The Gospel according to Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels presented in the King James Bible and is, according to Biblical scholars, almost certainly the oldest.
Biblical scholarship believes that Mark, Mathew, and Luke have a close relationship. There is much shared between all three books. The most broadly accepted theory is the ‘Q-Source Hypothesis’. This posits that Mark was written earliest and both Mathew and Luke were derived in Part from Mark, but also in part from another source, called the ‘Q’ Source, thought to be an oral tradition of sayings of Jesus.
I won’t be talking in great detail about the text of Mark because it basically does the exact same narrative as Mathew, though shorter. There is no virgin birth, it starts right in with his ministry, meeting with John the Baptist and so forth. Many of the incidents are the same; Banishing demons, healing a woman, curing the sick, etc. But others are missing or different. The books ending is also very controversial. The earliest sources we have for the book seem to end at 16:8, with a woman coming out of Jesus’ empty tomb. The following text, about his appearance, is believed to be a later addition by Church fathers in the 2nd century.
Mark was written probably within 2-3 generations of Jesus death and is different in tone and character from Matthew. The Jesus of Matthew is a supernaturally divine figure, born of a virgin, anointed by Magi. He speaks with a mythical voice. The Jesus of Mark is a smaller, perhaps a more relatable figure. A man who still performs miracles; who heals, exorcises spirits and such. But almost a magician. He’s also a man who asks ‘Why have you forsaken me’ of his God on the Cross, and strikes me as a more relatable historical figure.
Therein lies the trap.
In this blog before I’ve talked about looking at the source, trying to understand who was writing any particular part of the bible and why. Here we see precisely why historians must look at the context of sources outside of their own perspectives in dealing with a source. As someone with a hefty scientific and secular background, my inclination is, if two sources are presented and one is filled with Unicorns and Magic and one isn’t, to presume the latter is the more historically accurate. Given that Mark was written before Matthew the temptation is to see Mark as more accurate, Matthew as an addendum to dress up Mark. The problem, however, is that Mark isn’t being written as history for some 21st-century blogger. It’s being written by someone in the 1rst century A.D., for a Gentile audience(we can know this because he has to explain certain Jewish rituals and practices), and as a theological work. Its intent isn’t to tell me history, but to convey a view of Christ for followers of the 1rst century Church. We have no more reason to accept it’s account over that of Mathew’s(or indeed other sources) save by looking at other sources, comparing them, and making judgements.
So still, looking at a ‘historical’ Jesus, we see a religious figure, broadly gaining influence, who comes afoul of the authorities in Jerusalem. He threatens their basis of power in some way and is crucified by the Roman authorities for it.
For much of the history of Christianity, Mark was the ‘lesser’ Gospel, numbered 2nd or 4th in the order. It was a ‘synopsis’ of Matthew to an extent. One can see, from my prior descriptions, how the Jesus of Matthew is a fuller divine character than that of Mark. To those composing the King James Bible then, it was still an important book, but less important than the other Gospels. There are things unique to Mark; It’s the only Gospel that directly calls Jesus himself a Carpenter rather than the son of a Carpenter. It names Jesus’ brothers and sister. Yet no great parables or descriptions that were not in Matthew.
For the 1rst century Author, perhaps this telling of Jesus reflected an event that was still within the range of historical memory, if separated by a number of years, but also aimed at people who might reject outright a more ‘mythical’ figure. People looking less for a God striving down from the heavens, but a Man leading them upward towards them.
The Gospels will continue to be interesting as we head into Luke. I will continue to compare and contrast and try and through in any historical data that comes my way.