Twelve, move from lack of perception of Jesus to rejection of the "way of suffering" to flight and denial – even the women who received the first proclamation of his resurrection can be seen as failures for not reporting the good news. There is much discussion of this theme among scholars. Some argue that the author of Mark was using the disciples to correct "erroneous" views in his own community concerning the reality of the suffering messiah, others that it is an attack on the Jerusalem branch of the church for resisting the extension of the gospel to the gentiles, or a mirror of the convert's usual experience of the initial enthusiasm followed by growing awareness of the necessity for suffering. It certainly reflects the strong theme in Mark of Jesus as the "suffering just one" portrayed in so many of the books of the Jewish scriptures, fromJeremiah toJob and thePsalms, but especially in the "Suffering Servant" passages inIsaiah. It also reflects the Jewish scripture theme of God's love being met by infidelity and failure, only to be renewed by God. The failure of the disciples and Jesus' denial by Peter himself would have been powerful symbols of faith, hope and reconciliation for Christians.[57]
Mark contains twenty accounts of miracles and healings, accounting for almost a third of the gospel and half of the first ten chapters, more, proportionally, than in any other gospel.[58] In the gospels as a whole, Jesus' miracles, prophecies, etc., are presented as evidence of God's rule, but Mark's descriptions of Jesus' healings are a partial exception to this, as his methods, using spittle to heal blindness[59] and magic formulae,[60] were those of a magician.[61][62] This is the charge the Jewish religious leaders bring against Jesus: they say he is performing exorcisms with the aid of an evil spirit[63] and calling up the spirit of John the Baptist.[64][61] "There was [...] no period in the history of the [Roman] empire in which the magician was not considered an enemy of society," subject to penalties ranging from exile to death, says Classical scholar Ramsay MacMullen.[65] All the gospels defend Jesus against the charge, which, if true, would contradict their ultimate claims for him. The point of theBeelzebub incident in Mark[66] is to set forth Jesus' claims to be an instrument of God, not Satan.[67]
In 1901,William Wrede identified the "Messianic Secret" – Jesus' secrecy about his identity as the messiah – as one of Mark's central themes. Wrede argued that the elements of the secret – Jesus' silencing of the demons, the obtuseness of the disciples regarding his identity, and the concealment of the truth inside parables – were fictions and arose from the tension between the Church's post-resurrection messianic belief and the historical reality of Jesus. There remains continuing debate over how far the "secret" originated with Mark and how far he got it from tradition, and how far, if at all, it represents the self-understanding and practices of the historical Jesus.[68]
Christology means a doctrine or understanding concerning the person or nature of Christ.[69] In the New Testament writings it is frequently conveyed through the titles applied to Jesus. Most scholars agree that "Son of God" is the most important of these titles in Mark. It appears on the lips of God himself at thebaptism and thetransfiguration, and is Jesus' own self-designation.[70] These and other instances provide reliable evidence of how the evangelist perceived Jesus, but it is not clear just what the title meant to Mark and his 1st-century audience.[71] Where it appears in the Hebrew scriptures it meant Israel as God's people, or the king at his coronation, or angels, as well as the suffering righteous man.[72] In Hellenistic culture the same phrase meant a "divine man", a supernatural being. There is little evidence that "son of God" was a title for the messiah in 1st century Judaism, and the attributes that Mark describes in Jesus are much more those of the Hellenistic miracle-working "divine man" than of the Jewish Davidic messiah.[71]
Mark does not explicitly state what he means by "Son of God", nor when the sonship was conferred.[73] The New Testament as a whole presents four different understandings:
Jesus became God's son at his resurrection, God "begetting" Jesus to a new life by raising him from the dead – this was the earliest understanding, preserved in Paul'sEpistle to the Romans, 1:3–4, and inActs 13:33;
Jesus became God's son athis baptism, the coming of theHoly Spirit marking him as messiah, while "Son of God" refers to the relationship then established for him by God – this is the understanding implied in Mark 1:9–11;[74]
Matthew and Luke present Jesus as "Son of God" from the moment of conception and birth, with God taking the place of a human father;
John, the last of the gospels, presents the idea that the Christ was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus – an idea also found in Paul.[75]
However, other scholars dispute this interpretation and instead hold that Jesus is already presented as God's son even before his baptism in Mark.[76]
Mark also calls Jesus "christos" (Christ), translating the Hebrew "messiah," (anointed person).[77] In the Old Testament the term messiah ("anointed one") described prophets, priests and kings; by the time of Jesus, with the kingdom long vanished, it had come to mean aneschatological king (a king who would come at the end of time), one who would be entirely human though far greater than all God's previous messengers to Israel, endowed with miraculous powers, free from sin, ruling in justice and glory (as described in, for example, thePsalms of Solomon, a Jewish work from this period).[78] The most important occurrences are in the context of Jesus' death and suffering, suggesting that, for Mark, Jesus can only be fully understood in that context.[77]
A third important title, "Son of Man", has its roots inEzekiel, theBook of Enoch, (a popular Jewish apocalyptic work of the period), and especially inDaniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is assigned royal roles of dominion, kingship and glory.[79][80] Mark 14:62 combines more scriptural allusions: before he comes on clouds[81] the Son of Man will be seated on the right hand of God,[82] pointing to the equivalence of the three titles, Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, the common element being the reference to kingly power.[83]
Eschatology means the study of the end-times, and the Jews expected themessiah to be aneschatological figure, a deliverer who would appear at the end of the age to usher in an earthly kingdom.[84] The earliest Jewish Christian community saw Jesus as a messiah in this Jewish sense, a human figure appointed by God as his earthly regent; but they also believed in Jesus' resurrection and exaltation to heaven, and for this reason they also viewed him as God's agent (the "son of God") who would return in glory ushering in theKingdom of God.[85]
The term "Son of God" likewise had a specific Jewish meaning, or range of meanings,[86] including referring to an angel, the nation of Israel, or simply a man.[87][88] One of the most significant Jewish meanings of this epithet is a reference to an earthly king adopted by God as his son at his enthronement, legitimizing his rule over Israel.[89] In Hellenistic culture, in contrast, the phrase meant a "divine man", covering legendary heroes likeHercules, god-kings like the Egyptianpharaohs, or famous philosophers likePlato.[90] When the gospels call Jesus "Son of God" the intention is to place him in the class of Hellenistic and Greek divine men, the "sons of God" who were endowed with supernatural power to perform healings, exorcisms and other wonderful deeds.[89] Mark's "Son of David" is Hellenistic, his Jesus predicting that his mission involves suffering, death and resurrection, and, by implication, not military glory and conquest.[91] This reflects a move away from the Jewish-Christian apocalyptic tradition and towards the Hellenistic message preached by Paul, for whom Christ's death and resurrection, rather than the establishment of the apocalyptic Jewish kingdom, is the meaning of salvation, the "gospel".[85]
"Entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment" – Mark's description of the discovery of the empty tomb (from thePericopes of Henry II)
All four gospels tell a story in which Jesus' death and resurrection are the crucial redemptive events.[92] There are, however, important differences between the four: UnlikeJohn, Mark never calls Jesus "God", or claims that Jesus existed before his earthly life; unlikeMatthew andLuke, the author does not mention a virgin birth or indicate whether Jesus had a normal human parentage and birth; unlike Matthew and Luke, he makes no attempt to trace Jesus' ancestry back toKing David orAdam with a genealogy.[93]
Christians of Mark's time expected Jesus to return as Messiah in their own lifetime – Mark, like the other gospels, attributes the promise to return to Jesus himself,[94] and it is reflected in thePauline Epistles, theEpistle of James, theEpistle to the Hebrews and in theBook of Revelation. When return failed, the early Christians revised their understanding. Some acknowledged that theSecond Coming had been delayed, but still expected it; others redefined the focus of the promise, theGospel of John, for example, speaking of "eternal life" as something available in the present; while still others concluded that Jesus would not return at all (theSecond Epistle of Peter argues against those who held the view that Jesus would not return at all).[95] Other scholars, however, contend that all four gospels show an eschatology wherein many of the eschatological topics concern the destruction of the Jewish Temple, the transfiguration and resurrection of Jesus, whereas his return is a promise for an undisclosed time in the future which people should always be ready for.[96][97][98][99] Other scholars, like those of theJesus Seminar, believe that the apocalyptic language in Mark and the rest of the gospels are inventions of the gospel writers and the early Christians for theological and cultural purposes.[100]
Mark's despairing death of Jesus was changed to a more victorious one in subsequent gospels.[101] Mark's Christ dies with the cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; Matthew, the next gospel to be written, repeats this word for word but manages to make clear that Jesus's death is the beginning of the resurrection of Israel; Luke has a still more positive picture, replacing Mark's (and Matthew's) cry of despair with one of submission to God's will ("Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"); while John, the last gospel, has Jesus dying without apparent suffering in fulfillment of the divine plan.[101]
TheSabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.Mark 2:27[f] Not present in either Matthew 12:1–8 or Luke 6:1–5. This is also a so-called "Western non-interpolation". The passage is not found in the Western text of Mark.
Mark is the only gospel with the combination of verses inMark 4:24–25: the other gospels split them up, Mark 4:24 being found in Luke 6:38 and Matthew 7:2, Mark 4:25 in Matthew 13:12 and Matthew 25:29, Luke 8:18 and Luke 19:26.
Witness testimony against Jesus does not agree.[119]
The cock crows "twice" as predicted.[120] See alsoFayyum Fragment. The other Gospels simply record, "the cock crew". Early codices 01, W, and most Western texts have the simpler version.[121]
Pilate's position (Governor) is not specified.[122]
Mark is the only canonical gospel with significant various alternative endings.[h] Most of the contents of the traditional "Longer Ending" (Mark 16:9–20) are found in other New Testament texts and are not unique to Mark, seeMark 16 § Longer ending, the one significant exception being 16:18b ("and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them"), which is unique to Mark.
^The book is sometimes called theGospel according to Mark (Ancient Greek:Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μᾶρκον,romanized: Euangélion katà Mârkon), or simplyMark[1] (which is also its most common form of abbreviation).[2]
Ehrman (2004, p. 58–59): "Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciples—Matthew, the tax collector, and John, the beloved disciple—and by two friends of the apostles—Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons.
Watts Henderson (2018, p. 1431): "Though the author’s identity is unknown, scholars find clues about its author in the Gospel itself. For example, its awkward style suggests that Greek was not the author’s first language. Other details, such as the imprecise citation of Jewish scripture (1.2), the over-generalized portrait of Jewish practice (7.3–4), and problematic geographical details (5.1,13) suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine.
^Adela Yarbro Collins, a Biblical scholar atYale Divinity School, notes that Paul's letter to Philemon also mentions a Mark, which may be the same as the Mark from Acts. While it may be possible that the Gospel of Mark was written by this Mark, many scholars argue against this possibility, given the contradictions between Paul and Mark's theology and literary aspects.[14]
^Thiessen: "Barber concludes that the Gospel of Matthew provides a historically plausible depiction of Jesus, regardless of the historical veracity of this or that precise detail. This remembered Jesus, the only Jesus we have access to [...] was a temple-pious Jew [...]it is this Jesus who makes sense of the various shapes that the early Jesus movement took"
^Similar to a rabbinical saying from the 2nd century BC, "The Sabbath is given over to you ["the son of man"], and not you to the Sabbath." (Kohler 1905)
^The verbkatharizo means both "to declare to be clean" and "to purify." TheScholars Version has: "This is how everything we eat is purified", Gaus'Unvarnished New Testament has: "purging all that is eaten."
^Bond, Helen (2020).The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark's Gospel. Eerdmans. p. 10-11.ISBN978-0802874603.
^Theissen, Gerd; Maloney, Linda M. (2011).The New Testament: A Literary History. G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Fortress Press. p. unpaginated.ISBN978-0-8006-9785-3. Retrieved11 February 2025.In the case of Mark and John
^Rodriguez, Rafael (2018).Jesus Darkly: Remembering Jesus with the New Testament. Abingdon Press. p. 59.ISBN978-1501839115.
^Levering, Matthew (2024). "The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew by Michael Patrick Barber (review)".The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.22–3 (3):1053–1059.doi:10.1353/nov.2024.a934941.
^van Os, Bas (2011).Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian Origins. T&T Clark. pp. 57, 83.ISBN978-0567269515.
^James D.G. Dunn, "Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History," inThe Messiah, ed. James H. Charlesworth. pp. 371–372. Cf. James D.G. Dunn,Jesus Remembered.
^Rodriguez, Rafael (2010).Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text. T&T Clark. pp. 3–6.ISBN978-0567264206.
^Allison, Dale C. Jr. (2023). Foreword.The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology and the Gospel of Matthew. By Barber, Michael Patrick. Cambridge University Press. pp. x, 238.ISBN978-1-009-21085-0.
^Thiessen, Matthew (2024). "The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew by Michael Patrick Barber (review)".The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.86–1: 168.doi:10.1353/cbq.2024.a918386.
Crossley, James G. (2004).The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (The Library of New Testament Studies). T & T Clark International.ISBN978-0567081957.
Dunn, James D.G. (2005)."The Tradition". In Dunn, James D.G.; McKnight, Scot (eds.).The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Eisenbrauns.ISBN978-1-57506-100-9.
Head, Ivan (2004). "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel's Thesis".Journal of Religious History.28 (3):240–259.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2004.00242.x.
Hengel, Martin (1985).Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM.
Incigneri, Brian J. (2003).The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 65. Leiden: Brill.
Iverson, Kelly R. (2011). "Wherever the Gospel Is Preached': The Paradox of Secrecy in the Gospel of Mark". In Iverson, Kelly R.; Skinner, Christopher W. (eds.).Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. SBL.ISBN9781589835481.
Smith, Stephen H. (1995). "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark's Gospel".Novum Testamentum.37 (3). E.J. Brill, Leiden:209–31.doi:10.1163/1568536952662709.JSTOR1561221.
Watts Henderson, Suzanne (2018)."The Gospel according to Mark". In Coogan, Michael; Brettler, Marc; Newsom, Carol; Perkins, Pheme (eds.).The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-027605-8.
Van Linden, Philip (1992) [1989]."Mark". In Karris, Robert J. (ed.).The Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament, NAB. Liturgical Press. pp. 903–35.ISBN978-0-8146-2211-7.
